"Breathing dreams like air..."

My definition of the American Dream is this: having the equal opportunity to work hard in order to create one’s own success.  It is called the “American” Dream because it embodies the belief that many had (and continue to have) that life in the United States promises this equal opportunity to achieve success.  The key to the American Dream is “opportunity.”  Opportunity does not mean that only the privileged (wealthy, white, male, heterosexual, physically and mentally standard, etc.) are able to create their own success.  Opportunity means that anyone, regardless of nationality, class, race, gender, etc., is able to try to succeed in their endeavors.  The American Dream is still alive and well today, especially when considering immigrants that travel to the United States with the hope that the dream offers.  But it is not exclusive to people moving to U.S.; the American Dream also is within the mindset of many Americans, especially those who are not in privileged situations.  Like Gatsby, who came from a relatively poor family and held blue-collar jobs until he met Dan Cody, the American Dream is important for many Americans because it represents a way to make one’s life better than the status quo.

    My definition of wealth is an excess of money or goods that allows one to have very large sums of money after supporting one’s family.  This definition is imperfect because it is quite vague and the word “large” is subjective.  However, this definition would most definitely include Gatsby, Nick, and the Buchanans in The Great Gatsby, because they all clearly have much more money than they need to sustain themselves and their dependents.  Their wealth is shown through the colors associated with their houses, lawns, and dress.  Furthermore, the imagery that Fitzgerald uses when describing their possessions demonstrates their extravagance and wealth.  This is the reason that it comes as such a surprise that Gatsby does not actually have a lot of money to his name.  

Currently, Americans’ attitude toward wealth and poverty is greatly dependent on one’s political affiliation and/or socio-economic status.  Within the current election season, many of the opinions towards the wealthy and impoverished have been displayed.  For example, Bernie Sanders and his supporters hold the very wealthy in contempt.  Others believe that the wealth of a person has to do with how hard they work to achieve that monetary status, and thus applaud the wealthy and look down upon the poor.  My personal opinion lies somewhere in the middle.  I believe that, unfortunately, wealth is not reflective of work ethic.  The American Dream would be a reality for all if that was the case, because people who work hard would attain more than what they need to sustain themselves and their families (which is many people’s definition of success).  However, due to many factors including institutional racism, unequal pay for males and females, and much more, I do not believe that all wealthy people should be lauded and all poor should be scorned.  Instead, I see wealthy people as privileged and poor people as less fortunate.

Translations

Original: Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheuren Ungeziefer verwandelt.

 

#1: As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect.

• Mixture of simple and more complex diction:
• “uneasy:” mildly worrisome
• “transformed:” dramatically and permanently changed
• “gigantic:” huge, with a childish connotation because it is so exaggerated
• “insect:” more scientific-sounding and elevated than bug
• This sentence contains no punctuation except for the period at the end, yet is relatively long and complex.
• The details within this sentence include the character’s name, the setting (he is in his bed and just woke up from bad dreams), and what has happened to Samsa.  Imagery includes the mention of an almost unimaginably large insect.
• The structure of this sentence is interesting because it starts with the word “As Gregor Samsa” which automatically draws the reader in to find out what is happening to Samsa.  The lack of punctuation within the sentence makes it a bit confusing because there are no pauses for the reader to process what is happening.

#2: Gregor Samsa woke from uneasy dreams one morning to find himself changed into a giant bug.

• Simple diction:
• “uneasy:” mildly worrisome
• “giant:” large, huge, enormous
• “bug:” an insect, childish connotation
• The syntax is continuous, with no punctuation until the period ending the sentence.
• The only bit of imagery provided in this sentence is when the “giant bug” is mentioned, like one out of a children’s story.  Details that hold importance within this sentence include that the man’s name is Gregor Samsa, it is morning, he had bad dreams, and he is now a huge insect.
• The structure of this sentence is straightforward because it has no punctuation (except for a period), however the lack of punctuation does not allow the reader to pause and process what is happening.  The sentence begins directly with the character’s name, then moves onto what has happened to him and the setting.

#3: When Gregor Samsa awoke from troubled dreams one morning he found he had been transformed in his bed into an enormous bug.

• Mixture of simplistic and elevated diction:
• “troubled:” unsettling
• “transformed:” dramatically and permanently changed
• “enormous:” huge
• “bug:” childish way to say insect
• There is no punctuation within this sentence, although it is relatively long.
• The details within this sentence include that Gregor Samsa was in his bed when he discovered that he had been changed into a bug, that he had just woken up, and that he had had bad dreams.
• This sentence structure draws the reader in by making them want to know what happens, since the sentence begins with “When Gregor Samsa...”  There is no break in the sentence where the reader can process what is happening, since there is no punctuation within the sentence.  The sentence does, however, flow well because it follows a linear path of when...he found.  

#4: One morning, upon awakening from agitated dreams, Gregor Samsa found himself, in his bed, transformed into a monstrous vermin.

• Elevated diction:
• “awakening:” to wake up
• “agitated:” severely distressing
• “transformed:” dramatically and permanently changed
• “monstrous:” horrific, disturbing, enormous
• “vermin:” despicable and disgusting creature like a rat or insect; unspecific and vague
• This sentence contains many commas to break up important sections of the sentence.  
• The imagery within this sentence is “monstrous vermin,” which brings to mind a disgusting and prolific creature, like a rat or an insect.  
• The structure of this sentence allows the reader to pause often in order to process what is happening.  

The punctuation and syntax within these translations result in a different tone and more effective translation.  The first three translations have no punctuation within them at all (excepting the period at the end of each one), while the last one has four commas in it.  The translation with commas allows the reader to better process what was happening within the sentence, although the pauses cause a less exciting tone.  The other three sentences lack punctuation, so the reader rushes through the sentence without pause, creating a more stimulating tone.  Since the reader is not able to pause, the sentence is also a bit confusing to muddle through, although this could be a positive aspect on the translations because they reflect the confusion and alarm that Samsa feels during his realization that he is now an insect.  Not only does the punctuation of the sentence impact its meaning, but the structure of the sentence does, as well.  For example, the second translation begins directly with the character’s name, while the first translation begins with “As” and third translation begins with “When.”   The first and third translations are more effective than the second because they seem to foreshadow that something of importance will be revealed within the sentence.  Thus, the punctuation and structure of a translation can result in a more effective sentence.

   

    The diction and imagery within these translations also influences tone and effectiveness.  Translations two and three were the least effective translations due to the use of the word “bug.”  It may seem extreme to base the effectiveness of a translation on one word, but the word “bug” changes the entire sentence.  Bug is a word often used in children’s books or when talking to kids about insects, and thus has a childish connotation.  By using the word “bug,” translations two and three cause the sentences to have childish tones, with no place in serious literature remarking on the predicament of humanity.  The effectiveness of translations one and four are also centered around the description of the creature that Samsa has become.  Translation one says that Gregor Samsa was “transformed into a gigantic insect,” while translation four says that he was “transformed into a monstrous vermin.”  Both “insect” and “vermin” are more elevated words than “bug.”  “Insect” is more specific than “vermin,” though the use of the word “gigantic” is very exaggerated.  Though “vermin” is vague, its repulsive connotation better reflects how Samsa feels about his new body.  Also, “monstrous” is a more elevated word than “gigantic,” and brings to mind large, horrific creatures.  Thus, the disgusted tone created by “monstrous vermin” is more effective than the hyperbolic “gigantic insect.”  Therefore, the slight shift in diction and imagery within different translations can have lasting effects on the text as a whole.

Practice IOC

Good luck reading my handwriting!
I chose the following excerpt of The Handmaid's Tale to do my practice IOC:
"I lower my eyes...'No,' I say.  'Nothing.'" (Atwood 262).

If I were technologically savvy, my audio clip would be right here.  But, I am not, so all I can post are the grades that I gave myself for this IOC practice.

My grades:

Total IOC Grade: 12 out of 30

Criterion A: Knowledge and understanding of the text: 3

I gave myself a 3 for this criterion because I did not summarize the excerpt in the introduction and did not adequately explain some of the societal terms that I was using like “Commander.”  I also did not explain Nick’s role in society or how Serena Joy’s status in the Gilead would be elevated if Offred had her husband’s children.  I also did not mention an entire paragraph of the excerpt in my analysis.  I did show some knowledge of the text by situating the excerpt within The Handmaid’s Tale, summarizing the premise of the novel, and explaining the role of the fertility theme within the book.

Criterion B: Understanding of the use and effect of literary features: 4

I gave myself a 4 for this criterion because I explained some literary features that were important to the text and connected them back to the development of Serena Joy and Offred’s relationship.  However, I did not mention any literary elements within the paragraph characterizing Offred’s mother, thus I cannot put myself at a level higher than “some awareness of literary features.”  Also, some of my connections to the effects on the reader were weak, such as when I tried to explain the subtle/quiet power that Serena Joy had over Offred.  Had I better connected that to how that was demonstrated and affected the book as a whole, perhaps I would have shown a better understanding of the literary features’ effects.

Criterion C: Organization: 2

I gave myself a 2 for organization because the presentation overall was organized within three main literary devices, but the explanation of some of those devices and their effects was scattered.  This was most prevalent in my explanation of diction, where there was a very long pause and a few incoherent points that I struggled to get across.

Criterion D: Language: 3

I gave myself a 3 for this criterion because of my heavy use of “ums.”  I also used second person when I was explaining an element of figurative language, which was not appropriate for this task.  Lastly, I used the vague word “thing” near the end of my presentation.

 

Freebie

"What Fear Can Teach Us"

https://www.ted.com/talks/karen_thompson_walker_what_fear_can_teach_us 

This TED Talk is called “What Fear Can Teach Us” by Karen Thompson Walker.  Walker is trying to convince her audience that fear should be analyzed and seen as a story that can be acted upon to change the future.  She starts with a powerful hook about a whaleship in 1819 called the Essex that wrecked in the Pacific ocean when it was struck by sperm whale.  The sailors were more than 1000 miles away from land.  Walker says that this terrifying shipwreck inspired parts of Moby Dick.  Walker then segues into her talk’s theme by saying that most of her audience members have likely not experienced such a frightening situation.  Fear is taught to children to be a weakness, and she says that, “In English, fear is something we conquer.  It’s something we fight.”  Walker then offered a counterclaim, saying that perhaps we should look at fear as an awesome act of the imagination.  This is especially true when considering the vivid fears of children and creative thinkers like Charles Darwin.  She gave an example of her own childhood in California, where she was terrified that an earthquake would destroy her house.  Walker then went back to the story of the Essex, explaining the sailors’ options.  One option was to go to the closest islands, but they had heard frightening rumors of cannibals there.  Another option was to go to Hawaii, but the captain was worried about the storms likely occurring there that time of the year.  Lastly, the most dangerous option was to go south in hopes to catch a wind about 1500 miles away that could take them to South America, which would likely result in them running out of food.  Their fears, Walker said, were like stories.  All fears are similar to stories--they have characters (us), a plot with a beginning, middle, and end; intense imagery, and are full of suspense.  Walker gave an example, explaining that for her first book, she thought for months about what would happen if Earth’s rotation slowed.  She asked herself what would happen to our days, crops, and minds.  These thoughts were similar to her thoughts about earthquakes when she was little--what would happen to her family, house, belongings?  All of these fears create stories.  

Walker then went more in depth into her purpose.  She talked about how we should all read and analyze our fears.  Some of our deepest fears actually come true, thus some fears predict the future.  However, it is difficult to decide which fears will likely come to reality.  Mentioning another novelist, Walker explained that the best readers are said to have two parts--one artistic and one scientific.  The artistic allows them to become involved in the story and feel the story’s depth.  The scientific offers a more logical approach that allows a reader to make reasonable decisions about the story.  Walker applied this idea of a two-part reader to fears.  She used this as a connection back to her whaleship story, saying that the sailors’ vivid fears of cannibalism outweighed their logical reasoning, so they chose to head south to try to get to South America.  Because of their decision, over half of the crew died before being rescued by another ship more than two months later.  Some of the other crew members succumbed to their own form of cannibalism.  Had they thought logically about the more bland and probable fear of starvation, more of the soldiers could have lived.  Ultimately, Walker says that we need to read our fears better, and listen to the more subtle fears like clogged arteries and climate change.  Those slow fears can become truth.  The fantastical, more vivid and unlikely fears like plane crashes and serial killers should not take a person’s focus.  She concluded by saying that fears can be full of wisdom, insight, and truth.

The purpose of Walker’s speech was revealed at the end of her talk.  She wanted to change peoples’ definitions and ideas of fear.  Instead of shaming and burying fear, it should be utilized and analyzed.  She did this mainly through logos, although she also used ethos and pathos.  She used pathos at the very beginning, when she explained her childhood fear of earthquakes.  Children are often used as pathos in various texts, and in this particular lecture she chose to use her own childhood memory to inspire understanding.  She wanted to make her audience members sympathize with her memory and remember their own childhood fears, increasing their understanding of how vivid fears can be.  Walker’s own credibility was only mentioned twice.  At one point in the speech, she said, “If I’ve done my job as a storyteller…”  She did this to remind the audience of her story about the whaleship Essex, and how she kept leaving it unfinished until the end of the speech to keep the suspense of the fear.  This allowed the audience to draw parallels between fears and stories.  Her other use of ethos came about when she talked about writing her first novel, called The Age of Miracles, and how she spent months thinking about what would happen to the Earth if it started rotating more slowly.  This example added to her credibility as a novelist and a speaker, because she was giving the audience an example of how fears can take the shape of stories.  Lastly, her use of logos was prevalent throughout the speech.  First she talked about neuroscientists’ view that humans are inherently optimistic, and used this as evidence of why fear is thought to be shameful.  This set the background of what fear means to many people.  Then she started to introduce the positives to fear by pointing out creative people whose vivid fears did not leave them as they went from children to adults--Charles Darwin, Charlotte Bronte, and Marcel Proust.  These three distinguished and credible people supported Walker’s view that fear can be harnessed to create positive things.  She later said that humans are the only species that are able to imagine themselves in the future, providing evidence that fears can have truth to them and act as predictors of the future.  Lastly, Walker provided a method to harness fears as tools by citing Vladimir Nabokov, who said that the best types of readers have an artistic part and a scientific part to them.  She used this idea to explain that people can analyze their fears by first understanding the intuitive images that they carry, and then use logic to determine the most important and reasonable fears that can be prepared for.

    I chose this speech because the title intrigued me.  I, like many other people, have many fears.  My problem is that I often let my fears control my actions, which can prevent me from having experiences that could be positive.  An example of this is my stage fright.  Although I enjoy dancing, I chose to stop taking dance classes at Millbrook after Dance I because of this all-consuming fear.  I thought that this speech could enlighten me on a way to see my fears differently in order to prohibit them from having such control over my actions.  It did succeed in doing so, I think, because I can now try to dismiss ridiculous, vague fears while planning for more important ones.

Double Indemnity

Walter Neff is a weak-willed person who lacks courage to make moral decisions.  His lack of strong will is demonstrated in the beginning of the movie when he soon discovers that Phyllis wants to kill her own husband.  He at first tells her that he would never help her do such a thing, but once he leaves her house he is unable to stop thinking about her.  When she arrives at his apartment, he loses his sense of morality and tells her that he will help kill her husband.  Not only was he weak-willed in regards to Phyllis, he also shows his weakness through his irrepressible guilt.  After killing Phyllis’ husband, he begins to record his own confession in his office.  He seems to do the actual crime with ease and perfection, but once he has done it he is unable to maintain his facade of innocence.  As shown by the end of the play when he confesses to Keyes, he would rather die than go to trial and be convicted of murder.  Furthermore, he is too weak to protect Lola.  In the end, even though he knows that Nino beat Lola, he tells Nino how to get in contact with her.  He likely does this to increase the time that he has to either die from his shoulder gunshot wound or go to Mexico before it is discovered that he killed Phyllis and her husband.  He would rather save himself than protect a young woman whose father and stepmother he killed.

His intelligence in business actions contrasts with his lack of resolve or social intelligence.  He realizes quickly that Phyllis wants to kill her husband in order to get his insurance, showing Neff’s expertise in the insurance field.  He also strategizes a plan to kill Phyllis’ husband in order to allow her to get $100,000 instead of just $50,000 by relying on double indemnity.  In his social interactions, he is less intelligent.  He does not understand from the beginning that Phyllis is manipulating Neff for her own gains, even though evidence of her past actions show that she is a murderous woman who lacks the ability to truly care about another person.  Her step-daugther, Lola, describes Phyllis in such a way, telling Neff that she believes Phyllis killed her mother in order to marry rich Mr. Dietrichson.  Neff is unable to understand Phyllis’ true nature even when Lola describes her in frank terms.  

Neff’s relationships with women demonstrate his reliance on women for self-confidence.  He is very attracted to Phyllis from the start and cannot stop thinking about her, resulting her complete manipulation of him.  Although he did not want to from the beginning, he agrees to kill her husband in return for her love and money.  Her dependence on him makes him feel like he is properly filling his masculine role in the relationship.  He even strategizes the entire plan so that she hardly has to do anything.  Not only is he manipulated by Phyllis, but he also depends on Lola for feelings of self-worth.  After Keyes begins to believe the possibility that Phyllis’ husband was murdered by his wife and someone else, being with Lola helps Neff relax.  Lola is innocent and naive, and she also completely trusts Neff, making him feel like a more worthy person.  Ultimately, Neff is easily manipulated by women because he depends on them to feel like a valuable man.

Macbeth's Netflix Queue

Dexter:  Dexter revolves around Dexter Morgan, a forensic scientist and serial killer who rectifies crimes by killing those who committed them.  Neither Macbeth nor Dexter can seem to get away from blood, since Dexter analyzes it for a living and Macbeth is haunted by the blood of the people whose deaths he is responsible for.  Macbeth agrees with Dexter’s methods of solving his problems: kill people who would be better off dead.  Furthermore, both Dexter and Macbeth understand the importance of maintaining a normal facade to continue living their lives as they please.

Marco Polo:  This show is about Marco Polo, a trader on the Silk Road, and his adventures in a China ruled by the brutal Kublai Khan.  Macbeth likes this show because of the ruthless and conflicted Kublai Khan.  This emperor reminds Macbeth of himself and his own personal struggles with his power and actions.  

Game of Thrones:  In this intense and complex show, various royal families fight each other for complete power over Westeros, a mythical land with technology similar to medieval Europe in the 1400s.  Macbeth loves this show because it ascribes to male stereotypes of strong men fighting valiantly for their territory and families.  He also enjoys the power struggle seen in the show because it reminds him of his own fight to maintain power.

The Flash:  The Flash is a young man who gains superhuman speed when he is struck by lightning and decides to use his powers to fight crime in New York City.  Macbeth enjoys the supernatural element in this show, since one of the characters can see and tries to control the future just like the three witches.  He also likes that the Flash has to hide behind a mask when he fights bad guys, because Macbeth also has to mask his true self.  Lastly, Macbeth loves to see a man saving the day and defeating evil, because it reminds Macbeth of his past when he fought with his comrades to destroy traitors.