Let me start this off by saying that I love English. When I was little, I read pretty much nonstop and language arts was basically a joke for me in elementary and middle school. I basically love grammar and reading, so it was my favorite subject even though we didn't really learn anything. Then, we got to high school and I thought it would be different. But I hadn't struggled at all in English since this year.This year has actually been pretty tough for me, which was surprising because I hadn't had much trouble with AP Junior English. I had a hard time adjusting to the differences between Junior English essays and Senior English essays, so I was really disappointed with my scores on the first few. I also didn't have much homework for any other class, so it made English homework seem like it took forever even though it normally didn't.
Our short story unit was okay, I didn't get the underlying message to a lot of them at first, but after some practice I was able to somewhat understand them. I was okay with Hamlet because I had already read it, but the play analysis was kind of boring for me. I really disliked the Road, which I know I've blogged about before, but it just wasn't for me. It eventually evened out, because I loved reading Beloved, and I was really excited that Mr. Stoltz got to teach it to us. I liked the poetry unit a lot, except for the ones I didn't understand. But I really liked doing the project, which sounds weird, but I like powerpoints so I guess that's it.
Overall I liked Senior English and the experience prepared me for college a lot, because there was a lot of work and reading. I wish I had taken the AP test, because I could get out of two English classes, but I think I'll enjoy taking something outside of my major anyway (Biomedical Engineering, if you were wondering).
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Thursday, April 25, 2013
10 Reasons Everyone Should Love Showtunes
I love music and musicals, but I understand that they aren't for everyone. However, I think that this should change. Musicals and showtunes are amazing, and although not everyone will enjoy every musical, everyone can find a musical they will like! So here are 10 reasons I think that everyone should at least try a musical.
1. It's like watching a play and listening to music at the same time. It's double entertainment.
2. Some of the notes they can hit (high and low) are seriously incredible.
3. There are hundreds of different musicals, about everything from sports to orphans to rock music. You can find one that you're interested in.
4. They can do amazing things with setting, props, costumes, etc. if you pay attention.
5. If you've ever seen Les Mis, you'll agree: They can be incredibly powerful and emotional, and the music adds to the emotion. Let's be honest, who didn't cry when that little boy died?
6. They can be really funny, although not all of them are (See Wicked, Hairspray, etc.)
7. You'll understand way more cultural references, because there are tons if you pay attention!
8. When you get the soundtrack for these plays, they are actually amazing to sing to in the car. Even if you can't sing, you can go for it, because no one can hear you. It's more fun than rap in my opinion, although that is a personal preference. (Try Defying Gravity from Wicked. It's a great mood-lifter)
9. Most of them are relatable, upbeat, and exciting. In contrast to many musical performances, musicals keep you interested, have fast-paced plots, and are usually happy and exciting (there are definitely exceptions).
10. Who doesn't love a happy ending?
1. It's like watching a play and listening to music at the same time. It's double entertainment.
2. Some of the notes they can hit (high and low) are seriously incredible.
3. There are hundreds of different musicals, about everything from sports to orphans to rock music. You can find one that you're interested in.
4. They can do amazing things with setting, props, costumes, etc. if you pay attention.
5. If you've ever seen Les Mis, you'll agree: They can be incredibly powerful and emotional, and the music adds to the emotion. Let's be honest, who didn't cry when that little boy died?
6. They can be really funny, although not all of them are (See Wicked, Hairspray, etc.)
7. You'll understand way more cultural references, because there are tons if you pay attention!
8. When you get the soundtrack for these plays, they are actually amazing to sing to in the car. Even if you can't sing, you can go for it, because no one can hear you. It's more fun than rap in my opinion, although that is a personal preference. (Try Defying Gravity from Wicked. It's a great mood-lifter)
9. Most of them are relatable, upbeat, and exciting. In contrast to many musical performances, musicals keep you interested, have fast-paced plots, and are usually happy and exciting (there are definitely exceptions).
10. Who doesn't love a happy ending?
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Romantic Poetry
My poetry project is on the subject of romantic poetry, and I decided today to blog about the characteristics that help define it, just in case this is on the test on Monday.
During the Romantic Period (which was from the late 1700's to about 1860, give or take a few years), the emphasis was on emotion and feeling. Most romantic poetry has a theme of nature, love, or religion. What makes romantic poetry easy to spot is the emphasis on nature. Most romantic poetry is going to either describe something beautiful in nature or compare something to nature.
The language used in Romantic Period was colorful, vivid, and bright. When describing nature, the language was designed to create pleasing sounds and images for the reader. Some poetry did discuss darker subjects, such as William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, but most of the poetry was passionate and upbeat.
There wasn't a set form of poetry from this period. Most of the major authors had an epic poem or an extremely long one that they are known for, but they all also wrote shorter poems. Some examples of long poems from this era are The Prelude by William Wordsworth, Don Juan by Lord Byron, and Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. There were a lot of pastoral poems, and many sonnets written about love, but overall the structure within the period varied a lot.
During the Romantic Period (which was from the late 1700's to about 1860, give or take a few years), the emphasis was on emotion and feeling. Most romantic poetry has a theme of nature, love, or religion. What makes romantic poetry easy to spot is the emphasis on nature. Most romantic poetry is going to either describe something beautiful in nature or compare something to nature.
The language used in Romantic Period was colorful, vivid, and bright. When describing nature, the language was designed to create pleasing sounds and images for the reader. Some poetry did discuss darker subjects, such as William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, but most of the poetry was passionate and upbeat.
There wasn't a set form of poetry from this period. Most of the major authors had an epic poem or an extremely long one that they are known for, but they all also wrote shorter poems. Some examples of long poems from this era are The Prelude by William Wordsworth, Don Juan by Lord Byron, and Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. There were a lot of pastoral poems, and many sonnets written about love, but overall the structure within the period varied a lot.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
What does it take to be happy?
I watched a documentary on happiness yesterday, and it changed how I thought about happiness, so I thought I would share my thoughts with you all!
Firstly, they said that although money can't buy happiness, you have to get above the poverty line before there isn't a correlation. Basically, once you get above the poverty line, there is no relation between money and happiness. When they asked people what they thought would "get them happiness", most people answered that they believed having more money would bring it to them.
Secondly, they said that around 50% of a person's happiness is dependent on genetics, while only 10% is a good job, relationships, and all the things people think will make them happy. They didn't mention this, but I'd like to add that part of the "genetics" piece may be upbringing. If a person sees their parents making the best out of a situation or having a sunny personality, they're much more likely to handle themselves better in bad situations. I think this also has a big impact on a person's reflection of their own "happiness" and their overall attitude.
I also would like to add some of my thoughts. They didn't really cover this, but I think that people who say what they want from life is "to be happy" are always going to want something more. For example, if they think a good job will make them happy, they'll get there and find nothing's changed, then want a better job to make them happy. Or, a person will want a good relationship, and that will make them happy. But they might not be fully happy in a relationship either. It seems to me that people who do that need to just decide to be happy with what they have, instead of always wishing they had something else or something more.
Firstly, they said that although money can't buy happiness, you have to get above the poverty line before there isn't a correlation. Basically, once you get above the poverty line, there is no relation between money and happiness. When they asked people what they thought would "get them happiness", most people answered that they believed having more money would bring it to them.
Secondly, they said that around 50% of a person's happiness is dependent on genetics, while only 10% is a good job, relationships, and all the things people think will make them happy. They didn't mention this, but I'd like to add that part of the "genetics" piece may be upbringing. If a person sees their parents making the best out of a situation or having a sunny personality, they're much more likely to handle themselves better in bad situations. I think this also has a big impact on a person's reflection of their own "happiness" and their overall attitude.
I also would like to add some of my thoughts. They didn't really cover this, but I think that people who say what they want from life is "to be happy" are always going to want something more. For example, if they think a good job will make them happy, they'll get there and find nothing's changed, then want a better job to make them happy. Or, a person will want a good relationship, and that will make them happy. But they might not be fully happy in a relationship either. It seems to me that people who do that need to just decide to be happy with what they have, instead of always wishing they had something else or something more.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Dead Poet's Society
After writing four poetry responses with still a few to go, I couldn't bring myself to blog about poetry also. However, I decided instead to write about the only other thing we've done in English class lately: Watch Dead Poet's Society.
I liked the movie so far, and the acting was good for sure. I loved that all the boys looked like they were going to pave their own way in the liberal arts field instead of the professional tracks their parents picked out for them. My parents haven't pressured me too much for college or a career, but I know they'd be upset if, for example, I decided to try to be a professional singer. I admired that the guy from House tried out for a play knowing his father wouldn't approve, and I was definitely excited that he was playing Puck, my favorite character in any Shakespeare play (and also a character that I played in fourth grade, no big deal!). So overall I'm really enjoying the movie, but I had a few reservations that probably have to do with it being set in the 50s.
For one thing, the characters kept pulling instruments out of absolutely nowhere. I definitely saw a recorder, bongos, and a saxophone come into the picture to play random music during the film. I found that extremely weird and a little confusing.
Also, the boys make the decision to start the Dead Poet's Society kind of randomly. Robin Williams says a few short sentences about it, and they go smoke pipes in a cave like that night. It was a cool idea, but they seemed way too excited about reading poetry out loud. I like the rhythm and sound of poetry a lot, but I don't usually sneak out and go hide in a cave to read it to a bunch of people. That part was a little far-fetched to me.
I was also a little skeptical about the lack of repercussions Robin Williams faced for having such a wild, eccentric teaching style. Based on that boarding school's reputation, I can't see them really being okay with a teacher that far outside of the box.
As critical as all of that was, I'd like to reinforce that I really liked the movie so far, and I'm excited to watch the end. I understand that the plot might not be entirely airtight, but the story is really good and, like I said, I like all the characters so far. Anyway, thanks Mr. Mullins for letting us watch it! You're awesome!
I liked the movie so far, and the acting was good for sure. I loved that all the boys looked like they were going to pave their own way in the liberal arts field instead of the professional tracks their parents picked out for them. My parents haven't pressured me too much for college or a career, but I know they'd be upset if, for example, I decided to try to be a professional singer. I admired that the guy from House tried out for a play knowing his father wouldn't approve, and I was definitely excited that he was playing Puck, my favorite character in any Shakespeare play (and also a character that I played in fourth grade, no big deal!). So overall I'm really enjoying the movie, but I had a few reservations that probably have to do with it being set in the 50s.
For one thing, the characters kept pulling instruments out of absolutely nowhere. I definitely saw a recorder, bongos, and a saxophone come into the picture to play random music during the film. I found that extremely weird and a little confusing.
Also, the boys make the decision to start the Dead Poet's Society kind of randomly. Robin Williams says a few short sentences about it, and they go smoke pipes in a cave like that night. It was a cool idea, but they seemed way too excited about reading poetry out loud. I like the rhythm and sound of poetry a lot, but I don't usually sneak out and go hide in a cave to read it to a bunch of people. That part was a little far-fetched to me.
I was also a little skeptical about the lack of repercussions Robin Williams faced for having such a wild, eccentric teaching style. Based on that boarding school's reputation, I can't see them really being okay with a teacher that far outside of the box.
As critical as all of that was, I'd like to reinforce that I really liked the movie so far, and I'm excited to watch the end. I understand that the plot might not be entirely airtight, but the story is really good and, like I said, I like all the characters so far. Anyway, thanks Mr. Mullins for letting us watch it! You're awesome!
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
March Madness
Today, I want to talk about the "hidden message" in poems. Yes, I'm aware Mr. Mullins told us that we shouldn't call it hidden because it should be easy to find. It could be my stupidity, but I feel like 90% of the purpose of a poem is hidden somewhere in a way. For example, the last poem I analyzed for homework was:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wasted by June Jordan
You should slice the lying tongue of your love
into a billion bits of bile you swallow
one bilious element at a time
while
scalding water trembles drop
by drop between
(you hope)
between your eyes because
you said you loved me
and you lied
you lied
All you wanted was to rid me of my pride
to ruin me for tenderness
you lied
to thrust me monstrous from the hurt
you fabricate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously, on the surface this poem is about rejection in some form or another. But under the surface there is so much to analyze (which is probably why we have to analyze it in English class for homework, but you know).
There is alliteration (billion bits of bile), repetition (you lied) and onomatopoeia (drop) used within this short poem. There can be so much interpreted from these and other rhetorical devices. I think the "hidden message" is what's given away after careful analysis as opposed to a superficial reading. It may not be exactly hidden, but it is definitely harder to find. These devices add effect but I think much of it is also left up to interpretation by the reader.
Also, if anyone was wondering why I titled this "March Madness" and then didn't talk about it, UK's loss has left me speechless and I couldn't talk about it. But if you were wondering, I have Miami winning it all!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wasted by June Jordan
You should slice the lying tongue of your love
into a billion bits of bile you swallow
one bilious element at a time
while
scalding water trembles drop
by drop between
(you hope)
between your eyes because
you said you loved me
and you lied
you lied
All you wanted was to rid me of my pride
to ruin me for tenderness
you lied
to thrust me monstrous from the hurt
you fabricate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Obviously, on the surface this poem is about rejection in some form or another. But under the surface there is so much to analyze (which is probably why we have to analyze it in English class for homework, but you know).
There is alliteration (billion bits of bile), repetition (you lied) and onomatopoeia (drop) used within this short poem. There can be so much interpreted from these and other rhetorical devices. I think the "hidden message" is what's given away after careful analysis as opposed to a superficial reading. It may not be exactly hidden, but it is definitely harder to find. These devices add effect but I think much of it is also left up to interpretation by the reader.
Also, if anyone was wondering why I titled this "March Madness" and then didn't talk about it, UK's loss has left me speechless and I couldn't talk about it. But if you were wondering, I have Miami winning it all!
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Poetry in Song
I've never been much for creative writing. I'm not really artistic or musical, besides singing, so I don't really know that much about poetry. I don't think I've ever written any besides what was required in school. So, when I found out we were doing a poetry unit, I was kind of scared. But I noticed on the list of poetry to read were several songs we had sung in choir, and that made me kind of hopeful. Here is one of my favorite songs written from poetry and the arrangement we sang.
Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening - Robert Frost
Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening - Robert Frost
Whose woods these are I think
I know.
His house is in the village
though;
He will not see me stopping
here
To watch his woods fill up
with snow.
My little horse must think it
queer
To stop without a farmhouse
near
Between the woods and frozen
lake
The darkest evening of the
year.
He gives his harness bells a
shake
To ask if there is some
mistake.
The only other sound’s the
sweep
Of easy wind and downy
flake.
The woods are lovely, dark and
deep.
But I have promises to
keep,
And miles to go before I
sleep,
And miles to go before I
sleep.
Now, maybe it's just because we sang it for so long, but I feel like I understand this poetry more from listening to the song than any poetry I've seen in just plain words. The music makes it more interesting and way more emotional than any other poetry I've read. I think I might try looking up arrangements of other poems we read to try to get more of a feel for them. Either way, this made me a little bit more excited about our poetry unit coming up.
Friday, March 8, 2013
The next adventure
With graduation approaching for most of us, I thought it would be appropriate to talk about the rapid changes our lives are going through in the next six months or so. My life is going to be completely different, and it's hard to believe I won't be at Dunbar with all the friends I've spent the past 12 years or so getting to know.
My family is moving out of the house I've lived in for ten years, and I'm moving away to live on my own.
We're graduating. It feels so strange to say and to think that in less than three months, I won't be a high schooler anymore. It is super cliche but very true that this semester has flown by. In two months I have to decide where I will be for the next four years. Some of you may know that I despise decisions and take hours to decide even where I'm going to eat dinner. So this is especially stressful for me.
In August, I'll be 18, able to make my own decisions and even order my own snuggie over the phone.
At least most of my friends are moving out of Lexington. I haven't decided where I'll be next year, but some of my friends have decided they're getting out of here. I don't know what I'll do without you all (Lookin' at you, Sanch) but I just hope we'll all stay friends no matter how far away we are.
Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about graduation lately, and leaving to live on my own. I decided the most stressful part will be having no one to make food for me. Luckily, that's what meal plans are for. And as sad as I am to leave Dunbar behind, I can't wait to be at college and living on my own. I just wanted to say thank you to all my friends who have made high school, well, still high school, but at least we've had some really unforgettable times and I love you all. :)
My family is moving out of the house I've lived in for ten years, and I'm moving away to live on my own.
We're graduating. It feels so strange to say and to think that in less than three months, I won't be a high schooler anymore. It is super cliche but very true that this semester has flown by. In two months I have to decide where I will be for the next four years. Some of you may know that I despise decisions and take hours to decide even where I'm going to eat dinner. So this is especially stressful for me.
In August, I'll be 18, able to make my own decisions and even order my own snuggie over the phone.
At least most of my friends are moving out of Lexington. I haven't decided where I'll be next year, but some of my friends have decided they're getting out of here. I don't know what I'll do without you all (Lookin' at you, Sanch) but I just hope we'll all stay friends no matter how far away we are.
Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about graduation lately, and leaving to live on my own. I decided the most stressful part will be having no one to make food for me. Luckily, that's what meal plans are for. And as sad as I am to leave Dunbar behind, I can't wait to be at college and living on my own. I just wanted to say thank you to all my friends who have made high school, well, still high school, but at least we've had some really unforgettable times and I love you all. :)
Thursday, February 28, 2013
An open letter to teenagers on Twitter
Dear teenagers on Twitter,
I'd like to start off by saying that I am one of you. This entire letter is going to be hypocritical, because although I started off with a Twitter to get extra credit in math class, I have 2,500 or so tweets since Freshman year and am guilty of almost every known Twitter atrocity there is. But lately I've been noticing the many, many problems I have with Twitter and the way it makes people interact. Besides, this is my blog, so I'm going to complain about it anyway, because the last few months I have gotten so incredibly sick of Twitter I don't even know why I bother to read it.
My first issue with the Twitter world is how important it is to have a lot of followers. Why do you care? It's not like there's a winner. It's not like you take your Twitter followers, multiply it by 100, and get your salary. More than that, it's not like you're actually friends with half the people who you follow anyway. You can only keep up so many friendships, and if you follow 4,000 people, I'd be willing to bet that you don't even read half their tweets anyway. If you do, I feel sorry for your teachers because you probably don't have time to do any of your homework and they have to try to teach you anyway.
Would it be so hard to check your grammar? I'm not going to get picky about prepositional phrases or dangling modifiers or any of that, but how hard is it to use the right you're/your? I'm not going to elaborate on this one because it would take way too long, but come on people. At least act like you're educated.
It's so tempting to #subtweet everyone, all the time, because there's so much to complain about on Twitter and let's be honest, this is high school, everyone hates everyone anyway. But you know that every single time you subtweet, someone is going to get upset because obviously they'll know it's about them. So just don't start it. Yes, everyone is annoying or stupid or tweets too much or really needs to stop talking about how great their boyfriend is once in awhile. But if you really don't like it, unfollow them and shut up.
I'm almost done, I promise, but one last thing: Hashtags are fun, but let's limit ourselves to like, three per tweet. I think even the worst of us have enough self-control for that. For example,
"So ready for the #weekend! #pumped #party #fun #excitement #friends #goodtimes #memories"
could probably be shortened to
"So ready for the weekend! #friends #fun #goodtimes"
or even just
"So ready for the weekend!"
And then I would hate you less.
So, that was my rant about Twitter, and even though no one on Twitter will ever see this, I needed to get some of that off my chest before I snap. And yes, to anyone reading this, I am probably either unfollowing about 95 people or deleting my Twitter here in a few days. Because I have no faith in the future of America if our follower/following ratio is the most important thing in our lives. So, teenagers, let's step up and mature a little bit, because we're about to go into the real world, and I'm pretty sure no one cares about how many followers you have.
(Oh, and Mr. Mullins, I'm sorry this is so mean, but I tried to base it off the ones on the website you put up and they were worse!)
Sincerely,
Me
I'd like to start off by saying that I am one of you. This entire letter is going to be hypocritical, because although I started off with a Twitter to get extra credit in math class, I have 2,500 or so tweets since Freshman year and am guilty of almost every known Twitter atrocity there is. But lately I've been noticing the many, many problems I have with Twitter and the way it makes people interact. Besides, this is my blog, so I'm going to complain about it anyway, because the last few months I have gotten so incredibly sick of Twitter I don't even know why I bother to read it.
My first issue with the Twitter world is how important it is to have a lot of followers. Why do you care? It's not like there's a winner. It's not like you take your Twitter followers, multiply it by 100, and get your salary. More than that, it's not like you're actually friends with half the people who you follow anyway. You can only keep up so many friendships, and if you follow 4,000 people, I'd be willing to bet that you don't even read half their tweets anyway. If you do, I feel sorry for your teachers because you probably don't have time to do any of your homework and they have to try to teach you anyway.
Would it be so hard to check your grammar? I'm not going to get picky about prepositional phrases or dangling modifiers or any of that, but how hard is it to use the right you're/your? I'm not going to elaborate on this one because it would take way too long, but come on people. At least act like you're educated.
It's so tempting to #subtweet everyone, all the time, because there's so much to complain about on Twitter and let's be honest, this is high school, everyone hates everyone anyway. But you know that every single time you subtweet, someone is going to get upset because obviously they'll know it's about them. So just don't start it. Yes, everyone is annoying or stupid or tweets too much or really needs to stop talking about how great their boyfriend is once in awhile. But if you really don't like it, unfollow them and shut up.
I'm almost done, I promise, but one last thing: Hashtags are fun, but let's limit ourselves to like, three per tweet. I think even the worst of us have enough self-control for that. For example,
"So ready for the #weekend! #pumped #party #fun #excitement #friends #goodtimes #memories"
could probably be shortened to
"So ready for the weekend! #friends #fun #goodtimes"
or even just
"So ready for the weekend!"
And then I would hate you less.
So, that was my rant about Twitter, and even though no one on Twitter will ever see this, I needed to get some of that off my chest before I snap. And yes, to anyone reading this, I am probably either unfollowing about 95 people or deleting my Twitter here in a few days. Because I have no faith in the future of America if our follower/following ratio is the most important thing in our lives. So, teenagers, let's step up and mature a little bit, because we're about to go into the real world, and I'm pretty sure no one cares about how many followers you have.
(Oh, and Mr. Mullins, I'm sorry this is so mean, but I tried to base it off the ones on the website you put up and they were worse!)
Sincerely,
Me
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Stressed out
So, Mr. Mullins posted a link to this article:
It's incredibly long, so you don't have to read the whole thing just to understand my blog (I would recommend it though, it's very interesting). I'm just going to focus on a couple of paragraphs:
"Some scholars have suggested that we are all Warriors or Worriers. Those with fast-acting dopamine clearers are the Warriors, ready for threatening environments where maximum performance is required. Those with slow-acting dopamine clearers are the Worriers, capable of more complex planning. Over the course of evolution, both Warriors and Worriers were necessary for human tribes to survive.
It's incredibly long, so you don't have to read the whole thing just to understand my blog (I would recommend it though, it's very interesting). I'm just going to focus on a couple of paragraphs:
"Some scholars have suggested that we are all Warriors or Worriers. Those with fast-acting dopamine clearers are the Warriors, ready for threatening environments where maximum performance is required. Those with slow-acting dopamine clearers are the Worriers, capable of more complex planning. Over the course of evolution, both Warriors and Worriers were necessary for human tribes to survive.
In truth, because we all get one COMT gene from our father and one from our mother, about half of all people inherit one of each gene variation, so they have a mix of the enzymes and are somewhere in between the Warriors and the Worriers. About a quarter of people carry Warrior-only genes, and a quarter of people Worrier-only."
Essentially, this is saying that Warriors, or those with a gene that allows them to clear dopamine from their brain faster, can make decisions faster and stress less during tests. Worriers, with a different gene that clears the dopamine less slowly, are better at planning out things but tend to worry and stress much more about tests.
Obviously, I do not know much about the science behind this, but speaking from personal experience, I would consider myself somewhere in between a Warrior and a Worrier. I don't really mind tests and almost never stress out about them (which would be a Warrior), but I also feel like my brain is working extremely quickly while I take them because I always finish very early, which indicates that I am a Worrier. There is definitely a spectrum between these two, and speaking from personal experience, I would say that magnets (most of my friends, that is) tend to be on the Worrier side (Some more so than others). That could also be due to the fact that most of them actually care about school, which for some reason is atypical.
Anyway, my point is that seeing this research cleared up a lot of my observations. I've always wondered why some people stress the way they do, because I don't really worry that much, but people who are just as prepared as I am for a test may seem to panic and start pulling out their hair because they think they missed a negative sign...
If anyone actually reads this blog, which I seriously doubt will happen unless your name is Mr. Mullins, comment: are you a Warrior or a Worrier?
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Written letters
This article, posted by Mr. Mullins, discusses why written letters are important: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-gasda/signed-sealed-delivered_b_2679701.html?utm_hp_ref=books
As well-written as the article is, I would like to respectfully disagree, and add some of my thoughts on the subject.
The first point the author makes is a personal one; he states that he corresponds regularly by snail mail and it is a rewarding, romantic experience. My belief is that, for the most part, this is a generational comfort that comes from a lifetime of e-mail-less letter-writing. It reminds people of the past, and brings in some nostalgia along with the kind words that letters can bring.
The next point he makes is that great writers have long written letters; to their family, their loved ones, and themselves. This might just be me, but I don't understand why this "writing practice" is lost when you write letters in electronic form. It's the same amount of practice with technique and style when you write on the computer as it is when you write on paper. I mean, they'll be typing their books on a computer, most likely, so it's probably better practice anyway.
It could be the fact that writing makes my hand hurt because my pinkie is deformed, but I feel like hand-writing a letter when you could type it out is the equivalent of long dividing huge numbers when you have a calculator sitting RIGHT THERE. It takes forever, it hurts your hand, it's way more work, and seems pointless when you're done.
Also, excessive letter-writing kills trees.
All that being said, a hand-written or handmade card is much, much better than an e-card or a text. But writing a letter and taking two weeks to get it back just to have idle conversation seems like a ridiculous waste of time to me. So, there is definitely some merit to hand-writing things, and I'm not trying to suggest that paper itself is entirely pointless, but overall I disagree with a lot of what this article said.
As well-written as the article is, I would like to respectfully disagree, and add some of my thoughts on the subject.
The first point the author makes is a personal one; he states that he corresponds regularly by snail mail and it is a rewarding, romantic experience. My belief is that, for the most part, this is a generational comfort that comes from a lifetime of e-mail-less letter-writing. It reminds people of the past, and brings in some nostalgia along with the kind words that letters can bring.
The next point he makes is that great writers have long written letters; to their family, their loved ones, and themselves. This might just be me, but I don't understand why this "writing practice" is lost when you write letters in electronic form. It's the same amount of practice with technique and style when you write on the computer as it is when you write on paper. I mean, they'll be typing their books on a computer, most likely, so it's probably better practice anyway.
It could be the fact that writing makes my hand hurt because my pinkie is deformed, but I feel like hand-writing a letter when you could type it out is the equivalent of long dividing huge numbers when you have a calculator sitting RIGHT THERE. It takes forever, it hurts your hand, it's way more work, and seems pointless when you're done.
Also, excessive letter-writing kills trees.
All that being said, a hand-written or handmade card is much, much better than an e-card or a text. But writing a letter and taking two weeks to get it back just to have idle conversation seems like a ridiculous waste of time to me. So, there is definitely some merit to hand-writing things, and I'm not trying to suggest that paper itself is entirely pointless, but overall I disagree with a lot of what this article said.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Beloved
We've just started to read Beloved, so I guess I don't have that much to say about it, but I wanted to start off by saying I like it SO much better than The Road. I don't know why Toni Morrison's version of Stream of Conscious is less confusing to me than Cormac McCarthy's, because honestly it feels like it should be the other way around, but I think it's actually easier to understand. It's definitely way more complicated, but what I think makes the difference is that with Beloved, you can look back through and find the answers to your questions somewhere, but with The Road, you have to interpret and analyze and infer. The Road's writing is simpler, but I think I understand Beloved a lot better. I like the plot a lot better also, and the characters seem more real to me because they actually describe their emotions. Most of The Road is making assumptions about what the characters are feeling, but Beloved tells you how they feel and what they're thinking.
A strategy Morrison uses a lot which I think makes Beloved confusing to read at first is reference of events that the characters already know but the readers do not. For example, they have yet to explain to us how Beloved died, which I think will probably unfold later. But they make it clear that Sethe knows exactly what happened, and obviously we know she died violently. It involves an element of suspense which is a little annoying but very interesting. You have to really pay attention to figure out what is going on or you could completely miss important information.
I also wanted to take a second to talk about our student teacher Mr. Scholtz (Sorry if I spelled that wrong!). I usually don't really like student teachers, but he did a really great job today explaining the book and leading our discussion, and I hope he gets to teach us more!
A strategy Morrison uses a lot which I think makes Beloved confusing to read at first is reference of events that the characters already know but the readers do not. For example, they have yet to explain to us how Beloved died, which I think will probably unfold later. But they make it clear that Sethe knows exactly what happened, and obviously we know she died violently. It involves an element of suspense which is a little annoying but very interesting. You have to really pay attention to figure out what is going on or you could completely miss important information.
I also wanted to take a second to talk about our student teacher Mr. Scholtz (Sorry if I spelled that wrong!). I usually don't really like student teachers, but he did a really great job today explaining the book and leading our discussion, and I hope he gets to teach us more!
Thursday, January 31, 2013
This Is How You Lose Her
Like most of the literature we've read for AP English this year, I probably missed a whole lot of English rhetoric, symbols, and other nonsense in my independent reading book. I seem to be really good at being completely wrong about whether or not something is significant. But regardless of all of that, I really enjoyed my first book on parental love.
My book, This Is How You Lose Her by Junot Diaz, was about all kinds of love. Essentially it's a group of stories told by a young Dominican man named Yunior revolving around relationships, love, family, marriages, affairs, and babies. In two hundred short pages, he talks about his many broken relationships, his brother's struggle with cancer, and his endless battle to get over "the ex" who changed him.
A lot of it was very interesting, but what I was trying to focus on was the parent/child relationships. What the book mostly explored was the way parents felt about their children.
Yunior's best friend Elvis has a love child, a son, in the Dominican Republic and a little girl with his wife in America. Elvis is so excited that he has a son that he refuses to see that the child isn't his until Yunior realizes it. Elvis is heartbroken, because he says that while he was fighting in the war, all he wanted was the chance to live so he could have a son.
In another subplot, a law student at Harvard leaves her boyfriend and comes to live with Yunior, claiming that she's pregnant and it's his child. She lives with him throughout her pregnancy, then in the delivery room abruptly shouts that it isn't his baby and never speaks to him again.
Yunior's relationship with his parents is also extremely complex. He loves his mother and wants the best for her, but his brother Rafa treats her horribly, stealing from her and blatantly being rude and disrespectful to her. He doesn't understand why she lets Rafa do this, but I think it's just a way of showing the great love parents have for their children.
What I have concluded from this book is that a parent's love for their child goes beyond logical thought and causes irrational actions. All the parents in the book did things that make absolutely no sense, either in an attempt to protect their children or to give them a better life.
My book, This Is How You Lose Her by Junot Diaz, was about all kinds of love. Essentially it's a group of stories told by a young Dominican man named Yunior revolving around relationships, love, family, marriages, affairs, and babies. In two hundred short pages, he talks about his many broken relationships, his brother's struggle with cancer, and his endless battle to get over "the ex" who changed him.
A lot of it was very interesting, but what I was trying to focus on was the parent/child relationships. What the book mostly explored was the way parents felt about their children.
Yunior's best friend Elvis has a love child, a son, in the Dominican Republic and a little girl with his wife in America. Elvis is so excited that he has a son that he refuses to see that the child isn't his until Yunior realizes it. Elvis is heartbroken, because he says that while he was fighting in the war, all he wanted was the chance to live so he could have a son.
In another subplot, a law student at Harvard leaves her boyfriend and comes to live with Yunior, claiming that she's pregnant and it's his child. She lives with him throughout her pregnancy, then in the delivery room abruptly shouts that it isn't his baby and never speaks to him again.
Yunior's relationship with his parents is also extremely complex. He loves his mother and wants the best for her, but his brother Rafa treats her horribly, stealing from her and blatantly being rude and disrespectful to her. He doesn't understand why she lets Rafa do this, but I think it's just a way of showing the great love parents have for their children.
What I have concluded from this book is that a parent's love for their child goes beyond logical thought and causes irrational actions. All the parents in the book did things that make absolutely no sense, either in an attempt to protect their children or to give them a better life.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The Road final reflections
We covered a lot of this in today's discussion, but I wanted to reflect a little bit more on The Road.
Supposedly it's one of the greatest pieces of modern literature to come out in awhile, and I kept asking myself while reading it: Why? It's alright, pretty easy to read, there's a lot of rhetorical strategy, but what makes it great?
After reading the entire book, I think what makes The Road good literary fiction is the ambiguity of it. For example, we discussed for a short time how limited and abstract the discussion about religion was. Everything he said was under the surface and easy to look over. It's possible to read the book and not notice that there is a message about religion at all. At the same time, someone else reading the book could draw a lot of conclusions about the boy, Ely, and what the woman says at the end. It could really speak to someone, because it hints at religion but lets the reader draw their own conclusion.
Also, the ambiguity of the situation makes it seem even more real in a sense. McCarthy doesn't specify what happened to the world, anything specific about the setting, or even the names of the two main characters. The no-name strategy has been used a lot, usually to make the characters seem more accesible, like it could be anyone. However, McCarthy takes this to a whole new level by not really giving any information about them at all. To some readers, particularly the English majors and book critics that actually liked this book, this probably seems like great strategy and makes the book even better.
So, I can see where all the people who praise The Road are coming from. And I definitely see why it would be read in an English class. But even after reading the whole book, I wouldn't recommend it to my friends unless they really wanted to be depressed.
Supposedly it's one of the greatest pieces of modern literature to come out in awhile, and I kept asking myself while reading it: Why? It's alright, pretty easy to read, there's a lot of rhetorical strategy, but what makes it great?
After reading the entire book, I think what makes The Road good literary fiction is the ambiguity of it. For example, we discussed for a short time how limited and abstract the discussion about religion was. Everything he said was under the surface and easy to look over. It's possible to read the book and not notice that there is a message about religion at all. At the same time, someone else reading the book could draw a lot of conclusions about the boy, Ely, and what the woman says at the end. It could really speak to someone, because it hints at religion but lets the reader draw their own conclusion.
Also, the ambiguity of the situation makes it seem even more real in a sense. McCarthy doesn't specify what happened to the world, anything specific about the setting, or even the names of the two main characters. The no-name strategy has been used a lot, usually to make the characters seem more accesible, like it could be anyone. However, McCarthy takes this to a whole new level by not really giving any information about them at all. To some readers, particularly the English majors and book critics that actually liked this book, this probably seems like great strategy and makes the book even better.
So, I can see where all the people who praise The Road are coming from. And I definitely see why it would be read in an English class. But even after reading the whole book, I wouldn't recommend it to my friends unless they really wanted to be depressed.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Why I love English, but hate poetry
So, between the AP practice tests and The Road poetry we did in class, I learned exactly one thing in English this week: I don't know anything about poetry.
I usually like English, and I love reading and grammar and books, so it's taken me a long time to figure out what my issue with poetry is. What I finally decided is that I'm too literal for it. I hate people who go in a super roundabout way of saying something.
Poets, especially the ones we read in English class, just use too much figurative language for me. Whenever I read it it just seems like they're vomiting up imagery and rhetorical strategies to try to come up with something deep. Like, sometimes it isn't even deep and they just sound like they're trying too hard.
I know this is just one person's opinion, and I'd just like to say that I really liked the poems we did in class! I know she'll never read this, but Alexis Hensley's was crazy awesome. They were definitely cool, but I know for sure that poetry will never be my thing. I'm happy to appreciate it and other people can read it all they want, but poetry and I will never end up friends.
I usually like English, and I love reading and grammar and books, so it's taken me a long time to figure out what my issue with poetry is. What I finally decided is that I'm too literal for it. I hate people who go in a super roundabout way of saying something.
Poets, especially the ones we read in English class, just use too much figurative language for me. Whenever I read it it just seems like they're vomiting up imagery and rhetorical strategies to try to come up with something deep. Like, sometimes it isn't even deep and they just sound like they're trying too hard.
I know this is just one person's opinion, and I'd just like to say that I really liked the poems we did in class! I know she'll never read this, but Alexis Hensley's was crazy awesome. They were definitely cool, but I know for sure that poetry will never be my thing. I'm happy to appreciate it and other people can read it all they want, but poetry and I will never end up friends.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
The Road
So, for our in-class discussion about The Road we were supposed to talk about:
-a scene that stood out a lot to us
-an open-ended question about the book
-our impression of the book so far.
The scene that I chose was from a flashback, in a discussion the man has with his wife before she leaves.
"You say you would die for us but what good is that? I'd take him with me if it werent for you. You know I would. It's the right thing to do.
You're talking crazy.
No, I'm speaking the truth. Sooner or later they will catch us and they will kill us. They will rape me. They'll rape him. They are going to rape us and kill us and eat us and you wont face it. You'd rather wait for it to happen. But I cant. I cant."
Their discussion goes on for a few pages, but basically the man believes that it is better for them to survive and live in these bad conditions for their son, while the woman believes they should just all give up. Eventually she leaves and kills herself, and years later the man and his son have survived.
Now, my open-ended question was: Who do you think is right?
It's not an easy decision. But in my opinion, when there is no chance of your life improving from the hell it is, it may be best to let it come to an end. If you can be happy or if the struggles you're going through are temporary, then you should definitely keep trying and fighting. But in this situation, I'm going to have to side with the woman. The world is ending, people are cannibals and the environment is shutting down. The man and his son are both starving and in constant danger. There is no happy ending in store for this book, unless something crazy drastic happens. But that's just my opinion.
What do you all think?
-a scene that stood out a lot to us
-an open-ended question about the book
-our impression of the book so far.
The scene that I chose was from a flashback, in a discussion the man has with his wife before she leaves.
"You say you would die for us but what good is that? I'd take him with me if it werent for you. You know I would. It's the right thing to do.
You're talking crazy.
No, I'm speaking the truth. Sooner or later they will catch us and they will kill us. They will rape me. They'll rape him. They are going to rape us and kill us and eat us and you wont face it. You'd rather wait for it to happen. But I cant. I cant."
Their discussion goes on for a few pages, but basically the man believes that it is better for them to survive and live in these bad conditions for their son, while the woman believes they should just all give up. Eventually she leaves and kills herself, and years later the man and his son have survived.
Now, my open-ended question was: Who do you think is right?
It's not an easy decision. But in my opinion, when there is no chance of your life improving from the hell it is, it may be best to let it come to an end. If you can be happy or if the struggles you're going through are temporary, then you should definitely keep trying and fighting. But in this situation, I'm going to have to side with the woman. The world is ending, people are cannibals and the environment is shutting down. The man and his son are both starving and in constant danger. There is no happy ending in store for this book, unless something crazy drastic happens. But that's just my opinion.
What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)