George Orwell's "Politics And The English Language"

1. What is the American poet?

Everyone who helps to form the nation.

1. Why is it important?

The nation depends on them.

1. We are all equals
2. Doing nothing to be superior
3. Civilization
4. The earth itself is perfect, we mess it up

"This is a parody, but not a very gross one." -- Orwell is telling us to make our sentences clear, and easy, yet his description of his 'bad example of english' is not clear in itself. Gross, what does he mean by gross? Gross comes from the German word gross, which means large or big. And Orwell has been telling us not to take words from other countries, yet how can we do that, when our own language IS from other countries?

"A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himslef at least four questions...And he will probably ask himself two more: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?" -- Orwell is criticising peoples' writing, and is suggesting tips to ask yourself when creating a writing, yet, I wonder if he asked himself the same questions tha the is presenting us with. He says to ask yourself, "Could I put it more shortly?" and yet his own essay is extremely long!!!

3.Definitions

Dying Metaphors - Worn-out metaphors which have lost all impressionable power.

Pretentious Diction - Foreign words used for their elegance, but in the process lose their original meaning.

Meaningless Words - Foreign words that are used with a vague and confusing meaning.

4. Ten Steps to Good writing:

#1 Use simple, every day words.

#2 Know what you want to say, before you start to write.

#3 Replace long, drawn out sentences, with short, to the point ones.

#4 Refrain form using foreign words to portray an english meaning.

#5 Read your work, to see if it makes sense to you.

#6 Make your work is clear, and easy to read.

#7 Use original thoughts.

#8 Always try to use the active, instead of the passive, when possible.

#9 Don't put in fluff - frilly nonsense that isn't important, and just used to take up space.

#10 Change your habits now, and start writing well.

Walt Whitman's Nature

After now reading twenty poems from Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, I have begun to notice that many of his poems are about the same topics. In his poems, Whitman asks a lot of questions about life and the way it is. The topic that I mainly see used over and over in these poems is his encounter with nature. "The wild gander leads his flock through the cool night; Ya-honk! he says, and sounds it down to me like an invitation;"(236) Whitman starts off with the use of animals, which already sets us to a mood in which we think about nature. The poem then continues with,"... The sharp-hoof'd moose of the north, the cat on the house-sill, the chickadee, the prairie-dog, "(240) As shown here, nature and the wild are all something that Whitman talks about numerous times. From the gander to the dog, Whitman manages to use animals as a part of his poems. After copying these two stanzas to my blog, I began to think about what nature really meant back then, and what is means to us now. In the 1840's, the time period in which this book was published, the nature, farming, and animals were what controlled the life and the economy of the United States. The American people depended on agriculture to sustain their families, where as now, people tend to not consider it important anymore. This then brought me to how people live now compared to then. The majority of the people in the United States now live in the cities, or in suburbs. Living in those areas with such a high density of people ultimately blocks the people from having contact with nature.

Whitman later in the poem, talks about how he admires the people that live on farms. "am enamour'd of growing out-doors, Of men that live among cattle, or taste of the ocean or woods,"(246) This is important because Whitman stresses that humans should live alongside animals. He was living in a time where living in cities or living in farms was a decision that had to be made.

In the next stanza of the poem, Walt Whitman talks about how he loves the simple life, "What is commonest, cheapest, nearest, easiest, is Me;"(251) Although he is describing himself in this line, it seems as if he is encouraging the lifestyle, saying that it is easier and cheaper than trying to live the urban lifestyle.

I also noticed that the cover of the book, which is in my previous post, has a picture of nature, including water, trees, hills, and a person. This is showing how from the cover of the book, the topic is already nature and humans together.

Overall, this poem really made me start thinking about how urbanization has been affecting humans recently. Before, life was easy and simple, and now it's getting harder and more complex. It made me start thinking about what people were getting themselves in to.

The Beginning Is The Hardest

I many times struggle to start writing a paper. Or even a blog or essay. For me, it is one of the most important part's of writing, and is essential for setting the mood for the reader. It also helps the reader understand the writer's personality, and feel the tone that will be used throughout the book. Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass starts in a way that I would have never expected a poetry book to begin. "I CELEBRATE myself; And what I assume you shall assume; for every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you"(1) As we all know, nothing in literature is done without thought. Whitman is clearly trying to make a statement, and show his personality just with his first stanza of his first poem of the entire book. He starts of by making the reader feel that he is equal to Whitman. This is key because it makes the reader feel as if he is going through the same life problems, and living the same life, as the reader.

Something that should also be looked at in every poet's work is their style. Whitman repeats sentences a lot, typically changing a couple words, but leaving the main or strong word there. He also sometimes doesn't change any words except the main one. "There was never any more inception than there is now, Nor any more youth or age than there is now; And will never be any more perfection than there is now, Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now." (3) This is a clear example of how Walt Whitman plays with the words, and will repeat himself to make a point. Not only is the style in which this idea is written, but what this stanza is actually saying. It is pivotal to understand that Leaves of Grass was written during the 1840's in the United States. There were many different political ideas, and it was a time of a lot of division from ideas. One lifestyle that many different people tried to live with was the utopian lifestyle, which happened during the 1840's. "And will never be any more perfection than there is now"(3) is a very utopian-like idea that the world is perfect, and it will never be able to be as perfect as it currently is. It is sad to hear that shortly after, in the 1850's, utopian societies failed, and were taken out of the United States.

I am interested in reading the rest of this poetry book because I would like to keep linking the current times in the United States, and their situation, and what Walt Whitman writes to see if I can make any more links between them.

Jumping From One To The Next

Just like every writer, Gustave Flaubert has a style that is different from anyone else's. He uses long sentences, broken apart by commas to divide his ideas. "Madame Aubain had married a comely youth without any money, who died in the beginning of 1809, leaving her with two young children and a number of debts." (1) This sentence, in the beginning of the book shows just that. There are a total of four ideas in just one sentence. Although many may argue that it's wrong to put more than one idea per sentence, it is the style that distinguishes Gustave Flaubert from the rest of the writers. Even though many writers incorrectly use the style of more than one idea per sentence, Flaubert successfully manages to create a certain feeling in the viewer, that would not be there if it weren't for his sentence structure. Another example of this is when at the beginning of chapter two, Flaubert starts talking about how her father was killed by a scaffold."Like every other woman, she had had an affair of the heart. Her father, who was a mason, was killed by falling from a scaffolding" (2).

Another very notable style that Flaubert has is that it goes from one sentence to the next, and doesn't have many extra sentences that don't really serve a purpose. This makes A Simple Soul, even though not too long, have a lot of information. A perfect example of a lot of information in just one sentence is ," One evening, on the road leading to Beaumont, she came upon a wagon

loaded with hay, and when she overtook it, she recognised Theodore." (2) Many of the authors that I have read would have written those same ideas in many more sentences. This is a characteristic that Flaubert shows throughout the first three chapters, and sticks with it the whole time. In chapter three, we see another example, "After several minutes had elapsed, she heard footsteps, the door was half opened and a nun appeared." The feeling I get while reading is almost as if I were reading a list of things to do. Like if Flaubert had a list of all the things he wanted to say, and then simply wrote the book off of that list, and didn't really add any extra information.

Overall, I have enjoyed reading these first three chapters of A Simple Soul because it is another way to write. Lately, I have been experiencing many different styles of writers, and I keep learning from each one and take bits and pieces from each one. This one is particularly interesting because I am sure that if someone had this style in second grade while writing a story, the teacher would tell you to make it nicer and flow smoother. Flaubert uses a style that very much interests me, and I would love to be able to write in such a difficult way, while still making my points clear, and ultimately making my writing good.

Wait, I Thought It Was Different

After reading , I didn't even know what to think of the book. I had been narrowing down my ideas about the book, and I was really starting to understand the story, until this chapter came along. There had been a certain story that was building up, but this chapter seems to just change every character. Maybe I'm not completely understanding the book as much as I should because Pynchon has been constantly changing the characters. This is clearly a technique used by Pynchon not only to keep the reader interested in the progression and growth of the characters, but it also completely gives freedom to the character's actions. In many stories, the characters involved almost always have the same personality. The serious dad is always the serious dad, and the crazy brother is always the crazy brother. What Pynchon does by releasing that linear personality from his characters, is ultimately creates a free place where the characters don't necessarily have to follow any certain personalities. I may be ignorant to the literature and reading world, but this is the first book that I read were everything is so inconsistent. It's like if the book its making fun of itself by just changing everything. Pynchon build part of a story up, and then before we know it, everything has changed.

A thing that also shocked me was the craziness of the characters. Many characters have just gone completely crazy and are acting very different compared to previous chapters."Day by day, Wendell is more himself and less generic. He enters a staff meeting and the room is suddenly full of people, you know? He's a walking assembly of man (115)." This is a sample of how the reader is forced to start thinking about how everyone is changing. This type of sentence is only put in a book to make the reader stop reading, and analyze how the characters are changing."You'll think I'm crazy, Oed (116)." Just on the page after, another hint is given to us. Not only can we as the readers recognize the abnormalities of the characters in the story, but the book itself also makes us think about the same thing.

Overall, this chapter was a complete mess, and it once again made reading this chapter more interesting. Pynchon will not let the reader rest on what they know. He is constantly changing the plot and the characters to keep everything fresh. It's a very effective tool that has kept me interested in the book.

Yoyodyne Inc. Represents The Modern World

Last year in Mr. O'Connors Pre-AP Global Studies class, a parent came in who worked for a tire company to talk to us about how their company functioned. I'm not quite sure who's mom it was, or what company she worked for, but the things she said I remember very clearly. Having just come back from the Amazon trip, we began to learn about how companies were deforesting parts of the Amazon forest. It is even predicted that we won't have an Amazon forest soon. I remember listening to the lady talk about how the company that she worked for had made a new type of tire which was more eco-friendly. She went on about how her company was the most eco-friendly tire company out there, which ultimately made the company she worked for sound like the logical company to choose from when the time came to choose a tire. I then asked her a question which shocked her. Was the company really doing everything possible to be eco-friendly? I understand that your company may be more eco-friendly, but in reality are they losing money to try and be eco friendly? I don't remember exactly what she said but her answer was pretty much saying that there was a limit to where the eco-friendly matter could really get to. A company may try to be eco-friendly, but they will immediately stop once they realize that they could lose money or are losing money to try and help the environment.

While reading chapter four of The Crying of Lot 49, I read something that made me remember the above conversation that had taken place the year before."Koteks explained how every engineer, in signing the Yoyodyne contract, also signed away the patent rights to any inventions he might come up with" (67) This is showing how companies are only interested in profits. This was just another example of how companies want to maximize their profits without any concern about anything else. In a sense, they are 'stealing' ideas because they are forcing their workers to not be able to use their ideas. They are being forced to have the company have the rights for the ideas that they came up with. Yoyodyne doesn't want anyone stealing their ideas, yet they steal their people's ideas. I found this to be completely absurd.

It was just another example of how companies really only care about their profits and will do anything to maximize it. Even steal ideas from others. I really can't believe this because it shows me to what level the world is slowly getting to, and instead of improving the earlier mistakes, we get even more competitive, ultimately damaging ourselves in the long run. The author is satirically making fun of these companies. Making its name Yoyodyne is enforcing the fact that it's a selfish company, only interested in its profit.

What Does This Mean?

In Mr. Tangen's class earlier last week and this week, we discussed how The Crying of Lot 49 is very satirical and makes fun of many different types of things. While reading chapter three of this book, I found myself concentrating more on what satirical pieces I could find, more than actually reading the book for what the story was about. After realizing that this was as a terribly bad idea, I began to reread the chapter, but I still asked myself many questions that I can't seem to answer.

As I've come to learn from Mr. Tangen's class, NOTHING in books and movies are done without a purpose, so Pynchon clearly is trying to prove a point or make us ask ourselves questions. When I first came across this image, I stopped reading and took a look at it. I am very used to seeing images while reading books, but they normally relate to the text. I could not make any valid relationship with this image, and this made me start asking myself many questions on why Pynchon is using this image.

This was not the first time in this book that I ask myself why things are presented the way they are. After realizing that this has become a current occurrence in the book, I wonder if Pynchon is using this to reel us into reading more of his book. Suspense is a tool that is many times used because it keeps the reader or viewer interested in the movie or book. Although in The Crying of Lot 49, we aren't necessarily waiting for something to happen, we do want to know what all of these signs and hints that are given to us really mean.

Pushing The Boundaries

Finally, I started to catch on to the book, and the things that it talks about. As always, the first chapter is always difficult to understand because of the introduction to characters, ideas, etc. After reading the second chapter, I began to understand some of what was going on, and noticed that there was also a part of the chapter that I had never experienced before in a book. Metzger asks, "Anyone for Strip Botticelli?" (26). Maybe it's that I don't read enough books, or that I don't read the genre that demands this, but I had never read a book that has a sexual game, or sex involved in it. It shocked me because it really pushes the boundaries of what I had previously experienced. It was shocking and almost funny to read about Oedipa and Metzger's sex game. I liked reading about this because it showed me that literally anything can be put on paper into a book. I used to think that movies really were limitless, but books were more formal and had things that were 'off limits'. This book completely shows that I was wrong about what I believed because it talks about something that I considered out of bounds.

Too Much At Once

The first chapter of The Crying Of Lot 49 is not only very complex to understand, but there are also so many things going on at once, that it's hard to choose one at a time. First of all, the names are absurd. I have never heard of any of the names mentioned in this first chapter. Oedipa is very close to Oedipus. I have come to believe this because the 'Oe' beginning is not common, and the rest of the word is also similar. Oedipus was the king of Thebes who then killed his father, and married his wife. Oedipus Rex is known as the greatest tragedy ever written. Although I can not come up with a theory that supports why what seems to be the main character of the book's name is related with Oedipus, I am curious to find out how this will come into play later on in the book. Strangely enough, Maas, which is very similar to Mas, added with Mucho, makes 'Mucho Mas' meaning much more in English. These are all signs that I can't quite understand what they mean, but am sure that have a very important role in the book.

Changing The Tone

In the final chapter of the book, chapter 13, Dawkins changes slightly the way in which things are written. While the majority of the chapters specified on one topic, and explained thoroughly each one, this chapter had a different meaning. It was a great 'closing chapter' to the book. The purpose of this chapter was to ultimately sum of the other 12 chapters, and put it all into one. This is a common technique used in books, and I was completely expecting something similar to what I read except for that Dawkins also added new information to the book.

"The bodily manifestation of a gene, the effect that a gene, in comparison with its alleles, has on the body via development. The phenotypic effect of some particular gene might be, say, green eye color" (235). This is a brief demonstration of some of the new topics that he added. This is interesting because I always thought of the last chapter, or last paragraph in a short essay, as the one that summed everything up and put it into one paragraph. I don't really like the idea of putting new information into the last chapter because it ultimately makes the book more confusing to understand since it leaves you without any last thoughts to help clarify some things.

So They've Passed It On?

Chapter 11 introduced a whole new idea to my knowledge. I had no idea about memes or anything of the type. Dawkins says that there are things that are simply and purely known to everyone. Everyone knows them, and it doesn't need to be taught. This essentially means that we have some knowledge of everyone that has lived. “Once the genes have provided their survival machines with brains that are capable of rapid imitation, the memes will automatically take over.” (200) I'm sorry Dawkins, but I really can't quite believe that. How is it even possible that knowledge is automatically put into your brain? Only the person's thoughts can change the meme? I just can't get myself to understand how this works.

Aside from my belief, if this were true, it could revolutionize everything about humans. If there could be a way to pass on information from one generation to the next, there would simply be no point in learning because you would be born with the knowledge. Although this sounds like a great idea, I also have to consider what would happen with the world. If no kids went to school, businessman already knew the perfect way, and everything had already been done and known, there wouldn't even be a point of living. Part of life is to learn and experience things, but if one is born with all of the knowledge of the past generations, it would be like living with no excitement.

Lets Work Together

Today, while in the car and listening to the radio, I heard something very interesting. They were talking about memorable moments in sports history. Not simply someone winning the biggest tournament or anything like that, but how the players from different teams reacted to each other. The people on the radio answered a phone call that they had received, and the caller said that his most memorable moment was when in Colombian soccer Millionarios was playing Santa Fe in the 1970's. There were two Argentines on the field, one on each team. After the game was over, they began to talk on the field, and it seemed as if they had a great relationship.

Yesterday, I was watching ESPN and a coach of a team which I can't recall started talking about the pre-game talk. He started saying how before a match, the other people on the team where 'enemies' and that even if they were friends, that had to fight and act as enemies. This completely shocks me because it's evidence of how instead of humans progressing towards becoming closer and stop fighting, we get further and further away from that each decade. While thirty years ago players of opposite teams were friends and talked, now they 'had to be enemies'.

In chapter 10, Dawkins discussed a similar topic. “members of different species often have much to offer each other because they can bring different ‘skills’ to the partnership” (181) I completely agree with this statement because every different type of species have different ways of doing things, and one could really benefit from the other. This is very important because if humans could actually start working together instead of against each other, there would be a massive difference in the way the world is. The governments of different countries spend trillions of dollars on their army, navy etc. What would happen if all of that money was spent on making the world truly a better place to live on?

We Are Survival

I know this may be embarrassing to say, but I really enjoy watching Discovery Channel, and Animal Planet. They are two of my favorite channels just because they have the best videos of nature. I really enjoy watching other animals live. Watching a lion attack another animal is something that I find absolutely incredible.

In the third chapter, Dawkins says something that I don't completely agree with. “We are survival machines, but ‘we’ does not mean just people. It embraces all animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses.” (21) I think that humans are survival machines but in a completely different form which is much more complex. Animals, plants, bacteria, and viruses all fight to survive. That is ultimately their only goal in life. They are born, try to not get eaten, mature and grow, then create a family and hunt other animals. It's a cycle that has been going on for many many years. Humans on the other hand are a little more complex to understand because we don't ONLY live to survive. For many of us, simply surviving and having food is the least of our problems. We don't only live life to hunt and eat. This may make us seem like we're not survival machines, but we really are. We are in the sense that we try to make countries, governments, economies, and ways of life survive. Since simply surviving is something that the majority of the world can do, humans took it to another level. Since we all live in different countries with different ways of life, we try to expand that and imperialize other countries with our ways of being. I think that this is the major difference between the rest of living organisms and humans.

Why This?

Just by looking at the cover of the book, it is obvious that this book will be dealing with science. After all, the title of the book itself is The Selfish Gene. I couldn't really get myself to understand why the word selfish would be put in a title of a book of science. As we now know from Mr. Tangen's class, NOTHING in literature and writing is accidental. This made me wonder what the book could really be about. Just by reading the first page, Richard Dawkins already started answering some of my doubts.

On page 1, he says, "my purpose is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism," (1) This answered the question that I had about 'selfish' being in the title of the book. Dawkins then goes into much further explanation of the 'selfishness' of genes. Each gene competes with one another to survive. All of the genes in our bodies are rivals, and are fighting each other to survive. There is also another competition to see which will end up having the most quantity. This already marks from the beginning of the books why the word selfish deserves to be in the title. As the title of the book says, genes are selfish. Instead of working together, they compete against each other to survive.

This really shocked me because I honestly had no idea at all that genes fought inside of our bodies. I always thought of bodies as organisms that worked together to create one powerful whole. After reading just this first chapter, the book has hooked me in the sense that I want to know what other interesting things Dawkins talks about that I had no idea about.

Another thing that I agreed with Dawkins was when he says, “Our genes may instruct us to me selfish, but we are not necessarily compelled to obey them all our lives.” (3) I agree with not just with this, but with the whole idea that Dawkins is trying to say. Humans are too often mediocre because they 'can't change anything. Such as if you are born poor, you will die poor. Just because our genes insist on humans being selfish, it doesn't mean that we have to obey our genes.

Sexism At Its Fullest

I feel like this book repeats itself many times with themes that happen. One that I find to be in almost every chapter is the use of women. Now every book uses women, but this has a theme of sexism involved. Men think that they are superior to women, and just use them for reproduction. It also seems like they only thing women are for is to get raped and abused. This is something that I can never and will never understand. I know that in the past women were inferior to men, but school never really explains to us why this was. When I'm in class everyday, I don't have even the most minimal feeling of superiority to women because I know that they are just as smart as men. This is because I have seen that they can do everything I can do, and better. Reading these last four chapters really made me mad at how history has been. We always hear about things that are currently happening and have happened that are terrible and inhumane, but it seems like every other page of this book talks about a woman getting treated badly. I can't say that I don't like this book, because it teaches you a lot about the culture of previous generations, but it makes me sick to hear how cruel this worlds history has been.

Best Of All Possible Worlds?

Chapter 6 and 7 are ultimately more of the same thought that is give to us in the previous chapter. The message is that anything that happens was made for the best purpose. The one main event in the chapters that I noticed is Pangloss' death. This completely changes Candide's view of life. Before Pangloss' death, Candide lived with a very important life lesson in mind which was that he was living in the best of all possible worlds. Once Pangloss dies, his view on this completely changes. While before he used to live 'in the best of all possible worlds', he now couldn't understand how he was living the perfect life if his best friend and philosopher had just died. He starts questioning the validity of this belief when he says, "If this is the best of all possible worlds [. . .] what can the rest be like?” (37) I think that this is one of the most strong statements that Candide makes throughout the book because it shows a change of thought. Instead of living by the 'rule' that he had and thought, he now starts questioning if this is a choice correctly taken. What I take from this is that he doesn't understand that it is him who is suffering. It is completely different to hear about suffering than to actually experience it. I think that this is something that shocks him greatly, and that is why his attitude changes.

God Didn't Make The World We Live In Today

Last years Global Studies class really changed my outlook on life. I had never really realized how much human's have affected Earth. Before last year, I used to think that humans were the dominant specie on Earth but then I realized that we are only one type of animal, while there are many in this world. We then started learning about how much human's were destroying nature with technology, such as cutting down trees, and pollution itself. I then started to question myself how much better the world would be without humans. In chapter four, it says, "God did not give them twenty-four pounders or bayonets, yet they have made themselves bayonets and guns to destroy each other” (31)." This pretty much summed up everything that I had thought since last year about humans. After all, when humans were created, they didn't affect the eco-system, but as time progressed, technology made things worse and worse. Everyday, we are negatively affecting our nature more. When 'God' created humans, he created us perfectly. We by ourselves have been damaging the place we live in.

Take The Pain For The Good Of All

Many times in history class or just thinking about the world in which we currently live in, I ask myself why it is that so many people suffer. Why are some people brought up in rich families, and others dying of hunger? I never really understood this because it seems so unfair. Which parents you have shouldn't affect your ability to eat. I also ask myself if it's that there's only a certain amount of 'lucky people' and the rest are 'unlucky'. Another question that I ask myself is why have so many people suffered during history. While being in US History class, I just can't understand how the farm owners were able to consciously be fine with having slaves. Is it that some people have to suffer for others to have a good life? I then came across a line in chapter three that in a way backed up my hypothesis of 'suffering' and 'not suffering'. On page 27, it says, "when he told me that all is best for the world of ours." This line in a way explains how the 'unlucky' are made to think. The only way that a person who has suffered their whole lives can be okay with is it is they think that if they suffer, somebody else won't. Although I understand this, I think it's ridiculous. If I suffer, it doesn't mean that somebody else won't suffer tomorrow. I think that suffering is something that simply shouldn't be in this world, and everyone should have the same opportunities to do as they wish.

The Introduction

We are brought to the first chapter with a brief description of Candide. "You could read his character in his face. He combined sound judgement with unaffected simplicity." (19) After turning the page, we are introduced to Pangloss who was a "metaphysico-theologo-cosmolo-nigology"(20) The introduction to a person such as this showing what he is, is obviously trying to show the depth of the person. The author was trying to show Pangloss' intelligence by naming all of the things that he was. I had never seen this method, but I find this very effective because from the introduction of a character, you are already aware of what type of person he is. We are then confirmed of his intelligence on the next paragraph is says "'It is proved,' he used to say, 'that things cannot be other than they are, for since everything was made with a purpose, it follows that everything is made for the best purpose.'" When I read this, I disagreed strongly. Not everything in the world is made with the best purpose, and not everything is made with a purpose. There are many things that people do that have no purpose at all, such as doodling on a piece of paper during class. Then there are things that aren't made with the best purpose, such as bullying people. This is something that's still in my brain, but I can not come up to a precise conclusion.

Free Will

Dear Mr. Frost,

I completely disagree with you for several reasons. There is no free will. Your poem, "The Road Not Taken" talks about how there are always to roads that a person can take and it is up to the person to decide which one to take. What happens when people are forced to work? I don't think that a slave chooses to work for their entire life, but has to. I'm upset to see that people in our world think like you Mr. Robert Frost. "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I- I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference." (The Road Not Taken) Although I don't agree with you, there are some cases in which you have a choice. A person has a choice to do well or poorly in school, but these are only small cases. The majority of life is already decided for you by a superior being. I just thought you should know. I don't mean to disrespect your belief, but I thought that it was interesting that we disagreed on something as big as free will.

From,

Epictetus

Classism Bothers Me

If there's something that bugs me, it's people who are classist. I am a person who really makes an effort to treat everyone equally, without racism or classism. As Epictetus says, "I am richer than you; therefore I am superior to you..But rather these are valid: 'I am richer than you; therefore my property is superior to yours'" (26). I completely agree with him in this sentence because no human is superior to another because of their richness. I find it ridiculous to feel superior for being rich or not. Many people in this world don't have the opportunity that others do to gain money. For this reason, I find it ignorant to rate yourself for the amount of money you have. As Epictetus says, I do find it valid for someone to say that one object is superior to the other. If someone has a modern phone, the phone is far superior form a phone from ten years ago, and therefore I think it's acceptable to make that assumption. Another thing that upsets me about people's reactions is when they think that since you did something quickly, you must have done it badly. "Someone takes a bath quickly; do not say that he does it badly." (26) I agree with Epictetus because doing something quickly has nothing to do with doing it badly. A perfect example is when I am studying for a test, or simply doing homework. Sometimes it just doesn't take long to do something, but the question from my mom always has to come. Did you do it well? Yes, is always my answer, but she never believes me. I hate when this happens because if you think that something is well done and clear, then why spend more time on it. This is a dilemma that I come across everyday since I am a faster worker than many people.

Don't Be Embarassed

Something that really bothers me is people who are ashamed of who they are. There are some people who just can't let things as they are. Some people who see trash on the floor feel a need to pick it up and throw it away. Some people are fine with letting people show their true side, but others are ashamed. "When you do something that you determine is to be done, never try not to be seen doing it, even if most people are likely to think something bad about it. ...why do you fear those who will criticize yo wrongly?" (24) I agree with Epictetus because no one should be hiding who they really. Why do people change who they really are to try to fit in with other people? This is something that I don't fully understand, and wish was changed. Another interesting point that Epictetus talks about is people who assume a role which they simply cant fulfill. "If you undertake some role beyong your capacity, you both disgrace yourself by taking it and also by thereby neglect the role that you were unable to take." (24) I agree with him because sometimes people try to exceed their capabilities and take positions which they can not accomplish. If I know that I'm not good at acting, I'm not going to take the main role in play. Even though it seems logical to me, many people struggle with this easy concept.

Before, During, After

I sometimes regret the things I've done and said because I hadn't carefully analyzed what would happen in the aftermath. "For each action, consider what leads up to it and what follows it, and approach it in the light of that. Otherwise you will come to it enthusiastically at first, since you have not borne in mind any of what will happen next, but later when difficulties turn up you will give up disgracefully." (19) A perfect example of this is when last week our P.E. class had to run the mile. Before we started running, all I did was stretch a little, and then the mile began. At first, I did a fast run until I couldn't keep up the my rhythm anymore. After about half way, I got very tired and started to slow down until I almost had to walk at the end of it from how tired I was. This shows how I acted without thinking. I didn't analyze that I would have to be running for more time than I could handle at that speed, and therefore my end result was not what I wanted it to be. This happens many times in life and I regret each one. It almost seems as if I don't learn from my previous mistakes because I keep on making the same mistakes. The same thing sometimes happens to me with teachers. They say something I don't like, and my natural reaction is to say what I think, but this has led me to bad situations in the past.

There was one other thing that Epictetus said that interested me. Many times people don't care for things that don't happen. "For example, when someone else's little slave boy breaks his cup we are ready to say."It's one of those things that just happen." Certainly, then, when your own cup is broken you should be just the way you were when the other person's was broken." (18) This is something that I HATE about the world. The majority of the people that I know are very selfish and egocentric. Everyday we hear terrible stories about deaths and such, but only rarely does it actually affect us. Then, when something we hear everyday happens to us, we can't believe how unlucky we are. I think that this is really bad because in a sense people think that those things won't happen to them, while in reality, they happen to everyone. I also can't believe that we let hunger occur everyday, while we have more than plenty food. This should really be fixed.

I'm Stupid?

I agree with one part of these next ten sections because Epictetus talks about not being selfish. "You are foolish if you want your children and your wife and your friends to live forever, since you are wanting things to be up to you that are not up to you, and things to be yours that are not yours" (15) I agree with this idea because in my mind set, it's completely true. You can't not accept that your friends and family are going to die. Everyone dies, so you must accept it. Your friends and family are not your property, and since this is true, you can not control them. Since you can't control them, you can't not want them to get away from you, or die. "You are stupid in the same way if you want your slave boy to be faultless, since you are wanting badness not to be badness but something else." (15) This is the next sentence after the previous one, and I also agree with it. Everyone is born differently. Some parents think that there children have to be perfect, and not do anything wrong, but I beg to differ. Every single person has a different attitude; some that make trouble, and some that don't. Having a parent who hides or ignores the fact that you are of the ones that makes trouble is stupid. I don't think that people who are troublesome are not as good as people who don't, it's just another way of living your life and having a different person. I mean how boring would it be to live in a world where everything is perfect? I like troublesome people, and I want them to stay in this world.

We Shouldn't Care

I'm really not sure if I understood these first ten sections but what I understood is that the best thing that we can do is to not care about anything. The author is saying that what makes our lives miserable is when we start caring about different things, and expecting things that aren't up to us. "What upsets people is not things themselves but their judements about the things. For example, death is nothing dreadful, but instead the judgement about death that it is dreadful- that is what is dreadful" (6) What Epictetus is saying is that we also sometimes put many different ideas into one group. We often think of death as a terrible thing, but death itself is not that bad. If somebody instantly dies, for them, it wasn't that bad. When you start judging death, and having feelings and opinions about it, is when it becomes "bad". What this is basically trying to say it that things themselves aren't bad, but when put feeling into them, or expect something, that is when we are mad. "So detach your aversion from everything not up to us, and transfer it to what is against nature. (12) This is another example of him trying to show us that it is better to not have feelings. Epictetus is making us believe that the only hate we should have is towards the things that are against nature. For everything else, we should have no hate and no feeling. Epictetus also talks about not trying to look for something to happen. "Do not seek to have events happen as you want them to, but instead want them to happen as they do happen, and your life will go well." (13) This was strange because I thought of a positive attitude when I read this. Sometimes bad things happen to people, but we have faith and a positive attitude that make us believe that something better will happen. Although many times we don't get what we wanted, looking for a bright future is what keeps us working hard and trying to achieve our goals. I guess that if you have low expectations and don't really care of the future, then you'll never be upset when you don't get the best future. Although I understand where he is coming from, I don't really like that point of view because it's pretty much saying to not have hope for a better future. Although this had made me think about how I see the future, I believe that Epictetus hasn't changed my opinion just yet.

Birds As The Ending?

When I first read this, I couldn't understand. How could it be that a book ends with such a non-significant line? Why would Vonnegut not have a big ending? This is what I believed until I analyzed it. The war is over, and Billy's alone. A paragraph before the book is over, we read about birds chirping, but then, “one bird said to Billy Pilgrim, “Poo-too-weet?” (PDF File) What this is doing is leaving a question for both Billy and the reader. I interpreted this as if the bird was asking Billy a question. After all, the Poo-too-weet has a question mark at the end. I started asking myself what this question could mean, and came up to the conclusion that it could mean something like and what's next?, or what are you going to do now? This gave me a whole new thought about the last line. While at first I had just thought that it was a weird way to end the book, it actually has a lot of meaning behind it. I like this ending because it leaves the reader thinking and wondering what will happen next. Figuring this out in a way gave me more interest in the book, and made me want there to be another chapter.

Looking At The Positives

I many times am jealous of people who one can tell that are truly happy. I am a person who although is happy, sometimes gets mad. This is a dilemma that I've had in my entire life. How can I always be happy. As I was reading chapter nine, I came across something that almost made me laugh. “Later on in life, the Tralfamadorians would advise Billy to concentrate on the happy moments of his life, and to ignore the unhappy ones-to stare only at pretty things as eternity failed to go by.” (PDF File) I wish it were that easy. I wish that one could just forget about the unhappy times and just keep the lessons learned from them. Although I would love for a perfectly 'happy' life, it would be boring and redundant if life was always happy. I also think that in order to be happy, you must have had to be unhappy at another point. There can't be rich without the poor is another example. Overall, I really don't agree with the Tralfamadorians opinion. I mean, how boring would a 'perfect' life be without any problems at all?

Can This Be Real?

While reading this book, I often forget that the book is also a war book. What I mean is that when one thinks of a war movie or book, they tend to think of all the action in the war and the bloody battles. Valkyrie was the first movie that I saw about a war, that wasn't really about the action in the war. It's a movie about a plan made to attempt to kill Hitler. This book also reminded me of that because it's not only about the battles. One part of the chapter that called my attention was "...use of burning jellied gasoline on human beings. It was dropped on them from airplanes. Robots did the dropping. They had no conscience, and no circuits which would allow them to imagine what was happening to the people on the ground." (PDF File) This line really shocked me. It made me stop reading for a minute, and analyze what I had just read. How can humans treat each other like they do. This is a question that I really think about a lot. I can never understand how events such as the Holocaust happened. Although I would love to have the answer, I know that it's impossible to know. Is it for power and land, or to exterminate another race? Or is it both? How can they go to sleep knowing they're killing thousands a day? I guess one day it'll all make sense.

How Sweet Is Revenge?

The part of chapter six that most shocked me was when Lazzaro tells his story about his dog. It really shocked me, and was one of the parts of the book that a couple of pages kept me completely hooked on. Lazzaro begins to talk about the revenge he took on his dog after it bit him. "When he was gone, Lazzaro promised Billy and poor old Edgar Derby that he was going to have revenge, and that revenge was sweet." (PDF File) This is when Lazzaro tells the story to Billy and Edgar and tells them that he was going to have revenge. Lazzaro later beings to talk about revenge, and his opinion about it. "It's the sweetest thing there is". (PDF File) In a way, I related to Lazzaro because I have many times have felt the urge to take revenge on people, but my self-conscience keeps stops me from acting. As the cliché goes, people want to give others a taste of their own medicine. This what my favorite part of the chapter because this is not a book in which while reading can relate to. When I read this part, it reminded me of my past experiences, and made me like this book more because it gave me a sense of Vonnegut trying to connect with the reader.

Wordiness

I was looking through Ilan's blog because he always has some interesting things to say in his blogs. As I was doing so, I saw that for the fifth chapter, he took a sentence from the book that he felt was wordy. I totally agree with him and decided that it was appropriate to write a blog about it. "And that it would probably be the first time in the lives of most people there that they had ever been in darkness that was total." (Slaughterhouse-Five PDF File)

My version: It was probably the first time that most people saw total darkness.

I don't even know if my version is correct, but I really think that for such a simple statement, the sentence is too complex and confusing. After the writer's workshop class that we had on wordiness, I've been constantly looking for sentence that were to wordy. I had never really thought of it as such a bad thing, but now I am starting to understand how much it affects one's writing. A wordy paragraph is not as easy to understand as if it is neat and easy to understand. I've also noticed that it doesn't mean that every long sentence is wordy, there are some sentences who have a lot of information, but is written in a clear way.

So It Goes?

At the beginning of the book, I thought that the "So it goes" was something that was always said after somebody died. I came across this line many times throughout the previous chapters, and had always thought of a way of remembering the person that died. This is what I believed until I read a weird line. That is when I first realized that I was reading the book completely wrong. Many parts of the book are ironic, but I had been reading it as if it were a history book. I felt silly, and then started to look for parts that were not supposed to be serious. "So Billy uncorked it with his thumbs. It didn't make a pop. The champagne was dead. So It goes." (Slaughterhouse-Five, PDF File) I was shocked to read this because I couldn't believe how wrong I had been reading this. Vonnegut in a way is making fun of himself when he says "So it goes". The champagne is not a person, but since he has said that line so many times, he laughs at himself by acting as if the champagne was a person because it didn't pop. To be sincere, now when I read "So it goes" I just look at it and laugh. How could I have taken such a book so seriously?

No Need For Negative Attitude

After reading chapter 3, I was deciding on what topic I could choose my blog. I was looking through the book to see what lines I could use. I then came upon a quotation which caught my eye. This part of the chapter really interested me because of the hobo's attitude.“I’ve been hungrier than this, the hobo told Billy. I been in worse places than this. This ain’t so bad.” (Slaughterhouse-Five, PDF File) The hobo told Billy this right before he died. This attitude really shocked me because it made me start thinking about how negative I sometimes am. I many times get in a bad mood because I have a lot of homework, or because I have a test, or because I have to study, and many more. When I read this part of the chapter, it made me feel silly. How can I be complaining about things that are not a big deal, while a hobo who is about to die because of hunger still has a positive attitude? It really made me feel guilty about the attitude that I live my life with. Instead of being grateful about all of the things that I have in my life, I tend to look at the negative parts. I've began to think about how greedy we really are. The majority of the world struggles to pay for food and shelter, but they still have a positive attitude about their lives. Then comes me, who complains about absolutely everything, when there is absolutely no need to. I feel guilty.

I Hate Ignorant People!

I can’t stand ignorance! Although I consider myself an ignorant person in some topics, I try hard everyday to learn more about the world. Everyone in this world is ignorant about some topics, so it wouldn’t be correct to say that I hate it. What I do hate is people who stopped caring for learning. If people try to learn more about different topics and at least have a general idea about everything, I think the world would really benefit from it.

It bothers me to see people who are complete experts on one subject, but don’t know about anything else. I understand that people have preferences and would like to learn about what they are interested in only, but I feel like knowing a little about everything really opens your mind to many new things. Related with ignorance, I don’t understand why people are so nervous of change. Some people are scared to move to a different country, or to live in a place where they’re not used to.

Overall, I would love for the world to not have ignorance. I feel that it is something that has to be taught in school. We I acknowledge that school is made to fight it, but school doesn’t cover everything. I also feel that at times, school goes too into depth in some topics, and doesn’t even discuss others.

Ignorance is something that I would like to abolish. Although this is an unrealistic wish, I feel that it would make the world a lot better. I believe that everyone should have a basic understanding of the majority of topics, and then a deeper understanding of certain subjects in which one is interested in.

Although this bothers me, what most frustrates me is when people really believe that they know something, while in reality are being completely wrong. Many people are taught to believe that they are always right, even though they are incorrect.