Food Inc.

Watching the documentary Food, Inc enlightened me on the actual origins of the foods I eat. Although I had watched this documentary once before, the information shown was still shocking. Unfortunately, after watching the documentary, I still continued eating the same way I did pre-exposed. The documentary is impactful, but only in the moment of which you are viewing it. In that moment, watching the poor, battered and abused animals, it can make most viewers adamantly decide to go vegetarian. However, life carries on as usual and that moment becomes a mere memory. Unless the individual personally experiences the evils of fast food corporations, it is not so easy to relate. Even though I know that my food is predisposed to being from a factory farm, and the meat I eat is probably injected with steroids and other mystery chemicals, I still eat it anyway. But then again, I usually don’t think about these things when I eat. If I did, I don’t think I can get pass my feelings of nausea, as that is how parts of the documentary made me feel. [Incidentally, I was eating an apple while watching the documentary and as the documentary progressed, I suddenly lost my appetite even though there was nothing wrong with my apple.] Not only is it hard to relate, there are not that many alternatives. The documentary even shows that non-meat products such as corn and beans have also been industrialized. Can you trust any food you eat?

            The food issue that stood out the most to me was the fact that they were feeding cows corn. It is obvious cows are not meant to eat corn, as their stomach are not made to digest corn, but rather, grass. On top of being fed an unhealthy diet, the cows are standing around for the most of the day in their own manure. This can lead to bacteria entering the body and infecting the cow with E.Coli. This disease will then transfer to the food we eat. This is precisely what happened to two year old Kevin. He had eaten a hamburger and died from E. Coli. E. Coli is a fatal disease and unless corporations take care of their animals, they will be the cause of many future deaths.

            Overall, I enjoyed the film and I am very grateful to have been exposed to it. Not many people truly understand that their food does not actually come from a small farmer Joe type of environment, but that it is in fact from large industrialized farming systems. However, I am not content about one aspect of the film, which in truth, is not really the film’s fault. I disliked that big corporations refused to speak up and be interviewed for the film. Then again, I understand they may not want to talk to the people who are bashing them. Yet, by refusing to give any comments, they are only making themselves seem worse. They are not just animal abusers or people deceivers, they are also cowards.

            The agricultural corporation, Monsanto, even put up a response to Food Inc. on their website [http://www.monsanto.com/food-inc/Pages/default.aspx], yet they could not have simply done an interview for the film?

            “Eat well. Indulge moderately. Exercise.” It is important that people remember food is not their enemy; food is an essential part of life. To live is to eat. Of course, it is never good to overeat, but it is also dangerous to under-eat. That is why it is vital to eat just enough that the individual is full, but not overstuffed. Also, being selective about what you put into your body is imperative. It is best to have a varied diet, full of proteins, greens, and fruits. Indulging in sweets and salts every now and then brings thrill to life. How boring would it be if you ate bland food every day? As corny and cliché as it may sound, you really do live just once, so why waste this time by restricting yourself to unsavory food? Of course, just as I stated before, these indulgences must be taken in moderation. Stuffing your face with Twinkies is never good for you, or the Twinkie. But having one Twinkie once in a while is not bad. I personally have a sweet tooth and by allowing myself to indulge in this decadent, I feel more motivated the rest of the time to eat well. Finally, exercise is key. No matter how little you eat or how thin you appear, at the end of the day, if you don’t exercise, you are not physically healthy. Exercise helps prevent several health problems, and can improve muscle strength and endurance. Additionally, exercise can help you control your weight. There are many various ways people can exercise; they can play sports, workout at the gym, or just go grocery shopping and complete household chores. Remember, food is your friend. 

Super Size Me

In “What We Eat”, Eric Schlosser argues that fast food has accumulated a strong grip on American society and it is crucial for consumers to understand the truth behind fast food corporations. Fast food is the fastest growing corporation in America and it has led to many changes in American society from the way animals are raised to mainstream culture.

            Schlosser combines methods to support his argument. He uses description when he describes walking into a fast food restaurant. Schlosser describes, “Pull open the glass door, feel the rush of cool air…study the backlit color photographs above the counter…and moments later take hold of a plastic tray full of food wrapped in colored paper” (667-668). He describes the type of door being walked through, the feeling of the air upon entry, the collage of pictures seen while waiting on line and the colorful packaging of your order. All these descriptions adhere to the senses and readers can easily picture this scene in their head.

            Schlosser makes use of process analysis. An example for this is when he writes of how fast food came to be. Schlosser states, “America’s fast food industry…was founded by iconoclasts and self-made men, by entrepreneurs willing to defy conventional opinion. Few of the people who built fast food empires ever attended college” (670). It is ironic how much of a social norm fast food has become, yet it was created by rebels who were trying to defy norms. Most people who started these fast food giants did not even graduate college, or attend at all. These founders began this business in order to go against societal norms, yet their enterprises have now become widely accepted norms.

            Schlosser uses definition in his essay. For example, Schlosser explains, “The key to a successful franchise…expressed in one word: ‘uniformity.’ Franchises and chain stores strive to offer exactly the same product or service at numerous locations…we will make conformists out of them” (670). Schlosser states that in order to create a successful business, there must be uniformity. He then goes on to define what uniformity means in this context. According to Schlosser, uniformity is a sort of conformity, where everything is made the same for everyone.

            Schlosser utilizes comparisons in his essay. In one use of this method, Schlosser notes, “In 1968, McDonald’s operated about one thousand restaurant. Today it has about thirty thousand restaurants worldwide…The Golden Arches are now more widely recognized than the Christian cross” (668-669). He compares the number of McDonald restaurants back in 1968 and the amount in modern times. It is evident that the number of McDonald restaurants has risen tremendously since the mid 1900s. He also compares the familiarity of McDonald’s Golden Arches to the holy cross. The holy cross being the symbol of Catholic Church that has been around for much longer than McDonalds, yet the symbol for McDonalds is more well-known than the symbol of Catholicism.

             As evident, Schlosser makes use of many different methods in his essay and by doing so, he was able to tackle different parts of his argument in effective ways. Also, using different methods prevents the essay from being monotonous and engages readers more.

            Schlosser write well but his organization can be improved upon. I felt his essay was very all over the place. He would suddenly move from talking about the increase of women entering the job force to the widespread growth of fast food restaurants, which to me, did not logically flow. Also, Schlosser touched the surface of an important topic on chemical factories, but did not in-depth on it. Schlosser writes, “Much of the taste and aroma of American fast food, for example, is now manufactured at a series of large chemicals plants off the New Jersey Turnpike” (671). He is making a serious claim that fast food industries are not growing their food naturally, and that the food is actually being grown in chemical plants. He merely states this without explaining it or supporting his claim. Other than this, his essay was well written and interesting to read.

            I agree with his argument. The fast food industry has definitely made a huge leap in society. From the first McDonalds built to having a McDonalds at every street corner is definitely shocking. It is important for people to realize the consequences caused by fast food industries such as spread of obesity. However, I would have liked it if Schlosser had said more about those chemical plants he spoke about and even go further than that by explaining to readers what factory farms are. Factory farms are part of agribusiness and it is used to raise large numbers of livestock. Factory farms are typically in horrible conditions, the livestock is given steroids in order to grow big and meaty for mass consumption. Without realizing it, we, humans, are ingesting the steroids that were used on the livestock. This is harmful to the human body and who knows what others chemicals were used? Factory farming does not only harm the human who consumes the mystery product, it also harms the livestock. Since the livestock was given steroids, sometimes, the livestock grows too big for it to be able to support its own weight. When this does happen, the livestock will fall and die (due to inability to reach for water). 

42

            Comparing and contrasting help us discover subtle and/or hidden differences and similarities between two subjects. Comparisons also help us create analogies of seemingly unrelated subjects. For example, Mary Roach compares being dead to being on a cruise ship since in both instances, the individual is lying on his back in endless relaxation. Had it not been for this analogy, the similarity between death and being on a cruise would not have been noticed. Furthermore, we can learn about a subject that we are not familiar with by comparing it to something that is familiar to us.

            In “The Meaning of Life”, Roger Cohen compares two rhesus monkeys with different lifestyles. There is Canto, who is on a restricted diet, and Owen, who is allowed to eat whatever he pleases. Both monkeys are part of an experiment about the causes of aging conducted by a team from the University of Wisconsin. Cohen reports, “While just 13 percent of the dieting group has died in ways judged due to old age, 37 percent of the feasting monkeys are already dead” (291). As shown by the experiment, monkeys on a restricted diet lived longer than those who ate freely. Cohen and other scientists challenge this finding since it should not the quantity of life that matters, but the quality of life. Owen may die sooner than Canto, but unlike Canto, who is not really living at all, Owen will die happily, knowing that he has lived his life to the fullest. Cohen goes on to compare the demeanor of both Canto and Owen, “Canto looks drawn, weary, ashen, and miserable…Owen, by contrast, is a happy camper with a wry smile” (292). Just by looking at Canto, one can easily tell that he is not happy and would much rather be taken out of his misery. On the other hand, Owen has obtained the chief good in life, happiness.

            Cohen focuses more on differences between the two monkeys. Cohen goes into descriptive detail when mentioning the physical differences between the two monkeys. He also emphasizes the difference in quantity and quality of life between Canto and Owen.

            Cohen argues it does not matter how long you live to if you are miserable the whole time. The allure of life is the fragility of it; no one knows when his or her time is up and it is important to live everyday to the fullest (293).

            I agree with Cohen. It is important for people to find happiness in life, whether they obtain it from their job or the food they eat. It is especially upsetting to see people work at jobs that they absolutely loathe. Those jobs may be reliable sources of income, but if the person gets no satisfaction out of the job, does the money even matter? It may be a risk chasing after your dreams, but as Hershel Greene puts it, “You step outside, you risk your life. You take a drink of water, you risk your life…The only thing you can choose is what you’re risking it for.” Life is all about taking chances and if you don’t take a chance, life will pass you by and before you know it, you will die and the real issue will be whether you lived at all. 

Liar Liar Pants on Fire

            Stephanie Ericsson classifies the different types of lies that are commonly used by people in her essay “The Ways We Lie.” I agree with her classifications and I am especially glad she included the lie of omission. People might not always believe they are lying when leaving out information since they are not directly voicing the lie, but it is indeed a method of lying and I am pleased that Ericsson takes this into consideration. Ericsson only misses one important type of lie. It is the lie told by those in power, typically the governing party of a nation. This is called the “big lie” and an example of this would be the United States government falsely claiming that another nation is acquiring chemical weapons. This is obviously a very big and serious lie, unlike the small lies told by people daily. People are more readily able to believe these lies as they cannot imagine anyone with the impudence to lie about such a severe issue (Wiki – Big Lie).

            Ericsson’s purpose for writing this piece is to force people to face the music and accept the fact that many of us lie in our day-to-day lives. No matter how small or big the lie is, we all do it. It is hard to be truthful as sometimes we do not want to hurt other’s feelings, or we are afraid of the consequences of honesty (such as when the bank charged Ericsson $60 overdraft fee). And since lying is so common, Ericsson warns us about the consequences of certain types of lie. For example, the consequence of dismissal can lead to schizophrenia since the person is living in a distorted reality (342). Ericsson’s purpose is also to teach people about the different types of lie they tell and the different effects of each.

            I enjoyed Ericsson’s piece until the very end. I dislike how she concluded the essay. “Maybe if I don’t tell the bank the check’s in the mail I’ll be less tolerant of the lies told me every day” (343). I cannot tell if Ericsson is joking or not, but she claims that by changing one lie to the truth will lower her tolerance for liars. Her claim does not make sense; how can her action of telling one measly truth distort her perception on the value of honesty? Also, she is being unfair. Just because she wants to start living a more honest lifestyle, she will judge those who don’t? How can she say that when she used to be one of them? If she was kidding, it was not a successful joke.

Connors' Skunk Dilemma

             Robert Connors titles his essay “How in the World Do You Get a Skunk Out of a Bottle?” since it gives readers a snippet of the process that is being analyzed in the essay. However, Connors questions this because he did not know how to properly handle the situation he is in – having to get a glass jar off the head of a skunk. Also, given that this is such a rare occurrence, he is just completely baffled by it.

            This odd situation Connors is in does not frequently happen to others, and even then, it only occurs once in a blue moon. Although the situation is such a rarity, the point of the process analysis is more relatable. The purpose of this essay is to inspire others to rescue animals in need of aid. No matter how dangerous the animal may seem to be, such as the skunk in Connors’ case, it is crucial for people to understand their moral duty to save the helpless animal. Without the people’s help, the animal will suffer and eventually, perish.

            Connors is trying to convey the concept of helping out the wildlife in his essay. One way to achieve this is by performing miracle acts similar to Connor’s act of [literally] prying the glass jar off the head of the skunk. The second way is more practical since everyone can get involved and it does not require you to actually be in a hazardous situation. It is achieved by refraining from littering, especially cans and jars, since these items can be “traps for unsuspecting animals (258).” It is important that everyone throws away his trash in either a recycling bin or a regular garbage bin. There is no excuse to recklessly discard trash as it endangers animals.  

Subliminal Messages

This is an ad for Axe body spray for men. The ad displays a guy who is made entirely of chocolate and has a fixated look and creepy smile whilst holding Axe. The caption states that, “Axe Dark Temptation, as irresistible as chocolate.” Axe compares their product to chocolate, which is a well-enjoyed commodity amongst the general public. By doing so, the company is essentially claiming that their product is just as well received by consumers.

By having a strange looking man covered in chocolate promote their product, people will view this ad as being humorous and because the ad was enjoyable, people will want to buy the body spray. The ad also appeals to consumers' desires; Axe claims that their body spray is just 'as irresistible as chocolate' and considering that girls typically love chocolate, boys who use the body spray will become irresistible to girls. Boys will have flocks of girls chasing them and this is more or less every boy's dreams.

Many ads besides this one deceive people and manipulate their perception of the product by appealing to emotions and desires. The quality of the product is rarely put into consideration, it is rather up to the companies to persuade buyers into believing the product will be beneficial to them. Even though the product is not any better than other similar products or the product may not even be necessary, people still feel compelled to buy these items due to the tiny subliminal messages hidden within advertisements.

Advertisements classically condition us to relate their product to something irrelevant. Coined by Russian psychologist, Ivan Pavlov, classical conditioning is a process of learning in which a neutral stimulus acquires the ability to produce a response that was originally produced by a different stimulus. The neutral stimulus is some stimulus that causes a sensory response but does not produce the reflex being tested. In this case, the neutral stimulus is the Axe body spray, it causes a sensory response to the olfaction. The unconditioned stimulus is some stimulus that triggers or elicits a physiological reflex: chocolate. The unconditioned response is an unlearned, innate, involuntary physiological reflex that is elicited by the unconditioned stimulus: hunger. Finally, the conditioned stimulus is the formerly neutral stimulus which has acquired the ability to elicit the conditioned response: Axe [Dark Temptation] and hunger, respectively. Due to this classical conditioning, it is made to believe that if girls smell the Axe body spray, they will associate it with chocolate and since chocolate is so irresistible, the boy using the spray will become irresistible as well and girls will hunger, or desire, for the boy. The boy would want this outcome and therefore, buys the product.

Ads are all around us and unknowingly, we fall for them not because the product is great, but because of its underlying messages.

Depression Hurts

Stein theorizes in her essay "Depression in College Students" that in order to prevent suicide, college students should be better informed about what depression is, the symptoms of depression and learn about the available resources to anyone who is depressed or knows someone that is. Stein also advocates for more funding towards counseling as there is often not enough counselors for the overwhelming amount of students. She supports this thesis by utilizing statistics such as, “A study by the American College Health Association in 2005 showed that 15 percent of college students around the country have been professionally diagnosed with depression, up from 10 percent in 200.” It is clear that the rate of depression in college students has increased and Stein provides a solution to this up-rise: to educate people about what depression really is. There is a strong correlation between college and suicide rate and this cannot be ignored any longer.

Stein supports her claim that counseling departments are not being funded enough by using expert opinion. “According to Hill, one of the biggest challenges CAPs faces is a lack of funding, leading to fewer counselors than are really needed to serve the number of students coming in.” Depression is becoming dreadfully common among college students yet when they attempt to seek out help, there is none available. Counselors are filled to the brim with appointments and students are not able to schedule an appointment. The student dealing with depression is already feeling insignificant and this inability to get help will only deteriorate their feelings of self-worth.

I agree with her solution to the issue of depression in college students. Students must be better educated about depression and how to detect this alarming mood disorder. Besides being educated about the disorder itself, students must also be encouraged to seek out help if they are struggling with depression and they should not feel embarrassed or ashamed. I also agree with Stein’s call for more funding to counseling services. It is vital that there are enough counselors for students to talk to or else the student will believe that there is no one to help them or worse, no one to care about them.

No I would not do anything different had I wrote an essay on this problem. Her essay was well written, well-organized and she was able to provide a feasible solution. She made good use of her sources to support her thesis. I like how Stein concluded her essay by reminding us that it is also up to the student to watch out for each other and be supportive of each other.

Gerald Graff

In "Hidden Intellectualism", Gerald Graff argues that being street smart is just as important as being academically smart, if not, more. Graff states, “I believe that street smarts beat out book smarts in our culture not because they satisfy an intellectual thirst more thoroughly than school culture, which seems pale and unreal.” Being street smart gives individuals infinite amount of opportunities to learn anything that sparks interest to them and the information they learn have practical applications in life. On the other hand, the information students learn in school is limited to the curriculum given by the school or teacher. The syllabus is stated clearly and strictly with no room for adjustments. If students are uninterested in what is on the syllabus, they will have little motivation to work hard. Also, what is taught in school typically does not have practical applications in the real world.

           

            Graff uses personal experience to support his claim. He writes how reading and arguing about sports, which is something he is interested in, taught him to create solid arguments that is backed with evidence and support. By using his personal experience to support the thesis, he becomes a somewhat credible author. It is true that if people argue with others more often, they will naturally become better at arguing. This goes with any skills; the more you practice, the better you get. However, I doubt that reading sports magazine provided Graff with knowledge of creating concrete arguments.

Graff also advocates for teachers to allow students to write academic reports on magazines but he does not take in consideration the fact that magazines are simply written for entertainment; there are no intellectual values to them. Of course magazines can teach readers how to become more fit or stylish or even wealthy but they do not provide readers with deeper knowledge. Knowledge that can be found in books such as teaching readers to think for themselves or to search for their meanings in life are not found in magazines. Also, the stories in books have many interpretations to them and every reader can come up with their own meaning whereas magazine articles are straight-forward and concise and do not give room for interpretation.

I do agree with Graff’s point that students should be allowed to read stuff that they are fascinated by. However, that does not mean they should do academic reports on magazines and stop reading books altogether. Students should still read books but be given permission to select books from a genre they enjoy or a book that completely captivates them. 

Orenstein and Pinker

            In Peggy Orenstein’s essay "I Tweet, Therefore I am", she theorizes that social media causes individuals to lose their identity. People are becoming more invested in their social profile and they are able to manipulate the way others perceive them by carefully selecting the photos and statuses they share with others. This nitpicking process turn the person into her ideal self but in the end, she is just deceiving herself and the people around her. This obsession with hiding behind a façade of perfection leads people to being unable to gain a conception of who they really are. Orenstein was able to use the rhetoric of ethos, or credibility. Orenstein can be trusted because she explains her own personal experience with social media. She also referenced the sociologist Erving Goffman who argued that in every aspect of our life, we are all just actors in a play. I do agree with Orenstein to an extent; social media makes it easier for people to be ‘fake’ as people are basically hiding behind their computer screen and not thinking of the consequences to their actions. However, even before social media, we have always been actors in our everyday interactions. It is difficult to achieve self-awareness and many people go through life wondering who they really are.

            In "Mind Over Mass Media", Steven Pinker argues that technology is not making society dumber but rather, it is the only thing keeping society smart. Pinker believes that technology provides people with quick and accessible information with the touch of a finger. Books are no longer perceived as necessary since technology is much more convenient and not as heavy.

Pinker attempts to use logic in his essay but ultimately, fails. For example, Pinker writes, “These days scientists are never far from their e-mail, rarely touch paper and cannot lecture without PowerPoint…discoveries are multiplying like fruit flies…philosophy, history, and cultural criticism, are likewise flourishing.” Pinker mentions that scientists are relying on technology more but it seems as though the reason scientists use technology is for conveniency. E-mail makes it convenient for scientist to stay in contact with other scientists and PowerPoints makes it convenient for scientists to convey their ideas but none of the applications used are actually making the scientist ‘smarter’ or influencing the rate of discoveries. There may a positive correlation between scientists using technology more and the number of discoveries but correlation does not mean causation. Technology is simply making communication easier and allowing scientists to share their ideas amongst each other at a more advantageous pace. Pinker then states ‘examples’ of how technology is making society smarter yet his examples are so broad and generalized, it hard to agree with his argument. He only states that technology is making people smart but does not go in-depth with specific examples of how. He does not give readers specific cases in which technology has helped science, philosophy, history ‘flourish’.

            I do not agree with Pinker’s thesis. I do not believe that technology is the only thing keeping us smart. Technology is not making us dumber or smarter, it is just making information more accessible to us and it is whether or not we use the information to become smarter or misuse it and become dumber. But, that is on the individual and is the individual’s responsibility, not technology’s. Also, before technology, people were able to obtain knowledge from books and modern society still has the opportunity to do so. One part of Pinker’s thesis that I do agree with is that the individual should develop self-control strategies to not let technology dominate their lives.  

The Food Dilemma

David Zinczenko is having lunch at the Hunter cafeteria preparing to give a presentation to the student body. Radley Balko is sitting a table by himself. Zinczenko approaches Balko and asks if he can sit down.

Z: Excuse me, is the seat next to you free?

B: Yes. Please help yourself.

Z: Thank you! Can you believe how crowded this place is?

B: Trust me, it was worse before. I can’t wait for my presentation later this afternoon. I heard that I’m going to be speaking against some loser who thinks that the government is making us fat. Ha! Can you believe that? I bet he’s just some obese and lazy sloth who just wants to freeload off the rest of us hardworking citizens.

Z: Well. Why do you feel that way? Maybe, the ‘loser’ has some point in his argument? How can people choose to eat better when they don’t have options in the first place? I remember growing up, my mother was a divorcee and she worked long-hours just so we could pay the monthly bills. My mom couldn’t afford to feed me healthy food, as it is more expensive. McDonalds, on the other hand, was convenient and inexpensive.

B: You always a choice. What you put in your mouth is your decision. The government does not force fatty food down your throat, you do. Why should the rest of us have to help those people who have no self control over their diet when we need the money ourselves? It’s not fair for people who actually try to eat and maintain a healthy lifestyle to have to pay for the harebrained decisions of others!

Z: How can I have a choice if I can’t afford any other food? Should I just starve myself then since I can’t eat fast food, which just so happens to be my only option? Yes, it may not seem fair that society is becoming more socialistic but it’s not always about you. If you actually have a choice to eat healthy, that would mean that you can afford healthy food and if you can do that, can’t you spare a few extra dollars a month to help those who can’t? Have you ever realized that these people are not as fortunate as you are and don't actually have the ability to choose healthy food over fast food? It is the government's fault for not being able to provide healthy alternatives for struggling families. Also, you do realize that the ‘healthy’ food that is available is also filled with chemicals and is barely a step up from fast food. Well, I’ve got to be going now. I look forward to continuing our conversation this afternoon. By the way, do you even lift?

Zinczenko leaves a speechless Balko sitting in the packed student cafeteria.

Thesis: What an individual eats is definitely their decision and they should take responsibility for what they put in their mouths. However, the individual who enjoys eating fast food cannot be held entirely in blame since the fast-food corporations created this addictive and fatty food with the desire of captivating people with their chemicals. Also, some people don’t necessarily have the resources to go out and buy ‘healthy’ alternatives since organic foods are more expensive and harder to obtain. The government should intervene by providing actual healthy alternatives that is within budget and to stop the use of pesticides and hormones, which people then ingest into their bodies. Both authors make valid arguments however, exercise should also be put in consideration. Those who can only afford fast food can hit the gym and still maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Vacancy - Extra Credit Dialogue

As I was on the train, heading home from a tiresome day at school, I overheard a small exchange between two people. This short conversation would have been inconsequential to others nearby but it inspired me. 

"Excuse me, is this seat taken?", asked a tall, slim middle-aged man wearing a blue sweatshirt that seemed a size too big.
"Yes, it's taken," replies the young woman wearing a similarly over-sized sweatshirt, but in black. 

To others on the train, this conservation would have been a normal occurrence; a person simply looking for a seat. However, it was not the question that intrigued me, it was the answer. The man got off the train after a few stops and soon after, the woman got off as well. During the train ride to destinations, no one sat down next to the woman; the seat was left vacant the whole time until she arrived at her destination. I started reflecting on the conversation and behavior I had just witnessed on a grander scale. 

The conversation reminded me of how protected everyone is. We are afraid to let people in; in fear that they will only do harm to us and cause us pain. The woman was not only afraid to let the man sit next to her, but to have someone so close to her. We stay enclosed, not allowing others to see our vulnerability. 

This dialogue taught me that the best kinds of kind of dialogues can be simple. They can be short, simple and direct. The dialogue must in the way provide readers with information not otherwise stated. However, a dialogue should also have an underlying message and readers should be given the ability to reflect upon the dialogue and interpret it their way. A good dialogue, as good description, should give readers part of the story but leave readers filling in the rest themselves. 

Shooting an Elephant - George Orwell

*Due Monday, September 23*

            After reading Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant, I thought about the idea of status and role. Orwell’s status in the little village in Burma was that of an imperial officer, and being of this status, Orwell was naturally associated with the British Empire, forcing the villagers to be belligerent towards him. Ascribed to his status as imperial officer, Orwell’s role was to enforce the rules and to maintain dominance and superiority over the villagers. When it was up to Orwell to shoot the elephant, it was his opportunity to demonstrate his status as superior. Orwell’s decision was well made; even though, he had to shoot an overall harmless animal and possibly worsen the financial situation of the owner, if Orwell did not shoot the animal, the villagers would have viewed Orwell and his fellow officers as weak and see through their façade. Villagers will realize the officers are not actually superior and this may spark rebellion. By shooting the elephant, Orwell was able to maintain his status and role as an imperial officer.

            Orwell’s narrative made use of many forms of figurative language, such as similes and metaphors and he also incorporated descriptive words relating to the five senses. Orwell uses a simile when describing the condition of the Indian’s back: “The friction of the great beast’s foot had stripped the skin from his back as neatly as one skins a rabbit.” Not only does Orwell incorporate a simile into this sentence by comparing the bare back of the man to that of a shaved rabbit, he also provides imagery and sensory words. Readers can picture the forcibly removed skin of the man’s back and can feel the pain the man must have felt prior to his death. Orwell continues to advance towards the elephant and spots the elephant eating grass. Orwell metaphorically compares the mood around the elephant to being grandmotherly: “I watched him beating his bunch of grass against his knees, with that preoccupied grandmotherly air that elephants have.” After the elephant’s rampage ended, the air or mood occupying the elephant becomes befitting of a grandmother; it is now calm, protective and harmless. After shooting the elephant, Orwell describes the flow of the elephant’s blood as, “The thick blood welled out of him like red velvet.” Orwell uses a simile to compare the elephant’s blood to red velvet, which is also descriptive. It portrays to the readers an image of the elephant’s fresh and velvety red blood flowing out of its body. Orwell utilizes metaphor, similes and description to fully share his experience with readers.

            Orwell places emphasis on the fact that he does not desire to shoot the animal but as previously stated, Orwell has a status and reputation to uphold. He currently has the reputation as a brutal, dominating, imperial officer and in order to uphold this reputation, he has no choice but to shoot the elephant. Not only did his status impact his decision, but the fact that there was a crowd of over two thousand Burmese villagers surrounding him, all wanting him to shoot the elephant made it difficult for him to escape crowd pressure.

            Imperialism is the act of dominating another country’s affair and economy through diplomacy or military force. Orwell makes it clear that he dislikes imperialism and the features of imperialism by stating, “I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing.” Orwell uses the anecdote of shooting an elephant to demonstrate his view on imperialism. Orwell is adamantly against shooting the elephant but due to extenuating circumstances, he has no choice but to kill, or dominate, the animal. Orwell’s shooting the elephant shows his dominance over the animal as the animal’s life is in his hands similar to how British imperialist have dominance and control over the Burmese and their daily lives. Orwell’s internal unwillingness to shoot the animal reveals his disapproval of imperialism as he does not believe in the idea of domination. 

My Sanctuary - Descriptive

Entering this place is as though you have just stepped through the secret wardrobe. Once in, you are transported to a magical land of fluorescent lighting and fresh air immediately greets your body. As you venture through, you will notice the scattered gears of imagination at work. You will also notice the crackling sounds of pages turning, squeaking of chairs being pulled and pushed, and laughter of young children stomping up and down the stairs. Amidst all these noise and chaos, there is a certain silence. A silence of your own. 

Soon enough, you have gotten through the wild sea and picked a peaceful island of your own. As you clumsily pull out your chair, so you would not obliterate the silence of others haven, you realize that does not matter. For they are on their own enclaves are far away and no outside intrusion will dispel them.

You finally sit down on the hard, wooden seat, knowing that many before you have sat there as well as they float on to their own shelters. You gently snatch out that favorite book of yours that you have kept hidden in the secret compartment of your bag. You quickly turn to the page which your bookmark has saved for you, not wanting to waste any precious time. You look once more into those clear, fluorescent bulbs, letting the light shine on your face as you prepare yourself for your journey. You are now ready to dive into your book, your island, your sanctuary. 

This is my sanctuary. The place I can go to escape reality even, if it's just for an infinitesimal amount of time out of my hectic day. This is my library. 

Back to the Lake (Chapter 4) Writing Prompt

*Due Monday, September 16*
Option 1

A good narrative entails a purpose, or the reason why the narrative was written. Through the purpose of a narrative, readers are able to gain insight into the author’s mind and it also allows the author to reflect upon his own experiences and understand himself better. Along with having a purpose, a good narrative should also have a plot, chronology, and a consistent point of view. Good narratives should make use of sensory words in order to engage the readers and make the story come alive.

After reading Jeff Gremmels’ narrative "The Clinic", I felt inspired as I am fascinated by the human psyche. It was interesting to see the way Gremmels handled the patient, a young boy. He chose the easy route of looking for a physiological explanation to the boy's unexplainable symptoms, ignoring the option of venturing into the human psyche. If the patient's ailment had been physiological, Gremmels could have just prescribed medication for the him. However, since the truth about the parental abuse was revealed, it was clear that the remedy would have to involve more than mere pills and cough syrup. Although anti-depressants and therapy sessions exist for victims of mental abuse, they can never be fully treated, partly due to the high chance of relapse. I find it fascinating how much harder it is to treat a psychological disorder than a bodily disorder.

As a writer, I enjoyed Gremmels' use of metaphors and descriptive language. When Gremmels writes, "The knots refused to give," in a way he was speaking for himself and the boy. The boy was pained from self-mutilation and his step-father's abuse which manifested itself in the form of a stomach-ache. As the boy endures his stay in the doctor's office, his stomach-ache which can be described as a knot in his stomach remains. In the case of Gremmels, he is nervous and worried which causes the knot in his stomach since he is unable to diagnose the boy. I also like Gremmels inclusion of the boy's poem which shows the boy's true feelings that has been kept hidden from everyone.

"The Clinic" is both Gremmels and his patient’s story. It is Gremmels story as it changes his perspective in approaching cases. Gremmels learns that rather than immediately seeking an answer, it is better to fully understand the cause of the problem. The narrative begins with Gremmels’ inexperience as a second-year medical student but as the narrative ends, it shows Gremmels’ willingness to learn. It is also the patient’s story as it reveals to readers the fear and anxieties the boy must have felt while being abused by his stepfather. It also reveals the boy’s loneliness and hopelessness; the boy was unable to tell anyone of the abuse, including his own mother and felt as though there was nothing he could do about the abuse. The poem written by the boy further reveals his sense of hopelessness and shows how depressed and defeated the boy was.     

Gremmels purpose for writing this narrative was to demonstrate that no matter how much you learn from lectures and textbooks, those terms and definitions are not always practical in dealing with actual patients. Gremmels reveals his purpose in his last line, “Years of lectures, labs, and research could not match the education I received in five days with this single boy.” It does not matter how well a person performs on exams, it is the person’s approach to client’s cases that matter. The person must also be open to learning from their patients and learning from their mistakes.

Gremmels chose medical detective as the genre for his story since being a doctor is similar to being a detective. The doctor, like the detective, has a case to solve and to solve the case, they must gather clues ranging from visible clues such as the U-umlaut bruises on the boy’s body or verbal clues such as the information provided by the boy’s mother. The doctor and detective then compiled the clues they have obtained and examine them and thought difficulty, are able to come up with a solution. Since this is in the case of a doctor, it would be make sense to place the story in a medical detective genre.