Journal Due 5/26/14

Critique your novel of choice. Did you like it? Is it well-written? Did you connect with a particular character or plot line?

I am really glad I read The Golfinch by Donna Pratt. The figurative language made it so that I could picture everything that was said, even though I've only been to New York a few times and have never been to Las Vegas. I think that the author did a great job of developing the characters. For example, in the beginning of the book, the reader only knows what Theo's dad is like from Theo's flashbacks and descriptions of him. Later on in the book, when he goes to live with his dad, the reader slowly learns more about his dad so that he seems like a realistic person. The one thing that I really did not like was the spelling and grammar in the book. There were several occasions where words were misspelled or there were run on sentences. Donna Pratt is a Pulitzer Prize winning author and I was surprised and disappointed in the fact that her book hadn't been copy edited well.

Journal due 5/12/14

Write a character sketch of the main character(s) in your novel - the primary protagonist and antagonist. You should include information such as age, gender, appearance, primary goals, personality traits, and backstory.

Theodore, or Theo as everyone calls him, Decker is a fifteen-year-old boy who lived with his mother in New York City. He gives the impression of being a good kid, but the book starts out with him and his mother going to meet with his school because he was suspended. He's a very smart kid, but he doesn't do his work, so he has average grades. When the book starts out, he doesn't really have an appreciation for art, but he has a great eye for detail once he starts working in an antique store in downtown NYC. He is bitter because he feels that his mother's death was his fault, despite other people telling him that it wasn't his fault. He has good intentions, but oftentimes, like when he took a painting from the museum because it was a dying man's last request, he doesn't make the best decisions. He's fairly trusting of people, which is interesting because a lot of the time people pull away from society when they lose a loved one like he did. I think it will be interesting to see how his willingness to trust people he just met continues as he grows into adulthood.  

Journal due 5-5-14

This ad is made by Maybelline. I would definitely say that the target audience for this ad is women because the only thing in the ad other than the product is the face of a woman using the product. This woman had a flawless face and yours eyes are drawn to hers because they are outlined in black and bright blue. There isn't much else that distracts you from her eyes. Her hand partially covers her mouth, but it doesn't really pull your attention away from her eyes. The message of the ad is that is you use their mascara, you will have very thick, long, eyelashes. However, if you look closely at the bottom left hand corner of the ad, it says that her lashes are "styled with lash inserts." This means that it is probably extremely unlikely that your eyelashes will actually look like the models even if you use their product.

Blog Post Due 4-21

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHiJ7v18-EM

This mostly uses appeal to authority. They use Alec Baldwin to talk about using Hulu and how great it is watching tv on Hulu, but he isn't an authority on what watching tv does to your brain. Also, they use black and white a little bit because they give you a choice between watching tv and turning your brain to mush or not watching tv at all. They make it seem like it's not possible to watch tv for a short amount of time. There's also a little bit of slippery slope because they make you think that if you watch tv your brain will definitely turn to mush.

Blog Post due 4-14-14

In Rap Lyrics on Trial, they use ethos, pathos, and logos to convince the reader that using rap lyrics in court should not be allowed.

They mostly use ethos to discredit the witnesses and the people okay with using rap lyrics in trial. For example, "...testimony from witnesses who changed their stories multiple times." This makes it sound like the witnesses didn't really know what happened.

They used logos to show statistics of rap lyrics in trials. "Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey found that in 18 cases in which various courts considered the admissibility of rap as evidence, the lyrics were allowed nearly 80 percent of the time." They use logos in this case to show that using rap lyrics in trials is a problem around the world.

I didn't think that pathos was used as much as ethos and logos, but it was still there. They used to pathos to make you feel bad rappers and feel like it's unfair for them to use rap lyrics in trials. "One common tactic is to present a defendant’s raps as autobiography. Even when defendants use a stage name to signal their creation of a fictional first-person narrator, rap about exploits that are exaggerated to the point of absurdity, and make use of figurative language, prosecutors will insist that the lyrics are effectively rhymed confessions. No other form of fictional expression is exploited this way in the courts."

Blog Post due 2-24

Who is the Merchant of Venice?
I think that Antonio is the Merchant of Venice. It would make sense that the Merchant of Venice would be the protagonist since it's the title of play, and since Shylock is the antagonist of the play, that would make Antonio the protagonist, and thus the Merchant of Venice. I think that the conflict between Shylock and Antonio is the main conflict of the story. The deal between Shylock and Antonio happened in the beginning of the play, so it makes sense for it to be kind of the main thing throughout the play. Once the deal has been made, Shylock spends the time up until the trial wanting Antonio not to be able to repay him so that Shylock will be able to kill Antonio. The definition of an antagonist is someone who is opposed or hostile towards someone. To me, trying to kill someone makes you both hostile and opposed towards them, which would make Shylock the antagonist. On the flip side, a protagonist is the main character. I think a better definition would be the person who opposes the antagonist, and Antonio seems to oppose Shylock the most, which is why he is the protagonist and therefore the Merchant of Venice. Also, its the MERCHANT of Venice, which doesn't mean that it has to be an actual merchant, but it would make more sense for the Merchant of Venice to be an actual merchant. Antonio seems to be the main merchant in the play.

Journal due 2/17/13

Is the Merchant of Venice a comedy, tragedy, or a tragicomedy? 

I think that the Merchant of Venice is a tragicomedy. There are some funny parts, especially with Portia's suitors and their self-confidence in their abilities to pick the right chest, but I think that a lot of the play has had some underlying tragic tones in it. If Antonio doesn't end up being able to pay Shylock back the 3,000 ducats he owes, then Shylock gets a pound of his flesh, which isn't really very funny. Also, some people think that Antonio likes Bassanio, and if that's true then it's kind of sad that Bassanio would rather be with Portia. 

Journal due 2/10/14

2) How is Belmont different from Venice? How can we use the Green World theory to interpret this? 

In class we talked about the difference between the Green World and the City World. We said that Belmont is part of the Green world and Venice is the City World. I think that Belmont IS part of the Green World in the Merchant of Venice, but since it's also a city, in another play it could be considered part of the City World. In the Merchant of Venice, Belmont is where Portia and Nerissa are, while Venice is where all of the men like Bassanio, Lorenzo, Shylock, Gratiano, and Antonio. All of the business transactions and stuff like that happen in Venice, and the romance happens in Belmont  as the suitors try to win over Portia and play the game so they can marry her. Belmont also has intergenerational strifes because Portia is kind of upset at her father because he made it so she can't choose her husband if she wants her inheritance. These strifes may not be resolved because Portia's father is dead, but she may come to terms with everything he did. Venice has a lot of social hierarchy that Belmont doesn't have. Most of the things we read about happening in Venice were about money or how Jews and Christians disliked and didn't trust each other, while things that happened in Belmont so far were about romance and family issues. 

Journal 2-3-14

In class, we watched the Crash Course video on the Renaissance and whether it was a thing. John Green argued that because it didn't really affect people who weren't upper class, it shouldn't really be called a thing.  I don't really agree with John Green about the fact that the renaissance wasn't a thing. The renaissance is just a name for some things that happened during a time period. In, fact some historians call it the Early Modern Period instead. Just because it didn't affect a lot of people like women, Jewish people, and pretty much everyone who wasn't rich, it still caused a lot of expansion in the arts and science.

Colonizing debate

Team 1
Colonization is over
It's not a personal matter
Benefits for Africa. Development, railroads, global stimulus
Africa became globalized. People were healthier and there was a population increase
Advanced irrigation, communication, and transportation,
Foreign countries wanted Africans to succeed so they paid them, gave them goods and medical treatment.
Abolished sacrificing and cannibalism, which increased life

Colonizers brought resources to colonized countries.
GNP is rising

What are the main arguments presented by Team 2?
Colonizer forced colonized to trade
They weren't equal
Cultural loss
Didn't want to help colonized, wanted the "trophy"
Isn't morally right. The colonized didn't want to be colonized and it destroys their way of life
Leads to genocide usually.
Ireland did have a good outcome.

Colonizers are just using the colonized for their benefit.
They are reducing the cultural value of the artifacts when they take them away from their country
The African people aren't of western ideals so they like their situation.


Crossfire:
J: colonized is morally right if it helps people enough. Tribes have a lot of limits. Are the benefits outweighing the cultural loss
S: no the tribe feels civilized. Why should they have to change? Do you know where the artifacts from Nigeria are being held? Great Britain in museums with captions about how they conquered them.

Crossfire two:
A: why does GDP matter?
S: it shows how the country is doing economically
A: personally seen british museum and artifacts displayed as trophies

Summary
Team 1:
Colonization helped Nigerians get to where they are today
Gave them resources
Gave them equality

Team 2:
Why does why we're here now matter
Colonizers weren't there to help colonized, they wanted to take the resources from themselves.
It's not safe in Nigeria

Grand crossfire:
Sloan: how would you say Nigeria is doing better
Shiraz: GDP. Economic growth is rising.
Alex: world bank was founded in the western country
John: there are Africans working there
Alex: doesn't matter
John: do you think Africans should be able to govern themselves.
Alex: yes they have the right. Everyone has the right to govern themselves.

Final focus:
Team 1:
Without colonization, we would still be hunter gatherers
Developed the colonies
Both started and abolished slavery
Post colonial success is obvious because British introduced recourses.
Team 2:
There is no good reason as to why they didn't reduce the cultural value or exploit them

Who won the debate? Why?
If the first part,I kind of feel like you can't beat the morality of destroying another culture's civilization, but I do feel like john argued his case better than Sloan.
In the second part, I feel like Alex's had more facts as well as talked about the morals. Shiraz talked about the development benefits, and I think he argued well. I think that Alex used the crossfire to his advantage more than Shiraz did.
In the grand crossfire, I feel like team two argued there points better.
In the end, I think that team two won because they pointed out how the culture was lost and didn't develop them for the better.

Things Fall Apart 20-22

Christianity had a huge impact on the Umuofia people. I think that the book is about how Okonkwo's life fell apart, and I think the missionaries had a huge impact on that. I think that in some ways, the things that the white people brought were good or at least not bad for Okonkwo's people. The snuff wasn't a bad thing, and that had to come from somewhere in the United States. However, once they tried to convert the people to Christianity, things well, things fell apart. I think it was  appealing to a lot of people, especially men without titles, because it seemed like a fresh start. Also, they wouldn't be condemmned for an accident in the same way as with the Umuofia's religion. Overall, I think that the missionaries caused  the loss of a lot of culture within Okonkwo's people

Journal 12/3/13

I am doing a mood space, so my essay will be about what I'm planning to do and Ms. Harrison will be my audience. Location 692-715 (pp. 63-65) "Okonkwo did not taste any food...Okonkwo, you have become a woman indeed." What does Okonkwo's reaction to the death of Ikemefuna say about his inner struggle with being a "real man?"

I think that the fact that Okonkwo is struggling with Ikemefuna's death shows his changing definition of what a "real man" is. In his culture, crying is associated with weakness and femininity, so he has to deal with the fact that people see him as weak. Okonkwo his afraid that the fact that he is crying and not eating in order to mourn Ikemefuna's death will be viewed as not manly and the women in his household and in general will stop listening to him. I think that this is the main, or at least one of the main struggles of the book; discovering and dealing with Okonkwo's changing definition of what it means to be a man. 

First Six chapters Things Fall Apart

In the first six chapters of Things fall apart, we meet several characters. The main character is  a wealthy man named Okonkwo. He is part of the Nugerian tribe, and is well respected after beating the Amalinze Cat when he was younger. He hates his father, Unoka, who Okonkwo considers weak because he is debt and unsuccessful. Ikemefuna was this 15 year old who moves in with Okonkwo. I would say the Okonkwo is the protagonist and that his goal is to be respected and a better father which I think Ikemefuna will help him with. I think that Okonkwo's mindset that only successful people are worth his time will cause him problems with his community.

MFAH Response

The art piece that I picked was a Greek vase that depicted what looked like four people fighting. I picked this piece because it had the biggest effect on me. Whenever I see Greek vases like that, I am immediately reminded of the Disney movie Hercules. Seeing this case made me very nostalgic about the time I lived in Philadelphia and was obsessed with that movie. My sister and I spent hours memorizing all of the songs. It was kind of nice to remember all of the times I had with my sister involving Hercules.

The Hollow Man

I think that he used the line from Heart of Darkness. I don't really think that these poems are like heart of darkness. It's written from an american view, which makes it more like Africa. It's actually kind of the opposite of Heart of Darkness because it's written from the colonized point of view. The only similar thing to Heart of Darkness is that it completely ignore's black people. As for Black Man's burden, I think that it was kind of unnecessary to make this poem. In the little explanation before the poem it talks about how it wasn't a good piece of poetry but I think it's unnecessary to respond to it like that. Obviously there are some people who think it's a good poem. It's just a matter of opinion.  

Response to Poems

I don't really think that these poems are like heart of darkness. It's written from an american view, which makes it more like Africa. It's actually kind of the opposite of Heart of Darkness because it's written from the colonized point of view. The only similar thing to Heart of Darkness is that it completely ignore's black people. As for Black Man's burden, I think that it was kind of unnecessary to make this poem. In the little explanation before the poem it talks about how it wasn't a good piece of poetry but I think it's unnecessary to respond to it like that. Obviously there are some people who think it's a good poem. It's just a matter of opinion.  

Heart of Darkness Pages 78-90

Conrad uses the Congo river and the areas around it to enhance the idea of dark versus light. On page 80, he says " I looked around, and I don't know why, but I assure you that never, never before, did this land, this jungle, the very arch of this blazing sky, appear to me so hopeless and so dark..." The Russian man who came aboard the ship uses the setting to contrast to this enlightenment when listening to Mr. Kurtz. Another example of using setting to symbolize the aspects of colonialism is on page 82 when the Russian man is describing what the forest like while waiting for Mr. Kurtz to come back from his ivory hunts and he says "the woods were unmoved, like a mask-- heavy, like the closed doors of a prison..." Again, everything that describes Africa sounds very dark and savage, which is what Europeans thought of Africa during the colonizing period. Another example is on page 83 when he describes the ruined house with the shrunken heads used as ornaments. I think that this really reinforces the general European population's idea at the time that Africa was a savage place, which goes along with the dark and ominous mood.

Reflections on Dr. Jarra and HoD Part 2

I thought that going to Dr. Jarra was really interesting. It was cool how he doesn't actually go to Africa to get the art. It's like this chain. There are people who go into Africa to get the art, then there are people who buy it from them, and people like Dr. Jarra buy it from them and then sell it to people here. I found out that he has been collecting and selling art for 35 years, which is a long time. It was really cool that he got started by being asked to drive a guy around who was selling this art and making a lot of money. Also, I thought it was really cool that he knows the story behind each piece of art. There are so many pieces with so many stories, and he knows which story goes for which piece, which I think is really impressive.
In heart of darkness, Conrad uses a light and dark a lot in the book. Almost everything about Africa is considered dark and everything european is considered light. There's this one part on page 45 that is talking about the land and the Congo river, and it is described as treacherous, death, evil, and "the profound darkness of it's heart." I think he uses light and dark to symbolize the general thoughts of places in the world at the time. Africa was where the savages were, so people described it as dark and hopeless. Europe was where everyone wanted to be, so it was described as light and profound.

Heart Of Darkness Part 1

I think that we have really only met one main character, and that would be Charlie Marlow. Charlie is a sailor who is described as having a sunken cheeks, a yellow complexion,  and an ascetic aspect. My guess is that he is in this 30s maybe 40s. He talks about going to Africa as a seaman, but he doesn't speak completely highly of European colonialism and Europeans in general. He is in Africa and told that they are savages and criminals, but he keeps having doubts about it from his observations. I would say that he is probably the protagonist. The story so far is about his journeys in Africa, so I think that Mr. Kurtz is probably going to be the antagonist because even though we haven't really me him. However, I think that it may be that there isn't really a antagonist that is a person. It's almost like the antagonist is Marlow's mind. His doubts about what Europeans are doing seems like it's going to be an internal struggle throughout the book, so I think that this book is man v. self rather than his being against someone. There's the major conflict of right and wrong when it comes to European expansion, which I think is going to be an overarching theme in the book.

Heart of Darkness Introduction

In class today we talked about European Colonialism. I actually find this time period pretty interesting, so I am excited about reading this book. I learned the difference between colonialism, which is where the mother country actually has people settling there, and imperialism, which is where  the country just kind of takes over but doesn't have people living there. I also learned about Marxism and Leninism as economic theories as to why colonialism happened. These economic theories say that colonialism and imperialism happened because European countries wanted to export their economic problems to other countries. Companies would make their products, but after a while the market would become saturated because everyone would have the product. So it was good to colonize other places because companies would have a new market to sell too. Another thing that I learned is how recently colonialism ended. I figured that it was a long time ago, but really it just ended in the 1950s-1960s.
I also read the introduction to Heart of Darkness. Before I had read the introduction, I was not that excited to read the book. I didn't really know anything about what it would be about. After reading about Joseph Conrad and how Heart of Darkness came to be, I am a lot more interested. I found out that he was interested in Africa all his life. As a child he frequently studies maps of Africa and was constantly reading and listening to stories of Africa. But that changed in 1890 while he was a seaman. I didn't know that he had another job before he was a writer that didn't really have anything to do with writing. I thought that maybe he was a journalist or something and that's why he went to Africa. I thought that it was really cool that he realized what was going on was bad. He signed a long-term contract with the Belgian government to "Bring 'light' to the 'dark' continent," but he recognized that he wasn't actually doing this philanthropic thing and decided he didn't want to do it anymore. I think that, sadly, a lot of people wouldn't question the moral behind what they were being paid to do. They would be in it for the money and not care about the morality of it.