It was Okay and I am Okay

I want this to be profound. That, in general, has always been my problem. I want to believe that my life is larger than it is, that these past four years were more than taking tests in cinder block walled rooms. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but if I've learned anything from high school it's to recognize when I'm being overly Meursault-ish and to cut that shit out sometimes.


But it's really hard! Seniors are definitely consistently encouraged to reflect on themselves and their high school career constantly. On top of that, this year has been even more strange for me because every day in English it's like I'm back in Paideia sitting in the same seat I sat in when I was just a Freshman listening to the same teacher with the same peers (not that I'm not glad, you began my high school experience on a high note and are ending it with more of your lovely self!) So I've basically been stumbling around in a bubble of stress and nostalgia all year and I can not begin to describe how weird that is. Considering this, I hope I can be forgiven for pretentious flights of fancy.


Anyways, now that I'm already droning on, let's reflect!! Okay I'm not gonna be fake and say I enjoyed high school, love Millbrook, or that I'm sad to be leaving now that graduation is close. I'm mostly excited to be leaving honestly (the only negative feelings I have about graduation are anxieties about not doing well in college). It's not that I hated Millbrook-I doubt I would have liked any other high school. High school just wasn't my thing, it was no one's fault really.


I was never the person who went to sporting events or parties. But I also wasn't into obsessively competing for class rank. I just didn't see the point in spending time on those things. However, I have always been very academically minded. I consider myself an intelligent person, but not because of my GPA or test scores. I memorized my material to get the A and promptly forgot everything to make room for the next unit. Nothing about that made me smarter and or feel proud of myself. I wish I'd spent less time doing that and more time with my family and friends.


 That being said, I did find some things that I took pride in doing in high school. Being a leader at GSA really made me feel like I was making the school a better place for people like me who often found it volatile. Even though not many people read the paper, I took pride in creating something tangible. IB Art pushed me to be creative and engage in an activity where I know that I am not the best, and be content with that fact. One of my main goals is to continue making art, but I know that it will be hard if I don't have a class where it is mandatory.


Some people go through a total metamorphosis during high school. I think that I am more or less the same person now that I was when I started high school. I even look basically the same, the only big difference being that I didn't start wearing winged eyeliner until the second semester of Freshman year. I might be a bit more confident in speaking my mind and not caring about other's opinion of me, and maybe a bit less pretentious (I used to think I was gonna go to Oxford, c'mon) but overall nothing significant has changed.


Millbrook was an okay place for me in high school. Most of the time no one really acknowledged the things I did do for the school, which is why it was surprising to be recognized as an Outstanding Senior and to be inducted into Service Club. It was a little annoying to be given all these awards when no one cared for the three years before that, but it was nice, I guess. I wasn't crazy about some people, but others I am so glad I got to chance to meet here. Some great people I am glad that Millbrook gave to me include Jess (met Freshman year waiting to be picked up after school), Mrs. G, Ms. Hicks, Mrs. Putnam, Sam G, Mr. Davis, and more. So, it definitely wasn't all bad, it just wasn't all good. But I needed friends for some things, and I needed to be humbled and given a bit of struggle in others, so I think it was okay.

The Whitman Diaries

Whitman's journal is a beautiful thing to behold. Beautiful and also befuddling. The poet is known for his rhythmic free verse and long, drawn out sentences, making his final poetry somewhat hard to understand. The earlier versions of his writings and his observations found in the journal are even more difficult to make sense of. For starters, Whitman jots down his poetry and thoughts in a very messy cursive handwriting. The script is messy and shows little regard for the space on the pages, taking up lots of room with only a few words, suggesting the haste or mindless nature of the author. However, of what I am able to decipher, I find that there are several phrases repeated throughout the journal. There are many mentions of words relating to water, the sea, and especially ships. Whitman describes a ship in the throes of a storm, which is likely a commentary on the state of the country on the brink of war. Similar to his published poetry, the text in the journal is broken up through the use of dashes. However, the text in the journal is less flowy than Whitman's published writings, is shorter, and has fewer commas. I also noticed that Whitman's journal makes heavy use of question marks, although this could be due to the journal being a place for Whitman's inner musings and reflections rather than just for writing poetry.


My first reading, before the yellow links, had me unsure about two things mainly. The first of which was the significance of the phrase 'Libertad.' The annotations revealed that Libertad is the Spanish word for liberty. The annotations offered two reasons that this word may have been used. The first was that Whitman was conveying that liberty is a concept broader than just American applications. I see the significance, but I think Whitman is someone who was always able to communicate the magnitude of important concepts without using other languages. The second explanation offered was that Whitman used the Spanish version because of the many Latin American revolutions being fought at the time. Whitman was very democratic and understanding in his perspective and likely found parallels between these freedom fighters and the secessionists. However, then he goes on to use libertad when he is talking about the ships, even as I saw from the annotations, referring to the libertad as a ship itself. I was confused by this, but then I realized the libertad is a feminine noun in the Spanish language (la libertad). Since ships as vessels are always given feminine pronouns, Whitman's use of this version makes a lot of sense. The second element that I had confusion about were the sketches at the end of the journal. I had not been aware that Whitman engaged in any visual arts, and from the annotations those were not his own work. If Whitman did draw, I would have expected scenes of nature, since those are what he writes about. I immediately recognized the portrait as being of Whitman. Before I read that he did not draw it, I thought it was a self-portrait that showed Whitman as he wanted to see himself, since the image contains such strength and wisdom. However, after learning that it was someone else, it reveals that although the critics of the time period did not appreciate Whitman's artistry, those who got to know him did.

The American Dream

The American Dream is a common but abstract phrase. Every person has their own interpretation of what it means; for some it is a simple, happy life, and for others it is fame and glory. The definition of the American Dream that comes to mind when I consider the phrase is the traditional belief that America is a place where anyone can be successful and have a decent quality of life, regardless of where they come from or who they are. Note that I say comes to mind, not believe. To me, the American Dream is more of a sociological concept than a reality. Upward mobility and distribution of wealth in the United States rank lower than basically the rest of the Westernized world. In my opinion, the American Dream is just that, a DREAM.


Wealth is another elusive concept. The typical definition of being wealthy is to own money and assets, a good car, a nice house, stocks, maybe a time-share (these are terrible investments and I don't think they're trendy anymore anyways). However, you will often hear people (probably people who have never been without money or food) that money isn't everything. There is something to be said for the value of having your health and support from others whether that be familial or simply from friends, but I still think it is naïve to dismiss the importance of having money in American society. Wealth can come from things like love and happiness, but without money, your life is gonna be hard.


One of the most destructive schools of thought in America is that people without wealth are lazy and that people with wealth are only so as a result of hard work. This view is similar to Republican ideology that condemns handouts to people who are simply too lazy to work. The poor, the unemployed, the disabled, they are all treated as if it is their own fault that they don't have money. Society does not take into account that if you do not come from money, it is extremely hard to get a degree and break into an industry without high society connections. This doesn't even take into account difficulties that arise from discrimination and sexism. And this is why the American Dream is a fallacy, because there is not equal opportunity for success.


On the flip side, rich people constantly tell us they are successful because they worked hard. I don't really see inheriting daddy's money as working hard, or taking advantage of workers in countries without labor laws to make cheap goods to profit off of as hard work. And even if that isn't the case, the privilege that comes from going to better schools and being able to afford expensive tutors or not having to take out student loans, means that people who come from money do not have to work as hard as those who don't to become wealthy. My views are more similar to the Democratic platform, and the belief in hand-ups, to try to offset economic inequality.
The Great Gatsby is an interesting commentary on the American Dream. Fitzgerald, like myself, is skeptical about the American Dream. To me, Gatsby's success story is intriguing and entertaining, but far-fetched. Although he worked hard (although outside the law), Gatsby was simply lucky. He just so happened to find a wealthy mentor. He also happened to be male, white, able-bodied, and handsome. At this point in time, and really even today, if your are not these things, success is even further out of your reach.








  

Translations

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

• Passive structure
• Imagery(transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect)

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

• Present tense
• Casual language

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

• Imagery( enormous bug)

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

• Formal language
• Imagery( monstrous vermin)
• Denotation(monstrous vermin)

In his introductory sentence Kafta is attempting to portray the main character, Gregor’s, initial transformation from a human to an insect; or should I say bug or vermin? Within the four translations three different nouns attempt to describe Gregor’s newfound physical state.  The choice changes the style and imagery in the sentence drastically. When “bug” is used the sentence sounds casual; even the adjective describing the word bug is more juvenile. The imagery hints at a “giant or enormous bug” which could compete with an animated creature. In contrast when the bug is described as a “monstrous vermin” the sentence suddenly seems serious. Not only does vermin have a negative connotation, the adjective monstrous suggests the character Gregor as something capable of chaos and destruction. This translation is most effective because it abruptly introduces Gregor’s struggle to adjust to his new identity.

Each of the translations utilizes entirely different sentence structure, punctuation, and tenses.  The majority of them sound a bit awkward and wordy due to their obvious translations.  Translated texts will never be as effective as the original in emanating the author’s style. This is obvious in this example; two of the translations have a casual tone and one is formal. While each of the translations describe the same scenario the implied meaning varies greatly.

Practice IOC

My passage was from Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro.

My recording is here http://vocaroo.com/i/s02m9pGvQpwP

Criterion A:6- I think that my commentary shows adequate knowledge and understanding of the text and my comments are generally supported by the text because I describe how Tommy's theory about deferral is the first example of a positive future, but some of the language serves as negative foreshadowing for later events.

Criterion B:6- I describe literary features, but I think my description of their effects on the readers is a little unclear/lacking at times.

Criterion C:3-I did okay with the organization, doing it by device. But I think at the end of each little section, I struggled with transitioning and wrapping up my thoughts.

Criterion D:3-My language is appropriate but less sophisticated and eloquent than I'd prefer.

Total: 18/30



Freebie-cover analysis

Single Story Ted Talk Analysis

In her Ted Talk entitled "The Danger of a Single Story," Chimamanda Adichie talks about the negative effects that occur when a group of people are presented only through one lens. As a Nigerian writer who grew up in a middle class family, she talks mainly about the misconceptions Americans have of Nigeria and Africa as a whole. However, she also speaks on the single stories she herself has subscribed to. Adichie cites literature as a vehicle that is guilty of presenting single stories as she shares how she mainly read European literature as a child. The effect was that she grew up thinking only little European children could be the protagonists of stories. But then, she became exposed to writers like Chinua Achebe who presented an Africa of an African perspective, drastically different from the story told by European writers. She shares an anecdote about her family's servant Fide, who came from a very poor rural village. Adichie's mother only ever told her that Fide's family was poor, so she was unprepared to discover that there was more to Fide's family than poverty. Then in college in America, she finds that her roommate has basically that same perception of all of Africa. She argues that the only way to honor a group is to seek as many stories about them as you can.


Adichie uses several elements to convincingly convey her thoughts. A big portion of her single story concept is misconceptions about Africa. She uses her experience growing up in a middle class Nigerian household as ethos to add credibility to her speech. She uses chronology and flashback as specific examples of how a single story did not prove accurate. She also uses diction to impress upon her audience how single stories create imbalances in power. No one in English was suitable for this purpose, so she used the Nigerian word when she says, "It is impossible to talk about the single story without talking about power. There is a word, an Igbo word, that I think about whenever I think about the power structures of the world, and it is "nkali." It's a noun that loosely translates to "to be greater than another." All of these usages allow to audience to believe her analysis of the danger of single stories, believe that they are inaccurate.


My primary reason for choosing this talk was that we watched it last year in TOK. It's one of the few TED Talks that have stuck with me (I find most to be tedious and/or pretentious). I enjoy it because you can tell the speaker is sincere and because one can immediately recall examples of the subject matter in their own lives. For example, I am half-middle eastern and have Muslim family members. In American society, many people only consider the single story of terrorism as the defining factor of Islam. However, as I have had more interactions with this religion, I know the single story to be false, So Adichie's talk is believable and relatable to me.

Double Indemnity

Question 4: In your mind, are there any heroes in Double Indemnity? If so, who?


Double Indemnity is an iconic example of classic film noir. Film noir, as a genre, focuses on crime dramas and have a cynical tone. Since Double Indemnity epitomizes this genre, it makes sense that there is no true hero in the movie.


The main characters of the film are Walter and Phyllis. At the beginning of the movie, Walter appears to be a heroic figure. He is the protagonist and he is a handsome, stand-up insurance salesman. But, when Phyllis' femme fatale persona is introduced, we quickly see that if anything, Walter is an anti-hero. The weak-willed Walter easily falls prey to Phyllis' seduction and the two hatch a gruesome plan to kill Phyllis' husband. But we cannot cite Phyllis as the only reason that Walter's morals go south; he, himself, comes up with a significant amount of the murderous plan. He proves to be a natural at deception and crime, definitely not a hero.


There are really only a few 'good' characters in the movie, Keyes being the most notable. Keyes is Walter's friend and colleague at the insurance firm. He is said to be an amazing claims adjustor, although that isn't terribly heroic. Unlike Walter, Keyes lacks the physicality of a hero. He is short, middle-aged, and feeble looking. It is only because of Keye's cleverness and determination that Walter and Phyllis' carefully concocted story begins to unravel. Keyes does eventually cause justice to be served, it is only indirectly. He falsely assumes that Phyllis' step-daughter's boyfriend was an accomplice in the murder, which sets in motion the downfall of Phyllis and Walter, but that specific outcome was unintentional. In a way he 'saves the day' by resolving the murder, but mostly by accident, which is why although I do consider Keyes to be a 'good' character, I do not consider him to be a hero in Double Indemnity. The beauty of Double Indemnity is that the plot is all the more realistic and sinister for the fact that a hero is not necessary for actions to be resolved. It's as if the anti-heros were bound to fail regardless.