Into the Wild

I think the reason that I've really responded to "Into the Wild" (thus far) is because the book manages to pull off the hat trick of not making a judgment call regarding the behavior of McCandless while still capturing the visceral excitement which prompted his journey of self-discovery. Krakauer's descriptions are compulsively readable, never tedious, and effective at putting the reader into McCandless' shoes as he makes his trek across the country. McCandless is such a fascinating, contradictory figure that I'm glad the book doesn't definitively idolize or condemn him. It recognizes both arguments and addresses their validity, and while Krakauer is very much sympathetic to McCandless' personal calling (understandably), I find it refreshing how even-handed the book is. Much of it is Krakauer letting the people who knew McCandless dramatize his story, and I find that much more effective on an emotional level than if Krakauer were to attempt and fill in the gaps himself. Whereas other writers that we've read like Seierstad have injected their works with commentary, Krakauer literally does instead of merely stating, notably when he injects himself into the text. "Into the Wild" is a book about how people define themselves through their actions (or in the case of the people wishes to escape, lack thereof), and Krakauer admirably lets McCandless' actions speak for themselves. He informs you what McCandless did, how it affected those around him, and ultimately how it affected Krakauer himself. For that reason, I think this is the best book we've read this year, or at least my personal favorite.

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek - Annie Dillard

Annie Dillard's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is very different from any other book we have read this year. Rather than having a clear plot, Pilgrim is comprised of thoughts and reflections from the unnamed protagonist and because of this, categorizing the book into a genre is very difficult. When looking for books, either in a store or even online, most people tend to browse by genre. So what is the discourse community for Pilgrim at Tinker Creek? The book seems to be for nature lovers, but wouldn't the intended audience be outside, observing the world, instead of reading? My guess is that Pilgrim at Tinker Creek was mainly written for herself; Dillard had these thoughts, and wanted to organize and compile them by writing. Due to the lack of a genre, this book likely received little public attention until it won the Pulitzer Prize.

The narrator's thoughts seem jumbled at times, occasionally skipping seasons. Yet, each chapter serves to convey an overall message, idea, or even a specific feeling of the narrator. Although some of the reflections are boring, the chapter on sight really stuck with me. Even if we have our eyes open, how much of life do we really see, and how much do we merely glance or skim over? The surroundings are blurred, rather than in focus. People often are so concentrated on the task at hand that they miss natural phenomenons going on only a few feet away.

T-painnnee

I feel like Thomas Paine overly elaborates on all his points and speaks more than he has to in order to make him seem more intellectual and therefore make his point seem like it has more evidence. I think he also thought that the more he talked about the subject, the more the readers would become angry about the situation, thus increasing the pathos appeal to the piece. However, I feel like he could have made his point in many less words, and then it would have been much more powerful.

HI FRIENDS

So, after 15 days of doing nothing related to school, I decided to take a crack at First They Killed My Father. Seventy pages in and I'm glad to report that I'm enjoying this way more than Bookseller and I think most of my fellow bloggers would agree that this is infinitely better than the former. So far, Loung Ung succeeds in her goal to depict the voice of her 5 year old self despite her narration occurring some 25 years later. I think she succeeds for two major reasons. First, she provides no "present day" interjections. She appears to be recounting these events as best as she can remember and doesn't inject any flowery self-reflection that she obviously wouldn't be able to recall word-for-word after 25 years into her prose. Second, she describes her emotions as simply as possible; it's highly unlikely that a 5 year old would be experience the same complex emotions that she writes her parents and older siblings as having. Above all, Ung describes her personal experiences as a microcosm of the tumultuous events that surround her. She doesn't try to make her family's experiences sound more unique or tragic than any other. Overall, Ung's successful use of language create the aforementioned aura of the book which makes for an entertaining and pathos-heavy read (and I mean pathos-heavy in the best and nicest way possible).

First They Killed My Father

As a read Ms. Ung's story of surviving the war in Cambodia, I am continually amazed at the strength she had as a child to endure the pain of hunger and the loss of her family members. Her description of her family, especially her father, allows the audience to share in her emotions while getting to know her character. The way that she describes her hunger and the malnourished state of her family creates such a clear picture in my mind. I feel that I can see their suffering. Also, because this book is a first hand account told in the perspective of a child, I feel that the story is told in a more honest and straightforward manner than the first book we read.

Thomas Jefferson-Declaration of Independence

1.) the truths are the unalienable rights that should be guaranteed to all men.  Under a democracy, these truths would seem self-evident, but considering the multiple dictatorships that have existed in the world, they are not present in all areas of the world.  This belief of self-evident truths is real but idealistic, as there will always be someone who will want to stifle others' rights.  

2.) I think the charge against the king of establishing judges based on his will alone is the most serious.  In early America, society was ruled by the law.  Thus depriving Americans of fair judiciary cut off all opportunities for a democratic government.  Judges' words were the law, so by installing partial judges to simply carry out his orders, King George III was really taking away all the colonists' rights, especially the basic right to a fair and impartial trial.

3.) Jefferson feels the the government should be subject to the desires of the people, and that government officials should change frequently to allow for new agendas.  Jefferson also believes that government should protect the rights of its citizens yet stay out of citizens' lives as much as possible.

4.)  From the people (elections).

5.) Jefferson makes a direct appeal to God in the last paragraph when referring to the installation of the new American democracy.  During this time, the mention of Providence carried weight with many people.  This also adds to the "God Bless America" mentality, that America, an ideally democratic and fair government, is watched over and nurtured by God for breaking away from this tyrannical government.  This also establishes America's destiny in breaking away from Britain as a holy mission (God-given right).

6.) The audience is obviously King George III and Great Britain, as well as the American public.  The eloquence that Jefferson used probably inspired confidence in Americans, who now had something concrete that they were committed to.  More subtly, the Declaration of Independence is also directed at other world powers.  It asserts America's will and intention and united strength, which puts America on the world's radar screen and makes Americans their own people rather than British subjects.

7.) I believe that Jefferson's lists show King George's concrete doings against Americans.  It also establishes ethos and logos, because the Declaration of Independence does not rely solely on pathos to assert American ideals.  These lists also show that the separation is firmly rooted in King George's acts against Americans, not a rebellious whim.

8.) Jefferson illustrates through the long lists of King George's acts against the Americans.

He uses capitalization to emphasis important words or phrases and draw the reader's attention to that specific word.

He utilizes parallelism, as well as repetition, through his sentence structure (i.e. "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

Thomas Jefferson, "The Declaration of Independence"

1. The truths are: all men are created equal, they have God-given unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, government is by and for the governed and they have the right to alter it if need be. The people have a right to depose tyrants and create a new government.

2. I think the most serious are a) "he has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people", because he stripped people of representation, and furthermore, by suspending colonial legislatures and instituting his supreme rule b) "he has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power" whereby he essentially ruled tyrannically through the power of arms. And, through other means, "depriving (the colonies), in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury". The right to a fair trial is now the cornerstone of our legal system, and not having that, to me, would be ridiculously unfair and despotic.

3. The purpose of government is to ensure a people's safety and happiness, and be a product of their own making, not something forced upon them or alien to their natural-born rights.

4. The power of government is from the consent of the governed.

5. In his concluding sentence, Jefferson assumes the power of God to be on the Colonies' side ("divine providence")

6. Audience = foreign governments, British government, people of the Colonies

7. Jefferson lists the reasons for independence from Great Britain in order to establish his ethos, the rationale and ability to explain why the Colonies are taking this action: it helps describe their cause to foreign powers and show that the Declaration is not a whim, but the final response to a series of injustices.

8. Illustration is used to demonstrate the oppression and tyranny of Great Britain and add reason to the cause - it backs up the Declaration's assertion. It also explains how the Declaration came to be and why it is in existence. Capitalization adds power to the words, gives them an importance (also serving in some cases as a tool for personification). Ultimately, the Declaration invokes highly philosophical and moral ideals, and Jefferson gives them substantive authority through capitalization. Jefferson's parallelism, predominant in his listing of Great Britain's crimes (and the anaphora in "He...He...For...For"), reinforces King George as a power-hungry tyrant and simply by the length, shows the extent of Great Britain's abuse of the Colonies. His rhetoric gives the Declaration its sweeping power and (pun intended) majesty.