Essay #3
In My Father’s Brain by Jonathon Franzen, the author touches on many issues that we can identify in the story and also in life. Through different techniques Franzen is able to capture the readers attention and make them think about what he is trying to imply. It seems to be much more rhetorical questioning rather than asking a question and having an answer. What I mean is that he provides us with a question, and he answers, but then it is the idea that the question still remains there for us to answer for ourselves whether we can or cannot.
One of the key themes that are seen very much so throughout the story is the theme of relationships, mainly the relationship of the child to the parents. Jonathon Franzen gives us an idea of how his parents were with each other and how they were when they were talking to him as individuals. We see that his parents, according to him, were not much of a couple to agree on much. It never seemed as if they were in a real, deep-loving relationship. The mother and father never seemed to be in accordance with each other on many different things. They sometimes never looked as if they loved each other. Franzen’s parents’ relationship could be described as one of love for their son, but not so much each other. Now, I am not trying to say that they did not love each other at all; it just doesn’t seem to be that way through the words and actions we see of Franzen with his parents.
Through the process of his father’s brain becoming less functional, the relationship between husband and wife seems to weaken until the end, and the relationship between soon and parents strengthens to a certain extent. We see that the mother is writing lots of letters to Jonathon, explaining the situation of the disease and what the effects are from it and also the medications that his father is on. To be straight forward, in my opinion, I think that the deterioration of someone’s brain and health can bring a family together and yet at the same time bring them into turmoil. There is a lot of emotions that are being brought out and can conflict with being in the right state of mind to make decisions on what might be best for the sick person. That of course might conflict with what other family members are thinking. Family sicknesses that will result in death or no recollection of who we are, especially to those that are close, maybe and are probably the hardest dealings we must face in life.
This story also teaches and might give us as either parents or children a little in depth look at how relationships work in our families. We will always love each other, no matter what might happen in the one on one relationship. There are times that we need to be honest with each other and yet at the same time, not be fully honest for the sake of keeping everyone together and pulling through on the tough times. I know of personal experiences with myself and my family where I did not find out what truly happened with others in my life till later after it all calm downed a bit. Is it disappointing to find out later? Yes, of course it is, but then you look back on what happened and how your first reaction might have made the situation even more complex. It is sometimes the best to be dishonest with those that we love. Sometimes a little white lie is the best thing that can happen in the world of friendship. Although, the more you push it away with no explanation the harder it will be to explain why you lied in the beginning with the person.
With Franzen though, I think that he pushes the idea of always being forward with other family members, no matter how difficult it might be to be honest with each other. We can see this in his mothers, she does not hesitate to tell him what is going on in person, or even with the letters that she sends him. This, I think, is a good thing, because it is not a lie in which he will figure out when he comes to his father’s funeral when he eventually dies. It is essential that no matter how loose a family has ties with each other that they always keep in touch, because nothing is more hurtful and emotional than losing a family member because of conflicts or confrontations. It takes time to forgive and forget the past and move on at the same time. Most people find this difficult, but we can see this with the Franzen family. Although the relationships do not seem strong, they never lose sight of one another and always keep in contact no matter what.
Finally, there is a lot of emotion that is shown in this piece. Many times it might seem a bit confusing, but we have to look and stand back to understand what is going on and how it is to be dealt with. But then at the same time, we must understand why his reactions are the way they are. Many times though the emotions are very difficult to understand. Such as when the father is on his bed, he tells his wife that he has always loved her, but we don’t see it much during the story. He shows his emotions though in the end, and also throughout the story even if we might now see it so much because of the ways in which he words it.
In conclusion, Franzen puts much emotion and thought into his work. He seems to be able to put not only the actual information, but puts his thoughts and emotions behind that information that makes the story much more interesting and at the same time a lot more emotional and tough to follow. Tough to follow in the sense that not all of us have gone through the experience of having a father have Alzheimer’s disease. He is creative with his choice of words, emotions, and also the way in which he writes this piece.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Peter Ho Davies 4.4
Peter Ho Davies is a man of great intellect and strategy. He uses many techniques that help catch the reader. He uses different styles of techniques from words, repetition, title, and other small tenacious details. They are not meant to annoy or disturb the reader, but to make them think about the suggestions and possibilities that are or might be mentioned in the text.
Ho Davies uses his creativeness to make the reader think, and to make them think critically but also vaguely. The reason I mention vaguely is because it is sometimes hard to find the answers within a reading. We are brought up to think critically, but in this case I feel that it is the best idea to be vague. However, there is a point of defining or interpreting vaguely. When you are vague you are easily open to so many options, but when reading Ho Davies, it might be the best to think of all the options there are.
It was the first time going through the story “What You Know?” that there might have been a connection between what Ho Davies was saying about writing and the possibility of the broad range of topics that one can write about. I initially interpreted it as a question, “Why do students choose to write about topics they haven’t quite experienced?” I figured that it was also about suicide mainly because of the student who killed himself. Then as it went along, it became harder to see the topic about suicide. It seemed to be more about homicide. If you think about it, at what point did the teacher try to commit or follow through steps of going through suicide? He got to the point of shooting at a shooting range, but that just shows us him shooting at targets and possibly finding out what it might be like to shoot at people. In the end he just shows us the difficulties of trying to write about a subject that is really close, almost a personal matter.
He writes as a person that is concerned possibly with the fact that no one is a perfect writer. Writers are not perfect. They may have everything correct through grammar and punctuation, but it might be that the ideas and ideals are not perfect. There is not a book where all I can agree with the general idea or view of the text. You have critics on both sides. Even students who read books cannot always agree with the same ideas. If you pick apart the book by looking at the individual thoughts, then you might be able to get an agreement, but not everyone is alike, thus you will get different views and thoughts about how the text should or should have been approached.
As I reread the piece, there were things that caught my eye, techniques. Some of these were his uses of words, the title, repetition and also his voice. Many of these helped me reevaluate the story and try to understand what could have been attempted or to be stated. Throughout the story he uses all of these techniques to help us, the audience, try to understand what he is trying to state and explain. The issues he is exploiting and critiquing to make use think about the issues as a whole and as an individual.
His usage or words is quite interesting. He keeps them basic, but yet seems to add a twist to it. He puts a twist on his words and phrases, which makes them interesting to look at. An example is, “Writers aren’t godlike, I tell them, readers are. Writers only create, readers judge.” He puts us in the position to think differently. It might be that perhaps as non-professional writers we think they are amazing and have quite the ability to write, but he says no, we are the godlike people. We have the power to judge and so call “condemn” what we think is great. In the end though, it is true, we are the ones with the power to kill or promote this “life” or work or art.
His use of voice is also enthusiastic. At moments he can be very, very serious, such as the parts of talking about the deaths and suicide the teacher’s student Clark. But at the same time when the teacher is arguing with a student about the Grassy Knell, when in reality it is Knoll. He puts humor into apiece where it is already difficult to figure out the message. When something is sad or happy we can follow what the point might be, but this message to an extant is sad. We know this through the struggles this teacher is going through. The tone is shown through the words, at times vulgar, but also the way in which he puts them together and how he likes them as a sentence. The words create an atmosphere of intense action, and at points a comic relief to which we can laugh or be ‘disturbed’ at.
Repetition is key in his works. He uses repetition to make us think constantly at what his message is. It doesn’t state this in his work, but I think that his main priority is to have that message which he is trying to point out, come up every time through words and actions which are shown. He at one point may write out an action, but then the next time, describe it through words, and not show or illustrate what he mentioned before. Off topic, but as we watched that movie Elephant, the use of repetition was incredible. However it gave us the different perspectives of each person. We saw scenes over and over again. But, it helped us figure out what the life was like of the characters. Davies uses this technique to help us illustrate what is trying to be stated.
Finally, the title was amazing. It can be interpreted in two ways. The first as an interrogative statement; the second being a declarative statement. If you add a question mark to it, it questions us to what we know. As I stared at it, I did not know what to say. I thought of it as a rhetorical question. We do not have to answer, but reflect. What I mean is that in the course of writing, it is something we have to ask ourselves, “Do I know what I am writing or attempting to answer?” I find it hardest to describe his technique here, but I think that he meant it in both a question and as a statement. The statement saying, what is that you know about something where you can reflect and write about? This to me gives the reader the option to pick what they want to ask or declare.
In conclusion, Peter Ho Davie is a rather difficult person to figure out. His style and techniques make it even more difficult to figure out what he wants us to know. I see it as an open-ended sentence. He provides us with the beginning, but in the end, we are the ones who have to put the final words in and that punctuation mark in, whether it is a period or a question mark. His piece makes or possibly forces us to think openly and solve the problem, as we feel necessary. This story has made the reader more open-minded about writing, but at the same time, attentive to what has to be looked and critically analyzed.
Ho Davies uses his creativeness to make the reader think, and to make them think critically but also vaguely. The reason I mention vaguely is because it is sometimes hard to find the answers within a reading. We are brought up to think critically, but in this case I feel that it is the best idea to be vague. However, there is a point of defining or interpreting vaguely. When you are vague you are easily open to so many options, but when reading Ho Davies, it might be the best to think of all the options there are.
It was the first time going through the story “What You Know?” that there might have been a connection between what Ho Davies was saying about writing and the possibility of the broad range of topics that one can write about. I initially interpreted it as a question, “Why do students choose to write about topics they haven’t quite experienced?” I figured that it was also about suicide mainly because of the student who killed himself. Then as it went along, it became harder to see the topic about suicide. It seemed to be more about homicide. If you think about it, at what point did the teacher try to commit or follow through steps of going through suicide? He got to the point of shooting at a shooting range, but that just shows us him shooting at targets and possibly finding out what it might be like to shoot at people. In the end he just shows us the difficulties of trying to write about a subject that is really close, almost a personal matter.
He writes as a person that is concerned possibly with the fact that no one is a perfect writer. Writers are not perfect. They may have everything correct through grammar and punctuation, but it might be that the ideas and ideals are not perfect. There is not a book where all I can agree with the general idea or view of the text. You have critics on both sides. Even students who read books cannot always agree with the same ideas. If you pick apart the book by looking at the individual thoughts, then you might be able to get an agreement, but not everyone is alike, thus you will get different views and thoughts about how the text should or should have been approached.
As I reread the piece, there were things that caught my eye, techniques. Some of these were his uses of words, the title, repetition and also his voice. Many of these helped me reevaluate the story and try to understand what could have been attempted or to be stated. Throughout the story he uses all of these techniques to help us, the audience, try to understand what he is trying to state and explain. The issues he is exploiting and critiquing to make use think about the issues as a whole and as an individual.
His usage or words is quite interesting. He keeps them basic, but yet seems to add a twist to it. He puts a twist on his words and phrases, which makes them interesting to look at. An example is, “Writers aren’t godlike, I tell them, readers are. Writers only create, readers judge.” He puts us in the position to think differently. It might be that perhaps as non-professional writers we think they are amazing and have quite the ability to write, but he says no, we are the godlike people. We have the power to judge and so call “condemn” what we think is great. In the end though, it is true, we are the ones with the power to kill or promote this “life” or work or art.
His use of voice is also enthusiastic. At moments he can be very, very serious, such as the parts of talking about the deaths and suicide the teacher’s student Clark. But at the same time when the teacher is arguing with a student about the Grassy Knell, when in reality it is Knoll. He puts humor into apiece where it is already difficult to figure out the message. When something is sad or happy we can follow what the point might be, but this message to an extant is sad. We know this through the struggles this teacher is going through. The tone is shown through the words, at times vulgar, but also the way in which he puts them together and how he likes them as a sentence. The words create an atmosphere of intense action, and at points a comic relief to which we can laugh or be ‘disturbed’ at.
Repetition is key in his works. He uses repetition to make us think constantly at what his message is. It doesn’t state this in his work, but I think that his main priority is to have that message which he is trying to point out, come up every time through words and actions which are shown. He at one point may write out an action, but then the next time, describe it through words, and not show or illustrate what he mentioned before. Off topic, but as we watched that movie Elephant, the use of repetition was incredible. However it gave us the different perspectives of each person. We saw scenes over and over again. But, it helped us figure out what the life was like of the characters. Davies uses this technique to help us illustrate what is trying to be stated.
Finally, the title was amazing. It can be interpreted in two ways. The first as an interrogative statement; the second being a declarative statement. If you add a question mark to it, it questions us to what we know. As I stared at it, I did not know what to say. I thought of it as a rhetorical question. We do not have to answer, but reflect. What I mean is that in the course of writing, it is something we have to ask ourselves, “Do I know what I am writing or attempting to answer?” I find it hardest to describe his technique here, but I think that he meant it in both a question and as a statement. The statement saying, what is that you know about something where you can reflect and write about? This to me gives the reader the option to pick what they want to ask or declare.
In conclusion, Peter Ho Davie is a rather difficult person to figure out. His style and techniques make it even more difficult to figure out what he wants us to know. I see it as an open-ended sentence. He provides us with the beginning, but in the end, we are the ones who have to put the final words in and that punctuation mark in, whether it is a period or a question mark. His piece makes or possibly forces us to think openly and solve the problem, as we feel necessary. This story has made the reader more open-minded about writing, but at the same time, attentive to what has to be looked and critically analyzed.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
4.2 Ho Davies
Shane Salm
8:00 a.m. Section
99102854450
Assignment 4.2
When looking over the piece “What You Know,” by Ho Davies, there is much more to be seen and examined. His features you could say. By features of course I mean his style of writing, his tone of voice, word choice, and in general just the way in which he wrote this piece. There are several things that I would like to talk about, mainly his tone of voice and the style of writing. Along with that, I also found some other features quite interesting.
First, I would like to look at his tone of voice. He isn’t quite gentle, and yet at the same time, isn’t too vulgar with his words. On occasion he might throw a swear word in, but to me it adds to the effect of getting his voice and emotions involved. He seems to keep his word level quite basic, helping the reader understand the material much better. He might challenge us with a word or two, but again it is to add the effect of the piece. The intent being to make us think about what he is trying to imply about not only writing itself as in grammar, but to make us think about what we want to write about, and if it might be possible to write well on it.
One more thing that I noticed, and it might be related to the questions for this assignment, but it seems to be an internal struggle with himself. He is contemplating a lot, whether to write a piece and submit it as Clarks and get money for it. There is struggle between him and his students, trying to prove who might be right, but it is difficult with the lack of education in English to prove who might be right. There is struggle about trying to tell his students, not forcefully, what to write about. They want to write about death, suicide, but like he says, how is it to be made fresh? There is so much that has to be taken into consideration, but it is hard to do, when you are not the victim of suicide. In this case he tries to follow Clark’s footsteps, but finds it difficult to still find out what he went through. He might have achieved the objective of seeing what murder is like when shooting at a human silhouette, but it’s still not the full amount.
As much as I know this piece is fiction, it almost seems real, and I have a difficult time getting the idea into my head that it is fake and not real. But my opinions and descriptions don’t reflect the idea of it being real or fake. I still feel that his intentions are to tell us to write about things that we are comfortable with and that we are able to relate with, rather than guess about and try to figure out what something we might not have experienced is like. With his choice of words, repetition, voice, and style, I feel like he is telling us that not all texts have to be constantly moving, but also able to go back and forth at times. But in order to do this, one must be good at knowing how much and when to do it
8:00 a.m. Section
99102854450
Assignment 4.2
When looking over the piece “What You Know,” by Ho Davies, there is much more to be seen and examined. His features you could say. By features of course I mean his style of writing, his tone of voice, word choice, and in general just the way in which he wrote this piece. There are several things that I would like to talk about, mainly his tone of voice and the style of writing. Along with that, I also found some other features quite interesting.
First, I would like to look at his tone of voice. He isn’t quite gentle, and yet at the same time, isn’t too vulgar with his words. On occasion he might throw a swear word in, but to me it adds to the effect of getting his voice and emotions involved. He seems to keep his word level quite basic, helping the reader understand the material much better. He might challenge us with a word or two, but again it is to add the effect of the piece. The intent being to make us think about what he is trying to imply about not only writing itself as in grammar, but to make us think about what we want to write about, and if it might be possible to write well on it.
One more thing that I noticed, and it might be related to the questions for this assignment, but it seems to be an internal struggle with himself. He is contemplating a lot, whether to write a piece and submit it as Clarks and get money for it. There is struggle between him and his students, trying to prove who might be right, but it is difficult with the lack of education in English to prove who might be right. There is struggle about trying to tell his students, not forcefully, what to write about. They want to write about death, suicide, but like he says, how is it to be made fresh? There is so much that has to be taken into consideration, but it is hard to do, when you are not the victim of suicide. In this case he tries to follow Clark’s footsteps, but finds it difficult to still find out what he went through. He might have achieved the objective of seeing what murder is like when shooting at a human silhouette, but it’s still not the full amount.
As much as I know this piece is fiction, it almost seems real, and I have a difficult time getting the idea into my head that it is fake and not real. But my opinions and descriptions don’t reflect the idea of it being real or fake. I still feel that his intentions are to tell us to write about things that we are comfortable with and that we are able to relate with, rather than guess about and try to figure out what something we might not have experienced is like. With his choice of words, repetition, voice, and style, I feel like he is telling us that not all texts have to be constantly moving, but also able to go back and forth at times. But in order to do this, one must be good at knowing how much and when to do it
4.1 Ho Davies
Shane Salm
8:00 a.m. Section
99102854450
Assignment 4.1
Peter Ho Davies, a man that has honestly seemed to be one of the most realistic authors that I have ever read about caught my attention in so many ways. I never read a piece on such a matter. Sure there have been books and articles about the matter, in which the author tries to captivate the audience with the details about what he or she has seen or is describing, but Davies seemed to hit the nail. This is yet another piece in which I did not find anything really in the norm, I guess you could say.
One thing that I noticed is how he talks about mainly a specific subject and that is his students and there struggle to not only use proper word usage, but also writing about certain subjects. In this case he mentions suicide. When you think about it, it is rather hard to talk or write about suicide, unless you go through with it fully, and in that case you can’t really talk about it, or write about it. I think his main purpose in writing this was not only to try to show us the difficulty of trying to even write about someone that went through murder and then suicide in a day. Even though he attempted to follow some of the steps to go through what Clark might have done, it is impossible to enter the mindset of the actual suspect/victim. In the end he just shows us the difficulties of trying to write about a subject that is really close, almost a personal matter.
I think that he is trying to tell us that in order to make some good text, we need to be realistic about what we write and something that we know much about. Things that haven’t happened to us are rather hard to write about. In his case though, he even tries to attempt to follow steps of a murderer and a suicide. I also believe that past experiences also might have influenced him about it. He might have had lots of death in his family, and also might have known what it might be like to an extant depending where he taught and what it was like where he was living. In general he might be telling use to stick with material we are accustomed to knowing information about, rather than attempting to write about a murder or someone that killed themselves.
8:00 a.m. Section
99102854450
Assignment 4.1
Peter Ho Davies, a man that has honestly seemed to be one of the most realistic authors that I have ever read about caught my attention in so many ways. I never read a piece on such a matter. Sure there have been books and articles about the matter, in which the author tries to captivate the audience with the details about what he or she has seen or is describing, but Davies seemed to hit the nail. This is yet another piece in which I did not find anything really in the norm, I guess you could say.
One thing that I noticed is how he talks about mainly a specific subject and that is his students and there struggle to not only use proper word usage, but also writing about certain subjects. In this case he mentions suicide. When you think about it, it is rather hard to talk or write about suicide, unless you go through with it fully, and in that case you can’t really talk about it, or write about it. I think his main purpose in writing this was not only to try to show us the difficulty of trying to even write about someone that went through murder and then suicide in a day. Even though he attempted to follow some of the steps to go through what Clark might have done, it is impossible to enter the mindset of the actual suspect/victim. In the end he just shows us the difficulties of trying to write about a subject that is really close, almost a personal matter.
I think that he is trying to tell us that in order to make some good text, we need to be realistic about what we write and something that we know much about. Things that haven’t happened to us are rather hard to write about. In his case though, he even tries to attempt to follow steps of a murderer and a suicide. I also believe that past experiences also might have influenced him about it. He might have had lots of death in his family, and also might have known what it might be like to an extant depending where he taught and what it was like where he was living. In general he might be telling use to stick with material we are accustomed to knowing information about, rather than attempting to write about a murder or someone that killed themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
