Hello.
Long time no posts, eh? Spring break has been glorious. It’s a little hard getting back to this, but ah well.
The assignment today is to examine and take apart the comments that have been given to us. I have chose a few here, talk a bit about the post they were referring too and then what was so great about them.
First, Laura Mitchell left this on a post I wrote about the rain. It was supposed to be something that we loved; I love the rain, that’s what I wrote about. If you want to read the whole thing, it’s titled “Listening, Waiting, Watching”. Here is the comment that Laura left me:
“Kit, this was soooooooooo awesome. I love the way you personalize (er what ever it's called when you give inanimate things human traits.) But you took it to another level when you actually gave the trees voices, so they were human. You really do that well, especially the paragraph about the sky breathing. OH! It's personification. So, you're personifications the best part of the whole page. I knew you liked the rain but this really makes it obvious that you are in love with it, and really wish it rained more often. You make the rain seem rare and beautiful thing (I guess it is in San Diego), I really loved that. I don't know what other to say besides 'this is really good'. I'm a bit jealous myself. Kudos!”
First, I was really flattered to find this comment left on something that I had written. It’s obvious from everything about the comment that she really liked the piece. But the best thing about it was that she didn’t just say that she liked it, though she says that in the last couple of lines, she really goes in depth about what she liked. She says, “But you took it to another level when you actually gave the trees voices, so they were human.” in reference to what she had already said about personification. Thanks!
Second, this comment was left by Chris Connell. I chose it because he corrected something that I said in my post that was not true. This was helpful for my personal understanding, even if I never did go back and change it. The post was called “Fahrenheit 452 (oops!), pp. 40-68” (that it’s called “542” is a mistake. I might go and change it.)
“Wow this was really good Kit. I actually read it all! (yay for me) I really admire your take on the book and I agree with a lot of what you say. One thing I would like to clarify for you. When you were talking about the woman being burned at the stake for "hearsay". In the book it actually says that she was burned for "heresy" which means: opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system. Makes a little more sense now doesn't it?”
Thank you Chris for correcting my mistake. This was helpful to me! I’m glad that you liked it!
Next up is Beth Kurtz, commenting on my piece called “Myth, Religion or Cult?” This was a piece that I wrote on the side, it had nothing to do with school. This topic was one that Beth and I had discussed in the past, and so we were both very interested in the topic.
“Kit kit kit...
I really enjoyed your lengthy and thourough comment on my rage entry. I saw this one so bare and commentless and couldn't help to express my opinion.
I do remember us having this very conversation a little while ago. I must say that I see complete truth in the point you are making.
I think it is not at all ridiculus to question christianity, or judeism(?) or buddhism or any other relion the same way we question myths. The only REAL difference between the two is that that the people who believed in myths are no longer alive. They were just as devoted to them as many people are now to religion. I guess this is because it gives them something to believe, something to follow. Or maybe they were never really given a choice, so it's just second nature to them. They don't even think to question it because thats just how it has been their whole life. (hmmm... sound a bit like F451?)
I'm sure you are at least vaguely familiar with a certain quote from John Lennon where he stated that they(The Beatles) were bigger than Jesus. If you read the full statment(which most people neglect to do) he says that Christianity will shrink and vanish. While this sounds ridiculous to us now, in a thousand years, who says this won't really happen? It happened with Greek myths didn't it?
He also says something like Jesus wasn't bad, but the disciples being the ones who ruined it, because they twisted it around. This isn't really relevant, but I liked that part.
Anyways... I also think it is interesting that religions such as Christianity and the practices ascociated with it have very pagan roots. This being ironic becuase how strongly paganism is rejected among christians today.
It truly is all a matter of PERSPECTIVE and the passing of time. I think most of the time it is easier for people to accept and believe what is familiar to them or is a social norm, then go against it. I have left a rather long comment, so I won't go into the brainwashing part of it, but remind me to talk to you about that some time.
Love,
Beth the Viking.”
This was a second comment that she left, giving me the direct quote:
“I thought I should probably give you the quote, so here it is:
"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first — rock and roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me"
-John Lennon
4 March 1966
I'm sure you know the story, but in response to the "we're bigger than jesus" part(which was almost always used out of context!) people flipped out and started burning Beatles stuff and having protests and what not. It's one of those examples of people taking their religion so far that they loose sight of what it's really about in the first place.
-Bethybumm”
Thank you, Beth, discussing this with you was VERY interesting!
The last one is from Justin Ureta. This is only one of the many, many comments that he left on my “blog” over the time that we have been engaged in these web pages, but it was the first and, I thought, a good example. If you are looking for my response, or more comments from him, I would suggest that you look on both of our “blogs” as I don’t think that any of them are all in one place. This particular comment was on a piece called “Fahrenheit 451 80-91”.
“Kit, I saw your comment on Mr. Jana's blog (Under his entry, "READ THIS: My Reflections on Blogs and Technology"), and couldn't resist but to fight in the name of computer nerds everywhere ;)
Let me start off by pointing out part of your comment:
"We are reaching this age similar to what Captain Beatty says, “Why learn anything save pressing buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts?” I see that already. You ask someone what the last book they read was and they can’t tell you, they don’t remember or it was something that had to read for class. So we look at why that is. I am sure that if you looked at when reading began to decrease it would drop in perfect synchronization with the introduction of an Internet that is available to anyone. Teens don’t do anything unless it is required. They want to sit on their “blogs” and their instant messenger and they’ll read a book if you make them, but not unless they have to. It doesn’t progress their understanding of “fitting nuts and bolts”.
First off, I ask you not to stereotype your fellow teens in such ways. It would have worked if you simply said "the majority of teens."
Second off: You regard typing such intricate posts as "pressing buttons, pulling switches, fitting nuts and bolts"? Please, if you could bring me three books that you own that were handwritten, I'd love to see them.
Third off: Reading did not decrease when the internet began. That was radio. In fact, I think it is the internet that is SAVING reading! Since nothing could be easily transmitted by audio through the internet, everything is transmitted through text, causing teens all around the world to "learn" how to read again. On top of that, there are wonderful websites like www.dailylit.com that will actually SEND you novels for FREE via email. If it wasn't for them, I would have never gotten the chance to read 20,000 leagues under the sea.
Fourth off: "They want to sit on their “blogs” and their instant messenger and they’ll read a book if you make them, but not unless they have to." Do you have a journal or a diary, Kit? Tell me, what is so different between that and a blog? And as for instant messanging, have you never written a letter before, or used the telephone? Instant messaging is the same concept, except, as the name suggests, it is instant. Convenient. Furthering communication between humans. I dare you to tell me that is a bad thing. As for "only reading a book when they have to," I sadly must agree with you there. I have a theory, though, that if you took a novel and gave it to a teen, he wouldn't read it. BUT, if you took the same novel and placed the whole of it's contents on a webpage, kids would read it. For some reason, the word "book" just has a negative impact on the youth these days. Finally, I would like to direct your attention to a rather interesting piece of literature (That I found online, of all places. Gasp.) http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory/
It's a rather wonderful piece, building off of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, with the thesis that the world is becoming more like the video games that once mimicked it, and what's more, why that is a GOOD THING.”
This conversation became incredibly interesting and long (and heated, I might add). It was nice to debate this topic with someone on a more personal level than in a classroom setting. One of the nice things about this debate with Justin was also that his position was so radically different from my own. This element made it much more interesting (and difficult!) to come up with new arguments, anticipating the way that he would respond. Thank you!
A last big thanks to everyone!!
Goodbye!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi!
Well, since you've been so kind as to mention one of my comments, I thought I ought to return the favor ;) Here's what I put on my blog:
Continuing to go back, we have Kit Haggard's post:
"Justin,
I am so sorry that we have gotten off debating. I think that I never responded to your last comment. Oh well, we can start a new thread now.
Ok, to education. I think that it is absolutely true that young children are some of the wisest people that the world will ever see. I honestly do. I think that part of this is because their minds are very clear on what they think is right or wrong. I think that 80% of the problems in the world today would have never happened if we brought in a load of fourth graders to run the government.
Unfortunately, there is that other 20%. Children (and I know this from personal experience, I have a little brother) are very frivolous, sometimes selfish, and often just very unaware that the choices that they make have an impact on people other than themselves. They don’t realize that they can hurt someone by something that they say, it doesn’t even occur to them. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.
I also have to agree with what you said about adults. Most of them are ALSO very selfish. They get very caught up with things like, as you said, getting from point a to point b. Of course, children don’t have this problem. As a whole, children look more at the world in a day, that most adults do in most of their adult life. Children will look out the window of a car and point at a kite in a tree, or flowers in someone’s garden, or a man sitting at a bus stop. Just little things that most would never notice, and that IS one of the things that makes children so wonderful.
However, the world cannot be run on observations alone. As you said, children don’t worry about profit or statistics; some wouldn’t know what those words mean. Decisions that are made in this country that involve things like passing a bill for stem cell research, or abortion, or even fishing rights in Michigan. A child would never have enough experience, enough education, to make a decision about something like that.
As a rule, I’m not fond of the people who run the world today. If they did their jobs a little bit better, I think that there would be far fewer problems. Darfur, for example. The UN should be doing something about it, it’s been classified as genocide for nearly two and a half years, and yet they still send no troops in to save people. Why don’t they do anything?
But despite this, I don’t think that we could just replace all governments with children. We need people who have enough knowledge to make good decisions and be able to look into the future, so that they can predict any problems that may arise. Children live too much in the present.
And last, yes, I do think that Plato was a little egotistical. Socrates too. He was, after all, the one that said there was no one to rule but philosophers. After reading some of his ideas on justice, though, I might be persuaded to that opinion. I especially like the conclusion that he draws at the end of part two. That a good man will hurt no one, therefore a just man will hurt no one, and only his opposite, an unjust man, will cause harm. Pretty good if you ask me.
Alrightly, enough rambling.
Kit
PS. I had to delete the last comment due to a posting error. I always hate it when people delete things form my blog so I thought that I would explain."
She and I have been debating on a few things for quite a while now, and I found this one a bit interesting. Usually, when I write about the world and the humans that inhabit it, it's often mostly based on my observations, and is thus somewhat influenced by who I'm around. Usually, I don't get to hang around the lil'uns unless I'm on VMK, which has gotten rarer as school gets harder. This post was a nice reminder that people do grow, and aren't static.
And, of course, it's always fun to have a nice debate about something every now and then. Especially with someone like Kit, one of the rare few that tend to think a lot about their posts, and have some rather interesting thoughts (As opposed to what others tend to do, simply posting a two-word long comment that doesn't really say anything other than "OMG PWNAGE." *coughcoughdanielrodriguezcough*) ;)
P.S.: That book I mentioned to you about, Gamer Theory, ought to be out in stores by now (In a physical, published form. Shocking, I know XD). I just finished the online version a few weeks ago, and I highly recommend it.
P.P.S.: The author of Gamer Theory, McKenzie Wark, visited my blog over Spring Break :D It was really cool.
Thanks for commenting and helping me out on the "Rage" post. Here is my reply for your help.
The reason why I think that this was a helpful post is because she says something
she/you liked about it. Then she went on to explain why she liked it. Also she/you
gave examples of what I did good. Such as use of words and being descriptive.
hey kit, thanks for posting on my blog, it was really helpful at he time.
heres what u wrote:
Michael
I can answer who all of those people are. (I have to admit though, I have the actual book, I bought it, and some of them I looked up in the back, I think that might be cheating, but whatever).
Ok,
Atrides--This means son of Atreus (I think that's how you spell it). Atreus is the father of Agamemnon and Menlaeus.
Diomedes--He is a Greek warrior. I dont think that he is all that important.
Orestes--(I didnt know this one) He is the son of Agamemnon and killed by Hector (prince of Troy)
Chrysothemis, Laodice and Iphianassa--Agamemnon's daughters. He offers one of them to Achilles in book nine, line 174.
Ajax--He is a Greek warrior. He is fairly large and very powerful. He is freinds with Achilles and Odyddeus.
Odysseus--He is "The Great Tactioner", in the end, he is the one (I think) that comes up with the idea of the horse. He lives to sail back to his family, but the whole book "The Odyssy" is about him. He is friends with Achilles and Ajax.
A herald--This is not actualy a character, but more like a name for a servant or attendant.
Odius--(I didn't know this one either) He's just a Greek atendant, or herald.
Eurybates--(Didn't know this one) also a herald of Agamemnon.
I cant say that I know what a tripod is either. I can only asume, like you did, that it is NOT a camera tripod. I think that it must be valuable.
Hope that helped
Kit
Heres what I wrote about it:
This quote helped me a lot for several reasons. The first reason is that Kit describes not only who a character was in the story but how important they were/are. That helped me categorize the characters importance in my head better. She also gave some page numbers for reference, although I did not use that page refrence it could have some in handy.
Post a Comment