Public School

It was...

Finding weaves in bathroom stalls,
not understanding why one would wear it at all.

Doing hours of homework each night,
and sleeping turning into such a delight.

Giving sharpies a new purpose,
obscene pictures on every surface.

Awaiting the classroom bell
as if we could escape from hell.

Language out of the curriculum
vulgarity was a habit to succumb.

Personalities slick and wild
eighteen year-old acting as a child.

Freedom in the sense of thought,
but given the limits of knowledge we got.

Encouragement to be different and us,
but required to be same and thus:

No one wanted individuality,
more confusing than what needed be.

A student that would give some sass,
was least or most favorite of the class.

Learning to forget about the past
is really what makes friendships last.

Public
school.

Witman's Wittiness

Freebie!

The Dream?

The American Dream.  People from all around the world migrate the the land of opportunity to pursue a life of happiness.

The American Dream consists of a job, a white picket fence, happiness, and the freedom to make choices that will make one happy.  But I think the actual idea is the pursue of true happiness.  Everyone wants to be happy.  I don't have a doubt in my mind that people leave their countries to come to this one without a dream of being happy and the vision of the opportunity to be happy in the United States of America.

Wealth covers a wide range of ideas.  One could have material wealth and own all of the fancy products in the world, they could have vast emotional wealth and have all of the happiness in the world, or they could have both.  I think it is very difficult to obtain wealth from both sides of the spectrum.  I think the pursue of material wealth is more prominent in today's society as it is assumed that money = happiness.

As a society, I believe we focus on the rich and choose to forget about the impoverished.  We glorify the rich through the media, such as television and magazines.  We watch shows television shows about people who are famous for their wealth and not their talent.  I am not upset at giving a lot of attention to people who deserve it, whether through a successful acting or athletic career, but, as stated previously, I am upset that we give attention to those who have not earned it.  I believe that we need to give more attention to the little things we all do.

Poverty is kind of swept underneath the rug, in my opinion.  Nobody wants to identify the fact that we have poverty within the United States.  The issue of poverty is not as glamorous as Kim Kardashian having a baby, but it what matters most, the happiness of many, or one person having a baby?  Happiness is a part of the American Dream.  And if everyone pursues happiness in a way that does not infringe upon the happiness of others, then I do not see a problem with everyone being happy.

Different Translations, Different Messages

Below is the first line of Franz Kafka's novella Metamorphosis:

Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem 

Bett zu einem ungeheuren Ungeziefer verwandelt.

When translated into English from German from a variety of people, it is found that there are a variety of ways to translate it.  These are all translated from the same German line, but how do they differ?  

(I used one the first Google image that came up when I searched the phrase about the kind of insect he turned into.)

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

• The use of the words "gigantic insect" really stood out to me.  With those words I think of a more grotesque creature, rather than a cute little lady bug.  
• The subject is placed very early in the translation.
• Puts "one morning" before "uneasy dreams," which places emphasis on the morning rather than the dreams
• "Transformed":  A complete, dramatic change.  Implies a complete change.

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

• Use of "giant bug" makes me think of a large, cute, and innocent creature (although Google Images doesn't quite agree with me).
• Uneasy dreams implies that the dreams are not so terrible.
• It puts "uneasy dreams" before "one morning" which places emphasis on the dreams rather than the morning.
• The subject is placed very early in this translation.
• "Changed":  To become different.  Implies something small was altered.

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

• This sentence didn't make sense to me the first time I read it.  I believe this is due to the excessive use of the pronoun "he."
• The excerpt used "enormous bug" which made me think of a large cute bug, a not as scary stimulus (Google Images pulled through this time around).
• "Troubled dreams" makes it sound like his dreams were far from pleasant.  
• The subject is placed in the early portion of the translation.
• "Transformation"

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

• The other translations used "awoke" or "woke" to describe Samsa's ascension into consciousness, and this one used "upon awakening."  Upon awakening makes the action seem more synthetic rather than natural.  
• Also, the use of "monstrous vermin" is very ambiguous.  Whenever I think of a vermin, I think of a rat, but it could be any range of any pest.  
• The use of Samsa's name later in the excerpt makes the audience work a little harder for the name of the character, and builds a small bit of tension.
• Agitated dreams makes the slumber sound annoyed.
• When compared to the other translations, this translation has a different structure.

All of the lines mean the same thing.  The man, Gregor Samsa, had bad dreams before he woke up as an insect.  Bug has a more positive connotation than vermin or insect.  I thought of dreams like waves in the ocean:  uneasy waves are preferable to troubled and agitated dreams.  This made more of a not-as-negative-connotation when "uneasy" was used.  When the use of simpler words was applied, the connotation was not as negative when more complex words were used.  Because I don't know German, I won't know the correct words to use, but I do know that the sounds the sentence makes suggests that there would be a more gentle tone in the translation.

In order to translate a passage with the most accuracy, one must transfer the tone as well as the meaning of the passage in order to give the audience the most authentic reading experience as possible.  This encompasses the idea that there is no perfect translation of literary works, unless one is proficient in both of the languages involved.  There are even some words that don't exist in certain languages, as explained by this NPR story.  There is also a rhythm in which a sentence is structured, and translations need to consider the priorities.  What is the most important?  Rhythm?  Literal meaning of words?  Tone?

A lot is lost in translation.  A viable solution I propose is to just to become fluent in all of the languages.

Awkward IOC

This blog post is focused on the IB Internal Assessment: the Internal Oral Commentary.  In this assessment, we are placed with our teacher in a room while we talk about an excerpt we are given for about 10 minutes.  

If you so choose to listen to my sick, awkward, uncomfortable, and shaky voice, the link to the audio should be included below (Mrs. G I swear I uploaded it but if it doesn't work just know technology hates me and I'll email it to you):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6i6Kr4wZRDJZkpJQnZPVVgyWjctaDNkWXFUMjdISGVuY3FF/view?usp=sharing

I really love how I was sick for this assignment.  Gotta love nasally voices and sniffles.

Okay I'm done with complaining, here's the rest of the assignment...

Here's the break down of my self-grading:

Criterion A: 

7/10:  I give background of the text:  the range it was published, current events that influenced the writing of the text, the author's name, and a quick synopsis of the story.  I don't believe I chose passages that fully supported my comments upon the text  but I do believe my comments, observations, and claims were supported by the evidence I chose from the excerpt.

Criterion B:

5/10:  I talked about the tone created in the reader through the author's use of diction and ambiguity of the discussion of the woods.  But that's where it ended, and I believe that's all I discussed as far as author's influence upon the reader.  So do I deserve a lesser score? 

Criterion C:

4/5:  I believe I give the structure of what I am about to say before I go on saying it.  I give background in the beginning, I state my thesis, and then I follow the structure my thesis gives.  I don't believe it is impeccable or flawless, but I do believe it is "mostly coherent."

Criterion D:

3/5:  Throughout the commentary, I talk in a formal yet casual tone, as if I'm talking to a close friend's parent and I'm trying to talk to them in a respectful manner (to impress them) but I want to still show pieces of my personality, so I try to remain casual.  I also pause a lot and use "um" and "like" quite frequently.  

My excerpt and notes that I used for the IOC!  Wow they are soooooo neat (that was sarcasm).

Judging a Book by its Many Covers

Okay so... Never Let Me Go...

This novel, by Kazuo Ishiguro, is about clones in a society where clones are created to harvest and donate organs to the "regular people" in need of a transplant.  This novel makes the audience ponder what it truly means to be human.

There are a wide variety of title pages, but two really stuck out to me:

Title Page "A"

Title Page "B"

Both of these title pages feature plot points from the novel (A:  Tommy's final fit in the field, B:  Tommy, Kathy, and Ruth's venture to the boat), as well as fading wooden backgrounds.  Besides any other obvious similarities (such as the same title and author), I couldn't find any further similarities.

As far as differences go... well I've got a treat for you!

1. The colors used are VASTLY different:

• "A" features stark, darker hues of blue and gray that give a scarier mood to the audience.  Also makes everything look metallic and synthetic. "B," on the other hand, displays hues of yellow and brown, which tend to be more comforting and serene.

2. They look like completely different novels:

• "A" is extremely dark.  The foggy background and the barbed-wire body are both setting the mood as dark and sinister.  This novel looks like it could be a horror story or some type of extreme science fiction.  "B," in contrast, looks like a romance novel.  The placement of the boat, the colors (even used in a Nicholas Sparks novel), and the landscape's reflection onto the ocean make this novel look happy and promising.

3. The neatness of the title pages vary as well:

• "A" is extremely messy.  The font on the page is inconsistent, as the letters vary in size, placement, and color.  The word "let" being the largest word places emphasis on it.  This makes the audience wonder, will the characters have the capability to hold on to something and choose not to?  Art featured on "A" is also messy, as the background is blurry and the body is crudely drawn. The author's name is also very small.  This could have been done to make the audience select the book based on how it looks, and not necessarily who wrote the novel.   

• "B" has a VERY different organizational tactics.  The title falls below the authors name, both front and center.  This font is not scraggly like "A"'s font, and is easy to read.   The emphasis of the title page is placed on to the author's name, and the creator of this cover page must assume that the people who select this novel will choose it because of the author.

4. "B" lists awards and recommendations while "A" doesn't:

• "A" doesn't have any of the awards or words of praise that "B" has.  This could be because "A" was created before "B" was, or it could be another choice of the creator.  If "A" had included awards or praise then I think the title would be less powerful as a whole, as they would take away some of the synthetic qualities of the cover.  "B" is probably including it to convince the book-buyer-person to purchase the novel.

In short, I find that "A" would draw the attention of those interested more in science fiction, while "B" would draw in more of the audience that likes romance.  Those two aspects are represented in the novel as a whole, so in the creation of two different titles the artists were able to appeal to a larger audience, therefore, convince more people to purchase the novel.

(Which brings up a thought:  why do authors write books?  Do they do it for money? fame? as a catharsis? I don't know, that was just an intruding thought I had.)

TED Talk: Ronson and his Psychopathic Symptoms

Once upon a blog post assignment, Mrs. Genesky told us to watch a TED Talk.  This is the one I chose:

Jon Ronson: Strange answers to the psychopath test

Jon Ronson believes that psychiatry diagnoses people with normal attributes psychological disorders by only judging the extremes of people (which we do as human nature).  This TED Talk is about a man who begins his story with himself, Ronson, visiting a friend's house and noticing the DSM manual on a shelf.  Very curious to see if he had any psychological disorders, Ronson decided to look through it and self-diagnosed himself with twelve different disorders.  Ronson believed himself to be an extremely normal thing, and these characteristics were parts of himself that he believed to be normal.  He spoke to a Scientologist on this topic and this Scientologist (Brian) was able to get Ronson an interview with a man named "Tony."  Tony was sentenced to five years in prison, so in order to avoid harsh punishment, he faked being mentally insane.  He faked being insane quite well and went to the harshest medical treatment center, Broadmoor.  Ronson spoke with Tony and, following the interview, Tony was perceived to be quite a normal man by Ronson so Ronson contacted the hospital's doctors and asked them why he was still in there.  The doctors told Ronson that Tony didn't have the afflictions he claimed to have, but he was in there instead for being a psychopath.  After becoming trained in recognizing psychopaths, Ronson begins to see the psychopath in everybody, particularly those who are succeeding in a capitalist economy.  Eventually, Tony was let out of prison because the jury decided (during his tribunal) that one cannot be judged based on a checklist.  

Here's the psychopathy checklist:

• glib and superficial charm
• grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
• need for stimulation
• pathological lying
• cunning and manipulativeness
• lack of remorse or guilt
• shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
• callousness and lack of empathy
• parasitic lifestyle
• poor behavioral controls
• sexual promiscuity
• early behavior problems
• lack of realistic long-term goals
• impulsivity
• irresponsibility
• failure to accept responsibility for own actions
• many short-term marital relationships
• juvenile delinquency
• revocation of conditional release
• criminal versatility

I believe the purpose behind Ronson giving this TED Talk is to make the audience more open minded about perceiving other people, and be very careful about putting people in boxes.  He even states:  "you shouldn't define people by their maddest edges."  He points out flaws in the psychiatric practices, and in his practices as a journalist:  we take the most exaggerated moments of someone's life and personality then judge them based on it. 

I find his argument to be credible because he has clearly done his research on the topic.  He took classes on psychopathy spotting, and even did his own field work in which he found out how to interpret the checklist he was given and understand the hiccups in the information he learned. In addition, I find his exploration of different perspectives, from scientologist to psychiatrist to give him a well-rounded argument.  (Side note:  this sounds like a really good ToK paper).  Conversely, his argument could be discredited because he is a journalist, and therefore would not have the extensive knowledge that developed the psychiatrist's perspective in the first place.

Ronson's argument is strong because, as stated above, his research was extensive.  He used a wide variety of resources for his claims, and was clearly knowledgeable on the topic.  Ronson also constructed his story in chronological order, which really helped me (the audience) follow along.  This type of structure and the ease at which the audience was able to follow really helped the soaking and recollection of the main points of his argument.  It was very interesting how he had a main story (Tony's) and in the middle he added a sub-story (Al Dunlap).  The structure and the ease at which Ronson integrated the information into his TED Talk appealed to the logic of the audience.  Ronson would also make a claim and prove it through his real-life experiences and research on the claim.

A large part of Ronson's presentation was humor.  I must admit, I did laugh when Ronson was describing Al Dunlap's home as "Narnia."  He used humor that fit really well with the parts of his experiences he was describing, which only reinforced and made his argument more persuasive.  The lack of dirty humor really makes Ronson a more believable person.  He does push feelings from happiness and relief to sadness and disappointment by describing Tony's arc of freedom and re-incarceration.  The effects of these make the story more enticing and more believable.  Without some of these details, the story may have been received with more skepticism.

I found this talk extremely interesting!  Part of what made me choose it was the concept of the title, and it made me think, what composes a psychopath?  I really enjoy learning what makes people tick and what interesting perspectives this man would reveal to me.  Also, there were around 3.8 million views, which implies that this is an extremely good story.  This story, as a whole, relates to me because I tend to organize and label people without fully analyzing what composes them as a whole. What really intrigued me throughout the story was Tony's duality in nature.  In some parts of the story, I could see the non-psychopathic reasoning behind his actions, and in others I could absolutely discern the psychopathic tendencies in him.

I highly recommend watching this TED Talk!

Heroes in Double Indemnity?

An American film noir published in 1944 and directed by Billy Wilder, Double Indemnity, features a car insurance salesman being conned by a beautiful woman to murder her husband.  The insurance claim placed on the husband makes people working in the insurance company wary of this event, and some are suspicious of the wife murdering her husband along with an accomplice.  Because of the film genre, or because I'm not just looking deep enough into the characters and their motivations, I cannot find what I consider to be a hero in this story, except for the man who reports talking to Mr. Dietrichson (Jackson).  In order to explain my thoughts thoroughly, I will pull definitions some definitions into consideration.

Is our protagonist really a hero?

After a quick Google search of the phrase "definition of hero" these are the three primary definitions I found:

a person, typically a man, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.

This is the definition I agree with the most, as it addresses the idea that anyone could potentially be a hero.  Under this definition, our protagonist Walter Neff, began as a hero because he resisted Mrs. Dietrichson's temptations, but ended as a non-hero because he fell under her charm.  In addition, he ended as a non-hero because he murdered somebody (two people!), which is not considered to be a very noble thing to do.  Keyes stands out as a hero under this definition because he perseveres through a lot to find out what actually happened to Mr. Dietrichson.  Another reason I agree with this definition is that it immediately rules out Mrs. Dietrichson (very manipulative), Neff's boss Mr. Norton (arrogant and choosing to be ignorant of the facts Keyes presented), Lola Dietrichson (helpless), the Dietrichson maid (annoying), and Zachetti (violent).  The only character I found with completely noble actions is Mr. Jackson, and that is why he is my only hero.  He reported what he saw because that is what he interpreted as the right thing to do.

the chief male character in a book, play, or movie, who is typically identified with good qualities, and with whom the reader is expected to sympathize.

Under this definition, the only person who can be considered as the hero is Walter Neff.  Neff in the beginning of the film is seen as a nice and honest man, but he suppresses those qualities when he encounters Mrs. Dietrichson.  The audience is capable of sympathizing with him, but he still does commit horrendous deeds.  I do not agree with this definition, even though it does bring into play the motives behind Neff's actions which I find extremely valuable when interpreting this film.  

(in mythology and folklore) a person of superhuman qualities and often semidivine origin, in particular one of those whose exploits and dealings with the gods were the subject of ancient Greek myths and legends.

Do I have to talk about how I disagree with this definition in regard to this film?

In this film, all of the characters seem to be a bit twisted in a way, appear to be helpless, or are not a major part of this film.  Not including any obvious heroes into this film established this story as more dark.  With all of this darkness surrounding the story line, there was no character that gave me (a part of the audience) a sense of relief, as I always felt tension.  If the goal of the film was to create tension and reflection into the lives of the audience (for which of us are truly heroes?), then the director and writers succeeded greatly.