Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Comparison and Contrast
You would think that there would be absolutely no similarities between a vast expanse of snow and a sandy desert, but they actually have a lot in common. Both are long, flat stretches of land that do not have any helpful landmarks, and no extreme changes in colour. A desert wind whips up the sand in the same way an arctic wind churns the snow, making it difficult to see, and quite easy to get lost. Both deserts are an uncomfortable temperature for humans, one too hot and one too cold. Snow deserts do not seem to be home to any organisms, but deserts hold many types of lizards, and plants like cactuses that are acclimatized to the hot, dry weather. The most prominent similarity to me is that I would never want to be stuck in either one.
Classification and Division
In a game of basketball the team that makes the least mistakes will win the game. And so the strategy is to find your opponent’s weaknesses and exploit them. In warm up, and in the opening minutes of a game I am always watching my opponents for individual, as well as team strengths and weaknesses. I ask myself which girls can handle the ball under pressure. Who can shoot the contested jumper? Who has a weak left hand? Which girls play low in the post and which ones play on the perimeter? Who is slow, who is fast, and more importantly, are they faster than me? Noticing these things will help my team take advantage of their weak spots defensively and offensively, forcing them to make mistakes. These are all important things to notice, but I also catalog whether my opponents are tough or not. The girls who fall into the “tough” category are the ones who are scrappy, aggressive, hard-working, and they will win the game at all costs. The girls who are in the “not tough” category will not hit the floor for a ball, and will not willingly take a hit for their team. They are timid, unconfident and not very skilled. They will be easily forced to make mistakes, and so my team will pick on them. Right now it seems impudent for me to think or say such a thing, but any athlete knows that when you get on the court or field, you do whatever it takes to win.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Metacognitive Reflection #1
Unfortunately, I was away on the day we did socratic circles, so instead of reviewing the feedback evidence of my role in the circle, I am reflecting on my role on the volleyball team. When I play my favourite sport (basketball) I am usually very boisterous and confidently loud and vocal. I usually talk to my teammates a lot on the court and offer advice, encouragement or criticism. However, when I play volleyball I am still encouraging, but I do not offer advice or my opinions very often because volleyball is not a sport that I know and understand well. If I had been at school for the socratic circles, it likely would have been the same way. I generally do not speak up about things I am not confident about. In the socratic circles I most likely would have been unconfident and therefore would have kept any opinions I formed to myself from fear of negative evaluation. This would have been very different if, say, I was talking to my friends about basketball or my favourite TV show. I tend to be very opinionated and vocal about the things I love. This is very unusual for me because I mostly don’t care what anybody (other than my friends and family) thinks of me. However, the one exception to this seems to be that I am afraid of peers thinking of me as stupid or a “dumb blonde”.
I know that any opinion or idea that I form will not be dumb if it is well thought through and honest. I also know that if it is an honest opinion, nobody will chide or think less of me for voicing it. This is what I will try to convince myself for our next socratic circle day.
I’m not sure that I can affix an accurate adjective label to myself for my role in an oral activity, because it would depend on the topic of discussion. In english class, I would be most likely to listen very carefully to others and mull thinks over in my head. I might convince myself to create a little input occasionally, but not often. In a socratic circle, I might be described as something along the lines of “good listener” or “quiet thinker”.
I know that any opinion or idea that I form will not be dumb if it is well thought through and honest. I also know that if it is an honest opinion, nobody will chide or think less of me for voicing it. This is what I will try to convince myself for our next socratic circle day.
I’m not sure that I can affix an accurate adjective label to myself for my role in an oral activity, because it would depend on the topic of discussion. In english class, I would be most likely to listen very carefully to others and mull thinks over in my head. I might convince myself to create a little input occasionally, but not often. In a socratic circle, I might be described as something along the lines of “good listener” or “quiet thinker”.
"A Fire Truck" by Richard Wilbur
The purpose of this poem is to illustrate the “loud, obvious” presence of a fire truck racing down the street. The writer is an observant bystander, perhaps someone wandering down the street who is “purged of nuance” by the “uproarious gear”, “squall of traction” and “headlong bell” of the fire truck. The poet conveys the loud conspicuousness of the truck as well as the admiring it’s “phoenix-red simplicity” and beauty.
This is good poetry because it starts with an every day object that most people don’t really take notice of, and describes it in a way that makes it seem beautiful. This poem uses rhetorical devices such as alliteration: “shocked street”, personification: “as you howl beyond hearing” and rhyme to convince the reader of the magnificence of the fire truck. This poem is also good because it is short and sweet. The author has chosen his words very carefully in order to be descriptive, accurate, and emotional. However, the expressive adjectives he uses are not an effort to be “clever by half”, but they are beautifully chosen words that communicate his feelings quite effectively. The purpose of this piece of poetry is easy to make out because the writer does not overdo it. He keeps it as short and simple as possible while still transferring his deep and intricate feelings to the reader through this poem.
This is good poetry because it starts with an every day object that most people don’t really take notice of, and describes it in a way that makes it seem beautiful. This poem uses rhetorical devices such as alliteration: “shocked street”, personification: “as you howl beyond hearing” and rhyme to convince the reader of the magnificence of the fire truck. This poem is also good because it is short and sweet. The author has chosen his words very carefully in order to be descriptive, accurate, and emotional. However, the expressive adjectives he uses are not an effort to be “clever by half”, but they are beautifully chosen words that communicate his feelings quite effectively. The purpose of this piece of poetry is easy to make out because the writer does not overdo it. He keeps it as short and simple as possible while still transferring his deep and intricate feelings to the reader through this poem.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
You Call This Literature?
By Ashley Laframboise
Looking through the "Literature" section, I expected to find articles on Woolf and Morrison, Pound and Hazlitt, but instead I found that the name "Dan Brown" appeared as frequently as candy in a sweet shop. Brown’s earth-shattering theory is not even his own, and his writing is generally quite uninspired. I find it appalling that we let a best seller based on a juicy plot characterize the literature we believe we should to read.
Yes, popular literature has hit an unparalleled low. Fine literature, like the books in the back of Chapters, is being overlooked while we focus on the flashy pens and calendars at the front of the store. On the tables nearest the entrance are shiny pop fiction bestsellers, or anything with the Oprah Book Club approval sticker. It took almost a century before William Faulkner, only when Oprah recommended a three-volume set of his “best work”, was recognized as a valuable writer. We tend to read what Oprah recommends, or what we find at the front of Chapters, and the few of us who covet further work of an author are scarcely able to find any in the store. We all seem to crave what someone else feels is "best," because we don’t want to do the digging and thinking for ourselves. Instead, we gather bits and pieces, only caring to read the literature that the New York Times deems "Brilliant" and "Dazzlingly unique", as if they aren’t all developed using the same recipe.
Though some people are unaware, Canadian writers are out there. The most recognized of them being the ones who base their stories in the mid-western U.S in order to sell more copies. Many of us have never read anything by Atwood or Munro, who are unsurprisingly not even being considered in Chapters' "Best Selling Novels," while others like Henighan are vastly disregarded. It seems we would all prefer to read up on astrology and fashion, picking up fuzzy pens while we're at it. We attempt to escape our busy lives by numbing our brains with the unoriginal world where a beautiful young woman falls head-over-heels for some man who has some dark and foreboding secret. People crave predictable plots with happy endings, instead of reading about things that really matter. Literature is what makes us human, but if all we read is mass-market, bestselling, clichéd plot-driven books, I'm concerned about what that says for humanity.
Looking through the "Literature" section, I expected to find articles on Woolf and Morrison, Pound and Hazlitt, but instead I found that the name "Dan Brown" appeared as frequently as candy in a sweet shop. Brown’s earth-shattering theory is not even his own, and his writing is generally quite uninspired. I find it appalling that we let a best seller based on a juicy plot characterize the literature we believe we should to read.
Yes, popular literature has hit an unparalleled low. Fine literature, like the books in the back of Chapters, is being overlooked while we focus on the flashy pens and calendars at the front of the store. On the tables nearest the entrance are shiny pop fiction bestsellers, or anything with the Oprah Book Club approval sticker. It took almost a century before William Faulkner, only when Oprah recommended a three-volume set of his “best work”, was recognized as a valuable writer. We tend to read what Oprah recommends, or what we find at the front of Chapters, and the few of us who covet further work of an author are scarcely able to find any in the store. We all seem to crave what someone else feels is "best," because we don’t want to do the digging and thinking for ourselves. Instead, we gather bits and pieces, only caring to read the literature that the New York Times deems "Brilliant" and "Dazzlingly unique", as if they aren’t all developed using the same recipe.
Though some people are unaware, Canadian writers are out there. The most recognized of them being the ones who base their stories in the mid-western U.S in order to sell more copies. Many of us have never read anything by Atwood or Munro, who are unsurprisingly not even being considered in Chapters' "Best Selling Novels," while others like Henighan are vastly disregarded. It seems we would all prefer to read up on astrology and fashion, picking up fuzzy pens while we're at it. We attempt to escape our busy lives by numbing our brains with the unoriginal world where a beautiful young woman falls head-over-heels for some man who has some dark and foreboding secret. People crave predictable plots with happy endings, instead of reading about things that really matter. Literature is what makes us human, but if all we read is mass-market, bestselling, clichéd plot-driven books, I'm concerned about what that says for humanity.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Process
The Spider and the Wasp by Alexander Petrunkevitch is an example of good writing. It is also a good example of a process because all of the facts are presented at the beginning and then strung together at the end to form the main process. As the reader I was interested by all of the facts that were given in the first part of the piece, but I didn’t see how they all fit together until the author began to describe the fascinating process of the wasp laying her egg on the spider. I don’t have time to write any more because it’s time for class.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Good and Bad Writing
1. The first piece of writing is bad because it has no clear thesis and therefore no direction at all. The unclear thesis is then followed by a series of points that neither prove the claim or make any sense at all. This paragraph gets “hyped up” by using speech such as “Ethical Relativism is of a mind to say that whatever one’s culture says is right is the right thing for him or her to do”. This point does not relate to the opening statement, “Within our society, it has been shown that there is an individual”. This paragraph has no direction and no purpose. It hurts my head to try to understand it.
2. The second paragraph (which is just one long sentence) is “too clever by half”. It uses big words and stuffs them all into one very long sentence that the reader becomes lost in. The writer is making a simple claim much more complicated to understand.
3. This piece of writing “thinks too much of itself”. The writer is convinced of the claim he/she is making, but makes no real effort to convince the reader. Because of this, paragraph 3 also “ignores the reader”. The information that the writer offers as proof is his/her own opinion with no actual fats to back it up, so it is “telling lies”. This piece is hard to follow and seems to come to false conclusions without any proof.
4. This piece of writing is good because it is clear and concise. It states only information that is relevant to the topic and does not overdo its sentences with too many big words. It is very easy to follow and understand.
5. Paragraph 5 is an example of good writing because it has a clear direction. It is aware of the reader and uses the quotation “Colors are the smiles of nature” to grab the reader’s interest. This piece is clear in it’s direction, easy to follow, and uses scientific proof to draw conclusions, and not just statements of opinion.
6. The last piece is aware of the reader and captures their attention right away with an interesting question, “Can a machine think?” It goes on to provide clear and rational ideas to back up its argument. It is well directed and easy to follow, and it also appeals to most readers’ interests.
The concept of audience is a very difficult factor to consider when assessing good and bad writing. If the target audience is not made clear, it can be hard to distinguish good from bad writing. A piece of writing, even if it is very good, may not be recognized as good writing by someone who is not part of the target audience. For example, my parents are unlikely to be able to understand an email or text message that is sent to me by a friend, but I can comprehend it perfectly without having to think much at all. (Maybe that’s a bad example..) Audience can also be the most decisive factor in evaluating good and bad writing, but only if the target audience is known. For example, if I read a novel that uses big words and very intricate descriptions, I may consider it good writing because it is expressive and captivating. However, if I realized that the intended audience for this book was public school children, I would reevaluate the writing as bad, because it would not appeal to its target audience.
2. The second paragraph (which is just one long sentence) is “too clever by half”. It uses big words and stuffs them all into one very long sentence that the reader becomes lost in. The writer is making a simple claim much more complicated to understand.
3. This piece of writing “thinks too much of itself”. The writer is convinced of the claim he/she is making, but makes no real effort to convince the reader. Because of this, paragraph 3 also “ignores the reader”. The information that the writer offers as proof is his/her own opinion with no actual fats to back it up, so it is “telling lies”. This piece is hard to follow and seems to come to false conclusions without any proof.
4. This piece of writing is good because it is clear and concise. It states only information that is relevant to the topic and does not overdo its sentences with too many big words. It is very easy to follow and understand.
5. Paragraph 5 is an example of good writing because it has a clear direction. It is aware of the reader and uses the quotation “Colors are the smiles of nature” to grab the reader’s interest. This piece is clear in it’s direction, easy to follow, and uses scientific proof to draw conclusions, and not just statements of opinion.
6. The last piece is aware of the reader and captures their attention right away with an interesting question, “Can a machine think?” It goes on to provide clear and rational ideas to back up its argument. It is well directed and easy to follow, and it also appeals to most readers’ interests.
The concept of audience is a very difficult factor to consider when assessing good and bad writing. If the target audience is not made clear, it can be hard to distinguish good from bad writing. A piece of writing, even if it is very good, may not be recognized as good writing by someone who is not part of the target audience. For example, my parents are unlikely to be able to understand an email or text message that is sent to me by a friend, but I can comprehend it perfectly without having to think much at all. (Maybe that’s a bad example..) Audience can also be the most decisive factor in evaluating good and bad writing, but only if the target audience is known. For example, if I read a novel that uses big words and very intricate descriptions, I may consider it good writing because it is expressive and captivating. However, if I realized that the intended audience for this book was public school children, I would reevaluate the writing as bad, because it would not appeal to its target audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
