I think I saw the roles of chance and fate when the family was eating dinner and the grandmother was talking to Red Sam. The stories he told were what made me notice that. I think the way The Misfit was is chance. He did not have to be like that, he could of grown up to be a kind, forgiving man. There was the chance that he would not become a good man, and that slight chance happened. I think it was fate when the family's car tipped over and the grandmother got to talk to The Misfit. It was fate when she talked to him, and told him what a good man he was. I do not think it changed him, though. If it did, I certainly could not tell. Maybe it changed him on the inside, and it would make him change someday.
I think the grandmother's definition of a good man is someone who can change. It could also be someone who came from a good family and was good to begin with, even if they are not anymore. She also thinks a good man is someone who prays, and gets forgiven by God. In the story, the grandmother tells The Misfit over and over that he is a good man. I guess that I never thought of someone like that to be a good man, but the grandmother does. She also tells The Misfit that he needs to pray. She says that if he prays, he will get help; he does not want to. She still calls him a good man.
By reading this story, I have realized that in life I try to view everyone as good people. I try to see the good in them. I have realized that I do not do this as much as I thought I tried to. I do not think that I could ever call a person who has broken out of jail and is running with two men and two guns a good man. I would not be able to see the good in them.
I do agree when the grandmother says that there is good in everyone, and that she is trying very hard to see the good in The Misfit. I also agree when she says that if he prays, he could do better. I think that even if he does not believe in prayer, repenting and being sorry for the bad things he has done would be good for him.
I wonder if the grandmother knew that The Misfit was going to shoot them all. When I came to that part, I noticed that it seemed like the grandmother knew he would, and was trying to convince him that he was a good man, and had no place going around and shooting people.
I also wonder why the grandmother said he was one of her own children. I wonder if she meant that he was as good as one of her own children, or that he literally was.
In the blogpost we read about Flannery O'Connor, I noticed something that I had never thought about before. The author of this blogpost got an opinion from another person about A Good Man is Hard to Find. The person said that grace was a part of the story, and that many of O'Connor's stories have grace in them. I stopped and thought about it, and realized that it is very much true. When the grandmother in the story just stopped and talked to the Misfit, telling him he was a good man and that things could get better and he could be forgiven, that was all grace. Having grace is what helped her to, in a way, forgive the Misfit.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail- Act 2
It is very ironic that Henry says he feels more free inside the jail cell than outside, even though people are locked inside a jail cell to be stripped of their freedom. I think that Henry feels more free inside, because he is not being told to pay his taxes, and he is not in the middle of the war.
I also think that is was somewhat ironic that Henry was encouraging people not to pay taxes, and then his own family member was the one who payed Henry's taxes to get him out.
I think that the most important characters in this play are Henry, John, and Bailey. The reason that Henry is the most important character is self explanatory. His name is in the title of the book, and the book was written about him. John is important because he is Henry's brother and very good friend, and they teach their class (where the teaching is based on Transcendentalism) together. Bailey is also an important character, because Henry talks to him and teaches him in the jail cell.
I would cast Johnny Depp as Henry Thoreau, because while I was reading The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail, I thought that some of the things Henry said and the way I imagined him saying them reminded me of the character Depp took on in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I think he could play the part well.
I would cast Sam Claflin (from Catching Fire) as John, because I think Claflin would play the part nicely. I think that he would be good at portraying John, who is similar to his brother Henry.
I think I would want Woody Harrelson to play Bailey, because I think that he could play the sad, jailed man nicely. Bailey reminded me of the way Haymitch was portrayed in The Hunger Games.
I think that at first, Henry's protest was not successful. His aunt payed his taxes and made it so that he could leave the jail. He was very upset about this, because his whole point of the protest was to let people know that his taxes were not going to be payed.
But at the very end, things changed, and Henry walked out. Not because he was informed he was free, but because he chose to leave.
I also think that is was somewhat ironic that Henry was encouraging people not to pay taxes, and then his own family member was the one who payed Henry's taxes to get him out.
I think that the most important characters in this play are Henry, John, and Bailey. The reason that Henry is the most important character is self explanatory. His name is in the title of the book, and the book was written about him. John is important because he is Henry's brother and very good friend, and they teach their class (where the teaching is based on Transcendentalism) together. Bailey is also an important character, because Henry talks to him and teaches him in the jail cell.
I would cast Johnny Depp as Henry Thoreau, because while I was reading The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail, I thought that some of the things Henry said and the way I imagined him saying them reminded me of the character Depp took on in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I think he could play the part well.
I would cast Sam Claflin (from Catching Fire) as John, because I think Claflin would play the part nicely. I think that he would be good at portraying John, who is similar to his brother Henry.
I think I would want Woody Harrelson to play Bailey, because I think that he could play the sad, jailed man nicely. Bailey reminded me of the way Haymitch was portrayed in The Hunger Games.
I think that at first, Henry's protest was not successful. His aunt payed his taxes and made it so that he could leave the jail. He was very upset about this, because his whole point of the protest was to let people know that his taxes were not going to be payed.
But at the very end, things changed, and Henry walked out. Not because he was informed he was free, but because he chose to leave.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail- Act 1
Henry: Our own school, John. No buildings. Break out of the classroom prison. All we need is the sky!
The way I interpret this is Thoreau's way of expressing his feelings about being a naturalist, and his thoughts on learning about the world, and everything around us that was not human made. That is the part about them having to learn in the "classroom prison." Him calling it a prison and proposing to "break put of" it makes me think that he would much rather not be inside a building to do his teaching and learning. He would like to be outside.
This quote also expresses independence, when Thoreau expresses how he wants their own school. He seems to want a place that other humans have not destroyed or created, where he can teach about nature, and show his students how to explore by themselves, and uncover knowledge that they had not discovered or learned before. This brings us into Transcendental thought.
Thoreau believed strongly in this way of thought, because as the quote above shows, he enjoyed learning and discovering things by his own free will. He wanted others to learn how to do that, too, so he taught self-reliance in his class. The classmates all left the class eventually, because their parents all decided that they did not like Transcendentalism, and they did not want their children learning that.
The last student left, because his father did not like that he spoke up at the table, and believed that the parents only had the right to do that. He pulled him out of the school.
Thoreau expressed civil disobedience, when he refused to pay taxes, and forced Staples to arrest him. He was very defiant, and I can begin to understand why some people disliked this way of thinking. He got very mad at Staples, and refused to pay multiple times. He went so far as to talk to the crowd about what he was doing, and why he was doing the right thing.
I really like the Transcendental way of thinking for the most part, but some of the defiance does not seem like it is the right thing to do when facing the government. They have the power to do a lot of things.
The way I interpret this is Thoreau's way of expressing his feelings about being a naturalist, and his thoughts on learning about the world, and everything around us that was not human made. That is the part about them having to learn in the "classroom prison." Him calling it a prison and proposing to "break put of" it makes me think that he would much rather not be inside a building to do his teaching and learning. He would like to be outside.
This quote also expresses independence, when Thoreau expresses how he wants their own school. He seems to want a place that other humans have not destroyed or created, where he can teach about nature, and show his students how to explore by themselves, and uncover knowledge that they had not discovered or learned before. This brings us into Transcendental thought.
Thoreau believed strongly in this way of thought, because as the quote above shows, he enjoyed learning and discovering things by his own free will. He wanted others to learn how to do that, too, so he taught self-reliance in his class. The classmates all left the class eventually, because their parents all decided that they did not like Transcendentalism, and they did not want their children learning that.
The last student left, because his father did not like that he spoke up at the table, and believed that the parents only had the right to do that. He pulled him out of the school.
Thoreau expressed civil disobedience, when he refused to pay taxes, and forced Staples to arrest him. He was very defiant, and I can begin to understand why some people disliked this way of thinking. He got very mad at Staples, and refused to pay multiple times. He went so far as to talk to the crowd about what he was doing, and why he was doing the right thing.
I really like the Transcendental way of thinking for the most part, but some of the defiance does not seem like it is the right thing to do when facing the government. They have the power to do a lot of things.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
The Most Dangerous Game vs. The Odyssey
We see the desire and danger resulting in drama in this story, because General Zaroff loves to hunt. He has started to hunt people because he kills animals easily. Once Rainsford comes onto the island, the general decided that he was a worthy opponent and tried to hunt him. This is dangerous because Rainsford could be killed. This turns into drama when Rainsford puts out traps and reveals more of his sly side. He ended up tricking and killing the general in the end.
This is shown in the Odyssey a lot in the parts involving the suitors. The desire is shown because the suitors all wish that Penelope could marry them. This is dangerous, because even though he does not, Telemachus could hurt them to try and make them leave. This all results in drama, because even though almost nobody knows, Odysseus was still alive. He came back and killed all of the suitors.
1. I think that at least some background knowledge is needed in both The Odyssey and The Most Dangerous Game. It helped me understand the story better to know that Rainsford was a hunter in The Most Dangerous Game. It helped to know that he was good at it, because then it was more suspenseful when General Zaroff tried to hunt him down. In The Odyssey, I needed to know that Odysseus had been gone from home for more than twenty years. It helped me sympathize with him and Penelope better. I think the background knowledge was needed more in The Odyssey, because it seemed like the whole book began in the middle of a story. When I knew what had happened before, I understood it a lot better.
2. The conflict in The Most Dangerous Game was external, because the main character (Rainsford) was being hunted by the general. The main conflict in The Odyssey was internal, because Odysseus was sad and wanted badly to get home. The gods did interfere with that, but the conflict was mostly internal.
3. In The Most Dangerous Game, Rainsford came on this trip on a boat to hunt in the rainforest. That is what it seems like to me. His obstacles were that he fell off his boat and it left, he found an island but then was hunted by the man on it, and ended up having to kill the man on the island. In The Odyssey, Odysseus wanted to get home. He had the obstacles of being held captive by Calypso, having the gods against him, and having the tendency to talk a lot. Those were the main ones I saw. I think that in both books, the obstacles kept the people from getting home.
4. In The Most Dangerous Game, there were not any flashbacks that I read about. In The Odyssey, Odysseus flashed back to the time of his entire journey, before he had been captured by Calypso (which is where the book starts).
5. In The Most Dangerous Game, the external conflict is resolved when Rainsford won the General's game and shoved him out the window to the dogs. In The Odyssey, the internal conflict is resolved after Odysseus finds his way home, reveals himself, and kills the suitors. After that, he talks with Penelope all night and they were happy.
This is shown in the Odyssey a lot in the parts involving the suitors. The desire is shown because the suitors all wish that Penelope could marry them. This is dangerous, because even though he does not, Telemachus could hurt them to try and make them leave. This all results in drama, because even though almost nobody knows, Odysseus was still alive. He came back and killed all of the suitors.
1. I think that at least some background knowledge is needed in both The Odyssey and The Most Dangerous Game. It helped me understand the story better to know that Rainsford was a hunter in The Most Dangerous Game. It helped to know that he was good at it, because then it was more suspenseful when General Zaroff tried to hunt him down. In The Odyssey, I needed to know that Odysseus had been gone from home for more than twenty years. It helped me sympathize with him and Penelope better. I think the background knowledge was needed more in The Odyssey, because it seemed like the whole book began in the middle of a story. When I knew what had happened before, I understood it a lot better.
2. The conflict in The Most Dangerous Game was external, because the main character (Rainsford) was being hunted by the general. The main conflict in The Odyssey was internal, because Odysseus was sad and wanted badly to get home. The gods did interfere with that, but the conflict was mostly internal.
3. In The Most Dangerous Game, Rainsford came on this trip on a boat to hunt in the rainforest. That is what it seems like to me. His obstacles were that he fell off his boat and it left, he found an island but then was hunted by the man on it, and ended up having to kill the man on the island. In The Odyssey, Odysseus wanted to get home. He had the obstacles of being held captive by Calypso, having the gods against him, and having the tendency to talk a lot. Those were the main ones I saw. I think that in both books, the obstacles kept the people from getting home.
4. In The Most Dangerous Game, there were not any flashbacks that I read about. In The Odyssey, Odysseus flashed back to the time of his entire journey, before he had been captured by Calypso (which is where the book starts).
5. In The Most Dangerous Game, the external conflict is resolved when Rainsford won the General's game and shoved him out the window to the dogs. In The Odyssey, the internal conflict is resolved after Odysseus finds his way home, reveals himself, and kills the suitors. After that, he talks with Penelope all night and they were happy.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
The Odyssey- Books 18-24
Well, that was unexpected. The story, up until this point, has been repetitive and drawn out. I was pleasantly surprised when I read this week, because the story really did reach a higher climax than I thought it would. It was very interesting, and it kept me reading a lot better than it did before. The steps of the Hero's Journey stood out very well. The last battle was very intriguing, because Minerva created a "fortunately, unfortunately" plot structure in a few of the last books, which kept it going. I could not tell if Ulysses was going to win or not, because at one point it seemed like Minerva got really upset with him. I thought she would stop protecting him, but she did not.
I was still frustrated that some parts of the story were repetitive. I heard some things about four times from different people, even though Homer had already explained them. I realize that this was because it was a type of poem, but it did not seem like a poem for most of the story. I was also a bit frustrated when Minerva would make things worse after they had just gotten a little better, and I had mixed feelings about it. It seemed to make the story just keep going as I mentioned earlier, but it also was not a good thing. There were many times when I got a little bit fed up with Ulysses because he would not show himself to Penelope, and insisted on keeping himself disguised. I thought that Homer should have made the story more romantic by letting Ulysses show himself to Penelope before anyone else, because she was grieving so much. I think that that was not fair.
Over all, I was satisfied with the ending. It seemed to wrap things up. The suitors are gone, and Odysseus' journey has come to an end. He is back home, where he wanted to be.
I was still frustrated that some parts of the story were repetitive. I heard some things about four times from different people, even though Homer had already explained them. I realize that this was because it was a type of poem, but it did not seem like a poem for most of the story. I was also a bit frustrated when Minerva would make things worse after they had just gotten a little better, and I had mixed feelings about it. It seemed to make the story just keep going as I mentioned earlier, but it also was not a good thing. There were many times when I got a little bit fed up with Ulysses because he would not show himself to Penelope, and insisted on keeping himself disguised. I thought that Homer should have made the story more romantic by letting Ulysses show himself to Penelope before anyone else, because she was grieving so much. I think that that was not fair.
Over all, I was satisfied with the ending. It seemed to wrap things up. The suitors are gone, and Odysseus' journey has come to an end. He is back home, where he wanted to be.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
The Odyssey- Books 5-12
In this section, Odysseus visited King Alcinous; they sat down and ate dinner together. Odysseus decided that he liked King Alcinous, and wanted to tell him the story of his journey. Odysseus tells the King of the many storms and bad situations he and his crew member were in throughout the journey. Zeus and Poseidon, (Jove and Neptune) were the cause of these storms. It appears as if Zeus does not care for Odysseus at all. I have been wondering why that is. I also wonder if, at one time, Odysseus did something that angered the gods.
After reading that section of the book, I think that Odysseus is a very clever and brave person. He was very clever when he fooled the Cyclops by telling him his name was Noman. I liked the part when the other Cyclops thought Polyphemus was crazy because he said that no man was killing him. Odysseus is brave when he goes exploring first. Most of the time, when he saw something new, he went to explore it and then he came back and told his men if it was safe.
Even though I think Odysseus is brave and clever, I think he was pushing too far with the Cyclops (Polyphemus). Polyphemus was very angry after Odysseus' men hurt his sight, but Odysseus kept taunting him. He was making him a lot more angry than he was. I can sympathize with the Cyclops in this situation, because getting taunted on top of already being angry is not enjoyable at all. I think he really should not have done that.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
The Odyssey- Books 2-4
I found that this week, it was a little bit harder to get into the story. It may have been because it was a longer section than last week, or it may have been just that it seemed somewhat repetitive to me. Telemachus would get to a new city; the same things happened each time. It was a little bit too much to read it over again.
I thought it was interesting that all of the people in the story were characterized by their parents or spouse. That seemed very different to me. That is not necessarily how I would have chosen to characterize the people in my story.
I think that all of the characters and people portrayed in those pieces of artwork were true heroes. They portrayed courage; the people raising the flag. They showed bravery. The picture of the firefighters definitely showed bravery, because the people were running into a dangerous place to save other people.
What I noticed most, though, was that all of the heroes in the pictures were different shapes and sizes. No two of them looked the same, because a hero is not what is on the outside. A hero is someone who, for example, risks their life fighting a fire and benefitting the good of those in the fire. In those times, they don't worry about what they look like.
Monday, October 14, 2013
The Odyssey- Book 1
I understood the first book of The Odyssey better than I thought I would. For the first page, getting my brain to switch Greek gods to Roman gods was confusing. I kept finding myself wondering, 'Who's Ulysses?' but then I realized that it was really Odysseus. That made the story a little bit more confusing than it could have been. I thought it was interesting that Telemachus brought the stranger in to a private room in his house and served him a good meal. When I thought about it, I realized that nowadays, we wouldn't do that.
I also thought it was interesting that Athena dressed up in a disguise to tell Telemachus where his father was instead of just telling him in person. I wonder why Telemachus didn't recognize her? I wonder if Athena has some special powers that can make her shape-shift, in a way.
Active reading really did help me better understand the story while I was reading it. I think that by stopping and reflecting more often, I discovered what I didn't understand and was able to go back and read it again. I really liked writing my thoughts in the margins, because it felt like I was able to process them better. I was able to write down my questions, and then come back and answer them later. That helped me put events together better.
I also thought it was interesting that Athena dressed up in a disguise to tell Telemachus where his father was instead of just telling him in person. I wonder why Telemachus didn't recognize her? I wonder if Athena has some special powers that can make her shape-shift, in a way.
Active reading really did help me better understand the story while I was reading it. I think that by stopping and reflecting more often, I discovered what I didn't understand and was able to go back and read it again. I really liked writing my thoughts in the margins, because it felt like I was able to process them better. I was able to write down my questions, and then come back and answer them later. That helped me put events together better.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Geeks Bearing Gifts
I think one writing technique this author uses is mood. The main character changed moods throughout the story. I think that she didn't really know what to think about the different outsiders that she talked to. But I know that at the end, she decided she wanted to be friends with most of them. Her view of her boyfriend also changed. After Renee showed Bobby what she learned about the "geeks," his view didn't change and she got frustrated with him. She learned that they were real people with real feelings. I think that my view of all of those different kinds of people also changed, because I felt like I was the one who was sitting down with those different people and getting their story. I did not really feel like I could relate with those characters, but I think that I understand their point of view.
I think the author also used different points of view. He did not use them in first person, but he made it clear what each person thought. Renee, at the end of the book, felt kinder towards the people she interviewed. She had a different view on the whole situation of different kinds of people in her school. Some of the interviewees felt annoyed that they were being seen as a type of outcast. Willard, though, viewed himself as a type of outcast, and asked Renee why she had not interviewed him right away. Bobby's point of view never changed. He viewed everyone but himself as outcasts. He was not a very open-minded or forgiving person, either. I did not agree with him when he was trying to tell Renee who she can and cannot be friends with.
I think the author also used different points of view. He did not use them in first person, but he made it clear what each person thought. Renee, at the end of the book, felt kinder towards the people she interviewed. She had a different view on the whole situation of different kinds of people in her school. Some of the interviewees felt annoyed that they were being seen as a type of outcast. Willard, though, viewed himself as a type of outcast, and asked Renee why she had not interviewed him right away. Bobby's point of view never changed. He viewed everyone but himself as outcasts. He was not a very open-minded or forgiving person, either. I did not agree with him when he was trying to tell Renee who she can and cannot be friends with.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
A Worn Path- Response
The title of this story is significant, because later in the story, it says that Phoenix went to that "big building" often for medicine for her sick grandson. She probably walked that same way, from her house to the building (which I am assuming is a hospital). The title being "A Worn Path" could also mean that it is an emotional journey for her. Sitting in the building at the end of the story, Phoenix told the nurse about how every time she made her journey to get the medicine, she had to leave her grandson at home wrapped in quilts and sick. I have a felling that it made her sad to leave him there all alone while she got him the medicine.
A Phoenix is a bird that builds its own pyre and then is reborn from the ashes. Characteristics that can sometimes go with the name are independence, leadership, and taking action. I think Old Phoenix is all of those things, because she took action to help her grandson who was sick. She has independence, because she made sure her grandson was warm and wrapped up in blankets. She made sure he would be OK while she was away, and then she made the long journey by herself all the way to town from where she lived, which was probably in the woods. She was being a leader by being bold and doing whatever she had to do to get to town for the medicine. I noticed that she didn't seem to want to go across the log to the other side, but she did, for she knew that her grandson would not get any better if she didn't.
"[Her cane] made a grave and persistent noise in the still air, that seemed meditative like the chirping of a solitary little bird." Since I know that solitary means alone or done alone, the author is saying that her cane sounds like an independent or lonely bird. I think that I would like to add that it sounds like a persistent solitary bird! I think it means that Phoenix is like a solitary bird, because from what it sounds like, she lives only with her grandson and she is making her journey alone. I think Phoenix is very persistent, and she loves her grandson very much. She is making her journey, in solitary, alone, and she keeps going. That is just like how the bird keeps chirping, a happy sound. Phoenix keeps going, and doesn't falter much.
I noticed that Phoenix had a lot of character. The author did a really good job with that. I really sympathized with her the whole time, because I knew how she felt. Phoenix was the kind of character that I want to say good job too, full-heartedly. She is a good person, determined and willing to do anything to do the right thing. She walks with a cane, which probably means she walks with a limp or something like that. It also says Phoenix was old. So walking all of that way into town was probably not the best thing for her to do. She did it, though, all for someone she loved. That is something to be proud of.
I think the walk back was symbolic because Phoenix was walking the same path home again, the one she had probably walked many times. This time as she walked it, though, she probably felt triumphed or satisfied, because she had the medicine, and her grandson would be OK for a while now that she had it. The way there, I think Phoenix was frustrated once because her skirt caught on some bushes. She told the bushes they could not tear her skirt, because she was off to do something important. On the way back, she probably still didn't want her skirt torn by the bushes, but she was only walking home. So that feeling of determination she still had was calmed and comforted because she had accomplished what she needed to do. She was going home now, and she had the medicine. All she needed to do once she got home was give her grandson his medicine. That's how I would feel.
A Phoenix is a bird that builds its own pyre and then is reborn from the ashes. Characteristics that can sometimes go with the name are independence, leadership, and taking action. I think Old Phoenix is all of those things, because she took action to help her grandson who was sick. She has independence, because she made sure her grandson was warm and wrapped up in blankets. She made sure he would be OK while she was away, and then she made the long journey by herself all the way to town from where she lived, which was probably in the woods. She was being a leader by being bold and doing whatever she had to do to get to town for the medicine. I noticed that she didn't seem to want to go across the log to the other side, but she did, for she knew that her grandson would not get any better if she didn't.
"[Her cane] made a grave and persistent noise in the still air, that seemed meditative like the chirping of a solitary little bird." Since I know that solitary means alone or done alone, the author is saying that her cane sounds like an independent or lonely bird. I think that I would like to add that it sounds like a persistent solitary bird! I think it means that Phoenix is like a solitary bird, because from what it sounds like, she lives only with her grandson and she is making her journey alone. I think Phoenix is very persistent, and she loves her grandson very much. She is making her journey, in solitary, alone, and she keeps going. That is just like how the bird keeps chirping, a happy sound. Phoenix keeps going, and doesn't falter much.
I noticed that Phoenix had a lot of character. The author did a really good job with that. I really sympathized with her the whole time, because I knew how she felt. Phoenix was the kind of character that I want to say good job too, full-heartedly. She is a good person, determined and willing to do anything to do the right thing. She walks with a cane, which probably means she walks with a limp or something like that. It also says Phoenix was old. So walking all of that way into town was probably not the best thing for her to do. She did it, though, all for someone she loved. That is something to be proud of.
I think the walk back was symbolic because Phoenix was walking the same path home again, the one she had probably walked many times. This time as she walked it, though, she probably felt triumphed or satisfied, because she had the medicine, and her grandson would be OK for a while now that she had it. The way there, I think Phoenix was frustrated once because her skirt caught on some bushes. She told the bushes they could not tear her skirt, because she was off to do something important. On the way back, she probably still didn't want her skirt torn by the bushes, but she was only walking home. So that feeling of determination she still had was calmed and comforted because she had accomplished what she needed to do. She was going home now, and she had the medicine. All she needed to do once she got home was give her grandson his medicine. That's how I would feel.
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Finding a Writer's Voice
I learned in Chapter 20 that plain nouns can be the strongest words to use (right after verbs), if they fit in with your style of writing. According to the author, nouns resonate with emotion.
I was surprised when both pieces of writing stated that it is okay to use the voices of other writers. Although each writer had a slightly different opinion, it seemed, on how to use them. In Finding Your Voice, the author says that you can "borrow" another voice. She states that you can use it if you incorporate it into your own style. But Mr. Zinsser says to "never hesitate to imitate another writer." I may have it wrong, but I think he means that you can use another writer's style entirely. Although he could really be saying the same thing as in the other article. Mr. Zinsser also says that you shouldn't try to mimic styles the wrong way. For example, you should not interpret E.B. White's voice as breezy.
I think I saw both writer's voices in their pieces of writing about voice. Mr. Zinsser seems to write facts and opinions, while the author of Finding Your Voice writes with lots of Idioms and examples that make you understand what she is saying better. So to sum it up, I learned that your voice is how you like to write; if you haven't completely figured out your voice, experimenting with it is good. Slipping in pieces of other voices is good.
I was surprised when both pieces of writing stated that it is okay to use the voices of other writers. Although each writer had a slightly different opinion, it seemed, on how to use them. In Finding Your Voice, the author says that you can "borrow" another voice. She states that you can use it if you incorporate it into your own style. But Mr. Zinsser says to "never hesitate to imitate another writer." I may have it wrong, but I think he means that you can use another writer's style entirely. Although he could really be saying the same thing as in the other article. Mr. Zinsser also says that you shouldn't try to mimic styles the wrong way. For example, you should not interpret E.B. White's voice as breezy.
I think I saw both writer's voices in their pieces of writing about voice. Mr. Zinsser seems to write facts and opinions, while the author of Finding Your Voice writes with lots of Idioms and examples that make you understand what she is saying better. So to sum it up, I learned that your voice is how you like to write; if you haven't completely figured out your voice, experimenting with it is good. Slipping in pieces of other voices is good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)