While I found Huck Finn a little difficult to read, (at first) I eventually started getting into the story. I'll be honest. The language and introduction of Tom threw me for a little (read: a lot), so I didn't completely understand the story at first. But thanks to schmoop (which I read AFTER the book :) ), I finally realized that Huck was white. Palm, meet face. But really. The "suthurn" language was incredibly confusing. When Jim entered the story with his mumbly jumbly words, I literally wanted to kill myself. (I'm a HUGE grammar freak, so any misplaced modifiers or misspelled words coughamandacough mess with my mind.) Apart from the grammar and spelling and accent--which I hated. Did I already mention that already?-- it wasn't a bad book.
I enjoyed the silly adventures Huck got himself into (dressing like a girl? Really?) and Twain's rampant use of satire and irony. One of the BEST moments (in my book) of the book (<haha) was when Huck met up with Aunt Sally. And she asked if anyone was hurt. And 'Tom'--who was really Huck-- said that a black man was killed. And she replied that she was happy no one got hurt. Hilarious (satirically), yet sad (in terms of the sad state of humanity and morals at that time).
Tom was pretty annoying, too. I kind of wanted to smack him when he wouldn't free Jim quickly. Like. What. He wanted Jim to do so many ridiculous things that he forgot about the whole point of his being there (TO FREE JIM.) Ugh.
Overall, I didn't think it was that bad of the book. I had a much different picture of what the book was going to be about than what it actually was. I really didn't expect it to be literally The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. So I was pleasantly surprised when I read it. Huck's unfortunate luck that lands him in every imaginable trouble and Jim's undeniably sweet nature won me over. I'll admit, it's not a book that I would reach for again to read for pleasure, but I don't regret reading it the first time (that is, if I had had a choice in the matter, I would still read it)
Things and stuff and words.
Diction.
Syntax.
Carol out.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
TED talks: A rhetorical identification (with some analysis thrown in)
A.J. Jacobs: How healthy living nearly killed me
Disclaimer: I admit...I was originally going to do a 20 minute video, but let's face it. I have a biology quiz tomorrow, and the study guide isn't going to do itself while I watch Alan de Botton talk about Atheism 2.0
Also: SOPA, if you get passed, please don't censor me for quoting a few lines......
Some context: In a fit of self-improvement, A.J. Jacobs decided to follow, for a full year, every health rule that existed. And then wrote a book about it.
A.J. Jacobs immediately starts off by incorporating humor in his speech, using himself as the object of his jokes. He intentionally exploits some of his more humiliating moments to lighten up a serious, but overlooked topic: self-improvement. Jacobs uses pictures to drive home the ridiculousness of the extreme health rules he encountered. The most memorable one being his dermatologist advising him to apply sunscreen every 2 to 4 hours. He follows up with a picture of him in a bike helmet holding a shot glass full of sunscreen dripping down the sides. Because of his frequent use of humorous pictures and lighthearted jokes, Jacobs uses pathos to appeal to his audience. If he had not used humor, the talk would sound much more like a reading from a self-improvement lifetime movie. Yawn. Instead, the audience is entrapped by his life story that is interwoven with constant puns. In addition to pathos, logos also makes an appearance in Jacobs's speech. He doesn't use it much in the beginning so he could establish a 'funny' persona to attract the audience. Then, when the audience members have sufficiently decided that Jacobs is worth listening to, he slips in a few statistics to convince the audience that even math agrees with him. To avoid sounding like a Wikepedia article, Jacobs only uses logos sparingly, and does not make a noticeable effort to build ethos. His main arsenal of choice is pathos.
Jacobs explains how, ironically, following each of these ridiculous health rules actually had unhealthful, negative consequences. He repeatedly uses humorous images to emphasize the overwhelming rules he had to follow. Because he was so involved in improving himself intellectually, spiritually, and physically, he unintentionally cast aside his own joy and family. Jacobs argues that even though he saw many improvements in terms of physicality, they were not worth the loss of social and family interaction. The joy of communicating and being in the presence of loved ones trumped all self-improvement benefits....kind of.
He shows this argument through the some qualification and a little bit of antithesis. When concluding his yearlong experiences, Jacobs adopts an ambivalent tone as he speakers: "...and it was successful in a sense. All of the markers went in the right direction." You can sense there's a "but" coming on. He lists a few of the physical accomplishments he achieved: lower cholesterol, lower weight, loss of the "pregnancy" look, etc. Then, using antithesis, Jacobs explains how he was so healthy that it was unhealthy. These drastic extremes were also seen when he talks about his "before" and "after" phases. Before, during the year of self-improvement, Jacobs was eating healthily and exercising. After this year finished, he fell to the dark end of excessive eating and excessive drinking. When Jacobs talks about reaching nice middle ground and stabilizing, he suggests that the middle ground between actively living a healthful lifestyle, yet still enjoying the little joys of life (crunchiness and friends and family) is the most healthy way to live life.
http://www.ted.com/talks/aj_jacobs_how_healthy_living_nearly_killed_me.html
Disclaimer: I admit...I was originally going to do a 20 minute video, but let's face it. I have a biology quiz tomorrow, and the study guide isn't going to do itself while I watch Alan de Botton talk about Atheism 2.0
Also: SOPA, if you get passed, please don't censor me for quoting a few lines......
Some context: In a fit of self-improvement, A.J. Jacobs decided to follow, for a full year, every health rule that existed. And then wrote a book about it.
A.J. Jacobs immediately starts off by incorporating humor in his speech, using himself as the object of his jokes. He intentionally exploits some of his more humiliating moments to lighten up a serious, but overlooked topic: self-improvement. Jacobs uses pictures to drive home the ridiculousness of the extreme health rules he encountered. The most memorable one being his dermatologist advising him to apply sunscreen every 2 to 4 hours. He follows up with a picture of him in a bike helmet holding a shot glass full of sunscreen dripping down the sides. Because of his frequent use of humorous pictures and lighthearted jokes, Jacobs uses pathos to appeal to his audience. If he had not used humor, the talk would sound much more like a reading from a self-improvement lifetime movie. Yawn. Instead, the audience is entrapped by his life story that is interwoven with constant puns. In addition to pathos, logos also makes an appearance in Jacobs's speech. He doesn't use it much in the beginning so he could establish a 'funny' persona to attract the audience. Then, when the audience members have sufficiently decided that Jacobs is worth listening to, he slips in a few statistics to convince the audience that even math agrees with him. To avoid sounding like a Wikepedia article, Jacobs only uses logos sparingly, and does not make a noticeable effort to build ethos. His main arsenal of choice is pathos.
Jacobs explains how, ironically, following each of these ridiculous health rules actually had unhealthful, negative consequences. He repeatedly uses humorous images to emphasize the overwhelming rules he had to follow. Because he was so involved in improving himself intellectually, spiritually, and physically, he unintentionally cast aside his own joy and family. Jacobs argues that even though he saw many improvements in terms of physicality, they were not worth the loss of social and family interaction. The joy of communicating and being in the presence of loved ones trumped all self-improvement benefits....kind of.
He shows this argument through the some qualification and a little bit of antithesis. When concluding his yearlong experiences, Jacobs adopts an ambivalent tone as he speakers: "...and it was successful in a sense. All of the markers went in the right direction." You can sense there's a "but" coming on. He lists a few of the physical accomplishments he achieved: lower cholesterol, lower weight, loss of the "pregnancy" look, etc. Then, using antithesis, Jacobs explains how he was so healthy that it was unhealthy. These drastic extremes were also seen when he talks about his "before" and "after" phases. Before, during the year of self-improvement, Jacobs was eating healthily and exercising. After this year finished, he fell to the dark end of excessive eating and excessive drinking. When Jacobs talks about reaching nice middle ground and stabilizing, he suggests that the middle ground between actively living a healthful lifestyle, yet still enjoying the little joys of life (crunchiness and friends and family) is the most healthy way to live life.
http://www.ted.com/talks/aj_jacobs_how_healthy_living_nearly_killed_me.html
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)