Due 9/23- George Orwell's "Shooting an Elephant"

             It is disgusting how people would abandon their morals and values for the sake of impressing others. For example, George Orwell, in his personal narrative, "Shooting an Elephant," clearly expressed his unwillingness to kill what he believed to be a harmless elephant, yet he did so regardless of his beliefs because he wanted to please a bloodthirsty mob. He twisted his morals and cast aside his own opinions in exchange for two thousand measly pats on his back. Why did he not stay true to himself?

           Orwell's decision to kill the elephant in his personal narrative reminds me of my former classmate's decision to betray his friend. This classmate, Simon, was known to be best friends with Jack. One day, these best of friends got into an argument in a park nearby our school where they caught the attention of all the students nearby. These students formed a mob that urged them on to fight. Simon took notice of this and relaxed, refusing to further escalate the situation.
           "Simon, are you some kind of wuss?" a bystander jeered.
           "Simon, you seriously going to take that from him?" another fellow classmate shouted. A barrage of insults demanded Simon to fight and so soon he gradually clenched his fist and swung it into Jack's jaw. It was clear to me that Simon would not have attacked his friend if not for the crowd egging him on. This type of submissive behavior disgusts me.
             Simon's reason for his betrayal was the same as Orwell's reason for killing the elephant. They both did not want to appear weak in front of other people. Simon, although he tried, could not resist the temptation of boosting his reputation with such as large amount of classmates that were barely anymore than strangers to me. Likewise, Orwell could not resist the chance of finally being acknowledged as one of the good guys by a crowd of Indians that he had always hated him. Although he himself bared a grudge towards these "evil-spirited little beasts," he still wanted to be loved by them so that his job would not be as strenuous.

           Although I do not approve of the decision George Orwell made, I cannot deny the fact that he sculpted "Shooting an Elephant" with many of the elements that create an effective narrative. For example, his use of descriptive words painted vivid, mental imagery that allowed me to practically relive his experience. By describing the scenery of a neighborhood as a "labyrinth" of bamboo huts, Orwell depicted the image of being trapped in a seemingly endless assortment of homes. He also meticulously captured the image of a "devilish" corpse by illustrating the "crucified" position it laid in along with the expression of "unendurable agony" on its face. Besides the effective use of description, there is a strict adherence to a first-person point of view that maintains the realism of the narrative; Orwell tells his story from only what he is physically able to experience at the moment. For example, rather than jumping from the initial scene to the scene with the conflict, he patiently emphasized the urgency of his call to duty and how he prepared for battle by grabbing his weapons and mounting his horse. With steady transitioning, Orwell formed a clear, chronological order of events that he embellished with a wide range of imagery.

           As Orwell gradually introduced the anecdote of his shooting an elephant, it became apparent that this elephant was no different from himself. When the elephant was toppled, it was bestowed an imminent death which can be analogized to Orwell's feelings towards imperialism, a policy in which a country overtakes other territories for itself through military force. He clearly despised such a policy, yet his job required him to serve an imperialistic government. Because of this irony, he described his life as being stuck in between something. Likewise, the injured elephant was stuck in between life and death. The elephant probably did not want to die so that it could once again be free to gorge on fresh leaves, but it probably felt like dying as well so that it would have been freed from the suffering. Orwell also sought freedom; freedom from the shackles that forced him to serve a government he hated. He needed to be stuck in that situation for a long time, much like how the elephant was stuck in between life and death. A main difference between the dying elephant's situation and Orwell's is that the elephant had been freed from its suffering with death while Orwell had had to find his own method of escape. Nevertheless, the elephant is a clear symbol of Orwell and his life's struggles at the time.  

Dialogue Extra Credit due 9/25 - The Power of Trash Talking

          "Fight me," Shahadoth insisted. He towered over me with at least six inches in height and an immensely bulkier physique. He also had eight people huddled around him while I only had three of my closest friends by my side. It was obvious to me that Shahadoth was at an advantage.

           "No," I asserted and glared menacingly into his eyes. "If you really want to fight, hit me now. I'm right here." I took a step towards him so that our shirts nearly touched. Then, I jutted out my chin, shifted my head to the right, and pointed one index finger at my left jaw.
           "No, wait. We're on school property. You plan on getting me in trouble," Shahadoth stuttered. He chose to decline my invitation because he believed that I actually had such a scheme to entrap him. His paranoia had kicked in; just as I planned.
            This memory of my confrontation with Shahadoth always reminds me of how powerful dialogue can be. With one simple word, "No," I was able to protect my friends and I from getting beaten up. By adding in, "Hit me now," I confused him into believing that I wanted him to punch me, when in reality, I did not and so if he did I would have simply ended up in a hospital that day. Everything I said, along with my tone of voice, was used as a weapon to defend myself. The arsenal of words I chose to employ allowed me to walk out of the confrontation unscathed.
            Reflecting on this experience has given me valuable insight on to how to write effective dialogue. It is clearer to me now that I must state the manner of speech that my characters convey in their words; there is a significant difference between saying, asserting, and stuttering. For example, if my acting had been less than up to par such that I stuttered "No" rather than asserting it, the outcome of the story might have changed drastically.  By using descriptive words to replace the bland "he said" and "she said" after dialogues, I can paint a more vivid, mental image that more closely depicts social interactions. 

The Ultimate Showdown (Descriptive Piece)

          "KEEP GOING! Don't give up on me now!" My brother's heavily low-pitched voice thundered across the garage as my knees trembled under the pressure of staying intact against the overwhelming force of the monster. I needed to defeat it as soon as possible; the longer I hesitated, the more it tore into my back, sending piercing tremors of pain down my spine.
           I started to contemplate the option of surrendering. My eyesight blurred from exhaustion and the symphony of encouragement from my brother deafened into gibberish. With my senses distorted, I yearned for my suffering to end and to be in the comfort of a bed. However, I did not want to die. Most of all, I did not want to lose. I made my decision.
         "I will not give up. I will not lose to you," I thought to myself as steaming beads of sweat trickled down my forehead and seeped through my lips, forcing me to taste and choke out salt. My feet dug into the concrete as I struggled to balance the monstrous barbell on my back and keep my knees from collapsing. It was loaded with seemingly endless slabs of iron plates on each side, and my body was its fulcrum. Suddenly, a jolt of adrenaline exploded throughout my veins. I gritted my teeth and lowered my hips until my buttocks nearly touched the ground. After that, I raised my hips back to its starting position, triumphantly jutted out my chest, and hoisted the weight off my back, smashing it onto the ground. Crack! I was victorious.

Extra Credit: Attack Assad?

          The situation involving the civil war in Syria has become dire enough to opt for the United States' interference. President Bashar al-Assad, dictator of Syria, has ordered the slaughter of thousands of his own citizens, hundreds of them being children, by the release of toxic gas. Not only did he lead his military, a power meant for protecting the country, in murdering innocents, but he had the audacity to break an international rule of war by using chemical weapons.  President Barack Obama, being the righteous ruler he is, has called upon the American people to allow him to punish Assad for his crime that he believes cannot go unpunished. He argues that if Assad were allowed to get away with this, other countries will also start breaking the norms that were agreed upon and so everyone would start investing in their own chemical weapons and other forbidden weapons of mass destruction. Apparently, no other country but the United States is willing to act in the name of justice.

           Although President Barack Obama would like to be the big hero by punishing Assad, the question I would like answered is: What is in it for us? I see no substantial amount of profit that can be gained by interfering with another country's war. In fact, there are substantial losses that can be incurred if the U.S. shoots missiles into the bloodthirsty dictator's territory. For example, what if Assad retaliates? What if after Obama sends a missile to Syria, Assad attacks New York City with his arsenal of chemical weapons? The United States should not act as the world's police if it would cost it the lives of its own people.

            According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, most Americans believe that Syria will not relinquish its weapons. However, despite this belief, most also oppose the decision to attack Assad.  The Obama administration has been receiving numerous complaints that argue that starting another conflict after a decade of war in the Middle East may not be the most favorable option. Thus, the Congressional vote authorizing military action against Assad has been delayed. President Barack Obama is currently working with the Russian government to solve the situation in a diplomatic manner.

Writing Prompt #2

    A narrative is an account of a story conveying what happened, who was part of it, when it happened, how it happened, and why it happened. However, an effective narrative contains details that go beyond answering these basic questions. These details paint a more vivid scenario for the reader than if he were left with a mere sketch that only contained the main ideas. For example, when describing my trip to the park, I can just state that "I went to the park and noticed it was a hot, summer day" or I can embellish the story by saying that "As I sprinted to the park, skidding through the crisp, summer green leaves that grazed my face, I could feel the sun's rays scorching my back." An effective narrative can be used to simply share a story with a friend, or even establish the premises for an argument.   

        In her personal narrative, "The Sanctuary of School," Lynda Barry argues in support of maintaining art classes for school and providing higher salaries for teachers. She does so by detailing the miserable conditions of her household and going on to explain how she used her school as a refuge to immerse herself in the joys of drawing. After extracting the reader's sympathy, she presents her views by stating that "We all know that a good education system saves lives, but the people of this country are still told that cutting the budget for pubic schools is necessary, that poor salaries for teachers are all we can manage and that art, music and all creative activities must be the first to go when times are lean." She then directly asserts her argument by stating that she was "lucky" to have had her teachers and creative activities, but that those that did not have such passions would have had nothing but misery. Lynda Barry used her personal narrative to demonstrate the danger of not having art classes in school, thus setting up her argument. After all, what would have became of her if not for the "sanctuary" that her school provided her?

         Lynda Barry uses the symbolic phrase, "points of light" to refer to sanctuaries. For example, she referred to a television as the light of her life because it offered a sliver of happiness in a household plagued with a financial crisis. She also depicted her school as a point of light by stating how she rolled up the window shades, and watched it "slowly come to life" as the building lit up. By stating that the points of light in a child's life can be "as far away as stars," she argues that there are many needy children that yearn for a sanctuary that they cannot reach. The purpose of this statement was to convince the reader to believe in the importance of nurturing the country's children. Lynda Barry would like all children to be entitled to their own "point of light" which she was fortunate enough to have.

        I,too, am fortunate enough to have my own sanctuary; the weight room. When I enter this room, it does not matter that my grades are dropping, parents are arguing, or that the girl I am in love with hates me. At that moment, I only need to focus on lifting weights until I feel that it is physically impossible for me to do so anymore. I cherish the next few hours in which my only concern is to do something so practical. Just like how Lynda Barry's sanctuary was her school, my own, personal light resides in a room full of dumbbells.

Writing Prompt #1

Due Wed, Sep 11 (This response should be about two paragraphs long.)
After reading "Where does the hate come from?" respond to the reading in two ways...
1.) As a reader:  What is the argument and meaning of the article and what is your opinion in response to it?
2.) As a writer:  Analyze Sheth's writing style, techniques, use of evidence/examples, etc. and describe one element of the writing that you think is well done and one that you think could be better and explain why.

1)

          Professor Falguni A. Sheth, in her article, "Where does the Hate Come From?," addresses karma's wrath that is terrorizing the United States. She argues that as long as the U.S. government condones violence and abuses its power, hatred will manifest in the form of a tragedy such as the Boston Massacre bombing. According to her, the destruction caused by the bombing was an indirect result of the destruction caused by America's corrupt domestic and foreign policies. She believes that some kind of force, as if punishing the wrongdoers, demands retribution for every act of violence or deceit carried out by the U.S. government. Simply put, Professor Sheth argues that "violence begets violence."

           I do not believe that violence causes violence, but rather that people do. For example, if someone hit me, I will not blame violence itself; I will simply blame the person who hit me. Likewise, I do not believe that violence, or the United States government, is to be responsible for the Boston Massacre bombing, but rather the terrorists that set off the explosives. It is sometimes best to perceive straightforwardly, or else it would be too easy to blame the government for everyone's problems. Although some may preach to keep an open mind, I would not keep mine so open as to "let my brains fall out." (Physicist Richard Feynman)

2)

         Professor Falguni A. Sheth, in her article, "Where does the Hate Come From?,"  advocates Martin Luther King Jr.'s quote, "violence begets violence," by addressing a variety of brutal tragedies and then suggesting that they are interconnected with one another. For example, she states that the "pain and grief" that resulted from the Boston Marathon bombings is the same as the "pain and grief" that resulted from U.S.- led drones assaulting Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan in the past. She also states that in less than two days prior to the Boston Marathon bombings, the U.S. government's torturing of GiTMO prisoners was exploited in a personal narrative detailing the horrors caused by the government. She uses this particular tragedy as an example because it occurred in such a short period of time before the bombings. Thus, she implies that if the U.S. attacks other countries it must expect to be attacked as well. Through strong, correlating examples, Professor Sheth maintains her belief in karma and supports her main argument which is that "violence begets violence."

          Although Professor Sheth uses strong examples to support her claim that violence will cause more violence, she does not present any substantial ideas on how to remedy the hatred that plagues the United States. After criticizing the government for its evil deeds, from its bombings on foreign weddings to its email tracking, Professor Sheth does not offer any alternative methods in protecting the nation beyond her preaching to "act justly" and "start afresh." If she offered a suggestion towards specifically remedying even one of the nation's many flaws after denouncing its leaders, her article would sound like more than a mere rant.