In My Father’s Brain: What Alzheimer’s Takes Away, Jonathan Franzen talks about the true story of his family, and how they dealt with his father’s Alzheimer’s. Jonathan Franzen also gives background information as to what Alzheimer’s is. He then includes more about his family, which is necessary to see how it affects everyone before and after learning of his father’s illness.
First I want to explain a little bit about Alzheimer’s, including the effects on the patient along with those caring for the patient. “…countless sticky-looking globs of “plaque,” and countless neurons engulfed by “tangles” of neuronal fibrils,” (Composition Reader, 90). That’s what the brain looks like after you’ve had Alzheimer’s for many years and have died. “…he leaves the water running, the stove on at times, lights on everywhere, etc…,” (Composition Reader, 86). Basically the Alzheimer’s patient can’t remember, thus small little things like turning off the water are forgotten. Also in My Father’s Brain: What Alzheimer’s Takes Away, it states that you basically lose your abilities’ in reverse that you once learned them many years ago. Then toward the end it is said that you have a “one year-old brain,” because that’s it that you can do. “…sufferers often suffer less and less as it progresses. Caring for an Alzheimer’s patient is gruelingly repetitious precisely because the patient himself has lost the cerebral equipment to experience anything as repetition. …Now. If your short-term memory is shot, you don’t remember, as you stoop to smell a rose, that you’ve been stooping to smell that same rose all morning,” (Composition Reader, 90). So as the person caring for the one with Alzheimer’s, you have to constantly look after them, and then remember everything that they forget like turning the water off. “…they increasingly derange the lives of family members charged with caring for them,” (Composition Reader, 90). It seems as though it is a constant chore for one to care for another with Alzheimer, but for the person who has Alzheimer’s, it could be nice to smell that rose all morning. I sure wish that I could spend a day smelling beautiful flowers.
Franzen’s parents didn’t have a great relationship before his father gets sick. “My parents’ marriage was, it’s safe to say, less than happy,” (Composition Reader, 85). Franzen also says that his parents only stayed together for the sake of their children. While his father worked things weren’t as bad, but after he retired they put in place a “No Exit” policy. Then Franzen says, “I arrived for brief visits like a U.N. peacekeeping force to which each side passionately presented its case against the other,” (Composition Reader, 85). There you can see Franzen’s parent’s miserable relationship.
However after Franzen’s father turned ill, his mother was only able to complain of dad’s flaws, mistakes, and forgetfulness. She wrote Jonathan Franzen letters’, in one of those letters she wrote, “ Either he’s stressed or not concentrating or having some mental deterioration but there have been quite a few incidents recently that really worry me. He keeps leaving the car door open or the lights on & twice in one week we had to call triple A & have them come out & charge the battery (now I’ve posted signs in the garage & that seems to have helped)…,” (Composition Reader, 86). Through her complaints to Jonathan Franzen you can tell that she’s worried about him, and is wondering why these little things are forgotten. Another instance of Jonathan’s mother caring for his father was when she was about to get knee surgery. She wasn’t going to get it done unless someone was with his father at all times. “My mother’s fear of leaving him alone assumed greater urgency as the year dragged on,” (Composition Reader, 86). “…so I offered to stay with my father while my mother had her operation. To steer clear of his pride, she and I agreed to pretend that I was coming for her sake, not his,” (Composition Reader, 87). So I believe that his mother truly cared for his father, or she probably wouldn’t have made sure he was taken care while she had her surgery.
As far as Jonathan Franzen’s relationships with both of his parents go, I don’t believe he was actually around very much. He seemed to come when dad was ill or just every once in a while to say hi, how’s it going? Franzen was a dedicated writer with a wife of his own to care for. And if I were him I wouldn’t want to come into the parent’s miserable life. It seemed easiest just to stay away. However, he was there when he was needed. He was there for when father was in the nursing home and in the hospital. For that, it gave his father hope.
Jonathan Franzen’s father had a huge will to live. “He held himself together longer, I suspect, than it might have seemed he had the neuronal wherewithal to do,” (Composition Reader, 95). He kept fighting to live, especially when his family was around. His father seemed to be a strong man, and didn’t want to be seen with any weaknesses. Therefore, when he was on his deathbed and Jonathan Franzen came to visit, “His blood pressure was seventy over palpable when I flew into town…There’s no way to know if he recognized my voice, but within minutes of my arrival his blood pressure climbed to 120/90. I worried then, worry even now, that I made things harder for him by arriving: that he’d reached the point of being ready to die but was ashamed to perform such a private or disappointing act in front of one of his sons,” (Composition Reader, 97). Eventually Franzen’s father died, “…my mother and I were conferring with a nurse in the doorway of his room, not long after the lights came back on, when I noticed that he was drawing his hands up toward his throat….And then nothing,” (Composition Reader, 98).
“…in the slow-motion way of Alzheimer’s, my father wasn’t much deader now than he’s been two hours or two weeks or two months ago. We’d simply lost the last of the parts out of which we could fashion a living whole. There would be no new memories of him. The only stories we could tell now were the ones we already had,” (Composition Reader, 98). This quote shows Jonathan Franzen’s love for his father. Franzen hated seeing his father suffering that much. Alzheimer’s took everything of his father. His father was helpless, and it was said that he had the brain of a one year-old. What kind of life is that? Who wants to live as they once did when they were one? People constantly watching over you to make sure you’re safe and sound. Also helping to feed you, “At the dinner table, my mother spread a bath towel over him and cut his turkey into little bits,” (Composition Reader, 94).
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Assignment 4.4
Peter Ho Davies wrote, “What You Know.” The more times you read “What You Know” the more you will begin to understand or question it. Now for a brief outline. Peter Ho Davies begins “What You Know” with talking about teaching and writing in general. Then all of the sudden he changes to “No suicides” (Davis, 82). You can see the dramatic change here, “No psychedelic dream sequences. The list of boringly bad stories (“But it’s supposed to be boring”) goes on and on. “No suicides?” they say in their flat, whiny voices, as if there is nothing else, nothing better. “How can Suicide be boring?”” (Davis, 82). Then Peter Ho Davies continues on with the suicide idea. It could help that one of his students had committed suicide. That students name was Clark. After Peter Ho Davies brings up the idea of suicide, he continues to tell about just shooting in general. He shares about his shooting experience, almost as if trying to see what was so great about shooting a gun, or just trying to imagine what was going through Clark’s mind at the time of suicide.
Peter Ho Davies appears to be a fairly decent writer who is trying to help others become better writers while mocking them along the way. He had a job at school, not a teacher, but he had the privilege of teaching one class every year. It seemed to be a small class, with troubled students. After all one of the students, Clark, committed suicide.
Peter Ho Davies uses a lot of repetition with, “What You Know.” He tells his students to write about what you know. He tells you what you don’t know, like suicide. Thus you are not allowed to write about it. Now they are left with their feelings, family, friends, etc. Now all of that could seem repetitive, but it’s also easiest to write about. You can draw from specific instances that you have lived through to make the story a little more interesting. I know that I find it hard to write about things I don’t know about. It usually will turn out to be a comic or fiction in general. Then you have to feel sorry for the reader who knows everything about the topic in which you chose to write about, because you sound kind of dumb, when you are writing what you don’t know about. You would constantly be making up detail which may or may not make sense. I think we should take Peter Ho Davies advice and write “What You Know.” It’s easier to write about and you sound much wiser, while doing so.
Peter Ho Davies also enjoys making fun of the student who can’t write throughout the text. In one of the passages he uses the wrong dear or wait maybe its deer. He also lets the students take a vote as to whether to use knoll or knell (Davies, 83). Also within that passage he says you could replace knoll with any other word, and it would sound just as ridiculous. You know how tons of students rely on spell check? Peter Ho Davies dares to ask, “Who makes up spell check anyways?” Were they good spellers in the first place? It’s a valid question. Seeing as if you look at middle, high, and college students, millions if not billions of them are relying on spell check to catch everything wrong and to correct it before they turn in their paper. From my experience spell check can be useful; but it can also try to fix items in your paper that isn’t wrong to begin with (i.e. names). He also mentions that he can’t write as badly as students do, thus he got writer’s block. He was trying to write Clark’s story, how Clark would tell his story, writing and all.
Peter Ho Davies tries to teach his students how to tell stories. He also says, “and the truth is that life is all stories and fiction is all plots,” (Davies, 84). Based on that, I believe that everyone needs to learn how to write plots. It seems as though not everyone is as truthful and straightforward so you can get real life stories. There always appears to be some fiction rolled into the story one is trying to tell. So we have it, Peter Ho Davies teaches the kids how to tell stories, which makes sense because we tell stories all the time. I know that my friends and I have to tell each other stories of the previous night’s events or since the last time we saw each other. Everyone should learn how to tell good stories so that your reader/listener knows what you’re trying to say. That’s probably the most important point, so make sense to your readers/listeners. If they don’t understand, what is your purpose for writing or telling that story? I’m assuming there is no purpose then.
Peter Ho Davies first tells more of his past experiences then after he tells about Clark’s death. He next shifts to trying to figure out Clark’s story. He’s trying to put himself in Clark’s shoes, so he goes shooting. I think Peter Ho Davies is trying to do more than just figure out Clark’s story, I think he wanted to write the story.
Peter Ho Davies is a writer at heart. He has tried several times to get his writing published. When the note comes back rejecting him, he almost seems determined to try again, like, “I’m going to get this someday.” Thus far nothing of his has been published, so most determined writers try and try again until they succeed. That’s what he’s doing, and he believes that he can become a published writer through Clark’s story.
I believe that he could be aiming this article at future writers. I think he is trying to point out things to remember while writing. I also think he is trying to tell us how to get better. You don’t just wake up one morning and suddenly become a published writer. It takes a lot of hard work, which he tries to tell throughout the course of “What You Know.” Not only is he trying to make you a better writer, he is also trying to point out flaws of others so you learn. The best way for him to do that is through his students. After all they are just beginning this journey through writing, so they are bound to make mistakes. One day though, those students have a chance at becoming great writers just like Peter Ho Davies.
After reading “What You Know,” I am sitting here wondering. I’m wondering why Peter Ho Davies is trying to put himself in Clark’s shoes. Why is he trying to write Clark’s story? Peter Ho Davies tells you not to write about suicide, so why the sudden change to writing what he doesn’t know, which ends in suicide. Peter Ho Davies knows nothing of this topic, thus contradicting everything he says in the first few pages of “What You Know.”
The last few pages in “What You Know” are all about Peter Ho Davies shooting experience. I know that Peter Ho Davies is trying to get into Clark’s shoes, but why do I care about how the different targets look, which target he chooses, or even everything that he got at the shooting place? Peter Ho Davies paints a clear picture of him buying or renting all of these items to go shooting. Then he also paints another clear picture of him doing the actual shooting. I don’t know why I want to know this; however he could have a point with this. He could be showing us what makes stories good. When I read stories, usually lots of details is something that drags me in. I want to envision myself as the main character going through all of these things. He might also be writing this to hopefully get rid of his writers block, or to get into Clark’s mindset.
Overall I think Peter Ho Davies is just trying to understand Clark’s story. I think by writing “What You Know,” he gets a better understanding of the whole situation himself. He has it set up to say write what you know, but then ventures into this story, which he knows next to nothing about. He only knows things about Clark, from when he sat in his class. Then also from what reporters from CNN say, or have been told. Maybe that’s not the best source to get a good understanding of the situation from.
When you tell those stories, I want to be able to make sense of what you are trying to say. If the reader can’t understand you then what’s the point of writing anything? So I believe every writer will tell you to have a good story that interests your readers, and then also write it so your reader can understand.
Within “What You Know” Peter Ho Davies is contemplating a couple of things. He wants to write a story that is supposedly written by Clark telling about Clark’s suicide mission. Then Peter Ho Davies gets writers block so he goes shooting, almost as if trying to get into Clark’s mind. Maybe to see what could have been going through Clark’s mind. Peter Ho Davies is just trying to get rid of writers block. Peter Ho Davies is also contemplating if he might have driven Clark to commit suicide. Peter Ho Davies tells the students to write “What You Know,” so there are only so many stories that the typical high school or college student can write about. We haven’t been alive long enough to pick up many more experiences that we could write about. Clark took not being able to write about suicide as a challenge, so he killed himself, now Clark could, if he were alive, write about suicide. Even his other classmates could write about how someone else committing suicide has affected them personally.
If you are told to only write about what you know, then should a teacher jump out and question you if you are suddenly writing about suicide? What should your teacher know about you? Is it more than just your writing? Should your teacher know how you normally feel or how you will react to certain circumstances? I think your teacher should know a little bit about you, so they know if you suddenly start writing about suicide and you normally don’t, maybe they should try to get you help. After all the students safety should be ranked pretty high on their list. Peter Ho Davies didn’t know very much about his students. Then what he thought of his students was quite negative. I almost have the feeling that he is only a teacher to see or make fun of the students’ horrible writing, so they see how silly there writing is, then hopefully will become better writers because of it.
Peter Ho Davies appears to be a fairly decent writer who is trying to help others become better writers while mocking them along the way. He had a job at school, not a teacher, but he had the privilege of teaching one class every year. It seemed to be a small class, with troubled students. After all one of the students, Clark, committed suicide.
Peter Ho Davies uses a lot of repetition with, “What You Know.” He tells his students to write about what you know. He tells you what you don’t know, like suicide. Thus you are not allowed to write about it. Now they are left with their feelings, family, friends, etc. Now all of that could seem repetitive, but it’s also easiest to write about. You can draw from specific instances that you have lived through to make the story a little more interesting. I know that I find it hard to write about things I don’t know about. It usually will turn out to be a comic or fiction in general. Then you have to feel sorry for the reader who knows everything about the topic in which you chose to write about, because you sound kind of dumb, when you are writing what you don’t know about. You would constantly be making up detail which may or may not make sense. I think we should take Peter Ho Davies advice and write “What You Know.” It’s easier to write about and you sound much wiser, while doing so.
Peter Ho Davies also enjoys making fun of the student who can’t write throughout the text. In one of the passages he uses the wrong dear or wait maybe its deer. He also lets the students take a vote as to whether to use knoll or knell (Davies, 83). Also within that passage he says you could replace knoll with any other word, and it would sound just as ridiculous. You know how tons of students rely on spell check? Peter Ho Davies dares to ask, “Who makes up spell check anyways?” Were they good spellers in the first place? It’s a valid question. Seeing as if you look at middle, high, and college students, millions if not billions of them are relying on spell check to catch everything wrong and to correct it before they turn in their paper. From my experience spell check can be useful; but it can also try to fix items in your paper that isn’t wrong to begin with (i.e. names). He also mentions that he can’t write as badly as students do, thus he got writer’s block. He was trying to write Clark’s story, how Clark would tell his story, writing and all.
Peter Ho Davies tries to teach his students how to tell stories. He also says, “and the truth is that life is all stories and fiction is all plots,” (Davies, 84). Based on that, I believe that everyone needs to learn how to write plots. It seems as though not everyone is as truthful and straightforward so you can get real life stories. There always appears to be some fiction rolled into the story one is trying to tell. So we have it, Peter Ho Davies teaches the kids how to tell stories, which makes sense because we tell stories all the time. I know that my friends and I have to tell each other stories of the previous night’s events or since the last time we saw each other. Everyone should learn how to tell good stories so that your reader/listener knows what you’re trying to say. That’s probably the most important point, so make sense to your readers/listeners. If they don’t understand, what is your purpose for writing or telling that story? I’m assuming there is no purpose then.
Peter Ho Davies first tells more of his past experiences then after he tells about Clark’s death. He next shifts to trying to figure out Clark’s story. He’s trying to put himself in Clark’s shoes, so he goes shooting. I think Peter Ho Davies is trying to do more than just figure out Clark’s story, I think he wanted to write the story.
Peter Ho Davies is a writer at heart. He has tried several times to get his writing published. When the note comes back rejecting him, he almost seems determined to try again, like, “I’m going to get this someday.” Thus far nothing of his has been published, so most determined writers try and try again until they succeed. That’s what he’s doing, and he believes that he can become a published writer through Clark’s story.
I believe that he could be aiming this article at future writers. I think he is trying to point out things to remember while writing. I also think he is trying to tell us how to get better. You don’t just wake up one morning and suddenly become a published writer. It takes a lot of hard work, which he tries to tell throughout the course of “What You Know.” Not only is he trying to make you a better writer, he is also trying to point out flaws of others so you learn. The best way for him to do that is through his students. After all they are just beginning this journey through writing, so they are bound to make mistakes. One day though, those students have a chance at becoming great writers just like Peter Ho Davies.
After reading “What You Know,” I am sitting here wondering. I’m wondering why Peter Ho Davies is trying to put himself in Clark’s shoes. Why is he trying to write Clark’s story? Peter Ho Davies tells you not to write about suicide, so why the sudden change to writing what he doesn’t know, which ends in suicide. Peter Ho Davies knows nothing of this topic, thus contradicting everything he says in the first few pages of “What You Know.”
The last few pages in “What You Know” are all about Peter Ho Davies shooting experience. I know that Peter Ho Davies is trying to get into Clark’s shoes, but why do I care about how the different targets look, which target he chooses, or even everything that he got at the shooting place? Peter Ho Davies paints a clear picture of him buying or renting all of these items to go shooting. Then he also paints another clear picture of him doing the actual shooting. I don’t know why I want to know this; however he could have a point with this. He could be showing us what makes stories good. When I read stories, usually lots of details is something that drags me in. I want to envision myself as the main character going through all of these things. He might also be writing this to hopefully get rid of his writers block, or to get into Clark’s mindset.
Overall I think Peter Ho Davies is just trying to understand Clark’s story. I think by writing “What You Know,” he gets a better understanding of the whole situation himself. He has it set up to say write what you know, but then ventures into this story, which he knows next to nothing about. He only knows things about Clark, from when he sat in his class. Then also from what reporters from CNN say, or have been told. Maybe that’s not the best source to get a good understanding of the situation from.
When you tell those stories, I want to be able to make sense of what you are trying to say. If the reader can’t understand you then what’s the point of writing anything? So I believe every writer will tell you to have a good story that interests your readers, and then also write it so your reader can understand.
Within “What You Know” Peter Ho Davies is contemplating a couple of things. He wants to write a story that is supposedly written by Clark telling about Clark’s suicide mission. Then Peter Ho Davies gets writers block so he goes shooting, almost as if trying to get into Clark’s mind. Maybe to see what could have been going through Clark’s mind. Peter Ho Davies is just trying to get rid of writers block. Peter Ho Davies is also contemplating if he might have driven Clark to commit suicide. Peter Ho Davies tells the students to write “What You Know,” so there are only so many stories that the typical high school or college student can write about. We haven’t been alive long enough to pick up many more experiences that we could write about. Clark took not being able to write about suicide as a challenge, so he killed himself, now Clark could, if he were alive, write about suicide. Even his other classmates could write about how someone else committing suicide has affected them personally.
If you are told to only write about what you know, then should a teacher jump out and question you if you are suddenly writing about suicide? What should your teacher know about you? Is it more than just your writing? Should your teacher know how you normally feel or how you will react to certain circumstances? I think your teacher should know a little bit about you, so they know if you suddenly start writing about suicide and you normally don’t, maybe they should try to get you help. After all the students safety should be ranked pretty high on their list. Peter Ho Davies didn’t know very much about his students. Then what he thought of his students was quite negative. I almost have the feeling that he is only a teacher to see or make fun of the students’ horrible writing, so they see how silly there writing is, then hopefully will become better writers because of it.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Assignment 3.4
Weintraub analyzes Kruger’s work and views in “Gender Equality.” Like Kruger was a feminist. To denote who the man or woman was in her work she used “we,” “my,” and “I” for the female, then “you” for the male (Composition Reader, 200-201). I never even thought of it that way, when we previously looked at Kruger’s work.
Weintraub assumes that you nothing about Kruger’s work. Weintraub gives several examples of Kruger’s work throughout the chapter. She shows you a few of the photographs and text. They include “We don’t need another hero” and “Bleed us dry.” Weintraub spends seven pages telling us about Kruger, or at least Kruger’s work.
Kruger, an artist, has the same basic approach to all of her work. She will typically have a photograph, black and white, taken from somewhere else. Then she will have the photograph blown up, and make up some text to put with it. The text is usually bold white letters surrounded in red. It appears as though she is trying to draw the viewer to the text. “Text further amplifies the aesthetic drama of the photographs,” (Composition Reader, 199). So it seems as though Kruger is trying to help get her meaning across by putting the words in the picture. Without the words it would be much harder to get the full meaning of the photograph.
When we first looked at Kruger’s work, I looked at the photograph and the words to try and make sense of what she meant. Let’s take a look at “I Shop Therefore I Am.” What does this mean? The photograph is a black and white hand holding on to these red and white words. It almost appears as though the words are in a box, sort of like the shape of a red credit card. Maybe Kruger was trying to say something about consumerism. When you add the meaning of “I” being female, it makes it say that females are the consumers. It makes it seem as though that is our role in society, to go out and buy the groceries to feed our family, and to buy the clothes for our kids. Unfortunately it appears to be scarily accurate. Go and take a walk around your local grocery store. Who’s pushing the carts full of food, with the child sitting in the cart? It’s a female. Yes there are exceptions. Sometimes the males will do the grocery shopping, but majority of the time its females. Now let’s go on a trip to the mall. Oh look, again it’s mostly females. The only exceptions as far as shopping and consumerism go are the teenage boys that hang out in the arcade spending money to hopefully become number one. Other males sometimes hang out in the hardware store, maybe that’s because we females know nothing about tools and such. Then here is the last exception, you will find mostly guys in any store that carries weapons. When it comes down to it about ninety-nine percent of the time, the females are the consumers.
Some people like you and I might say that Kruger uses propaganda and advertising in her work. Weintraub fights to say, nope, sorry, none of that it is included. For advertising Kruger would have to say, “Buy my product or service,” which she doesn’t. She isn’t trying to sell anything. She is simply trying to share her feministic point of view through photographs and words. Then comes propaganda, which Weintraub gives good examples of. “One people. One nation. One leader.” And “Nothing has been won in history without bloodshed,” (Composition Reader, 199). Those I consider to be propaganda, as does Weintraub. However, I don’t believe Kruger is really trying to shape your opinion to what she believes is going on and to see things the way she sees things. She uses the look and feel of propaganda, without it actually being propaganda. It could help that, “There is no official propaganda in the United States” (Composition Reader, 198). Later on Kruger said, “We live in a mixed culture. We have different goals. We need to hear more voices” (Composition Reader, 203). I think she is just simply putting out information for information’s sake. Everyone is allowed to put out information. Some just choose to make their information a little bolder, and more known to others. She is simply letting you make your own conclusions as to what it means. With propaganda you are trying to get a desired outcome. “Her artworks are not propaganda because their production is not orchestrated by a central governmental authority. Propaganda indoctrinates youth, censors news, stages parades, and produces demonstrations. It regulates art, literature, film, radio, music, and theater” (Composition Reader, 198). So yeah she’s fighting for gender equality, but she’s not forcing us to come together and make sure men and women are equal.
“I am interested in making art that displaces the powers that tell us who we can be and who we can’t be,” (Composition Reader, 202-203). This is a quote from Barbara Kruger herself. I believe it is telling us that we can do anything, which is only because Kruger does anything and everything in her artwork. Kruger is of the mindset that male or female, you should be equal. There should be no limitations as to what one can do. “We don’t need another hero,” (Composition Reader, 197). So sorry guys we don’t need you to pretend to be another Superman, Batman, or even Muscle Man. The females can be Wonder Woman, thus we are equal to you, both superheros. A long time ago when life first roamed the Earth, the guys were in charge of doing everything outside the house. Maybe it was so the females wouldn’t break a nail. Anyways, the females were told to stay inside, to cook, clean, and care for the children. It was the male’s job to provide for the family. We’ve come a long way since then. Now the females can work outside the home, doing any job the guys can do. We aren’t paid as much as the guys are. (Many studies/statistics have told us this). Thus we still aren’t equal. However, small steps can be one way to finally get there.
While first looking at Kruger’s work I didn’t any sense of the gender equality she was trying to bring up. Her artwork appears like it could be directed at either gender until you figure out that she used “we,” “my,” and “I” for the females, then “you” for the males (Composition Reader, 200-201). Once you are given that piece of information, you can see Kruger’s feministic ideas which shaped her work. It wasn’t until after reading “Gender Equality,” by Linda Weintraub that I had the thoughts about gender inequality about Kruger’s work as I stated in the previous paragraph.
“To make art is the ability to objectify one’s experience of the world. You can do that in a million ways—in building, a painting, with photography, a novel, a music video—but it’s your experience, not some intermediary’s vision or some client’s imposed boundaries,” (Composition Reader, 198). Kruger is simply using photographs and her writing to share her views. She is a feminist and wants equality. No one is telling her what to envision, she is simply sharing the world through her eyes. Kruger sees the world as a man’s place to be stronger and their voice to be louder, thus heard a little better.
Weintraub spends quite a bit of time explaining Kruger’s work to us, so she too must believe this is an important issue. Some people may believe that we are all equal, after all both males and females are allowed to vote. Weintraub gets to explaining how powerful of a message Kruger sends in every piece of artwork. That Kruger’s work wasn’t just spur of the moment, oh I’d like to take this picture and slap a few words on it. NO it was purposefully put together, so it could explain someone else’s point of view. Kruger wants her words to shout out at you and get your attention, and then maybe some action will be taken to get to gender equality.
Weintraub assumes that you nothing about Kruger’s work. Weintraub gives several examples of Kruger’s work throughout the chapter. She shows you a few of the photographs and text. They include “We don’t need another hero” and “Bleed us dry.” Weintraub spends seven pages telling us about Kruger, or at least Kruger’s work.
Kruger, an artist, has the same basic approach to all of her work. She will typically have a photograph, black and white, taken from somewhere else. Then she will have the photograph blown up, and make up some text to put with it. The text is usually bold white letters surrounded in red. It appears as though she is trying to draw the viewer to the text. “Text further amplifies the aesthetic drama of the photographs,” (Composition Reader, 199). So it seems as though Kruger is trying to help get her meaning across by putting the words in the picture. Without the words it would be much harder to get the full meaning of the photograph.
When we first looked at Kruger’s work, I looked at the photograph and the words to try and make sense of what she meant. Let’s take a look at “I Shop Therefore I Am.” What does this mean? The photograph is a black and white hand holding on to these red and white words. It almost appears as though the words are in a box, sort of like the shape of a red credit card. Maybe Kruger was trying to say something about consumerism. When you add the meaning of “I” being female, it makes it say that females are the consumers. It makes it seem as though that is our role in society, to go out and buy the groceries to feed our family, and to buy the clothes for our kids. Unfortunately it appears to be scarily accurate. Go and take a walk around your local grocery store. Who’s pushing the carts full of food, with the child sitting in the cart? It’s a female. Yes there are exceptions. Sometimes the males will do the grocery shopping, but majority of the time its females. Now let’s go on a trip to the mall. Oh look, again it’s mostly females. The only exceptions as far as shopping and consumerism go are the teenage boys that hang out in the arcade spending money to hopefully become number one. Other males sometimes hang out in the hardware store, maybe that’s because we females know nothing about tools and such. Then here is the last exception, you will find mostly guys in any store that carries weapons. When it comes down to it about ninety-nine percent of the time, the females are the consumers.
Some people like you and I might say that Kruger uses propaganda and advertising in her work. Weintraub fights to say, nope, sorry, none of that it is included. For advertising Kruger would have to say, “Buy my product or service,” which she doesn’t. She isn’t trying to sell anything. She is simply trying to share her feministic point of view through photographs and words. Then comes propaganda, which Weintraub gives good examples of. “One people. One nation. One leader.” And “Nothing has been won in history without bloodshed,” (Composition Reader, 199). Those I consider to be propaganda, as does Weintraub. However, I don’t believe Kruger is really trying to shape your opinion to what she believes is going on and to see things the way she sees things. She uses the look and feel of propaganda, without it actually being propaganda. It could help that, “There is no official propaganda in the United States” (Composition Reader, 198). Later on Kruger said, “We live in a mixed culture. We have different goals. We need to hear more voices” (Composition Reader, 203). I think she is just simply putting out information for information’s sake. Everyone is allowed to put out information. Some just choose to make their information a little bolder, and more known to others. She is simply letting you make your own conclusions as to what it means. With propaganda you are trying to get a desired outcome. “Her artworks are not propaganda because their production is not orchestrated by a central governmental authority. Propaganda indoctrinates youth, censors news, stages parades, and produces demonstrations. It regulates art, literature, film, radio, music, and theater” (Composition Reader, 198). So yeah she’s fighting for gender equality, but she’s not forcing us to come together and make sure men and women are equal.
“I am interested in making art that displaces the powers that tell us who we can be and who we can’t be,” (Composition Reader, 202-203). This is a quote from Barbara Kruger herself. I believe it is telling us that we can do anything, which is only because Kruger does anything and everything in her artwork. Kruger is of the mindset that male or female, you should be equal. There should be no limitations as to what one can do. “We don’t need another hero,” (Composition Reader, 197). So sorry guys we don’t need you to pretend to be another Superman, Batman, or even Muscle Man. The females can be Wonder Woman, thus we are equal to you, both superheros. A long time ago when life first roamed the Earth, the guys were in charge of doing everything outside the house. Maybe it was so the females wouldn’t break a nail. Anyways, the females were told to stay inside, to cook, clean, and care for the children. It was the male’s job to provide for the family. We’ve come a long way since then. Now the females can work outside the home, doing any job the guys can do. We aren’t paid as much as the guys are. (Many studies/statistics have told us this). Thus we still aren’t equal. However, small steps can be one way to finally get there.
While first looking at Kruger’s work I didn’t any sense of the gender equality she was trying to bring up. Her artwork appears like it could be directed at either gender until you figure out that she used “we,” “my,” and “I” for the females, then “you” for the males (Composition Reader, 200-201). Once you are given that piece of information, you can see Kruger’s feministic ideas which shaped her work. It wasn’t until after reading “Gender Equality,” by Linda Weintraub that I had the thoughts about gender inequality about Kruger’s work as I stated in the previous paragraph.
“To make art is the ability to objectify one’s experience of the world. You can do that in a million ways—in building, a painting, with photography, a novel, a music video—but it’s your experience, not some intermediary’s vision or some client’s imposed boundaries,” (Composition Reader, 198). Kruger is simply using photographs and her writing to share her views. She is a feminist and wants equality. No one is telling her what to envision, she is simply sharing the world through her eyes. Kruger sees the world as a man’s place to be stronger and their voice to be louder, thus heard a little better.
Weintraub spends quite a bit of time explaining Kruger’s work to us, so she too must believe this is an important issue. Some people may believe that we are all equal, after all both males and females are allowed to vote. Weintraub gets to explaining how powerful of a message Kruger sends in every piece of artwork. That Kruger’s work wasn’t just spur of the moment, oh I’d like to take this picture and slap a few words on it. NO it was purposefully put together, so it could explain someone else’s point of view. Kruger wants her words to shout out at you and get your attention, and then maybe some action will be taken to get to gender equality.
Assignment 4.2
Peter Ho Davies wrote, “What You Know.” The more times you read “What You Know” the more you will begin to understand or question. Now for a brief outline. Peter Ho Davies begins “What You Know” with talking about teaching and writing in general. Then all of the sudden he changes to “No suicides” (Davis, 82). Then Peter Ho Davies continues on with the suicide idea. It could help that one of his students had committed suicide. That students name was Clark. After Peter Ho Davies brings up the idea of suicide, he continues to tell about just shooting in general. He shares about his shooting experience, almost as if trying to see what was so great about shooting a gun, or just trying to imagine what was going through Clark’s mind at the time of suicide.
Peter Ho Davies uses a lot of repetition with, “What You Know.” He tells his students to write about what you know. He tells you what you don’t know, like suicide. Thus you are not allowed to write about it. Now they are left with their feelings, family, friends, etc. Now all of that could seem repetitive, but it’s also easiest to write about. You can draw from specific instances that you have lived through to make the story a little more interesting. I know that I find it hard to write about things I don’t know about. It usually will turn out to be a comic or fiction in general. Then you have to feel sorry for the reader who knows everything about the topic in which you chose to write about, because you sound kind of dumb, when you are writing what you don’t know about. You would constantly be making up detail which may or may not make sense. I think we should take Peter Ho Davies advice and write “What You Know.” It’s easier to write about and you sound much wiser, while doing so.
Peter Ho Davies also enjoys making fun of the student who can’t write throughout the text. In one of the passages he uses the wrong dear or wait maybe its deer. He also lets the students take a vote as to whether to use knoll or knell (Davies, 83). Also within that passage he says you could replace knoll with any other word, and it would sound just as ridiculous. You know how tons of students rely on spell check? Peter Ho Davies dares to ask, “Who makes up spell check anyways?” Were they good spellers in the first place? It’s a valid question. Seeing as if you look at middle, high, and college students, millions if not billions of them are relying on spell check to catch everything wrong and to correct it before they turn in their paper. From my experience spell check can be useful; it can also try to fix items in your paper that isn’t wrong to begin with (i.e. names). He also mentions that he can’t write as badly as students do. That could have been one of the causes of Peter Ho Davies writer’s block, while trying to write Clark’s story.
Peter Ho Davies tries to teach his students how to tell stories. It is a great lesson; after all if you look around you will notice people telling stories about what happened last night, about friends, or even family. Peter Ho Davies says that life is all stories, while fiction is all plots. Based on that, I believe that everyone needs to learn how to write plots. It seems as though not everyone is as truthful and straightforward so you can get real life stories. There always appears to be some fiction rolled into the story one is trying to tell.
When you tell those stories, I want to be able to make sense of what you are trying to say. If the reader can’t understand you then what’s the point of writing anything? So I believe every writer will tell you to have a good story that interests your readers, and then also write it so your reader can understand.
Within “What You Know” Peter Ho Davies is contemplating a couple of things. He wants to write a story that is supposedly written by Clark telling about Clark’s suicide mission. Then Peter Ho Davies gets writers block so he goes shooting, almost as if trying to get into Clark’s mind. Maybe to see what could have been going through Clark’s mind. Peter Ho Davies is just trying to get rid of writers block. Peter Ho Davies is also contemplating if he might have driven Clark to commit suicide. Peter Ho Davies tells the students to write “What You Know,” so there are only so many stories that the typical high school or college student can write about. We haven’t been alive long enough to pick up many more experiences that we could write about. Clark took not being able to write about suicide as a challenge, so he killed himself, now Clark could, if he were alive, write about suicide. Even his other classmates could write about how someone else committing suicide has affected them personally.
If you are told to only write about what you know, then should a teacher jump out and question you if you are suddenly writing about suicide? What should your teacher know about you? Is it more than just your writing? Should your teacher know how you normally feel or how you will react to certain circumstances? I think your teacher should know a little bit about you, so they know if you suddenly start writing about suicide and you normally don’t, maybe they should try to get you help. After all the students safety should be ranked pretty high on their list. Peter Ho Davies didn’t know very much about his students. Then what he thought of his students was quite negative. I almost have the feeling that he is only a teacher to see or make fun of the students’ horrible writing.
Peter Ho Davies uses a lot of repetition with, “What You Know.” He tells his students to write about what you know. He tells you what you don’t know, like suicide. Thus you are not allowed to write about it. Now they are left with their feelings, family, friends, etc. Now all of that could seem repetitive, but it’s also easiest to write about. You can draw from specific instances that you have lived through to make the story a little more interesting. I know that I find it hard to write about things I don’t know about. It usually will turn out to be a comic or fiction in general. Then you have to feel sorry for the reader who knows everything about the topic in which you chose to write about, because you sound kind of dumb, when you are writing what you don’t know about. You would constantly be making up detail which may or may not make sense. I think we should take Peter Ho Davies advice and write “What You Know.” It’s easier to write about and you sound much wiser, while doing so.
Peter Ho Davies also enjoys making fun of the student who can’t write throughout the text. In one of the passages he uses the wrong dear or wait maybe its deer. He also lets the students take a vote as to whether to use knoll or knell (Davies, 83). Also within that passage he says you could replace knoll with any other word, and it would sound just as ridiculous. You know how tons of students rely on spell check? Peter Ho Davies dares to ask, “Who makes up spell check anyways?” Were they good spellers in the first place? It’s a valid question. Seeing as if you look at middle, high, and college students, millions if not billions of them are relying on spell check to catch everything wrong and to correct it before they turn in their paper. From my experience spell check can be useful; it can also try to fix items in your paper that isn’t wrong to begin with (i.e. names). He also mentions that he can’t write as badly as students do. That could have been one of the causes of Peter Ho Davies writer’s block, while trying to write Clark’s story.
Peter Ho Davies tries to teach his students how to tell stories. It is a great lesson; after all if you look around you will notice people telling stories about what happened last night, about friends, or even family. Peter Ho Davies says that life is all stories, while fiction is all plots. Based on that, I believe that everyone needs to learn how to write plots. It seems as though not everyone is as truthful and straightforward so you can get real life stories. There always appears to be some fiction rolled into the story one is trying to tell.
When you tell those stories, I want to be able to make sense of what you are trying to say. If the reader can’t understand you then what’s the point of writing anything? So I believe every writer will tell you to have a good story that interests your readers, and then also write it so your reader can understand.
Within “What You Know” Peter Ho Davies is contemplating a couple of things. He wants to write a story that is supposedly written by Clark telling about Clark’s suicide mission. Then Peter Ho Davies gets writers block so he goes shooting, almost as if trying to get into Clark’s mind. Maybe to see what could have been going through Clark’s mind. Peter Ho Davies is just trying to get rid of writers block. Peter Ho Davies is also contemplating if he might have driven Clark to commit suicide. Peter Ho Davies tells the students to write “What You Know,” so there are only so many stories that the typical high school or college student can write about. We haven’t been alive long enough to pick up many more experiences that we could write about. Clark took not being able to write about suicide as a challenge, so he killed himself, now Clark could, if he were alive, write about suicide. Even his other classmates could write about how someone else committing suicide has affected them personally.
If you are told to only write about what you know, then should a teacher jump out and question you if you are suddenly writing about suicide? What should your teacher know about you? Is it more than just your writing? Should your teacher know how you normally feel or how you will react to certain circumstances? I think your teacher should know a little bit about you, so they know if you suddenly start writing about suicide and you normally don’t, maybe they should try to get you help. After all the students safety should be ranked pretty high on their list. Peter Ho Davies didn’t know very much about his students. Then what he thought of his students was quite negative. I almost have the feeling that he is only a teacher to see or make fun of the students’ horrible writing.
Assignment 4.1
Peter Ho Davies appears to be a fairly decent writer who is trying to help others become better writers. He had a job at school, not a teacher, but he had the privilege of teaching one class every year. It seemed to be a small class, with troubled students. After all one of the students, Clark, committed suicide.
Peter Ho Davies was trying to teach them what they were allowed to write about. He wanted them to write about things they know. Thus they weren’t allowed to write about suicide. He also says, “and the truth is that life is all stories and fiction is all plots,” (“What You Know,” 4). So Peter Ho Davies teaches the kids how to tell stories, which makes sense because we tell stories all the time. I know that my friends and I have to tell each other stories of the previous night’s events or since the last time we saw each other. Everyone should learn how to tell good stories so that your reader/listener knows what you’re trying to say. That’s probably the most important point, so make sense to your readers/listeners. If they don’t understand, what is your purpose for writing or telling that story?
Peter Ho Davies first tells more of his past experiences then after he tells about Clark’s death. He next shifts to trying to figure out Clark’s story. He’s trying to put himself in Clark’s shoes, so he goes shooting. I think Peter Ho Davies is trying to do more than just figure out Clark’s story, I think he wanted to write the story.
Peter Ho Davies is a writer at heart. He has tried several times to get his writing published. When the note comes back rejecting him, he almost seems determined to try again, like, “I’m going to get this someday.” Thus far nothing of his has been published, so most determined writers try and try again. That’s what he’s doing.
I believe that he could be aiming this article at future writers. I think he is trying to point out things to remember while writing. I also think he is trying to tell us how to get better. You don’t just wake up one morning and suddenly become a published writer. It takes a lot of hard work, which he tries to tell throughout the course of “What You Know.”
After reading “What You Know,” I am sitting here wondering. I’m wondering why Peter Ho Davies is trying to put himself in Clark’s shoes. Why is he trying to write Clark’s story? Peter Ho Davies tells you not to write about suicide, so why is he writing Clark’s story, which ends in suicide. Peter Ho Davies knows nothing of this topic, thus not writing what he knows. He contradicted everything that he states in the first few pages of “What You Know.”
The last few pages in “What You Know” are all about Peter Ho Davies shooting. I know that Peter Ho Davies is trying to get into Clark’s shoes, but why do I care about how the different targets look, which target he chooses, or even everything that he got at the shooting place? Peter Ho Davies paints a clear picture of him buying or renting all of these items to go shooting. Then he also paints another clear picture of him doing the actual shooting. I don’t know why I want to know this; however he could have a point with this. He could be showing us what makes stories good. When I read stories, usually lots of details is something that drags me in. I want to envision myself as the main character going through all of these things.
Overall I think Peter Ho Davies is just trying to understand Clark’s story. I think by writing “What You Know,” he gets a better understanding of the whole situation himself. He has it set up to say write what you know, but then ventures into this story, which he knows next to nothing about. He only knows things about Clark, from when he sat in his class. Then also from what reporters from CNN say, or have been told. Maybe that’s not the best source to get a good understanding of the situation from.
Peter Ho Davies was trying to teach them what they were allowed to write about. He wanted them to write about things they know. Thus they weren’t allowed to write about suicide. He also says, “and the truth is that life is all stories and fiction is all plots,” (“What You Know,” 4). So Peter Ho Davies teaches the kids how to tell stories, which makes sense because we tell stories all the time. I know that my friends and I have to tell each other stories of the previous night’s events or since the last time we saw each other. Everyone should learn how to tell good stories so that your reader/listener knows what you’re trying to say. That’s probably the most important point, so make sense to your readers/listeners. If they don’t understand, what is your purpose for writing or telling that story?
Peter Ho Davies first tells more of his past experiences then after he tells about Clark’s death. He next shifts to trying to figure out Clark’s story. He’s trying to put himself in Clark’s shoes, so he goes shooting. I think Peter Ho Davies is trying to do more than just figure out Clark’s story, I think he wanted to write the story.
Peter Ho Davies is a writer at heart. He has tried several times to get his writing published. When the note comes back rejecting him, he almost seems determined to try again, like, “I’m going to get this someday.” Thus far nothing of his has been published, so most determined writers try and try again. That’s what he’s doing.
I believe that he could be aiming this article at future writers. I think he is trying to point out things to remember while writing. I also think he is trying to tell us how to get better. You don’t just wake up one morning and suddenly become a published writer. It takes a lot of hard work, which he tries to tell throughout the course of “What You Know.”
After reading “What You Know,” I am sitting here wondering. I’m wondering why Peter Ho Davies is trying to put himself in Clark’s shoes. Why is he trying to write Clark’s story? Peter Ho Davies tells you not to write about suicide, so why is he writing Clark’s story, which ends in suicide. Peter Ho Davies knows nothing of this topic, thus not writing what he knows. He contradicted everything that he states in the first few pages of “What You Know.”
The last few pages in “What You Know” are all about Peter Ho Davies shooting. I know that Peter Ho Davies is trying to get into Clark’s shoes, but why do I care about how the different targets look, which target he chooses, or even everything that he got at the shooting place? Peter Ho Davies paints a clear picture of him buying or renting all of these items to go shooting. Then he also paints another clear picture of him doing the actual shooting. I don’t know why I want to know this; however he could have a point with this. He could be showing us what makes stories good. When I read stories, usually lots of details is something that drags me in. I want to envision myself as the main character going through all of these things.
Overall I think Peter Ho Davies is just trying to understand Clark’s story. I think by writing “What You Know,” he gets a better understanding of the whole situation himself. He has it set up to say write what you know, but then ventures into this story, which he knows next to nothing about. He only knows things about Clark, from when he sat in his class. Then also from what reporters from CNN say, or have been told. Maybe that’s not the best source to get a good understanding of the situation from.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
