Unlike quite a few people in my class, I actually read all of the novel! I truly don't know how anyone could fully understand the book and it's meaning just from sparknotes-- like the girl from the "Onion" article believed she did. Although the storyline wasn't too complex, every single adventure leads to a greater understand of each character and all of their relationships.
Like many teens reading this book, I initially decided that I didn't like it and couldn't understand it (the dialect made it difficult to understand). However, I knew I had to read it, so I kept going. Eventually, I found it easy to understand what was going on, despite the dialect, and I came to enjoy the story. While reading, each new adventure, town, or person seemed like separate events that just kept the story going. After meeting with my discussion group multiple times and reflecting on the book, I realize that all of these events depict the characters in more and more detail. They also assist in portraying the characters' relationships and even Twain's personal views come out.
The main relationship that is continually tested because of their society is between Jim and Huck. When first seeing Jim, Huck automatically decides to travel with him and think nothing of him running away. However, after thinking more about the situation, Huck second-guesses himself. After some contemplation, Huck decides that no matter what society says, he will do the right thing and not tell on Jim. This relationship/occurrence is the main instance of Twain's views coming out through his characters. Huck's morals prevailing is obviously the opinion that Twain has on slavery.
I actually ended up enjoying reading this novel. Despite there not being any specific due dates (besides the very last one) I was able to keep up with the reading and finish the novel. The language and dialect was different from most novels I've read which was more interesting for me. The overall ideas merging with Twain's views during the different adventures stood out as what I mostly got out of the novel.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
a rhetorical analysis of: "The True Power of Performing Arts"
I thought it would be interesting to watch one of the videos that is about theater since that is something I am extremely passionate about. The title of one Ted talk stood out to me; it was called "The True Power of Performing Arts" and was presented by Ben Cameron. I wasn't exactly sure what direction he would take the topic, but I thought I might as well just watch it!
When Cameron first begins, he tells a little joke, making it seem as though his argument will be lighthearted and informal. However, his initial humor is just the beginning of Cameron speaking about the subject in a serious and formal way. T His main argument is that technology is diminishing the public's desire to observe and attend anything of the performing arts genre whether it is an opera, a musical theater performance, or an orchestral performance. Ethos is the primary appeal used in this argument; however, all three appeals are used throughout the entire video. As I stated before, this speech was almost entirely serious which really caught the audience's attention after his initial humor. In fact, he used this humor every once in a while to lighten the mood so people knew he wasn't angry or too intense. The pathos used breaks up his argument, but in a good way. It separates different ideas while giving the audience a little break from his determination to make his point. The pathos used was humorous, while still relating to the serious and important topic at hand. The appeal of logos was used the least, but it gave the audience a sense of how the problem is progressing after hearing just flat information and ideas from Cameron. As soon as Cameron starts, it is easy to tell that he knows exactly what he is talking about. After reading the little bio next to the video which stated that he runs an arts granting program, I figured he would be passionate about the subject, but I didn't expect him to feel that the problem is as crucial as he made it seem. He doesn't joke around too much, quotes a respectable source who agrees with his opinion, and uses stories and examples to set the tone of his presentation and his presence.
One strategy that I noticed, which I wasn't expecting, was his attempt to include the audience and make them feel as though they are a part of this movement and can help. He gives examples of how technology is hurting the performing arts for all different walks of life. Cameron forces the audience to believe that it is their problem, too, and that they can fix it.
Cameron's argument was so convincing that it made me, someone who is already passionate about performing arts, want to make a difference and help out. His use of all three appeals all combined to create a firm argument that the performing arts need to be rescued because they are actually beneficent to many parts of communities, unlike video games and TV.
When Cameron first begins, he tells a little joke, making it seem as though his argument will be lighthearted and informal. However, his initial humor is just the beginning of Cameron speaking about the subject in a serious and formal way. T His main argument is that technology is diminishing the public's desire to observe and attend anything of the performing arts genre whether it is an opera, a musical theater performance, or an orchestral performance. Ethos is the primary appeal used in this argument; however, all three appeals are used throughout the entire video. As I stated before, this speech was almost entirely serious which really caught the audience's attention after his initial humor. In fact, he used this humor every once in a while to lighten the mood so people knew he wasn't angry or too intense. The pathos used breaks up his argument, but in a good way. It separates different ideas while giving the audience a little break from his determination to make his point. The pathos used was humorous, while still relating to the serious and important topic at hand. The appeal of logos was used the least, but it gave the audience a sense of how the problem is progressing after hearing just flat information and ideas from Cameron. As soon as Cameron starts, it is easy to tell that he knows exactly what he is talking about. After reading the little bio next to the video which stated that he runs an arts granting program, I figured he would be passionate about the subject, but I didn't expect him to feel that the problem is as crucial as he made it seem. He doesn't joke around too much, quotes a respectable source who agrees with his opinion, and uses stories and examples to set the tone of his presentation and his presence.
One strategy that I noticed, which I wasn't expecting, was his attempt to include the audience and make them feel as though they are a part of this movement and can help. He gives examples of how technology is hurting the performing arts for all different walks of life. Cameron forces the audience to believe that it is their problem, too, and that they can fix it.
Cameron's argument was so convincing that it made me, someone who is already passionate about performing arts, want to make a difference and help out. His use of all three appeals all combined to create a firm argument that the performing arts need to be rescued because they are actually beneficent to many parts of communities, unlike video games and TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)