This is a perfect college essay. Amy Tan wrote this story as a retrospective of how she had behaved towards her parents some time ago, and what she learnt from this experience. However, we have to consider that Amy Tan could have partially practiced a biased flashback as some time had passed since the incident, and her perspective could have changed as time went by.
In the story, the author mentions how her mother was concerned about preparing best food for her, but she was too busy trying to make herself look like a natural American. Although she admits that she was being ashamed of her Chinese identity, we have to doubt whether Robert and his family had really acted the way she describes in the story.
This story cannot be fully detached, because the narrator is involved in the actual happening. Therefore, Amy's personal opinions should have been mingled with the scene, creating her own interpretations of people's reactions. Maybe the way her relatives acted was not so much Chinese as she describes in the story. Maybe Robert's family did not feel that much awkward.
This story reminds me of how I used to behave when I was in the international school in Singapore. I did not like it whenever my parents came to school to pick me up. They were so used to the Korean culture that they seemed totally foreign when I was with friends from other countries and continents. Every time, I tried to stay away from them, packaging myself as one of those foreigners when in reality I was a full Korean.
Just like Amy Tan, I do not remember the exact incident. I might be interpreting the situation in my own point of view when other people would totally disagree with me. However, at least I believed this way and I am regretting it right now.
COMMENTS
Chonghyun Ahn: I think it is interesting that you actually sympathize with Amy Tan. Although I didn't have the chance to share the experience, I assume that it must have been very embarrassing, along with a slight sense of guilt for your parents. I wish such delicate emotions to be well-described in your future writing.
Jin Gyeong: Hi! I was able to deeply sympathize with you, even though I don't have similar experiences. How about writing your reflection as your own faction story based on your experiences in Singapore? It would be awesome!
Yeji: I agree with you; Amy Tan was writing about her 14th Christmas after more than ten years passed away, and while she's writing, she must have 'created' or 'edited' the emotions she felt the behaviors the Chinese did in much more exaggerated way to convey her message(?). In that sense, essays may be "biased". Interesting. And a good connection with your own experience. Good job!
Rhee Ji Yoon: It's almost lunchtime! One minute left. Good luck with your essay!
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Sarah Cole: A Type of Love Story
This story had very similar features with one of the previous novellas we discussed in class: 'The Most Beautiful Woman in Town'. They were both written in the Confessional Period, when the authors reflected their own selves through the narrator of the story.
Sarah Cole is one of the ugliest woman in town. One day, this woman approaches a really attractive man in a bar, and starts talking. The man, named Ron, is extremely surprised to see such a woman, a woman with nothing to brag about, a woman who seems to not care about beauty, to accost him a handsome and young man with styles. They talk, laugh, and get to know each other fairly well; the man is attracted to her temerity, and the woman to his beauty.
Then, why did not their relationship last for long? The reason is that Ron knew that he has made the wrong decision. With Sarah beside him, he comprehended how both of them would end up in despair and agony, unlike bliss and contentment they were anticipating. Ron was forced to leave Sarah, because they were simply not made for each other. They were two wards that could not be put together: an oxymoron. They were two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that could not be assembled together.
In 'The Most Beautiful Woman in Town', the situation is quite similar; the ugliest man in town goes out with the most comely woman. However, the woman, Cass, falls in true love with the man because she knows that he is the only person who can truly love her. He, unlike others who are simply mesmerized by the facade of her beauty, liked her as the person who she really is.
COMMENTS
Rhee Ji Yoon: It's interesting that you attempted to compare two stories! They surely do resemble each other. I also liked the part that you used metaphors, such as "oxymoron" and "jigsaw puzzle"; I think they enriched your essay. What I like about your writings is that they are simple and straightforward. However, I also think that your essay would improve if you'd find some links between the two stories instead of just summarizing them.
InHee: I notice your writing is very flowing but full of content. But I was curious: who are the couples that are not oxymorons? If the ugly man and beautiful woman don't fit, and the ugly woman and handsome guy don't fit either, are the good-lookings to meet good-lookings and the uglies to meet the uglies? I guess this conveys a common yet contradictory conception that we want nice-looking people, at the same time thinking those nice looking people are morons whom the beauty and attractive appearance is all they have. So I partly agree with your ideas, but I wish you would elaborate why you think those two were oxymorons, and maybe take my wild guess into consideration, maybe?
Sarah Cole is one of the ugliest woman in town. One day, this woman approaches a really attractive man in a bar, and starts talking. The man, named Ron, is extremely surprised to see such a woman, a woman with nothing to brag about, a woman who seems to not care about beauty, to accost him a handsome and young man with styles. They talk, laugh, and get to know each other fairly well; the man is attracted to her temerity, and the woman to his beauty.
Then, why did not their relationship last for long? The reason is that Ron knew that he has made the wrong decision. With Sarah beside him, he comprehended how both of them would end up in despair and agony, unlike bliss and contentment they were anticipating. Ron was forced to leave Sarah, because they were simply not made for each other. They were two wards that could not be put together: an oxymoron. They were two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that could not be assembled together.
In 'The Most Beautiful Woman in Town', the situation is quite similar; the ugliest man in town goes out with the most comely woman. However, the woman, Cass, falls in true love with the man because she knows that he is the only person who can truly love her. He, unlike others who are simply mesmerized by the facade of her beauty, liked her as the person who she really is.
COMMENTS
Rhee Ji Yoon: It's interesting that you attempted to compare two stories! They surely do resemble each other. I also liked the part that you used metaphors, such as "oxymoron" and "jigsaw puzzle"; I think they enriched your essay. What I like about your writings is that they are simple and straightforward. However, I also think that your essay would improve if you'd find some links between the two stories instead of just summarizing them.
InHee: I notice your writing is very flowing but full of content. But I was curious: who are the couples that are not oxymorons? If the ugly man and beautiful woman don't fit, and the ugly woman and handsome guy don't fit either, are the good-lookings to meet good-lookings and the uglies to meet the uglies? I guess this conveys a common yet contradictory conception that we want nice-looking people, at the same time thinking those nice looking people are morons whom the beauty and attractive appearance is all they have. So I partly agree with your ideas, but I wish you would elaborate why you think those two were oxymorons, and maybe take my wild guess into consideration, maybe?
Do Android's Dream of an Electric Sheep
This science fiction novel written by Philip K. Dick is one of the very first novels that discusses the concept of robots, or androids. This story highly emphasizes on how humans represented in this story resent androids which are just simple machines with broken thoughts and concepts while those humans themselves are also partial.
Most stories and movies handling the issue of predictions of our future are rarely positive; these authors and directors know too well that human nature motivates us to move in the direction of egoism rather than altruism. On the surface, our behaviors and actions might seem selfless and benevolent, but the real intentions are hidden inside the facades of such ostensible attitudes. Even this novella "Do Androids Dream of an Electric Sheep" talks about a foreshadowed disastrous world resulted from numerous nuclear wars that have erupted out of human selfishness.
It is true that some people have actually committed their deeds out of total humanitarianism. However, these people represent such a minority of the whole human population that we name them historic figures, and write and read about these heroes.
Going back to the story, the author Philip K. Dick demonstrates his point about how humans do not consider androids as equal creatures. Humans believe that as they possess qualities such as passion, love, and sympathy that are unique only to their kind, they have the right to discriminate themselves from the others including animals and clones. I have to say that humans are not that different from other creatures, and such qualities they worship that help to distinguish them from others are ironically much more damaging in defining humans as intelligent and social creatures with altruism. In the book, there exist bounty hunters who kill androids. Such bounty hunting is legal, because humans in the book did not see any problem in killing those who thought to be more inferior.
Nontheless, it is the very same humans who have created such laws, and therefore these rules cannot be justified from a detached view.As an objective reader, I can only see these principles of behavior as mere rationalization of their own sins.
COMMENTS
Yun Jo: I quite agree with your perspective. What really seems to draw the line between humans and androids? And what is really "human" and what is really "artificial"? Good points!
Chonghyun: I find your raised question or the justification of the law EXTREMELY interesting. How can "our" law intrude the jurisdiction of "their" lives? The given assumption then is that these androids are completely subdued as human property. But is it quite true? How about animals? What gives us the right to punish, cell, or chastise these animals? Anyway, interesting topic.
Most stories and movies handling the issue of predictions of our future are rarely positive; these authors and directors know too well that human nature motivates us to move in the direction of egoism rather than altruism. On the surface, our behaviors and actions might seem selfless and benevolent, but the real intentions are hidden inside the facades of such ostensible attitudes. Even this novella "Do Androids Dream of an Electric Sheep" talks about a foreshadowed disastrous world resulted from numerous nuclear wars that have erupted out of human selfishness.
It is true that some people have actually committed their deeds out of total humanitarianism. However, these people represent such a minority of the whole human population that we name them historic figures, and write and read about these heroes.
Going back to the story, the author Philip K. Dick demonstrates his point about how humans do not consider androids as equal creatures. Humans believe that as they possess qualities such as passion, love, and sympathy that are unique only to their kind, they have the right to discriminate themselves from the others including animals and clones. I have to say that humans are not that different from other creatures, and such qualities they worship that help to distinguish them from others are ironically much more damaging in defining humans as intelligent and social creatures with altruism. In the book, there exist bounty hunters who kill androids. Such bounty hunting is legal, because humans in the book did not see any problem in killing those who thought to be more inferior.
Nontheless, it is the very same humans who have created such laws, and therefore these rules cannot be justified from a detached view.As an objective reader, I can only see these principles of behavior as mere rationalization of their own sins.
COMMENTS
Yun Jo: I quite agree with your perspective. What really seems to draw the line between humans and androids? And what is really "human" and what is really "artificial"? Good points!
Chonghyun: I find your raised question or the justification of the law EXTREMELY interesting. How can "our" law intrude the jurisdiction of "their" lives? The given assumption then is that these androids are completely subdued as human property. But is it quite true? How about animals? What gives us the right to punish, cell, or chastise these animals? Anyway, interesting topic.
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Faction: The Conversion of the Jews
I could simply define myself as my parents' son; that means, I was like a robot without any personal feelings and opinions who just listened blindly to what my parents told me to do. I was thoughtless, and found my life meaningless. I had no idea what my parents meant to lead my own life until I entered Korean Minjok Leadership Academy where I began to take care of my own stuff.
My school was boring. The only topics my friends and I talked about were computer games, academic scores, and dating girls. Now I see how dumb we all were, and how we did not care at all about our futures.
My house was as boring as my school. As I was the only son and both of my parents had to work, all I had was a computer and homework to complete. Sometimes, only sometimes when I felt like it, I turned on the computer even before taking my homework out of my schoolbag. I just liked it that way.
My online self was dominant over my real self. I was online much more frequently compared to offline; I talked with my friends more online, played more online, and even studied more online. The computer was a new world for me which provided me with an opportunity to become someone else who is far superior to me. A messenger program called 'Buddy Buddy' connected me with my friends, and a game called 'Maplestory' was a playground where I ran around.
The virtual world was just too fascinating for a kid at such a young age. It was the only refuge I could visit after running away from this real world. I could stay away from the boring school, and get away from the boring house.
My school was boring. The only topics my friends and I talked about were computer games, academic scores, and dating girls. Now I see how dumb we all were, and how we did not care at all about our futures.
My house was as boring as my school. As I was the only son and both of my parents had to work, all I had was a computer and homework to complete. Sometimes, only sometimes when I felt like it, I turned on the computer even before taking my homework out of my schoolbag. I just liked it that way.
My online self was dominant over my real self. I was online much more frequently compared to offline; I talked with my friends more online, played more online, and even studied more online. The computer was a new world for me which provided me with an opportunity to become someone else who is far superior to me. A messenger program called 'Buddy Buddy' connected me with my friends, and a game called 'Maplestory' was a playground where I ran around.
The virtual world was just too fascinating for a kid at such a young age. It was the only refuge I could visit after running away from this real world. I could stay away from the boring school, and get away from the boring house.
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Reflection: CONVERSION OF THE JEWS
This was the second short story of the Post War Period literature, a rather confusing and causing one to ponder about its plot. This 'Conversion of the Jews' is dealing with a sensitive issue of Christianity and Jew, and a seemingly ironic fact of how all the protagonists, who are all Jews, convert to Christianity. This story is an idealistic piece that falls perfectly under the category of the Post-war literature as it deals with the social, historical, and religious events following the Second World War(WW II).
Oscar Freedman is the main protagonist in 'Conversion of the Jews', and I would say that he appeared to be a more of an unsophisticated teenager without much logic in the very beginning of the story. The most unique characteristic of Ozzie(as called in the story) is his inquisitiveness of what is happening around him, and how he challenges the common beliefs held by the society. At first, Ozzie questions the existence of God and what he can actually do when Rabbi Binder tells him that God can do Anything, and that God can even make a child without a sexual intercourse. Because of his vehement thirst for truth, Ozzie gets involved in many troubles, including a major one when Binder accidentally hits him on the nose and causes him to nosebleed.
In this story, Ozzie gets to experience evolving spirituality. Unlike Ltzie who acts more like a thoughtless kid by focusing on the word "intercourse", Ozzie desires to know how he can believe what Binder tells him about God. He is devoted, although not exactly believing what Binder had taught him, to find out more.
This story also shows how Rabbi Binder, the other students, and Oscar's mother are all bigoted, and Ozzie is religiously dedicated. Spiritual dogma is discrete from religious devotion; Oscar believes in omnipotent God.
COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY
I was forced to travel, and stay overseas for a prolonged period of time. Still, I believe that it was a great opportunity for me to learn about different cultures, and embrace people from all around the world.
I cannot really associate myself with the community I live in, and decide my authentic identity. It requires one deep rumination, as a person cannot easily choose who he is, or who he wants to be. For me, it is true that I have not spent much time pondering about who I really am, but I could not get even the faintest idea.
Until fifth grade, I had remained in Korea attending a local school with my local friends. My community was Korea itself, nothing more, nothing less; all the people I had met were native Koreans whom I shared common interests with. Until then, I had no idea of how I would go overseas and attend school with foreigners with totally different cultures.
On the very first day of school in Hong Kong, an Indian kid accosted, and spoke in English, a language I only knew ostensibly by then. I sheepishly told him that I do not speak English(it wasn't even 'I can't'), and ran away. I was extremely fortunate to find another Korean in our class, and until I got used to the school system and the new language, I hung out with him. The Korean community there was quite diverse, so it was not really difficult for me to get used to the school. Even in Hong Kong, my identity remained as a Korean as I did not feel much need to interact with people of different nations. Still, this does not mean that I did not interact with them at all; I did try my best to mingle with as many cultures as possible, but I spent the most time with Koreans, whom I was able to share common beliefs with.
In Singapore, the situation was both similar and different. I made Korean friends much easily than other friends just like how I did back in Hong Kong, but I also became much more easily acquainted with foreign friends such as those from the United States, Brazil, Canada, etc.
My identity is sometimes defined according to the community, and sometimes with those I hang around with. In Hong Kong, my identity was affected more by my Korean friends. On the other hand, the school environment affected me more in Singapore, forcing me to mingle with not only Koreans but also with others.
I cannot really associate myself with the community I live in, and decide my authentic identity. It requires one deep rumination, as a person cannot easily choose who he is, or who he wants to be. For me, it is true that I have not spent much time pondering about who I really am, but I could not get even the faintest idea.
Until fifth grade, I had remained in Korea attending a local school with my local friends. My community was Korea itself, nothing more, nothing less; all the people I had met were native Koreans whom I shared common interests with. Until then, I had no idea of how I would go overseas and attend school with foreigners with totally different cultures.
On the very first day of school in Hong Kong, an Indian kid accosted, and spoke in English, a language I only knew ostensibly by then. I sheepishly told him that I do not speak English(it wasn't even 'I can't'), and ran away. I was extremely fortunate to find another Korean in our class, and until I got used to the school system and the new language, I hung out with him. The Korean community there was quite diverse, so it was not really difficult for me to get used to the school. Even in Hong Kong, my identity remained as a Korean as I did not feel much need to interact with people of different nations. Still, this does not mean that I did not interact with them at all; I did try my best to mingle with as many cultures as possible, but I spent the most time with Koreans, whom I was able to share common beliefs with.
In Singapore, the situation was both similar and different. I made Korean friends much easily than other friends just like how I did back in Hong Kong, but I also became much more easily acquainted with foreign friends such as those from the United States, Brazil, Canada, etc.
My identity is sometimes defined according to the community, and sometimes with those I hang around with. In Hong Kong, my identity was affected more by my Korean friends. On the other hand, the school environment affected me more in Singapore, forcing me to mingle with not only Koreans but also with others.
THE LOTTERY
The video was shocking as much as the ending of 'The Lottery'. Both the graphics and the plot of the video were quite disturbing, mainly because it related contemporary issues with the problem of perennial rituals. Although the process of committing murder described in the video was much more humane than that illustrated in the short story, people were no different; without any logical thinking, these people blindly followed what is commonly accepted.
How can people believe blindly in what is not proved, and has the full potential to be debunked any time? The problem lies in the society. Whether an axiom is correct or incorrect, once everyone starts to accept it as the genuine truth, this belief becomes a incontrovertible fact. The 'lottery ritual' described in 'The Lottery' is an example of how a perhaps inane and unsophisticated belief by the ancestors has withstood the test of time until it became an axiom for the villagers of 'The Lottery'.
Perhaps both the author Shirley Jackson and the director of that South Park video clip are trying to emphasize how our sense of conformity is flawed, and this can lead to dystopia. Why did the townspeople of 'The Lottery' carry out the ritual every year? Why did the United States people all wish Britney to die? The reason is that these people's thoughts were fixed at the wrong perspective, and they remained inexorable. Although rudimentally wrong, the belief shared by other people had to also be shared by me. This is why conformity is bloodcurdling, how logic which you believed to be true can be rejected any time.
COMMENTS
Rhee Ji Yoon: You started your essay with the subject, "the video"! I totally agree that the video was shocking, but I think your introductory paragraph would have been much effective if you had included a brief explanation or description about the video. There's not enought time left. I like your essay. I always like your style of writing! Simple but clear! Bye!
Yun Jo: Certainly right! these days some issues are coming up so frequently, and I think we can criticize such trends with your essay. Nicely done.
Chonghyun Ahn: I agree that the ostracism was groundless in the story, but I'd like to see more substantiation of what is the groundless axiom of today, and the way to sort out the axioms into two groups.
Hyejoon Lee: I think overall it was a good analysis of the story. I also had similar ideas you had, like the justification and the "tradition" thingy.
Jane: I agree with the points of "wholeness" and "conforming" that you've mentioned. Most people are basically doing what they are doing solely because all others are doing so. It would have been better if you included the motivations that could have led to the feeling of conforming among people.
How can people believe blindly in what is not proved, and has the full potential to be debunked any time? The problem lies in the society. Whether an axiom is correct or incorrect, once everyone starts to accept it as the genuine truth, this belief becomes a incontrovertible fact. The 'lottery ritual' described in 'The Lottery' is an example of how a perhaps inane and unsophisticated belief by the ancestors has withstood the test of time until it became an axiom for the villagers of 'The Lottery'.
Perhaps both the author Shirley Jackson and the director of that South Park video clip are trying to emphasize how our sense of conformity is flawed, and this can lead to dystopia. Why did the townspeople of 'The Lottery' carry out the ritual every year? Why did the United States people all wish Britney to die? The reason is that these people's thoughts were fixed at the wrong perspective, and they remained inexorable. Although rudimentally wrong, the belief shared by other people had to also be shared by me. This is why conformity is bloodcurdling, how logic which you believed to be true can be rejected any time.
COMMENTS
Rhee Ji Yoon: You started your essay with the subject, "the video"! I totally agree that the video was shocking, but I think your introductory paragraph would have been much effective if you had included a brief explanation or description about the video. There's not enought time left. I like your essay. I always like your style of writing! Simple but clear! Bye!
Yun Jo: Certainly right! these days some issues are coming up so frequently, and I think we can criticize such trends with your essay. Nicely done.
Chonghyun Ahn: I agree that the ostracism was groundless in the story, but I'd like to see more substantiation of what is the groundless axiom of today, and the way to sort out the axioms into two groups.
Hyejoon Lee: I think overall it was a good analysis of the story. I also had similar ideas you had, like the justification and the "tradition" thingy.
Jane: I agree with the points of "wholeness" and "conforming" that you've mentioned. Most people are basically doing what they are doing solely because all others are doing so. It would have been better if you included the motivations that could have led to the feeling of conforming among people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)