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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)