Those Pesky Anecdotes

Fight Club was a book that I really found a pleasure to read. It possessed a style of prose that was able to be rebellious and incoherent without losing the plot as a result. Really, I was continuously impressed with how much story Palahnuik manages to tell despite it not feeling like the real focus of the book.

My favorite parts of Fight Club, however, were the small and easily ignorable anecdotes that pop up throughout the novel. The boyfriend Marla had who had terrible nightmares, so he took amphetamines to stay awake until they killed them. All the descriptions of technical possibilities of the making of napalm, of filing a cross in the tip of bullets to make them spread. These small things were the most enjoyable to me.

Nihilism vs Existentialism

I find Fight Club to be quite entertaining. It's frenetic, disjunctive, and seems incredibly random at times, a perfect read after the coherency of The Plague. That being said, I have not found Fight Club to be as good as Camus, yet.

The reason I started to thoroughly enjoy The Plague was it's tone and characters. I find it difficult to get involved in characters, even ones as intriguing as Tyler, with the disjunctive style and frenetic pacing. Now granted, this is a fun read with it's humor ("I want you to hit me as hard as you can") and has some really intriguing scenes (the beach scene contains one of my new favorite quotes of all time, something to the effect of "A single moment of perfection is worth the hours of work put into it") but at the pace it's going, it doesn't seem to be on the same grounds as Camus' book.

I could be wrong, maybe I'll find it to be my favorite book ever, we'll see.

yay extra credit.

First I will start by saying thank you so much Mr. Lavender for giving me this amazing opportunity of receiving extra credit for simply attending your class. That's why you are the best.
Secondly I would like to talk about the writing in this book. I love it! Everything about it. I love how chopped up and sporadic it is. It reminds me a lot of how I write. I don't change subjects as quickly but I love the way he interrupts himself with reality. and another thing that I really appreciate about the writing is how he uses just one word. Like when they are in the different medical help groups and he looks at a girl in the testicular cancer group and he thinks "faker, faker" but he knows she is saying the same thing about him. Even though she may not know whether or not he has testicular cancer there is a certain spotlight effect that he displays. As if everyone is focusing on him and everything he does someone has some sort of interest in him. If he doesn't say anything he believes people take extra notice to him because things are "really bad" and so on. It is really interesting. I really like what I have read so far though.

Don't WOrry.... no Spoilers

As Shanna said, "I think he writes like I do," I kind of think the same. Except I feel like I think like he writes. It hits home in a certain way, but how my brain is so random kind of drives me crazy so the fragments make me want something that flows! I do like the suspense the type of writing creates.
One of my favorite quotes from the first 46 pages is "everyone smiles with an invisible gun to their head." I feel like it's so true. Because of the world we human beings have created for ourselves we are constantly under a subtle stress that hides beneeth our smiles. I find it true that people are more stressed than they are happy, which is sad, but when they are I feel like the true meaning of happy has shifted.
I guess I can see this strand of unhappiness and underlying worry/stress in the book. The fragments might be there to conceal the unhappiness because if you don't expand, then you don't have to explain anything, like why you are unhappy.
Take Marla and the Narrator being in the classes for example. They are finding this "happiness" in these classes where no one is really happy. Are they taking advantage of the fact that they are less unhappy then these people? Does that make them seem "happier?"

Fight Club

I've read this book once already, and I have seen the movie. Reading this book for the second time makes me feel sort of dumb. The twist is almost obvious. "What Tyler knows, I know." Everything seems to give away the twist, but yet no one in a million years could ever guess the ending. I also like this book because it's like a rookie signing with a pro team and then ending up being the star his first year. As we've talked about in class, Palahniuk does make mistakes because this is his first book and he still made it big. I don't beleive that this book shows the pure genius that The Plague did, but it is very entertaining and the idea is great. I love the idea of Nihilism, because nothing really does matter. Once we are gone from here, I don't believe that we will float up and live in bliss in the sky. This is it, and this book presents this in a great and entertaining way. Yes at times, The Plague was very boring, but at the same time it was presenting such a cool idea.

I need some soap *SPOILERS*

First off, I love this book. I couldn't put it down that first day we got it assigned, so I finished it in one night. I think that it's a lot better than The Plauge. Fight Club speaks to me a bit more. The whole death and rock bottom thing, and giving up for a full release of mental stress, the total freedom to enjoy life by having nothing. It's all very interesting, and I like that message better than Camus' be aware of every moment by anxiety. Freedom > Anxiety. Plus the book has given me some interesting ideas of what to do with the giant bags of fat I have sitting in my freezer. I could use some soap. Plus the freon lock break, the CRT bomb (which is luckily becoming mostly unfeasible), the water pressure thing, etc. that stuff is very interesting. Not that I'll ever try civil terrorism. I felt that reading the book after the movie was really beneficial, I may have missed out on the wonderful narrative twist at the end but it was still nice knowing it cause it made a lot of stuff about the rest of the book make sense.
The one thing that has never made much sense to me was how Tyler knew as much as he did about soap, explosives, and terrorism. Was he running around experimenting and researching during the insomnia at the beginning of the book? How did he learn all that? Cause he had to teach it to the narrator. Although Chuck Palahniuk seems a little suicidal. His whole obsession with release from all the worries and problems of life via death is a little creepy.

Mortality

Although I really love how the novel is written, initially I felt that Fight Club was another trashy novel that didn’t really make a whole lot of sense. However, as I have come to read more and more I’m beginning to understanding the characters role play and the general themes of the book. I found it to be quite a twist that Tyler is in fact the narrator. Once learning this, the previous readings of the book seemed to make more sense to me. Fight Club has opened a new spectrum of death, mortality and humans vs. the “animal”. I found it especially interesting when Tyler speaks of death and pain in chapter nine. Pain and death are a byproduct of our mortality (something Tyler and the narrator argue about) “Think about the animals used in product testing. Think about the monkey shot into space. Without their death, their pain, without their sacrifice, we would have nothing.” The quote seems almost contradictory to the rest of the characters feelings in the book. Death is the only way of escape used by those who have horrible illnesses and diseases, but Tyler continues to escape his mortality by forcing his mind into a different world, one filled with no pain.

Fight Club Thoughts

When we were first handed Fight Club for some reason, I had this thought that is was all about the dark world of drugs. As I have read on, although I have only read about 50 pages, I have found that that does not seem to be it at all. At this stage in the reading I am still undecided as to whether or not I like this novel but it is intriguing. I like how even though the book seems to be choppy and kind of all over the place, that it all comes together at the same time. I like how the author uses the different "therapy" groups to put points across. The description about every feeling that he gets is great. I love how the description of getting hugged by Bob makes you feel like you are watching a small person just get totally engrossed into another person through a bear hug. Also, around Marla, I like how the awkwardness that is felt through the characters is sent to the reader. I think this book will be an interesting one to read and once I get more into it and really get hooked on the story, I think it will be one I will not want to stop. I have heard from many this book is one you will not want to set down so I look forward to getting to the point in the reading.

Fight Club

Although I haven't gotten all that far into Fight Club, I've gotta say so far I'm really enjoying it. The style and content are both completely different than any other books I've had in an English class, and the change is refreshing. The scattered prose and collage of scenes occurring simultaneously make it slightly bewildering but much more interesting. After a few pages, the ADD format ceases to confuse as the reader learns to simply go along with it. Its a weird book to be sure, but actually very insightful. I haven't seen the movie and have no idea where its going , but I think it will be an enjoyable ride.

Fight Club

In terms of an exestentialist novel I would say that The Plauge is the better novel; however, as far as accesability goes I would say that Fight Club is an eaisier book. unlike Camus's novel Palahniuk's novel is less of a slog through the evnets. This book is much faster paced however i like The plauge better

Human Buttwipe

This novel is famous for several different reasons. It can be seen as an anti cultural, anti aMerican rampage. It could be taken for pure enjoyment. It is a very entertaining book. Or some look at it as an existentialist feel good novel about freedom. It is not a pure and beautiful freedom, but is that possible with the human condition? Is our ultimate freedom created by unteathering our selves of material bonds? Violence is a fundamental human condition. It is what is most base in our nervous systems. Reflexes, anger, and the willingness to resort to violence show what is most animal in ourselves. But what is our true enlightenment? The satisfaction of our most basic instincts from the base of the brain. Or the mastery of the frontal cortex and all the things that make us human and the rest "animal."
I like this book. For some people it will allow them to think of the world in a different way than they ever had before. Others may not be able to stomach it. But like a Pollack or perhaps a Monet, some can take in the big picture, and use it to trigger their own thoughts, while others would rather nit pick and complain about how messy or gross it is. It is all up to the interpreter, you. (Palahniuk is not a Pollack or Monet)

Fight Club

I think this is going to be one of the best books I've ever read. I like the way it's written, I love the way words are used. I think it's very interesting how every single character needs to "challenge" life and to feel free, first through the support groups and then fighting. The author was able to make the reader want to read more and more because the story is so different, so strange, and written in such an unusual way that you always want to know what comes next.
Probably my favorite quote so far is "losing all hope was freedom". Everybody defines 'freedom' in their own way but I think there's one thing that makes freedom the same for everyone: hope. If you hope, it means that you're still attached to something, it means that something is missing; that makes you dependent; that brings you to spend your time waiting, thinking about whatever it is that you want and you don't have. Once you lose hope, you're free, you can fully enjoy your life without feeling like it's incomplete anymore, you can live.
I'm really looking forward to reading the rest of the book. I want to know what comes next!

Human buttwipe

Fight Club (WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

I can't stand this novel.
Before you all jump down my throat, allow me to explain my reasoning behind it.
Let's begin with the basic structure of the book. While it moved along (albeit sluggishly) at an okay pace, the writing was absolutely atrocious. His sentences were long run-ons punctuated by commas in the wrong places and incomplete sentences. While run-ons and incomplete sentences are good in moderation (in the correct places, they add flavor to one's writing), all it did in this case was start and stop the book like a funky car clunking along on the wrong kind of fuel. Maybe part of the point was to make the narrative seem like a stream of consciousness. These are as difficult to understand as a language you only know a few words in: a writer's conscious stream is completely his/her own. Unless there's context, there is no way to understand it. And no, it wasn't even saved in the end by the explanation that Tyler and the narrator were halves of the same person. Even towards the end, it seemed like the author had dropped a bomb in the middle of his words, leaving them scattered in chaos.
Speaking of chaos, what is up with the message of the book? Is there even a message? I hate feeling so judgemental, but come on: the message I got out of the whole thing was that life is pointless unless you chase death. Through chaos comes clarity. Through sin comes salvation.
Uh, can you say depressing? How counterproductive is it to self-destruct in the hopes that your life will make more sense? How is it that ruining your life - or ruining the life of others - makes it that much more precious and meaningful? The world is not meant to be seen that way. People aren't meant to see the world that way. Such negative thoughts make the journey each of us must go on pointless in nature.
I agree with Gandhi on this one: Everything you do in your life will be meaningless. But it's very important that you do it.
So there.

Fight Club **spoilers**

I really enjoyed Fight Club. I like the books where a single event makes you think back on the rest of the book and say 'oh, so that's why that happened.' Such as when it's revealed to us that Tyler and the narrator are the same person. It makes you think about their first fight, and how that would have looked to the people watching. Not to mention the whole thing with Martha. Poor Martha. I feel sorry for her, but she is really messed up. I think that I can understand how death can be a positive thing, but to me it's just stupid. Although going to the support groups, and being surrounded by death to better grasp your own life, that makes sense. Like in The Plague, Rieux says that the priest cannot understand death until he sees it and its affects. You can't really realize the importance of life until you see what death is like.

Fight Club!

Even though I've seen the movie, I was still extremely into the book. In fact, it made it more of a page turner. I knew what happened and wanted each scene to come along, and was excited for each part. There are a few scenes left out in the movie that are very funny and interesting in the book, and that disappoints me. The narrator's birthmark of Australia and New Zealand on his. When we meet Tyler on the beach setting up that one moment of perfection that he works for. Having cancer for ten minutes, and the picture of his foot. The freezer full of Marla's mother. Running away to the car dealership and spending the night there. All of these add to the story and are greatly missed in the movie.

Great story, quite intriguing. Wish it was longer, but nonetheless, loved it.

The afterward could have ruined the book for me, but luckily I stopped reading it. Why would you put something like that at the end of such a great novel just to let your readers down? So upsetting!

Marijuana

For the topic of my persuasive essay I am going to talk about the legalization of marijuana in the USA. We live in world were there are an estimated 310 million marijuana users. With 50 million users in the USA the math turn into about 1 in every 6 americans. The U.S. spends an annual 1.3 billion dollars a year on the prohibition of marijuana this number dose not include incarceration costs. In the United States there are an average of 800,000 people arrested for marijuana per year. Out of this 800,000 only 11% are guilty of trafficking, that leaves the other (89%) 712,000 harmless americans locked in jail for simple possession a year. That number is far greater than the amount of prisoners locked up for forcible rape, murder and robbery combined. It cost our government an average of 19,000 dollars per inmate per year for incarceration. If marijuana was legalized that would be 13 billion dollars a year not being spent incarcerating innocent americans with lives to live and families to care for. With our U.S. prisons already being overfilled the legalization of marijuana would empty space for real criminals and save important money from being wasted. With legalization the United States would not only be saving poorly spent money, it would be generating new profit. By legalizing and taxing marijuana like the U.S. has done with alcohol and cigarets the annual revenue would be in-between 11 to 14 billion dollars a year. An extra 11-14 billion dollars a year in America's pocket could do wonders for the country helping us pay off debts and boost health care. In this current recession legalization will provide more money it will also provide more jobs. With the unemployment rate hitting around 9.7 in the United States this year any job counts, legalization would proved many americans with pay. That fact that cigarets and alcohol are legal and account for more than 20% percent of deaths per year is ridiculous. marijuana accounts for 0% of deaths per year. There is no medical account that proves that just marijuana was a cause of death. Smoking marijuana is by no means healthy but has been used as medicine for thousands of years and helps many cancer patients on a day to day basis. Marijuana should be legalized and the government should be taking a look at the bigger picture.

ANDY G

AGE

For my persuasive essay I am going to focus on the problem with legal ages in America. When I say legal ages I am talking about the legal age at which you can purchase an alcoholic beverage or have license to drive a vehicle. To begin with I will start with the absurd law that restricts you of drinking or buying an alcoholic beverage before the age of 21. When you turn 18 in this country you receive many responsibilities that are life changing, but you are not allowed to go buy a beer. Some of these life changing responsibilities include being able to vote, to serve on juries, to get marries, and most importantly to join the military. These decisions can radically change your or some one else’s life, and you could possibly end up getting your self killed in battle. If people have these radical choices at 18, they should also have the choice of buying some alcohol. It would also be a good idea to integrate children into the idea of drinking. Teach adolescents how to drink responsibly instead of them going to college and binge drinking until they die. Also, lowering the drinking age to 18 would make alcohol less of a taboo, and adolescents would have less of an urge to get their hands on it. It is extremely scary that teens can get behind of the wheel of a car at 16. I know that I was excited as hell to grab my license at 16, but two years later when I am 18 I realized that I did not have the maturity to drive a vehicle at that age. If they raised the driving age to 18 or 21 then there would be much less accidents and much more mature drivers. What I don’t understand is how you can purchase a gun at 18 and kill some one, and you can buy a car at 16 and kill some one, but you have to wait until your 21 to go get wasted and kill some one. I just don’t get it!

This one's actually from KATIE

It took me a while to figure this out. I didn’t actually decide what I wanted to write about until my Mother came home after some school meeting complaining about how lenient Telluride High School is when it comes to drugs, alcohol and other illegal things happening outside of school. This made me think that I totally agree with her. How is it that our coaches allow students who so clearly use drugs and alcohol over the weekends to play sports? Why not drug test kids before they are allowed to be on a team? Whether its basketball, soccer, track, volleyball, they should not be allowed to play when they are abusing drug use. And we shouldn’t stop there. I think that if you are caught with drugs at school, or get in trouble with the law, you should not be able to participate in any school activity such as sports, student council, EPICS, or any other school event or club. It’s stupid to reward kids that don’t behave and it definitely isn’t good to have them as our student’s role models. Our School Board should acknowledge this and have some kind of punishment for it. Maybe get taken away from your club for a certain amount of time, or until your Juvenile Diversion is over. A kid shouldn’t be allowed to play a sport until they are clean. Now lets be real here, we all know that at Telluride High School the sports would suck until kids got their acts together but if it’s really important to them and they want to lead this school than we wouldn’t be asking much.

Equal Pay?

According to a national poll on worker wages, women only make 88% of every dollar that a man is paid in the United States. This means that women are in fact paid 12% less than men are for the exact samw work and qualifications. For a nation that try's to portray equality in almost every aspect, this is completley unacceptable. Men along with women should be paid equally with similar education, jobs, experience, and credientials. In this day of age, it seems that it benefits no one when women are paid less. Take for instance a couple working for minimal wage. Is it not fair that the wife isn't able to make the same amount of money her husband would simply because she is a women. I feel that women are often times taken advantage of in the work place. For those who believe women should be paid less, arguments such as women's tendencies to become too emotionally involved in the work place( and are thus not able to focus on the job or set task as the men) are seemly legitimately addressed. However, scientific studies have shown that women are more easily and proficiently able to multitask than men are. When looking at the MRIs between a male and female brain, men have only four areas of brain activity, while omwen have approximately 16 lighted areas. This accounts for the comon knowledge that most women are better at multitasking than men. Women can grade papers, keep up with a televisino program, talk to a child about homework and cook a meal all at the same time. As well, more stuides show 62% of women are the main source of income for their families. This means that the husbands will only bring in 38% of the dough. Now does this make sense or seem fair that women are paid less than men especially when they are their family's income. This is not right and is certainly unethical when women have the same qualifications as men and women are making up more than half of their families income. The work mania of today usually means dealing with customers or people in general. This means you must know how to be both emotionally compliant and business savvy (something women do well). Another recent poll showed that raising women's pay bt 13% would actually raise men's wages by 1%. Therefore this in fact is a win situation in both cases. Personally I have been working at my job for 3 years. A new male employee was hired and given one dollar more than I was. I have been working there for three years and have had much more experience. The new employee on the other hand has only been working there for around four months. Is this fair?

TV!

The wall of shame...

Television. Is it good or bad for the mind? I am going to argue negative side of the TV argument.

Children - I would like to address the fact that it's great and easy for parents to be able to sit their child in front of the tube while they get work done, but couldn't they choose another activity. Using TV as a resort that they know their kids will like is pathetic. We shouldn't have to rely on the box to entertain today's youth.

Obesity - coevally, rates are higher than ever. Maybe if all the lazy fatsos got off the couch and exercised our nation would be slimmer.

Family time - let's watch this, let's watch that...during dinner. Many studies found that family time is very valuable especially with the busy lives people lead. But bonding over television is not what they meant by quality time.

News - The amount of B.S. and corruptness that we call news is unbelievable. Then the fact that americans believe what they say is even more shocking.

Reality shows - We are representing the U.S. when the hills and jersey shore come on MTV. I can't comprehend how much viewers watch shows that undermine the integrity of the american public.

Hmmm what else?

False reality - look at that guy jumping of a cliff, maybe i should do that too!

8th grade level - TV is geared at this intellectual level.

Commercials - tends to promote bad eating habits.

Violence - tends to idealize and glorify this.

No PINK!!!

This essay is a challenge for me because I have to find the right way to convince as many people as possible that pink should be banned from society. It's usually a color that everybody likes but I hate it. I really do.
I worked for about an hour on making a pros and cons list: I found seven cons and only one pros which should make you believe me when I say that this essay is going to be really hard.
The first reason why I don't like pink is because everybody likes it and I don't like being part of the crowd...I like being different.
Second reason why is because pink is automatically associated with the female "gender" and I don't like when things are given for granted especially since NOT every girl likes this color.
Third reason why (and it's going to sound really stupid) is because it reminds me of Barbies which I really don't like. In fact I used to play with "little cars and trucks" when I was little.
Fourth, I feel like I know what to expect from people wearing pink (this is a huge generalization so no offense to anyone): if I see a woman with her nails painted pink I know she's obssessed with clothes, make-up, that's she spends/waists a lot of money and that she think she's the most beautiful "creature" on the planet.
I kind of like this color only in one case: when it's worn by gay men. If you see a man wearing a pink sweater, what do you think at first? ...exactly. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being gay but our society is not completely open-minded yet so being gay is still really hard. That's why I approve of every way and means that can help gay men to show who they really are.
I think this essay could be very interesting and I hope to be able to develop a good enough argument in order to make it interesting for as many more people as possible.

SLACKERS! Hall of Shame

How is it that I can set aside an ENTIRE class period for blogging, and yet the following students still can't manage to post?

MAX
COLIN
ANDY
NEVE
MEGHAN
TENAE
SHANNA MAE
JUSTIN

If your excuse is that you wanted to take a little more time to compose as thoughtful a post as the ones below (all of which are worth reading), well, class was Friday. It's now Sunday. Therefore, your reservation in the HALL OF SHAME is officially confirmed.

If you're looking for a good debatable topic, what about the use of public shame to motivate students?

On Campus Drinking

Recently visiting two colleges, Grinnell and Knox, of course the subject of campus social life and parties was visited. Grinnell, has an open campus policy where most partying takes place on campus under a "self-governed" trust policy. At Knox, most everything happens off campus. Grinnell was the first school I had seen where the social life was pretty much centered on campus. The students I talked to said that they were very fond of how this worked. Yes of course, alcohol and drugs were still present, but almost every single one of them mentioned having a better partying experience because people weren't trying to hide anything from "the officials." They said people were more casual in their partying and binge drinking on campus was rare. These students were protected by campus police in the event of an emergency, but in their policy, there was never anyone getting in trouble for underage drinking unless they were causing a problem. It made me wonder if all college campuses should be like this. With less things happening off campus and not involving other security people (off campus, rather than just on campus cops) the partying would definitely be more casual. People may not feel as rushed to get drunk because there is a short window of time to drink on friday night. This would most likely work better for smaller colleges because there would be less people causing a disturbance, and less people to abide by such an honor code. Some people might see this as an encouragement to drink, but ALL the students I talked to said that they felt less pressured to drink in this environment because 1. they knew that the opportunity was more readily available so they could later if they wanted to and 2. as part of the honor code, people respected the wishes of people who chose not to participate in these activities.

Persuasion via analogy

For my persuasive essay i am going to argue that marijuana should indeed be legalized by the government. I will not do this by simply presenting the plethora of valid reasons, but instead by using a reasonable analogy. The legal distribution and consumption of caffeine in its most common form, coffee will be the focal point of my analogy. I will research specific statistics and evidence that caffeiene is potentionally more harmful than marijuana and yet millions of people all over the world consume it multiple times per day. What would happen if caffeine was illegal? Would it have the same fate as marijuana? Would people smuggle coffee beans over the border, and distribute them illegally to the masses of addicts? In my essay i will start with the analogy and then when the reader starts to see the irrationality in making caffeine an illegal substance i will relate it to the role of marijuana in America today. Is legalizing caffeine and not marijuana justified on any level?

Illegally Downloading Music

I've decided to write my paper persuading people to stop downloading music illegally. Everyone listens to music in some form or another. Walking into school there are dozens of people with their iPods plugged into their ears, but how many of these kids actually paid for the music? With the ease of downloading music without paying for it, many people forget that before the age of the internet, Music had to paid for. To listen to any music, you had to pay for the CD, you had to pay to go to the concert. That's how the music was made. The artists need to make a living, their money came from the sales of their CD and the people going to concert. They need money to finance the recordings of their future albums, to hire producers, musicians, rent studio time, fund music videos and concerts. By illegally downloading music, you are taking away that money away. Every-time you illegally download a song, you are taking money away from that artist. If an artist does not generate music for their record label, the label will drop the artist, and no more music will made.

Pros of illegally downloading music:

- It's free

- It's easy

Cons of illegally downloading music:

- Its illegal

- Take money away from artist.

- No money being made, no music being made.

- No concerts to go to.

- End of record industry as we know it.

- CD stores nationwide are closing.

- Lawsuits by labels and RIAA

Predator Drones. For better or for worse?

For better or for worse in the year 2008 there was a 94% increase when it came to the number of Predator Drones being used in action. These drones in today in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda are firing Hellfire anti-armor missiles and are killing many innocent civilians. Now I understand that there is reasons for using these drones, it is a way to make sure that we do not lose as many soldiers, however are innocent lives a fair trade off? Some may say that these people may grow up to be terrorists one day, but is it this day? And how can one determine if someone else is going to end up killing thousands? Doesn't the fact that a person can be in Nevada and be killing people all the way across the world make him more or less of a killer? I feel as though the complete detachment from the situation would be unnerving. The video game perspective is odd in and of itself. I simply think that if we don't want our own soldiers dying then we shouldn't be at war. I understand the appeal to the drones, who wouldn't want to be sepperated from the battle but just as much a part of it? At any given point there are at least forty drones in the air, thousands of miles away from their desk bound flyers. These drones are opperated by two men holding on to joysticks. They simply watch a play by play video of what is happening in Iraq and find the enemies from the air and fire at will. It takes no longer then 1.7 seconds for the transmition to be sent over twelve different time zones. These drones carry a 500 pound bomb that will leave a crator fifteen feet wide and two feet deep. There is also a stitsic that states that only 15% are the drones fired at an identified target. The other 85% of the time I guess they just don't care. The Obama administration has approved skyrocketing usage of drones 400 hours a day, a 300 percent increase.

libertarian society

We live in a "free" country. In this free country, thousands of people are in jail for victimless crimes in which the only person being affected is the person sitting in jail. My feeling is that in a free country you should be free to do what you want, as long as you are not negatively affecting others around you. What should stop two consenting adults from fighting to the death if both of them consented and had no problem with being killed. In a free country, you should have complete control over your actions and no one should be able to take that away from you.
We should have a minimal amount of taxes that goes to the bare necessities such as hospitals. Private companies should be in charge of building bridges and so on. Education would be somthing that you would have to take the initiative to get. There would be no public schools, only private and mostly people would homeschool their children. This would eliminate kids in school who don't want to be in school.

Give Me My Damn Music!

For my topic I am going to present the case againt the growing norm of putting Digital Rights Managment on media, in particular, music. Music has a long history of problems arising from copyrights and usage, this stems from the fact that there are only 12 chords in western music, which creates a situation where copying is inevitable. Copyrights were established in the music industry to protect artists from unfair treatment, however, in today's musical society where it seems everybody and their brother has a band writing songs, the ability to write truly original music is almost non-existant as all possible combinations are being used in some way, shape, or form. The security functions that have been established in a growing digital community to serve similar functions as copyrights in these new arenas have become and incredibly tiresome and unnecessary annoyance. Digital Rights Management is particularly to blame, with it's insistance on only allowing the artists, record labels, and distributors to use songs in other entertainment mediums.
The common argument is that the DRM provisions are discouraging pirating. But figures can be found (which I will dig up) that show that DRM is actually increasing the amount of pirated downloads. In the videogame medium, games with little to no DRM have consistently shown massive sales and minimal pirates while games with large amounts of DRM have sold very poorly with massive amounts of pirates. Music is no different. There are statistics supporting this comparison which I will find and use.
I'm having difficulty deciding on the more broad copyright issue or the more specific DRM one, but I will no doubt end up addressing both.

Pros (for no DRM):

• decrease in pirating
• grass roots publicity
• increase sales

Cons:

• less security for artists
• no defense against would-be pirates

Screw Microsoft

No I am not arguing that Macs are better than PCs. Macs suck. That isn't what my essay is going to be about though. The reason I say screw Microsoft is that they recently held a press conference in which they revealed their intention to pursue Cloud Computing. As it stands 70% of Microsoft employees are working on projects that involve cloud computing, and they want to raise that to 90% by the end of the year. Microsoft is gambling their future on the cloud wave. By cloud wave I mean the recent push towards the integration of cloud computing as the standard. Now I understand that many people don't understand what cloud computing is, so the first bit of my essay will definitely be outlining what cloud computing is. Cloud computing is a way of using centralized computers. Amazon already has a service that resembles a cloud, where you can pay to use some of Amazon's extra processors. The eventual goal of cloud computing way down the line is to simply eliminate the use of a computer (the tower bit, not the screen). A cloud computer's utopia would have only a screen with minimal computing power to understand the data being fed to it from a central server. All processing, saved data, and calculations would be done elsewhere. Computing would then be payed for, instead of investing in a machine to do it yourself.

My take on the matter is that cloud computing is absolute crap. I hate the idea of it. I think that it is just a way for companies to make more money, and that it will kill a lot of what makes computing so fun, as well as eliminate quite a few Tech Support jobs. I suppose there are some advantages though. So here is the general standing of things:

Pros:
1) Centralized data is easier to guard from hackers, phishers, malware, spyware, etc.
2) Upgrades and installations can be done almost instantly to a central server
3) Data is more protected from crashes
4) People wouldn't need to pay for computers, and wouldn't need to worry about their upkeep
5) People could have access to a lot more computer power for cheaper

Cons:
1) Computing would join water, gas, and electricity as a utility
2) All your data would be saved on a company server, which the company would have access to
3) You would have to pay a monthly fee, or a fee per unit of time, or a fee per calculation (depends on the company) to use a computer
4) You would loose the ability to configure your computer freely
5) The central servers would provide easy targets for hackers and phishers
6) Computing would loose a lot of flexibility
7) The local computer repair profession would more or less be eliminated

My stance on the matter is always one of freer localized computing.

Barbies

I am going to form my essay around the main argument that Barbie should produce a fatter figured doll as well. Having a fat barbie would illustrate to young children who rely upon the looks of these dolls to develop ideas of the acceptable body shape, that it is okay to not have the perfect figure. Barbie being perfectly proportioned has enforced the idea that they need to look the same, if not similar to the doll in order to gain acceptance. Along with the media this can be ultimately harmful. There are so many sources out there today that enforce the idea of the perfect body, its gross. Children at such a young age should not be thinking about body image. They should be out there playing and having fun, living life while it is carefree. There will be plenty of time throughout their lives to worry about body image and how they look. It should not be something that they are thinking about as children. Barbie is a role model for young girls everywhere, and boys for the matter too (Ken); therefore, producing a fuller doll along with other body shapes would help to illustrate to the child that being different is beautiful. In addition, the production of these dolls would lead a number of media sources to expand their criteria for what is beautiful, meaning that they would be forced to market the idea that it isn't just the model figures that are beautiful, but all body types can be beautiful as well. All in all the production of such dolls would bring about change throughout the media addressing the idea of physical beauty.

Agua

For my essay, I’m going to write about the privatization of water. Initially I was going to write about the privatization of water access and property because of my relationship with water access and kayaking. However, my subject has evolved, I am now looking at the larger issue. Mainly focusing on the question, Is water a human right or a commodity? I don’t want to ending up writing a book about this subject, which I sure there already are and could do. I think it’d be easier to look at issues closer to home. Issues such as piping water to Denver from the front range and cities like Phoenix, L.A., and Las Vegas using water from the Colorado River to water their lawns in the middle of the day. There is plenty of water in the world, most of Earth is covered with it. Humans just need to answer the question, is there enough water, fresh accessible water, for us to shower three times a day? Two times? Even once? Until we figure out what our needs are we will be subject to the privatization of water, people selling us water that they hardly have a right too. Pressures on water resources are only going to be increasing making the solution more difficult. In essence, I’ll be arguing that the privatization of water is wrong, but the problem is larger than the corporations.

Beware the Man

Rome was an Empire that many thought would govern the western known world for all time yet after a millennia (or two depending on your definition of “Roman Empire”), this great republic fell due to gradual decay and defeat on the inside and out. As one of the great republics of our time, there is no reason for us not to learn from the mistake of our ancestors. Unfounded wars, economic extremes and depression, and the polarization of the people were all signs of the end. I do not truly think that our country is on the verge of collapse, but this is another chance in the history of the governed nations for the people to move into the future and not fall again to the ways of old. Many past generations thought that man would grow and learn and not repeat the same silly, primitive mistakes that led to the ill fates that they and their community met. But we stand today in the same places in many ways. We have only been a country for two hundred and thirty four years, but most of us feel it is permanent. Rome Ruled for around four hundred an fifty years as a republic. We have a long way to go before we can consider our world governmental system, let alone our country, a truly permanent human establishment that works.

Arguementative Essay (Condoms in School)

In this essay I will discuss the pros and cons of providing condoms at a public high school. While many adults and possibly some students feel that this will promote a bad idea and give kids more reason to have sex, we really need to think realisically about this issue. As much as people want to believe that if we don't have condoms available to us then sex will not happen, that is just not the case. Just like in the new movie called "The Pregnancy Pact," based on a true story about a group of 18 young high school girls (age about 15) who choose to get pregnant together, we find that without condoms kids are still just as likely. Throughout the movie, there is an ongoing debate between the school and various parents/adults in the town who fight for whether or not condoms and birth control should be available to students at school while the school offers daycare. Then, we soon find that one of those 18 girls is the daughter to a mother who VERY strongly feels no condoms available=no sex, which we find to obviously not be the case.
From living up in this little town of Tellurde, and being so involved in the AIDS Benefit I have learned more than I probably need to know about being safe and condom use is one of them. High school is the time when students really start becoming involved with dating, etc. and are the most willing to try new things. Seriously, tell me about one high school student who has never even thought about having sex. Also, while kids of this age are still underage to drink, many do and that sometimes leads to decisions they may have not made otherwise. If students are able to simply get a condom from their school, they are much more likely to be prepared in a situation like this. For students of high school age, it is embarassing to go into a store and buy a condom. While many say "if you are not mature enough to buy a condom, you are not ready for sex," the thing is many don't care if they are "ready" or not or they may just find it plain embarrasing. Just because they feel unsure about buying a condom, doesn't nessecarily mean they cannot handle themselves. Sex is a choice that kids at this age are going to make with or without condoms so why not have them available?
For those people who are against my case, sit down and really think about it. What bad will it do to have protection there for those who need it. By this I am not saying EVERY teenager is or will have sex before the end of high school, but what I am saying is that it is inevitable that some will engage in sex, so why not make them prepared? Some people argue that it will promote sex but what is their backing for that? From talking to high school students from being a peer educator, I am very aware that this is not the case. Those who don't want to have sex won't, and those who get pressured into it because "they have a condom" most likely would have been pressured into it either way with their partner saying something like "I promise it will be fine." The thing is that no it may not be fine. With the ignorance of safety that some schools promote to their students in order to "shelter" them from reality does the students no good. It teaches kids to be scared of something that is completely natural and without the knowledge it will NOT lead to abstinence but it will lead to uneducated choices. If students choose to take a condom in a school setting, that is their choice. By offering condoms at school, the district is not changing how they view life and decision making in any way, all they are doing is putting the safe option out there. They are not shoving protection in anyones face, they are not requiring anyone to take a condom. All they are doing is providing another option just like how it would be to provide pencils to students. If the student wants to use what is provided, they can CHOOSE to. Nothing is required. There is no harm in a choice.

Persuasive Essay - What is Beauty?

I'm going to argue that our country's concept of beauty is unhealthy and scewed. Therefore either the companies need to ban the use of computer enhancement or the modeling agencies need to broaden their range of body types. Points for this argument include:
1) the images they (the advertising agencies, modeling agencies, etc.) show are unattainable at best, but put the pressure on all of us (men and women alike) that we must look like that
2)it causes unhealthy, unattainable views of what is beautiful that interfere with a healthy life, including intimate relationships with others and our own self-confidence.
3)it kills people - example: people die from plastic surgery (I will come up with a figure for that); people (espeically women and young girls) die from eatting disorders due to them attempting to look like the images we see (I'll come up with a figure for that as well).
The main point against this argument is:
1)this is how the industry makes money - modeling agencies, food industries, advertising industries, etc.
My call to action is to boycott the use of enhanced images in magazines and on billboards and that if one woman who is a size 0 is chosen for modeling, than a size 13 should be chosen as well.

Uniforms

For this essay, I want to look at the case of having uniforms or not, and eventually argue against them. In the case against uniforms, there is the point that uniforms squash creativity, seeing as what you wear is one venue of self-expression. Uniforms also reduces individuality, an important issue for young United Statesians. Also, if public schools had uniforms, then the uniforms would be mass produced with quantity in mind, not quality, and so would be of poor quality.

On the side that is for uniforms, is that because they are all the same, no one can get picked on for what they wear, which could ultimately raise self-esteem and student morale. It would provide students with more of a sense of unity, or school spirit.

So, that's what I have, and I'll develop it more.

party house

I am going to argue that the community should have a designated party house that is off the police’s jurisdiction for high school kids to go to, to blow off stem. This house would be a safe place for teens because it would be a warm, minimally supervised place to go on nights when us kids might get into trouble if there is nothing better to do. In a community like this especially, the whole community could benefit, we could use one of the many houses in Mountain Village that sits vacant for the majority of the year to turn into the ultimate party house. Also there is a large group of high school children that would take advantage of this and use the time they spend in this house to prepare for college life. Not only the locals would benefit from this, the tourists would also see a difference in town because there would not be kids trying to get strangers to buy them alcohol, this is because there would be a full time bartender at the house, the tourists would also be less afraid to come into town because there would not be drunk kids throwing snowballs at them, causing mischief as usual. This would all be paid for with the money that is spent on, prior to the party house, convicting young adults. Teens could also get community service hours by cleaning up after the nightly parties that will be held, we could raise money by selling cups at the door and once we raise enough money we could hold concerts in the house or give back to the community in some way... the possibilities are endless.

Chicken or the Egg

A "chicken and egg" proposal is the classic example of a circular process, with no beginning or end. Yet this analogy is flawed from the start. Chickens have not been around since the beginning of time, so the whole process has to start somewhere. So how did the very first chicken arise? Two almost-evolved-into-chickens-but-not-quite-there parents laid an EGG, containing the first true chicken. The egg did indeed proceed the chicken.
Some, however, might vehemently argue that an egg containing a fully evolved chicken must be laid by an equally evolved chicken. Genetically, this makes sense. The argument that a non-chicken cannot beget a chicken is a very reasonable one, but it has one logical fallacy. Mutations in gene replication make the offspring more than just a product of the parents. They are the root of all diversity on earth. One minute mutation is what distinguished the true chicken from all other small clucking flightless avea. That one mutation first appeared in an egg.
Others will argue that evolution does not exist at all, so the first chicken was placed on earth as a chicken, and there have always been chickens, and the whole argument of the egg is therefore ludicrous. There are more than one fallacies with this point of view, but these reasons have been so often repeated and so little heeded by those of this point of view, it does not seem worth saying them again. For those who do believe in evolution, however, there can be no question as to the true beginning of this circle.

Mark Twain--you're ruining my life.

I don't know where I want to go with this essay. I have tried and tried to motivate myself for it but the fact that I don't care the slightest bit about the topic has put quite a burden on my shoulders. The only things that I have to say is that mom was freaking off the wall insane, and if she cares so much about her daughter reading Huck Finn then she should take her daughter out of the class for the duration of the time that they will be focusing on the topic; instead of making a total fool of herself. Personally I don't think that Huck stressed the issue to the extent that he should have. This novel was almost written in a child's perspective, you know how children can see the broader picture but not notice the details? Take sex for example, Mommy is all of a sudden pregnant and a stork will soon drop off the baby that is magically extracted from her stomach on the front step, they don't question how it got into her stomach in the first place, they will just go with the flow and think all is true about what they have been told without further investigation. In a way they are blind to reality. This is the way Huck is with the issue of slavery and demeaning the blacks by using the word Nigger. He has seen and heard it being used therefore he thinks that it is hunky dory for him to use it as well. He does not consider the fact that it might as well be offensive to Jim or to others of the race, it is merely a word representing a color. Adding on to this, I think that we should be exposed to a novel that really illustrates the brutality of the time, as we were while studying the holocaust. We need to take in the fact that slavery was a very real issue and it did happen. People were treated horribly, and history should never repeat itself. Yet why cover it up, it is history, it is what it is. There was no silver lining to it, and thus there shouldn't be any sheltering of what had happened in any novel related to the issue. Moreover, if we are going to be reading a book that is racist (whether or not you find Huck Finn racist, so be it) we should also read a book that is racist toward whites as well. This is not something that we see often, and I think that it would be an interesting followup or even pre-read to a book such as Huck Finn; maybe then people can stop freaking out and come to the conclusion that racism is not only focused on blacks, but the other way as well (being on whites). This was a really lousy book, not that I disliked it, but all of the controversy that it stirred up is ridiculous and I can't wait to be finished with the whole bit. Mark Twain has got to be rolling over in his grave laughing his ass off at all that he has stirred up. [To anyone that is reading this please do not take offense to anything I said, and if you do leave a comment, I do not care]

Huck

The book Huckleberry fin has racist elements, but as a whole is not racist in fact it is an anti racist novel. The concluding chapters is in fact almost a definition of satire on not only the institution of slavery but also the beginning of the reconstruction in which southerners negligently forgot to tell their former slaves oh by the way you’re free. In fact most of this novel’s events off the river are satirical. As far as the question as to wither it should be taught in school or not, it should be taught as an optional assignment in conjunction with Uncle Toms Cabin and other novels that touch upon America’s history with slavery. Passages I plan to cite include the scene on Jackson Island, the third trick played on Jim, the journey down river when it was only Jim and Huck, and the ending it self. To discus the use of this book in school I will use the movie to show that not all students are ready to be taught Huck Fin and teachers must use their discretion to see if students are able to handle the copious amount of Racist elements.

Kenya's Prospectus

Huckleberry Finn was a huge step in literature, especially for the times when it was written. I think that the book expresses an amazing pro-acknowledgment of the realities of slavery. I think that the last 13 chapters are incredibly important in the book because, even though quite satirical they express an incredible reality of the hardships of slavery and the way that white people simply believe that it is just alright.
I want to base my paper first around the three transformations of Huck Finn and how he stepped out from the norms of society (even though he was trying to be forced into them through Ms Watson's rules and schooling). His first transformation happens on Jackson's Island when he says "they are after us," to Jim. His second one is when he says he'll go to hell for the freedom of Jim, and the third is his final ability to humble himself to Jim after playing a rude trick on him. This not only represents the transformation of a young boy, but the idea that one day society may transform into the belief that blacks do too have rights. But does society really change? No. The end of the book proves this through Huck's submission to Tom's cruelty. It's like this glimpse of hope has been snatched up in what is really reality, what is still partially reality today. Still, society has a frame of mind biased towards colored people. Though the cruelty of slavery still may not exist, the reality of racism and outward, demeaning acknowledgment of racism does.
After using the three transformation scenes, I will use different examples of slavery from Tom's harsh cruelty towards Jim in the end. When he makes him write with blood, sleep with snakes, dress as a woman for almost pure enjoyment. I will truly hit hard that he knew all along he was free, making the cruelty even harsher. It represents societies "true knowledge" (I guess you could say atleast some people knew it was wrong) that slavery was immoral. People such as Huck. But they too get sucked back into what is society: slavery.
T.S. Eliot proves my point in saying that "the story descends to the level of Tom Sawyer."
Leo Marx: "Jim's yearning for freedom, is made the object of nonsense. The conclusion, in short, is farce, but the rest of the novel is not."
Trilling: "there is a certain falling off" (at the end) "yet it has a certain formal aptness"

Huck Finn Essay

I loved Huckleberry Finn and I enjoyed it thoroughly, but I am still very undecided on how I am going to write this essay. I believe that this book is an American classic and that it is revolutionary for it's time, not only because it is in the vernacular, but that the language in the book was very accurate to the way they spoke, acted and believed back then. I personally believe that this book should be tought, but I am also a young white teenager. Even though I understand how bad the n word is, I will never be able to feel the hurt that people of color feel when that word is used. Throughout the documentary, "Culture Shock," many of my classmates were annoyed by the mother. She was obviously hurt by the way that her daughter was made to read this book and the manner in which the book was taught to her. This goes against my initial arguement that it should be taught in school. If it is, it must be taught in a very gentle manner and anybody that doesn't want to read this book, because it hurts them, shouldn't be forced to, or cast out.

Huck Finn and Twain

It tooke me a while to figure out exactly what I was going to argue about this book because there were just too many options I could try. I decided that my strongest argument would be to argue that the book is neither racist nor anti-racist, it's simply a product of the times in which it was written. I also feel that this book should be taught in schools because though the ending (one of the greatest flaws of the work) is a satire which few people seem to pick up on.

I love Mark Twain as a writer, so my argument about this book is going to biased, but that being said, I do recognize the flaws in this novel and there fore will not try to make the case that this is the single greatest american novel, there are much better works out there. My case is, however, going to be based in the fact that Twain was not a very serious person. He took is work very seriously, but very rarely did he write something that was dead serious.

Another thing that I would love to address, but I don't want to argue too many things at once, is the fact that maybe the point of the end, though a satire, is just as much about Jim becoming a father figure to Huck's moral awakening, seeing as Jim saves Tom in the end even though he makes Jim's life a living hell in the end.

Critics such as Peaches Henry, and James Cox I've found might be useful, as would be Marx. I sould love to find a critic that had a strong argument against mine which I could use to help strengthen my own point (like Sanders did to Rushdie) but I definitely find those 3 critics helpful in their points.

As for direct scenes, I am obviously going to be focusing on the ending to make the case of the satire which Twain created, and in doing so I can reference the gang of "robbers" which Tom Sawyer creates to help reiterate some of the cyclical formatting Twain used. I can extend this argument about satire past Tom by including the humorous retelling of Romeo & Juliet with the Grangerfords.

However, my argument that the book is a product of the times rather than racist I'm finding slightly difficult. I can make the argument that the word usage and some of the actions are clearly what would be expected in the time it was written, much less set in, but I really am trying to figure out scenes which might strengthen this argument. While I could use many scenes from the novel where Huck makes a moral decision, these seem to be making more of a racist/anti-racist message, while my argument is that it is neither.

Either way, I know my argument and I can write a good paper off of it, but if there are any critics or scenes that might help me, point me to them. Thanks

Huckleberry Finn

I think that while Huckleberry Finn is a blatantly racist novel, it was not written with the intent of condoning racism or slavery. In my essay, I want to talk about the whole "racism VS. realism" issue. I believe that the very act of trying to write a realistic story based in the 1840's South is inherently racist. You cannot write a true tale of the south in that timeperiod without mentioning slavery or including racism. However, I don't believe Mark Twain was racist. I think, if anything, he was mocking racism, its cruelty, and its prevalence in the story's society; Huckleberry Finn is a satire, not a book written to encourage or discourage racism. I also don't think this book should be taught in school. I believe that since the book's publication, its audience has taken the novel way too seriosly. I mean, come on, this book is a satire, a joke, about a couple of guys floating down a river, not some epic novel that was written to change lives. I believe this book has little literary value other than an interesting and informative view of Southern culture and vernacular in the 1840's. I can understand using this book in school to teach about racism and such, and to see where we come from, but I think that subject would be better suited to a humanities class of some sort. It seems strange to me that so many English teachers use this book in their curriculum when its literary value is pretty, well, nonexistant.
I'm not sure what passages in the book I want to use to encourage this argument. There are plenty of passages that are outrageous enough that I can use them to highlight the satirical side of this book. And, of course, the examples of racism within the novel are almost limitless - the entire novel is comprised of racial slurs. It's these slurs and other examples that I can use to show how the book is not some literary jewel and is completely overrated.
For critics, I think I'll use Shelly Fishkin from that documentary to show that the book was not written to condone racism. While, due to the use of the n word and other racial slurs, that book is wraught with racism in the writing, I don't believe the sentiment behind the novel is racist. I think I will also quote Langston Hughes, who said that (I paraphrase) "Before Mark Twain's Huck Finn, there was no unromantisized view of the South, or the view of slaves in the South." This quote highlights the realism of the novel; it's the realism that gives the novel it's value, in my opinion. I will also be quoting the documentary when it says that "great writers should be causing trouble and asking controversial questions" to note that while the book is on a very touchy subject, it can be used to teach (however, it's that controversial topic that should be taught in schools, not the litereary value of the book). I will also use a few quotes form T.S. Elliot. However, I will be relying most heavily on Leo Marx for my quotes. He agrees with me that the book is a satire and should not be taken too seriously. One of my favorite quotes from his essay is "...Clemens certainly did not intend us to read [Huck Finn] solemnly. Surely the tone...is familar to readers of Mark Twain."
I'm not so sure on the logistics of the essay, and how I want to construct it.

huck

Ugh. I hate this book. There is something so frustrating about it. I don't feel like it was well thought out at all. Mark Twain has no control over the story. On event follows another and so on and so forth. There is no true excellence or appreciation for the reader. He just drags them down the Mississippi River. He disregards the questions a reader may have and simple gives them a time line of an uneventful and terribly written scenario. Whether it is racist or not truly should have no effect in why it shouldn't be read. It shouldn't be read because the book sucks. Reading a book like " The Handmaid's Tale" where Margaret Atwood is so conscientious of the reader and the connection they make with the characters and then reading a book like "Huck Finn" it is hard to recognize the authors hand in any of it. The reader wants to give Mark Twain their trust but it is difficult to do so when he so flippantly leaves the reader in the wake of his story. Yeah, I hate this book.

Kids Need Crap Too.

Is Huck Finn racist? Of course it is. It may not be a blatant sermon for white power, but the language and characterizations are plenty racially motivated. Is this the great American book? Of course not. The idea that any novel in which even it's most excited supporters cannot defend effectively the plot and development should never disgrace it's country by being declared a national classic. In short, Huck Finn is a racially insensitive, poorly written, indecisive, bewilderingly bad book. But we should teach it nonetheless.

The idea that children can flourish knowing only what to do is naive. We must know what not to do as well. If children were only taught how great condoms are but not how bad teen pregnancy is few would use protection. This is the dangerous path English education has taken. By teaching only the "great" books we have sabotaged the wide view of literature our children need. The preposterous reviews by Trilling and Elliot are a blessing in disguise, for they have sneaked a bad book into classrooms, and have given good teachers a chance to show kids all sides of literature; the good, the bad, and the ugly.

I will use the aforementioned essays to point out how children must learn not to be bought off too easily by cheap arguments. I will use the essays of Leo Marx and Smiley to show that they have good arguments about the lack of literary merits about this book, but had they not been taught it they would have skipped that important critical step. From the book I will take specific passages as well as the progression as a whole to use as examples of how children should not write.

Almost all of the books taught in English classrooms are "great." Yet they loose their respect because if all that is taught are great books children have nothing to compare them with. By teaching Huck Finn we can reinforce the value of good books, and encourage a healthy skepticism. If good examples were all we needed the dunce cap would never have been invented. Mark Twain would look good in one.

To introduce my argument I will first do background on the time period. I will discuss the attitude of many people towards African Americans in this time period. I will hope this will support my argument that the book is not racist and simply a product of its times. People in this period were brought up to think of African Americans as inferior people without the mental capabilities of white people. The book uses the word "nigger" because it was a common word in the time period. While it is natural for some people to become offended by the use of the word, reading this novel shows a window into a different time, a time when the attitude towards minorities was different than it is today. By keeping this thought in mind, you can simply view the book as a piece of history, a tale from a different age where the ideals and ideas where much different than now. I argue that America during this time was extremely racist, so should all the books and ideas that came out of it. In today's society equality is the popular movement, so modern people should be able to read this book, knowing the ideas are wrong and simply reading it for what it is, a tale from another time.
As for whether it should be taught in schools, honestly beyond the fact that it is racist, i don't think the book is simply good enough to be taught in schools. Did I enjoy the read, of course. I feel like all you get is simply a fun tale from a different time, with the only discussion to go over is whether it is racist or not. I have enjoyed our class discussion, I just don't believe the quality of the book overshadows its massive controversy. Even if i don't agree with them, people are offended by this book and causing a major uproar about it being put on a required reading list, and honestly i dont think it is good enough to stand against the massive opposition.

Racist? Nonracist? Where is the line?

How is it that a book such as Huckleberry Finn can create such a controversy that people would move to have it banned from high school curriculum? Can a book represent both racism and anti racism at the same time? At this time period it is true that the word ‘nigger’ was the common term for a person of color. So does using this word in a realistic novel automatically make the novel racist? And can’t one argue that Huck is a person who can look past the stereotype given to African Americans during this time in age? Now is this because he no longer is bound by society, or merely the fact that he has come to the realization that Jim is a human being? It seems to me that the growth that Huckleberry goes through should be taught to children of all ages. It is a necessity to learn from our past history so that we don’t repeat it. On the other hand I can see that this book could be offensive to any that do not separate what is said and what is implied. I feel as though I have a biased when it comes to this book, as I am not African American, I cannot truly feel as they feel they read this book. On the other hand if the term did not mean anything in today’s time period I would be surprised to find as much controversy as they is circling this book. The real question that comes to mind is what restrictions can be put on realism? Is it not the point of realism to make things as realistic as possible? I can see that many people have elevated this book to the top of American literature, all the while there have been others trying to dispense of this book. In order for Huck to undergo his emotional growth there has to be an aspect of racism involved within the novel. Would it make sense to write a book that is suppose to be realistic in this time period without involving the aspect of racism.

I feel as though this book should be taught in high school merely for the racial aspect presented. It is important to understand others and our own culture. I also believe that if this book it taught that the teacher must teach it in a way that doesn't make anyone feel less like a human. It needs to be addressed in a critical view point, one that is separated from the negative aspect and more involved in what the overall message.

People I plan on quoting-
Jane Smiley- I disagree with her point of view on many aspects of the novel Huckleberry Finn and feel as though she will help further my own personal point of view.
T.S. Eliot- He made the novel to be a great work of American Literature and is very apparent in his feelings that this is a anti racist novel.
"Born to Trouble"- James Miller made an incredible point in the beginning of the movie about racism and how it comes about. I want to incorporate this into my paper to prove that racism and anti racism depends on the person.
Mark Twain- The scene when Huck humbles himself to a nigger.
Leo Marx- His point of view on the ending of the novel.

Huck Finn, Racism, Idiots, and Lobo's take on it all.

The basic arguement of my essay will be as follows: Huck Finn is racist in it's setting, but the ideas in the book and the interactions of the main characters are very anti-racist. Unfortunately most high-school students are idiots. (No offense to anyone here) Because of this general idioticy most high school students, especially ones who don't have Huck Finn taught to them properly, aren't going to get this anti-racism. So a lot of them will inevitably end up being offended. So I think that this book should be taught in schools for a few reasons, they being: #1 Everyone who reads it will gain from it. People who get the anti-racism get to read a great book, and enjoy the colorful vernacular that makes this book so fun. The people who get offended because they think it is racist, will get to be offended. This is good because what point is an education that never causes you to be offended? What good is going to high school and learning how to live in the world if you never learn how to be offended. The world is always going to throw insults around, and will always try to beat you down. Thats just the way the world works. So why would we not want our high school students to learn how to handle being offended? It's an essential life skill. If we let ourselves learn to run away from offense then is that really going to create a strong populace? #2 is that for those who understand, or are taught to properly there is a beautiful novel to enjoy. Not only is the book an outstanding anti-slavery novel, but it is also (and i say this without sarcasm) a heartwarming tale of love and courage. Plus that vernacular is really fun!

So the general outline of my paper will be as follows:
My first page or two will be used to argue my point that the book is very anti-slavery. I will use the scenes of huck tearing the letter, the third trick played on Jim (the one where Huck humbles himself to a nigger), and will compare the early characterization of Jim to the tricks that the King and Duke play as they travel down the river.

After setting that up, I will use the movie and critics to set up that there are many people who find the book offensive. Then I will argue that the racism is because of the time period. Then I will transition to my arguement that it should be taught in schools, and that people should be offended. that arguement should get me 3-4 pages, so with a brief and admittedly underveloped conclusion I should arrive at 5-6 1/2 pages.

Huck Finn -Perspective of a small white child

Perspective is everything. The reality of the situation from one persons eyes might be completely different from another’s eyes. Some say that Huck Finn is a racist book and other’s say it is anti-racist. It shows slavery in the south through a small white boys eyes. This causes the tone of the book to be lighthearted and fun, as opposed to the way it realistically was in the south. Although there are times where you will hear an outrageously racist comment in the book, it doesn’t serve the reality of the racist south justice. The book has a very warped perception of how things really were in the south. After all the struggle black people had to go through, their struggle is communicated very poorly through the eyes of a little white boy. This in itself is frustrating and outrageous. As for the ending, it does not communicate any moral message about racism, Huck doesn’t grow from his experiences, it merely ends with two selfish white children exacerbating Jim’s struggle for freedom. It returns to the playful make believe that the book starts out with, Tom and Huck breaking Jim out of jail the way its done in the “books.” This makes any moral value that Huck gained meaningless because for him it is all a little game. You can never know what Huck perceives as reality and what he perceives as make believe. I will use Julius Lester's critical essay to support my point. I will focus my essay around the beginning and end of the book to show that Huck thinks the same in the end as he did in the beginning. I will point out that throughout the book, you never encounter other slaves besides Jim. I will also point out that the most struggle Jim has to go through is caused by the two boys when they make him play their games in the end. You never actually see the struggle and hardships that black people had to go through.

Many lessons to be learned from Huck Finn

Intro (1 page)

Although this book is regarded as “one of the central documents of American culture” and is one of the greatest anti-racist novels in american history, because of the era it is set in, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has become a book of great controversy (Trilling). The late 1800’s were a period of racial tension in the United States, and Huck Finn was one of the first literary critiques of how embedded racism is in our culture. The use of Mississippi dialects, picaresque short stories, and complex characters, make Huck Finn a book that experts still argue over.

Racist? No! (3 pages)

• Huck’s relationship with Jim evolves from slave, to acquaintance, to father figure:
• “for in Jim he finds his true father” - Trilling,
• “what he considers the clear dictates of moral reason are not merely the engrained customary beliefs of his time and place.” - Trilling
• Huck and Jim become a pair, with Huck referring to Jim’s freedom as “our” job and “we” must continue on and they’re after “us”
• “There ain’t a minute to lose. They’re after us!” - Huck Finn.
• “His unpremeditated identification with Jim’s flight from slavery is an unforgettable moment in American experience” - Marx.
• “After all this long journey...here was it all come to nothing, everything all busted up and ruined, because they could have the heart to serve Jim such a trick as that, and make him a slave again all his life, and amongst strangers, too, for forty dirty dollars. (200-01) - Huck Finn.
• Huck as a character transforms within, going from wanting to turn Jim in and thinking that is the right and moral thing to do, to “going to hell” to help a “nigger” escape
• “He has a great sense of sadness of human life” - Trilling
• Language used is simply from the era: the warning by Twain at the beginning of the novel

Taught in schools? Yes! (3 pages)

There are a significant amount of lessons to be learned from Huck Finn. The style, history of racism, and society’s bondage are all morals that can be taught.

• Literary style: going from the river to ashore
• Historical depiction of slavery
• Society’s structure and rules
• “his escape from society is but his way of reaching what society ideally dreams of for itself,” - Trilling,
• “He belongs neither to the Sunday School nor the Reformatory” - Eliot
• Points out what was coevally wrong with America
• “Twain couldn’t solve the problem that America couldn’t solve” - David Bradley in terms of what do with the institution of slavery, it’s wrong but how do we deal with changing it?
• The ending makes Huck return to society (Tom) and fall back into his old habits. On the river he was a changed boy, with Jim, but once back at a white supremacist farm with Tom, he falls back into society’s mold
• “the conscience of a southern boy in the middle of the last century” - Trilling

What I will write!

To introduce the controversy regarding Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn I think I am going to start by using phrases from Trilling and Smiley to showcase both extremes. I will probably open by presenting a little background for both arguments. To support the assertion that Huck Finn is not a racist novel and should be taught in school I will use Trilling’s statement that it is “one of the central documents of American culture.” (Pg. 1) I will further paraphrase some of Eliot’s central arguments to accentuate the novel’s anti-racist qualities. In transition from this point of view I will utilize Smiley’s bold accusation that “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has little to offer in the way of greatness.” (Pg. 62) Once I have clearly determined both arguments regarding the value of Huck Finn I will strategically discredit Smiley’s opinion and elevate Trilling and Eliot’s as the more plausible conclusion. I would like to embed Eliot’s belief that Huck Finn “is the only one of Mark Twain’s various books which can be called a masterpiece,” (Pg. 286) to reveal the novel’s role in literature throughout history. Ultimately I will make the case that Huck Finn is far from a racist novel because it genuinely depicts the relationship between a young white boy and a runaway slave, who manage to surpass the rules of society and form a bond despite racial norms of the 1840’s. Once I have established Huck Finn as an anti-racist novel that succeeds in depicting the evils of society by revealing the hypocrisy of slavery in the South, I will shift into the debate regarding the novel and its role in the high school curriculum. I will use several speakers from ‘Culture Shock’ to depict the controversy regarding Huck Finn’s inclusion in the mandatory reading list for high school students. I will contradict David Bradley’s argument that “language hurts people,” in reference to use of the word ‘nigger’ throughout the novel, seeing as African American’s today use the word without any sense of degradation or hurtful intention. The student involved in the Tempe case argued that although the word doesn’t offend her and that she “is immune” to the word, she hates to see it affect other African Americans in a negative way. If she feels so strongly regarding this word, shouldn’t she take up arms with her fellow high school students who have popularized the word and stripped it of its negative connotations? Also people seem to forget that Twain strategically utilized the vernacular form of speech to relate the story to the time period in which it was set. Therefore, the use of the ‘n’ word is in no way meant to degrade or offend African American readers. Regarding the end of the novel, I will argue that, although the last 13 chapters of Huck Finn appear to discredit Huck and Jim’s relationship aboard the raft, ultimately the ending allows the reader to decide if the racial norms of society have been defeated by the two along their journey to freedom. My central argument that Huck Finn should be included in the high school curriculum is supported by the fact that it is so controversial, and no single analysis is correct or superior. It allows for thoughtful, substantial debate within a classroom setting that most novels fail to facilitate. So basically my ‘thesis’ statement will be something along the lines of: Although a superficial analysis of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn may conclude that the novel is indeed racist, a more in depth account of the story will reveal Twain’s use of satire, hypocrisy, and realism to emphasize the evils of falling victim to the rules of society. Furthermore, such a complex novel should be integrated into the high school curriculum in order to allow students to form judgments based solely what they hold to be true of Huck Finn. To organize my thoughts I will start with one or two pages of introduction, 3 to 4 pages showcasing the novel’s anti-racist qualities, 3-4 pages arguing that Huck Finn should be included in the curriculum, and 1 to 2 pages of conclusion to clearly restate my thoughts and drive home my argument.

Twainer

I believe that HuckFinn is a decent novel that has its place in history due to its own ambiguity. tHE VERY FACT THe THE NOVEL CAN BE DEBATED AS IT IS IS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT. I believe that this book should be taught in upper class men high school classes. It should be so not because of the novel itself, but the significance of the conversation that can derive from it. To tell you the truth, I do not believe that this novel was brutal enough in showing the horrors of slavery or in its depiction of rural life in the south. Therefore, I think that other books should be taught before, or along with HuckFinn, in order for students to better understand this sad time in out nations history. Children need to be exposed to these atrocities. No one should ever forget or try to ignore what happened then. To do so would only lend itself to a future of repeating the pass, instead of learning from it. I will use the passages that depict Huck's inner moral struggle and what he thinks is the "right" thing to do. I will also use the ending, and show how this dry satire screams out to be hated, on purpose. Twain's writings for the San Francisco Chronicle are incredible similar to to the end of HuckFinn. He wants to sicken you. No book that involves slavery shouldn't. But as I said before, students should read Fredrick Douglas or some other authors, preferably perhaps a slave writer, that more accurately and more upsettingly describe the way things were for slaves back in the eighteenth to nineteenth century America. Is the book racist? Yes. Is that what is in important? No. For the time this book was written this novel was incredibly not racist. When this book was written, African Americans were not considered human by many people in our country. We must always remember and learn from the past, as to never even remotely repeat it again.

GET OVER IT!

I strongly disagree with the assumptions that Huck Finn is a Racist Novel. The people that try to back up that argument are blowing it out of proportion. They are looking at such specific details such as the word "nigger," but what they really need to take in to perspective is larger ideas in the book. Yeah, maybe their is some racist dialog in the book, but remember, this is just DIALOG! Twain is only trying to create an accurate picture of life back in the day when slavery was a normal thing. If he wanted he could of lied about how people spoke back then and not incorporate the word, but would this really be helping anything? To my understanding the word in that book on supports the argument of how horrible slavery was back in the day. This is what these upset people need to realize, twain was not trying to degrade people of color; he was attempting to tell the whole truth of how horrible slavery was. “Wherein does its greatness lie? Primarily in its power of telling the truth.”(Lionel Trilling) These haters should stop being so close minded and try to actually finish the novel. If they proceeded to read the whole novel they would see that Huck is constantly going against society to help Jim. He is doing this because he knows that is wrong, and this is the message that Twain was attempting to put out when he wrote it. Twain wants every one to see how bad slavery was, and also how one small boy could overcome the "normal" and evolve to help a slave flee to freedom. As to the argument of if this book should be required to be read in public schools, of coarse it should! The school should make sure that their teachers have read the book and understand its moral before they jump to conclusions or let any of their students jump to conclusions.

Huck Finn

My argument is basically going to be that the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is not a racist book and that it should be taught in school, but should be taught to seniors only. One of the parts of the novel that I want to use is when Huck returns to Jackson Island after learning that some of the townsfolk are going to go looking for the runaway slave on Jackson Island and he says "'Git up and hump yourself, Jim! There ain't a minute to lose. They're after us!'" (97) This line shows how Huck is thinking of Jim and him as in the same boat, as comrades. No one is after Huck, because everyone thinks that he's dead. The only one that they're after is Jim, but Huck still says "' They're after us!'" Another scene that I want to use is when Huck meets up with the slave catchers, but protects Jim from them instead of turning him in, which is what he has been taught to do all his life. Before Huck leaves the raft to see what the other men want, Jim says that pretty soon he'll be a free man because of Huck. That Huck is the "'bes' fren' Jim's ever had'" (140) and the only one that he has right now. That makes Huck feel really guilty about having to rat Jim out, and he ends up lying to the slave catchers to help Jim and keep him free. I want to use the part just before that, when Jim is talking about stealing his children and wife when he's free. Huck remarks that he is sorry to hear Jim talk like that, that it is such a lowering of him. This line shows that Huck believed that Jim was a good person, who wouldn't steal from other people. To my knowledge, many slaves were thought to be thieves back then, so Jim's talk wouldn't surprise too many white people, but it is surprising and unexpected to Huck. On page 315, Huck escapes from the King and the Duke and lites out to Jim and the raft. At that point, Huck 'borrows' a canoe to get to the raft, and in the storm that was going on, Huck could have easily left Jim and continued down the river on his own. Instead, he goes to the raft and tries to leave the Duke and the King with Jim. This action shows that Huck shares a feeling of comradeship with Jim, and sees him as a friend who is not to be left behind. I'll use Lionel Trilling mainly, for helping to make my point, and Jane Smiley as well, to argue with and find new passages that I can use. As for organization, I'll use the passages from the book in cronological order first, then use the critics to better finalize my points, and to bring up new ones that I didn't cover from the book passages.

huckleberry

I am going to defend Twain's novel. This wonderful story is not racist and the vernacular speech makes it very unique. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn should be taught in school because it is a renowned classic and it provides a valuable insight into the depths of the past. There are certainly instances where the book should not be taught, or maybe just portions of it. But this book can stimulate controversy and powerful emotions, which make school and discussions interesting. This book can be a very valuable tool, if not to understand great literature, but to understand the differences in society that were evident and still persist today.
Also, it is clear from Clemens' personal actions and view that he is not a racist, therefore it is evident that his novel isn't racist either. Twain's deftness as a satirist and his plea for human rights in other lectures and works make it clear that although the book may appear racist on the surface, just underneath it is a call for humanity. Twain is a skilled writer whose message is humanitarian. I kind of started my essay below...roughly

On our adventures with Huck and Jim, we are taken a bright journey through and to "the truly dark heart of the American Soul and of American History: slave country." This is a bright journey because of the brilliant writing that takes us there and the moral growth of a young child.
This is an adult novel written by an adult who grew up in the peak of slavery in America. Samuel Clemens, whose most famous pen name is Mark Twain, was born and raised in Hannibal, Missouri, the small riverside town that St. Petersburg is supposed to represent in the novel. At the time of Clemen's youth, Missouri was one of the 15 slave states of the South. Twain was continuously surrounded by the presence of slavery

Huck Finn

My opinions about the book are not as black and white as the critics we have read. I don't feel that the book itself is inherently racist, simply written about racist people in a racist time. As to whether it should be taught in schools, I don't think it should be straight out banned nor should it be required reading. It is not such an incredible work that everyone must read it. When the problems caused by the book outweigh its merit, it isn't really worth the trouble. However, in environments where it can be taught appropriately and does not cause tensions, there is no reason it should not be read. I plan to cite Jane Smiley to repute a few of her overstretched claims, and also T.S. Elliot and Lionel Trilling to counter some of their blind worship of the novel. I agree with much of Leo Marx's argument, and will use him to set up ideas. Within the book, I would like to look at both those passages that are celebrated as great anti-racist writing and those condemned as shamefully prejudiced. The Culture Shock movie will provide examples for when the book should be taught and when its just not worth it. Is this too wishy-washy a stance to take?