All over the world, companies spend billions of dollars putting ads in television, magazines, and billboards. For the ads to be effective, however, they need to attract the viewers attention, and this is were ethos, pathos, and logos leaps into play. Ethos establishes the credibility of the products in question, pathos appeals to the emotions of the viewer, and logos gives the facts, often scientific, about the product to convince a viewer that the product is good. Ads that manage to pull together all of these aspects into one image are usually the most effective at winning people over. The ad I am analyzing is an ad for a British motorcycle company called Triumph. This ad very effectively showed examples of ethos, pathos, and logos to convey why a reader should go to Britain or Canada and buy one of these motorcycles.
The Ethos in the ad was one of the elements of the ad that stood out prominently. One example is the ads mention of Formula One technology. Formula One race cars are known to be some of the absolute fastest cars in the world. I mean, you can go so fast in these things, if you crash, you vaporize. The technology is also known as being very dependable and trustworthy. The ad uses the connection to Formula One to ad to their credibility, like saying, "Formula One trusts our motorcycles, so should anyone who buys one." Also adding to the Ethos of the ad is the connection to Star Wars. The main logo on the ad says, "The Empire Strikes Back", meaning the British, but immediately making the reader think of the famous Star Wars movie of the same name. Many of the readers of this ad have probably seen the movies, and many will probably have a deep and emotional connection to them. This may make the reader trust the company more for using the title as their slogan, almost like it makes the reader believe that the company can relate to them as fans and people, gaining them more support for their motorcycles.
The ad also uses Pathos in an effective way. For starters, all of the pictures of a man driving the motorcycle do not show the ground, making it seem like the rider is flying along the ground, instead of just driving. This gives a feeling of excitement to the ad that can cause the reader to want to get the motorcycle to experience the same feeling. The angle of the motorcycle also adds to the excitement and danger presented by the pictures of the driver. The way the motorcycle tilts, almost like it is about to tip over, add to the overall emotional feel of the ad by tossing in a little danger. Many people enjoy putting themselves in danger, and the ad shows how this motorcycle can add to the reader's life with all of its danger. The last element of Pathos is how the text below the motorcycle talks about how you can "choose from the Daytona S55I, the land based version of a tactical fighter...". I mean, a land based version of a tactical fighter? That will easily get an emotional response from anyone who wants their motorcycle equipped with missile launchers.
The last way the ad grabs the readers attention to convince them to buy their product is by using Logos. One example of this is how "every Triumph motorcycle is backed by a two-year unlimited warranty." Whenever a large purchase like a motorcycle is made, it is always a good idea to get a warranty, in case something is wrong with the product. This is just logical, and the company wants to be sure that you know they will take care of you, for two years at least. Also, the ad mentions how all of the Triumph motorcycles are made in the most modern production facility in all of England. If something like a motorcycle, which needs to be in good condition and well-made, isn't made in the best possible facility, people wouldn't buy the motorcycles. But, because the motorcycles are made in the best facility around, you should only buy a motorcycle from Triumph. The last example of Logos is the mention of hand-crafted parts on the motorcycle. When parts are hand-crafted, it gives a shows how the company wants only the best products for its consumers, and how it is willing to give the best for them. While others make everything with a machine, the good folks at Triumph give you only the best in products and service, making them the logical choice from which to purchase your new motorcycle.
Ethos, Pathos, and Logos are very important to advertisements because of their ability to help draw in customers to have an interest in their product. When used effectively, a combination of two or more can really help an argument or a paper to have more of an impact in the world. To look at the ad, here it is
http://adflip.com/addetails.php?adID=12828
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
You and Me: Two Sides to Every Story
A common occurrence in most trials is the presence of more than one story. The victim tells one story, and the defendant tells another version of the story. The entire situation becomes a mess, with the jury trying to figure out who is telling the truth. A case of two conflicting stories occurred in the legend of Beowulf. After seeing the movie Beowulf and then reading Grendel by John Gardner, I found two different stories as to how Beowulf defeated Grendel. While there were some similarities, the stories actually went farther into why the confrontation occurred and how it was finished.
In Beowulf, Grendel was portrayed as a mindless demon and killing machine, who's sole purpose seemed to be the destruction of Hrothgar's kingdom and mead hall. Grendel attacked nearly every night, just to slaughter Hrothgar's men and cause destruction, with senseless abandon. But this was not the case in Grendel. The first time Grendel went to the hall, he was actually curious, like a child would be in this case. He tries to peacefully join the people at the hall, but, because of his hideous appearance, they attacked him, making Grendel retaliate. Grendel actually feels remorse because of the killings, at least until he speaks to a dragon, who tells him that humans are stupid, senseless creatures who should be destroyed. Grendel doesn't believe this, until he witnesses the people fighting a war. He is appalled by the senseless death they cause, just to gain more gold. Something in Grendel's mind finally snaps, and he makes it his mission to terrorize the people at the hall, to show them that they are monsters just like they think he is. The difference in the reasons for Grendel's killings shapes the views of Grendel by the people. In one, he is a monster; in the other, almost like a teacher trying to show the people the error of their ways. It almost creates pity for Grendel, like he was misunderstood, similar to Frankenstein's monster.
Another example of conflicting stories in Beowulf and Grendel were how Grendel was defeated. In the movie, Grendel attacked the hall and killed a few of the men there, before Beowulf fought him, and defeated him by simply overpowering him. Beowulf tore off Grendel's arm and then began to tell everyone how he defeated the monster. Because most of the people at the hall who saw the battle were either dead or Beowulf's own followers, everyone believed him. In Grendel, however, the story of the battle was different. Grendel snuck up on the hall that night and killed only one man, who was sleeping at the time, before Beowulf attacked him. Using surprise, he caught Grendel off guard and got a good lock on Grendel's arm. Then, to make matters worse, Grendel slipped on the blood of the man he had killed, letting Beowulf gain the upper hand. Despite Grendel's pleas for mercy, Beowulf twisted Grendel's arm off literally, and Grendel escaped into the woods to die. So, one account says that Beowulf out-manned Grendel, while another says that Beowulf used treachery. No one will be able to know which story is true because there were not very many people to witness the battle, and each side will stick to their own story.
This situation reminds me of a certain team that we play in basketball. The team thinks that they are unstoppable and can't be beat, but this usually only occurs at home. The rest of the time, they are fair game. The teams that play them know that the biased officiating is what gives them this advantage at home, while the team thinks they are just that good. Without fair officiating at their home court, the team can not prove whether or not they are that good, or if they are just cheaters.
Well, the legend of Beowulf will forever be somewhat controversial in my mind, but it also gives a new dimension to the story. Was Grendel truly the villain of this story? Or was he just extremely misunderstood? Either way I did enjoy the movie and book, so it all works out for someone in the end.
In Beowulf, Grendel was portrayed as a mindless demon and killing machine, who's sole purpose seemed to be the destruction of Hrothgar's kingdom and mead hall. Grendel attacked nearly every night, just to slaughter Hrothgar's men and cause destruction, with senseless abandon. But this was not the case in Grendel. The first time Grendel went to the hall, he was actually curious, like a child would be in this case. He tries to peacefully join the people at the hall, but, because of his hideous appearance, they attacked him, making Grendel retaliate. Grendel actually feels remorse because of the killings, at least until he speaks to a dragon, who tells him that humans are stupid, senseless creatures who should be destroyed. Grendel doesn't believe this, until he witnesses the people fighting a war. He is appalled by the senseless death they cause, just to gain more gold. Something in Grendel's mind finally snaps, and he makes it his mission to terrorize the people at the hall, to show them that they are monsters just like they think he is. The difference in the reasons for Grendel's killings shapes the views of Grendel by the people. In one, he is a monster; in the other, almost like a teacher trying to show the people the error of their ways. It almost creates pity for Grendel, like he was misunderstood, similar to Frankenstein's monster.
Another example of conflicting stories in Beowulf and Grendel were how Grendel was defeated. In the movie, Grendel attacked the hall and killed a few of the men there, before Beowulf fought him, and defeated him by simply overpowering him. Beowulf tore off Grendel's arm and then began to tell everyone how he defeated the monster. Because most of the people at the hall who saw the battle were either dead or Beowulf's own followers, everyone believed him. In Grendel, however, the story of the battle was different. Grendel snuck up on the hall that night and killed only one man, who was sleeping at the time, before Beowulf attacked him. Using surprise, he caught Grendel off guard and got a good lock on Grendel's arm. Then, to make matters worse, Grendel slipped on the blood of the man he had killed, letting Beowulf gain the upper hand. Despite Grendel's pleas for mercy, Beowulf twisted Grendel's arm off literally, and Grendel escaped into the woods to die. So, one account says that Beowulf out-manned Grendel, while another says that Beowulf used treachery. No one will be able to know which story is true because there were not very many people to witness the battle, and each side will stick to their own story.
This situation reminds me of a certain team that we play in basketball. The team thinks that they are unstoppable and can't be beat, but this usually only occurs at home. The rest of the time, they are fair game. The teams that play them know that the biased officiating is what gives them this advantage at home, while the team thinks they are just that good. Without fair officiating at their home court, the team can not prove whether or not they are that good, or if they are just cheaters.
Well, the legend of Beowulf will forever be somewhat controversial in my mind, but it also gives a new dimension to the story. Was Grendel truly the villain of this story? Or was he just extremely misunderstood? Either way I did enjoy the movie and book, so it all works out for someone in the end.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Come Together: the Dangers of DNA
Very recently I read the book Watchers by Dean Koontz, and the story caused me to think. With all of the new discoveries being made today, could the situation of making a super intelligent dog or a blood-thirsty monkey-beast ever happen. Already there are many tests being done to search for ways rearranging DNA can help cure patients of life-threatening diseases, but people may not be content at just solving this problem. While the possibilities of this happening are pretty slim, there is always the chance that it may happen. So, today I am going to take a look into the mysterious world of DNA research and the high points and pitfalls of the research.
The first point I will be looking at today is the possible benefits of the research, symbolized by the dog from the book, named Einstein. Einstein is a golden retriever, who has been genetically altered to have the same level of intelligence as a human being, but still looks like a normal dog. Einstein was created to function sort-of as a furry spy, for example, to be given to a rival countries leader, who would not expect a dog to have the intelligence to be a spy, and have the dog steal the countries secrets. That is the most intense of the tasks the dog would have to perform, with the least intense being a great source of entertainment at parties. Einstein's intelligence was upgraded by placing the genes that would most likely increase the dogs intelligence without causing physical mutation into his genetic code, and by also deleting the genes that would limit his intelligence, over the course of several generations. Einstein was one part of a project called the Francis Project, and was considered the success of the project. All the workers loved Einstein and treated him with the best care they could give him. The possibility of a super smart dog both intrigues me and frightens me. While it would be really cool to have a dog that was intelligent enough to understand a person and have a conversation with them, I would really hate it if I was struggling with my homework and my dog came in and did it for me. There are also other practical uses beyond the coolness factor. An extremely smart dog could be even better seeing eye dogs, being able to think with more than just what they have been taught, to help people who are being rehabilitated for illnesses, or to even help the military when they go into dangerous areas and to help locate enemies. The increased intelligence also could give the dog a moral compass, with the dog being able to differentiate between right and wrong, leading to the dog making better decisions for the situation, possibly saving someones life or helping to stop crimes. The possibilities are endless, with many benefits possible. If a dog like Einstein could be created, then possibly all inheritable diseases, like cystic fibrosis and certain types of cancers, could be all but eliminated from a person's DNA over time.
Like all risks, with a good side, there must be a bad side. Let me introduce the bad side, also known as The Outsider. Where Einstein represented everything that was good and a success with the Francis project, The Outsider was the failure and knew it. Genetically altered like Einstein, The Outsider went through many of the same procedures as Einstein to increase his intelligence, but mutations were encouraged. The Outsider was bred to be a killing machine, and mutations including razor-sharp claws, over sized jaw, and long multi-jointed arms helped it to accomplish this. The mutations also gave it a grotesque appearance that made me think of Grendel in Beowulf when I imagined it. The Outsider knew it was ugly and was feared by the scientists who created him, but he also knew that the scientists loved Einstein. This knowledge gave The Outsider a unquenchable desire to do nothing but kill Einstein, causing many of the situations in the book. This shows that there are also negative consequences to DNA research: if you don't arrange the genes right, a monster that wants to kill you could be created. The possible risks are not worth the benefits in some cases, like this. The Outsider was created to help soldiers in war, but if it went wild, like it did in the book, how could anyone be sure that it wouldn't kill its allies? Similarly, if the DNA research was used to stop one disease, it could possibly make another disease more incurable or even deadlier. These are the questions that researcher have to ask themselves when thinking about the possibilities of DNA research.
Science can build up a civilization and make it great or it can become its downfall. With all of the possible risks and benefits of DNA research, the call on whether to explore and use it or not is an extremely delicate issue in today's world. Watchers showed a good picture of the possibilities of the research and also the risks of the research, while also being a good story. Just keep what I've written in mind if you read it. I really wish I could just read a book without thinking about it anymore.
The first point I will be looking at today is the possible benefits of the research, symbolized by the dog from the book, named Einstein. Einstein is a golden retriever, who has been genetically altered to have the same level of intelligence as a human being, but still looks like a normal dog. Einstein was created to function sort-of as a furry spy, for example, to be given to a rival countries leader, who would not expect a dog to have the intelligence to be a spy, and have the dog steal the countries secrets. That is the most intense of the tasks the dog would have to perform, with the least intense being a great source of entertainment at parties. Einstein's intelligence was upgraded by placing the genes that would most likely increase the dogs intelligence without causing physical mutation into his genetic code, and by also deleting the genes that would limit his intelligence, over the course of several generations. Einstein was one part of a project called the Francis Project, and was considered the success of the project. All the workers loved Einstein and treated him with the best care they could give him. The possibility of a super smart dog both intrigues me and frightens me. While it would be really cool to have a dog that was intelligent enough to understand a person and have a conversation with them, I would really hate it if I was struggling with my homework and my dog came in and did it for me. There are also other practical uses beyond the coolness factor. An extremely smart dog could be even better seeing eye dogs, being able to think with more than just what they have been taught, to help people who are being rehabilitated for illnesses, or to even help the military when they go into dangerous areas and to help locate enemies. The increased intelligence also could give the dog a moral compass, with the dog being able to differentiate between right and wrong, leading to the dog making better decisions for the situation, possibly saving someones life or helping to stop crimes. The possibilities are endless, with many benefits possible. If a dog like Einstein could be created, then possibly all inheritable diseases, like cystic fibrosis and certain types of cancers, could be all but eliminated from a person's DNA over time.
Like all risks, with a good side, there must be a bad side. Let me introduce the bad side, also known as The Outsider. Where Einstein represented everything that was good and a success with the Francis project, The Outsider was the failure and knew it. Genetically altered like Einstein, The Outsider went through many of the same procedures as Einstein to increase his intelligence, but mutations were encouraged. The Outsider was bred to be a killing machine, and mutations including razor-sharp claws, over sized jaw, and long multi-jointed arms helped it to accomplish this. The mutations also gave it a grotesque appearance that made me think of Grendel in Beowulf when I imagined it. The Outsider knew it was ugly and was feared by the scientists who created him, but he also knew that the scientists loved Einstein. This knowledge gave The Outsider a unquenchable desire to do nothing but kill Einstein, causing many of the situations in the book. This shows that there are also negative consequences to DNA research: if you don't arrange the genes right, a monster that wants to kill you could be created. The possible risks are not worth the benefits in some cases, like this. The Outsider was created to help soldiers in war, but if it went wild, like it did in the book, how could anyone be sure that it wouldn't kill its allies? Similarly, if the DNA research was used to stop one disease, it could possibly make another disease more incurable or even deadlier. These are the questions that researcher have to ask themselves when thinking about the possibilities of DNA research.
Science can build up a civilization and make it great or it can become its downfall. With all of the possible risks and benefits of DNA research, the call on whether to explore and use it or not is an extremely delicate issue in today's world. Watchers showed a good picture of the possibilities of the research and also the risks of the research, while also being a good story. Just keep what I've written in mind if you read it. I really wish I could just read a book without thinking about it anymore.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Going Down: The possibility of symbolism in literature
Like many people this summer, a few weeks ago I went to the movie theater and saw Pixar's Toy Story 3. The Toy Story movies were a big part of my childhood, and I was glad that the third movie did not let me down in any way. The only thing that kept jumping out at me was how the movie seemed to have an undercurrent message, which could be summed up like this: the more you jumped into the plot of the movie, the more it seemed like the toys were going farther and farther into Hell. Call me crazy if you wish, but I 'm onto something here. I also noticed several comparisons to the novel Deliverance by James Dickey, that almost parallel the events in Toy Story 3.
First off, in Toy Story 3, the toys were all going to a place that they did not know anything about (Sunnyside Day Care) and were expecting to have a great adventure, where more kids could play with them. Their dreams seemed to come true as they were welcomed whole-heartily into the day care by the other toys, and were assigned to a room to wait for the kids, despite the warnings by Woody that they had to get back home to Andy. They waited excitedly for the kids, but their first warning that something was amiss was the fact that all the other toys were hiding when the kids came back. Much of this is true in Deliverance, mainly in how Ed, Lewis, Bobby, and Drew all had no idea what was down the river, but wanted to have an adventure over a weekend. Every time they saw another person on their way to the river, the question was always "Why are you wanting to go down there if you don't know what's down there?" almost as if they knew something but didn't know how to tell the poor city folk. Woody and the locals were actually similar to each other by the fact that they each warn the groups, but the groups are so in tune to what they think they want that they do not listen. But the group didn't listen to them, and went on to their trip. When they reached the river, they were surprised at how calm and beautiful it looks, and began their trip. One warning sign that I noticed was how the river began to get swifter and have more obstacles in it, such as rocks and trash from farmers and the people of the area. In the movie, the toys figure out why the other toys were hiding, as they are knocked around and generally abused by the toddlers who don't know how to play with them any other way. The river party also comes to a crashing halt as Ed and Bobby are attacked by two of the hillbillies that live close to the river. The toys and the river party then quickly figure out that they received much more than they bargained for. They also act quickly to remedy the situations, the toys by sending Buzz out to talk to Lotso, the "leader" of Sunnyside, about a transfer, and Ed and Bobby being rescued by Lewis, who kills one of the hillbillies. Both of these events signal each group's beginning descent into a figurative Hell.
Next, both groups thought that they had solved their problems by their first actions, but they were unfortunately wrong. In Deliverance, after Lewis kills the hillbilly, the group gets back on their journey, only this time they are trying to get down river to find a way back to civilization. The group is traveling down the river, when suddenly Drew is shot by someone, causing panic and the canoes to capsize. They manage to make it out of the river, but not before going through a set of rapids that causes Lewis to break his leg and a canoe to be lost. A bad situation goes suddenly from bad to worse when the survivors realize that the other hillbilly that was not killed was the one who was shooting at them. Ed decides that they are in a bad situation and the only way to get himself, Bobby, and Lewis to safety, is to find the hillbilly and kill him before he can get to them. Not only does this decision cause Ed to do things he never thought he would do and make him play a deadly game of cat and mouse with a murderer, but he also learns that this is how the people in the hills did everything and that he is also becoming like them, almost like he is figuratively going into the very depths of Hell in order to survive. In Toy Story 3, the toys learn that the whole day care system revolves around the new toys being sent to the younger kids, to keep Lotso and the other older toys from being broken. To preserve this system, Lotso and the other toys capture Buzz and reprogram him to do what they want him to do, which involves locking the other toys in toy boxes each night. Woody, who was taken home by a little girl who's mother works at Sunnyside, learns from the other toys there about the truth about Sunnyside and Lotso, and begins to form a plan to get in and rescue his friends. Woody returns to Sunnyside, and like Ed, forms a risky plan to get everyone out safely. He also learns about why the Sunnyside hierarchy is set up the way it is, and it shocked me that it seemed like the more you learned about Sunnyside, the farther it did seem to descend into Hell, with the corruption and suffering increasing with every turn.
By the end of both the book and the movie, the symbolism of Hell seemed to get stronger. In Toy Story 3, the plot came to its climax as the toys were about to escape from Sunnyside, only to then confront Lotso and his cronies. All Lotso has to do is give the word and the toys will be thrown into the dumpster and be lost forever. But Woody has the element of surprise and information, revealing to Lotso's toys how he used them to cover up the feelings of. abandonment and anger he has carried for years. The other toys realize that they have been used and proceed to throw Lotso into the dumpster. The dumpster is then emptied by the garbage truck that pulls up, and Woody and the other toys fall in too. They then go to the dump and have to escape from the furnace that is burning up all the garbage, which looked a lot like a portal into Hell. All seemed lost and it looked like everything they had went through was for nothing until a little "divine intervention" saved them. In Deliverance, Ed scaled the cliffside and searched until he found a place where he thought that the remaining hilllbilly could possibly come to, and waited for him. The hillbilly came and Ed suprised him and killed him, beginning the cover ups that would have to take place to keep everything a secret. This seemed to be the final step into Hell that they took, with having to lie and hide the bodies of the hillbillies and their friend in the river to cover up everyone's sin. Sin to cover up sin. But after all this was done, the group set out down the seemingly endless river and found a bridge to cross up to and escape from everything the river stood for, almost like being pulled out of Hell and being saved.
This is the end of my comparisons about the symbolism in Toy Story 3 and Deliverance. Usually, many great stories have hidden meanings and it is interesting to discover these. I guess it is some aftereffect of being in advanced English for a few years. Also, an interesting tidbit to note is that Ned Beatey was in both the movie version of Deliverance and Toy Story 3. Coincidence? I think not.
First off, in Toy Story 3, the toys were all going to a place that they did not know anything about (Sunnyside Day Care) and were expecting to have a great adventure, where more kids could play with them. Their dreams seemed to come true as they were welcomed whole-heartily into the day care by the other toys, and were assigned to a room to wait for the kids, despite the warnings by Woody that they had to get back home to Andy. They waited excitedly for the kids, but their first warning that something was amiss was the fact that all the other toys were hiding when the kids came back. Much of this is true in Deliverance, mainly in how Ed, Lewis, Bobby, and Drew all had no idea what was down the river, but wanted to have an adventure over a weekend. Every time they saw another person on their way to the river, the question was always "Why are you wanting to go down there if you don't know what's down there?" almost as if they knew something but didn't know how to tell the poor city folk. Woody and the locals were actually similar to each other by the fact that they each warn the groups, but the groups are so in tune to what they think they want that they do not listen. But the group didn't listen to them, and went on to their trip. When they reached the river, they were surprised at how calm and beautiful it looks, and began their trip. One warning sign that I noticed was how the river began to get swifter and have more obstacles in it, such as rocks and trash from farmers and the people of the area. In the movie, the toys figure out why the other toys were hiding, as they are knocked around and generally abused by the toddlers who don't know how to play with them any other way. The river party also comes to a crashing halt as Ed and Bobby are attacked by two of the hillbillies that live close to the river. The toys and the river party then quickly figure out that they received much more than they bargained for. They also act quickly to remedy the situations, the toys by sending Buzz out to talk to Lotso, the "leader" of Sunnyside, about a transfer, and Ed and Bobby being rescued by Lewis, who kills one of the hillbillies. Both of these events signal each group's beginning descent into a figurative Hell.
Next, both groups thought that they had solved their problems by their first actions, but they were unfortunately wrong. In Deliverance, after Lewis kills the hillbilly, the group gets back on their journey, only this time they are trying to get down river to find a way back to civilization. The group is traveling down the river, when suddenly Drew is shot by someone, causing panic and the canoes to capsize. They manage to make it out of the river, but not before going through a set of rapids that causes Lewis to break his leg and a canoe to be lost. A bad situation goes suddenly from bad to worse when the survivors realize that the other hillbilly that was not killed was the one who was shooting at them. Ed decides that they are in a bad situation and the only way to get himself, Bobby, and Lewis to safety, is to find the hillbilly and kill him before he can get to them. Not only does this decision cause Ed to do things he never thought he would do and make him play a deadly game of cat and mouse with a murderer, but he also learns that this is how the people in the hills did everything and that he is also becoming like them, almost like he is figuratively going into the very depths of Hell in order to survive. In Toy Story 3, the toys learn that the whole day care system revolves around the new toys being sent to the younger kids, to keep Lotso and the other older toys from being broken. To preserve this system, Lotso and the other toys capture Buzz and reprogram him to do what they want him to do, which involves locking the other toys in toy boxes each night. Woody, who was taken home by a little girl who's mother works at Sunnyside, learns from the other toys there about the truth about Sunnyside and Lotso, and begins to form a plan to get in and rescue his friends. Woody returns to Sunnyside, and like Ed, forms a risky plan to get everyone out safely. He also learns about why the Sunnyside hierarchy is set up the way it is, and it shocked me that it seemed like the more you learned about Sunnyside, the farther it did seem to descend into Hell, with the corruption and suffering increasing with every turn.
By the end of both the book and the movie, the symbolism of Hell seemed to get stronger. In Toy Story 3, the plot came to its climax as the toys were about to escape from Sunnyside, only to then confront Lotso and his cronies. All Lotso has to do is give the word and the toys will be thrown into the dumpster and be lost forever. But Woody has the element of surprise and information, revealing to Lotso's toys how he used them to cover up the feelings of. abandonment and anger he has carried for years. The other toys realize that they have been used and proceed to throw Lotso into the dumpster. The dumpster is then emptied by the garbage truck that pulls up, and Woody and the other toys fall in too. They then go to the dump and have to escape from the furnace that is burning up all the garbage, which looked a lot like a portal into Hell. All seemed lost and it looked like everything they had went through was for nothing until a little "divine intervention" saved them. In Deliverance, Ed scaled the cliffside and searched until he found a place where he thought that the remaining hilllbilly could possibly come to, and waited for him. The hillbilly came and Ed suprised him and killed him, beginning the cover ups that would have to take place to keep everything a secret. This seemed to be the final step into Hell that they took, with having to lie and hide the bodies of the hillbillies and their friend in the river to cover up everyone's sin. Sin to cover up sin. But after all this was done, the group set out down the seemingly endless river and found a bridge to cross up to and escape from everything the river stood for, almost like being pulled out of Hell and being saved.
This is the end of my comparisons about the symbolism in Toy Story 3 and Deliverance. Usually, many great stories have hidden meanings and it is interesting to discover these. I guess it is some aftereffect of being in advanced English for a few years. Also, an interesting tidbit to note is that Ned Beatey was in both the movie version of Deliverance and Toy Story 3. Coincidence? I think not.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
My annotated photo
Here is my annotated photo for all to see. Click on the photo for all the wonderful stories.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Of Mice and Men
Detail
Through the first paragraph of Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck uses several different scenes from the setting to parallel his characters.
One example of this is how he describes the Gablian Mountains as "strong and rocky". The adjectives used here are compared to the characters, particularly how the strong could mean Lennie's physical strength or may mean George's mind. Also, the mountains symbolize how Lennie and George will be coming to problems soon and will have to face them.
Another example is "the Salinas River drops close to the bank and runs deep and green". The runs deep section of the sentence shows how George's thoughts run deeper than Lennie's thoughts, which are also described as green, showing how he is young.
The last example of this is "the limb is worn smooth by men who have sat on it". The limb mentioned means either an actual tree limb or it may mean the whole situation of the farm workers. The limb is described as worn smooth, which I think means that both the tree limb and the ranches are used to the farm workers coming and going relatively often.
The authors use of imagery and parallels in Of Mice and Men is nearly unsurpassed, and it is not difficult at all to notice them.
Point of View
The third person objective point of view helps to show how Lennie looks to George for guidance, and how George leads him.
The quotes on pages 21 and 22,"Lennie nodded to show that he understood...In a panic, Lennie looked at George for help," show how Lennie was told by George to not say anything and how he understood he was not to say anything. It also showed how Lennie began to panic when the boss talked directly to him, and, when he was not sure what to do, he looked to follow George's lead. These quotes show how Lennie is like a child who is not very experienced in situations that involve other people, basically having no life experience in making choices for himself.
The second quotations,"Listen, Small! What can you do?...He can do anything you tell him to do...Then why don't you let him answer?...Say what you selling'?...Why you think I'm selling' him out?", shows how George feels the need to help Lennie and keep him in the job, even if he loses his job himself. He is compelled to help him and keep people from talking to Lennie or putting him in bad situations. George acts like Lennie's father and cares for him like a father, with Lennie being the child he is trying to protect.
Tone
The tones of desperation and hope in Steinbeck's passage reflect his view of the situation that George and Lennie, along with many other Californian workers, were basically stuck in.
The quotes to support the first tone word, desperation are, "He can do anything. Just give him a try...Then why don't you let him answer? What are you tryin' to put over? George broke in loudly, 'Oh, I ain't sayin' he's bright. He ain't. But I say he's a good worker. He can put up a four hundred pound bale.'...Say what you sellin'?..Why you think I'm sellin' him out?" These quotes show the desperation that George had to get Lennie this job with him. This was probably due to the fact that George had to take care of Lennie, and he knew that Lennie could not get another job on his own. They also needed the extra money that Lennie would make to help reach the goal of six hundred dollars to buy the land from the lady who was willing to sell it.
The quotes to describe the second tone word are, "We gonna get a little place, We'll have a cow, and we'll have maybe a pig and chickens..and down the flat we'll have a little piece of alfalfa for the rabbits...And I get to tend the rabbits..And live on the fatta the lan'." These quotes show the dream that Lennie and George shared, to have their own land and make their own living. They did not usually have steady work, and were always moving around to find new jobs or to get Lennie away after something bad happened. The land was their beacon of hope and what they used to justify all of the work they did, and to keep them going from job to job.
These two contrasting tone words set the tone for not only these two passages, but also for the entire book.
Theme
Throughout Of Mice and Men, the question "Am I my brother's keeper?" comes into play quite often, especially between George and Lennie. I agree with this statement because of the friendship that George and Lennie had developed throughout the book.
This was shown through the saying that George and Lennie had made up together, "But not us! And why? Because I got you to look after me, and you got me to look after you, and that's why."(p. 13-14). This showed how Lennie and George were promising each other that they would stay together and make a living for themselves. George almost felt like it was his duty and job to help Lennie, "when his Aunt Clara died, Lennie just came along with me out working" (p. 40).
George knew that Lennie wasn't very bright, and he knew that he would starve without someone to take care of him. George also knew that Lennie would possibly get in trouble with the law and get killed (p. 41-42 and 96-107), and he tried to stay with Lennie and keep him out of trouble. This didn't work, and George had to kill him to keep others safe. But George was still Lennie's keeper, and tried to help Lennie whenever he could, no matter the strains it put on George.
This seemed to be the main theme in the book to me.
Through the first paragraph of Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck uses several different scenes from the setting to parallel his characters.
One example of this is how he describes the Gablian Mountains as "strong and rocky". The adjectives used here are compared to the characters, particularly how the strong could mean Lennie's physical strength or may mean George's mind. Also, the mountains symbolize how Lennie and George will be coming to problems soon and will have to face them.
Another example is "the Salinas River drops close to the bank and runs deep and green". The runs deep section of the sentence shows how George's thoughts run deeper than Lennie's thoughts, which are also described as green, showing how he is young.
The last example of this is "the limb is worn smooth by men who have sat on it". The limb mentioned means either an actual tree limb or it may mean the whole situation of the farm workers. The limb is described as worn smooth, which I think means that both the tree limb and the ranches are used to the farm workers coming and going relatively often.
The authors use of imagery and parallels in Of Mice and Men is nearly unsurpassed, and it is not difficult at all to notice them.
Point of View
The third person objective point of view helps to show how Lennie looks to George for guidance, and how George leads him.
The quotes on pages 21 and 22,"Lennie nodded to show that he understood...In a panic, Lennie looked at George for help," show how Lennie was told by George to not say anything and how he understood he was not to say anything. It also showed how Lennie began to panic when the boss talked directly to him, and, when he was not sure what to do, he looked to follow George's lead. These quotes show how Lennie is like a child who is not very experienced in situations that involve other people, basically having no life experience in making choices for himself.
The second quotations,"Listen, Small! What can you do?...He can do anything you tell him to do...Then why don't you let him answer?...Say what you selling'?...Why you think I'm selling' him out?", shows how George feels the need to help Lennie and keep him in the job, even if he loses his job himself. He is compelled to help him and keep people from talking to Lennie or putting him in bad situations. George acts like Lennie's father and cares for him like a father, with Lennie being the child he is trying to protect.
Tone
The tones of desperation and hope in Steinbeck's passage reflect his view of the situation that George and Lennie, along with many other Californian workers, were basically stuck in.
The quotes to support the first tone word, desperation are, "He can do anything. Just give him a try...Then why don't you let him answer? What are you tryin' to put over? George broke in loudly, 'Oh, I ain't sayin' he's bright. He ain't. But I say he's a good worker. He can put up a four hundred pound bale.'...Say what you sellin'?..Why you think I'm sellin' him out?" These quotes show the desperation that George had to get Lennie this job with him. This was probably due to the fact that George had to take care of Lennie, and he knew that Lennie could not get another job on his own. They also needed the extra money that Lennie would make to help reach the goal of six hundred dollars to buy the land from the lady who was willing to sell it.
The quotes to describe the second tone word are, "We gonna get a little place, We'll have a cow, and we'll have maybe a pig and chickens..and down the flat we'll have a little piece of alfalfa for the rabbits...And I get to tend the rabbits..And live on the fatta the lan'." These quotes show the dream that Lennie and George shared, to have their own land and make their own living. They did not usually have steady work, and were always moving around to find new jobs or to get Lennie away after something bad happened. The land was their beacon of hope and what they used to justify all of the work they did, and to keep them going from job to job.
These two contrasting tone words set the tone for not only these two passages, but also for the entire book.
Theme
Throughout Of Mice and Men, the question "Am I my brother's keeper?" comes into play quite often, especially between George and Lennie. I agree with this statement because of the friendship that George and Lennie had developed throughout the book.
This was shown through the saying that George and Lennie had made up together, "But not us! And why? Because I got you to look after me, and you got me to look after you, and that's why."(p. 13-14). This showed how Lennie and George were promising each other that they would stay together and make a living for themselves. George almost felt like it was his duty and job to help Lennie, "when his Aunt Clara died, Lennie just came along with me out working" (p. 40).
George knew that Lennie wasn't very bright, and he knew that he would starve without someone to take care of him. George also knew that Lennie would possibly get in trouble with the law and get killed (p. 41-42 and 96-107), and he tried to stay with Lennie and keep him out of trouble. This didn't work, and George had to kill him to keep others safe. But George was still Lennie's keeper, and tried to help Lennie whenever he could, no matter the strains it put on George.
This seemed to be the main theme in the book to me.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Dorothea Lange photos
The other day Mrs. Gillmore showed us a few black and white photographs that showed a family during the Great Depression in California. The photos showed the family sitting under a small tent like house, obviously down on their luck. The photos really struck me with a feeling of hopelessness that seemed to permeate every aspect of the photos.
The families house was what really got me. A shabby little tent with hardly any room underneath was the family's only protection from the elements. I couldn't do that, I'm just gonna be honest. But the family had no choice. Either a bleak semi-wasteland back home or harsh conditions for a job and paycheck, were the family's only options. I guess, no matter how bad one thing may get, the situation can always become worse.
Well, that is my take on the photographs. A tent just isn't a house to me, and that is what really caught my attention.
The families house was what really got me. A shabby little tent with hardly any room underneath was the family's only protection from the elements. I couldn't do that, I'm just gonna be honest. But the family had no choice. Either a bleak semi-wasteland back home or harsh conditions for a job and paycheck, were the family's only options. I guess, no matter how bad one thing may get, the situation can always become worse.
Well, that is my take on the photographs. A tent just isn't a house to me, and that is what really caught my attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)