"In Defense of Talk Shows"

I found this to be a great passage. It was entertaining to hear someone defend the people who actually appear on the talk shows. Sometimes I sit with my companion and when there is nothing on the television we purposely watch some of the shows mentioned. We watch them primarily to watch how idiotic America is to have such a production even created. I found it a bit ridiculous that someone would waste the time trying to convince people that what is happening on those shows is wrong. The whole thing is quite pathetic. Also, the author mentions her idea of what she would incorporate into her own show if possible. I think it would be the most pointless idea because people already know when someone higher up does something people find unjust. We just use a more sophisticated way about finding this information—the news. I am not defending talk shows because I feel disgusting to be part of this country when I see them. I am also definitely not defending the people who appear on them because I find them lurid and I am disturbed by the fact they would display their depressed life problems to the general public.

"The Whole Horse"

This passage was only interesting because I was able to see someone else’s point of view for believing in such a thing as agrarianism. I was interested in the argument that the author presented as well as some of the solutions that they brought up. I do believe that it would be a challenge for such thoughts as conserving what is barely left of certain lands being worked. I am somewhat against the whole idea of conserving and of the author’s dislike for industrialism.

Industrialism may have been a bad outcome in certain aspects for the land but it was advancement for mankind. Since industrialism we have been able to expand our lives, which agriculture could have never done on its own. The benefit of agriculture was the spawning of industrialism from it in hopes of more efficient ways. I’m not saying burn the forests and build Corporations ‘R Us but I am saying that maybe some things as such are necessary to move forward.

I find that there could be no harm coming from what we have started. If our natural environment dies we will have the technology to create a synthetic one. If everything we ruin destroys the hopes and lives of our future generations then so be it. Our future generations most likely will do the same but it shouldn’t matter because what is the point of conserving? Is it not our destiny to use it all up and then we are done? And if not then what is it? I think it’s necessary to know these questions in order for anyone to be correct about the ordeal. Who are we to say what’s right if everything is all done for nothing? This is not from a religious view but probably one better described as cynical. We are probably making a big deal out of nothing that will be worth while in ten years from now.

"Attack of the Killer Cats"

The read I found quite interesting as a cat owner. I believe the question of whether cats are lovable pets or neighborhood killers has an obvious answer. Cats can be lovable creatures. They enjoy being pet and scratched behind the ears and their humans companions don’t mind supplying that need. It feels great for the cat and we get to touch its soft fluff. What’s unlovable about that? Some are also loving when they play. When I taunt my cat with a string or ball of paper she goes for the object, but cautiously so she doesn’t scratch me. This is also true when I feed her food by hand.

This does not go to say that cats are not neighborhood killers because they very much are. When I had three outside cats I would watch them prey upon the birds in the backyard. I was even lucky enough to see my cat cleanly slice a snake in half! These smaller creatures aren’t exactly helpless either. I’ve been eyewitness to the tricky activities of birds. They would purposely play the fatal game of swooping down towards my cats in the yard then fly back up to an electricity wire. They would do this repeatedly until they ran out of luck. It’s in the cat’s nature to hunt and when my cat drops a present off on the door step I thank her greatly.

Essentially, I believe, cats can be both lovers and fighters. They are humans’ loving companions but the vermin’s worst enemy.

"Why We Crave Horror Movies"

I found this passage uninteresting for the simple fact that I am quite aware of what was going to be said. This being that I am a devote fan of horror movies. I even have to drag myself to watch the ones I know will be completely terrible, such as the recent “Mirrors”. I did like this like passage however because it was interesting to see what Stephen King had to say. I was once a fan of his work until a year ago when I decided some of it was just too super natural. I guess this would be because I know I will have the least amount of fear with something I know does not exist and probably never will. That is why horror movies where normal people become sadistic killers are more emotionally provocative.

Some thing that caught my attention was one of the beginning statements in which Stephen King compared watching horror movies to being on a roller coaster. Both are two of my favorite things in life and they are quite similar in a way but I don’t agree that they should be compared. I ride roller coasters for the physically intense feeling deep down in my stomach. Horrors movies on the other hand have probably only provoked that feeling in me once. I find that I watch them because I can let out everything and zone out to it all happening to some one else in a more serious situation. Kind of like feeding the alligator that was mentioned. Also, I watch them because for some reason I developed a keenness for them when I was little. Maybe my parents fed my eyes too much “Tales from the Crypt”. I find that these movies are the release for things people sometimes wish to do but know they will have to pay a hefty consequence. Horror movies are my anti-sociopath drug.

"once More to the Lake"

This story didn’t interest me much. I blame my own personal taste for that because I have never really cared for books that elongate descriptions of surroundings even though it’s necessary. I understand that the writer does that so we can develop a clear picture in the audience’s head but it has the opposite effect on me. In other words, if I am given too many details of what I should be picturing my thoughts scramble to an image of barely nothing.

I also didn’t care for the fact I was confused most of the time. I confused of whether I read this before with the whole my son-is-me-and-I’m-my-father scenario. Half way through the story I decided I had not read this passage before but that the point of how he felt seemed slightly cliché. I was also confused by his wording most of the time. I was unaware of when he was talking about what was currently going on and when he was talking about his past experiences.

The one thing I did like about this passage is something that I envy. I envy the idea of having a place to go to where time seems to not exist and where peace roams freely amongst everyone. That is a place I envy and a place I think everyone should be able to go to every once in a while just to be relieved of everyday life.

"Remembering"

This reading was not exactly interesting. It confused me at times of exactly they asked of me considering that it was my memories I was to remember. I did take into account some of the keep points at the end of the passage. One of the main points that caught my eye was to have some read your essay and to tell you the tone. I thought this was a great idea and would be much help if you’re not so well at setting the right tones. While I was proof-reading one of my recent essays I realized my tone was more strict than friendly. The simple thought of having some one read my essay and reiterate the tone I seemed to have set never crossed my mind.

Another key factor that I have obviously encountered and thought of was proof reading. The only reason I bring it up is because it is one of my weak points. There are times when I am just too tired to reread what I have just typed and there are others when I fear that what I have written will be completely wrong and I’ll have to start all over. I think proof reading is better when you have allowed at least a day to let it sit so you can become unfamiliar with the material.

"Walking"

“Walking” was a passage I don’t particularly care for. I wasn’t disinterested in the concept of it but more or less of the way it was executed. With that in consideration, I was interested in what he had to say about his view of a front yard. He found it unnecessary, as if it were a lie to the earth and to the owner. I have instances in which I had similar thoughts. For example, Florida’s planting of trees in road meridians and their man-made lakes. I find that not only are they lies of what was once real but also potentially hazardous in some of the areas they are situated.

Furthermore, I also agree with Thoreau’s concept that wildness is the way to go about life. I find that to be a bit of exaggeration but still that wildness should be part of one’s life at least occasionally. I agree with this mostly because we are mammals just as those that live in the wilderness and that as mammals we should have some experience of the out doors. It would allow the possibility to discover something new about anything. You could be in the wilderness and find out you have keenness towards bugs, trees, animals, or anything else. You may find out something more complex, possibly gain new knowledge of the importance of wildness in one’s own view. I believe that whether a person likes their experience or not that they should at least try it once.

On the other hand, I think there is a need to have things as they are now. What people have developed, whether it be original or an imitation of something real in nature, it has a purpose. As we move towards the future there is less of nature and more of simulation but if we were to keep the real wildness survival might become more difficult as it once was for the human race. We couldn’t use our technology to create medicine in the middle of a swamp. There would also be life-threatening difficulties if some one were to be operated on with the various, possibly infectious surroundings.

To sum it up, I believe that Thoreau’s love for the wildness is understandable and so is his dislike for the modern world. As great as the wildness can be though there is a certain point in which one should consider their survival and how it would be possible in such environments.

How To Mark a Book

I am one of the skeptics that Mortimer Adler had mentioned. I have maybe marked a possibly two different books within my entire school career and that is because I had probably ruined a corner and gave up on keeping the condition. I could have possibly done it because I was in an oddly careless mood. Adler categorized book owners into three categories and I would have to say that I fall under his second category of one who owns many books that have merely been looked into and still in great condition. I don’t feel that his comments on that were insulting at all but the honest truth which sort of slapped me in the face. I found this passage to be very helpful in giving me confidence in starting annotation. Adler even pointed out the very same reasons why I never wrote in my books. His arguments as to why they were ridiculous reasons I found to be mind opening.
The greatest assistance this passage has given me is the purpose for writing in books and being careless of the condition. I am a person who reads for the face value of the words basically. Very rarely do I ever try to find some meaning or moral in the book unless I was given a heads up to. Even then I probably wouldn’t find any clue. I honestly believe that if I were to take up this technique I would be able analyze the text more efficiently and I would have more purpose for the book. This may seem like a common sense technique to have used but I was always reluctant to write in something I paid for. I admit that he convinced me to write in a book to help me but with the factor that it was a cheap book.

"Shitty First Drafts"

Anne Lemott pointed out probably the most important assistant in writing which of course is the first rough draft. It is important because it is the main component of letting all your ideas down before they wander too far within your mind to which they’ll never be revealed again. Even though this was important and she greatly expressed it I did feel insulted that I, now being a college student, had to be reminded of this basic knowledge. To me it is a second nature to write a bunch of scribbled thoughts before an actual essay is formed. I even believe it is programmed into us by schools and state exams. When we are to write an essay in a testing area we are usually given an extra page for thoughts. Though it may be a smaller space than Lemott conveyed it is still space for the first draft. This very second I am typing a first draft that will later be shaped.
Furthermore, an aspect of the passage I did not agree with right off the bat was her readers intended image of a writer. Never have I imagined the life of a writer to be glorious and stress free as if their ideas flowed like a river from their heads to the tips of their fingers. Movies usually never depict that fictional writer either. The writers in movies are always conflicted with writer’s block.
Besides that she did give me more insight to how this technique will help some people more than others. Since it had to be articulated in such a manner I suppose some people don’t take advantage of the process but it may also be unnecessary for them. To each his own. A part of the passage I enjoyed greatly was when she mentioned how it was okay to write whatever words needed to make their way out of one’s head at the moment without the worry of anyone seeing them. As she had expressed her fear of someone seeing her first draft, unknowingly thinking it was finished, is also one of my greatest fears as an aspiring comedian writer. When someone asks to see what I have typed I scramble to cover the screen in the same mentioned fear.