Carl Sagan's Ability To Popularize Science In America
991207761
English 101-053
Final Portfolio
8, December 2014
Carl Sagan’s Ability to Popularize Science in America Carl Sagan, a widely known American scientist changed the way that many Americans view the universe. As a scientist Carl Sagan made science understandable to those who loved science but did not understand why, as well as popularizing science more that it ever was. In the essay, “Can We Know the Universe?” by Carl Sagan, Sagan was willing to explain things in depth to anyone who was brave enough to simply ask a question. Sagan was on a quest to understand the universe during his lifetime, and on his quest he wanted to communicate the beauty of science to others. Unlike many scientists during his time, he was able to commit to …show more content…
explaining things to others and was able to communicate his complex techniques. Sagan used a technique where he explained science by using general topics to American science illiterates. At the beginning of the essay the reader is likely to feel overwhelmed by the scientific information in Sagan’s essay. As a reader of the essay “Can We Know the Universe?” I felt confused after reading the first paragraph, but I felt more comfortable reading the essay after Sagan stated “The main trick of science is to really think of something.” Sagan wants the reader to think about something that they can relate to, for example: clouds, animals, the sun, or a grain of salt. When the reader is able to relate to Sagan’s concepts they are going to continue to read Sagan’s essay. Sagan is a science whiz, he knows that if the reader is in a deep thought about what they can understand they will continue to read his essay because they want to find meaning in the topics that they relate too. The reader of Sagan’s essay then begins to understand that there is a scientific meaning behind the most simple things. Sagan’s general concepts make the essay more accessible to a variety of people. Sagan has the ability to reach out to many different people because he uses general terminology that almost anyone can relate to. Sagan mainly talks about a grain of salt, everyone can relate to a grain of salt because we have all been in contact with a simple grain of salt. Sagan keeps the reader interested in his essay by asking many questions that almost every reader can relate to. Sagan asks the following: “How a “walking stick” got to look so much like a twig?” “Why are the Sun and the Moon and the planets spheres?” “Why the Moon seems to follow us as we walk?” Many people do not wonder about these questions, these things are the way they are “just because.” Because Sagan is an intelligent man he proposes these questions because these are not questions that not only one reader would wonder about, but almost any reader would question. The reader would often wonder about these things when they are asked, but on any given day one would not have a care in the world about the shape of the sun and moon or why a walking stick looked like a twig. When it comes to the questions that Sagan asks, Sagan continues to pose questions throughout his essay, the questions begin to make the reader think more in depth, the questions that he asks are questions without answers; he questions the reader, but does not answer what he is asking. He gives the reader an opportunity to come up with their own answer. This makes the essay more interesting to the individual readers who can relate to or find his theories interesting. The one thing that Sagan stresses the most throughout the essay is understanding a grain of salt.
Consider one microgram of table salt, a speck just barely large enough for someone with keen eyesight to make out without a microscope. In that grain of salt there are about 10^16 sodium and chlorine atoms. That is a 1 followed by 16 zeros, 10 million billion atoms.(Sagan 155) This description of a grain of salt is very precise. Carl Sagan did not have to explain to the reader that 10 to the 16th power meant 10 million billion. Sagan chose to explain this because he knew that not everyone, especially someone who was not a science or math major would know what 10 to the 16th power meant. Sagan then says “Now, is this number more or less than a number of things which the brain can know?” This question makes the reader dig deeper into the reading, because the reader is not aware of how much the brain can know, but the reader can understand that the number 10 million billion is a large number. “But let us look a little more deeply at our microgram of salt.” Sagan states in the essay after already expressing that the microgram of salt is 10 to the 16th power. Sagan stresses that the grain of salt is important because “Can we know, ultimately and in detail, a grain of salt?” Sagan is expressing that no, we can ultimately hardly understand a grain of salt how are we supposed to understand the universe? Comparing a grain of salt to the universe is risky but simple because everyone knows what a grain of salt is, which is another way that Sagan relates to a range of people. Sagan expresses that “When we think well, we feel good.” When Sagan says this he does not state that you have to be a specific person or that you have to be thinking the right thing. He is explaining that anyone who simply thinks at all feels good. Meaning that when we find something and we stick with it we become intrigued, we feel good when we begin to understand something we never truly understood. A reader could relate to this statement when they think back to their childhood. Most children believe in Santa Claus, as children grow older they begin to understand that Santa was something that they were taught to believe in, not something that is actually real. Most children then feel like they know more than other children and they feel a sense of accomplishment. This idea expresses that even children think well and then feel good. Sagan’s ability to relate to everyone makes him more intelligent than other scientists who can only relate to other scientists and not the general public. Sagan may have a higher level of thinking than most of the general public but this does not restrict him from being able to understand those who are not on his intelligence level. Carl Sagan does an excellent job at making his readers minds boggle. Sagan’s techniques are sly. Sagan is always using questions to make himself seem as if he is ultimately going to answer the questions that he is proposing but in the end Sagan does not give a complete answer because he wants his readers to think about what they are reading, The reader feeling mind blown will make the reader want to read another Sagan story, as well as make the reader more interested in the theories that Carl Sagan has. The essay “Can We Know the Universe?” has me, a reader feeling as if I have never truly examined even the simple things in life, how am I going to ever be able to examine a universe? Have I ever truly examined anything? Sagan controlled my thoughts while I was reading this essay. Sagan states “For myself, I like a universe that includes much that is unknown and, at the same time, much that is knowable.” Sagan’s thinking is beyond the general audiences thinking, but he has found a way through simplistic language to reach a wide audience and allow them to assign their own interpretation to the unknown.
(Carl Sagan, “Can We Know the Universe?: Reflections on a Grain of Salt;” from Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science, New York: Random House, 1979, pp. 13-18.)
991207761
English 101-053
Final Portfolio
8, December 2014
This is Water
David Foster Wallace was an American writer. Wallace wrote several essays, short stories, as well as novels. “Michiko Kakutani, chief book critic of The New York Times, wrote in 2006: “He can do sad, funny, silly, heartbreaking and absurd with equal ease; he can even do them all at once.” (Weber) Kakutani’s thoughts on Wallace perfectly describe the commencement speech that he recited at Kenyon College in 2005, “This is Water.” The commencement speech was unlike most commencement speeches, Wallace did not cottle the graduating students like a regular commencement speech would, and instead he chose to challenge the graduates with a different way of thinking. Wallace believes that oblivion leads to unhappiness therefore; Wallace wants his audience to be aware of their lives in areas such as their surroundings. Wallace supports his claim by providing a short parable as an extended metaphor, he establishes his emotional side using his own personal feelings, and he examines stereotypes commonly held in society.
Wallace begins his speech by talking about “Two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?” When he communicates to the audience “What the hell is water.” (Wallace 1) One may begin to think about life. Water is life, and we take water for granted so much. We think of water as something that we drink and something that we bathe in, but there are many people who do not have enough sanitary water to even drink to stay alive. We can look at life the same way that we look at water, we can either mope around and live our boring day to day lives or we can go out and we can embrace what we are blessed with, the choice is up to you. Wallace expresses that we take for granted what we are given, which causes unhappiness to ones self. “The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.” (Wallace) Wallace believes that our thinking has a direct effect on our lives. If us as people have an optimistic approach, things would get easy for us, but having a pessimistic approach would do nothing but make us more frustrated. According to Wallace, the way we perceive things matters a lot. Wallace uses his personal viewpoints towards the audience when he begins to explain ,“You are not the center of the universe because in fact there is no center of the universe” (Wallace). We as people are so concerned about ourselves that we forget about the world around us and what is happening day in and day out. The students that Wallace spoke to did not have any clue what a day in, day out lifestyle was because they were not living in an environment where they had to care about anything else besides getting the degree that they needed from their university. “There happens to be whole, large parts of adult American life that nobody talks about in commencement speeches. One such part involves boredom, routine, and petty frustration.” (Wallace) In many of Wallace’s analogies, especially the story of the average adult day, my mind truly opened about how I think on a daily basis. Wallace is correct when he speaks of how our minds are so programmed to think of only ourselves and our daily lives and activities, we often do not think about others and their lives we’re just constantly thinking about ourselves and what is going on in our particular lives. Wallace stated, “My hungriness, my fatigue, and my desire to just get home , and it’s going to seem for all the world like everybody else is just in my way.” This part of his speech opened my mind and made me think of ways to improve myself not what to think about but in how to think. Wallace shows how we the audience should be more aware, conscious of what we pay attention to. Wallace also points out that when we think about ourselves which is much easier, we do not have to choose how and what we think therefore we mainly choose to think about ourselves other than other people. Throughout “This is Water” Wallace examines the different stereotypes that America has one of them being the stereotypical vehicles that are driven in America.
“I can spend time in the end-of-the-day traffic being disgusted about all the huge, stupid, lane-blocking SUV’s and Hummers and V-12 pickup trucks, burning their wasteful, selfish, forty-gallon tanks of gas, and I can dwell on the fact that the patriotic or religious bumper-stickers always seem to be on the biggest, most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest, most inconsiderate and aggressive drivers.” (Wallace) The stereotype that Wallace is pointing out is that the big vehicles that are driven are driven by people who are just as ugly as their vehicles. This isn’t always true, you can’t force yourself to think this way because you are unaware of who is driving the typical “SUV” or “Hummer” (Wallace) You must remember that you can not judge someone because you are frustrated about what is going on. You must realize that the person inside that vehicle is going through something and you will never understand what they are going through because they are just someone that you are interacting with because you are on the same road and you’re both trying to get somewhere as quickly as you can. You must think “that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he’s trying to get this kid to the hospital, and he’s in a bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am: it is actually I who am in his way.” Most people in America are not understanding when they are flustered and in a situation as traffic. But, thinking that most people are not thinking this way is a stereotypical way of thinking which Wallace is trying to prove to the
audience.
After Wallace gave his speech to the graduating class of 2005 at Kenyon college it was then talked about furthermore, it wasn’t just a one and done speech. The speech was then expressed in many different ways, since the speech it has been written, it has been made into Youtube videos and the speech has been analyzed by thousands of different people since the initial speech. The speech has touched many in several different ways and has a sentimental value to those beginning college, those ending college and those who have a degree in something that they do not care about what so ever. Wallace was able to touch the lives of many and open the mind of many as well, he has taught us that we must open our eyes and open our lives as well. We must not sit and bored with our lives, we must go out and do what we love and make the very best of what we are given. Wallace truly makes the mind wander, his commencement speech is a speech that is truly unforgettable. “It is unimaginable hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out.” This makes one remember to always stay positive no matter how things get and no matter where you are in your life, always remember “your education really is the job of a lifetime.” You must not forget what you wanted to do, and what you wanted to do with it.
Wallace had the ability to express several emotions in his writings. Wallace was able to be everything from sad to happy in his pieces of work showing that he could truly do anything when it came to his style of writing. Wallace was able to touch the lives of many because he was able to communicate his feelings by making others feel. Wallace is an American writer who will forever be remembered.
Weber, Bruce. "David Foster Wallace, Influential Writer, Dies at 46." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2008. Web. 07 Nov. 2014.
Wallace, David Foster. This Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion about Living a Compassionate Life. New York: Little, Brown, 2009. Print.
991207761
English 101-053
Final Portfolio
8, December 2014
Reflective Essay
I’m indifferent about writing essays. I’ve never hated writing essays, but I’ve never been excited to write an essay either. I wouldn’t consider myself an incredible writer, but I wouldn’t consider myself a horrible writer. The problem with myself is that I do enjoy writing. I enjoy writing about things that are interesting to me. I’m interested in writing anything that isn’t academic. If you were to ask me to write an essay about an event that has happened in my life, or to tell you a creative story, then yes, I become excited and could write pages and pages, but this is college and I am not being asked to write about my life.
I look at myself as a sensitive person. As a sensitive person writing interpretive essays was somewhat difficult for me because I wanted to write more about how I was feeling rather than analyzing the text itself. Writing is personal from the moment a writer touches their keys to make the words. In every letter, each word, each phrase, each sentence, each line, stanza, and paragraph; the writer writes themselves. As a writer writes, they paint their heart. The writer does not do this because they are meaning to. A writer simply does this because as a human it is almost impossible to avoid how one feels. To make writing impersonal, one would need to be a robot, able only to do or say as it is programmed. Even then, the personality of the programmer is imprinted upon the machine and the writing becomes a vision of that person’s mind. Writing is so personal that it completely takes over my mind when I write and almost completely consumed by my thoughts rather than the text itself.
In the past I found it hard to elaborate and expound on topics, so much that I would almost always end up leaving out important details and information. However, after having written the essays in this class, I’ve gotten better at analyzing and extending my essays. I have learned that it is important to re-read and understand the text extensively before beginning on the actual paper as this helps expand my knowledge on the topic which in turn allows me to internalize the information and write about the topic without only talking about my personal opinions. Every time that I would sit down to write an interpretive essay for this course I would begin by thinking to myself, how am I going to write five pages on a topic that is not interesting to me? I would think this to myself almost every time, but instead of throwing together an essay that was terrible I would go back to the material read the material over and over. Once I read the material at least ten or so times, I found myself better understanding the topic. After I felt I had a good understanding of the text I would then begin writing my paper. Rereading the materials helped me to create a well-structured essay that was full of factual material that was coming from the source rather than material that was simply coming from things that were interesting to me. Another strategy I had while writing my interpretive essays was that I would listen to music. As I would listen to music while writing my essays I would feel at peace. The words would come to me quickly and I would not have to sit and think of the perfect word, the words were just right. When I listen to music while I write my words would seem to flow together, and then my paragraphs would flow and soon I would be done with my paper. Music works well with my mind, when I am listening to the right music, I typically write, right. Now that I know that re reading and listening to certain genres of music makes me write well-structured essays I will continue to do these particular things in different classes. As I wrote my interpretive essays I felt confident about what I had written, but I was aware that my essays were not perfect and that there were changes that needed to be made. I am human and I make common mistakes, when I make mistakes I often do not catch all of my own mistakes, which is why it helps me a lot when others read my essays. When my peers read my essays and point out my strong and weak points it helps me as a writer to look at those things and go back and fix the weak parts. I look at my mistakes and work to make those weak points of my essays as strong as my strong points. I believe that when many people see my essays, I get feedback that is helpful to me. As I revise my essays, I am able to realize that as I revise and critique my essays over and over they continue to get better and better making them very strong by the very last drafts of my essays. I better understand my writing once it is completely critiqued by not only myself but by those who are reading my paper as well. The more revising is done to a college essay the more effort is going into the essay making the essay more personable and more understanding not only to yourself but to those who have also read your essays. I believe that those who read my essays had a better understanding of my style of writing and the ways that I did things. I understand that college writing is a type of writing that needs to be critiqued until it makes absolute sense to the reader and to the person who wrote the essay. Many people are not affected by my interpretive writing. As I wrote my essays I was writing to impress myself. I was not writing the interpretive essays for myself meaning I was not writing them because I was interested in the topics or the particular style of writing. I continued to write strong interpretive essays for myself. Those who are going to be reading my essays are not reading my essays because they necessarily want to, those who read my essays are reading my essays because they have to, so why write my essays for anyone? I specifically wrote my essays for myself, I did this because when I do good, I feel good. Sagan wrote his essays to those who were unaware of science. Wallace wrote his speech for a graduation speech, but as a famous writer he was aware that his speech was going to be shared with many others, too. Sagan and Wallace both expressed how they felt to millions of people, people who read Sagan and Wallace usually want to read or hear about what they have to say. Nobody wants to read my essays about a topic that someone else has already talked about, my interpretive essays mean nothing to anyone besides myself. I am striving to have good interpretive essays to get myself through this course not because I want a passing grade, but because I want to look back on this course and think to myself wow, I did really well in that course. Therefore, I write for myself. As I entered college, I knew that I was going struggle with English essays. I can also say that college has already helped me face my fear in English writing. I have learned that committing mistakes is okay as long as I do not continue to make the same mistakes continuously. Mistakes were made for us to learn from, and mistakes are the same way in English essays. I understand that at first my essays are not going to be perfect but with practice essays grow, and improvement will be present. Nothing comes easy in at first, it is up to the writer to improve their mistakes and to work to make their writing the best it can be.
English 101-053
Final Portfolio
8, December 2014
Carl Sagan’s Ability to Popularize Science in America Carl Sagan, a widely known American scientist changed the way that many Americans view the universe. As a scientist Carl Sagan made science understandable to those who loved science but did not understand why, as well as popularizing science more that it ever was. In the essay, “Can We Know the Universe?” by Carl Sagan, Sagan was willing to explain things in depth to anyone who was brave enough to simply ask a question. Sagan was on a quest to understand the universe during his lifetime, and on his quest he wanted to communicate the beauty of science to others. Unlike many scientists during his time, he was able to commit to …show more content…
explaining things to others and was able to communicate his complex techniques. Sagan used a technique where he explained science by using general topics to American science illiterates. At the beginning of the essay the reader is likely to feel overwhelmed by the scientific information in Sagan’s essay. As a reader of the essay “Can We Know the Universe?” I felt confused after reading the first paragraph, but I felt more comfortable reading the essay after Sagan stated “The main trick of science is to really think of something.” Sagan wants the reader to think about something that they can relate to, for example: clouds, animals, the sun, or a grain of salt. When the reader is able to relate to Sagan’s concepts they are going to continue to read Sagan’s essay. Sagan is a science whiz, he knows that if the reader is in a deep thought about what they can understand they will continue to read his essay because they want to find meaning in the topics that they relate too. The reader of Sagan’s essay then begins to understand that there is a scientific meaning behind the most simple things. Sagan’s general concepts make the essay more accessible to a variety of people. Sagan has the ability to reach out to many different people because he uses general terminology that almost anyone can relate to. Sagan mainly talks about a grain of salt, everyone can relate to a grain of salt because we have all been in contact with a simple grain of salt. Sagan keeps the reader interested in his essay by asking many questions that almost every reader can relate to. Sagan asks the following: “How a “walking stick” got to look so much like a twig?” “Why are the Sun and the Moon and the planets spheres?” “Why the Moon seems to follow us as we walk?” Many people do not wonder about these questions, these things are the way they are “just because.” Because Sagan is an intelligent man he proposes these questions because these are not questions that not only one reader would wonder about, but almost any reader would question. The reader would often wonder about these things when they are asked, but on any given day one would not have a care in the world about the shape of the sun and moon or why a walking stick looked like a twig. When it comes to the questions that Sagan asks, Sagan continues to pose questions throughout his essay, the questions begin to make the reader think more in depth, the questions that he asks are questions without answers; he questions the reader, but does not answer what he is asking. He gives the reader an opportunity to come up with their own answer. This makes the essay more interesting to the individual readers who can relate to or find his theories interesting. The one thing that Sagan stresses the most throughout the essay is understanding a grain of salt.
Consider one microgram of table salt, a speck just barely large enough for someone with keen eyesight to make out without a microscope. In that grain of salt there are about 10^16 sodium and chlorine atoms. That is a 1 followed by 16 zeros, 10 million billion atoms.(Sagan 155) This description of a grain of salt is very precise. Carl Sagan did not have to explain to the reader that 10 to the 16th power meant 10 million billion. Sagan chose to explain this because he knew that not everyone, especially someone who was not a science or math major would know what 10 to the 16th power meant. Sagan then says “Now, is this number more or less than a number of things which the brain can know?” This question makes the reader dig deeper into the reading, because the reader is not aware of how much the brain can know, but the reader can understand that the number 10 million billion is a large number. “But let us look a little more deeply at our microgram of salt.” Sagan states in the essay after already expressing that the microgram of salt is 10 to the 16th power. Sagan stresses that the grain of salt is important because “Can we know, ultimately and in detail, a grain of salt?” Sagan is expressing that no, we can ultimately hardly understand a grain of salt how are we supposed to understand the universe? Comparing a grain of salt to the universe is risky but simple because everyone knows what a grain of salt is, which is another way that Sagan relates to a range of people. Sagan expresses that “When we think well, we feel good.” When Sagan says this he does not state that you have to be a specific person or that you have to be thinking the right thing. He is explaining that anyone who simply thinks at all feels good. Meaning that when we find something and we stick with it we become intrigued, we feel good when we begin to understand something we never truly understood. A reader could relate to this statement when they think back to their childhood. Most children believe in Santa Claus, as children grow older they begin to understand that Santa was something that they were taught to believe in, not something that is actually real. Most children then feel like they know more than other children and they feel a sense of accomplishment. This idea expresses that even children think well and then feel good. Sagan’s ability to relate to everyone makes him more intelligent than other scientists who can only relate to other scientists and not the general public. Sagan may have a higher level of thinking than most of the general public but this does not restrict him from being able to understand those who are not on his intelligence level. Carl Sagan does an excellent job at making his readers minds boggle. Sagan’s techniques are sly. Sagan is always using questions to make himself seem as if he is ultimately going to answer the questions that he is proposing but in the end Sagan does not give a complete answer because he wants his readers to think about what they are reading, The reader feeling mind blown will make the reader want to read another Sagan story, as well as make the reader more interested in the theories that Carl Sagan has. The essay “Can We Know the Universe?” has me, a reader feeling as if I have never truly examined even the simple things in life, how am I going to ever be able to examine a universe? Have I ever truly examined anything? Sagan controlled my thoughts while I was reading this essay. Sagan states “For myself, I like a universe that includes much that is unknown and, at the same time, much that is knowable.” Sagan’s thinking is beyond the general audiences thinking, but he has found a way through simplistic language to reach a wide audience and allow them to assign their own interpretation to the unknown.
(Carl Sagan, “Can We Know the Universe?: Reflections on a Grain of Salt;” from Broca’s Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science, New York: Random House, 1979, pp. 13-18.)
991207761
English 101-053
Final Portfolio
8, December 2014
This is Water
David Foster Wallace was an American writer. Wallace wrote several essays, short stories, as well as novels. “Michiko Kakutani, chief book critic of The New York Times, wrote in 2006: “He can do sad, funny, silly, heartbreaking and absurd with equal ease; he can even do them all at once.” (Weber) Kakutani’s thoughts on Wallace perfectly describe the commencement speech that he recited at Kenyon College in 2005, “This is Water.” The commencement speech was unlike most commencement speeches, Wallace did not cottle the graduating students like a regular commencement speech would, and instead he chose to challenge the graduates with a different way of thinking. Wallace believes that oblivion leads to unhappiness therefore; Wallace wants his audience to be aware of their lives in areas such as their surroundings. Wallace supports his claim by providing a short parable as an extended metaphor, he establishes his emotional side using his own personal feelings, and he examines stereotypes commonly held in society.
Wallace begins his speech by talking about “Two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes “What the hell is water?” When he communicates to the audience “What the hell is water.” (Wallace 1) One may begin to think about life. Water is life, and we take water for granted so much. We think of water as something that we drink and something that we bathe in, but there are many people who do not have enough sanitary water to even drink to stay alive. We can look at life the same way that we look at water, we can either mope around and live our boring day to day lives or we can go out and we can embrace what we are blessed with, the choice is up to you. Wallace expresses that we take for granted what we are given, which causes unhappiness to ones self. “The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.” (Wallace) Wallace believes that our thinking has a direct effect on our lives. If us as people have an optimistic approach, things would get easy for us, but having a pessimistic approach would do nothing but make us more frustrated. According to Wallace, the way we perceive things matters a lot. Wallace uses his personal viewpoints towards the audience when he begins to explain ,“You are not the center of the universe because in fact there is no center of the universe” (Wallace). We as people are so concerned about ourselves that we forget about the world around us and what is happening day in and day out. The students that Wallace spoke to did not have any clue what a day in, day out lifestyle was because they were not living in an environment where they had to care about anything else besides getting the degree that they needed from their university. “There happens to be whole, large parts of adult American life that nobody talks about in commencement speeches. One such part involves boredom, routine, and petty frustration.” (Wallace) In many of Wallace’s analogies, especially the story of the average adult day, my mind truly opened about how I think on a daily basis. Wallace is correct when he speaks of how our minds are so programmed to think of only ourselves and our daily lives and activities, we often do not think about others and their lives we’re just constantly thinking about ourselves and what is going on in our particular lives. Wallace stated, “My hungriness, my fatigue, and my desire to just get home , and it’s going to seem for all the world like everybody else is just in my way.” This part of his speech opened my mind and made me think of ways to improve myself not what to think about but in how to think. Wallace shows how we the audience should be more aware, conscious of what we pay attention to. Wallace also points out that when we think about ourselves which is much easier, we do not have to choose how and what we think therefore we mainly choose to think about ourselves other than other people. Throughout “This is Water” Wallace examines the different stereotypes that America has one of them being the stereotypical vehicles that are driven in America.
“I can spend time in the end-of-the-day traffic being disgusted about all the huge, stupid, lane-blocking SUV’s and Hummers and V-12 pickup trucks, burning their wasteful, selfish, forty-gallon tanks of gas, and I can dwell on the fact that the patriotic or religious bumper-stickers always seem to be on the biggest, most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest, most inconsiderate and aggressive drivers.” (Wallace) The stereotype that Wallace is pointing out is that the big vehicles that are driven are driven by people who are just as ugly as their vehicles. This isn’t always true, you can’t force yourself to think this way because you are unaware of who is driving the typical “SUV” or “Hummer” (Wallace) You must remember that you can not judge someone because you are frustrated about what is going on. You must realize that the person inside that vehicle is going through something and you will never understand what they are going through because they are just someone that you are interacting with because you are on the same road and you’re both trying to get somewhere as quickly as you can. You must think “that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he’s trying to get this kid to the hospital, and he’s in a bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am: it is actually I who am in his way.” Most people in America are not understanding when they are flustered and in a situation as traffic. But, thinking that most people are not thinking this way is a stereotypical way of thinking which Wallace is trying to prove to the
audience.
After Wallace gave his speech to the graduating class of 2005 at Kenyon college it was then talked about furthermore, it wasn’t just a one and done speech. The speech was then expressed in many different ways, since the speech it has been written, it has been made into Youtube videos and the speech has been analyzed by thousands of different people since the initial speech. The speech has touched many in several different ways and has a sentimental value to those beginning college, those ending college and those who have a degree in something that they do not care about what so ever. Wallace was able to touch the lives of many and open the mind of many as well, he has taught us that we must open our eyes and open our lives as well. We must not sit and bored with our lives, we must go out and do what we love and make the very best of what we are given. Wallace truly makes the mind wander, his commencement speech is a speech that is truly unforgettable. “It is unimaginable hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out.” This makes one remember to always stay positive no matter how things get and no matter where you are in your life, always remember “your education really is the job of a lifetime.” You must not forget what you wanted to do, and what you wanted to do with it.
Wallace had the ability to express several emotions in his writings. Wallace was able to be everything from sad to happy in his pieces of work showing that he could truly do anything when it came to his style of writing. Wallace was able to touch the lives of many because he was able to communicate his feelings by making others feel. Wallace is an American writer who will forever be remembered.
Weber, Bruce. "David Foster Wallace, Influential Writer, Dies at 46." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2008. Web. 07 Nov. 2014.
Wallace, David Foster. This Is Water: Some Thoughts, Delivered on a Significant Occasion about Living a Compassionate Life. New York: Little, Brown, 2009. Print.
991207761
English 101-053
Final Portfolio
8, December 2014
Reflective Essay
I’m indifferent about writing essays. I’ve never hated writing essays, but I’ve never been excited to write an essay either. I wouldn’t consider myself an incredible writer, but I wouldn’t consider myself a horrible writer. The problem with myself is that I do enjoy writing. I enjoy writing about things that are interesting to me. I’m interested in writing anything that isn’t academic. If you were to ask me to write an essay about an event that has happened in my life, or to tell you a creative story, then yes, I become excited and could write pages and pages, but this is college and I am not being asked to write about my life.
I look at myself as a sensitive person. As a sensitive person writing interpretive essays was somewhat difficult for me because I wanted to write more about how I was feeling rather than analyzing the text itself. Writing is personal from the moment a writer touches their keys to make the words. In every letter, each word, each phrase, each sentence, each line, stanza, and paragraph; the writer writes themselves. As a writer writes, they paint their heart. The writer does not do this because they are meaning to. A writer simply does this because as a human it is almost impossible to avoid how one feels. To make writing impersonal, one would need to be a robot, able only to do or say as it is programmed. Even then, the personality of the programmer is imprinted upon the machine and the writing becomes a vision of that person’s mind. Writing is so personal that it completely takes over my mind when I write and almost completely consumed by my thoughts rather than the text itself.
In the past I found it hard to elaborate and expound on topics, so much that I would almost always end up leaving out important details and information. However, after having written the essays in this class, I’ve gotten better at analyzing and extending my essays. I have learned that it is important to re-read and understand the text extensively before beginning on the actual paper as this helps expand my knowledge on the topic which in turn allows me to internalize the information and write about the topic without only talking about my personal opinions. Every time that I would sit down to write an interpretive essay for this course I would begin by thinking to myself, how am I going to write five pages on a topic that is not interesting to me? I would think this to myself almost every time, but instead of throwing together an essay that was terrible I would go back to the material read the material over and over. Once I read the material at least ten or so times, I found myself better understanding the topic. After I felt I had a good understanding of the text I would then begin writing my paper. Rereading the materials helped me to create a well-structured essay that was full of factual material that was coming from the source rather than material that was simply coming from things that were interesting to me. Another strategy I had while writing my interpretive essays was that I would listen to music. As I would listen to music while writing my essays I would feel at peace. The words would come to me quickly and I would not have to sit and think of the perfect word, the words were just right. When I listen to music while I write my words would seem to flow together, and then my paragraphs would flow and soon I would be done with my paper. Music works well with my mind, when I am listening to the right music, I typically write, right. Now that I know that re reading and listening to certain genres of music makes me write well-structured essays I will continue to do these particular things in different classes. As I wrote my interpretive essays I felt confident about what I had written, but I was aware that my essays were not perfect and that there were changes that needed to be made. I am human and I make common mistakes, when I make mistakes I often do not catch all of my own mistakes, which is why it helps me a lot when others read my essays. When my peers read my essays and point out my strong and weak points it helps me as a writer to look at those things and go back and fix the weak parts. I look at my mistakes and work to make those weak points of my essays as strong as my strong points. I believe that when many people see my essays, I get feedback that is helpful to me. As I revise my essays, I am able to realize that as I revise and critique my essays over and over they continue to get better and better making them very strong by the very last drafts of my essays. I better understand my writing once it is completely critiqued by not only myself but by those who are reading my paper as well. The more revising is done to a college essay the more effort is going into the essay making the essay more personable and more understanding not only to yourself but to those who have also read your essays. I believe that those who read my essays had a better understanding of my style of writing and the ways that I did things. I understand that college writing is a type of writing that needs to be critiqued until it makes absolute sense to the reader and to the person who wrote the essay. Many people are not affected by my interpretive writing. As I wrote my essays I was writing to impress myself. I was not writing the interpretive essays for myself meaning I was not writing them because I was interested in the topics or the particular style of writing. I continued to write strong interpretive essays for myself. Those who are going to be reading my essays are not reading my essays because they necessarily want to, those who read my essays are reading my essays because they have to, so why write my essays for anyone? I specifically wrote my essays for myself, I did this because when I do good, I feel good. Sagan wrote his essays to those who were unaware of science. Wallace wrote his speech for a graduation speech, but as a famous writer he was aware that his speech was going to be shared with many others, too. Sagan and Wallace both expressed how they felt to millions of people, people who read Sagan and Wallace usually want to read or hear about what they have to say. Nobody wants to read my essays about a topic that someone else has already talked about, my interpretive essays mean nothing to anyone besides myself. I am striving to have good interpretive essays to get myself through this course not because I want a passing grade, but because I want to look back on this course and think to myself wow, I did really well in that course. Therefore, I write for myself. As I entered college, I knew that I was going struggle with English essays. I can also say that college has already helped me face my fear in English writing. I have learned that committing mistakes is okay as long as I do not continue to make the same mistakes continuously. Mistakes were made for us to learn from, and mistakes are the same way in English essays. I understand that at first my essays are not going to be perfect but with practice essays grow, and improvement will be present. Nothing comes easy in at first, it is up to the writer to improve their mistakes and to work to make their writing the best it can be.