Sunday, May 15, 2011
Advertisement Parody
So, my parody is the iPad 3 which i'm pretty sure will come out soon and won't be much different than the iPad or the iPad 2 since apple seems to be running out of ideas. My picture shows how steve jobs just taped four ipods together and calls it the iPad 3.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Conjoined Essay
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-style-span">Marriage is often regarded a happy celebration that commerates the union of two individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, that is not always the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The poem, “Conjoined” by Judith Minty, expresses a pessimistic view towards marriage through the use of literary devices such as diction, analogies, and metaphors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Minty uses an analogy of a wedding cake to her marriage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Minty uses words like “deformed” to imply that her marriage is not normal or not right. She also describes the cake, or her marriage, as a “monster”; a very pessimistic way of looking at a marriage.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span class="apple-style-span">The cake represents a monster, with two beasts in one skin. They fight for space, pressing against one another. These lines also make an allusion to two bodies trapped in one skin. The author uses the term "deformed". Marriage is intended to be a union between two people who, through years of bonding, grow to know one another so well they are almost two souls in one body.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the last line of the first stanza we see why deformity had taken place before and that is because it was, “pressed and grew against the other.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Minty uses the word, “pressed” it gives off the connotation of a uncomfortable situation, and almost implies that the marriage was forced, rather than letting it develop naturally.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Through such words like “flat” and “deformed” we can see how the marriage described by Minty is an unnatural one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span class="apple-style-span">Another metaphor that is used to compare marriage is, "an accident, like the two-headed calf rooted in one body."</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">This is Minty talking about a troubled marriage where both sides are fighting against each other for what they want.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">This statement displays that this marriage evolved into a union that was not meant to be; what was once intended to be a happy, fruitful marriage has become nothing more than an imprisonment of sorts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Starting out the line stating that this two-headed calf is an accident really does give the impression that the calf is not meant to be, almost like the marriage she’s talking about is not meant to be.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span class="apple-style-span">Additionally, she brings up the idea that marriage is also, “like those other freaks, Chang and Eng, twins, / joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed / to live, even make love, together for sixty years. Chang and Eng were Siamese twins, and, like the cows, would be considered freaks of nature, possibly featured in a side show at a carnival of some sort. This depicts marriage as a sort of show at times, which needs to be put on for outsiders. The people involved need to be able to cooperate with one another in public, as Chang and Eng (or any other pair of Siamese twins) would, were they put in a show.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Minty is relating a marriage to the troubled situation of Siamese twins that must live together forever joined at the chest. Also, diction is again a very important part of these few lines because Minty uses derogatory terms like “freaks” to say that being a Siamese twin is a terrible thing to be, just as she believes some marriages are.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span class="apple-style-span">Minty makes use of strong diction to get her point across about the gloom and unfortunate part of an unsuccessful marriage. The word choice also creates a dark tone. The onion was actually a “monster” in the cupboard; she was afraid of it and in one way or another, wanted to avoid it. In addition it’s “deformity” seemed disgusting to her and she realized that their relationship was more of an “accident;” it was not meant to be.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span class="apple-converted-space">Throughout the poem Minty uses literary techniques to convey her point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span class="apple-style-span">With these literary devices we can come to the conclusion that Minty is not happy in her marriage and doesn’t support others getting married as she thinks some might make the same “mistake” she did.</span></div>
<span class="apple-style-span">Marriage is often regarded a happy celebration that commerates the union of two individuals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, that is not always the case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The poem, “Conjoined” by Judith Minty, expresses a pessimistic view towards marriage through the use of literary devices such as diction, analogies, and metaphors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Minty uses an analogy of a wedding cake to her marriage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Minty uses words like “deformed” to imply that her marriage is not normal or not right. She also describes the cake, or her marriage, as a “monster”; a very pessimistic way of looking at a marriage.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span class="apple-style-span">The cake represents a monster, with two beasts in one skin. They fight for space, pressing against one another. These lines also make an allusion to two bodies trapped in one skin. The author uses the term "deformed". Marriage is intended to be a union between two people who, through years of bonding, grow to know one another so well they are almost two souls in one body.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the last line of the first stanza we see why deformity had taken place before and that is because it was, “pressed and grew against the other.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Minty uses the word, “pressed” it gives off the connotation of a uncomfortable situation, and almost implies that the marriage was forced, rather than letting it develop naturally.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Through such words like “flat” and “deformed” we can see how the marriage described by Minty is an unnatural one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span class="apple-style-span">Another metaphor that is used to compare marriage is, "an accident, like the two-headed calf rooted in one body."</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">This is Minty talking about a troubled marriage where both sides are fighting against each other for what they want.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> </span><span class="apple-style-span">This statement displays that this marriage evolved into a union that was not meant to be; what was once intended to be a happy, fruitful marriage has become nothing more than an imprisonment of sorts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Starting out the line stating that this two-headed calf is an accident really does give the impression that the calf is not meant to be, almost like the marriage she’s talking about is not meant to be.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span class="apple-style-span">Additionally, she brings up the idea that marriage is also, “like those other freaks, Chang and Eng, twins, / joined at the chest by skin and muscle, doomed / to live, even make love, together for sixty years. Chang and Eng were Siamese twins, and, like the cows, would be considered freaks of nature, possibly featured in a side show at a carnival of some sort. This depicts marriage as a sort of show at times, which needs to be put on for outsiders. The people involved need to be able to cooperate with one another in public, as Chang and Eng (or any other pair of Siamese twins) would, were they put in a show.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Minty is relating a marriage to the troubled situation of Siamese twins that must live together forever joined at the chest. Also, diction is again a very important part of these few lines because Minty uses derogatory terms like “freaks” to say that being a Siamese twin is a terrible thing to be, just as she believes some marriages are.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span class="apple-style-span">Minty makes use of strong diction to get her point across about the gloom and unfortunate part of an unsuccessful marriage. The word choice also creates a dark tone. The onion was actually a “monster” in the cupboard; she was afraid of it and in one way or another, wanted to avoid it. In addition it’s “deformity” seemed disgusting to her and she realized that their relationship was more of an “accident;” it was not meant to be.</span><span class="apple-converted-space"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<span class="apple-converted-space">Throughout the poem Minty uses literary techniques to convey her point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span class="apple-style-span">With these literary devices we can come to the conclusion that Minty is not happy in her marriage and doesn’t support others getting married as she thinks some might make the same “mistake” she did.</span></div>
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Maus II
In the article, On Spiegelman's Maus I and II, the author Ian Johnston, looks beyond the obvious in Maus II and discusses previously unexplored topics in the graphic novel.
In the first part of the article, Johnston discuesses the possible protagonist of the novel. He points out that Vladek at times seems like the main character, but unlike a true main character, he does not resolve his conflict through his own personal skills, rather he survives the Holocaust through pure luck. Also, he does not even seem to learn anything from his experiences, as shown by his racism to the black guy in the novel.
Another thing that Johnston covers in his article is thte sytle of Maus II. Spiegelan could have written teh story in any medium, novel, short story, but why did he choose to write it in a comic book format? Well, Johnston argues that the boxed pictures serve to compare both time periods side by side as an effective way to reveal his argument. By placing both pictures that come from different ime periods, the reader can better see the effects of the Holocaust into the present as a cause and effect relationship that otherwise would not be so obvious had Spiegelman chose another writing style in teh book.
Johnston also reveals his argument on why Spiegleman decided to portray his characters as animals. Johnston states that with such simplistic forms such as mice and other animals, the story constantly reminds the reader that this is not the actual reality of the Holocaust. For all we know, the story could be 100% pure fiction (Vladek's story I mean, not the Holocaust). The holocaust was such a big event, it can never be described in words or pictures, therefore there is no one side to the Holocaust or one "correct" flashback of how it happened, because different survivors each tell their own side of the story.
Link: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/introser/maus.htm
In the first part of the article, Johnston discuesses the possible protagonist of the novel. He points out that Vladek at times seems like the main character, but unlike a true main character, he does not resolve his conflict through his own personal skills, rather he survives the Holocaust through pure luck. Also, he does not even seem to learn anything from his experiences, as shown by his racism to the black guy in the novel.
Another thing that Johnston covers in his article is thte sytle of Maus II. Spiegelan could have written teh story in any medium, novel, short story, but why did he choose to write it in a comic book format? Well, Johnston argues that the boxed pictures serve to compare both time periods side by side as an effective way to reveal his argument. By placing both pictures that come from different ime periods, the reader can better see the effects of the Holocaust into the present as a cause and effect relationship that otherwise would not be so obvious had Spiegelman chose another writing style in teh book.
Johnston also reveals his argument on why Spiegleman decided to portray his characters as animals. Johnston states that with such simplistic forms such as mice and other animals, the story constantly reminds the reader that this is not the actual reality of the Holocaust. For all we know, the story could be 100% pure fiction (Vladek's story I mean, not the Holocaust). The holocaust was such a big event, it can never be described in words or pictures, therefore there is no one side to the Holocaust or one "correct" flashback of how it happened, because different survivors each tell their own side of the story.
Link: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/introser/maus.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)