Revising

Man, out of the three papers I'm putting in I guess I would say that my personal analysis paper best demonstrates my writing capability so far. I think that as of now, some of my better analysis has come out and it has been easier to express something that relates directly to my life. I also like the direction I am taking with my paper, showing how both Martha and I started at the bottom and how because of our situations we have beterred ourselves and become stronger because of it. With something so emotional, it has been easier to capture my audience. On the other hand, I think that my research paper needs the most revision because I am lacking the ever-important outside contextual evidence. Instead of writing a paper about "The Simpsons," I need to show how it has made an impact in the American society. It has taken me a while to really get a clear focus for my research paper but I think as I start adding real world proof it will help flesh out unecessary parts of my paper.
One of my biggest weaknesses in all of my papers is delving into the analysis and not just touching on the surface. I need to work on really trying to explain and prove my argument rather than just talking about it. Darn 5-paragraph essays! I also need to work on the flow of my writing, making sure that everything connects and works with together instead of feeling choppy. I want to eliminate any awkwardness and make my papers easy to read.

...and Into the Wild comes to an end.

To be honest, my opinion pretty much completely switched from the beginning to the end. So i guess you could say Krakauer's methods were effective for changing my ideas about McCandless. When we wrote the initial McCandless essay, I thought he was an ignorant lunatic. I mean, who goes into the Alaskan wilderness unprepared. From what I've learned and experienced throughout my life regarding the outdoors, it seemed purely mad. But as Krakauer started exposing Chris's personality, I started respecting his drive and ambition more and more. He lived by his own means and I found that very refreshing. One of the biggest turning points for me was when Krakauer related his personal experiences to those of Chris's; I started to relate on a whole different level and was more able to understand both of them. Although there are certain things I don't necessarily agree with and decisions I find questionable, on the whole, I have truly come to respect Chris. If this story was told by someone who didn't respect Chris, my opinion might differ; but Krakauer did a great job at influencing my opinion, even if it was based on false conclusions. Chris was extremely motivated and I really appreciate his connection to the outdoors; it is something that most of us could use a little more of. He saw true, natural beauty in the world and a part of me wishes I could be a little more like him. The journal writings and accounts from people he met along his journey helped me to see his true personality and feel as though I was getting to know him on a deeper level. So yes, Krakauer's methods sure worked for me! Now it's time to revise my papers...YIKES!

My primary source of The Simpsons supports my topic of family relationships and the imperfections within. While much of society has been raised with the stereotype of a perfect family with minimal issues and a "Leave it to Beaver" style life, The Simpsons flips it 180 degrees. The argument I am making is that in a serious minded society, people should be more willing to laugh at themselves and joke about imperfections. The Simpsons brought about a new age of television that show the downsides of family relationships and a dysfunctional life, just like how it is for a lot of people. I address this dysfunctional family lifestyle by highlighting the specific relationships between the characters and use examples from different episodes that highlight this aspect. I then go on to show how eventhough they have their issues, they are still a family that love eachother and despite their problems, they make it through the day, or to the next episode. Our classmates should care about this topic because it relates directly to our lives and our interactions in our relationships dealing with not only family, but with friends as well. Whether we are close to our families or not, this ability to be less judgmental about people like Homer in our lives, the happier we will be. Being able to accept imperfection, even laugh about it, will allow us to see that life isn't necessarily about being perfect, and that everything will be okay in the end.

The Simpsons

So I started my project thinking I was going to write about Jaws, but I wasn't able to narrow my topic down to a strong, social issue worth arguing. My alternative is now the Simpsons (Laura, Lindsey mentioned that you were doing that as well so I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to copy you! I just hope I can argue it as well as you can!) The main argument of my paper is going to deal with the family issues expressed in the episodes and how it was a drastic flip from the idea of the perfect, white-picket fence type family. Instead, Matt Groening turned that image on his head, showing that your family doesn't need to be perfect, we all have our issues. After a generation of people who grew up feeling that pressure, the Simpsons provided the relief people wanted in getting rid of that image and living a more free lifestyle. At the type the show originated, the edgy idea of a dysfunctional family took on some hefty criticism, but quickly gained respect in the way they depicted their messages. The jokes, sarcasm, and parody have attracted many viewers by taking problems and turning them into something to laugh at. Multiple age groups are able to relate to the show because of the age range in characters and the different messages that each individual can get out of the show. There's an underlying message of not taking life so seriously, everything will be fine in the end. The show is unique because it takes these sensitive cultural issues and mocks them in a way that is non-threatening, to where people don't (or most don't) get offended by them. It makes people look at life's problems in a different light, seeing another side, and being able to laugh at yourself for how you may be able to relate to it. I think this is why so many people like the show because our world has become so serious. If we can adopt some of those laugh-at-yourself type values into our own lives, people would probably be much more relaxed and far less judgmental. I mean, how much more problematic can we get than Homer, d'oh.

Hmm, this is tough because I'm not a big fan of looking at my own work (I know, not exactly a good thing). But I think for this purpose I will assess my close reading essay. In all, I would myself a middle because there are strong elements to my paper, such as explaining and relating sources to the overall theme - making them have a purpose. On the otherhand, I would like to revise the work and try to make it a little more focused or succint. Some parts may seem unclear because of the way I stated certain ideas, but I think my ideas are on the right track, and I've provided in depth analysis for my argument. I have attempted to explain why this subject material is important to the readers, but if revised, I could make my reasoning clearer. Overall, I want to make my paper clearer and more fluid. Getting the audience to see why Krakauer's epigraphs were so important and influential in his writing is crucial to my purpose; along with being able to see a connection out of context to the outside world.

I think that his credibility could really go either way after his recount of his own story. In many ways, it made me appreciate Chris and Krakauer so much more because it added in a personal interest element. I was exposed to a deeper side of both men and was able to relate better. Krakauer's critical analyzing was important for helping the audience understand himself, and Chris. Whether Krakauer is manipulating the details of Chris's life to meld better with his own, it's hard to say since Chris isn't here as living proof. Our basis and trust have to come from what Krakauer has told us, and the pieces seem to fit the puzzle. But on the otherhand, emotion is able to twist certain details in our favor, possibly creating bias in his conclusions of Chris's life and personality. While some may have doubts, I am beginning to trust Krakauer more and more as the book goes on; maybe just because I like the story, I'm not really sure. Either way, I think Krakauer is a great writer. If he is inaccurate or trying to make Chris relate to himself, well, I guess he's got me fooled.

Krakauer's Comparisons

Personally, Krakauer's comparisons of Chris to other said adventurers really enabled me to open up to Chris. Before that point, I was pretty convinced that was he was doing was purely foolish; who would enter the Alaskan bush with so little equipment and expect to get out alive? I have experience outdoors and have been to Alaska, and also have family members that live there - so I guess I just felt like he was asking for certain death. But as I got to know his personality, I realized that he was purely driven. I am one of those people who always believes that you should go after what you want in life and not hold back; you never know when it will be too late. And I think Chris would agree with me. He was stubborn, intense, and passionate, set on living a life that didn't constrain him. He wanted more out of life than the material world had to offer, and I can agree with him on certain levels. When Krakauer began comparing him to other adventurers who had similar experiences, I saw that Chris wasn't all that unusual. Like many others, he wanted to experience life, not just live it. A great comparison that sticks out to me is of Chris and Krakauer himself. The audience is exposed to a more personal level with both of them. No wonder Krakauer was so interested in Chris. I can imagine he asked himself why he survived and Chris didn't. I gained more respect for Krakauer, and felt that I better understood Chris, which I'm sure is what Krakauer's intentions were. Well, it worked for me. I think Krakauer did a great job of turning Chris's life into a story, not just another tragic news report. See you guys tomorrow! (P.S. We came up with a good prompt :))