Final Revisions.. the end is near

I think my worst paper is definitely my epigraph essay, which is why I have been delaying sending it to you guys... hopefully I will get a lot of the kinks worked out tonight. I think my main problem is trying to make my thesis concise. It is easy to think of what I want to say but I can't figure out a way to convey that message through my work. I am struggling to find what exactly is "truth", and why McCandless as well as others feel the need to pursue it. I want to be like - THEY JUST DO!!! that's their prerogative to go explore the wilderness, something that not all of us understand and that's what makes them unique. Ugh it's very frustrating. Anyway, my best paper so far I think is the Simpsons research paper. I really like this topic because it deals with the media and I am very interested in the effect that the media has on the public. However, I am having a little trouble with this one as well because I need to find sources that back up my claim that comparing families to ones that are relatable makes them more successful. I'm confident in my argument, but am lacking the credentials that prove it and that is my biggest weakness. However, I have really enjoyed analyzing each of the characters and it fun to see what roles each family member plays and how they can relate to my own family. I'm also having some problems with MLA format... stupid I know. But I don't have the Maimon book!!! oops. I'll have to borrow someone's before the weekend is over.

Krakauer: Successful or Unsuccessful?

Throughout the development of Into The Wild, Krakauer certainly took me on a literary roller coaster. First, I pitied McCandless. Then, as the story went on, I began to despise him and the way he treated his family. And finally, as the book neared the end, I began to admire and respect him for what he had done. Krakauer was successful in his authoritative approach because he allowed you to make an opinion for yourself of McCandless, yet let his own opinion become evident as the story developed. You were able to see evidence from his background, like the insensitive letters he wrote to his home, and his angry letters regarding his parents to Billie. Through these, the reader gets a sense of the bad part of McCandless, the one that makes him unlikeable. Nearing the end, the approach gets a little more complex. Krakauer goes into GREAT detail describing how McCandless' death was not of stupidity or suicide, but by being poisoned by mistake. He talks about the Potato Seeds and how the fungus ended up killing him. But because this theory is SO complex and investigated, it makes Krakauer less credible in his argument. Apparrently, like Rachel said, that theory had already been disproven by the time the book came out. And it makes sense, because I feel like anyone who felt this passionate about something, even if it was against Krakauer's beliefs, could come up with some sort of theory/argument to prove otherwise. I think that at the end, the reader is left a little confused about what exactly happened to McCandless. Deep inside, I believe that it was simply a mistake and was not a suicide. In that regard, I think Krakauer, though he has flaws, is successful throughout this book. He has for the most part, changed my opinion about this man, and that is something which is hard to do through literature.

The Simpppssssoooonnnnnss..... doo du du dudoo du du doo dudududu!

Hey everyone! Well, needless to say I am very relieved that class is cancelled tomorrow since Rachel's friend is having a BABY!! Yay! I'm pretty sure I day-dreamed about what I would name my children throughout the entire 50 minutes of my fine arts class today. Ever since Monday, all I have running through my mind is the Simpsons - every time I open my laptop (which happens way too often) I am editing something on my bibliography or essay, analyzing something further. And because I am still running on about 3 hours of sleep from scrambling to finish 5 pages last night, I think the constantly surrounding absurdity of The Simpson family is starting to make me go crazy myself. It would be kind of nice to have a break and NOT think about Homer, Bart, Marge, Lisa, and Maggie for a little bit... But, oh well. Here I go. My primary source for my research paper is the TV series, The Simpsons - created by Matt Groening and first airing December of 1989. I am arguing about family, its characteristics and how society comes to define it. What I think the source says about my family is that well- love them or hate them, they are still family. One of the ideas the Simpsons celebrates, according to Groening, is this idea of "how do you live with people who you also want to kill!?" and I think the ways in which the Simpsons work together from day to day and survive as a unified family, despite their vast differences, is really quite remarkable and inspiring for society. Through my paper I am addressing a couple different characteristics which set the Simpsons family apart from other sitcoms at the time and using them to prove how they are a more realistic family for America. As college students separated from our parents, I know that it is sometimes tedious and time-consuming to listen to your mom drone on and on about my black lab pooped 3 different times in the house today. But because I have invested some much time and energy into discovering the deeper relations and forces behind the love of a family, I have come to (maybe not enjoy), but appreciate even those small little things. I learned to not criticize my family for their flaws, but rather to embrace them and have discovered that it truly is the imperfections in life that make it perfect. Each one of you students has a family back home, wherever it may be, and I think that by caring about this research paper, you have not only accepted the Simpson family, but will be able to gain insight into what it is that makes your family unique and why you appreciate those things. Now go call your mom and tell her you love her!!! ....Sorry I think I'm delirious at this point. On that note - I'm going to sleep. Goodnight! :)

The Simpsons' Impact on American Society

My Topic for the research paper is The Simpsons television series and how it has impacted American culture. It impacts our culture firstly because it was the series that the Fox network started (a high risk show because it was a cartoon and controversial) and ended up being the show that brought them to be one of the leading networks on television. It competed with the ever-famous Cosby Show and when set up at the same time to compete with viewer audiences, the Simpsons won with higher amounts of viewers. Something I find interesting about this show is how it relays messages using satire throughout their characters. It incorporates current issues of religion and politics in to their show and efficiently finds a way to shed light on more serious issues at the time using comedy. The Simpsons have impacted our culture also because it is the first show that has depicted the truly "dysfunctional family". Dysfunctional meaning that they have problems, that Homer is somewhat of an oaf, that Bart is a reckless juvenile and that Lisa is unhappy with the stupidity in her family that surrounds her. This is the issue I will be addressing in my paper as well as its importance. The Simpsons lead us away from the image of the "Leave it to beaver" and "Cosby show" families complete with wealth, happiness, and a white picket fence. These families that only have minor tiffs between them and are all resolved (usually by the head father figure) at the end of the show. This is NOT what life is like in reality. With the introduction of the Simpsons, people are able to laugh at and relate to the extreme version of the nuclear family. Today, parents are becoming more and more equal in terms of the roles they play in the family. By Homer's character as a lazy, almost stupid man, he may be the one with the job, yet Marge is seen as the parent who is more capable and intelligent. This brings rise to issues women and men are feeling about equality between sexes and in the workforce. The show also brings us a family we can relate to, be humored by, and in the end, grateful for all the imperfections that make our family unique. After all, it's the imperfections in life that make it exciting!

High/Mid/Low

Reflecting on my work throughout the semester, I have realized that I have not written to my potential. I feel I have the skills to efficiently write a good paper, but have failed to implement all of them. On my close reading paper, like the ones we looked over today in class, I could have done a lot better. I didn't really understand the purpose of the assignment outside of class and our close reading skills, so I pretty much just aimed the paper at Rachel as my audience by explaining simply what the epigraphs meant and analyzing them a little bit. I gave background information on the authors and related that to Krakauer and McCandless, but my paragraphs had hardly any relation and not even I would want to read it - I think that says something haha. If I had to put a grade on it, I would say low. This being due to the fact that I could've gone deeper into analysis and connected my ideas thoroughly to things outside of McCandless and Krakauer, making the essay appeal to an audience wider than my English 101 teacher and the students in that class. Any essay that is written simply to fulfill an assignment's requirements is not a worthy paper in my book and I think over break, and the next month or so, I will have my work cut out for me in terms of revision!

Post-Krakauer: More or Less Credible?

After Krakauer tells his story relating to that of McCandless, I really appreciated McCandless' story more than before. However, if I were to look at Krakauer's recount critically, I would say that because of this, it reduced the credibility of his recount of McCandless. Don't get me wrong, I liked the fact that he added it and I thought it greatly increased the effect of pathos on the reader. However, because McCandless is dead and there is no way to prove that Krakauer's story is exactly like his, it makes the story seem like it's simply Krakauer's skewed idea that somehow McCandless' life is exactly like his own; it is plausible, but unlikely. Although in theory it reduced his credibility and Krakauer's story is undoubtedly biased, I believe it is a valid explanation and all the material adds up, at least through my reading of Into the Wild.

Krakauer's Adventurers - Help or Hinder?

I think the Krakauer's use of exerpts and quotes from other adventurers' novels greatly helped his improve Chris' story. Without them, I think that Chris would have appeared foolish and almost insane for wanting to take the Alaskan wilderness "by storm" with no equipment or anything to aid his survival. With the use of these other adventurers' stories, we are able to see the heroic aspect of it all; denying the materialistic ways of society, feeling no need for money, and all you want is adventure and TRUTH! I really enjoyed the Chapter 12's example. It states " Rather than love, than money than fame, give me truth. I sat a table where were rich food and wine in abundance, an obsequious attendance, but sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable board. The hospitality was as cold as the ices" - Henry David Thoreau. I think it really shows how Chris feels the need to gain something more out of life, something with substance that will satisfy him. It's all a bit romantic but I enjoy reading the stories because I can see where Chris got his inspiration. With the use of the epitaphs, he becomes lumped together with the likes of Henry David Thoreau and Jack London: true adventurers!