Blog Reflection (Final Blog Post)

Writing in a blog is extremely different from writing in a notebook because when you write in a notebook, it's assumed that the writing is private, while you know blog posts are public. People don't really have online diaries because a diary is for very personal feelings, some you probably wouldn't want other people seeing. Also, I'd assume that writing with a pencil is much more personal than typing with a keyboard. Blogging is focused on sharing, while diaries/notebooks are much more focused on personal thoughts and ideas.

I would probably not keep up this blog or make any other blog. First of all, I, probably like most people, saw this as an assignment. I might have subconsciously learned something about myself or how I read and analyse, but I havn't really noticed. As for making another blog, I probably don't need to. With tumblr and all those other blogging websites, anything I want to say has probably already been said 1000 times before. Even if I see a lot of blogs backing an opinion I don't agree with, I would probably think nothing of it.  I'm not really interested in blogging, in general.

Blogging is both limiting and liberating, it depends on the person. Some one could see it as a way to express themselves online, if their society is oppressive on some issues. Some could see it as pretty frightening, as they might fear putting an unpopular opinion on the internet and being immediately shot down. The internet is a tool, and its use is dependant upon each person that uses it.

Personally, I agree that some people may create a persona to use on the internet. The internet is a place where people can pick and choose what they show the world. They could make themselves seem as interesting as possible. They could also lie as much as they wanted, from their favorite food to race or gender. I feel that everyone does it, even if they don't notice it.

I feel that some people probably abuse this power. It's much easier to say something to someone indirectly than directly to their face. It's why gossip exists. I don't think this is neccassarily good or bad. This could be used to tell someone something about themselves without risking a friendship. It could also be used to be unneccassarily cruel to someone but don't want to suffer the concequences. The issue isn't black or white. It's in a weird grey area.

The Matrix Extra Credit

In the movie, "The Matrix", the main character finds out that his entire world is a lie. It's a false reality that was designed to enslave humans and house them while machines feed off of the natural energy created by the body. The actual world is dark and grim, with only one human city remaining. Most of the people on the small ship where they live believe that the Matrix & the machines are evil and that the humans should be freed. Only one person disagrees, a man named Cypher. He makes a deal with the machines to be put back into the Matrix, even though he knows it's a world that doesn't physically exist. Both have valid points, which are more valid when you think of this story as based off of the story "The Allegory of the Cave".

In the movie most of the characters believe that the Matrix is evil. They adamantly oppose it and try to free people from it. They consider themselves at war with the machines. None of them would want to go back because they see it as a prison. Technically, they're points are valid. The humans are trapped in a world created for them, while they sit in a bubble. The machines only see them as resources, which is why the humans that are freed fight back. When they have to go back, they know the world isn't real, and because of that, they can manipulate it. Nobody would ever want to go back to this prison... except for Cypher.

In the movie, Cypher betrays the rebels so that he can go back into the Matrix. He knows that the world isn't real, commenting to that fact when eating a steak dinner with a machine representative. Even with this, he really wants to go back, which he shows by offering all the freed humans in exchange for him going back in. Again, Cypher has valid points too. He would've gone back and he would've been famous. He would've lead a nice, normal life. He would've had expensive dinners and been loved by many. I'm not saying he should've betrayed people, but he had a nice life waiting for him if he did succeed in betraying his allies.

While both sides have relevant points, this argument exists in other stories, like "The Allegory of the Cave". In this story, a philosopher explains the story of a group of people who only knows being chained up in a cave, and they believe the shadows are the actual objects and the echos are the actual sounds. Then, one day a man is freed, and he slowly learns the actual objects and the actual sounds and eventually sees the sun. He then feels sorry for the other cave-dwellers. Later he is put back in the cave and cannot see anything. People do not believe that the outside world is better because when he reentered the cave, he couldn't see anything and were stopping him from freeing them. This story is related because of the earlier parts of the Matrix, when the main character is forced to either stay the same or learn the truth about his (fake) world. Most people will chose the red pill, which is related to the man in the cave being freed. Then they learn about this new world, like the man. This is where the story becomes different. In the Matrix, the fake world is light-hearted and a lot nicer than the normal world. while in the cave story, the normal world is nicer. Because of this, it can be hard to compare these stories because of the swapping of good and bad. It's can be hard to similarities unless you look at the story as broadly and generally as possibly.

In conclusion, Both the freedom fighters and Cypher have valid points and the answer to which is better is not obvious. This story also relates to "The Allegory of the Cave", but only slightly, which helps the with the understanding of the argument although slightly. This is because "The Matrix" is a lot more relatable than the cave story.

Rick Santorum Critical Analysis

In the article "Santorum says Pope Francis has ‘more pressing problems’ than climate change", the author talks about Rick Santorum and his criticism of the pope. The piece is not very opinionated, but includes info that encompasses all aspects of this story, but the article seems to be focused on Santorum & his chance for presidency. Santorum says that the pope should be focusing on " more pressing problems on Earth". After, it mention Rick Santorum's policies on other issues, like imigration and work permits. After, it mention's the pope's plan to bring the issue of climate change into the catholic church. The article tries to convey the facts, with no real opinions. 

One way the article does this is by never using strong or any adjectives. While reading the article, the author never stated his or her's opinion on anything, even the hot topic of climate change. The author never sides with either the Pope or Santorum. Also, the author uses a lot of quotes from Santorum. Finally, the author goes into detail on the pope's actions by saying "The pope, who has a chemistry degree, is expected in the coming weeks to send a letter to Catholic bishops arguing that climate change adversely impacts the poor and that the church has the moral and religious imperative to address the problem.He also will reportedly follow the letter with a 12-week campaign on the issue."

In conclusion, this article is purely an informative piece, as it is focused on the facts only. I learned about this issue, and I don't feel like I was influenced to pick a side. 

The Virgin suicides blog post

In the book, "The Virgin Suicides", five sisters kill themselves in a small suburban town. These deaths are not consecutive, as months go by after the first death. While these deaths are a tragedy and everybody has their own reactions to it, their parents cope with it by being in denial. They refuse to acknowledge that their daughter killed herself. They tend to see their family life as happy, when evidence and the suicide seems to suggest otherwise.


One very notable piece of evidence is the actual suicide. The doctors that looked after her seemed to ask her parents to lighten up on their strict rules. They considered the first suicide attempt as a cry for help, even though later they never talk about the attempt.Then after that, she attempts to kill herself again, and succeeds, the family has that death, and all the others, considered accidents. These aren't the actions of parents that have accepted the deaths.


Another piece of evidence that seems to contest the fact that they hade a happy life is the oppressiveness of the parents. They don't allow their daughters to date and when a boy came over, he had to sit in front of a TV for 2-3, which is an extremely boring date. These girls don't have enough freedoms if they aren't even allowed to date with anyone and just have to sit around. Also, they are only allowed to go with church and school. As we plainly see, this causes the girls, especially Lux, to act out with promiscuity and cigarettes.


In conclusion, the children seem to be repressed and sad, yet the parents don't want to admit that. When interviewed, though, the mother says that they had a happy family, but all signs seems to suggest that they were anything but.

Agatha Raisin Blogpost

In the book series, "Agatha Raisin", a major theme is unrequited love. This theme is very prominent is the book "Agatha Raisin and the Love From Hell" when the titular character, Agatha Raisin, marries her crush, James Lacey. She had a crush on him through the earlier books and even though they are married, her love seems to still be unrequited. While she had a crush on him, he never returned her feelings. All men in her life never seems to show their true feelings. Because of this, any affection is from or towards her seems to be unrequited.

Her husband, James Lacey, is a very independent man, so even though they are married, he never really says that he loves her. Through the text, it's obvious that this is not a marriage based on love. It seems like he married her because of companionship. He doesn't want to be annoyed by other women that wanted to marry him, so he just got married to one of his friends. This is not good for Agatha because she actually does like him. While he just sees her as a wife, she actually wants a passionate relationship with him. These ideals clash with each other to create a marriage full of tension.

In contrast with this relationship, a man, Jimmy Jessop, she once knew proposed to her because he loved her, while she just wanted companionship. Besides this interesting parallel, another one is how both were ruined by Charles. In her relationship with jimmy, Charles had casual sex with her and then they were caught. In her relationship with James, he started to cheat on her after she saw Charles when they had both agreed she would not talk with him. In both of these relationships, unrequited love caused them to fail.

In conclusion, the author seems to talk about the dangers of unrequited love. Both of her serious relationships were ruined by Charles, who is very independent and a representation of detachment and independence. This theme is the most prominent in the book where she is married to James Lacey and this book really shows how a relationship can't function with love from only one person.

Critical Analysis "The Disaster Artist"

In the book, The Disaster Artist, the author describes his life with the director of the movie "The Room", Tommy Wiseau. Each chapter contrasts Tommy Wiseau's character as a friend with Tommy's attitude on set during filming. The author talks about how Tommy acts cocky and is very defensive towards his ideas. The author doesn't know that much of his past after being friends with him for two years. The author also talks about how this made production of the movie hell because he was a terrible actor and writer. He wanted to do the movie his way, which had a lot of flaws. He ate alone, was only able to spend money if it helped him directly (i.e. air conditioning, generator), he refused to change the script even with obvious inconsistencies, he was a horrible actor who could barely remember his lines, he used too much lighting, etc. Because of this, the author tries to show us how Tommy isn't just a bad director, but he's a multifaceted person who's personality isn't a inherently good or bad one.

 One way the author tries to convey this is which the structure of the chapters. Every new chapter changes the time. He continually changes from a part of the room production to a part of his life after meeting Tommy. This helps him because we see two sides of him, which greatly increases our understanding of Tommy. If we only had one side of him shown, the author could've easily manipulated our understanding of him. The author primarily uses this tactic to help us understand. Without it, the author would have very little chance of actually convincing us of his multifacetedness. His life with the author makes us pity him and see a man trying to achieve his dream. His life on the set shows us how his personality can drive people crazy and how he is very closed-minded. These balance out and any idea's we have are ours based on seeing both sides of his life.

This book really gave me insight on the creation of my favorite movie, "The Room", and the director/lead actor/producer/executive producer. I really enjoyed this book and the author taught me about how we judge people.

Non-fiction critical analysis Global Warming

In "Study: Global warming skeptics know more about climate science" by Maxim Lott, the author wants us to know that the skeptics may be smarter than the believers. The author tries to show us this by explaining the results of a test given to people who are believers and skeptics. The results showed that the skeptics got more right than the people who believed. The author uses this to show that skeptics aren't dumb or ignorant, but know about the same as believers.

The author wants to convince us that people should try to convince skeptics not by berating them, but by explaining the science, no matter the political party. One way he does this is through results of a test. He uses the results of the test to show that the skeptics aren't stupid or uninformed. He uses this to try and convince us that telling people what they already know won't change their opinions. The author also uses quotes from scientists to further prove his point. For example "The study’s author, Kahan, says that the global warming debate has become so politically polarized that people pick their side based on politics rather than what they know about science." Also, “Climate contrarians know what scientists have found but they’re choosing to reject those findings, usually for political reasons,” Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists". The author uses both of these to convince us of his beliefs about convincing skeptics of climate change.

I have learned something about skeptics of climate change. I always thought they didn't know all of the facts, but I now realize that they have more of a misunderstanding of the facts than an ignoance of these facts.