Goodbye Gabo

Gabriel García Márquez is a recognized Colombian author who very recently passed away. He is not only a great writer and person, but he is also responsible for giving Latin America a voice in the world of literature. Through his work many Latin American countries can identify their history and contempt from the world. He won the Literature Noble Prize in 1982, and in his acceptance speech he once again gave Latin America an identity we can all connect to. Through the use of eloquent diction, ethos, pathos and repetition along with allusions to his works, Gabo throughly made his point and touched the hearts of his audience.

Never coming down from educated words Gabo played with his syntax and word choice in order to transmit a more significative meaning to his audience. He played with the title of his novel "One Hundred Years of Solitude" throughout the whole speech, you can notice one example in the sole title of the speech "The Solitude of Latin America", a variation to the title of his novel.  Furthermore, he uses repetition of the word at the end of two distinctive paragraphs. He ends one saying "This, my friends, is the crux of our solitude," while ending the other "This, my friends, is the very scale of our solitude." Here it is clear how his syntax plays along with his word choice. By utilizing eloquent words such as "crux" and repeating "solitude" at varying moments he emphasizes his point. He tries to convey in a more profound way the history of violence and sadness that has enveloped Latin America for a long time. Gabo never misses a chance to represent Latin America and tell its story to everyone. 

Nonetheless, by narrating different situations and circumstances some South American countries like Uruguay, Chile and Argentina have lived. He connotes a sense of emotion and empathy towards its people. It evokes a sense of sentiment and care in the audience, that is not only touching but poignant too. For instance, he notes that "Latin America, neither wants, nor has any reason, to be a pawn without a will of its own; nor is it merely wishful thinking that its quest for independence and originality should become a Western aspiration." Strongly posing Latin America's opinion regarding the Western culture, Gabo employs the use of not only ethos but of pathos as well. 

It is undeniable that Gabo is an extraordinary writer. He never fails to take the chance to defend his heritage show pride for his culture. He not only talks about Colombia which makes him even more important. Putting aside his true nationality he feels a connection to his neighboring countries and feels identified with them too. We may we from different countries and places, but in the end we all share the same history of colonization from Europe, to civil wars to sharing the same language. 

Feedback

After hearing the feedback Mr. Tangen gave my paper I thought different things. First, i wasn't really amused when he said my essay had some typos and that it was all over the place. I struggled at first finding a topic to talk about and changed my initial topic to the one I used. Even though it was a topic I knew I could spend a long time talking about, it was a very broad topic and didn't exactly know how to lead the idea of my paper. I did struggle with the organization and topics I was going to talk about in it so his feedback regarding this didn't surprise me very much. I realized too that I made a lot of general statements, and i'm glad he made me notice that so I can further improve my writing skills. 

Are We Calibans?

After I read this article from Barnard College, I realized that behind the characters from Shakespeare's play, The Tempest, there is a deeper meaning. I came to believe that the play as a whole is a representation of the colonization in North and South America at the end of the sixteenth century. Caliban and cannibal can be easily be confused as being homophone, by sounding almost alike, however they are not as they do not sound exactly the same. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is a connection between them. Possibly being that "Caliban" originated from the word "Cannibal" and noting that Caliban is treated as he were an aborigine or a savage.

In the play, Prospero enslaves Caliban and is treated as a primitive person be being a native to the island. He is forced to work towards Prospero's own benefit without any chance of escaping. Caliban is constantly tortured by "Prospero's demons" and he is constantly afraid of not being submissive enough for Prospero and facing her magic. Caliban and Prospero can be translated to the Native Americans and the European colonizers. This case specially serves for the Indigenous cultures of Latin America, such as the Mayas, Incas, Muiscas or Aztecs who endured many hardships during colonization. Their land, culture, community and resources were stripped from them without much mercy. Just like Caliban, they were enslaved simply for being natives and seemingly inferior to their colonizers. They were forced to learn a new language and adapt to a completely strange culture. Prospero teaches her prisoners English, just like the Spaniards taught the natives Spanish. Nevertheless, being forced to a new culture as an adult is harsh and it made a new identity rise in the America's: "the mestizo" as it is most commonly known. Their own culture as simply forgotten and eliminated.

Colonization shaped the way our country is nowadays. The way we talk, the color of our people and even the widespread knowledge that without the colonization of Spaniards we would be in a completely different situation right now. Some claim there would be no violence and that we would be a much wealthier country right now. Many Latin Americans can connect with Caliban and feel their country's history identified with Caliban's situation. However, as harsh and barbaric as our country's history might be it formed our identities and made our country be what it is today. As Latin Americans we all share the same history and heritage. It is impossible to not compare, and relate our story to Shakespeare's last play, The Tempest.

Em Ahh Amm Eeeh...

I have always noticed how people  tend to use the ellipsis a lot during texting.  However, I never gave it much importance because I thought that though people tend to write like that while texting, they don't when writing a formal text, or paper. After reading this article from Slate I liked the theory that the ellipsis mimics the same pauses we tend to make while talking. After reading other articles about modern messaging I noticed that the ellipsis isn't the only thing that is currently being abused of, and that mimics spoken language. Nevertheless, they aren't as exploited in other kinds of writing. 

After recalling countless texting conversations with a friend of mine, I realized he uses the ellipsis a lot. I had previously noticed that he is the kind of person that vacillates throughout a conversation. Rather than expressing his idea fluently, he tends to make some (or many) pauses and say "emm" or "eeh" very frequently. Likewise, I have noticed he is a constant abuser of the ellipsis.as I now make the connection that he unconsiouly used the ellipsis as a replacement for the pauses he uses when he talks. On the other hand, I really don't abuse of the ellipsis a lot; rarely I employ them in my texting. Nonetheless, he made me realize that I abuse of the enter button. Instead of using periods, or the ellipsis I divide my texts or ideas by sending different texts. Rather than texting "hey, what are you doing? do you want yo go eat something? tell me...bye." 

I text: "Hey

What are you doing?

do you want to go eat something?

tell me!

bye"

It seems annoying right? I don't exactly do it to that level, but I do send many messages dividing my phrases. I know that even though we both have weird texting patterns, I am certain we won't write like that when writing a book report at collage. Moreover, I read Cristina's Angel blog, and I quite disagreed with her. Though she agrees with the fact that "people of  this time are writing as they would speak..." she doesn't agree with it, or acknowledge the fact that the ellipsis can be used to make a pause of ideas. There's a reason why they are also called suspension points. I know people nowadays are bewildered on how people text because the are channging the conventions and rules with what punctuation marks are used. 

Just because the ellipsis isn't used in the way its strictly meant to be used, it doesn't mean its meaning can't change to adapt. Texting is the next most familiar register of writing after familiar and informal. Simply  because it has never been used before, and is new and weird it, its no reason to not accept it as a new register. I don't agree with the ellipsis being used for everything or as a replacement of things like questions marks. But, if people don't over abuse them, or utilize them in formal writing pieces, I think there is no problem with it. 

@!nt nOboBy got time fo LANGUAGE

I believe it is deploring how present generations are approaching language and proper writing. In this article from Slate it explores the future that commas are facing, and the unfortunate reality that awaits us. People, but adolescents especially, are becoming lazier and swag has taken over control. There should be a limit to which language is permited to change. For instance, I agree with casual writing an texting, or bloggers, but I don't agree with those that take writing as a joke and underestimate its power.

Wait, what? There aren't going to be any more commas in the future? Hah, This is one of the most absurd things i've heard before. With technology language has been changing and new forms, words and ways of writing have been developing. It is okay to understand and accept how people are starting to write nowadays: very informally. However, there is a border where informality crosses and writing becomes pure barbaric slang and what has been known as proper english, crumbles down.  If deleting commas is the next step towards accepting change, in the future: "y'all be t@lk!nG l!ke tHiZ, c@uz @!nt nOboBy got time fo DAt" 

I believe people should acknowledge the fact that if a text isn't formal, it doesn't mean its wrong. Many people live from of profits made in their writing blogs, or social networking accounts. Language  is declining and going downhill towards a language where LOL is replaced by a comma, and where the "i" is replaced by an exclamation mark. Those prescriptivists who are easily irritated by the absence of an oxford comma, should

help stop this atrocity. We shouldn't let a old and prestigious language such as English decay into that state of embarrassment. What would Shakespeare or F. Scott Fitzgerald say about how teenagers are writing nowadays? Y'all. 

Color? or Colour?

Nothing ever stays the same. People change through time. Clothing twenty years ago isn't the same as it is nowadays.  Neither is music nor technology the same as they were before. Accordingly, language changes too; the difference is that people don't want to accept it. People have a perception that language nowadays is rough and blunt. American writers admire Shakespeare even though they don't understamd half of his texts without extensive analysis. Nowadays, we find the debate between people who believe language should be accepted to change and adjust, and stubborn people who don't dare to listen. 

After reading this debate from The New York Times about changes in language I realized there are terms for the two kinds of people that argue about change. I have always been a "descriptivist", which says I agree with the fact that language is constantly changing. I am a descriptivist because then words such as texting and chatting wouldn't exist or be printed in dictionaries. Those are rather old words, but I believe that in 10 years new worlds like facebooking or instagraming will make part of dictionaries like chatting and texting do today. "Prescriptivists", on the orher hand, are known as those who are stubborn and deem everything that is not strictly formal, as wrong. They focus more on how the language has to be used. It something isn't a rule it is wrong. Prescriptivist writers have to learn that even if they don't want language to loose its elegance and want it to be rightfully used, they have to learn that what's understood as correct is purely subjetive. A formal essay will be written with a different syntax, vocabulary and form today as compared to a text from the eighteen hundreds. Probably, if someone from that time would look at how I am writing this blog post, they would think its atrociously informal and unpoetic. What is considered correct is based solely on the time period and culture. Consecuently, if it did work lile that, utilizing the oxford comma could be understood as correct writing? 

I believe there should be a constant change in what is perceived as right or wrong. Maybe a formal text today, will be better comprehended than one written in 50 years. I agree that there should be "a set of standard conventions everyone needs for formal writing and speaking, because if not language will be destroyed in a mattrr or time. My argument is that language should be flexible and open to changes, because unlike german (who hasn't changed at all in 100 years) english must change and adapt, but not get to the point where it loses its elegance and conventions. 

Holocaust's Ironic Fallacies

Greed dominates our world. It is a part of who we are as a species, and it tends to expose its crude face in times of moral crisis such as wars. During the Holocaust people fought for their lives. It was a time where not many other things were as important or mattered as much. The only question in the table was survival. Through the book, the reader can notice how resourceful Vladek was and how that led to his eventual freedom and survival from the great fallacy the Holocaust was, and all of it's ironies.

German guards, gestapo, or kapos in charge of monitoring the Jews were open to negotiation. They were greedy and selfish, but mostly their actions were ironic. Some prisoner gave them cheese, and they got no beatings; someone else gave them alcohol and they protected them. Rather than protecting Jewish prisoners because of the fact that they were humans too, Nazi's just used them as tools to get what they wanted. The Jewish weren't even acknowledged as inferior people. Nazi's saw them as trash, and not even that was unworthy enough for them. Sometimes they were nice to them, but why be that way if the Jewish aren't even human? I remember reading that Adolf Hitler once said that"the Jewish are undoubtedly a race, but they are not human." Do you think this sounds as redundant as it does to me? It couldn't be more fallacious than it is already. Here Hitler uses the wrong ending fallacy. You're probably known to the common basic idea that the parts make up the whole, right? Then, logically the different human races make up the human species. Consequently, Hitler's quote makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying, "H20 is undoubtedly a chemical, but it is not water." Its simply is illogical. How is a race not human, if the human species is made out of different races? Maybe, what Hitler meant to say, was that the Jewish were a species, but not human. However, he did not, and now he's is long dead to correct himself. 

Yiddish: Jewish language, written
with hebrew letters. 

Furthermore, how ironic is it that Hitler didn't acknowledge Jews as humans, but many German Nazis experimented in them to see how the human body functioned. I learned long ago that the Nazis were one of the responsible groups of people to help science, and psychology develop a lot. It is If Jewish people aren't human, then why waste time experimenting in them if they're a complete and different species. Why would humans (Germans, right?), experiment in other races that have nothing to do with them. Its nonsense. The Germans must have experimented in other as worthy Germans if they wanted some insight regarding humans.

The Holocaust was a complete fallacy, and people were ignorant enough to believe in everything Hitler said about Jewish people, and other groups. World War Two was a fight between people who made use of common sense, and those who didn't. It was a time were human intelligence was put to action, and irony just overflowed the time period.  Really how fallacious was it? 

God, Humans and the Olympics

Why do humans believe in a God? Many have asked this question before, and many will keep doing so for eternity. People search to find a deep and profound meaning behind human's faith and hope in a God. The answer is simple though. Humans are always trying to find and answer to things they don't know. That is one of the main reasons science exists as people want to give everything an explanation. Furthermore, a long time ago when science and technology weren't as developed as they are nowadays, people searched to find something that would give our life a reason and a meaning.

This phenomenon can be expressed in different ways, and it only depends in each individuals way to searching happiness. Some people give their life a meaning like being happy, being great entrepreneurs, economists, presidents or even athletes. I use God as an allegory to what is going on today with the olympics because I believe olympic athletes goal in life is to succeed and be the best. Probably, searching the universal truth in a God doesn't compare much to being a gold medalist, but the ideas are rather similar. The author of this article was an Olympic athlete herself, but she didn't feel the same ambition and passion for being best, or maybe she doesn't now as she did once before. People have to comprehend the human nature is very eccentric and complicated. Even men don't understand their own race very well. For instance, humans are greedy and have a compulsive need to know everything. The same thing happens to ambition. People want to be greedy and show off their talent. but they wont stop until they are the very best. It really shouldn't be that shocking.

Nonetheless, in what species do you think The Hunger Games were based on? Cats? No. The book might be fictional and it's events might be as well, but is very possible for something like that to occur. Even if it did happen, I wouldn't be surprised.  I believe this is a work of fiction that conveys the truth behind the human race and the potential of evil it carries. Had humans had never been so cruel and evil throughout history and events such as World War Two would have happened, there wouldn't be stories about such level of gruesome human actions. Nevertheless, many people tend to portray people as incapable of hurting flies when they don't realize the potential of cruelty they carry. This is the reality,and people shouldn't try to hide it or paint it with pretty colors.  Nevertheless, the olympics are a business and have always been. I beg to question: what is not a business nowadays? People profit around the world by about everything. Do you think blogger.com isn't making profits regarding our innocent AP Language blogs?

Our world rotates around money and the economy, greed and ambition, cruelty and "inhumanity" so people shouldn't act as surprised when they learn about the crude reality of humans. The olympics is a way people profit from the achievements of others, just like the FIFA World Cup is an economic investment too. People must accept humans are a truly peculiar species because hiding reality and the truth leads nowhere. I agree with what the author of the article says, but there is no need to make it so dramatic because for a long time this has been human's reality. The Hunger Games are really cruel, but they aren't that cruel in comparison to what men are capable of, and there is where I disagree with the author because she is comparing something already crude to something just a tad obscurer. 

Juxta-what?

Juxtaposition

Have you ever wondered if some things happened by coincidence or by fault? Have you ever wondered the irony behind finding condoms next to the baby diapers aisle in a supermarket? Have you ever wondered why some rather odd signs like then one at the left  are placed together thinking it was mere chance? Well actually, many times this doesn't occur out of sheer luck. It is: juxtaposition, or "the fact of two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect". Likewise, in comic books this tends to occur more than you would imagine. Comic panels are always side by side, providing the author with a huge opportunity for utilizing juxtaposition. 

Moreover, you can see an example of this in the book Maus by Art Spiegelman. In page 93, Vladek is explaining some details about his holocaust memories, when all of the sudden he stops, and tells Spiegelman that they should continue another day. Vladek alternates drastically from  how "those with a stamp were let go home. But there were very few jews now left in Sosnowiec." to an abrupt "well..it's enough for today. Yes, Artie?" (Pg.93) This quick snap back into reality makes realize how psychologically affecting the holocaust was. The fact that Vladek cannot speak more, or think about what happened more than forty years ago show the extent to which World War Two affected people, especially the  jewish. Furthermore, this not only makes the comic frame story, but adds to its realism and the sentiment Spiegelman wants to convey its viewer. Juxtaposition plays with the readers mind and is a great technique used by Spigelman to convey his message very throughly. 

This is a form comic book artists can add emphasis to different things, and truly highlight what they want to express. Such abrupt changes can happen in writing, but they are more suddle than when using both images and texts. Likewise, when you read a text you rely in descriptions, adjectives and adverbs. When reading comic books a whole new opportunity to transmit information to the viewer is opened. For instance, in the last panel where Vladek is siting in his spinning bicycle, you can notice and actually perceive his fatigue instantaneously. Through text only, you cannot receive such a deep and intimate response, and your imagination is open to interpretation.

This aids in highlighting Spiegelman's approach to the reader, and form of transmitting feelings.  I feel comics are a more intimate approach to the reader. You can connect to the viewer through images and common human facial traits that are perceived instantaneously rather than having to decode linguistic symbols like letters and words. Comics can take into advantage the use of juxtaposition and utilize it to transmit their ideas or messages to the reader. It is a great advantage comic artists have that simple novel writers don't. 

Closer to the Reader

Parshas Truma: Jewish celebration.
 a Saturday the Torah was read
one week a year. 

I hate when movies don't have a proper ending. I hate when I'm left wanting for more, but the movie ends and a sequel is never released. The same thing happens to me and books. When I finish a book I love, I look up for the author, the context and any more information I can find about the characters life's after the ending of the book. Consequently, I love sequels and trilogies because they are more profound and complete, quenching my desire for more.  This leads me to love Maus by Art Spiegelman because he really tries to connect with the reader and convey his family's story through a more personal and friendly way.  

Therefore, the fact that Spiegelman tries to makes everything so real as to convey a stronger meaning is perfect for me. His father, you can notice doesn't speak English in the most grammatically correct way, however Spiegelman doesn't correct him, or change the mistakes in the book.  For instance, when Spiegelman is describing the incident with Anja and the communist, Vladek says "The police went over our house. Top to Bottom. It was nothing to find so they searched the neighbors" (Pg. 30). It sounds funny, and from a single glance you can notice something is wrong with the sentence. The verbs aren't conjugated in the correct way, or order is weird. Consequently making the story more realistic as it shows Vladek's English as a second language. The reader can see how real and honest his book was just by the fact that Spiegelman wrote everything exactly as it was narrated. Furthermore, there are scenes which his father strictly asks not to mention in the book, such as when they are talking about Vladek's ex, and he says "I don't want you to should write this in your book." (Pg. 25). Spiegelman not only included the story, but also his father asking him not to do so. It brings you closer to Spiegelman and his father's story. It shows how their relationship was, and everything that ocurred while wrting the comic. It gives the reader a sense of welcoming and warmth towards the reality of the book.

Likewise, Spiegelman includes not only the time he spend with his father talking about his story, but also different events that occurred while we was writing the book. It really takes you closer, and feel more knowledgeable about the situation and the feelings felt by the characters. Its a non fiction frame story. The simplicity Maus employs makes it closer to interpretation, and rather subjective. The reader can see itself within the comic's characters and connect with them. 

Zombies

After reading this article from the New York Times by Maria Konnikova I couldn't help but wonder in the consequences from our lack of sleep. She states that if we continue not sleeping eventually we will prone to degenerative brain diseases such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. However, this is our short-term effect. So I wonsee what will happen if we keep increasing our lack of sleep? What will happen to our bodies in the future if we keep avoiding sleeping? As I imagine the answers to this questions, I can't help but think on zombies. I think It would be quite possible to become a kind of  zombies. 

If you really think about it, it wouldn't be so hard. Without sleep we fall into a sort trance or hypnotic state. We wake up, shower and go to work or to school, come back and sleep. Without caffeine we are like zombies. We work, eat and sleep mechanically. Our sleep depravation leads us to this, and if according to this article we are more prone to become sick at an earlier age, in a matter of time we would be un such a state of depravation and sickness we would be acting like zombies.  Don't take me wrong, or think I'm mocking this article. We might exist as a type of zombies we have never thought of. We wouldn't be the flesh eaters, or the still living super decomposed humans. Gangrene exists, and we might become the sleep deprived, mechanical gangrened humans. It would be a different kind of life. A life of no sleep, where being  sick  and deprived would be the new cool. Just think about it, we are just a step behind. 

Sleep is essential, and the world will keep moving even if we don't. If you think about it, the world doesn't stop while your sleeping, or even when you're dead. The stocks change everyday, the economy is constantly moving just as politics is changing everyday too. There will come a point in which we all fall into this zombie induced state due to sleep depravation. It's a horrid future. Our only choice, or basically alternative is to either sleep more or find a cure to this dreadful future that awaits us.

Vlogging! Am I doing this right?

What does truly matter?

Have you ever wondered why such innovations have been made in some things but in others not? Science is acknowledged as a very important science, while many other not so knowledge required areas are known for. Cooking for instance, is very important to us, but we pay very little attention to it. Why people have given new technological advancements in areas for oil industries, than in gardening? Well obviously because one is more imperative and important than the other. However who makes that choice? Who decides what is more important and what we should place our attention in? 

Ladle (n): a deep-bowled long-handled spoon used
especially for dipping up and conveying liquids

For example, to make my point I ask myself: is science more important than cooking? Many people would clearly answer that science because it is the basis of our technology and knowledge about the world. However, have you ever stopped and thought that without food, and therefore cooking we wouldn't be alive to develop new technologies?  People underestimate the importance of cooking, and leave it as a hobby or second hand chore. Bee Wilson states in her book Consider the Fork that there was very "little impetus-until very recently-to develop labor-saving devices" (Pg 165).  I hate thinking that the reason behind this is the fact that people tend to ignore what's most important, such as cooking.

Usually what we least value is what we desire the most once we lose it. No one thought on making the housewives work any easier, as it seemed a simple job. No one though in relieving physical work from servants in the eighteenth century, or from burning turnspits. Likewise Wilson says that "the technological stagnation reflects a harsh truth" (Pg 170). The truth is not nice, or colorful. Its harsh and sad. Many people think that having money is enough in the world, and they are terribly incorrect. People should care about the welfare of others, and especially those who are served my many, such as kings and queens. These people however, are those that many times care the less, and the more they have the more blinded they become. To them, it doesn't matter if someone is killed to provide them the most exquisite food. Women skeletons have been found with "signs of acute arthritis, with knees, hips and ankles severely worn by kneeling down and rocking back and forth to crush grain against stone" (Pg. 153). Isn't it absurd the price people have to pay, in order to serve fat selfish wealthy people?

Pestle (n): a usually club-shaped implement for
pounding or grinding substances in a mortar

We humans are selfish and we tend to overcome others hard work, as we didn't had to do it. It seems much easier to say something, than to do it. People have "very little interest in attempting to save labor when the labor in question was not your own" (Pg 166). I really liked what Wilson said because it is the truth, and it is a truth many times we don't acknowledge, and surpass without noticing it. It is something we should have noticed a long time ago. Cooking nowadays isn't as harsh as before, but the problem is that cooking was one of many examples. There are many situations of hard, unfair labor that people don't pay much attention to, and should. Colombian sweat shops for instance.