Reflection

 * Is writing online different than in a notebook?  In what ways?     

        I feel that writing online is very different than writing in a notebook. When I am online I am much more formal in my writing even if it is for an assignment. When I write in a notebook it feels less official to me. The fact that it is online makes me use better vocabulary and makes me think more about what I'm writing. Whenever a teacher tells me to do an assignment in a notebook I do it a bit sloppily and don't take as much care. I feel like when I write in a notebook I just write the first thing that comes into my head. I think things out more when I do a blog post. If it's a class assignment or homework in a notebook I always end up not doing as good a job as I can.

* In what ways did you benefit from the experience?

         I think I benefited a lot. It made me pay a lot more attention to what I was reading. Normally when I read something, I don't pay attention to the things like the message and the author's craft. I only pay attention to the story. It made me a much better reader, and I couldn't just skip reading on my own time like I could in previous grades. Even if a teacher made us keep a reading log, we still didn't need to think about what we were reading. The blog was also helpful because when we had to do the non-fiction critical analysis, it was good practice writing something opinionated about a non-fiction article.

* Do you think that people are more real online or do we create online personalities that project the best of ourselves? Or something else?

        
         I think people are very different online, or on any kind of social media (even texting). I think a person's online life is very different than who they really are. People try to appear cooler and smarter online, because people can only see what you post. They edit their accounts so people view them in a specific way. However, this may not be who they are. Also, over text, people don't need to respond right away or at all. They have a lot of time to think and word their response, but if it's face to face they can't really do that, so I think you won't get as real of an answer. People may present the best of their personality, or they may present something totally fake because they want to be seen as a different person.

        The author, Colbert King of the article The Wrong Way To Talk About Killings In D.C. wants us the reader to think about the way different killings are talked about in our world, and if they are being talked about in the wrong way. This means he wants people to choose their words more carefully when speaking about crimes, more specifically murder. 

        The way the author gets us to think about this is by giving us an example of a local reported who was shot while waiting for a bus. A man rode by on a dirt bike a shot her even though he was trying to kill someone else. The captain of police said in a press conference that the reporter was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The author disagrees. He say that she was in the right place at the right time because all she was doing was waiting for a bus after work and did nothing wrong. He says that the fact that a person can't even wait at a bus stop with out being scared of being hurt or killed is outrageous.  

        I agree with this. You can never really say wrong place wrong time unless it was a real accident. The fact that the thing happened in the first place is the problem not the fact that the person was standing there. In a way this maybe be police not wanting to take the blame for what happened and are leaving it up to the fact that she jest happened to be there and are ignoring the fact that another person had an attempt made on their life. 

        I am reading the book 1984 with my book club. It is an interesting concept. I think the author is trying to show us where he thinks the world is going. Also the problems with society at the time the book was written. I personally agree with how he thought the world was going and you see a lot of the elements of the society he created in our society today.
        He has created a society where people are under constant surveillance and oppressed by the government. You also see that in our world today. The NSA is constantly watching us and taking in information, this is very similar to the world he created. the thought police are like the NSA in a way. He also has the world run very efficiently and people don't do anything out of the ordinary. You see that more and more as our society becomes more mechanical. Finally he constricts peoples individualism in his story similar to the way the media and government are trying to in our society.
        The author was pointing out flaws and making a prediction about society. He was just about right.

        I read the whole script of the breakfast club. I think it sends a strong message about stereo types. You see a lot of traits of each stero type the nerd, the jock, the freak, the popular girl, and the criminal. But each has a trait that makes them a bit less like that. You also see them bond in detention.
       In this play they have a common enemy, the principal. Because of this you see how five totally different people could form real bonds with eachother. You see it most in the scene after bender shuts the door. The prisipal comes in and asks what happened and even though they all hate him they cover for him. As they are locked in a room together they start to learn more about eachother and each others problems. They discover that even though on the surface the jock and the popular girl seem like they have it made they both actually struggle with a lot. Also that the nerds biggest bully is himself and his parents and that he is actually strong when it comes to people. However I didn't find any thing out of the ordinary with the freak and the criminal. They stay very typical through out the whole movie. Yes they are very well developed characters but I don't feel that they stray too far from their stero type.
        Overall I think that the play does a good job of demonstrating stero types and how they can change and not be as they seem

NF Blog Post

        In this article Long-term Study Complicates Understanding of Child Abuse the author wants you to know the causes of child abuse and how some are wildly misconstrued. He wants you to realize that a lot of people even officials look for the wrong things to profile a child abuser.
         The way he gets you to think what he wants you to is he gives you a common thought. The thought that people who were abused as kid are more apt to abuse their kids. He then goes into statistics on a study of midwestern families and he gives statistics that further back up the fact that is is believed that people that were abused are more likely to abuse their kids. Finally however he brings up the fact that over all it is almost exactly 50-50 people who were abused and were not.
          In my opinion it is not surprising that people who were abused are not the most common abusers. I think they may have been so sad as a kid that they would never want to put their own child through that because they can understand how it feels to be abused in that way. However they may feel that they are carrying on a tradition or if the got abused why shouldn't their kids. I also think the fact that they are doing studies about this is great because it can rase awareness about this issue.

Hamlet

        I have just started reading Hamlet. I have been doing a lot with Shakespeare recently and I wanted to do more. I am not far into it so I have not been able to tell much. I am however very interested to see how the relationship between Hamlet and Horatio develops.
        I have not read much but I can see Horatio developing as a very reasonable character. In this way he can counter Hamlets impulsiveness.  You see this come out in the first scene where Hamlet sees his dad's ghost. As the story develops I think the purpose Horatio will serve is to in a way check Hamlet. When there are choices that need to be made, I think Hamlet will rush into them and Horatio will be there to pull him back. Horatio will in a way serve as a form of a conscience to Hamlet. He may oppose him to a point where they fight. It could go to far and they could end up as enemies or Hamlet could snap and get mad at Horatio. He could end up as the main antagonist of the story. He could also just be similar to an adviser to Hamlet. When Hamlet's father's ghost appears and tells him to follow Hamlet, without hesitation follows despite Horatio's protests. This shows that Hamlet may be a very impulsive character that doesn't think things through.
        In conclusion I predict Horatio will counter Hamlet in some way, whether it be good or bad.

     

revised post

        I started a trilogy by Don Robertson a little while ago. The series follows a young boy named Morris Bird III. In the first book The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread he is in elementary school and goes on a adventure to find his best friend. In The Sum and Total of Now he is in middle school and must deal with adolescents and maturing. In The Greatest Thing That Almost Happened , the last of the trilogy he is in highschool and getting ready to go to college. Over the course of the series Morris has dealt with a lot of death. The main part of each book so far has had to do with a death. In the first book he deals with his best friends death. In the second it has to do with his grandmas death. And here in the final book he deals with his own pending death. Don includes all this death to show Morris' truest self.
        Don Robertson makes each book centered around death to bring out the characters truest self in a realistic way. When Stanley, Morris' best friend,  dies you see Morris stop being a kid. When he is traveling to see his friend he is still very innocent, but when Stanley dies you see a change. He stops looking to be helped and starts taking things into his own hands. There are many other people that were hurt from the explosion. He is just in elementary school but he steps up and helps people that are hurt. By doing this he helps you see the change in the character. A death always poses an opportunity for a major character change to to reveal something about a character.
        In the second book Don kills Morris' grandma to illustrate that as much as Morris tries to push his family away he still needs them. When Morris' grandma gets sick Morris takes a real blow. Then on top of it all Morris' family just bickers and fights over his dying grandma's possessions. Nobody cares about his grandma, but she was someone that meant a ton to Morris and he feels like everyone is just pushing him and his grandma aside. This brings out the side of him that is still very kid-like and that he still needs his family to be there for him. But again Don brings out the different sides of Morris, he shows Morris still has strength by having him burn all his grandma's stuff. This illustrates The many aspects of people, again death brings this out.
        In the third book Don forces Morris to deal with his own pending death to bring out his most vulnerable side and to show also how strong he is. Morris shows his true colors at this point. Morris seems to be weak and strong in different ways. Each death brings out new ones. The ones that his own death brings out are the fact that he can crack sometimes even though he puts everything on himself. It also show who he care about most and who he puts ahead of himself. He puts his sister and his girlfriend ahead of him and that shows strength and compassion for his family even after his mothers death. His father pushes him away and that makes him more distant but before his death his feeling comes back. This again shows Morris' truest self.    
        Don choses who and when he kills people to illustrate all the sides of Morris. Each death has its own significance to the arc of the story and to Morris.