http://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Tollbooth-Norton-Juster/dp/0394820371
The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster. I can't post books online though.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Transparent Poetry Prompt- Glass Prison (Without Cats)
Seen through like the lies
of a kid,
or as easy to read as books,
are the things like glass, and
air, and contacts
which give way to
eyes, demanding, gazing,
not upon, but through open
space, and gripping what is left
of the distortion that is light
that passes through such things as glass,
and air, and contacts (things
that bend the light like
a politician would bend
information, or
perhaps serve as a middleman
that you cannot trust,
delivering the light in a manner in which,
after it has been delivered,
it does not feel right),
my eyes yearn
for 20/20 vision.
of a kid,
or as easy to read as books,
are the things like glass, and
air, and contacts
which give way to
eyes, demanding, gazing,
not upon, but through open
space, and gripping what is left
of the distortion that is light
that passes through such things as glass,
and air, and contacts (things
that bend the light like
a politician would bend
information, or
perhaps serve as a middleman
that you cannot trust,
delivering the light in a manner in which,
after it has been delivered,
it does not feel right),
my eyes yearn
for 20/20 vision.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
TU Tuesday Guest Speaker
Poise- The speaker was very comprehensible while speaking, but had a sense of wavering to his tone throughout the talk. He had a very clear set of ideals, but was not particularly adept at dealing with audience members whom held strong and controversial opinions, such as with Andrew Fedorov's argument for the two extremes of twitter and books as opposed to newspapers. The speaker did try to engage the audience, but was somewhat limited to a straightforward set of thoughts such as reading books and being against internet anonymity. He did not bend to incorporate the audience's thoughts into his discussion afterwards, but on the other hand, the audience was not really motivated to push forward a novel idea to examine.
Clarity- As far as clarity was concerned, the speaker did a great job, as he was a journalist. His words were concise, although his tone was unsure, which still got his message across. He acknowledged that journalism wasn't always objective, and thus was very talented at using modifiers to convey a feeling across to reinforce his rhetoric on reading lots of books instead of browsing the web and facebook and twitter.
Volume- His voice was audible, but it was slightly quieter than some speakers. Throughout the whole speaking, however, there was not much inflection, and so it became a narrow discussion. There were some parts where he was telling stories, and perhaps it was because of the task of multitasking between recollection and speaking, but he sometimes became too quiet.
Information- He gave a lot of information, but arguably it was subjective. His speaking was centered around key principles that were information about his views and about facts that supported them, but there came a time when there could have been considerably too much redundant support for the point of reading lots of books and not enough reasons as to an in-depth why.
Organization- For an audience driven speaking, and with a fairly unmotivated audience as well, the organization was very good. His points were conveyed neatly, and had facts surrounding them. It was not creatively organized, but that's hard to do with such an audience. He put his views first and foremost, and gave many supporting reasons and stories capturing his points perfectly, albeit redundantly.
I did not participate as much as I had hoped to, because there was not much that interested me as far as the field of journalism went, and because I am not an active participant in general. Some other classmates were like me as well, and did a very poor job of participating. Some, such as the regular people whom consistently asked questions did keep the discussion going well, and I've observed those people to have been active in the field of literature in general.
For next year, I would recommend someone way more radical, such as the author of a book, or a columnist. Someone working in a field that requires opinions as opposed to facts is much more likely to have a broader range of categories that he/she can and will be willing to debate and discuss in. Also, people whom travel the world have a very large outlook and lots of experience.
Clarity- As far as clarity was concerned, the speaker did a great job, as he was a journalist. His words were concise, although his tone was unsure, which still got his message across. He acknowledged that journalism wasn't always objective, and thus was very talented at using modifiers to convey a feeling across to reinforce his rhetoric on reading lots of books instead of browsing the web and facebook and twitter.
Volume- His voice was audible, but it was slightly quieter than some speakers. Throughout the whole speaking, however, there was not much inflection, and so it became a narrow discussion. There were some parts where he was telling stories, and perhaps it was because of the task of multitasking between recollection and speaking, but he sometimes became too quiet.
Information- He gave a lot of information, but arguably it was subjective. His speaking was centered around key principles that were information about his views and about facts that supported them, but there came a time when there could have been considerably too much redundant support for the point of reading lots of books and not enough reasons as to an in-depth why.
Organization- For an audience driven speaking, and with a fairly unmotivated audience as well, the organization was very good. His points were conveyed neatly, and had facts surrounding them. It was not creatively organized, but that's hard to do with such an audience. He put his views first and foremost, and gave many supporting reasons and stories capturing his points perfectly, albeit redundantly.
I did not participate as much as I had hoped to, because there was not much that interested me as far as the field of journalism went, and because I am not an active participant in general. Some other classmates were like me as well, and did a very poor job of participating. Some, such as the regular people whom consistently asked questions did keep the discussion going well, and I've observed those people to have been active in the field of literature in general.
For next year, I would recommend someone way more radical, such as the author of a book, or a columnist. Someone working in a field that requires opinions as opposed to facts is much more likely to have a broader range of categories that he/she can and will be willing to debate and discuss in. Also, people whom travel the world have a very large outlook and lots of experience.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Opinion Prompt #13
I believe that number grades are better than letter grades, because they encourage improvement. While an "A" can span multiple different number grades, number grades can pinpoint a more specific level of achievement, which encourages students to continue improving. An A sounds great compared to a 95. When students see their specific grades, they are more competitive, and have less of an illusion as to where they stand. Letters cannot be compared to anything, while a number out of 100 shows ability. Not only are they more precise for gauging oneself, but they are also better for gauging others and motivating Americans to have a competitive mindset.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
I Want To Write About #96
An important lesson that everyone learns early on in life is that dying is bad. I, for one, learned this fairly quickly, and I'm sure that others have too, because it is a vital piece of knowledge that is very much so important to living a life filled with life. Some people have not learned this yet, and these people are insane people. They like to play violent video-games and punch walls and play football. I'm sure that it is very tough for them to stay alive sometimes, but this is okay because they have adapted to their lack of vitality by having more vitality than that which they lack. Cats, on the other hand, have nine lives, so I'm fairly sure dying is more fun for them. It makes me wonder if they have seen the other side. Maybe I can ask them.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)