IT WAS.

It was phenomenal, terrifying, hard, beat-face-into-table kind of difficult, strenuous, stressful, nerve-wracking, trudgy, painstaking, finite, wacky, wyrd :), worth it (??), valuable, worrisome, crazy, insane, "very rigorous," (Baron, always), frightening, scary, terrible sometimes, wonderful sometimes, ehh sometimes, AHHHHHHHHHHH sometimes, YAY sometimes, dang-I'm-glad-I'm-done-with-that sometimes, "Thanks Mrs. G!!!" all the time, worldwide, collaborative, gratifying, rewarding, sinister, yet AWESOME.

I evidently have a love-hate relationship with IB, and that's okay.  I'm sure everyone reading this feels the exact same way (Mrs. Genesky I'm sure you at least felt that way when you were an IB student :)), and it would have sucked without all of you.  The complaining was a little much sometimes, but it really did unify us: we were all trudging up the mountain, IB work our Sisyphus rock, whining and procrastinating (I honestly hate procrastinating but I take too long on other work so this one wonderful assignment is usually something I procrastinate on) and getting through it together.  That was a really long sentence, but that's literally how I write, and AC and Anurupa and Vanessa and Mrs. G can attest to that :). 

So anyway, IB is all of the things above, but I am so proud of all of us for pushing through and finishing.  We are ALMOST DONE, and I am counting down the days until exams end.  But I will miss everyone so much once we leave.  I'm going off and partying (not really) for a year before college and all of you will be in college and will love it.  I'll remember you guys and probably do a double take on a million people next year, thinking that it's someone from IB, and find out it's not.  We will all probably do that once in a while.  So just remember: remember us and all of the great and terrible times we were a part of.

I thoroughly enjoyed all of my IB teachers, and of course I am a fan of all (or almost all) of our 55-ish person class.  It was a pleasure to talk, laugh, cry with you.

Walt Whitman is Wonderful

Whitman's journal is difficult to read, as personal journals usually are.  There are many scratched-out, half-written words of ideas that are shut down completely or pop up later (like a Queen of England remark), and the journal begins like a synopsis of a play, outlining Whitman's idea of dialogue between him and Lincoln (this is in third person interestingly enough; is he writing his journal as if someone else were to see it, or does he always start them this way?)  Whitman's universal theme is immediately noticed as he mentions various religious perspectives (Jewish and Christian), then creates a commonality between them when he talks of the soul, which contains "all the goods and greatness."  These religious references become the basis of his CIvil War-influenced work about a deity: "Chanting the Square Deific."  He also mentions ships and how anyone can sail them--more evidence of his belief that humans are equal.  This is additionally supported (using "high literature" style) by naming the ship Libertad, or freedom; alluding to Lincoln as well.  Whitman's stream-of-consciousness is seen throughout the poem through the series of working questions regarding Libertad, and I see his love of imagery in his descriptions of the ship. The ship serves to connect the Union's ideals in the CIvil War with others like it around the world.  The ship also represents the state, and this idea leads to one of Whitman's most famous poems, where Lincoln is the metaphorical captain of a ship "O Captain! My Captain!"  Whitman's journal helps us, as the audience, see the evolution of some of his most famous works, and his core beliefs that are central in almost of all his poems.

There are several portraits of Whitman in this journal; every drawing he is facing to the side, and in one he is beckoning something unseen.  The portraits were drawn by Whitman's friends; one based on a description of Brooklyn ferryman gave of him.  It is inferred that he is looking out, like a philosopher.  Whitman is also posed like Lincoln: looking towards his future and duties.  His subsequent portraits remind me of Lincoln (because of the large top hat) and, though it is unlikely, I inferred this to have two meanings: one, that Whitman feels Lincoln had the same equality ideals that Whitman had, or, if the drawings are Whitman with a Lincoln-esque top hat, it shows that Whitman is attempting to continue inspiring the ideals that Lincoln had.  Either way, Whitman's journal shows his thought process writing-wise and his archetype of equality and unity in the tumultuous time of the Civil War.

The American Dream

The American Dream is a seemingly worldwide belief and hope that the US is a place to gain equality and, through hard work, have one's own property and a happy family.  Happiness. That is what the American Dream revolves around, no matter what.  It is the wish for better, for better rights, social mobility, property, jobs.  In The Great Gatsby, Gatsby succeeded in the monetary part of the American Dream, but did not succeed in the love and familial part of it. Did he gain happiness, or was it solely superficial, as his parties and persona were?  Maybe the only way to truly achieve the American Dream is to have both of those parts if both of those parts are desired. Today, the American Dream still focuses on hope and equality; work correlating to a fair, stable life. This could tie in family goals and often the ones reaching for the dream are families going through various stages of hardship.  The American Dream doesn't solely apply to foreigners coming into the US. As seen through Gatsby--who started his life in a poor farming family and gained his wealth through not so much hard work but some work and good circumstance with Dan Cody--his American identity was prominent throughout his life yet he still reached for the idyllic American goal of wealth.


Wealth is almost always thought of as monetary wealth--not only monetary stability, but an excess and flourishing of one's monetary status. According to Merriam Webster, wealth is defined as "a large amount of money and possessions."  Part of the American Dream is this idea of gaining wealth, but I believe that there is a more implicit meaning in this belief, and that is gaining the wealth of equality, opportunity, and personal freedom that America is seen to offer.  Monetary wealth does not equal happiness that is always created with the implicit version of wealth, and this is something that plagues Gatsby throughout the entire novel.  He cannot attain happiness by becoming rich even though he thinks that Daisy will fall in love with him again since he's not poor.  If Daisy had not become too intent on the money part of the American Dream, then Gatsby and her could have been truly happy.  People see wealth as an aspiration and a symbol of happiness and poverty as a symbol or failure and unhappiness.  I see wealth as something to be wary of, because I feel that very rich people almost always succumb to greed and a feeling of superiority.  Poverty is scary and is honestly unimaginable.  But I believe that either one allows for happiness because of a love and family aspect.  Also gratitude for what one has can definitely lead to a happiness of life unparalleled to any shallow happiness created by materialistic need and wealth.  And there it is again; happiness as the key that doesn't necessarily correlate to one monetary status or another, rather it is associated with love, family, and opportunity to be treated better or do better.

 

Varied Translations

Translations:

#1:As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect.

• the "as" makes it seem as though this is a continuation of a story
• long sentence, unbroken by commas, creates the idea of the one moment where Samsa figured out that he had changed
• "Gigantic insect" = negatively connoted words, provides imagery

#2:Gregory Samsa woke from uneasy dreams one morning to find himself changed into a giant bug.

• seems like a typical, third-person omniscient first sentence for a children's/middle school story 
• syntax =short, direct, leads to questions 
• word "changed" implies that Samsa's transformation was of someone else's doing
• "giant bug" creates a more informal tone, makes it trivial, provides imagery

 #3:When Gregor Samsa awoke from troubled dreams one morning he found he had been transformed in his bed into an enormous bug.

• typical, third-person omniscient first sentence for an adult novel ("awoke," "troubled dreams one morning")
•  more complex sentence structure
• "in his bed" seems unnecessary
• Diction: enormous makes Samsa's problem more serious

#4:One morning, upon awakening from agitated dreams, Gregor Samsa found himself, in his bed, transformed into a monstrous vermin.

• seems like an adult novel: syntax is long but very fragmented by commas
• "agitated dreams" = personification; seems as though dreams foreshadowed his fate or helped cause it
• "in his bed" seems unnecessary or misplaced
• Diction: monstrous and vermin have very negative connotations, don't imply an insect but an otherworldly creature; imagery

Original: Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheuren Ungeziefer verwandelt.

Google Translation (putting entire sentence into translator):

As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed into a monstrous vermin in his bed.

 Google Translation paralleling German structure:

As Gregor Samsa one morning from uneasy dreams awoke, he found himself in his bed transformed into a monstrous vermin.



Even small shifts in punctuation and wording change the entire meaning of this first sentence.  The first and fourth translations are the most serious and have the most urgent tone, and this is seen through the long syntax and descriptors for the insect Samsa turned into.  "Gigantic" and "monstrous" insects and vermin have more severe connotations than "giant" and "enormous" bugs. Gigantic insects are scary, and monstrous vermin sounds so alarming that it doesn't seem to even be an insect, but really an alien or monster.  So if the audience was reading the first and fourth sentences, a worried or concerned tone would be created because of the way the creature is described.  The first example has two more effects on the audience.  The word "as" gives the audience the sense that the sentence was continuing the middle of a story rather than beginning it.  Also, this sentence, along with the third and fourth sentences, used the word "transformed."  This implies that Samsa's shift is more natural than not, and doesn't spur as many questions immediately.  The second sentence is the most trivial sentence because of its short length and use of the more childish descriptors "giant" and "bug."  However, it succeeds in prompting questions from the audience because it's verb is "changed," implying that Samsa's shift was caused by something other than himself, and possibly caused by someone else.  Therefore, the subtleties of diction are seen to change the audience's view on the entire sentence.

The best translation in terms of aesthetics and diction is the fourth one.  The personification of dreams adds a nuance to the sentence; the idea that the dreams played into Samsa's transformation into the creature.  The syntax is slightly too fragmented by commas--it interrupts itself and may be confusing to the audience--but the words used to describe the creature are colorful, add much-needed imagery, and actually parallel the German sentence the best.  The sentence with the best translation structurally is the first one because of the use of "as," an extremely important subtlety that shifts the perspective of the story from one of beginnings to a conversation or the middle of a story.  The second and third sentences are the most easily read ones--the second so simplistic in diction and syntax/length that it could be the start of a middle school book; the third clear, direct, and using the past perfect ("had been transformed") that is more common for most English speakers than solely preterit ("himself transformed").  So the translations differ in how effective they are in portraying Kafka's seemingly urgent tone, his structural writing, or the frank idea of a person transforming into something other than human.  This is what makes translations so difficult, for the translator has to choose the issue that they believe is the most important for the audience.

Practice IOC

I think I should technically fail this entire practice IOC because I talked for 12.5 minutes, but I just took points off for the organization section. And I can't figure out how to upload it into the blog, so Mrs. Genesky, I am sending it to you via email.

Grade:  17/30
Criterion A: Knowledge and Understanding of the extract
6/10 I gave this grade because I believe that I showed some understanding of the text in terms of the purpose, and gave generally good textual support, but I could have been more effective and profound in the holistic part of the excerpt.
Criterion B: Understanding of the Use and Effects of Literary Features
6/10 I think that I showed the literary features and how they affected the audience superficially but could have elaborated more.
Criterion C:
2/5 I gave myself this score because I went over the time limit, but I did have basic structure in my introduction, body (three main literary features and their effect), and conclusion.
Criterion D: Language
3/5 I said a lot of "ums" and had a few short pauses, but I almost always got my idea across.

Blog Post #10--Freebie

This blog post will be my freebie for this semester.

Why Technology isn't a Metaphor for Memories

Here's a link to the TED Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/raghava_kk_what_s_your_200_year_plan

Raghava KK is an artist who makes 200-year plans with his wife every few years to better understand himself and the importance of creativity.  His grandfather indirectly influenced him to do it when he saw his first movie in the Indian theaters and fell in love with Mae West.  Raghava's twin brother Keshava changed his name to Kaesava, and his son from Rehan to Raehan.  So his brother started his legacy of name-changing to preserve memories, and Raghava began to create his own future.  He and his wife Netra decided to make a plan that would affect people beyond their actual lives.  They determined that 200 years was the time where their lives and legacies would extend to affect their descendants' lives.

Raghava and Netra have started their legacies by first expelling themselves of childhood fears--like Raghava's fear of his mother-in-law.  They have also created digital legacies, where they put their memories and Raghava's art on social media sites.  But, Raghava clarified that "technology is not a metaphor for memory," because everyone picks and chooses what snippets of memory to put into the technological world; the brain is unreliable because it influences creations of memories that show one's positive aspects in their own perspective.  Technology is not a metaphor because it stems from the brain, an organ that filters out some truth.

Raghava started his painting career by visualizing his first art exhibition and making his vision come true by inviting a famous actress there.  He sees time as moving forward towards him, with him in relative control of avoiding bad things and embracing good things.  Netra made him sit on a history class she taught, because he thought history was a waste of time--only a way to look into the past and not make a future.  His views changed when he went into the class and created art using history, created a future as he would like it using his heritage and personal stories.  He says that the 200-year plans are not for someone to do in the future, but rather a way to manipulate his attitude in the present.  In the end, he explains that education is a wonderful tool for all, but creativity surpasses it in usefulness because it leads people to define themselves outside of how education tells them to be, and in turn helps them mold what they become.

The purpose of this talk was to encourage people to take charge of their lives by becoming aware of their potential impact and utilizing their creative qualities.  Raghava is himself an artist, which adds a certain credibility in his views of art affecting life.  The ethos is subtle, but he frequently mentions his personal experience as a painter and how he expresses his views of time in them, influencing the audience' belief of his expertise.  This overall makes his argument more convincing and worthy of thought because he is a successful professional.  A bias is created, however, because of his position as an artist.  He uses his career/passion as a lens for how he thinks of the world and consequently of the importance of creativity.  He says, " It [education] really teaches us who we are, and helps us contextualize ourselves in the world, but it's really my creativity that's taught me that I can be much more than what my education told me I am."  His entire argument is centered on his view as an artist.    The quote contends to not only how his identity shapes his views, but how everyone's opinions are founded in their passions and experiences.  Raghava has more quality nuggets of argument however--more concentrated at the end.  He is persuasive in that he structures his argument by giving personal stories and applying them to his reasoning; pathos melds to aid in ethos.  His anecdotal style of speech evokes an emotion of hope.  For example, when he speaks of his wife's history class, he takes on a tone of fascination: "She started by giving students primary source documents from India, Pakistan, from Britain, and I said, 'Wow.' Then she asked them to separate fact from bias. I said, 'Wow,' again. Then she said, 'Choose your facts and biases and create an image of your own story of dignity.'"  Raghava utilizes the story, and "wow" and "dignity" as positively connoted words, to give the audience a sense of hope.  His explanation of how history can combine with creative thought to create something new expresses the amount of untapped capabilities people have to make their futures.  This is the most important persuasive tool Rhagava uses--his credibility lends some assurance, but mainly his use of pathos and structure helps the audience regard him as a human being with positive values.  Though he is biased in his reasoning because of his work, Raghava explains that all people can utilize creativity, making his artistic viewpoint much more inclusive.  In this way, it is seen that Raghava uses mainly ethos and pathos to give his audience insight on how they can harness their lives.