Writing Zone Piece

   Sometimes, our human lives are full of events that we only can see best in poetry. The properties of poetry act as a portal to understanding daily experiences and once-in-a-lifetime phenomenons. Poetry's anatomy consists of of the cherished lives of people-- those who see the figure not only get a glimpse of something so beautiful, but also something to remember the effect the poems give on the reader, namely "Firework"and "Hot and Cold" by Katy Perry.
   A poem can nurture one's brain with ideas of experiences all people want to see, like Katy Perry's "Firework". The poem sends readers on an adventure through literary devices. The most profound kind in "Firework" is is simile. When Perry says, "Do you ever feel like a plastic bag," the reader subconsciously grasps the sensation of a light, flowing object so powerless. They experience the instance Perry wanted everyone to feel. Poems like "Firework" are the kinds that lure the reader with figurative language.
   Another poem by Katy Perry, "Hot and Cold", discusses the indecision and bipolarity of a friend through juxtaposition. The reader will see "You're hot and you're cold...yes and no..." and many others just to sample the confusion and anxiety sparked in the song. It gives the reader a roller coaster ride, so to speak. The reader will also find in "Hot and Cold", a paradox when Perry says, "...You don't really want to stay, no... But you don't really want to go-o". The two statements contradict each other, just like the whole song is all about.
   Literary elements are the key ingredient to making a meaningful poem, especially stemming off a personal experience. They enhance the poem so much; it is never a plain story. The creativity always mesmerizes the readers, and poems will continue to do just the thing by the unique language they possess.

Commentary on "If"

   I read a very nice, interesting poem. It felt as though Kipling was speaking to someone, rather than it being just a poem with rhymes and a heartfelt message. While it sent a message, the delivery was a bit like a lecture. The elements of the poem "If" were so secular-sounding and the speech was so modern; I never would have guessed that the poem was written over a century ago. At first, I really thought a slam poet wrote this. The rhythm at which I read it seemed so hexagonal --I don't know-- and topsy-turvy, making it so hard to believe that "If" was written such a long time ago. I find it real interesting how each stanza presents a different issue: the first stanza with chaos around, the second stanza with maintaining patience and dignity, the third on self-control, and the fourth promoting balance in every situation. The thing which tickled my fancy was the allusion in line 24 of "If": "Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'" It reminded me of the Holy Spirit, the One who sends jolts to my spirit to lead me where I go, much like the depiction in this poem! This poem encouraged me to think of how I would raise my children. I felt challenged to figure out how I would approach these kinds of issues and how to cope with them. The nice thing about "If" is how correct it is-- the message sent was respectable; nothing disturbed or offended the right things to do. In this day and age, millions are forgetting how to, in this case, be a good man-- or person in general. It seems as though back then, parents raised their children in ways that would make them successful and smart. Nowadays, parents are isolated from their children, and kids learn all by themselves and make their own decisions that aren't always smart. "If" has a great message for today's society, but the pity is that the message is put into less action than it ever has been. Apparently, nobody cares that their children are faced with self-doubt, and that they have no support system. Nobody takes into consideration that their children have goals for themselves, but they know no limits and give their hopes up only to fail and have no faith to get back up and try to achieve those dreams again. Nobody encourages perseverance for their kids; there is no concern for dignity. Nobody factors in that they have a son to raise, and that he is at risk of becoming a slouch due to lack of exhortation. This generation needs more of "If", because of all the value it has to give, especially is a day and age that struggles with want over morality. The thing about "If" which made it so inspiring was its truth throughout a whole century, and longer. After reading the poem, I saw influence for many people. If I saw the influence, others saw it, too!

Commentary for "Ain't I a Woman"

   The way Sojourner Truth wrote her poem made so much sense. In the time she was in, she struggled so much with rights alone. She hardly even existed as a black person, let alone a black woman. Because of who she was, she never experienced the life she deserved. All she did was work hard and hard, with no breaks. Giving birth to children, seeing them go, working in fields like crazy for hardly anything at all, and serving white people who gave no clue what it felt like to be treated as an animal. Sojourner Truth persevered as a black woman, because she had hope even in the midst of her troubles. She believed in God even when He seemed distant. She had faith in the fact that she would have peace one way or another. Although life brought her down time and time again, through every high and low, up and down, pro or con, good or bad, Sojourner Truth held true to the fact that she was a woman, and that she could do all things through Christ who gave her the strength to "turn the world right side up". She made inroads in society; she made a name for herself. Sojourner Truth stood as a beacon of light and hope for all African Americans during that time, and even today. She proved that black woman were not the worst, and that they were just as inspirational as anyone else. Sojourner Truth never let anyone look down on her, even while she was a slave. She had so much confidence, despite the surrounding struggles. During her time in purgatory, when all said "no", God in her said, "Yes!" She could care less that some white man told her to get down-- as far as Sojourner Truth was concerned, she was not ashamed, for the Lord was on her side through every thick and thin, whatever the weather, no matter what. Sojourner Truth carried all the fruits of the spirit every day, just by looking at the lines of the poem. Without them, she would not have been able to take all the horrid things of her life. Sojourner Truth worked very hard for the dreams she wanted, inside her bounds and out. She wanted to work for her kids' well being. She wanted to work for the good that was in her future. But above all, she wanted to work for all the Lord did for her. Sojourner was grateful for her life, because as merciless and dark as circumstances were for her, she was dedicated not to give up to the pressuring tease that she was a useless black woman. She was determined to defeat the lie which set her, and many other women, back many miles. Sojourner Truth ran back all her miles not just to finish the race this time, but to win it. She did not want to hear she could not do it, because in her heart, mind, soul and spirit, she could do whatever the heck she wanted to do.

TP-CASTT for "Ain't I a Woman" by Sojourner Truth and "If" by Rudyard Kipling

TP-CASTT~~ Ain't I a Woman

T-- Title~~ A woman talking about her gender

P-- Paraphrase~~ Sojourner Truth is fed up with all the misery in her everyday life; the racism, slavery and sexism irritate her so. She talks about all the hard work she did, and all that happened to her during that time-- working in fields, being mistreated by white people and having 13 kids, seeing most of them go into slavery. She remembers men telling her what she could or couldn't do, and all she had to say to those words were that she was a woman, and she could fix trouble if she wanted to.

C-- Connotation~~ Throughout the whole poem, Truth sounds very upset and passionate.

A-- Assonance~~ Line 6 contains "mud puddles".

S-- Shifts~~ Lines 5-7 sounded sad compared to the rest of the lines. i.e. "Nobody ever helped me into carriages..." in line 5.

T-- Title (in-depth)~~ "Ain't I a Woman" means Sojourner Truth, as a woman, has seen and done many things most think women are incapable of doing.

T-- Theme~~ "If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down, all alone, together women can ought to be able to turn it right side up again."

TP-CASTT~~ If

T-- Title~~ "If" sounds like a wistful thought.
P-- Paraphrase~~ "If" is a whole poem about a man lecturing his son about what it means to be a real man. It takes patience and dignity from all the world to be a man. It takes self control not to let things get the best of him to be a man. It takes perseverance to finish what he starts to be a man. It takes balance to be a man, too.
C-- Connotation~~ "If" sounds very serious and stern for the most part.
A-- Assonance~~ In line 8, there is "look too good...".
S-- Shifts~~ The last stanza of the poem is rather happy and hopeful. i.e. "And-- which is more-- you'll be a Man, my son!" in line 32.
T-- Title (in-depth)~~ "If" is about the capability of being a man.
T-- Theme~~ Manhood starts with balance.

Past, Present, Future = Truth

   How does the past, present and future lead us to the truth? Well, it simply depends on the truth. The truth hits us in many ways and forms, and people find it in multiple different situations. As a matter of fact, I would quite honestly venture to say that the truth leads to the past, present or future, because even though the truth lies in any of those three domains, we have to find it. The truth will not come to us, unless we seek it out from the past, in the present, or to the future. On that note, the past, present or future does not lead us to anything; they only influence the truth, kind of like an environment. All three bearers of the truth act as a home for the truth to live. They all carry potential for anything, and those happenings could always impact the truth in several ways, depending on whether or not good or bad gets a grip on it.
   When in the past, the truth will change our lives at small or large-- it relies on the type of truth. Since the person could not find it in time, the truth sat back and stopped following its owner, so to speak. When the person reunites with the truth, the result cannot be changed. The present either affects the person internally or externally. A truth affects someone internally by portraying a secret, or one's state of mind. Externally, the uncontrollable situations like weather or society could affect people. I would also like to point out that society doesn't always tell the truth-- its presence and effects do, though. The future truth confuses everyone, because nobody experienced it, yet. However, I have observed the future reflects the past, and oftentimes, we find the truth in the future based on our prior knowledge. If someone sports a fiery demeanor whenever provoked, we can infer the someone will express the fiery demeanor we know and love the next time they get agitated.
   As I said before, we do not find the truth in one piece, nor does it just miraculously look the same for us every time. In other words, the truth conducts a lot of reactions. What ridiculousness if we reacted to all news the same way. In Oedipus Rex, King Laius heard the prophecy about Oedipus, his son, killing him and marrying his wife, and he became furious and wanted his son killed. Would he want  Oedipus killed if he found out about a simple lie about him stealing candy, or about him agreeing with his choice to go take a walk in the town? Probably not. The truth does not always cook up the same outcome-- its recipes vary in flavor, and we may or may not like the taste of the truth.
   So, the truth in a way leads us to our past, present and future, based on the outcome of the news. Because the truth may live in three different environments, the probability of reactions, life, or even finding the truth itself proves unpredictable and inevitable. I find it awkward how confrontational the truth looks in this suit, though. On a lighter note, the truth should not represent a monster. It only aids, prevents and confronts all tenses. It deep down inside wants to protect you, and set you free of any deception or bondage you end up in.

Oedipus Rex Commentary

Oedipus Rex, a man who killed his father and married his mother. How peculiar. The story in-depth bore such an ironic twist-- it confused me for a bit. How did he not know how far into his trouble he went? From the very beginning, there Oedipus stands, oblivious to people's problems. A suffering Thebes brings Oedipus to suddenly want to save his kingdom. I noticed that Oedipus does not notice much of things-- Thebes' devastation, apparently, just sparks to his attention when a priest tells him, and later on, he finds out about the prophecy that everyone knows about but him. Why would a king be so oblivious to his kingdom’s agony? Why would he be blinded to the prophecy that he would marry his mother after he killed his father?

   Nothing gets more annoying than a king who is prideful. Oedipus appears very pompous compared to his subjects. He treats Creon and Tieresias so inferior. I felt bad for Tieresias when Oedipus threatened to kill him; he should not have done that to the poor man. Oedipus’ pride blinded him from Creon’s advice, and he butchered it to where Creon attacked him for power. Oedipus really let the prophecy and message get the best of him. It obviously did not take much for the crazy state to rob him of his peace of mind. But even still, though— why?

   I find it so pulsating and suspenseful that Oedipus, throughout the story, inches his way towards finding out what the prophecy really means. One thing after another, someone lets out a clue to finding out that he killed Laius and when he finds that out, he goes into disbelief. The way the story was arranged made it too unbearable, and the fact that he had children with his mother was horrific! I wonder how Jocasta felt about the whole issue when it was all played out. What did she feel when she realized she married her own son?

   I wonder, though—what did the Sphinx do, exactly, to terrorize them? If Oedipus saved Thebes, then how come it ran into calamity again? Pollution, disease and all sorts of trouble fell into the land of Thebes, but what caused it? And even as king, what else, other than the intent of stopping the treason over Thebes, made Oedipus so keen on putting a stop to all of this? He carried such dignity and haste to everything. 

I wonder, Connections, Social Satire

   I wonder if "The West" has anything to do with "West Egg" in Great Gatsby. I also wonder if  the story was a work of magical realism, or if it was just exaggeration. For the turn of the century, the kind of phenomena that Percy showed John was uncanny. Even now a lot of those things were hard to believe. There's never been enough diamond to make a mountain.
   Fitzgerald teases youth by how fantastical their ideology is. Percy made everything seem so amazing for John, but treated John's comments as overstatements. Fitzgerald makes fun of wealth by placing a setting in this huge "behemoth" of astounding things. This alludes to rich people always living in private manors and having just about everything. Percy lived in this almost-fantasy land, with technology to hide the property from even the government, and a huge diamond mountain. Percy had everything in that kingdom of his, and he didn't take it so seriously. Fitzgerald uses religion to allude how rich people are never satisfied, with the story of Jesus feeding the 5,000. The setting in the story was called Fish --one of the foods Jesus used to feed the people--, and there were twelve men, just as there were twelve disciples of Jesus. This relates to the story by the situation that the crowd of 5,000 had enough food to eat, despite just five loaves of bread and two fish. Rich people have that kind of opportunity every day, except they never have enough of anything-- they only want more and more. Percy made everything "seem like nothing", because he saw them everyday. He took it for-granted.

Symbolism in Great Gatsby

   The symbolism's significance was that people worship something that can't provide for them. The goals attempted for achievement are illusions, and can't go down without chaos. To get rich, you have to suffer, just like traveling from New York City to West Egg-- the Valley of Ashes is unavoidable. The Eyes of Dr. Eckleburg only saw everything. They didn't help any struggles, just like our government. But the green light is the reason why people take the plunge. We are always dissatisfied, and we want to cross for something better, but we end up stuck in our valleys.

The American Dream

The American Dream is so significant in the Great Gatsby, by the time period where patriotism was signature, and when things were changing so people wanted to splurge, purge and live every day as if it were their last. In the Great Gatsby, all of the characters displayed some interest in the American Dream, and they fell into the drawbacks of it. Case and point, Daisy married a rich man, Tom-- money made the world go round, so a rich man would make hers, too.

In New York-- 1920s

   When I caught the wind that my family moved to New York, I was enthralled. I immediately packed my things and caught a train there from Philadelphia. I was so tired of the town; I needed to go back to my family. When I arrived at New York, the weather was cool. Coincidentally, I met with a good friend, Merriwether. I booked myself a room at the Four Seasons, unpacked my things, grabbed a taxicab and hounded my family.Oh, I was so excited to see them, but they were not at their new high-rise in Le Bronx-- this was most alarming. I dialed on the telephone, and I called. My mother, Margot, apologized and said she was at Little Italy, touring with Mildred and Dean. Papa was getting food for the housewarming soiree, and golly-- was I ever lost in the mix. I decided to stay with Merriwether for a quick lunch of tea sandwiches and petit fors until my family was available. When that time came, I was so gay! Never in a while did I feel so compelled to see my family; after leaving them for college for three years, the reunion broke me. If it did not get any better, all of my childhood friends were there, as well as my extended family. I was so blessed to see Uncle Drew and Aunt Clara-- they were still as chipper as I had recalled. And my high school friends, Daisy, Beth and Terry, were so happy to see me. The feelings were mutual, and we caught up with each other the whole time. After I found out that they, too, lived in New York, I instantly made my mind-- I simply had to move, too! Sure enough, three months later, I found myself a nice little apartment not too far from Central Park. I had myself a housewarming party, as well. I invited all of my family and friends, and we all had a grand old time. I shall never forget this wonderful moment of my life. I brought myself a diary to document my lovely times.

Purpose of the Paradox

   The purpose of the paradox in the novel was to help the reader understand the situation better. Pi was with Richard Parker-- but Richard Parker is a human name, and Pi comes from a word that means 'fish'. Why is Pi an "animal" and Richard Parker a "human"? Because when Pi embarked on his adventure across the ocean, his wild instincts activated, and he needed Richard Parker to tame him. Martel meant for this because in troubles like Pi's, everyone has an animalistic tendencies, but they need to be tamed so we aren't conquered.

Draft

   Richard Parker is real. Religion is true, and Pi's journey centered around his religions. Martel's purpose for the reader was to allude irreligion and religion and work the reader's mind. Is the story Pi told rational as irreligion or was it impossible like religious concepts? It is real, because all things are possible.

   Richard Parker did not exist. He was only a symbol of help and deliverance, and more broadly, Pi, himself. Martel's purpose was to show readers that their imagination is them and they can save their life even in a time as Pi's.

Reader Autobiography

   People read because they feel as if either they get information better, or their source of imagination is held by the power of reading. Someone is a reader based on whether or not they read books, let alone know how to read. If someone wants to earn that title, then they must love reading with a passion. A passion for reading isn't predisposed, so it must be learned, hence. A good reader must be savvy with the text; they need to be perceptive and discerning of what they are reading. If one reads with only their eyes, but not the heart and mind, they aren't good readers. Reading is symbolic in many ways, so it takes engagement to read very well. I don't really have a favorite author, even though I've read books before. I don't really have anything for or against their literature. 
   I absolutely do not consider myself a reader. Because of my short attention span, I am unfortunately not a good reader. I am easily bored by the thought of it, and I can't push myself much further than glossing over pages. Reading is not my cup of tea under any circumstances, notwithstanding the Bible. I really don't like reading because I don't see it like others do. People are enthralled by it, and they can binge on several series of books in months. I, however, can't finish a chapter without throwing an internal temper tantrum. The cuticles of my fingers start to burn and itch from the austerity of it. For me, there isn't an objective to reading-- I don't gain very much from it.
   I learned to read through homeschooling; my mom required me to read books since I was four. I'm a very blocked reader at the very, very least. I have no passion for it in any way, shape or form unless it caters to my interests-- which is still very blocked. I'd love to be able to read without my eyelids becoming so sore. I wish I could read a book without any trouble, skimming through it, yet grasping every little detail down to the ink of the letter. I'm never enthusiastic about reading, and I wish I could find my enthusiasm for it.
   The reading I choose to do on my own is limited to the Bible, picture books, a few comic books here and and a few animal encyclopedias there, and only a handful of other categories. I hate non-fiction, sci-fi, mysteries and whatnot. The ideas are so boring and weird, so I don't like bothering them. I got nightmares from certain book covers or other attributes to the books that I rendered creepy.
   I didn't gain anything, really; I knew all of this all along. I've always known how selective and halfhearted my approach to reading is-- period. This process was very upsetting. It's enough that I don't enjoy reading, yet I have to read books I don't like for a grade, and this doesn't help much more. Sharing this makes me feel grouchy and indifferent to how others feel about reading, and I'd like to assure that I am not deliberately trying to downplay something that people love.

Writer Self-Study

   People write typically because it is a form expressing their feelings without speaking. There's really no key to being a writer, nor is there any identity or title outside of social construct in writing as long as there is a heart behind the writing instrument. To have good writing, though, it does take common skills. You obviously need to know how to write, know your grammar, have a sense for passion, execute your words well, and create diction. Above all, though, you must know what you want to say.
   My favorite writer has to be God. He's the author and finisher of my salvation, and He continues to write a story on my heart. I'm an empty page, an open book; God is the writer. He continues to work in me, and He never stops! I love how God allows me to show the world what He's done in me. I'm so happy to be a light for Him.
   I definitely consider myself a writer-- a good writer, too. I know what I want to convey through my writing, and I think that's what makes my writing special. It is a part of my identity, in that case. I don't only write for homework, but I also write as a hobby. It's something I enjoy doing with a passion, and I think this is the case on account of my introversion. I am not well suited to social environments, and I'm not very fond of talking. I find writing a lot easier to do, because it's not as embarrassing. It doesn't leave the sting that talking does.
   From a literal standpoint, I learned to write through academics, but I believe that writing has always been something innate within me. I've always loved writing, not necessarily for reading, but for the same reasons people enjoy drawing or other hobbies. I see writing as a vivid picture. Everything I write looks like something for me, literally. That's what makes writing fun for me, because I get to experience the flavors that the words bring, if you will.
   There's not really anything to which I can base my writing. It's so different every time that I can't ever put my finger on it, unless it's supposed to be written a certain way. I definitely write from the heart; my brain only enables it. I always catch myself going on tangents when I write, namely when I'm supposed to be writing something specific. It's a blessing and a pet peeve that I wish I could tame better, and I'd like to learn different writing systems, too. The Latin Phonetic Alphabet is too boring now. I'd like to actually use some of the systems I've made up myself, or learn Kanji, Cyrillic or Hebrew so I could write in a new way that opens doors to a new experience.
   The writing I choose to do is always based on how I'm feeling and what environment I'm in. I don't do very well in rooms with a bunch of people; writing is sometimes personal for me, and I don't like when my experiences aren't at their highest potential. I like writing when I'm happy, because it's the only way my thoughts flow at a pleasurable rate. I do enjoy poems a bit, even though I don't get to do them very often. I'm usually confined to essays on a certain subject, and I have to be very focused on achieving every aspect requested in my papers. I don't like the kinds of writing that argue with another. The probing feeling irritates me, and I loathe those undignified monologues that demean other works of art.
   Reminiscing on what I just wrote has allowed me to see how complicated, yet miraculous writing is for me. I learned a little from my own approach to writing that it is very quirky. It's interesting, but quirky; I have a very intellectual aura, but the cadence feels a bit compulsive and childish. My writing is sort of my personality plastered onto wherever it's written.
   I feel as if this process was somewhat eye opening. I already knew a lot about my writing style, but every word is a growth from one point. I think this process was fairly enjoyable. I got a lot out of it, and I can't wait for opportunities in life to where I can apply my gift to so much!

It's a Hat! Or a Snake... That Ate an Elephant?

   The figures could be both a hat or a snake that ate an elephant, but it does take a little perception. The upper figure could be a really cute hat with an elephant-eating snake design, or it could be an x-ray of a snake, whose eyes definitely got bigger than its stomach. The lower figure is definitely a normal hat. It has the shape, and its color is very convincing. However, this very well could be that same snake shown above, save the x-ray. And for the fun of it, the lower figure may not even contain an elephant-- the snake could have eaten a hat! 
   There is a pattern here, as this example relates to the novel Life of Pi. The figure above could be Pi's imagination in front of him, like the cute hat. Or he could have explored inside his mind to find his wild imaginations in his midst. Hence, the x-ray. But maybe it was a bit more austere, and he really was all alone. Still, Pi could have had the mundane reality, but that tiger inside was only masked, as the snake's skin concealed the elephant within.
   In terms of a better story, the winning answer must be that the figure above is a snake that ate the elephant. The believable story gets old, and people begin to crave something more incredulous, like an elephant-eating snake, or in Pi's case, the tiger who journeyed with him across the Pacific Ocean.
   The "lifeless factuality" award goes to the regular hat. It is so down to earth; no time for extreme creativity-- just the facts. There is no snake. There is no elephant. Just a simple hat. To reiterate, there was no tiger. There was no carnivorous island. Just a journey alone on a boat.