Who is this girl I see.. Uh, I mean, Reflections (on my blog assignments)

Okay, when I first heard we had to write a blog (a first for me) for class I was like...

http://go.osu.edu/KYJ

I wasn't really sure what would be required of us. I read blogs all the time of course, but had never attempted one of my own before. So I was mostly just unsure and lost, two things which lost their holds on me as time in class went on and I became more sure-footed in writing blog-like notes.

When I actually started writing the blog posts it wasn't as scary as I thought. The whole class felt that way, scary at first, then..alright. I still get a nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach when I have to proofread my own work, but I think that's getting a little better. The blog posts were fun to do, I only wish I had had a little more time to complete some of them. Most of the time we wrote our blog posts during class which didn't leave much time for thinking about the topics more clearly. Although this was frustrating sometimes, it did help in that we had to learn to write a comprehensible piece in a limited time frame. I feel that my previous posts could have been better than they are, but I don't necessarily think that the lack of time negatively impacted the quality significantly.
The take away from being in this situation - forced blogging - is that it's not incredibly difficult and doesn't need to be too time-consuming. I think everyone interested in improving their writing ability could benefit from frequent blogging, on any subject. Sometimes the hardest part of writing is the simply starting to write, and I think blogging helps with that. When you blog, typically you are blogging on something you are interested in, and it's in a very informal tone, so it's easier than, say, just sitting down and writing an ARP. You also have the benefit of user feedback, which can help or frustrate you at different times, but is overall useful in learning your audiences tastes and preferences.

Author: Eyehook.com

Yay, we're done! Have some champagne for breakfast (that is a very unfortunate color..)!

For my commonplace essay I will be writing a description of my analysis into whole grains and their effect on our bodies. We were recently told by my son's doctor (3 days ago) that he has wheat and dairy sensitivities that are slowly killing him. Obviously we immediately cut out all wheat and dairy from our regular diet. But you can't simply cut out two food groups without changing other dietary habits and avoid adverse effects. This change brought to my attention the groups of people who have chosen to say no to wheat and dairy. These people claim that wheat is killing ALL of us, because of the grain's protective poisons. But if this is true, why would we, as a culture, depend on grain as 50% of our daily diet? And what are the dangers of cutting out dairy and wheat together?

My primary source is a movie trailer about the Korean War and its effect on families, particularly the two siblings that are the main characters. I plan to use "Sources of Korean Culture: From the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Century. Vol. 2." to expand on the ideals shown in the trailer, and "Mathematics in the South Korean Flag" to tie in the trailer title "Taegukgi" (the Korean flag) to the trailer as a whole, specifically why I think they chose that as the title. My third source is still up in the air, I have a couple of ideas but I'm trying them out in different ways so I'm not entirely sure what I'll ultimately choose. It will most likely be one of the many reviews on the movie, though.I think my secondary source integration will be mostly focusing on the title of the movie and its meaning. The trailer is too long to really analyse all the information given. It's hard to write ABOUT something I haven't finished completely, since every time I write it out, it comes out different than before. 

Deeper meaning, or just deeper bulls***?

     In class today (YAY Friday!) we listened to this song for the purpose of analyzing (duh). The song was Sometime Around Midnight by Airborne Toxic Event, some indie rock band I've never heard of before. We discussed "analyzing with the grain" and the explicit message of the song, basically your average 'boo hoo girl done left Imma get drunk and stare at her creepily at a bar' song. One of the 'implicit meaning' possibilities was that the girl he's broken up over is dead (maybe because he's a stalker who took it a little too far??) and he's seeing her ghost. I think there's at least one more possibility, though. Here are the lyrics for a guide:

And it starts, sometime around midnight.
Or at least that’s when you lose yourself
for a minute or two.
As you stand, under the bar lights.
And the band plays some song
about forgetting yourself for a while.
And the piano’s this melancholy soundtrack to her smile.
And that white dress she’s wearing
you haven’t seen her for a while. 

But you know, that she’s watching.
She’s laughing, she’s turning.
She’s holding her tonic like a cross.
The room’s suddenly spinning.
She walks up and asks how you are.
So you can smell her perfume.
You can see her lying naked in your arms. 

And so there’s a change, in your emotions.
And all these memories come rushing
like feral waves to your mind.
Of the curl of your bodies,
like two perfect circles entwined.
And you feel hopeless and homeless
and lost in the haze of the wine. 

Then she leaves, with someone you don’t know.
But she makes sure you saw her.
She looks right at you and bolts.
As she walks out the door,
your blood boiling
your stomach in ropes.
Oh and when your friends say,
“What is it? You look like you’ve seen a ghost.” 

Then you walk, under the streetlights.
And you’re too drunk to notice,
that everyone is staring at you.
You just don’t care what you look like,
the world is falling around you. 

You just have to see her.
You just have to see her.
You just have to see her.
You just have to see her.
You just have to see her.
You know that she’ll break you in two.

     Alright, first of all, just because a song is sung by a man doesn't mean the protagonist is male, he never says 'I', always 'you'. I think the 'you' he sings about is a woman he knows, probably loves, who is an alcoholic. She tries to quit, and succeeds for a little while, but sometime around midnight, when the day is completely gone, she can't help herself. The woman she sees throughout the song is her addiction, alcohol, calling to her. Addiction smiles, the music calls to her (certain kinds of music are complements to alcohol), she wears a white dress for innocence, for 'just one drink, it'll be alright, it'll be like old times'. Addiction lures her in after her triumph over it for so long. The verse is full of longing, of the hunger she feels, the withdrawal she's dealing with every second, the temptation to give in just once.

     In the next verse you can feel the dizziness taking over her as she slowly gives up. The addiction mocks her because it has won. The smell of alcohol fills the entire room and she starts to lose her bearings. He sings that she sees it naked in her arms, leading into the next verse where the alcohol completely takes over her body and mind, SHE is the naked one, helpless and lost, no physical home left to her soul. The alcohol takes her body to go with a strange man, she watches herself move as if from across the room, the addiction has ultimately won. Her friends notice the change in her as she leaves but don't try to stop her.

     She seems to regain her sense of body in the last full verse, but she is so full of the drink she doesn't care anymore, she feels like she's in control of her body even though she senses her world is falling apart.
He sings the next line five times, emphasizing the NEED that addicts feel, to just have a taste of their medicine, they can't back away from their masters even though they are conscious of the fact it will ultimately destroy them.
   
     Anyway, that was my take on it, if we're looking for things not explicit. It makes sense to me that that's what he means by the song. I could go line by line on it but I think this is close enough, you get the point. What do you think?

Evidence and Claims

     Evidence, in order to have a point, must be backed up by claims. Without claims, evidence is a simple fact, nothing more, and the readers are left to guess what you mean the evidence to say. Evidence doesn't really speak for itself, it needs a lens through which to look at it. By leaving it leaving it open you leave your audience unsure of what you are trying to get across to them. 

     The opposite is also true; that claims must be backed up by evidence. Simply making claims on a subject, stating your opinion, may be easy to do, but no one will care about your opinion if they don't think it could be a valid one. You need to show your sources to be trustworthy ones. 

     While I'm writing my papers for English class, I'll need to remember this every step of the way. Part of writing a paper is making it interesting and believable. When I bring in secondary sources next week I will of course check and recheck my sources for validity, but I also will need to make sure my claims are giving the evidence a point.

Taegugki Trailer

  Taegugki: The Brotherhood of War Trailer (American version)

  The trailer opens with a fast-paced sequence of clips showing soldiers shooting machine guns, a soldier flying through the air after an explosion.  Then it slows down to focus on a man slowly standing up as soldiers race past him, away from something in front of him.  The sound in the background fades away to slow, dramatic music.  The words “On June 25, 1950 North Korea invaded the South” appear over a backdrop of swirling smoke.  It shows the same man again, still kneeling on the ground as another explosion jars him backwards.  Clips of a man clutching his chest in agony on a battlefield are alternated with happy children splashing in a fountain.  A man falls on another, with a burst of sound overpowering the music, as he protects him from an explosion.  The swirling smoke appears again, this time with the words “From that moment on, nothing would ever be the same”.

  The trailer then cuts to a sunlit, cheerful scene of 1950s South Korea, with children running and women walking across a street, with happier string music in the background.  As we see two young men jumping onto a bus, a man says, “Samuel Goldwyn presents the incredible story of two brothers torn apart by a war they did not believe in”.  The two men watch in shock as a military transport vehicle drives past, filled with men.  A train whistles in sync with a soldier’s whistle of attention.  One of the young men is grabbed by a soldier and we see punches fly as the other young man, his brother, tries to rescue him.  Both brothers are ultimately trapped on the train as it drives away from the station.  One calls to his mother, while his family looks on in horror and his mother holds back a young girl from running after them.  Next, we see a formation of soldiers, including the brothers, in a much dimmer lit room.  We watch as they race through a few fighting scenes and the background voice tells us “they fought for freedom, they fought for honor, and they fought to find each other… again”.  The background voice tells us about the film director as the two brothers limp towards each other on a battlefield.  Scenes flash, of soldiers running up a snowy hill, soldiers about to shoot a row of captured POWs, a plane crashing into the ground.  Then, the music lightens for a bit as the characters are shown in happier times while the actors’ names are introduced.  Two dirty, callused hands from two people are clasped but then slip apart, leading into the final shot, an old sepia photograph of the two brothers and a young woman posing for a portrait with the words “Taegugki: The Brotherhood of War” superimposed over it.