IB sad to leave but IB happy too

I was a lot different than I am now.

I'm talking about my first year of high school (or any other year for that matter). Besides growing about a foot, having increasingly curlier hair, and figuring out how to talk to boys, I've climbed the mountain of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, reaching self actualization....aka I've figured out life a bit more.

When I went into high school, I was just a shy, quiet girl who had no idea what or who I liked. Yes, I said I was quiet (oh how times have changed). Being an underclassmen was hard and certainly involved me being tested in my beliefs and tested in my strength. However, as I began to find my niche in high school, I started to gain confidence. Truth be told being a theatre kid was probably the reason I started to break out of my shell.

Somewhere between junior and senior year I really began to turn into the person I am today. I stopped caring about what people thought of me. I stopped worrying about being the perfect student and I started focusing on being a better person. But like everything in life, it was a process. Senior year hit me hard and it brought a constant struggle of reminding myself that imperfections are okay.

Now, as I go ahead into the future, I am proud of all the amazing moments, the achievements, the friendships, the loss of friendships, the teachers, the accolades, the opportunities, the struggles I had to overcome, and so much more, that have molded me into the person I am today. I have no idea what life beyond high school looks like but I feel confident that I can carry the lessons I've learned no matter where I go. I am different now because I've finally realized that success in life isn't dependent on WHAT I do, but simply WHO I am, and where I invest my time and happiness.

So thank you Millbrook High School, IB, Friends, and Teachers for giving me four unforgettable years!

Whitman's Full of Wit, Man

Perhaps Whitman's greatest thoughts can be found between the beaten pages of an old leather notebook. The problem is, they're just a little (lot) scattered to the reader, which makes it all the more intriguing. I am especially intrigued by the way he lays out his writings; even though it's his own personal notebook, he seems to set up the scene or preface what he's writing. He says "Two Characters as of a dialogue between A. Lincoln and W. Whitman". He then goes on to discuss religion, power, and The Queens of England and Spain. He talks about a ship being held up against the winds and calls it the "Ship of the Libertad". In Spanish, libertad means freedom and it is questioned as to why he used the Spanish word rather than the English word for liberated. Whitman says about the ship, "come now we will see what stuff you are made of." As he continues to describe this ship, he begins to show that this ship is a positive thing. He states that this is the "ship of humanity," the "ship of the hope of the world," "the ship of promise." I think what Whitman is trying to say that this ship represents freedom, freedom that, while hard to achieve, is the hope for humanity. He is also suggesting that Lincoln is the captain of this ship, thus freedom is in his hands. This foreshadows the role that Lincoln plays in American history.

The next pages show illustrations. The first one looks like he is drawing himself, the next one also looks like him but looks more robust, and the last one looks like a mix between Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln. His very last picture looks like a drawing a high school student would draw on their paper during a boring lecture. I think it's really interesting to see that Whitman involves drawings in his journal... perhaps he's trying to illustrate what he just wrote or maybe he just likes doodles, either way the illustrations make me wonder. It is especially interesting to learn that these pictures were not drawn by Whitman himself. Maybe it aids in his ideas of democracy and people working together (or maybe the curtains are just blue). 

With people stating Whitman's writings revolutionized poetry, etc, etc. It's easy to forget that he is still human. It's nice to see that even the greatest of poets and writers have a process. From his scattered thoughts, to crossing out words, to seemingly random illustrations, Whitman shows us that it took more than just pen to paper to write Leaves of Grass. His journal shows me that he carefully thought through what he wrote before he published writings. It also shows that he is not only reflecting what America was going through before and during the Civil War, but also what he was going through at this time. During the Civil War, people stopped buying books which made it hard for Whitman. Whitman's journal shows the thoughts of Whitman, the thoughts that, unlike his poems, were not published for the world to see. Yet, he still projects similar statements as his published writings. He shows that his talent was not just a talent, but his lifestyle. 

The American Dream

When I think of “The American Dream,” I automatically think of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Before reading Gatsby and discussing in my english class, I really had no view of “The American Dream” being about materialism, I thought of refugees. I pictured the individuals who longed so much to come to America because they needed freedom, whether it be religious or otherwise. That is basically what America was founded upon: freedom. So I have always thought that “The American Dream” was a timeless expression that meant coming to America for opportunity. However, as I read The Great Gatsby, by Scott Fitzgerald, I see that this expression is so loosely used as a way of justifying a partying, materialistic lifestyle.

I think there are so many different types of wealth in the world, and the lucky ones have multiple kinds. There is the obvious, the monetary wealth. This kind of wealth just involves having a lot of money, or assets, or things. However, I think one can be poor but be really wealthy. Some people are so happy all the time: they're wealthy with happiness, some people have so many loved ones in their lives: they're wealthy with community, some people are really wealthy with knowledge or ambition: they're wealthy with drive. In Gatsby, the wealth cannot just be defined as someone having a lot of money, it can be defined as having more than one needs of something, or overflowing with something.

The way Americans view wealth and poverty all depends on the American. When it comes to wealth either people view it as the ultimate goal or they see wealth as  the snooty elite they want nothing to do with. When it comes to being poor, a lot of Americans view poverty as a charity and it seems to be just a check off on peoples list, (you're a good person if you donate to the poor etc etc). It always seems like people don't view it as something that will ever go away because a lot of people rely on the lower class to be the labor force. It's definitely a generalization but I think the common belief is that wealth = happiness, poverty = sadness.

I don't really know how I view wealth and poverty. Obviously, the thought of being wealthy sounds 

very inviting,  however I don't see it as something I can't be happy without. But Poverty is not somewhere I'd like to be if I'm honest. It's sad but true that most people are not wealthy and I find it really sad that so many people are in poverty. Rich or poor, people are still people which always is humbling. I don't live in either extreme but I do know that either way I am happy with the life I have. If the "American Dream" is just about living a life I love then I know I've got it down packed!

Lost in Translation

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


Diction: This sentence is very formal by using words such as "agitated," "monstrous," and "vermin". Also by using these words it makes the person sound more vicious. Vermin is also not just bugs and therefore the diction changes the details of the sentence. The audience doesn't know what animal he turned into.
Syntax: The syntax of this sentence is very sporadic, there isn't one emphasis on a subject due to the use of several commas. 
Imagery/Details: This sentence uses a couple adjectives to describe himself in a more intense way than just saying he turned into a bug. The adjectives makes he audience  picture him very animalistic and crazy. 
Structure: As stated above, the structure is very sporadic. The use of commas almost aids in making the structure very jumpy from one point to another. This structure creates an agitated tone, making it more hectic. 

The meaning of this is changed through changing the syntax, imagery, diction, etc, because it makes this scene more intense. The other sentences don't really put emphasis on the fact that this person turned into something else. They're more nonchalant. The word used is "Vermin" and this does not mean just bugs so the diction changes the details of this sentence. The audience doesn't know what animal he turned into. This sentence almost seems over dramatic because it describes him using words such as "monstrous" and one wouldn't necessarily consider a bud to be a monster. 

I think this sentence is less effective in describing the scene than other sentence because I think it over uses commas and describes too many things in the sentence, such as: agitated dreams, one morning, transformed, monstrous venom. It takes away from the fact that he turned into a bug. It also doesn't clearly state that he turned into a bug, just a vermin. People may consider a vermin to be a bug, bird, rat, etc.  

The changing of diction and structure shows that interpretation and translation can take away from the overall point of a sentence. Because some language don't have words that directly translate to another language, people have to change the words they use to describe things. This could mean just a change in words not a change in meaning or it could change the overall message the original author was trying to portray. It also changes the tone because in this case, the tone seems more pretentious through using these bigs words, however in the other sentences, it seems more casual. 

Freebie

Once Upon a Time...

https://www.ted.com/talks/jd_schramm#t-228460

Breaking the Silence for Suicide Survivors

This Ted talk is discussing suicide and how people who have survived suicide attempts may not have the resources or enough help to rebuild their lives. The Speaker, J.D Schramm, talks about a man called John who, despite having a lot of money, a new house, and a new job, was depressed. This led him to jump off the the Manhattan Bridge, attempting to end his life. He floated down the East River and was spotted by a man on a boat. Eventually John was lifted out of the river by The Coast Guard. After he was rescued, he decided to try to rebuild his life, instead of trying again. Research shows that nineteen out of twenty suicide attempts fail but those nineteen people are thirty seven times more likely to succeed the second time. The people who go through this find it very hard to get their lives back on track due to society's taboos of suicide- they're not sure what to say or how to approach it, so they just ignore it. This furthers the isolation of the people who have tried to commit suicide. The speaker explains how he, in fact, is John who tried to commit suicide. He realized after two people he cared about committed suicide, he must speak out and share his story. He urges the audience that if anyone has contemplated, attempted, or knows of someone who has tried to commit suicide, to talk about it and get help because it's a conversation were having and an idea worth sharing.

The speaker of this Ted Talk is trying to convince the audience that there are many survivors who need help, and who need resources to get their lives back on track. He is trying to show that suicide is very common and serious, and can happen to anyone. The Speaker add credibility to the story by showing that he is the man he talks about, who survived a suicide attempt. This helps the audience to see how he has brought himself up from a hard place in his life, and is living out exactly what he is trying to portray through his talk. The audience can trust that even though it's hard, sharing about about suicide is helpful and possible for suicide survivors, and they can trust this through John telling his story publicly. This creates bias in his story because it is describing his life. What he is saying makes sense but may not be possible for all people who have survived suicide. this weakens his argument because his method may not work for all people. However, it strengthens his argument by stating that he, and two of his friends tried to commit suicide. It shows that he has a personal connection to what he's saying, and makes it easier for those who have attempted suicide to trust him. The speaker appeals to the emotions very much during his presentation. He creates sympathy in the reader, and from that sympathy, it is easier for the audience to want to help people who have attempted suicide. However, he tells the audience only at the end that his story is the one he is describing, and this makes room for the audience to form emotions without directing them anywhere. Once they realize that the speaker is the one who tried to commit suicide, they can use those emotions to realize the importance of the issue, because it can happen to anyone.

Although I do not have any experience with suicide, I have always been moved by people discussing it. I am a very sensitive person so I wanted to choose a Ted Talk which interested me and moved me. It also reminded me of The Handmaid's Tale, and how Offred thought about committing suicide in the end of the book. It reminded me of the Appearance vs Reality dichotomy because even though this man had a lot going for him in his life, he was still depressed and considering suicide. It brings up the idea that you never know what someone is going through.

Who's Walter Neff???

1. In film noir, many of the male leads are weak, frustrated men. While you are watching Double Indemnity, make a mental note of Walter Neff’s characteristics. What kind of man is he? What is his relationship like with women?
Walter Neff was a typical guy, some would call him tall-dark-and-handsome. He was well dressed, smooth talking, and good at his job. He was probably somewhere between 20 and 30 years old, yet was not married or dating anyone. He seemed to be happy and chirpy by the way he walked and talked, he was optimistic about life (at the beginning of his story). At first he seems to be a womanizer by the way he talks to Phyllis, talking smoothly and flattering her. However, as the movie progresses we see him become entranced by this woman who he thinks loves him. He ends up doing things he wouldn't normally do-the main being killing a man. He goes from being this seemingly strong character, to a man being weakened by his blind optimism and love for Phyllis.

Maybe Walter has been selective when it came to women in the past, or maybe he hadn't quite found that one person, so when he thought it was Phyllis, he was willing to do anything for her. Walter seemed to be a good-hearted man in the beginning, and yet slowly Phyllis tainted his goodness. First by making him fall for a married woman, second, by making him kill a man in her defense, and eventually, killing Phyllis, herself. We can tell Walter isn't originally evil because he reluctantly agrees to plotting against Phyllis's husband. Yet, possibly that integrity we see is just a cover because if he was truly good-hearted, he might not have killed in the first place. Walter seemed to be very
flimsy- not really firmed in his beliefs, or himself.

Although what Walter did- aiding in killing Phyllis's husband- was probably a dumb move, Walter was very smart in how he did it. He was a very smart man, as seen in his outstanding sales in the Insurance Company, and if it weren't for his own confession, he would have gotten away with the murder. Which then turns back to his good-heartedness. Again, he shows the audience that although he has done horrible things throughout the movie, he cannot let another man go down for his mistakes, and he admits the whole story.  I would say that Walter Neff is a good man, tricked into doing bad things for someone he loves, and that he can't be blamed for falling astray to the woman completely.

So one could say that Walter Neff is a highly confusing man-but then again what man isn't?