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.