History Blog

Analysis Table

Summary: Write out what happens, or say what it (the story, poem, chapter, or section) is about. Go piece by piece, building as you go.	Leonard is a person with short-term memory loss. He goes on a search for the person who raped and murdered his wife. He meets others along the way who use Leonard to accomplish their own goals. The story is told through an interesting perspective with both color and black and white scenes. The opening seems to actually be the end of the movie. Leonard is looking down on the ground with Teddy laying there dead. The scenes then explain Leonard's condition and how he deals with it. Throughout the movie bits and pieces of Leonard's past are revealed after the event to give the event relevance and chronology.
Characters: Name them. Say what the characters look like, what they do or say in the section you read. (Or, what they don’t say.) Say what this tells you about the character.	Leonard, Natalie, Teddy. Leonard is someone who uses his instincts to judge a person. He believes that his memories betray him, so he writes down all-important information on his body. He also takes photos of something he is introduced to. Every time he wakes up he asks questions and looks at the surroundings around him. This shows that Leonard is a very logical person. He is completely consumed with the thought of revenge and he will let nothing stand in his way.
Questions/Reactions What are you still thinking about? What reminds you of something in your own life about what you’ve read? Why is this section important? Note your response. Surprise? Anger? Why did you respond this way?	I am still questioning the fact that all of Leonard’s notes are accurate, as some people tell him to write down things as well. The question of who we are and self-identity are questions that we all ask, which will never be answered. Self identity and truth are important to Leonard as he can only go by what he sees in his own writing. He trusts no one completely and a sense of isolationism is shown, yet at the same time it seems that Leonard cannot stand being alone. I am still in suspense to see what happens who Teddy is and what really happened to Leonard’s wife.

Memento Brainstorming

The main character of the movie Memento is Leonard. Leonard speaks in first person throughout the movie. He looks like he is worn out from the constant challenge of living yet something is driving him onward. Revenge?
He has short term amnesia. He is unable to remember anything that he just did.
He writes notes in order to help him remember things.
He writes on his body important information.
He stays at a motel.
He knows that Teddy is an alias for a John G. John G. raped someone
He writes on a picture to kill Teddy and not believe his lies.
During the opening sequences there is a picture being held by a hand.
The beginning scene of the movie starts with Leonard looking down, and "Teddy" lying face down dead.
The movie continuosly jumps to the past so the viewer understands the present.
There is a serious tone to the movie, as Leonard is a serious character.
The use of both color and black and white film is used for different parts of the movie.
It seems that the past is in black and white, and the present is in color.
Whenever Lenny wakes up the film is in black and white.
There are notes all around his room telling him what to do.
When he goes down to talk with the owner, he tells him the same thing he always tells him, even thoguh he doesn't remember who the person is.
When Lenny and Teddy go out to an abandoned house, Lenny proceeds to attack Teddy. Lenny tells teddy to beg for forgiveness from his wife. Teddy tells Lenny that if he wants to know the truth they can go down to the basement together. The scene goes to black and a gunshot is heard.

Araby Interpretations

Both Crane and Ratinov have differing views on the short story Araby. While Crane argues that at the end of the story the boy has learned nothing and is still just as vain as he was when he was a kid, Ratinov argues that the young boy at the end actually learns something, and that would be the hypocrisy of adult life and his own feelings. Crane bases her logic on the darkness in the story. The darkness represents something that the boy does not know or is ignorant to. At the end she describes the boys own ignorance to his feelings and states that he is still ignorant. Ratinov on the other hand believes that through circumstantial evidence in the story that the boy actually learns and reflects the hypocrisy in his own actions as well as the actions of others.

Cartoon

This cartoon seems to me like a clashing of two different ideals and one can venture to say it represents both the liberals and the republicans. It may also even represent the two sides to America. These would be the liberal sides and the conservative sides. Many aggressive words are on the side of the male farmer. Words such as burn, boycott, and murder, show a very proactive nature. This contrasts to the words on the female like save, and peace. America tends to act both pro actively and reactively in different cases. The pins on the side of the female tend to depict more liberal views. An example of this would be the pin "save the planet." The democrats and liberal Americans tend to care much more about what happens to earth and how resources are managed. Conversely the more conservative Americans and republicans care more about exploiting the land for profit such as drilling for oil on land and in the sea. America has both a pro war and anti war mentality. This is depicted by the woman's pin that says peace is patriotic, while at the same time the man's pin says that freedom isn't free indicating that we must fight in order to protect our freedom. The male tends to represent the more crude Americans as evident by the pin "Burn this Asshole." Also the pin "Boycott France" is another sign of our unwillingness to cooperate with countries. An even bigger example of this is on the pin with the U.N. crossed out. There were times in Bush's career where he actually went against the orders of the U.N. There are also the binaries between the pins. Words that are the exact opposite such as save and burn, and peace and massacre stand out on their respective sides in order to make more of an impact on the meaning of these words. There are so many different ways to interpret this cartoon, just like there are many ways in which the world interprets America. To some we are crude, illiterate, intolerant, violent bullies, who want nothing more than to coerce cooperation from powerless countries, and who will exploit and attack anything or anyone when it is to are advantage. To others we are the peacemakers and police of the world, the country of freedom and opportunity, intelligent and caring a country who is friend to all and will help those in need.

"The Method"

My initial reaction to "The method" was one of slight uninterest. I am used to doing these steps naturally and instinctively, and that is why I thought, at first, that this reading would not really help me. As I read and saw how in depth and how accurately these steps were being described and portrayed, I began to see the significance of this reading and also ways that I could improve my own method by taking advice from these steps, and applying it to my own analytical strategies.

These "methods" are very useful in analyzing movies, literature, essays, and even art. An example of this would be analyzing an argumentative essay, for example "Diversities False Solace". The first move suspending judgement is very key in order to analyze properly what Michaels is saying. In order to keep an objective point of view it is important to not let your own feelings, say on social equality, get in the way and make you judge Michaels and his views subjectively. In this way you lead yourself into step two by defining the specific parts of Michael's argument objectively, and from this you are able to connect their relationships with one another. Since Michael's paper tends to travel from subject to subject part three would not be applicable here as it would be difficult to find repetitions. Also since Michaels tells you at the end what he is saying step four of converting indirect statements into direct is pretty much unnecessary. Finally by reformulating questions and explanations you are able to look at the different ways in which Michaels portrays his ideas and what evidence he uses. In all this method is very useful in analyzing, as you accomplish it in a way that is both concise and objective.

Letter to Editor

The article "Diversity's False Solace", written by Walter Benn Michaels focuses on racial diversity, how it affects students of all colors and backgrounds, and how it is used to avert the public to social and economic inequality. Michaels refers to U.I.C's great reputation concerning this matter. U.I.C is, "ranked among the top 10 universities in the country for the diversity of the student body." This does not necessarily include diversity in class. While Michaels believes that there is value in ethnic and racial diversity, and also that affirmative action is needed, he also says that it is used to make universities seem like they are being fair to all and that they are allowing all students to be accepted if they try hard enough. Sadly Michaels says that this is not the case, as class diversity at universities is almost non-existent. Michaels says that while people of different races are accepted because of affirmative action, others are being turned down because of not even being able to apply because of the influx of those who did become accepted because of affirmative action, or because of financial problems. He goes on to conclude that because so many people and universities focus on racial inequality and racism, they think that these are the only problems that we need to solve. Diversity is "a rich people's solution." This means that as long as people focus on race, class will not be addressed. I agree with Michaels in that he is correct in asserting that racial diversity is more focused on at universities than class diversity. The rich who are not always necessarily as smart as the poor will get in to a university because of their wealth. Like Michaels says, "The fact that it doesn't help to be white to get into Harvard replaces the much more fundamental fact that it does help to be rich and it's virtually essential not to be poor." I think that it is wrong that people who cannot pay are the ones who cannot go, when there are rich people, and those who are accepted because of affirmative action, who are not even intellectually qualified. However, "as long as the left (liberals) continues to worry about diversity, the right (conservatives) won't have to worry about inequality."