Frenzy

Bill Buford has this desire to get in trouble, that I'm still trying to figure out. He is following the hooligans of the Manchester United Football Club. He has a particular way of describing very dangerous situations. He uses very straight forward descriptions. He let's the reader imagine himself inside the situations and that is enough. His tone is filled with humor. The type that is only manifested when you are very worried about something and your way to react is to make a joke out of it.

"What do you do, I wonder, when your instinct is telling you to arrest everyone, and your sense of justice is telling you that you can't, and your mind, thoroughly confused, is telling you to smile a lot, and then you discover that in place of the person responsible for your predicament you have instead a twenty-two-year-old police dropout surrounded by 257 drunken boys on her first time abroad?

What would you do?" (p. 41)

Fear is something that can either help you or destroy you, it can help you think faster or it blocks your rational thinking. I think Buford was suffering from the second type of fear, because he remained static in the middle of the chaos.

I don't think the text grasps the feeling of anxiety a normal person would experience in that situation. Yet, I am an easily moved girl so perhaps my judgement is not very precise. One of the things that he points out and that shocked me was the savage nature of the herd of thugs. In their abusive rage they were moving further away from their humanity and ethics (They used to have one). The sensation of being in a group and breaking the law turned them into monsters.

"Looking around me, I realized that I was no longer surrounded by raving, hysterically nationalistic social deviants; I was now surrounded by raving, hysterically nationalistic social deviants in a frenzy." (p. 45)

 Frenzy!

Good Luck Future Husband

Should I say positive or negative experience? 

I am part of the theater group in my school. We are a very small yet diverse group of people, from a shy introverted kid, to the look-at-me kid. The theater is our sort of escape from our group of friends. That means, that we love our friends because they are similar to us; they know us and we know them. When we get to the theater, we get to explore and analyze people that are nothing like us, or people that we didn't know were so similar to us. In other words, people from the play entertain me when I'm tired of the same old thing. This year's play was my third one. I have discovered that my persona suits the hysterical old lady character in every play. (Or a vulture in the jungle book.)

I was Don Juan Tenorio's mother in our play, Don Juan. I had to transform my character several times. At the end, my character was a mirrored picture of my mother (if she was as religious as my character). I didn't notice this at first. My mother as a lover of the arts and a persistent supporter of my acting, attended the play. Seated next to my life long friend's mother she watched. I finished my scene and felt the satisfaction that performing brings me. Eager to hear the feed back, I looked for her at the end of the play. 

She told me while laughing: "Great performance, I saw myself in your character. Every mom in the audience laughed". 

I thought about it and I did mimic my mother's remarks and hand gestures. I had been struck by this knowledge long ago, but it just now hit me, I will be just like my mother. 

The hysterical old lady part suits me because, I am hysterical and I act, sometimes, like an old lady. I will become my characters. They were given to me and now they are forever engraved in my personality. 

OMG... GASP!

Good luck future husband! 

Rhetoric in the play:

We could say that a character such as Don Juan, has to arm himself with rhetoric. He had to give excuses every five minutes and he was a master in the art of seduction. Rhetoric as a mater of fact, is intended to seduce the audience make them do or feel as you intend. A good Don Juan knows exactly how to do that.

My...His

Among the Thugs by Bill Buford has turned out to be one of the few books that is interesting from the first phrase. No, from the title it was already interesting. I have always been intrigued by the things people do that put them under a sort of ecstasy. Things I am not attracted to. Buford describes the weird phenomena that is to start liking something that at first seemed unpleasant:

"I SEE NOW ON REFLECTION, NOT UNLIKE ALCOHOL OR TOBACCO: DISGUSTING, AT FIRST; PLEASURABLE, WITH EFFORT; ADDICTIVE, OVER TIME" (P. 21)

His description is much like the behavior I'm so amused by. I can relate to it through soccer and sushi. Sushi is gross the first time one tries it, then you grow accustomed to it. Finally, you fall in love with it.
Soccer was different. If you don't get it, you don't enjoy it. My first time in a Colombian stadium was a year ago. I had heard of "them", the thugs. What I had heard was not good. I was very scared. I went with four of my classmates (I was the only girl there). The dangerous, if I may, where seated in different parts of the stadium than we. I saw their savage jumping and I could hear them chanting. They proceeded to take their shirts off until they became a brownish/yellowish jumping mass.
The worst part was when the match was over and we were trapped inside a herd of humans trying to get out of this place, all at the same time, through a narrow gate. My hand held my Iphone firmly. If somebody had dared to touch it, I think they would have left that stadium without eyeballs. I finally understood that to get out one had to "[resign] to the authority of [the crowd's] shove."

After I got out, I noticed how adrenaline soaked my body. I wanted to do it again. I too was starting, with effort, to like it.

Rhetorical Realms

Rhetorical fouls are just things that will probably turn your argument into a fight. There are 7 fouls that Jay Heinrichs created. The one I found to be the most important one was "Utter stupidity," as Heinrichs puts it.

 To argue with someone that is unwilling to accept his mistakes (a rather stupid person), is to argue with no purpose. You should chose your opponent wisely. We are animals and our instincts merged with powerful rhetorical abilities can help us chose the right battles. 

I fight with my sister over clothe. She steals my shorts and then denies it. I have realized that she is a bad contender. Like Heinrichs puts it, "When you find yourself in the realm of the inarguable, get out of there". 

I don't know if it is because I tried watching Brave the movie before reading but here we go:

This (above) would be the portal to the realms. Imagine yourself here when deciding whether to engage in an argument or not.

If you choose the right battle and arm yourself with rhetorical weapons you will end up in this peaceful realm. (above)

If you chose to fight instead of argue you will end up in this scary realm and you will be doomed. DOOMED.


Choose wisely.

And Is Drinking A Problem?

Stance: Redefine the terms if you are under attack during an argument.

Definition is a powerful tool if the odds are against you. You can twist things up to make it seem as if the argument was irrelevant. But you've got to make take last. Arguing that the argument is irrelevant may be dangerous since you disqualify your opponent or the judge himself. Like Jay Heinrichs said, "The best way to define terms is to redefine them". I am part of the ambassadors program in CNG and I just realized that they have been teaching us "argument jujitsu" as Heinrichs calls it. When someone asks: Do you guys drink a lot?  They taught us to use it against them. We would then reply: Oh, I love getting that question because it allows me to talk about the fantastic programs the school has to prevent substance abuse. 

Smart ambassadors are smart.

Reading Readers

Commonplaces are detonators of familiar topics. They tend to be relevant to social issues or concerns. You can use them to win an argument. They work if you place them right and you make it feel like you have your audience in mind. In the book Thank You For Arguing, Jay Heinrichs describes an argument about politics between two friends. He shows how Annie, the Republican made a mistake when she "argued against [her opponent's commonplace]". What Annie needed to do was to agree and then calmly restate her side. In this video of an IKEA commercial we can witness a commonplace. When we hear something or someone can do two things at once we immediately think about efficiency. Our society is constantly asking for faster technology and IKEA played with our necessity very well. 

I'm ...

If I understood the new rhetorical tools, on chapter 8 of Thank You For Arguing, I shouldn't show how intellectual I am.  I didn't really know what to make of the chapter. I find it hard to apply all of the tools Heinrichs has given me. Some of them cancel each other. But after organizing them I concluded that you must choose one or two of the tools. You can't use them all in one discussion/argument. Although it is my favorite exercise. It seems to overwhelm the audience. I try to think about how the audience feels. Are they understanding? Tired? Confused? 

Well if I communicate with them using only two methods, little by little, they won't feel overwhelmed. 

I decided to try using only two, to restrain myself from applying all of them at once. For the sake of my audience. First I used logos which is appeal through thoughtfully, logically and comprehensively put arguments. And second I used dubitatio, I made it seem that I had just reached my conclusion from an inexistent confusion. You may be wondering when I used these two tools! Well... in this blog post. 

-That's why I chose a pretty ambiguous title. 

A found a really good video that summarizes Ethos Logos and Pathos for those that are still lost. It differs from Heinrichs' ideas of Ethos and Pathos, but it is still very accurate. A good 4 minute synthesis of the three rhetorical terms. Plus the guy has a really tranquil voice that serves the purpose of calmly explaining. 

Bloody Virtue

Yesterday I was in the play rehearsal. My character is an old angry mother, with a very old husband. My husband is a narcoleptic, which means he falls asleep all the time. At one point I am supposed to wake him. In the creative spur of the rehearsal we tried to choreograph my husband slapping me. He hit me with his elbow and I got a nose bleed. Now, it wouldn't have been decorous of me to start crying. My audience expected me to be a grown up about it. The hit didn't hurt so I was able to play my role easily.

You do what you need to do at the moment. When you manage to act as you are expected to you learn to read your audience. That change one makes when it is needed can be seen as an attempt to act decorously. Every situation in life has a different character to be filled with. You develop a personality, but that is a collection of multiple yous.

Decorum helps us fit in. We play by the virtue of the others or we make them act by our virtue.

Virtue can also be called values. Heinrich's explains, social acceptance of the word values over virtue came because men didn't want to be called virtuous, since that was a feminine attribute: "Hey, pal, who are you calling virtuous? The word connotes weakness and dependency-a sexist's idea of femininity".

Is this how they want to look like?

Oh yeah all muscle...

I think we were luckier with this one. Don't mind me being virtuous... 

The Tie Issues

I heard many critiques and compliments for both candidates competing for the U.S.A presidency. One of the funniest was that on the previous debate (not the one today) Romney had worn a tie which had an english stripe, rather than the American stripped tie. At first I found it funny then I understood it as pure stupidity. Now, after watching the debate I see the "importance" of these little accessory for men. There I was, trying to understand the points of view of both candidates, when my mind stopped thinking, sidetracked thanks to the ugly tie Romney had on. I was then immediately favoring Obama. I can't actually choose a side or even argue about the topic. I know nothing of the U.S.A current situation. I know very little about politics. I might as well admit that I am ignorant to the politics of the most influential country in the world, and those of my own country too. But as a human I can say that it sounds logical (logos) to say that more budget for the military would be absurd if they are already the country that spends the most in military. Perhaps it is not the amount of budget, but the way it is being used. 

I was shocked, though, to see two grown men attacking each other like little children (Well spoken nine year olds). If I recall correctly there were more than 4 interruptions between one another. The guy mediating looked frustrated and tired. Maybe it was because he was old and looked wise that I assumed he was tired. Mmm oh well... 

In addition to my incompetence for the topic and my alarming interest on everyone's clothes, I was trying to relax from the stress the tests this week bring me. I saw the two candidates debating. Obama with his golden pathos. -For example when he told the story about Patton. -And Romney with his reputation. Always talking about his success as a Governor and a business man. I get it they need the rhetorical knifes to make us agree. They both used logos, exposing facts like komodo dragons spit poisonous saliva at their enemies. I was charmed by those, the logical facts. I didn't know if they were greatly maneuvered fallacies, but they sounded real. And the certainty in their voice made me feel unworthy of doubting such wise men. Seeing them there gave me a strong existential depression. 

The only think that stopped me from falling into complete admiration for their memory and fantastic oratory was that they had an ATTITUDE.  They made faces, raised their voice and even laughed at each other. I was not expecting them to get all carried away like fighting teenagers. Then, I remembered, my days in MUN are proof of how I will never achieve the goal of lady in distress. I snap like a mean witch when attacked. If I were to be debating right there one day I would end up shooting the opposition. I am not very patient, so I have to forgive them for their lack of it. 

Oh politics. Just an ugly tie.

When Thinking Spoiling

Rhetoric: Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.

Rhetoric has always been part of our lives. We have to get the things we want and we learn how to get them with time. We use it without knowing it's name but we are not ignorant to it's existence. Although rhetoric has always been part of my repertoire of tools to use when working for a goal, I feel that knowing how it is characterized does help me organize my arguments. But I found out that if I plan my argument based on the advise of the book it feels forced. I'm stuck there thinking should I mind maneuvers or not? I'm also trying to use a wide variety of techniques and that makes me panic. I end up less organized than when I just go with my natural rhetorical abilities. They are, off course, learned over time but they come out naturally now. (I think I will plan them only for written arguments.) 

Here's an example: My mom and dad are talking in the family room and I hear my name. My instinct tells me to ask them what they are talking about. I then proceede to scream: "Dad why are you guys talking about me?," I am a curious person. My mom, as usual, intervenes and screams back: "Cause you are the new password." I am left puzzled by her response and I reply: "What password?," she says, "the password of your fathers life." She is mocking me and that is highly unacceptable. I rise and walk to the family room keeping in mind my new rhetorical organizing skills. 

1. I set my personal goal: Make my mom realize that she is NOT being funny.

2. Set goal for my audience: CHANGE MOOD: from humorous to annoyed.

First I have to say I was successful on one of my goals but the other one was a total fail.

I started off stimulating her emotions by standing in front of the tv. Once I was strategically placed I was aware of her annoyed look. I asked her again seriously what password. She went on with her little charade, "All the passwords [honey], it's a sign of affection from your dad." She tried changing topics to me not liking the ceviche my father bought. But I was determined. "Mom why do you enjoy pestering me?," I wanted to trigger guilt. She is reluctant and I snap. This doesn't happen usually, she is literally ignoring me, like my immature sister is accustomed to do. She triggers stress in me instead. I'm thinking what was next and in the desperation of the process I panic. I change my target and tell my father to "try buying the nice fish next time," I'm still using rhetoric because I prefer the use of a suggestion instead of an accusatory phrase. He feels offended anyways, and my mom gets a new reason to shush me. I get slapped by her words: "Stop being rude to your dad, the fish was fine." I now look like a brat. Two strikes, stress and now embarrassment. But she started this. Although I already lost in my terms, I will accomplish one of my goals at least: to annoy her. I succeed, completely transformed into the brat she made me look like. It works she is pissed. She attempts to watch a movie and, engulfed in stress, she fails to make the apple t.v. work. 

I take advantage of that one mistake she just made, to use her same "humorous" tactics this time on her. 

Me: "When you are mean and definitely on the wrong attitude you do everything wrong." (She looks at me, mouth open.) "No I'm not going to help you." 

I leave feeling somehow triumphant. Until I remember I wanted her to take me to the ATM. Now I have an annoyed mom and I need something from her. Not even advanced rhetoric will assure me success.

Think they said. 

LPE Legion

LPE= Logos, Ethos and Pathos.

Logos is logic. Facts

Ethos is reputation.

Pathos is emotion.

These are tools to win an argument. In Thank You For Arguing the author Jay Heinrichs explains to us the power of knowing how to use these rhetorical tools. Created by Aristotle these tools are three big ones of many Heinrichs already gave us.
Arguments can be mastered remembering the following "rules":
1. mirror the emotion of your opponents, to show concern. Then, switch it to what you want the mood to be.
2. Discuss trying to reach concession
3. Become the one who wins the fight. Almost like acting.

Although it is not mentioned in chapter four of Heinrichs book, I'm sure he will include it later on, presentation is key. The way you look does matter. That's why you have to look fabulous ALL the time.

Like this:

Kinda! Just look right for the occasion and try not to be part of the herd of ill dressed citizens.


Or look horrible or I dunno. Work it. Because sweet victory awaits you in future arguments.

My Future Children

I am trying to spend time with my grandparents. They always make great conversation topics. That's about all I need to like a person. I was talking with my grandmother about the book I'm reading, Kaffir Boy. I told her how the book made me feel. I said, "I ache for my own future children. As I read, I grab myself in fear and it takes me a few seconds to remember I am safe, in my bedroom. Disgusted by human cruelty, I always have to stop reading." and from that - deep- paragraph the only thing she picked up was "my own future children". She asked me how I pictured them, how I wanted to raise them and how many kids I wanted. She told me that she wanted them to know about her. I understood her anxiety to know all this things and we talked. 

The conversation, which after a while returned to the book, made me realize how I am very protective about my future children. ( Something like this.)

In the book, Mathabane describes the hiding place his mother used when the police came looking for her. He was shocked because "[his sister and him] often had trouble fitting in [that wardrobe] whenever [they] played hide and seek" (p.26). After the conversation with my grandmother I understood that I would do anything to protect my children, just like Mathabane's mother did.

Apartheid

I avoid topics that remind me that the people I love may die. I think it is natural. One topic that always takes me to traumatic scenes is my childhood. I didn't suffer, but it reminds me of the time I can't recuperate. I complain, I demand, I am human.

The book Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane reminds me of how lucky I have been and how stupid my complains are. I had my fingers crossed as I opened the first page of the preface. I was wishing for a good book. That means a book that transports me to another world. That helps me escape my own boringly dramatic life. I knew from the speed of my reading that I was starting to like this book. Liking the suffering that it brought me.
I was faced with a reality I knew little about, even though I have read about it many times: Apartheid in South Africa.
The author managed to transform his fears into written words. I can picture this process as something similar to a candle melting under its flame. Well his melted words burned me and I too felt his fear. In the preface he said "In my childhood these enforcers of white prerogatives and whims represented a sinister force capable of crushing me at will...", the feeling of fear he had is stronger than any fear I have had. Yet, I understand it. How can I understand a feeling I haven't had? Well, that is the magic of a good book.
As odd as this may sound I feel like a kaffir when I read. I understand that "[in Africa] to be black is to be at the end of the line when anything of significance is to be found," and that fills me with anger. No one should feel like a left over. Cruelty should never be tolerated.
Mathabane doesn't exaggerate his story, he is not begging his readers to feel hatred nor dissapointment. Mathabane kills us with clear and simply described memories. We feel the hot wax of his burning candle and we ache. I ache as if I were him.

I am being transported and I consume this book eagerly.

Nonsense

The debate between Brian A. Garner and Robert Lane Greene was interesting although too advanced for me to fully understand. I tried to concentrate in what each of them was arguing. I found this to be exhausting. Nevertheless, my efforts paid off and I am now aware of the prescriptivist/ descriptivist debate of the linguistic world. I don't really know what side to take on the discussion since I struggled with half of what they said. I kept being distracted by the advertisement on the left side of the web page. I could give each of them points and call one, the winner. But my judgement was blocked by my lack of knowledge and tired mind. I was more interested in guessing their personalities through the pictures that appeared next to their names. Robert Lane seems more artistic and free. His black and white photo is sober and organized. But from the daring stare he gives the camera I guessed he is not easily satisfied. He wants to be taken seriously. That's probably why he chose a simple blazer without a tie. Brian on the other hand, is more the classic scholar that enjoys a library more than a spa. He doesn't look funny. But in private with people he considers equal or superior he might be quite amusing. He decided to use a photo with books behind him. The background reassures his readers that he, indeed, is a serious writer, (Surrounded by books, always and forever). Well I'm just writing my random thoughts here. I think that's how I best respond to things. I analyze and judge images with the enthusiasm they give to troubled English.
Oh, and if you were wondering the advertisement said: "Nonsense?", and that can be VERY distracting.

Ink

During class I heard some of my classmates ask: What is close reading? 

Well it is is to see the symbolism behind every word the author writes. In this assignment we had to close read the title of the memoir we are going to read. I will read Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane. The first thing that strikes me from the title is the cultural value it has. Although I don't know the meaning of the word Kaffir, I can deduce it is culturally rich.

Kaffir: The word kaffir, sometimes spelled kaffer or kafir, is an offensive term for a black person, most common in South Africa and other African countries. Generally considered a racial or ethnic slur in modern usage, it was previously a neutral term for black southernAfrican people.

So there we go! Kaffir is a racial term. I can predict now that the book will treat the topic of racial injustice. 

The second word on the title is boy which means the youth of the writer could be his main focus point. I can also see how uniting a pure boy and an offensive term seems contradictory, it brings the reader to the social conflict the book may treat.

I expect a dramatic book, which will move me. I expect a shocking reality, probably a cruel one. What else can I say? Let's start it.

And There Was a Comma

One day the dot and the semicolon decided to go to the park they met humanity and started to embellish  our books. Some people noticed that together with the dash the comma and other useful signs they could form a family: the punctuation family. Here to make our life harder and easier.

Their use changed through history and many many texts discussed their particular use.

Our modern technological world even gave them the power to turn a not nice phrase into a nice one.

Example:

1. ok (awkward and can be taken as rude)

or

2. ok :D

3. ok ;)

4. ok:)

5. ok!!

(All perfectly ok)

SEE THE DIFFERENCE.

Yes I know, eliminates the awkwardness of a text immediately. It's the magic of punctuation.

Commas in addition have saved lives. There was this kid who remembered to add a comma to a post it and saved his Grandpa:

"Let's eat Granpa!"

"Let's eat, Granpa!"

SEE THE DIFFERENCE.

Fabulous 

Q as in Quilt

Did he say "Caesuras in monologue" as in a complete silent pause? YES. Oh, well then I disagree.

I discovered that for me at least it's the lack of inspiration that makes me scared. To run dry of creativity. Quotations do in a way invite the ideas you didn't have to a text you are creating. On the contrary, they also show that you care to read what everyone else is saying. Isn't interiorizing what others think equally important to interiorizing your own marvelous thoughts?

I find it interesting that you can't escape how you were raised. It is as if your skin was a quilt half done and you're meant to finish it during your life time. But that half you were born with can't be changed. So, you start of communicating through quotations of what you hear. Mamá, Papá, si y no.
One realizes that one has to be original at some point in your life. You have to feel important in any way. But then aren't you quoting does that have been original? Those that did make it to your ideal.

Originality is a cliche. It is original to say so.

So what is it that annoys "us" about quotations? Well perhaps we want to be able to finish our quilt without looking at the quilts others are knitting. Perhaps we expect to much of our quilt so it becomes an uncomfortable quilt. A quilt that itches and really who wants that?

That's why I say quotations are good. Feeding of others' knowledge is good, "what is knowledge if not something to share and take?" (I don't really know who said that first but I'm quoting him).

Lying Face Down

Brent has to lay on his stomach for ten days. I can't imagine how that must feel. When I turn myself at night and try to sleep facing down my neck hurts like hell. Now doing that for ten days would be agony. He writes about the pain he is going through and how much he hates this recovery treatment. He is definitely uncomfortable. One of the things he asks for is ice chips because his throat gets really dry. 

While reading about this awkward and painful situation, I can't stop thinking about that phenomena that got really popular last year: Planking. 

People took pictures of themselves "planking". In my opinion it was not even funny, but it was very popular. I just now discover that it got stuck in my mind, cause I couldn't stop picturing Brent in a sort of planking position. Isn't it weird that people did this type of thing for so long? Well, at least this trend it's over. 

To amuse my readers here's the definition of planking from wikipedia:

Planking (or the Lying Down Game) is an activity consisting of lying face down in an unusual or incongruous location. Both hands must touch the sides of the body. Having a photograph taken of the participant and posted on the Internet is an integral part of the game.Players compete to find the most unusual and original location in which to play. The term planking refers to mimicking a wooden plank. Since early 2011, many participants in planking have photographed the activity in unusual locations. Planking can include lying flat on a flat surface, or holding the body flat while it's supported in only some regions, with other parts of the body suspended.

Now returning to my easily traumatized self, I do suffer when reading the pain Brent is having to deal with. He manages to express his agony in a very simplistic manner. He has used hard words to express his frustration towards people that say they understand what he is going through, when obviously they don't. I don't know if it is childish to do this, but I can relate with that type of frustration. There is nothing more annoying than someone pretending to understand what you are going through (when you are going through a rough patch).

His burns have to be cleaned everyday and he says this is what hurts the most. Taking the bandages out and putting new ones on is torture for him. 

I haven't been able to decide if it would be better for him to have more nerve damage so he didn't suffer as much, or if he should have no nerve damage at all.

Both options seem bad. 

What's Wrong With The Therapist's Method?

 Therapy or Treatment, is the attempted remediation of a health problem, usually following a diagnosis.

What's wrong with her method? Everything. She made herself annoying since day one. She didn't approach him with sensibility. Therapists can be very helpful, but some of them make everything worse. I had a family therapist called something Cobos. He was really good making us say what we disliked about each other. On the other hand, he was very bad making me understand what the problem was. At the end of therapy I concluded that I hated him. It was only two years after that I saw how he had helped me and the family.
""Brent you must understand this is for your own good. And for your parents' good"
"Why?" I'm really crying now" p. 50
As readers we can see that she truly wants to cure him of his depression. But we can feel his tension and stress as well. We have read how he is suffering and how tired he is, and it's hard to think that the therapist is good when she only bugs the poor boy.
I believe telling his parents that he tried to commit suicide is part of a process. He seems very lost when he talks about suicide. He doesn't realize how serious it is.

Heroes Are Those Destined To Suffer

Hercules a Greek mythological character was a semi god. He was condemned to do 12 labors that were extremely hard. In the first seven Hercules is representing the fight of man vs nature. This made me realize that we have always tried to repress our natural instincts, to eliminate our animal side. But that actually makes us more violent. We wonder sometimes why people do the things they do. In burn journals I have asked myself that same question several times. Why did he try repeatedly to kill himself, why would anyone. But Hercules gave me the answer. It is our instinct that makes us crazy. We are striving constantly to attain happiness. Happiness, which is completely relative and personalized has grown to become this cliche goal for people. (And probably is inexistent.)

Brent in the book feels alone and wants to be happy. He tries even to describe happiness. He wants to own it, like you own milk after paying for it. "I was so happy making that sand horse and I kept thinking, if I could only remember how it feels to be happy, then when I go back home, I won't try to hurt myself again..." p. 62

Runyon lies to us when he tries to be real with his suffering. How is that possible? Well he shows us that he felt like he deserved happiness because he had suffered. That he was still suffering. (Just like a Greek hero.) But it is his intention to make us feel sad for him what lays beneath the words. He wants to sympathize with the audience and the audience (The Greek people) award him with their grief. 

... 

I couldn't help myself... the resemblance... 

Cleansing

My mother once told me to be careful with the pot with hot water for the pasta. She told me that one of her friends had played with it and the boiling water fell on him. The doctors had to scratch skin from his butt and paste the skin where he was burned. I was very intrigued by this. Mom couldn't answer all my questions, but she tried. I then learned not to play with things in the kitchen, specially hot water. 

"Everything hurts, and it's so much worse than before." p. 35

In class we learned to analyze the author's intention. He tries to cause a specific reaction in his audience. In the quote above I can see how he wants to inspire sadness and pity. But he did this to himself so he shouldn't complain, right? Also, if you look at the big picture he takes everything with a simpleness that surprises me. He hasn't made an attempt yet to reflect on what he did wrong. What got him there. 

The author also uses small paragraphs or loose phrases to exhibit how paused his thinking was. They usually soothed him with medicine. That could be the reason why he had very short memories. One of the fragments that interested me was: "More tearing."p. 30 It says so much while saying so little.

When you are sick you are at the mercy of the doctors and fate. (If you believe in such a thing, clearly.) That makes you a piece of clay that they need to give new shape to. "I'll have new hands." p. 30 They have to be careful cause clay can break once it's finished. It can explode in the oven or the outcome can be different than expected. As we become clay, we turn into vulnerable creatures. Ready to be molded. Isn't vulnerability the worst option?  

I Wonder How They'll Feel When I Get Expelled...

"Maybe I should play sick, but I've done that too many times this year already" p. 3
Brent, the main character in this memoir is telling us his story. The story of how he lit himself on fire. One of the opening lines is the one written above . He is instantainously letting us know that something in his life is wrong. That he doesn't have a motivation to gobto school. That's normal of a teenager but it is the tone of the phrase what sets you off. Why has he done it so many times this year?
Well, little by little we will find out.
First indicator of some kind of mental problem or deep desire to rebel: "We just like stealing." p. 11 This is his reasoning when faced with the moral question, why did you steal the supplies even if you didn't even use them?
Why? Why? Why.
Second clear prove of mental issues: (probably depression)
"I wonder why all the ways I've tried to kill myself haven't worked" p. 13
Third:
"I've got to think of a way to kill myself that I can't turn back from." p. 13

Three are more than enough!

I have had some inner controversy with this suicide topic. I don't know if it is okay to be so egocentric and kill yourself because you don't want to fight to get better, to improve things. Maybe I should see it like a right, since we can do whatever we want we our body, our life. I have thought between temper tantrums that suicide would be a good solution. But I know myself too well to know that in the moment of truth I would not be able to do it.
I don't know if it is insensitive to say that when I was reading about Brent looking at himself in the reflection of the microwave, I could only think about how ugly he looked and how that would screw up his social life. Then the other more important consequences hit me. Maybe I have a priority problem. Anyways...
"Everybody is talking, but nobody's talking to me" p. 20

First memoir ever: Agustine's Confessions

Vocabulary (Book Six) =

catechumen: is one receiving instruction from a catechist in the principles of the Christian religion with a view to baptism.

bier: A bier is a stand on which a corpse, coffin, or casket containing a corpse, is placed to lie in state or to be carried to the grave

tepid: Only slightly warm; lukewarm.Showing little enthusiasm: "tepid applause".


(Book Seven) =Stultified: Cause to lose enthusiasm and initiative, esp. as a result of a tedious or restrictive routine.Cause (someone) to appear foolish or absurd.
Plunged:Jump or dive quickly and energetically.
Fall suddenly and uncontrollably.

Marshaled: Arrange or assemble (a group of people, esp. soldiers) in order.
Guide or usher (someone) ceremoniously.

Manicheism: was one of the major Iranian Gnostic religions, originating in Sassanid

                                                                                         

 Mnemisone's Choice