Style

What do you think of when you hear the word “style” or “stylish”? How do you recognize whether someone or something has style? Or does everyone have style? How does one reveal one’s style? How do you evaluate between “good” style and “bad” style? Is style more permanent, or more temporary? Do you have a style? What is it, and how do you manifest it?

To me, the word "style" means a certain type of mannerism and how something is carried out by the person. A style can be connoted through a person's behavior, and with some more perceptive people, through the manner in which they dress.

"Stylish," on the other hand, has a completely different meaning. To me it refers to being up-to-date on the latest fashion, and having elegance in manner and being discriminant in their choice of clothing. To put it in easier terms, everyone has a style, but not everyone is stylish.

A style can be anything such as the manner in which they speak (a rapid style of speech, a punctuate manner, etc), their choice of fashion, and the mode in which they live their lives. I believe everyone carries themselves with a certain style, based on their mannerisms and how they live their life; even being bland is a style (though, granted, not a very interesting one). 

The distinction between a good style and a bad style is, essentially, based on the style of the person who is judging. To me a good style is one that balances between a conservative and a progressive attitude, and is classy but also knows when to be free and have fun. To be stylish is to live in a contemporary house and listen to jazz on Sunday nights.

Style, I would say, is reasonably permanent, but is very prone to change. For instance, a few years ago I listened and enjoyed contemporary music. Now, I may recognize modern singers on the radio, but I only listen to jazz, classic rock, soft rock, and Oldies in my free time. My choice of clothing is also fairly reserved, and I hate ostentatious clothing with wild colors and symbols, something that my mom says is "not natural" for my age.

A Daring Adventure

Helen Keller, the first deaf and blind person to earn a Bachelor of Arts degree, once said, “Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.” Write what this quotation means to you. What is fate? Who or what controls fate? What gives a particular event meaning in our lives? What gives meaning to our lives as a whole?

I agree with the quote in that life can be viewed as a continual strive for progress and change, relying on our own independence and wild freedom. When fate comes into the picture, however, then it starts becoming slightly debatable.

Fate refers to destiny, which then refers to a future event that is inevitable. Whether or not one believes in this is up to the religious background of the individual. Some Protestants asset that life is predestined by God, whereas others believe that there is only free will in the world. I personally believe a combination of both. For me, fate is split into choice and purpose. My choice is the free will I exercise every day (what subject I will major in, whether I should drink Coke or Sprite, what kind of religion I choose to believe in), but because of my religious beliefs, I believe that I have a specific purpose, both in a spiritual and physical sense, that is set out for me by a higher force. This unique purpose is the purpose of my life, and I believe it to be the purpose of most people's lives.

Ultimately it is a person's individual values that gives a particular event meaning. An event only impacts us significantly if we allow it to do so, and it usually occurs because we either value it greatly or not enough. It is based on individual views of values. In the same way, a person's values gives meaning to one's life. For me, I value religion, so my religious purpose is the ultimate pursuit of my life, while at the same time working hard now so that I can play a positive role in society. Others without a clear purpose may be working for material wealth and worldly success, as they continue their education with the goal of making money in the future. Others strive to seek their purpose, some want to play a role in society and help others, and still others abide by the rule of "eat and drink and be merry, for tomorrow you will die." No guesses as to what kind of raucous behavior these people get themselves into.

Memories

What do you remember from your childhood that was important, unusual, or funny? Write about an early memory from the perspective of your childhood self. Be sure to use vivid images and descriptive detail. Are our strongest memories formed by happy or sad events? Why do you think this is so?

I think that it is up to the personality of the person; some are optimistic and remember happy times, other more down-to-earth people tend to recall negative events easier. I personally think our strongest memories are formed by events that bring sadness or a similarly negative emotion. Though happy events tend to suffice for quite a period of time, events that truly bring about a negative emotion will etch a mark on your heart and will bring about a greater change in you, whether good or bad. Many people try to push away bad memories and neglect their existence; however, the mere act of pushing them away indicates that we remember them. For me, negative events tend to form a dark cloud over the positive events, and though I continually push them out of my mind, the lessons or ideas that these events have taught me affect me in ways greater than positive influences. Though we tend to focus on the good things in life, we can recall the negative emotions easier.

I personally don't think negative events are supposed to be brooded over. Whoever does that is emotional, narrow minded, and simply stupid. Negative events, I believe, are God's methods of teaching us lessons - to point out morals, ideals, changes that need to be made to oneself, or simply to remind us that life is not easy

For some reason the events in my childhood were relatively happy, while the more recent years have been bordering on the negative. I remember the time (must've been only three-and-a-half at the time or four) when my mother was going to give birth to my sister. I spent the night at a friend of the family's house, where their kid Jake was my "best friend" (that is, he pushed me around and used simple means of coercion to bend my choices and my personality to suit his pleasure). Anyways, I bawled my eyes out at that first sleepover. I have always hated change, even at that age. When something at their house was different from mine (e.g. the sleeping bad I slept on was different or something related) I would start bawling. Then I started bawling when I realized I couldn't see my parents. Needless to say, I was a pretty hard to handle kid at that age. I even woke up in the middle of the night and, remembering the state of affairs I was in, I gave a single sob before falling back asleep.
My father picked me up in the morning, to the delight of Jake's parents, to go home. I was more than happy to comply.
The next day was sunny, but the weather was nice and cool. We walked to the hospital (Galveston has only one hospital, and it was close enough to home to walk) to see my mother. This was the first recorded time of me going to a hospital and learning what a "C-session" was. I saw my sister for the first time as well, in the nursery alongside other bawling and sleeping babies. I remember looking at her with a sense of wonder that I can hardly describe in words and can't fully recall either, but I know that it was too much for a 4 year old to comprehend and I shook it off quickly. Interesting memory. I can't believe I just remembered that.

Your Role

Describe your role in the class Of Mice and Men video project. What is your job or jobs? What have you done so far? Has it been a good experience, or have you had some frustrations? What is left for you to do? What is your opinion on how the final project will turn out? Give an honest appraisal of your own level of effort so far.

My role in the Of Mice and Men video project seems to have deviated from what I originally signed up for. I originally wanted to be involved with the video shooting or editing, and actually requested to be a video editor. Somehow, though, I am now an actor. I love watching actors through various forms of literature representations and media, but I don't like acting. It's a self-conscious thing.
The jobs of others include acting roles, screenwriters, a cinematographer, a video editor, and of course our beloved director.

To state it bluntly, we have done little or nothing. Oh sure, the script is written and the character roles are assigned. Mostly. And sure, we've talked about how the cinematography will be and how the scenes will be set up. Mostly. But have we actually implemented any of those ideas in reality? Well, no. Has everything been planned and scheduled meticulously and has every minute detail regarding the film, including costume design and props, been addressed and taken care of? Hardly at all. What is left for us to do? Everything.

So, how well do I think it will turn out? Well, I don't know exactly what is there to do. That's why I'm not the director. But I think I have the sensibility to know that a lot is missing and that we need a more punctuate plan. And we need to get started on filming, but because of the different extracurricular activities each person has after school, this has been difficult. How do I think it will turn out? Now it seems like production is in development hell. We'll see if things work out at all.

I haven't been giving much. My role in the project has been minimal, and so far all there is to do is participate in the group discussions (which, you can see, have always been productive, since we've had several weeks to prepare but have not started filming yet).

Cruel or Kind?

In the novel Of Mice and Men, the characters often act cruelly to each other, but at other times we see acts of kindness. Describe at least one act of cruelty and one act of kindness from the novel and explain what you think the character’s motivation was. Are some characters only cruel? Only kind? Or is there a mixture of both?

 An obvious act of cruelty in the novel is when Curley intimidates Lennie. Curley, taking advantage of Lennie's passiveness in battle and childlike behavior, picked a fight with Lennie and pushed him around a bit before Lennie finally retaliated by breaking his hand. Granted, Curley got the punishment he probably deserved, but Curley still lit the spark to the conflict and greatly distressed Lennie's childlike mind. Curley's motivation for picking on Lennie was purely because of his jealousy for men with a bigger build, and because he saw Lennie has an easy target and took advantage of the fact for his own pleasure.

An act of kindness done by the characters in the novel is when George agrees to let Candy take part on his and Lennie's quest to own land (and, on Lennie's behalf, rabbits). George was agreeing to let a third man come into the plan that had already been so carefully dreamed and thought out, and by doing so would rearrange his plans but also gave Candy a new sense of hope, belonging, and companionship with George. George probably had already thought this through in his head and allowed Candy to join them because of this (and also because now there would be another source of money invested for the project).

I think that if we analyze most of the characters in the novel, each has a good side and a cruel side. For example, George is often cruel to Lennie and acts exasperated with him, but the fact remains that he loves Lennie and cares for him, and most of the "cruel" acts he commits against Lennie are for his own good. Crook, who sets himself out to be the cynical stable-boy, also puts on a mask of indifference and cruelty, but in reality all he wants is company to spend time with. Finally, Curley's wife indisputably has the secret desire to rouse action amongst the men by drawing them to her. However, as her conversation with Lennie revealed, all she may really want is a kind company who won't take her suspiciously or treat her ill.

Will to Survive

As you read about the sinking of the Titanic, think about other stories, movies, or books in which a character (real or fictional) has to choose between saving himself or herself and saving others. How does one balance the will to survive with the urge to help others? Do you think this is a conscious choice, or do people act on instinct in an emergency situation and only think of the danger to themselves later? How do you think you would act in such a situation?

In the world, most people believe in the phrase "every man for himself." According to economics, every action of man is done in his self-interest, and in times of survival man will generally do anything it is to keep himself alive. It's a good thing that most people have a good heart and a clear conscience to be able to put others in front of themselves and help people in times of need; however, in life-or-death situations, we cannot really be sure whether we would help others or save our own necks (since in most cases when we help people, we never endanger ourselves too much for their sake).

From a young age, I was taught to never try and save a drowning person, never go into a fire to help someone, and in general never to interfere with dangerous affairs to save others that may endanger my life. The rationale behind this, I think, is reasonable; attempting to save a drowning man could potentially cause me to drown if the man was struggling, and going into a fire is plain suicide. However, if I had the necessary skill sets - for example, a lifeguard license - then rescuing people would probably be fine. I still believe that the balance between maintaining one's life and saving other people is one that is precarious, a combination of both rational thinking and acting on impulse. It's hard for me to say which one usually prevails, however I can say that sometimes people make stupid decisions to save people which cost them their lives, and at other times people are able to commit acts of heroism and, occasionally, sacrifice, where they give their lives up to save others for the greater good.

It would really depend on the situation to see what I would do. I think that if it is in anyone's power to save others, they should do so. This belief was obviously absent during the sinking of the Titanic.

The Band Played On

What did the band members on the Titanic do as the lifeboats were being loaded? Why do you think they made that decision? Do you agree with their decision? Have you ever heard of people reacting in a similar way when faced with life-threatening danger? How do you think you would react in a similar situation?

 When the Titanic was sinking, as pandemonium ensured across the deck and lifeboats were being loaded with women, children, and anyone who had a sufficient pocketbook, the band onboard the Titanic stood in the midst of the commotion, and on the tipping deck they played their musical pieces. Together, the band composed of orchestral instruments played ragtimes, waltzes,"Alexander's Ragtime Band" and "In the Shadows". These men played under such grave and terrible circumstances and in the face of certain death, and some sources even state that they never ceased playing and did not try to escape until the ship finally went down.

There are a few possibilities as to why they did what they did, but we can never know what was going on in the hearts and the minds of those men. Maybe they did so because they knew they would probably die, and stayed behind to hold onto what they loved the most. Maybe they did so because they wanted to lose themselves in the music and accept what they knew was probably inevitable. Perhaps they had already made their peace to God and accepted what was to come. In any way, the action of playing their instruments in response to their almost certain deaths is very inspirational and emotionally-jerking, and whether or not they really did play their string until the end is trivial in my mind.

I cannot say what I would have done and cannot say whether I agree or disagree with what they did, since I was not there when the event occurred. Some might say that they were stupid to not try and live, while others would say that they should be admired for their resoluteness. I tend to agree with the latter.

In many disaster films, they usually portray certain people who, despite facing possible death, choose to stay behind and accept what is to come. It is usually the presidents, who wish to stay behind with their people, and the religious groups, who group together to pray and make peace. I do not think that these people should be judged for not valuing their lives. I think that they should be praised for their acceptance of what is to come, how they have made peace with the idea of death, and how much they love what they are staying back for.

I  think that if I were in such a situation, it would really depend on the situation to determine what I would do. If I were aboard the Titanic at that time, I think my primary instinct would be to flee, but somewhere deep within me, a part of me would tell me to stay behind. Nevertheless, it would take a great deal of courage and commitment to do what those band members did aboard the Titanic. I would like to think that I would stay behind; although I fear the means of death, I can honestly say that I do not fear death itself because of the ideals I believe in.

Bad Choices

The sinking of the Titanic is a famous disaster. Versions of the story have appeared in songs and movies—some accurate, some highly fictionalized. Write a few sentences about what you know—or think you know—about this event. Comment on the choices that were made in the course of the disaster. What choices do you think led to so few people’s surviving the sinking of the Titanic?

I know so much as to that the Titanic struck an iceberg in the Atlantic and went down slowly. The passengers were not fully aware of the danger they were in, partially because many still thought the ship was unsinkable, and also because the ship's crew did a poor job of informing everyone, especially the lower class passengers. I also know that there were too few lifeboats for everyone on the ship, and when added to the fact that the individuals who got on these lifeboats usually took way too few people along with them, many more died than they should have. I also know that neighboring ships were called to the Titanic's aid, but they were still a distance away. The closest one was close enough to have conducted a rescue, but had an absent operator and hence did not receive the Titanic's SOS call.
I have also heard somewhere that the Titanic's captain had accelerated the ship in order to get to New York faster, and this aided to the inability to turn the Titanic before it hit the iceberg. I also heard that the ship's crew barred the lower-class passengers from escaping.

The bad choices in this event are evident. First off, the confidence of the ship's designers caused them to place too few lifeboats aboard, and the clear prejudice between the rich and the poor also caused the deaths of the many lives lost. The operator of the neighboring ship also made a bad decision to leave his post. In addition, some of the fault can be placed on the ship's captain; he ignored the iceberg warnings and by doing so was not cognizant of the potential dangers.

Sources

Do you know what the difference is between primary and secondary sources? Discuss what you think each one is and how they differ from each other. Give examples of what you think might qualify for each. Then think of a significant historical event, like the 921 earthquake (集集大地震), and think of what might qualify as a primary source of information about it, and what might be a secondary source.


I know that a primary source is a document or physical object that was written or created at that moment in the past, while a secondary source is one that is secondary information; it compiles different sources and/or makes an analysis of the information at hand. Therefore, primary sources are directly from the time period under study, and include diaries, speeches, letters, first-hand accounts/interviews, original pottery or other relics, etc, whereas secondary sources are those that interpret the primary sources and are, in contrast, not directly obtained from the event/time period in question. These sources include encyclopedias, magazine articles, our textbook, etc etc.

In the Jiji earthquake, primary sources may include the seismographic images obtained from the earthquake, a speech by the president of the ROC at the time (Lee Tung-Huai), or by the presidents of the international countries that send aid to Taiwan, and interviews conducted of relief workers or those affected by the quake. Secondary sources may be newspaper articles from the time period highlighting or discussing the earthquake, a chart explaining the affected areas of the quake, a list of dead, injured, or missing civilians, a textbook article detailing the earthquake, its origins, and its power, etc etc. In general, secondary sources are compiled a time after the event or time period in question has occurred, and interprets, analyzes, and synthesizes multiple primary sources.

Bosom Buddies

Describe the relationship between George and Lennie in Of Mice and Men. How would you characterize it in terms of the benefits one friend derives from the other? Does one friend benefit more or less? Who and why? Considering the definition of plot, how does their relationship function to move the plot forward? Consider your own relationships and describe one or more of them. Do you have any relationships that resemble that of George and Lennie? Are you more of a George, or more of a Lennie?

The relationship between George and Lennie is almost like that between an older brother and a younger brother. The older brother, George in the case, is exasperated by his younger brother's naive and childlike demeanor and would probably wish to rid his life of such a burden. However, because he is his brother, he not only loves his brother but is obligated to protect and watch after him.

Lennie definitely benefits from being with George. George is the only reason Lennie is able to survive out in the world and helps him in almost all aspects of his life. George is his mentor and his older brother whom he trusts and relies on for support and advice. George also benefits from being with Lennie; Lennie's physical appearance is enough to give him protection, and his strong body is enough to persuade people to give them laboring jobs. I don't think we can assume their relationship in terms of who benefits more; it depends on what you value more. Overall, though, Lennie is definitely more of a hindrance to George, and although the relationship is symbiotic, it borders of parasitism. Their relationship may cause fluctuations in the plot of the novel; if their relationship were to be stressed (e.g. if Lennie disobeys a direct order from George which causes trouble) conflict would arise.

There are many relationships one possesses: relationships with friends, with siblings, with elder family members, and with teachers. Each one has a different level of respect that is required for one to give to the other, and you give and take differently in each situation. Just compare your relationship with your best friend to that of your teacher. I don't think I have a relationship that resembles Lennie and George. The closest I can think of is with my sister and me, and even then I don't have much authority (or gain much) in the situation.

I think that if people are genuinely honest, they will worry that they take more than give in their relationships. In some cases, I am a George, and in other cases, I am a Lennie. It's very moderate and depends on what relationship it is.

Your Lennie

Think of someone who you have known most of your life; someone who is close to your age; your best friend or blood brother/sister; you have always protected each other. Then your friend is in a terrible accident. He/she now has some brain damage. He/She can still do most things; but he/she forgets things; acts very childlike (not childish). Still looks up to you for friendship and protection. Your other friends make fun of him/her and tell you to drop him/her as a friend. Would your friendship end? Why? Why not? How do you protect him/her from the cruelty of society? Can you? Why or Why not?

 If it were indeed my good friend and brother who was injured and has procured irreversible brain damage from the accident, then my friendship with him would continue; it would be a disgrace to myself and to him if I left him. Granted, our relationship would become more stressed and we probably would lose the closeness we had in the past, but I wouldn't desert him for what he has become/who he is. It would feel immoral to do so. Peer pressure wouldn't play a part in my situation; I don't think my friends (who I consider my true friends, I mean) are so cold and cruel. I would understand why they would probably distance themselves slightly, but I don't see why anyone would "drop" their relationship with him. Everything revolves around having patience. It's a hard fruit to bear, and it's understandable that people have different limits when it comes to handling the pressure of maintaining such a relationship.

Despite all this, I don't know if it is my role to protect him from the cruelty of society, as I think it would be arrogant and superior to claim responsibility. Not only this, but protection of an individual from the outside world usually ends in failure. Strict, conservative parents (like the pastor/church parents of some of my old friends) fail because their attempts to "protect" and shield their children fail miserably and invokes rebellion and conflict. In the same way, I can claim responsibility and care for my friend only so much.

To claim full responsibility is not my role: it is the role of his family, and ultimately I can't do too much for him. If it is obvious that he is alone and has no one to care for him, and I have prayed and know in my heart that it is my purpose to care for him, then so be it. However generally speaking, I will not claim full responsibility, and will only help him as much as my jurisdiction allows me to (though I will try to do everything to the extent of my power).