Project Reflection

What did you learn by doing the project on the book of your choice? How would you characterize the level of effort it took to read the book? How much effort did you put into the effort? How long did it take you to complete? In the final analysis, do you feel like the exercise was worthwhile? If so, why? If not, why not? Could it have been a deeper learning experience in some way? Did your own participation and effort have an effect on the value of the project as a learning experience?

The biggest thing I learned was to not procrastinate and put projects off - I left my report off and part of my poster to do last, which ultimately led to me staying up late to finish the project to the best of my ability. I think I put a reasonably solid effort into the creation of this project; I think I was able to effectively and thoroughly analyze the literary elements and feel as if I was able to procure most of the themes from the book.

I put in probably close to five total hours worth of time into the project - probably a couple hours for the report and another couple to create the visual. Overall I'm satisfied with the effort I put in - I just wish some of it didn't feel rushed and last-minute. But that's my own fault.

I think that reading Night provoked some deep questions for me, and as a result I think I was able to analyze the themes and symbols of the story with competence. The themes part of my final analysis is what I'm most content with. Yes, I think this was a worthwhile assignment as it is a broad review of what the class as taught over the course of the year and was able to show how well we knew the material.

I would have liked more emphasis placed on symbols and meaningful themes, but everything that should have been included was included, and ultimately what each person wrote in each section of the literary analysis was based on the person's participation and own desire to explain what he or she learned.

911

There is no doubt that the terrorist attacks of September 11 were terrible. What about the aftermath? Considering the state of world affairs today, what effect do you think 911 has had? Did the United States respond appropriately? Is the world now a safer place? Now that Bin Laden has been killed, do you think that the survivors and those who lost loved ones in the attacks feel better

American society was changed radically following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I don't believe any American was expecting an attack upon their own land, especially in this time and age. It was even more shocking to see a display of aggression against thousands of innocent civilians, affecting thousands of lives through the deaths of loved ones. Following the attacks, President George W. Bush approved the Patriot Act, a controversial act that is seen by some as an infringement upon our freedoms, that allows the government all access to private communication means for the sake of security. Airport security was beefed up and security was maximized, and to protect civilians in the air, Air Marshall frequency increased It is without doubt that following the attacks, America was shocked and insecure, and the government retaliated with a major crackdown on security.
However, the US also united through their patriotism and loyalty to one another. I don't think Americans are more united in their nationalism and comradeship unless it is in the face of disaster and unity against a common enemy - in this case, bin Laden and the Al-Qaida.

I think the US responded relatively appropriately. They unified in the face of disaster against a common enemy, and responded by increasing security. However, the US invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified and utterly uncalled for.

Buried Alive

Today we will begin reading a true story about two men who were trapped in the rubble of a collapsed building. What do you think it would be like to be buried alive or trapped in some life-threatening way? What thoughts do you think might go through your mind? Who would you like to have the chance to send a message to? Would you want to have done something differently in your life? If you were trapped with others, do you think that you would all work together to try to survive, or would it be “every man for himself”?

I can't say what it would feel like to be buried alive. I'm not a fan of tight spaces and am slightly claustrophobic, so I think the ordeal would be less-than-pleasant for me. The thought of being trapped an infinite amount of feet underground is rather frightening, and I imagine that those trapped underneath rubble and dirt who survived needed to harness a great amount of mental discipline to suppress their fears. If I were trapped in such a situation, I would probably start crying prayers while wondering whether or not it is my time to leave this world.

If I could send a message the people who would want to hear from me the most would be my parents - therefore for their sake (not mine), I would contact them. I think I would regret all the times of procrastination and inaction, for being lazy and distracted from doing the work i should be doing.

If I were trapped with others, I would rather we work together to survive. Since we're all in a hellhole together, a little comradeship to keep each other accountable wouldn't hurt.

Jargon

Jargon is terminology which is especially defined in relationship to a specific activity, profession, group, or event. In "Into Thin Air" Krakauer uses jargon to describe some of the equipment and activities involved in mountain climbing. Try to recall some of the terms he uses that are particular to mountain climbing, then try to think if you use any jargon yourself. Is there any activity you take part in that has it's own vocabulary or slang? What about being a student? Are there special terms that are particular to that? Hint: sometimes we are so immersed in our activities that we don't even realize that we are using specialized language.


"Into Thin Air" makes use of some jargon associated with mountain climbing. Phrases and terms such as "short-roping" and "rappelling" were used to describe specific mountain climbing activities. This use of jargon would mean little or nothing to someone who has no knowledge of mountain climbing.


I guess I also take use of jargon, sometimes without realizing it. As students, we also utilized jargon by simplifying class names/textbook names and pronouncing them based on their acronyms ("lant" refers to LANT - Language Arts, "a-push" refers to APUSH, AP US History, "psych" refers to Psychology, and our "LOL" refers to our "Language of Literature" textbook).


We also utilize internet jargon when we IM our friends or read blog posts. Acronyms such as "lol" (laugh out loud), "ftj" (fuel the jet), and "rofl" (roll on floor laughing) are just three examples of countless phrases of internet jargon, many of which I have never heard before. In addition, the creation of emoticons by linking specific keyboard symbols together may also be deemed a type of internet jargon.


When I am gaming with friends, we also utilize a kind of jargon. Words like " 'nade" (grenade), "spawn-killing" (picking off opponents right as they enter a battle), "camping" (picking off opponents from one specific location), and "tea-bagging" (crouching repeatedly over the dead body of an opponent, a derogatory act in the video-gaming world) are thrown around the room.

Risk for a Reason

In the event of a disaster, would most people risk their lives to save a stranger? Think of true stories you have heard about people who, facing danger and death, save the lives of strangers. Why do some people risk their own lives to save others? Why do some people look out for themselves first? Which do you think you would do? Do you think that the reason for the disaster would make a difference? For example, if there is a disaster because people foolishly put themselves at risk, would you be less willing to help than if the victims had no responsibility for their situation, such as in a natural disaster?

In the event of an immediate disaster, most people act on impulse to save others - it seems a burst of adrenaline or other hormones prompt an immediate "flight or fight" response that, for some people, causes them to rush to save others. In cases where one is able to think clearly about the pros and cons for helping others in a situation, one is much less likely to extend a helping hand. However, even for an immediate situation, I think a split second of decision is made, albeit subconsciously.

Some people, I believe, just possess an innate nature of selflessness. Other quote en quote "sensible" people will carefully weight the options before deciding whether rescue is worth it. People look out for themselves first because it's human nature to do so - simple economics (and Darwin, I guess) will teach you that everyone acts in their self-interest in order to compete and survive. However humans - and animals as well - aren't always self-centered. In some events, we will commit altruistic actions that seem to contradict the theory of rational self-interest, to protect the general welfare of others.

The reason for the disaster can prompt people to be more or less responsive to aid. For example, if a fireman is to put his life at risk to save a man who tried to climb Taipei 101, he would probably be suppressing a grumble as he climbs the ladder, as opposed to if he were saving a screaming infant in a burning mansion.
In addition, the person he is saving will affect his decision as well. Between saving a drug addict and a dedicated World War II veteran, one would probably choose the latter. In addition, how much the individual can later contribute to society can affect the decision as well. Like in the film Saving Private Ryan, everyone was reluctant to save the one life of James Ryan - and at the end of the film, Tom Hanks' character tells him to "earn it."

Nevertheless, each life saved is still a human life. I would like to believe that in the split second when aid is necessary I will be able to provide it. If I am thoroughly capable of helping another, I hope I will do so. But I was taught never to save a drowning man and never do mouth-to-mouth, for fear of dying yourself and procuring AIDS, respectively.

Why Take Risks?

What does Krakauer say about why mountain climbers take such risks? Think of the kinds of risks people take, both physical and otherwise. Do his conclusions apply to other risk takers as well? In your own experience, when you have taken risks or seen others take risks, what do you think the reasons were? Do they match up with what Krakauer says?

Krakauer states that mountain climbers have little prudence, as they undergo great challenges for seemingly little reward. This is, of course, from the perspective of a third-person. I have to say that most risk-takers are like this. Since risk generally means that the probability of success is low, accepting risks can be seen as acting on a lack of prudence. In most cases, risks are taken when there is a (albeit small) possibility to gain more than what one already has.

People are also drawn to risk because of its excitement. Taking risks release a wild combination of hormones that stimulate the mind, leading to periods of pleasure. This can be derived from the anxiety of possibly taking losses, or from the feelings of living life on the edge, focusing on only the important things in life and savoring each minute. Common life is uninteresting and dull, and risks stimulate our minds.

Some take risks to embark on a sort of spiritual journey, or a way to get back in touch with their humanity. Our current society is replete with distractions - bills, taxes, trivial relationship issues - that it is too easy for us to forget our priorities in life. Taking risks sometimes may allow us to put the world and our lives in perspective and remember the characteristics of our lives that really matter.

Still others take risks to be able to boast that they have lived through them. Mountain climbers, bungee jumpers - these are the people who take unnecessary risks, most of the time so that they can retell their experiences to others. This is mentioned by Krakauer as well.

Cause and Effect

One way that a story-teller moves the story forward is by relating the events to each other. This can take the form of cause-and-effect relationships. There are many different ways to describe this relationship: focus on causes, focus on effects, or focus on both. Sometimes and effect has many causes, sometimes only one of several possible causes is sufficient to have an effect. Many times the cause and effect relationship takes the form of a complex chain in which several causes create an effect that in turn creates other effects. In the excerpt from Into Thin Air, try to examine what happens and why. What are the causes of the events that happen? What are the effects?

In the excerpt from Into Thin Air, a multitude of people die on the mountain due to a sudden storm that catches the climbers off guard. This catastrophe occurred for a couple of reasons. Mountainous weather is capricious and hard-to-predict, and this is the underlying (the final) cause for this event. Even if there wasn't a storm, it would have still been exceedingly difficult to navigate their way back to the camp.

However the choices the mountaineers made also contributed to their unfortunate deaths. The decision to finish climbing the mountain despite being behind schedule, and how they wasted precious time on the apex were such choices. The prideful or confident thinking of the mountain climbers also attributed to their deaths; some chose to continue up the slope despite the dangers involved, and one member died because he decided to wait for their team leader to return down the slope.

Krakouer's difficult journey down to camp was also hindered because of his ailing medical and physical conditions. Furthermore, a blunder on the behalf of one of his group members caused him to rapidly waste a large portion of his oxygen, causing him more harm.

Compare Disasters

Think about the Krakauer story and the story of the Titanic. How are they similar? How are they different? What about the way they are told? Are there similarities and differences in the narrative accounts?

Both disasters occurred in an environment where here was already known danger - the Titanic in the Atlantic and Krakauer on the tallest mountain in the world. Both disasters took place in circumstances that could have been foreseen and prevented, but weren't, and both disasters were foreshadowed in the story.

The differences are obvious - the settings are different, the numbers of casualties are far from being similar. The Titanic incident also occurred due to human error (the Titanic refused to heed to iceberg warnings; the pride of its occupants and the laziness of the ship's designers and crew caused the deaths of many; social class prejudice allowed more lower-class men to die; the Californian did not respond to any of the conspicuous signs radiating from the Titanic). Krakauer was caught in a violent storm that was not predicted, and people perished because they were not aware of the impending danger. This was not an incident that directly occurred as a result of their actions.

The styles are similar in that the story is told in strict chronological order, giving exact times, specifying exact locations, mentioning specific people. The Titanic story does not use dialogue, however, and the perspectives from which the stories are told are also different; one is third person limited and is a secondary source, whereas the other is a first-person narrative and is a primary source.

Participation

Jon Krakauer went on the Everest expedition as a paid observer for a magazine. This is called “participatory journalism,” and it can be quite dangerous. What do you think the job of a journalist is or should be? What challenges might a journalist face who writes about an event in which he or she is also a participant? Where do you draw the line between being an observer—outside the event—and being a participant—inside the event? How does a journalist deal with events such as disasters without becoming emotionally involved?

 According to my old social studies teacher, the job of a journalist is to investigate events, ideas, and trends and relay that information to the public. Dangers are sometimes associated with investigating such issues, but in my opinion despite these hazards a journalist should persevere in obtaining information for the sake of public knowledge. When dealing with international issues, war zones, or human rights violations, I believe in this doctrine 100% (speaking of which, journalists probably need to be paid more). Challenges vary depending on the assignment at hand. A journalist may battle against natural events, face opposition from humans, or both. As a participatory journalist, there may be severe consequences. The journalist may be untrained or under-trained to handle a fragile situation, may be caught inside a violent situation, or may be poorly-equipped for life-threatening situations.

To be a participant of the event, one must take on a role within the conflict. They are to take part in whatever situation they are reporting on. Krakauer, for example, is a participatory journalist as he was part of the expedition. An observer journalist would be like a photographic journalist who takes pictures from the sidelines without getting directly involved with the situation.

Journalists need to train themselves not to give in too much to empathy. Some journalists take part in observing and recording immense suffering around the world, and if they give themselves over to the grief it could most likely result in negative consequences. The army achieves this by dehumanizing targets; journalists most likely do not do this, as a job of a journalist is to stay humane, clear-minded, and passionate. They must, however, have hope and faith. Possible many find comfort knowing that the information they bring back can be used to educate or prevent the current situation from occurring.

Risk

Why do you think some people are drawn to risk and adventure? What is the attraction to danger? Do you like to take chances? Why or why not? Describe a risk or adventure you have had or would like to have—perhaps due to something you have seen someone else do.

To be completely straightforward, life is boring. Sure, you may have the occasional surge in adrenaline as you dodge a scooter on the streets, or you may have to fight a mental breakdown when you realize you’re out of instant coffee powder, but generally speaking our typical, everyday lives are blunt, unstimulating, and blissfully eventless. People are drawn to risk and adventure because some like to live on the edge – they want to be capricious, to live without boundaries, and most importantly to experience how life is without constants. They want to experience events where their very lives hang on a thread, where they have no idea when their next meals will be, or where they have nothing to trust except for themselves and luck. Experiencing life in the great unknown is mentally stimulating and extremely exciting, and essentially becomes one large game of Chicken.

Taking chances is risky, scary, and unpredictable, and logically unappealing in every possible way. Most people hate taking chances and taking risks (HARDCORE ASIANS!), which makes them very unsuitable for Vegas. I don’t gamble with money and I will probably never visit Vegas (I hope), but given the correct circumstances I like taking chances. They’re exhilarating and put you on the edge, and I believe some risk is necessary for a person to make discoveries, gain experiences, learn about life, and to create opportunities. In the words of Morgan Spurlock, “If you take chances and if you take risks, in those risks will come opportunity. I believe when you push people away from that, you are pushing people towards failure. I feel that when you train your employees to be risk averse, then you’re preparing your whole company to be reward challenged… We need to encourage people to take risks. We need to encourage people to not be afraid… We need to embrace fear.”

There exists a balance, however, between a slow and peaceful life and an exciting and stimulating one.

I want to have the opportunity to travel to another country to conduct community service activities. I want to experience another mission trip, where I was challenged spiritually and physically.

Free Write

Write about a topic of your choice. Be sure to write at least 200 words.

So... Hm. I guess I could say exactly what's on my mind, but considering the fact that this is a class assignment and is published on the internet for peers and strangers alike to view, I think that would be a bad idea. The last thing I want is a mob of angry PAS-ians chasing me through the school halls - and there are only a couple halls, which would make it a very short chase scene. If anyone's going to chase me, they should do it across a large city-scape and incorporate multiple free-running sequences. Like that scene in Casino Royale where Bond chases Mollaka to the Nambutu embassy (which is, apparently, a fictional country).

It's actually ridiculously hard to write something without a set of guidelines. While we're on that topic...

People, I believe, are actually happier given no choice when they have a choice at all. It's not even a belief, it's actually a scientifically proven psychological phenomenon that was introduced on TED.com a couple of months ago. An experiment showed that if a person has to choose to do something and is forced to stick to that decision, he is happier than the person who has a choice to change a previously made decisions. For example, one test brought together two classes of photography students, who were told to take pictures around a school campus and choose two best photos. One group could only keep one, and the other would be confiscated. The second group could only keep one, but was able to switch their photo for the other at any time. The first group displayed an immense amount of satisfaction with their photo sample. The second group was dissatisfied with their photo.
This test displays the most common thought process amongst all people: we value something that we don't have more than if we have it. Old people are often seen incorporating this thought process, as they continually claim that "the good old days" were much better than today, when in reality the "good" old days were probably just as violent and liberal.

Fascists were apparently well aware of this. They just took it a step further and disallowed all freedoms. You can't even choose your photo to keep.


Another psychological test said that people who tell others their goals are less likely to achieve them compared to people who aspire to achieve their goals without telling anyone. Apparently the act of telling people and receiving their positive reinforcements "relieves" the brain and tricks it into thinking that it has taken a step towards accomplishing the goal.
I would think this as silly, and that I would be able to have the mental capability of overpowering these feelings, but this has happened to me over and over again, which is both embarrassing and disappointing.

Now I feel guilty again. I need to get back in shape, start studying instead of scrolling through Facebook, study my APs more instead of slacking, and start rebuilding my spiritual self. Yes. That's what I should do. But I know I won't be able to bring myself to do these things. After I click "Publish Post," this motivated mindset will disappear.

And I hate myself because of that.

A Challenge

Do you enjoy challenges? What kind of challenge do you enjoy? Physical? Mental? Why do you think this is so? Can you give an example of a challenge you have faced, or one you would like to face? How about a challenge you would not like to face. If you don’t like challenges, explain why you don’t.


I believe that the human body was not created to idly stand by and needs to be exercised and stressed to its limits. I also believe in the philosophy of "healthy body, healthy mind" and that  physical challenges help us stay agile and sharp-minded. When the body is not properly worked out, our muscles waste to atrophy and brain chemicals will be unbalanced, leaving us tired and unhappy. Similarly, when a mind is not worked out and gathers rust, the person becomes sick.

Some people like to test the limits of their physical or mental capabilities by committing themselves to accomplishing the extreme. Other more passive individuals dislike hardships but accept them as necessary and possible to overcome, and some dance around challenges without ever facing them.

I hardly ever go searching for challenges (unless I am very bored - like I have been for the last three-and-a-half quarters in PAS), and when I encounter them involuntarily, I usually respond with extreme irritation.
When the challenges pass, however, I realize how beneficial they are as they taught me new skills and added to my life experiences.

Challenges stimulate the body, either mentally, physically, or both. I enjoy challenges as long as I know I have the ability to solve them. Aiming to run a mile under 6:20 (my record was 6:22 or so), for example, is a physical challenge I can think of.

The mission trips I went on in my Bethany days are examples of challenges as we were to lead a class with activities and teach them English over the course of a week.
A physical challenge I have encountered was when I was river-trekking in Wulai. With water temperatures near freezing in addition to the ridiculously fast-moving and deep water currents, I was clinging to the surfaces of the rocks for dear life.


A challenge I would like to face is to do community service in another country through Rustic Pathways or a similar organization.

Highwayman

In “Typhoid Fever,” Seamus says that there is a similarity between what happens to Frankie and what happened to the highwayman. What is the similarity? Do you agree with Seamus’s conclusion? Why or why not? Explain how Frankie’s situation might be compared to a romantic story, and how it is different.

The similarity is that the poem can be applied to match their situation. Like the Highwayman in the poem was drawn to Bess, the landlord's daughter, Frankie was drawn to Patricia (not entirely in the same circumstances, but drawn to her because she was the only company he could have and could keep him entertained). By stretching the connection, as the Highwayman and Bess fell in love, Frankie's relationship was drawn closer to Patricia as she enticed him with poetry.

Though this is probably not revealed in the story, in the poem a stableboy (ostle) betrays them to the authorities (like Nurse Kerry turns them in to the nuns). Patricia dies soon after as well.

The main similarity, I believe, is that Francis had created a relationship with the girl in the next room, who could very well drop dead the next day. It was a very unhealthy relationship, to say the least, and a forbidden one as well. In the same way, the Highwayman fell in love with the landlord's daughter, which was a forbidden romance as well. In this similarity, Frankie's story can be seen as "romantic"