Slaughterhouse 5 Prewriting and such things...

Please list 10 ways you can improve your essay scores

1. Re-read parts of the book for quotes   6. Double-check my work
2  Do Pre-writing                                      7. Run spell check
3. Take more time                                   8. Use the PIE structure more
4. Focus my writing more                        9. Write a good thesis
5. Read other essays                              10. Participate and pay attention when discussing in class


Please write any 15 thoughts about the book Slaughterhouse-5.  For each thought, please refer to a specific part of the book that generated this thought (for instance, “It was funny” receives no credit; “It was funny when he described the Tralfamadorians” receives full credit).

1. They used vulgar language a lot

2. It was unorganized in an organized matter (i.e. Time traveling was random, but followed a pattern)

3. It had an interesting view of time (nonlinear)

4. There were a lot of small details that fit together well (3 musketeers example)

5. It was interesting how the author thought that in the 70s they'd have laser guns

6. The description of death ("so it goes") seems a bit insensitive (to me at least)

7. I thought it was interesting how Billy was quite devoid of emotion

8. I liked how the author had 3 plots/time lines running at once

9. The Tralfamadorian books were interesting

10. It was interesting how the author wrote about himself writing the book

11. I didn't like how the key climaxes were resolved before they happened

12. It was interesting how, even though this is a war book, they almost never described actual combat.

13. I liked how it gave a new perspective on time travel

14. I thought it was interesting how he kinda used reverse psychology to describe death (by being insensitive it makes it all the more sensitive)

15. I like how you can define the present to be whenever you want


State 5 possible themes for the book Slaughterhouse-5.
1. Death isn't really that important or sad

2. War affects people not only in the war, but after it as well

3. Nothing you can do will change what will happen

4. Focus on the good parts of life

5. Time travel isn't really as good as we may think


Write a conversation between yourself and Billy Pilgrim in which he tries to teach you a lesson based on his own experiences.  You must explain IN DEPTH at least 3 specific events and details from the book in order to receive full credit.  This conversation should go on as long as it takes to demonstrate YOUR UNDERSTANDING of Billy’s experiences.
EXAMPLE:
Billy: Hello, Mr. Cheng
Mr. Cheng: Hi Billy
Billy: Have you heard about Tralfamadore?
Mr. Cheng: No, what’s that?
Billy: It’s a planet where they... etc.
_____________________________


Billy: Hey there
Me: Hey, you're that crazy person from the radio right?
Billy: I'm not crazy, I just know things that others need to know.
Me: like what?
Billy: Get this: when people die, they don't actually cease to exist, because they are still there in the past
Me: ...
Billy: It's like looking at a mountain range; you can see where it ends, but you aren't sad that it ends there because you can see the rest of it also.
Me: but we CAN'T see the past!
Billy: Well, I can. You see, I'm unstuck in time. I wander throughout time rando--- oh hi again!
Me: ...
Billy: I just time traveled back to the war where I was wearing a Toga and a coat as a handwarmer while eating syrup for pregnant people!
Me: you really are crazy... See ya later

Is Siddhartha's interactions with Vasuveda at all like my own life?

In the book Siddhartha, the main character, Siddhartha, goes on a journey to find inner peace, and he finally attains it by talking to the ferryman Vasuveda. However, the teachings that Siddhartha had learned do not really reflect at all what I learned about the same topic. Siddhartha learns from Vasuveda and, strangely enough, the river also, that the concept of time is distorted. In their interaction, Siddhartha says "Have you also learned that secret from the river; that there is no such thing as time?" (106). What Siddhartha means by this is that the present time is everything, including the future and the past. In other words, a stone is a rock, sand, soil, a tree, and eventually, a fruit, all at once, even though we only see it as a stone. However, I have learned differently. In my experience, it is possible to be something other than what you were, or are going to be. I have made plenty of mistakes in my life, but my past doesn't define me, as Siddhartha was led to believe. I am who I am now, not who I was in the past. What this means is that, instead of me being the accumulation of my past, my present, and my future, I am only who I am at the present moment, and whatever I have done in the past, and whatever I do in the future, can't affect how people see me right now.

A Pleasantly Annoying, Tediously Short, Quietly Ear-Piercing Analysis of the themes of The Odyssey

This post will focus on the themes of the last few books (11-end) of The Odyssey. Please enjoy...

The Odyssey has many themes that occur throughout it, but a few stand out as being a main recurring theme. one of these, in my opinion, is the idea of not rushing into things, and being patient.

The theme of being patient is shown a lot in book 13. In this section, the godess Athena describes what sets Odysseus apart, namely his wit and patience. "Anyone else, having come back from wandering long and hard, would have hurried home at once." This may seem out of place, but because Odysseus didn't rush into his home like any other man would, saved his life from the Suitors that were there. Because of Odysseus' patience, his life was saved.

The theme of Patience is also shown in book 12. In this book, the men, still trying to reach home, land on the island of the sun, where the Cows of the Sun are. Patience would have saved the lives of the men there, but they were not patient. "if we come upon a herd of cattle or fine flock of sheep, not one man among us,--blind in his reckless ways-- will slaughter an ox or ram." This quote is Odysseus' instructions to his crewmembers, but they aren't patient at all and kill the cattle. Because of this, the crew was killed and Odysseus was left alone. Rushing into things, like the men did, will never really pay off.

Patience does not always involve waiting, as is shown in book 22. In this book, Odysseus' Patience paid off, and because he didn't rush into things, he could get revenge. the book describes the scene of his revenge: "the suitors lay in heaps, corpse covering corpse." Odysseus, because of his master plan, was able to kill all the evil suitors in his house. Being patient and thinki9ng over things, like Odysseus and Telemachus did, is a much better choice than rushing into things, because it will usually pay off in the end.

The Odyssey: two heroes, or are they?

Throughout the book The Odyssey, there are two main protagonists: Odysseus, for whom the book was named after, and Telemachus, his son. but are they heroes? This post will look into whether or not either of them qualify to be a hero.

First, lets look at Odysseus. He's the main character, hes strong, smart, and overall the perfect guy to be a hero. I would say that he is the main hero of this story. He fits the hero's quest pattern very nicely. For example, he has faithful hero partners, namely, his crew. These men went with him to the ends of the earth, and gave their very lives to help him. If that doesn't exemplify a hero partner, i don't know what does. The men were a key part in helping him succeed in his quest. Also, Odysseus has an ultimate boon, namely the magic scarf. the magic scarf is what keeps him alive throughout the ordeal with Poseidon. All heroes have an ultimate boon that is key to helping them survive, and Odysseus is no different, seeing as the scarf is what kept him alive.

Telemachus, on the other hand, is not a hero. Why, you might ask? Well, for one, he has no ultimate boon. Throughout the pitiful trip he calls his quest, nothing is so consequential as to merit the term ultimate boon. maybe the ship could be considered a mediocre boon, and the men a lukewarm boon, but it doesn't compare at all to a hero's ultimate boon. Also, Telemachus never had a final battle. He left, reached Sparta, then turned around and high-tailed it home. This is DEFINITELY NOT a final battle. What is fought? who wins? the answer: who cares? Telemachus isn't a hero. thats it.

PS3's are better than 360's

Sure, the argument has been going on for what seems like centuries, and nothing has been solved, but I would like to give my input nonetheless. The PS3/360 war is a nasty one, with threads turning intelligent posters into mindless trolls trying to prove their point (luckily for me I am on an obscure assignment blog). Even so, it is a topic that I am casually passionate about, so I will write, and hopefully persuade a few of you to my point of view.

First, I'll start with some background. I have lived the past three or so years with a wii, and just recently decided to upgrade to the PS3. Now before anyone starts to complain about bias and all that, let me say this: all of my friends had Xbox 360s, and I knew of only one person with a PS3. So why did I go the opposite way of everyone I knew? Well, I hope to show you.

The decision seems hard at first, both have similar stats when viewed casually, but take a closer look and the PS3 pulls ahead. For example, let's take optical drives. 360's feature a DVD drive, whereas PS3s feature a Blu-Ray drive. Sure, you may not have an HDTV, so you won't be watching that many Blu-Ray movies, but the difference lies in the games. DVDs can hold up to 8.5 GB, whereas the Blu-Ray discs hold up to 50 GB of data. This can mean a whole lot to games with heavy graphics or extensive features, allowing them to pack all the data into one disk instead of 5 or 6 that are installed (meaning slower loading times).

Another example of the PS3's superiority is in its failure rate. No Xbox fanatic likes the words Red Ring of Death, and if mentioned in a debate will leave most stuttering feeble excuses about some fan thingy that fixes it or something. Seeing as it was only fixed quite recently, it is still a major problem for anyone considering Xbox. Also, according to a study done quite recently by NoFussReviews, Failure rates among Xbox users numbered 42%, whereas PS3 failure rate was only 8%. Just to put that into perspective, about half of Xboxes broke or failed, whereas only 1 in 12 PS3s would fail. PS3 is the clear winner here.

Finally, a topic worth a quick mention is the Online Play. Microsoft currently charges users $50 per year to use online play in games, and you have to pay extra for most DLC (downloadable content). PSN, or Playstation Network, is and always will be free to play on, with DLC the only thing to pay for. Some may argue that the price for Xbox Live (Xbox's online play) gives it better speed and stuff, but from what I've noticed, it isn't true. Most of what speed is dependent upon is the internet connection speed, which has nothing to do with the console. Again, PS3 is a clear victor.

PS3 is a clear winner in all the categories I mentioned, and it stands true in other categories too. Blu-Ray is way ahead of its time and is just being tapped into for its potential, whereas DVDs are becoming obsolete. Failure rates are over 5x as much in Xboxes than in PS3s, which makes a HUGE difference in which to choose. And finally, online play on the PS3 is completely cost-free. I hope this will make a difference to someone, but as I will never know, I just hope that my point was proven.

Joan of Arc real Life Heroes Journey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc#Life
http://www.distinguishedwomen.com/biographies/joanarc.html http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08409c.htm
http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/

Joan was born in a village raided by Burgundians. Raids were frequent, and one time even the village got burned down. When she was twelve, she recieved her call. She saw visions of supernatural figures who told her to drive out the English and bring the Dauphin for his coronation. She was inactive for about 4 years, when, at the age of 16, she convinced the captain of the dauphin's army to let her lead. They gave her a few tests, and she passed them all. She became so feared, that when Lord Talbot's army faced her, most fled the battle, including the commander. However, it was not to last. She was captured and sold to the English, where she was tried for witchcraft because she wore mens clothes. Because she refuse to take them off (for various reasons), she was burned at the stake.

Hi (again)

Whoa I haven't posted in 2 days!!!!1!!!one!!

Hi

and if anyone is reading this blog NOT for the school assignments, well... you're gonna be bored