Two Criminals but one death penalty

Its kinda funny how Poncelet and his buddy both killed the couple but people wanted only Poncelet dead. Throughout the movie, people were only pushing for the death penalty on Poncelet. Its as if they agreed with the legal system and excused Poncelet's buddy because he had a more reasonable lawyer even though they did the same exact crime. I feel as if this happens everywhere and not only in the movie. People sway with their words. As long as it sounds reasonable, it does not have to be true.

Dead man walking

In the film "Dead man walking" I felt very sorry for sister Helen. She was trying to please everyone and it wasn't working out in her favor. She was trying to be Matthews spiritual leader while he was awaiting death and also have a relationship with the victims family. During the movies there's a part when she's in the car and she starts crying about being kicked out one of the victims house. I wonder what was going through her mind then. Did she regret ever deciding to be spiritual leaders for murderers?

  All in all I think it's great what sister Helen is doing. It's great that's she's providing the support one would need while going through such a difficult time in their life. What sister Helen is doing is very brave! She's loosing friendships and respect by doing this. But that didn't stop her.  

the "Me" Component in Subculture Essay

The essay is about a subculture but I have noticed that my group critique peers talk about a seen subculture so there is a lot of the "Me" component in their essays. I am one of the people who talked about a virtual subculture. I was wondering, how much of "Me" would I include in that essay when there's more I have seen than played a part of. I was planning on just explaining why my subculture is a subculture and stuff like that. But I am starting to rethink it.

Dead Man Walking

This week we're going to watch Dead Man Walking, the movie adapted from Sister Helen Prejean's first memoir of the same name. In the film, Sean Penn's character is really a fusion of two men-- Louisiana death row inmates in the 1980s. Susan Sarandon won an academy award for her portrayal of the nun (Penn was nominated but lost to Nicholas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas). The film is a pretty accurate portrayal of the memoir although at this time, historically, Louisiana executed criminals by electric chair and the Sean Penn character is executed by lethal injection. This might be one of the questions you should consider for the blog this week: Why did they change it to lethal injection in the film? Why did they change it in real life?

Sean Penn's character, Matthew Poncelet, is based on two criminals, Elmo Sonnier and Robert Lee Willie, both who were guilty of murder. In her second memoir, The Death of Innocents, which we'll be reading over the course of the semester, she looks at the case of two men who were probably innocent and yet executed anyway. As we watch the film and read the book, I'd like us to think about how these two texts affect our views of the death penalty.

Btw: What are your views of the dp? What are Sister Helen's and how are they different or similar to yours? How are Sister Helen's views dramatized in the film? New York has abolished the dp, but Louisiana, where the film is set, hasn't. Does it matter that 31 states allow the dp and the other 19 do not?

I'm actually thankful for Talbird , by far the only class I like in school

Letters from

I live in the neighborhood of Elmhurst.

"Letters from Elmhurst" to me has a whole different viewpoint from other neighborhoods. I think this because different cultures and ethnicities live in my neighborhood. Everyone has different jobs. Also, i feel where i live everything is close. The stores, malls, train. I like my neighborhood. Also, everyone is very friendly and everyone practices different religions.

Essay interview

My topic was body modification. I did my interview 2 days ago, i was soo scared because i had to go in a scary tattoo shop to ask the person if i could interview him... But he said yes i was happy. lol.  I learned so much than expected and i stepped out of my comfort zone.

In our essay are we supposed to say why it is a subculture?

Im kind of stuck with my essay.. :(

I was scrolling through instagram and seen the page of this girl who went to the burning man festival and she was dressed revealing with lingerie and the background looked like a dessert.

"BAE"

I'm responding to a previous post that was made referring to the novel "BAE" in general. I agree with what you said about it being interesting. This is the type of novel that you could never get bored with  because it provides a different story after every 20 page. For me it's hard staying interested in a novel due to me getting bored quickly. With "BAE" that hasn't happened. Some of the stories are so interesting afterwards it leave me thinking what am I doing with my life ?! Why am I so boring?. Best American Essays is a great read! 

The Devils bait

I find it so crazy/ a little unrealistic how once one person contracted the morgellons disease everyone started thinking they had it. The part that I find unrealistic is when Jamison says that patients would produce fake evidence that they had the disease. I could understand if this was early 90s but it was early 2000s so I would assume that doctors had a lot more technology that could help them with the disease that would ease the patients mind not causing them to freak out over it. 

Subcultures. Well I think if anything our whole class except the proffesor is part of the 90's baby subculture

I think Letters to Greenwich was a good example that people have there own stereotypes

Defining a Subculture

One of the most hardest parts of the essay I faced was defining a subculture and then engineering my essay towards how the subculture I choose was a subculture. I feel that cultures can be broken down into subcultures and then subcultures can be broken down further.Would those broken down branches of a subculture make the subculture a more unifying culture? That is what got to me.

Prob Not Morgellons but..

I have not read the essay fully yet but I was reading, this thought came into my head.  Over the summer, I felt what was described as Morgellons disease. When I would sleep, I felt a crawling sensation that would keep me up at night. I came to the conclusion that it was my skin being super sensitive since I do actually have genetically bad skin. I asked my sister who is currently studying for medical school about this and she, just like the doctors, did not have an explanation but she did tell me to stop taking super hot showers because that made my skin worse. After listening to her advice, I realized that that crawling sensation left.
My question to you guys is that do you think that Morgellons disease is not actually a disease like something is actually causing the skin to become super sensative or it is a disease that doctors have no clue how to diagnose it ?

The Devil's Bait and Burning Man

The two essays this week, I think, are great models of subculture writing. I think we should talk about that, about how both authors, both outsiders of these subcultures, take us inside these communities. Are they sympathetic to the communities or judging or both or neither? How do they situate themselves in relation to their subjects (i.e. what is their ethos)? Part of analyzing their ethos might be imagining them differently. So, for instance, how would Wells Tower's essay be different if he hadn't gone to Burning Man w/ his father but, instead, peers of his? How might Leslie Jamison's essay be different if she went to the Morgellons conference as a fellow sufferer or if she had been a medical doctor who didn't believe it was a real disease? I think both of the subjects could be very exploitive. Morgellons is pretty hideous (try googling it) and Burning Man is lascivious (ditto). And yet both essays, at moments, are moving (and Towers' is often hilarious). Can you explore how the two authors complicate their subject matter?

Letter from Greenwich village

The letter from Greenwich Village is a letter made from a New Yorkers point of view. Since I live in New York as well, I also have kind of a similar perspective. In one section of the Letter from Greenwich Village, she describes the different conversations she hears when roaming down the streets of New York. It was quite odd reading this because before I read this, I always thought the same and listened to people's conversations as well in my neighborhood and on my way to school and realized how different everyone around New York is, but also fairly similar at the same exact time. I personally feel like every New Yorker has kind of a similar mindset but maybe a different kind of way to express themselves. Maybe other people from different states and countries think similar of different. 

Letters from ..

In both Essays the main characters both describe their " love life". In letters in Williamsburg I sorta feel bad for the main character because she seems lost and unaware of the things she does. It's unfortunate that she brought herself into depression by doing things that she know she wouldn't be happy with. In letters from GV although the main character has some type of friendship/relationship with Leonard it still isn't an "ideal" relationship because Leonard always had something negative to say. The difference between Letters from Williamsburg  and Letters from Gv relationships are, Williamsburg is unhappy with her relationships. While GV is content with Leonard, I think she likes being around him because although he can be harsh and negative, hes real she always know's what shes going to get when shes with him.

Okay so i looked up the word ennui and according to dictionary. it means a feeling of utter weariness and discontent resulting form satiety or lack of interest; boredom" So in other words, when Vivian Gornick used this word to describe how undaunted Leonard's disinterest remains in hearing the name Krista K, I think she is showing us how much of an effect his pessimism has on everything she does. It that particular scene, she seems almost tired of his negativity, as it seems that his comments only exacerbate her weariness from reading the book. I found this part of her essay the most interesting because the narrator experiences a sudden change in character after Leonard's little personal moment (i think?) where he states, "I have only known what i don't want. I've always had a thorn in my side, and I've always thought, When this thorn is removed then I'll think about what I want. But then that particular thorn is removed, and I'd be left feeling emptied out. In a short time another thorn would be inserted into my side. Then, once again , all i had to think about was being free of the thorn in my side. I've never had time to think about what i want" I believe that Leonard's testimony kind of shows where Vivian was headed in a way if she was unable to find something to balance that negativity that was always present in each and every on of her thoughts, which goes to show that the essay is about finding that balance in life that will help you to survive from its sometimes depressing outlooks; unlike Leonard, who was stuck in a constant ennui of life, our narrator Vivian was able to find an escape from the depressing undertones that she constantly identified and found a balance that brought peace, stability and understanding as to who she was and wanted to continue to be. That escape for her was the city and her balance was the solace in listening to the many voices that surrounded her as walked around Manhattan.

Formal Writing Assignment

How did you guys plan/structure out your essay on subculture? 

"Letter from..."

Both of the essays this week are written from the perspective of New Yorkers. Is it your perspective? How is it different? How similar? How would "Letter from Bayside (or whatever your neighborhood is)" be different?

How is "Letter from Williamsburg" about faith? How is it about losing faith? Is it both or neither? How is it about depression? What symbol does Dombek use to represent depression? Significance?

Both essays are about sex and relationships. How are they similar? How different?

Formal Writing Assignments

I found that making a structural outline on writing assignments help me build up the essay better. Having a purpose for each paragraph and then ultimately relating it to the assignment helps me develop a better essay. How do you guys start off your essays? Do you just start writing or do you plan a bit ahead?

"How to Make a Slave" in second person

"How to Make a Slave" is told in second person. This affects the reading of the essay because it starts by saying " where your thirteen year old sister sits at the table thumbing through your schoolbook on black history" he doesn't use  "I, we". This affects it because it allows me to experience the story as if it were my own. For example, in the quote above it makes me have past connections when my nieces use to go over my notebooks and even after i didn't let them, they kept on doing it. It makes me reflect more on what i am reading and what is going on.

SlickHeads and How to Make a Slave

There is a connection between Slickheads and How to Make a Slave. Both are about being a black man in America who grew up in tough neighborhoods and then became professors. In Slickheads the narrator says "Sonnt dying like he did definitely motivated me to to finish graduate school and teach at university level. But going to college for eleven years was no doubt the most sterile experience". His friend Sonny's death motivated his further to finish school and become a professor at university level. In "How to Make a Slave" the narrator mentions how his neighborhood was "some people like you, live in communities with drugs, crime, bad schools, police brutality, and the collective view that white people were and will always be racist". Then he says " The ghetto was never an option, But instead move to one that is 96 percent white .. want a  racially diverse, progressive, urban community but instead move to one near Boston that you and your wife land professorships".

Subculture Assignment

I have been having trouble thinking of a subculture and what makes it a subculture but then I stumbled upon this article by Steve Mizrach and it helped me a bit. Specifically the first three paragraphs

Over the past two years, the focus of my research has been focused on youth subcultures in American society. I have been interested in how these subcultures have come into being, and how they maintain their solidarity and cohesiveness. There has been a great deal of research into how these subcultures come into being through organizing around music (Polhemus 1994), fashion and style (Hebidge 1977), drugs (Redhead 1993), and countercultural norms and deviant practices at odds with 'straight' society (Ben-Yehuda 1990). While people have looked at some of the more unusual linguistic aspects of these groups (use of slang, anti-language, jargons, and 'hip talk'), there has been no real effort to look closely at language as a determinant of sociocultural identity. While there have been efforts to look at the interrelations between language, culture, and identity, most of the research in these areas has not looked into the process of language formation and the ways in which existing languages are altered to fit new roles, perceptions, and identities.Ever since Lee, Whorf, Berlin-Kay, et al., did their studies, it has been commonplace to assert that language shapes ones' cultural worldview and thus how they experience the world. However, such analyses have often been static. A culture's language is assumed to be derived from unmediated sensory input from their environment (hence the idea that the Esquimaux have about thirty words for snow, etc.), without any process of invention or creativity. However, what my research with these subcultures has shown is that there is a constant practice of innovation and experimentation involved in language. Further, these subcultures are aware that in rejecting existing linguistic practices, they are also challenging the norms and worldviews that they are supposed to undergird. Language is a realm of conflict , because worldviews are in collision, and irreconcilable differences may exist between the views of 'straight' society and that of the subcultures. Linguistic identity can be oppositional , reflecting what the person rejects and denies as part of their life.
This view of linguistic systems as being fundamentally exploratory and experimental is not new. In physical evolution, we can see throughout the fossil record evidence of organisms trying and 'probing' different developmental pathways through multiple genetic 'drift'. Cognitive science also shows us that the brain, in planning decisions, often runs through scenarios and possibilities, arriving at outcomes through processes of elimination. Language, I suggest, works the same way. Conservative linguists who seek to conserve the propriety of their respective languages, preserving some sort of official canon of standards, misunderstand fundamentally the way in which language works in human cultures. Linguistic innovation is a way of testing 'pathways of development' for linguistic systems, attempting to find vectors which may meet future cultural demands and point the way to new directions of social change. It is a process that has been particularly accelerated by new communications technologies which propagate such innovations all the more rapidly.

Here is the link for the whole article http://www2.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/subcultural-discourse.html

Best American Essays

I feel like the majority of the essays we read in Best American Essays (2014 edition) by John Jeremiah Sullivan are based on experiences that somehow affected the author's life for an incredibly long period of time. Especially in "Thanksgiving in Mongolia" by Aerial Levy and "Sliver of Sky" by Barry Lopez. Both authors had this traumatic experience/s that changed their life forever. I also noticed most of the essays we read have this negative situation that has affected the author's life in some manner. Do you guys think writers or at least most writers are motivated by negative experiences to write? In a way, I see it as writing can be seen as a therapeutical activity so most writers in general write and then advance into the profession later in their adulthood.

Slickheads and How to Make a Slave

Let's make connections between these two essays. Both are about being a black man in America. Both are about young men who grew up in rough neighborhoods and then became professors. What do you think their attitudes are about their lives now?

"How to Make a Slave" is told in second person ("You do this, you do that"). How does this affect your reading of the essay. In fact, both essays are told in an untraditional fashion. "Slickheads" is told in the slang of Lawrence Jackson's youth. What do these quirky approaches to style do for the subject matter? Why not just tell these stories in a straight ahead fashion? Why are they titled the way they are?

Dear Friend, From My Life I Write to You in Your Life

I like how reading this essay was like reading a very personal journal. The way it was written was amazing. It had a lot of great emotions behind it.

The Man at the River

This was actually pretty enjoyable to read. It was all one big awkward situations. From the american's point of view, he was just trying to make sure that his body doesn't get infected with any sort of bacteria, so he didn't want to cross the river. He never went through that river before, so he doesn't know what could possibly be in it. Also, his body isn't as adapted to the new environment, so he is more likely to become sick. He didn't want to embarrass the mutual friend, but he also didn't want to possibly get an infection . So when the mutual friend called the boatman over, he felt like he had no choice but to make a bad impression and rid a boat across the river.

From the mutual's point of view, the American was probably overreacting , after all he's been through that river a bunch of times without getting any sort of sickness, and he didn't to have to go to the village without the guest. Probably because if he went there without the guest then everyone would just assume that he chose not to help a guest, and if he tried to tell everyone what the American told him then the people at the village would probably say to him what he said to the American.