IRB Intro

     My new independent reading book is titled, How To Be Alone, by Jonathan Franzen.  This book jumped off the shelf to me because of its unusual title.  Typically, a "how to" is a process that somebody takes step by step.  But are steps on learning how to be alone? This is intriguing to me.  I like being an independent person, and figured that maybe this book could teach me a few more things about it.  In his collection of essays, Franzen reflects on many experiences in his life to ultimately create a new outlook on individuality.  So far in high school, I've learned that some people really do not know how to be alone.  To me, being alone is a very important topic, because it allows me to be the most authentic version of myself.  I think it is important, especially at this age, to take the time to be alone; to be truly individual- whatever that may mean to you.  Without ever spending some time with yourself, how will you get to know you?

TOW #16- IRB Second Half

     Spending Christmas away from home is hard enough, but spending it in a war zone is something unimaginable.  During the Battle of the Bulge, American soldiers were not faced with warm fireplaces and holiday joy, but instead freezing temperatures and enemy attacks.  In 11 Days in December, Stanley Weintraub appeals to pathos through a theme of hope, and uses a strategic third person point of view in order to reveal a hidden story to one of WWII's most famous battles.

     U.S. soldiers who were across the Atlantic in the holiday season of 1944 turned desperation into inspiration.  This theme of hope occurs throughout the book to emphasize the personal side of the war.  One notable moment of faith came from General Patton, senior officer of the US Army.  When his men were facing danger of attack from the German side, the General prayed and asked God, "Sir, whose side are you on?".  Within the hour, skies cleared and the Battle of the Bulge turned the war with an Allied victory.  It is this motif of hope that truly personalized the story, and overall contributed yet another factor to his unique view on the battle of Christmas 1944. 

        Weintraub also utilizes a strategic device in his point of view, from which he writes in the third person.  Since he is all-knowing about the historical events surrounding the story, his omniscient perspective is very well suited for the Christmas story at the Bulge.  Through this, Weintraub is able to give a full synopsis of the war up until December of 1944, and cover all of the major points without any limitations.  As he was introducing a town near the Ardennes called Spa, he explains it "was bypassed" but then continues to tell of "another Belgian town [where] the expected Germans in halftracks with 88-mm guns had not yet appeared".  From a third person viewpoint, Weintraub is knowledgable of the actions occurring in all of the towns during the war, which increases his credibility and adds more background to the story.  If he were telling the story, for example, as one of the American soldiers, the reader would therefore not know of what else was occurring outside of the occupied town.  

     Both a theme of hope and a strategic third person point of view are used in Stanley Weintraub's 11 Days in December, ultimately taking a zoomed in look at one of WWII's most well known battles, and a twist on a nontraditional Christmas story.    

TOW #15- Non-Fiction Text 2

     Work ethic is an ability that somebody learns over time.  Through the increasing work levels of high school, college, and eventually a real world job, one work ethic stands with the majority: procrastination.  Adam Grant looks at procrastination in a positive light in his New York Times opinion article, "Why I Taught Myself to Procrastinate", in which he appeals to ethos through personal experience and a realistic counterargument in order to show his view of procrastination being a main source of creativity.
     Many people think of procrastination as being an internal flaw, as did the author of this very article.  However, through his years as a non-procrastinator, he has learned to see the values in holding off on work until the last minute.  By including his experiences in discovering his own work ethics, Grant is able to appeal to ethos and gain credibility in his argument.  He explains that all his life, he has been considered a "pre-crastinator", somebody who has the "urge to start a task immediately and finish is as soon as possible".  Since Grant decided to incorporate his personal background with the topic, there is proof that he has seen both sides of procrastination: being against it and for it.  This makes him a more reliable source for the argument that he is making, because he can now vouch for both sides and offer an accurate opinion of which one he favors.  Without this factor, Grant would not seem as trustworthy, and it would be easier to question the validity of his argument.
     In addition to his appeal to ethos, Grant includes a realistic counterargument.  While he has finally realized the good that can come from procrastination, he also takes note of the possible downsides.  After teaching himself to stay off task, Grant realized that "of course, procrastination can go too far". He considers this to be "destructive procrastination", a kind that he does not recommend for best results.  By recognizing the other side of procrastination, and bringing up the reality that not all instances of postponement will turn out successfully, he is more likely to gain trust in the readers and less likely to turn them away.  Grant even offers a list of suggestions for avoiding this type of procrastination, and making sure to stick with the one that can result in the most creative productivity.
      One of the best things about this article was the fact that Grant admitted to procrastinating even in writing this piece.  Interestingly enough, as I scrolled through the other opinion articles, Grant's stood out to me as one of the more creative ones.  Adam Grant is able to appeal to ethos in his article, "Why I Taught Myself to Procrastinate", through inclusion of personal traits and offering of a counterargument, ultimately showing his readers that every bad thing they have heard about procrastination is wrong; well almost.  Not only do I have a new view on the creative benefits of procrastination, but I also have a good excuse to wait just a few more hours before I start my homework tonight.
   

TOW #14-Non-fiction Text 1

     For the majority of women, marriage is considered a lifetime dream, something that is dreamt about since childhood.  But for others, it is not at all a priority.  In Jessa Crispin's New York Times opinion article, "St. Teresa and the Single Ladies", she makes historical references and includes humor in order to show women that marriage could be a one-way road to giving up their freedom.
     Not speaking necessarily in terms of avoiding becoming a "housewife in captivity", there are many other forms of freedom that are gained from being an independent woman.   As Crispin points out, the leaders of this idea date back to the ancient Catholic female saints such as St. Catherine, St. Lucia, and St. Olga.  "It is simply the lengths to which they went to avoid marrying", that attracted Crispin to their outlook on marriage.  "When St. Catherine's mother said her hair would surely attract a good suitor, she cut all of it off".  It is bold acts like these that were the first to inspire the challenging of marriage standards.  If this does not scream rebel, I am not sure what does.  The example used perfectly introduces Crispin's message that a woman's purpose should not be focused on attracting a man.  Instead, a woman should focus on things such as education and personal pursuits.  In other words, if St. Teresa were given the choice between being a brain or a body, "she would choose to be a brain".  By referencing such historic and religious figures, the author is gaining credibility for her claim that staying single is underrated.
     In her article,  Crispin also pays attention to style through her somewhat humorous tone.  While explaining her personal experiences of being a single, she wonders what trait is holding her back from being "wife material".  Crispin jokes that the reason is, "Maybe because of how much I swear".  By remaining lighthearted in her joke, she not only pulls it off successfully and appeals to the reader's pathos, but she is able to seem like it is just a brush off her shoulder.  Instead of taking it too seriously, she uses humor to show that she does not need a man's approval to happily live her life.  Also, her choice of incorporating comedy into her essay may not turn the audience away so quickly.  Rather than taking an extremely formal approach which is seen to be overdone in similar essays written about feministic topics, she chooses to show her funny side.  With this, Crispin is not only informing her audience of the benefits from the "single ladies", but she is also entertaining them.
     In today's world, young women feel constantly pressured into making marriage their number one objective.  But what about that dream job? Or plan to travel around the world? Jessa Crispin claims that marriage can be the most restrictive thing to place on a woman, through her use of historical figures and whimsical tone in the article, "St. Teresa and the Single Ladies".  It can take years for a person to realize that relationships are not only difficult to handle, but they may also be the number one thing holding that person back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/opinion/sunday/st-teresa-and-the-single-ladies.html?ref=opinion&_r=0