A Modest Proposal

In "A Modest Proposal," Swift is addressing the problem that Ireland faces of too many impoverished children and not enough national wealth. His suggestion to solve the problem is to treat children born out of wedlock and to beggars as livestock, nourished for a year then sold to be eaten as fine food by lords and ladies. His suggestion is clearly not serious, as a serious suggestion of eating children would be taken much more gravely. He is satirizing the policymakers who offer ridiculous suggestions to problems as though they are logical and without fault. At the same time, he is making jabs at the wealthy for eating sort of disgusting things labeled as delicacies. His argument is given in a logical manner, however his actual suggestion is absolutely ludicrous. His suggestion would have to be absurd to make it clear that he was being satirical. No one would take seriously a piece of writing about eating babies, however it does get a message across.

Effective Advertising

I find this ad effective because I think it speaks to a my generation. Levis have always been representative of a carefree, rebellious youth, and this commercial grabs ahold of that and makes it artistic. The poem in the voice over, a poem called Pioneers! O Pioneers! by Walt Whitman, is oddly arcane and outdated but somehow fits perfectly, and moreover, inspires. It is an example of an ethos argument, in that it plants a seed in the viewer's mind to not allow their spirit to dwindle. It's as if Levis is telling us that it is our moral obligation to live freely and be wild while we have the chance. Watching this add not only makes me want to buy and wear Levis, but to take charge, to explore, to take risks, and to embrace my youth.

What I'm working on

In the painful and uncomfortable story of Bartleby, the scrivener, as told by Hermann Melville, there are many circumstances that may lead a reader to sympathize with different characters, ultimately changing the meaning of the work. In due course, however, one should find that Bartleby, despite the story being told in first person by a different character, is the voice of reason, and Melville’s purpose is to accentuate his cause. Bartleby is a martyr figure who serves to expose the ineffectiveness of what claims to be Christian charity in 19th century American Society. There are several instances in the writing that would lead to this conclusion, these being Bartleby’s exhibited ability, his persistence, his acquired reverence, and his ultimate demise.

Bartleby

The quote I would like to discuss today is, "Ah, happiness courts the light, so we deem the world is gay; but misery hides aloof, so we deem that misery there is none." I find this quote meaningful among the passages of Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street because the whole story swirls around differences between those who have the means to provide for themselves and those who need assistance, along with questions about the importance of interactions between the two classifications. In this quote, I think Melville is expressing his belief that in general, those who have managed to avoid despair, loneliness, and emptiness are not understanding of those whose lives are characterized by struggle. It is easy for those of us who are doing well in our conquests and are surrounded by people who love us to dismiss other lifestyles as if they don't even exist. The upper classes are oblivious to poverty, loss, and starvation. We have no need to glance into the darkness, because we know that we preside in the light. In the story of Bartleby, he represents what can happen if someone spends too much of their life in the dark. Bartleby is characterized by an unbreakable air of solitude. He does not know love, happiness, forgiveness, or thankfulness. Melville uses Bartleby to create a bridge between the two worlds (light and dark), however one that has long been neglected and is almost impossible to cross. This is the reason the story is so drenched in frustration and confusion, is because Melville believes the class divide is stark and daunting, and even charity cannot break its hold on society.

Summary vs Analysis

After reading Nabokov's "Good Readers and Good Writers", I have decided I agree with some of his statements, and think others are absolute bolonga. It is true that small details must not go unnoticed before a book can be generalized about. It is minute nuances that set a book apart from the rest, and it is a reader who picks up on these tidbits who is a good reader. I also agree that a piece of writing should be read multiple times to be able to pick up on more than bold themes in a book, although it is rather unrealistic for a college student to be expected to read a required reading more than once. In that case, we may all be thrown into the category of "bad readers" by Nabokov due to our circumstances. There were two glaring mistakes that I saw in Nabokov's logic, the first being that a "good reader" must not become emotionally attached to characters in the story they are reading. I believe this emotional bond creates a sort of motivation for the reader to keep reading, because they want to know what will happen to the characters and in turn, themselves, and I think authors are keen to the importance of this connection and would hate to see it diminished. The second qualm I have with Nabokov's writing is that there is absolutely and most definitely a concrete difference between fiction and nonfiction. A person telling their story is much different than a person telling a story. I consider myself a very good reader, and I would never write a true story off as a work of imagination, as that would change the meaning and necessity of the work entirely.

Intro video, sorry it's a little glitchy...