Out of the papers you are putting into your English portfolio, which one do you think shows your best work and which one do you think needs to be edited the most? Explain why. Be specific. Provide examples of your best and weakest areas.

I believe my best paper is the personal analysis paper. I displays my best work because it demonstrates my voice the best. When I am able to tell stories about my life my papers turn out the best because the words just flow onto the paper. I wrote my paper about Michael Jordan so sometimes the paper wanders from the focus and how my life is similar to Jordan's. I think I need better examples in my life to do this and I think I need to use better examples in his life to fully portray what I am trying to say. It is really hard to connect my life to with the best basketball player to ever play the game.

The paper that is my worst paper is probably the epigraph paper. I need to reference the sources a lot better and use close reading to analyse the epigraphs. I didn't really connect the the epigraph with the author that wrote the paper. I also need a focus in the paper and how each epigraph is connected.

I accentually posted this as a comment on Rachael's page. I just realized it now.

I think Chris would have stayed on the road and kept doing what he was doing. I think he would get a job for a couple of month and then move on to some other place. With the risks that Chris took in life I don't think that Chris would have lived a very long life if he would have survived the wild. Chris' personality was not the type to settle down. Not at any point throughout the book did it talk about Chris ever wanting to go back and see his family. He no longer had a connection with his parents and unless his parents ever found him i don't think that he would ever see them again.

The Dark Art of Description

From the reading last Tuesday, what is the author Patricia Hampl's purpose in writing about description and word choice in, The Dark Art of Description? Why are the last few paragraphs, about the story she tells with one of her students, significant to the purpose?

The Dark Art of Description's purpose it to explain to people who write that you can pretty much make anything you write about, no mater how boring the subject is, interesting and exciting with the the right word choice and description. I know this is true but very few have the writing skills to be able to make anything sound good. When I have written essays, I have always thought that there is only so much you can write about but Hampl disagrees. You can add so much detail and description to your writing to make it sound like the most interesting thing ever. It is just the matter of how you write it.

The last few paragraphs proves her point exactly. Her student told her that he lived in a boring town and there was nothing to write about. She tries to explain to her student that he is overlooking what is so exciting about his town. She goes on to explain that the thing that is so exciting about the town is really how boring the town is.

"In response to the Taylor Swift article we read and discussed about in class, what is one song that means something to you? Is it by your favorite artist? Analyze the lyrics (if there are any). When listening to the song, what images come to mind? Why?"

One song that means a lot to me is "Pursuit of Happiness" by Kid Cudi. This song means a lot to me because it sends a good message about optimistic thinking. The lyrics send a good message about how you always need to see the bright side of things. I truly believe in optimistic thinking because it helps inspire you to do great things and help others. Kid Cudi is also one of my favorite artists. His songs really inspire me to become a better person and send a better outlook on how I see the world, being more positive.

Logos, Pathos, and Egos?

"What do you think is the most effective form of rhetoric out of Logos, Pathos, and Egos? Why? Knowing that they do tie together very well, try to just choose one and argue for it. Which do you think John Krakauer is most reliant on, or which do you notice the most while reading Into the Wild?"

Ethos has to be the most important form of rhetoric. If the writer is educated and an expert about what he/she is writing then all of their arguments are backed up. You are not going to question points basketball coach makes about basketball. Pathos and Logos are not effective if the the Ethos is not mentioned.

Krakauer in Into the Wild likes to use a lot logos in his writing. Into the Wild is driven by fact and information about Chris. The Logos drives the the Pathos because when you read about the facts is drives you emotion. Krakauer effectively uses all of the forms of rhetoric very well. All good writers have to use these sufficiently in order to be a good writer though.

Hitchhiking

"how do you think the use of hitchhiking has changed over time?...what do you think is the cause of this? is it beneficial to those in need or just overall too dangerous?..explain your thoughts"

I don't think that hitchhiking has necessarily changed over time. I think it is kinda stayed the same. I guess the only way that hitchhiking could have changed because of cell phones. Divers feel safer picking up people because they do have cell phones.

I think that hitchhiking is definitely dangerous for women. There are many creepy men out there that would do bad things to woman hitchhikers. Hitchhiking is a very inefficient way to travel. there is many other ways to get around like the bus or a train. People standing on the side of the road do cause a hazard to drivers if they are in the way. It is also very dangerous for the hitchhiker because they have a high chance of getting hit. Bad visibility and poor weather conditions add to this risk. I guess if hitchhiking is the only way to get somewhere then it is a good form of transportation and it is cheap. I would never hitchhike anywhere though, it is just to risky.

"Why does everyone think that Gallien (the man who gave Chris a ride) in Into the Wild, opted to not call the police after Chris left his car? Gallien said, "I figured he'd be OK," but why would anyone think this considering where Chris was going with little to no supplies? State your opinion."

Chris is a man that can make his own decisions. It was not Gallien's job to tell a young what he can or cannot do. Gallien dropped off Chris ten miles off of the highway and Chris could have easily walked back to get help. There is only so much that is in your control. Gallien cared enough to give up his boots. Chris was not doing anything illegal and there would have been little that the police could have done. There was probably little that anyone could do to stop Chris from going into the wild. Chris already has his mind made up. I believe that if other people were in Galliens same position they would have done the some thing. Gallien should not be blamed or feel bad at all.