Why Me???

In Annie Dillard’s personal narrative, A Deer at Providencia (1982), she defines the true meaning of pain and suffering. The author develops the work by first telling the story of a deer tied to a tree in the South American village that is preparing to be slaughter for a meal; she then compares it to a man who has been burnt twice. The author is writing this piece in order to give deeper look at how one could suffer and be at the point of giving up on life. To me, I believe the intended author is those that take life for granted or those who are cruel to animals/humans.

In the story, I noticed what the gentlemen from the big city were saying about how the author was nonchalant about the deer dying in front of them. I’m very squeamish when it comes to animals being mistreated to the point that I have to turn the channel when the abused animal commercial comes on. One could tell by her writing that she didn’t show any emotion for the animal. I keep thinking throughout the whole story that she was going to free the animal but she didn’t. I understand that in other cultures that that is their custom but when that not your everyday life you should have some emotion and she did not.

In the story, she compared the burn victim to the deer. She also compared the burn victim to suicidal people (145). To me, she was trying to insinuate that the deer wanted to kill itself as the burn did too. She compared the deer to the man by describing how it had to be in extreme pain with the gashed on it neck to the bruises on it muscles (142). We all could imagine how much pain the man had to be in being burned that badly. Dillard spoke about how they were in so much pain and couldn’t do anything about. The deer couldn’t get lose from the rope (142) and the man couldn’t get relief from medicine (143). It sad an ending to what one thought was going to a happy story about the jungle.

How to save a life.

Martin Gangsberg wrote a newspaper article entitled Thirty-Eighty Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call the Police (Mar 27, 1964), explores the reasoning behind the “The Genovese Syndrome”. The author started with the background information about the neighborhood and the victim; that lead to the attack and why it was unusual for the area and the aftermath of the attack. Gangsberg wrote this article in order to bring light to neighborhoods that don’t look after each other. The intended audience for this piece is those that think that people who think things that happens outside their house is there problem.

The article was disturbing to me because that could be anyone of us. I remember being a little girl and a lady beating on my grandmother’s door. She was screaming that she had been raped and needed to come in. My grandmother never left the lady in the house but she did call the police. The girl was gone by the time the police arrived but my grandmother still did the right thing by calling the police because that was the right thing to do. It’s scary knowing that people won’t look after you when you’re at your lowest. It wouldn’t have affected anyone by calling the police and staying where you were and the attacker wouldn’t have known who called.

In the article, people couldn’t explain why they didn’t call the police for the young lady and if they did have a reason it was selfish and inhumanly. For instance, one interviewer even said “I was tired. I went back to bed.” (140). Was sleep really that much more important than someone being murdered? That was what many residents in this neighborhood thought. The author also included background on the neighbors leading to that the neighborhood shouldn’t have been use to the chaos and the screaming. One example of saying that she was living in a Tudor Building (137) and that the families living in the area made about $35,000 to $60,000 (139). With saying that, it was unusual that be calm in that situation. I believe that the author was trying to say that this behavior was usually more common in less fortune neighborhoods. No matter the reason or the circumstances, out of 38 people no one picked up the phone to say someone is getting hurt on the street. When at any instance that you can help someone without harming you should. There was no excuse that no one could help her.

I Can Do All Things. . .

Dianne Trice’s blog post, How can we get willpower back once it has been depleted (15 July 2011), explores the reason why we lose willpower throughout the day in order to make it stronger and thrive longer. Trice’s thesis states how there are many examples and with each example she gives the reasoning and causes of that example. The author’s apparent reason for this was to help people find and strengthen their willpower in order to be more productive in their life. The intended audience was those struggling strong willpower and trying to improve theirs.

 I related a great deal with this piece because many times you have so many things going on your life you don’t want to do all the things you need to do. Lately, with so many classes, the willpower to study in classes that aren’t always as exciting as the other isn’t high on my priority list. Usually, I wait to the last minute to do my assignments and study for a test. I believe that other people have different willpower peeks. Such as, I work late shifts at my job and I find my willpower peek is after my shift.

The author states four examples of reversing depleted willpower: being well rested, eating regularly, caffeine, and good moods. Along with all of the examples the author also includes strengthening your willpower. She proclaims that if you add simple tasks to things that you are already accustomed to, it will make it easier to add unlikely tasks to your day (133). With the strengthen willpower, it will be easier for you to perform task that you would usually put off, for example exercising (132). The blog would truly be the root to be a success college student.

At what cost???

Brent Staples explores in the article “Black Characters in Search of Reality” (12 Feb 2012) how black people have to work harder in the successes that they have and aren’t always proud of the way they can get to what they deserve. The author uses a number of examples to make his point. Staples write this article in order to bring light to the way certain African Americans gain reward and achievement in television. The article was intended to speak to people that doesn’t think anything is wrong with actors that play parts that are thought of belittling blacks.

I really enjoyed the article because I see where people come from. I remember when people were talking about the movie “The Help” being in the Oscars, but I do relate this to conversations to ones that people have about Tyler Perry’s Madea movies. People think that all black people act like her, carrying guns and smoking weed. People who don’t always watch the whole movie and don’t always get the moral message out of the movie prejudge it and think that it brings us as a people down.

The article was looking at how it seemed that African Americans can’t appear to get any appraised acting work unless it arguably racial based or one that makes blacks look bad to whites. It explains how upper class African Americans get upset because whites relate them to being poor or “hood”(150). But the best quote to me in the article was what Ms. McDaniel said was “she would rather pay a maid in the movies than be one”(150).

Science of Cheating

In Wendy Shalit’s editorial, Is infidelity natural? Ask the Apes (Sept 2, 2010), explores how even though there is no scientific evidence many still believe that there is. The author uses other researchers and animal science to prove her theory on infidelity. Even though she reconnoiters reasons why people and animals cheat, Shalit does so in order to say that one will never get the needed intimacy that one gets in a committed relationship. This article was intended to the general audience but also to men who think that it’s acceptable to cheat.

In some ways this article irritates me because there shouldn’t be an excuse for cheating. People in the past have been in monogamous relationships and so have people in the present. In anyway, cheating is wrong. When you commit yourself to someone that should be the someone you give yourself to. Comparing yourself to animals to support the reason why you can’t commit yourself to one person be barbaric. At the end of the day cheating is still done behind the other person back and still hurts the other person hurt and deceived.

 In this article, Shalit uses two contrasting sides to fight her belief that men shouldn’t cheat and reasons that men cheat can be opposed. On way side she quotes Christopher Ryan from CNN.com who tries to argue that “it’s utterly natural from men to cheat” (117). For every part of a woman or man that he used to fight that women entice men or that men were stronger at, she pointed out how the stronger parts of men that would help him stay faithful. She wraps up article reinforcing that people who believe that the unfaithful relationships are for those with “low standards” and “provides a convenient out to deny personal responsibility” (118). She proves no matter what science that one can come up with to prove that infidelity is natural, they are wrong.