stuff

After reading Never Let Me Go, I was inspired to do some research on the ethics of cloning. I found an article from the New York Times that gave a brief history on cloning and talked about today's views. One particular passage caught my eye:

"Thanks to our belief that all children should be wanted children (the more high-minded principle we use to justify contraception and abortion), sooner or later only those children who fulfill our wants will be fully acceptable. Through cloning, we can work our wants and wills on the very identity of our children, exercising control as never before. Thanks to modern notions of individualism and the rate of cultural change, we see ourselves not as linked to ancestors and defined by traditions, but as projects for our own self-creation, not only as self-made men but also man-made selves; and self-cloning is simply an extension of such rootless and narcissistic self-re-creation."

This has some bold statements. From what I gathered, it saying that cloning can be used to make our children how we want them to be. The word "self-re-creation" is important here. It means that we are creating ourselves, but analyzing further, does this mean that we are not really creating anything new, thus not evolving? One may say that this process will be a part of evolution because it will weed out the bad traits of humans, but I feel that since there is already a natural process to do that (natural selection), then those traits that we feel are undesirable or necessary must still exist for a reason. Therefore by cloning with our "narcissistic" mindset we could be harming mankind more than helping it.

One of the most important things in writing is focus. The author has to be attentive to what they are writing at all times, else they lose the attention of the reader. In Natalie Goldberg’s Writing down the Bones, this concept is addressed with a descriptive example. Her example is the description of a restaurant, where there is too much detail on the fly in the room when the focus should be on the waiter, who is creating action in the scene. This takes away from the focus of the story, and the reader will lose interest if there is no focus, thus the writer will fail at his purpose. There is, however, a time and place for the fly. As Goldberg says, “The fly on the table might be part of the whole description of a restaurant. It might be appropriate to tell us precisely the sandwich that it just walked over, but there is a fine line between precision and self-indulgence.” The key words here are “precision” and “self-indulgence”. Precision is to be exact. To be precise about something one must be focused on that thing. It is important to know, as noted in Goldberg’s example of the restaurant, where to be precise and which direction to follow with that precision. This of course depends on the reader’s intentions for their story; maybe the story really is supposed to be about the fly, or maybe the writer needs to switch gears to the waitress serving the food before it is too late. Self-indulgence is acting on one’s whims. A whim may be a certain clear idea, but it is not precise because by definition a whim cannot be focused on; it is a spur-of-the moment feeling. There is an obvious difference between the two terms, and yet there is a “fine line” when it comes to writing. Why may that be? It is because when one’s writing starts to drift as the writer’s focus drifts, the writer does not notice that their attention level has changed in that moment and they continue to write about whatever starts to randomly stick out in their mind. This lack of notice creates the fine line; it’s hard to tell as something is being written if it is changing from precision to self-indulgence.

It is easier to see the idea of focus in writing if another example is given. John Steinbeck uses a special technique of focus in his novel The Grapes of Wrath. He would intermittently have a chapter that did not follow the main plot but instead described a whole new static scene or interaction between unknown characters for a few pages. An example of one of these chapters is a scene in which a man’s children want the some of the candy on the counter at a restaurant, but the man can’t afford it even though it is only dime candy, so secretly the waitress lets him take some for pennies. This may seem like self-indulgence, describing things that don’t pertain to the action of the story, but actually these precise details do not lose the reader. This is because they provide good background information to the time period of the story (like showing how poor people were during that time), and it is information that is not just told outright but hinted at in a scene for the reader to pick up on, a method often used by writers to keep the reader interested. Here it even causes the reader to feel empathy and tie them emotionally to the novel. So, actually, these little chapters help to further engross the reader into the novel with the direction of their focus.

It is clear that focus is important when writing. It keeps the reader’s absorption in the novel, and tells them where the attention is supposed to be. In Goldberg’s simply-put words, “If the writer wanders, then the reader, too will wander.”

C2: idea without accompanying evidence oranalysis

It seems familiar for Sebastian to have this joking attitude, which implies that he never takes Gonzalo seriously.

Revision:

Sebastian often uses language that implies a joking attitude when interacting with Gonzalo, showing that he doesn’t take Gonzalo seriously. An example of this is when he prepares the audience for one of Gonzalo’s ridiculous speeches by saying, “Look he’s winding up the watch of his wit. By and by it will strike.” (II, i, 12)

 G1: Claim that is too broad to be proven and thus doesn’t fit in an analytical context

I read an article from a debate forum that was on environmental protection. Most people overall approve of protecting the environment to some degree, but this article shows that there are so many different environmental movements to be analyzed. The Ecology Movement, for example, focuses on improving the relationship between humans and our environment. 

Revision:

Summary:

The story is narrated by Mr. Walton, who is telling his sister everything over the phone after the fact. Mr. Walton, a pilot, is waiting with his crew at the airport for a delayed flight and texting his sister out of boredom. He meets Victor Frankenstein, a sick and poor-looking man who quickly becomes acquainted with Mr. Walton and tells his life story.

Victor grew up in a small town with the girl-next-door, Elizabeth, who was destined to be his wife. He goes off to college in New York, where he studies experimental science. Secretly he works to reanimate a corpse that he pieced together as the solution to mortality. Victor succeeds in his experiment, but he fears his creation. It flees, and Victor becomes feverish with internal struggle, feeling that his actions will affect all of humanity. Victor’s old friend from school Henry comes to help him get back on his feet. Victor then hears that his brother Will has been killed and he suspects the creature, which turns out to be accurate. Someone else is convicted of the crime and Victor feels guilty, as she is sent to prison and sentenced to death. This puts him in an even worse state, and he drives out to a random spot in the city and stands on a bridge to take in the view and collect himself. Sees the creature dwelling under the bridge, and confronts it. It tells of its woes of not belonging and its failed attempts at trying to connect with humans. It demands that a companion be made so that it is not alone. He starts to comply, but grapples with the possible consequences and dangers on humanity by creating another monster, and destroys it before it is finished. The creature is angry, and vows to kill Victor’s love. Victor returns to Elizabeth and marries her, and on that very night she is murdered by the enraged monster. Victor swears revenge and tracks his creation for a long time, bent on killing it. He never catchest it.

Victor dies right there in front of Mr. Walton. The creature, roughly disguised in human clothes, suddenly appears to make his final sorrowful remarks to the corpse of his creator, and then proceeds to break the window of the airport and step off the edge of the fifth story. Everyone in the airport screams and runs, but all Mr. Walton can do is stare at the lifeless body of the man he had come to greatly appreciate in his short time of knowing him.

 Excerpts from Chapter 10 (the creature describing his experiences to Victor):

“It’s hard to remember the beginning of my existence; it was all so confusing. Sensations came over me, and I saw, heard, felt and smelled. It was a long time before I learned to tell the differences between my senses. I remember a strong light hitting my eyes, so on instinct my eyelids closed. Then darkness came and I was worried, but then I opened my eyes and the light returned. I quickly learned other basic actions, and I walked outside. Dark bodies were everywhere, but they didn’t see me. I realized that I was free to move wherever I wanted; there was nothing that could stop me. I started to get tired and looked for a place to rest. I sat against the buildings in alleyways near The Bronx. I found some food in trashcans, so I ate it. Then I fell asleep.”

“My speech was improving, but I could never really match the renters’ accents for some reason. I also learned letters as they taught the foreign girl, and I loved it. I read books that I took from the apartment and learned about history and culture. When I heard about the humans’ habit of taking land that wasn’t theirs and being cruel to the people who lived there first, I felt something weird. Why were the godlike humans so vicious? How could they murder each other? That was when I understood why they needed rules and governments. I was disgusted. But I still learned from the renters. They taught me that you need money and a nice place to live with nice things in it to be successful, and without them you were a slave. So what was I? I didn’t know anything about my creator, and I knew that I didn’t have these things. Plus I wasn’t entirely human. I was bigger and faster, and I could survive longer in harsh conditions. I never saw anyone like me. Why was I a monster, alone and feared by humans?”

 Analysis:                                                              

Changing the time period and location from 1800s England area to New York in the 2000s results in a whole new Frankenstein. The time difference is the main focus, as I mainly changed the location to make it easier to adapt the story to modern times. Science today has expanded beyond belief, with modern medicine and the understanding of diseases and proper treatments prolonging life. Of course throughout the history of modern medicine there has been resistance to change, fearing that it might hurt rather than help, and now look at how far we’ve come with the technology. Imagine if we had listened to the resistance! (Though as a side note, I don’t even think it is humanly possible to allow such resistance to overcome technological progress; it is in our nature to push the boundaries and discover). But reanimation is, admittedly, on a whole different level. Many would protest that it is against God or nature, or that it is simply too unnatural.

So what, then, is the meaning of unnatural? Looking back, unnatural was anything that did not fit common beliefs, or ‘facts’. Anything that did not fit that was, as the creature described in the original text, “disowned”. In a way it is still the same today, but with new standard beliefs, new technology and an openness to accepting new ideas and exploring new realms of knowledge. Modern scientists would be intrigued at such a discovery and want to study it further. Despite this openness I am sure that most people today would nevertheless agree that Frankenstein’s monster is unnatural, the evidence being our set idea of what a human should look and act like. Even we natural humans alter our own images and physical appearance to fit an ideal look. The creature is further from this ideal look than we are, and thus can be called less than human. Yet it is clearly not an animal, with its near human appearance and modes of expression, therefore it is deemed unnatural.

Upon analyzing the meaning of unnatural in the context if the story from these different time periods, it becomes clear that there really may not be much of a difference; the time change hardly alters the negative mindset of society toward this new science. This implies that maybe we have not changed as much as we think, that our core instincts keep us linked to our past and our future. Sure, we have our technology and medicines that came from our instinctual desire to improve, but we also have the instinct to fear the unknown. Throughout mankind’s existence we have feared what we don’t understand, whether it be death, illness, or darkness. We look to explain these things we fear so that we won’t be scared of them anymore. This, I feel, is the basis of religion (not to say that any religions is incorrect, just that it provides people with answers). Religion explains where we came from and where we will go, and often leaves room to interpret the meaning of life, the biggest unanswered question of all. Religion is a big influence in people’s lives and in the story of Frankenstein. It is for religious reasons that many people feel that such science is wrong. The success of making such a monster defies the explanations that religion provides by creating an exception to the rules; this creature is unnatural; it didn’t come into this word like us, it does not follow the common beliefs, it is not understood, so it must be feared.

I am currently in a drama class, in which we have to design aspects of a play. I chose “The Tempest”, since I already read it for this class and I can gain so much from discussing it. I was inspired by a quote that was mentioned in a workshop:

“Sometime like apes that mow and chatter at me, And after bite me, then like hedgehogs which Lie tumbling in my barefoot way and mount Their pricks at my footfall. Sometime am I All wound with adders who with cloven tongues Do hiss me into madness.”                              - Caliban [II,ii,9-14]

This became the focus of my theme for designing a scene in the play. “The Tempest” hints at an undertone of the binary human vs. lesser being, as we discussed in class, with lots of animal comparisons, especially when it comes to Caliban and his relationships with the other main characters. Thus I created what I call an ‘animal complex’ theme. For this project I am only designing the scenery, lighting, and costume of one character from Act I Scene I, but I also took the time to give a glimpse of the costumes of the main characters, since the theme is mostly prevalent in costume design.

In my version of the play, the characters are all animals that match their individual personalities, depicted by masks (which is symbolic and further represents the idea of the characters having complex layers and animalistic qualities that show through) and some details in clothing.

Here are pictures I took off of the internet as inspiration for Gonzalo’s costume (I have yet to sketch my designs for the project). He is an important character, not just in Scene I but throughout the play, because he gives insight with his many speeches and comments. His constant annoying chatter and the way that he acts as though he has a bird’s eye view of everything makes him a crow in my design.

I have images for just the masks for the main characters (none of which appear in Scene I) just to create a further understanding of my theme.

Caliban – monkey; seen as a beast, but actually very similar to a human

Prospero – cat; manipulative, gets what he wants and acts as if it was all his doing (was it?), also part of royalty represented by felines (King Alonso is a lion), white color to portray the “innocent” victim

Miranda – peacock; seen as a mere object of beauty, but her mind is more colorful than given credit for, particularly when it comes to her father Prospero

I read an article from a debate forum that was on environmental protection. Most people overall approve of protecting the environment to some degree, but this article shows that there are so many different environmental movements to be analyzed. The Ecology Movement, for example, focuses on improving the relationship between humans and our environment. This article explains the issues that environmentalism brings up, and them opens the forum for people to voice their opinions. This is a very interesting type of article to analyze because the commenters provide so many different points of view and jumping off points for other ideas. 

My initial opinion was of course I support environmental protection and many of the movements that have come about. There is the obvious fact that we have to take care of the earth because it is our home, but from here we can go further and say that it is our duty as capable beings of this planet to do everything we can to ensure it thrives. This idea could imply that we have not only an obligation to care for it, but that it is in our design, part of our purpose as human beings.

I picked one comment that caught my attention to analyze (this way I would have something more specific to go over):

"I am not against protecting the environment and caring for it as a wise steward of creation. What I am against is the lengths to which this is carried in today's society. When a man can't build a barn on his property because he might kill a certain type of field mouse, things have got out of hand. I believe in the Genesis mandate for humans to have dominion over the earth and to subdue it. Yet we are also to take care of it, as indicated in the same passage. I am against radical environmentalism, but for wise stewardship." (1)

This person voted against environmental protection, though they noted that the environment should be cared for by us to a certain degree. What really caught my eye was the fact that he mentioned the “Genesis mandate”. (1) I did a little research and assumed that the person was referring to the “creation mandate” from the book Genesis in the Bible. This talks about the idea that God created us to take care of His Earth and all His other creations. (2) This supports my implication completely, adding to it a religious perspective.

“Radical environmentalism” was another phrase that I wanted to think more about. (1) This means taking environmentalism to another level, usually so far as to put the environment’s needs before peoples’. The commenter doesn’t support this idea. This adds a new element to my analysis; not only are we meant to guard the earth, we are meant to utilize it. This means taking a portion of the environment for ourselves, using it as we need to keep our society functioning. Radical environmentalism would frown upon this idea, thinking that all of the environment should be preserved. This can be seen as bad because it prevents us from living our lives as we know it.

These two larger ideas, originating from phrases in the comment I found, help further my analysis. The Genesis mandate is the religious explanation of my implication, roving that it really exists in the world and in people’s beliefs. The disadvantages of radical environmentalism are introduced to the topic to enforce the concept. Environmental protection is a mostly one-sided issue, but I tried to show that it’s more complicated when analyzed.

(1) "History and Debate of Environmental Protection." Environmental Protection Debate. Debate.org, 2013. Web. 03 Feb. 2015.

Since Analysis 1 I havelearned more about binaries, and looking back it makes me think about my quotationand focal word in a different way. I understand now why intended/unintended is not a binary; it is not made of two opposing forces that can cause or be caused by their pair. Binaries need to come from a deeper level of thinking, to encourage further analysis. A better binary for the focal word “purposed” might be conversation/context. Honestly I don’t even think that is the perfect binary; this focal word is difficult. Maybe something to do with cause/effect would be better. This is a tough subject, so I’d like to go back to my original thought process for the implications of the focal word. I wrote down my train of thought, which may have made it more confusing, so now I’d like to rethink my ideas and come straight to a conclusion:

Gonzalo uses Sebastian’s words against him to continue the explanation of his point. He clearly thinks that what he has to say is important, which implies that he is self-centered and to him expressing his words of wisdom is his main purpose (originally I used the focal word unintentionally here, but I leave it to show the many connections that the word has in this situation and this character).

His slightly egotistical way of sharing his thoughts is seen at other instances in the play, for example when he preaches his vision of a perfect kingdom to Alonso. In this scene he seems to have grand ideas, but they contradict. He says the kingdom would have no sovereignty, though the purpose of this conversation was for Gonzalo to explain what he would do if he were king. [II,i,854-74] This could imply that he is just looking to impress with his grand ideas and isn’t actually thinking it through, which furthers my original implication that Gonzalo has a self-important disposition and also opens a door to new questions and ideas. Who exactly is he trying to impress? Everyone? What is his underlying purpose? Why does he feel the need to do this? Is it simply because he is known as a counselor, or is he using this title to try to project his ideas onto people like Alonso and be an influence on them to get what he wants? The questions could go on forever in many different directions, creating different hypotheses that create cause for further analysis. But for the sake of sticking to the roots of my focal word, I will stop here.

One more thing I’d like to say about this example before I let it go involves Gonzalo’s reaction to the teasing and mocking that Sebastian once again inflicts. It is the same as in my original quotation, in the sense that he tries to brush it off. This time, however, he says that he was just making up something for them to laugh at when he made his speech about what he would do if he were king. This makes me wonder; is he just saying this because they are laughing at him? Even as he says he made it up for them to laugh at, Alonso says they were laughing at him. Actually, Alonso says “we”, implying that he is laughing at him too. [II,i,882-90] And Alonso was the first one to say Gonzalo’s words were meaningless, causing Gonzalo to make up some kind of excuse so that he didn't look like a fool. This shows that Alonso doesn’t care for what Gonzalo has to say. What does this mean to Gonzalo? Does this affect his purpose? Yet another question that can be investigated at another time…

I think that the fact that this revision of my ideas from Analysis 1 leads to so many different questions is the sign of a good analysis. An even deeper analysis would delve further into those questions that pertain directly to the original quote, much like the question from my example, but for now I am just trying to make a point that my central idea and implication needed improvement before anything else could be done. Binaries are still something I need to work on, though I have developed a better understanding of them. I also need to work on getting to the point. I like to follow a certain train of thought to come to a point, but writing it down can be confusing for a reader. I feel I may have started to do that again here, though I think it’s okay because it shows a clearer idea and a cleaner path to it. I will be sure to put what I learned here to good use in further writing assignments.

Prospero is the protagonist of "The Tempest". He is the rightful Duke of Milan, and spends the entirety of the play trying to get his dukedom back from his thieving brother, who had exiled him and his daughter to an island. He uses his magical connections and his manipulating abilities to see his plan through. Prospero acknowledges that his power comes from outside forces, yet he acts as though he is in total ownership and control. In a way he is not wrong, as his actions are what further the plot. This sense of power over all makes him rather insensitive, however; he treats his servant Caliban and his enslaved spirit Ariel with harsh words, to say the least. He even treats his daughter as if she is some weak, ignorant little girl, when in fact she is more capable that he gives her credit for. Prospero evolves as the play unfolds, and becomes less harsh of a character. As SparkNotes explains, by the end of the play he forgives his enemies more easily than his previous enraged behavior would have suggested. He also is more loving with Miranda. His change in behavior is echoed when his mischievous plan ends happily. (1)

I would definitely agree that Prospero's character becomes softer by the end of the play. He reminds me of a child in this way; all in a rage until he gets what he wants, and then he is calm. But Prospero is no child. He is knowledgeable, crafty, resourceful to get what he wants. He uses magic (mainly Ariel himself) to make a storm that causes a ship to wreck, and though he ensures the sailors are safe he messes with his enemies that were on board by causing them to fight and let them think that they are running a plan of their own to kill Prospero and rule the island. Prospero has it all under control in his thirst for revenge. In fact, Prospero could be a good antagonist if not for his empathy-inducing background as reason for his plans, and his transformation to more kindheartedness at the end. Even so, he does appear to be rather unlikable at first, as if he were part villain.

This process has helped me gain further insights into Prospero's character. I realize how dynamic a character he is, how significant his change is. I even see implications of him not simply being a protagonist, but a representation of something more, something that developed, almost like a child, as I had described before. Overall, Prospero is more and more complex the deeper his character is analyzed.

(1) 

Pre-writing

Line: Act II scene i line 18: "Dolor comes to him indeed. You have spoken truer than you purposed." -Gonzalo to Sebastian

Translation: 'Pain, yes. You were trying to make a joke, but you were right.'

Summary/context: Gonzalo is trying to keep Alonso's spirits up, but Sebastain is just making fun of how he drones on. Gonzalo starts to say if we let everything get us down, then we would be -- but Sebastian interrupts and says something about a pain, most likely referring to the pain Gonzalo is subjecting them to with his ranting. Then Gonzalo delivers the line above, and Sebastian says you are taking it more seriously than I meant you to. 

Focal word: "purposed"

Binaries: intended/unintended, thought or idea/spoken word

Implications of quote: It seems familiar for Sebastian  to have this joking attitude joking attitude, which implies that he never takes Gonzalo seriously. The calm and quick-witted way in which Gonzalo responds implies that he is used to such remarks.

Implications of focal word: By using the word "purposed", Gonzalo acknowledges that words can create a different effect in different contexts. He acknowledges the two contexts and chooses to ignore Sebastian's context. This implies that he doesn't care for Sebastian's jokes and thinks what he has to say is important, which in turn implies that he is more self-centered than he appears to be (despite his supposedly selfless attempts to comfort Alonso).

Reference to another moment: Act II scene i line 144: "Save his majesty!" Sebastian is again using Gonzalo's speech to mock him. Gonzalo is explaining how he would run a kingdom, and Sebastian and Antonio are making sarcastic side-comments to one another, saying 'long live the king'!

Analysis

Obviously Sebastian is trying to make a joke, but Gonzalo, knowing this, uses it to his advantage. They clearly do not like each other; Sebastian is always making jokes out of whatever Gonzalo says, and Gonzalo can't like this, though clearly he's used to it and can handle it from the implied experience the two of them have had with such interactions. This relationship implies that status and respect are correlated. Sebastian, being the king's brother, has no respect for Gonzalo, a mere counselor. Gonzalo doesn't like him either, but does nothing to fight back because of Sebastian's higher status. 

Reflection

Once I got going, it wasn't to hard to write about this. I couldn't help but think of other comparable pieces of work, and it was hard for me not to include those thoughts. I'll put them here.

Appendix D consists of reviews of Frankenstein. They are all helpful in better understanding and appreciating the novel because they provide different perspectives.

The first review is  by Walter Scott from Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine 2. He calls the book a "romantic fiction", which I feel is accurate. The supernatural elements are noted with admiration in the way they are presented in the novel to mesmerize and intrigue the reader. He states that this is the most important part for the reader and writer alike. Such approval surprises me, because I thought that people from Mary Shelley's time would have shunned the very ideas she suggested, despised the magical concepts that she mixed with science. Furthering my astonishment, the review says that the laws of nature are changed not just to entertain the reader but to show what could happen if such things were possible, and how us humans would be likely to react in these scenarios; the fact that this was even acknowledged as a 'what-if' instead of criticized is amazing! This point - the focus of the novel being to inspire thought in the reader -  is repeatedly mentioned in the review. It makes me look at the book in a new way, from Mary Shelley's point of view. It could very well be true that this is what she intended. I do definitely feel that she was trying to challenge and engage the reader (and to a further extent, society) in some way. The review goes on to describe the story in a very romantic and poetic light. In fact, it seems a little confusing at first glance, because the description is so flowery yet so general that it is at first hard to follow. Characters are not even mentioned specifically, something I think was dome to further enhance the over-dramatization of the review. Clearly Walter Scott is in love with Frankenstein.

Another review by John Wilson Crocker of the Quarterly Review was not so supportive. After summarizing the plot of the novel, he calls it a "disgusting absurdity". He thinks Victor mad and even implies that Mary Shelley may be crazy as well. and also thinks the book is practically an ode to Godwin, who Crocker notes as a writer whose ideas are not agreeable with any sane person. He quotes the book to note its horrible strangeness. The novel contains no morals or any kind of goodness and the style will not even entertain the reader, but more likely unnerve them, according to Crocker. This is more of what I expected to hear in reviews, though I was still surprised to find that this was the only really harsh review out of the four presented. I tried to put myself in the shoes of someone who would be morally against such a book as Frankenstein, but it was hard. Nowadays people are much more open to any kind of publication or idea, so it is difficult to see where someone like Crocker is coming from. Instead of convincing me of these opinions, this review turns me back towards the first one. I wonder if explaining the idea of the book's focus being to expand the reader's normal thoughts could in any way affect Crocker's views. The words he uses suggest that he is steadfast in his opinion, but it makes me wonder who else of the time had an open enough mind, and how did the book change the way they thought? Or did they just read it for pure entertainment?

In a chapter called "Don't Marry the Fly", Goldberg speaks of how sometimes the way in which something is written just doesn't hold the reader's attention. This happens if there is too much fixed detail on an insignificant part of the story. Sometimes the writer loses the reader in such a way because they themselves are not sure what direction they are headed as they write. This makes the writing hazy and lets the reader's mind leave the story, and when the focus returns the context is confusing; "what is going on?" the reader will wonder. In order to keep the reader's attention, the writer must have full attention of their work and understand where the focus should be at all times in the story. In order to know where the focus should be, the writer needs to have a goal to their story and stick to it. Then that goal can be used to find the balance of the focus and details of the writing.

The title of this chapter comes from Goldberg's example of a restaurant scene in which the author gives too much information on the fly when really the reader's focus should be with the waiter who will be serving the food. There is a place for the fly, but it is a small one that should only be included to help create the story's environment, not to be introduced as a new character. Goldberg says that you can like the fly, but don't marry it, meaning find that balance where you recognize the fly but it does not become the center of attention. Again, as long as the writer keeps focus, so will the reader.

I once read a novel that had a chapter that was entirely focused on an insignificant object that a character was holding. The details didn't tell me anything about the character or the plot, so this caused me to lose interest. If the author were to reveal information through the object that furthered the story or explained the character, it wouldn't have been so significant and I would have had an easier time reading that part and moving to the next chapter.

The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck came to mind when thinking of this topic because I feel the technique he uses is a good example of how to narrow down on details in a way that keeps the reader's interest. Every once in a while he included a chapter that did not follow the main story and characters, but instead depicted static scenes or described short interactions with people which are only present in the story for that one scene. This may seem like details that would lose the reader, but actually they provide good background for the time period of the story. For example there is a chapter that talks about cheap car salesmen and how they line the gears of cars with sawdust so it seems like they run smooth at first. Another chapter depicts a scene in which a man's children want the some of the candy on the counter at a restaurant, but the man can't afford it even though it is only dime candy, so secretly the waitress lets him take some for pennies. Another chapter eloquently describes the desert-like atmosphere and the dust that touches everything. These chapters explain the hard economic times and poor living conditions people are facing at the time of this story by showing the reader rather than telling the reader outright (a literary device that has a greater positive impact on the reader). Thus the details are important; they show the reader what is motivating the main characters, what makes the whole story.

REFLECTION - I feel that this adaptation gives a good description of the chapter. It better explains the point Goldberg is trying to make by first putting it into basic terms and then going into more detail and giving specific pointers. Goldberg is basically giving writing advice, but sometimes in her writing the individual specific statements of advice are not separated enough from the rest of what she is saying. I tried to separate her advice and then delve into them separately. I learned that it's good to do a basic summary in an adaptation at first, but then go back and add in explanations that are completely your own and in no way paraphrase what the author is saying. This way you're sure to stay on topic, but still give insight and better explain the topic to fit the desired audience. I also realized that would be good to explain the author's examples if I am going to include them, and really blatantly point out their relationship to the topic. I then used some of my own examples, which I think really enhanced the adaptation. It makes it relatable, more interesting to read, and more understandable. It also helped me to understand the topic more. when I was trying to think of my own examples, it worked my brain to really process and fully comprehend the chapter. Then when I thought of examples and began to explain them, it even furthered my own thinking as I tried to think of the best way to explain what I was trying to say. 

This adaptation better serves my new audience of peers because it uses vocabulary of the appropriate level and is straightforward, especially at the key points (i.e., Goldberg's writing tips). I introduced a detailed example from another novel that matches the topic, and a shorter, more general example in case a reader of my adaptation has not read the book.

The narrator seems to keep a romantic tone/style when writing his letters, hinting at what his character is like before the reader even properly meets him. The emotion of his writing shifts, however, as the atmosphere changes.

This is a division; safety turned to danger. At first time was going by slowly for him and he was relatively calm, with nothing much to report. Then, fog left the ship stranded and surrounded by ice, and he said, "...my own mind began to grow watchful with anxious thoughts...". At this point he was able to keep track of time better, as there was more action around him. This is a detail which I feel is not always accurate to reality; I find that when there is more action it is harder for me to keep track of time. Obviously the dependent variable of this safety/danger division is time. The purpose of this division is to change the pace and plot of the story, and it is so clearly defined in order to grab the reader's attention.

Another division is poverty and wealth. This is present in the story a number of times, but both are experienced by the character Beaufort. He began as a successful merchant and became poor from an unfortunate incident. He was "of a proud and unbending disposition, and could not bear to live in poverty and oblivion in the same country where he had formerly been distinguished for his rank and magnificence." He turned to a quiet and shameful life after that. I feel like this division may continue to be significant later on in the story.