Assignment 11

Question 1:
About the audience.
- "Whom is the composer including in the audience? Who is excluded from the audience-and why?" (108).

       Stein wrote an academic article for a reason, for other professors. Now I understand that everyone can read the article so technically she doesn't exclude anyone, but if she really wanted people to read it the article should be a little easier to read. The way Stein went about her article was to argue that the 1984 ad was really an important thing and should be analyzed in detail. She decided to take that into her own hands and analyze the ad herself. In my eyes, Stein did a great job making the ad more understandable. Although the beginning of her text was a little confusing to read; toward the end she works in a few paragraphs about the Wizard of Oz which more people can relate to. By doing this, Stein really helped the ad come to life for me.

Question 2:
About ethos.
- "Does the composer have the appropriate background or experience for pursuing this purpose?" (109).

     There's no doubt in any of our minds that Stein is more than qualified to write a piece like this. She is trying to build her ethos further by writing a piece such as this. Academic articles aren't for everyone but Stein does a good job sounding professional while allowing normal individuals to read her essays and understand them. 

Question 3:
About context. 
- "Where does the audience encounter the text? How might this shape their responses?" (109).

      I can't imagine anyone reading this article for pure pleasure. However someone who might be inquiring about the 1984 ad would read an article such as this for more knowledge on the subject. Otherwise people may read this simply because it's a class assignment. Either way most likely, the readers are reading this for educational purposes. This shapes the way they look at it just because they probably aren't too thrilled to be reading it. However, it might have the opposite effect. Maybe someone is really into technology or Macintosh and they are just really excited to read this. Either way, most people are reading this just to be informed. 

-All of these choices work together for Steins purpose: education. The article is written as an academic article and she wants people to learn more about the subject; in particular she wants them to see her view or analysis of it. Stein has her ethos already built but this article is just another tally on her board, she is still working to build up her ethos and see where it gets her. People will read her work more often if she is well recognized and well liked. These all tie in together because academic articles are important for building your ethos. The people judging her work are doing it for a particular reason and are all generally the same group of audience. I think that Stein picked and chose her choices well and knew exactly what she wanted of this article and the people reading it.

Group Work, Reflection.

Well, I worked with Crystal. I think we worked well together, we pretty much had the same ideas and it was pretty easy to come up with our poster. I like working in groups because we get to bounce ideas off one another, and it also helps me get more of an insight on what I read, especially because this article was a lot more difficult than the rest of them. As far as the essay goes, I prefer to do my own thing, but the group work in class helps me a great deal because I understand the text better and also it gets other peoples point of views out there so it helps me have an open mind.

Theoretical Framework:
      This one pager stood out to me in particular because of the question they asked. "Does Stein portray the ad as a movement towards a revolution or does it go back to the idea of consumers being subject to brainwashing?" That question alone made me think, that was a really good question. Because she says the ad was going for "liberation" and to get people out of brainwashing. However, the fact that they questioned that the ad might be a new form of brainwash but they are trying to tell people it breaks that. So weird, because in a sense, people wanted this liberation and that ultimately got their attention, another brainwash, different company? I think their ad was really well done.

The Rhetorical History of the Mac:
       What stood out to me on this one was the pictures. After I got past the pictures I noticed their question. They asked if this helped their revolution. I think it did, because it got the attention of everyone. The ad was the talk of the year and even longer. They also put on their one pager how this ad changed the face of advertisements. Which is true. I like how they portrayed the Macintosh company in their page by putting the two men in one small building because they were such a small company to start with.

CP: Stein referenced the 1984 Macintosh ad to the Wizard of Oz which helped me understand what she was trying to say.

Assignment 10

Questions I still have about this article:

How does Stein feel about the ad?
Why did she choose to write about it?
What are key things in the essay that point out Steins feelings about it?

For some reason I'm having a difficult time seeing her emotions or seeing how she views the topic.


Steins article started by explaining the Macintosh 1984 ad in depth. She pointed out every detail of the ad and described it fully. As she goes more into depth she starts explaining what each part of the ad means or what represents these key things. She directly related the ad to the Wizard of Oz which was really interesting, she explained how the woman is the one liberating everyone, she described the hammer being thrown and linked that to the dog uncovering the "wizard", and also she related the revolution of the Mac to when Dorothy says "I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore". I think that the fact that she used the Wizard of Oz in her comparison was extremely beneficial to the article, because not all of us are scholars or professors and even if we were, most people have seen this movie and know what it's about, so relating things back to that helps us have a better understanding of the ad. Or we at least have a better understanding of her interpretation of the ad.

#4 is really difficult for me because I honestly still don't know what Stein wants her readers to feel. I think like we talked about, Stein just wanted to inform everyone, hence the academic article. The main reason she probably wrote about this was because as she mentioned, people have talked about it but no one really analyzed it.

Assignment 9

          My essay on "Standing By" wasn't very personal at all. I don't think I personally thought about who my audience would be besides the people grading my final portfolio. I'm hoping after I reread it another time I can think of a good way to rewrite the essay. At first I didn't think it was so bad, but after we were clear on the assignment I realized just how bad it was. I didn't make it personal, I didn't bring the readers in, etc. Maybe after I rewrite my essay for "Standing By" I will be able to make the connection with my readers a little better.
          Although my essay for "Standing By" wasn't personal, my second essay was a little bit better. I wrote it like I was writing a letter to Susan Orlean. I included why her article wasn't effective for me and what things I would have liked to see in her article. I also am working on picking out a couple things she did well while writing. I think because I wrote it like a letter it was a lot easier for me to make it personal. I didn't feel guilty about using "I" or "you" like I would in a more formal type of essay.
          I don't think I am going to rewrite my essay for "Lifelike", because I actually really like how it is now. However, I'm hoping that I can think of a creative way to write my essay for "Standing By" so it sounds more like an interpretive essay as apposed to being so formal and just summarizing the story basically. My essay as of right now is one of the essays that would put the portfolio readers to sleep, and I want mine to truly stand out.

Assignment 8

   The main thing I noticed in my classmates' writing was how they viewed the article. I may have been too wrapped up in my own ideas of taxidermy to be open minded about Susan Orleans purpose. I don't like the images that were put in my head while reading, I love animals and it was shocking to me how weirdly obsessed these people were with stuffing dead animals.. After talking to my classmates and reading what they had to say about it, I realized maybe I was a little to caught up in the negative parts. Now I can see a little more of the things they are saying, but I still have my personal opinions on the side. I'm glad this is an interpretive essay so I won't have to hold back my true feelings, but for now I will put them off to the side. One thing I noticed about my writing was that I was trying to explain Orleans purpose the whole time while we are supposed to be giving our own personal interpretation of it. I had some of my own feelings in there but they were lost while trying to explain what Orlean wanted her readers to feel. Now I realize that for me, the choices Orlean used in her writing, did not work for me at all.
   As far as my essay goes, I think this essay will be a little bit better than my last. I have more personal emotion attached with this topic than I did with "Standing By". "Lifelike" evoked more emotion out of me and made me feel disgusted yet really angry at the same time. I believe my overall tone is very negative. I don't understand why someone would take up taxidermy as a hobby or profession, as I told my classmates, Taxidermy reminds me of something a serial killer would do in his spare time, it's twisted and extremely weird that someone would want to kill something, yet rebuild it to look as if it was alive and never died in the first place. It's too weird for me to wrap my head around this but I have at least tried for discussion purposes. I think the main thing that makes my essay stand out is my purpose, a lot of my classmates were focusing more on Orleans purpose of trying to persuade everyone to love taxidermy that they forgot how they felt the first time reading it. For me, I can't forget that feeling and I believe that is what really will set my essay apart from my classmates.

Assignment 7

          Why does Orlean present her information in such a formal way?
                     Would it be more effective in more of an informal article?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      After reading "Standing By" by David Sedaris, this story seemed to bore most of us as a class. Is this because we didn't really understand the topic, or is it because of the formal way it was presented to us?

      I think we are so used to reading these boring, formal writings that we see it as very plain. The fact that they are boring and there isn't much to differentiate them, we lose the purpose of the story itself. I know the first time reading, I zoned out and had to re read often. As did a few of my classmates. I think if Orlean would have presented her information in a different way, she may have been more successful in persuading her readers to reconsider their opinions on taxidermy. Orlean may have presented in this way because it's what she's used to or maybe that's how the newspaper wanted it to be. But maybe if she did something that was a little more risky and different, more people would have been on her side at the end.
     If Orlean would have been a little more informal, played with her words a little more and cut out unnecessary things. The story would have been more effective for me. The story dragged on and seemed as though it would never end because she put so many things in it. I zoned out multiple times and didn't understand what I just read because it bored me. However, I think that if she made it shorter and more to the point, she might have actually gotten my attention. Needless to say, I think that if the article was more informal, her overall purpose would have been more effective.

                                                                    What do you think??

Assignment 6: Choices

                      CHOICES

   As an author, Orlean used many writerly choices to get her purpose across to her readers. Were they all effective? We will leave that up to the individual to decide... 

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aMkLOa5nCZo/UJKmoetv4TI/AAAAAA

AAEJc/zQizDghKmpY/s1600/choices-sign.jpg)

1. Orlean used many quotes in her story. Effective or no?

    -Not so much. There were too many quotes in the article and most of which undermined what    

she said right before it. The quotes contradicted what she said and therefore made the article 

less effective. The last reason the quotes didn't work out is because a lot of them were so perfect that it left a lot of us thinking, "Did she make this up?".

2. Orlean really put herself in the life of a taxidermist? Did this work for her?

             -I think so. She did the perfect amount of research to make her readers feel as though she was a 

              trustworthy source to take information from. She built her ethos up by doing so.

3. Orlean presented her information in a long article. Effective or no?

             -Not for me. The article seemed to drag on. She could have shortened it a bit to make it shorter

              and to the point. Most of my classmates thought the same thing as I did. Booooring! Orlean 

              could have done a better job at making the article more interesting. Instead it was just another 

              boring informational article about something most of us don't care about.

Assignment 6

     The first time I read "Life Like" by Susan Orlean, I didn't see a purpose to the article at all. In fact I thought it was purely informational and she didn't even seem to have a purpose. But after chatting with the class, I soon realized that there actually was a purpose. I was not entertained while reading this article, in fact I found it extremely boring, as did a lot of my classmates. However, after our discussion in class I realized Orlean actually had a purpose and I got a little more interested.
   We discussed that Orlean didn't know anything about taxidermy when she first started. We were introduced to her story and she was showing us right away how overwhelmed she was. However throughout the story, she started to realize how hard these people work and what taxidermy really takes.  I believe that Orlean built up her ethos by showing the readers that it was all new to her. It allowed us to experience these things for the first time with her, but in the article she kind of destroyed her own ethos at the same time by saying something positive about taxidermy and then throwing in a descriptive quote making us as readers think otherwise. Some of her descriptions were so precise that it makes you actually picture it like you were there yourself. It becomes real to the reader, this was not effective for me at all. When I read the article I was completely grossed out, I thought taxidermy was kind of cool before I read it but after I was left completely disturbed. For me this article wasn't effective at all if she was trying to get people to appreciate taxidermy.
    I'm thinking the reason this was put in a newspaper is because that would be her largest audience. Through the newspaper, Orlean would be able to reach out to more readers. The reason she wanted a large audience is because it's the perfect mix of people reading. You have your average joe's, maybe extreme hunters or even elderly people. There is an unending variety of people that she was able to reach through newspaper.

Assignment 5

     "Lifelike" by Susan Orlean, is all about taxidermists and the animals they create. My first thought while reading this was how gross this job is. I don't really understand how someone could kill and skin animals only to make them look real again. It's ironic that the animal has to die before these people can make them look realistic or like they are alive. On page two of the paper, Orlean states "most people were still discomfited by it. How could you not be? It was a business of dealing with dead things, coupled with the questionable enterprise of making dead things look like live things." I would be one of the people she is talking about. It's weird to me that people do this for a living and in a way it's very creepy. 

     I think she wrote this article to show people how much of an art this job it. How passionate people become with it and how much work and detail go into the final project. Most people have seen the mannequins taxidermists create, but most people don't understand how much work these people put in to the finished project and how much time it takes to perfect it. I don't think that Orlean wrote this to make people like taxidermists or to become one but I think she wrote it to open peoples eyes to different things. I think she wanted people to see just how competitive it can be. People know that sports are competitive and art is competitive as well as most normal jobs these days. But a lot of us don't realize how many people do this, how much work it takes, and just how competitive the job is. 

     For me, the article left me disgusted almost. I didn't like the article at all but that might also be because I love animals. Taxidermists in general didn't really bother me but when I read this article, I kind of had an angry feeling toward them. To me the job is really disgusting and extremely creepy, it reminds me of the way a serial killer would act without anyone else knowing about it. I guess it's weird to me because taxidermy isn't really something I see a normal person doing for a living. I didn't really get the purpose of the article the only thing I can think of is an informative article.

What do you think the purpose of the article is?

Does anyone else think that Taxidermy is disgusting? 

Controlling Purpose

My controlling purpose:

I think that the humor Sedaris used while making fun of people made him seem less harsh. This made it easier for me to read because I wasn't so taken back on how cruel he was being.

Reflecting on Revision.

     I had the opportunity to read Paige Hoppmann's essay. One thing that stood out to me instantly was we had a lot of the same opinions on the story. We both noticed that Sedaris uses a lot of humor and came to the conclusion that he incorporates the humor to try and cover up his judgement. One thing I liked about Paige's essay was, she used humor while writing it too. It didn't sound like a boring paper you have to read, it was also entertaining and I wanted to continue reading her thoughts on the story. Even though we both saw the story almost the same, there were some things I really liked that she made obvious. "Sedaris actually seems to be mocking us as readers in a sense; because while reading his story our first instinct is to be surprised at him for judging others so harshly." She then points out that everyone judges people, it's unavoidable. This is why Sedaris is mocking us, because it makes us as readers realize, we do it too.
     I incorporated the same things into my essay but I feel like Paige got the point across a lot easier and a lot more clear than I managed to. It's easy to understand the things she is pointing out in her essay and even relates it back to real life. I think it was funny how we both realized Sedaris' purpose the most in the final paragraph when Sedaris proposes his famous question, "We're forever blaming the airline industry for turning us into monsters: it's the fault of the ticket agents, the baggage handlers, the slowpokes at the newsstands and the fast-food restaurants. But what if this is who we truly are, and the airport's just a forum that allows us to be our real selves, not just hateful but gloriously so?" (Sedaris, 277). Paige and I both stated in our papers that we really understood what his purpose was after reading this part of the story.
     I think the only thing I would want to change in my essay is to try and make it clearer. I think when I look back, I didn't make as much sense as I wanted to. In a previous blog post I said, when it comes to formal writing, I know what I'm trying to say, but others don't. That is what gets me every time. So when I revise my draft, I will keep this in mind. Last but not least, I want to make my essay more entertaining. Reading over it, it's kind of boring. I want my reader to be interested in what I have to say but at the same time completely understand it. They don't have to agree, but just understand.

My Weekend

Assignment 4

     "Standing By", by David Sedaris, takes place in an airport. I think he placed the story in the airport because there is such a variety of people traveling, there are people from all over the world. Sedaris's target audience are people who have traveled by plane before because they understand the environment. People who haven't been in an airport before may read this and still think it's funny but they can't actually place themselves into the story and become the character, it's not as realistic.
      During the time this story took place, Obama just became president. Sedaris makes this known by putting it into the story. He talks about the two men who are complaining about Obama and how terrible of a president he is, when he was just getting into office. I think Sedaris included this to show just how much people are stuck in their own heads. Sedaris mentioned these things to get people thinking. Like I said in my previous blog post, I think Sedaris wrote this as a challenge to his readers to try and change the way they act and how self centered people are.
    Sedaris is trying to prove a point to his readers. He's trying to change the way we think and act. Maybe he's trying to better the world by showing how shallow humans are. I think Sedaris wants the readers to be puzzled by this and question themselves on how they behave on a day to day basis as opposed to when they’re in an airport. There really isn’t much of a difference if you really think about it. Yes in the airport the way people act is more obvious because you’re forced to think about it more than on a typical day. But the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. It’s human nature to be judgmental and to complain about things. Everyone does these things daily, they just become more apparent when you’re stuck in a situation such as being in the airport.
     I think that this was published in a magazine because the audience is the most abundant. Most likely the article was in a travel magazine because that would be Sedaris's target audience. It also just puts his story out there. Anyone can have access to it and people would be more willing to read it if they picked out the magazine anyways. I don't think the message would have been as clear if it was published anywhere else.

Assignment 2

       I expect to become a better formal writer when I leave this class. I hope that I will learn how to follow the structures better and be able to understand how to write formal essays. I prefer writing freely, such as short stories or something creative. Structural writing is boring to me especially when it's about something I'm not interested in. Research papers are my weakness. I know what I'm saying when I read my paper, but other people do not. It's a bunch of gibberish and when there is a set amount of pages I tend to just ramble on and repeat myself just to get to the expected amount. I hope I will learn tricks and tips on how to become a successful writer.
       I've heard a lot of bad things about this course actually. Most of the people I've talked with failed because of portfolio. I think it's unfair that the professor doesn't grade them and some random people do. The reason I'm critical of this is because, they don't get to see the progress the student has made throughout the year and they don't know what goes on during class. It just doesn't exactly seem fair that random people are criticizing your personal work and deciding if you pass or fail just from that.
        One thing that stood out to me in the yellow book was on page 8, someone said in high school they didn't write papers that included their opinion. I completely agree with that. I was told never to use the words "I", "you", "we", etc. in any paper! Now, in college, we can? It's hard to write this way now because I have to train myself to forget what all of my other teachers said in the past. But, I'm hoping this will make me a better writer so I can be successful in my career.

Assignment 4: Choices

Writerly Choices

 



A writely choice is something the author puts in the story to make the readers feel a certain way.

 

 

           In "Standing By" by David Sedaris, there are a lot of writerly choices for the readers to come across. I think most of these choices are trying to provoke a certain emotion from the readers. For example, Sedaris uses a lot of humor in his story in many different ways. One of the ways that stands out the most to me was when he was making fun of the kid in front of him, Sedaris could have just summed up the kid by saying he was a poorly dressed teenager with a baby. Instead he decided to go more into detail and explain why he was making fun of the kid by saying, "Then, too, Stevie Wonder didn't have acne on his neck, and wear baggy denim shorts that fell midway between his knees and his ankles. Topping it off was the kid's T-shit. I couldn't see the front of it, but printed in large letters across the back were the words "Freaky Mothafocka"...." (276). By going off on such a rant, Sedaris adds a lot of humor to the text and makes it feel more realistic to the reader. I think if he didn't incorporate humor, the whole story could have been offensive to the reader.
         Sedaris had a lot of controversial statements in the story. He referenced Hitler, made fun of the people he saw and even told the readers his political views. These choices relate directly to his humor. He used the humor to cover up all of these topics. He wanted these topics to be known and heard, but he didn't want to lose readers because of it. I think he used the humor to keep the readers attention and cover up the offensive things he talked about. "I imagined a man picking up the receiver, his voice made soft by surprise and the possibility of bad news. "Yes, hello, this is Adolf Hitler." Thinking of it made me laugh, and that brought me back to the present,and the fellow behind me in the khaki shorts. "Isn't it amazing how quickly one man can completely screw up a country," he was saying. "You got that right," Mr. Mustache agreed." (277). Sedaris could have just called the man Adolf Hitler and left it at that but he used humor in such a way that it wasn't as offensive to the reader but it still managed to get his point across. The choices Sedaris mad in the story were carefully chosen and each played an important role in the story. Most of these choices were particular situations or words he used to make the reader feel the emotions Sedaris wants them to.
         I think the reason Sedaris went into such detail about all of the situations he found himself in was to put the reader in his spot. This is an extremely important choice he made because this allowed Sedaris to have the power to persuade the readers into feeling the emotions he was throwing out. "Hell, I should have punched her is what I should have done!" (276). Instead of just stating that he was listening to an old man ramble about how angry he was with the flight attendant, Sedaris quoted what the man was actually saying. If Sedaris didn't do this, the story would be very dry and the point would be lost. This is not the only time Sedaris used this choice, he actually used it all through the story, beginning, middle and end. Every time he introduced a new person to the readers, he went into detail describing them and showing their personality through the things they say. I think if Sedaris didn't tell us these things, the whole point of the story would be lost.
         To me, the purpose of the whole story was to challenge people. I honestly think Sedaris wants people to realize how they act, whether it's good or bad. A lot of the things Sedaris does in the story relate directly to human nature. Throughout the whole story, Sedaris is judging people and whining. Everyone does these things. We all judge people even if we aren't trying to and we all complain about something every now and then. It's just how people work, human nature, something we can't control. Everything he puts in the story is there for a reason, so people think about how they would react in the particular situation. "We're forever blaming the airline industry for turning us into monsters: it's the fault of the ticket agents, the baggage handlers, the slowpoke at the newsstands and the fast-food restaurants. But what if this is who we truly are, and the airport's just a forum that allows us to be our real selves, not just hateful but gloriously so?" (277). This is at the end of the story, right before Sedaris wraps it up. I think it's placed at the end so it sticks in our heads. That is his challenge to everyone, it makes one question the way they think and act. It makes you wonder, "Am I really this person or is it from the situation I'm in?". I think that the challenge is extremely twisted and is really weird to think about but I think that small little part of the story, was the whole purpose.
 

Assignment 3

     "Standing By" by David Sedaris, was a very entertaining story to me. I have to travel very often and it's usually by airplane. I have had EXTREMELY bad luck when it comes to flying, I do not remember a time where there wasn't a delay, cancellation or bags being lost. The fact that I can relate to the story makes it a lot more interesting. Basically everything he said, I have experienced first hand or heard stories from my step dad. My step dad flies about twice a week for work, so to say the least I am highly educated on "traveling etiquette". Dressing nicely is at the top of this list, you see so many people while traveling by airplane so it is in your best interest to present yourself in a nice way. My step dad stresses dressing nicely so I always do. Now when I go into an airport and see sloppy people I can't help but think "who let you leave the house that way?".    
      When Sedaris was mocking the way people dress in the airport I couldn't help but laugh because I have seen my fair share of sloppy looking people (275). Everyone judges other people however, the woman in the story took the judgement to another level by opening her mouth about a young man and his baby (276). To me the moral here is "keep your mouth shut". No one really cares what you have to say, they are just listening because they have to. They are trapped in the same situation as everyone else traveling. People have their own problems and don't need to listen to the next guy complaining about a line or whatever it is that they are complaining about. I know just how annoying it is to listen to a stranger go off on something you absolutely could care less about. Traveling really isn't a social gathering, sure there are a lot of people around but chances are you are never going to see any of them again, they are just faces in the crowd as you are to them. Instead of complaining to someone while traveling try to keep a positive tone and talk about something unrelated to the problems you are experiencing.
       At some point, one needs to realize that everyone has their own opinion or view on something. If you disagree, just keep it to yourself. Unfortunately not enough people know this. Most "air travelers" know this because of all the people they come across. You meet all different kinds of people, a lot of them are unfriendly but don't take it personal. Traveling can bring out the worst in people, it adds extra stress and anger because one never knows what may happen in the next moment, it is beyond our reach and that in itself can put stress on a person. As humans we like to have control of things and we do not like to be surprised about something that happens five minutes down the road. When we have plans or a schedule, we like everything to go accordingly and unfortunately while flying, that often isn't the case. Delays and cancellations are things beyond our control.
       I think Sedaris wrote the article because he wanted people to question themselves the next time they are in a situation like this. I think it's a challenge. Maybe the people who read this article will change the way they are in this kind of public setting. Maybe this article will make flying a more enjoyable thing to do. We will never surely know why he wrote it or what his intentions were but I think he was trying to challenge everyone when he wrote this.
      Sedaris brought up many questions in the article even if it didn't really seem like it. They were more hidden questions. Statements that persuaded you to be disgusted or maybe even annoyed by a certain individual he was talking about (176). I think he put the readers in his shoes, he made the readers feel his annoyance, disgust, and judgement. It makes one think the way he wants them to. I think that the main questions he rose were things that relate directly to human nature such as, judging people "do you do it?", complaining "do you?", taking your anger out on others "do you do that?", being rude to other people directly or indirectly "do you do that?", etc.. Obviously people do all of these things but I think he rose these questions to challenge people to try to change these things or to hold back when doing these things.
       Overall, I thought the article was really well written. Sedaris did a fantastic job pulling me into the story and actually feeling the emotions he was feeling throughout the story.
My only questions were: Do you guys think the story was written as a challenge?
Has anyone else experienced anything like this while traveling? Did you find yourself in any of the positions that Sedaris described?
                                                 Sedaris, David. "Standing By."
                                                 First Year Composition Reader. Boston:
                                                 Pearson, 2011. 275-277. Print.

Sedaris "Standing By".

     In Sedaris' "Stand By", he is describing his experience while traveling by airplane (275). Overall the article is negative and points out very obvious things that most "air travelers" would understand such as poorly dressed people, crabby airline workers, angry passengers, delays, cancellations and even flights being over booked. Sedaris points out a poorly dressed family and stresses how this family presents themselves while traveling (276). Unfortunately for Sedaris, he was put in the position to listen to other people complain and bicker about flying and somehow it spiraled out of control and landed on the topic of politics, he was trapped in a line and was forced to listen to it (276-277). In the end, Sedaris finally makes it on his final flight and raises an interesting question, "But what if this is who we truly are, and the airport's just a forum that allows us to be our real selves, not just hateful but gloriously so?" (277).

Sedaris, David. "Standing By."
First Year Composition Reader. Boston:
Pearson, 2011. 276-277. Print.

Introduction

Krista Marie Aarestad:

I am originally from northern Minnesota..
I moved to Hales Corners, Wisconsin when I was 13.
I like the fact that there's actually civilization in Milwaukee.. Where I'm from it's all farm land, cows, horses, trucks and tractors.
One thing you must know about me: I LOVE country music! As a result of growing up in small town nowhere, I am extremely into sports. I've pretty much played every sport there is with the exception of hockey (my mom wouldn't let me play)
One sport stuck with me through high school and that was soccer. Basically my life revolved around soccer and my team. These days I pretty much work, go to school and hang out with friends and family. Nothing too exciting. My family is small, at home it's just my mother, step father and I. My brother, sister, and the rest of my family are still in Minnesota. ): I've got two little nephews, Kash (1) and Kruz (4 months). They are my inspiration.
I had always known I wanted to work with children but I wasn't ever set on anything in particular. My senior year was experimental. I had already taken all of the child development classes so I decided to volunteer. I ended up at the elementary school working with children from three to four. They were in the early childhood classroom and all of the kids had to attend speech class. While being in the classroom I decided I wanted to work with and help children in their situation. I picked up some sign language while I was there and noticed it was a very useful tool to communicate with the kids. That's the reason I decided to go for my minor in ASL.
I absolutely hated English in high school. That was directly related to the teacher I had. The class never received any feedback in the class which was frustrating because there was no improvement in my writing. I'm hoping that this class will help me with formal writing. Short stories and free writing I'm alright at, but formal writing is another story. I enjoy working with other people rather than being alone. But when it comes to writing, I prefer to be alone. I'm excited to improve my writing and feel confident in an essay I write instead of embarrassed. For me writing is like an escape. When I am able to just write a story about anything, I feel a lot more creative and  I go off into a whole different world. I had a short stories class in high school, that was my all time favorite class. My teacher was amazing and gave so much feedback and was easy to talk to and be open with in my stories. She gave me more courage when it comes to writing but I still need to work on formal writing. =/