I'm in mechanical, too.nukchebi0 wrote:
Problems like these are the reason I chose Mechanical Engineering.
Haha, seriously? Is this a physics class?Bevo wrote:
I'm in mechanical, too.nukchebi0 wrote:
Problems like these are the reason I chose Mechanical Engineering.
I don't think I could ever do another E and M problem after the terrible experience that was my physics class last year.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-10-15 10:04:33)
Bevo wrote:
I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that X and Y are in parallel
better?
Last edited by Beduin (2010-10-15 11:25:32)
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
That helps, cheers
Need a proofreader/feedback:
Edit - It's supposed to be an essay on conflict and how it changes the protagonist of a story.
Edit - It's supposed to be an essay on conflict and how it changes the protagonist of a story.
Thanks.Conflict is a necessary piece for any story. It is what moves the characters and the plot along and provides the fulcrum for the author to lever them where he or she wishes to place them. Many times it is the device used to provide a moral for the reader. In this essay I will use the story “Cathedral” by Raymond Carver as an example of how conflict is used to provide enlightenment for the primary character.
In the story Cathedral, we're presented with a man who doesn't have a whole lot going for him. He's got a wife whom he doesn't seem to think much of, and a life that for all intents and purposes is walled from the rest of the world. He's closed minded, but opinionated. He's boring, but thinks of himself as interesting. For lack of a better word, he's a stereotypical conservative who probably fancies himself a liberal.
Throughout the work, we're presented with instance after instance of the narrator putting down everything around him. When he mentions his wifes past, he blows off the love she had for her ex-husband. When he mentions the blind man that she worked for, and who she still keeps in touch with, he blows it off as trivial. When he mentions his wifes attempts at writing poetry, he blows it off as unimportant, and even childish. The overriding theme is one of someone who is completely closed off, unwilling to experience anything new, or god forbid, emotion.
The idea that his wife has invited a blind man over for dinner is a completely alien concept to him. Why would anyone be friends with a blind person? They're weird. What could they possibly have in common to talk about? Who cares about talk anyway? Let's drink.
This sets up our conflict nicely. The narrator is presented with a situation he can't escape from. His wife has invited the blind man, Robert, over for dinner and has threatened him with “If you love me you can do this for me. If you don't love me, okay.” As any man knows, that is an ultimatum you do not mess around with. So he's trapped whether he wants to be or not and he's being forced to confront something that he doesn't have any experience with: blindness, and through the blind man, his own insecurity and emptiness.
The shock he experiences, aside from the roving eyes the blind man possesses (and his lack of dark glasses to hide them), is the utter normality he's faced with when Robert sits down with him. Brown shoes, brown pants, light brown shirt, the only thing different about him being his long beard. He even takes his scotch like Barry Fitzgerald!
Throughout the evening, the narrator seems to become more comfortable with having Robert in his home. He's still standoffish and would more than likely find a distant room to hide in if given the opportunity, but he's gone from agitated at the thought of his house guest, to accepting it. Even at dinner, when the blind man seems to use his fingers to eat as much as he does his fork, it escapes the biting commentary that would've accompanied it earlier in the story. Several drinks and two joints in, the two of them end up sitting on the couch having the first normal conversation in the story, about what is on the television. The narrator is asked to describe the cathedrals that are being shown on the television program. He stutters and stammers his way through the description because it's obviously never something he's been asked to do before, or even thought of. Seeing with ones own eyes is normal, everyone can do it. Why pick up the ability to describe in words what one can see?
The tipping point finally comes when Robert asks the narrator to draw him a picture of a cathedral since his verbal description has left the narrator feeling inadequate and uncomfortable. Robert asks him to instead draw him a picture of a cathedral. He places his hand on the narrators hand and follows along as he draws the picture. At first he is apprehensive but then he gets into it and is drawing spires and flying buttresses and everything else that goes along with a cathedral. The narrator is finally opening up his mind and allowing a new experience to enter into his world. He closes his eyes, he draws, and he simply lets go of his inhibitions. “My eyes were still closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn't feel like I was inside anything”. He's free.
Throughout the story, the primary focus of the author, whether directly or indirectly, was to point out the lack of tact, the lack of emotion, and the lack of understanding displayed by the narrator in an effort to paint a nice portrait of the shell he had built up around himself. The shell is his protection, whether he realizes it or not, and he uses it to shield himself from anything outside of the realm of his own normal. If asked to visit a museum he would undoubtedly make excuses or throw a fit in an effort to get out of such a painful chore. I know this man all too well. He's my poor friend Me.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-01 21:05:36)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
jesus christ
did you really have to do that to carver... really?
is that the level of 'literary criticism' you're expected to produce at COLLEGE in the US?
have fun with the spell-checking and proof-reading
did you really have to do that to carver... really?
is that the level of 'literary criticism' you're expected to produce at COLLEGE in the US?
have fun with the spell-checking and proof-reading
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I'm an engineering major, not an english major Professors are impressed if I can put two words down on paper without adding in a math formula Is it that bad?Uzique wrote:
jesus christ
did you really have to do that to carver... really?
is that the level of 'literary criticism' you're expected to produce at COLLEGE in the US?
have fun with the spell-checking and proof-reading
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
in an attempt to be even slightly constructive:
your tone is far too prosaic. it's almost conversational. also your sentencing, grammar and vocabulary sucks.
the 'structure' of your piece is essentially what we'd call over here "high school homework" - you're just plodding along with the plot of the story, adding trite observations and superficial nothings. if you're asked to write a thematic or conceptual piece, write about the theme or concept; engage with it in depth, analyse and evaluate it's prevalence and effectivity. don't just take your professors hand and them guide them on a leisurely stroll alongside the story, pointing out things here and there. that's such an elementary technique at essay writing. it's almost embarrassing to read.
i will completely with-hold my reservations about your total misinterpretation and misunderstanding of carver's work...
your tone is far too prosaic. it's almost conversational. also your sentencing, grammar and vocabulary sucks.
the 'structure' of your piece is essentially what we'd call over here "high school homework" - you're just plodding along with the plot of the story, adding trite observations and superficial nothings. if you're asked to write a thematic or conceptual piece, write about the theme or concept; engage with it in depth, analyse and evaluate it's prevalence and effectivity. don't just take your professors hand and them guide them on a leisurely stroll alongside the story, pointing out things here and there. that's such an elementary technique at essay writing. it's almost embarrassing to read.
i will completely with-hold my reservations about your total misinterpretation and misunderstanding of carver's work...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I'm aware of that uzique. I knew as I was writing it that it was awful and very much 'book reportish'. I simply despise structured writing that forces me to write at length about a single concept. I've never been any good at it. Creative writing? I enjoy that. A piece on a specific topic of the professors choosing? Well, that's why I ended up having to take English 101 three times.
Anyway, it's a very rough draft that I wrote in a few hours tonight. I'm probably going to scrap most of it tomorrow when I write the second draft.
Anyway, it's a very rough draft that I wrote in a few hours tonight. I'm probably going to scrap most of it tomorrow when I write the second draft.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-01 21:17:40)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
it's a great question, galt... hardly restrictive.
you could approach it through psychological, sociological- hell, even political angles if you wanted.
you could explore the formalistic 'conflict' between author and narrator
you could explore different manifestations of conflict and work towards a more refined definition of conflict and its different types
you are an engineering major though so i can't ride too hard... just try to cut out the chatty-tone. even if you're talking utter bullshit and don't really have any particular enthusiasm for the author/story, or any real understanding of the work... adopting an authoritative, critical tone will pay off. i only say this to you because i realize you're an engineering student trying to impress professors that already have this in mind. the 'sound intellectual and sagacious, chat shit' method does not work if you're writing for a marker that has more than half a clue
you could approach it through psychological, sociological- hell, even political angles if you wanted.
you could explore the formalistic 'conflict' between author and narrator
you could explore different manifestations of conflict and work towards a more refined definition of conflict and its different types
you are an engineering major though so i can't ride too hard... just try to cut out the chatty-tone. even if you're talking utter bullshit and don't really have any particular enthusiasm for the author/story, or any real understanding of the work... adopting an authoritative, critical tone will pay off. i only say this to you because i realize you're an engineering student trying to impress professors that already have this in mind. the 'sound intellectual and sagacious, chat shit' method does not work if you're writing for a marker that has more than half a clue
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
and i will say, despite the conservative-canon and the 'orthodoxy' of snobbish high-minded art departments over here...
it's pretty rad you get to study carver. he's a strictly free-time enjoyment for me.
my profs would turn their noses up at him, sadly.
it's pretty rad you get to study carver. he's a strictly free-time enjoyment for me.
my profs would turn their noses up at him, sadly.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
You've obviously read the story I used. How did I misunderstand the conflict in the story? The narrator is a closed off conservative minded type of person that shuns emotion and bases his opinions on what he can touch, see, feel and hear. He's taken out of his comfort zone and ultimately challenged by the blind man which forces him to catch a glimmer of all that he has been missing out on in life by hiding behind his walls. Am I wrong?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
oh and everyone thinks creative writing is easier... and that's because it is, there's fucking nothing to it.
creative writing students over here get on my nerves. funnily enough they're all far worse prose/verse writers than 'classic' art students.
it's just a course in boring orthodoxy and stylistic imitation, tbh
creative writing students over here get on my nerves. funnily enough they're all far worse prose/verse writers than 'classic' art students.
it's just a course in boring orthodoxy and stylistic imitation, tbh
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I wouldn't say 'study' since we devoted a little less than two classroom sessions on this story. It's just a generic and utterly basic English comp course.Uzique wrote:
and i will say, despite the conservative-canon and the 'orthodoxy' of snobbish high-minded art departments over here...
it's pretty rad you get to study carver. he's a strictly free-time enjoyment for me.
my profs would turn their noses up at him, sadly.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i know this is going to sound tres artistique and very englit of me but it doesn't matter what understanding i have of the story. it doesn't matter if i know more about carver's biographical circumstances and more about the wider themes, concerns and stylisms in his oeuvre. it really doesn't matter. your concern for the piece should be to get your own knowledge of the text, your own interpretation and to form your own understanding. if you can hammer out a 'brief' for your essay in the first paragraph - make the intent of the essay known, say, to explore gender politics and conflicts thereof - then you can spend the rest of the word-count fleshing out an argument using analysis, citation and inter-textual/extra-textual exploration.JohnG@lt wrote:
You've obviously read the story I used. How did I misunderstand the conflict in the story? The narrator is a closed off conservative minded type of person that shuns emotion and bases his opinions on what he can touch, see, feel and hear. He's taken out of his comfort zone and ultimately challenged by the blind man which forces him to catch a glimmer of all that he has been missing out on in life by hiding behind his walls. Am I wrong?
me telling you what i think carver's motivation was for the tale won't boost your own understanding, nor help your own work at all. if you view the main character as a 'typical' entrenched conservative, and that's the message you have taken away from the reading... then okay. the professor won't mark you down because you've necessarily 'misunderstood' the story. you have performed a politically-gendered reading of the text and now you are applying your contemporary standards and attitudes to your analysis. that's a fine method of literary criticism... at least at your level.
essentially, you have done your reading and taken something from it - be it 'right' or 'wrong'. now make the effort to actually develop a strong argument in favour of this 'impression' you were left with. substantiate it with quotes and demonstrate your understanding of the area (e.g. socio-political relations and conflicts thereof) and spank the assignment. it's not many words. you're not going to have to substantiate much to score decent marks.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Well, thanks for taking the time to read it man. I've just had a long history of English professors killing me for not following their own point of view on how a story is supposed to be read. It's much of the reason why I despise the subject.
I'm off to bed now, have a good night.
I'm off to bed now, have a good night.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
well there's a difference between not reading/paying attention/trying to understand a story at all and just simply forming your own reading/interpretation of it. the 'difference' lies mostly in close-textual analysis and citation. if you think the main character is a conservative, stuck in his ways, then by god make sure you have some quotes from the story itself and perhaps some secondary-criticism or political knowledge (i.e. of conservative principles or attitudes) to back it up. basically there's a difference between making a reasoned, evidenced argument, and just spouting conjecturing bullshit in the style of an eighth grade english student ("i think the orange is a metaphor for pride, a pride that will soon rot like the fruit itself, or else be consumed by the character's greedy sister, who is in herself a metaphor for feminism..."). that sorta shit. avoid it.
stay close to the text itself and try to back up every point/claim you make with a quote or demonstrated knowledge of the text/author.
something to bear in mind with carver is that nearly all of his short stories are about epiphanies. it's a major conceit in (post)-modernist short fiction, from james joyce all the way up to david foster wallace. carver's works see characters pass through a process of emotions, or (self) realisation; or through a process of emotional healing, or revelation, or tumult, etc. considering 'conflict' and the obvious imagery and metaphors inherent within the story... consider the metonymic inference of the 'cathedral': as a religious institution, as a building of spiritual discovery, as a social edifice. consider the conflict between the supposedly 'blind' man and the 'seeing' man. then think again about carver's narrative conceit of making the tale pivot around an 'epiphany' or 'revelatory' moment. does the seeing man realise his own interior blindness? or is this expected end denied, and is the tale (purposefully) anti-climactic? there are many types of conflict you can trace here.
have fun with it. hell, reading books is supposed to be. writing... to a lesser extent. don't chase an angle or an argument if you're not a little bit interested or enthusiastic about it-- i can kinda see why you went into the political readings with conservatism. it's something you're moderately interested in; something to give your essay writing impetus and focus. that'll work.
stay close to the text itself and try to back up every point/claim you make with a quote or demonstrated knowledge of the text/author.
something to bear in mind with carver is that nearly all of his short stories are about epiphanies. it's a major conceit in (post)-modernist short fiction, from james joyce all the way up to david foster wallace. carver's works see characters pass through a process of emotions, or (self) realisation; or through a process of emotional healing, or revelation, or tumult, etc. considering 'conflict' and the obvious imagery and metaphors inherent within the story... consider the metonymic inference of the 'cathedral': as a religious institution, as a building of spiritual discovery, as a social edifice. consider the conflict between the supposedly 'blind' man and the 'seeing' man. then think again about carver's narrative conceit of making the tale pivot around an 'epiphany' or 'revelatory' moment. does the seeing man realise his own interior blindness? or is this expected end denied, and is the tale (purposefully) anti-climactic? there are many types of conflict you can trace here.
have fun with it. hell, reading books is supposed to be. writing... to a lesser extent. don't chase an angle or an argument if you're not a little bit interested or enthusiastic about it-- i can kinda see why you went into the political readings with conservatism. it's something you're moderately interested in; something to give your essay writing impetus and focus. that'll work.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-11-01 21:44:23)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Lol engrish. Glad that shit is over.
Now it's me doing reports/programming/hundreds of diagrams
Now it's me doing reports/programming/hundreds of diagrams
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously. ♥
Dude, this is a freshman class that I purposely skipped years ago. It's required for graduation and now I'm stuck with ittazz. wrote:
Lol engrish. Glad that shit is over.
Now it's me doing reports/programming/hundreds of diagrams
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
no offence but i'd feel like a fucking retard if i was about to graduate and had that writing style
arts major or no arts major... reading comprehension and writing is a basic skill
all those that turn their noses up at the arts could sure do with a lot of self-improvement, it seems...
arts major or no arts major... reading comprehension and writing is a basic skill
all those that turn their noses up at the arts could sure do with a lot of self-improvement, it seems...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue meUzique wrote:
no offence but i'd feel like a fucking retard if i was about to graduate and had that writing style
arts major or no arts major... reading comprehension and writing is a basic skill
all those that turn their noses up at the arts could sure do with a lot of self-improvement, it seems...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
the scale of hope in the american project has diminished from one of god, and almighty subjection to the unknown and uncontrollable, to the symbolic faith in the nation as a limitless and deified institution, transcending individual democratic capability, to finally one of the self and it's own self-satisfaction. in today's modern world the only 'hope' within an american to battle the all-pervasive sense of inert melancholia is the hope of self-pampering and material gratification. the christian doctrines are now archaic and a thing for the study of history; the symbolic importance of the nation and the instruments of government have lost their popular reverence. latter-day tocquevilleans will surely lament the loss of a 'judgement', the loss of jefferson's 'temperate mind' and reflective thinking; and, most importantly, they will lament the loss of a culture of communitarian hope. the 'new left', 'the new right', the 'new politics' of america: vastly disparate and fractured institutions that no longer aspire to any common, human goal. in the 20th and 21st century, symbols have lost all currency and meaning, as the multi-media world of reduced culture has ultimately created what Theodor Adorno in 1938 labeled a "masscult" - or, as lewis lapham put it: "[the media] draws no invidious distinctions between the [...] policies of the president's penis and the threat of nuclear annihilation". the people of america have fallen from the ideals of jefferson and the symbology of lincoln to a mass population, unconsciously conforming with the whimsical and interchangeable products of the marketplace. consumer culture has evacuated emerson's 'self' and extinguished all noble endeavors for human hope.
...
that's my essay finished.
...
that's my essay finished.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-11-02 05:41:42)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Had a good wank didya? Completely inaccurate of course, and a bit on the vapid side, but cool story, bro.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
hahahaha
good wank coming from the guy that rattles on about conservatism in the non-political carver
vapid? your prose style resembles my little brother giving a guided tour around his local playground
good wank coming from the guy that rattles on about conservatism in the non-political carver
vapid? your prose style resembles my little brother giving a guided tour around his local playground
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
No offence but I'd feel like a retard if I was about to graduate and couldn't put a computer togetherUzique wrote:
no offence but i'd feel like a fucking retard if i was about to graduate and had that writing style
Only kidding.
Actually in the real world writing 'style' can be counterproductive, for example composing communications which are simultaneously comprehensible and unambiguous to english, german, french and indian recipients is hard, you have to strip out all the superfluous 'style' and stick to the barest bones. German engineers I worked with thoroughly hated 'style', using different words and varying language purely for the sake of it. They couldn't tell if an alternate word was used for a real reason and a different meaning was intended or if it was changed solely for style.
For me:
Reading comprehension = summarising text as accurately, unambiguously and succinctly as possible
Writing style = getting a message across as accurately, unambiguously and succinctly as possible.
Fuck Israel