The Attractiveness of Freedom

If you had to choose between living at home with your parents or having your own decent apartment, which would you choose? The average man in our contemporary would feel ashamed to be living with their parents after they went to college. Even though there is more safety in the first option, it is overruled by the dominating drive for independence and freedom. Freedom, in a contemporary society, is the ability to make decisions without having to consult someone else and having many options. While there will always be some limits, such as federal laws, there is still a huge difference in the amount of freedom one has depending on who they live with, what job they have, and how many options are available to them. Mencken once wrote that, "The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe." This may have been true during Mencken's time, but modern society has turned against safety, branding it as "the easy way" and "boring". When safety is a boring option, the average man favors the risks of freedom.

One of the biggest stigmas in modern society is that against grown men and women living with their parents. Many college students and graduates find themselves living back at home again when they struggle to conjure the money needed to buy their own living space. Parents with stable incomes can offer a safe place to live, where college students can live and worry about other issues. However, our modern society looks down on this, seeing it as an unwanted level of dependency. Anyone who lives with their parents after high school is guaranteed to be embarrassed when admitting to it; conversely, one is likely to see college students proud of the fact that they can afford their own apartment away from home. The fact is simply that contemporary society encourages freedom and the risk associated over options that are safer but dependent on others.

Another area in which people are likely to compare themselves is occupation; the type of job one has can have a huge effect on how others see him/her. For example, think of the difference between a secretary and CEO of a company. The average person in contemporary society would rather be a CEO than a secretary, because being a CEO is seen as more interesting. Secretaries can earn decent salaries and usually hold stable jobs, but are not in charge of as many decisions. A job that depends upon the decisions of someone else is seen as easier and less exciting than a job that allows for more decisions. A job as a secretary is safe, in that it generates enough income and is a full-time job, but does not impress the average man. CEO's are often idolized and payed attention to because they are in charge of so much and make all the really important decisions. While this requires a lot of responsibility and involves a lot of risk, it also involves a lot of freedom, which the average man craves more than safety.

A final aspect of freedom desired by the average man is a variety of options. It is so engrained into our modern society that most people don't notice it, but the truth is that variety is a must-have in everything from career options to food options. Imagine you're going out to dinner with your friends and have to pick where to go. One option is a nice restaurant that you always go to, which you know has food that you like. On the other hand, there are a few other restaurants in town that you've never been to before but sound interesting. The safe option would be to go to the same restaurant as always, because you are basically guaranteed to enjoy the food. Yet, the average man would be encouraged to pick a new restaurant because of the need for risk and expanding one's future options. If you always go to the same restaurant, you will always have a good meal, but if you try a new restaurant and like it, you will have one more option for next time. It may not seem like it, but it is a risk that the average man instinctively accepts as proof of individual freedom and avoidance of habitual safety.

For centuries, mankind has been driven to focus on protecting itself and ensuring safety, but the establishment of safety has reversed this process. It is in man's nature to keep moving forward, and the next step from safety is freedom. Since Mencken's time, modern society has stigmatized safety and become addicted to freedom.

A Reflection on Standardized Testing

I really enjoyed reading two different opinions on the effectiveness of standardized testing, since they both brought up really important points. On the one hand, Tyler brought up the really important point that standardized tests can only test certain abilities. Speaking specifically about standardized tests such as the SAT, it is true that only certain subjects are covered and in a certain way. With such a wide range of abilities to test for, most standardized tests focus on math, reading, and writing. This is because they are mostly universal subjects, as opposed to subjects like language or sciences, which can have hugely varied curriculums across districts, states, and even countries. Even if standardized tests were able to incorporate other subjects in a fair way, Tyler points out that this is still limited to academic skills. If standardized tests were designed to assess the overall abilities of a person, then they would be ineffective for that reason. However, as Jonah touches on briefly, standardized tests aren’t meant to determine a person’s character; tests like the SAT are only meant to evaluate very specific skills that are seen as important to schools all over the world. An important point that was not brought up is the fact that standardized tests are extremely helpful to very large, competitive schools that need to narrow down the list of applicants. Popular colleges such as Harvard and MIT, for example, get way too many applications every year to pay close attention to every single one. To solve this problem, they use SAT or ACT scores from applicants to ease the admissions process. Without that option, they would have to enlist an army of admissions personnel to get anywhere with applications. In favor of standardized testing, Jonah cited a lot of numbers from polls that seemingly express support for standardized tests. Unfortunately, polls aren’t always an accurate representation of the overall population, and there was no mention in either blog post of how students feel about standardized tests. For many students, standardized tests are extremely stressful, since they have such a huge effect on what schools they can get into, and they are being compared to their peers. Additionally, neither blog mentioned that in some schools, the curriculum is changed for teachers to “teach to the test”, which takes time away from other important material that they could have taught using that time. Arguably, this means that students are being tested not on their knowledge, but their test-taking skills and ability to deal with stress. Even if standardized tests weren’t originally designed to test the ability to deal with stress, it is still true that dealing with stress is an important life skill. Overall, while standardized tests may not be enjoyable and don’t assess every single ability of a student, they do test important skills and are crucial to the admissions process for universities and colleges.

In response to the following blogs: Tyler's blog: http://tmahlmann.blogspot.com/2015/02/blog-debate-1st-argument.html?m=1   and     Jonah's blog: https://jonahhelmer.wordpress.com

Response to "Denying Humans"

While same-sex couples should not be denied service based on freedom of religion, the author’s current argument stands very weakly. Anyone who already agrees with this point would not bother to disagree with any of the emotional points brought up, and might feel uncomfortable because of certain assumptions made. However, for any readers who either lack an opinion or have the opposite one, this argument is not sufficiently convincing due to a lack of ethos and logos, as well as a misuse of pathos.

First, the connection between racial discrimination and refusing service to same-sex couples is not made as strongly as it could be. It’s important to reference Title 42 in the US Code (federal public accommodation laws), which states that public services, such as restaurants, cannot refuse service based on race, color, religion, or national origin[1]. This law does not currently include sexual orientation as a possible discrimination, which means that same-sex couples are technically not included. It is still important to note, mainly because the law was enacted in response to the civil rights movement, to prevent blacks from being denied service in restaurants and other public facilities. A similar step could be taken, feasibly, to include same-sex couples in anti-discrimination laws.

While it is tempting to utilize, the author’s use of hypothetical situations is an example of overly sentimental appeals. As with the rest of the argument, it is simple as a reader in favor of rights for same-sex couples to agree with the views expressed in the examples. However, it’s not a good argument because it is hypothetical, based solely in emotional appeal, and not backed by hard evidence. Of course, this isn’t to say that the situation described does not occur, but rather that a real-life example including a same-sex couple denied service would be more convincing to an unbiased reader. Unfortunately, the section of the argument based on a hypothetical situation also includes a hasty generalization. Even though many people in the United States are well educated in the realm of equality, it is not true that “no one would ever think of restricting their services to one color.” Sadly, a significant number of people in the US still hold racist views, and many cling to homophobic views. As recently as in 1994, a restaurant chain called Denny’s was sued for numerous cases of racial discrimination, and is still accused of racial discrimination in some cases today[2].  Although it would be nice to live in a country free of discrimination, the fact is that many people, including owners of businesses, still discriminate for a multitude of different reasons.

The author’s argument is also flawed by several assumptions. Assuming that Christians are the only ones, or even main ones, denying service to same-sex couples is likely to offend the audience. Despite the truth that many people restricting service claim to be Christian, this is not always the case. Even if only Christians were guilty of this event, it would still be a mistake to target them, since it narrows the range of people that will be attracted to and agree with the argument. Additionally, the assumption that a religious text must be followed strictly to avoid hypocrisy is inaccurate. It is true that many Christians do not follow every single “rule” in the Bible, but this is true for non-fundamentalists of every religion. I, for example, am a Quaker, but I don’t follow George Fox’s lifestyle word for word. Case in point, I have never gone to random churches to tell the assembled congregation that they are wrong and should go to Quaker meeting instead of church. Does that mean that I am a hypocrite when I say that because of my religion, I believe in the extreme importance of equality?

A few important points are brought up in the author’s argument, but lack the standing to be truly argumentative. Especially with a topic that most people feel strongly about one way or the other, it is crucial that the author does not get caught up in emotional appeal and hasty assumptions. If the author were to rethink the argument from an unbiased standpoint and open view, it would be clear that the same view point can be argued with unbiased ethos and logos.

Link to the blog post being responded to: https://joshhoffman12.wordpress.com

---

[1] Federal Public Accommodation. 42 USC. Sec. 2000a. 1964. Legal Information

     Institute. Web. 18 Feb. 2015. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/

     text/42/2000a>.

[2] "Denny's Racism Charges 1994." The Baltimore Sun. Baltimore Sun, 16 Dec. 1994.

     Web. 18 Feb. 2015. <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1994-12-16/news/

     1994350042_1_denny-restaurant-flagstar-discrimination>.

Putting Birth Control Pills on the Shelf with Tylenol

Even though the United States is one of the most developed countries in the world, it has a gender inequality score higher than every European country and Canada[1]. Part of this high level of gender inequality has been due to the United States’ handling of reproductive rights. Currently, women have to get a prescription from a doctor in order to take birth control pills. However, for the sake of safety and equality, birth control pills should be available for sale without a prescription.

One of the major concerns regarding over-the-counter drugs is the safety regarding health. Unlike other over-the-counter drugs such as Benadryl and cough syrup, birth control pills can’t be abused in order to obtain a high. And, even if someone were to overdose on birth-control pills, a birth control pill overdose is highly unlikely to be life threatening, and rarely requires a visit to the emergency room[2]. If drugs such as cough syrup, which are easily abused, are sold over-the-counter, there’s no health-related reason to restrict birth control pill sale to prescriptions. Although there is the tiny risk of side effects, as there is for every drug ever made, “the absolute risk of taking the pill is far less than the risks incurred in pregnancy”[3]. On the other hand, there are plenty of health benefits associated with birth-control pills. Besides the common use of preventing pregnancy, birth control pills also lower the risk of cancer, help clear skin, make periods less painful, relieve PMS, and help women with hormone imbalances[4]. While a doctor will prescribe birth control pills to young women suffering from hormone deficiencies or excessively painful periods, it is much more embarrassing to explain to a doctor why birth control pills are necessary than to simply purchase them as an over-the-counter drug.

Besides numerous health benefits, accessibility to birth control pills are really important as a reproductive right. Anyone can walk into a convenience store and buy condoms, and yet women have to jump through legal and medical hoops to get access to birth control pills. Is that not a double standard? The sale of morning-after pills as an over-the counter drug has been legalized, but that’s only a last resort to preventing unplanned births. Birth control pills are well known as highly effective contraception, and can prevent the need for morning-after pills, or even abortions. In fact, birth control pills are more effective than condoms, even if misused. When taken every day, birth control pills are 99% effective, and proper use of condoms is 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. However, misuse of birth control pills is still 91% effective, while improper condom use is only 82% effective in preventing pregnancy[5]. Whether or not a woman is in favor of abortions or morning-after pills, most will agree that it’s better to not need these last resorts.

Access to birth control pills is also important to the emotional health of young women who are sexually active. Knowing that they have the extra protection of birth control pills allows young women to be more confident and less anxious about the risk of pregnancy. Additionally, having the option of birth control pills means that teenage girls don’t need to rely on their partner to properly use contraception; it means that they won’t feel dependent, which is crucial in empowering girls and allowing them to make their own decisions.

You may be wondering, if birth-control pills are so amazing, why can’t teenage girls simply get a prescription? The answer is simple: parents. Even though almost 50% of high school students in a recent US survey reported having had sex at some point in their life, many parents resist the idea of their child being sexually active[6]. As may be expected, it is much easier for a teenage girl to convince her parents to let her get a prescription for birth-control pills if they are comfortable with the implications. But should a teenage girl be denied access to birth control pills and face increased risk of pregnancy just because her parents aren’t willing to accept her sexual activity? If so, then they might as well require a prescription for condoms.

---

[1] "Gender Inequality Index." United Nations Development Programme. United Nations,

     2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2015. <http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/

     table-4-gender-inequality-index>.

[2] Heller, Jacob L., MD, MHA. "Birth Control Pill Overdose." Medline Plus. U.S.

     National Library of Medicine, 12 Feb. 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

     <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002599.htm>.

[3] Rosenthal, Elisabeth. "Is It Time for Off-the-Shelf Birth-Control Pills?" The

     New York Times. NYT, 20 Apr. 2013. Web. 16 Feb. 2015.

     <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/sunday-review/

     is-it-time-for-off-the-shelf-birth-control-pills.html?_r=0>.

[4] Graham, Janis. "Other Reasons to Take the Pill." WebMD. WebMD, 1 Nov. 2006. Web.

     16 Feb. 2015. <http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/

     other-reasons-to-take-the-pill>.

[5] "Birth Control Methods." Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, 2014. Web. 16

     Feb. 2015. <http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/

     birth-control>.

[6] "Sexual Behaviors." Center for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC, 12 June

     2014. Web. 16 Feb. 2015. <http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/

     sexualbehaviors/>.

How We Talk About Death

As much fun as it is to dissect the phrases that we hear every day, the types of language that we save for special occasions can tell us just as much about how the human mind works. While it's not on most people's daily agenda, the language we use when talking about death is very unique.

Most people don't flat out say that their relative/friend/pet died. You're much more likely to hear that "they passed away" or "they're gone" or "they're in a better place." Euphemisms are extremely common when talking about death, which makes sense due to the extreme emotions connected to death. Using the words "died" or "death" scares people because there are only negative connotations. They're very straightforward words with very specific connotations. On the other hand, saying someone "passed away" or is "in a better place" sounds much nicer and has connotations with peace.

Another interesting characteristic is the common use of figurative language in reference to death. One of the most common ways to talk about death is that it is "like falling asleep." The large majority of the human population has fallen asleep many more times than has died. By comparing death to a daily process, death is made to sound more natural and less painful. At the same time, it also makes it sound more poetic and beautiful. Using figurative language instead of literal language allows for more creativity with the concept of death, and makes it easier to talk about death.

Some of the most interesting uses of language are not seen everyday, such as the language of death. However, it's still important to analyze, because our use of language in reference to less popular subjects reveals a lot about humans.

The Tormentor

Standing in the doorway
For months you've been a presence

Sometimes leaving for weeks at a time
Other times still like a statue

Why was it so much crueler
For you to stand and watch

Then to wait to come
When Time called you here?

You chose to taunt and haunt
To create suspense and fear

Because why should you give me the gift
Of sweet blissful ignorance?

You were too clever for that.
No, you were too proud to hide yourself

Instead you let me see that you were poised
Ready to take your prize, yet holding back

With your merciless eyes and cold stare
You stalked and waited with precision

When I least expected it, least wanted it
When I was away, was distracted

That was when you decided to swoop in
To steal her away, you cowardly bastard

It would have been too kind, too merciful
For you to have stayed away until The Time

It was too tempting to flaunt your power
To come and go unpredictably

And now I am left with a hole in my heart
Once filled by the love that you ripped out

But you, because you are a shameless coward,
Won't dare to show your face again for a while

So that I will be enticed into deceptive forgetfulness
Until I rarely think about your cruelty

And when the wound is old and almost closed,
Then you will rear your ugly head

And torment me again,
Trapping me in yet another cruel game of When

**************************************************************************


For this piece, I wanted to express some very strong emotions that I was feeling. I felt like the best way to do this would be to use apostrophe, since I could address my emotions towards something. Since my feelings weren't directed towards a person, I also utilized personification so that I could better express myself. Using apostrophe allowed me to express anger and bitterness, since it makes the poem sound like a dialogue I am having with someone, instead of just writing out my feelings. I think that the personification is also important since it makes the abstraction easier to visualize and understand.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that originally, I did not include the word "bastard" because I don't believe in using profanity unless absolutely necessary. However, in this case, I felt that any other word would not carry the weight that I needed it to carry.

The Language of Teachers

Despite our exposure to it at least five days a week, we rarely ever talk about the language that teachers use. Every day, our teachers riddle their lectures and classes with carefully chosen words and phrases in order to get us to behave a certain way. Whether it's emphasizing a fact or trying to get us to start studying, teachers' words are cleverly chosen and utilized.

The first case is when teachers use repetition in order to get us to pay attention to something. Whenever a teacher talks about a particularly important concept or fact, they will make sure to emphasize it by writing it on the board and repeating it for the class. While it's not uncommon for a teacher to simply repeat the phrase of importance, an even more noticeable technique is to use an anaphora. For example, my history teacher told the class, "You need to study the vocabulary, study the maps, and study your notes." Not only does this emphasize the action of studying, but it also makes it sound like a list. This simple use of language makes our brains wake up and notice that we are being given something to pay attention to. If the teacher had instead said, "Look at the vocabulary, analyze the maps, and review your notes," there wouldn't be as many people paying attention. This isn't necessarily because the students are disinterested in the class, but rather that there are certain literary devices that are more likely to capture our attention.

Teachers also carefully choose their diction in order to convince us to do something, such as a project or studying. Two common examples are whenever a teacher says, "We need to have the project in by Friday," or "We should make sure we master the vocabulary." Even though it's usually just the students, not the teacher and the students, who need to complete the assignment, using "we" gives an important attitude. Using "we" gives a sense of community, as if the teacher is just another student in the class (which you could argue that they are, except that they're the one giving out grades). It also avoids the patronizing air of saying "you need to do something," because it's less of a command and more of a statement.

Another interesting element of the language that teachers use is that they say "please" a lot. Whether it's, "Please remember to finish the packet by Monday," or "Please give yourself time to study," teachers are constantly adding "pleases" to their sentences. Why? It's not like teachers have to ask you to do your assignments; if you don't, it's your own fault and you hurt yourself for it. However, by using "please" in a sentence, the teacher is making the sentence into a request rather than a command, just like the use of "we". By making it a request rather than a command, the teacher is also implying a desire for the student to do well. While saying, "Remember this" sounds condescending and detached, saying, "Please remember this" sounds softer and more caring.

Our teachers face the daily challenge of trying to get a bunch of teenagers to learn and get their assignments done. While most students have at least some level of motivation, it's still necessary for teachers to pull out all the tricks they can to get us to pay attention to the right things. By using their language cleverly, the best teachers can motivate you without you even realizing it.

The Hunt

Starting with days in preparation
we work and sweat all night
So that we'll all be ready
when the hunting trumpet calls

Our teachers lecture about the fox
(what it looks like and how to prepare)
and yet we can only guess
at how it will try to evade us

The morning comes when we test ourselves
and see if we can catch it
We've done it before, so we should be experts
Yet the hunt is different each time

Students gather with their hunting supplies
and try to calm their nerves while
Restless hounds bark with excitement
and trumpets blare in encouragement

The hunt is long and tiring,
with no rest for the desperate students
we fret and we search and we try to grasp it
but most foxes prefer to run away

For one week, it is all we think about
And obsess over, like Moby's whale
It's huge in our minds and important to us
(but at least whales are easy to see)

The problem with foxes
Is that they are clever;
they know how to hide
and trick their pursuers

But with enough practice,
we are told we will catch it
and bring home the fox,
and then a week of sleep

**************************************************************************

With this poem, I decided to try out two literary devices: conceit and allusion. I've never used either of these devices in a work of literature, so I wanted to see if I could use them to create a mood. While I won't give away what the hunt is supposed to represent, I will provide that I'm trying to give a mood of exhaustion and desperation. Inspired by "The Flea", I wanted to come up with my own clever metaphor for something that I was thinking about a lot. When I think of a hunt, I think of hounds barking and trumpets blaring; there's a lot going on. I wanted to bring this feeling of business into the poem to help create a mood that would support my attempted conceit. I decided that this would also be a good chance to use an allusion. As I was writing about stress and obsession, I immediately thought of Moby Dick and his infamous obsession with a white whale.

I'm Sorry

I'm sorry
I'm sorry you didn't like what I did

                                                                                 It's ok

                                                                     I don't want to talk about it

I won't do it again
I'll wait a little while before I try again

                                                                                I know

                                                                                 I wish

Are you ok?
Can I go home now?

                                                                             Yeah, I'm fine

                                                        No, but I don't want to talk to you about it

Ok. I love you
Ok, bye

                                                                             I love you too

                                                              I don't have anything else to say

**************************************************************************

When I thought about this piece, I was thinking about how sometimes we say something when we actually mean something else. A common example is when we say we're ok, when we're really not but we don't want to talk about it. I wanted to write a poem that showed how we can have an entire conversation that should mean one thing, when there's actually a different meaning to everything, which gives a completely different feeling. If you read the regular text on both sides, it sounds like a caring couple that's agreeing to move on from something. However, if you read the italicized text, it's a different story with a different mood. The conflicting meanings are meant to show how there is a lack of meaningful communication and a darker mood. 

Mother Teresa

While watching a documentary about Mother Teresa in my Spiritual Practices class, I became interested in the unique language of religion and humanitarian work. Specifically, I wanted to look at Mother Teresa's quote, "Live simply so others may simply live."

The first thing that stood out to me about this quote was how simple it is. It's very short, which makes it easy to remember, and it also has an appealing element of symmetry. The play on "live simply" and "simply live" gives a bit of humor to the quote and also makes it less condescending.

Another important element of this quote is that while it may be taken as a command, it's actually just a piece of advice. Since she never says "you must" or "you should", she is avoiding the creation of a command. This is really important because if she had phrased it like an order, it might create a feeling of indignation in the audience instead of a desire to listen.

It's also important to note the context of this quote. Back when Mother Teresa was alive and working, and even now, people with lots of wealth or even just enough wealth wanted more and more. While not everyone did, many also felt some level of concern for the people who were so poor that they couldn't take care of themselves. However, almost no one had made the connection that Mother Teresa was trying to make. With her quote, she is asking people to do something, but also giving a reason (so others may simply live).

Expanding off the context is the word choice. If she had used the word "modestly" or "humbly", her quote would have created different emotions than using "simply". "Simply" is a good word for her to use, because firstly it has a flexible meaning that allows it to be used twice in the quote. Also, the word "simply" implies a lack of difficulty; you just do it. "Modestly" or "humbly", however, implies a level of restraint and subservience. While that might appeal to some people, to most people it sounds unappealing.

Overall, the language of religion and humanitarian work that Mother Teresa uses is a lot like the language of advertising; it's short and catchy, not condescending, and is trying to offer a solution to a problem.

Lady Macbeth's Imagery

In her soliloquy, Lady Macbeth uses a lot of imagery in order to express her current state and that which she hopes to achieve. While there are many different examples within her speech, I was most interested in her lines "And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full of direst cruelty!" and "That my keen knife see not the wound it makes" (44-45, 53).

The first line, about cruelty, painted a picture for me of Lady Macbeth literally filling up with cruelty, as though she were a vase and cruelty was a liquid. It's interesting to think of being filled up with cruelty, since cruelty isn't a tangible substance. It's important to note that she talks about filling her "from the crown to the toe top-full" because this means that she must consider herself to be currently empty of cruelty. If she considered herself a somewhat cruel person, she wouldn't have to be completely filled up. Additionally, the fact that she needs to be "top-full" shows that she believes that she will need to be extremely cruel in order to get the deed done. While this shows that she hopes to come to a state of mind where she can be merciless and kill without remorse, it also shows that she doesn't think she is a natural killer. By expressing her necessity to be full of cruelty, she is also expressing her opinion that otherwise her nature would prevent her from killing Duncan.

The next line, about the knife, made me imagine Lady Macbeth stabbing Duncan with her knife while looking away and covering her eyes; she knows that she is doing it, but is trying to prevent herself from realizing the full reality and consequences of it. This shows compassion for others, because she does not wish to see Duncan die. If she had no compassion for others, she would be able to kill and realize it without remorse or hesitation. Another important detail is that she describes the knife as her "keen knife", meaning that she hopes to be in a state of mind where she is eager to kill the king. It's not good enough for her to be able to do it and not pay too much attention to it, but she recognizes that unless she is enthusiastic about it, she will hesitate or chicken out.

As with any good use of language, Lady Macbeth's imagery tells us a lot about her character. We can learn that in her current state she considers herself to be devoid of cruelty and compassionate of others, while she hopes to become completely filled with cruelty, ignorant of the consequences, and actually eager to kill.

Victory Before 1st Arrangement

The soldier of The Hall strode determinedly through the mess of recruits, who were walking around in a daze. Taking up his position at the round table, he stared down the enemy that dared to antagonize him from it's seat upon his plate.

Our noble soldier was equipped with utensils which had already seen the tension of battle, but retained their glorious, gleaming silver. The soldier, like Destiny's trusted knight, had fought against and vanquished similar foes countless times. His weathered stomach growled in anticipation of his triumphant victory to come.

With a surge of courage and determination, this daring lion of the wild fell upon the enemy, tearing through it in experienced slices and stabs. The rebellious gazelle lay defeated upon the battlefield, cut off from its lust for a title far more noble than it deserved.

Victory showed itself to the honorable warrior, and it tasted sweet.

**************************************************************************

After reading Macbeth and Antigone, I became really interested in the language of war and how it manipulates language. Specifically, the way in which it makes actions seem more important or more honorable through the way it is described. With this piece, I decided to test the extent of the language of war by describing breakfast in the dining hall. While eating breakfast isn't a very exciting or particularly honorable thing to do, I tried to manipulate the language in order to make it sound more like a battle in Macbeth. One of the things I found interesting about the language of war, which I tried to utilize in my writing, was the use of metaphors and similes. I think that similes and metaphors are important in the language of war because they give the sense that the war is something greater than what it actually is; it's the difference between saying that Macbeth was a noble warrior and that he was "like valor's minion" (Shakespeare 1.2.21).

Honor in War

The language of war is a fascinating type of language because of the ways it manipulates the descriptions of actions in order to glorify them. A perfect example of this is in Macbeth, when King Duncan is speaking to a wounded captain. After hearing the captain's retelling of Macbeth's actions, Duncan says to him, "So well thy words become thee as thy wounds: they smack of honor both" (Shakespeare 1.2.47-48).

Before diving too deep into the choice of words and connotations in this statement, it's important to recognize the historical context. This play takes place during the 1600's in Scotland, where the king was in charge of the various clans. If one of the clan leaders decided they wanted to be king, they could try to stage a rebellion and become king themselves. In order to avoid this, it was extremely important for the king to make sure his subjects were very loyal to him. This desire to maintain loyalty is apparent in the language used. By telling the wounded captain that he has honor, he is also saying that the captain is honorable and rewarded in spirit for defending the king. Imagine if Duncan had instead said, "Good lord, you look horrible! I hope you don't die." I don't know about him, but if I were the captain I might not be following the same king.

The first interesting choice of words is in his saying that "thy words become thee as thy wounds". Usually when we say that something becomes someone, we are talking about clothes or an attitude. For example, "that shirt really becomes you" or "anger really doesn't become you". Saying that words become someone takes an abstract concept, words, and changes them into a figurative kind of medal to be worn. Similarly, saying that wounds become someone is odd to say because you usually don't want someone to be wounded; however, in this context the statement is implying that they also represent a figurative medal that shows their strength and endurance.

Next, there is the decision to say that "they smack of honor both". A Modern English translation would be that "they taste of honor both". This isn't to say that the king can actually taste the captain's words and wounds; only synesthetes (people with combined senses, i.e. sound and taste) can taste words, and it would be an extreme case of social awkwardness if the king started tasting the captain's wounds. So why say that they taste of honor, rather than that they look or sound of honor? Using the sense of taste represents the strength of the honor, and the pride that the king has in being able to retell it. In other words, it is repeatable by mouth; he's proud to recount it.

While every type of language attempts to convince people of something, the language of war is especially manipulative in its luring nature. Not only does it seek to glorify horrifying events, but it works to manipulate the subject into connecting to a certain side and to stay loyal; it builds up pride. It's a good thing it does too, or else there might have been a lot more rebellions.

The Art of War (Writing)

War has been a part of life, and therefore literature, since the beginning of man kind. The glory, horror, and effects of war have all been recounted in thousands of different pieces of literature. Sophocles and Muriel Spark are among those brave authors who have attempted to explain and interpret war. Their literary pieces "Antigone" and "The First Year of My Life" both equip characters who are directly affected by war, but in very different ways. One of the most important similarities between their two styles is that they both talk about the important effects of war on families. In "Antigone", the main conflict is an effect of the horrible war between the two brothers Polyneices and Eteocles. While they both fought in the same war, one was honored while the other was doomed to humiliation in death. The injustice of this is pointed out by Antigone, but Creon insists that Eteocles was a traitor deserving such treatment. Even after the war, the family is troubled by the conflict, and experiences three more deaths as a result of the unresolved conflict. Spark also talks about the effect of war on family in her piece. In "The First Year of My Life", Spark describes the women as being dressed in black and mourning for their dead sons and husbands. However, Spark makes more of an effort to focus on everyone, including the family, soldiers, political leaders, and artists instead of just focusing on the family/political leaders. While this takes away some of the emotion that is expressed in Sophocles' writing, it also adds a sense of greater impact that is not necessarily apparent in Sophocles' writing. Another important difference is the glorification of war present in Sophocles' play that is absent in Spark's writing. In "Antigone", the chorus is disapproving of Eteocles' betrayal and starting of the war, but they also celebrate his defeat. The chorus refers to this by saying that "Great-named Victory comes to us answering Thebe's warrior joy" (Sophocles 1.148). This isn't to say that Sophocles likes war (he makes it clear that the Thebians would have preferred no war), but that the victory of war is portrayed as heroic and celebratory. Sparks, on the other hand, is completely unimpressed by the ceaseless killing of people in the war, and thinks that people are foolish to celebrate a "victory" at the end of war. This is evident by the fact that her infant character smiles at the foolishness of Asquith referring to the end of the war as "this great cleansing and purging." While both of these writers acknowledge the effect of war on families, and express a wish for wars not to start, Sparks has a much wider picture of the effects and expresses clear contempt for the end of war being called "victory". Sophocles may be fascinated by the shiny armor on brothers and victory sacrifices, but Sparks is dedicated to the universal effect and distaste of war.