What's Luck Got to do With it?
Topics/Events
1A. The book I read is one that starts out by giving you a history of gambling. It continues off this point into explaining why people throughout time have gambled. After you have the basis of what gambling is and it's history, you learn about how mathematics is applied to gambling. When your understanding of the math behind gambling is high, you learn how to analyze situations and the probability of one thing happening over another.
1B. This book gives you an understanding of how gambling started, the mathematics involved in the process and how to best maximize your ability to win.
2. The author of this book decided to write on this subject because it truly interests him. When he took a statistics class in high school on this subject his teacher was very boring and he hated it. During his college years he met a professor who was very energetic and excited about the subject, this led to him enjoying the subject and pursuing a career in it.
3. I chose to read this book because it seemed like information that may be useful to me in the future and information that I will never forget. I also love history and after reading the first chapter, I knew I would enjoy the book.
4. This book seemed very realistic. As he traveled through time explaining gambling in ancient cultures and how it differed from today's gambling I felt like I was peering into an ancient casino 2000+ years ago. I have read articles and watched movies about people who were heavy gamblers and lost tons of money but never had I heard of people like this from ancient times. Well-off people could throw away money at these ancient casinos (who were mostly small houses/rooms). I could use these old tales of gamblers and relate them to those that I know in modern times.
People
1. There were tons of characters represented in this book that I know the author, or anyone alive today, had never met. This is where creativity in non-fiction writing plays a role. He wrote of the history of gamblers in a very understanding tone. He seemed to know how they felt about gambling and why they could lose fortunes on games that seemed so trivial. He also wrote of philosophers that discovered different theories involving probability. When he wrote of any of these people you could assume that he knew them personally. I think the author was one who did tons of research on his subjects prior to writing about them.
2. One woman, who upon inheriting money through the death of her husband, sneaked into a gambling house to play at one of the tables. She was a pretty young woman whose husband had died from a terrible accident, although at this time women were not allowed into the 'casinos'. She acted as if she were a male and even had some success playing with the "big dogs". This luck would not last forever as she began to lose ample amounts of her inheritance. She just could not stop and eventually all of her money was gone. Luckily for her, although tragic for her sister, another death ensued. The woman's sister died soon after all of her money was gone and, as the sole benefactor, more money came her way. She could just not stay away from those tables and as it happened before, she had great success. This success never lasts forever and again she gambled away all of her money. She began to borrow from the casino, and knowing she could not pay it back, she hanged herself. I would use direct characterization if she was a fictional character to easily let you know what kind of person she was. Another character in the book was a young eccentric scientist. His work and theories on probability were years before his time and went largely unrecognized. He worked his butt off for his short life but nobody seemed to care about his wacko ideas that mathematics was involved in gambling. He died at the ripe age of 34 and it took 200 more years for the world to recognize his ideas as the truth. Since he was a "wacko" scientist, I would use indirect characterization to help you get to know him by showing the crazy things that he thinks of throughout the day.
3. Both of these characters met a tragic death but what makes them interesting to write about is that people still have a reason to know who they are. The young woman is an extreme example of what may happen or have happened if you were an uncontrollable gambler. The young scientist is interesting to write about because he is a person, although not of importance during her lifetime, was important two centuries later. This is the same sort of thing you see today with authors and artists whose work of arts do not gain much recognition until after they are dead.
Style
1. The author used more of a journalistic style where he focused straight on the facts and explained how they related to the subject he was discussing. You have to understand that the part of this book with characters in it was largely based on historical figures. He used these historical figures and stories about these people to explain how gambling started and how it continued. Only a few of them had a story behind their hopes and desires.
2. When it comes to describing how a place or an area looked, the author would give lengthy and detailed descriptions. I think the author thought it was important to get you immersed in the historic areas that were described. Things are easier to understand when you have a mental picture of what you are reading about. People were described in a small amount of detail but there was always a deep reason why they were mentioned. A scientist or mathematician may have thought out an important equation or theory. A common citizen may have lost all of their money in a gambling house and the author would explain the game that they had been playing and the (likely) way that they lost it. These choices affect the book in a way that may be hard to understand. I think the way it is written is perfect for me. I am able to picture the gambling house and am able to at least see a silhouette of the person I am learning about. I can hear the commotion of the room and the happiness or sadness floating around the table. To me the book was easy to understand after being so immersed in the past.
3. The author uses his own views on the topic and the reasons that he wrote about it to set his enthusiastic tone towards what he was writing about. He explains his original dislike of the subject and his turnaround to be in love with it. This helps you to keep an open mind about what is being discussed even if you think it may be tedious at times.
4. I think the author must be a professor. Throughout the book he seems like a very inspired professor who wants you to learn the goodness of his favorite subject. I do not believe he wrote this book as a means of making money but as a way of informing the masses about the history and mathematics behind gambling. I don't exactly know how to explain why I feel the author wrote it this way it is just my interpretation of what I read.
5. He drops many names and provides you with a longing curiosity to find how who these people truly are. Since this book is non-fiction, the people described were real living people. Most of the ones described I was able to look up on the internet and read more about who they were. This gave me a deeper understanding of their motives.
Enduring Memory
There is no such thing as luck. No matter how many times you roll a dice, if you collect a big enough table of data, the percentages of the individual numbers you roll will even out. This means that no matter how "lucky" you are, eventually you will lose. Some people do not understand this concept and will end of losing their fortune. I will remember this forever as I venture into adulthood and have the ability to go gamble. I will know my limits and when I'm on a hot streak I will know that it cannot and will not last forever. I will also remember that everything we know of today that has to deal with the subject of mathematics was created by hardworking individuals in the past. Many of these people never got the praise that they deserved. I respect everything that people in the past have done as it has made life better and better for us. I can only hope to leave such an impression for future generations after I die. This book relates to my big question in a weird way: Why are we here? Why do we strive for success when in the end it seemingly does not matter? I am closer to understanding the answer after reading this text. This is strange as I did not expect to find part of the answer in a book about gambling.
1A. The book I read is one that starts out by giving you a history of gambling. It continues off this point into explaining why people throughout time have gambled. After you have the basis of what gambling is and it's history, you learn about how mathematics is applied to gambling. When your understanding of the math behind gambling is high, you learn how to analyze situations and the probability of one thing happening over another.
1B. This book gives you an understanding of how gambling started, the mathematics involved in the process and how to best maximize your ability to win.
2. The author of this book decided to write on this subject because it truly interests him. When he took a statistics class in high school on this subject his teacher was very boring and he hated it. During his college years he met a professor who was very energetic and excited about the subject, this led to him enjoying the subject and pursuing a career in it.
3. I chose to read this book because it seemed like information that may be useful to me in the future and information that I will never forget. I also love history and after reading the first chapter, I knew I would enjoy the book.
4. This book seemed very realistic. As he traveled through time explaining gambling in ancient cultures and how it differed from today's gambling I felt like I was peering into an ancient casino 2000+ years ago. I have read articles and watched movies about people who were heavy gamblers and lost tons of money but never had I heard of people like this from ancient times. Well-off people could throw away money at these ancient casinos (who were mostly small houses/rooms). I could use these old tales of gamblers and relate them to those that I know in modern times.
People
1. There were tons of characters represented in this book that I know the author, or anyone alive today, had never met. This is where creativity in non-fiction writing plays a role. He wrote of the history of gamblers in a very understanding tone. He seemed to know how they felt about gambling and why they could lose fortunes on games that seemed so trivial. He also wrote of philosophers that discovered different theories involving probability. When he wrote of any of these people you could assume that he knew them personally. I think the author was one who did tons of research on his subjects prior to writing about them.
2. One woman, who upon inheriting money through the death of her husband, sneaked into a gambling house to play at one of the tables. She was a pretty young woman whose husband had died from a terrible accident, although at this time women were not allowed into the 'casinos'. She acted as if she were a male and even had some success playing with the "big dogs". This luck would not last forever as she began to lose ample amounts of her inheritance. She just could not stop and eventually all of her money was gone. Luckily for her, although tragic for her sister, another death ensued. The woman's sister died soon after all of her money was gone and, as the sole benefactor, more money came her way. She could just not stay away from those tables and as it happened before, she had great success. This success never lasts forever and again she gambled away all of her money. She began to borrow from the casino, and knowing she could not pay it back, she hanged herself. I would use direct characterization if she was a fictional character to easily let you know what kind of person she was. Another character in the book was a young eccentric scientist. His work and theories on probability were years before his time and went largely unrecognized. He worked his butt off for his short life but nobody seemed to care about his wacko ideas that mathematics was involved in gambling. He died at the ripe age of 34 and it took 200 more years for the world to recognize his ideas as the truth. Since he was a "wacko" scientist, I would use indirect characterization to help you get to know him by showing the crazy things that he thinks of throughout the day.
3. Both of these characters met a tragic death but what makes them interesting to write about is that people still have a reason to know who they are. The young woman is an extreme example of what may happen or have happened if you were an uncontrollable gambler. The young scientist is interesting to write about because he is a person, although not of importance during her lifetime, was important two centuries later. This is the same sort of thing you see today with authors and artists whose work of arts do not gain much recognition until after they are dead.
Style
1. The author used more of a journalistic style where he focused straight on the facts and explained how they related to the subject he was discussing. You have to understand that the part of this book with characters in it was largely based on historical figures. He used these historical figures and stories about these people to explain how gambling started and how it continued. Only a few of them had a story behind their hopes and desires.
2. When it comes to describing how a place or an area looked, the author would give lengthy and detailed descriptions. I think the author thought it was important to get you immersed in the historic areas that were described. Things are easier to understand when you have a mental picture of what you are reading about. People were described in a small amount of detail but there was always a deep reason why they were mentioned. A scientist or mathematician may have thought out an important equation or theory. A common citizen may have lost all of their money in a gambling house and the author would explain the game that they had been playing and the (likely) way that they lost it. These choices affect the book in a way that may be hard to understand. I think the way it is written is perfect for me. I am able to picture the gambling house and am able to at least see a silhouette of the person I am learning about. I can hear the commotion of the room and the happiness or sadness floating around the table. To me the book was easy to understand after being so immersed in the past.
3. The author uses his own views on the topic and the reasons that he wrote about it to set his enthusiastic tone towards what he was writing about. He explains his original dislike of the subject and his turnaround to be in love with it. This helps you to keep an open mind about what is being discussed even if you think it may be tedious at times.
4. I think the author must be a professor. Throughout the book he seems like a very inspired professor who wants you to learn the goodness of his favorite subject. I do not believe he wrote this book as a means of making money but as a way of informing the masses about the history and mathematics behind gambling. I don't exactly know how to explain why I feel the author wrote it this way it is just my interpretation of what I read.
5. He drops many names and provides you with a longing curiosity to find how who these people truly are. Since this book is non-fiction, the people described were real living people. Most of the ones described I was able to look up on the internet and read more about who they were. This gave me a deeper understanding of their motives.
Enduring Memory
There is no such thing as luck. No matter how many times you roll a dice, if you collect a big enough table of data, the percentages of the individual numbers you roll will even out. This means that no matter how "lucky" you are, eventually you will lose. Some people do not understand this concept and will end of losing their fortune. I will remember this forever as I venture into adulthood and have the ability to go gamble. I will know my limits and when I'm on a hot streak I will know that it cannot and will not last forever. I will also remember that everything we know of today that has to deal with the subject of mathematics was created by hardworking individuals in the past. Many of these people never got the praise that they deserved. I respect everything that people in the past have done as it has made life better and better for us. I can only hope to leave such an impression for future generations after I die. This book relates to my big question in a weird way: Why are we here? Why do we strive for success when in the end it seemingly does not matter? I am closer to understanding the answer after reading this text. This is strange as I did not expect to find part of the answer in a book about gambling.
Lit Anal #2
A Brief History Of Time by Stephen Hawking
Topics/Events
1A. This book is about Physics. Most of the topics discussed in this book are hard to grasp and I therefore felt lost a lot of the time while reading it. I found myself having to reread many of the chapters but I am glad I did. After completing the book, I feel like a have peered into the minds of some of the smartest people to ever live on Earth. People like Newton, Eisenstein, and Hawking. Hawking does the best he can to explain extremely complicated theories to people that have no background knowledge of the subject. He does a pretty good job at explaining it and I feel I could give a rudimentary explanation of most of the theories. He explains how all of these things relate the the universe and explains the origin of space. He goes into extreme detail about black holes and speaks deeply about the big bang.
1B. A book that is probably meant for people who have a simple understanding of Physics prior to reading it. The book gives great explanations of what time is and how the universe works.
2. The author chose to write about this subject because it is what he has devoted his entire life to. He has been studying space and theoretical physics for over 40 years and has developed some of the theories detailed in the book, so who better to write about it than him? He is probably the person on Earth that has the best understanding of theoretical physics and therefore can easily explain it to someone who has no clue what he is talking about.
3. I have always been interested in space so as I was wandering around the Santa Maria Public Library it caught my eye. I had obviously heard of Stephen Hawking and read the introduction to the book. It seemed like something I would enjoy. At first I did not want to keep reading because it was a difficult read, however after powering through the initial dislike, I found it was a very interesting topic that I ended up enjoying.
4. The book seemed very realistic to me. After all, he was basically explaining how we came into existence and what was to come of our future as humans, what is anymore realistic? I love reading and watching documentaries about space so I knew some of the basic principles he was talking about. I could connect most of the writing to stuff I had heard of before. It was when he started explaining difficult to understand theories when I began to check out.
People
1. A lot of the people that Hawking described in this book were dead long before he was born. He therefore had never met them and had to come to his own conclusions about how they may have acted. I believe he described most of them how they probably were, he is a very intelligent man, after all. Hawking seems to have a deep admiration for the physicists he writes about, as many of them came up with principles he would later use to further his career. Hawking also describes many of his colleagues. He is always admirable to those that have helped further the subject of astrophysics in the last century and seems to enjoy working with these people. All of them have a want to make sense of life and the universe. Unfortunately, they will all be dead before we are technologically able to figure it out.
2. It's hard to describe two people mentioned in the book as they weren't really described in great detail. They were all extremely smart people. If you think that reading about and trying learn these complex theories is difficult, imagine being the one who created them. What all of these people have in common is that they will be remembered forever. Hawking does a great job at making you feel like he knew these people. I mean obviously he never met Isaac Newton or Galileo Galilei, but he seems to know a lot about their work and motivation.
3. These people are interesting enough to write about because they all make scientific discoveries that are either still used today or are the basis of something that is used today.
Style
1. The author used more of a journalistic style where he focused straight on the facts and explained how they related to the subject he was discussing. You have to understand that the part of this book with characters in it was largely based on historical figures. He used these historical figures and stories about these people to explain how complex theories worked sand how they are applicable today.
2. The author does not really focus on describing the appearance of his characters, he is more interested in describing what they contributed to astrophysics and how it relates to the subject of the book. These choices kind of create an atmosphere that is dull to read. There are no real characters that you "like" because none of them are developed. The book was not supposed to be one that is telling a story of character's lives, however, it is just purely informational.
3. Right from the start you can tell the author loves the subject that the book is about. He in fact tells us his background in the subject matter and how his whole life has been devoted to it. This creates a tone of understanding, he understands what he is writing about and you call tell by the way he writes. If you've ever tried to explain something complex to a 5 year old, you know what I am talking about. He does this except in a way of explaining to a grown person without a background in the subject. The book creates a mood of learning. There is no reason to read this book other than to learn about astrophysics. He therefore creates a type of environment where you want to learn more, its hard to explain.
4. The author is IN LOVE with the subject. I would believe it if he considered himself asexual and his one true love was astrophysics. All jokes aside, he is meant to do what he does. He enjoys discovering things and teaching them to other people, it doesn't hurt that he is a freaking genius. The reason he wrote the piece is probably to get a wider variety of people interested in the subject and to make it less taboo. A lot of what he talks about in the book contradicts thoughts of a creator but he wants everyone to be able to read the book and take some kind of meaning out of it.
5. The author of the book becomes a name dropper. He mentions so many historical scientists that you have no choice other than to look up who they are. Sure, he gives a brief definition of who they are/were but leaves you with a large enough interest to look them up outside of the reading. I could look up any of the people he mentioned in the book and read extensively about who they are/were. This helped me gain a better understanding of who these darn scientists were that have tortured me by creating complex theories.
Enduring Memory
I expect to remember many things from this book. I HOPE to remember most of the things that were discussed but I know I won't always remember the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics. I will, however, remember simple things like the infinite expansion of our universe. I will also remember things Hawking said about God and why his existence is really doubtful. In meetings with the Catholic church, he was asked to help them decide where the church should lay its laws for creationism. They believed that they could set the time of creation at the big bang and that would still allow for the existence of a God, he reluctantly agreed. He knew in his head that this explanation was very doubtful, but went along with it anyway. This book in a way relates to the subject we are covering in class at the moment, the value of life. If what Hawking says is true, there is no life after death, why not live your life to the fullest? This gives some people no reason to live, but I believe it should give people EVERY reason to live. If you know that these 30, 50, 70 years were the only ones you will ever live, why not enjoy your life and make it great? Do not dwell in the past or worry about your future, after all, Hawking was told that his time of death was sometime back in the 60's. He did not expect to live very much longer after his diagnosis with Lou Gehrig's disease. This did not deter him from gaining his degree and pursuing a career in astrophysics. He can be a lesson to us all that if life puts you down, get back up, tell it to screw off and live life to the fullest.
1A. This book is about Physics. Most of the topics discussed in this book are hard to grasp and I therefore felt lost a lot of the time while reading it. I found myself having to reread many of the chapters but I am glad I did. After completing the book, I feel like a have peered into the minds of some of the smartest people to ever live on Earth. People like Newton, Eisenstein, and Hawking. Hawking does the best he can to explain extremely complicated theories to people that have no background knowledge of the subject. He does a pretty good job at explaining it and I feel I could give a rudimentary explanation of most of the theories. He explains how all of these things relate the the universe and explains the origin of space. He goes into extreme detail about black holes and speaks deeply about the big bang.
1B. A book that is probably meant for people who have a simple understanding of Physics prior to reading it. The book gives great explanations of what time is and how the universe works.
2. The author chose to write about this subject because it is what he has devoted his entire life to. He has been studying space and theoretical physics for over 40 years and has developed some of the theories detailed in the book, so who better to write about it than him? He is probably the person on Earth that has the best understanding of theoretical physics and therefore can easily explain it to someone who has no clue what he is talking about.
3. I have always been interested in space so as I was wandering around the Santa Maria Public Library it caught my eye. I had obviously heard of Stephen Hawking and read the introduction to the book. It seemed like something I would enjoy. At first I did not want to keep reading because it was a difficult read, however after powering through the initial dislike, I found it was a very interesting topic that I ended up enjoying.
4. The book seemed very realistic to me. After all, he was basically explaining how we came into existence and what was to come of our future as humans, what is anymore realistic? I love reading and watching documentaries about space so I knew some of the basic principles he was talking about. I could connect most of the writing to stuff I had heard of before. It was when he started explaining difficult to understand theories when I began to check out.
People
1. A lot of the people that Hawking described in this book were dead long before he was born. He therefore had never met them and had to come to his own conclusions about how they may have acted. I believe he described most of them how they probably were, he is a very intelligent man, after all. Hawking seems to have a deep admiration for the physicists he writes about, as many of them came up with principles he would later use to further his career. Hawking also describes many of his colleagues. He is always admirable to those that have helped further the subject of astrophysics in the last century and seems to enjoy working with these people. All of them have a want to make sense of life and the universe. Unfortunately, they will all be dead before we are technologically able to figure it out.
2. It's hard to describe two people mentioned in the book as they weren't really described in great detail. They were all extremely smart people. If you think that reading about and trying learn these complex theories is difficult, imagine being the one who created them. What all of these people have in common is that they will be remembered forever. Hawking does a great job at making you feel like he knew these people. I mean obviously he never met Isaac Newton or Galileo Galilei, but he seems to know a lot about their work and motivation.
3. These people are interesting enough to write about because they all make scientific discoveries that are either still used today or are the basis of something that is used today.
Style
1. The author used more of a journalistic style where he focused straight on the facts and explained how they related to the subject he was discussing. You have to understand that the part of this book with characters in it was largely based on historical figures. He used these historical figures and stories about these people to explain how complex theories worked sand how they are applicable today.
2. The author does not really focus on describing the appearance of his characters, he is more interested in describing what they contributed to astrophysics and how it relates to the subject of the book. These choices kind of create an atmosphere that is dull to read. There are no real characters that you "like" because none of them are developed. The book was not supposed to be one that is telling a story of character's lives, however, it is just purely informational.
3. Right from the start you can tell the author loves the subject that the book is about. He in fact tells us his background in the subject matter and how his whole life has been devoted to it. This creates a tone of understanding, he understands what he is writing about and you call tell by the way he writes. If you've ever tried to explain something complex to a 5 year old, you know what I am talking about. He does this except in a way of explaining to a grown person without a background in the subject. The book creates a mood of learning. There is no reason to read this book other than to learn about astrophysics. He therefore creates a type of environment where you want to learn more, its hard to explain.
4. The author is IN LOVE with the subject. I would believe it if he considered himself asexual and his one true love was astrophysics. All jokes aside, he is meant to do what he does. He enjoys discovering things and teaching them to other people, it doesn't hurt that he is a freaking genius. The reason he wrote the piece is probably to get a wider variety of people interested in the subject and to make it less taboo. A lot of what he talks about in the book contradicts thoughts of a creator but he wants everyone to be able to read the book and take some kind of meaning out of it.
5. The author of the book becomes a name dropper. He mentions so many historical scientists that you have no choice other than to look up who they are. Sure, he gives a brief definition of who they are/were but leaves you with a large enough interest to look them up outside of the reading. I could look up any of the people he mentioned in the book and read extensively about who they are/were. This helped me gain a better understanding of who these darn scientists were that have tortured me by creating complex theories.
Enduring Memory
I expect to remember many things from this book. I HOPE to remember most of the things that were discussed but I know I won't always remember the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics. I will, however, remember simple things like the infinite expansion of our universe. I will also remember things Hawking said about God and why his existence is really doubtful. In meetings with the Catholic church, he was asked to help them decide where the church should lay its laws for creationism. They believed that they could set the time of creation at the big bang and that would still allow for the existence of a God, he reluctantly agreed. He knew in his head that this explanation was very doubtful, but went along with it anyway. This book in a way relates to the subject we are covering in class at the moment, the value of life. If what Hawking says is true, there is no life after death, why not live your life to the fullest? This gives some people no reason to live, but I believe it should give people EVERY reason to live. If you know that these 30, 50, 70 years were the only ones you will ever live, why not enjoy your life and make it great? Do not dwell in the past or worry about your future, after all, Hawking was told that his time of death was sometime back in the 60's. He did not expect to live very much longer after his diagnosis with Lou Gehrig's disease. This did not deter him from gaining his degree and pursuing a career in astrophysics. He can be a lesson to us all that if life puts you down, get back up, tell it to screw off and live life to the fullest.
Lit Anal #3
Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer
Topics/Events
1A. "Into the Wild" focuses on the stories and travels of Chris McCandless. He was a college graduated that decided to leave everything he had behind and live on the road. Without any sufficient amount of money he set off west, departing from Georgia. He traveled all over the country, most of which was without a car of his own. He hitched rides with anyone who would pick him up. He traveled for a couple of years before making his final journey, one to Alaska. It was here that Chris unfortunately died in a bus that he had been taking shelter inside of.
1B. The story of a young man who was fed up with the life he had been living and therefore set off on a cross-country journey that eventually led to his demise.
2. The author chose to write about Chris and others who had similar adventures because it was something he could relate to. The author tells a story of his own abandoning of society to be alone in the wild. He was able to relate Chris's story to his own and therefore thought he could portray it in an interesting way.
3. I chose this book because it was one that I had always wanted to read but never got around to do it. I had seen the movie and I knew it was a book. My sister happened to read it a couple of weeks ago, (right around the time we were choosing our lit analysis books), and she suggested I read it. The book caught my attention right away because I love reading things that are real stories but can still keep you reading, which is what the book did to me.
4. This book was very realistic. It mentioned things that I think many people can relate to. Chris was someone who could not stand the upper-middle class lifestyle that was presented for him. He was an independent person that did not like to get help from anyone. He had been this way since he was little and I guess one day he decided that he was done and took a leap of faith. He did not know how this journey would go or where it would take him but he knew it would be somewhere better than where he was presently. I think many people can relate to the feeling of wanting to get out of a situation and start new.
People
1. The author not only must create his character through interpretations, he must create through his interpretations of other peoples interpretations. That may sound confusing but the author never actually met Chris McCandless and therefore all information he got was from people who had met him. The author had to listen to these people's thoughts about Chris and interpret them in his own way. The author seems to write in a way that persuades you to envy Chris.
2. A) Chris McCandless: There is so much to say about him but I will keep it short. He was good at just about anything he set his mind to. He was a scholar in school, great at playing music instruments and the team captain of his high school cross country team. He was short but fit with dark hair and "angelic" eyes. He is someone that is completely caught up in his own thoughts, one that has many friends but would rather spend his time alone. He seemed very cynical by description. He was very intelligent and strong willed, it was impossible to change his mind or tell him what to do.
B) Jon Waterman: Jon was another adventurer who was only talked about for a few pages. He was someone who came long before Chris but had similar desires. He was a small man but very fit. He had a passion for climbing and at the age out 16 he scaled Mt. McKinley, becoming the third youngest person ever to do so. People who knew him described him as being very odd and unstable. His parents split up when he was young and his father abandoned him. He grew up fighting for himself and therefore wanted to live a life of adventure, deciding to "live off the land". It seems he died on 3/13/81, we know this as the last time he inscribed something onto a rock. It is believed that he died shortly after on the summits of Denali.
3. Both of these characters had interesting reasons for their abandonment of society and both had tragic endings. Readers are quicker to enjoy a book that has a character like Chris who they can relate to and the fact that you know he is going to die makes you read on. Jon was interesting to read about because it gave another perspective of someone who went into the wild.
4. He uses the words/thoughts of others to reveal who Chris was. Almost all of his descriptions of Chris come from people who had met him along his journey. Many more come from his family members. He gives you their thoughts on Chris and lets you build your own opinion on him. The information is presented to you and you are left to figure out what kind of person he was.
5. When attempting to describe Chris, he shifts to the use of dialogue that friends/family have told him. He provides readers with ample amounts of descriptions that were given to him by people who knew Chris.
6. Chris seems to be a static character. While he did make a decision to abandon his old life for a new one, I don't believe he is dynamic. His attitude towards his journey seemingly never changes and it does not feel like he regrets doing it. He is living the life he wants to live and feels good about it.
7. Although I enjoyed the reading and could relate to Chris, I did not come out with the feeling that I had met Chris. When it comes to reading I do not have the best imagination so it is hard for me to picture myself meeting Chris.
Style
1. The way the book is written makes it feel like a fiction book. I mean sure, everything that is written about actually happened, but it seems to good to be true. The way he describes Chris's life and his journey makes it sort of unbelievable. To me it seems that if this was written a little differently it could be a fiction novel that many people would buy and love.
2. The author describes people through dialogue. Most of the book is focused on dialogue and/or thoughts about conversations people had with Chris.
3. You can tell that the author envies Chris. He writes in such a way that would persuade you to like Chris. He describes him as a very likable guy who just had weird ambitions. His tone is one of respect and envy. The book makes you feel happy and sympathetic towards Chris.
5. The author mentions tons of newspaper articles and others that had been written about Chris. I haven't gotten around to looking them up and reading about them but I assume they would further my understanding of Chris as a person and his journey into the wild. He also gives a few transcripts of letters that were sent after the founding of Chris's body. It was crazy to see how many people criticized Chris for doing what he did. Why must someone be looked down upon for doing what they want to do? (assuming it is not something illegal)
Enduring Memory
I think the main thing that I will take away from this book is that you should do what you want to do. If you are sick of living one way, try something else, the worst thing that can happen is you DYING! This doesn't only apply for life changing decisions, if you are in a situation that is uncomfortable for you and you have a way of getting out, GET OUT. Sure, Chris died, but he sure had the time of his life. He did exactly what he wanted to and I bet that if he had the chance to do it again, he would. He seems like the type of person who would regret nothing as he would learn from his own mistakes. Life is actually pretty darn long so fill it up with whatever makes you happy. For Chris, this was the excitement of living off nothing but himself. He did not need the outside world, or so he thought. You can in a way relate this to Hamlet, both people were faced with decisions that would change their lives forever, and both took the road they believed was best. For Chris, it was one that he would be comfortable with while Hamlet did not know what to expect. If you were not thinking of reading this text, I suggest you do, it may be eye opening or even life changing.
2. A) Chris McCandless: There is so much to say about him but I will keep it short. He was good at just about anything he set his mind to. He was a scholar in school, great at playing music instruments and the team captain of his high school cross country team. He was short but fit with dark hair and "angelic" eyes. He is someone that is completely caught up in his own thoughts, one that has many friends but would rather spend his time alone. He seemed very cynical by description. He was very intelligent and strong willed, it was impossible to change his mind or tell him what to do.
B) Jon Waterman: Jon was another adventurer who was only talked about for a few pages. He was someone who came long before Chris but had similar desires. He was a small man but very fit. He had a passion for climbing and at the age out 16 he scaled Mt. McKinley, becoming the third youngest person ever to do so. People who knew him described him as being very odd and unstable. His parents split up when he was young and his father abandoned him. He grew up fighting for himself and therefore wanted to live a life of adventure, deciding to "live off the land". It seems he died on 3/13/81, we know this as the last time he inscribed something onto a rock. It is believed that he died shortly after on the summits of Denali.
3. Both of these characters had interesting reasons for their abandonment of society and both had tragic endings. Readers are quicker to enjoy a book that has a character like Chris who they can relate to and the fact that you know he is going to die makes you read on. Jon was interesting to read about because it gave another perspective of someone who went into the wild.
4. He uses the words/thoughts of others to reveal who Chris was. Almost all of his descriptions of Chris come from people who had met him along his journey. Many more come from his family members. He gives you their thoughts on Chris and lets you build your own opinion on him. The information is presented to you and you are left to figure out what kind of person he was.
5. When attempting to describe Chris, he shifts to the use of dialogue that friends/family have told him. He provides readers with ample amounts of descriptions that were given to him by people who knew Chris.
6. Chris seems to be a static character. While he did make a decision to abandon his old life for a new one, I don't believe he is dynamic. His attitude towards his journey seemingly never changes and it does not feel like he regrets doing it. He is living the life he wants to live and feels good about it.
7. Although I enjoyed the reading and could relate to Chris, I did not come out with the feeling that I had met Chris. When it comes to reading I do not have the best imagination so it is hard for me to picture myself meeting Chris.
Style
1. The way the book is written makes it feel like a fiction book. I mean sure, everything that is written about actually happened, but it seems to good to be true. The way he describes Chris's life and his journey makes it sort of unbelievable. To me it seems that if this was written a little differently it could be a fiction novel that many people would buy and love.
2. The author describes people through dialogue. Most of the book is focused on dialogue and/or thoughts about conversations people had with Chris.
3. You can tell that the author envies Chris. He writes in such a way that would persuade you to like Chris. He describes him as a very likable guy who just had weird ambitions. His tone is one of respect and envy. The book makes you feel happy and sympathetic towards Chris.
5. The author mentions tons of newspaper articles and others that had been written about Chris. I haven't gotten around to looking them up and reading about them but I assume they would further my understanding of Chris as a person and his journey into the wild. He also gives a few transcripts of letters that were sent after the founding of Chris's body. It was crazy to see how many people criticized Chris for doing what he did. Why must someone be looked down upon for doing what they want to do? (assuming it is not something illegal)
Enduring Memory
I think the main thing that I will take away from this book is that you should do what you want to do. If you are sick of living one way, try something else, the worst thing that can happen is you DYING! This doesn't only apply for life changing decisions, if you are in a situation that is uncomfortable for you and you have a way of getting out, GET OUT. Sure, Chris died, but he sure had the time of his life. He did exactly what he wanted to and I bet that if he had the chance to do it again, he would. He seems like the type of person who would regret nothing as he would learn from his own mistakes. Life is actually pretty darn long so fill it up with whatever makes you happy. For Chris, this was the excitement of living off nothing but himself. He did not need the outside world, or so he thought. You can in a way relate this to Hamlet, both people were faced with decisions that would change their lives forever, and both took the road they believed was best. For Chris, it was one that he would be comfortable with while Hamlet did not know what to expect. If you were not thinking of reading this text, I suggest you do, it may be eye opening or even life changing.
No comments:
Post a Comment