The Writer's Dillema

Although basic rules of punctuation need to be utilized when learning how to write, strict punctuation rules inherently prohibit freedom of expression and binds men to a set of arbitrary rules that has changed and will continue to change as technology and society progress.

The rules of punctuation are like training wheels. They teach young, aspiring writers how to properly communicate with the world.  As Thomas and Austen show through their pieces, good writers have to learn the punctuation alphabet before they can start experimenting with its usage (Source B, D). But as a writer's journey progresses, he or she becomes comfortable in steering their writing in the right direction. Writers should be allowed to take off their preliminary set of wheels in exchange for the freedom of exploring the uncharted territories of style and voice. All punctuation has its own connotation and meaning: Austen personifies the articles of punctuation in her piece (Source B) to show that punctuation has stylistic qualities that can enhance any writer's work. Her lack of punctuation also shows that punctuation is not necessary in order to clearly convey meaning. When the rules of punctuation are disregarded, the articles of punctuation are transformed from artistic hindrances to powerful weapons of literature. As Thomas clearly states, "while we might have more precision and exactitude for our meaning [when adhering to punctuation rules], we would lose the essential flavor of language, which is its wonderful ambiguity," (Source D). Furthermore, the rules of punctuation are not as clearly defined as traditionalists would have you believe. The Oxford comma, which clearly changes the meaning of the sentence (Source G) is an ongoing argument that is heavily debated. As Hitchings explains, "long-established rules for grammar and punctuation is largely imagined," (Source A).  Some punctuation marks like the hedera and pilcrow used to be in style at a moment in history but have since faded from the English language (Source A). Today, twitter and other social media sites have infused new forms of punctuation into society like the hashtag and the @ symbol. This goes to show that as society and technology progress, communication will as well. Change is inevitable because "language evolves in conjunction to culture," (Source A). There is no need to worry though because change is slowly beginning to be accepted. In the 1800s, Dickinson pioneered the use of dashes in place of conventional punctuation like periods. She used dashes as a stylistic device to create tone and convey theme (Source C). Today Dickinson is known as an evolutionary master and now writers all over the world follow in her suit. Even without knowing it, the writing gods and legends bend the punctuation rules. Dolnick, perhaps unknowingly, writes, "a writer was simply not to use semicolons. Ever." (Source E): the second sentence does not fit any standard rules of punctuation; in fact, the period isn't used for anything other than pure emphasis. As writers of the modern world slowly escape the confines of strict adherence to punctuation rules they transcend the limiting boundaries of prose and poetry. They become more than writers-they become artists.

 

Damsel in Distress

Fact: men and women are not equal in today's high-flying and modern world. Women are judged based on their appearance and sexuality, while men are not. And its not a harmless social norm. Research shows that the exploitation of female sexuality in the media has led to an excessive amount of rapes and other situations where women are taken advantage of. It's not a new concept. Viewing women as subordinate is a cultural stigma that has been around since the inception of the human race. From the days of the Puritans to even yesterday, feminists can easily argue that women have been oppressed through history. The problem is that it is still an integral part of our lives. Look at the Disney movies. Most of the heroines play the damsel in distress just waiting for their prince. This just encourages the idea that women are helpless and weak.
But contrary to popular belief women in history were not all subservient and subordinate, many of them managed success despite having to overcome sexual biases. Elizabeth Blackwell formed the Red Cross. Marie Curie made unparalleled discoveries in radioactivity. Other females have even taken advantage of their sexuality. Marilyn Monroe used her "weakness" and used it to succeed it in a male dominated industry. And even in more recent times, women like Madonna and Miley Cyrus continue to breakthrough cultural norms. They may get criticized but at the same time they achieve their goals.
If we want equality socially and politically we have to be willing to fight for it and go to extremes to challenge social stigmas. Yet it seems as if today, we play the damsel in distress, hoping that congress will come and grant us political equality and all its equal rights. We need to stop playing the victim of the male infested world and take charge. And while we scream for equality do we actually embrace it? Take a look at your personal life. Do you pay on dates? Do you ask guys out? Would you get down on one knee and propose to a man? Are you willing to get past an anti-feminist ideal? People tend to view these social traditions in a different light. No, many people say, romance is different. But is it really? Aren't we creating our own double standard? This double standard seems to be the problem. How can we complain that males judge us on appearance if we judge each other? How can we claim that women are empowered if we can't even run a Sadie Hawkins dance as a result of girls being to scared to ask guys? And looking at the women's draft created last year, how many so called feminists were happy about that? It seems as if many want the benefits without the strings attached. Trying to change the way women are seen in the world is no easy endeavor, but it starts by embracing all aspects of the feminine ideals. As Gandhi said, change begins with one person. So as you contemplate your commitment to the self righteous cause of female equality, you can ask yourself: How feminist are you really?

Fate has it

Fate or Free will? The age old question that continues to haunt human kind: are we in charge of our own destinies? Some like to believe that the choices we make are our own, that nothing but time itself will tell us where we end up. And yet some like to believe that their path is chosen out for them, that no matter what we do the pieces are set and they will fall into their selected places.
In The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, the entire colony is enamored with the idea of Predestination. A concept that decrees that from the second you are born you are either doomed or saved. This is their fatal flaw. (There is a reason that Puritans are all but extinct.) It holds them back and prevents them from accepting changes that occur in the world. Chillingworth, a once noble man, is turned hideous and deformed by his thirst for revenge. "It has all been a dark necessity...It is our fate. Let the black flower blossom as it may." (Hawthorne 171). His idea of fate hinders him from moving forward with his life. Chillingworth  may believe that it is his fate to die a horrible man or he might be using it as a cover, a excuse for his misdemeanors. Admittedly, fate can also lead us to do good things. How many times have heroes followed their "destinies" to that ever perfect happily ever after. It gives some men hope and a reason to believe even if there isn't one.
Whether good or bad, believing in a destiny prevents us from taking responsibility for our actions. If we think "it was bound to happen anyways" then we lose the ability to change it. Hester can't move on with her life because she is tied down by her fate, or her preconceived notion of her fate. She accepts the role in life given to her instead of moving on and out of Boston.

 In the end, it doesn't matter if we have fate or free will. It matters if we believe that we have the
power to make our decisions and craft our own futures. It's important that we consciously make the decisions that impact our surroundings. It's like the saying, "If it's meant to be, then it will happen." It prevents you from fighting for what you want. It's giving up the steering wheel to be a backseat passenger on your own life. We have to believe we have free will because otherwise we let life take control of us, instead of the other way around. Essentially fate, or the idea of fate, restricts us from being aware of our capabilities.  Giving into a fate is like boxing yourself in a preconceived notion of what you think you can do. We must act as if every decision could change our lives or we cease to live.

Kirk vs. Spock

     Emotional appeals are everywhere. From the TV, to magazines, to billboards, and t-shirts galore, we spend a good majority of our day influenced by advertisements. And it's nailed down to a science: puppies for the awe factor, models for the wow factor, hashtags for the trend factor; we are invariably affected by our environment. Advertisers are smart; they know that consumers respond to emotional appeals. It's a technique that is tried and true. Take a quick glance at history: speeches and literature are littered with emotional appeals, in fact, they practically ooze hormones. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream", Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" and Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" are highly effective and well remembered because they played off the sentiments of the public. Sure there were probably speeches based solely on numbers and data, but we don't remember them. 

So why are emotional appeals so potent? I mean we're obviously a very emotional race.

 It's because humans aren't solitary creatures. We live in mass societies, we have rules and groups because we not only survive, but  we thrive on interactions. Emotions are a response to these interactions, they stem from a need to connect with others and empathize. Emotions separate humans from the machine.

So emotions are a part of human nature, but is that beneficial or injurious? Emotions aren't always a good thing. Though society places high value on protagonists who follow their heart or act upon their instincts, emotions cause irrationality. Mob mentality, hubris, jealousy, hatred, anger, and prejudice have led to wars, catastrophes, and the deaths of innocents. All evil comes from the same cache where good is created. 

Hitler used emotional appeals to manipulate the German sentiments against Jews. Castro did the same with the Cuban people and started a revolution. Lenin and Stalin managed to take over half of Europe and Russia by preying on the emotions of a broken, poverty-stricken people. It seems as if emotions have become our fatal flaw. The passion and care we feel can so easily be taken advantage of and manipulated into something much more sinister. 

So would it be better if we no longer had emotions? We would be able to think clearly and rationally and millions of lives would be saved. Or would they? It is our compassion and sense of obligation that makes us fight. It's this fierce stubbornness and need to protect that makes us try and save those who can't fight.  And it's our sense of right and wrong and love that allows us to sacrifice ourselves for the good of mankind. 

It's the classic head vs. heart: Kirk or Spock. Do you play it safe because the numbers tell you it won't happen or do you risk everything for one dream? Sure emotions can lead people astray but it is our nature. It is our humanity that allows us to feel these things, good and bad. It is our humanity that gives us the ability to love and remember. We don't know whether our humanity will be our downfall or out saving grace, but today it is a gift, so embrace it. 

The Eye of the Beholder

"If we could but paint with the hand what we could see with the eye."-Honore de Balzac

Paintings, as we've learned, are a form of visual rhetoric, a contemporary argument stressing that art conveys cultural and sensory meanings as opposed to purely aesthetic appeal. This image was painted during General Warren's death at the Battle of Bunker Hill, an American defeat, by John Trumbull. And anyone who looks closely at the painting can see that it was meant to incite anti-British emotions.

Analyzing a painting 101. Almost always, the painter has an ulterior motive in choosing colors because they are known to create strong emotions. Trumbull makes an emotional appeal to religion, when he paints the British a bright, bloody red, an allusion the demons and the devil. In contrast, the revolutionaries are painted in a simplistic, wholesome white, a possible reference to God and the angels. The pale blue sky juxtaposes the black showing the irony of war on a beautiful day. Lighting also plays an essential part of a piece. Here there is almost a spotlight on the dying man. Directional focus points here as well: any man with a face is seen looking at the dying man. The dying General Warren is the primary focus in the piece because his brutal death can evoke colonial sympathy and rally them to fight even after a devastating loss. The British ruthlessness is emphasized here as the soldiers try to kill the injured fighter. Also, if you divide the painting up in thirds, the middle third is filled with British soldiers, while the left side has a notably smaller number of colonial fighters. The painter subtly insinuates that the revolutionaries were outnumbered by showing a limited view of the battle and shrouding much of the colonial side in blackness. A painting bias is clearly shown here. But how much of it was true?

Trumbull was in fact at the Battle of Bunker Hill, but it is not known for sure if he witnessed General Warren's death. He obviously couldn't have been painting this as the battle went on so it is based off a a mere memory. It looks realistic in its portrayal of human form. but the lighting, colors, and schematics, are too convenient to be true. So paintings became the earliest forms of meta-fiction. Here Trumbull displays the emotional truth, the fear, horror, and grief, that he felt. But whether or not it is what actually happened cannot be discerned.

In a time where non persuasive writing contained only statistical and quantitative facts with little skew, paintings showed the completely biased emotional truths. In literature, writers could leave out what they felt was emotional bias, but in paintings, leaving out information makes the piece incomplete. And as we move towards the present day we can see the two genres of communication merging together. Paintings become more abstract, entering the realm of fiction, while books now show the emotional truth. All previous boundaries have now become in-distinctive. So what is real? Well, truth is in the eye of the beholder. 

The Art of Name

      Names are the first thing given to us as a child and the last thing we have when we die. It is constant and you only get one. A name can garner respect and foster shame. Our names define us. It is a single word that encompasses our entire being.
      In The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, Proctor initially cares a great amount about his name. He could have saved himself and his wife had he not waited so long to call out Abigail, but he didn't want his reputation (name) tainted. While it was noble for him to save his name in the end by withholding his confession, if he given up his name he would have been able to raise his children instead of abandoning them.
     This is because the name is actually what others think of us. It allows others to define us because the name is credited with the accomplishments, not the person. Rumors wouldn't be so effective if we didn't have names: they cause damage because names are inexplicably linked to power and social status. Names essentially represent all outward materialistic things, not the inner person or conscious. How can we let one word describe a lifetime of memories, accomplishments, and traits. Our names shouldn't embody our dreams and hopes. When we identify ourselves with out names we bind ourselves to things that may not even matter. And it makes you wonder: are you your name?

The Dark Knight

     It all started when man switched from pagan religions to modern religions. Instead of praying to the gods of weather and harvest for forgiveness, they found a way to blame people. Conditions people couldn't control like natural disasters became god's punishments. In constant fear of God's wrath, humans began the game of blaming others for the natural hardships they faced. Here and then the scapegoat was created. The man or woman on whom society could blame their problems. John Proctor became Salem's sacrifice.

     The people of Salem allowed Proctor to die because they were scared and they needed for life to be prosperous again. Even after they knew the children had lied, they went on with hanging, because to turn back is to admit wrongdoing. But its more than that. Why would anybody believe children, the ones who have imaginary friends in the first place? The Salem people believed the girls because children are the hope for the future. Children are the fruit of all struggles: everything a parent does is to ensure that their child can carry on comfortably. To admit that the girls had made everything up was to admit that the society had failed to culture the children and to pass on their heritage and values. It meant that the entire Puritan dream, to be the beacon of hope and "the city upon a hill", had collapsed and that they had failed.

     Similarly, in The Dark Knight, Batman takes the fall for the death of Harvey Dent. Dent, an electoral candidate campaigning against crime in Gotham turns to the dark side when his fiancée is killed in the crossfire, and proceeds to commit murders of his own. When Dent dies as a repercussion of his actions, Batman takes full responsibility and becomes the villain. Even though Dent was no longer a good man, he was still the symbol of hope, change, and innocence in Gotham City. To tarnish that image, after his death, was to give up all hope of ridding the city of crime. The city didn't need a hero, so Batman became the villain. The truth didn't matter because idea needed to be protected.
     Men like John Proctor and Batman gave up everything to protect the people they loved. They became scapegoats because that's what society's fragile fabrication needed them to be. And while their downfall could have been prevented, it was by no means in vain. John Proctor's death allowed for society, no matter how flawed, to continue. His confession was so readily accepted because Salem needed a villain. Society will always need a villain, even a fake one, to push them towards the light, towards good, and towards the future.