Saturday, April 7, 2012

Up in the Air Obituary


Great West Million Flyer Miles Club Member Dies Young
Ryan M. Bingham ironically dies at DIA waiting for his flight at the tender age of 36. He was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at the young age of 35.This resulted in frequent blackouts and memory loss.  As a former employee of ISM, he traveled around the country as a CTC (Career Transition Counseling). His passion however, was giving motivational speeches and working on his second novel, In First Class: A Businessman’s Survival Guide to Flying. He also enjoyed the company of non-committal women and gambling, which he was rather lucky at both. The secluded Airworld with its stiff, first class seats, exclusive Compass Clubs and sterile hotels were his “home,” he had no other residency and was a stranger to his family. He was born and raised in “Polk Center” had a “golden Mark Twain boyhood of State Fair corn dogs and station wagon vacations to Yellowstone” (Kirn, 53-54). He will be buried alongside his father, who was a self-made propane business man. His lasting legacy will be his gracious, anonymous donation of 1 million flyer miles to children’s hospitals. He is survived by his mother and his two sisters. R.I.P. you earned it.   
Found a cool website about flight: http://science.howstuffworks.com

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

The Meth Family

David Hubbard
Mrs. Cline
English 102
19 March 2012
                                                                  The Meth Family
                A family provides more than shelter, protection and nourishment; it gives us meaning, support and unconditional love. Families are more than the sum of the individuals. They are a powerful unit that builds communities and countries. Today the foundation of family is being ripped away by a common, cheap and dangerously addictive drug. “Methamphetamine misuse affects not just individuals, but entire families” and communities (Sheridan par. 3). Woodrell paints a realistic picture in his novel, Winter’s Bones, of the destruction of the family through meth usages. Reding paints an equally gruesome picture of a father whose life fall apart, due to his meth addiction. As the dominoes fall, we begin to see the impact that Jessup’s and Jarvis’ addiction had on their entire family, member by member, and ultimately the community.
In our patriarchal society, the man is responsible for heading the household. He is often the breadwinner if not the sole income provider. He makes the important decisions that affect a families’ welfare and ultimately he is the protector. In Winter’s Bone, Jessup Dolly is societies anti-father. He left the family with no explanation and no means to provide for themselves while under the threat of losing their home. Jessup is a small, rural town meth cook, who served time behind bars previously for cooking crank. Ree discovers that Jessup was murdered due to his betrayal of the meth community in an attempt to come home.
Roland Jarvis a father, observed by Reding, was your typical, hard-working American dad. He had a family, great job, married and respected. He began using meth to increase productivity at work, working longer days and more shifts to make more money. Eventually the drug takes its toll on the man, and as the story unravels the devastating effects of meth take their toll. Jarvis loses all control with the drug when his employment status decreases. His wages suffer, his hours increase and the work load doubles. He fails, as does Jessup Dolly, to realize meth is destroying the foundation of his humanity. He soon comes to terms that he is working for meth. He finds out meth can be made at home, there for he quits his job and becomes a cook. Much like the characters depicted in Woodrell’s Winters Bone. Both expose that financial hardships increase the likelihood for people to turn to meth. As Jarvis continues down the rabbit hole, eventually he hits the bottom, blows himself up and his house from the flammable chemicals used in his meth lab. Woodrell also mentions the horrors of Meth lab's exploding, that the toxic chemicals can melt your skin clean off, even years after the fire. Both are stressing the dangers of meth cooking and the lack of this perception by those who do it.
Roland Jarvis is described gruesomely in detail as to the damage his body underwent when the Meth lab in his basement exploded. "His skin was dripping off his body in sheets" (Reding 42). Jarvis was so high on meth; he was running in and out of his house trying to salvage possessions, not knowing he was literally cooking himself alive.  "His nose was all but gone now, too, and he ran back and forth among the gathered neighbors, unable to scream, for his esophagus and his voice box had cooked inside his throat" (Reding 42). Jarvis divorced his wife, receives limited visitation to his kids, lost his house, and nearly his life. This horror is similar to Ree having to remove her father’s hands to prove his death. Evil and horrible things come from meth.
The mother is the nurturer and teacher. She also takes on the roles of housekeep and child rearing. Connie Dolly is an absent mother, who is removed from reality. Ree’s mother just sits in a chair adding to the burdens already placed on her. It is unclear why Connie is in this state, but Ree believes that meth and the trouble it brought was, “exactly the sort of shit she went crazy to get away from” (Woodrell 85). Another argument is that Connie may have damaged her brain from frequent use of crank. “Methamphetamine kills by causing heart failure, brain damage and stroke. It causes more damage to the brain than alcohol, heroin or cocaine” (Boulard par. 61).  Ree loves her mother, but is angry that she is unable to help the family, the way a mother should. Jarvis’ wife also hurts the family more than she helped, “born at the peak of his parents’ intravenous use, [their child] was wearing a colostomy bag by the age of ten” (Reding 43). Parents who use meth are no parents at all.
With her father gone and her mother a burden, Ree Dolly is left to raise her siblings. Her younger brothers, Sonny and Harold, are a constant stress and problem. Sonny the oldest brother, was a fighter, “his fists made hard young knots, and he’d become a scrapper at school” (Woodrell 7). Sheridan concluded in her study that aggression is common in young children whose parents use meth. “In homes were methamphetamine is misused, multiple stressors such as exposure to adult violence, criminality and child maltreatment may place children at risk for the development of physical aggression” (Sheridan par.6). Violence is common in the Dolly clan and is frequently witnessed by and targeted at the children.
Ree internalizes her anger, unlike her brother’s outward anger, by forming an inappropriate relationship, in her mind, with her friend Gail and ostracizing males. Sheridan found that, “girls' expression of aggression often takes the form of social/relational aggression; that is, harming others through manipulating their relationships, for example, through malicious gossip or exclusion” (Sheridan par.68). Ree resents men, due to the abusive treatment she has received from them in the past including a sexual incident with a family friend. Ree was raped by Little Arthur after he drugged her. Sexual abuse is often common in meth homes, since parents are often neglectful of parental responsibilities during “crashes.” Methamphetamine misuse is associated not only with poor judgment and impulse control, but with heightened sexual arousal” (Sheridan par.71).  
Ree is a teenager who dreams of removing herself from her family and the community by joining the Army. She stresses, that her younger brothers will grow up without carrying on the families’ legacy of cooking, which if not for her prevention, would surely happen. “So many Dolly kids were…ruined before they had chin hair, groomed to live outside square law and abide by the remorseless blood-soaked commandments” (Woodrell 8). Ree sees the evils of meth and refuses it several times in the novel. She is strong, fearless and heroic and one of the few characters in the book who do not use.
Extended family can be equally important as the nuclear family. Aunts, Uncles, Grandparents, cousins and all other blood related relatives are an additional support group. In Ree’s story, she turns to her relatives when in need and they turn her away. They lie to her, threaten her and physically harm her. A majority of Ree’s extended family uses and/or cooks crank and a side effect is, “heightened levels of both anxiety and aggression to paranoia, hallucinations and even psychosis (Redfield par. 5).  Her extended family is scared and paranoid that she’ll uncover an inconvenient truth about their meth cooking and drug dealing.
Families are intertwined with the community in which they live. If one suffers, so does the other. In Ree’s small town the effects of meth are evident from the burned meth labs to the crooked cops to the murders. This creates internal pressure and a feeling of fear as well as many other social burdens. “For the states, the manufacture and use of methamphetamine presents a plateful of social, child welfare, environmental, criminal justice and economic challenges, all begging to be addressed at the same time” (Boulard par.10). Reding, upon investigating meth in small rural towns, interviewed a doctor who described meth as “sociocultural cancer” (Reding 11). It destroys a culture, by infecting individuals and spreading. Incurring a high cost, both financially and emotionally, on all.
 Methamphetamine destroys families, creates violence, induces crime, and kills. They reveal their positions differently, but the message is the same. Woodrell's Ree is an example of a broken life, due to the destructive forces meth harnesses towards the user and the people around the user. Ree is caught in a storm of pain, anger, forced responsibility and early age maturity. She has many roles: a daughter, a mother, a sister, father, a care taker, and a power of attorney. Though, in reality she is still just a child. Jarvis is the American dream crushed by a downward spiral, in which he takes his family. Her journey and Jarvis’ tale are pleads for help to the common family, plagued with meth abuse, and the lives in which meth destroys.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Response to "Methland"


Hello,
My apologies for posting my #7 comment so late in the afternoon on the day it is due. Finals week can do that to us! I am going to write on the the "Methland" excerpt, primarily because I enjoyed the read and that it fits wonderfully for what I intend to write on my #3 essay.

Summary: Nick Reding is a small town guy, who steps out of the rural town from which he grows up to traveling the country writing articles for a magazine. He stumbles across a fascinating drug, Meth, that has a devastating affect on its users. His curiosity is sparked and his research takes him as far back as the late 1800's in Japan where it was first invented by chemist, to present day, being made with products found at local drugstores combined in a bathtub constructing the drug. He travels the nation in search of answers to how this epidemic came to be, and is able to drawl many conclusions. He pointed out that many small towns seem to have the worst problem with meth, giving good reasons to his observations such as demands of working long days where your productivity defines your livelihood.

In this article, the writer brings about several characters in which he interviewed and was able to gather information into the life of a drug addict. He dug deep and found one meth addict, Roland Jarvis, with a truly morbid story and goes into gruesome details to disturb the reader and embed the overall statement. I think it was necessary for him give vivid details about a man blowing up his meth lab, "His skin was dripping off his body in sheets" (Methland). Reding throughout this read, makes many claims about meth, its existence, and its users. Meth is habit forming and damaging, he gives an abundance of scientifical information to its affects on the brain and the body while using meth. Historically, he presents that meth has been a problem for much longer than suspected, being used for soldiers in world wars to keep them going. He mentions several times throughout, how the most morbid murders on record had correlations to methamphetamine. Reding points out that social status is a contributor, poorer, working class, young, white males, are the primary users. 

Overall his story is powerful and adds further insight into our readings from "Winters Bone". It relates immensely because the story of "Winters Bone" takes place in the mid-west, Ozark country. Reding makes claims that the mid-west has the most profound impact of meths destructing forces. In the novel by Daniel Woodrell, it shows how meth destroys families and corrupts the community. The same correlation that Nick Reding points out with his article. Hand in hand, the two make great compliments to one another and I am exciting to begin writing.

-David


http://meth-kills.org/ Great information and facts about meth.

WORKS CITED

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Response to Winters Bone



Hello,
I chose to make a character analysis for you on power point. I have already read the novel and watched the movie. I tried not to spoil it for you and made the descriptions vague so you can use them as you read for a deeper understanding of the novel and its people. Enjoy!



Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Draft Essay # 2


David Hubbard
Eng.102
Feb. 18, 2012
                                                                     Lack of Humanity
                The Industrial Revolution threw away empathy, compassion and understanding for a better profit margin. This ethical and moral shift, never left the minds’ or the hearts’ of the wealthy and elite. In today’s work place, it is sad to see but profits and productivity trump the worker. The worker is merely a pair of hands or an annoyance, in the case of Bartleby. Industrialization, and now globalization, is stripping away the humanity of the world.   
 Emotional bonds and personal connects were prevalent and necessary in pre-industrial apprenticeships. To take an apprentice was to invest in a long-term relationship.  With the pace of mass production and the large, cold factories people got lost in the crowd and often forgotten or ignored. It was too much work to become emotionally involved with staff and in many cases undignified. Bartleby is society’s cry for help. In contrast, the narrator is the industrial revolutions’ coldness and aloofness.
The narrator introduces his subordinates in a negative light, focusing on their faults and referring to them by humiliating and offensive nicknames. With these actions he is setting a president of superiority by belittling them. He describes Turkey as an incompetent aging drunk with afternoon withdraws. Nippers also an alcoholic, discontent in life and work mirrors Turkey; “their fits relieved each other like guards” ( par.13). The narrator subtly mocks and jokes about these men’s lives being train wrecks, but justify it by the fact they get some work done in the office. He expects respect, but refuses to return it. He feels control and power through demeaning his employees and removing himself personally. 
   Upon hiring Bartleby, the narrator is shocked, when his authority is challenged. Unable to handle this insubordinate action, the narrator chooses to ignore it. The narrator chooses not to deal with it because he does not know how to. He like many business owners inherited his success and did not earn it.  This, have and have not society, leads to a superiority and often incompetence.  When his authority is questions a second time, he asks his subordinates what they recommended. They replied, “Fire him.” The narrator was hoping that peer pressure would do the job, that he is unable to do.
Problems escalate in the office with Bartleby, but still the narrator chooses to ignore. It is easier for him to ignore Bartleby, then confront him and get to the root of the problem.  The narrator justify ignoring him, by stating, “he means no mischief…he intends no insolence” ( par. 53). The narrator lets this issue fester and has an “evil impulse,” leading to the a rising temper and still no results ( para. 53). The narrator is confused as to why a man produces nothing and is almost envious of this fact. Bartleby goes against the grain of society, and this perplexes the narrator. The narrator is a machine; he continues without stopping and cannot understand why others don’t.
The narrator discovers that Bartleby is sleeping in the office and states an unfamiliar feeling of sympathy.  He states, “Happiness courts the light, so we deem the world is gay; but misery hides aloof” (par 89). The narrator was content living his life of grandeur and vacations, and never thought of the others. He was content being oblivious. Now the narrator has to address undesirable feelings. The narrator is beginning to see employees as people with needs, but chooses to ignore this and not get involved. The narrator is losing productivity in his office, by allowing Bartleby to stay, and the narrator is unable to identify and address his feelings towards Bartley. 
The narrator finally gains the courage to address the office issue, not the personal issue of Bartleby. When Bartleby refuses to leave, the narrator fantasizes about “diabolical murder for sweet charity’s sake” (par.165). Still he cannot acknowledge the problem and tries desperately to find quick solutions to cauterize the issue. The narrator in a final act of desperation attempts to leave the problem, by moving the office. He hopes he will be able to leave this problem and never address the issue. He is still refusing to acknowledge Bartleby as a person.
Once Bartleby is arrested, the narrator finally realizes the gravity of the situation and steps outside of the industrial mindset. He sheds the machine and desperately tries to repent for his mistakes. Unable to in time, Bartleby dies a sad and lonely death. The narrator finally realizes that life is far more important than production.  The narrator seems perplexed and annoyed at humanity and this inconvenient awakening.
The narrator’s denial, justification, and avoidance is that of a machine. He is a privileged business owner who does not have the time or the capacity to express sympathy or empathy. A persistent problem, forces the narrator to finally awaken and become human-open, compassionate, and vulnerable. Traits that are foreign to industry. 

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Response to Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-Street



"I prefer not to" a phrase that rings throughout the text when Bartleby replies to others. This reading was slightly dry for my taste, but it kept the reader interested to find out why Bartleby behaved the way he did. The story brought up many human emotions when pondering what must be done to this poor man, who lost all will to work or even live. Its a sad story with pigments of humor and suspense, and leaves the reader drooling at the end for some more information on Bartleby, which the narrator gives a modest hint, though still leaves no real explanation. Overall I really appreciated this work of literary art, especially because it brought about so many emotions and really made you reflect yourself how you would react if this situation presented itself to you.

The characters are full of life and his descriptions really portray a richness in human traits. The narrator even gives them unique nicknames based on specific traits he deemed worthy to use as identifying them. We have Ginger-nut, a boy who eats ginger nuts, Turkey is an alcoholic elderly man who has a bobbling hand in the afternoon making ink blogs on copies, and lastly Nippers, who is a young man who is also an alcoholic and is very grouchy in the mornings, but pleasant in the afternoon. Nippers and Turkey played a comic relieve in this story with their distinct personalities that the narrator paints vividly and their at times humorously crude remarks.

When Bartleby is introduced in this story, you get a picture that he is aloof to the world, devoted only to doing his job. You admire him for his seriousness and laugh when he is asked to do little things like walk to the post office, only responding with "I'd prefer not to". The narrator is perplexed by Bartleby, the reader as the story unfolds further, begins to join the narrator in Bartleby's complexities wanting an explanation. The further the reader digs the more you know less about Bartleby, it is a unique story that leaves much debate.

My summary of this story will end with that, I really enjoyed this piece and its sadness has struck me with bewilderment, that I will seldom ever forget. The narrator is a very kind man, as well as a intellectual. He views his environment critically, seeking explanations for why the world is the way it is. I found a passage that really hit me internally, rattling my core and exposing light onto my being. It is one sentence, that can bring about the whole meaning of this story of Bartleby, and haunt you for life.

"Ah, happiness courts the light, so we deem the world is gay; but misery hides aloof, so we deem that misery there is none". (Bartleby par. 89) I was amazed by this passage, as we all can relate to it in our life, as well as understanding the moral of this story about Bartleby. Its perplexing to think about, we see happiness and forget of misery. Misery is all around us, but it hides in the shadows. Sometimes the shadow of misery, is cast over you and you find yourself shocked, as if it came out of nowhere. Its hard to respond to something you have little understanding of as well, as in the case of Bartleby. The narrator points out, misery is always around us, we just tend to not notice it until we have no choice. I feel like he dug out a trench in the soul of how we perceive good and evil, right and wrong, happiness and misery. When this phrase burns into your brain, you read further of this story and the pieces of what conspires only adds to this eternal comprehension and agonizing moral struggle.

I now contemplate what I would have done with poor Bartleby. As a reader you ache to for him to open himself up and expose the demons within that are decaying his body and soul. You are saddened that you never have a chance to get to know why Bartleby gave up on life, you just know he did. You debate it feverishly within your mind, playing out scenarios and still have little to add for explanation. This story causes the reader to look inside themselves, something rarely found when reading. I am glad to have been able to have read this piece, I enjoy all the emotions I was forced to experience. The deeper meaning I found in this story I will not forget.

 "Ah Bartleby! Ah Humanity!". (Bartleby par. 250)

After reading this story, this link adds to your foundation of the context and deeper understanding of Bartleby. Learn a little more here!

-David

WORKS CITED

Melville, Herman. "Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street." Bartleby. N.p., 2011. Web. 18 Feb 2012. <http://www.bartleby.com/129/>. 

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Summary = Observation Analysis = Arguement


Greetings!

      I am writing to express my understanding of the following; summarizing versus analyzing. Before I begin to explain the differences between the two, I would like to state when appropriate, a summary is just as important as an analysis. We must first decipher when we are required to use one or the other. As well know the difference between the two when we are trying to interpret a piece of reading, if its observing something or if its making connections to something bigger based off those observations. I don’t want you to think that I trying impose that one may seem more user friendly than the other, or more important. They are equally valuable for a writer and a reader when the time to use either of them presents itself within the literature at hand. If I am looking to read a summary of a movie, I will not want to read an analysis. I just want a brief overview of key points that might interest me enough to spend my time to read or watch it. On the other hand, if I am looking for a much deeper understanding of that movie/novel, to see if anyone has brought about any hidden meanings that I might have overlooked, I would look for a detailed analysis, not a summary.

     A summary is as I said, an “observation” of a writing, movie, article and is summed up for the reader to get the key points across. In a summary, there is no thesis statement, there is no argument for why these events or settings took place. Its simply just a panoramic picture of what took place within the text or film. When one summarizes, they merely take what they think is important in their observation and shares it with others. If I were to summarize “a Winters Bone” by Daniel Woodrell‘s. I wouldn’t go into why the story unfolded the way it did, or make statements like “Ree, a heroine, battles against the world of drugs, deceit and poverty. Her affection towards her family is so deep that she does anything to keep them safe, with a roof over their head. Crystal meth is a huge problem for people all over the United States, this book captures a glimpse into the horrifying affects of drugs and the secrecy that enshrouds people who produce and use them.”  That kind of statement is analytical, so I would have to go about it differently if I was making a summary. Something like “Ree is a young women who cares for her two brothers and her mentally unsound mother in the back woods of the Ozarks in southern Missouri. Her father is a meth cook and has a court date that if he doesn’t show up for, can allow the state to take possession over the land Ree’s family lives on. Her father disappears, and its up to Ree to find him ect.”

     I am not digging deeper for better understanding with a summary, I am just stating the obvious. So key things to remember when dealing with a summary is it tells you what happens in the story. Its detailed information about the events that took place, specific accounts of scenery and the characters within the story. Our English teacher Mrs. Cline simplified summaries as reporting. So if we look at it that way, its hard to confuse summary with analyzing. Mrs. Cline also gives us hints to recognize to decipher if it’s a summary or not, with words like “about”  and “is”. Also, we are told to ask the question “Can this be wrong?” if what your reading when asked this question, answers “No” then what you are reading is most likely a summary.

     Analyzing is wonderful for really obtaining a deeper understanding to something, whether a novel or a film, or short story, or newspaper article. Mrs. Cline refers to this as “close reading”. When we analyze something, we ask questions and find ways to dissect the text into basic parts, avidly trying to understand the context, the true meaning behind each element. Analyzing adds much more significance to events and context than summarizing, it’s the threshold before one can make speculation to what it is the author is intending. We aren’t looking at the story as a story anymore, we are looking at it as a formula, with complex molecules that when combined make up that story. I like to view analyzing as using a scientific approach to understanding what it is your reading or watching. We break apart those molecules (sections from the text), to unravel the atoms in which they were composed from (images, scenery, events, characters ect), then the tiny atomic particles that make up the atom(their significance, the meaning behind them), until we feel that we might have a sense to what the author was intending, what he/she was thinking. At this point we have what it takes to comprise an argument.

     Our instructor Mrs. Cline gives us many tools in her power point presentation describing the differences of Summary and Analysis. I hope you were all able to learn and benefit the abundance of knowledge she shared with us on this matter. One last thing, that I thought was important to remember is that a literary analysis is made from summary and description, then going to analysis, then enabling you to make your argument based off your analysis and observations.  In literary analysis you can’t have one without the other, they are chemically bound together. You need a little summary/observations to support your analysis/argument. Here is a helpful link that covers more about the differences and roles of a summary and a analysis. Thanks for reading and take care!

-David