Farewell, English Composition

Ah, English 150. First of all, I have to say that through this course I have cemented what I already knew. I am a reader, NOT a writer. Reading a novel is relaxing and enjoyable. You curl up, wrap in a blanket and go for it. Maybe sip a warm drink. You get lost in the pages. Life is good. Writing is not that. It is exhausting and stressful. Working on an essay makes my brain hurt. Working on more than one essay for different courses... excruciating. Oh, and research projects are not my cup of tea. Don’t get me wrong, I have a huge appreciation and respect for those who write. I love to read. Where would I be without writers?

As for the course content, I would say that of all the reading that we did this semester, my least favourite was Japan`s Kamikaze Pilots by Yuki Tanaka.  I personally just didn’t connect to the writing style or subject matter.  I would say my favourite by a landslide was Kurt Vonnegut`s How to Write with Style. I liked it so much that I do plan to look for one of his books and give it a try. I would say a second favourite was Code Breaker by Jim Holt. It wasn’t so much as the style, but the subject I loved in that one. Having an IT background, Alan Turing is somewhat of an icon, and who doesn’t love to read about their icons.

I thank Laurie for all of the tips and comments, although, I may try not to write again for some time. All I can think about right now is this: One more essay, just a short one, you can do it. But only one thing keeps me going. I have a date, on Thursday, Dec 16^th, after my last exam. Sitting on my night table, waiting patiently is my new book, In the Still of the Night by Ann Rule. I will not argue with it, or analyze it, or write about it. I may rave about it verbally to anyone who will listen. But mainly, I will just read and enjoy.

Informative AND Entertaining

I am not sure if I can do justice to Kurt Vonnegut’s “How to Write With Style”. I found this article to be the most well written piece of work that we have read to date in the course. Vonnegut’s style is truly his own, coincidentally this is the main point of his article.

Vonnegut gives a number of valuable tips on how to grab a reader’s attention and hold it. He does so with such headings as “Pity the Reader” and “Sound like Yourself” (Vonnegut 67). These are not-so-gentle reminders to keep the audience in mind when writing. He shares with us that it is best for his readers if he sounds like he is from Indianapolis, because he is. The fact that in Indianapolis “common speech sounds like a band saw cutting galvanized tin” is irrelevant (Vonnegut 66). The idea is to not pretend that you are someone or something that you aren’t.

Some other helpful tips are to keep it simple and don’t ramble on (Vonnegut 66). Both are great reminders that people reading something you have written don’t need to try to translate what is meant. A simple approach is always better. Say what you mean, and be concise.

I am not familiar with any of the novels written by Vonnegut. Although I have heard of “Slaughterhouse Five” I haven’t read it. I must say, though, that after seeing what a great job he has done of writing something as mundane as a lesson in writing with style, I will search out one of his novels and give it a try. I am sure it will be an interesting read, done with style and flair. Have you read anything by Vonnegut?

Works Cited

Vonnegut, Kurt. “How to Write with Style.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. PC 24 Vol 2. Print.

An Exercise in Frustration

In my opinion Yuki Tananka’s “Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots and Contemporary Bombers: War and Terror” was an exercise in frustration. After my first reading I felt confused. The first four paragraphs gave so many statistics that my head was spinning. Once I made it through the numbers, I looked forward to learning something about the kamikaze pilots, as I knew nothing. This was to be a rather large letdown. I felt that the remainder of the essay was poorly organized and confusing. I decided to sleep on it and read it again for more clarity.

With a clear head, I sat down to reread the essay. Although, I found that I understood the text more clearly than my first reading, it was still a bit of a muddle. So, I tried to figure out why that was.  The essay was almost two separate topics. The first topic was about “who” the kamikaze pilots were. The second topic was a comparison of some similarities between kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers of today. I didn’t feel that the two topics flowed together very well.  Even the labels of “Kamikaze Pilots” and “Contemporary Suicide Bombers” seemed to separate the two trains of thought.  Another thing that bothered me was the incredibly long sentences. It felt as though there was too much to absorb in one thought. An example, “Undoubtedly war is an act of madness, its absurdity clearly shown in the paired (but imbalanced) actions and reactions of World War II: as Japan adopted kamikaze-style suicide attacks, the US used “strategic bombing” to indiscriminately kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, and finally engaged in atomic bombing attacks (Tanaka, 297).” I find it difficult to follow too many of these strung out thoughts. Even the “point form” themes that were given as reasons the pilots accepted their missions were lengthy paragraphs (296). By the time I reached the last paragraph in the section, I had almost forgotten what the point of the number (5) beside it was.

I decided not to read the essay a third time. Although I recognize that Yuki Tanaka is well educated, and a specialist in his field, I counted myself out as being one of his target audience.  Am I alone in this? Do you feel that you connected with this essay?

Works Cited

Tanaka, Yuki. “Japan’s Kamikaze Pilots and Contemporary Suicide Bombers: War and Terror.” Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Ed. Katherine Ackley, Kim Blank, and Stephen Hume. Toronto: Nelson, 2008. 199 – 208. Print.

Win / win situation

“30 Little Turtles” by Thomas Friedman is a short argument in favour of hiring from other countries, in this case India, for jobs that are “low-wage, low-prestige” American jobs (177). Although I can see the positive side in hiring from other countries for these types of jobs, I can’t help but find it a little sad that the people taking these jobs are first trained how to speak with a Canadian, US or British accent, depending on which country they will be answering calls from. But, they don’t seem to mind. They are just happy to have what they consider to be high-paying, fulfilling jobs.

Many of the young people that are hired to work the call centres would otherwise not be working. Many have degrees from college or university that will not be used (176). It must be frustrating to put the time and energy that it takes into their schooling only to be faced with lack of employment when their education is complete. This does not seem to bring them down in their enthusiasm according to Friedman (176).

It is refreshing to hear that these call centre jobs create a sense of pride among the workers. They are given a chance at financial independence and a sense of hope for their futures. Freidman finds it “uplifting” to watch these young people as they gain “self-confidence and self-worth” (176). On a larger scale, it works out to the advantage of everyone involved to continue to outsource these jobs. The Americans aren’t really interested in this work, while the Indian people are happy to have the jobs. This being the case, those people that call in are just happy to have someone on the other end of the line willing and happy to help. On a personal note, if I need assistance with something, I would prefer to deal with a person that is enthusiastic about what they are doing. Overall, is it more important to keep these jobs local to North America, or to have someone do the job that enjoys it and strives to do the best they can?

Works Cited

Friedman, Thomas. “30 Little Turtles.” Perspectives on Contemporary Issues. Ed. Katherine Ackley, Kim Blank, and Stephen Hume. Toronto: Nelson, 2008. 176 – 177. Print.