Informal Essay

Mick Jagger held that “anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope” and although Jagger is not known for his political views it looks as if he has done a good job of capturing its essence. Anarchy seems to be widely held as a synonym for chaos and disorder, but in fact it is quite the opposite. Anarchism is truly the only philosophy in which the world will ever be allowed to blossom.

To begin with, the abolition of social hierarchies will eradicate the world of inequality and injustice. Anarchy will allow all men, women, and children of all races and creeds to be freed from their rulers. There will be no need to rent oneself out on the market, and no longer must anyone follow the arbitrary rules of some self-serving ruler. No longer will minorities, or majorities for that matter, be unjustly treated; people of all backgrounds will be treated equally. In summation, anarchy brings upon the world an egalitarian utopia, which in every sense of the word is perfect.

Anarchy does not breed chaos, theft and violence. On the contrary, those would be the dealings of capitalism. Would you steal from a fellow man if there was no institution to which the need was fuelled? Capitalism is what causes greed, and to get rid of free enterprise would be to get rid of greed. Anarchy professes the need to get rid of all institutions, bureaucracies, and authorities. In this ideology, people voluntarily work for the good of themselves, and they willingly work for the betterment of their community. There would be no reason to kill, and no reason to steal. Secondly, although the abolition of government means that there are no more judicial laws, it does not mean that each individual must ignore their morals. Anarchism stands for a form of voluntary socialism, in which an organic, and truly democratic, community forms. This replaces the tyranny of representative democracy and in its place creates a forum in which everyone is accounted. In such a community, there is no chaos, and it is not every man for themselves as people most commonly believe. Finally, if Anarchy did cause chaos, then would that not contradict the very idea of anarchy, freedom? The very intent of eliminating the hierarchical structure is to liberate, and to implement a system of individual autonomy. A system of self governing, but at the same time one in which everyone’s freedom is valid. The perception that anarchy advocates the “rule of the jungle” is completely false. Humanity is not free, until each person is freed, and this can only be done if everybody’s freedom is respected and never infringed upon. Thus, anarchism is not the source of disorder; it is the creator of peacefulness and order.

Finally, the elimination of oppression means that humanity can beyond a doubt mature into a liberated civilization. This means that everyone will have the freedom to do exactly what they choose. People will be allowed to live their lives however they please, because isn’t that what life is about? Should we not focus our time on doing things that we love, not being coerced into obeying commands? Our natural absolute right should be to live freely. In addition, when you are emancipated from dictatorship you strive to achieve your own incentives, not that of boss’s. When you concentrate on your own successes then you can ultimately live happily.

Consequently, without anarchy the world will always be a garden full of weeds. We must as a society, as a species, strive to make our world, our garden, beautiful again. To get rid of our oppressors and our hierarchies will be to clear our garden of its weeds and pests, and only then can we admire our world for what it is. Only then can humankind live happily, live freely, and live triumphantly.

Argument

            Despite popular belief, Anarchy does not breed chaos, theft and violence. On the contrary, those would be the dealings of capitalism. Does not our current government see these things, are they not problems already. Would you steal from a fellow man if there was no institution to which the need was fuelled? Capitalism is what causes greed, and to get rid of capitalism would be to get rid of greed. There would be no reason to rob a bank if there was no monetary system. Anarchy professes the need to get rid of all institutions, bureaucracies, and authorities. Does this not include the system of currencies and bartering? In this ideology, people voluntarily work for the good of themselves, and their community. There would be no reason to kill, and no reason to steal. Secondly, although the abolition of government means that there are no more judicial laws, it does not mean that each individual now must ignore their morals. Anarchism stands for a form of voluntary socialism, in which an organic, and truly democratic, community forms. This replaces the tyranny of representative democracy and in its place creates a forum in which everyone is accounted for. In such a community, there is no chaos, and it is not every man for themselves as people most commonly believe. Finally, if Anarchy did cause chaos, then would that not contradict the very idea of anarchy, freedom? If rule of the jungle did apply, then people, the majority of people, would be oppressed, and that is not what anarchy is about. That would be capitalism. Thus, anarchism is not the source of disorder; it is the creator of peacefulness and order.

Cause and Effect

            The newspaper headline read "Intense Blaze at the Local Library," and further evidence would suggest that Gerald Green caused such a fire. Gerald’s great thirst for knowledge would bring him on a trip to his library. When Gerald entered the public institution he promptly forgot about the selection of firecrackers he had collected form a recent trip to his convenience store. Gerald had gone with his father to buy a chocolate bar, but ended up buying a package of cherry bombs. Once he had bought his firecrackers, he had no way to open his car door with his hands full, so he placed his purchases in his backpack. When the duo got home, Gerald had so much fun shooting their fireworks, Gerald decided to make his own fireworks. This would bring him to the library to research chemistry and physics. Unfortunately for the taxpayers though, Gerald had neglected to check his backpack to see if he had actually used all of his firecrackers. He hadn’t. So when Gerald placed his backpack on one of the heaters in the library, it was a cold day, the neglected fireworks ignited. The reason for the fire was thus Gerald Green and his love of firecrackers.

Comparison and Contrast

Although many would say that Joseph Stalin’s regime was very much like Pol Pot’s, it was truly radically different. For example, Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge considered the rural farmer to be the proletariat, and the true representative of the working class. Based on agrarian communism, Cambodians worked on collective farms and on labour projects. In contrast to the Khmer Rouge rule, Joseph Stalin’s rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union focused on urban industrialization, and greatly ignored agriculture and farm work. As a result many people starved to death in a widespread famine. Secondly, under Pol Pot’s command an estimated 1.5 million people died solely because they were suspected of free market activities. Whereas, Stalin’s Great Purge was a campaign to rid the Communist Party of corruption and treachery. Finally, Pot cited the enemies of the state and society to be the parents of families. Children would be separated from their parents at a young age because the parents were said to be tainted with capitalism. Thus, children could be brainwashed with socialist ideals, and taught to torture animals. In comparisons, Stalin saw ethnic minorities as the greatest threat to the Soviet Union. To combat this Stalin would deport millions of people to Siberia to be exiled. In conclusion, although Pol Pot was influenced by Joseph Stalin’s ideas and actions, their regimes were by far diverse.

Analogy

            Life is like literature. One could be classically formed, romantic or analytical. There are academic types, and there are recreational types. Life and literature are full of stops, and breaks. They can be formal or informal. There are successful writers, and successful people.  Both have beginnings and endings. They are full of surprises and suspense. Furthermore, life and literature can get better with age or wither over time. They can be cut to short, or dragged on too long. Besides, they can begin with a bang, or end with an explosion. Finally they can be full of cliff hangers, or empty of soul.

Metacognition

            Socrates’ designed his Socratic seminars to initiate dialogue, and not to create discussions or debates. Students would examine a text, and respond to it by carefully listening and not interrupting each other.

            In this sense I believe that I was somewhat successful in the first Socratic seminar of my life. I was able to generate meaningful points, although few, and analyses during the course of the exercise, and I was able to listen intently to my peers. Additionally, I feel that the group as a whole was able to effectively discuss, and ultimately criticize, the paragraph.

            In due course I would like to improve both my listening and my participation skills, as well as build up my analyzing ability.  To do this I plan to utilise my preparation time more efficiently by planning what I will say, and also by making notes in the margins.

            If I were to give myself a label based on my performance in this first discussion, I would call myself the “quiet listener.” I would say this because although I did contribute, I spent most of the time intently listening to and absorbing what my peers had to say. Perhaps that is a good thing though, because the famous proverb does say that “we were given two ears but only one mouth.”

"A Fire Truck" by Richard Wilbur

The purpose of Richard Wilbur’s “A Fire Truck” is to illustrate the commotion caused by a passing fire truck. The speaker, who is perhaps the arsonist who started the fire, is greatly disturbed by the presence of the “loud, obvious thing” that has disturbed his “brooding.” The poet is able to demonstrate the obtrusiveness of the truck, while also showing the beauty of the “not extinguished fire.”

Poetry has the ability to take something that is mundane and elevate it into something that unbelievably picturesque, and remarkable. Wilbur displays this characteristic of verse superbly by using lines such as “shift at the corner into uproarious gear.” Wilbur also uses description to create splendour in the situation even though he is clearly been disturbed by the “beautiful, heavy, unweary” fire truck. The poet also uses rhetorical devices such as alliteration, “shocked street,” and imagery, “Redness, brass, ladders and hats hurl past.” Furthermore, phrases like “phoenix-red simplicity” and “blurring to sheer verb” are so amazingly perceptive that they create such a sensation that they grab the reader`s attention, and add a sense of emotion to the poem. Also, the use of action verbs in the first two stanzas creates a sense of intensity that shows that the speaker is completely concentrated on the truck.

What truly makes this poem stand out as such a glorious example of verse is that it is able to create beauty out of simplicity, and that it excites and interests the reader.

You call this literature? Part 3

  While looking through the "Literature" section one would expect to find articles on Woolf and Morrison, Pound and Hazlitt, but instead there is Dan Brown littered all over the place like weeds in a garden. This is not to criticise Brown but what is truly appalling is how a bestseller, based on a juicy story everyone loves to believe, delineates what people talk about, and characterizes what is considered quality literature.

Yes, popular literature has hit an unsurpassed low, to the point that Chapters, "aiming to achieve Wal-Mart excellence" has candles and calendars at the front of the store. To the point that one must travel to the very back of the store to find what they have come to buy, books. Moreover, on the tables nearest the entrance are shiny, colourful, hard-covered beasts that are covered in bestseller stickers. These are the books that are written by Dan Brown and approved by Oprah Winfrey.  We read what Oprah tells us we should read, and are hardly able to find anything by an Oprah approved novelist other than what is the current bestselling novel. It seems all that people want is what someone thinks is "best." Rather, we gather bits and pieces, as if all works were separate, only caring to read the author that the New York Times deems "Brilliant" and "Dazzlingly unique" as if they weren't all written with the same formula.

Some of us have never even heard of any Canadian writers, or at the very least, Canadian writers who don't base their stories in the mid-western U.S. in order to sell more copies. Many of us have never read anything by Atwood or Munro, who are hardly ever considered in Chapters' as one of the "Best Selling Novels," while others like Henighan are being almost completely ignored. It seems everyone would rather read up on astrology and fashion, while picking up duck shaped soap. Everyone wants to "escape." Everyone wants to read for "enjoyment," to dissolve into a world where a beautiful young woman will fall in love with some man who has a dark and foreboding secret. Have we become so passive, so hopeless, that we feel we have to escape our lives and brainwash ourselves with predictable plots, and boring characters? Literature is what makes us human, and if what we're reading is mass-marketed, cliché-driven books, what does that say for humanity?

 

Methods of Development: Example

“Good Old Us” Walter Stewart

            Examples are essential to any essay, and while many essays get by on just a few examples, some are constructed of nothing more than examples. Such is true in Good Old Us,and in many ways Stewart creates a perfect example for the method of writing examples.

            The reader is quickly introduced to an intensity, which continues throughout the piece of writing, and greatly succeeds in creating an emphasis on the content of the essay. This emphasis is important in that it keeps the reader involved and helps prove that “Canadians, as a people, are no better and no worse than anyone else.”  By grabbing the reader’s emotions Stewart is able to make assertions that, although true, may not have been accepted otherwise. Thus it can be proven that Canadians “are in fact looser and dumber” than is generally believed.

            The uses of examples in this essay are used very successfully by presenting ideas, relating to the topic, and creating direction.  Stewart explains that Canadians are not always “the gentle citizens” we tend to think of, but have a tendency to become “wild-eyed, gun toting” citizens of a “state bordering on anarchy.” The first example presented is that of a couple of boys “all of good families” looking for “a little free loving” but instead ended up leaving the victim “naked and dead by the roadside.” This hard-hitting example of the brutality that even the “patient man” can commit supports the thesis, and provides direction for the rest of the essay. Also, Stewart’s example of the “American sociologist” incited riot managed to not only demonstrate Canada’s lack of free speech, but also its blindness to racism. Additionally, the use of perhaps more relatable examples, such as the aforementioned “minor riot”, helps create a connection with reader, while still relating to the topic. Thus, by solely using example in prose, one can still successfully create a well developed, “good” piece of prose.            

Good And Bad Writing

Examples of Good Writing

 

    The first example of "good" writing given has earned its status by adhering to the rule of never being to clever. To achieve this author has been able to delicately balance the use of description, with simplicity. This piece also manages to stay directed and to keep from wandering off. The author has also kept the article interesting for the reader by using description in such a way that it draws one in and keeps them reading.

    The second article has succeeded in keeping the reader interested by not getting to "hyped up." The author has been able to use a quotation without twisting the meaning, or wording to which the subject actually said. Also, the prose has been able to remain informative, while not crossing the line to which anyone short of a physics degree would not understand.

    The final sample has been labelled so because it has a certain merit to it which has managed to somehow created something very interesting out of something that perhaps may not have been so. It has managed to remain simple, informative, descriptive and exciting while not being too clever, wordy or undesirable to the reader.

 

Examples of Bad Writing

 

    The author of the first sample has clearly been unable to refrain from trying to sound clever. The piece is full of redundancies and overachieving words, and is seriously dull. When one writes, they must make sure that the reader is pulled into the writing. This can often be done by using interesting content, rhetorical devices, and description, but can never be achieved solely with the use of a large vocabulary.

    Secondly, the second example of "bad" writing is described as so because the author has also tried to sound clever and professional by using a thesaurus. There is absolutely no way that anyone would be able to understand this after just reading it once. The piece is full of brainy words but mysteriously lacks any truly descriptive terms.

    Finally, the last example of writing has been unable to remain interesting to the reader. The sentences contained do not seem to flow along, and the use of terms like "laws of origin," do nothing but further confuse. The piece appears to think to much of both of itself and of the reader, in that it assumes I understand what it is talking about.

 

The Role of the Audience

 

   The audience is decisively the most important aspect when determining the merit of a piece of prose. This is because the audience is who is destined to read the piece, and sole reason for its creation is to be read. If one is unable to read, or understand a piece of writing, then its existence is purposeless. It is very important to tailor prose so that the  intended audience will indeed read it, and certainly never forget it. One must remember to never forget who you are writing for, to not speak over them, and to most importantly keep them reading.