Cora Tucker is a hard working woman, who has a realistic perception of what she has done. Willy Loman, only perceives that he is hard working, and has pho-perceptions of what he has done. It is a matter of comparing a realist to an idealist.
Cora Tucker leads rallies, is self- motivated, and believes that hard-work gets you to your goal. Willy Loman isn’t necessarily unmotivated, but he certainly isn’t self-motivated, and he believes that good looks and being well-liked will lead you to success. Willy Loman relies on Linda for motivation and encouragement, whereas Cora Tucker neither has any, nor particularly needs anyone or anything.
Any job requiring self-motivation, or actual skill and hard work would be where Willy Loman would fail. Willy Loman survives on “a smile and a shoe shine”, and not on having skill and making your self work hard. Leading rallies all by yourself, or being any sort of authority figure would not be a feasible job for Willy Loman.
Although one might think that a woman like Cora Tucker could do almost anything, (besides teach an English class), I don’t believe she would be able to succeed as a salesman. If you’re a salesman, it doesn’t necessarily matter how hard you work- it’s how good you are at selling yourself as a well-liked and good-looking salesman. Someone like Cora Tucker would most likely quickly become very frustrated and aggravated with this job, seeing as she would not be able to present herself as well to the customers because of her poor English and commanding and harsh personality.
Cora Tucker and Willy Loman are two completely opposite people, and where one would fail, the other would succeed, and vice versa.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Arthur Miller and Willy Loman's opinions about success
Willy Loman believes that if you have a good personality, you’re attractive, and you’re well-liked, then that’s all you need to be successful. Therefore, according to Willy Loman, indivudual opportunity definitely exists if you have all of these things. However, if you don’t have any of these things, then individual opportunity is not feasible. I think this is because of his salesman background. All Willy Loman knows, is sales, and how to sell. All of what he says about what it takes to be successful is true- if you’re a salesman. People will want to buy things from you if they like you, other people like you, and you are a friendly looking fellow. That is the general nature of humans. For a salesman, that is really all you need to be successful.
Arthur Miller doesn’t believe that a good personality, attractiveness, and being well-liked is all you need for success. He shows this through his character, Biff. Biff is an attractive, well-liked man with a good personality, however he was not successful. I believe that Miller was conveying the typical American ideal thought of individual opportunity in the U.S. through Willy Loman, and proving the truth of it being incorrect through his example with Biff. I also think it is key that Miller made Willy Loman an insane man. Miller thinks that it is an absolutely radical idea to believe in individual opportunity being so possible in America. I think that the reason Miller made Biff emphasize his beliefs about individual opportunity so much is because that’s what the government says, and that’s what America is founded on. It seems to me that Miller made Willy Loman the American idealist for indivudial opportunity, and Biff the proof that it isn’t true.
Arthur Miller doesn’t believe that a good personality, attractiveness, and being well-liked is all you need for success. He shows this through his character, Biff. Biff is an attractive, well-liked man with a good personality, however he was not successful. I believe that Miller was conveying the typical American ideal thought of individual opportunity in the U.S. through Willy Loman, and proving the truth of it being incorrect through his example with Biff. I also think it is key that Miller made Willy Loman an insane man. Miller thinks that it is an absolutely radical idea to believe in individual opportunity being so possible in America. I think that the reason Miller made Biff emphasize his beliefs about individual opportunity so much is because that’s what the government says, and that’s what America is founded on. It seems to me that Miller made Willy Loman the American idealist for indivudial opportunity, and Biff the proof that it isn’t true.
Death of Salesman Discussion Question
Was Willy Loman’s unaccepting and aggressive nature toward his son Biff understandable, or uncalled for?
Monday, October 20, 2008
progress on the speech
So far, I have my opening attention getter- and a more specific idea of my opening paragraph. I have the body, and the conclusion already written. Sometimes, I like to work backwards because when I know the rest of my speech, it’s easier to write an introduction for it. For my attention getter, I’m going to appeal to pathos and describe a small child in the hospital with a serious illness. Although the Riley Foundation is Indianapolis-based, I believe I’m going to also emphasize the fact that you can help the community, and the whole world- just by donating to the Riley Foundation. I’m having a little bit of trouble with my rebuttal though- how could the Riley Foundation be bad? Who would protest against helping children live and recover from illnesses? I’m not quite sure what I’m going to do about that, but I’m sure I’ll think of something.
Speeches 2
Today’s presentations were fantastic! They were a little rushed due to the time frame, but altogether it was just as good as yesterday’s! I also enjoyed the process of donating, I thought that made it a lot more realistic and exciting. I thought it was extremely difficult to choose who to give the money to! Everyone was very compelling in their speeches, and I wanted to give my twenty dollars to everyone! I like how everyone was very informative in their speech- it sounded like they really worked at the charity, and knew everything about it!
Idea for Speech
For the persuasive speech, I think I will do the Riley Children’s Foundation. The Riley Children’s Foundation saves lives, helps educate doctors in less-fortunate countries, and even has a global adoption program. I believe I can appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos in this argument.
I can appeal to logos by saying what the doctors do to help educate the less-fortunate doctors, and saying how that helps society and creates a healthier community and world.
I can appeal to ethos by describing the patients in the hospital, and how they are suffering from terrible illnesses, and then describe how they are helped by the doctors and the faculty in a bright and healthy environment.
I can appeal to ethos by describing my short experience at Riley Children’s Hospital when I was younger, and what all I saw there, and how I will never forget it.
I believe this will encourage everyone to donate to the Riley Children’s Foundation. Who doesn’t want to help small children recover from illnesses and find a happy home?
I can appeal to logos by saying what the doctors do to help educate the less-fortunate doctors, and saying how that helps society and creates a healthier community and world.
I can appeal to ethos by describing the patients in the hospital, and how they are suffering from terrible illnesses, and then describe how they are helped by the doctors and the faculty in a bright and healthy environment.
I can appeal to ethos by describing my short experience at Riley Children’s Hospital when I was younger, and what all I saw there, and how I will never forget it.
I believe this will encourage everyone to donate to the Riley Children’s Foundation. Who doesn’t want to help small children recover from illnesses and find a happy home?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
monday presentations
I thought today’s presentations were very well-researched. Everyone who presented seemed to be very well-informed about their topic. Also, everyone appealed to ethos, pathos, and logos in their speeches. This is very hard to do, but they all did it very well. I was especially impressed with Andrew’s speech. Not only was he very well-researched, but he had excellent presentation, and really commanded the lecturn. All in all, I thought today’s presentations were excellent.
Monday, October 6, 2008
self-reliance
In the essay, “Self Reliance” by Ralph Emerson, he conveys that we should rely on our intuition, and what is right for ourselves. We shouldn’t conform to others, and we should follow where God leads us. This will lead to true success.
Emerson says that we should act on what we believe and what we feel, and not take into account what others say. What we feel is what we believe, and we should express what we believe. If we express how other people believe, then we aren’t being true to ourselves- we’d just be conforming. What we feel and think derives directly from God, and if we aren’t following the path that God wants us to follow, then this will not lead to true success. This will lead to conformity.
I agree with Emerson in one sense- the sense that all of this leads to true success, but I don’t agree that it is, “just that easy.” Following your heart and soul that is lead by God is most certainly not easy. We all conform to an extent- we’re forced to. Some may accomplish “success”, but only to the today’s society’s definition of success- money and riches. True success derives from being yourself, and finding your true self through whatever, or who ever you may believe in. Only then, will you have accomplished all that you can, and found true success within yourself through the path of your chosen belief. This is not a typical form of success, but it is a self-success that someone rarely achieves.
Emerson says that we should act on what we believe and what we feel, and not take into account what others say. What we feel is what we believe, and we should express what we believe. If we express how other people believe, then we aren’t being true to ourselves- we’d just be conforming. What we feel and think derives directly from God, and if we aren’t following the path that God wants us to follow, then this will not lead to true success. This will lead to conformity.
I agree with Emerson in one sense- the sense that all of this leads to true success, but I don’t agree that it is, “just that easy.” Following your heart and soul that is lead by God is most certainly not easy. We all conform to an extent- we’re forced to. Some may accomplish “success”, but only to the today’s society’s definition of success- money and riches. True success derives from being yourself, and finding your true self through whatever, or who ever you may believe in. Only then, will you have accomplished all that you can, and found true success within yourself through the path of your chosen belief. This is not a typical form of success, but it is a self-success that someone rarely achieves.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Class of America- 2003
In the essay, “Class of America- 2003”, Gregory Mantsios makes an implicit case that essentially says that the wealthy are exploiting the poor. However, he does not simply assume this. He has evidence to back it up. The data the Mantsios provides could be interpreted in different ways, but it is all in how you look at it.
The wealthy are simply using the poor for their “dirty work”, and not helping them. Mantsios says that the wealthy upper class should be helping the poor, but they don’t because the need the poor. If society didn’t have lower class citizens, then there would be no one to work at McDonalds, or to clean their houses, or make them dinner. The wealthy simply use the poor for the work that they don’t want to do. Most of the upper class do everything they can in order to refrain from giving money to the poor, including calling themselves middle class, etc…
This is an argument that could easily be made on assumptions from just looking at society. However, Mantsios has evidence and data to support his argument. He has data with numbers that explain and support his argument in a very effective manner. For example, he says that “Sixty percent of the American population holds less than 6 percent of the nation’s wealth.” This is a proven fact, and cannot be disputed. Mantsios also provided profiles of American workers, which prove their economic status. This is data that cannot be argued with, however, it can be looked at in a different light.
Like all data, you can look at it in a positive light, or a negative light. You can view the glass half full, or half empty. Mantsios looks at the data in a more negative light; however, it is also a more realistic light. You could, in theory, look at everything the opposite way the Mantsios does and say that everything is improving and there is no class difference, but then there would be no real purpose for the essay. Mantsios looks at this data in the most realistic way based on society, and the way in which it functions.
Mantsios makes a very well researched and realistic argument about class in society. He backs up his argument with evidence and observations from society to create a very believable and accurate argument about the role of class in society today.
The wealthy are simply using the poor for their “dirty work”, and not helping them. Mantsios says that the wealthy upper class should be helping the poor, but they don’t because the need the poor. If society didn’t have lower class citizens, then there would be no one to work at McDonalds, or to clean their houses, or make them dinner. The wealthy simply use the poor for the work that they don’t want to do. Most of the upper class do everything they can in order to refrain from giving money to the poor, including calling themselves middle class, etc…
This is an argument that could easily be made on assumptions from just looking at society. However, Mantsios has evidence and data to support his argument. He has data with numbers that explain and support his argument in a very effective manner. For example, he says that “Sixty percent of the American population holds less than 6 percent of the nation’s wealth.” This is a proven fact, and cannot be disputed. Mantsios also provided profiles of American workers, which prove their economic status. This is data that cannot be argued with, however, it can be looked at in a different light.
Like all data, you can look at it in a positive light, or a negative light. You can view the glass half full, or half empty. Mantsios looks at the data in a more negative light; however, it is also a more realistic light. You could, in theory, look at everything the opposite way the Mantsios does and say that everything is improving and there is no class difference, but then there would be no real purpose for the essay. Mantsios looks at this data in the most realistic way based on society, and the way in which it functions.
Mantsios makes a very well researched and realistic argument about class in society. He backs up his argument with evidence and observations from society to create a very believable and accurate argument about the role of class in society today.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Alger v.s. Cruz
In Alger’s story, the idyllic theme of the American Dream being that of going from rags and riches to rich and successful directly contrasts Cruz’s apparent message of the American Dream not really being such a dream after all. Alger says that the American Dream is a wonderful thing- who could ask for anything more? Whereas Cruz says that the American Dream is filled with racism and is only governed by business people who fear being legally prosecuted as racist.
Dick (from Alger’s story) is simply happy to be achieving his dream and making money. Dick doesn’t think of the conditions in which he is hired, other then the saving of another’s life. Dick’s idea of the American Dream is that if you work hard, and take chances, then the dream will come to you. That is what America is all about for immigrants. However, in Cruz’s story, he looks at why he is hired. Cruz says that it is nice, and humans are generally inclined to think the way Dick does, but that is not the case. Businessmen hire immigrants so they won’t be violating the non-racist law. Cruz says that the dream isn’t really a dream (unless you think racism could be included in a dream). Cruz says that it doesn’t necessarily matter how hard you work, it’s if the company needs someone of a different race so as not to look racist.
However, the ideas are similar in that the American Dream can be difficult to look down upon. Cruz says that it is excruciatingly difficult to say that the American Dream is a bad thing, when he has so much money due to the American Dream. They both agree that the American Dream is good in that immigrants gain money and a better life, however Cruz simply notes the conditions that the immigrants are hired, which makes it a negative idea.
Dick (from Alger’s story) is simply happy to be achieving his dream and making money. Dick doesn’t think of the conditions in which he is hired, other then the saving of another’s life. Dick’s idea of the American Dream is that if you work hard, and take chances, then the dream will come to you. That is what America is all about for immigrants. However, in Cruz’s story, he looks at why he is hired. Cruz says that it is nice, and humans are generally inclined to think the way Dick does, but that is not the case. Businessmen hire immigrants so they won’t be violating the non-racist law. Cruz says that the dream isn’t really a dream (unless you think racism could be included in a dream). Cruz says that it doesn’t necessarily matter how hard you work, it’s if the company needs someone of a different race so as not to look racist.
However, the ideas are similar in that the American Dream can be difficult to look down upon. Cruz says that it is excruciatingly difficult to say that the American Dream is a bad thing, when he has so much money due to the American Dream. They both agree that the American Dream is good in that immigrants gain money and a better life, however Cruz simply notes the conditions that the immigrants are hired, which makes it a negative idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)