This particular chapter of the book The Things They Carried stood out to me. I don't know whether it was the necklace of tongues, Mary Anne out on an ambush, or the decaying black leopard. When I first read that Mark Fossie's girlfriend was coming to Vietnam, I was taken aback. Didn't she know about the dangers of the war, even in the camps? I couldn't imagine risking your life to see a loved one, I think I could've waited until they came back from the war.
I give her props for adapting to the regime and way of living at the camp, however. This may have triggered her psycho episode; she had to learn how live without amenities: showers, good food, and nice clothes. Mary Anne might of been playing along though, becoming curious about the guns and everything just so she could learn how to shoot them. She could've been planning all along to go on a mission, and just tricked the men into helping her get that goal.
But then she went psycho. Really psycho. I can't understand how the land of Vietnam changed her THAT much. I really doubt that when she came to visit Mark Fossie she would've worn necklaces of tongues or gone out on ambushes. That is what really amazes me about this chapter. Even though Tim O'Brien claims that this is the one story that is closest to the truth, I can't believe that the war and Vietnam would change this girl so much that she doens't even resemble a human being.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Poverty
For class, we had to read two articles about poverty by Theodore Dalrymple and Jo Goodwin Parker. After reading and annotating both articles, I felt like Darlrymple's essay connected to me more as a reader than Parker's.
This was surprising to me, since Parker's article is more of a life story than a report, and I thought the emotion would bring more depth, but it actually turned me away. I thought that she was dwelling too much on her own personal problems in the story, and just threw it on the page. It didn't have any constructive facts or argument; it just talked about how poor Parker was and how she didn't have any money for anything except for food. She didn't really talk about the definition of poor, except for the couple sentences in the first paragraph.
Dalrymple's essay seemed more factual and had more evidence as to why people are poor and the definition of it. He talked more about the definition and not his personal connection to it. I took this as the goal for these articles, and thought Dalrymple accomplished it better than Parker. I liked Dalrymple's point about how there will always be poor people because you base it off the rich. The part where Dalrymple states, "...they are not poor in the traditional way" was very interesting because I do believe some people labeled "poor" are not poor at all. Some people choose to live that way, and like to; I label them as "upper class" poor. I understand that some citizens are born poor and they didn't want to be and are homeless and all the sad stories out there prove this point, but the "upper class" poor are just fine the way they are living.
Some of the poverty stricken people are happier than the richest people in the world. Like the cliche phrase, "Money doesn't buy happiness," some of the rich are lonely and have no one but their money.
This was surprising to me, since Parker's article is more of a life story than a report, and I thought the emotion would bring more depth, but it actually turned me away. I thought that she was dwelling too much on her own personal problems in the story, and just threw it on the page. It didn't have any constructive facts or argument; it just talked about how poor Parker was and how she didn't have any money for anything except for food. She didn't really talk about the definition of poor, except for the couple sentences in the first paragraph.
Dalrymple's essay seemed more factual and had more evidence as to why people are poor and the definition of it. He talked more about the definition and not his personal connection to it. I took this as the goal for these articles, and thought Dalrymple accomplished it better than Parker. I liked Dalrymple's point about how there will always be poor people because you base it off the rich. The part where Dalrymple states, "...they are not poor in the traditional way" was very interesting because I do believe some people labeled "poor" are not poor at all. Some people choose to live that way, and like to; I label them as "upper class" poor. I understand that some citizens are born poor and they didn't want to be and are homeless and all the sad stories out there prove this point, but the "upper class" poor are just fine the way they are living.
Some of the poverty stricken people are happier than the richest people in the world. Like the cliche phrase, "Money doesn't buy happiness," some of the rich are lonely and have no one but their money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)