John H. Summers' “Gettysburg Regress”

John H. Summers' essay “Gettysburg Regress” caught my attention from the very beginning.  I have always been a history buff at heart.  Even now when I go to my parent’s house we tend to stay up till the early hours of the morning watching anything that happened to be on the History Channel.  This essay was one that I found enlightening and enjoyable.  The images from the start of this essay are breathtaking I imagined Seminary Ridge and how the trees looked on the side of the road, some standing strong and some cut down.  When it was told to Summers that the area was in “rehabilitation” to establish a more authentic feel I began to picture all of the changes that were being described.  I could see all the changes and how they could be both good and bad.  I thought about the trees that were being cut down and I agree that cutting down trees is never and good thing, but the goal is good. 

I understood where Summers was coming from when he talked about the old Gettysburg being neither authentic or inauthentic but merely harmless.  The changes that were being made in the present were causing some controversy that had previously been going on, this controversy takes away from the good that is being done to the battlefield.  I agree with the ethical controversy, I do not think that the two firms should have been tied together so closely.  I also see the problem that Summers recognizes as dueling conceptions about what state the battlefield should be rehabilitated to exactly.  I personally would like to see a battlefield like this one has an unchanging relic as opposed to a memorial.  There should be memorials for the lives that were lost, but people still want to experience Gettysburg as it was back then.  If they are going to rehabilitate the battlefields like they were during the war then a memorial is not the answer.

It was very interesting to read about how the different Presidents viewed how the battlefield should be restored.  I could see that it was important to have a dedication like the one President Roosevelt had so that veterans could see that changes were being made to the park before they all died.  But it was President Eisenhower who decided to make some real changes.  I thought it was funny when he used the word “youngsters” just reminded me of an old grandpa.  It is made clear that the rehabilitation is truly important to not only the veterans that served but also that the people are able to see with there own eyes what it really looked like in July 1863.  Again it is established that they are not trying to tear down trees for no reason, they are simply trying to reestablish what the battlefield look like at the time and how important it is to have an authentic environment to portray the battlefield in 1863.

I can see where Summers is trying to persuade the reader to understand the importance of rehabilitate a battlefield that has been marked by age.  I agree with most everything that he is saying, especially about making the battlefield authentic.  It is clear that these changes need to be made to the battlefield and there is obviously and tactful way of making changes and many tasteless and inauthentic things that can also be done.  After reading this essay I would love to go and see this battlefield in person and feel how authentic it really is.

   

"The Bad Lion" Toni Bentley

            The story of “The Bad Lion: by Toni Bentley was interesting because it was so human.  The way the bad lion acted was the way a human criminal rapist would act.  I have never heard of a lion that would do things for pleasure like that or any animal really.  During about the first two pages I liked the lion.  I saw him as this damaged creature that was probably nearing the end of his life and just wanted to be left alone with his pride.  But then when he started attacking the lioness I was confused; I thought at first that the lioness was apart of his pride and I could not figure out what was going on.

            Then when Alfie said that he was evil or Satan as they called him I began to feel anger towards this creature.  I should not feel anger towards an animal because animals are not supposed to make decisions like human.  They are supposed to do everything for survival, but this lion was raping and killing lionesses for pleasure.  I wish scientist would do research on this lion so that they would know what is different about this lion that affects his behavior so drastically.

            One other thing that I found interesting was the way his brother followed his every command.  The brother lion probably had no comprehension as to why this lion was doing the things that he was doing yet he naturally followed along.  I see it as the brother was doing what nature intended which is to follow the alpha male while the bad lion was going against nature, which then affected the behavior of the brother lion. 

One aspect that I really ponder is where were the female lions of their pride during all of this.  At the beginning of the essay Alfie talked about how the females would always do the hunting and the males would just ways.  So did the females watch from a distance while the males did their “hunting”?  The whole situation is just baffling and disturbing. 

Another thing that I found disturbing was how these people just sit there and watch all of this happen.  I have seen shows before about wild life and they get in fights and kill each other while people are filming.  I am not a big fan of that, I think that it is great to study animal behavior but I do not understand why people need to film animals killing each other.  Sure, it may be interesting to many people; but it is no different then watching humans doing the same thing. 

Overall, this is the most interesting essay that we have read so far.  When I finished reading it I wanted more.  There could be so many more stories about the life of the Bad Lion.  It is one of those situations where I know I should not want to read about the terrible thing this lion is capable of, but I cannot help myself.  It would also be interesting to see when the lion finally meets his match.  I felt like this animal has the capacity to do much more evil things than just killing lionesses for pleasure.  I could see him attacking other animals, maybe female, maybe not, for the same purposes.  He would not do it for food or survival but for pleasure.

"When Writers Speak" Arthur Krystal

As I read Arthur Krystal’s essay “When Writer’s Speak” I at first was taken aback by how clear the image of Vladimir Nabovac came to be.  I have never heard of Nabovac before but from what I can tell he must have been a brilliant writer.  The man I pictured sitting in the interview chair was a nerdy looking middle-aged man who spoke with a heavy accent according to Krystal.  I was not exactly sure what this essay would be about from the title alone.  But as a began to read I was surprised at how it started out by saying how bad brilliant writers are a being brilliant speaker.

However, I was in no way surprised by this.  Krystal does not seem surprised in any way either.  He relates to this in a similar way to myself.  I think of my own writing and how much extra time I have to sit and think up profound thoughts while in normal conversation I do not have the luxury to take extended pauses to think.  I like how Krystal uses humor in his essay to get his own unproven theories out on the table.

For instance, he claims that if there was an MRI done of his head while he is writing his brain would be more active than if he was simple talking.  This of course is not fact but it does make sense.  When I think of my own writing process I access memories and facts stored in my brain that I probably could not think up on the spot.  Krystal uses an example of musical instrument to demonstrate his point.   He says that one would think differently when playing the violin then when playing the piano.  This makes sense since the violin uses drastically different finger movement and notes. 

“When Writers Speak” really made me think about how I differ from sitting on a couch writing a paper to when I am having a conversation with my mom on the phone.  It is as if it is two totally different people I cannot formulate pristine sentences over the phone like I could if I thought about what exactly I wanted to say on paper.  I believe though that it should be a different process.  Would writing really be interesting if we all talked like we wrote?  I truly doubt it.  It was also be hard to have a conversation with another writer if both parties constantly had amazingly intelligent perfectly constructed sentences.

The essay was ended with a joke that I found enjoyable.  When Krystal told the story of Alexander von Humbolt asking his doctor friend if he could meet a real lunatic.  While sitting at the dinner table Humbolt is in between one shy well-mannered man and one crazy dressed talkative man.   Naturally, because of the Humbolt perceived the two men he assumed that the talkative man was the lunatic when truly it was the shy man.  This story only reiderates the fact that one’s intelligience cannot be judged by conversation alone.

"Speaking in Tongues" Zadie Smith

When considering what my response to "Speaking in Tongues" would be I immediately thought of my own experiences with different dialects.  As a college student was vocabulary has drastically changed in the last two years.  When I began my four year (fingers crossed) journey I spoke to everybody the same way.  Now, with two full years under my belt, I am more trained in academic vernacular.  My own experiences reminded me a lot of how Smith talked about her own dialect journey from a small town to university life.  Smith was able to see the changes in herself when she entered college and after reading this essay I am more aware of the changes to my own dialect.  However, Smith makes an important point when talking about the changes that were made to her dialect after entering college.  When she first started using a more English voice she assumed it was the only way she would be viewed as lettered.  Eventually, her lettered voice became her only voice.  I often catch myself talking to my family as if I am writing a term paper.  I feel as if I am a dictionary finding the most prestigious words to use when the situation does not call for it.  She also uses one influential American in particular to demonstrate the changes that can happen when academic life begins to make an impact on dialect and how to not lose the dialect with which we grew up with completely.

While reading the dialogue between Obama and a childhood friend I could clearly see the kind of person he would someday become, although, his word usage has become increasingly academic during the many years leading up to him becoming President.  Smith talks a lot about the way that Obama’s word choices won over people.  Smith uses the example that Obama never uses the word “I” in his speeches, but instead uses the word “we”.  This is because “I” feels far too singular.  Although Smith is talking about arguably one of the most influential people in the world Obama still has the ability to bridge the gap between the common people like you and me to someone as powerful as himself.

Clearly, this essay was much more about dialect but also about the cultural changes that have happened and are happening today.  In her last paragraph Smith says. “It’s my audacious hope that a man born and raised between opposing dogmas, between cultures, between voices, could not help but be aware of the extreme contingency of culture.”  This statement made an impact on me because I had never realized how being in between cultures and voices could affect a person’s state of mind.  Just because I talk a certain way does not mean that everyone else shares my dialect nor does it mean that I need to impose that dialect on anyone.  Smith used Obama to show how he could stay true to his own voice while recognizing other people’s voices at the same time.