Extra Credit Dialogue

     When I first saw this assignment I was not exactly sure about what dialogue I would write about or pick. I decided I would come back to the assignment later and watched some television instead. I was watching one of my favorite shows, Modern Family, and then I heard it, the perfect dialogue.

PHIL- We can learn so much from the children. I bet it all seems kind of silly what you guys were even fighting about, huh? 

MANNY- I made fun of his poofy hair. 

LUKE -I made fun of his accent. 

GLORIA-What accent? 

(Everybody laughs.)

MANNY- I made fun of him having the same thing for lunch every day. 

(More laughter)

LUKE- I made fun of him because his mom used to dig coal.

(More laughter still, except from Gloria.)

GLORIA-What? 

MANNY- He said you were a coal-digger.

PHIL-Okay, I think we can move on.

GLORIA-Who said I was a “coal-digger”?

LUKE-That’s what my Mom told me.

ALEX- What’s a coal-digger?

PHIL-He heard it wrong, it’s gold-digger.

HALEY- (into phone) I’m going to call you back.

CLAIRE-Okay, wow, I do not remember ever saying that.

LUKE- You said it in the car, you said it at Christmas, you said it at that Mexican restaurant --

CLAIRE-Oh, look. Mister leaves-his-sweatshirts-at-school suddenly remembers everything.

GLORIA-So it was all in my head, huh?

(She makes the Claire face to Claire then starts out.)

CLAIRE- (Calling after) But that was like a year ago before I even knew you. Gloria...

Gloria exits.

MANNY- Nice going. Now my Mom and my sister are fighting.

*the following script excerpt was obtained from http://www.simplyscripts.com/tv_all.html

     This dialogue is so interesting and humorous because it plays upon the typical stereotypes of society. For example Claire, is accused of calling her new step-mother a gold digger. Claire thinks this because Gloria, her new step, mom is quite an attractive woman and much younger than her father. She has a hard time believing that Gloria’s intentions are genuine. What makes this dialogue so humorous is that the children interpret the term “gold-digger” as “coal-digger”, so they completely miss the meaning of the comment. It works because Claire tries to diffuse the situation by making comments about her son, and completely denying the entire situation. The situation becomes even more comical when her husband accidentally reinforces that she did mean “gold-digger” as oppose to “coal digger”. The dialogue concludes on a comic note because Manny blames Luke for causing his mother and sister to fight. Manny’s statement stresses the complexity of the family because his mother is Gloria, making Claire his step sister.                       

     The dialogue is funny because it is relatable. We laugh at it because numerous times we find ourselves having similar opinions on certain topics. This dialogue taught me several things on how to make a dialogue more effective. It should go back and forth, almost like a game of ping pong. The characters should have a good connection so that what they are speaking about is clear enough to understand. This dialogue also manages to give incite on the character’s personalities. Phil is a bit goofy, but caring. Manny is very mature for his age. Claire does not like to be confronted when she is wrong. Gloria does not take insults well and Luke is the dummy of the group. The dialogue allows me to understand the characters as oppose to directly telling me about their conflicts. It makes an event so much more intriguing. For example a person being accused of being a “gold-digger” is not as stirring as hearing an actual conversation. It is a lot funnier to see people scrambling to find different ways to diffuse awkward situations.                                      

"Shooting and Elephant" Response

     George Orwell’s essay “Shooting an Elephant” was a piece that impacted me greatly. Even though it described a rather disturbing event, what made the biggest impression on me was Orwell’s sincerity and honesty. I believe that those components make it a gripping piece because Orwell is relatable, observant, and truthful. In the text he incorporates figurative language, description, and allows readers to see his innermost thoughts by using first person narration.

     In the essay Orwell explains the current conflict between Burma and England. He is in a difficult situation because England was occupying Burma while he was an officer. The people of Burma were completely against anyone European because of the imperialistic forces that occupied their nation. Orwell does an excellent job of showing that he is an alien in this land by providing personal anecdotes. “A nimble Burman tripped me up on the football field and the referee (another Burman) looked the other way, the crowed yelled with hideous laughter (Orwell)”. By personifying the crowd and calling it hideous, he emphasizes his embarrassment even more. Despite the difficulty Orwell faces he understands the native people. “I was stuck between the hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my life impossible (Orwell)”. One day Orwell gets a call to kill an elephant that is running loose. He finds out the elephant has killed a man and continues to look for it. Finally, he locates the elephant, but realizes he does not want to kill it. He realizes the crowd is only interested in following him because they want to see him kill the elephant and then take its parts to make money off them.

     Orwell continuously struggles because he sees that at the current moment the elephant is peaceful. He does not want to kill it. With the crowd looking upon him will glaring eyes he realizes he has to kill the elephant to please them. In a way I think he did this so he wouldn’t be embarrassed but also because he wanted to be accepted into this foreign land. Even though we do not always have to make choices on the scale that Orwell did we are still faced with similar issues. Many times we do something we do not want to do just to assimilate, “avoid looking a fool” or find some sense of community. We sometimes thrive on other people’s opinions and need their approval or just can’t handle embarrassment. “The crowd would laugh at me. And my whole life, every white man’s life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at”, said Orwell. Orwell shows how he did not want to kill the elephant, by calling his actions murder. The details involving the elephant’s death are hard to read. The elephant did not die instantly and suffers immensely which causes Orwell to shoot it numerous times so it can die with less pain. His simile emphasizes his guilt. “The tortured gasps continued as steadily as the ticking of a clock (Orwell)”. He can not take it any more so he leaves the elephant.

      Orwell uses this anecdote to express his feelings on imperialism. He hates it and uses the elephant as a symbol. Imperialism is when a nation uses its power and force to  expand into other countries. It is a form of greed. To get more power a country attacks another. The elephant represents Burma. George is the British force that has taken advantage of a defenseless body. The British attacked Burma and they had no force to fight back but only obey. The elephants only protest is the final noise he makes with his trunk. This is almost like the small uprisings the people were having in Burma. The people are trapped like the elephant. They can only serve a master after falling. The people of Burma could not fight back, but they could not disappear because it was their home. They had to deal with British occupation. Orwell hated imperialism because it made him a puppet. He had to serve his nation even though he did not agree with it because he had no other option. The white man “becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventional figure of a sahib (Orwell)”. He was doing his job, not expressing his beliefs. Orwell depicts how detrimental imperialism is and the lengths someone will go just to receive another figure's approval.

Syria

          If you asked me about the current crisis is Syria several weeks ago, unfortunately I would have to admit that I was completely ignorant on this topic. In order to get a better understanding on this topic I read several articles and watched a video. To quickly sum things up turmoil broke out in Syria in 2011 when activists peacefully protested against the government. Unfortunately, the government resorted to opening fire on these protestors. Ever since then there has been constant unrest in the nation, bringing forth a civil war. Recently there was a chemical weapons attack in Damascus, which killed numerous innocent people. Even though the Syrian government (Assad) denies that it was linked to the attack, evidence and speculation proves that it was. This has caused America, Britain, and France to decide how they will handle this situation. Both Britain and America have been planning a response. President Obama is completely against the use of chemical weapons and believes that there should be a U.S. strike in Syria and that these chemical weapons should be destroyed. He wants direct involvement. This could lead the U.S. into bringing their own weapons into to Syria for protection and straining its relationship with Russia. Russia does business with Syria by exchanging these weapons.
     Personally, I do not think I am a qualified enough person to decide what is right and what is wrong involving this matter. What I do have to say though is that even though President Obama has a well thought out approach, I think his plan is flawed. Just entering into another country causes unrest among other people. I would not like it if foreigners came into my home. Even though the conditions are horrible for Syrian people and I do sympathize with them I do not feel we should get involved. It is not our job to dictate how another country should rule itself. We should focus on our own home. It is also very risky having our presence in Syria because Russia could potentially get involved and want to harm us too. One war has cost so many lives and a fortune, we do not need another one. We have not fully recovered from the current war and it still has not come to a definitive close. I don’t think it is just to pay for people to get killed, when our nation can do more constructive things with its money such as fund schools instead.
      I read in recent news the U.S. and Russia agreed on a better solution. The chemical weapons would be put under international control so that way they can be eventually eliminated. This plan eliminates the U.S. directly interfering and allows the UN to work together. I think that this solution would have less consequences than the original plan and I hope that it is enforced. It is better to work together than against each other.

              

The City of Light

 The moon flickers overhead aligning perfectly with the limitless charcoal sky. It’s dim golden tint glimmers subtly as if it were shedding light upon the world’s biggest stage. In an instant you forget all the cliches that you have heard about Paris, and become entranced in the city’s wonder. You can’t help but question yourself. Am I dreaming? Even the small boat resting upon the tranquil River Seine mystifies you. It is surrounded by glass walls that reflect the city’s lights and encircle its passengers with elegance and simplicity. The passengers of the glass menagerie have become awestruck and motionless. Slowly and smoothy the small Bateaux begins its journey down the Seine. The glass seems to mask the breathtaking scenery, so you venture out of the menagerie onto the Bateaux’s small splintered wooden deck. Notre Dame stands to the right with it’s gargoyle statues scrapping the night sky. It’s gothic architecture transports you to the reign of Louis VII, but you blink your eyes and sadly realize that you are in the 21st century. You feel the night’s breeze gently caress your face and become rejuvenated when the river’s mist meanders down your cheek. In the distance you can faintly hear people commenting on the sights coupled together with the French music playing from the captain’s quarters.The journey continues and the Bateaux cautiously approaches  every bridge, as if it fears to venture underneath them. Each bridge differs from the other. The marble etchings immortalize anyone from a god to an animal. A material once pale and cold has become alive, managing to sustain the fiery soul of the ancestor it depicts. 

     You scratch your nose as a way of distracting it. The warm fresh baguettes and croissants allow their tantalizing aromas to waft their way into your direction. You can still taste the flakey freshly baked croissant you had for lunch. The molten and velvety hot chocolate center of the croissant soothed your cold body from head to toe. You check your hands to make sure you wiped away the chocolate that trickled down your hands as you took your last bite. Nothing remains. In an instant your hunger is forgotten as you shade your eyes from a beam of light pointing directly at you. You look up and time looses its existence. The buildings surrounding this masterpiece seem to be a backdrop. The Eiffel Tower becomes the focal point and its gargantuan iron structure reminds you of how minuscule in size you are. It seems unreal as it’s lights ripple off the Seine and its grayish brown exterior has altered its color like a chameleon. The golden hue it emits warms your soul and comforts you. The world has temporarily become mute. For once in your life you are content, wishing that this moment can become like the marble bridges, suspended in time. The “City of Light” is in fact all that it is supposed to be. You look over from a distance and smile as the Eiffel Tower looks after its city, gently embracing it with its light.

     The forth chapter of Back to the Lake provides information on what entails a good narrative. A narrative is a form of writing that allows a personal touch. It is a form of storytelling. Narratives contain events and are used for many reasons. They can connect to audiences, entertain readers, record experiences, explain certain topics, persuade people and more. There are numerous branches of narratives. One branch is autobiography. In the book one example of an autobiography is given. It is one of Benjamin Franklin’s writings. In his work he provides personal anecdotes. Narratives can also involve success stories. A good narrative contains before and after points, cause and effect, a climax, follows sequential order, has a plot, has a purpose, addresses an audience, uses transitions, has an argument, demonstrates a point, uses proper grammatical structure and punctuation. They can have dialogue, and be written from the first or third person. 

     Lynda Barry captivates her audience with her relatable narrative “The Sanctuary of School”. The story flows so well because it is entertaining and fast paced. I liked that Barry follows chronological order and provides details within the text. She consistently refers to her feelings, which allows me as the reader to sympathize with her. I understand why school served as her sanctuary because she always felt unnoticed at home. Her desperation and sadness can be sensed through her underlying messages within her sentences. You could see how “ in an overcrowded and unhappy home, it’s easy for any child to slip away” (85). I can relate to her because at times when I’m sad I can find solace in doing an activity I enjoy in a place that I love. For me one escape would be when I would leave home and walk to the bookstore and stay there reading in between the isles for hours. I understand why Barry felt safe at school. She would be noticed by Mr. Cunningham and Ms. Claire LeSane, as oppose to being neglected. When she would draw something it would give her recognition as oppose to being dismissed. I also enjoyed her flash-forward. “It’s only thinking about it now, 28 years later, that I realize I was crying from relief” (85). This sentence allows readers to understand how she currently interprets her emotions. I understood her sadness when she spoke about the funding being cut for after school programming, because children like her would then be in danger of taking care of themselves or “slipping through the cracks”. One thing I did not enjoy in the text was the closing. I think Barry should have closed in a more personal way, as oppose to questioning if the country will help the other children in the nation by pledging back.

     You can see Barry’s argument on the nation’s involvement in public schools by the way she integrates in into her text. She does not approve of budget cuts. “Before- and after- school programs are cut and we are told that public schools are not made for baby-sitting children”, says Barry (58). I can see where Barry’s argument is coming from. Children do not always have the choice to live the life they live. They do not select their families or economic status. Our nation should care about them because they help mold our future. It should not cut funding, and then expect them to fend for themselves. Barry understands the pain of these children and neglect because she has lived through it herself so she is the perfect advocate.

     Detail is another important feature of the narrative. It allows Barry to create the setting. She describes her room, her home, her classroom, and the exterior of the school. Her home is described negatively because it is what she wants to escape, while the school is described positively because it is her sanctuary. Her room is almost something foreign because she was used to it being something she would be “giving up”. Once she would see the edge of her school she would feel a burden lifted off of her.  The school “had the most beautiful view of the Cascade Mountains”. Barry’s feelings would correlate with how she would describe something. All the techniques that Barry incorporates within her narrative are what make it a powerful and intriguing piece.