Nick Carraway is introduced as a wealthy man who attended Yale, but came from a middle-class family. According to the story, Nick is a good man who does not "voice his judgement to others" inferring that Nick is a nice man who many people would aspire to be and is highly adored by others. His Father gave him advice that he has carried with him ever since. "Whenever you feel like criticizing any one . . . just remember that all the people in this world haven't had the advantages that you've had." The meaning is very strong as Nick comes from a middle class family that values a sense of moral justice. Soon, Nick attends his cousin's dinner party, During this dinner party, it is seen that Nick is not even close to how wealthy Daisy Buchanan (Nick's cousin) is. Her husband arrogant and bash, boasting about his wealthiness. Nick kept his opinions to himself as he is man who does not judge others, so consequently Nick and Tom got along well at the dinner party. The scene portrays that Nick is very observant, calmly keeping to himself while viewing and observing the scene around him realistically. Nick is not as nearly as wealthy as Tom, Daisy, and Gatsby displaying the idea that he does not fit into the "upper-class social circle" that Tom, Daisy, and Gatsby find themselves in. Even as he moves to East Egg in New York, he simply lives in a cottage next to the extensive shadow Gatsby and Buchanan's mansion cast. This merely symbolizes how wealthy Gatsby and the Buchanans are compared to Nick. Because Nick is not as wealthy as them and also views the world in a different perspective than the Buchanans (especially Tom) and Gatsby, this allows him to observe social issues in New York and identify with them easier.
Group Members: Sneha George, Bria Wright, Sydney Miller, and Sharon Kolawole
Presentation Powerpoint: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SxlYnDPqZhQ_E-lYmzhuHUw7qN8Q0aOi66iuJoCMOU8/edit?usp=sharing Rebuttal: “The Man Who Thinks Soccer is Ruining America”
Author of Blog Post: Amy Maestri Rebuttal Authors: Sneha George, Bria Wright, Sharon Kolawole, Sydney Miller My Dear Amy, You and I are alike in similar ways, we are both human girls, we both like to write, and we both consider ourselves comedians. Being that we have so much in common, I feel as though I should, how should I say, help you out, because human girls gotta stick together, ya know. I recently read your not-so-recent response to Stephen Webb’s “How Soccer is Ruining America: a Jeremiad”, and I believe your reaction to the piece is typical for a person who possesses an underdeveloped ability to rhetorically analyze writing and lacks deep cognitive thinking. Firstly, you lost my support in the first sentence: “I am going to refer to you, affectionately as I.I.A (Ignorant Insane Ass) for ease of use.” Although this is your personal blog, I find it highly inappropriate, and disrespectful to refer to someone as an “Ignorant Insane Ass” despite how you feel about them. For me, and I’m sure for some of your audience, your indignant use of informal language is a complete literary turnoff. It makes me want to stop reading because a person who has the diction of an angry teenage girl (I would know, I am one) is painfully unaware of how to express her feelings in a more eloquent and classy way. It’s not your fault that you’re unfortunately incompetent at deciphering the difference between sarcasm/satire and being literal. “I’m not sure if you were trying to do some sort of funny satire or if you’re really just that much of an I.I.A. Either way, it didn’t work. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion so I will try to be as nice as possible in this but that could have been the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life. And that includes the first chapter of Snooki’s book.” Honey, you’ve got it all wrong. Allow me to amend your erroneous assertion. You claim that his attempt at funny satire didn’t work. Have you ever thought that maybe you just...didn’t get it? You fell into the logical fallacy of personal incredulity. You are not sure of his use of satire, therefore you immediately rule it out and say that it does not work. It went over your head; it’s understandable. That’s why I’m writing you this letter, to help you. “Soccer is running America into the ground…” (pg.267 ). As soon as this article takes off, anyone can easily come to the conclusion that this man is not serious. This hysterical use of a pun, sets the tone for the rest of the article by lessening the strength of every blow he makes against soccer. The effect is instantaneous; the article automatically goes from babbling idiot to clever and funny individual . Also, did you read his points? They’re not very strong; he did this intentionally. “ Any sport that limits you to using your feet, with the occasional bang of the head, has something very wrong with it.” (pg.267 ), “Do kids ever say, “Trick or Treat, smell my hands”?” (pg. 268), “Everyone knows that soccer is a foreign invasion” (pg. 269). It’s extremely obvious what Webb is doing here. I’m actually quite surprised that you didn’t catch it. His claims are flimsy at best and he wants them to be, because he’s proving just how invalid the arguments of actual soccer-haters are. He is deriding them. He likes soccer. Just like you. Are you picking up what I’m putting down? I am thoroughly convinced that you don’t understand satire, and that is alright. However the problem with your statement lies with that simple fact. If you had committed to the idea that it could have been a satirical essay, maybe you would not have thought Mr. Webb to be such an I.I.A. “I agree kids need to be shown there is always going to be a winner and a loser and that is how sports work, but you’re argument of baseball being some sort of gladiator event is one of the worst and largest exaggerations I’ve ever heard and does nothing to prove your point against soccer. Soccer can be one of the most heartbreaking games on the planet.” Unfortunately, along with your lack of satirical knowledge, you seem to be quite confused on hyperboles. By definition (google), a hyperbole is an exaggerated statement or claim not meant to be taken literally. I am assuming you are referencing Mr. Webb’s statement: “Sporting should be about breaking kids down before you start building them up. Take baseball, for example.” This is a point that is debatable. However what is not debatable is that you clearly used a hyperbole explaining your dislike of Webb’s usage of a hyperbole. Amy, to end my letter, I must quote something a passionate but terribly confusing blogger once posted on the internet: “if you were doing this as a humorous satire then maybe you should have actually made it humorous. And if you weren’t, and you were actually serious about it…well…I really don’t know what else to say other than you are a true I.I.A. Most Respectfully Yours, Anon |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
April 2015
Categories |