Twain’s argument in this quote is that to be socially and financially successful you must conform to the attitudes and feelings of the majority. This issue is extremely complex because there is no carte-blanche answer. There are exceptions on either side of the argument. On the one hand, if you say that you agree, there will always be some successful people who are not with the majority. One of the specific ways Twain said that people must conform is in religion and politics. In those two ways, I would disagree with Twain. I believe that someone most definitely can be successful with rare religious beliefs.

An example of someone successful while not in the majority religiously and politically would be Tom Cruise. He is defintitely not conformed when it comes to religion because he is a Scientologist. Also, John Travolta is part of the same group. If those rich guys aren’t successful socially or in their businesses, i don’t know who is. Now, it’s true that things might have been a little different during Mark Twain’s generation. But there are many more examples of religious or political extremists who are successful.

That said, it is definitely extremely difficult to make yourself successful when you are significantly different from the majority of people. You have to work about twice as hard at what you do. Many who disagree with me might object that the different standards these people are held to make impossible to be accepted. But rather than say it is impossible, i would much prefer to say that despite the increased difficulty it is possible, though rare.

Here are my answers…

2. Denby’s description of the male villain focuses on his physical traits- like his being “muscular, with a face like a beer mug”. Also he points out he has two ways of speaking. Instead of pointing out what he says, like he did with the female description, he focuses on how he says it. Denby also observes the physical pranks used by the male. On the other hand, the author depicts the female villain with her verbal, intellectual, and social weapons.

3. There’s a tone change between paragraphs three and four, where Denby goes from describing characters to analyzing the genre of teen movies. He also contributes to the tone change by switching from statements to questions.

4. There is a break between three and four because the author is moving from introduction to body. There is a shift in tone and content at this point in the essay.

5. The essay answers the question “Do genre films depict reality?” by comparing and contrasting film portrayals in teen movies with real life facts, situations and feelings.

6. Denby makes reference to others’ work by making explicit reference, such as when he references “the critic Robert Warshow’s formulation[s]“. He also makes more implicit allusions, like when he calls the genre “Portrait of the Filmmaker as a Young Nerd”. This alluded to the James Joyce novel.

7. Denby’s central argument is that teen movies don’t depict reality. His sub-arguments include the bad effects of teen movies, reasons why filmmakers film the movies, and other things.

9. Denby ties the theory of “the wound and the bow” to teen movies by saying that in many cases, the writer of the film had a bad experience in high school and ends up portraying himself as the main kid in the movie. He argues that the films “arise from remembered hurts which then get recast in symbolic form”.

10. The argument is supported by the fact that the two guys shot up the school and themselves, and if they would have waited, they would have ended up “working at a hip software company, or have started their own business”, while the jocks they hated probably wouldn’t have gone far after high school.

11. Denby snanlyzes these movies with strong diction. For instance, he describes one as “so wildly lurid and funny that it exploded the cliches of the genre before the genre was quite set. He then compares the world depicted in the crazy movies with the world of the Columbine shooters. He uses these movies well to support his argument.

12. The likely audience for this essay is the group of people who go out and watch these types of films- whether they be parentsw or teens. I’m sure also that Denby hopes filmmakers read the essay. Denby considers his audience through his diction and his logic.

The general argument made by author Susan Jacoby in her work “How Dumb Can We Get?” is that anti-intellectualism is increasing in America and needs to be stopped. She writes “there is no quick cure for this epidemic of arrogant anti-rationalism and anti-intellectualism…the people who exemplify the problem usually are oblivious to it.” In this passage, Jacoby is suggesting that not only does this huge problem need to be reversed, it still needs to be identified as a problem! In conclusion, Susan Jacoby’s belief is that shrinking attention spans and the erosion of knowledge are important anti-intellectual forces in American culture.

In my view, Jacoby is right, because I see anti-intellectualism in school and in public every day. More specifically, I believe that anti-intellectualism is starting very early and should be thwarted on the home front as well as at school and in the media. For example, imagine how quickly this problem could be solved if family, teachers/staff, and celebrities were all working against this problem at the same time. Although Susan Jacoby might object that the problem first needs to be identified, i maintain that because of the growing future generation of anti-intellectuals, proactive steps can be taken right now. Therefore, I conclude that Susan Jacoby’s article was correct, I agree with it, but she could have been more specific.

The Autumn of the Multitaskers was an interesting piece of writing that opened up many things to think about. The author, Walter Kirn, used the main argument that Multitasking isn’t as helpful as people would have you believe. Sub-arguments in the different sections had to do with the negative effects of multitasking in different ways- physically, mentally, emotionally, and even fiscally. All of these arguments realted to one another and were extremely relevant to the main point. Because he developed his point through sub-arguments, it didnt sound like he was repeating himself. Thats all i really got from the article.

Persona- Kennedy took the image of a young, new, exciting president in this speech. He wanted to be inspirational and uplifting. He wanted to identify with his audience and be a real person, down to earth. JFK wanted to seem like a huge change from the last presidents.

Audience- the beginning of the speech is Kennedy personally addressing his different audience members. Besides the dignitaries and civilians in attendance there in Washington DC, there were citizens watching on TV all across America. The speech was broadcast all over the world, as well- so you could say that his audience was the world. Parts of the speech were geared toward Americans, some parts were directed toward Russia, and still other parts of the speech were directed toward the whole world. (The parts directed toward Russia were the paragraphs that began with “Let both sides”, which was referring to the sides of the Cold War. Also, his audience was specifically Latin America in the paragragh that started with “to our sister republics south of the border”.

Argument- JFK’s main, overreaching argument throughout the speech is that together, the citizens of America and the world can do anything. (Ex: “United, there is little we cannot do”). An interesting sub-argument is that the world will be better off without the growth of weapons technology. Also, JFK argues that “a more fruitful life for all mankind” is possible as a result of a “grand and global alliance”.

Purpose- The purpose of Kennedy’s speech is to introduce himself as president, to assert himself as a force (for good) to be reckoned with. Other purposes include to inspire and ignite change in America and the world. He also makes many pledges to other countries on behalf of America, such as “our special pledge-to convert our good words into good deeds-in a new alliance for progress” (that pledge was to Latin America). JFK also makes a pledge to the U.N. in this speech. Finally, a major purpose of the speech is to try to start good relations with Russia and to end the Cold War.