Three Poems

Personally, I believe that the three poems are all written by different authors. In every facet, including form, diction, mood, tone, point of view and choice of figurative devices, all of the poems are distinctly unique.

In terms of scansion, the first poem is primarily iambic pentameter, with the occasional use of iambic tetrameter. However, the second poem has no clear meter. All of the lines are seemingly random in syllable count, and have a mix of accented and unaccented syllables. Each stanza in the last poem consists of five, seven syllable lines, finishing with a four syllable line. Also, poem number two has no rhyme scheme, while poem one is ABABCDDCB (for each stanza) and poem three is ABACBD, which the last word of each stanza rhyming. No stanzas between poems are similar in line count either. By analyzing the form of each of the poems, they are all distinct. There is nothing that makes any poem similar to another, which immediately leaves me to believe they are written by different authors.

The first poem is very objective. There is no clear speaker, and not once does it use the word ‘I.’ However, the other two poems do make use of the word ‘I,’ and are clearly written in first person. An observer is speaking from their account, which leads to a subjective perspective. These differences in point of view further support my hypothesis of three authors.

Each poem makes different use of diction, mood, and tone. The first poem has a very negative feel. It begins by using beautiful imagery and metaphor (its two prime figurative devices) to establish a wondrous fantasy environment, but then destroys this view with a description of destruction. The words chosen are very violent and destructive, which aids in creating the pessimistic vibe. Poem two also has a negative tone, however, it is much more emotional. It does not rely on using bluntly negative language. Instead, repetition is used to enforce the mood of the piece. The final poem, though they are all about nature, is the only one to use apostrophe. It also includes much more spiritual references, unlike the pervious poems. This creates a more positive tone, which again is different from the other poems.

Ultimately, the poems contain very little similarities other than the topic of nature. They all make use of different figurative devices, have varying tones/moods, drastically divergent in diction and have totally unlike forms. All of these factors lead me to believe that each poem has a different author.

Examples of Good and Bad writting

Bad Writing

The first two opening statements are truisms. Obviously, there are individuals in our society with thoughts and feelings. Just by reading the first few lines, any educated reader can determine that this paragraph does not begin with a strong message, or any message at all. This passage violates rules, two, five, six and seven, to the up most extreme. First, the passage could use some serious re-wording throughout the entire paragraph. The use rhetorical questions are ineffective and unnecessary. The passage is so confusing to read, i could hardly follow the thought process at all. It seemed as though there were just random sentence pieced together with no real though for the readers. Also, it appears the writer enjoyed using his thesaurus throughout the passage...

This passage is basically all hype. It takes no logical direction and uses large words to seem intelligent. It's one large run-on-sentence with no real subject matter.

Once again, the use of rhetorical questions have no effect on the reader what-so-ever. Personally, i am not a science orientated person at all. Thus his question about science experiments creating emotions in people goes right over my head, and i'm sure i am not alone. In the beginning the writer mentions a science experiment, near the end, he relates god filling the gap for a lost parent. Also, there is no source for any of his facts about Freud. Both Topics are completely separate and the middle of the passage does not effectively connect the two ideas together.


Good Writing

This passage is a considered good writing because it explains a topic with effect use of language and doesn't attempt to seem overly intelligent. Its very straight forward, sweet and simple. The topic sentence, the middle and the conclusion all relate to one and other and make perfect sense. The author also avoids using long sentences to explain himself.

Though the passage is short and sweet, it gives you some good insight and some information that you may not have known. The writer also avoids using complex words in order to appear intelligent. I've noticed the that there is a common theme between all the examples of good writing, they all have the exact same characteristics, they all use affective word choices. Also, each sentence compliments one and another.

"The Death of the Moth" by Virginia Woolf - Description

“The Death of the Moth” by Virginia Woolf is a strong example of good writing. Woolf fully avoids all of the conventions of bad writing, which leads to a pleasant and effective read. Stylistically, Woolf employs flawless grammar and spelling, and selects words of great artfulness and sophistication. Furthermore, “The Death of the Moth” has an extremely clear focus. It is fixed on describing the last moments of life experienced by a moth, and refrains from including unnecessary commentary. The length of the piece is appropriate for the subject matter, and the writing in no way is over hyped, too clever, or thinks too highly of itself. Consequently, “The Death of the Moth” is an exemplar of good writing.

As well as being a firm model of good writing, “The Death of the Moth” by Virginia Woolf is also an exceptional example of the description method of development. The essay does not tell a story about a moth. Instead, it gives an impression as to what the act of a moth dying is like. Woolf utilizes extremely specific words and phrases. Instead of using vague description, Woolf’s is vivid. For example, Woolf beautifully describes the creature’s struggle when, “[the moth] was trying to resume his dancing, but seemed either so stiff or awkward that he could only flutter to the bottom of the windowpane.” Many inexperienced writers would often simply say, ‘the moth could not fly very he well so it fell to the bottom of the window,’ whereas Woolf selects radiant and evocative adjectives and verbs to explore the death of the moth. Woolf also makes use of metaphor, simile and figurative language to fully describe the moth’s death. The use of these devices further enhances the magnitude of the moth’s demise, and the narrator realizes the profound effect of death when he states he, “could only watch the extraordinary efforts made by those ting legs against an oncoming doom which could, had it chosen, have submerged an entire city, not merely a city, but masses of human beings.” As a result of the artful adjectives, nouns, verbs, metaphors and similes, the death of a seemingly insignificant creature is heightened, and made into a far more emotional and jarring affair.

Ultimately, “The Death of a Moth” by Virginia Woolf is tremendously stirring and clear, which makes it a prime example of the method of development of description.

Examples of good and bad writing

Examples of bad writing:

The first example of bad writing starts with truism it states that our society is made up of individuals, when we already know that if our society was not made up of individuals then it wouldn’t be a society. It also includes that the individual has individual thoughts and actions, and we also know if this wasn’t present they wouldn’t be individuals. As well as using truism the author overloads the reader with questions. This can be overwhelming for a reader, especially when it seems as though the author doesn’t seem to have his/her own answers to these questions. A solution to this may be to “go on a diet” with the question asking. This paragraph ends on a negative note. All together this paragraph presents you with definitions you already know, an overwhelming amount of questions to frustrate yourself with, and those who we consider intelligent that research nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values have all wasted their time.

The second example of bad writing is too clever it is using unnecessary words to make it sound more intelligent when really all they are doing in confusing the reader. It is a four line sentence that most likely could have been written in two. They have put far too much detail into trying to make a single point. They could fix this by taking out the unnecessary information, or splitting the information in to multiple sentences.

The third example of bad writing gives you a specific fact about Freud but does not give you a source to reference from. This leaves the reader with uncertainty of the truth. The paragraph also starts with a quotation, leaving out an introduction.

All the examples of bad writing leave out sources


Examples of good writing:

The first example of good writing is very clear, it uses intelligent phrases but is precise making it enjoyable for the reader. It includes factual content that is believable, and it includes a source if any doubt was present. It educates the reader by condensing the information, making it easy to understand, this giving the reader satisfaction.

The second example of good writing incorporates the quotations into the sentences with references. It asks one question and later explains it therefore the reader is not overwhelmed, frustrated, or confused.

The third example of good writing is written with confidence. It includes questions that are later explained clearly and precisely. It informs the reader of the knowledge needed to answer the questions. It ends in a question but since the reader has been given information, it allows them the ability to form their own answer. Overall the paragraph includes factual content that is explained thoroughly, but not to the point where the reader becomes uninterested.

All the examples of good writing include sources

Wicked Words - Definition

Hugh Rawson's "Wicked Words" is an example of well written definition essay. He presents connotative and denotative definitions of the word “dog”. He gives us the direct definition of “dog”first to inform us of the original meaning, “the first of the animals to be domesticated”, later we are able to compare explicit meanings with the original. Some examples of explicit definitions of “dog” given are: An ugly person, often a women; a worthless person, as in “Am I a dog that though comest to me with staves?” Rawson writes that only rarely is “dog” used affectionately. It more than often is used to describe a chore, and negative action done by a person. In the English language we have many words that have several meanings. It seems as though over time explicit meanings of words are becoming more common. For example “gay” was used to express the feeling of happiness, this was before it acquired its present sexual orientation. This secondary meaning has caused controversy. Some may find this word offensive if used in the explicit tense. It is ironic how a word such as “gay” which once had the single definition of happiness can now cause offensive feelings because of its development of denotative definition.

Good and Bad Writing

All of the examples of bad writing break one or more of the conventions of the “Seven Types of Bad Writing.” The first example of bad writing includes many of the described seven types. The biggest problem with the first example of bad writing is that it has no direction. After reading and re-reading, I am still questioning the intent of the piece. With good pieces of writing, the reader should be able to instantly pick out the thesis, or at least the core idea. However, this example has no clear focus. It also attempts to use words and ideas that are unnecessarily grandiose, which aid in creating the confusing read. In order to improve this writing, I would not only fix the grammatical errors, but also remove the excessive amount of questions, and reduce the length by about one half. Example number two uses far too many big words, and is just one long, run on sentence. On top of this, it an also a large frankenquote. The other main issues are that it thinks too highly of itself, trying to make a simple issue far more important, and ignores the needs of the reader - simplicity. The third example of bad writing clearly does not prove its thesis. Like the first example, it to has no direction, and thinks too much of itself. Also, in trying to prove a scientific argument, an author should include relevant facts and citations. This piece does not, which leads me to question if the Freud reference is fact or fiction.

The examples of good writing, however, completely avoid the types of bad writing. “The Spawning of the Capelin” has a very clear focus. The first sentence makes it clear what the rest of the paragraph will be about. It also makes use of sophisticated language, without speaking too highly of itself. Finally, I believe it is successful because it is concise and to the point. There is no unnecessary information included, which makes for a simplistic and satisfying read. The second example, “The Genes for Color Vision” is primarily successful due to its succinct style, and reference to a credible source. It has a clear direction, and uses scientific terminology, which would appeal to a Scientific American reader. “Is the Brain’s Mind a Computer Program?” discusses a very complex and sophisticated topic, however, it does not use language that is above its context, no does it forcefully try to “sound big, grown-up and clever.” Also, like all the other examples of good writing, it too has a very clear direction and fully executes its intent.

The concept of audience is clearly the most decisive factor for the assessment of good and bad writing, yet it is also the most difficult. Ultimately, it is the reader, or audience, which decides of something is written well or poorly. However, it is also the most difficult factor to appeal to, as all readers have different abilities, background knowledge and tastes. It is without question that a one may read an article and think it is brilliant, while another may feel it is trash. To combat this, an author must implement all of their tools as a writer to craft the most widely appealing work in order for it to be universally regarded as “good writing.”

Archetypal and Post Modern Criticism

In my opinion, an archetype is not a stereotype, as the archetype acts as a model in which a story is formed from. It is by no means the story itself. To me, the word stereotype implies a general, fixed and oversimplified idea of something. Archetypes provide a solid foundation in which to paint various stories. Though many archetypes are reoccurring in literature, film, art and mythology, such as the archetypes of good, evil, heroes, villains and tricksters, they differ greatly from tale to tale. For example, the iconic hero, Superman, is the epitome of bravery - tall, handsome, muscular and endlessly combats evil. However, not all archetypal heroes follow this pattern. Contrary to the typical, Superman-esque protagonist are heroes like Frodo from The Lord of the Rings. Though still a hero, he is not presented in the typical buff, crime fighting way. He is truly an unconventional hero, but one nonetheless. J.R.R. Tolken has used the archetypal quest eloquently and perfectly, however, the story is intensely unique, proving that archetypes are not stereotypes.

Based on the above, I would argue that there are no universal “truths” per-say to archetypes. As we read and write, we are not rediscovering ways to interpret the “truth” of archetypes, but to mold and alter the conventions of an archetype. As previously stated, I believe it is best to use archetypes as models and guides. There is no one way to write a story, and no one way to craft characters, as demonstrated by the post-modernism movement. Writing a quest does not mean that it must include all twelve steps of the archetypal quest to be real, or truthful. It simply means that certain elements will occur to not only engross the reader, but to successfully portray the struggles associated with a hero’s journey.

In the context of David Arnason’s short story “A Girl’s Story,” Arnason himself is portraying the trickster archetype. Though his antics and seemingly random ideas do not change the overall plot of the story, or even influence it much (as the majority of the story is simply the unorthodox hijinks of this trickster) it does “disrupt the status quo.” By doing this, Arnason is conforming to the norm of the trickster archetype. Arnason makes use of more trickster qualities, such as ridicule, as demonstrated when he insults other forms of literary criticism, most evidently feminism when he directly states, “I’m going to have trouble with the feminists . . . The feminists are going to say that I’m perpetuating stereotypes, that by giving the impression the girl is full of hidden passion I’m encouraging rapists.” However, the interesting quality of “A Girl’s Story” is that it is fully contrasting the traditional presentation of the trickster. Unorthodoxly, Arnason, the author himself, is the trickster, as opposed to character within the story playing this role. By doing this, Arnason is taking steps to morph the modes of archetypes, and also proving that archetypal characters do not have to conform to a stereotype.

Ultimately, an archetype is not a stereotype until the author makes it so. An author may chose to conform to the norms of certain archetypes, but will often add tweaks and quirks that make the characters interesting, engaging, and three-dimensional. It is a conscious decision to portray a character as stereotypical. When this occurs, it is evident that an author has failed to use archetypes as models, and created a cliched and formulaic story.

The Shining Houses

The difference between losing a home, and losing your self-worth is apparent. The main issue when becoming a victim of a crime or an indiscretion is being robbed of something of importance. I feel as though material possessions and your voice are incomparable. Houses, by most means - are replaceable, though self esteem and confidence take years to establish and maintain.

My main issue with Mary is that fact that she was aware of Mrs.Fullertons situation, yet did not voice it to the other neighbours. I believe if Mary was any sort of a good person, she would have stood up for her beliefs and protected Mrs.Fullerton. Though i am aware how difficult it may be to stand up for yourself - let alone another human being - i am certain that if she truly cared for Mrs. Fullerton, she would have helped by any means necessary. That is why i have no real sympathy for Mary, shes young and capable - yet she cant seem to stand up for an elderly, helpless woman. Mary should be ashamed of herself for allowing this to happen, yet for some reason, i feel she is somewhat of a victim - but by her own means. She allowed herself to be put in that position yet, feels sorry for herself - i find that pathetic.

Mrs.Fullerton is the true victim, because she was basically forced to cooperate with her neighbors, and had no way to protect herself or her home. She was taken advantage of and basically at a loss for her own dignity. She too was not the only one to lose her voice.

The Shining houses -Marxist Literary Criticism

The Shining Houses by Alice Munro portrays an interesting concept of the values of Marxism. At first glance it appears that Mrs. Fullerton is a greater victim than Mary, but this is not completely accurate. The roles in this story are reversed roles of the Marxist’s concept of the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Although the owners of the shining houses initially appear to be the bourgeoisie, through further analysis, it becomes clear that they are the oppressed proletariat class. The White Houses were not built for high-class individuals but lower income class families with higher expectations: “People who would live in them came out and tramped around in the mud on Sundays. They were for people like Mary and her husband and their child, with not much money but expectations of more”(29). It is also apparent that Mrs. Fullerton is not in financial trouble. She shows this from her repeal at the thought of babysitting for the owners of the White Houses: “this baby-sitting. All the time one or the other is asking me about baby-sitting. I tell them I got my own house to sit in and I raised my share of children”(28). She has also effectively lived on her own for 12 years. There is also a correlation between the removal of Mrs. Fullerton's property and the value increase of her neighborhood. This creates an interesting point as there would be a redistribution of wealth that is a common factor in communist revolutions. By interpreting the text this way, one could say Mrs. Fullerton’s house is oppressing the needed wealth of her neighbors.

Mary also suffers from an inability to effectively display her point of view to her neighbors, as displayed in this quotation, “Mary knew what they were talking about. Her neighbors' conversation, otherwise not troubling, might at any moment snag itself on this subject... causing her to look despairingly out of windows, or down into her lap, trying to find some... word to bring it to a stop; she did not succeed”(31). This further supports the idea that Mary is the greater victim in this story as she lacks the ability to express her feelings on the same level as her neighbors. Displayed in the starting of the story, Mary also has a personal relationship with Mrs. Fullerton, and along with this she is subjected to the badgering of Mrs. Fullerton by fellow neighbors about the poor state of her house.


“ ‘I thought I might offer my black cherries for sale next summer,’ Mrs. Fullerton said. ‘Come and pick your own and they're fifty cents a box’...‘That's too much,’ Mary said, smiling. ‘They're cheaper than that at the supermarket’ ”(28). This quote displays a final point about why Mary is more of a victim than Mrs. Fullerton. Mrs. Fullerton lacks knowledge of the changing society she lives in and this essentially protects her from knowing what’s going on around her. We the reader, do not even know if Mrs. Fullerton even knows that her neighbors are displeased with the state of her house. Overall, it's quite clear that Mary shows more characteristics of a victim than Mrs. Fullerton.

Reader Response Theory - Two Words by Isabel Allende

The two words discussed in Isabel Allende’s short story Two Words, but never revealed to the reader are so personalized that no other individual will be able to comprehend them. The two words play a large role in the story, and also create another underlying theme from the story. Through the entire story, the reader is expecting the revealing of the two mystery words that are plaguing one of the most feared men around. I’ve decided that the purpose of not revealing the two words could be to show the reader that they cannot always get what they want. The human race has always strived to know the unknown. This has led us to become accustomed to having every detail disclosed in a story.

Why does the reader want to know what the two words are? We are told throughout the story that no other woman/man would be able to use the same word. “She gave the gift of a secret word to drive away melancholy. It was not the same word for everyone, naturally, because that would have been collective deceit. Each person received his or her own word, with the assurance that no one else would use it that way in this universe or the beyond” (52). Also supporting the theory is how she discarded the dictionary after she read it, as “it was not her intention to defraud her customers with packaged words” (53). So with this said , why is the reader still striving to know what these two words are?

Overall, I believe that we shouldn’t be trying to decipher what the two words are, but why the author decided it was not required of her to inform us of these words. I personally do not want to know the words that Belisa Crepusculario told the Colonel as they would have absolutely no meaning to me.

Touching Bottom by Kari Strutt - Feminist Literary Criticism

Adrienne Rich’s concept of "seeing with fresh eyes" can easily be seen through the narrators depiction in Kari Strutt’s short story, Touching Bottom. The first half of the text is male-dominated, as the reader knows nothing of the Mother and her influences on the narrator, but is well informed about her relationship with her father. Her father is a reluctant individual as he continues to pursue swimming lessons for his daughter although she had given up swimming as displayed in this quotation “That fall my Dad signed me up for Red Cross swimming lessons. In a pool. ‘You can start again,’ Dad said. ‘I'm sure there are no leeches at the YMCA, but I'll come and watch, just to be sure”(125). Her father also tries to prevent her by not giving his consent, and informing her that she would be sorry for what she had done “My Dad told me not to go, not to marry him. He said I would be sorry” (125). This demonstrates the theory of feminism literary criticism as a father is correct in assumes that their relationship won’t last. Until this part of the story the reader is immersed in what would come before Adrienne Rich’s concept of "seeing with fresh eyes".

In the second half of the story the narrator begins to pull away from her male-dominated world. She disobey’s her father’s wishes, and married her Californian love. When the family is at the beach the reader is exposed to Adrienne Rich’s concept as the narrator takes a different tone towards her husband. When it appears that there will be no male interference to stop her and Ian from drowning, the reader can clearly see that the narrator can indeed see with fresh eyes. Her reformed thoughts towards her husband can be seen as she is struggling from drowning: “I was swimming and wondering if, in California, it was okay for a married man to lie on the beach watching girls while his second wife entertained his son” (127). “ ‘Can you try again, Ian? Just swim for a minute.’ ‘No, I'm too tired.’ ‘Just try, for me.’I didn't wait for him to answer, I just let him go. I knew instantly that it was a mistake... I watched the distance between us grow until he screamed. ‘Mom, help’ ”(128). This quotation is interesting as the narrator wasn’t really Ian’s Mother, but as soon a she is call “Mom” it is as if the narrator has a boost of energy, and it is her duty as a self sufficient being to save her child. After all this, we learn that the narrator is no longer oppressed by the male figure, and that she has divorced her husband and living on her own. Adrienne Rich’s concept of "seeing with fresh eyes" is perfectly represented in Strutt’s short story as it displays the two extremes associated with this concept.