She and I inspired by He and I-Natalia Ginzburg (APE)

She was always in the spotlight, while I always trailed behind. Seven years set us apart from each other. She had finished high school and started college, before I entered my teenage years. Sharing a mother, she got similarities of facial features, hair length, nose, while I favored my father. Growing up she was very athletic, while I climbed trees and read books. She planned softball with our sister, Brittany. She was a catcher. I remember attending the games to see her from the stands in a padded vest and a guarded helmet. She could throw a ball in 2.5 seconds across the field. Her softball playing career ended when she graduated high school.

She had a baby boy, dropped out of college, and got married, while I was just starting high school. She matured in motherhood, while I still wore zip-up hoodies. She seemed to know how to care for her babies, while I hesitantly asked which way was best to hold them. She had the signs of relief and glow, when I saw her after she had my nephew, Logan. She was working at Goodwill for awhile to help pay for food and rent, but then shortly quit when my niece, Lily, was on the way.

I entered college as the last and only child left in the family, while she had a family of her own. She came to my college on a weekend (Sibs Weekend). She wanted to drink and party, while I had tried to make the most of her time. We went to a bar on a night that was supposedly for same-sex couples. She realized it was gay night, before I did. She smokes menthol cigarettes, while I start coughing even if there is a little smoke. She’s a stay-at-home mom, while I try to get an education to have a career.

She is always defensive, while I speak the truth. She uses the line “No I don’t!”, far too often, while I explain my reasoning. She has three pets (2 dogs, 1 cat), while I can hardly take care of myself.

She loves anything that has to do with owls or vampires. I don’t understand the popular culture ideas like Twilight, it’s her favorite movie. She tries to talk about boys, while I hide that part of myself. She asks me what my type is. I just laugh it off.

She talks before thinking, while I analysis everything I say. Her words can hurt, especially during the holidays. She expects the most from those that are closest to her. I understand don’t her expectations. She still sees me as a child. I at times, still do.

She relies on her husband, in-laws, and our mother, while I’m independent. She struggles to be active and assertive, while I try to make my own decisions. She loves girl talk, while I tolerant it. She talks the loudest in a crowd. I talk at medium volume. She loves country music, but can’t carry a note in a wheel barrow. We share the same height, but not the same dad. She needs no make-up, while I feel bare if I wear none. She is the loud at times, obnoxious sister, while I’m the reserved one. 

Response to Truman Capote’s excerpt from In Cold Blood (Art of Fact)

Capote has a very precise way of describing surroundings, people, and certain elements to capture the dark psychological story of two killers. In this piece, I can see the intense relationship between Dick and Perry, while they are on the run. Dick seems to be the more assertive type, while Perry seems passive. The piece starts off by Dick and Perry hitchhiking and thinking about killing the driver, so no one can follow them or get caught. Capote also does a brilliant job at portraying the feelings of Perry, while he is being reminded of his father: “Their laughter irritated Perry; he especially disliked Mr. Bell’s outbursts—hearty barks that sounded very much like the laughter of Tex John Smith, Perry’s father. The memory of his father’s laughter increased his tension; his head hurt, his knees ached. He chewed three aspirin and swallowed them dry. Jesus!” (163). This shows that Capote tried to capture Perry’s exact feelings, while being an outsider to his emotions.

The second section of this piece follows the detective working Dick and Perry’s case, Harold Nye. Capote follows Nye around his investigation as he describes the interview Nye had with the landlady of the hotel. I absolutely love the description of the landlady: “…the landlady’s long and lacquered fingernails search a page of pencil-scribbled names…A cockroach emerged, and the landlady stepped on it, squashing it under the heel of her gold leather scandal,” (164, 166). Capote also shows the scenery very well; I could tell this hotel was cheap, dump that probably couldn’t pass any inspection based on his descriptions of odors the place produced and the landlady’s grotesque appeal.

Capote also does a great job with suspense and intensity, especially in this section. This piece starts with Perry and Dick hitchhiking, then Nye investigating, then back to Perry and Dick on the run. The last section shows Dick and Perry’s desperation: they have no money, so they stay at a Salvation Army; they eat chocolate bars and chewing gum because Perry stole it from a drug store, and they steal a car they find. This last section also shows the dynamitic again between Dick and Perry’s relationship. Dick stole the chocolate bars and chewing gum, but got his favorite flavor, Double-mint, where Perry’s favorite flavor is Juicy Fruit. This small detail shows that Dick and Perry are very distant friends and as a accomplices together, Dick seems to be taking care of everything, while Perry sits back and lets him take command.

As far as Capote’s stylistic choices, I love he how uses short, concise sentences. He is not afraid to get to the point. He starts the third section with one or two words: “A cloudburst. Rain. Buckets of it. Dick ran. Perry ran too, but he could not run as fast; his legs were shorter and he was lugging his suitcase,” (167). I think as far as something I could take away from this piece to apply to my own writing would be to imagine myself in a place or in a situation and describe setting in a way to grab the reader.  

Response to “Late Victorian”- Richard Rodriguez from APE

This piece is starts off by comparing the homosexual movement to architecture. Rodriguez shows how in San Francisco certain streets or areas were seen as more heterosexual or American domestication then others that were socially radical. He describes Victorian houses as having the knowledge that generations would follow from the present: “What strike me at odd moments is the confidence of Victorian architecture. Stairs, connecting one story with another, describe the confidence that bound generations together through time—confidence that the family would inherit the earth,” (Rodriguez 759). This passage is showing his confliction with the sad reality that homosexuals have a hard time creating the next generation, while also showing that during the Victorian era only really had marriage between a man and a woman.

Rodriguez goes to explain the gay rights movement and the difference between the feminist movement: “Feminist, with whom I, include lesbians—such was the inclusiveness of the feminist movement—were preoccupied with career, with escape from the house in order to create a sexually democratic city. Homosexual men sough to reclaim the house, the house that traditionally had been reward for heterosexuality, with all its selfless tasks and burdens,” (Rodriguez 762). So, this piece is clearly political, in the fact that Rodriguez is trying to convey an idea that I, myself, didn’t understand until reading this. For some reason, I didn’t about the homosexual movement as changing the roles of men and women, where gay women wanted to go out and make the money and have careers, while gay men wanted to be the caregivers, the nurturing, domesticated house-husbands. I think that point really stuck out to me the most.

Rodriguez moves on to a more sad tone in the piece. He talks about his personal experience with the homosexual movement and the direct impact AIDS has had on his life and his perspective on of it. “AIDS, it has been discovered, is a plague of absence. Absence opened in the blood. Absence condensed into the fluid of passing emotion. Absence shot through opalescent tugs of semen to deflower in the city.” (Rodriguez 766). This passage was moving to me because this is not only about the struggle of AIDS, but what the result of AIDS: death. The last part of this essay is sad because he talks about his lover (Cesar) that died from AIDS. With this last section, he always comes back to San Francisco and the dynamic of the Castro district where gays are not perceived too well.  

The one thing I love about Rodriguez writing style is that he is concise and clear. He also uses a lot of anaphors which I love, I think they give more to his overall point he is making: “They walked Death’s dog. They washed his dishes. They bought his groceries. They massaged his poor back. They changed his bandages. They emptied his bedpan,” (Rodriguez 768). He was describing what Cesar’s family was doing for him, while he was going through AIDS. I also thought it was interesting his use of italics. He would them either for inner thoughts or dialogue: “Bill died. …Passed on to heaven. … Turning over in his bed one night and then gone,” (Rodriguez 770). To me, this is signifying how his lover was only one person, an important person, to him, but to the rest of San Francisco life went on as usual. 

Response to Short Takes pieces for Portfolio

“Me Talk Pretty One Day”- David Sedaris

I think this piece is so funny because it is showing a 41 year-old man being nervous about speaking another language and being afraid of screwing-up in the classroom as would a young student. His constant struggle to understand and speak French in this piece is pretty hilarious because he makes up to show that he has no idea what someone is saying.  I also like how he explains his teacher as being down-right rude and kind of invasive, meaning she asks people why they are a certain way that seem to frustrate her for whatever reason. In the end, I get the sense of Sedaris getting self-satisfaction from finally discovering that he can understand what his teacher is saying and he can also speak French, but he still is using awful grammar.

“Semi-Colon”- Barbara Mallonee

This might be my favorite piece from Short Takes because Mallonee is incredibly witty throughout this entire piece. She starts off by describing how she is grading papers during winter and is trying to understanding why students haven’t fully understood the usage of a semi-colon. In this, she goes on to describe how the semi-colon was created the Greeks and then goes to say it needs some praise. My favorite part is when she compares the semi-colon to other punctuation marks, while saying semi-colons are what writers use as tool to explain something, while she uses a semi-colon in her explanation: “Most punctuation marks arose as aids to elocution; the semi-colon serves not the outspoken orator, but the silent writer solitary at his desk. I’m just picturing Mallonee sitting down at a desk, while she is writing this. 

“Contributor’s Note”- Michael Martone

Again, this was a witty and inventive piece. I love how he seems conflicted about his name, while also feeling ownership to it. He starts the piece by explaining his childhood nicknames like Missy; that immediately hooked me. I was kind of confused about the Monk part. He describes this as his classmates teasing him, but then he goes to on change names of famous people into using Monk; to me, that seems a little narcissistic. I also thought it was interesting that he used third person, while writing about himself: “His family still calls him Mick but will force themselves to refer to him as Michael when speaking about him in third person to people who ask.” This line is talking directly to the audience.

What I like about each of these pieces is how creative, witty and clever they are: Martone is talking about himself in the third person, while trying to understand what his name means to him, Mallonee is explaining the usage of semi-colons throughout history, while using semi-colons throughout her piece, Sedaris is trying to understand foreign languages, while inserting himself in the piece to show his confusion. I just really love the inventive ways these writers take their pieces. I would hope to try and take this aspect into my own writing by being sly and clever to make a point that is funny, but not being obvious about it.

“Slipping into Reality” compared to “Men at Night”

I found these pieces to be similar by the sense of unity that is shown through both pieces and the increased suspense. In Emily’s piece, she uses unity amongst her and the choir members—how they are all working at getting the perfect pitch or the same tempo. In “Men at Night”, Huddle is explaining on more intense matter of how men in the military have to act as a unit. In each of these pieces, there is a consistent amount of suspense to show that something is going to happen, but they explain all the other events that happened before this big situation happened. 

Solnit and intertwining lives

I think Solnit brings out the notion of how lives intertwining when she describes empathy and emotion. How some of us can have it, while others are numb. Solnit describes empathy as: “Empathy is the capacity to feel what you do not literally feel…” (pg. 106) Solnit also describes emotion as: “Emotion has its geography, affection is what is nearby, within the boundaries of the self…” She is making a point with both that while some of us feel very connect with one another, some of us can feel so completely distant or numb. To me, Solnit is saying that emotion and empathy link us together by truly feeling something and acting on that feeling. She correlates the feeling of empathy to how a person can have leprosy and feels physical pain, where one can empathize for this person to the point of physically feeling it, which to me seems a little far fetched. But, I think a person can have empathy to a point to show compassion, but a person ultimately will lack understanding for what it is like to actually have leprosy. With both empathy and emotion, I think Solnit is saying those that truly do feel an intertwining but listening and then telling each other their stories. 

“A Man of all Seasons” compared to “Opposite of the South.”

I think, ironically, these two pieces are the opposites of each other.  Kourtney’s piece is about seeing a man that we all see as a priest, but who is a really extraordinary person, where Birkerts’ piece is about him trying to self-identify himself. Mark Andrew Moore seems like the person that is taken for granted a lot and people don’t usually see his true uniqueness—everybody is caught-up on the title of priest, so they think that’s all he is. Birkerts seems wildly confused about his place in the world and in some ways feels like he has to identify himself based on where he comes from versus looking at his true self to just be. I like the idea of titles (Priest and Northerner) as modes of misperception, as if these titles are self-explanatory and any other title that these people could be given would be contradictory.