Samuel lived in a very fast age, an age when pleasure was a business, and "old Rowley, the king," led the brawls. He was young when society was most scandalously diverting. He had a pretty wife, "poor wretch," of whom he stood in some awe.
Perhaps the most entertaining writer of 17th century Samuel Pepys wrote about the bizarre incident as simple as it can be. The great fire of London as we recall now is described by Pepys so viidly, we create a picture of a reality as we read through it. The other interesting part about the writing is how he describes his wife as poor and his sorry expression for her. Frequently he also has to go to the bar to drink and mesh around with other females too. It don’t seem like his writing has the greatest word of literary world, even though it enchants the reader as would any great work. London offered him a great diversion and which he always enjoyed. He always enjoyed new taste of wine and women. The occasional spasms of guilt we come across his writing makes his writing even tastier. Pepys was a public servant and he was good at it. He was the chief secretary of the naval affairs.
"The discovery of a vast number of James Boswell's personal papers has made it possible to know the author of The Life of Samuel Johnson, as well as we can know anybody, dead or living. His published letters and journals have made modern readers aware of the three, when he met Johnson, he had already trained himself to listen, to observe, and to remember until he found time to write it all down."
By the year 1769, Bosewell was established in what he wanted to prove a very successful practice in law. Bosewell kept his ties with Johnson after getting married and moving away. In 1773, he convinced Johnson to join him in a tour of the highlands and the Hebrides. The tour ended up as a great success thanks to Boswell's social tact and Johnson's vigor and curiosity. After the death of Johnson, Bosewell had an overwhelming amount of material to deal with, fromhis own journals to all of Johnson's letters. Bosewell wrote The Life, with the eye on the subject of Samuel Johnson. Although the legend of Johnson was popular it was largely in part to Bosewell's creation.
Emily Alford Passage: “Upon the death of Judas, the story offers no immorality for him other than the remembrance of his deeds. Barnett stated in his blog that heroism is the act of giving and not receiving and that there should be no reward for a hero. I agree with what he said. It is sad that enough people act with kindness therefore making the “heroes” of the world stand out. Ralph Waldo Emerson quoted, “A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but is braver five minutes longer. Watch the news and you will see them broadcast a story praising a person for saving someone’s life or watch reality television and you will see the wealthy sharing with the poor therefore being the hero in the bad neighborhood and idolized for their good deed. Look on the internet for instance on msn.com and you will see a “hero’s” story be told for the entire world to see. Robert Bolt (A man for All Seasons) said if we lived in a State where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would make us saintly. And we'd live like animals or angels in the happy land that needs no heroes. But since in fact we see that avarice, anger, envy, pride, sloth, lust and stupidity commonly profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice and thought, and have to choose, to be human at all … why then, perhaps we must stand fast a little--even at the risk of being heroes. Having said all of this it makes me think that maybe all of this hoopla over heroes is because there aren’t enough people in the world who are willing to risk their lives for others and maybe all this publicity is to show those people that good people are still out there. Maybe it is not a reward but a lesson for the others.
The Preservation of Language And for every metaphor she adds And for every adjective he chooses Drops an older one that’s worn Or wasn’t right enough to find Its place upon the tongue The first time out. – Rod Mckuen
In this poem, the author Rod Mckuen writes about new foreign words coming into the English language through the mouths of immigrants. Mckuen’s view of these new words or slang terms is negative. He writes that for every foreign word which comes into the English language, an old, less popular word dies out. It is not the new foreign term that bothers Mckuen, but it’s the fact that foreign vernacular is replacing and being merged into the main language, which is English. Mckuen obviously has a strong sense of national pride, but why is a new term coming into the language such a big deal? One reason why preservation of language is so important is that it holds a culture’s history. Many old conquering nations used to prevent the conquered from speaking their own language to basically erase the history of the conquered peoples. Today, the English language in the United States is nothing more than a melting pot of other languages. Although they sound English, most of our terms originate from other languages such as French, Italian, Spanish and even Latin. Though not shown in the dictionary, American English also has thousands of regional slang terms composed within it. So what does it matter if a new word crosses the tongues of different people, old words don’t die they are just simply upgraded into the sophisticated speaker’s arsenal of vocabulary.
Basic Passage "Before Johnson, no standard dictionary of the English language existed." -A Dictionary of the English Language Correlation. Do people have different definitons of words that have already been defined? What are people's takes on some words in the dictionary? For this week I decided to write my blog on Samuel Johnson's dictionary of the English dictionary. Samuel Johnson decided to make his own dictionary for the English language. Johnson's dictionary was an achievement in 3 ways. lier English dictionary could even come close or compete with Johnson's Dictionary. For his accomplishment, Johnson was even given the nickname, "Dictionary Johnson". Here are just a few words that Johnson defines in his dictionary. Melancho'ly, which had one definition that said a kind of madness, in which the mind is always fixed on one object. Na'ture, whose first definition said an imaginary being that preside's over the material and animal world. The last definiton that I an going to list is Pa'stern, which as only one definiton. A Pa'stern is another name for the knee of a horse. Everyone has differnt versions of words. In class the other day,we were given handouts with words on it that we were asked to define. All of the words on the sheet were from Johnson's diary in the book. We were asked to give our definition of the word and then to see if it matched up with Johnson's. Im sure I can speak for most of the class when I say our definitions didn't match Johnson's. Johnson was a very brilliant mind but,on the other hand, Johnson was simply giving his definitons for words that he thought were acceptable. In conclusion, everyone has as there own opinion for words and Johnson being the very smart mind that he was voiced his opinion and then published it with alot of success. My quote is a very goodrefection of the things Johnson accomplished.
Basic Passage: The work of Samuel Johnson and his dictionary
Correlation: Samuel Johnson's dictionary contains many words that have quite different meanings than ours today (like the word Anthology, which he says is a collection of flowers). He had many meanings for what may seem to be simple words, such as the word "time," which has twenty different definitions. He also added humor to many of the words, such as "Oats: a grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people" (wikipedia). There were critics of Johnson's work, but what one can almost instantly gather from this is how much the meanings of our words have changed. This society is unfortunately caught on slang terms, and I think we should be ashamed of how we speak and communicate in this world. Slang words and fragments of sentences have gone from only being used in email and facebook to being used in normal everyday conversation. I am definitely not saying we should speak and write only in old english like some creepy book nerd that knows way too much about literature, but we do need to learn how to communicate more properly in this society where normal words are given meaningless slang meanings that seem to always be changing.
Passage:Heroism to me is the act of giving and not receiving. There should be no reward for a hero.
Jesus whas the ultimate giver, which by my own defenition makes Him a hero. Jesus even said in John5:41"I do not accept praise from men!" Isn't he the perfect example of humility? He knew that His reward for dying on the cross was eternal life wiht God the Father, but he also knew the pain and misery he was going to have to endure for OUR sins. As we all know he was tortured, spit on, beaten and crucified and for what? He did it all for our sins. He did it for the very people that were spitting and beating Him. He gave us miracles after miracles, he gave us God the Father and the Holy Spirit and for what? He gave us all these things so we could have a relationship with God. He saved us from eternal damnation. In my defenition of a hero I did say that should be no reward for a hero, but I might have mis-spoke just a bit. What would you do in the same situation? I couldn't imagine being tortured like that, and dying for the people that were hurting me. The coolest thing of all is even at the end of the crucifixion, He said,"forgive them Father for they know not what they have done." After enduring all that pain for us, he still had a heart of forgiveness. He loved the ones who tortured Him,and still loves the ones who torture him today. A hero LOVES unconditionally!!! Jesus is my hero because he gives me eternal life!
Poets during this time period seemed to really respect each others works. James Boswell is obsessed with Johnson's works; to the same extent some teenage "groupies" of today treat celebrities. Although Boswell was a gifted and talented poet himself, he could be as immature as an adolescent. In Boswell’s excerpt entitled A Memorable Year, he has the opportunity to meet Johnson. He is so overwhelmed with emotion that he says some rude things he should regret. Boswell says “Look my Lord it comes.” when Johnson approaches, because great fear overtook him when he realized he would soon meet his idol. His quote is hilarious because he was so overdramatic he equated his own situation to the Shakespearian quote from Hamlet.
If Boswell did not feel immature or overly-emotional about meeting Johnson he should of felt remorse for his behavior after conversing with him. Boswell whose wit is too fast for his own good, begins their conversation with a jab to Johnson’s national heritage saying “you come from Scotland.”, “That sir I find is what a very great many of your countrymen cannot help,” implying he felt there were already too many Scots in his country, and he was not happy about their presence. He followed this insult by addressing Johnson when he spoke of Garrik a mutual acquaintance. Boswell abruptly proclaims “I have known Garrick longer than you have done; and I know no right you have to talk to me on this subject.” Boswell is not scared to speak his mind no matter who is speaking with or how much he respects them, but to some it may appear he is immature and rude in nature.
Basic Passage: “ANTHO’LOGY. N. 1. A collection of flowers.
Language, in particular, English, is constantly in a state of flux. Definitions, words, and meanings are always finding themselves undergoing evolution. Webster’s defines anthology as “a book or other collection of selected writings by various authors, usually in the same literary form, of the same period, or on the same subject: an anthology of Elizabethan drama; an anthology of modern philosophy.” Samuel Johnson obviously had a different definition because of the context of his time. The problem is that so many things are simply inexpressible, no matter how hard I or any other writer tries; “love” will always be a word that is simply impossible to accurately express. Words are merely attempts at describing actual human visceral experience and emotion. Words only offer the best possible expression of a certain emotion or feeling, which is why they are always changing. I cannot really express what my anger feels like, but the word “anger” itself at least gives me some type of groundwork to go from. In the future, nobody really knows what anger may mean or be replaced by. 300 years from now “pissed” could be the accepted and defined word that substitutes for anger. Words are like the paint artists use to make their work, and the colors are continually in revolt. We have our understandings and connotations for what they mean to us now, but they are nothing more than feeble expressions of our experiences and revelations of our living window of time.
Boswell had an obvious obsession with Samuel Johnson. During this time period it is evident that poetry and literary works were a very big part of life. Just as television shows are a much discussed topic in this time period. People used poetry as sort of an outlet and as a discussion piece. Boswell’s obsession with Johnson could have easily interfered with his ability to write and produce works. It almost seems as if Boswell was Johnson’s paparazzi, which is funny because today’s celebrities battle the same things. Boswell’s works remind me of Pepys, both have a strange fascination with something, and will go leaps and bounds to come across what they have an obsession with. In Pepys case it’s a woman, other than the one he is married to; and for Boswell it’s a man that he seems to want to be like. In both cases they go on and on about what their obsession is doing, what they are saying, and what they would be saying if they were together. Whatever Johnson had that Boswell didn’t must have been nice because he never gave up. Boswell kept up with that man from the very beginning of his papers all the way until his death.
“This is to me a memorable year; for in it I had the happiness to obtain the acquaintance of that extraordinary man whose memoirs I am now writing; an acquaintance which I shall ever esteem as one of the most fortunate circumstances in my life.”
James Boswell wrote this about Samuel Johnson, who at the time was someone he looked up to. Many of us look up to celebrities like Boswell did and like him we are surprised by how they actually are when we meet them. Sometimes they aren’t what we expect. Johnson was stuck up to Boswell and rude. This ended up changing Boswell’s opinion on him. He seemed to think that Johnson was too obsessed with his ego to really care who he Boswell was. This seems to be like many stars nowadays. When I met the actor Kevin Bacon, who stared in movies such as Hallowman, he too was very stuck up. I expected him to be like he was on TV, nice and decent. He was actually very rude and not that nice of a person. Johnson seemed to have a big ego like the celebs have today. Like Boswell I was disappointed to see someone who was so successful be so egotistical, especially around their fans. Why famous people do this I don’t know. I find it disappointing though. But not all celebrities are like this. There are many who are nice and treat their fans with respect.
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary has many words that have different meanings to todays. The word “anthology” was said to be a collection of flowers; however today it is a collection of books. The English language is always growing. The words we use today might have a completely different meaning in 20 years or so. There are so many words being added to the dictionary everyday it is hard to keep up. You would have to buy a new dictionary almost every year in order to keep up with the new way to phrase you sentences. I was always told that “ain’t” isn’t a word; yet, you can now find it in the dictionary. It’s crazy how so many words have been accumulated over time and changed. Emotions are some of the words that can never be defined so well. Hate, Love, Mad, Angry, all are emotions that we all feel but we can never express in words, however you can find them in the dictionary with many meanings but sometimes you do not think that they are right. How can you put a definition on an emotion or feeling. Although, many words can be placed by definition and may change from time to time, the definitions of our emotions and feelings will always change rapidly.
Passage: “…I was sensible that he was sometimes a little actuated by the spirit of contradiction, and by means of that I hoped I should gain my point.” – James Boswell
Response: In this passage Boswell is going to try to persuade Samuel Johnson to have dinner at Mr. Dilly’s with Jack Wilkes being there. Jack Wilkes was a very famous person at this time. Samuel Johnson was know for his writings and basically wanted to be the center of attention. Boswell was very tactful in how he was going to persuade Johnson to this dinner. His approach to Johnson of going to this dinner was one that said “we were invited but I’m not sure you will want to be in the same company as some of his guest.” According to Boswell, Johnson liked conflict and contradiction, he liked a challenge. Instead of being straight forward and telling Johnson “Mr. Wilkes will be at this dinner,” Boswell made going to the dinner more of a challenge. Boswell knew that Johnson would refuse the dinner invitation and therefore was being deceitful in keeping the information of Wilkes presents from Johnson. Boswell’s approach does have the ending results he was hoping for; Johnson does make plans to go to the dinner. We see this kind of behavior still today, not only in the rich and famous but also in our own lives. There are many ways that this kind of persuasion is used. Often you have conflict between two people but they have a mutual acquaintance. The mutual acquaintance is going to invite both when having an event, dinner party, or some type of meeting without advising that the other will be there.
Samuel Johnson presented himself in the most abrasive, offensive, and arrogant of manners. He willingly insults even his most adoring fans. Upon James Boswell’s first meeting with Johnson, Boswell is slighted and humiliated by his idol. Yet, Boswell is not deterred, except for a moment of self-pity, he is barely affected by the barb. He continues to look at Johnson with worshipping eyes, which even saw his god’s excrements as treasures to behold. It is surely unfortunate that Boswell seems to lack two components of anatomy. This leaves him unable to truly see the man Johnson is, and renders him incapable of knocking Johnson off his high horse. Later, however, Boswell does actually strike fear in the heart of Johnson. While it is more than likely that he simply brought up the topic of death at random, I would like to think that this was Boswell’s well thought out come back. For once this topic is brought up, it is evident that Johnson is quite uncomfortable and fearful of the subject. Boswell seems well aware of this, but he keeps pressing the matter. He almost seems to taunt Johnson, until the point that he is basically forced to leave Johnson’s presence.
Basic Passage: [He] was thrown into such a state of agitation that e expressed himself in a way that alarmed and distressed me; showed an impatience that I should leave him, and when I was going away, called to me sternly, “ Don’t let us meet tomorrow.”
It’s at this moment that one is compelled to pat Boswell on the back, and congratulate him on finally earning his manhood.
Each person has his own view of death. Some are more apprehensive of it than others. Boswell stating that we must “fortify our minds for the approach of death” While Johnson cries “It matters not how a man dies, but how he lives. The act of dying is not of importance, it lasts so short a time. It will do him no good to whine. I have here a story of my own about facing the end of your life.
“I have faced an Evil that most people can only imagine. I was charged with protecting a sensitive individual who was immensely important to me personally. However, she was captured by this Evil. I do not know if he was aware of the trap I set in case such a thing occurred. However, he immediately informed me that any action I took against him would not only be ineffective, but would have ‘explosive’ repercussions. I panicked, and was unsure how to respond. I feared soon his hostage would be dead, and all would be lost. Three results were clear to me if I acted. If the explosive response would kill the girl, then I could initiate a Self-Destruct, destroying the both of us. If the explosive response were to kill me, I would still probably be in a better position than if the Evil one’s plan came to fruition. Or, he could be bluffing, and my Scatterpack would finish him for good. Every second I hesitated brought us closer to the end, and my trap was my only action.
“The way I saw it, there was a better chance than not that I would die. It is one thing to black out and be awoken, told that you were momentarily gone, and another entirely to see death and plead with it. But to face death head-on and say ‘bring it, I’m ready’ is much calmer that one would expect. It wasn’t a finality reached by circumstance; a rat caught bleeding in a trap, but a choice that was made, as opposed to inaction.”
Basic Passage: "Making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation."
This “proposal” exemplifies the contempt that the rich show for the poor people they must support. This same situation is prevalent to today in the giving of government money to those that live in poverty. Many Americans believe that this is a black problem, but this is a power problem. Welfare was created with good intentions of helping those that cannot help themselves. But there are many, of all colors, that abuse the system and take what they did not work for. These people believe that they are entitled something that the all-powerful “sugar daddy” government is more than willing to provide. They seem to ignore the fact that this money is forced from the hand of hard-working Americans that went to school, started businesses, or had the work ethic to use every resource they had to get ahead. Welfare has also broken a lot of American families, primarily the black family. In the 50s, the black family was strong until Jimmy Carter came along and force fed them other people’s money. After that, the free money became a drug that blacks, as well as other minorities and poor whites, developed an addiction for. Fathers began deserting their wives and children, more young girls became underage single mothers, and large numbers of young men became involved with the justice system. This has created a vicious cycle that has been passed down from generation to generation. To this day, hard-line Democrats have been pleased to snatch money from hard-workers and provide the impoverished their next “fix” in exchange for a vote. Now their eyes are set on amnesty for illegal immigrants…or registration for millions of potential voters.
In these sad times of which we are attributed to, we perhaps may take into account the modest proposal of Jonathan Swift. The world is becoming so cumbersomely overpopulated that we are running out of options for controlling it. There are brilliant people in this world that could possibly benefit our society in great, great ways, but our lack of natural resources and limited educational systems, which revolve around the criteria of the development of the all too many children in this world, hold down the potential of a much more developed and capable race. Recently, it has been brought to my attention that these children however tender they may seem, are not beneficial to one's health on account of the abundance of fat and the minimal amounts of good meat, and it seems to me a bit sadistic to walk about in loafers made from the skin off the backs of toddlers. Humans have populated so rapidly over the last couple of hundred years that drastic measures have had to be taken to feed the lot of us. We are in a constant battle with the earth forcing it to produce more than it cares to naturally just to feed this race of hyper-breeding simians. The depletion of twenty percent of the human race would supply the remaining population with more than enough to keep them in good health while allowing the earth to produce at a more natural rate. I propose that while Mr. Swift's Idea has merit, it doesn't fit into the mold of our system of ethical values. Man simply isn't meant to ingest its own kind. Just consider the horrific cases of what has happened to cattle after having been fed the meat of its brethren. A mutant strand of protein was created killing many, many humans who partook of the meat of these "mad cows." While the consumption of our children may at first seem like an ideal solution to our population problem, there are simply too many ethical problems that have to be given serious consideration. However, if the infants and toddlers were to be processed in such a way that they could be consumed as a higher-priced dog food, or a product for parrot consumption I see no reason to fear the degradation of our ethical standards. We would thereby prevail in our battle against population control, create a new market for jobs in our society, and give our world a chance to replenish itself mentally, physically and spiritually. Another option for reducing the earth’s population would be to condone and encourage homosexuality. But that is for another paper entirely.
Samuel Pepys
ReplyDeleteSamuel lived in a very fast age, an age when pleasure was a business, and "old Rowley, the king," led the brawls. He was young when society was most scandalously diverting. He had a pretty wife, "poor wretch," of whom he stood in some awe.
Perhaps the most entertaining writer of 17th century Samuel Pepys wrote about the bizarre incident as simple as it can be. The great fire of London as we recall now is described by Pepys so viidly, we create a picture of a reality as we read through it. The other interesting part about the writing is how he describes his wife as poor and his sorry expression for her. Frequently he also has to go to the bar to drink and mesh around with other females too. It don’t seem like his writing has the greatest word of literary world, even though it enchants the reader as would any great work. London offered him a great diversion and which he always enjoyed. He always enjoyed new taste of wine and women. The occasional spasms of guilt we come across his writing makes his writing even tastier.
Pepys was a public servant and he was good at it. He was the chief secretary of the naval affairs.
Lindsay....
ReplyDelete"The discovery of a vast number of James Boswell's personal papers has made it possible to know the author of The Life of Samuel Johnson, as well as we can know anybody, dead or living. His published letters and journals have made modern readers aware of the three, when he met Johnson, he had already trained himself to listen, to observe, and to remember until he found time to write it all down."
By the year 1769, Bosewell was established in what he wanted to prove a very successful practice in law. Bosewell kept his ties with Johnson after getting married and moving away. In 1773, he convinced Johnson to join him in a tour of the highlands and the Hebrides. The tour ended up as a great success thanks to Boswell's social tact and Johnson's vigor and curiosity.
After the death of Johnson, Bosewell had an overwhelming amount of material to deal with, fromhis own journals to all of Johnson's letters. Bosewell wrote The Life, with the eye on the subject of Samuel Johnson. Although the legend of Johnson was popular it was largely in part to Bosewell's creation.
Emily Alford
ReplyDeletePassage: “Upon the death of Judas, the story offers no immorality for him other than the remembrance of his deeds.
Barnett stated in his blog that heroism is the act of giving and not receiving and that there should be no reward for a hero. I agree with what he said. It is sad that enough people act with kindness therefore making the “heroes” of the world stand out. Ralph Waldo Emerson quoted, “A hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but is braver five minutes longer.
Watch the news and you will see them broadcast a story praising a person for saving someone’s life or watch reality television and you will see the wealthy sharing with the poor therefore being the hero in the bad neighborhood and idolized for their good deed. Look on the internet for instance on msn.com and you will see a “hero’s” story be told for the entire world to see.
Robert Bolt (A man for All Seasons) said if we lived in a State where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us good, and greed would make us saintly. And we'd live like animals or angels in the happy land that needs no heroes. But since in fact we see that avarice, anger, envy, pride, sloth, lust and stupidity commonly profit far beyond humility, chastity, fortitude, justice and thought, and have to choose, to be human at all … why then, perhaps we must stand fast a little--even at the risk of being heroes.
Having said all of this it makes me think that maybe all of this hoopla over heroes is because there aren’t enough people in the world who are willing to risk their lives for others and maybe all this publicity is to show those people that good people are still out there. Maybe it is not a reward but a lesson for the others.
The Preservation of Language
ReplyDeleteAnd for every metaphor she adds
And for every adjective he chooses
Drops an older one that’s worn
Or wasn’t right enough to find
Its place upon the tongue
The first time out. – Rod Mckuen
In this poem, the author Rod Mckuen writes about new foreign words coming into the English language through the mouths of immigrants. Mckuen’s view of these new words or slang terms is negative. He writes that for every foreign word which comes into the English language, an old, less popular word dies out. It is not the new foreign term that bothers Mckuen, but it’s the fact that foreign vernacular is replacing and being merged into the main language, which is English. Mckuen obviously has a strong sense of national pride, but why is a new term coming into the language such a big deal? One reason why preservation of language is so important is that it holds a culture’s history. Many old conquering nations used to prevent the conquered from speaking their own language to basically erase the history of the conquered peoples. Today, the English language in the United States is nothing more than a melting pot of other languages. Although they sound English, most of our terms originate from other languages such as French, Italian, Spanish and even Latin. Though not shown in the dictionary, American English also has thousands of regional slang terms composed within it. So what does it matter if a new word crosses the tongues of different people, old words don’t die they are just simply upgraded into the sophisticated speaker’s arsenal of vocabulary.
The Dictionary, as told by Samuel Johnson
ReplyDeleteBasic Passage
"Before Johnson, no standard dictionary of the English language existed."
-A Dictionary of the English Language
Correlation.
Do people have different definitons of words that have already been defined? What are people's takes on some words in the dictionary? For this week I decided to write my blog on Samuel Johnson's dictionary of the English dictionary. Samuel Johnson decided to make his own dictionary for the English language. Johnson's dictionary was an achievement in 3 ways. lier English dictionary could even come close or compete with Johnson's Dictionary. For his accomplishment, Johnson was even given the nickname, "Dictionary Johnson". Here are just a few words that Johnson defines in his dictionary. Melancho'ly, which had one definition that said a kind of madness, in which the mind is always fixed on one object. Na'ture, whose first definition said an imaginary being that preside's over the material and animal world. The last definiton that I an going to list is Pa'stern, which as only one definiton. A Pa'stern is another name for the knee of a horse. Everyone has differnt versions of words. In class the other day,we were given handouts with words on it that we were asked to define. All of the words on the sheet were from Johnson's diary in the book. We were asked to give our definition of the word and then to see if it matched up with Johnson's. Im sure I can speak for most of the class when I say our definitions didn't match Johnson's. Johnson was a very brilliant mind but,on the other hand, Johnson was simply giving his definitons for words that he thought were acceptable. In conclusion, everyone has as there own opinion for words and Johnson being the very smart mind that he was voiced his opinion and then published it with alot of success. My quote is a very goodrefection of the things Johnson accomplished.
Slang and today
ReplyDeleteBasic Passage: The work of Samuel Johnson and his dictionary
Correlation: Samuel Johnson's dictionary contains many words that have quite different meanings than ours today (like the word Anthology, which he says is a collection of flowers). He had many meanings for what may seem to be simple words, such as the word "time," which has twenty different definitions. He also added humor to many of the words, such as "Oats: a grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people" (wikipedia). There were critics of Johnson's work, but what one can almost instantly gather from this is how much the meanings of our words have changed. This society is unfortunately caught on slang terms, and I think we should be ashamed of how we speak and communicate in this world. Slang words and fragments of sentences have gone from only being used in email and facebook to being used in normal everyday conversation. I am definitely not saying we should speak and write only in old english like some creepy book nerd that knows way too much about literature, but we do need to learn how to communicate more properly in this society where normal words are given meaningless slang meanings that seem to always be changing.
Title: Is Jesus a HERO?
ReplyDeletePassage:Heroism to me is the act of giving and not receiving. There should be no reward for a hero.
Jesus whas the ultimate giver, which by my own defenition makes Him a hero. Jesus even said in John5:41"I do not accept praise from men!" Isn't he the perfect example of humility? He knew that His reward for dying on the cross was eternal life wiht God the Father, but he also knew the pain and misery he was going to have to endure for OUR sins. As we all know he was tortured, spit on, beaten and crucified and for what? He did it all for our sins. He did it for the very people that were spitting and beating Him. He gave us miracles after miracles, he gave us God the Father and the Holy Spirit and for what? He gave us all these things so we could have a relationship with God. He saved us from eternal damnation. In my defenition of a hero I did say that should be no reward for a hero, but I might have mis-spoke just a bit. What would you do in the same situation? I couldn't imagine being tortured like that, and dying for the people that were hurting me. The coolest thing of all is even at the end of the crucifixion, He said,"forgive them Father for they know not what they have done." After enduring all that pain for us, he still had a heart of forgiveness. He loved the ones who tortured Him,and still loves the ones who torture him today. A hero LOVES unconditionally!!! Jesus is my hero because he gives me eternal life!
Basic Passage: “Look my Lord it comes.”
ReplyDeletePoets during this time period seemed to really respect each others works. James Boswell is obsessed with Johnson's works; to the same extent some teenage "groupies" of today treat celebrities. Although Boswell was a gifted and talented poet himself, he could be as immature as an adolescent. In Boswell’s excerpt entitled A Memorable Year, he has the opportunity to meet Johnson. He is so overwhelmed with emotion that he says some rude things he should regret. Boswell says “Look my Lord it comes.” when Johnson approaches, because great fear overtook him when he realized he would soon meet his idol. His quote is hilarious because he was so overdramatic he equated his own situation to the Shakespearian quote from Hamlet.
If Boswell did not feel immature or overly-emotional about meeting Johnson he should of felt remorse for his behavior after conversing with him. Boswell whose wit is too fast for his own good, begins their conversation with a jab to Johnson’s national heritage saying “you come from Scotland.”, “That sir I find is what a very great many of your countrymen cannot help,” implying he felt there were already too many Scots in his country, and he was not happy about their presence. He followed this insult by addressing Johnson when he spoke of Garrik a mutual acquaintance. Boswell abruptly proclaims “I have known Garrick longer than you have done; and I know no right you have to talk to me on this subject.” Boswell is not scared to speak his mind no matter who is speaking with or how much he respects them, but to some it may appear he is immature and rude in nature.
A.W. Faris
ReplyDeleteOf Dictionaries and Connotations
Basic Passage:
“ANTHO’LOGY. N.
1. A collection of flowers.
Language, in particular, English, is constantly in a state of flux. Definitions, words, and meanings are always finding themselves undergoing evolution. Webster’s defines anthology as “a book or other collection of selected writings by various authors, usually in the same literary form, of the same period, or on the same subject: an anthology of Elizabethan drama; an anthology of modern philosophy.” Samuel Johnson obviously had a different definition because of the context of his time. The problem is that so many things are simply inexpressible, no matter how hard I or any other writer tries; “love” will always be a word that is simply impossible to accurately express. Words are merely attempts at describing actual human visceral experience and emotion. Words only offer the best possible expression of a certain emotion or feeling, which is why they are always changing. I cannot really express what my anger feels like, but the word “anger” itself at least gives me some type of groundwork to go from. In the future, nobody really knows what anger may mean or be replaced by. 300 years from now “pissed” could be the accepted and defined word that substitutes for anger. Words are like the paint artists use to make their work, and the colors are continually in revolt. We have our understandings and connotations for what they mean to us now, but they are nothing more than feeble expressions of our experiences and revelations of our living window of time.
Boswell had an obvious obsession with Samuel Johnson. During this time period it is evident that poetry and literary works were a very big part of life. Just as television shows are a much discussed topic in this time period. People used poetry as sort of an outlet and as a discussion piece. Boswell’s obsession with Johnson could have easily interfered with his ability to write and produce works. It almost seems as if Boswell was Johnson’s paparazzi, which is funny because today’s celebrities battle the same things. Boswell’s works remind me of Pepys, both have a strange fascination with something, and will go leaps and bounds to come across what they have an obsession with. In Pepys case it’s a woman, other than the one he is married to; and for Boswell it’s a man that he seems to want to be like. In both cases they go on and on about what their obsession is doing, what they are saying, and what they would be saying if they were together. Whatever Johnson had that Boswell didn’t must have been nice because he never gave up. Boswell kept up with that man from the very beginning of his papers all the way until his death.
ReplyDeleteJohnson towards Boswell
ReplyDelete“This is to me a memorable year; for in it I had the happiness to obtain the acquaintance of that extraordinary man whose memoirs I am now writing; an acquaintance which I shall ever esteem as one of the most fortunate circumstances in my life.”
James Boswell wrote this about Samuel Johnson, who at the time was someone he looked up to. Many of us look up to celebrities like Boswell did and like him we are surprised by how they actually are when we meet them. Sometimes they aren’t what we expect. Johnson was stuck up to Boswell and rude. This ended up changing Boswell’s opinion on him. He seemed to think that Johnson was too obsessed with his ego to really care who he Boswell was. This seems to be like many stars nowadays. When I met the actor Kevin Bacon, who stared in movies such as Hallowman, he too was very stuck up. I expected him to be like he was on TV, nice and decent. He was actually very rude and not that nice of a person. Johnson seemed to have a big ego like the celebs have today. Like Boswell I was disappointed to see someone who was so successful be so egotistical, especially around their fans. Why famous people do this I don’t know. I find it disappointing though. But not all celebrities are like this. There are many who are nice and treat their fans with respect.
Brittany Bryant
ReplyDelete“Obtund, exuberate, fugacity, and frigorific”
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary has many words that have different meanings to todays. The word “anthology” was said to be a collection of flowers; however today it is a collection of books. The English language is always growing. The words we use today might have a completely different meaning in 20 years or so. There are so many words being added to the dictionary everyday it is hard to keep up. You would have to buy a new dictionary almost every year in order to keep up with the new way to phrase you sentences.
I was always told that “ain’t” isn’t a word; yet, you can now find it in the dictionary. It’s crazy how so many words have been accumulated over time and changed. Emotions are some of the words that can never be defined so well. Hate, Love, Mad, Angry, all are emotions that we all feel but we can never express in words, however you can find them in the dictionary with many meanings but sometimes you do not think that they are right. How can you put a definition on an emotion or feeling. Although, many words can be placed by definition and may change from time to time, the definitions of our emotions and feelings will always change rapidly.
Connie Land
ReplyDeletePower of Persuasion
Passage: “…I was sensible that he was sometimes a little actuated by the spirit of contradiction, and by means of that I hoped I should gain my point.” – James Boswell
Response:
In this passage Boswell is going to try to persuade Samuel Johnson to have dinner at Mr. Dilly’s with Jack Wilkes being there. Jack Wilkes was a very famous person at this time.
Samuel Johnson was know for his writings and basically wanted to be the center of attention. Boswell was very tactful in how he was going to persuade Johnson to this dinner. His approach to Johnson of going to this dinner was one that said “we were invited but I’m not sure you will want to be in the same company as some of his guest.” According to Boswell, Johnson liked conflict and contradiction, he liked a challenge. Instead of being straight forward and telling Johnson “Mr. Wilkes will be at this dinner,” Boswell made going to the dinner more of a challenge. Boswell knew that Johnson would refuse the dinner invitation and therefore was being deceitful in keeping the information of Wilkes presents from Johnson. Boswell’s approach does have the ending results he was hoping for; Johnson does make plans to go to the dinner.
We see this kind of behavior still today, not only in the rich and famous but also in our own lives. There are many ways that this kind of persuasion is used. Often you have conflict between two people but they have a mutual acquaintance. The mutual acquaintance is going to invite both when having an event, dinner party, or some type of meeting without advising that the other will be there.
Johnson’s Achilles’ Heel
ReplyDeleteSamuel Johnson presented himself in the most abrasive, offensive, and arrogant of manners. He willingly insults even his most adoring fans. Upon James Boswell’s first meeting with Johnson, Boswell is slighted and humiliated by his idol. Yet, Boswell is not deterred, except for a moment of self-pity, he is barely affected by the barb. He continues to look at Johnson with worshipping eyes, which even saw his god’s excrements as treasures to behold. It is surely unfortunate that Boswell seems to lack two components of anatomy. This leaves him unable to truly see the man Johnson is, and renders him incapable of knocking Johnson off his high horse. Later, however, Boswell does actually strike fear in the heart of Johnson. While it is more than likely that he simply brought up the topic of death at random, I would like to think that this was Boswell’s well thought out come back. For once this topic is brought up, it is evident that Johnson is quite uncomfortable and fearful of the subject. Boswell seems well aware of this, but he keeps pressing the matter. He almost seems to taunt Johnson, until the point that he is basically forced to leave Johnson’s presence.
Basic Passage:
[He] was thrown into such a state of agitation that e expressed himself in a way that alarmed and distressed me; showed an impatience that I should leave him, and when I was going away, called to me sternly, “ Don’t let us meet tomorrow.”
It’s at this moment that one is compelled to pat Boswell on the back, and congratulate him on finally earning his manhood.
Each person has his own view of death. Some are more apprehensive of it than others. Boswell stating that we must “fortify our minds for the approach of death” While Johnson cries “It matters not how a man dies, but how he lives. The act of dying is not of importance, it lasts so short a time. It will do him no good to whine. I have here a story of my own about facing the end of your life.
ReplyDelete“I have faced an Evil that most people can only imagine. I was charged with protecting a sensitive individual who was immensely important to me personally. However, she was captured by this Evil. I do not know if he was aware of the trap I set in case such a thing occurred. However, he immediately informed me that any action I took against him would not only be ineffective, but would have ‘explosive’ repercussions. I panicked, and was unsure how to respond. I feared soon his hostage would be dead, and all would be lost. Three results were clear to me if I acted. If the explosive response would kill the girl, then I could initiate a Self-Destruct, destroying the both of us. If the explosive response were to kill me, I would still probably be in a better position than if the Evil one’s plan came to fruition. Or, he could be bluffing, and my Scatterpack would finish him for good. Every second I hesitated brought us closer to the end, and my trap was my only action.
“The way I saw it, there was a better chance than not that I would die. It is one thing to black out and be awoken, told that you were momentarily gone, and another entirely to see death and plead with it. But to face death head-on and say ‘bring it, I’m ready’ is much calmer that one would expect. It wasn’t a finality reached by circumstance; a rat caught bleeding in a trap, but a choice that was made, as opposed to inaction.”
Owen Bradley
ReplyDeleteModern Day Slavery
Basic Passage: "Making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation."
This “proposal” exemplifies the contempt that the rich show for the poor people they must support. This same situation is prevalent to today in the giving of government money to those that live in poverty. Many Americans believe that this is a black problem, but this is a power problem. Welfare was created with good intentions of helping those that cannot help themselves. But there are many, of all colors, that abuse the system and take what they did not work for. These people believe that they are entitled something that the all-powerful “sugar daddy” government is more than willing to provide. They seem to ignore the fact that this money is forced from the hand of hard-working Americans that went to school, started businesses, or had the work ethic to use every resource they had to get ahead. Welfare has also broken a lot of American families, primarily the black family. In the 50s, the black family was strong until Jimmy Carter came along and force fed them other people’s money. After that, the free money became a drug that blacks, as well as other minorities and poor whites, developed an addiction for. Fathers began deserting their wives and children, more young girls became underage single mothers, and large numbers of young men became involved with the justice system. This has created a vicious cycle that has been passed down from generation to generation. To this day, hard-line Democrats have been pleased to snatch money from hard-workers and provide the impoverished their next “fix” in exchange for a vote. Now their eyes are set on amnesty for illegal immigrants…or registration for millions of potential voters.
A More Optimistic Proposal
ReplyDeleteIn these sad times of which we are attributed to, we perhaps may take into account the modest proposal of Jonathan Swift. The world is becoming so cumbersomely overpopulated that we are running out of options for controlling it. There are brilliant people in this world that could possibly benefit our society in great, great ways, but our lack of natural resources and limited educational systems, which revolve around the criteria of the development of the all too many children in this world, hold down the potential of a much more developed and capable race.
Recently, it has been brought to my attention that these children however tender they may seem, are not beneficial to one's health on account of the abundance of fat and the minimal amounts of good meat, and it seems to me a bit sadistic to walk about in loafers made from the skin off the backs of toddlers.
Humans have populated so rapidly over the last couple of hundred years that drastic measures have had to be taken to feed the lot of us. We are in a constant battle with the earth forcing it to produce more than it cares to naturally just to feed this race of hyper-breeding simians. The depletion of twenty percent of the human race would supply the remaining population with more than enough to keep them in good health while allowing the earth to produce at a more natural rate.
I propose that while Mr. Swift's Idea has merit, it doesn't fit into the mold of our system of ethical values. Man simply isn't meant to ingest its own kind. Just consider the horrific cases of what has happened to cattle after having been fed the meat of its brethren. A mutant strand of protein was created killing many, many humans who partook of the meat of these "mad cows."
While the consumption of our children may at first seem like an ideal solution to our population problem, there are simply too many ethical problems that have to be given serious consideration. However, if the infants and toddlers were to be processed in such a way that they could be consumed as a higher-priced dog food, or a product for parrot consumption I see no reason to fear the degradation of our ethical standards. We would thereby prevail in our battle against population control, create a new market for jobs in our society, and give our world a chance to replenish itself mentally, physically and spiritually.
Another option for reducing the earth’s population would be to condone and encourage homosexuality. But that is for another paper entirely.