The Mushroom Moon

"Seeing this black body was like seeing a mushroom cloud. The heart screeched. The meaning of the sight overwhelmed its fascination. It obliterated meaning itself. If you were to glance out one day and see a row of mushroom clouds rising on the horizon, you would at once that what you were seeing, remarkable as it was, was intrinsically not worth remarking. No use running to tell anyone. Significant as it was, it did not matter for a whit. For what significance? It is significance for people. No people, no significance. This is all I have to tell you. "

This short passage stood out to me in many ways. Before this assignment, I had already highlighted the passage since I knew it was important. In these few lines, the author goes into detail about how she felt about the total eclipse. When reading the first lines, I immediately thought of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the atomic bomb. When they were dropped, these bombs created a mushroom-like cloud. Since then, such cloud shape has been used in literature to instill fear, much like I saw here. She also mentions how the sight alone was enough to overwhelm her with fascination. However, she continues on to say that many people, if they were to see this "mushroom cloud," they naturally would not think much of it and carry on, despite the extraordinary sight.
I think that Dillard's goal in writing this passage is to show that only certain things have real significance, and even then, it mostly depends on who you ask. This total eclipse was astonishing to Dillard, whereas someone else just mentioned it as "a Life Saver in the sky."
I really like how she related the significance to the ordinary person. She remarks that people created significance, and without people, significance would not exist. On the contrary, I dislike how she ends this passage. Dillard ends with "This is all I have to tell you." But considering its position in the essay, why would she say all she wants to say right in the middle of it? Why wouldn't she leave this passage until the end?

Once More To The Lake

Once More To The Lake, an essay written by E. B.  White, is about a father and his son going to a lake that the father once went to with his dad. In this short, seven page essay, White describes how he felt while at the place with his son. It goes far beyond just the usual happy emotions. White tells how he feels like he is living a double existence. He remembers being there as a child, with his father, and now he is at the lake as a father, with his son. While he lives the present, he is also living the past, hence the feeling of double existence.
Towards the end of the passage, White begins to realize that he is only mortal. Just like the previous generations, White will grow old and soon die, leaving it up to his son to carry the tradition. However, his son will go through the same process White is feeling. The lake, on the other hand, will be there forever. It will never go through the process of growing old and eventually dying, but it will be forever growing older. 

The Story of an Hour Response

Mrs. Mallard was very excited to hear that her husband was killed in a train accident. Of course, she didn't show it in front of the others, where she faked emotions. She wandered into her room and shouted, "free, free, free!" This is when we learned that Mrs. Mallard was not in the best of relationships with her husband. She exclaimed how she no longer had to live for a man, but only for herself, hence the term free.
The news was broken to her gently, because the others knew that she suffered from a heart condition. It is ironic that, in the end, she dies from the sudden change of joy to sorrow, when her husband, alive and well, appears at her door. The doctors thought that she was killed from the joy of seeing her husband, when in fact she died from the sudden lack of it.
Although this story's setting is limited, it gives a feel for the plot and how things went down. This limitation helps express the story. For example, the open window shows Mrs. Mallard the opportunities that lie ahead without her husband. The small room also represents the oppressiveness of her marriage. She is constrained to her husband, and lives only for him.

The Object

This object hangs over me like a chandelier hangs from a mansion's ceiling. It represents years of victory and defeat, but still holds its emblem high in the air. At one end, where it would usually be handled, it is thin, rounded, and lacks a finish. Further down the shaft, this piece turns into a laminate finish is of a smooth, grippy feel. Moving down its length, it becomes thicker. It extends outward, proud to show Pomfret's red and black. It sits up on its perch towering over its students. Small rusted nuts and roughened ball bearings show the lack of use in years. Despite its natural material, its smell proves it age, and its use over the years. Its darkened color shows beyond doubt that this once carried Pomfret to victory over its rivals.  Once a technological advancement in its day, it sits as a retired piece of art on a wall, with the names of those who once used it scribed into the reds and blacks.

What makes a good reader/writer?

           

As a sophomore is high school, I’ve read a plethora of books. Some of these have been great, some not so great. Other times, I was the problem. In the greatest books that I’ve read, I’ve found that I liked other books by the same author, which shows that its not just the book, but it’s the way the author writes. To me, a good author is one who gets into the characters as they write about them. In I Am The Messenger, I felt like 19-year-old Ed Kennedy was a real person; he acted exactly like a 19-year-old would act, complete with swearing and teenage thoughts. The authors who fail to animate their characters is an author that fails to capture me, as the reader.

            In addition to a good writer, there is the good reader. Besides the obvious points of being literate, and being able to read the text well, I define a good reader as someone who enjoys, well, reading. So, what qualifies a reader or writer as good? In my opinion, it requires the author/reader to enjoy what they do. Without a passionate writer a book feels dry, and without a passionate reader, a book seems useless.