The Blog of Elaine Wang

Girls Who Code Application and Personality

29 February 2016

I'm so uncomfortable right now. I just reread my application essays for the Girls Who Code program, and I just feel like they aren't good enough. They sound so boring and dull. I feel like in my essay regarding my collaborative efforts, I didn't explain enough about how being in a team allowed us to accomplish what we otherwise wouldn't have been able to. I didn't feel anything when I read the essays. There wasn't a sense that anyone would be impressed or awed or touched or anything if they were to read my essays. Nothing I wrote on there was anything amazing. I don't have like 300 leadership experiences. I haven't actually created anything useful to society, it's all just "this this and this happened, so please accept me lol". I'm just so afraid that, of all people, I won't get in, even though I do believe that I deserve this opportunity, and I do believe that I would get so much out of it if I were to go.

I'm afraid that they will see my application and think that I've not accomplished enough, or my words are too empty. I get the sense that people wouldn't be able to differentiate my writing from others (in a good way), and I'd just be another few paragraphs in the wind. I don't show accomplishment in my writing, and it's all very drab.

I'm dreading not being accepted not only because I really want to go, but also because I think I'm just as qualified as friends I know that have gotten in last year and friends I know that I'm sure will get in this year. I wish I didn't think this way, but I'm afraid that my friends applying this year will get in and I won't. I think everyone feels that way in some way, shape, or form when they enter a competition with people they know. I don't want to be envious of my friends. I don't want to feel like oh I should have been the one to go because if I don't end up being accepted, then I probably just didn't fit with the program.

That's what I'd like to think, yet I never feel like I am able to express who I am adequately in my writing. I can't because the real me is so dull and colloquial. It's hard for me to get myself across without sounding blunt or rude in my writing, or as a peer stated, "this doesn't reflect you well" or "this doesn't put you in a good light". I'm sorry that everything about a person has to "reflect them well". I'm sorry that we can't have flaws or quote-on-quote crudeness in our personality without having to learn some profound message from what may just be what defines us as a person. I'm not saying that it's okay to be rude to others, but not everything that may seem blunt is meant to be rude. And that's the problem. It's difficult for me to put on paper the way I speak, because that type of language may not be appropriate for most applications. I don't have that quirky, cute, or at least sophisticated language that gets across to the reader. I'm literally just me. When I do try to add humor to my formal writing, it ends up being forced, not funny, or the reader doesn't even get it because the words need to be spoken in a certain way. I'm so impressed by writers that can effectively convey wit in their writing and have it be funny, intelligent, and understandable.

I'm not able to write glowing essays about collaboration, leadership, etc. because I haven't actually been a part of those types of experiences. There have been group projects here and there, but I feel like I haven't actually learned all I'm forced to say I did. I say what I do so it "reflects well on me", but it all feels empty. I want to have these experiences. I want to learn these new things.

I feel like my personality works best when I'm with someone I know. I make my jokes easily when I'm talking to a friend, so when I joke with a friend, that's basically the only opportunity anyone else has of experiencing how I really am, even if it isn't directed towards them. If they decide that that's for them, then maybe we become friends. Otherwise, I'm always just that shy person that doesn't say anything to anyone because she's afraid. Yet, at the same time, I don't want to be a person who's character depends on someone else. I obviously need to become independent at some point, but I never feel like I have that opportunity because, like I said, I'm scared.

This year in Biology class, there is a senior guy who sits next to me called Max. He literally doesn't give a shit and is the most chill person on the planet. I was able to express a lot of my personality to him because I wasn't really afraid that he would judge me. Even so, I wasn't able to show all of "who I am", so to speak because I still feel guarded, and I think the lamer side of my humor would just sit there and die.

Similarly, I made another senior friend in Japanese class, and I was really able to pull out my dead-pan jokes on her. She is so receptive to the way I speak, and I just feel like the way she speaks just meshes so well with my words. Unfortunately she is graduating (obviously), but I'm really happy for her because she is going to the Air Force Academy like she wanted.

The way I speak is often based on jumping off of what the other person says. So a lot of the things I say can't really be said unless the other person says the right words. So it's like this endless cycle of, unless they speak to me first—which they usually don't—I'm screwed. And even if they do speak to me first, I may or may not feel comfortable just throwing it all out because usually my jokes are self-depreciating, overly-arrogant, or insulting to the other person (not in a serious way, or course). As you can see, all of these aren't exactly great first impressions. A lot people just hear what I say and go "okay...", not realising that it was joke or, I guess, not appreciating the joke. Which is why I stated earlier that it works best if I test the waters first by using my jokes on someone that I am already comfortable with. Keeping in mind that these people are few and far between—maybe like 2.5 people.

I'm not even really comfortable with a lot of people I consider pretty close friends. I'm still afraid of offending or seeming awkward to many of my friends, and so I end up just sitting there without anything to say. With all this talk of my humor, you'd think it's some hidden gem, but it really isn't even that great. It's mediocre humor that relies on other people, that I can rarely express, that only works with select personalities, oh and also it doesn't fit well with applications where the whole point is showing who you are. The very definition of a great personality.

11:03 PM
0 Comments

Leap Day

featured

8:55 AM
0 Comments

Obama State of the Union In Class Rhetorical Analysis Warm-up

Literature

Elaine Wang
Carpenter
American Literature Honors 6
15 January 2016

In his final State of the Union address, President Barack Obama reflects on his regrets, but also expresses his desires for the future. He explains his beliefs on what is truly American leadership and democracy, and criticizes the the lack of unity and motivation for a better nation. Obama’s use of anaphora and parallelism, coupled with logical, ego-boosting statements, allow him to present a more persuasive and well rounded argument of what he believes America should carry on to become.

Obama first addresses the issue of America’s constant involvement with other countries, but spins it in a way in which it appeals to the people’s greatest ethos: themselves. He makes it so that America’s involvement with other countries is not about charity and wasting resources, but rather about themselves. Obama employs anaphora and parallel structure with the phrase “when we” followed by a positively connotated verb. America “leads”, “helps”, “defends” all these other nations not only because it’s the “right thing to do”, but because it is helpful to America and its citizens. He does this because not everyone believes that these actions are the “right thing to do”, and these beliefs are cause for rampant distrust and lack of confidence in American leadership.

Obama is appealing to both sides of the argument when he states that politics should not be based upon race or religion because “diversity” and “openness” is what makes America strong and worthy of respect, not political correctness. He references Pope Francis when he states that insults to others simply because they are different is “just wrong”. Through this reference, Obama is appealing and increasing the credibility of his words in the eyes of the religious side of many Americans. He connects this idea back to his statements of America’s position in the world; the diversity and openness America is known for will become more and more disparaged if politics are reduced to “imitat[ing] the hatred and violence of tyrants” and calling fellow citizens belittling names. These actions don’t do anything to make America safer, it only “diminishes us in the eyes of the world”.

The president further expresses his beliefs on what has become of America’s democracy, and the effects that lack of unity in the nation will result in in the future. Through repetition and slight cataplexis, Obama repeats that democracy will break down if all that is heard is of the “rich or the powerful”. If all that is heard is of “the most extreme” voices. He is calling the people to raise their opinions and is especially appealing to the minority citizens that “feel their voice doesn’t matter”. Obama continues to make his speech more and more personal as he uses the words “us” and “I”; he states, “my fellow Americans,” saying that he cannot change America on his own. No president, or congressman, or senator can. “We” have to do it together. Again using anaphora, Obama starts consecutive sentences with “we” as to give the impression that everyone can do something to make America better because nobody can do it alone, no matter how rich or powerful they are. While, he states, it is easier to remain “cynical” and “accept that change is not possible”, by doing so, “we” are forsaking a better future, and—tying his final words back to his first point—apathy only serves to “contradict[] everything that makes us the envy of the world”.

Ultimately, through his final address, Obama uses various rhetorical devices—such as anaphora and appeal to ego—as a means to convince America that a lot of what he did was for the sake of preserving American leadership, but he follows by stating that despite what it seems, no one person can do such a great task alone. He humbles himself by comparing his regrets with the successes of Lincoln or Roosevelt, but he ultimately leaves his listeners with the idea that their voices matter and that they shouldn’t take the easy path of cynicality, and keep America a nation to be envious of through, not only militaristic strength, but also leadership, diversity, and acceptance.

8:31 PM
0 Comments

John Winthrop In Class Rhetorical Analysis Warm-up

Literature

8:28 PM
0 Comments

Scarlet Letter Literary Analysis

Literature

Elaine Wang
Carpenter
American Literature Honors 6
19 October 2015

The Scarlet Letter Literary Analysis: Pearl as the Antithesis to Puritanism

In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel, The Scarlet Letter, most characters are created as subjects under Puritan ideals, yet Pearl, the daughter of the women most toiled by the judgments of Puritanism, is the character who is able to defy those ideals. Hawthorne presents Pearl as the antithesis to Puritan values through the various ways her character can be interpreted; these abstract characterizations of Pearl as nature, the scarlet letter itself, and a Romantic hero distinguish her as the world the Puritans tried, but failed, to create and Hawthorne's criticism of this failure.

From the moment she is introduced, Pearl’s character is likened to nature with her “wild-flower prettiness”, and like the circumstances of her birth, the presence of this comparison already sets Pearl deeply apart from the Puritans as they regard nature (the “shadow of the forest”) as a forbidden construct, favoring the safe, predictable disposition of the town (Hawthorne 62, 37). In the beginning of the novel, the harshness of Puritan justice is connoted through the nature surrounding the prison door: Hawthorne uses organicism to reflect the convoluted nature of Puritan justice as the “grass-plot, much overgrown with burdock, pig-weed, apple-peru, and such unsightly vegetation” grows in front of the prison door (36). Yet, on the other side, there is also a “wild rose-bush, covered . . . with its delicate gems” representative of “some sweet moral blossom” (37). Pearl is this “blossom” from the passion of Hester’s sin, and is, therefore, the morality Hawthorne hopes to present against the harsh Puritan morals. Although a central theme of The Scarlet Letter is sin, Hawthorne also highlights the idea of incessant penitence, and Pearl, through her connection with nature, embodies this theme: as she walks through the forest with her mother, Pearl is shown to “resemble[] the brook, inasmuch as the current of her life gushed from a well-spring as mysterious” (121). Pearl is equated with the “gushing” of the water, yet she is also contrasted with its “gloom” as “she dance[s] and sparkle[s]” (121). The brook is unable to move past its “gloom”, prompting Pearl to ask it, “Why are thou so sad?”: literally, she is asking the water why it is sad, but here, Hawthorne is also suggesting that one must have the capacity to “pluck up a spirit” instead of wallowing in the malaise of self-pity (121). Pearl is able to move past the ostracism she received all her life and be happy, while both Hester and Dimmesdale are stuck with the idea of the Puritan’s perpetual shame of sin.

Furthermore, Pearl is presented as a physical representation of the scarlet letter Hester is forced to wear; however, the reason for this similarity is unlike her connection with nature as it is not of her own volition. Hester is the one who adorns her with a “crimson velvet tunic . . . embroidered with fantasies and flourishes of gold thread”, a description almost indistinguishable from the scarlet letter itself (69). On the other hand, Pearl herself chooses to form an A on her chest with green seaweed: green is the complementary color to red as they cancel each other out when mixed. This juxtaposition of Hester and Pearl suggests that although Pearl is like the scarlet letter in that she is born from Hester’s adultery, she also transcends this simple idea as she does with most things. Pearl appears to be strangely fascinated with the letter, but she also seems to enjoy poking at it with her piercing judgement of her mother. One afternoon, Pearl “amuse[s] herself with gathering handfuls of wild-flowers, and flinging them, one by one, at her mother’s bosom”; her “dancing up and down” when she hit the scarlet letter suggests her otherworldly intelligence and understanding of the significance of her actions (66). Pearl is portrayed to love the scarlet letter not because she believes the Puritans are correct in shaming Hester, but because she wishes for her mother to move past the Puritan judgement, just as she asks the brook to move past its gloom. Her criticism is firmly depicted when Hester takes off the scarlet letter and throws it at the river; when she does this, Pearl no longer wants to approach her because, by discarding the letter, Hester is succumbing to Puritan judgement by admitting to the shame the letter brings her, and in doing this, she is essentially discarding Pearl as well. As stated in Daniel G. Hoffman’s literary criticism, Hester’s Double Providence: The Scarlet Letter and the Green, “[Pearl] will not let her mother cast the scarlet letter aside because Pearl herself is emblem of a passion which partook of that same heathen, natural wildness” (Hoffman 345). However, besides her own unwillingness to be “cast aside”, Pearl’s own misgivings toward Puritan ideals cause her to be critical of her mother and Dimmesdale’s plan to run away from their past and make a new living where nobody knows their sin; they would simply be making the same mistake the Puritans had of running away from a society that shunned them, only to create a new society just like the old one. Through Pearl’s characterization as contemptuous of her mother and father’s plans, she is vicariously implying Hawthorne’s Romantically motivated disapproval of Puritan society.

As reflected previously, Pearl is critical of her mother’s plan of escape because, like Hawthorne, she is a Romantic. Throughout the novel, she constantly judges the people around her despite her age: Pearl has a natural intuitive understanding of others. For example, when she adorns herself with the seaweed-green A and her mother asks her if she knows the meaning of the letter, Pearl, with her preternatural intuition answers, “Truly do I! It is for the same reason that the minister keeps his hand over his heart!” (Hawthorne 116). While it took Chillingworth years to realise the complete truth of Dimmesdale’s sin, Pearl is able discern that truth in moments. Because of her role as the Romantic hero, she possesses a sense of morality that ignores that of society’s values, as referenced by the narrator in the first chapter with the rose-bush’s “sweet moral blossom”. Pearl often strays from the temptations of society like the “wild, heathen Nature of the forest, never subjugated by human law” and is, therefore, unhindered in seeing the truth (130). However, despite her preternatural insight, Pearl still possesses the Romantic quality of youthful innocence as illustrated in many different parts of the novel. At one point, Hester and Pearl are walking through the forest, and Pearl notes that the “sunshine does not love [Hester]” and it hides itself because it is “afraid of something on [her] bosom” (119). Although Pearl, to an extent, knows the significance of the letter, she still innocently believes in the possibility of running sunshine and that, when she grows up, she will have a letter too. Finally, like a true Romantic hero, Pearl’s story ends in doom. Her “wild, rich nature [is] softened and subdued, and made capable of a woman’s gentle happiness” (165). She is given a binary path in life: either die a martyr, or become a regular woman. When Pearl kisses Dimmesdale, “a spell [is] broken” and she pledges that she would not “forever do battle with the world, but be a woman in it”, and her role as a symbol and a “messenger of anguish [is] fulfilled” (165). Because her role as “messenger . . . [is] fulfilled” and she becomes the “object of love . . . with some inhabitant of another land”, Pearl is implied to have gone to Europe and married a rich aristocrat; essentially, by stopping her “battle with the world”, she is allowing the world to stay the same as it was, just as the Puritans did. Though Pearl is able to achieve happiness, in terms of Hawthorne’s views as a Romantic himself, her ending is tragic. She represented the world the Puritans could have created, but ultimately, she left her role as this symbol and consequently also represents the failure of the Puritans.

Nathaniel Hawthorne imbues Pearl with the qualities of nature, Romanticism, and his novel’s namesake as to contrast these same qualities with that of Puritan values. Through this contrast, he criticizes the nature of Puritan justice and their failure to create the better, different new world they claimed they would. Yet, he also presents a tragic ending to the novel as Pearl, the symbol of his criticism is allowed to leave her role and mimic the Puritan’s failures she was made to refute, suggesting the difficulty of truly breaking away from the temptation of an easy, non-confrontational life.

8:24 PM
0 Comments

Pages

The Blog of Elaine Wang

Girls Who Code Application and Personality

Leap Day

Obama State of the Union In Class Rhetorical Analysis Warm-up

John Winthrop In Class Rhetorical Analysis Warm-up

Scarlet Letter Literary Analysis

About Me

Follow Us

Labels

Blog Archive

recent posts

Total Pageviews

Popular Posts

Like us on Facebook

Flickr Images