The Yellow Wallpaper, by Gilman

    In this short story, the narrator is a woman who's husband is very cruel to her and manages everything that she does. He does not allow her to do most anything. He locks the woman in a room, and in that room there is nothing other than the yellow wallpaper on the walls. As the story goes on, the woman seems to become more and more insane. She talks of the yellow wallpaper in ways that show her fascination with it. In the end of the story she imagines that there are other women like her crawling around in the wallpaper, and she even comes to the conclusion that she is one of them. At the end, she will not leave the room when she is supposed to leave.

    This story shows how the women of this time period were treated. The husband believes that his wife is going through a sort of temporary depression, so he doesn't allow her to do anything. He puts her in this room and she even has to hide her journal from him. She descends into insanity, due to the lack of things to do or even think about. It shows that the men of this era were cruel to the woman and caused more harm than they did help. 

    Why would the husband think that things like not seeing her child would help her with her depression?

"Criticism and Fiction" by Howells

     In this excerpt from "Criticism and Fiction", Howells talks about the writing of realists, and also about Jane Austen. He talks of some of the criticism her writing and writings like it have taken, but he says that realistic writings of nature are beautiful, and that fictional writings should be criticized instead. He talks about how the writers thought that they were better than the realist writings for using the characters in certain ways to do certain things, but he believes that it is harder to write a realistic story, and if it is done, then the story will be much better. He says that he has started to see a recovery in England from all the fictional writing that has happened.
     One thing he says is that the men have been trained to think that whatever they like is good, and no longer to think in the opposite order (in that we no longer like what is good, we say it is good because we like it). This relates to us still today. People will be offended, shocked, and etc if you don't appreciate what they like. People expect other people to like what they like and dislike what they dislike, not to like what is good and dislike what is bad.
   Why is fictional writing "bad"?

"Liking is for Cowards, Go for What Hurts." Jon Franzen

    This essay is about the possible threat that technology poses on true love. Franzen seems to believe that technology is changing our view of, thoughts about, and even love itself. He talks about how technology is so fast now-a-days and how people can get what they want immediately. He brings up the idea of "the next big thing", meaning that even if one piece of technology is sufficient , if another comes out that seems more advanced, many people will buy it because it is more appealing. This goes against love, because it shows people trying to find the perfect match, but there truly is no such thing as a perfect match. If people begin to treat love the same as technology, then love will be in danger at all times.
   I do not believe that what Franzen is arguing is correct. Things that come from technology may be harmful to love, but not the technology itself. However, people do not treat their loved ones the way he describes in this article. He talks about how we just toss aside old phones in this day for a newer and better one. However, people now-a-days do that no more than they did many years ago, if not less. People may find someone better, and go with them, but it is not as common as with phones.
   How exactly does the title relate to his argument?

"Get Smarter", Jamais Cascio

   In this article, Jamais Cascio is arguing his belief that people are actually getting smarter due to modern technology, as opposed to Carr's belief that technology is making us stupid. Cascio talks about the process of intelligence augmentation, which is the adaptation of people to modern technology as it gets faster and more advanced. He describes this process as almost a form of evolution. He also believes that the media is making us smarter, because it is giving us the ability to think quickly enough to suddenly change topics and stay highly focused on each topic.
   Jamais Cascio's belief that technology is making us smarter instead of less intelligent seems more plausible than the idea that it is making us stupid. Being able to change topics rapidly shows the speed of the mind, and that we are able to think through things quickly. If you look at people today, the people who have the most trouble with technology are older people. A child learns quickly, while an old man may never understand how to check a computer. This is because the child's brain is less developed and can "adapt" to the use of a computer, while an old person cannot easily adapt.
  Is this essay a direct response to "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"?

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" Nicholas Carr

      In this essay, Nicholas Carr writes about his belief that Google (as well as other technology) is in reality, hurting us. With Google, we have the availability to "google" anything that we need to know, instantly. With this capability, we do not need to put as much stress on remembering anything, because if you forget, simply google it again. Carr mentions that he has noticed a lack of focus while he reads, and he believes that the internet has created that habit. He talks about how its easier to simply read to only find the main idea instead of actual reading the entirety of some article or other literature for better understanding. Carr talks about how technology has gotten rid of much of the writing that we do. This is a problem because writing is actually a very efficient way of learning something. Writing something down helps you remember it easier.
      Google is not necessarily making us stupid. We get distracted while on the internet and by other technology, however it is a choice to focus on something else. Technology can and often does cause distraction. The ads, videos, links, and all the different ways to navigate around the internet, so our attention is jerked around from place to place, rapidly and chaotically. I have found myself watching viral videos when I actually logged on the this blog and was about to write. I googled the title of one our the essays we read to get a picture, when I searched, it took me to a list of websites, the first being a video with the title of the essay. So I clicked on it, and followed related links and etc, I soon was entirely off topic and had forgotten about the assignment. So while it is true that Google is effecting us negatively, I do not agree with the idea that it makes us stupid. Google seems to simply shorten our attention spans, which can have effects in it of itself.
     When Carr says "stupid" does he mean unintelligent? or simply that we do not focus or work as much?

Emerson: Self Reliance

     In this writing by Emerson, he states that a genius is someone who believes their own thoughts, and what they know is true in their hearts. Not just what is accepted by all and other people. He states that a genius can come in many different "forms", not just the famous geniuses that everyone knows. Emerson talks about self worth as well. He says that all men have the responsibility to think for themselves and lean on their own beliefs and thoughts.
    Emerson's saying that a genius can come in many different forms reminds me of the quote from Albert Einstein. He says "Everyone's a genius, but if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life thinking it is stupid." This relates directly to what Emerson is saying and shows that  just because you aren't a math or science genius, does not mean you aren't a genius in some other way.
   What does Emerson mean by "trifles" when he talks about societal disapproval?

Hawthorne: "The Ministers Black Veil"

    In this short story, the pastor, Reverand Hooper, is the head of a church. Hooper one day shows up to church on sunday with a black veil covering his face. Other than the black veil, he is entirely normal to a typical day. His sermon has the same characteristics as always, and he is dressed clean and sharp. Even though he is normal besides the veil, his congregation only focuses on the veil itself. Some are scared, some scoff, and some are just bothered. The entire town talks about this black veil that he wears everywhere, even to weddings and funerals. He is still himself at these "events" but everyone still is concerned with the veil. The pastor wears this veil his entire life, and is even eventually buried in his tomb, with it still upon his face.
     In the story, pastor Hooper goes to a beloved girl's funeral. He wears his black veil to the funeral and proceeds to do the funeral as normal. During the funeral, he bends down to the girl, and his veil hangs out from his face, so that his face is revealed to the corpse's face. The story says "if her eyelids had not been closed forever, the dead maiden may have seen his face". This could be an exaggeration on the people of his church. The pastor's face was able to be seen by the girl, but her eyes were closed forever. This shows that the pastor never changed, the veil was the only difference, and his the people of the church would have simply opened up there eyes to this, they would have seen the same old pator Hooper that they were all now afraid of.
    At the end of the story, is he buried while he is still alive? That section of the reading is confusing.