Reading Reflections

Text	Characteristics of as a Mentor Text
Sample: “The Elephant Vanishes” By Haruki Murakami	Lure readers in with an impossible situation, a mystery Subtly align the impossible situation with an actuality in the narrator’s life Craft a narrator that has inside information on the mystery that is slowly revealed Use simple, straightforward style and diction Incorporate action in dialogue Detail the change that occurs in the narrator End magically by tying the mystery to the actuality
“A Gift from Somewhere” By Ama Ato Aidoo	Religion & blind belief When belief works out, people believe in it Being a charlatan and trying to maintain the illusion of your spells working.
“The Story of the Lizard who Had the Habit of Dining On His Wives” By Eduardo Galeano	Allegorical nonsense story Shock Ending Patterning off of traditional fairy tales- the story of true love and the princess and so on. Gender Relationships- Men Usually Dine on Women, but Women are just as capable of dining on men. Power through inheritance
“The Keeper of the Virgins” Hanan Al-Shaykh	A different outlook on being excluded from society- accepted, but no included Religion and symbolism Obsession with a particular, but ultimately unimportant area. Disrespecting law.

“The Pain Scale” By Eula Bliss	Short, cutting paragraphs, often no more than two or three sentences. Mathematics and history paragraphs combine with theological and mythological discussion combine with personal allegory. Visual aids and cues.
“Kissing” Anthony Farrington	“Fun facts”, quotes, and so on, in the sidebars give a greater understanding of the work. Light hearted tone on the memoir, less so on the sidebars, which are often “Words of Wisdom” with little basis in reality.

Workshop Reflection 2

1. The most important thing I learned from workshopping is that things are rarely as clear for others as they are for you. While people could often recognize the central idea or theme of my work and a few of the more subtle details, they often recognized ideas that I had not intended. This brings up an interesting question- should people be allowed to develop now and different interpretations of your work, or should you provide clarity to keep them on the intended track?
2. I learned primarily that subtle nuances are often recognized by other people. Though they are quick to see patterns where none were intended, it wouldn't be smart to underestimate how good they are at seeing patterns that you did intend. People aren't stupid, you know. Keeping things clear isn't always necessary.
3. I must remember to see things from others perspectives. Poems, or books, make a lot of sense when they are explained and when they are analyzed, but when they are read for the first time they rarely convey the intended meaning. This is not always a bad thing, most works should be left somewhat open to interpretation and imagination. But it is important to remember the difference between what the author sees and what the reader sees.

Workshop Reflection

I think a big part of poetry is finding meaning from ambiguity. By allowing people to explain their thoughts on a piece you get an excellent idea of how thoughts move- what ideas are obvious and which are not. I think the first few minutes of discussion were the most useful, as it showed people's original thoughts before taking ideas from others, so in those first few minutes you get a perfect glance into precisely what you work looks like from the outside.
I personally think that twenty minutes is ultimately unnecessary. The first five-ten minutes are sufficient to capture ideas but not long enough that the ideas become too convoluted. The initial ideas are always the most accurate.

Decision Making Blog Post

     Reflect on how your team chose its mentor text. How do you feel the discussion went? How do you feel about your own role in the decision? Explain one way the decision could have gone better.

     I think this was a very fast decision. We selected a poem that many liked, confirmed that no one had any serious complaints about it, and then gave it a stamp of approval, without considering many of the other choices to a serious degree. I won't say it was a bad choice, it's just that, well, it wasn't thought about for very long.
     I'd also like to question our decision to expect one candidate poem from each member of the group. Rather than letting people suggest as we went along, asking for fifteen different poems meant there were too many poems to consider, which, of course, further reduced our time to decide.
     I'll admit, I'm somewhat poor at contribution to group discussion.

Letter to the Whitehouse

Dear Mr. President:

We would like to acknowledge the great effort you have taken on international relations and domestic issues. We thought we would collectively voice our opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. You may wish to consider this combination of solutions- they may be flawed, they may have issues, but we find that they are, at current, with a little fine-tuning, our best option.

The first issue we would like to address is the Palestinian refugees. We understand that a large Jewish population in Israel were acknowledged as refugees. While this may justify previous actions of immigration, we have to look beyond that. The current problem is that the Palestinian refugees in various places, such as Jordan and Lebanon- the fact that refugees do not get citizenship in those countries, has caused many problems that have been detrimental to a peace solution. We believe that the best course of action would be to give them a citizenship to the country they have been immigrated too. This would provide better education and healthcare for the refugees. This would not only detain the “weapon” of empathy that Israelis have claimed that the Palestinians were using but it would also calm the protest against israel of those claiming it was against human rights.

This problem leads to the issue of housing settlements- who gets them? They are, according to the international law (Geneva Convention IV, Article 49, Paragraph 6), illegal. To allow them to stay under Israeli influence and law would result in severe legal complications, and takes a large chunk of the land promised to Palestine. But forcing Israelis to leave their settlements will be highly disruptive- thousands of dollars will be taken from their rightful owners, a steep rise in homelessness and poverty in Israel will occur, and the entire process will result in thousands of protests and terrorist attacks. So we believe that it would be more logical to give Israelis in housing settlements a choice- leave their homes and return to Israel, or remain under the influence of Palestinian law. Laws concerning Israelis in Palestine will be negotiated publicly, not established by Palestine, as they may become draconian if Palestine attempts to dislodge Israelis from the land.

Security has also been a very controversial problem. Checkpoints walls, surgical bombings and strikes are all very problematic- Israelis are too scared to remove them, in fear of terrorists. Palestine is completely disrupted because of them and execute hundreds of protests against them. So we ask Israel to do something radical: slowly replace Israel counter-terrorism systems with Palestinian ones. Inner checkpoints will be handed over to the Palestinian authorities, allowing them to relax their laws. Then we transfer checkpoints closer to Israel, until eventually the only remaining Israeli-controlled checkpoints are on the Palestine-Israel border. Israeli soldiers in Palestine will slowly pull out as they are replaced with Palestinian counter-terrorist soldiers. Air strikes will be heavily regulated by established laws, then become veto-able by Palestinian authorities, then fully outlawed. Eventually, Palestine will have a fully independent counter-terrorism force. They will be trained as a more defensive force. Acting more as a police force rather than a militaristic force. Funding for the Palestinian Internal Counter-Terrorism Group (PICT) will be the US.

An issue that regards both Israel and Palestine is the ownership of Jerusalem. While most debates on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more about politics, peace and security, Jerusalem takes a new stance- religious beliefs. Neither Palestine nor Israel are willing to give up Jerusalem, so we cannot give Jerusalem to either. We must make it international territory- similar to the UN headquarters in New York. It will become a semi-independent nation, with logistics, law and order regulated by a single authority established, regulated, and funded by the UN. Jerusalem must not become a fully independent nation- as two neighboring countries has claims on it, it cannot simply leave their care fully. At least two thirds of the government of Jerusalem must be composed of Israeli and Palestinian representatives.

We thank you for taking the time to read through this letter. We understand that we may not see the whole picture, but we hope you are willing to take our idea into some consideration nonetheless. This was an attempt at a neutral and just view on the topic. Thank you for your attention and patience.

Sincerely,

Kimin Kim, Ethan Aoki, and Lukas Daniel-Pedersen

Grade Eight Students at Singapore American School

Drugs PSA- Spidders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW0jtIZ7iCY

You Are the Sum of Your Choices

Dear Future Me,

Don't take anything too seriously. It'll just cause you problems. I mean, nobody really cares if you think something is funny, as long as you keep it to yourself. If you don't, tread lightly. Make sure the person you're talking to has nothing to do with your joke. Slap a "Dark Humour" label on your jokes- it makes them feel less insulting. Make sure no one overhears you.

Don't be an idiot. Nothing will go catastrophically wrong if you aren't an idiot. Everything will go slightly wrong even if you aren't an idiot. But you'll spend less time picking up the pieces if you don't decide to jump into the swimming pool from the roof.

Don't believe anything they tell you about sex. Don't believe anything they tell you about religion. Question everything, but never question it out loud. People get very mad at you when you question them. You might know that shouting loudly doesn't make your argument reasonable, but it does help you win the argument. You might know that insulting your opponent doesn't make your argument reasonable, but it does help you win the argument.

Be a happy nihilist. Nothing matters, so why give? Don't do something right, do something noticeable. They both make you famous, but doing the right thing is always the most difficult of the two.

Be concerned about your exterior. Nobody really cares about what you are on the inside- if you seem like a good person, you must be a good person. Hide your inside from most people. It's more ugly than what's on your inside. Show someone your inside once in a while, or you might go insane. Make sure the person you show isn't scared away by your inside. Try to access others insides. You can't predict what someone will do if you can't see their insides.
Don't steal quotes off the internet if someone is going to read your work.  Imitate other people's work- it's probably better than yours. Don't steal work from idiots. Don't steal work from average people. Don't steal work from smart people. Steal work from bloody geniuses.
Act smart. You don't have to be smart, just act the part. If you can't make it, fake it. Pretend you're awesome. It's good for your self-image, and you might just trick someone. Exaggerate. It's more funny that way. If you're in a position where humour will get you slapped, hide. Be silent. Avoid contact. Wait until the anger has passed. It always does. Trying to cheer someone up if they're mad is suicide. Trying to cheer someone up if they're sad is very effective.