Food Formulas

            Last week, we watched Food Inc. in class. I knew it would be about the truth behind the food industry, but I really wasn’t prepared to see the horrors of it for myself. Halfway into the movie, it started to look really familiar, and I realized I had seen the movie before. Maybe my horrified reaction at some of the things I witnessed in the movie suppressed the memories of it, but overall, I still learned a lot the second time around.

            My biggest impression after watching Food Inc. is that food is disgusting and we should just stop eating all together. Of course, that’s not a very probable option, so my next impression is that something needs to change. They used a lot of pathos in the movie to appeal to the viewer’s emotions, and it works. With all of the overview shots of supermarket aisles, we as viewers can relate to the situation, even without knowing the truth behind it. But after watching the film, we no longer want to even step into the supermarket and buy the food that was once loved wholeheartedly. I don’t think Food Inc. will change anybody’s life dramatically, but it could make them be slightly more cautious about what they eat. After all, how can we escape this? Literally everything we buy are either raised in a disgusting environment or dosed into chemicals. The healthiest option may be to just grow vegetables ourselves, but by then, the film would have made the viewer suspicious about everything around them. Maybe the fertilizer used to grow vegetables is packed with chemicals to make the plants grow at extraordinary rates. There really doesn’t seem to be a way out of this. I do think this movie was very informative and effective. It forces you to think about the world around us, even the things that we choose not to think about. We live up to the quote “out of sight, out of mind,” but this movie really makes you wonder what else the big businesses are hiding from us.

            My food formula would probably be “eat, drink and be merry.” Honestly, I don’t think we have any more hope for improving the way we eat, especially with all the secrets of the food industry and conflicting theories. We might as well just embrace it. Eat whatever you want, but know your limits. Drink lots of water, because that may be the least contaminated product of all. Be merry, make sure every little thing you do ensures your happiness. That’s what my food formula would be.

Response to Eric Schlosser's "What We Eat"

In Eric Schlosser’s “What We Eat”, he argues that fast food has been incorporated into American society, through layers and layers of the industry. It has quickly become part of the American lifestyle, something everyone living anywhere recognizes. The sad truth is, we can’t even imagine life without it.

                Schlosser uses several methods to support his argument. One of these methods is description. He uses second person perspective to describe the feeling of entering a fast food restaurant. “Pull open the glass door, feel the rush of cool air, walk in, get on line…and moments later, take hold of a plastic tray full of food wrapped in colored paper and cardboard.” This description uses vivid imagery and appeals to the reader’s sense to make them feel as if they too were experiencing the act of entering a fast food restaurant.

                Schlosser also uses definition in his essay. The word “uniformity” is defined as “the key to a successful franchise, according to many texts on the subject…Franchises and chain stores strive to offer exactly the same product or service at numerous locations. Customers are drawn to familiar brands by an instinct to avoid the unknown. A brand offers a feeling of reassurance when its products are always and everywhere the same.” This definition of “uniformity” is to show that customers always stick to what they know. Whether it’s in New York or in Alabama, customers everywhere will visit a fast food restaurant like McDonald’s because it’s familiar and comforting to them, especially if it’s on a trip outside of their comfort zone. This allows the fast food industry to thrive all over the world.

                Schlosser uses a couple of methods in his essay to support his argument. Combining them allows the reader to become fully involved and convinced that his argument is correct. They are enveloped by these methods and make them relatable and easy for the reader to understand.

Eric Schlosser’s writing style is very interesting. It is written in an engaging manner, especially since it is on a subject that almost everybody can relate to. It makes the reader wonder how they too might be affected by the conformities of the fast food industry. I agree that it has pretty much taken over the American society. Living in New York City, I constantly see a McDonald’s or some other well-known fast food chain within a few blocks of each other. I feel that if Americans would stop relying on McDonald’s to get them through their life, America would be a much healthier nation.

Compare and Contrast: I'm Happy with an Arranged Marriage

Comparing and contrasting is the way we separate two ideas. We use it to differentiate them, and weigh their pros and cons to see which side they would rather take. It can be either one, neither one, or both. This especially helps if we are stuck between two things and we don’t know which one to go with.

In Gitangeli Sapra’s “I’m Happy with an Arranged Marriage,” Sapra weighs the pros and cons of an arranged marriage. She provides the reader with some information about arranged marriages, before they can form a judgment themselves. She states that “40% of ‘marriages made for love’ still end in divorce. By contrast, the rate of break-ups of arranged marriages in the Asian community is far lower.” Sapra is arguing that arranged marriages really aren’t that bad, despite the commonly attributed horrors that everybody seems to know. She says that “arranged unions are based on mutual interests and similar levels of education rather physical attraction.” While she argues that arranged marriages can actually be good things, she also addresses the fact that forced marriages still occur, making her argument more credible. However, she still abides by her statement that arranged marriages can be a good thing despite what Westerners may think.

Personally, I agree with Gitangeli Sapra in her argument. I don’t think that arranged marriages are really as bad as we credit them to be. Sure, it’s possible that two people that absolutely hate each other can wind up married. But, arranged marriages still come with a choice. If you meet that person and you decide you don’t like them, you don’t need to marry them, just move on to the next lucky person. Arranged marriages are usually more based on similarities, financial needs, and common interests. It’s like having a friend, except you’re married to them. Everything you might need, they will have. If you feel like having going skydiving and your partner also enjoys skydiving, there’s no question there about whether or not you should go skydiving, because it’s a common interest. In fact, arranged marriages kind of remind me of speed dating or match.com. Really, it’s just finding a person you’re compatible with and making it official, except in arranged marriages, there are a lot of people who love you trying to help you decide if you should marry this person. It’s really a great way to weed people out and make marriages last longer. 

Response to Stephanie Ericsson's The Ways We Lie

                In The Ways We Lie, Stephanie Ericsson categorizes some of the most common ways to lie. These include both the lies we tell other people and the ones we tell ourselves. The ones she includes are the white lie, facades, ignoring the plain facts, deflecting, omission, stereotypes and clichés, groupthink, out-and-out lies, dismissal and delusion. She asks the question of which lies are actually okay to tell. When is it okay to lie? Some of the lies we tell may seem harmless in the heat of the moment, but in the long term, will they be justified?

                I agree with the way Ericsson categorizes the lies we tell. She explains each lie very thoroughly and even includes a quote to back them up. If I could add in another lie, it would be plagiarism. Plagiarism is when a person takes someone else’s work out of context and calls it their own. This lie is very harmful to both the victim and the person claiming someone else’s work, because the victim loses their credibility to someone else, and the liar is depicted as, well, a liar. It really doesn’t get worse than that.

                Ericsson wrote this essay to tell all the ways we lie. Other than explaining each lie, she also talks about why we do it, and the thought process behind the decision that lying would be better than telling the truth. The purpose is to make the reader wonder about the world we live in. If so many people are lying, who’s to tell what a lie is and what is not anymore? What kind of world is it if all we do is lie? What if our world unto itself is a lie? Which lie should we believe next? These sorts of questions make the reader wonder when exactly it was that we have become so dependent on lying.

                Lying is a case by case situation. You need to consider the consequences of your lies. If your lie affects too many people, it can become extremely messy. If you’re the only one who suffers, it becomes okay to lie. If you’re the only one benefitting from it, it’s still okay. But it should never be the case that you benefit and others lose. That’s how I feel. 

Response to Robert Connors' How in the World Do You Get a Skunk Out of a Bottle?

Robert Connors’ How in the World Do You Get a Skunk Out of a Bottle? is about a university professor who saves a skunk from the terrible fate of having his head stuck in a glass jar for the rest of its life. He starts off slightly hesitant to whether he should save the skunk because of the possible consequences, but ultimately decides to forgo his rescue. He comes up with several ways to help the skunk, but they’re all too risky. The solution that he ends up using is just to hold the poor creature in one hand and the jar in the other, and twist and pull. After its release, it looks back, and the two of them share a moment of understanding.

The essay is titled as a question because Connors spends a majority of the narration coming up with a solution to the problem. He first goes through a process of convincing himself to approach the skunk, and when he finally decides to do it, he has to think about a good way to free the creature. At first, it seems unlikely for it to be released with the skunk getting scared and spraying him or it getting hurt. At the end, he does come up with a solution to the problem, and that’s why the title is in the form of a question.

I think the purpose of Connors’ essay is to entertain the readers. Very few people have ever encountered a problem like having to pull a skunk out of a bottle. The readers might find it quite interesting to see (from the point of view of the narrator) what it’s like to go through such a thing, so it makes them feel like they’ve had this kind of experience before too. Another purpose would be to persuade the readers from littering. Connors’ essay recalls the step by step thought process of freeing the skunk, and the reader gets a first-hand account of how difficult that is. He states that the skunk is suffering and suffocating, and he has to go through all sorts of possibly dangerous feats to rescue it. This is using pathos to play on the sympathy of the reader and persuade them not to litter anymore, because small animals can easily get trapped in its confines and die. 

Advertisement Influence: Olay

            In today’s manipulative, beauty-cautious world, money and appearances are everything. Businesses and corporations are always trying to appeal to the consumer, always trying to sell something. Seventeen is a popular magazine; teenager girls preach by it and the magazine knows it. Like most magazines, it features a number of advertisements, and in this issue, an Olay Complete advertisement is the first one seen. It’s two page spread is sure to be an eye-catching influence.

Pop singer Carrie Underwood is the face of this skincare corporation. Just featuring her boosts sales, because all teenager girls want to be like Carrie Underwood, and by subliminal advertising and false authority, they think they can be like her by using the product. The ad claims that “Olay Complete Daily UV blocks 92% of harmful UV rays.” Numbers like 92% also help sales because people are drawn to numbers, and numbers don’t lie. Since the number 92 is so close to 100, the product claims to be near guaranteed to work.

A Seventeen style professional named Ashley recalls a time when she received a scholarship to her dream school. She says that “[it] was one of the most exhilarating moments of [her] life.” The reader can’t help but feel happy for her and as a result, want this kind of thing to happen to themselves. It also says “check out my tips below for making your dreams a reality.” It taunts the reader into wanting to read and follow the tips. The ad makes it so that everyone can be just like Ashley and Carrie Underwood. Of course, Underwood has made her way to fame and fortune, but the ad incorporates their “tips”. Hard work pays off; using Olay doesn’t. This ad also gives the reader “a chance to win big” by offering tickets to see Carrie Underwood at the CMA Music Festival. These irrelevant prizes are like the Happy Meal toys from McDonald’s – a prize for doing something under influence. This ad is telling readers to buy their product so they can step into the shoes of someone they can only dream of being. These girls will change by using this Olay product, and their self-confidence will be boosted when they finally have something in common with Carrie Underwood. 

Response to Alissa Steiner's "Depression in College Students"

In “Depression in College Students”, Alissa Steiner talks about the battle of depression that college students often find themselves facing. Her thesis is “if counseling services on college campuses were better able to publicize and reach out to students, perhaps more students could get the help they need before it is too late.” She provides an annecdote about a student she once knew; Nima Shaterianl was a popular student who commited suicide. She also backs up her thesis with facts and statistics about depression and suicide. The science behind depression is explained in a way that allows the reader to undrestand how it works, as well as realize that seriousness behind the disease.  She also names triggering factors that lead to depression, such include school, work, extracurricular activities, family, etc. Steiner is also able to provide another real account of suicide, Elizabeth Shin, making the reality of the situation hit home. The readers are then able to relate to these accounts, because they too are college students, who could easily watch others, and well as themselves, go through the same things. A solution is offered, where Steiner informs the readera bout associations like CAPS that can help, and advices the readers what they can do for their own lives.

This essay really hit home, because I have a friend who battled depression for a long long time before she could finally win. She used to cut herself in her forearm; you can still see the scars when she wears short-sleeve t-shirts. It’s not something she hides, because she is so proud of herself for overcoming her depression. Unfortunately, not everybody is as strong as she is. It really is heartbreaking.

I thought that the essay was written very well, especially the way she formatted it into sections. There is one for recognizing depression, triggering factors, consequences, alternate solutions, and advice for the reader. It’s almost like a handbook or a guide, and it really defines each moment of depression and suicide, proving that even the earliest symptoms of depression are extremely important. I wouldn’t change anything about this essay.  

Response to Gerald Graff's "Hidden Intellectualism"

In “Hidden Intellectualism”, Gerald Graff talks about how educators are going about the wrong way in doing their job. They are so focused on academic intelligence that they completely ignore the values of being street smart. He believes that academic intelligence can be important, but students have things called interests as well, whether it is sports, fashion, dating or video games. If educators learn to incorporate these interests into academics, then students would actually be able to relate and turn it into something of educational value.

                The thesis is located at the end of the first paragraph. It states, “What doesn’t occur to us, though, is that schools and colleges might be at fault for missing the opportunity to tap into such street smarts and channel them into academic work.” Graff supports his claim by using himself as an example. He takes us back us back to his childhood, where he spent a lot of time trying to balance himself between being book-smart and impressing the “hoods”. On one hand, he used correct grammar and punctuation, but on the other, he had to prove he was a fighter. He was really into sports, and he found his comfort zone in reading sports books and magazines, a combination of the two things that originally had him torn. It goes to show you don’t need academic excellence to do “educational” things like debate, if it comes down to the subjects that he actually enjoys.

                Graff also explains that unlike academic subjects like Plato, interests and sports “satisfies the thirst for community.” When a debate about sports kicks off, it’s really anyone’s game. Anybody can have an opinion and the opportunity to throw in their two cents. It’s all about culture, and even people you’ve never met can join in. It is much unlike schoolwork, which is extremely limited to those that have actually achieved academic excellence and know what they’re talking about.

Students get excited about things like music, cars, sports and fashion. So why not let them explore these fields? A subject that bores a student will receive lackluster responses and efforts. If an educator is going to force a student to write a paper, they might as well allow students to write about what they’re interested in, and save everyone’s time and effort. The results will be a passionately written essay with tons of facts and arguments behind it, thus meeting academic standards.

Social Media Takeover

Steven Pinker and Peggy Orenstein both address the issues of social media through their respective articles, entitled “Mind Over Mass Media” and “I Tweet Therefore I am.” Steven Pinker believes that despite the common belief that social media and technological advance are ruining human intelligence, it is in fact quite the opposite. Technology has put us more in the reach of knowledge, as long as we control our temptations to use it for every little thing. Pinker uses examples and statistics to back up the fact that the common belief is false, that crime rates have gone down with advances in technology. He also uses logos to explain that social media is not detrimental to scientific progress, thus supporting the fact that social media does not make us stupider.

Peggy Orenstein believes that social media has taken a very positive turn into a person’s psychology by allowing them to be more open with the world. She explains how social media makes every article of information exposed to the world by people makes them self-conscience about how they appear. The things that they say in the heat of the moment via Twitter can define who they are to everyone else. It’s almost like a performance that they have to perfect. I enjoyed reading this essay; she uses an anecdote in the beginning to hook the reader in and make it relatable. She also provides evidence to back up her claim, citing fellow credible authors that have conducted surveys among social media users. I also like how at the end of her essay, she includes an enumeration of questions that are self-reflecting and very relatable. It makes the reader stop and think about how social media has affected their own lives, and possibly dig deeper. 

What We Eat Is Our Own Fault

David Zinczenko (Don’t Blame the Eater): When I was young, the only options I had for a daily, fulfilling meal were McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, or Pizza Hut. It caused me to gain 212 pounds.

Radley Balko (What You Eat is Your Business): Why would you do something like that? There are so many choices of food for you to eat. All of that junk has made you fat, and politicians are working to fight obesity by implementing “fat taxes”, and banning snacks and soda from school campuses and vending machines.

DZ: I was a latchkey kid; it was all I could afford. But then I turned my life around and joined the navy. Other kids don’t get this chance. If I could pinpoint one cause of these problems, it’s the fast food companies. They should put labels and warnings on foods they serve and sell, to let people know the potential risks of eating their products. There are so many blurred lines on their “fine print”, and that really needs to be fixed.

RB: I think that our government should work to improve the personal responsibility of your own health. They just take this chance to boost their public health insurers, and we’re busy paying for other people’s health issues. Instead of forcing restaurants to send every menu item to the lab, they should force people to think about their own health instead, and how the things they eat are affecting it negatively.

DZ: Money spent to treat diseases keep skyrocketing, but what other choices do teenagers have? There are so many fast food restaurants around, and they’re affordable and there is a lack of alternatives. The industry is marketing to children these products that will ruin their health, and they should protect themselves and their customers by providing them with the information they need.

RB: Congress needs to switch tactics and just reward people who make healthy choices and reprimand those who don’t.

Thesis: A person is responsible for everything they put in their own mouths, but the government isn’t entirely innocent here. Everybody should watch their own backs about what they eat, and should be controlling how much they eat and whether or not they’re making the right food choices. The government can do its part in helping influence that by reprimanding their unhealthy food choices and promoting good ones.

Extra Credit: Dialogue

Mom: Stop bouncing around, there are other people here.

Girl: I can’t, I’m too excited for school!

Mom: (fixes something on a baby’s carriage)

Girl: How come David doesn’t need to go to school?

Mom: David’s too young, he’s only two years old.

Girl: But he needs to learn things too!

Mom: He’ll go to school when he’s older like you.

Girl: Well I hope he hurries up and goes to school because I don’t want a dumb brother.

I heard this dialogue on the D train one morning. It took place between a mother and her daughter, who looked to be in pre-school or kindergarten. I thought this dialogue was really cute, because it showed that this little girl not only cared for her brother’s welfare, she also knew what she wanted and she was on a lookout for the future. I’m pretty sure I wasn’t this perceptive when I was 4. The mother also seemed very amused by her daughter; she probably never imaged her child could be this smart about what she wanted. I think this dialogue is humorous because you normally don’t get to see a young child acting like an adult. It’s very impressive and adorable at the same time, and even though she didn’t say something funny, humor is induced by the things she’s saying as who she is, and the way she says it.

Response to "Shooting an Elephant"

                George Orwell’s essay Shooting an Elephant left me with an impression of pity for Orwell and his easily manipulated role in society. As a police officer, he should have more authority and presence, but as a British police officer amongst the Burmese population, he is more like a puppet or a dummy. He is supposed to be able to use his own judgment and intuition to deal with cases, yet he is just jerked around by the mass, giving them what they want instead of doing what’s actually right. This selfish move allows him to save his own face and hopefully rack up brownie points with the people that don’t like him, the Burmese. He tries appeal to his guilty conscience that he did the right thing by pointing out that the elephant did kill a man, even if it’s a man with absolutely no social status. As a reader, I can see where he is coming from. Peer pressure is a very strong manipulator and can seize total control of the situation no matter how wrong the manipulators are.

                Orwell uses a first person perspective to tell this story. He has a plot and uses transitions very well. I feel like there is a very natural division to this essay. I have divided them up into 3 sections and named them The External Conflict, The Internal Conflict and The Consequences. The first section starts at paragraph 5, where the narrator had been focusing on Burma, its people and how they feel about him.  He narrates the events and panics of Burma. These deal with the outside events that occur in Burma. They are ultimately more narrative and informative than personal. His thoughts concerning the elephant were that of a third person. The second section is when the personal things come in. Orwell begins it by sudden decision to not shoot the elephant. This indicates a transition from the impersonal to the more private, personal view. He uses his emotions and decisions to tell the story. The end of paragraph 11 describes the elephant’s fall. As it transfers from section 2 to 3, paragraph 12 begins by the aftermath of the actual shooting of the elephant. It sums up the events that occurred after the shooting.

Orwell shoots the elephant out of peer pressure. He is the misfit amongst the Burmese, and he wants to win the crowd’s approval. If the crowd wants him to put on a show and shoot the elephant, he will do it, even if it is against his wishes. Orwell also uses the anecdote of his shooting to illustrate his hatred towards imperialism. According to dictionary.com, imperialism is “the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.” Just like the Burmese were forced under imperialistic rule and suppressed by it, Orwell was forced to shoot the elephant under the crowd’s influence. Imperialism gives the parent country power to do whatever it wishes to the country under it, similar to Orwell’s situation with his rifle. It shows the power struggle between the one with the power and the influential mass. The rifle alone has the freedom to just be, living in harmony with everything else and deciding its own fate. However, once the rifle falls into the wrong hands, it can only do what the hands will it to do.

Extra Credit: Response to Syria

If you’re like me and don’t really keep up with current events, the word “Syria” probably doesn’t mean much to you. It’s true that news of it has been everywhere; it’s America’s latest obsession. But that doesn’t mean that the US is the only country dragged into it. Other countries including Russia and Iran are involved as well. The point is, what started out as a little rebellion in Syria has turned into a full-blown civil war between the dictator and the civilians, each side with a number of allies.

The Syrian War is a big deal, and it’s no wonder other countries are getting involved. The Syrian government is going around, torturing, raping and killing thousands of innocent people each day, just because activists peacefully protested and lobbied for change and the government in turns goes ahead and overreacts. They attempted to hush things up but to no avail, and that’s when things took a turn for the violent. They would open fire into crowds and leave the body on the streets as a warning to not mess with the government. Eventually, the civilians got sick and tired of it, and things turned from bad to worse.

Then Assad brings out the big guns: chemical weapons. This grabs the attention of the American government, and automatically, the rest of the world is at risk, especially the US. Chemical weapons are a huge no-no in the world of war, and Obama decides to intervene by setting off missiles to warn Syria to back off. Personally, I believe the US should not get involved. First of all, this is not even our fight. Why should we put our soldiers in danger for the benefit of another country? Second of all, since when was the US the international police force? Who are we to regulate what weapons another country decides to use in a war against itself? With all the violence and confusion and attacks going on in Syria, I feel like it’s already past the point of no return. It’s chaotic enough over there already, even without our help to mess it up even more. The US should just step back and let Syria sort things out by itself. And even if it goes ahead and messes it all up, time will eventually heal all. It won’t be in the next 10 years, or the next 50 years, but someday, things will get better, as long as the United States keeps its nose out of other countries’ business.

Descriptive Writing Piece

            I stand at the foot, holding the ends of the thick blanket and raise my arms in anticipation. Keeping them straight can be a challenge, because only the thickest and heaviest blankets will suffice, but I manage. As quickly as I can, I swing my arms back down, listening to the whip of the blanket against the mattress. It thunders satisfyingly, and the urge to do it again fights inside of me. The sunlight streams into the room, and grazes on top of the blanket, spotlighting millions and millions of dust mites floating out of the blanket and into the air. It almost seems spiritual, as if a tiny being were to emerge out of the blanket, towards the stream of light and into the heavens. The air is now filled with the fragrance of freshly washed linen. Immaculate and clean; it smelled good enough to repel anything that could possibly taint it. And the pillows, giant, fluffy cushions of comfort. 

I have been holding back the urge to flounce in between the sheets, but for now, the urge wins. I slip between the soft sheets and the heavy but welcoming blanket, and warmth instantly floods within me. The mix of textures grazes my skin, and it feels like a baby in its mother’s arms. The weight combined with the silky touch of the blanket provides an impenetrable shield against the dark, my fears, and the lurking monsters in my closet. This comfortably irresistible cloud of security is my bed.

Response to "The Sanctuary of School"

                The term “narrative” is often thrown around, used synonymously with words like “backstory” and “account.” But what exactly entails a good narrative? I believe a good narrative is entertaining, detailed, and informative. It should lead the reader through a series of events that happen in a certain fashion, and it’s up to the writer to tell that story. The six main points to touch are who, what, when, where, why and how. By answering all of these questions, the reader’s curiosity of the specifics of the story is satisfied. They are left with a visual interpretation in their head, as if this were actually a movie that they were watching. Every detail written in the narrative contributes to this movie, making it even more realistic to the point where the reader reacts with the events and the characters. I believe all of these points entail a good narrative.

            In response to Lynda Barry’s The Sanctuary of School, I felt like this narrative was very relatable and interesting. As someone who has also felt a disconnection from what was supposed to be “home”, I felt like her interpretation of what was actually “home” is similar enough to my own to capture my interest. For Barry, school is the place where she was accepted and noticed by her teachers, and it is here that she receives the attention that every seven year old deserves. It is a far contrast from her house, where her place on her parent’s list of priorities is overshadowed by burdens of “frustration, depression and anger”. I really like how Barry begins her story with a very peek at her daily life, before launching into the series of events itself. Only after she sneaks away from her house and into her school does she get into a more detailed explanation of her troubles. Her organization here is metaphorical to how she can only express her feelings once she has gotten away from the main problem.

            Barry uses her narrative to argue that public schools contribute a lot to those who need it; in this specific case, children. Besides the educational portion of the school, it contributes to a child’s mental well-being as well. These days, there really isn’t enough time and energy to look after every single child and make sure they’re happy. That’s where public schools come in; even if parents can’t provide the best for their kids, public schools are still alternative options. Teachers are there to temporarily replace parents, schools are escapes from homes, and schools have more resources, like art equipment, and that’s always a plus.

            Barry also uses the word “light” to indicate all the good things in her life. She first uses it to describe television as “the light of our lives”. In a house where she is surrounded by despair, television is her and her brother’s outlet. Television is usually the one trying to capture your attention, and Barry would gladly turn away from one world into another. She also says that “points of light” in a child’s life can be “as far away as stars”. Again, the “points of light” is used to represent all the good things in a child’s life. But they are so out of reach; no matter how they try and try to be happy, they can’t do it, and the goal is as far away as the stars. “Points of light” is also a metaphor for stars itself, and the children would strive to be the star and shine through the sea of blackness known as the sky.