Paper #3: Saying Farewell? due July 24th by 5pm

 

Paper #3: Saying Farewell?

From Wilson’s “How Things Disappear”: “Perhaps travel writing’s foremost lesson is this: We may never walk this way again, and even if we do, we will never be the same people we are right now. Most important, the world we move through will never be the same place again” (188).

For your final paper, I want you to have a conversation about something that still exists in our world but might one day—either very soon or within ten years—disappear forever. This can be anything, from a specific product, animal, or place, a routine or way of doing things, a convention or ritual, or even a specific relationship. Your paper should roughly have three parts (not three paragraphs, necessarily—each part could be multiple paragraphs long):

* INTRODUCTION: Show us “in the middle” what your topic is and what your relationship is to it. It could show us the first time you used it or became aware of it, or even the most recent time. Try to show us how this is part of your life and why it would be difficult to be without it, at least for now.

* THE CONVERSATION: Answer the “so what?” question by explaining why it would matter to lose this. Bring in SOURCES to help you discuss it and to show why it matters, who thinks it could disappear (and why), and what we would lose without it. Try to find sources that show multiple sides of the story—maybe also people who don’t completely agree with you.

* CONCLUSION: You should also explain more clearly why it matters to you, and how your subject ties into a larger conversation about our culture. If we lose this, what else do we lose? How does it connect to other things, ideas, and activities?

REQUIREMENTS: You need at least 3-4 sources for this paper, which could be any of the essays from our book, plus articles or websites that help you discuss your topic. Think about the other conversations that tie into this topic, and broaden your discussion. For example, if you’re writing about the disappearance of fireflies, don’t just look up fireflies; look up climate change, species diversity, light pollution, etc. Think about all the conversations that could be part of your general topic.

ALSO: Try to have a real conversation in this paper. Show us why this matters to you, what you feel and think about it, what other people have to say about it, and how it ties into a larger issue than just “I like this, and I would hate to lose it.” What are the other implications of losing it? Why might we be very different people without it, and what can we learn about ourselves and the way we use it/appreciate it today?

DUE NEXT FRIDAY, JULY 24^th by 5pm. Late papers will lose a letter grade a day, so please turn it in on time. It’s worth 15% of your grade, so this can really help you or harm you, so do your best work!

For Tuesday: Wilson, “How Things Disappear” (183-189)

 

Aerial view of Estepa, Spain 

NOTE: This is our LAST essay! Some of the ideas introduced here will form the conversation of our final paper, so be sure to read it and answer the questions.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What makes the author fall in love with the idea of Estepa, and what was supposedly so great about it? When he finally gets there, is it all that he hoped for?

Q2: Why does Estepa vanish from modern editions of Europe Through the Back Door? What does it seem to lack that other, more touristy destinations, still offer to the traveler? Does the author seem to agree?

Q3: Why is travel writing “dying” in recent years, at least compared to the past 20? In a way, why has travel writing itself become like Estepa, a genre of writing that most people no longer want to visit (or don’t even know about)? What makes it less exciting considering that people still love to travel and explore the world?

Q4: Somewhat related to Q3, what makes travel writing such a unique form of literature, different than many other forms of writing? And why is reading about someone’s travels always different from going there yourself?

For Thursday: Persepolis (Film)

NOTE: If you misssed the film, or simply want to re-watch it, you can find Persepolis in the following link to watch for free (with ads) on You Tube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRTzV9m5YP0

We watched all but about 15 minutes of the film in class, so we'll finish it on Thursday and then do a Writing Workshop which will bring us into the conversation of the film--how it connects to the other essays in class, and what other issues it brings up related to the "Ugly Truth" theme of your Paper #2.

Here are some ideas to consider as you think about the film (you do NOT have to respond to these as homework):

* Why do you think they told this story from mostly a young girl's perspective? Since she's an adult at the beginning of the film, why not stay with that perspective? What do we gain from seeing her world change as she's still maturing herself?

* Related to our last essay, "Unsafe Passage," why doesn't Marjane's family leave Iran when it becomes more and more dangerous? And related to this, why does she eventually leave toward the middle of the film?

* How does life change the most for normal Iranian citizens from the Shah's government to the Islamic Republic? Whose life changes the most?

* Why do so many people risk their lives for small freedoms which seem unimportant compared to jail time or exceution? For example, why would Marjane risk buying tapes on the black market when getting caught with them could get her arrested and/or killed?

* How does the government instill a very strict form or propaganda to the masses through the media and in schools? What are they learning about their new government? 

* Why does she have a nervous breakdown in Vienna? Though she has all the freedom she longed for in Iran, why doesn't it set her free?

* Similarly, what makes it hard for her to adjust back in Iranian society when she returns? What no longer 'works' for her, at least at first? 

For Tuesday: Toha, “Unsafe Passage” (149-163)

 

For Tuesday: Toha, “Unsafe Passage” (149-163)

NOTE: We only have one more essay to read after this one, so be sure to catch up on your questions—and do these ones—so you don’t lose points on your Reading Responses grade (which is 30% of your final grade).

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Many people—and especially families—would want to flee an area like Gaza that has become a war zone. Ultimately, that’s what the author and his family try to do. But what keeps him, and many other people in Gaza, from abandoning the city? In other words, what makes it difficult to leave, both practically and personally?

Q2: In our last essay, the mother of a slain teenager complained that “The people that killed him reduced him to one thing and one thing only” (36). How does this essay show the same kind of racial stereotyping between one group and another? How is the author personally affected by this?

Q3: What ultimately saves the author from his incarceration and torture? Is he merely found innocent of his alleged crimes, or is it some other X factor that frees him? Why not everyone arrested in Gaza be able to count on the same kind of support?

Q4: How does this essay try to humanize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has long been a headline in the news, but which many Americans don’t really understand? Especially given that many people associate Palestinians with Hamas, terrorism, or even anti-Semitism?

For Wednesday: Deepak, “India’s Beef With Beef” (29-36)

 

For Wednesday: Deepak, “India’s Beef With Beef” (29-36)

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: We usually think of food preference as a personal or even a ethical thing (being a vegetarian, vegan, etc.), but in India, why is it also a religious concept as well? Why might politicians and even priests support what the essay calls “cow-related violence” (30)?

Q2: According to the essay, “more than 60 percent of India eats meat” (32), yet many Hindus claim that anyone who eats meat is not Indian. Why does a minority control the concept of national identity in India? Wouldn’t that be like saying that anyone who eats peanuts in America isn’t American because those with peanut allergies say so? Or does the problem lie deeper than that?

Q3: One of the people interviewed in the essay claims that eating or not eating meat isn’t simply a personal or religious choice. As they explain, “the Hindu vegetarian’s idea of a “balanced meal”—including only lentils, rice, vegetables, and dairy—[is] a construct of privilege, catering to those who have constant access to food” (34). Why might “privilege” play a significant role in this debate, especially given the fact that the majority of Indians live in poverty?

Q4: As always, the important question in this essay is “why does this matter,” especially to American readers? Besides being a religious issue, how does this problem affect other aspects of Indian life? And how might it change the way we look at our own society’s ideas of food and identity?