English 10: Writing Portfolio

Essay the first: Origins  
Essay the second: Literature  

I do not remember exactly when, but I do recall it happening last summer. My father, mother, sister, and I were going to my dad's boss' cape house. I also recall that we were not far away from the house when it happened. What this story will reveal about my family is that we are not always grumpy people because we're always arguing or having disagreements about something.

It was a sweltering 90 degrees outside and we just got a new minivan. My dad suggested that we open a window or two to just get some air in the car. So instead of just one or two windows, we opened all the windows that could be opened. It did not feel like 90 degrees anymore as soon as all the windows were opened. Enjoying the cool air and talking about random subjects, my sister suddenly let out a loud scream. We all looked at each other, pondering at what happened. My sister, Mary, had bird poop on her bare leg. It was as white as the big, puffy clouds above us and as big as if a paintball had hit her or as if a big glass of milk had spilt on her. Everyone was laughing with the exception of her. There was also another problem with this situation. We did not have any napkins or paper towels to clean it up with. She had to wait almost 15 minutes with fresh bird crap on her leg.

What this said about my family is that we can laugh and joke together as long as some bird poop lands on my sister. Even if there is no bird poop involved in the scenario, we can still maintain a good laugh.















Dear Mr. Wodehouse,

I am Patrick Hall, editor of the 2005 Prentice Hall textbook. I know how much you want to be included in this issue, but I am afraid I cannot put you in this year's edition. A good textbook should have stories ranging from drama, comedy, and prose. You, being mostly a comedic author, are just not what I have come to expect from years of looking at many stories and their authors. Let's take a story of yours and put it into perspective: The Truth About George. The reasons for not including you in the next edition of the textbook are your knack for repetition and exaggeration.

Repetition in The Truth About George is very common, but, in my opinion, it does not even meet the standard requirement of funny. In a dictionary, I looked up the word repetition. The definition they gave was ''the act of repeating.'' This story is absolutely littered with repetition statements. For instance, when he takes out his thermos, he says " I have a nice thermos. I have a full thermos. Won't you share my thermos, too?" He also does the same thing when he asks a woman if she would like some of his tea. Again, I will speak from my own thoughts. This is just not a funny statement, nor is this a funny story.

Another part of the story I did not like was trying to exaggerate the situation. In one such example, you wrote ' "Pardon me, but I wonder if you would care for a cup of tea?" is what he wanted to say, but, as so often happened with him when in the presence of the opposite sex, he could get no farther than a sort if sizzling sound like a roach calling to its young.' Another example is "Her eyes were now about the size of regulation standard golf balls, and her breathing suggested the last stages of asthma." Due to these errors I have brought up, I state my point again. You will not be included in this year's edition. I quote the words of an author of a Forbes magazine writer, Patrick Cooke, ''Wodehouse exaggerated golf's importance in his characters' lives to lay bare their delicate egos. Imagine, being so wrapped up in the direction of a stupid little ball." This is what I mean about exaggeration.

In conclusion, I state yet again the two main reasons for me not including you in our next issue of the Prentice Hall 2005 textbook: repetition and exaggeration. These views of negativity are expressed by in the paragraphic information above. Maybe in the future, you will be included in another textbook by someone who actually likes and appreciates your work. I'm sorry I cannot be that person for this year's edition.






















Some of the superstitious works that still exist today that get us to believe in superstition include Charles Dickens' "The Signalman" and Washington Irving's Sleepy Hollow. You could also consider H.G. Wells' The War Of The Worlds to be superstitious because some people believe that there are aliens out in the universe and others say that they're worried about them coming to Earth and taking over our planet. This is considered a superstition because we know that aliens might exist.

In the first stanza, the speaker describes a nightmarish scene: the falcon, turning in a widening spiral, cannot hear the falconer; "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold''; anarchy is loosed upon the world; "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere / The ceremony of innocence is drowned.'' The best people, the speaker says, lack all conviction, but the worst "are full of passionate intensity.''

''The Second Coming'' was intended by Yeats to describe the current historical moment (the poem appeared in 1921) in terms of these gyres. He believes that these gyres capture the contrary motions inherent within the historical process, and he broke each gyre into specific reigons that represented particular kinds of historical periods. Yeats believed that the world was on the threshold of an apocalyptic revelation, as history reached the end of the outer gyre and began moving along the inner gyre.

It is safe to say that when the poem first came out, many people that read did not like its structure. It was difficult reading for the people that liked it. It is obscure and difficult to understand. It is written in a very rough iambic pentameter, but the meter is so loose, and the exceptions are so frequent, that it actually seems closer to free verse with the frequent heavy stresses.

I will conclude my essay with a quote from George Orwell, the author of the novel, 1984. He claims that Yeats was a Facist and that he was a hater of the world that surrounded him. "Throughout most of his life, he had the outlook of those who reach Fachism by the aristocratic route. He is a great hater of democracy, of the modern world, science, machinery, the concept of progress, and above all, the idea of human equality. Much of the imagery of his work is feudal, and it is clear that he was not altogether free from ordinary snnobbishness. Later these tendencies took clearer shape and led him to the exultant acceptance of authoritarianism as the only solution. Even violence and tyranny are not necessarily evil because the people, knowing not evil and good, would become perfectly acquiescent to tyranny. . . . Everything must come from the top.''