Therefore unlike the Daily Mail, which delights in demonising teenagers, The Observer encourages people to “try a little love instead”. Indeed if everyone tried a “little love” it would not only support teenagers but it would encourage them to behave and to well at school which would ultimately make them more successful. In conclusion the representation of teenagers in the media is completely unfair and wrong. I believe that we should all give teenagers more support and less criticism, including the Daily Mail. Being a teenager is a very difficult process as your body dramatically changes and you are subject to over-whelming hormones.
However, in Fahrenheit 451, a utopian society seems to have been reached. Perfection seemed to exist in “laws, government, and social conditions.” Compared to our modern world, this future seemed to be happier and their lives less chaotic. Humans have never liked laws because they give off a sense of restriction as well as authority. In the future, laws don’t exist and anything seemed feasible and within one’s reach. There was only a simple law, and that was to not read books as well as think, making “the mind drink less and less.” This doesn’t seem much of a sacrifice because society was filled with far more excitement than literature could offer.
Why is it that so many intelligent people are considered lower that those who have no intelligence book wise? Society had made the image that the intellectualists of this nation have no place in the social aspect. In “America Needs Its Nerds”, author Leonid Fridman asserts that the American attitude anti-intellectualism must end for America to remain being a competitive force with other countries. Fridman was right when he said that geeks do not play a significant role in the society. One of his examples was that many foreign countries revere their professors and scholars, but in America we revere our celebrities and ball players.
The smell isn’t good but that’s nothing compared with the feel of all those serverd nostrils and lips and ears between your fingers”. This graphic image gives us a glance into the teenagers working lives, their arms are “slick” in blood and guts, this is not a job that they enjoy. We see an arrogant side to the narrator on page 4, “To be honest hes not my sort of bloke at all, but somehow he’s my best friend”, he comes across like he feel’s superior to Biggie, as if he owes his friendship to Biggie. The narrator shows us that there is a lot of loyalty between the two boys, on page 6 he states “Biggie’s not the brightest crayon in the box but he’s the most loyal person I know”, this leads us to belive that Biggie is unintelligent, not the most cleverest person. The narrator goes on to say that “I made him look brighter than he was”, this was done out of loyalty, the narrator was trying to help but it actually ended up wih Biggie and himself failing thier exams they “fried”.
I agree with his argument that people are manipulated in ways that are infinitely more refined than the methods used in the post-totalitarian societies. In a democracy, human beings may enjoy many personal freedoms and securities that are unknown to us, but in the end they do them no good, for they too are ultimately victims of the same automatism, and are incapable of defending the same automatism, and are incapable of defending their concerns about their own identity or preventing their superficial concerns about the their own personal survival to become proud and responsible members of the polis, making a genuine contribution to the creation of its
Diodotus was more of the wiser, older man that has seen a lot in his day; Diodotus was only looking for the future good of his country. Never once did he say that it was okay what the Mytilenians did, but that as a politician you should use them to better your country rather than just disposing of them to get an irrational state of justice. The question of the day did not seem to be whose side you were taking because both men were Athenians, but the question was which side of justice for Athens were you taking? It would be wrong for me being in my early twenties to side with Diodotus because I once heard a quote saying something along the lines that being twenty is to be liberal and to be forty is to be conservative. It may have no actual basis in this topic, but I perceive it as having enough time when you are older to think more wisely and act more conservatively.
Parson. Parson seems to feel that there is nothing wrong and he is high enough in society that he doesn’t have to worry about the change in society, not paying much attention or thinking that his children may be him and his wife’s downfall. Winston on the other hand is on his toes, and doesn’t like how the society is being run, and wants to change how things are run, but has trouble trusting anyone with his thoughts afraid that they will turn him in. This may be his downfall, because he want’s so bad to change society that he will tell the first person he thinks is on his
Rhetorical Analysis Essay The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger is written for a teenage and young adult audience. The reader knows this statement is true because throughout the book Holden had some things that the wrong audience would not like or be able to relate. One would say that because Holden is a minor he should not be making lots of important decisions that would affect him later. This does not mean only teenagers would like this book but it does mean that teens can relate to Holden the best.
He does not care what society thinks of him and in some situations he does not even care about the laws and rules of life. People around me are to scare to over do it and care too much about the consequences. But many friends of mine have the idea of not caring and doing whatever they please but having limits to it. I believe that when we are young we enjoy life much more because we like adventures and trying new things just like Alexander. 10.
Rarely was that world projected as full of anger at racism, struggles for justice, or revolutions of the body and spirit. It's better to be cute than political, individual than collective-minded, and you should pray to be compared with Like Water for Chocolate. Now come the new books by Julia Alvarez and Demetria Martinez, both with radical themes that include criticism of U.S. policy and Anglo values. They have had flattering reviews, but profound political or social questions raised in each book go ignored: most critics seem happier with the romancing. Julia Alvarez's book is a fictionalized biography that moves its characters forward in the shadow of impending doom, yet never victimizes, never negates human complexity.