Into the Wild
Topic: The ideologies communities have that Chris breaks throughout the film (“ideologies live on because we perpetuate them in our discourses and in the ways in which we build and structure our world (physically and socially)” – here they do not)
- Money – burns money when is completely opposite to our beliefs… most people work for this and save it and treasure it
- New car – rejects nice items when normally people love getting the newest things especially for free
- Social security card – burned government form of identity
- Family – leaves family without saying much, people normally believe that family is who you should stick with/trust/depend on
- New name – Chris to Alexander Supertramp: usually people stick with their birth name and keep this as their sense of self
- Getting a permit to kayak- does not do this: breaks rules the community has that people normally follow
- Personal hygiene- constantly dirty which is not really accepted in society, those that are homeless and unkept are outcasts
- Job- creation of 20th century & doesn’t want one
- Google: a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy
- Our book: a set of presuppositions that influences most everything – people’s family lives, their political choices, their intimate and professional relationships” (185/86)
Upon doing a peer editing session in class today on April 7th, I received, thankfully the feedback that I am headed in the right direction. Those who looked at my paper said that they liked the structure I have set up, and that I do a good job weaving the background story together with the picture’s details itself. They also liked some of the specific observations I made, such as how the doctor is sitting shows it is the “calm after the storm.”
One thing that they noticed, and that I need to change, is the way that I word some things. To be exact they say it is “funky” sometimes. For example, “As a doctor in Poland, a country that believed heart transplantation to be impossible, he was against the majority in deciding to try the transplant once given the okay in August of 1987.” I think that to reword this would be a good idea because it will make it sound more clear and thus highlight my point in a better way. I may change it to say, “Rigela is a doctor in Poland, where the majority of people believed a heart transplant to be impossible. Once he was given the “go ahead” for the surgery in August of 1987, he had many skeptics.” Another example is when I worded something strangely so it made the doctor seem like the surgery was successful because he was a smoker, but I fixed that immediately!
I plan to read through to make sure everything sounds more smooth before submitting a final copy!