Reading Response

Seth Arreola
Page 70. #6
Malcom X says that he is first truly free after gaining all this new knowledge
in prison. When he says this he is not referring to being physically free but
mentally free. Language can indeed be liberating. The more knowledge of
language you acquire the more free you are to express what you want to express.
This can open up a new world for people gaining new insight to language. For
example, a person with a large vocabulary has the ability to talk to any group of
people no matter their social status. He or she can do this because not everyone
group talks the same, and once your knowledge of the language expands so dose
your audience. Another way language can be liberating is that the more you know
the more options it opens up. By this I mean instead of saying one word you have
several you can replace it with so you can convey your message or thought exactly
how want. Without this knowledge of your language you are defiantly limited,
without a doubt. Learning new words would be like seeing a new color for the first
time and now having a new way to describe something. Imagine you never learned
how to see the color blue, now think about how limited you are in life now. You
now cant communicate to people by describing that color, and you cant
understand what people are talking about when they use that color to describe
things also. This is the same for language and vocabulary. I remember as a kid
sometimes opening a book far to difficult for me to read and wonder what
knowledge this book hold then once I was able to read it it was indeed liberating.
Everyone is a prisoner of their own language, by this I mean you only have so
much you know so then you have only have so much you can say. Sticking to
vocabulary lets say I did not posses the word difficult in my own vocabulary or
any other synonym for it other then the word hard. Now I am a prisoner to my
language because to only allows me to use the word hard. I cant escape it until I
learn a new word for it, and this passion is for every word and every word you
dont know. Everyone has their own amount of knowledge of their language, and
even people with large vocabularys are still a prisoner to what they know.
Page 74 #4
Helen Keller said that everything had a name, and every name gave birth to
a new thought. The first words she learned that opened up her vocabulary were
doll, water, mother, father, sister, and teacher. She used these words as starting
blocks to open up the world to her. First learning that things have names to them
must have been revolutionizing to her. Just knowing that things have names
probably opened her mind up so much and gave her a lot of new questions about

the world around her. Learning things have their own names could have given her
the knowledge that her mental mind and soul isnt the only one on earth. Mother,
father, sister are not just objects in her world anymore, they are beings each with
their own world. This could be just one thought hat came into her head once she
learned that these things have names. These first things that she learned are like I
said building blocks for her vocabulary. Objects would be the first thing she learns
then actions I assume and it carries on from there until she got to the point she is at
now. I am curious on how she learned intangible things like is and at because a
lot of those word make up our vocabulary and are needed to create a simple
sentence. She dose learn those things thought, it is clearly shown in the text that
her use of the language is not at its elementary stage anymore. One part of the text
hat I thought was incredible was when she was describing her life before education
as being a in the middle of a thick fog. How did she learn what fog is like? She
describes it as being a tangible whit darkness. How would she know what her whit
darkness it to ours. If I were to close my eyes in fog I might be able to describe
how it feels but no how is see it when I open my eyes as a thick white fog. Dose
she actually know what the thick white fog is like or has she just created what it
must be from its use in other writings. Either way her use on the language now it
her writing is far beyond what many of people must have thought was possible, it
is greatly superior to her early use of the language.
Page 79 #3
David Raymond had a tough childhood not being able to read and
preform like the other kinds affected him then and for the rest of his life. He
had a hard childhood due to his dyslexia and it made him hate himself at a
young age because he thought he was dumb, although he finds out his I.Q. is
higher than 90% of the population. With this type of childhood you really
have to give credit to Raymond to be able to over come his obstacles. His
experiences in class affected all aspects of his life. He said at one point in the
text that at one point in his life when he blows out his candles at his birthday
he wished for more friends, not hat he could read. This just goes to show that
the problems in the class reached out to all parts of his life. I do believe that
being able to overcome the obstacles made him who he is today. After going
threw what he did what couldnt he do now? I think going threw what he did
at a early age is what got him threw other parts of his life. I couldnt imagine
having to read in front of a group of people with his condition. When I read
this I dont know if I should applaud the educational system for helping him
or critic it for almost pushing him to his breaking point. There is defiantly
more that could be done. But they and his parents did a good job to help
him.
Page 85 #3,5

Mary Pipher gives a few examples to support her clam that all writing is
designed to change the world the diary of Anne Frank is her first and is the
book that she says took her spiritual innocence, and changed her view of the
world. Mary Olivers Wild Geese now inspires environmentalists, Bob Dylans
Blowin in the wild became a protest song, a few musicians, Rachel Carsons
silent springs is used to help stop the use of pesticides, these are all
examples she uses to prove her point. She then states that this point to
change the world can be intentional, unintentional, and come in many
different forms not just literature, but songs, and all other kinds of media.
Some examples she uses for these points are Upton Sinclairs the Jungle,
Walt Whitmans I Hear America Singing, the Social Roots of School
Shootings by Katherine Newman, David Harding, and Cybelle Fox, and The
Age of Missing Information by Bill Mckibben. She goes on to say that good
writing astonishes the writer first, the example she uses for this is Leo
Tolstoys Anna Karenina. I am convinced that all writing is designed now to
change the world even if its to just change the readers mood or appreciation
for something like she says. Saying it is designed to change the world is a
little dramatic but it fits. Her most interesting example to me was the bit
about The Jungle, I already know it is a big reason for the change in
unsanitary conditions in the beef industry to better standers, and I am
thankful for that. However I didnt know that its ordinal purpose of the book
was to call attention to the immigrant labor work force conditions. After
thinking about her examples and all other things that come to mind I can not
think of an example where it doesnt change the readers mind in some way
shape or form, so I think she succeeded in that part of her work. She goes on
later to talk about change writing and propaganda. What she means by
this is that change writing is a attempt to get readers to join them,
encourage them to ask questions, invites original thought, openheartedness
and engagement. While propaganda had readers accept certain answers,
and has readers passively agree. This all means that change writing is not to
throw its beliefs on you but encourage to you open your mind to know ideas,
while propaganda forces ideas on you. Both types of writing and thought
have been used throughout history. For example I think Mary Pipher would
classify Socrates thoughts, ideas, and lessons and that of a change writer. He
encouraged people to think for themselves and opened them to new ideas.
The easiest and most well know use of propaganda is the use by the Nazi
party in World War II. Hitler forced his country to believe the Jewish people
were an abomination through posters and such throughout the county. We
know that is wrong but his use of propaganda did work. Both ways can get
the job done but only change writing is moral to me. Both of these forms of
writing will continued to be used in the future and I think its important for us
as the audience to know the difference to have a reasonable unbiased
opinion on different issues.