Madness and Order

Honestly, I could not care less about hooligans in Britain. Until now. The book started violently, yes. It was sort of striking and all, but I could not find it interesting. It is now that I start realizing how rare it is to get involved in that world. Normally reports are made about indigenous people or exotic habitats. But, who would like to get involved with the hooligans?

Bill Buford

I lied. Now, I think you are winning the bet. Well, not entirely. Actually I just understood that it isn´t about two worlds colliding in Britain (look at my previous entry) but about Buford understanding their behavior. I also realized that the reader is the author. We have the same level of judgment as the author - for most of us, assuming that the audience would be people with little experience regarding this topic - . We discover the same things at the same time he does. 

Things got real when the Italians came along. What was that anyways? If you are surrounded by certain environment, you yourself change and adapt to that environment. For example, if thugs are constantly surrounded by themselves, they will obviously increase their aggressiveness. Because it is always a game about overpassing the opponent´s aggressiveness. 

The author puts himself as a third-party-observer and we can tell by how he says things that he thinks that some things the thugs do are simply wrong. The things they do are just to feel like they are real thugs and show their manliness. Even if they have lived in that environment their whole lives, they can differ from right and wong. They are conscious about the things that they do, and the fact that they need to settle down.

I mean, poor bus driver. Give him a break. JEEZ. 

Peace and love. 

Madness Vs. Ordinary

How do we know he is telling the truth?


The truth is what seems to be credible. Even if it happened or not.

That's why it isn't necessary to trust Buford, but it is certainly better.

Whatevs, seems pretty credible to me.

ANYWHO, yes, I think I am going to win the bet. He has already started demonstrating certain changed behavior. For example, the attitude he had toward Mr. Wicks - the British Consul who from Buford and the reader's point of view is the bad guy - was very sarcastic and satiric. He came to take away from the people Buford was studying, which already demonstrates attachment.

Or also when he makes fun of Bobby Boss, a character who can't be referred by his real name, by saying that his agency is the "Bobby Boss Agency."

Let's get certain things straight. In this book it is clear that there are two sides, and we are being persuaded to take one. There's the big, company/governmental side that wants to impose order in these soccer games. And the hooligans side which leans toward passion and madness for something they live for, something they can rely on and gives them a sense of home and nationality. See that? I just leaned or made you lean towards the thug side. Just like Buford.

So basically it's these people

versus these people

I wouldn't know who is madder to me...

Among Among the Thugs

My little cousin asked me what the word thug meant. I didn't know how to answer it knowing that his parents have protected him from everything that isn't perfect. My concept about "thugs" was very different before begin reading Among the Thugs by Bill Buford. It shows thugs form another point of view, and honestly, a more crude and realistic one. We have a clear misconception about them. Trends in twitter like "rollin' in dough #thuglife" aren't what the "thug life" is really about. 

Just by the title, we can tell that the author obviously gets involved in the thug life. And...when have we ever seen an author/director making a chronicle/documentary about something and remaining the same person? Yeah. This shall be interesting.

It's always the same: author is an outsider about topic but wants to dig information because he is interested and wants to look as a good journalist and ends up adapting to the way of life in which his point of investigation lives. And he effectively does become a good journalist. The thing with Among the Thugs is that Bill Buford incorporates himself and it gives us a perspective from someone that has the same experience as us regarding the topic: none. 

 

Let's bet. I say the story unfolds the way I said it will. (He begins as a complete outsider and thinks that hooligans are grotesque but ends changing his behavior and understanding their way of life, even picking up certain habits). You say it doesn't unfold that way.  

Done. Let's see who wins.

Rhetoric In Teens

In greek mythology, women were sent to the world as form of punishment for what an immortal had done. Through history this conception of women developed strangely, creating a lot of sexism and controversy regarding this topic.

In Don Juan, the CNG High School Play adaptation of Moliere's original play, this topic was boarded. It was demonstrated through comedy but there were clear innuendos about how sexism lives strongly in our society. It started with a song that talked about women's power and ended with "this is a man's world." 

Ethics played a big part in it too, since it questioned who determines good or bad and if we go to hell or not because of the way we choose to live. In this case, Don Juan is sent to hell and eaten by zombies, which means that it is talking a Catholic point of view. Through irony it was trying to depict the fact that it is not okay for men to predominate since it is not a fact that they are better than women. Also, it is not okay for this world to be a man's one but we have to face the fact that it is.

The good thing, though, is it was funny. So everyone could at least understand that part.

The Golden Elephant

(This is terribly rude but i'll say it). It seems as if George Orwell was meant to shoot that elephant. Why him? Why George Orwell, the author of political Animal Farm and utopic 1984? First of all he is a writer, which already means he will write about this. Second, he writes about controversial topics and uses analogies. He was meant to shoot that elephant.

Now, I suppose/hope you know that Shooting an Elephant was actually a true story and he used it as an analogy as well. 

I think this whole story is a big fallacy. A hasty generalization to be precise. He thinks (almost) everything evolves around him the whole time. He generalizes. The things he does are a result of his need to cause certain image. Orwell doesn't want to be seen as an idiot. This is clear as he is constantly saying things like "I was hated by large numbers of people" or "I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool." 

"I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot." We do have to recognise that this was his time to shine, but all of them? 

This was an all or none moment. He could lose it all at the most slightest incorrect move he made, even with a correct one too. He didn't want to lose it all. That is why he acted in a way that permitted him to please the "yellow faces." Did he get what he wanted? 

The Visionary Isn't Perfect

LIES ARE THE SOLUTION.

This is not like a reverse-psychology kind of thing. It is the truth. It worked for Churchill and Gandhi. One thing I am sure about lies, is that they are definitely not the way people depict them to be: "one lie leads to another and suddenly you are in a big mess." I guess that is true for some people. But not for these two. Nor thousands of spokesmen and women that have persuaded their audience through lies. I don't think, either, that lies mean the resurrection of Satan. 

Let's start by the title: "Our Duty in India." The British's duty in India. It sounds a bit arrogant and shallow once you know that the article is about how Churchill tries to convince the British that it is a must for them to keep India under their control. He belittles Gandhi and the whole idea behind him. That is one thing a wise spokesperson should never do: compare and degrade. Although, since the audience often lacks of intelligence, this technique comes to be very effective. 

"If the British people are to lose their Indian Empire, they shall do so with their eyes open, and not be led blindfold into a trap." OH MY GOD HOW CONSIDERATE OF YOU! You want the Indian Empire to fall, but they must be lead correctly and be realistic about it! How thoughtful. Really. This makes Churchill look like the honest guy. I mean, it would just be unthinkable for Churchill to lead them into a blindfold trap. Thank you for being so honest about it. And yes, the Indian Empire should fall as you say it should. That is definitely a red herring. Churchill doesn't want do deal with destroying the Indian Empire, he want's to deal with being a good leader in the process. 

Let's not forget the importance of syntax in fallacies: "Mr. Gandhi," "our Indian Empire," etc. "Nothing will turn us from our path, or discourage us from our efforts; and by the time Mr. Gandhi has arrived here to receive the surrender of our Indian Empire, the Conservative party will not be so ready to have its name taken in vain." - Slippery slope all te way. What does being constant with what you believe in lead you to assume that Gandhi will surrender "your" empire? 

Yes, lies do work. In short term. 

Editing Gandhi's Newbie Writing

First of all I would like to clarify that correcting Gandhi’s writing doesn’t feel exactly assertive; he is master Gandhi. Yeah, I know he is human and makes mistakes and blah blah blah. But, c’mon, there’s a difference between him and Paris Hilton.

I'M AM PREPARED

That's the problem: trust. We are used to thinking that because of someone's trajectory they will turn out to be what we expect them to: perfect or not-perfect (sometimes). Well, as famous philosopher Hannah Montana said: nobody's perfect. Even Gandhi. He, as well as consumerist-adverts now a days, uses a persuasive method that isn't entirely correct in terms of rhetoric in this speech.

- Hasty generalization: "Nevertheless, I do feel, as the poor villagers felt about Mysore, that there is orderliness in the universe, there is an unalterable law governing everything and every being that exists or lives." He doesn't give us enough examples when he refers to what the poor villagers of Mysore felt. I'm sure not all of them felt the same way and maybe it doesn't relate to with what he felt. This could also qualify in a "misinterpreting the evidence" fallacy because the examples don't support the conclusion. 

- Wrong ending: "It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being and thanks to the marvellous researches of Sir J. C. Bose it can now be proved that even matter is life." He begins the sentence speaking about a law and he ends it by saying that some-guy proved something related with the law. The beginning doesn't lead to the end. It looks more as if he were promoting Sir J. C. Bose's work rather than arguing  the state of the law he just mentioned. 

- Fallacy of ignorance: "He who would in his own person test the fact of God's presence can do so by a living faith and since faith itself cannot be proved by extraneous evidence the safest course is to believe in the moral government of the world and therefore in the supremacy of the moral law, the law of truth and love." To believe God exists, you must have faith and base yourself on truth and love, is what he is saying. Since he can prove his argument with the example from the people of Mysore, his conclusion is absolute: to know there is a God you must have faith. There's just a itty bitty problem...WHAT IF I DON'T WANT TO? What now huh? 

Fallacies are really hard to deal with, for the read and the writer. Sometimes, the author's purpose isn't to fool people with a fallacy, since they are at times hard to avoid. We must not be fooled by them. They are not entirely bad. This doesn't mean we must let them go, we have to be trained and prepared readers just like the writer si for us. 

I bet I have more fallacies than Gandhi in this entry...
"First of all I would like to clarify that correcting Gandhi’s spelling doesn’t feel exactly assertive; he is master Gandhi. Yeah, I know he is human and makes mistakes and blah blah blah. But, c’mon, there’s a difference between him and Paris Hilton." - FALLACY ALERT!

Heinrichs in Real Life

Person: Look at that hotel. Why would anyone stay there?

Me: But it seems very decent.

Person: Yeah but it's in a random place.

-Question: values/choice.
-Answer: values.
-Comeback: I don't event know what that is.

I blamed him of thinking badly of the quality of the hotel and refuted by saying that I thought it was decent. He then changed the subject to the location, when we were talking of the quality. This is precisely what John Heinrichs says not to do when arguing about something: never to confuse values, choice and blame in an argument. Call me a rule breaker but I will learn how to debate properly.

It is extremely irritating for people to say non-related things as comebacks when debating. It is also easier for that inoffensive conversation to become a fight. Take note because you don't want your marriage to become a blend of choices, values and blames err'day.

No Different Than Art

The art of lying is often underestimated. People think they are "fluent with sarcasm" and stuff but it actually takes a lot of skill. Lying is all about rhetoric. We are constantly manipulating people either consciously or unconsciously. Convincing is rhetoric. We get what we want through rhetoric. So even if you don't know what it is, you use it everyday. We choose to dress the way we do because we want to depict a certain personality: rhetoric. We persuade people into thinking something about us.

"People say that oxygen or love are vital for us...pfff keep talkin'." - Rhetoric

This phenomenon is the same thing as performing. It is a mask that we put on and we have to act according to the context.

In Thank You for Arguing by Jay Heinrichs we see the dominance and power that rhetoric has on us. People like to think that persistence is what will win a debate. Actually, most people don't care what you have to say so it is better to make them believe they are right. Imposing your ideals to people isn't and effective technique. Persuasion is the key the key to every lock because persuasion, just like God, acts in mysterious ways. There is no need to be persistent to be persuasive.

THE Debate

The arduous debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama was arduous. 

Their use of rhetoric was extremely strong. People had already unconsciously selected and graded from one to ten certain things the moment the candidates walked in, the moment the stage was visible, the moment they shook their hands, and so on. 

Let's start off by saying that Romney is a candidate that has not been constant with his opinions and decisions, a big problem for the president of the United States to handle. Yes, Obama is the president so we could say he has more practice, preparation and knowledge. That is an advantage that has shown to be a significantly large one. On the other hand, he has much bigger flaws to point at. So what Romney can do (or does) with those flaws is paraphrase and promise he will change that. He will make America strong again. 

There are certain words or common informal frases that shouldn't be used in these type of formal debates, because since they are talking about a whole country, they can't talk about certain groups in a degrading way. I felt Romney went too off track with that guideline. He talked about "the poor" and said "kill" to many times. The spontaneousness and randomness of these words in a sentence was sometimes shocking for our ears to listen to because of the context it was in. We take a place as expectators. We want something good or bad to happen because we are conscious that these candidates are being watched by a large portion of the world and the pressure they behold. Based on that, we automatically decide what they should or shouldn't do. When a candidate does or says something we think may affect him, we feel worried or uncomfortable. That is the type of pathos Mitt Romney transmitted. I don't love him but I felt awkward when he said things that were supposed to appeal the the public but didn't go along with the context they were supposed to go into. 

Obama, on the other side, was really defensive. I was worried that wasn't going to work out for him because it showed him a little too desperate to topple Romney. Obama transmitted much more ethos than Romney did, and made some jokes now and then trying not to lose his "swag." That is what Obama has, it's swag. He already has a certain trait that when he says something with a ceremonial register, everyone gets up and aplaudes. Romney doesn't have that. There is no spirit with what he is saying, maximizing his stereotype extreme-republican side.

And let's not forget, it's not the rest of the world that's voting. It's only the United States. 

#Controversy

I have a really weird fetish for good descriptions. There's this amazing one in Dreams from My Father in which Obama tells us the whole story of why he didn't know his father and the tragedy of his departure. That only part is told in third person similar to the begging of fairy tales. For example: "...the young couple married, and she bore them a son, to whom he bequeathed his name" (10). As I read this, I could imagine baby Obama under the sea with red hair and fins being held by his father Barack Sr. in a little shell ready to be baptized. He sounded like a prodigy or a kid that would become a legend. Just like in fairy tales. What's curious is that only that part was written that way. Strange, huh.

Only Barack Obama can pull the "awkward" word without it being awkward.

One of the most delicate and controversial topics on this ecumene; racism. A subject that is constantly touched and mentioned by Obama, considering his life has been surrounded by it. He shows a really light and  moderate tone against this issue, but is clearly against it. There is a sense of resentment with Americans when he says "...although their ideas would never congeal into anything like a firm ideology; in this, too, they were American" (17). It is not insulting nor degrading, but unconsciously we feel it as a ideological punch. 

In general, the introduction to Barack Obama's life is actually really personal, full of weapons that could destroy him, but he still ceases to remain in silence. It is compelled by a constant battle of logos and pathos that include topics that are hard to handle but Obama does so in such subtleness that even an insult may seem lighthearted. The way he talks about racism gives him a status that no other white could have, because he lived it. There is no arrogance within his status, just a subconscious shift in our minds regarding who is Obama. We are never sure, he's like an electron; constantly changing.

But really, who is Barack Obama?

Baracking Obama

Barack Obama. 

The first thing that comes to our minds: he's the president of the United States of America. By knowing this, we relate him to formality. A president must be everything but informal. Although, I do believe it's incorrect to assume that because of his background, think his memoir would be as formal as his speeches and the public figure Barack Obama must portray. 

"...the animals shit on our curbs..." (4) O.M.G. he said shit. 

It's hard to read this book without thinking that he is the president. But obviously, that's his aim. I guess. Using some pathos now and then. As I began reading Dreams from My Father I was surprised by his eloquence and fluency when trying to describe something. It gives the reader some sort of comfort. The interesting thing here is that he doesn't necessarily use pathos to inflict that feeling in us. We just feel it.

We recently discussed in class how there is a new movement in literature that is all about confessing. Saying things that no one else wants to say is what interests readers. They enjoy it because they can relate to something that the author had the courage to publish but they don't have the courage to say it. If there ever comes someone to blame, the author will be guilty, not us. But we still think about it. 

Obama reveals the truth. I am not only referring to Dreams from My Father only, this applies to his politics as well. As soon as he is informed his father has died, Obama says he's "trying to measure [his] loss" (5). We all expect Obama devastated and slowly scurrying his body down the wall while sobbing. No. He isn't sure how he is supposed to react, even if that sounds like he didn't appreciate his father, it's the truth. He then explains that he didn't know his father very well so that is why he has to measure the situation.

There is no better description for what I imagine of that feeling. These types of phrases are what makes the reader identified. He cares to describe moments and feelings as delicately as he can to be able to transmit the message. What I really mean, is that Obama writes about something that could be sad but by his tone, we feel completely serene; cozy. 

To be honest, I am unfamiliar with this type of tone/writing. Normally, authors use pathos or they don't. With this book it's a very twisted pathos that aims for no empathy yet it it does flirt with what could be a lighthearted tone. 

I don't like to think of this memoir as an intentional strategy for his campaign, but it sure served as one. At the end of the day, books always have a purpose. 

A Relative Truth

I have constancy with my opinion about it being fundamental for us to be able to adjust punctuation, grammar and spelling to a text. A writer always has a purpose. Without being able to adjust these things, there wouldn´t be a more interesting way of giving clues to the reader about the purpose of the text.

In ¨Which Language Rules to Flout. Or Flaunt?¨ Robert Lane Greene and Bryan A. Garner have a confrontation about the use (proper or not) of language. Extensively surrounded by logos, both articles argue that they are correct. If I were to select an article as the best, I would give it to Bryan A. Garner. Although I am not in accordance with his ideals and he´s somewhat tight and penny-pinching, he is who uses his arguments as a shield, making his point of view fully understandable.

As soon as I typed the title´s article in Word, it told me it was a fragment. Is it, really, a fragment, word? There. Microsoft Word is totally prescriptivist. Who are you to say it is or it isn´t? And even if it was, it wouldn´t matter that much.

I´m going to pull the ¨everything is perceptual and relative¨ here. Take art, for example. Contemporary art is completely free and permits random and what would be antiquely considered pointless to be a form of expression. The same thing happens with writing. In fact, writing is a form of art. With writing, we need prescriptive-determined errors. As well as it serves as a way of rhetoric, it gives tone to what is being said.

Ensayo sobre la ceguera, a book that doesn´t contain a single point throughout the whole book, certainly was written this way for a reason. Looking at is through a prescriptivist point of view, the whole novel would be a very long sentence. Thus making the novel utterly and unquestionably wrong, conveying no special message. What I’m trying to say, is that prescription takes away the purpose, leaving the text with the sometimes bitter taste of logos.

Going back to my Einstein moment, writing, as well as art, are both conceptual. What shapes a text is not entirely the words. The path to comprehending a text is by looking at the syntax, diction, punctuation, etc. We gather all of this information to understand what is being said. And most importantly, the purpose.  

Although I do have to say, that if it were not for the basis of written language, we would not be able to make these opinions. To break the rules, you must know them and have followed them previously to be conscious of what you are doing.

Teachers must tell us what is wrong and right in our fourth grade-essay papers.

And Yet, More Grammar

Grammar is not just what you saw in second grade about where to place a point. There are many tricks about grammar that we should know about but our consumed selves don't let us understand that there is more to grammar that correct punctuation.

In the essay Q As In Quotation, by The Bars of Atlantis, this is demonstrated through the meaningfulness of quotation marks. I bet you only thought of quotations as a way of citing text. Well, beyond that "once the first quotation has penetrated, you are no longer your own master" (page 75). As soon as the reader has seen the  first quotation, he will understand the text not to be yours. Thus, making different suppositions about originality in the author. It is very important to make it clear that quotations aren't like semi colons that shouldn't be used with frequency. But like all things, they are bad in excess. Too much of just one quotation may be to exhausting to read, leading the reader off track of what was meant in the original text.

Just remember: quotations are very useful, but use them moderately and correctly.

There is no statement without some history, of course. This is why Nicholson Baker decided to tell it. Yes, the history of punctuation: Survival of the Fittest. With and without punctuation there are many puns and jokes made. This means that the lack or the correct use of punctuation defines what the author is saying.

Back to the Beginning

-It's like, why did you want to end your life man? Oops. Oh wait, I didn't actually say it. Whew. It would have been so awkward having to like...apologize or something.

-Well um not much has happened. I mean, I feel the same person I was in middle school. The only thing that has really changed is Brent Runyon. Like him physically and his presence. It's so awkward. It's like awkward  awkward awkward. Like, what am I supposed to say? Welcome back? It sounds like if he just arrived from a trip. Let's just not say anything, like he would notice or care.

-Oh man, I feel so sorry for the guy. I heard he set himself on fire because he couldn't bang a chick.

-Hey you guys! Did you see Brent? O.M.G where is he? I've been looking form like for years. It's gonna be so cool when he sees me! I'm gonna give him this. And this. Ooh! And look at this. It totally matches his skin. Like, perfect outfit for just returning to school after an accident.


Back to school. Don't get confused, this isn't his automatic recuperation. This is a task that will prove if the return to school is the beginning or the end of the first part of the psychological process. (The acceptance)

Having Fun With Rhetoric

Why need a friend when you have The Burn Journals?

Because humans were biologically made to interact with other creatures within the same species. 

There. 

Actually, I don't think this memoir has the capacity to replace a human being with whom I share my thoughts, just to fill me with eternal laments. I always have a strange impulse of criticizing poorly an author that didn't captivate my whole attention. No. What am I doing. Focus. 

But let's not be fully modest. I am not entirely wrong...? Can't be. I mean, think about Brent Runyon's intention. And the audience. Think about the most amazing triangle ever used by society. Nope, not the isosceles...it's the rhetorical triangle. Wee.

Who and why? Yes, it is possible. Authors sometimes do write experiences as a way of therapy. But...this case? I wouldn't say so. He took time to write down every single thing. It is pretty interesting how he intends to capture the audience's attention. It's a bit twisted though. My point is that the writer who you thought was special and helping you through life with such beautiful piece of literature, forms part of the typical group of adults that tell you "you're not doing it right, kid" or "I was just like you when I was young."

I'm sorry, but I've got to give it to the adults this time. We aren't doing it right. Precisely, because we think we are. Once we start growing up, we either are against everything or anything, and it's when you understand that the thoughts that surround your mind about certain things all day, are already implanted in adult minds. We think we are always right, but we're all humans and go through the same cycle.

So, frankly, I believe this book would come to be merely persuasive. That is indirectly, of course.

I mean, do you want to go through the same experience he went through?

He has done his job.

Contemporary Writing

If I were to describe this book, I wouldn't say it is about suicide. It's not. First of all, it is about how to deal with issues in our teenage hormone-unbalanced years. (Or a sentimental attachment to something when you are going through rough times.) Second, getting into a much deeper meaning, it's a book that knows how to relate to people. And through pathos, touches their emotions. 

As we well know, pathos is a form of rhetoric. If you were told to find an example of it in The Burn Journals, you would have no problem. Actually you would, but in finding logos. The reason why this memoir reaches us so much, is because it uses empathy in an extreme way. He confesses every single thing he felt when he got burnt, when he was treated, while he was in the rehabilitation center; everything. As you read the book it feels as if someone was harming a five-year-old boy and he was not aware of it, searching for a way to ask for help. Well, at least that is how I feel.

The confessions Brent makes, make us part of the book. He tells us everything that goes on in his dirty mind. As soon as we read the word "penis" our mind immediately recognizes the word as being bad, thus leaving us astonished and freezed, for a while. We process the fact that he just said the word and we continue reading having unconsciously rated the book from one to ten already. That is, for people that have never read an honest, real book before. 

Exceptional literature contains these type of things that are socially unacceptable and submitted. By Brent opening up, he digs a big cave inside us in which we despise him and appreciate him more and more each time. 

Trend: Fire

"Tonight, we are young. So we set the world on fire, we can go higher than the sun." (We Are Young - Fun) This song represents youth. Youth is generally when most suicides occur. It is literally suggesting for a group of teenagers to burn the world because they are young.

"Somebody call 911, shawty's fire burning on the dance floor." (Fire Burning - Sean Kingston) There is an adolescent girl being burnt whilst dancing on the dance floor. People are watching since there is a clear witness. 


"Cause I'm T.N.T., I'm dynamite." (T.N.T. - AC/DC) There is a man that could potentially explode since he is or at least has dynamite in his system. 


"'Cause I told you once. Now I told you twice. We gon' light it up like it's dynamite." (Dynamite - Taio Cruz) Again, the artist suggests for the people to set something on fire. He told you two times already. 


"'Cause baby you're a firework...make them go ah ah ah as you shoot across the sky." (Firework - Katy Perry) I really hope you do not take this one literally; you are an explosive, and you are supposed to blow everybody's mind as you blow yourself up.


First, to make some things clear, I would like to say I am not saying music is cynical because of its lyrics. (Although, in some way it is, but I don't mean this entry that way. Plus, I'm not against music being cynical.) 


I know Burn Journals is not entirely related with the actual, physical fire he used to kill himself. I am not sure if the author interprets the fire as I do. But what I have encountered is that the fire is a metaphoric tool understood as what made him comprehend his life, and what it really was. 


These quotes just demonstrate the impulse humanity has on fire. Why is fire always used as a metaphorical device?

Pfff...Purpose?

I figured it out. He is writing as his mental age was when it all happened. Whew, there had to be a reason to why Runyon built such long sentences with too many "and"'s.

"When there is nothing left to burn, set yourself on fire." (Anonymous)




Or, when you are done with your purpose in life just kill yourself. Do we really have a purpose in life? What if there is no purpose at all and we just make this up to make sure it is worth living? What if.



What would you do when all is gone? That is, family, money, work and everything you were potentially "living for." Would you, at such desperation, kill yourself? Really, you would? Oh, so...you wouldn't. I would not do it. Why waste the only opportunity you have of starting something new? Why waste anything? We are blind to the fact that there is actual life behind that idealized loneliness. Actually, it all goes back to the rise of Christianity, when Jesus came along and freed everyone from Hades. (Not offending Christians). That was when everyone began to believe that true life lies in heaven and once we serve the world, we can have eternal happiness. In Greek mythology, on the other hand, good and bad people went to Hades, therefore you had to make the most out of life.

I really don't understand humanity. Or that aphorism, is it being sarcastic, or is it stating the truth we live in? 


Yes, that means you, Brent. You made up your own problems, just to have something to "live for." What I mean by this, is that you needed to have an occupation because you felt your life didn't have a purpose, which was precisely what caused you to kill yourself numerous times. You realized what you had done when you had already done it. Face it, face it, face it. Fine don't face it, illuminate your painless body. Barely five seconds was what it took for you to understand you had problems, and it has taken you an eternity to face them.





Just saying.

Spurt, Spurt, Spurt

Believe me, I am undoubtedly sure of at least one characteristic of a memoir now. Either you end up relating to the author's feelings, or he takes every piece of you and perforates it until you can begin to even understand how the author is dealing with a situation. Memoirs are so specific and detailed that this is how you feel when you are reading one. It reaches you. 

The Burn Journals is not the type of memoir that has eternal sentences full of beautiful words and perfect figures of speech. It also doesn't seem like Brent Runyon has the broadest vocabulary in the world, but this won't matter throughout the whole book. It took only two pages for me to recognize that I was trapped in the author's thoughts. This is an extremely direct and frivolous memoir that without the use of  spectacular writing stands for itself. 

That is how I felt through the first 36 pages of The Burn Journals. I was hooked to the feeling of rage and irrevocable physical pain Brent made himself go through. The way he had so much anger and/or sadness coming out of a place he didn't know where, amused me. Because of those repressions, he for a minute thought he didn't have anything to lose. The thing is, we believe we have done all the thinking there is to do before taking an action, but it is not afterwards that we realize how many things we skipped and could have thought that could change our opinion. That is the time where the actual, real thoughts, come to us. These are our instincts. 

Runyon talks about his handshake with death in a senseless way. First of all, it could clearly avoid too much digressing. But mostly it is because there is no need for an extremely detailed sentence when "I'm going to set myself on fire" (16) is enough to astound us. And we are left with nothing else, but a bunch of pages that will send the same message. 

I really do hope Maggie gets better, too.

Confessions Visual Vocabulary

Celibacy: an unmarried status

Abstruse: difficult to understand; obscure

Tenet: a principle or belief

Malady: disease, disorder or aliment

Uproarious:  known by provoking loud noise or uproar; laughter.

Mammon: wealth regarded as an evil influence or false object of worship and devotion.

Abode: place of residence

Continence: exercise of self constraints in sexual matters.

 

Stultified: to lose enthusiasm and initiative as a result of a tedious or restrictive routine

Hearsay: 

1. information obtained by another person that cannot be proved; rumor 

2. The report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law