Final Blog Assignment

1. In the note "Evils Imminent," Erik Larson writes "Beneath the gore and smoke and loam, this book is about the evanescence of life, and why some men choose to fill their brief allotment of time engaging the impossible, others in the manufacture of sorrow" [xi]. What does the book reveal about "the ineluctable conflict between good and evil"? What is the essential difference between men like Daniel Burnham and Henry H. Holmes? Are they alike in any way?

     Devil in the White City reveals that good and evil will inevitably exist, conflict, and eventually determine the future of the world.  It demonstrates that oftentimes evil is portrayed as "good," and its deception can be lethal.  Sometimes good intentions can lead to evil, or lead others astray.  For example, even though Holmes was a murderer he appeared innocent and sweet.  He helped those in need through paying off their debts and offering them jobs, food, housing, and even life insurance policies.  He was so clever at the art of "pretending" that no one caught it, and several women were lured into his trap, and ended up dead.  The essential difference between men like Burnham and Holmes is their sincerity: Holmes was a complete deception, while Burnham was completely genuine.  Each men knew how to use clever tactics to achieve their "dreams," but Burnham used to these tactics to achieve greatness, and reaped a good reward.  Holmes, on the other hand, used goodness to achieve a bitter end; he thought only of himself and not of the suffering his actions would eventually inflict on other people.  In this way they are both alike and different.  

2.  In describing the collapse of the roof of Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building, Larson writes "In a great blur of snow and silvery glass the building's roof—that marvel of late nineteenth-century hubris, enclosing the greatest volume of unobstructed space in history—collapsed to the floor below" [p. 196–97]. Was the entire Fair, in its extravagant size and cost, an exhibition of arrogance? Do such creative acts automatically engender a darker, destructive parallel? 

     The entire Fair, in its extravagant size and cost, was both an exhibition of arrogance and not.  It took two years of construction, thousands of workers, hundreds of architects, millions of dollars, failures, and breakthroughs.  It was the manifestation of the talent and strength of the US.  If offered people from all over the world to see and experience new inventions, such as machinery and electricity, soda and artwork, the Ferris Wheel and gorgeous landscaping.  It helped boost employment by offering millions of workers full-time jobs in building and constructing the fair.  It showed America's tenacity and refusal to give up when times get hard.  It was only arrogant in that its sole purpose was to top the exhibition in Paris and prove America's greatness to the rest of the planet.  But because it was such a masterpiece America deserved to take some pride in their abilities and achievements. Such creative acts do not automatically engender a darker, destructive parallel in and of themselves.  In the case of the fair, its creativity in itself was neither dark or destructive; it only served to mask a cereal-killer's darkness and destructiveness.  Because people were so distracted by the fair's significance it kept them from dwelling on all of the crimes and disappearances that were occurring in Chicago.  But this was only coincidence.  Throughout the centuries there have been great artists who were not evil, such as DaVinci, Rembrandt, Bach, Mozart, and Shakespeare.  

      

Blog #2

“A Modest Proposal” by Dr. Jonathon Swift is a terrific example of satire.  He challenges the Irish people’s method of child raising, but also dehumanizes them and hints at his dislike of Catholics, landlords, upper-class taking advantage of the poor, taverns, and forced marriages.  But the method he chose by which to do this is odd and unexpected: he suggests that infant flesh be consumed.  He hints at his proposition by saying: “…a child just dropt from its dam, may be supported by her milk, for a solar year, with little other nourishment: at most not above the value of two shillings, which the other may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner, as, instead of being a charge upon their parents, or the parish or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall, on the contrary, contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing of many thousands.”  Then he continues on with: “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.”  And also “…the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.” 

     He dehumanizes the Irish people by referring to the women as “breeders,” and comparing the general population to livestock, such as horses and cattle.  He says “…I calculate there may be about two thousand couple whose wifes are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couple, who are able to maintain their own children, (although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom) but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders.”   

     He hints at his dislike of Catholics by frequently referring to them as Papists and making fun of their customs.  He writes: “Infant’s flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolifick dyet, there are more children born in Roman Catholick countries about nine months after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of popish infants, is at least three to one in this kingdom, and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of Papists among us.” 

     He hints at his dislike of landlords by making the comment: “…The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by lay may be liable to a distress, and help to pay their landlord’s rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown.”  He is saying that the landlords force the peasants to work for them, without pay and without any fruit to show for their labor.  He thinks this is unfair and uses irony to reveal how horrible such a practice is.   

     He hints at his dislike of upper-class taking advantage of the poor  and taverns by saying: “Food would likewise bring great custom to taverns, where the vintners will certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts for dressing it to perfection; and consequently have their houses frequented by all the fine gentlemen, who justly value themselves upon their knowledge in good eating; and a skilful cool, who understands how to oblige his guests, will contrive to make it as expensive as they please.” 

      Overall, I thought Dr. Swift’s use of satire was very effective in conveying his purpose.  He used sarcasm lightly and humorously, rather than attacking the people or beliefs he disagreed with.  I thought this was more respectful, and would immediately create his audience to be more open towards his subject.   He couldn’t do everything to help his people, but this small gesture (his paper) was his contribution to society; his attempt to right what he believed to be wrong.             

       

Extended Journal Response Blog

     When Hemingway created a hero in "The Sun Also Rises," he most certainly didn't have a Superman, Spiderman, or Batman theme in mind.  His idea of a hero was not a man dressed in tights that had superhuman strength, or could swing from buildings by shooting spiderwebs from his wrists.  His idea of a hero was not a flying, cape-adorned, mindless douche bag.  His hero neither rescued poor puppies in distress, killed the Green Goblin, or sought out any other means of solving mankind's predicaments.  In fact, Hemingway’s hero can barely—if at all—compare to our modern heroes.  We all know what this hero isn’t now; let’s move on to what could possibly make this character one.

     Nineteen-year-old bullfighter Romero is Hemingway’s hero in that he exhibits "grace under pressure," handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on through his bullfighting, bravery, purity, and code of ethics.  

     The book’s main character (Jake) often notes that “He had very nice manners.”  He bowed, smiled often, bought drinks for people, and was all-around a sociable and polite young man.  He was did not disrespect anyone, specifically Brett (the beautiful woman loved by all men), and he wasn’t flirty, pushy, or constantly “tight” (drunk.)  He wasn’t proud or boastful either.    

     Romero was also described as “a damned good-looking boy.”  He was tan, muscular, tough-looking, and sexy while simultaneously emitting purity, and boyish-innocence. 

     All of these attributes were displayed most vibrantly while he was bullfighting.  Jake describes in detail what a wonder it was to watch Romero at this sport: “Romero was the whole show.  I do not think Brett saw any other bullfighter.  No one else did either, except the hard-shelled technicians.  It was all Romero.  There were two other matadors, but they did not count….Romero took the bull away from a fallen horse with his cape, and held him with the cape and turned him, smoothly and suavely, never wasting the bull…Romero avoided every brusque movement and saved his bulls or the last when he wanted them, not winded and decomposed but smoothly worn down…Romero never made any contortions, always it was straight and pure and natural in line.  The others twisted themselves like corkscrews, their elbows raised, and leaned against the flanks of the bull after his horns had passed, to give a faked look of danger.  Afterward, all that was faked turned bad and gave an unpleasant feeling.  Romero’s bullfighting gave real emotion, because he kept the absolutely purity of line in his movements and always quietly and calmly let the horns pass him close each time….Romero had the old thing, the holding of his purity of line through the maximum of exposure, while he dominated the bull by making him realize he was unattainable, while he prepared him for the killing.” 

     Through this passage, it is clearly evident what an extraordinary, talented, graceful, and authentic bullfighter Romero is.  After only working at the sport three years, he has mastered risky techniques that no other fighters in the ring have.  He has learned old tricks and makes intelligent, thoughtful moves towards his goal.  He continues to fight when he is injured; whenever he is knocked down, he gets back up, whether it is in a fist-fight with Robert Cohn or being stamped on by a wild bull.   

     Compared to the other book’s characters, he is exceptionally strong and purpose-driven.  While the rest are laden down with painful memories of WWI, or mourning lost love and burying their troubles in alcohol, constant social functions, and sex, Romero is fulfilling his dreams.  He is not ambling through life like “The Lost Generation,” waiting for happiness and success to come to him, but is rather running full speed towards them.  He does not, like every other man, have to fight to get Brett’s attention; she is automatically drawn to him.  Their relationship is natural and healthy because Romero does not allow himself to become too attached. 

     Romero is not Superman, but he is truly a hero in that he exhibits "grace under pressure," handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on through his bullfighting, bravery, purity, and code of ethics.    

        

       

Extended Journal Response Blog

    

     When Hemingway created a hero in "The Sun Also Rises," he most certainly didn't have a Superman, Spiderman, or Batman theme in mind.  His idea of a hero was not a man dressed in tights that had superhuman strength, or could swing from buildings by shooting spiderwebs from his wrists.  His idea of a hero was not a flying, cape-adorned, mindless douche bag.  His hero neither rescued poor puppies in distress, killed the Green Goblin, or sought out any other means of solving mankind's predicaments.  In fact, Hemingway’s hero can barely—if at all—compare to our modern heroes.  We all know what this hero isn’t now; let’s move on to what could possibly make this character one.

     Nineteen-year-old bullfighter Romero is Hemingway’s hero in that he exhibits "grace under pressure," handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on through his bullfighting, bravery, purity, and code of ethics. 

     The book’s main character (Jake) often notes that “He had very nice manners.”  He bowed, smiled often, bought drinks for people, and was all-around a sociable and polite young man.  He was did not disrespect anyone, specifically Brett (the beautiful woman loved by all men), and he wasn’t flirty, pushy, or constantly “tight” (drunk.)  He wasn’t proud or boastful either.    

     Romero was also described as “a damned good-looking boy.”  He was tan, muscular, tough-looking, and sexy while simultaneously emitting purity, and boyish-innocence. 

     All of these attributes were displayed most vibrantly while he was bullfighting.  Jake describes in detail what a wonder it was to watch Romero at this sport: “Romero was the whole show.  I do not think Brett saw any other bullfighter.  No one else did either, except the hard-shelled technicians.  It was all Romero.  There were two other matadors, but they did not count….Romero took the bull away from a fallen horse with his cape, and held him with the cape and turned him, smoothly and suavely, never wasting the bull…Romero avoided every brusque movement and saved his bulls or the last when he wanted them, not winded and decomposed but smoothly worn down…Romero never made any contortions, always it was straight and pure and natural in line.  The others twisted themselves like corkscrews, their elbows raised, and leaned against the flanks of the bull after his horns had passed, to give a faked look of danger.  Afterward, all that was faked turned bad and gave an unpleasant feeling.  Romero’s bullfighting gave real emotion, because he kept the absolutely purity of line in his movements and always quietly and calmly let the horns pass him close each time….Romero had the old thing, the holding of his purity of line through the maximum of exposure, while he dominated the bull by making him realize he was unattainable, while he prepared him for the killing.” 

     Through this passage, it is clearly evident what an extraordinary, talented, graceful, and authentic bullfighter Romero is.  After only working at the sport three years, he has mastered risky techniques that no other fighters in the ring have.  He has learned old tricks and makes intelligent, thoughtful moves towards his goal.  He continues to fight when he is injured; whenever he is knocked down, he gets back up, whether it is in a fist-fight with Robert Cohn or being stamped on by a wild bull.   

     Compared to the other book’s characters, he is exceptionally strong and purpose-driven.  While the rest are laden down with painful memories of WWI, or mourning lost love and burying their troubles in alcohol, constant social functions, and sex, Romero is fulfilling his dreams.  He is not ambling through life like “The Lost Generation,” waiting for happiness and success to come to him, but is rather running full speed towards them.  He does not, like every other man, have to fight to get Brett’s attention; she is automatically drawn to him.  Their relationship is natural and healthy because Romero does not allow himself to become too attached. 

     Romero is not Superman, but he is truly a hero in that he exhibits "grace under pressure," handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on through his bullfighting, bravery, purity, and code of ethics. 

C=Cares about Others

You're an orphan in Russia during the 1970's: your mother dropped you off at an orphanage in Moscow when you were only a few days old because she was too poor to take care of you.  You are not a very pretty baby, so you are put in a dirty "crib," hidden towards the back of the facility where only the sickly, unwanted babies go; the healthy, cute babies are kept in the adoption area, so that parents looking to adopt children will hopefully adopt someone.  The workers at the orphange don't care about you at all; they go through their "duty" of throwing some scalding hot gruel down your throat once a day and then leave you to lay in your crib: they don't change you, they don't play with you, they don't take you out all day, every day.

When you are older, you sleep on a cot in a huge room full of lots of other orphans.  You have to work hard and obey orders; if you do something the administrators don't like, your head will be dunked in the toilet, you will be whipped, or you will be locked into a dark room for days with other "naughty" children, and with no food.

                                                                       

.   .   .

I grew up a rich American; I didn't and still will not be able to fully understand the pain and tragedy that people experience in other, less-fortunate countries.  I was born in a hospital to a Mother and Father who loved me; I had lots of brothers and sisters too who cared about me and played with me.  I had a beautiful, soft crib and enough milk, and later food.  I never wanted for anything, whether it was attention or material needs.  I had toys and books; I had birthday parties and swim lessons and music lessons.  Let me rephrase my first statement: I am a middle-class American, but to the rest of the world I am rich.  The life I just described is just like almost every other American!  We have so much that sometimes we forget to care about other people that have hardly anything.

Although unlike the majority of Americans, I was sheltered.  My parents decided to homeschool me and my siblings, and so I was rarely exposed to "the outside world."  I didn't know there were mean, cruel people; I rarely experienced being bullied by other bratty kids.  I was taught values and morals, and never once thought to throw a tantrum or yell at my Mom.  Not to say i was a perfect kid, haha I was faaaaaaaaaaaaar from it ;D  But my parents disciplined us so we wouldn't be unkind or disrespectful.  Most importantly, I learned how to care about others.

How you are raised has everything to do with how you will act when you grow up, no matter how much you don't like that or don't want to admit it.  I think because I was so well-cared for and generally only around other kind, decent people I thought that was normal.  I thought everyone cared about other people and I didn't understand when other kids would say mean things to me, or kick and scream when their parents asked them to do something.  I was innocent, in every sense of the word.

And maybe that's why I care about others.  Of course I'm human; I can be selfish and mean and unkind.  I don't like cleaning the kitchen or vacuuming my room, I hate folding clothes, and sometimes I just don't feel like doing anything for anyone :P  But when I see someone that needs help, I feel their suffering like its my own.  When I hear about the poor, starving orphans I feel guilty for having so much: why was I born so fortunate while they weren't?  I hate unfairness and I just want everyone to be as healthy and "happy" as I am.  Or when someone wants to play violin but they can't afford to pay for lessons, I don't care at all about the money, I just want them to be able to experience and--possibly--come to love being able to make beautiful music.  I especially detest when someone is treated unfairly though; that's what really gets to me.  When Eduardo in "The Social Network" was cheated out of his fair position as "Vise President" of facebook, I felt horrible for him.  He looked so sad and disappointed I wanted to jump into the movie and do something to make him feel better ;D  As well as punch the creepy bad guy who deceived him :P

Mostly I care about my friends, which includes family :)  Hey, if you're my friend you will always be my friend :D  Maybe we get bugged with each other sometimes, but it doesn't last long; maybe we grow up and change and don't have anything in common anymore, but I still always consider you my friend.  I think love really is blind; I love my friends and see them as really beautiful, unique and special and its confusing when they don't like themselves.  My friends give meaning and color to life, and I literally would give my own life for them if I had to.  If one had drug problems, I would drive them everyday to a counselor until they were "all better."  I don't say any of this to sound like I'm bragging: I say it because I want you to know how special you are if your my friend and how special people are to me in general :D  I care about others :D      

Blog #15

If you want to keep a secret secretive, then the internet is not the place to post it.  As a celebrity, you pretty much sign up to have your whole life advertised all over the media and lies made up about you by paparazzi.  

Because almost everyone in the world uses the internet, "secrets" that are posted can be viewed by millions in almost no time at all.  Gossip is spread from then and other stories are formed from this gossip, until any sort of truth that may have existed originally is completely twisted.  A person's whole reputation could be ruined by the world wide web and media, just because people invent or exaggerate circumstances in other people's lives that they have no business knowing about anyway.  

The internet can be used for both "good" and "evil."  If you want to keep a secret, the internet is not the place to keep it.  Use the internet legally, productively, and appropriately and you will be using it correctly :D      

Blog #14

Should personal values and ethics be taught in public schools?  Well, first answer this question: are public schools the same as private schools?  Obviously not!  Values and ethics change from person to person; what I value may not be your value; your ethics will not necessarily reflect mine.  Private schools are perfect settings to teach morals and ethics, but I don't believe public school is.  Public schools are to teach correct, undebatable education without personal values and ethics.

However, even though personal values should not be taught, teachers should encourage students to be active in community service and avoid activities such as drinking, smoking, and drug abuse to become better citizens.

There are some specific values and even subjects that should not be taught in public schools.  For example, creation and evolution are seen as "science" to the evolutionist or creationist.  Both sides believe they have evidence to support their theories, but really they look at the same "evidence" and create a history for it based on their bias.  This is not wrong, in fact it's good to use our brains to form our own opinions about things.  But because both of these theories are based more on opinion and belief than actual fact, neither of them should be taught to students in school because that is indoctrination, pure and simple.  Religion should not be taught in schools; children can learn about the origins of the world and religion at home, or from personal research.  Also another topic I don't believe should be taught in public schools is homosexuality.  Now first understand: I see no problem whatsoever with homosexuality.  Let people live how they wish, it's not my life to control and instruct.  But I really don't think the topic belongs in school; it has to do with personal values and ethics, which we already know differ extremely from person to person.  Personal beliefs should be taught at home or in private schools, not in public schools.        


 

Blog #13

...I watch in horror as the man on the screen wanders, cold and starving, through the ruins of a destroyed city.  He finally comes upon an abondened house, where the Germans had most likely murdered or arrested the family that had lived there.  Inside it is dark and cold, yet he hobbles around looking for something to open his one, lowly jar of pickles so he can eat something.  That's when he sees the piano.  As a Jew, he has been on the run, hiding from the German Nazis; his family has all been arrested, his belongings gone; he is all alone in the world.  Before WWII he was  reknowned pianist, who performed Chopin on the radio, but he has not played the piano for months now.  He goes to the piano and sits down almost reverently.  In his face is all the emotion he has bottled inside himself for the past months; he is so weak he can hardly stand, yet he raises his hands and drops them down onto the keys for that first, passionate chord.  During this whole scene I have been crying, almost sobbing.  The portrayal of such loss and pain is so well done that it has touched me very emotionally; indescribably.  The Pianist is that type of movie that, unless you are totally desensitized to grief or suffering, will touch inside you and leave its mark on you for a long time, if not your whole life.  Slumdog Millionaire, The Black Stallion, The Sixth Sense and Romeo and Juliet are a few movies that I would categorize as dramas.  They are true soul-stirring films where the acting is so believable that it makes you feel exactly what the characters feel.

Up, Ratatouille, and Monster's Inc are a few family films; they may have a few mature themes, but are mainly constituted by harmless comedy and warm, cozy-feeling endings.  For example, while watching Up, the beginning made me feel sad when the man never was able to take his wife to Africa before she dies.  He becomes and old "hag" living alone in his old house with his memories and regrets...when a little boyscout shows up at his front door and tries to get the old man to help him earn his "elderly-assistance badge."  They end up, after a few funny scenes, floating away to South America in the old man's house by tying balloons to it because the old man wants to visit Africa before he dies.  The totally unrealistic events make the movie both cute and funny, and I found myself laughing and almost crying along with the old man and his little boyscout friend.

Then there are also romance, mystery, action/adventure, and horror films.  They are categorized by the main themes/events that occur in the movie; for example, a romance movie would involve a romantic relationship between two people and that's what the whole movie would revolve around.

Truly great movies though are ones that have lasting impacts: you watch a movie, and afterwards you are almost in a state of "shock," so to speak.  You may have cried during the movie, or just felt an unexplainable bevy of emotions.  Maybe you could relate to the characters feelings or circumstances, or you just really enjoyed the whole movie.  maybe it made you really happy and you laughed through the whole thing!  Basically if a movie greatly impacts you it's a great movie :D         

Blog #12

Debrief & Reflect on Price’s “The Plastic Pink Flamingo” timed write. Use the Debrief & Reflection handout in the Blog Locker.  

Self-Check:

1.  Have you answered the prompt?  Yes, I have answered the prompt.

2.  Look at your introduction P – do you have a clear thesis statement that discusses how and why Rodriguez uses contrasts?  Yes, I have a clear thesis statement.

3.  Is your essay focused and unified around a central theme or idea? Do your paragraphs link together and build on each other?  Yes, they are focused on a central theme and my paragraphs link together.

4.  Have you focused on 1-2 ways that Rodriguez “built the house”? Have you developed 1-2 ideas fully, or have you instead tried to cover too many things?  I developed 1 to 2 ideas fully and did not try to cover too many things. 

5.  Does your essay include a variety of specific, textual details and quotations to support your main point, or have you only vaguely explained your analysis?  I did include a variety of specific, textual details snd quotations to support my main point but I feel like there should have been more.  

Reflection:

1.  What went well?  I used examples from the text.    

2.  What did not go well?  I feel like I may have explained the wrong idea and ended abruptly.

3.  If given more time, what would you add or change in your essay?  I would change the idea that I focused on  and try a different viewpoint. 

4.  Did the organization of your essay turn out how you originally planned it? If not, what caused you to make changes?  It turned out the same as I originally planned it. 

5.  What additional insights about the text came to you as you were writing?  I realized that the pink flamingo did not only make American culture appear gaudy or disrespectful, it showed our fun-loving joyful side as well. 

6. What do you need to do differently for tomorrow’s timed write?  I need to organize my essay better. 

Blog #11

Metacognitive Activity on your definition essay

Culminating Writers Profile

1. Discuss how your expectations about your writing style and needs have both changed and remained the same since this class has started.  My expectations about my writing style and needs have changed since this class has started in that I now anticipate learning how to do a lot of annotations of texts and reading a lot of boring books (heehee).  They have stayed the same in that I know I need a consistent style and it needs to be free of grammar/spelling errors.
2.  What do you see as your strengths as a writer and how have you reinforced them?  I really enjoy telling/inventing stories so I strive to let that show through in my writing and keep things interesting; i reinforced this strength in the definition essay.
3. What do you still see as your writing weaknesses and what have you done to strengthen those areas?  I have a real weakness for keeping my writing organized and flowing smoothly and connectedly.  I used more transitions in the Definition essay, along with an organizational method.       

Evaluating Your Writing Process

1. If you had the time to write one more draft of this essay, how would you improve it?  I would improve any errors in verb tense or try to eliminate more to-be verbs.  
2. As you received peer feedback and revised your essay, what did you find the easiest element to improve in your essay?  I found it easy to write about my topic in general; I really was passionate about my topic and had a lot of examples.
3. In contrast, discuss the biggest problem you had in writing and revising this essay.  The original story I was going to base my whole essay on ended up needing to be eliminated completely and I had to think of a whole new way to write the essay.

Evaluating Your Successes

1. Discuss your most successful large-scale revision in this essay.  Well, as I haven't gotten my essay back yet, I really have not completed a large-scale revision so-far. 
2. Discuss your success in combining descriptive, narrative, and illustrative elements into this Definition Essay.  I shared a lot of examples I was familiar with and tried to use colorful and descriptive adjectives, while "showing" and not "telling."
3. Discuss your best success when considering your audience.  I could reference works of literature without having to worry if my audience would understand what I was talking about or not. 

Being Honest with Self

1. What most intimidated you about this writing process and how did you combat this intimidation?  I was intimidated by the concept of a definition essay; at first i didn't quite understand the prompt.  To combat this intimidation I read some student essays, which really helped me.
2. What ideas or methods from texts we studied influenced you to try a new strategy within your writing process?  The Box Man helped me with some of the structure and method of my essay. 
3. What ideas or methods did you pick up on from reading student essay examples that you tried in your own writing process?  I used the method of storytelling in my essay, using a lot of examples like one student did. 
4. What idea for improving your essay did you learn from a peer?  A peer suggested I focus less on one example and devote more even attention to a variety of examples.
5. Where do you see yourself as a writer now, in both strengths and weaknesses, after completing this writing assignment?  I'm not quite sure how to answer this question because I have not gotten my essay back yet.  I now understand how to write a Definition essay with very few to-be verbs, but I still feel weak in my organization.