Whats In an image

The first cover, the girl in the red shirt sitting alone, and the fourth cover, one of what appears to be a girl dancing in a blue dress with shortish brown hair, are unique of the four because they are the only two that have a full, and presumably alive, person on them. This creates a clear indication that the following story will revolve around a girl, and her living her life in some way. There is a contrast in the color scheme of the images as well as what they emotion of the central girl is, the first has black and many shades of green, with a pop of color with the red shirt of the girl, indicating something out of place, especially when considering that red is opposite of green on the color wheel. The fourth cover also shows a contrast in colors, but there is a blending of the two, indicating that the girl, although different, is in some way a part of this warm background.
Adding into the depiction of a person, the third cover also has what seems to be the outline of a person's torso, and the organs contained inside. This third one is unique out of all of them because of its overall dark tones in color, blue, black, and greys that all present a sort of ominous and almost mechanic feeling to them, that contrast what one might expect from a portrayal of something that indicates life. This one is to me the most intriguing and so I’ll go further into exploring it along with the first one in the following paragraphs. But to continue comparing the set of four, I have failed to mention the second cover, the one of a boat on what appears to be a lake shore. The only cover that has no imagery of humans, although it shares with the other three an element of isolation, as in each there is only one key figure to focus on. The contrasting images likely show the many ways that a reader could interpret the themes of this books, the fourth does best in showing Ishiguro's rather positive views, and the other three indicating the more sinister and lonely aspect presented with the books dystopian themes.
Now to look more closely at individual covers, I’ll first go to the one I’ve already broken down some of the parts of. The first novel is interesting a conveys to me a lonely girl sitting in a field, I assume this is Kathy H. our main character of the novel. This scene actually reminds me of one in the second part, where Kathy is describing how, unlike the veterans of the cottages, some of the people from Hailsham sat out in the fields to read, even when it was getting colder. I can clearly imagine this is Kathy sitting in the frost covered field, looking down at her book. Knowing this part of the book, it makes it clear that the bluish tones in the grass could indicate that frost from the cold weather Kathy describes. This would indicate to me the cover is trying to convey the calmness and level-headedness of Kathy throughout the story. The second cover that portrays a lot of meaning to me is the third one with the barbed wire outline of a human torso with the vital organs clearly present. My initial reaction to this is that it is referring to the donations that the characters of the book will and do make throughout the novel. This imagery would lead me to believe in a somewhat negative and scary element to the book, maybe it's about a serial killer or surgery in a prison? But having read the book I know this is portraying the fact that the clones, who were created for their donations, are trapped in their prescribed lives, as indicated by the barbed wire. I feel that this kind of interpretation of the book is overly negative, and does not properly convey Ishiguro's messages throughout the book. I believe this was probably made to intrigue fans of dystopian novels, who would be pulled in by a strange society. Ultimately the images are used in different ways, some to sell the book by capturing the audience's attention, and others convey the ultimate truths found within the novel.

Dark Side of Stories

Rhetorical Analysis for https://www.ted.com/talks/suzanne_duncan_the_dark_side_of_storytelling

"The Dark Side of Story Telling" is a TED talk given by Suzanna Duncan, this TED talk serves to highlight the ways in which storytelling in our daily life can have unintentional negative consequences. She explains that in a research study she had done of investment professionals to understand why the industries business model is broken. Her results showed her that stories were the leading cause, or is psychology terms, an attribution bias, which buts blame of positive things internally and negative externally. She then pulls in a personal example of her utilizing this attribution bias with her hobby of horse shows, where it negatively effects her because she is unable to internalize the criticisms of her trainer and thus fails to improve. She follows this with a reference to how a story created in a teenagers head lead to the largest act of domestic terrorism in America, and how this was due to all the fictional stories he told himself, and ultimately believed to be the truth. Transitioning to a lighter note, she addresses the audience and begins to tell the audience how they can avoid being negatively impacted by the daily fictions we tell ourselves, this is done through learning how to learn and lie detect. She goes on to explore how those two things mean to be able to recognize patterns in your stories and ultimately be able to reflect without the presence of the attribution bias.

Suzanna Duncan is the senior vice president of State Street's Center for Applied Research, lending her information the needed to create an ethos response to what she's delivering. The audience is able to use the established credibility and just from the introduction of her position to begin to have a bias in believing her superiority in the field which she will be having her discussion in, even though its notable that her superiority label has nothing to do with stories. With this established, the proceeding discussion of attribution bias already has an appeal to the logos of the audience, which goes further as she begins to dive into the examples, which spark understanding and relatability in the audience, thus appealing to their logical side, that yes, in fact, what she's saying does make sense.

Another aspect of these examples is how she uses pathos to envoke an emotional response from the audience by referencing an instance of massive loss of life. Pathos in this instance is useful for her argument because it creates not just a familiar connection but also an emotion one, strengthening her argument. Finally, the majority of the argument is presented near the end, where the audience is already brought in through the rhetorical devices and thus will be more susceptible to her suggestions. In watching this, I feel myself fully connecting to the message she is delivering. Her personal story leads me to think of my own and makes me feel a need to address this potentially negative situation which has now been clearly identified for me.

Macbeth

The phrase "absolute power" as known in the Shakespearean time period, would be referring to the claim of power through divine, God-given right. As I have come to understand in reading Macbeth, Shakespeare would absolutely agree with the statement "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"(Lord Acton). At the surface level, by looking at the syntax of the statement and the common motif of reflective syntax. The best example of this similarity would be with the well known phrase from Macbeth, “fair is foul, and foul is fair”(Act 1, scene 1). This could be related to the theme of power and control throughout the play. The word “fair” seems to relate best to fate, the underlying power that controls all things. Although the two statements are not explicitly stating the same thing, a sort of parallel ideology can be seen. Because of this, I would say to some extent, Shakespeare rephrases statement from Acton so as to fit it within the context of the play.

Another reason is the progression of the play's storyline itself, as we follow the progression of Macbeth gaining power. As his power increases, he arguably becomes more and more corrupt, as described within the phrase. This can be seen with the development of his morals from Act 1 where he is given the title of Thane of Cawdor and subsequently becomes king. We can see how power corrupts as, during the beginning of the play, Macbeth seems to have little to no ambitions beyond his present positions. But after he is surprised by becoming thane of Cawdor, he begins to further believe in the prophecy that guaranteed the position of king. He goes from having little ambition, to being willing to kill to gain more power.

However, it must be considered that some of this comes from the persuasion of Lady Macbeth as well as the potential supernatural influence from the witches as seen in the rhyming at the end of his dagger soliloquy, which is delivered right before he commits said murder. Although, we can action connect the influence of the witches to the phrase “absolute power” because of the relation to religion. Within Lord Acton’s phrase, the idea comes mainly from Christianity which might oppose my previous idea, however, Christianity and paganism were commonly put at odds within such commentaries as this Shakespeare play. This would indicate that Shakespeare may have been commenting on the fact that the two religions share many concepts, and are often interchangeable.

The two religions are different in many ways, but when looking at the concept of “fate” the two present somewhat identical. Another clever way of indicating this is by creating the characters of the witches to parallel the three sisters of fate that are present can be seen in Christian doctrines. Both are able to give accurate accounts of what will occur in the future. Though this kind of connection does not directly mean Macbeth would agree with Acton, it does hold significance in showing the presence of more reflective elements that might indicate the relation of the phrase and Shakespeare's Macbeth.

Real Cowboys, Mae's blog

Huie presents a scene that, at a glance, appears to be just a man standing in a street with a cowboy hat on. Upon further inspection, it is clear the man is older and dressed head to toe in the classical southern clothes that can be seen in many old cowboys movies, which then explains the title of the piece "Real Cowboys". Looking into the details of the photo reveals a flaw in this persona, as it is evident from the zipper on his jacket, the car in the background and even bike of the unknowing passerby, that the photo was not taken in the late 1800s but rather only a few years prior to the present day. This man appears out of place in his time, an antique that reminds us of old but produces a curiosity as to why it is still there, ever present.

Margaret Atwood creates a similar effect by placing an object of the present in a situation more complacent to the past. Like the cowboy, Offred is out of place, but rather than be a reflection of the past, she is the future. A strong independent woman, who will actively stand up for her rights by disobeying the system, an uncommon thing leading up to the 1980s when The Handmaid's Tale was written, but progressively becoming more and more common. The effect of placing Offred in such a regressive society highlights these attributes and their importance by placing them in a situation where they become a life or death issue as they are in the dystopian city of Gilead. But how does this compare with Huie's photo? Both have a connection with being out of place and time but when it comes to the purpose they diverge. Huie's photograph more clearly presents a world where past and present exist together, as we see the man from another time using such things as zippers. Atwood, on the other hand, expresses a story by which the reader could interpret the message of rejecting the past, because of how it hurts and corrupts those who hold onto it too tightly. The photograph and the novel show how the past is always there but the novel brings into question, at what point will that allowance cross over into the realm of regression.
Huie, Wing Young. "Real Cowboys" 1997-2000. We are the Other.  Minneapolis, MN. http://know.wingyounghuie.com/post/26450055932#_=_