have a nice break everyone.

At first I thought the purpose was to bore me to death about how writing is some much more than just putting some words on paper. I really was getting annoyed with all the depth style and memiors have in writing. The whole show don't tell mantra seems to have left her behind for better material that doesn't bore the likes of me. She wrote 9 pages on almost nothing.

That last paragraph helps me understand that writing doesn't require much depth. That it can be boring. Being from Fridley is like gives you as much merit as a women that thinks memoirs are important. The good news is I can relate to this boy. I usually get to a point where I can't write about a topic or I think that if I do, it will be boring beyond belief. But with this story from Patricia Hmpl I have learned that boring beyond belief is acceptable. But I think I will try to my best to give my writing a boost, even though I know I'm not much better at that than Patricia Hmpl herself.

Title

I could tell Krakauer and McCandless had some in common by reading the chapter, but I think I had been comparing myself to McCandless the whole time. So I didn't need the chapter about Krakauer, even though that chapter helped me realize why Krakauer doesn't think Chris is stupid. That probably is a good thing for Krakauer because he established his credibility...in the 15th chapter.
Then chapter 16 is about Krakauer's dad...not Walt. The epigraph for that chapter said something about how love can go unnoticed and eventually lead to a build up of anger or resentment towards that person that doesn't notice. You get mad when people don't care back I guess. You see that in both relationships, and again that gives Krakauer crdibility. So is what I got out of those two chapters from Krakauer. Credibility.

Rhetorical Analysis

First, you guys did a great job. All of them were very nice.

I don't think it mattered what you chose, but pathos seemed more common. I don't think this "paper" was really aimed at ethos or logos, so that might be why. Taylor knew about the supplements, but really he was appealing to your thoughts about the supplements. On first look how would I know Taylor worked at GNC? But it was still affective. Same with Jon's and Kristen's.

I wish I could have done a video. But I don't have a camera, so I did postsecret, I think I still did an alright job.

Music

Well. I listen to John Mayer a lot. Dave Matthews Band, too. Counting Crows here and there.
When I'm listening to John Mayer I can't help but say "you are correct, Mr. Mayer." His song "83" isn't his best (at all), but I like the idea of things going back to the way they were when I was 6. That is when you are really you. What you did when you were 6 carries through to now. "plot a course to the source of the/ purest littel part of me." I would agree.

Then there's this from New Deep with a completely different message: "deep will only bring you down/ you know, I used to be the back/ porch poet with my book of rhymes/ always open knowing all the time I'm probably/ never going to find the perfect rhyme/ for 'heavier things'." Life is complicated, take it easy. You can try to figure out if or why there is a god. But there is no point.

If I were to write this on another day I would write about something else. That's the thing about music. When your mood changes, you connect (or whatever) with other songs. It is a beautiful thing.

Rhetoric devises

I hate ethos. I usually just don't even try. I think Logos is pretty easy to do just by getting some quotes. In my opinion the only way to make a paper interesting is by using Pathos. So it is the best. Ethos and Logos only show up a few times in your paper. Everything inbetween is Pathos and it gives your paper an identity. If that is the best way to put it. Pathos is how you write your paper. That whole thing with second person in the story about rape. That is how the author wrote it. The ehtos and logos were hard to find, but her paper had an impact on you because of the way she wrote it.

As for Krakauer. He uses the words of others to prove his point about Chris. So that would be logos and ethos. Logos because they are quotes. Ethos because you can see that he went all along the trail that Chris took to the end to find what was going through his head.

Hitchhiking

There is less hitchhiking now than there ever was. Probably because it is easier to get a car. You can buy a $500 car that runs and $500 dollars is 4 weeks at McDonalds. Also, I think people are more self sufficient these days. Partly because it is easy to get enough money to do things, and because over time people have just started doing things themselves rather than getting help from others. If someone needs to get somewhere, they get help from friends or they get there on their own power.

Is it beneficial to those in need or too dangerous? It's not dangerous, so I guess it is beneficial to those in need. Today there are just less people in need of a ride.

Gallien and the Police

He figured the benefit Chris would receive from the trip to the ranger station wouldn't be worth the trip. How is the ranger supposed to know what to do? Why would he even care? If he went up to check on McCandless then McCandless would just tell him to fuck off. Gallien probably just didn't think it was worth it. It could have saved his life, sure, if the Ranger continued to visit McCandless. But the Ranger could easily just think "I sure got better things to do than help this kid out in the middle of nowhere." And being from the lower 48, you have to ak yourself "what is there to do in Healy, ALASKA!?" Yeah, I don't know either. Personally, I would have done the same thing. I wondered if I would have gone to visit, though. Like, check up on him on the way home to Fairbanks instead of asking a ranger to do it.

I also wonder why no one went to the bus while McCandless was there. Summer time in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness has to attract more than just some crazy kid looking for himself.