JustRead!

This is an epanalepsis

just one thing i noticed about this and paragraph 10, is they both have intellectual and academic in them. Both of which are used in the same manor, I’m not sure if thats a special thing or not though.

Is this the shift?

Though only three words, this sentence is very effective because of it’s length. He’s telling us that we should stop valueing social skills so much and start valueing intellect. This is also an example of epanalepsis.

I like the ending sentence, Nerds are ostracized while athletes are idolized, which is a balanced sentence I think.

My family is just the Fridman is talking about. All i want to do is play guitar and write. But my parents nag on me and ground me for not focusing hard enough. I feel bad for the children whos parents are ashamed of doing the things thet love or enjoy doing

I find that Leonid Fridman’s use of Webster’s New World Dictionary to look up the word “geek” was quit hilarious, but also quit powerful. He says that the dictionary said that a geek “is a street performer who shocks the public by bitting off the heads off live chickens.” This is hilarious because i can’t imagine anybody bitting off a chickens head, but its also powerful because we just say things like that. We don’t ever mean anything that extreme when we call somebody a geek. We might just be playing around or joking with the guy, but in actuality we might cause the person to feel insecure or to possibly do something stupid. It makes me realize that we might want to think more about what we say, before we say them.

Ostracized is used for the 2nd time in this paragraph. Most would have come up with a new word, although when using the same word he connects it back to the previous sentence in paragraph 3

The author uses similiar clause structure such as “intellectually curious and academically serious” to describe the “nerds” or “geeks”.

His tone seems to shift from a frustrated sort of tone to a defending one. So, yes, I think this is the shift.

What’s the significance of the word “ostracized”? What’s the connotation?

He uses Ostracized for the second time in this paragraph, most people would find a synonym, but using it a second time connects it back to the 3rd paragraph

Why would Fridman point out such an extreme meaning of the word?

Well, on the U.S being a world power we lasted at least 20 years

In paragraph one, Leonid uses similiar sentence structure such as “intellectually curious and academically serious” to describe the “nerds” and “geeks”.

Obviously Leonid Fridman wants to get across his viewpoint that in America, we shut out students who want to achieve. He is starting out the article with on obvious tone of urgency and frustration.

The colon seems to show disconnection. There could be a period but the author chose to put in a colon. This shows the disconnection from the rest of the world geeks and nerds feel.

This paragraph shows rhetorical questions that the author asks, implying that we can’t last as a world power and a leading political/cultural force if we shift our focus to ALL social skills and physical prowess.

This is and example of epanalepsis and it is also the shift in the essay.

I think that Fridman pointed out such an extreme definition of the word geek to show that people look down on people who are labeled geeks, almost as much, or more than the actual definition of the word.

I like how the author used rhetorical questions in the closing of the passage. That really leaves the reader with thoughts after they finish reading.

I feel that even with this extreme definition of “geeks”, many of the people who are called geeks now have fallen into a kind of label system (jock, cheat) and some accept the label.

The author of this passage makes an appeal to some emotional persuasion, pathos. He makes the audience and readers feel guilty that we are one of the only countries that “our ballplayers are much more respected and better paid than faculty members of the best universities.”

“The bright kid with thick classes from kindergarten to the grave.” reminds you of the stereotypical look of a nerd or geek who hates the school or place that he or she came from for the other people making fun of them.

The words “must” show the author’s tone of urgency. He uses them twice (kinda a form of repitition).

He’s frustrated about how the intellectual kids get shunned and how the sports kids get praised. In our society we should be ecknowleding their passion about studying because those kids are the ones that will make America’s future bright. The intellectual ones are the ones that will be future buisness leaders and other important positions that will help America stay the most powerful nation.

I don’t like the generalization in this paragraph. While I don’t disagree this statement is true, I will argue that it is not a constant reality. Not every single person who enjoys reading or building model airplanes is a social outcast. Many of these people have friends, attend social events, and have proper people skills.

He uses the term “anti-intellectualism” numerous times, repetition emphasizing how degraded intellectualism is by its opposition.

The rhetorical questions in this paragraph really caught my eye and definitely added emphasis to the author’s point of putting education before physical prowess.

The last paragraph has two rhetorical questions. The author seems to do this to get the audience to realize how little the ostracism of geeks and nerds makes sense.

“Nerds and ostracized while athletes are idolized.” This sentence is balanced to compare how the two extremes are viewed. By comparing the two in a balanced sentence he expresses how wrong he thinks the way we view people really is.

This article seems to have been written in the great year of 1990, the year in the wake of the most superficial decade ever known to man: the 1980′s. The 80′s had high school drama movies bursting out of its temporal pores. This decade was the one that glorified the football player and punished the nerd. Can we argue perhaps that the articles doesn’t necessarily apply to us anymore because of the huge gap in the timeline?

Leonid Fridman’s uses his indignant and astonished tones to bring to light the current blight of America’s view to academics, as well as to mention the possible consequences of this mistake.

The author is also appealing to logos, when you think about the situation, the people who are responsible for more of our passing of knowledge to the young ones of our generation is more important than an entertainment event like sports.

Each of these short, simple sentences shows how change should not be postponed. The shortness shows that our society should change as rapidly as possible or face the consequences.

Throughout the entire text, the word anti-intellectual is repeated four times while intellectual is only repeated twice. Fridman is showing emphasis to his arguement that the U.S. is more anti-intellectual than intellectual.

The author is also appealing to logos, when you think about the situation, the people who are responsible for more of our passing of knowledge to the young ones of our generation is more important than an entertainment event like a sporting event.

Leonid Fridman, an author for the “Times,” was no doubt one of those “geeks/nerds” he so nobly defends. The urgency with which he calls for the acceptance of the intellectuals by the ignorant makes it clear he feels strongly about this; his words are those of a charismatic public speaker but his tone is one of timidity – illustrating that while he knows his ideals are noble, he expects nothing to be done about this problem.

This is a type of syntax. I think the author’s purpose of using two rhetorical questions at the end was to cause the to put in their own opinion on the topic of his artical.

Does the passage shift from a tone of dislike to a tone of demanding America to change and for nerds and geeks to be proud of their achievements.

This paragraph shows epanalepsis and contains the shift in the essay.

Trevor, yes, some have accepted that, but thankfully they haven’t begun accepting the literal definition. So I agree with Crist. It’s really just for the contrast.

He seems to be utilizing an ethos tactic, using real life examples to demonstrate the absurdity of the oppression of intellectualism, which proves not merely unfair and cruel and stupid but also deadly to our country, where intellectualism is vital for its (America’s) survival.

I agree with what he is saying, but I don’t like how he sterio typed the “bright kid.” He says the bright kid with thick glasses… hmmm I know plently of kids who are smart that don’t have thick glasses. Maybe if people didn’t assume that the smart kids are weird and not the best looking, then maybe they wouldn’t get so “ostracized” as Fridman said.

He uses rhetorical questions so the reader acts themselves if they have been persecuting intellectuals and it also makes the reader ask themselves if they continue to do this how long will america stay a world power.

This short sentence packs a lot of power. It is not only an epanalepsis, but also the shift in the article. Before this sentence the author is talking about how America views nerds and athletes. After this sentence the author talks about how the outlook on nerds and geeks needs to change in order for our country to thrive.

Test

I find it interesting that he says “nerd” and “geek” are derogatory terms since many people I know, especially my mom, take great pride in being a “nerd.”

I think Fridman points out this outlandish meaning to emphasive how the geek was considered the odd ball of society by comparing them to the street performer who bit the heads off of live chickens.

I noticed that the tone used by the author throughout the essay is almost unbelieving and slightly annoyed. He feels that our “system of values” is focused towards the wrong things and that it needs to be addressed.

The phrase “from kindergarten to the grave” caught my eye. The author is saying that from the time a child is introduced to society until the day he dies, if that person is a “nerd,” he will be subjected to taunting constantly and unceasingly. Leonid conveys that even when humans reach adulthood, many of them still return to teasing others.

While I agree there are parents like the ones described in this paragraph, I don’t believe this is the “typical parent.” I know so many families that really value education and put it first, encouraging their children to succeed in school. It is an unfair generalization to say most parents are “ashamed of their daughter studying mathematics instead of going dancing.”

The use of the word “geeks” calls into question Fridman’s motives. Is he addressing those who have become comfortable with their label? Is he subliminally mocking those intellectuals; suggesting to them that they should become what the public has dubbed them, no chicken being safe?

Could that last sentence be considered a paradox? The two ideas of being “ostracized” and being “idolized” are opposite ideas placed together.

This phrase is where the author’s shift occurs. He uses epanalepsis to emphasize that our society’s actions towards “nerds” needs to change.

This is Fridman’s shift. He starts the passage by talking about how our anti-intellectual society pushes nerds and geeks out and athletes are brought in. “Nerds are ostracized while athletes are idolized.” And then after “Enough is enough,” Fridman shifts from facts to speaking of change in society.

This paragraph uses pathos as it emphasizes the fact that intellectualism is truly top importance and should be valued and emphazised rather than trampled on by the ignorance of America. In “the most industrialized nations”, the top ones basically, intellectualism is valued and is actually the source of their success.

I think it is very strange that anti-intellectualism does run so high in America. Since we are such an advanced country then I think we should have the most encouraging system of intellectualism, but we don’t!

The comparisons used in this paragraph are very strong. They clearly show the differences between people and the circumstances to those differences.

The sentence interrupted by the break, “Ostracized…tools,” leads the reader to believe that the author is a hippified revolutionary, wanting peace through unlogical means.

He also repeats “ashamed” many times, infiltrating the reader’s thoughts with a word that conjures the horror of embarassment, and in this way he is appealing to emotions, using ethos, manipulating readers into thinking of the way shame feels, for it is an emotion we all know well, and can thus produce sympathy for others shamed.

I agree with the points he’s trying to convey, including the point he made about the “typical parent.” While most parents still push their kid to do well in school, a rapidly growing number of parents don’t care how their kids grades look. They only care about how good their kids interact with others, whether their kids are “popular” or not.

He asks how long can America remain a world-class power if we constantly emphasize social skills and physical prowess over academic achievement and intellectual ability? Well we can’t remain a world-class power. Knowledge is power and if our knowledge keeps decreasing then we will no longer have power.

The author ended the whole passage with rhetorical questions. This forces the reader to reflect on the topic on a personal level. By making the reader connect to it on a personal level he is incorporating pathos.

Consquences of placing sports above books and school showed quickly with China and Japan up quickly in economy and school scores.

He also calls on the credit of Weber, a famous sociologist and economist, thus boosting his ethos.

This epanalepsis is powerful precisely because of its separation from the rest of the essay. By placing this single sentence in a new paragraph, he has further emphasized the very same separation that geeks and nerds feel from society, but with his inspiring words, he shows defiance, as if this separation is not something to be ashamed of.

These 3 words are very important to the essay. They caught my eye and made me think about the education in America and what exactly is enough?

The shift does happen in this paragraph. I think Fridman’s goes from explaining what the problem is before the shift to what people should do about this problem after the shift.

By asking two rhetorical questions at the end, he is challenging the reader to step up and try to stop the problem our world is facing.

I think it’s interesting that Fridman uses the words “prestigious” and “materially rewarding positions” to describe university professors while he uses “average” to describe ball players. This shows that he’s for nerds and geeks and maybe against the others.

I feel as though I have to disagree with the author on this one, even if “nerds” are outcasted, they can still develop social skills. I mean really, people are more apt to hang around others with similar interests, even people others outcasted. If these individuals found other outcasts and they decided to band together and form a group of sorts, they could develop social skills too. I mean being shunned by one group isn’t the end of all human interaction.

Leonid also gives appeal to pathos, with his statesments at the beginning. By saying that “parents are ashamed of their daughter studying mathematics instead of dancing” and “parents are ashamed of…their son reading Weber* while his friends play baseball” give common situations which almost any family would be able to relate to.

The anaphora of the chickens shows a redundancy that people who like to learn are being called a name being used in the wrong context. Almost like everyone is not bright enough to even find a correct insult to use

The juxtaposed phrases about “prefer to read… prefer to build” shows the contrast between nerds and the people who make fun of them- one group is trying to get better at the things in life that can help, while the other are just wasting away into oblivion.

This is like the author’s big jump off point where he takes off the gloves and tells it like he thinks everything should be.

I liked this post very much as it has helped me a lot in my research and is quite interesting as well. Thank you for sharing this information with us.
Buy Term Paper