Recently, there were reports about a leopard on the loose on the streets of India. The leopard was probably hungry because it was held in captivity for so long without the “wild freedom” that most leopards have. Why should we cause others to struggle for our own pleasure? The purpose of a zoo is to introduce different types of animals to little kids, those who maybe haven’t seen a monkey up front before. It is to entertain and educate people, but why should we do this? Can’t we research about it online and show it to our kids, or maybe have statues instead of real life animals. These animals strive towards their freedom and their wild life; they want to roam around the jungle freely without the interference of people. This leopard was only trying to escape because it hated being held in a cage and was also probably hungry. After it got loose, it went crazy, and put all of its effort into escaping the city. Tranquilizers and trained animal control experts, however, soon countered its efforts. This leopard was not trying to hurt anybody, but was trying to escape from its horrible life. We should not cause others to suffer just for our own pleasure.
David Foster Wallace is a creative writer and essayist who write about his own experiences and thoughts to portray different ideas. The first story in his book “A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again” is a story about himself as a child playing tennis and how math is applied to it. The story is called “Derivative Sport in Tornado Alley” and it’s about how change is evident and there’s nothing that can be done about it. It’s about Wallace’s own childhood, and how tennis was a big part of his life back then. When he was young, he would use geometry and math to beat others in tennis. However, after life kicked in, the other kids started hitting puberty, while Wallace stayed small because he was a late bloomer. This led to him having a depressing season as he lost a lot of matches to kids who were twice his size. Life chose to not be pleasant on him; by making him a late bloomer and having all the other kids hit puberty before him. Puberty is a change that can happen at any time. It’s inevitable and there’s nothing that can be done about it. That’s the point that Wallace is trying to portray, that change must happen, whether it’s for the good or for the bad.
To some extent, I agree with Wallace’s claim that change is inevitable and that nothing can be done about it. Change is currently happening all around us as we speak. It’s a part of nature and it happens for a reason. Stuff that remains constant are most likely to “die-out”, meaning that change most likely will result with better outcomes. Things change because there is a flaw that needs to be improved. Nothing changes just because change is inevitable; things change because the change will improve it. Just like the survival of the fittest, the things that change are most likely to perspire. Puberty is a part of nature that automatically changes and is inevitable, which is what Wallace was trying to illustrate. However, sometimes change isn’t necessary for some things. Change only happens if a certain thing needs to be modified, otherwise we should just leave it be. We have stuck with the same educational system for many years, which is a good thing because it standardizes our educational system, which is good for basing intelligence off of. We need not change our educational system simply because it works for us. However, could our educational system be better? Of course it can. Our educational system works because and has remained constant because the change is so small that we do not notice it. Constantly is there change around in schools and in colleges, but the change is so small that we fail to recognize it due to our view on the big picture. Our definition of “education” is learning, but change is happening with the information we’re learning and the way it is taught. The reason people think that education isn’t changing is because the fact that an older man or woman, the teacher, is the one teaching a younger student hasn’t changed at all. Change is inevitable in most situations and is necessary to improve different aspects of life.
There are many problems in the world, most of which can be fixed with changes. Change by definition is the only way to alter an object. In society, if there is something wrong, change is there to help fix it. There are many wars that are going on right now, most of which are reactions to change. These wars are currently happening because some sort of change is happening or some sort of change needs to be made. Two sides, fighting for which one will win, which will ultimately be the resulting outcome of change. Only in a utopian society, which by human nature is impossible to have, will change be unnecessary. Humans aren’t perfect beings that are why a utopian society simply cannot be, because there is greed, selfishness, unfairness and inequality happening all around the world. Change is trying to occur to fix these problems but even then will it not be enough. Change is striving towards something that is impossible to have, but we keep trying anyways. That is why change is currently happening all around us and is inevitable.
David Foster Wallace intelligently demonstrates how change is inevitable in our every day lives. It is currently happening and it will always happen. To him, however, the change didn’t cause happiness to him. Instead it caused depression and disappointment. Wallace was unfortunate in that change did not change in his favor, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is inevitable. Change will always be present in life. Change is like a clock, it is constantly moving and it will never end.
“Derivative Sport in Tornado Alley” is an essay written by David Foster Wallace that demonstrates how geometry has affected his childhood life, especially the tennis aspects of it. In an excerpt of his writing, Wallace demonstrates a certain aspect of balance. His sentences include both positive and negative, both right and wrong, which can be described as antithesis. “Tornadoes were, in our part of Central Illinois, the dimensionless point at which parallel lines met and whirled and blew up. They made no sense. Houses blew not out but in. Brothels were spared while orphanages next door bought it. Dead cattle were found three miles from their silage without a scratch on them. Tornadoes are omnipotent and obey no law. Force without law has no shape, only tendency and duration. I believe now that I knew all this without knowing it, as a kid.” This sentence includes both the negative and the positive side of the situation, even though Wallace is only trying to introduce one of the two. He includes the other to add a type of contrast to the sentence and ultimately to the whole paragraph. In this part of the story, Wallace is explaining how tornadoes were portrayed when he was young and still in school. He said that “they made no sense” because they did not follow the normal rules of physics, or any rule for that matter. Wallace found that the best way to introduce the difference, is to state what tornadoes actually do in terms of the normal basic rules that every other object or thing follows. “Houses blew not out but in.” The reason behind adding the “not out” part is to have a contrast between the basic rules and the rules that the tornado follows. This type of method is effective because it instructs the audience about why tornadoes “make no sense” instead of just stating what they do and have it not contrast with anything. Antitheses are effective because they contain both the positive and negative aspects of something, which creates balance and equality in the sentence. There are a lot of contrasting words, like “but”, “only”, “without” and “not”. These words will create the type of comparison that Wallace wants to introduce to the audience.
This type of contrast can be related to well-known traditional yin and yang symbol that is supposed to demonstrate peace and order within any community. It is the primary symbol of peace between two contrasts. The symbol is a circle with a curve that cuts it in half. This curve demonstrates the difference or contrast between two individuals. However, the symbol also represents equality within two individuals, the ball in each of the curved parts demonstrates that both individuals have a part of each other. For example, when white contrasts with black, there will always be a little part of white in black (As shown in the picture). The yin and yang symbol best illustrates difference while having similarity between two things. This is why I chose the yin and yang symbol to represent the antithesis used by Wallace in the specific passage.
David Foster Wallace is a rather reflective type of author. Most of his pieces are stories about his own life. His book “A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again” contains many stories about his life and experiences. “Derivative Sport in Tornado Alley” is a story about his childhood and how geometry affected his life. “Tennis Player Michael Joyce’s Professional Artistry as a Paradigm of Certain Stuff about Choice, Freedom, Discipline, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness” is a story about his thoughts on the nature of tennis and professional athletics. In both of these stories, he talks about how life can be unpredictable and how it can affect an individual’s life.
David Foster Wallace is a creative writer, and in his essays and short stories, he uses examples from his own life to help illustrate a thought. In the first story, Wallace talks about how geometry affected his life, especially when it came to tennis, and how he was a late bloomer compared to others. He didn’t hit puberty until mostly everyone else did. “Antitoi’s tennis continued to improve after that, but mine didn’t” (Wallace 20). Life was “unfair” to him, and because others hit puberty before him, he lost most, if not all, of his tennis matches afterwards. He used to be the best, because he used geometry to help him win, but now strength has taken over and dominated basic intelligence. The story is about change is inevitable and how it can affect different individuals. The second story is about Wallace writing a biography about a tennis player who became famous. The tennis player was a bit greedy, and expected a lot of fame. After this tennis player got famous, what he expected was not enough for him. He was famous, but not famous enough to earn a lot of money and not famous enough to be universally known. “Michael Joyce is, in other words, a complete man (though in a grotesquely limited way). But he wants more” (Wallace 254). The story is about how not everything will turn out as expected. Both these stories are about how life does not turn out for the better of both of them. They expected something great, but did not get what they wanted. Wallace portrayed this idea through both of these stories.
David Foster Wallace’s writings portray a sense of expectancy, how some people who expect a certain outcome may receive another. This idea is portrayed in both “Derivative Sport in Tornado Alley” and “Tennis Player Michael Joyce’s Professional Artistry as a Paradigm of Certain Stuff about Choice, Freedom, Discipline, Joy, Grotesquerie, and Human Completeness”. In both stories, life wasn’t too kind to them, and people may only make the best of what life gives them. Unfortunately for both of the main characters in the story, things didn’t turn out as well as they hoped. Senses of change, disappointment, and wanting something are present in both stories. David Foster Wallace portrays this idea by writing about personal experiences through his stories.
Recently, an old age couple was murdered in Tennessee due to a bombing incident. Jon Setzer and his wife, Marion Setzer, were murdered due to an explosion just outside of their house. “Officials said Setzer picked up the package from his mailbox, about 200 yards from the home. It detonated just inside the house, killing him and mortally wounding his wife.” The man died almost instantly while the woman was taken to the hospital but then died 2 days later. The man who was charged of the murder was their neighbor Richard Parker. The investigators believe that Parker is the sole suspect of the case, yet they cannot seem to come up with a logical motive. They believe that the bomb could have been sent to the wrong house, but that still doesn’t make this case any better. The investigators have found a note, which “’is a very important piece of evidence, because now you may have handwriting,’ said former ATF agent and bomb expert Joseph Vince.” I feel like the whole thing could have just been avoided and it was very unnecessary to murder an old age couple.
It’s really sad, to think that a man would go through so much trouble just to kill an old age couple. It’s actually quite sad and at the same time very unnecessary. They’re 74 and 72 years old, there’s not much time for them left anyways, why go kill them and then having to go to jail because of it. Let them live their last few lives with joy and happiness, because they’ve gone through all the hardship in life. Why go and murder them in one of the most gruesome ways possible. I find the whole thing just very messed up and inconvenient for the investigators because there is no solid motive that could be the cause of all of this and there is no solid evidence to who could have committed the crime