Part One:
Identify the following elements of the article by Hunter S. Thompson, "Security." You can respond to the questions in list or paragraph form.
1. The Introduction: what does he use to capture your attention? Are there words? Phrases? What kind of hook does he rely on?
2. Thesis: what is his main argument/thesis? How well do you think that he expresses his main argument? How well do you think he supports his main argument? Does he only have one argument?
3. The Conclusion: Does his conclusion effectively close out his argument? Does he introduce new arguments in his conclusion?
(Be brief in your responses)
Part Two:
Re-write "Security" by paraphrasing Thompson's words. Make his work more academic by eliminating the questions and making statements. Re-write his conclusion so that it wraps up his work, rather than starting a new argument. (Keep to 200 words)
(Due before class on Wednesday, June 11th)
Reply to classmate: offer your classmates one suggestion on how they might improve their rewrites. Please refrain from offering compliments, unless you also offer assistance. You are the audience for this blog, and your classmates need to know how to appeal to you. What could your classmates have done to convince you better?
Be sure to reply to two of your classmates; be respectful and tactful; re-read your response before submitting (edit for grammar and spelling); and stick to the titanium rule: treat others the way you believe they would like to be treated; some of us have thicker skins than others.
(Both replies due before 5pm on Sunday, June 15th)
Hunter S. Thompson starts of defining his version of security and what it means to him, how it’s what people think. Thompson even says that security is another form of prison or at least that is what it felt like. His main idea was that security was not all cracked up to be, trading the hard work and taking risk to live in leisure and solitude safe from the outside world. In the end we are all heading to one goal and that is death so why not take a risk and aspire to be more and do more in the world. In other words that living safe does not mean you are living a life, you are just moving along to the next thing waiting for the end. Having a life with regret for the things that could have been, he refers to these people as just existing. His point came across as a valid argument for anyone who is living, life is inevitable in the end so why sit and wonder at what could have been instead of going to what it should be. Thompson did raise question, it could be argued that living a life in relatively safety would be better because you only know how long it’s going to be till the risk you take leaves you dead in some horrific way.
ReplyDeleteYou are missing part one of the blog. Other than that, your paraphrase was good. If I had never read "Security", I would have an understanding what it is about because you did a good job paraphrasing.
DeleteYou seem to have a food grasp of this particular text. I think your final sentence had merit. However, I believe people like Thompson don't think that far into the future. Also, if people like that do happen to die because of the lives they live it would be a worth it, since thy truly lived until then.
Delete1. He captures the reader’s attention by using his topic to peek the interest of the reader.
ReplyDelete2. The general of his thesis is security really all that it’s cracked up to be. He stated the facts very well and had lots of supporting statements.
3. He doesn’t give a solid ending to his paper. It lacks that feeling that the paper is done. He did end the paper with a question and I think that was the reason I didn’t feel the paper had a proper ending.
Paraphrase
What is security to us as people? It is generally associated with freedom from worry and safety. But is security a good thing or is it just a rut.
But what is a secure man? He is a person who is free of worry and is set in a way to live for the rest of his life. He has left behind the idea of ambition and initiative for a safe and comfortable life, and he has just become complacent. But does he really live? He is still a man but he never sacrificed anything but also never got rewarded either. He is always waiting for the next day that may never come.
Then there is the happy man. The man who has never subscribed to security. He is the one who lived not just survived. Those are the people in history who had their names immortalized. The ones who risked it all to win it all.
In the end is it better to have security or to be happy? A world of content and security. Or a world where people are happy
You asked a lot of questions in your paraphrase, instead of making statements. Also, you were suppose to make an ending for your paraphrase instead of a leaving your readers with questions. You said that "Security" did not have a proper ending, but you kind of contradicted yourself.
DeleteOverall I thought you answered most of the questions you asked throughout the paraphrase. The final two sentences I think could have been one sentence and would have flowed better, but I do think you should have ended with an answer to you question.
DeleteTo begin with Hunter S. Thompson uses a definition of the word security to grab his readers’ attention. Then he goes into questioning whether security is an idealistic goal or a mere rut. Thompson hopes to keep his readers attention by allowing them to think about the questions he places throughout his writing.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Thompson has two arguments in this piece of work. I think that Thompson’s first presented argument is that life should be lived, not watched as it goes by. He supports this argument by referring to security as a safe, secure, boring, and riskless life. The other argument is presented at the very end of the essay. His second argument asks the question of who is the happier, the man that goes out and lives life to the fullest or the safe man who is secure in their ways.
The author’s conclusion seems to be weak because he then tries to open a new discussion by presenting a second argumentative point. Thompson closes with a question that turns his whole first argument around.
Paraphrasing of Security
Security can be defined as being worry-free and secure within one’s life. Becoming economically stable and secure in their life goals is what makes a man. A man that settles down and no longer is outgoing now conforms to a life of safety and boredom. The rest of this man’s life now continues on just as if every day will be tomorrow and he seems fine with this image. He now shares the same thoughts and outlook as the rest of society and is mediocre. Now this man has to look at himself when he wakes up and realize that he no longer carries on with the accomplishing much of anything and he lives a rather bland life. If he feels that these actions are acceptable, this is wonderful but, he needs to remember that there is no way to rewind time and relive these moments. That time is lost. He is to be reminded that he should live his life now and not through watching someone else live.
Looking back in time at the forefathers who established the systems of the world we live in security did not play a part in any of that. If these men would have just safely sat by instead of living for the moment and taking chances the world would not be what it is today. The ideas of dangers are brought to us by those who would rather witness life than live it. This is what creates a time of enjoying their boring lives through paying tribute to those chance takers surrounding them. These bystanders are the ones who will later worry of what could have been, only to continue the next day with all that they know, repetitiveness. Their lives are over already. They instead continue much like a hamster on a wheel of social reiteration. These members of society are the ones who have no backbone and fear the confrontation of the unknown.
This mission of this essay was to force mankind to look at what we don’t accomplish out of fear. With this in mind I have illustrated a view of pain and heart-ache if you do not live life fully. Live a little.
You did a very thorough job and really made sure to include everything that was important. You did great at putting it into your own words and still getting the authors point across. My only concern is you may have included almost too much and rather than paraphrase you elaborated in a sense. So just make sure in a paraphrase you try to simplify the article. Overall though great job.
Delete1. The introduction caught my attention with a rhetorical question, which I think is the hook he relies on.
ReplyDelete2. His thesis is that you can not truly experience life if you settle for security instead of taking risks. I think he could have better proved his point if he had asked less questions and made more statements. I feel like he has one main argument, but by asking so many questions it makes his direction unclear.
3. His conclusion does not close the argument, instead it feels like he is continuing his current argument.
What is the value security holds in regard to the lives we live? Generally speaking it means that we live comfortably and without the burdens of worry. Is security an end goal for all of mankind, or a kinder term for being stuck in a rut?
A secure man has his financial and safety needs fulfilled. These aspects of his life label him as an ordinary member of society. Does being mundane give him pride or self respect? In order to gain what we want in life risk taking is mandatory. Experiencing life is all about being courageous and challenging oneself as opposed to letting life pass you by while you do the same routine every day.
Those who changed history and the world to make it what we know today were never secure. They risked everything to make our society what it is. Had they sat at home the world would be very different. The message that society sends to young people is that their goal in life should be security, because life isn't interesting anyway. These people rely on books and television to live for them. These people stick the familiar and move day-to-day. They don't know any better.
Happiness belongs to the man who is stranded on an island and braves the surf to escape rather than the man who never attempts to make it back home because the shore is safe.
I like how you broke down your paraphrase like the author did. It made it very easy to follow and concise. Yet, if you were to take out some of the questions you posed and make it into more of a statement it would be more academically accepted. Overall great work.
DeleteJesse Haynes
ReplyDeleteEmily Taylor
Eng 121
1. Introduction: “Security… what does this word mean in relation to life as we know it today?
Hunter S Thompson starts out by taking a topic of major concern in modern times, security, and questioning the real concept behind the idea and what impact the focus of society has on people’s quality of living. Everyone wants to be safe, but is that what will lead to the most fulfilling life? By asking such a question he draws in an audience that seeks security buy challenging their fundamental goals.
2. Thesis: “It (security) is said to be the end that all men strive for; but is security a utopian goal or is it another word for rut?
While I enjoy Thompson’s writing, I feel like his thesis in this piece is too vague when left in the form of a question. Even if his goal is to cause the reader to question their beliefs it lacks the concrete direction that I would expect from an article meant to shake someone up. Also, despite the fact that he puts in a two-sided question, he barely explores the benefits of security and mostly denounces the secure man for being shamelessly boring. While claiming to give the reader a choice of their own he focuses only on one side of the spectrum.
3. As an afterthought, it seems hardly proper to write of life without once mentioning happiness; so we shall let the reader answer this question for himself: who is the happier man, he who has braved the storm of life and lived or he who has stayed securely on shore and merely existed?
While he does not bring any new arguments in his conclusion he does restate the point he raised in his thesis and introduction, but still leaves it as open at the end as it is at the beginning. Rather than a conclusion, his finish give more of a feeling of aloofness, as though he is asking a question that has only one right answer and seems scornful of those who disagree.
Security by Hunter S Thompson, Paraphrased by Jesse Haynes
The term ‘security’ could be generally said to mean safety and freedom from concerns. The feeling of security is much sought after in the modern world, but could mean an end to thrills and progress in the life of one who has attained it. A man who has attained financial and individual security for himself and his family is a comfortable man. However, too much comfort will surely lead to a droll existence, lacking the thrills and peaks of experience that one feels when taking risks and reaping rewards. While he may have the respect of his fellow man, his inner child must weep at the loss of the many adventures, wealth, and romantic encounters he had sacrificed to build his walls of safety around his person. Would he not wish to take it all back for the excitement he has denied himself in life? When looking to the past does he not envy his predecessors who carved their fate from the walls of history, the few successful adventurers immortalized in their riches and fame? In the end, it is the secure man who sits on the sidelines and merely observes in quiet resignation the true heroes of life screaming their souls into the storms of the world, making their mark as the bystanders fade into obscurity.
Jesse,
DeleteOn your paraphrase, there were two questions. I think it need to be revised because they need to be in a statement rather than a question. On your last sentence, I think “as the bystanders fade into obscurity” need to be taken out because “secure man …” looks sufficient.
1. Thompson uses pathos as his attention grabber. He uses the word “security” followed by an ellipses to create a pause and make us think about that word. He then goes on to ask what it means; he’s making you think deeply from the first word on.
ReplyDelete2. Thompson’s main argument is whether or not the adventurous man is happier than the average stable-living man. Emotionally, he expresses his argument well, his arguments are powerful and make you evaluate yourself and others. His support for his argument however, has no real evidence or proof, it’s solely based on opinion. He has the one argument of happiness, he may not say it right away, but his whole argument is encompassed by the idea of happiness.
3. His conclusion is open-ended, it leaves us to answer his questions on our own. He opens up the argument of happiness, but that is prevalent through the whole article.
Security doesn’t mean happiness. Security isn’t the fun way to live life. If you look at a man who worked hard and studied in order to obtain a career that pays well and gives him a comfortable life, he has conformed to the norm and isn’t happy. This man has lived a boring life and should take no pride in that. The men who have went out and taken unnecessary risks know and understand happiness. Every great man in the world has taken risks and not stayed at home living comfortably.
The man who goes out and takes risks is happier than the man living the comfortable life he worked for.
I appreciate your blog. Knowing how much you despise Thompson you summed his work up very well. The only thing I was not satisfied with is when you paraphrased and said "Security isn't the fun way to lead life" (Wooten). I feel that Thompson wasn't saying that if you have security your life wouldn't be fun. He was saying that if you have security you don't have a real life at all.
Delete1. The introduction that caught my attention are the words when he said safety and freedom from worry. His thesis is you cannot gain nothing from risking nothing. I think he could've said it in a different phrase. Hunter Thompson conclusion doesn't close to the argument at all. Mr. Hunter Thompson actually closes with a question that just through me off. I feel like he just put the beginning of the story towards the end also.
ReplyDeleteThis country will probably be looking beautiful as it is if people just sat around all day watching t.v and reading books. In order for you to accomplish what you need in life you have to take that first step. If you decide to wait for opportunity too come knocking at your front door then your not ready to live your live. Taking that first step in life takes a lot courage, but once you do it everything else should be easier.
There's a saying that when hard work pays, of then easy work is worthless.
Repeating that same thing every day gets boring in time. Now our day we have problems with people because they live that same routine daily waking up to be a couch potato and going back to sleep that's all they will know. That is why we need to take risk in life.
A secure man is worry free and doesn't have to worry in life. Too me the happier man will be the ones that a filthy rich in life and doesn't have to worry about anything but banking his money daily. Also the happier man should be the won that wakes up in the morning and doesn't have too worry about security.
Vega,
DeleteYou had a few grammar errors throughout your work. This being said by reading your entry I was able to grasp the concept of what the discussion was able. Something you may try doing is re-reading what you write. If what you read doesn't sound well put together than you will have an opportunity to revise your writing. All in all your entry was enjoyable and fresh. Good job.
Joshua,
Deletethank you I just noticed it, I didn't know that I had messed up on my Grammar until now thank you!
Vega,
DeleteGood concise paraphrasing! I didn't see the article as having the same focus as you. I read it as less of a 'first step' and more of an encouragement of risk taking in general, but I was pleased to see another perspective. Grammar aside I thought it was a strong entry!
Marissa Gutierrez
ReplyDeleteEmily Taylor
Eng 121
Part One:
Identify the following elements of the article by Hunter S. Thompson, "Security."
1. Thompson uses questions to grab the audience’s attention what caught my attention was that he said ‘Security safety and freedom from worry” and then had me thinking about life, and engaged in what I was about to read I’m sure this was his purpose so he would be able to get his point across by engaging the reader.
2. Thompson’s main argument is whether or not adventurous men are happier than men who aren’t willing to take risks. While he has no evidence any of his arguments are true or not this is mainly based on opinion his main idea is basically based on happiness.
3. His conclusion ended up leaving us to think even more comparing the life of an adventurous man or the life of someone with “security”. And asking what one are you?
Part Two:
Re-write "Security" by paraphrasing Thompson's words. Make his work more academic by eliminating the questions and making statements. Re-write his conclusion so that it wraps up his work, rather than starting a new argument. (Keep to 200 words)
In life there are people who take risks and people who rather not, the people who don’t are called the “secure “people, you know the financially secure, daily routine type of people. Then there are people that are go getters, they take risks in order to live a wealthy life even if it means sacrificing your life to get wealthy. To do this you have to step out of your comfort zone and at times twice as hard as a “secure” person would. Think about it most of these people like to go get their money while others are stuck to their comfort zone because they know that they will be returning to work tomorrow. At the end of the day I am happy that I am one of those go getters because I feel as I deserve what I have earned since I stepped out of the box and faced my fears to become a successful wealthy man. At the end of the day you are who you make yourself to be.
There are a few areas in your paraphrase that are worded oddly or could use a little improvement on the punctuation. For example the sentence "Think about it most of these people like to go get their money while others are stuck to their comfort zone because they know that they will be returning to work tomorrow". I think a couple of comas added into this sentence would make it easier to read, I think there should be a coma after "Think about it", "comfort zone" and changing "stuck to their comfort zone" would sound a little better as "stuck in their comfort zone". I'll say though, I could be wrong about that second coma after "comfort zone" but I feel like there should be something there, maybe a semicolon would work there better.
DeleteHi Marissa,
DeleteYou have a lot of interesting points but like Rachel said you can use a little improvement on your punctuations. Also you had a few double spaces on part one of three.
I think your part one analysis was written very well. I found that Thompson made a mistake that is common and that I have made many times. He introduces a new concept in the conclusion, which I have been graded very harshly for before. I would have liked some mention of this in your analysis. Happiness is not even slightly mentioned in the intro or body of the paper, why would the writer mention it right at the end? He says "As an afterthought" as the transition to the conclusion. After writing and proofreading multiple drafts is "as an afterthought" really an afterthought anymore? Then why put it in there?
DeleteZach Wernimont
ReplyDeleteProfessor Taylor
English 121-152
Due date 11 Jun 2014
1. The introduction uses a question that is not commonly asked to grab attention. The format is all baited questions. He relies on a bold statement of security being a bad thing despite commonly held belief that it is a good thing.
2. There is less of a plain stated thesis as there is a main argument; which is that security is a bad thing. I don’t think he expresses his main argument well at all. The entire format is in emotional and unsubstantiated statements posed as questions. These questions are baited to lead the reader to only have one answer, which is the answer he wants. He makes the assumption that his reader will not be smart enough to recognize that the answers to his questions are not the readers but his own. So that the reader will not question the logic of his arguments. He only really has the one argument just each question hits another aspect of the main argument.
3. The conclusion does not close his argument at all. It introduces the new concept of happiness then a new argument that happiness is dependent on his previous conclusions of security. This is baited such that if the reader had been convinced by his arguments on security than the only answer is his own.
Paraphrase
Security
Hunter S Thompson (1955)
For the most part security means safety and freedom from worry. Most people strive for security but it leads people into a rut. A secure man has settled for a boring safe and comfortable rut. His situation will not change for the rest of his life and he is complacent. He has no ideas of his own. All of his ideas are those that society gives him. The secure man is not a man, he has no pride or self respect. He has conformed by giving up on his own dreams and has barely lived. Those who wish they had not conformed are to be pitied because they were too cowardly to make risks. They have done nothing with life.
People who have made big impacts in history did not lead secure lives. The world would be poorer if they had decided to live secure lives. The majority of people are secure and believe that life is not worth living. They live lives that are boring, full of drudgery and just wait for death. They only can live through others, books and movies. These people are insignificant and merely exist through life. They hate life but are afraid to die. Every one of them is a coward.
To truly live life we must forfeit security, we must take risks because only if we have the courage to risk it all can we change the world.
You covered the main idea from the essay very well, but there are a few places where the wording is really weird. I think "The world would be poorer" would have sounded a little smoother with a different word choice or perhaps a different sentence organization. This kind of happens again the the sentence "They only can live through others" I think it you could switch the words "only" and "can" it would have read smoother; "The can only live through others." I think revising those two sentences would really refine your paraphrase and it would be perfect.
DeletePart One:
ReplyDelete1. The author uses a general definition of security, descriptive words such as “utopian goal” and “rut” to create an emotional appeal, and a reflective question related to the topic to grab my attention.
2. Thompson’s main argument is that a life of “conformity” is no way to live in comparison to a life full of adventure and chasing dreams. He makes his opinion very clear, but he could have better supported his argument with more facts and examples rather than questions. I gathered that there were two arguments in this article.
3. His conclusion does not close the main argument but opens another argument with a question, leaving the article rather open ended.
Part Two:
Security can carry different meanings for people. To some it may be the end-all and be-all, and for others it can be considered a boring hindrance to an otherwise exciting existence.
A man gives up any chance at truly living if he settles for a mediocre life with the same day-in day-out routine. Living life by the standards that society has set for him leaves his dreams and desires to collect dust. If a man bends to such a lifestyle, he cheats himself of life’s excitement and all the treasures and possibilities that it could hold. He will waste away, never going anywhere or achieving anything.
History is littered with individuals that defied society’s idea of living a life of security, and, instead, they took chances and chased their dreams. Without these individuals, many advancements in civilization and discoveries may not have been made. They have left their mark, and will be forever remembered. On the other hand, the people that refuse to take those chances will be forgotten. It is the men that don’t break the mold and live life from day to day according to a pre-determined schedule that set depressing limits on society. They live life through the work of other people, continuously yearning for what could have been but never possessing the courage to find out.
Happiness is the key to life. Unless you are a risk-taker and grab life by the horns, you will never find that key.
your writing is good. I cant seem to find anything wrong. you got the idea of the essay down.
DeleteI completely agree with Corwin on how well this is written. With how clear and concise your thoughts on the paper are, I would have loved to hear your opinion on the string of question format that he uses. I couldn't figure out a way to clearly state my own opinion on the questions so I ended up mostly leaving it out.
DeletePart 1
ReplyDelete1. The introduction to the article Security by Hunter S. Thompson uses word play and rhetorical questions in order to hook the audience in. Thompson uses the word "security" proceeded by and ellipses in order to provoke thought and stress importance and then follows up by asking a question and hooking the reader into an evergrowing question of is security "another word for rut".
2. Thomson's main thesis/ arguement is based on the preconception that choosing security over truly living in a costly mistake and that one should enjoy and live in the moments of going out on a limb or taking a risk. Thompson explains his main arguement beautifully by posing questions to the reader andindefintely taking his stand on which side he is on. Thompson does tend to use a bit too many rhetorical questions, yet it is for the sake of having the readers put themselves truly in the reading.He supports his arguement reasonably well by providing a plethora of examples and allowing the readers to put themselves in the context of the question, yet he lacks some concrete evidence. I found two main arguements in this piece. The main question posed is what is better-security or living for the moment and the second arguement is posed at the end of the article when Thompson asks which man is happier.
3. I do think that Thompson believes that he has given enough evidence and validated his points enough to create a relevant conclusion, yet by asking a question and posing a new question on which man is happier he does not effectively close out his piece. Rather Thompson makes himself an opportunity to keep the arguement going.
Part 2
Paraphrase
Secuity for the most part is defined as safety and freedom, yet it sometimes is more of a problem than it is an answer.
A man that has security as his top priority is often a man that has given up on his dreams and staggered into his mediocre life that pays the bills. He is a man that conforms to all the people around him in order to not be classified as on outcast, but rather desires to simply regarded as a respectable and average man. However, living in the lies of conformity is not living at all and is rather creating a shell of a man that is no longer alive. Life will pass the man by that chooses security over adventure and in the end he will regret not having enough courage to truly live.
The men who have changed the world are men who took adventure by the horns and made a name for themselves. They did not simply attempt to survive, but rather truly lived and experienced the world. The men who give up their courage to truly live are men who are, infact, no man at all. They live a hollow life of disappiontment and predictibility. These men are men that are waiting for death, yet fear it since it is something unknown.
In order to live a life worth living man must have the courage to live and not slump down to conformity. Only by this can a man be truly happy and proud of a life well lived.
I enjoyed your breakdown of this article. It was very descriptive and well written , so it was pretty easy for someone at our academic level to read. I had difficulty pegging anything that needed improvement, but maybe some of the longer sentences can be broken into separate thoughts/sentences. That might make it easier for the reader to stay on point with what you're trying to convey. Other than that, there were a few areas in the paraphrase that followed the author's text very closely. Although, he used a ton of descriptive words, so it made it pretty difficult to rephrase things without accidentally plagiarizing. All in all, great job!
DeletePart One:
ReplyDelete1. Hunter S. Thompson captures my attention by stating, “let us visualize the secure man.” When he states that, I am wondering what does he mean by, “secure man?” Thompson’s hook for his argument are the questions he ask his audience as they read along; he keeps his audience thinking.
2. Thompson’s thesis for the argument is what makes a man happy? What makes a man want to go above and beyond or just live a normal life of not having to worry? I believe he supports his argument well by defining the two men. He discusses both the man who will do anything for the rights of people; who will jeopardize his freedom in order to see change, and the man who is comfortable with doing what society expects of him.
3. Thompson ends his argument with a thought-provoking question. He wants the audience to define happiness. He left the audience wanting to know what is next.
Part Two:
Webster defines security as the state of being protected or safe from harm. A secure man will let life pass him by; not knowing the essence of being spontaneous. This man see life through a tunnel, never reaching out to smell the roses. He looks at others accomplishments with admiration, all the while wondering, “what if?” However, he remains okay with letting life take its course as he breeze on by because he lacks ambition. What he is doing in the present is what he was doing in the past and will be doing in the future.
Then, there is the man who lacks security; this man will take the world into his hands just to say, “I did it!” He does not know the meaning of the word complacent, boring or dull. Being a man who does not yearn for security, he will die for his country, come back from the dead and die again. He lives life with no regrets. Life is about achieving the unthinkable, reaching the unreachable and doing the undoable. When we look back on our ancestors we see brave men who fought for freedom, justice and security for generations to come. These men would turn their nose up at secure men, sitting on the sideline not wanting to get in the game because they lack drive and motivation.
Dana,
DeleteI enjoyed reading this piece. It reminded me of why we as Soldiers, and people do what we do. Your writing grabbed my attention because you thought outside the box and pushed the subject to another realm. Not many people will or do understand those that would go above and beyond for what they believe in. For the most part I seen one or two errors in grammar but, your paper was composed nicely.
I particularly liked your paraphrase because it is so different from everyone else's, yet it still has the same thesis. You kept it short, sweet, to the point, and still managed to cover the introduction, body, and conclusion. The only thing that I would consider changing is rephrasing the questions (in #2) into statements that highlight the author's opinion that he is trying to point out in his article. Great job, though! :)
DeleteHi Dana,
Deleteyou did a very good job! it was well paraphrase and you have a good introduction also.
1.Thompson uses a word and a phrase to hook you immediately. The first word of the text with the following question has the reader already forming tossing this question around in their own mind.
ReplyDelete2. Thompsons main argument it that by seeking what he dubs “security” you put yourself in a “rut” and do not experience life to its fullest. He makes his point clear. He does not have any facts or example listed to back this point. However, he is very adamant and opinionated about it so he made me interested to hear it.
3. His conclusion does not close out anything, it presents a question.
Security can have different meanings to people. Either having a carefree existence or being bored the rest of your life
Someone who chooses financial stability over freedom is not really a man and is not really living his life to the fullest.
People who do not lead a secure life are able to face dangers head on and change history. These are the people that are remembered. Those who choose security, and live through the lives and stories of other will not be remembered.
A man who takes risks and lives life freely has truly lived. However, a man who has played it safe has only been alive.
i like the way you are getting to the point like a summary should. but it that respect but on that note i can not help but see that the question's asked were just repeated in your own words and not really given back in a appropriate answer. example number 3. "His conclusion does not close out anything, it presents a question." what question is that? you have the idea, you know what you are talking about i can see it. i would suggest having someone you know who has not read his work to look over what you wrote to see if they understand. i do it a lot to make sure that what i put down can be understand; as my writing is horrible. All around very nicely done keep it up!
Delete1) Thompson immediately puzzles the audience with a deep, unsettling question that all people can relate to, which draws them in.
ReplyDelete2) Thompson's main argument is that for a man to truly live, and be proud of his life, he must venture into the unknown and seize every individual day. He expresses his main argument solidly, and with many different points and angles to support it. He also assesses the other side of his argument. He also argues that the world would be a much different place if all men sought only security.
3) I do believe his conclusion adequately closed the conversation he started in the introduction, but I was still left wanting more. He did introduce a new argument on the conclusion: weighing the benefits of each lifestyle in terms of happiness
.
Hunter S. Thompson argues that the better way to approach life is to seize every day with disregard for the unknown, and a desire to make change. A man who desires constant security will never truly live a day in his life, but would rather "merely exist." A man like that would look back on his life with disappointment and disgust, regretting every moment of it. The men who have taken life by the horns, however, have been the men who "shaped the destiny of the world." Without these types of men, mankind would be "stuck in a rut." Unfortunately, the majority of men seek security, and it is from them that we get propaganda like "life is not worth living." Ultimately, these men hate themselves and their lifestyle. They lack everything that makes life worth living. The man who seeks security never truly lives, and the man who seeks adventure lives every day to its fullest potential.
Alexander,
DeleteOn your paraphrase on the last part, it looks like you gave out an opinion rather than a fact: “these men hate themselves.” Thompson’s essay suggests men should do something more than their routine daily life, but did not stated these men hate themselves. There was an instance he was okay with seeking security: “If he thinks this is all well and good, fine.”
Hunter S. Thompson introduces his essay “Security” by implying it is “safety and freedom from worry”. His opening sentence makes me think about my own security: “Security… in relation to life” (para. 1). Thompson thesis is “It (security) is said to be the end that all men strive for; but is security a utopian goal or is it another word for rut?” (para. 1). Thompson did not express as strong as it should be. The use of question weaken the thesis because it feels the author is unsure of the thesis. He use his supports very well by first, using questions to invoke the audiences’ mind for security without risk. Then, Thompson’s next argument changes to security with risk; the security is achieve when the risk is “won” (para. 3). The conclusion of the essay looks effective if it leaves out happiness; happiness, an opinion, changes a person’s perspective that will introduces another argument.
ReplyDeleteParaphrase
Security proposes safety and freedom from worry. Worriless is what people want, but security can be an ultimate goal or another word for prison.
In exchange for his desire, a man choose a stable prison. The man is here in the future like he is here now, no inclination to move elsewhere. Experience of a secure man will be dull and boring. To this man, security outweighs dreams and hope.
Other people will chose risk over security. To risk, it is a chance to increase a person’s finance and experience. Bystander, who does not take risk, will get the most attention in life. He will not be remembered, at night, his ideas vividly appears, by day, the same old routines set in.
The secure man can choose a life without risk or the life with risk.
This is really good, very cut and put together nicely using MLA formatting.
Deleteyou didn't seem to get the full idea of the essay in your blog. it seems to be missing the facts of the people who forwent the notion of security and that is the main point of the essay we read.
DeleteHi Jeffery,
DeleteI like how you word it and paraphrased it. You did a very good job on your MLA also.
Corwin,
DeleteI doubt I have missed the point of the essay (but, I could be wrong). If this essay is forwent the notion of security, then the body of the essay should be entirely different. The body does not supports a forgo security but suggests a forgo security. To support it, it should have more details of support.