Task two: Template analysis

Poem 1: Children in the Darkness
This analysis aims to go deeper into the poem, children in the darkness.

It is in the point of view of someone who is aware of how 'normal' children are supposed to behave and what they are meant to be doing. This can be seen by how the persona draws comparisons between the children in the darkness and normal children. This way of writing puts both the persona and the readers in the same shoes, as they see how the other children are suffering while they can still live a blissful life as a normal child.

It is in the situation of war, and this poem reflects the feelings of the usage of young children in war when their youth was meant to be enjoyed. This can be seen in line 13,"Or will a war consume them" and also in other parts of the poem, where the constant bloodshed is shown, as in line 15-16. War is a hopeless affair and one where both sides, the victor or the defeated, will suffer execrable losses. Thus, this situation can evoke sympathy in the readers, as children, who are stereotypically young and innocent, are not only exposed to the extreme depravity of war, but also made to join in this bloodshed.

Language and diction is used to great extent here. Firstly, in its repetition of the word darkness. Light is usually a symbolism for hope. Light is used once in the whole poem at the start whereas darkness was repeated four times throughout the whole poem. This word positioning shows that darkness, in this case, war, will overwhelm hope in the end. Satire is also used in this poem, with words like 'blood', made more gory by its emphasis with the words 'endless' and 'thirsty' which shows the unquenchable thirst for blood that war has.

Personally, I feel that this poem connects me to the reality of other children. While 'rich' kids like us get to lounge around in a safe city like ours, there are other children who deserve the same fate as us, but instead, due to a miserable twist of fate, end up fighting neck to neck with an enemy that they don't even know about. True, some of us may not have the luxuries others have, like television and handphones, but still, our life is still a haven as compared to the tiredness and weariness of the lives of those poor suffering children.

Poetry Analysis: Children in The Darkness

Source: http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/2010warpoetry.html

There aren't many websites analyzing this poem and i only found slight background information about this poem from the website on top. However, since this is a one-star difficulty poem, I shall analyze it myself instead.

This poem is written by Henry M Bechtold in 2010, a very recent poem. Just before christmas, he was in Saigon, a place in Vietnam and was trying to write poems there. He often goes back to Vietnam because his "soul lives in Vietnam." This could imply that he himself was one of the soldiers fighting in the war then and as with many war veterans, they find it difficult to adapt back to their own homeland after the suffering they had seen. This poem was written after Henry watched the television and saw the picture of a small boy with a helmet and an automatic rifle.

This poem shows conflicting images of the author's mindset of what should actually be the life of a child in contrast with how the children suffering in war really are. The first stanza shows the ignorance of a child, in the sentence, "have not seen the light." This probably means that they are young and still in a state of darkness and ignorance, and thus, this stanza evokes sympathy in the reader as in their unknowing state, they will have to be "teach to fight." Soldiers usually fight out of a sense of patriotism or loyalty, but this children, completely unaware of anything are being taught to fight, the only thing they are learning.

The first line of the next stanza states that "chalk and blackboards will not be" contrasting the reader's view of school with the way these children are taught. The next three stanzas are extremely strong as they are written by an American. Americans are known to be pursuers of "Freedom", something that they sincerely believe is their right to upkeep. But this fighting is the complete opposite. The children fighting have no ability to be free, taught to fight, this is their only way of life, to be involved in war and probably die.

The next stanza asks rhetorical questions, whether the children can be taught what 'normal' students are taught.

The next stanza shows their true fate and why they cannot be taught what normal students are taught, in other words, it answers all the rhetorical questions. They could never be taught all that, because they will be consumed in war, 'their body and soul' will be given up to war and their blood and life will be 'poured down some endless thirsty hole.' Satire is used here to a small extent, with words like blood,poured and endless, making it seem like blood is being constantly poured and bloodshed is rampant.

The last stanza more or less concludes the whole poem, by saying that these children could not possibly be like normal children, they have no hope , which is symbolized by light, to live a normal life as it has been destroyed by the circumstances of war.

Movie Review: How to Train Your Dragon

The movie starts in a viking village, where the two main opposing factions are the vikings and the dragons. The dragons steal the Viking's livestock and burn their villages, in return the vikings kill thousands of the dragons. The village is filled with blood thirsty vikings, all strong, battle -ready and knowledgeable about the dragons they want to kill and the tactics required to kill them. All except one of the dragons, a night fury, apparently the most legendary and deadliest of dragons. Compare this to the protagonist of the story, Hiccup, son of the mightiest viking and the chief of the Vikings, who is considered an anomaly among the vikings. Nerdy, weak and unable to kill a dragon at all, he is still determined to prove himself as a powerful viking and during a dragon attack, he managed to shoot down a dragon. However, no one believed him. The next day, Hiccup went to look for the dragon and found that it was a night fury. Unable to kill it, Hiccup freed him and soon the two develop a friendship as Hiccup started to train it secretly. But secrets dont tend to be kept secret for long and the story end explosively as the two enemies realize they had to team up together to fight the biggest foe of all.

The best thing about the film was the plot. I thought it was a very deep plot, showing Hiccup's moral courage to go against the Vikings, proving to them that dragons were never bad. Despite the fact that all the other vikings were massacring dragons, he dared to be different and train them instead. This kind of courage is evident in our literature text, To Kill A Mockingbird, too.

Another thing about the movie that i love so much is the graphics. Other cartoon movies give you paper cut outs and animations, but this movie really went beyond the limits. The dragons seem to have the ability to look extremely real in battle, as did all the Viking's battle ships. And the 'Ultimate enemy' really did look extremely life-like. All the fireballs thrown and catapults shot in the movie were all incredibly real and life-like.

If there was any problem with the movie, it was that such a great movie should have the potential to be way longer, so many more adventures could have taken place within the span of the entire movie instead of just spending such a large part of the movie on showing Hiccup's attempts to befriend and train the dragon. But still, I consider this a small flaw in comparision to how great the movie is.

The character's were also well portrayed and managed to show the theme, which was that the dragons were essentially good, well. Other than the protagonist, there were other characters in the story who played a major part in the movie, mostly by turning from the typical, dragon-hating vikings to people who have understood the dragons and made peace with them. One of these people would be Astrid, Hiccup's girlfriend in the end but enemy at the start. After hanging out with dragons for so long, Hiccup had learnt methods to subdue dragons peacefully without any harm to either party and his ability caused him to be well-known and respected in dragon-training class. Astrid, who was as good as any other boy,or even better, was none too happy about this as she wanted to be number one in the class. Soon, her desire to find out what led to Hiccup's sudden improvement made her stumble on the truth by accident and she soon changed her mindset about the dragon who Hiccup had aptly named "Toothless"(for apparent reasons). Another person who had undergone massive change in mindset towards dragons was Hiccups father, the chief of the Vikings. At first, he was upset with Hiccup's inability to kill or even hate dragons. When Hiccup became a hotshot in town for supposedly "subduing" the dragons in training class, he was extremely elated. However, the relationship between the two deteriorated when his father found out that about the means his child used to subdue the dragons, in other words, peaceful means without bloodshed or weaponry. In the end however, Toothless helped save the tribe from the 'enemy' and Hiccup's father's mindset finally changed, as could be seen from him freeing Toothless from the restraining harness.

Overall, i feel that this is a wonderful movie and i would really recommend families to watch it together.

Rating: 4.2/5

P.S I'm aware that this movie isn't sci - fi but i already had intention to do a movie review on this even before you listed it out as an ACE opportunity. But I won't mind even if this post isn't considered for ACE.

My Baby Cousin

She comes every single week ever since she was about 9 months old. She's real cute and fun to play with but recently, im starting to find her an irritant. My parents overly pamper her and always call her things like "my baby." Creeps me out sometimes because I think that my baby cousin, Hazel, should be spending more time with her own parents. True, she only spends the weekends over at my house, but hey, weekends are for bonding periods with your own family right? My parents tried to reason with me by saying that her parents cannot occupy her whenever it's the weekends cause of work, or other reasons. But is this what my parents want? Every single weekend, do they want Hazel over? It might seem like they're okay with it now but what about when Hazel grows older and less fun? Do they expect her to keep on coming over?

And another thing, my parents often tell me to do things for her because when we bring her over, we should all take care of her. Even now, im babysitting her. I never asked for her to be here. And they bring her over every single week and expect me to do things for her. Go to the car and grab a balloon for her, babysit her, try and put her to sleep, etc. Weekends are supposed to be my day off, yet every weekend, i have to take time off to take care of her. I understand that my parents like her to be here and most of the time, i try to be accommodating to her. Yet sometimes, i wish she wouldn't come every single week. Sigh... guess ill have to try to bear with her...

Linguistic ( a )

I would choose to be friends with Dill. The world is quite evil, any way you look at it. Evil in fact is quite a general term. To take a life is evil. To kill a tree, that is also evil. Evil is all around us, it cannot be measured. Dill takes a light view of everything. He chooses to laugh at everything instead of being too serious about it. Dill is innocent and in a way naive. He does not bother much about the world and no matter what happens, he always has a way to make light of it. He even wants to be a ' clown ' that cheers people and himself up. Thus, it would be great to have a friend like him who can cheer me up even when I am down.

Naturalistic(Mockingbirds)

Natural Habitat: Open Woodland; open country with thickets; gardens; orchards

Distribution: Southern Canada; Most of USA and Mexico; Parts of carribean

Maycomb is a pretty poor country and I suppose much of the revenue in Maycomb is generated through farming or other agricultural activities. Large spaces of empty farmland are very suitable for Mockingbirds to breed and crops from the farmland can help feed the mockingbirds. Also, as shown from the distribution above, Mockingbirds are often found in America, which is where Maycomb is located at.

Some extra things I have found out about TKAM:

One of the definitions of a mockingbird in the story is "good being destroyed through contact with evil." Under this definition, a good example would be Jem Finch. But even his name has a reason to it. A Finch is also a kind of bird, a small bird, which could possibly be used to show the vulnerability to the evils of the world. Mockingbirds are also very territorial creatures and are also very brave, sometimes even fighting(and failing) dogs and cats who intrude their territory. This is seen in some parts of the novel where Jem himself attempts to fight of any who might bring harm to his family and also where he stands up for his father in spite of the country waiting to lynch him.

What do I feel about the Multiple Intelligence Test?

According to the test, I am intrapersonal and naturalistic. I feel that this is very true as i feel i do know about myself quite well, my strengths and my weaknesses. That is not to say that I can manipulate my strengths and weaknesses well enough. I am also a very naturalistic person.I may not necessarily be a very outdoor kind of person but i still feel a strong connection to nature.

Modern Fashion Too Casual?

Singapore has a fashion sense that is more often than not casual. Go to a wedding? Should I wear a tuxedo? A suit? No!!! The best would be a Polo Shirt and jeans. What about a opera? A buttoned-up suit? What about a double-breasted suit? No!!! The best would be perhaps a shirt showing your favorite band and trousers.

These habits may seem odd but they are happening in Singapore. In the past, people often felt that their dressing was their number one priority. They insisted on wearing their best, suits and dresses at any time of their life. But if you dress with this kind of 'formality' in contemporary society, you will immediately stick out like a sore thumb in a bunch of people. So what happened in between the past and now? Have people lost their respect for dressing? Or perhaps, as Singaporeans often say, they dress like this because 'its too hot?'Or perhaps, the answer is simpler than this. In the past, people will dress more or less the same. Men in button-up suits and women in flowery, flowing dresses. Whether there is a difference in colors, in quality or material, the people of the past dress more or less in the same way. In other words, whether they are doing it consciously or not, they are following a hidden protocol.

In a way, so are we. Our dress styles may seem weird to people of the past, but then of course, their dress styles weren't exactly normal to us either! I mean, girls nowadays dress in flowery dresses only for extremely important things like weddings and boys nowadays dress in suits only for important events like funerals. Other than that, we dress in our own style, to our own liking. But like the people of the past, we too are following a hidden protocol. This would be the 'trend.' Trends change as time pass, girls may change their jeans for shorts and pants while boys change suits with tees. One day, orange spectacles may be very fashionable and the next day, it could be black. Trends change and people are simply adapting.

Thus, to conclude, i do not agree that modern fashion is to casual. The fashion changes with time and we are not any more casual than people in the past are any more formal. We are simply defining our style as the trend goes.