Josef Penninger

Josef Penninger is considered one of the greatest scientists of our time. The advances that he has made in the field of immunology is beyond belief. In the July 2001 edition of Esquire, Mary Rogan wrote a profile of Penninger, which includes his early life, research, and the numerous scientific breakthroughs that he has achieved since then.
Rogan has evidently done her homework on Penninger's research. It is clear that she took the time to read through and understand his various scientific theses. She has then broken these complicated works down into more understandable terms for her readers. Despite this, most of Rogan's sources are people who know Penninger well. In my opinion, this makes Rogan's piece much more credible and dynamic. By using people who have been exposed to Penninger constantly thoughout their lives, Rogan manages to paint a more competent picture of Penninger's identity and his motivations. These firsthand accounts of Penninger are also much more interesting for the reader to listen to than to simply hear a boring account of Penninger's life from just another journalistic source.
Another way that Rogan increases the reader's enjoyment of her piece is through her use of style and diction. The biggest example of this in the piece is Rogan's comparison of Penninger's research to a bicycle. At several different points in the piece, Rogan returns to the metaphor of a bicycle on a hill to describe the pace of Penninger's research. Especially when the metaphorical bicycle is racing down a hill, it gives the reader a very visceral image of the increasingly furious pace of Penninger's research as he approaches a conclusion. Another good example of Rogan's style is how she periodically writes short paragraphs about Penninger's younger life. These memoirs serve the purpose of further connecting and familiarizing the reader with Penninger and his personality. These recurring examples of style and diction make Rogan's piece much more entertaining to read than a traditional biography of Penninger.

Sedaris vs. McLean

David Sedaris and Stuart McLean are both writers who specialize in humour. There are both similarities and differences between Sedaris' SantaLand Diaries and McLean's Polly Anderson's Christmas Party. Both pieces use humour as a way to engage the reader. By doing this, both writers pull the reader into their stories. Humour is also used by both writers to help the reader relate to the characters. Humour also causes the reader to empathize with the main character, namely Dave Sedaris himself and Stuart McLean's principal character, Dave. This in turn creates a stronger bond between the reader and the character.

Sedaris and McLean also use misfortune and stupidity to create humour, but they each do this in different ways. Sedaris focuses mainly on the stupidity of other people, such as the two loud New Jersey families that come to visit Santa at Macy's. McLean, on the other hand, uses Dave's numerous small misfortunes, which morph into larger problems, to create humour. Sedaris has a wicked sense of sarcasm, and uses it to his full advantage to create a humorous tone for his piece. For example, when Sedaris is asked why he would like to work for UPS, "I answered that I wanted to work for UPS because I like the brown uniforms. What did they want me to say?" This tone in turn creates a mocking, more serious tone than that of McLean. McLean's lighter, more trivial style of humour tends to state an obvious fact, and then contradict that fact in a humorous way. When Dave receives a note from the Ministry of Transportation saying that, "Before we can change the category code on your Driver's Licence, we must receive notification from an opthamologist of the change in your vision.," the next line reads, "Dave's vision hadn't changed in twenty years."

Although Sedaris and McLean both use humour as a way to make the reader empathize with their characters, but the way they each go about creating it is vastly different. These two different styles of humour result in the creation of two unique styles of writing, with Mclean's being lighter and Sedaris' more serious. These styles of humour and subsequent writing styles show that there are both similarities and differences between Sedaris' and McLean's work.

Acts of Faith

Mary Rogan's article, Acts of Faith, details the tragic story of Tyrell Dueck, a thirteen-year-old boy from Martensville, a small town just outside Saskatoon. Tyrell was diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma, one of the most deadly forms of cancer imaginable. Despite this, Dr. Mpofu, the oncologist in charge of Tyrell's case, believed that there was a good chance that Tyrell would survive if his leg was amputated. Shockingly, Tyrell spoke up, saying that he didn't want his leg to be amputated. This began a series of furious legal battles over the guardianship of Tyrell. It was believed that Tyrell's father, Tim, a man of strong religious beliefs, was influencing his son's decision. During this legal battle Tyrell was diagnosed with cancer in his lungs, reducing his chances of survival to fifteen percent at best. The Duecks were finally allowed to pursue alternative medicine at a clinic called American Biologics, located in Tijuana, Mexico. After a week at American Biologics, the clinic announced that Tyrell's lungs were cancer-free. Despite this, Dr. Mpofu stands by his original diagnosis. Only time will tell who is correct.

Numerous times in the article, Mary Rogan reflects on how she would handle the same situation that the Duecks are in. This personal reflection encourages the reader to question themselves as to what they would do. Early in the article, Mary Rogan reflects, "Here in Toronto, reading about Tyrell, I thought about my own eight-year-old son, about what I would do if he had cancer and how it would feel to have him taken away from me, either by cancer or by the government." Tyrell's case is perfect example of a conflict of interests. His death was preventable, yet it was necessary to tear his family apart in order to save him. No parent would want their child taken away from them, but at the same time, they want to protect him as much as they possibly can. I can only imagine how difficult that decision to halt chemotherapy treatments would be, both for Tyrell and his parents, and I fervently hope that I will never have to make that decision, either for myself or any children that I might have.

Instead of chemotherapy, Tyrell's family pursued alternative medicine as
treatment for Tyrell's cancer, which led them to American Biologics. Although affordable, American Biologics engages in many different forms of medical treatment, ranging from plausible to downright ludicrous. A quotation about one of the procedures terrified me. "Hyperthermia, a procedure proposed to the Duecks, involves heating a patient's blood to 108 degrees for sixty to ninety minutes." In addition to being almost sadistic in nature, hyperthermia costs about $10,000. However, according to Mary Rogan, this is relatively cheap in the world of cancer treatments, where treatments at some of the best cancer centres in the world can cost up to $100,000. This raises the question of equality. Why should a person be forced to turn to unsuccessful treatments simply because of a lack of money? It is my view that every person should be given an equal chance to survive cancer, regardless of their financial situation. Cancer treatment is very expensive, and it is unfortunate that so much talent and resources are wasted on the few patients that can pay for the best medical treatment, while the majority of people are denied the best treatments.

Many of the doctors at the Cancer Centre in Saskatoon were hurt by the Duecks' decision to
pursue medical treatment elsewhere. In Dr. Mpofu's words, "There's no consolation here. When you know that you did everything that could have been done, you always feel better. If we have given the child the best treatment that we have and it fails...well, at least we have that consolation. It softens the blow." After doing further research, I learned that Tyrell had in fact succumbed to cancer and passed away later that summer. Although I suspected that Tyrell had died, it was still a shock to first learn of his death. It is a true tragedy that more couldn't be done for him. Instead of acting quickly and decisively to give Tyrell a good chance of survival, doctors and health officials were forced to watch as the Dueck family wasted over $65,000, much of which was donated, on quack medical practices at American Biologics. Of course, all of this could have been prevented if we had produced an effective cure for cancer. Stories such as Tyrell Dueck's serve to remind us of the devastation that cancer can wreak on a family, and how we must devote more resources to finding a cure for this terrible
disease.

Alaskans Speak (In a Frightened Whisper): Palin is "Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, and Mean"

Charley's James article, Alaskans Speak (In a Frightened Whisper): Palin is "Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, and Mean" disturbed me greatly the first time I read it. Even before I had read the article, the title attracted my attention. The fact that Charley James composed an article openly accusing Palin of being, "racist, sexist, vindictive, and mean" shocked me, and compelled me to read the rest of the article. Having said that, it wasn't as if I had had no idea about Palin's views before I read James' article. While following the recent American election, I observed Sarah Palin's behaviour and commentary closely. I wasn't overly impressed by her personality and even less so by her platforms. Numerous times during interviews I found myself shaking my head in disgust, wondering how it was possible for anyone, let alone John McCain, who nominated her as his vice-presidential nominee in the first place, to be stupid enough to vote for her.

My disgust, however, turned into outrage when I read some of Palin's past political experience (or lack thereof). It's beyond my comprehension of how a mayor of a town with a large oil surplus can leave it with more than $22 million in debt, and yet not have spent anything on the city's infrastructure. Even according to her own mother-in-law, Palin is probably one of the least qualified people in America to run for the office of vice-president. Not only that, but Palin is known by her colleages in Alaska for having a nasty temper. The last thing that America needs right now is a leader that evaluates ideas based on who proposes them, and not on their actual merit. It's also difficult to see how a politician who has a reputation for refusing to compromise managed to make it so far up the political ladder.

I've always suspected Sarah Palin of being a bit of a white supremacist, but I had never seen any hard evidence to suggest this until I read Charley James' article. In the face of testimony by several sources and the examination of Sarah Palin's past political career, I find myself even more elated and relieved that Americans had enough common sense to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States. However, Sarah Palin has already voiced her intent to run for president in the next election. I hope for America's sake that she is never elected.

Obama & McCain's Speeches: Compare & Contrast

On November 4th, 2008, the first African-American was elected to the office of President of the United States of America. Barack Obama gave his acceptance speech just after the concession speech of John McCain. Despite the fact that McCain's speech was a concession speech and Obama's was an acceptance speech, the two speeches were both similar and different in a number of ways.
McCain's and Obama's speeches have a similar theme, which is to attempt to unite the American people and to heal the divides caused by the election. McCain called on his supporters to, "move beyond it and work together to get our country moving again." Obama makes a similar point, in which he entreated Americans to, "resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long." There are a couple of subtle rhetorical devices that are used to evoke a response from the audience. For example, when McCain said, "I wish Godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president. " He is implying to his audience that he is ready to follow Obama's lead and that they should do likewise. Similarly, Obama makes subtle references to his campaign having been founded by normal people. He told America, "our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington." In this way he suggests that the American government is not removed from the people themselves, and that he understands the problems of individual Americans. Also, both McCain and Obama end their speeches in almost the exact same way, saying, "God bless the United States of America." To summarize, both speeches praised the greatness of the American nation and the achievement of its people in electing the first African-American president.
The speeches, however, do have their differences. We must remember when analyzing these two speeches that McCain's is a concession, while Obama's is an acceptance, so naturally there were differences between the two speeches. The focus of McCain's speech is directed towards thanking the American people for their support and offering his own support to President Obama. "I urge all Americans, " he told his audience, "who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him [Obama], but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences." While McCain's speech was very gracious, however, Obama's acceptance speech, delivered to almost a million people in Chicago, was a masterpiece of rhetorical devices. Obama made numerous references to the struggle of African-Americans to achieve equality in the United States. This he did by promising to rebuild the nation, "the only way it's been done in America for 221 years...calloused hand by calloused hand." Obama also quotes Martin Luther King Jr., calling him, "a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that "We Shall Overcome." Yes, we can." Arguably the best example of rhetorical devices in Obama's speech is his use of repetition. While nearing the end of his speech, Obama continually repeats his famous catchphrase, "Yes, we can," while speaking of the accomplishments of America. This repetition builds tension and excitement in the audience, and makes Obama's speech more effective as a result.
In conclusion, McCain's and Obama's separate speeches both have their similarities and differences. Both speeches praise the United States and promise to heal the divides formed by the election. However, McCain's speech is geared towards encouraging the public to support Obama as the new president. Obama's speech, on the other hand, praises the progress of America and her people. It also promises change for a nation that is in dire need of new leadership. It is in these ways that these speeches are both similar and different.

Narrative Drive

Narrative drive, when used correctly, can encourage a reader to continue reading in order to discover what happens next in a story. Two stories which make excellent use of narrative drive are Home by Russel Smith, and A Perfect Day for Bananafish by J.D. Salinger. First, let's begin with Home. Smith has written this novel in the 2nd person narrative mode. The frequent use of personal pronouns such as "you" help the reader relate to the story. By never specifying the identity of the protagonist, Smith has created a situation where each individual reader can create a protagonist for the story in their own mind. This is an effective form of narrative drive because it makes a connection between the reader and the character(s) in the story, which encourages the reader to continue reading. Smith's use of descriptive and sensory detail also create narrative drive. By adding detail to his story, Smith creates a visceral world in which the reader can get lost. For example, instead of Smith writing that the protagonist simply entered a room, he goes on to describe the room as, "...brightly lit, low ceilinged, furnished with long trestle tables scarred with initials."
J.D. Salinger's short story, A Perfect Day for Bananafish also uses narrative drive to great effect. One of the ways in which Salinger does this is by foreshadowing the later events of the story. At the beginning of the story, Muriel's mother tells her that, "...there's a chance - a very great chance, he said - that Seymour may completely lose control of himself." The reader is told very early in the narrative of the story that it's likely that Seymour will lose control of himself due to his shell shock. This probability of an outburst of insanity keeps the reader interested throughout the story, wondering when and where Seymour will finally lose control. It is only right at the end of the story that Seymour finally shoots himself, which forces readers to read through the whole story until they are finally rewarded with Seymour's death. Another example of narrative drive is how Seymour interacts with Sybil. In order to lull Sybil into a false sense of security, Seymour appeals to her imagination by telling her stories. While completely false, these stories serve to entertain the reader, encouraging them to continue onwards. In this way, Salinger ensures that the reader continues to read his story right to the end.

Why Crime Fiction is Good for You

In the essay Why Crime Fiction is Good for You, crime novelist Ian Rankin describes to us the elements of crime fiction and how they appeal to readers. The first thing that Rankin does is address the long-standing view that crime fiction is not a "true" form of fiction. Rankin argues that any type of fiction carries elements such as violence, mystery, deception, plot twists, and moral dilemmas, which are all found in crime fiction. Rankin simplifies this argument even further by stating that any novel must create suspense in order to make a reader curious, which encourages the reader to continue reading. The first relevant point that Rankin makes about crime fiction is that, "death never happens without a reason and the causes of death never go unpunished." However, this convention applies more to the traditional types of crime fiction, namely the whodunnit. As the genre of crime fiction has developed, authors have moved away from the tidy endings of this type of story, claiming that it is not reminiscent of the real world. This is especially true of the last chapter in the crime novel, in which the true culprit is discovered and all the pieces of the puzzle are put together. Rankin tells us that more modern crime fiction is more true of the real world, where crime cannot always be rationalized or brought to justice. This new form of crime fiction, Rankin says, provides, "a perfect tool for the dissection of society." Crime fiction is by nature satirical, and this can be seen in the traditionel whodunnit plot line of a peaceful village shocked and disrupted by a violent and unexpected crime. Finally, Rankin points out the last important aspect of crime fiction, which are the emotions evoked by the story. As Rankin says, "A well-executed narrative description can make us feel the pain of the sufferer." This is partly what makes crime fiction such a popular genre. Many people want to experience emotions such as anger, fear, and jealousy. However, the only way to experience a mix of these emotions without causing harm to others is by reading crime fiction.

One of Ian Rankin's own short stories, called A Deep Hole, is a good example of his important points about crime fiction. The main antagonist of the story is Daintry, a sort of low-level money-lender, who has a tendency to become violent when his loans are not paid back. Daintry is eventually knifed by a thug who is suspected to have been in the pay of Mr McAndrew, a former gangster who owed Daintry money. All of the deaths in A Deep Hole occur for a reason. People die as a direct result of not paying Daintry back, and Daintry himself dies as a result of beating up Mr McAndrew. In this way, death always occurs for a reason, and the cause of death is always punished. Daintry lives in a stereotypical housing project where violence and crime are a reality of everyday life. This leads into Ian Rankin's second point, that crime fiction can be used to show a cross-section of society. The world that Ian Rankin has created shows the violent and rough nature of a community plagued by corrupt individuals. This sort of world is a very real problem in reality, and steps must be taken to prevent these sorts of misfortunes from happening. The last important aspect of crime fiction is that it evokes emotions in the reader. This is certainly true in A Deep Hole. We can feel the tension when Daintry asks the protagonist to dispose of a body in a hole dug for a new highway. Readers are then led through the turmoil of emotions that the protagonist feels while he attempts to get rid of the body. These emotions oscillate between anger, fear, and panic. When mixed together, they provide an emotional roller-coaster which compels the reader to continue reading. When used together, all of these elements blend together to create a driving storyline and interesting characters, all of which pique the curiosity of the reader and encourage them to finish the story.