The Final Stretch

With the final project coming up, I am scared about finding the right sources, completing the media presentation, and making time to go talk to some people in the writing centre, making sure I am on topic. Like I said in my paper, I really want to talk about this topic of "internet cruelty" because I am very passionate about it but I am so scared I will drift too far off topic. I might have to reevaluate some of my questions to make them come back to the idea of "Cool." If I can talk about how people tweak their personalities and make themselves meaner in order to be seen as "cool" by their friends and other internet dwellers, I think I can nail it (or at least come close).

If I could, though, I would like to hear about the presentation again. What do we have to talk about, are people able to ask questions, will we have time, can I skip over it, are you comparing others' presentations to my own? For the most part, I think I understand the project... I just hope that if time allows, we might be able to have multiple peer reviews. I want to get as many ideas on my writing as possible from multiple people throughout my entire process, but if not then I guess that is what the writing centre is for anyways.

Group Discussion- Klosterman

1.As he talked with Ira Glass, we learned that Ira was projecting more than actually sharing, he edited as he spoke. However, if you sound sincere people are more willing to talk to you which is what Glass uses to interviewees to open up. This applies to the concept of the cultivated identity and how people try to seem like what others think they seem like. 2.Klosterman wonders why people answer questions about themselves. Why they would open themselves up to an audience they don't know and talk even though there is a good chance they can be misrepresented to that large unkown audience. 3.He tries to answer this question by asking himself why he answers questions. Is he a nice person? Is it just human nature to answer a question? Or do some people just like to talk? In some ways this is adequate because he brings up good answers to these questions but personally, I think that there is no standard formula why a person is compelled to answer a question. 4.Errol Morris talked about priviledged access and how we should be able to ask ourselves a question and get the answer. When talking about Rick Rosner he mentioned that people have a little black box inside that needs to be opened up and that talking it out with someone else helps to figure out what is in that box. Both of these apply to the idea of trust in the answers because sometimes a person doesn't know how to answer if they ask himself but when talking with another person, it helps to release ideas he may have realised he even had. 5.It is a reasonable assumption. If you don't like what is going to be printed you probably shouldn't be interviewed but I think faith comes into play. Having faith and being optimistic about what will come out of an interview is usually what compels a person to openly to talk, so that they are understood better or that we as a whole can understand human nature.

Ask Me, Tell Me.

"I don't feel like I know myself, let alone the people I interview. I might actually know the people I interview better than I know myself."
-Errol Morris

I was on my high school's newspaper staff for two years and a lot of my articles consisted of doing a profile on athletes, teachers, unrecognized staff, and every day, run of the mill students. I got such a thrill from asking these people all different types of questions, mainly because I liked comparing their answers to mine. I would also play a game, of sorts, and guess what their answer would be. I like being on the asking side rather than the receiving side because I like hearing, listening, and understanding others. It's really hard for me to talk about myself since, like Morris, I feel like I don't know myself. So it is just easier to shut up and understand others. My points don't come out as clearly as I want them to or people just don't understand, so instead of boasting of my odd thought process and "out there" ideas, I just take in everyone else's stories.

It is really fun though, when the person starts to weave lies. Truthfully, in all of my articles I wrote, I wouldn't doubt it if the people lied about half of what they told me. "What are your hobbies?" Of course they won't say drinking and smoking weed in friends' apartments or other risque things like that. Instead they will settle with a calm, mature response of "I play chess and volunteer with local homeless shelters." Bull. But whatever. To me, that just pieces together their persona and identity. Famous people, I'm sure have done this, too. They hide certain facts that would be detrimental to their career even though the paparazzi contradicts what they say with photo proof. Like I said, it just builds their characters.

So I play little games while interviewing which is why I like it so much. But it can almost feel like you are walking in a mine field when being interviewed.

"I assumed answering questions would be easier than asking them. This proved completely untrue. The process of being interviewed is much more stressful than the process of interrogating someone. If you make a mistake while you're interviewing someone else, there is no penalty (beyond the fact that it will be harder to write a complete story). But if you make a mistake while being interviewed-- if you admit something you'd prefer to keep secret, or if you flippantly answer a legitimately serious question, or if you thoughtlessly disparage a peer you barely know, or if you answer the phone while on drugs-- that mistake will inevitably become the focus of what is written."

I think it is human nature to want to share ideas and stories, but I will do that when I am talking to a stranger I will never meet again and who will not record anything or do anything that could damage my reputation. I'll stick to talking to strangers without trading names or information and just talk, or tell everything to the people I trust. Safety is in numbers but secrets are safer alone.

The Cool Hunt- Simpsons Style

The definition of cool is always changing and people are always looking for the new "it" thing. It went from Teenage Angst songs to watching people get hurt. Rock and roll, that lost it's title of cool was moved to the oldies and newer music was the next best thing. Homer was caught in a struggle between thinking rock was cool then trying to be the new, updated version of cool by working at the freak show in Lollipolluza. The kids and youth seem to be the group that dictates what goes and what stays, even if the older population doesn't understand or doesn't agree with that idea. The Simpsons episode may have exaggerated some ideas in the episode when it went from thinking music was cool to thinking strange is cool. In today's society we see that. Specific example- people focused on Lady Gaga's music at first but then she started dressing a bit more.. out there... and the idea of cool shifted from music to "freak show." Homer was trying to be a freak to be accepted in society and by doing so he was famous. In the readings, a boy liked a womens' shoe so the company tried to advertise it towards men. By being a little different, the company found a new "cool."

The "Cool" Sensation

That "cool," tingly feeling people are striving to experience is something that is not unheard of and that has been done many, many times before. "Cool" is a repetition and a come-back of old things since new, original ideas are not "in" now a days. Our friends, The Backstreet Boys, tried their cool come-back when they sang "Everybody (Backstreet's Back)" but their lyrics were a little off:

Am I original, yeaaaah
Am I the only one, yeeeeaah
Am I seeeexual, yeeeaaahhhh!

Sorry, boys. You're not original, you're not the only ones, and a big N-O to being sexual. Nice try, though.

Trends are something that repeat, only with one or two things that have been changed about it. Take Ugly Sweaters, for example. This year, around Winter, horrendous looking sweaters were “cool” party themes. The only thing that is different from the old, retro, granny sweaters is that people changed them and cut to show a bit more cleavage and that the sweaters no longer smelled like moth balls. We keep relying on old styles for our new fashions and to make them even more “hip,” we add some razzle dazzle to them.

Something that I think is trying to achieve cool-status now a days isn’t a fashion statement, but a personality quirk. It is cruelty. Go on the internet and look around Youtube, Facebook, even MSNBC news articles (just look down in the comments section) and you will see people saying horrible, terrible things about others. Sarcasm, profanities, and flat-out heartless comments litter the page. Look at what people say about Rebecca Black. Not only is she being harassed on Youtube on her own video, but also by people like Jay Leno. We get our humour from being mean to others. This cruelty has been around for years, but with the internet and sites allowing people to be anonymous, it is in the spotlight more. Especially with the cyber-bulling that caused teens to commit suicide. When I look around Facebook, people don't post nice things, or if they do, they are rare. People are usually saying "My Prof sucks... this friend of mine sucks... This artist sucks.." I have even seen people say people like Justin Bieber and Rebecca Black should go die. Now, I'm not a huge fan of either of them but just because they make music that isn't the best doesn't mean they are not real people with feelings. They read these comments and Rebecca Black even said on Good Morning America that someone wanted her to get an eating disorder and cut herself so she knew what it was like to be beautiful and then to kill her family. Whoa. Whoa. These comments come out of peoples' mouths without them giving it a second thought. It had become a natural response to have a mean comeback or to just say something heartless to someone in passing.

I think this internet cruelty is something that is spreading like an annoying, hurtful disease. It is "cool" to be sarcastic and to "Hate" on others, which, in my opinion, is the worst thing that could be described as as being cool. I hope that this plague is something that will vanish and the new "cool" thing will be genuine kindness.

Death to Powerpoint

Edward Tufte makes so many excellent points that I agree with 100% about powerpoint presentations. Last year in my college writing II course at my other college, I had to create a powerpoint that discussed what I wanted to find in my research paper, but it had to be simple and easy for anyone to understand. My topic was over sexism and racism in Disney films. We had to have at least 4 pictures in our 6-slide presentation. Oh, god, I wanted to stab myself when I had to create this... this thing. I thought it was a waste of time- in the classroom and outside of it, too. I could have easily listened to all 20-some other students talk about their ideas for 1 minute instead of watching horribly made, monotonous powerpoint presentations that took 4-5 minutes to show.

Granted, some people need to see information in front of them, such as graphs, charts, or in some cases, words if they are visual learners and that is where powerpoints can help students, teachers, clients, and coworkers out, but any other time, when a person is using a powerpoint just to make their idea "pretty" it is a waste of time. Like Tufte says, "Often, the more intense the detail, the greater the clarity and understanding" but teachers like to put the bare minimum on their slides to make it easier for themselves and the audience.

Is Google making us stupid?

1: The amount of information that is out there on the internet seems intoxicating because it breaks our focus on what we really use it for. The way we perceive information is changing because when we look up topics online we rarely spend the time to actually remember it, but rather just reference it since we could easily look it up again at anytime.

2: The internet is one of the most convenient information databases to look up practically anything that you find interesting. Your able to post opinions about anything, speak freely, explore any topic in great detail. Pretty much you can live in the internet. The tools out there are vast and rising, as well as the ability to purchase anything that you would need to live from the internet. I'm pretty sure Amazon.com has virtually anything the consumer would need.

3: British library offers access on online journals. People who read these articles that are offered online make people impatient because they end up just skimming through a few pages of the article and then if they can't find what they want they just skip to the next website. Reading online causes people to interpret text, which makes the mental connection that forms when we read in detail without being distracted, makes us largely disengaged.

4: A big concern of his seems that Google tries to lead us to distractions, as a way for companies who sponsor Google to make money. Some of the information is right there at your fingertips so since you can look it up so quick, he says then why bother even trying to remember it.

Googling Our Minds Away

This article caught my attention because I understand what the author is trying to say, but also because I want to defend technology. Earlier this week, I was discussing communication with my brother and he said he thought technology was destroying interaction, conversation, and communication between people. We were becoming lazier, becoming more antisocial while in person, and making us impatient. I know this is true because I have seen it and I am also guilty of this. But I still defended technology saying it helps us get information faster when we need it. I believe the same thing goes for Google.

Yes, it makes us lazier but we are able to find crucial or sometimes useless information faster. Students are able to type final papers in a matter of hours before the deadline without even having to skim the pages of a book. I don't think Google is a Bad thing. It is helping us find what we need without having to search through futile text and information to get to our final destination. The author complained that he gets bored with reading long text because he is so used to having short spurts of text with his answer/information/etc in it right then and there. Well, sorry to be so rude but I think that is his own fault. I have been using Google since I learned about the internet and I still can sit down and read a book. I can read through pages and pages because I have patience and because I have discipline. I switch between using the internet and using books to find information, too, so maybe my brain hasn't bee rewired like others' have.

Author Nicholas Carr also explains that he is looking for distractions while he skims through articles and papers online. I believe, once again, this can be caused by the lack of restraint. When I have something I need to do or read, I will turn off all other things and focus on that project and that alone. Cell phone is off, music is either soft (close to inaudible) or off and I am able to focus on the text. Of course people will look for distractions when performing tasks that aren't much fun or exciting but that should not be blamed on Google. Nor the internet in general.

This entire article made it sound like someone was trying to place the blame on someone other than ourselves for our laziness and inability to focus. Sometimes the internet and technology can help us divert our attention but it is not the scape goat. It is not technology's fault we are so bored easily. People just need to do everything in moderation- using real books instead of Googling/Binging/Yahooing (are those last two even verbs?), shutting down our power and having face-to-face interactions, and writing with pen and paper instead of hoping the computers will type our papers and thoughts themselves. Technology isn't the enemy, it's a friend. We're just trying to prosecute the wrong person/thing instead of taking the blame for our own lack of control.

"Sim"ulated Reality

1. We thought the most interesting part of the reading was how philosophical he became when playing God. At first he was addicted because he could make SimChuck could do whatever he wanted but he saw how materialistic his character was and he became conflicted with the game by intertwining the reality of SimChuck with the reality of real Chuck and not seeing that sometimes a game is just a game.

2. Vanish by Evan Ratcliff was the first reading that came to mind because Evan changed his appearnce and his identity so many times trying to reinvent himself the same way Chuck was trying to reinvent himself through SimChuck.

3. In some cases, children may advance too fast depending on the uses they have for the computer, but it would be a stretch to say that children would solely think like a computer because they have the capacity to imagine, to create out of nothing whereas a computer only has the capacity to do whatever it is programmed to do.

An Absolute Personality

All throughout life we over come obstacles, fall into calamity, witness life-changing experiences... all of which are unexpected and sometimes untimely. When all of this happens, of course I do not believe we are ever at a "final draft" with our personality and with ourselves. To say that would be offensive to me, personally. I would like to think of ourselves as living, growing people that change. Of course there will be constants such as what we like and don't like to eat or (sometimes, depending on the person) what we Believe in. I am ready to accept the fact that later in life I may no longer Love kayaking or Broomball. If I ever pop out kids, I may actually like them as opposed to now where I don't really tolerate them. Unless we count Change as being a part of who we are, I think people will adapt to their surroundings and lifestyle while it changes, thus changing themselves and never really having a "final draft." Maybe you should look at it as more of a chapter rather than a draft. The story continues but you can't revise what has already happened... you can just keep on reading.

Sim World vs My World

As an avid Sims video game player, I found this article to be a real eye-opener. I would think, whenever I'd play, about what my characters do in their life in comparison to my own life. The game is so addicting that I would mindlessly control this "person's" life for hours but never really accomplish anything by doing so, save buying pieces of furniture, entertainment, and other expensive, useless things.
Yet, I still would wonder... Why are we, the consumers, so captivated by this game? The game of life. (I think it's kind of humourous that while we are playing someone else's life, we are wasting our own.)

I realized, while playing the game a few months ago, it is so interesting because we can see what this person wants. We can see their mood and their dreams and who they have connections with, etc. In my life, I am constantly bombarded with thoughts that contradict themselves and I am also confused by my needs as apposed to my desires. What mood am I am? What will make me happy? What do I want my career to be? What are my interests? Who do I actually like and who am I just "class partners" with?
While I am struggling with these thoughts that are constantly changing, my Sim is a source of consistency. You can read them and understand them by the charts on the side. There is no guessing as to what they want when their bars clearly state hunger, full bladder, comfort, etc. This is our chance, also, to break away from our lives and create someone either better or worse than ourselves. Feeling bad about yourself? Just make a Sim who burns down the house. He's worse off than you are! Want to imagine being rich and powerful? Just use the cheat codes and watch your Sim float in thousands of Simoleans instantly.

Are we a bad society for playing Life with someone other than ourselves? I don't think so. This is our chance to entertain ourselves in a safe, relatively cheap, and fun (sometimes) way. As much as I would like to think deep into this game about life and how it shows my ethos as a person or the facts of living, etc, I'd just like to think of it, also, as just a game. Just a way of losing our identity and taking in someone else's for a few minutes/hours while we play. Sometimes a game is just a game...

A Slummy New World

I think this short story is closely related to the other reading about Evan Ratliff. It shows that Ratliff was not the only one who wants to hide in plain sight (even if the short story was fictional, it still shows that other people have at least thought of the possibility). Even though Ratliff hid for a different reason, both readings showed how thrilling it could be- to be someone else. I can't say I would go out on the street for fashion, but I would like to go out and take a step out of my comfort zone to try something that would allow me to be separated from the life I live now for a short period of time... just to try. The Keyes had a nice thought, getting out of their rich and comfortable lives to something dirtier. By stepping into a different life, a person can feel rejuvenated. In the readings, Inky says she is falling in Love with her husband/boyfriend but that connection faded while they were living a comfortable life. Now that they are on the streets, having no worries, she is feeling better about everything and everyone.

In a way, this glorifies the sadness of homelessness. I understand it is amazing to get out of the normal, everyday routine once in a while, but to, in a way, mock the real homeless people sounds cruel. If this weren't a fictional story, it would enrage me. Just knowing that those people are doing this because it is a fad and that they can go back to their normal, rich lives any day they want it kind of disgusting. Sometimes I don't think of the Rich as real people... they think they are above the law, above morals, and are super-human.

Thankfully this was only a fictional tale. I did enjoy the twist of an ending. Moving from high class living to trying the fads of being a slum, to now, hiding in your old identity of a rich individual. Maybe the persona we have now is really the best refuge to have...

Writer or Not?

Am I a writer? As much as I write, I don't think I am. When I do create something, I do it for myself. I don't usually have any intention on showing the public or even my friends what I Say. Even though it might be cool to make a piece of work that everyone wants to read, I still want to keep some things to myself. As greedy as it may sound, sometimes the writings you compose might be the only things you can call your own. I think a writer is more of a profession. It can be a hobby, but I think that would make that person (including myself) more of a "closet-writer." But then comes the question, "can you write?" Yes, I am physically able to write and I am able to make something that is pretty coherent. "So wouldn't that make you a writer, if you can do all of that?" By pure definition, yes, it does, but I still continue to look at being a "writer" as someone who wants to put their material out there. Someone who writes to have readers.

...someone who just desperately wants to tell a story, share their points of view , or just to eject thoughts to an audience... even if it just one other person.

Evanesce

In a way, I envy Evan Ratliff for having the ability to just leave. He was able to vanish into thin air just because he could, and even though he was paranoid, I still bet he felt free. To start over. To be whoever he wants to be.

Granted, he put a lot of money and work into it, but I still admire and envy Ratliff for being able to escape his life and create this façade. Since I still live at home, I can't just vanish off the face of the earth like he did. My mum would kill me... But I have tried this before, stopping all communication between myself and others and myself and technology. During a rough patch in my life, I took out the battery of my cell phone, disabled my social network sites, and unplugged my computer from the internet- just to escape. I told a few people that if they wanted to get a hold of me, they knew where I'd be and they knew how to get a hold of me. For two weeks, I was off line and out of the loop of technology. I didn't need Ratliff's software that hid my internet address, nor did I need a prepaid cell phone. I was hiding, but not in the same way he was. I just did not want to put myself and my personal life out there. He just didn't want to get caught. He was playing a game of Hide and Seek while I was just playing the game of Life.

Even though Ratliff had $2,000 to lose, it still seems as though he talks about the experience like a game. If he was legitimately trying to give himself a new persona and reinvent himself, he certainly did it in a weird way. Thrilling, but complicated and expensive way. When I went out, I only had to worry about gas money and running into the person I was trying to stay away from- none of which we that big of a threat since I was far and away in places only my closest friends knew about. Also, while I was trying to do this for myself, he was doing this to entertain, almost. "What had started as an exercise in escape quickly became a cross between a massively multiplayer online game and a reality show."

When I hid from the world for those two weeks, I didn't feel bad at all. I was ignoring the world to help myself. But then again, I wasn't exactly lying to people... I just wasn't answering them. It was nice to see that Ratliff had some guilty conscience about lying, though. "When I convinced people that I really was James Donald Gatz, I occasionally felt a mischievous thrill. Most of the time, however, I felt awful. The people I encountered weren’t credulous; they were just nice."

All in all, I am envious of his experience- being able to flee everything and to travel. But, on the other hand, I know I could never do that. I know that, at least while I am still in college and while my mum still tolerates talking/acknowledging me, I cannot just up and vanish without telling the people around me. As a girl and as a person who barely has enough money to pay for a year of college and car insurance, I would be in some danger- worrying about creepers and worrying about being able to survive on what little money and resources I have. If I could though... if I could some other time, I would in a heartbeat.

Questioning Our Literacy

Facebook and texting is more conversational writing. Writing is a large umbrella with many little topics underneath it, such as conversational writing, scholarly writing, and free writing, just to name a few. People are able, hopefully, to tell when each one is appropriate to use when composing something.

I think, to find one’s own voice, you have to write how you feel comfortable with and in a way that gets the point across. We believe the writer might take bits and pieces of anothers' opinion but not all of it. Once they read some topic, that idea is in the mind of the other person and the writer works from there to construct their idea. Everyone’s voice is kind of a patchwork of others but by doing that, we are able to create our own.

By copying a voice or someone else's voice, writers might not exactly have their own genuinely authentic voice of their own. I think many people would like to keep to the norm, so there is little room for variations in writing. In school, it might be hard to grow a new, unique voice because teachers (at least in high schools and middle schools) try to make their students write in a certain way because some ways of writing might be too “out there.” Not trying to bash the school system or how teachers teach, but sometimes they try to push their thoughts, habits, and ways of writing onto their students.

“It depends on what you open yourself up to…what you experience and even how you’re raised.”

“I think it goes back to what we said earlier… you adopt certain ideas from other readings and use a combination of them to make your own voice. … it really depends on each person because it varies”

The media plays a big role because it exposes societies to certain things that could influence certain behaviours, way of speaking, and even people’s way of life.

Shared Motivation

I think I could understand Orwell and why he write better than I did with Joan Didion's reason. I got the impression that Orwell wrote so he could have an escape from his lonesome life. He used this as a way of challenging himself, too. The easier pieces of work gave him no satisfaction. "To begin with there was the made-to-order stuff which I produced quickly, easily and without much pleasure to myself." I agree with him whole heartily because I write to take myself somewhere else or to free my mind of nonsensical thoughts, but that is my free writing. I enjoy writing other papers and essays because it helps me think and it challenged me, yet entertains me. "When I was about sixteen I suddenly discovered the joy of mere words, i.e. the sounds and associations of words...and the spelling ‘hee’ for ‘he’ was an added pleasure." Skipping around in his reading, I found that Orwell wrote for himself. He wanted to write, not to please others, but to please himself. Once again, I agree with this statement. I want to write for myself and write in my own style, even though I will cave into what others want (such as teachers) once in a while.
I can understand Joan's troubles, though. She talks about being distracted, and that I can relate to. When the time comes, I can and will sit down and focus, but before the final countdown begins, I will dillydally as long as I can with other, more eventful things. The one thing she said, though, is that writing is an act of saying "I." I don't agree with this whatsoever. In high school, I had to write a persuasive paper for something I did not believe in. I wrote that paper because I had to, but I did not say "See this topic MY way" or "Think the way I do." I did it because it was a chance to expose the reader to a different mindset, but it doesn't have to be my own.

Writing One Thought at a Time

Why Write? That's a pretty open-ended question? I write a lot because it sometimes help to put your thoughts onto paper/blog/computer/etc instead of letting them float around in your mind. I have a folder full of writings, most of them are just rambles and rants that sometimes makes a point and sometimes just expresses an emotion I need to get out. I don't want to waste a thought, so I always try to put something down on paper.

George Orwell included this in his entry about writing: "I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life." I liked his idea of a "private world" because I think writing can help create that. It is just a way for one's own thoughts to come to life, even if no one else sees them.

Overall, Obama made the speech more familiar.
Makes it more listener friendly
Revisions pulled it all together
More personal
"That large-heartedness -- that concern and regard for the plight of others -- is not a partisan feeling"
Unified audience
"members of Congress -- Democrats and Republicans -- did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind."

The People Watchers

1. He seems like a realist in the end in comparasion to the beginning and middle of the text. It seemed like he had always wanted to quit his job but this story gave him a profound reason to quit his job at the grocey store. The story was bitter-sweet because he has to come to reality at some point and realize what is going on.

3. He seems to be able to see others identites because people fall into a certain pattern after a while espeicially in the grocery store where you see people shopping in a grocery store every day. The setting of the grocery store never changes but the people who enter it and leave it do change which could give Sammy upper hand on seeing one's identity.

4. Writing in that intense detail is very interesting because it is evident that someone can get so lost in the moment with explaining one simple story. The purpose of the details is to give the reader a good image of what Sammy saw through his own eyes as well as the feelings he was going through at the time.

Somewhere Someone is Thinking About You

Once I read this piece by John Updike, I couldn't help but fall in love with the way he describes the girls. Sometimes readers skip over huge paragraphs of text just because it is boring and describes something insignificant. But I find beauty in text like that. The author puts so much effort into describing all of the senses he or she is experiencing and all of the the beauty or horror or other feeling that they are encountering. In those few pages that Updike wrote, I felt the yearning that Sammy felt. I felt the embarrassment that Queenie endured. At the end, I was even able to feel the same exact way Sammy would after he walked out and "felt how hard the world was going to be to [him] hereafter."

I have read a piece written by Henry Rollins that I thought of when I realized Sammy tried but did not get what he desired. He put all of this effort into explaining the girls but never was recognized by them after he "heroically" quit his job. Rollins also describes his muse in such detail that the reader can feel it and that sensation, no matter what it is, follows them for a little bit. The piece is:

Somewhere someone is thinking of you. Someone is calling you an angel. This person is using celestial colors to paint your image. Someone is making you into a vision so beautiful that it can only live in the mind. Someone is thinking of the way your breath escapes your lips when you are touched. How your eyes close and your jaw tightens with concentration as you give pleasure a home. These thoughts are saving a life somewhere right now. In some airless apartment on a dark, urine stained, whore lined street, someone is calling out to you silently and you are answering without even being there. So crystalline. So pure. Such life saving power when you smile. You will never know how you have cauterized my wounds. So sad that we will never touch. How it hurts me to know that I will never be able to give you everything I have.

Even though I think he was trying to do something morally right, Sammy put himself under the bus by quitting his job. If the girls were unattractive, I think he might have not stood up to his boss and would have continued his monotonous job and mundane life as it was before. I'm not sure what Updike's purpose was for writing this piece, but I think he did put out a message, whether good or bad, of watching what and for whom you stand up.