This is a really cool paper I wrote for GFI

The D Paper

Culture can be called the stuff one does not think about during everyday life. But People from other cultures are able to notice these things that we do not, these things that we believe to be normal. In "The Ghost" from A Good Scent From a Strange Mountain, an old Vietnamese man notices something about people on busses.

"Let's say I got onto a bus, a Greyhound bus, and you saw me coming down the aisle, an Oriental man. Your eye wouldn't be practiced enough to know by looking at me that I'm Vietnamese I'm just Oriental at first glance and you certainly wouldn't know that I have a special story to tell, a story about ghosts. All you see is a late-middle-aged sort of shabby Oriental man, a little frayed at the collar and cuffs, his hair a little shaggy over the ears, and he's heading your way and there is a seat next to you. As he approaches, would you raise your newspaper to cover your face or maybe turn to look outside even though we are sitting in the New Orleans bus station and there's nothing to see out there but a sidewalk and a driver throwing some suitcases into the baggage compartment? This way he would know he wasn't welcome in that seat, and being an Oriental gentleman, he would know how to take the hint and walk on past and sit someplace else. Or would you keep your eyes on him as he approaches and maybe even give him a little smile so he knows he's welcome to sit in that empty seat? It's just far enough to Bioxi that it's good to sit next to someone for the trip."

Unfortunately, due to extenuating circumstances pertaining to my father, I was unable to attend Culture Night. So instead I will consider attending Great Ideas an equal to attending Culture Night, except instead of featuring the cultures of the foreign exchange students, it features the foreign culture of Professor Wojcik. The significance of all of this is that yet again there is something I am supposed to "get" that I am unable to get.

In this scene the character is noticing the Americans way of letting one know that they are not wanted by ignoring them. This is a common thing to do when one does not wish to talk to someone; they just simply avoid all possible eye contact. And this is what is happening in this passage. Since the man is of another culture he is able to realize how silly and indirect this act truly is. In a later passage the character went on to explain how he was able to see whether or not he was boring the American by the way he was acting. After thinking about this, I realize that I as well use this deliberate no eye contact to avoid certain individuals as well. Most Americans are able to pick up on these signals instantly, but they do not realize that they do.

Now from my experiences in Great Ideas class, I noticed how Professor Wojcik has no problem discussing subjects such as the enjoyment in sex, pornography, and killing. I realize that this is possibly not enough to consider Professor Wojcik his own culture, but I have the right to this opinion provided that I provide proof. Most American individuals realize that, yes, there is enjoyment in such activities, but they also realize that their culture has taught them to not openly express these things. Therefore we are able to notice these abnormalities in Professor Wojcik. Other differences in culture I am able to notice is the odd manner in which he gives his essays, and the odd subjects on which they are based. English teachers of the American culture give short simple essay questions that, on average, take up no more than one-quarter of a page. But Professor Wojcik gives essay questions in a letter format to his students, which take up an entire page. Professor Wojcik also had odd subjects that include real life experiences in essays, which is also unconventional. All of these irregularities are apparent because he is of another culture. Now if one was to say that I have no right to this opinion because I have not shown satisfactory proof, consider this: perhaps you are unable to see my proof because you are of the same culture and you cannot see the proof.

What I get out of this study of culture is that I don't get anything. I have proved that people from another culture are able to see things that people of that culture take for granted, but I do not see what more there is to get. Perhaps that is all that there is to get, to realize how people are different and maybe appreciate it. So what I get is that I do not get anything, besides the obvious point of the paper, which I have already proven. Perhaps there is a reason why I do not get anything. The best way to describe this is through an example. Some people are just able to get some things and not others. Like Nick Borton for some reason has not been able to get English for many years now. He had been lucky until his senior year in high school, where he almost failed the second semester of English. He struggled and struggled, but was unable to get what he was supposed to in the essays, and so he barely passed solely on his ability to write well. This could be likened to giving Professor Wojcik the task of simplifying a simple digital logic circuit. He could spend as much time sitting there and staring at it, but he just would not be able to get it. And now we ask why. Why could Professor Wojcik get something out of this culture analysis, and not get how to simplify a simple digital logic circuit? But why could Nick Borton be able to get how to simplify a digital logic circuit and not be able to get anything out of this culture analysis? Perhaps it is because they are of two different cultures, Wojcik from a literary oriented culture, and Nick is from a mathematical oriented culture. The two can see the differences, and oddities of the two, but they are unable to embrace the characteristics of the other.

Ideas I had before the paper

I've been studying "lierature for five years now and i managed to BS my way through it for five years.
I was the salutatorian of my high school class, and I nearly failed English the last semester of my senior year because I didn't get it and i ran out of BS.
I am an Engineer, I understand numbers and science, literature or the meaning we are supposed to get out of liturature baffels me.
I've been told that I'm supposed to be getting something out of this, I haven't been getting anything except low grades. Yes my writing has improved, but there are better ways of doing this such as practical writing. Writing BS and sound ideas are two completely different things.
You don't have the right to an opinion unless there is proof. - Wojcik's opinion on opinions
Sometimes people just can't get things.
If the point of this class is to write better why must we use essays with such abstract subjects that you have to twist the material in the book in such a rediculous manner that it is nearly impossible to see it.
Often times it is said that authors or artifacts put a meaning in their work, but when the author or artist is asked about the meaning they say there is none, they just wrote it or made it.
What is the point in writing an essay that is based on a meaning that doesn't exist, or that exisits in someone elses mind.
I am not arguing against what we are doing, just how. Writing essays are just fine, but writing essays based on nothing is pointless.
Yes it is possible to write these essays, it just requires twisting the text so far that the onther person reading it gives up and believes it. Yes I agree that persuation if a nessasary skill, but proving a point that is pointless is pointless.
Liturature is just one persons opinion on things (if we say that the person is even stating an opinion). And they can twist the story or characters to make that opinion to come out the way they wish it. This in no way shows that liturature is how things really are.
If you say that i have no right to my opinion because i don't provise satisfactory proof, consider this: perhaps you are just inable to see my proof in the same way that I am unable to see what you want me to see in this liturature.

My observations after the paper has been read by Wojcik

Wojcik came to class early, he doesn't do that often.
He started class with the topic of Aristotle, and that he said that heavier objects fall faster than light ones. And the Wojcik continues and says that because of this Physics couldn't advance for 1200 years because nobody challenged Aristotle. He then said that Galileo 1200 years later proved him wrong. And then Wojcik demonstrated the fact that all obgect fall at the same speed regardless of mass. I found this odd.
The first paper to be handed back was mine.
He commented in my paper that my citation was too long for a short paper. Are there rules for this sort of thing???
Wojcik also commented that I "must still try" to "get" something out of the paper. I thought I did get something. I got that I don't see anything to "get" out of these papers.
"No consistancy in your examples you make only a general point" I thought I said that one might not be able to see my proof because he is of the same culture, and the point of the paper is that one does not notice normal things in his culture, but people of other cultures can.
Wojcik wasn't his ussual enthusiastic self.
The first paragraph of his next essay assignment reads as follows: It cannot be stressed often enough that the only way you can think is to think about specifics. All else is gassy platitudes. You’ve got to get down to the hard, actual dirt and rub handfuls of it roughly together. Thinking is always provisional, untriumphant, sketical, partial, because it has roots in the real stuff under foot. Which is essentially him fighting back.