Analytical Essay The Red Convertible Essays

Analytical Essay The Red Convertible Essays Analytical Essay The Red Convertible Essay Analytical Essay The Red Convertible Essay Essay Topic: Analytical After he and his brother purchase the convertible, he describes a great big willow tree. In Indian society, willow trees signify wisdom so I gather that perhaps it sticks out In his memory because in the great wide open of Gods creation, perhaps he and his brother gleaned some great wisdom about life In general under the limbs of this willow tree. He mentions how his brother went off to Vietnam upon their return. One cant help but to Imagine the completely different surrounding that his brother found himself in. I imagine wetlands, tropical angles, hot and sticky air that feels as though you are breathing water due to the humidity. Just as they might have found a bit of themselves in the great wide open adventures they had in the car prior to the war, his brother lost a lot of himself in the wet, humid, dangerous jungles of Vietnam. In Robert Frosts Mending Walls, the setting is again outdoors. This time, the setting is in cold, damp England. I gather this from the way the author speaks about fox hunts and stone walls between neighbors. Here, he and his neighbor are again outside walking the stone wall border between heir properties. Two deferent people united and yet separated by a simple wall. Walker 2 While their wall is a physical wall, the wall that later separated the brothers in the previous story was an inner wall made up of the remaining demons of war along with the inner struggles of a prisoner of war returning to life as a civilian. Just as the two neighbors walk their walls to repair the gaps by replacing the loosened and missing boulders, the two brothers tried to repair the gaps to their relationship with the last ride out in the red convertible. The revealing theme is the same in both works. In the red convertible, the family tries to ignore the different personality that has engulfed the older brother upon his return. They keep It quiet and dont mention it but in whispers. They want to keep things the same even though It Is clearly evident that they will never be the same again. In Mending Walls, the writer asks his neighbor why must they keep the wall up when he has no cows nor does his neighbor, they both only have trees and it is clear that neither type of tree will move to encroach upon ten toners proper HIS enlarger, not wanting to go galls t Nils Tanners wellness whom we are led to believe holds great regard for tradition states that good fences make good neighbors. Regardless of whether it makes sense to have the wall or not, it has always been that way and therefore it will continue that way as well. It is similar to the family way of thinking in the red convertible. It is clear that everyone from the younger brother to the friends, neighbors and even the mother in the story can see that the older brother is not the same upon his return from Vietnam. The known is scary to them so instead of tackling the bigger issue and getting him the help he needs, they go back to the way things were. They try to act as if everything is still the same. They ignore the fact that he has been through things they cannot imagine and instead try to pretend he is the same old person he was before. This must be extremely frustrating on the brother and eventually the only way he can think of to make them happy and also to relieve the nightmare he lives in day after day is to end it all with one giant leap into a rushing river at the close off perfect day.

The Promise and Peril of Editing in Proof

The Promise and Peril of Editing in Proof The Promise and Peril of Editing in Proof The Promise and Peril of Editing in Proof By Mark Nichol Which method of editing is the most effective one? Which content formats should be employed, and how many iterations are necessary? Ultimately, what works for the publisher is the best approach, but consider that what is most expedient is often at odds with what is best. Until a generation ago, typewritten manuscripts were edited on paper: Editors would mark changes with a pen or pencil, and writers would type (or hire someone to type) a new version; this process might be repeated at least a couple of times, as the manuscript underwent first developmental (comprehensive thematic and structural) editing and then copyediting (the nuts and bolts of word style and usage and of grammar and syntax, or sentence formation). The last iteration would then be given to a typesetter, who would transcribe the text using a word-processing device, incorporating the last set of penciled-in revisions as he or she went along, and would format it according to its intended mode of presentation. A proof, or a facsimile of the manuscript’s intended published appearance, would then be printed out, and a proofreader would check the proof against the final typed version, glancing back and forth ad infinitum to check for typographical errors as well as duplicated, omitted, or misplaced text and for formatting errors. The typesetter would then enter corrections and print out a new iteration, and the proofreader would spot-check the corrected elements and passages. This exchange would then be repeated if and as necessary. (Some publishers, notably the National Geographic Society, paired two people: one to read the original final manuscript aloud while the other checked the corresponding proof text and marked any errors observed.) As desktop publishing evolved, this process was streamlined: Editors revised directly in content files using simplified word-processing programs such as Microsoft Word. And because the content was copied and pasted into the proof file, rather than laboriously typed, proofreaders no longer had to compare proofs against the manuscript word for word; they merely examined the proofs for errors, consulting the manuscript only occasionally for clarification if at all. Early on in this new paradigm, the proofreader would mark a printout of the proof, and a member of the publication’s production staff, or a freelance graphic designer or production artist, would enter the changes and then generate a new iteration of the proof, and the proofreader or another person would check corrections. Then, in the last few years, it became easier for proofreaders to revise proofs themselves using programs such as Adobe Acrobat. Ultimately, some publishers have decided to occasionally or routinely forgo the manuscript-editing process (either the copyediting stage alone or both developmental editing and copyediting) and â€Å"flow† the writer’s raw (or developmentally edited but not copyedited) manuscript directly into proof, then have it edited when it is already in its formatted form. This certainly saves much time and effort, but it also complicates the process, because developmental editors and copy editors must then maintain the parameters of the copyfit- they cannot insert, omit, or relocate content without perhaps significantly altering the layout, which may require more time and effort by design and/or production staff. If the editor is given authority to copyfit as needed, he or she can revise the text so that it fits the format, but this may compromise the quality of the content because of the limits of that format. I have edited and proofread content that appears in all these manifestations, starting out by editing my college newspaper using a manual typewriter, Wite-Out, scissors, and red pencils. A few of my contemporaries still prefer to mark up a piece of paper, but I have embraced the expeditious advantages of editing in proof (though for most of my employers and clients, I continue to edit in Word and proof in Acrobat), and I predict that this strategy will soon be the norm. But publishers, from mom-and-pop marketers to multinational corporations, must weigh the benefits and drawbacks and take care not to cut corners by, say, minimizing comprehensive reorganization and revision of a manuscript because it doesn’t adhere to a templated publication format or eliminating copyediting and proofreading because they are costly, time-consuming steps. Too many publications already suffer, sometimes egregiously, from a de-emphasis on (or even outright dismissal of) the editing process, and the art of turning a competent composition into a compelling one must not be suborned to an efficiency that ignores the crucial factor of quality. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Writing Basics category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Coordinating vs. Subordinating Conjunctions75 Idioms and Expressions That Include â€Å"Break†Parataxis and Hypotaxis