Final Blog

What has improved about my writing is now I know how to better form an academic title. I also have improved on my grammar in many ways. I have learned useful words that will come in handy in future academic papers. Not only that, but I feel like my format structure of my papers has improved; I've learned to think outside of the box, use not only the standard five paragraphs, but more than that.

The strategy I learned that I have found the most helpful would be using flash cards for my sources. By writing down the important paragraphs and sentences I want to use from mysources, I've become better organized. This way it is much easier to structure my paragraphs and use quotes from my sources. This way I don't have to scramble through my sources trying to find a relevant quote.

The easiest paper for me to complete would probably have been the second paper, which was over a short story of our choice. I chose "The Little Mermaid" by Hans Christian Anderson because I was really interested in that story and it was a type of genre that I like. I think it was the easiest for me to complete because I chose to do the paper over a short story I really liked and one that I had a lot of interest in. In that way, it was easier for me to reread the short story so much and it was easy for me to become interested in the paper. I think that's what made it easiest for me.

Of all the lessons, I think how to distinguish between using two different words, such as well and good, was the best lesson. Those two words in particular are hard to distinguish between, because nobody really ever taught me how to use them, or when it was correct to use either one.

I do feel more prepared to write a college-level paper. With my English Comp class that I took before coming to college, I felt like it didn't prepare me at all. I took it at a Community College and felt like the professors there did nothing to help me. I feel like this class did help me in some ways to write a better paper.

Poetry for April 1st

Each of the poems has something in common with each other. They each take on the view of what they think about the opposite sex. Women have views about men, and men have views about women. In Beyonce's song, she sings about the way women view men, which are views most women would agree on. In John Michael Montgomery's song, he also talks about the view of women, about how they steal men's hearts and get them to do their bidding. In "Sexism" it's about the views of men and women as well, from the view of a man. He thinks women sit around, waiting for their husbands and are happy when they're home. For men, they're happy when their away from their wives. With the children's rhyme, it's similar. It works on the stereotypes of boys and girls.

Each poem has the view of one sex and speaks about what they see. Each gender will have a biased opinion on the subject, because men will never know how women think or feel, and women will never know how men think and feel.

The Flea

To me this poem is about two people having sex and the fact that the "flea" is a mix of their "two bloods mingle," which makes me think that this flea is a child? Born from their sex and created from their blood. It also talks about "maidenhead" so somebody lost their virginity. "The flea is you and I" which adds to the fact that the "flea" is part of the person and the narrator. Also, it makes me think of abortion or killing of something? "Three sins in killing three." It makes me think that the woman would kill herself, which would kill the baby as well, because the baby was conceived out of wedlock. This suicide might cause the narrator to become suicidal as well.

Experience in Poetry

I never read poetry outside of school, I'm not really interested in it. I have read a lot of it in school though. I don't really have a favorite poet, Shakespeare isn't bad, of course, and Robert Frost isn't too bad either. Otherwise, other than songs and Dr. Seuss, I don't really read or listen to poetry? Though I do believe it can be interesting and I have been to a poetry reading before, and it was actually really entertaining.

To me, poetry comes in all varieties. It can be really short or pretty long. It can be free verse or rhyming. It needs to have some reason though behind the words, a reason for writing the poem. A message must be able to be understood by the poem. The poem can be simple or be confusing. A lot can be a poem. It's really hard to define what a poem is.

End of Faustus

Technically and literally, the end of Faustus.

My paper I think will be over the fact that Faustus is so proud of himself and his knowledge that he believes he can control the Devil and black magic. In all actuality, his knowledge and pride is defeated and he begins to be controlled by the Devil. By the end of the book he is so controlled by the Devil that he is tricked into giving up his soul by the Devil and his demons.

Scene VI - X

Why does Faustus want to raise the dead so badly? He obviously doesn't know how to yet, otherwise he wouldn't have needed to use the demons as Alexander the Great and so on. Does he want to unleash a deadly army on the world? Does he want to bring God back to life or Jesus? Does he want to become the new God? What ishis reasoning for even wanting to be a part of black magic? He knows all about God and now wants to know all about the Devil? Was his whole life spent working for this moment? He wanted to be a teacher, a healer, he wanted to know earthly rules, and wanted to know all about God and the Devil, so he could become more powerful than they are?? But he is failing because the Devil definitely  has Faustus twisted around his finger...

Scene V

I feel like Faustus is already out of control. I don't understand why he keeps talking about himself in the third person either? That really shows his character and how he believes himself to be more knowledgeable and more powerful than any other being, maybe even than God. I feel like he might have been possessed at that point by evil spirits because he was acting so strangely in the way he was speaking. I feel like the demon who caters to him was trying to tell him that it is miserable being where he is and he tried to talk him out of it, yet he still had to do his job and help sway Faustus to sell his soul to the devil. The idea that his body tried to stop him was interesting because I didn't know if maybe God was telling him something or his demon slave did it for him? I feel like now that he's sold his soul to the devil, there will be something that happens because when signing your soul to the devil you have to be specific about what you ask for in return. The devil is sneaky and will use loop holes to gain your soul before you want him to and in a way that gives you nothing in return. I feel like this might happen to Faustus.

Dr. Faustus

In the last part of Scene 1, Faustus talks about how he is going to learn how to do magic/alchemy. The two scholars are going to teach him instead of showing him so that he can be better at magic than they are. I think they might use Faustus's intelligence and knowledge to become better at magic as well, maybe use him to achieve the stuff they want to. From what it sounds Faustus is going to conjure up something, maybe spirits, maybe the devil? I think that either he's going to be possessed or at least the dark magic will cause him to become even more evil. I think by the end of the play he'll have to choose between God or the Devil? Maybe he will learn a lesson or he will die, like in mnay of the tragedys in Marlowe's time. I think that Faustus believes he has more control and knowledge than he actually does. I think he has so much confidence and belief that he holds more control than he does, that he will try to control this dark magic and the Devil, and he won't succeed. I think the dark magic will over power him and he'll cease to exist, or it will begin to control him.

So far in class. . .

Well, I've read many of the stories we've read so far so that part is kind of aggravating, though I understand it's very hard to choose a shorty story that nobody has read so far. Other than that, some of the stories have been interesting. I loved the fact that we were able to have a free choice story. I loved being able to choose to read what I wanted. I loved reading "The Little Mermaid" and would love the chance to choose another story to read. So far I think that's the best thing we have done; the fact we've been given the chance to choose what we want to read. I feel like it should happen more often. The novel was a good choice I think. Grammar guides are kind of boring and a pain to type up, but they do help us in class, though I don't really like having to write the paragraph for vocabulary. I like learning the new Grammar Guides, just don't like having to type it all up afterwards. I wouldn't mind them if we were able to get rid of the typing part. The worksheets are fine, as well as taking the notes, but the typing I could do without. I thank you for all of the extra credit because many teachers don't give extra credit. It's nice to have that choice.

The Little Mermaid

Setting:

It was mostly nature. Hans Christian Andersen gave great detail of the world around the mermaid. A lot of the setting was the world below the sea and the world above the sea: the land. The setting also spoke a lot about religion, which seemed to be a large theme in the story. The time was uknown, as well as the place, the acctual part of the world that it was placed in. There were beaches though, white sands, and it is on the coast, of course. The setting was mostly nature and its beauty.

POV:

To me the point of view was third person and spoken through the main character, the little mermaid. I felt that the point of view was limited omniscient narrator because the narrative was restriced to the little mermaid. Her thoughts were the only ones you really heard and her emotions were the only ones you really felt. Others' emotions were felt by the way they looked or acted. You were unable to know who they were or how they felt, you could just tell. But with the little mermaid, you were able to be given her thoughts and actions through what the narrator said and through her thoughts. You heard nobody else's thoughts.

Compare and Contrast "Bartleby" and "The Birthmark"

1) Both authors seemed to use the same plot structure: in medias res. They began in the middle of the plots, beginning in the middle of the lives of the characters, and in the middle of the relationship for "The Birthmark." In each plot, one of the main characters is trying to change something they don't understand. In "Bartleby" the lawyer is trying to change and understand Bartleby because he doesn't understand him. He understands every other one of his workers, but Bartelby. It is similar in "The Birthmark," where the scientest tries to control nature and its footprint on his wife. He tries to control smething he doesn't understand. By doing this he kills his wife, just like in "Bartleby" Bartleby dies in the end.

In both stories, the characters are motivated. The Lawyer is motivated to understand Bartleby and the scientist is motivated to remove the birthmark on his wife's cheek. Both have dynamic characters: the wife, who realizes she hates her birthmark as well, and the lawyer, who realizes he can't understand Bartleby. They both have dynamic characters as well: the scientist and Bartleby.

2) By comparing the two stories, we can see their similarites. Though they are both set in different places and are about different characters and instances in life, they can be similar. They are both centered around the fact that characters want to change that which they don't know: nature and human nature; why people act they way they do and why nature acts the way it does. By comparing these stories, we see similarities, but placed in two different stories by two different authors. We can see the similar ways in how authors write.

Extra Credit: 45% Of Students Don't Learn Much In College

I don't know what many students do during college, but I don't feel like I'm not learning more at college. I feel like I've learned far more information being at college than I ever did in high school. Even in classes like my Survey of Biology, which was a large, lecture class, I feel like I learned a lot and retained a lot of information, far more than I ever did in my Biology class in high school. I also feel that I read a lot of pages of reading a week, that could be because I'm in English major, but I feel like if I had more pages of homework, I wouldn't learn more, I'd just feel more stressed out and probably wouldn't finish all of my homework. True, I don't write as many papers, but I feel like papers are just grades. I feel like, even if I wrote more papers, I wouldn't learn more than what I was already learning in class. Usually students tend to write papers on what they already know, this way they know what they're talking about. If we had to write more papers, I don't think it would boost the amount of information we learn or the amount we retain. I think it would be a waste of time. Some students do choose classes that are easier, but that's usually only when they have to take gen ed classes. With majors and minors, you tend to have to take requirements, so there is no way around having harder classes.

What I think needs to happen is that the teachers need to teach more. I feel like some teachers tend to just follow the books they teach from and read from them, word for word, instead of thinking of new ways and new, interesting information they want to teach their students. If you want your students to learn more, have the teachers teach more. Have them teach from other sources, not just textbooks, or have them create their own words from the textbook rather than reading word for word. Also, it would be nice if some teachers actually cared about teaching. With many teachers you can tell they don't care, they don't care if you learn or what you learn, they just want to get through the day. When teachers are passionate about what they're doing and truly passionate about having their students understand what they're teaching, you can tell. You can tell by the way they act with their students, by what they say, by all of the help they give to their students. If all teachers were this way, more students would learn and retain what they learn.

Bartleby and the Birthmark

To me these stories were similar because of what they centered around. To me they centered on the idea of the unknown; the idea of something or someone that remains mysterious, that you can't understand. In "The Birthmark," I felt like the scientist was trying so hard to understand nature through his experiments. He was trying to control nature by taking away the one blemish that nature gave to his lovely wife. It was like he was trying to play God by changing Nature, which is the unknown of life. Nature is something that is unknown and does as it pleases. Nature cannot be controlled by anything. With "Bartleby" I felt like the lawyer understood all of his employees, by the way that he describes them in the beginning. He knows their habits, he knows their motivations, and he knows their personalities. When Bartleby is employed, he doesn't understand him; Bartleby becomes the unknown, just as nature is in the first story. The lawyer can't understand Bartleby so he tries to control him, tries to help him become normal. In both stories, the characters try to control that which is mysterious to them, that which they can't grasp or fathom. These acts of control fail and death is the outcome.

Fake Twitter Accounts

This article made me think that many of the writers of the fake Twitter accounts are people linked closely to these republican and democratic representatives. At least that's how the said representatives felt. Maybe that's a clue that these fake accounts are created to unleash some steam about the people they work with? Maybe it's a way to dish the dirt on their fellow representatives or workers?

I did like thhat Mackowiak said that it was a nice "ego check." I think that's a good way to put it. These fake accoutns gave these people a way to see how they're portrayed by the population. It's their way to change maybe how they act or the things they say. What they might say may be different than how we portray them. It's like a reality check for them and, though it could be a boost to their egos that somebody is actually taking the time to make a fake account about them, it's kind of a slap across the face as well. It's a new look into what they say and the truth of what they say, especially when the Tweets are so closely linked to what the real people do and say.

About the Paper

I felt like I had an okay time to do the paper. For the second draft that we sent in, I didn't have too much of an idea on what to change, so I felt like that was kind of not useful. If we would have had more time to talk to our peers, I think it would have been better, but this time it didn't help too much for me at least. I did like the one-on-one time with you though. I think that helped a lot and it was nice to be able to talk to you about it, instead of just getting a paper back with scribbles all over it. This way we could ask questions and have that time that we have to go to. We had no choice and I liked that. Other than that, I don't think I was unsure of anything with the paper. With having to have three drafts turned in, I think it helped make sure the paper was good and it helped us get the papers right.

I'm a bug...

Once you talked about how Gregor never realized that he is a bug, it made me pay attention to that fact throughout the whole book. It's strange to me that he doesn't even wonder why he turns into a bug when he wakes up, like it's an every day occurrence to him. Oh, just one day I'm going to wake up and turn into a bug? I felt like he felt that it was a normal occurence. All he worried about was getting to work on time and going to work. He never asked why he was a bug or why he turned into a bug. His family never asked either? I thought that was strange. Everybod just accepted that he was a bug and that somebody in their family could turn into a bug...

Works Cited

Hutchings, William. "Structure and Design in a Soviet Dystopia: H. G. Wells, Constructivism, and Yevgeny Zamyakn's "We."" Journal of Modern Literature 9.1 (1981 - 1982): 81-102. JSTOR. Web. 30 January 2011.

Leatherbarrow, W.J. "Einstein and the Art of Yevgeny Zamyatin." The Modern Language Review 82.1 (1987): 142-151. JSTOR. Web. 30 January 2011.

Zamyatin, Yevgeny. We. Trans. Natasha Randall. New York: The Modern Library, 2006. Print.

Fear of Ancients

For my paper, I chose the topic of how the Benefactor fears the outsiders, ancients, or unnumbered humans, whichever you want to call them. He fears them because of their imagination, freedom, and the fact that he can't control their movements or thoughts. They do what they want and he can't control that. He fears the impact and influence they could and might have on the humans of the One State. He shows this fear more by actions than words: by what he builds and by what he does to separate the people of the One State from the outsiders.

First, he builds the Green Wall, which is a way to keep the outsiders outside of the One State, and this way he can keep the citizens of the One State inside of the walls and away from the influence of the outsiders.

Second, he builds the Operation to get rid of the imagination and souls of the citizens of the One State, who are becoming like the outsiders. He fears that they will begin to mimic the outsiders because of their souls and imaginations.

Lastly, the Benefactor gets rid of the identities of the people of the One State. He gets rid of their names and their personal relationships. This keeps the people of the One State from being connected to anyone, especially the ancients and outsiders. If they have no identities then they can’t be like the ancients or connected to them in anyway; they are completely different from those the Benefactor fears.

All of these ways help to explain the reason why I think the Benefactor fears the ancients. It is shown by the way he acts and by the way he separates the people of the One State from their ancestors the ancients.

The End

Wow, that book was very interesting...but I didn't feel like I usually do when I finish a book: drained of energy because I was perched on the end of my seat reading every word, my heart beating. Usually I finish a book and am washed of emotions and feelings. Yes, this story was suspenseful, but I feel as though it ended where it began. D-503 was the same. Yes, more people died, but I felt like we went through so much in the book for no reason. True, it did teach a lot and make you feel a lot, think about a lot, but I still feel like it was a waste because the One State didn't change one iota.

I'm also still confused about I-330. It's strange. I feel like she was a predator, but also loved D-503. True, this could just be me being hopeful because I wanted that relationship to be real, but I feel like she was both, just like D-503 was two people: his hairy-self and his logical-self. Seeing two of him, it makes me feel like I-330 might have had two images: her hoplessly-in-love-self and her ruler-of-the-MEPHI-self. I feel like that at some times she was actually in love with D-503, but not at the beginning, instead after she got to know him. Especially when she spoke about O-90; I felt like she was worried that O-90 might be having D-503's baby; I felt jealousy from her. Yes, I agree, she was definitely using him as the Builder of the Integral, but I felt like at some times she was in love with D-503's hairy-self.

Thirdly, I'd like to say that I felt like D-503 was a puppet in this book. It was like he was a piece of rope in a tug-of-war, being pulled by the rebels and the Benefactor. He never truly got to think for himself. He was either being manipulated by the rebels or manipulated by Benefactor. Each side showed him happiness of some sort, but I felt like he struggled to find a happy medium. He was never really happy. Never. He was just a toy in the middle of a revolution. Used by both sides to control and learn about the other side. He never found his happiness, even at the end of the book; and I feel sorry for him.

State of the Union Address

First off, I don't really like talking about politics because I think it's one topic that always starts arguments because two people rarely have the same political views. I also think at sometimes people can be very critical and judgmental about Presidents, when many don't truly know how hard it is to be President. Come on people, think about it.

Anyway, I rarely watch State of the Union Addresses so I'm not a genius on the topics he spoke about and I try to stay away from politics. Yes, I know I should be up-to-date on what is going on, but, anyway, these are just my thoughts and views on what happened.

I really liked that the Democrats and Republicans sat together, elbow to elbow, though I know this was probably set up. I think it was a great way to start his speech about unity and about Democrats and Republicans working together for once and actually getting something done. They both need to set aside their differences because each party doesn't matter, America and the Americans matter. Suck it up and work together to make this place better! Stop being high schoolers with years of grudges, get over it, and move on to make this place a better place to live in. I feel like having the parties also makes some voters forget about the other parties and only vote for theirs, just because they're Democratic or Republican; sometimes they have biased opinions.

From what I viewed of the other people, I didn't see too many giveaways. Some people stood up and some didn't. Some people clapped and some didn't. One time McCain even stood up and clapped, whether that was as a "wow, can't believe you decided to do that" or a slam against the President, I don't know.

Throughout the speech, he spoke about America and about what we've been able to overcome. I think it was a great way to lift the spirits of the people who are worried and it gives us hope in some ways. It makes us think "yes, we can do this!" He also spoke a lot about real-life experiences of people who met and spoke to.

He spoke a lot about reforming the government and taking care of the deficit to make it better for the children of the world. Within the government's bills, he spoke about rules that would be fixed if they put an unnecessary burden on business. He also spoke about how he wouldn't hesitate to protect the American people: whether that will be from another financial crisis or preventing health insurance agencies from exploiting patience. He spoke about being open to idea about the healthcare. Hopefully this is true since many don't like the idea of universal healthcare. To make the deficit better he spoke about cutting excess weight, what's spent that doesn't need to be spent, cutting loopholes, and making millionaires give up their tax breaks (which many have talked about before and it's never really happened?). Something I also liked was that he spoke about the Government living within their means and not spending more than they need, which I think is a good idea. Usually this doesn't happen though. Another thing I liked was that he said that they are going to put up a website so that Americans can see where their tax dollars are going, though this could be false and it might be faked, hopefully it's not! Another large thing he said was that if any bills come to him with earmarks than he'll veto the bill immediately (this is the spot that McCain actually stood up and clapped!). He also said how No Child Left Behind is being replaced by something called Race to the Top, which brings about innovative projects from each state that have to do with teaching students better. So we'll see how well this goes. I don't think we're anyway near to a bill like this being perfect -- we're still in the test runs.

Like many Presidents, Obama spoke about education. How he would like to give every child a chance to succeed in life and be able to pursuecollege and finish high school. One thing I liked was that he spoke about how education should be celebrated, not just sports, which is big in our country. Sports are given a lot of media and encouragement in many schools, and the education is rarely even cared about. I know just before I left high school banquets were just being given for Academics, even though banquets for sports had been going on for years! He spoke about how teachers should be given more respect, which I agree with wholeheartedly. They are the ones who shape the people of America, it all starts with them! But he said that we should be preparing new teachers in science, technology, engineering, and math, which I understand because they are important. But what happened to English and the Creative Arts? I believe that they are important as well, especially since many jobs depend on workers who are both creative and intelligent. They need both qualities and by just focusing on one side of education, it won't help balance the US or future workers.

The President spoke about much more, the troops coming home (which has been said many times before) and about researching clean energy. I have not more room and this is already long enough, so I'm just going to say that he madea lot of good points. I feel that he was more speaking of the future in general and not what was going to happen in the next two years of his Presidency. He could also have been sending out his thoughts for if he was elected for four more years? But I feel like he knows this can't be done in the next two years, of course he knows that! He's always said that, but I feel like it was a way to show America that it can be done if we just stick to a plan and try to endure.

Miss the most...

The One State is so suppressive of everything I love in the world that it's hard for me to choose just one aspect of life that I would miss if I lived in the One State. I would miss my family, being my own person, having my own identity, doing what I want when I want to, and not being watched or followed at all times of the day. Most of all I would miss the one aspect of life that gives me the ability to have all of the aspects I've just listed: freedom.

I would miss my freedom the most. To me, freedom opens up my world to all of the aspects I listed above. Even if I had a family or a boyfriend in the One State, who says I would be able to choose who they were? If I had no freedom to begin with, I could have a boyfriend, but being in the One State one would be chosen for me anyway and what would I be able to do with them? Have dates provided for me and bring a pink ticket just to be able to be with them? To me freedom is the one aspect that would allow me to have all I would miss; it's like using a wish from a genie to gain more wishes. It creates a world of options that are open for me and that's the reason I choose freedom as what I would miss the most.

Reader-Response Criticism

When first starting this book, I knew that it was the start of science fiction books. Instantly I knew it would have the elements that most science fiction stories have: robots (though the term hadn't been invented yet), new, crazy technology, Twilight Zone-like incidents, and it would take place many years from now.

While reading the book so far, I haven't been disappointed. Science fiction breathes in this story. The world is made of steel and glass. There is no grass and no plants giving the scene of a futuristic society. There are robots in the way that the humans work together as a machine and though they are smart, still act as though they are mindless drones. There are many technologies that are similar to the technology of the ancients (us), though they are much more advanced. Twilight Zone-like incidents are evident, especially in the way that I-330 disappears, and the corridors that have no doorway out.

Since I haven't finished the story yet, I can't say if my expectations have been completely met. I can only comment upon all that I have noticed, though the questions still remain unanswered. Who is I-330? Is she the leader of the rebels helping outsiders sneak into the One State? Giving souls and imaginations to the citizens of the One State? Does she stand for freedom, what it seems like all the people yearn for? There seem to be more than just D-503 who have decided to be different from the others. And will D-503 be capture and killed as an example for others? Or will he be free at the end, and help the outsiders to conquer and rebel against the One State? At this point, I can only speculate.

Elements of Fiction

Style: At times the writer makes the sentences short and repeats words to show that the narrator is confused or has a conflict. The writer also uses (...) to show the trailing off of a sentence and uses it as a way that the narrator doesn't have to say something he's horrified to say; it works when the reader has an idea of what that unsaid word is. The writer uses many mathematical equations and numbers to show the logical thinking of the narrator and to show what is the norm in this futuristic society.

Tone: In the beggining of the story, the narrator's tone is loving and almost admirable of the place he lives in. But once he knows what freedom of thought and motion is, he's almost sarcastic towards all that the citizens do in this city. He starts to see the mechanical actions of all the people and starts to destroy the love and admiration he has for the place.

Irony: The writer uses a lot of irony in the way that the narrator speaks. The narrator says that he hates the character I-330, but in reality he is deeply in love with her. He also repeats this as though he's trying to make it seem true to himself and the readers.

Plot: I feel like the plot of the story begins with the start of the narrator's first entry into his journal of sorts. It follows the story from beginning to end, and doesn't start in the middle or at the end. Though there aren't really flashbacks truly, there are sentences that refer to the past, of the time of the ancestors.

Characterization: Though the character's have no unique and personal names, they are still described fairly well. The descriptions are vivid, even though they seemed to be described in a way that doesn't use the word smile or frown, like the way the narrator describes O-90's frown as half-moon with small horn pointing downwards.

Setting: The setting seems to be in some perfect world with a green wall that nobody will go over. I invision everything to be made of steel and glass, and to have no personality and character of its own. Everything is the same and monotonous. That's what Zamyatin's descriptions of the setting make me imagine.

Point of View: It's first person from the point of view of D-503.

Symbol: I feel like I-330 might symbolize freedom, the taste of freedom, of not being just a number. She shows the narrator how to be like the ancestors and opens up the world of the ancestors. She also seems to appear and disappear quickly. I feel like she might be a symbol of the freedom that the narrator secretly yearns for. It's a feeling that even the narrator's friend R-13 has experienced, when he reveals that he knows I-330.

Theme: The central meaning of the story to me is the fact that even if freedom is taken away from the people, they will still rebel. They will yearn for that feeling of not being constrained, even if they haven't experienced it before. Once they are given the idea or have a fleeting thought of "what if," they'll want to be free. Once the constraints become even tighter, people will fight even harder for that freedom, much like a teenager who is told not to do something.

Doughnuts and Cupcakes...

Well, hello there, my name is Mikala Fitzpatrick. I am twenty years old and am a Sophomore. I'm from a small town called Missouri Valley, IA, which is about forty minutes or so from Omaha, NE. While in school I was mostly a creative arts freak, though I started out playing volleyball and softball. I was always a lead in the plays, was a part of choir every year, and wrote every chance I could get. I'm a kid at heart: I love to watch Disney movies and am obsessed with coloring! My favorite Disney character is Jasmine, though I'm most like Belle! 

I'm an English - Creative Writing major and am minoring in history. I am currently writing a novel that's roughly 380 pages. It's mostly a fantasy/adventure/romance novel that allows the reader to escape from real life and live in one where anything can happen. I was a part of Iowa Young Writers' Studio in 2007 at the University of Iowa, which was an amazing experience.

Hm...fun facts! My favorite color is blue. I LOVE pop (not soda). Carrie Underwood is my favorite singer. I hate Miley Cyrus (like I stated in class). Like the Disney Princess Belle, I always have my nose stuck in a book, as long as that book is fiction. Christmas is my favorite holiday, but not because of the presents. Wicked is my favorite musical. I have no favorite book, movie, or song because there are too many I like. I'm very indecisive. Right now I'm craving doughnuts and/or a cupcake.

That is all I can think about for now, as you can tell I'm pretty random, and just like to be creative and have fun with life. You only live once and I would like to make it count!