A Rose for Emily: The Timeline and its effect

     William Faulkner's A Rose for Emily is a very interesting short story that deserves some attention. One reason is stands out from other stories is that it does not go in chronological order. The story is broken up within its timeline; indeed, Faulkner's story does not go in order calling readers to truly analyze his intentions in doing this. The timeline is a great way to entice the reader into understanding the actual theme I feel Faulkner was trying to convey. I believe Faulkner wants to display the power of death. This is evident as Emily Grierson's death is the first sequential event to occur when the story begins. Death is also conveyed powerful as Emily has a weird relationship with dead men throughout the story.

   


















     When I read A Rose for Emily it caught me quite odd that the story was in such an order. At first, the story develops smoothly but then it definitely is noticeable that Faulkner purposely wanted the order out of place. The reason for this is ambiguous and for readers to decide for themselves. In my opinion, he wanted to display significance to certain aspects such as death and perhaps for a different perspective on what happened. This is a great writing tool because it allows readers to put the story in order themselves therefore involving the reader into his story.

The Daily Show with John Stewart: Lessons on Critical Thinking

     There are a number of special lessons one may ascertain from watching this episode of The Daily Show regarding critical thinking. First and foremost, John Stewart, the host of the show, does a standout job criticizing a well-liked and known television station in CNN. He discredits them by making them pointing out moments where their reporting appears unfounded. Stewart also laughs hysterically as CNN analysts continually "leave it there" at the end of each segment. A lesson to be learned here indeed, in my opinion. From my own experiences, many people who watch headline news channels seem to have be at a consensus that Fox News is biased with a Republican point of view, MSNBC is widely viewed a station with strictly Liberal views on matters, and that CNN  is in the middle and the most unbiased of the bunch. Because many hold this viewpoint, no one really criticizes CNN's reporting as it is seen as the most unbiased. However, John Stewart teaches everyone a lesson that critical analysis is definitely needed on especially trusted sources.

      By discrediting CNN, John Stewart is certainly teaching viewers to think for themselves and question information given to them. I commend Stewart for this broad endeavor, even if done through comedic display. Indeed, critical thinking involves much more than criticizing unfamiliar work but also critically thinking and analyzing trusted sources  that no one else seems to question.