A struggle to succeed is similar to the honing of metal: it can leave a pitted and scared surface or it can leave a honed edge. Booker T Washington observes about life: 'I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed.'
This realism rides the razor's edge between optimism and pessimism, between being blessed and being damned, between looking backward and seeking forward.
The struggle of human history at least seems the assault on a pinnacle of achievement. An acadamy-award winning file, Why Man Creates, provided an illustrated version of this; yet, at the top (at the time, the mid-20th Century), humans are standing in a radioactive cloud, unable to see a clear direction.
Nonetheless, from stone, to bronze, to iron, to steam, to space age, our technical achievements our without question. Our wisdom, however, has always been a subject of protracted discussion.
A tribe in South America has the perspective we follow the arrow of time backwards. We can see the past but the future comes upon our shoulders from the rear. The people of television (for they are truly an separate tribe) often look forward; science fiction has given us our hopes and nightmares of the future; but as a prognosticator, science fiction's success is a mixed bag.
At the dawn of the 21st Century, we have no moonbases and no mysterious artifacts orbiting distant gas planets to pull us into space. But, we do have the challenge that has always faced the human race and so succinctly put by a little-known citizen of Los Angeles, Rodney King: 'Can't we all just get along?'
The answer depends on one's perspective: optimist, pessemist, or realist. Two dueling axioms are: 'That which does not kill you, makes you stronger' and the retort 'That which does not kill you simply cripples you and you have to live with it your whole life.' The realist knows it's how we deal with our challenges--and not the challenges themselves--that define us.
Comments
Well..., this is mine.
Do I get any suggestions or critiques?
Posted by: Darryl Pearce | October 2, 2006 11:55 PM
Yes, for what it is worth, I'm the first person to rate you zero.
On second thought, this score is too harsh and a 2 is probably more realistic. However, your essay is the first I've read and I have no idea of the grading scale. I'm trying to remeber the grading scale from my AP english class in highschool and working from it.
Criticisms (a short selection):
I couldn't find a central point of view or thesis statement. My evidence for this is in your last paragraph where you waffle "The answer depends..." among other places.
Your introductory simile was weak and not particularly well used. And you used the root word 'hone' twice in that sentence.
You made a mistake I often make. You used 'our', instead of 'are' in the fourth paragraph.
And finally, you gave no supporting arguments for your weak thesis statement.
To the positives, you didn't make too many spelling mistakes and you obviously have some ideas but just have difficulty elucidating them.
Posted by: Jonathan Wallace | October 3, 2006 9:47 AM
...see what 24 years of technical writing will do to you?
;-P
Posted by: Darryl Pearce | October 3, 2006 1:58 PM