"Ivan Ilych's life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible"

This would mean that Ivan was just a typical average Joe.  He studied hard to attend law school.  He only married just because he had to fit in with the norm of the society.  He had a mid-life crisis with his wife that caused him to stay further away from her with the excused of working.  Because he spend more time at work then at home, he was able to get promotion and eventually became a judge.  All of these characteristics were simple but terrible in some ways.  He did things base on what he believed others wanted him to do, not from what he wanted to do.  Thus, he lived a misery life that in the end he had to question whether he had done any wrongdoings.  If he had accomplished all the things that he wanted to, then he would not have to be hesitated to face death.  In the end, his life was most terrible because he lived for others and not for himself.

First person narrative point of view on "The Yellow Wallpaper"

The first person narrative point of view provides me a sense of the narrator’s thoughts and feeling.  Comparing to the third person point of view, the first person point of view was easier to understand from the main character’s thoughts.  I could feel her pain from the fact that her husband ignored her illness and her thoughts.  However, because this was a first person point of view, there were some disadvantages for me to understand the story.  The narrator kept on complaining how her husband careless about her, but the fact was that he took her to that rented house just to treat her illness.  He ignored her thoughts to make she thinks harder for herself.  Therefore, the first person point of view lacked of fairness in describing other characters’ action.

Significant of time in "A Rose for Emily"

In “A Rose for Emily,” it was confusing for any new readers to understand what was going on.  I was confused myself.  Time was the main confusion in the story.  The narrator, which was the third person, began telling the story with conclusion instead of the introduction.  It was quite an experience to read it at first.  I believe the narrator’s main purpose was to have the readers getting more involved with the story.  By knowing the conclusion first, readers would be forced into different thoughts of the story:   Who was Emily? Why did she die? They would have felt sorry for Emily.  Then the narrator would surprise the readers that Emily was not the victim of the story, but the murderer in the story.  I was shocked when I found out that the reason she killed Homer was so that he could stayed by her side forever.

Question of Fact

Have you ever wondered whether the news we listen to is accurate or not?  Well, I have and so do millions of listeners out there.  The reason is that most of us would rather spend our time doing something that we love.  Since the news media are doing all the work, we would think that it is unnecessary for us to contribute more work to it unless it is our job.  In this video, Jon Steward was trying to let the audiences know that critical thinking is very important, especially the information that came from CNN.  According to this video, CNN only provided to its viewers twenty five to seventy percent of accurate information.  Therefore, it is our duty to check for the facts.  We cannot rely on the assumptions provided from the news media.  We must take a second step by using our critical thinking as a way to check for the facts.