The Plant, The Moth, and The Human

Beside a tall glass window in my house lies a series of ceramic pots with various plants. Some are grown for cooking, and others, like the flowers, are for decoration. Despite the occasional aphid or spider mite, I enjoy watching the plants grow at their gradual pace. I noticed, however, that no matter how any plant was placed, it would always try to grow towards the sun. Almost every leaf would tilt to maximize the surface area of solar exposure. Many of the long-stemmed plants would grow towards the window, sometimes growing around obstacles. The plants had an almost human-like willingness for their source of life – the sun.

Similarly, the moth described by Virginia Woolf also shows a willingness to survive. It is trapped behind the window pane, unable to travel outside – in a state of ennui – like a plant. Other than look out the window, it simply flies from "one corner of [its] compartment... to the other." Woolf also describes how the moth dies: it is slow and hopeless death where the moth gradually loses its bodily function – similar to a plant devoid of sunlight. Yet, the moth constantly shows a willingness to survive by "dancing and zigzagging" while attempting to escape its confinement. The plant, a brainless stem with leaves, grows towards the sunlight for the same purpose as the winged moth.

As humans, we sometimes forget to consider that all living beings have a willingness to survive. Although a plant or a moth may not have emotions, it will try anything in its power to prevent its death. So besides our appearances, what really is the difference between a plant, a moth, and a human?

The INTENSOMETER

I find the classification of literary works according to their intensities highly captivating– especially when they are soaked with double-edged irony. While the IRONOMETER measures the strength of different types of ironies, my INTENSOMETER measures the intensity by which an ironic work conveys its message.

INTENSOMETER ranking for this week's works:

1. Jourdan Anderson's letter
2. "A Modest Proposal"
3. "Marrying Absurd"

WHAT? Who in their right mind would rank "A Modest Proposal", the sardonic essay about cannibalizing children, under Jourdan Anderson's letter in terms of intensity? The answer lies in Jourdan's effective use of subtle irony to create a stronger, long-lasting effect.

Everyone knows, after reading "A Modest Proposal", that the absurd proposal described is a mere exaggeration. Swift was an established and sane writer of the 16 - 1700s; he definitely did not actually want boiled children "seasoned with a little pepper or salt." While the grotesque hyperbole does deliver Swift's point about the poverty policies of the time, it appears as a fantasy to the reader, lessening its impact.

On the other hand, Jourdan's use of subtle blame and passive-aggressive tone keeps the real consequences of slave abuse while also attacking Col Patrick Anderson. Almost every sentence has a deeper meaning. Jourdan states that he has "often felt uneasy about" Col Patrick Anderson. This understatement is extremely effective, as Jourdan does not simply feel uneasy about his former slave owner – he despises him. 

Lastly, I placed "Marrying Absurd" at the bottom because of its slightly lighthearted tone. The essay is simply mocking the fast-paced wedding; it is in no way sardonic or extremely sarcastic. 

Of course, there are many ways to organize this INTENSOMETER. Let me know if you agree or disagree with my view in the comments section!

Consider the Kitchen

DISCLAIMER: The restaurant that I mention in this post is one of my favorite places to eat. This is just my imagination of how the restaurant functions; it may or may not be true.

Twice a year, my family and I drive to a certain outlet mall to shop for the discounted prices. I, however, have a different reason to visit the mall. Between the vast swamp of stores lies a small Chinese/Thai restaurant. It's a calm place with smooth lighting and fancy red decorations. The square tables have a small red chair on each side and are covered with a white tablecloth. As soon as I walk in, I can smell the mouth-watering aroma of Chinese and Thai food. This, however, is what it looks like from the outside.

Past the door with a sign that reads "Employees Only" there exists a culinary hell. It's unbearably hot, people are shouting orders, the clanging metal pans are deafening the employees, and the coordination between employees is abysmal. Ting, the new chef, is always sneaking a noodle or a bamboo shoot into his mouth — sometimes even an entire piece of chicken. The other employees are no better: each one is clumsy and drops a dish at least once a week. The kitchen is also rarely cleaned since Ting has a habit of sneaking more food if it's easier to find.

Thankfully, the customers have no clue about the mess because the “Employees Only” door masks most of the kitchen’s cacophony. In the end, it is the craziness of the kitchen that results in the scrumptious, unique food at the tables. Although I hear loud voices near the door sometimes, I have never seen what actually happens back there because, in the words of David Wallace, it is "just selfishly convenient" not to.

Why Do We Waste?

Yikes

We live in a world so crowded with waste that there is a patch of garbage twice the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean. Most people are aware that wasting resources is harmful for the environment, but why does waste still exist? I believe the answer lies in the production of items rather than the consumption of them.

Lauren Singer's waste jar.

From 2012 to 2016, a woman named Lauren Singer minimized her waste to the point that it could all be kept in a jar. At first, I was amazed by what she had accomplished, but soon I realized the impracticality of her strategy. Singer had lived a nearly waste-free life by making her own products and avoiding packaged ones; not everyone, however, has the resources or time to do this. So, instead of focusing on decreasing our consumption, we should minimize the production of unnecessary products.

Or, we could consume each other's waste. For example, my sister hates mushrooms on her pizza;  whenever she gets a slice with mushrooms on it, she removes the mushrooms and throws them away. I, on the other hand, love them on my pizza. Logically, I asked her for her mushrooms and both of us were more satisfied than we were before. In the words of Lars Eighner, "almost everything I have now has already been cast out at least once, proving that what I own is valueless to someone". If everyone valued their waste as highly as what they consume, like Eighner, then every single person in this world would benefit. In other words, if the producers of the world created exactly what each individual wanted, we would have no waste. So, the next time you go to discard something, think about its other uses before you waste it.