“Man is a make-believe animal—he is never so truly himself as when he is acting a part,” William Hazlitt once said.

*  *  *

It sucks to be a man, if William Hazlitt’s words are true; a man is stuck in his dreams and grasps his true identity only when he is being another person—that is, when he is “acting a part.”

.

.

.

Unless Hazlitt actually meant “acting on the stage,” which I highly doubt, we people act everyday. Even if we are facing one of the most boring and mundane course of a day, as we do somewhat everyday, we act in front of our own sets of audience; you don’t even have to be a popular celebrity in order to have a wide range of diverse audience; you don’t even have to be a speech maker or any kinds of people who are in more interacting environment. In fact, chances are, no matter who you are, you will have a set of audience to show your own little performance of “acting.”

Let’s talk more about the acting part of what Hazlitt said: we have many roles in our lives. Take in “students” as an example. As a student myself, I think I have as many as fifty shades of Yoon—that is, I have many different sides of me as I interact with different set of people. When I am with my peers, I tend to be more uncensored. When I am in a class though with adults, I act more polite and respectful (not that I am very rude to all other non-adults). This is an oversimplified version of my interacting with other individuals, since I have different groups of friends and teachers, and I have other big groups of people other than the ones in school. Also, I have various situations that I face everyday that I handle differently from some other situations.

And, due to our excessive dose on acting like such mentioned above, we face identity crisis, I think. Of course, we act as “the person” that we partly are, but we are not truer than ever when we are acting apart. As exemplified by numerous celebrities and politicians, the roles that they take are likely to crash every now and then. We commonly see those celebrities going to jail for drug usage, and driving while drunk, and we commonly see those politicians going to jail for cheating on their wives and husbands and for engaging in elicit activities. It is not a huge surprise for us to see aforesaid events appear on news shows. We would sometimes like to be that persons we take a part in, but we fail numerously in doing so.

We are partly “make-believe animals,” but we are partly not. We do act everyday, but we do not shape ourselves into those pseudo identities we chose to act in. I think we are rather more true selves when we are by ourselves. hate to admit that I am such a person, but I am unavoidably me when I am at home alone. I let go of those social expectations and very standards of an academic and upright high school girl. I let go those of a daughter and of a friend. I would really, really love to be one of those socially admirable people, but I am not. I try hard (maybe not) to “act” and be the kind of person I act like, but I am not, and I don’t think it is just me who thinks this way.

And, above all, it doesn’t suck at all to be a man (woman).

Words (603)

To Search Or Not To Search That is the Question:

When picking a side for such issues, I find it easier to defend the side of “right to whatever,” (which, in this case, is right to privacy) than to defend underlying reasons against that almighty right; written documents advocating aforesaid right and other fundamental human rights get involved, and the issue becomes something matter-of-fact.

Today, however, I didn’t pick my side simply based on my ghetto and questionable dogma: I really do believe teachers should not peek at students’ belongings, especially when they are sorting out only certain people for their “inspections.” It’s not even a system like airport in which ALL the people go through that inspection bar. (I really don’t want to go this far, but this is more of discrimination when only some gets those backpack checks.)

Nonetheless, to make things clear, I do not believe that searching students’ persons and property is something low, disgusting, or “gross”, as some people put. There are reasons why people search in other people’s belongings. And, while the students’ right to privacy is a grave matter that we all should strive to protect, when we take a look at the bigger picture, people’s safety exists.

Be it a gun, or unsafe drug; be it a pornography tape or violent R rated movies. Aforesaid are what the teachers and adults consider unhealthy to students. Not all of them will hurt students physically, but are still not totally safe (this is the case especially in this psychological yet insightful 21^st century). Gun massacres in schools, drug abuses among teenagers, unsafe alcohol consumption (although alcohol consumption by minors is already illegal) among students, and other illicit and “wild” behaviors are all too common. And, it is hard to ignore the possibility that those behaviors might occur and even influence other students.

I know, as a student, that school is a dangerous place. However, despite the fact that all these children are vulnerable to and are exposed to these insecure and dangerous objects, I still believe teachers should not search students’ belongings. There are plethora examples why merely searching belongings of the usual suspects will not work, but Columbine High School shooting is a noteworthy case.

The perpetrators of this particular gun massacre were two seniors: Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. They were not members of a school gang but victims of school bullying. These victims of bullying certainly would not have been the usual suspects, and I see no chance of the teachers searching their personal possessions. Even with all their searching of the school’s usual suspects, I say this massacre would not have been avoided. Only in-this-case naïve school bullies would have been the victims of the “search.”  As this tragic event suggests, searching would simply not work. I mean out-looks, grades, friends and family relationships, and attitudes are not perfect definitions of individuals.

Instead of searching schoolbags, and possibly wasting time, money, effort, and people on such tasks, teachers and adults should educate their youngsters so those students can be more civil-mannered individuals. Educations about usage of firearms, drugs, and sex might be a good start. Implementing security systems (like those in the airports and in some buildings) could be a good next step. In the mean while, students can learn to respect each other and “life” more. I know many will regard my opinion and proposals too idealistic, but I think people should give each other more trusts. And, I do not think their utopian society will come by maintaining current method of preventing crimes in schools.

It is hard to ignore the dangerous and possibly harmful crimes and mistakes that the “usual suspects” might make. However, I believe targeting only few individuals and searching their belongings are simply not the case.  (632)

 

Everyone hates cloning for some reasons. Individuals think cloning is disgusting, inhumane, repulsive, and out-of-place. Since the birth of Dolly the sheep, many organizations rejected the whole idea of cloning: human rights activists say cloning is against human rights, and Christians say it is against their Gods. What many are not seeing in human cloning are the benefits that cloning will bring to us: longer life spans on one hand and faster and more efficient medical cure on the other hand.

I, however, am one of the “everyone” mentioned above. Despite all the positive, promising future that cloning might bring to us, I am opposed to this genetic modification. It seems to be a dangerous and wild asexual reproduction in labs.

A scientist argued: “much of the research about human cloning is centered on the ability of stem cells to produce tissues to be used for medical treatment.”

Huh? Ability of what? Tissues for medical treatment?

That is how most of us feel, but the truth be told, the statement just means that eradication of prevalent medical difficulties such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’ disease, can be possibly realized. Even though I am very against human cloning, I think this aspect of it is quite favorable. In fact, I was for human cloning when this was one of the few things I knew about human cloning. My lack of knowledge once sugarcoated human cloning.

What we cannot ignore are dangerous, as well as ugly, truths—the hidden facts of human cloning. Not only the ridiculous costs of reproductive cloning but also scant certainty is what we have to take a look at. According to a study done by Health Research Funding, only about one out of hundred attempts is successful. Even worse, this genetic modification cause unpredictable and undesirable outcomes. This is highly ironic; a step taken to wipe out undesirable human traits might actually bring short lives and high rates of tumor growth. Lower intelligence and high rates of infects are yet another risks that we all have to take.

The other side of the spectrum of trouble is human rights.

To what degrees are they humans and to what degrees are they only the brainchildren of the scientists?

Even the most objective research programs and organizations like AMA (American Medical Association), The Center of Bioethics and Human Dignity, and AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) argue that “human stem cell research requiring the destruction of human embryo is objectionable on legal, ethical, and scientific ground.

If human cloning is legalized, many “humans” will be unfairly treated, and be exposed to many violations against their “human” rights. It is now a trite argument against human cloning, but it will degrade the overall values of humans; more optimal human clones will be more worthy, while the second-rate clones will be less valued. It is true that the outcome of human cloning is unpredictable—who knows if we will end up treating every humans and every clones fairly and with respect? Be that as it may, judging from the purposes that human cloning are used for, I believe equal and same respect to both humans and their clones seem almost impossible.

While more than ninety-five percent of the attempts to clone mammals have miserably failed, and while human cloning is both directly and indirectly violating human rights and dignity, is cloning still worth the risk? Will the overall benefits of this asexual reproduction in science labs outweigh all the negatives? I believe this asexual reproduction does not meet safety standards and is not yet an option that us human can perfectly and ideally rely on.  (605)

When in Doubt, do Doubt

 “If you develop the absolute sense of certainty that powerful beliefs provide, then you can get yourself to accomplish virtually anything, including those things that other people are certain are impossible.” –William Lyon Phelps, American educator, journalist, and professor (1865–1943)

 In a society full of cloudy and murky skepticism, numerous individuals emphasize the importance of certainty, the supposedly bright and better sense of mind. Those people are assertive, demonstrative and certainly certain that such “absolute sense of certainty” will make themselvse “accomplish virtually anything.” What makes us people value that certainty so much? And, is accomplishing what seems to be impossible that important? I doubt that it is.

.

.

.

While many Mr. and Mrs. Incredibles are still huge fans of doing “things that other people are certain are impossible,” more cautionary pragmatist like I are attentive to make such quick judgments that virtually all things are within our reach. In fact, I carefully believe people who want to accomplish things that are seemingly out-of-touch with reality are rather stuck in bygone far-far-away-land inside a fairytale. If life were a fairytale, sure, those quixotics—not necessarily visionaries—would be highly acclaimed. They would proudly accomplish things that were originally thought to be impossible, and would be claimed as heroes of our days. However things do not work this majestically in reality.

I say a land far away because the era in which people believed there exist many impossible tasks is nowhere to be found in current society. Now, we can see that bygone era only in a retrospect. We have seen so many breathtaking technological breakthroughs that we are now almost immune to such developments and accomplishments. These days, how many people you know are truly awed by one of those daily technology updates? The era that only “certain” and thus supposedly valiant people thrived is now gone.

Now is different; we have to doubt, doubt, and doubt.

In fact, when in doubt, we have to doubt.

I think (but am not quite sure) that dubiousness is what makes people achieve more goals. Had a person, be it a scientist, artist or a cook, been so sure of what he or she was about to d no, he or she would not be deeply pondering about the true meaning (if there is one) of his or her work. In my opinion (though not absolutely firm), having definite and ultimate thoughts upon something is rather an act of a stuck-up person. And, in many cases, stubborn and inflexible people are not quite the best ones.

I’m pretty sure that cases like the Wright brother’s making of airplanes are not very common these days. Circumstances in which a shadow of skepticism is more useful than that “absolute certainty” are found in numerous pragmatic situations; does having that “absolute certainty” about your basketball skills make you to go play at the NBA? ; Does having that “absolute certainty” about your math skills make you score 800 on the SAT 2 subject test, or does having that “absolute certainty” you can marry Harry Styles (a member of a renowned boy band One Direction) make you really marry him? (Well maybe this isn’t very pragmatic situation)

.

.

.

Anyway, I wanted to say that it’s dubiousness that keeps us moving—that keeps us practicing, that keeps us strive to attain what we want. I started this essay with a quote from a nineteenth century person; I would like to end this essay with a quote of a twenty-first century hipster.

“I think doubting is important.”—Yoon Choi, a student (1997-present)

Word Count: 604

 

Not only the prominent thinkers but also normal citizens including you and I probably have pondered about the relationship between ownership and the development of self-identity.

What does it mean to own something?

.

.

.

I think owning something means to have monetary possessions or skills. And, surprisingly, a Twentieth-century philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre had a similar opinion to mine—when he was alive, of course. The meaning of ownership varies from people to people: A person like me can own a TI-89 and a pack of bubble gum. Others, like an eminent mogul in the Middle East can own five hundred camels and sixteen oil companies. In a similar context, a sports champion owns her highly acclaimed athletic abilities. Not only what we consider positive, but also somewhat not-positive ownerships also exist; physical challenges and diseases are two among many.

Listing out possessions of different groups of people is easy. Maybe the answer to the aforementioned question “what does it mean to own something” is rather simple.

Just kidding.

Owning something goes beyond “owing something.” Responsibilities, duties, and even unwanted attention from other people might as well come with that idea of ownership. Whether a person wants or not, this particular, private perception is endowed with numerous consequences. Far beyond all the “consequences” of that personalized and idiosyncratic idea lays the establishment of sense of self.

It’s a bad thing, many times. This shouldn’t happen this much, but sense of self is undoubtedly, and very frequently formed by the idea of possession—as far as I consider. Or, at least my sense of self is formed by my belongings.

It all goes back to the high school soccer season of 2012-2013 year. I was short of what most girls in the team had: A) fantastic soccer/futsal skills and B) expensive soccer/futsal cleats.

Yeah…don’t ask me why I was even in the team.

Anyhow, the season started and we had practices twice a week. All the girls on the team gathered and practiced the skills, techniques, postures, teamwork, tricks and many more things a soccer team could work on. Due to all the practice hours, the girls got to know each other better. They were able to determine how good the other teammates can play soccer. They were also able to determine who in the team has a best pair of cleats.

As aforementioned, I was neither of the two. Although I knew—even back then when I was a sophomoric freshman—that there are scope and breadth of diverse areas we could evaluate a person, my sense of self got lower. Due to my lack of those “ownerships” and “possessions”, I left many things rather unsaid. It shouldn’t have been done that way, but it did. On the other hand, the girls who had both A and B were more outgoing and demonstrative.

Oh, no worries. I do have high self-esteem and self-regard. I love me. What I want to say is that this peculiar idea of ownership does affect a lot of people both in positive and in negative ways. Because what we own are part of ourselves, we are vulnerable to the messages that our properties send us. And we are vulnerable to all these also because ourselves judge other based on what they have as well. We molded the society into such way that all of us are conscious of what we have.

Anyway, I hope no one gets a negative impact on his or her sense of self. Most of the times, we put too much value on things we do not have, and not appreciate what we, ourselves, have.

(606)

How does this so-called Buy Nothing Day even going to affect us? 

Indeed, we live in a world full of capitalistic ideas, in which consumers purchase numerous goods: be it a pack of bubble gum, a TI-89, or even a ridiculously pricy yet still high-in-demand Vera Wang wedding dress. The scope and breadth of consumers’ purchases are literally—not figuratively—unfathomable. And, one may wonder if this is either boon of the boom and bust cycle or an outward display excessive human greed. To me, both sound plausible. In fact, in most cases, both arguments are legitimate. The question, however, is whether the establishment of an annual Buy Nothing Day is necessary in this particular case.

First organized in Canada in 1992, Buy Nothing Day was created in order to increase the awareness of superfluous consumerism; it was to draw attention to the apparently problematic shopping sessions of the individuals. On this very day, people, the mighty consumers, are “urged to purchase no goods.”

The idea itself seems creative, and it even seems quite influential in this society full of awareness of awareness. In fact, those interested people have participated in various meetings and protests to increase awareness of the over-consumption. Participants threw non-commercial and free street parties (I don’t know how such act helps us to acknowledge our supposed shortcomings, though) , did sit-ins, and even cut up their credit cards to show their displeasure toward such imprudent spending, according to a social media.

I highly acclaim their valiant efforts to make such disgraceful matter of uncontrolled economic activities exposed to the world. Be that as it may, have you ever heard of this day? I think both you and I know the answer. Truth be told, answer is quite obvious. I say their twenty-year effort is close to naught; I say the establishment of Buy Nothing Day is unnecessary, judging from the wonderful yet quite minute progress they have accomplished so far.

I think this day even has some problems. On this day in which people are urged to buy no goods, the economy is still going through its boom and bust cycles. I am not trying to be–you know–a word-by-word literalist, but this vague concept seems very unaccomplished to me. How can we be urged to purchase no goods? In my humble (actually, not so humble) opinion, the establishment of the annual Buy Nothing Day seems like yet another absurdity. Notwithstanding with the founder of this day, I think we should rather celebrate the successful economy and prosperity.

Again, Buy Nothing Day seems influential at first glance. Nonetheless, the impact of it was like that of a flap of a butterfly. And, the butterfly effect sadly did not come to place until this moment. Rather than to establish such anti-capitalistic day, why don’t we take a different step toward spreading aforementioned view? Viral videos and arousing advertisements are among innumerable alternatives to this ineffectual method.

 

Mr. Odom,

According to Wikipedia, the definition of “creativity” is a phenomenon whereby something new and in some way valuable is created (such as an idea, a joke, a literary work, painting or musical composition, a solution, and invention etc.) Creativity has to be explicitly taught in school. Why is this so? Mr. Hinkle, Ms. Eason, and many other individuals including you and I will not have to read these kinds of cliché essay introductions anymore.

Now what is creativity? Creativity is something unique—something that will make a smile across one’s face. Creativity is an amusing combination of intelligence and wit. Something creative is never boring. It’s something fascinating: something that you and I have never thought of before. It’s a world to adhere to if one is looking forward to experiencing charming and pleasurable thrills. And, clearly, creativity is something that has educational values—at least enough to be a part of the school curriculum.

Our school should clearly, and in detail, teach students creative thinking. I too think force-feeding creativity to students might not be the best approach to obtaining the most desirable outcome. However, such steps toward the reform might as well give students some nutrients—some idea, at least, about what the true creativity is; the benefit of such education approach outweighs its drawbacks—as far as I consider. And, establishment of a class in creativity is definitely a nice, decent, and supercalifragilisticexpialidocious way to start.

While other subjects such as science, math, and language classes are considered solid and important to the education curriculum and have their importance emphasized numerous times, creativity, the key factor of leadership according to a study, is marginalized. Since the inception of the education, although not specifically dated, many great teachers have force-fed the students those “academic” studies, and the method undoubtedly worked. The academic achievements of students nowadays are evident and exceptional. Why can’t we apply such methods to teaching creativity?

It’s not that no one has ever tried renovating the education to further and deepen creativity of us children. More often than not, however, attempts of such scholars and reformers proved to be futile. Apparently, creative sitting arrangements, creative project assignments, and creative writing class did not meet quite a success as the aforementioned statistic manifests. Such implicit differentiations in education might in fact were too clouded—too clouded for us children to grasp and learn what the creativity is.

Directly teaching students “yeses” and “noes” to creativity will affect the great young minds in innumerable ways. Yes, this kind of approach might limit children’s artistic expressions, for it draws a line that they can rely on. Even worse, it might make students to make only in-side-the-box attempts and thus limit their endless potentials. On the other hand, however, it will overall expand the visions of the students because, learning something is better than learning nothing at all. In the classroom lies a wide range of limitless potentials of ingenious thoughts. By founding an atmosphere suitable for such innovative ideas to bloom, we can instigate the students’ inventive thoughts, just like we do in the classrooms of other academic subjects.

Anyway, Mr. Odom, I think our school should organize a creative class. I mean, I could have written you this letter in a more creative, less boring way had I given the option to be in a class in which students are taught somewhat innovating and fascinating communication skills. As I mentioned previously, please save Mr. Hinkle, Ms. Eason, and other numerous individuals including you and I from reading a yet another boring essay.

 

All the best,

Yoon

Word count (601)

According to the Laws of Cricket:

 

Cricket is a bat and ball game, played between two teams of eleven players each. One team bats, attempting to score runs, while the other bowls and fields the ball, attempting to restrict the scoring and dismiss the batsmen. The objective of the game is for a team to score more runs than its opponent. In some forms of cricket, it may also be necessary to dismiss the opposition in order to win the match, which would otherwise be drawn.

 

Above is an excerpt from the Laws of Cricket. Yes, oh my god. You are right. It is very much in parallel to the American history and the American characteristics. For those of you who are not “American” enough let me explain you why this is rather a common sense to many Americans in what I hope will be legitimate terms.

 

“A bat and a ball game”—what does this tell you? That’s right. This is American virtue number one: individualism. If you have ever seen a ball and a bat, you would have noticed this immediately: a ball and a bat have are two very distinct tools. A ball is round, while a bat is long. However, by putting them together and using them in a game, Cricket, the game itself, is admitting and encouraging different individualisms and characteristics. Had the Cricket not promote this American virtue, the two very distinct instruments would not have been used in a same game—don’t you think so?

 

“Played between two teams of eleven players each”—more vividly shows the Americaness in the game of Cricket. As many of you readers already are aware, eleven and two are both numbers with utmost values in the American history and culture. Eleven is the fifth smallest prime number, which clearly identifies with the U.S. Route 11. This highway clearly suggests the scope and breadth of the American country and its broad history in this land. Number two is yet another very American number: the U.S. ranks second for approval of drone strikes, according to the Ranking America statistics. Eleven and two combined is the number thirteen. What does this mean? Obviously, this number represents the thirteen colonies that formed the American nation. Is this only a simple coincidence or what?

 

“The objective of the game is for a team to score more runs that its opponent”—this elucidates the capitalistic value of the American society. Among the many characteristics of an authentic capitalism, this competitiveness is certainly one. Without the rivalry and the freedom to expand one’s limitless potential, the American value in its society would be nowhere to be found. Economically speaking, these vying characteristics of the society are very American—both in macroeconomics and microeconomic sense. Competitions are encouraged in our culture, and not-so-American-you might question this. As the aforesaid statement, differences are promoted in the American society.

 

Afresh, Cricket is the true American sport. Even the name itself says it. The “Cricket” has seven alphabets in its name. Seven, what a meaningful number! This number represents the American sportsmanship. NHL, MLB, and NBA all have “seven” as their maximum number of games played in a playoff series. Furthermore, in the natural world, seven is the neutral pH value between acidity and alkalinity—this wonderfully magical number suggests the American value of neutrality.

 

Is this still a lucky coincidence? Let Cricket be the true American sport. It now seems irrefutable that the Cricket is not the true American sport.

 

The last statement that will end this essay will blow your mind: the word “America” also has seven letters in it.

 

Word count: 604

There are a few occasions in which a person acts differently. Just kidding. There are many occasions in which a person acts differently. She maybe just uncomfortable with that person who she is facing, or she maybe deliberately changing her attitude to “fake” a character—that is, her reputation of some sort. Going through many years of school, and notably, two full school years of high school, I have noticed plethora individuals who alter their attitudes depending on the situations they are in; the people whom they are with; the time and occasion they are in. I know. People are often mean and duplicitous. I’m guessing many of you had preconception that this practice is rather unkind. This trend, however, is not always low and unpleasant, if you think of. This action, actually, is often professional and work-oriented.

It all happened few summers ago when I saw a drastic changed between a person and that same person—I won’t be specific about the time because it might give answers to people who are reading this blog entry. Anyway, the school was out. The weather was warm. School kids had their days and nights mixed up (well, some did). Oh, actually it was a few days before the school actually resumed. On that very day, my friends and I were at the downtown. We did nothing un-student-like, though (I’m just making sure). Anyway, it was kind of late, so we had to say “good-byes” and “see-you-next-week’s” to each other. My mom soon came to pick Moon and I up. So there we were, sitting on the backseat of Mom’s car, driving through many people who were still out there.

Oh, snap. There, I saw a teacher who works in DIS. There, she was standing tall and high with her friends (hopefully, her friends). There, literally saw the differences between the “outside” Ms. Whatever and “school” Ms. Whatever. She had a minimum amount of clothing on, and most of those were shiny and showy. I even said that to my mom: “Oh my god. Look what she is wearing!” Oh, freshman me. We were all utterly surprised, exposed to a rather uncomfortable truth of a person. I think she was (is) an elementary school teacher; I don’t know about what the others think, but in my mind, an elementary school teacher has a quite organized, upstanding, and academic “image.” Anyway, she was there.

My perception of her, of course, changed. I do believe that she was very deft and skilled, whatsoever because she was competent enough to not expose her “other” character at school—and it is quite obvious that she did not voluntarily show her “other” self to me. Her professionalism was decent, but the expose of her character did, in fact, made me change my understanding of her. I don’t think it really matters, though. We barely said “hi” to each other, and we barely saw each other at school. Last but not least, she didn’t see me see her; I was in a car, she was looking at somewhere else, and she might not even remember my face. And I still thank the perfect timing and all that because I would have shot my reputation to the netherworld as well, had we seen “each other.”

Anyhow, perceptions do change when a person sees different aspects of another person. I my case, it was sadly a negative change and a bitter realization of professionalism. Yet, there are numerous cases in which people discover the “betters” of the others when faced with varying attitudes and circumstances. Thankfully, people do often change their interpretations of the others to more beneficial ways too. (613)

Numerous words exist in the English dictionary. I mean, you don’t even have to go that far. Vocabularies are everywhere—literally everywhere. In my high school student point-of-view, though, I’m not quite sure if it is truly a “blessing” to have this many word choices. Regardless of my preference, however, we are still, inevitably faced with all of these innumerable, countless, various, copious words to choose from. Redundant? Sorry.

Let us now look closely into these two vocabularies: “naïve” and “artless.” The two vocabularies are very closely related to each other. Often, a person can interchange two vocabularies and still make sense. One can say, for instance, “the rather naïve young man had been totally misled.” In a similar context, one can also say “the rather artless young man had been totally misled.” Both sentences are very similar to each other in their context. And, not many people will find either of them awkward.

What then are the differences between the two? Many tend to say that there is no big distinction between the two words. And, they are right, I guess. There aren’t any tremendous ones. Don’t underestimate the slight variation, though, because seemingly negligible variation can make a big difference in your life! Cheesy? Sorry.

Any how, “artless” is an adjective that is used to describe something natural, without effort, or without fine skill. Very similarly, “naïve” is an adjective that is used to describe someone or something natural and innocent, without skill, or lacking wisdom. Maybe there is a fine line between the two words: the connotation. “Artless” has a neutral, if not positive, connotation while “naïve” has a negative connotation. Often, the word “naïve” is misused in texts.

While “artless” is used to describe something whose natural character is a charm, “naïve” is used to describe something whose guileful style is rather a negative trait. Both artless and naïve boys can be culpable of doing something disgraceful. However, only the artless one will be able to escape the blame—or even hatred. We often say “he is too naïve”, yet we hardly ever say or hear someone say “he is too artless.”

I’m afraid my descriptions are too roundabout, too ambiguous, too cloudy, too unclear, or too vague. (Again, there is a plethora of vocabs to choose from in our world. What a blessing!) Let’s get into some literary examples. Take Jenna Humphreys in the Gossip Girl for example. She is naïve and innocent girl who just wants to fit into the “Manhattan’s elite” society. To be a part of the clique, Miss Humphreys tries hard—that is, drinking underage, engaging in some illicit activities, and more high-teen fiction stuff. Can we call her “artless”? I believe not: although her innocence is clearly shown in her actions, she has wiles that made numerous situations needlessly complicated due to her somewhat selfish motives. Jenny Humphreys is blameworthy of her misdoings and thus, not artless.

Yet another example that will make the distinction between the two words is Dan Humphreys. Yes, another character from the TV serious Gossip Girls. Dan Humphreys is an older brother of Jenny. He shares similar characteristic with his sister. Perhaps, this is a family thing. His artlessness is a charm that many girls, though fictional, fall for. Naturally good natured and simply simple, Dan is a kind of boy who is “artless.” Rather than lack of common sense or practical knowledge of some sort, Dan Humphreys looks like he is not yet matured. He is “artless” in a sense.

I hope my explanations made sense. Writing this essay, I figured out myself that I am an artless writer—which in this case, means lack of fine skills. I, perhaps, might be in the “Age of Innocence” stage of my life. Let us euphemize my defect. (632)