Writing 20: Reflecting on Your Work in This Course

Image:Mise en abyme, https://pin.it/6pysHb5

I’d like you to think about your work in this course in two different ways.

1) Please point to something you learned how to do as a writer.

You should not feel that you need to come up with some sort of deep insight or major breakthrough. I’d simply like you to identify a particular thing you feel you can do better now as a writer now than you could at the start of the semester. And I’d like you to provide some evidence for this claim. I can see two ways you might do so:

• By comparing a moment in an early draft of a piece to one in a later draft—that is, by pointing to something you did in revision, or
• By noting something you were able to do in your second essay that you weren’t able to do, or didn’t know you should do, in your first.

2) Please point to something you learned about the nature of online communication.

Since about 1990 theorists have been arguing that the internet will transform how we write and communicate. This past year has been a crash test of that idea. Can you point to one or two things that have felt significantly different for you as a writer and student this semester? These don’t need to be positive differences, and I’m not asking you to evaluate this course. I’m interested in hearing your thoughts about how the environment for writing and learning has changed.

I don’t want you to worry that anything you write in this reflection could count against your grade for the course. So I’ve done three things:

1. I’ve made the deadline for this assignment Wednesday, December 23—which is the day after final grades are due.
2. I’ve already given you credit for this assignment. (Check Canvas: You should have 2 points under Writing 20.)
3. I ask you to email me your reflections through Guerilla Mail. This is a perfectly safe program that allows you to send anonymous emails. I’ve had students use it for years without a problem. Please just write your reflection in the text of the email message, and put “Writing 20: Reflections” in the subject line.

I look forward to reading your thoughts!

Economy and Mental Health: Discussing Jenny Odell’s Overview of “Bartleby”

In Jenny Odell’s work “How To Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy” she references a multitude of different literary works, plays, novels, philosophical articles, online pieces, etc. She uses these to back her argument of trying to resist the economy and to show what it is the economy does to a person. In her work she mentions the story of Bartleby, “Bartleby, the Scrivener” written by Herman Melville. Odell uses this story to show her perfect example of resistance, mentioning Bartleby’s infamous line, “I’d prefer not to”. She goes into detail about how she loved this story and puts Bartleby on a pedestal. What Odell fails to mention is how Bartleby gets to this point.

In my writing, I take a look at why it is Bartleby declined so fast, and how his story is a story of depression and what the economy can do to a person. I also discuss the fact that Odell has ‘cherry-picked’ the story and she fails to mention a key part of the story, which is bizarre as to mention this fact would only help her cause. In my writing I state: “I spoke briefly earlier about how Odell ‘cherry-picked’ parts of Bartleby, the Scrivener in an effort to try and help support her argument on resisting the economy. During her explanation of the story she does not at all mention this theory of depression taking over Bartleby, she only mentions the part that she feels will help her case.”

Hopefully by reading my essay you learn the importance of mental health and what happens if you allow your mental health decline. Please take the opportunity to read my essay and see what it is Odell is missing from her analysis of the story.

https://dabridge.medium.com/economy-and-mental-health-discussing-jenny-odells-overview-of-bartleby-63b7d63b7e9a

Finding Joy, Care, and Meaning: Rebecca Solnit’s Expansion of Jenny Odell’s View of Altruism in Times of Disaster

Did you know that you can have a purposeful, meaningful, and even joyful experience in times of disaster?  I am convinced that this is often the case having read Rebecca Solnit’s book, A Paradise Built in Hell:  The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster, in which she maintains through intensive research, persuasive interviews, and personal experiences, that although this claim is counter-intuitive, it is nonetheless true.  Jenny Odell recounts in her book, How to Do Nothing:  Resisting the Attention Economy, that due to a sudden and frightening experience she had with a stranger one day, she became acutely aware of a deeply felt responsibility and connection to her neighboring community and fellow citizens.  Odell makes some startling revelations about human nature in times of trouble, referencing Solnit’s book to further advance her belief that we need to aspire to give greater attention to and take better care of people in our communities, particularly in distressing situations.  One of Odell’s revelations that I found to be particularly surprising was that out of tragedy oftentimes comes help and care from virtual strangers, a revelation that Solnit also writes about in her book.  Odell quotes a Nicaraguan poet, Giaconda Belli, who lived through the 1972 earthquake in Nicaragua, who tells Solnit in an interview:

All of a sudden you went from being in your house the night before, going to bed alone in your own little world to being thrown out on the street and mingling with neighbors you might not have said hello to very much or whatever and getting attached to those people, minding them, helping, trying to see what you could do for one another, talking about how you felt (Odell 134).

Solnit’s primary goal in writing A Paradise Built in Hell is to argue that a “creative paradise” can be found in a hellish situation, that through a community’s resourcefulness, selflessness, and mutual aid, disaster victims can experience a temporary social utopia, through altruism, solidarity, social order, and even joy and exhilaration by helping others, not just family and friends but total strangers as well.  Odell further agrees with Solnit’s assessment that exhilaration can be found amid disasters:

Solnit repeatedly finds survivors who recount the exhilaration of commingling with their neighbors and finding common purpose, making clear the necessity of emotional sustenance as much as material sustenance (Odell 134).

Solnit not only agrees with Odell that exhilaration can be found amid disasters; she also goes a step further by claiming joy can be found as well, quoting:

The joy in disaster comes when it comes from that purposefulness, the immersion in service and survival and from an affection that is not private and personal but civic:  the love of strangers for each other, of a citizen for his or her city, of belonging to a greater whole, of doing the work that matters (Solnit 306).

Both Odell and Solnit give examples of how their attention to others has expanded as a result of their findings and personal experiences.  Odell writes how her perception changed with her new way of thinking about how we are all morally obligated to one another, referencing Solnit’s writing about the 1906 San Francisco earthquake wherein Solnit quotes Pauline Jacobson’s article in the San Francisco Bulletin, “How It Feels to Be a Refugee and Have Nothing in the World, by Pauline Jacobson, One of Them.”

Never even when the four walls of one’s own room in a new city shall close around us again shall we sense the old lonesomeness shutting us off from our neighbors.  Never again shall we feel singled out by fate for the hardships and ill luck that’s going.  And that is the sweetness and the gladness of the earthquake and the fire (the catastrophic fire that ensued after the earthquake).  Not of bravery nor of strength, nor of a new city, but of a new inclusiveness.  The joy in the other fellow (Odell 135).

Odell also references Solnit’s example of how many communities rallied together to provide mutual physical and emotional support for their neighbors as they recovered from the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, stating:

This is also a good place to return to Rebecca Solnit’s Paradise in Hell, in which ad hoc networks of support were erected in the wake of disaster by neighbors who may never have had the occasion to meet each other.  Not only did these neighbors organize and provide each other with food, water, shelter, medical aid, and moral support—often crossing social boundaries or upending norms in order to do so—but these local, flexible, and rhizomatic networks often got the job done  better, or at least faster, than the more institutional aid that followed (Odell 133).

The most obvious disaster our world is facing right now is COVID-19.  It is currently the deadliest health disaster the world has had to face since the outbreak of the Spanish flu in 1918, caused by the H1N1 flu virus that infected 500 million people and an estimated 50 million deaths globally.  Since the invasion of COVID-19 into the U.S. from January 21, 2020 – November 30, 2020, almost 13.3 million people have been infected with more than 266,000 deaths from the virus in the U.S. alone.   Although Rebecca Solnit published her book in 2009, a decade before our current worldwide pandemic, her extensive research, interviews, and both verbal and written accounts of personal experiences provide indisputable proof that almost all disaster response by affected communities shows resilience and altruism in the midst of chaos and devastation.  Solnit writes extensively about five major disasters that have devastated the U.S. in recent history, concluding that each initial disaster response by law enforcement agencies, federal emergency relief organizations, and wealthy, elitist politicians has been largely unorganized and slow to respond in the immediate aftermath of each of the disasters:  the San Francisco earthquake of 1906, the Halifax explosion in 1917, the Mexico City earthquake in 1985, the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York on 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.   In the following paragraphs, I will validate Solnit’s conclusion as valid in the wake of America’s most recent major disaster, the coronavirus pandemic, showing how ineffective, dangerous, and terribly tragic the lack of response has been by the world’s most powerful man in the world:  the President of the United States.

President Trump, up until mid-March of this year, has adamantly disregarded the Center for Disease Control’s proven scientific recommendations that U.S. citizens should wear masks when outside the home, maintain a social distance of at least six feet, and either stay at home (except for necessary travel) or gather in small groups (while maintaining the CDC’s pandemic recommendations of wearing masks and social distancing) in order to ward off what could result in financial disaster in the U.S.  Not only has the disaster response been ineffective so far because of the President’s refusal to federally mandate these requirements, but he also adds fuel to the fire by almost never wearing a mask himself in public and openly mocking those who do.  He personally disregards the CDC’s recommendation for social distancing, having conducted many press conferences, meetings, and social gatherings in close quarters where almost everyone follows the President’s lead and refuses to wear a mask.  The CDC director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, has from the very beginning of the pandemic, warned U.S. citizens that in order to control and consequently eliminate this deadly virus, all Americans should follow the CDC guidelines, even though President Trump consistently downplays the severity of the virus.  As a result, many of the president’s supporters and others in his administration have chosen to disregard the scientific evidence as well, following the President’s lead without considering or caring about the dangerous effect such reckless behavior has on the general public.  And to make things even worse, without federal measures in place to control the spread of the virus, the governor of each state has the authority to issue whatever measures he or she deems appropriate, i.e., closing businesses, schools, and/or public venues, in light of the potential catastrophic effects, while trying to minimize its impact on the U.S. economy, with the authority to re-open them at his or her discretion. As a result, COVID-19 infection in the U.S. has only continued to skyrocket and the death count in the U.S. is higher now than since the beginning of the pandemic.  President Trump’s apparent lack of concern about the exponential increase of infections nationwide has become a disaster itself – a disaster created by him due to his refusal to use common sense measures to counteract the spread of COVID-19.  Instead of encouraging and supporting a community of scientific experts to work to control the spread of the virus in an expeditious, efficient, and effective manner, the President has chosen instead to make his own decisions, decisions that have proven to be selfish and uncaring, and have resulted in astronomical proportions of illness and death.  Throughout this monumental health crisis, President Trump remains seemingly dispassionate and unconcerned about the welfare of the nation’s citizenry, the antithesis of taking care of and providing for the community of Americans he has sworn to defend and protect.  Despite the President’s seeming indifference to the tremendous negative effects all American’s are now facing from COVID-19, joy and exhilaration have been felt all over the country proving Solnit’s claim that much good can result from bad experiences.  Exhausted front-line healthcare workers and the service industry have been shown displays of overwhelming gratitude by people all over the country, contributing and serving up meals, signs and posters in yards and windows sending positive messages of support, i.e., “Stay Strong” and “Show Kindness.”  Joy and exhilaration can always be a strong counterpoint to adversity when we work together for the common good.

As Solnit relates, it is quite evident to me that the federal response to the five major disasters she wrote about in her book was ineffective and lagging.  She makes a valid point in elucidating that powerful, wealthy elites and federal emergency disaster organizations have responded in the past by treating the victims of disasters as enemies and have sought to overpower them by using strong-arm tactics and even sometimes deadly force as a means of control.  Although the current federal disaster response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been curtailed by an authoritarian president, I am confident that President-Elect Biden will institute a federal mandate of national mask wearing on the first day of his presidency, as he has promised American citizens, to rapidly and effectively control the spread of the virus.  I believe that President-Elect Biden’s promise to counter the current failed COVID-19 response will result in an urgent, timely, and effective policy to manage and subsequently eradicate this deadly disease. 

Odell tells us after having gone through the frightening experience she had with the woman having a seizure in her presence, she realized that other people are not just a stumbling block to get around to pursue her own selfish needs and desires. Rather than being annoyed that people are in our way, we should recognize every human life is just as important and valuable as our own.  Odell references a portion of David Foster Wallace’s commencement speech that he gave at Kenyon College in 2005 that further emphasizes her point:

But if you’ve really learned how to think, how to pay attention, then you will know you have other options (to see other people as inert beings who are in the way).  It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, loud, slow, consumer-hell-type situation as not only meaningful but sacred, on fire with the same force that lit the stars – compassion, love, the sub-surface unity of all things (Odell 129).

Odell further comments that if we want to break away from our self-centered existence, we need to recognize that it takes discipline, will, and attention (much like Buber’s I-Thou relationship we read about in her book) in order to be more compassionate and caring of others. Odell claims that she is often reminded of this when she rides the bus in Oakland discreetly watching her fellow passengers. While out in public, it has frequently been my observation that most people are self-absorbed and inconsiderate.  I find it both sad and disappointing that so many people don’t seem to care about other people they encounter as they go about their daily lives.  How difficult is it, if even for only a moment, to make the effort to take the time to pay attention to someone other than yourself?  Just a smile on a friendly face could make a positive difference in someone’s day.

None of us should take our lives for granted.  As I have already mentioned, it is important that we all need to take care of one another as well as ourselves.  Unfortunately, I experienced my own personal disaster.  In May of 2004, I had a craniotomy at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, to remove a benign brain tumor by a renowned and well-respected neurosurgeon.  I went into surgery hopeful that I would sail through it without any complications (as I had been reassured by my doctor) to go back to living a normal life after recovery.  However, I suffered a stroke during surgery and then another one the following day.  I was on a ventilator for a week and on the verge of death.  My community of family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues immediately came to my aid, generously and lovingly gifting me with their invaluable support by sending cards, flowers, prayers, and love.  My personal faith in a loving, caring God has sustained me, giving me the strength, courage, determination, and perseverance to get well, as much for my loved ones as for myself.  I am a living testament that the care and support of my community and a loving, compassionate God were instrumental in my recovery.  It took several weeks of medical care, occupational, speech, and physical therapy to regain full cognitive ability and physical strength with the consistent help and on-going care of another indispensable community:  my doctors, nurses, therapists, and healthcare staff.  I owe the utmost gratitude to this dedicated and caring community of professional supporters, most of whom were strangers to me.  Although I went through a very traumatic, painful, and almost fatal experience, I became unwavering in my goal to completely recover, in body, mind, and spirit, gradually regaining physical strength, improved cognition, and a deeper, more trusting relationship with God, throughout the long road to recovery.  Now, looking back at this life-altering experience, I have come to realize that during that time, I had fully experienced my own social utopia, through the love, care, and support of both sets of supporters, personal and professional.  A permanent, personal transformation has taken place in my life in the wake of this life-threatening experience.  As both Odell and Solnit repeatedly claim in their books, I discovered firsthand the truth in their claims that joy and exhilaration can also be found through community support during and after a disastrous situation.

Finally, I would like to conclude that if we ever become victims of disasters, no matter how large or small, we can become more compassionate and caring individuals.   Through painful trials come a more deeply felt sense of intimate connection with our fellow human beings.  Our kinship with others in times of trouble can bring to the forefront an acute awareness of the subconscious need to care and provide for others, acknowledging that we are all interdependent on one another for our mutual well-being.   When tragedy strikes, we should be quick to respond and resolute in purpose, ready and willing to unite with and help our neighboring communities to rebuild and repair the physical and emotional damage inflicted.  We can even find joy and exhilaration in helping others as I did, and as Solnit attests to, when we all interact generously and compassionately as we reconstruct our lives, materially and emotionally.   There is no question in my mind that we can experience a paradise in hell in times of disaster.  Ultimately, it is up to each one of us to recognize our common humanity, moral responsibility to one another, and then just reach out with our hands and hearts to make this happen.

References:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC COVID Tracker.  January 21, 2020.  https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_per100K

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1918 Pandemic (H1N1) virus/Pandemic Influenza (Flu)/CDC.  March 20, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html

Odell, J.  How to Do Nothing:  Resisting the Attention Economy. Melville House, 2019.  Kindle Edition.

Solnit, Rebecca.  A Paradise Built in Hell:  The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster.  New York:  Penguin Books, 2009.  Kindle Edition.

I’d Prefer Not To: An Ode to Jenny Odell’s Refusal

Going through Jenny Odell’s third chapter about refusal I was intrigued by “Bartleby The Scrivener”, a short story about a man who repeatedly utters the phrase “I’d prefer not to” to every action demanded by his employer (a lawyer). With this, Jenny Odell highlights the reactions of his employer, being very surprised in a way. I went along as to read the this short story about Bartleby and there’s more to it. In my essay I talked about how Bartleby’s passivity within society parallels with Odell’s point on “resisting the attention economy”. I also went to talk about the other character’s reactions to Bartleby and how that also has meaning in society. Jenny Odell knew Bartleby was “resisting” society in his own specific way.

“Part of the reason why it is odd that the lawyer is confused and ultimately shocked by Bartleby’s behavior is because he doesn’t know the reason for his actions. Odell states, “He not only will not do what he asked, he answers in a way that negates the terms of the question.” In doing this she suggests that the lawyer can’t deduce anything from Bartleby because Bartleby doesn’t “battle on the same plane”.”

This is a quote from my essay where I describe the unknown feeling the lawyer feels. Whether we like it or not, the concept of something being unknown tends to be fearful. With Bartleby having the power to give off this unknown feeling to the lawyer is a way Bartleby has control over him in a way, mentally. This gives him a passive presence and leaves me thinking “it’s important to be aware of the passive existence in our world and understand how it works.

I’d Prefer Not to: An ode to Jenny Odell’s Refusal

Undercover Behaviorist: Odell’s Take on Skinner’s Theories

When I was reading Jenny Odell’s How to Do Nothing, chapter two mentioned a seemingly interesting book that Odell was passionate about titled Walden Two by B. F. Skinner. I have always taken an interest in psychology and the science of human behavior so I thought this would be a great book to read for our next essay. While I was reading I realized that yes, like Odell pointed out, Walden Two is a dystopian society, but Odell’s and Skinner’s ideas on how to achieve their idea of a perfect society aren’t all too different from one another.

In my essay I start off by setting the stage and educating the reader on the background of B. F. Skinner as a psychologist and writer and explain his work and the principles behind it. Eventually, I get into the differences of the two authors and how Odell really challenges Skinner’s beliefs and theories about behavioral modification. The main point of my essay is to call Odell out and draw parallels between the authors’ rationales about how they should go about creating a better society, albeit in two very different directions “…if Odell were to explain how her readers can actually follow through on her ideas in their lives, she would see that in order to put those ideas into motion, you would need the same kind of behavioral modifications and conditioning demonstrated in Walden Two.”

https://koertel.medium.com/undercover-behaviorist-odells-take-on-skinner-s-theories-221300a45e33

An Outsider’s Perspective: A Connection Between Ursula K. Le Guin and Jenny Odell

An Outsider’s Perspective. A deep dive of Ursla K. Le Guin’s The… | by Kale | Dec, 2020 | Medium

I chose to write about Ursula K. Le Guin’s novel The Dispossessed. The Sci-Fi classic follows Shevek, a brilliant physicist who is native to the moon Annares. His task is to bring peace between the nearby planet Urras and Annares while also making advances in light speed travel. The two worlds are starkly different, which creates several obstacles for Shevek during his stay on the Earth like planet Urras. Annares is very focused on equality and work ethic, so to come to Urras, a plant focused on material goods and money is challenging. During his stay on Urras Shevek is a very clear outsider, which is what Odell latched onto in her book. Odell brings the idea of an outsider to a new light, saying that they are essential and important to induce change. After reading both works I have concluded that an outsider’s motives and perspective is shaped by the environment they are raised in. Overall, The Dispossessed was a great read that I enjoyed as an avid Sci-Fi reader.

I think my favorite part of The Dispossessed is the way Le Guin puts herself in the outsider role and writes as an alien to culture and customs that are normal. Creating a society that revolves around working for the sake of working is tough in itself, but then to have a character from that world encounter an Earth like society is brilliant. It made me question my motives but also the motives of other’s around me.

Changing the Way we Work: Reading Jenny Odell Reading Why Work Sucks

– Image from amazon.com 2020 Why Work Sucks

I chose to write about Why Work Sucks primarily because of the negative take Odell Had on the book. How to do nothing is a treasure trove of literally references and the vast majority of these references are used in a positive light. Why Work Sucks however is one of the few literary pieces that is used negatively by Odell. This made me wonder what the book was about and what would have caused Odell to dislike it so much. Upon reading Why Work Sucks I found that the content of the book was not quite what Odell made it out to be. In fact, in my essay I end up coming to the conclusion that if Odell were to give the book another chance that she would actually find that the narrative would help add to and shape her own in How to do nothing.

My essay begins by explaining the content of Why Work Sucks and what I found to be so captivating about it. Why work sucks is about a Results Only Work Environment (or ROWE for short) in which you are not required to work for x number of hours a day instead you can work from wherever, whenever so long as you accomplish your tasks. This type of work environment has proven to be very successful in allowing individuals to regain control of their personal lives and reconnect with the world around them, one of the primary narrative goals of How to do Nothing.

https://stuarta.medium.com/changing-the-way-we-work-reading-jenny-odell-reading-why-work-sucks-5613c8141af9

Psychology and Bringing People Together After Disasters

https://sharzen.medium.com/psychology-and-bringing-people-together-after-disasters-9bfc9821b142

I chose to write about Rebecca Solnits “A Paradise Built in Hell”. In my essay I write about how Odell could have further shown not only why it is so important to resist the attention economy but how to do so on a large scale. I describe how I feel it is a missed opportunity from Odell to do take advantage of Solnits writing. I relate the two books by talking about how “How to Do Nothing” could have shown the psychology behind peoples decisions and how it is possible to create the conditions required for development and change to our current system. This would create a level of understanding with her readers as to how it is possible for all people to resist the attention economy.

One example from my essay includes a family who begins to feed the starving people in the aftermath of the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake. This family comes together, starting from “one tin can to drink from and one pie plate to eat from” to feeding over 200 families. This was not the only instance of heroism, in-fact if is one of many. People come together after disasters in amazing ways, and this same selflessness and ability to do the right thing could hav been used to show if Odell framed how horrible the attention economy and how many things it is destroying it is possible to come together , to rise from the ashes as one may say, to fix what is broken.

The combination of Voices: The Overlapping Views of Jenny Odell and Henry David Thoreau

https://glclarke.medium.com/the-combination-of-voices-the-overlapping-views-of-jenny-odell-and-henry-david-thoreau-in-how-to-8ff70c0a2404

I chose to write about Henry David Thoreau’s “Walking.” Odell and Thoreau share many similar ideologies regarding the topics of society and the development of the mind. While the two philosophers share the same base opinion, there is a beautiful contrast between their writing styles and details to their beliefs. Even though Odell only mentions this specific piece by Thoreau as an introductory quote to one of her chapters, the particular line mentioned perfectly aligns with the subject of her following paragraphs. The question then between the two pieces is what would Odell do if she could fully analyze and use “Walking” to support her claims, and what limited her from doing so in the first place?
While I have personally read a few of Thoreau’s other works, I had never read “Walking.” Compared to his more famous pieces, “Walking” was originally meant as a lecture, creating a casual atmosphere as Thoreau takes you through his thoughts and process. This particular piece highlights the thinking process and reflection, a trait not commonly seen in Thoreau’s writing. Thoreau allows for the reader to begin taking their steps of leaving society through the small act of taking a walk. While these two properties of literature are very similar to Odell’s, there are little nuances in both author’s styles of relating their many ideas together, creating two very different pieces.

Living in the Present: The Connection Between Jenny Odell and Franco Berardi

In my essay, I wrote about Jenny Odell’s connection to Franco Berardi in his book After the Future. I found that Odell offers a solution to the problems Berardi suggests, such that the “future” has in fact passed and there is no more relevance to this term. One way in which to stop worrying about the future and live in the present, is to do as Jenny Odell suggests and “do nothing.” My project and goal were to bring these two points together and draw the connection between these authors and books, in order to offer some sort of solution to the reader. I include discussions of beneficial dead time, algorithms in society, and the need to live in the present in order to help clarify and expand my essay.

In my essay I explain, “Later in the book, Berardi claims that ‘This is why the future has lost its zest and people have lost all trust in it: the future no longer appears as a choice or a collective conscious action, but it is a kind of unavoidable catastrophe that we cannot oppose in any way’ (Berardi 126). Odell continuously suggests ways in which one can take back their own actions. Through doing nothing and partaking in beneficial dead time, we are able to uncover our true self, and uncover the creative collective conscious actions that are based upon our true feelings.” I feel as though this quote helps to sum up one of the main points of my essay. Berardi believes there is a need for rejuvenation amongst society, and Odell’s book provides a guide in how to do so. The two books connect very well, and I draw the connection between them in order to enhance it.

View at Medium.com

https://medium.com/living-in-the-present-the-connection-between-jenny/living-in-the-present-the-connection-between-jenny-odell-and-franco-berardi-36cee62fdffd