The thesis of the book

What were the lessons of the book? That the world is cruel? What else?

How? This brings the work out of the realm of realism into myth and magical realism. If Chito can't be killed then maybe Chito is an idea, which cannot die. Chito is hope. Chito is freedom.

Parallelism

reminiscent of the coyote. Dogs have the best sense of smell of any animal. They can detect cancer, the coronavirus, they can find the tiniest particle of a chemical from 2km away. She is following in the footsteps of the coyote.

Parallelism, rhyme, emphasize there is a structure to the confusion, there is hope in the midst of meandering.

A howl is loud and uncomfortable, but also honest, clear, and natural. A way of naturally expressing pain or excitement, the inner reality of your heart comes to the surface. There is something very compelling about a coyote howl.

Coyotes are also people who smuggle illegal immigrants over the border, so there may be a double meaning.

Why the emphasis on these two lines? Could they be symbolic of Asian experience? Anything else?

highlighting and juxtaposing the irony and hypocrisy of modern censor culture.

Is this symbolism? What could it be representing?

The little details add power and authenticity to the narrative

This is jarring and surprising. Often poetry won't mention such banal and modern things like Amazon, it takes us out of the magic of a poem. But perhaps this is intentional. Perhaps the author wants us back in the real world for a moment.

Anaphora of "I lost" to really emphasize all of the things that the author lost.

symbolic of the lack of freedom the author felt too. Able to move about, but only so far.

W alliteration

This phrase is repeated throughout the poem. There is a power and tradition involved in repetition.

a key insight

great idiom/metaphor

Likely referring to STD's

Why is he so angry?

If you were the mom would you be insulted that Jack studied French instead of learning Chinese?

Mom listens to him a lot, how often in this story does he listen to what his mom wants?

What do you think it was about this picture of his mom that so drew the dad to her and made him cross the ocean to get her?

This seems pretty astonishing. Why did he never realize that magical paper animals are not normal?

What is the symbolism of using Christmas paper, a Christian tradition, to make a paper tiger, a Chinese tradition?

Is there any irony in the comparison between the two toys?

What does this say about Jack's father? Was his father very attentive to his needs? It seems the mom cared more about making sure he had some toys.

Also, what did it say about how rich they were?

This is interesting. Why did they hush? Did they not realize that he could hear them from the beginning of their racist chatter? Do you think they cared whether or not that he could hear them or they just suspected he only spoke Chinese because of his mom?

Why would the company lie if it would be easy to find out the truth? Also, why these three things in particular?

Is there any significance to that? What does the Tiger represent in Chinese culture?

In what ways is contempt like wine?

Is this a good opening line? Why or why not?

This is a very bold claim. Do you think he is correct?

This is a huge innovation in politics. Do you think it was overall positive or negative? By having everything a matter of public record there is less room for backroom dealing, compromise and working out sorts of solutions that work for both sides and don't upset the electorate.

Why start with this story? What makes it interesting or effective?

Why do you think that is? Was that a good or a bad thing?

Maybe this is why so many trusted him, he acknowledged that they were odd but never made fun of them or considered them freaks. Perhaps because his teeth made him a bit of a freak/oddity himself?

Who would be the best known man in the world today?

Haha, was that her real name or nickname?

Does this foreshadow his interest in the grotesque and dark?

Ironically, Ithkuil seems very difficult and slow to speak simply because of its complexity.

extremely idealistic; unrealistic and impractical.

Play the Ithkuil game, featuring this phrase!

https://davidhepting.itch.io/ithkuil

You filthy K-niggets! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSo0duY7-9s

Implies a multitude like the stars, it also fits into the idea of something we learn through seeing a certain way.

All the alliteration in similar adjectives. They pair up well phonetically and even metrically

Here is the thesis of the whole article. How can we connect thoughts and words more closely? Where should we make the compromises?

Ithkuil is an incredible language because it doesn't compromise on pretty much any specifics, features, or possibilities. Instead, the main downside is that it is incredibly hard to learn and to speak quickly. It is an almost unspeakable language.

What a wonderful way to start. This sentence can be taken at least two ways. The first is the meaning that the second sentence builds upon, that we have a lot of different ways "to see" in terms of vocabulary describing it. The second is that language greatly influences the way we see the world. The other interesting thing is the way it is balanced metrically and phonetically. The "s" and "w" sounds are repeated in "So many ways" and "See the world"

This is perhaps the true test of character. It's much easier to be exciting, charismatic, and exceptional when all eyes are on you. But who you are when no one is looking is likely much more emblematic of who you really are. How do we respond to boredom, routine, and petty frustration?

He repeats his central premise here. This is water. This is water.

There is this very post-modern fear of patronizing, moral certitudes, and sermonizing. However, in some ways no matter how much he tries to avoid it, it is ultimately what he is doing. It is an important message and I feel he does not need to be so hesitant, although it is comforting that he is wrestling with it and does not simply jump in with an easier moralizing.

Then he begins analyzing the analysis. This is the strength of the speech, he willingly participates in the conventions of the genre, shares the cliches, deconstructs and analyzes them and throws out what does not value and shows what value still remains in them.

The epitome of this is in his closing line "I wish you way more than luck", he shares the cliche "I wish you luck" but then takes it to a different place and makes us rethink it.

it's the little observant details like this that make the story come alive with realism.

He sort of belittles them but clearly they are important to his speech. He ends up basing his three main points on three "little didactic stories". At the beginning he does qualify that they are "one of the better, less bullshitty conventions of the genre".

This is the building block of his entire thesis. First he dismantles defensive attitudes, then he lays out what sort of thinking choices we can make.

He does not talk down to his audience but he also makes himself explicitly clear. Each of his major points is spelled out like this.

In a speech largely about meta-cognition he practices meta-analysis of the speech genre. It fits.

It's fascinating how quickly he jumps into the story. There are no wasted words in this speech, no polite pleasantries, or banal but useless anecdotes.