We will discuss these four Holland essays: Spring (p.69), Driving Beltless (p.115), Disasters (p.145) and Crowds (p.148). Read them, paying attention to Holland's style and to how she deals with counterarguments. Answer the following study questions in a few sentences each:

Spring

1a) How much space does Holland give to criticisms of Spring, and how much to the pleasures of Spring? In other words, what is the ratio of critique to praise?

1b) What effects could this have on the reader's attitude toward Spring? What effect does it have on your attitude toward Holland's credibility?

Driving Beltless

2a) Often Holland's essays move from a little idea (this is a simple pleasure that has been forgotten) to a big idea (this pleasure gives us something important in our lives as human beings). If the little idea in this essay is "driving beltless is fun because you can move your body around," then what is the big idea? In other words, what profound human need is answered by driving beltless?

2b) Does Holland state this big idea directly or indirectly, and where in the essay does she do so? (Give the pg./paragraph, then quote or paraphrase the idea.)

2c) Does it make sense to give the big idea at that time? Why or why not?

Disasters

A good "simple pleasures" essay ought to go beyond conventional wisdom, giving us something new to think about. Sometimes, for a pleasure we all delight in, such an essay can give us a new way to experience it, a new way to see something we thought we knew. Other times, as in "Disasters," the essay contradicts a commonly held view. Here, Holland what Holland is naming as a "pleasure"--disaster--is something we all would agree is obviously not, because by definition a disaster is "a calamitous event, especially one occurring suddenly and causing great loss of life, damage, or hardship" (dictionary.com).

Holland manages to be charming in this essay, even as she contradicts our conventional wisdom, and probably our professed morality. For who would say witnessing others' "loss of life" is a pleasure? Only a sociopath! One tactic Holland uses is to define what counts as a disaster.

3a) Which type of disasters is she talking about (i.e. what counts as a "disaster" in the examples Holland uses)? Does this type of disaster include great loss of life or hardship?

3b) And do you think that definition is enough to assure us of Holland's morality and bring us around to believing her that disaster is a pleasure? Or is there something else in this essay that convinces us of the pleasure of disaster? Or does the essay fail to convince?

Crowds

4a) What pronouns does Holland use in the opening paragraph, and how do those establish us a member of certain groups, and of Holland's "team"--her side of the argument?

4b) Again, how does Holland define "Crowds" here? What type of crowd is a "simple pleasure" and what type is simply annoying? (Use paraphrase, not quotation, to answer.)

Spring

1a) How much space does Holland give to criticisms of Spring, and how much to the pleasures of Spring? In other words, what is the ratio of critique to praise?

I think at the beginning of the passage, there would be more criticism of Spring; but since “ Still, most springs have their moments”, it could be consider as a turning point for the passage. I think the whole passage is praising about spring, but just describing how she actually see it in a real view.

1b) What effects could this have on the reader's attitude toward Spring? What effect does it have on your attitude toward Holland's credibility?

It attracts me with her specific and vivid words describing spring, but, at the same time, I just don’t feel spring is that special as people are saying.

Driving Beltless

2a) Often Holland's essays move from a little idea (this is a simple pleasure that has been forgotten) to a big idea (this pleasure gives us something important in our lives as human beings). If the little idea in this essay is "driving beltless is fun because you can move your body around," then what is the big idea? In other words, what profound human need is answered by driving beltless?

It can remind us about the feeling of freedom, being against the law; and as Barbara said, it is sweet. Although driving with fasten seatbelt may be restrictive, but it could improve the chance to save our life when meet accident.

2b) Does Holland state this big idea directly or indirectly, and where in the essay does she do so? (Give the pg./paragraph, then quote or paraphrase the idea.)

She state this big idea by giving an example of her that she will drive a few country miles unstrapped for once or twice a month. “ When we get to Round Hill I’ll restrap the leash, but in the meantime it’s very sweet, and all the sweeter for being against the law.”

2c) Does it make sense to give the big idea at that time? Why or why not?

Yes, after written the advantage of seatbelt, writing a little bit about why driving beltless is kind of “sweet” and free would not ruin the whole passage meaning.

Disasters

A good "simple pleasures" essay ought to go beyond conventional wisdom, giving us something new to think about. Sometimes, for a pleasure we all delight in, such an essay can give us a new way to experience it, a new way to see something we thought we knew. Other times, as in "Disasters," the essay contradicts a commonly held view. Here, Holland what Holland is naming as a "pleasure"--disaster--is something we all would agree is obviously not, because by definition a disaster is "a calamitous event, especially one occurring suddenly and causing great loss of life, damage, or hardship" (dictionary.com). 

Holland manages to be charming in this essay, even as she contradicts our conventional wisdom, and probably our professed morality. For who would say witnessing others' "loss of life" is a pleasure? Only a sociopath! One tactic Holland uses is to define what counts as a disaster. 

3a) Which type of disasters is she talking about (i.e. what counts as a "disaster" in the examples Holland uses)? Does this type of disaster include great loss of life or hardship? 

She is talking about something that is more exciting than our daily and safe life; something that could stir up our blood stream, making us in an athrill status in mind. They are not type of disaster include great loss of life or hardship.

3b) And do you think that definition is enough to assure us of Holland's morality and bring us around to believing her that disaster is a pleasure? Or is there something else in this essay that convinces us of the pleasure of disaster? Or does the essay fail to convince?

She is describing her disaster properly, not suscpicious. She gave us enough example to stay on the same line with her.

Crowds

4a) What pronouns does Holland use in the opening paragraph, and how do those establish us a member of certain groups, and of Holland's "team"--her side of the argument?

“being a physical part of a like-minded, many-headed multitude is one of our trashiest thrills. Intellectuals pride themselves on immunity; all of us are mildly embarrassed by it”

4b) Again, how does Holland define "Crowds" here? What type of crowd is a "simple pleasure" and what type is simply annoying? (Use paraphrase, not quotation, to answer.)

Simple pleasure: “We are here to watch home team to win, or to establish or abolish abortion rights, elect our candidate, protest a war, or break into the jailhouse and lynch the prosopnes.”

Annoying crowds:  “we have nothing in common beyond the common urge to get to Forty second Street on the subway or the tenth floor in the elevator, or to finish our Christmas shopping.”