Effing Punch tuation

In his writing, Stephen Hawking uses a more neutral and literal style for his choice of writing. There is no vigorous language in this book as Stephen himself said in the introduction paragraph to make the understanding of the science theories easier. Although, some of the punctuation choices that he makes in his writing are interesting since his object is to make such complicated theories easier to understand. In the following passage, Hawing's literal style can be seen as formal and to the point:

"Observations of distant galaxies indicate they are moving away from us: the universe is expanding. This implies that the galaxies must have been closer together in the past. The question then arises: Was there a time in the past when all the galaxies were on top of each other and the density of the universe was infinite? Or was there a previous contracting phase, in which the galaxies managed to avoid hitting each other. Maybe they flew past each other and started to move away each other."

In this passage, Hawking is clearly making predictions upon the distance of galaxies. The way Stephen presents his view as questions suggests that he wants the reader to look at the theories the same way he is. It also shows the reader what Stephen is thinking. The reason that he chose to write in this neutral and literal way is to get his message across in the easiest way possible, therefore, creating an unbiased book. This is smart since he wants this book to be more of a learning experience for his readers then just another biased book which seems to be a trend of today's novels.

Science Vs Religion

So far in the book, A Brief History Of Time, Stephen Hawking has explained the struggles he dealt with while learning about the theory of quantum mechanics and general relativity, to which he has grown a lot of interest with his studies in the university of Cambridge. As a young child, he was referred to as a "regular" kid who just found reading about the famous scientists fun. In fact, he was seen as a lazy student in school because he didn't really try in school but was still able to exceed in his classes. It wasn't until his later studies at the University of Cambridge that he became increasingly interested in the study of physics. Even though, he only spent 1000 hours in his first three years at Cambridge, he found the laws of physics and quantum mechanics very interesting because he questioned whether if God really created the universe and if he did, how much control he had over the rules that our universe obeys.  He explained that quantum mechanics is a system of theories in which particles behave like waves instead of being defined in specific positions and speeds. This theory can be used to explain the events that science believes allowed for the creation of the universe.The quantum mechanical theory of anything especially about the universe are all probabilities therefore they can't predict time history of the universe. Hawking uses these scientific theories to question whether if God really created universe and if he had no boundaries, he only chose the laws the universe obeyed, not the initial conditions. He goes into further discussion as he investigates the laws of the universe and ask about the nature of God.



This relates to my life because as part of my religion, as well as any other religion, there is obviously a God whom we believe that is responsible for the creation of the universe and the laws that it obeys. It leads me to question whether science can change my point of view about the creation of the universe as Hawking said that "science can't explain the creation of complicated structures such as Human beings, but it can definitely explain the creation of the universe". This is one of those debates that hasn't really been solved, but it definitely concerns everyone who believes in their religion or the theories of science.

I am Hungry for some Effing Quote Sandwiches!

In the book A Brief History of Time, the author Stephen Hawking uses multiple "They say, I say" templates to present his claim. He also embeds many quote sandwiches into his writing to have the sayings of other people strengthen the claim he is making.


"I remember Stephen Hawing, who was then approaching his third year as a research student, saying, "What interesting results-- I wonder whether they could be adapted to understanding the origin of the universe?" What he had in mind, you see, was that if you reverse the sense of time, just mentally, you can think of the expanding universe as a collapsing system; it's a bit like a very giant star collapsing. And the same considerations apply: as the universe collapses, in that sense of time, it reaches a singularity; or, in the normal sense of time, we have the explosion from big bang, which is certainly singular in the very symmetric models of the universe."


Now, the author Stephen Hawking uses a quote sandwich here as he embeds this whole passage said by Dennis Sciama who was one of Hawking's professors at the University of Cambridge to show the readers  how others viewed his ideas therefore establishing a higher credibility with that use of ethos. This builds up an effective argument about the way Hawing thought about the singularity of universe because it shows how differently he thought about the subject compared to his peers which makes his legacy of a genius even stronger.


Another way, the use of quote sandwich works to make the argument better is to support the view of Stephens about the subject of the passage. Even though this whole passage is a quote itself from Dennis Sciama, the author embeds a quote from Stephen Hawking through Dennis's view to support the claim that the author is making. That claim is clear as the author (Hawking) is trying to convey to his readers that he looks at the origin of the universe as a giant star exploding therefore reaching singularity. By having Dennis Sciama describe Hawking's view, the author not only establishes a higher credibility because the view of his professor adds weight to his effective argument making it even more stronger.

The Effing Rhetoric in my Effing book

In the book, A Brief History of Time, the author uses multiple rhetorical strategies that stand out to the reader as he reades his way throughout the book. The simple style of writing makes it easier for the reader to read as this book uses the most simple language.

One of the passages that presents the writing style of the whole book is when Isobel Hawking (Stephen's mother) describes Stephen's condition after he is found to be very sick.

 "Stephen was already ill. Jane knew it, and it was another instance of Stephen's luck: meeting the right person at the right time. Stephen was very badly depressed and he wasn't really very much inclined to go on with work, having been told he only had two and a half years. But meeting Jane really put him on his mettle. And he started to work".

 The rhetorical strategy of pathos, as many authors would have used in this case, is not really used here.  The neutral and to the point tone of the passage makes the reader feel neutral. Maybe, the rhetorical strategy of pathos is used when the Stephen is described as "very badly depressed and he wasn't really very much inclined to go on with work". It is setting the mood of the reader which in this case is sad and sorrowful, but I would say that since Hawking is trying to write this book with "no virgorous language" as he said in the first chapter, he would almost feel uncomfortable writing with emotion.

Stephen with his wife Jane at their wedding in 1965.

The rhetorical strategy of logos also presents itself in this passage as Stephen gets depressed when he is told that the only has two and a half years to live. This seems pretty logical considering any person who has two and a half years left would feel depressed. This passage uses the sense of emotions and logic as it ends with some hope because when Stephen met Jane, his soon to be wife,  it gave him hope and power, so "he started to work".

The simple and clear writing style of the passage shows above makes it clear that the author's intent of this book is that so there is no trouble for the readers in understanding of the book. This whole book is encircled around this type of writing style. Unlike most other books, there is no vigorous language used, it is just simple because Hawking wants this to be a learning experience for his readers. The writing style is clearly literal and to the point which is why it lacks any use of emotions because he doesn't want his readers to feel emotions, he just wants them to learn, therefore, just to inform them of events that led up to his legitimacy.

  So, far this book argues for Stephen Hawking's complicated life as he pushes through college after he finds out that he only has two and half years left. The author barely uses any emotions, in fact he doesn't really use the rhetorical strategy of pathos at all, except for when there are moments of joy or a discovery of a new method.  This book is mostly wrapped in of logic to create claims that not only questions the laws of nature but it also establishes more credibility for Hawing as he tries to help the readers understand the basic laws of quantum mechanics and the general relativity.

"A Brief History of Time's" Efing Synopsis So Far

In the first chapter, this book starts off with the background of Stephen Hawking's life. He explains that he was born on 8th January, 1942 exactly three hundred years after Galileo's death which wasn't significance considering that two hundred thousand babies were also born on that day. Born in Oxford, during the World War II, he was ensured safety because Germany agreed not to bomb Oxford and Cambridge in return for the British agreeing not to bomb Heidelberg and Gottingen. He was a normal boy, not the brightest in class, but he was interested in how things worked. According to his parents, Frank and Isobel Hawking, Stephen was "special" in his own ways. He was "extremely controversial and imaginative, which brought out his mathematical side". He also loved to visit the National Science and History Museum, with his increasing interest in these fields. He wasn't really concerned about school, but he was recognized as one of the "smart" kids in class. He thought that school was a setup for a cubicle job that he didn't wanted and he would rather spend his time figuring out what made an airplane worked the way it did. The chapter continues on to talk about Stephen's early life as he found the fundamentals of science very interesting. At his last year in his High School called Humphreys, Stephen studied extremely hard and passed the Oxford exam and got him scholarship.

The Second chapter starts off with Stephen's interest in physics. Even though, his parents would have liked him to do medicine, he felt that biology was "too descriptive and not sufficiently fundamental". Stephen studied physics University of Oxford college because it governed how the universe works and it used mathematics as its primary tool. He didn't really contribute to college as he only put one thousand hours in his first three years at Oxford. According to the coed students at his college, nobody knew how intelligent Stephen was. It was during his second year at Oxford that an extremely hard assignment was given which no one knew how to do, but Stephen surprisingly finished the assignment in a short time which amazed everyone and gave Stephen the spotlight for his intelligence. This is when everyone started looking at Stephen as someone very special due to his intelligence. During his college years at University of Oxford, Stephen met Gorden Berry who became one of best friends as they had tutorials together six afternoons a week. They also joined the Boat Club and loved going coxing their boats in their free time. They would go from the physics experimental labs to the river everyday. According to Stephen, that became their schedule of their life at the college.

Stephen Hawking coxing his boat, Eights Week, Oxford, 1961

Second Chapter to be continued....

With the second chapter still uncompleted due to the amount of pages allowed for the second section, I would say this book is very interesting. So far, I have read all about Stephen's personal life and how he came to be the genius he was, but I would love to learn about the fundamental laws governing our nature. Now don't get me wrong here, I like to read about the life of a genius and how he got his start, but I would love to learn about the complicated math equations and physic laws in the simpler way that I understand and so it doesn't bore me to death. I really hope that this book gets to that point because I really love it. Otherwise, this book is efing awesome so far.

Why the Ef did I pick "A Brief History of Time" book?

There were a vast amount of choices that I could have picked for doing this independent reading project, but I picked "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking for a number of different reasons.

Firstly, my genius friend (Ben) strongly recommended this book who read this book and liked it very much. He told me that I would love it, so I read the first few pages of the book and the book seemed very interesting to me. In the first page of this book, Hawking wrote about what his objectives were in writing this book. He explained that his main objective for writing this book is to educate people about the laws that "govern the universe" in a simple way that it doesn't seem boring to an average reader with pictures or words instead of equations.With my interest in the universe,  I was definitely interested in learning about the laws that explain how the universe worked. Hawking establishes a vast amount of credibility throughout this section because he explains that he shares the common ground with the audience by letting us know that he would also find complicated mathematical equations boring and that they are only necessary "if you are doing accountancy", otherwise, they lose the interest of the readers. He knew exactly how I feel, and this was a major factor for me choosing this book.

Secondly, the second major factor was of-course the length of the book. Lets all be serious now, because no one wants to read a 1000 page book, right? The length for this book was only 200 pages. I guess this wasn't one of the major decision deciding factors but it plays its role in the selection of a book.
Thirdly, the famous author Stephen Hawking also affected my decision in choosing this book. I have always heard that Stephen Hawking was a genius which is why I wanted to read one of his works. Although, there were many other authors who also seemed very familiar, there was something about Stephen Hawking that just appealed to me.

 Now that I researched him, I found out that he is a mathematician and a well known scientist who was been awarded many times for his work in physics. This is why he is such a credible person and it's his professional work that has brought him to write this book. He wants everyone to understand what he does, but he is describing it in a simple way to make it easier and more interesting for us.

 I disagree when people say "Don't judge a Book by its cover" because it's the cover that's suppose to attract a reader's attention from all other books. If an author or editor can't make the cover stand out, how will they make the story interesting. I know that many will oppose my way of thinking, but it's my theory. That was one of the things that attracted me to Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time.
This cover does an amazing job at presenting the famous author's name which attracts readers, and it attracted me. That sophisticated picture of Hawking gave me this feel of thinking, and the title, A Brief History of Time, appealed to me because I want to learn about the history of time. Overall, it all comes together perfectly and it seemed interesting to me which is why I picked this book.