The American Dream or The American Nightmare?

How would you describe the “American Dream?”
The American Dream is an almost unattainable concept that was created to instill optimism in the hearts of pessimistic Americans. The dream can be achieved by not only having a 4 bedroom home with a white picket fence, a dog, 2.5 children, a husband with a steady job and a wife that is completely content with succumbing to the restricting gender roles of being a house wife, but by also being happy and economically sound. This is what I was taught to strive for when I was in elementary school. I needed to find a husband with a great job, maybe a doctor or a lawyer, and we would live in a huge house that I would clean from top to bottom while simultaneously taking care of our children. But, like all things, the concept of the American Dream has changed over time. I would say that the American Dream now is to just be economically sound and happy. It has become less of a materialistic thing and more of an emotional standing point, at least in my opinion. After 2008, the dream had to change inevitably, because who could keep their dog when they couldn't even keep their house? Who would want to have that other .5 of a child when Suzy is about to go to college and her fund is all tapped out? Who would take care of that new baby when mommy had to find a job? As the social and economic climate of America changes, the American Dream has new bars set.

What is your definition of wealth?
My definition of wealth is having a plethora of all the things that you need and some of the things that you don't. Wealth obviously isn't limited by the definition of having a ton of money, and it never should be. Having wealth is having a lot of things to be happy about; having wealth is being able to provide for yourself and your loved ones without being strained financially or emotionally.

What are Americans’ attitudes toward wealth and poverty? What is your attitude toward wealth and poverty?
These two words are often used to describe someone, and less as nouns. Americans view being "wealthy" as being synonymous with successful and powerful, while they view "poverty" as being the same as uneducated and burdens on society. These two terms seem to be on opposite sides of the spectrum by the American definition, while in reality, they can be intertwined in several ways. It is known that many things in our society are not black and white; most things like gender and sexuality, fall in a spectrum instead of being this or that and nothing else. But, in our society, we tend to think of everything having an opposite, wealth and poverty being one. In my opinion, an impoverished person can still have wealth, can still be educated, and can still be successful in their own ways. A wealthy person can still be impoverished, can still fail, and can still be uneducated. The definitions of these two terms are loose and should be treated as such. Unfortunately, in America, we tend to look at things one way, and it limits our society's progression.
I believe that everyone has wealth in some aspects of their life, and in other aspects they are impoverished. It is definitely extremely difficult to reach the status of American defined wealth, yet extremely easy to be seen as impoverished.

We need commas because "I like cooking, dogs, and kids" is not the same as "I like cooking dogs and kids."

How does the word choice, syntax, punctuation, and imagery shift in each affect meaning?  

The diction in each of these translations only differ slightly, but the connotations of the words make a big difference. For example, the choice of using insect, bug, or vermin gives very different images in the readers mind. Using the term insect is more detached and professional almost, while the term bug makes it seem cute or tiny, but worst case, annoying. The term bug is used so much as an insult that it doesn't give the same strong effect of negativity as the term vermin. Another example of varied diction is the use of the terms uneasy, troubled, and agitated when describing his dreams. Uneasy is not as strong a word as agitated because when something is uneasy it is seen as being uncomfortable while agitated is equated with being bothered. Troubled sleep is more like having nightmares, which affects sleep, but not in the way that the terms uneasy and agitated affect sleep. Basically, troubled more describes how he slept while the other two describe why his sleep wasn't of quality. For syntax, it is important to note that Gregor is the subject and is mentioned first in most of the translations except for one of them. In the fourth translation, the importance is not on Gregor, but on the morning. The fourth translation overall is the most differed in syntax and punctuation, and the effect of this is that it gives the most negative and connotation of the sentence because it uses strong negative words and the way you read it, you are introduced to the agitated dreams before you know who owns the dreams.

Is one more effective than another? Why?

I don't think that one is more effective than the other. I think that the fact that the text can be translated into so many different ways makes each translation weaker because you aren't sure which one is more exact. The exact translation (from google translate) is translation four. We, as students, are told that google translate is extremely unreliable, and from that I would assume that the fourth translation is the worst/weakest. Each translation is unique, and there is no way to tell which one is the most effective without being fluent in both English and German and knowing what the author wanted to say. 

What does this exercise bring up about the difficulty of reading translated texts? 

This exercises shows that since texts can be translated in so many different ways and interpreted in different ways, there is no way to completely understand the authors intentions. It also brings up the problem of misinterpretation within translating; if we can translate it so many ways, who knows which translation could be blatantly wrong/inaccurate?

How do different translations effect the tone of the sentence?

#1:As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect.

The tone of this translation is matter-of-fact or indifferent. This sentence is more or less listing what has happened to Gregor without going into flowery detail.

#2:Gregory Samsa woke from uneasy dreams one morning to find himself changed into a giant bug.

The tone of this translation is ominous or disturbed. This is because of the syntax; since the uneasy dreams came before one morning, it brings in a creepy tone.

#3:When Gregor Samsa awoke from troubled dreams one morning he found he had been transformed in his bed into an enormous bug.

The tone of this translation is grave or hollow. This sentence seems as though Gregor awoke with something as a result of his dreams.

#4:One morning, upon awakening from agitated dreams, Gregor Samsa found himself, in his bed, transformed into a monstrous vermin.

The tone of this translation is horrific or disturbed. Because the reader doesn't know who the subject is, it gives this initial ambiguity, and the words monstrous vermin give such a negative connotation, it makes the tone horrific.

Overall, the tone varies greatly based on the diction and syntax because in English we have so many words that vary slightly in definition and give different connotations that can change the way a sentence is interpreted.