The Evolution of Me Singing

For this blog, I chose to do compilation of videos about me. I called it-

"The Evolution of Me Singing"

Basically, it is a series of videos that will take you from the time I was age 11 to the me almost age 18.

THE VIDEO:

The video will start off with me when I first discovered a camera. At this age, I was 11, and I held the camera right in front of my face... (Dear Lord!).

I even have my sister sing with me. At this point, she was 8.

Then I discovered the beauty of a camera stand, and I started singing without having to hold the camera. At this point, I was 12.

But as I hit 8th grade, I became determined to learn to play guitar. When I first picked up the guitar, it was January 13th, 2011. Though the first video I took of myself actually playing it was February 25th, 2011. In this video, which is captured in the video, I am singing Taylor Swift's "Our Song".

The beginning was tough. That is all I can say. But I loved every minute of it. Oh, and my sister sings once with me... You can't miss it though- our harmony sucked! The first time we tried it.... I was 13, and she was 10.


So now, after a rocky beginning, I will turn 14, and my skills will heighten. Once again, I am singing a Taylor Swift song, but in the video, I will improve-majorly. (I think you'll be able to pinpoint this!).

Now, freshmen year has started, and I start to perfect my fingering and chord progression. I got a new guitar (Luna- with dragonflies),  I learn how to pick a song (Safe and Sound... hehehe Taylor Swift), and I even sing front of my first crowd of people.

Then I turn 15. The first video I take is of me singing with my sister. I am 15, and she is 12. Guess what? We still cannot harmonize.

By this point, two years have passed, and I can play well. I taught myself, so I give myself that much credit. I pretty much joke around and play songs without even listening to them... just to see what I can do.

Then, my sister and I hit the turning point. I am nearly 16, and she has just turned 13. Guess what? We finally learn to harmonize.

This is the year I also get another guitar- Of course it's by the same guitar company (Luna), but this time it has a butterfly on it. My dog is a papillon, and in french, papillon means butterfly, so I thought it was fitting.

Also, 16 years old is also the time when I start learning how to pick more songs, and start learning songs in foreign languages, and start a YouTube channel, even though I rarely update it. I also find a Martin guitar to which I really want, and decide to get a job to buy it.

Finally, I am 17. I have played guitar for 4 years.  I get more creative with the songs I play (not Taylor Swift- But I love her though!!!). I listen to foreign artists such as Gabrielle Aplin, Ed Sheeran, Ben Howard, Jake Bugg, Rasmus Walter, and Lewis Watson. I sing more in front of crowds- I even mess up with them too! I also get a job, and I buy the Martin guitar that I really wanted. I even have my sister singing foreign songs as well.

In the last few videos, it is me in the present. My sister is a week away from being 15, and I am 40 days shy of being 18.

AFTER THE VIDEO:

What I love about this video is that it definitely showcases the evolution of my voice, the evolution of me and my sister singing and trying to harmonize, and the evolution of me playing, learning, and perfecting the guitar.

This Evolution also makes me vulnerable. It shows everybody which areas I obviously lacked in when I was younger, but it also shows that I am capable of surpassing my vulnerability.

Most importantly, it shows the evolution of time within me. I start a few months roughly after I turn 11 and end the video 37 days before I turn 18. Almost 7 years have passed in between that.

Simply I began thinking, you know, as we tie ends with high school, that I need to remember who I am....Who I was, and what I came to be. What will I become? I don't know, but it sure will be interesting to continue the video and add more as I increase skill.

(Really) Weally, Whitman?

Below I have written little captions under the pictures in Whitman's book that caught my attention. And, while they're not in a harmonious, comprehensible order, they seem to be telling a story to me.

The last war. Is the "last war" coming,
or has it happened? Is it talking about America?
I think America thought that the American Revolution
would be the last quarrel. It also makes sense because of
the picture of Washington.

I can't read some of the crucial words, but
it looks like the person wants somebody to walk the plank
 and get what they deserve from doing something. 

It looks like this photo reads: Blow man, rage, and love.
Therefore, I'd reckon that somebody is angry,
and wants revenge. 

"Tho/The crash" it reads.  Something obviously happened
between two things. I am taking a wild guess that
it could be related to a ship or some war in America.

Washington as a skeleton with a big heart.
I think that he was loved by many, but
 somebody wants him killed. Or somebody is trying
to prove a point about some issue.

Ship of Freedom. I can't tell what the last word is,
but it looks like the first letters are L, I, B, E, R, T, which
would mean liberty?

By the looks of this man's face, he wants to keep
 something out or in. 

This man appears to have no eyes,  sad eyes,
or has his eyes on a* prize*.

It appears to be a man is looking down.
His eyes look sad, but I think he is a pirate. He's
wearing an earring.                        

What is significant about his book at first glance is that it all runs back to the idea of being free- I think. Despite the word I have yet uncovered, it shows Washington, who was the first president of the United States; it makes references to ships as well, and ships take people to other places. At sea, people have a choice at where they want to be.

He was surely obsessed with boats, and drawings. His depictions- maybe of himself- are disturbing, and all look like the same man. If it is indeed the same man, then the man wants something, yet he is regretful for it.

So, after looking at some of these photos, I would say that something was bothering Whitman, or he felt some deep admiration to his country.


AFTER:

I am pleased to say that a few of my accusations seem to be correct. Whitman's book focuses on freedom, and the idea of tranquility. But- like how did I miss libertad? I am in spanish class! That is the word for freedom! But my municipal mind did pick on the fact that it resinates with freedom.

The sketchings, undoubtedly, are of Whitman, though he didn't draw them himself, or so thought. But when I said pirate,  the drawings were in fact (?) drawn by some of Whitman's drinking buddies, and we all know that pirates love to drink (eh-hemm- Captain Hook on Once Upon a Time!).

To add to my earlier comments about the book, something caught me off guard. One of the comments about the skeleton chained up in the sky said, "suspended between day and night, life and death." It was posed as potential metaphor for America, and it has made me very curious about the intentions of it. I think this directly correlates with Whitman's believe that America would fail or succeed with the democratic experiment; it could outlive the darkness, outlive death.  Also, because Whitman was supposedly conjuring up a fake conversation with Abraham Lincoln, he was mad to an extent. But it doesn't take away from the drawing, because Whitman believed had ties to the country.

I learned that Whitman lived in a crowded home in New York with a family of five or more all together; things were tight. He yearned and desired for a better life....more freedom. This could potentially have influenced his writings and perceptions about what he discusses. Why, for a fact that he choses to spark an imaginative conversation with Abraham Lincoln, I am not sure. He could have talked with other people. So, obviously he felt a connection with Lincoln, who fought for freedom of the slaves. Maybe that is how he connects with him.

Party in the USA

The American Dream makes me think of the following nursery rhyme-

Row, row, row your boat,

Gently down the stream.

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,

Life is but a dream

So how would I describe this "American Dream"? Similarly to the song, the "American Dream" is something we as humans search for, yet have not successfully attached ourselves to because of a constant search for self and improvement. For instance, "Life is but a dream" means that life isn't a dream- or at least, that is my interpretation of it. We could row our boats down the stream as many times as we want to, but we will reach the end, and the "dream" like state of it will terminate. 

I would apply the term euphemism to describe the world's view on the "American Dream" only because America prides herself on the diversity to which she entitles herself to; however, if the goal is to have equality, education, wealth, and righteousness in our country, the likely hood of it happening is slim to none. Think about the saying, "A rectangle is a square, but a square isn't a rectangle". We can apply that to ourselves because while humans are animals, animals are not humans. When we have human characteristics and features, we also have our animal-istic natures in us that over compensate the way we do things and how we preserve ourselves.  

The ironic thing about the "American Dream" is that it can't successfully happen when the country is still stricken with significant groups of people who are unable to achieve this "dream", and the fortunate groups who can, and more. Poverty and wealth, as they are called, are the extremities of one another.  My views on it is that wealth is capable, where as poverty puts the "IN" in wealth's capable. (I know- a smidgen confusing). 

I would also say that America's views on wealth and poverty are similar to my views, and that is that we look at wealth like you are well on your way, and that we look at poverty like it is a disease or sickness. Wealthy rhymes with healthy! Ha-ha. And poverty, on the other hand, is at the bottom of the totem pole; the place that is extremely tough to get out of. 

First, when you are wealthy, you are able to have more opportunities such as going to parties, concerts, traveling, eating at expensive restaurants and buying from the top grocery stores with organic food. Likewise, when you are healthy, you are able to run outside and play on sports teams and have more energy to do things. 

When you are in poverty, it becomes a struggle to survive. Plus, the government has some funds for those in poverty to try to help them (of course, it also is given to those who apply and meet the requirements, and not all those who ask for help are given help). There are charities, fundraisers, and  the GCF to help those as well. But you have to keep in mind that when a person is in poverty, trying to breach the surface of living comfortably is tough because if you fall down again, you don't have anything to support you.Therefore the process repeats. Similarly, diseases and sicknesses have ways of coming back, or have ways of sticking around for an unwanted amount of time. Sometimes, it leaves you paralyzed, and I don't mean not being able to move with your arms or legs. I mean losing the energy to keep going, or diminishing some working function on your body, making it even tougher to do more things. 

America recognizes that wealth brings in opportunities, and that poverty is invisible to them, but America turns the blind eye to it. Coming from my personal experiences, I know how to live with everything and I know how to live with nothing. As of right now, I feel that if you do not have the experience to live both, you can't understand fully (tok, taking in those perspectives!). So to bring back in the idea of the "American Dream", this goal of Americas is too far out there. It resides on the tip top of a sail boat with the look-out deck and flags, completely ignoring the sand at the bottom of the ocean. 

Translations

Original: Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in seinem Bett zu einem ungeheuren Ungeziefer verwandelt.

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

In this translation, the diction is weak. The words "uneasy", "gigantic," and "insect" do not correlate as strongly as they should to make a dark tone. In return, then, the words make the tone more comical than not. Because when I think of an insect, the connotations I get are more positively generated than having a scary or eerie tone. Instead, I imagine a human-sized lady bug relaxing on a bed. Furthermore, the word "uneasy" suggests rickety or rocky, but not enough to knock someone or something down. The last word, "gigantic", is less powerful because gigantic is a positive word to describe large, and it doesn't have a lasting impact. On a better note, the syntax/structure is stronger because it presents the actions in a way that makes the audience curious. And by this, I mean it states uneasy dreams first which makes the reader wonder why Samsa's dreams are uneasy. This builds suspicion, at least, which is an attempt at having a darker tone. And by describing the way he wakes by "awoke", it makes it sound like he wakes up abruptly, almost like the man is scared. Lastly, this translation uses no punctuation, which was something weak the translator did. The reader has no chance to sink in what is happening, as a result.

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

In the second translation, Gregor Samsa is mentioned first, unlike the others. So right off the bat without reading a single word, the audience is thinking about Gregor Samsa. Also what this translation does  different from the rest is use Gregor's full name: Gregory. The use of his formal name heightens the significance of what is happening. And while this tactic achieves a darker tone, it flips a complete 180 degrees when it used the word "woke" to describe how Gregor wakes up. "Woke" sounds as if Gregor Samsa has a morning like this routinel, and it also uses the word "changed" to describe him going form a human to a bug. The word "changed" implies that Gregor simply became a bug, or put a bug suit on, and it makes me imagine a man draping a bug suit over him, which, again, as I mentioned earlier, sounds comical. Also, this translation leaves out the place where Samsa changes.I am guessing it is implied that he changes in his room, but the translation gets straight to the point, and is the shortest out of all of them; however, similar to the first translation, the second translation presents who they are talking about, to the precursor of what happened to them, to what they become. 

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

into an enormous bug.

In this next translation,I would say it is the second best out of all of them because of a few reasons. First, one of the ways used to describe Gregor turning into a bug is "transformed", which is what this translation does. It is more affective because it creates an image of somebody actually morphing into something else rather than the word "changed" which makes me visualize a person taking off layers of clothing. It also is more monstrous because "transformed" makes it sound like what Gregor goes through is out of his control. The second reason why this achieves a darker tone is because of the word "enormous" to describe the bug. While bug is a weak work, "enormous" balances it out. There is also the use of the word "troubled" to describe his dream which has a dark undertone to it. Troubled is the kind of word used to describe people who have psychological issues, and can be found in elderly homes and mental hospitals. This word gives the reader a mental picture of what was happening to Gregor, especially since he morphs into a bug. But like the first two, there are no commas or punctuation to split the sentence. It sounds rushed as if to say it happened faster, and gives the reader no chance to breathe.

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

In the last translation, the diction is the strongest, and the words elude to something horrible. For example, the word "agitated" suggests that something was bothering Gregor. And when he turns into the "monstrous vermin", he becomes something larger than life. The tone here is also very dark, because is this is the only translation that doesn't turn Gregor into a bug. Whoever translated this might have had a fear of bugs because it says "monstrous vermin" rather than bug or insect. This suggests that whatever Gregor turns into is an animal. This translation also uses many commas, which show the order of the way that Gregor Samsa's morning went, making this translation have a good structure. 

How does the word choice, syntax, punctuation, and imagery shift in each affect meaning? Is one more effective than another? Why? What does this exercise bring up about the difficulty of reading translated texts? How do different translations effect the tone of the sentence? 

          The most important thing to consider when reading a translation, as I have just recently discovered, is about WHO is translating the text. Everybody in the world has their own perspective on life from their own experiences, therefore, causing each and every one of us to react differently to something. For example, in these four translations, three words are used to describe the transformation Gregor has as a result from an unpleasant dream: bug, insect, and vermin. While bugs and insects are interrelated, vermin surpasses a bug or insect by either being an uncontrollable animal that is hard to exterminate, or an animal that preys on other animals. In the fourth translation, the translator most likely views the creature negatively. He/she could have a fear of them, or a bad memory of them which makes them use the word they did. So, because there are different interpretations of a sentence, everything is affected in the sentence after. 
           It is obvious that in these four translations, a man wakes up in the morning due to a bad dream, and now holds the figure of a bug. But in each translation, there is something different about it. In the first three translations, there is no punctuation. The problem this creates is that there is no pause. Imagine you're watching a scary movie, and the girl is about to open the door. What happens next? She'll probably take ten minutes to actually open the door because the director of the film wants us to feel intensified due to what is taking place on screen. This pause, along with the scary music, is what really makes the film frightening. So by adding no punctuation, we - as the audience- are not allotted to the suspense we should have. 
          Continuing on, structure is also affected by who is translating it. In the first and last translation, "one morning" is mentioned before the dreams; in the second and third translation, "one morning" is mentioned after the dreams. What does this do? Well, when the time is mentioned before the dreams, it makes the audience wonder what happened that morning, or what is happening that morning. When it is mentioned after the dreams, it has less of an effect because people have the gist of what is happening. The "one morning" becomes an accessory. 
          Therefore, the meaning in the text shifts when it is not thought out properly. Is it more meaningful to use the word "bug" or "vermin" to describe the creature Gregor transforms into? Or is more meaningful to add punctuation, or have none? Would it be wise if the structure of the text makes builds suspicion rather than jumping straight into it? All these things affect the end result of the translations. 

In all the translations:
 #1 uses the word gigantic to describe the insects, and "as" to start the sentence.
 #2 leaves out the place where it happens, uses the word "changed", uses Samsa's full name.
 #3 uses "when" to start the sentence, "troubled" dreams, "enormous bug"
 #4 "one morning" begin it, "upon awakening" "agitated dreams", puts Gregor Samsa in the middle of the sentence than the beginning. 

Practice IOC

IOC

Above is my extract I had from Margret Atwood's, The Handmaid's Tale.

A) Knowledge and Understanding

My score: 5/6

Why: I feel like I show " adequate knowledge" of the text, because I knew where the passage happens at, and where Offred stands in context of the passage. I don't know if my comments I make throughout the commentary support it though. I try, but I don't think  I succeed with it.


B) Understanding of use/effects of literary devices

My score: 4/5

Why: I had good intentions for my literary devices  (tone and characterization), but I think I could have developed both of them better than I did. I should have used different examples. At one point, I talk about Aunt Lydia, and now that I have listened to myself, I don't think it supports what I was trying to say. Or, rather, I should have worded my point differently.


C) Organization

My score: 3 < IOC < 4

Why:  One of the criteria for a grade of 3 is "structure is generally coherent". I feel like mine meets that point. And for a grade of 4, it says, "The commentary is well organized; the structure is mostly coherent." I make a mistake at the end when I added something that I had thought of, so that is what is limiting my thoughts about where I stand. Overall, I had good intentions about the structure.

D) Language

My score: 2/3

Why: In my head during some points of this presentation I felt rushed. So sometimes I forget who I am talking to. I feel like one of the issues I faced here was just talking into my microphone, rather than to a person, or having a person to talk to. I am confident that when I actually sit down to do the real IOC, my language will be slightly better and more accurate.

Never Let Me Go

 To the left and right of the text, there are two different cover representations of the same book: Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. While there are multiple covers for this book, these are the two most interesting ones. Why?
Well,  both take the theme and title of the book literally and abstractly display it on it's front.

The book cover on the left uses dark and light gray to distinguish that there are major differences in the society [Note*** I am referring to the how the CLONES are bred for the humans in the SOCIETY]. Dark and light gray were probably used because this book cover focuses on the emotional aspect of it. This is because it is a body showing organs and human quality, and people internalize their emotions.The book cover on the right uses the same style; however it focuses on the colors such as yellow and black; this is its way of showing the physical world [Note*** Yellow and black symbolize several things, including the sun and the moon, morning and night, and lightness and darkness].

It is also important to note that each book cover idealize the "let go" part of the book title. In the book cover on the left, the words are apart from each other. And while the book cover on the right keeps the idea of "let go", it displays it by dividing the land up by water and earth. There is also a boat that is tied to a pole/tree (I can't tell), so that emulates the idea that the boat may go and leave the comfort of the land.

The purpose of each book cover is to take different aspects of the clones' lives and portray them differently. For instance, the picture up in the left hand corner,  is more geared towards what actually happens to the clones when they become donors at the end of their lives. The picture up in the right hand corner, on the other hand, focuses more on their whole lives up until they pass.

LEFT BOOK COVER:

When I look at this book cover of the body and organs, I  think science and internal damage, whether physical damage, emotional damage, or both. Keeping that in mind, the book cover's colors are shades of gray, so, if I hadn't read the book,  I would have probably thought the book was sad, and that the book did not end well. Now that I have read it, I know that the conditions of the characters are worse, and the predicament to which they live in is more worse. This cover is more dangerous than the other one because it makes the "clones'" situation more realistic or probable.

The relationship between the book cover and text is brutal and eerie. The color is eerie, the font of the words are eerie, the way that "NEVER LET ME GO" is separated is eerie. This makes me think of the way that the book is constructed; kind of like how Kathy H. goes from page to page telling different stories about her life in random orders. None the less, it is affective, especially with the main part of the body on the front.

Also, the person being portrayed on the book cover is one of the clones, and it is from the viewpoint of regular humans. I say this because it is a body, and underneath it shows some of the most important organs that are the sole reason why humans are able to live. When humans look at the clones,  most of them look at them like a piece of cake, and all they see is what they want or what they need. I would also like to add that I think the viewpoint of it could also from the clone being portrayed. If the clone knows what is happening to him/her, then maybe he/she looks at themselves in the mirror only seeing what they're are useful for, not what they truly look like or truly are.

RIGHT BOOK COVER:

When I look at this book cover of the boat, land, and water, I think of peace. But I also think of destruction because of how peaceful it is. If I hadn't read the novel though, I would have thought it was a romantic novel. And now that I have read some of the book, I know that there is some romance in it, but this book isn't about love; it is about growing up and understanding the world. It reminds me of a coming of age story, though  this one is limited due to the circumstances of the main characters.

The relationship between the book cover and the text is deceiving, but interesting. While the book centers around a person, and not the universe, it leads me to think that maybe the cover should have included a person on it, like one of the main characters; however, the main characters are "clones", they are not human. Maybe we are supposed to imagine somebody there instead.

So, in terms of who is being portrayed on the cover, I don't think anyone in particular is. The focus should really be on what is being portrayed, and that is the boat latched on to the pole/tree; however, the viewpoint is from Kathy H. Why Kathy H.? First she is the narrator, and secondly it seems that every time change happens, she is one step closer to her decided fate, or purpose in life. The boat is the symbolization of her conceptualism and reality; the idea that she is contained on ground, but when she hits the water, she has no idea where she'll end up. This is similar to how she has the guardians in Halisham, but when she enters the cabins and further on, she has a little more freedom.

Moreover, the only idea that this book cover may suggest about the construction of the society is that it isn't as perfect as it seems. Perfection does not happen; it can't happen. It can be perfect for a moment, but soon it will be destroyed.

Tyler Cowen: Be Suspicious of Stories

In this insightful Ted Talk , Tyler Cowen, an economist and author of the New York column's Economic Scene, discusses how we, humans,  should treat stories with more caution. Specifically, he believes that humans are biologically wired to transmit stories with utmost ease, and not question the specifics. This leads to how stories with the most irate plots are the most dangerous to us, and how humans rationalize stories into a broader concept when really, they can be stripped down into seven major themes.

Cowen is credible, despite the lack of information given through his introduction.  And though it was hardly mentioned, he is an economist. This mean that he deals with social sciences, and studies humans; he looks at patterns, numerical data, and studies that indicate relations between economy and the lives of humans. This is reflected throughout various points in his speech where he uses a variety of examples to enhance his topic.

He introduces his topic with a quote ("A stranger came to town"), and moves into Christopher Booker's   book that splits stories into seven themes. In his next several statements, he tries to evoke emotion by surprising his audience by arguing how we tell ourselves the same thing everyday. Cowen then follows with a set of data collected about how people feel about their lives, and to his bewilderment, nobody said their life was a "mess".  He makes an assertive statement, practically accusing everybody by saying, "You view your life like "this" [ a story]  instead of the mess that it is or it ought to be". 


The purpose of this was for Cowen to illustrate how people view their lives as a story, because stories don't incorporate "messes'.  Making it personal also enhances his argument, because it insinuates that the people need to think about themselves and about what they do and how they do it.

 "I used to think I was within the camp of economists," Cowen says. " I was one of the good guys, and I was allied with other good guys, and we were fighting the ideas of the bad guys. I used to think that! And probably, I was wrong! Maybe sometimes, I'm one of the good guys, but on some issues, I finally realized, "Hey, I wasn't one of the good guys." I'm not sure I was the bad guys in the sense of having evil intent, but it was very hard for me to get away with that story." 

Here, Cowen describes his job as one of the typical stories that humans are endowed  with- the concept of good versus evil. He makes his job into a "story" and shows how easily it is for him to do so. And then at the end of his Ted Talk, he says an array of mind blowing sentences all about his own Ted Talk.

"One story you might take away is the story of the quest. "Tyler came here, and he told us not to think so much in terms of stories..... Another possibility is you might tell a story of rebirth.  You might say, "I used to think too much in terms of stories, but then I heard Tyler Cowen, and now I think less in terms of stories!..... You also could tell a story of deep tragedy. "This guy Tyler Cowen came and he told us not to think in terms of stories, but all he could do was tell us stories about how other people think too much in terms of stories." 

In this excerpt, Cowen takes his Ted Talk and turns it into a quest; he turns it into a story of rebirth; he turns it into a tragedy. He takes one story and manipulates it to fit the needs of one particular theme of stories. 

So, why did I chose a Ted Talk that refutes the idea of a "story"? As I was browsing the Ted Talks, I found myself thinking about how- all throughout my life- I have been taught how storytelling is creative and innovative; it creates or dilutes reality, or it embellishes a life lesson, and makes it more appealing. And throughout all my life, I haven't ever once questioned a "story".  I chose it because I wanted to have a different perspective on what I never thought about, so if you're looking for something like this, this is the Ted Talk for you!

As Selena Gomez Sings, "The Heart Wants What It Wants"

 3.   Double Indemnity has been called “a film without a single trace of pity or love.” Do you agree with this statement? Think about the motivations that lie behind the actions of Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson when you consider your response.

This statement is an inverted statement. Pity or love may not exist between the characters, but it does exist internally. 


 In the beginning when Walter Neff goes to Phyllis Dietrichson's house to see her husband, his reasoning for going there was just to go for the "insurance" policy. When he goes inside the house, however, and saw Dietrichson; he wasn't "love-strucked", he was "stricken by an opportunity". Neff saw Dietrichson as this point of access to money, concerning himself, and only himself. Immediately after seeing this scene, I thought of Macbeth. Macbeth didn't plan on seeing the witches on his journey- in fact, that wasn't a part of his plan. But when he did, the witches presented him this opportunity of glory to which he took. There is also this ironic play on Neff's job. In the film, he is a business man- specifically, an insurance investor. Walter Neff could have been given any other job 
[cashier, tailor, a bar tender] but he was given the job of an insurance investor. The small blurb in the beginning of the movie (when Neff actually begins speaking about what happened) foreshadows that Neff is going to insure that he is going to make money- and not the money from his salary, but by bringing to life one of the probable causes to 
which the insurance policy applies to.... like accidental death.

This inverted statement also illuminates itself in the end of the film when Neff shoots Dietrichson. At first when Dietrichson had the gun and shot Neff, she shot to save herself.  When Neff told Dietrichson to shoot him more, she didn't do it, and claimed that she "loved" him which is why she couldn't pull the trigger.Phyllis Dietrichson doesn't actually love though, she loves herself; she takes pity upon herself; she became so caught up in the whole scheme of things that she suddenly became aware of her surroundings.  Neff had a similar realization, which sparked his shots at Dietrichson, killing her. He seemed 
internally upset that nothing worked out, which is why he pitied himself. 

Adding to that, the "love" that Neff and Dietrichson "had" in the film never existed. They abruptly met and seemed awkward with each other. When Neff kissed Dietrichson, there was no passion; it seemed as if he forced himself to embrace upon her. When Neff looked at Dietrichson, he saw his future, and never did it incorporate Dietrichson. All he saw was money and an easy target to get the money. 

Therefore, I would argue that Double Indemnity is a film "with pity and love" written all over it, only through a different perspective. 

As Selena GOmez sings, "The heart wants what it wants", and apparently neither Neff nor Dietrichson wanted each other.... they were in it for the money and personal gain.