How much of the actual prose of Ceremony came naturally to Leslie Marmon Silko?
This novel is so dense with hidden quips and metaphors, references, etc., on a sentence-by-sentence basis. I want to audit other sections of the class to hear what more they're discussing. I know second hour never went over the holocaust reference at the train station, with the little boy who represents Rocky.
There are differences between Rocky and Emo, both poisonous characters, that alter my perception of "antagonist." Emo is more completely evil; he was always a violent, power seeking machine. But Rocky is partially the product of Auntie, of Indian school, of his environment. You can hate Emo for all that he is, but with Rocky, you can't.
Last week, Holmes mentioned that one of the reasons she has us do the close readings is so that we're exposed to more adult vocabulary, but aren't articles typically written for the middle school/fifth grade reading level? I do see that editorials, opinion pieces, and reviews do not have to cater to as broad of an audience as straight news. Their emphasis on persuasiveness may require more complex vocabulary, especially for ethos.
4 December 2011 – Open Prompt
2005. In Kate Chopin's The Awakening (1899), protagonist Edna Pontellier is said to possess "That outward existence which conforms, the inward life that questions."
In a novel or play that you have studied, identify a character who outwardly conforms while questioning inwardly. Then write an essay in which you analyze how this tension between outward conformity and inward questioning contributes to the meaning of the work. Avoid mere plot summary.
During the Cold War era, fear of communist and totalitarian government was widespread in western democracies. George Orwell's novel 1984 is an illustration of what those government systems could one day mean. The novel's protagonist, Winston Smith, follows the codes and conventions expected of him by Big Brother, his world's totalitarian regime, while his consciousness starts to rebel. Winston's struggle and ultimate capitulation to the power of Big Brother were Orwell's warnings of absolute tyranny.
1984's Big Brother had control over its subjects' minds and bodies alike. Winston, for the most part, had no choice between conformity and rebellion.
Winston's outward conformity progressively deteriorates as his inward rebellion grows more prominent.
Big Brother reconditions Winston both physically and mentally. At the novel's end, Winston "love[s] Big Brother" truly and completely.
In a novel or play that you have studied, identify a character who outwardly conforms while questioning inwardly. Then write an essay in which you analyze how this tension between outward conformity and inward questioning contributes to the meaning of the work. Avoid mere plot summary.
During the Cold War era, fear of communist and totalitarian government was widespread in western democracies. George Orwell's novel 1984 is an illustration of what those government systems could one day mean. The novel's protagonist, Winston Smith, follows the codes and conventions expected of him by Big Brother, his world's totalitarian regime, while his consciousness starts to rebel. Winston's struggle and ultimate capitulation to the power of Big Brother were Orwell's warnings of absolute tyranny.
1984's Big Brother had control over its subjects' minds and bodies alike. Winston, for the most part, had no choice between conformity and rebellion.
Winston's outward conformity progressively deteriorates as his inward rebellion grows more prominent.
Big Brother reconditions Winston both physically and mentally. At the novel's end, Winston "love[s] Big Brother" truly and completely.
20 November 2011—Close Reading
How Republican conformity is ruining politics
In this article, Michael Gerson elaborates upon a pattern developing within the republican party to reject candidates who do not fit strictly within the lines of the conservative platform. Their quest for purity, Gerson argues, is damaging to the political process.
Gerson presents facts in such a way that makes the pattern clear. He first shows how prominent GOP candidates have alike supported fiscal policies aimed at environmental protection, standing beside prominent Democrats in their support. But Gerson cites one such candidate, Newt Gingrich, as having said his media appearance with Nancy Pelosi, a Democratic leader, was "the dumbest single thing [he's] done in recent years." Gerson also mentions the attacks on Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Mitt Romney, who each once lead in the polls, for supporting less-conservative policies. The candidates then apologize and realign their views in hope of remaining in the running, which Gerson says promotes "fealty above other, important public virtues such as stable judgment, competence, relevant experience and integrity."
Gerson's diction throughout the article is pejorative. He creates an image of the conservative base as one not to be taken critically, beginning with referring to the current GOP race as a "whack-a-mole" process. The words "heresy," "fealty," and "purity" have undertones of the antiquated attitudes of the medieval era, implying that the conservative conviction obstructs progression of American politics.
Gerson creates one particularly lasting metaphorical image in saying that the right has "created a box of orthodoxy so small that even the most conservative candidates must engage in undignified contortions just to fit." The "undignified contortions" help to reflect Gerson's later statement that "the purest candidates are often not the strongest candidates," allowing him to smoothly assert that successful politics requires compromise and creativity.
Gerson creates one particularly lasting metaphorical image in saying that the right has "created a box of orthodoxy so small that even the most conservative candidates must engage in undignified contortions just to fit." The "undignified contortions" help to reflect Gerson's later statement that "the purest candidates are often not the strongest candidates," allowing him to smoothly assert that successful politics requires compromise and creativity.
20 November 2011—Response to Course Material
I have never disliked a literary family or set of characters more than I dislike the Lomans. It is extremely difficult to look past how frustrating they all can be to analyze what's behind their actions and what they say. I wanted to spend time with Voldemort's autobiography for a bit of fun reading after spending weeks with the Lomans. That's not to say I disliked the play itself or don't see its significance. I have a similar relationship with Invisible Man in which the unnamed narrator just gets. on. your. nerves.
I came in about 20 minutes late to class on the day of the surprise closed prompt and ended up not finishing, landing me a solid 4 from my peer reviewers. The scores we gave each other were already agreeable the first time around, which worries us because now we're not sure if we all really do understand the rubric, or if we all misunderstand it to a similar degree.
I haven't yet really gauged how well my group did with the prezi presentation, but I know that we gave it a considerable amount of effort. Maybe we should have coordinated with the groups preceding and following our era to set limits on authors and time periods to be sure there wasn't a great amount of overlap.
I came in about 20 minutes late to class on the day of the surprise closed prompt and ended up not finishing, landing me a solid 4 from my peer reviewers. The scores we gave each other were already agreeable the first time around, which worries us because now we're not sure if we all really do understand the rubric, or if we all misunderstand it to a similar degree.
I haven't yet really gauged how well my group did with the prezi presentation, but I know that we gave it a considerable amount of effort. Maybe we should have coordinated with the groups preceding and following our era to set limits on authors and time periods to be sure there wasn't a great amount of overlap.
13 November 2011—Open Prompt
1989. In questioning the value of literary realism, Flannery O'Connor has written, "I am interested in making a good case for distortion because I am coming to believe that it is the only way to make people see." Write an essay in which you "make a good case for distortion," as distinct from literary realism. Analyze how important elements of the work you choose are "distorted" and explain how these distortions contribute to the effectiveness of the work. Avoid plot summary.
The use of satire as an outlet for social criticism was especially prominent before the twentieth century. In his essay entitled A Modest Proposal, eighteenth century British writer Jonathon Swift took the use of satire to new heights in his effort to expose the socioeconomic and moral issues of his day. In accordance with his ironic title, Swift's proposal is ostentatious and gruesomely unrealistic, his persona pretentious and cruel. His outlandish portrayal of the wealthy and his repugnant proposal were meant to shock his readers into recognizing the moral distortion in the world around them.
Swift uses a persona who claims to be unbiased and reasonable, but who very quickly is revealed to be exactly the opposite. In elevated language, he suggests that the poor of Ireland be bred, sold, and eaten by the rich (English landowners). He even elaborates the process down to specifics like what fraction of males and females will be left to breed and after what length of time from birth a baby would be available for sale. He lists the various benefits that would result from his suggestion, going from the immediate effect of lessening the amount of poor plaguing the streets to recommended recipe ideas. In a moment of sincerity, Swift compares this cannibalism to that metaphorically taking place between England and Ireland.
The persona's clear distortion of morality and preposterous proposal were a means of circumventing direct criticism of his time and the English monarchy. In the 1700s, writers had to be careful in vocalizing their opinions in fear of repercussions. Satire was a way to fly under the radar.
However, the extreme images Swift uses more effectively invoke emotional responses from readers than a straight forward, realistic proposal would. In his essay, he does list his legitimate ideas under his persona's clarification that they are everything society should avoid doing. Without the distorted context around them, the ideas wouldn't be fully emphasized, and readers wouldn't be emotionally vulnerable enough to feel that emphasis.
In his highly satirical A Modest Proposal, Jonathon Swift criticizes social issues involving eighteenth century Ireland and England. His warped persona and proposal protected him from possible punishment for his commentary, but also struck the emotions of his readers more so than a truly modest proposal could.
The use of satire as an outlet for social criticism was especially prominent before the twentieth century. In his essay entitled A Modest Proposal, eighteenth century British writer Jonathon Swift took the use of satire to new heights in his effort to expose the socioeconomic and moral issues of his day. In accordance with his ironic title, Swift's proposal is ostentatious and gruesomely unrealistic, his persona pretentious and cruel. His outlandish portrayal of the wealthy and his repugnant proposal were meant to shock his readers into recognizing the moral distortion in the world around them.
Swift uses a persona who claims to be unbiased and reasonable, but who very quickly is revealed to be exactly the opposite. In elevated language, he suggests that the poor of Ireland be bred, sold, and eaten by the rich (English landowners). He even elaborates the process down to specifics like what fraction of males and females will be left to breed and after what length of time from birth a baby would be available for sale. He lists the various benefits that would result from his suggestion, going from the immediate effect of lessening the amount of poor plaguing the streets to recommended recipe ideas. In a moment of sincerity, Swift compares this cannibalism to that metaphorically taking place between England and Ireland.
The persona's clear distortion of morality and preposterous proposal were a means of circumventing direct criticism of his time and the English monarchy. In the 1700s, writers had to be careful in vocalizing their opinions in fear of repercussions. Satire was a way to fly under the radar.
However, the extreme images Swift uses more effectively invoke emotional responses from readers than a straight forward, realistic proposal would. In his essay, he does list his legitimate ideas under his persona's clarification that they are everything society should avoid doing. Without the distorted context around them, the ideas wouldn't be fully emphasized, and readers wouldn't be emotionally vulnerable enough to feel that emphasis.
In his highly satirical A Modest Proposal, Jonathon Swift criticizes social issues involving eighteenth century Ireland and England. His warped persona and proposal protected him from possible punishment for his commentary, but also struck the emotions of his readers more so than a truly modest proposal could.
30 October 2001–Open Prompt
1986. Some works of literature use the element of time in a distinct way. The chronological sequence of events may be altered, or time may be suspended or accelerated. Choose a novel, an epic, or a play of recognized literary merit and show how the author's manipulation of time contributes to the effectiveness of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.
Senility comes with old age. Memories and the present are either lost or muddled together. In Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman, the main character, Willy Loman, slips in and out of the present along with the events of the drama itself. Miller's manipulation of time better communicates Willy's mental situation to the audience and reveals important plot information while perpetuating his emphasis on abandonment.
The actual events of the play follow Willy's relapses into his past. Without this, the audience would only view Willy talking to himself, just as the other characters view him. Taking the trip with Willy allows viewers to feel empathy, to experience the same level of disorientation as Willy. Willy's confusion and misunderstanding become the audience's confusion and misunderstanding. Willy is transformed from a nettlesome old man to a sympathetic old-timer abandoned by his sanity.
Miller chooses to show supposedly "happy" times from Willy's past, back when his son Biff was the high school football star and he felt "well liked" by his clientele. Those times are not happy, though. Money troubles are a constant plague in the Loman's household, Willy has an affair while he's away for work, Biff's football success clouds his academics, and Willy is eventually forgotten by his clients. The dichotomy of these memories show the audience how Willy's
22 October 2011—Response to Course Material
Close Reading of the American Dream
Seriously doubting my capability to do anything with this. All I have for DIDLS and close readings are questions, not answers or even musings. Whenever I think I am coming to conclusion, I'm always way off-base. Misinterpreting everything forever.
Is Albee being borderline sexist with the emasculation of Daddy? Why is his masculinity so important? What does it have to do with the American Dream?
The more we go over the American Dream, the less I see Grandma as having been the Dream, or Barker as being the corporation. That's not how that's supposed to work.
How do we separate absurdity from meaning?
"Good Works" is capitalized...how would an audience "get" that?
Open/Closed Prompts
Getting worse and worse at these.
Literary Terms
Hey I actually know something. Thanks to pop culture, "lampoon," "non sequiter," and "in medias res" are not a problem, but who decided to name different forms of repetition?
I won't understand litotes or chiasmus until I have a list of examples.
Paraprosdokian might be the equivalent of Arson, Murder, And Jaywalking
Seriously doubting my capability to do anything with this. All I have for DIDLS and close readings are questions, not answers or even musings. Whenever I think I am coming to conclusion, I'm always way off-base. Misinterpreting everything forever.
Is Albee being borderline sexist with the emasculation of Daddy? Why is his masculinity so important? What does it have to do with the American Dream?
The more we go over the American Dream, the less I see Grandma as having been the Dream, or Barker as being the corporation. That's not how that's supposed to work.
How do we separate absurdity from meaning?
"Good Works" is capitalized...how would an audience "get" that?
Open/Closed Prompts
Getting worse and worse at these.
Literary Terms
Hey I actually know something. Thanks to pop culture, "lampoon," "non sequiter," and "in medias res" are not a problem, but who decided to name different forms of repetition?
I won't understand litotes or chiasmus until I have a list of examples.
Paraprosdokian might be the equivalent of Arson, Murder, And Jaywalking
22 October 2011—Close Reading
Occupy Wall Street and Hollywood
In his article, Occupy Wall Street and Hollywood, Frank Bruni shows the inherent hypocrisy of celebrity involvement in Occupy Wall Street, and the detrimental affect it could have on the integrity of the movement.
Bruni asserts that celebrities are not members of the 99%. He uses sarcasm, invective, and details to separate figures such as Roseanne Barr, Russell Simmons, Kanye West, and Susan Sarandon from the protestors. Of Barr, Bruni says, "Such a subtle creature, she, and so oppressed to boot! Back in the 1990s, for the final seasons of her sitcom “Roseanne,” she made at least $20 million a year." Highly-paid supporters only "confuses the identity of [the] protest movement" made up of those feeling that there's too great a difference in income in the first place.
Celebrities' involvement in OWS is hypocritical in that they primarily make money for Wall-Street-like executives. Bruni again sensationalizes this, using details and harsh diction. He describes the amount of money made with "oodles" and executives as "lavishly compensated." Even the pure intentions of celebrities are shown to be polluted in some way. Work for celebrities includes advertising. Bruni disparagingly refers to celebrities as "pitchmen" and "pitchwomen," not performers. He qualifies actor Alec Baldwin's claim to give away his earnings from bank commercials with the fact that "he’s still promoting the company, and there remain other facets of his work and life that render him, like other stars, a very odd fit for a movement concerned with the sway of big companies and the distribution of wealth." Baldwin's boss made almost $35 in 2010.
Bruni argues that among the "mixed signals in the celebrity assist to Occupy Wall Street," is the fact that celebrities act greedily themselves. Though "many donate generously to charity" there are cases of "accepted payments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to show up and even perform at the private parties of superrich despots." He conveys his idea that the actions and lives of celebrities do not fit in with the movement; the movement needs its foundation to remain solid and purposeful, and the addition of celebrity only trivializes the message.
In his article, Occupy Wall Street and Hollywood, Frank Bruni shows the inherent hypocrisy of celebrity involvement in Occupy Wall Street, and the detrimental affect it could have on the integrity of the movement.
Bruni asserts that celebrities are not members of the 99%. He uses sarcasm, invective, and details to separate figures such as Roseanne Barr, Russell Simmons, Kanye West, and Susan Sarandon from the protestors. Of Barr, Bruni says, "Such a subtle creature, she, and so oppressed to boot! Back in the 1990s, for the final seasons of her sitcom “Roseanne,” she made at least $20 million a year." Highly-paid supporters only "confuses the identity of [the] protest movement" made up of those feeling that there's too great a difference in income in the first place.
Celebrities' involvement in OWS is hypocritical in that they primarily make money for Wall-Street-like executives. Bruni again sensationalizes this, using details and harsh diction. He describes the amount of money made with "oodles" and executives as "lavishly compensated." Even the pure intentions of celebrities are shown to be polluted in some way. Work for celebrities includes advertising. Bruni disparagingly refers to celebrities as "pitchmen" and "pitchwomen," not performers. He qualifies actor Alec Baldwin's claim to give away his earnings from bank commercials with the fact that "he’s still promoting the company, and there remain other facets of his work and life that render him, like other stars, a very odd fit for a movement concerned with the sway of big companies and the distribution of wealth." Baldwin's boss made almost $35 in 2010.
Bruni argues that among the "mixed signals in the celebrity assist to Occupy Wall Street," is the fact that celebrities act greedily themselves. Though "many donate generously to charity" there are cases of "accepted payments in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to show up and even perform at the private parties of superrich despots." He conveys his idea that the actions and lives of celebrities do not fit in with the movement; the movement needs its foundation to remain solid and purposeful, and the addition of celebrity only trivializes the message.
16 October 2011—Open Prompt
2004. Critic Roland Barthes has said, "Literature is the question minus the answer." Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes' observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author's treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
Questions of fate and purpose plague the average person as well as the most intellectual philosopher. In John Irving's novel A Prayer for Owen Meany, these questions manifest themselves in the would-be normal life of Johnny Wheelright. Irving forces Johnny, as well as the audience, to ask, "Is there such a thing as fate? How does one know their life is moving in the right direction?" However, the answers Irving provides are nebulous and unfinished, demonstrating how neither he, Johnny, nor anyone else can answer the question completely.
The first-person narrative follows a middle-aged John's explanation of why he believes in God, why he knows there is a God. By the novels "present," he and Irving had already answered that question. Which religion is "correct" is not determined. However, John was not always a believer. It took the life and death of his best friend, Owen Meany, to give him the certainty. Many aspects of Owen are peculiar—his appearance, his voice, his intellect—but most of all would be his knowledge of his purpose in life, he knows he is "God's instrument." But Owen does not symbolize humanity. Humanity does not know its fate or purpose, and Owen never explains to his best friend anything more than he feels John needs to know. Owen, and by extent Irving, does not allow Johnny to know. He just demands that Johnny trust in his friend. Here, Irving illuminates the one-sided relationship faith demands, but he does not expose the side human beings are missing.
Owen demands more from Johnny than unquestioned trust. Throughout their childhood and beyond, they practice the same basketball maneuver repeatedly. Johnny is still left in the dark as to why Owen is obsessed with performing the trick faster, better each time. At the point of Owen's death, however, it becomes clear. The same maneuver was needed to fulfill Owen's destiny. Perhaps here Irving tries to show that though there are things one does throughout his or her entire life with seemingly little purpose, one is always preparing for something greater, again offering a limited answer to such a large question.
Questions of fate and purpose plague the average person as well as the most intellectual philosopher. In John Irving's novel A Prayer for Owen Meany, these questions manifest themselves in the would-be normal life of Johnny Wheelright. Irving forces Johnny, as well as the audience, to ask, "Is there such a thing as fate? How does one know their life is moving in the right direction?" However, the answers Irving provides are nebulous and unfinished, demonstrating how neither he, Johnny, nor anyone else can answer the question completely.
The first-person narrative follows a middle-aged John's explanation of why he believes in God, why he knows there is a God. By the novels "present," he and Irving had already answered that question. Which religion is "correct" is not determined. However, John was not always a believer. It took the life and death of his best friend, Owen Meany, to give him the certainty. Many aspects of Owen are peculiar—his appearance, his voice, his intellect—but most of all would be his knowledge of his purpose in life, he knows he is "God's instrument." But Owen does not symbolize humanity. Humanity does not know its fate or purpose, and Owen never explains to his best friend anything more than he feels John needs to know. Owen, and by extent Irving, does not allow Johnny to know. He just demands that Johnny trust in his friend. Here, Irving illuminates the one-sided relationship faith demands, but he does not expose the side human beings are missing.
Owen demands more from Johnny than unquestioned trust. Throughout their childhood and beyond, they practice the same basketball maneuver repeatedly. Johnny is still left in the dark as to why Owen is obsessed with performing the trick faster, better each time. At the point of Owen's death, however, it becomes clear. The same maneuver was needed to fulfill Owen's destiny. Perhaps here Irving tries to show that though there are things one does throughout his or her entire life with seemingly little purpose, one is always preparing for something greater, again offering a limited answer to such a large question.
9 October 2011—Close Reading
Why "occupy"? It's personal
In this article, Maria Cardona interprets the source of the Occupy Wall Street movement. She argues that Americans do not feel the pressures of the day primarily economically or politically, but personally—that the actions of the right-wing are intimate in their effects on the "average" American. As she sees it, protestors aren't fighting against opposing ideologies, they're defending their well-being and dignity against a conservative-run system.
Cardona lists statistic after statistic demonstrating the prosperous upper classes and waning less fortunate. She first mentions that "executive pay is now about five times higher than it was in 1980" while the working class pay has remained stagnant. She also points out that "the average CEO makes $11 million a year while the average person makes $40,000." With these details, Cardona means to emphasize an inequality and instill a sense of unjustness, appealing to a reader's emotions, illuminating that personal feeling of OWS. She uses other statistics to further this cause and target the free-market-favoring GOP. Cardona reveals the amount of money donated by large corporations to political candidates to support her claim that politicians must cater to the money, not the needs of the American people, again appealing to the emotions of a reader. With detail, she also prods at readers' sense of morality, stating, "latino children now rank highest in child poverty rates. Latinos and African-Americans suffer from much higher unemployment rates than others."
Cardona writes colloquially, meaning to stress how intimate yet universal the effects of the actions taken by corporations and Republican politicians have been. Her diction is informal, and she keeps emphatic sentences short. With this perhaps Cardona is trying to convey to readers that if she's down-to-earth and personal with them, and if she takes the current situation in the US personally, then the readers should thereby take it personally as well, and feel as vexed as she. Her diction also trivializes the tactics of the opposing party and business executives. She uses "scream" and "cry" to show their immaturity, to show that those upsetting the protesters of OWS are not acting professionally or in accordance with political ideology. They're acting like stubborn toddlers, making the situation very much personal and undignified.
The simple sentence, "It is personal," or small variations are weaved throughout Cardona's article. She makes use of this repetition as well as rhetorical question to further place herself on the same level with the reader. Her questions mean to accentuate her own personal frustration and again draw on the emotional response of her audience, such as with "Really? Does American exceptionalism exist only at the top 1% of our workforce?" Cardona imparts the idea that the GOP and the super wealthy are demeaning the rest of society, and that's what angers the protesters of OWS, that's what angers her, and that's what should anger the reader.
In this article, Maria Cardona interprets the source of the Occupy Wall Street movement. She argues that Americans do not feel the pressures of the day primarily economically or politically, but personally—that the actions of the right-wing are intimate in their effects on the "average" American. As she sees it, protestors aren't fighting against opposing ideologies, they're defending their well-being and dignity against a conservative-run system.
Cardona lists statistic after statistic demonstrating the prosperous upper classes and waning less fortunate. She first mentions that "executive pay is now about five times higher than it was in 1980" while the working class pay has remained stagnant. She also points out that "the average CEO makes $11 million a year while the average person makes $40,000." With these details, Cardona means to emphasize an inequality and instill a sense of unjustness, appealing to a reader's emotions, illuminating that personal feeling of OWS. She uses other statistics to further this cause and target the free-market-favoring GOP. Cardona reveals the amount of money donated by large corporations to political candidates to support her claim that politicians must cater to the money, not the needs of the American people, again appealing to the emotions of a reader. With detail, she also prods at readers' sense of morality, stating, "latino children now rank highest in child poverty rates. Latinos and African-Americans suffer from much higher unemployment rates than others."
Cardona writes colloquially, meaning to stress how intimate yet universal the effects of the actions taken by corporations and Republican politicians have been. Her diction is informal, and she keeps emphatic sentences short. With this perhaps Cardona is trying to convey to readers that if she's down-to-earth and personal with them, and if she takes the current situation in the US personally, then the readers should thereby take it personally as well, and feel as vexed as she. Her diction also trivializes the tactics of the opposing party and business executives. She uses "scream" and "cry" to show their immaturity, to show that those upsetting the protesters of OWS are not acting professionally or in accordance with political ideology. They're acting like stubborn toddlers, making the situation very much personal and undignified.
The simple sentence, "It is personal," or small variations are weaved throughout Cardona's article. She makes use of this repetition as well as rhetorical question to further place herself on the same level with the reader. Her questions mean to accentuate her own personal frustration and again draw on the emotional response of her audience, such as with "Really? Does American exceptionalism exist only at the top 1% of our workforce?" Cardona imparts the idea that the GOP and the super wealthy are demeaning the rest of society, and that's what angers the protesters of OWS, that's what angers her, and that's what should anger the reader.
9 October 2011—Response to Course Material
Syntax
If what's most important should be placed at the end of a sentence, when a writer wants to slip something past the readers, would he/she place it at the beginning of a sentence? Like, "gotcha!"
I use asyndeton, the omission of conjunctions, often.
When I look at things I've written, I see that I don't form sentences as if they're going to be read. I form them and punctuate them in the way I want them to be said. (Overcompensation of commas).
Theories of Humor and Comedy
I've been analyzing anything I laugh at on TV all week because of this. I have to disagree with the sixth requirement, that what's funny must be harmless. Seinfeld started pushing this limit in the 90s. On the commentary in one episode, one of the writers just says, "And another life ruined."
Now there's It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Wilfred, which are two of the meanest comedies I've ever seen. While "the gang" in It's Always Sunny is never harmed in the long-term sense, everyone around them is. Maybe this is refuted by the fact that it's not live comedy and not real-life human beings being harmed. It's all fake. But still.
Theatre of the Absurd
"The play seems to end in precisely the same condition it began, with no real change having occurred."
It's Always Sunny and Seinfeld, again.
The distrust of language is postmodern. Thank you, British Literature.
American Dream
How much can you fly past the radar while also blatantly ignoring the radar in every other sense?
If what's most important should be placed at the end of a sentence, when a writer wants to slip something past the readers, would he/she place it at the beginning of a sentence? Like, "gotcha!"
I use asyndeton, the omission of conjunctions, often.
When I look at things I've written, I see that I don't form sentences as if they're going to be read. I form them and punctuate them in the way I want them to be said. (Overcompensation of commas).
Theories of Humor and Comedy
I've been analyzing anything I laugh at on TV all week because of this. I have to disagree with the sixth requirement, that what's funny must be harmless. Seinfeld started pushing this limit in the 90s. On the commentary in one episode, one of the writers just says, "And another life ruined."
Now there's It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Wilfred, which are two of the meanest comedies I've ever seen. While "the gang" in It's Always Sunny is never harmed in the long-term sense, everyone around them is. Maybe this is refuted by the fact that it's not live comedy and not real-life human beings being harmed. It's all fake. But still.
Theatre of the Absurd
"The play seems to end in precisely the same condition it began, with no real change having occurred."
It's Always Sunny and Seinfeld, again.
The distrust of language is postmodern. Thank you, British Literature.
American Dream
How much can you fly past the radar while also blatantly ignoring the radar in every other sense?
2 October 2011—Open Prompt
1995. Writers often highlight the values of a culture or a society by using characters who are alienated from that culture or society because of gender, race, class, or creed. Choose a novel or a play in which such a character plays a significant role and show how that character's alienation reveals the surrounding society's assumptions or moral values.
The expression "actions have consequences" is said and heard often, but rarely with the adjective "growing" between "have" and "consequences." However, the fact that actions have growing, prolonged consequences is the message J.B. Priestly relays in his drama An Inspector Calls. Set in 1912, the drama follows a night of revelations for the middle-class Birling family as an Inspector questions the members about the suicide of a young, alienated woman. Though she's never seen by the audience, the life and death of this young woman and how the Birling family connects demonstrate the cold, selfish, and impersonal society of early twentieth century England.
Each of the four members of the Birling family had some destructive stake in this young woman's, Eva Smith's, life. Arthur Birling, a hopeful, round business man with his eye on status, fired Eva from her job at one of his mills. Throughout the play, he insists on his lack of responsibility whatsoever with Eva's demise, justifying her termination with needs to keep operating costs low. Here, Priestly means for Birling to represent unsympathetic, every-man-for-himself capitalism. Arthur's wife, Sybil, is of the same stock. She too denies having anything do with Eva's death, yet it was she who, as a member of a charity, refused to help a pregnant Eva on her last legs. Sybil's uncharitable actions demonstrate the superficiality of that society. Positions in even well-meaning organizations are held for social status.
Mr. and Mrs. Birling's two grown children, though having inflicted Eva's life as well, provide contrast to their parents in that they feel guilt; they show evidence of having changed over the course of the night. The strongest of these two characters is Sheila. Sheila Birling had Eva fired from her job as a shopgirl out of impulsive jealousy of a pretty working-class girl. Unlike her parents, Sheila remorsefully accepts her responsibility. Moreover, as the night drags on, she encourages and fights with her unabiding parents to do the same. Perhaps with Sheila, Priestly means to show that society can change, that the provided-for classes can achieve sympathy and empathy if they only recognize the extending hand of their actions to the lower classes.
Though none of the Birlings directly wounded poor Eva, their ill-considered actions all played a part in her suicide. Through Eva and the Birlings, Priestly reveals the frigidity with which the upper classes can address those "beneath," as well as how tragic the consequences of unnoticed actions can be.
Each of the four members of the Birling family had some destructive stake in this young woman's, Eva Smith's, life. Arthur Birling, a hopeful, round business man with his eye on status, fired Eva from her job at one of his mills. Throughout the play, he insists on his lack of responsibility whatsoever with Eva's demise, justifying her termination with needs to keep operating costs low. Here, Priestly means for Birling to represent unsympathetic, every-man-for-himself capitalism. Arthur's wife, Sybil, is of the same stock. She too denies having anything do with Eva's death, yet it was she who, as a member of a charity, refused to help a pregnant Eva on her last legs. Sybil's uncharitable actions demonstrate the superficiality of that society. Positions in even well-meaning organizations are held for social status.
Mr. and Mrs. Birling's two grown children, though having inflicted Eva's life as well, provide contrast to their parents in that they feel guilt; they show evidence of having changed over the course of the night. The strongest of these two characters is Sheila. Sheila Birling had Eva fired from her job as a shopgirl out of impulsive jealousy of a pretty working-class girl. Unlike her parents, Sheila remorsefully accepts her responsibility. Moreover, as the night drags on, she encourages and fights with her unabiding parents to do the same. Perhaps with Sheila, Priestly means to show that society can change, that the provided-for classes can achieve sympathy and empathy if they only recognize the extending hand of their actions to the lower classes.
Though none of the Birlings directly wounded poor Eva, their ill-considered actions all played a part in her suicide. Through Eva and the Birlings, Priestly reveals the frigidity with which the upper classes can address those "beneath," as well as how tragic the consequences of unnoticed actions can be.
September 24, 2011—Response to Course Material
Summer Assignments:
Community is intertextuality. Just this week it "spoke" to Doctor Who and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I think intertextuality is my favorite thing about literature. I get excited when I recognize a reference or something I've seen before.
I was raised Catholic, so I was never a bible-reader but a listen-to-what-the-priest-says-er. Now that I've read some of the bible, why it's such a universal big deal, I still don't understand. It's this beacon of morality and there's a lot of... moral ambiguity.
Mythology was super interesting. Charlie's Angels even uses the Trojan Horse.
I wonder when writers use something like the Trojan Horse or a Cassandra whether they know its origin or know it from some other previous work in which it's been used; or conversely what happens when a reader recognizes it, but not from its origin but from a different work. The intent of its use can be wholly misunderstood.
D.I.D.L.S.: I continue to have trouble discerning between these categories of technique. Most of the time I still have to ask but aren't they all language? What exactly constitutes a detail and not imagery or language? I also am having issues with picturing describing regionalism/level of formality on a one-word-at-a-time basis; that feels more like a syntax thing.
When studying meaning of text, it's difficult for me not to feel like all of this is much too sentimental and can't we just get on with it oh my God. I don't feel comfortable analyzing something a writer may have done "unconsciously" yet, either.
I should read more David Sedaris. Interesting choice for practicing close reading.
It's sad that I won't be able to write about movies on the AP Lit exam (HEY aren't they literature?); they're the only titles I can even come up with for open prompts and my analyses of them would probably be...better. Analyzing camera movements is so much easier than remembering enough of a novel/poem to analyze it on the spot.
Community is intertextuality. Just this week it "spoke" to Doctor Who and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I think intertextuality is my favorite thing about literature. I get excited when I recognize a reference or something I've seen before.
I was raised Catholic, so I was never a bible-reader but a listen-to-what-the-priest-says-er. Now that I've read some of the bible, why it's such a universal big deal, I still don't understand. It's this beacon of morality and there's a lot of... moral ambiguity.
Mythology was super interesting. Charlie's Angels even uses the Trojan Horse.
I wonder when writers use something like the Trojan Horse or a Cassandra whether they know its origin or know it from some other previous work in which it's been used; or conversely what happens when a reader recognizes it, but not from its origin but from a different work. The intent of its use can be wholly misunderstood.
D.I.D.L.S.: I continue to have trouble discerning between these categories of technique. Most of the time I still have to ask but aren't they all language? What exactly constitutes a detail and not imagery or language? I also am having issues with picturing describing regionalism/level of formality on a one-word-at-a-time basis; that feels more like a syntax thing.
When studying meaning of text, it's difficult for me not to feel like all of this is much too sentimental and can't we just get on with it oh my God. I don't feel comfortable analyzing something a writer may have done "unconsciously" yet, either.
I should read more David Sedaris. Interesting choice for practicing close reading.
It's sad that I won't be able to write about movies on the AP Lit exam (HEY aren't they literature?); they're the only titles I can even come up with for open prompts and my analyses of them would probably be...better. Analyzing camera movements is so much easier than remembering enough of a novel/poem to analyze it on the spot.
September 18, 2011—Open Prompt
OF COURSE I answer the first prompt wrong
2004, Form B. The most important themes in literature are sometimes developed in scenes in which a death or deaths take place. Choose a novel or play and write a well-organized essay in which you show how a specific death scene helps to illuminate the meaning of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
2004, Form B. The most important themes in literature are sometimes developed in scenes in which a death or deaths take place. Choose a novel or play and write a well-organized essay in which you show how a specific death scene helps to illuminate the meaning of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
Some may see the saying "be careful what you wish for" as a cliche, but it's wisdom is still present even in day-to-day life. What if one wished for eternal youth, and what if the outcome is neither beautiful nor decent but flagrant and fatal? Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray revolves around a wish made by the titular character to never grow old. Instead, for every action he takes, for every immoral decision he makes, the physical reprecussions are aborbed by a painting, his portrait. Dorian's life of vanity and indulgence, however, lead to violent deaths, including Dorian's own. Through these deaths, Wilde explores the damaging consequences of a wholly humanist life.
Through the first and perhaps most tragic death, Wilde examines the destruction of an innocent life by Dorian's superficiality. A young girl named Sybil kills herself because Dorian rejects his previous affection for her after she embarrasses him in front of his friends. Sybil was only thinking of Dorian at the time, and his rejection is too great for her to bear. She is the first victim, and her death leads Dorian to succumb to a complete lack of conscience.
Dorian later stabs the portrait's painter and his own friend, Basil. With Basil's murder, Wilde shows how incapable Dorian is of taking responsibility, how that life can hurt those who care, as well as how sins, whether the physical mark of them is there or not, can come to control the sinner. Dorian kept the evermore hideous painting hidden away, but in showing it to Basil, feels a white hot anger and targets the blame for the painting's ugliness on Basil, not his own lifestyle. In a moment of impulse, something Dorian is not a stranger to, he impales Basil with a knife. Dorian doesn't understand responsibility because he's never seen it on his own face in a mirror. His immorality accumulates to the point where he destroys one of the few who still care for him. Wilde shows how one can alienate their loved ones in leading an indulgent life. Furthermore, Wilde suggests that the painting actually gave Dorian that violent impulse. His hatred for Basil boils after he glances at the portrait. It is sudden and uncontrollable, showing how Dorian could never have escaped his actions, they follow him and influence him still.
Wilde's only novel ends when Dorian Gray stabs his own portrait in the heart. Under the supernatural circumstances, he stabs himself in the heart, and dies with the wretched appearance of his portrait. Dorian's death gives Wilde's final argument: an unchecked, superficial life leads to maddening self-loathing.
September 11, 2011—Close Reading
"Are jobs Obsolete?"
In this commentary, Douglas Rushkoff proposes an idea that he himself knows won't be taken lightly, but he proposes it in such a way that a reader feels he's coming from a rational place of mind. He proposes that the unemployment crisis of today isn't today's real issue—restructuring society around something other than employment is.
Opening with reference to the endangerment of the USPS, Rushkoff explains how digital technology has hurt the unemployment rate for a long time. He shares the fact that "there is enough food produced to provide everyone in the world with 2,720 kilocalories per person per day...even after America disposes of thousands of tons of crop and dairy just to keep market prices high," going on to report that banks are demolishing foreclosed homes. He uses this information to make his point: We have everything, but no longer an appropriate means of distributing it. Moreover, his presentation of this information also tells us how wasteful we are to protect the agricultural sector of employment. Rushkoff continues with a brief history of how the modern notion of employment came to be, focusing on how before the "advent of the corporation," people worked for their value and, now they work for their job. With only this information, one feels as though their job today is of no value, it's just filler, and all society keeps trying to do is sustain the filler.
Rushkoff makes some precise word choices for his argument; much of his diction relates humans to pieces of outdated technology, but not in a way that implies he feels that way about humanity. In the first sentence he mentions the "replacement of working humans" by digital technology. The word "replacement" pertaining to people produces an image of human hands being switched out just like a faulty piece of machinery. Rushkoff later refers to taxi-drivers as being "render[ed]...obsolete," like analog cameras by digital point-and-shoots. But he gives the impression that this isn't how he sees humans, it's how the current employment structure does, enforcing his idea that the employment structure is broken.
Finally, Rushkoff's perhaps most critically utilized technique is the rhetorical question. He opens his idea with "since when is unemployment really a problem?" and when addressing how society sees the use of technology as something taking work away from people in the goal of cheap efficiency, he asks, "Isn't [that] what all this technology was for in the first place?" In using questions rather than statements, Rushkoff is presenting his theory in a gentler, more inviting-for-consideration way. He's letting the reader ask themself about the problem; the reader is not simply being told a blatantly new concept. With rhetorical question is also how Rushkoff connects to the humanity of the issue, asking, "Might the spirit of enterprise we currently associate with 'career' be shifted to something entirely more collaborative, purposeful, and even meaningful?" This allows a reader to first explore within his or herself the good that could result from a alternatively-organized society before making his own propositions.
In this commentary, Douglas Rushkoff proposes an idea that he himself knows won't be taken lightly, but he proposes it in such a way that a reader feels he's coming from a rational place of mind. He proposes that the unemployment crisis of today isn't today's real issue—restructuring society around something other than employment is.
Opening with reference to the endangerment of the USPS, Rushkoff explains how digital technology has hurt the unemployment rate for a long time. He shares the fact that "there is enough food produced to provide everyone in the world with 2,720 kilocalories per person per day...even after America disposes of thousands of tons of crop and dairy just to keep market prices high," going on to report that banks are demolishing foreclosed homes. He uses this information to make his point: We have everything, but no longer an appropriate means of distributing it. Moreover, his presentation of this information also tells us how wasteful we are to protect the agricultural sector of employment. Rushkoff continues with a brief history of how the modern notion of employment came to be, focusing on how before the "advent of the corporation," people worked for their value and, now they work for their job. With only this information, one feels as though their job today is of no value, it's just filler, and all society keeps trying to do is sustain the filler.
Rushkoff makes some precise word choices for his argument; much of his diction relates humans to pieces of outdated technology, but not in a way that implies he feels that way about humanity. In the first sentence he mentions the "replacement of working humans" by digital technology. The word "replacement" pertaining to people produces an image of human hands being switched out just like a faulty piece of machinery. Rushkoff later refers to taxi-drivers as being "render[ed]...obsolete," like analog cameras by digital point-and-shoots. But he gives the impression that this isn't how he sees humans, it's how the current employment structure does, enforcing his idea that the employment structure is broken.
Finally, Rushkoff's perhaps most critically utilized technique is the rhetorical question. He opens his idea with "since when is unemployment really a problem?" and when addressing how society sees the use of technology as something taking work away from people in the goal of cheap efficiency, he asks, "Isn't [that] what all this technology was for in the first place?" In using questions rather than statements, Rushkoff is presenting his theory in a gentler, more inviting-for-consideration way. He's letting the reader ask themself about the problem; the reader is not simply being told a blatantly new concept. With rhetorical question is also how Rushkoff connects to the humanity of the issue, asking, "Might the spirit of enterprise we currently associate with 'career' be shifted to something entirely more collaborative, purposeful, and even meaningful?" This allows a reader to first explore within his or herself the good that could result from a alternatively-organized society before making his own propositions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)