To the world I say, I joined a literature class. An AP course, of course. Yep, I'm already overwhelmed. Who knew there could be so much to writing? Not me, and I'm the one who wants to be the writer.Ha! I figured this year would be dedicated to reading the classics, you know like: The Great Gatsby, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer,Pygmalion...I could go on forever and ever and well ever. And I'm sure we'll get to the classics but I sure didn't realize that I was going to become a scientist. Everything we touch and read and see becomes dissected .Words are not merely words. I was ignorant, but now I'll grudgingly admit that by diving deeper into to literary works, I'm learning to ignore the simple explanations in favor for the more detailed ones.
Remember the paintings we discussed earlier in the month? The ones with Mary and baby Jesus? For me, when my eyes first landed on both depictions of Mary and baby Jesus, I didn't get it. I saw paintings and ignored the little voice in my mind that was telling me that there was something more to them. For example, the positioning of the nobility and the clergy in regards to the positioning of Mary and baby Jesus. What? Why? I didn't think those details mattered. But, as Ms. Holmes urged us, we needed to focus on the details, then it would all make sense. Fortunately, my knowledge of history allowed me to. That day, for me, served as a future challenge. A challenge to see beyond the first viewing, to look specifically at the objects and details as one unit then secondly, as a whole.
DIDLS. Diction. Imagery. Details.Language. Syntax. The literary techniques that turn a blank page into a work plentiful with words and meaning. Oh, boy. I'm familiar with the terms but I admit, I don't usually stop to consider them. Oh yeah, this work is soooo elevated. No. More like, Where is my dictionary . Or if there's a lot of imagery I think, Darn this author for being so good. Why can't I write like that? I mean, I know they all have their own purposes but frankly, sometimes I get confused. Sometimes I start talking about diction when what I'm really discussing is imagery. I'm just not used to spending time identifying each literary technique. But what proved helpful to me were the "Discussing Diction", "Metamorphosis" , and "Syntax as Style" assignments, especially because they involved partners. When I'm working in a group, I feel that in order to do my share, I try and think harder. Suddenly, diction only became about word choice. Imagery became the senses. And syntax evolved into a whole lot of stuff that I didn't even know was considered to be a part of syntax. Well in truth, before this school year I didn't even know what syntax was.
So DIDLS is helpful. When close reading, DIDLS is your pal because instead of commenting on what you think the work means, you can now comment on how DIDLS adds meaning to the work and for you as the reader. By dissecting each paragraph,or maybe even one word/phrase, your knowledge of the story expands because you are able to make connections on how the literary techniques fail or succeed in bringing the work to life. When we read the passages from Hemingway, Morrison, and Hawthorne, I was a bit confused. We were provided with very brief passages from each author and we were expected to use our knowledge of DIDLS to figure out their meanings. A lot of thoughts were going around in mind and I kind of wanted to throw a fit because I didn't think we were intelligent enough to figure it out. But we did. The passages were considerably different. One was more elevated. Another colloquial. One had a party with imagery. One worked to be vague. And from there we gathered up all the information and interpreted the passages( with a little help from Ms. Holmes). It was like the exhausted mountain climber straining and reaching for the ledge that takes him to the top of the mountain.Sigh. A success. Maybe, I'm exaggerating, I am, but we worked together and to be simple, it was cool.
The American Dream. A comedic farce( I think thats what we determined it was). full of coincidences. The first day my hands held that book and I listened to the dialogue through the voice of my classmates, I thought with a very uneducated stream of phrases, This play is weird...Why are we reading this? And a lot of other things that should probably be best left unmentioned. I found though, that as we continued our reading and discussions, the play no longer remained a play with characters with the childish names of Mommy and Daddy. It became about society and the turning of the world into a more materialistic mind form.And as we read the packets on existentialism and the theatre of the absurd, I found that I could see features of both throughout the play. The play has meaning despite it's absurdest elements of repetition and the unusual methods of communication. Existentialist-Freewill. Man seeks what he/she wants. I found it enlightening to read the interpretations of The American Dream through the words of Ervin Beck and Phillip C. Kolin's. Every person is going to react differently to this work. While Beck focused more on Grandma and the allegory in Edward Albee's play, Kolin's compared the work to other works, and focused more on the sexual tension throughout the play. I respect both writers and their opinions of the play and I can even see how they are right in their opinions. I agree with Beck's when he writes: "My point is that it takes one( American Dream, old style) to know one(American Dream, new style)"(Beck 4). Exactly. The American Dream will never end. Humans will always want and seek for something more. We have the space beyond our Earth to look forward to now. The torch keeps passing on as Grandma passes it to The American Dream. For Kolin's I agree with his analysis of the sexual tension but I feel that none of his claims were really new to me because we discussed the role reversals and sexuality's (physical) of Mommy and Daddy.
And now the question of the interpretation of the play and the characters as plastic, lifeless barbies. I just don't know. Yes, the dialogue is childish. Yes, the characters(except Grandma) never seem to be able to find their way around their house. The idea of a child speaking so openly(and possibly innocently) is not surprising. Children will surprise you with what they know and see. I've been witness to it. But, I feel like our class discussion of the doll house went too far. I understand that those who are overly focused on gaining become nothing but a shell after a while. I do, but I feel like we lost sight of the play's message at certain points and introduced transparent claims that made my mind want to explode. Only a little.
I see I have some thinking to do...I think I just want to read an essay where someone proves it. Joy. Writing, you are more than I imagined.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Saturday, September 21, 2013
The Reality of a Prompt
AP English Literature and Composition 2009
Question Three( Symbol)
Open Prompt-Select a novel or play in which you analyze one symbol and explain how the symbol functions to establish meaning/revelations in characters or theme.
Critique One: Student 3A
Introductory paragraph reads much like any old introductory paragraph. The student briefly underlines the importance of a symbol and then transitions into a somewhat barely there thesis statement arguing the importance of a wild duck in Henrik Ibsen's The Wild Duck.The student manages to identify the importance of this symbol through the development of characters and events within the thesis, but a more original approach would have been appreciated other than ending with "...leaving his audience with an interesting sentiment." What sentiment?
He/She then transitions into a first body paragraph that provides a background of information considering the family of characters he/she is analyzing through the symbolic wild duck. The student then capitulates that the significance of this wild duck serves as a representation of the family's "tranquility and happiness". From there the student considers the importance of one of the characters as a major instigator in birthing the presence of this symbol through Greggors(the character), in The Wild Duck. The commentators responded to this observation by writing "exceptionally insightful".
Despite the weak thesis, the essay remains well organized and provides in depth/articulated arguments and details to support the function of the wild duck. Although I have never read The Wild Duck this student didn't cause my mind to wander. Through his/her organization and focus I followed along quite nicely and his/her hard work paid off. A score of 9. Wow.
Critique Two: Student 3B
No flowery intro for this student. Nope, straight to the symbol.Obvious. A lampshade. Although this student vaguely/simply writes a thesis of Tennessee William's play "A Streetcar Named Desire" regarding how lampshades serve as a symbol for hiding/covering the truth, the student later expands( my thoughts plus commentators) further in later paragraphs about this symbol's importance in revealing the reality of character in that of Blanche Dubois. He/she argues briefly that Blanche Dubois' obsession with the lampshade is more than a measure used to hide her aging image. Unfortunately for me, I became quickly unsatisfied after finishing my read of this essay because although the writer has notable points, he/she provides surface discussion that don't always leave the reader astounded;wanting to know more.By analyzing more than one character I believe that the student may have received a better score than a 6 to express her knowledge of how the lampshade impacted characters throughout the play.Yes, the student expresses his/her ideas clearly, but he/she begins the argument really in the last paragraph where she addresses the fact that Blanche's obsession with the lampshade stems from the need to cover the bitter loss of her husband, a loss she herself played a part in by revealing one of his "dark" secrets.
Critique Three: Student 3C
The first sentence kills me."Things Fall Apart was a novel based on pride and strength and power" Anything else you want to add in there? And trust and friendship and blah blah blah...alright, so I'm making some of that up. Soo? The use of "and" forces the intelligence of the paper to lower many levels and read like that of a choppy first grader's attempt at answering "What do you like to eat for fun and why?" That is ONE of my problems with this essay.But the more serious problem in the introductory paragraph concerns the use of the past tense. This novel still is so no need to write that it was.From there the writer writes, "...in my opinion" Oh, NO! I hate the use of "I" in an analytically driven essay. It sounds elementary.
And the essay continued to sound as such. Even though this student tried to prove the impact of the machete in Things Fall Apart through the character Okonkwo, the essay's lack of structure and support screamed POORLY WRITTEN. The student's responses were either poorly displayed or not even there at all. For example, "The machete is used for defense purposes" No duh. How does that make the machete symbolic of power? He/she doesn't even address the importance of the machete as a symbol in this paragraph. Instead he/she writes, "Okonkwo needed that machete. He needed it to survive. He needed it to fight dangers" Symbolism? No wonder he/she received a 4. The commentators and I agreed about his claims They needed more support and meaning to allow for an improved score.
Question Three( Symbol)
Open Prompt-Select a novel or play in which you analyze one symbol and explain how the symbol functions to establish meaning/revelations in characters or theme.
Critique One: Student 3A
Introductory paragraph reads much like any old introductory paragraph. The student briefly underlines the importance of a symbol and then transitions into a somewhat barely there thesis statement arguing the importance of a wild duck in Henrik Ibsen's The Wild Duck.The student manages to identify the importance of this symbol through the development of characters and events within the thesis, but a more original approach would have been appreciated other than ending with "...leaving his audience with an interesting sentiment." What sentiment?
He/She then transitions into a first body paragraph that provides a background of information considering the family of characters he/she is analyzing through the symbolic wild duck. The student then capitulates that the significance of this wild duck serves as a representation of the family's "tranquility and happiness". From there the student considers the importance of one of the characters as a major instigator in birthing the presence of this symbol through Greggors(the character), in The Wild Duck. The commentators responded to this observation by writing "exceptionally insightful".
Despite the weak thesis, the essay remains well organized and provides in depth/articulated arguments and details to support the function of the wild duck. Although I have never read The Wild Duck this student didn't cause my mind to wander. Through his/her organization and focus I followed along quite nicely and his/her hard work paid off. A score of 9. Wow.
Critique Two: Student 3B
No flowery intro for this student. Nope, straight to the symbol.Obvious. A lampshade. Although this student vaguely/simply writes a thesis of Tennessee William's play "A Streetcar Named Desire" regarding how lampshades serve as a symbol for hiding/covering the truth, the student later expands( my thoughts plus commentators) further in later paragraphs about this symbol's importance in revealing the reality of character in that of Blanche Dubois. He/she argues briefly that Blanche Dubois' obsession with the lampshade is more than a measure used to hide her aging image. Unfortunately for me, I became quickly unsatisfied after finishing my read of this essay because although the writer has notable points, he/she provides surface discussion that don't always leave the reader astounded;wanting to know more.By analyzing more than one character I believe that the student may have received a better score than a 6 to express her knowledge of how the lampshade impacted characters throughout the play.Yes, the student expresses his/her ideas clearly, but he/she begins the argument really in the last paragraph where she addresses the fact that Blanche's obsession with the lampshade stems from the need to cover the bitter loss of her husband, a loss she herself played a part in by revealing one of his "dark" secrets.
Critique Three: Student 3C
The first sentence kills me."Things Fall Apart was a novel based on pride and strength and power" Anything else you want to add in there? And trust and friendship and blah blah blah...alright, so I'm making some of that up. Soo? The use of "and" forces the intelligence of the paper to lower many levels and read like that of a choppy first grader's attempt at answering "What do you like to eat for fun and why?" That is ONE of my problems with this essay.But the more serious problem in the introductory paragraph concerns the use of the past tense. This novel still is so no need to write that it was.From there the writer writes, "...in my opinion" Oh, NO! I hate the use of "I" in an analytically driven essay. It sounds elementary.
And the essay continued to sound as such. Even though this student tried to prove the impact of the machete in Things Fall Apart through the character Okonkwo, the essay's lack of structure and support screamed POORLY WRITTEN. The student's responses were either poorly displayed or not even there at all. For example, "The machete is used for defense purposes" No duh. How does that make the machete symbolic of power? He/she doesn't even address the importance of the machete as a symbol in this paragraph. Instead he/she writes, "Okonkwo needed that machete. He needed it to survive. He needed it to fight dangers" Symbolism? No wonder he/she received a 4. The commentators and I agreed about his claims They needed more support and meaning to allow for an improved score.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
"Editorial: Don't legalize pot just for the high of it"-Close Reading
*Link at the bottom
Though I may not be marijuana's top advocate, I still seek to educate myself on where the media and society stand on its legalization.Despite being a some-what impartial audience, I still find it important to investigate the opposing side because although they may have the minority opinion, the anti-marijuana legalization holders may have strong concerns for why the federal government should fail to pass it as legal. In saying this, I feel that if someone is in opposition of a law, their attempts at swaying the audience over to their side must be heart-felt, and above all, their argument must provide the critical information in a writing style that is both engaging and informational. All I want is to be moved. Move me.Simple enough, right? Although this USA Today editorial, "Don't legalize pot just for the high of it" is thought-provoking, I feel as if the relaxed display and the unequal use of diction, details and language, weakens the argument for why marijuana should not be legal.
Though I may not be marijuana's top advocate, I still seek to educate myself on where the media and society stand on its legalization.Despite being a some-what impartial audience, I still find it important to investigate the opposing side because although they may have the minority opinion, the anti-marijuana legalization holders may have strong concerns for why the federal government should fail to pass it as legal. In saying this, I feel that if someone is in opposition of a law, their attempts at swaying the audience over to their side must be heart-felt, and above all, their argument must provide the critical information in a writing style that is both engaging and informational. All I want is to be moved. Move me.Simple enough, right? Although this USA Today editorial, "Don't legalize pot just for the high of it" is thought-provoking, I feel as if the relaxed display and the unequal use of diction, details and language, weakens the argument for why marijuana should not be legal.
In providing strong diction, word choice shifts from strong to weak in the entirety of this article. Instead of a constant stream of intense wording, the article fails to promote a more emotional response for me because of it's at times plain word usage. For example, when addressing those individuals who produce marijuana, the article provides the information that: "Those who can grow or sell pot legally under state law can be, and have been, busted by the feds"("Don't legalize pot...") . "Busted"? "feds"? The sentence sounds silly. The words feel informal and lead me to think that I'm reading an article by a high school-er. I'm not focusing on the article's argument of the potential for marijuana to cause more problems. I'm stuck asking: "Did they really just use 'busted' and 'feds' in the same sentence?" This leads me to question the article's simple use of diction in this sentence, primarily because I feel that it takes away from the argument by sounding too informal.
However, despite my dissatisfaction and belief that some words in this article should be shot through with red ink, the article, at certain points remembers to focus by being creative in diction.I found that when the author(s) ups the ante, so to say, I considered his/her argument with more open-mindedness. With the editorials usage of the words "renaissance,emergence,compliance,litigation, benign and mayhem", as they were included in sentences throughout the article, I was able to comprehend their usefulness in the editorial's efforts to argue against marijuana for recreational use. This was because each word's more serious/sophisticated definitions served to remind me continuously that there is a growing issue over the legalization of marijuana. When informing the audience that: "Seventeen states and the nation's capital now allow the use of medical marijuana with a doctor's order, which in some places is ludicrously easy to get"("Don't legalize pot.."), I felt that the involvement of the word "ludicrously" succeeded in conveying the author's irritation over marijuana's easy access because of it's blatant position of disapproval in the sentence.
When considering the article's use of detail I felt a more in-depth approach to certain facts mentioned in the article could have been followed to win over more anti-marijuana believers. Despite it's many details concerning it's position against marijuana, certain bits of detail I felt, ended all too abruptly. Where the potential for a more detailed paragraph could have been , each detail seemed to consist of only a few sentences before transitioning onto the next.For me, an interesting detail regarded the effects of marijuana on adolescents.Apparently if a child constantly uses marijuana they "typically lose 8 IQ points and never get them back"("Don't legalize pot..."). I felt disappointed that this detail didn't get elaborated on . If marijuana can harm our children I'd like to read more about it, not question why you, the author, skimmed over it.
In consideration of language, it's use in this editorial bordered on the comical and the lacking. From the introductory sentence: "Legalize marijuana? The nation has flirted with the idea before..."( "Don't legalize pot..." ) to "...there's no sign that federal drug enforcers would wink at full-blown legalization"( "Don't legalize pot..." ), my opinion stands that the author(s) of this USA Today article should have put forth more of an effort to generate stronger figurative-bound sentences to impact the readers. To fire them up enough that they would rally up in opposition against marijuana.Honestly, I didn't feel like grabbing my war flag in a moment of inspiration. I laughed because I felt like the language wasn't strong enough to terrify me into becoming marijuana's biggest anti-advocate.
From the editorial "Don't legalize pot just for the high of it," the article works loosely with diction, details, and language to create a simple argument for why marijuana should continue to be criminalized. I understand it's message and position against marijuana. I do. Sure, the drug might create more problems. I'm a teenager and I know that the younger generations are voting in favor of it.People will do what they want to do.My only problem is that the diction, details, and language of this article weren't always provoking. I'd like to see your passion. Engage me. Expand and cover every detail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)