Response to Course Material: September 29th

Here is my first taste of AP Lit.: I walk into Ms Holmes's room with my form to register for AP Lit. Then I hear a voice.

"Don't do it." 

There stood a student (whom I recognized), arms outreached, halting what had seemed to be a straight-forward and unremarkable task.

"Don't take AP Lit. You will regret it. Seriously."

Although I was not dissuaded from my "rash" decision, I was quite interested in what could have possibly driven such a sane and sensible student to such a bold proclamation. One month into school, I have yet to discover the answer which eludes me. Nothing covered so far was extraordinarily difficult or taxing on my schedule. 

The first few weeks were devoted to writing techniques: diction, language, imagery, details, and syntax (shortened as DIDLS, or, as our class preferred, LIDDS). What interested me as we poured over each element and what it is and what is does, is that we focused, as a class, on the bare basics of literature. The subtle things that one usually does not notice, such as the feeling or emotion one feels, while reading. It is these subtle things in art that makes some "art" truly great. Similar to how Spielberg is able to pull on the heartstrings in "War Horse", or how Picasso's art does whatever it does (not a fan of "high art"), or how Yo-yo Ma is proclaimed as the greatest musician of our era (right behind Isabel Kwon and Curtis Kuo), true masters of literature can manipulate their medium in profound, yet subtle, ways in which only a master can appreciate. Twain, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, all use "DIDLS" to construct and send profound messages that seem obvious, yet impossible to emulate. I find that really interesting, and encouraging that we have studied, are studying, why such great writers are great. I find it really encouraging that we are learning why, and how we can write better, convey our ideas and emotions better, and become masters of and art form available to all of us. Starting at the bare basics.

New Edit:
So my fellow peers have been clamoring to hear of my thoughts on the recent discussions of the American Dream. Well, I found them to be both encouraging and discouraging. I enjoy the open discussion: the free flow of thoughts, opinions, and ideas was really refreshing. Some things mentioned forced me to reconsider my thoughts of the subjects, some things modified existing opinions. This is great. It's like how a democracy should work. However, sometimes I feel that the discussions are discouraging. Often I feel that our class is focused on sex to a degree that the overall big picture is lost. Ms Holmes (who might as well be you right now) told our class to not be magpies and focus on a specific subject, but our class does. Worse of all, we don't really tie in to how this discussion on sex builds to the overall meaning of the piece. Sure, talk about sex. Talk about sex the whole bloody day. I'm fine with that. I like sex as much as the next teenage male. But, as long as we are in AP Lit., and not some freshman classroom, make the discussion meaningful. Say why it is a big deal guys, it's not something complicated. 

Open Prompt 2006

So begins the second Sunday post. This time around we were supposed to pick a prompt, read a few sample student responses and analyze them. It's all fun and games until you realize how much you hate handwriting. Reading handwriting to be precise.
The AP Literature prompt for the 2006 exam asked for the student to read "Evening Hawk" and analyze how the setting, specifically the country setting, builds and adds to the meaning and substance of a work. Well, the prompt actually asks the student to analyze how the setting "functions in the work as a whole" but that pretty much means the same thing as "how does the setting add to the meaning of the piece?"

Student 1A:

The student opens up the essay well enough. After addressing the prompt by stating, with sophisticated language, that the poem "Evening Hawk" establishes the country setting as a "severe judge of humanity's mistakes", the student proceeds to spell out two literary elements to support his/her argument: diction and imagery. True to the rubric's 8-9 policy, the writer uses specific references with multiple quotations along with concise and focused language. Although the writer only has one body paragraph, it is done well and detailed. Opening a direct link to the prompt, stating that the language enhances the meaning of the piece, the reader instantly knows both what the paragraph is about and that the writer remains focused and on task. The evidence for the opening statement is devoid of any plot summary, instead focusing on how the language augments the meaning of the piece. For example, the writer states that "the hawk is not a gentle bird" as the poem describes the hawk in cold, calculating terms, for which the writer pulls direct quotations such as "planes" and "geometric" to contrast with the "fallacy of man". The writer also emphasizes the focus on dark language, such as "black" and "heavy" and skillfully connects the language to the opening statement on how language is used to "drive the mood and meaning". An overall well written piece with a well deserved "8" by the AP reader, who stated that the writer was "in complete control" with the prompt. A logically sound conclusion.

Student 1B:

The AP reader called this essay "competent" which pretty much sums it up here. The opening paragraph is a bit wanting in terms of flair, but it does address the prompt and is, well, "competent". The writer says that the language of "Evening Hawk" adds to the meaning of the poem, which is true. Nothing wrong with that, on to the body paragraphs. Although the writer goes through the body paragraph stanza by stanza and line by line, the argument seems a bit wanting. Evidence is brought up, and the opening statement, about how the language about the setting creates and insecure feeling, is mentioned, however, the writer does little to really connect the two. Specific instances of language are lacking, and the writer becomes dangerously closer to describing the poem and analyzing. The questions of "how" the language is used to affect the mood and meaning of this piece is never really asked. The writer seems to simply expect it and accept it. The writer seems to be like "it just is". Once again, competent, but not really the flair or sophistication needed to demonstrate a level 8-9 thought process. Although I disagree with the 6 given by the AP reader (I was leaning to a 4) I do agree that analysis was "brief and flatfooted".

Student 1C:

 Well, the AP reader states "The weakness of this essay is signaled from the very start." Ouch. However, the professional is correct. The writer for 1C states that the author of "Evening Hawk" uses language and diction to describe an admiration of the hawk. Even if this was true, such an assertion does little to describe how the country setting, or nature in general, promotes and enhances the meaning of the poem. Admiration and awe are feelings, not necessarily meaning. What do these emotions mean? The writer does not address this issue. Instead, the writer continues to blindly and resolutely march down the path of incompetence. Although the writer does have a few examples in the body paragraph, such as the quotations of "ancient and immense" and descriptions of the hawk as "tumultuous", the writer insists upon the description of the hawk and the awe it inspires instead of probing deeper. The meanings and connections between the rest of the poem are completely ignored. Most of the second body paragraph are statements proclaiming that syntax is used, however, no examples are ever used to back such a claim, and the analysis of how such a claim is relevant is completely non-existent. I could easily say the world is upon the brink blowing up into multiple pieces of happy flower-shaped rainbows with more credibility and evidence than what is demonstrated. As the AP reader says, this writer "fails to offer an adequate analysis of the language of the poem."

Well, that's all folks.

September 15 Closed Reading

Gun lunacy rides high in America

By John J. Donahue

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/13/opinion/donohue-gun-control/index.html?hpt=op_t1

           Recently, a chain of repulsive and terrifying shootings in the United States caused a debate to rise about gun regulations and gun rights. Some argue that guns should be limited, whether by sales of the guns themselves, sales of ammunition, or with background checks. Others protest such measures as they see guns as a right that no one has the authority to regulate or limit, despite their deadly nature. John J. Donahue uses syntax, diction, and language to protest the recent measure by gun supporters and to argue that the fear of gun regulation has resulted in unfair and unconstitutional practices.

            Donahue uses diction to create an antagonistic image of the NRA, the primary organization against gun legislation. Words such as “crowing” and “overheated rhetoric” are used to describe NRA operations, words that usually have a more negative connotation than most, such as “enlightened” or “courageous” or “witty rhetoric”. This obviously conveys Donahue’s disagreements and disgust of the NRA’s methods of blocking legislation. The title of the article even uses the words “lunacy” and “unstable gun zealot” in an attempt to send a message to the reader that the NRA and its supporters have some doubtful judgment. Donahue also calls the current laws as “lax” suggesting that current restrictions are lacking.

            The language Donahue uses further augment his argument. Instead of using formal or elevated language, Donahue uses common language. Slang like “up the ante” and “call the shots” make Donahue less of a stranger and more like someone that you know, someone you would listen to or chat over a beer with. Someone you can trust.

            Syntax is also used in Donahue’s article in an attempt to persuade the reader. He uses punctuation to emphasize certain ideas and basic concepts (“Since gun sellers call the shots at the NRA, the lobbying group…”) and the overall format is present tense, which is more forceful than, say, past tense. I don’t know about you fellow reader, but that is all the connections I could find in terms of syntax.
Well, that's all folks.

Second Entry

On to the poetry section of the summer assignment. Taking the poetry multiple choice. Knowing that poetry was really flowery and artsy, I expected alot of difficult, ambiguous questions. Not really. Many of the questions were about flat out understanding, not interpretation (What of the following does not characterize the lady?). A couple questions just had stupid answers (...final stanzas serve what purpose? Answer: no purpose). Some questions were reminders from my standarized days, with questions such as "what is indicated" and the ambiguous stuff I mentioned earlier. Several questions, though, disappointed me because they were asking about practically flat out memorization (Stanzas in this poem are, or Selection is example of what kind of poetry?). I mean, come on. Yes, knowing the types of stanzas could enhance one's ability to understand and write poems. Yes, knowing what kind of poem the poem is is important to approach it. But I feel like memorizing the type is heresy. Give me math, give me science where there is logic, pure logic, and I understand Why what I am learning fits and operates. Poetry, as art, is as convoluted and confusing as the human mind. No one can understand it. That is why the brain is the most un-mapped organ of the body.

First Entry

While taking the diagnostic test of Peterson's AP English thing, I had a sense of deja vu. I thought "My god, I must have taken these types of questions somewhere." And I have. These standardized lit questions where just like the lit questions on any other standardized test. (Question 7: The phrase blah blah in line 8 refers to... question 11: Which of the following best characterizes...). This is quite unfortunate for me 'cause in the ACT and SAT, especially the SAT, these types of questions were my weakest link. Boy, what a fun time AP English will be this year.