So here we are. Many may have already commented on this, so let me be another man among the masses: gee, time sure flies. The distance between the last "Response to Course Material" and this one here seemed exceedingly short. Now, at this point, you may be wondering "I wonder what Andrew is going with this?" Guess what? I am wondering that same thing too.
Or maybe I'm trying to justify the lack of stuff I'm gonna talk about. Sure, we kept busy the past few weeks, learning stuff and whatnot. But, no insult to Ms Holmes (but it will probably rub off as an insult anyways), I felt as if we didn't really learn much. Yeah, sure, we learned some test taking skills, such has how to analyse a passage for the multiple choice portion, or how the prompts work and whatnot. But we were more of doing exercises than learning. More of applying than receiving. In class we would do an activity, think about it, discuss it, move on. Repeat. I dunno. Perhaps I'm being too harsh. Perhaps I'm not paying enough attention in class (the most likely case). I dunno.
What I do know is that the new literary text that we have begun to analyze in class, Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, was less of a new experience for me than I was for my classmates. However, I am NOT saying that I didn't have a new experience: literature has an interesting aspect that, despite the text never wavering, it always changes. Anyways, I discovered that, although many of my classmates have taken American Lit., Ms Dockus was the only one that discussed Death of a Salesman. Curious. So this time around I was already familiar with the plot and a few broad aspects of the play, such as the open boundaries. This freed my mind up to focus on other aspects of the play during my second helping, where I saw things I didn't see before sophomore year. The tragic figure of Willy, drawing parallels with Oedipus, the meaning of the words. I could dive deeper, analytically, than I could before. I admit, I was somewhat excited to analyze Death of a Salesman again: of all the stuff we covered in AmLit, this stuck with me the most. Now I can figure out why it has remained in my memory.
A little side note: I feel that the class discussions have been getting less useful. Perhaps it is my ego, but the discussions seem to be straying away from literature. Too many times, opinion based on one's views and not ordained from any evidence from the text is brought to the table to be discussed. Our class need to stop talking about what they think about a piece from a historical or present perspective, whether that deals with sex or not (which seems to be a hot topic), and discuss the material in a purely professional manner devoid of mere speculation, but composed of intelligent, well constructed opinions on the basis of textual evidence. We are trying to analyze a piece to see how it is what it is and to analyze how literature is created, not mere plot discussion and whether one "likes" a character or not. We are trying to learn the complex art of literature, the whys and the hows. Literature is not just a bunch of words and ideas throw in to create some meaning: it is delicate, exquisite, brilliant and somber. Literature is deep. So please stop talking about things like "I don't like Happy" or "Willy is such as jerk" or "Ooh, lets talk about poor Linda and her abusive relationship with Willy". Why is that there? Why does Miller sets Happy or Willy up that you don't really like him? How does he do that? He uses the exact same bloody words that I am right now. So why is his work more moving, more emotionally responsive than mine, eh? BECAUSE IT'S LITERATURE. And because Miller is a ton smarter than me.
Whew. I'm done.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Open Prompt 2003 (10/20/13)
I have to make a confession to you guys: I wasn't looking forward to this post. There, I said it. Strike me down for my blasphemy, but I am not zealous towards, after a complex navigation through several files, reading not only a prompt for an essay, but also student responses to that prompt. Then reading the grader's response to those responses. Then writing a response to the responses of the responses. See where I'm getting at here?
Anyways, this time I looked at the 2003 sample responses. The prompt was about analyzing a question a work of literature spawns and how the author answers that question. I'm sure your responses to my responses (to a response to a response) would be less positive than last time, 'cause I am not in that critical kind of insane mindset this time around.
Student N
The grader of these three essays seemed much more lenient than what was acceptable. Completely unacceptable. However, I do agree with the 8 that was awarded to this student. Whereas this essay was solid, it was not extraordinary. Competent, but not fantastic. Although the first paragraph opens nicely, with great dramatic statements, I feel as if the thesis does not quite nail the question. Rather than saying that the author and the story see to answer a question, the student talks of the plot and how the character seeks to answer a question about life. The student could have, and should have, tied the entire essay closer to prompt, however, he/she only tied the superficial plot and did not dive deeper into explanations and the literary meanings and so forth to do so. Sure, the evidence was not lacking, as the student devotes an entire second paragraph to describing the work he/ she was analyzing, but evidence is meaningless unless given meaning. Although the student does devote the third paragraph to do so, seemingly contradicting my earlier statement, I find it wanting. It just does not go further that it could have to get a perfect score. The essay does have a nice analysis, I disagree with the grader's assessment that all that is needed is a more sophisticated syntax: the ties to the meaning of the piece are a bit weak.
Student J
I dislike this student right off the bat. Right of the bat. Ignoring the duties I have as a critic, I was horrified at the prolific amount of scribbles dotting the page. I suppose that this could be attributed to the "pen" factor. Anyways.
I also dislike the grade that this grader gave this student. I believe that the grader, as mentioned earlier, was far too lenient. A 6 was given. A 4 should have been given, and the essay was far from "competent" as the grader claims. The opening paragraph was barely passable, answering the prompt, but in such a clumsy and inadequate manner that one would recall only the worst possible essays written in our youth. Furthermore, not only does the rest of the entire essay fail to connect with the prompt, it fails to connect to the introduction that the student himself/herself wrote. For crying out loud! What is the point of writing the thesis if you don't do anything with it? No, the student, for the rest of the essay, runs amok, unhindered, creating a poor and unjust plot summary of one of the greatest novels ever made (also, one of my favorite books). So excuse me if you hear me screaming in agony. And what does the student do with such a plot summary? Well, I don't know. The student mentions, vaguely, about something with society and freedom, not mentioning any kind of legitimate question pertaining to the prompt, with minimal support. The concluding paragraph further demonstrates this student's ineptitude. It does not tie in, at all, with the thesis, and is composed of meaningless jabber about freedom. Or something. The connection with the prompt is even more vague, as the student raises, not one, but two questions, that supposedly came from the text. What? All supported by vague summaries about the plot. The grader gave this student a 6 on the basis of a single sentence. I give a 4, and that by itself would be too kind.
Student UU
The essay could be summed up by a single sentence the grader uses: "the writer never rises to the level of true analysis". This student chose a piece I was unfamiliar with, Things Fall Apart, and simply states the plot. The meaning and how the meaning of the piece is enhanced is never discussed. Furthermore, the prompt, referring to a question that is brought up by the piece, is never addressed. The writer is completely off topic, discussing cultural changes: "things do change and never stay the same." The whole reason for the essay is to describe questions and answers in literature, you dummy. Whereas the grader awarded the writer a 3 based on pure potential, I disagree. Potential is nothing unless it becomes something. I would award the writer a 1. He/ She demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the prompt, the piece, the meaning, and the purpose of the essay. The grade should reflect that.
Anyways, this time I looked at the 2003 sample responses. The prompt was about analyzing a question a work of literature spawns and how the author answers that question. I'm sure your responses to my responses (to a response to a response) would be less positive than last time, 'cause I am not in that critical kind of insane mindset this time around.
Student N
The grader of these three essays seemed much more lenient than what was acceptable. Completely unacceptable. However, I do agree with the 8 that was awarded to this student. Whereas this essay was solid, it was not extraordinary. Competent, but not fantastic. Although the first paragraph opens nicely, with great dramatic statements, I feel as if the thesis does not quite nail the question. Rather than saying that the author and the story see to answer a question, the student talks of the plot and how the character seeks to answer a question about life. The student could have, and should have, tied the entire essay closer to prompt, however, he/she only tied the superficial plot and did not dive deeper into explanations and the literary meanings and so forth to do so. Sure, the evidence was not lacking, as the student devotes an entire second paragraph to describing the work he/ she was analyzing, but evidence is meaningless unless given meaning. Although the student does devote the third paragraph to do so, seemingly contradicting my earlier statement, I find it wanting. It just does not go further that it could have to get a perfect score. The essay does have a nice analysis, I disagree with the grader's assessment that all that is needed is a more sophisticated syntax: the ties to the meaning of the piece are a bit weak.
Student J
I dislike this student right off the bat. Right of the bat. Ignoring the duties I have as a critic, I was horrified at the prolific amount of scribbles dotting the page. I suppose that this could be attributed to the "pen" factor. Anyways.
I also dislike the grade that this grader gave this student. I believe that the grader, as mentioned earlier, was far too lenient. A 6 was given. A 4 should have been given, and the essay was far from "competent" as the grader claims. The opening paragraph was barely passable, answering the prompt, but in such a clumsy and inadequate manner that one would recall only the worst possible essays written in our youth. Furthermore, not only does the rest of the entire essay fail to connect with the prompt, it fails to connect to the introduction that the student himself/herself wrote. For crying out loud! What is the point of writing the thesis if you don't do anything with it? No, the student, for the rest of the essay, runs amok, unhindered, creating a poor and unjust plot summary of one of the greatest novels ever made (also, one of my favorite books). So excuse me if you hear me screaming in agony. And what does the student do with such a plot summary? Well, I don't know. The student mentions, vaguely, about something with society and freedom, not mentioning any kind of legitimate question pertaining to the prompt, with minimal support. The concluding paragraph further demonstrates this student's ineptitude. It does not tie in, at all, with the thesis, and is composed of meaningless jabber about freedom. Or something. The connection with the prompt is even more vague, as the student raises, not one, but two questions, that supposedly came from the text. What? All supported by vague summaries about the plot. The grader gave this student a 6 on the basis of a single sentence. I give a 4, and that by itself would be too kind.
Student UU
The essay could be summed up by a single sentence the grader uses: "the writer never rises to the level of true analysis". This student chose a piece I was unfamiliar with, Things Fall Apart, and simply states the plot. The meaning and how the meaning of the piece is enhanced is never discussed. Furthermore, the prompt, referring to a question that is brought up by the piece, is never addressed. The writer is completely off topic, discussing cultural changes: "things do change and never stay the same." The whole reason for the essay is to describe questions and answers in literature, you dummy. Whereas the grader awarded the writer a 3 based on pure potential, I disagree. Potential is nothing unless it becomes something. I would award the writer a 1. He/ She demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the prompt, the piece, the meaning, and the purpose of the essay. The grade should reflect that.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
"The American Dream" Summary and Analysis
Well well well, here is our first big reading blog, the subject of which is The American Dream by Edward Albee, whose background we didn't really get into.
The American Dream revolves around a standard family living in a simple apartment where nothing can be found. Mommy is the dominating personal, ruling the meek and timid Daddy. Both take care of, but have little affection, for Grandma. Grandma acts throughout the play as if detached, almost commentating on the action. She is also separate from the superficial existence Mommy and Daddy live. Two additional characters are inserted later. Mrs. Barker, described as a professional woman, arrives, originally with unknown purpose. As the story progresses, she seems just as simple minded as the rest of the family. The Young Man, labeled only as a young man, arrives at the end, and seemingly ends all the conflict. Despite having a handsome exterior, he is a tragic character who seems to have a dead spirit: he cannot feel any emotions, and would do anything for money. He is immediately labeled as "The American Dream".
The plot of The American Dream is rather simple, yet somewhat morbid. The story starts off with Mommy and Daddy in an apartment arguing and complaining ("Not getting satisfaction"). After Grandma enters, the trio get into a brief argument and spat until Mrs. Barker enters. As Mommy and Daddy leave to do various events, Grandma narrates to Mrs. Barker about a child Mommy and Daddy owned that they killed and dismembered because it was disappointing them. After, the Young Man enters. At this point, the Young Man and Grandma have a discussion before Grandma leaves the apartment, leaving the Young Man as her replacement. Mommy and Daddy are overjoyed at the arrival of the Young Man.
We discussed existentialism the literature style in class, and Albee's work displays many aspects of existentialism. Many times the characters talk in a circular repetitive manner, repeating phrases multiple times. This is shown in about all the characters except Grandma and the Young Man. This language, as well as the the carefree manner of which the characters deliver their lines, promote an absurd tone, a tone which emphasizes the falseness and truly meaningless aspects of the play.
A couple of quotes "You...you are the American Dream" and "You just can't get satisfaction" are what I am going to mention next. The first quote is significant as it finally ties the title of the book to the play. Albee flat out states that this young man, this empty shell devoid of emotion and substance, is the American Dream. This is what people want. This also pertains to the second quote, as multiple times Daddy and Mommy seek "satisfaction", something that is superficial and not anything of real worth. Satisfaction and the American Dream are one and the same, as obvious by the end of the play as Mommy and Daddy are finally happy with the entrance of the Young Man.
According to what my class finally concocted, the theme of The American Dream is that through materialism and a loss of traditional values, the older American Dream is replaced, by the people, by a newer American Dream, focused on only the superficial. Now that is what I remember, and if someone is gonna throw the plagiarism flag at me, well, too bad. 'Cause I didn't really write it down anywhere, nor do I have it pulled up. But anyways, multiple elements support this theme. The bumble is gutted out by the people, Mommy and Daddy, resulting in its alive twin being empty and a shell. The guts and the pieces of the original child, like Grandma, irritated and where found inconvenient by Mommy and Daddy. The resulting shell, empty of anything that had any true function, was very agreeable to the pair. Furthermore, the emergence of materialism can be found as the embodiment of Mrs. Barker, who was called a "professional woman". Mrs. Barker sells the child to the pair, similar to how a corporation sells a product to the consumers. When Mommy and Daddy dislike the child, rather than put up with it, they complain to Mrs. Barker to send them a replacement, similar to how consumers assume that they could replace defective products. Not only is the new Young Man representing the American Dream, but he represents the new American Dream, and Grandma represents the old. This is alluded to several times. Grandma claims that she, like the romanticized American history, is of pioneer stock, a time of hardship and individualism. Grandma's possessions are boxed in boxes that Mommy and Daddy cannot find, and have no interest in. One can argue that the boxes contain the classic "values" of the American Dream, values that Mommy and Daddy are devoid of and try to destroy, which they can't as they couldn't find them. As the play ends, the Young Man escorts Grandma out of the door, acting as "the van man" and removing her from the apartment as Mommy has expressed wishing for several times. Thus, the new American Dream replaces the old. The old American Dream.
The American Dream revolves around a standard family living in a simple apartment where nothing can be found. Mommy is the dominating personal, ruling the meek and timid Daddy. Both take care of, but have little affection, for Grandma. Grandma acts throughout the play as if detached, almost commentating on the action. She is also separate from the superficial existence Mommy and Daddy live. Two additional characters are inserted later. Mrs. Barker, described as a professional woman, arrives, originally with unknown purpose. As the story progresses, she seems just as simple minded as the rest of the family. The Young Man, labeled only as a young man, arrives at the end, and seemingly ends all the conflict. Despite having a handsome exterior, he is a tragic character who seems to have a dead spirit: he cannot feel any emotions, and would do anything for money. He is immediately labeled as "The American Dream".
The plot of The American Dream is rather simple, yet somewhat morbid. The story starts off with Mommy and Daddy in an apartment arguing and complaining ("Not getting satisfaction"). After Grandma enters, the trio get into a brief argument and spat until Mrs. Barker enters. As Mommy and Daddy leave to do various events, Grandma narrates to Mrs. Barker about a child Mommy and Daddy owned that they killed and dismembered because it was disappointing them. After, the Young Man enters. At this point, the Young Man and Grandma have a discussion before Grandma leaves the apartment, leaving the Young Man as her replacement. Mommy and Daddy are overjoyed at the arrival of the Young Man.
We discussed existentialism the literature style in class, and Albee's work displays many aspects of existentialism. Many times the characters talk in a circular repetitive manner, repeating phrases multiple times. This is shown in about all the characters except Grandma and the Young Man. This language, as well as the the carefree manner of which the characters deliver their lines, promote an absurd tone, a tone which emphasizes the falseness and truly meaningless aspects of the play.
A couple of quotes "You...you are the American Dream" and "You just can't get satisfaction" are what I am going to mention next. The first quote is significant as it finally ties the title of the book to the play. Albee flat out states that this young man, this empty shell devoid of emotion and substance, is the American Dream. This is what people want. This also pertains to the second quote, as multiple times Daddy and Mommy seek "satisfaction", something that is superficial and not anything of real worth. Satisfaction and the American Dream are one and the same, as obvious by the end of the play as Mommy and Daddy are finally happy with the entrance of the Young Man.
According to what my class finally concocted, the theme of The American Dream is that through materialism and a loss of traditional values, the older American Dream is replaced, by the people, by a newer American Dream, focused on only the superficial. Now that is what I remember, and if someone is gonna throw the plagiarism flag at me, well, too bad. 'Cause I didn't really write it down anywhere, nor do I have it pulled up. But anyways, multiple elements support this theme. The bumble is gutted out by the people, Mommy and Daddy, resulting in its alive twin being empty and a shell. The guts and the pieces of the original child, like Grandma, irritated and where found inconvenient by Mommy and Daddy. The resulting shell, empty of anything that had any true function, was very agreeable to the pair. Furthermore, the emergence of materialism can be found as the embodiment of Mrs. Barker, who was called a "professional woman". Mrs. Barker sells the child to the pair, similar to how a corporation sells a product to the consumers. When Mommy and Daddy dislike the child, rather than put up with it, they complain to Mrs. Barker to send them a replacement, similar to how consumers assume that they could replace defective products. Not only is the new Young Man representing the American Dream, but he represents the new American Dream, and Grandma represents the old. This is alluded to several times. Grandma claims that she, like the romanticized American history, is of pioneer stock, a time of hardship and individualism. Grandma's possessions are boxed in boxes that Mommy and Daddy cannot find, and have no interest in. One can argue that the boxes contain the classic "values" of the American Dream, values that Mommy and Daddy are devoid of and try to destroy, which they can't as they couldn't find them. As the play ends, the Young Man escorts Grandma out of the door, acting as "the van man" and removing her from the apartment as Mommy has expressed wishing for several times. Thus, the new American Dream replaces the old. The old American Dream.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Closed Reading 10/13/13
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/08/opinion/jones-washington-redskins/index.html?hpt=op_bn7
The increasing diversity in today's America would predictably lead to increased conflicts. Although we have abolished slavery and passed long overdue civil rights bills, the public perception of various aspects of our lives and how they should be represented are still struggles we have today.
Take our own high school. I am sure all of you young chaps remember ol' Chief Okemos. Our mascot? Rings a bell? Well anyways, Chief Okemos created some controversy because of the depiction of Native Americans, and was banned as a mascot as a result. I can bet that a lot of the students are still divided about the mascot issue, but personally, I could care less.
Anyways, the reason why I presented such a long and pointless narration was because that was what popped into my head when I read the article, arguing that the team "the Redskins" should have a name change, an argument apparently backed by President Obama. This article was a bit longer than the last article, and was much less scathing in its argument. Oh well, here I go.
Mrs. Roxanne Jones, the writer of this article, uses diction at multiple points to support her argument that the Redskins should have a name change, and that doing so was the only measured, logical choice. Although she doesn't really describe her own "side" of the argument, the words she uses to describe the opposition kind of gives you the sense that they are misguided and over passionate about the Redskins title. Examples include how she describes the defenders as "enraged" and "livid". Jones even blatantly calls them "hypocrites". At the same time, Jones tries to sound logical and accommodating, using words to try to avoid anger and resentment. She describes the opposition as "defensive" giving you the feeling of not a body of vicious haters on the attack, but mislead fans who simply don't understand the full story.
The article also uses a great deal of imagery to shape Jones's argument. Bam, right of the bat there is a chunk of imagery. Jones illustrates that she understands the deep passions that this debate has sparked by, well you know. "Tempers were heated" and "tears were seen" really does give you the feeling that "Man," excuse me, "sh*t is gonna come down." Jones continues to use imagery to paint the blind passions of the team supporters, such as "yelled" and "tears" again and grouping "Redskins" as something in the "trash heap".
The language of the author is less confrontational than my last post about gun control. Instead, Jones uses compromising language. She tries to persuade rather than argue, evident in how she says "It's time to get on the right side of America" instead of, like "you are wrong and stupid." She is even understanding of the fan's opinion, saying that they are rightfully upset, but can only see the team's "glorious history". However, she says that no "serious" argument can support the Redskin name. Jones also uses language to persuade rather than argue by including the reader into her opinion, like saying "let's" do something and how "refreshing" it was to hear Obama speak.
Well, after reading this article, what do you think? Makes sense? A lot of her arguments could apply to us, you know.
The increasing diversity in today's America would predictably lead to increased conflicts. Although we have abolished slavery and passed long overdue civil rights bills, the public perception of various aspects of our lives and how they should be represented are still struggles we have today.
Take our own high school. I am sure all of you young chaps remember ol' Chief Okemos. Our mascot? Rings a bell? Well anyways, Chief Okemos created some controversy because of the depiction of Native Americans, and was banned as a mascot as a result. I can bet that a lot of the students are still divided about the mascot issue, but personally, I could care less.
Anyways, the reason why I presented such a long and pointless narration was because that was what popped into my head when I read the article, arguing that the team "the Redskins" should have a name change, an argument apparently backed by President Obama. This article was a bit longer than the last article, and was much less scathing in its argument. Oh well, here I go.
Mrs. Roxanne Jones, the writer of this article, uses diction at multiple points to support her argument that the Redskins should have a name change, and that doing so was the only measured, logical choice. Although she doesn't really describe her own "side" of the argument, the words she uses to describe the opposition kind of gives you the sense that they are misguided and over passionate about the Redskins title. Examples include how she describes the defenders as "enraged" and "livid". Jones even blatantly calls them "hypocrites". At the same time, Jones tries to sound logical and accommodating, using words to try to avoid anger and resentment. She describes the opposition as "defensive" giving you the feeling of not a body of vicious haters on the attack, but mislead fans who simply don't understand the full story.
The article also uses a great deal of imagery to shape Jones's argument. Bam, right of the bat there is a chunk of imagery. Jones illustrates that she understands the deep passions that this debate has sparked by, well you know. "Tempers were heated" and "tears were seen" really does give you the feeling that "Man," excuse me, "sh*t is gonna come down." Jones continues to use imagery to paint the blind passions of the team supporters, such as "yelled" and "tears" again and grouping "Redskins" as something in the "trash heap".
The language of the author is less confrontational than my last post about gun control. Instead, Jones uses compromising language. She tries to persuade rather than argue, evident in how she says "It's time to get on the right side of America" instead of, like "you are wrong and stupid." She is even understanding of the fan's opinion, saying that they are rightfully upset, but can only see the team's "glorious history". However, she says that no "serious" argument can support the Redskin name. Jones also uses language to persuade rather than argue by including the reader into her opinion, like saying "let's" do something and how "refreshing" it was to hear Obama speak.
Well, after reading this article, what do you think? Makes sense? A lot of her arguments could apply to us, you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)