It has been an interesting month, and I can't really find a proper place to start.
We finished our discussion about Death of a Salesman and wrapped it up. I found my second look at the play interesting as I was enlightened to many things that I had missed before. Examples include how the tape recorder represented reality and the discussion about tragedy and whether or not Death of a Salesman really is a tragedy. Learning such new things from something I had already read is always entertaining. Different points of view, different opinions. We also discussed things that I had learned back in American Literature, such as Uncle Ben offering Willy a job in the wilderness, where one's fortune is tangible. It was really enjoyable for me to mix these old and new ideas, forming a different view and opinion of a text I had already read. I didn't really agree with the theme statement that our class constructed at the end, but it was true. I felt, though, that some evidence was either ignored, or not placed with enough weight, such as the cause of Biff's disillusionment, and the interactions between Willy and other characters. There was more, I feel, that we could have dove into.
Our discussions, by the way, was mostly in the form of a "fish bowl" where a select few discussed the text whereas the rest of the class watched and remained silent. I believe I was highly disrespectful during this exercise, as I did not fully adhere to the mandates set by Ms Holmes. I was also disrespectful to my peers, as I had, multiple times, tried to cut in the conversation with little respect for my peers' opinions, which where probably more valid then my own. So, I'm sorry. I did find the fish bowl (or shark tank, as 1st Hour seems to prefer) exercise interesting. One learns by listening more than speaking, so it was interesting to listen to others, especially to those who don't talk often. I know that sounded a bit hypocritical coming from me (I still remember Mrs. Gunns making me yell on front of the class to cure my quietness) but I feel that in AP Lit., there is no excuse to not speak. Letting our opinions be heard is essential, and it could help us as a class understand literature better. Just a thought.
Oh, yeah. Ms Holmes has been slamming me on the quality of these blogs I have been writing, and upon further review, I believe she was right to do so. Many things I have said were inappropriate and uncalled for. So, yeah. Sorry guys.
Among the smaller activities the 6th Hour Elephantacocks have been doing was an analysis of a poem, "The Century Quilt" and two pictures. I had immense difficulty writing the response essay about "The Century Quilt" and I was rather disappointed with myself. You know, the kind of disappointment you get when you take a SAT and finish thinking "Well, I kind of had no idea what I was doing". I barely wrote a single paragraph, even the second time around. The second bloody time around! I just kind of sat there, not knowing what to write. It was kind of embarrassing because I had somebody to my right and left scribbling furiously while I still had nothing to say. I spent weeks blasting through someone else's essay and now I can't write one myself? I suppose I was too much of a perfectionist. I wanted to perfectly convey my thoughts on the poem, so discarded thesis after thesis, sentence after sentence. Isn't it ironic? In trying to get something perfect, I ended up writing the worst essay of all.
The two pictures we analyzed to stretch our atmosphere and mood muscles. These exercises hailed back to the time of our first week when we analyzed those two paintings. The writing that our class came up with to describe the cave was rudimentary, or even elementary. Too focused on writing adjectives instead of creating an effect. But it was a start, and a good one.
The latest news from the front: we finished Hamlet. I could see why many consider this as Shakespeare's greatest. The hidden meanings, the language, the effects. It sure is a chunk of literature. I sure am grateful that Ms Holmes helped, no wait, did all the deciphering. I really look forward to seeing what more of Hamlet we could extract.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Open Prompt 2005
The question for the 2005 AP open prompt asks the student to analyse a work and state how a character outwardly conforming to society while inwardly questioning it adds to the meaning of the piece of literature.
Student 3A
The grader gave this student an 8, which I believe to be reasonable and just. With four pages, one cannot say this student was not thorough in his/ her analysis of The Scarlet Letter. Although I am not deeply familiar with The Scarlet Letter, one cannot deny the ability of this student, who not only creates the mentioned four pages of analysis, but also masterfully ties it in with the original thesis. The writer tells of how the character Dimmesdale, a minister, suffers from the internal turmoil of knowing he is a sinner. This is tied to the prompt, as the writer adds to how Dimmesdale conforms to the puritan society by not revealing his sin publicly, but privately punishing himself. A solid analysis and a solid tie in to the thesis, the grader states this essay "demonstrates significant insight". I would give it an 8 as well.
Student 3B
This essay, as the grader mentioned, starts with a solid thesis. Covering "A Doll House", the student writes about the outside versus inside conformity of the character named Nora as "on the one hand, Nora wants to be the perfect wife" but also "she wants independent thought". This sets up the essay nicely, a nice start. Unfortunately, the rest of the essay falls short in delivering the same substance demonstrated in the thesis. Despite using the word "conformity" many, many times this student demonstrates little understanding of exactly why he/she has littered the page with this mysterious word, as the student continues to list multiple "conformity" things with little reference and tie in to the initial thesis statement. Furthermore, this student devolves into a discussion of the impact this text had upon the feminist movement, ignoring the entire prompt and thesis rather painfully. The final sentence, rather than addressing the perfectly solid thesis, ends thus "Nora's [conflict with conformity] allowed Ilsen (the author) to show that the same tension existed in the minds of woman". Although this essay had much potential to rocket to an 8 or 9, the evidence and arguments failed to tie into the thesis or prompt and the focus, insight, and understanding of the student is questionable. Whereas the grader gave this student a 6, I would mark it down to a 5. Although the strong thesis was present, it was rather useless as the writer never quite built around it.
Student 3C
This student had written the essay around the book Their Eyes Where Watching God which was fine. What was not fine was the fact that the writer proceeded, with complete and utter abandon, to scribble two pages of mere plot summary, the quality of which was inferior to what you may find in Wikipedia. Demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the prompt or even the entire purpose of the essay in itself, this student has a body paragraph and a conclusion without any purpose at all, listing the sequence of events that compose the story. Without any argument to criticize, I can't even say the writer was making a claim that was illogical. There was not claim at all. The grader awarded this essay a 4, stating that this essay "rel[ies] upon unsupported assertions." I would give a 3, as I believe there are no assertions made.
Student 3A
The grader gave this student an 8, which I believe to be reasonable and just. With four pages, one cannot say this student was not thorough in his/ her analysis of The Scarlet Letter. Although I am not deeply familiar with The Scarlet Letter, one cannot deny the ability of this student, who not only creates the mentioned four pages of analysis, but also masterfully ties it in with the original thesis. The writer tells of how the character Dimmesdale, a minister, suffers from the internal turmoil of knowing he is a sinner. This is tied to the prompt, as the writer adds to how Dimmesdale conforms to the puritan society by not revealing his sin publicly, but privately punishing himself. A solid analysis and a solid tie in to the thesis, the grader states this essay "demonstrates significant insight". I would give it an 8 as well.
Student 3B
This essay, as the grader mentioned, starts with a solid thesis. Covering "A Doll House", the student writes about the outside versus inside conformity of the character named Nora as "on the one hand, Nora wants to be the perfect wife" but also "she wants independent thought". This sets up the essay nicely, a nice start. Unfortunately, the rest of the essay falls short in delivering the same substance demonstrated in the thesis. Despite using the word "conformity" many, many times this student demonstrates little understanding of exactly why he/she has littered the page with this mysterious word, as the student continues to list multiple "conformity" things with little reference and tie in to the initial thesis statement. Furthermore, this student devolves into a discussion of the impact this text had upon the feminist movement, ignoring the entire prompt and thesis rather painfully. The final sentence, rather than addressing the perfectly solid thesis, ends thus "Nora's [conflict with conformity] allowed Ilsen (the author) to show that the same tension existed in the minds of woman". Although this essay had much potential to rocket to an 8 or 9, the evidence and arguments failed to tie into the thesis or prompt and the focus, insight, and understanding of the student is questionable. Whereas the grader gave this student a 6, I would mark it down to a 5. Although the strong thesis was present, it was rather useless as the writer never quite built around it.
Student 3C
This student had written the essay around the book Their Eyes Where Watching God which was fine. What was not fine was the fact that the writer proceeded, with complete and utter abandon, to scribble two pages of mere plot summary, the quality of which was inferior to what you may find in Wikipedia. Demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the prompt or even the entire purpose of the essay in itself, this student has a body paragraph and a conclusion without any purpose at all, listing the sequence of events that compose the story. Without any argument to criticize, I can't even say the writer was making a claim that was illogical. There was not claim at all. The grader awarded this essay a 4, stating that this essay "rel[ies] upon unsupported assertions." I would give a 3, as I believe there are no assertions made.
Death of a Salesman Summary and Analysis
Overview:
Death of a Salesman is written by Arthur Miller, a notable playwright who also wrote The Crucible. Miller classifies Death of a Salesman as a tragedy, an assertion challenged by critics and defended in Miller's essay "Tragedy and the Common Man". Set in New York City during the late 1940s, Death of a Salesman revolves around a salesman, Willy, who commits suicide after a series of unfortunate events.
Plot:
Willy returns to his house, away on a business trip. He is tired and worn from traveling great distances, and is upset at the lack of financial progress made by both his son, Biff, and himself. After an argument with Biff, who had returned home after a couple of years being a nomad, Willy decides to ask his boss for a local job while Biff tries to get a job from a former employer the next day. Neither are successful. Willy visits his neighbor, Charlie, to ask for money. Along the way, he bumps into Biff's successful childhood friend, Bernard. Bernard questions Willy as to the cause of Biff's failure despite his potential. Willy evades Bernard's questions and meets his sons in a restaurant, where he learns of Biff's failure to get a job. During a flashback, it is revealed that after Biff flunked math, he visited his father to recruit his help in graduating school. However, Biff discovers his father cheating on his wife, leaving Biff disillusioned. During Willy's flashback, both of his sons, Biff and Happy, abandon him in the restaurant. When they return home, an argument escalates between Biff and Willy, as Willy's dreams for Biff and Biff's own lower expectations for life clash. Eventually, Biff collapses in Willy's arms, tearfully professing his love for his father and asking for his father to let him go. Willy, amazed at Biff's revelations, walks out and commits suicide by car, so that Biff could get the life insurance money that he has been saving. During Willy's funeral, which he had envisioned to be attended by hundreds of other salesmen and buyers from around the country, only Willy's family, Charlie, and Bernard attend.
Characters:
Willy: Willy is a salesman who has large dreams for both himself and his son. He wants to achieve the American Dream, which he models after his successful diamond mine owning older brother Ben. Willy's high hopes and expectations for his son Biff often lead him into arguments.
Biff: Biff was a promising young athlete. However, after seeing his father with another woman, he has become disillusioned with his father and his dreams of greatness.
Linda: Linda is Willy's wife. She is loyal to Willy, and would do anything to make him happy, even if he doesn't treat her very well. She wants wants to keep the family together, and chastises her sons in their lack of empathy for their father.
Happy: Happy is rather aloof, seeming to care little for his father's state of being. A prolific womanizer, he not subject to the attention or demands of his parents like Biff, and not as driven for success as Biff. However, he is content member of the family, even if he admits that he is not very successful.
Charlie: Charlie is a neighbor of Willy. He is realistic and successful. Not as idealistic as Willy, he is the success that Willy wanted to be, along with having the successful son Willy always wanted.
Bernard: Bernard is the son of Charlie, and is a foil to Biff. Successful, smart, and married with two sons, Bernard used to look up to Biff as a child.
Ben: Uncle Ben is Willy's deceased older brother. Willy often has imaginary conversations with him. Ben found a diamond mine in Africa, and often proclaims "when I was seventeen I walked into the jungle, and when I was twenty-one I walked out. And, by God, I was rich!" Ben embodies Willy's aspirations and dreams, as he was financially successful.
Author Style:
Although Death of a Salesman is a play like The American Dream, and thus does not really have a point of view, the author styles for the two are vastly different. The dark, heavy style in Death of a Salesman is not only set up by the dialogue, which is less absurd than The American Dream, but also by the imagery set up by the extensive stage direction from Miller.
Quotes:
"You can't eat the orange and throw the peel away--a man is not a piece of fruit!"
This line is delivered by Willy during the confrontation with his boss. It embodies Willy's pride along with his feeling of having to be worth something.
"I am not a leader of men, Willy, and neither are you."
Biff cries out this line during the climax. Throughout the play, Willy's dreams and ambitions clash with the reality of his humble position. Blinded by pride, Willy believes that Biff is destined for greatness as a salesman, unable to realize that he and Biff are people just like everyone else, not leaders of men.
Theme:
Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman asserts the disaster and failure of relying on mere promises and words rather than tangible investments to achieve one's dream.
Throughout the play, the characters are torn between working in the wilderness, creating something with their own hands, and conquering the urban environment, where money is made through deals made across desktops. Whereas Willy, who lives under the delusion that to be successful is to be "well liked", emphasizes personal connections to get a leg up, the foils to Willy prove otherwise. Charlie tells Willy of J.P Morgan, who was "well liked" because of his deep pockets, and Ben advocates working in Alaska, and the diamond business, where the money is something you can touch and hold. Willy also believes that Howard, his boss, owes him a job, as he named Howard, however, Howard replies "business is business". The core conflict, the conflict between Willy's aspirations of Biff and Biff's nomadic lifestyle, also reflects the contrast between the hand crafted work and the words that Willy cling to for sustenance.
Death of a Salesman is written by Arthur Miller, a notable playwright who also wrote The Crucible. Miller classifies Death of a Salesman as a tragedy, an assertion challenged by critics and defended in Miller's essay "Tragedy and the Common Man". Set in New York City during the late 1940s, Death of a Salesman revolves around a salesman, Willy, who commits suicide after a series of unfortunate events.
Plot:
Willy returns to his house, away on a business trip. He is tired and worn from traveling great distances, and is upset at the lack of financial progress made by both his son, Biff, and himself. After an argument with Biff, who had returned home after a couple of years being a nomad, Willy decides to ask his boss for a local job while Biff tries to get a job from a former employer the next day. Neither are successful. Willy visits his neighbor, Charlie, to ask for money. Along the way, he bumps into Biff's successful childhood friend, Bernard. Bernard questions Willy as to the cause of Biff's failure despite his potential. Willy evades Bernard's questions and meets his sons in a restaurant, where he learns of Biff's failure to get a job. During a flashback, it is revealed that after Biff flunked math, he visited his father to recruit his help in graduating school. However, Biff discovers his father cheating on his wife, leaving Biff disillusioned. During Willy's flashback, both of his sons, Biff and Happy, abandon him in the restaurant. When they return home, an argument escalates between Biff and Willy, as Willy's dreams for Biff and Biff's own lower expectations for life clash. Eventually, Biff collapses in Willy's arms, tearfully professing his love for his father and asking for his father to let him go. Willy, amazed at Biff's revelations, walks out and commits suicide by car, so that Biff could get the life insurance money that he has been saving. During Willy's funeral, which he had envisioned to be attended by hundreds of other salesmen and buyers from around the country, only Willy's family, Charlie, and Bernard attend.
Characters:
Willy: Willy is a salesman who has large dreams for both himself and his son. He wants to achieve the American Dream, which he models after his successful diamond mine owning older brother Ben. Willy's high hopes and expectations for his son Biff often lead him into arguments.
Biff: Biff was a promising young athlete. However, after seeing his father with another woman, he has become disillusioned with his father and his dreams of greatness.
Linda: Linda is Willy's wife. She is loyal to Willy, and would do anything to make him happy, even if he doesn't treat her very well. She wants wants to keep the family together, and chastises her sons in their lack of empathy for their father.
Happy: Happy is rather aloof, seeming to care little for his father's state of being. A prolific womanizer, he not subject to the attention or demands of his parents like Biff, and not as driven for success as Biff. However, he is content member of the family, even if he admits that he is not very successful.
Charlie: Charlie is a neighbor of Willy. He is realistic and successful. Not as idealistic as Willy, he is the success that Willy wanted to be, along with having the successful son Willy always wanted.
Bernard: Bernard is the son of Charlie, and is a foil to Biff. Successful, smart, and married with two sons, Bernard used to look up to Biff as a child.
Ben: Uncle Ben is Willy's deceased older brother. Willy often has imaginary conversations with him. Ben found a diamond mine in Africa, and often proclaims "when I was seventeen I walked into the jungle, and when I was twenty-one I walked out. And, by God, I was rich!" Ben embodies Willy's aspirations and dreams, as he was financially successful.
Author Style:
Although Death of a Salesman is a play like The American Dream, and thus does not really have a point of view, the author styles for the two are vastly different. The dark, heavy style in Death of a Salesman is not only set up by the dialogue, which is less absurd than The American Dream, but also by the imagery set up by the extensive stage direction from Miller.
Quotes:
"You can't eat the orange and throw the peel away--a man is not a piece of fruit!"
This line is delivered by Willy during the confrontation with his boss. It embodies Willy's pride along with his feeling of having to be worth something.
"I am not a leader of men, Willy, and neither are you."
Biff cries out this line during the climax. Throughout the play, Willy's dreams and ambitions clash with the reality of his humble position. Blinded by pride, Willy believes that Biff is destined for greatness as a salesman, unable to realize that he and Biff are people just like everyone else, not leaders of men.
Theme:
Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman asserts the disaster and failure of relying on mere promises and words rather than tangible investments to achieve one's dream.
Throughout the play, the characters are torn between working in the wilderness, creating something with their own hands, and conquering the urban environment, where money is made through deals made across desktops. Whereas Willy, who lives under the delusion that to be successful is to be "well liked", emphasizes personal connections to get a leg up, the foils to Willy prove otherwise. Charlie tells Willy of J.P Morgan, who was "well liked" because of his deep pockets, and Ben advocates working in Alaska, and the diamond business, where the money is something you can touch and hold. Willy also believes that Howard, his boss, owes him a job, as he named Howard, however, Howard replies "business is business". The core conflict, the conflict between Willy's aspirations of Biff and Biff's nomadic lifestyle, also reflects the contrast between the hand crafted work and the words that Willy cling to for sustenance.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Closed Reading (11/10/13)
"GOP, be a champion for workplace equality" by Donna Brazile
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/09/opinion/brazile-enda-discrimination/index.html?hpt=op_t1
After the latest government shutdown, public opinion of the Republican Party has decreased. Writer Donna Brazile urges the GOP to avoid further disaster by not blocking the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which she says is part of civil progress that has been set in motion since the creation of the Declaration of Independence. She employs multiple literary techniques to illustrate her point.
One of the literary techniques alluded to earlier was her use of detail. Brazile picks multiple quotes, ranging from Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Senator Mark Kirk. The range of time that she relies on her evidence itself supports her assertion that equality "ha[s] always been awkward and challenging" as the quotes span from the creation of this nation to the present battle over gay and lesbian rights. Brazile then uses this span of time set up by her quotations to illustrate the multiple and inevitable changes to promote equality, such as the 13th Amendment and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. In the background of these details of civil right successes Brazile slips in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as another, relatively "simple bill" to promote progress.
The diction that Brazile uses is critical of Republican actions to delay widening "the circle of liberty" to those not currently included. Scathing vocabulary describes the Republican Party, such as having "a narrow and incomplete view" on equality, based on "phony" arguments which Brazile instantly refutes. The description of the Republican Party as "narrow" also ties in with diction describing another opponent of progress, Stephan Douglas, who was described as interpreting the Declaration of Independence to only apply to himself and "select" others. Through this connection in diction, Brazile subtly implies that the Republican Party, like Douglas, is obstructing obvious reform and would lead to loss.
Brazile also uses syntax in her article in highlighting the flaws of the Republican opposition to the Act. By listing the three three main arguments and starting each one of these sentences with "he's" or "his" and immediately rebutting each, Brazile is not only short and forceful, but also persuasive in her counter arguments, which sound more reasoned than the Republican argument. Furthermore, the parallel structure of which these three sentences where constructed not only builds on this, but also echo back the Declaration of Independence, drawing a parallel between the Republican Party and the King of England, who was the recipient of the document claiming "all men are created equal". This further emphasizes that the GOP should not impede the recent bill, but rather support it.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/09/opinion/brazile-enda-discrimination/index.html?hpt=op_t1
After the latest government shutdown, public opinion of the Republican Party has decreased. Writer Donna Brazile urges the GOP to avoid further disaster by not blocking the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which she says is part of civil progress that has been set in motion since the creation of the Declaration of Independence. She employs multiple literary techniques to illustrate her point.
One of the literary techniques alluded to earlier was her use of detail. Brazile picks multiple quotes, ranging from Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Senator Mark Kirk. The range of time that she relies on her evidence itself supports her assertion that equality "ha[s] always been awkward and challenging" as the quotes span from the creation of this nation to the present battle over gay and lesbian rights. Brazile then uses this span of time set up by her quotations to illustrate the multiple and inevitable changes to promote equality, such as the 13th Amendment and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. In the background of these details of civil right successes Brazile slips in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as another, relatively "simple bill" to promote progress.
The diction that Brazile uses is critical of Republican actions to delay widening "the circle of liberty" to those not currently included. Scathing vocabulary describes the Republican Party, such as having "a narrow and incomplete view" on equality, based on "phony" arguments which Brazile instantly refutes. The description of the Republican Party as "narrow" also ties in with diction describing another opponent of progress, Stephan Douglas, who was described as interpreting the Declaration of Independence to only apply to himself and "select" others. Through this connection in diction, Brazile subtly implies that the Republican Party, like Douglas, is obstructing obvious reform and would lead to loss.
Brazile also uses syntax in her article in highlighting the flaws of the Republican opposition to the Act. By listing the three three main arguments and starting each one of these sentences with "he's" or "his" and immediately rebutting each, Brazile is not only short and forceful, but also persuasive in her counter arguments, which sound more reasoned than the Republican argument. Furthermore, the parallel structure of which these three sentences where constructed not only builds on this, but also echo back the Declaration of Independence, drawing a parallel between the Republican Party and the King of England, who was the recipient of the document claiming "all men are created equal". This further emphasizes that the GOP should not impede the recent bill, but rather support it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)