Response to Course Materials (2/16/14)

Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead by Stoppard was quite the step away from Hamlet, and was what took most of the time between this post and the last "Response to Course Materials" post. The witty, fast dialogue was quite refreshing and the ambiguity of the events that unfolded was a step away from what was expected. However, if watching the movie form of this play was to enlighten us about the work, it seemed to fail. The movie version, directed by Stoppard himself, differed from the text to a degree that I don't think it would be fair to use as a tool to interpret the text. Sure, it can be used to enlighten us about what Stoppard wanted us to understand, but that would be completely irrelevant. As Ms Holmes said again and again in class, what the author may want us to derive from a piece of work could be completely different from what the work really means. The text itself. So when we discuss the meaning of Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead and using textual evidence to back our claims, what use is the movie if we are using textual evidence, like, what was really written. Again, although I appreciate the different stance the movie brings in to the play, when we analyze the text, it would it not be illogical to use assumptions from a medium that is so different? Should we use one of the many Frankenstein movies to help interpret Frankenstein? No.

I am sure that you remember that short series of assignment given to us by Ms Holmes regarding prompts. Although I felt a lot of negative reactions and frustration regarding the assignment, I found it rather useful. I performed better than I had expected, and learned the flaws in my previous style of writing. For example, I am usually a perfectionist when it comes to writing. Even this blog had me gridlocked, constantly creating and then tossing sentences. However, during the AP test we won't have the luxury of time, and thus what we write needs to be efficient and get the job done. Answer all the questions. Concise and devoid of what we would normally want to see in a great essay. 

Our discussions about Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead are interesting, nothing to complain about. The direction is fine, the probing is interesting. We are peeling away at the layers of this play. So, nothing to complain about other than the continual lack of input from 50% of the class. I don't know every single reason why people don't say anything, but I know that some people don't contribute because they have nothing worth talking about. Well, how could you know the value of something if you never get it appraised? Everyone is different, so everyone can contribute something.

Summary and Analysis: Hamlet

Author:
Hamlet is written by the legendary Bard, William Shakespeare. Although Shakespeare was already successful and respected by the time of Hamlet, many consider Hamlet as Shakespeare at his best, and is perhaps one of the most recognizable and widely quoted of his work.

Setting:
Hamlet is set in medieval Denmark, and most of the play occurs in the castle of Elsinore. Textual evidence suggests that the play is set during the winter.

Characters:
The character of Hamlet are known for being layered and complex.

Hamlet: Prince of Denmark, son of old Hamlet and Gertrude, nephew to Claudius. Despite being 30ish years old, scholars note that his character seems somewhat immature. Lacks conviction and is the main subject of character study due to the large amount of dialogue concerning life and existence.

Claudius: Uncle of Hamlet, king of Denmark, husband of Gertrude. Committed murder to acquire the throne and marry Gertrude. Unlike modern stories, the character is not a stock antagonist: textual evidence suggests that he feels guilt and regret from his sins and some depictions of Claudius have him as much a victim as Hamlet, old and young. Despite this, he does conspire against Hamlet.
Interesting to note is that Claudius is a notably Latin name. In fact, Claudius was a historic figure, the emperor preceding the infamous Nero of Rome. Acquired the throne through treachery and luck.

Gertrude: Queen of Denmark, mother of Hamlet, former wife of old Hamlet and current one to Claudius. Although not an active player of the going-on in Elsinore, her role is no less important. Her quick marriage to Claudius soon after old Hamlet's death infuriates Hamlet and can be seen as what kicks the play in motion. Although relatively detached from the events of the play, her love for her son is evident, and some depictions have her committing the ultimate sacrifice to save her son.

Polonius: Adviser to Claudius, father of Laertes and Ophelia. Seen as a witless clown by scholars, Polonius has the significant honor of being the first character to die. Although he has great care for his son, Polonius has an almost complete disregard for his daughter unless it suits him. The usually butt of Hamlet's abuse.

Ophelia: Daughter of Polonius, sister of Laertes, lover of Hamlet. Interpretations of her character vary. Some see Ophelia as a witless daisy of a girl that was another bystander and causality of the plots of men. Others see her as an equal of Hamlet, merely not in the grace of fate. Either way, her relationship with Hamlet breaks off and Polonius's death contributes to her apparent insanity and suicide. Ophelia in death plays as much a significant role as Ophelia in life, perhaps more, as it opens discussion of class roles in society and also an additional scene where Hamlet mourns her and grapples with Laertes.

Laertes: Son of Polonius, brother of Ophelia. Laertes can best be described as a foil to Hamlet. Whereas Hamlet is cautious and slow in action, Laertes is hot-blooded and vengeful, immediately demanding revenge for his father's death, with little consideration of the consequences. Further enraged upon Ophelia's madness and suicide.

Plot:
Act I:
The main conflicts are introduced. Guards, in an atmosphere of suspense and suspicion, see what appears to be the ghost of the recently deceased old Hamlet, king of Denmark. Fortinbras of Norway plots to seize lost territory with an invasion of Denmark. Hamlet is upset at his mother's quick marriage to her recently deceased husband's brother. Hamlet is compelled by his friends to visit the ghost, who does claim to be the ghost of his father. Furthermore, the ghost reveals to Hamlet that he was murdered by the current king of Denmark: Claudius.
Act II:
Ophelia rushes to her father, stating that Hamlet charged into her room and seemed to be insane. Believing that Hamlet is insane due to love, Polonius heads to Claudius. The king of Denmark employs two of Hamlet's childhood friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, to spy on Hamlet to determine what lies on his mind. A band of performers arrive, and Hamlet employs them to mimic the ghost's account of his death in order to prove Claudius's guilt.
Act III:
Claudius discovers that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern have no clue about Hamlet's intentions. Meanwhile, Hamlet contemplates suicide and existence before he encounters Ophelia, who is being used by Polonius and Claudius to spy on Hamlet. Hamlet, not deceived, denounces his love for Ophelia, orders her to a nunnery, and threatens Claudius's life. Although Claudius doubts Polonius's assertions about Hamlet's love for Ophelia, Polonius concocts a meeting between Hamlet and his mother to ascertain the Prince's intentions. The play occurs, and Claudius's guilt is proven. While Claudius prays to rid himself of sin, Hamlet contemplates murdering him, but backs down. During his encounter with his mother, Hamlet mistakenly kills Polonius, rails against Gertrude and her apparent sin of remarriage, gets visited by the ghost once again (who reminds Hamlet to take his mother as an innocent), and convinces his mother to distance herself from Claudius.
Act IV:
Hamlet refuses to cooperate and disclose what was done with Polonius's body. Claudius has Hamlet sent to England along with Rosencrantz and Guildernstern and a message ordering the murder of Hamlet. Ophelia is reintroduced, and apparently insane. Laertes returns from a trip, a crowd at his back, and demands revenge for his father's murder. Ophelia returns, enraging Laertes at her transformation. Claudius, upon hearing Hamlet's magical return from his trip, conspires with Laertes to kill him. Ophelia is revealed as dead.
Act V:
The act opens with comic relief, as two gravediggers debate on the nature of Ophelia's death. Hamlet enters and confides in his friend Horatio. After a brief fight with Laertes over Ophelia's body, Hamlet accepts both a dual with Laertes and his fate. Hamlet duals with Laertes. Gertrude drinks a poisoned cup meant for Hamlet, Laertes is cut by his own poisoned blade after cutting Hamlet, and Hamlet finally kills Claudius and dies. Fortinbras arrives and after listening to Horatio about the events, orders Hamlet to be bore out as a soldier.

Response to Course Materials (1/19/2014)

Considering the time between the last Response to Course Materials and this one, there seems to be little to write about.
I mean, we came back from break, had two days of school, came back after the weekend, and then one week of school. And that "full" week of school consisted of two days of FLEX and a PLC day, with Thursday and Friday apparently consisting of working on a review document ("apparently" because I wasn't there those two days).
So the only meaningful thing we did in class that would be any worth discussing would be the wrapping up of our Hamlet discussions. As always, I was very uncomfortable with the theme statement that our class produced. Not that I had a better one, but it just seemed wrong to attempt to sum up Hamlet in one or two sentences. I mean, this is Hamlet we are talking about. The play that is the most quoted of Shakespeare's works.  The play that is said to be Shakespeare's greatest, the greatest work from a man hailed as the creator of the greatest works of the English language. To allow mere high school students to sum up Hamlet in a few sentences seems like heresy.
And consider this: how could we possibly be like "Yup, we are done with Hamlet, we nailed it" when we are talking about a work of art? There was a book I read in 5th grade, Ender's Game (brought recently to film). Although it was a work of pulp fiction, I drew a lot of themes and meanings from it. I thought the book was, as a kid, about the sacrifices humanity is willing to make to survive. Later, when I was older, I read it again. This book, by the way, was a book I read a dozen times. And when I was older, I realized that an alternate interpretation could have been made. My first interpretation completely left out the events of a side-story, and I realized that I needed to take that into account when I evaluated the book as a whole.
So, I don't really agree with making a theme statement. I probably said the exact same thing in past Response to Course Material blogs, but doing the treatment on such a legendary work as Hamlet seems especially wrong. Considering the various possible interpretations of Hamlet that anybody can have from past experiences, how can we make one statement to encompass it all?

Open Prompt 2008

(By the way, this is a late assignment for all you peer reviewers after 1/11/2014)

The prompt for the 2008 open question was to pick a piece which used a foil to emphasize aspects of the main character, and analyze how this relationship adds to the meaning of the piece.

Student 3A:

This student choose the Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan, a book I have heard of but am not familiar with, to analyze. The student's essay takes a considerable amount of paper, four pages total. Combine this with rather sophisticated and basic, straight-forward analysis, and there is little to be left out in this essay. It can be considered the basic model for a successful essay: a thesis and claim backed by plenty of well-written and analyzed evidence. This essay also ties the different pieces of evidence together rather nicely, which is definitely a plus, and concludes the entire essay with a paragraph which does a nice job of wrapping up the entire essay. As the essay grader states, the essay is "insightful and mature" and truly deserves the 8 it received.

Student 3B:

Student 3B, although not necessarily wrong at any point, cannot receive a high grade. Although there was not point in the essay that the writer demonstrated a lack of understanding of the prompt and the question that it had asked, the writer demonstrated a lack of understanding of how to write a suitable answer. The question of the prompt is never actually answered until the last few paragraphs where the writer gives a definitive stance on the foil in The Color Purple: the paragraphs prior where mostly plot summaries or had not true analysis of the selected piece. The grader gave the student a 6, but I believe that the student deserved the lower grade of 5.

Student 3 C:

If volume is any indication, this student did poorly. Very poorly indeed, with only about 1 and a quarter pages. Although a lack of volume should never be criticized (the Gettysburg Address was only about 270 words), the amount of literary analysis needed to properly answer the prompt suggests that the writer did not properly understand the prompt or back any claim made about the prompt. The actual text, once one musters the courage to read it, only serves to confirm such suspicions. Although the writer sets up two characters to contrast, any claim made by the student is worded in the most elementary and basic manner possible, with a complete absence of any sort of analysis or support. The grader gave this student a 4, which I believe is justified. Personally, however, I would give the essay a 3.

Response to Course Materials (12/22/2013)

Happy holidays to you all.
Our days in AP Lit since the last "Response to Course Material" was dominated by Hamlet. Dominated. I mean, even while I laid in bed sick, Hamlet's "To be or not to be" speech looped through my head. To die, to sleep. Funny enough, when you are sick and miserable, those two things are the only things you ever think about. Anyways, after we read through Hamlet the first time, we then watched a bag full of various movie interpretations of Hamlet. The diverse takes and interpretations of the exact same text was interesting, and I believe that they should remind us all of why Shakespeare remains relevant today.
Although we watched multiple movies, I feel compelled to discuss only the ones that really interested me.
The first movie we watched was, ah, "American" to me. The movie was a perpetual cloud of anger and angst from Hamlet. Claudius was too timid to be either a well-developed or compelling character. I did appreciate the setting, especially with the "chess board" floor that a classmate brought up. Overall, I didn't really think that Shakespeare intended for this much anger, more brooding and more thinking and less flamboyant anger.
The David Tennant Hamlet was interesting. Although it was not as traditional as the Jacobi Hamlet (the second movie we watched starring Patrick Stewart) it still relied less on props and settings and more on acting, which I particularly enjoyed. It was interesting to see Tennant's interpretation of Hamlet, more deranged and unrestrained than the other movies. Claudius was also portrayed as more of a complex figure, tying in nicely with our latter discussions about the essays. Overall, staying traditionalist with the set up and presentation while having a more modified interpretation produced an interesting production that was interesting to analyze.

Mandela was avatar of upending world
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/06/opinion/rothkopf-mandela-of-his-time/index.html?hpt=op_t1

Nelson Mandela was, to say the least, a legendary character. Following his death, a number of people wrote tributes and articles in remembrance of this man. This is one of the many I articles of that I speak. David Rothkopf uses diction, syntax, and language to convey the unique greatness in Nelson Mandela.
The diction that Rothkopf uses illustrates not only his respect for Nelson Mandela but also his belief in that Mandela was a one-of-the-kind great figure for the entire world. Mandela was described as "hope incarnate", singling him out as not only unique, but something greater. The diction that describe his past life further conveys the greatness that the author felt about Mandela, for example: "remarkable" and "graceful and dignified" serve not only to compliment a man, but also conveys to the reader a sense of greatness from a man that has past.
The language that Rothkopf uses is conversational, yet reflective.
However, of all the literary devices that Rothkopf uses, his use of syntax is the most prevalent. Particularly his use of parallelism. Three consecutive paragraphs begin with "Mandela", not only emphasizing the subject of his article, but also using the name in a kind of reverence. The parallelism also develops in the same section of the article. "He was a powerful symbol..." and "He was hope incarnate" and "He was a message..." emphasizes the figure of Mandela as an "avatar" of a world in turmoil. Rothkopf also uses parallelism to construct a homage to Mandela's achievements: "The unshakeable has been shaken" and "The unbreakable had been broken" further emphasizing Mandela as not one of ordinary men.

Responses to Course Material (11/24/13)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Response to Course Material (10/27/13)

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.