Close Reading #4

"What Out Below!!!" by Maureen Dowds

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/watch-out-below.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

In the article, “Watch Out Below!!!” Maureen Dowd expresses to her readers that “the cliffhanger” is being overused and is hindering to society. She uses her diction, figurative language, and incorporated details to do this.

The words used by Dowd help her to show the reader that cliffhangers are becoming overkill and are disruptive to society. An example of this is when she refers to the use of the cliffhanger of the end of the world (particularly the most recent outburst—the Mayan prediction) as an “attempt” to alter the general state of mind. In calling it an attempt, Dowd diminishes the logistics of it being the end of the world and makes the idea of it being true seem trivial and foolish, and since it is so impossible, the worry that it causes hinders society. Another example of how Dowd uses her diction is when she says, “There’s a new American trend in hysteria”. By using the word “trend”, Dowd makes the idea that the world is going to end seem like it is just a phase—something insignificant that will soon pass. It also emphasizes the overuse of that particular cliffhanger because it makes it seem like it happens all the time. By using the word “hysteria”, she makes the idea seem unrealistic.

Dowd also uses figurative language to emphasize her idea that cliffhangers are overused and disruptive. For example she says, “…to continually whirl the whole American population into a state of apocalyptic excitement …[is] exhausting”. By referring to it in this way, Dowd makes the end of the world theory seem to not only be perpetual, but also overkill. Figurative language is used again when she says, “But the cliff metaphor is so overused it makes me want to walk off one”. By saying that cliffhangers are used so often she would like to die to be rid of them, it adds drama and the humor makes the reader feel more involved. In doing this, it emphasizes her point that they are overused.

Dowd also incorporates specific details to ensure that her viewpoint towards cliffhangers is prominent and persuasive. An example of this is when she says, “We have reached the quivering moment of truth that Jon Stewart calls “Cliffpocalypsemageddonacaust”.  By including this humorous detail, it diminishes the realism that could have been evident with the cliffhanger of the end of the world. In doing this while relating it to the prominence of the theory of an apocalypse in American society, Dowd shows how this idea hinders society. If everyone is obsessed with the false idea that the world is about to end, they will be unable to pay attention to what really matters. Dowd makes use of detail again when she says, “Lincoln wasn’t cliffy … Lincoln had a goal and pursued it methodically through various means, some shady. He wasn’t interested in hysteria”. By showing the reader that Lincoln, a commended and prosperous President, was the opposite of “cliffy”, she enhances the idea that cliffhangers are hindering to people.

Dowd incorporates strong usage of diction, figurative language, and detail to emphasize the idea that cliffhangers are overplayed and straining in today’s society. She does this by referring to it in ways that make the idea of certain cliffhangers seem insignificant. From there, she continues to examine the hindering effects that believing and obsessing over these cliffhangers has on individuals, and the public as a whole.

                

Prompts #4

1983. From a novel or play of literary merit, select an important character who is a villain. Then, in a well-organized essay, analyze the nature of the character's villainy and show how it enhances meaning in the work. Do not merely summarize the plot.

                In the novel, Lord of the Flies William Golding uses the story’s villain, Jack to emphasize the meaning of the work; without the laws of society, humans would be evil in nature. He does this by making the character start out as an innocent boy, having him develop a thirst for blood, and having him transition back into a boy when civilization returns.

                By introducing Jack to the story as an innocent choir boy, Golding emphasizes the transition that takes place in his character. For example, when the book begins and the boys all find each other on the island, Jack is all for maintaining order within the group. He even volunteers to be the leader, although Ralph beats him out for the position. As the story continues, however, Ralph becomes more involved in hunting and eventually becomes obsessed with power and control. Because of this, he goes from being a mere boy, to becoming a ruthless ruler of his portion of the island. This emphasizes the idea that people would be evil without society because Jack becomes this way due of the absence of civilization. Since he was a young boy, it was easier for him to forget the once obvious rules with which it society held while isolated on the island, thus allowing him to take up his natural state of an inherently evil nature.

                Golding also emphasizes the meaning of this novel by having Jack become bloodthirsty and violent. At the beginning of the novel when Jack is still an innocent boy, he fears killing a pig. As the story progresses, however, he becomes obsessed with violently hunting and even kills the baby pigs for sport. Even still, that is not enough for him. At a feast, he convinces the other boys to attack, and ultimately kill Simon, saying that he is the beast. This is the first instance in which one of the boys is murdered and shows how truly evil Jack has become. He then goes on to instruct his followers to kill Piggy. These acts of violence were tools used by Golding to show how evil the villain, Jack has become. In doing this it brings the reader back to the easy transition from good to evil in the absence of society.

                Golding continues to support the idea that society is what keeps people from becoming evil by having his villain return to his more innocent state upon rediscovering civilization. This occurs just after the climax of the novel, when Jack decides to burn down the entire island in hopes of killing Ralph. A naval ship discovers the fire and a naval officer finds the boys. As soon as they are found, Jack goes back to behaving like his original self—the choir boy. This transition back into what society originally made him, further emphasizes Golding’s message.

                Golding uses the villain's character changes from good to evil, and then from evil to good, and the violence that it entailed to enhance the meaning of the novel, Lord of the Flies. These transitions show how he evolves in the absence of civilization into an evil being, to rediscovering his original form of an innocent boy when reintroduced to society. This embodies the basic meaning of the work as a whole—that without society, humans would be evil in nature.

Death of a Salesman: Summary and Analysis

Author: Arthur Miller was a famous American playwright and essayist. He attended the University of Michigan and has written other famous plays including The Crucible and All My Sons. He was considered to be one of the greatest dramatists of the twentieth century.

Setting: This play is set in New York City, mostly in the Lomans’ home and yard in Brooklyn. Their house has walls missing so that it is partially transparent. Scenes are also in Howard’s office, Charley’s office, Frank’s Chop House, and a hotel room in Boston. There is no specified time period in which the play is set, but it is typically placed in the 1940-50’s.

Plot: Act one begins with Willy returning to his home after a long day of selling. He comes home to a worried Linda who was in bed. She asks him if he got in another car accident to which he eventually admits and blames himself. Linda blames other things and then asks him to ask Howard for a stationary position. He agrees to do this and then begins talking about Biff and complaining about the way he has lived his life. Willy then goes down to the kitchen for some cheese.

                Focus is turned toward Biff and Happy at this point as they see Willy talking to himself in the kitchen. They reminisce and talk about how Willy always “talks to” Biff. Willy then has a flashback to when Biff and Happy were washing his car and Biff is a football star who has a lot of influence over his friends. Bernard is also in the memory and he is telling Biff that he needs to study for math. The boys leave the memory and Linda and Willy talk. Willy first says he was very successful at work but Linda gets him to admit that they soon will not be able to make all the payments on the things they have bought and that he doesn’t think he is well liked. Laughter is heard and a new memory takes place: he talks to the woman and gives her stockings. The previous memory resumes and Willy is scolding Linda for mending her stockings. Bernard enters looking for Biff. Linda criticizes Biff’s behavior with woman and stealing and Willy gets furious at the two of them. The memory ends, but Willy still talks to himself.

                Happy comes downstairs to console Willy who shouts about not going to Alaska with Ben (who got rich with Diamond mines in Africa). Charley comes in because he could hear the yelling from his house and Happy goes back upstairs. The two play cards and Charley offers Willy a job, but he is insulted by it. Half in a daydream, Willy sees Ben enter and is talking to him about going to Alaska. Charley doesn’t understand who Willy is talking to and questions it. Willy gets mad and Charley leaves. The scene becomes a full memory in which Linda walks in and meets Ben. Willy asks Ben what his life is like and Ben talks about himself and their father. Ben is about to leave and Charley and Bernard run in to tell Willy that Biff and Happy are stealing lumber from the building site. Ben leaves but Willy still talks to him.

                The memory fades out and Linda comes downstairs to find Willy outside. Biff and Happy come down too and they talk to Linda about what’s wrong with their father. Linda gets mad and mentions that Willy is trying to commit suicide and that she found the pipe. Happy blames Biff and then Willy enters and yells at Biff until Happy suggests that he and Biff start a sporting equipment company. This makes Willy happy and he tries to give a lot of advice but this frustrates Biff. Willy gets mad and goes to bed. Linda tells Biff to say goodnight and by the end of the night Willy is excited for Biff.

                Act two begins with Willy eating the breakfast Linda made. Linda brings up their expenses and tells Willy that this is their last house payment and asks Willy to ask for an advance. Willy says he will go in and ask Howard for a stationary position and the advance. Linda tells Willy that Happy and Biff will take him out to dinner that night at Frank’s Chop House. Willy goes to the train to go to work and Linda gets a call from Biff and reminds him to be nice to his dad.

                Willy enters Howard’s office while he plays with a wire recorder. His daughter, son, wife, and self are on it. Willy finally asks about a New York job and Howard rejects the idea entirely. Willy yells talking about how he named him and brings up the successful Dave Singleman. Howard leaves, saying he will be back and Willy must pull himself together. Willy gets mad and accidentally sets off the recorder and yells for Howard who turns it off, fires him, and leaves again. Ben enters and the reminiscing begins. He asks him to come to Alaska and Linda says he shouldn’t go. Biff enters and Willy talks about how well liked he is. Ben leave and Bernard enters and he fights with Happy over who will carry Biff’s helmet to the big game. Charley enters as well and jokes around to Willy.

                Now in the present Willy is at Charley’s office where Jenny (the secretary) and Bernard are. Willy tells them that Biff is working on a big deal, but then asks Bernard why Biff ended up so bad and Bernard asks what happened in Boston because that changed everything. Willy gets defensive, Charley enters, and Bernard leaves. Willy asks Charley for more money than usual and Charley offers him a job again which he continues to refuse. Charley accuses him of being jealous and Willy exits angrily.

                Happy is at the restaurant talking to Stanley. He then starts flirting with Miss Forsythe. Biff enters and the girl goes to meet her friend. Biff says that Oliver didn’t recognize him and that he was never a salesman, but a shipping clerk. Biff stole Oliver’s pen. Willy enters and Biff tries to tell him the truth but Happy cuts in saying he was successful. Willy believes Happy and Biff gets angry that Willy will not listen. Willy enters another memory with Bernard telling Linda that Biff failed math, so in the present he brings it up. Then, back in the memory Willy is in a hotel room with the woman until Biff says he will have lunch with Oliver tomorrow. Biff gets mad that the lie interested him and yells. Back in the memory, and Miss Forsythe and Letta enter the restaurant. Willy goes to the bathroom. Biff storms out and Happy and the girls follow him out the door, leaving Willy. Back in Willy’s memory he answers the hotel door to find Biff telling him he failed math. Biff catches Willy and the woman and storms out. In the present, Stanley helps Willy up and out of the restaurant, returning his money. Willy asks him where to find a seed store and Stanley points him in the right direction.

                Back at the house, Biff and Happy enter the kitchen.  Linda is angry with them for abandoning Willy and Biff goes to find him planting a garden with a flashlight. Willy is talking to Ben about a $20,000 proposition. Biff tries to bring him inside and Willy gets mad about Biff’s failure again. Happy tries to pacify through lies and Biff and Willy explode at each other. Biff cries and says goodbye to Willy. Willy is touched by Biff’s tears. Everyone goes to bed but Willy, who is again talking to Ben following him out the door talking about the insurance money. Linda calls out for Willy but he is gone and the car speeds away to a crash.

                Later Linda, Happy, Biff, and Charley are at Willy’s funeral. No one else came. Biff says Willy had the wrong dreams and Happy defends them. Charley also defends Willy as a victim of his profession. Biff invites happy to go out west and Happy says no and that he will become successful in New York so that his father did not die in vain. They all step aside except for Linda who cries and says they finally made the last of the payments and that they are finally free.

Characters: Willy (traveling salesman in New York who is obsessed with success), Linda (Willy’s wife who worries about him and pacifies him at all opportunities), Biff (Linda and Willy’s son who was once envied by his father but never finished high school and went to college so has become a failure), Happy (Linda and Willy’s other underappreciated son. He has a steady clerical job in New York City but is not overly successful. Neglected by his parents), Charley (Willy’s best friend and neighbor who owns a business in the city. Charley is very laid back in his parenting styles, contrary to Willy), Bernard (Charley’s son and successful lawyer who was friends with Biff in high school and helped him cheat), and Howard (Willy’s boss who is self-important and does not care about Willy’s background with his father).

Style: There is not a narrator in this play but we are often given sight into Willy’s mind and memories. The tone is often hopeless in reference to Biff and Willy and regretful as well. Being that it is a play, there is little need for imagery however the surroundings often symbolize things within the play. The house is a key example of this. Many of the walls in the house are supposed to have gaps in them that are completely transparent. This symbolizes the transparency of Willy’s mind because the audience is brought right into his memories. All material items also symbolize Willy because they are all breaking down and falling apart as he feels that he is.

Quotes:

1.       “Linda: Well, the fan belt broke, so it was a dollar eighty.

Willy: But it’s brand new.

Linda: Well, the man said that’s the way it is. Till they work themselves in, y’know?” (35).

These lines are significant because it describes Biff. Biff was only seventeen when he gave up on working toward success—he was broken. From there, he didn’t know who he was. It was not until the end of the play that he finally discovered himself. He had “worked himself in”.

2.       “We’re free and clear. We’re free. We’re free… We’re free” (139).

This quote is significant because it has a lot of meanings. The most direct of which, is that they are free of having to make any more payments on the house. It also means that Willy is free of having to live in his defeated state, that Biff is free of having to live up to Willy’s standards, Linda is free of fearing for Willy, Happy is free of trying to impress Willy (although he seems to continue to want to do this, despite his death), and Charley is free of having to pay Willy. Since many of these things are insensitive, they would never be directly stated however this line says it all.

Theme: The theme of this play is that the need to be the embodiment of the American dream will lead to destruction.

·         This is because Willy’s primary goal throughout this play is to be successful and for his boys to be successful in American business—the American dream. Unfortunately he becomes so obsessed with this that it causes him to be a lesser father and husband, ending in conflict with his family. It also causes him to develop false beliefs on good decisions—his suicide. He kills himself so that his family will get the life insurance so that Biff can start his own business. 

Response to Course Material #4

            Recently in class we have finished Death of a Salesman, begun reading Hamlet, and continued doing tone exercises. I thought that Death of a Salesman was a really interesting play for us to read because despite obvious similarities to The American Dream, there were a lot more hidden themes with deeper meanings. For example, both plays exhibit obvious portrayals of consumerism but Miller’s writing takes it a step further. In his play, the consumerism seems to stem from a deeper need to be successful. Reading and analyzing Death of a Salesman has also caused me to look more into the motives of writers. Before taking this course, I would have assumed that the play was written to entertain an audience. Now, I can see that it was actually a way for the author to express his feelings toward society. I can now see themes in a lot of pieces that I have watched and read that actually have much deeper purposes than simply to entertain an audience.

            Although I know it will be a great piece of literature for us to discuss, I am finding Hamlet to be nearly impossible to comprehend. It’s like poetry for me; I can understand it if I spend enough time going through and trying to interpret it, but otherwise I am completely lost. Unfortunately at the rate at which we are doing our in-class reading, I have to rely entirely on Ms. Holmes’ summaries to follow along until I go through it again at home. Hopefully after doing the close reading I will get better at understanding Shakespeare’s writing.

            Recently I have found the tone exercises that we do in class to be very helpful. At first I didn’t really understand the purpose of them, but now I realize that being able to identify an author’s tone is a useful tool in analyzing literature. For example, once you discover how the author is intending the passage to come off, it becomes easier to interpret and to make connections. This has been really useful when doing our close reading blog posts.

Close Reading #3

“Infidelity, Grandly Staged” by A. O. Scott (http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/movies/anna-karenina-from-by-joe-wright-with-keira-knightley.html?ref=movies)

            In his review of the film, “Anna Karenina”, A. O. Scott portrays the movie to be a fantastic depiction of the original novel and an engaging watch. This is done through his use of diction, detail, and figurative language.  

            Scott shows the reader how captivating and well-made the film is through his word choice. For example in the second paragraph he says, “It is risky and ambitious enough to count as an act of artistic hubris, and confident enough to triumph on its own slightly — wonderfully — crazy terms”. By incorporating the words “risky”, “ambitious”, and “crazy”, Scott introduces the reader to how interesting and engaging the film is. He also shows that the film is well done by including that the director’s means were “wonderfully” crazy. Scott’s continued use of diction is also seen in the fourth paragraph when he refers to the director’s goal as his “brilliant gamble”. By calling it this, he is further expressing his opinion of the film as being an enthralling interpretation of the original novel. This is again seen in the fifth paragraph when Scott describes the performances within the film as “fresh, energetic and alive”. By using these words, he makes the film seem more captivating to the audience.

            The details included by Scott in his review also contribute to his portrayal of the film as being a great interpretation of the book and an engaging movie to watch. For example, after going into an in-depth description of how the director’s previous films have been mediocre interpretations of the novels upon which they were based, Scott says, “Mr. Wright’s “Anna Karenina” is different” (paragraph 3). By including background on the below-par standards of Wright’s “book to movie” directing history, the contrast between works gained meaning and showed the reader how good of a depiction of the novel “Anna Karenina” is.

            Scott also used strong figurative language to emphasize the engaging qualities of the film. For example in the sixth paragraph he says, “The camera hurtles through the scenery as if in hungry pursuit; the lush colors of the upholstery and the costumes pulsate with feeling; the music (by Dario Marianelli) howls and sighs…”. These metaphorical comparisons show the reader that the mechanics of the film make for an exciting experience. By saying that the camera “hurtles…in hungry pursuit”, he makes it seem as though the audience finds themselves to be brought into the story because of it. His comment on the colors of the costumes as “pulsating” also connects the audience to the movie by portraying it as if the vibrancy of the colors can actually be felt. Scott does this again later in the same paragraph when he says, “Mr. Wright turns a sweeping epic into a frantic and sublime opera”. By comparing the movie to a “sublime opera”, he portrays it to be a captivating film.

            Throughout the review, Scott makes good use of his diction, detail, and figurative language to express his feelings about the film. He repeatedly uses his words to show his readers how engaging “Anna Karenina” is, and how it is a sensational interpretation of the original novel.

Prompts: #3

1974. Choose a work of literature written before 1900. Write an essay in which you present arguments for and against the work's relevance for a person in 1974. Your own position should emerge in the course of your essay. You may refer to works of literature written after 1900 for the purpose of contrast or comparison.

            Pride and Prejudice written by Jane Austin in 1813 is a timeless piece, but is it still relevant in today’s society? The answer to that question is both yes and no: in modern times we can still see the importance of reputation and normalcy, however social classes and gender roles are much less defined.

            Pride and Prejudice depicts an individual’s reputation as being of the utmost importance, therefore every decision is dependent on society’s reaction. The characters must be very careful in their behavior because stepping out of social normalcy could lead to ostracism. An example of this is when Elizabeth walks to Netherfield. Not only is it socially unacceptable for a lady to walk such a distance, but she has also become filthy in the process. This causes Miss Bingley to think less of her because it is considered unsuitable behavior. This importance of reputation is relevant in today’s society as well. If people are to act in ways that are uncommon, others will tend to judge them, alter their opinion, and build his or her reputation around it.

            In Austin’s novel, there were three very distinct classes—the upper, middle and lower class. Individuals within these classes rarely transitioned between them, and if they were to do so it was typically a downgrade. People in the upper class also tended to dislike individuals below themselves. This is clearly seen in Miss Bingley who had a strong distaste for seemingly every character with less wealth than herself. She could do this because at the time, classes were very distinctly defined. Today, social classes are much more broad and easier to transition between. This makes Miss Bingley’s judgment irrelevant in today’s society because she would not necessarily know who is wealthier than herself and who is not.

            One of the most important themes in Pride and Prejudice is the portrayal of women as dependent on men. This is virtually irrelevant in today’s society because the role of women is not just to be the homemaker anymore. Now, women have important roles in all areas of work, including very authoritative positions. During the time of which this novel was written, however, these occupations for women would have been laughable. In fact, a woman’s place in society was entirely based upon the man she married and she would not have worked outside of the home unless she was a member of the lower class. Since so much of the novel is focused on this theme, it is not relatable to today’s readers.

            Overall, most of the values that Jane Austin attacked in writing this novel are irrelevant in today’s society. Although an individual might find it easy to relate to the importance placed on reputation and social normalcy, the majority of the novel focuses on themes not very significant in today’s society. People nowadays are of every level of wealth and are not as distinctly separated as they were in the 1800's. In addition to this, the genders are much more equivalent to each other. Being that the majority of this novel seems to revolve around these two themes, it makes the main idea irrelevant to individuals in today’s world.

Response to Course Material #3

Recently we have spent most of our time focusing on Death of a Salesman, while continuing to work with DIDLS. As of right now, Death of a Salesman seems to be tackling the same themes that were seen in The American Dream—materialism, consumerism, etc. This makes me wonder if all of the works we discuss this year are also going to focus on these topics. I have, however, noticed a bit of variation between the works. Death of a Salesman seems to put a lot more emphasis on the success of the individual and pride. One aspect that I am wondering about is its emphasis on the relationships within the family. I am not sure if they are similar to The American Dream because the family seems distant and Willy, in particular, seems to care mostly about his sons’ value, or if they are more contrasting because Death of a Salesman shows the characters expressing compassion.

I notice that the more we do exercises involving DIDLS in class, the more I understand them and am able to apply them. For example, while watching the presidential campaign speeches this weekend, I found myself picking them apart based on their use of diction and details. Each candidate used their word choice to make themselves seem like the clear choice.  They also purposely omitted certain unflattering details and included ones that portrayed themselves in the best light. I think it is very interesting that I can not only use these techniques to analyze pieces for class, but also for things in the real world.

We also recently re-took the terms test. My results amazed me because I memorized all of the definitions of the terms and their applications, but I still did horribly on the test. I think knowing all of the terms somehow caused me to become too cryptic in identifying them. I found that I was having difficult making any of the terms work well with the questions given, and then once I did, I would second guess myself. For example, in one of the questions I initially thought that a given passage was a conceit—an elaborate comparison—because it compared one’s feelings to a detailed description of a scene. When I went back through to check my answers, however, I read more in depth on the description of the scene and noticed that it provided imagery and the comparison was not incredibly clear, so I changed my answer to “imagery”. It was conceit.

"The American Dream": Summary and Analysis

Author: Edward Albee was born on March 12^th, 1928. He was adopted by the son of a famous producer and was introduced to theater at a very young age. He and his stepmother struggled over her wanting him to become a member of high society.

Setting: An apartment in the late 1950s-early 1960s (modern day at the time).

Plot: The play begins with Mommy and Daddy in the living room of the apartment waiting for someone to come. They begin complaining about how they are always waiting and how they cannot get satisfaction in modern times. While they wait, Mommy gets distracted and tells a story to Daddy about her purchase of a hat yesterday. She says she went to the store but could not find a hat that she liked until they showed her a beige one. When she left the store wearing the hat and ran into the chairman of her woman’s club who told her the hat was beige. She was distraught by this and took it back to the store to get a beige one. They gave her the same hat back and she accepted it as beige. They begin talking about how the toilet is not functioning correctly and how Grandma has trouble in the bathroom, at which point Grandma walks in with a bunch of well-wrapped boxes. Daddy mentions the toilet again and Grandma gets offended and starts talking about the neglect and ways of older people. Daddy tries to change the subject back to the boxes so Mommy tells how Grandma used to wrap her a lunch box full of her own dinner from the night before. Mommy did not eat it (she ate her classmates’ food) so Grandma ate it after she got home. This sparks a conversation about wealth and how Mommy has it now but Grandma works for it even though she would not have to. Grandma goes on another rant about what happens with age after this. Mommy tries to send Grandma to bed, but ultimately allows her to stay and watch. Finally, someone is at the door and Daddy becomes anxious about answering it, but Mommy gets him to. It is Mrs. Barker (chairman of the woman’s club who has a husband in a wheelchair) and she comes in, sits down, takes off her dress, and insults the appearance of the apartment. Mrs. Barker also reveals that she was listening outside and she wears a “cream” version of the hat from the story. After a while, Mommy asks Mrs. Barker to tell them why she is there and Grandma interrupts with, “the boxes…the boxes…”, but Mrs. Barker is not there for the boxes. Here, the focus shifts from Mrs. Barker and the boxes to Daddy’s operation. Soon Grandma goes on another rant and Mommy threatens that the van man could come and tells Daddy to break Grandma’s TV. At this point, Mommy wants to chat with Mrs. Barker, but she says she is not feeling well so she needs some water. Mommy tells Grandma to get it but she refuses and Mommy has to get it herself. After Mommy has left the room Grandma tells Mrs. Barker a story of a family “very much like” her own family who adopted a baby boy. This baby had flaws so they removed pieces of him until he died. Daddy cannot find Grandma’s room and Mommy cannot find the water, and Mommy brings up the van man again. The doorbell rings again and Grandma answers it to find a young attractive man whom she calls “the American Dream”. He will do anything for money so she tells him about how she won money from a baking contest with her “day old cake”. The young man tells her about how he had a twin but they were separated, and for a long time he has been unable to feel. Grandma recognizes him to be the twin of the adopted boy from the story she told Mrs. Barker about Mommy and Daddy. Grandma tells the young man to take her boxes outside and then he walks her to the elevator and she exits. Mrs. Barker tells Mommy and Daddy that she has gone with the van man and that the young man is the replacement boy from the adoption agency. They believe they have finally gotten satisfaction and drink meager wine.

Characters: Mommy (powerful, represents a very materialistic society, naïve), Daddy (feminized, makes a lot of money, seems to actually care about people but that takes away from his masculinity), Grandma (strong willed, representative of the old American Dream), Young Man (young, attractive, emotionless, represents the new American Dream), and Mrs. Barker (works for the Bye-Bye Adoption Service and is a professional woman, she has a power struggle with Mommy).

Style: There is no narrator in this story so there is no point of view, except for at the end of the play when Grandma speaks out to the audience. She reveals that conflict is to come but that the story must end before then because it is a comedy. There is also little imagery because it is a play; all imagery comes from the dialogue (such as “a banana shaped head”, “beautifully wrapped boxes”, etc.). Symbolism can be seen in many aspects of this play. Examples include Daddy’s operation (feminizing him), Grandma’s boxes (her values), Grandma (the old American Dream), and Young Man (the new American Dream).

Significant Quotes:

1. “That’s the way things are today; you just can’t get satisfaction; you just try” (Mommy, pg 61). This quote is significant because it shows how modern society is so focused on consumerism and getting everything that they want, while also describing how companies will fool their customers to make a profit.
2. “When you get so old, all that happens is that people talk to you that way” (Grandma, pg 64). This is important because it shows how people think about the old American Dream—not just Grandma. Because the values of the past are seemingly outdated, the new ways are overcoming it and causing people to talk about the old American Dream as if it is dead, even though it is still around (just weaker in prominence).
3. “…the doctors took out something that was there and put in something that wasn’t there” (Daddy, 83). This is important as well because it shows Daddy being emasculated permanently, having further implications on the organization of the gender role structure in society.

Theme: The overall theme of this piece is that the old American Dream is fading, while a new superficial American dream takes hold.

à This theme is set by having the play set in a common modern day home to represent the general population. Also, by having Grandma being representative of the old American Dream—which we can tell by her need to work for a living, her independence, and her strength despite her age—and Young Man representative of the new American Dream—which we see in his emotionless being and need for money—the contrast between the decline of one and the growth of the other is clearly apparent. As Grandma fades away, the Young Man is reaching his prime. The title, "The American Dream", foreshadows this. 

Close Reading #2

“The Game is All-Consuming, at Least Until the Outside World Intrudes” http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/movies/brooklyn-castle-directed-by-katie-dellamaggiore.html?ref=movies

            In the review, “The Game is All-Consuming, at Least Until the Outside World Intrudes”, Manohla Dargis portrays “Brooklyn Castle” to be a touching, engaging, and exciting documentary. She does this through her usage of diction and figurative language, and the details that she incorporates.

            Throughout the article Dargis shows the reader how the film is captivating and emotional through her word choice. This begins in the very first sentence of the review when she refers to “Brooklyn Castle” and an “irresistible documentary”. Also in the first paragraph while describing the chess matches in which the team featured in this film partake, Dargis says, “…you come to know these children…as you witness their pulse-quickening matches”. The use of the word “pulse-quickening” emphasizes the tension brought about by the film that ultimately results in fascination and excitement. These feelings show that Dargis is trying to portray the engaging qualities of the film. The article also exhibits diction that presents a feeling of tenderness that comes about from the film. For example in the fifth paragraph Dargis says, “…their students, who can wear their burdens heavily, with worried eyes and anxious jittering”. By including the adjectives “worried” and “anxious”, the reader feels bad for the students experiencing anxiety, making the plotline touching and heart wrenching.

            In addition to her diction, Dargis also uses figurative language to emphasize the emotional and exciting aspects of the film. For example in the first paragraph she says, “The child chess champions…don’t take long…to crush you”. In using the phrase “to crush you” Dargis demonstrates the effects that the conflicts in the film have on the audience. By using these words rather than saying “makes you sad”, it emphasizes the level of attachment that the audience develops to the students and how touching the film becomes. Dargis also shows how exciting the matches in the documentary are by referring to the winners as “conquerors” in the third paragraph.

            The details of which Dargis includes in her review of “Brooklyn Castle” also contribute to her representation of the film being touching and engaging. For example, in the second paragraph she lists some of the hardships that certain members of the chess team are facing and their dreams to fix them. By including these details, feelings of sympathy arise within the reader, thus showing how emotionally touching the story is. Another example in which details contribute to the overall representation that Dargis is trying to portray is when she says, “It’s deeply satisfying watching these public school, hard-knock kids win…” in the final paragraph. By not only including that the film is “satisfying” to watch, but also that the children win, the reader already knows that the plot will not be disappointing, and therefore full of excitement. The satisfaction also proves her point that they documentary is engaging.

            By making strategic use of diction and figurative language, while also incorporating relevant and meaningful details, Dargis reflects her feelings towards the documentary to the reader. Because of this, the reader feels that that the viewing of this film will be a captivating, exciting, and emotional experience.

Prompt #2

2009. A symbol is an object, action, or event that represents something or that creates a range of associations beyond itself. In literary works a symbol can express an idea, clarify meaning, or enlarge literal meaning. Select a novel or play and, focusing on one symbol, write an essay analyzing how that symbol functions in the work and what it reveals about the characters or themes of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.

                In William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, a conch shell is used to symbolize order and civilization throughout the novel. This is done through strategic timing, uses of the object, and changes reflecting on it. Golding uses the deterioration of the conch to emphasize the absence of society and the effects that it has on the boys.

                At the beginning of the novel, the sound of the conch is used to assemble the boys who are stranded on the island. Once together, it is also used to signify who may speak—whoever holds the shell can talk and all others must remain silent. By having the boys use the conch in these ways it comes to represent order by keeping them together and under control. It also indicates the ideas of civilization through the organization of power and the control over the group of boys. Without the shell the boys would not have been able to come together all at once and discuss. They also would not have been able to hold a mature meeting in which they were able to discuss their options and ideas—a necessity in any civilization.

                As the novel continues, the boys begin to lose their sense of order with which they began.  As this occurs, the conch shell begins to fade away as well. For example, as Jack and his followers become more ruthless in their hunting and start to rebel against Ralph’s leadership, the once deep pink of the shell turns to a pale cream, and as the story progresses it continues to become meekly colored by a cloudy transparency. When Piggy, the only character to truly maintain all of the ideals of civilization throughout the novel, is killed, Golding writes that the conch shell shatters completely. In doing this he is symbolizing the complete deterioration of all sense of order that the boys had began with.

                William Golding uses the decomposition of the conch shell to show the meaning of the novel, which is without the rules of society, people would be consumed with self interest and be evil in nature.  The symbolization affiliated with the conch shell signifies the process of this occurring with the youth in the story. Because children have not been exposed to civilization for as long as adults, they are able to lose their grasp on the importance of it. As this occurs, they also become more self indulgent and vicious without true purpose. Since the order that the boys once knew fades with the color of the conch, Golding’s overall meaning in the novel is emphasized.

                The conch shell in Lord of the Flies not only symbolizes order and civilization as it begins to deteriorate throughout the novel, but also contributes to the overall meaning of the work that Golding was portraying. The corresponding of the loss of all remnants of the ideals of society and the fading conch emphasizes the effects on the boys and the savagery consumes them. This ultimately reflects that without the rules and constraints of civilization, humans would be selfish and evil.

Response to Course Material #2

In the past few weeks we have covered quite a bit of material. We have learned about existentialism, critical lenses, literary movements, The American Dream, theatre of the absurd, how to write an AP essay, and we also expanded on analyzing literature using DIDLS. Something that was of particular interest to me was how to write the AP essay. Before that lesson, I had no idea how much thought had to go into the directions of the prompt alone.  Realizing that you must first identify the three parts that the prompt is asking, for before even beginning to analyze the piece, is something that I never would have considered. In the past, essay prompts have been pretty straight forward—find commonalities between multiple works, explain how a certain character changes over time, etc. Never had I been asked to analyze the author’s motives for writing things in a certain way. Because of this, I found myself lost when it came to devising a thesis for the sample essay that we were shown in class—regardless of knowing the three things that the readers will be looking for. I look forward to further expanding on how to do this in class.

                Last year in British Literature, we spent some time learning about the different critical lenses as well, but we never spent a lot of time focusing on how they were applied. For example, I knew that a feminist critic would use gender roles to form a theory about a piece of literature that they were reading, but I never made the connection that the analysis had to do with the author’s motives when writing the story. I am very glad that we spent some time learning about how each form of criticism is applied in this class because this will help us gain an understanding of the works that we read over the course of the year and on the AP test. It will also help us to annotate the pieces that we read. If we consider all of the different forms of literary criticism, we can think about all the different things that the author could have been considering consciously, or subconsciously, while writing it (as we are beginning to see in The American Dream. We also spent some time talking about the literary movements in British Literature, but we never compared them all with one another as we did on Friday. Having a clear comparison of the different movements over time will help in making distinctions between them. Knowing the specifics of each literary movement will also help determine an author’s motives based on the time he or she wrote something. I look forward to learning more about these literary movements and seeing more examples of how we see them in literature from their eras.

Close Reading -- Review

For my close reading, I chose a review of “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” from the New York Times called, “An Introvert Finds His Way Through Teenage Terrain” by Manohla Dargis (http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/movies/the-perks-of-being-a-wallflower-directed-by-stephen-chbosky.html?_r=0). In this review, Dargis is trying to get the point across that this movie is standard in theme but still interesting. This is seen in her use of diction, figurative language, and details.

            Dargis incorporates many words to express her feelings of the work—being an interesting yet common story, with a style similar to that used by many other filmmakers. For example she says, “The results are likable, unsurprising and principally a showcase for the pretty young cast…” (paragraph 4). The word “likable” implies that the characters were easy to connect with and well rounded, however since this word is followed by “Unsurprising”, the reader is left to infer that the plot is stereotypical and unoriginal. Another example of Dargis’ use of diction to show her feelings towards the film is when she says, “Their characters never expand beyond their generic if sensitive outlines…” (paragraph 5). When one thinks of the word “generic”, it creates a picture of hundreds of the same, therefore when the writer of this review used that word it strengthened her idea of the film being very common.

            Along with her word choice, Dargis also used interesting figurative language when writing this review to express that the film is unoriginal. For example while describing the plot of the film Dargis says, “Charlie’s parents aren’t tearing him apart…” (paragraph 3). She does is not saying that Charlie’s parents are not literally ripping him into pieces, but rather she means to convey that they are not making his life exceptionally difficult. Using this more extreme phrase to describe it makes Charlie’s life sound even more boring and average, and thus leads the reader to believe that the plot of the movie is not exciting or original.  

            The details included by Dargis are also used to lead the reader into thinking the movie is unoriginal. She places an emphasis on the ways in which the director/writer made the story similar to many others, while avoiding including any details that might reflect originality to the piece. For example Dargis makes an effort to show the aspects of stereotypical filmmaking used when she says, “Mr. Chbosky brings you into this familiar world through the usual cinematic points of view, by way of Charlie’s eyes, voice and flashbacks, but also through the ubiquitously hovering camera” (paragraph 4). After this sentence she goes on to explain how this adds to it being unoriginal without incorporating any of the other aspects that the director might have used that are not quite so cliché.

            The ways in which this writer formatted her work with detail, diction, and figurative language helped create and emphasize her view of the movie, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower”. Because of these, the reader can infer that she found the film to be greatly lacking originality in the storyline as well as filmmaking techniques.

Prompts (September 16th)

1982. In great literature, no scene of violence exists for its own sake. Choose a work of literary merit that confronts the reader or audience with a scene or scenes of violence. In a well-organized essay, explain how the scene or scenes contribute to the meaning of the complete work. Avoid plot summary.

                In the novel, Lord of the Flies, William Golding includes various scenes of violence to prove his idea that humans are evil in nature. He does this by adding in scenes with excessive amounts of violence as the plot progresses, thus showing the reader how the distance from civilization has turned the boys into savages.

                The first example of this is seen is when Jack decides to take some of the boys hunting. This causes them to acquire a thirst for blood and they become more violent and ruthless with their killing. The boys grow obsessed with hunting and use brutal tactics—even killing baby pigs for the sport of it. These extreme levels of violence in their hunt show the reader that the boys are losing their grip of right and wrong and are becoming savage in the lack of civilization.

                Another example of a violent scene with meaning is when all of the boys go to a feast with Jack’s group. Here they speak of the beast and how they are going to kill it. Excitement grows as they talk of how they will triumph over the beast, causing them to lose their sense of reason by the time Simon walks in from the forest. The boys lose control and violently attack him, ultimately resulting in his death. This again shows Golding’s expression of how the boys had become primitive without the rules of society to keep them in line.

                The third example of Golding’s use of violence in scenes to show the meaning of the novel is during the climax of the story when Piggy and Ralph go to Jack’s fort to get Piggy’s glasses back and Roger drops a boulder that hits Piggy and sends him airborne. This causes Piggy’s head to be smashed from the impact and he dies instantly. This is the final scene of violence used by Golding and its dramatic imagery gives the reader the sense of horror. The violence in this is used to emphasize how truly savage the boys have become since their initial arrival on the island. In addition to this, Golding’s targeting of Piggy creates a greater contrast—the one who maintained the ideas of society throughout the novel is being killed in the most savage way. This makes the brutality seem even more extreme, thus reiterating how horrible the boys have become.

                Golding uses these various scenes of violence to portray the overall theme and meaning of the novel—without the rules of society, people would be evil in nature. The brutal acts represent the change in morality within the boys. The more horrific the action, the further they have grown from civilization and the more savage they have become.

Response to Course Material

Over this past week, we spent most of our class time going over literary terms and the AP writing basics. The terms were very difficult to fully understand without first being exposed to examples showing their usage.  It was also frustrating to have to memorize a single word for something that I used to identify with a phrase or two. To me, it seemed silly to use a word such as paraprosdokian to describe a concept as simple as a surprise ending to a phrase. The word itself is not even recognized by Microsoft Word, so why should I need to know how and when to use it? My view of this changed, however, after looking at the PowerPoints on Spruz about AP essay writing. After seeing how extensive the process of identifying the rhetorical situation and setting up an argument is, I realized that these confusing terms might actually be able to help me create a more clear and concise essay after all. As Harvey often mentioned in The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing, it is important to not be overly pompous in your essay, and to stay focused on the topic. Keeping wordiness to a minimum by replacing lengthy phrases with these new literary terms will help do this. For example, one of the techniques used by authors is the repetition of conjunctions in a series of phrases. When writing about this in an essay, the word polysyndeton could be used to describe it instead of the nine words used previously. Since the majority of the essay is probably about a much greater topic than that repetition, it is better to use the term to describe it. This way the reader will not have to deal with the constant distraction of the writer straying from the main idea in attempt to describe a minor concept.

"Me Talk Pretty One Day"

In the essay, “Me Talk Pretty One Day”, David Sedaris generally follows the rules laid out in The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing by Michael Harvey. Sedaris uses a comfortable writing style to describe his experience learning French in Paris while maintaining clarity and strength.

One of Sedaris’ more notable strays from the rules given by Harvey is his use of commas. In “Me Talk Pretty One Day”, commas are often misplaced and overused. For example Sedaris says, “And it struck me that, for the first time since arriving in France, I could understand every word that someone was saying” (14). This sentence violates Harvey’s rule: “Don’t put commas between subject and verb… or between any such close pair of grammatical elements” (Harvey). Being that “for” and “that” are closely related words, there should not be a comma placed between them separating one idea. Another example of poorly placed commas is when Sedaris says, “…the coming months would teach us what it was like to spend time in the presence of a wild animal, something completely unpredictable” (13). Instead of placing a comma after the word “animal”, the rules of The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing say that a semicolon would have been the better option. “The semicolon signals the end of an independent clause—but it also idicates a link … to the next clause” (Harvey). The action of spending time with a wild animal and the description of what it would be like are the independent clauses in this case, and therefore should be separated by a semicolon rather than a comma. More examples of the misuse of commas are present throughout Sedaris’ essay.

“Me Talk Pretty One Day” does an outstanding job of avoiding the use of the pompous style mentioned by Harvey at the beginning of his book. He says to use a more concise structure to strengthen verbs and adjective. Sedaris uses an informal tone throughout the essay giving it a conversational feel. This allows the reader to better understand the writer and increases its clarity. An example of this can be seen when Sedaris says, “Call me sensitive, but I couldn’t help but take it personally” (13). The humorous approach that he took combined with the common vocabulary used is easy for the reader to connect with and understand. If he would have added unnecessary adjectives to describe the feelings that it brought about it would have taken away from the clarity of the essay.

Sedaris also follows Harvey’s advice in regards to the use of in-text questions. For example Sedaris says, “I find it ridiculous to assign a gender to an inanimate object which is incapable of disrobing and making an occasional fool of itself. Why refer to Lady Crack Pipe or Good Sir Dishrag when these things could never live up to all that their sex implied?” (13), it follows Harvey’s summative question role; “…questions can also serve a summative function, helping the reader digest what you’ve just argued even as you point the way ahead” (Harvey). The question from “Me Talk Pretty One Day” provides emphasis to Sedaris’ idea that assigning a gender to objects is silly and unnecessary.

With the exception of certain grammatical errors, Sedaris does a good job of following the guidelines given in Harvey’s The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing. The essay does a good job of avoiding an overly-elevated vocabulary and following the basic structure of standard college writing.

**The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing for Kindle does not have available page numbers**

Poetry Study Goals

1) Learn to better understand the main topic of poems
2) Learn to better understand the colorful language used in poems
3) Be able to identify patterns in poems
4) Be able to identify the type of poem
5) Learn to recognize the tone of the author

The practice problems in Peterson's AP English helped me realize that my biggest problem with answering poem-based questions is identifying the main idea. Attributing to this is the colorful language that is used in poetry. Since I have difficulty understanding the wording, it is hard for me to grasp what the author talking about. I also noticed that I struggled to identify the type of poem and the line patterns because I do not know how to fully differentiate between them. Because of this, it would be a very helpful goal for me to memorize the properties of patterns and styles. The final type of question that I noticed I was having a lot of difficulty with was recognizing the author/speaker's tone. For example, when asked about direct references made by the speaker's tone in the practice questions I had to make educated guesses through elimination because of my lacking ability to determine the tone.

Diagnostic Test

The diagnostic test from Peterson's AP English was quite different than I had expected it to be. Originally I assumed (foolishly, apparently) that the questions would be mostly based on the novels that we will be reading with little emphasis on other literary topics. Because of this assumption, I was very surprised to find that all of the questions were based on passages in the test itself and that only one of those passages came from a novel. Other than being taken off-guard by the emphasis on other sources of literature, I did not find the questions themselves to be extremely surprising. Most of the questions were very similar to what I've seen in the past--what type of poem is this, what does this represent/mean, etc. What frustrated me the most about the diagnostic test was how difficult it was for me. This is probably because I haven't taken the class yet, but it was still incredibly irritating to me that I was having so much trouble selecting the best answer. In many cases I felt that either that multiple answers were equally correct, or that none of them were quite fitting for the question being asked.