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**