The main thing I've been able to take away from this past month of learning is how to take something large and deconstruct it, in order to have a better idea of what it means as a whole. To fully understand a building for instance, you need to be able to recognize all of its pieces, all of the materials that were used to construct it, how those pieces were used in the construction, how it was built, who built it, for what purpose was it built, how it's currently being used...The same can be said about literature. We used this to tackle poetry and to help us construct our theme for The American Dream and are currently deconstructing Death of a Salesman for a similar purpose.
With poetry, we used STIFS to quickly point out the main parts of a poem and to help us tackle multiple choice questions that we will face on future tests (and ultimately the AP). With The American Dream, to construct our theme, we were forced to incorporate every motif in order to be successful. This tested our understanding of the work and really pushed our thinking abilities to the limit. It's similar to the poetry analysis in that in order to have a full idea of the work, we need to be able to find and appreciate all of its pieces. We'll ultimately have to construct another theme for Death of a Salesman and I hope that the building metaphor will keep me focused and on the right track when we have to do another theme and analysis blog. It's a frustrating process, but a necessary one in order to best grasp a work of literature.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Open Prompt 2
2003 Student Responses
Essay LLLL:
The student gets off to a great start with a nice, concise opening paragraph. Close reading is used to convey the students ideas, starting right away in the first body paragraph when the student describes the first image we see of Gatsby to explain an effect the book has. The student keeps from summarizing, and does a terrific job at using quotes to illustrate his points. The use of quotes is especially remarkable considering that this is all drawn strictly from memory. His handwriting could be neater, but that's just a minor quibble of mine. The student keeps the essay well organized, and all of the main points are nicely wrapped up at the end. The student fully deserves his high marking.
Essay C:
Firstly, I really don't like that he restates the quote from the prompt in his own opening paragraph. That doesn't seem to bother the graders, but I didn't like it. And the essay in general is written rather simply. "This happened. This is why this affects that. Here's another point I have. That means this because reasons." The grader describes it as "workmanlike", and it's a pretty apt description in my opinion. The first body paragraph reads more like a summary than an analysis. It does connect back to the main points in the thesis in a few ways, but it's harder to find those moments than it should be. I almost want to say that this should be a 5, but the discussion of meaning holds up well enough that I'd probably give it a 6. A 7 seems pretty generous.
Essay FF:
The opening paragraph is concise, but it's too narrow and is pretty boring to read. The first body paragraph is also practically a summary, with the student only managing to barely connect it back to the thesis at the very end. There's just too much summarizing in general throughout the essay. But the first body paragraph provides the most glaring example along with the paragraph where the author simply describes the climax of the work, offering no analysis of it until later. The actual analysis is severely lacking because the student spends way too much time describing events in the book. I know way more about the plot of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest then I should. On top of that, the organization is lackluster. The student probably should have been awarded a 4. The grader must have been feeling nice the day he/she read this essay.
Essay LLLL:
The student gets off to a great start with a nice, concise opening paragraph. Close reading is used to convey the students ideas, starting right away in the first body paragraph when the student describes the first image we see of Gatsby to explain an effect the book has. The student keeps from summarizing, and does a terrific job at using quotes to illustrate his points. The use of quotes is especially remarkable considering that this is all drawn strictly from memory. His handwriting could be neater, but that's just a minor quibble of mine. The student keeps the essay well organized, and all of the main points are nicely wrapped up at the end. The student fully deserves his high marking.
Essay C:
Firstly, I really don't like that he restates the quote from the prompt in his own opening paragraph. That doesn't seem to bother the graders, but I didn't like it. And the essay in general is written rather simply. "This happened. This is why this affects that. Here's another point I have. That means this because reasons." The grader describes it as "workmanlike", and it's a pretty apt description in my opinion. The first body paragraph reads more like a summary than an analysis. It does connect back to the main points in the thesis in a few ways, but it's harder to find those moments than it should be. I almost want to say that this should be a 5, but the discussion of meaning holds up well enough that I'd probably give it a 6. A 7 seems pretty generous.
Essay FF:
The opening paragraph is concise, but it's too narrow and is pretty boring to read. The first body paragraph is also practically a summary, with the student only managing to barely connect it back to the thesis at the very end. There's just too much summarizing in general throughout the essay. But the first body paragraph provides the most glaring example along with the paragraph where the author simply describes the climax of the work, offering no analysis of it until later. The actual analysis is severely lacking because the student spends way too much time describing events in the book. I know way more about the plot of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest then I should. On top of that, the organization is lackluster. The student probably should have been awarded a 4. The grader must have been feeling nice the day he/she read this essay.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
The American Dream: Summary and Analysis
Summary:
The American Dream, a play by Edward Albee, briefly follows an upper-middle class "family" in the living room of their apartment. Mommy and Daddy are the power couple, with Mommy having near total control over Daddy and dictating most of his decisions. Grandma, Mommy's mother, is nearly voiceless in the house. though can occasionally hold sway with Daddy. Grandma keeps up an act of foolishness and naivete, when in reality she is very aware of her situation. She is constantly under threat of being taken away by the "van man". Mommy and Daddy call Mrs. Barker to demand satisfaction, although it takes them awhile to figure out why exactly she's there. The child that Mommy and Daddy bought from Mrs. Barker was too full of content, and despite mutilating the child to fit their wants, the child was unpleasing to them and eventually died. However, when the Young Man arrives, Grandma sets it up so that Mrs. Barker can present the Young Man as the replacement child: pretty on the outside but devoid of content, depth, and emotion. Grandma leaves and Mommy gets over it quickly, happy that she got satisfaction in the end.
Theme:
Albee's American Dream warns that the current generation of upper class Americans have gutted the heart and soul of what it means to be American and replaced our collective dream with a superficial, immature, materialism driving us to acquire power and wealth, but there is hope of change.
(The elements of this theme are supported below in the Analysis section)
Analysis:
Since there's no format by which to abide, I think I'm just going to separate this into chunks and address certain things separately.
-The Young Man clearly represents the modern "American dream". He lacks depth and content. ("Yup. Boy, you know what you are, don't you? You're the American dream, that's what you are" (108)). This can be related to several other parts of the play. It doesn't matter what's inside Grandma's boxes, it only matters that they look nice. The quality of the hat that Mommy buys isn't important, the name of the color is. Mrs. Barker as a person doesn't matter to Mommy, only the various titles and positions she holds do. Furthermore, Grandma is representative of the old "American dream". She's smart, hard-working, resourceful, and isn't a victim of consumerism. Unlike Mommy, it's what's inside the boxes that's important to her, and she even says that making the boxes is pretty is tiresome and makes her fingers hurt. Mommy is constantly at conflict with the old American dream: she's always arguing with Grandma and she, along with Daddy, mutilates their first child, who is similar to Grandma in that he has content. The Young Man is a result of the mutilation. He is what Mommy and Daddy want. He's the American dream, dead on the inside but beautiful on the outside.
-Gender roles play a very important role in understanding the characters of the play. As the play progresses, it becomes increasingly clear that Mommy wears the pants in the relationship between her and Daddy. She takes on a more masculine role, and as a result of this, Daddy is more feminine. We can see that he's been reduced to a more feminine role by Mommy, he's fickle and indecisive and needs her constant reassurance in order to make choices and decisions. And yet, Daddy wants to believe that he's masculine, even trying to prove it at times. This culminates when Daddy alludes to a sex change. He mentions having a surgery where he was given tubes. He tries to fight it, it seems. He mentions feeling pains in his stitches and gets a huge confidence boost when he ultimately does make the decision to open the door (this wasn't without Mommy's prodding however). But he ultimately seems to be fighting a losing battle. Grandma comes across as sexually androgynous. She mentions that given her age and her looks she could pass as either male or female, and even does pass for male when she wins the baking contest. To me, the gender roles show that women can easily have and take power, but it still takes actually male anatomy to get things done. Grandma had all the means to win that baking contest, yet she did so as a male. Mommy is the one basically dictating what happens in the apartment, yet it's Daddy who has to go through with most of the decisions. She leaves it up to him to open the door for Mrs. Barker and to call the van man. However, Mrs. Barker is able to dictate and execute as a woman, and she doesn't hesitate to remind people that she's a professional woman. This could perhaps signal a transition to female dominance, where no male is necessary for things to either be dictated or executed. Gender roles are part of the struggle for power.
-Consumerism is a motif that pops up often in the play. A lot of this ties in with the first chunk, so this will be briefer. Consumerism plays into the appearance part of the new American dream. Appearance, perception, and status are what's most important for the new American dream, and money is one of the biggest tellers of status and can greatly affect how others perceive you. It gives you power. Because of this, money, and therefore consumerism, becomes one of the most important things in society. Hell, Mommy basically says that she married Daddy for his money, and that she feels entitled to it. Mrs. Barker is the biggest symbol for consumerism. Her entire being revolves around business and she takes advantage of opportunities to improve her business. Even though Grandma is the one who arranges for the Young Man to give Mommy and Daddy satisfaction, Mrs. Barker is quick to announce that she will send them a bill in the mail. Also, despite being devoid of most other emotions, the Young Man still has a drive to make money, it's the reason he visits the apartment. The characters, save for Grandma, are often driven by their quest for power, which is through money and consumerism. ("They wanted satisfaction; they wanted their money back. That's what they wanted" (101)).
-The matter of age comes up several times as well. Mainly, in that it doesn't matter, and that it can even be better. Grandma is definitely the most "rootable" character in this bunch, despite being the oldest. And despite saying a bunch of self-deprecating things about old people, she proves a lot of those things to be incorrect through her actions. It's also Grandma's day-old cake that ends up winning the baking contest, and the old American dream that proves to be the better one (at least, that's the message we get).
-Albee incorporates Absurdist elements into his play. Although the play can't be fully classified as part of the Theater of the Absurd due to the amount of symbolism and actual meaning, the Absurdist elements are important in making the play what it is. Repetition is used to provide characterization, usually in a negative way (Ex: Daddy constantly forgets Mrs. Barker's name, belittling his intelligence). But primarily, other elements such as the illogical conversation flow, strange conclusions, and confusing dialogue are used to provide humor. I actually think the humor is used to show the seriousness of the issue Albee is having us focus on. It's all quite humorous, but then we reach the scene where Grandma describes how Mommy and Daddy brutally mutilated and ultimately murdered a child. It all seemed funny, but now everything has a much darker feel to it. And that scene forces you to go back and notice exactly what you were laughing at before. If the humor weren't there, that juxtaposition wouldn't exist, and that metaphor probably wouldn't be as powerful as it is.
-The ending seems to suggest that things won't stay the same, or that they at least might not. Grandma says that the play is ending because it's best to stop when everyone has what they think they want. ("...I don't think we'd better go any further. No, definitely not. So, let's leave things as they are right now...while everybody's happy...while everybody's got what he wants...or everybody's got what he thinks he wants" (127)) This implies that they might realize what they have isn't really what they want. So there does seem to be potential for the characters to realize that they're unhappy with their new American Dream. Also, Grandma, the old American dream, doesn't completely leave the play when she exits the apartment. She's still on stage, observing, almost as if she's waiting for the right time to come back. Why else stick around?
The American Dream, a play by Edward Albee, briefly follows an upper-middle class "family" in the living room of their apartment. Mommy and Daddy are the power couple, with Mommy having near total control over Daddy and dictating most of his decisions. Grandma, Mommy's mother, is nearly voiceless in the house. though can occasionally hold sway with Daddy. Grandma keeps up an act of foolishness and naivete, when in reality she is very aware of her situation. She is constantly under threat of being taken away by the "van man". Mommy and Daddy call Mrs. Barker to demand satisfaction, although it takes them awhile to figure out why exactly she's there. The child that Mommy and Daddy bought from Mrs. Barker was too full of content, and despite mutilating the child to fit their wants, the child was unpleasing to them and eventually died. However, when the Young Man arrives, Grandma sets it up so that Mrs. Barker can present the Young Man as the replacement child: pretty on the outside but devoid of content, depth, and emotion. Grandma leaves and Mommy gets over it quickly, happy that she got satisfaction in the end.
Theme:
Albee's American Dream warns that the current generation of upper class Americans have gutted the heart and soul of what it means to be American and replaced our collective dream with a superficial, immature, materialism driving us to acquire power and wealth, but there is hope of change.
(The elements of this theme are supported below in the Analysis section)
Analysis:
Since there's no format by which to abide, I think I'm just going to separate this into chunks and address certain things separately.
-The Young Man clearly represents the modern "American dream". He lacks depth and content. ("Yup. Boy, you know what you are, don't you? You're the American dream, that's what you are" (108)). This can be related to several other parts of the play. It doesn't matter what's inside Grandma's boxes, it only matters that they look nice. The quality of the hat that Mommy buys isn't important, the name of the color is. Mrs. Barker as a person doesn't matter to Mommy, only the various titles and positions she holds do. Furthermore, Grandma is representative of the old "American dream". She's smart, hard-working, resourceful, and isn't a victim of consumerism. Unlike Mommy, it's what's inside the boxes that's important to her, and she even says that making the boxes is pretty is tiresome and makes her fingers hurt. Mommy is constantly at conflict with the old American dream: she's always arguing with Grandma and she, along with Daddy, mutilates their first child, who is similar to Grandma in that he has content. The Young Man is a result of the mutilation. He is what Mommy and Daddy want. He's the American dream, dead on the inside but beautiful on the outside.
-Gender roles play a very important role in understanding the characters of the play. As the play progresses, it becomes increasingly clear that Mommy wears the pants in the relationship between her and Daddy. She takes on a more masculine role, and as a result of this, Daddy is more feminine. We can see that he's been reduced to a more feminine role by Mommy, he's fickle and indecisive and needs her constant reassurance in order to make choices and decisions. And yet, Daddy wants to believe that he's masculine, even trying to prove it at times. This culminates when Daddy alludes to a sex change. He mentions having a surgery where he was given tubes. He tries to fight it, it seems. He mentions feeling pains in his stitches and gets a huge confidence boost when he ultimately does make the decision to open the door (this wasn't without Mommy's prodding however). But he ultimately seems to be fighting a losing battle. Grandma comes across as sexually androgynous. She mentions that given her age and her looks she could pass as either male or female, and even does pass for male when she wins the baking contest. To me, the gender roles show that women can easily have and take power, but it still takes actually male anatomy to get things done. Grandma had all the means to win that baking contest, yet she did so as a male. Mommy is the one basically dictating what happens in the apartment, yet it's Daddy who has to go through with most of the decisions. She leaves it up to him to open the door for Mrs. Barker and to call the van man. However, Mrs. Barker is able to dictate and execute as a woman, and she doesn't hesitate to remind people that she's a professional woman. This could perhaps signal a transition to female dominance, where no male is necessary for things to either be dictated or executed. Gender roles are part of the struggle for power.
-Consumerism is a motif that pops up often in the play. A lot of this ties in with the first chunk, so this will be briefer. Consumerism plays into the appearance part of the new American dream. Appearance, perception, and status are what's most important for the new American dream, and money is one of the biggest tellers of status and can greatly affect how others perceive you. It gives you power. Because of this, money, and therefore consumerism, becomes one of the most important things in society. Hell, Mommy basically says that she married Daddy for his money, and that she feels entitled to it. Mrs. Barker is the biggest symbol for consumerism. Her entire being revolves around business and she takes advantage of opportunities to improve her business. Even though Grandma is the one who arranges for the Young Man to give Mommy and Daddy satisfaction, Mrs. Barker is quick to announce that she will send them a bill in the mail. Also, despite being devoid of most other emotions, the Young Man still has a drive to make money, it's the reason he visits the apartment. The characters, save for Grandma, are often driven by their quest for power, which is through money and consumerism. ("They wanted satisfaction; they wanted their money back. That's what they wanted" (101)).
-The matter of age comes up several times as well. Mainly, in that it doesn't matter, and that it can even be better. Grandma is definitely the most "rootable" character in this bunch, despite being the oldest. And despite saying a bunch of self-deprecating things about old people, she proves a lot of those things to be incorrect through her actions. It's also Grandma's day-old cake that ends up winning the baking contest, and the old American dream that proves to be the better one (at least, that's the message we get).
-Albee incorporates Absurdist elements into his play. Although the play can't be fully classified as part of the Theater of the Absurd due to the amount of symbolism and actual meaning, the Absurdist elements are important in making the play what it is. Repetition is used to provide characterization, usually in a negative way (Ex: Daddy constantly forgets Mrs. Barker's name, belittling his intelligence). But primarily, other elements such as the illogical conversation flow, strange conclusions, and confusing dialogue are used to provide humor. I actually think the humor is used to show the seriousness of the issue Albee is having us focus on. It's all quite humorous, but then we reach the scene where Grandma describes how Mommy and Daddy brutally mutilated and ultimately murdered a child. It all seemed funny, but now everything has a much darker feel to it. And that scene forces you to go back and notice exactly what you were laughing at before. If the humor weren't there, that juxtaposition wouldn't exist, and that metaphor probably wouldn't be as powerful as it is.
-The ending seems to suggest that things won't stay the same, or that they at least might not. Grandma says that the play is ending because it's best to stop when everyone has what they think they want. ("...I don't think we'd better go any further. No, definitely not. So, let's leave things as they are right now...while everybody's happy...while everybody's got what he wants...or everybody's got what he thinks he wants" (127)) This implies that they might realize what they have isn't really what they want. So there does seem to be potential for the characters to realize that they're unhappy with their new American Dream. Also, Grandma, the old American dream, doesn't completely leave the play when she exits the apartment. She's still on stage, observing, almost as if she's waiting for the right time to come back. Why else stick around?
Sunday, October 13, 2013
The House GOP has nothing to show for its government shutdown
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-07/opinions/42792517_1_government-shutdown-house-gop-obamacare
The Editorial Board of the Washington Post takes its position on the government shutdown, and puts most of the blame squarely on Republican shoulders, while also pointing out the ineffectiveness of the strategy used by the GOP. Diction, syntax, and details are all used to effectively relay the message of the writers to the readers of the column.
The main goal of any editorial is to send a message to its readers. The readers of the Washington Post probably have an average intelligence that's above normal, so it only makes sense that the diction in the article is slightly elevated. Bigger words such as "ostensible" are used, as well as politic terms that normal readers may not know, such as "caucus". The reader is also expected to know of various programs and political figures pertaining to the government shutdown. But so as not to lose too many people, the diction as a whole is fairly colloquial, so even readers who get lost on a few words and don't know what the various programs are can still grasp the intent of the article and come away with an understanding of what the Editorial Board is trying to convey.
Syntax is used to focus attention on the consequences of the Republican Party's actions. Questions, followed by short one word sentence answers are used to slow down the reading and make you focus on each individual consequence. All of the three opening paragraphs contain such format: "Damage the livelihood of millions of Americans? Check....Waste billions of taxpayer dollars? Check....Interfere with key government operations? Check." The syntax theme established here is used later to make a different point about how the GOP came away with nothing: "Derail the hated Obamacare? Ch . . . — oh, no, wait a minute." When presenting details and facts about the shutdown, the sentences are longer and read more quickly. But when opinions are stated, the sentences become short and succinct, acting as conclusions that should be drawn from the details presented. If you got lost in the long lines of details, there are short and sweet sentences that tell you what conclusions you should draw. Because you're more likely to remember and retain all of the short sentence as opposed to the longer ones, and the article wants you to come away with their conclusions, not with the information they used to reach those conclusions.
Finally, the details the article presents are naturally going to be the ones that help their case the most. A counterargument is never really addressed, and the only information that is presented is information that supports the overall conclusion of the editorial: the Republican strategy has failed and they've severely hurt the country through their stubbornness. Personally, I agree with most of the conclusions made in the editorial, but it's rather one-sided with the information it presents. But of course, readers are much less likely to disagree with the argument if they're given information they can use to disagree, and with a tricky subject like politics it'd probably be hard to fully refute a counterargument to the point where no reader could come away completely disagreeing with the article. It's just safer to leave that information out. But still, this manipulation is important in creating an effect on readers, and leaving them with the conclusions that the editorial wants them to leave with.
So if you took away the smart use of diction, syntax, and details, what would happen? The shutdown would still be because the Republican strategy failed (and because the House GOP leaders like Boehner suck, but that's just my opinion), but the Washington Post might not as easily convince its readers of that.
The Editorial Board of the Washington Post takes its position on the government shutdown, and puts most of the blame squarely on Republican shoulders, while also pointing out the ineffectiveness of the strategy used by the GOP. Diction, syntax, and details are all used to effectively relay the message of the writers to the readers of the column.
The main goal of any editorial is to send a message to its readers. The readers of the Washington Post probably have an average intelligence that's above normal, so it only makes sense that the diction in the article is slightly elevated. Bigger words such as "ostensible" are used, as well as politic terms that normal readers may not know, such as "caucus". The reader is also expected to know of various programs and political figures pertaining to the government shutdown. But so as not to lose too many people, the diction as a whole is fairly colloquial, so even readers who get lost on a few words and don't know what the various programs are can still grasp the intent of the article and come away with an understanding of what the Editorial Board is trying to convey.
Syntax is used to focus attention on the consequences of the Republican Party's actions. Questions, followed by short one word sentence answers are used to slow down the reading and make you focus on each individual consequence. All of the three opening paragraphs contain such format: "Damage the livelihood of millions of Americans? Check....Waste billions of taxpayer dollars? Check....Interfere with key government operations? Check." The syntax theme established here is used later to make a different point about how the GOP came away with nothing: "Derail the hated Obamacare? Ch . . . — oh, no, wait a minute." When presenting details and facts about the shutdown, the sentences are longer and read more quickly. But when opinions are stated, the sentences become short and succinct, acting as conclusions that should be drawn from the details presented. If you got lost in the long lines of details, there are short and sweet sentences that tell you what conclusions you should draw. Because you're more likely to remember and retain all of the short sentence as opposed to the longer ones, and the article wants you to come away with their conclusions, not with the information they used to reach those conclusions.
Finally, the details the article presents are naturally going to be the ones that help their case the most. A counterargument is never really addressed, and the only information that is presented is information that supports the overall conclusion of the editorial: the Republican strategy has failed and they've severely hurt the country through their stubbornness. Personally, I agree with most of the conclusions made in the editorial, but it's rather one-sided with the information it presents. But of course, readers are much less likely to disagree with the argument if they're given information they can use to disagree, and with a tricky subject like politics it'd probably be hard to fully refute a counterargument to the point where no reader could come away completely disagreeing with the article. It's just safer to leave that information out. But still, this manipulation is important in creating an effect on readers, and leaving them with the conclusions that the editorial wants them to leave with.
So if you took away the smart use of diction, syntax, and details, what would happen? The shutdown would still be because the Republican strategy failed (and because the House GOP leaders like Boehner suck, but that's just my opinion), but the Washington Post might not as easily convince its readers of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)