Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Response to Material #3
I've really been getting into the wood exploration thing. In analyzing The American Dream it's been really clear that it's a student discussion. You help to refine and contextualize our ideas but there's no destination that you seem to be leading us to, as promised. I like it. It really makes one think about how personal literature can be in that it's different for everyone, and how someone's observations can catalyze another's. The class has an intellectual informality to it that I really like. We haven't introduced a lot of new material, which I think is nice since we've already got so much to work with with the play. Oh, jeez, except for the terms. That's looming. I guess it's nice to go over those in class from time to time, but really the games seem like a good way to learn them. That's about it. Evan out.
Close Reading #3
http://www.good.is/post/the-hpv-vaccine-for-boys-may-be-a-tough-sell/?utm_content=headline&utm_medium=hp_carousel&utm_source=slide_1
This piece talks about the debate over the morality of vaccinating children against HPV and other sexually transmitted infections. The article establishes itself as a reasonably informed and sophisticated source with it's more elaborate word choice, using words like "quell," "promiscuity," "erroneously", and "controversy." However, an opinion slips through when the author abruptly drops to a lower level of diction when describing those against the virus, using the phrase "slut it up" in his summary of their position.
The author uses details to inform the reader of the controversy behind the trend of vaccination. She does include information from both sides of the debate, but only to discredit the opinion of those opposed to The author occasionally emphasizes a point of uncertainty by asking a rhetorical question to bring about reflection in the reader. He also used transitions like "fast forward" to smoothly switch between ideas and bring the reader toward his conclusion that the vaccinations are a good idea.
This piece talks about the debate over the morality of vaccinating children against HPV and other sexually transmitted infections. The article establishes itself as a reasonably informed and sophisticated source with it's more elaborate word choice, using words like "quell," "promiscuity," "erroneously", and "controversy." However, an opinion slips through when the author abruptly drops to a lower level of diction when describing those against the virus, using the phrase "slut it up" in his summary of their position.
The author uses details to inform the reader of the controversy behind the trend of vaccination. She does include information from both sides of the debate, but only to discredit the opinion of those opposed to The author occasionally emphasizes a point of uncertainty by asking a rhetorical question to bring about reflection in the reader. He also used transitions like "fast forward" to smoothly switch between ideas and bring the reader toward his conclusion that the vaccinations are a good idea.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Open Prompt Oct 16
In many works of literature, a physical journey - the literal movement from one place to another - plays a central role. Choose a novel, play, or epic poem in which a physical journey is an important element and discuss how the journey adds to the meaning of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
To journey is to go from one place to another. And separating these two places, nearly invariably, there are doors. Doors are barriers, gateways even, between rooms or even worlds. However, as with any preconception, this thought can be undermined. In Noises Off, Michael Frayn argues that no matter how many doors one journeys through, one cannot truly get anywhere or find meaning, and any attempts to do either of these are a waste of time.
Throughout the entire play, the stage is pandemonium as everyone seems to be trying to get everywhere all at once, but nobody gets anywhere. Doors are constantly slamming and actors traipse across the stage, bumping into each other and passing by one another in a frenzy to get to yet another door. Everyone is fixated upon the singular task of going through doors, and the only reason one would go through a door is to get somewhere. In the words of the director, "That's what it's all about: Doors and sardines." Sardines are obviously superfluous and of no importance, and the pointlessness of these doors is emphasized in this line by putting the two side by side. Despite everyone's obsession, nobody gets anywhere; every actor remains confused throughout the show and by the end hasn't grown or learned anything.
Every attempt to find meaning in the play is fruitless. Freddy, one of the actors, frequently stops rehearsal to inquire as to the meaning behind his character's actions. The god-like, seemingly omniscient director of the play, though, doesn't have answers, and even goes so far as to fabricate truth merely to placate the questioning spirit. There is one rather confusing scene in which a Sheik inexplicably resembles another character in the show. Nearly everyone is confused by this, and some brave sole dares to raise the question to the group: "Why does the Sheik look like Phillip?" This question of resemblance and relation clearly represents the deeper question of "What does it all mean?" as it is consistently brought up in times of uncertainty, even when the Sheik is nowhere present. Anytime someone asks this question, rehearsal is brought to a halt as everyone shares their opinion and nobody is convinced of anything in the end. Any attempts to find meaning are not only without success but hinder the troupe in their overall goal of putting on a show.
Hidden behind, and even within, the slapstick and scandal of a sex farce lies a post-modernistic view of the world which borders on nihilism. Frayn shows us a pointless struggle as the actors make journey after journey through countless doors but arrive nowhere, denying us of truth. Next time you go through a door, as yourself: Where are you really going?
To journey is to go from one place to another. And separating these two places, nearly invariably, there are doors. Doors are barriers, gateways even, between rooms or even worlds. However, as with any preconception, this thought can be undermined. In Noises Off, Michael Frayn argues that no matter how many doors one journeys through, one cannot truly get anywhere or find meaning, and any attempts to do either of these are a waste of time.
Throughout the entire play, the stage is pandemonium as everyone seems to be trying to get everywhere all at once, but nobody gets anywhere. Doors are constantly slamming and actors traipse across the stage, bumping into each other and passing by one another in a frenzy to get to yet another door. Everyone is fixated upon the singular task of going through doors, and the only reason one would go through a door is to get somewhere. In the words of the director, "That's what it's all about: Doors and sardines." Sardines are obviously superfluous and of no importance, and the pointlessness of these doors is emphasized in this line by putting the two side by side. Despite everyone's obsession, nobody gets anywhere; every actor remains confused throughout the show and by the end hasn't grown or learned anything.
Every attempt to find meaning in the play is fruitless. Freddy, one of the actors, frequently stops rehearsal to inquire as to the meaning behind his character's actions. The god-like, seemingly omniscient director of the play, though, doesn't have answers, and even goes so far as to fabricate truth merely to placate the questioning spirit. There is one rather confusing scene in which a Sheik inexplicably resembles another character in the show. Nearly everyone is confused by this, and some brave sole dares to raise the question to the group: "Why does the Sheik look like Phillip?" This question of resemblance and relation clearly represents the deeper question of "What does it all mean?" as it is consistently brought up in times of uncertainty, even when the Sheik is nowhere present. Anytime someone asks this question, rehearsal is brought to a halt as everyone shares their opinion and nobody is convinced of anything in the end. Any attempts to find meaning are not only without success but hinder the troupe in their overall goal of putting on a show.
Hidden behind, and even within, the slapstick and scandal of a sex farce lies a post-modernistic view of the world which borders on nihilism. Frayn shows us a pointless struggle as the actors make journey after journey through countless doors but arrive nowhere, denying us of truth. Next time you go through a door, as yourself: Where are you really going?
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Response to Material #2
Now that we've got DIDLS under our belt it's exciting to be able to use them. Reading The American Dream, I'm able to take what once would have been a generally surreal and vague "feeling" about the play and turn it into a detailed analysis of how the author creates the effects that he does. Even if I don't really see the whole relationship at once, I can begin with the smaller blocks of DIDLS and build somewhat blindly and often find myself reaching conclusions I had already sort of "felt" but hadn't really been able to put my finger on. I'm looking forward to seeing what Holmes and the other kids can find with the same tools so that I can get a better sense of what I should be doing with them. It's also been really helpful to be able to work so closely with groups because writing is an area where I can get sometimes stuck in a one-track area and it's really helpful to bounce things off of people, particularly when theses are new techniques I'm using to analyze literature in an insightful way.
Close Reading #2
Your Key to Happy Sailing
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/18/v-fullstory/2397129/your-key-to-happy-sailing.html
Dave Barry has a very distinctive style of writing, and one that lends itself quite nicely to a close reading. He writes this to parody the style of an informative and instructive guide to sailing. He mirrors the structure with his opening sentences: "First, you'll need a boat." "The second feature is very important." "Once you're on the boat..." etc. However, it is clear that despite these syntactic parallels he is not in earnest, as one finds that he uses contradicting diction and details to create a tone of incompetence and frivolity.
His diction incorporates a wide variety of nautical terms when he lists the names of boats and describes a potential way to get a ahold of a boat, but this is harshly contradicted by details suggesting an utter lack of knowledge about seafaring; his instructions are inane, like when he advises one to "check to make sure that the wind is blowing in the right direction (horizontally)" or recommends that the best way of getting into port is to tell your crew to take you into port.
Barry uses imagery very specifically; only once in the piece does he delve into a sensory experience, and it's at a point when he's recalling a memory rather than advising readers in the ways of boating. He describes a disgusting plate of food, recounting himself and the crew "watching it congeal under the Florida sun." This technique brings about revulsion in readers, causing us to look into his advice about sailing with a clear idea of Barry's true thoughts on the subject.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/18/v-fullstory/2397129/your-key-to-happy-sailing.html
Dave Barry has a very distinctive style of writing, and one that lends itself quite nicely to a close reading. He writes this to parody the style of an informative and instructive guide to sailing. He mirrors the structure with his opening sentences: "First, you'll need a boat." "The second feature is very important." "Once you're on the boat..." etc. However, it is clear that despite these syntactic parallels he is not in earnest, as one finds that he uses contradicting diction and details to create a tone of incompetence and frivolity.
His diction incorporates a wide variety of nautical terms when he lists the names of boats and describes a potential way to get a ahold of a boat, but this is harshly contradicted by details suggesting an utter lack of knowledge about seafaring; his instructions are inane, like when he advises one to "check to make sure that the wind is blowing in the right direction (horizontally)" or recommends that the best way of getting into port is to tell your crew to take you into port.
Barry uses imagery very specifically; only once in the piece does he delve into a sensory experience, and it's at a point when he's recalling a memory rather than advising readers in the ways of boating. He describes a disgusting plate of food, recounting himself and the crew "watching it congeal under the Florida sun." This technique brings about revulsion in readers, causing us to look into his advice about sailing with a clear idea of Barry's true thoughts on the subject.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Open Prompt Oct 1
2004, Form B. The most important themes in literature are sometimes developed in scenes in which a death or deaths take place. Choose a novel or play and write a well-organized essay in which you show how a specific death scene helps to illuminate the meaning of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.
Our time on this world is brief. In the grand scheme of things we're but a flicker. But in that time, we can live and love and question and grow and learn. And being a sperm whale several miles above an alien planet plummeting towards the ground doesn't change that. The death of the whale in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy raises questions about the significance of life and whether living it is futile or noble, deepening the novel's exploration of relative significance. The whale's demise is a way of saying that we'll never really figure things out.
The nature of the whale's death is a direct result of something occurring throughout the entirety of his life: He is falling. From the moment he entered the world, the laws of the universe were at work bringing him closer and closer each moment to his inevitable demise. It makes the reader wonder: Do the thoughts going through the whale's head really matter? No matter what he thinks or does he'll hit the ground with a splat in a few short minutes. He's powerless to control his fate; although he possesses the free will to think and explore within the parameters of his ability, that represents only the tiniest imperceptible adjustment to his course in the grand scheme of things. Adams makes us wonder if our lives are like that of the whale. Time inevitably draws each of us to death and we can only flail about in the air before landing with a thud in death's embrace.
While the whale does make some headway in figuring out the world and his place in it, he never really arrives at anything substantial in his brief existence. As he sees the world, giving names to ideas and experimenting with his abilities, he has an unshaken optimism about him. Just as the whale begins to make sense of the world and find his place in it, however, the whale dies. Adams thus illustrates the brevity of life and futility in finding out just how and why it works in its short course.
Although the whale's part in the novel is brief, it is deeply significant to the underlying messages of the novel and demonstrates beautifully and briefly the ideas that Adams wishes to get across. The whale is confusion. The whale is futility. The whale is inevitable. The whale is dead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)