Close Reading #1

TRUE COLORS OF ISLAMISTS

http://www.onenewsnow.com/michael-youssef/2012/09/12/true-colors-of-islamists

            In current events, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the racial movie Innocence of Muslims. In America, focus has particularly been on the Muslims’ violent responses, such as killing the American ambassador in Libya. While some Americans have been tolerant of the incident, the same cannot be said for Dr. Michael Youssef. In his article “True colors of Islamists," he paints Muslims as evil foreigners and Americans as ignorant bystanders, who have a limited amount of time to wake up and fix the situation. To create this meaning, Youssef uses bold diction, careful details, and syntax.

            Youssef uses diction to create fear in readers. Throughout the article, he chooses to use words such as “death”, “destruction” and “killing” when talking about Islamists in Egypt and Libya. Officials in Washington are referred to as acting “ignorantly” and with “naïveté”. He goes as far as to call Obama’s administration “doggedly colorblind”. In both of these cases, Youssef is using colorful, bold language to exaggerate the actions of Islamists and Americans. This creates a gap between the two, so readers can easily see how Muslims are unlike good, God-fearing Americans. An even more important point to note is the fact that he addresses his readers as “us” and “we”, and Muslims as “they”. By choosing to write “we assume” and “they will never understand”, Youssef succeeds in making Muslims seem even more distant and foreign. All together, his word choice creates a feeling that Muslims are some foreign, murderous villains, while the majority of Americans are little children who are yet to lose their innocence.

             On top of diction, Youssef’s careful choice of details paints the worst possible portrait of Islamists. Towards the beginning of the article, he chooses to include the fact that “we give Egypt $2 billion a year” in money. With a paragraph reminding everyone about the recent bloodshed in Egypt and Libya fresh in readers’ minds, it’s impossible to not feel outrage. This detail makes it seem like we are paying these leaders to kill our own people. Youssef also includes the incident in Iran in 1979, when American citizens were taken hostage “for 444 days”. In a sense, he is paralleling this incident to what is occurring today. By reminding people of how long and terrible the previous incident was, Youssef creates fear and uncertainty about how long the riots in Egypt and Libya are going to occur. The last significant detail in this article is a reference to God in the last line. This detail helps bring readers full circle; from fear and uncertainty, to hope that they just need to believe in God. In other words, it sums up his point that Muslims are the problem, God the solution.

            Finally, Youssef’s use of syntax creates a rushed feeling, that helps get his meaning across more clearly as well. This effect is mostly created through long strings of short, choppy sentence. For example: “We assume that everyone is like us. That everyone responds with gratitude to generous gestures. That everyone respects us with the same respect that we offer them.” These sentence fragments keep the article at a quicker pace than if Youssef would have combined all of those thoughts in to one long sentence. It also helps emphasize what he is trying to say within the sentences. If they had been longer, the meaning might have had less of an impact on readers. In other words, the way he writes it keeps readers more alert as he speeds along through his main points.

            Overall, Youssef’s goal to paint Muslims as the enemy was partly achieved through his choice of diction, details and syntax. Without this, he most likely would not have succeeded in getting his message across so powerfully. Whether one agrees with his view point or not, it would be hard to deny that Youssef didn’t succeed in creating a powerful message.

Open Prompt #1

Choose a character from a novel or play of recognized literary merit and write an essay in which you (a) briefly describe the standards of the fictional society in which the character exists and (b) show how the character is affected by and responds to those standards. In your essay do not merely summarize the plot.

It can easily be said that today’s society has much lower standards than those of generation’s past. With the rise of shows such as Jersey Shore and Keeping up With the Kardashians, one can hardly wonder why. It seems that few topics or behaviors are off limits any more. However, the same thing cannot be said for society in the 1800s. In Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, which is set during this time period, characters abide by a much stricter set of rules. The main character, Elizabeth Bennet, struggles to conform to these strict societal standards as she worries about her family’s reputation.

In the novel, Elizabeth lives in a middle-upper-class household. The family’s mansion is located in the English countryside. Despite the rural setting, there are still distinct societal “rules” by which characters operate throughout the novel. First off, there are clear lines drawn between classes. People are expected to show respect and to honor those who are wealthier than them, and marriage between classes is generally frowned upon. Also, relations between the sexes must be kept extremely formal in public. Women in particular are supposed to be mild-mannered, proper, and to defer to the men. Another important thing to note is that, in this society, the poor choices of one member of a family inevitably bring disgrace to the whole family.

            Elizabeth is affected by these high societal standards throughout the entire story. For example, Elizabeth’s family is ridiculed for their unacceptable behavior at a party they attend. This "unacceptable behavior" consists of her mother talking too incessantly and her sisters showing off their skills by dancing and playing the piano ad nauseam. Elizabeth behaves perfectly, but she is embarrassed and shunned by some for her family's behavior. After this party, Elizabeth is forced to go and pay her respects to Lady Catherine, an extremely wealthy widow, while on a visit with her cousin Mr. Collins. She doesn't want to, but since Lady Catherine is her superior it is expected. While there, she is also made to play the piano simply because Lady Catherine wants to hear her, even though Elizabeth (again) does not want to. 

            The responses Elizabeth has to these societal constraints in the novel are extremely conflicted. She continuously struggles with her desire to rebel and do what she wants, and with her worry for the reputation of her family. This is to say that Elizabeth does not always follow the societal norms. For example, when Elizabeth’s sister, Jane, falls ill at Mr. Bingley’s mansion and is forced to stay there, Elizabeth treks through the mud and the woods to see Jane. She arrives at the mansion dirty and disheveled (which is considered completely inappropriate for calling on someone). However, Elizabeth cared more about seeing her sister so she completely disregarded the societal standards. Another example is when Lady Catherine tells Elizabeth to not marry Darcy, (Lady Catherine's very wealthy nephew) and Elizabeth refuses. Even though Elizabeth should have submitted to her superior’s demands, she does what she wants instead. Despite this, Elizabeth still cares about her and her family’s reputations. The biggest case in point is how she freaks out when her sister Lydia runs away with an officer. She becomes terrified about how this scandal will harm her family’s reputation. While Elizabeth doesn’t follow every standard society expects of her, she remains cognizant of how her actions—and the actions of family members—will affect her family’s reputation.

            Over all, Elizabeth does attempt to follow the standards that society expects her to follow. She also worries about how society views her family. However, Elizabeth is only human, meaning she does slip up and doesn’t always follow the impossible rules and standards. If she did, Pride and Prejudice wouldn’t be a very realistic portrayal of society, would it?

Response to Course Material 9/9

Between the summer work and the first week of school, I have already learned a lot. First off, How to Read Literature Like a Professor has completely changed the way I read books and watch films. Just the other day my brother was watching a movie on Disney Channel about a minister trying to ban rap music from his town, and I immediately saw how it paralleled Footloose. It was actually kind of cool. I've also learned a lot about writing essays in these past couple of months. In fact, The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing helped a lot when I was writing an essay for my MSU application.  Instead of trying to use big words or complex sentences, I just wrote in my own voice. The essay ended up being funny, and in my opinion, one of the best I've written in a long time. Regarding the actual AP test, I was surprised to learn that all of our essays will answer "the magic question" (how an author uses techniques to create effects and meanings). I thought on some of them we would instead have to compare and contrast a couple of pieces or literature. 

Not Even David Sedaris is Perfect

The essay—to most students (including me) it’s an extremely daunting word. However, The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing by Michael Harvey breaks this task into easier, smaller pieces. Most likely, anyone could learn a thing or two from this magical little book, including famous authors such as David Sedaris. For example, in his essay “Me Talk Pretty One Day”, Sedaris discusses his experience of learning French in Paris. While Sedaris has no problem writing with concision and honesty, he could use some tips from The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing regarding flow.

Even though Sedaris could use some help with flow, he has clearly mastered the art of concision. Concision is a “leanness of words” (Harvey 1). Without concision, writing becomes “big words, self-important phrasing [and] a flat tone” (Harvey 1). In “Me Talk Pretty One Day”, Sedaris does not have a problem with wordiness. He uses simple sentences such as “I’ve moved to Paris with hopes of learning the language” (Sedaris) and “understanding doesn’t mean you can suddenly speak the same language” (Sedaris). There is not a whole lot that Sedaris can cut out of either of those sentences. He also chooses to mostly use simple English vocabulary. Sedaris could easily have replaced the word “loved” with something more pretentious-sounding such as “adored” or “cherished”, but he chose not to.   The rest of his essay is like that, too, which kept the tone lively.

“It takes honesty to say what we see and think, and courage to tell the truth” (Harvey 21). There’s no denying that Sedaris possesses such courage. He does not hesitate to admit in the beginning that he “understood only half of what this woman was saying” (Sedaris) in French. Sedaris could have tried to hide behind the passive voice and instead said “this women was little understood by the students”. However, he unflinchingly accepts the blame. Sedaris also describes a girl in his class as having “front teeth the size of tombstones” (Sedaris) and even calls his teacher a “saucebox”. Sedaris does not try to conceal his opinions behind words; rather, they’re sitting there loud and proud for the reader to view. In fact, it’s almost like the reader is inside Sedaris’s mind as the thoughts come to him.

The fact that the essay reads like it’s simply Sedaris’s inner thoughts also causes a problem: the paragraphs don’t flow because the tense constantly changes. According to Harvey, a passage “involves motion—movement from point A to point B” (Harvey 22). This does not occur enough in Sedaris’s essay. For example, in a single paragraph he comments “The first day of class was nerve-racking” (Sedaris), talks about the French teacher, reflects on how he “spent quite a few summer in Normandy, and…took a monthlong French class” (Sedaris) and then returns to more information regarding the French teacher. This whole mess occurs in the span of five sentences. Harvey believes that “repeating important terms” (Harvey 23) can help improve flow, too. However, Sedaris fails at this too. As shown in the previous example, there are no links. It feels like five separate thoughts jumbled in to a paragraph.

Nothing, and nobody, is perfect. This remains true regarding David Sedaris’s essay “Me Talk Pretty One Day”. While Sedaris had no problems with being concise and honest, his essay did not flow as well as it could have. Even he could learn something from reading The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing.