Close Reading #4

Mike Adams: A Queer Need for Rejection

http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147529920

            These days, Gay rights are obviously a much-disputed issue. In “Mike Adams: A Queer Need for Rejection,” Adams focuses in on homosexual activism. He argues that homosexuals are activists who only try to join religious organizations for their own political benefit, and that they’re trying to repress peoples’ freedom of speech, among other things. Adams develops his scathing message about homosexuals through his use of details, diction, and syntax.

            Adams is careful in the details that he chooses to include. Specifically, he chooses to talk about the civil rights movement, and relate that to the Gay rights movement that is going on today. He writes that the civil rights movement “has become little more than a mechanism used to suppress political speech,” and then writes “redefining homophobia now serves the same function.” By choosing to relate the civil rights movement to homosexual activists, Adams strengthened his message because it provides people with an example to compare this current issue with. Plus, the whole idea of suppressing “political speech” makes the homosexual rights movement seem unconstitutional, which further makes the movement seem like a bad thing to readers.

             Perhaps Adams biggest ally in creating his message was diction. First off, he never once refers to the homosexual activists as people. Adams uses words like “they,” “homosexuals” and “activists,” but never once as even “these people.” This helps to de-humanize homosexuals, which makes readers sympathize a whole lot less with Gay people. This divide grew even wider when Adams appealed to the readers, writing “isn’t that similar to what we have seen…” This strengthens Adams message because it makes homosexual activists seem like these aliens, these things that simply don’t belong with “us.” At that point, it would be easier for readers to believe Adams’ message.

            Finally, the author uses a lot of sentence variety to lend more legitimacy to his writing. For example, Adams writes “so they become targets of homosexual activism. Paradoxically, homosexual activists also target conservative Christians because being rejected by them is an important part of the process…” It is sentence structure like this that makes him come across as more educated, and therefore as having more of a legitimate opinion. Because of this, readers are more likely to believe the message, no matter what the message actually is. If someone were to read one opinion in a People magazine, and an opinion on the same issue by a Harvard professor, they would be more apt to believe the Harvard professor, no matter what either of the opinions said.

            In other words, Adams’ opinion/message is helped greatly by his use of these three techniques. His view that the homosexual rights movement is completely stupid and even repressive is obviously extremely strong. However, he gets that message across easier and more persuasively to readers through his almost clever use of details, diction, and syntax.

Open Prompt #4

1990. Choose a novel or play that depicts a conflict between a parent (or a parental figure) and a son or daughter. Write an essay in which you analyze the sources of the conflict and explain how the conflict contributes to the meaning of the work. Avoid plot summary.

Conflicts between parents and their children are a common occurrence. However, a conflict that spans many years and continuously deepens is more unusual and significant. In Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman, such a conflict arises between Willy and his son, Biff. Their conflict begins with Biff catching his father having an extramarital affair, and deepens as the play continues. This conflict contributes greatly to the overall theme of illusions versus reality present in Death of a Salesman.

The conflict between Biff and Willy begins when Biff catches Willy having an affair with another woman in Boston. This event is when Biff loses his innocence and is forced to open his eyes to who his father really is. Before, he looked up to and worshipped Willy. After this event, however, Biff never again looks up to his father in the same way. Willy is also drastically changed by this event. He is terrified that he has lost his son’s love and respect. This change in their once almost lover-esque relationship is what begins the conflict.

                  Their conflict deepens as Willy tries to live his own dreams through Biff, and Biff refuses. Throughout Death of a Salesman, Biff expresses his desire to move out west and live on a farm. He does not want to stay in the city and become a salesman like his father. However, for Willy, living out west isn’t good enough. In his mind, Biff needs to go into business and become wealthy and respected. This dream that Willy has for Biff stems from his own shortcomings. Biff represents this savior for Willy, his last hope for true success. Biff tries to appease his father for a short time, but then decides to live the life he wants instead. Biff’s decision to refuse his father’s wishes stems back to when he caught Willy having the affair in Boston. Before that event, had Willy told Biff to go into business, Biff probably would have gone along. Perhaps that might be the biggest reason for their conflict: Willy wants to control Biff, but he no longer can.

                  Willy and Biff’s conflict contributes to the meaning of Death of a Salesman because it contributes to the overall theme of illusions versus reality. When Biff sees his father having an affair, Biff suddenly stops believing all of his father’s lies. His eyes are opened to the reality that his father is not perfect, and that he’s not an amazing salesman. As Biff and Willy’s conflict later deepens, Willy continuously tries to pull Biff back under this illusion that Biff was great in business and has these connections. Biff, on the other hand, tries to pull his father out of the illusion that he could still be this great businessman. He tries to open his father’s eyes to the reality of their situation.

                  Overall, the fracture in Willy and Biff’s relationship is extremely deep. What begins as a fight between Biff and Willy when Biff catches his father cheating turns into a bitter, irreconcilable conflict between the two of them. Biff’s refusal to appease Willy’s illusions contributes to a theme of illusions versus reality that is very much present in the play. 

Death of a Salesman Analysis

Author Arthur Miller

Setting 1940s, post-World War 2. The majority of the play takes place in the Loman’s house, which is located in New York. Willy’s “flashbacks” occur somewhere in the 1920s.

Characters

-Willy Loman: salesman, married to Linda. Has as affair with “the woman.” Willy is extremely proud and refuses to accept reality. Has flashbacks throughout the play.

-Linda: Extremely loyal to Willy. Treats Willy like he’s her baby, and blames Biff for what’s happening to him.

-Biff: Son of Willy and Linda. Has Jesus-like qualities, but considered “expired” because he’s 34, not 33. Wants to be a farmer, but Willy doesn’t approve.

-Happy: Son of Willy and Linda. Neither parent really cares about him.

-Bernard: Charley’s son. Worked hard throughout school and is now a successful lawyer.

-The Woman: woman that Willy has an affair with.

-Charley: Willy’s neighbor. Offers Willy a job, and helps him out financially.

-Uncle Ben: Willy’s extremely successful brother. Dead. Often appears in Willy’s flashbacks.

Plot

The play opens with Willy returning early from a business trip. Linda comes in, worried that Willy smashed the car again. Willy and Linda talk about Biff, and Willy makes it clear that he thinks Biff should be in business (not farming). Meanwhile, Happy and Biff are conversing in their own room. They talk about sleeping with women, jobs, and their concerns for Willy. Biff says he wants to buy a ranch and work on a farm. During this, Willy has gone down to the kitchen and is having a flashback. In this scene, Biff and Happy both worship Willy. However, it is clear that Linda and Willy are in debt, and that Willy is insecure with his abilities as a salesman. The scene then switches to Willy in a hotel room with a woman. They kiss and he gives her stockings. The scene switches back to the previous flashback, and Willy gets angry with Linda for mending her stockings. Then he gets mad that Biff is flunking math and “rough with the girls.” Willy comes back to the present, and notices Happy is now in the kitchen. He’s dismissive of Happy’s attempts to comfort him, and then Charley enters the scene. Charley and Willy play cards, and Willy begins having a conversation with an imaginary Ben mainly about Ben’s financial success. Charley and Willy fight, and Charley leaves. Willy flashes back again and worries that he isn’t raising his boys correctly, and asks Ben for his approval. He walks out of the house, past Linda, and continues talking with himself. Biff and Happy come down and notice that something is wrong with Willy. Linda admits that Willy has been trying to kill himself. Willy enters the house, angry at Biff. Biff tells him that he’s going to see Bill Oliver tomorrow to go into business, and Willy becomes excited. After some more talk, everyone goes to bed.

The following day, Willy wakes up happy and drives into the city to talk with his boss, Howard. He asks to be transferred to a job in the city that wouldn’t require travelling. Howard refuses, and fires Willy. Willy lapses back to the time when Ben offered him a job in Alaska. Meanwhile, he walks to Charley’s work building, and runs into Bernard. He asks Bernard why Biff threw his life away, and Bernard pins it back to when Biff visited Willy in Boston. Charley comes out and gives Willy money for the week. Willy admits that he’d be worth more dead than alive.  The scene switches then, with Happy and Biff waiting in a restaurant for their dad. Biff says Oliver didn’t even remember him, and asks Happy to help him tell Willy the truth. Willy arrives, but refuses to listen, so Biff lies and says that he has lunch with Oliver tomorrow. Willy exits to the bathroom, and Biff angrily leaves the restaurant. Happy follows with two women. Willy flashes back to the hotel room and the woman. Biff walks in to talk about failing math, and discovers that his father is having an affair. Willy comes back to the present, and leaves the restaurant to go buy seeds. The scene changes, and Happy and Biff enter the house. Linda yells at them for leaving Willy in the restaurant. Biff goes out to talk with Willy. They fight, and Biff ends up crying to Willy, begging him to let him go. Willy is thrilled to realize that Biff “likes” him. Everyone goes to bed except Willy, who leaves in his car and kills himself.

In the requiem, Biff, Linda, Charley, Happy and Bernard attend Willy’s funeral. Biff reveals he’s leaving the city, but Happy decides to stay in the city.

Style

-There is no narrative voice in this piece because it is a play.

-Miller apparently has a negative point of view towards the capitalistic system in the United States. I didn’t get this as much from reading the play, so much as from reading the outside interviews.

-He doesn’t use imagery that often, which might be why this play isn’t as impactful as, say, The American Dream.

-There is definitely symbolism throughout the play. Two prime examples of this are Willy and Linda. Because what Willy Loman sells is never specified, Willy himself becomes this universal character that symbolizes the plight of the working businessman. Linda comes to represent the “Madonna” that men of the time period married.

Quotes

1.     “Attention, attention must be finally paid to such a person” (Miller 56). –Linda, referring to Willy

v Comment on how people in general have a duty to one another. Also a comment on how business has discarded Willy (read: capitalism/business=cold and bad)

2.     “He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine” (Miller 138). –Charley, referring to Willy

v This line simply intrigues me, because it doesn’t sound like something Charley would say. It also makes Willy seem like this helpless, lost ship. This furthers Biff’s point that Willy was always “lost” in the sense that he never had the right dreams.

Theme

Capitalism=bad.

This is a central theme Miller explores in DOS. One main way he develops this theme is through plot. Obviously, Willy lives in the USA, and therefore lives in a capitalistic society. Throughout the novel, he tries to appeal to peoples’ emotions and sentiments. However, he fails every time. For example, when Willy pleads with Howard for his job, Willy tries to bring up how he’s known Howard since he was a baby. However, this has zero effect on Howard. The fact of the matter is that business is cold, impersonal and cut-throat. Miller furthers this theme with the dialogue/character development of Linda. Linda constantly comments on how attention must be paid to Willy, that society and her sons need to help him because Willy is a human. Like Willy, she tries to get people in this capitalistic society to realize that people have a duty to help each other. However, this is lost on a lot of people. Happy and Biff don’t help much with supporting their own father, Howard treats Willy like dirt, and business itself helps drive Willy towards his death. All of this business and greed is a comment on capitalism itself. Miller portrays this capitalistic society as completely void of empathy.

Response to Course Material 12/2

In these past few weeks, we have pretty much 1.) wrapped up Death of a Salesman, and 2.) started Hamlet.

First off, I must say that, after working with this DOS so much in class, my opinions on certain characters have changed. I still strongly dislike Willy and Linda. If anything, my hatred for them has grown. In my opinion, Willy and Linda are two terrible human beings. Willy always sucked at being a salesman, yet his pride kept him from switching to being a carpenter. I can't stand how proud he is. It's one of my pet peeves. However, I've come to like Biff, Charley, and Bernard. I also sympathize with Happy, because his parents treat him like utter crap, and he really only wants their approval.

The reading dealing with DOS that Ms. Holmes assigned us was actually very useful. When I first heard about the assignment, I groaned because it was yet ANOTHER thing to read and analyze. However, I actually enjoyed it. One thing that surprised me was how much I hated Arthur Miller. I honestly had no idea that someone could come across as so pompous in a 5-some page interview! It also surprised me that I didn't interpret the play at all how Miller did.

Anyways, that play is behind us and we're now on Hamlet. I must say that Shakespeare has never been my favorite. In the past, I've struggled deciphering what the freak characters are actually saying. I also generally dislike the stories (ESPECIALLY Romeo and Juliet). I've liked Hamlet so far, though. The plot is interesting, and the text hasn't been as hard to read. Hopefully things continue like this.

Close Reading #3

50 Years of Progress Should Not Be Erased With One Ruling        

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-al-sharpton/50-years-of-progress-shou_b_1939774.html

Whether affirmative action among higher education institutions is legal or not is an issue that is currently being debated. This is partly due to the upcoming Supreme Court case, Fisher v. University of Texas. Reverend Al Sharpton makes his position on the matter quite clear in his article “50 Years of Progress Should Not Be Erased With One Ruling.” He argues that affirmative action is crucial; that the case must uphold it. Fischer creates this strong message through his use of diction, details, and syntax.

Fischer is careful with his use of diction to frame the issue of affirmative action. First off, he makes sure the upcoming Supreme Court case seem important to everyone, by saying it will have “national repercussions.” This appeal to the people is even more apparent with his use of the word “we.” For example, Fischer writes “we cannot allow,” “it’s vital for us,” and “we cannot blame” throughout the article. Using the pronoun “we” instead of “I” obviously sounds more inclusive, and makes readers feel like they have a connection with the issue, that maybe it’s more important to them than they initially thought. Another important point is how Fischer associates the words “inclusion and diversity” with affirmative action. Obviously, those words make the opposite (getting rid of affirmative action) seem like exclusion/racism/conformity. Since “inclusion and diversity” is what most strive for in this melting pot nation, the diction here paints affirmative action in a very favorable light.

Fischer’s choice of details also helps affirmative action seem like a very important issue. For example, Fischer open with a story about James Meredith, “the first black student to enroll at the [University of Mississippi].” He argues that the progress Meredith made will be erased with this one ruling. This creates anxiety and urgency among readers because almost no one wants to return to the days of segregation. Meredith later includes the fact that there is a danger of “black and Latino students [falling] behind.” This also lends a feeling of urgency to affirmative action because certain ethnic groups are already poorer on average than whites; it would obviously be very bad for these gaps to worsen. Blacks and Latinos being less educated would lead to them being less financially successful, which would lead to these worsening gaps.

Finally, Fischer’s use of syntax helps him create a stronger argument for keeping affirmative action. First off, his sentence structure is well thought-out and scholarly. For example, he writes “That’s precisely why it’s vital for all of us to be there in Washington, D.C. next week and let our voices be heard.” These longer sentences make up the majority of the writing. This style makes Fischer sound much more educated than if he had written his article using sentence fragments or short, choppy phrases. Writing in a more educated style makes Fischer’s argument sound more credible, and therefore stronger. All of this is not to say that there is no sentence variety. There are some shorter sentences interspersed, which helps to emphasize some of Fischer’s bigger points. For example, he writes, “far too much is at stake for us to remain silent.” This comparatively shorter sentence helps his point that people need to take action stand out, which therefore makes Fischer’s message stronger.

Overall, Fischer uses diction, details, and syntax to create a message that is both urgent and powerful. Even if one had no idea what affirmative action was before this article, it would be impossible to come away from reading it without at least believing that it was an important, relevant issue. 

Open Prompt #3

1996. The British novelist Fay Weldon offers this observation about happy endings. "The writers, I do believe, who get the best and most lasting response from their readers are the writers who offer a happy ending through moral development. By a happy ending, I do not mean mere fortunate events -- a marriage or a last minute rescue from death -- but some kind of spiritual reassessment or moral reconciliation, even with the self, even at death." Choose a novel or play that has the kind of ending Weldon describes. In a well-written essay, identify the "spiritual reassessment or moral reconciliation" evident in the ending and explain its significance in the work as a whole.

Most people would think of a man marrying a woman he does not love, and allowing the love of his life to leave, as a very sad ending. This is what occurs in Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence, a story that centers on a man named Newland Archer living in upper class New York society during the 1870s. While this might not be a classic fairytale ending, it can nonetheless be deemed happy. This is due to the moral growth that Newland goes through, and due to the fact that the event highlights the brighter aspects of New York society.

 During the story, Newland is not the most honest person. He has a conflict of interests—he’s married to a proper woman named Mary, yet he is not in love with her. On the other hand, he is extremely attracted to her cousin, Countess Ellen Olenska (who happens to be married to a Polish Count). At one point he lies to Mary about having to go on a business trip, and instead goes to Boston to see Countess Olenska. After a while, Ellen agrees to begin an affair with Newland. However, she then decides that New York Society isn’t for her and makes plans to return to Europe. By this point, Newland has lost all interest in maintaining any form of a relationship with Mary, and informs Ellen that he too is leaving New York to come with her to Europe.

                  

Despite this intention, Newland ultimately decides to stay in New York and remain married to Mary. A huge factor in his decision is his discovery that Mary is pregnant. Obviously, him remaining in New York is not the desired ending. He does not love Mary, even hates her at times. Plus, he forces himself to let go of Ellen, the love of his life, for good. However, it shows a great amount of maturity and moral development. By remaining with Mary, Newland is finally acknowledging that his actions have consequences, and that he has a duty to support his wife and unborn child. After all, nobody forced him to marry Mary. However, it is not until the conclusion of the book that he truly takes responsibility for these actions.

                  

This moral reconciliation is significant because it finally shows the better aspects of the New York society. Throughout The Age of Innocence, the reader becomes disillusioned with the society just as Newland does. After all, Newland feels pressured to marry Mary because of this society. On top of that, Mary, who is seen as a true upper class New Yorker, is extremely boring and unimaginative. However, it is this same society that helps lead Newland to the right choice at the end of the book. In fact, it was Mary who got Ellen to return to Europe (in hopes of separating the two) to remove the temptation. Most of the women in this society knew about these actions, and approved of them. Manipulative, yes, but Newland was manipulative too when he was trying to have an affair with Ellen. Removing this temptation helped lead Newland to his decision to end the affair once and for all. New York society helped lead him to this decision. While the values might be old and the crowd stuffy, the book finally revealed that not all their values need change.

                  

Over all, Newland is a dishonest man, unwilling to take responsibility for most of Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence. While he chooses to let go of the woman he truly loves in the end, the moral growth and reconciliation he finally achieves makes the ending happier. This conclusion is significant to the work as a whole because it highlights the better side of New York Society, after the author has disillusioned readers from it from the very first page. So, the ending might not be a storybook, idealistic ending, but it is happy nonetheless.

Response to Course Material 11/4

If possible, the characters in Death of a Salesman are frustrating me even more than the characters did in The American Dream. First off, the mom tries to pretend everything is okay and puts up with her husband's crap, and the sons are slackers who never grew up. By far and large, however, Willy is the person who I hate the most. I mean, HE FREAKING CHEATED ON HIS WIFE. There is no excuse for that. He's so fragile, and unable to accept the fact that he's not the most rich or successful person in America. It's like he never grew up, which is ridiculous. I mean, he turns down a job offer or two because he feels it's "beneath him." He needed to put his big-boy pants on and DEAL WITH IT. I don't view him as a victim; I believe what happened to Willy was his own fault.

Anyway, I noticed that this play is still very much focused on capitalism and the american dream, just like The American Dream. I guess this is different, though, because the Loman family is struggling financially and aren't tearing children apart. This coursework is starting to feel a little repetitive, though. Even the reading in our textbooks dealt with similar topics. I understand that I'm gaining different perspectives on capitalism, and this idea of the "american dream," but I would like to move on to a different issue, please.

The American Dream

Author Edward Albee

Setting 1950s America (post WW2, during the rise of consumerism). The play is centered in Mommy and Daddy’s apartment, specifically the living room.

Characters

-Mommy: Daughter of Grandma. Mommy is obsessed with power and material possessions. In her relationship with Daddy, she plays the more masculine role.

-Daddy: Wife to Mommy, has many feminine characteristics.

-Grandma: represents the old American dream. Resourceful, intelligent, and VERY sarcastic (this sarcasm is lost on the other characters, however)

-Mrs. Barker: Chairman of a woman’s club that Mommy belongs to, and a part of “Bye Bye Adoption Service.” Her husband is in a wheel chair. Often referred to as “them” in the play.

-Young Man: Represents the new American dream (a beautiful but hollow shell of the old one). Communicates well with Grandma. Adopted by Mommy and Daddy.

Plot

At the beginning of the play, Mommy and Daddy are sitting in the living room, complaining about how “they” are always late. The audience discovers Mommy and Daddy need something fixed, and that they can’t get satisfaction. Mommy forces Daddy to pay attention as she tells him a pointless story about a hat she bought yesterday. Later, Grandma arrives with an armful of boxes. Mommy and Daddy focus on how beautifully-wrapped these boxes are, while Grandma couldn’t care less. After that, Mommy tells another story about the lunchbox Grandma sent her with every day when she was younger. Mommy then tells how she believes she has a right to live off of Daddy. Grandma remembering how Mommy always wanted to marry a rich man when she was younger reinforces this. Suddenly, the doorbell rings, and Mommy emasculates Daddy to get him to open the door. Mrs. Barker (a/k/a “they”) arrives, but Grandma can’t see her. She removes her dress, which turns Daddy on and makes Mommy jealous. They begin conversing, and Daddy admits that he had a sex transplant. Throughout the conversation, Daddy is unable to remember Mrs. Barker’s name, while Grandma and Mommy constantly argue. Mommy also threatens Grandma that they’ll have her carted away by a van man if she doesn’t start behaving better. Eventually, Mommy commands Daddy to go destroy Grandma’s TV. Since Daddy is gone, Mommy wants to have some “girl talk” with Mrs. Barker. However, Mrs. Barker says she feels faint and Mommy instead leaves to get her some water. While she’s gone, Grandma tells Barker a story about a woman “very much like Mommy” and a man “very much like Daddy.” According to Grandma, this man and woman adopted a child from Bye Bye Adoption Service. When the child (referred to as an “it”) didn’t do exactly what they wanted it to do, the man and woman tore it apart limb from limb. Eventually, they killed it. Mrs. Barker expresses her agreement with what the man and woman did as she hears this. Meanwhile, Mommy and Daddy are unable to find anything in the apartment. Because of this, Mrs. Barker leaves to get the glass of water herself. At this point, the Young Man enters the scene. Him and Grandma talk for a while, and Grandma tells him that he is the American Dream. The Young Man confesses that he is there looking for work. Grandma tells him that she has a lot of money from a baking contest, where she entered a cake called “Uncle Henry’s Day-Old Cake.” Upon hearing this, the Young Man confesses that he’d do anything more money, because he has no particular talents. He’s empty. He then tells the story about how he used to have a twin, but that they were separated when they were young. Then, from time to time, he would feel these twinges (e.g. his eyes burned) until one day he couldn’t feel anything anymore. As Mrs. Barker re-enters the room, Grandma makes the Young Man pretend to be the van man. Grandma leaves with her boxes, and leaves the Young Man in the house. Grandma now comes out of the play and becomes a part of the audience. Mommy and Daddy adopt the Young Man, and Mommy finally has satisfaction.

Style

-There is no narrative voice in this piece because it is a play. However, Grandma plays somewhat of a narrator towards the end because she begins to address the audience directly.

-Over all, Albee is quite critical towards the way current American society is. He portrays Mommy, the Young Man, and even Daddy as quite selfish and materialistic. After all, the Young Man is willing to do anything for money, and Mommy and Daddy rip apart and eventually kill a child. Grandma, on the other hand, is resourceful and kind.

-The imagery used in this book is especially vivid when Grandma describes how Mommy and Daddy rip the child apart. This makes the action stand out from the rest of the play. A lot of imagery is also used when the Young Man is describing how he feels nothing. Again this is used to make Albee’s point (that the new American dream is hollow) stand out.

-Albee uses symbolism heavily in The American Dream. Grandma represents the old American dream, while the young man represents the new American dream. Mrs. Barker stands in to represent government. This helps the play to be a comment on society as a whole; it makes the play bigger than itself.

Quotes

1.) “You’re turning into jelly; you’re indecisive; you’re a woman.” (Mommy to Daddy)

-This single quote sums up Mommy and Daddy’s relationship with each other. Mommy is emasculating Daddy as she says this, and also showing how masculine and controlling she is. Also, Daddy tolerates this abuse, which shows just how feminine he is.

2.) “Oh no; we’re much too efficient for that.” (Mrs. Barker to Daddy)

-Because Mrs. Barker refers to herself as “we,” this shows that she is standing in for someone bigger than herself. This emphasis on efficiency is also consistent to values of the new American society/dream.

3.) “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.” (Grandma to audience)

-This ending was bitter. It’s clear from this line that Mommy and Daddy are only temporarily satisfied. It’s clearly a comment on American society how nothing is ever good enough. Also, because Grandma addresses the audience, this makes her seem more relatable—who the audience should aspire to be.

Theme

People need to return to the old American dream, because the new one is materialistic and lacking real values.

This is seen quite clearly with plot and symbolism. Throughout the play, Grandma represents the old American dream, while the Young Man represents the new one. Grandma is resourceful (e.g. making thousands off of day-old cake) and kind (e.g. she wouldn’t eat dinner when Mommy was a child so Mommy could have lunch the next day). The Young Man, on the other hand, claims he’ll do anything for money and even admits that he is empty. At the end of the play, the Young Man replaces Grandma, symbolizing the replacement of the old American dream with the new one in American society. Another element that supports this is the characterization of Mommy and Daddy. They both constantly want more products for satisfaction and are never happy with what they have. The fact that they love the Young Man shows that they are pursuing the new American dream. Because they are so materialistic, this shows that the new American dream is materialistic, just like them.

Close Reading #2

Bryan Fischer: We have forgotten God. That's why all this happened.
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147524440

            In the article "Bryan Fischer: We have forgotten God. Thats why all this has happened," Bryan Fischer argues that the separation of church from state is the root of America’s problems. In other words, he believes that prohibiting prayer in our public schools system led to increased homicide, rape, etc. While he uses diction and details to create this meaning, his use of syntax is extremely detrimental to his goal in this article.

            Fischer is very careful with the details he chooses to include. His whole article, in fact, only focuses on how the United States is worse off as a society now then it was in 1962 (when compulsory school prayer was declared illegal). According to Fischer, “SAT scores began to plummet almost immediately” and “the rate at which teens were arrested for rape…and murder shot through the roof.” He also claims that the “nuclear family is breaking apart” and that the “sexual and physical abuse of children is out of control.” Obviously, these details are playing on people’s emotions. Of course no one is happy about increased murder rates, or happy that sexual abuse of children is apparently on the rise. Fischer uses these to his advantage because while scaring people, he also provides a solution (re-starting organized school prayer). When people are scared, or the situation is desperate, as Fischer paints it to be, history shows us (just look at the Nazis) that people are more likely to look towards extreme solutions.

            Fischer also uses strong diction to strike fear in the hearts of readers. For example, teen births have “skyrocket[ted]” and school violence is “shooting through the ceiling.” These words make it seem like these issues are extremely out of control, doesn’t it? On top of that, he chooses scary, colorful words like “massacres”, “catastrophic” and “destroyed”. This word choice certainly makes our nation seem like a dangerous, scary place. Whether our current situation is "catastrophic" or not, Fischer makes sure to associate colorful words such as this with our nation. This is a scary thought, which could make readers more likely to accept Fischer's message as the solution to our problems.             

The overly wordy sentence structures in the article detract from the meaning that Fischer is trying to create. For example, the article opens with: “The quote that serves as the title of this column was spoken by Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, who had witnessed the horrible and devastating consequences in the life of a nation that turned its back on God.” There are some shorter sentences throughout the article; however, the majority are long, wordy sentences.  This detracts from the message of the article because it’s too hard to maintain interest and remember what the sentence was saying by the time you finish reading it. The syntax makes the issue seem very boring and unimportant.

            Overall, Fischer uses details and diction very much to his advantage. He chose the scariest, most horrific details and words to associate with the current state of our nation. This created a powerful message over all. However, it could have been much stronger if Fischer had thought to consider syntax.

Open Prompt #2

1980. A recurring theme in literature is the classic war between a passion and responsibility. For instance, a personal cause, a love, a desire for revenge, a determination to redress a wrong, or some other emotion or drive may conflict with moral duty. Choose a literary work in which a character confronts the demands of a private passion that conflicts with his or her responsibilities. In a well-written essay show clearly the nature of the conflict, its effects upon the character, and its significance to the work.

            If you had the choice between a life of security and respectability, or a life of passion, which one would you choose? Or would you try to have it all? In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby, this is the choice that Daisy Buchanan must make more than once, and it his her difficulties making this choice that causes problems for her—as well as for others.

Throughout the work, Daisy Buchanan must deal with her conflicting feelings between Tom Buchanan and Jay Gatsby. Tom is a good American, who attended college and has loads of money. In other words, he is the respectable man for Daisy to marry. He is the man her family expects her to pick. However, Daisy is passionately in love with another man, Jay Gatsby. The problem is that Gatsby does not have a respectable family name, a respectable job, or a respectable amount of money. This is the conflict that Daisy deals with before marrying Tom. The majority of the book explores this issue later in their lives, after Daisy has already been married to Tom and has a child. Jay Gatsby moves into the house across from the Buchanan’s, and him and Daisy end up meeting to have tea. From that point on, Daisy wrestles between her feelings and passion for Jay Gatsby, and her desire to remain wife to Tom Buchanan.

            Daisy’s conflicting feelings cause many problems for her. In fact, the night before her wedding to Tom, Daisy drinks herself into a stupor and almost calls the whole wedding off. Many years later, Daisy does not hold many moral dilemmas about starting an affair with Jay Gatsby. However, she refuses to leave or tell Tom about the affair (as Gatsby wants her to do). This causes problems as Tom begins to invite Jay to parties and dinners. Neither Daisy nor Gatsby can hide their love for each other, and Tom does not remain oblivious for long. The conflict comes to a head when Tom, Daisy, and Jay all find themselves in a private room during a sweltering day in New York City. Gatsby and Tom have a confrontation, and Daisy is forced to choose between the two of them. She realizes she cannot have the best of both worlds, and chooses respect and security over passion. Driving home, in her anger and sadness, she hits a woman and kills her.

            Daisy’s personal war between her passion and her responsibility plays a significant role in The Great Gatsby. Her conflicting feelings are the driving force of the novel. Jay’s whole reason for moving close to the Buchanan’s, the reason that he throws these huge parties, is all for Daisy. If Daisy did not have feelings for Gatsby, there would be no novel. This conflict that she has plays a particularly significant role at the end of the novel, when she hits that woman. The woman wasn’t some random stranger; it was actually Tom’s mistress. This is ironic, since the day Daisy’s affair with Jay ends, Tom’s affair with his mistress ends as well. That irony would not be present if it wasn’t for Daisy’s internal conflict.

            Over all, Daisy’s internal struggle between her love for Jay Gatsby and societal obligation to her husband, Tom Buchanan, causes problems not only for her, but for other characters as well in The Great Gatsby. She refuses to accept the fact that she will never be able to have everything that she wants. It’s simply not possible for her to have both men, which Daisy does not realize until the end.

Response to Course Material 10/7

Boy, has this class been moving quickly. I feel like there has been so many packets of information thrown at us since the last "Response to Course Material" post. Luckily, I already had a good grasp on the literary movements (thank you, Ms. Huntley) but it's still a lot to process. The biblical stories were probably the hardest for me to remember. I only knew a few of the stories, whereas I recognized everything that was presented on Greek mythology.

...Then we read The American Dream. That play is unlike anything that I have ever read. The first time through reading it, I couldn't make sense of it. I had no idea what to think about the play, let alone what it was even about. It wasn't until Ms. Holmes handed out that life-saving packet that explained everything. Suddenly, the play was crystal clear--of course Grandma represents the old American Dream! And isn't it obvious that the Young Man represents the new, materialistic American Dream? Not everything made sense, but a lot more of it did. If I hadn't gotten that packet, I probably could have read the play fifteen times and still not figured it out.

Finally, working on the AP essay in class has me freaked out for the test. I am still not good at reading poetry or applying DIDLS to poetry. Seriously, how is anyone supposed to analyze a poem and write a good, solid essay in under an hour? Right now, that seems impossible. Especially since I still didn't have the poem figured out after working with it for a whole class hour.

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.

"Poetry Study" Goals

1. Learn (a lot) more poetry terms
2. Practice reading/interpreting sonnets
3. Get better at identifying the speaker of a poem
4. Learn the different types of poems
5. Practice figuring out the main theme

The poetry multiple-choice practice section showed me that I lack both knowledge and understanding when it comes to poetry. On quite a few of the problems, I couldn't even figure out what most of the answers meant. It was also difficult for me to interpret what the poems were actually trying to say (and, for whatever reason, the sonnet is what tripped me up the most). I would get caught up on certain words or phrases, and couldn't look at the poem as a whole. Finally, I consistently missed questions relating to the identification of the speaker, which I think also relates to not being able to view the poem as a whole.

Diagnostic Test Reflection

My first crack at Peterson's AP English test can easily be summed up in two words: epic failure. What really tripped me up was the fact that about half of the questions were about poetry. The problem with that? I hate poetry, avoid it whenever I can, and can't make sense of it to save my life. I've always thought poetry is rather pointless, too, so it frustrates me that there would be such a strong emphasis on it on the test. Besides that, the rest of the questions were fairly easy and straight-forward. Clearly poetry (as usual) is going to be the hardest thing for me this coming year.