This is the last post in September... whoa. This month flew by, but with no shortage in material. I would say that this was really more of an adjustment period for me, getting back into the habit of school and adjusting myself to the new learning environment of team A.P., especially our daily discussions.
A lot of the topics we covered this month were the basic tools that we will be using throughout the year to reach the level of literary analysis necessary for the A.P. exam in May. In particular, our discussion of the use of diction, imagery, details, language, and syntax (D.I.D.L.S.) was very interesting and helpful to me. Though I had encountered these topics in my other lit classes at OHS, our discussions of the three example texts and the close reading activities have been eye-opening for me; I have noticed a difference in how I read, especially what I focus or draw ideas on. For example, I had actually read The Sun Also Rises two years ago for my American Lit class, but I did not pay much attention to Hemingway's diction and syntax, so our class discussion offered me a new perspective on the text's overall meaning. Likewise, I had read The Cask of Amontillado (the short story I annotated) in eighth grade during our Poe unit, but in annotating the piece, I noticed a lot of interesting details that almost popped out of the story because I knew to look for them, such as symbols and syntax variations.
In addition, the experience of reading through the open prompts and the graders' critiques was very eye-opening because it was almost like a discussion put into a concise essay. Seeing the ideas that the students came up with was both impressive and somewhat self-assuring because, especially after doing a (very basic) practice open prompt in class, I am growing more confident in my ability to think and write analytically.
Of course, we also read through the first of our major texts, The American Dream, which was a direct application of the close reading techniques we learned. We also learned about Existentialism and Theater of the Absurd. I found these two topics to be especially interesting because I was introduced to them last year through both my A.P. French class (we read L'etranger) and my Brit Lit class, where we discussed them in the context of the modern era. I felt that through the information we received in class as well as our discussions, I have been able to develop a stronger picture of these styles, and I can recognize the absurdist elements of The American Dream, such as the cyclical plot elements. Moreover, I feel like we have done a pretty good job in our discussions of developing some strong theories on Albee's ideas on materialism, especially with the doll house analogy. These theories have helped me distinguish themes/messages in texts (as opposed to motifs), such as the idea that materialism is an evil of society that threatens American traditions, as exemplified through the interaction between Mommy and Grandma.
Though I am by no means ready to take the A.P. just yet, I am excited to see the progress that I have made this month, and I hope to continue to improve my reading and analytical skills, especially as I annotate The American Dream.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Open Prompts, Part One
For this post, the objective is to respond to some responses to the open prompt section from previous A.P. exams. I chose to respond to the answers to free response question 3 of the 2004 A.P. Lit Exam. The prompt was based on a quote by Roland Barthes: "Literature is the question minus the answer." Students were asked to consider the effect of a central question within a work, and how the extent to which the author answers that question affects the meaning of the text--the test writers actually used the magic question!
Response #1: Student N
Student N's response focused on the central question of Candide by Voltaire: "Is this the best of all possible worlds?". I was rather impressed with the amount of textual evidence that the student was able to incorporate into their analysis, accompanying each detail with an explanation of its contribution to the answer to the central question. This is also reflected in the A.P. reader's comments when they write, "[the writer]... understands how to relate incident to theme in a fluid way." The student organized their analysis in a very clear manner as well, with all their details flowing in the chronological order of the novel, and rather than trying to recall small details or techniques, the student focused on the larger, philosophical scope of the work, which allowed them to interpret its meaning. For example, the student repeatedly referenced the phrase, "we must tend our own garden," to show how Voltaire ultimately leaves a high degree of ambiguity in his answer to the question. This leads the student to derive a "Christ-like" meaning from the text as their final conclusion. Though this might be due to my unfamiliarity with the text, I thought the student did start to detract from their original question towards the end, and their discussion of the concepts of love, pain, and change seemed a little disconnected from their conclusion that this is the best world. On the whole, I agree with the score because the student successfully addressed the prompt and tied it back to the meaning.
Response #2: Student J
First of all, kudos to the poor, poor person who had to read through this student's response because I lost my patience around the second squiggly mark. Though the student did begin their essay by addressing the prompt with Twain's central question ("What does it mean to be free?"), they lose focus on this topic as they continue to simply list plot events and their meaning without truly describing how the author answers the question. For example, though it is very insightful to recognize that Huck and Jim can only build their relationship outside of societal constraints, the student does not tie it back to how Twain defines freedom. Even by the end, when the student describes Huck's decision to travel west as a realization that "he is not free," they still fail to touch on how this affects the story's meaning. Instead, I would have interpreted this as a realization that Huck realizes that he is free to choose his own destiny and path, which is Twain's definition of freedom. Consequently, the story is centered around Huck and Jim's quest to gain control over their own lives. Although the student "skirts around" the prompt, their essay was still well written and shows a deep level of insight on the story. All they needed to do was concentrate on how the plot elements they described answered Twain's question.
Response #3: Student U
If I didn't know any better, I'd bet that this student ran out of time on this essay and scrambled to get points for writing down something. The student uses rather basic syntax, which is still confusing to read at times. For example, "The demeanor Okonwo had to prevent change was very high...". Meanwhile, they barely address the meaning of the text. Even though they establish that Achebe's answer to the question is that change does eventually happen, they do not describe how answering the central question (do things stay the same?) affects the meaning of the text. They simply tell the reader what happens in the story and mention that change occurs in the story, but there is no mention of how these events provide any broader meaning to the story. However, I did enjoy the process they employed in their introductory paragraph, where they provide the context for their argument, leading up to their main idea in the end of the paragraph. Ultimately, Student U did recognize the question and provided a little evidence to their point, but they failed to really address how the use of a question really influenced the meaning of the novel.
Response #1: Student N
Student N's response focused on the central question of Candide by Voltaire: "Is this the best of all possible worlds?". I was rather impressed with the amount of textual evidence that the student was able to incorporate into their analysis, accompanying each detail with an explanation of its contribution to the answer to the central question. This is also reflected in the A.P. reader's comments when they write, "[the writer]... understands how to relate incident to theme in a fluid way." The student organized their analysis in a very clear manner as well, with all their details flowing in the chronological order of the novel, and rather than trying to recall small details or techniques, the student focused on the larger, philosophical scope of the work, which allowed them to interpret its meaning. For example, the student repeatedly referenced the phrase, "we must tend our own garden," to show how Voltaire ultimately leaves a high degree of ambiguity in his answer to the question. This leads the student to derive a "Christ-like" meaning from the text as their final conclusion. Though this might be due to my unfamiliarity with the text, I thought the student did start to detract from their original question towards the end, and their discussion of the concepts of love, pain, and change seemed a little disconnected from their conclusion that this is the best world. On the whole, I agree with the score because the student successfully addressed the prompt and tied it back to the meaning.
Response #2: Student J
First of all, kudos to the poor, poor person who had to read through this student's response because I lost my patience around the second squiggly mark. Though the student did begin their essay by addressing the prompt with Twain's central question ("What does it mean to be free?"), they lose focus on this topic as they continue to simply list plot events and their meaning without truly describing how the author answers the question. For example, though it is very insightful to recognize that Huck and Jim can only build their relationship outside of societal constraints, the student does not tie it back to how Twain defines freedom. Even by the end, when the student describes Huck's decision to travel west as a realization that "he is not free," they still fail to touch on how this affects the story's meaning. Instead, I would have interpreted this as a realization that Huck realizes that he is free to choose his own destiny and path, which is Twain's definition of freedom. Consequently, the story is centered around Huck and Jim's quest to gain control over their own lives. Although the student "skirts around" the prompt, their essay was still well written and shows a deep level of insight on the story. All they needed to do was concentrate on how the plot elements they described answered Twain's question.
Response #3: Student U
If I didn't know any better, I'd bet that this student ran out of time on this essay and scrambled to get points for writing down something. The student uses rather basic syntax, which is still confusing to read at times. For example, "The demeanor Okonwo had to prevent change was very high...". Meanwhile, they barely address the meaning of the text. Even though they establish that Achebe's answer to the question is that change does eventually happen, they do not describe how answering the central question (do things stay the same?) affects the meaning of the text. They simply tell the reader what happens in the story and mention that change occurs in the story, but there is no mention of how these events provide any broader meaning to the story. However, I did enjoy the process they employed in their introductory paragraph, where they provide the context for their argument, leading up to their main idea in the end of the paragraph. Ultimately, Student U did recognize the question and provided a little evidence to their point, but they failed to really address how the use of a question really influenced the meaning of the novel.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Close Reading No. 1
For this post, the article I chose was "Caught in the Crossfire" by David Weigel, which can be found at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/09/crossfire_returns_to_cnn_the_new_debate_show_isn_t_bad.single.html.
The article, "Caught in the Crossfire," looks at the recently revived C.N.N. show, Crossfire, and how it relates to its earlier version as well as political trends. Though Weigel both attacks and praises the show, he also points out the fundamental issues that plague politics-based television programs. He achieves these effects using mostly informal diction, providing details that relate strongly to his arguments, and some unconventional syntax that provides emphasis on certain points.
Weigel uses a mix of mostly colloquial and some formal (technical) diction, which reveals a derisive tone through sarcasm. For example, when describing the atmosphere surrounding the first episode of the show, he uses the word "fete" to describe the public's reactions, implying they were actually excited about seeing the show. However, in the very next sentence he describes the show as "din," which refers to unpleasant sounds. Through this positive-negative description, Weigel puts forth his opinion that, even if the program shows the potential to offer some new insights into the political world, Crossfire will fall back into the trend of divisive, biased politics that has come to be expected of all political shows. However, Weigel uses political jargon to maintain a serious tone amid his poking fun at the show. For example, he describes Stephanie Cutter, one of the hosts, as in "campaign mode" and "Obama-boosting," which though rather comical sounding, still point interest on the major issue of taking sides on the show. Finally, his use of colloquial diction makes the passage seem almost like Weigel is having a conversation with the reader. For example, he describes Newt Gingrich as "delightfully high on himself." Weigel could easily have used the word egoistic, but by using this phrase, he breaks the author-reader barrier of typical journalism, which usually has a much more formal tone.
The details that Weigel includes and references in the article also help articulate his message to the reader. For example, in his description of the downfall of the original Crossfire, Weigel includes the fact that comedian Jon Stewart recognized it as only another bias-based debate show, as well as the fact that C.N.N.'s president agreed with that statement. This really points out the absurdity of the show in that a comedian (ironically) turned out to be a better pundit than the experts that ran Crossfire, including the network's president himself. Also, Weigel provides a majority of his details on the debates that take place on the show, but he barely squeezes in one paragraph to talk about the more effective host, S.E. Cupp, whom he describes as a positive element. This left me with the impression that his positive comments were minor concessions or counterpoints that did not offer much of an argument against, and instead highlighted, the substantial amount of flaws that he pointed out in the show. On the other hand, Weigel did include details on the biases present in the arguments of both parties, which leave the reader with a nonbiased image of the story. He provides the example of Cutter (a Democrat) contending her views against a Republican congresswoman as well as that of Bob Menendez (a Republican) arguing against Syrian intervention. This is vital because the article is not focused on either Republican or Democrat political views, but rather on the effect that their debate has on the show and its viewers.
Weigel's creative use of syntax also emphasizes his points and helps him return to his argument throughout the piece. When he describes Cutter's interesting speaking style in response to outrageous arguments as intentionally choppy to bring out her point, he masterfully couples that to a series of sentence fragments to give the reader a direct example of this method ("...pausing. At odd. Intervals to make. A point"). Weigel also uses plenty of interrupters in his sentences, which add in descriptive details as well as build emphasis on certain ideas. In the same paragraph where he describes Cutter's TV style, Weigel describes her rise to prominence through media success: "...TV hits, hard-won TV hits, TV hits that other advisers wanted so badly..." This series of interrupters adds a strong emphasis on her successes on TV, which set the stage for Weigel's description of her communication methods on TV. This technique also lends itself to the conversational element of his writing because it makes it sound as if he is speaking directly to the reader. Another technique that Weigel employs is the use of short sentences, which are especially noticeable since most of his sentences are rather long. For example, he writes, "Those are the ingredients for good TV. Nobody on the screen used it." These sentences bring out a strong critical voice from Weigel and depict some frustration from his perspective.
Though David Weigel's article, "Caught in the Crossfire" is definitely not an example of conventional journalism, his writing makes use of a variety of interesting rhetorical techniques. His blended diction, effective use of details, and creative syntax combine to enhance his critique of the revived news program and emphasize his notion that political programs are too easily merged with bias and debates.
The article, "Caught in the Crossfire," looks at the recently revived C.N.N. show, Crossfire, and how it relates to its earlier version as well as political trends. Though Weigel both attacks and praises the show, he also points out the fundamental issues that plague politics-based television programs. He achieves these effects using mostly informal diction, providing details that relate strongly to his arguments, and some unconventional syntax that provides emphasis on certain points.
Weigel uses a mix of mostly colloquial and some formal (technical) diction, which reveals a derisive tone through sarcasm. For example, when describing the atmosphere surrounding the first episode of the show, he uses the word "fete" to describe the public's reactions, implying they were actually excited about seeing the show. However, in the very next sentence he describes the show as "din," which refers to unpleasant sounds. Through this positive-negative description, Weigel puts forth his opinion that, even if the program shows the potential to offer some new insights into the political world, Crossfire will fall back into the trend of divisive, biased politics that has come to be expected of all political shows. However, Weigel uses political jargon to maintain a serious tone amid his poking fun at the show. For example, he describes Stephanie Cutter, one of the hosts, as in "campaign mode" and "Obama-boosting," which though rather comical sounding, still point interest on the major issue of taking sides on the show. Finally, his use of colloquial diction makes the passage seem almost like Weigel is having a conversation with the reader. For example, he describes Newt Gingrich as "delightfully high on himself." Weigel could easily have used the word egoistic, but by using this phrase, he breaks the author-reader barrier of typical journalism, which usually has a much more formal tone.
The details that Weigel includes and references in the article also help articulate his message to the reader. For example, in his description of the downfall of the original Crossfire, Weigel includes the fact that comedian Jon Stewart recognized it as only another bias-based debate show, as well as the fact that C.N.N.'s president agreed with that statement. This really points out the absurdity of the show in that a comedian (ironically) turned out to be a better pundit than the experts that ran Crossfire, including the network's president himself. Also, Weigel provides a majority of his details on the debates that take place on the show, but he barely squeezes in one paragraph to talk about the more effective host, S.E. Cupp, whom he describes as a positive element. This left me with the impression that his positive comments were minor concessions or counterpoints that did not offer much of an argument against, and instead highlighted, the substantial amount of flaws that he pointed out in the show. On the other hand, Weigel did include details on the biases present in the arguments of both parties, which leave the reader with a nonbiased image of the story. He provides the example of Cutter (a Democrat) contending her views against a Republican congresswoman as well as that of Bob Menendez (a Republican) arguing against Syrian intervention. This is vital because the article is not focused on either Republican or Democrat political views, but rather on the effect that their debate has on the show and its viewers.
Weigel's creative use of syntax also emphasizes his points and helps him return to his argument throughout the piece. When he describes Cutter's interesting speaking style in response to outrageous arguments as intentionally choppy to bring out her point, he masterfully couples that to a series of sentence fragments to give the reader a direct example of this method ("...pausing. At odd. Intervals to make. A point"). Weigel also uses plenty of interrupters in his sentences, which add in descriptive details as well as build emphasis on certain ideas. In the same paragraph where he describes Cutter's TV style, Weigel describes her rise to prominence through media success: "...TV hits, hard-won TV hits, TV hits that other advisers wanted so badly..." This series of interrupters adds a strong emphasis on her successes on TV, which set the stage for Weigel's description of her communication methods on TV. This technique also lends itself to the conversational element of his writing because it makes it sound as if he is speaking directly to the reader. Another technique that Weigel employs is the use of short sentences, which are especially noticeable since most of his sentences are rather long. For example, he writes, "Those are the ingredients for good TV. Nobody on the screen used it." These sentences bring out a strong critical voice from Weigel and depict some frustration from his perspective.
Though David Weigel's article, "Caught in the Crossfire" is definitely not an example of conventional journalism, his writing makes use of a variety of interesting rhetorical techniques. His blended diction, effective use of details, and creative syntax combine to enhance his critique of the revived news program and emphasize his notion that political programs are too easily merged with bias and debates.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Petersen's Poetry Stuff
After working through the poetry section, I have found that my biggest challenge with poetry is getting bogged down in the small details and not recognizing the bigger picture. The poem that gave me the most trouble was Keats' "La Belle Dame Sans Merci." Though I was able to pick up on metaphors present in the piece, I found that I really was not able to pick up on the overarching messages and themes of the poem. The clearest example of this is the fact that I did not pick up on the fact that the knight was dead until reading through the answer key for number seven. After comparing my answers to the correct ones, I noticed that my major problem was that I focused on each detail's significance rather than how they all played into the bigger picture. On question five, instead of recognizing that the setting ultimately conveys the "decay and decline" of the seasons in fall, I focused on the fact that the story takes place in a seemingly mystical forest. Consequently, I think that Keats and some of the other romantic poets are confusing due to the fact that they often use very elaborate language, which paints a beautifully elaborate picture that distracts me from the actual message.
Monday, September 2, 2013
Response to Petersen's Diagnostic Test
When I first took the test, I was rather surprised to start off with a name I recognized from my Brit Lit class, John Donne. Even with this little confidence boost, however, I ended up getting many questions in this section wrong, which was a little annoying. I think that I got bogged down in details of the piece rather than trying to go for the big picture. For example, on question 6, which asked about the major conceit of the text, I chose "lovers as a compass," but the real answer was "earthquakes and celestial movement." The reasoning behind my answer choice was that Donne seemed to refer to the love in his poem as a journey, which I extrapolated to mean a direction for life.
I also found myself falling into that wonderful trap of self-doubt, which led me to choose the "safer" answer choice on some questions that I was a little iffy on. On number 12, I was choosing between choices d and e because I knew Austen often poked fun at the gentry. However, I decided to go with the idea that she glorified the middle class because I thought that was her message, rather than the simple choice that she "finds the Bennets ridiculous."
Even with these mistakes, I was still very happy to see a lot of familiar names and concepts, especially in the last set of questions, which I remembered learning about in my American Lit class. I also think that because that section was nonfiction, it was easier to understand, as opposed to the other narrative, which was from the middle of a story.
All in all, I'd say the diagnostic experience was very enlightening, and I have a clearer idea of things to focus on for this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)