Responses to Course Material

So, Hamlet...

At the last "Responses" post, we finished our big preliminary read of Hamlet, and now we have concluded analyzing this text inside-out, upside-down, etc. Our first assignment, the forums, was really interesting because of the different perspectives. Come to think of it, that word, "perspective," sums up the past month pretty nicely. Anyways, back to the forums. My favorite would definitely have to be the prisoner sound byte from NPR. Of course, there is a bit of bias from my love for the radio, but either way, I really enjoyed hearing about this rendition of the play in probably one of the most unexpected places ever. Especially after watching the Tenant version, I can kind of see some strong correlations between the play and the prison. There is the connection between the idea of surveillance, except in a prison, I am pretty sure it's a good thing, but there is also the idea that everyone is out to get you, i.e. no one is really on your side. I think that's how those 4 prisoners were able to relate to Hamlet's anger and frustration. In a way, it kind of reminds me of that thing where football players do ballet to increase their flexibility; people can find their strengths in some of the most improbably places. I did not really enjoy the other two as much, and I was a bit averse to the Hamlet in the Bush thing, because that leaned in the direction of racism (to me). It sort of reminded me of Heart of Darkness because the narrator seemed to blame the Africans, making them sound dumb.

And then there were movies. My favorites were the Jacobi and Tenant versions, and my least favorite was definitely the Hawke version. I think the real reason behind my choices was the fact that they make Hamlet seem a lot more insane relative to the others. They allowed me to keep rooting for Hamlet, even though he does some pretty wicked deeds, because I empathized with his horrible mental state. Of course, each had its own strengths and weaknesses. I think that the Oedipal complex was definitely overplayed throughout the versions, especially in the Jacobi or Branaugh closet scene, where Hamlet almost sexually assaults Gertrude (but then again, that kind of plays into the insanity, oh well). Especially after watching the plays, I found a lot of connections between my previous Shakespeare experience, namely Macbeth. The themes of usurpation and defying fate play a huge role in the two, but they sort of take opposite sides to the issue: Hamlet's throne has been taken from him while Macbeth steals the throne for himself. I also remember Ms. Huntley talking about certain pairings of themes in Macbeth, like fate vs. freewill and fair vs. foul, which I found myself recalling in Hamlet often, such as the "special providence" or the horrible maggot imagery with Polonius. Also, both can be seen to have gone insane, but at different points in the play, based on interpretation. Back to the closet scene, I kind of liked the idea of Hamlet in a more peaceful conference, like in the older productions with the "office" environment. Honestly, the Branagh version just seemed overly dramatic: if a scene was meant to be creepy, it was made extremely creepy; if Hamlet got angry, he got really angry. My favorite of the Ophelias was probably the Tenant one because I felt that she made herself more modern and equal to Hamlet, which is how I envisioned her as I read the play. She sort of blends my previous Shakespeare heroines: Juliet's innocence and wit with the cunning and fallibility of Lady Macbeth.

Now that we have analyzed our Shakespeare text of the year, I feel that we have built a big knowledge base, which we can pull from on the AP exam. However, especially with these annotations, I think that I have some trouble recognizing the structure. I don't know about anyone else, but after a while I feel like the annotations just mesh into this one big read, and everytime I stick down a note, I am pretty sure I have something similar elsewhere. Anyways, I look forward to hopefully entering the realm of novels. Plays are cool and all, but novels are just so much easier to read for me. Well, that's that. Ta ta for now!

Open Prompts, Part One

For this post, I chose the 2006 prompt: Many writers use a country setting to establish values within a work of literature. For example, the country may be a place of virtue and peace or one of primitivism and ignorance. Choose a novel or play in which such a setting plays a significant role. Then write an essay in which you analyze how the country setting functions in the work as a whole.

Student 3A: The best part of this essay was definitely the conclusion. Not to say that the other parts were bad, but this student simply nailed it in the end, taking in all of her ideas across the body and combining them into well-written statements. Going into the content, I would say that the writer's ideas were great and showed a strong understanding of the text (which, by the way, is Persuasion by Jane Austen), but it was the manner in which they presented those ideas that brought it down. They touched on everything in their thesis, but I felt that at certain points, especially the description of Bath vs. Uppercross, the author could have used a little less detail from the novel and added in more analysis. As a reader, I got the contrast part in the first sentence, so I wanted to hear more of the author's thoughts. In all, this was a really good essay. Aside from some structural points and a bit of redundancy, the writer demonstrated a clear understanding of the text, and made frequent reference to the effects/meanings of the countryside in Persuasion. I would agree with the score of 8 that it received.

Student 3B:

I feel like this author got lost on the tangent of comedy while writing this essay. It starts out with some promise, but even in their thesis, the writer calls the play a "successful comedy," instead of focusing in their argument towards the magic AP lit question: meaning. With regards to the content, there is a disproportionate amount of summarizing going on, and the writer is almost filling up space with details from the play instead of analyzing their significance. Even then, when the writer chooses to analyze something, it has very little to do with meaning. Towards the end, my thoughts were: I understood that the plot was funny the first time you said it! Move on already! Sadly, when they did move on, it was their conclusion. I agree with the reader's comments but not with the score of a 6. For one thing, I don't even think this person wrote enough because so far, all of the "good" essays that I have read have been more than 2 pages long. In the end, this writer failed to address the actual prompt and sticks to an unrelated description of the comedic effect, rather than the actual meaning that is generated by the juxtaposition of country and city life.

Student 3C:This essay demonstrates the importance of a strong introduction because it does not have one. On top of that the content was just plain irrelevant. Nothing that the writer wrote showed any insight into meaning at all, but rather just related details that seemed to fit the prompt. Plus, they should have probably included the word "country" somewhere in their discussion to form a link in the reader's mind between the prompt and essay. This speaks to the need to assume the reader knows nothing about your chosen work. Their use of second person is just not okay. This is not a conversation. This is an AP Exam, and I am certainly not your friend. The writer's claims just seem to obvious assertions that anyone can make without even reading it, and there is not even an ounce of DIDLS anywhere. The fact that it got a four actually makes me a bit happy because if this got four points, then with what Ms. Holmes has taught us, I am sure we can easily do better.

Close Reading

For this post, I chose yet another Slate article, "Censorship 101." It can be found at: click here!

In the article, "Censorship 101," Sonja West calls into question the recent Supreme Court decisions that have supported schools over students' free speech. In describing this trend, she then goes on to describe a vicious cycle that results from this process: as students see and experience censorship, as they grow older, they will embrace the same values and accept infringements on their First Amendment rights. Throughout her argument, West employs diction, syntax, and details in sending out her message to the reader.

The article consists almost entirely of informal diction. This generates a conversational effect throughout the piece, where the reader feels like they share a direct connection to what West is writing. There are plenty of opportunities to add in bits of legal jargon or formal words, especially in the paragraph describing the issues that children currently deal with and will face in the future. Yet West uses simple terms that are commonly used in the nation, such as "poverty," "racism," and "global military crises." In addition, some of the words West chooses to include have built rather strong connotations. For example, the word, "censorship," has always had a negative image that implies excessive control, and this idea is furthered when she uses similar words like "totalitarian." As the article is rather informative, West's diction adds to her argument by making the issue of the piece more understandable and thus applicable to the lives of the readers.

West generally uses syntax to keep the reader moving along as they read the piece. This is exemplified when she writes, "But that was then; this is now." This sentence blends the technique of the short, powerful sentence with a strong transition, as it sits alone in its own mini-paragraph. It leaves the reader wondering about the differences that have emerged in current society since the Tinker case, which West describes in the following section of the article. She also makes repeated use of brief interrupters, as in this sentence: "Those who are persistently told by their schools that certain speech is off-limits, however, are less certain about these basic freedoms." This adds an emphasis on the latter part of the sentence, which firmly supports West's idea of the far-reaching impact of these contra-student decisions.

The details used throughout the piece reinforce West's message and add a bit of reliability to her argument, leaving the reader with the impression that her idea is actually valid as opposed to some opinionated editorial piece. For example, she includes a study of a Yale Law professor in her description of the cycle of growing censorship from suppression of students' speech. Though the study does not directly support her claim, she is able to extrapolate a trend from it that does. Plus, the second any writer drops the Ivy league into an article, it adds a strong level of support in the reader's mind. In addition, West includes details from both sides of the judicial conflicts she cites in the article. In supporting the students' side of things, including the other side gets the reader thinking about who is truly in the wrong. She included a case that took place in Pennsylvania, where some students protested a racist team name, but the school administration shot down the idea. Any reasonable person can see the prejudice in the term, "Redskin," so by including this case, West sort of eggs the reader towards her argument.

Through effective use of diction, syntax, and details, West is able to get her message across to the readers. In both informing them and urging them towards an actionable argument, she sheds light upon the potential significant issue of school censorship.