Response to September's Course Material

     I remember that the first thing we did was to analyze and compare those two paintings of Madonna with child. At the time I felt annoyed because I thought we were spending way too much time on it, but of course it makes sense now. First of all, that probably means that Ms Holmes wants us to spend a long time on every piece, and not just blast through it with her simply telling us the meaning and significance, like in other lit classes. This requires more effort on our parts, but will certainly make us better readers. I actually already feel like I've improved a lot!

     A more personal growth in September is that I finally understand what motifs are. They're not even complicated, either. They also don't have to fit into the theme; they're just patterns. Maybe significant, maybe not.

     I don't know about everyone else, but I had never heard of the DIDLS guide for analysis before this class. I've worked with each element individually in other classes (imagery, diction, etc) but have NEVER seen them all squished together into one funny name NOR have I been asked to talk about more than one or two at a time. I'm not sure why my other teachers have never gone here, because it's not especially difficult and I know everyone is getting a lot more out of the texts this way.

     One thing that I feel like was a bad lesson idea was when Ms Holmes had us play those games on the board, where we had to identify lit terms. It's a bit emberassing but I didn't know a lot of them! I would have rather we talked about all the terms or were at least given a packet or something. Also, some of you guys read freakishly fast and after only two seconds people are screaming "LITOTES!!" and I have never heard this word and now don't even know the definition it's paired with. So that was a bit frustrating. On Friday (with the sub) we got a packet with some drama/comedy terms. I'd like more of those and then maybe some quizzes where we have to match definitions INDEPENDENTLY so I can have a whole three or four seconds to read and take it all in for myself. On the exam I won't have the benefit of peers yelling out the answer before I even finish reading, so I think we need some quizzes...

     As for The American Dream, I really enjoyed it. I think it was a good one to start with because it's short (fewer details to analyze) and yet there are so many different ways we can spin it.I've really liked talking about this play in class, and hearing everyone's ideas! It showed that we don't have to rely on what "They say" books are about, even we high school students can develop our own ideas

     So overall, not a bad start. I think this class is going to do a lot more for me than my other lit classes have.

Open Prompt Responses #1

My Response to Their Responses to an Open Prompt about the function of a foil and how it illuminates meaning.

The first essay discusses The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan.The thesis is not very clear, but it does establish which characters are foils and why. The first body paragraph just starts summarizing the book's plot!
2nd essay! There is way too much "tour guiding" than is necessary, and the comparisons are spread out this way. The essayist is trying to argue that the foil between the two main characters "illuminates the meaning" of the work, and actually ties it together better than I thought they would. But then the conclusion paragraph just repeated everything word for word, which got kind of boring. Maybe the author was trying to fill up more space, but the essay turned out very long and in this case I'd say less is more. The writer should have been a bit more concise. Even so, overall it was a good essay, because it explained the message of the book well as being about personal strength and self-worth, and discussing foils. The graders gave it an 8 and actually comment that the length is good because it gives "room for interpretation," so maybe it's a matter of opinion. Or I was just wrong, since the AP graders are like the ultimate authority on student essays...

     The second essay is about The Color Purple, but the student forgot to mention the author's name (or didn't know it.) Also, the name of the main character, Celie, is always written in lower case ("celie"), and that is wrong... Sadly, this essay does not address foils at all until the very end paragraph, where it is used very weakly. Even the opening paragraph serves only to summarize the book, and it seems clear that the student doesn't know how to construct these argument-driven essays. The graders gave this a 6, which seemed higher than it deserves to me, because they say the student analyzes the meaning of the play (females being oppressed by men) very well, but doesn't analyze the foil concept well. It seems to me that writing clearly and simply with a basic outline is the best, as this essay seems written "on-the-fly" and lacks structure.

3rd essay!! The student is writing about The Kite Runner, and again the author was not mentioned. This isn't good. There is no thesis; the first paragraph consists of a spoiler alert and a nice "Baba is a foil to Hassan in many ways." The student discusses the traits of the characters with examples from the story, like how Hassan stands up for others and is selfless. But then, the student starts comparing and contrasting three key characters! Just laying out similarities and differences without regard to foil or significance! Towards the end there is this nice little statement about how Hassan and Baba contrast each other, but there is no mention of foil still. The conclusion suggests that the meaning is friendship and loyalty because that is something both Baba and Hassan share. That is not using foil to show meaning! It also was not argued through the essay... The graders describe this essay as "thin" and "vague" which seems fitting. It was given a 4.

Close Reading 9/15

Overpopulation Is Not The Problem

(editorial by Erle C. Ellis)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html?src=me&ref=general

      This article describes a new take on the issue of overpopulation. Ellis carefully uses cold imagery, specific details, and deliberate syntax to actually create a motivating and hopeful take on this issue.

      Throughout his editorial, Ellis creatively compares and contrasts humans to “bacteria in a petri dish,” and this visual allows us to picture his main idea, how “our exploding numbers are reaching the limits of a finite planet.” It is much easier to picture bacteria filling up a small disc than to picture the complexities of humans consuming more resources than are produced. His main idea is actually to refute this image as a common misconception, as he explains that people have always been able to use technology to stretch what Earth can support. This is a great persuasive technique, because a petri dish calls to mind very cold, scientific, impersonal images and connotations.

       Ellis describes the history of humans' overcoming carrying capacity in great scientific detail. He gives textbook-like descriptions such as: “The evidence from archaeology is clear. Our predecessors in the genus Homo used social hunting strategies and tools of stone and fire to extract more sustenance from landscapes than would otherwise be possible.” Very detailed! And this goes on and on. However, when it comes to describing the present to future problems humans are facing, Ellis becomes far less descriptive, and actually very vague. Comparing that last quote to this one: “The only limits to creating a planet that future generations will be proud of are our imaginations and our social systems,” this portion is significantly less detailed. Why is this part left out? My guess is that the purpose of the editorial is simply to get people thinking differently, not to inform them of any new developments on overpopulation. Essentially he's saying the situation isn't hopeless, but we don't actually have the solution yet. 

       With regard to syntax, Ellis has a specific pattern of using “being” verbs or active/transitive verbs. “Being” verbs don't bring a lot of energy or impact to the statements, and he uses these most of thet time. Sentencees like “The science of human sustenance is inherently a social science. Neither physics nor chemistry nor even biology is adequate to understand how it has been possible...” These are not very strong statements. Ellis switches to active verbs only when talking specifically about humans' abilities to overcome natural obstacles. For example,“the idea that humans must live within the natural environmental limits of our planet denies the realities of our entire history, and most likely the future” or simply “we transform ecosystems to sustain ourselves.” These pack more of a punch with active verbs, to create almost a sort of pep-talk for humans. A sort of “We can do it!” kind of speech. This syntax really emphasizes humanity's success, while drearily trudging through the necessary background information.

     Using the literary techniques above, Ellis conveys a very interesting voice in his writing! He informs us of the commonly accepted idea, and then gives us his own take on the issue, and all the while gets everyone pumped up to be a human and capable of overcoming nature's obstacles.