For my close reading, a read an editorial from the New York Times titled "Washington Versus American", by Ross Douthat. The article can be found here, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/douthat-washington-versus-america.html?ref=columnists.
With this editorial, Douthat tries to make the point that government programs themselves are unintentionally the cause of unequal redistribution of wealth in America. Many private enterprises are closely linked with government operation, and therefore receive a large portion of government spending, including some of which that should be going to stimulate the economy. Douthat investigates Washington DC as the scene for this. In his editorial, he uses carefully chosen diction, contrasting negative and positive imagery, and a simile to prejudice the reader against the system he describes.
Douthat open his editorial by describing D.C. in 2002. In this description he uses words that suggest decline and decay, describing the parts of the city as "scarred" and "blighted" (paragraph 1).
In the second paragraph, he contrasts the image of the city in 2002 with that of it today as a happy, prosperous place. He describes the city today in pleasant, inviting terms, using phrases such as "[streets] crowded with restaurants and bars." This passage brings to mind an image of nighttime parties and revelry, strongly contrasting the image in the previous paragraph. In addition, Douthat continues to use carefully chosen like "luxurious" to describe the city.
Later in the essay, Douthat established a simile that he refers to several times. He compares Washington D.C. to the "ruthless capital in the Hunger Games" (paragraph 6). I haven't read that story, but I have heard enough to know this isn't a complimentary comparison. Douthat suggests that like that fictional capital, D.C. and the government are draining the fortitude of the rest of the country. This simile is continued in the next paragraph, when he offers the somewhat humorous disclaimer, "There aren’t tributes from Michigan and New Mexico fighting to the death in Dupont Circle just yet" (paragraph 7). The effect of this simile is to make the alleged crimes of Washington seem worse by paralleling it to a capital and government that is an extreme case of tyranny.
All of the literary techniques used in the editorial serve the authors purpose--that is, convincing the reader of his opinion. He does this through contrasting the new, rich capital with the decrepit one of ten years ago, and then investigating the change. Through his explanation and comparison of the capital with a fictional one, he effectively demonizes Washington D.C. and its role in the country's poor economic condition.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
September 16: Open Pompt Response
Prompt: 1999. The eighteenth-century British novelist Laurence Sterne wrote, "No body, but he who has felt it, can conceive what a plaguing thing it is to have a man's mind torn asunder by two projects of equal strength, both obstinately pulling in a contrary direction at the same time."
From a novel or play choose a character (not necessarily the protagonist) whose mind is pulled in conflicting directions by two compelling desires, ambitions, obligations, or influences. Then, in a well-organized essay, identify each of the two conflicting forces and explain how this conflict with one character illuminates the meaning of the work as a whole. You may use one of the novels or plays listed below or another novel or work of similar literary quality.
My Response:
In Stephen Crane's novel The Red Badge of Courage, the young soldier Henry Fleming is torn between his instinct for self-preservation and his duties as a soldier. Throughout the novel, the different feelings confuse him, with each one dominating in different scenes. By describing Henry's internal conflict, Crane hopes to capture the internal conflict between fear and duty that every soldier must face.
The meaning of Henry's internal struggle is made significant by Crane's generality. Throughout the novel, Crane leaves out many details, such as the name of the battle, the name of the generals, and the location of the battlefield. He also refrains from referring to Henry by name in most cases, preferring to call him "the youth" or "the soldier". The effect of this is that the conflict and characters are almost anonymous--it could be the story of any soldier in any battle. This generality gives Henry's conflict a deeper meaning, because it is not his conflict, but the conflict of a generic soldier.
One side of Henry is dominated by fear. Before going into battle, he expresses doubt in his own courage, wondering if he will be able to stand his ground. Crane describes how it seems to Henry that all the other soldiers appear not to be troubled. But because of the impersonal sense of the story, it seems Crane means the reader to understand each soldier feels this way. Crane therefore seems to be making the point that all soldiers are afraid, but they gain courage from the group.
Henry's fear is counteracted in part by his sense of duty. In battle, he is able to conquer his fear by losing his sense of individualism, and becoming part of the army as a whole--like a "cog in a machine". But the victory of one emotion is only temporary, and before long fear returns to dominate Henry, and he flees the battlefield. Several more times though out the novel, Henry's conquers his fear, only to have it return shortly afterwards. Crane therefore makes the point the coming to terms with the fear of death does not occur in a moment, and that a soldier's internal conflict lasts days, weeks, or the whole time he is a soldier.
Henry's internal conflict is much larger than Henry himself. By focusing on the opposing feelings and questions tormenting Henry's mind, while also distancing the reader from Henry's individuality, Crane creates a powerful message about war and soldiers in general.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Response to Course Material (September 9)-
The only material we have really covered in class so far has been the literary terms. The rest of the time has been devoted to outlining the course and our goals for the year. The literary terms were somewhat overwhelming, and a lot of them are quite similar and difficult to distinguish. I have used many of these terms before in AP Latin, but it is more clear cut in Latin because most of the literary devices depend on the word's case, so they can be easily identified without even knowing what the sentence is saying. In English it's a lot harder, and it seems you often have to understand the context well to identify the literary device. Often, as we saw an example of on the terms test, multiple literary devices can be present in the same sentence. It also seems a lot of the terms are a little redundant. For example, "caesura" means "a pause". That's all, just "a pause", so there is really no reason that using the word "pause" instead would change the meaning of what is being said. In addition, if literary terms are so difficult to identify at times that a student who has studied them and is specifically looking for them, and analyzing the sentence for some time can still not correctly identify them, how much effect could they possibly have on a normal reader? If the literary device is too subtle to be noticed, then it probably has no effect on the reader, and therefore should not really be considered a literary device.
The only material we have really covered in class so far has been the literary terms. The rest of the time has been devoted to outlining the course and our goals for the year. The literary terms were somewhat overwhelming, and a lot of them are quite similar and difficult to distinguish. I have used many of these terms before in AP Latin, but it is more clear cut in Latin because most of the literary devices depend on the word's case, so they can be easily identified without even knowing what the sentence is saying. In English it's a lot harder, and it seems you often have to understand the context well to identify the literary device. Often, as we saw an example of on the terms test, multiple literary devices can be present in the same sentence. It also seems a lot of the terms are a little redundant. For example, "caesura" means "a pause". That's all, just "a pause", so there is really no reason that using the word "pause" instead would change the meaning of what is being said. In addition, if literary terms are so difficult to identify at times that a student who has studied them and is specifically looking for them, and analyzing the sentence for some time can still not correctly identify them, how much effect could they possibly have on a normal reader? If the literary device is too subtle to be noticed, then it probably has no effect on the reader, and therefore should not really be considered a literary device.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Entry 3-Analysis of "Me Talk Pretty One Day"
In the excerpt "Me Talk Pretty One Day", David Sedaris describes what learning French was like for him. His writing is witty and amusing, and it has a casual tone, as if he were holding a conversation with the reader. Despite this tone, the writing does not lack any formality in structure. In general, the essay follows most of the rules that Michael Harvey outlines in his book The Nuts and Bolt of College Writing.
Sedaris's vocabulary is simple, avoiding what Harvey calls a "pompous style" (Harvey, page 3). Most of the words are short and common; the word the reader is most unlikely to know on the first page is probably "stegosaurus". Even in situations where uncommon words would be appropriate, Sedaris prefers to use several smaller words, or a hyphenated adjective. On page one, he describes his classmates as "well-dressed" rather than chic or elegant. On the same page, he chooses to write "what this woman was saying"over a shorter but more sophisticated phrase like "her dialogue", or "her discourse". Though this simple style Sedaris uses elongates the writing in places, it becomes much easier to read and understand.
One technique Harvey describes that aids the flow of writing and "helps the reader absorb a lot of information without feeling overwhelmed" (Harvey, page 29) is the use of introductory phrases. Sedaris employs introductory phrases throughout the excerpt. On the first half of page 13 alone, he uses two: "While I can honestly say..", and "when called upon,...". He also uses participial phrases such as "Having given it some thought,..." (Sedaris, page 13), which help avoid cluttered sentences with an excess of clauses. Both these types of phrases also help the flow of the writing by varying sentence structure.
Though Sedaris's writing generally follows the style Harvey suggests, it is not without its flaws. Sedaris uses the passive voice several times when it is unnecessary. In the first page, he writes that "Vacations were discussed" rather than "The students discussed vacations". This phrase sounds somewhat unnatural, and also goes against Harvey's rule of using consistent characters (Harvey, pages 23-27). The subject of the previous clause is the students, so the writing would flow better if the next sentence continued to describe the students directly using the active voice.
Sedaris also frequently uses unnecessary prepositional phrases, which Harvey warns against. In the second paragraph, he writes "I've moved to Paris with hopes of learning the language." It would perhaps be clearer to replace the prepositional phrase with a participle to make the sentence "I've moved to Paris hoping to learn the language." The use of abstract nouns is typical in pompous writing, Harvey says and should be avoided because it confuses "who does what"(Harvey, page 13). There are many of other examples of excess prepositional phrases and the passive voice throughout the essay.
In general, Sedaris writes in accordance with Harvey's suggestions, using short concise language that does not confuse the meaning with pompous style. Although there are places where Sedaris goes against Harvey's preferred constructions, these places are the exceptions, rather than the norm.
Sedaris's vocabulary is simple, avoiding what Harvey calls a "pompous style" (Harvey, page 3). Most of the words are short and common; the word the reader is most unlikely to know on the first page is probably "stegosaurus". Even in situations where uncommon words would be appropriate, Sedaris prefers to use several smaller words, or a hyphenated adjective. On page one, he describes his classmates as "well-dressed" rather than chic or elegant. On the same page, he chooses to write "what this woman was saying"over a shorter but more sophisticated phrase like "her dialogue", or "her discourse". Though this simple style Sedaris uses elongates the writing in places, it becomes much easier to read and understand.
One technique Harvey describes that aids the flow of writing and "helps the reader absorb a lot of information without feeling overwhelmed" (Harvey, page 29) is the use of introductory phrases. Sedaris employs introductory phrases throughout the excerpt. On the first half of page 13 alone, he uses two: "While I can honestly say..", and "when called upon,...". He also uses participial phrases such as "Having given it some thought,..." (Sedaris, page 13), which help avoid cluttered sentences with an excess of clauses. Both these types of phrases also help the flow of the writing by varying sentence structure.
Though Sedaris's writing generally follows the style Harvey suggests, it is not without its flaws. Sedaris uses the passive voice several times when it is unnecessary. In the first page, he writes that "Vacations were discussed" rather than "The students discussed vacations". This phrase sounds somewhat unnatural, and also goes against Harvey's rule of using consistent characters (Harvey, pages 23-27). The subject of the previous clause is the students, so the writing would flow better if the next sentence continued to describe the students directly using the active voice.
Sedaris also frequently uses unnecessary prepositional phrases, which Harvey warns against. In the second paragraph, he writes "I've moved to Paris with hopes of learning the language." It would perhaps be clearer to replace the prepositional phrase with a participle to make the sentence "I've moved to Paris hoping to learn the language." The use of abstract nouns is typical in pompous writing, Harvey says and should be avoided because it confuses "who does what"(Harvey, page 13). There are many of other examples of excess prepositional phrases and the passive voice throughout the essay.
In general, Sedaris writes in accordance with Harvey's suggestions, using short concise language that does not confuse the meaning with pompous style. Although there are places where Sedaris goes against Harvey's preferred constructions, these places are the exceptions, rather than the norm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)