Response to Course Material

     So far in class I would say that, along with an assortment of terms, there have been two main concepts we have learned: the elements of close reading and the basics of essay writing.

     I feel I already knew many of the terms we have learned in class (with the terms in the speed match term game excluded). Terms like motif and juxtaposition have been covered in previous English classes I have taken over the years, but it was nice to have them refreshed in my mind. When we covered parallelism, it seemed very familiar to me. I think I may have already known what it was and understood the concept, I just didn't know that it was called parallelism.

     The elements of close reading: diction, imagery, details, language, and syntax; individually were not that new to me. Previous English classes have touched upon how word choice (diction) can affect the tone and meaning of a piece, how figurative language can add to the quality of a piece, and stressing the importance of showing, not telling (imagery). Syntax and detail were pretty new to me, though detail, I think, is pretty self-explanatory. Syntax, and the elements that make it up, were pretty easy to learn and now I find myself instinctively looking for elements of syntax in everything I read. Actually, I find myself doing more and more close reading, even when I'm reading for pleasure. In my mind, I see detail, language, and imagery all closely related because parts of figurative language like metaphors, similes, and personification can add to the image the audience creates in their mind and descriptive details can do the same.

     When we went over the basics of essay writing, I felt that some of the information like answer the prompt, not summarizing the piece, and making sure to properly quote/cite anything taken directly from the piece, were things I've been hearing about essay writing for years. Looking at some of the other tips for writing essays, I know I have been guilty of things like getting stuck on one or two points in my essays, not always writing a persuasive essay, not connecting everything, and not using the correct terminology in my essays. Also, I liked learning about the difference between techniques, effects, and meanings. I think this will help me in future essay writing because now I can focus my essays using examples of techniques and effects to illustrate greater meanings throughout a piece.

     Now I know that there are some things we've touched upon and learned in class that I haven't mentioned in this post. In no way am I trying to say that they aren't important, but some of the terminology, the elements of close reading, and the basics of essay writing are the course concepts that have stuck with me the most so far. Hopefully, as the year goes on I will be able to continue to build upon what I already know and what I've learned so far and continue to expand my literary knowledge.

    

Open Prompt Blog (9/22)

2003: According to critic Northrop Frye, "Tragic heroes are so much the highest points in their human landscape that they seem the inevitable conductors of the power about them, great trees more likely to be struck by lightning than a clump of grass. Conductors may of course be instruments as well as victims of the divisive lightening." Select a novel or play in which a tragic figure functions as an instrument of the suffering of others. Then write an essay in which you explain how the suffering brought upon others by that figure contributes to the tragic vision of the work as a whole.

Essay LLLL does a good job sticking to the question asked and uses specific examples to illustrate how Jay Gatsby is a tragic hero in The Great Gatsby. By talking about Gatsby’s flaws and his beliefs that he is better than his station and that money can bring him happiness, Gatsby is clearly shown to be a tragic hero by the writer of the essay. Also by talking about Gatsby’s flaws, mainly his love for Daisy, the essay writer shows the audience how Gatsby also contributed to the tragic nature of the book, especially the downfall and demise of those around him. In another depiction of the tragic hero, the essay writer connected the character of Jay Gatsby to the time period in which he lives, even going on to show how his downfall was symbolic of his era’s downfall. The writer of the Gatsby essay did well addressing all aspects of the question, both the tragic nature of the character and how they led to the tragic nature of the story, and even went a step further and answered a question not asked: how the tragic hero’s nature related to the world around him.

Essay C does a mediocre job of addressing the question. While on a surface level the question, in its most basic form, is addressed, there is no real development of the argument in the essay. The writer seemed to just list off the tragic aspects of the play King Lear and King Lear’s “idiotic plan”, but never really went into a reason for the way Lear acted. In a way, it seemed that there really was no one tragic hero the essay focused around and really dived into; it was more like a few characters had some of the characteristics of a tragic hero, and any that did were had their moment within the essay (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but as there was no main tragic hero discussed in the essay, it detracted from essay’s quality). Because of the recognition of several “tragic heroes”, it was hard to see how the second part of the question was answered, how the tragic hero brought suffering upon the others and that contribution to the story’s tragic nature. After reading this essay, it can be seen that many of the things talked about were related to the character of King Lear, and if the essay had stuck with King Lear, it would have been more focused and could have been better developed. Overall, not a bad essay, but a bit unfocused and material, as the writer never really developed the argument.

Essay FF very weakly answered the question asked, barely even touching it at its most basic level. This essay, weakly, pegged Patrick Randle McMurphy, from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, as the tragic hero in the story and then barely explained why he was the tragic hero. Merely stating that a character had a flaw and a downfall does not exactly make a character a tragic hero. Despite a weak attempt at classifying a tragic hero, the writer continued on to list everyone who suffered because of McMurphy. The main problem with this argument was that in every example of suffering given, the writer also (most likely unintentionally) illustrated how McMurphy was also bringing joy to those leading dismal lives. One could possibly even argue that McMurphy didn’t really cause any suffering; all of the characters had a choice in whether or not to go along with his plan, but in the end they had all brought the suffering upon themselves. There was no development of any argument in this essay and one key part of the essay, the mentioning of the combine (and probably the best part of the essay), was thrown in at the end and barely touched upon. While it is possible that McMurphy could be illustrated and shown to be a tragic hero, the writer of the Cuckoo essay approached it the wrong way and so produced a weak essay that barely addresses the question asked.

 

Close Reading Blog 9/15

Getting A Head: Touring the World as a Giant Dancing Bear

Out of the Head

Article: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/out-of-the-head

     Daniel Falk writes an online column called Getting A Head: Touring the World as a Giant Dancing Bear, and as the column title would leave you to believe, in his articles he talks about his experiences as a dancing bear mascot on tour. In the article Out of the Head, Falk talks about his life before, during, and after his dancing bear stint. Using imagery, diction, and syntax, Falk is able to show and tell his readers what his touring life was like.

     Most English teachers, professors, or writers will almost always say, "Show, don't tell" in regards to narrative pieces. While Falk does tell a lot while detailing his experiences (in a way that actually works well within the piece), he also uses imagery strategically throughout the piece. Just in the first paragraph Falk goes on for a few sentences describing what it was like to work hours at Starbucks, dealing with ornery customers, and then go and have to deal with a whiny cast. Though a bit long for one image, Falk is able to let the reader feel his sense of desperation for change, and the stuck, powerless feeling that was building inside him. A little later in the article Falk says, "I found myself at a crossroads. I had all of my worldly possessions with me in two suitcases." Though speaking figuratively, Falk clearly paints the picture of a man standing in front of a fork in the road, with everything he owns sitting at his feet, trying to decide what to do. This picture painted  lets readers see the dilemma Falk faced and then makes the choices that he ended up making seem even more real to the reader. When describing the places he visited, touring as a dancing bear, he describes the "spectacular lighting display" and "endless skies of the prairie" which give a clear picture and feel of natural beauty to the piece, which contrasts sharply with his description of the "garish lights and incessant noise" of Vegas. Simple descriptions, yet they bring strong imagery to the piece, just like when Falk described looking through the "small, mesh covered hole" in the mascot head and that what matters is "directly in front of you", giving the audience a sense of tunnel vision. Though imagery is a bit overshadowed by more of a telling feel, Falk uses imagery sparingly throughout the piece so that it packs a bigger punch.

     Diction in Out of the Head revolves mainly around two points: specifics and tone. With almost the complete use of solely colloquial diction, Falk's piece is enhanced by the use of specifics all throughout the article. With 10+ specifically named locations (including  Toronto, Dawson City, Calgary, Winnipeg, and San Francisco), 4 named productions (Funny Business, Dirty Dancing, We Will Rock You, and The Drowsy Chaperone), 1 coffee (cappuccino), and assorted dates, concrete feelings (indecisive, anxious), times, and wages, specifics drive this article. Falk even takes the time to go into what specifically has stuck with him from his travels, such as "the Stump Complex" and "hours and hours of Trivial Pursuit", and what he has learned like "[living] in the moment from Bird, empathy from Rabbit, [and] perseverance from Fox". Falk's diction also lends itself to the constantly shifting tone of the piece. In the beginning, the tone seemed dead-end and downtrodden with words like "exhausted" and "broken" enhancing this impression. Soon phrases like "utterly defeated" and "didn't feel compelled" turned the tone apathetic. The word "Meh" especially helped create an apathetic tone in this part of the article. After changing to a slightly hopeful tone about two-thirds of the way through the article, the tone shifts for the last time to an optimistic tone; the word "excited" was used multiple times to illustrate the point. Though nothing particularly special jumped out in the fairly colloquial piece, specifics and tone added a whole new level to Falk's writing.

     Falk's use of syntax was interesting in that it seemed to really support the diction and imagery that he decided to use. When describing the whiny cast, Falk used short sentences to show their conflicting complaints. "The theatre was too cold. Or too hot. Or because the pianist played the tempos too slow. Or too fast" has a choppy feel to it, but the short sentences convey the idea of the picky cast well and allow conflicting nature of the complaints to show through better than other structures might. Another example in Falk's piece that shows short sentences making an impact is when Falk was describing his thoughts on where to go next. "Move to Vancouver? Meh. Calgary Edmonton Winnipeg? [*Note: also an example of asyndeton] Meh. Move South to the States? Meh." The repetition of "meh" after every sentence, as well as the short sentences themselves, lends to Falk creating an indecisive and unsure sound. Finally, the line "All you have to do is show up" forcefully conveys the idea of control responsibility being in the hands of someone else as well as wrapping up the ideas expressed in the sentences before it. In other syntax related discussion, the passage itself remains, for the most part, in the active voice, leading to the piece seeming more personalized and that Falk is owning up to everything in it. Also, Falk uses long sentences in the beginning and as one reads on, they begin to shorten up and vary in length. This observation, though seemingly unimportant, could stand to show how before Falk toured as a dancing bear, time seemed to stretch and drag on  but then passed more quickly, almost flying, while he was a dancing tour bear. Though syntax was a more subtly used area of rhetoric in Out of the Head, it did play a part in helping convey ideas more clearly and supporting the imagery and diction used.

     Out of the Head is a very interesting piece that when read for the first time, seems just to be a recollection of life before, after, and during Falk's time as a dancing bear. Upon reading closer, the "showing" aspect many look for in a narrative is brought to life through imagery, diction, and syntax. Though subtly used, these three areas of rhetoric more clearly convey ideas, add new levels to Falk's writing, and pack a bigger punches, all while entertaining the reader.