The first thing we worked on after finishing "Hamlet" was multiple choice practice. I am happy to report that I did better this time than last time! However, I still feel my biggest hurdle for multiple choice is reading fast while understanding what is going on. I can skim a piece quick enough, but skimming doesn't really highlight DIDLS and what not that way. Basically I just want a mini Ms. Holmes in my pocket to point out what important for me.
We did start "Rosentcrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" but you guys didn't wait for me while I was at camp so jumping in at the end is proving difficult. Right now it's a bunch of nonsense back and forth. Not too much to report on this!
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Open Prompt Revision from 10/14 (1/20)
Prompt: Choose a
character from a novel or play of recognized literary merit and write an essay
in which you (a) briefly describe the standards of the fictional society in
which the character exists and (b) show how the character is affected by and
responds to those standards. In your essay do not merely summarize the plot.
In Shakespeare’s time, women were raised to be
wives. They essentially had no power, were
viewed as home makers and child bearers, and were completely controlled by
their husbands. On top of this, these “women”
were often times still girls, being married off as early as fourteen. In this society where women were at the mercy
of men, Katherina of William Shakespeare’s The
Taming of the Shrew, did not fit in.
Shakespeare's character, Katherina, is not your average woman in this
time period. She is headstrong and not afraid for a moment to give her
opinion to a man. Katherina's younger sister, Bianca, on the other hand
is absolutely perfect. Bianca is young, beautiful, kind, and has
captured the heart of more than one man in Taming of the Shrew.
For example, after one of the male characters calls Katherina crazy, he says about Bianca, "But in the other’s
silence do I see / Maid’s mild behavior and sobriety" (1.1.71-72). Essentially this quote says that one reason Bianca is so well loved is because she is quiet and well behaved like a wife should be. Since Katherina knows she is not the woman Bianca is, the type of
woman she needs to be to get a husband, she rebels from her society.
To deal with societies rejection of the "spinster", Katherina
responds by acting like the most unattractive woman. With full knowledge of what she is doing she openly insults a potential suitor when she says:
I' faith, sir, you shall never need to fear.
I wis it is not halfway to her heart.
But if it were, doubt not her care should be
To comb your noddle with a three-legged stool
And paint your face and use you like a fool (1.1.60-65).
She gives off the
attitude that she does not want or need a husband so to defy society's
standard of what a woman ought to be. Due to her dreadful manners, a man
must be paid to "tame" her to become the willing wife that was so
desirable. In the end, Katherina is tamed despite her tireless efforts
against it, and becomes a wife. She fought to maintain her freedom by
becoming a so-called "shrew", to make a statement to her own society that she is able
to be an independent woman without a husband telling her what to do.
Question: After the block quotation am I supposed to indent the following sentence? It was originally one paragraph before the quote was added but I'm not positive what to do here.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Course Material (1/13)
Although I can't personally relate to any part of Hamlet, I enjoyed reading and discussing it in class. Of course I would have no clue what was going on if we hadn't read it in class together, but I was surprised how much I was able to pick out on my own when doing my annotations. What helped me a lot with my annotations (other than sparknotes) was watching the movie interpretations. Actually seeing the actions while the actors were speaking the lines made new connections for me about the text.
For example, when Hamlet sees the ghost for the first time, he mentions something about how the ghost is wearing armor. The line (sorry I can't find it but I promise it's there somewhere) sounds like Hamlet finds it strange to see his father in armor, even though Horatio found that to be exceedingly normal. Later, when the ghost appears in Gertrude's room, Hamlet says, "My father, in his habit as he lived" meaning he looks like he did when he was alive. In the reading I didn't even notice either of these lines. In the Branagh version, the ghost in the beginning wore armor and was intimidating, but later in the second ghost scene he was draped in cloth and was much calmer. Seeing this interpretation made me go back to the text to investigate to find the evidence that proves that the ghost is imagined by Hamlet the second time and that he is actually insane at this point in the play (in my opinion at least).
Conclusions like this make me realize how important staging is and how with the same dialogue, completely different decisions about the plot can be made. Because of this, sometimes I found annotating to be difficult. Finding diction was easy enough but syntax was tough for me. In my eyes it was either iambic pentameter or prose. If we read any more Shakespeare hopefully I can analyze subtle syntax better.
For example, when Hamlet sees the ghost for the first time, he mentions something about how the ghost is wearing armor. The line (sorry I can't find it but I promise it's there somewhere) sounds like Hamlet finds it strange to see his father in armor, even though Horatio found that to be exceedingly normal. Later, when the ghost appears in Gertrude's room, Hamlet says, "My father, in his habit as he lived" meaning he looks like he did when he was alive. In the reading I didn't even notice either of these lines. In the Branagh version, the ghost in the beginning wore armor and was intimidating, but later in the second ghost scene he was draped in cloth and was much calmer. Seeing this interpretation made me go back to the text to investigate to find the evidence that proves that the ghost is imagined by Hamlet the second time and that he is actually insane at this point in the play (in my opinion at least).
Conclusions like this make me realize how important staging is and how with the same dialogue, completely different decisions about the plot can be made. Because of this, sometimes I found annotating to be difficult. Finding diction was easy enough but syntax was tough for me. In my eyes it was either iambic pentameter or prose. If we read any more Shakespeare hopefully I can analyze subtle syntax better.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Close Reading #4 (12/16)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/opinion/collins-the-woes-of-roe.html?ref=opinion
The article "The Woes of Roe" by Gail Collins is an editorial discussing the abortion issue that is constantly debated. Her article defends a woman's choice to have an abortion, and discusses how labels such as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" can affect how people view the question. To support her argument, Collins utilises diction, syntax, and details.
The main function of Collins' choice of diction is to relate to the target audience. She begins the article by mentioning that young Americans are giving less support for abortion rights, so young Americans are the people she needs to convince that abortion rights are important. To do this, Collins uses simple terms that teens use, but not too much so she still sounds like an imformed adult. Diction that relates to teens are words such as "crazy," "labels," or "popular." Throwing in words that teenagers hear on a daily basis from their peers helps them relate to the writer.
To make supporting abortion rights seem like the obvious choice, Collins includes different syntax techniques. As said above, Collins states that more young Americans are calling themselves pro-life rather than pro-choice. After this Collins writes, "On the other hand — I know you had faith that eventually we’d get to the other hand — the polls depend on the question." Breaking up the middle of the sentence with dashes makes the middle of the sentence sound like an aside. It implies that the reader was waiting anxiously to hear the rebuttal. Later, Collins includes the quote, "We’re just doing business as usual. Trying to be there for the women of Mississippi." The person saying the quote uses short simple sentences as if nothing more is necessary. This tone magnifies the point that what's truly important is supporting women no matter their personal choices.
The article "The Woes of Roe" by Gail Collins is an editorial discussing the abortion issue that is constantly debated. Her article defends a woman's choice to have an abortion, and discusses how labels such as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" can affect how people view the question. To support her argument, Collins utilises diction, syntax, and details.
The main function of Collins' choice of diction is to relate to the target audience. She begins the article by mentioning that young Americans are giving less support for abortion rights, so young Americans are the people she needs to convince that abortion rights are important. To do this, Collins uses simple terms that teens use, but not too much so she still sounds like an imformed adult. Diction that relates to teens are words such as "crazy," "labels," or "popular." Throwing in words that teenagers hear on a daily basis from their peers helps them relate to the writer.
To make supporting abortion rights seem like the obvious choice, Collins includes different syntax techniques. As said above, Collins states that more young Americans are calling themselves pro-life rather than pro-choice. After this Collins writes, "On the other hand — I know you had faith that eventually we’d get to the other hand — the polls depend on the question." Breaking up the middle of the sentence with dashes makes the middle of the sentence sound like an aside. It implies that the reader was waiting anxiously to hear the rebuttal. Later, Collins includes the quote, "We’re just doing business as usual. Trying to be there for the women of Mississippi." The person saying the quote uses short simple sentences as if nothing more is necessary. This tone magnifies the point that what's truly important is supporting women no matter their personal choices.
Lastly, details greatly reinforces Collins' point of view while convincing the reader. Even though lately more people say they are pro-life, "according to the Quinnipiac poll, if you ask Americans whether they agree with the Roe decision, nearly two-thirds say yes." Basically this is saying that even people that are pro-life agree with the decision that allows abortions. To help her case Collins includes details that tie into the struggle economy issue such as, "Abortion clinics around the country are reeling under crazy new rules that make it impossible for them to operate...only a handful managed to reopen." This detail says to the reader that this decision doesn't only effect women, it effects our economy. Finally, to drive it home Collins pushes the argument that women should decide what's right for women with the detail, "If you want to rack up a real positive response on a poll, ask people whether the women or the politicians should make decisions about their pregnancies. One of the surveys commissioned by Planned Parenthood showed 83 percent of likely voters picked the women, including 64 percent of those who called themselves pro-life."
A woman has the right to believe that an abortion is not right for her, so a woman should also be given the right to choose the alternative. This is what Collins' article wants to get across to the audience. To do this diction, syntax, and details, are skillfully used to support her view.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Open Prompt #4 (12/9)
In William Golding's Lord of the Flies, a group of school boys are stranded on an island left isolated to fend for themselves. The story follows their struggle to survive while they slowly progress from civilized to savage. Several symbols and motifs are implimented to reveal traits about the characters and enhance the themes of the story. One of the most important symbols is the conch shell, a source of power and order because the boy who holds it is allowed to speak. The conch becomes the symbol for civilization to magnify the theme of civilization vs. savagery and characterize the boy Ralph.
After a plane crash, the boys are scattered about the island and the sound of the conch shell brings them together again. The keeper of the conch shell Ralph becomes the leader of their group. In the beginning of the book, all is well on the island with everyone being responsible for a job (even if they don't always work diligently). Under the rule of the conch shell, the boys are civilized human beings. However, as violence increases the power of the conch decreases. Not long after the leader of the hunters Jack makes his first kill he decides to leave the group. As more and more boys follow Jack and abandon the conch shell, the more savage they become. Giving in to their inner beast, the boys turn severely violent without showing remorse. Without the order the conch provided, their state becomes so savage that they murder the only innocent character without the blink of an eye. Civilization finally loses the battle when the conch shatters. Following the destruction of the conch, the savages hunt down the original leader, Ralph, to murder him.
Another main function of the conch is to characterize Ralph. Ralph finds the conch and uses it to round up all the boys on the island. He is elected to be the leader and controls the conch. He is the one who decides the conch will be used to organize who will speak at their meetings. Other boys are not always concerned with the chores they are assigned but Ralph continuously tries to get work done for survival and to get home. When the other boys leave to join Jack's tribe, Ralph who still holds the conch refuses to join and denies the violent tendencies the other boys contracted. His close connection to the conch keeps him civil. At one point, Ralph leaves his camp and the conch and visits the other camp. While he is there he commits an act of violence, the murder of the innocent boy. However, Ralph is not transformed into a savage like his comrades. He returns to the conch and clutches it while he admits his sins to himself. After the shell is broken Ralph, the only civil one left, is hunted but before his attackers catch up he discovers a ship that will rescue them. Knowing he is safe, Ralph "wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart," (Golding). This boy who found the conch shell is able to reflect on the events and feel remorse for the loss of civilization.
The conch supports the book's main theme and is used to guage how characters lie on the spectrum of civilizaed or savage. The events involving the conch can provide insight into the theme and reveal the characters' true self. Without a conch, or gavel, or flag, society will discover the true nature of human beings.
After a plane crash, the boys are scattered about the island and the sound of the conch shell brings them together again. The keeper of the conch shell Ralph becomes the leader of their group. In the beginning of the book, all is well on the island with everyone being responsible for a job (even if they don't always work diligently). Under the rule of the conch shell, the boys are civilized human beings. However, as violence increases the power of the conch decreases. Not long after the leader of the hunters Jack makes his first kill he decides to leave the group. As more and more boys follow Jack and abandon the conch shell, the more savage they become. Giving in to their inner beast, the boys turn severely violent without showing remorse. Without the order the conch provided, their state becomes so savage that they murder the only innocent character without the blink of an eye. Civilization finally loses the battle when the conch shatters. Following the destruction of the conch, the savages hunt down the original leader, Ralph, to murder him.
Another main function of the conch is to characterize Ralph. Ralph finds the conch and uses it to round up all the boys on the island. He is elected to be the leader and controls the conch. He is the one who decides the conch will be used to organize who will speak at their meetings. Other boys are not always concerned with the chores they are assigned but Ralph continuously tries to get work done for survival and to get home. When the other boys leave to join Jack's tribe, Ralph who still holds the conch refuses to join and denies the violent tendencies the other boys contracted. His close connection to the conch keeps him civil. At one point, Ralph leaves his camp and the conch and visits the other camp. While he is there he commits an act of violence, the murder of the innocent boy. However, Ralph is not transformed into a savage like his comrades. He returns to the conch and clutches it while he admits his sins to himself. After the shell is broken Ralph, the only civil one left, is hunted but before his attackers catch up he discovers a ship that will rescue them. Knowing he is safe, Ralph "wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man’s heart," (Golding). This boy who found the conch shell is able to reflect on the events and feel remorse for the loss of civilization.
The conch supports the book's main theme and is used to guage how characters lie on the spectrum of civilizaed or savage. The events involving the conch can provide insight into the theme and reveal the characters' true self. Without a conch, or gavel, or flag, society will discover the true nature of human beings.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Response to Course Material #4 (12/2)
As much I as enjoyed discussing Death of a Salesman in class, I did not have as much fun annotating it. We are supposed to use at least three of the DIDLS and connect them to our annotations, but I found that most of the time I was just making comments on the motifs, theme, tone, etc. Finding techniques to annotate was a greater struggle than it was for American Dream. However, after reading the commentaries on Salesman, I saw that Miller said that the only real technique he used was Willy's use of Victorian language. This definitely made me feel better about my troubles with the annotations, and it also made me realize that a book or play doesn't have to be stuffed with DIDLS to create the theme. Of course DIDLS are still necessary and I'm still going to work hard to find them, but now I know to relax if they aren't as frequent as they are in other works.
Now that we are on to Hamlet, I am more confused then I have ever been. Reading along with the text while people read aloud is almost the same thing as tuning everyone out and waiting until Ms. Holmes stops to explain. Even if I knew what all of the different words from Shakespeare's time meant, I would still have trouble following. If something doesn't have straight-forward sentence structure I can't flip it around in my mind fast enough to understand the play as we're reading it. Hamlet is even harder than Romeo and Juliet or Taming of the Shrew because the plot even in plain English is difficult to comprehend. At least I have something to work on! We're only just starting so I'm hoping to improve as we get further into the play.
The other difficult thing about Hamlet is envisioning the staging. I also found this difficult in Salesman, but not so much so in American Dream. So far this year, we've only read plays, and plays do not give very detailed stage directions so the reader is left up to his or her own devices. Staging can greatly affect a scene, and knowing where the characters are in relation to each other affects mood and can even affect tone. Therefore with little stage directions, I feel like I could be picturing and hearing the scene extremely different from what was intended and possibly missing something important. Then again, perhaps that is the point. Forcing us to decide what exactly is happening can help us analyze the scene more closely. With this in mind I'm hoping to take this into account when we really get into Hamlet.
Now that we are on to Hamlet, I am more confused then I have ever been. Reading along with the text while people read aloud is almost the same thing as tuning everyone out and waiting until Ms. Holmes stops to explain. Even if I knew what all of the different words from Shakespeare's time meant, I would still have trouble following. If something doesn't have straight-forward sentence structure I can't flip it around in my mind fast enough to understand the play as we're reading it. Hamlet is even harder than Romeo and Juliet or Taming of the Shrew because the plot even in plain English is difficult to comprehend. At least I have something to work on! We're only just starting so I'm hoping to improve as we get further into the play.
The other difficult thing about Hamlet is envisioning the staging. I also found this difficult in Salesman, but not so much so in American Dream. So far this year, we've only read plays, and plays do not give very detailed stage directions so the reader is left up to his or her own devices. Staging can greatly affect a scene, and knowing where the characters are in relation to each other affects mood and can even affect tone. Therefore with little stage directions, I feel like I could be picturing and hearing the scene extremely different from what was intended and possibly missing something important. Then again, perhaps that is the point. Forcing us to decide what exactly is happening can help us analyze the scene more closely. With this in mind I'm hoping to take this into account when we really get into Hamlet.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Close Reading #3 (11/17)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/opinion/lies-murder-lexicography-dictionary.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion
In the article "Lies! Murder! Lexicography!" written by Ben Zimmer, sets the story straight on a dictionary scandal. Zimmer takes a humorous approach using diction, syntax, and to make the previous accusations toward the Oxford English Dictionary, that they omitted words from their dictionary, seem ridiculous.
The most obvious way Zimmer achieves this is through diction. Words such as "juicier," "shoddy," and "cooked-up," are used when describing the gossip that surrounded the issue when the false report appeared. These words might be found in the dictionary, but they are not words you would use if writing about a serious issue. Using more "slang" words gives the impression that a silly topic deserves silly words. Zimmer even makes up the word "wordhood" to poke fun at the admission of new words into the dictionary.
The scandal involving the dictionary is also made absurd using syntax. For example Zimmer wrote, "All of this over some editorial decisions about dictionary entries several decades ago!" about the scandal. The use of the exclamation point changes the tone of the sentence to emphasize Zimmer's disbelief. Another sentence that utilizes syntax is, "How does a media-generated “scandal” like this get cooked up in the first place, especially involving a profession as unglamorous as lexicography?" Placing a question in the article interrupts the flow and makes the reader stop. Like the previous example, using a question here also emphasizes disbelief and brings attention to the fact that dictionaries aren't interesting.
Lastly, Zimmer uses language to prove that any gossip about dictionaries is idiotic. When Zimmer provides the image that the offices of Oxford English Dictionary headquarters as "battlegrounds where the fate of the language is decided," or as "shadowy enterprises with secret, back-room meetings" you can't help but find humor in the ludicrous situation. Rendering the scandal about the dictionary as ridiculous takes away all of it's credibility, as Zimmer intended. The author certainly achieved this goal with his use of diction, syntax, and language.
In the article "Lies! Murder! Lexicography!" written by Ben Zimmer, sets the story straight on a dictionary scandal. Zimmer takes a humorous approach using diction, syntax, and to make the previous accusations toward the Oxford English Dictionary, that they omitted words from their dictionary, seem ridiculous.
The most obvious way Zimmer achieves this is through diction. Words such as "juicier," "shoddy," and "cooked-up," are used when describing the gossip that surrounded the issue when the false report appeared. These words might be found in the dictionary, but they are not words you would use if writing about a serious issue. Using more "slang" words gives the impression that a silly topic deserves silly words. Zimmer even makes up the word "wordhood" to poke fun at the admission of new words into the dictionary.
The scandal involving the dictionary is also made absurd using syntax. For example Zimmer wrote, "All of this over some editorial decisions about dictionary entries several decades ago!" about the scandal. The use of the exclamation point changes the tone of the sentence to emphasize Zimmer's disbelief. Another sentence that utilizes syntax is, "How does a media-generated “scandal” like this get cooked up in the first place, especially involving a profession as unglamorous as lexicography?" Placing a question in the article interrupts the flow and makes the reader stop. Like the previous example, using a question here also emphasizes disbelief and brings attention to the fact that dictionaries aren't interesting.
Lastly, Zimmer uses language to prove that any gossip about dictionaries is idiotic. When Zimmer provides the image that the offices of Oxford English Dictionary headquarters as "battlegrounds where the fate of the language is decided," or as "shadowy enterprises with secret, back-room meetings" you can't help but find humor in the ludicrous situation. Rendering the scandal about the dictionary as ridiculous takes away all of it's credibility, as Zimmer intended. The author certainly achieved this goal with his use of diction, syntax, and language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)