So, let's see. We finally finished The American Dream, began and completed The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing, and watched Death of a Salesman. That's a lot of italics. But it's all good, because we learned that next year, for the AP Exam, we're going to need all the italics we can remember. Seeing 3 in one month makes me feel pretty.. productive?
Beginning with a final analysis of American Dream, I think I'm writing a thought everyone else has already written in that it makes more sense now. It's actually kind of disturbing how much sense such a bizarre piece can make. But that's old news.
Next was Nuts and Bolts. I agreed with that book a lot more than HTRLLAP. And I know Ms. Holmes told us all that you can't disagree with either book, they're gravity, it's just how it is, but here's the thing about gravity: No one knows how it works. We know how to manipulate it, how to computate it, and (in the case of our books), how to annotate it, but I can still be as obstinate as I want until I hear an explanation. So I accept the rules found in Nuts and Bolts, but while I respect the ideas in HTRLLAP I can't always agree with them. But I suppose that that too is old news.
Finally, Death of a Salesman. I did enjoy the movie. In this case, I even agree that it was OK to watch the movie before reading the book. I think there is a bigger spoiler in the title than there could have been in the movie. So it was no surprise that the salesman died and we knew it was going to happen the entire time. Anyway, a good movie, and what promises to be a challenging book. All in all, not a bad couple of weeks.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Thursday, October 16, 2014
American Dream Summary/Analysis
We all have an analysis of The American Dream somewhere. So please excuse the comparatively short post- I feel like everyone's probably Dream-ed out by now. Or maybe it's just me.
This play, on the surface, is a bunch of nonsensical phrases strung together in a low budget setting with blank characters and... well, no plot at all. However, by the time we finished discussing, we'd decided that a possible theme was how American society and structure have been corrupted by consumerism. How? Well, here's the summary.
Mommy and Daddy are chilling and talking about nothing in particular when Grandma enters, laden with boxes. Then the three of them chill for a while and talk a little more about nothing. Noteworthy quotes up to this point include:
(Mommy on the boxes) "Whatever are they for?"
(Grandma) "That's nobody's damn business."
Continuing, after another god bit of nonsense, Mrs. Barker enters. The only one the entire play who seems to know why Mrs. Barker appears is Grandma.
As the four converse, a few interesting remarks are made. First off, Daddy is a woman now. Mommy is a controlling freak who has certain... preferences. Mommy has total control of the household, pointing to a motif- emasculation. The men in this play (what few there are) have no power over the women.
I think this a good place to talk about tone. Referring back to my first sentence/second paragraph, there is no tone. I take that back. There is such a complete lack of tone that a tone is almost present- abstractness. The narrator is entirely detached and seemingly uncaring, yet seems so much so that they are attempting to make a point. this goes in line with the author's other works. Theater of the Absurd and whatnot. Albee's background, which we all know now, is deeply rooted in the play.
OK. After a good while, Young Man enters. He seems to be the new American Dream as much as Grandma represents the old. Young Man is clueless and self-absorbed- proud of his handsome looks, but unfeeling and hardly present. This is explained by Grandma to Mrs Barker, when Grandma reveals Barker's reason for being there.
The play's dramatic ending comes with another good quote by Grandma:
"I've got to go into my act now".
Grandma is the only really present character the entire play. The 'conclusion' also show the audience that Grandma is the only character of substance.
That's not it. But it's all I have. Thanks for doing the assignment and reading it.
This play, on the surface, is a bunch of nonsensical phrases strung together in a low budget setting with blank characters and... well, no plot at all. However, by the time we finished discussing, we'd decided that a possible theme was how American society and structure have been corrupted by consumerism. How? Well, here's the summary.
Mommy and Daddy are chilling and talking about nothing in particular when Grandma enters, laden with boxes. Then the three of them chill for a while and talk a little more about nothing. Noteworthy quotes up to this point include:
(Mommy on the boxes) "Whatever are they for?"
(Grandma) "That's nobody's damn business."
Continuing, after another god bit of nonsense, Mrs. Barker enters. The only one the entire play who seems to know why Mrs. Barker appears is Grandma.
As the four converse, a few interesting remarks are made. First off, Daddy is a woman now. Mommy is a controlling freak who has certain... preferences. Mommy has total control of the household, pointing to a motif- emasculation. The men in this play (what few there are) have no power over the women.
I think this a good place to talk about tone. Referring back to my first sentence/second paragraph, there is no tone. I take that back. There is such a complete lack of tone that a tone is almost present- abstractness. The narrator is entirely detached and seemingly uncaring, yet seems so much so that they are attempting to make a point. this goes in line with the author's other works. Theater of the Absurd and whatnot. Albee's background, which we all know now, is deeply rooted in the play.
OK. After a good while, Young Man enters. He seems to be the new American Dream as much as Grandma represents the old. Young Man is clueless and self-absorbed- proud of his handsome looks, but unfeeling and hardly present. This is explained by Grandma to Mrs Barker, when Grandma reveals Barker's reason for being there.
The play's dramatic ending comes with another good quote by Grandma:
"I've got to go into my act now".
Grandma is the only really present character the entire play. The 'conclusion' also show the audience that Grandma is the only character of substance.
That's not it. But it's all I have. Thanks for doing the assignment and reading it.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Close Reading 10/12
http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/10/1-million-will-ocean-science-quiz-program-survive-tough-times#disqus_thread
The article in the link (above) was published as straight news. But I really wanted to use it so take what I say with a liberal spoonful of salt.
DIDLS can be applied to straight news. We were told it was a bad idea, and it was a trial, but of course I managed to do it. Looking at the article in question, it could possibly be thought that the author might have maybe editorialized a tiny bit- basing my post on a study of diction, structure, and details.
The article in the link (above) was published as straight news. But I really wanted to use it so take what I say with a liberal spoonful of salt.
DIDLS can be applied to straight news. We were told it was a bad idea, and it was a trial, but of course I managed to do it. Looking at the article in question, it could possibly be thought that the author might have maybe editorialized a tiny bit- basing my post on a study of diction, structure, and details.
First comes diction. The words the author uses drives the point home by... well. being really good. Take the first paragraph, the lead.
"Ocean scientists are working to keep afloat a 16-year-old U.S. competition aimed at encouraging young people to appreciate marine research and join their field."
"Ocean scientists are working to keep afloat a 16-year-old U.S. competition aimed at encouraging young people to appreciate marine research and join their field."
Now read it again. Pretty doggone clever, right? I chose a great lead to analyze! An article about a struggling oceanography competition, and they use the word "afloat". Like in water and stuff. and later on in the same paragraph- go read it for yourself- the author uses the word "scramble". Like EGGS? Like fish eggs? Is it a stretch? I don't know- how do eggs come out of a fish? They're squeezed out! Look back in the same sentence for that word! The same way the squeezing comes before the scrambling! Is it a coincidence? Am I crazy? Does the author actually mean for all this to matter? Aren't we supposed to not care? The author always means everything we think they do. That's straight outa Week 4. I could also tell you the author is a female and probably blonde, judging by her style. Don't believe me? Go see for yourself. By the way, crazy thing about fish eggs? Most of them float. Just like NOSB is trying to do.
Next, structure. The author does an acceptable job of varying sentence length, which maintains the reader's interest. The author also does neat work when it comes to paragraph length. Cut off at just the right time and place, each paragraph is succinctly finished. The thoughts that come through the reader's mind in the space between each paragraph are attributes to this article's profoundness. Try rereading the end of paragraph and pausing when finished. Think about the given statistic. That is a sad fact. Now go on. And do the same for each final period after- stop and think about what the writer is trying to say in those one line spaces between each phrase. I really chose structurally strong article, didn't I.
(This last a picky aspect, and the only reason I'm mentioning it is because I'm having trouble coming up with other areas of this article to create. But I guess you could say that goes for this entire post.)
One fact that the article does not explain is the reason for recent funding cuts. With the aid of details (a part of which being what the author does not say), the article is leaning toward helplessness on the National Ocean Science Bowls' part.
"...federal budget cuts are putting a squeeze on the effort..." (Paragraph 1)
" ...the automatic 2013 budget cuts known as the sequester slashed education funding at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOSB’s main financial supporter." (Paragraph 3)
These quotes indicate that NOSB is on the chopping block- and while there is no question about that, there is no explanation as to why, other than general funding cuts. This kind of pits the reader against the government and the budget cuts, only revealing how they have effected the organization itself without the cause of the cuts.
Not a big deal at all. The article, only slightly flawed, did an excellent job of bringing attention to the minor yet resounding effects of federal budget cuts. Small organizations (and large ones) are suddenly caught without their former one major source of income. Though a little slanted, the author does a good job of providing news of change within a surprisingly widespread effort and gateway for young enthusiasts.
Man, did I choose a great article or what.
Next, structure. The author does an acceptable job of varying sentence length, which maintains the reader's interest. The author also does neat work when it comes to paragraph length. Cut off at just the right time and place, each paragraph is succinctly finished. The thoughts that come through the reader's mind in the space between each paragraph are attributes to this article's profoundness. Try rereading the end of paragraph and pausing when finished. Think about the given statistic. That is a sad fact. Now go on. And do the same for each final period after- stop and think about what the writer is trying to say in those one line spaces between each phrase. I really chose structurally strong article, didn't I.
(This last a picky aspect, and the only reason I'm mentioning it is because I'm having trouble coming up with other areas of this article to create. But I guess you could say that goes for this entire post.)
One fact that the article does not explain is the reason for recent funding cuts. With the aid of details (a part of which being what the author does not say), the article is leaning toward helplessness on the National Ocean Science Bowls' part.
"...federal budget cuts are putting a squeeze on the effort..." (Paragraph 1)
" ...the automatic 2013 budget cuts known as the sequester slashed education funding at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOSB’s main financial supporter." (Paragraph 3)
These quotes indicate that NOSB is on the chopping block- and while there is no question about that, there is no explanation as to why, other than general funding cuts. This kind of pits the reader against the government and the budget cuts, only revealing how they have effected the organization itself without the cause of the cuts.
Not a big deal at all. The article, only slightly flawed, did an excellent job of bringing attention to the minor yet resounding effects of federal budget cuts. Small organizations (and large ones) are suddenly caught without their former one major source of income. Though a little slanted, the author does a good job of providing news of change within a surprisingly widespread effort and gateway for young enthusiasts.
Man, did I choose a great article or what.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)