http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/05/080505fa_fact_sedaris?currentPage=4
The narrator is initially opposed to smoking, and his voice shows it. At the beginning of the essay, the reader sees him as a boy who thinks of the smoke as "the smell of neglect," instead of his preferred scent of "anticipation." This is an interesting view for anyone to take, much less a person in his early teens. Sedaris uses this unusual viewpoint as a meaningful detail; after reading it early on and connecting with the narrator, the reader is then disappointed on a personal level when the narrator takes up smoking in his early twenties.
In one paragraph, Sedaris uses the sentence's syntax to draw the reader's attention to the narrator's desire to be his own person."The ones I’d smoked earlier had been Ronnie’s—Pall Malls, I think—and though they tasted no better or worse than I thought they would, I felt that in the name of individuality I should find my own brand, something separate. Something me. " Of course, the irony is that he's joining a detrimental habit shared by millions. For the purposes of the essay, however, Sedaris doesn't come right out and say this. Instead, he follows the above line by listing various brands and what 'types' of people typically go for each brand, effectively destroying any sense of individuality through the use of subtle irony.
Sedaris also uses imagery as the narrator describes how wonderful smoking is: "For people like me, people who twitched and jerked and cried out in tiny voices, cigarettes were a godsend." This line gives the reader a sense of a smoker's self- perceived weakness, accompanied by a need to prop himself up on something like a cigarette. I doubt if most readers would feel a sense of empathy after this; speaking for myself, I found the diction and deliberate hyperbole amusing. It gives additional meaning to its paragraph by showing a smoker's dependancy on cigarettes.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Response to Course Material 5
The close readings of Ceremony have been, to say the least, quite in depth. I can't help but wonder what Silko would say if she knew the extent to which 5th hour literally dissects every sentence. There's a significant part of me that wonders if we're putting too much emphasis on what in reality might have been a subtle, unconscious voice within her head. That voice certainly produced a great work, but one does wonder if Sliko really crafted every line as purposely as an artist would add strokes of shading to a sea. The themes, symbolisms, and other techniques used in the novel are interesting to explore. After that, 5th hour needs to give it a rest for the sake of other classmate's sanity.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Response to Course Material 4
I appreciate the opportunity to read Ceremony. It is full of subtle inflections and deeper meanings, and I hope to get better at recognizing them as the year progresses.
One thing that I'm having a hard time with is all the superstition associated with the Native American culture. I'm a very rational person who likes proof before 'believing' in something; I'm becoming "hard-nosed, literal, precise and accurate," in the words of Tom Miller, a rather brilliant practitioner and instructor in rational psychology. These are great as personal qualities, but they don't help much in analyzing literature from someone else's standpoint when my brain is throwing a running commentary of "there's no proof," "how can someone believe that when this piece of science explicitly contradicts it," and so on. This is one of the reasons why I identify with Rocky, and yet this is not what the author of Ceremony intended, nor is it the point of the book.
I will use this as an opportunity to style-flex, ignoring what I consider irrationality and seeing it instead as a piece of culture unique to a certain viewpoint. Whether or not it's right is not the question. The question here is how the author uses culture in the meanings of a work.
One thing that I'm having a hard time with is all the superstition associated with the Native American culture. I'm a very rational person who likes proof before 'believing' in something; I'm becoming "hard-nosed, literal, precise and accurate," in the words of Tom Miller, a rather brilliant practitioner and instructor in rational psychology. These are great as personal qualities, but they don't help much in analyzing literature from someone else's standpoint when my brain is throwing a running commentary of "there's no proof," "how can someone believe that when this piece of science explicitly contradicts it," and so on. This is one of the reasons why I identify with Rocky, and yet this is not what the author of Ceremony intended, nor is it the point of the book.
I will use this as an opportunity to style-flex, ignoring what I consider irrationality and seeing it instead as a piece of culture unique to a certain viewpoint. Whether or not it's right is not the question. The question here is how the author uses culture in the meanings of a work.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Open Prompt 5
1998. In his essay "Walking," Henry David Thoreau offers the following assessment of literature:
In literature it is only the wild that attracts us. Dullness is but another name for tameness. It is the uncivilized free and wild thinking in Hamlet and The Iliad, in all scriptures and mythologies, not learned in schools, that delights us.
From the works that you have studied in school, choose a novel, play, or epic poem that you may initially have thought was conventional and tame but that you now value for its "uncivilized free and wild thinking." Write an essay in which you explain what constitutes its "uncivilized free and wild thinking" and how that thinking is central to the value of the work as a whole. Support your ideas with specific references to the work you choose.
Many authors choose love as a topic worthy of their extensive time and prowess. As there are a wide variety of works written about love, inevitably the average reader will come across those which do not appeal to him. This could be because of the works being poorly written, a duplication of ideas, or an expression of this most complex of topics in a simplified way. These are components which would lead a knowledgeable reader to think "predictable and tame." Romeo and Juliet is an example of a work which starts out as another predictable love story and evolves into an idea with "uncivilized free and wild thinking."
The meeting of Romeo and Juliet begins as any simple love story begins: they meet at the Capulet's ball and begin a heady flirtation. It's unclear exactly why they fall instantly in love; anything that real lovers would value-- for instance, common interests, a deep mental connection, physicality-- are rather absent. Some might argue that it is this that makes the play unpredictable. Yet many love stories seems to unfold from intense scenarios featuring lovers who fall in love under the flimsiest of circumstances. Considering that the characters are both teenagers, one could psychologically analyze them and point to the appeal that doing something against their families' wishes would bring. Teenage hormones would explain their intense attraction. Given the context in which Romeo and Juliet shortly court, the reader can clearly see the social constrictions that they must overcome. Based on the above analyzation, one could realize that they didn't fall in love in spite of their environment-- they fell in love because of it. These explanations that takes away from the idea of instant love is what makes Romeo and Juliet appear as another love saga.
By the end of the play, the reader has seen their entire tragedy unfold. It's not even when Romeo plunges a dagger into his chest to join his beloved that the reader feels a jolt of unpredictability. But in the final scene, when the families gather to commiserate over the death of their children, the reader finally experiences what one might call "uncivilized free and wild thinking." The families have two basic choices: they can keep fighting, or they can end their extensive feud that has now taken away the prospect of a future that every parent values in his offspring. Given past evidence of the intensity of their fighting, one would suppose they would continue to wage a war against the other-- with even greater intensity because of the destruction of their children at what they could easily see at the other's hand.
Yet it is in the wake of such disaster that Shakespeare gives the reader something unpredictable. The families ending their feud is an example of a paradoxical ending in that one would not expect peace to come about through such brutal violence. In the end, Shakespeare's ability to use "wild and free thought" arises not through the hypocrisy of a wealthy families' uncivilized acts of violence that occur throughout the play. It results from the quiet peace in the wake of two young lovers sacrificing themselves, thereby showing their families the capacity of love.
In literature it is only the wild that attracts us. Dullness is but another name for tameness. It is the uncivilized free and wild thinking in Hamlet and The Iliad, in all scriptures and mythologies, not learned in schools, that delights us.
From the works that you have studied in school, choose a novel, play, or epic poem that you may initially have thought was conventional and tame but that you now value for its "uncivilized free and wild thinking." Write an essay in which you explain what constitutes its "uncivilized free and wild thinking" and how that thinking is central to the value of the work as a whole. Support your ideas with specific references to the work you choose.
Many authors choose love as a topic worthy of their extensive time and prowess. As there are a wide variety of works written about love, inevitably the average reader will come across those which do not appeal to him. This could be because of the works being poorly written, a duplication of ideas, or an expression of this most complex of topics in a simplified way. These are components which would lead a knowledgeable reader to think "predictable and tame." Romeo and Juliet is an example of a work which starts out as another predictable love story and evolves into an idea with "uncivilized free and wild thinking."
The meeting of Romeo and Juliet begins as any simple love story begins: they meet at the Capulet's ball and begin a heady flirtation. It's unclear exactly why they fall instantly in love; anything that real lovers would value-- for instance, common interests, a deep mental connection, physicality-- are rather absent. Some might argue that it is this that makes the play unpredictable. Yet many love stories seems to unfold from intense scenarios featuring lovers who fall in love under the flimsiest of circumstances. Considering that the characters are both teenagers, one could psychologically analyze them and point to the appeal that doing something against their families' wishes would bring. Teenage hormones would explain their intense attraction. Given the context in which Romeo and Juliet shortly court, the reader can clearly see the social constrictions that they must overcome. Based on the above analyzation, one could realize that they didn't fall in love in spite of their environment-- they fell in love because of it. These explanations that takes away from the idea of instant love is what makes Romeo and Juliet appear as another love saga.
By the end of the play, the reader has seen their entire tragedy unfold. It's not even when Romeo plunges a dagger into his chest to join his beloved that the reader feels a jolt of unpredictability. But in the final scene, when the families gather to commiserate over the death of their children, the reader finally experiences what one might call "uncivilized free and wild thinking." The families have two basic choices: they can keep fighting, or they can end their extensive feud that has now taken away the prospect of a future that every parent values in his offspring. Given past evidence of the intensity of their fighting, one would suppose they would continue to wage a war against the other-- with even greater intensity because of the destruction of their children at what they could easily see at the other's hand.
Yet it is in the wake of such disaster that Shakespeare gives the reader something unpredictable. The families ending their feud is an example of a paradoxical ending in that one would not expect peace to come about through such brutal violence. In the end, Shakespeare's ability to use "wild and free thought" arises not through the hypocrisy of a wealthy families' uncivilized acts of violence that occur throughout the play. It results from the quiet peace in the wake of two young lovers sacrificing themselves, thereby showing their families the capacity of love.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Open Prompt 4
1995. Writers often highlight the values of a culture or a society by using characters who are alienated from that culture or society because of gender, race, class, or creed. Choose a novel or a play in which such a character plays a significant role and show how that character's alienation reveals the surrounding society's assumptions or moral values.
The Giver, by Lois Lowry, highlights contrasting values. The society in which Jonas lives in is designed perfectly, and the residents are protected from most physical and emotional pain. Jonas's knowledge that results from him being the new Receiver of Memory contrasts sharply with that of his society's. This not only causes alienation, but it also makes a statement about the value of knowledge and feelings.
Upon being selected for the most important of jobs, Jonas begins to learn about the memories that his society has repressed. He quickly finds that there are occasions of pain, such as a broken leg on a hill, and moments of joy, such as soaking up sunlight on a beach. The fact that the society in which he lives has transferred the job of remembering to one person is an alarming statement. Firstly, the diction itself uses the word 'job.' This is a generic term, one that holds little capacity for human connection and acts as a relegating agent. It also implies the division of duties much as the residents are separated from connection with others. Secondly, the reader is forced to look at the possibilities of how exactly this fictional society got to the point of 'Sameness,' with hardly any variation or unpredictability in its residents. The implication of gradualism means that the society once was fairly normal and slowly made decisions that stripped away such dangers as overpopulation, familial conflict, food shortage, and conflicts because of color. The reader also wonders about such a controlling society, which also functions as a comparison for real, modern values.
Jonas's difference from that of his peers quickly alienates him; he sees truths of the world which others are not aware of, which creates a contrast of values. The reader identifies with the protagonist, and in the process realizes the limitations imposed by the society. It does not know that it is crucial to humanity to experience differences in the individual, feel the depth of love, and pain to show that an individual loved and cared at all. Jonas knows all these concepts because of his difference, and it is there that the reader is meant to see the basic difference in values.
The Giver, by Lois Lowry, highlights contrasting values. The society in which Jonas lives in is designed perfectly, and the residents are protected from most physical and emotional pain. Jonas's knowledge that results from him being the new Receiver of Memory contrasts sharply with that of his society's. This not only causes alienation, but it also makes a statement about the value of knowledge and feelings.
Upon being selected for the most important of jobs, Jonas begins to learn about the memories that his society has repressed. He quickly finds that there are occasions of pain, such as a broken leg on a hill, and moments of joy, such as soaking up sunlight on a beach. The fact that the society in which he lives has transferred the job of remembering to one person is an alarming statement. Firstly, the diction itself uses the word 'job.' This is a generic term, one that holds little capacity for human connection and acts as a relegating agent. It also implies the division of duties much as the residents are separated from connection with others. Secondly, the reader is forced to look at the possibilities of how exactly this fictional society got to the point of 'Sameness,' with hardly any variation or unpredictability in its residents. The implication of gradualism means that the society once was fairly normal and slowly made decisions that stripped away such dangers as overpopulation, familial conflict, food shortage, and conflicts because of color. The reader also wonders about such a controlling society, which also functions as a comparison for real, modern values.
Jonas's difference from that of his peers quickly alienates him; he sees truths of the world which others are not aware of, which creates a contrast of values. The reader identifies with the protagonist, and in the process realizes the limitations imposed by the society. It does not know that it is crucial to humanity to experience differences in the individual, feel the depth of love, and pain to show that an individual loved and cared at all. Jonas knows all these concepts because of his difference, and it is there that the reader is meant to see the basic difference in values.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Response to Course Material 3 Oct 23
Looking at a text, I often feel as if insights into its meanings are obvious-- but only in hindsight. Although I'm getting better at reading literature for depth, I still feel as though I miss what's right in front of me. One of my goals for this year is to read a lot and stretch my abilities each time; that's started with The American Dream. Not only did I pick up on some subtleties, I also enjoyed the intellectual commentary on what I see as the consumerism tragedy still befalling Americans.
Though I've already studied Death of a Salesman in a previous class, my goal for this next segment will be on picking out even more layers of meanings.
Though I've already studied Death of a Salesman in a previous class, my goal for this next segment will be on picking out even more layers of meanings.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Open Prompt 3
1975. Although literary critics have tended to praise the unique in literary characterizations, many authors have employed the stereotyped character successfully. Select one work of acknowledged literary merit and in a well-written essay, show how the conventional or stereotyped character or characters function to achieve the author's purpose.
Mark Twain uses a variety of 'out of the box' characters to express his opinions on the dysfunctional, hypocritical state of society. This is most apparent in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, when the reader sees the atypical Huck struggling out of the confines of being 'civilized.' Twain also uses stereotypical characters for Huck to react to, thereby furthering the contrast on societal values.
Miss Watson and the Widow Douglas are both the stereotypical well-to-do women of the Antebellum era; they have money, are at the top of the town's happenings, and manage slaves. Twain uses them at the beginning to show how Huck is separate from 'civilization'. He shows this by having Huck appreciate their efforts, but in the end join Tom Sawyer's crime gang.
The Grangerfords and the Sheperdsons begin as stereotypical religious families, but Twain quickly twists it to make them into opposing sides who would happily kill the other while immersed in 'God's will.' While this is used for satirical purposes, Twain also sets up a scenario for the young Huck to respond to. As he is ignorant and naiive about much of life, he doesn't critically analyze the situation for the reader as a more mature and societally 'programmed' person might. The reader, however, gets the benefit of seeing someone yet untainted by hypocrisy react to events. This carries on throughout the book with the Duke and Dauphin.
Twain uses innocence to illustrate the hypocrisy evident in typical society, often employing satirized stereotypes to further this end. By having Huck react to them in a yet- un-programmed way, he shows the reader how ridiculous typical societal values look from the standpoint of those who have not yet grown used to behaving inside of them.
Mark Twain uses a variety of 'out of the box' characters to express his opinions on the dysfunctional, hypocritical state of society. This is most apparent in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, when the reader sees the atypical Huck struggling out of the confines of being 'civilized.' Twain also uses stereotypical characters for Huck to react to, thereby furthering the contrast on societal values.
Miss Watson and the Widow Douglas are both the stereotypical well-to-do women of the Antebellum era; they have money, are at the top of the town's happenings, and manage slaves. Twain uses them at the beginning to show how Huck is separate from 'civilization'. He shows this by having Huck appreciate their efforts, but in the end join Tom Sawyer's crime gang.
The Grangerfords and the Sheperdsons begin as stereotypical religious families, but Twain quickly twists it to make them into opposing sides who would happily kill the other while immersed in 'God's will.' While this is used for satirical purposes, Twain also sets up a scenario for the young Huck to respond to. As he is ignorant and naiive about much of life, he doesn't critically analyze the situation for the reader as a more mature and societally 'programmed' person might. The reader, however, gets the benefit of seeing someone yet untainted by hypocrisy react to events. This carries on throughout the book with the Duke and Dauphin.
Twain uses innocence to illustrate the hypocrisy evident in typical society, often employing satirized stereotypes to further this end. By having Huck react to them in a yet- un-programmed way, he shows the reader how ridiculous typical societal values look from the standpoint of those who have not yet grown used to behaving inside of them.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Close Reading Assignment 2
Me Talk Pretty One Day
http://www.macobo.com/essays/epdf/Me%20Talk%20Pretty%20One%20Day%20by%20Sedaris.pdf
Diction
Sedaris uses a light, informal tone, reminiscent of someone complaining about his rough day to a sympathetic friend. Specific words include 'nerve-wracking,' 'rattle-off,' 'kill some time,' and 'jotted down notes.' This contributes to the mood of the casual, common narrator being abused by his violently-tempered teacher.
Syntax
Sedaris illustrates the students' shabby command of the French language by mixing up the grammatical structure of their sentences. He does this mostly for humorous effect, and to further give light to the bullying nature of the teacher. For instance, "Sometimes me cry alone at night" does both in way of supporting the essay.
Details
The comments from the teacher flush out her abusive personality, as does the narration about her comments. "The teacher killed some time accusing the Yugoslavian girl of masterminding a program of genocide" illustrates how quick to fight she is. Her sarcasm is also evident in quips like "How very interesting. I thought that everyone loved the mosquito, but here, in front of all the world, you claim to detest him. How is it that we've been blessed with someone as unique and original as you?"
Another relevant detail that supports the inhuman characteristics of the teacher is the fact that the narrator never mentions her name; it's as though she doesn't have that most basic feature that identifies her with others.
http://www.macobo.com/essays/epdf/Me%20Talk%20Pretty%20One%20Day%20by%20Sedaris.pdf
Diction
Sedaris uses a light, informal tone, reminiscent of someone complaining about his rough day to a sympathetic friend. Specific words include 'nerve-wracking,' 'rattle-off,' 'kill some time,' and 'jotted down notes.' This contributes to the mood of the casual, common narrator being abused by his violently-tempered teacher.
Syntax
Sedaris illustrates the students' shabby command of the French language by mixing up the grammatical structure of their sentences. He does this mostly for humorous effect, and to further give light to the bullying nature of the teacher. For instance, "Sometimes me cry alone at night" does both in way of supporting the essay.
Details
The comments from the teacher flush out her abusive personality, as does the narration about her comments. "The teacher killed some time accusing the Yugoslavian girl of masterminding a program of genocide" illustrates how quick to fight she is. Her sarcasm is also evident in quips like "How very interesting. I thought that everyone loved the mosquito, but here, in front of all the world, you claim to detest him. How is it that we've been blessed with someone as unique and original as you?"
Another relevant detail that supports the inhuman characteristics of the teacher is the fact that the narrator never mentions her name; it's as though she doesn't have that most basic feature that identifies her with others.
Response to Course Material 2
Though not providing much in the way of excitement, syntax is nonetheless rather fascinating to study. I don't mean this as though I'm lacking something more interesting to say about the topic, or attempting to hide my chagrin at having to learn about it at all by covering it up with false interest. But I never fully realized how the positioning of words within a paragraph, sentence, or phrase contributed to drawing the reader's attention and influencing how he or she read and absorbed ideas from the text. As I've absorbed every book I could get my hands on ever since I can remember, the ability to make ideas flow when I write seems innate. It's only been over the past couple weeks that I've solidified instinct into something that I can concretely explain with a solid level of confidence, and perhaps it's this evolution that I find most engaging.
In regard to Albee's American Dream, I already have numerous ideas orbiting through my analytical mentality, ideas that are probably fairly accurate as to the meaning and elements that contribute to such. These, like my abilities as a writer, have been accumulated over readings, papers, and understanding literary patterns- but rarely flushed out. I'm anticipating long hours of staring at Albee's words while I learn just how to fully pull out subtleties from the work-- and be able to explain previous instincts as solid theses.
In regard to Albee's American Dream, I already have numerous ideas orbiting through my analytical mentality, ideas that are probably fairly accurate as to the meaning and elements that contribute to such. These, like my abilities as a writer, have been accumulated over readings, papers, and understanding literary patterns- but rarely flushed out. I'm anticipating long hours of staring at Albee's words while I learn just how to fully pull out subtleties from the work-- and be able to explain previous instincts as solid theses.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Open Prompt
1970 Also. Choose a work of recognized literary merit in which a specific inanimate object (e.g., a seashell, a handkerchief, a painting) is important, and write an essay in which you show how two or three of the purposes the object serves are related to one another.
Golding's novel The Lord of the Flies contains disturbing illusions about the innate nature of humans, among them the idea that culture is just a gloss over savagery. Throughout the novel, the stranded boys use a conch shell to communicate. The conch shell is a symbol representing a tool of civilization, and its fall from respect is in of itself a symbol of the boys' return to savagery.
Upon first being stranded, the boys call each other together by blowing the conch. Here, the conch functions as a means of communication, as the boys cannot assemble if they do not know where the others are. When the boys do gather together, that cooperation is made possible by the conch shell. Further cooperation takes place when the boys recognize the right to speak by whoever holds the conch. Although a continuation of cooperation, this is also a tool of political power, used to hold together a loose system of rule and order.
The conch's purposes become less and less effective as the boys lose their civilized behaviors, eroding the previous cooperation, communication, and political power among them. Golding implies through those physical functions that the conch's actual purpose is that of keeping a structured order, akin to government. When the boys become savage, the conch is no longer effective, furthered symbolized when it is smashed by the boulder. Golding conveys themes of The Lord of the Flies through such symbolisms and functions-- both physical and implied--, and those of the conch shell work together to contribute to the boy's fall from grace.
Golding's novel The Lord of the Flies contains disturbing illusions about the innate nature of humans, among them the idea that culture is just a gloss over savagery. Throughout the novel, the stranded boys use a conch shell to communicate. The conch shell is a symbol representing a tool of civilization, and its fall from respect is in of itself a symbol of the boys' return to savagery.
Upon first being stranded, the boys call each other together by blowing the conch. Here, the conch functions as a means of communication, as the boys cannot assemble if they do not know where the others are. When the boys do gather together, that cooperation is made possible by the conch shell. Further cooperation takes place when the boys recognize the right to speak by whoever holds the conch. Although a continuation of cooperation, this is also a tool of political power, used to hold together a loose system of rule and order.
The conch's purposes become less and less effective as the boys lose their civilized behaviors, eroding the previous cooperation, communication, and political power among them. Golding implies through those physical functions that the conch's actual purpose is that of keeping a structured order, akin to government. When the boys become savage, the conch is no longer effective, furthered symbolized when it is smashed by the boulder. Golding conveys themes of The Lord of the Flies through such symbolisms and functions-- both physical and implied--, and those of the conch shell work together to contribute to the boy's fall from grace.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Response to 1970 open prompt
Authors have long since written about the corruptive and harmful nature of society on the individual. Frequently, the individual tries to reach a proposed ideal, only to fail in the process. The acclaimed novel The Great Gatsby is one of the most prominent works depicting how a society pressures a character and corrupts him in turn.
Gatsby's relationship with Daisy went on hold when he was shipped overseas by the army during World War I, and he returned five years later, determined to increase his status so she can love him. This reinvention included illegal bootlegging and other illegal activities, a mansion, and lavish parties designed to win the favor of the upper class. It's a telling sign of the emphasis that the 1920s culture placed on wealth and status. The Roaring 20s epitome of bettering oneself and his station in life, but for all the culture's attempted control for the sake of morality, it frequently demanded that the individual go about advancement by illegal means.
Bootlegging, gambling, 'fixing' large-scale events, and obtaining large amounts of money through mysterious measures are the low activities that Gatsby stoops to in order to elevate his status. While ironic in itself, it also speaks to how suffocating the society is in which he lives-- that in order to achieve one's dreams, one must be at the top of the totem pole and able to influence others. This may or may not be the reality in The Great Gatsby's culture, however what is reality is the impression that the culture's ideal caused.
Also prevalent are the amount of lies told about personal history. For all the guests at Gatsby's routine parties, hardly any of them know the first thing about their host, who is not an active participant. Gatsby claims that he went to Oxford, and takes care not to talk about the past where he was known by his family name of 'Gatz.' The fact that the high-reaching characters do not believe they can achieve as themselves takes reinvention to such a high step that they actually become what they most fear. Only Nick, Gatsby's father, and a few of his servants attend Gatsby's funeral, evidence that he leaves no lasting memory behind in the constantly forward-moving world. The focus on greed and obtaining more does not breed personal connection. The real tragedy of Gatsby might well be that despite all of his work and suffering to obtain a lofty ideal, material possessions do not automatically translate into human connection. His legacy fades away.
Gatsby's relationship with Daisy went on hold when he was shipped overseas by the army during World War I, and he returned five years later, determined to increase his status so she can love him. This reinvention included illegal bootlegging and other illegal activities, a mansion, and lavish parties designed to win the favor of the upper class. It's a telling sign of the emphasis that the 1920s culture placed on wealth and status. The Roaring 20s epitome of bettering oneself and his station in life, but for all the culture's attempted control for the sake of morality, it frequently demanded that the individual go about advancement by illegal means.
Bootlegging, gambling, 'fixing' large-scale events, and obtaining large amounts of money through mysterious measures are the low activities that Gatsby stoops to in order to elevate his status. While ironic in itself, it also speaks to how suffocating the society is in which he lives-- that in order to achieve one's dreams, one must be at the top of the totem pole and able to influence others. This may or may not be the reality in The Great Gatsby's culture, however what is reality is the impression that the culture's ideal caused.
Also prevalent are the amount of lies told about personal history. For all the guests at Gatsby's routine parties, hardly any of them know the first thing about their host, who is not an active participant. Gatsby claims that he went to Oxford, and takes care not to talk about the past where he was known by his family name of 'Gatz.' The fact that the high-reaching characters do not believe they can achieve as themselves takes reinvention to such a high step that they actually become what they most fear. Only Nick, Gatsby's father, and a few of his servants attend Gatsby's funeral, evidence that he leaves no lasting memory behind in the constantly forward-moving world. The focus on greed and obtaining more does not breed personal connection. The real tragedy of Gatsby might well be that despite all of his work and suffering to obtain a lofty ideal, material possessions do not automatically translate into human connection. His legacy fades away.
Open Prompt 1: 1970
1970. 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.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The Way We Are
www. newyorker.com/reporting/2007/02/19/070219fa_fact_sedaris?currentPage=all
Response to "The Way We Are"
Sedaris uses details to illustrate the points of his reflective article. The very first sentence is "In Paris they warn you before cutting off the water, but in out Normandy, you're just supposed to know." The reader's first impression is that the narrator is used to the big city, and therefore has led a convenienced lifestyle. Furthering this are the two paragraphs musing about making coffee when there's no water, and the reader infers that not only is the narrator not very rugged, but he's incredibly out of place in the setting as well. He wakes up at about ten in the morning, a time at odds with that of his neighbors and boyfriend Hugh. By the use of diction, the reader finds that he thinks they feel that by doing so, they are better than he is. Sedaris accomplishes this with the simple sentence of "I only know that they're incredibly self-righteous about it, and talk about the dawn as if it's a personal reward, bestowed on account of their great virtue." Embedded in this sentence are clues to the narrator's resentment, such as 'self-righteous,' 'personal reward,' and 'great virtue.'
Another conclusion that the reader draws is that the narrator is often at odds with Hugh. Details conducive to this perception lie in the narrator's obvious exasperation with what are frequently Hugh's best of intentions, but none-the-less inconvenient and unnecessary ways of doing things. These include Hugh doing laundry by beating clothes against a river rock instead of in a tub, and deciding to grind his own flour for the fun of it. Backing up the details is Sedaris's use of diction. Upon finding Hugh at the river with laundry, the narrator asks "Who ARE you?" and imagines that in Hugh's ineptness, he would transport a baby "hanging, red-faced, by its gums." It's this sort of imagery, among them the previously mentioned descriptions of coffee, that hook the reader's attention and ensure that he visualizes what the narrator is describing and does so with the tint of exasperation in the diction.
Sedaris's main point is about roles, and other's assumption that people are black and white, or "cut and dried," as the narrator muses after the weed-buying interaction. The fact that the wife was acting in an ungrateful, nagging manner equivalent to a bitch and her husband in a 'pity-me' mentality shows Sedaris making the point that some people tend to follow a role. He even does this with the narrator's brother speaking in a boastful, yet condescending way about his brother being gay: "Has hisself a cocksucker.... and everything." The use of 'hisself' only serves to emphasize how limited in education and knowledge the brother really is. However, other, there are the rare, mentality-conscious individuals who try to stay out of such boxes and recognize that people can be much more complicated than simplistic life-views allow. The narrator acknowledges that there are no roles then he think that though "Hugh might do the cooking, and actually wear an apron while he's at it.... he also chops the firewood, repairs the hot-water heater, and could tear my arm off...." This imagery is important to readers, as the narrator chooses not to verbally engage his unenlightened brother, Big Mike, or his wife, but instead shares his insights with the reader through train-of-thought.
In the end, Sadaris closes with the imagery of the narrator throwing Hugh's bunch of flowers through the window and using thir water for his coffee. This in itself makes more of a statement that Hugh may be missing the value of his partner in exchange for his environment than the narrator's closing decision to argue with Hugh that he is "all the beauty he will ever need."
obvious exasperation "Who ARE you?
Response to "The Way We Are"
Sedaris uses details to illustrate the points of his reflective article. The very first sentence is "In Paris they warn you before cutting off the water, but in out Normandy, you're just supposed to know." The reader's first impression is that the narrator is used to the big city, and therefore has led a convenienced lifestyle. Furthering this are the two paragraphs musing about making coffee when there's no water, and the reader infers that not only is the narrator not very rugged, but he's incredibly out of place in the setting as well. He wakes up at about ten in the morning, a time at odds with that of his neighbors and boyfriend Hugh. By the use of diction, the reader finds that he thinks they feel that by doing so, they are better than he is. Sedaris accomplishes this with the simple sentence of "I only know that they're incredibly self-righteous about it, and talk about the dawn as if it's a personal reward, bestowed on account of their great virtue." Embedded in this sentence are clues to the narrator's resentment, such as 'self-righteous,' 'personal reward,' and 'great virtue.'
Another conclusion that the reader draws is that the narrator is often at odds with Hugh. Details conducive to this perception lie in the narrator's obvious exasperation with what are frequently Hugh's best of intentions, but none-the-less inconvenient and unnecessary ways of doing things. These include Hugh doing laundry by beating clothes against a river rock instead of in a tub, and deciding to grind his own flour for the fun of it. Backing up the details is Sedaris's use of diction. Upon finding Hugh at the river with laundry, the narrator asks "Who ARE you?" and imagines that in Hugh's ineptness, he would transport a baby "hanging, red-faced, by its gums." It's this sort of imagery, among them the previously mentioned descriptions of coffee, that hook the reader's attention and ensure that he visualizes what the narrator is describing and does so with the tint of exasperation in the diction.
Sedaris's main point is about roles, and other's assumption that people are black and white, or "cut and dried," as the narrator muses after the weed-buying interaction. The fact that the wife was acting in an ungrateful, nagging manner equivalent to a bitch and her husband in a 'pity-me' mentality shows Sedaris making the point that some people tend to follow a role. He even does this with the narrator's brother speaking in a boastful, yet condescending way about his brother being gay: "Has hisself a cocksucker.... and everything." The use of 'hisself' only serves to emphasize how limited in education and knowledge the brother really is. However, other, there are the rare, mentality-conscious individuals who try to stay out of such boxes and recognize that people can be much more complicated than simplistic life-views allow. The narrator acknowledges that there are no roles then he think that though "Hugh might do the cooking, and actually wear an apron while he's at it.... he also chops the firewood, repairs the hot-water heater, and could tear my arm off...." This imagery is important to readers, as the narrator chooses not to verbally engage his unenlightened brother, Big Mike, or his wife, but instead shares his insights with the reader through train-of-thought.
In the end, Sadaris closes with the imagery of the narrator throwing Hugh's bunch of flowers through the window and using thir water for his coffee. This in itself makes more of a statement that Hugh may be missing the value of his partner in exchange for his environment than the narrator's closing decision to argue with Hugh that he is "all the beauty he will ever need."
obvious exasperation "Who ARE you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)