Outside Reading: Editorial Column due 1/10/11

1/9/11

"The First Drafts of American History" by Adam Kirsch

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/opinion/08kirsch.html

In “The First Drafts of American History”, Adam Kirsch writes about two recent attempts to cover up the past. When the Constitution was read aloud in the House of Representatives this past Thursday, the section that stated a House seat was worth “three-fifths of all other persons”, meaning non-whites, was skipped over. Also recently, the publishing company NewSouth Books announced they will be printing an edited version of Mark Twain's “Huckleberry Finn” that will replace the word “nigger” with “slave”. Kirsch analyzes the implications of these decisions and disagrees with the alteration of history and literature.

Kirsch makes the opposing opinion seem foolish by his specific diction when writing about it. He wrote that the idea of skipping over the Constitution's euphemism “stumbled out of the gate” and ended in “embarrassed silence”.

Kirsch uses logic to solidify his point. He puts very nicely that if you “start eliminating everything offensive in literary history, you’ll have little left” and that “trying to distract us from something ugly only makes the ugliness harder to miss.”

Kirsch crafts his persona by approaching the subject with an open mind rather than a raised fist. Instead of immediately accosting those responsible for these changes, he understands how a person can believe it to be appropriate. “I began to feel torn, because I could imagine the effect that its deluge of epithets would have on a young reader, especially a young black reader.” By being sympathetic to the opposing side, what he has to say seems to be more reliable and relatable than if he was furiously condemning it. This makes it more likely for a reader with an opposing opinion to consider changing their stance.

The way that Kirsch creates his voice impacts my response in a positive way. His logical train of thought is understandable and it solidifies my own opinion on the subject. I too, believe that it is foolish to skip over parts of the Constitution or replace words with euphemisms because that erases history. I would rather feel uncomfortable reading Huckleberry Finn aloud as a group in English class than pretend like it never happened.

The speaker of this editorial would be appropriate for an AP Essay in a way because of it's rational thought process. On the other hand, it probably wouldn't score very high because there aren't solid proofs to back up claims made by the author.

Outside Reading: Reflective Essay due 1/10/11

1/9/11

"Letting Go" by David Sedaris

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/05/080505fa_fact_sedaris

“Letting Go” by David Sedaris is mainly about his experience with cigarettes. Though the essay is Sedaris' accounts of some past events in his life, there is no sense of emotion. The tone is very straight forward, direct, and matter-of-fact. The structure in which he presents some events in his past is like his thought process. It is sporadic, choppy, and unfinished. It is as if he is musing to himself aloud.

Sedaris creates his matter-of-fact tone by not mentioning any residing feelings he has about any of the events he recounts. For example, he writes about how he destroyed a pack of his mom's cigarettes and how she beat him heavily afterwords for it. By simply stating the events then moving on to the next thought without commenting on any emotions he felt, the reader feels as if he is nonchalantly recalling it.

Almost a whole third of Sedaris' essay is set aside where he writes about his dislike for cigarettes since childhood. He uses pejorative diction when writing about them like voodoo doll, depressing, neglect, unpleasant, bothered, etc. This shows his obviously negative point of view regarding cigarettes. All of a sudden, right after his denouncement of this bad habit, he writes, “When I started smoking myself...” The fact that he makes no effort to explain this action solidifies his matter-of-fact tone. His lack of explanations also makes the reader feel as if they are in Sedaris' mind, following his sporadic train of thought as he muses to himself rather than relating the story to someone. He skims through the facts without reflecting on the whys.

His sporadic train of thought becomes more evident as his essay continues. He begins to write about a trip he made to Vancouver with his friend. The audience expects him to relate something of importance that happened on that trip but instead, Sedaris' goes off on a tangent about what kind of person smokes what kind of cigarette. He gives no kind of resolution to the story he began to write about but becomes entangled in listing off cigarette stereotypes. The reader can only assume he gets lost in his thoughts because once he finishes, he writes about how there were creepy drunk people in Canada and ends his piece. This random ending that had no connection whatsoever to what he began to write about is a telltale sign that this essay is meant only to be glimpse inside of his mind.

This essay definitely would not work for an AP Essay because there is no intention with the information Sedaris' provides. They are merely musings and are not meant to prove any kind of point.

Outside Reading: Book Review due 1/10/11

1/9/11

"Blood Lust and Britney Spears" by Toby Young

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704774604576035523274398038.html?mod=WSJ_Books_LS_Books_5

In Blood Lust and Britney Spears, Toby Young writes about Tom Payne's “Fame”. In “Fame”, Payne studies society's obsession with celebrities through the eyes of the ancient Greeks and Romans, whom he thinks can provide insight. Young gives a critique of Payne's work while actively trying to remain unbiased by looking at each of his claims from both sides. This allows the reader to have more faith in Young's analysis and believe what he is writing.

As the piece begins, Young questions Payne's ability to provide anything original in an already stale topic, yet in a sympathetic way. While pointing out Payne's origins as a professor at the England's “snootiest” private school, Young writes that he “struggles manfully” to attempt to revive this dull topic. Young uses a very accurate simile to describe Payne's familiarity with contemporary celebrities: “He's like an amateur naturalist, marveling at all the exotic flora on some South Sea Island but without any grasp of botany.” At the same time, Young is supportive of Payne by claiming that his unfamiliarity with modern fame doesn't prove to be much of a handicap. His diction simultaneously questions and encourages Payne's work which makes the reader believe that the review is evenly criticized.

With all the doubts Young has about the solidity of “Fame”, he does give Payne credit that he did his research and that his claims are not unfounded. When Payne reaches an interesting theory about how the media's treatment of falling stars is a form of human sacrifice, a way that we can satiate our modern blood lust, Young acknowledges that Payne brought forth “a wealth of examples” as proof. At the same time, he politely points out faults in the author's claims, like the lack of proof of Greek and Roman sacrifice and how Payne's theory was a bit of a stretch.

Young isn't satisfied with the parallels Payne draws between history and the present and believes there must be an “overarching theory” to be the backbone to all of Payne's claims. Young use of diction is very clever in that he points out Payne's faults while remaining polite. He uses the word “shoehorn” to describe how Payne squeezed in a couple paragraphs explaining why humans need sacrifice, which should have been a major component of his book. Young accurately relates how this missing piece is crucial to Payne's work by comparing it to “E=MC2 without the theory of relativity”.

No specific critical perspectives that we have covered in class seem to be at work in this book review. It gives a fair, even handed critique of the book, and is almost apologetic. I also cannot spot any connections between this review and any other previous course material or readings.

Class Notes 12/13/10 to 1/7/11

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are alive for the sole purpose of being part of the Hamlet story. Their lives are predestined. No matter what they try to to do, they will end the same way.

Tom Stoppard uses this story as an allegory to our own lives as humans, making us question if we really do control our lives or if we are just puppets like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Death of a Salesman

Arthur Miller uses nonrealistic techniques to present the play in a sporadic fashion with no discernible timeline to relate to the audience the confusion going on in Willy Loman's mind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Outside Connections:

In the Lecture on Stoppard, it is mentioned that theater of the absurd is prevalent in today's entertainment, but is usually kept as short skits due to its absurdity. This reminded me of none other than Saturday Night Live's Digital Shorts with Andy Samberg. Though the shorts are funny, if any more length were given to them, it would immediately become weary on the viewer.