Response to Course Material

This past cycle, we have done a lot of work with Leslie Marmon Silko's Ceremony. I have enjoyed our discussions so far. I especially liked connecting the relationship between the number four and the different poems to the directions, seasons, and colors used throughout the book.

In order to fully understand Ceremony, we read it through twice. The first time, I used a pdf that I printed out online and did not read very carefully. In addition, the strange formatting of the pdf actually detracted from the enjoyment in reading the text because the spaces between lines, especially the within the formatting of the poems, was actually fairly significant. I am guessing that others did not read as closely the first time through, because our discussions were not very meaningful.

The second reading, where annotations were required, I used an actual copy of the novel. While this had more pages, I found it considerably more enjoyable to read and had an easy time annotating. I definitely could have benefited from starting my annotations a bit earlier, but I managed my time more effectively than with the Foster annotations and actually completed the novel hours before what I would consider "late" Sunday night.

We also read Sherman Alexie's "Defending Walt Whitman." I enjoyed reading this poem a lot, and I thought that I contributed to the discussion with my interpretation. Essentially, I saw it as putting Whitman, a great romantic poet that defined the "American" romantic movement into a situation where he is intimately involved, or thinks that he is, with the interactions on the Native American reservation. In fact, he is not even there, and what he sees as part of this great sensual experience is not something he even understands. He believes he is controlling a game that he is not even playing in. I thought that overall, we had a productive discussion of this poem as a class.

Response to Prompt #1 2009

"In the following speech from Shakespeare’s play Henry VIII, Cardinal Wolsey considers his sudden downfall from his position as advisor to the king. Spokesmen for the king have just left Wolsey alone on stage. Read the speech carefully. Then write a well-organized essay in which you analyze how Shakespeare uses elements such as allusion, figurative language, and tone to convey Wolsey’s complex response to his dismissal from court."

            Understanding Wolsey’s soliloquy requires the reader to examine the changes in tone during his response to dismissal, and what these changes indicate about his emotional state. In the process of expressing himself, he uses a variety of literary devices and allusions. The soliloquy can be broken up into three different stages in his reaction. In the first (1-9), he expresses anger and frustration at such a rash decision. In the second (9-15), he is more self-reflective, trying to justify his dismissal by considering his own behavior, and in the final section (16-23), he considers what has happened to him from a more general perspective.

Wolsey’s tone in the first section can be seen as both contemptuous and enraged. This is clear from the first line when he says “Farewell-to the little good you bear me.” He mainly portrays himself as a victim of circumstance, using a metaphor to compare himself to a flowering plant who “falls” because of a “killing frost” (9, 6). In essence, he first sees the king’s hasty decision is one of malicious deliberation, intended to stifle his own potential.

In the second section, Wolsey takes a step back to look at how he ended up in this situation. He uses the simile of the “wanton boys that swim on bladders” to describe his own “high blown pride,” saying that he considered himself more important than how the king actually valued him. The simile relates directly to his fall from power by comparing it to the bladder breaking under him (10, 12, 13). While it would be more clearly elucidated in a live performance, it appears through the shift from accusation to contemplation that Wolsey has calmed down and begun to consider the errors in his ways and not simply the injustice of his predicament.

The final section of the soliloquy is considerably more broadly applicable than the preceding lines. After overcoming his initial reaction and reflecting, he now returns to a more aggravated state to say “how wretched is that poor man that hangs on princes’ favors!” (17-18). He considers the service at the hands of royalty a great burden, not only because of the task itself, but because of the pain of a fall from the king’s graces. In fact, he considers the contrast between working for the king and the rejection that he suffered comparable to a fall from the grace of God. This is clear when he states that when a man working for a monarch falls, “he falls like Lucifer.” Not only does this allusion to the Biblical story of the fallen angel express the literal magnitude of his demotion, but how a fall from the favor of Henry VIII is as detrimental as a fall from heaven into hell in this society.

Overall, Shakespeare uses Wolsey’s soliloquy to express a deeply complex, personal reaction in beautifully concise language. Through this reaction, he also succeeds in providing the audience with a historical perspective on the harrows of living in a society ruled by a king as quick tempered as Henry VIII from the intimate viewpoint of one of his closest advisers. 

Closed Prompt 1-11/15/15

2009 Exam-Prompt 1:

Student 1A: This student has a remarkably complete and accurate analysis of Cardinal Woosey's soliloquy. His/her essay is broken into perfectly organized paragraphs that focus on diction, figurative language, and tone. The primary strength of the essay is in its organization. The student uses these different aspects of the poem to demonstrate understanding of the different literary devices present and also provide further analysis and interpretation. Within that organization, however, the content is equally strong. I was especially impressed with how he/she connected the shift in tone with the intricate variety of emotions Wolsey expresses. While the language can be repetitive at times, the argument is sophisticated and such minor imperfections should be forgiven. It is also important to remember the time constraints this essay was written under, making its achievement of a 9 impressive to say the least.

Student 1B:  This essay is overall well-written but generally lacks interpretive depth. The student appears to understand the language of the poem quite well and uses ample textual evidence, but the analysis of the evidence does not justify its quantity. It seems that overall, the student refrained from using the examples and interpretive ideas he/she clearly extrapolated to further an argument based around the literary devices present, choosing instead to use the interpretations as the argument. For example, the student refers to Wolsey’s tone as “cathartic” at one point, but never explicitly demonstrates that he/she really knows what this means. If the student had been clearer, his/her strong understanding of the text could have warranted a score higher than 6.

Student 1C: Glancing at the essay and reading the introduction, I was at first confused over why it scored so low. However, it is clear after the first few lines that the student simply did not organize the content of the essay to fit the argument, nor did he/she even interpret part of the poem correctly. The primary mistake in interpretation was due to a poor attempt to scale back the language to apply it erroneously in too general a context. While the other essays mentioned the universally human qualities of Wolsey’s frustrations, they did not base their entire interpretation off of it. This makes a great deal of sense because, of course, the soliloquy is part of an overall play, and should not be compared to a work with broader intention such as a stand-alone poem or short story. Because of the poor interpretation and lack of organization, the essay scored only a 4.

Response to Course Material- 10/25/15

Since the last prompt about the course material, a lot has happened. Perhaps the most challenging assignment we had so far was the foster annotations. I enjoyed reading the book, but sadly made the same mistake as I did with The Nuts of Bolts of College Writing and I started my annotations far too late. However, this time it was not entirely due to my own inertia when it comes to starting long assignments. The entire assignment just slipped my mind. I have actually owned this book since eighth grade, when I started reading it in response to the tedium of my actual middle school lit class. At the time, I did not appreciate the applicability of Foster's interpretive suggestions. Reading this book again with an understanding of archetypal analysis already helped considerably. My assigned chapter was about the importance of season to the events in fiction. I thought it was amusing how he connected this to the lyrics of the Beach Boys, and so naturally I chose "Surfin' USA" as my corresponding popular culture reference. Overall, I enjoyed reading How to Read Literature Like a College Professor, and I don't believe I will be able to read another work of fiction without looking for the hidden, deeper intentions of the author.

In addition to the Foster, I enjoyed our discussions of American Dream.  I feel that we came up with a fairly all-encompassing theme statement, and that we were able to point out a lot of the main messages Albee wanted to convey. Of course, I was not thrilled taking the exam on American Dream, but I at least took comfort in my own understanding of absurdism and my ability to apply it under such stressful circumstances. The idea of a "theater of the absurd" was not even something I had heard of before this course, and yet now I feel it is crucial for accurately describing a large amount of contemporary literature.

My favorite new activity in A.P. Literature is probably the use of vocabulary.com. I found this site extremely useful for learning new words and broadening my understanding of words I thought I knew by introducing them in unfamiliar contexts. I will certainly continue to practice with this site to expand my verbal skills and maybe just for fun as well.

These three topics help with writing and analysis considerably, especially when used together. Understanding the general intentions and allusions that recur over and over again in literature is necessary for anyone interesting in fully appreciate the work of the greats. In addition, keeping in mind the possibility that an author may be implementing ideas from the theater of the absurd may be completely necessary for understanding more esoteric text. Those two skills combined with a generally superior vocabulary are bound to make me a much stronger scholar, for both this class, and down the road of higher education.

Edward Albee - American Dream Summary and Analysis

Summary:

The play opens with Mommy and Daddy in armchairs discussing a third party that seems to be late. Mommy recounts her experience with buying a beige hat, which turned out to be “wheat” instead. She makes a big fuss over this, causing a scene. Mommy expresses that she “got satisfaction” from this encounter. Grandma enters with nicely wrapped boxes and drops them at Daddy’s feet. This prompts a series of complaints about Grandma, who launches into a tirade about how old people are treated, saying that they “die eventually” because “people talk to them that way” (65).  Mommy and Grandma then discuss Mommy’s childhood and how she always wanted to marry into money.

Later, the tardy guest of whom Mommy had complained earlier rings the doorbell. When Daddy goes to get the door, Mommy berates him over his masculinity. Next, Mrs. Barker enters and we find that she is the chairman of the Women’s Club to which Mommy belongs. Mrs. Barker wants to assume she is there for the boxes, but this triggers another argument between Mommy, Daddy, and Grandma, who also believes that to be the reason. We hear about Daddy’s “stiches” for the first time. When Mommy leaves to get Mrs. Barker water, Grandma tells Mrs. Barker about a couple “very much like” Mommy and Daddy, who bought a “bumble” from the bye bye adoption service. She describes the way the parents mutilated the child until it died, at which point they “wanted satisfaction; they wanted their money back.” In the meantime, Mommy and Daddy are struggling to find Grandma’s things, a major aspect of the play’s absurdity. Mrs. Barker does not seem to pick up on what Grandma is implying.

When Mrs. Barker leaves to get a glass of water for herself, the Young Man enters. Grandma is impressed with him immediately, first asking if he is the “van man” and then labeling him “the American dream.” Grandma and the Young man discuss why he is there and what he could do. She reveals an anecdote about how she one a baking contest with a store-bought cake. The Young man then explains why he will do anything for money. He says that he is an empty shell of a person, feeling nothing and only providing service to others with his body. He refers to the early loss of an identical twin, whom Grandma realizes is the bumble, as the reason for his condition. The Young Man helps Grandma with her boxes as she exits. Mommy and Daddy find her gone and after brief disappointment are delighted to find the Young Man as the bumble’s replacement. The play ends with Grandma offstage, breaking the fourth wall to say that they should stop “while everybody’s happy.”

Analysis:

The major symbols in the play are the boxes, the “bumble,” and perhaps the Young Man himself. The boxes represent the components of Grandma’s life, which embody a more genuine “American Dream.” The bumble and the Young Man go together as two parts of the same person. The bumble represents his emotional and internal vitality, which was destroyed by the societal mores Mommy and Daddy imposed. This leaves the Young Man hollow, only carrying a shell of a promise for success, which is perhaps what Mommy and Daddy are receiving as a result of their falsification of the American Dream. The tone is mainly built on the absurd style of the play. This leaves the audience with a sense of disarray and confusion as the dialogue makes sense on a superficial level, but does not have a deeper meaning. It is hard to describe specific imagery in the play, since this is dependent on the performance. The color of the hat or the physical description of the Young Man are good examples of imagery, although lacking in specificity. As a class, we came up with the statement that in American Dream, “Edward Albee shows that as materialism gains prominence in society, traditional values erode leaving the American Dream a façade.” The absurd plot contributes to the presentation of the American Dream as a façade, because the elements that would indicate sincerity now are all part of the tapestry of non-sequiturs and incongruities that encapsulate the discussions of “satisfaction” and “ambition.”

Two important and highly applicable quotes are first, when Grandma says, “That's why old people die, eventually. People talk to them that way.” This is from when Grandma complained about how Mommy and Daddy were speaking about her. It relates to the removal of the old generation in light of a new, more confused one that shuns traditional value and respect.

“I no longer have the capacity to feel anything. I have no emotions. I have been drained, torn asunder disemboweled. I have, now, only my person, my body, my face.” In this quote, the Young Man refers to how he is devoid of personal quality. This is a profound statement in regard to the effect a society based on materialism, which was a major component of the play’s overarching theme.

Closed Prompt #2- 10/18/15

“The following passage is an excerpt from “The Other Paris,” a short story by the Canadian writer Mavis Gallant. Read the passage carefully. Then, in a well-written essay, explain how the author uses narrative voice and characterization to provide social commentary."

            This excerpt from “The Other Paris” is an excellent example of a short piece of fiction that has a great deal to say about its subject, even without the larger work to provide context. In this case, Gallant provides a hilariously satirical commentary on love and its relationship, or lack of one, to the social expectations of marriage. He achieves this through precise characterization of Carol and Howard, his description of their circumstances, and his narrative portrayal of their respective backgrounds.

            Gallant’s satire is apparent from the very beginning of the piece. He contrasts Carol’s vision of the ideal proposal, a deeply cliché depiction of just about any over-the-top movie proposal, with reality, which comes in the form of Howard’s bland request over a tuna-fish salad. He uses this scene to begin on a hilarious explanation of why the apparent lack of enthusiasm in the proposal was logically justifiable by either member of the engagement. Carol expresses concern about her lack of affection for Howard, but is soon comforted by the ridiculous advice of her college lectures, which explain that other bland and ordinary similarities among marital partners, such as “liking Irish setters” or having the same socioeconomic status were the key ingredients to a successful marriage. Through the juxtaposition of canned “movie industry” styled romance and the advice of Carol’s lectures, Gallant alienates love from his depiction of the societal idealization of marriage to make the point that without it, a truly arbitrary pair the likes of Howard and Carol could hit it off seamlessly.

            The second aspect of the narration that adds to Gallant’s satire is Howard’s background. Howard Mitchell is interested in marriage primarily because of his need for a “competent housemade,” stressing that his loneliness is simply due to “overwork,” and not because of an actual desire for human connection. Ironically, this is exactly the quality Carol rejoices over in her self-appraisal for saying “yes.” More importantly, he is pressured into the engagement by his sister, under the threat that he may become the one who “fills in at dinner.” This is an excellent depiction of the other, uglier aspect of socially acceptable marriage. Howard marries because he fears obsolescence in old age, and in quite a circular way, fears that he will fail his family, and thus society, simply by not getting married. With this point, Gallant hits on a deeply-rooted arbitration in the entire system. 

            Carol’s attempt to fall in love serves as another way in which Gallant pokes fun at the institution of marriage. Carol takes a cold, almost scientific approach to doing so, naively comparing the proper conditions for love to the proper conditions for the growth of a geranium. Gallant forms an amusing analogy, making Paris, the typical city for falling in love, into the ineffective ingredient for spurring her own infatuation. The heart of the passage’s humor is in the way that Carol finds nothing wrong with the lack of emotional investment in her relationship, even with regard to its most emotional components.

            While some stories are intent on depicting love as a mechanical process in itself, built on arbitrary surroundings and signifying little, Gallant’s excerpt goes deeper by describing a situation in which society accepts marriage as an institution independent and even excluding of love. He suggests that true love itself is neither present in cultural depictions such as in Hollywood; nor in the supposed culmination of a romantic relationship, such as marriage. Instead, both institutions miss it entirely, and their victims, Carol and Howard, do not know the difference between what these institutions offer and what they falsely represent.

Closed Prompt #1: 10/11 Analysis of Student Responses from the 2003 FRQ, Question 2

Student YYY (9):  

This student has a remarkable understanding of the tone of the passage. He/she not only recognizes the social satire, but most aptly characterizes it as attacking “the institution surrounding marriage.” He/she notices that it does not actually make fun of the principles of marriage itself, but rather the moronic associations with a stable marriage that society has established, as expressed in the behavior of Carol and Howard. The vocabulary is well-varied and the voice is humorous, even entertaining. The most sophisticated argument was perhaps the description of the way society’s rules for forming marital relationships drive marriages to destruction based on the “circular logic” of the rules themselves. The structure of the essay is also easy to follow, talking about characterization and then the recurring themes of the passage. This student’s interpretation is about as spot-on as an AP grader could hope, and thus the passage earns a well-deserved perfect score.

Student CCC (6):

            The opening and concluding paragraphs contribute very little to this essays’ argument, and despite the redundant use of “society,” the student has a strong understanding of the passage’s message. The real problem is that the student doesn’t really explore the points of understanding to any real depth, leaving the understanding of the social satire and characterization vague and incomplete. While he/she uses effective parallelism at one point, it is to make a point about how society affects both Howard and Carol, making generalizations that only apply to one of them at a time. This may be a comprehension issue, or simply a lack of planning which led to a rushed argument that required a quick summary of the message. It appears that the student could have benefitted from looking at the characterizations of each individually and making more generalizations about their actual similarities. Either way, the essay was effective enough to earn a 6.

Student JJJ (4):

            If this student had used “social commentary” one more time in writing this passage, I could imagine an AP grader throwing a fit. The argument is so trite, so uncreative, and so boring, that the essay probably earns its four points from generally good conventions and sentence structure alone. The student may understand the passage, but we will never know for sure. The message is essentially that there is a “social commentary” conveyed in the work, but the nature of this commentary is never elaborated on, and the characterization is addressed only to the extent of “character development,” which doesn’t actually bear significance. Instead, the passage emphasizes a satirical perspective related to love and marriage through the use of two static characters. The satire actually emerges from the fact that Carol and Howard behave in a certain way, which their development would only hinder. This essay is a good example of what can go wrong if a student develops a lukewarm argument backed by little more than a few references to the passage.