I guess I will start by talking about the timed writing we did today. It was a very interesting piece we read, and I really enjoyed it. I thought that Sylvia’s climb to the top of the tree had a lot to do with her loss of innocence, although I am not sure there is enough evidence in the passage to really make a solid conclusion on this topic. What I did focus on was the various extended metaphors in the passage. For one, the author draws a comparison between the strength of the tree and the strength of Sylvia. The comparison demonstrates Sylvia’s ability to not only overcome this feat, but many others in the future. Furthermore, as is demonstrated by her metaphorical ability to fly at the end of the passage, the journey allows Sylvia to discover her own strength, transition away from the weak, dependent child she had previously been.
Moreover, the climb enlightens Sylvia, and by the end, she sees the world in an entirely different light than she had before. Like the rising sun, a light bulb in Sylvia goes off. She goes from being on the ground, limited in her line of sight and by comparison, her amount of knowledge. However, her adventure through the tree branches makes Sylvia privy to a brand new universe. She sees new parts of the world and expands her horizons, showing that she has awoken from her sleep and has begun to see the great, limitless nature of the world.
Moving on, I personally love Grendel (A LOT more than I liked Beowulf). First of all, Grendel’s snarky, humorous attitude is without-a-doubt entertaining and to some, perversely endearing. As a reader, I can’t help but associate with Grendel as he attempts to grasp the concepts of the world. Like a misguided teenager, he is trapped between the meaningless depths of atheism and the seemingly more poetic, purposeful call of Christianity. He has difficulty compromising his hopes and desires with his observations, knowing that his heart will lead him away from his brain’s warnings. He wants to believe the glorious words of the humans. He wants to believe he has a purpose, but he knows what they say is all a lie and that their version of history is completely skewed. Thus, he remains trapped, as he was in the beginning in the tree, waiting for someone to pull him out and direct him along. Unfortunately, he has grown too old for his mother to be his knight in shining armor. In a possibly misguided light of hope, he visits the dragon hoping that he will dig him out of the hole of confusion. However, there he finds, as was the case in other places, that the answer can only come from within. In the end, the book is a journey, possibly of a hero making sacrifices not only for himself, but also for the good of human kind that craves the good/evil structure.
I am very excited to see what the story holds. Hopefully the humans won’t destroy Grendel’s sarcasm.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Reflections on Week's Work
I want to start by saying that I am very excited about the grade I received on my The Picture of Dorian Gray essay. I worked very hard on it, and I am really glad Mrs. Clinch enjoyed reading it.
Also, I would like to add one more observation about Beowulf that, because we are now reading John Gardner’s Grendel, is still pertinent. During the discussion, I pointed out the lack of strong women in the poem. The only truly powerful female character was the sinister, outcast Grendel’s mom. What readers should also notice is that women are rarely given names in this novel. The poem often lists out the names the sons in a family and then refers to the daughters simply by the title “daughter” or as possessions of their husbands, for example “Othella’s queen.” Not only that, but the most feared creatures in the novel –Grendel and his mom –are termed “fatherless creatures.” This suggests that the Anglo-Saxons believed a child needed a father, not just a mother, to be well-bred and respected. Supposedly we will be hearing more of this in Grendel so I am very excited!
I also did some research on the zodiac signs to help learn more about how the author is using them in Grendel. According to astrology.com, aries is ruled by Mars, the Roman God of War. This enhances Grendel’s battle with the Danish people. Furthermore, I think it’s ironic that Grendel initiates such a war and causes such death in the middle of spring, a season devoted to the creation of life. Gardner may use this to add irony to the story. Furthermore, the sign aries is heavily associated with the element fire. This association foreshadows the introduction of the dragon into the story. Readers already know the unpleasant nature of said dragon for Grendel said he “was not a friend.”
I want to conclude with some things I noticed while analyzing more poetry. I began looking at W. H. Auden’s “The Unknown Citizen”. The title of the poem alludes to “The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,” suggesting that the citizen has faceless and nameless. By undermining the necessity of personalizing the subject of the poem, Auden begins to demonstrate the cookie-cutter people his government is creating. He further underscores this idea through his reference to Ford Motors Inc. when he talks about “Fudge Motors Inc.” Ford Motors Inc. invented the assembly line, mass-producing parts. Similarly, in the society Auden is criticizing, the government mass-produces people so that they are all alike and so that they all conform to the government. You can see that Auden is being sarcastic and crude through his many hyperboles. For example, he says that “everything necessary to the modern man” is “a phonograph, a radio, a car and a Frigidaire.” Clearly, this is an overexageration of man’s true necessity; however the affect creates irony and underlines Auden’s critical tone.
This is all for this week. I look forward to our upcoming timed writing and lit circles.
Also, I would like to add one more observation about Beowulf that, because we are now reading John Gardner’s Grendel, is still pertinent. During the discussion, I pointed out the lack of strong women in the poem. The only truly powerful female character was the sinister, outcast Grendel’s mom. What readers should also notice is that women are rarely given names in this novel. The poem often lists out the names the sons in a family and then refers to the daughters simply by the title “daughter” or as possessions of their husbands, for example “Othella’s queen.” Not only that, but the most feared creatures in the novel –Grendel and his mom –are termed “fatherless creatures.” This suggests that the Anglo-Saxons believed a child needed a father, not just a mother, to be well-bred and respected. Supposedly we will be hearing more of this in Grendel so I am very excited!
I also did some research on the zodiac signs to help learn more about how the author is using them in Grendel. According to astrology.com, aries is ruled by Mars, the Roman God of War. This enhances Grendel’s battle with the Danish people. Furthermore, I think it’s ironic that Grendel initiates such a war and causes such death in the middle of spring, a season devoted to the creation of life. Gardner may use this to add irony to the story. Furthermore, the sign aries is heavily associated with the element fire. This association foreshadows the introduction of the dragon into the story. Readers already know the unpleasant nature of said dragon for Grendel said he “was not a friend.”
I want to conclude with some things I noticed while analyzing more poetry. I began looking at W. H. Auden’s “The Unknown Citizen”. The title of the poem alludes to “The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,” suggesting that the citizen has faceless and nameless. By undermining the necessity of personalizing the subject of the poem, Auden begins to demonstrate the cookie-cutter people his government is creating. He further underscores this idea through his reference to Ford Motors Inc. when he talks about “Fudge Motors Inc.” Ford Motors Inc. invented the assembly line, mass-producing parts. Similarly, in the society Auden is criticizing, the government mass-produces people so that they are all alike and so that they all conform to the government. You can see that Auden is being sarcastic and crude through his many hyperboles. For example, he says that “everything necessary to the modern man” is “a phonograph, a radio, a car and a Frigidaire.” Clearly, this is an overexageration of man’s true necessity; however the affect creates irony and underlines Auden’s critical tone.
This is all for this week. I look forward to our upcoming timed writing and lit circles.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Lit Discussions :)
I want to start by discussing AP Lit discussions. Disclaimer: I LOVE DISCUSSIONS. Because I am a very opinionated person, especially when it comes to literary works, discussions are one of my favorite parts of lit class. However, discussions can often become tedious or rushed, due to many reasons. Much to my frustration, many students do not prepare their discussion work before coming to class. I'll admit; a few times I have been extremely busy and unable to complete the assigned discussion work. That being said, it is really upsetting when I put in all the work and other people in my discussion wait until the last minute to prepare for the group discussion. As a result of this, they contribute very little if at all, affecting the grades of everyone in the discussion. So, please, DO YOUR WORK, or at least do most of it. For example, actually read the book/play. That would be a great start. I know many people in the class, including me, would appreciate it very, very much.
Moreover, have an open mind. During a walking discussion, or even a simple group discussion, I sometimes change my stances on certain issues. This is because I listen to what other people have to say (or try to, sometimes I understand that it is difficult...) Nevertheless, it is unnatural to never, ever, 100% of the time, change sides. If you are truly listening to the well-thought-out, fascinating arguments of your peers, you might see that certain issues aren't black-and-white. Understanding others viewpoints is vital to an interesting, intellectual discussion.
Also, and while I understand this is difficult, timing is often an issue when it comes to discussions. I think an effective discussion would be spread over two or three class periods. By doing this, students wouldn't feel so pressured to speak whenever there is a pause, giving everyone more time to look closely at an issue and find useful and insightful textual evidence. Furthermore, the shyer kids would be given more chance to speak up because discussions wouldn't be so hectic and stressful. Again, I understand that this is difficult; however, maybe devoting more time to each work would be the solution. The class could then read one or two less novels in class and, in stead, be assigned those books over Christmas break or Spring Break. (Of course, assign really interesting books during those time periods, like A Thousand Splendid Suns, because no one will honestly be able to focus on a 400 page, old English novel while they are partying in Panama City or whatever.)
Finally, I'm not sure everyone should have a discussion "role". Really interesting discussions are based on simple questions. I think that for class discussions everyone should come prepared with their own questions as well as answers/support to some questions you have provided for us. Then, during smaller group discussions, students can just come prepared with questions (and possibly a summary of the section) and proceed for there. It makes the groups discussions a little more engaging and slightly less hectic (because everyone isn't trying to get their role sheets read). Again, discussions are always more interesting when they are fluid and relaxed, something hard to achieve when everyone has their own agenda.
These are just my thoughts. I really do love discussions which is why I feel so passionately about the issue. I would never want to get rid of something so vital to an English class though I think the system could always use some improvements, mostly on the part of the student...
Moreover, have an open mind. During a walking discussion, or even a simple group discussion, I sometimes change my stances on certain issues. This is because I listen to what other people have to say (or try to, sometimes I understand that it is difficult...) Nevertheless, it is unnatural to never, ever, 100% of the time, change sides. If you are truly listening to the well-thought-out, fascinating arguments of your peers, you might see that certain issues aren't black-and-white. Understanding others viewpoints is vital to an interesting, intellectual discussion.
Also, and while I understand this is difficult, timing is often an issue when it comes to discussions. I think an effective discussion would be spread over two or three class periods. By doing this, students wouldn't feel so pressured to speak whenever there is a pause, giving everyone more time to look closely at an issue and find useful and insightful textual evidence. Furthermore, the shyer kids would be given more chance to speak up because discussions wouldn't be so hectic and stressful. Again, I understand that this is difficult; however, maybe devoting more time to each work would be the solution. The class could then read one or two less novels in class and, in stead, be assigned those books over Christmas break or Spring Break. (Of course, assign really interesting books during those time periods, like A Thousand Splendid Suns, because no one will honestly be able to focus on a 400 page, old English novel while they are partying in Panama City or whatever.)
Finally, I'm not sure everyone should have a discussion "role". Really interesting discussions are based on simple questions. I think that for class discussions everyone should come prepared with their own questions as well as answers/support to some questions you have provided for us. Then, during smaller group discussions, students can just come prepared with questions (and possibly a summary of the section) and proceed for there. It makes the groups discussions a little more engaging and slightly less hectic (because everyone isn't trying to get their role sheets read). Again, discussions are always more interesting when they are fluid and relaxed, something hard to achieve when everyone has their own agenda.
These are just my thoughts. I really do love discussions which is why I feel so passionately about the issue. I would never want to get rid of something so vital to an English class though I think the system could always use some improvements, mostly on the part of the student...
Monday, November 1, 2010
"A Doll's House" Timed Writing
This weekend, while studying for Monday’s timed writing, I began noticing a different side to Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House” that I had never noticed before. It was clear that Kristine and Nora were foils in more ways than one. While Nora was a member of the so-called “doll house” and a rich, comfortable wife and mother, Kristine was a poor, widowed, and childless outsider. The different lifestyles of the two women seemingly make them opposites. However, this is not necessarily the case. In previous years, Kristine incessantly worked for her family –to make them happy and comfortable—and never worked for herself. Instead of relishing the freedom that came after her mother’s death, Kristine instead felt a great “emptiness” for she no longer had anyone to work for and please. Looking at Nora’s life, Kristine desires that ideal life where she can be a wife and mother devoted to the happiness of others. This can best be seen by Kristine’s exuberant reaction to her revived relationship with Torvald near the end of the play. Just as in previous years, Kristine now lives for another again, able to be a doll to someone else’s needs. Through this character, Ibsen shows that Victorian age women, even with experience and independence, will desire to be part of a dollhouse. Thus, no one in that society can escape the dollhouse.
Similarly, Nora also works to please others throughout her life. Throughout her marriage with Torvald, she consistently bows to his and the children’s needs. When Torvald is sick, she risks her honor and forges a signature to save his life. Subsequently, she works for years, giving up only her own goodies, to pay off this loan. Just like Kristine, Nora shows an inherent sense of selflessness and desire to please. Because of their ingrained nature, Nora, even after she leaves and finds independence, will always desire to be part of the doll house. Whether she will go back to Torvald or find another man, it is likely that Nora will return to situation similar to the one she is leaving.
In looking at the play in this manner, you must also consider the fact that Nora willingly leaves the dollhouse while Kristine’s “dollhouse” was taken from her. Also, Kristine’s life was never ideal ; thus she has never known the problems experienced when living in a doll-like state. These two differences may be enough to change Nora’s fate. Because she knows the ugliness of the dollhouse, she may never choose to return, as did Kristine who never felt the weight of perfection.
Even if Nora will eventually choose to return to a dollhouse-like household, should she still leave Torvald? It may be possible for her to find a slightly more respectable husband; although, if the dollhouse state must persist, then Nora will always remain cushioned and babied. Even still, Nora may be able to find a husband sufficiently concerned with her well-being and who truly loves her, unlike Torvald who only cares about his reputation. However, does finding a slightly better husband justify Nora leaving her children? After I have thought about it, I am very conflicted on this issue, simply because there are so many factors and parties involved. In the end, I don’t know if there is any right answer, and Nora may discover what is best for her on her journey.
P.S. Mr. Gay might do A Doll’s House for the next drama production. I’m really excited because I love this play!
Similarly, Nora also works to please others throughout her life. Throughout her marriage with Torvald, she consistently bows to his and the children’s needs. When Torvald is sick, she risks her honor and forges a signature to save his life. Subsequently, she works for years, giving up only her own goodies, to pay off this loan. Just like Kristine, Nora shows an inherent sense of selflessness and desire to please. Because of their ingrained nature, Nora, even after she leaves and finds independence, will always desire to be part of the doll house. Whether she will go back to Torvald or find another man, it is likely that Nora will return to situation similar to the one she is leaving.
In looking at the play in this manner, you must also consider the fact that Nora willingly leaves the dollhouse while Kristine’s “dollhouse” was taken from her. Also, Kristine’s life was never ideal ; thus she has never known the problems experienced when living in a doll-like state. These two differences may be enough to change Nora’s fate. Because she knows the ugliness of the dollhouse, she may never choose to return, as did Kristine who never felt the weight of perfection.
Even if Nora will eventually choose to return to a dollhouse-like household, should she still leave Torvald? It may be possible for her to find a slightly more respectable husband; although, if the dollhouse state must persist, then Nora will always remain cushioned and babied. Even still, Nora may be able to find a husband sufficiently concerned with her well-being and who truly loves her, unlike Torvald who only cares about his reputation. However, does finding a slightly better husband justify Nora leaving her children? After I have thought about it, I am very conflicted on this issue, simply because there are so many factors and parties involved. In the end, I don’t know if there is any right answer, and Nora may discover what is best for her on her journey.
P.S. Mr. Gay might do A Doll’s House for the next drama production. I’m really excited because I love this play!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)