Response to Course Material

So I feel like we’ve done quite a bit since our last response to course material post. We’ve finally finished with Ceremony! I think we actually didn’t spend so much time on this one, at least not in class because we had read all the plays together aloud and since this one was a novel we completed it independently. Then we didn’t actually annotate the whole thing and I think we also spent fewer days discussing it. We did do a lot of background information on the novel, like reading those articles and viewing the presentation that Ms. Holmes made for us. Overall, I thought it was a really good book, but it’s a bit confusing and I think for the actual AP lit exam I’ll chose a different work to write about.

Aside from Ceremony, we’ve also started (and almost finished) reading our last novel, Fifth Business. So far I think this is also a really good book and I think it’s a lot easier to read/understand than Ceremony and even some of the plays that we’ve read. I appreciate that this is the work that we’re ending on because it’s been such a quick read.

And other than just the works that we’ve read, we’ve also been doing quite a bit of AP exam practice. We’ve written a couple of in-class essays, done some multiple choice, and even reviewed the whole 2013 AP exam during class, each of us completing allotted multiple choice sections. With all the practice that we’ve done, I feel pretty confident for the exam (and good thing, but we’ll be taking it in just over a week!).

Finally, the last big thing that we’ve done was a research paper project. We had to work in groups with people from other classes and write a paper on some aspect of one of the works we read in class. I guess I shouldn’t really say much about this project because I was selected as one of the editors for the class and didn’t actually have to write any papers. Instead, I collected links to scholarly articles about the works that we’ve read and posted them onto a class website.

Personally, I didn’t really like the project/the idea of it (since I didn’t actually do it). In general, writing a research paper in high school is a good idea to help prepare us for papers we’ll have to write in college. However, being that our AP lit exam is so close, I think it would have been better to do more AP review or something like that instead of spending a week on this project. I also don’t like the idea of having to work with students from other hours because that makes collaboration on the paper a bit harder; everything has to be typed and you can’t discuss your ideas with your partner unless you do so outside of class. Also, even though it was nice not having to do much for the project, I don’t think that it’s really fair to give two students from each hour the job of “editing,” because this essentially meant exemption from the project. As editor, I felt that I really didn’t have much to do at all during class time and instead worked on our peer review assignment and on blog posts. I had to do a lot less work than most of my peers and it was a 40 point project. I think it would be better to have people who want extra credit to do the “editing” job, that way everyone has the same basic assignment but some can do extra if they need the grade. Or, if everyone in a class happened to have an A, then whoever was assigned editor could be exempt from a blog post, or something of that sort. Overall, if this assignment is kept for next year, I think it should be revised and maybe scheduled for earlier in the year (maybe end of third quarter).

Open Prompt 2004

2004. Critic Roland Barthes has said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes’ observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author’s treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

            Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman is about Willy Loman, a man aspiring to achieve the American dream. The central question raised through the play: how is this dream is actually achieved, through words or actions? The answer is actions, shown through Willy’s failures and through his neighbor’s, Charley’s, success.

            Willy’s main problem is that he doesn’t act on his goals and simply expects them to happen. He wants to be a successful businessman and tells others about his aspirations but never actually does anything to achieve them. Then, when he realizes that he’s failing he exacerbates the problem by telling his own family that he’s successful and brings home a “paycheck” of money borrowed from Charley. By the end of the play, he realizes that things couldn’t get any worse. He has financially ruined his family and feels that the only way out is to kill himself, so that his family can receive the $20,000 from their insurance company. Willy never acted on his goals and eventually felt that he was worth more dead than alive.

            Charley starkly contrasts Willy as he actually works to achieve his goal of success. Charley believes in hard work and honesty. His has instilled these values in his son, Bernard, who was always thought of as a loser by Willy, but later becomes a successful lawyer. Charley can be seen as a generally virtuous character and even as a voice of reason. Charley is loyal and is always there for Willy and even lends him money when Willy isn’t doing so well economically. Charley even offers Willy a job, but Willy is to proud to accept it. Charley works hard and has a stable, fruitful life. He has a good job and a good relationship with his son.

            The question posed by Miller’s Death of a Salesman is whether words or actions will ultimately lead to success. Both options are explored through the work, with Willy representing words and Charley representing actions. It is quite clear that the answer is actions Charley is the character that is able to succeed. Willy searches for success through words and meets his ultimate downfall: death.

Ceremony Summary and Analysis

Ceremony Summary and Analysis

Author: Leslie Marmon Silko. She is of mixed race (Laguna Pueblo, Mexican, and white), just like the main character Tayo (though he is only Laguno Pueblo and white).

Setting: Various times and places (past and present), depending on the scene in the novel. Takes place in the New Mexico, where the Laguna Pueblo have their reservation; in the hospital that Tayo stays at in California; and in the Philippines during the war.

Plot:

So, I thought it might be easier to write the plot summary in chronological order rather than the order that the book is in, that way it could be somewhat more cohesive:

-Tayo grows up living in his aunt’s house and growing up with his “brother” Rocky. He had always felt distanced from them because he was of mixed race, not pure Laguna like the others. He was often frowned upon, despite his adherence to Native values and traditions.

-Later, Tayo and Rocky sign up to go to war together and Rocky is killed, leaving Tayo to come home alone. Tayo feels as though a part of him is missing and can’t seem to function normally any more.

-Back in New Mexico, Tayo spends time at the bars with some of his peers and eventually gets mad at one of them, Emo, and stabs him in the belly.

-Tayo’s grandmother calls in a medicine (Ku’oosh) man to help cure Tayo, but this doesn’t do much good.

-Ku’oosh then sends Tayo to another medicine man, Betonie. Betonie preforms several rituals on Tayo and then instructs him to find Josiah’s lost cattle.

-Tayo finds the cattle, but has to break into someone else’s land to retrieve them. Police find him, but then a mountain lion comes and distracts them.

-Ts’eh finds the cattle, and Tayo spends the rest of his summer with her, away from his family.

-Tayo finds out that Emo and his followers are plotting against him.

-Tayo encounters Harley and Leroy. He sees Harley being killed and believes it to be part of a ceremony.

-Tayo returns home. Emo leaves for California.

-At the end, grandma says, “It seems like I already heard these stories before… only thing is, the names sound different.”

Characters:
Tayo: The main character. He is of mixed race but seems to identify more with Laguna culture than even some of the full-bred members of the Laguna tribe. He fought in WWII, but can't seem to assimilate back into society after witnessing the death of his brother, Rocky.

Rocky: Tayo's "brother." He is actually Tayo's cousin, but they were raised essentially as brothers. He dies in the war and never really seemed to enjoy Laguna culture.

Betonie: He's a medicine man who helps Tayo. He tells Tayo about the ceremony that he needs to complete.

Emo: Seems to be the opposite of Tayo. He romanticizes the war and tells his friends lies about how great it was. Since Tayo is the only one who openly speaks out against him, the two quickly become enemies.

Josiah: Tayo's uncle, but also a sort of father for Tayo. He is much more accepting of Tayo than Auntie or even Rocky; he and Tayo are pretty close.

Auntie: Raised Tayo, but not quite like a son. She always made sure that he knew where he came from and that he was different due to his mixed race. Auntie, however, wasn't like the rest of the Laguna people because she was a Christian.

Grandma: embraces her Native American culture and takes Tayo to the medicine man.

Night Swan: She is a confident and beautiful Mexican woman and is Josiah's girlfriend. She later seduces Tayo as well.

Harley: one of Tayo's old friends. He also went to war but comes back addicted to alcohol and doesn't do much other than drink.


Quotes:
"'It seems like I already heard these stories before... only thing is, the names sound different.'" -Grandma
Through Grandma, Silko is demonstrating how destructive and violent stories are told over and over again, not only in Laguna culture, but in all of humanity. There has never been a time where violence and hate hasn't existed, no matter how hard people try to stray away from it. The two have been a prevailing theme throughout history.

Theme:

In Ceremony Silko suggests that good and evil exist in everything and are therefore arbitrary classifications; understanding this allows one to achieve a personal and communal balance.

Response to Course Material

So this month we've finished reading and discussing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. I thought it was truly an amazing play, mostly because it seemed to have to much depth to it. There are so many different way to interpret the novel and so many levels on which you can do so. Even though we discussed the novel for quite a few days, I think we could have spent at least another week discussing it and still come to new conclusions each day. Our class never actually even came up with a theme statement, partially because we were so divided on the meaning of the play and partially because we couldn't completely figure it out. Discussing the work was actually kind of funny I think because at times it felt like our conversations were very circular or that we were only asking questions instead of answering them and sometimes people didn't even remember the questions they were trying to answer; it was almost like Stoppard was turning us into Ros and Guil.

After finishing up with that play, we began our first novel of the year: Ceremony. I had never heard of the novel before so I really had no idea what to expect and I was a bit confused when I first started reading. Events and stories are told out of order and there's poetry interspersed throughout the novel. Once I was able to get through the first chunk of reading though, I decided that this is another amazing work. First, no matter how confusing the passage might be, everything is written so poetically - even the prose. I have also learned to like the way the novel is laid out; it doesn't have chapters and it isn't in chronological order, but I find all the quick little stories interesting page-turners. The day our class was supposed to discuss the first third of the novel we only had time to talk for about 10 minutes, so hopefully we'll find more time next time we discuss; I'm excited to hear more about what others have to say about it.

We have also begun discussing different types of literary criticisms and how they apply to all the past works we've read this year. This was actually somewhat difficult for our class to do for various reasons. First of all, almost no one brought their books so it was hard to reference the text, but the main challenge was trying to discuss just one type of criticism until we came to a conclusion. It is so easy to tie many of the criticisms together or to say something that works for multiple criticisms. We started off with Feminism, which wasn't too difficult to dissect, but it was after that when topics started to get confused.

Other things that we've done that aren't quite so confusing is practice for the AP exam. We've done multiple choice and, more recently, practice essay writing. We were given the passage Eleven by Sandra Cisneros and wrote a timed essay during class. Afterwards we discussed the essay in small groups and rewrote it. I really liked the passage and didn't think it was too difficult to dissect, and I really liked that we could talk about our essays afterwards in groups. It allowed me to get different perspectives and ideas about how the essay should be written and what kind of theme statement would be good to use. It's better too, than simply let someone mark up the essay with pen because everyone was able to ask questions, about what was good in their essays and what wasn't, and get immediate feedback.

Overall, we've done a lot in the past month and I cannot wait until we finish Ceremony and begin discussing it more.

Open Prompt 2008 response

2008. In a literary work, a minor character, often known as a foil, possesses traits that emphasize, by contrast or comparison, the distinctive characteristics and qualities of the main character. For example, the ideas or behavior of a minor character might be used to highlight the weaknesses or strengths of the main character. Choose a novel or play in which a minor character serves as a foil for the main character. Then write an essay in which you analyze how the relation between the minor character and the major character illuminates the meaning of the work.

Arthur Miller’s play, Death of a Salesman, is about a family who attempts to live the American Dream. The main character, Willy Loman, is truly the one that drives the family to believe in such a goal.  Willy is driven by the thought of success and wealth. He is starkly contrasted with the character, Charley. Charley believes in honesty and hard work. Charley, unlike Willy, seems to understand that valuing words over actions to achieve success will only lead to self-destruction.

First, Charley greatly values honesty while Willy says what he needs to get by. Nowhere in the play is Charley ever seen lying, and Charley acts as almost a voice of reason. He helps Willy out when Willy needs it, lending Willy money and giving Willy advice, even offering Willy a job. Charley can generally be seen as a virtuous, generous character. Charley’s admirable traits serve to harshly contrast Willy’s lack of them. Willy believes success is money and wants to have both. He borrows money from Charley and gives it to his family, telling them that he earned it at work. He is too proud to admit that business is not going well and too proud to admit that this is not his hard-earned money. For Willy, it is enough for his family to simply believe, or at least pretend to believe, that he actually earned the money. As long as his family is happy and proud of him, they can pretend to be living the American Dream. What Willy does not realize, however, is that simply saying that he is living the American Dream or simply saying that he is successful does not give him anything, except maybe a large pile of debt. He leaves the house everyday, not looking for work or a way to better their lives. His valuing of words over actions slowly destroys himself (his pride) and his family.

 Similarly, Willy seems to think that telling his family that they are great will make them actually become great. He thinks that if he can convince himself and others that his sons are successful, they will become successful. For instance, Willy always talks about how wonderful his son Biff is. Biff is a local sports star and plans on going to the University of Virginia. Willy is so obsessed with the thought of Biff being some kind of amazing prodigy, that he doesn’t see it when Biff starts flunking school. By the time Willy realizes this, it is too late: Biff has already hurt himself so much academically that there really isn’t anything Willy can do about it. Charley, on the other hand, never deceives his son, Bernard in such a way. Charley instills in his son the value of hard work. Consequently, Bernard ends up as a successful lawyer. Willy is shocked when he finds out about this, because no one ever told him just how successful Bernard had become. Willy would have thought that someone would be bragging about Bernard. Willy just cannot seem to comprehend that talking about success gives a person nothing.

Miller’s Death of a Salesman contrasts the two characters, Willy and Charley, to portray the dangers of valuing words over actions. Willy wants people to like him and wants them to think of him as a successful man, so he talks about his successes all the time. Charley understands that talking about success will do nothing for him, so instead he works hard. The result is that Charley actually ends up successful and Willy ends up killing himself. Willy’s search of success through words lead to his ultimate downfall.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead Summary and Analysis

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Author: Tom Stoppard, 1964

Setting: Characters are from Elizabethan times. The play begins on a blank stage, but the setting later changes to Elsinore and a boat. 

Characters:

Rosencrantz: Although he and Guildenstern are constantly confused, Ros tends to be the more naive of the two. He is always trying to figure out various natural occurrences, but doesn't care much about trying to figure out the situation into which he and Guil have been put. Ros seems to have a gift for words because even if he doesn't understand the situation or the context, he often is able to say just the right thing. 

Guildenstern: He might be seen as the smarter of the two. He is always trying to figure out why things are the way they are, why he is here, who sent for them, etc. Although he is always thinking and trying to make connections, he has trouble with words and oftentimes cannot think of the right thing to say. 

The Player: He seems to have control of his situation and is able to understand his surroundings. He understands that "it is written" and is able to manipulate Ros and Guil. 

Tragedians: Also known as the players; they often simply do as the Player says.

Hamlet, Claudius, Ophelia, and Polonius: These are not really Stoppard's characters, since he does not add anything to them. These characters' lines are basically the same from Shakespeare's original play, but Stoppard has slightly altered them. 

Plot: 

Act I: R&G are flipping coins and the coins keep on turning up heads, so Ros keeps on winning. They run into the players who try to interest them in a performance. R&G refuse and then are in Elsinore. Much of the plot from Hamlet is used at this point. Once they are out of the play Hamlet, the two play a verbal game of tennis: a cyclical conversation that at first seems to have no meaning. Next, they run into Hamlet.
Act II: R&G try to figure out what's wrong with Hamlet. They can't seem to get anything out of Hamlet even though they asked him many questions, furthering the idea that many questions don't have answers. Next, Hamlet asks the players to preform the Murder of Gonzago. After that, R&G are sent to take Hamlet to England.
Act III: R&G find themselves on a boat but are very confused at first and even think that they might be dead. They find out that Hamlet is also on the boat. They remember that they were sent on the boat and remember the letter they were given. They read the letter and realize that they were sending Hamlet to his death. Hamlet later manages to get a hold of the letter and writes R&G's names in place of his. When R&G read the letter again, they realize that now they're going to die. By this time, Hamlet has already left since pirates took him away. Guil talks about what real death is and criticizes the players for faking death so often. Both R&G disappear from the stage (because they "die) and the play ends with the end of Hamlet.

Quotes:

Guil: "Words, words, they're all we have to go on."
The Player: "Decides? It is written."

Theme Statement: Tom Stoppard writes the play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead to suggest that one should aim to develop their own answers about life and identity; obsessing about what one's direction is or looking to others for answers actually prevents a person from ever coming to conclusions. Ros and Guil are constantly asking each other questions and looking for answers. They want direction and think that they are entitled to it. What they do not realize, however, is that in life there are a lot of unanswered questions. They think everything has an answer, but there are so many things that don't. Obsessing over the answers to questions will lead a person in circles (just like many of Ros and Guil's conversations) until they finally decide to accept that there are some questions that one can never answer. 

Response to Course Material

            So I guess we’re kind of done with Hamlet, only to be immersed with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, which is kind of a spin-off of Hamlet. I wasn’t really sure what to expect when we began reading Ros and Guil, and it was a bit of a confusing play at first. I mean, I understood what was happening as we read it aloud, but figuring out what everything meant was hard.

            We also saw the movie, directed by Stoppard himself. What I thought was interesting was that the movie didn’t follow the play exactly, even though it was Stoppard’s interpretation. I personally didn’t really like the movie all that much – not that it was bad, but I just thought the written play was a lot better. I think it would be fun though to actually watch the play being performed. I think a big aspect of the play is that it is a play within a play and the audience has to figure out what’s “real” and what’s not. I think this idea is kind of lost when you watch this as a movie.

            After quite a bit of discussion, I think our class has discovered the basic meanings/messages of the play. First is that we are all on a boat and pirates can happen to anyone. We also figured out that England is Heaven, but might have just been made by the cartographers. I think there are still quite a bit of unanswered questions that our class has yet to discuss, but hopefully soon we’ll have everything straightened out and we’ll be able to come up with a theme statement.

            Aside from just reading Ros and Guil, we’ve also done some essay practice. Even though we do essay practice monthly as part of our blog assignments, we actually spent time in class going over how to properly write an intro and thesis. Ms. Holmes emphasized TAP: Thesis Answers Prompt. If our thesis fully answers the prompt, everything else will be smooth sailing from there.