Class Notes: November 15-26

Class Notes (November 15-26)

During these two weeks, we focused on the play Hamlet.

Background Information

·         Originated as a Norse legend

·         Hamlet’s original name = Amleth (displacement of H)

·         Was first printed in Paris in 1514, was translated to French in 1570, appeared in English text in 1608

·         In the end of the original, Hamlet lives and becomes the King of Denmark

Revenge Tragedy

·         Fall of someone whose character is good, believable, and consistent (Hamlet)

·         Fatal flaw (Hamlet’s hesitation/indecision)

·         Inspired by Seneca, but made popular during the Elizabethan era

·         Hero is hesitant (the entirety of the play involves around  Hamlet’s hesitation and reluctance to kill Claudius)

·         There usually is a question of the hero’s sanity (Hamlet sees a ghost; seeing ghosts is not normal)

·         Hero often contemplates suicide

·         Multiple levels of intrigue

·         There is an able, scheming villain (Claudius)

·         Abundance of soliloquies (Hamlet has more lines than any other character by far; he talks all the time)

·         Sensationalized idea of murder on stage or exhibition of dead bodies (everyone dies in the final scene)

For more detail: http://www.humx.org/vocabulary/revenge-tragedy

The View of Marriage (The View that Hamlet Adopts while at Wittenberg)

·         When a couple marries, they become one flesh, literally.  They are considered the same person.  Therefore, in Hamlet Jr.’s eyes, Hamlet Sr. and Gertrude are one flesh, or one person… even after Hamlet Sr.’s death.  As a result, when Gertrude marries Claudius, Hamlet Sr.’s brother, Hamlet Jr. interprets this as Gertrude marrying her brother

·         This is fundamentally different from the view that the rest of the characters in Hamlet adopt.  Everyone in Denmark sees Claudius’ and Gertrude’s marriage as normal, political, and not as incest

·         Why would Shakespeare bring this up?  Because one of his biggest patrons is Elizabeth I.  This move essentially reinforces Elizabeth’s right to the throne, because her father, Henry VIII accused his first wife, Katharine of Aragon, of consummating her marriage to his brother.  This is significant because Henry VIII and Katharine had a daughter, Mary (Queen Mary I, or Bloody Mary), who would be considered illegitimate if Henry VIII’s and Katharine’s marriage had been void.  Therefore, Mary would not have a claim to the throne, and Elizabeth (the daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn) would be the rightful Queen of England

Class Notes: November 8-12

                                                       Class Notes: November 8-12

This week we focused on two main things: Oedipus Rex (see wikis) and constructing AP-level thesis statements.

Things to remember when writing theses:

·         The thesis will always answer the prompt.

·         You must always answer the hidden “so what?” question, even if the prompt does not directly instruct you to.  Every AP essay prompt is the same: What techniques does the author use to create meaning?

·         Techniques can be skipped in the introductory paragraph, and should be if your score goal is an 8 or a 9.  When you include them in your introduction, it tempts you to structure your essay by technique, and that is not the ideal way to organize an essay.  Your goal should be to structure by claim and then use various techniques as evidence (or warrants) supporting each claim

·         Be clear!  Clarity is essential!  Because thesis statements are supposed to setup the rest of your paper, if your thesis doesn’t make sense you’re setting yourself up for failure from step one

·         Thesis statements can and should be more than one sentence

Helpful websites with tips and examples:

http://www.apstudynotes.org/english/sample-essays/thesis-statements/

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/preap/teachers_corner/44056.html

Other things to keep in mind:

·         Long works are underlined.  Anything underlined can also be italicized, but you can only use on or the other in any given essay

·         Short works are in “quotations”

·         If you pronounce the extra ‘s when showing ownership, write it (ex: the girls’ CDs vs. Ms. Holmes’s CDs)

Book Review Outside Reading: November 15

Book Review Outside Reading

“Stray Cat Blues” by Liz Phair

The New York Times November 4, 2010

            In “Stray Cat Blues,” Liz Phair offers a generous review of Keith Richards’ autobiography, Life.  Phair seems to really admire Richards and excuses most of his mistakes, but is careful to not overlook all of his flaws; thus her review is fairly objective.  However she is careful in the techniques she chooses to use and is therefore able to convince the reader to highly esteem both Keith Richards and the Rolling Stones.

            Phair deconstructs Richards’ life in a way that explains most of his life choices, and is thus able to displace a lot of the negativity synonymous with a musician’s lifestyle.  She does so by choosing positive diction such as “avatar,” “legendary,” and “underdog.”  This is her main strength: Phair’s word choice and use of biographical criticism allow her to portray Richards as a relatively respectable individual, despite his promiscuity and addiction to cocaine.  She is careful to also note that he had affairs with two of his band mates’ girlfriends, and faults him for this choice.  However, it only takes one paragraph for Phair to shift back to her original tone of admiration and reverence.  She paints Richards’ life as glamorous and paints Richards himself as dedicated and committed.  As a result, she is able to offer a surprisingly positive critique of Richards and his autobiography.

            This review’s weakness, on the other hand, is the informal tone that Phair adopts.  She is able to capture Richards’ sense of humor by recreating it in her own piece, but she is so informal that the review loses its validity.  Phair refers to Richards by his first name, swears, and is openly sarcastic and stereotypical.  After describing Richards’ involvement in the Boy Scouts of America program, she offers a disclaimer to the reader.  “For parents keen on enrolling their children in wholesome activities to secure a respectable future and avoid exactly what became of Keith Richards, keep in mind: he was a choirboy, too” (2).  Although funny, this stereotype is a discredit to Phair.  By adopting such a common tone, she undermines her own status as a professional; she seems to be critiquing Richards’ autobiography as a friend and not as a journalist for The New York Times.  As a result, I responded skeptically to her review.  This informality would definitely be inappropriate for an AP essay.

Reflective Essay Outside Reading: November 15

Reflective Essay Outside Reading

“Guy Walks into a Bar Car” by David Sedaris

The New Yorker April 20, 2009

In his essay, “Guy Walks into a Bar Car,” David Sedaris describes his attempts to start a relationship with the various men he has encountered while traveling.  He limits his discussion to train travel, and as he employs different techniques, he is able to effectively communicate and craft a humorous story that is easy to read.

            Sedaris makes a series of rhetoric choices that keep the reader engaged and allow him to effectively communicate.  He uses several short sentences when recounting the discussions he’s had with the different people he has met, which help to create a suspenseful, fast-paced story.  These sentences often also act as interrupters, which quicken Sedaris’ pace even more.

As his goal is to find a new boyfriend, Sedaris often is very suggestive and flirtatious.  The use of this type of diction allows the reader to connect with Sedaris, because everyone understands what it is like to pursue a relationship. Another way Sedaris is able to connect with his reader is through his sense of humor.  He puts many jokes into his writing, and is thus able to capture the reader’s attention and create a suspenseful atmosphere.  These jokes, in addition to the prevalent slang used throughout the essay, also create a common and informal tone that ultimately is a big strength of Sedaris’s.  This informality allows Sedaris to keep his reader laughing.  However, this common, everyday tone is one that would be inappropriate for an AP essay.

            Sedaris’s use of sarcasm also helps to create an informal tone.  He ends his essay by referring to the jokes that he began with, and is very contradictory when he does.  He spends his entire essay moving quickly from attempted relationship to attempted relationship, and then ends by essentially condemning himself.  “I’d never really trusted people who went directly from one relationship to the next, so after my train pulled into Penn Station, and after I’d taken the subway home, I’d wait a few hours, or maybe even a full day, before dialing his number and asking if he’d like to hear a joke.”  By employing this sarcasm, Sedaris essentially gives the reader permission to laugh at him, rather than laugh with him.  As a result, Sedaris’ sarcasm and the informal, everyday tone that he adopts allow him to craft a well-structured, easy-to-read essay that keeps the reader laughing and entertained.

           

Editorial Outside Reading: November 15

Editorial Outside Reading

“Football, Dogfighting, and Brain Damage” by Malcolm Gladwell

The New Yorker October 19, 2009

In “Football, Dogfighting, and Brain Damage,” Malcolm Gladwell condemns the football program and links it to dogfighting, a sport many consider to be cruel.  In his editorial, Gladwell’s underlying argument is that football and dogfighting are in fact quite similar, and he points out that brain damage is often a result of America’s favorite sport.  Gladwell employs many techniques this piece, and ultimately constructs a well-crafted and persuasive essay.

In this editorial, Gladwell paints a vivid picture for his reader.  He begins “Football, Dogfighting, and Brain Damage” with an account of Kyle Turley, a professional football player whose career has started to impact other areas of his life.  Gladwell writes this account as a story and is thus able to effectively capture the reader’s attention.  He also employs several onomatopoeias that allow the reader to feel as if they themselves are a part of Kyle’s Turley life.  However, the majority of his editorial is not an attempt to tell the reader a story.  Gladwell quickly navigates away from the narrative he begins with, and introduces dogfighting.  In doing so, Gladwell is able to play to the emotions of his reader; by linking football to something that most would agree is horrendous, he effectively sets up his thesis.  Gladwell also provides extensive medical data backing up his claims.  As a result, he is able to smoothly guide his reader from claim to claim, ultimately arriving back at his thesis.

            By adopting a powerful voice, Gladwell magnifies the severity of the brain damage football can cause.  He employs severe diction that helps to create a harsh tone.  The questions he poses directly to the reader also help him to effectively communicate the dangers of football, but this informality would be inappropriate for an AP essay.  Although they create an informal atmosphere, these questions ultimately are a strength of Gladwell’s.  His other strengths include clarity, precision, and his ability to connect with the reader.  Gladwell’s only weakness, on the other hand, is his extensive use of narration.  Although examples are important, I think Gladwell could have eliminated some of the examples he gave and instead provided more of his own insight into the brain damage football can cause.

            As mentioned, Gladwell is able to play to the reader’s emotions.  In the end of “Football, Dogfighting, and Brain Damage,” Gladwell essentially blames the reader for the lack of action taken to help prevent this brain damage.  “Boxers ran a twenty-per-cent risk of dementia.  Yet boxers continue to box.  Why?  Because people still go to boxing matches” (9).  As a result, Gladwell’s argument, although informal, is effective.  He not only persuades the reader that his thesis is correct, but he forces them to reevaluate their own contributions to the brain damage that athletes often face.  In doing so, Gladwell left little room for doubt in my mind.