Book Review Outside Reading: January 10

Book Review Outside Reading

“Between Peace and Pain” by Maaza Mengiste

A Review of The Memory of Love by Aminatta Forna

The New York Times January 7, 2011

In “Between Peace and Pain,” Maaza Mengiste commends Aminatta Forna for her recent novel, The Memory of Love.  In this review, Mengiste praises Forna, but also discusses the one shortcoming she found in this new publication.  However, because Mengiste is so complimentary of The Memory of Love, the reader is left admiring Forna as a writer and looking for a copy of the piece to read themselves.

In reviewing The Memory of Love, Mengiste employs mostly Post-Colonial criticism.  She begins by explaining the time periods that the novel encompasses, which include Sierra Leone’s colonial struggle with the United Kingdom, their eventual independence, the intermittent years in which the new country struggles to establish themselves as such, and the Civil War that erupts as a result.  However, Mengiste also discusses the effects of the previous colonizer on the new country.  “Hers is a luminous tale of passion and betrayal, encompassing the political unrest that racked Sierra Leone in the late 1960s and the ruinous civil war of the 1990s, as well as the days of tenuous quiet when those who managed to stay alive struggled to cope with the physical and mental scars of those years” (1).  The role of post-colonial criticism in this review reminds me of what can be used to analyze Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe.

Mengiste adopts a very clear voice in this review, and in so doing constructs a well organized piece.  She leads her reader through a well thought-out chain of claims that, along with the warrants she chooses to support them, support her in her praise of Forna.  Mengiste also employs an academic voice that she crafts by displacing syntax and forming compound sentences that add complexity to “Between Peace and Pain.”  The title alone suggests density and the alliteration of the title once again adds to the intricate nature of the review.  The organization and academic voice that Mengiste creates are her two main strengths; through them she is able to effectively communicate how successful of an author she believes Forna to be.

Despite her overwhelming praise of Forna, however, Mengiste also points out what she sees as Forna’s only flaw.  Mengiste describes The Memory of Love as a complex novel full of “interconnecting story lines” (2) that are a result of Forna’s “risks with plot and character” (2).  This point of Mengiste’s is concluded with a discussion of one particular plot point.  “When [a main character] falls in love with a young woman, Mamakay, the writing is powerful, but credulity is strained by a dubious plot twist concerning the woman’s identity and parentage” (2).  Therefore, Mengiste does not just praise Forna.  However, because her one flaw with the author encompasses less than a paragraph of a nine-paragraph-work, a little of the validity of Mengiste’s argument is compromised.  It seemed, to me, that Mengiste was almost too complimentary of Forna; this, however, is Mengiste’s only weakness.

Class Notes: December 13-January 7

Class Notes: December 13-January 7

We’ve been studying Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman.

Miller uses nonrealistic techniques in the play.  What are they?

·         Willy’s flashbacks and memories: Willy essentially is living in the past and present simultaneously, which adds a lot of confusion to the text.

·         Willy’s conversations with Ben: This seems to me as Miller’s way of expressing Willy’s inner struggle; he regrets not going to Alaska with his brother Ben.

Linda treats Willy as her favorite son.

·         Linda mothers Willy throughout the entire play; she even helps him with the little things

·         Whenever Willy wants a snack, Linda offers milk/cheese (symbolic of breast feeding)

·         She threatens to kick Biff and Happy out if they cannot respect Willy and explains that her literal sons cannot come home to just visit Linda, they have to come to visit Willy too

·         Linda is the only parental figure in the play.  Willy acts like one of his sons and is always inflating their heads, while Linda is responsible for paying the bills and managing the household (something that women never did at this time in history)

The Happy/Willy and Willy/Ben relationships are similar.

·         Willy looks up to Ben just as Happy looks up to Willy

·         Willy and Happy never come to the realization that Biff does; they both have inflated heads

·         Happy views Willy as successful, just as Willy views Ben as successful

·         Happy never progresses beyond high school, just as Willy doesn’t (they “never grow up”)

Reflective Essay Outside Reading: January 10

Reflective Essay Outside Reading

“Coat Drive” by Colin Nissan

McSweeney’s January 4, 2011

In McSweeney’s “Coat Drive,” Collin Nissan educates his reader in the lifestyle of the impoverished.  He begins by discussing the coat drive, an event that has become somewhat commonplace, and then expands his essay to include all other kinds of drives.  By adopting a humorous tone, Nissan is able to pull on the reader’s heartstrings and introduce the desperate lives that the less fortunate really do live. 

The main technique that Nissan uses to communicate is humor.  As mentioned, he begins his essay by discussing the coat drive, but eventually expands to include other drives.  However, these drives are somewhat over-the top; he discusses cat drives, cat food drives, taxi fare drives, and iPad drives.  Nissan even mentions the Divorce Drive he was forced into holding after the legal community discovered his history of Affair Drives (2).  The wide array of drives that he chooses to include, however, help Nissan to effectively communicate to the reader.  This is his biggest strength; Nissan is able to convince the reader of the extent of some people’s poverty.  Although the humorous tone that Nissan adopts helps him to get his point across, however, it significantly lightens the mood of the essay.  This takes away from the severity of the piece, and his biggest strength therefore doubles as his biggest weakness.  Nissan is able to fill the reader in on the fact that the impoverished sometimes have to rely on others for everything, and he is also able to introduce a sense of sympathy.  However, the humor that he employs did not leave me with a desire to do anything about it.

Nissan also employs curse words in communicating to the reader, which helps to develop how desperate the less fortunate really can be.  However, in addition to the humorous tone he adopts, the swearing would be inappropriate for an AP Essay.  The humor and curse words create an informality that is not up to par with the AP Exam.

As mentioned, Nissan is able to introduce a sense of sympathy to the piece.  He does this by appealing directly to the emotions of the reader.  In his opening paragraph, Nissan pleads with his reader.  “Is there anything in [your closet], anything at all, that would look better on Tom” (1)?  By repeating “anything at all,” Nissan is using syntax to add a certain sense of earnestness.  A few paragraphs later, he further appeals to the reader’s emotion.  “Remember, this isn’t just about reaching into your closets, it’s about reaching into your hearts” (1).  This helps Nissan to instill a sense of sympathy, and therefore leaves the reader pitying the impoverished.

Editorial Outside Reading: January 10

Editorial Outside Reading

“Oh Shut Up” by Hendrik Hertzberg

The New Yorker January 10, 2011

            In “Oh Shut Up,” Hendrik Hertzberg points out many flaws in American politics and especially in the recently adjourned Congress.  Hertzberg’s apparent thesis is in favor of modifying the Senatorial filibuster method, and he connects some altered Congressional rules to an improved government.  As he discusses the Senate in particular and its 2010 lame-duck session, Hertzberg makes appropriate rhetoric choices, but his disorganization and unclear thesis hinders his ability to communicate effectively.

            Hertzberg is able to craft a strong voice by introducing a bias to his editorial.  He employs diction such as “dishonorable” and “unconscionable” to describe acts passed by Republicans, and thus paints himself as a devoted liberal.  This bias keeps Hertzberg from sitting on the fence; his devotion to his beliefs allows him to create a firm and convincing voice.  This is definitely a strength of Hertzberg’s; his strong voice adds validity to his argument. 

Hertzberg is able to use short sentences to convey one of the many points he seems to be arguing, as well.  His first paragraph explains the triumphs of our last Congress and his second discusses their inadequacies.  He therefore begins his second paragraph with “Good.  But not good enough” (2): the syntax of which emphasizes the failure of the recently adjourned Congressional session. 

Hertzberg also employs a lot of figurative language, and in so doing, is able to relate to the reader.  He compares the original rarity of the filibuster method to the frequency of solar eclipses (3) and later describes the modern version of the filibuster to be “as common as sunsets- and as destructive as tsunamis” (3).  These similes paint a picture for the reader and enhance their understanding; they ultimately make Hertzberg’s argument relatable.  Despite this success though, his use of figurative language introduces an informality to the editorial that would be inappropriate for an AP Essay. 

However, despite his effectiveness in supporting his claims, I personally finished the article disagreeing with Hertzberg.  Because the piece is fairly short and he brings up a lot of points, it often is difficult to discern what exactly he is arguing.  He begins by discussing the 111^th Congress and what he views to be their successes and shortcomings, and then transitions to discuss his actual thesis: modifying the filibuster.  However, the points he makes concerning the ultimate ineffectiveness of the 111^th Congress outnumber his arguments surrounding the filibuster method.  Because he unfortunately fails to connect the two sections of his editorial, the reader is left confused.  To me, this weakness stuck out more than Hertzberg’s main strength.  Despite his strong voice, Hertzberg’s disorganized editorial seemed to be more of a poke at Republicans than a critique of the methodology of American politics.