Outside Reading: Editorial 3

1/10/11

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?ref=opinion

(No listed author)

The editorial “Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona” (no named author) addresses the tragic events surrounding the shooting at a public event sponsored by Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az) in Tucson, Arizona. Though the tone of this piece is a bit bland and dull, one cannot help noticing some of the controversial topics (such as insanity pleas, border control, and gun rights) that are being addressed by this unnamed speaker’s matter-of-fact voice.

Although this is probably quite stereotypical of me, I feel like the author of this piece is most likely a man. I feel like, as a girl, if I were writing about a topic as tragic as this, I would end up discussing the feelings of those directly and indirectly affected by this atrocity. The voice of this author, although it does lightly address how many people were killed or injured at the shooting, to me, does not seem exactly personable. The author, rather, prefers to focus on the political causes and ramifications of the shooting.

I definitely dislike the voice of this particular author. ‘He’ assumes too much, like when ‘he’ says, “It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge.” Because I am politically independent with a Republican leaning, I take offense to ‘his’ quick reaction to point fingers to the Republican Party.

One thing that I wholeheartedly approve of, however, is the author’s use of structure in this piece. ‘He’ begins with a recognizable event prior to the subject he will be discussing. ‘He’ gives us background information on the shooter. ‘He’ informs us, the audience, of the major increase in threats against Congress members. The author then closes with a laundry list of issues that pertain to not only the southwestern region of the country, but also the United States as a whole. This clean-cut structure gives the reader a sense of comfortable repetition to cling to while reading.

Of all of the outside readings I have completed, I could see this piece as an AP essay the most easily. The speaker’s tone is simplistic, yet well-learned. Informative, yet mildly interesting. In other words, the speaker knows enough about the subject to correctly inform the reading audience of all the relevant facts, while also presenting one person’s “spin” on the causes and effects of this subject.

Outside Reading: Reflective Essay 3

The Partly Cloudy Patriot by Sarah Vowell; published 2002
(borrowed from Ms. Holmes)
Essay: “Wonder Twins”

January 10, 2011
Pg 141-146

As usual, Sarah Vowell’s unusual humor catches the reader pleasantly off-guard in her essay entitled, “Wonder Twins.” “In December 1999,” she writes, “the Associated Press released a photograph of Luther and Johnny Htoo, twelve-year-old twin brothers commanding a ragtag guerrilla army in the rain forest of Myanmar (formerly Burma)… Every time I saw the picture the first thing that popped into my head was this: I miss my sister.”

Being a fraternal twin, Sarah uses the Htoo brothers as a way of comparing her domestic twin life with her sister, Amy, to that of the Htoo brothers and “God’s Army.” Using her obviously sarcastic tone, created by the absurdity of some of her comparisons, Vowell makes references to both her childhood and adulthood with Amy. “I’m a single careerist with a walk-up apartment in New York City; she’s a married, dog-owning mother in Montana with a, swear to God, white picket fence.”

Amusingly, Vowell writes, “The similarities are uncanny. Luther and Johnny were illiterate, Baptist, messianic insurgents struggling against the government of Myanmar, and my sister Amy and I shared a locker all through junior high.”  Vowell cites these kinds of “domestic” events to contrast the unstable childhood of their Myanmar counterparts. I wonder if the creative phrasing of her life’s events just comes naturally to her…

Vowell’s unorthodox voice makes me laugh, ponder, and sigh, all at once. I laugh because of some of the ridiculous remarks that she makes about events that have happened to her and her sister, such as when her sister threw up on her and how her sister thought it was so funny that she went and got their parents, who took a picture. I ponder what it would be like to have a twin. Because my father has an identical twin, I can understand many of the feelings that Vowell discusses, but on the other hand, being an only child, I never got to experience the benefits and many disadvantages of having a sibling.

I could potentially see this piece being used as an AP Prompt, or possibly as one of the essays that the ACT uses on the reading section. Students could easily write an essay in response to reading this essay: whether it be to discuss Vowell’s voice throughout the piece, or whether it be to analyze her relationship with her sister in contrast to that of the relationship between the Htoo twins.

Outside Reading: Book Review 3

1/10/11

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/books/review/Romm-t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=review

Book: THE LIFE AND OPINIONS OF MAF THE DOG, AND OF HIS FRIEND MARILYN MONROE By Andrew O’Hagan

Review titled: In Aphrodite’s Arms

By ROBIN ROMM

The witty review by Robin Romm, titled “In Aphrodite’s Arms,” summarizes both the literary and stylistic highlights of the novel “THE LIFE AND OPINIONS OF MAF THE DOG, AND OF HIS FRIEND MARILYN MONROE” by Andrew O’Hagan.

Romm begins his review by discussing the somewhat unique perspective that the book is narrated in: the perspective of a dog, that is. Mafia Honey, a “fluffy but sharp-eyed Maltese terrier” ends up, after various owners, in the hands of Marilyn Monroe. As Romm explains, Maf witnesses Marilyn’s actions during times when no other “person” could have, such as during her psychoanalytic sessions. Romm goes on to call Maf “a proponent of the working class” while simultaneously being “a bit of a pompous snob.” Romm also mentions that “As appreciative as [Maf] is of the underdog, his life is such that he never has to be one.”  Romm continues by thoroughly discussing how Marilyn is portrayed by Maf in the piece, specifically noting Maf’s educated language that allows him to depict Marilyn Monroe in deeper detail.

After discussing some of the unique qualities of the book, Romm goes on to lightly criticize the story-telling abilities of Maf the dog. “Despite his ease with language and his rich turns of phrase, Maf’s name-dropping can be slightly overwhelming.” Yet, Romm goes on to give the novel a half-criticism half-compliment, stating, “[Maf’s name-dropping] slows the pace of this precise, impressively researched book.”

Romm uses a Formalistic Critical Perspective, mainly discussing the stylistic and plot techniques used by Andrew O’Hagan to piece together this fantastic storyline. He notes the tone used by Maf as “studious and perceptive,” while also alluding to one of the novel’s themes: not understanding human emotion. Romm, throughout the entire review of the novel, hints to the audience that using Maf as a narrator further perpetuates this theme.

Although it is hard to relate the storyline of this novel to any other, I am reminded of the importance of the narrator. Some books have generic and boring narrators, where all the audience learns about is the frailty of the flowers and the wind blowing through the trees. Other books have eccentric narrators who sometimes get caught up with any little detail that they deem important. And yet other books are told by a narrator who specifically fits into the book itself. In this novel, Maf is a foil to Marilyn. Making this connection, Romm notes Maf’s dialogue in which he states that Marilyn baby-talks him and, in doing so, makes up his personality for him. Brilliantly, he then goes on to say that this is what the studio bosses are doing to her.

Week 4 Notes (1/3-1/10)

This past week we have been watching the film "Death of A Salesman" and discussing the text. We have been focusing on:

• The relationship between Willy and Linda. (Does she mother him too much? Is their dynamic healthy?)
• The relationship between Willy and Biff. (Why is Biff the favorite and not Happy?)
• The relationship between Linda and her sons. (How does she favor Willy over her sons? Is this okay?)
• The relationship between Willy and his dreams/society. (Why/Is Willy a failure? What led to his downfall?)
• The significance of "The Woman."
• Why is Happy/Harold such a failure?
• Is Willy responsible for his death?

The Lowman family reminds me a lot of the Joad family in the novel "The Grapes of Wrath." The entire Joad family heads to California in search of a new life, but society gives them nothing in return except for death and exploitation.

Week... 3? December 13-17

Okay, so i'm really confused if we needed to post notes for this week or not. I believe this is the week we watched Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and discussed the "Lecture on Stoppard." Maybe? Possibly? If you know whether we're supposed to post notes for this week, let me know!