Responses to Course Material

September 22: So far AP Literature has mostly been a recap of things we've learned before with a little more detail, as well as learning the basic structure of the AP Essay section. We reviewed what kind of things are used as evidence in a paper (DIDLS), but looked at each of them in a new way. With diction we got very specific, so now I have a better vocabulary to describe the way the diction works. We also studied the processes in reading and writing: how authors create meaning using techniques to make effects, and how readers can analyze that process. By learning about analyzing literature, we started to see how analyzing and essay writing work hand in hand. We also used our new found analyzing skills to pick apart prompts. This activity really helped me see how much a prompt can give away that I'd never even noticed before, like the basic thesis only without your opinion. A prompt can give you the techniques, effects, and meaning of the text you are supposed to analyze. I've really enjoyed the first few weeks of this class because I am finally in a classroom where I have some input on how I see the effects and meaning in a text. Also, it's nice that we haven't shied away from texts that aren't "child appropriate".

Prompts

Choose a character from a novel or play of recognized literary merit and write an essay in which you (a) briefly describe the standards of the fictional society in which the character exists and (b) show how the character is affected by and responds to those standards. In your essay do not merely summarize the plot.

           Many people believe that environment helps determine how its inhabitants interact.  Part of any given environment is the kind of people that live there.  In Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, Heathcliff, a gypsy child, is brought into a wealthy English family, but then he is treated horribly by his jealous foster siblings.  Emily Bronte presents that character is determined by surroundings through Heathcliff, as he goes from an innocent boy to a cynical monster.

          Heathcliff was thrown into the racist upper-class Victorian society.  As a gypsy, he was looked down upon, and treated badly.  His foster brother, Hindley, was crueler to him than anyone.  Hindley persecuted Heathcliff, forcing him to do hard labor, seperating him from the family, and degrading him with language.  Hindley is portrayed as quite evil, and his when he becomes an alcoholic, he allows the house to fall into the dark.  During this time, Heathcliff also begins to show "evil" tendencies, very different from his childhood, where he was portrayed as the victim.  

          After Hindley takes away Heathcliff's only friend, Catherine, Heathcliff turns inward, and upon Hindley's death Heathcliff becomes crueler than Hindley ever was.  Bronte uses diction to show Heathcliff's new character, describing him as a "monster" at many times in the book.  She also constantly shows him in shadows, creating a dark atmosphere.  These tactics show that Heathcliff's character has turned dark, and mysterious.

         Bronte proves her point by presenting Heathcliff differently from the beginning of the book to the end.  By showing him as a moderately happy, although shy, child, and then as a near monster, we see that because of the fierce racism Hindley shows Heathcliff, a monster is born.

Close Readings

American Heroes Who Get No Credit by David Frum

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/12/opinion/frum-unsung-heroes/index.html?hpt=op_t1

In the third paragraph, the author uses language to emphasize how Americans would negatively view politicians who pushed preventative measures.  While describing a politician preparing for a terror attack such as September 11th, Frum says,  "It's very possible that they would have been laughed at as tedious people who invested ridiculous amounts of energy against a probably imaginary threat."  By using adjectives such as tedious, ridiculous, and imaginary, Frum clearly shows this politician as a mockery. Thus, he makes his point, such a politician would be a laughing stock, not respected, and unrecognized. 


The diction in Frum's essay also heavily impacts the meaning, specifically his choice of unnecessary adjectives that change the meaning of a sentence.  Frum points out that the politicians who get credit in the grand scheme are the ones that fix disasters.  He uses Rudy Giuliani as an example, "The politicians who act after disaster reap the gratitude of the nation, like Rudy Giuliani amid the rubble of New York City." Using the verb "reap" instead of a more common world, like "get", gives this quotation a different feel.  If you reap something you are taking it, not being given it.  This makes it seem that Giuliani wasn't openly offered the credit, but took it anyway.  This emphasizes that credit taken after a disaster isn't as deserving as credit given for preventing disaster.


Frum offers preventative solutions to past events, detailing how they would have been solved and could have significantly changed the course of history.  He suggests that certain preemptive actions could have prevented The Great Depression, "Suppose they had rapidly infused the banking system with emergency credit, gone off the gold standard when Britain did in 1931, and organized the mutual forgiveness of the enormous debts and reparations left over from World War I."   By detailing the possible fixes to The Great Depression, Frum shows that this changes would not have been widely accepted.  Forgiving debts might have been extremely controversial if done too soon, before the country realized how bad the economy was, just as many preventative measures would be today.  This furthers his point that some solutions may be unpopular, but that doesn't mean those solutions wouldn't work.