Williamus Lomanus. Adding "us" to the end of names makes them look more legit. In other words, my awesome summary of Death of A Salesman.

Concise. Yep. If there were ever one word created to describe the writing of Sarah Wakeman, "concise" would fall as an antonym for her writing style. Let's just say I'm like Charles Dickens when it comes to writing out what I'm trying to say. See. Even now. Alright. Here's the reason we've been studying, watching, reading, discussing and annotating for the past couple weeks. Commence.

The author is Arthur Miller. From what we read about him from the interviews, he seems like a pretty cool dude. And he graduated from the University of Michigan, meaning he was also pretty smart. (As if I couldn't get that from his ability to write a multiple award-winning play.) And he was married to Marilyn Monroe. Either she didn't care about how her husbandS (yes, the capital "s" was necessary to emphasize he was not the only one) looked and liked brains over beauty (at the time) or he might have been one pretty good lookin' stud. Yes. That would be the author. Concise. Oops.

The story takes place in New York City, New York. It's apparent throughout the story that Willy lives in a developing burrow of New York City, as he complains often of the new development of houses and the changes that are happening in the world. (This is significant when he has Biff steal construction supplies--more on that in summary)

An important theme of this play is the idea of change. Willy does not like change. He liked when he was better than Charley and when Biff was the better than Bernard. When told that there was more opportunity for success up in Alaska by his brother Ben, Willy (in my opinion due to Linda, the poop-head, more on her later) did not leave. Partly due to Linda, but Linda only supported his dislike of change and new things. This theme is accented throughout the play by his reoccurring flashbacks. I think that the title of the play also, Death of a Salesman, while being literal, is also metaphorical in showing that due to a change of heart at the end, the part of Willy that was a salesman died and the part of him that wanted to accomplish big things was born. Unfortunately, the way he saw for himself to accomplish big things was to kill himself and give the money of his life insurance to Biff and Happy.

A list of characters shall now be listed. (Why wasn't this put at the beginning? My organizational talents, ladies and gentlemen.)

Williamus Lomanus: This sounds cooler than his real name, which is Willy Loman. He is a salesman that is a little messed up in the head, and when I say "little," I mean he's got a brain tumor growin' in there, so I guess he's going to die soon anyway. Why not make it sooner? Anyway, he's a salesman that is actually not so good at the whole "selling" component of being a salesman. He also has a controlling wife that's so manipulative, you think he's the bad guy. But don't be fooled. He also (in my opinion) is a static character and does not change his beliefs about things even though they are wrong and causing his downfall as well as the downfall of his children.

Linda Loman: The manipulative and controlling wife of Willy. However, she does this so secretively that sometimes it looks like Willy's the "bad guy." This is not the case. She is one of the reasons Willy cannot accept necessary change throughout the play and leads to his downfall as well, causing the downfall of children in the future. It is important to remember that she is one of the only women in the play to be given a name. (However there aren't too many woman in the play, but she is the main one and has a name.)

Biff Loman: Eldest son of Willy. Was the star football player in high school and was destined for success. Ruined by his father though, specifically in an encounter in Boston when he caught his father having an affair while traveling on business. Ever since that occurred, he has had trouble in life and can't hold down a job and become successful due to the faulty parenting he received from his father when growing up about being better than everyone already and that the most important thing in business is how much you are liked. Yeah. Cause that's workin' out real well for you, eh Willy?

Happy Loman: A waste of space. Just kidding. How horrible would it be if the definition of someone was a waste of space? There has to be reason for Happy to be in this story, otherwise Miller would not have put him in the story. I think one of the most important things to remember about happy is the irony of his name. His nickname is "Happy," his real name being Harry, and his whole life he spends trying to make his father happy and finding happiness for himself, both of which he is unsuccessful with. He never does anything momentous in the play though, just kind-of being in the background and being the support.

Ben Loman: Brother of protagonist. You find out that he's dead in "real" time, but comes back throughout the play in Willy's flashbacks as well as a figment of Willy's imagination in real time that he talks to. (See scene when Willy and Charley are playing cards together. Kinda funny.) Moved to Alaska to get rich, then to Africa. Followed opportunity and was rewarded for it.

Charley: Foil of Willy. Both raise son. (Happy is not favored or even acknowledged by Willy, so singular of "son" refers to Biff and Bernard, whom are foils of each other as well.) However, Charley raises Bernard as being a hard-worker but not too overbearing whereas Willy raises Biff with his nose over Biff's shoulder on everything and to be more liked instead of more successful. Charley lives next-door to Willy and is Willy's rival. Willy constantly wants to make sure he's better than Charley. Charley, however, is more successful business-wise and owns his own business.

Bernard: Son of Charley and foil to Biff. Grows up to be a very successful lawyer due to parenting of Charley. Was friends with Biff and Happy (although who cares about Happy) as boys but whenever he comes into a flashback scene, he is seen as annoying and worrying too much. This is because the flashbacks are according to Willy's memory and this is how he saw Bernard at the time.

Howard: Willy's boss at his firm. He seems arrogant and different than his father, something that Willy does not like. (again with change.) Significant scene with him is scene with voice recorder--shows sexism and how men were heralded at the time while women were not as well thought of.

And now for the summary. With added description of important scenes.

The play starts out with Willy returning, unexpectedly, from a business trip. He couldn't focus on driving and kept swerving off the road, saying he was "dreaming," seemingly of the past. He breaks off from telling his wife what happened by ending with, "I have such thoughts, I have such strange thoughts." This already foreshadows that throughout the play, Willy is going to be affected by his mind and thoughts and how they will control his actions.

Willy and Linda start to talk about their sons, Biff and Happy. To me, the names seem important because, like I said before, Happy's whole goal in life seems to be to search for happiness and to make himself as well as his father happy. Biff's name also seems important to me because, and maybe it's just me, when I think of a mistake or an accident. I looked up the word "biff" on Merriam-Webster's dictionary, and it said that "biff" means whack or blow, like a punch. That seems to fit Biff's personality, as he is kind-of like a punch in the face and fiery, just how Willy taught him to be.

Biff and Happy have been away and have just come home, although when talking of their "sons," they only ever talk of Biff and never about Happy, as if he doesn't exist. Willy is angry at Biff because he can't hold down a job and make a steady salary. Willy seems to respect people based on their job and how much money they make, except when dealing with Charley, due to Willy's insecurities about himself since he secretly envies Charley.

All throughout this scene before Willy goes up to bed while he's in the kitchen, he jumps all throughout memories, triggered by certain things like sounds or smells. He uses these as a coping mechanism for when times were better for him and he was successful, or had the appearance of being successful. Willy's true success as a salesman throughout the play is evident that he is not a very good one, supported by scenes from the past of mixed-up and unknown earning amounts as well as not being able to pay his insurance, his top priority right now.

As Willy's in the kitchen and having his flashbacks, the first of many in the book, it's hard to tell at times when he jumps into the present time or if he's still in the past, but at different times in the past. While this is happening, Happy comes down to the kitchen to try and appease Willy and as this happens, Charley appears in the doorway of the kitchen, complaining of the noise Willy's making. Happy leaves Willy with Charley and they strike up a game of cards. But while they play cards, Ben, Willy's brother, makes his first appearance in the real world in Willy's hallucinations. It's kind of a funny scene because Willy is talking both to Ben as well as Charley, answering both of their questions and having conversations with them. However, Charley leaves after Willy accuses him of cheating, which he didn't but Willy, being mentally unstable and not being able to stand that Charley could beat him, accuses him of such a thing. Charley leaves and Willy goes into another flashback with Ben in it, talking to him about business and success and why life has gone the way it has.

During the flashback, Willy is talking to Ben about business and trying to show him how well he's done in life, but this is really just an attempt to impress Ben with Willy's not-as-prestigious accomplishments. An important part here is the fact that Willy is so concerned with how people see him that he even stoops to having Biff go and steal items from a local construction project to show Ben just how well he's doing. Of course, the voices of reason throughout, Charley and Bernard, come and warn Willy about this idea, but again as Willy ignores this, Biff gets into trouble. Another important observation in this scene is that Charley says to Willy that he's noticed a change in him which Willy ignores.

The flashback comes to an end as Willy is confronted by Linda and told to go to bed, but Willy just walks outside and is still stuck in his head, mumbling things to himself about what his life was like, which is actually not his true life, but his imagined false life that is easier to think about than his current one. Biff comes down from talking with Happy and notices his dad which makes him feel embarrassed. His mother comes and defends Willy and gets angry at Biff about leaving and never coming home and not respecting his father. Biff knows better than to believe her defenses for Willy and makes a point saying (about Willy's foil) that Charley would never do this kind of thing, however learns that Willy is going through a tough time by only living on straight commission and has been borrowing money from Charley in order to pay bills. And due to his shame, they find out from Linda as well that Willy has been contemplating killing himself from a rubber pipe she found that connects to the gas pipe.

Willy overhears them talking and comes over and starts arguing with Biff and just as Willy's about to leave, Biff informs him of his decision to make him proud by going to talk to Bill Oliver, a business man that can get Biff a job. Willy gets overly-excited about this causing another fight, but then Happy (of all people) shouts out an idea to keep the peace; he has an idea to sell sporting goods with Biff, and they could play sports as well in order to sell them. (Everyone calls this the 'million-dollar idea.') Willy starts to get excited about this and starts telling Biff what to do tomorrow. While doing this, he keeps yelling at Linda  to stop interrupting whenever she tries to say an encouraging statement to Biff which makes Biff angry that Willy is semi-abusive to Linda. (I don't know if it was weird at the time for men to be abusive to their wives because it used to be an accepted thing, but Biff treats Willy like it's not, so context may be different here...) Willy gets angry at Biff for trying to take over the house and "be the man" and leaves, so Biff has to go and appease him. Biff comes in and makes peace with Willy, Happy comes along to tell them that he's getting married, to which no one gives a crap, and both of them leave. When Biff leaves, he goes down to the cellar and grabs the rubber pipe and heads back to his room; while this is happening, Willy and Linda talk in their room and Linda asks Willy what Biff has against him and why Biff is so angry at Willy. Willy responds to this with concise anger and the question is left hanging in the air, ending Act I.

Good God. Act II. I'm done writing this. No more extraneous detail. Hopefully.

The next morning Willy wakes with good spirits and Linda greets him with news that the boys left early, however moods take a turn when talk of money comes up; the refrigerator payment is due even though it just broke, the insurance premium is due and they're a little short due to the motor job on the "goddam Studebaker" (that he was raving about at first, but as soon as it breaks, it's a P.O.S.) Willy makes a reference about Charley as he talks about the refrigerator and how Charley's hasn't broken in 20 years and his has. Linda also informs him that they have the last payment on the mortgage and then the house belongs to them, after 25 years, an accomplishment they take note of. Willy starts to talk fondly about all the work he has put into the house (showing that his true calling should be a carpenter since he's fond of working with his hands and is good at it too.) As Willy is about to leave for work to go ask his boss Howard (who's in charge of the company) to find a job for him here in New York so he doesn't have to travel anymore, Linda tells him  that the boys are meeting him for dinner at Frank's Chop house and are "blowing him a big meal." Willy gets hopeful about this, but just as he's feeling good and leaving the house, he looks back and notices a stocking hanging out of one of Linda's pockets, making him feel like a failure even more because she has to darn her stockings and tells her to not darn her stockings while he's around because "it makes me nervous." Also while walking, he makes a comment about growing something in the garden, perhaps a sign of wanting to grow life and maybe of new beginnings and better signs of things to come.

When Willy leaves, Linda gets a call from Biff and enthuses that she went to find the rubber pipe and it was gone, however, Biff informs her that he removed the pipe. Linda feels less confident about things, but still is happy about them taking Willy out for dinner.

The scene then cuts to Howard and Willy in Howard's office. Willy is waiting to talk to Howard who is busy with a new gadget of his, a wire recorder. To show off his device to Willy, he plays the first recording he has on it, a recording of his daughter whistling and then Howard himself. Next is Howard's five year-old son listing off state capitals in alphabetical order, a much more impressive feat than whistling. The machine then goes out and Howard mentions that the maid kicked the plug out. Next is Howard's wife who just says "Oh, Howard, I can't talk into this..." Howard is embarrassed by all three girls that were portrayed on the recorder but is very proud of his son. As Howard is playing these recording, Willy has been trying to get Howard's attention and talk to him about getting a job in New York, but as Howard keeps ignoring Willy and taking the power in the interaction, Willy's confidence is running lower and lower, so when he finally gets Howard's attention to ask for a job in the city, Howard says that there are none. Willy cannot accept this though and keeps badgering Howard saying he'll take a decrease in pay while Howard keeps shutting Willy down. Willy is angry that a man younger than himself is in control and starts to get angry so he keeps trying and trying to get Howard to comply with him and give him a job and talks about how he was there when Howard was born, an attempt at gaining some power back. However, Howard sees through this and continues to dismiss Willy, causing Willy to snap and say one of his better known lines about long he's worked for the business and how he should be able to relax now, saying, "You can't eat the orange and throw the peel away--a man is not a piece of fruit!" After this interaction, Howard sees the mental distress Willy is under and fires him, saying he needs a nice long break and to ask his sons to help support him. Willy is unhappy about this and is left alone in Howard's office, starting to talk to his hallucination of his brother Ben.

He talks to Ben asking for advice on what to do, to which Ben gives Willy the answer but Willy doesn't know it: Ben says, "I've bought timberland in Alaska and I need a man to look after things for me," to which Willy replies with, "God, timberland! Me and my boys in those grand outdoors!" Willy gives himself the answer, but as he does, he asks for the approval of Linda, who responds with, "You're doing well enough, Willy!" This then shows a flashback to the past. Linda is stunting Willy's personal growth by telling him to stay where he is and in doing this is preventing Willy from finding his true calling of becoming a handyman who's good with his hands and working outside with his sons. Due to this, Willy doesn't go out to Alaska where he should be and would be successful and stays in New York where he is unsuccessful and unhappy. Willy stays because he still has hope due to his idol of a salesman that is 84 years old and can call any city and make a living over the phone. Willy has a false idea that he could do this, which still gives him hope to stay as a salesman. As Willy is trying to explain this to Ben in the flashback, he talks about how it's more important to be well liked and that "it's not what you do but who you know."

The scene then cuts to Charley's office where Willy is going to talk to Charley about borrowing money since he needs to pay his insurance and his mortgage. While going in, Biff's foil Bernard (son of Charley) is there, and starts talking to Willy. They exchange pleasantries and as they talk, Willy realizes how well Bernard has done in life and becomes angry and emotional and asks Bernard "what the secret is" to success and why Biff never found it.  Bernard asks Willy why Biff never took his summer school course after he flunked math to which Willy gets defensive and angry, thinking that it's his fault that Biff has made nothing of his life. Charley then enters and says goodbye to Bernard who has to leave to go defend a case, revealed to us as a Supreme Court case.

Willy is very impressed by this and is confused why his boys didn't turn out successfully like Bernard did when Charley didn't even try. He then asks Charley for $110 to pay his insurance and mortgage. Charley responds with a job offer to which Willy won't have to leave town every week and will get paid $50 a week. Willy, being prideful, is outraged at the fact that someone he counts as lower than himself is offering him a job. Charley then says an important realization for Willy: "Why must everyone like you?" Willy hears this, but doesn't seem to really take it in. He then leaves, on a low note saying, " ...you end up worth more dead than alive." This is the first time he says something of suicide in the story, apart from finding the rubber pipe next to the gas pipe. Willy leaves, and the scene cuts to Happy at the restaurant.

Happy is getting a table and ordering a bunch of nice things in order to celebrate everyone's, what was thought to be, successful days. Happy starts hitting on a girl that turns out to be a prostitute when Biff enters. He comes in and is upset because Bill Oliver didn't remember him, to which Biff realizes that he was never a salesman for Oliver but just a shipping clerk. Willy comes in and announces that he was fired, hoping to hear better news from Biff about his interview. Alas, Biff instead has to attempt to explain to his already mentally and emotionally unstable father that not only did Oliver not recognize him but after meeting with him, Biff sneaked back into Oliver's office and stole his pen.

While Biff is explaining this, Willy is off in his head, thinking of his flashback of when Bernard informed Linda that Biff failed out of math and will not graduate as well as remembers Bernard telling her that Biff has taken a train to Boston. Willy then recalls the time when Biff found out about his affair in Boston with that unnamed woman. Biff went to Boston to tell Willy that Willy needed to talk to Biff's math teacher and convince him to pass Biff. While attempting to hide the woman in the bathroom while Biff is there, she comes out and Biff sees her. Having lost faith in his father, he calls Willy "a fake" as he leaves.

The scene then cuts back into the present when the waiter at the restaurant, Stanley, knocks on the door of the bathroom and Willy is reminded that he is in the restaurant. Willy then returns home and starts to build the garden he was talking earlier to Linda about, even though it is night time. While planting the seeds, Ben appears to Willy and Willy cannot remember a previous conversation with Ben like he does throughout most of the play. Instead of having a flashback with Ben, Willy talks to Ben about committing suicide and how the insurance his boys would get would be great for their future. However, Ben reminds Willy that the insurance company might refuse to pay a settlement if the death is a suicide, and the fact that Biff might never forgive Willy for what he did.

At this, Biff comes up to Willy and says that he's leaving home for good, causing them to both argue. Finally, Biff brings up the issue of the rubber hose and brings it out accusingly, saying that he wont' feel sorry for Willy if he commits suicide. He then comes out and says that no one in the family has ever been honest with each other or even themselves. He then follows this up by saying that he and Willy are both ordinary people that can be replaced easily. Biff has his momentous realization which helps him move on with his life, however Willy has been set in his ways of thinking for far too long and sees the only way to help his sons is by killing himself and giving them his insurance policy. After laying everything out on the line, Biff and Willy make up, and as everyone heads upstairs and off to bed, Willy is reminded by Ben of his idea to give his life insurance money to his boys so that they may start up a business of their own. Willy sneaks out of the house and gets into his car and speeds off, killing himself.

The play ends with a scene of Linda, Biff, Happy, Charley and Bernard at Willy's grave site, everyone sad. The mood is especially sad since this is the only legacy that Willy left behind for himself.

Fin. Thank God. That's always a fun read, Death of a Salesman. Real pick-me-up.

Open Prompt #3

1986. Some works of literature use the element of time in a distinct way. The chronological sequence of events may be altered, or time may be suspended or accelerated. Choose a novel, an epic, or a play of recognized literary merit and show how the author's manipulation of time contributes to the effectiveness of the work as a whole. Do not merely summarize the plot.

The use of flashbacks in literature can be meaningful in the times and situations that flashbacks happen. Arthur Miller, author of Death of a Salesman, uses flashbacks to manipulate time throughout the play, making comprehension of a scene difficult at times. Miller's manipulation of time contributes to the effectiveness of the play by demonstrating the mental instability of the main character, Willy Loman.

Miller manipulates time in the story by using flashbacks that Willy has. These are specifically triggered by something that is currently happening to Willy. Miller also uses them in the story when Willy is unhappy or uncomfortable with a situation and wants an escape. The flashbacks always go back to happier times in Willy's life, however the validity of them is questionable throughout the play. When Willy glimpses back into the past and then comments on it in the present, he is often met with blank stares and questioning looks. This happens when Willy is speaking to Howard and is fighting for his job. He is remembering a time in the past when he thinks he was a fantastic salesman but really his fantasy is mixing with reality. Willy says to Howard "-in 1928 I had a big year. I averaged a hundred and seventy dollars a week in commissions," to which Howard replies with "Now, Willy, you never averaged--" but gets cut off from Willy's anger. Willy's remembering one thing but being doubted by Howard shows that as Willy remembers his past, he is having difficulty discerning what is real and what is fiction. This also happens in one of his flashbacks when Willy is remembering a time before Biff's football game at Ebbet's field. He is describing himself as being a hotshot salesman and says, "I never have to wait in line to see a buyer. 'Willy Loman is here!' That's all they have to know, and I go right through." However, this is not supported when Linda does the math of Willy's commission later in the scene, causing him to have to reassess the magnitude of his success and admit his overstatement. This use of flashbacks and false memories by manipulating time allows Miller to show Willy's mental instability.

Another way of showing Willy's mental instability through manipulation of time is through the character Ben, Willy's brother. Ben is never really with Willy in the present, yet Willy talks to Ben like he's sitting right next to him. Willy seems to do this especially when he's insecure about something or uncomfortable in a situation, also causes of his flashbacks. This happens in the scene when Willy is playing cards with Charley and in Willy's imagination Ben appears, for only Willy can see him. Willy speaks to Ben and says "I'm getting awfully tired, Ben," to which Charley, with confusion, responds with, "...Did you just call me Ben?" Willy says that Charley reminded him of his brother Ben, leading to a conversation about him. If the audience did not recognize before that Ben is an apparition of Willy's mind, it is said by Willy to Charley later. He says "Couple of weeks ago we got a letter from his wife in Africa. He died." The entire scene is mixed with conversations that Willy is having with Ben and Charley and the confusion and chaos that comes from it. Miller's manipulation of time by putting Ben, deceased, in the present as Willy's imagination, continues to show the audience the mental instability of the character Willy Loman.

Miller's use of time manipulation occurs when Willy feels the need to retreat from reality. Temporary escapes from reality are useful and sometimes necessary to escape, however Willy's escapes are not temporary, resulting in his suicide from his mental instability. 

Responses to Course Material #3

Uh. I do pay attention in class. Honest. Despite my lack of speech and willingness to share my ideas, I really do pay attention. So why is it difficult to recall what I've done in class recently? Oh, wait. How could I forget about you. You. I've been studying for you for quite some time. And apparently incorrectly as is apparent in my grade. You.
The terms test.
I paid attention in class, I played enough Who Wants To Be A Millionaire that I now don't want to be a millionaire anymore if that's what it takes to be a millionaire. Thanks Ms. Holmes. You've ruined being rich for me. Just kidding. Please don't fail me for saying that. I confused many of the words with each other, and to be honest, some just seemed to run screaming from my brain as I started the test. On the bright side, it did seem easier the second time. That's probably good, right? This test was a nice wake-up call in showing me that my current study methods are wrong and will not work. Tough love, but effective.
My class really likes those... What would you call them... Ya know, those warm-up thingies that we do before class starts that eventually end up taking up half of the class period for us because we're so methodical in what we write. Even the day we just copied what second hour said. Third hour, all the way. Those reading and responding challenges. I do enjoy those as well, but I need to learn to speak up more in class, because I never seem to get my opinion out there. I think it's because I feel like, "I'm not qualified to say what the author was trying to say. Who am I to judge what this means?" If I keep thinking this way, AP Lit is going to be a long, hard year. This is what we do everyday. I just need to get my ideas out there, and not just in the challenges but in class discussions as well. I'm just too afraid that if I say something no one will agree and everyone will give me strange looks and then I'll question my reading comprehension and then... I need to remember the big question though: Who cares? Not everything said makes sense in class. And it could lead to interesting discussions. I should volunteer more.
Let's see. We started to watch Death of a Salesman. My dad is an AP Lit teacher as well and he's taught this book before. He told me he doesn't like it that much. Great. It is a bit frustrating to watch. They all seem to have communication issues and Willy seems a little... I don't want to say "nuts", but doesn't seem to be "all there in the head" if you get my drift. I mean, he looks pretty old, so that's understandable. And  selling might be pretty tough, so... Again, I don't want to make assumptions quite yet. I'm interested though, because I've never heard my dad say he didn't really enjoy a work of literature, especially one as famous and often-used as Death of a Salesman. I should probably start annotating soon, so what happened with The American Dream doesn't happen again. New study habits being implemented now.

Summery and Analysis of The American Dream

When we first started reading this, I actually wasn't in class. I don't know if it would've helped had I been in class but it was a struggle to find any meaning in the play. I just wasn't seeing it. Confusion just held my brain on this until we read in class how this play is identified as being part of Theater of the Absurd. Absurd sure was a word for it. Diving into more detail, the play isn't completely part of Theater of the Absurd, but it possesses qualities that are similar and when applied to this play give more meaning. So now, after hours of annotations and discussions with classmates, here his my summary and analysis of Edward Albee's The American Dream. (Just in case my photographic memory fails me in a couple of weeks/months.)

Hmmm... Where do I begin? ...

The play starts out with two characters, Mommy and Daddy, in the living room in their apartment. They are never given names and when spoken to in the play are referred to as Mommy and Daddy. (This is due to how they represent in the story not just one person or one idea, but rather the society as a whole-- all of the Mommies and Daddies in America.) Mommy and Daddy are speaking to each other about how they cannot obtain satisfaction as they wait for "them". (This is a major theme in the story line as the play as a whole makes references back to this conversation. We also eventually find out that this is the purpose of Mommy and Daddy in the play: to find satisfaction.) As the two are speaking about satisfaction and how they just can't seem to find it these days, Grandma enters. (Again, this is her name and how she's referred to, representing the masses of society and not one individual.) Immediately when Grandma enters there's a focus on what she brings: her boxes.

The boxes that Grandma brings are all wrapped up very nicely; this creates something new and seemingly trivial for Mommy and Daddy to talk about as Grandma leaves to get more boxes. The boxes are the substance of the apartment, literally and unknown to Mommy and Daddy at the time. (The boxes represent the substance of the old American dream and how it's being moved out of where it was. It's still nicely wrapped because it looks nice, but no one wants them anymore, just as Mommy and Daddy don't want the boxes either-- they just want to know what's inside of them.) Grandma's return with more boxes starts the second theme of this play: the struggle for control.

Mommy, Daddy and Grandma are all fighting for control as they talk about "the van people" that are coming to take Grandma away when they are interrupted by the ringing of the doorbell: the "they" that Mommy and Daddy have been waiting for have finally arrived. An important scene takes place here to emphasize a motif in the story, the motif being that there is an opposite role in the sexes between Mommy and Daddy. The doorbell rings and Mommy tells Daddy to get the door. However, Daddy has second thoughts and starts to step back when Mommy steps in and metaphorically holds Daddy's masculinity in front of him, almost taunting him, to open the door. This is the closest scene that we see to being sexual as Mommy is throwing out innuendos left and right for Daddy to take charge and open the door. When Daddy get's too scared and doesn't, Mommy retorts with "Oh, look at you! You're turning into jelly; you're indecisive; you're a woman" (p.75, l.4). This further supports the motif of opposite roles of sexes between Mommy and Daddy and shows just how much control Mommy has over Daddy as he runs to the door to regain his honor.

As the door opens in steps the fourth character we are introduced to, however this one is different than all the others. She actually has a name: Mrs. Barker. Mrs. Barker is here to help Mommy and Daddy, but she doesn't know what she's helping them with. This is the main conflict in the story. The arrival of Mrs. Barker also adds to the power struggle happening constantly as Mommy, who normally wins, is feeling threatened by Mrs. Barker and wants to make sure she's still in control of everything. They all talk together because no one can figure out why Mrs. Barker is there except that Grandma knows, but no one listens to her. Mommy and Grandma get into an argument forcing Daddy to go take apart Grandma's TV*. Mrs. Barker is feeling uncomfortable in the hostile mood and requires water which Mommy tells Grandma to go get for Mrs. Barker but Grandma refuses. This is where Mommy's control over Grandma finally crumbles. It wasn't much there to begin with but finally falls here, causing Mommy to have to leave and go get the water herself.

Since Grandma and Mrs. Barker are the only two left, Grandma "hints" to Mrs. Barker as to why she's here. Mrs. Barker then has to leave to follow Mommy to get her glass of water* as she takes in what she just heard from Grandma. As Mrs. Barker leaves, the final character enters. His name is Young Man, for the reasons that I stated previously. Grandma starts to call him "the American Dream" since he has a lovely physical appearance but lacks substance which is shown when he says "I'll do almost anything for money" (p.109 l.8) This represents how Americans have become so engrossed in material things and money that the new "American Dream" revolves around money whereas the old American Dream, played by Grandma in the story, is represented by substance. That is why Grandma has so many boxes-- she has all the substance. As the Young Man and Grandma begin talking, he tells her of his twin that he had--identical twin--and how he hasn't seen his twin since they were little but now feels empty inside. (Again, supporting the hollowness of new vs. old.) Grandma realizes this and formulates a plan.

Mrs. Barker enters back now and Grandma tells Mrs. Barker of her plan as she has the Young Man take her boxes out of the apartment for her. Grandma tells Mrs. Barker of her plan to have the Young Man be adopted by Mommy and Daddy (this isn't found out until the end) and Mrs. Barker thinks it's a grand idea. Mrs. Barker leaves to go find Mommy and Daddy to tell them of her plan, leaving Grandma all alone. Grandma starts to show some sadness of being replaced (both metaphorically and literally) as the Young Man comes back and tries to console her. Grandma realizes it's time for her to leave and is escorted out by the Young Man. Mrs. Barker enters back with Mommy and Daddy after telling them that she knows what she's here for and that everything is settled and they can get satisfaction. (Important theme) As Mommy realizes that Grandma is gone, she starts to cry from the loss of control she has. Right on cue, Mrs. Barker shows Mommy her "surprise"-- a new American Dream. All the while Grandma is watching this happen and no one can see her but the Young Man, showing a final movement of old to new.

Close Reading #2

The G.O.P.'s Feminine Mystique

By: Samantha Bee

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/opinion/sunday/the-gops-feminine-mystique.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

*I enjoyed the picture included with the article too much that I didn't have the heart to not include it with my analysis of the article.*

This interesting opinion article was about how women in the Democratic Party seemed to look more masculine in facial features than women in the Republican Party. The study was taken by the U.C.L.A.'s Department of Psychology. The article says that "...researchers analyzed the faces of the House of Representatives in the 111th Congress based on objective measures of feminine facial structure. The faces were then rated according to gender-typical femininity, and shown to undergraduate students..." The students then had to guess which political party the faces went with, and apparently most of them were correct in their guessing. 

Figurative Language:

The figurative language that Bee uses gives off what seems to me to be an offended tone. She sounds sarcastic and a bit angry at the fact that being in one party classifies a woman as looking more like man than the women of the other party. I got the impression that she is a Democrat and was not too keen on the idea of being told that she is in a party with women that look like men. When she says "The flip side being that more liberal female politicians tend to have less feminine facial structures. As in: they’re more masculine, I guess. As in: terrific," her tone here seems more sarcastic due to her choice of putting in "terrific" instead of a word actually conveying how she feels about this. I think that this adds strength to her argument of anger at this idea because she doesn't outright say how she feels but lets her audience figure it out, making her feelings sink into the reader more. 

Imagery:

I really enjoyed the imagery she used in one part of the article, even though she used it all throughout. She uses lots of voice in the article to keep her reader's attention and to draw us in. One way with her imagery.  She refers to Michelle Bachmann in a rude manner (yet another indication of her anger at this idea), indicating   Bee's dislike of the woman. She writes that the "Michelle Bachmann Effect", which is what the researchers called this idea of Democrat women looking more masculine than Republican women, is "the tingly feeling that overtakes me when I read or hear something so profoundly ridiculous that I briefly consider living the rest of my life in monkish isolation on a mountaintop with only the cold wind for companionship." A long sentence to get through, but once you do you can see envision that perfectly in your mind's eye and can even feel the shiver down your spine as you imagine cold air rushing at you. Her great usage of voice and imagery helps give her support in her article.

Syntax:

I liked her usage of syntax in this article because it was set up how people speak. Giving off that vibe makes reading the article stick in someone's brain more because they feel like they just had a conversation with someone. Sure she has the long, drawn out sentences like we saw before with her imagery of Michelle Bachmann as well as this one where she writes "It’s the type of research done after three days of being yelled at on the convention floor by people in 10-gallon hats, with only a steady diet of Coke Zero and SunChips to keep you upright." Long and drawn out, but she uses this to set up the scene. She then follows this with a two word sentence to create emphasis on her main idea: "You’re punchy," describing one feels after the image she gave us above. With this structure throughout the article, it makes it easier to read as well as more enjoyable and sticks in your brain longer. 

Open Prompt #2

1983. From a novel or play of literary merit, select an important character who is a villain. Then, in a well-organized essay, analyze the nature of the character's villainy and show how it enhances meaning in the work. Do not merely summarize the plot.

The motivation for a character to do something is not always clear to the reader. This problem is often prominent in the villains of a work of literature. However, when one takes the time to analyze why a villain did one thing instead of another in a story, new ideas become clearer and the work as a whole becomes more meaningful. In his novel Dracula, Bram Stoker uses the important villain character Dracula to enhance the meaning of his work. 

Count Dracula invites Jonathan Harker, a salesman from a small town in England, to his castle in Transylvania, Romania. The Count is very hospitable to Harker at his arrival and never feeds on him. Even at Harker's discovery of what Dracula is, a vampire, Dracula still doesn't change his ways of feeding. Throughout the novel, Stoker makes a point in writing that Dracula doesn't feed on men and only feeds on young, innocent women or children. This is shown when he feeds on Lucy Westenra, a young and naive friend of Harker's fiance. At Dracula's arrival into the small town where Lucy lives, she becomes increasingly less energetic and youthful as she once was as well as loses her innocence and becomes paranoid about her window. The Count takes what he desires from the women and when it has all been, quite literally, sucked out of them, his interest in them is lost and he finds a new source. He could feed off of strong and healthy men, but his interest in only women provides enhanced meaning of why Dracula does what he does. 

Another thing that Dracula does that creates enhanced meaning in the story is his style of feeding. He could quickly kill his prey and suck the life out of them in one sitting in a giant mess of blood, but his method of feeding is slowly and neatly with barely a trace left behind. This brings on a sexual note to the novel that was written when the subject was taboo. The Count likes his victims to be pure like a virgin would be and treats them in a somewhat sexual way. This takes place when Mina, the fiance of Harker and friend of Lucy, finds two little pin pricks on Lucy's neck that become slightly irritated overtime but nothing else seems to be a problem until obvious blood loss is found. Another would be when Mina gets put into a trance by the Count and sucks the Count's blood from his breast, where his heart would be. Dracula's feeding style enhances the books meaning of taboo sexual ideas during the time. 

Dracula uses the actions of the character of Count Dracula to enhance the meaning of the novel. When analyzed more thoroughly, Dracula's actions, such as his choices in feeding, contribute to the novel's meaning. As a result, the villain character's actions in an important literary work such as Dracula have hidden meanings. 

Responses To Course Material #2

Now attempting to think back as to what we have done in class, I find a fog forming in my mind. I don't think it's that we've covered too much material too quickly, but that it's all started to blend together that I can't differentiate what's what. From close analysis to reading plays to studying how literature has changed over time, a lot can happen in a couple of weeks in AP Lit. Let's go over the basics of what's happened.

So we started to read this book called The American Dream by Edward Albee. I was absent when we read most of this in class, so I had to read it on my own. Holy cow. Throughout the entire play, I struggled to find any meaning whatsoever. We later in class went over Theater of the Absurd and how "playwrights loosely grouped under the label of Theater of the Absurd try to convey their sense of bewilderment, anxiety, and wonder in the face of an inexplicable universe" (Martin Esslin, Theater of the Absurd, 1968). So on the first read, unless you know going in that the play is part of Theater of the Absurd as well as being a huge AP Lit geek, it is normal to not understand the point of it. That helped, but what helped the most was when we read Ervin Beck's analysis of Albee's The American Dream. He helped bring to light the complex ideas that are hidden in the play, one large idea being that "...[Grandma] embodies and speaks the truths associated with America's earliest and best impulses" (Beck, p. 2). After reading this and that the Young man represents the new and upcoming America, the entire play made so much more sense to me. I could understand that it represented the shipping out (quite literally in the play) of the old ideals and the bringing in of new ideals in America. (By America, I mean North America, the United States, not Canada or Mexico or Brazil or any other countries who have their own literature and harsh realities to deal with.)

You would think that analyzing why things are funny wouldn't make them funny anymore, but I feel that just the opposite happened. I felt it enlightening to finally understand why I would think it's funny for my brother to slip and fall down the stairs with a grunt of pain and then proceed to limp to the dinner table, but then not find it funny that my great-aunt slipped and fell down the stairs and broke her hip. This is due to the fact that in situations where pain is inflicted, humor is only present when it is "...perceived by the observer as harmless or painless to the participants" (Theories of Humor and Comedy, p. 1). So my brother was fine, just uncomfortable (and apparently able to sing in soprano tones-- puberty might be thanked for that though) which is why his situation was funny whereas my great-aunt breaking her hip actually caused harm and was not funny. This also makes sense when you see someone get sand in their eyes at the beach that you laugh at their misfortune, but when you find out that they have seriously damaged their corneas and have to go in to the hospital and get medication for it, it suddenly loses its humor quickly. Now I know when it's appropriate to laugh in movies and when it's not. (And if I find something funny that no one else does, I'm either smart enough to understand it at the intellectual level, or don't understand and should probably bite my tongue and hope I didn't offend anyone.)

As we continue, as I assume that we will all year, our close readings of works or our studying of vocabulary, I continue to, now almost subconsciously, analyze most everything I read. "What does the author really mean here? Why purple and not blue? Why this word and not that?" The vocab we continue to study helps to put a name on things, as well as makes you look smarter to people not in AP Lit. Knowing that there's a word for "preaching or lecturing" lets me say "I feel that this has a didactic tone, don't you?" This is especially helpful when close reading a work and there's an indirect reference to another work, we can all as a class recognize the "allusion" that we see.

It's been a rough couple of weeks as I'm still trying to find a good balance of study habits for AP Lit along with keeping up in class. Analyzing ideas is not an easy thing to do, and as my good friend William Wordsworth says in his poem "The Tables Turned" in stanza 7: "Sweet is the lore which Nature brings;/Our meddling intellect/Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:—/We murder to dissect" (Wordsworth, ll. 25-28). Bring on the complexities. Bring on the symbols with multiple meanings. The figurative language with its tricks and cons. (My lovely use of anaphora.) Here on Team AP, we are now learning in the ways of analysis, and we murder to dissect. (But not literally-- please note that the last sentence is referencing Wordsworth whom I just quoted from and is figurative. Literal would be: a- illegal, b- disgusting, and c- not something we would learn how to do in AP Lit.)

Close Reading #1

No Penalty For Torture
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/no-penalty-for-torture.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This article caught my attention from the title of it as I was browsing through the editorials online for the New York Times. The title is short, sweet and to the point of what the article is about. After analyzing it to see how the author sways the reader into believing something, I found interesting uses of diction, detail, and syntax.

Already from the word "torture" in the title, we get an image in our minds, and it's never a pretty one. No matter what one thinks of as torture, images of faces scrunched in pain flash across our minds as silent screams echo in our ears. The author's great usage of diction puts the audience all on the same page from the start, and keeps going from there. Instead of saying "In these bad cases", the author writes "In these egregious cases, showing that the cases were not just bad, but horribly and tremendously terrible. The replacement of one word for another can change the entire way someone views a work. In this case, the diction creates a tone that is serious and dark. This is also shown when it is written, "...harsh techniques authorized by the infamous torture memos cooked up by Justice Department lawyers to try to justify the unjustifiable." Instead of saying "created" or "written", the author writes "cooked", wanting to give a word similar to that of what witches may do for cruel deeds. 

The detail given in a persuasive piece of writing always can't be taken too seriously, because that is what the author wants- for the reader to fall victim to what they read and believe every piece of information fed to them. And that's exactly what this author does splendidly. By including details like "One of the prisoners, a suspected militant named Gul Rahman, died in 2002 after being shackled to a concrete wall in near-freezing temperatures in a secret C.I.A. prison in Afghanistan. The other, Manadel al-Jamadi, died in C.I.A. custody in 2003 at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, where his corpse was photographed wrapped in plastic." This information isn't necessary to get the author's point across, but helps to support his/her argument about the use of torture from the CIA and its consequences, or rather lack of. It gets a reaction from the audience due to its raw harshness. Also including details such as "In June 2011, Mr. Holder said that about 100 cases of detainee treatment had been reviewed and none warranted further investigation," warrants reader emotion by creating an anger in the reader, leaving us wondering, "Why not?! Why weren't they further investigated?!" The use of detail to create emotion to support the author is a large part of persuasive writing. 

The author’s usage of syntax wasn't anything new. Long, drawn out sentences are used when wanting to explain ideas, such as, "Not only have those responsible escaped criminal liability, but the administration has succeeded in denying victims of the harsh methods any day in court, using exaggerated claims of secrecy and executive power to get federal judges, who should know better, to toss out claims for civil relief." The usage of many commas makes this sentence hard to understand on the first reading, as the idea is changing. But this long sentence to inform and create ideas is followed with a concise, easy to swallow sentence of "The broad denial of justice to victims disgraces both the administration and the courts." Since this comes after such a long sentence, it seems much more emphasized. 

Open Prompt #1

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.

In the well-known Harry Potter series written by J.K. Rowling, the main character, Harry, has two best friends that accompany him in his adventures throughout the books. During these adventures, there are many minor characters, some more important than others, that assist the three on their quests. One of the most important of these minor characters would be that of Neville Longbottom, the foil of Harry Potter.  

Neville Longbottom is Harry's foil throughout the books. Even though he doesn't spend as much time with Harry as Ron and Hermione, Harry's best friends, do, he is a memorable character as he is in all of the books and possess the opposite qualities of Harry, further embellishing him into the reader's brain. This is shown when he is first truly met at the quidditch practice Harry goes to. Neville is passive and has no self-confidence, making him an easy target for the bully Draco Malfoy, whereas Harry's bold attitude helps Neville when an object of his is stolen by Draco. The conflicting personalities bring the characters closer together and brings this similarity to the reader's attention. 

Neville and Harry share a connection all throughout the books, having many examples in each. Another would be the different things that they excel at. Both are wizards and have the ability to do magic, but just like humans, certain things come easier to different people. Harry is very strong at casting spells whereas Neville excels at herbology. These two make a great team as Harry's physical strength and Neville's mental strength team up and help Harry in competing in the Triwizard Tournament in the book Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. While the story wouldn't be as interesting if the main character was very skilled with plants or potions as he was with magic and spell casting, the differences between the two again shows that they both are important in the story, but their importance is shown through their skills. Magic being more important that plants, Harry is more important but needs Neville to help shape him. 

There are the obvious similarities between the two, such as the fact that either of them could have been the one to have the power to defeat the Dark Lord Voldermort, and that both have issues with their parents. This is a big similarity between the two, both being raised for a majority of their lives by someone other than their parents. In doing this, the author could be trying to show how both are strong and hearty by continuing on without their parents but each doing that in his own way. Both excel at subjects despite their upbringing and have a heartiness to them that can only be obtained through their special upbringing. 

Neville and Harry are not the same character, but have distinctive qualities that are both similar and different between the two, making Neville Harry's foil. While this is not quite obvious on the surface of the story, if one analyzes this idea, there are many similarities and differences that are connected between the two.  Having Neville support Harry all throughout the series without the reader knowing it may have been a scheme by the author to connect two things that are unlike on the surface but when looked at deeper are very similar and supportive to each other. 

Responses to Course Material #1

          After reading Foster's How To Read Literature Like a Professor over the summer, I can now recognize the concepts he describes in each chapter in literature I'm reading now and have read previously. One of the chapters talks about the recurrence of a Christ figure found in literature, and recently after having read that, I watched The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Now I can't understand why I didn't see it before: Aslan in the books represents Jesus. Both are the King, both go around healing people (or in Aslan's case, unfreezing statues of various species of animals), and the biggest one being that both die and are resurrected. Foster made me realize this, as well as other recurring symbols in literature, allowing me to look at what I have read and understand it better as well as in the future and understanding more references to classics, such as the numerous Shakespeare references that are made all throughout literature; when nothing works, Shakespeare does. Also, while doing the diagnostic test, what I learned about how to read poetry vs. how I had been reading before helped me immensely while writing and responding to forum posts in the summer work. Key details that seem as though they should be obvious were revealed to me, helping the light bulb flash on in my brain- the tone the speaker has, what the style can say about the topic, and other things to look for have been helping me to analyze poetry better. Now, according to the AP Lit Test: Essay Writing Basics, I'm not just being a tour guide of reading literature, but analyzing it and interpreting what they author is trying to say with that metaphor on line 12, or that great piece of diction used in line 23. These tools have become increasingly  useful as the year progresses and will be applied not only in AP Lit class but in my other classes as well.

"Me Talk Pretty One Day" Analysis

           Despite the intentional use of  poor grammar in the title of the essay, I enjoyed reading "Me Talk Pretty One Day" by David Sedaris. His use of an interesting title grabs the reader in as does his topic sentence in his introduction. But I don't know everything about the makings of a great essay, despite my seeming vast knowledge on the subject. However, after reading The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing by Michael Harvey, I feel as though I can review and write essays better and with some authority to reference to. Concision, clarity and the flow of a paper are just a few ideas to keep in mind while writing, all of which I'll look into in "Me Talk Pretty One Day."
            The first main idea that Harvey mentions in Nuts and Bolts is about concision. This is a very important idea when writing so one can be understood easier. It's nice to throw in fancy words and interesting diction from time to time, but when used too often and in large sentences, readers will get lost and drown in the unnecessary fluff that was added to make us sound smarter. Harvey says nicely, "Concision can add remarkable grace to our prose. It also makes our prose easier to read and understand. Yet many of us are afraid of writing concisely because doing so can make us feel exposed" (1). Concise does not mean that the sentence cannot be more than fifteen words long; it just means that adding extraneous words to a sentence makes a reader lose the main idea of what you're trying to get across. Sedaris does a nice job throughout his essay of being concise by using short sentences so that the reader remembers what he was talking about at first. Sedaris writes, "Regardless of their nationalities, everyone spoke what sounded to
me like excellent French." Nicely said- nothing said that isn't needed and states his opinion nicely, despite being in the passive voice. We'll get to that later though.
             Another big idea in literature is clarity. We, as writers, understand what we're trying to say, but when it comes to actually getting our point across, we can have trouble. A great question Harvey says to ask yourself is this: "'Does my reader understand the words I'm using, in the way I'm using them?" (22). Another would be "'Have I explained enough so that he knows what I'm talking about?" (22). As we write we can get carried away and just assume everyone knows what we mean until we see the blank looks on the faces of our audience and crooked brows. Sedaris does a fairly nice job of this as well. He lets us know of his opinions on things as well as information needed leading up to his opinions. When he says his prior experience of French, "I've spent quite a few summers in Normandy, and I took a month long French class before leaving New York," he then follows up with "I’m not completely in the dark, yet I understood only half of what this woman was saying." He helps give us background information that helps clarify why he would feel the way he does. However, the voice he uses changes throughout, from active to passive and back again. While that is allowed in some circumstances, here it makes the paper a bit awkward to read- he should choose to make it all active or all passive. Probably all, or mostly, active voice. Harvey says that "Sentences written in the passive voice turn the usual narrative pattern upside down. The subject doesn't do anything -- it is acted upon" (35). Sedaris goes from writing, "I've moved to Paris with hopes of learning the language," to "The teacher marched in, deeply tanned from a recent vacation, and proceeded to rattle off a series of administrative announcements."
            Lastly is the concept of flow. Sedaris seems to do this very well too. His ideas connect with one another to help create the illusion that we see what he sees, a great quality in good writing according to Harvey. "If the writer has done his job, the traveler will prove worthwhile and maybe even entertaining" (48). I was entertained by Sedaris' story, and his flow of matching pronouns helped make sure the same narrator was speaking the entire time. He used "I" in the correct time vs. "me" like when he says, "My only comfort was the knowledge that I was not alone," unless trying to speak in another language and prove a point. That slip-up in correct grammar is intentional and the theme of his essay, allowing him to get away with the sentence, "'I know the thing that you speak exact now. Talk me more, you, plus, please, plus.'"
             I did enjoy reading the essay and, according to the ideas in The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing by Michael Harvey, I feel that David Sedaris did a fine job with his essay. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but revisions in an essay are sometimes personal preference vs. necessary. The essay had good flow and was concise with no run-on sentences, but needed a little help with clarity when it came to the style of voice to use and when. Congratulations Sedaris, you now have a Harvey approved essay.
           

Poetry Study Goals

After reading through Chapter 3 of Peterson's AP English about poetry multiple choice sections of tests, I now have 5 study goals to make for myself. Hopefully I can stick with them so I can do better on tests and that they will make answering questions about poetry simpler.

1) Understand who is speaking in the poem and when

2) Strengthen vocabulary understanding (learn more terms for poetry...)

3) Being better able to locate as well as understand the theme(s) of the poem

4) Read through the poem multiple times

5) Figure out the style of poem

          The first one I chose was due to one of the tips that was given- I usually assume that the speaker is the author, which they tell that most of the time is not the truth. They say to look for the prepositions that are used to help indicate who the speaker is and if they are in the story or watching it as well as male vs. female. Strengthening my vocabulary will make reading and understanding poetry generally easier as well as make me feel more confident when I can actually understand what the speaker is saying and describing. It's not fun when I read the words given and know what one of them mean and that it definitely doesn't describe the tone of the poem. Also I'm a terrible guesser... "What is the main theme of this poem?" One of the questions I often dread, because I feel that though there are right and wrong answers in literature, there are also opinion based questions that could be a multitude of things and sometimes the one I think is correct isn't offered. While I know that the theme of Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat isn't about death and suffering, people see things in different ways. Hopefully during the year I can answer questions about theme better than I can now. Reading through the poem multiple times helps give a better understanding to the reader than when you read it once- when rereading books I find more details the second time through that are key than I did the first because I didn't know what to look for. Reading through once doesn't give the thoroughness that is needed; even if it does save time at the moment, you'll spend more time looking through the poem for answers than you would if you had read it correctly. ...Gotta work on that... Lastly, although there are definitely more things I could work on, one that I want to focus on is identifying the style of the poem. Style can tell a lot about the poem and help with identifying other important things as well- tone, speaker, themes. Generally the theme of an ode isn't war and violence, so figuring out the style of poem can help lead me in the right direction.

Peterson’s AP English Diagnostic Test Reflection

While taking the test, I was surprised at how quickly I seemed to be able to work. I thought that it would take me longer, but I managed to go through the questions after reading the passages quite quickly. What was difficult though was some of the vocabulary that was used when asked to describe the passages or describing part(s) of the passages. I didn't know what some of the words meant, so I knew how the passage sounded but didn't know if the adjective I was thinking of was in accordance with one of the given choices. What also surprised me was the range in difficulty of the questions. There didn't seem to be any order of level of difficulty- the more challenging ones would be jammed in with the simple reading retention questions, making it difficult for me to feel very confident for a long period of time. One moment I would feel great, thinking, "Wow! I get this! Sweet! I know the answer! ...I'm pretty sure!" This would then at times be followed with, "...Uh... These are the only choices... Hmmm... That's a big word... I'll choose that one... Next question..." But overall, I do feel more confident in knowing what to expect in further testing and to be more prepared for it. And hopefully I will be more successful in future tests... yikes.