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.