The material we have learned so far all culminates in a single purpose: making and proving arguments.  This skill is useful not only in AP Lit, not only in school, but in life.  In almost any profession, one may need to be able to formulate an opinion and provide evidence for it.  For example, I hope to become a doctor in the future.  When writing a paper on research, I will have to come up with an idea, do experiments to find proof that my thesis is correct, and then accurately be able to convey my point to other people in the scientific community. The techniques we learned for reading to aid in thesis creation play into this.  Careful reading of previously published papers would factor into research.  Additionally, reading poetry is really not that different than reading complex data tables and charts.  Both have condensed meaning that must be sought through careful examination.  These are just a few examples of how what we have learned can help me in my future career. If they can apply to something as far away from literature as physician, I can see our curriculum working in any and all life situations. 

9/16/11

2002. Morally ambiguous characters -- characters whose behavior discourages readers from identifying them as purely evil or purely good -- are at the heart of many works of literature. Choose a novel or play in which a morally ambiguous character plays a pivotal role. Then write an essay in which you explain how the character can be viewed as morally ambiguous and why his or her moral ambiguity is significant to the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

As a viewer watches a television show such as Dexter or House, he struggles with the decision to root for or to oppose the morally ambiguous main character.  In Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the reader falls into a love-hate relationship with the protagonist, Raskolnikov, on one hand, a murderer, but on the other, a desperately poor brother and son who wants to change the world.  Dostoyevsky first draws the reader into the complex mind of his main character, and then uses this conflicted individual to make the reader question the validity of a black and white world.

The reader finds Raskolnikov in two of the most opposite situations, solidifying his status as morally ambiguous.  Within the first few chapters, Raskolnikov murders an old woman and her sister, two women he hardly knew. Dostoyevsky vividly describes the murder, choosing words that make the reader cringe, almost able to feel Raskolnikov’s axe crashing down on the heads of his victims.  The reader is sure this man must be pure evil.  How could anyone who commits such a horrible crime be anything short of a monster?  Then, however, Raskolnikov is shown in a new light.  After receiving a letter from his mother and sister, the softer the protagonist comes out.   Though just pages before, the reader was sure Raskolnikov was not even human, now he seems capable not only of emotion, but love.  Suddenly, the reader does not know whether to love or to hate Dostoyevsky’s complicated little creation.

Raskolnikov’s moral ambiguity makes the reader question definitions.   Raskolnikov cannot be pigeon-holed into the category of “hero” nor “villain”, casting a shadow of doubt on other labels.  How does one know what is right and what is wrong?  Yes, murder is labeled “wrong”, but who decides on these labels? Maybe the murder of Alyona Ivanovna, the old pawnbroker, was not a crime, but in fact a good deed.  After all, this old woman was very wealthy, yet still bitter and useless.  Raskolnikov states at the beginning of the novel that he intends to use her money for good.  He could give it to the poor, or use it to finance his education.   Further, Rakolnikov justifies his action by asserting that all “great men” must remove obstacles in order to become great, often equating himself with Napoleon.  Christopher Columbus slaughtered large numbers of Native Americans, and modern American society deemed him so great there is a day named after him.  How is this different than Raskolnikov’s so-called “crime”? 

The fact that it is impossible to discern whether Raskolnikov is a good or bad is central to Crime and Punishment.   This situation allows the reader to transition from the smaller question “Is Raskolnikov good?” to the much larger “What is good?” very easily.  Without this morally ambiguous central character, the reader would feel uncomfortable asking if indeed, murder was okay.  Raskolnikov provides a smooth transition, guiding the reader to the ultimate question.  He provides the reader with basis, so when asking these questions, the poor reader, probably a bit morally confused himself at this point, does not seem like a raving lunatic.  Raskolnikov’s moral ambiguity is a gateway, elevating the novel from mere story to philosophical text. 

9/9/11

Time to Revive Home Ec: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/revive-home-economics-classes-to-fight-obesity.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

In this article, the author, Helen Zoe Veit,  makes the argument that Home Economics classes can help to prevent and reduce obesity.  Although Veit uses many methods to create effects in her readers' minds, diction, imagery, and syntax are 3 of her strongest rhetorical techniques.

Diction:  In the last paragraph of the article, Veit acknowledges that her proposal may appear "outlandish".  This acknowledgment of a potential weakness, especially with such an attention-grabbing word, gives the reader confidence in Ms. Veit.  Yes, she sees that this idea could appear crazy, but is confident in her ability to refute that.  A word such as "outlandish" illustrates that Veit is not hiding, attempting to pull one over on her readers.  She is ready and willing to address their concerns.

Imagery:  Veit describes her first home economics class in a great degree of detail.  The reader can actually see the class "sticking our thumbs in the center of each raw biscuit" and cringes as the teacher "dipped them in hot grease to make doughnuts".  Veit describes this class to make her point relatable to the audience.  Chances are each reader has some home economics experience, probably similar to Veits. By using such vivid imagery, the author is able to relate to the reader through a shared experience, and prove that she understands what is wrong with current home ec classes.  Her plans will be nothing like this unhealhty and useless version of home ec.  Veit's imagery, much like her diction, makes the reader think that she understands their concerns and can set them at ease. 

Language: Veit asks the question: "But what if the government put the tools of obesity prevention in the hands of the children themselves, by teaching them how to cook?".  The fact that this is in question form is very important.  Veit has already layed the background to her argument.  She has assured her reader she is not some old, fuddy-duddy who condones teaching young girls that they belong in the kitchen.  She has acknowledged the problems with Home Economics classes.  Now, she abruptly changes her sentence structure by asking the million dollar question.  All of a sudden, it seems so simple.  Why don't we teach kids to cook?  If Veit had simply told her readers "We must teach children to cook", it would seem as if she is lecturing.  This well placed question makes the reader feel involved, like he or she is a part of the process.  The reader almost feels that it was he, not Veit, who came up with the Home Economics plan. That is quite the effect.