Since the last Response to Course Material we have talked a lot about Death of a Salesman.  I found it really interesting to watch the movie as a first close reading and then read the play.  There are things that I noticed viewing the movie that I may not have if I had just read the story.  Movies help to emphasize certain aspects of a play that I wouldn't have placed such importance on. For example, in the movie, I noticed that the walls of Willy's house were not really walls.  The family obeyed them as if they were strict, conventional walls, except during Willy's flashbacks.  Then they passed through the "walls" freely.  This is mentioned briefly in the stage directions, but I'm not sure I would have noticed had I not seen the film. Of course, the movie is just one director's interpretation, but I think it is helpful to gather as many different views on a story as possible.

"How About Better Parents?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/friedman-how-about-better-parents.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

This article, by Thomas Friedman, attempts to convince the readers that we place the blame for American children's low test scores in the wrong place.  Friedman establishes a confident and matter of fact tone, and through diction, details and syntax is able to make the reader see that teachers are not the only factor in education.

Diction:  Friedman uses strong word choice.  Words such as "thrive" and "achievement" show that the author is intelligent. They are strong, 5 dollar words that make Friedman seem trustworthy.  Obviously he must know what he is talking about, after all, he is using such smart words.  The readers are suddenly open to whatever it is Friedman has to say, because they trust him.

Details: Friedman proves very specific numbers that prove his point.  He includes that children who have parents who read to them score 14 points higher on their PISA tests.  That seems like quite a significant chunk to the audience.  Though we have no scale by which to measure how much 14 points really is, that number seems significant in its own right.  It gives clout to the author's point.  Though we know nothing about the study except what Friedman tells us, the fact that he has any sort of physical data makes us believe what he tells us.

Syntax:  Friedman uses rhetorical questions such as "How do we know?" to make his readers really THINK about what he is saying.  It helps to involve the reader, in the author's argument, making the audience really feel as if it is a part of the article.  When Friedman makes a suggestion, the reader almost feels as if he came up with the idea himself.

Overall, Friedman is very successful in conveying meaning.  He establishes a matter of fact, competent tone, and weaves the reader into his argument.  All of this helps him to convince us that parents are just as important, if not more so, as teachers in a child's education.

1990. Choose a novel or play that depicts a conflict between a parent (or a parental figure) and a son or daughter. Write an essay in which you analyze the sources of the conflict and explain how the conflict contributes to the meaning of the work. Avoid plot summary.

                Every family has conflict.  However, in the play Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, the conflict between Willy and his son, Biff, is more extreme than most.  Although a Biff’s discover of his father’s infidelity triggers the downfall of the relationship, the two have problems that are much deeper and date back much further.  Miller uses literary techniques to describe and give reason to the father-son rift, and then uses the broken relationship to show his audience what is wrong with how we live our lives.

                Miller provides his audience with details and makes good use of a foil in order to show just how terrible of a father Willy is.  It is not that he doesn’t love his sons.  The problem, however, is that Willy is always giving his sons terrible advice, as made evident through use of a foil, Charley.  Willy tells Biff to blow off school, and to be well liked.  Charley tells his son, Bernard, to study hard.  Willy laughs at his son’s theft.  Charley teaches Bernard right from wrong.  Willy and Charley are quite obviously opposite.  These differences shown in the past culminate in the lives Biff and Bernard created for themselves.  Miller provides us with very impressive details about Bernard’s life.  He is clearly successful, and Miller tells us he is off to argue a case in front of the Supreme Court.  Clearly, Charley’s advice was good advice.  It follows naturally that Willy’s, being opposite, was not.  Biff resents his father for allowing him to feel so entitled.  He did not think he had to work, and now that he realizes he does, it is almost as if he can’t.  This is the root of the strain on Biff and Willy’s relationship. 

                Miller uses Willy’s incorrect parental guidance to show is what is wrong with society.  Willy believes that the key to success is being well liked.  The reader is forced to examine the world we live in to find the root of this belief.  Miller is telling us through Biff and Willy’s dysfunctional relationship that our society is superficial.  All we care about is popularity, and about things looking nice on the outside.  We don’t care what’s underneath.  That is why Willy’s appliances are always falling apart: quality.  Nobody in today’s world cares about quality.  Willy represents a far greater number of people than just himself.  American society as a whole believes that you don’t have to work hard, you can simply skate by if people like you.  Miller sees something inherently wrong in this fact, and highlights it through Wily and Biff’s dysfunctional relationship.