Hey I tried to do 1.7 didn't understand what quote or what was being asked I'll ask you in class tomorrow then finish tomorrow night and post it!
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?25drlrytjju
Lesson Plan - Project 1
16 years ago
Monday, December 15, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Final ISU 2: Oliver Twist Including Bibliography
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ezyc1yzkwme
Sorry it took a little long to get up with references but there it is double spaced and all god i love media fire!!!
Sorry it took a little long to get up with references but there it is double spaced and all god i love media fire!!!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
ISU 2 - Oliver Twist
The Cards that are Dealt (Oliver Twist)
Charles Dickens’ award winning novel Oliver Twist is a classic, studied abroad all over the world. Oliver Twist is a harrowing tale regarding the hardships encountered by the orphan boy, Oliver Twist, along his journey. The book follows the boy’s passage from town to town, event after event and blow after blow. This tale embodies a compelling belief that not all people who have had a bad start will necessarily end up bad. Henceforth Oliver Twist is literary proof that the rags to riches story can exist and perhaps may come true if the game of life is played correctly. Oliver Twist was dealt the worst cards possible and despite all odds he manages to turn his life journey into an unbeatable metaphorical royal flush. The metaphorical royal flush was developed through standing up for what he believes in, readiness to learn, perseverance of events, bravery, and his being optimistic in the “rainiest weather”.
Taking all this into consideration, being dealt bad cards is not the end of the world, but rather it gives you the opportunity to change your outcome and prove everyone else wrong. Dickens’ uses poor old Oliver as a means to show the world that our paths are not etched in stone but perhaps written for the time being, capable of being erased and altered as time carries on. Consequently, all this adds to the basis that not all individuals who are given a rough start will wind up bad. They may surprise you and become great and full of the character built up from numerous challenging experiences. Or perhaps be a remarkable person who is a little rough around the edges. No matter how short the end of the stick you draw is, you can make it look tall by your actions.
Oliver drew the short end of the stick from square one on both sides of the spectrum. One side is his life and the other the most memorable moments known to the common person. This unforgettable event was the first stone to be turned over in Oliver’s journey. But before all these “memorable” moments, Oliver’s hard-fought journey commenced from inside an orphanage in England. Orphanages around this time were not very sanitary or fulfilling in any sort of way. The adults would basically starve the children or they would die of disease or infection. The year isn’t accurately known and is not necessarily important in the novel, but the boy’s age was. When Oliver’s ninth birthday arrived his parents had not yet been identified or even found, so the orphanage committee members instructed poor Oliver to the nearest workhouse to study an unfavourable trade. At the workhouse the children were given even less food than previously and even harder work; which drove several to starvation which was soon followed by death. Oliver managed to stay optimistic and persevere throughout these conditions leading to the more monumental moment of the novel.
The more literal sense of Oliver pulling a short end of the stick in this case was pulling the shortest string from a group of children at the workhouse. This resulted in Oliver’s first baby step in his journey. That evening after Oliver had finished his extremely small ration of slop, he began a short, yet brave walk to the front. These acts lead up to this defining conversation:
'Please, sir, I want some more.' 'What!' said the master at length, in a faint voice. 'Please, sir,' replied Oliver, 'I want some more.' 'Mr. Limbkins, I beg your pardon, sir! Oliver Twist has asked for more!''For MORE!' said Mr. Limbkins. 'Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly.Do I understand that he asked for more, after he had eaten the supper allotted by the dietary?' 'He did, sir,' replied Bumble. 'That boy will be hung,' said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. 'I know that boy will be hung’ (Dickens, II ).
Oliver knowingly and partially willingly, asked for more even though he knew of the probable outcome. This portrays the bravery which is one of the main components of Oliver’s ability to climb out of a hole that was dug so deep from the get go. This event resulted in Oliver being given out with a cash reward to anyone who was willing to take him as their apprentice and thus resulted in the first step in Oliver’s rise to goodness.
Upon being sold to a passer-by Oliver begins to like this home. He is well fed and given a warm place to sleep. Soon after, he encounters a helper boy from around the homestead who begins to poke fun at Oliver and his mother. The boy keeps poking and poking until Oliver looses it and starts to pound the boys face in. This event lets Oliver’s bravery shine once again. Oliver resolves to stand up for what he believes in because he comprehends that it’s not what an individuals job is, or who their parents are that defines them, but it is rather what they do and how they act. On the flipside the workhouse is being phoned and asked to come take this “troublesome” and “angry” boy, Oliver, back. Later that night Oliver crawls out his basement window and begins unwittingly his long walk to freedom.
This walk has been depicted as over seventy miles in a pair of half-assed leather slippers and for the most part, bare feet. Oliver starts out running which then gradually tapers off into a slow jog. That slow jog turns into and a sluggish shuffling. The hobbling, fatigued Oliver then basically falls to his knees in exhaustion. A gentle elderly lady sees this poor boy fall to his knees and she takes him in to her house until he is better and fed. It’s as if she seen the good in him through all the dirt, the grime and the exhaustion. This illustrates Oliver’s perseverance, he believed that he could do it, and sometimes that’s all it takes. Like good old Thomas the tank Engine saying “I Think I Can! I Think I Can!” The next thing you know the persistent Oliver is in the big city and ready to await his next fate, whether disaster, or happiness.
This foothold starts off with Oliver leaning over the stepping stone at which he is met by an artful young gentleman, who strikes up a quizzical conversation. Soon after all this walking and talking with the man, Oliver is invited up to The Artful Dodger’s (the young gentleman) safe house. This is where Oliver meets several children that thieve for a living, trained by the frail old man, Fagin. Not long after the initial introductions take place Fagin takes special interest in Oliver. Oliver is awoken by Fagin admiring his own personal property, and in effect he starts to stare at Fagin. Fagin then notices and proceeds over to Oliver yelling. As Oliver attempts to prove his innocence Fagin replies with:
Of course I know that, my dear. I only tried to frighten you. You're a brave boy. Ha! ha! you're a brave boy, Oliver (Dickens, IX ).
Again Oliver’s bravery is shown and not only noticed by a reader but brought to your attention by a key foil character. As well, an observer can notice that Oliver is always looking on the bright side of things no matter how rough or frightening life gets. Oliver is never scared because he is able to see light in the blackest of corners. This is described as being optimistic and Oliver has it in abundance.
“Very much, indeed, if you'll teach me, sir…”(Dickens, IX ) are words often heard exuding from Oliver’s mouth. If not heard literally they will be inferred through body language or implied by other words. This is a key to Oliver’s immense intelligence because he is always willing and wanting to learn when opportunities present themselves. This characteristic enables Oliver to get a subtle education that benefits him on the street while striving to survive. While Fagin is teaching the boy how to thieve without being noticed he tells the boy:
…You're a clever boy, my dear… I never saw a sharper lad. Here's a shilling for you. If you go on, in this way, you'll be the greatest man of the time… (Dickens, IX )
Fagin of all people, the dark and mysterious Fagin, realizes the greatness in such a small boy. He recognizes the boy to have great potential and yet it frightens him to death that a safe house may not be a fitting place for a boy with such aptitude and a compass aimed towards good might. Oliver’s rise starts with the first time Fagin releases the boy to begin thieving for the safe house.
A trial, a fever, and a new place to call home later; Oliver’s happiness is finally met. A place where he is loved and looked after and is given immense freedom. This is where Oliver feels most at home. The self developed guardian’s name would be Mr. Brownlow, who just so happened to be the judge who tried poor Oliver for theft but soon after found Oliver innocent. During a between Mr. Brownlow and Oliver, Mr Brownlow had said:
… I hope not,' rejoined the old gentleman. 'I do not think you ever will. I have been deceived, before, in the objects whom I have endeavoured to benefit; but I feel strongly disposed to trust you… (Dickens, XIV)
This shows that Oliver had the abilities within him to do great as long as he looked ahead with optimism and persevered through the worst of the days. People that made Oliver and had merely just an encounter could get this sense off him, that he was destined to be good. Mr. Brownlow had trusted Oliver so much he had let him run an errand that involved money and beautifully constructed books. Off went Oliver to prove to the world that he had at last found a place to call home; where he could be happy and do good.
Thirty steps later Oliver had been snagged up by Fagin’s gang and who took him back to the so called safe house. Once back to this filthy residence Fagin’s group of children began striping Oliver of everything he had. Oliver, so upset and set out to do this task he proposed this:
'They belong to the old gentleman,' said Oliver, wringing his hands; 'to the good, kind, old gentleman who took me into his house, and had me nursed, when I was near dying of the fever. Oh, pray send them back; send him back the books and money. Keep me here all my life long; but pray, pray send them back. He'll think I stole them; the old lady: all of them who were so kind to me: will think I stole them. Oh, do have mercy upon me, and send them back!' (Dickens, XVI)
Oliver set out to accomplish this errand. He had offered his entire life just to prove to the world he could for once do well, but thieves, such as this group were, would not listen and they attempted to keep the unfortunate Oliver there for the rest of his life. ‘Try’ would be the key word; Oliver would persevere and find himself in a run for his life. Shortly after the thievery choke-hold on Oliver was soon fell off the edge along with Bill Sikes the man who started the entire group. The choke-hold and Sikes had been hung before the village for everyone to see. But still one man remained.
Fagin was instantly imprisoned after Sikes death. Oliver was free but yet still felt down, he was not yet happy. Oliver had to make amends with the frail old Fagin. So Mr. Brownlow and Oliver took a journey to the prison to pay Fagin a visit before he was sent to be hung. Oliver asked to if he was coming into the cell,since it was not a sight for children. Mr Brownlow replied:
'It is not indeed, my friend,' rejoined Mr. Brownlow; 'but my business with this man is intimately connected with him; and as this child has seen him in the full career of his success and villainy, I think it as well--even at the cost of some pain and fear--that he should see him now. (Dickens, LII)
This lastly shows the bravery within the now happy Oliver. Oliver was never frightened, no matter what he saw, he knew in order to make himself finally feel that happiness he had to thank Fagin for his kindness, no matter how much harm was caused by the man. The good outweighed the evil, triple fold.
Consequently the word ‘fold’ cannot be associated with Oliver. Oliver did the exact opposite of fold; he did not give up what so ever. Through several series of events along Oliver’s journey there were a number of prime examples where Oliver was optimistic. In this instance, a seventy mile walk with slim to none rations. That would also show perseverance because he never surrendered to fatigue. He also stood up to whoever told him something mean, wrong or just straight up not right. This shows his keen bravery and his ability to speak his mind in a reasonable way. Whatever lay in Oliver’s cards he would never back down to; he was never scared, being very brave for such a small boy. Oliver is always learning from mistakes and his everyday encounters help the mislead boy to find his way. Oliver Twist was dealt a bad hand of cards from square one. The boy could have forfeited and been a worker boy or a thief or a hobo but no, he rose to the occasion. Oliver knew there was something better than being a low life, or a sinner, the poor boy just wanted to do well and be happy. He turned his life around and despite what would happen, he was determined to fight for what he wanted. So fight is what Oliver did, and what he got in the end was worth it. Happiness is what he gained and good is what he did.
Bibliography will be ocming soon my book is snowed in at school
Charles Dickens’ award winning novel Oliver Twist is a classic, studied abroad all over the world. Oliver Twist is a harrowing tale regarding the hardships encountered by the orphan boy, Oliver Twist, along his journey. The book follows the boy’s passage from town to town, event after event and blow after blow. This tale embodies a compelling belief that not all people who have had a bad start will necessarily end up bad. Henceforth Oliver Twist is literary proof that the rags to riches story can exist and perhaps may come true if the game of life is played correctly. Oliver Twist was dealt the worst cards possible and despite all odds he manages to turn his life journey into an unbeatable metaphorical royal flush. The metaphorical royal flush was developed through standing up for what he believes in, readiness to learn, perseverance of events, bravery, and his being optimistic in the “rainiest weather”.
Taking all this into consideration, being dealt bad cards is not the end of the world, but rather it gives you the opportunity to change your outcome and prove everyone else wrong. Dickens’ uses poor old Oliver as a means to show the world that our paths are not etched in stone but perhaps written for the time being, capable of being erased and altered as time carries on. Consequently, all this adds to the basis that not all individuals who are given a rough start will wind up bad. They may surprise you and become great and full of the character built up from numerous challenging experiences. Or perhaps be a remarkable person who is a little rough around the edges. No matter how short the end of the stick you draw is, you can make it look tall by your actions.
Oliver drew the short end of the stick from square one on both sides of the spectrum. One side is his life and the other the most memorable moments known to the common person. This unforgettable event was the first stone to be turned over in Oliver’s journey. But before all these “memorable” moments, Oliver’s hard-fought journey commenced from inside an orphanage in England. Orphanages around this time were not very sanitary or fulfilling in any sort of way. The adults would basically starve the children or they would die of disease or infection. The year isn’t accurately known and is not necessarily important in the novel, but the boy’s age was. When Oliver’s ninth birthday arrived his parents had not yet been identified or even found, so the orphanage committee members instructed poor Oliver to the nearest workhouse to study an unfavourable trade. At the workhouse the children were given even less food than previously and even harder work; which drove several to starvation which was soon followed by death. Oliver managed to stay optimistic and persevere throughout these conditions leading to the more monumental moment of the novel.
The more literal sense of Oliver pulling a short end of the stick in this case was pulling the shortest string from a group of children at the workhouse. This resulted in Oliver’s first baby step in his journey. That evening after Oliver had finished his extremely small ration of slop, he began a short, yet brave walk to the front. These acts lead up to this defining conversation:
'Please, sir, I want some more.' 'What!' said the master at length, in a faint voice. 'Please, sir,' replied Oliver, 'I want some more.' 'Mr. Limbkins, I beg your pardon, sir! Oliver Twist has asked for more!''For MORE!' said Mr. Limbkins. 'Compose yourself, Bumble, and answer me distinctly.Do I understand that he asked for more, after he had eaten the supper allotted by the dietary?' 'He did, sir,' replied Bumble. 'That boy will be hung,' said the gentleman in the white waistcoat. 'I know that boy will be hung’ (Dickens, II ).
Oliver knowingly and partially willingly, asked for more even though he knew of the probable outcome. This portrays the bravery which is one of the main components of Oliver’s ability to climb out of a hole that was dug so deep from the get go. This event resulted in Oliver being given out with a cash reward to anyone who was willing to take him as their apprentice and thus resulted in the first step in Oliver’s rise to goodness.
Upon being sold to a passer-by Oliver begins to like this home. He is well fed and given a warm place to sleep. Soon after, he encounters a helper boy from around the homestead who begins to poke fun at Oliver and his mother. The boy keeps poking and poking until Oliver looses it and starts to pound the boys face in. This event lets Oliver’s bravery shine once again. Oliver resolves to stand up for what he believes in because he comprehends that it’s not what an individuals job is, or who their parents are that defines them, but it is rather what they do and how they act. On the flipside the workhouse is being phoned and asked to come take this “troublesome” and “angry” boy, Oliver, back. Later that night Oliver crawls out his basement window and begins unwittingly his long walk to freedom.
This walk has been depicted as over seventy miles in a pair of half-assed leather slippers and for the most part, bare feet. Oliver starts out running which then gradually tapers off into a slow jog. That slow jog turns into and a sluggish shuffling. The hobbling, fatigued Oliver then basically falls to his knees in exhaustion. A gentle elderly lady sees this poor boy fall to his knees and she takes him in to her house until he is better and fed. It’s as if she seen the good in him through all the dirt, the grime and the exhaustion. This illustrates Oliver’s perseverance, he believed that he could do it, and sometimes that’s all it takes. Like good old Thomas the tank Engine saying “I Think I Can! I Think I Can!” The next thing you know the persistent Oliver is in the big city and ready to await his next fate, whether disaster, or happiness.
This foothold starts off with Oliver leaning over the stepping stone at which he is met by an artful young gentleman, who strikes up a quizzical conversation. Soon after all this walking and talking with the man, Oliver is invited up to The Artful Dodger’s (the young gentleman) safe house. This is where Oliver meets several children that thieve for a living, trained by the frail old man, Fagin. Not long after the initial introductions take place Fagin takes special interest in Oliver. Oliver is awoken by Fagin admiring his own personal property, and in effect he starts to stare at Fagin. Fagin then notices and proceeds over to Oliver yelling. As Oliver attempts to prove his innocence Fagin replies with:
Of course I know that, my dear. I only tried to frighten you. You're a brave boy. Ha! ha! you're a brave boy, Oliver (Dickens, IX ).
Again Oliver’s bravery is shown and not only noticed by a reader but brought to your attention by a key foil character. As well, an observer can notice that Oliver is always looking on the bright side of things no matter how rough or frightening life gets. Oliver is never scared because he is able to see light in the blackest of corners. This is described as being optimistic and Oliver has it in abundance.
“Very much, indeed, if you'll teach me, sir…”(Dickens, IX ) are words often heard exuding from Oliver’s mouth. If not heard literally they will be inferred through body language or implied by other words. This is a key to Oliver’s immense intelligence because he is always willing and wanting to learn when opportunities present themselves. This characteristic enables Oliver to get a subtle education that benefits him on the street while striving to survive. While Fagin is teaching the boy how to thieve without being noticed he tells the boy:
…You're a clever boy, my dear… I never saw a sharper lad. Here's a shilling for you. If you go on, in this way, you'll be the greatest man of the time… (Dickens, IX )
Fagin of all people, the dark and mysterious Fagin, realizes the greatness in such a small boy. He recognizes the boy to have great potential and yet it frightens him to death that a safe house may not be a fitting place for a boy with such aptitude and a compass aimed towards good might. Oliver’s rise starts with the first time Fagin releases the boy to begin thieving for the safe house.
A trial, a fever, and a new place to call home later; Oliver’s happiness is finally met. A place where he is loved and looked after and is given immense freedom. This is where Oliver feels most at home. The self developed guardian’s name would be Mr. Brownlow, who just so happened to be the judge who tried poor Oliver for theft but soon after found Oliver innocent. During a between Mr. Brownlow and Oliver, Mr Brownlow had said:
… I hope not,' rejoined the old gentleman. 'I do not think you ever will. I have been deceived, before, in the objects whom I have endeavoured to benefit; but I feel strongly disposed to trust you… (Dickens, XIV)
This shows that Oliver had the abilities within him to do great as long as he looked ahead with optimism and persevered through the worst of the days. People that made Oliver and had merely just an encounter could get this sense off him, that he was destined to be good. Mr. Brownlow had trusted Oliver so much he had let him run an errand that involved money and beautifully constructed books. Off went Oliver to prove to the world that he had at last found a place to call home; where he could be happy and do good.
Thirty steps later Oliver had been snagged up by Fagin’s gang and who took him back to the so called safe house. Once back to this filthy residence Fagin’s group of children began striping Oliver of everything he had. Oliver, so upset and set out to do this task he proposed this:
'They belong to the old gentleman,' said Oliver, wringing his hands; 'to the good, kind, old gentleman who took me into his house, and had me nursed, when I was near dying of the fever. Oh, pray send them back; send him back the books and money. Keep me here all my life long; but pray, pray send them back. He'll think I stole them; the old lady: all of them who were so kind to me: will think I stole them. Oh, do have mercy upon me, and send them back!' (Dickens, XVI)
Oliver set out to accomplish this errand. He had offered his entire life just to prove to the world he could for once do well, but thieves, such as this group were, would not listen and they attempted to keep the unfortunate Oliver there for the rest of his life. ‘Try’ would be the key word; Oliver would persevere and find himself in a run for his life. Shortly after the thievery choke-hold on Oliver was soon fell off the edge along with Bill Sikes the man who started the entire group. The choke-hold and Sikes had been hung before the village for everyone to see. But still one man remained.
Fagin was instantly imprisoned after Sikes death. Oliver was free but yet still felt down, he was not yet happy. Oliver had to make amends with the frail old Fagin. So Mr. Brownlow and Oliver took a journey to the prison to pay Fagin a visit before he was sent to be hung. Oliver asked to if he was coming into the cell,since it was not a sight for children. Mr Brownlow replied:
'It is not indeed, my friend,' rejoined Mr. Brownlow; 'but my business with this man is intimately connected with him; and as this child has seen him in the full career of his success and villainy, I think it as well--even at the cost of some pain and fear--that he should see him now. (Dickens, LII)
This lastly shows the bravery within the now happy Oliver. Oliver was never frightened, no matter what he saw, he knew in order to make himself finally feel that happiness he had to thank Fagin for his kindness, no matter how much harm was caused by the man. The good outweighed the evil, triple fold.
Consequently the word ‘fold’ cannot be associated with Oliver. Oliver did the exact opposite of fold; he did not give up what so ever. Through several series of events along Oliver’s journey there were a number of prime examples where Oliver was optimistic. In this instance, a seventy mile walk with slim to none rations. That would also show perseverance because he never surrendered to fatigue. He also stood up to whoever told him something mean, wrong or just straight up not right. This shows his keen bravery and his ability to speak his mind in a reasonable way. Whatever lay in Oliver’s cards he would never back down to; he was never scared, being very brave for such a small boy. Oliver is always learning from mistakes and his everyday encounters help the mislead boy to find his way. Oliver Twist was dealt a bad hand of cards from square one. The boy could have forfeited and been a worker boy or a thief or a hobo but no, he rose to the occasion. Oliver knew there was something better than being a low life, or a sinner, the poor boy just wanted to do well and be happy. He turned his life around and despite what would happen, he was determined to fight for what he wanted. So fight is what Oliver did, and what he got in the end was worth it. Happiness is what he gained and good is what he did.
Bibliography will be ocming soon my book is snowed in at school
Monday, October 27, 2008
Rhetoric Device - Epizeuxis
Epizeuxis
The Explanation:
Epizeuxis is derived the Greek language meaning “fastening together”. Epizeuxis is the repetition of the same word over and over again. One word repeated 2 or more times back to back. See examples.
Why Use it?:
This is generally used to get a point across or to make a certain idea or word stand out more than it normally would.
The 2 Examples:
1. “I really really really want that new fancy iPod that just came out!” exclaims the son. The mother replies “You were definitely definitely not good enough to deserve that!”
2. Money money money, man that stuff makes the world go around.
The Media:
"Give me a break! Give me a break! Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat bar!" (Advertisement for Kit Kat)
Logical Fallacy - Poisoning the Well
Poisoning the Well
Latin:
Poisoning the well or Toxicum Puteus in Latin.
Explanation:
All logical fallacies are divided into two main parts. These two main parts are formal and informal. Within each part there are an enormous amount of different fallacies called sub fallacies, every sub fallacy under the main part is a more specific example of a previous generalization of the fallacy. For Example Red Herring is a more specific example of an informal fallacy. But the genetic fallacy is a more specific example of red herring consequently, a more specific example of an informal fallacy. Now poisoning the well falls under a more precise example of an argumentum ad hominem (argument to the man) which a branch off of a genetic fallacy. Poisoning the well adverts to the European myth that the Jews had poisoned their wells with the Black Plague. This gave the Europeans an excuse to persecute the Jews. The phrase was first coined in “Apologia Pro Vita Sua” by John Henry Newman. Newman describes it as being: “What I insist upon here…is this unmanly attempt of his, in his concluding pages, to cut the ground from under my feet;—to poison by anticipation the public mind against Me”(FallacyFiles). This all means basically that person A says mockery before statement, to corrupt the minds and opinions of the audience listening to person B. All poisoning the well really is trying to discredit whatever person B is about to say. Poisoning the well can be sued in either an abusive way by insulting an opposition or in a circumstantial way by showing how one side is bias and exposing it in a negative way. This fallacy is often used in politics too tarnish the opposition’s image. This fallacy can also be very useful in debates and various other ways.
The Example (2):
Topic: Seal Clubbing
Person Agaist1: Why would you ever listen to this cruel murderous lunatic (abusive).
Person Againt2: This man only opposes me because if seal clubbing is banned then he will lose all of his business (circumstantial).
Person Opposing: Is trapped and won’t know what to say.
The well has been poisoned because now the audience either way sees the opposition in a bad way either in an insulting way or in a only money matter to the person way.
Topic: University
Person Against1: Only stuck up snobs go there to feel superior (abusive).
Person Against2: Student only are going to university because teachers and peer tell them they will get a higher education which is false because some college can help you get a degree as well (circumstantial).
Person Opposing: No matter what he/she says it will not seem right.
The Syllogism:
Horhay says “Our justice system is too strict”
Dylan replies “May I remind you that the Justice System got Horhay locked up for 5 years, so Horhay is untrustworthy”
Therefore the audience is almost forced to discredit whatever Horhay has to say, due to Dylan’s clever poisoning the well.
The Media:
One of the major strains of reaction to Barack Obama’s “More Perfect Union” speech is that those who are not persuaded by it are therefore racist or at least unreasoning fools. Poisoning the well in this manner may be an effective rhetorical device but it undercuts the very message of the speech, which is that race remains a very complicated issue in American culture and that we must tolerate a wide range of expressions on the subject.(Joyner)
Bibliography
2. Joyner, James. "Obama's Speech: Poisoning the Well." Outside the Beltway. 03 March 2008. OTB Media. 24 Oct 2008 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obamas_speech_poisoning_the_well/.
My Test Essay
Here it is sir! I used media share so I can hook you up with the right format so I don't have to hang it in on paper again!
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?qutkj5zd21n
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?qutkj5zd21n
Friday, October 17, 2008
Essay Comment
Hello Sir,
I hope my essay is a little bit more enjoyabel to read then the first take you got today, but it wasn't done yet i just wnated comments on it so I reworked it a bit well ALOT. So hopes its better then a 1+.
My essay when i copied it over i didn't format properly but I'll hand a hard copy in on Monday and as well I am nto sure how to put a tittle page one my blog so that will be included with my hard copy along with the bibliography. Thanks.
-Adam
I hope my essay is a little bit more enjoyabel to read then the first take you got today, but it wasn't done yet i just wnated comments on it so I reworked it a bit well ALOT. So hopes its better then a 1+.
My essay when i copied it over i didn't format properly but I'll hand a hard copy in on Monday and as well I am nto sure how to put a tittle page one my blog so that will be included with my hard copy along with the bibliography. Thanks.
-Adam
Essay
The Catcher in the Rye
The controversial novel The Catcher in the Rye was written by J.D. Salinger. The Catcher in the Rye has been very successful due to the extremely complex main character Holden Caulfield. Holden is a bitter yet hypocritical character that judges people willingly, in order to cover up his own blemishes. The reason for this is because he is afraid to look at himself in the mirror and see something he can’t change due to trepidation. This character is the perfect example of someone suffering from metathesiophobia (fear of change). Holden demonstrates this through several ways such as alienating himself from the world, depicting everyone else as a phony, and getting caught up in a miss-communicated metaphorical field of rye.
Loneliness is a key factor of Holden’s character, and why he is the way he is. He not only spends most of his time by himself, but he also barely ever interacts with others for very long periods of time. He will not try to fit in with the crowd, he won’t even try to stand out, he will simply not be in the crowd at all. He starts off by not going to the biggest football game of the year. Then you find out he is kicked out of the school. Being kicked out doesn’t bother Holden it’s his fourth time so it is no big deal. This is an example of Holden’s protective barrier. His hunting hat he buys is the symbol of his barrier. He buys a non-traditional hat that most will not like. Just to make him feel more alone. All this protective business is just Holden preventing himself from developing as an adult. He as well is the cause of all his pain because the protective wall is preventing him from his need for companionship. Holden is told by Mr. Spence: “Life is a game, boy. Life is a game that one plays according to the rules” (Salinger, 8). Holden believes that life is only a game when you’re on the side that’s winning, but when you’re on the side that’s losing, there is no game. Consequently, Holden distances himself from the game of life because he feels he is on the losing side. Furthermore, he cannot find companionship for he is too afraid of interacting, and also because most conversations end up confusing him. This feeling of being on “the other side” causes him to stay the same and continue with what is ordinary so that he doesn’t have to develop as an adult.
In addition, the term phony is used freely and is one of Holden’s favourite concepts throughout the novel. Not only because of the fact he says the word at least 5 times a page but is able to apply it to all his encounters. In Holden's case he makes the term fit every living human being on the face of the earth. He applies it to anyone he has an encouter with or anyone he just takes a second glance at, he always judges the book by the cover! The definition of “phony” for Holden is very ambiguous. The term will be associated with a liar, an imperfection, and/or a stereotype/archetype. The funny side of it he considers himself not phony but he considers himself a lie-aholic. Holden states “I'm the most terrific liar you ever saw in your life. It's awful. If I'm on my way to the store to buy a magazine, even, and somebody asks me where I'm going, I'm liable to say I'm going to the opera”(Salinger,16). It's terrible. Therefore, he himself is just as false as the world around him. His misconception of the word is not used to an advantage either. It’s a disadvantage because he is judging everyone by look or by the first impression and with his harsh point of view the worst is always seen. And Holden feels that these “phony” people can’t see their own phoniness, consequently he feels as they narrator he should bring it to your attention. This is his reasoning for what’s wrong with everything around him. This gives him as excuse to be so cynical. Not only does this make him look like an angel next to Jesus Christ, it in turn makes him just as phony as the rest of humanity. Holden spends so much time and effort discovering how everyone is phony he is unaware of his phoniness. With all that effort going toward proving everyone else phony it keeps him distant from his inner self fear of change.
Moreover Holden confused lyrics to a song he over heard one day and applied these lyrics to his own made up fantasy world. This world was his comparison to the “real world”. The lyrics he overheard were “If a body catch a body comin’ through the Rye” (Salinger, 173). Then his sister quickly corrects him and says: “If a body meet a body comin’ through the Rye” (Salinger, 173). Nonetheless, the he explain to his sister his own made up world:
…I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of
rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around - nobody big, I mean
- except me. And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to
do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff - I mean if
they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from
somewhere and catch them. That's all I do all day. I'd just be the catcher in
the rye and all. I know it's crazy, but that's the only thing I'd really like to
be (Salinger, 173).
After his sister corrects him, he quickly realizes that his world has fallen apart. When “catcher” is not in the lyric he can’t catch anyone anymore. Subsequently the only thing he wants to do he can’t. The need to change has the perfect opportunity to rise up, but Holden won’t let it because anything more complex than a “Hello” is to confusing and mind boggling. Holden continues to evade the fact of the need to change because of apprehension.
Over the course of the novel Holden Caulfield criticizes everyone and everything around him. He would either distance himself from interactions with other or he would interact and slap a phony sticker on their forehead. Then he creates this so called fantasy world of a field of rye, where Holden catches the children about to fall off the cliff, in other words about to fall into the adult world. Holden makes himself the hero and that’s what he genuinely wants to be. He is soon told the proper words to the song; consequently his fantasy world is torn down. Faced with the actualities of the world Holden then recognizes he doesn’t want to change, and deep down inside still wishes the world could by paused like a movie. His fear of change is so elusive he will never be able to comprehend the need to change.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Reworked Thesis and Outline
Outline
Thesis: Holden Caulfield illustrates a perfect case of metathesiophobia (fear of change). He demonstrates this through alienation, phoniness, and his own metaphorical field of rye.
Reason #1: Alienation
Example: Hunting hat shows his uniqueness and desire to be isolated. (Symbol)
Example: The fundamental conflict of the book is isolation versus companionship. Holden cannot address his companionship because he has a protective brick wall unpleasantness that prevents any kind of interactions. (Quotes)
Reason #2: Phoniness
Example: Start of chapter 22. Holden states how everyone is so phony and it gives him a reason to be phony himself.
Example: One of his favourite concepts over the whole novel.
Reason #3: The Field of Rye (Chapter 22)
Example: Quote in chapter 22. He basically wants to stand on the edge of the cliff and all the children about to fall off he will save them from the outside world.
Example: Holden confuses lines of lyric. Within this it shows his true imperfections. That he is not the greatest person in the world. In order to change he must tear down his wall of bitterness and become an adult.
Conclusion: Over the course of the novel Holden Caulfield comes to the conclusion that he himself has been holding himself back. He realized this because he took a step back and seen nothing he liked. He has isolated himself from the world and everything he loved, he himself was as phony as everyone else around him, and the only thing had going for him were the lyric to a song which were wrong showing yet another one of his many imperfections. This gave him the desire to face his fear of CHANGE.
Thesis: Holden Caulfield illustrates a perfect case of metathesiophobia (fear of change). He demonstrates this through alienation, phoniness, and his own metaphorical field of rye.
Reason #1: Alienation
Example: Hunting hat shows his uniqueness and desire to be isolated. (Symbol)
Example: The fundamental conflict of the book is isolation versus companionship. Holden cannot address his companionship because he has a protective brick wall unpleasantness that prevents any kind of interactions. (Quotes)
Reason #2: Phoniness
Example: Start of chapter 22. Holden states how everyone is so phony and it gives him a reason to be phony himself.
Example: One of his favourite concepts over the whole novel.
Reason #3: The Field of Rye (Chapter 22)
Example: Quote in chapter 22. He basically wants to stand on the edge of the cliff and all the children about to fall off he will save them from the outside world.
Example: Holden confuses lines of lyric. Within this it shows his true imperfections. That he is not the greatest person in the world. In order to change he must tear down his wall of bitterness and become an adult.
Conclusion: Over the course of the novel Holden Caulfield comes to the conclusion that he himself has been holding himself back. He realized this because he took a step back and seen nothing he liked. He has isolated himself from the world and everything he loved, he himself was as phony as everyone else around him, and the only thing had going for him were the lyric to a song which were wrong showing yet another one of his many imperfections. This gave him the desire to face his fear of CHANGE.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Thesis
Holden Caulfield illustrates a perfect case of Gerascophobia (fear of growing up). He demonstrates this through alienation, elaborate lies, and his own metaphorical field of rye.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Dummies Guide
Introduction to New Criticism
Basics
Literary Criticism: Literary criticism is analyzing and interpreting of a piece of literature.
The author may give us work that has one if not several meanings. Authors expect us to figure it out and consider every aspect. Good criticism helps us to have a better understanding of the work presented to you. It may help you see the text from a different point of view.
New Criticism
New criticism is a new and different method of evaluating pieces of literature. This method emphasizes that readers closely examine a piece of text with minimum regard for the biographical or historical circumstances in which it was produced. This certain method of criticism was highly influential type of literary criticism that grew from the 40s to late 60s.
New criticism was originally produced mainly in response to biographical criticism. The theory of biographical criticism believed that pieces of literature should be looked at as a reflection to an authors life. This meant that sometimes text weren't even read.
The concept of new criticism tends to emphasize on a few autotelic crucial things. It tends to see text as an artifact(done for its own sake), solely based for itself and not dependant on its relation to the authors life or intent, history or anything else.
New criticism once created could be broken down into several different but similar methods of criticizing text.
William Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr.November 17 1907 – December 17 1975
William Kurtz Wimsatt Jr. attended Georgetown University, he later attended Yale University where he finished off his schooling and received his PHD. Later after receiving his PHD in 1939 he joined the English department at Yale and taught there until his death. Wimsatt is best known for his studies in 18th century literature, his work consisted of literary theory and criticism. Wimsatt came up with many extraordinary work in his lifetime these major works include Studies in the Meaning of Poetry (verbal icon), A Short History (literary criticism), A Study of Style and Meaning in the "Rambler" (Philosophic Words) and The Prose Style of Samuel Johnson. Some of Wimsatts historical theories were affective and intentional fallacy, concrete universal, and the domain of criticism.
Monroe Curtis Beardsley December 10 1915 – September 18 1985
Monroe Curtis Beardsley attended the prestigious Yale university were he completed his BA in 1936 and his PHD in 1939. Like Wimsatt, Beardsley taught at many universities and colleges including Yale, Swarthmore and Temple. Beardsley is best known for his work in aesthetics. Beardsley was honored in 1956 when he was voted president of the American society of aesthetics. He is also highly recognized for his work written along side Wimsatt. Beardsley’s major works include Aesthetics, A Short History (Aesthetics), Practical Logic, The Possibility of Criticism and the Aesthetic Point of View. Finally some of Beardsley’s theories include affective fallacy and intentional fallacy.
Intentional Fallacy
Intentional fallacy is the idea or fact that when reading literature you do not let the author’s intention affect your out look while interpreting their literary work. It is based on the fact that the author’s intention is not important , or should not be needed for the meaning of their work and the ability to intemperate their work with literary analysis.
For literary analysis you must use the text its self and the words to determine the meaning and not let the author affect anything with his intentions when he was writing the work. The words are the evidence them selves for the analysis. The author’s thoughts, feelings, and or intentions should never play in account when doing literary analysis on their work for the intentional fallacy, once they start being considered it no longer becomes an intentional fallacy.
Affective Fallacy
Affective fallacy occurs in literary criticism(a written evaluation of a work of literature). It’s a theory that a poem or script should be analyzed and describe by its internal structure. It suggests that a poem should not be valued on the level of emotional effects it has on the reader but simply how it is written and structured. The main concept of the term affective fallacy is an answer to the impressionistic criticism argument. This topic (impressionistic criticism) argues that the reader's response to a poem, ultimately decides how well it is written.
A simpler definition of the term affective fallacy is simply a confusion between the poem and its results. Basically means that readers get confused between what it is and what it does.
"The outcome of either fallacy . . . is that the poem itself, as an object of specifically critical judgement, tends to disappear.”
This was a statement from Wimsatt which can be found in one of his many essays
The original concept for affective fallacy was presented by Wimsatt through a series of essay written throughout 1954. The true definition of fallacy as stated by Wimsatt covers or touches on all major literary criticism techniques (if strictly followed). This mode of criticism covers techniques ranging from the late 1800s all the way to the late 1900s.
With many of the concepts of New criticism there was a trail of “non believers” who opposed the idea. With the introduction of affective fallacy there was also a large cloud of controversy that always surrounded the idea. Thought the creators of the idea had a large influence on people, it was never accepted fully by a great number of critics
Although the strong message portrayed by the term remains to this day it has had its share of competition. The term is a strong warning against unsophisticated use of emotional response in judging ones text. Though this term is pretty simple in meaning it has been “overlapped” by more recent developments to new criticism. Therefore nowadays it is interpreted differently then it would have been back when it was first created.
Basics
Literary Criticism: Literary criticism is analyzing and interpreting of a piece of literature.
The author may give us work that has one if not several meanings. Authors expect us to figure it out and consider every aspect. Good criticism helps us to have a better understanding of the work presented to you. It may help you see the text from a different point of view.
New Criticism
New criticism is a new and different method of evaluating pieces of literature. This method emphasizes that readers closely examine a piece of text with minimum regard for the biographical or historical circumstances in which it was produced. This certain method of criticism was highly influential type of literary criticism that grew from the 40s to late 60s.
New criticism was originally produced mainly in response to biographical criticism. The theory of biographical criticism believed that pieces of literature should be looked at as a reflection to an authors life. This meant that sometimes text weren't even read.
The concept of new criticism tends to emphasize on a few autotelic crucial things. It tends to see text as an artifact(done for its own sake), solely based for itself and not dependant on its relation to the authors life or intent, history or anything else.
New criticism once created could be broken down into several different but similar methods of criticizing text.
William Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr.November 17 1907 – December 17 1975
William Kurtz Wimsatt Jr. attended Georgetown University, he later attended Yale University where he finished off his schooling and received his PHD. Later after receiving his PHD in 1939 he joined the English department at Yale and taught there until his death. Wimsatt is best known for his studies in 18th century literature, his work consisted of literary theory and criticism. Wimsatt came up with many extraordinary work in his lifetime these major works include Studies in the Meaning of Poetry (verbal icon), A Short History (literary criticism), A Study of Style and Meaning in the "Rambler" (Philosophic Words) and The Prose Style of Samuel Johnson. Some of Wimsatts historical theories were affective and intentional fallacy, concrete universal, and the domain of criticism.
Monroe Curtis Beardsley December 10 1915 – September 18 1985
Monroe Curtis Beardsley attended the prestigious Yale university were he completed his BA in 1936 and his PHD in 1939. Like Wimsatt, Beardsley taught at many universities and colleges including Yale, Swarthmore and Temple. Beardsley is best known for his work in aesthetics. Beardsley was honored in 1956 when he was voted president of the American society of aesthetics. He is also highly recognized for his work written along side Wimsatt. Beardsley’s major works include Aesthetics, A Short History (Aesthetics), Practical Logic, The Possibility of Criticism and the Aesthetic Point of View. Finally some of Beardsley’s theories include affective fallacy and intentional fallacy.
Intentional Fallacy
Intentional fallacy is the idea or fact that when reading literature you do not let the author’s intention affect your out look while interpreting their literary work. It is based on the fact that the author’s intention is not important , or should not be needed for the meaning of their work and the ability to intemperate their work with literary analysis.
For literary analysis you must use the text its self and the words to determine the meaning and not let the author affect anything with his intentions when he was writing the work. The words are the evidence them selves for the analysis. The author’s thoughts, feelings, and or intentions should never play in account when doing literary analysis on their work for the intentional fallacy, once they start being considered it no longer becomes an intentional fallacy.
Affective Fallacy
Affective fallacy occurs in literary criticism(a written evaluation of a work of literature). It’s a theory that a poem or script should be analyzed and describe by its internal structure. It suggests that a poem should not be valued on the level of emotional effects it has on the reader but simply how it is written and structured. The main concept of the term affective fallacy is an answer to the impressionistic criticism argument. This topic (impressionistic criticism) argues that the reader's response to a poem, ultimately decides how well it is written.
A simpler definition of the term affective fallacy is simply a confusion between the poem and its results. Basically means that readers get confused between what it is and what it does.
"The outcome of either fallacy . . . is that the poem itself, as an object of specifically critical judgement, tends to disappear.”
This was a statement from Wimsatt which can be found in one of his many essays
The original concept for affective fallacy was presented by Wimsatt through a series of essay written throughout 1954. The true definition of fallacy as stated by Wimsatt covers or touches on all major literary criticism techniques (if strictly followed). This mode of criticism covers techniques ranging from the late 1800s all the way to the late 1900s.
With many of the concepts of New criticism there was a trail of “non believers” who opposed the idea. With the introduction of affective fallacy there was also a large cloud of controversy that always surrounded the idea. Thought the creators of the idea had a large influence on people, it was never accepted fully by a great number of critics
Although the strong message portrayed by the term remains to this day it has had its share of competition. The term is a strong warning against unsophisticated use of emotional response in judging ones text. Though this term is pretty simple in meaning it has been “overlapped” by more recent developments to new criticism. Therefore nowadays it is interpreted differently then it would have been back when it was first created.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Lesson PLan
Objectives
1. To get students to define New Criticism.
2. Students will understand key components of New Criticism.
3. To get student to apply it to pieces of literature.
Resources
· Laptop
· Projector
· USB Drive
· PowerPoint
Methodology
0-5 min - Quick Introduction of ourselves and our topic
5-8min – What is literary criticism (already briefly explained by group presenting the day before)
8- 20 min – Explanation and definition of New Criticism
20-27min – Cover Wimsatt give some background information of his life to the class (Education, Profession, Major works, and Theories)
27-34min – Cover Beardsley give some background information of his life to the class (Education, Profession, Major works, and Theories)
34-44min – Cover intentional fallacy give clear definition and explain thoroughly what it is using examples
44-58min- Cover Affective Fallacy gives clear definition of the term and describes what it is using examples
58-70 min – evaluation questions poem one and two give class time to read over then find out their opinion on the meaning and what it really means
Evaluation
We will link these key ideas above to poems by Bob Dylan. Students will be asked about their ideas and/or answers. They will be allowed to ask as many questions as needed to get a point across.
Quick must know notes to take away from lesson
Literary criticism is analyzing and interpreting literature
The new criticism method emphasizes that readers closely examine a piece of text with minimum regard for the biographical or historical circumstances in which it was produced
William Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr. November 17 1907 – December 17 1975. Known for his studies of 18th century literature. (Affective and Intentional Fallacy)
Monroe Curtis Beardsley December 10 1915 – September 18 1985. Known for his work in aesthetics (involved in affective fallacy, intentional fallacy theories)
Intentional fallacy is the idea or fact that when reading literature you do not let the author’s intention affect your out look while interpreting their literary work.
Affective fallacy occurs in literary criticism (a written evaluation of a work of literature). It’s a theory that a poem or script should be analyzed and describe by its internal structure.
1. To get students to define New Criticism.
2. Students will understand key components of New Criticism.
3. To get student to apply it to pieces of literature.
Resources
· Laptop
· Projector
· USB Drive
· PowerPoint
Methodology
0-5 min - Quick Introduction of ourselves and our topic
5-8min – What is literary criticism (already briefly explained by group presenting the day before)
8- 20 min – Explanation and definition of New Criticism
20-27min – Cover Wimsatt give some background information of his life to the class (Education, Profession, Major works, and Theories)
27-34min – Cover Beardsley give some background information of his life to the class (Education, Profession, Major works, and Theories)
34-44min – Cover intentional fallacy give clear definition and explain thoroughly what it is using examples
44-58min- Cover Affective Fallacy gives clear definition of the term and describes what it is using examples
58-70 min – evaluation questions poem one and two give class time to read over then find out their opinion on the meaning and what it really means
Evaluation
We will link these key ideas above to poems by Bob Dylan. Students will be asked about their ideas and/or answers. They will be allowed to ask as many questions as needed to get a point across.
Quick must know notes to take away from lesson
Literary criticism is analyzing and interpreting literature
The new criticism method emphasizes that readers closely examine a piece of text with minimum regard for the biographical or historical circumstances in which it was produced
William Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr. November 17 1907 – December 17 1975. Known for his studies of 18th century literature. (Affective and Intentional Fallacy)
Monroe Curtis Beardsley December 10 1915 – September 18 1985. Known for his work in aesthetics (involved in affective fallacy, intentional fallacy theories)
Intentional fallacy is the idea or fact that when reading literature you do not let the author’s intention affect your out look while interpreting their literary work.
Affective fallacy occurs in literary criticism (a written evaluation of a work of literature). It’s a theory that a poem or script should be analyzed and describe by its internal structure.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Notes
Intentional Fallacy
· Was an essay written in a collaboration by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley
· Fallacy a component in an argument which renders the whole argument invalid
· The essay is basically: the design or the intentions of an author do not matter when judging the essay
· The term itself is somewhat ambiguous but it basically means a fallacy of intent or a fallacy committed on purpose
· Internal Evidence: Is present as fact of the given work, (poems, historical facts, etc)
· External Evidence: Not actually in the work itself, (comment, reviews, conversations about the work, etc)
· Contextual Evidence: third kind of evidence concerns any meanings derived from the specific work's relationship to other art made by this particular artist
· Summary of above: Thus, a text's internal evidence — the words themselves, and their meanings — is fair game for literary analysis. External evidence — anything not contained within the text itself, such as information about the poet's life — belongs to literary biography, not literary criticism. Preoccupation with the author "leads away from the poem." According to New Criticism, a poem does not belong to its author, but rather "it is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it. The poem belongs to the public." It is the Contextual evidence that presents the greatest potential for intentional fallacies of interpretation. Analysis using this type of evidence can easily become more concerned with external evidence than the internal content of the work.
· A death of an author
The Death of an Author by Roland Barthes
· In the essay it criticizes the reader’s tendency to consider aspects of the author’s identity
· Such as the authors political, religious, historical views and or ethnicity, personal attributes and their pats life experiences and what not
· Basically to judge their work based on the authors life as oppose judging their literature on their actually literature
· Basically it’s like not giving text any author, so you base it on text and text alone
· The work should be criticized based on the impressions of the reader and not the passions or tastes of the writer
· The meaning doesn’t lie with the origin it lies with the language itself and the impression on the reader
· I talks about how can you know exactly what the writer intended if you yourself are not the writer, unless you share the same mind that is…
· “The destruction of every voice” adheres to one interpretation
· It is the language that speaks for itself
· They can’t be a blur between the writer and the characters
· Intentional fallacies declare a poem is not attached to its author yet detached from the author at birth and goes about the world on its own
· The poem will belong to anyone who reads it
Affective Fallacy
· Affective fallacy is a term from literary criticism used to refer to the supposed error of judging or evaluating a text on the basis of its emotional effects on a reader. The term was coined by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley as a principle of New Criticism."The report of some readers . . . that a poem or story induces in them vivid images, intense feelings, or heightened consciousness, is neither anything which can be refuted nor anything which it is possible for the objective critic to take into account."
· Was an essay written in a collaboration by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley
· Fallacy a component in an argument which renders the whole argument invalid
· The essay is basically: the design or the intentions of an author do not matter when judging the essay
· The term itself is somewhat ambiguous but it basically means a fallacy of intent or a fallacy committed on purpose
· Internal Evidence: Is present as fact of the given work, (poems, historical facts, etc)
· External Evidence: Not actually in the work itself, (comment, reviews, conversations about the work, etc)
· Contextual Evidence: third kind of evidence concerns any meanings derived from the specific work's relationship to other art made by this particular artist
· Summary of above: Thus, a text's internal evidence — the words themselves, and their meanings — is fair game for literary analysis. External evidence — anything not contained within the text itself, such as information about the poet's life — belongs to literary biography, not literary criticism. Preoccupation with the author "leads away from the poem." According to New Criticism, a poem does not belong to its author, but rather "it is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond his power to intend about it or control it. The poem belongs to the public." It is the Contextual evidence that presents the greatest potential for intentional fallacies of interpretation. Analysis using this type of evidence can easily become more concerned with external evidence than the internal content of the work.
· A death of an author
The Death of an Author by Roland Barthes
· In the essay it criticizes the reader’s tendency to consider aspects of the author’s identity
· Such as the authors political, religious, historical views and or ethnicity, personal attributes and their pats life experiences and what not
· Basically to judge their work based on the authors life as oppose judging their literature on their actually literature
· Basically it’s like not giving text any author, so you base it on text and text alone
· The work should be criticized based on the impressions of the reader and not the passions or tastes of the writer
· The meaning doesn’t lie with the origin it lies with the language itself and the impression on the reader
· I talks about how can you know exactly what the writer intended if you yourself are not the writer, unless you share the same mind that is…
· “The destruction of every voice” adheres to one interpretation
· It is the language that speaks for itself
· They can’t be a blur between the writer and the characters
· Intentional fallacies declare a poem is not attached to its author yet detached from the author at birth and goes about the world on its own
· The poem will belong to anyone who reads it
Affective Fallacy
· Affective fallacy is a term from literary criticism used to refer to the supposed error of judging or evaluating a text on the basis of its emotional effects on a reader. The term was coined by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley as a principle of New Criticism."The report of some readers . . . that a poem or story induces in them vivid images, intense feelings, or heightened consciousness, is neither anything which can be refuted nor anything which it is possible for the objective critic to take into account."
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Accountability Agreement
The List that Can be The Make or Break of a Life
Focus: What do you want to accomplish in this class or during this year?
Focus: What do you want to accomplish in this class or during this year?
1. I wish to achieve an average of 80% or greater so it will not be a limiting factor when it comes to applying to universities.
2. I really would like to learn how to write higher-quality essays.
3. I want to go to training sessions with Nukleus Fitness to stay healthy and in shape for years to come.
3. I want to go to training sessions with Nukleus Fitness to stay healthy and in shape for years to come.
4. Prepare for a second half-marathon and more to come.
5. Take Yoga and learn to relax and feel better about myself.
6. I wish to put all that I can into everything I do this year so I can get all that I want in the FUTURE.
7. I will do all the bonus material I can do to acheieve my goals and I will do the AP Test (if Mr. Murray thinks I can get a 4 or 5) to get the mark i wish and apply to universities and know they will want me.
7. I will do all the bonus material I can do to acheieve my goals and I will do the AP Test (if Mr. Murray thinks I can get a 4 or 5) to get the mark i wish and apply to universities and know they will want me.
Contributions: What contributions will you make to this class or to the school this year?
1. I will be organizing the grade 9 day, the grind, and sports banquette.
2. I will organize a ski/snowboard club as well and hopefully to make to have more trips than usual.
3. I will help anyone who seeks it as long as they ask proper question because I will not help anyone be lazy.
4. I will participate I HIP this year again and try t continue to help kids quit or not even start smoking and ways to deal with life without resorting to that type of stuff.
3. I will help anyone who seeks it as long as they ask proper question because I will not help anyone be lazy.
4. I will participate I HIP this year again and try t continue to help kids quit or not even start smoking and ways to deal with life without resorting to that type of stuff.
Accountabilities: For what will you be held responsible?
1. I am responsible for doing my best on every assignment, essay, and test.
2. I am responsible for doing all my homework so I do not let myself or group members down.
3. I am responsible for being punctual.
Supports: What help, and from whom, will you need in order to achieve your accountabilities?
1. I will need the assistance from Mr. Murray to work on concepts and learn ways to improve whether it is on English or various other deeds listed above.
2. I will need the support from my friends and family to say get’r done, you can do it.
3. Basically if I’m not doing anything better or not achieving anything a kick in the A** will do the trick because I do not want to be known as the guy who could have been better.
3. Basically if I’m not doing anything better or not achieving anything a kick in the A** will do the trick because I do not want to be known as the guy who could have been better.
Measurements: How will you know what success looks like?
1. I will be happy with myself and feel like I did my best and know it’s not a lie.
2. I will achieve the marks I wish to obtain and look at my work and be like WOW I wrote that or I did that! :O
3. I will be recognized for the work I’ve done for the school whether it be as big as an actually award or just a plain good ol’ thanks!
Consequences: How should you be rewarded if you succeed? How should you be punished?
1. Get the marks I deserve and the feedback required to make myself better.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Welcome
Welcome to my blog... AlwaysW3st you ask why? Well no matter where I went my name would always end up being Adam West or just West. I tend to spell it W3st because West is common therefore I spice it up a lil' bit! Well anyways welcome to my blog =D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
