revision of third prompt essay

link to original: http://idontwanttogototheshowtonight.blogspot.com/2012/11/third-prompt-essay.html

1970. Choose a character from a novel or play of recognized literary merit and write an essay in which you (a) briefly describe the standards of the fictional society in which the character exists and (b) show how the character is affected by and responds to those standards. In your essay do not merely summarize the plot.

The America in which Willy Loman lives in Death of a Salesman is one that prizes respect and success over all else. It is a society that believes a man is nothing if he is not well liked, a belief Willy holds strongly, and one that has caused Willy and those close to him a great deal of dispair. Having seen the great successes of his brother and Charley, Willy is in denial, avoiding the fact that he is not particularly successful, and he overexerts himself in an attempt to achieve all-star status. His internalization of society's measure of a man's worth takes a toll on his mental stability, and drives him to lash out at his son for not striving to conquer the business world. Arthur Miller uses Willy to show how the American values have become corrupt.

Though mostly proud and boisterous, Willy shows his feelings of inadequacy a few times throughout the play. In Act One, for example, he confides in Linda: "I'm very well liked in Hartford. You know, the trouble is, Linda, people don't seem to take to me... I know it when I walk in. They seem to laugh at me." (23). Earlier, when announcing his sales, he stated a very exaggerated result and meekly decremented it down to his real numbers: "I did five hundred gross in Providence and seven hundred gross in Boston... Well, I - I did - about a hundred and eighty gross in Providence. Well, no - it came to - roughly two hundred gross on the whole trip... The trouble was that three of the stores were half closed for inventory in Boston. Otherwise I woulda broke records." (22). Willy is afraid of being judged for his less-than-stellar performance, so he exaggerates his abilities and makes excuses for his shortcomings, and often says he's more respected than he is. As the play progresses, Willy's mental stability deteriorates, perhaps because of his repressed feelings of inadequacy. After losing his job in Act Two, Willy's mental stability is almost entirely gone; he is forced to confront the fact that he is not as successful as he would like to believe. He is ultimately driven to suicide (pardon the pun) to avoid the unavoidable; after his final confrontation with Biff there is no question anymore that neither Biff nor Willy are successful or important men.

Willy internalized this belief so firmly that he raised his sons by it as well. In Act One, he tells Biff and Happy "be liked and you will never want." (21). Biff says "I'm thirty-four years old, I oughta be makin' my future," which shows that the idea was at least partly instilled in him and his brother (21). So when Biff leaves for the West and becomes a drifter, Willy is unsurprisingly critical. He and Biff argue incessantly every time Biff comes home because Willy feels he is choosing to be worthless.

The fact that Willy's insistence on societal values both destroys 

 his relationship with his son and brings about his own demise is a hint that Miller believes these values to be flawed. Miller takes issue with the external validation Willy is seeking, and the successful dork Bernard is the embodiment of what Miller believes good ideals are.

ceremony analysis

yeaaah

Characters:
Tayo is the main d00d. He's half white and half Laguna Pueblo. He is trying to reconnect with his native roots with a ceremony that will cure himself and the land of ailments caused by witchery.
Grandma is supportive of Tayo. She listens when he cries and whatnot. She is full of stories, so she is possibly a Grandmother Spider character.
T'seh is a Yellow Woman character that Tayo sleeps with. She shows him Josiah's cattle.
Josiah is Tayo's late uncle and an important father figure. He raised Tayo to appreciate the land and his heritage.
Rocky is Tayo's late cousin/sort-of-step-brother. He embraced white culture fully. He died fighting in WWII.

Author:
Leslie Marmon Silko played a 'key role' in what Wikipedia calls the 'Native American Renaissance'
As a mixed-race author, she has personal experience with the things Tayo experiences.

Setting:
Post-WWII southwest USA. It flashes back to Tayo's tour in the Philippines from time to time though, or to his childhood.

Style:
The narrative is third-person omniscient, but it sort of adopts the perspective of the people it's talking about but only sort of. I don't know how to explain this. When it talks about Rocky and his embrace of white culture the narrative sort of talks with irreverence toward the native culture. And when the narrative is explaining Tayo's thoughts it speaks sarcastically about the whites. It's really cool.

Themes:
Only siths deal in absolutes. Not all things white are evil, and not all things Laguna are pure. Betonie collects cool white stuff and there was that cool white rancher, and then there are the drinky Laguna guys and their self-loathing white envy.

Plot:
Tayo, a returning WWII soldier who was on tour in the Philippines, is apparently suffering from severe PTSD. His homeland also seems to be suffering with him because of a drought that is plaguing the Laguna Pueblo people. The narrative jumps around in time so I don't know how to best summarize the plot; this explanation will probably jump around too. Tayo was previously treated in a hospital for his PTSD, but his problems still remained. His flashbacks to the death of his cousin Rocky and a hallucinated death of his uncle Josiah persist. His sickness varies in severity, so he can do things like to go the bar to drown his sorrows with his fellow Indian veterans. During one such binge, he attacks and almost kills Emo, one of the vets. Tayo's grandmother realizes white medicine isn't helping Tayo recover, so she suggests that the medicine man Ku'oosh treat Tayo with a traditional ceremony. When this doesn't work fully, Tayo is sent to Betonie, another medicine man who is mixed-race, like Tayo, and more in-touch with white culture. Betonie acknowledges that times are changing, and thusly, traditional ceremonies must change to remain effective. He performs the beginning of the ceremony and leaves the brunt of the work to Tayo. Josiah's cattle, a hybrid of Mexican and Hereford cattle, are important for a bunch of reasons so Tayo goes North to find them. He comes upon a house, and in this house lives a woman, and this woman is named T'seh. They bang, and Tayo leaves to find the cattle. They're in a white guy's pasture, so Tayo cuts a big hole in the fence to steal them back. The cows leave, nbd, but some rangers catch Tayo. The rangers leave to pursue a mountain lion, though, allowing Tayo to get off scot-free. The lion is actually the lover of the lady he stayed with earlier, and Tayo follows the cattle to their house. T'seh says she'll keep the cows there until Robert, a character of slight importance throughout the book, can come to get them. Tayo goes home, and then the police chase him, and he has to hide overnight in a mine. Emo beats Harley, Tayo's best veteran pal (by my assessment), to death to lure Tayo out, but this doesn't work. Tayo goes to Ku'oosh's hut where it is revealed that T'seh is a spirit that helped Tayo out, and then the ceremony is complete and both Tayo and the land are healed.

Quotes:
"If a person wanted to get to the moon, there was a way; it all depended on whether you knew the directions..."
This is a neat quote that briefly explains some things about Laguna beliefs. I don't think it's necessarily important to the theme, but I did think it was interesting.

"You don't write off all the white people, just like you don't trust all the Indians."
This quote exemplifies the theme mentioned earlier. Betonie is acknowledging that times do change and that sometimes the truth is not... Laguna or white. (eyyyy)

no idea how many course responses I've done at this point

well here we are. Ceremony didn't suck like I thought it would. It was still pretty boring sometimes, but it wasn't because of the topic, but the style. Native culture in the novel didn't seem gimmicky, and I think that might be what turns me off about it in other works? I don't know. I liked the examination of the relationship between whites and the Laguna people.
we're starting Fifth Business now. I think the thing about Davies making up the source material for Fifth Business is pretty funny, and the book doesn't suck. The writing style is very pompous, but the narrator is a character I can make fun of so I don't mind.
I'm gonna fail the ap test let's write more prompt essays and maybe do some multiple choice

revision of fourth prompt essay

gettin' out of order now. link to the original. I didn't change much but I reconsidered all of my diction and sentence structure and patted myself on the back because I like this essay.

1982. In great literature, no scene of violence exists for its own sake. Choose a work of literary merit that confronts the reader or audience with a scene or scenes of violence. In a well-organized essay, explain how the scene or scenes contribute to the meaning of the complete work. Avoid plot summary.

Violence is abundant in Anthony Burgess's A Clockwork Orange, but one particular sequence has a more prominent influence on the overall meaning than the others: the violence Alex experiences after being released from prison. His beating at the hands of his old victims as well as by the duo of his now-deputized friend and enemy serve to show how savage and vindictive humankind is.

After being turned away from home by his parents and discovering he can no longer listen to his beloved classical music, Alex takes an intoxicated trip to the library to read about suicide. The vulnerable Alex is accosted by an old man, Jack, that he and his droogs beat before Alex went to prison. Jack and his elderly cohorts mercilessly beat Alex despite his passivity. Alex had been punished already by the system and had apparently learned his lesson but Jack continues the beating until the police step in.

Alex's release was no surprise; his situation was widely publicized as a triumph of modern psychology and a sign of a bright crime-free future thanks to the awful aversion therapy to which Alex was subjected to eliminate his criminal urges. So when an old enemy and an old friend, now police officers, apprehend Alex for attacking the library patrons, they know full well that he was really the victim. Bearing old grudges, they take him to a secluded area and continue the beating that they were sent to stop.

Alex had already been punished for his transgressions, but still continued to suffer outside of prison. The people he had wronged insist on exacting their own revenge, despite the punishment Alex had already endured. And even the system that was meant to protect him, the very same one that tortured him under the pretense of saving him, brutalized him secretly. Burgess used this violence to show how spiteful and revenge-crazed humankind can be.

rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead

Author: Tom Stoppard is a Brit who is still alive if I'm not mistaken. He's among the more famous British playwrites but I haven't heard of his other stuff myself.

Setting: Elsinore, a kingdom in Denmark. Also a boat, and nowhere.

Characters:

Rosencrantz is the lovable dummy of the play. He embodies the phrase "ignorance is bliss" perfectly; he is content, or even happy, since he isn't wasting time philosophizing.

Guildenstern, by contrast, is the grouchy one. He analyzes and theorizes about everything, often throwing around buzzwords incorrectly. He tries so hard to understand the world around him, yet is unable to. This makes him very anxious and irritable.

The Player is some omniscient/clairvoyant d00d that seems to exist in all realms of the play. He knows what is currently happening to R & G, as well as what will happen. He's also got some profound things to say about people with his explanations of the acting profession.

{Hamlet, Claudius, et. al. copypasted from Hamlet analysis}

Plot:
The play begins in limbo with a series of coin tosses, all landing heads-up. Guildenstern starts listing philosophies and probability laws and stuff. Memories form in their minds as they are necessary for plot advancement, I guess; past events aren't, but become when the present needs that they have been? Anyway the players come in and R doesn't get that they're offering prostitution and haha comedy. Now poof they're in Elsinore and Claudius mixes them up haha and they are briefed on their mission. Hamlet has transformed, inside and out, and they're to glean what afflicts him. G proposes they play the question game to rehearse their interrogation of Hamlet, but R is a goober and doesn't understand and haha and then he gets it and they get nowhere. Then real Hamlet comes, and they interrogate him, and also get nowhere. Rosencrantz, being the less self-absorbed of the two, noticed that they got their butts kicked while Guildenstern pretends that they figured stuff out. More stuff with players and then another Hamlet scene and then the players act out Hamlet and it's really meta and I don't know if either of them understands the significance of it. Then they're told to fetch Dead Polonius but they can't and now they're in barrels on a boat and so are the players because this is now Tom and Jerry or something. R realizes their insignificance first and gets freaked out and explains it to G with another role play. G understands and now he's freaked out so they do the same role-play with the roles reversed as R tries to comfort him but the second time through they're being put to death instead of Hamlet and then pirates and more barrels and no more Hamlet. Then there's an exchange between R, G and the Players about death in which a few different views of it are expressed, and then R & G both disappear and the play ends. I really liked this play.

Style/voice: Stoppard uses very short, two-word sentences in quick back-and-forth exchanges between characters. It's as if most dialogue is a game of Questions, except with statements and no score and it's not a game. This makes the play pass very fast and it's a little confusing and you'll miss stuff if you aren't really paying attention. There is a boatload of repetition, often with conversations being repeated but with roles switched. I guess this adds to the identity confusion between R & G. There's low comedy all over the place with sex jokes aplenty. The profoundness of the play is only there if you're looking for it; it hides in the goofiness of the rest of the play. One of my quotes displays that rather nicely.

Symbolism: The wind symbolizes purpose in life, I guess. Nobody, except the player, knows which way it's going. The cointoss is predestiny.

Theme: Art is artificial. It's got stuff about death, too, but I just really can't put it into anything short of a three-act extension of Hamlet.

Quotes:
R: Is there a choice?
G: Is there a God?

This quote made me laugh, but it's also one of the more bold examples of deep meanings of the play hiding in its goofiness. The play has a "There is no God" vibe in a few parts. Another one is the repeated allusion to the Lord's Prayer, where they make a joke of it, mocking the notion of a supreme deity.

Guildenstern: My - dear fellow!
Rosencrantz: How are you?
Guildenstern: Afflicted.
Rosencrantz: Really? In what way?
Guildenstern: Transformed.
Rosencrantz: Inside or out?
Guildenstern: Both.
Rosencrantz: I see. Not much new there!
This quote is like the above. It's funny, but also exemplifies R's character. He's the goofy one that doesn't try to get too deep into things, and he's happier for it. If R & G weren't meddling, delving too deep into this Hamlet business, they wouldn't have 'died'. except they would have because their sole purpose is to enact Hamlet but whatever I'm tired.

course response 7

So we finished Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I really enjoyed it. It may be my favorite thing we've read so far. Its themes and whatnot were interesting and I didn't think it was hard to find depth in the play. I don't think I'll enjoy Ceremony much, though. For one, it's not a play. Plays are novels with all the boring parts cut out. I like interaction, and words, and thoughts, and I care less for scenery and description and that stuff. Also, Native American culture (and Egyptian culture) has never been able to hold my interest. Maybe, if nothing else, I'll be able to figure out exactly why that is by reading this book.

The prep we've done for the actual exam makes me a little nervous because I'm horrible at it. I'm shooting for a two.

revision of second prompt essay

link to original: http://idontwanttogototheshowtonight.blogspot.com/2012/10/second-prompt-essay.html

ehh, it's a little better.

2004. Critic Roland Barthes has said, "Literature is the question minus the answer." Choose a novel, or play, and, considering Barthes' observation, write an essay in which you analyze a central question the work raises and the extent to which it offers answers. Explain how the author's treatment of this question affects your understanding of the work as a whole. Avoid mere plot summary.

In his 1962 novella A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess questions the merits of moral righteousness in a situation in which immorality is not feasible.

Alex, the teenage protagonist of the story, is sentenced to undergo a sort of aversion therapy for his repeated and severe crimes, rendering him incapable of violence. This is where Burgess first begins to ask what makes a morally good act. By depicting Alex, his free will revoked through government torture, as something sub-human, Burgess is taking a jab at the crime-and-punishment system. He asserts that choice is vital to morality; a moral act is only moral if it is chosen over some viable immoral option. In other words, discouraging immoral acts with a looming threat of punishment does not make one morally good, it makes one afraid.

After the treatment is finished, the "reformed" Alex is essentially thrown out onto the streets. He goes home to his parents' house, and his mother assumes he has broken out of prison illegally. She and her husband inform Alex that all of his belongings are gone, and they have rented out his room and can't accommodate him anymore. The new boarder berates Alex, causing him to break down and leave. He then goes to a library, where a bunch of old people beat him, and then some former gangmates-turned-policemen break up the violence and take Alex out of town where they beat him more themselves as revenge for their treatment under Alex's leadership. These events happen in rapid succession, creating an almost surreal personal hell for Alex. He wants to escape, or defend himself, but the thought of violence makes him ill. This is another slap on the wrist of the crime-and-punishment system, shaming it for rendering those that go through it totally defenseless in an unforgiving society. In a way, Burgess is also saying there is no absolute evil; sometimes, things like violence are not morally reprehensible.

While the treatment is in effect, Alex becomes a hollow shell. His superficial goodness (or rather, his lack of badness) means nothing because acting badly is an impossibility. When the treatment is broken, he is free to choose his actions as he pleases, but at this point he is truly reformed. He entertains the idea of settling down with a family, and imagines that his son will act out in the same ways he did, and he'll tell his son to behave, but he won't, and he shouldn't, because the ability to choose "evil" is what makes us human.