Prompt Revision Sept. 16 prompt

"2010, Form B. “You can leave home all you want, but home will never leave you.” —Sonsyrea Tate

Sonsyrea Tate’s statement suggests that “home” may be conceived of as a dwelling, a place, or a state of mind. It may have positive or negative associations, but in either case, it may have a considerable influence on an individual. Choose a novel or play in which a central character leaves home yet finds that home remains significant. Write a well-developed essay in which you analyze the importance of “home” to this character and the reasons for its continuing influence. Explain how the character’s idea of home illuminates the larger meaning of the work. Do not merely summarize the plot."

Home does not have to hold memories of warmth and comfort. The walls that separate shelter from the merciless wild don't necessarily keep out the cold. Often, the classic idea of the warm hearth and the happy home is turned on its head, presenting the idea of a home that left a scar. The Phantom of the Opera (2005 movie) excellently showcases how a classically comforting idea can turn dark. In the Phantom's case, his scarring impression of home started from birth, the day his mother beheld his deformed face. He was instantly unwanted, instantly feared, and instantly imprinted with an idea of the norm that would ultimately lead to a tragic downfall.

For a mother to fear her child goes against all accepted and expected norms. Mothers are understood to love and adore their child unconditionally, not hesitating or doubting because of a mental disorder, much less a simple physical deformity. That expectation dooms the Phantom. His mother hates him from birth, giving him a mask to cover his face as his first piece of clothing. It's not simply her abuse that scars him so deeply; it's the sight of well dressed young children, laughing and throwing in his face how unusual and freakish his family life is. He grows with the skewed belief that he was so terrible, his own mother was forced to fear him; far from the truth of the matter, where the blame lies squarely on his compassionless mother's shoulders. His face became something he dramatized and hid, escalating the fearful reactions of people who saw him. Because of his mother, he learned to start assuming their fear was based on not just his face, but his entire being. 

His mother's abuse centered around his deformed face- and his face would not stop haunting him. His natural defense mechanism, rage that scared off any that would potentially hurt him, only encouraged the feeling of being unwanted to imbed itself deeper within him. All that he met (spare two) feared him instantly, and his prompting them with acts of violence actively worsened the situation. If his home had taught him anything, it was that he would never be wanted; indeed, it was better to just scare away any that came close. He would never be given anything; he simply had to take it. It never occurred to him that others would ever feel differently. This natural violence lead to his making unfortunate decisions, treating even those he loved like enemies that had to be manipulated into tolerating his presence. 

Nothing but fear and rage was taught to him while occupying the gypsy freak show and his mother's house, the two places he originally called home. Love, and all concepts related to it, were left mysterious and intangible, fantasies to hover out of his reach. What he got instead of love was hate. When it came to his own passions, he had no model to follow; all he had were the lessons his mother and the operas he so coveted had taught him. Indeed, throughout the musical he employed shows of violence and poetic romance to further his goal, unable to put the cruelty of his upbringing past him. He went to great lengths to put together his own opera and then secure the lead male role as his own; but at the cost of the previous lead's life. Those who disobeyed him were to be tormented or killed. Those who tolerated him would, in his mind, betray him in the end; they had to be manipulated. His misunderstanding of human relations essentially drove him to his doom, as he could not understand the reactions of others enough to properly formulate an acceptable response. 

The memory of home is one that can be molded and changed. Few find themselves going through life with only one true home to speak of. Often, however, it's left up to others to let this happen; and for some, such as the reclusive Phantom, others are all too often unwilling to help. The play's messages about seeing past the appearance, innocence and how it can turn to evil, and how neglect can ruin the good hearted are all brought to light through his suffering. His memories of a cold and cruel home setting the standard for his life, he lived plagued by the ideas taught through such an upbringing, and it eventually engineered his fall. 

Response to Course Materials

Of the roughly three things we've been doing in class recently, the most exciting for me has been reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, which I finished in school the day we started it. This is one of the more interesting plays for me; while I enjoyed The American Dream greatly, the message was a bit heavy handed and plain, something I've had hammered into my skull many times before. R&G is, for me, far from obvious or heavy handed, and it's a fresh idea. I greatly look forward to in-class discussion, as I think this play will really help me get a grasp of how to really read into messages that aren't obvious.

Moving on to less exciting things, we've spent the majority of our time either watching/discussing the movie versions of Hamlet, or preparing for the final exam. As I discussed the movies more last time, I'll talk more about the exam here. Our acting, of course, was far from professional, but it was interesting to see the different scenes people chose. Several of them were scenes I didn't previously think of as scenes that could be interpreted two ways, which was enlightening; looking back at the text after, I could see why they were interpreted these ways using DIDLS (dang, it's useful after all). I knew that movie producers could have different interpretations of scenes that differed wildly from my own, but it was interesting to see so many from just one class.

Lastly, we've done a lot of multiple choice practice. This is extremely helpful stuff. Every time I think I know what I'm doing, and every time I miss a couple questions that were painfully obvious. I know I'm getting better; the terms are coming a bit more easily, though all those "a" ones are still hazy, and I'm starting to learn how to cross out the incorrect more efficiently. Still, I'm getting too many wrong, even with the help of a peer group. Hopefully we'll continue this.

Oh, right, and the imagery practice. Frankly, I detest it, and I hate writing things like that as a group. I feel like we're not really using "form follows function" right at all, and it takes a painfully long time to write anything down. Those kinds of things I'd much rather do alone.

I Have Issues With Hamlet.

Also known as a response to course materials.

Really, almost all we've done recently has been Hamlet. Read Hamlet, talk about Hamlet, watch Hamlet, listen to Hamlet things, read about more Hamlet things. I now understand why this course was described as "American Dream stuff, HAMLET HAMLET HAMLET HAMLET, a few other things, AP test." If the entire test is on Hamlet, I'm going to ace it. Give me a quote and I'll list the act, scene and line number, as well as all the hidden meanings or alternate interpretations you want.

Of course, as assigned literature seems to work, I hate Hamlet. Admittedly, Romeo and Juliet still takes the cake as the worst Shakespeare I've ever read, but Hamlet comes in close second. I suppose I just have issues with main characters who act like entitled, narcissistic, brooding idiots. His situation is pitiable, don't get me wrong; I'd be far from cheerful if my father had just died, and my parents wanted me to move on like it was nothing. The problem with Hamlet is that he revels in this. He considers himself the saddest of all the sad, the only one entitled to true misery because clearly he's the only one to be in a bad situation. His family has problems? Laertes just had his father killed in cold blood, has no mother to turn to, his sister was driven insane and killed herself, and oh right, he can't just kill Hamlet and get his revenge. And Hamlet says Laertes has no right to be sad...

Right, moving on to what we've actually done in class. Reading Hamlet out loud was... painful. It's never fun to read out loud text that hasn't been pre-read, and it only gets worse when that text happens to be in Shakespearian english. I like reading out loud, and I could barely struggle through it, even after abandoning all emotion. To make matters worse, Shakespearian english isn't only hard to read, it's hard to understand. That means that while struggling to keep up, we could hardly be expected to understand anything that was going on.

The films were a step up at times, but could be frustrating. I disliked the first and second versions and the third I had my issues with. The first was just boring, and the plain sets, while an understandable reach back to old times, didn't help me see the play as a world so much as... a play. The characters, too, seemed a bit flat to me, though Ophelia had her moments. Hamlet, in that version, had the creepiest voice I'd ever heard, so I couldn't take him seriously at all. The second version was a step down, for me. I didn't like the characterization of Hamlet, who was too self-preening for my tastes. The ghost made me laugh and I couldn't take anything it said (whispered? Hissed?) seriously, especially after it spat "unnatural" for the fortieth time. The fight scene at the end was... legendary. So incredibly over-dramatic, exaggerated and unrealistic that I was shocked they called it fencing. If you want a theatric sword fight, that's fine, but don't try to make it fencing!

In most respects, I found the third film a great improvement. The shift to modern times was fairly elegant, the palace was a neat and interesting choice, and Tennant played Hamlet well. Admittedly, it's a different take on the character than I had expected, adding more wild and often more realistic emotion. I was pleasantly surprised by the Hamlet/Gertrude scene, and his lounging about on the throne captured how I imagined he'd act with his faux insanity and superior language letting him get away with anything. It helped that Tennant was clearly having fun with his role (and that I'm probably more of a Tennant fangirl than I previously believed). Plus, the fight scene was an absolute blessing. Real fencing! Real, actual fencing! Hardly a single block or parry- that's how real bouts go.

It's been interesting talking about the different interpretations of Hamlet, if anything. Our discussions about how insane Hamlet is and how the relationships work have been one of the more amusing things we've done, though some of the critic interpretations made me writhe. I suppose that's just how Hamlet is going to go for me.

Anonymous targets Westboro Baptist Church for planning Newtown Picket

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/16/anonymous-targets-westboro-baptist-church-for-planning-newtown-picket

In this article discussing Anonymous's responses to the Westboro Baptist Church, the author uses selective details, strong diction and clever language to encourage an already popular anti-Westboro bias.

Bias in this article is most evident in its use of details. The details selected are extremely one-sided. Not only do Anonymous and its supporters get more quotes than the church, three to the church's two, but they also get far more attention in the article; Westboro defense and reasoning gets a total of two short paragraphs, while the entire rest of the article is directed against the group. Some details are downright deliberate, such as that Anonymous released info that "can be easily accessed on sites like armywtfmoments.com." Unbiased articles rarely directly link readers to sites where incriminating information can be found. In addition, quotes from the church are not necessarily used to counter bias. The placement of the reported tweet "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment," it was directly preceded by a reminder that this was released ''hours after the tragedy." Not only was the placement indicative of strong bias, but the diction was telling as well.

Diction plays a large role in the bias of this article. Before any facts are given, the church is called a "hate group" and is later called "vicious."All language used to describe them is negative, with no effort given to hiding clear bias. The poll attached to the article is similarly telling. There are only three choices, one deeming the group "Total lunatics" and the other, the only positive choice, "They have a point on some issues." There is no choice to support the church in any way beyond marginal agreement. However, the article is short and to the point; the word count runs out and the diction runs dry quite early, but the language is clear.

In general, news articles have a set, scholarly language. Coming off as overly biased through their language can make a story illegitimate, no matter how good the information. The article in question pulls this off fairly well, and despite questionable diction, as the language tends to stay simple and detached. This use of language lends itself to bias well. Had it been written with an emotional air, the representation of both sides would be instantly brought into question to a far greater extent, despite the fact that representation is already unequal. Facts could be suspected to be exaggerated. With the simpler style, information is given at face value, leaving it up to the reader to decide who they support.

Death of a Salesman

Setting: New York City, a small house surrounded by apartment buildings. Small, barren back yard. Kitchen. Sometimes, an office building or hotel. Post-WW2 era.

Characters

Willy- the main protagonist, and main tragedy. An aging man with a stubborn streak and a dream to become a success by being "well liked." Refuses to accept reality and fades into his own memories. Puts his dreams on Biff's shoulders before killing himself. Awestruck by the American Dream.

Biff- the second main protagonist. A realist, sees the world as it is and understands the futility of Willy's dream. Always willing to accept cruel truths and work past them. Represents the west, happiness and opportunity. Popular jock.

Happy- Biff's brother. A lot like Willy. Doesn't accept the truth, carries on Willy's dream. Very sexual.

Linda- Willy's wife. Never sexualized. Always supportive of Willy and his dreams, even though they end up hurting him. Also blind to the real world. 

Howard- Willy's boss. Very new-world, merciless and self-centered. Doesn't care about sentiment. 

Charley- Willy's neighbor and only friend. Not very close, doesn't get along well with Willy. Willy's foil- succeeded by accepting the world as it is. 

Bernard- Charley's son and Biff's foil. Found success because his father didn't press him. Unpopular geek kid. 

Ben- Willy's brother. Usually seen in non-memory hallucinations. The epitome of success, if through questionable means. 

Plot

-Willy comes home after nearly crashing the car. Rants for a while as Linda tries to calm him, then goes downstairs to get food. 

-Boys hear him. Share optimistic plans.

-Collectively, the family makes a plan to get Biff and Happy into business. 

-Argument. Linda reveals Willy's plan to kill himself.

-Optimistic morning. Willy leaves and is fired.

-Goes to dinner with his boys. Biff reveals that the plan failed. Willy goes into his memory.

-Remembers his affair.

-All go home. Biff tells Willy he's leaving for good. Willy agrees.

-Willy gets in a car and kills himself to give the insurance to Biff.

-Funeral. 

(More details in your annotations and in Sparknotes- make use of resources)

Voice/Style

Point of view- A play. Limited omniscient. Typically following Willy, even through his memories. 

Tone- very grim and agitated, like nothing is right. Never comfortable. Happy scenes are overly optimistic and carry a note of dread. Sad scenes are hopeless and brutal. 

Imagery- Not much, being a play. Setting was set well and conveys the message of the play early on. Willy's movements bring out a lot of emotion and characterization. 

Symbolism- Full of it. See annotations inside book cover for full list and notes. 

Quotes
"Nothing’s planted. I don’t have a thing in the ground."-Willy
-Basically Willy's life in one line. He's toiled and toiled and toiled, but nothing has been done. He'll leave nothing behind to grow, and nothing he's done has come to fruition.
"The only thing you got in this world is what you can sell. And the funny thing is that you’re a salesman, and you don’t know that." -Charley

-Willy isn't made for his job. He wants to be sentimental, but his job is demanding and very material. He only cares about memories but the world only cares about the things he can sell. 

Theme

-The capitalistic world will eat you alive if you buy into it, and only by breaking away can you be happy.

-Biff goes to the west to find opportunity, away from the more capitalistic east.

-The tragedy takes place in cities and the business world.

-The apartments, car, devices, etc. are all from a capitalistic world and all fail Willy.

-Whenever they're in a business-like situation, tragedy occurs. 

Response to Course Materials (Dec 2)

The majority of our time in class has been spent with Death of a Salesman, more specifically the film version. I was honestly rather surprised that we spent so much time going over the movie and so little (in comparison, at least) time going over the actual text. Perhaps it just felt that way to me because I dislike the movie more. Either way, it was really quite interesting to compare the two, as we spent several days doing. I hadn't realized there'd been any changes made at all until I read the book as the movie played in the background. It certainly gave me some respect for the filmmakers. I had assumed cutting out text would be fairly easy, but reading the text with that in mind made me realize how much every line counted. Cutting even a single line took away from the conflicts and characterization. I suspect it's mostly because of its form as a play. It's meant to be acted out, so fluff is just a waste of the audience's time.

The rest of our time has been spent reading Hamlet aloud. I am extremely glad Mrs. Holmes is here for this. Typically, out-loud readings of Shakespeare's plays are nothing but painful in highschool classes. Nobody knows how to pronounce his abbreviations, everyone is so confused with their words that adding any actual spirit or voice is impossible, and we're bombarded with new, complex information at such a fast rate that actually comprehending it is a mammoth task best reserved for later readings. Mrs. Holmes has made the "comprehending" part a lot easier. Frustratingly, I'm still baffled by some of the language, and her explanations make everything fall into place. She's also added a lot to the characters, which I found rather flat before. Polonius is my favorite.

I'm looking forward to reading more of the play. While I don't doubt that it's brilliant, I've heard so much about it and it's been referenced so many times that I have to wonder what about it makes it so memorable. Hopefully we can find out.

Twinkie Maker Hostess to Close

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324556304578122632560842670.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6


     In a possible attempt to mourn the passing of an old and well-known company, this article covering the reasons for Hostess's end shows a clear bias against unions through the use of strong diction, selective detail, and imagery.
     The article starts off with strong, positive word choice concerning Hostess, and this trend continues. The second paragraph describes Hostess products as "iconic treats", and Wonder Bread as a "pantry staple". Indeed, Hostess foods are rarely called anything but "treats" or "baked goods". The word "treats" implies sweetness and fondness, a rarity to be relished. The only counters used are mentions of consumer wishes for "healthier snacks", which implies only that the products are not living up to new health standards, not that they are any less than a favorite. Diction is also used against the unions. When courts and the Hostess company cut wages, the union was stated to "relent" in its resistance, as if they were harshly attacking the company. There is little harsh language when it comes to the companies actions against the unions.
     Detail use in the article is extremely selective, making a point of how much the company is loved and how much it flourished, as well as taking the blame off of it. Union strikes were said to "affect roughly two thirds of Hostess's 36 plants, and made it impossible for the company to continue producing its baked goods". The damage that would be done to union workers was mentioned, but more attention was spent to Hostess. Notably, their "more than $2 billion in annual sales." By repeatedly mentioning the success of the company, it is shown in a favorable light, and the unions that participated with it are blamed for its failure.
     The argument further praises Hostess through limited but effective use of imagery. One woman recalled that "her mother put Twinkies in her lunch", and a man desperate for Wonder Bread "left with two shopping carts full of the bread." These little stories bring to mind people who are fond of Hostess foods, and bring on a nostalgic feeling to readers.