Scouts Failed to Protect Boys

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-09-23/Boy-Scouts-perversion-files/57833710/1

Editorials are all about spreading an opinion through subtle but manipulating language. This editorial, written to scorn the Boy Scout programs in the US, does an excellent job of keeping the manipulation quiet but effective. The article alone easily brings out negative reactions in the reader; few approve of sexual predators taking advantage of young boys. The writer further exaggerates this with clever use of diction, detail and syntax.

The author is clearly writing to project a negative opinion, and his word choice ties in wonderfully. Even the title of his article is clever; the scouts have not just done badly, they've "failed". This word instantly reminds people not of a small mistake or wrongdoing but of utter defeat of the highest sort, and often because of a lack of effort. He goes on to strongly claim that, "The Scouts' failure meant predators were free to stalk and abuse more innocent children, and some did." Failure, predators, stalk, abuse, innocent- all strong descriptions that, in a typical newspaper article, would be avoided in favor of less harsh words. However, he also does a good job of hiding his strong opinions, keeping out overly harsh or personal attacks that would detract from the validity of his opinion.

The detail used is limited but effective. It's worth noting that the article isn't packed with numbers and dates; rather, the author gets at the general ideas, as if trying to point out that it's not just the specific cases but the entire establishment that has a problem. However, he's not afraid to point out specific facts that he finds appalling; when pointing out that sex offender scoutmasters were allowed to simply resign, he gave the example of a scoutmaster that "In 1976, after five Scouts accused [him] of two rapes and other sex crimes, was allowed to resign." This select detail brings out the worst in the Scouts.

The sentence structure, like the diction and detail, try to press the idea that he is writing a news article instead of a personal opinion while still pushing his ideals. He uses nearly only lengthy sentences, with little variation, a rather dry and stuffy style that would be expected in unbiased news articles. It's an attempt to sound formal that succeeds. It's only his use of strong diction and selective detail that bring out his opinion, letting the syntax keep the article sounding official and reliable.

Though already assumed to have personal opinion included due to its status as an editorial, this article is expertly written to manipulate the reader while keeping their trust.

September Open 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. But how does such a classically comforting idea turn dark? This question, and its answer, is showcased excellently in The Phantom of the Opera (2005 movie). 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 was imprinted with an idea of the norm that would never leave him.

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, a mask to cover his face 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 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.

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 owl opera and then secure the lead male role as his own; but at the cost of the previous lead's life. 

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. 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. 

Reflections, Week 1

(Warning. Rambling ahead.)

Well, okay. Week one and a week or two of summer, as well. But either way, not too much has been discussed in detail, literature wise. And more than anything, with the reading we've done, I've been thinking more about why, exactly, I'm taking the course. It's certainly not for college. That's what we've discussed at length, too: what colleges want. We want to write good essays, tying in rhetoric and argument. It's information that has made me rethink all the essays I've written before. I'm not new at essay writing, after some 12 years of schooling, but the first week of AP english had me wondering why I was getting good grades. Last year I wrote many argumentative essays, and I was not writing bad arguments, but I never really learned to tie together the three types of argument. I never really put rhetorical situation into question. 

But I'm going to an art school in Australia. Writing, should my career go as planned, will not be taking precedence. Why care about how to write a good essay? As I read through Nuts and Bolts, it became more clear. I want my literature to train me to be better at communicating in general. Michael makes an effective argument on how it will make you sound more intelligent and more respectable; as he says, the "pompous style" only makes you sound… pompous. I loathe to think of myself falling into that rut. But I can see it in my writing, too. I've been letting the pompous style creep in. When he brought up how silly it made students sound, I physically winced; it was a style I'd prided myself on. Maybe I was less advanced at communication than I'd thought.

Reading Foster's book really drove home my new dedication to figure out how to write and speak more clearly. Reading about the effects of weather in literature instantly brought to mind arguments with my brother, discussing (loudly) the way weather was used in literature. He was always sure it had no real meaning, that it was something that was basically just written in because weather happens. At the time, I'd simply argued that he was wrong because when you write, you must have reason for anything to happen due to the fact that you decided to write it that way- but now my argument has gained real basis. Literature throughout history has used weather to hint at moods. "It's never just rain" indeed.

There have, of course, been other things discussed. But it was the summer reading and the powerpoints that really made me think, made me wonder at what my goals really were. Hopefully, I can actually learn to communicate through this class- and not just learn to write pretty, as I originally planned. 

An Essay on Textual Niceties

(In other words, author write good.)

        Writing and speaking in clear but articulate words is a goal that many seem content to ignore. Clarity is hard. Clarity isn't pretty. Unfortunately, clarity is the only way to effectively and powerfully get a point across without sounding alien. Michael Harvey adamantly supports plain and clear writing in her book The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing, and in David Sedaris' narrative Me Talk Pretty One Day, he shows remarkable mastery of frank but emotional writing. His essay is active and concise, two of the most important keystones of the plain style.

         "Active verbs convey action." (Harvey, 15) While a fairly obvious idea, very few writers seem to grasp the idea that action is good. Sedaris is in the minority. His essay is packed with action verbs, moving the reader along as if they were standing in that very school, struggling to understand the french of those around them. The reader stood by as "the teacher marched in," (Sedaris, 1) immediately setting a mood of military strictness and placing the reader firmly in that classroom. Throughout the essay he continues to use action to propel the reader, without any odd words to make the reader stumble over.

         The concision in Me Talk Pretty One Day is as impressive as it is convenient. Sedaris has mastered the plain sort of writing that Harvey supports, completely avoiding the "pompous style" (Harvey, 2) with short and effectively used words. Nothing is dressed up in his essay, only made stronger. Due to his plain words, the reader relates more to his plight and situation. In describing a character, he tells us plainly that she had "front teeth the size of tombstones." (Sedaris 2) He could have written about this in a much more cryptic and therefore more respectful way, but with the language he uses, we instantly imagine the character in all of her buck-toothed glory.

        Sedaris' essay may not have been perfect. He slips into passive voice, shifts between past and present perspective, and uses references not always familiar to the average drudge. But with expert use of action to push the reader along and masterful word choice and concision, Sedaris does a commendable job of writing in the same plain but powerful style that Harvey so advocates.