Response to Course Material (12/22)

Over the past month, we have explored the complexities and interpretations of Hamlet. One of my favorite aspects of Hamlet is Ophelia’s role. I tend to find myself disliking women characters, partly because of me and partly because of how they are written. I think I hold women characters up to a higher standard. There are still characters that I love, but I am immediately distrustful.

Ophelia is different, despite being written in a time where women were not considered equal. My immediate reaction was to assume that she understands Hamlet’s references to her being a prostitute and may have a plan to help herself and Hamlet. After watching the various versions, I did not get a strong sense that the directors wanted her to be portrayed in that way. Still, I find myself leaning to that interpretation, though the other interpretations have merit as well.

After watching so many versions, I found myself losing my original vision of how the play was acted in my head. It reminded me of re-reading the Harry Potter books after seeing the movies so many times. Reading the books, I would realize I forgot how I originally pictured it and I even forgot some of the scenes. Hamlet was the same way. I started to view the “normal” as the Branaugh and Tennant interpretations, despite the fact I did not originally view it in the way they portrayed the play. The version closest to how I pictured it was the Olivier version. The others made certain scenes (Hamlet and Ophelia) too dramatic in my opinion.

Overall, I sympathize with Hamlet. I think the main point of the main character in any piece of work is for the audience to have some connection. I have read books, like Great Expectations, where I did not feel any connection to the character and I disliked the piece more than when I read Frankenstein and hated the main character. Hamlet is a very complicated character. At times, I want to root for him, but sometimes I cannot support his actions (like sending the letter to have Rosencrantz and Guildenstern killed). Still, I think the reader is supposed to have a conflict with Hamlet, just as Hamlet is having with himself.

To explore Hamlet further we did three forum posts dealing with different interpretations of Hamlet and even specifically Ophelia. For the Tiv post, I was surprised to see so many people uncomfortable with a new Hamlet interpretation. Over the years, certain lit classes have made me complacent to interpreting literature in my own way. I am quick to let the teacher tell me what the novel, poem, play, etc. means and then just memorize it for the test. But in AP lit, I have the power to come up with my own interpretation (that is backed by evidence) and then hear other interpretations and take my interpretation and compare it. With the Tiv interpretation that is the viewpoint I took. Just viewing it as comments from classmates made it easier to judge information based on evidence. Still some parts I had to consider what I knew about the culture Shakespeare was writing in.

The prisoner NPR story was my favorite forum post to respond to. Not only does it show that people have more to offer, even if they have done bad things, but it also shows that literature can have a positive effect on people. Some people do not enjoy reading poems, books, plays, etc. but still people show they can get something new from reading literature, even a play that is hundreds of years old.

One of the last things we did was discuss an article called "Tragic Balance in Hamlet". The article definitely had some interesting points, but many people, including me, felt it was hard to get through because of the style and organization. Some of the most interesting points brought up in the essay had to do with religious references. It brought up Cain and Abel, for instance, in relation to Claudius and Old Hamlet. My mind does not automatically make these connections because I am not as familiar with the Bible as I could be. I do know the story of Cain and Abel, but there are other things I am more familiar with, like Jesus' sacrifice, Adam and Eve, and the power of three. I worry that sometimes I can miss certain references in pieces, just because I do not have the background knowledge necessary. Ms. Holmes has been helpful, with the history aspect especially, but I am hoping I will get better at recognizing references even if I am not sure exactly what they mean.

Open Prompt (12/15)

2005. In Kate Chopin’s The Awakening (1899), protagonist Edna Pontellier is said to possess “That outward existence which conforms, the inward life that questions.” In a novel or play that you have studied, identify a character who outwardly conforms while questioning inwardly. Then write an essay in which you analyze how this tension between outward conformity and inward questioning contributes to the meaning of the work. Avoid mere plot summary.

Essay A:

With the prompt answered clearly in the introduction and thesis, the essay continues with accurate and well explained analysis. One area explains, “the intense and painful struggle which Dimmesdale has encountered conveys the message that humanity’s ultimately flames nature causes its members strife, but our undeniable desires and humanity can be discovered”. This sentence takes a piece of the text (evidence) and then explains it. The sentence is representative of the whole essay in terms of analysis and sentence structure. The essay discusses the text in the present and displays an understanding of grammar. At times the arguments are less organized, but still prevalent and well explained. Overall, the scoring given by the essay graders, an 8, seems to be right for this essay. The understanding of the novel and how it relates to the prompt is complete, but some more could be put into organization.

Essay B:

The essay manages to address the prompt, with a less sophisticated argument. With a large amount of evidence, the argument that “internally, Nora wants more independence” is backed up and well explained, though there could be further analysis. At times, the sentence structure and diction is clumsy, making the overall piece less convincing. The clumsiness is shown when the author writes, “Ibsen’s purpose was to show candidly the position of women of his era”. The sentence not only could have been worded better, but  the  argument strays  from  the prompt and loses the focus of the essay. More time could have been spent analysing the argument instead of arguing for a whole new point that does not largely add to the whole essay or add to answering the prompt. Still, the essay displays a level of understanding  that  addresses some complexities within the piece allowing for a score of 6. With a more complex analysis of the work, the essay could get a higher  score.

Essay C:

This essay is only summary. Though the thesis addresses the prompt, the body of the essay fails to analyse the text further than offering it as evidence for an argument with no explanation. To start the essay, the writer rewrites the quote given in the prompt, which which wastes time and space that could be devoted to more analysis and explanation. Rewriting information from the prompt does not serve the overall argument, but instead distracts from it. Beyond the summary aspect of the essay, the writer discusses the piece of literature in the past tense writing, “now, Jane was free from the constraints of her former husbands and could become independent”. This distracts from any argument the writer has and displays a lack of understanding of writing about literature. Overall, the essay does not address  the complexities of the piece of literature and fails to form an argument that addresses the prompt. So the score given by the AP graders of a 4 is, if anything, too giving.

“American Isolato: The Rise of the Serial Killer As Anti-Hero” (Close Reading 12/8)

http://www.believermag.com/exclusives/?read=excerpt_strand

Ginger Strand’s “American Isolato: The Rise of the Serial Killer As Anti-Hero” explores the American fascination with serial killers since the late 20th century, shortly after the initial scare from the discovery of such killers. Strand uses details, diction, and syntax to highlight the true nature of serial killers compared to the image of the public viewpoint.

Detail shines as a strong factor throughout the excerpt conveying the nature of murder battles with the interest of the public. As the person that started the craze with serial killers, Ted Bundy acts as the main focus of the article. But, the public’s reaction to Bundy also needs to be highlighted to show the killer compared to how the killer is viewed. So, Strand displays just how enamored the public is with Bundy through the inclusion of the detail that “Aspen locals printed T-shirts saying, ‘Ted Bundy is a one-night stand”. In focusing on products that would typically be made by fans, Bundy seems like another celebrity, as opposed to the murderer he is. The writers furthers the display of public and media obsession, adding “when [Bundy] announced his intention to defend himself at his Florida trial, 250 reporters from 5 continents applied to the courtroom”. This detail shows how far the obsession spread. It was no longer only an American focus, but instead, a world focus. Though media and the public are seen to take a large interest in Bundy, Strand quickly shuts down the image the public receives of “a bright lawyer-to-be with a promising future in politics”. In a paragraph of his discrepancies, the last thing mentioned before his arrest is that “he abducted, raped and killed a 12-year-old girl”. With this detail, the reader is forced to notice the juxtaposition of Bundy compared to his image. With each new detail, Strand focuses the reader’s attention and builds the public’s image of a successful man, only to break it with an aspect of his true self.

The use of diction adds to Bundy as a murderer as well as Bundy as a figure in the media. Strand refers to the obsession with Bundy from the media as well as the public as “Bundymania”. This makes the interest all the more ridiculous, and shows that Strand does not look kindly on the fascination that Bundy brings in. It also furthers Bundy as a celebrity with famous things like the Twilight craze being referred to as Twilight Mania. To further that Bundy is not the same person that the public think he is, the author mentions Bundy’s efforts to portray himself as a sophisticated person by getting “the goodies”. The use of “goodies” truly shows that the image Bundy was portraying was fake and only based on the clothes he wore and things he bought, not on his actions. Beyond the media and public, even the police were deceived by Bundy. Strand claims that Bundy became the “paradigmatic” for all serial killers. Police based their assumptions of serial killer patterns after Bundy, despite the fact that Bundy’s tendencies contradicted future patterns of serial killers. Everyone fed into “Bundymania”, but Strand denies the image bought by the public, media, and even the police by saying the false assumptions, created by Bundy, make serial killers “likeable”.  The term “likeable” creates the sense that serial killers seem less severe than they really are. The diction throughout the excerpt conveys the message that instead of fearing killers, people like them and are interested in them.

The syntax used by Strand furthers the juxtaposition of the image of Bundy compared to his true self. Throughout the piece, the author uses pauses between descriptions of Bundy by the public and what is portrayed as more accurate descriptions. In one section, the author describes Bundy as, “ handsome, personable, apparently middle class and with a penchant for victims who made good copy”. The separation with “and” from positive observations of Bundy to a quick mention of his victims forces the reader to recognize Bundy as a murderer. It also compares the relationship between the real Bundy and the one seen by the public. To add to how serial killers shaped America, Strand uses interrupting phrases to get the reader to focus just in time for an important point. She exercises this when she writes, “serial killers came to be admired, not only as outlaws-- we Americans love our outlaws-- but as icons of the nation’s newly unabashed materialism”. Strand wants the reader to focus on the more important message of how serial killers relate to the American society and culture. To get the focus, she changes the sentence structure to pull the attention of the readers in. Ginger Strand uses pauses and interruptions to focus the readers attention and show the differences in how Bundy is viewed and how Bundy actually acts.