DAY 1 - CYCLE 4 - SEMESTER 2

Today, we worked with Mr. Matt Daniels of Milwaukee Shakespeare Theatre. Mr. Daniels is an actor and director here in town, and he led us through the first three scenes of Macbeth, where we encounter the witches, Macbeth and Banquo, and the fascinating prophecy the witches give the soldiers: Macbeth, already Thane of Glamis by inheritance, is told he will be Thane of Cawdor and King, too. Banquo, though destined not to be king, is told he will be father of kings.

We did a series of warm up exercises, from stretching out the muscles of our necks to practing our elocution of consonants, and then we did a cold reading of the first two scenes. Once we understood the plot, Mr. Daniels had us choose words and gestures that we thought captured the essences of these characters. He had us first speak and then shout these terms and act out the gestures so that we felt the meaning of the play rather than just read it. Then acted a few portions out. Using our chosen words, we also created whispered soundscapes for the actors, adding to the tension of the witches' actions.

Our discussions and actions helped us to understand that both the witches and these hardy Scottish generals are comfortable with violence and revenge: the witches prefer to meet in violent weather, have control over nature, and conspire to torture a man at sea for 81 weeks, just because his wife would not share chestnuts. Macbeth and Banquo conquer not one, but two armies in a day, and bathe in the blood of their enemies with great relish. These are creatures who are not squeamish, do not balk, and seem to know no fear. Or do they?

YOUR HOMEWORK:
Write a few sentences in answer to the following question: How does Macbeth feel about and what does he think about what the witches tell him? You'll want to look at the same scenes we looked at today.

I'd also like you to write up questions about confusing lines, works, markings and syntax. There is plenty left over from these first three scenes that I am sure you do not understand. For instance, What is the difference between I and I'? Bring your questions with you to class.

An important thing to note at the outset: we're not going to understand everything about this play as we go, and you SHOULD experience uncertainty as we make our way through. Ask questions. Say "slow down!" when you're lost. Come in for help.

DAY 5 - CYCLE 3 - SEMESTER 2

Today, we worked in the lab for half an hour, and then went to Mellowes for story time where I read to you a modernized version of the opening events of Macbeth. Tomorrow, we will begin the play in earnest by working with Matt Daniels, and actor with the (now defunct, alas) Milwaukee Shakespeare Company. Report to Mellowes Hall tomorrow, and bring your Macbeth books with you! (See picture.)

Bring your argument papers, too! Remember, you need a cover page and a Works Cited page. Please consult the assignment sheet, the MLA guide, and http://www.noodletools.com/ to help.

DAY 4 - CYCLE 3 - SEMESTER 2

Today, everyone worked in the computer lab on the argument essay. We will do the same thing Thursday. The homework is to do work on the essay. The final product is due on FRIDAY.

You MUST know your guiding logic in order to write this effectively, and that means you need to question your assumptions. Let's say you are arguing that USM should install multiple computer terminals in every classroom. The key assumption (premise) behind this is that computers are necessary to learning in the modern day. To effectively prove your case about adding computers in the classrooms, you must first convince your audience that computers are essential to learning. Then, the idea of adding more computers to the school seems like a logical next step for the school to take. If you know your basic premises well and try to convince your audience of those, the conclusion will seem quite attractive to your reader. So, know your logic!

And remember, you can use a conversational tone, talk about yourself and take similar approaches to get your reader to identify with you. Try reading your paper out loud to your parent(s); not only will they be thrilled to have you share your thoughts with them (I know, I know, this may not seem appealing, but they aren't going to be as critical as you fear and they'll be honored that you asked), they'll let you know just how convincing you are. It works better if you read it aloud to them, and much better if they read it aloud to you. Ears will catch what eyes do not.

HOMEWORK
Write, revise for stronger phrasing and better organization, edit for errors. Repeat. (Notice that "writing" is only about 33% of what you should be doing. Drafting and then giving it a lick and a polish is not the way to go about this.) Final draft is due on FRIDAY. See original assignment sheet for specifications.

DAY 3 - CYCLE 3 - SEMESTER 2

Today, we took the sentence diagramming quiz on Lessons 16-18. Afterwards, we looked at two sample introductory paragraphs to an argumentative essay (handout to be posted online on Tuesday). Each had merits and weaknesses, but one was more effective than the other (not necessarily better). Afterwards, you worked in small groups to draft your own sample introductions. While you worked, I checked your research articles. For those of you who are having issues finding something of use, go see Mrs. Ihrke. The woman is a font of profoundly useful information, and can give you tailored advice that will help get you going in the right direction, if not right to your actual destination.

For those of you who are dealing with school related issues (any school, not necessarily limited to USM), you might also try http://www.eric.ed.gov/. ERIC is a database of education related articles.

Homework for tonight:
Prepare TWO possible introductions to your own essay. They should be quite different from one another. Try using different appeals in your opening (e.g. one logical and data based, on pathetic and anecdotal). You'll need to have a good idea of just what it is you want your reader to feel or think by the end in order to craft this well, so give it some serious thought.

Tomorrow, groups 4 and 6 will meet in the computer lab to work on your essays, and group 2 will do the same on Wednesday.

Bon soir, mes amis.

DAY 2 - CYCLE 3 - SEMESTER 2: The argument paper overview

Today, we went over the basics of the argument paper. I provided a three page handout (on wikispace) and showed you how you can use both Proquest and Sirs. Proquest and Sirs are subsription databases that give you access to reliable newspapers, journals, magazines, etc.

If you were absent today, most of your questions will probably be answered by the handout itself. HOWEVER, it's unlikely that you'll have a full understanding from that alone, so you should schedule a few minutes to come in and I can address important points.

As I noted in class, you will be providing a WORKS CITED page on this paper, and you can read more about what exactly that is in the MLA handout from earlier this year. Essentially, it gives all the defining features of the sources you use so that anyone who reads your work can go out and consult the very same sources. That's why people are so fussy about citation format--it's the standardization of the trade, in much the same way that lightbulb or outlets are standardized so everyone can use them the same way.

I then showed you a fabulously remarkable tool that will make your citation jobs a joy: www.noodletools.com. Go to the website, and click the last link in the center column: "NoodleBib Express." BOOKMARK THIS SITE. By plugging in data, you can generate perfectly formatted citations! Well, you need to tweak margins and spacing, but the punctuation will be perfect!! Nifty, huh?

HOMEWORK
1. Study for sentence diagramming quiz on lessons 16-18
2. Pick (and post, if you haven't already) your topic for your argument paper.
3. Using ProQuest and SIRS, find TWO articles that you could use for your paper.

Have a great weekend and let me know what questions you have!

DAY 1 - CYCLE 3 - SEMESTER 2: Inaugural speech, paper overview

Today, we resumed sentence diagramming with Lesson 18: Interrogative Adverbs and Adjectives.

Then we discussed the inaugural address. At the end of class, you handed in your journals. My questions to you were these:

• What did the speech attempt to do?
• How did it attempt to do it?
• Did it work with you? Why or why not?
• Is it a good speech overall?
• According to his premises and assumptions, what is the role of government?
• According to his premises and assumptions, what is the role of citizen?

Every inaugural address attempts to redefine the relationship between a citizenry and its government, setting forth the President's vision for how both should behave, and what each may reasonably expect from the other. In addition, an inaugural address encourages citizens to tie their personal fates to the fate of the nation, to recognize that each are inextricably entwined, however difficult it may be to recognize that in the course of day to day life. Indeed, our fates are indeed entwined: traditional American values do define who we are, and what we take for granted. We expect our phones to work, our roads to be patched, our water to run clean, our children to be educated, our hospitals to treat us when we are sick or injured, our universities to teach us skills that will bring us to the forefront of our chosen fields. We expect our fates to be within our own control, and not in the hands of a dictator or limited by a caste system. These expectations are not shared around the world; we must remember they are remarkable, despite their simplicity. We see class distinctions as permeable, and aspiration not only as a defining force, but a fundamental right--in short, there are truths we really do believe to be self-evident. We recognize why others want to come here, why we want to stay here, but sometimes struggle to remember that our collective wants and actions are, in fact, the essence of who we are as a country, and not just as individuals. An inaugural address is meant to remind us of this shared destiny so that we may treat it with the dignity and responsibility it deserves. By connecting us with these extraordinary foundations of our past, a good inaugural address helps us not only glimpse the better future these foundations make possible, but inspire us to commit ourselves to the work of bringing ourselves there.

Obama's speech promoted the virtues of personal responsibility, restraint, dedication to hard work, diplomacy and pragmatism. Some of you said he spoke to us like a father speaks to a child who needs encouragement, and perhaps a bit of chastising. We have neglected some of our duties as citizens, he implies, by not showing restraint, or demanding restraint in our nation's institutions or corporate citizens. We need to recognize that we are in troubled waters, and that only hard work and a sense of common purpose will help us find calmer shores. We have all the skills and convictions we need to meet this challenge, he notes; now we must put them to use:

“Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and begin again the work of remaking America,” he said. “What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character than giving our all to a difficult task."

Elizabeth Alexander's inaugural poem (which, quite frankly, is better on paper, in my humble opinion) obliquely referenced these same ideas in the concrete images of poetry:

She tied the poem to the speech, and she tied the poem to the occasion, but all throughout it, I kept thinking of a different poem--one I think is better at capturing the spirit they each wish to kindle: Marge Piercy's "To Be of Use."

The people I love the best
jump into work head first
without dallying in the shallows
and swim off with sure strokes almost out of sight.
They seem to become natives of that element,
the black sleek heads of seals
bouncing like half submerged balls.

I love people who harness themselves, an ox to a heavy cart,
who pull like water buffalo, with massive patience,
who strain in the mud and the muck to move things forward,
who do what has to be done, again and again.

I want to be with people who submerge
in the task, who go into the fields to harvest and work in a row and pass the bags along,
who stand in the line and haul in their places,who are not parlor generals and field deserters
but move in a common rhythm
when the food must come in or the fire be put out.

The work of the world is common as mud.
Botched, it smears the hands, crumbles to dust.
But the thing worth doing well done
has a shape that satisfies, clean and evident.
Greek amphoras for wine or oil,
Hopi vases that held corn, are put in museums
but you know they were made to be used.
The pitcher cries for water to carry
and a person for work that is real.

It's worth reflecting upon.

Thank you for your comments today, and your own commitment to work. My work is a joy because you take your work seriously. That's worth reflecting upon, too.

YOUR HOMEWORK:

• Tonight, you are creating a list of "The top three things an author should do to create a strong introduction to an argument." To do this, you will need to reconsider the two essays we have read, and the inugural address. YOU SHOULD ALSO read the introductory paragraphs of SEVEN other essays in the Seagull Reader (your choice). On a piece of paper, please write down the PAGE, the TITLE & AUTHOR, and bullet point a few DEFINING FEATURES of the introductions you have chosen. Once you have created a list of defining features, create your top three list. (Question: in this assignment, am I asking you to think deductively or inductively? If you don't know, you need to review the introduction again.)
• GROUPS 4 and 6: Please add your suggestions for potential paper topics of interest to USM students to the wikispace.

COMING UP

• THURSDAY: The full paper assignment & Research overview: Using SIRS and Proquest/Citations
• MONDAY: Sentence diagramming quiz & Paragraph fluidity and dealing with counter arguments
• TUESDAY/WEDNESDAY/THURSDAY: Time in computer lab to work on paper
• FRIDAY: Paper due: we begin Macbeth.

DAY 5 - CYCLE 2 - SEMESTER 2

HAPPY INAUGURATION DAY!
In class, groups 4 and 6 took the vocabulary quiz, discussed Katha Pollitt's major and minor premises and her overall conclusion. With what time remained, we continued to work on the Seagull Reader introduction. If you haven't finished it, you will definitely want to do so.

You must have a solid understanding of the three ways that speakers--through voice or written word--try to reach their audiences:

• LOGICAL: These are the appeals that describe the merits of the case, the reasons why you should act or behave in a particular way
• ETHICAL: These are the statements that add to author credibility. That which makes you trust or identify with the author is an ethical appeal.
• PATHETIC: This is an appeal to your emotions. It might describe someone else's emotional state or a situation designed to invoke your anger, fear, sense of protectiveness, patriotism, or love. A pathetic argument is said to be true when it invokes emotions that propel you toward logic, rather than encouraging you to act without a logical basis.

In discussing Katha Pollitt's work, I asked you to identify her

• major premise: gender differences result from environmental rather than biological differences (i.e. nurture matters more than nature)
• minor premise: parents find it easier, more convenient, and self-forgiving to believe gender differences result from "nature" rather than "nurture"
• conclusion: In choosing this belief, parents reinforce socially-constructed, gender-based behaviors.

Similar derivations are entirely acceptable. Once you have the larger ideas down, it's easier to ask questions of her (or any) assessment: does she ever explain why biological theories are inferior to environmental theories? Why should I believe her? Etc.

While she effectively gets her audience to reconsider how we nurture differences in children, does she effectively dispute biological theories? Not so much, and that's a weakness of the argument.

Go over the introduction to the Seagull Reader again to make sure you understand the basic issues at play in any appeal to you. Tonight, you'll be looking at the appeals our new President is making to us, as he seeks to have us share his vision and contribute in the work of bringing about a new America.

HOMEWORK

First, read everything above carefully: really, really carefully.

Download the printed copy of the inauguration speech from today and TYPE a one to two page journal in response to the following questions:
PART ONE: Assess what the speech attempts to do.

• What actions does President Obama want you to take? What beliefs does he want you to hold?
• What logical, ethical and pathetic arguments does he use to get you to act/believe?

PART TWO: Evaluate whether or not it does it well.

• Is this a good speech? Justify your assessment of it.

You might find it helpful (or confusing, so ignore this if you tend to be easily distracted/influenced) to see what other speechwriters have had to say about the speech.

Have fun with this. Talk about it over the dinner table. You are citizens (or respectful residents) of this nation, with a vested interest in its prosperity and peace. You have a role in creating that prosperity and peace; did he convince you to take that responsibility seriously?

DAY 4 - CYCLE 2 - SEMESTER 2 - Group 2 only

Thanks to the days off of school, Group 2 had an extra class. In it, we took the vocabulary quiz and covered the Politt essay. Your homework? Type your argument essay ideas on the wikispace, making sure you read the paragraphs at the top.

DAYS 3-4 - CYCLE 2 - SEMESTER 2

Cold days!

Group 2, your vocab quiz is on Monday. Groups 4 and 6, yours is on Tuesday.

HOMEWORK:
Study for quiz;
Wednesday night's homework still applies;
Drink hot chocolate, bundle up, etc. Twilight series readers, enjoy!

DAY 2 - CYCLE 2 - SEMESTER 2

Today, we covered lesson 17 in the Sentence Diagramming workbook, more about Possessive Nouns. This lesson includes new layers of lines, so it might seem a bit tricky at first, but the logic is the same as for all attributive adjectives.

Then, we began our discussion of the Tannen and Pollitt essays, starting with the Tannen essay.

First, I provided you with a copy of some of her basic premises, and I asked you to agree or disagree with each one, using your anecdotal support from the past couple of days to help you make a determination:

1. Girls define themselves and their relationships through the way the talk to one another.
2. Boys define themselves and their relationships through the way they act with one another.
3. Boys engage in "ritual opposition" in almost all activities.
4. Boys use language to establish hierarchy.
5. Class discussion is inherently modeled to prefer boys' methods of speaking.
6. Debate relies upon competitive chllenges, and thus favors boys.
7. These language differences appear to be "Nature," not "Nurture."
8. Women learn by "contextualizing" (understanding things from a variety of views, seeing things from the author's perspective, connecting it to real-life experiences, etc.) Men see this as "soft."
9. Men learn by dismantling and then rebuilding. Women see this as "combative."
10. "Many, if not most" women shrink from being challenged nd find it humiliating.
11. Men prefer to speak in public.
12. Women prefer to speak in private.
13. Women think it is rude to seek the conversational spotlight.
14. Men think it is their job to seek the conversational spotlight.
15. Women who avoid speaking in large groups are likely to thrive in small groups, especially if partnered with people like them.
16. Those who are more passive, polite, or restrained in their conversational style do not have the same educational opportunities as their more assertive peers.
17. Small group interactions in a classroom help promote fairness to all learning styles.

I then asked you to add any underlying assumptions you see operating here; in other words, what are her general, implied or partially stated assumptions about girls, boys, and classrooms?

Once those were identified, I asked you to construct an approximation of her deductive and inductive arguments, and to note any invalidity or fallacies you saw at work.

We then left it open to general discussion about the essay. At the end of class, I asked you to take three to five minutes to write about how this has changed your ideas about class discussions in general.

HOMEWORK:

1. Write down the premises and assumptions for the Pollitt essay, and then identify her deductive and inductive arguments. We'll discuss that essay tomorrow.

2. Generate a list of THREE potential topics for an argument paper of potential interest to USM students. (Assigned lunch tables? No cut policy? Paying for music downloads? etc. And no, these should not be in your list.)

DAY 1 - CYCLE 2 - SEMESTER 2

Today, we covered Lesson 16 in the Sentence Diagramming Workbook: Interjections and Proper Nouns. Egad! Jinkies! Holy jumping jenny-wren! Great fun was had by all. See me if you would like to check your answers.

Then, it was on to the introduction of the Seagull Reader. Here, some of the basics about rhetoric are laid out, giving you the tools you need to assess an argument. I had you work on a study guide in class. You can find it on the wikispace. Learning this stuff at first might not strike you as inherently interesting (learning the vocabulary of any process usually isn't), but the process itself is actually good fun and rather gratifying once you've had some practice. Think an argument is silly, unconvincing, askew, or totally compelling? Now you can explain why! Who knows; perhaps you'll grow so good at it that you'll become a rhetoric major, which is great groundwork for all you budding lawyers.

The first thing to understand is the difference between a DEDUCTIVE argument and an INDUCTIVE argument. A deductive argument starts with a general premise and ends with a specific conclusion.








An inductive arguments examines several examples to draw a general conclusion.





If you understand these basic points, the "logical arguments" section of the introduction should make a good deal of sense to you. The "fallacies" (logical errors) section might be a bit tougher since not all fallacies are explained well.

For example, BEGGING THE QUESTION, or "circular logic" is not necessarily well-explained in the book. However, the following example serves nicely:

Examples of BEGGING THE QUESTION:

• Bill: "God must exist."
• Jill: "How do you know."
• Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
• Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
• Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
  
  
• "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
  
  
• "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
  
  
• Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
• Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
• Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
• Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."[1]
  
  [1] "Fallacy: Begging the Question." The Nizkor Project. 2009. 13 Jan. 2009 .
  

In the RED HERRING FALLACY, the following happens:
TOPIC A is introduced;
TOPIC B is introduced and it's implied that it's related to topic A, but it really isn't;
TOPIC A is abandoned.

For example:

• Imposing harsher consequences for uniform violations makes sense.
• Visitors to University School are impressed by the students' appearance and the campus.
• In these tough economic times, we need to make a good impression.

At the end of this, you still have no idea why it's a good idea to impose harsh consequences for uniform violations.

We'll continue our work on the introduction in class.

HOMEWORK:

1. Read the above.

2. Read Katha Pollitt's essay, "Why Boys Don't Play with Dolls" in the Seagull Reader starting on page 186 of the book.

3. Complete your anecdotal notes on "class dynamics" for each of your classes. That sheet is also available on the wikispace.

VOCAB QUIZ ON DAY 5 OF THIS CYCLE!

CYCLE 1 - DAY 5 - SEMESTER 2

Today in class, we covered the last 5 words of unit 6. Our quiz will be at the end of the week.

Then, I had you break up into small groups and discuss the two articles on trash television. I asked you to identify how each author appealed to you--logically, ethically, and/or emotionally. I then asked you to discuss which of the essays is better and why. While you had some strong opinions on these essays, you had a hard time explaining those opinions. Your answers indicated that a better understanding of basic rhetoric would be quite helpful in explicating these essays on a structural level. So, tomorrow, we will work our way through the introduction. It might not be riveting, but it will be extremely useful.

On Wednesday, we'll talk about the Tannen essay and the Politt essay that I'll assign tomorrow night ("Why Boys Don't Play with Dolls"). Thursday, we'll do some brainstorming about topics of interest to you.

HOMEWORK:
1. Write sentences on the wikispace
2. Bring your sentence diagramming book to class tomorrow
3. Read Deborah Tannen's essay "Coversational Styles" on pages 231-238 of The Seagull Reader.
4. Take notes on the class dynamic in each of your classes using the worksheet passed out in class and made available on the wikispace (scroll to end of page).

CYCLE 1 - DAY 4 - SEMESTER 2

Today, we covered words 11-15 in unit 6 of the vocabulary book, I collected your journals from yesterday and today, and we started our argument unit.

I also pointed out that the 3rd quarter ends February 18th. Yikes! While it may not have much repercussion in English, you should be aware that classes which have a quiz/quiz/test format may be a little tough this quarter. (If you really hate this idea, consider writing your argument paper about it...)

Today we read an article by Susan Crabtree: "How Trash TV Pulls America Down the Tubes." Clearly, she wants her reader to take a dim view of television talk shows, but how does she try to get you to think that way? I asked you to look for three kinds of appeals:

1. Those made to your common sense/intelligence;
2. Those made to you moral sensibilities/understanding of right and wrong;
3. Those made to your emotions.

Though we got through the reading, we didn't get a chance to discuss the appeals, but will do so on Monday, when we discuss articles covering both sides of the trash TV debate: "cultural rot" or "moral reinforcement"? The article also mentions some controversial Calvin Klein ads and the furor they sparked. To learn more about them and what resulted, click here. Really makes you wonder about the company, or at least about their choice in advertisers...

I also mentioned today that Jerry Springer once had a respectable career in politics (insofar as such a thing is possible, of course...). His meteoric rise to fame and spectacular plunge to the nadir that is daytime TV makes for great, epic drama. You can hear all about it here. (See? "This American Life" IS a great show!) Do you buy his excuses for what he does, or is he some kind of evil out of Mordor?

This isn't mandatory, but I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about the likes of daytime talk shows, South Park and the like. Do they damage the moral fabric of society? What would your Middle School morality test have to say? You (and I) are exposed to a veritable cesspool through media, and yet you all strike me as thoughtful, kind, reflective souls who genuinely do what is good for the community and yourselves. Why aren't you tainted if this is the kind of crap you can get your hands on? Fun stuff, these cultural debates. Do tell your opinions!

YOUR HOMEWORK (DUE MONDAY, JAN. 12):

1. Write sentences on the wikispace.

2. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's "In Defense of Talk Shows" on pages 60-63 of the Seagull Reader (forget your book? NO PROBLEM.). TIME magazine has the article on line!

For each article, identify the types of appeals named above.

CYCLE 1 - DAY 3 - SEMESTER 2

We tackled the next five words in unit 6, and I checked your journals for last night. (Paul, Alex and Shorty, I know yours are posted on line, and Wil, thanks for the correction!)

Using your journals as fodder and preparation, I posed the following question: Did the Kato and Nakane families have their priorities straight in their treatment of each other and in their response to the external threats that faced them? How so or why not?

You took notes in response to that question, and those are posted on the wikispace. One particular theory came up about Old Man Gower as metaphor for Canada's relationship with the Japanese in their midst. As a kindly neighbor, he is expected to watch out for the Nakane family, especially Naomi. Instead,he clearly exploits her. He tells her to tell no one. Bizarrely, she seeks him out on her own, though she recognizes her behavior is shameful if pleasurable, a recognition that psychologically isolates her from the rest of her family (see page 77). So, if he represents Canada, as protector,he fails the test and instead damages and exploits that which he is supposed to protect. The consequences of this for Naomi also suggest the fractured Japanese families who cannot effectively connect to one another (consider the relationships of just about everyone else in the book, particularly Stephen). For her part as representation of Japanese-Canadians, Naomi returns to Gower, just as Uncle and Obasan claim gratitude for all that Canada has given them, just as Stephen embraces Euro-Canadian culture, just as Emily takes pride in being a Canadian citizen. And Gower, as Canada, imposes the silence that Emily constantly confronts. I think the theory holds water. If this was her intention, how well did she execute it, and what other symbolic interpretation does this invite? For instance, when she puts the baby chicks in with the hen! That's for you to decide.

Your homework:

1. Write sentences on the wikispace;
2. TYPE a more formal journal entry (1.5-2 pages in length, double spaced) that addresses the question from today's class, OR that answers one of the questions you posted on the "Cycle 1 - Day 1 - Semester 2" blog post, using specific instances from the novel and from your own experience/knowledge. You should provide ample, specific detail and incorporate quotations, but you are not restricted to the 12-sentence format.

CYCLE 1 - DAY 2 - SEMESTER 2: Obasan and the world questions

We began class with the first five words of Unit 6 vocabulary. All three sections then moved on to dispiriting conversations. While the questions were undeniably splendid, the topics were just too weighty to get off of the ground.

We talked about issues of loyalty, dealing with the past, and coping with percieved threats. In the novel, Obasan dealt with trouble by being silent. Emily wouldn't shut up and kept agitating. Naomi is closer to Obasan in the spectrum, but it certainly doesn't seem as if any of the characters have found a sort of magical cure.

In one class, we moved on to talk about honesty within families. You'd want to know if your family had some hidden secret, even if it didn't directly affect you (e.g. one of your parents had a brief marriage before you arived on the scene). Yet, you noted that quite frankly, you've been in situations that you feel are none of your parents' business, or that perhaps they would not approve of the situation, but you trust your own good judgment and justify not saying anything to them because you think they'll over-react. The question I posed was this: how come you deserve honesty in matters that don't directly involve you, yet they don't deserve honesty in matters that do not directly involve them? It's worth pondering. All of you said that your parents have given you good advice, and you do honor their opinion. Perhaps some of the splendid questions you developed could be fodder for dinner conversation.

I asked you for homework to address the following:
Under what circumstances should loyalty to each matter more than any of the others?


In other words, under what circumstances should you put "self" before "family" or "family" before "friends." I'd like you to write a page long journal entry on this. If you'd like to post it as a lengthy comment, that's fine by me. Be sure to bring your vocabulary books with you tomorrow, and write sentences on the wikispace.

CYCLE 1 - DAY 1 - SEMESTER 2: Bad Apples and Obasan

ADDITION: I notice that someone voted the book as an "A" and there are still two people who give it a "B." If you do like this lyrical, emotive style of writing that offers plenty of couched and not-so-couched social commentary, I recommend Toni Morrison, Isabel Allende, and Milan Kundera as authors to seek out. They're old school (Kundera hit his heyday in the late seventies through the nineties; Morrison started publishing in the seventies, gobbled up headlines in the eighties and nineties, and has won a nobel prize in the past decade; and Allende has been going strong since the eighties), but they are masters of their craft and do their particular style of writing exceptionally well. I am sure that Ms. Ihrke has plenty of suggestions as well.
******************

Since you took your exam in the morning (hope it went well for you), we did a fairly easy activity in class. We listened to the prologue segment of a recent episode of radio program "This American Life" (click here for a link to the program). In case you were absent, please click the link and listen to the program. Here's how:



Click on the link circled in the picture below (near the bottom, left of center).




The part of the program I want you to listen to takes place between 2:06 and 13:55 of the program. (There's a moment around 9:20 when it sounds like they might be done, but they're not, so keep listening!)

Anyway, the reason I had you listen to this is that in my informal poll about the book on this blog, 95% of respondents give it a grade of C or below (40% are at D). Yeesh. This suggests the potential for lots of "bad appl-ing" (to coin a phrase). We don't have to be crazy about the novel to learn from it, so I want us each to think about how we each can effectively do that over the next few days without being the bad apple that infects the room. And if one of us devolves into bad behavior by being a bully, a pessimist or a sloth, call us on it gently (myself included!).


Toward that end, here's your homework for tonight: I issue you a challenge! We will talk about this book through Thursday of this week. On Thursday night, you'll be writing a journal about it, topic to be determined based on what happens this week. So that we'll have positive discussions that generate interest and participation, I'd like you to develop a question that stems from the novel but which extends to the world outside of it. For example, "Is it ever right to impose distance between yourself and your family?" or "Is silence the best way to get over a troubling time?" In the novel, Obasan might say yes to the latter question, and Emily would sanctimoniously shout "No!" Based on your own experience, family culture, etc., you might have a different answer entirely. Whether or not we like the writing, the novel does raise questions that are important to ponder as we figure out our own time here on earth. Your job is to develop a question that invites discussion and contemplation, giving us the option of looking to the novel for answers, but enough of an out that we aren't stuck with a bad apple problem. Write your question as a comment to this blog post, or if you have issues with posting, send it to me as an email. Please make sure you sign your comment/question with your first name and last initial so I can be sure to give you credit for your work.

Welcome back, everyone!