Welcome Back!

     Well, I never expected to see you here again.  But life can be funny that way.  (Funny peculiar, not funny ha-ha.)  But I think this site can be useful to us.

     I would like our classes to do some Guided Independent Reading this year.  I've been trying to find a appropriate website, but I haven't found one yet.  We'll be using this one, sometimes in tandem with another -- Edmodo.com.


     To get started with Edmodo, click here.  When you get to the front page, click on "I'm a student".  This will take you to a "Sign In" page.  Your group code is: rs1vi1 .  (Those are ones, by the way, not l's.)  Then pick out your user name and password.  (My advice -- keep it simple, students.  There won't be anything here worth stealing.)  If you include an email (optional) you will be notified of assignments, and my responses to your responses.

If at First You Don't Succeed. . .

                                                           TRY, TRY AGAIN!

I came across this Op-Ed piece earlier in the week that caught my attention.  It starts off with "The Great Gatsby" (sic), then moves on to what the author, George Packer, calls "modern celebrity" -- which he links to social inequality.

Over at Edmodo you will find two different versions of the article -- one plain, and one with highlighted (by me) passages.  Choose either one.

Then, because I'm stupid, or stubborn, or just a cock-eyed optimist, I want to take another try at a "virtual round-table" discussion.   You have two options.  1)  Quote a passage, and give your response to it.  2)  Respond to someone else's response.  And you must make a minimum of two entries.

(Both may be responses to responses.  It would be best if you make your responses at two different times.  If you wait too long you won't be able to do that.)

They don't have to be too long.  I'm looking for insight here.  As well as a spirit of give-and-take.

Slaughterhouse-Five

In addition to the lectio that you'll be doing (you can turn it in at any time; you don't have to wait till we discuss the book), I invite you to share some random thoughts and observations about  this novel.

I'll start.

(p. 28.)  "And Lot's wife , of course, was told not to look back where all those people and their homes had been.  But she did look back, and I love her for that, because it was so human."

Say what you want to about the Bible* -- literal word of G-d, or collection of myths -- it's got some great stories in it, which can engage even an avowed Secular Humanist like Vonnegut.  The same incident also inspired Wislawa Szymborska to write a poem about it.  I'll give you the first few lines, then a link to the rest.

They say I looked back out of curiosity.
But I could have had other reasons.
I looked back mourning my silver bowl.
Carelessly, while tying my sandal strap.
So I wouldn't have to keep staring at the righteous nape
of my husband Lot's neck.
From the sudden conviction that if I dropped dead
he wouldn't so much as hesitate.
From the disobedience of the meek.

*"The Bible" is punctuated in an odd (perhaps unique) fashion.  If you're talking about the book, its title, it's always capitalized, but not underlined or italicized.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern

"A common reaction to a script like that of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is confusion.  Where are we?  What are the rules of this world we are in?  How am I supposed to understand exactly what is going on and why, when I'm not sure at any particular moment about what's going on, what sort of reality I'm dealing with, and why characters are behaving the way they are.  Too much of this seems either incomprehensible or just a silly game, the point of which escapes me."                   ~Ian Johnston  

Questions?  Comments?  Comments on others' questions?

Think short, multiple responses for this (at least two).  I'd love to see a little back and forth with this one.  I'll be checking in daily, and commenting.

"Araby" by James Joyce

       You are now conversant with Ernest Hemingway's meme of the "literary iceberg" -- that a lot of what goes into a story should be unexpressed.  Comments on "In Praise of Concision" reveal that different readers have different ideas of what an appropriate level of seclusion is.  I want you to read this very spare short story with that idea in mind: too much, or just right?  (I don't think anyone would say that more should be pared from the story, but that's always an option, too.)

      Have we been told enough about the narrator?  He sometimes behaves in a strange, stalkerish manner.  Is this behavior age appropriate?  How old is he, anyway?
      He apparently lives with his aunt and uncle -- no explanation of why -- and on the big night in question, the uncle comes home late.  Way late.  Where has he been?  Besides having the effect of delaying the narrator on his journey, what else is this episode doing here.  (Remember, in any short story, but especially in "The Dubliners", there are no extraneous details.)
      And then the ending.  Very spare, very puzzling.  What has happened?  How has the narrator changes?  Why has he changed?

      Does James Joyce give us enough to go on.  Does he frustratingly leave too much hidden?

      You will find a slightly annotated version of the story over at Edmodo.  (Sorry for the inconvenience.)  It's short.  I'd recommend printing it out, and then attacking it with pen in hand.

In Praise of Concision

You just learned something about good writing from George Orwell.  Among other things: don't be wordy.  Say what you mean in as few words as possible.  Think about what you actually want to say, and say that.

Ernest Hemingway said that a good short story was like an iceberg -- you left 75% of it below the surface.

Here's a short piece from The NewYorker in praise of concise writing.  [If you look at the root of the word: con -- with; cision -- cuts.]

And, p.s. -- if you've never read The NewYorker, you should pick up a copy.  It usually has a short story, always a few poems, lots of cartoons, and often important non-fiction pieces.  Check out their website here.

George Orwell -- "Politics and the English Language"

George Orwell (the pen name of Eric Blair) is famous for his political writings, including this essay, the famous political allegory, Animal Farm, and the prescient novel, 1984. We may glimpse at all three, but for now, "Politics and the English Language"

It's all about how politicians -- but really all communicators -- use and especially abuse language. Even if you hate politics (and who doesn't feel at least a little disdain for the institution, these days) this essay can tell you a lot about good writing and bad writing.