Final blog of the Semester (Hallelujah!)

Overall, this semester I enjoyed AP English. I for sure didn't enjoy everything we did, but I thought the workload was appropriate (not overwhelming like some AP classes are) and overall I liked it.

Things I liked:
I know you all will judge me for this, but I liked Hamlet. It's not the easiest to read, but the story is exciting and I like Shakespeare's writing most of the time.
I liked some of the short stories. Some of them were terrifying and confusing and strange, but I liked some of them.
I loved the Importance of Being Earnest. I'm not totally sure what we were supposed to learn from it, but still.

Things I didn't like so much:

I was frustrated with the difference in time span to read the Independent Reading Books. I felt like we had foreeever to read the first one, and then the second one we didn't have as long, and the third one was kind of crammed in at the last minute. I enjoyed my books, which surprised me because I haven't read too many literary fiction books I liked, but I felt like if there had been one every six weeks instead of the random time frame we used it would have been better.
I didn't like the in-class discussions. I didn't think they were very productive because almost no one talked. I liked the teacher-led discussions because I felt like we actually learned something, but the DI's and the "discussion groups" weren't as helpful to me.

Things I hope change next semester:
I like the idea for our second-semester novel choices. I think it's better that we know what the books are about and are interested in learning from them. I ordered mine on Amazon last night, so they should be coming in soon. :)
I hope we work on essays more without actually writing them. I still don't feel like I know exactly what they're looking for on these timed essays, but writing an entire essay doesn't help me, I just get bad grades on them every time.

As a side note, here are the books I'm reading next semester. I haven't read any of them, but they're all popular new-release novels that have gotten really good reviews, so feel free to check them out and tell me what you think!

Flight Behavior by Barbara Kingsolver:

http://www.amazon.com/Flight-Behavior-Novel-Barbara-Kingsolver/dp/0062124269/ref=pd_sim_b_10#_

This Is How You Lose Her by Junot Diaz:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594487367/ref=nosim/themillions-20

The Round House by Louise Erdrich:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Round-House-Louise-Erdrich/dp/0062065246/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Senior Year

Since we haven't done much this week besides watching movies and plays, I thought I'd reflect on Senior Year.

I had a lot of expectations about this year. I thought I would have a light, easy schedule. I thought I would have a ton of free time. I thought I would be all nostalgic about having a lot of "lasts". My last first day of school, my last volleyball season, the last time I'll see some of my friends.

Senior year has been amazing so far and it has flown by, but I was very wrong about how it would feel.

Although my school schedule is pretty easy, finishing up my research project and turning in ten college applications plus scholarship and honors supplements has made this semester just as stressful as if I had five AP classes like last year.

Also, I have had almost no free time. I don't have homework constantly, but between house work, tutoring, and college stuff I don't even have time to sleep, which is why I have basically become a professional nap-taker.

I just sang my last winter choir concert at the Singletary Center, and it didn't even occur to me until now that it was the last time. Senior year is full of these moments; next week I'll turn in my last set of research hours. It hasn't even hit yet. All these "lasts" are happening, but they aren't as big of a deal as I thought they would be.

One thing that I am SO glad actually did happen senior year; I went on a college visit and knew that was where I was supposed to be. I had always heard that one school would feel better than all the others, but hadn't felt strongly about anywhere yet. After a dozen college visits over the last two years, I thought I was going to have to just close my eyes and point at the page to find my future home. However, after visiting the University of Florida, I was so happy to have finally found a school I could see myself at. I loved it. I won't find out if I've gotten in until February, but I'm excited for next year either way (I got into UK today, so at the very least I'll be attending college next year). I'll miss high school and definitely all my friends, but I can't wait for the next part of my life to start.

www.ufl.edu

:)

Satire

Finally, here is some AP English I can relate to. I don't know about you all, but I'm extremely sarcastic and I love satire because it stops everyone from taking life too seriously.

So, we read Mark Twain's "Advice to Youth" in class, and when trying to find the full text for this blog, this article came up:

http://ape43.edublogs.org/2010/03/22/advice-to-youth-by-mark-twain/

Now, it's not that interesting of an article honestly, so you don't have to read it, but I'm going to dicuss a few things in the article because I thought it had some decent points.

Article: "Most people giving advice focus on positive things such as being honest and respectful. Twain, however, begins his article with positive things like obeying your parents and being respectful to superiors -  but later brings up how to master lying – this questions whether the advice people often give is actually true advice or what people want to hear, for people never want to admit however ‘wise’ they are that lying can be successful".

What Twain actually said was, "Always obey your parents, when they are present. This is the best policy in the long run, because if you don’t, they will make you." This is obviously sarcastic and making fun of the way children sneak behind their parents' backs.

Later, Twain actually encourages the practice of lying, so that a person may become better at it and not have to tell weak lies.

"An awkward, feeble, leaky lie is a thing which you ought to make it your unceasing study to avoid; such a lie as that has no more real permanence than an average truth. Why, you might as well tell the truth at once and be done with it."

Now, here, he's pointing out the basic truth in the world: people lie. People lie all the time, and there's no stopping it. So he jokes that you might as well be good at it if you're going to.

Anyway, I love Twain's speech. If he had given it at my college graduation I most likely would have laughed until I cried. And I thought people weren't funny in the nineteenth century. :)

Oh, also, if you like political satire, check out this link:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bldailyfeed5.htm

Third Grade Flashback

"To be, or not to be, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to set arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing, end them..."

In third grade, me and several other people in my English class (Becca, Mike) were all in Hamlet. Granted, we did not understand a thing that was going on, but I do still have that speech memorized. But anyway, I've learned a lot about Hamlet that I didn't learn by being in it in 2003.

Freshman year, I learned about Shakespeare's life and the Globe Theater and such, just like the rest of you probably did. I also learned about iambic pentameter, which I think is a good excuse for Shakespeare using so many random words. I mean, if you have to fit what you want to say in ten syllables with specific ones stressed, you're going to have to make some stuff up. Like, I know I couldn't do it.

This year, I learned about all the symbolism and puns and crazy stuff Shakespeare slips into his plays. I know for sure I didn't notice it then, and I missed out on some of it this time when I read, but there's definitely a ton of wordplay. Also a lot of humor that eight-year-old me missed out on. For example, Hamlet makes fun of Polonius after he kills him. Here's a website with a modern-day translation for you non-Shakespeare-loving English students out there.

King: Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius?
(Where's the corpse, you brat?)
Hamlet: At supper.
(Wouldn't you like to know?)
King: At supper! Where?
(Watch it, kid!)
Hamlet: Not where he eats, but where he is eaten...
(Guess how many worms he's feeding!)
King: Alas, alas!
(The guy was an idiot, but what can you do?)
Hamlet: A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.
(King becomes worm food, worm becomes fish food, fish becomes fisherman food. Ergo, fisherman chows down on royalty. Circle of life, sucker.)

Hamlet is just a twisted little genius, isn't he? Who comes up with stuff like that on the spot? I don't know, but taking a closer look at Hamlet has definitely made me appreciate Shakespeare's writing a lot more.

Oh, and if you were wondering, I was Horatio in the play. :)
Full article:
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3433776

What makes a word beautiful?

Aesthetics
Carouse - To party hearty; celebrate and jubilate
Coffee
Flaneur - A soulful urban wanderer.
Ramble 
Smirk
Sub Rosa - Under the rose, confidential, secret.
Voluptuous
Zenith

In this article by the huffington post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-cousineau/beautiful-words_b_2077755.html?utm_hp_ref=books#slide=more261269, some random writer picked out what he believed to be the nine most beautiful words in the English language. Now, while I like these words, not all of them strike me as the most beautiful words ever. What makes a word beautiful? If I had to come up with criteria, it would be:

1. It has to flow well (this one is kind of hard to define, but each person will have their own definition of flow and each person will have their own 9 words)
2. It has to be easy to pronounce
3. Lots of vowels and not too many consonants (this might be because I sing, and vowel-y words are prettier)
4. It doesn't necessarily have to mean something beautiful or great, but if by definition it is gross or dark, it should be crossed off the list on principle.
5. It shouldn't be extremely short (an) or obnoxiously long (perfidiousness), but just right (like Goldilocks? I guess?). Extremely long words are fun, but most of the time they have too many syllables to be really beautiful.

So, here's my list:

Lovely
Illusion
Rose
Iridescent
Cascade
Beheld
Complete
Lullabye

These aren't perfect, but what do you all think? Any criteria I missed out on? Any words you'd like to add to the list?

Fiction is good for the soul

In the educational debate presented here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fiction-vs-nonfiction-smackdown/2012/10/17/cbb333d0-16f0-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html
experts argue on whether English classes should have more fiction or nonfiction reading in them. One person suggests that by 12th grade, students be reading 70% nonfiction! Now, I don't know about you all, but I think that is ridiculous.

Non-Fiction reading is for learning facts. You don't really learn enough about creativity, culture, or style unless you're reading fiction books. Most of the literature we've gotten this year has been fiction, and it has been way more interesting than reading your history textbook. I think that cutting out fiction is like cutting out labs from science. You just can't learn all there is to know without it.

Also, fiction reading keeps kids more interested in what they're learning. Granted, not all of our English short stories or books are going to be everybody's favorite, but I guarantee they're better than reading nonfiction.

"Pondiscio says he admires Bauerlein and Stotsky and doesn’t see why English classes have to carry the nonfiction weight. Social studies and science courses can do that." 

I agree a lot more with this guy ^^ than the guy who was on the side of non-fiction. Kids will enjoy fiction more, learn more creative writing skills from fiction, and the non-fiction skills can be covered by other classes. I feel like I learned most of the non-fiction reading skills I needed from reading the entire AP World and AP US textbooks. Personally, that was enough for me.

Oedipus may be tragic, but he's not my hero

So, we're reading Oedipus Rex right now in English, and before we read it we read about tragic heroes. Here are some characteristics of tragic heroes, as defined by our book: 

Usually of noble birth
Good, but not perfect, and his fall results from "an act of injustice"
His downfall is his own fault
His misfortune is not wholly deserved
The fall is not pure loss, that is, they gain something before they die
The audience feels some kind of pity for him

Now, I have one really big complaint with Oedipus being a tragic hero:

He hasn't done anything good yet.

Tragic heroes are defined as essentially good, but having a flaw or two. They're imperfect. Oedipus has not done anything that suggests to me he is a good person deep down. He kills five or six men (including his father, but he didn't know), turns on his best friend, and is really happy when the dad who raised him dies. He is selfish, angry, violent, and stubborn. He also refuses to listen to anyone, and assumes the world is out to get him when they're trying to tell him the truth.

We read the Odyssey (well, parts of it) Freshman year, and used Odysseus as a model for a tragic hero. Odysseus has hubris (which is kind of like pride, but not really, according to Mr. Mullins) just like Oedipus, and he is also a little bit unlikable, but they still come across differently to me.

Here's more about Odysseus if you haven't read or don't remember all the way back to Freshman year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odysseus#Journey_home_to_Ithaca

Do you think Oedipus deserves some credit? I might be kind of harsh. Obviously the people who wrote this book think he was a tragic hero, and they know a lot more than I do. We've only read half the play, do you think he is going to change before he dies?

When is it overkill?

In most English classes, especially AP Junior, we were taught to analyze an author's style, but very rarely do we actually talk about whether we like it or not. This article that Mr. Mullins posted a link to on his webpage (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/a-short-defense-of-literary-excess/?src=recg) gives his view on what the best writing is. The author is pro-putting-as-many-words-as-possible-into-a-sentence, as opposed to more simplistic writing styles that may be easier to understand.

This is one of the sentences that this journalist says is "teeming with life"
"Outside the window, there slides past that unimaginable and deserted vastness where night is coming on, the sun declining in ghastly blood-streaked splendour like a public execution across, it would seem, half a continent, where live only bears and shooting stars and the wolves who lap congealing ice from water that holds within it the entire sky." - Angela Carter

Now, the easiest way to write this sentence is something like:
"The sun set over a vast landscape and the wilderness seemed to go on forever."

I'm not trying to say that my sentence is better, but I would like to argue for a middle ground. Not that I know more about English than Angela Carter (whoever that is), but I really don't see the need for all those words. Good writing doesn't always mean more writing. Think about Hills Like White Elephants. It was simplistic, didn't have a lot to it, but it was still good writing because of all that wasn't on the surface.

I think that sometimes writers who use too many words or too much description are just trying too hard. They lose people's interest because it's boring, but also I think it sometimes sounds like they just want their writing to be impressive. Work hard on it, by all means, but don't try to make yourself sound like Shakespeare when you're not. I think that writers shouldn't go overboard, but they should try to use good writing to tell a good story.

Southern Gothic/Flannery O'Connor

I wasn't in class for the discussion of the Flannery O'Connor stories, but I looked up a few things to get a better picture of Southern Gothic style and particularly the story "A Good Man is Hard To Find". This is one of the most interesting things I found:

"This sickening adherence to just about every stereotype of the old South that the grandmother represents is part of what makes her a grotesque character. In fact, every member of the family is grotesque in some way; the children by their over-the-top rudeness and lack of manners, the father by his intense, simmering anger paired with a bright, happy-looking parrot shirt, the mother by her lack of personality or character—and, of course, the Misfit by his complete lack of regard for anything or anyone. This is not a delightful portrait of the south or a southern family—it is a critique."

I didn't feel that each of the characters was "grotesque" at all. The grandmother and the kids were kind of annoying, and the dad just seemed like he didn't want to go on the road trip in the first place. But I didn't feel like, even after reading it through twice, the story was supposed to be dark and creepy all the way through.To me, it wasn't obvious that they were headed down a bad road. For the most part I was unprepared for the horrifying ending to the story.

Also, a lot of the analysis I read had to do with the religious aspect of the story. The grandmother is a Christian, but she's much more concerned with looking like a Christian than acting like one. She gets a little bit more spiritual when she realizes she's about to die and is talking to the Misfit, but overall she strikes me as one of those people who pretends she's Christian because she was raised that way, and doesn't necessarily live a fully Christian lifestyle.


http://english.tjc.edu/engl2333nbyr/o%27connor.htm
http://supersummary.com/component/content/article/23-plot-summary-of-a-good-man-is-hard-to-find-by-flannery-oconnor?start=4
Here's some more in-depth analysis of the story.

Existentialism

We talked about existentialism for over an hour in English today, and I don't know about you all, but I still don't really get it. The main idea is supposed to be that existentialists determine their own destiny. Here is the definition of destiny:

Destiny (noun): the predetermined, usually inevitable or irresistible, course of events.

How are you going to decide what is already predetermined? If it's going to happen, it's going to happen.
What I think causes confusion is people take inevitability too far. You can't decide not to act on something and just assume destiny will take care of it. Destiny isn't going to take action for you. You can't be destined to win something or do something or accomplish something if you don't work for it. Your "destiny" is to win, do, and accomplish what you have worked for. So in a way, I both agree and disagree with existentialists. You determine what happens to you, but it was already predetermined that you were going to do that.

Here's a link to a further explanation of the existentialist mindset: http://www.thecry.com/existentialism/ 

What do you guys think? I'm obviously not an expert on this at all, and I feel like we didn't really talk about this today in class.

Dark, depressing, and violent - welcome to AP English

Everything we’ve read so far has been dark/depressing/violent. Is this the true nature of literary fiction?  If so, why?  If not, why would our literature anthology be so imbalanced? - Mr. Mullins

The purpose of literary fiction is to educate or reveal something deeper about life than what is on the surface. I think that the reason our stories are depressing/violent is because it is very hard to learn anything from a happy ending. And additionally, you don't stop to think about why there was a happy ending. If the ending evokes some kind of emotion, you have to (or at least I have to) go back and look at it. 

For example, in "Where are you going, where have you been?" I needed some answers. I wanted to know why the author wrote that story, and whether there was a deeper meaning, and what some of the symbols are, and what was the purpose of the character Ellie was. None of it made sense until I looked at SparkNotes for some answers, and then as we spoke in class it became even clearer. 

Since we covered most of the other topics, I want to talk about Ellie. He's a character that has very few lines, but he accompanies Arnold Friend on his expedition to go attack and possibly kill a child. Now, right off the bat, why on earth would anyone ever agree to go on that trip? It's ridiculous. But of course, this is literary fiction, and everything has a meaning. What my group and I decided on is that Ellie represents society overlooking horrible events. He ignores the events going on for the most part, but doesn't exactly encourage them. Society also seems to pretend that bad things aren't going on rather than helping. I believe the author is pointing this out along with the many, many other things going on. 

So, we got a little off topic, but basically I think that we don't learn much from happy stories, so that's why all the ones we read are depressing. 

Evaluation Elaboration

So, on Monday, we did a warm-up that involved evaluations of our English class this year. And there wasn't a lot of room or time to explain a lot of them, so I'd like to take this opportunity to elaborate a little bit.

I said that I didn't like the lectures. I wasn't very specific, but what I really disliked was when we had a review of the reading we did last night. I don't need a lecture on what I've already read. If our lecture is more in-depth or has more insight on the topic, then that's great. Honestly, I don't dislike getting the lectures, they're just boring when it's a repeat of what you already know. It's like watching the previews for a movie you've already seen, but the preview takes longer and has less information than the movie.

Second, I mentioned that I disliked blogging. It's a little ironic that I'm writing my complaints about blogging in blog form, but I just don't always have something to talk about! Sometimes I actually have good thoughts to share about a subject, but if I don't have anything to talk about the blog is super forced and probably not very good.

On a completely different subject, I can't even wait for the volleyball game tonight. If we win, we'll be ranked first in our district tournament. So we better win. And I'm going there in about three hours so it's pretty much all I can think about and you're lucky I got this blog post to even relate to English because all I'm thinking about is volleyball, volleyball, volleyball.

Leaving Characters Unnamed

The short story we most recently read in English class to discuss characterization had a very unique feature: only one person's name was ever mentioned, and they weren't involved in the plot.

The story centers around a granddaughter who has recently come to live with her mother's mother, who is only ever called "granny" or "the grandmother". The granddaughter doesn't want to live there on a farm, and especially hates doing work, so she runs away. The grandmother goes to get her, finds her on the back of some biker's motorcycle, and they get chased by these two guys with a gun (who also never get named).

The person who is named is the mother, the link between the granddaughter and the grandmother (her name is Sylvie). They visit her grave at one point during the story, and reflect a little bit on her and what she meant to them. I think it was a very interesting idea to do this, because in most stories the important characters would always have a name.

Some other books employ this strategy, but usually at least some characters get named. This strategy can be used to help readers identify with the character or to make them representative of anyone in a similar situation.

Something further I would like to know is why Sylvie was the only character named; she seems less important than the grandmother or the granddaughter. We haven't discussed the book in class yet, so hopefully we'll go over it.

That's really the only thing I had to talk about today, so have a nice day everybody! :)

English Short Stories - What the?

So here's the thing about English short stories. They don't really make sense unless you look for the deeper meaning. The first time I read most of these stories (especially "The Child by Tiger") I just end up asking myself why this is considered good literature when it's so ridiculous.

For example, the short story we discussed on Wednesday was "The Destructors". It's about this gang of teenage boys in London who goes around and causes trouble, but a new kid in the gang decides to take it to a whole new level. Trevor, who gets made fun of for having an upper class name, wants to tear down this old man's house just for the fun of it. He really stresses that he wants it destroyed, gone, nothing left. They break all the glass, tear down all the furniture, and ultimately pull the house apart.

At first glance, that story is just ridiculous. The kids are stupid, there are better things to do when you're bored, and why did they even put in the effort to pull that off? But you have to know a little context before you judge the story like I did. This takes place just after WWII ended in London, after some horrible bombings nearly destroyed the city. So these kids grew up in a time and place where things just got senselessly destroyed. There's also probably a bunch of symbolism and hidden messages, but like I said I'm not an expert at this yet, and even if I tried to explain it I'd probably be wrong.

Anyway, I feel like after some explanation I'll start to understand these better, but it's going to take some work.

Thoughts on Senior Year

For most of us, it's still hard to believe we're seniors. It's the biggest cliche, but high school really does fly by. We're just beginning this last year at Dunbar, and I figured I'd share my thoughts about the college search, the new rules, and senior year.

The changes we (or at least I) have gone through in the past four years are unbelieveable. At first, high school seemed huge and scary, and now it feels like I might as well live here. The teachers, students, and coaches that have been with me along the way have affected me in ways I couldn't imagine. I've learned how to think for myself, how to do math that used to seem impossible, and to not be afraid to speak in front of people.

Senior year is way different than my first three years at Dunbar. For one thing, almost all my friends have graduated, and while I knew most of the upperclassmen, now I know almost no one in the grades below me. It's a weird feeling to see all my friends growing up and living on their own, making their own choices. Also, now that I know a lot of the teachers at Dunbar I understand them better, and they're less intimidating. Being a senior on the volleyball team is also amazing because not only do I love my team, I get to play with the other four amazing seniors and bond with them on and off the court. Also, I have a lighter schedule this year than I have before, so I don't feel overwhelmed with AP classes and homework and can enjoy myself outside of school instead of stressing out.

We just had a meeting with Ms. Long about the college search, and it's very intimidating. I still feel too young to be making such important decisions about my life. The scariest thing is, nobody can make this decision for me. I'm applying to about 10 schools, and assuming I get in to at least 7 or 8 of them, I'll have a lot of choices to make. The schools I'm looking at range from mid-sized to huge, and from ten minutes away to 12 hours. Most of them are good schools, but a few are ridiculously hard to get in to.

No matter where I end up next year, college is just the next adventure. I can't wait to live on my own and make my own decisions, but I'm in no hurry.

Literary/Commercial Fiction

So, first post: We've set up this blog for AP english, and we're supposed to talk about what we've been doing in class. Right now we're still getting used to things, but one thing we read about was the difference between literary and commercial fiction.

Normally what I would have split those two categories into is "boring" and "actually good books" because even though I used to read all the time when I was little, I never cared about anything we read in English. But I think I'm starting to see the merit of literary fiction after doing my summer reading. The Art of Fielding was seriously a great book, and part of what made it great was its connection to life.

The book is about a baseball player who is underrated because of his size, but he works so hard and finally gets to play for some terrible D3 school in the middle of nowhere. And he loves it. Now, the main reason I'm not playing volleyball in college is because I refuse to go somewhere where sports don't matter. So I really respect him for wanting to succeed so badly he'll go anywhere, not that it was a bad choice. It's just different from what I would have done.

After he builds up some bulk and trains really hard, this baseball player ends up literally smashing up his friend's face with a throw, and it messes up his game pretty badly. He psychs himself out and begins to play horribly, right when he's starting to get noticed by scouts and coaches. The struggle he goes through is just painful to watch (you know... read) but it makes you cheer that much harder for him.

So even though this book was really good and had a great plot, I can also see that it has more value. The author didn't just write this book because he felt like telling a good story --- it took him nine years. He had a lot more planned out.

The moral of the story is: Literary fiction doesn't have to be boring (even though it sometimes is)