Reading Critically Summary

Critical reading takes a lot of work and effort, but you shouldn't try too hard to suck in every detail of a piece on your first reading of it. However, when you do attempt to read critically, there is a process you should go through. Examining the title, any information about the author, and where and when the work was published can help give you a preliminary idea as to what the essay will be about, and will aid in your understanding of the piece. It helps if you hold a writing utensil or highlighter while you read, so that you can annotate and make notes on the essay, such as circling words you don't understand or adding personalized comments about what the piece is talking about. Summarizing the content of an essay can also aid in your understanding by chopping the reading down into manageable chunks. Doing a conscious analysis of what you are reading can also bolster your understanding of the piece, including making inferences and synthesizing ideas. You might also evaluate the work's quality after reading it.

Voice Video

1.) What is voice in literature? What writing devices are used to create it?

Voice is when the writer of the piece sort of puts their own personality into their writing, and is essentially a personalized style of writing, based almost on how the person talks. Any sort of writing device, such as word choice and tone, can be used to show voice.

2.) Write a sentence or sentences about a topic of your choice. Then explain how that example reflects your own voice. What writing devices from #1 did you use?

“Oof!” There was suddenly a heavy weight upon his back, coupled with arms linked trachea-crushingly tight around his neck and ankles linked around his waist. He practically doubled over at the sudden addition of a human backpack, his knees trembling in protest. There was a triumphant giggle behind his head, and he felt lips grant a chaste kiss to his jaw – the closest they could get to his cheek – as he hooked his arms beneath black-clad knees and gave a slight hop to readjust the weight.

This reflects my voice in that I give a lot of description to things (such as explaining not just how someone jumped on his back, but the fact that he had arms around his neck and legs around his waist) and focus much more on this description than I do on dialogue (at least in fiction writing).

3.) According to the documentary, people in eastern Kentucky talk around a subject. Identify a topic you would talk around, and explain why you would handle the topic in that manner.

I could talk around certain subjects that are sensitive to me, such as uncomfortable events from my past, or subjects that I know could make me seem like a bad person or that would upset who I'm talking to.

4.) Why is voice important in nonfiction? What are some things we normally avoid in academic essays?

It adds some interest and personality to something that would otherwise be really boring and formulaic when you read it. You avoid talking too casually, being too wordy, and using 'to be' verbs. Using 'I' is also discouraged.

5.) What are some ways we can develop our own voices?

Just keep writing about a lot of topics, so you can develop your voice in writing.

SOAPSTone - "Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out"

SOAPSTone – “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out”

Bay P.

9/22/11

Subject: The subject of Dave Barry’s “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out” is that men and women perceive the world around them in vastly different ways, and, as such, react to their surroundings in vastly different ways. This mental wall of perception between the sexes is illustrated by Barry’s use of a hyperbolic description of women’s stereotypical trait of hyper-cleanliness (claiming that they are able to spot dirt on a microscopic level, for example) as compared to his own gender’s ignorance to the mess until it becomes too much to handle (such as his fictionalized explanation as to why so many people were buried beneath the ash of Vesuvius). This emphasizes Barry’s opinion on the ways in which both genders analyze and react to the world around them by showing that men and women react in vastly different ways to a lack of cleanliness – women are meticulous in their efforts to stop and clean up messes, while men couldn’t really care less.

Occasion: “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out” was written during the mid-80’s. The essay’s time of creation is illustrated not by anything explicitly stated in the essay, since it is written in such a way as to make it essentially ambiguous as to the time period during which it was written, but due to the fact that the technologies of the time of this writing are not implemented in the explanation of how the men managed to go sneak off and watch the World Series during a visit. If this essay were set during 2011, the men probably wouldn’t have to make excuses to zip out of the room and go crowd around the TV – instead, they might have been able to take out their smartphones and watch the game on there. The probable place of this essay’s creation is New York, seeing as how Barry was born there, (as the blurb before the essay states) but not necessarily in his hometown of Armonk – he might have moved.

The time and place of the essay’s creation influence the essay by giving it a more innocent feel – due to the fact that the men aren’t just using their phones to ignore the conversation going on about them, it makes them appear to be less sneaky, although I’m unable to argue as to whether or not it makes them seem less desperate. The place of his writing also probably influenced the author’s view on how both genders behave – if he lived somewhere where, for whatever reason, traditional gender roles were reversed, the essay would have been completely different.

Audience: Barry’s specific audience for “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out” are those who are confused by the behavior of those of the opposite sex – or those of their own sex, if they act differently from the rest of them, that is. The author’s target audience is exhibited by the topic of the essay, which are the radical differences between the two genders when it comes to perception of the world. This is done by discussing various disparities between how men and women react to various things – such as dirt, cleaning, and sports.

The author’s general audience for the essay is anyone looking for a good laugh about the ridiculous behaviors of both the opposite sex and their own sex. The author’s general audience is shown by the tone of the essay, which is rather humorous and tongue-in-cheek, definitely not meant to be taken as truth in the slightest. The fact that Barry attempts to explain the deaths of those at Pompeii with the fact that the men only noticed the ash falling when it had practically covered up the children emphasizes the light-hearted tone of it all. This is obviously meant to be funny and not taken seriously, and provides humor for those who are mystified by male behavior.

Purpose: Barry’s purpose in “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out” is to display just how truly ridiculous both genders can be about various things, and implores for us all to laugh good-naturedly at each other and ourselves – taking stereotypes into play, of course. The sheer silliness of how the two sexes behave, especially in regards to the clichés associated with their behaviors, is illustrated by Barry stating that “… a hormonal secretion takes place in women that enables them to see dirt that men cannot see, dirt at the level of molecules, whereas men don’t generally notice it until it forms clumps large enough to support agriculture.” By adding to the stereotype that women are hypersensitive neat freaks and men couldn’t care less about the cleanliness of things, Barry demonstrates his purpose in an easily understood, but tongue-in-cheek manner. The purpose is further revealed by his anecdote concerning him being told to clean his son’s bathroom. Even though Barry thinks that all is clean, despite having just wiped everything down with Windex, his wife gives him an angry look and insists that the bathroom is filthy. Barry is baffled as to how she’s seeing dirt everywhere, even though he just cleaned the place. Although in this case Barry seems to be teasing his own gender rather than the opposite gender, his point is still made – that both sexes perceive things, namely cleanliness, with varying degrees of importance.

Speaker: Dave Barry, who married his first wife in 1976, believes that there is a fundamental difference in how men and women behave. This is illustrated by his quote stating that “[t]he primary difference between men and women is that women can see extremely small quantities of dirt”. This is not the only quote of his that supports this belief, seeing as how not just dirt but also the importance of sports is discussed in the essay. This influenced the essay’s purpose by showing that men and women are different creatures of different natures, and he included this value to emphasize how the two genders of the same species can be similar yet so different, but in a funny way.

Dave Barry, who has been called the funniest man in America, also believes that we as a species should be able to laugh at ourselves. This value is illustrated by his use of self-deprecating humor, such as his discussion on how the residents of Pompeii were crushed by ash due to the fact that the men “never even noticed the ash until it had for the most part covered the children. ‘Hey!’ the men said (in Latin). It’s mighty quiet around here!’” By making fun of his own gender – saying that they’re so oblivious to even deadly amounts of dirt that they don’t notice until someone’s perished – Barry emphasizes his wish for us to laugh good-naturedly at each other and at ourselves. This expressed value influences the essay’s purpose by showing that Barry wants this to be a humorous essay, and it shouldn’t be taken seriously. He included it in order to show the reader that he’s not being serious when he says such things.

Barry’s use of imagery is evident in the section where he describes how the men of Pompeii “never even noticed the ash until it had for the most part covered the children”. This gives the reader a very vivid image of a bunch of children floundering about in ash. This use of imagery influences the essay’s purpose by showing that the content of this essay is meant to be silly – although the thought of children dying is an upsetting one, he presents it in such a way as to make it humorous. He used this rhetoric in order to aid in the effectiveness of his essay, emphasizing how the male perception of ‘filthy’ can be seen as funny.

Tone: Barry exhibits a self-deprecating and tongue-in-cheek attitude about the way in which men and women see and react to various aspects of the world around them in “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out”. These attitudes are expressed with his use of phrases such as “I ‘clean’ the bathroom, spraying Windex all over everything…” This exacerbates his self-deprecating tone by explaining that, as a man, he doesn’t care about whether or not the bathroom is truly clean, and takes the simple way out by simply dousing the room in cleaning spray. This is also tongue-in-cheek due to the fact that he’s obviously being hyperbolic when saying that he sprayed absolutely everything with Windex, including the “six hundred action figures each sold separately” that are there. It’s not meant to be taken at face value, and is intended to be humorous. This tone greatly serves the purpose of the essay by allowing us all to realize how strange and clashing the behaviors of the sexes are, emphasizing his point that men and women see and react to the world in different ways. The latter point is demonstrated by his explanation of the contrasting reactions of himself and his wife to his son Robert’s bathroom – Barry thinks it’s clean, while his wife believes it to be filthy. This validates my claim by showing that although a man may see one thing and react one way, a women might see something completely different, and react accordingly.

Eleanor Rigby - Dubstep vs. Beatles

1.) Which of these do you like better? Why (be specific)?

The original version, since I'm just not fond of dubstep in the slightest. Also, it's just more emotionally fulfilling and more pleasing to the ear, unlike the repetitive, uninspired noises of dubstep - it has originality. There are just so many aspects of the original that are superior - the vocals, the orchestration, and the structure.

2.) Which of these is more pleasing to listen to? Why (be specific)?

The original is more pleasing to listen to because it just feels more substantial, and when music is substantial, it's easier to get lost in and appreciate it. The dubstep version seemed more repetitive, and that can get boring after a while. The emotion of the original is lost due to the fact that the vocals are covered up by the loud, throbbing beat. The original keeps your interest because you can hear the lyrics and melancholy instrumentation, unlike in the dubstep version, where everything is muffled, save for the electronic music.

Kandinksy vs. Pollock

1.) Which of these do you like better? Why (be specific)?

I prefer Kandinsky's because it has a wider color palette, and is very vibrant and eye-catching. The shapes and lines are simple, which gives an air of being easygoing, though some aspects, such as the dark violet and black circles in the top left (which I think looks like a big, evil eye) give it an air of underlying darkness and insanity to it all, with the painting's lack or organization and rhyme or reason adding to this manic effect. To me, that's very enjoyable, if in a sort of creepy way.

2.) Which of these is more pleasing to look at? Why (be specific)?

The Pollock is more pleasing to look at because it's more collective and focused, with the monochrome palette keeping things relatively toned down, despite the frantic, splattering effect of the paint. It also seems more comfortably created, less angular and precisely measured than Kandinsky's.

Sign Language - Short Film

1.) What single effect did you get from this short film?

The whole thing felt ironic - the main character is very happy and optimistic, while everyone around him seems very dull and neglectful, and he mentions finding the little, beautiful things in life while at the same time neglecting the fact that there's a pretty girl that he has a crush on right under his nose.

2.) Give 3 specific things that led you to that single effect.

When discussing his co-workers, the main character says that one of them is a joker, his tone of voice very happy, though it's apparent that this so-called 'joker' is miserable and grumpy.

The main character also mentions that his job holds a lot of community, while at that point, none of his co-workers have talked to him or even really spared him a glance, and everyone on the street is just bustling on by, and not paying him any sort of mind.

As mentioned before, the main character states that his job is to help people notice the little, beautiful things in life, and the camera flickers over to the girl he's never talked to and has a crush on, thus emphasizing his naivety to the fact that he seems to have ignored the beautiful girl right in front of him.

3.) If you could change one aspect, what would it be and how would it affect the film's single effect?

I think it would have made the irony of it all a lot more apparent if perhaps the scene took place at night, and only the main character and the girl were under bright streetlights, with everyone else shrouded in darkness. That would have made the single effect much more obvious.

Harry Nilsson - "Good Old Desk"

1.) SOAPSTone this song.

Subject: an old desk that gets a lot of use
Occasion: 1970's America
Audience: American listeners
Purpose: to express his love for his desk
Speaker: one should appreciate the little things, like a faithful desk
Tone: happy, content, upbeat

2.) What is he talking about?

He's actually talking about his relationship with God, using his desk as a symbol, and essentially saying that his desk - God - is always there for him. He's fond of his desk, because it's very comfortable and reliable. He's happy that it's unmoving, thus being unable to leave him, and he's just very glad that it's there.

1.) It's the one thing I've got
2.) To keep my hopes alive
3.) It's the friend I've got, a giant of all times

“Shooting an Elephant” SOAPSTone

Subject: The subject of George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is an incident in Burma during which the author was urged to shoot an elephant that had gone ‘must’, and his feelings on the shooting and the events leading up to it. The execution of the rogue animal is illustrated with Orwell’s recounting of being told of the elephant’s rampage and subsequently goaded on by the natives’ desire to see him shoot the creature, ultimately succumbing to the pressure brought on by their inevitable teasing had he not shot the elephant and mortally wounding it. This illustrates the identified subject by detailing his thoughts on the natives’ reactions to his behavior if he were to simply allow the animal to be rounded up instead of killing it, as they wanted him to do, showing that he would not have been able to stand being laughed at for not shooting the elephant, even if it had trampled him to death.

Occasion: “Shooting an Elephant” was written in 1936. The essay’s time of creation is exhibited by the date at the bottom of the article, but also by Orwell’s talk of the Burmese natives’ oppression by the British, which came to an end in 1948, stating that “For at that time [he] had already made up [his] mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner [he] chucked up [his] job and got out of it the better. Theoretically — and secretly, of course — [he] was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.” This proves my claim by discussing events during a certain time period, the British rule in Burma, with the year in which Orwell wrote this being a part of that time period. The probable place of the essay’s creation is in Orwell’s London home, proven by the details at the end of the article.

The time and place of the essay’s creation influence the essay in the terms that Orwell uses, such as Burma, imperialism, British Empire, coolie, British Raj, as well as the way he describes his feelings towards the Burmese natives, with the then-current British rule influencing his opinion of them. This is illustrated by his statement, mentioned earlier, that he supported the Burmese and was against their British oppressors.

Audience: George Orwell’s specific audience for “Shooting an Elephant” is those interested in the life of a British citizen living in one of its colonies, specifically, in this case, Burma. The author’s target audience is revealed by Orwell’s mentioning of how “… it is the condition of [one’s] rule that [one] shall spend [one’s] life in trying to impress the ‘natives’, and so in every crisis [one] has got to do what [one is expected to do by the ‘natives’]. This reveals the target audience by showing those that may be intrigued by what the life of a citizen of an empire is like in an empire’s colony that things aren’t nearly as grand as they may seem, providing more intrigue for the reader.

The author’s general audience for the essay is anyone who may be a citizen of a colonial power, such as Britain, or anyone who is under the command of a colonial power, such as, though this is no longer the case, Burma. The author’s general audience is shown by his statement, as previously mentioned, discussing his feelings towards imperialism – that it is an evil thing – and that he wished to escape it. This demonstrates that he’s not solely concerned with British imperialism, but that any form of imperialism is going to have both negative effects on the empire and whoever may be under the empire’s control, with the former seeming to lose their freedom, and with the latter being subject to all the unpleasantries of being an empire’s colony.

Purpose: George Orwell’s purpose in “Shooting an Elephant” is to emphasize the fact that even though he was British and despite Burma being a British colony, those who are British in Burma aren’t necessarily allowed due to societal pressures from the natives to exact what would seem like inevitable colonial control. This lack of ruling power that has been stifled by the expectations of the natives of the colonized country is manifested by Orwell stating that “… it was at [that] moment, as [he] stood there with the rifle in [his] hands, that [he] first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. [There he was], the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd — seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality [he] was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. [He] perceived in [that] moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.” This proves my claim by illustrating that the ‘yellow faces’ of the Burmese were what prevented him from exacting ‘the white man’s dominion in the East’. The purpose is further articulated by the lines stating that “To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at [his] heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing — no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at [him]. And [his] whole life, every white man's life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.” This proves by claim by emphasizing the fact that the societal pressures – in this case, the threat of the Burmese natives laughing at him for not shooting the elephant – threatened the strength of Britain’s hold over Burma, and that in order to feel as though control had not been lost, Orwell would have to shoot the elephant.

Speaker: George Orwell, a hater of imperialism, believes that when one man becomes a tyrant over another, the tyrant loses his own freedom. This value is illustrated by the aforementioned quotes that state that despite being British, and as such, having dominion over the Burmese, Orwell simply could not resist the social pressure exhibited upon him by his colonial subjects. This influences the essay’s purpose by emphasizing that ‘the white man’s dominion in the East’ is not as powerful as it seems. This was included to add to the strength of the purpose, thus making the essay more influential on the reader.

George Orwell, a supporter of equality, also believes that people should not be oppressed. This value is illustrated by his descriptions of the squalor the Burmese live in, and the abuse they endure, such as being “flogged with bamboos”. This, coupled with his hatred for his nation’s imperialistic government, illustrates his support for equality by showing that he feels guilt and disapproval towards the methods used to keep the ‘natives’ under control. This influences the essay’s purpose by emphasizing in this case the negative effects imperialism has upon those being colonized, and shows that, despite being more powerful than the Burmese, he still sympathizes with them.

George Orwell’s use of imagery is evident in his description of the shooting of the elephant, with one example being that “At the second shot he did not collapse but climbed with desperate slowness to his feet and stood weakly upright, with legs sagging and head drooping.” This influences the essay’s purpose by showing that Orwell’s inability to resist the pressures from the Burmese natives on him causes agony and pain for the elephant he has to shoot.

George Orwell’s use of chronological structure is evident in the fact that the events move in a coherent, chronological order, with the third paragraph explaining the scenario – an elephant had escaped, and Orwell was sent to deal with it – and the final paragraph discussing the happenings following the elephant’s shooting. This influences the essay’s purpose by building up and emphasizing the negative aspects of imperialism, such as the oppressor’s loss of freedom, as well as the effects on the oppressed, ending on a melancholy note, giving the reader a stronger impression of the unpleasant nature of it all.

Tone: George Orwell exhibits an angry and disapproving attitude about imperialism and its negative effects not only on those beneath it, such as the Burmese, but also those who are doing the colonizing, such as the British, in “Shooting an Elephant”. These attitudes are expressed with his talk of how imperialism is “evil”, how the motives of an imperialistic government are “despotic”, and discussions of conflicting feelings on both the oppressors – the British Raj – and the oppressed, stating that the British Raj is an unbreakable tyranny, but also expressing desires to stab a Buddhist priest. These express his angry and disapproving attitudes toward imperialism by using hateful and effective language, thus more clearly illustrating to the reader that imperialism is not a good thing. This serves the purpose of the essay by showing the readers that even those who are doing the colonizing experience negative feelings towards their imperialistic government. This is supported by his statement that he is an “absurd puppet”, illustrating the fact that imperialism has negative effects – it takes away the freedom of those who are a part of the colonial power – and emphasizes his angry attitude towards imperialism as a whole.

Norman Rockwell's "The Runaway"

When one thinks of Norman Rockwell's art, one gets images of the American 1950's - such as a happy family on Thanksgiving, a schoolteacher, etc. - all classic Americana. However, despite the overall 'feel-good' nostalgia factor of his work, a large amount of it seems to ignore what was going on during the 1950's - a cultural rebellion. One particular image of his, "The Runaway", depicts a young boy in a bright yellow shirt sitting at a lunch counter, a bindle with his belongings in it at his feet, looking up at a cop who appears to be giving him a disapproving gaze, with the man behind the counter looking amused at the scene. Though quaint and enjoyable to look at, the picture does not reflect at all what was happening during those times, instead focusing on something that will make you grin when you look at it, as though yearning for when the viewer was a child. Rockwell's "The Runaway" overlooks the fundamental rift that was rising in America throughout the 1950's - an emerging counterculture that was not concerned with how things were in America but rather how they are.

"Across The Universe" by The Beatles

1.) Identify three images in this song.

• Words are flying out like / endless rain into a paper cup 
• Images of broken light which / dance before me like a million eyes
• Thoughts meander like a / restless wind inside a letter box

2.) Are any of these images symbols in context? Explain.

I don't see how any of these are symbols for anything, in or out of context. It all seems like imagery and figurative language to me, with no symbolism.

3.) Explain one symbol that you know to be a symbol. What makes it more than an image?

A peace sign is, obviously enough, a symbol for peace, although it also can be used to represent the destruction of Christianity. It is more than just an image because it represents a value - peacefulness - and a person's desire for peace, thus giving it a more wholesome and personal meaning.