(An awful) Response to Course Material #1

The first couple weeks of class has focused mainly on DIDLS. Detail is the simplest technique that authors use to create meaning. The area where I have seen the most improvement in myself, even in the first couple weeks, is noticing the connections between the details the author chooses and the meaning created by said detail. A good example of this is the use of details that evoke thoughts of war and the author's use of them to comment on his relationship in the article we discussed in class. Prior to this class I wouldn't know to look for connections or get any meaning from them.
Imagery is language used to create complete pictures within the readers mind, utilizing all the senses. Its far and above my favorite technique because at its best it is easily "seen" but has the potential to have several layers of meaning. Its what really makes literature fun for me.
Diction is another thing I was relatively unexposed to before starting this class. I didn't understand its ability to effect meaning. Its only now that I'm beginning to look past the obvious things, like don't use the word "stuff" or "things". I'm still confused as to whether a sentence fragment consisting of 2 or 3 words is language or diction... but what a great segue into my next topic.
My concept of language hasn't changed since I began taking the class. Its been the sole focus of most of English  education up to this point so I think I have it down.
Syntax is the most confusing element of DIDLS. However,  I can see how important it is, especially in poetry( by the way,the definition of poetry that was given to us the other day was concise and helpful, I like it.). I feel like I'm clueless to the nuance of syntax though. I'm likely to notice the obvious, like a short, choppy sentences use to create a feeling of intensity or speed, but any complicated or subtle use of syntax is likely to fly right over my head.
We have also covered poetry. I appreciate the inherent ambiguity of poetry, less words used to describe something leaves more in doubt and thus more room for interpretation. Unfortunately I'm awful at that interpretation. Finding meaning in poetry can sometimes be like finding the needle in a haystack for me. It was interesting to see Foster's philosophy of "If its square its a sonnet" be applicable though. It certainly helps in identification, although I suppose I could just count the lines, but that would be too easy.

Open Prompt #1- The Jungle

1987. Some novels and plays seem to advocate changes in social or political attitudes or in traditions. Choose such a novel or play and note briefly the particular attitudes or traditions that the author apparently wishes to modify. Then analyze the techniques the author uses to influence the reader's or audience's views. Avoid plot summary.

     Literature is a powerful tool that often has significant effects on those who read it . Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was written specifically to create political change. Sinclair, who had extensive knowledge of the Chicago meat packing industry, put his main character, Jurgis, and his family through a variety of trials designed to illustrate the evils of capitalism. He relies on intense imagery in an attempt to show people the effect the capitalist system was having on the working class and the american public as a whole. His language is very clear and easy to read, as well as his intentions being straight forward. He only hopes that, ending the book with a socialist manifest of sorts, the common man will understand and initiate the change he hopes to see.

     The author of the novel is deeply opposed to the american capitalist system. He saw the working class being exploited by the beef barons in Chicago's stockyards during his time there. With his novel, he intended to be the catalyst for a socialist revolution he saw as inevitable. More equitable distribution of wealth was his main goal, and while he never achieved that goal, his book did have a significant impact on the american awareness of the worker's plight and the horrific conditions in which their food was produced.

     Sinclair uses graphic imagery to sway his audience throughout the novel. In order to bring about the change he desires it was necessary for him to convince his audience, and the best way to do that was through gruesome depictions of his characters living and working conditions. His descriptions of the awful sights and sounds of living and working conditions were many, whole human bodies being incorporated into lard and rats crawling among the meat that was destine for the public's plate. Even worse were the horrors that visited the Jurgis Rudkus' family, including a mother's death during child birth, a child drowning in a street, and even a young boy being eaten alive by rats. Sinclair effectively uses details and imagery of horrific scenes to sway the public's opinion and motivate change.

     Throughout the novel Sinclair's language remains relatively simplistic. It makes sense when you consider his goals. He sought to inspire socialist change, and in the people in favor of that would most likely in the lower to middle class and likely not highly educated. So in order to effectively reach out to them, keep in mind that the novel was published in 1905, he needed to be as clear and straight forward as possible. There was relatively little ambiguity, Jurgis was a good man being destroyed by the environment he lived in, an environment created by capitalists, who were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, evil.The single mindedness of his purpose and the simplicity of his language help him to accomplish his goals.

      Upton Sinclair sought a more equitable America. In writing The Jungle he used intense imagery and clear language that showed his intentions to purvey a message to the american public. Sinclair is quoted as saying " I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach." Nonetheless, Sinclair used language effectively enough to have a long lasting effect on the common people.

     

Close Reading #1 -Letting Go - David Sedaris

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/05/080505fa_fact_sedaris

STOP. Please read the piece if you haven't, because I don't want my shoddy analysis to ruin your first impression.

Diction- Cigarettes, cigarette paraphernalia, and the people with cigs between their fingers are constantly described using short, negative adjectives. He talks about his "garish disposable lighter and the crudded-up aluminum ashtray" and the "foul little congress" he formed with several smoking internationals in an airport. He uses these adjectives in a self-deprecating way that helps establish the tone.It also helps us understand Sedaris' attitude at the conclusion.The author also jams this piece full of "technical" cigarette terms. I don't know the difference between light, ultra-light, menthol and regulars. These words might fly right over my head, but they establish his credibility with me, and make me more likely to accept what he has to say.




Details- David masterfully incorporates details in this piece. It shows that one point, cigarettes were his second nature. He references at  least 17 brands, "Carltons, Kents, Alpines", but there were probably more, I got tired of counting. His obvious experience validates what he has to say. He also uses detail to explain his primal connection to nicotine. Sedaris starts the piece with a personal anecdote informing us that he grew up in North Carolina. North Carolina is in the heart of tobacco country, so his inclusion of geography adds one more piece of supporting detail. He also uses detail to lock his audience in. A school trip to a cigarette plant in the aforementioned North Carolina ended in him being "given free packs to take home to our parents". As the product of countless D.A.R.E programs and a sterile school environment, this use of detail made for an absolutely entrancing introduction, and guaranteed that I read the remainder of the piece.


Imagery- "If a character smoked on a TV show, it did not necessarily mean that he was weak or evil". A character with a cigarette in hand instantly brings to mind a mobster or a homeless man. Sedaris uses this image to clearly show the differences in the attitude towards smoking in the 1980's than now. It helps to explain part of how the author justified his smoking habit despite claiming to hate it as a child and admitting that he always knew it was unhealthy. At points throughout the piece it may seem as if Sedaris is glorifying smoking, but he uses powerful imagery that would make one think twice about it, even if it didn't have quite the same effect on him. He describes a man whose "sternum had been sawed through, and the way his chest cavity was opened, the unearthed fat like so much sour cream, made me think of a baked potato.". This leaves a jarring image in ones head and no doubt about what the author is trying to get across.


P.S I didn't really know where to fit it in, or possibly I was too lazy, but I noticed an abundance of references to god and death in the piece.