Responses to Course Material I--September 25th

Overall, most of what we have covered so far has made sense to me, and a good deal reiterated things I was already familiar, which was extremely helpful, because over the summer my brain seems to lose all knowledge it once possessed.   The vocabulary covered in Chapter Two (such as the different forms of language, syntax, and poems) were familiar to me and reminded me of my ISHALL vocab tests, which were sort of a joke with the class, not because we didn’t study or do well or know the vocabulary, but because we all thought we didn’t know it and were about to get all mixed up.  It was comforting to realize I actually knew the vocabulary and so I felt more confident as I read knowing I would be able to safely use it in an essay.  I also enjoyed reading some of the poems because there were several which we had read and analyzed at length before so it was like meeting an old friend.  The one which immediately comes to mind was “Traveling Through the Dark” by William Stafford, and also “To An Athlete Dying Young.”   I also loved to practice the close-reading steps on the different poems and short stories the book provided, especially on the two poems centered around basketball.  “Slam, Dunk, & Hook” was my favorite of the two—it reminded me of a great many activities which I’m passionate about; sometimes playing basketball can get nearly that intense for me, but I thought of running, writing, and being onstage, whether singing, acting, or speaking, or all three.  

 Initially, however, the distinction between the different elements of DIDLS used to aide in close reading were a little confusing to me, mostly because it seemed to me that you could not, for example, have details and imagery without language and syntax, so that while you analyzed language and syntax you were therefore automatically analyzing the details and imagery!  Some of the distinctions have become clearer, such as diction, which I now completely understand limits me to circling one word at a time, and then comparing that to other individually circled words (in layman’s terms) and analyzing that in some direction.  However, I still don’t understand how to really and truly separate language from, say imagery.  They seem to go hand in hand to me.

I found the discussion on poetry very interesting (also reminding me of ISHALL, where we would go on for hours discussing things like “what is poetry”, “what is great literature”, and “what is art” and frustrating everyone with the lack of answers).  I liked the definition of poetry and “language condensed to artistic effect” but it made me wonder—is, then, an ad in a newspaper poetry?  It is after all condensed information with a very specific style to create a very specific effect.  And I didn’t understand how prose could be whittled down to “not poetry”, because, say, what about an instruction manual to operate your TV?  It’s probably not poetry or doggerel, but I wouldn’t call it prose.  But I found the bit on how to distinguish doggerel from poetry extremely helpful, not just between doggerel and poetry, but between literature of literary merit and “snack reading”. 

The other topic I found I struggled more with was writing a thesis and a closed prompt essay.  There was nothing in particular which I did not understand, my only problem is, as I discovered Friday, being able to analyze the given text in a closed prompt situation fast enough to still have enough time to write a good essay.  I couldn’t figure out what the poems meant, so I had to start writing without being entirely sure what my thesis was exactly.  I could isolate a lot of close reading evidence which I knew meant something, but I couldn’t organize it all in my head under the pressured situation nearly as well as I could in an open prompt situation.  I have to work on being able to formulate my thesis clearly and quickly, but it’s something I thankfully have all year to achieve.  Also, I believe this sort of ties into my lack of test-taking talent period.  I don’t work well under pressure, I suppose, because my tests are generally not as good as the work I can actually do and the material I actually understand.  It’s something I have to work on.