Sunday, November 20, 2011

Response to Course Material IV

At this point in the year, I am happy to say that I feel a lot more comfortable in the AP-style essay.  I think I have improved in the structure and organization of my essays, especially the open-prompt, and while I still dislike timed tests and struggle with the time limit, I have been working on limiting the time I take to write my essays over the weekend, with varying success.  I think this is the main thing I want to the work on, still: getting my ideas to be coherent within that annoying time limit.  I also struggle with the time limit because I, for some reason, write a much better essay when I verbally give my thesis to someone.  Once I have verbally clarified my ideas outside my head, then I write a much better essay.  Obviously, doing this during the AP exam isn’t going to work. 

I have really enjoyed analyzing Death of a Salesman, and it’s been really cool to close read the whole thing, because this is not a way I have had the opportunity to read it in the past.  All of the different perspectives on the meaning of the play are also incredibly fascinating to hear.  My favorite way to approach literature is a verbal group discussion, so I’ve been loving it.  It’s also interesting to me how many parallels there are between Miller’s play and The American Dream.  It’s also interesting to imagine what these authors would be writing if they lived today.

I look forward to start reading Ceremony today, and for reading a novel, because as much as I love plays, novels are wonderful things.  I also have never reader any Native American literature, so this should be really fascinating.

Close Reading IV: November 20th--"New Decoy Website Launched to Lure Away All Moronic Internet Commenters"

Anyone who has ever viewed a comment-chain on a social-media site has undoubtedly been frustrated by the large amount of annoying, nonsensical, or inflammatory comments people leave in order to incite others or just waste everyone’s time.  The satirical article “New Decoy Website Launched to Lure Away All Moronic Internet Commenters”, found in the online news site The Onion, makes fun of those who leave these comments by covering a fictional news site designed to contain all of these useless, brainless comments.  The author uses details concerning the comments and the new site, offensive diction, and sarcastic language to contribute to the mocking tone of the article, which condemns these useless comments while making the reader laugh, and simultaneously evokes a humorous irony: this is the same language that the online commenters use, and The Onion is a technically a social networking site.

The article’s humor works on several levels, as does its commentary.  Initially, the reader is shown how the site works, and how the author disapproves of those who rant pointlessly online.  In order to effectively demonstrate the annoying problem at hand, the author provides rich and humorous detail, especially concerning the comments people leave on Outkube.  Throughout the article, the author makes sure to choose specific subjects these internet trollers focus on, subjects designed to cause the reader to laugh and realize what true idiotic jerks these commenters are.  The offensive conversations cover preposterous topics such as “Jewish control of the government and media” and “whether Adam Lambert should get AIDS and die, or the government's secret plan to mentally incapacitate citizens using the HPV vaccine.”  While these details demonstrate that the commenters are essentially crazy, the author also focuses on their lack of intelligence and profanity in their discussions over “Ryan Gosling…whether Kobe is better than LeBron, [and] the New York Jets”.  A “sample” of the site is even given to illustrate the sheer stupidity of the commenters.  For example, the “incoherent” comment “a hahh a!!!111 OH shit!” demonstrates the mindlessness of the commenters, while this is underlined by the commenter’s profile picture being a cartoon Calvin peeing.  The rudeness and inability to argue civilly and intelligently is underlined by the ungrammatical syntax in the comments, misspellings, and run-on sentences, especially in the rants of user jlrMTL.

                Further details are provided in describing how Outkube keeps the idiotic commenters addicted to the site.  The author brings the reader’s attention to the sheer idiocy of the users by showing how Outkube executives simply throw out a picture of a woman if the user has not commented in the last 15 seconds, and ask the user to rate her, up to “totally boneable”.  The author goes on show state how this, and other similar tactics, polls, and thoughtfully placed comments by executives keep the users on site and ranting.   This brings the reader’s attention to how ridiculous these comments really are, and how stupid spending all your time on some social networking site is.  The relief expressed by workers at CNN because someone has actually had an intelligent conversation is a detail which shows the reader the sophisticated depravity we live in.  

                All of this, and the fictional social media site, Outkube, is initially described as being “used to lure moronic Internet commenters away from all other websites.”  This sets the mocking, condescending tone which progresses throughout the article while beginning to introduce the harsh diction continually used to describe the commenters.  The author refers to these annoying commenters as “dim-witted web users”, “web-surfing morons”, “obnoxious”, “idiotic”, and “the worst fucking human beings imaginable”.  And while the author views these people as “stupid” and just trying “to incite retaliatory remarks”, he peppers his article with interviews with the fictional investors in and creators of the site, and their diction is even more offensive.    YouTube’s CEO refers to annoying commenters who will use Outkube as “jabbering halfwits”, and asserts that the commenters range “from paranoid reactionaries to know-it-all pricks to racists to plain old dumbfucks.”  These “troglodytes” are also stated to be “uninformed” and a curse on society, and that Outkube is a “Godsend” which is liberating the people from these horrible commenters.  However, here the reader sees the second level of humor, and the irony in the article.  In condemning the online commenters, the article uses the very same diction and language they do, ranting very much in the same way.  And the reader is then tempted to do the same thing, as I have unconsciously done in this essay.  Moreover, the online newspaper itself is essentially a place for people to rant about society through humorous and satirical articles and videos.  So while the article causes the reader to recognize the stupidity and pointlessness in these online commenters, it also has a self-deprecating ring to it.

                Through author’s disapproval and humorous mocking of the internet trollers, the reader sees both the commenter’s idiocy, and the idiocy of some of these social networking sites.  Through the details and diction describing the commenter’s profanity, stupidity, and how they waste their time doing something so useless, the reader longs for an actual Outkube which will remove this horrible mindlessness from a society which should be more sophisticated and intelligent.  In doing this, the author uses the same language of the ranting commenters, and becomes one himself, and recognizes it, and thereby adds another layer of humor and irony to the thought-provoking article.  Ultimately, the author succeeds in this article, and not just by making the reader laugh: he ensures that they will think twice before posting their next comment telling everyone who doesn’t want to hear that the Koran advocates wife-beating.   

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Open Prompt V--November 13th: "Frailty, thy name is woman!"-----Gender, Strength, and Ambiguity in Hamlet

1984. Select a line or so of poetry, or a moment or scene in a novel, epic poem, or play that you find especially memorable. Write an essay in which you identify the line or the passage, explain its relationship to the work in which it is found, and analyze the reasons for its effectiveness.

                Women during Shakespeare’s time had a very subservient role in society and were often viewed as “weak” by the men around them.  In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, this view is first introduced to the reader through Hamlet’s statement “Frailty, thy name is woman!”  Significantly, Hamlet says “Frailty, thy name is woman”, a generic accusation which encompasses more than a specific character.  In doing so, Hamlet brings forward the larger issue that is expanded upon and explored throughout the rest of the play: the relationship between strength, weakness and gender.  While this is constantly explored through his mother Gertrude’s marriage, his girlfriend Ophelia’s questionable suicide, and the constant running-to-someone-else cycle of all characters in the play, Shakespeare makes no definitive argument about whether or not women are in fact “frail”.  Instead, this is left ambiguous—if anything, Shakespeare argues that all men are as weak as the women they hypocritically term “frail”. 

                The woman actually referred to in Hamlet’s “Frailty!” soliloquy is his mother, Gertrude, and the ambiguity surrounding her strength of character is predominantly related to her hasty marriage to her brother-in-law pending her husband’s untimely death.  This action not only provides Hamlet with his first real reason to hate women and his life, but essentially demonstrates the paradox of Gertrude’s character.  In Shakespeare’s time, a woman without a husband was indeed “weak”, and had no influence, not even over her own life.  Gertrude’s inability to remain stoic and single after her husband, the King, died, points toward her “frailty”, showing through the details of her re-marriage that she needs a man, and a powerful one at that.  However, her marriage could also be viewed in another, more positive light.  Given that women had no power as widows, Gertrude’s matrimonial choices could be viewed as the decisions of a strong, conscientious woman who wanted to be empowered, and who recognized the only way to be “strong” was to be married to an influential figure.  In this way, Gertrude’s marriage was not the desperation actions of a frail woman who needed an arm to cling to, but that of an intelligent, powerful figure who wanted to retain some semblance of influence and would go to any lengths to do so.  While this may not be particularly admirable to some readers, these are the actions of a strong-willed individual.  However, Shakespeare does not offer the reader clear evidence of either reading, and Gertrude remains ambiguous as to whether she needed a husband or wanted a King.    

                The only other woman in Hamlet is Hamlet’s fiancĂ©, Ophelia.  On the surface this character seems to unquestionably support Hamlet’s assertion about women’s frailty, but gradually, ambiguity begins to emerge, especially surrounding her supposed suicide.  When faced with her father’s death, Ophelia seems to commit suicide.  Given this, the reader becomes inclined to view Ophelia as the “frail” woman Hamlet sees her as, because traditionally suicide is viewed as a cowardly, weak action, the escape of someone too frail to handle the reality of the world they live in.  However, the reader cannot draw this conclusion and say Ophelia is frail, because Hamlet—the male protagonist, with whom the reader’s perspective is closely aligned—states in his famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy that suicide is admirable and courageous, and that the true cowardice and weakness comes from not committing suicide.  Hamlet describes in detail how only the brave have the strength to end their suffering and face the unknown.  Therefore, Ophelia’s suicide showing her weakness is extremely problematic, because Hamlet himself states that it shows her strength.  As a result, Ophelia could go both ways, just like Gertrude.

                However, there is another detail which throws Gertrude and Ophelia’s moral fiber into further ambiguity: their names.  Gertrude comes from Germanic roots and means “strength” (rather contradicting Hamlet’s assertion), and Ophelia means “help”.  While Gertrude’s name is simply either true or ironic, Ophelia’s puts a spotlight on another key issue in the play relating to gender strength: the help that all the characters in Hamlet seem to need.  Initially, Ophelia seems to need help and be helpless.  despite repeated abuse from Hamlet, Ophelia never gets angry or confronts him, she always runs to her father, brother, or the King.  Early in her relationship with Hamlet, she passively accepts her father and brother’s views on him without argument, and then when he first tells her that he does not and has never loved her, and then implies that he should indeed rest his head “on [her] lap”, Ophelia simply runs back to those male family members.  When she suspects Hamlet’s madness she does the same thing.  This weak dependence on male figures, and inability to take action, is reflected in Gertrude too.  When Gertrude witnesses Hamlet killing Polonius without even seeing who he’s stabbing first, and concludes he is mad, she runs back to her husband to have him solve the problem.  Repeatedly, the two female characters exhibit weakness and dependence toward men, and need to be “helped.” 

And yet for all that, Shakespeare maintains ambiguity, and another possible interpretation of Ophelia’s name, by having the male characters do essentially the same thing.  When the men suspect Hamlet loves Ophelia (and this is the cause of his apparent insanity), they send Ophelia to spy on him and get information.  When it is determined this is not the cause, the men don’t do much themselves, and instead send Gertrude to interrogate Hamlet some more.  It is then that Gertrude flees from action after Polonius is killed.  Through the cycle of men running to women for help, and then women running back to the men, the reader does not so much see Gertrude as not being “weak”, but as everyone being weak!  The men cannot seem to make decisions and actions for themselves, any more than the women can.  However, one could argue that then the King finally does take action, by sending Hamlet to England and arranging his murder, while Gertrude stands idly by, but he still needed Gertrude to help him gather evidence enough to take this action.

Ultimately, Shakespeare provides no definitive answer for the reader as to whether or not women are “weak”, instead seeming to imply that humans in general avoid doing things for themselves, and that the male gender tends to be hypocritical in their attitude toward women.  Hamlet’s exclamation “Frailty, thy name is woman!” draws the reader’s attention due to both the extremity of the statement and the generic accusation it contains, but the reader can never draw a solid argument from the text.  This ambiguity reinforces the conflict between the genders, and the lack of certainty, that pervades the play.