Teaching 11 Regents, Shakespeare, AP Language & Composition

Apparently, the accounts of old Lang students are active on this blog.  Let’s put them to use, eh?

I’m genuinely curious.  Many students bemoan Lang as being difficult, and recommend others to take Lit instead; in my admittedly limited experience, the opposite has been the case.  This leads me to wonder: what are your first impressions of the class?  Does it seem difficult to you, so far?  For those who have taken Lit, do you find Lang to be easier or more challenging?

-Francis, ex-Langer

(you probably haven’t been given names yet, but I assume this post will still be around when you get them…)

Hi, Mrs. Phalen!

In this passage, Fowles, through careful attention to detail and diction, conveys Charles’s attitude toward both himself and his relationship with Ernestina.  Fowles initially uses understatement to indicate Charles’s attitude toward Ernestina; his “morose introspection…was directed not a little against Ernestina.”  This use of litotes, or negative understatement, conveys to the reader Charles’s attitude toward Ernestina without an explicit statement of his displeasure.  Fowles also harnesses diction to further develop the characters of Ernestina, Charles, and his uncle, Sir Robert.  Fowles’s use of ‘fastidious’ to refer to both Ernestina’s ‘fastidious little London ways’ and Charles as ‘more fastidious than most men of his class and age’ suggests that both Charles and Ernestina are, in a sense, equally distanced from Sir Robert.  Fowles also subtly distinguishes Charles from ‘most men of his class and age’ when he states that ‘dowry hunting was as honorable a pursuit as fox-hunting or gaming,’ and indicates Charles’s disinterest thereof; as Charles was earlier described to have no interest in ‘traditional gentlemanly pursuits’ such as hunting, this serves to both further differentiate Charles from other men of his time and communicate to the reader his thoughts on the fiscal differential between himself and Ernestina.  Fowles also further develops the character of Sir Robert, with his references to breeding; his description of Ernestina as a ‘poor new entry to such fine stock (emphasis added) as the Smithsons’ alludes to his potentially snide character and offers humor in an otherwise serious passage.

flw-annotation-4.doc

                Fowles, in this passage, speaks directly to the reader while maintaining Ernestina’s voice; he accomplishes this through use of expletives such as “of course,” which enhance the spoken quality of Fowles’s diction.  Fowles’s liberal use of short phrases with conjunctions and semicolons serves to lend an abruptness to his writing that is reminiscent of transcribed spoken speech; in this passage, therefore, the reader receives the impression that Fowles is describing the scene directly, despite using the third-person past tense.

                At the same time, however, Fowles apparently speaks through the voice of his character Ernestina; while still speaking to the reader, he adopts the guise of Ernestina to better characterize her to his audience.  Fowles’s diction and use of italics for emphasis on certain words grants the impression that he is speaking through Ernestina’s voice; at the same time, through his syntax, he maintains the appearance of talking directly to the reader.  Ernestina is characterized as a typical nouveau riche; she does not appreciate the subtleties of the Winsyatt estate, with its antiques and subtleties of the noble family, and indeed wishes to replace them with decorations more to her liking.

flw-annotation-3.doc

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

                Fowles, in this passage, speaks directly to the reader while maintaining Ernestina’s voice; he accomplishes this through use of expletives such as “of course,” which enhance the spoken quality of Fowles’s diction.  Fowles’s liberal use of short phrases with conjunctions and semicolons serves to lend an abruptness to his writing that is reminiscent of transcribed spoken speech; in this passage, therefore, the reader receives the impression that Fowles is describing the scene directly, despite using the third-person past tense.

                At the same time, however, Fowles apparently speaks through the voice of his character Ernestina; while still speaking to the reader, he adopts the guise of Ernestina to better characterize her to his audience.  Fowles’s diction and use of italics for emphasis on certain words grants the impression that he is speaking through Ernestina’s voice; at the same time, through his syntax, he maintains the appearance of talking directly to the reader.  Ernestina is characterized as a typical nouveau riche; she does not appreciate the subtleties of the Winsyatt estate, with its antiques and subtleties of the noble family, and indeed wishes to replace them with decorations more to her liking.

flw-annotation-3.doc

  The main curiosity of this passage is Fowles’s transition between his metafictional description and traditional narration. Fowles’s narration is characterized by his use of the present tense; indeed, it is only in these sections that he uses the present tense at all. More interestingly, however, is Fowles’s character of narration, so to speak: Fowles speaks directly to the reader, using the second person “you” and “we,” and even writes as though he were speaking impromptu. The author’s seemingly-accidental slight shifting of topic in his initial description, from Sarah to her environment, combines with his use of spoken diction to remedy this, e.g. “thrown out, as I say,” to suggest that he is actually speaking his thoughts, as he would discuss them in person with the reader. Indeed, in the next paragraph, his use of short, abrupt syntax to describe the scene is reminiscent of a spoken enumeration.
In the final paragraph, Fowles transitions back to his standard, past tense narration, but then intersperses elements of present-tense, second-person description. It is a testament to Fowles’s mastery of the literary medium that his shifts do not jar the reader; in fact, they serve to greater immerse the reader in his creation, far more than a simple retelling of events from a traditional past-tense, third-person, limited narration. Fowles’s portrayal of Sarah’s view of Millie serves to both enlighten the reader as to Millie’s disposition and to communicate to the reader the source of Sarah’s sympathies; it both enlightens the reader to Millie’s situation and grants additional background on Sarah’s family and past.

  The main curiosity of this passage is Fowles’s transition between his metafictional description and traditional narration. Fowles’s narration is characterized by his use of the present tense; indeed, it is only in these sections that he uses the present tense at all. More interestingly, however, is Fowles’s character of narration, so to speak: Fowles speaks directly to the reader, using the second person “you” and “we,” and even writes as though he were speaking impromptu. The author’s seemingly-accidental slight shifting of topic in his initial description, from Sarah to her environment, combines with his use of spoken diction to remedy this, e.g. “thrown out, as I say,” to suggest that he is actually speaking his thoughts, as he would discuss them in person with the reader. Indeed, in the next paragraph, his use of short, abrupt syntax to describe the scene is reminiscent of a spoken enumeration.
In the final paragraph, Fowles transitions back to his standard, past tense narration, but then intersperses elements of present-tense, second-person description. It is a testament to Fowles’s mastery of the literary medium that his shifts do not jar the reader; in fact, they serve to greater immerse the reader in his creation, far more than a simple retelling of events from a traditional past-tense, third-person, limited narration. Fowles’s portrayal of Sarah’s view of Millie serves to both enlighten the reader as to Millie’s disposition and to communicate to the reader the source of Sarah’s sympathies; it both enlightens the reader to Millie’s situation and grants additional background on Sarah’s family and past.

   Fowles, in these paragraphs, primarily introduces Charles’s world through contrast with his own; Fowles’s use of this comparison serves as a subtle social critique of the present, as well as captivating readers with his eloquent description. Fowles hints at future turmoil for Charles, as his description of the wealth of the times appears to be too good; readers are likely to believe that the seeds of turmoil are already planted with the “distant rumblings” of the times. The author’s reference to Marx’s Kapital, and the consequences of its ‘indiscriminate consumption,’ serve to provide contrast between the later revolutions known to the reader and the Victorian times described by the author; this tension, along with that provided by the initial description, serves to entice readers into the narrative.

Fowles’s literary style is marked by a use of long sentences with copious expletive; this lends to his writing the impression that he is speaking directly to the reader. His use of asides such as “needless to say,” “at least in Great Britain,” and “as it so happened” serves to impress upon the reader a sense of spontaneity, that Fowles is describing the scene to the reader on the spot. In addition, Fowles’s use of unnecessary conjunctions after semicolons and hyphens adds to the reader’s sense that this passage is a result of the author’s spoken description; indeed, many of his sentences flow better when vocalized than they do on the page.

   Fowles, in these paragraphs, primarily introduces Charles’s world through contrast with his own; Fowles’s use of this comparison serves as a subtle social critique of the present, as well as captivating readers with his eloquent description. Fowles hints at future turmoil for Charles, as his description of the wealth of the times appears to be too good; readers are likely to believe that the seeds of turmoil are already planted with the “distant rumblings” of the times. The author’s reference to Marx’s Kapital, and the consequences of its ‘indiscriminate consumption,’ serve to provide contrast between the later revolutions known to the reader and the Victorian times described by the author; this tension, along with that provided by the initial description, serves to entice readers into the narrative.

Fowles’s literary style is marked by a use of long sentences with copious expletive; this lends to his writing the impression that he is speaking directly to the reader. His use of asides such as “needless to say,” “at least in Great Britain,” and “as it so happened” serves to impress upon the reader a sense of spontaneity, that Fowles is describing the scene to the reader on the spot. In addition, Fowles’s use of unnecessary conjunctions after semicolons and hyphens adds to the reader’s sense that this passage is a result of the author’s spoken description; indeed, many of his sentences flow better when vocalized than they do on the page.

 This is a talk by Daniel Gilbert, author of the book Stumbling on Happiness.  If you’ve read that book, this talk is essentially some of the same content condensed into a 30-minute lecture.

I highly suggest you watch this. Gilbert is a Harvard psychologist who has extensively researched both the meaning and the cause of happiness; in this talk, he discusses the causes of happiness, and our mispredictions of the same.  I know this doesn’t sound very inviting, but trust me, it’s fascinating stuff.

 http://www.ted.org/index.php/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness.html

Hello everyone.

For the presidential debate tonight at 9 PM, our class can have a real-time discussion via Internet Relay Chat (IRC). IRC is a means of holding real-time conversations online among many people in discussion forums called channels. With IRC we can easily discuss the debate in real-time with each other, as well as hold any other kinds of future discussions.

A channel unique to our class has been set up.

Server: irc.freenode.net

Channel: #chsnaplang

You can use a client to connect to the channel with the above information. Please use a recognizable name as your nick.

• Mibbit : a web-based client that will allow you to connect from your browser without installing anything on your computer.  Set “IRC” to Freenode, “channel” to #chsnaplang
• Pidgin : a multi-purpose instant messenger that supports connecting to IRC
• ChatZilla : a Mozilla Firefox extension to connect to IRC
• Bersirc : a dedicated IRC client
• XChat : a dedicated IRC client

Since this is an English class after all, we should avoid instant messaging slang when unnecessary. However, in the interest of being able to discuss in real-time, grammar and spelling do not have to be perfect (as long as your meaning is clear), and certain acronyms (e.g. btw for “By the way”) are acceptable.

If you have any questions, please post a comment.

-Francis & Dara