Bryan’s AP Blog

The general argument made by Francine Prose in her work, “I Know Why The Caged Bird Cannot Read” is that the current English curriculum for high school students comprises mainly of the same books from when she was in school. She writes, “No wonder students are rarely asked to consider what was actually written by these hopeless racists and sociopaths. Instead, they’re told to write around the books, or, better yet, write their own books.” In this passage, Prose is suggesting that the current high school curriculums be re-thought. In conclusion, Prose’s belief is that the way teachers have been teaching some classics neglects the true values underlying within the books.

            In my view, Prose is right, because, if schools continue teaching novels the way they have been, the story behind the book as well as the true meaning intended by the author will be left uncovered. More specifically, I believe these books should be taught the way they were meant to be. For example close reading and discussions on related issues to the book leaving no controversial topics untouched. Therefore I conclude that teachers who wish to bore their students and allow them to leave their classroom with only partial filtered information continue with their teaching agenda. But, teachers who wish for their students to understand a classic fully and hopefully enjoy it, should revise their strategy.

Page 360

3) She’s trying to best describe a state of mind and possibly even being, in which allows her mind to search the deepest crevices of imagination to produce a story but, when a woman questions whether her the idea she’s imagined will shock others (men) her imagination is as good as gone.

Page 361

4) Woolf is describing her awareness of the “Angel In The House” stereotype of women from that time conflicting with her writing, for she describes writing as this: “you cannot review even a novel without having a mind of your own, without expressing what you think to be the truth about human relations, morality, sex.”

9) She begins by stating how she made money off the review she sent and spent the proceeds on a Persian cat. The cat not being enough she decided she wished to have a “motor car” thus resulting in her becoming a novelist. Following she describes the process in which a novelist produces ideas comparing them to a “fisherman lying sunk in dreams…” and how a woman’s imagination is pointless unless she uses it in spite of what men would say or how shocked they’d be.

The effect captures the readers’/audiences’ interest as well as a very brief description of how she came to write and an example of the writers thinking process.

1) How does Prof. C’s diction in paragraph 4 effect his argument? Positively, Negatively? 

2) In paragraph 6 Prof. C refers to “This trend. . . ” What is the use in this assertion? Meaning?

3) According to the diction used in paragraph 6, what is Prof. C’s view on society?

4) Identify the relationship between paragraphs 10 and 14. Could there be an issue with happiness and progress? List some pros and cons.

5 ) Prof. C makes a reference to Aristotle in paragraph 8. How might this note help support the subject of genetically raising everyone’s intelligence?

John and his friend walked over to Seven Eleven. Once there they decided to purchase some snacks. John’s friend saw some of his other friends walking in. John became skeptical about buying food for he figured if he bought some he’d have to buy all of them some snacks.

Jill went grocery shopping with her family. She loaded up her cart with all the food they needed for the week. At the checkout line she realized she didn’t have enough cash to pay for the waffles, she went to return them to the freezer.

Bob went camping with his friend. They decided to go swimming in the lake. Bob noticed his friend struggling in the water obviously drowning. It took several minutes for Bob to reach his friend who had been submerged for an un-naturally long time. Dragging his friend to the shore Bob figured his friend to be dead. Bob slapped his friend across the face causing his friend to become conscious, Bob decided he could bring people back from the dead.

1) I don’t really think so. From my high school literary experience so far I feel insufficient. 2) I agree with prose. By narrowing down the world experience, the experiences of others from which can be achieved by reading a book, the teachers cheat us from being able to understand someone else’s point of view. To share an experience that might not be accessible any other way but through a book leaving us with only our own experiences to learn from.     QUESTIONS ON RHETORIC AND STYLE     1) Her first appeal to ethos is establishing that she herself is a parent, thus including possibly the parent’s interest of her accountability on the subjects she discusses in her essay. I think you could also say, taking off from her first appeal to ethos is that the second would be establishing a concern for the children’s educational well-being. Lastly her knowledge of the books listed could possibly also appeal to the audience reading. 2) I think her use of such words establishes her opinion on the following argument. Possibly, but I believe whether you are for or opposing an issue you should still closely explore both sides of that issue. “exceptionally unfortunate” “numbing sameness” “lazy” “uninspired” etc. 3) that “traditionally” high school is where a love of reading is born and nurtured.   6) yes because apparently the book is made out to be memoir when in reality it in no way constitutes good writing.  7) Ultimately she’s questioning the system used to teach english literature.  8) I think it would’ve helped because otherwise all that she is doing presently is describing her own opinion without the consent of any students enduring high school english.  9) The way they are being presented in the classroom, students are basically told to write their own book rather than analyze the one they are reading, “And is it any wonder that teenagers should complete these exercises with little but contempt for the writer who so pointlessly complicated and obfuscated a personal true story  that sixteen-year olds could have told so much more interestingly themselves?” I think the main reason is the way teachers have gone about teaching these books. 

1) In a way it foreshadows the experience from his youth he is to describe later in his essay. 2) The beginning of paragraph 8 is where Eiseley starts describing his past experience with the birds. The effect is his contrast between the qualities of living things and machines 3) They show that he is stating his opinions, that he is admitting he doesn’t know everything. 4)  He alienates himself from the general opinion of others. 5) I believe it works it helps describe the progression of technology and how it may interfere with others perspectives on the difference between man/life and machine. 6) Helps to create a visual in the mind of the scene he is describing. 7) He was building a cage for the bird he was going to set free. 8) His use of the phrase “they were gone forever…” makes them seem unfathomably far away 9)  The logos would fall under science, for he mainly uses this to elaborate with fact on how he and other people view science and its relationship with humanity. the ethos and pathos fall under humanity, for he provides his own experiences and juxtaposes them to bridge the gap between humanity and science by showing the reader that the essence of life cannot be mimicked by some machine science created. 

1) They agree on quote: “The problem goes beyond violence, ratings, or any single factor, to the heart of the system. Television is driven not by the creative people who have something to tell, but by global conglomerates who have something to sell.” 2) He uses it as an example that media doesn’t cause real violence. Gerbner says that one shouldn’t even use media violence as an example because it is only an infinitesimal factor of real violence.  3) Gerbner: “The V-chip is not the solution.” Gitlin: “I’m not against the V-chip..,”  4) They believe that the issues with TV go “far beyond violence.” 

1) The purpose is to show that there is a world or reality other than watching it on the TV. By illustrating a 4 step process to get you off your butt and enjoy life. 2) With the way the cartoon is illustrated, it creates a happy tone saying, “get up and go have some fun…TV not required.” The words aren’t necessary but they add a bit of comedy to the illustration. 3) I believe it does. Airplane safety cards are illustrated in a way that makes them understandable to people who can or can’t read, this interpretation helps to show the audience that turning off the TV is as easy as looking at an airplane safety card. 

1) Yes, “…occasionally we had to hightail it out of there…” 2) She’s neither for or against it, she has more of questioning attitude towards the use of the device. She makes statements like, “…does every public TV need to be turned off?” 3) concern. I don’t think so. 4) That it possibly sacrifices the educational aspects.  

1) That the majority of people spend their free time watching TV. 2) It might possibly persuade people to turn off the TV and live their own life. 3) It possibly strives to ask whether people are capable of letting go of this “24-hour ad-plastered, brainwashing, individuality bleaching, stereotyping, couch-potato-making tool of society.” I agree with Trubey’s answer. 4) It helps make a connection between the issue and the people. 5) Possibly, but he has me convinced. In reality he needs not the use of statistics, most of society is aware of the hold media has on them. 6) I think they do, but since the sources of the document aren’t listed it makes them less credible.