Blog Post #9: Literary Criticism Presentation

To view our presentation in Google Slides with the intended font selections, click here. 

Blog Post #8: Creative Project

Blog Post #7: Summer Reading Compare/Contrast Paper

Blog Post #6: The Open Question Essay & Reflection

Essay:

Throughout the novel The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri, Gogol Ganguli is an unwilling Indian. Despite being the child of two traditional Indian immigrants, Gogol wants nothing more to wrap himself in the conformity of American culture. Gogol is shaped by the American culture he venerates and the Indian culture he so resists; but in the end, his rejection of his Indian culture is what eventually pulls him back to it.

Gogol's parents, Ashoke and Ashima, perfectly embody the Indian values of perseverance, dedication, and the pursuit of knowledge. The two are immigrants, but their views of America are starkly different: Ashoke adores America and views it as a place for growth and learning, while Ashima thinks of America as a temporary bridge and longs to return to India. Throughout Gogol's childhood, he is primarily molded by his parents, the Indian culture. They imprint their values on him, begin shaping him to be a good Indian son. These values press into Gogol's subconscious and form the core of his "deeper" characteristics, his morals especially. Gogol is young and naive and unaware of the embarrassment he will self-inflict later because of his unique name. It is only when he grows that he becomes more perceptive of the strangeness of his name, the way it awkwardly rolls off the tongue of Americans. This is the first crack that will lead to a gaping chasm between Gogol and his parents: his embarrassment of the name they gave him. 

Gogol becomes a rebellious young teenager, choosing to immerse himself in wild, free-spirited American culture and turning his back on his Indian self. This distancing from his parents' culture reaches a peak when Gogol decides to change his name to Nikhil simply because it is more Americanized. The rebellions continue: Gogol decides to major in architecture rather than follow his father's engineering footsteps. He fools around and dates American girls. He does not even try to contact his parents after he matures into adulthood. Gogol essentially tries to rewrite his own story, starting with the seemingly insignificant act of changing his name. Those who knew him, the old him, will forever know him as Gogol; yet those who do not meet him until he goes to college will know him as the (supposedly new and improved) Nikhil. His immersion in American culture influences the development of his "surface" characteristics: The way he laughs. The way he talks. The way he dresses. He represses his Indian influences to the best of his ability, yet some are still evident, especially childhood residues. Gogol still carries a insecurity and belief that he isn't good enough for his white lovers that stems from the insecurity he felt from his former name. Gogol still throws himself into his work with vigor, reflecting the hardworking spirit of immigrant cultures. 

The death of Gogol's father is the turning point that returns lucidity to Gogol's clouded vision. Gogol, so enveloped in his Americanness prior, finally frees himself from this cocoon and goes over the chasm between his aching mother and he after Ashoke's sudden death. Many of the shallow traits Gogol picked up during his years under American influence are shed as he returns to Ashima and takes responsibility for his actions, his family. He realizes that he cannot repress his Indian self forever; it is a part of him. Gogol stops trying to change his story and brings his rebellion full circle. 

At the end of the novel, Gogol, while at his mother's going away party, wanders off to his old room. It is here where he stumbles upon a book his father had gifted him on his fourteenth birthday, The Short Stories of Nikolai Gogol. "To Gogol Ganguli: The man who gave you his name, from the man who gave you your name." Ashoke had written as the inscription. Filled with nostalgia, it is at the very end of the book where Gogol opens himself fully to the Indian culture he has ran from throughout his life by opening the book and beginning to read it.

Gogol is the product of the amalgamation of two very different cultures. His personality and quirks are the result of his exposure to American culture; his morals align with those of his immigrant parents.  Ironically, while Gogol despises the Indian part of him, it is this rejection that eventually gives him a deeper appreciation of it, culminating in the final action of Gogol beginning to read a book his father gave him so many years ago.

Reflection:

To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how to feel about my open question essay. I guess I'm a little bit confused as to what I wrote (never a good sign). Flowery, lush summary or semi-decent analysis? I suppose there are bits of both in my essay, so I would give it a 5, though I think it could fall between the 4-6 range.

Good things first, because now I'm starting to feel appalled by just how much summarized. Like with previous essays, I tried a different approach on my thesis, straying from the typical three-part format. This approach allowed me to set my essay up differently (chronologically rather in three stratified paragraphs). I made an effort at centering my essay on the rift between Gogol and his Indian culture, mended only by Ashoke’s tragic death.

Despite these positive qualities, I simply don't think my essay was substantial enough to merit a higher score. This might because I'm still not confident as to what the takeaway message from The Namesake is. I’ve reached my own conclusions about what I think it’s about – family, identity, finding yourself. Yet I have no clue if that’s correct. I feel like my thoughts in this essay were more scattered than my other ones as well. Perhaps this is simply due to the broadness of the question – I haven’t answered such wide prompts since my middle school competition days. It’s a bit disheartening to see that I’ve regressed in that aspect. I fell back on my panic-mode strategy of writing as much as possible and seeing if that would make my quality of writing better (obviously, that didn’t work). I struggled with not summarizing in my essay, since I worried that I wouldn’t provide enough of a context for the reader.

I hope to improve my future open question essays by reading all (quality) literary works more insightfully. I will actively search for symbols and motifs and literary devices that enhance and shape a story and annotate them directly into my books. If I adhere to this, hopefully it will reflect in future open question essays, because I will have a deeper understanding of whatever text I choose to write about.

Beyond just reading, I hope to be able to write a more focused essay by clearly outlining the main points of my essay and thinking of applicable quotes that will contribute to the clarity of my argument. I can easily measure my improvement in this by seeing if my future essays are more cohesive and if I can actually smoothly incorporate quotes.

Lastly, I will focus on writing a stronger analysis rather than making my essay as long and convoluted as possible. I really need to change my mindset and remind myself that quantity does not necessarily imply quality. I will measure my achievements with this goal by gauging if I can score higher on future essays with shorter, more concise arguments.

Hoping for a peer evaluation soon so I can see how my classmates grade my writing – I’m really not confident with grading my own work.

Blog Post #5: "Thou Blind Man's Mark" Poetry Essay & Reflection

Essay:

It is not uncommon for people to love something that could destroy them. Many people harbor dangerous vices. These vices are always double-edged swords, for they deceive people into feeling comfortable and euphoric, yet in reality, they corrupt. In the poem "Thou Blind Man's Mark," Sir Philip Sidney characterizes desire as the double-edged sword: it is something people seek, yet a vice that destroys those who seek it.

Sidney starts by comparing desire, an intangible feeling, to something tangible, such as a "blind man's mark" (1), "snare" (1), and "scum" (2). These objects, which convey feelings of fear, dislike, and banality, make desire seem more substantial, like any object that people might desire. He builds upon this metaphor by describing it starkly, claiming that desire has a price of a "mangled mind" (6). This image makes desire seem as something that twists and kills reason. Perhaps that is why many people desire desire - their sense of logic is diminished, and their wanting has driven then to sleep (7). Sidney reuses the imagery of death, seeded by the use of the word 'mangled,' by ending the poem with a confession that he "[desires] naught but how to kill desire" (14). Similarly, Sidney links the image of sleep to the bigger picture: the title of the poem. Those who are asleep cannot see, just like a blind man cannot see. Desire, he complains, makes us all blind. It forces the mind to prepare for "higher things" (8). Sleep and death are two symbols Sidney uses to describe desire's effects.

On a broader scale, his word choice throughout is purposefully chosen, powerful. Sidney describes his pursuit of desire as "vain," as his "ruin" (9), bringing forward archetypal images of downfall. He strengthens this subtle allusion by bringing up virtue as his savior. Virtue taught him his lesson. The biblical allusions here are strong and give the poem a nearly uncomfortable intensity that matches the intensity of Sidney's feelings. The equally strong image of killing serves to augment this emotion.

Beyond the imagery and feel of the poem, Sidney keeps a fast-paced rhythm to the poem by utilizing a alternating rhyme scheme and keeping the entire poem one compact stanza. The end of each phrase lead into the next, keeping the pace urgent and flowing to parallel the frustrations Sidney feels towards desire. Coupled with frequent alliteration at the beginning, the poem moves quickly and angrily. Within the brevity of the poem, Sidney incorporates repetition for significant words and inverts his phrases to make every statement he makes more heartfelt. Only two words are repeated back-to-back for emphasis: one is "desire" (5), the exact feeling Sidney is lamenting about; the other is "too long" (7), to indicate that desire has ensnared Sidney himself for a period of time.

The overall structure of the poem juxtaposes the two contradictory feelings Sidney has toward desire. Yes, the poem is sufficiently punctuated, using commas and semicolons rather than enjambment. Perhaps this is to make Sidney's thought process seem more logical and smooth to balance out the passion of his statements. Yet he only uses two periods. The poem consists only of two complete thoughts. Sidney presents his frustration and dislike of desire in the first eight lines, ending this outpouring by stating, "[A]sleep though hast me brought, / Who should my mind to higher things prepare" (7-8). He then very quickly transitions to a deceptively hopeful tone, using a quick "but" to switch the direction of the poem. In the very last line, Sidney declares his vengeance toward desire. He wants nothing more but to end it.

"Thou Blind Man's Mark" is a multi-faceted poem that elaborates on the irony of Sidney's feelings on every level. The overall structure of the poem builds on the comparison of the two feelings, and more intimately, to show the passion of Sidney's overall attitude. The complexity is completed by using overarching motifs such as death and blindness that span the entire poem.

Reflection:

My poetry essay is far from perfect, but I honestly think I did a much better job with it than my prose essays. Perhaps this is because poems are generally shorter than prose passages, yet I had about the same amount of time to analyze and repeatedly comb through the poem before I began reading. Perhaps this is because poetry reads more like music to me, and music is familiar, an old friend. (I was rereading my biography and realized that I wrote that I'm "always open to discussing the intricacies of compositions." I suppose this holds true for poetry too!) My thesis was complex enough and strayed from the typical "Author ____ shows ___ through ___, ___, and ___." I had a good understanding of the complexity of Sir Philip Sidney's own feelings towards desire. He is vitriolic at first. The name-calling shifts into a personal concession: he has been the victim of desire himself. The poem ends with the ironic statement that he desires nothing except to kill desire. I recognized all of these aspects of the poem and mentioned them in my essay. I analyzed the structure of the poem thoroughly, even though I didn’t drop any good poetic terms. My analysis of Sidney’s word choice and symbolism was lengthy and detailed as well, and I took the time to make sure I noted and elaborated on Sidney’s reasons for using particular symbols. However, despite my seemingly better grasp on writing poetry essays, I know there is still a lot of room for improvement. 

Obviously, I don't know poetic forms well. I never recognized that the poem was a sonnet, which in retrospect is quite embarrassing, since 1) look at the time period 2) and then at the poet himself (Sir Philip Sydney certainly wasn't a 20th century modernist) and 3) and then the fact that I basically listed structural characteristics of a sonnet but never went and said it. That's something I need to improve on if I want to demonstrate my technical competency. My first goal, then, will be to familiarize myself with poetic forms and technical terms over the next month. The glossary of the 5 Steps book has every type of form that could be encountered on the AP exam. As long as I memorize how each form is structured and can identify poems in this way soon, I will be available to show a deeper understanding of future poems in the technical parts of my analysis. I will work on this goal by memorizing the definitions of each poetic form through Quizlet and actively searching out examples of each form. Hopefully I will be able to read a poem and immediately think, “Oh, this is a ____!” soon.

Another part of my essay that bothered me upon rereading were my weak transitions. When I was writing, I had this grand idea what I would start by analyzing the poem on a small-scale (individual words and phrases and the importance of specific words and phrases) and back further away from the text until I was analyzing at a broad, overall, structural level, a gradually zooming-out of sorts. Naturally, I decided that using quick turnabout phrases such as “on a broader scale” and “beyond” would be sufficient, since the structure of analysis would glide my essay forward. In retrospect, my transitions are still a bit hurried and the way I wrote my essay contributed to the overall cohesiveness, but left some parts bumpy and awkward. My second goal will be to be more thoughtful with transitions so my future essays are more fluid. This is more difficult to concretely measure. I think I will have to rely on my own intuition that yes, this flows much more smoothly, as well as the critiques of my teachers and peers on future essays.

Lastly, I want to incorporate direct quotes from the selected text more efficiently. In my prose essays, I lacked in direct quotations, mostly because I didn’t want to copy a whole sentence from the passage and waste space. However, I quoted much more from the poem to support my analysis. I feel like some of my citations were unnecessary – I should probably start by clarifying if I need to cite after every word I take directly from the text or if I can simplify it by doing something like “___,” “___,” “___” (1-2). Every textual reference I make needs to be "apt and specific." I don’t think this can be accurately measured by setting a number of direct quotes to incorporate and sticking to that to the best of my ability. Like my second goal, this is also more subjective. I will have to measure my improvement with intuition and peer and teacher feedback as well.