Closed Reading #3

The great gaffe by Charles Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-great-gaffe/2012/10/18/38ce0d18-1954-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html

          In this editorial, conservative Charles Krauthammere discusses the 2012 presidential race, more specifically the second presidential debate between candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  In this article Charles tries to persuade the readers that the way Romney answered the Libya question was an enormous gaffe, and that Obama has misled the country pertaining to the murder of the US Ambassador in Benghazi and gotten away with it as a result of Romney's gaffe.  Krauthammere uses imagery, syntax, and diction to effectively portray her opinion.

           Krauthammere uses imagery to paint the debate as a very hard fought and close debate.  For example he says, "Fight night at Hofstra.  The two boxers, confined within a ring of spectators - circling, feinting, taunting, staring eachother down - come several times, by my reckoning, no more than one provocation away from actual fisticuffs, of the kind that on occasion so delightfully break out in the Taiwanese parliament.  Think of it: the Secret Service storming the ring, pinning Mitt Romney to the canvas as Candy Crowley administers the 10 count."  Through this creative metaphor Charles is trying to show that that the debate was very close and that the successful cover-up of what truly happened in Benghazi resulted in Obama's win.  This is represented by the secret service "pinning" Romney.  This paints a picture in the mind of  a boxing match.  The civilians asking the questions are represented by the fans, and the boxers represent the two presidential candidates.  The fact that the debate was related to boxing shows that there were a lot of verbal punches thrown amongst the candidates and high tensions.  In this short paragraph there is also an allusion to the moment when the two candidates got in each other's faces and looked like they were going to fight when he says, "staring each other down - come several times, by reckoning, no more than one provocation away from actual fist cuffs.

          The author also uses syntax to put emphasis on certain aspects of the editorial.  When Krauthammere wants to show how little information there is discussed in major media or the show the thought processes of many americans on a topic he uses questions that make the reader think.  This emphasizes the said way that the Obama administration "misled" the american people.  An example of this is when he says, "No one misled? His U.N. ambassador went on not one but five morning shows to spin a confection that the sacking of the consulate and the murder of four Americans came from a video-motivated demonstration turned ugly: 'People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.'"  Another way that the author emphasizes what he considers to be the most important details in the story is his use of paragraphs.  If there is a main point he is trying to get across she will leave that sentence in a paragraph all by itself so that it seems more important.  K.T. says, "Romney will be ready Monday."  The author placed this short statement in a paragraph all by itself to show the importance and emphasize the contents of the sentence.  When a short sentence is stuck in a paragraph by itself it gives the reader a short pause in the flow of the editorial to think about the statement.  In this case it is almost seems as if this short statement is meant to intimidate Obama.

          Krauthammere uses diction to show show the deceitfulness of the Obama Administration’s Benghazi cover up and to portray Romney in a positive light.  He uses words such as “misled” to show how deceived the country and dodged difficult questions about the Benghazi assassination.  The word misled makes the reader think that President Obama has planned out how to manipulate the American people to believe that the murder in Benghazi was not an act of terror but was cause by a video.   Krauthammere even went so far as to call the Obama administration his "minions".  Pejorative diction such as this is commonly associated with evil people.  By using the word minions Charles clearly is trying to portray Obama as evil.  On the other hand he also uses word such as "dazzling" to describe Romney's performance in the first debate.  This word is incredibly complementary and makes Romney seem like a God.  When he was describing Obama's "win" in the second debate he says that "the margin was small, paling in comparison to Romney's 52-point victory".  Words such as paling are used to downplay the victory of Obama so it seems he wouldn't even compare to the greatness that he seems to think Romney is.  

         Krauthammere created a very convincing and persuasive editorial using many literary techniques that attempt’s to show the deceitfulness of Obama and his administration with respect to the Benghazi assassination, and downplay Obama's nationally declared "win" in the second debate compared to Romney's whopping "win" in the first debate.

Open Prompt #3

Prompt: 2008, Form B. In some works of literature, childhood and adolescence are portrayed as times graced by innocence and a sense of wonder; in other works, they are depicted as times of tribulation and terror. Focusing on a single novel or play, explain how its representation of childhood or adolescence shapes the meaning of the work as a whole. 
     
     William Golding’s Lord of the Flies portrays the childhood years very differently from the way that they are commonly perceived.  Golding clearly held a view that the childhood years are marked by tribulation and terror. In his novel, Golding shows that children are not inherently good and innocent, but instead quite the contrary.  William appears to believe that the human race is inherently evil, and without the constraints of society's expectations, this inner-evil bubbles to the surface and shows its face.  
     
     In the Lord of the Flies a group of British school students are involved in a plane crash, leaving the kids stranded on an island to fend for themselves.  The children’s actions and decisions mirror the adult world despite the difference in maturity and age.  The kid's immediately try to set up rules and regulations to mirror the rule's that the government and their parents's place on them.  They show the desire for order through this however as they are stranded and isolated from society for longer and longer, the children decide to show their true colors and rebel.  The main character, Ralph attempts to maintain order but human nature interfere.  The kids separate themselves into two tribes: one led by Ralph, and the other by Jack.  Eventually animalistic tribal warfare erupts and many characters are killed.  There is a great forrest fire on the island which represents the eruption of complete chaos erupts.  This mirror's the adult society as this story takes place in the midst of World War II.  The children were fleeing the war, however their human nature drove them back to war.

     The parallels between the children stranded on the island and the adults in the rest of the world give a frightening insight on the nature of humans.  Golding was clearly trying to show that humans are inherently evil.  The terror that resulted on the island shows that children, if not properly socialized by society will revert to their roots.  The difference between the children and the adults is that the adults have been socialized by society to behave a certain way.  The children are representative of the result of those left in isolation of society and not properly socialized to behave the way that society expects.  The children begin the way that society expects of them: with rules and order.  However the children soon turn against the societal norm and chaos erupts.  The only children that were truly innocent in the novel were killed (the young boy and Piggy).  This represents the animalistic and savage ways of society, and shows that adolescence  is a time when children are stripped of their innocence.  

       The Lord of the Flies is a great example of a story in which the representation of childhoood and adolescence shape the meaning of the work as a whole.  Golding clearly did not intend to make the story about children alone.  The children are representative of the adult world as well.  Golding attempted to show the evil ways of human nature, and savagery of society without the constraints of laws and order through the way the children acted when they were in isolation from society.   

Response to Course Materials #3

     Since my last response to course materials our class has finished our discussion of The American Dream and annotated it, started to work with Death of a Salesman, and took the second terms test.
     When the class first read through The American Dream I barely understood any of it.  I was entertained by it but I didn't understand any of the deeper meanings whatsoever.  The analysis we read of The American Dream better helped me understand the themes of the novel and some of its symbols. The packet also better helped me understand the Theater of the Absurd and its applications.  I learned that Grandma represents the "Old American Dream" whereas the young man is the "New American Dream".  Our class discussion and the annotations helped me further understand the main themes and meanings of the piece as well as the more complex symbols such as the "bumble of joy" and the twin brothers.  There is so much more to the play than meets the eye and it really stands as a testament to rereading a piece.
     Although we haven't done much discussion of Death of a Salesman, and haven't read the actual book yet, based on the movie I can tell that it is going to be another hard book to crack.  Contrary to The American Dream however I am not left completely clueless as to the meaning.  The main character, Willie, seems like he is rather senile.  I think that the book is a representation of the evils of a capitalist society as Willie is being taken advantage of by big business.  Of the brief discussion in class one really interesting connection I made was of all of the christ figures in the book.  Biff is 34, whereas Jesus was 33.  This is representative of Biff being passed the hope of ever being what his family expected of him.  Willie and the rest of the family wanted Biff to succeed in the world of sales but he failed at that.  He is good with his hands just as Jesus was as well.  The family looked to him as a source of salvation but he let them down.  He is a sort of failed christ figure.  Willie on the other hand works himself to the core every day for his family and made the ultimate sacrifice of his life, just as Jesus did, because he knew that he was worth more dead than alive.  He knew that his family would benefit from his life insurance.  Ben, Willie's brother, is also a sort of christ figure as he is always looked at as perfect.  He is big, tall, powerful, and successful due his diamonds.  This leads Willie to always look to his brother for help, just as one would look to God for help.  I also noticed a few connections of Death of a Salesman and The American Dream.  Both Willie and Grandma seemed very disillusioned with society.  I also noticed that in both stories the "American Dream" is a major theme.  Willie had been determined to achieve gain a grip of the "American Dream" his whole life.  He wanted to provide for his family and have all of the hot commodities.  He also seemed very upset and unsatisfied with life just as the characters in The American Dream were.  I found that Willie complaining about the refrigerator was very similar to the characters in The American Dream complaining about the toilet.  There is still a lot that I do not understand of the book but I think I will gain a much greater understanding after we finish the annotations.
     The terms test that we recently took made me lose a good deal of confidence.  I didn't study as much as I should have for the first terms test and my grade reflected that.  This time however I studied for hours and really felt like I had all the terms down.  I felt like I was able to apply them really well to literature and felt confident going into the test.  Coming out... not so much.  I got the same grade as I did the first time after hours of work and a much better understanding of the terms.  What was tricky to me is that it seemed as though there was more than one right answer. Upon checking over the test however, I realized that there were just many answers that were very close to being correct, but just a little bit off.  I think that I will be able to apply the terms much better than I could before so that is a good thing but my test score did not reflect that.  I think I was just thrown off by the answers that were near-answers.  This will definitely make me read the questions on the AP test of as we learned in class that the AP tests have a lot of near-answers to throw people off as well.
     Overall we have learned a lot these past few weeks and I am excited to further analyze Death of a Salesman.