McCormick’s AP Comp Blog

A lot of the advice that Jolliffe gave we’ve already gone over in class: the ‘conversing’ of the sources, generalizing but having a nuanced claim, and just generally, how to argue. Jolliffe doesn’t really talk much about the practical parts of the essay writing. He talks about reading closely and analyzing, but what he doesn’t talk about is that we’ll have little enough time that all of it really needs to be happening in our heads, automatically, as we read the sources. We don’t have time to carefully analyze after we’ve carefully read the sources; these are integrated into one step.

Jolliffe also seems to breeze over the ‘argue’ step, when really, this is you writing the essay. I guess because this is about all the differences, the special parts of the new synthetic essay, but it seems like he should say a bit more about other strategies to use when writing. Whether the five paragraph is a good thing or not. Or something like that, I lost track of the point I was trying to make.

The purpose of “A Modest Proposal” is to make fun of the way many talk about the poor and of the kinds of solutions that people come up with to solve huge political and social problems. What the satire does is not just say, “to say this or that is ridiculous,” it shows the reader that the certain point of view is ridiculous. It does so by over-exaggerating, by making obvious the logical fallacies that the other side uses, and by suggesting to the reader that, “if I can be so obviously wrong when I act like the other side, the other side must then be wrong.”

Swift’s essay begins very ordinary, and builds up support for his persona. When he says, “It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms,” his persona seems to be showing good character and sympathy for the poor, connecting to the reader’s own emotions of sympathy. This sets up a credible character so that when it is dashed in the ninth paragraph with cannibalism, it is even more shocking. By structuring his essay like this, Swift is showing his readers how those who say they care about the country and its people, especially the poorer citizens, can really feel quite the opposite, if you were to look at what they think should be done with the poor.

One of the specific attitudes that Swift is attacking in his satire is the attitude of treating the poorer people of the country like animals. His persona comments that, “I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed, twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine. . .” Humans should not be talked about in terms of “breeders” or in conjunction with animals, but by doing so and with the extreme situation of cannibalism, Swift shows that this is violating all morals, and that you should be careful to recognize these instances in other arguments.

Chesterton most notably uses humor in his essay, to connect with his readers, establish his credibility as a smart but down-to-earth person, and to create a humorous, positive tone that will encourage the readers to more likely agree with what he says.

First, he uses understatement as an element of his humor, such as when he says of his broomstick-pencil invention, “this, however, is not generally a part of the domestic apparatus on the premises.” Of course it’s not common in houses, it’s something he just made up, and this makes audience laugh along with Chesterton, and more readily go along with his slightly unorthodox views. Similarly, Chesterton acts very serious while commenting on a quirky topic. “Then the light of that white heaven broke upon my vision, that breadth of mere white which is indeed almost the definition of Paradise, since it means purity and also means freedom,” sounds like it is coming from a philosophical revelation, but it is talking about him realizing he could draw on his ceiling. By doing a bit of self-mocking for taking himself so seriously, Chesterton establishes a more humble, and through that, a more credible person.

Chesterton quotes others twice, but each is for a very different reason. The first time, he says, “Paper is much too small for any really allegorical design; as Cyrano de Bergerac says, “Il me faut des géants” [“I need giants”].” This is close to being completely serious, and it supports his claim well. The second time, however, it is for comedic effect. It would be the truly foolish person to believe that “The Bible must be referring to wallpapers…when it says, “Use not vain repetitions, as the Gentiles do.”” Instead, he is continuing his other funny lines, and being mock-serious to connect with his readers through humor.

Basic rhetorical strategies such as parallelism are also employed by Chesterton.  For example, he repeats the first phrase’s structure in the second in “If there is one thing worse than the modern weakening of major morals, it is the modern strengthening of minor morals. ” This gives the essay a good base and organization, and makes it easier for the reader to understand.

One way that Downe convinces his wife to emigrate to the United States is by showing her all the ways in which the United States has been wonderful for him so far. Downe was at least relatively poor in England, as seen by his comment that, “I should not have left you behind me, if I had money to have took you with me;” he was poor, otherwise he would have taken his family with him. When Downe runs into a kind farmer while looking for work, the farmer gives Downe a dinner that has, in  Downe’s words, “everything that a person could wish.”A description of all the food to be had in the United States would especially appeal to his wife, back in England and still in at least some poverty, because she wouldn’t get the “pudding, pyes, and fruit of all kind” that Downe goes into raptures over.   Because Downe’s wife is from the same environment that Downe is, she too is likely to be amazed at the riches of the United States described, and want to live their herself.

Maybe this…

The police use them. Trappers use them. Criminals use them. As you can probably guess, I am talking about guns. Guns are, by nature, dangerous things–they were designed to kill, or at the very least, hurt something or someone quite a bit. They are also very specialized pieces of equipment in that they are not necessary for most people in the US, because in our new-fangled world we are safe from many of the dangers we used to face, like mother bears roaming around. However, as the constitution says, we have a right to bear arms in the US. That doesn’t mean, though, we can just let them be passed out freely like fliers on a street–these are dangerous objects we are talking about. We wouldn’t let bio-hazards like harmful viruses and bacteria be sold to just anyone, because they have a huge potential to kill people. By regulating and tracking guns, we are able to keep these out of the reach of likely abusers. And, those who want to buy guns for lawful purposes shouldn’t have problems from regulating guns, because as people obeying the law, they have nothing to worry about.

Or maybe this…

The embodiment of the US’s fundamental policies can be seen in the Constitution, and for more than two centuries since it was first set down, the right to bear arms has been present. Now, we enjoy the freedom to not be monitored for our behaviors without suspicion, except for guns, in which we are regulated and restricted without cause. In this way, the debate about restricting guns is a lot like a debate about privacy. If someone were to keep track of how much household cleaner or rat poison or kitchen knives or gasoline we bought, we would be outraged at the breach in privacy, and all of these items can be as dangerous as guns. The restriction of guns is going against the very obvious affirmation in the Constitution that you can have guns, which was in reaction to the oppressive British government that didn’t want the public to have guns. Why should a group of people be unfairly stigmatized for exercising their rights?

A year ago, my orchestra went on a trip to New York, and I was able to go to the Museum of Modern Art. There were some wonderful pictures (and some very modern, pretty odd ones too), and one of these particularly grabbed me, called “Christina’s World,” by Andrew Wyeth. It is a tempera painting, done in 1948.
The focal point of this painting is the woman, Christina, in the bottom left, who is leaning forward and looks out into the field, and up to the farmhouse. The viewer’s path of vision follows Christina’s, but returns to her, the only subject in what would otherwise be simply a landscape. Movement can be seen in her hair, as well as the grass, but it is a quiet breeze, not a hard wind of any kind.
Similarly to the movement, the color scheme is rather muted; most all colors are pastels or neutrals. However, the overcast sky looks like it could bring in rain or a storm, and Christina’s position isn’t neutral either. It evokes two feelings at once; one, that she is in awe, leaning into the beauty of the field, and two, that she is in a submissive position, crawling and straining towards the farmhouse. This second feeling comes especially from the farmhouse’s higher elevation, and the painting’s point of view, which is down with Christina.
As it happens, Christina Olson was a friend of Wyeth who was severely crippled with polio, only able to move by dragging herself by the arms. She was also middle-aged, which many people were shocked to find out, because her back is to us, and she looks like she could even be in her twenties (Chilvers). It is not obvious that she is crippled, either, but her long gaze and aloneness give an atmosphere that is not as perfectly happy as it could be, even to those who do not have this history.
Another image I recently discovered is of a polio victim as well. The photograph “Living With Polio,” taken by Saurabh Das on April 4th, 1999, features ten-year-old Asruddin from Leora, India. It is in black and white, the colors much more monochromatic than “Christina’s World.” However, the photograph is initially more striking because of its symmetry, and because the background is completely white, letting the foreground’s two shapes of Asruddin and the wall stand out. That the symmetry of the photograph mirrors his balancing act is no accident, strengthening the image’s power.

Although “Christina’s World” doesn’t share the striking simplicity of shape of “Living With Polio,” they are both very clean-lined. “Living With Polio” has clear, definitive lines because it is a photograph, and because of the white background. The scene from “Christina’s World,” though, could easily be painted with a more Impressionist-like style, but the realism from the clear details such as the grass stalks and houses in the distance have a nearing-photographic quality. The clean lines in both of these pictures suggest a straightforward feeling, that the artists aren’t hiding anything, just portraying the world as it is. This helps the audience look through the image to the feelings held just below the surface, of internal battles and awe and perseverance.
“Living With Polio” is also similar to “Christina’s World” because the artist’s and the audience’s pity does not dominate, as it happens in many portraits of the crippled or disabled. The artists do connect the audiences to the subjects in an empathetic way, but there is something more in each image. In “Christina’s World,” it is a sense of awe, and that we all could be humbled by the world in the way Christina is. Sir David Piper wrote of the painting that it “seems to express both the tragedy and the joy of life with such
vivid poignancy that the painting becomes a universal symbol of the human condition.” (Chilvers) In “Living With Polio,” the “something more” is that despite being disabled, Asruddin is adjusting to finding ways to get around, and is even having fun doing his handstand. He is not helpless. And Christina, although helpless to an extent, is really just as powerless as anyone else is in the face of nature and this huge world.

Works Consulted

Chilvers, Ian. “Wyeth, Andrew [from OCWA].” Grove Dictionary of Art King County     Library System, Issaquah, WA. 16 April 2008 <http://www.groveart.com>.
Das, Saurabh. “Living With Polio.” AP Images 4 April, 1999. King County Library     System, Issaquah, WA. 16 April 2008 <http://apimages.ap.org>.
Wyeth, Andrew. Christina’s World. 1948. Museum of Modern Art, New York. John     Singer Sargent Virtual Gallery. “Andrew Wyeth’s Christina’s World.” 16 April     2008 <http://jssgallery.org/Other_Artists/Andrew_Wyeth/     Christinas_World.htm>.

Most compelling observation: “Above all, [Power] exists in the delicate compulsions of our social life, the force of community opinion within our country—in the respect we have for the good opinion of our neighbors.”

Thesis: It is true that many Americans are concerned about the opinions of their neighbors, perhaps even more in 1953, although I do not have experience with that. However, this is not exclusively a characteristic of Americans; there are many countries with a much more shared and dominant culture than Americans, and they also have a lot of power concentrated in the ‘compulsions of social life’—but in a different way. Americans have more groups that you can conform to, and the United States is still a deeply-rooted individualistic nation.

I.    Intro
A.    Hook—power of social life
B.    Lead into US specifically
C.    Thesis
II.    Evidence for power of social life/community conformity in US
A.    Politics in NW
B.    Watch leaders to conform to like celebrities: very similar
C.    Ideals of home, life, manners
III.    Differences of power of social life between US and more collectivist or culturally uniform countries
A.    Diversity is by nature, separating
B.    US—rebels in beginning, still value the rebel
C.    Individualistic—care about who we are, less about groups we belong to
D.    More options of communities
IV.    How US is individualistic, but also socially conforming
A.    Wide variety of communities
B.    To protect community, must put high value on keeping community together, conformity, social structure
V.    Conclusion
A.    Yes, US conforming
B.    Less conforming than many countries considering diversity

Yolanda was supposed to be doing her Psychology essay. However, Yolanda was watching TV instead.

“Don’t you have any homework to do?” asked her mother.

“Nope.”

“Well, ok…” she said suspiciously, and left Yolanda there vegetating.

Three hours later, Yolanda decided to start writing her essay. At twelve.

“Arggg…I really don’t want to write this,” she muttered to herself.

Yolanda got her introduction done, barely, and wrote one sentence for the second paragraph.

“Well, I guess it doesn’t really matter that much,” she thought, and flopped into bed and slept.

The next morning, the sun was peaking through her shades as her mom yelled into her room.

“Time to get up, Yolanda!”

“Unnngh” said Yolanda.

Suddenly, Yolanda realized it was WASL week.

“Mom, school starts at 10:30 today!”

“Well, I’ll get you up again at 9:30 then.”

And Yolanda went back to a blissful three extra hours of sleep, and finished her essay during STAR and lunch.

THE END.

The essay was pretty interesting. It’s weird to think that the teen who was using the flag as a pole/weapon didn’t realize the significance of what he was doing, that momentarily in his anger or hate or whatever he forgot that the flag was a huge symbol, sacred, and probably not something you should use to attack someone. The American flag is one of those things that you don’t want to fool around with; people can get angry at you just for letting it touch the ground.

I think that the picture was kind of similar to the Boston Massacre engraving, but not as much as the author made it out to be. The engraving had so many people involved, whereas this was a more isolated, between a couple of the teens and Landsmark. The photograph was also much closer to the scene, which made it feel much more personal.  It did share the similarity, though, of an image that was historically significant and iconic, and both about unfairly attacking another group/person.

In his analysis, Canaday concentrates a lot on the dynamics of the relationships between the people in the portrait. He argues that these are what make the portrait important to people outside the family circle, other than being a pretty decoration. He first starts with the Peales, and describes the piece and the many good components of it; how everyone in the picture is united, the place of the nurse shown well. But after going into this, he reveals what the artist is not doing–he is being superficial in not showing the relationship between the family members other than being nice. This single emotion, not varied for any of the people present, is all that is there. The point of the painting, although informal, is for a formal setting, a conversation piece that should not have the intimate details of the family’s life in it.

Canaday then goes on to show how The Bellelli Family portrait does show the inner dynamics, and how this makes this portrait more timeless, and something that can be very interesting to those outside the Bellelli family.

Throughout his essay, he talks a lot about how the people are looking or touching or connected to each other, and how this shows their relationships with each other. He talks about how the lines in the Bellelli family portrait divide the father from the rest, and how the background contributes to the portrait. From his description of the background in the Peale portrait, you can tell that he doesn’t regard it as highly as the Bellelli’s; he talks about items being scattered and thrown in “for good measure”, but that they weren’t carefully calculated to need to be there.