Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Thomas C. Foster
How to Read Literature Like a Professor
Thomas C. Foster
How to Use This Blog
The purpose of this blog is to assist you in the analysis of your summer reading assignment for AP English. As you are reading and annotating How to Read Literature Like a Professor by Thomas C. Foster, you will be required to post your study guide responses for each chapter for a minimum of 25 posts. Additionally, you should try to avoid repeating your classmate's examples; therefore, those who wait to complete the blog assignment will have a more difficult time trying to find creative and original examples. If you do utilize the same example, you must expand and look at the work in a different perspective. Finally, you will need to respond to at least five other individuals' posts. Aim for 100-200 words per response for each post, depending on the type of question you are asked to answer. Focus on facts and specific details in the novel/movie rather than making judgments or summarizing. Pay attention to the movies/TV shows you are watching and think about novels you have read. These ideas will hopefully help everyone think outside the box and dig deeper. I'm looking for the WOW factor!
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(27)
-
▼
May
(27)
- Introduction: How'd He Do That?
- Chapter 1 - Every Trip is a Quest (Except When It'...
- Chapter 2 - Nice to Eat with You: Acts of Communion
- Chapter 3 - Nice to Eat You: Acts of Vampires
- Chapter 4 - If It's Square, It's a Sonnet
- Chapter 5 - Now, Where Have I Seen Her Before?
- Chapter 6 - When in Doubt, It's from Shakespeare ...
- Chapter 7 - ... Or the Bible
- Chapter 8 - Hanseldee and Greteldum
- Chapter 9 - It's Greek to Me
- Chapter 10 - It's More Than Just Rain or Snow
- Interlude - Does He Mean That
- Chapter 11 - ... More Than It's Gonna Hurt You: C...
- Chapter 12 - Is That a Symbol?
- Chapter 13 - It's All Political
- Chapter 14 - Yes, She's a Christ Figure, Too
- Chapter 15 - Flights of Fancy
- Chapter 16 - It's All About Sex; Chapter 17 - ......
- Chapter 18 - If She Comes Up, It's Baptism
- Chapter 19 - Geography Matters...
- Chapter 20 - ... So Does Season
- Interlude - One Story
- Chapter 21 - Marked for Greatness
- Chapter 22 - He's Blind for a Reason, You Know; C...
- Chapter 25 - Don't Read with Your Eyes
- Chapter 26 - Is He Serious? And Other Ironies
- Chapter 27 - A Test Case
-
▼
May
(27)
15 comments:
We from Honors English have actually read a number of very political works from 1984 to The Grapes of Wrath. One of my favorite political works is Fahrenheit 451 which I was privileged enough to be able to read my sophomore year. Anyone who reads the book and looks into it will understand that Ray Bradbury is speaking out against the direction that people are moving socially. He does this by presenting a scary picture that we are supposed to think of as the "end result" is we continue on the path we are on. He speaks out against censorship, teen violence, and being too busy to enjoy literature. He advocates real social interaction between people, freedom of speech, and tolerance. He explains the problem to be that people are getting too offended at the content in books. They should be tolerant and respect various opinions without getting offended and trying to censor them. He is also saying that with all those opinions floating out there in the forms of good literature, it is worthwhile to sit down and genially get something out of the books. Though Cliffs Notes weren't around in the age of Ray Bradbury, he is speaking out against devices such as those that deliver the plot of a story rather than it's deeper meaning. Those who read Fahrenheit 451 through chapter summaries are only seeing the surface value of the story. They may understand that the was a fireman who rebelled against society and all the plot details to accompany that, but they miss what that signifies and the moral lesion that the author is trying to convey. This is what ray is saying through his story, and speaking out against society is definitely political.
Foster’s theory of politics in books is that not every story is political. There are just parts of books that are political. I do believe this is true and until I read that chapter I didn’t realize that To Kill a Mockingbird was political. The character that is being treated unfairly is Tom, a black man. In this generation African Americans weren’t necessarily slaves but they were looked down upon by most people. The government at this time did nothing to protect the blacks so if people were to treat them unfairly and take advantage of them, then it happened. Even the cops in the town didn’t protect the people in jail. That sounds a little bit ironic since cops are supposed to protect people but when Tom was in jail there were some citizens that tried to come hurt him. Tom’s trial was also totally political. Atticus did what he could to protect Tom and although his side of the story was so much more believable, politics took precedence over morals and truth. This type of government no longer exists, but it gives people a feeling of what it was like and how people were treated so that hopefully, it will not be repeated in the future.
Not all literature is political, but in George Orwell's 1984, its basically a warning to future generations. Written in 1948, this book predicted some of the things that are happening in today's world. In the book, there are television screens located on every corner and in every room. The Party (government) can watch people and listen to people through these screens. There is absolutely no privacy for the people. The Party also controls what people think. They censor things in history by simply saying it never happened, and anyone who denied it was punished in the Misistry of Love. The Party controls every aspect of life. Whether the people realize it or not, noone is happy. This book is ment to warn the future generartions of government power. Even today the government controls much of what we do. They have cameras everywhere, and can tap phone lines without anyone finding out. There is a limit on privacy in today's society just as in the book. The government also conceals information from the public too. They classify documents and keep important information from the rest of the world. If you ask me, our society is headed down the path of 1984's.
I completely agree with Foster's idea of every literary work containing political views. Every book contains political views of the author’s time in some way. For example, a writer today would not talk about slavery or pioneer life. The only way an author would write about slavery and pioneer life is if they were writing about life during those times of slavery. During my sophomore year, I read Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew which contained a variety of political aspects of that time. Women in the play were never mentioned to do any work outside of cleaning jobs and work for their husbands. By this, anyone could assume that men were sexiest and did all the business work in the world. Along with sexism, the men controlled and treated them as if they owned their wives. This control is indicated when Petruchio forces Katherine to obey his every command. This book also implies that during those times there were classes, and the higher class people had servants. When the pantaloon almost wins Katherine because of the land he offers, it goes to prove that land was an important possession. The little details in stories need to be recognized to find the political views of the time.
The books 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are similar because they both show how the world could come to an end. 1984 is very political in the way that it shows what could happen in a totalitarian state. Totalitarian is relating to a centralized government that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life. George Orwell (the author) writes as if “Big Brother” will soon rule the world, and that there will be no freedom of speech or even thought. You must do exactly what you are told and always obey the rules. You are not allowed to speak against Big Brother, or even commit thought crime. Winston of course is one of the few who realizes what the world is coming to and tries to defend his beliefs. Since he is one of few people things don’t work out as planned, and in the end we believe he is vaporized. This is an example of political because it’s an act of an individual against the government or higher party.
Last year, in English 10 Honors, we read several novels that would be considered political. But since it seems like everyone else has already used Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, I will use another futuristic short story that we read by Ray Bradbury, “A Sound of Thunder.” The story describes a time machine that entices hunters to go back in time to shoot the biggest game possible, a dinosaur. Before the trip even begins, the characters are warned that no matter what happens during the trip they must always remain on the path. Of course, someone ends up stepping off the path and kills a small butterfly. You would never think that this would create such a big difference in the future, but when the hunting party travels back to their own time everything has changed just from the one guy stepping on this one measly butterfly. The language is completely different, people’s features are altered in the slightest of ways, and the government is also changed. Throughout this short story Ray Bradbury is trying to warn us of the dangers that time machines could be if possibly invented. I also believe that he is showing us what will happen if we continue to try to and change the past. Things that occurred in the past were obviously meant to happen; otherwise our world would definitely not be what it is today.
I don’t have to assume anything because I completely agree that every literary work has some political level whether that level is in small details, a warning, or if spans the entire work or even if it merely touches upon an issue or subject. The past Sophomore year, I found many of our books to be especially political. One of them, Fahrenheit 451, demonstrates just how successful, and political, a book can be. Let’s start off with the main character: a man with the surname of Montag who a fireman who burns books because having them are against the law but doesn’t necessarily know whether or not the practice of burning books is right. This is a man who is unsure and on the edge of whether to believe society or his own thoughts and those he shares with a wise old man and a young seventeen year old girl. The author, Ray Bradbury, wants us as readers to take this journey and discovery process with Montag so we achieve Montag’s conclusion when it comes to censorship, how society and people should act, and what we should truly care about and find important in our own lives whether activities, morals, actions, or values. From the death of Clarice, which stands for the innocence, curiosity, purity, sanity, and the good and ideal qualities we hold high in current day society that we should never lose touch with, to the final moments and then the destruction of the city, which is the death of Montag’s society to die and rebuild itself like the phoenix rising from the ashes, Bradbury knows there is something to be taken to heart and applied to our own society so we ourselves can question our own and current ideas before we meet an end like that of the ill-fated society in Fahrenheit 451. In the end, it is also clear that tolerance and appreciation should great all texts because, like Bradbury’s message, books too are important to society and the cultivation of multiple ideas and beliefs that if we fail to notice waste away unread, not thought about, and lose all meaning and memory from the human mind. Books, like society, are something we should protect and look upon but also let thrive justly, and that, if anything, is Bradbury’s clearest political message.
It seems to me that Foster is totally correct and that each story has some political elements to it. Throughout high school I have read numerous books and stories with a vast amount of political elements. One such novel is Brave New World by Aldous Huxley which I read for summer reading last year. It takes place in a "utopian" future society. The main character in the novel is John who grew up in a Savage Reservation. He is seen as a savage by the people in the World State because he is of Native American descent and follows their culture. The people in the modern world frequently engage in sexual activity with multiple partners and use the drug soma. John doesn't believe in either of these and stands out even more because of that. John is called a savage when in some ways, by today’s standards; he seems more civilized than the ones who criticize him. This is a political story because it shows how people are discriminated against based on race and upbringing. It also shows that if we allow it, the government will take total control over us by using methods like drugs (soma).
I, like Foster, believe that every work isn’t necessarily political but that ever work of literature contains something significant from the time it was written in. Personally, I hate everything surrounding political ideas. Despite my hate for politics, I thoroughly enjoyed George Orwell’s 1984. Orwell wrote this novel in 1948. The way he wrote it was somewhat of a warning to future generations. With Big Brother always watching, the people in 1984 had absolutely no privacy. Although in the year 1984 we didn’t have huge telescreens watching our every move and analyzing our every thought, some say we’re getting close. Orwell took events that were happening in his time period and over exaggerated them to what he thought the world would be like in 1984. Censorship has become a growing issue in society. In the novel, 1984, Orwell portrays censorship at its worst. Although Orwell’s prediction was wrong for 1984, the way the world is today, maybe Orwell’s prediction will one day come true.
Foster is right that each story has something to do with politics, or has something political in it. I myself have always enjoyed most things that have to do with politics. When I read George Orwell's book 1984 i really enjoyed it, as it had many political aspects in it. In the story it talks about their government, which is political. The characters name is also Winston Smith. Which in itself refers to a political figure, Winston Churchill. It also mentions censorship a lot, which is a problem in today's world. It may not be as extreme as it was in the story, but I think that Orwell may have given an over exaggeration in order to get his point across to the reader. Which, in my opinion, worked very well.
Often times, talented writers will weave their personal political beliefs into their works, but they’ll do it in a way that may be difficult to catch if you don’t have the right background (such as the ability to recognize symbols like a professor). There are also a good number of times when writers, whether experienced or inexperienced, accidentally include their political convictions in their writings. This generally just happens because, as Foster puts it, “writers tend to be men and women who are interested in the world around them,” meaning that the general group of people who desire to write also tend to write about the world they live in, which includes, by all means, politics. One such example of political literature is Shakespeare’s play, The Taming of the Shrew, which is a very obvious statement for male dominance. This is illustrated by a fair number of points, the most prominent of which revolve around Petrucio. Petrucio is a veritable juggernaut of superiority. He decides that he’s going to make Katherine be how he wants her to be despite her own free will, (all in order to get a dowry, which he apparently values more than he values her) and he manages to do just that. Although Petrucio is unreasonable, rude, and cruel, he is still glamorized as the hero because Kate, the victim of his cruelties, fills the role of the villain. How did she end up as the antagonist? The opinions of the author made her so. Everything that Shakespeare wrote in that play was slanted either with bias against the female gender or bias for male superiority. In this example, the bias isn’t hid since many of Shakespeare’s readers/viewers held the same opinion. So that’s how authors do it—they polish the wording and events around things they like and cast verbal gray clouds over ideas they don’t.
I agree with Foster about his theory that every work of literature is in some way or another political. Every work of literature has some aspect in it that can be considered political. I believe that The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane can be considered a political work of literature. Crane bases his novel off of what the young males of his time believe the war is like. I believe one of the reasons he wrote the book is to change the views of young males on war. Young Henry Fleming, the main character, thinks that war is going to be full of action, and he is going to become a hero like Achilles and other mythical figures. In reality, the war is really a bunch of sitting around at camp being drilled repeatedly and marching continuously. Henry Fleming finds this out when he gets to his camp. When his regiment finally gets to a battle, he realizes that war isn’t everything it’s made out to be. By the end of the novel he realizes that he isn’t a hero, and he never was going to be. He is just another young male in the army. I believe Stephen Crane wrote this book to expose the reality of war to the young males that thought it was going to be all glamour for them. Maybe he could save a couple lives by making some young males realize that war isn’t what they want.
I do believe Foster is right about there being political aspects in almost all literature. Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the more political novels I’ve read since entering high school. Not only does Lee express the realties of that time about how black people were treated, but also how racism affected the judicial system. Law enforcement didn’t protect blacks from racist acts of the public, and some even encouraged the racist behavior. This was both true in Lee’s novel and in our country for a long time. On top of covering the issue of racism, the novel also was political by using the “n” word throughout it. Lee’s intention was never to offend anyone, just to show how it really was for blacks back then. Lee wanted people to be offended by the word, and of Mr. Ewell’s views. The issue of justice and rights was one of the biggest points Lee made. Tom Robertson was very much innocent, but when a black man was accused of a crime by a white man the chance of a fair trial was almost impossible to have back then. Scout, growing up in a racist environment, found herself changing her views as the case went on. In the beginning, Scout found herself not caring very much for blacks (not hating them, just not really caring or realizing they’re people just like her), but as the novel goes on she realizes how unfair her society is being as well as how corrupt the justice system is. This novel deals with many racial, ethical, and social issues as well as exposing how corrupt the judicial system was then. Every one of these aspects makes this novel undoubtedly political.
In John Grisham's A Time to Kill, two white men are put on trial for raping and beating a young black girl on her way home. While at the trial, the girl's father, the main character, flips and thinks that the white men will be released because they are white. The father then goes to a friend and gets a gun. While the white men are going back to the prison after another day of the trial, they are shot and killed by the girl's father, who is then put on trial for murder. Since he is black, the trial doesn't go so well, resulting in riots throughout the town by blacks saying that the whit men got what they deserved, and the white people trying to get him convicted. This story is still in the time of racism, which was considered politically correct at the time, so black people were often treated worse than white people and were cheated out of some rights. This book is all about the political views of racism.
Although not ever book is based off of politics there are always a number of topics that qualify for 'political'. Although I'm not a huge fan of politics I thoroughly enjoyed 1984 and its views. George Orwell’s novel, 1984, is a futuristic view on what the world could become. The thought Orwell had is beyond a scary reality. The party governs what people think and what they do. There is no room for privacy because monitors watch your every move. The can simply alter anything in the past and you must believe it and if someone were to question the authority of the party people the person would be punished in the Ministry of Love. Irony shine out here because when you think of love it is never associated with torture, but in the Room 101 in the Ministry of Love the convicted is faced with their biggest fear, this tactic is made to break the souls of the rebellious. In today’s society we have begun to face the same problems as in 1984. The government can quickly access any of our personal information by looking at phone and internet records. It’s a scary thought, but is it possible that we will also end up just like Orwell foreshadowed?
Post a Comment