DavidWilbanks

EL237

Okay, it's late, and honestly, I was just going to read the chapter (13 in Roberts), and blog about it later. However, one thing in it annoyed me enough that I really gotta blog right now (Expect the bags under my eyes to be a shade darker than usual tomorrow in class).

The explaination of the schwa sound is highly problematic, the words he uses as examples, actually make two different sounds. While "about," "nation" and "circus" do use the schwa sound, which is the same sound as in "the," it sounds like "uh." as in "UH-bout" (UH-boot (for any Canadians out there), "na[sh]-UH-n," and "circ-UH-s."  "Rapid" uses a short i sound, like in "this" or "is" or "pitiful." No one says "rap-UH-d." unless one is using the word "rapper" as a past-tense verb. "Stages" is a bit trickier, as it can be used both as a plural noun, and a verb, which shifts the stress. As a noun, the stress is on the first sylable, which makes the "e" come out sounding a bit more like a short "i" sound: "sta[j]-I-[z]," definately not "sta[j]-UH-[z]. When used as a verb, the stress is on the second sylable, which slightly alters the sound, so that it comes out a bit more like the short "e" like in "forget" or "hell" or "bet," making it "sta[j]-E-[z]" and NOT "sta[j]-UH-[z]." 

I'm a bit picky, because I may spend a fair amount of my life teaching English as a Second Language, and phonology is a big part of teaching pronounciation. However, you don't have to have taken a ridiculously easy online TEFL certification course to know that unless you use the pronounciation of Lenny from Of Mice and Men, ("And George, I'll get tuh feed thuh rabbuhts."), these words simply do not use the schwa sound.

In all honesty, I don't profess to know all the rules that one might use to explain the sounds used in different situations within the English language, and I really doubt that such a rule book exists, as anyone attempting to write one likely commited suicide before its completion. The best bet as far as sorting out the vowel sounds would probably be to discard Roman characters altogethor and switch to some sensible alphabet, like Thai. They have 16 vowels, but at least each of them only makes one sound (each also has a long version that just indicates that you hold it longer, but we don't need that). We can forget about inculding their 44 consonants, and tone rules though, as that bit gets kinda complex. 

EL237

I used to be bothered by ambiguous endings in novels and stories, up until I started writing them. Now it would be hypocritical for me to be too disappointed about it. Anytime a writer decides to end a story with questions, typically, the author feels that the answers to these questions are unimportant. In this case, whether J. dies or goes on to break the record, is immaterial. Whitehead wants us to focus on what happened during the story, rather than what Pamela and J. decided to name their babies, assuming J. didn't die. If either conclusion was given, it would alter the focus in (presumably) a way that Whitehead didn't want to alter it.

As far as giving a newpaper article on the shooting, to wrap the story up, it would have been interesting to include one, but avoid giving any facts beyond what we already know at that point. "Two unidentified men were shot, sources indicate they were journalists visiting Talcott for the John Henry Days Celebration." They could even go further and drop subtle, conflicting hints, suggesting each of the journalists. Then again, this would draw more attention to the unanswered, leaving less focus on the parts of the story that are told.   

EL237

Irony first: I really enjoyed the bit on 282, which deals with Alphonse Miggs at the fair. Very bottom of the page, (extending on to the next), a woman selling paint-by-numbers paintings done in some wierd colors, is described as a bit crazy. The narrator implies this by suggesting that a second in her mind would be too much. Ironic, given that Alphonse is by this point definately the guy who is about to shoot the place up (or attempt to). Interesting, but not part of my main point.

The scene with the crackhead (Tony), got me thinkin about oral history, and our current lack of it. Thinking back, the John Henry song/legend is unique in that it really seems to me to be the last well known, oral legend/song. There are songs that have maintained for years, and are even more widely known, though they either lack a story, tell a fictional story, or simply tell one that most are unaware of. "Happy Birthday" is (according to some book), the most widely sung song in the world, but it's not really oral tradition, as it lacks a story. "The Star-Spangled Banner" is nationally known, but based on the number of people who are unaware of the war of 1812, it is likely that few really know what it's about. Nursery rhymes (which are slowly being replaced by the theme songs from cartoons) either have no basis in reality (What mouse? What clock? Is Hickory-Dickory  a field of medicine? if so when does one consult a Hickory-Dickory Doc?), or aren't connected to whatever basis they once had. (Most children don't associate "Ring Around the Rosie" with the bubonic plague). In terms of legend and song, there seems to be nothing widespread that is passed around orally. While there are stories that everyone knows, and songs that everyone knows, it tends to be because we all saw them, read them, or heard them when their author created them. 

Whereas people could once talk about John Henry as a figure that everyone was aware of, we now have only Homer Simpson, Spock, Gilligan, Luke Skywalker, Superman, Huckleberry Finn (and Hound as well), Optimus Prime and the list goes on. We can regocnize these characters, in a similar way (as they tend to be universal, dependant one one's year of birth). What seperates these characters, is that they're all fictional, and have a specific "official source," while I CAN make up new stories about them, one can point to the original source, and say, No, Homer is NOT a Jedi, Luke Skywalker isn't a fat alcoholic, and Optimus Prime turns into a truck rather than a gorilla (except in that short-lived Beast Wars series which was stupid). One can always add to the stories, but the already published is incontrovertable. There WERE plenty of Star Wars novels written after the Trilogy, but regardless of the author's talents, the original trilogy remained the standard. (The only real exception to this is that Sci-Fi tends to allow time travel, in which case history can be altered, creating alternate universes, where, for example, Vulcan is destroyed, and Kirk's dad is killed on the day of his birth...and there are two Spocks)

The other source of stories we have is non-fiction. Because these stories are true (in theory), and we have a staggeringly large mass media network, we tend to get the facts, (though the telling may slightly vary). If John Henry's competition took place today, we all could have simply turned to page F10 (D8 on a slow day, A1 in Talcott and Hinton), and read the one paragraph Associated Press article on it, and probably go watch the youtube video of it. Thus, to anyone altering the story, one could simply say "Dude, go watch the video again...I'll send you the link."

This mention of youtube brings us to my theory of the new oral tradition. Because so many of our stories have the obvious problem of having an "original," we've sort of lost oral history as a medium. However, we've lately been coming up with all sorts of new media, which in a way can replace it. Ever since my very first e-mail account (Homicidal_maniac@lycos.com, don't ask) I'd frequently get obnoxious forwards, containing stories that were likely fictional or vaguely true, yet embelished to ridiculous porportions, typically illustrating the sort of peril I'd be in if I failed to forward it to 10 friends. This sort of began a new tradition, as the fonts/word choice, etc. tended to suggest that people had altered or added to these stories. Now, this is easily expanded. With blogs and video blogs, stories tend to spread, yet retain the advantage of being alterable.

For Example, you've probably scene the "Dramatic Chimpmunk" video (posted 2 years ago) I just checked adn they've got a James Bond version, a Darth Vader Version, and several others ,many of which appear on a 2.5 minute "Best of Dramatic Chipmunk" video. This is a whole lot of variation for a 5 second clip. (17 million views on just one version of the original is a whole lot a views too)

While videos can be altered to depict a new story, simply changing the caption can significantly alter the story (much in the same way one can take the idea "John Henry dies after beating a machine in a competition" has formed thousands of different stories). Plus, blogs lacking fact checkers can quickly desseminate urban myths, etc. which can then be picked up by other forums, and blogs, and altered. While one could technically trace any given story back through the time-stamps on blogs and forum posts, it would be as staggering a task as seeking out the "real" John Henry story.

Then again the only real problem with this comparison is that the massive quality of mass media makes it so that there are millions of stories, most of which fade before there get to be many variations. Also, because the online population is staggeringly vast, what stories you get is highly dependant on your online (and real life) network of friends/aquaintances.

Anyway, it looks like, these days anyway, oral tradition is essentially supplanted by the internet.....(the comparison to John Henry Days ought to be so obvious that it needn't be mentioned) This makes the John Henry story special as it seems to be the final entry on the blog of true, pure oral tradition....ANYONE can tell a good story when they got a video clip of it on their phone. Just as the last people who witnessed John Henry died off years ago, eventually, the last people who witnessed the telling/singing of it (rather than reading it, studying it as a historical/cultural chunk of Americana/or worse watching the disney version).  

EL237

I really like the shift is word-choice given to each section, depending on the character it focuses upon. I've started to notice changes in word choice apparent during the sections dealing with the various different characters. While the narration is still obviously third person limited throughout, the tone in each is subtly altered, which seems to help personify the character. In J.'s portions the narrator tends to give a well read (through allusions to other literary works/authors, ranging from Hunter S. Thompson to William Shakespeare), as well as cynical and sarcastic. The tone seems more distraut, verging on total apathy, for Miggs, (except when it talks about stamps) and depressed, yet confused, and somewhat distressed for Pamela. While these changes are subtle, they help to make the characters come alive, and further diferentiate them.

This break typically is done by chapter, though in one interesting occasion, it breaks in the middle of the chapter, shifting from Pamela to J. (186) I beleive this is the only place where the prose is split by an entire line of space, rather than a simple indentation to begin the next paragraph. It is especially interesting as it shifts during a conversation between the tow of them where each is sizing the other up.    

EL237

Alright, this chapter of Roberts, was a bit painful, despite talking about an important topic.  It covered research and documentation, which is very important. Beyond this, it is an area that many students struggle with. The reason I know this, is that I work in the Writing Center, helping students who struggle with this, and other areas of writing (though this is probably the most common thing we help with). I also recently did a presentation on "Incorporating Sources," for Write Aid, which was just a few weeks ago. Beyond this, I've got two different research papers in the works at the moment. SO, at this stage, I'm just kind of burned out on documentation.

EL237

While I didn't think the plot of this story was all that entertaining, the imagery in it is, as mentioned in the title of this blog, impressive. From the very beginning, Mansfield is flinging about similes, personification and just lots of adjectives. This is especially important to the story, as it takes place in a single scene, and this scene is fundamental in the plot of the story. Mrs. Brill is an observer, who feels that the world is a play for her, so it is obviously very important for Mansfield to paint a vivid picture for the reader.

EL237

So, yeah, Metaphores compare unlike things, by simply saying they are them. i.e. Words are pictures (this is a short, unimpressive example)

Similes do the same, but use like or as i.e. "Words are visual, like hieroglyphics"

While these are two very fundamental bits of knowledge, which any highschool graduate knows, Roberts goes a bit farther by talking about how to write about them. In highschool it was enough to be able to identify them. Roberts suggests actually explaining what the effect of the imagery is. This is kind of a useful chapter, as it repeats the old, low level stuff,  but then shows the next step. (Jumping from synthesis to evaluation (the final step) on Bloom's Taxonomy) 

EL237

As I look at two versions of this poem, published in both an anthology and a textbook, and consider how many millions of people have read it, and how many thousands of places it's published...it's a little frustrating. (At least he's not collecting royalties). This isn't to say that it's a bad poem. The figurative language is quite good, but Cortez didn't discover the Pacific. Unless there is some clever joke that I'm missing, it's just a mistake that shouldn't be in a poem.

The reason this makes me bitter is that NO ONE would ever publish a poem of mine if I said that I felt like Chewbacca when he blew up the Death Star. (Though it would potentially have more to do with the Star Wars reference than the INCORRECT Star Wars reference). While I try very hard not to be critical of older literature, because they were writing in a very different time, (when there was aparently less competition) but I'm really bothered by innacurate information. 

EL237

This is just a whole lot of alliteration, which is a bit easy when you recycle words; "grieving at grievances" and "fore-bemoaned moans." Beyond that, I picked up one more example of Shakespeare being everywhere. I hadn't realized that Marcel Proust borrowed the title of his famous work, Remembrance of Things Past from this sonnet.

EL237

Chapter 6 of Roberts' book deals with setting. I guess for me this is a bit redundant. However, the suggestion that there are 3 basic types of settings: "Private homes, Public buildings and various possessions," "outdoor places" and "cultural and historical circumstances." First off, the list seems to contain several different things for each entry. While the first is man-made stuff, the second is natural and the last is temporal or cultural, this seems to leave a lot out. or at least have such vague meanings that one might as well just stick with "when and where the story takes place." 

While typically Roberts' general rules usually clarify literary elements, I think that this particular list convolutes things. If he needed a list physical, temporal and cultural would have made sense, and been a bit clearer.

As far as the given catagories go, there are some that can simply aren't listed. Technically, hell in Milton's Paradise Lost, isn't necessarily nature nor man-made. The world of Edwin Abbot's Flatland doesn't really fit into any of those catagories.