On Thursday, July 7 we met for the first time. We spent the first part of class with two pieces Michael Patrick MacDonald wrote this year.
First we read a column he wrote in the Boston Globe the day before we met. If you missed Thursday's session you should read the column here. MacDonald makes connections between material discussed in the book and the recent capture of Whitey Bulger.
Second we read a blog post he wrote after finishing teaching a third semester at Northeastern University. Go here to read the blog post called "Non-Fiction Writing and Social Justice Issues: Writing Real Life". What MacDonald says about writing and social justice is very relevant to the sort of class I want us to have next year.
Then after a break we used the passages your classmates commented on to attempt to answer two questions: (1) what argument does MacDonald seem to make in the book? (2) how do the various aspects of the book (the structure, the voice, the tone, the humor, the characterizations, the episodes he chooses to tell) contribute to the argument?
We decided that many aspects of the book illustrated -- both directly and indirectly -- that speaking out about the problems in Southie was necessary for Michael to escape from destructive cycles in his environment and to decrease the deaths, the drugs, the pain, and the sorrow in the neighborhood. A corollary of the argument, we decided, is that the code of silence was destructive. Another corollary of the argument, we felt, is that speaking out about problems in a person's community is a way of showing love and loyalty to that community. (MacDonald's book shows that speaking out about problems does not mean that you hate your community or that you are betraying it. Other people might disagree with MacDonald.) We talked a lot about how specific scenes in the book related to the overall argument made by the book. Overall I was very impressed.
If you did not attend the first meeting I'd like you to respond to some of what we discussed in the comment box. Write a substantial "open response" length comment. (Is there anything you agree with or disagree with in the summary above? Were any parts of the book particularly effective or, conversely, not effective? Have an opinion and develop it.) We want to hear what you have to say. Comment before our next meeting (Tuesday, July 26 at 8:00 am).
all the best,
Mr. James Cook
I think that MacDonald's book was well written and definitely showed a side to parts of Boston that I never would have noticed before. And I liked how the book wasn't merely an observation by an outsider of the community. It was someone's real account of life in the Southie which brought more emotion and depth into the writing. I think it's quite clear that the fact that he chose to write about it didn't make it a betrayal of the community. From what I read about the gatherings they had to discuss the dead, the community wanted desperately to talk about it but was afraid of what might be said or done about them. In fact, I think it showed MacDonald's neighborhood pride by writing "All Souls." I do agree that not talking about it and shoving the topic aside was very destructive for the community, even though on the outside they seemed to keep things running smoothly. and since no one put a stop to it, the cycle unfortunately continued.
ReplyDeleteSorry I was going to write this sooner, but I completely forgot about it and then when I realized I had to do it I wasn't near a computer long enough to sit down and type it. It won't be late again.