Sorry for the delay. I've been working on finishing classes that I'm taking: one on Cape Ann art history and the other on something called Moodles, a way of putting a class online. The products for both classes are tools we'll use in AP English Language this year. I'll share them with you soon.
On Tuesday, August 16 we had a rich and varied discussion. Everyone who attended the session participated which bodes well for class interaction once the year gets going.
Just as we started our previous session by discussing lingering thoughts about All Souls before transitioning into analysis of Omnivore's Dilemma, this time we started with Omnivore's Dilemma before tackling Eduardo Galeano's Century of the Wind. Since we ended our last session with a discussion of whether or not Michael Pollan's rhetoric in Omnivore's Dilemma is effective, I started Tuesday's session by asking if your thoughts about food and your eating habits had been affected by Pollan's book. This was a
I had two major goals for Tuesday's session. I wanted everyone to leave class know that two questions are at the heart of rhetorical analysis in the AP English Language curriculum: (1) How do the parts of a text contribute to its rhetorical purpose? (2) How do the author's choices--the "devices," "techniques," or "features" of a text--contribute to the author's rhetorical purpose? (The next step which we've started to get to is to use analysis to effectively evaluate rhetoric: Is the rhetoric effective?)
So we began our discussion of Galeano's book by building bridges between it and Pollan's book. We came up with a few different ways of connecting the books. One of you put forth the idea that both books present a critique of a power status quo. In Pollan's case he critiques industrial production and processing of food and presents alternatives. In Galeano's case he exposes injustices perpetrated by powerful governmental and corporate elites in the Americas and then presents countercultural figures as alternatives. What do those of you who were not there think about this comparison? Can you develop your own bridge between the two books? Are there important, meaningful ways that the two books are different? (Or do something similar but using different techniques?)
We then examined exactly how Galeano presents his argument. We talked about the structures he uses: the chronological structure of the book over all, the clustering of texts into narratives sometimes and juxtapositions other times, the structure of the individual vignettes (often with an ironic turn at the end). We also noted the recurrence of certain titles or parts of titles; finally, we noted the recurrence of Miguel Mármol. We speculated about the significance, meaning, and purpose of these structures and repetitions: How do they contribute to Galeano's purpose? What effect do they have on the reader?
We talked about Galeano's language: particularly his tone, style, and figurative imagery. One of you noted that although Galeano's style seemed on the surface to be objective and journalistic with cited research his selection of details strongly implied his position, support for the downtrodden and powerless, support for collective (rather than individualistic) action, support for indigenous people, etc. We also noted irony in Galeano's tone, even perhaps direct sarcasm in places. And all of this was accomplished with simple diction--the type of words chosen by a writer or speaker--and syntax--the arrangement of words in sentences. Later in the session one of you brought up Galeano's use of figurative imagery. We examined the effect of this language in one particular passage. For those of you that weren't there on Tuesday pick a particular passage in which you notice something about Galeano's language: What did you notice about Galeano's tone, style, syntax, diction, selection of detail, and/or figurative imagery? How is the language important to the argument? What effect did it have on you?
Then we ended by discussing the book's overall effectiveness as rhetoric. One of you thought that the book would have been more effective had Galeano not been so heavy handed with his selection of detail and characterizations (positive characterizations of the dispossessed, negative characterizations of those in tower. Others thought the book was effective in presenting an alternative point of view on the history of the Americas in the twentieth-century. What do you think about the overall effectiveness of Galeano's book?
Overall, what did you notice? How is what you noted significant to the purpose of the book? Is it effective?
Post an open response below if you missed Tuesday's meeting.
***
Also don't forget to complete a passage response journal about a book of your choice. I will collect these on the first day of school, August 30.
