We had a very productive discussion during the morning of Tuesday, July 26.
I started class by sharing some observations I made while reading your All Souls passage responses. (Those of you who emailed them will get them back soon.) I noticed that in general you showed an understanding of the passages you chose and say something about why those particular passages were meaningful. Many of you were also able to make meaningful personal connections. What we need to work on is connecting the passages to the work as a whole and discussing how language choices, literary techniques, and structure are significant in the passages.
We then discussed lingering thoughts about All Souls. I was particularly interested in the comparisons between Gloucester and Southie that some of you made in your passage responses. So we talked about civic pride (pride for your city, town, or neighborhood) and how civic pride can make a place better or be used to cover over problems. Those you present for class had some interesting final thoughts about All Souls in relation to your own lives.
After wrapping up All Souls we began discussing The Ominvore's Dilemma. I started by asking, "What is the book's main argument? What is it's overall point?" This led to a lively discussion in which we tried to conceptualize the overall argument and how that large argument is made up of smaller, subordinate arguments. (How does the argument in each section contribute to the main argument?) For those of you who were not there on Tuesday: what for you was Michael Pollan's main point and how did other points (and the different sections) contribute to the main point?
At different moments in the discussion I asked questions about how Pollan's choices in structure and in language were contributing to the argument. We talked about the way the book was structured and how that structure might be significant. We talked about Pollan's use of storytelling to make a point. (Sometimes instead of stating an opinion directly he suggested -- or implied -- an opinion through storytelling.) We talked about how he sometimes juxtaposed details in order to make a point. We discussed ways he created a personal, dramatic situations to intensify the reader's attention. (I pointed out the drama of eating meat while reading Peter Singer's book about the immorality of meat eating.) We looked closely at the conclusion to see how he wove the final argument from materials presented earlier in the book. We talked about the tone and style of Pollan's argument. (We compared the style to MacDonald's style and to other forms of argument.) What did you notice about the language and techniques Pollan used? How did what you notice affect the argument the book makes?
Finally we answered the questions "Is Pollan's overall argument convincing? What about other particular arguments along the way? Did the book have an effect on how you view food? How so?" We cut this part of the discussion a little short and I hope to return to it later.
If you weren't there Tuesday write a substantial response before the last summer session (Tuesday, August 16). Let your voice be heard.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Preview: Summer Session #2 & *The Omnivore's Dilemma* Responses
Below you'll find the letter I sent to you on the morning of Thursday, July 21.
This note is to remind you that the second summer session will be held on Tuesday, July 25 (five days from now) at 8 am in room 2207.
Bring your passage responses for The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. (Bring the book too.)
If you will be unable to make it you must email me ahead of time to let me know. Also if you're not going to make the session you must email me your passage responses.
A couple notes that might help you with The Omnivore's Dilemma: For some of you this might be the longest, most sophisticated nonfiction book you've read. That might present certain difficulties. It's also a book that is extremely relevant to food choices that you make (or that are made for you) everyday and how those choices affect the world we live in. To help make the reading and your responses manageable you might think of the books as four mini-books; each mini-book or section leads to a meal.
(1) In the first section Pollan looks at the industrial production of food, focusing on corn and beef. This section ends with a fast food meal consumed in a car.
(2) In the second section Pollan looks at organic food production, focusing particularly on the what has happened when small organic food producers have grown into large, industrial organic food produces. (This is the kind of organic food usually available at Shaw's, Market Basket, and up-the-line at Trader Joe's and Whole Foods.) This section ends with an "organic industrial meal" (173).
(3) In the third section Pollan narrates his experiences with small-scale, local, sustainable farming, focusing particularly on Polyface Farm and Joel Salatin. (This is the sort of food available at the Cape Ann Farmers' Market, open Thursdays in the summer and fall at Stage Fort Park from 3 to 6:30.) At the end of this section Pollan shares a meal of (mostly) locally grown and raised food with friends in Virginia.
(4) In the fourth section (which I'm rereading now) Pollan explores the possibilities of gathering and hunting food from our surroundings. This section ends with the meal Pollan calls somewhat in earnest, somewhat in jest "the perfect meal." Check out the menu on page 398.
It would be a good idea to respond to two passages in each section so that you're able to show an understanding of and respond to the argument in each section. Then you'll have two passages do choose as you please. I look forward to talking with you about food -- and why where it comes and how it gets to our plates matters.
A final note on All Souls: If you weren't at the first session visit the blog to see what you missed and to write a comment in response to what you missed. Go here to do that. (Also if you have yet to complete passage responses contact me.)
See you Tuesday.
all the best,
Mr. James Cook
This note is to remind you that the second summer session will be held on Tuesday, July 25 (five days from now) at 8 am in room 2207.
Bring your passage responses for The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan. (Bring the book too.)
If you will be unable to make it you must email me ahead of time to let me know. Also if you're not going to make the session you must email me your passage responses.
A couple notes that might help you with The Omnivore's Dilemma: For some of you this might be the longest, most sophisticated nonfiction book you've read. That might present certain difficulties. It's also a book that is extremely relevant to food choices that you make (or that are made for you) everyday and how those choices affect the world we live in. To help make the reading and your responses manageable you might think of the books as four mini-books; each mini-book or section leads to a meal.
(1) In the first section Pollan looks at the industrial production of food, focusing on corn and beef. This section ends with a fast food meal consumed in a car.
(2) In the second section Pollan looks at organic food production, focusing particularly on the what has happened when small organic food producers have grown into large, industrial organic food produces. (This is the kind of organic food usually available at Shaw's, Market Basket, and up-the-line at Trader Joe's and Whole Foods.) This section ends with an "organic industrial meal" (173).
(3) In the third section Pollan narrates his experiences with small-scale, local, sustainable farming, focusing particularly on Polyface Farm and Joel Salatin. (This is the sort of food available at the Cape Ann Farmers' Market, open Thursdays in the summer and fall at Stage Fort Park from 3 to 6:30.) At the end of this section Pollan shares a meal of (mostly) locally grown and raised food with friends in Virginia.
(4) In the fourth section (which I'm rereading now) Pollan explores the possibilities of gathering and hunting food from our surroundings. This section ends with the meal Pollan calls somewhat in earnest, somewhat in jest "the perfect meal." Check out the menu on page 398.
It would be a good idea to respond to two passages in each section so that you're able to show an understanding of and respond to the argument in each section. Then you'll have two passages do choose as you please. I look forward to talking with you about food -- and why where it comes and how it gets to our plates matters.
A final note on All Souls: If you weren't at the first session visit the blog to see what you missed and to write a comment in response to what you missed. Go here to do that. (Also if you have yet to complete passage responses contact me.)
See you Tuesday.
all the best,
Mr. James Cook
Friday, July 8, 2011
All Souls Discussion Follow-up
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)