Hope your first days are going well. We began yesterday with Harlan Ellison’s “‘Repent, Harlequin!’ Said the Ticktockman.” Hope you enjoyed it.

I asked you to note anything that stood out to you, and we’ll continue that discussion today. The goal (as it always is with annotations) is to keep a log of things that might be important to you later, and to suss out the author’s meaning in the form of themes, etc. “What makes something important, you ask?” The ultimate answer is simple: if it helps you understand the work, or if you use it in a paper. You’ll only know if something is important after you’ve read and mulled over a work, so mark anything that stands out to you; the only way you can screw up your annotations is to not do them.

We should be on to our next reading today as well, but I haven’t decided which it’ll be. We will write over three or four of the short stories in a few days, so see above if your copy of Harlequin is blank.

It is going to be a great year. Stop by the grade book explanation page if you haven’t. And, as always, email or comment below if you have any questions.

Hope your first days are going well. We started this session reading David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water”—a commencement speech  ((The text was pulled in light of a copyright dispute with Little, Brown. Archive.org has our backs, though. More on this here.)) he delivered to Kenyon College students in 2004. Our goal in doing so was to get a sense of how an author’s choices (rhetorical, in this case) can shape the audience’s experience of a particular message.

I asked you to make note of anything that stood out to you as I read. These annotations likely come in three forms: notes about comprehension (words unclear, allusions/references to look up), notes about his message/persona (“He doesn’t have a high view of…,” “He is saying that…,” “He is funny.”) and notes about his delivery. The first is vital to our understanding of the last two, which are the focus of this class.

As we discuss today I’ll ask what stood out to you. (Your response will be anything you marked.) If what you share falls into the first category above, we’ll talk definitions/explanations. If it falls into one of the other two, I’ll ask about the other. If you remark that it is odd that he uses a lot of unsettling diction/imagery, I’ll ask how that helps/detracts from his message. If you note that he wants us to look at our educations differently, I’ll ask how his presentation helps make that appealing.

If you haven’t looked at the overview of my grading system yet, go here. We’ll discuss it today if time permits, or tomorrow.

As always, email me with questions or post a comment below.

This is going to be a great year.

We’ve finished Nixon’s “Checkers”  speech and analyzed his success in renewing his credibility in the eyes of the voters. If you would like to revise that or your DFW analysis for your progress report grade, please turn it in Monday. Of course, you may turn in any revision any time after that, but it won’t be reflected in the report.

We kicked off this section with JFK’s Inaugural Address. I didn’t ask you to analyze this, but if you don’t feel that your current grade in any skill reflects your current ability I encourage you to demonstrate it there.

Currently we’re discussing the LBJ’s address to Congress concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We’ll focus on his use of pathos and logic specifically in our analysis after we finish.

These two speeches are leading into our largest analysis so far this year: MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” This is considered to be one of the US’s greatest rhetorical achievements and will take considerable effort for us to undertake.

Before we begin, make sure you’re comfortable with the arg/means pattern of analysis we’ve been using, as well as any rhetorical devices/appeals/techniques we’ve discussed so far. As I’ve said before, it is a good idea to revise any analysis you feel warrants it.

As always, email with questions or comment below.

We’ve been making steady progress with Frankenstein over the past week: the monster has told his story and made a request sublime of Victor. Good times.

This weekend you should wrap up your latest comparison between the novel and one of the sources. We workshopped your outlines on Friday, but if you have any questions please let me know. The standard guidelines apply here as always:

• MLA format
• Argumentative topic sentences
• Cited support from both works

This will allow me to provide feedback on your progress before we launch into the larger paper where you will be asked to compare the novel to a number of contemporary works.

Grades for progress reports are due soon so if you would like to revise any previous paper before that you are more than welcome to. If your journal grades aren’t what you’d like, spend some time with your book outside over this beautiful weekend to make some progress. Of course, I will accept revisions/updates after Monday, but they will not apply to your progress grade.

We worked Wednesday and Thursday on analyses of Nixon’s credibility; these will be due Monday (16th).

Remember that Google Drive (née Docs) is your friend! I’m happy to look over progress if you share the document and email with questions.