We’ll begin our lexiconic ((Edited from “lexicographic,” which I meant to signify the figurative compilation of your personal dictionaries. Since I spelled “francophile” incorrectly below, I thought it would be best to clarify this one before my remaining credibility melts.)) journey this week with a group of fifteen words that I’ve forgotten to post these past few days:

1. annotated
2. anthropomorphic
3. brobdignagian
4. cash cow
5. coffer
6. dog (v.)
7. exegesis
8. francophile
9. furbellows
10. lollygag
11. roman a clef
12. salmagundi
13. schlock
14. spartan (adj.)
15. white elephant

That is all.

We’ve moved from David Foster Wallace’s great commencement address to a source a bit older: Richard Nixon’s televised plea for his credibility in 1952. The goal in reading this one is to better understand the use of ethos in an argument.

We began Frankenstein last night. Our goal in this section of the course is to better understand the Romantic era and the novel’s place within it. To this end, your prompt:

How does Mary Shelley’s argument compare/contrast with the arguments of contemporary works?

When put this way it is fairly straightforward. Indeed, you’ve already practiced this kind of comparison in your previous writings (rebellion and poetry). However, this will take it to another level—we will read contemporary works (poems, philosophy, short stories), discover and compare major themes, and use them to better understand Mary Shelley’s larger work.

If you’re interested in the Prometheus myth (or mythology in general) check out Theoi.com for the most comprehensive collection of stories on the ‘net.

I’m checking journals today, but may not get to all of them. If you need a refresher on what I’m looking for, check out this post from a while back or look over the journal rubric handout I gave you at the beginning of the year.

You should read (and journal) through chapter two by Friday.

Today was the first essay triage of the year. I gave you a few things (below) to look for in your draft; if you found any, you have the option to revise. If you didn’t wrap up your revision in the computer lab today, the completed analysis is due tomorrow (Wednesday the 4th). We’ll be moving into presidential rhetoric then, and it isn’t a good idea to overlap.

Three things to always avoid in a rhetorical analysis:

• A thesis statement that merely summarizes the author’s argument. You should have two parts to your thesis statement (as you do in each of your major points): a statement of his argument and the means by which he makes it appealing.
• The use of “you,” “me,” “our,” etc. This conflates his audience with your audience. They are different.
• An argument in favor of his position that poses as an analysis. If you find statements that mean effectively “and this point makes sense because” or “we’ve all been in a similar position,” you are bolstering, not analyzing, his argument.

If your analysis contained two or more of these, bookmark this page to remind yourself for next time.

Tonight you’ll write a quick essay comparing two of the poems in the packet. It can be over any two poems, but your thesis must explain two things: what the authors are trying to convey with the poems and how your point of comparison (a theme, imagery, content, tone, etc.) helps to make the point in each.

We’ll discuss them in class tomorrow.

If you are concerned about your skill grades for the last essay, try to focus on the skills that you didn’t do well on. For example, if your formatting was poor or you didn’t include a works cited page, type up your paper according to MLA guidelines and include a works cited page. I will only grade the papers of those who ask me to. Remember: your grade in this class is based on your demonstration of your understanding of the skills. Everything I ask you to do is “practice.” If you only want feedback this time around, just tell me that.