Close Reading #1- TSA

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F01E7DF113EF936A2575AC0A9649D8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


TAKING NOTE; So Many Screeners and So Little Shampoo, but Are Our Planes Safer?

By Juliet Lapidos

In this editorial, Juliet Lapidos rants on one of the most hated systems by American people: airport security. She discusses the irrational TSA and why she believes they have taken it too far.

Diction: Juliet Lapidos maintains a distinct tone throughout her article. Her tone clearly defines her opinion in this matter. Lapidos complains that, "Airport security is a game of catch-up, and it seems the TSA rarely considers whether new technology obviates the need for annoying and intrusive restrictions.” Her use of words such as annoying and intrusive express her strong emotions towards the subject. These words easily convey to the reader how this system makes her feel. When I read those words I imagine what it’s like to walk through an airport security scanner. Annoying and intrusive seem like the best way to describe that machine to me. I feel claustrophobic and invaded, similar to the author. Her diction allows the reader to easily relate to the exhausting security experiences. “Mr. Paul's vendetta against the TSA has some merit (Lapidos)”. Here, I think Lapidos exaggerates a little when she describes Paul’s emotions towards TSA as a vendetta. This word choice emphasizes on the hatred for TSA, and vendetta surely lets the reader know how strong this emotion is. I think the author included this to highlight the disapproval for the system.

Details: Lapidos strongly feels that the TSA is inefficient and ineffective. She supports her opinion with costly facts that would quickly result in more people supporting her opinion. Her motif is to make her audience understand why TSA is inefficient, and to make them agree. She comments on the excessive spending, then mocks the results: “In 2006 the TSA spent $29.6 million on 207 "puffer" machines designed to shake lose explosive particles. They failed to work in dirty, humid airport environments.” “The TSA employs about 62,000 people at a cost of more than $3 billion a year in payroll, compensation and benefits (Lapidos)”. Not only does this fact draw the reader in, but also it allows for the reader to understand why Lapidos feels so strongly about this. TSA’s workforce is larger now than in 2005, even though there are fewer travelers. These details show the suspicion of this correlation.

Syntax: The structure of this article is unique and works well with the author’s goal. Lapidos uses rhetorical questions to pull the reader in to think about what she is saying. “Is it really necessary to ban shampoo and hand cream (Lapidos)”? I’m sure every reader could quickly answer that question and unknowingly become engaged in her work. In the start of the article, Rand Paul’s opinion is the center of our focus. Then we shift to problems of the TSA, “The TSA seems like a caricature of wasteful bureaucracy (Lapidos)”. I personally think this line in the middle of the article is very effective. It allows the reader to get into the discussion, then it nails down a single issue: a wasteful bureaucracy. 

Open Prompt #1

1976. The conflict created when the will of an individual opposes the will of the majority is the recurring theme of many novels, plays, and essays. Select the work of an essayist who is in opposition to his or her society; or from a work of recognized literary merit, select a fictional character who is in opposition to his or her society. In a critical essay, analyze the conflict and discuss the moral and ethical implications for both the individual and the society. Do not summarize the plot or action of the work you choose.

In the novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain centers around a child's perception of society. Living in Mississippi in the 1880's, Huck was often confused of his placement in society. He was told how to act towards social classes, but he couldn't understand why individuals were treated differently. Huck completely goes against all standards as he sets sails from society with Jim. Huck's ignorance of the social problems during the time period give an unbiased approach to slavery and treatment of African Americans. 

Mark Twain conveys racist issues through the adults. The actions and discussions of the adults show one's view of  society during this time period. This method is effective for Twain because he easily displays how one opinion is heavily influenced by the mass of numbers. The conflict of racism could not be fairly debated between the adults in Twain's novel. This is because if one person opposed, then the majority will still over rule. The one who stood up is unseen due to the popular vote. These adults have no respectable morals on this subject and this is shown by the conformity of them. I don't think this is a good message for Huck to receive. It may make him carry the thought that his idea is irrelevant. Kids look up to adults, and this isn't the attitude adults should want to give off to children. 

As Huck dares to be different, Twain expresses the hope in the future society to follow what they believe. The journey on the Mississippi River is a way to measure the progress between Huck and Jim. The two face multiple obstacles in which they must work together in different social interactions. The raft shows the moral growth between the characters as they ignore the social standards. The boys work through their struggles with what they think is right, not by what society says. I think this accomplishment can be compared with the accomplishments within modern day society. 

Responses to Course Material

The book, "How to Read Literature Like a Professor" by Thomas C. Foster, discussed many familiar concepts that had previously left me confused. Last year, I became familiar with some of the archetypes Foster includes. While I was reading, my vague memories were beginning to seem clear with as the text  helped me better understand the topic. The examples that Foster provides make the learning process easier. For me, it was more simple to learn the archetype then see how it can be applied. Foster would relate his topics to well-known stories and further explain why the author included what he or she did. For example, I knew that the raft in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) was a symbol, but I didn't know the importance of it. Now I can read Huck Finn and notice the significance of the river, and when they are and aren't on the raft. The raft isn't just a means of transportation, it can represent the relationship between Huck and Jim and the progress they have made since the start of their escape.

When I read the poems that were assigned I could instantly recognize concepts Foster had prepared me for. The first thing I noticed in, "The Terrorist, He Watches"was the tone. My first thoughts were why did the author include this? What is his purpose for the disturbing tone? Before reading Fosters book, I would have approached the tone differently, but now I first question the authors goal. I learned to think from an authors perspective when I learned about the rhetorical situation. The art of communication taught me the different elements that need to be included. After learning this, I can notice the different approaches authors take towards their subject. Depending on the elements for that situation, the text can quickly change. When reading articles in the newspaper, I asked myself if the approach the author took worked for message he or she was trying to convey.

The rhetorical situation questions why certain aspects were included. It allows readers to discover the ultimate motive behind an author. The AP English Literature essay will require one to think in rhetorical situations. Before answering the prompt, one must ask themselves what he or she is trying to accomplish in this writing, what the audience is expecting, and the type of person he or she wants to come across as. An argument is a technique of persuasion. After learning about arguments, I can point out the different types of arguments and the proper situations. I notice that arguments pose as an efficient way to change an opinion or view.

Analysis of Me Talk Pretty One Day

In the story "Me Talk Pretty One Day", David Sedaris doesn't provide any sort of clarity for the reader. The language is choppy and hard to follow. Sedaris's opening sentence is boring and it's not good way to draw in an audience. In the first paragraph, Sedaris includes an awful wordy run-on, "After paying my tuition, I was issued a student ID, which allows me a discounted entry fee at the movie theaters, puppet shows, and Festyland, a far-flung amusement park that advertises with billboards picturing a cartoon stegosaurus sitting in a canoe and eating what happens to be a ham sandwich"(1). I felt that I needed to include the entire sentence to show how many things are wrong. If Michael Harvey, author of The Nuts and Bolts of College Writing, read this he would instantly revise it. One thing Harvey may comment on is the incorrect usage of commas. Harvey suggests that commas allow for long, complex sentences that still make sense (52-53). The improper commas actually make it harder to read. Sedaris could clear up his writing here by deleting unnecessary words. Since the wordiness complicates the writing, it would be most effective to remove parts of his description.

One of the most recurring problems in Sedaris writing is the structure. In individual sentences the structure is disturbed by the excess and by the placement of words. There are too many words Serdaris includes that aren't needed. The writer's thoughts are also scattered which messes with the structure. In each paragraph the thoughts jump around, so its hard to truly grasp what is going on. The lack of structure leaves the story without any grace or flow. Harvey says that "An essay is made of passages, and a passage...involves motion" (39). The motion from passage to passage creates a smooth flow. One aspect of flow that I think Sedaris did well on is the use of consistent characters. The speaker is nervous for his French class and puzzled by his French teacher. The tone of the language teacher is sharp and assertive. Her tone says a lot about the type of person she may be. Her sarcastic reply to the first Anna made a straight-forward statement that she doesn't tolerate the minimal effort. After Anna says she isn't fond of mosquitoes, the teacher fires back with "How is it that we've been blessed with someone as unique and original as you? Tell us please"(Sedaris 2). The rhetorical question is her last way of saying "I couldn't care less".

The dialog throughout the story seems to follow no pattern. It seems like dialog is randomly inserted, just to see how it will work. The teacher says to him, "I hate you...I really, really hate you" (Sedaris 3). Those hateful phrases are a good example of the random placements of dialog. Harvey might suggest that Sedaris asks indirect questions. His direct question is too formal for the context of the question, "Why refer to Lady Crack Pipe or Good Sir Dishrag when these things could never live up to all that their sex implied"(3)?

Harvey says that the purpose of an ending is to summarize. Sedaris concludes his story well by briefly summarizing his final thoughts. The student is excited after successfully understanding a sentence in French. "It's a small step, nothing more, yet its rewards are intoxication and deceptive (Sedaris 5)". His pride in his success illustrates what he as overcome to get there.