Assignment 6

1. Paraphrased passages samples below:

"As teachers and literary critics we have to be able to read tea-leaves as well as texts, including the tea-leaves of the new 'A' Level Specifications. What I read there is a double message, a paradox of intent, if you like. On the one hand (says Paul Norgate of the OCR) 'teachers . . . must be aware of the developing scope of literary studies, and the new emphases which have resulted', while on the other 'the practice of close reading remains central to the study of literature at 'A' Level' (both quotations are from Appendix C to the OCR Specifications). There is a certain ambivalence about literary theory here, and that ambivalence is reflected in what follows."

Paraphrase:

Peter Barry is critical of the new requirements for the a-level literary courses. He thinks that the information given by the OCR is contradictory, in that it neglects the importance of literary theory while at the same time explicitly states that literary teachers must be aware of the up-to-date and shifting focus of such studies. Barry thus thinks there is a general confusion about the importance of literary theory, and in the remainder of his article he therefore tries to explain why it is, in fact, important.

"Firstly, I want to offer a check-list of the kind of operations we perform when we tackle textuality without any particular resort to theory. I will then ask what is missing, and suggest four areas which the traditional approach doesn't quite cover, using a Shakespeare sonnet by way of illustration. This is followed by a brief description of what is meant by deconstructive reading, and the final section an example of such reading is given, using Adrienne Rich's poem 'Transit'."

Paraphrase:

Barry explains that in his demonstration he will start by looking only at non-literary theory metholodgies, and -- considering what is missing -- propose the use of literary theory to fill the gap. He will do this by using a work of Shakespeare. After that, he will explain deconstructive reading, using a work by Adrienne Rich to exemplify.

"Literary theory often intensifies the difficulties of reading, and constantly throws up more problems than it is capable of solving. So why do it? Two reasons come at once to mind. Firstly, the complexities it gets itself knotted up in really are there. And secondly, trying to unravel them is enlightening, and sometimes even fun."

Paraphrase:

Barry acknowledges the complexities and difficulties of literary theory, but concludes with two reasons for using it nevertheless: problems exist that do require complex interpretations, and it can be both rewarding and entertaining.

2. The following passages could be quoted directly:

"Literary criticism can never grow out of them, and they can never be superseded. It's impossible to do English without them. It always was, and it always will be."

"Theory can help us especially in considering four major aspects of the relationship between literature and the world beyond, these being firstly, literature and history, secondly, literature and language, thirdly, literature and gender, and finally, literature and psychoanalysis..."

"the literal and the metaphorical begin to 'deconstruct' each other."

"Instead of being a free-standing literary jewel which we can hold up to the light and scrutinise with our ten principles of interpretation, this little poem suddenly seems to be deeply enmeshed in the history of its time."

"It isn't just a matter of acquiring knowledge: if the allusion is actually there, the it teaches us that we do not understand what the relationship is between literature and history, for if it is an allusion it is very difficult to know what it is doing in the poem: I mean this literally - not just how and why it got there, but what effect it has on the poem."

"Language seems to have a natural tendency to undermine and contradict itself, to be one thing on the surface and another beneath. When a teacher says to a child 'Is that your coat on the floor?' it isn't a question, it's a command: it means 'pick it up'. Reading literature well is often a matter of picking up these counter-currents, these points where language undermines itself, runs against its own grain, carries along its own opposite in its slipstream."

"Deconstructive reading is a kind of dowsing tool which is designed to pick up that counter-current that runs beneath the linguistic surface."

"This notion of the undercurrents and cross-currents of language, then, opens up another area where we seem to need theory; it is the area of the investigation of the relationship between literature and language, and the often strange characteristics of language itself."

"it enables us to think about deconstructive reading, which on the one hand has been a powerful tool in literary theory, but on the other has clear affinities with the kind of intensive close reading which we have always practised."

"The process of deconstructing a text often involves fixing on what looks like an incidental detail - such as a particular word, or a particular metaphor - and then bringing it in from the margin of the text to the centre. In this way the text is 'de-centred' by the reading process, and the overall effect is often perverse, obsessive, manic, or even apparently malevolent towards author and text, reader and literature."

"The close-reader aims to show a unity of purpose within the text: the text knows what it wants to do, and having directed all its means towards this end, it is at peace with itself. By contrast, the deconstructor aims to show that the text is at war with itself, and that it is characterised by disunity rather than unity."

"If we think of the text as a cat, then old-style close reading involves stroking the cat so that it purrs and curls in upon itself contentedly feeling good. Deconstructive reading is like stroking the cat the wrong way, against the grain of the textual fur, so that the cat bristles and hisses, and the whole situation becomes less predictable."

"Literary theory often intensifies the difficulties of reading, and constantly throws up more problems than it is capable of solving. So why do it? Two reasons come at once to mind. Firstly, the complexities it gets itself knotted up in really are there. And secondly, trying to unravel them is enlightening, and sometimes even fun."


3. The article is well-written (regarding both language and style) and it clearly shows the position and intent of the author. Even though the topic as such is quite "heavy", Peter Barry uses many humorous and straightforward examples to make it a pleasant read -- and an interesting and instructive one too! It could perhaps be argued that the main proposal -- that we really do need literary theory -- could be made even more explicit and should be stated from the start, rather than half-way through the essay (after a rather long discussion about close-reading metholodgies). It is nice that Barry reconnects his explanation of literary theory in general and "deconstructive reading" in particular to his initial presentation of "close reading", thus showing that his ideas are not just straggling away aimlessly. The conclusion efficiently sums up the arguments, and the final point -- that literary theory can be great fun -- adds a nice personal touch.

Assignment 5

Summary

In his article “Tackling Textuality – With Theory”, The Use of English (Volume 52, Number 1, Autumn 2000), Peter Barry argues that “close reading” on its own is not enough to fully understand works of literature, and that literary theory therefore is a necessary complement. He appears to be criticizing the lack of the latter in introductory courses, though his argument also applies to literary studies in general. Through several examples and analogies Barry (often humorously) explains the fundamental concepts involved in interpreting literature, and in doing so, argues his case in favor of literary theory. He starts by listing and discussing ten typical close-reading approaches, which include identifying large-scale and small-scale patterns, explicit and implicit content, literal and metaphorical meaning, similarities and dissimilarities, as well as understanding the different stages of a work, the implications of its genre, and the original semantic intent. Stressing the fact that these are all essential to the interpretation of literature, and that they are irreplaceable, Barry still do not think that they are enough. His claim is essentialy that close reading can merely be used to focus on the text itself, whereas literary theory takes into account the world surrounding the text – by considering literature in its relationship to history, language, gender and psychoanalysis, respectively. Barry explains these four cornerstones in turn by analyzing a famous sonnet by Shakespeare, and tries to show that they fit together well with ordinary, close-reading methodologies. In his example, he uses literary theory to perform historical interpretation, to examine the use of deeper language features, to find characterstics due to the author's gender, and finally to consider implicit content as a means for the author to persuade readers. Barry then chooses to dig deeper into the relationship between literature and language, by focusing on the process of deconstructive reading (which basically means to look for contradictions within the text – to break its harmony), which he claims is helpful in literary theory and bears striking resemblences to close-reading practises. A “deconstructor”, he says, looks for paradoxes, linguistic pecularities, shifts, and information left out. Barry exempliefies these approaches with two additional, multilayered poems. He thus shows how literary theory can be used to reveal more information without necessarily using additional sources than the text itself. Having thus exemplified some of the uses of literary theory, Barry also acknowledges its complexities and difficulties, but concludes with two reasons for using it nevertheless: problems exist that do require complex interpretations, and it can be both rewarding and entertaining.

Tags: literary studies, literary interpretation, close reading, literary theory, deconstructive reading

Assignment 4

Let Kids Be Kids – No Grades in Swedish Primary School

Sweden has only recently seen the introduction of grades in primary school. This is due to the new educational reform launched by the government. In the old system school children were not graded until 8th grade. In contrast, other European countries start grading children much earlier. Now, however, grades will be given in 6th grade, and written reports indicating academic progress may be given by schools to parents as early as in 1st grade.

It may seem reasonable for Sweden to adapt to other European school systems, thus creating a more “standardized” foundation for education. But is this model really the best from the children's perspective? Not surprisingly, the proposal has been criticized for being problematic. As is shown below, there are indeed good reasons why children should not be graded in primary school.

To begin with, young school children should not be exposed to stress. The very purpose of grades and written reports is for children to have explicit criteria to meet. Making school children aware of their own progress will undoubtedly create more or less anxiety. Even if we assume that the average child is on the safe side, the sense of explicit requirements remains. It is better if these same goals are implicit, thus unknown to the children, but still checked by the teachers.

Another, closely related issue is that grades will create competition among school children. In an ordinary class it will soon be a well known fact among the children who are the “top pupils” and who are lagging behind. There will be a sense of prestige in getting high grades, and the self-image of school children will be affected by their achievements. Needless to say, a negative sense of self in this early stage of life may have devastating consequences.

And most important of all, children should be allowed to remain just that: children. We must not forget that primary school is not only about teaching children different subjects. It is also a time and place for children to meet, interact, play and develop as persons. Such qualities can hardly be “graded”, yet they are equally important. A system based solely on requirements, treating children as young adults, is likely to interfere with this important period in their lives.

Supporters of the new system argue that parents have the right to be informed about their children's progress. This, however, is a rather strange argument since the topic is usually discussed under ordinary parent-teacher meetings. There may not be any reports presented, but the same information is still communicated very efficiently. In fact, meetings such as these are arguably even more informative since parents and teachers can discuss not only grades but other concerns as well.

Another, more valid argument in favor of the reform is that it will improve children's skills by letting go of the laissez-faire attitude. Even though this may be true, it may also have severe consequences -- as has already been argued. Also, looking back at the time of the old system, it is evident that children with “low grades” can still reach their goals with extra support.

To conclude, it is evident that the possible advantages of the reform do not outweigh the disadvantages. Furthermore, as we have seen, the arguments in favor of the introduction of grades and written reports in primary school are not strong enough to motivate a replacement of the old system. Primary school means more than just educating young people. We must let kids be kids.

Assignment 3

The EZCracker deserves to be Christmas Gift of the Year 2010!

Christmas may be nine months away, but it is certainly not too early to begin to consider what product will be the Christmas gift of the year. Looking back at previous years, we might get an idea as to how to make the decision. Needless to say, such a product should of course appeal to a large number of people. It may either be used for practical purposes, for entertainment, or both. It should also be original and fashionable.

This year we have already seen the launch of a product that meets all these criteria. It is as simple as ingenious – a handy little tool that simplifies the process of breaking eggs. How long have we not waited for such an invention? As is argued below, the “EZCracker” (as it is called) deserves to be “Christmas Gift of the Year 2010”.

First and foremost, the EZCracker is needed by everyone. Breaking eggs is a tiresome and difficult task that requires immense skills in order to be carried out correctly. The EZCracker, of course, greatly simplifies this process. (It can also extract just the white.) When people hear about this product, all other Christmas gifts will surely appear rather useless in comparison.

Secondly, using the EZCracker is very entertaining. Not only does it have a practical purpose – it is also widely accepted as the most fun tool to use among the equipment found in a kitchen. Indeed, it is very hard not to rejoice at the extreme smoothness in which it breaks the eggs. All family members are likely to gather in an ecstasy of joy each time the EZCracker is used.

Thirdly, in not too distant a future, everyone will be expected to posses an EZCracker. This is similar to how everyone nowadays are assumed to have a GPS in their car. Thus people are going to get hold of the EZCracker in order not to be considered old-fashioned. This is another good reason why the gift will undoubtedly be appreciated.

Opponents of the idea of making EZCracker the Christmas gift of the year will probably complain about it being made of cheap plastic and will thus consider it too inexpensive to be regarded as a proper gift. As we all know by heart, however, it is the thought that counts. Also, given all the arguments above, it is evident that the price tag is irrelevant.

Another, more serious counter-argument is that the EZCracker – due to its popularity – will indirectly create a world-wide shortage of eggs during the Christmas trade. This, however, is a rather exaggerated fear that is largely unfounded. The egg industry is already taking serious measures to comply with this forecast, thereby minimizing the risk of such a scenario.

To conclude, the EZCracker is considered the perfect gift for several reasons. Its simplicity and usefulness sure are attractive qualities, and the combination of fun and fashion further strengthens the case. What tells against it is the low price and the possible overuse of eggs, but as we have seen these are really non-issues. Thus, the EZCracker is the most suitable choice when it comes do deciding the Christmas gift of the year.

Assignment 2

Increased Taxing of Junk Food Is Not a Solution

Today a growing number of people are suffering from obesity and other serious health issues mainly because they live on food that is easily accessible but unhealthy and fat. Indeed, the food industry has devoted itself to producing and selling this “junk food”. Frozen pizzas, burgers and almost every other imaginable meal are available in the nearest supermarket - and people buy these products without hesitation.

It may thus seem like a reasonable idea to put extra taxes on junk food to encourage a more healthy diet. This, however, is a very simplified view and there are several strong reasons that tell against the effectiveness of such a measure. Therefore, as is argued below, junk food should not be more heavily taxed than health food.

First and foremost, there is no clear definition of what food qualifies as "junk food" and hence it is hard to decide which products should be taxed. The term is rather informal, and there are no established scientific guidelines showing exactly how to make the distinction. Thus, as long as we do not know what junk food is, there is little point in trying to tax such products.

Also, the idea of taxing junk food for similar reasons as for taxing legal drugs is hardly justifiable. The former does not have the same effects on the human body as the latter– and does not create addicts. Thus, it is not the food itself that is dangerous, but the fact that people overuse it. What is needed is a varied and nutritious diet (and an active lifestyle) and people can eat all the junk food they want.

If junk food were to be more heavily taxed, then food companies would likely try to reduce costs and produce even “junkier” food in order to maintain the same prices. This development can already be seen today as companies try to maximize their profits due to fierce competition. Hence the problem with unhealthy food will not only remain, it is likely to become even worse.

Supporters of increased taxes would probably argue that this approach will automatically make people rethink their eating patterns. But people are likely to continue their habits since the convenience of ready-to-eat food will easily outweigh the question of price. They are likely to cut down on something else if necessary. However that may be, people will still be eating the same food.

Another argument for increasing the taxes is that the costs of preventive care and medical treatments of obesity will be covered. It is questionable, however, if such treatment will help reduce the large-scale problem. Again, as long as the food remains in the shelves there will be people buying it. A better idea may thus be to take action to encourage the production of healthy food that is inexpensive - and thus attractive.

To conclude, it has been shown that there are a number of practical issues involved in increasing the taxes on junk food, and it is also highly questionable whether this - if carried out - would have the desired effect or not. Clearly, the arguments in favor of increased taxing do not hold water. It may hence be a better idea to focus on other ways to make people consider more healthy alternatives.

Assignment 1

1. I would define "style" in the context of (academic) writing as:

The property of an (academic) text that makes it fit within a given (academic) context by following a set of recognized conventions and rules for writing (academic) texts (for that context) regarding language use, structure and layout.


2. A piece of formal writing found on Wikipedia regarding the upcoming Prince of Persia film:

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is an upcoming action-adventure fantasy film written by Jordan Mechner, Boaz Yakin, Doug Miro, and Carlo Bernard, directed by Mike Newell, and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. The film is based on the 2003 video game of the same name, developed and released by Ubisoft Montreal.

The film stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Prince Dastan, Gemma Arterton as Tamina, Ben Kingsley as Nizam, and Alfred Molina as Sheik Amar.

Currently, it is the fourth film under the Walt Disney Pictures banner to receive a PG-13 rating by the MPAA (and the first not in the Pirates of the Caribbean series) for intense sequences of violence and action. Despite the film being primarily based on The Sands of Time, elements from Warrior Within and The Two Thrones are also incorporated.

Wikipedia


A piece of informal writing regarding a trailer from the same film (from The Movie Blog):

Remember the silly stunts and over the top action with just a dash of the supernatural found in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie? Got that feeling of raw adventure and just light hearted wit and fun in your head?

Ok, now go watch this trailer.

Clearly Bruckheimer’s stamp is all over this, and that’s why I am looking forward to it. I loved the first Pirates movie, but after that it just got too far away from the careful blend of over the top stunts and a little bit of magic to plunge head first into a supernatural world that stripped away any of that swashbuckling fun.

Oh and this has Gemma. Well.. yeah… I am just going to leave that right there.

The Movie Blog

Now, when comparing these two texts it soon becomes very apparent that the first one is more objectively written (no indication on whether the writer believes that it is going to be a good or bad film), concentrating on the facts (very comprehensive list of the people involved), and a very anonymous and clear factual language (with several technical terms). The second text on the other hand is very subjective, which is evident by for example the inclusion of personal views ("I loved the first Pirates movie"), certain forms ("Well... yeah..."), certain words ("silly") - not to mention the fact that the entire text is written more like everyday casual talk than something you would expect to find in, say, a dictionary.

3. Topic: the first assignment

Formal version: The first assignment was on writing style, and consisted of three tasks. In the first task, the students were asked to come up with their own definition of the term "style" in the context of academic writing. In the second task, the students were asked to compare two texts, one formal and one informal, and comment on style differences. In the third and final task the students were supposed to decide on a sample topic and then write two short texts on the same subject (again, one formal and one informal version). Each student was then to post the answers on their blog, in order for the teacher to make comments.

Informal version: So we were given this assignment about writing style. Three questions in total. Well, in the first one they asked me to explain what is meant by academic writing style. The second question was about finding two texts (1 formal & 1 informal) and write something about the style differences between them. In the last one I had to write two such texts on my own, comparing them. Then I posted it all on my blog for my teacher to comment on it...

Testing testing

:-)

Edit: edit