AP English Literature and Composition Spring Semester:
Beyond The Five Paragraph Essay
This course is designed to prepare you to be a skilled, confident, college-level reader and writer through analysis of
creative literature. We approach reading as a holistic enterprise that involves close examination of the structure, style,
effect and purpose of texts in context. We approach writing as a recursive process that involves critical response,
collaborative discussion and inquiry about texts and techniques in order to draft, revise and edit analyses and arguments.
The Essential Learning Objectives of this course state that you will learn how to
 Read, analyze and evaluate complex English narrative, poetry and drama purposefully
 Produce complex, analytic, academic arguments about literature independently, over time and on demand
 Develop effective strategies for planning, drafting, revising, editing and proofreading writing to achieve greater depth
and clarity.
The course’s goal is for you to achieve these objectives at the college level. To do so requires you to
 Experiment, develop, question, communicate and evaluate your own ideas and writing in response to others’—peers,
artists and critics.
 Self-direct your learning at the level expected from a college student.
Timeline
Jan 27
Jan 28
Feb 2
Feb 9
Feb 18
Feb 25
March 1
March 2
March 8
March 16
Mar 17
Mar 19, 23
Mar 24
Apr 6
Apr 7
Apr 12
Apr 13
May 3
May 5
May 6
May 18, 19
May 20
The Beginning is the End: Past, Present and Future
Interim Performance Task (Project #1)
Interim Computer Adapted Test (Project #2)
The End is the Beginning: Past, Present and Future
Poetry is _____________?
SAT
Project #3 DUE
The Odes of March
Project #4 DUE
Project #5 in class
Practice OPEN NOTES Multiple Choice
MIDTERM EXAM: Poetry
Sophocles
Project #6 DUE in class
Research Writing Workshop
Project #6 Revision DUE for EXTRA CREDIT
Re-Reading/ Re-Thinking Workshop
Project #7 DUE
Shakespeare
AP Lit Exam
Smarter Balanced Exams: Literacy
Project #8 DUE in class
May 31
May 27,28
June 1
June 2
June 7
Shakespeare/Sophocles Paper DUE
Smarter Balanced Exams: Mathematics
Project #9 DUE at the beginning of class
Hwang
Last date to submit all Projects and Paper in complete form to be eligible for C- Option
June x, y, z
FINAL EXAM: Drama
Course Grading Formula
Midterm (poetry)
Final (drama)
Shakespeare/Sophocles Paper
Projects
Prep Journal
25%
25%
20%
20%
10%
Course Grading Philosophy
70% is what show you know/can do
30% is your effort
Grades are objective rulings on your performance, not rewards or punishments.
Grading Scale
100-93%
92-90%
89-87%
86-83%
82-80%
79-77%
76-73%
72-70%
69-67%
66-60%
< 59%
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD+
D
F
Grading Rubric
Outstanding (93-100%): Offers a very highly proficient, even memorable demonstration of the traits associated with the
assignment, including some appropriate risk-taking and/or creativity.
Strong (86-92%): Offers a proficient demonstration of the traits associated with the assignment which could be further
enhanced with revision.
Good (80-85%): Effectively demonstrates the traits associated with the assignment but less proficiently; could use revision
to demonstrate more skillful and nuanced command of skills.
Acceptable (70-79%): Minimally meets the outcomes, but the demonstrated traits are not fully realized or well-controlled
and would benefit from significant revision.
Inadequate (60-69%): Does not meet the outcomes; traits are not adequately demonstrated and require substantial
revision on multiple levels.
Incomplete (no grade equivalent to 0): Does not meet the minimum standards for evaluation.
Reading and Writing Outcomes
Outcome 1. To read, analyze and evaluate complex English narrative, poetry and drama purposefully. Traits are:
1.1 Readings demonstrate an understanding of a work’s complexity.
1.2 Readings encompass the richness of a work’s meaning.
1.3 Readings analyze how meaning is embodied in literary form.
1.4 Readings reflect on the social and historical values a work embodies.
Outcome 2. To produce complex, analytic, academic arguments about literature independently, over time and on demand.
Traits are:
2.1 Uses MLA in-text and works cited citation format to credit the sources of quotations, paraphrases and/or material used
when appropriate.
2.2 Includes an introduction that leads to an understanding of the argument developed.
2.3 Synthesizes sufficient, relevant, varied evidence to support multiple points of an argument (its backing and grounds).
2.4 Establishes credibility by identifying the origin and credentials of each source of evidence when necessary.
2.5 Integrates analysis and commentary to support points (using core paragraphs).
2.6 Addresses multiple reasonable views of an argument within the line of reasoning when appropriate.
2.7 Articulates the argument made clearly and accurately (in a thesis statement).
2.8 Concludes with implications derived from the argument, points and body of evidence presented.
Outcome 3. To develop flexible strategies for planning, drafting, revising, editing and proofreading writing to achieve
greater depth and clarity.
The writing demonstrates stylistic maturity, which is characterized by the following:
3.1 Wide-ranging vocabulary used with denotative accuracy and connotative resourcefulness.
3.2 Variety of sentence structures including appropriate use of subordinate and coordinate constructions.
3.3 Logical organization enhanced by specific techniques of coherence (such as repetition, transitions, emphasis).
3.4 Balance of generalization with specific, illustrative detail.
3.5 Effective use of rhetoric including controlled tone and consistent voice.
3.6 Grammar, usage, punctuation and mechanics meet the standards expected of high school graduates.
Assignments
Prep Journal
Maintain a collection of written responses to in-class and other practice assignments for checking progress and self-study.
To meet the minimum standards for credit on this you must:
 have journal or entry in class/online when requested (if excused absence, PJA due at the beginning of the period one
day after return date)—NO late PJAs accepted!
 organize entries clearly

complete ALL individual PJA minimum requirements (no credit for partial work).
Project #1
Complete the Smarter Balanced Interim Performance Task given in class.
Project #2
Complete the Smarter Balanced Interim Computer Adapted Test given in class.
Project #3
Produce an original explication of your assigned poem. To meet the minimum standards for evaluation on this you must:
 meet minimum length requirement of 600 words
 use argumentative core paragraphs
 identify the poem’s meaning, at least 3 different techniques it uses, its style2, at least 3 characteristics of its poet’s
real world context and its poet’s purpose
 answer the question: How do the poet’s specific uses of language communicate the meaning of this poem to its
intended audience and support his/her purpose for composing it?
 analyze the effect of at least 2 poetic devices (from the devices glossary) and at least 1 technique of style1/ tone/
narration used in the poem
 analyze the 3 devices’ connection to the real world context and the poet’s purpose
 analyze the connection of style2 (poetic form, literary school/trend) to the poet’s purpose and devices
 use evidence from at least two credible nonliterary sources to support purpose and/or real world context
 meet minimum conventions and style standards
 cite quotes/paraphrases/material using MLA in-text and works cited format
 submit to turnitin.com by deadline or lose 5% per calendar day from grade
Project #4
In groups of up to 4, produce explications of the 3 assigned poems by Bishop, Marzán and Donne. To meet the minimum
standards for evaluation on this you must:
 use argumentative core paragraphs
 identify and analyze the connections between each poem’s meaning, at least 3 techniques it uses, its style2, at
least 3 characteristics of its poet’s real world context and its poet’s purpose
 answer the question: How is the meaning of each poem supported by its stylistic techniques (style1, tone,
narration and/or devices NOT character, setting, plot), and how does that meaning relate to the poet’s purpose?
 each student in group turn in ALL 3 explications
 meet minimum conventions and style standards
 use evidence from at least two credible nonliterary sources to support real world context and/or purpose for each
poem
 cite quotes/paraphrases/material using MLA in-text and works cited format
 submit to turnitin.com by deadline or lose 5% per calendar day from grade
Project #5
Compose a time-constrained response to a new Free Response question that asks you to analyze a poem. To meet the
minimum standards for evaluation on this you must:
 include an intro, body and conclusion and a thesis statement matching the argument your essay makes
 use evidence in the poem for each claim
 meet minimum length requirement of 250 words
 meet minimum conventions and style standards
 submit to In Bowl by deadline or lose 5% per calendar day from grade
Project #6
Produce a well-written, original response to a mock-AP prompt that asks you to analyze an excerpt from Sophocles’ play.
To meet the minimum standards for evaluation on this you must:
 meet minimum length requirement of 250 words (500 revised for EXTRA CREDIT)
 include an intro, body and conclusion and a thesis statement matching the argument your essay makes
 cite specific textual evidence encompassing the assigned lines to support your points
 address EVERY requirement of the prompt (line # range, specific traits, etc)
 meet minimum conventions and style standards
 submit to In Bowl/turnitin.com (revised for EXTRA CREDIT) by deadline
Project #7
Produce a well-written historical criticism essay in which you analyze Sophocles’ play’s purpose using textual evidence
and secondary sources. To meet the minimum standards for evaluation on this you must:
 meet minimum length requirement of 750 words
 include an intro, body and conclusion and a thesis statement matching the argument the essay makes
 use core paragraphs
 answer the question: How does the religious/cultural/historical context in which Sophocles lived illuminate his
play’s overall meaning and purpose?
 use evidence from the play and at least three credible nonliterary sources to support your points
 cite quotes/paraphrases/material using MLA in-text and works cited format
 meet minimum conventions and style standards
 submit to turnitin.com by deadline or lose 5% per calendar day from grade
Project #8
Produce a well-written essay under time constraint in which you analyze Shakespeare’s play in response to a mock AP
prompt. To meet the minimum standards for evaluation on this you must:
 meet minimum length requirement of 300 words
 include an intro, body and conclusion and a thesis statement matching the argument your essay makes
 use textual evidence to support your points
 meet minimum conventions and style standards
 submit to the In Bowl by the end of the period
SHAKESPEARE/SOPHOCLES PAPER
Produce a well-written, fully revised historical criticism essay in which you synthesize analyses of two different plays, their
playwrights’ purposes and contexts into one overall argument using textual evidence from both plays and secondary
sources to support your points. To meet the minimum standards for evaluation on this you must:
 meet minimum length requirement of 1,200 words
 respond to the issues raised about revision in Project #9
 include an intro, body and conclusion and a thesis statement matching the argument your essay makes
 answer the question: How does the religious/cultural/historical/etc context of Shakespeare illuminate the overall
meaning and purpose of A Midsummer Night’s Dream SIMILARLY AND DIFFERENTLY to how the context of
Sophocles illuminates the meaning and purpose of Oedipus The King?
 use evidence from text and at least six credible nonliterary sources to support your points
 cite quotes/paraphrases/material using MLA in-text and works cited format
 meet minimum conventions and style standards
 submit to turnitin.com by deadline or lose 5% per calendar day from grade
Project #9
Produce documentation that you have completed the assigned steps of preparing and revising the
Shakespeare/Sophocles Paper. To meet the minimum standards for evaluation on this you must include:
 a complete first AND revised-and/or-final drafts of Project #7—yes, you must go back and fix anything that made
your first draft incomplete.
 a complete reverbalization outline for Shakes/Soph Paper –this must include a complete, revised taxonomy to
match your improved Project #7.
 a complete Feedback Protocol on a draft Shakes/Soph Paper OR a complete draft Shakes/Soph Paper with ALL
elementary, middle school and high school conventions/style issues marked and corrected on draft.
 submit to the In Bowl by deadline or lose 5% per calendar day from grade
Daily Class Activities and Notes
January 27
Words Of The Day
No language teacher can reiterate too often that the reading-thinking-writing process is not progressive, let alone
straightforward. In fact, it is recursive, interdependent and confusing in its combination of convexity and concavity.
Self-Check: All good root-based vocabulary words to know well for the SAT on Feb 25 …just saying.
Feedback Time: 23 minutes
1. Final multiple choice vs midterm multiple choice:
If you doubted (or ever begin to doubt) your abilities to do this level work, please remember this:
For the midterm I told you
For four years running, my students performed above the national mean on ALL subsections of the multiple choice and free
response exam of the actual AP Lit Exam. Their class midterm averages represented an upward trend, ~73%, then ~75%,
then ~77%, then 79.5%.YOUR average was…wait for it…81.1%--better even with your larger numbers! Thus, as a cohort,
you seem to be on track to do at least as well as, if not slightly better than my previous students on the final and the AP
Exam. Not too shabby.
And for the final exam I can add to that
U
On the final exam multiple choice, your mean was a very significant 5% HIGHER than previous years’. Wanna hear some
analysis of that data?...
Having such a sustained pattern of performing above AP average in high-pressure situations shows CLEARLY
that this year’s students have effective reading-thinking processes for tackling college level literary texts.
Congratulations!
2. Final Exam Free Responses
Things get interesting here. This year’s mean was significantly lower than previous years at ~84%. This means
(mean…means…that’s funny) free responses show you are aware of the reading-thinking-writing process for a firstattempt at writing to a text-based prompt, but only apply it partially or intermittently.— Another way of saying this is
that if you’re average right now, it’s like you’ve reached the lobby of Outcomes 1 and 2: you’ve found the right
place, and to get to your goal, you just need to “up” the level of skills you are able to show in a first attempt (not as
bad as it sounds! Remember…AP exams will score your free responses like drafts, so your “first attempt at writing
to a prompt” is how we view it). You’ll get to see your responses (with the major things holding you back marked
on each). The profile of my classes equates to the following levels, overall:
Outcome 1. To read, analyze and evaluate complex English narrative, poetry and drama purposefully. Traits are:
1.1 Readings demonstrate an understanding of a work’s complexity. Good to Acceptable
1.2 Readings encompass the richness of a work’s meaning. Acceptable
1.3 Readings analyze how meaning is embodied in literary form. Less than Acceptable
1.4 Readings reflect on the social and historical values a work embodies. Acceptable
Outcome 2. To produce complex, analytic, academic arguments about literature independently, over time and on demand.
Traits are:
2.1 Uses MLA in-text and works cited citation format to credit the sources of quotations, paraphrases and/or material used
when appropriate. Acceptable
2.2 Includes an introduction that leads to an understanding of the argument developed. Just at Acceptable
2.3 Synthesizes sufficient, relevant, varied evidence to support multiple points of an argument (its backing and grounds).
Less than Acceptable
2.4 Establishes credibility by identifying the origin and credentials of each source of evidence when necessary. N/A in free
response
2.5 Integrates analysis and commentary to support points (using core paragraphs). Just below Acceptable
2.6 Addresses multiple reasonable views of an argument within the line of reasoning when appropriate. Optional for free
response
2.7 Articulates the argument made clearly and accurately (in a thesis statement). Inadequate to Just at Acceptable
2.8 Concludes with implications derived from the argument, points and body of evidence presented. Less than Acceptable
Outcome 3. To develop flexible strategies for planning, drafting, revising, editing and proofreading writing to achieve
greater depth and clarity.
The writing demonstrates stylistic maturity, which is characterized by the following:
3.1 Wide-ranging vocabulary used with denotative accuracy and connotative resourcefulness. Inadequate to Less than
Acceptable
3.2 Variety of sentence structures including appropriate use of subordinate and coordinate constructions. Just at
Acceptable
3.3 Logical organization enhanced by specific techniques of coherence (such as repetition, transitions, emphasis).
Acceptable to Good
3.4 Balance of generalization with specific, illustrative detail. Less than Acceptable
3.5 Effective use of rhetoric including controlled tone and consistent voice. Good
3.6 Grammar, usage, punctuation and mechanics meet the standards expected of high school graduates. Less than
Acceptable
See how these levels line up with the grade range for showing enough knowledge of the traits, but not proficiency applying
them (enough command of the traits)?
Outstanding (93-100%): Offers a very highly proficient, even memorable demonstration of the traits associated with the
assignment, including some appropriate risk-taking and/or creativity.
Strong (86-92%): Offers a proficient demonstration of the traits associated with the assignment which could be further
enhanced with revision.
Good (80-85%): Effectively demonstrates the traits associated with the assignment but less proficiently; could use revision
to demonstrate more skillful and nuanced command of skills.
Acceptable (70-79%): Minimally meets the outcomes, but the demonstrated traits are not fully realized or well-controlled
and would benefit from significant revision.
Inadequate (60-69%): Does not meet the outcomes; traits are not adequately demonstrated and require substantial
revision on multiple levels.
Before I analyze this too closely, I need to see how it relates to the OTHER writing you did for me. You know, the…the…
3. Social Commentary Essay
Here the mean—with fewer inc/missings, hooray!—was ~73%. This matches what we expect of students just
introduced to the course outcomes, for argumentative, text-based writing developed and revised over time—
Outcomes 2 and 1. So, my typical student is able to write persuasion reliant on personal commentary (not
argument), insert but not integrate evidence, and show mainly first-attempt development of complexity and use of
analysis. To continue my metaphor, if you are at this level you haven’t really stepped into the lobby of revised
college writing yet; you are standing at the entrance. My comments on LMS tell you the MOST significant things
holding your score down. In more detail, the levels I saw overall are…
Outcome 2. To produce complex, analytic, academic arguments about literature independently, over time and on demand.
Traits are:
2.1 Uses MLA in-text and works cited citation format to credit the sources of quotations, paraphrases and/or material used
when appropriate. Just at Acceptable crosses into plagiarism
2.2 Includes an introduction that leads to an understanding of the argument developed. Acceptable to Good goes beyond
restatement of prompt and/or summary of paper but lacks stakes/significance for audience
2.3 Synthesizes sufficient, relevant, varied evidence to support multiple points of an argument (its backing and grounds).
Just at Acceptable to Inadequate shows ability to support only ONE point and/or synthesize only ONE type of evidence
(usually literary)
2.4 Establishes credibility by identifying the origin and credentials of each source of evidence when necessary. Less than
Acceptable to Incomplete doesn’t differentiate from info in citation or is missing
2.5 Integrates analysis and commentary to support points (using core paragraphs). Just at Acceptable often restates
evidence or claim instead of explaining how evidence PROVES claim
2.6 Addresses multiple reasonable views of an argument within the line of reasoning when appropriate. Just below
Acceptable to Inadequate OPVs are discussions of complexity of text or alternate examples instead of gray areas in
ARGUMENT of essay
2.7 Articulates the argument made clearly and accurately (in a thesis statement). Just at Acceptable often doesn’t match
points of essay (gets off track or over-simplified), is implied through points rather than stated explicitly
2.8 Concludes with implications derived from the argument, points and body of evidence presented. Acceptable to Good
usually limited to general statement for/against the literature’s argument instead of specified implications of YOUR arg
Outcome 1. To read, analyze and evaluate complex English narrative, poetry and drama purposefully. Traits are:
1.1 Readings demonstrate an understanding of a work’s complexity. Think: sees its argument not just its subjects.
Literature: Strong to Good; nonliterary: Inadequate to Acceptable
1.2 Readings encompass the richness of a work’s meaning. Think: uncovers its layers not just surface. Literature: Good to
Strong; nonliterary: Inadequate
1.3 Readings analyze how meaning is embodied in literary form. Think: sees its genre/approach not just its content.
Literature: Good; nonliterary: Inadequate to Acceptable when applicable (like character/conflict/setting)
1.4 Readings reflect on the social and historical values a work embodies. Think: uncovers its purpose/agenda instead of
accepting it at face value. Literature: Strong to Outstanding; nonliterary: Inadequate
Outcome 3. To develop flexible strategies for planning, drafting, revising, editing and proofreading writing to achieve
greater depth and clarity.
The writing demonstrates stylistic maturity, which is characterized by the following:
3.1 Wide-ranging vocabulary used with denotative accuracy and connotative resourcefulness. Acceptable because more
“gist” than precision
3.2 Variety of sentence structures including appropriate use of subordinate and coordinate constructions. Good to
Acceptable because more formula/default form—factitious, remember?—than “natural”
3.3 Logical organization enhanced by specific techniques of coherence (such as repetition, transitions, emphasis). Good
to Strong relies on repetition of exact words of thesis/claims instead of transitions as argument
3.4 Balance of generalization with specific, illustrative detail. Just at Acceptable because more description/summarizing
than data analysis
3.5 Effective use of rhetoric including controlled tone and consistent voice. Strong although little risk-taking or creativity
3.6 Grammar, usage, punctuation and mechanics meet the standards expected of high school graduates. Good to Strong
still many middle school and proofreading errors getting through
See how these line up with the grade for an attempt at but not enough demonstrated knowledge or control of the traits?...
Outstanding (93-100%): Offers a very highly proficient, even memorable demonstration of the traits associated with the
assignment, including some appropriate risk-taking and/or creativity.
Strong (86-92%): Offers a proficient demonstration of the traits associated with the assignment which could be further
enhanced with revision.
Good (80-85%): Effectively demonstrates the traits associated with the assignment but less proficiently; could use revision
to demonstrate more skillful and nuanced command of skills.
Acceptable (70-79%): Minimally meets the outcomes, but the demonstrated traits are not fully realized or well-controlled
and would benefit from significant revision.
Inadequate (60-69%): Does not meet the outcomes; traits are not adequately demonstrated and require substantial
revision on multiple levels.
The difference between your reading-thinking for multiple choice and your reading-thinking-writing performance here and
in the free responses troubled me. So, I asked myself some questions.
How often did an average or below average Paper grade match the profile literally? That is, how likely was an average or
below score given to a Soc Comm Essay that was, essentially, an early piece of writing (Project #5), not revised as you
learned and practiced the outcomes?
My findings
More than 9/10 times the paper had not changed much since October. So, sheesh, I thought, maybe nothing to worry
about in terms of teaching (in terms of getting you to heed my advice, some issues clearly!). But, I still wanted to know…
What is getting in the way of the 10% who DID revise yet showed “entering” skills and the relatively low improvement from
“entry level” in my above-average papers? That is, is there a pattern in the weaknesses and gaps, or are they different
student-to-student? Do the weaknesses/gaps match what the class covers or are they something I missed, skipped or
under-emphasized? Do these and the patterns for the 90% line up with the free response weaknesses and gaps?
My findings
Average and below average papers (<70%) had a clear pattern of main weaknesses and gaps; they lined up around the
baseline “knowledge of traits.”
Next level up (<83%): more of a range of weaknesses; knowledge was there, but clear gaps were present in applying it to
logic and evidence and OPV
Average? (~85%): scattered weaknesses but all concerning the depth of knowledge/ command (too shallow
demonstration of logic, evidence, OPV).
High performers: a little of this, a little of that: shallowness alongside depth, clear knowledge alongside partial
demonstration of knowledge; weaknesses seemed to relate more to attention to detail than to skill (maybe a lot of last
minute revising…?)
So, I put this together with the free response data and What, in rank order, did I see getting in the way?
Would you believe it’s almost EXACTLY what I told you it would be and EXACTLY what we focused on…?
identify “must attempt” requirements of prompt
yep—in the paper you really DID have to include credibility, citations, required types of sources, thesis, OPV, intro,
conclusion; on the exam you really do have to answer ALL of what the prompt asks
know operational definitions in prompt
yep—in the paper you really DID have to show you knew what qualifies as SOC COMM and as ARG made by LIT what is
actually reported/described by NONLIT, what is evidence, OPV, MLA, INTRO and CONCL; on the exam characterization
(vs plot!), environment (vs. plot!), moral and psychological dimensions of persona (vs plot!), meaning, theme, purpose (vs.
the prompt!), tone (vs. mood!)…
compose a thesis statement that covers reqs of prompt
yep—you really DID have to spell your argument out and prove IT (not something different than it) in your paper…
include necessary points to prove thesis statement (jumped one position in ranking)
a surprisingly prevalent issue—you often stopped short of covering every part of your thesis (though you showed you could
in the paper, say, delineate every step of the literature’s arg, you left parts of the connection to the real world
unaddressed; in the exam, make one point only)…
get meanings of new, complex text/data (dropped one position)
another surprise—you showed impressive abilities to “read into” the implicit and explicit of your literature in the Paper…it
was almost always understanding the meaning of nonliterary evidence that tripped you up; on the exam, you struggled to
go beyond the surface/explicit.
select salient evidence to support points (tied with next)
yep—you really DID have to give examples, testimony or logically walk us through how your claims are valid; you can’t just
CLAIM the lit or real world or author or character or meaning “says” or “is” something…
justify interpretation of evidence through analysis (tied with previous)
yep—you really DID have to EXPLAIN what quotes or paraphrases “mean” or “show” about your claim’s validity; you can’t
just leave them to speak for themselves (or have your reader do the work for you)
use precise wording, including transitions (jumped one position in ranking)
meh—making sure what YOU say matches what you MEAN is important to doing stuff that’s important to do for people…
organize argument cogently
not bad, but—start to finish or before-after or restate thesis, quote, restate thesis, repeat until conclusion isn’t necessarily
the clearest, most effective way to lay out your case…
avoid formulaic writing
perfectly ok to do—as long as you are making a formula argument about a formula text with formula evidence to a formula
audience 
craft logical intros and conclusions (dropped one position in ranking)
no way!—in your papers, unlike many interactions in life that involve arguing, you actually chatted me up a bit, got me
comfortable, then let loose, and you still usually gave me some parting words so I could remember our discussion fondly.
In your exams (due to time?) these were much more “window dressing.”
My conclusions
In rank order, I need to do a better job at
1. Differentiating persuasion/elaboration/summary from argument/ analysis /data so I get you in the right place to
show your skills in first-attempt and in revision
2. Explaining OPV/gray area vs alternate view so you can demonstrate the depth/complexity of your skills
3. REMINDING you of “must cite” material and distinguishing the info used for credibility vs citation so you can avoid
plagiarism
4. Building your ability to reason through the connection of evidence to claims for nonliterary texts in all writing and
for literary texts in first-attempt writing.
However, there are outstanding questions I need answered to proceed…
 Is it me?...Is my systematizer approach (displayed today again!) not working for you? Do I need a more intuitive
one (more models of argumentative texts to analyze and “write like;” less emphasis on “steps to take,” for
example?) Is the way I grade and teach valid (or, perhaps, too focused on first-attempt, “choice” etc)?
 Is it lit?...Despite the course’s lit-heavy content and your strengths in reading-thinking, should I adjust to have you
work more with nonliterary text analysis and first-attempt argumentation to be sure you have the skills you’ll need
for what you WANT to do/study, and not just for the AP exam and this class?
The answers to these matter because
1. I got a whole ‘nother semester…I want to do BETTER. I guess I have feelings after all!
2. You’ve got SAT soon and Smarter Balanced tests coming in May—which colleges will use to judge you. I want
YOU to do better. In fact, I want you to
NB: See the components of a core conclusion paragraph demonstrated here? Just saying.
So…
My proposal
I would like to test the hypothesis I have been teaching (and grading!) under
Students need to know and apply the processes of reading-thinking-writing taught in this course and described in
its outcomes at the level I grade their work in order to demonstrate college level skills where it matters.
But, testing will require work and take time. Thus, I would like my test to be as beneficial as possible to you. So, I would
like to give you the spanking new “interim” Smarter Balanced exam—which will be lighter on literary text, be scored on the
Common Core standards (not the course outcomes/ AP/ mine) and give you a report on your performance that should tie
directly to the May exam—as the FIRST projects you do this semester.
Furthermore, I would like to ask you to assess your skills as you do this, then review your report, and then—once we have
both seen the results—be open with me about what I can do more/different/less to help you improve in and out of my class.
Your thoughts?
January 28
So it begins. Smarter Balanced Performance Task Classroom Activity: 30 minutes
There is an embargo on the interim tests you will be taking, to ensure that other students can use the test effectively to assess their
progress on the Common Core Standards. Thank you in advance for putting in the time and effort to “test” the test for us!
January 29-…?
Continue Performance Task.
When you have completed it, go on to the CAT (42 items). When you’re done with it all…
PJA #1: Self-evaluation time. Reflect on the reading-thinking-writing process you used on the Performance Task and the
CAT. Answer as honestly as possible these questions—
Did you read prompts and texts, analyze their meanings, think through and select your answers in the same or different
ways than you approached drafting your Soc Comm Essay? your final exam free responses? the multiple choice on the
final and midterm exams?
Are you feeling like your skills are being demonstrated more clearly, less clearly or about the same as on the Soc Comm?
the final? Why?
On a scale of 1-4
4—college level
3—college-ready level
2—high school not AP level
1—not high school level
how well do you think you demonstrated each of the following…
Waypoints to College Level Reading and Writing
a. identify “must attempt” requirements of prompt or m/c question
b. know operational definitions in prompt/question/answers
c.
compose a thesis /chose answer that covers reqs/matches defs
d. get meanings of new, complex text
e. select salient evidence to support interpretation/argument
f.
use/comprehend precise wording
g. justify interpretation of evidence through analysis
h. include necessary points to prove paper thesis
i.
organize paper argument cogently
j.
craft logical paper intros and conclusions
k.
avoid formulaic writing in paper
Review the Common Core Standards below. Which ones do you think WERE NOT tested by the performance task (PT)?
Which ones do you think WERE NOT tested by the CAT? Which ones do you think WERE NOT tested at all? List these by
their specific designation (e.g., WHST.11-12.1.A).
WRITING
Text Types and Purposes
WHST.11-12.1
Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content.
WELA.11-12.1
Write arguments to support claims in an analysis of substantive topics or texts, using valid reasoning and relevant and sufficient
evidence.
WHST.11-12.1.A
Introduce precise, knowledgeable claim(s), establish the significance of the claim(s), distinguish the claim(s) from alternate or
opposing claims, and create an organization that logically sequences the claim(s), counterclaims, reasons, and evidence.
WHST.11-12.1.B
Develop claim(s) and counterclaims fairly and thoroughly, supplying the most relevant data and evidence for each while pointing out
the strengths and limitations of both claim(s) and counterclaims in a discipline-appropriate form that anticipates the audience's
knowledge level, concerns, values, and possible biases.
WHST.11-12.1.C
Use words, phrases, and clauses as well as varied syntax to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the
relationships between claim(s) and reasons, between reasons and evidence, and between claim(s) and counterclaims.
WHST.11-12.1.D
Establish and maintain a formal style and objective tone while attending to the norms and conventions of the discipline in which
they are writing.
WHST.11-12.1.E
Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from or supports the argument presented.
WHST.11-12.2
Write informative/explanatory texts, including the narration of historical events, scientific procedures/experiments, or technical
processes.
WELA.11-12.2
Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately
through the effective selection, organization, and analysis of content.
WHST.11-12.2.A
Introduce a topic and organize complex ideas, concepts, and information so that each new element builds on that which precedes it
to create a unified whole; include formatting (e.g., headings), graphics (e.g., figures, tables), and multimedia when useful to aiding
comprehension.
WHST.11-12.2.B
Develop the topic thoroughly by selecting the most significant and relevant facts, extended definitions, concrete details, quotations,
or other information and examples appropriate to the audience's knowledge of the topic.
WHST.11-12.2.C
Use varied transitions and sentence structures to link the major sections of the text, create cohesion, and clarify the relationships
among complex ideas and concepts.
WHST.11-12.2.D
Use precise language, domain-specific vocabulary and techniques such as metaphor, simile, and analogy to manage the complexity
of the topic; convey a knowledgeable stance in a style that responds to the discipline and context as well as to the expertise of likely
readers.
WHST.11-12.2.E
Provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the information or explanation provided (e.g., articulating
implications or the significance of the topic).
WHST.11-12.3
Incorporate narrative elements effectively into arguments and informative/explanatory texts. In history/social studies, students
must be able to incorporate narrative accounts into their analyses of individuals or events of historical import. In science and
technical subjects, students must be able to write precise enough descriptions of the step-by-step procedures they use in their
investigations or technical work that others can replicate them and (possibly) reach the same results.
WELA.11-12.3
Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective technique, well-chosen details, and wellstructured event sequences.
WELA.11-12.3 .A
Engage and orient the reader by setting out a problem, situation, or observation and its significance, establishing one or multiple
point(s) of view, and introducing a narrator and/or characters; create a smooth progression of experiences or events.
WELA.11-12.3 .B
Use narrative techniques, such as dialogue, pacing, description, reflection, and multiple plot lines, to develop experiences, events,
and/or characters.
WELA.11-12.3 .C
Use a variety of techniques to sequence events so that they build on one another to create a coherent whole and build toward a
particular tone and outcome (e.g., a sense of mystery, suspense, growth, or resolution).
WELA.11-12.3 .D
Use precise words and phrases, telling details, and sensory language to convey a vivid picture of the experiences, events, setting,
and/or characters.
WELA.11-12.3 .E
Provide a conclusion that follows from and reflects on what is experienced, observed, or resolved over the course of the narrative.
Production and Distribution of Writing
WHST.11-12.4
Produce clear and coherent writing in which the development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose, and
audience.
WHST.11-12.5
Develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach, focusing on addressing
what is most significant for a specific purpose and audience.
WHST.11-12.6
Use technology, including the Internet, to produce, publish, and update individual or shared writing products in response to ongoing
feedback, including new arguments or information.
Research to Build and Present Knowledge
WHST.11-12.7
Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a
problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating
understanding of the subject under investigation.
WHST.11-12.8
Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources, using advanced searches effectively; assess the
strengths and limitations of each source in terms of the specific task, purpose, and audience; integrate information into the text
selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and overreliance on any one source and following a standard format for
citation.
WHST.11-12.9
Draw evidence from informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
WELA.11-12.9
Draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.
WELA.11-12.9 .A
Apply grades 11–12 Reading standards to literature (e.g., “Demonstrate knowledge of eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early-twentiethcentury foundational works of American literature, including how two or more texts from the same period treat similar themes or
topics”).
WELA.11-12.9 .B
Apply grades 11–12 Reading standards to literary nonfiction (e.g., “Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts,
including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning [e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court Case majority opinions
and dissents] and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public advocacy [e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses]”).
Range of Writing
WHST.11-12.10
Write routinely over extended time frames (time for reflection and revision) and shorter time frames (a single sitting or a day or two)
for a range of discipline-specific tasks, purposes, and audiences.
READING
Key Ideas and Details—English/History/Social Studies
RH.11-12.1
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources, connecting insights gained from specific details
to an understanding of the text as a whole.
RL.11-12.1
Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the
text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain.
RH.11-12.2
Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary that makes clear the
relationships among the key details and ideas.
RL.11-12.2
Determine two or more themes or central ideas of a text and analyze their development over the course of the text, including how
they interact and build on one another to produce a complex account; provide an objective summary of the text.
RH.11-12.3
Evaluate various explanations for actions or events and determine which explanation best accords with textual evidence,
acknowledging where the text leaves matters uncertain.
RL.11-12.3
Analyze the impact of the author’s choices regarding how to develop and relate elements of a story or drama (e.g., where a story is
set, how the action is ordered, how the characters are introduced and developed).
RI.11-12.3
Analyze a complex set of ideas or sequence of events and explain how specific individuals, ideas, or events interact and develop over
the course of the text.
Craft and Structure—English/History/Social Studies
RH.11-12.4
Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in a text, including analyzing how an author uses and refines the
meaning of a key term over the course of a text (e.g., how Madison defines faction in Federalist No. 10).
RL.11-12.4
Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in the text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze
the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including words with multiple meanings or language that is particularly
fresh, engaging, or beautiful. (Include Shakespeare as well as other authors.)
RH.11-12.5
Analyze in detail how a complex primary source is structured, including how key sentences, paragraphs, and larger portions of the
text contribute to the whole.
RL.11-12.5
Analyze how an author’s choices concerning how to structure specific parts of a text (e.g., the choice of where to begin or end a
story, the choice to provide a comedic or tragic resolution) contribute to its overall structure and meaning as well as its aesthetic
impact.
RI.11-12.5
Analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of the structure an author uses in his or her exposition or argument, including whether the
structure makes points clear, convincing, and engaging.
RH.11-12.6
Evaluate authors' differing points of view on the same historical event or issue by assessing the authors' claims, reasoning, and
evidence.
RL.11-12.6
Analyze a case in which grasping point of view requires distinguishing what is directly stated in a text from what is really meant (e.g.,
satire, sarcasm, irony, or understatement).
RI. 11-12.6
Determine an author’s point of view or purpose in a text in which the rhetoric is particularly effective, analyzing how style and
content contribute to the power, persuasiveness, or beauty of the text.
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas—English/History/Social Studies
RH.11-12.7
Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media (e.g., visually, quantitatively, as well
as in words) in order to address a question or solve a problem.
RL.11-12.7
Analyze multiple interpretations of a story, drama, or poem (e.g., recorded or live production of a play or recorded novel or poetry),
evaluating how each version interprets the source text. (Include at least one play by Shakespeare and one play by an American
dramatist.)
RI. 11-12.7
Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in different media or formats (e.g., visually, quantitatively) as
well as in words in order to address a question or solve a problem.
RH.11-12.8
Evaluate an author's premises, claims, and evidence by corroborating or challenging them with other information.
RI. 11-12.8
Delineate and evaluate the reasoning in seminal U.S. texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal
reasoning (e.g., in U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions and dissents) and the premises, purposes, and arguments in works of public
advocacy (e.g., The Federalist, presidential addresses).
RH.11-12.9
Integrate information from diverse sources, both primary and secondary, into a coherent understanding of an idea or event, noting
discrepancies among sources.
RL.11-12.9
Demonstrate knowledge of eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century foundational works of American literature,
including how two or more texts from the same period treat similar themes or topics.
RI.11-12.9
Analyze seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century foundational U.S. documents of historical and literary significance
(including The Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Lincoln’s Second Inaugural
Address) for their themes, purposes, and rhetorical features.
Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity—English/History/Social Studies
RH.11-12.10
By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend history/social studies texts in the grades 11-CCR text complexity band independently
and proficiently.
RL.11-12.10
By the end of grade 11, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, in the grades 11–CCR text complexity
band proficiently, with scaffolding as needed at the high end of the range.
By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, at the high end of the grades 11–CCR
text complexity band independently and proficiently.
Key Ideas and Details—Science and Technical Subjects
RST.11-12.1
Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of science and technical texts, attending to important distinctions the author makes
and to any gaps or inconsistencies in the account.
RST.11-12.2
Determine the central ideas or conclusions of a text; summarize complex concepts, processes, or information presented in a text by
paraphrasing them in simpler but still accurate terms.
RST.11-12.3
Follow precisely a complex multistep procedure when carrying out experiments, taking measurements, or performing technical
tasks; analyze the specific results based on explanations in the text.
Craft and Structure—Science and Technical Subjects
RST.11-12.4
Determine the meaning of symbols, key terms, and other domain-specific words and phrases as they are used in a specific scientific
or technical context relevant to grades 11-12 texts and topics.
RST.11-12.5
Analyze how the text structures information or ideas into categories or hierarchies, demonstrating understanding of the information
or ideas.
RST.11-12.6
Analyze the author's purpose in providing an explanation, describing a procedure, or discussing an experiment in a text, identifying
important issues that remain unresolved.
Integration of Knowledge and Ideas—Science and Technical Subjects
RST.11-12.7
Integrate and evaluate multiple sources of information presented in diverse formats and media (e.g., quantitative data, video,
multimedia) in order to address a question or solve a problem.
RST.11-12.8
Evaluate the hypotheses, data, analysis, and conclusions in a science or technical text, verifying the data when possible and
corroborating or challenging conclusions with other sources of information.
RST.11-12.9
Synthesize information from a range of sources (e.g., texts, experiments, simulations) into a coherent understanding of a process,
phenomenon, or concept, resolving conflicting information when possible.
Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity—Science and Technical Subjects
RST.11-12.10
By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend science/technical texts in the grades 11-CCR text complexity band independently and
proficiently.
Finally, which Common Core Standards seem the most challenging to YOU personally? Why? Which kind of assessment—
PT or CAT? Why?
Submit to the Bowl for LOTSA POINTS!!
February 9
PJA #1 DUE Today—via email, as a “link to share/view” or in the Bowl.
Pick up your final from the ID# piles.
Words Of The Day
Processing your process: How well do you remember the AP-level definitions [of elements, devices, components of
argumentation, etc] for the class? Is your memory of them...

tenuous

blighted

resonant

oblivious?
PJA #2: Grade your memory based on the 4 words of the day, using analysis to explain HOW your memory fits the
definition(s) above.
To improve the effectiveness of your reading-writing-thinking process, work to build up a resonant memory of the concepts
you’re required to demonstrate/apply—the traits of outcome 1 are the guide for how well you do this by reading.
NB: This would be a good time to figure out how—through a certain notetaking strategy (hello, SpringBoard!), study
quizzes, interpretive dance, whatever works for YOU—you can cement definitions of elements, devices, meaning, styles,
evidence, analysis, claims, etc in your head for this class. Remember that tip about forcing yourself to write down all you
can remember about a text, lecture, etc leading to greater recall? Have you tried it?...if not—give it a shot. Who knows; you
might just find it helpful for more than this class.
Let’s use this to focus on how you can improve your skills for the most important (okay… impactful…) waypoints in the
reading-thinking-writing process:
This is another way of saying, of course, what you’ve heard before
ANSWER THE PROMPT, ONLY THE PROMPT AND ALL PARTS OF THE PROMPT
…and this, which is always implicit in an assessment situation…
DEMONSTRATE THE TRAITS/CONCEPTS EMBEDDED IN THE PROMPT.
Think back to how we started out in Fall—remember?...all that argument stuff? To make an argument, any argument, you
start by using Toulmin analysis to think out your claim and reason(s), which leads to your backing and grounds. Then you
assemble the evidence and analysis you need for proof. Next you plan how you will structure your argument in writing.
Finally, you draft it and revise.
Not skipping to the final step before its time (or it’s time either), believe it or not, is both the problem and the solution you
have for improving your skills at this waypoint (a complex definition argument, yes?). With Toulmin in mind, look closely at
this little prompt you had:
Prompt: I
Choose a novel or play in which cultural, physical, or geographical surroundings shape psychological or moral traits in a character.
Then write a well-organized essay in which you analyze how surroundings affect this character and illuminate the meaning of the
work as a whole.
PJA #3: With a partner, state and listen to one other’s answer to each of the following questions—you may discuss the
work you originally used on the exam or a new novel or play. After each question is complete, share out any
issues/questions you have about how the answers you heard match what is highlighted in the question. Be gentle with
each other!
1. Which complex novel or play depicting which environment and character is a good candidate for YOU to argue (to
best show your skills—remember to consider at least 2 before deciding)?
2. Does the environment fit the definition of setting as environment precisely? (setting ACTING as a character with a
persona, type, role) If it doesn’t, how does it fit a justifiable definition of setting that doesn’t rise to the level of
environment? (setting as passive time and location of action which embodies mood(s) for characters)
3. How does the setting fit the concepts of time or location and culture, physical surroundings or geography precisely?
4. What specific change/development occurs in the character’s psychological or moral traits? (analysis of dynamism of
character—before/after—or not-C argument if initial characterization)
5. Do traits of the character’s persona fit the definition of internal or external psychological or moral strengths, weakness,
beliefs and/or motivations precisely? If not, how do actions the character takes justifiably imply internal or external
psychological or moral strengths, weakness, beliefs and/or motivations? (analysis of direct/indirect presentation of
persona)
6. Does the environment directly or indirectly cause that change/development? If neither, does its relationship with the
character justifiably fit the pattern of parallelism, contrast or antagonist-protagonist? (analysis external influence of
setting on character persona, mood, plot)
7. How does the environment-character relationship relate to meaning(s) (explicit, implicit, theme, arg, purpose—the
precise definition) of the work above and beyond the character’s
dynamism and the environment’s traits?
Return your final to the Bowl.
February 10
Follow up to the “breakdown” of thinking for the prompt yesterday…
The Essay you write in response would lay out
1. THESIS naming the novel or play, the influential environment (A), the character, the change in the character’s
morality/psychology (B), a different overall meaning (C) to the work.
2. EVIDENCE and ANALYSIS demonstrating how the (A) setting you chose fits the definition of time and/or location and
culture, physical surroundings or geography.
3. EVIDENCE and ANALYSIS demonstrating (B) before versus after of at least one specific change in the character’s
psychology or morality (dynamism)
4. EVIDENCE and ANALYSIS demonstrating the direct/indirect influence of the environment (A) on the change(s) in
character (B) as opposed to other existing influences/causes (characters, self, conflict, etc) (cause/effect)
5. EVIDENCE and ANALYSIS justifying an overall theme or argument (C) of the work.
6. EVIDENCE and ANALYSIS justifying the logical relationship connecting the environment’s (A) effect on the character
(B) to the overall meaning (C). (cause/effect)
7. INTRO leading to THESIS; CONCLUSION drawing implications from YOUR argument—not restatement of the prompt
or of your thesis!
Words Of The Day
Not precisely, comprehensively and cogently comprehending the task/prompt is the major factor hampering the success of
your responses. To overcome this you first must decode the cryptic wording (catching any oblique warrants); then you
must apply AP’s somewhat abstruse concepts about literature and writing.
PJA #4: Compose 3 claims—one for each adjective of the day—that argue HOW this category of language functions as an
impediment (or challenge, if you want a positive spin).
NB: The same issues are showing up in the Smarter Balanced assessments. EVERY WORD IN THE
PROMPT/INSTRUCTIONS is intentional and related to how you will be scored—it behooves you to give them attention as
you plan your answer.
More processing your process: try the memory strategies we discussed yesterday to make these concepts STICK—
Tenuous Memorizers
Oblivious Memorizers
Blighted Memorizers
take notes, and review them later, to make today’s concepts indelible.
go back mentally to the day you took the final and “relive” the experience to “real-ize” each of
today’s concepts.
create a new mental file that “ups” your current info on “how to unpack a prompt” and what
makes a “hard, confusing and/or tricky” question
Ready?
You can think of looking at any college-level argument as a problem-solving task with 3 levels:
The cryptic part is decoding what the warrants, backing and grounds look like specifically for this prompt/task; that is,
outlining what basic claims you must include to argue the prompt comprehensively. Bad decoding means your response is
doomed to be incomplete.
That’s
ANSWER THE PROMPT, ONLY THE PROMPT AND ALL PARTS OF THE PROMPT
The oblique part is catching which relevant (but perhaps obscure) definitions/concepts you must include in order to prove
your points; that is, identifying the IMPLICIT expectations (college-level definitions/criteria) for the test your evidence must
show is passed (reasons) to prove your argument (claims) precisely. Not catching these means your response likely
remains shallow/ obvious or a simplification of the task/text.
That’s
DEMONSTRATE THE TRAITS/CONCEPTS EMBEDDED IN THE PROMPT.
The abstruse part is selecting the particular explicit and implicit nuanced/gray area details that capture the depth/richness
of the chosen text, applying fully resonant definitions of elements and devices of literature to them and employing cogent
argumentation and control of language and organization to show you aren’t just familiar with these, you can recognize how
they are used and implement them yourself cogently in analysis of selected evidence at the AP level. Selecting, applying
and/or controlling these badly or unevenly highlights the limitations/gaps in the skills and knowledge AP, college-level
courses and the outcomes test.
That’s
recognize salient explicit and implicit meanings of challenging text
which, appropriately enough, cryptically, obliquely and abstrusely asks you to RECURSIVELY, INTERDEPENDENTLY
and CONCAVELY-CONVEXLY read, think and write around the complex concept of “meaning,” which captures



the connotations and denotations of the words in the text (what it actually says implicitly and explicitly) AND/OR
the argument or theme of the work (what if taken together the text proves/tests for the reader) AND/OR
the author’s purpose for writing the work (what the work was intended to do/cause/be in the real world of the
author)—this is sometimes close to its theme/argument but, logically, always broader. Think: why write this work
(with this theme) this way at this time for this audience—instead of other ways/ works/ messages/ times/
audiences?
Analysis is the key to proving EXPLICATION claims (remember?...these connect what elements ARE and DO to the
overall meaning of a work. Explication logically produces implications/ commentary illuminating
o something new about the work’s complexity—explicit meanings in context and/or denotations at the word,
sentence, paragraph, overall style and structural level
o
new/more richness of a work—connotations and/or implicit meanings in context at the word, sentence,
paragraph, overall style and structural level as well as the combination of meanings that culminate as
purpose/ theme/ argument
o
techniques of communication in literary form—what can only be seen through an application of definitions
of elements/devices to analyzing the text (dissection by a specialist)
o
hidden/subtle/implied social and historical values the work embodies—connection of author/work to the
external real world context, biographical, cultural, historical, artistic, etc that can only be seen through
application of research/outside knowledge about the time periods, styles, authors, works (interpretation by
an expert)
From Fall…
Explication Default Outline (as a Core Paragraph)
1.
Claim A identifying a category/name for the form the relevant elements take, like “3rd limited, sympathetic narration”
and/or the pattern the uses of elements follow, like “dramatizes numerous round characters who share or oppose the
protagonist’s philosophical beliefs.”
Ex: The plot pattern follows the standard form of a spy novel with ___ being the overall conflict, ___ barriers being placed on its
protagonist’s work to solve it, ___ crisis that leads directly to __ decisive climax and ___ conclusion that saves the free world…
1a. Claim B tracing the effect/relationship of the elements on/with other element(s).
Ex: The traditional form of this plot pattern, however, does not translate into a predictable story; instead it turns it on its head by
utilizing an antihero protagonist and a surreal setting.
2.
Citation(s) of textual evidence backing up claim A about WHAT the elements are/PATTERNS they follow. These can
be direct quotes, material or paraphrases of indirect presentation.
Ex: John’s choice of the black tuxedo jacket on page 12 is clearly framed as a decision the character is making in order to
accomplish his goal, as in this thought: “The outfit had to do the trick—but what would work best?” (11).
2a. Citation(s) of textual evidence backing up claim B about what the elements DO in the work. These can be direct
quotes, material or paraphrases of indirect presentation.
Ex: John’s true character (a disenchanted aristocratic playboy) contrasts with his altruistic actions in taking on an “anything but
glamourous” role with his peers (4), physically engaging in “uncouth” work (8)—including “manual labour and exertion” (24)—
and, of course, sacrificing his property (20, 56, 137) and reputation (140) for the “unthinking, unimpressionable masses who
would not even acknowledge [him] if he were to put on a crown and dance naked on the Queen’s lawn (148)—a scenario that is
imagined, but unlike other absurdities in the work, does not actually occur.
3.
Analysis of evidence explaining what it SHOWS IS TRUE about the elements’ forms/patterns, most logically by
matching up data with aspects of the class definitions.
Ex: This choice solves the problem John had of saving England in general (and of not being recognized as a spy before he had
accomplished his mission, the crisis he faced more immediately), because it makes him undetectable to Hera, the landlady, who is
watching for a day laborer not a gentleman, and frees him to locate, and ultimately capture, the would-be assassin.
3a. Analysis of evidence explaining what it shows is true about the elements’ EFFECTS/RELATIONS to other elements,
most logically by matching up data with patterns/factors in cause/effect.
Ex: The heroism required by the plot challenges John’s personal preferences for indulgence, elitism and ennui, forces him to
confront the effect of these behaviors on others and, through erosion, changes John into an almost opposite new version of
himself.
4.
Commentary deriving implications from your proof of claims A and B that states what your explication likely reveals
about the complexity, richness, form and/or real-world meaning of the work we couldn’t see before.
Ex: Making camouflage through clothes central to the plot reinforces the narrator’s descriptions of the conspicuous consumption
that plagues Viennese society. By calling on John’s own experience being rich, it also enacts his personal realization of the theme
that opulence is a kind of moral corruption, being, at heart, gluttony—which broadens the usual simplistic “us vs. them” message
of a spy novel into more insightful social commentary about a world that has lost its moral and logical bearings.
It is rare that you will be asked to do a full explication of all the elements of a work in literary analysis or any other
discipline. Usually—and always the case on an AP Lit exam free response question—you are discussing only 2 or 3 specific
elements and/or devices, which you explicate as support for an analysis or evaluation of a work. AP, I and other collegelevel assessors will be looking for you to demonstrate that you understand the definitions of the specific elements/devices
and the text at a precise, comprehensive and complex level (outcome 1) and that you can articulate your understanding
effectively (outcome 3) through formal argumentation (outcome 2).
Self-Check: Can you see how the relationships you see between elements in a specific text would provide the logic of your
organization of the claims, evidence and analysis into one, combined dissection? That is, do you see how you might need
to sequence interpretation of setting, characterization and theme as well as narration around the example explication
above on plot if you were composing an explication of all 5 structural elements
Bottom Line for Explication
When you are writing a full essay for AP, me or other college-level literary analysis assignments, the prompt is asking you
to construct an argument that uses explication (definition/evaluation argument) to fully demonstrate the validity of the
cause/effect relationship (how elements/ devices create/ impact/ change/ etc the meanings). To do this effectively, your
response would integrate not “key terms” or a plot summary, but
 explication of elements/devices the prompt asks for
 justification of your interpretation of the text’s meanings—analysis of what it SAYS, ARGUES and INTENDS
 logically reasoned implications for the effect of those elements on those meanings and on the audience.
An AP Lit essay outline—NOT the organization!—would be the explication steps in reverse, with the addition of an intro and
conclusion (commentary on the commentary of an explication!):
AP Essay Default Formal Outline
INTRO: why the question the prompt asks matters (what is reasonably significant about the work, elements, devices, etc
that make it worth analyzing/evaluating?)
 THESIS: what explicating specified elements/devices reveals about the complexity, richness, form or intended realworld meanings of the work (analysis prompt) or the author’s effectiveness at communicating its meanings to his/her
audience (evaluation prompt)
BACKING: what form/pattern does each relevant element/device fit (including OPVs/gray areas)
a. textual evidence backing up claims about what each element/device IS
b. analysis explaining what evidence SHOWS IS TRUE about each element/device’s form or pattern, matching it
with aspects of the definition of the element/device
c. commentary linking element/device TO MEANING(S) OF THE WORK (connection to thesis)
GROUNDS: what is the effect/relationship of each element on/with other element(s) (including OPVs/gray areas)
d. textual evidence backing up claims about what each element/device DOES in the work
e. analysis explaining what evidence shows is true about each element’s EFFECT/RELATIONSHIP with others,
by matching it with steps of/factors in cause/effect
f. commentary linking effect/relationship of element/device to meaning(s) of the work (connection to thesis)
CONCLUSION: why proving your analysis/evaluation valid MATTERS (what should be done/ had light shed on/ changes
about the author, time period, subjects discussed, etc beyond the analysis/evaluation of the work itself)
PJA #5: New piece of paper, no notes—write down EVERYTHING you remember about today’s lesson.
February 11
Words Of The Day
You may have many qualms about how to meet AP’s standards for the free response questions, but remember this:
knowledge and skill expectations are high, but content is pliable. That is, you choose the argument you can best articulate
and support. Focus on “making best choices” rather than hastening to answer; this will save you from composing a
response that is tangential to, or merely derivative of, the prompt.
PJA #6: Review your notes from yesterday’s lesson. Do you NEED a set of steps to follow in order to do your best? What
would they look like? Maybe…
1. identify “must attempt” requirements of prompt
DECODE CRYPTIC IN PROMPT
2. know operational definitions in prompt
NOTE THE OBLIQUE IN PROMPT
3. Consider At Least 2 Possible “Answers” For The Prompt
4. compose a thesis /chose answer that covers reqs/matches defs
CAPTURE CRYPTIC AND OBLIQUE FOR ESSAY
FIND CRYPTIC and OBLIQUE IN TEXT
5. get meanings of new, complex text
6. Identify At Least One Component Of The Text That Needs Analysis To Interpret
DIG FOR THE ABSTRUSE IN TEXT
7. select salient evidence to support interpretation INCLUDING IDENTIFIED COMPONENT
INCLUDE THE ABSTRUSE IN ESSAY
8. use/comprehend precise wording
UTILIZE CRYPTIC ENCODING IN ESSAY
9. include ALL necessary points to prove thesis
10. justify interpretation of evidence through analysis
POINT TO THE OBLIQUE IN ESSAY
UNCOVER THE ABSTRUSE IN ESSAY
PJA #7: Test your system by answering this prompt (by hand if practicing for exams)
One of the strongest human drives seems to be a desire for power. Write an essay in which you discuss how a character in a novel or
a drama struggles to free himself or herself from the power of others or seeks to gain power over others. Be sure to demonstrate in
your essay how the author uses this power struggle to enhance the meaning of the work.
DUE by the end of the period to the Bowl.
February 12
I can’t talk (lucky dogs!).
Pick up your final from the ID# piles.
Carefully read the following excerpt from the novel Under the Feet of Jesus by Helena María Viramontes. Then write a well-organized
essay in which you analyze the development of Estrella’s character. In your analysis, you may wish to consider such literary elements
as selection of detail, figurative language, and tone.
15 minutes
Group Discussion: What is cryptic, oblique and abstruse in this prompt (and…ahem…what ISN’T im-plied by it that some
students tried to ap-ply anyway)? What does that mean you would need to PROVE that is cryptic, oblique and abstruse
about the words in this text?
Hint: think hard about the pronunciation of the novel’s title and the prompt’s use of the phrase development of Estrella’s
character.
WHO develops Estrella?...how?
PJA #8: ON YOUR ORIGINAL, score your demonstration for a-k below using -,  or +
Self-Check: As you evaluate, note what it would take for YOU to get to/past “good” (what a 5/9 usually has) for an analysis
prompt like this.
a. identifying “must have” components of thesis for an AP prompt (- missed one/more cryptic,  mostly high school/simplified
not oblique AP definitions/task, good—general, not precise, cryptic+ oblique AP definitions/task, + precise, abstruse AP
level concepts/task recognized: characterization=narration +stylistic elements).
b. laying out necessary points in argument to cover thesis (- missed one/more, points restate thesis or regress to topic only,
good—logical connection of all cryptic components with oblique/abstruse left implicit, + explicit logical connection of
cryptic+oblique components matching abstruse for proving thesis).
c.
recognizing salient explicit and implicit meanings of challenging text (- misread explicit, little/no attempt at cryptic & overall,
restates explicit, misreads/ oversimplifies implicit/oblique& overall, good—accurate explicit, but mostly “gisty” cryptic or
incomplete oblique & overall, + precise &/or comprehensive enough to capture abstruse depth/ richness/ purpose of
explicit, implicit &/or overall text).
d. applying appropriate definitions/concepts of AP literary analysis—elements, meaning(s), devices, specific styles, etc (inaccurate/misapplied basics of definitions, only accurate high school definitions & simplified application of cryptic,
good—general, not precise, cryptic+oblique AP level def & app, + precise &/or comprehensive abstruse app & defs make
analysis of text complex).
e. explicating meaning/elements, rather than just identifying/ summarizing/filling in blanks of prompt “formula,” to prove
points (- points only stated, no analysis &/or evidence to support, analysis/evidence is irrelevant/incomplete for points,
good—most points are justified by implied or explicit textual references & some analysis, +integrates analysis of evidence
& synthesizes all points).
f.
selecting textual evidence to support points effectively (- no text references/details, mostly summarizes or restates text in
general &/or mostly irrelevant, plot summary, good—sufficient, but limited, relevant details of text, + dissects deep/rich
layers of text through variety of details purposefully for arg).
g. justifying interpretation through analysis logically (- no or mismatch of explanation to evidence, some explanation but
mostly restatement or incomplete, good—general, not precise, accurate justification of meaning of most evidence, +
precise &/or comprehensive justification of evidence for multiple points makes arg persuasive).
h. organizing argument cogently (- no basic coherence or logical connections, repeats, disorders or conflates vs connecting
points to structure logical arg, good—formulaic, redundant and/or uneven, mostly coherent sequencing, + controlled,
coherent development from intro through body to conclusion matching form to function in complexity).
i.
using precise wording, including transitions (- misused basic terms & no transitions, middle school level
j.
crafting worthwhile intros and conclusions (- missing one/both,  opening restatement of prompt & main points for closing,
k.
avoiding formulaic writing (- HSPE/5 ¶ essay form, filler/unnecessary wording fills out paragraphs without adding
wording/transitions leave ideas “uncryptic,” good—general, not precise, cryptic wording for meaning, + precise &
comprehensive wording & structure matches oblique or even abstruse complex meaning).
good—repetitive/ overgeneralized/ formulaic but there, + logical opening points to significance of question & closing
implications push arg beyond thesis proof).
info/progression of logic, good—some clunkiness in structure/org with smoothness of logic, + form=function within ¶s,
sentences & overall in word use).
So…what would that default formula thesis be?
Viramontes develops Estrella’s character in this passage by using A narration type (1st, 3rd, objective, limited/omniscient,
direct/indirect discourse) with directly/indirectly presented B narrator persona to indirectly/directly present Estrella as fitting C type
(flat, round, static, dynamic, stock) and/or D role (pro-/antagonist, foil, major/minor) and/or having E persona traits (in-/external
strengths, weaknesses, beliefs, motivations) through F components of style (specific wording and organization). This is significant to
understanding the meaning (complexity, richness, artistry, purpose) of the text in G way.
Submit your final exam original with PJA #8 marked on it to the Bowl. Leave all the other materials on the table!
February 13
Chromebooks are back!!
If you did not complete EVERY question on the SBA test—head to the hall with a chromebook and do so (it’s the only way it
will give you results…argh!).
Everyone else:
PJA #9: Peer Review at least 2 PJA #7s (from a DIFFERENT PERIOD) the digital way…
Login to EPS Google APPS under students on the Everett Public Schools main site; or click this link:
https://sites.google.com/a/apps.everettsd.org/google-apps-start-page/start-page.
Under the Quicklinks on the right of the screen that comes up you should see my AP English Lit Class [if not, choose
classroom and then JOIN a class by entering code qe28tr])
You’ll see the Peer Review assignment, with a link to the online form there.
February 18
Poetry is __________________?
Would you believe this answer….?
a riddle…that requires a reader to
a. decode cryptic wording
b. catch oblique warrants
c. dig deep into the abstruse
d. all of the above…and that’s just to READ it!
Discussion: What is the meaning of each poem below and how do CRYPTIC, OBLIQUE and ABSTRUSE levels of each
communicate that meaning (how does it work)? Be ready to be called out to share!
NB: These are mostly in your Lit Book—along with the usual kinds of supplemental materials and even… gasp!...brief bios of
select poets!
Bravery runs in my family.
“Coward” by A. R. Ammons (1975)
By and by
God caught his eye.
“Epitaph on a Waiter” by David McCord (1954)
What is an epigram? A dwarfish whole;
Its body brevity, and wit its soul.
“What Is an Epigram?” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1802)
Adam
Had ‘em.
“Lines on the Antiquity of Microbes” by Strickland Gilliland (c. 1900)
The limerick’s never averse
To expressing itself in a terse
Economical style,
And yet, all the while,
The limerick’s always a verse.
“The limerick’s never averse” by Laurence Perrine (1982)
Warmed up? Try this one…
We were born to be gray. We went to school,
Sat in rows, ate white bread,
Looked at the floor a lot. In the back
Of our small heads
A long scream. We did what we could,
And all we could do was
Turn on each other. How the fat kids suffered!
Not even being jolly could save them.
And then there were the anal retentives,
The terrified brown-noses, the desperately
Athletic or popular. This, of course,
Was training. At home
Our parents shook their heads and waited.
We learned of the industrial revolution,
The sectioning of the clock into pie slices.
We drank cokes and twiddled our thumbs. In the
Back of our minds
A long scream. We snapped butts in the showers,
Froze out shy girls on the dance floor,
Pin-pointed flaws like radar.
Slowly we understood: this was to be the world.
We were born insurance salesmen and secretaries,
Housewives and short order cooks,
Stock room boys and repairmen,
And it wouldn't be a bad life, they promised,
In a tone of voice that would force some of us
To reach in self-defense for wigs,
Lipstick,
Sequins.
“The Supremes” by Cornelius Eady (1991)
Self-Check: Tenuous, Oblivious and/or Blighted? “Re-live,” review your notes and/or write down everything you remember
about this introduction to poetry analysis.
Did this exercise convince you that you’re rusty on the devices and elements from Fall? Then look ‘em back over before
we add the poetic ones starting tomorrow!
February 19
Are you a funny valentine? Come up with your best answer to this…
Riddle Of The Day
Q: Why did the Poet Laureate fail the basic math exam?
A:…?
PJA #10: Create at least one solution that makes this highly-specialized function of text true.
Can you beat these answers?...
Last year’s winner…
A:—‘cuz he doesn’t know it!
A: his lines were all irregular!
A: ‘cuz he thought there were 2 or 3 feet in a meter!!
Poetic Devices, yo!
Meter. The rhythmic pattern that emerges when words are arranged in such a way that their stressed and unstressed
syllables fall into a more or less regular sequence; established by the regular or almost regular recurrence of similar
accent patterns (called feet)—feminine endings often add an unstressed syllable to the end of regular meter for a line.
Lines can be scanned and assigned a category according to the pattern of number of feet:
Monometer: 1 foot
Dimeter: 2 feet
Trimeter: 3 feet
Tetrameter: 4 feet
Pentameter: 5 feet
Hexameter: 6 feet
Heptameter: 7 feet
Octameter: 8 feet
Nonameter: 9 feet
Rhythm. The modulation of stressed and unstressed syllables (or, in a larger sense, emphasized words or inflected
passages) in the flow of speech or writing. Ending the rhythm of a line/phrase with a stressed syllable is called masculine;
unstressed syllables—usually supplemental to the meter—that end a line/phrase are called feminine endings or rhythm. Like
rhyme, consider the implications of these conceptions for something as basic as naming something as well as how
fundamental they are for the ultimate success of phrasing that uses alliteration, assonance, consonance, pacing or
parallelism, as well as word combinations like epithets and euphemism. When skillfully manipulated in poetry or prose,
rhythm creates a community of words or disrupts one. The analysis of rhythm requires breaking words into syllables, then
listening for emergent pattern(s) of sound when they are grouped according to the meter and/or syntax. This process is
called “scanning” or scansion. This takes a trained ear to do well and is especially difficult when the time period or dialect
of the text differs greatly from the reader’s own.
Rhyme. The identical pronunciation of single or multi-syllable sounds in two or more words, usually the consonant-vowel
combination at their ends—time and mime—although internal rhyme can occur anywhere in a word, line or phrase. Near
rhyme is similar but not identical syllable sounds—time and mine. (Compare with assonance, which would more likely be
used to describe vowel—not consonant—similarity within one line while near rhyme would be more likely to be used to
describe it at the end of different lines.) An obscure variant of rhyme and consonance—slant rhyme—in 17th century poetry
meant that final consonant (not whole syllable) sounds of two or more words were the same—stopped, wept—but in 18th
century began to be used to indicate that either the vowel or the consonant sound of the stressed syllables (final or not) in
two words were identical, as in eyelashes, lightning (vowel) and reward, witness (consonant). Today it is sometimes used
to indicate any imperfect rhyming or near rhyme, but I would reserve its use for the more precise cases if analyzing poetry.
Rhyme should be given attention not only in poetry but in prose as emphasis on, and/or a connection between,
otherwise unrelated words. What else can rhyme indicate? Think about the fact that end-rhyme is considered to fall
into two categories, masculine and feminine, the former denoting a single, stressed syllable and the latter a double
syllable, trochaic rhyme. Guess which one is considered to be “normal?” What does this imply about how we use and
respond to words at a basic level and how that might be used to strengthen an author’s argument subconsciously?
(You’ll see this again under rhythm.)
Generally, we don’t say that identical words rhyme (like the Beach Boys’ adding “now” to the end of every line of “Fun,
Fun, Fun”), but the same word appearing more than once in a series of rhymed lines would not be discounted as part
of the rhyme scheme, the pattern rhyming lines follow. When you complete a scansion of rhyme you denote rhyme
scheme by the use of lower case letters sequenced in alphabetical order to represent all instances of a single identical
rhyme (aabbccaa would represent an 8 line stanza where the first couplet and the last have the same end rhyme,
while the intervening couplets each have different end rhymes.) Near rhyme is designated with an apostrophe
afterward--aa’—and pronounced “a-prime” with the possibility of a double apostrophe “double-prime,” for a second,
different near rhyme, and so on). Some forms of poetry have specific rhyme schemes, meter and/or stanza length (as
in ending, rhymed couplets for most sonnet forms).
A caveat: pronunciation varies by historical period and cultural background of the writer. Before you assume that there
is a break in rhyme pattern, especially if it is based on the vowel sound of two corresponding end-syllables in an
otherwise consistent rhyme scheme, remember that a myriad of United Kingdom and other “English” accents and
period pronunciations may logically apply. Consider first if there is evidence that the word might reasonably be
intended to sound identical, before applying your own pronunciation to your analysis.
If this be error and upon me proved/ I never writ nor no man ever loved--Shakespeare
Want to hear how different Shakespeare sounded? Click this!
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2012/03/24/149160526/shakespeares-accent-how-did-the-bard-really-sound
NB: Tenuous/Blighted/Oblivious—whatcha gonna do to remember these RIGHT when you need ‘em?
Think you don’t “get” rhythm and rhyme in poetry? Confounded by literary jargon like
A form comprised of closed poetic quatrains rhyming ABAB or ABCB, in which the lines of iambic tetrameter alternate with lines of
iambic trimeter?
Well, can you SING?
This AP Lit is killing me.
My mind much more can’t stand.
O God, please make that damn bell ring…
so I can go to Band!
Judy Baker (2014)
Read it, then “sing” it in your head—ring any bells?
This…er… “poem” is in what’s called common or ballad measure, which is what “Amazing Grace” and many American folk
tunes use. Just think how many songs YOU know follow it or some other “common” rhythm and rhyme pattern!
So, if even singing doesn’t help with “hearing” poetry, whatcha gonna do?
Question yourself (no, really)
Your textbook gives you an expanded set of questions (which I will call QR2W) on 709-710.
PROS: if treated as mini AP prompts, QR2W can take you, I think, farther down the road to a full analysis or evaluation
than tp-castt, by inviting you to sit in the driver’s seat of analysis (instead of being an observer of a poem). If you use them
as training exercises, they can give you a lot of practice assessing yourself as a reader as well as finding what data is
given in poetry, fiction and/or drama, seeing how elements and devices operate in different texts and analyzing their
effects (solving for meaning, showing your reasoning).
CONS: the QR2W are a lot to remember, so they don’t work well as a “default” you memorize and use for time-constrained
questions. They divide and classify components to see their depths rather than relate them, so they might reinforce the
lack of cause/effect analysis that plague many analyses.
Bottom Line
Especially if you struggle to argue something beyond the obvious or discuss text that isn’t explicit, going through these for
practice texts/ assignments would make you better prepared to analyze evidence for a prompt on any elements or
devices. Similar questions exist for fiction and drama in this book, so if they work for helping you to improve what you
notice about a text and how you support a full argument about it, double back and practice with these for fiction, and in the
future, with drama, too.
Sheesh, Ms. Baker, I’m working on tenuous/blighted/oblivious AND cryptic, oblique and abstruse AND more devices on
top of what we already had—I got the SAT, AP, that SBA…and I’m not JK! How’s a kid s’pozd to handle it all?
Status: It’s Explicated (yes… really really)
Good news—it’s all coming together. The SAT vocab, reading, writing, grammar skills are also tested in the SBA and AP
exams, with the SBA focusing on you demonstrating every little step of the reading-thinking-writing process and AP forcing
you to demonstrate the highest level of it: decoding the cryptic, catching the oblique, digging down to the abstruse. You
can take advantage of the alignment by working strategically from SAT to SBA to AP.
What does that look like? Well, let’s take a central “target” they all share as an example: elaboration.
Types of Elaboration
A writer may choose to elaborate in extensions, lists, or in a layered approach. Although most sentences have
extensions and lists can be used to elaborate, the most effective writing usually has multiple layers of elaboration—
the type of elaboration determined, of course, by the designated audience for, and purpose of, the piece of writing.
What is extension? This means detail(s) added to kernel sentences (mostly phrases and clauses) which move the
idea forward—by clarifying, connecting, broadening, narrowing or otherwise adding layers to a “main idea”—for the
audience and argument. For example,
When Miss Emily Grierson died, our whole town went to her funeral: the men through a sort of respectful affection for a fallen
monument, the women mostly out of curiosity to see the inside of her house, which no one save an old man-servant—a combined
gardener and cook—had seen in at least ten years.
What is listed support/elaboration? It is sequenced examples, details, steps or information that act as a lineup to
clarify, connect, broaden, narrow or specify ideas for the audience and argument. If it stays just at the level of a list, it can
be reordered without confusing the meaning of the text. For example,
There is a picture which shows him on the Rhine with two German girls and another corporal. Krebs and the corporal look
too big for their uniforms. The German girls are not beautiful. The Rhine does not show in the picture.
What is layered elaboration? This refers to clause-to-clause, sentence-to-sentence and paragraph-to-paragraph
progression of ideas (cogent, comprehensive explanation) that builds up richness/depth/complexity logically—like those
transitions-as-argument we studied! When done well, re-ordering words, sentences or paragraphs would break the logic
of the connection between ideas. For example,
Alive, Miss Emily had been a tradition, a duty, and a care; a sort of hereditary obligation upon the town, dating from that
day in 1894 when Colonel Sartoris, the mayor—he who fathered the edict that no Negro woman should appear on the
streets without an apron—remitted her taxes, the dispensation dating from the death of her father on into perpetuity. Not
that Miss Emily would have accepted charity. Colonel Sartoris invented an involved tale to the effect that Miss Emily's
father had loaned money to the town, which the town, as a matter of business, preferred this way of repaying. Only a man
of Colonel Sartoris’ generation and thought could have invented it, and only a woman could have believed it.
OK—sure. Elaborate. Uh-huh. With very little time and texts I’ve never seen before…yeah. Thanks, Ms. Baker. That makes
everything easier!
How do you “elaborate” effectively?...
Paraphrasing (remember this?)—done right—is your BFF …
To be efficient and effective in writing about texts under time constraint, try something DIFFERENT than going through
steps [gasp! systematizers…hold on…]. Instead of thinking and writing too systematically (thesis…claim 1, claim 2…evidence
for claim 1, claim 2…etc): consolidate. That is, work out your thinking in hunks instead of parts.
Explicate the text in the form of one, big, original paraphrase that abstracts the salient details of (instead of summarizing
from beginning to end) the work.
I like to think of Elvis for this…hunka-hunka burnin’
…huh, what?...
For example, for a prompt that requires you to connect, say, the protagonist’s actions, the conflict and something else,
construct one, cogent paraphrase that lays out not only what’s going on in one particular passage/part, but
comprehensively covers multiple, relevant actions and how the character thinks/feels/reacts to them (since character and
plot are intertwined in this task). Your paraphrase becomes the evidence you analyze (explicate, yo!) as proof you
understand and can articulate what the protagonist’s actions, in relation to the conflict and other element(s), DO for the
meaning, like, say, this:
Model Paraphrases
Throughout the story, the unnamed narrator struggles to determine which path is best—the one he was taught led to success by
society in general, or its opposite, the one that an outcast from society counseled him was “the truth.” Earnestly, he tries the
former, working to earn society’s respect through conformity in the role of a student, a worker, an organization member. When the
series of such tries each fails through no fault of his own (rather due to others’ attempts to control him in violation of the “social
contract” that they would help him if he played his part), he becomes more and more jaded and, ultimately, after being traumatized
by the very members of society who are charged with healing, he accepts the latter path in its extreme form and protects himself,
literally, by creating a shelter that separates him from the society that he no longer trusts and at the same time figuratively gives him
what he was seeking from that society, stability.
Yes, please, may I have another?
Harry’s wand operates as a symbol of his uniqueness both as an individual and in his attributes as the hero tasked with solving the
story’s conflict [the destructive schism between two “schools” of thought in his world: equality and hierarchy]. Specifically, the wand
embodies Harry’s difference from all other wizards, even differentiating him from his biological parents who he otherwise is
described as a “mix of” in physical form and in spirit. Also the disturbing coincidence of his wand having an infamous twin represents
Harry’s inexplicable yet undeniable parallelism with Voldemort and their complementary but opposite connections to Dumbledore
and to the mysterious nature of the Magical World. During Harry’s duels, in cases where others appropriate his wand and, at the BIG
finish, when Harry chooses “his” wand over the all-powerful Elder Wand he has the right to wield—using its godlike power instead to
return to his “place” as a normal wizard—the Wand-That-Chose-Him stands in for Harry’s singularly individual will (to disarm/ use his
power to help others rather than kill/ threaten even his enemies) and highlights his contrast with what others do or wish to do, given
the same power. The wand even ironically emphasizes Harry’s uniqueness by being a doppelganger for him: they are equally shabby
“also-rans” at the start of the TriWizard Tournament, are both “marked” as special through unequal confrontation with their
nemesis (Harry’s scar from Voldemort’s avada kedavra curse; his wand “connecting” then restoring Voldemort’s other victims), are
each sacrificed as a lieutenant during battle and resurrected through a choice to be an equal, not a superior, in life.
PROS: hunka-hunking is concentrated ELABORATION that reinforces the underlying skills of thinking, reading, analyzing
and arguing for any discipline or prompt, so it carries big bang for the buck.
CONS: watch out for that tendency to revert to beginning to end story summary instead of articulating how a text WORKS.
You explain your thinking, linking your ideas and evidence—in the form of paraphrase and quotation—with those helpful
transitions as argument from Fall:
Adapted from They Say/I Say, here are some suggestions of transition words that demonstrate your honest intentions in argument:
Making a claim:
clearly, logically, finding that, defining __ as, questioning, noting, exploring the issue of, asking, it follows, if…then, consequently,
thus
Giving an example of:
after all, as illustrated by, for instance/example, specifically, a case in point, this can be seen when/in, defined as, exemplified as,
one case of this is
Introducing testimony for/against:
according to, as argued by, lines up with/is challenged by what ___ says/ finds/ witnessed, in dis/agreement, corroborated/rebutted
by, ___ calls into question/seconds this, in the view of, not the only one who sees it this way, advocating/questioning this is ___,
supporting/refuting this, listen to, as ___ tells it
Elaborating/clarifying:
actually, by extension/extrapolation, in short, that is, in other words, to put it another way, to be frank, ultimately, in sum, this
means to say, we understand from this
Comparing/contrasting
along the same/different lines, in the same/another vein/way, likewise, similarly, although, by contrast, however, on the other hand,
regardless (NOT irregardless!) nonetheless, nevertheless, whereas, while also, yet, pro/con, separating out
Laying out cause/effect
accordingly, as a result, consequently, hence, since, thus, therefore, so, then, followed by, leading to, coming/emerging from, the
outcome of which is, progressing from
Adding on:
also, besides, furthermore, in addition, indeed, in fact, moreover, so too, at the same time, meanwhile
Critiquing:
however, yet, but, except, although, still, with this caveat/ condition/ qualification/ note
OPV:
admittedly, although ___ is true, still…, granted, naturally, logically, of course, perhaps, sometimes, yet, but also, let’s not overlook,
at the same time, from another perspective/view/side, looking deeper we see
(Graff and Birkenstein 105)
In addition to these, They Say/I Say’s authors show that communicating reasoning is done through conventional patterns of language.
Think of these as templates for drafting your own argument:
Introducing What “They Say”
 A number of sociologists have recently suggested that X’s work has several fundamental problems.
 It has become common today to dismiss X’s contribution to the field of sociology.
 In their recent work, Y and Z have offered harsh critiques of Dr. X for ___________.
Introducing “Standard Views”
 Americans today tend to believe that __________
 Conventional wisdom has it that ________
 Common sense seems to dictate that __________
 The standard way of thinking about ______ has it that __________
 It is often said that ____________
 My whole life I have heard it said that __________
 You would think that __________
 Many people assumed that ________
Making What “They Say” Something You Say
 I’ve always believed that _________
 When I was a child, I used to think that ________
 Although I should know better by now, I cannot help thinking that ___________
 At the same time that I believe________, I also believe _________
Introducing Something Implied or Assumed
 Although none of them have ever said so directly, my teachers have often given me the impression that _____
 One implication of X’s treatment of _________is that ________
 Although X does not say so directly, he/she apparently assumes that _________
 While they rarely admit as much, X, Y, Z often take for granted that ___________
Introducing An Ongoing Debate
 In discussion of _____, one controversial issue has been _________. One the one hand, X argues _________. On the other hand,
Y contends ____________. Others even maintain ______________. My own view is ____________
 When it comes to the topic of _____________, most of us will readily agree that ___________. Where this agreement usually
ends, however, is on the question of ____________. Whereas some are convinced that _________, others maintain that
__________.
 In conclusion, then, as I suggested earlier, defenders of _________ can’t have it both ways. Their assertion that __________ is
contradicted by their claim that_______________.
Capturing Authorial Action
 X acknowledges that ___________
 X agrees that ___________
 X argues that ___________
 X believes that ___________
 X denies/does not deny that ___________
 X claims that ___________
 X complains that ___________
 X concedes that ___________
 X demonstrates that ___________
 X deplores the tendency to ___________
 X celebrates the fact that ___________
 X emphasizes that ___________
 X insists that ___________







X observes that ___________
X questions whether that ___________
X refutes the claim that ___________
X reminds us that ___________
X reports that ___________
X suggests that ___________
X urges us to ___________
Introducing Quotations
 X states “___________.”
 As the prominent philosopher X puts it, “___________.”
 According to X, “____________”
 In her book, ____________, X maintains that “____________.”
 Writing in the journal ____________, X complains that “____________.”
 In X’s view, “____________.”
 X disagrees when he writes, “____________.”
 X complicates matters further when he writes, “____________.”
Explaining Quotations
 Basically, X is saying ____________.
 In other words, X believes _______________.
 In making this comment, X argues that ________________.
 X is insisting that ______________.
 X’s point is that ______________.
 The essence of X’s argument is that __________________.
Disagreeing with Reasons
 X is mistaken because she overlooks ____________.
 X’s claim that ______________ rest upon the questionable assumption that ______________.
 I disagree with X’s view that _____________ because, as recent research has shown, ________________.
 X contradicts herself/can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, she argues _______________, but on the other hand she also says
______________.
 By focus on _____________, X overlooks the deeper problem of ______________.
 X claims _______________, but anyone familiar with _____________ has long known that _____________.
Agreeing with Difference
 X surely is right about _______________ because, as she may not be aware, recent studies have shown that _______________.
 X’s theory of ______________ is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of ______________.
 If X, Y and Z are right that ________________, then there needs to be a reassessment of the popular assumption that
_____________.
Agreeing and Disagreeing Simultaneously
 Although X seems right up to a point, the overall conclusion _______________ cannot be blindly accepted.
 Although there is much to disagree with when X says _______________, there is merit in his final conclusion that
_______________.
 Though I may concede____________ I still insist on ___________________.
 Whereas X provides ample evidence that ________________, Y and Z’s research on _____________ and ____________
convinces me that ______________ instead.
 X is right that __________________, but she seems on more dubious ground when she claims that___________________.
 While X is probably wrong when she claims that _______________, she is right that ________________.
 While it is difficult to support X’s position that _____________, Y’s argument about ____________ and Z’s research is equally
persuasive.
Signaling Who Is Saying What
 X argues __________
 According to both X and Y,___________________.
 Politicians who_______________________, X argues, should ______________.
 But ___________________ are real and, arguably, the most significant factor in ____________.
 But X is wrong that _______________.









However, it is simply not true that _______________.
Indeed, it is highly likely that _______________.
But the view that ____________ does not fit all of the facts.
X is right that _______________
X is wrong that _______________
X is both right and wrong that _______________
Yet a sober analysis of the matter reveals _______________
Nevertheless, new research shows __________________
Anyone familiar with __________________ should see that _______________
Entertaining Objections
 Yet some Xs may challenge the view that ________________. After all, many believe ________________. Indeed, my own
argument is that _____________ seems to ignore _____________ and _________________.
Naming Your Naysayers
 Here many Xs would probably object that _____________.
 But Xs would certainly take issue with the argument that ___________________.
 Xs, of course, may want to dispute the claim_______________________,
 Although not all Xs think alike, some will probably dispute the claim ________________.
 Xs are so diverse in their views that it is hard to generalize about them, but some are likely to object on the grounds that
________________.
Making Concessions While Still Standing Your Ground
 Proponents of _____ are right to argue that _______________. But they exaggerate when they claim that __________________.
 While it is true that ____________________, it does not necessarily follow that ___________________.
 On the one hand, I agree with X that __________. But on the other hand, I still insist that _________________.
Indicating Who Cares
 Xs used to think ________________. But recently/within the past few decades ________________ suggest that
_________________.
 What this new research does, then, is correct the mistaken impression, held by many earlier researchers that ___________.
 These findings challenge the work of earlier researchers who tended to assume that ___________.
 Recent studies like these shed new light on __________________, which previous studies had not addressed.
 Researchers have long assumed that ______________. For instance, one eminent scholar of ______________, assumed
________________________. Another argued _________________. Ultimately, when it came to _____________________, the
basic assumption was ___________________.
 If Xs stopped to think about it, many of them might simply assume that the most successful ____ are _________. However, new
research shows __________________.
 At first glance ____ appear to _________________. On closer inspection ___________________.
Establishing Why Your Claims Matter
 ______________ matters/ is important because ________________.
 Although ____ may seem trivial, it is in fact crucial in terms of today’s concern over _________________.
 Ultimately, what is at stake here is ______________________.
 These findings have important consequences for the broader domain of ________________.

In discussing _____________, it is in fact addressing the larger matter of ________________.
 These conclusions/This discovery will have significant applications in ______________ as well as in ___________________.
 Although ____ may seem of concern to only a small group of Xs , it should in fact concern anyone who cares about
_________________.
Alright—ready to see if all that cryptic, oblique, abstruse, explicate, hunka-paraphrase, don’t summarize stuff works?
Answer this prompt OUT LOUD with the peeps around you. Peeps—call each other out if someone gets off-prompt,
summarizes instead of explicates or restates the obvious.
How does the poet’s use of language communicate the meaning of this poem?
The Pool Players.
Seven at the Golden Shovel.
We real cool. We
Left school. We
Lurk late. We
Strike straight. We
5
Sing sin. We
Thin gin. We
Jazz June. We
Die soon.
10
“We Real Cool” by Gwendolyn Brooks (1960)
“We Real Cool” by Gwendolyn Brooks (1960)
Bring your books from now on!
February 20
Self-Check: Are you improving your tenuous, blighted or oblivious memory? Here’s a way to test yourself:
What are the types of elaboration?
What does the “highest” level of elaboration do that “lower” levels don’t?
What strategies have we covered in here that support elaboration?
What example poems can you use as a resonant model for how the following AFFECT meaning?
 rhyme
 rhythm
 meter
 form
Did you struggle to avoid beginning-to-end story summary with “We Real Cool?” That is, did you change the prompt
How does the poet’s use of language communicate the meaning of this poem?
to what you’re more comfortable answering
Who’s the main character and what does that character DO [plot] in the poem?
Let’s home in on that fundamental strategy, hunka-hunka paraphrasing not only as a way to avoid “point-by-point”
systematic writing, but as a way to construct an interpretation, rather than summarize a text:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O no, it is an ever-fixèd mark
5
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come;
10
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
“Sonnet 116” by William Shakespeare (c.1592-98)

PJA #11: In a well-reasoned core paragraph, articulate your interpretation of the argument this poem is making to its
audience, justifying your view with evidence from the poem.
Hints:
Remember that cryptic, oblique and abstruse operate in the prompt, in the poem and in your writing.
To avoid summarizing, don’t discuss the text following the poem’s sequence. Instead, name what’s going on (the “sitch” of
the poem)—like:
Brooks in “We Real Cool” fashions a “scene” that is performed for the poem’s reader…
Then paraphrase how it WORKS, tying together evidence and explanations (through elaboration).
YES…there is more than one justifiable interpretation, and there is a range of shallow to complex ones, too.
Due by the end of the period.
February 23
An Epigram Especially for YOU…
Aspire?
Perspire.
“All of the Above” by Judy Baker (2015)
Self-Check: SAT vocabulary section…remember?
Decoding the cryptic seems to be working for you in reading-thinking about a text (as long as you force yourself to actually
deal with the words). We’ll keep working on using elaboration as a way for you to use the cryptic in your WRITING, as
well.
You got to see how digging deeper for the abstruse works—firsthand—on Friday with the all-important speaker-is-not-poet
literary concept.
Let’s play with a special case of catching the oblique that requires just a bit of the abstruse to set up:
Turn. A strategic, abrupt shift in the argument, mood or development of character or plot in a work, which is
complementary to what precedes it and usually alters the meaning or significance of what’s come before retrospectively
(as opposed to non sequiturs and digressions which do NOT complement their context). Conventionally, sonnets turn from
problem to solution or observation to conclusion at a specified point in their form, for example. Dynamic characters can
experience a turn which permanently changes their original personae (or develop more gradually and incrementally,
without any turns). Some arguments lull the reader into comfort or familiarity with a scenario before turning to
reassessment or analysis of its hidden characteristics, the real argument. The turn can be the crux of a story or text, if it
requires interpretation; since it changes the established direction of the story, it wouldn’t be the climax of the plot structure,
however.
Discussion: Arguably there is either a turn or even a crux in the following poem. How would you argue its EFFECT on
meaning?
If I observe that you are giving this effort…even though it’s Monday…I will devote the final 25 minutes of the period to
discussing Senior Year English options (and other registration questions).
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
5
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
10
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
15
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
20
“The Road Not Taken” by Robert Frost (1916)
Hint: Be careful to justify what you interpret the poem SAYING and MEANING. Many—maybe MOST—people misread this
poem.
February 24
Shall we repeat our experiment to see if we can replicate our results?...
Still* to be neat, still to be dressed,
As you were going to a feast;
Still to be powdered, still perfumed;
Lady it is to be presumed,
Though art’s hid causes are not found,
All is not sweet, all is not sound.
* means continually
5
Give me a look, give me a face
That makes simplicity a grace;
Robes loosely flowing, hair as free;
Such sweet neglect more taketh me
10
Then all th’adulteries of art.
They strike mine eyes, but not my heart.
“Still to Be Neat” by Ben Jonson (1609)
PJA #12: On paper, in writing, 10 minutes! Compose an interpretation of the POET’S PURPOSE. Be sure to justify your
view with evidence. Consider hunka-hunka paraphrasing the situation of the poem and using cryptic wording, oblique
warrants and abstruse concepts in your reading, thinking AND writing.
Hint: This is a case where historical criticism is key. Need a nudge to get you going? Start with the CRYPTIC
contemporary connotations of the word art for the audience.
OD: Project #3, due Sunday by midnight to turnitin.com
Project #3 Poem Choices:
1. Arnold’s “Dover Beach”
2. Atwood’s “Bored”
3. Blake’s “The Garden of Love”
4. Blake’s “London”
5. Bly’s “Snowbanks North of the House”
6. Byron’s “She Walks in Beauty”
7. Collins’ “Marginalia”
8. Cummings’ “next to of course god america i”
9. (George) Eliot’s “In a London Drawingroom”
10. Frost’s “Acquainted with the Night”
11. Ginsberg’s “First Party at Ken Kesey’s with
Hell’s Angels”
12. Hardy’s “The Convergence of the Twain”
13. Heaney’s “Mid-term Break”
14. Herrick’s “To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time”
15. Hughes’ “Un-American Investigators”
16. Keats’ “La Belle Dame sans Merci”
17. Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn”
18. Laviera’s “AmeRícan”
19. Marlowe’s “The Passionate Shepherd to His
Love”
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Milton’s “On the Late Massacre in Piedmont”
Plath’s “Mirror”
Plath’s “Mushrooms”
Rilke’s “The Panther”
Roethke’s “Root Cellar”
Sandburg’s “Buttons”
Shakespeare’s “Not marble, nor the gilded
monuments”
Shakespeare’s “When, in disgrace with Fortune
and men’s eyes”
Shelley’s “Ode to the West Wind”
Stevens’ “The Emperor of Ice-Cream”
Thomas’ “The Hand That Signed the Paper”
(Alice) Walker’s “a woman is not a potted plant”
Whitman’s “A Noiseless Patient Spider”
Whitman’s “When I Heard the Learn’d
Astronomer”
Williams’ “Poem”
Wordsworth’s “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud”
Yamada’s “A Bedtime Story”
Yeats’ “Leda and the Swan”
Yes…these are ALL in your Lit book.
When you’ve selected your poem, put your initials on the sign up sheet. First come, first served.
March 2
Said the Soothsayer to Caesar:
“Beware the Ides of March” (shakespeare Julius Caesar 1:2).
Welcome to the
…wait for it…
Odes of March
Each day this week I will give you a poem to take a stab at. Each period you will also get some time to work on your next
Project, a group project (groups can be 1-4) intended to give you a[nother] nudge to form study groups outside of class to
help you improve/prepare for the midterm and AP exam by sharing out individuals’ reasoning/analysis of texts.
OD: Project #4, due by Sunday at midnight.
Your assigned poems are:
Bishop’s “The Fish”
Donne’s “The Sun Rising”
Marzán’s “Ethnic Poetry”
…all found in your Lit book.
7 minutes
Please do not write on the sheets (so I can use them again!)
Read the poem I have given you carefully. Consider the cryptic, oblique and abstruse, decide if there is a turn and contrast
the tone of the poet vs the tone of the speaker.
Blackberry-picking
Late August, given heavy rain and sun
For a full week, the blackberries would ripen.
At first, just one, a glossy purple clot
Among others, red, green, hard as a knot.
You ate that first one and its flesh was sweet
5
Like thickened wine: summer's blood was in it
Leaving stains upon the tongue and lust for
Picking. Then red ones inked up and that hunger
Sent us out with milk cans, pea tins, jam-pots
Where briars scratched and wet grass bleached our boots.
10
Round hayfields, cornfields and potato-drills1
We trekked and picked until the cans were full,
Until the tinkling bottom had been covered
With green ones, and on top big dark blobs burned
Like a plate of eyes. Our hands were peppered
15
With thorn pricks, our palms sticky as Bluebeard's 2
We hoarded the fresh berries in the byre3.
But when the bath was filled we found a fur,
A rat-grey fungus, glutting on our cache.
The juice was stinking too. Once off the bush
20
The fruit fermented, the sweet flesh would turn sour.
I always felt like crying. It wasn't fair
That all the lovely canfuls smelt of rot.
Each year I hoped they'd keep, knew they would not.
1 Planted rows
2 Bluebeard is a character in a fairy tale who murders his wives.
3 Barn
from Selected Poems 1966-1987 by Seamus Heaney
PJA #13: In a hunka-hunka paraphrase—no claims then evidence than analysis, now! — write out your interpretation of the
poem’s meaning, justifying your view with textual evidence (you can cite by line #, no need to write out quotes!).
Hint: Address the cryptic, oblique and abstruse, argue if/if no a turn and contrast the tone of the poet vs the tone of the
speaker.
I will walk around to see if you get/ lose credit for this PJA.
Final 5: Group-on!
March 3
With all our hunka-hunka-ing focus, it pays to also remember to COVER MULTIPLE POINTS to reach complexity, depth
and richness…
Classwork: Without changing the desk arrangement, set up two teams of 1-3 peeps each to “compete.” Take turns orally
SHARING your team answers and LISTENING to the other team’s.
5 minutes—read and THINK about…
Prompt
Analyze how Heaney in “Blackberry-picking” (written in 1966) and Kinnell in “Blackberry Eating” (found on page 838 of
your textbook) approach the “blackberry” experience—literal and figurative—similarly and differently.
Answer the following nitty-gritty questions as if you were planning a full essay response, and you wanted to cover all the
points necessary to justify your thesis:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Which similarity(es) in the two literal experiences can YOU justify well?
Which difference(s) in the two literal experiences can YOU justify well?
Which similarity(es) in the two figurative experiences can YOU justify well?
Which difference(s) in the two figurative experiences can YOU justify well?
How does your idea of “experience” match AP elements/ devices definitions (like: plot Cs, setting, character
development, allegory, bildungsroman)?
How does your use of literal and figurative fit the AP CRYPTIC definitions?
How does your idea of “approach” fit the AP CRYPTIC definition(POV, style, mood)?
Do your similarities and differences stay in-bounds with these definitions—instead of repeating, going off-track,
reverting to description or summary of the poem(s)? The deeper, the more ABSTRUSE
Which techniques illuminate the literal versus the figurative in Heaney’s poem?—watch for OBLIQUE
What techniques illuminate the literal versus the figurative in Kinnell’s poem?—watch for OBLIQUE
What direct/indirect presentation communicates Heaney’s speaker’s persona and tone relevant to the experience? —
watch for OBLIQUE
What direct/indirect presentation communicates Kinnell’s speaker’s persona and tone relevant to the experience? —
watch for OBLIQUE
How does each speaker’s tone relate, plausibly, to its poet’s? ABSTRUSE
What do the techniques reveal about the meanings (explicit, implicit, themes, args, purposes) above and beyond the
experience and speaker? OBLIQUE!!
Extra Credit:
15. Implications? Could you justify that Kinnell was responding to/was NOT responding to Heaney’s poem?—now THAT’s
ABSTRUSE.
Final 10: Group-on!
Your assigned poems are:
Bishop’s “The Fish”
Donne’s “The Sun Rising”
Marzán’s “Ethnic Poetry”
March 4
7 minutes
The following poem is taken from Modern Love, a poetic sequence by the English writer George Meredith (1862). Read
the poem carefully. Try to think through what is cryptic, oblique and abstruse; the SITUATION the poem is presenting;
whether there are turns; etc.

By this he knew she wept with waking eyes:
That, at his hand’s light quiver by her head,
The strange low sobs that shook their common bed
Were called into her with a sharp surprise,
And strangled mute, like little gaping snakes,
Dreadfully venomous to him. She lay
Stone-still, and the long darkness flowed away
With muffled pulses. Then, as midnight makes
Her giant heart of Memory and Tears
Drink the pale drug of silence, and so beat
Sleep’s heavy measure, they from head to feet
Were moveless, looking through their dead black years,
By vain regret scrawled over the blank wall.
Like sculptured effigies1 they might be seen
Upon their marriage-tomb, the sword between;
Each wishing for the sword that severs all.
5
10
15
1 the
stone figures of husband and wife carved on medieval tombs

PJA #15: Co-create a thesis and bulleted list of textual evidence for this prompt with 1-2 others in your table group:
How does Meredith convey a view of “modern love?”
March 5
How to balance nitty-gritty complexity [addressing multiple points to capture the cryptic, oblique, abstruse] with hunkahunka paraphrasing [crafting a cohesive, coherent, comprehensive interpretation]?
Tenuous
Memorizers
Oblivious
Memorizers
Blighted Memorizers
take notes, and review them later, to make today’s lesson indelible.
take time at the end to “relive” the experience to “real-ize” today’s lesson.
create a new mental file that updates your old info on the elements/analysis.
How ‘bout…
I give you 5?
1. Ask the exact (T)ASK the prompt gives you BEFORE you read.
(POINT out the cryptic in the prompt!)
How does Meredith—British, 1862—convey a view of “modern love?”
2. Compose the COMPONENTS of your argument—outline with blanks or letters BEFORE you draft (drag out 2 theses to
choose from; drop one)
a.
b.
c.
d.
What is the situation presented by the poem? What is at least one other way to see it?
What argument is being made about that situation? What is at least one other way to see it?
What’s the situation and argument YOU can best justify?
What techniques of style1, style 2, devices and/or narration are used in the poem? (go beyond obvious to oblique!)
Which are the MOST significant?
3. Devise the precise meaning(s) within the prompt and text.
(explicit and implicit at 3 levels cryptic, oblique, abstruse)
d. Does the sitch and arg fit the cryptic definitions of a view of modern love precisely?
e. Do the techniques fit the cryptic definitions of these elements precisely?
f. What are the EFFECTS of each use of a technique in this specific poem? (abstruse)
4. Aim thinking to analysis of element(s) to support interpretation.
(4 explication not summary)
g. What cause/effect connections between the uses of techniques and the arg and sitch can YOU justify well (oblique!)?
h. What definition argument connections between the arg/sitch and the POET’S tone (attitude toward subject!!!) and/or
theme (message to the reader!!) can YOU justify well (oblique!!)?
i. Do these fit the cryptic definitions of tone, theme, convey, a view and modern love precisely?
5. Earmark critical EVIDENCE TO CITE as support.
(proofive!—okay, that’s not a word. So WHAT?)
By this he knew she wept with waking eyes:
That, at his hand’s light quiver by her head,
The strange low sobs that shook their common bed
Were called into her with a sharp surprise,
And strangled mute, like little gaping snakes,
Dreadfully venomous to him. She lay
Stone-still, and the long darkness flowed away
With muffled pulses. Then, as midnight makes
Her giant heart of Memory and Tears
Drink the pale drug of silence, and so beat
Sleep’s heavy measure, they from head to feet
Were moveless, looking through their dead black years,
By vain regret scrawled over the blank wall.
5
10
Like sculptured effigies1 they might be seen
Upon their marriage-tomb, the sword between;
Each wishing for the sword that severs all.
15
Situation: the problem in the poem and what decisions try/solve it is MISERY caused by LIVING as a couple, and made
more complicated to resolve by, LOVE/FEELINGS characters have for each other
Argument: must be generalized outside their specific story (as “modern love” not just “A and B’s marriage”).
Narration: the WHO speaking this poem has traits/persona of omniscience, historical, mythological and biblical erudition
and insight.
Victorian/anti-Romantic is the STYLE2: I selected the following to analyze as techniques that imply/enhance/emphasize
meaning-modes: euphemism, irony;
figurative language: image, metaphor, simile, SYMBOL, synecdoche;
rhetorical devices: ALLUSIONS, diction, PERIODIC SENTENCE;
poetic devices: CONSONANCE, assonance , alliteration, caesura, enjambment, METER, rhyme
Meaning/theme/purpose: traditional (not “modern”) marriage is the  that is being presented in the poem. Living it =death,
misery…because…it kills your individual hope/desires (modern “life”) even as (because?) it creates a partner to help you
achieve them. That is, 1 + 1 < 2.
Tone: evocative word use by speaker, including strange (=unusual/unpredicted) sobs are like venomous snakes in
common bed; actors are stone-like effigies; time together is a dead black scrawl over the blank wall (of life?);
IMPLICATIONS of figurative/mode devices used: sword between (symbol of marriage, killing/violence, power, “cutting off”)
= severs from each other (death do us part?) = ironic (situational) feeling about subject for characters and speaker, not
bitter (because they are kind to/caring of each other and speaker is distant—not the actor, just an observer)
Connection of speaker’s argument with POET’S TONE: speaker, not actors, gives meaning to what is observed through
explicit and implicit use of language—just like a poet; uses Romantic images to comment on the action ironically (antiRomantically)—since it lines up with ironic title (LOVE, MODERN) by poet, tone of speaker and poet logically agrees.
and extra credit--
6. Signal in writing the significance and implications of your argument—LAST
(set ‘em up intro, knock ‘em down conclusion)
j.
Intro: Why does it matter to ask this question?
Ex: What can we American? Nonpoet? “moderns” today learn from British poet “moderns” in 1862 about that
“universal” human experience, LOVE?
k.
Implications: Why does YOUR answer to the question matter?
Ex: Since Meredith communicates that the institution of marriage is “living death” for the partners through antiRomanticist POETRY techniques in 1862 to his British, literate audience, it suggests that questions about individual
freedom versus traditional social and family obligations—even for women!—(a big part of Modernism, feminism and
other movements to come)— had begun earlier than historians in the US admit. (abstruse)
There's a difference between just being successful and being significant. My goal is to be significant. My goal is to make a difference,
to do it better than anybody's ever done it.—Russell Wilson
BOOM!
March 6
Brother, can you give me 5?
Kudos!
Now, can you apply the 5 to Project #4, so you
 ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED,
 don’t resort to summary or formula and
 capture the cryptic, oblique and abstruse?
…You can certainly meet me half way. Just TRY step 1 and 2.
Step 1—POINT out all that’s cryptic…(another way of saying OD!)
(tell me what to highlight, then we can compare with MY highlights…)
In groups of up to 4, produce explications of the 3 assigned poems by Bishop, Marzán and Donne. To meet the minimum
standards for evaluation on this you must:
 use argumentative core paragraphs
 identify and analyze the connections between each poem’s meaning, at least 3 techniques it uses, its style2, at
least 3 characteristics of its poet’s real world context and its poet’s purpose
 answer the question: How is the meaning of each poem supported by its stylistic techniques (style1, tone,
narration and/or devices NOT character, setting, plot), and how does that meaning relate to the poet’s purpose?
 each student in group turn in ALL 3 explications
 meet minimum conventions and style standards
 use evidence from at least two credible nonliterary sources to support real world context and/or purpose for each
poem
 cite quotes/paraphrases/material using MLA in-text and works cited format
 submit to turnitin.com by deadline or lose 5% per calendar day from grade
In groups of up to 4, produce explications of the 3 assigned poems by Bishop, Marzán and Donne. To meet the minimum
standards for evaluation on this you must:
 use argumentative core paragraphs
 identify and analyze the connections between each poem’s meaning, at least 3 techniques it uses, its style2, at
least 3 characteristics of its poet’s real world context and its poet’s purpose
 answer the question: How is the meaning of each poem supported by its stylistic techniques (style1, tone,
narration and/or devices NOT character, setting, plot), and how does that meaning relate to the poet’s purpose?
 each student in group turn in ALL 3 explications
 meet minimum conventions and style standards
 use evidence from at least two credible nonliterary sources to support real world context and/or purpose for each
poem
 cite quotes/paraphrases/material using MLA in-text and works cited format
 submit to turnitin.com by deadline or lose 5% per calendar day from grade
Login Info for Spring Semester:
AP English Literature (11th grade)
Course Name: AP English Lit (11th) Spring 2015
Course ID
9488745
Password
15mins!
Step 2: compose 2 components; select the better one…
I don’t want to steal your thunder on Project #4 by giving examples. But, how about a model for one you’re sooooo DONE
with?…
Choose a novel or play in which cultural, physical, or geographical surroundings shape psychological or moral traits in a character.
Then write a well-organized essay in which you analyze how surroundings affect this character and illuminate the meaning of the
work as a whole.
You might have considered at first something like:
Because of his father, Okonkwo becomes and stays “manly” instead of adapting to new times as an adult. With this in his novel,
Achebe was trying to show us that we need to be open-minded and let go of the past.
Step 1 would have pointed to
Choose a novel or play in which cultural, physical, or geographical surroundings shape psychological or moral traits in a character.
Then write a well-organized essay in which you analyze how surroundings affect this character and illuminate the meaning of the
work as a whole.
Now let’s look at that first attempt…
Because of his father, Okonkwo becomes and stays “manly” instead of adapting to new times as an adult. With this in his novel,
Achebe was trying to show us that we need to be open-minded and let go of the past.
OR
Because of SOMETHING CULTURAL, PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHICAL, Okonkwo becomes and stays “manly” instead of adapting to
new times as an adult. With this in his novel, Achebe was trying to show us SOMETHING BEYOND “DON’T BE OKONKWO.”
Hmmm…
Okonkwo’s early cognizance [psychological] of what is rewarded in his culture leads him to commit [believe, be motivated] to act and
think and be seen by others as “manly” as an adult. His inflexible adherence to these ideals [moral] is a response to the tribulations
of his childhood and resentment of his father [psychological] and a way for him to be someone “respected” by his tribe and family.
This choice to be the Umofian man his father wasn’t causes him to embody what was “strong” culturally in the time of his youth (as
opposed to what Umofia considered “weak,” as Okonkwo believes his father did). He does not abandon those actions and perspective
even when those cultural ideals no longer benefit him (because other Umofians have left them behind and adopted the colonizers’ in
their place) or even when they literally and figuratively hurt his children and destroy him as a person. This ironic outcome of trying to
be a better father is key to the message Achebe is sending to readers of any culture, adapting to outside pressures to change, like the
fictional Umofia, or simply facing the daily struggles of life in society: unassailable icons don’t actually exist; we are all fallible;
questioning the effect of our actions, even if we don’t like the answers, is the best we can do to be good people.
March 9
enter the colIseuM…
PJA #16: Significantly con-tribute [get it?!?] to the upcoming bout, or face dire consequences.
Gladiators
You are a mere motley crew of slaves, purchased and trained to give your lives so as to entertain
the ruling class.
…But enough about College Board…
Each gladiator fights with a battle group.
how groups accept or reject members is entirely up to them.
Groups’ strategy for fighting is entirely up to them.
No battle group may contain fighters who worked together on
project 4. That part of your so-called life is over!
Into the coliseum each round will be released a beast, which the
battle groups will fight separately.
Rules of Engagement
the




weapons allowed you—
A scroll
Chromebooks (Tuesday-Thursday)
The brick
Implements
The battle engaging you—
 Composing ii (two) viable yet different theses in this form:
Poet A uses X, Y and Z significant techniques along with B Style2 in Poem C to communicate D meaning to C’s intended
audience. Using these techniques to construct this meaning shows A likely seeks to make the audience think E (purpose).
F, G and H in A’s life support E because...____.

Listing v (five) or more pieces of textual evidence that capture
the victorious argument about the poem’s meaning, techniques
and style.

citing iii (three) or more facts/ details/ specifics from outside
sources capturing the real-world context
I posted slots in Google Classroom for your battle groups’ scrolls!
thumbs up?...or down!
On Friday the xiii, your fate will be decided.
The scrolls from each battle group will be judged.
To those about to fight,
we salute you.
March 16
Project #5
Please do NOT write on the sheets (so I can use them again).
Project #5
Read the following poem, written in 1997 by Julio Marzán, carefully. Then, write a well-developed essay in which you analyze the
techniques the poet uses to convey his attitude toward the subject.
The Translator at the Reception for Latin American Writers
Consider:
Due by the end of the period to the Bowl.
March 17
Note the thumbs ups, emblazoned on the wall for all to see!
Beware the Likes of March
You really, really LIKE “bio” readings where you point out things in poems that could be seen, possibly, if you stretch them
around a lot, to relate to general events/facts of the poet’s life/time period. This, you’ll remember was what I said was the
basic, high school level, not college-level historical criticism—where you, the archaeologist, apply what you’ve unearthed
about the context to interpreting the artifact more accurately, deeply, insightfully. So, in many cases, it’s keeping you from
seeing complexity or even getting to a full theme of poems (replacing these with “empathy” for the speaker/poet …hmmm…
I wonder why that would be happening?), let alone PURPOSE.
You LIKE to summarize the “gist” of poems and point out the obvious (like simile…get it?), interesting or “weird” examples
of language instead of explicating CAUSE-> EFFECT with specific techniques’ (devices, elements) creating/ changing/
emphasizing complex meaning and purpose. When you do choose to discuss a technique, you often stop at pointing to
where it occurs in the poem, without ANALYSIS of textual evidence to link it to the meaning you are claiming.
Think about how silly that would be to do if you treated the poem as an Algebra problem:
Hey, there’s A and also B in this expression. What?!? I’m not done?
That said, I also saw that, given time to share your thinking with other others last week in the Coliseum, you dealt with the
problematic passages in poems and asked “why?” when you came across something that didn’t fit what you had assumed
or already had written in Project #4.
On the midterm, honor those brave souls—fallen and victorious—who took productive chances in their analyses by
inquiring, “is there any chance that X is relevant here…?” Make this your default approach. It’s not ever going to feel as
comfortable as the more simplified paths, but taking on the “WT!*#?”s is a great way to “test” your
interpretation/assumptions and keep you focused on HOW the text MEANS what you think it does (ex: “so, if this is about
recognizing beauty in unlikely places, why aren’t there any “beauty” words used late in the poem?...what’s ‘beautiful’ about
a rainbow? ... etc)
To help…
Midterm Free Response Study Materials
Study Exercise #1: Hates Yeats?
Read Yeats’ “That the Night Come” (869—where the scansion is marked for you!); compose 2 full theses for answering this prompt:
How does the poet use language to convey the poem’s meaning?
Then hunka-hunka paraphrase how 5 pieces of textual evidence show the better thesis.
NB: Yeats is pronounced [yaytz] while Keats, another famous poet, is pronounced [keetz]. This knowledge won’t be tested on the
exam, but it separates those “in the know” from those outside of it, like Thames being [temz].
A Model to Check Your Work Against [change font to see]
Yeats’ poem creates an ANALOGY between an unnamed “she” who spends time not on “common good of life” (family and friends,
day to day joys) but on the rewards of a “proud death” (martyrdom for a cause) and a king on that most auspicious and familycentered occasion, his wedding, waiting for the wedding night…oo la la!—showing that both are “celebrating” during the down-time
with flamboyant displays to show off the significance of their imminent actions. The poem uses dense sound and other imagery so
that the reader “feels firsthand” the “scene” of the wedding (as an outsider, not as the king).At the same time, through omission,
Yeats forces the reader to imagine on his/her own what those same extravagant components would look/feel/sound like for “she” in
her quest—heavily implying that her preparations are hidden, private, perhaps even solitary.
Once you’ve “built out” a complete argument—capturing all that’s cryptic, go for the oblique (historical criticism is a good place to
start)…
What would the poet reasonably expect the contemporary audience to “fill in/think” here (that we today wouldn’t), and how
does that change/enhance/deepen the meaning?
Remember to connect your answer to your THESIS, instead of starting on an alternate track. I did this by asking myself a WT?!?
question (change font to see):
In the context of the poet’s time/culture/art/etc what would a woman who COULD have a regular life think is worth dying for—which
would plausibly on the level of a royal wedding celebration?
Then I looked for clues in high quality outside sources I can use to make an argument for a specific interpretation based on this
question. This link, for example: William Butler Yeats - Biography and Works. Search Texts, Read Online. Discuss.
In this poem’s case, the historical/political answers I get point me right to where the abstruse lies.
Study Exercise #2: YOLO?
Compose an interpretation of the argument made by the following poem. Be sure to justify your view with evidence. Consider
hunka-hunka paraphrasing the situation of the poem and applying cryptic wording and including oblique warrants to support your
analysis.
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant—
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth’s superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind—
“Tell all the Truth but tell it slant—” Emily Dickinson (c. 1868)
Hint: (change font to see)
Ms. Emily is an outlier poet: she HAS an attitude that most reasonable people reading her poetry would not share (a situation that I
taught you usually indicates an ironic tone, but not here!). Ms. Emily, the recluse, does think DEATH is Grrrrrrreeeeeaaaaat! …which
Mr. Faulkner knew when he wrote. [pause for you to ponder that one]
Once you’ve “built out” a complete argument—capturing all that’s cryptic and oblique, it’s time to ANALYZE instead of summarize so
we can get to that abstruse…
What techniques does the poet use to convey the poem’s meaning?
Remember to connect your answer to your INTERPRETATION, instead of starting on an alternate track. I did this by asking myself a
WT?!? question (change font to see):
How does this poem WORK as a PERFORMANCE to prove what it is arguing (poetic devices)?
Hint (change font to see something ironic): Ms. Emily may be singular in her devotion to death, but she is, sigh, just so common as a
poetess, otherwise. (Sing it, sisters and brothers!)
Study Exercise #3: I’m Under a Boat!
Read Steele’s “Waiting for the Storm” (868—where the scansion is marked for you!); compose 2 full theses for answering this
prompt:
How does the poet use language to convey the poem’s meaning?
Then hunka-hunka paraphrase how 5 pieces of textual evidence show the better thesis.
A Model to Check Your Work Against [change font to see]
Steele’s poem describes a CHOICE the speaker makes to “live” a possibly dangerous or at least usually-perceived-as-undesirable
experience without telling the reader explicitly what is gained from the choice. It uses sound and other imagery to re-present that
experience (raindrops on boat hull, etc) so that by reading the poem the reader, too, in real time “lives through” the choice and is
left to reflect on it (and perhaps how different it was than how they assumed it would feel/sound?). In fact, the use of a single stanza
highlights the experience of choosing to be “in the moment” (not before or after…just during), which the poet and speaker are trying
to get us to embrace rather than flee from.
Once you’ve “built out” a complete argument—capturing all that’s cryptic, go for the oblique (historical criticism is a good place to
start)…
What would the poet reasonably expect the contemporary audience to “fill in/think” here (that we today wouldn’t), and how does
that change/enhance/deepen the meaning?
Remember to connect your answer to your THESIS, instead of starting on an alternate track. I did this by asking myself a WT?!?
question (change font to see):
In the context of the poet’s time/culture/art/etc what possibilities for particular risks/ dangers/ experiences that are usually avoided
might the poem be trying to get readers to imagine, instead, might benefit them?
Then I looked for clues in high quality outside sources I can use to make an argument for a specific interpretation based on this
question. This link, for example: Timothy Steele : The Poetry Foundation.
Study Exercise #5: I Got Your Five, Baker!
For five Project #3 poems, make yourself go through the 5 steps ORALLY, no writing down. This is your prompt:
How does the poet use this poem to convey a new or deeper understanding of the subject?
1. Ask the exact (T)ASK the prompt gives you BEFORE you read.
(POINT out the cryptic in the prompt!)
2. Compose the COMPONENTS of your argument—outline with blanks or letters BEFORE you draft (drag out 2 theses to
choose from; drop one)
a.
b.
c.
d.
What is the situation presented by the poem? What is at least one other way to see it?
What argument is being made about that situation? What is at least one other way to see it?
What’s the situation and argument YOU can best justify?
What techniques of style1, style 2, devices and/or narration are used in the poem? (go beyond obvious to oblique!)
Which are the MOST significant?
3. Devise the precise meaning(s) within the prompt and text.
(explicit and implicit at 3 levels cryptic, oblique, abstruse)
e. Does the sitch and arg fit the cryptic definitions of the prompt precisely?
f. Do the techniques fit the cryptic definitions of elements precisely?
g. What are the EFFECTS of each use of a technique in this specific poem? (abstruse)
4. Aim thinking to analysis of element(s) to support interpretation.
(4 explication not summary)
h. What cause/effect connections between the uses of techniques and the arg and sitch can YOU justify well (oblique!)?
i. What definition argument connections between the arg/sitch and the POET’S tone (attitude toward subject!!!) and/or
theme (message to the reader!!) can YOU justify well (oblique!!)?
j. Do these fit the cryptic definitions of tone, theme, convey, a view and modern love precisely?
5. Earmark critical EVIDENCE TO CITE as support.
(proofive!—okay, that’s not a word. So WHAT?)
Them 5 also help on multiple choice, you know…
Open-Notes Multiple Choice Practice, Day 1
March 18
Open-Notes Multiple Choice Practice, Day 2
Midterm Multiple Choice Study Materials
A far too hard test, by ME, to use for practice…
Passage A: Read the following excerpt from Alexander Pope’s An Essay on Criticism (1711) and answer questions 1-11.
But most by Numbers* judge a Poet's Song,
*versification
And smooth or rough, with them, is right or wrong;
In the bright Muse tho' thousand Charms conspire,
Her Voice is all these tuneful Fools admire,
Who haunt Parnassus* but to please their Ear,
*Greek mountain sacred to the Muses
Not mend their Minds; as some to Church repair,
Not for the Doctrine, but the Musick there.
These Equal Syllables alone require,
Tho' oft the Ear the open Vowels tire,
While Expletives* their feeble Aid do join,
*unnecessary words to keep meter in poetry
And ten low Words oft creep in one dull Line,
While they ring round the same unvary'd Chimes,
With sure Returns of still expected Rhymes.
Where-e'er you find “the cooling Western Breeze,”
In the next Line, “it whispers thro' the Trees;”
If Chrystal Streams with pleasing Murmurs creep,
The Reader's threaten'd (not in vain) with Sleep.
Then, at the last, and only Couplet fraught
With some unmeaning Thing they call a Thought,
A needless Alexandrine* ends the Song,
*a 12 syllable line
That like a wounded Snake, drags its slow length along.
Leave such to tune their own dull Rhimes, and know
What's roundly smooth, or languishingly slow;
And praise the Easie Vigor of a Line,
Where Denham's* Strength, and Waller's* Sweetness join. *Poets who used heroic couplets
True Ease in Writing comes from Art, not Chance,
As those move easiest who have learn'd to dance,
'Tis not enough no Harshness gives Offence,
The Sound must seem an Eccho to the Sense.
Soft is the Strain when Zephyr* gently blows,
*the west wind
And the smooth Stream in smoother Numbers flows;
But when loud Surges lash the sounding Shore,
The hoarse, rough Verse shou'd like the Torrent roar.
When Ajax* strives, some Rocks' vast Weight to throw,
*Greek warrior famous for his strength
The Line too labours, and the Words move slow;
Not so, when swift Camilla* scours the Plain,
*goddess famous for delicate speed
Flies o'er th'unbending Corn, and skims along the Main.
Passage B: Read Archibald MacLeish’s “Ars Poetica” (1926) and answer questions 12-24.
A poem should be palpable and mute
As a globed fruit
Dumb
As old medallions to the thumb
Silent as the sleeve-worn stone
Of casement ledges where the moss has grown --
5
A poem should be wordless
As the flight of birds
A poem should be motionless in time
As the moon climbs
10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Leaving, as the moon releases
Twig by twig the night-entangled trees,
Leaving, as the moon behind the winter leaves,
Memory by memory the mind -A poem should be motionless in time
As the moon climbs
15
A poem should be equal to:
Not true
For all the history of grief
An empty doorway and a maple leaf
For love
The leaning grasses and two lights above the sea -A poem should not mean
But be.
20
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Which of the following best embodies Pope’s view of the
problem with poetry?
a. Poets are too predictable.
b. The audience is unsophisticated.
c. The traditions of great poetry have been
forgotten.
d. Poetry contains nothing of substance.
The most significant technique used by Pope to support
his poem’s argument is
a. rhyme
b. allusion
c. parody
d. tone
Pope’s use of capitalization for common nouns is most
likely intended to do all of the following EXCEPT
a. indicate a symbolic meaning in addition to the
literal meaning of the word
b. indicate inflection of the initial syllable
c. emphasize the important nouns in each
sentence
d. conform to contemporary conventions of poetic
diction
The “open Vowels” in line 9 most likely refer to
a. long [o] sound in “open,” “tho’” and “oft”
b. diphthongs [ow] and [iy] in “vowel” and “tire”
c. ponderous recitation of popular poetry
d. predictable use of assonance by poets
The use of both “Rhymes” and “Rhimes” by Pope is most
likely
a. a mistake in the text
b. a convention of the time period
c. a play on words
d. a reference to two different things
Lines 12 and 13 contain all of the following EXCEPT
a. symbol
b. consonance
c. connotation
d. iambic pentameter
The punctuation of line 18 can be said to
a. interfere with the meaning
b. indicate caesura
c. both a and b
d. none of the above
Lines 26 and 27 are best interpreted to mean
a. Writing skill is god-given.
b. Writing ability is innate.
c. Poets’ intentions are more important than
effects.
d. Readers must be taught to appreciate good
poetry.
9.
The meaning of lines 28 and 29 is reinforced by
a. consonance and break in meter for contrast
b. alliteration and assonance for emphasis
c. all of the above
d. none of the above
10. Lines 30-37 operate primarily as
a. analogy
b. hyperbole
c. conceit
d. personification
11. Models for poets to follow, according to Pope include
a. Denham and Waller
b. Muse and Camilla
c. Ajax
d. both a and b
12. The best description of the pattern of MacLeish’s poem
is
a. iambic
b. blank verse
c. Naturalist
d. iambic with periodic dactyls
13. An accurate paraphrase of MacLeish’s message includes
all of the following EXCEPT
a. Poetry should engage the reader’s imagination.
b. Poetry is eternal.
c. Good poetry is, by nature, ironic.
d. Good poetry should be natural.
14. The most significant literary device used by MacLeish to
support his poem’s meaning is
a. antimetabole
b. alliteration
c. enjambment
d. image
15. MacLeish utilizes all of the following to convey his
poem’s meaning EXCEPT
a. tactile imagery
b. metaphor
c. broken rhyme scheme
d. simile
16. The use of “Dumb” in stanza 2 is equivalent to
a. uncivilized
b. communicative
c. incomprehensible
d. subtle
17. Stanza 4 operates primarily as
a. an extension of the irony introduced in line 1
b. a change from tactile to kinesthetic image
c. all of the above
d. none of the above
18. All of the following are contained in stanzas 5-8 EXCEPT
a. refrain
b. play on words
c. formal diction
d. consonance
19. The punctuation in line 17 is most likely intended to
function as
a. caesura
b. symbol
c. all of the above
d. none of the above
20. Pacing is altered in stanzas
I—5 and 8
II—6 and 7
III—9 and 12
IV—10 and 11
a.
b.
c.
d.
I only
II and III
I and IV
III only
21. MacLeish implies that love and grief are
a. metaphors of nature
b. equal emotions
c. opposite emotions
d. misrepresented in poetry
22. “Palpable” in this poem most likely means
a. tactile
b. tangible
c. hollow
d. resonant
23. The use of “palpable” in line 1 introduces ____ for the
poem as a whole
I—syntactical pattern
II—tenor to image in an extended simile
III—situational irony
IV—diction
a.
b.
c.
d.
II only
I and II
all but IV
I, II, III and IV
24. The title of MacLeish’s poem is best described as
a. a pun
b. an allusion
c. irony
d.
an epigraph
For questions 25-30 refer to both Passage A and Passage B.
25. The difference in the views of Pope and MacLeish about
meaning in poetry is best expressed as
a. Pope believes that poetry should be intellectual
while MacLeish believes it should be
experiential.
b. Pope believes that a poem shouldn’t try to
express its meaning at the end while MacLeish
believes it should not try to express meaning at
all.
c. Pope believes that a poem should teach
something unpredictable while MacLeish
believes it should teach something familiar.
d. Pope believes that most poems mean the same
thing while MacLeish believes that each poem
captures something different.
26. A belief that Pope and MacLeish can be assumed to share
is
a. Nature is inspiring.
b. Poetry enriches people’s lives.
c. Form should fit function.
d. Human feelings are inexpressible.
27. The tones of these poems most likely shows
a. Pope is mocking while MacLeish is accepting of
other poets.
b. Both poets feel superior to other poets of their
times.
c. Pope is bitter while MacLeish is hopeful toward
his audience.
d. Pope and MacLeish are pedantic toward their
audiences.
28. The only technique both poets use is
a. apostrophe
b. epithet
c. diction
d. free verse
29. Repetition in these poems serves the function of
I—preserving meter and rhyme
II—leitmotif
III—emphasizing main ideas
IV—chiasmus
a.
b.
c.
d.
II and III for MacLeish; I and IV for Pope
I and II only for both poets
I, II and III for both
II and III for MacLeish; only I for Pope
30. The best statement about the style(s) of these poets is
a. Both contain elements of Romanticism.
b. Neither is Romantic.
c. Both contain elements of Modernism.
d.
Pope represents Enlightenment philosophy
while MacLeish is a Post-Modernist.
Answers (change font to see)
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Answer
B
C
A
C
D
A
A
C
A
A
A
D
B
D
B
B
C
C
C
B
D
D
C
C
B
C
B
C
A
B
March 19
Midterm Examination Session 1
Stow anything that could be considered English-related so that it cannot be seen/accessed during the test.
ID#, NOT name on your response sheets.
Italicized numbers in the margin of passages are line numbers.
Remember the embargo—do not talk about the test AT ALL until I have given the all-clear that all students have taken it.
This means YOU MUST NOT GIVE OTHERS ANY INFO ABOUT THE EXAM, even inadvertently. That is, you can’t tell
someone what is on/isn’t on the test, even “in general.” You can’t talk about a specific question or term or selection that is
on the test where someone who hasn’t taken it can hear/ read what you say (this includes students who may have been
absent). You can’t look over the devices list and say “uh-oh, I got THAT one wrong.” In fact, you can’t say ANYTHING that
might relate to the test. If you make it possible for a student to have information about the test other than what I explicitly
gave him/her, two things result:
that student has a possible advantage over others; and
you and that student have cheated and will receive a 0.
March 23
Midterm Examination Session 2
Stow anything that could be considered English-related so that it cannot be seen/accessed during the test.
Put your name on the scantron sheet.
DO NOT WRITE ON THE EXAMS (this includes writing, then erasing).
Italicized numbers in the margin of passages are line numbers NOT paragraph numbers (as our textbook has).
Remember the embargo—do not talk about the test AT ALL until I have given the all-clear that all students have taken it.
This means YOU MUST NOT GIVE OTHERS ANY INFO ABOUT THE EXAM, even inadvertently. That is, you can’t tell
someone what is on/isn’t on the test, even “in general.” You can’t talk about a specific question or term or selection that is
on the test where someone who hasn’t taken it can hear/ read what you say (this includes students who may have been
absent). You can’t look over the devices list and say “uh-oh, I got THAT one wrong.” In fact, you can’t say ANYTHING that
might relate to the test. If you make it possible for a student to have information about the test other than what I explicitly
gave him/her, two things result:
that student has a possible advantage over others; and
you and that student have cheated and will receive a 0.
March 24
Makeups into the Hall!
And now we go backward as we go forward: Drama and Historical Criticism…
I hope you remember this:
Don’t simplify historical criticism to “what’s in the story that matches the context of the time period, author’s life, etc?” It
asks a much more complex question: how does knowing the external context of a piece of literature well CHANGE what
we understand from the work now?
Recall them vases from Fall…
There are lots of components of artistic style and narrative structure that are shared by these pieces, but some diverge,
too. As a Historical Criticism specialist, what clues would YOU home in on to guide your research on their two contexts to
reach a FULL INTERPRETATION of these vases’ related and unique meanings? What topics would you consider in your
search?... Anything like…
…strengths/ weaknesses/ beliefs/ motivations (yep…character!) of contemporary Sumerian and Babylonian pottery-owners,
pottery-users and pottery-makers in, say, these dimensions:
Age-based
Cultural
Emotional
Gender-based
Moral/Ethical
Philosophical
Physical
Political
Psychological
Religious
Social/Economic
Other?
…as well as the same traits for the contemporary Sumerian and Babylonian environment (since the time and location
INFLUENCES them pottery peeps, yo!) in detailed, “micro” dimensions—especially, specifics of family life and community—
and “macro” culture and history traits—especially significant leaders, geography, etc.
So historical criticism of literature at the college level is an investigation that
uses research about the real-world context of a work to elucidate a corrected/enhanced interpretation of the work’s
wording, structure and/or meaning that a contemporary reader—even a really skillful one—would have likely misunderstood
or not even recognized without it.
Be very, very careful to avoid a major fallacy of historical criticism: just because an event/ trend/ philosophy is proximate to
the time/place of the writing/publishing of a work DOES NOT MEAN the work’s author and/or audience are at all thinking
of it. This is most egregiously fallacious when you try to say that an author is influenced by or writing about something
THAT HAS NOT YET OCCURRED. Thus, Hemingway can not logically have been writing about PTSD (it didn’t exist yet
as a concept) or hinting that World War II was going to happen (unless you are going to cover the warrant that some
authors are clairvoyant or prophets….good luck with that.) Similarly, Mesopotamian art can’t be argued, logically, to be
influenced by the soon-to-come takeover by Alexander, even if that’s the (one?) big “thing” you know about the time
period. [Durn!] You’ve got to go through the work of answering all the questions of purpose to truly historical criticism.
This type of literary analysis of a work combines everything we’ve done so far to create an interpretation of the meaning(s)
of a work in and out of its original, real-world context. To get started, review the class definition of the element style,
paying close attention to its broad use (as a specific historical/ literary/ philosophical context which a work reflects). Add to
that, this breakdown of the definition of the most sophisticated form of meaning, according to AP:
Author’s Purpose
…answers the question:
Why did this author write this work
this way at this time for this audience?
…by researching and then laying out an argument that explains the answers to these questions (which are the backing and
grounds):
a.
Who is THIS author personally and professionally?—find explicit and implicit evidence in outside sources to
analyze for the real-world author’s persona.
b.
What is the origin and context of THIS work (historically, artistically, philosophically, culturally, etc)?—
analyze outside source evidence to establish the real-world setting/environment and influences on the work’s author. This
crosses over with research on a work’s style2 so…a twofer!
c.
What subjects does THIS work address?—cite and analyze textual evidence to establish abstract
topics, issues, ideas, events, persons, situations, scenarios, problems (cf: social commentary) represented by the
specifics of the work. Subjects will be contained by, though not limited to, the overall argument of the work, and are often
components of the complications of plot structure.
d.
Who is THE specific intended audience for THIS work?—analyze outside source evidence for the real-
world contemporary readers’ personae—which is never, ever “general audience.”
e.
How are THESE subjects and audience treated by THIS author in THIS work?—cite and analyze
textual evidence for tone, then logically connect it to argument(s) and contexts of the work; your answers should be
contained by, though not limited to, theme.
f.
HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU’RE RIGHT for A-E?—sorry, none of these are “guessable”/general knowledge
questions—they all require research using credible literary (nonfiction—especially biography) and nonliterary
(especially scholarly and primary document) sources.
Author’s purpose is, by definition, logically related to a work’s theme. Many analysts have difficulty differentiating them
from each other. Try this to help YOU do it:
Theme is the message to the reader the author communicates through his/her story’s argument.
Purpose is the MOTIVATION* the author has to create THAT story when, where, for whom and how he/she did.
Thus, theme is an outcome. The author’s motivation to achieve__( goal)__ CAUSES him/her to create a story that shows
_(a specific argument) for his/her intended readers and contemporary context. This CAUSE leads to the outcome.
*Yes—this is like analyzing the traits of character persona, just for a real-life person, using credible sources instead of clues
in a narrative text.
College-level analysis of purpose, of course, requires college-level depth, breadth and cogency. Again, using higher-level
secondary sources instead of basic encyclopedias, study guides, etc gives you a better foundation for your argument.
Bottom Line
So, to do historical criticism, you SHOW how the beliefs, events, people, ideas, culture, etc in an author’s time period
CHANGE/DEEPEN/CLARIFY interpretations of a work’s meaning (other schools of criticism focus on ways works connect
with existing socio-politico-econo-religio-etc philosophies—like deconstructionism, cultural criticism, feminist criticism,
Marxist criticism—and as such are usually reserved for English major and graduate courses). To comprehensively analyze
purpose, a literary analyst doing historical criticism must find and analyze the information in outside sources on the
author’s personal and professional background, and the artistic, cultural and historical milieux of the work and of the
audience. Then he/she must argue the relationship between these factors and the meaning, theme and/or intended effect
of the work for that intended audience. This is accomplished through analysis of the work’s structural and stylistic
elements and high level thinking to decide how they justifiably relate to these exterior factors (ask: which components of
the 8 elements are representative of/ a response to/ founded in something in the world/ experience/ influences of the
author?) so you can ARGUE what the correspondence you see shows about what the work means/argues (that isn’t
apparent/clear to an uninformed, even if very excellent, reader).
Were the precise concepts and elements above not RESONANT for you?
Tenuous
Memorizers
Oblivious
Memorizers
Blighted Memorizers
take notes, and review them later, to make today’s lesson indelible.
take time at the end to “relive” the experience to “real-ize” today’s lesson.
create a new mental file that updates your old info on the elements/concepts.
What’s NEW about this? drama. From here on, you will officially have tackled ALL the subjects of AP Lit and entry-level
college English: analysis and argument on prose, fiction, poetry and drama.
You’ve got 2 big picture tasks to accomplish for the plays we study:
 explicating HOW each uses its form to communicate its meaning, not just as narrative fiction or as poetry or prose,
but as drama utilizing narrative fiction, verse and/or prose and theatrical techniques (analysis of
elements’/devices’ relationship to each other, to meaning and to genre)

arguing WHY each play accomplishes the playwright’s purpose(s) for its original, intended audience (using
evidence gathered from independent research to support historical criticism).
In the Shakespeare/Sophocles Paper, you will demonstrate your skills and knowledge in these tasks by composing a
synthesis paper
 articulating TWO arguments of historical criticism of plays representing different genres and contexts, integrating
research and close reading of nonliterary texts with your explication of the plays,
 arguing the significance of SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES in your historical criticism findings for the two
plays,
 drawing conclusions about what your synthesis implies is true THAT WOULDN’T BE APPARENT FROM
ANALYSIS AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF THE PLAYS SEPARATELY (why your synthesis of these two
matters).
For the Final Exam, you will demonstrate your skills and knowledge in these tasks through a single, evaluative, mock-AP
free response question for which you analyze a third play (Hwang) under time constraint.
Along the way, I will be re-re-re-emphasizing those areas I promised to work on this semester:




Differentiating persuasion/elaboration/summary from argument/ analysis /data so I get you in the right place to
show your skills in first-attempt (exams) and in revision (Paper)
Explaining OPV/gray area vs alternate view so you can demonstrate the depth/complexity of your skills
REMINDING you of “must cite” material and distinguishing the info used for credibility vs citation so you can avoid
plagiarism
Building your ability to reason through the connection of evidence to claims for nonliterary texts in all writing and
for literary texts in first-attempt writing.
With the particular plays we’ll read, you’ll have to utilize historical criticism just to be able to understand some of the
explicit meanings (since their contexts and audiences are so different than today). The Shakespeare/ Sophocles Paper
will be your chance to show that—given time to go through the whole reading-thinking-writing process—you can go beyond
proving basic, predictable or shallow understandings of these works (full attempt) to integrate outside evidence and
explication into a precise and comprehensive synthesis showing why it matters to study a variety of literature (cryptic,
oblique, abstruse). The Final will be your chance to show that—in the usual AP exam scenario—you can analyze and argue
about dramatic literature independently, cogently, comprehensively and precisely even under time constraint.
In order to get a decent score on your Shakespeare/Sophocles Paper (20% of your grade), you’ll need to review, research,
select and then effectively integrate sufficient, varied, relevant evidence from credible, academic sources on the
playwrights, plays, their time periods, cultures, audiences, etc. Up until now, you’ve relied much too heavily on someone
else’s literary analyses of your selected work/author as corroborating evidence for your interpretations of a work; you have
struggled to “paint a full portrait” of the context. The prompt for this Paper will force you to go further.
How do you do that? Start by going backward:
FIRST, commit to READING. Make yourself close read the words of the plays—don’t skim or just look for the “gist” of the
story!—and force yourself to interpret it as you go along through explication of the text (without outside guides for
understanding the plays)—identify WT?!?s that come up in the process.
THEN, commit to THINKING INDEPENDENTLY (instead of just finding answers). Frame RESEARCH QUESTIONS for
what you need to fill in about the context, playwright, subjects and audience in order to understand its purpose and how it
was understood by the original audience (like I modeled with the poems by Yeats and Steele).
What would the playwright reasonably be expected to intend the contemporary audience to “fill in/think” here (that we
today wouldn’t), and how does that change/enhance/reveal the meaning?
NEXT, commit to RE-SEARCHING. Seek out college-level sources (NOT STUDY GUIDES or students’ essays on the
play!!) that detail the facts about your specific WT?!?s so YOU can piece together YOUR research findings with YOUR
interpretation of the words in the text to argue what the playwright wrote/ meant and his audience knew/ thought/
expected/ understood that is different than what a skillful reader would have “gotten” from it without knowledge of the
specifics YOU found in its context (look for comprehensive, academic secondary and primary sources on the period—full
histories, studies of philosophy/ religion/ culture/ art, biographies, etc). I will be giving you SOME potential sources.
Not having enough accurate, specific and critical information from outside sources has been the biggest factor hampering
students’ arguments—and thus the quality of their Papers—in the past. Avoiding this requires a commitment of time, effort
and attention in and out of class for the next months. It also requires that YOU TRUST YOURSELF and STOP BEING
AFRAID OF BEING WRONG.
Today we start down that path by giving you a chance to think back to what you already know…
PJA #17: SILENTLY write down everything that comes into your mind when I say the following words—do not edit out or
revise your answers and do not stop writing until I direct you to do so. This is a free association exercise.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Classical Greece (2)
Tragedy (1)
Greek Mythology (2)
Chorus (1)
Fate (1)
Famous Greeks (1)
Oedipus (1)
Now, review your answers. Spoiler alert! Do you have a substantial knowledge base to build off of? Are you starting from
scratch? Do your associations jibe with relevant definitions, facts, etc for analyzing Sophocles’ play? What methods do
you know would help you fill in gaps of your exposure to this kind of literature? What new/ different/ additional strategies
are you willing to try? When will you have time to do this AND keep up on your reading AND study for AP exams ( …I hear
there’s a break coming up soon…)?
Bring your books tomorrow!!
March 25
Self-Check: if you are feeling rusty on fiction or trepidatious about drama—or if you just want a guide to practice for the AP
Exam, read the following sections of your lit book, taking notes where appropriate:
1. Reading Drama Responsively 1235
2. Elements of Drama 1250
3. From Reading to Writing 1275
For AP Exam practice-read these sections:
4. Reading Fiction Responsively 11
5. From Reading to Writing 43
For explication in general (helping you with the Paper, exams and LAWKI), compare and contrast these:
6. QR2W for Fiction 44
7. QR2W for Poetry 709
8. QR2W for Drama 1276
Whatever your level of comfort with fiction and drama, classical Greek tragedy and Elizabethan comedy are each
specialized genres much like forms of poetry, with specific rules, structures and purposes that govern them. Thus, you
need to add to your nomenclature and expand the scope and detail of your explication beyond the elements and devices
we have already been using in order to “see” and analyze what these kinds of plays elements are made of, how they relate
to each other and why they support meaning(s). This we begin, now…
10 minutes
Classwork: Read the articles “A Study of Sophocles” and “Oedipus the King” 1282-1289. DON’T TAKE NO NOTES AT
ALL.
3 minutes
Close your books.
Write down everything you remember about what you read.
5 minutes
Open your books. Review 1282-1289 (perhaps working backward from the end?) and add to/correct your notes to include
what you DIDN’T remember that might be significant to retain for your Paper, the final, the AP exam or LAWKI (especially
new or expanded concepts for theatrical and context-specific elements/ devices).
Check yourself—did forcing yourself to remember HELP you remember? If so, this is a really easy strategy for studying for
the AP exam!
Remainder of class
Classwork: Read Oedipus the King the play, {AKA Oedipus Rex or, as you’ll see in many college-level sources, Oedipus
Tyrannus/os} lines 1-337, keeping a record of every WT?!? that comes up for YOU in your Prep Journal (cite the line
numbers in your notes—it’ll work GREAT as a guide to analyzing the text for your Paper later).
Make yourself close read the words of the play—don’t skim or just look for the “gist” of the story!—and force yourself to
interpret it as you go along through explication of the text. Looking up WORDS you don’t know IN A DICTIONARY is inbounds; looking up PLACES/ NAMES in an encyclopedia is a slippery slope—since the entry might discuss the play. In
ANY source you search or re-search, avoid discussions of the play, itself.
Be ready to write on this WHOLE section in class tomorrow (reread, annotate, look up words, etc tonight if necessary).
March 26
Pronunciation Alert! Romance vs Hellenic: hamartia, etc.
20 minutes
PJA #18: In groups of 3, each member choose one of the following prompts and compose an explication core paragraph
in response. Use your notes, the literary devices/elements definitions, book supplementary info, etc to help. Line #s for
citation!
a. How does Sophocles’ characterization of Oedipus (role, persona, type) compare/ contrast with that of other leaders in
the play so far (through line 337)? What evidence shows you’re right about these characters’ development? Why is
this overlap and difference in characters likely to be significant? ( Avoid mere character description.)
b. How does the Chorus’ tone (attitude toward play’s subjects only, not audience) compare/ contrast with other major
characters’ tones so far (through line 337)? What evidence shows you’re right about these characters’ tones? Why is
this overlap and difference in tones likely to be significant? ( Avoid mere categorization.)
c.
How does dramatic irony support Sophocles’ (NOT the myth’s!) theme through the setting, plot and narration of the
play so far (through line 337)? What evidence shows you’re right that dramatic irony was intended? Why are the
effects of audience familiarity with the myth likely to be significant? ( Avoid mere plot summary.)
15 minutes
Read paragraphs aloud to each other, one at a time, and after each reading, discuss concerns you have about how each…
Points to what’s cryptic in the prompt
Composes the BEST components of its argument
Devises explicit and implicit meanings at 3 levels cryptic, oblique, abstruse
Aims thinking to explication not summary
Earmarks critical evidence
Class/Homework: Read through line 573 of Oedipus The King, noting WT?!?s as you go. Be ready for another writing
assignment tomorrow.
March 27
Words Of The Day
Arguably, Sophocles integrates both interpretations of hamartia through parallelism in Oedipus the King (a double
doubling!). In lines 1-573, identify WHAT/HOW the play’s language accomplishes the following and cite line numbers
that contain evidence to prove you’re right:


Exposition of 2 parallel actions from different characters in the play that satisfy Aristotle’s definition of “wrong
act” according to Meyer
Direct presentation of 2 parallel errors from different characters that satisfy Aristotle’s definition of “tragic
flaw” according to Meyer
PJA #19: Compose a full response to this “test for understanding” prompt. You have 42 minutes.
Class/Homework: You will be responsible for having prepared yourself on the first 953 lines of the play for Project #6,
which will take place in class, Monday, after break.
April 6
Did you…
Class/Homework: You will be responsible for having prepared yourself on the first 953 lines of the play for Project #6,
which will take place in class, Monday, after break.
No?
For credit on Project 6, your response must include evidence from the full range of lines (1-953) AND address all
components of the prompt. I will give INCOMPLETES to projects that do not represent a full attempt—there is no “I wrote
something, so I’ll get some credit” option.
I will ONLY take the project late from students who use this class period productively on it (you get a 0 if you aren’t
working independently on this the whole time). If you need to catch up—read and annotate the lines in class, then compose
your answer tonight, submitting tomorrow. If you complete the entire task by the end of the period, submit it to the Bowl.
According to Barbara McManus, Professor Emerita of Classics at the College of New Rochelle, Aristotle argues that “In a
perfect tragedy, character will support plot, i.e., personal motivations will be intricately connected parts of the cause-andeffect chain of actions producing pity and fear in the audience.” She gives this summary of Aristotle’s formula for
characterization-Characters in tragedy should have the following qualities:
1. “be good or fine” Aristotle relates this quality to moral purpose and says it is relative to class: “Even a woman may
be good, and also a slave, though the woman may be said to be an inferior being, and the slave quite worthless.”
2. “fitness of character” (true to type); e.g., valor is appropriate for a warrior but not for a woman.
3. “be true to life” (realistic) [Baker comment: read plausible or verisimilar]
4. “consistency” (true to themselves). Once a character's personality and motivations are established, these should
continue throughout the play.
5. “be necessary or probable” Characters must be logically constructed according to “the law of probability or
necessity” that governs the actions of the play.
6. “be true to life and yet more beautiful” (idealized, ennobled).
In a well-supported essay evaluate how well Sophocles’ development
of one major character fits Aristotle’s six criteria, using textual evidence
spanning the first 953 lines.
Due by the end of the period to the Bowl.
April 7
Are you keeping your commitment to reading independently [working through the text, line by line, without using “study
guides” to tell you what it means]? What effect did your reading process have on your success attempting Project #6
yesterday? This is a very complex prompt, intellectually. Were you prepared to handle it? If not, what’s your plan for
improving?
Here’s mine…
Recursion, again. Incentive, again.
Revising Project #6 (due Sunday by midnight to turnitin.com) for EXTRA CREDIT gives you a chance to re-read, re-think
and re-write to augment



richness (uncovering layers of the text through analysis, not just the surface with summary)
breadth (arguing multiple, varied points that encompass a range of parts/ elements/ meanings of the text)
depth (reasoning out the connections of textual evidence to each point—including clarifying gray areas, not just
outlining points)

articulation (employing effective wording—cryptic, not simplistic—organization—elaborative not chronological—and
form—present your thinking as your writing, not “the answer”)
to get you to the level expected from college writing not composed under time constraint—which is how you’ll be graded on
the Shakespeare/Sophocles Paper.
By Sunday at midnight, your revised Project #6 will have to address the entire prompt and include evidence from the entire
play (NOT just the first 953 lines) in order to be complete. Yes, you may change the character you chose, etc., in this
revision. In fact, you may wish to focus on the character you are most interested in focusing on for your Paper!
As part of close reading to understand what the play SAYS, you have collected a bunch of WT?!?s to figure out what it
MEANS. These are what you use to…
THINK INDEPENDENTLY. Frame RESEARCH QUESTIONS for answering
What would the playwright reasonably expect the contemporary audience to “fill in/think” here (that we today wouldn’t),
and how does that change/enhance/deepen the meaning?
Today, I’ll guide you with some fundamental, productive questions about the play and how to RE-SEARCH sources to
answer them, so YOU can piece together YOUR research findings with YOUR interpretation of the words in the text to
argue what the playwright wrote/ meant and his audience knew/ thought/ expected/ understood that is different than what
a skillful reader would have “gotten” from it without knowledge of the specifics YOU found in its context—historical criticism.
In groups, discuss the following questions for lines 1-953:
What in the actual words of the play is the myth well known by the intended audience surrounding Oedipus, King of
Thebes, and what is NOT—what is Sophocles’ new-to-the-audience play about Oedipus Rex? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
What details, facts, specifics outside of the play would you re-search for in academic, college-level sources to ensure
you’re right?
Hint: A myth is a narrative, made up of plot, setting, character and theme. Original literature which incorporates myth to
MEAN something new/ different, is common. To separate the new lit from the existing myth, think about your own
experiences of this practice: Christmas plays, Holi celebrations, Seder, wedding ceremonies, funerals—even modern mythadaptations like Jishinbalpki performances, protest actions (die-ins, etc).
What in them is the familiar story elements, what is new/ added/ designed to “update” or “apply” the meaning of that story?
A big challenge you face: you must not only search for, but also assess sources you find that give information about the
myth of Oedipus for use in your Paper. Sophocles’ play is soooooooo well-known and –regarded, many, many, many
noncollege-level sources on Greek mythology simply summarize the play as “the myth,” which is not accurate. You need
to identify sources that do NOT conflate the play and myth, which will also mean they don’t summarize, go figure—then research within them for the info you need.
This challenge isn’t exclusive to this play. Most classic works incorporate parts of well-known myths or legends, but are
unique in two ways
1. which “version” and parts of the myth/legend the work incorporates—yes, there are many, contradictory
versions of most myths familiar to the audience (again—your own experience is a good analogy here) AND
2. what each playwright adds, reinterprets, alters to make something new/ different from what the audience has
already heard.
So, for Sophocles…
You’ll have to work hard to use ONLY sources that do not mix up the 3,000+ year old myth/legend of the House of
Cadmus, which is the family of Oedipus, with Sophocles’ merely 2,500 year old use of one, tiny part of Oedipus’ story in
this play.
Sources that can get you started on “seeing” this:
http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/thebes.html#Oedipus [noncollege level—do NOT cite as evidence for your Paper!]
and one college-level source you CAN cite as evidence:
http://books.google.com/books?id=HC93q4gsOAwC&pg=PA1040&dq=oedipus+myth+versions&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RrluUfbi
G46PigKqooAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=oedipus%20myth%20versions&f=false
Neither of these cover everything you need to know about the myth/legend familiar to the audience—but reading THEM
independently and noting WT?!?s will make it possible for you to frame RESEARCH QUESTIONS about this important
part of the context of the play (historical criticism!).
NB: Being accurate about the answer to this myth vs. play question is logically necessary for your Paper’s argument, but
just answering it is not your argument: it is only one stage in analyzing Sophocles’ purpose.
Once you’ve separated out “the myth” you look at the remaining text to see…
What in the actual words of the play potentially refers to real-life (not mythical) history, socio-cultural norms, politics,
figures, etc of the intended audience and playwright?
What details, facts, specifics outside of the play would you re-search for in academic, college-level sources to ensure
you’re right?
Hint: Remember that connotation and denotation of the words a writer uses affect basic and also deeper, richer meanings
(theme, purpose, argument, implications) of a text by bringing in outside associations. Allusions are, by definition, extratextual info inserted by the playwright to be “got” by the audience. The more disconnected from you culturally, historically,
linguistically a text is, the less likely connotations and allusions—and the extra-textual connections will be “got” by you.
That’s why you have to re-search.
This is where searching for sources that specifically focus on Sophocles or classical Greek/Athenian art, culture, society,
etc is needed. A good first stop for “seeing” what motifs exist for this kind of literature is an aggregate index like:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/23294/Ancient-Greek-literature [noncollege level--do not CITE as evidence!]
This and sources like it—sigh, again—won’t be enough on their own. But, if you read THEM closely they should give you
WT?!?s to follow up. When doing so, remember that “classical” + “Greece” in a text and certainly in a search engine is not
precise/narrow enough to ONLY cover real-life details, facts, specifics logically relevant to Sophocles’ context (the real-life
details you re-search in sources must exist prior to the writing of the play…watch that BCE reverse chronology!...and exist
in Athens…watch that BCE geography!).
A database of college-level sources on politics, government and law (including how literature of the time relates) for just
classical Athens:
http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home?greekEncoding=UnicodeC
A thorough, college-level treatment of women’s role in this particular society (with comparisons to other cultures/time
periods):
http://www.hist.uib.no/antikk/antres/Womens%20life.htm
A truly fun source on Athenian life in general (click on “See Inside” to view some of the pages):
http://www.thamesandhudson.com/Ancient_Athens_on_Five_Drachmas_a_Day/9780500051573
A preview of a well-received academic work on Classical Greece’s art:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CadI9xzUaZwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=classical+athenian+art&ots=l4rYlOvc
Th&sig=8pDaM6tSZf7oW-g1_B_FmtZznRA#v=onepage&q=classical%20athenian%20art&f=false
Ready for a gray area?
I introduced Aristotle’s theory of tragedy in the prompt for Project #6.
BUT
Aristotle wrote it two generations AFTER Sophocles died.
Doesn’t this mean it isn’t logically appropriate to use anything from Aristotle for your Paper (that I, Judy Baker, committed historical
fallacy)?!?
No, it does not.
My Backing for This Controversial Warrant:
Yes, Poetics by Aristotle is not chronologically within or prior to Sophocles’ context, but given the very few surviving works from the
culture of Sophocles, it is one of the only indicators we have for how Classical Greece in the broad sense viewed its literature. This is
similar to
…wait… for… it…
the long gap between Shakespeare’s writing and the literary histories, analyses and reviews of his works that came generations
after, but which are used to substantiate arguments about his intentions and his audience’s understanding. In both cases, the
immediate literary context did not foster “real time” reactions or responses to be recorded and preserved, but in subsequent
generations, iconic critics completed comprehensive works on each playwright.
Thus…
Homework: By Monday, read the college-level, academic source I cited, Professor Emerita McManus’ discussion of
Aristotle’s analysis of Oedipus The King (clicking on links to see additional info when available)—now on my COURSE
DOCUMENTS site, since it is no longer “live” on the Web.
Note where YOUR 21st century view of the play differs from her credible explanation of Aristotle’s admittedly post-5th
Century BCE one. Then consider this INDEPENDENT THINKING question:
What do the divergences between the views of Aristotle and today suggest could be true about how Sophocles’ audience
would interpret the play differently than we would? How could YOU support your answer with evidence from McManus and
analysis of the text in your Paper to help you show a possible different/enhanced meaning of the play?
April 8
And the fun just keeps on coming!
As you CLOSE READ, you must INDEPENDENTLY THINK about how the text relates to ITS SOURCES. That is, you
must separate Oedipus’ myth/legend from what’s new/different in the play so you can be sure you’re analyzing what’s
SOPHOCLES in your Paper. You must ALSO separate what is in the play that is:
 Classical Greek tragic plays (in previous plays of the same genre/style, not JUST this one) from
 Sophocles’ own contributions that are different from/ new for / added to the genre and style in this specific play
(not all of his previous plays, JUST this one)
in order to precisely identify his PURPOSE for writing the play the way he did when he did for whom he did.
Recap: Focus on answering the Question I Asked in your Shakespeare/Sophocles Paper...logically. This means, as we
covered yesterday,
It is illogical to argue that Sophocles did/meant something in the play that relates to the real world context in which he lived
if the action/meaning you’re talking about is actually in the myth/ legend (which Sophocles DIDN’T write) or is in ALL
Greek tragic plays (which Sophocles DIDN’T invent), because…that action/meaning ISN’T Sophocles’ and ISN’T this
play’s.
Concrete Analogous argument about art
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Ennis_House.html (concrete...get it?)
Frank Lloyd Wright’s Ennis House, built in 1923 in Los Angeles, didn’t introduce rectangular compounds with striking diagonal
corners, tall entrances, paved drives, etc (these all existed in pre-Columbian buildings and in the works of other architects who were
inspired by them); nor was Wright the inventor of concrete blocks (these were common building material for So Cal and Latin
America) or specific room layouts/ ratios/ spacing, etc he used (these, too, were established “norms” in building design).
Wright DID in this piece “wed machine-age production techniques [of his precise context] with organic architecture [his own artistic
philosophy] so as to make his [reinterpretation of pre-Columbian architecture now called Mayan Revival] designs affordable to
people of modest means.”
[See http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2012/04/14/6258593.htm for TMC News’ discussion, from which the quote above,
with my inserted clarifications, is taken.]
Back to the Question I Asked about Sophocles—
Saying “Sophocles created a tragic flaw in his protagonist because he thought leaders of his society were flawed” is
illogical, because ALL Classical Greek tragedies (see Meyer 1283-1288) and Oedipus the mythic figure (see
timelessmyths.com) already include this component in the character. Similarly, saying Sophocles inserted a Chorus to
represent “the people” in his play isn’t logical—a Chorus that serves exactly this function is a standard of the genre (Meyer
1283-1288). But, as Meyer also explained on 1282, Sophocles DID innovate with one crazy little idea:
3, count ‘em, 3 actors on stage at once—not 2…nooooo! 3.
Independently think on THAT as what is, logically, All Sophocles, Only Sophocles and Nothing But Sophocles.
OK, stop. It’s time to close read again…
According to Barbara McManus, Professor Emerita of Classics at the College of New Rochelle, Aristotle argues that “In a perfect
tragedy, character will support plot, i.e., personal motivations will be intricately connected parts of the cause-and-effect chain of
actions producing pity and fear in the audience.” She gives this summary of Aristotle’s formula for characterization-Characters in tragedy should have the following qualities:
1. “be good or fine” Aristotle relates this quality to moral purpose and says it is relative to class: “Even a woman may be good,
and also a slave, though the woman may be said to be an inferior being, and the slave quite worthless.”
2. “fitness of character” (true to type); e.g., valor is appropriate for a warrior but not for a woman.
3. “be true to life” (realistic) [Baker comment: read plausible or verisimilar]
4. “consistency” (true to themselves). Once a character's personality and motivations are established, these should continue
throughout the play.
5. “be necessary or probable” Characters must be logically constructed according to “the law of probability or necessity” that
governs the actions of the play.
6. “be true to life and yet more beautiful” (idealized, ennobled).
In a well-supported essay evaluate how well Sophocles’ development
of one major character fits Aristotle’s six criteria, using textual evidence
spanning the first 953 lines.
Quiz: when called on, define the term and credit the credible, college-level source of your definition.
Self-Check: What do the two different highlight colors indicate about the terms? What does this logically mean about how
you re-search to answer questions you have from re-reading the prompt?
For your EXTRA CREDIT revised Project #6 (on the whole play) due Sunday by midnight…
To RE-vise, START your full Project #6 FROM SCRATCH, RE-READING the prompt and gimme five.
Focus your individual part of the work on your personal areas of improvement for (them waypoints) and/or for the steps of
cryptic, oblique and abstruse. To improve your reading-thinking-writing, consider using options we’ve discussed that might
help you do this well…
 the QR2W for drama on page 1276
 the outline of an explication
 append “…because…WHY is this true” to cliché meanings/themes/arguments in order to articulate a deeper,
richer (not shallow, banal) meaning
 use the “turn test” process of elimination to determine whether to explicate one crucial detail/technique or
construct a pattern of techniques/details to support your interpretation
 use the “turn test” process of elimination as well to analyze how your outside source evidence supports the
purpose you are arguing (through historical criticism).
Classwork: Read closely for the remainder of the period.
April 9
Back to close reading…but not of words this time:
Considering the play as drama…
An element of drama often overlooked by literary analysts is the visual/ kinesthetic dimension of the performance. This
requires readers to imagine the play AS A PLAY, noting the stage directions both implicit and explicit about how the actors
are positioned, move, are located on the stage, etc.
Analyze the play’s opening -> re-entrance of Oedipus (lines 1-245)
PJA #20: Storyboard—draw separate boxes that capture EVERY step in the kinesthetic progression of these “scenes”—
NOT the DIALOGUE of the story—positioning each character who appears and noting, with arrows, movements they make
onto, around or off the stage. Use ONLY the front of your drawing paper.
Group Discussion: What does Sophocles (NOT the myth, NOT Classical Greek tragedy in general) want the audience to
see here, and how does it add to, enhance, change, emphasize or reveal meaning(s)?
PJA #21: In groups, tackle explication of dramatic elements using the BACK of your drawing paper:
1. Select one series of 2-4 movements in the play made by Jocasta with or without other characters.
2. Storyboard IT.
3. Then discuss this prompt:
How does the visual/kinesthetic layer support the meaning of the concomitant dialogue? How does it, separate from
dialogue, plot, etc, alter/ add to the meaning(s) and elements of the myth on which the play is based [show us what
SOPHOCLES is doing]? What outside source evidence would you re-search to help you prove/validate this?
Hint: For this and any discussion of drama, consider paraphrasing how the scenes would look to the audience at critical
points of the dialogue (imagining talking to a blind listener might help), then connecting the visual messages to the verbal
ones.
Don’t forget your EXTRA CREDIT revised Project #6 due Sunday by midnight and reading McManus by Monday.
April 10
Project #6s are ready for pick up by the Bowl. Some incompletes……
Words Of The Day
Oedipus: [….] what stopped you from tracking down the killer [of Laius] then and there?
Creon: The singing, riddling Sphinx. She…persuaded us to let the mystery go and concentrate on what lay at our feet.
Oedipus: No, I’ll start again—I’ll bring it all to light myself! [….] But not to assist some distant kinsman, no, for my own sake
I’ll rid us of this corruption. Whoever killed the king may decide to kill me too, with the same violent hand—by avenging
Laius I defend myself. (146-160)
PJA #22: Respond to the following questions about this passage. Briefly justify your answer(s).
The above exchange includes which of the following devices? (select ALL that apply)
a.
b.
stasimon
tragic irony
c.
d.
episodia
hamartia
e. hubris
f. foreshadowing
What other literary devices and/or techniques included in this passage are significant for conveying Sophocles’ (not just
the myth’s) meaning?
Careful how you answer this one. There’s a big warrant you need to consider…
Close Reading Through An Interpreter
Considering the play as translation…
For any literature not read in the original language, there is the critical warrant that the translator’s explicit and implicit
wording must be assumed to invoke the same/ equivalent concept/ idea/ understanding in our minds as the original would
have for the intended audience, provided we are a well-informed audience and the translator competent. Translation is, of
course, especially difficult to do with a dramatic and poetic text. The translator must recreate the aural/auditory dimensions
of the performance of the original so that the new audience can also “hear” the same/ equivalent—even when the new
language has different sound and rhythm and the conventions of speaking are highly divergent. Fagles’ translation of
Oedipus the King has earned its premier status by accomplishing both of these objectives for a nonspecialist but academic
audience (analytical readers who don’t know Classical Greek but do understand and appreciate the use of literary
devices…like…er…you).
Ready to hear it…?
Analyze a Greek poetic device: stichomythia (lines 96-164)
Discussion: What does Sophocles (NOT the myth, NOT Classical Greek tragedy in general) want his audience to hear
here in Greek—demonstrated to us by Fagles—and how does it add to, enhance, change, emphasize or reveal meaning(s)?
In groups, tackle explication of poetic structure:
Compare/contrast the effects/implications of stichomythia between Jocasta and the Chorus in lines 751-769 with
stichomythia between Oedipus and Creon just before (lines 684-705). How do the similarities/ differences alter/ add to the
meaning(s) and elements of the myth on which the play is based [show us what SOPHOCLES is doing]? What outside
source evidence would you re-search to help you prove/validate this?
Hint: Consider how “singing” important parts of dialogue AS SEPARATE LINES would make the relationship of words and
speakers sound to the audience (or how you would describe them to a deaf audience member)—after all this genre was, as
Meyer says on 1286, close to the contemporary genre, opera—then connect the aural messages to the verbal ones.
Just like yesterday’s visual/kinesthetic staging, examples like this of explicitly aural phrasing are Sophocles’, All
Sophocles’ and Nothing But Sophocles’.
Don’t forget your EXTRA CREDIT revised Project #6 due Sunday by midnight and reading McManus by Monday.
April 13
Self-Check: If you took a quiz RIGHT NOW to see if you can apply the cryptic, oblique and abstruse of these concepts
we’ve been dealing with, would you pass?
 Classical vs Ancient Greece
 Oedipus Rex vs Classical Greek Tragedy
 Athens vs “Greece”
 Artistotle’s Poetics (class, type, noble vs ignoble
 Theme vs Purpose
act, logically consistent acts & motivations, etc)
 Context’s EFFECT vs connection
 Classical Athenian views of women, suicide,
 Historical Criticism vs lit analysis
fate, “sin,” etc
 College-level vs noncollege-level sources
 Stage Directions/ 3 vs 2 actors
 Myth vs Play
 Translation vs Original
 Greek Mythology
 stichomythia
If not, DO SOMETHING about it!
—and DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT as we continue…
Tenuous
Memorizers
Oblivious
take notes, and review them later, to make today’s lesson indelible.
take time at the end to “relive” the experience to “real-ize” today’s lesson.
Memorizers
Blighted Memorizers
create a new mental file that updates your old info on the elements/analysis.
Discussion: What is college-level, AP precise CRYPTIC and what is lower, gist-y understanding of the terms hubris,
dramatic vs tragic irony, deus ex machina and other genre-specific devices relevant to characterization in Oedipus The
King?
Deus ex machina—what happens on Olympus doesn’t exactly stay on Olympus.
Hubris—what happens outside of Olympus counts on Olympus, Insha’Allah!
Dramatic Irony—apologies to Meyer for saying, “YOU’RE FIRED!” but this ain’t at all like the concept of tragic irony (1288).
[No, this mistake is NOT situational irony!]
Tragic Irony—$*%! happens, was always going to happen, the way $*%! happened…because of Olympus. (And yet, I still
ask questions like…)
Since you read McManus, you know that she argues that to Aristotle, plot is the most important element, right?
PJA #23: Create an annotated Freytag’s Triangle (McManus’ site explains the origins of this) comprising the significant
components of Oedipus The King’s plot. Then, be ready to discuss how each of the Freytag model’s components
compares/contrasts to the class “C”s of plot.
April 14
Get ready to get called on (called out?!?)…
NB: Keeping Freytag’s model of plot in mind as you review your Project #6 revised essay and notes about characterization
for how you might use it in your Paper. It will help you support the implications of what Aristotle argues: that character,
done right, supports the meaning of any tragic plot—even those of myths already well-understood—for the audiences of
Classical Greece. Since those implications get us right where your Shakespeare/ Sophocles Paper starts, it seems a
worthwhile path to tread.
Looking at Freytag for Oedipus Rex allows us to accomplish two things:
See gray areas in analyzing plot structure that might reveal abstruse meanings.
Review the cryptic and oblique dimensions of your favorite element for the AP exam.
What, in our class definition, is the conflict that sets off the play?
Conflict is a fundamental problem that sets off action and that must be solved in order for the action to end. Think of conflict as
analogous to a catalyst for reactants in chemistry, the reason all the elements of the story combine as well as the why they stop
reacting (solution is achieved when the catalyst has been used up, right?). An effective default formula to describe conflict is:
_____________ (unacceptable sitch) is present and must be addressed and solved in some way; otherwise the events/ actions that
involve the problem will continue.
How does this line up with the “incentive,” the Beginning in Freytag?
Abstruse: for the Greeks, the incentive moment “realizes” not only the particular story’s, but a larger, cause-effect
relationship (Greeks, logic, parallels, you know): that is, it is a specific instance that pits what the gods/fate/reality is
(cause) versus what humans know/do/believe (effect)—guess which wins?
At the Beginning of a tragedy, the human characters only “get/see” the effect—they do not look to causes because they Greeks do
not believe that they humans have control over causes. To them, as Yoda might say, “Do!—there is no cause.” But knowing how
Greek mythology works, we analysts can see that Greek plot—when a play is based on myth—utilizes dramatic irony to allow the
AUDIENCE to “get/see” the gods’-eye view of causes right from the beginning and the characters “play out” tragic irony to promote
the AUDIENCE’s acceptance of, and identification with, the damned-if-you-do/if-you-don’t human condition, leading to catharsis.
The above is well-informed literary analysis, but NOT Historical Criticism…yet.
So what is the EFFECT that logically starts up this play’s action (NOT the myth, which doesn’t have clear beginning and
ending), and which must be dealt with fully in order for the play to logically come to an end? Da Plague.
Thus…how useful is our class definition of conflict for literary analysis of Classical Greek tragedy?
Anything about the incentive/conflict that could potentially be connected to real-world context of Sophocles? Anything
that’s “off-limits” because it’s THE MYTH or TRAGEDY in general? There’s a plague in Athens, too—but, this doesn’t mean
Sophocles is saying that its leaders are cursed!
Next,
Complications are events/actions in the story that get in the way of—block action or add complexity to—solving the conflict (usually
by introducing new sub-problems). Other sources group these kinds of actions/events together as “rising [plot] action.” Be
careful not to confuse plot complications (acts/events) with actors like the conflict’s antagonist (character). Complications may
or may not be under the control of major characters; they would, logically, be related to them in some significant way.
Pretty close to Freytag, nein?
How would you hunka-hunka paraphrase the “knotting up” (desis) of the conflict in Oedipus Rex (NOT the myth)? Oedipus
identifies the problem, does the RIGHT thing by asking the help of the gods (consulting the Oracle at Delphi and a
prophet, Tiresias)…but then ignores what he hears and focuses on interpersonal conflicts over power (accusing Creon of
undercutting him). Jocasta makes things even worse when she…
How would you relate this process to the relationship of cause-effect, as the Greeks might?
Anything in the process of problem-solving that could potentially be connected to real-world context of Sophocles?
Anything that’s “off-limits” because it’s THE MYTH or TRAGEDY in general? What if there is in-fighting around a political,
religious, philosophical, etc issue going on in Athens?
This gets us to
Crisis (if one is present at all) is a final, usually culminating, complication that takes the form of an emergent obstacle to the
established progression of actions/events—specifically a hurdle/dilemma that forces the climax to occur. The crisis could be
the endpoint of a series of complications leading directly to the climax, or a crisis can occur because circumstances in the
narrative demand immediate relief/ resolution (like the ticking time bomb trope). In traditional stories like folktales, the crisis is
the most important complication or one that was made inevitable by earlier events/actions (think Cinderella). Not all narrative
will have a crisis—if no complication stands out, the complications instead build up to the climax. In fact, melodramatic
narratives often employ crises ineffectively to develop plot—think of bad action movie moments of “what WILL he do?”
Analyzing crisis is a convenient first step to evaluate the quality and complexity of plot development and to relate different
complications to each other to determine their significance/ effects.
Well? What is The. Moment. in this play (NOT the myth)? How about that “enhanced interrogation” of the
Shepherd…especially lines 1285-6?
Abstruse: the Greek plot structure’s peripeteia, the Middle, is where cause and effect go head to head instead of following
one after the other, as NATURE/the Cosmos/almighty Logic requires (Greeks, logic, you know).
This is a logical gray area, a paradox where the universal law of cause->effect is suspended, that reveals a greater-thanhuman truth: when the human characters experience this temporary limbo where the future=the present=the past, the
“rules” of the universe (usually only known by the gods) are all “clear” for once. “Seeing” this is the point of Greek tragedy:
using the “truth” of myth to incite human/character anagnorisis.
*Consider a parallel story in the Islamo-Judeo-Christian tradition: Abraham’s “sacrifice” of Isaac…in which the action builds
and builds until…anagnorisis: deep recognition of the super-human “truth” of faith in God. (Some analysts argue the
understanding is achieved by Yahweh—testing Abraham emphasizes human free will over God’s omniscience. Yet even
they would say that Abraham, too, achieves a deep recognition that his devotion to God is greater than his duties to or
feelings for his son).
What does this mean about how useful our class concept of crisis (between desis and lusis—yo!) is for literary analysis of
Classical Greek tragedy?
Desis=tightening the spring
Crisis=the breaking point
Lusis=the expansion of the spring to release the tension
Anything about the crisis that could potentially be connected to real-world context of Sophocles? Anything that’s “off-limits”
because it’s THE MYTH or TRAGEDY in general? Is there testimony, lying, an “inconvenient truth” debated in Athens?
Now the crux…
Climax is the DECISION made by the main character(s)—not an ACT/EVENT—that directly resolves the conflict (the cause for the
solution of the problem). This definition is more specific and “proveable” than the usual one found in high school sources, “most
exciting part/turning point of the story.” Our contention is that all acts that resolve the conflict come in the form of a choice
(since a resolution that wasn’t intentional would mean the problem solved itself or deus ex machina!). In traditional stories the
protagonist controls the decision, but it is not necessarily either the protagonist(s) or antagonist(s).
Analyzing climax at the college level requires you to justify with evidence of direct and/or indirect presentation what the decision was
and why it—not something else—directly solved the problem YOU defined as the conflict.
IS it a decision rather than an act that solves this play’s (NOT myth’s) conflict? How would you justify this with analysis of
textual evidence? YES—lines 1306-11 are Oedipus’ JUDGMENT of himself as “guilty” based on the testimony he extracted
from the Shepherd.
Abstruse: How does the climax reorient cause-effect into its natural/logical relationship? What does this imply it means
beyond the story to Greeks? Look at them lines: it is done EXPLICITLY.
Anything about the climax that could potentially be connected to real-world context of Sophocles? Anything that’s “offlimits” because it’s THE MYTH or TRAGEDY in general? Anyone in Athens “taking full responsibility” or being asked to for
a problem caused…even inadvertently…by actions he/she took?
Now we’re at
Conclusion is the actual—realized—resolution of the conflict: HOW the problem comes to fruition (does the climax-decision work or
not?). It is NOT how the story ends. So, if the climax were the decision to confront the enemy, the conclusion would be the
outcome of that confrontation: who has the power NOW? It would NOT be the confrontation itself. Events do occur after the
plot structure’s conclusion (think: happily ever after, reunion scene, victory party, etc). Do not confuse the author’s “tying up
loose ends” with logical solution of the conflict. Dénouement is the specialized term for these “wrap ups.” Other sources call
the series of events from climax through dénouement, “falling action.”
What acts/decisions occur AFTER this play’s logical solution of the problem? Blinding, exiling, subservience to Creon,
leaving the city and kids to deal with the aftermath.
Do they fit our class definition of dénouement (they “tie up the loose ends” of the story?) Well, we use the opposite
metaphor because in modern plot structure, stories have an end; to Classical Greeks, they just lead to the next problem,
so the knots must unravel completely for the story to close.
Gray area: How does that align with lusis, unraveling of the knot of the complications to the Greeks—once again giving
CAUSE the power in the relationship with effect an afterthought? Since the effects are all un-done by dénouement, it
makes way for the gods’ hidden causes, beyond human understanding or control, to begin to have effects.
How does this imply you must apply the abstruse levels of conclusion/ dénouement to literary analysis of Classical Greek
tragedy?
Anything about the conclusion that could potentially be connected to real-world context of Sophocles? Anything that’s “offlimits” because it’s THE MYTH or TRAGEDY in general? The interactions that represent “transition of power” are very
interesting…
April 15
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, explained in detail here: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm
More abstruse: the big triangle picture-To the Greeks, awareness by (flawed) humans of problems (effects of gods’ actions/decisions) inspires human actions,
which are, by nature, faulty because humans are not capable of perfect action—or, in other words, they can never handle
having control of “cause.” Ultimately, these actions lead to (flawed) human decisions to address the problem, with
negative, human-caused consequences (effects on humans). Despite the fact that the gods are aware, in their godliness,
that these human decisions and actions will occur, the human world is left, for the most part, to play them out
(unless…deus ex machina, just ‘cuz!). Thus, the Greeks imagine a universe that is unequal but parallel: human problems
come both from human acts/decisions’ cause-effect AND “real” causes from gods’ acts/decisions that affect humans—only
the gods’ causes go on and on...ad infinitum…and can never be fully understood, let alone controlled. Humans’ cause->
effect is mortal and limited in scope, occurring only within chronological time and within “the laws of necessity and
probability.”
See where the philosophical break between the Greeks/Romans and Islamo-Judeo-Christian monotheism starts?
Self-Check Notes/Review for You: What does Freytag’s formulation of the Greek conception of plot show us about what
Sophocles’ audience plausibly expected
that’s different than what you/your context expects (so YOU’ve got to adjust your thinking to understand/analyze it
accurately)?
that would NOT be what Sophocles contributed (because it is an established cause/effect/act in the MYTH and/or
tragedy in general)?
that WOULD be what Sophocles contributed (because it is in the staging and/or wording but NOT in the MYTH)?
Can you hunka-hunka paraphrase how the difference in the Greek conception of LAWKI (LIFE AS WE KNOW IT) (not sin
to salvation or ignorance to wisdom but—a universe of probability beyond human control whose logic is a circular causeeffect-cause…) CAUSES us to understand the play differently?
Now, let’s return to that second element that Aristotle highlights to determine what it is about characterization
that’s different than what YOU/your context expects (Must. Get. Right.),
that is the “norm” for Classical Greek tragedy (NOT Sophocles’ contribution),
that is in the myth, so NOT Sophocles’ (spoiler alert!—not much)
IS what Sophocles added, emphasized, enhanced, deepened, etc ( developing character motivation, strength,
weakness, belief, role and type through staging, wording, additions/changes to the myth and genre).
Abstruse: Our definition of dynamic characterization (that the character undergoes permanent change, and he/she/it won’t
make sense if moved to the beginning of the story) is NOT how the Greeks would “see” their, especially, mythic
characters. To them, the character is ALWAYS the same—the cog in the huge, complex machine of the mythology. A way
to think of this is: the Greeks could have imagined little namecards moving around the stages of Freytag’s triangle AS THE
MYTH: Oedipus Jocasta Creon Antigone, beginning, complicating, deciding, resolving, etc. Given that they thought of
humans as low life forms, they wouldn’t imagine a REAL persona “living” the events. This is not so different from our
mythic figures, like “Benedict Arnold” “Mayflower Emigrants” etc—we don’t imagine actual people, just the role of Traitor,
Pilgrim, etc in the events. Thus, the playwright’s job is to “breathe life” into the mythic character—different playwright’s do
so contradictorily. This means the audience is always judging the EFFECT of the playwright’s choices for his purpose. No,
literally—Sophocles and others produce their plays as part of contests where they earn honors for best re-presentation of
the myth’s lessons for humans (you can look it up!).
Since OF COURSE you close read, you know that McManus adds this to what I gave you in Project #6’s prompt about
characterization:
[character] change “should come about as the result, not of vice, but of some great error or frailty in a character.” [….] The
term Aristotle uses here, hamartia, often translated “tragic flaw,” has been the subject of much debate. The meaning of the
Greek word is closer to “mistake” than to “flaw,” and I believe it is best interpreted in the context of what Aristotle has to
say about plot and “the law of probability or necessity.” In the ideal tragedy, claims Aristotle, the protagonist will
mistakenly bring about his own downfall—not because he is sinful or morally weak, but because he does not know enough.
The role of the hamartia in tragedy comes not from its moral status but from the inevitability of its consequences. Hence
the peripeteia is really one or more self-destructive actions taken in blindness, leading to results diametrically opposed to
those that were intended (often termed tragic irony), and the anagnorisis is the gaining of the essential knowledge that
was previously lacking. [highlighting Baker’s]
Abstruse: What’s the difference between vice and frailty in terms of characterization…to the Greeks?
Consider: Judeo-Christian theology imagines 7 Cardinal Sins—do these fit the Greek concept of “vice” or “frailty?”
(the specific sins—greed, lust, sloth, pride, gluttony, wrath, envy—do NOT line up with Greek ideas of what would be vices).
Who is the frailest character in the play? Does he/she have a vice—an immoral/wrong attitude that is intentional—or a
weakness—an inability to handle a duty/responsibility that is unintentional?
What’s this?…We’ve circled back to those important terms from Meyer’s introductory material where we started!
WT?!?!: What are the implications from your close reading of these explanations, of the play and of Meyer’s introductory
materials about the other side of the debate to which McManus referred regarding hamartia (what else besides “lack of
knowledge” could motivate a “wrong action” in a “good” character)?
Better re-read both Meyer and McManus—along with double checking your notes on MY clarifications of terms, huh?
April 16
I’ve done lots of lecturing this week to help you READ-THINK for the Paper and Exam. How about a pivot to outside
sources and to WRITING? I promised you I would work to
 Explain OPV/gray area vs alternate view so you can demonstrate the depth/complexity of your skills
 REMIND you of “must cite” material and distinguish the info used for credibility vs citation so you can avoid
plagiarism
 Build your ability to reason through the connection of evidence to claims for nonliterary texts in all writing.
PJA #24: First, read this excerpt from a college-level historical criticism essay on a different play by Sophocles, also in
your Bedford, written about a decade prior to Oedipus Rex (although the story it tells come AFTER the events in Oedipus
Rex, not before):
Dr. John Protevi, Professor of French Studies and Philosophy at Louisiana State University, writes about Antigone:
One of the classic ways of interpreting the Antigone is to say that although Sophocles sets it in ancient, mythic Thebes, the political
issues are those of mid 5th C Athens. In this way the conflict is between the autocratic, tyrannical Creon, and the democratic
philosophy espoused by Haemon. [….]
As you recall, the Greek--or more specifically, the Athenian--tyrants only got a bad name late in their run. Pisistratus was very
popular in 6th C; only his son Hippias--and perhaps then only after his brother's assassination--turned bad: paranoid and
unpredictable. In general, tyrants (themselves disaffected or ambitious aristocrats) broke the monopoly on power of the aristocrats,
the big landowners, by building a coalition with small farmers (the hoplites), the urban nouveaux riches (the traders and
manufacturers), and the urban masses (whose muscle power was tapped by Themistocles' navy). Once the 5 th C turn to democracy
was completed, though, tyranny was felt to have passed its time. We can clearly see this conflict in the Haemon/Creon exchange
[Antigone lines 706-860--Baker]. (It's also often said that Sophocles is here pitting the ancient heroic individualist code personified
by Creon against modern Athenian democracy. Hence the ancient mythic setting.) […]
Creon's problem is not so much that he simply misinterprets the proper blend of convention and innovation, of religion and politics
(his judgment as to what's good for his city). Thus his fault is not simply bad judgment, but that it's a result of a bad input process to
his judgment: he's wrapped up inside his own head and won't listen to anyone else, having once made up his mind. He expects
immediate obedience to his commands, at home and in the city; obedience is the prime civic virtue for him, disobedience the prime
vice [same lines--Baker]. [….]
To turn the screw once more, Creon's problem is that he won't listen to reason (the persuasive speech of Haemon and the chorus),
and that he only relents when scared by the prophecy [mumbo-jumbo] of Tiresias [beginning Antigone line 1091—Baker]. But by
then it's too late. It's always too late by the time the priests get involved! Now, this very well might be a cheap shot by a modern
anti-cleric: Tiresias only threatens Creon after he has impugned his motives by his typical seeing of money incentives behind
everything [recall the episode w/ the sentry] [Antigone lines 248-378—Baker]. But then again, Sophocles was a priest himself, so
you'd expect him to want to impress people with the foresight of a mystical seer. The real issue here is the status of T's speech: it's
an oracular pronouncement, as opposed to the human dialogue Creon rejects w/ Haemon and the people. One might argue that had
Creon "listened to reason," to the measured speech [logos] of Haemon, everything would have been okay. Thus the entry of the
priest is the mark of Creon's having waited too long: democracy doesn't need priests, though they might be useful in scaring tyrants.
(This isn't completely anachronistic. Whether or not this is a strained interpretation, whether or not Sophocles "intended" this
meaning, this is something there in the text to support this, and it would have been picked up on by the anti-clerics in the audience:
for there were Greek anti-clerics, even if prudence suggested discretion in this area. Any culture that could conceive of Plato's
"noble lie"--religion as social control--could support suspicion of priestly motives, even if Creon's anti-clericism is punished.)
Protevi, John. “Sophocles’ Antigone.” Louisiana State University. n.d. Web. Available at:
http://www.protevi.com/john/FH/Antigone.html.
Like this guy?...he publishes a lot of his course notes online. Hmmm…I wonder what narrow, precise, detailed search terms
you’d use to re-search info he might have that would be relevant to your Project #7?...
PJA #24, cont’d: Now, go through these 3 steps:
a. In your notes, make a list of quotes capturing what Protevi states as fact/ interpretation about the real-world context
(audience/ playwright/ culture/ politics/ philosophy/ history/ religion/ etc) for Antigone. Cite the source as Protevi qtd. in
Baker and note that “Baker” refers to my online classnotes. (If you use material from him I don’t give you, cite his site,
no “qtd. in.”)
b. Dissect the claims Protevi makes about the connection of the real-world context to the elements and meaning of the
play (NOT the myth) in this form:
Context Fact/Trait
Connects to __ Element/Device in
To Reveal New Meaning ___…Because…
Antigone…How
P says: Athenians
P cxs to “fruit oil” as the term for the
P theorizes Sophocles was pushing for a change to
banned olive oil as tool used to drown villains by
Athenians’ perception of OO to help his g-f out
evil;
Antigone in the play, a “good, noble”
financially when he emphasized good qualities of
Sophocles’
act that saves the city—whose
this particular kind of oil, not specified in the myth,
girlfriend grew
ambiguous wording allows for grape
in his play. Classical product placement!
olives.
or olive oil to be considered.
The ANSWERS: context, elements, meaning
Dr. John Protevi, Professor of French Studies and Philosophy at Louisiana State University, writes about Antigone:
One of the classic ways of interpreting the Antigone is to say that although Sophocles sets it in ancient, mythic Thebes, the political
issues are those of mid 5th C Athens. In this way the conflict is between the autocratic, tyrannical Creon, and the democratic
philosophy espoused by Haemon. [….]
As you recall, the Greek--or more specifically, the Athenian--tyrants only got a bad name late in their run. Pisistratus was very
popular in 6th C; only his son Hippias--and perhaps then only after his brother's assassination--turned bad: paranoid and
unpredictable. In general, tyrants (themselves disaffected or ambitious aristocrats) broke the monopoly on power of the aristocrats,
the big landowners, by building a coalition with small farmers (the hoplites), the urban nouveaux riches (the traders and
manufacturers), and the urban masses (whose muscle power was tapped by Themistocles' navy). Once the 5 th C turn to democracy
was completed, though, tyranny was felt to have passed its time. We can clearly see this conflict in the Haemon/Creon exchange
[Antigone lines 706-860--Baker]. (It's also often said that Sophocles is here pitting the ancient heroic individualist code personified
by Creon against modern Athenian democracy. Hence the ancient mythic setting.) […]
Creon's problem is not so much that he simply misinterprets the proper blend of convention and innovation, of religion and politics
(his judgment as to what's good for his city). Thus his fault is not simply bad judgment, but that it's a result of a bad input process to
his judgment: he's wrapped up inside his own head and won't listen to anyone else, having once made up his mind. He expects
immediate obedience to his commands, at home and in the city; obedience is the prime civic virtue for him, disobedience the prime
vice [same lines--Baker]. [….]
To turn the screw once more, Creon's problem is that he won't listen to reason (the persuasive speech of Haemon and the chorus),
and that he only relents when scared by the prophecy [mumbo-jumbo] of Tiresias [beginning Antigone line 1091—Baker]. But by
then it's too late. It's always too late by the time the priests get involved! Now, this very well might be a cheap shot by a modern
anti-cleric: Tiresias only threatens Creon after he has impugned his motives by his typical seeing of money incentives behind
everything [recall the episode w/ the sentry] [Antigone lines 248-378—Baker]. But then again, Sophocles was a priest himself, so
you'd expect him to want to impress people with the foresight of a mystical seer. The real issue here is the status of T's speech: it's
an oracular pronouncement, as opposed to the human dialogue Creon rejects w/ Haemon and the people. One might argue that had
Creon "listened to reason," to the measured speech [logos] of Haemon, everything would have been okay. Thus the entry of the
priest is the mark of Creon's having waited too long: democracy doesn't need priests, though they might be useful in scaring tyrants.
(This isn't completely anachronistic. Whether or not this is a strained interpretation, whether or not Sophocles "intended" this
meaning, this is something there in the text to support this, and it would have been picked up on by the anti-clerics in the audience:
for there were Greek anti-clerics, even if prudence suggested discretion in this area. Any culture that could conceive of Plato's
"noble lie"--religion as social control--could support suspicion of priestly motives, even if Creon's anti-clericism is punished.)
April 15
PJA #24, cont’d, cont’d…
c. Protevi admits his interpretation of Sophocles’ purpose might be “strained” and, at least in part, “anachronistic.” Now
read this college-level source excerpt for relevant information that relates to Protevi:
Robin Mitchell-Boyaksk argues in “Heroic Pharmacology,” a chapter of Ormand’s A Companion to Sophocles, that
…we must step back and consider the larger picture of the relationship between Sophocles and early medicine; for the
language of Greek medical writings is fundamental to the metaphorical systems of Sophoclean drama. As early as in the
ancient biographical tradition, Sophocles was associated with Greek medical thought (Knox 1957: 139–47; Biggs 1966) and,
as a result, he was believed to have had something to do with the introduction to Athens of the cult of Asclepius, the
mythical originator of medicine, a few years after the great plague of the early 420s BCE. The ancient Life [a Greek “who’s
who” book] claims that Sophocles served as a priest of Asclepius and even received the god's avatar, his snake, into his own
home until 420 BCE, when the temple of Asclepius—the Asclepieion, adjacent to the [newly built] Theater of Dionysus
on the south slope of the Acropolis—was ready. But the story of a great poet involving himself in such a medico-religious
event may have arisen from associations between poetry and healing that were as old as Greek poetry itself (MitchellBoyaksk 2008: 8-17).
Ormand, Kirk, Ed. A Companion to Sophocles First Edition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2012. Print. 316. (Can be found via
googlebooks, if you’d like to use more from it than I’ve quoted here!)
d. Compose justifiable claims defining gray areas/OPVs that logically relate Protevi’s concluding argument (underlined)to
Mitchell-Boyaksk’ excerpt.
What is problematic about the logical warrants of this “alternate” OPV claim?...
While M-B states that “the language of Greek medical writings is fundamental to the metaphorical systems of Sophoclean drama,” P
claims that Sophocles is instead “anti-clerical” (both qtd. in Baker). In Antigone, the confrontation between Creon and Tiresias does
in fact contain references to sickness (1168-9), but in Oedipus Rex, the similar verbal fight between Oedipus and Tiresias contains no
medicinal language at all (lines 340-526). This suggests that P’s views are more accurate than M-B’s.
Fallacy of false choices: fundamental metaphors and anti-clerical views aren’t mutually exclusive—BOTH could be
accurate. Also: lack of precision/ knowledge of denotation--“medicinal language” does NOT equal “sickness” to the
Greeks—and “metaphor” don’t equal “references!” (more on this to come!)
How would you fix the above?
[one logically sound, fully developed] ANSWER!
OPV Claim While M-B emphasizes medical language as “fundamental to the metaphorical systems of Sophoclean drama,” P ignores
it in his focus on Sophocles’ overall “anti-clerical” position (both qtd. in Baker). However, looking closer at the figurative dimensions
of the relevant lines in Antigone and comparing their meaning to the lines of its sister confrontation in Oedipus Rex raises questions
about the strength of P’s view.
Evidence showing P’s view Creon’s reaction to Tiresias’ warnings in Antigone is viewed by P as fear of consequences (lines 1219-38),
not fear of the gods or proper respect for them (1157-8)—thus Creon, to P, is not acting pious or noble, just “scared,” and Tiresias’
only role is to offer “mumbo-jumbo.”
New Analysis of Evidence for OPV claim What P calls “mumbo-jumbo,” however, consists of graphic descriptions of the “signs”
shown to Tiresias by animal augury, which he then links to graphic descriptions of animal sacrifice.
New Evidence for OPV The signs of augury are, to the Greeks, godly symbolism interpreted by seers to foretell the future (Valpay 412); the elements of sacrifice are the earthly symbolism used by priests to request a boon or blessing from the gods (Stearns Davis
211-5).
New Analysis of Evidence for OPV claim Both seers and priests fit the “cleric” category for P. So, in P’s view, Sophocles is mocking or
at least not supporting, acts and symbols of priests and seers, and, the language of and to the gods is mere “mumbo-jumbo”—
useless in the system of meaning for the play.
New Evidence for OPV In Oedipus Rex, the verbal fight between Oedipus and Tiresias (lines 340-526) is the reverse of Antigone:
Tiresias is afraid to disclose the gods’ awful truth (359-79); Oedipus is not frightened off, but emboldened more in his quest to “bring
it all to light [him]self!” (150).
New Analysis of Evidence for OPV claim Tiresias’ role here, early in the conflict rather than near its end in Antigone, is to present
(and thus to the Athenians represent) the noble, pious option for a leader, even though it is rejected—he is the second messenger of
the gods, after the Oracle, whose words are meant to incite fear of the gods in Oedipus, who bemoans his failure to heed them in
the dénouement, calling himself “the great blasphemer” (1514).
New Analysis of Evidence for OPV claim Tiresias’ wording, too, is opposite from Antigone: there is a complete lack of signs from
augury or other clerical acts or images (instead it is remarkably explicit “logic” about human events). At the same time, numerous
references to pain, blindness, deafness and other mortal “ills” are included.
Commentary/Implications of Evidence and Analysis: Since ills are the reason supplicants come to the Healing-God’s priests seeking
help, it seems like the language as well as the role of the Seer in Oedipus Rex promote the value of clerics in saving Athens, instead
of undermining it, as P claimed for Antigone. With this discrepancy, the overt use of clerical metaphors in the lines from Antigone
also comes into question: would it be at all reasonable for a priest-playwright to dismiss the very language of the gods…even if his
protagonists both choose to do so?
Two college level sources I used to understand “medicinal metaphors” (whose FULL TEXT is available since they are ancient enough
to be in the public domain)…
Valpay’s Classical Manual (1827)
https://books.google.com/books?id=qqdfAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=augury+priest+Athens&source=bl&ots=0msPwuF4yx
&sig=1lq6bMWWOe_kTi43haK6c6q4gs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jx0xVfzZF8_ToATCgYHQDw&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=augury%20priest%20Athens&f=fa
lse
Stearns Davis’ A day in old Athens: a picture of Athenian life (1914)
https://books.google.com/books?id=EzsbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=sacrifice+priest+Athens&source=bl&ots=WVkd5a2
v5V&sig=-SPv3L3ioqUjGEVkT8GyvUPJfo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6B0xVYu2IIHioASZn4GICA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=sacrifice%20priest%20Athens&f=f
alse
two logically sound possible ANSWERs!
Since M-B argues that Sophocles was no mere priest, but, possibly, the originator of the cult of Asclepius, the Healer-God, during the
killer plague in Athens (qtd. in Baker), P’s view that Sophocles wants to show that “democracy doesn't need priests” to help it
survive its troubles (qtd. in Baker) seems unreasonable at this point in his life. Instead, Healing rites at least would logically have
been promoted as crucial to Athenians for the audience by Oedipus Rex. Looking closely at….shows….
M-B concedes that “associations between poetry and healing…were as old as Greek poetry itself” and thus Sophocles’ strong priestly
association with Asclepius might be apocryphal. If this is the case, P’s argument about the playwright’s anti-clericism might not only
be accurate, but strengthened: if Sophocles was not associated with the Healer clerics during the “great plague,” (qtd. in Baker) he
might have been critical of the limits of their power or at least their effectiveness, given Athens’ suffering. Looking at….shows…
April 20
Since we know from the Oracle of English (me!) that
Re-searching for college-level writing is recursive. It requires…
searching for college-level sources then
close reading the text for info that’s relevant, and then,
like I did, following up WT?!?s by
searching for college-level sources then
close reading the text for info that’s relevant, and then,
following up WT?!?s by
searching for college-level sources then
close reading the text for info that’s relevant, and then…
around and around
until you have gathered sufficient salient evidence to justify a claim for
What would Sophocles reasonably expect his 5th century BCE Athenian audience to “fill in/think” here (that we today wouldn’t)?
So you can construct YOUR OWN historical criticism claim for
How does knowing that change/enhance/deepen the meaning of Oedipus Rex?
Let’s follow up some WT?!!s from the credible sources we reviewed on Friday to see what else is in the play that might not
be what it seems (to us)…
PJA #25: Read the information below, then review the play and select ONE passage from it, filling in this formula:
___ (paraphrase/quote data in source) about Athenians’/Sophocles’ ______ (context),
applied to ____ (explication of SPECIFIC lines of Oedipus Rex),
changes their meaning from _____ (interpretation of lines without that data)
to _____________ (historical criticism of lines with data)…
pharmākos, in Greek religion, a human scapegoat used in certain state rituals. In Athens, for example, a man and a woman who
were considered ugly were selected as scapegoats each year. At the festival of the Thargelia in May or June, they were feasted, led
round the town, beaten with green twigs, and driven out or killed with stones. The practice in Colophon, on the coast of Asia Minor
(the part of modern Turkey that lies in Asia) was described by the 6th-century-BC poet Hipponax (fragments 5–11). An especially ugly
man was honoured by the community with a feast of figs, barley soup, and cheese. Then he was whipped with fig branches, with
care that he was hit seven times on his phallus, before being driven out of town. (Medieval sources said that the
Colophonian pharmākos was burned and his ashes scattered in the sea.) The custom was meant to rid the place annually of ill luck.
The 5th-century Athenian practice of ostracism has been described as a rationalized and democratic form of the custom. The biblical
practice of driving the scapegoat from the community, described in Leviticus 16, gave a name to this widespread custom, which was
said by the French intellectual René Girard to explain the basis of all human societies.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/685818/pharmakos
PJA #25, cont’d: Doesn’t that just lead us to…
…when combined with ___ (paraphrase/quote data in this source) applied to ____ (explication SPECIFIC lines), add _____
to the meaning (historical criticism combining the data).
ostracism, political practice in ancient Athens whereby a prominent citizen who threatened the stability of the state could be
banished without bringing any charge against him. (A similar device existed at various times in Argos, Miletus, Syracuse, and
Megara.) At a fixed meeting in midwinter, the people decided, without debate, whether they would hold a vote on ostracism
(ostrakophoria) some weeks later. Any citizen entitled to vote in the assembly could write another citizen’s name down, and, when a
sufficiently large number wrote the same name, the ostracized man had to leave Attica within 10 days and stay away for 10 years.
He remained owner of his property. Ostracism must be carefully distinguished from exile in the Roman sense, which involved loss of
property and status and was for an indefinite period (generally for life).
Ostracism is said by Aristotle, in his Constitution of Athens, to have been introduced by Cleisthenes in his reform of the Athenian
constitution after the expulsion of Hippias (c. 508 BC), but the first use of it seems to have been made in 488–487 BC, when
Hipparchus, son of Charmus of Collytus, was ostracized. After Hipparchus, four more men, the last of them being Aristides, were
ostracized before the amnesty in 481, preceding the invasion of Xerxes I. The institution was invoked less frequently after the
Persian Wars, falling into disuse after it was used ineffectively, probably in 417, to resolve the political impasse caused by the rivalry
of Nicias and Alcibiades. Compare exile and banishment.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/434423/ostracism
PJA #25, cont’d, cont’d: Now, list WT?!?s from these two Encyclopedia Britannica entries that would be logical to follow up
with other re-search.
Extra Credit: Identify 2-3 other passages from the play that are logically implicated by your historical criticism claims
and/or follow up questions.
Caveats for your re-search task (and Paper grade)-Credible vs College-Level Sources for Project #7:
When does your evidence have to be from college-level sources and when doesn’t it?
As you saw above, in trying to follow up a WT?!? for a term in a college-level source I wanted to use (“pharmacology”), I
used what is called a tertiary source—not primary, not secondary but “intended as a compilation of other sources’ info on a
topic.” Dictionaries, encyclopedias, recaps/timelines—these are all tertiary, and they are rarely college-level. Tertiary
sources are okay for college students to use to clarify the info they get from college-level sources (since students are still
novices, they usually need tertiary source background info to “get” primary and secondary college-level source info—and
they should credit those sources properly).
College-level sources—primary documents and secondary studies—are what college students use to ensure the validity of
outside information they use to support historical criticism (or any other mode of argument); lower level source info may
not be precise and comprehensive enough to support a college-level interpretation—nein?. Use college-level sources for
facts, statistics, examples, cases and expert testimony evidence regarding the context of the plays.
ALL your sources must be credible, no matter their level.
That said, YOU have control over which credible sources you select for your Project and Paper. That is, if you find a
credible, college-level source for the myth, the date of the play’s performance, facts about Athens, etc that differs from
other credible sources’ statements, you have a choice about which one to use. Obviously, if one better supports your
argument (by placing the date of the play early enough or late enough to plausibly align with what you want to talk about in
the context, for example) you should use it instead of the others—so, the more research you do, the better the chance
you’ll be able to support what you want to say. YOU establishing credibility, however, is key here. I won’t tell you that
Meyer’s timeline, for example, is the ONLY or the DEFINITIVE source for Sophocles’ biography or the date of the play, just
because it is in your textbook; but, I won’t accept your use of a source at face value that disputes it, either. We discussed
in Fall that laying out the credentials and origin of your evidence is a logical part of analysis explaining why your evidence
proves your claim. Credibility has a default formula:
C onsistency—how well the source aligns with the majority, mainstream, accepted or other measure of the body of knowledge
about the subject
R eputation—track record, status in field of the source
A bility to perceive—direct, indirect, second-hand, research, inferential or other means used to “know” all, some, a particular
perspective or other view of the subject
V ested interest—any reasonable reward or punishment the source is likely to face regarding the subject and context
E xpertise—specialized knowledge/skill/experience/credential of the source regarding the subject
N eutrality—level of impartiality/bias of the source toward the subject and context
Bottom Line
It is your job to present reasoning/evidence that a source you use is credible. It’s not only one of the traits I grade, it
“backs” your proof throughout the paper, impacting many other traits as well.
Bad choices of sources will HURT you; it isn’t worth taking the “easy” path on this!
What are noncredible sources?
ALL OFF LIMITS (no reasonable way to establish credibility as a source):
gradesaver, 123helpme, studymode, enotes, writework,
just-about-anything-with-essays-in-its-site-name (wowessay, essay-base, ukessays, antiessays, onlineessays,
essaybyexample, megaessays, etc), as well as those that are clearly homework-helper sites (markedbyteacher,
echeat (?!?), mightystudent, paperdue, etc)
and
any student-created site (yes, you need to figure out if the author(s) are students—even college students!—you
can’t just assume)
Also OFF LIMITS, free-lance (no accountability) “help” sites:
ask.com, answers.yahoo, wiki.answers, wiseGEEK, experts123, evi, etc
Just say NO to student study guides, too:
datehookup (?!?), bookrags, cliffsnotes, sparknotes, novelguide, even schmoop—these aren’t outside sources
YOU are bringing into the Paper to support your interpretation, they are sources that TELL YOU how to interpret.
Instead of these kinds of sources, go to credible, tertiary ones.
World Book*
National Geographic Magazine Index*
*available on the Library page and select Online Databases, then login.
Open Sources:
“Sophocles” and/or “Sophokles” will give you TMI if you search on big search engines like Google. But narrowing
down to “Sophocles and family” got me, among other things:
Theatredatabase.com—a wonderful source for people preparing/studying/producing drama.
NB: You won’t find anything on the credentials of those who produce Theatredatabase (although an email to them might
elicit this info from them), but I am vetting this source as credible for you—since its whole set up is to cite and excerpt
mostly peer-reviewed, professionally published articles rather than offer new content, even where such a citation may be
missing for something on the site, the overall alignment with academic standards and quality in its materials give it
credibility as a resource. Yes, that’s what I’d write if I had to establish its credibility in an argument I made (…er…I just did, in
fact).
And I found numerous historical/cultural/literary timelines, annotated in some cases with great info, when I searched in
engines for “Sophocles and timeline.” Ditto for “Sophocles and biography.”
I suggest using the author’s or place name and specific key words from the historical, cultural and artistic context to try to
answer your re-search questions through the general search engines (S- or A- and women’s rights; S- or A- and cult; Sand A-; S- or A- and democracy; etc…). Lots and lots of what comes up is proprietary (pay-to-read)…so I often had to switch
back to the dread Proquest to see if I could get them for free, or, with Google Books, read what was there to see if the
pages made available covered what I needed.
But, don’t underestimate the power of printed books in the JHS and Sno-Isle libraries—since this author, historical/cultural
context and work are pretty significant and very old, they are likely to have been covered often and in various ways. A little
detective work goes a long way…
Finally, (good news!)
Wikipedia, as we’ve discussed, has a perhaps undeserved reputation for non-credibility. I do not reject the site out of hand
although many instructors in high school and colleges do. However, to use it as a tertiary source you must establish the
particular entry’s trustworthiness as a source (warrant!). This is not difficult, but it IS work.
Let’s use a relevant entry in it as a model for handling the credibility issue for any online source when the ideal, obvious
(hey, this is written by a professor!) solution isn’t present. Again, some detective work, but…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Athens
and its companion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Classical_Athens (check out those rubrics for rating this entry, and the links to the Project
who produces it!)
Compare with the entry for Sophocles.
Self-Check: Do you have a system for keeping track of the specific webpages to cite for each bit of information you might
quote, paraphrase or insert as material in your Project/Paper? Do you have a good working knowledge of how MLA in-text
and works cited citations are done for an online encyclopedia entry vs an article on a website vs the homepage for an
organization/project, etc? Better re-read that too, huh?
April 21
Show TIME at the Acropolis
Martin, Richard P. The Voices of Jocasta. Stanford University. May 2005. Web. Available at:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/rpmartin/050503.pdf
Since Stesichorus lived in the last quarter of the 7th century BC and the first half of the 6th, [his] nameless poem is most likely
150 years earlier than the Oedipus Tyrannos of Sophocles. [It] lets us see all the more clearly how the later Sophoclean
drama—according to Aristotle, the perfect tragedy—has tyrannized critical appreciation of the Oedipus myth….This is
especially true because our consciousness is inevitably shaped by the profound dramatic treatments of Sophocles. At the same
time, because we have so few fragments of any earlier versions of the story, no other figures are prominent enough to provide
a counterbalance against the powerful pull of Oedipus himself.
One such figure is that of the hero’s mother and wife. It is perhaps iconic for our knowledge of this woman that the earliest
allusion to her in mythic tradition, found in the eleventh book of the Homeric Odyssey, gives her a name that is different from
the one she bears later. In Homer, she is “Epikasta” (Od.11.271), apparently a version of Jocasta, who is named for the first time
in Sophocles. Furthermore, the brief Homeric version does not give her a voice—she is merely one of the renowned ladies of
the past whom Odysseus sees in his journey to the underworld. Unlike some of the others, Epikasta does not speak to
Odysseus to tell her own story. Instead, we learn from the narration of Odysseus that the gods revealed her incestuous
marriage to her son soon after it occurred, and that Epikasta in consequence hanged herself (Od.11.274-78). Already in the
second century AD, the antiquarian and travel writer Pausanias noted the essential difference between the Homeric and
Sophoclean versions—namely, that Epikasta, having died so soon after her marriage, could not have produced the four
children of Oedipus who were famous from other stories: the brothers Polyneikes and Eteokles, the sisters Ismene and
Antigone (Paus. 9.5.1). Instead, relying on the epic poem Oedipodea and a painting (both now lost), Pausanias claimed that
Oedipus stayed at Thebes, marrying again, and that the second wife, Euryganeia, was the one who bore any children he may
have had.
The Lille Stesichorus offers us the voice of the mother of the children of Oedipus. She is not named in the portion of the poem
that we possess. Anne Pippin Burnett has argued convincingly, however, that the woman who speaks must be Jocasta, the
mother of Oedipus, and not some second wife. What this unnamed woman says—whatever her position—is what should
compel our attention. As can be seen in what follows, the female speaker of Stesichorus’ poem responds to a prophecy, taking a
stance that will look oddly familiar:
Do not add to my woes the burden of worry,
or raise (prophaine) grim prospects for my future life.
For the immortal gods
Have not ordained for men on this holy earth
Unchanging enmity for all their days,
No more than changeless love;
They set men’s outlook for the day.
As to your prophecies (mantosunas), I pray the lord Apollo
Will not fulfill them all;
But if I am destined to see
My sons slain by each other, if the Fates
Have so dispensed, then may
Death’s ghastly close be mine straightway
Before I can ever behold
The terrible moaning and tears of such woes,
My sons killed in the house
Or the city fallen. *Translation here by M.L. West, Greek Lyric Poetry (Oxford 1993) 92-94.
If we agree that plot, point of view and attitude, dramatic situation, poetic diction, and rhetoric all make the Jocasta of
Sophocles recall the unnamed mother in Stesichorus, what is the gain for interpretation of the drama? Let me close by
suggesting [this:]
We might gain a new appreciation of the artistic technique and economical means of Sophocles by observing how a figure with
a poetic past (Jocasta) evokes a mythic future. In Sophocles, even though her intervention is placed at an earlier mythic
moment, in the quarrel with Creon, when she enters the scene, the audience imagines the end of the whole affair. Tied as she is
in Stesichorus to the lottery that eventually brought her sons to war, Jocasta is a pivotal figure in the entire saga. It is to the
genius of Sophocles that we owe a dramatic voicing of her psychology, which itself becomes metonymic for the 5th century
sophistic attitude. But it is to the genius of Stesichorus—and ultimately to that of the ancient and fertile Greek poetic
tradition—that we owe the mood, the dramatic stance, the very grain of voice that comes from this doomed Theban queen.
Discuss the argument(s) made by this text with your group (do NOT write on the sheets!).
What information from this source could LOGICALLY be used to support historical criticism of the play in Project #7/ the
Paper?
What WT?!?s does this college-level, credible source material by Martin bring up for YOU?
PJA #26: Follow these steps, individually:
1. Compose a written paraphrase of Homer’s “version” of the myth on which Sophocles’ play is also based, as it
is presented by Martin. Cite it as “qtd. by Martin in Baker.”
2. Quote the phrase/sentence in which Martin makes a claim about the meaning of Jocasta’s character in
Sophocles’ play. Cite it.
3. Read the following new, college-level source which picks up on an abstruse term in Martin:
[The Norton Anthology argues:]
The Sophists were great teachers, but […] their methods placed an inevitable emphasis on effective presentation of a point of view,
to the detriment, and if necessary the exclusion, of anything which might make it less convincing. They produced a generation that
had been trained to see both sides of any question and to argue the weaker side as effectively as the stronger, the false as
effectively as the true; to argue inferentially from probability in the absence of concrete evidence; to appeal to an audience's sense
of its own advantage rather than to accepted moral standards.... The emphasis on the technique of effective presentation of both
sides of any case encouraged a relativistic point of view and finally produced a cynical mood which denied the existence of any
absolute standards....
In the last half of the fifth century the whole traditional basis of individual conduct, the unity and cohesion of the city-state, was
undermined, gradually at first by the critical approach of the Sophists and their pupils, and then rapidly, as the war accelerated the
process of moral disintegration.... The mood of postwar Athens oscillated between a fanatic, unthinking reassertion of traditional
values and a weary cynicism which wanted only to be left alone. The only thing common to the two extremes was a distrust of
intelligence. (qtd. in Delahoyde & Hughes Sophistry)
The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces, Volume I. 6th ed. NY: W.W. Norton and Co., 1992. Print. 7-8.
Quote from: http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/mythology/sophistry.html
PJA #26, cont’d: Follow these steps, individually:
4. Hunka-hunka paraphrase the definition of “the sophistic attitude,” as viewed by Norton’s editors in this quote
from Delahoyde & Hughes quoted in my classnotes. Cite it—the MLA for this one’s tricky!
5. Quote and cite the phrases/sentences in which Norton states effects of Sophistry.
6. Compose a historical criticism claim of YOUR OWN linking info from Martin and the excerpt from Norton to a
NEW meaning or purpose for these lines:
Oedipus: But my mother’s bed, surely I must fear—
Jocasta:
Fear?
What should a man fear? It’s all chance,
chance rules our lives. Not a man on earth
can see a day ahead, groping through the dark.
Better to live at random, best we can.
And as for this marriage with your mother—
have no fear. Many a man before you,
in his dreams, has shared his mother’s bed.
Take such things for shadows, nothing at all—
Live, Oedipus,
as if there’s no tomorrow! (1068-78)
7. Due to the Bowl, pharmakoi!
April 22
Pick up your PJA #26s from the pile by the Bowl.
PJA #27: Follow these steps.
1. Read lines 1364-1422 of the play.
2. Answer in writing: What do these lines indicate about how Oedipus, how Jocasta and how Thebes viewed
Oedipus’ and Jocasta’s marriage (before Oedipus decided he was the killer of Laius)?
3. Now read…yes, another college-level credible source:
[In] Euripides’ Medea, first performed in 431 BCE, Medea—a barbaros (non-Greek) who had earlier saved the life of her husband,
Jason, and had had children by him—is abandoned by Jason so that he may make a politically favorable marriage with a Greek
princess…One of Medea’s speeches has often been cited as a rallying cry for the unfair lot of women:
Of all things that are endowed with life and have intelligence, we women are the most wretched. First, at extravagant
expense, we must buy a husband and take a master over our bodies…and in this there is the greatest ordeal whether we
take a good or bad one, for there are no respectable divorces for women…If we manage all this well and our husband lives
with us without bearing the yoke reluctantly, life is enviable. If not, it is better to die…They say how we live a life free from
danger, while they do the fighting in battle. Simple-minded fools! How I would prefer to stand in battle three times than
bear a single child. (Medea 230-251)
It has often been suggested that Medea should be interpreted against the background of the Periclean citizenship law, introduced in
Athens in 451-50. This law was, in effect, a marriage law, because it debarred the children of an Athenian father and a foreign
mother from becoming Athenian citizens. Before the law, it was only necessary to be the recognized son of an Athenian father to
claim citizenship…There has been much speculation about the reason for the law, but it could have been designed to protect
Athenian women against the incursive influence of foreign women.
Medea’s famous speech finds resonance in a fragment of a lost play of Sophocles, the Tereus. In this tragedy, Procne, daughter of an
Athenian king who has been married to a Thracian king, Tereus, a barbaros, expresses her views on a woman’s lot:
I have often looked at a woman’s nature in this way: that we are as nothing. As young girls we live in our father’s house, I
think, the most pleasant of human lives. For foolish innocence is a delightful nurturer of children. But when we reach
maidenhood and are possessed of intelligence, we are thrust outside and sold away from our family gods and parents,
some of us to strangers and other to barbarians, some to cheerless and others to acrimonious homes. (Frag. 583)
Beer, Josh. Sophocles and the Tragedy of Athenian Democracy. Praeger. 2004. Print. 81-2.
Discuss with your group:
What info about the context is in Beer? (you might want to copy it—with CITATION!—for use in your Project #7/Paper)
What argument(s) is Beer making about the purpose of a contemporary playwright (Euripides) that might relate to the
purpose of Sophocles? (worth copying and citing…huh, huh?)
PJA #27, cont’d: Answer these questions in writing:
4. How does information from Beer make a DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION of Jocasta’s view of Oedipus’ and
Jocasta’s marriage in these lines logically possible?
That is, how
can you show that the meaning of the lines YOU THOUGHT is changed by Beer’s info?
Hint: what does Beer imply that the Athenians would have thought about them based on
Euripides and other works by Sophocles?
5. If in the play, Jocasta’s “psychology” is indeed “metonymic of the sophistic attitude” as Martin claims—and
Sophists, according to Norton, valued “effective presentation of a point of view, to the detriment, and if necessary
the exclusion, of anything which might make it less convincing”—and
knowing from Beer that Sophocles and his audience likely assumed wives in political marriages felt trapped—
not loyal—then
how would you justify through reasoning a claim that Jocasta’s behavior in these lines is “a [convincing]
presentation of a point of view” meant to make her look blameless before her suicide?
Hint:
remember, she hasn’t heard that Oedipus thinks he’s Laius’ son; she’s just seems to assume he is about to
when she “aaiiiiiieeeee”s.
6. If Sophocles, as Protevi claims, “pits the ancient heroic individualistic code against Athenian democracy”—and
Martin’s argument about Athenians’ recognition of parallels of Jocasta to Stesichorus’ mother-character and
Homer’s Epikasta are valid—and
Sophocles’ dramas extensively use “pharmacological” metaphors, whether he was the originator of the cult of
Asclepius in Athens or not, as Mitchell-Boyaksk states—and
knowing from Encyclopaedia Brittanica that Athenians regularly participated in “healing” ostracism rites where
they voted to exile leaders who caused problems, then
how could you justify through reasoning that Jocasta’s behavior in these lines is self-scapegoating to “put the
blame on herself” to protect her husband and/or city? Hint: remember, she hasn’t been accused of
anything…yet.
7. What WT?!?s do these draft claims bring up for YOU to research further for your Project #7?
April 23
PJA #28: Write down all the details you can think of that make up the concept Historical Criticism.
Now check your answer against the details in the class definition…
HISTORICAL CRITICISM uses research about the real-world context of a work to elucidate a corrected/enhanced
interpretation of the work’s wording, structure and/or meaning that a contemporary reader—even a really skillful one—would
have likely misunderstood or not even recognized without it.
Think you’ve “got” it?...
1. How is Historical Criticism different than Literary Analysis?
2. Is this a historical criticism thesis?...
With Athenians enclosed inside the city walls to protect them from attack while they suffered a plague, Sophocles
used the play to show that Athens’ leaders should listen to others and not just make decisions on their own if they
want their city to survive its problems.
NO—too simplified (doesn’t go beyond what analysis of the PLAY would show—try reading it without the
opening clause to see).
This type of literary analysis of a work combines everything we’ve done so far to create an interpretation of the meaning(s)
of a work in and out of its original, real-world context. To get started, review the class definition of the element style,
paying close attention to its broad use (as a specific historical/ literary/ philosophical context which a work reflects). Add to
that, this breakdown of the definition of the most sophisticated form of meaning, according to AP:
Author’s Purpose
…answers the question:
Why did this author write this work
this way at this time for this audience?
…by researching and then laying out an argument that explains the answers to these questions (which are the backing and
grounds):
a.
Who is THIS author personally and professionally?—find explicit and implicit evidence in outside sources to
analyze for the real-world author’s persona.
b.
What is the origin and context of THIS work (historically, artistically, philosophically, culturally, etc)?—analyze
outside source evidence to establish the real-world setting/environment and influences on the work’s author. This crosses
over with research on a work’s style2 so…a twofer!
c.
What subjects does THIS work address?—cite and analyze textual evidence to establish abstract topics, issues,
ideas, events, persons, situations, scenarios, problems (cf: social commentary) represented by the specifics of the work.
Subjects will be contained by, though not limited to, the overall argument of the work, and are often components of the
complications of plot structure.
d.
Who is THE specific intended audience for THIS work?—analyze outside source evidence for the real-world
contemporary readers’ personae—which is never, ever “general audience.”
e.
How are THESE subjects and audience treated by THIS author in THIS work?—cite and analyze textual evidence
for tone, then logically connect it to argument(s) and contexts of the work; your answers should be contained by, though
not limited to, theme.
f.
HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU’RE RIGHT for A-E?—sorry, none of these are “guessable”/general knowledge
questions—they all require research using credible literary (nonfiction—especially biography) and nonliterary
(especially scholarly and primary document) sources.
Author’s purpose is, by definition, logically related to a work’s theme. Many analysts have difficulty differentiating them
from each other. Try this to help YOU do it:
Theme is the message to the reader the author communicates through his/her story’s argument.
Purpose is the MOTIVATION* the author has to create THAT story when, where, for whom and how he/she did.
Thus, theme is an outcome. The author’s motivation to achieve__( goal)__ CAUSES him/her to create a story that shows
_(a specific argument) for his/her intended readers and contemporary context. This CAUSE leads to the outcome.
*Yes—this is like analyzing the traits of character persona, just for a real-life person, using credible sources instead of clues
in a narrative text.
PJA #29: Fill in the table below to connect RESEARCH INFO about the context to literary analysis of the play. That is,
capture your answers to the question HOW does what you found in research about
 the author’s biography
 the author’s/work’s environment
 the work’s subjects
 the author’s/work’s audience
alter the MEANING/PURPOSE of the WHOLE PLAY?
Parallel = a shared pattern between two separate entities that does not contradict/ diverge. Be sure to differentiate
between:
Similarity is one point that’s the same (without a second one to make a pattern—shared “plague” in Thebes and
Athens)
Connections are implied similarities (maybe a correlation YOU think is there—leaders interrogating servants is just
like democracy)
Pattern = at least two points in common with no contradicting points (an identical line/ curve for two different
functions—barbaros-native marriage in Medea and in Tereus leaves wife feeling trapped instead of loyal to
husband and society; Jocasta’s behavior in her reported final moments of the play implies feeling trapped in her
native-foreigner marriage(s?!?))
Research
Info
on
Sophocles’
Life
Meyer 1283:
Sophocles held strategos
position in Athens
Athens’ TRAITS as a
society
Protevi: Athens’ Anticlericism/ pro-demos views
in 5thc BCE
Athenians’ KNOWLEDGE
of mythic ideas/ events/
people/ actions (that show
up in the play)
Beer: Medea/Tereus wives’
“unhappy lot”
Athenians’ VIEW of ideas/
events/ people/ actions
(that do NOT show up in
the play)
Norton: Sophists’ relativism
Parallel to _________
concepts in the play (NOT
myth or tragedy)?
Captured in ___
lines/ stage
directions?
Changes their
meaning to ___?
Supporting
OVERALL play
meaning of __?
Or if you’d like a different format:
__a_ (paraphrase/quote data in sources) regarding Classical Athenian/Sophocles’ ___b___ (life, society, knowledge,
view), applied to __c__ (explication of words/ideas in passages of play), change the passages’ meanings from ___d__
(interpretation without data) to __e__ (historical criticism with data). Putting these all together justifies that the PLAY’s
OVERALL meaning changes from __f__ (interpretation without data) to ___g___ (historical criticism with data).
When you’ve got 3 possibilities fleshed out, show me; we’ll discuss; and I’ll give you credit for PJA #29—pharmakoi!
April 28
A short break from Historical Criticism to indulge in Future-Telling:
Pick up your Free Responses from the Midterm (with comments when relevant)—
Here’s what your overall Midterm grade means vis a vis the AP Exam:
<50% midterm = what ~80% of 1s and ~16% of 2s got (<1% of 3s)
>63% midterm = what ~99% of 3s, and ~70% of 2s, ~20% of 1s got (0% of 4s and 5s)
>69% midterm = what ~97% of 3s, ~60% of 2s, ~2% of 1s got (<1% of 4s and no 5s)
>79% midterm= what ~66% of 3s, 99% of 4s, all 5s got, and ~15% of 2s (<.1% of 1s) <average
performance of PREVIOUS classes>
>91% midterm= what ~95% of 5s got, and ~80% of 4s (~20% of 3s)
<average performance of YOUR class>
>95% midterm= what ~72% of 5s got, and ~27% of 4s (<2% of 3s; .1% of 2s and no 1s)
Altogether now…
~94% of test takers nationally would have likely gotten at least 67% on the midterm; BUT
only ~25% would have gotten up to 69%--they would have been a mix of 3s and 2s
another ~31% would have gotten 79-90%--a mix of 3s, 4s and 5s, a handful of 2s (those who really
struggled with the FRQs)
~21% would have gotten 91-94%--mostly 4s and 5s (some 3s who really struggled with the FRQs)
~6% would have gotten 95% or higher—yeah, you kicked ass.
Since Poetry is the hardest section of the FRQ and Multiple Choice, insha’allah you will do well!
Please return to the Bowl—this is not released!
Here are some additional, targeted practice exercises you can do for the AP Exam (in addition to the online resources
from my site):
In addition to feedback on the final, use your Prep Journals—Fall and Spring and look over the class notes (Fall is available
under archives on my homepage) to review for the exam. The Elements and Literary Devices information on my website is
meant to address common problems with their usage—check ‘em out.
Practice #1:
Look at each sample alone to see what devices (red and pink in the handout) might apply. Then, go back and identify
which sample(s) fit which device(s) in the table below. More than one sample may match each device, and more than one
device may match each sample.
Sample
1. “I have seen the mountaintop…”
2. Stay a day or a lifetime (Edmonds’ city motto)
3. Gas Station Nation
4. Self-serve
5. Impossible people
6. Wanted: SM ok w/SF w/baggage
7. She’s going to prom with you? No way! Dude.
8. As sands in the hourglass, so are the days of our lives.
9. The dress accentuated her hourglass figure.
10. His will was implacable; yet her entreaty was irresistible.
11. I’d call Ms. Baker’s personality abrasive; her teaching, polished.
12. You may wish to stop reading now; it’s going to get scary next.
13. I wish I was still travelin’/ that train to New Jerusalem/ I’d be alright/ and
basking in white light.
14. Your full name and those of 3 celebrities in different fields.
Device
Alliteration
Analogy
Apostrophe
Assonance
Consonance
Image
Imagery
Metaphor
Parallelism
Realism
Rhyme (identify which forms)
Simile
Symbol
Irony (identify which form)
Self-Check/Exam Prep: briefly analyze WHY the sample fits each definition and HOW—specifically—the device affects the
reader’s understanding of the text. Also—memorize these or come up with other definitive examples for those devices you
easily mix up or forget.
Practice #2:
Identify one quintessential example of each of the following form or style of poetry and the poet’s general purpose for
using that form/style for his/her subject:
o Elizabethan/Shakespearean sonnet
o Italian/Petrarchan sonnet
o Elegy
o Lyric
o Epic
o Ode
o Metaphysical
o Romantic
o Victorian
o
Modernist
Self-Check/Exam Prep: place your examples on a historical/stylistic timeline and fill in any blank areas with extra
examples so that you have both form and time period poetry “exemplars” to keep in mind. Compare with a prose work
from each time—are there motifs they share? stylistic techniques?
Practice #3:
Create a T-chart of works of fiction you’ve read that are good examples of opposing/different uses of the elements/devices
below:
o Basic setting vs. environment
o Traditional plot structure vs. experimental/reversal of expectations
o Conflict=theme vs. conflict≠theme
o Mood≠tone vs mood=tone
o Ambiguous climax or conclusion vs explicit
o Round vs. flat characters connected to each area of persona (age, etc)
o Antagonist is/isn’t “bad guy”
o Theme directly connected to different style/time periods (motif/trend/style)
o Imposing vs trustworthy vs objective vs free indirect discourse narration
o Naturalist vs other styles
o Romantic, Victorian, Modern, Post-modern—both British and American
o 18th century, Post-Civil War 19th century, Early 20th Century, post-WWII—both British and American
o Sympathetic vs satirical tones
o Tone=narrator’s beliefs vs. tone≠narrator’s beliefs
o Allegorical vs. Symbolist
Self-Check/Exam Prep: note a brief quote/paraphrase from the work for each of the above that captures its category and is
easy to remember should you wish to discuss it in the open-ended question (Ex: “I prefer not to”).
Practice #4:
Complete the formula below for each of the following hard-to-get-right devices to improve the precision of your definitions:
…is ____ but isn’t just _________; that’s _________ instead. Examples are: ___________ and ________.
Personification…(don’t forget the “person”—not any animal/organic life—warrant of this)
A symbol…
Verbal irony…
Situational irony…
Dramatic and tragic irony…
Allusion…
Motif…
Anti-hero…
Tone (vs mood)…
Imagery (vs connotation)…
Diction (vs “details” or “language”)
Self-Check/Exam Prep: expand this exercise to include ALL the red and pink terms in the devices handout.
Additional help for composing Project #7
Ready for some serious concreteness?
Here’s a taxonomy covering the cryptic, oblique and abstruse for Project #7. Clicking on links will fill in the specifics of
class concepts that you must demonstrate.
Can you fill in every box?
Sophocles’ OVERALL purpose(s) for writing Oedipus The King for whom, when and how he did I define as #1a,b,c. I
argue #1 is caused by #2a,b,c influential event/idea/figure/belief in Sophocles’/ Classical Athens’ context
(time/culture/life). I argue #1 is accomplished through #3a,b,c use of structural and stylistic elements (not just details!) in
the play because explicating these shows #4a,b,c added/altered/enhanced meaning(s) of the play, which diverges from
#5a,b,c meaning/ argument/ theme of the original myth and of the genre Classical Greek tragedy. THESIS
To prove my thesis is valid,
I identify the significant use(s) of #3a element, by applying the CRYPTIC/OBLIQUE of #6a/b/c class definition(s) to
analysis of #7a,b,c cited play lines as explicit and #8a,b,c cited lines as implicit evidence. BACKING
I show the effect of #3a on #4a/b/c new meaning by establishing #9a difference in the relationship of #3a to #5a/b/c in the
myth/tragedy from that of #3a to #4a/b/c. GROUND
Continues as needed: #3b element fits #6b definition, etc…[ditto above for 6-9 using b, c, etc]
I establish the relevance of #2a real-world subject(s) to the context during/ before the play’s composition with #10a,b,c
explicit and #11a,b,c implicit data from cited, credible outside source(s). BACKING
I relate #2a to #4 meaning(s) by making #12a logical connections between #2a subject(s) in the context and the use of
#3a/b/c element(s) in the play. GROUND
#2b subjects with #10b evidence, etc...[ditto above for 10-12 using b, c, etc]
I argue that #4 play’s meaning(s) achieves #1 purpose(s) by tracing #13 cause/effect relationship(s) between #12
connection(s) and #1. GROUND
This isn’t the way you’d WRITE the essay; it’s what the essay must cover.
Like a visual instead?...
#5 myth/tragedy
\
l \
l \
l
\
l
\
l
l
l
#2 existing context
#10, #11 evidence
/
/
#12 connection
/
/
/
\
\
\
l
l
l
Play’s
#9 difference
in
meaning
elements
components
#1
PURPOSE
l
#13 relationship
l
l
#4 play meaning
l
#6 definitions
l
#3 play elements
content
#7, #8 play lines
Model Taxonomy Time-Hemingway’s overall purpose(s) for writing Soldier’s Home for whom, when and how he did I define as
forcing an acknowledgement of the new weltanschauung caused by WWI by those who wished to pretend nothing had changed so
that upcoming generations in the US and Europe would be better prepared for “the truth” of modern, post-war life.
This purpose is caused by the influence of
artistic mentors (Gertrude Stein; the modernists; other journalists), his experiences as a domestic and foreign newspaper journalist
(communicating “the truth” of “real people” to “the public”) and being a young soldier from a “conservative suburb” in the Midwest
(living firsthand the before/during/after of the European theater of war and civil war).
He accomplished his purpose in the story through
perversion of the typical plot structure, a distant narrative and authorial tone, intentional ambiguity in characterization—especially
for motivation—and biting realism, including specific references to WWI and Midwest life.
because explicating these shows
a tectonic divide exists between the assumptions about life held by those sheltered at home and the shattered vision of humanity,
progress and purpose developed by those exposed to the raw brutalities of war and its effect on “society.”
which diverges from just a story of an “unheroic” vet or a troubled young man. thesis
To prove my thesis is valid, I identify significant use(s) of plot, tone, characterization, ambiguity and realism by applying the
CRYPTIC/OBLIQUE class definition(s) to analysis of x cited passages as explicit and y cited passages as implicit
evidence. backing
I show the effect of the significant use(s) of plot, tone, characterization, ambiguity and realism on the story as representing an
assault on sheltered, conservative home-front views of unaffected “American life” through contrast with veterans’ disenchanted,
pessimistic perspective on “the aftermath” of a broken society by establishing that rather than suffering a disorder (shell shock),
returning soldiers and others “who were there” had developed a mature emotional and philosophical view of the new reality of a
society that was not the rosy ideal they had been raised to believe it would be. ground
I establish the relevance of Hemingway’s stint at the KansasCity Star, his interactions with modernist expatriates in Europe, his
experiences as a soldier and Red Cross ambulance driver and his foreign correspondent position with the Toronto Star using z
explicit and implicit data from cited, credible outside source(s) A, B and C. backing
I relate these contextual data to the contrast of home and veteran views in the story by
aligning facts of modernist beliefs, brutal, inhumane events he experienced and reported on and his interaction with own
community’s and the wider national conservativism to the characters’ philosophical and moral traits, the interpersonal conflicts and
the role of environment in dynamism or statism of characters and the realism of the style. ground
I argue that the contrast in the story achieves Hemingway’s purpose of “getting the word out” about reality through the
combination of plausible, familiar components of home life and a representative existential challenge to these through the main
character. ground
Now how do you take a complete taxonomy and make it into a decent essay?…
Good news! Remember that AP default explication outline? The body of explication is the basic formula for the part of your
Project #7 which is analysis of the play’s meaning. [See, something you know already!] You do NOT have to analyze all 8
elements—just those necessary for proving your paper’s thesis (hint: your argument should include structural AND stylistic
ones, or else you’re probably oversimplifying the overall meaning and/or the connection to the context).
But wait; there’s more…
Your Project #7 requires you to synthesize play explication with a cause/ effect argument connecting the evidence and
claims of the explication to outside source evidence. Eeek! That’s a lot to cover to be cogent.
Don’t panic! This means you’ve still got an intro and conclusion like the explication outline, just refurbished to include the
other parts of your argument, too:
INTRO: why is it important to ask the prompt question “What does an understanding of Sophocles’ and the play’s realworld context reveal about the play’s meaning(s) that would not be apparent without it?” (Hint: if you’re running into
repetition/ redundancy with what you say in the essay’s body, think of the question in its “pure” form: “What does
understanding context reveal about literature’s meanings…in general?” Why would this be an important research
question…in general? or why, if you think of this in hypothesis form, “Understanding context reveals new/different
meanings of literature” would this be worth trying to prove?)
THESIS:
X in the real-world context changes Y about the overall meaning of this play
because Z additions/alterations/enhancements to the myth’s elements by the play justifiably connect X and Y.
BODY: Change is dynamism, right?...consider organizing your points to trace before/ after or effect->cause or cause>effect or…
CONCLUSION: What does the context’s influence on meaning you proved imply about OTHER aspects of or OTHER
author(s), context(s), audience(s), subjects, etc? (Hint: if you’re running into repetition/ redundancy with what you say in
the essay’s body, think of the question in its “pure” form: “What does proving that context changes meaning in this case
suggest is true outside of this case?” Remember that this might plausibly call for action by related parties--something
should be done by readers?, historians?, translators?; it might plausibly shed light on related, unexamined things in
context, elements and/or meanings--highlights, brings to light, gets us to “see” what else?; it might plausibly call into
question assumptions, facts, actions already established--if this is true here, then what might NOT be true that is accepted
elsewhere…?)
Whew! That’s cogent for ya!
To be comprehensive, you must be sure that no necessary details of X, Y, Z elements, meaning or connections between
them are left out and that no contradictory details of them are left unaddressed (including the big warrant: are my claims—
and my analysis’ justification—more likely/ significant/ reasonable than other possible candidates. That is, is my X the most
logical thing in the context that’s relevant to the elements and meaning I am showing? (Hint: this might not be an either/or
between possible Xs; it might be a “broader/more specific” choice, like if “Greek religious belief” is your X, but “the cult of
Asclepius’ reverence for traditional leadership roles” is actually a better fit, see what problems you have covering all the
points, only the points and nothing but the points you need in your argument?—PRECISE WORDING OF YOUR THESIS
IS KEY HERE. Remember how we broke down the words in the AP prompts? Yours should work like that.)
To be precise, select wording and organization to match the complexity of your argument. Again, this isn’t always an
either/or choice (should I call it “critique” or “criticism” or “complaint?”); it’s usually about specificity in the transitions (I
could say “also” or I could really tie these together by saying “while that dimension is operating, another whole level of
meaning is being constructed simultaneously”) (Hint: pay special attention to the working of your claims. Call something
“good” and you’re being too simple/ broad. Call that same thing “morally correct according to the norms of the audience
and playwright,” and you’re not only specific, but you’ve set up the exact analysis and evidence you’d need to prove you’re
right.)
And as you’re planning and drafting, don’t forget those specific tips that you may have seen success with before…






Use the Gimme Five for a college-level analysis
hunka paraphrase evidence in action for efficient and effective drafting
address difficulty/ambiguity/gray area in evidence, play and/or terms to make your argument complex
the QR2W in your book
append “…because…WHY is this true” to cliché meanings/themes/arguments in order to articulate a deeper, richer (not
shallow, banal) meaning
use the “turn test” process of elimination to determine whether to explicate one crucial detail/technique or construct a
pattern of techniques/details to support your interpretation of each element, piece of evidence
Yes, this is hard work. Remember, the better the Project #7, the further along you are in producing a decent Shakespeare/
Sophocles Paper (and the converse…?).
According to the problem you are facing, I offer the following mission (should you choose to accept it):
1. What are we doing again? You’re connecting the play to its context. Short cut: start with what are usually the hard
elements—narration, tone, style, devices. Imagine an algebraic expression:
n + d/s = t (play)
Now fill in general statements for how the order of the play’s details showed, told and not shown, not told to us
(n=narration) added to significant instances of connotation, metaphors, stichomythia, etc (d=devices) embedded
in Sophocles’ language and innovative 3-character-staging (s=style1) create the attitude (t=tone) he hoped the
audience would adopt toward the people and situation he depicted (p=play). Your paper words this by explicating:
cite evidence for what’s in the play that matches n, d, s and t, then justify/ explain how citations fit n, d, s and t and
how n, d and s add/ relate to each other to form t.
If this mathful method works for you, extend with these equation sets:
(characters x plot) + setting = theme (myth); SO
theme (play)= [(n + d/s) – theme (myth)] and theme (play)= [t (play) – theme (myth)]
and
subject (play)/ [theme (play) x tone(play)] = purpose (playwright)
context (play) = Athens {real world persona, conflicts, complications, environment, tones, moods}
subject/ theme = context/ tone = audience/ purpose
Put them all together and you’ve broadly defined how the context relates to the actual elements of the play—now
narrow down to one, specific cause/effect “proof” linking to meaning for Project 7’s thesis.
2. I have fallen into a cliché can’t get out! Say your cliché claim first (Be a good/not bad Greek; careful what you wish
for; don’t assume anything) and then fill in 5 logical and progressive “becauses…” for it
…(1) because…what happens if one does/doesn’t that wouldn’t happen anyway?...(2) because…why does
that happen?...(3) because…what makes that true?... (4) because…why?... (5)…
This can get you to a statement of the philosophy that the story’s structure hypothesizes beyond the particular
character and situation (myth).
If you’re stating the play’s subject/ topic/ situation instead of arguing its theme, try filling out this social
commentary formula:
Sophocles’ play argues that when α people/group faces X subject/ topic/ situation, the best/ right thing to do/ think
is Y, because Z is why Y would be effective/ appropriate for dealing with X. As an Athenian of his time, his view
makes sense, because β is the direct connection(s) between ϑ in his context and α, X, Y and Z.
Try the 5 “becauses …” again if X+Y+Z comes out as cliché.
3. If it weren’t for that whole Sophocles, not the myth or tragedy thing… Write terse, imaginary headlines for the
“moments” of the play’s plot that are involved in what you want to discuss (ex: The Oracle Speaks! Prophet Throws
Down; Oedipus Angered! Dreams, Schmeams, Says Queen! Vacancies on Thebes’ Throne). Now imagine an article
that would give the nitty-gritty details of the moment, including witness accounts, great quotes, etc from the play
for each headline—a tabloid version. Got it? Separate what would be in the article into 1) placeholder “facts” of the
myth in Homer, timelessmyths.com or other credible sources and 2) what feels like on-the-scene reporting: the
extras in 2 are likely to be Sophocles’ own contribution. Yep…the big S was a Greek gossip girl! Now, focus on
what that gossip does for its audience (#1 above) and how it does it.
4. Never the twain meet! Make a Venn Diagram and/or T-chart with as many specifics (not generalities) of WHO,
WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, HOW and WHY for the Classical Athenian context as you can find, then fill in its
parallel(s) in the play (beyond just character and environment like we’ve done). Remember that specifics might be
connected by being the OPPOSITE or PARALLEL of each other). Then go through the exercises from today with
the most promising of these.
5. Beyond the Myth? Try not-C reasoning for this: If what I understand/see/know about the context WASN’T true
(especially if the opposite were true or some important event never happened)…what would THAT take away from
the meaning/purpose of the play or imply it must mean instead? (Example: if no plague in contemporary Athens,
Thebes not a logical stand-in for Athens…so maybe Thebes’ story represents a different city-state or different
period than the present, and the play then is commentary on its handling of problems not Athens’?...no democracy
in Thebes=no logical connection to Athens’ govt? So, is play instead about a real-world monarchy/ oligarchy?)
Once you’ve set out the not-C “conditions,” play devil’s advocate: “but, wait a minute…does that really make MORE
sense?...what other time/place WOULD fit better?...what about OTHER stuff about contemporary Athens that
seems to fit the play?...isn’t there a parallel pattern I can justify, even if there isn’t equivalence?” This would get
you to piece together a deeper, richer “case” for the effect of your outside evidence on your interpretation of the
play. If that gets you stuck at cliché (cursed leaders are bad), go to #2, if it ends up sounding too obvious (leaders
affect their people/ cities), you might not be differentiating the play from the myth/tragedy, so try #3.
Let’s try an old fav method to get you to “see” the Project #7 prompt...
How does the religious/cultural/historical context in which Sophocles lived
illuminate his play’s overall meaning?
Take turns with a partner stating and listening to each person’s answer to each of the following questions. After each
question is complete, share out any issues/questions you have about how the answers you heard match what is
highlighted in the question. Be gentle with each other!
1. What complex meaning can you justify the play has before applying knowledge of the real-world context? (< myth +
tragedy in play; = class definition of theme)
2. What complex meaning can you justify the play has after applying knowledge of the real-world context? (>myth +
tragedy; = class definition of purpose)
3. What credible source data best establish knowledge of YOUR subject relevant to real-world Classical Athens
before/during (not after!) the composition of this play?
4. What specifics of structural elements (setting, plot, character, theme) of the play can you prove are changed/
enhanced by applying YOUR data on the subject? What passage(s) best reveal these?
5. What specifics of stylistic components (narration, tone, devices, staging/sound dimensions) can you prove
communicate Sophocles’ view of the context subject >the myth and tragedy? What passage(s) best represent this?
6. What components of structural and stylistic elements of the play are NOT justifiably Sophocles’ ONLY (are =myth,
tragedy instead)? (support for #1)
7. What cause/effect argument can you make that the changes to structural (#4) + the specifics of stylistic elements (#5)
found in your selected passages combine to = new meaning/purpose of the play related to your data on the context
subject (support for #2)?
8. What is at least one gray area/OPV involving the play’s meaning and/or the context subject worth addressing to
strengthen your argument for #7?
May 4
Flashback:
Whatever your level of comfort with fiction and drama, classical Greek tragedy and Elizabethan comedy are each
specialized genres much like forms of poetry, with specific rules, structures and purposes that govern them. Thus, you
need to add to your nomenclature and expand the scope and detail of your explication beyond the elements and devices
we have already been using in order to “see” and analyze what these kinds of plays elements are made of, how they relate
to each other and why they support meaning(s).
This we continue by taking on Shakespeare, now…
Classwork: Read the articles (one at a time) “A Study of William Shakespeare,” “Shakespeare’s Theater,” “The Range of
Shakespeare’s Drama: History, Comedy, and Tragedy,” “A Note On Reading Shakespeare” and “A Midsummer Night’s
Dream” 1383-1394. DON’T TAKE NO NOTES AT ALL.
At the end of each article, close your books. Write down everything you remember about what you read.
At the end of reading all the articles, review 1383-94 (perhaps working backward from the end?) and add to/correct your
notes to include what you DIDN’T remember that might be significant to retain for your Paper, the final, the AP exam or
LAWKI (especially new or expanded concepts for theatrical and context-specific elements/ devices).
Check yourself—did forcing yourself to remember HELP you remember? If so, this is a really easy strategy for studying for
the AP exam!
Then…
More Flashbacks!
And the fun just keeps on coming!
As you CLOSE READ, you must INDEPENDENTLY THINK about how the text relates to ITS SOURCES. That is, you
must separate Elizabethan literature from what’s new/different in THIS play so you can be sure you’re analyzing what’s
Shakepeare in your Paper. You must ALSO separate what is in the play that is:



Elizabethan dramatic and poetic literature (used by many other authors/poets, not JUST Shakespeare) from
Shakespeare’s contributions that are different/ new/ added to Elizabethan genre(s) and style(s) AND
Are unique in this specific play (not used the same as his previous plays, but somehow “particular” to this one)
in order to precisely identify his PURPOSE for writing the play the way he did when he did for whom he did.
Recap: Focus on answering the Question I Asked in your Shakespeare/Sophocles Paper...logically. This means, as we
covered prior to Oedipus Rex,
It is illogical to argue that Shakespeare did/meant something in the play that relates to the real world context in which he
lived if the action/meaning you’re talking about is actually throughout Elizabethan lit (so Shakespeare DIDN’T choose to
use it) or is in ALL Shakespeare’s plays (which means it isn’t specific to THIS PLAY).
Concrete Analogous argument about art
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Ennis_House.html (concrete...get it?)
Yikes…remember how hard this was for Sophocles? Remember what helped?...
College Level Sources from the Oracle of English
(remember to cite correctly as “qtd. in Baker” if you use in your work!)
Excerpts from
Marjorie Garber. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” in Shakespeare After All. New York: Pantheon Books. 2004. Print.
Marjorie Garber is William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of English and American Literature and Language, chair of the Department of Visual
and Environmental Studies and director of the Humanities Center at Harvard University.
The title of the play comes from the concept of “midsummer madness,” the idea in folk culture in England (and also in Ireland,
Sweden, and elsewhere in medieval Europe) that on Midsummer Eve, June 23, the longest day and shortest night of the year,
madness, enchantment, and witchcraft would invade and transform the world. The idea is a very old one; it goes back to agrarian
festivals held when spring plowing and planting were over, and harvesttime was far off. The holiday was often celebrated with
“somergames”—sports, plays, drinking, and dancing, and witches, fairies, and mischievous sprites were thought to range abroad,
playing pranks on livestock and on human beings. This is one reason the critic C. L. Barber dubbed Dream a “festive” comedy. (217-8)
The word “fairy” is related to “fay” or “Fate;” the classical three Fates became, over time, associated with human destiny, and were
said to attend and preside over childbirth. By making his fairies diminutive, Shakespeare, like the playwright John Lyly in his
Endimion (printed 1591), emphasized their relation to the subconscious and the unconscious—which is to say, to human psychology
and desire. In Romeo and Juliet Queen Mab (“the fairies’ midwife,” according to Mercutio) visits sleepers and influences their
dreams. (224)
The Roman writer Apuleius’s novel The Golden Ass, translated into English in the sixteenth century, tells the story of a man who is
mistakenly turned into an ass (he anoints himself with the wrong ointment, having sought to become an owl, the emblem of
wisdom) and then is coaxed into a sexual relationship with a highborn lady….Since the time of the Greeks the ass has been a figure
of ignorance and stupidity in fables and proverbs. (228)
Most of Shakespeare’s plays have sources, although what he borrowed, he transformed. As Walter Savage Landor wrote—in a
passage that Emerson quoted in his own essay on quotation—Shakespeare “was more original than his originals. He Breathed upon
dead bodies and brought them into life.” We should bear in mind that the notion of “originality” in this period was quite different
from the modern sense of something never seen before….In the Renaissance, the notion of inventio, with its etymological root in
“finding,” referred to the discovery, by search or endeavor, of ideas or images that could be used in rhetoric. Shakespeare’s plays
draw on classical mythology, historical chronicle (Plutarch’s Parallel Lives in the 1579 translation by Sir Thomas North; English and
Scottish chronicles by Edward Hall, John Stow, and Raphael Holinshed), the writings of his contemporaries (including Elizabethan
novels, plays by other authors, and the Bible). Shakespeare’s Bible was usually the 1560 translation known as the Geneva Bible, a
version so popular that it went through 122 editions between 1560 and 1611. (19-20)
…when a certain number of deaths from plague were recorded in the city—by statute, under King James, this meant more than
thirty in any given week—the theaters were closed down, and the actors and company had to take the show on the road. Plague,
then was one kind of threat that the theater presented. Another kind of threat that concerned civic officials—and royal ones, too—
was the possibility of sedition: critical, subversive references to affairs of state, or to living persons in high places—Queen Elizabeth
or, in the plays, King James, or officials from other countries like Holland, France, or Spain. So the theaters could be “infectious” in
metaphorical as well as literal ways, spreading new and dangerous ideas, bringing together large numbers of people. These
playhouses held thousands of spectators—by modern estimates, Shakespeare’s Globe would have held three thousand. An official
called the Master of the Revels reviewed in advance any play that spectators might see on the public stage, and suggested necessary
cuts or revisions…City officials did not like the players and playhouses, and neither did the Puritans, who saw all acting as a kind of
falsehood or pretense. Puritans saw the onstage phenomenon of common men playing the parts of kings and princes as a kind of
class-jumping, dangerous to social stability. They saw the wearing of rich costumes—sometimes the actual cast-off clothing of real
novels and royals—as a sign of excess and ambition. They saw theatricality, pageantry, and ritual itself as things to be associated
with “popery,” with the Catholic Church. (23-4)
Excerpts from
Stephen Greenblatt Shakespeare in Tehran New York Times Review of Books April 2, 2015.
What did it mean that Shakespeare was the magic carpet that had carried me to Iran? For more than four centuries now he has
served as a crucial link across the boundaries that divide cultures, ideologies, religions, nations, and all the other ways in
which humans define and demarcate their identities. The differences, of course, remain—Shakespeare cannot simply erase
them—and yet he offers the opportunity for what he called “atonement.” He used the word in the special sense, no longer
current, of “at-one-ment,” a bringing together in shared dialogue of those who have been for too long opposed and apart.
It was the project of many in my generation of Shakespeare scholars to treat this dialogue with relentless skepticism, to
disclose the ideological interests it at once served and concealed, to burrow into works’ original settings, and to explore the
very different settings in which they are now received. We wanted to identify, as it were, the secret police lurking in their
theater or in the printing house. All well and good: it has been exciting work and has sustained me and my contemporaries for
many decades. But we have almost completely neglected to inquire how Shakespeare managed to make his work a place in
which we can all meet.
This was the question with which I began. The simple answer, I said, is encapsulated in the word “genius,” the quality he
shares with the poets—Hafez, for example, or Rumi—who are venerated in Iran. But the word “genius” does not convey much
beyond extravagant admiration. I proposed to my audience that we get slightly closer perhaps with Ben Jonson’s observation
that Shakespeare was “honest, and of an open and free nature; had an excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions.”
Jonson’s praise of Shakespeare’s imaginative and verbal powers—his fancy, his notions, and his expressions—is familiar
enough and, of course, perfectly just. But I proposed to focus for a moment on terms that seem at first more like a personality
assessment: “honest, and of an open and free nature.” That assessment, I suggested, was also and inescapably a political one.
Here is how I continued:
Late-sixteenth- and early-seventeenth- century England was a closed and decidedly unfree society, one in which it was
extremely dangerous to be honest in the expression of one’s innermost thoughts. Government spies carefully watched public
spaces, such as taverns and inns, and took note of what they heard. Views that ran counter to the official line of the Tudor and
Stuart state or that violated the orthodoxy of the Christian church authorities were frequently denounced and could lead to
terrible consequences. An agent of the police recorded the playwright Christopher Marlowe’s scandalously anti-Christian
opinions and filed a report, for the queen of England was also head of the church. Marlowe was eventually murdered by
members of the Elizabethan security service, though they disguised the murder as a tavern brawl. Along the way, Marlowe’s
roommate, the playwright Thomas Kyd, was questioned under torture so severe that he died shortly after.
To be honest, open, and free in such a world was a rare achievement. We could say it would have been possible, even easy, for
someone whose views of state and church happened to correspond perfectly to the official views, and it has certainly been
persuasively argued that Shakespeare’s plays often reflect what has been called the Elizabethan world-picture. They depict a
hierarchical society in which noble blood counts for a great deal, the many-headed multitude is easily swayed in irrational
directions, and respect for order and degree seems paramount.
But it is difficult then to explain quite a few moments in his work. Take, for example, the scene in which Claudius, who has
secretly murdered the legitimate king of Denmark and seized his throne, declares, in the face of a popular uprising, that
“There’s such divinity doth hedge a king/That treason can but peep to what it would.” It would have been wildly imprudent, in
Elizabethan England, to propose that the invocation of divine protection, so pervasive from the pulpit and in the councils of
state, was merely a piece of official rhetoric, designed to shore up whatever regime was in power. But how else could the
audience of Hamlet understand this moment? Claudius the poisoner knows that no divinity protected the old king, sleeping in
his garden, and that his treason could do much more than peep. His pious words are merely a way to mystify his power and
pacify the naive Laertes.
Or take the scene in which King Lear, who has fallen into a desperate and hunted state, encounters the blinded Earl of
Gloucester. “A man may see how this world goes with no eyes,” Lear says; “Look with thine ears.” And what, if you listen
attentively, will you then “see”?
See how yond justice rails
upon yond simple thief. Hark,
in thine ear. Change places
and, handy-dandy, which is
the justice, which is the thief?
Nothing in the dominant culture of the time encouraged anyone—let alone several thousand random people crowded into the
theater—to play the thought experiment of exchanging the places of judge and criminal. No one in his right mind got up in
public and declared that the agents of the moral order lusted with the same desires for which they whipped offenders. No one
interested in a tranquil, unmolested life said that the robes and furred gowns of the rich hid the vices that showed through the
tattered clothes of the poor. Nor did anyone who wanted to remain in safety come forward and declare, as Lear does a moment
later, that “a dog’s obeyed in office.”
That Shakespeare was able to articulate such thoughts in public depended in part on the fact that they are the views of a
character, and not of the author himself; in part on the fact that the character is represented as having gone mad; in part on the
fact that the play King Lear is situated in the ancient past and not in the present. Shakespeare never directly represented living
authorities or explicitly expressed his own views on contemporary arguments in state or church. He knew that, though play
scripts were read and censored and though the theater was watched, the police were infrequently called to intervene in what
appeared on stage, provided that the spectacle prudently avoided blatantly provocative reflections on current events.
Still, such interventions were not unheard of. It is astonishing that in King Lear Shakespeare goes so far as to show a nameless
servant rising up to stop his master, the powerful Earl of Cornwall, who is the legitimate coruler of the kingdom, from
torturing someone whom he suspects—correctly, as it happens—of treason. “Hold your hand, my lord,” the servant shouts:
I have served you ever since I was a child;
But better service have I never done you
Than now to bid you hold.
The original audience must have been as shocked by this interference as the torturer Cornwall. Though the servant is killed by
a sword thrust from behind, it is not before he has fatally wounded his master. And what is most shocking is that the audience
is clearly meant to sympathize with the attempt by a nobody to stop the highest authority in the land from doing what
everyone knew the state did to traitors. Here there is no cover of presumed madness, and though the setting is still ancient
Britain, the circumstances must have seemed unnervingly close to contemporary practice.
How could Shakespeare get away with it? The answer must in part be that Elizabethan and Jacobean society, though
oppressive, was not as monolithic in its surveillance or as efficient in its punitive responses as the surviving evidence
sometimes makes us think. Shakespeare’s world probably had more diversity of views, more room to breathe, than the official
documents imply.
There is, I think, another reason as well, which leads us back to why after four hundred years and across vast social, cultural,
and religious differences Shakespeare’s works continue to reach us. He seems to have folded his most subversive perceptions
about his particular time and place into a much larger vision of what his characters repeatedly and urgently term their life
stories. We are assigned the task of keeping these stories alive, and in doing so we might a find a way, even in difficult
circumstances, to be free, honest, and open in talking about our own lives.
From http://stephengreenblatt.com/biography
Stephen Greenblatt is Cogan University Professor of the Humanities at Harvard University. He is the author of twelve books,
including The Swerve: How the World Became Modern; Shakespeare's Freedom; Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became
Shakespeare; Hamlet in Purgatory; Marvelous Possessions; and Renaissance Self-Fashioning. He is General Editor of The Norton
Anthology of English Literature and of The Norton Shakespeare, has edited seven collections of criticism, and is a founding
editor of the journal Representations. His honors include the 2012 Pulitzer Prize and the 2011 National Book Award for The
Swerve, MLA’s James Russell Lowell Prize (twice), Harvard University’s Cabot Fellowship, the Distinguished Humanist Award
from the Mellon Foundation, Yale’s Wilbur Cross Medal, the William Shakespeare Award for Classical Theatre, the Erasmus
Institute Prize, two Guggenheim Fellowships and the Distinguished Teaching Award from the University of California,
Berkeley. Among his named lecture series are the Adorno Lectures in Frankfurt, the University Lectures at Princeton, and the
Clarendon Lectures at Oxford, and he has held visiting professorships at universities in Beijing, Kyoto, London, Paris, Florence,
Torino, Trieste, and Bologna, as well as the Renaissance residency at the American Academy in Rome. He was president of the
Modern Language Association of America and is a permanent fellow of the Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin. He has been
elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Academy of Letters, and the American
Philosophical Society.
Excerpt from: Mack, Maynard & Robert Boynton. “Introduction: Textual Note” in Hamlet. Boynton/Cook Heinemann: Portsmouth,
New Hampshire. 1981. Print
Maynard Mack is Sterling Professor of English at Yale University. Robert W. Boynton was Principal and Chairman of English at
Germantown Friends School.
Although Shakespeare had no connection with their actual publication, eighteen of his thirty-seven plays were published in various
quarto editions before his death in 1616. Not until 1623 were all but one of the plays usually credited to him published in a single
volume, now called the First Folio […] compiled by two of Shakespeare’s actor-colleagues who drew upon the best previous quarto
editions of single plays, where available, and on fairly reliable unpublished manuscripts and theater promptbooks. (10)
May 7
PJA #30: A memory exercise for Shakespeare.
Write down EVERYTHING that comes to mind about ROMEO AND JULIET (yes, Romeo and Juliet, a play you’re likely to
know pretty well, even if you never studied it) when I say the following:
Characters and Persona[lities]
Settings/Environments
Themes [That Are Complete Sentences]
Conclusion/Resolution of Conflict(s)
Symbols/Images/Metaphors
Given what you know already about A Midsummer Night’s Dream look over your list. What parallels are apparent between
these two iconic plays by the same author? How do they align with stock, archetypal, cliché and motif-related aspects of
elements? How do they depart from them?
Why did we do this exercise (how is thinking about this going to help you prepare your Paper?)
Well, first, it invites you to tap into your previous work with/ knowledge of Shakespeare to see if there’s anything you can
bring forward to analysis and argument about A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Second, an avenue of research for
Shakespeare, especially, is college-level sources that discuss the playwright’s entire oeuvre [all of his works as a whole]
and make arguments about purpose, meaning, individual style or effect of context that encompass several/all of them.
Warrants, however, of using evidence that applies to more than one work by the playwright are:
1. YOU must show it matches the SPECIFIC play’s significant purpose, meaning or effect (Example: A critic
might rightly say that the late comedian George Carlin “always used his comedy to get people to see the
logical fallacies of their own behavior.” This doesn’t mean however that a standup routine he gave at the
Correspondents’ Dinner for the President of the United States or a joke referring to a specific law wouldn’t
have had a more specific and significant—not to mention reasonably likely—purpose, meaning or effect,
logically, than what his comedy in general would.). This requires the same reading-thinking-writing process
you used for differentiating between the myth and the particular “take” on the myth in one specific play by
Sophocles. [What’s Shakespeare in general vs just THIS play?]
2. YOU can’t overgeneralize purpose, meaning or effect with a claim that fits the larger style/ school/ trend/
genre of the play beyond the SPECIFIC play and playwright (Example: “Shakespearean English” is a term
used by below-college-level sources for style and diction in Elizabethan literary art. But this isn’t limited to
Shakespeare; he is just the most famous user of it. Discussing Shakespeare’s “style” and certainly this
specific play’s style as this would thus be fallacious). This requires the same reading-thinking-writing process
you used for separating out what was only Sophocles’ play from what was true of all Classical Greek tragedy.
[What’s Elizabethan literature vs just Shakespeare in just THIS play?]
Thus, today’s exercise can be used as a logic check for your evidence and points as you plan and draft the Shakespeare
case in your Paper. Ask yourself these questions:

Am I arguing something is true about the style, structure, meaning, purpose and/or context of A
Midsummer Night’s Dream that is also reasonably true for Romeo and Juliet? If so, is there a specific connection/use
of it in JUST THIS PLAY? What data could I analyze to prove it?
Then…

How do I show that the specific connection/use is something that Shakespeare did and NOT an
archetype, motif and/or style or component of genre of Elizabethan literature in general? What source data could I use
to prove it?
Then…

Is there a more PRECISE significant, reasonably likely and/or relevant argument to make about A
Midsummer Night’s Dream, especially differentiating its relationship to its specific context vs previous or later works’
contexts?.?
Bottom Line
Since a comprehensive study of the playwright and/or context may be the BEST or ONLY available source of data to
answer these questions, YOU will need to argue about the implicit meaning/ purpose of the source evidence itself
(explication!), THEN use it to connect to the meaning/purpose of the play.
A Miracle of Modern Technology that will help you to get there…
Historical criticism requires that YOU justify YOUR interpretation of the meaning of passages and the play; that is, YOU
prove using credible source data that it FITS what the audience likely “got” and the playwright likely intended. This means
you need a logically sound way to compare ONE SPECIFIC work’s wording with other instances of similar/same language
in the same context and/or by the same playwright to show that in several cases (not just this passage), YOUR
interpretation fits.
Now if only there was a kind of source that one could use to search all the uses of a particular word, phrase, etc for a
particular playwright…
…what’s that?...there is such a reference source?...a concordance, you say? You mean, like this online, searchable one…?
http://www.rhymezone.com/shakespeare/
NB: YOUR analysis of source evidence to corroborate your interpretation, NOT using sources AS your interpretation, is
what you’re being graded on. There is soooooooooo much on Shakespeare and on this play, it will be hard to avoid others’
interpretations—be afraid, be very afraid...and exercise caution when you read sources to avoid interpretations of the play.
Breaking Bard News…
http://www.studio360.org/story/they-found-shakespeares-dictionary-on-ebay/
Class/Homework: Make yourself close read the words of the play—don’t skim or just look for the “gist” of the story!—and
force yourself to interpret it as you go along through explication of the text. Looking up WORDS you don’t know IN A
DICTIONARY is in-bounds; looking up PLACES/ NAMES in an encyclopedia is a slippery slope—since the entry might
discuss the play. In ANY source you search or re-search, avoid discussions of the play, itself.
By Monday, be ready to write about ALL of Act 1 and Act 2 of the play.
Shakes/Soph Paper Tip O’ The Day
Consider breaking up your close reading into “scenes” instead of pages:
1.1 (251 lines) and 1.2 (86 lines)
2.1 (268 lines)
2.2 (160 lines) and 3.1 (170 lines)
3.2 (465 lines)
4.1 (210 lines) and 4.2 (32 lines)
5.1 (415 lines)
May 11
Special New Consideration for Shakespeare
If you use supplemental sources to help have no fear© for Shakespeare, etc: YOU MUST NOT rely on their
“translations”/summaries/glosses of this play’s wording. Justify any interpretation of Shakepeare’s words’ meaning
YOURSELF by analyzing the actual text given in Meyer (since many “guiding” sources paraphrase/interpret at a lower
level or to achieve a different purpose than college-level literary analysis).
Shakes/Soph Paper Tip O’ The Day
Since citation is so $!@%%! important:
As you read and take notes on your WT?!?s, note that MLA in-text citation format for a verse play—is its numerical Act and
then Scene and then line numbers, separated by periods. In MLA you, for example, have finished reading 1.1.1-251,
1.2.1-86, 2.1.1-268 and 2.2.1-160 of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
…right?...er…RIGHT?!?
Self-Check: You didn’t cite acts or scenes for Sophocles, just line numbers … because?
Now for something completely different
Every year my students make me promise to make…er…let you watch this film to “help” you with the Shakespeare part of
your Paper.
Famous Authors: William Shakespeare: 1564-1616. United Learning. 1995. unitedstreaming. 15 May 2006. Web.
Extra Credit: Find the anachronistic Harry Potterism!
May 12
Shakes/Soph Paper Tip O’ The Day
Since citation is so $!@%%! important:
Write out quotes and paraphrases that contain info on the context from the college-level sources I give you as well as
those you find on your own, with CITATIONS, in your notes. Then review your notes as you plan out your Paper, choosing
the evidence from sources that best support your argument—worked when you were writing about Sophocles, right?
Remember this?
Back to close reading…but not of words this time:
Considering the play as drama…
An element of drama often overlooked by literary analysts is the visual/ kinesthetic dimension of the performance. This
requires readers to imagine the play AS A PLAY, noting the stage directions both implicit and explicit about how the actors
are positioned, move, are located on the stage, etc.
Let me model an analysis of the play’s opening -> 1.1.1-251.
Now your turn!—keep going with 1.2, 2.1…
May 13
Shakes/Soph Paper Tip O’The Day
OTHER college-level sources you might close read for info on Shakespeare:
Goldberg, Jonathan. James 1 and the Politics of Literature: Jonson, Shakespeare, Donne and Their Contemporaries.
1983—available in part, here:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=u0m7lgpVQxIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR17&dq=Shakespeare+contemporaries+liter
ature&ots=pqwfnxi1o1&sig=DCcIxa3sZU79JWHakayMj01LVA0#v=onepage&q=Shakespeare%20contemporaries%20liter
ature&f=false
http://www.sacred-texts.com/sks/flos/index.htm
Wells, Stanley & Gary Taylor. William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion. 1997 page 279 discusses “versions” of the
script of the play (including what might have been changed by the playwright:)
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8IANALtz5uQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=William+Shakespeare+politics&ots=
iWHQeInokz&sig=pLaga1G1a59lmleCEK1xP4hJq8w#v=onepage&q=William%20Shakespeare%20politics&f=false
Ready to practice some close reading of words this time?
PJA #30: Here, again, are steps to dissecting a source for use in Historical Criticism, using one of the sources I gave you
for Shakespeare:
a. In your notes, make a list of quotes capturing what Greenblatt states as fact/ interpretation about the real-world
context (audience/ playwright/ culture/ politics/ philosophy/ history/ religion/ etc) for King Lear. Cite the source as
Greenblatt qtd. in Baker and note that “Baker” refers to my online classnotes. (If you use material from him I don’t give
you, cite The New York Times Review of Books site, no “qtd. in.”)
b. Dissect the claims Greenblatt makes about the connection of the real-world context to the elements and meaning of
the play (NOT Shakespeare in general) in this form:
Context Fact/Trait
G say: Londoners were
serious dog lovers.
Dogs were treated “like
royalty.”
Connects to __ Element/Device in King
Lear…How
G cxs to King character in play who is
“scratching his ear” (2.1.50) and
“sleeping by the fire” (2.2.800) to show
that he is a good, good, good boy.
To Reveal New Meaning ___…Because…
G theorizes that King Lear is thus an
argument for the Queen to do more
wagging and less barking so that England
can be a fun place for everyone.
The ANSWERS: context, elements, meaning
I proposed [to discuss] Ben Jonson’s observation that Shakespeare was “honest, and of an open and free nature; had an
excellent fancy, brave notions, and gentle expressions.”
Jonson’s praise of Shakespeare’s imaginative and verbal powers—his fancy, his notions, and his expressions—is familiar
enough and, of course, perfectly just. But I proposed to focus for a moment on terms that seem at first more like a personality
assessment: “honest, and of an open and free nature.” That assessment, I suggested, was also and inescapably a political one
[…]
Late-sixteenth- and early-seventeenth- century England was a closed and decidedly unfree society, one in which it was
extremely dangerous to be honest in the expression of one’s innermost thoughts. Government spies carefully watched public
spaces, such as taverns and inns, and took note of what they heard. Views that ran counter to the official line of the Tudor and
Stuart state or that violated the orthodoxy of the Christian church authorities were frequently denounced and could lead to
terrible consequences. An agent of the police recorded the playwright Christopher Marlowe’s scandalously anti-Christian
opinions and filed a report, for the queen of England was also head of the church. Marlowe was eventually murdered by
members of the Elizabethan security service, though they disguised the murder as a tavern brawl. Along the way, Marlowe’s
roommate, the playwright Thomas Kyd, was questioned under torture so severe that he died shortly after.
To be honest, open, and free in such a world was a rare achievement. We could say it would have been possible, even easy, for
someone whose views of state and church happened to correspond perfectly to the official views, and it has certainly been
persuasively argued that Shakespeare’s plays often reflect what has been called the Elizabethan world-picture. They depict a
hierarchical society in which noble blood counts for a great deal, the many-headed multitude is easily swayed in irrational
directions, and respect for order and degree seems paramount.
But it is difficult then to explain quite a few moments in his work. […T]ake the scene in which King Lear, who has fallen into a
desperate and hunted state, encounters the blinded Earl of Gloucester. “A man may see how this world goes with no eyes,”
Lear says; “Look with thine ears” [5.6.2757-8]. And what, if you listen attentively, will you then “see”?
See how yond justice rails upon yond simple thief. Hark,
in thine ear. Change places and, handy-dandy, which is
the justice, which is the thief? [5.6.2759-61]
Nothing in the dominant culture of the time encouraged anyone—let alone several thousand random people crowded into the
theater—to play the thought experiment of exchanging the places of judge and criminal. No one in his right mind got up in
public and declared that the agents of the moral order lusted with the same desires for which they whipped offenders. No one
interested in a tranquil, unmolested life said that the robes and furred gowns of the rich hid the vices that showed through the
tattered clothes of the poor. Nor did anyone who wanted to remain in safety come forward and declare, as Lear does a moment
later, that “a dog’s obeyed in office” [5.6.2764].
That Shakespeare was able to articulate such thoughts in public depended in part on the fact that they are the views of a
character, and not of the author himself; in part on the fact that the character is represented as having gone mad; in part on the
fact that the play King Lear is situated in the ancient past and not in the present. Shakespeare never directly represented living
authorities or explicitly expressed his own views on contemporary arguments in state or church. He knew that, though play
scripts were read and censored and though the theater was watched, the police were infrequently called to intervene in what
appeared on stage, provided that the spectacle prudently avoided blatantly provocative reflections on current events.
May 14
SBAC Scheduling
Shakes/Soph Paper Tip O’The Day
Consider OTHER POINTS OF VIEW you might include for interpreting Shakespeare.
What’s this…ANOTHER point of view on Shakespeare?
Greenblatt admits that “it is difficult…to explain quite a few moments” in Shakespeare if the playwright is seen as “someone
whose views of state and church happened to correspond perfectly to the official views” (qtd. in Baker). Now read this
college-level source excerpt for relevant information that relates to Greenblatt:
Asquith, Clare. Shadowplay: The Hidden Beliefs and Coded Politics of William Shakespeare. 2005. Excerpts available at:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YGEHEKuDaBMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
Shakespeare was a man passionately involved in the upheavals of his day, increasingly concerned that the truth about what was
happening to his country would never be recorded. (xv)
Biographers usually dismiss the idea that the King took any personal interest in Shakepeare; yet it is scarcely credible that a man
with the intellectual vanity of James [I], who had as one of his attendants a best-selling poet and personable actor widely
acknowledged to be England’s foremost dramatist, could have resisted the temptation of sitting down with him to discuss, at the
very least, [James’] own work [….] (190)
…firmly ensconced near the centre of James’s court, Shakespeare evidently hoped to do better [at advocating for Catholic rights
than]… poet Henry Constable [who] returned to France with the dispiriting verdict that James would never tolerate Catholicism, let
alone convert [….Shakespeare] was by now expert in writing universal plays of unparalleled brilliance designed at the same time to
persuade his audience to consider his cause [… which] contain forgotten evidence of one motive behind their extraordinary writing,
an intense, single-minded determination to counter the corrupting influence of James’s new advisers and to make him listen to the
‘sounds and cries’ of his suffering subjects. As in the case of Queen Elizabeth […] they reveal that the playwright had made a
profound study of the psychology of his patron, and that he used it to challenge, flatter and arouse the monarch’s formidable
intelligence to an awareness of the damage that was being done in the royal name. (190)
Nowadays the assumption is that James was a more tolerant monarch than Elizabeth—but records of the raids, seizures
and imprisonments of the time suggest the reverse. (203)
But though James was a key target, Shakespeare had a wider audience in mind. The Elizabethan dissidents who had been
reinstated at court under James included many long-term aficionados of the hidden levels of such literature as Shakespeare’s plays,
a form of writing in which many of them were adept. (206)
PJA #31: Compose justifiable claims defining gray areas/OPVs that logically relate Greenblatt’s argument to Asquith’s
excerpt. (Careful not to simplify—see previous examples)
Remember my model from Sophocles? OPV Claim
While Mitchell-Boyaksk emphasizes medical language as “fundamental to the metaphorical systems of Sophoclean drama,” Protevi
ignores it in his focus on Sophocles’ overall “anti-clerical” position (both qtd. in Baker). However, looking closer at the figurative
dimensions of the relevant lines in Antigone and comparing their meaning to the lines of its sister confrontation in Oedipus Rex
raises questions about the strength of Protevi’s view.
May 15
Asquith’s points, like Mitchell-Boyaksk’s view of Sophocles, brings up big WT?!? questions about what we don’t know now
that the audience did know then . In trying to figure out “what ‘hidden levels of text’ Shakespeare and dissidents under
Elizabeth might be ‘adept at’ I found…
Fenty, Kathleen Doherty. “The Bard of Rome? Shakespeare and the Catholic Question” America: The National Catholic Review.
14 Sept. 2009. Web. 6 May 2015. Available at: http://americamagazine.org/node/130262
Kathleen Doherty Fenty, whose doctoral dissertation at the University of Birmingham, England, was on Shakespeare and
religion, is a research fellow at Boston College in Chestnut Hill, Mass.
Was Shakespeare a Catholic, a Protestant or an atheist? Does it matter what his faith was?
It would have mattered to Shakespeare. For in his lifetime, atheism was equated with immorality, and Catholicism in England
was equated with treason. Queen Elizabeth I had executed Edward Arden, a relative of Shakespeare’s mother, for his supposed
Catholic treachery. Religion was a matter of life or death; and Shakespeare, like everyone else, walked a precarious
denominational line.
What were the Bard’s religious beliefs? When Shakespeare died in 1616 at age 52, he was buried in Holy Trinity Church,
Stratford-upon-Avon, which would have been an impossibility for a known atheist. Yet questions about his religion arose early,
some 70 years after his death, when Richard Davies, an Anglican clergyman, wrote from local legend that the poet had “dyed a
Papyst.”
The controversy continued. In the 18th century, Samuel Johnson considered Shakespeare a brilliant but irreverent poet.
Consider the Bard’s lines: “Why, all the souls that were, were forfeit once/ And He that might the vantage best have took/
Found out the remedy.” So speaks the Franciscan novice Isabella to the cruel judge Angelo in Shakespeare’s black comedy
“Measure for Measure” (1604). Is the poetry here biblical or merely “universal” in its meaning? A century later Samuel Taylor
Coleridge found the Bard’s comedic forgiveness of the judge Angelo to be morally abhorrent. While literary critics believed
Shakespeare too “fanciful” and “rustic” to be orthodox, many popular authors noted Shakespeare’s encyclopedic use of the
Bible. In 1899, the Rev. H. S. Bowden collected the evidence in The Religion of Shakespeare, using the work of Richard Simpson
to compile his pro-Catholic compendium.
It was not until G. Wilson Knight successfully argued in The Wheel of Fire (1930) for a Christian and biblical Shakespeare that
this view was accepted by what might be called the “Shakespeare establishment.” For the first time in over 200 years, the
problem of how the poet of “fancy” could also be a serious, Bible-loving Christian was considered solved. Yet this Shakespeare
was the Protestant Shakespeare of the British Empire, not the Catholic poet of Father Bowden.
The “Catholic Shakespeare” thesis entered mainstream English criticism with E. A. J. Honigmann’s book, Shakespeare: The Lost
Years (1985). It demonstrated how a butcher’s son from Warwickshire triumphed in London through connections with an
aristocratic Catholic family in Lancashire, without implying that the Bard had a continuing allegiance to Rome. The full
development of the Catholic thesis, however, came in the seminal work of Peter Milward S.J. (Shakespeare’s Religious
Background, 1973), with further work by Ian Wilson (Shakespeare: The Evidence, 1993), which meticulously researched
Shakespeare’s literary and political ties to Catholic patrons and politics.
Despite this, the Catholic recusancy thesis—that the plays have a pro-Catholic political subtext—has never received broad
acceptance. Is this due to some lingering anti-Catholicism, or does it reflect legitimate concerns?
The answer lies in this: The theater seeks to entertain, preparing the heart and mind for reflection, while the purpose of
sermons is to preach and instruct. Drama is never a sermon. And this would apply to the portrayal of Shakespeare as a
proselytizing Protestant, papist renegade or atheist subversive. When ideology reduces a living drama to apologetics, voices of
protest will inevitably be raised.
The other problem with claiming that Shakespeare was a Catholic recusant is the historical record: He lived and died a
member of Holy Trinity Church in Stratford. Other close ties to the Reformed Church include his lodging with Huguenots when
in London, and the marriage of his daughter Susanna to a Protestant doctor, John Hall, after she was fined for being a Catholic
recusant. That record need not contradict what appears to be sympathy for Catholicism, clearly evident in his plays; but
Shakespeare also tried to present an objective approach to Rome. For example, Franciscans are depicted for their honest
vocations, although cardinals are notoriously portrayed as murderous cowards.
One possible explanation for this apparent inconsistency may lie in the fact that the English Reformation was still in progress
during Shakespeare’s lifetime. England remained Catholic in spirit and practice long after 1534, with parts of Lancashire still
practicing the “old faith” openly. It is possible that the post-Reformation Holy Trinity Church in Warwickshire was sufficiently
traditional to allow a Catholic-sympathizer like Shakespeare to participate. If the Church of England authorities knew of the
poet’s Stratford affiliation, then the fact that Shakespeare’s nonattendance at Puritan-leaning London parishes went
unpunished could be explained.
The most promising avenue for appreciating Shakespeare’s Catholicity lies not in biography but rather in the recognition of his
Catholic imagination, readily discoverable in his plays. Through metaphor, the poet enlarges the sensibilities through an
encounter with inspired meaning. Reformed theology had posited an irreparable break between the divine and the human,
whereas the Catholic imagination seeks and finds the divine in broken humanity, bridging the gap between nature and grace.
A reference to the passage “Why, all the souls…” from “Measure for Measure” demonstrates how a “Catholic” imagination
functions poetically. The speaker, Isabella, is a devout if initially self-righteous novice with the Poor Clares of Vienna. In her
first meeting with the Puritan Angelo, she pleads for the life of her brother, who is under a death sentence for impregnating his
girlfriend. Angelo argues that mercy is impossible because her brother “is a forfeit of the law.” In a Pauline argument, Isabella
asserts that all were condemned by sin (Rom 3:23) until the Son of God sacrificed his equality with God to achieve salvation for
the world (Rom 3:24-26).
Other lines of hers, less well known, follow a similar theological theme: “How would you be/ If He, which is the top of
judgment, should/ But judge you as you are? O think on that,/ And mercy then will breathe within your lips,/ Like man new
made.” The novice points out that we need to forgive others’ sin in order to have our own sins forgiven, and once achieved, the
“new man” of Christ drives out the “old Adam” of sin (Rom 5:15-21). It is untenable to call such complex religious ideas
“universal.”
This interpretation can be understood in the context of the entire play. Isabella desires to prevent the unjustified execution,
demonstrating her practical wisdom. Angelo will subsequently attempt to seduce her in exchange for freeing her brother,
making Angelo as guilty as the man he condemns. Like the brother, Angelo too will be forgiven in Act V (to the disgust of
Coleridge), as the comedic denouement delivers abundant mercy for the lost and fallen.
How does this relate to the historical circumstances? “Measure for Measure” was written in response to the Hampton Court
Conference of 1604, where the Puritans sought to have fornication made punishable by death. The end result was that the new
king, James I, kept premarital sex a noncapital crime. (Note: the 18-year-old Shakespeare impregnated Ann Hathaway in 1582,
but was restored to the Church of England by loyal friends who paid the fine that made it possible for them to marry.)
Today most academics hold the view that Shakespeare had no religion at all. This agnostic thesis became influential after the
1980s, despite the growing evidence of Shakespeare’s Catholic family background and the chaotic state of religious
identifications in England in the early 1600s.
A resolution of this debate is not to be expected soon, as writers so often look in the Shakespearean mirror and see their own
faces. Critics with no biblical training insist that Shakespeare used the Scriptures only “decoratively,” while writers with no
professional theater background claim the plays reveal a pro-papal political subtext. With the loss of familiarity with the Bible
among academicians and the demise of a theater culture that knows Shakespeare, it is possible that the dictum “What is not
understood cannot be recognized” is applicable here.
PJA #32: Read the information from sources above, then review the play and select ONE passage from it, filling in this
formula:
___ (paraphrase/quote data in source) about the British/Shakespeare’s ______ (context),
applied to ____ (explication of SPECIFIC lines of Midsummer Night’s Dream),
changes their meaning from _____ (interpretation of lines without that data)
to _____________ (historical criticism of lines with data)…
May 20
Project #8
Marjorie Garber, author of Shakespeare After All and Professor of English and Literature at Harvard, theorizes that “[a]
basic triple pattern is consistently present in Shakespeare’s plays regardless of their genre.” She argues that Shakespeare
stages his plays’ action in a sequence that migrates from
Anterior “a world of apparent reality and order, with seeds of disorder”
TO
Interior “[a] world of transformation [where] things become far more disordered”
TO
Exterior “the world of so-called reality [where characters are] armed with new knowledge and better prepared to rejoin
the ongoing world of social action.” (217)
In a well-written essay, examine how A Midsummer Night’s Dream fits Garber’s pattern and how its particular use of
setting interacts with other elements to illuminate its particular meaning. Avoid mere plot summary; avoid restating
Garber’s theory AS the meaning of the play (if you can!).
Due by the end of class tomorrow.
May 21
Project #8 to the Bowl!
Shakes/Soph Paper Tip O’The Day
Figurative Language in the Lit Devices Glossary on my website includes ways to imply,
but not say directly, what you want readers to think. Hmmm. Any chance that’s relevant
to Shakespeare?
May 26
Good news—you CAN use Garber and your analysis for Project #8 in your historical
criticism of Shakespeare for the Paper. Citation seems to be a recurring issue for
many, so let me use this as an example:
If you quoted, paraphrased or used material (like say, just the words an-, in- and
exterior) from Project #8 that relates to Garber…
 You would cite her in MLA in-text where this occurs as “(qtd. in Baker)” to indicate
you are indirectly cited a source you found in MY classnotes, authored by ME.
Include the in-text citation I gave as part of your quote [that’s “Garber…(217)”], if
you quote her.
 Your works cited would include my classnotes, in the format for citing an
academic course webpage:
Baker, Judy. “AP English 3 and ENGL &111 “AP English Literature and Composition Spring
Semester: Beyond The Five Paragraph Essay.” Everett Public Schools. H. M. Jackson
High School, 2015. Web. XX Month Year (when you accessed it).
 Since I vetted this source as college-level, you would not need to establish its
credibility in your essay. Be careful, though—other sources I have linked to I did
NOT vet as college-level, like say, Timeless Myths—many of you used these in
your Project #7s and will need to revise. Review my discussion of credible
sources!
Shakes/Soph Paper Tip O’The Day #2
Use this same in-text and works cited steps for indirectly citing any quote, paraphrase
or material.
I won’t say anything else about Garber or the Project to keep from ruining it as a
possible source for your Paper.
Bad news—you’re getting down to the wire on the Paper deadline (and there is NO
WAY you want to turn it in late—the hit to your grade is TOO BIG!).
~Good thing you’ve been keeping your commitment to reading and research, huh?~
Thanks to http://mentalfloss.com/article/12710/13-little-known-punctuation-marks-weshould-be-using for the suggestion of the ~ snark mark used above.
~On that note…~
Project #9
Yep. Your final project this semester is a collection of documentation showing your
steps of thinking through and revising your Paper—if all the required steps are there,
you get credit; some missing, incomplete—YOU NEED THIS GRADE, so be sure it’s
complete! You turn this in the day AFTER the Paper is due; this is so you can use the
materials in finalizing your Paper for its due date June 1.
Here’s the breakdown…
Item One: a complete first AND revised-and/or-final drafts of Project #7—yes, you must
go back and fix anything that made your first draft incomplete. And then, yes, I want
you to show how you improved the Sophocles section of the Paper separately (I’d
suggest, do this EARLY!). Why? Because Project #7 was your guided model for writing
the Shakespeare section independently (the better you can do Sophocles, the better
you can do Shakespeare; the worse…uh, yeah.). Use this as your guide for selfassessing the section.
Item Two: a complete reverbalization outline for Shakes/Soph Paper –this must include
a complete, revised taxonomy to match your improved Project #7.
Item Three: a complete Feedback Protocol on a draft Shakes/Soph Paper OR a
complete draft Shakes/Soph Paper with ALL elementary, middle school and high
school conventions/style issues marked and corrected on draft. Why, oh why? Some
find the focus on the ARGUMENT of the feedback protocol very helpful for improving
their grade (even if it is tedious to do…hint, hint: DO IT EARLY!); others feel like rereading their drafts to “fix” the language is what works best with their writing process
(this assumes the argument, evidence, etc works—a big warrant!). All of my students
would benefit from doing both, though I know that time may be too short for the majority
to complete both.
Reverbalization Outline
Sophocles’ OVERALL purpose(s) for writing Oedipus The King for whom, when and how he did I define as #1a,b,c. I
argue #1 is caused by #2a,b,c influential event/idea/figure/belief in Sophocles’/ Classical Athens’ context
(time/culture/life). I argue #1 is accomplished through #3a,b,c use of structural and stylistic elements (not just details!) in
the play because explicating these shows #4a,b,c added/altered/enhanced meaning(s) of the play, which diverges from
#5a,b,c meaning/ argument/ theme of the original myth and of the genre Classical Greek tragedy. THESIS
To prove my thesis is valid,
I identify the significant use(s) of #3a element, by applying the CRYPTIC/OBLIQUE of #6a/b/c class definition(s) to
analysis of #7a,b,c cited play lines as explicit and #8a,b,c cited lines as implicit evidence. BACKING
I show the effect of #3a on #4a/b/c new meaning by establishing #9a difference in the relationship of #3a to #5a/b/c in the
myth/tragedy from that of #3a to #4a/b/c. GROUND
Continues as needed: #3b element fits #6b definition, etc…[ditto above for 6-9 using b, c, etc]
I establish the relevance of #2a real-world subject(s) to the context during/ before the play’s composition with #10a,b,c
explicit and #11a,b,c implicit data from cited, credible outside source(s). BACKING
I relate #2a to #4 meaning(s) by making #12a logical connections between #2a subject(s) in the context and the use of
#3a/b/c element(s) in the play. GROUND
#2b subjects with #10b evidence, etc...[ditto above for 10-12 using b, c, etc]
I argue that #4 play’s meaning(s) achieves #1 purpose(s) by tracing #13 cause/effect relationship(s) between #12
connection(s) and #1. GROUND
AND
Shakespeare’s OVERALL purpose(s) for writing A Midsummer Night’s Dream for whom, when and how he did I define as
#14a,b,c. I argue #14 is caused by #15a,b,c influential event/idea/figure/belief in Sophocles’/Elizabethan England context
(time/culture/life). I argue #14 is accomplished through #16a,b,c use of structural and stylistic elements (not just details!)
in the play because explicating these shows #17a,b,c added/altered/enhanced meaning(s) of the play, which diverges
from #18a,b,c meaning/ argument/ theme of Shakespeare’s plays in general and of the genre Elizabethan comedy.
THESIS
To prove my thesis is valid,
I identify the significant use(s) of #16a element, by applying the CRYPTIC/OBLIQUE of #19a/b/c class definition(s) to
analysis of #20a,b,c cited play lines as explicit and #21a,b,c cited lines as implicit evidence. BACKING
I show the effect of #16a on #17a/b/c new meaning by establishing #22a difference in the relationship of #16a to #18a/b/c
in previous literature from that of #16a to #17a/b/c. GROUND
Continues as needed: #16b element fits #19b definition, etc…[ditto above using b, c, etc]
I establish the relevance of #15a real-world subject(s) to the context during/ before the play’s composition with #23a,b,c
explicit and #24a,b,c implicit data from cited, credible outside source(s). BACKING
I relate #15a to #17 meaning(s) by making #25a logical connections between #15a subject(s) in the context and the use of
#16a/b/c element(s) in the play. GROUND
#15b subjects with #23b evidence, etc...[ditto above using b, c, etc]
I argue that #17 play’s meaning(s) achieves #14 purpose(s) by tracing #26 cause/effect relationship(s) between #25
connection(s) and #14. GROUND
AND
I define significant similarity(ies) between #13 relationship of Sophocles’ context to his play’s meaning and #26
relationship of Shakespeare’s context to his play’s meaning as #27a,b,c by showing #28a,b,c pattern(s)/ specifics apply to
how historical criticism reveals ways both playwrights achieve their purposes. I define significant difference(s) between
#13 relationship for Sophocles and #26 relationship for Shakespeare as #29a,b,c by showing #30a,b,c pattern(s)/specifics
do NOT align in how historical criticism reveals ways both playwrights achieve their purposes. OVERALL PAPER THESIS
I show #28a shared specific/pattern in historical criticism reveals #13 for Sophocles in #31a,b,c way(s) because #32
logical relationship exists between interrelationships of #1, #2, #3 and #4 as a group and #28a for his play. GROUND
I show #28a shared specific/pattern in historical criticism reveals #26 for Shakespeare in #33a,b,c way(s) because
#34a,b,c logical relationship exists between interrelationships of #14, #15, #16 and #17 as a group and #28a for his play.
GROUND Continues as needed: #28b matches, etc…[ditto above for 31-34 using b, c, etc]
I show #30a divergent specific/pattern in historical criticism reveals #13 for Sophocles in #35a,b,c way(s) because #36
logical relationship exists between #1, #2, #3 and/or #4 and #30a for his play AND NOT Shakespeare’s. AND/OR
I show #30b divergent specific/pattern in historical criticism reveals #26 for Shakespeare in #37a,b,c way(s) because #38
logical relationship exists between #14, #15, #16 and/or #17 and #30b for his play AND NOT Sophocles’. GROUND
Continues as needed: #30c matches, etc…[ditto above for 35-38 using c, d, etc]
I conclude that comparing these cases to find #27 and contrasting them to find #29 implies #39a,b,c justifiable insight
about the relationship of playwrights, works and their contexts in general. #39 is not apparent in #13 or #26 alone without
#27 and #29 because #40a,b,c is an added/enhanced/altered insight about historical criticism when comparison and
contrast of these cases are done. BACKING
40 slots too scary for you? In a different iteration, the logic looks like…
(can you see an eagle?)…
Historical Criticism Situation X
Greek Golden Age Culture/History
Context
INFLUENCED
Sophocles
THROUGH
A events/ideas
TO HAVE
Purpose B
FOR ENHANCING
Myth
BY ADDING/ CHANGING
C Elements
TO CREATE
Tragedy Oedipus The King
TO COMMUNICATE
New Meaning D
Ax≈y
Bx≈y
Cx≈y
Dx≈y
Historical Criticism Situation Y
English Renaissance Culture/History
Context
INFLUENCED
Shakespeare
THROUGH
A events/ideas
“meat” is
TO HAVE
evidence for
Purpose B
these
FOR ENHANCING
bones
Stock/ Motifs/ Archetypes
BY ADDING/ CHANGING
C Elements
TO CREATE
Comedy A Midsummer Night’s Dream
TO COMMUNICATE
New Meaning D
together reveal significant
/Z\
Similarities
Differences
in how historical criticism shows
Contexts’ EFFECTS
Ax≠y
on
Playwrights’ PURPOSES
Bx≠y
CAUSE
Playwrights’ ALTERATIONS of ELEMENTS
Cx≠y
to create
Plays’ MEANINGS
Dx≠y
w
h
i
c
h
matter
w
h
y
?
…
Model Reverbalization Time-Hemingway’s overall purpose(s) for writing Soldier’s Home for whom, when and how he did I define as
forcing an acknowledgement of the new weltanschauung caused by WWI by those who wished to pretend nothing had changed so
that upcoming generations in the US and Europe would be better prepared for “the truth” of modern, post-war life.
This purpose is caused by the influence of
artistic mentors (Gertrude Stein; the modernists; other journalists), his experiences as a domestic and foreign newspaper journalist
(communicating “the truth” of “real people” to “the public”) and being a young soldier from a “conservative suburb” in the Midwest
(living firsthand the before/during/after of the European theater of war and civil war).
He accomplished his purpose in the story through
perversion of the typical plot structure, a distant narrative and authorial tone, intentional ambiguity in characterization—especially
for motivation—and biting realism, including specific references to WWI and Midwest life.
because explicating these shows
a tectonic divide exists between the assumptions about life held by those sheltered at home and the shattered vision of humanity,
progress and purpose developed by those exposed to the raw brutalities of war and its effect on “society.”
which diverges from just a story of an “unheroic” vet or a troubled young man. thesis
To prove my thesis is valid, I identify significant use(s) of plot, tone, characterization, ambiguity and realism by applying the
CRYPTIC/OBLIQUE class definition(s) to analysis of x cited passages as explicit and y cited passages as implicit
evidence. backing
I show the effect of the significant use(s) of plot, tone, characterization, ambiguity and realism on the story as representing an
assault on sheltered, conservative home-front views of unaffected “American life” through contrast with veterans’ disenchanted,
pessimistic perspective on “the aftermath” of a broken society by establishing that rather than suffering a disorder (shell shock),
returning soldiers and others “who were there” had developed a mature emotional and philosophical view of the new reality of a
society that was not the rosy ideal they had been raised to believe it would be. ground
I establish the relevance of Hemingway’s stint at the KansasCity Star, his interactions with modernist expatriates in Europe, his
experiences as a soldier and Red Cross ambulance driver and his foreign correspondent position with the Toronto Star using z
explicit and implicit data from cited, credible outside source(s) A, B and C. backing
I relate these contextual data to the contrast of home and veteran views in the story by
aligning facts of modernist beliefs, brutal, inhumane events he experienced and reported on and his interaction with own
community’s and the wider national conservativism to the characters’ philosophical and moral traits, the interpersonal conflicts and
the role of environment in dynamism or statism of characters and the realism of the style. ground
I argue that the contrast in the story achieves Hemingway’s purpose of “getting the word out” about reality through the
combination of plausible, familiar components of home life and a representative existential challenge to these through the main
character. ground
Now how do you take a complete taxonomy and make it into a decent essay?…
Good news! Remember that AP default explication outline? The body of explication is the basic formula for the parts of
your Paper which is analysis of the play’s meaning. [See, something you know already!] You do NOT have to analyze all 8
elements—just those necessary for proving your paper’s thesis (hint: your argument should include structural AND stylistic
ones, or else you’re probably oversimplifying the overall meaning and/or the connection to the context).
But wait; there’s more…
Your Paper requires you to synthesize each play explication with a cause/ effect argument connecting the evidence and
claims of the explication to outside source evidence. Eeek! That’s a lot to cover to be cogent. Here is how it goes…
Warrants of Paper Prompt:
In a variety of real life examples, is it reasonable to assume we will find significant (rather than random) similarities and differences
in the connections between WHERE, WHEN, FOR WHOM, WHY, WHAT and HOW writers write?
YES… but…why do we accept this as “given” for the prompt?...
…because historical criticism argues that all playwrights—in fact, all authors…all artists—are influenced by their cultures and time
periods to compose in a relevant way about a relevant subject through the established elements and conventions for their chosen
genre. In fact, the fundamental assumption of such criticism is that this is the only way it is possible for any contemporary audience
to “get” what artists have to say/show. The prompt is historical criticism. (outcome 1)
OK…but…why does it matter that we are testing it with these particular works?...
…because human cultures, time periods and art by definition share significant commonalities yet represent significant diversity, too,
analyzing well-known works through historical criticism should show how even “famous” works of art have specific historical,
cultural, religious and other aspects of real life context embedded in them and that to interpret them fully/accurately, these aspects
need to be taken into consideration by “outsiders” to their original context.
And this particular proof matters beyond these works, why?...
…because the more varied and complex the historical criticism cases we study, the deeper our understanding of our own and others’
art, culture and time periods becomes. Two very diverse “cases” should reveal common and diverse patterns between cultures, time
periods and art that would not be apparent from a narrower study. By combining (through comparison and contrast) varied
historical criticism cases, we can learn things about the way we study our and other art, culture and time periods, that we could not
see in a single case or set of cases. This is the definition of synthesis, and the prompt is a synthesis essay. (outcome 2)
Claims, Backing and Grounds for the Paper Prompt:
Your two cases prove the same claim: different playwrights from different contexts achieved specific purposes by creating specific
meanings within their different plays, and those plays cannot be understood accurately/completely unless an outsider re-connects
their contexts’ influences to elements inside the play and to their plays’ effects on their contemporary audience’s understanding of
the subjects (historical criticism default claim). Your synthesis proves a different claim: analysis of these cases shows that historical
criticism itself works differently and similarly when studying very different contexts and works. The greater the complexity you
include in the backing and grounds of your historical criticism of the plays and contexts, the more diversity in historical criticism as a
process you make apparent.
Evidence and Analysis for the Paper Prompt:
Don’t forget the importance of selecting evidence that is both implicit and explicit from credible, college-level sources to prove
warrants and claims. Anything you claim that is related to historical criticism or synthesis MUST be supported—you can’t just SAY
that there is cause/effect, you have to back it up with precisely articulated data and analysis that explains how the data shows
you’re right: that’s argumentation. (outcome 3)
So, then…
Default Thesis for Prompt:
The connection of context to purpose to elements to meaning in Sophocles’ tragedy Oedipus the King and the connection of context
to purpose to elements to meaning in Shakespeare’s comedy A Midsummer Night’s Dream is made through historical criticism.
There are shared and divergent characteristics of the process for making these connections between WHERE, WHEN, FOR WHOM,
WHY, WHAT and HOW they wrote.
And if we’re right, so what…
Warrants of Argument:
If the above is proven true, similarities and differences in historical criticism of two different, complex plays will point to what’s likely
to be true/significant in general about interpreting plays as artifacts versus what’s exclusive to individual playwrights, their contexts,
plays and audiences (even ours!). This will allow us to draw implications about what should be done next in literary analysis or other
field(s) relevant to historical criticism (conclusion).
Feedback Protocol for the Paper
Read draft completely, without commenting.
1. Identify and Toulmin analyze the overall thesis in the margin; put “yes” if it includes all requirements of the prompt;
“no” if it doesn’t—the default is
The similarities and differences in how α in the real-world contexts of Sophocles and Shakespeare relates to βin the plays
Oedipus The King and A Midsummer Night’s Dream and affects γ meaning/purpose/theme of the plays are δ.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
For each paragraph (even intro and conclusion), underline the topic sentence (point).
Draw a box around each piece of evidence for points, backing and/or grounds.
Put a star (*) at the start and end of each analysis connecting the evidence to a point, backing and/or grounds.
Draw a checkmark () in the margin next to commentary on a point (implications).
List on back/separate sheet:
a. Paraphrase the historical criticism default claim for Sophocles discussed in the paper.
b. Paraphrase the historical criticism default claim for Shakespeare discussed in the paper.
c. Paraphrase the comparison of cases claim discussed in the paper.
d. Paraphrase the contrast of cases claim discussed in the paper.
e. Paraphrase the OPV claim(s) discussed in the paper.
Example “yes” thesis:
Shakespeare’s anger over UW’s loss in the NCAA tournament in the real world [α] gets translated into changes to the
archetypes of heroine characterization and tone in his play [β], which effectively teaches the audience that failing to act
against injustice is complicity in injustice [γ]. This case is similar [δ] in form to Sophocles’ emphasis on hierarchical power
structures in his parallel plots and characters [β] to advocate for land use regulation in Snohomish County [α] by
presenting the dangers of abuse of individual freedom for societal stability [γ]. A major difference [δ] in these two social
commentary cases is in the role of the political stances of the two playwrights toward their subjects: historical criticism
reveals that Shakespeare is promoting the power of the people to improve society while Sophocles is arguing against it in
his work.
7. Review evidence boxed and list on back/separate sheet:
a. The specific subject(s) of the historical criticism, comparison, contrast or OPV claim discussed by each piece
of evidence. Put “=<subject>” if the evidence’s subject(s) matches the point of the paragraph; “≠” where
subject(s) do not match point.
8. Evaluate the evidence boxed in each paragraph, then note in the margin as follows:
a. “E” where evidence is sufficient to show that backing and/or grounds of the point are valid
b. “EM” if evidence is completely missing to support backing and/or grounds.
c. “EI” where evidence is irrelevant/unrelated to backing and/or grounds.
d. “EA” where additional/expanded evidence is needed for backing and/or grounds to be proven.
Missing means NO case/example, expert testimony or not-C is attempted. (Don’t mix up claims with evidence—if one/more
of the 3 categories of evidence isn’t offered, evidence is missing.)
Irrelevant means evidence concerns subject(s)/connections outside of the point.
Additional means evidence does not cover the backing and grounds sufficiently (it leaves out something critical to
supporting the point).
9. Evaluate the analysis starred* in each paragraph, then note in the margin as follows:
a. “A” where analysis is sufficient and accurate (justifies that the evidence proves the point’s critical backing and
grounds)
b. “AM” where necessary analysis is missing to justify some/all evidence
c. “AI” where analysis is irrelevant or unrelated to the evidence and/or point’s backing and/or grounds
d. “AU” where analysis is misused to explain how the evidence supports the point
e. “AA” where additional/different analysis is needed for the evidence to be justified.
Missing means NO analysis explaining what evidence shows is true about the point is attempted. (Ex: analysis only
restates what evidence says.)
Irrelevant means analysis concerns subject(s)/truth other than what is covered by the evidence or makes claims that are
not covered by the evidence.
Misused means analysis states the evidence claims something is true which it does NOT—mendacious!.
Additional means analysis does not cover the evidence and/or the point’s backing and grounds sufficiently (it leaves out
something critical to justifying how the evidence proves the point).
10. Evaluate implications (commentary) ’d in each paragraph. Record the following in the margin:
a. “C” where commentary logically represents implications of the point proven (in body paragraphs, related to
thesis)
b. “CM” where any attempt at commentary is missing
c. “CI” where there is irrelevant commentary about the thesis (goes off track)
d. “CU” for where commentary misrepresents the thesis proven (goes too far)
e. “CA” for where commentary ignores obvious logical implications of the point (skips over).
Missing means NO commentary drawing implications about why the point proven is significant. (Remember restating
thesis or offering an opinion is NOT commentary.)
Irrelevant means commentary concerns subject(s) other than what is proven by the point.
Misused means commentary states there are logical implications of the point which are not justified by the evidence and
analysis of the point proven—mendacious!
Additional means commentary does not cover plausible, direct implications of the point proven (it leaves out something
obvious or critical).
11. Review the topic sentences. Record the following in the margin:
a. “P” point matches significant backing and/or grounds of historical criticism, comparison, contrast or OPV (body
paragraphs), general claim of origin/significance of paper topic (intro) or implications of proof (conclusion)
b. “PI” for points irrelevant or unrelated to the argument
c. “PR” for points that are redundant or repetitive in the argument
d. “PU” for points that are disordered or illogically placed for the reader’s understanding of the argument
e. “PA” if any additional points are necessary for the argument to be complete—put “missing” intro claim, backing,
grounds comparison, contrast or implication claim.
Irrelevant means points are off-track of the logic of the thesis. OPV topic sentence should state a different view of or gray
area in the same argument to be relevant
Redundant means points argue identical or similar claims as previous points.
Disordered means points are out of sequence for proof of thesis.
Additional means new points are necessary to prove thesis and/or have a complete argument (with into and conclusion).
12. FIX everything that you agree isn’t  as revision of the draft.
Still stumped about what you’re being asked to do for the Paper? How about this analogous model…?
Hospital Criticism: Two Surgeries, One Big Lesson Learned
I performed two almost identical emergency amputations, one at Virginia Mason and one at Community Clinic of Athens (Georgia).
Looking at these together reveals important things about how to improve outcomes for amputation patients.
Both surgery patients had “crush” injuries to major arteries in one extremity; both were healthy and fit prior to injury. That is, the
general profile of the patients and indicators for the particular emergency surgical intervention was the same, and in compliance
with the best practices of the AMA.
VM patient was a 25-year-old female, injured in a ski accident and exposed to hypothermia-inducing cold in addition to contusions,
broken bones and hemorrhaging when she presented. CCA patient was a 40-year-old male, injured in an on-the-job (construction)
task and lacking additional treatment concerns beyond related broken bones when he presented.
VM’s distance from the accident site had caused a 9 hour lag between triage and onset of surgery. CCA’s triage-to-surgery time was
less than 45 minutes, due to the proximity of the hospital and the availability of highly-trained emergency personnel.
Both patients, after 6 weeks, show moderate to good partial limb mobility, full skin healing at amputation site and no side effects
from surgery, anesthesia or antibiotic regimens applied. However, VM’s increase in muscle mass, red blood count and circulation
volume and rate was nearly twice as much as CCA’s.
The similarity in these cases’ profile and treatment plan and their relationship to the patients’ recovery indicate that the emergency
amputation surgery performed is, as is widely held, a viable, effective intervention for “crush” injuries for noncompromised patients
in the first 24 hours after injury. However, the difference in rehabilitation progress suggests that there are factors outside of the
intervention that need to be better addressed. My analysis of the patient records points to three significant areas to examine with
further research to determine impact on outcomes and best practices:
o Quality and availability of pre-surgery emergency interventions and post-surgery physical therapy
o Patient goals—and by extension patient engagement— and how these align with the “typical” prescribed exercise, diet,
pharmaceutical and other regimens, benchmarks and other progress monitoring after surgery
o Patient perceptions of post-amputation quality of life and their capacity for adjustment (including limitations regarding
income, work skills, family responsibilities, area of residence, etc).
First, the full case study for VM…
Pick up them Project 8s.
June 1
Project #9s to the Bowl!
Item One: a complete first AND revised-and/or-final drafts of Project #7—yes, you must go back and fix anything that made
your first draft incomplete. And then, yes, I want you to show how you improved the Sophocles section of the Paper
separately (I’d suggest, do this EARLY!). Why? Because Project #7 was your guided model for writing the Shakespeare
section independently (the better you can do Sophocles, the better you can do Shakespeare; the worse…uh, yeah.). Use
this as your guide for self-assessing the section.
Item Two: a complete reverbalization outline for Shakes/Soph Paper –this must include a complete, revised taxonomy to
match your improved Project #7.
Item Three: a complete Feedback Protocol on a draft Shakes/Soph Paper OR a complete draft Shakes/Soph Paper with
ALL elementary, middle school and high school conventions/style issues marked and corrected on draft. Why, oh why?
Some find the focus on the ARGUMENT of the feedback protocol very helpful for improving their grade (even if it is
tedious to do…hint, hint: DO IT EARLY!); others feel like re-reading their drafts to “fix” the language is what works best with
their writing process (this assumes the argument, evidence, etc works—a big warrant!). All of my students would benefit
from doing both, though I know that time may be too short for the majority to complete both.
What’s next?
I will be entering all the missing and incomplete Shakespeare/Sophocles Papers ASAP. Double, triple, quadruple check
your online grades to be sure your paper was submitted (every year someone ignores this and then tells me it’s not fair to
count their paper as late!).
I’ll be grading like mad (warning: grumpy teacher alert!).
You will be preparing for…
The final exam…you know, that single AP-like essay question on a play you prepare entirely without my help…that counts
for 25% of your grade?
…on Hwang’s M. Butterfly…
Let’s see if this practice test helps bring your task into focus:
Choose the selection below that best completes this statement:
“Previous years’ AP Literature students’ class grades
have been most negatively affected by _________.”
a. demonstrated lack of preparation for the final exam
b. Mrs. Baker
c. overextending themselves to improve college-level analysis and composition skills and knowledge
d. self-esteem
How do you buck this trend? Well, I hate to be repetitive, but…
FIRST, commit to READING. Make yourself close read the words of the play—don’t skim or just look for the “gist” of the
story!—and force yourself to interpret it as you go along through explication of the text (without outside guides for
understanding the play)—identify WT?!?s that come up in the process.
THEN, commit to THINKING INDEPENDENTLY (instead of just finding someone else’s answers). Frame RESEARCH
QUESTIONS for what you need to fill in about the context, playwright, subjects and audience in order to accurately
understand its purpose (the most complex level of meaning for AP). Seek out college level sources that provide
information you need about this info and NOT ABOUT HOW TO INTERPRET THE PLAY.
Again, since YOU have to demonstrate analysis on-demand for the final, YOU need to be able to back up
meanings/interpretations. If you try to use someone else’s theory, you’re less likely to be able to do it well. Really.
Your final exam will NOT ask for historical criticism or synthesis—these levels of analysis and argument are TOO
RIGOROUS for an on-demand prompt in a first year college course. Instead, you are preparing Hwang for an on-demand
essay prompt asking for analysis of the text at the highest level. You MAY want to research the context and what collegelevel experts can tell you about the playwright, etc.
Classwork: READ Hwang.
On Friday, I will give you a previous final exam prompt with which to check your progress.
June 5
PJA #33: Compose a complete response to this mock-final examination:
Irony is the primary concept AP and other college-level analysts identify as critical for understanding complex literature,
because irony leads to new, enhanced or altered meanings of a text only recognized by those who can identify and
interpret its effects. In a well-organized essay, argue how irony is employed by Hwang to add depth or richness to his
play’s overall meaning, not just to a particular passage. You may wish to discuss how dramatic techniques,
characterization and/or plot structure embody irony. Avoid mere plot summary.
Submit to the Bowl by the end of the period.
June 9
Pick up PJA #33s.
PJA #34: Have a partner or by yourself use the following levels rubric to determine the strengths and weaknesses of your
response in each outcome, paying close attention to the precise definitions of irony and the element(s) you discussed.
Then, revisit the skills list to identify what you need to focus on most/least.
Red is reading (outcome 1); blue is argument (outcome 2); green is articulation (outcome 3)—and are considered in that
order for scoring:
X (inc). fundamental misreading or missing/incomplete/misapplication of meaning of key elements, text/evidence or overall
work(s); missing evidence; claims identify/summarize rather than analyze; no cause/effect between evidence, elements
and meaning of work; pattern of mistakes shows below high school level use of syntax/grammar (especially
fragments/runons, verb/subject agreement; no organized paragraph structure); word use may be unclear or imprecise
enough to affect reader’s understanding.
A. states only explicit basic form/meaning of elements, text/evidence and work(s) accurately; lacks implicit
evidence/analysis necessary for explication; limited to supporting only basic form/meaning of element/text/work or only
one/general alignment of evidence/element to work’s meaning; clear but imprecise and/or repetitive wording for basic
components of the prompt/text (copies words/phrases instead of elaborating/expanding on); word choice, sentence
structure and sequencing of ideas is logical but overall informal, formulaic or inconsistent.
B. critical implicit/oblique form/meaning of elements, text/evidence and work(s) accurately applied; explication of
several/complex aspects of elements/text logically relates to stated overall meaning; clear and detailed articulation for the
components of the prompt and text; accurate, formal and consistent wording, sentence structure and sequencing
representing at least high school level skill; organization departs from formula yet is mostly cohesive; accurate and varied
word choice and complex syntax/grammar; includes some connotation/ denotation beyond what it explicit in text/prompt.
C. all salient implicit/oblique components of elements, text/evidence and work(s) interpreted; implicit and explicit evidence
explicated effectively to support reasoning for how significant evidence and relevant elements enhance/alter overall
meaning; focused, cohesive and organic articulation representing a detailed dissection of the prompt and text using
precise and complex wording and sentence structure and integrating connotation and denotation beyond the high school
level.
June 10
Study Tool
Fill in the boxes below to consolidate all of your preparation for analyzing drama this semester—try thinking of it as “if I had
to analyze [X component] for the final on this play, I’d say WHAT?” By comparing/contrasting several plays, you can
capitalize on previous work you’ve done and even see possibilities in plays you hadn’t caught before ($@!% synthesis!).
Component:
1. Setting/environment effect on
theme
2. Conflict/complications effect on
theme
3. Climax/conclusion effect on theme
4. Traits/roles of characters effect on
theme
Hwang
Shakespeare
Sophocles
5. Personae of characters effect on
theme
6. Narration/dramatic techniques
effect on audience/purpose
7. Style (broad) effect on
audience/purpose
8. Devices (wording and structure)
effect on audience/purpose
9. Tone relation to
purpose/theme/audience
10. Theme/Purpose relation to
context/ audience
Self-Check: Really want to prepare yourself? For at least two structural (1-5) elements for Hwang, analyze a figurative use
of the element and identify 3 pieces of evidence linking it to a complex theme.
June 11
Self-Check: Another practice final prompt?
Ms. Baker views narrative as a category of literature that is “packaged lessons teaching their audience about the real
world in a creative and accessible way.” A critical warrant of this assertion is that a story’s author manipulates literary
elements to make meaningful connections between his/her work and the world of the intended audience. In the history of
drama, different periods and cultures have employed a range of means to connect literature to the audience and context.
Twentieth-century American playwrights notably used a mix of seemingly incompatible strategies to make their messages
both recognizable and relevant to their audiences.
In a well-organized essay, analyze how Hwang employs both Realistic and figurative techniques to communicate his
play’s meaning. You may wish to discuss how aspects such as dramatic elements, story structure and tone contribute to
the audience’s understanding of his “lesson about the real world.” Avoid mere plot summary.