timed writing: a special torture

Hooray, no response paper this week! In fact, today was supposed to be dedicated to the second installment of the new party game Homophone Feud that we started yesterday. The problem is, I lost my voice, and, stupidly, in the classroom I have no way of communicating my thoughts and feelings in any other way than my voice. So, here you are, back in the writing lab, sitting in front of the computer.

I have an idea! Let’s practice, just one more time, the kind of 5-paragraph, timed writing you’re all going to be asked to produce for a high stakes state test this month. Although this type of writing does cause most people severe posterior pain (I blame sciatica, personally), the good thing about it is that it’s short. The response papers we’ve been working on in this class take days, sometimes even weeks to complete. A timed writing is done in minutes, and then you hand it in for a score–no feedback, no revisions. In the immortal words of Homer (Simpson): Done, and done!

Here are some tips. If you do these things, you’ll pass the test every time:

• Before you write, decide what your opinion is and simply state it. (The prompts on these tests will always ask you to express an opinion.)
• Once you’ve stated an opinion, think of 2 or 3 solid pieces of evidence to back up your opinion, as well as examples of real-life situations that show your evidence is relevant.
• Write 4-5 paragraphs: First, an engaging and interesting introduction that states your opinion. Then, one paragraph for each piece of evidence (up to 3). And finally, a conclusion that sums up the big ideas.
• In your “evidence” paragraphs, focus like a laser beam on only that one piece of evidence. Don’t combine two evidences into one paragraph. Don’t spread your discussion of one piece of evidence into more than one paragraph. This isn’t sophisticated writing–keep it simple!
• Consider your audience and write with the appropriate tone. In general, here’s your audience:

Here’s today’s prompt:

The principal and school board are trying to decide whether or not to change to a 4-day school week. Classes would last 90 minutes each day, Monday-Thursday; students would attend school from 8:30-4:30. Write to the principal, school board, and parents expressing your opinion about whether or not this is a good idea. Use specific evidence and examples to support your opinion.

Again, you don’t have to change the world with this writing–you just have to make a logical, organized argument, and then be done with it. Keep it simple! Look at the picture above and think about what that guy (yes, I know it’s Barry Goldwater) would want to hear, and what kind of language and examples he would best understand.

You have the whole class period to complete and print your essay. After you hand it in to me, take some time to update your blogs, revise any papers you haven’t revised yet, and generally make sure you’re up to date on everything in the class so far.

Happy 5-paragraphin’!

MT

it’s braining rains (response paper #7)

The ocean is a huge thing full of the crap we call fish. Every once in a while, a lucky fisherperson drops a line into the middle of that crap and pulls out a sushi-grade tuna. Your job this week has been to brainstorm an ocean full of crappy ideas, drop in the line of reflection, and hopefully snag just one tuna to write about for response paper #7.

Why the talk of tuna? First of all, why nottalk about tuna, haterz? Second of all, this week’s response paper is quite different from everything we’ve done so far, and getting students to understand that difference has required me to develop some extreme metaphors.

How is this week’s writing different? It is, shall we say, “real-er” than what we’ve done in weeks past. The past 6 papers, to one extent or another, have been written by me, your well-meaning teacher, before you even knew they existed. I brainstormed topics, I considered who your audience would be, and I even imagined an effective structure you might follow in outlining your paper. Essentially, you, the hardworking students, have only been writing half the paper each week. What a bunch of lazy bums! I have half a mind to fire you and hire new students! How would you like that, huh, punks?

Anyway.

This kind of two-person process has its advantages and drawbacks. For one thing, it lets me, the teacher, custom tailor writing assignments to specifically address certain issues I want you to focus on and practice. On the down-side, it makes you think that all writing is about pleasing a teacher by writing when, how, about what, and to whom they tell you. That is messed up, I admit it, but somewhat necessary. I have to show that you have mastered (or at least attempted) certain isolated skills that you’ll be tested on eventually. My teaching will be judged, in part, on those test scores and if the scores are bad, I better be able to show that at least I taught what I was supposed to.

But we’ve done enough of that for now. Real writers write when they have an audience and a purpose. While deadlines, paychecks, and grades can all help light the urgent fire of burning inspiration under the writer, the fact remains that no good writing can be produced without the writer having something of personal interest to say, to someone specific, for some specific reason.

Thus, the REAL writing process–the process of figuring out what you want to write, and to whom, begins with trying to figure out what your brain is thinking about, or, in other words, brainstorming. We did three specific ’storms this week. If you missed any class, you can do these in the comfort of your own home, as follows:

• The “linear, left-brained” brainstorm: This is just a list, usually moving from top to bottom of the page, of anything and everything that comes to mind. In class, we spent 8 minutes listing, and I challenged students to come up with 50-100 items in that time. Usually, what ends up on the list are words and short phrases (often in “code” which only the writer understands, which is fine) , and usually one item on the list leads to the next, in what we call a “linear” organization. This “linear-ness” is what makes this more of a left-brained activity, although, admittedly, both sides of the brain are involved in any brain-storm.
• The “non-linear, right-brained map”: For those of you right-brainiacs out there, next we tried another method: a map. This is the thing you often see in English class where you draw bubbles and connect the bubbles with lines to show relationships between ideas. Ideas can and usually do show up with multiple connections to other ideas, and, just like a popular or useful website that has a vast array of links to other sites, the most useful and popular ideas in your head will also be heavily “linked.” This is a way of getting those links to show up on paper, and thus discover what you might want to write about. In class, I encouraged students to expand ideas with bubbles that included not just other generic “ideas,” but specific examples and details about those examples to illustrate the big ideas. Often, a chain of bubbles that appears to have fizzled out gets invigorated by a specific example that suddenly creates connections with many other ideas around the “map,” and hey, presto, you figure out a theme you want to write about.
• The “audience+purpose” map: This is the big one–the brainstorm to end all brainstorms. I mentioned above, and I’ll reiterate it here, that the most important thing to figure out before you write (more important than “topic”? yes, actually, I think so) is who you are going to write to, and why. This question deserves its own ’storm, so we made another bubble map. For another magical 8 minutes, students made bubbly-maps of all the various audiences and sub-audiences (audience: kids; sub-audience: kids who like to pick their noses) they would like to write to. Connected to audience bubbles, students attached “purpose” bubbles with reasons why this particular group should be interested to read what they are writing–to say how this audience would benefit specifically. For example, if I want kids who pick their noses to read what I write, reasons they should read it might include the following: I don’t want them to think they’re the only ones who pick; I want them to know they can control their nose-picking if they want to; I want them to understand that nose-picking is a choice; I want them to take responsibility for their choices and take control of their lives; etc. You can see that these “why” bubbles can extend forever, and the more you extend them, the more focused and unique your ideas for writing become. That’s why I think this is the most important of the ’storms. Don’t skip it!

After each of those brainstorms, we did some analysis of what we had written by circling anything we found surprising, or ideas we had more questions about, and connecting multiple “circled” ideas into chains if they related in any way. If you have three interesting ideas on a paper that all have some sort of connection, it looks to me like you’ve got yourself a topic for writing.

Okay, now you’ve brainstormed and you’re ready to write.

It’s Thursday today and you’re probably sitting in the computer lab getting ready to write a draft. Once you have a basic idea about your topic, your audience, and your purpose, you can begin.

The draft you write today is experimental. The main goal is to get the whole thing on paper–some kind of introduction, some main points that contribute to some overall subject, and some sort of conclusion. You might throw out all the writing tomorrow but keep some of the ideas, or you might keep most of the writing and tweak the overall focus. The point is, you will never, in a million years, print out and hand in what you write today. That’s a good thing–that means you’re FREE to write however you please, as long as you get the thing down on paper.

Over the next few days, you can take today’s experimental draft and work it into a real first draft for me to review next week. So today, be free, try to figure out exactly who you’re talking to, what you want to tell them, and in what “voice.”

Finally, here’s the actual writing assignment:

Write a 1-2 page essay, letter, story, rant, whatever, on any topic of your choice, to any audience of your choice. Focus the writing on one particular audience, topic, and purpose. Organize the piece to enhance the message. (All papers should include some sort of introduction, organized body paragraphs, and conclusion). Choose the writing “voice” appropriate to your audience. Make sentences flow and use correct grammar and spelling to the best of your ability.

That’s it. Don’t know what to write about? Look into your brain, figure out who you want to say it to, then just start! Whatever you come up with today will be raw materials for you to shape into something tomorrow and over the weekend.

Remember, there’s a whole sea of crappy ideas out there, but somewhere, swimming among all those half-baked, turd-like notions, is one delicious response-paper tuna.

MT

Carter’s question

So, before class today a student comes to me and asks if I know of any other books he could read that are “like Catcher.” So I asked what it was about Catcher that he liked, and he said something to the effect of “it’s realistic, and dark, and funny” or something like that.

Well, for someone with a memory like mine, that is a hard task. I’ve consumed a lot of media in my life, of all sorts, and I generally incorporate parts of these books, movies, music, and games into my brain, but rarely catalogue them by title or genre or author, or even into lists of preferred over non-preferred. They just go into the mix. Every once in a while I’m shocked or delighted to recognize an idea that I thought was my own while accidentally re-reading/viewing/listening to something I thought I had never seen before.

But in the past few years, I’ve become a cyborg. Since my organic brain can’t keep up with it all, now I use the internet as my memory database for that kind of information. For books, in particular, I use some resources on Amazon to supplement my own incomplete memory. The Catcher in the Rye page on Amazon has a lot of interesting connections to other books, particularly if you look at what other customers bought (mostly other high school “classics,” but a lot of good stuff, to be sure), as well as the Listmania lists at the very bottom of the page. One of the Listmania lists I liked in particular is this one: link. It’s got a great mix of edgy modern books, some classics, some easy reads, some tough (Lolita!), and books by and about women as well as men. (It could use a stronger African American and Latino contribution, but they got Zora Neale on there, which is worth plenty.)

Are these books like Catcher? Only in the sense that someone who liked Catcher–the tone, the subject matter, the reading level, whatever–liked these, too. Actually, the best thing about this list is how different these books all are–you might find yourself reading and interested in something that you never thought you would like, and then, hey presto, you’ve got a new “type” of book to start branching out from. While the connections between the books in these lists might not be immediately apparent, it’s a reasonable bet that if you liked Catcher, you’ll find something here to be interested in.

Anyway, whenever you like a particular book this is a good tool to spin off other titles that “people like you” like. (And yes, Carter, I am saying “people like you” with a sour look on my face.)

MT

bonjour, mon petit 9th graders, write this: (response #6)

I have often said in class that Odysseus is the James Bond of the ancient Greek world. I believe I stole this idea from Berkely professor Hubert Dreyfuss, who is kind enough to educate me each summer via free podcasts of his philosophy courses. But it’s a great analogy–Odysseus is a cross-world traveler, he fits in everywhere he goes, women and goddesses find him irresistible, and, although his emotional outbursts can get him into trouble, he is “never at a loss” when it comes to extracting himself from sticky situations.

Well, today, you’re all going to be the James and Jamette Bonds of writing: Like the British superspy, you’re going to be dropped into a sticky situation that you’re going to have to adapt to, and improvise your way out. Also, like Odysseus, you’re going to have to do it on someone else’s turf, finding a way to somehow not only fit it, but totally seduce the native occupants. Here’s the assignment:

Response paper #6

Log on to a writing lab computer and open a word-processing document. Double-space it, and put the usual information at the top (your name, teacher name, class name, due date [1/21/08]). On the next line, write and center the word “Title.” On the next line, left-justify, hit tab, change the font to “Arial,” and then stop.

Stand up and look around for another person standing by their computer. Trade places. Now you’re ready to write part 1, as explained below. When you finish part 1, go back to your own computer, change the font back to Times New Roman, and write part 2. You must use and build upon what the previous person wrote, although you may add to what they wrote, or edit it for proper grammar, spelling, etc.

What to write:

In the narrative mode (where you write about sequences of events that introduce a situation and character, build to a climax, and then resolve), create your own mini-epic. Remember, an epic is a story of a hero with the following elements:

1.

• An epic hero with some sort of extraordinary abilities, talents, or power
• A quest (a journey with a purpose)

2.

• The hero is tested for their own worthiness, and the worthiness of the journey (is what their fighting for really worth fighting for?)
• The hero is often helped by companions, human or otherwise, often supernatural
• The hero travels to the supernatural world
• The hero reaches a low point when their success and survival is in serious doubt
• The hero somehow survives and is “resurrected,” better, stronger, even more handsome/beautiful than they were before, into their own world.

For part 1, which you will write on someone else’s computer, introduce the hero, the setting, and the quest. Put your name in parentheses at the end of the section you write.

For part 2, complete the narrative of the epic hero’s journey. Maintain and enhance the hero the first writer created. Keep to the same tone and style of the first writer. Try to get into their head and figure out where they were going with the story, then take us there…

It goes without saying that when you are writing on someone else’s paper, you should respect them by not putting in anything offensive or naughty, and that if you do, not only will I fail you on this assignment, but you are kind of a bad person. Or at least a person with bad judgment–like many tragic heroes, which we haven’t been discussing this week, so don’t do it.

Happy travels.

MT

daytrip to the land of the dead

This week we’ve been delving deep into the stories of Odysseus’ trials on his way home from the Trojan war. We read about his little tiff with the cyclops, his tense encounter with Circe (and ensuing year of easy living), and Odysseus’ trip to the land of the dead.

That last episode turned out to be especially interesting yesterday. I did the usual English class thing and had students write for a few minutes at the beginning of class after I described the prompt:

Imagine yourself about 80 years in the future, lying in bed, surrounded by loving friends and family, having done everything you ever dreamed of in life, your heartbeat growing slower and weaker, approaching its final quiver. With sweet memories and an overwhelming sense of complete contentment, you expire your final breath and close your eyes. You are dead.

An instant later, you snap into a new kind of awareness. You open your eyes (or your mind’s eye) and behold…the land of the dead.In the descriptive mode (appealing to the 5 senses of the reader) describe what you see and experience there. Explain what you think about it and what you do once you get there.

Now, the Greeks had a pretty darned specific idea about the land of the dead, including where it was on the map. Most of the students’ ideas veered more into the metaphysical (it wasn’t an actual, physical “land,” but more of a metaphysical state of awareness or something). Interestingly, no student suggested that some sort of “land of the dead” doesn’t exist–that is, that to be dead is to not exist. I proposed the idea once or twice, but nobody liked it. And that’s good, because neither did the Greeks.

As I held these discussions throughout the day, one of the most interesting momentsoccurred when one student gave an extreme version of the “punishment” model of the afterlife, where elaborate tortures are devised by some mysterious overseer to exact retribution from common sinners. I couldn’t resist illustrating his comments by projecting a Hieronymous Bosch painting on the screen to show to what extent others have elaborated on that view. I labeled that version of events one extreme “religious” view–making clear that most religions don’t see things this way, but most people who DO see it this way are drawing certain religious ideas to an extreme.

But things got more interesting when the next student gave his version of the “land of the dead” from what I called the extreme “science” perspective. In his version, the energy of the life escapes the body in the moment of death and begins to accelerate away from the body, expanding as its momentum approaches, and then exceeds, the speed of light, as Einstein’s theories predicted. Eventually, this life energy would expand to fill all space, contacting, then enveloping and being enveloped by all the other life energies of all once-living things that are going through the same process. Several class members noted that this “extreme science-y” view of things seemed just as metaphysical as most of the class’ “extreme religious” views. Another student punctuated this thought with his sudden realization that, for all the attention paid to the little ball of “stuff” that was the seed of the big bang, no attention is ever paid to the nothing that surrounded it. What is that nothing? How can “nothing” exist right next to the “everything” that is the little ball of stuff? It seems that this kind of science still requires the leaps of imagination, and, dare I say, faith usually required by religion.

These kinds of troubling questions, which appear at the junction between religion and science, are exactly why most of the peoples of the earth have employed myth. I’ve explored some of the powerful aspects of myth on this site before, so for now, let’s just realize that  the Greeks took stories like The Odyssey  very seriously. Did they believe that this stuff literally happened? I don’t know if that even occurred to them. The point was, the stories helped them define their worldview and their ideas about the way of living right.

In our class yesterday, where we spun off stories of the land of the dead based on our own internal databanks of myth, it was evident that myth still carries the same power. Students’ ideas about the afterlife clearly have an effect on their actions (or at least attitudes) in life. Understanding this basic principle, I think we’re getting a little closer to understanding Homer more like the ancient Greeks did.

Now the question is, how can I work baklava into a discussion about epic similes? I will find a way.

MT

Hello, 10th grade, here’s response paper 6

This week’s paper is all about heroes–the epic, mythical variety, like Odysseus, and the everyday, flesh-n-blood variety like your eccentric Aunt Chlothilde (the one who really likes kitties). The 9th grade classes wrote this one last week, so this week you get to go slumming in their juvenile territory. Here’s the link to the explanation of the assignment: Hero Paper Explained.

Good luck!

MT

Response paper #5: Review Rosencrantz

It is true that in the year 2003 I spent about a month under the impression that everything in the world existed only in my imagination. There were a number of reasons for this (possible) delusion: I was getting up really early and staying up really late; Celeste and I still had television at that point and The Matrix kept playing on TBS; I hadn’t yet discovered my allergy to rutabagas and identified that legume as the source of those pesky flashing lights and nocturnal heavenly visitors; my 5th and final reading of Siddhartha finally sunk the notion of Maya (misplaced trust or belief or consciousness of the “phenomenal” world) deep into my brain where it lodged, and where it remains lodged today, pumping a steady stream of love-for-everything-and-everything-is-connected-but-everything-is-you-ness that remains with me to this day.

Anyway, those were days to make regular evening pilgrimages from my office on 43rd street to the 96th street subway station, up through the damp, twilit park, passing on the way, among other interesting and inspirational sights, the heroic statue of Shakespeare at the southern end of the mall, and the 24/7 pigeon fight club near the northwest corner of Bethesda Plaza.

Although I outgrew the delusional, narcissistic idea that the whole world is in my head, that nagging shard of Maya-awareness is still lodged deeply in my limbic mind. That feeling of connected-disconnectedness still infects everything I do, and I think it explains why I love introducing students to the play/film Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. They get a glimpse (sometimes for the first time) of what life is like without the certainty of Reality and the sense of purpose lent one by a solid, unquestioning belief in Someone In Charge. R & G are mere bit-players on life’s stage, deciphering bit-by-bit the enigmatic code of a writer-creator who, despite their feeble protestation, seems determined not to interrupt their slow but sure march towards death.

Also, the film is funny (at least to nerds like me), and it’s got some good Hamlet chunks in it, not to mention a fleeting glance of a non-gendered-yet-human gluteus maximus. It’s all good, as they say.

But, yeah, now I’m wasting your time, if you’re one of my students sitting in the writing lab just looking for the description of this week’s writing assignment. Here it is:

Response Paper #5

Continuing our adventures in the Persuasive mode of writing, this week we’re going to work on a sub-branch of that mode known as the Review.

The basic point of a review, whether it be in reference to a blockbuster film or a dustbusting vacuum sweeper, is to let people know whether or not to “consume” it–buy it, use it, participate in it, whatever.

In the Internet era, everything gets reviewed. Yeah, everything. And who is doing the reviewing? A lot of professionals, for sure, but also millions of common Internet users just like you and me. I have been personally acquainted with a few people who have actually gained some influence and notoriety thanks to their reviewing skills and now basically do it for their jobs, whether it be on their own website or as part of an official organization.

Even better than that, though, is mastering this mode and then possessing the jedi-like mind powers of being able to convince other people that what you like is cool. After all, if what you like is cool, then you must be cool. (Remember the first day of school when I told you why people write?)

Now, for the assignment:

Write a review of the film Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead using the following model outline for a review. (And remember: the best writing uses all 4 major modes of writing: Narrative, Descriptive, Expository, and Persuasive.)

Sample Outline

I. Introduction

• Use a “hook” to catch your reader’s attention. For example: Describe an interesting scene, incident, or dialogue from the film; remind the reader of the last film by this director or lead actor; connect the film with some current event in your life or the world

II. Description/summary of plot. (You can use IMDB to help with names of actors, filmmakers, some quotes and plot ideas.)

III. Analysis (choose one major element to analyze per paragraph; a review should probably have at least 2-4 paragraphs of analysis)

• Describe one or more of the following elements that you think was particularly interesting–in a good or bad way: writing (dialogue, themes), cinematography, editing (pace), Design (set, lighting, sound)

IV. Evaluation & Conclusion

• Did the film accomplish what it set out to do? Why or why not?
• Did you like it?
• Who (if anyone) should see it? Why?

That’s it. If you want some extra credit (20 points-ish?), post your review on Amazon.com (scroll down to Customer Reviews, click “Create your own review;” you may have to do a little registration to post), and forward me the link to your review.

Here’s a link to a review of Transformers by Kyle Smith, a film critic for the New York Post. It follows the outline above pretty closely. Sometimes it seems like the dumber the movie, the funnier the review, and that movie was about as dumb as it gets. Also, if you want to browse a whole bunch of movie reviews, try Rotten Tomatoes, a site that compiles most national film reviews.

MT

Response paper #5: My Hero

This week in the 9th grade classes we got all polytheistic.

That is, we started reading The Odyssey, a story most English classes approach as a story of the heroic journey home of the great hero Odysseus. I guess it’s okay to look at it that way (because that’s what today’s writing assignment kind of does), but that focus creates certain problems. For example, in today’s reading, Odysseus mentions, sort of offhand, that on the way home from Troy he “stormed [Cicones] and killed the men who fought. Plunder we took and enslaved the women.” I joined many students in furrowing my brow and asking, “Was that really necessary?”

And after that it doesn’t really help Odysseus’ case when he limply defends his extramarital romantic entanglements with Circe and Calypso in positively Clintonesque style: “In my heart I never gave consent.”

That’s why we spent the first half of this week getting polytheistic. See, the Greeks had a way different view of the divine and of morality than most kids these days are used to in school. In school, despite the best efforts of church/state separationists, lessons and literature still seem to boil everything down to right and wrong, the devil versus god, A or C on the multiple choice test, do what the principal says or leave, etc. We’re all about authority and objective truth here, and one right answer fits all. It’s not a religious thing, it’s just an idea about the world that’s embedded in everything we do.

That’s not a good place to be if you want to understand Odysseus, and the Homeric Greeks in general. They were polytheistic: They believed in and actively worshiped multiple gods, and these gods were as varied in attitude and action as regular people are. Being gods, and not mere mortals, they were still endowed with special powers and influence over mortals, in large part through their particular Mood. I capitalize the word Mood to draw the distinction with our usual use of this word in reference to an individual’s emotional state. The Greek god’s Mood was way deeper than that. For the Greeks, when a particular god was nearby, you would likely be subject to that god’s Mood, which meant that you should think, feel, and act as that god did. If war-god Ares was nearby, you didn’t just feel excited to get in a scuffle, you were positively consumed by rage and bloodlust. If Aphrodite was around, a different kind of lust prevailed.

Now, here’s the key. With so many different gods and so many different moods, how could a good Greek tell right from wrong? I don’t think they worried about that question. I think they wanted to always do what was appropriate, to do the best thing they could in light of the prevailing Mood. I think this idea fits nicely with the the repeated description of Odysseus as a “man who was never at a loss.” He always did what was appropriate, which in some cases meant giving in to Calypso (like that’s some sort of chore), and, in others, meant killing some men and eating their sheep.

This idea of polytheism (in contrast with our Modern, under-the-radar, schoolhouse monotheism) goes deeper than that, too. We’ll delve a little more in weeks to come.

For this week, you need to write a paper. Here’s the question:

Response Paper #5

Define what the word “Hero” means to you. Compare what you know about Odysseus at this point to your own idea of what a hero should be. Describe the life and heroic actions of a real person you know (or have heard of) that fits your personal definition of “hero.” Compare and contrast your personal hero to Odysseus and tell which you like better.

Warning: This assignment could be boring and lame unless you think creatively about what you really consider heroic, and then write as honestly and thoughtfully as you can. Question everything!

Here’s a little model outline for you to follow. The words in italics refer to the writing modes we discussed last week. Don’t forget that good writing uses all the modes (descriptive, narrative, expository, persuasive):

I. Introduction

• Use a hook to introduce your idea of hero, such as a narrative of an impressive heroic action, or a detailed description (appealing to the reader’s 5 senses) of a particular hero

II. Define “hero”

• Choose two or three major attributes of a hero (wise, caring, wavy blond hair). Describe each attribute in detail, and explain why each is so important.

III. Compare/contrast

• Judge how well Odysseus stacks up to your personal idea of hero, as you described it in the last paragraph (expository)

IV. Your personal hero

• Now it’s time for you to describe the heroic life and actions of your personal hero–discuss it in terms of your paragraph number 2–explain how your personal hero embodies each of the two or three attributes you chose. Be super descriptive and use narrative  storytelling techniques to get the reader super interested in your heroes actions. (Most narratives start out “One time…”)

V. Conclusion

• Wrap it all up. Restate your chosen “heroic” attributes. Compare your hero to Odysseus and express your opinion about which one you would rather have on your side, etc.

That’s it.

Did I ever tell each and every one of you that you are my hero? You truly are the wind beneath my wings…

MT

Response paper #4

We’re back from a long winter’s break. I hope everyone out there had as good a time as I did aimlessly wandering the snowy streets of Salt Lake City, free from the constraints of the student hordes and the constantly ringing bells of our school. The bells, the bells.

Don’t get me wrong. I love school and all, but the aimless wandering I was able to do over the break allowed me to see things I never would have seen otherwise. Like a tone deaf bus driver singing modified, bus-related, Holiday carols to a bus-load of jolly car-less folk. (“Dashing through the snow, on the Southbound 209…”) Nor would I have been able to witness the most stunningly diverse group of “friends” I have ever seen (including whites, blacks, latinos, males, females, teen-agers, middle-agers, poor, really poor, and even a couple obviously mentally retarded kids–yeah, really) gathered in the square outside the library, communally “performing” several incredibly foul compositions of the Insane Clown Posse. They all rapped in perfect unison, each word so lovingly selected by the Insane Clowns bursting forth from snarling lips. Despite the childish vitriol of the lyrics, they looked so happy to be together. The Christmas carolers I saw later that week, a gaggle of old white people, didn’t look half as excited to be hanging out with each other.

Anyway, it was good to be on break. Since we’ve only been back for two days, and all the classes have already written twice about the texts we’re finishing today, I’ve come up with another project to help us learn a little more about writing and maybe even make us a little bit better as people. Ugh. Here it is:

Response Paper #4

There are 4 major “modes” of writing” (“mode” is sort of just a fancy word for “purpose”):

• Descriptive (describe a person, place, or event with details that appeal to the 5 senses)
• Narrative (describe an experience, event, or sequence of events in the form of a story)
• Expository (provide information, such as an explanation or directions)
• Persuasive (give an opinion and try to influence the reader’s way of thinking with supporting evidence)

So far, your response papers have mostly been squarely in the expository or persuasive mode, although the most impressive responses veer frequently into the realms of narrative and description as well. (Although the state of Utah really wants us to learn about each kind of writing, it’s kind of silly to try to do only one at a time. The best writing does it all.)

Today you’re going to write in a mode that sort of spans across expository and persuasive writing. I call it the Problem-Solution mode. Different modes have different “model” outlines, and here’s what a typical outline for a Problem-Solution essay might look like:

I. Introduction

A. Grab the reader’s attention by describing a serious, frightening, heart-wrenching, (humorous?) problem: Describe Who, What, Where, When, Why, How…

B. Break your “big” problem into little parts–describe the little problems that cause the big problem

C. Introduce your proposed solution

II.-IV. Body paragraphs (x2, 3, 4, however many you need)

A. Describe one of the “small” problems that contributes to the big problem in detail: Who, What, Where, When, Why, How…

B. Describe attempted solutions (what has been tried before to resolve the problem, and why did it fail)

C. Propose a new solution to the small problem and explain how exactly the solution would solve the problem

V. Conclusion

A. Explain how all the little problems add up to the big problem

B. Explain how all the little solutions affect and solve the major problem

C. Explain why this is the best way to address the issue you describe

Now, this is a mode of writing often used to talk about scientific experiments and such things, but we’re going to twist it a little. Your topic for this week is the following:

In the olden days, everyone used to make a New Year’s Resolution. This was simply a promise they made to themselves to change something in their lives that they thought would make them happier.

Use the Problem-Solution mode of writing to describe some aspect of life in 2007 that has made you unhappy, describe some of the solutions you attempted during the year, then propose solutions you can implement in 2008.

Here’s a sample outline you can use for this essay:

I. Introduction

A. Grab the reader’s attention by describing a serious, frightening, heart-wrenching, (humorous?) problem you faced in 2007: Describe who, what, where, when, why, how.

B. Break your “big” problem into little parts–describe the little problems you had that contributed to the big problem. (For example, if my “big” problem is that I eat too much cake, “small” contributing problems could be things like the fact that my mother is a baker, and that cake is the only food available in our fridge, and also that I’m an emotional eater [watching Oprah makes me hungry for cake]. Each of these “small” problems contributes to the big problem.)

C. Introduce your proposed solution–What do you propose to do differently in 2008? What’s your “resolution?”

II.-IV. Body paragraphs (x 2, 3, 4, or however many you need)

A. Describe one small problem you faced last year that contributed to the big problem: Tell who, what, where, when, why, how.

B. Describe attempted solutions to the small problem–things you tried in 2007 to make the problem go away.

C. Propose a new solution to the small problem. Explain how exactly that small solution would solve the little problem. Explain how you’ll implement the solution.

V. Conclusion

A. Review how all the little problems you dealt with in ‘07 added up to the big problem

B. Explain how all the little solutions affect and solve the major problem

C. Explain why this is the best way to solve your big problem

D. Explain exactly what you’ll do differently this year: Make your New Year’s resolution

That’s it. Be persuasive in describing the proposed solution to your problem, but remember the main audience you need to convince is yourself. Follow the outline, look deep within your heart, be sad, mad, humorous, or whatever, and use writing to come up with creative solutions to crappy problems.

Happy writing!

MT