"The Rocking-Horse Winner"

This story was great.  I have never read D.H. Lawrence before and he is truly fantastic.  The story in itself is great and yes I do see the irony.  Having money is not luck.  The child in fact was not very lucky at all because having the money essentially brought him death.  

What was refreshing about this story was the D.H. Lawrence write very colloquially and get his point across very effectively while still using beautifully descriptive lines.  I also admire his repetition of description i.e. the child's blue eyes and the coldness of the mother.  The story reminds me very much of a fable because there is a moral at the end and the story is told in a very fairy-tale like style.  

I think that perhaps some of the dialogue could have been cut just because it can be confusing.  Also the repetition of the uncles full name seemed to be unnecessary, I'm not sure of the significance of it.  the only other thing that seemed a bit unclear was what exactly was happening to the boy that led him to know the winners of the Derby.  Was he possessed? or so determined to win his mother's affection that he concentrated to his death.

Otherwise, phenomenal story.

Orwell

Orwell in fact is very opinionated in his beliefs on "good writing."  He writes "Politics and the English Language" as if, for lack of a better phrase, "It's his way, or the highway."  I like this.  it forces the reader to hear him out, at least thats how I felt.  He is so adamant about these rules to good writing, and so sure of himself that it made me want to hear him out and see his point.

Towards the end of the piece I thought that his list of rules were great.

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday english equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright and barbarous.

I think these are great because they are so straight forward.  Each rule begins with never.  There is so much confidence in the idea that if you do not break any of these rules, you will write well.  it makes me really want to believe it.  His rules also seem to make perfect sense. 

What I like the most is that Orwell's writing is not confusing and certainly doesn't "beat around the bush."

He writes as if he is speaking directly to the reader and makes clear what he is doing and why he is doing it.  

"These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad--I could have quoted far worse if I had chosen--but because they illustrate various of mental vices from which we now suffer." p. 703

Lanham Review

I find Lanham to be excruciating.  I try and read him but I have no idea what I'm reading because he's writing about 100 things at once, it seems to me at least.  But I'll give it a go...

Chapter 1:

In Chapter 1, Lanham goes over the different noun and verb styles of different texts showing the effects that they have in the sentence.  He states that choosing noun and verb styles leads to a pattern creating a characteristic syntax.

Chapter 2:

(from class notes)

Parataxis: joining independent clauses

Hypotaxis: an independent clause and subordinate clause

Chapter 3:

I honestly do not understand the Periodic and running styles.  Lanham provides examples but doesn't clearly state what either of the styles are meant to do. It makes me want to yell at him, "JUST TELL US ALREADY!"

But periodic style relates to hypotactic?

and the running style is paratactic? I still don't really know what this means...

Chapter 5:

voiced prose suggests a transcription of speech and has personality and style

unvoiced lacks this...

James Joyce

In this story Joyce uses a lot of dialogue as the way of telling the story.  It seems very much like a play more than a story.  All of the dialogue is almost distracting to the text.  He draws the reader in, in the very beginning.  his descriptions are very visible and we don't see too much dialogue here yet.  He then places the reader right in the scene with all of the dialogue.  He's basically showing all that is occurring.  It seems almost as is these events are real and he has simply recorded them.  At the end he ties the reader back up with description and telling the rest of the story without the weight of the dialogue.

1.  Pattern 8: dependent clause in a pair or series 

"His collar was unfastened and his necktie undone."

2. Pattern 11: interrupting modifier

"The manager, alarmed by the grey pallor of the man's face, sent for a police man."

3. Pattern 13: single modifier out of place emphasis

"A dark medal of blood had formed itself near the man's head on the tessellated floor."

4. Patter 14: prepositional phrase

"He opened his eyes for an instant, sighed and closed them again."

Lolita

In passage two of "Lolita" we can see Nabokov's use of Pattern 10a: A variation: Appositive.  Single or pair or series after a dash.  

"experts in obscure subjects--paleopedology and Aeolian harps, respectively. "

Also Pattern 10: emphatic appositive at end, after a colon

 "I was born in 1910, in Paris. My father was a gentle, easy-going person, a salad of racial genes: a Swiss citizen, of mixed French and Austrian descent, with a dash of the Danube in his veins."

Also Pattern 7: an internal series of appositives or modifiers

and Pattern 9: repetition of a key term

"I was extremely fond of her, despite the rigidity--the fatal rigidity--of some of her rules."

Nabokov probably most frequently uses Pattern 7.  He descriptions just get better and better, he continues to modify.  In this sentence the use of Pattern 9 for the word "rigidity" makes it stand out more to the reader.  Usually any use of repetition will stand out to the reader.  It is not only "rigidity", it is "fatal rigidity" this simply puts the emphasis on the "rigidity" of the matter.

Assigment 2

Lanham's chapters are a bit confusing and hard to follow.  I agree that his examples before explanations are very confusing.  I also find his language quite confusing, just because it doesn't seem natural.  Maybe its just me but I feel if he were to write more like speaking, it would be easier to understand these techniques a bit better.  

Clinton has a way of inflecting on words to make them stand out and welcome applause.  His pauses are very effective as well, it keeps the attention on his words.  I guess we could say that Clinton uses a polysydentic style because he makes many references to the past connecting the present and future i.e. when he mentions moments in history and salutes Bush Sr.

Clinton writes and speaks with charm, confidence and courage.  This is believe is very important to making speeches, especially a presidential one.  

Perhaps we could also say that Clinton uses parataxis and anaphora because of his short sentences and pauses much like line breaks in poetry, letting the words resonate further with the listener

Assignment 2

Below's writing is very honest and sincere. He writes about Woody Selbst as if he knows him personally. By using his first name when speaking of him suggests this personal quality as well.


"How, against a contemportary background, do you mourn an octogenarian father, nearly blind, his heart enlarged, his lungs filling with fluid, who creeps, stumbles, gives off the odors, the mildiness or gassiness of old men."

To say these things takes some amount of courage, and comfort. It's admirable.


The story about Woody's trip to Africa adds a light quality to the text. This is an article about death but it is very light hearted and also lets the reader forget about death.

"There were giraffes along the tropical river, and hippopotomuses, and baboons, and flamingos and other brilliant birds crodding the bright air in the heat of the morning, when the calf, stepping into the river to drink, was grabbed by the hoof anf dragged down."

This whole excerpt seems almost entirely irrelavant but it's a great technique. It's a minor distraction, yet still on the topic of "mourning" Below mentions a few times, directly.

Assignment 1

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/world/asia/02diplo.html?hp

"Japan's landmark election presents the Obama administration with an untested government, creating a new set of imponderables for a white House already burdened by foreign policy headaches in Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea."

This excerpt from "U.S. Is Seeing Policy Thorns in Japan Shift" has a nice opening style but can possibly be distracted by the second half of the sentence. We can gather that the article is about an issue in Japan that will affect America, but we are also reminded of the other issues America is currently dealing with regarding these three other countries. It's works well as a good attention grabber because to the reader it shows urgency. This is something that perhaps we should be worried/concerned about because our country is already dealing with issues in other countries, now another?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/books/02moore.html


"Lorrie Moore had just begun working on what would become her new novel, "A Gate at the Stairs," when she told one interviewer that she was writing a book "about hate." Later she recalled telling someone else that it was a novel about chores. In May, speaking to a roomful of booksellers at BookExpo America, the publishing industry's annual convention, she said she had written a book-- her first in 11 years-- about a 20-year-old woman because she viewed 20 as "the universal age of passion."

This excerpt from "Hate, Love, Chores: Lorrie Moore's Midwest Chronicle" seems to be all over the place. It isn't clear what this article is going to be about, and frankly it seems as if Lorrie Moore doesnt know what shes writing about. It is not compelling because there is nothing gravitating about the language or the content.

I favor poetry the most but I enjoy any prose that gives many visuals. I like to feel as if im seeing and not necessarily just reading and having to imagine for myself. In my own writing I would like to be able to show the reader exactly what I see and what I mean with not too much room for interpretation, if this makes any sense, I've been a little rusty this past summer..