<p>Oooh, yays!
As long as you’re talking about school, maybe you guys can help me (again –> I am totally incapable of making decisions of my own). In AP English, we were just assigned our “final paper” assignment (20-30 pages long) in which we have to choose a book and do three separate critiques: Formalist, New Historicist, and Marxist or Feminist. The first task is to pick the book, which shouldn’t be too long (we are expected to read it more than once) or too short (there should be enough material to work with). Maybe you could help me select a book, or give me some suggestions?</p>
<p>There are a few stipulations: no pulp fiction (John Grisham, Da Vinci Code, etc.), limited children’s books (no Dr. Seuss, no Animorphs (drat!) with only a few exceptions, like Alice in Wonderland), and no two people can have the same author (if someone else is doing Pride and Prejudice, I can’t do Mansfield Park, for example). So…any ideas on good books? I’m thinking of claiming an author, like John Steinbeck or Cormac McCarthy…but maybe someone a little more obscure would be more realistic, as the famous ones get snatched up quickly.</p>
<p>Of course, I would choose to analyze my own Winkist Manifesto, but that’s not an option…</p>
<p>Dear god, how do you analyze a book from a Marxist or Feminist perspective!?
And what does “New Historcist” even mean? This is what makes me feel like I’m insanely below par compared to other TASPlicants. ):</p>
<p>If I had to reccomend a book, I’d go with the “Brothers Karamazov.” I don’t remember who said it, but someone is quoted with saying, “The Brothers Karamazov is the epitome of the nature of man.”
Or you can go with “The Greatest Novel Ever Written,” “Anna Karenina”.</p>
<p>Wow. I see that I totally slaughtered the spelling of “critiques.” What an APE student I am!</p>
<p>Hmm…I don’t know how comfortable I’d feel with a translated work, though. It’s like interpreting someone else’s interpretation…I’ve really never read anything by a Russian novelist other than Nabokov (and he wrote in English anyway). Thanks for the suggestions though; I’ll consider them.</p>
<p>I didn’t know what New Formalism or New Historicism were before APE this year, and I have never written an analytical paper longer than 15 pages…nothing to be ashamed of, my dears.</p>
<p>I haven’t read much by Thoreau, but I do like some of his ideas. I wrote an essay for some MLK day contest at the public library analyzing “Civil Disobedience” and its appropriateness in a modern context (I wrote it in literally one hour and turned it in two minutes before the library closed) and got second place although expect there were probably only like 5 entries anyway…</p>
<p>My school has competitions like that too. (:
Pretty much, no one enters, so if you write something, you’ll get an award.
But what did you think of Civil Disobedience? Is it more patriotic to stand up to a law you consciously think is wrong or are you supposed to perform your role as a citizen and member of society without opposition?</p>
<p>i definitely have the rights to stand up to an unjust law. i mean if i dont ever stand up, i wont ever live in a society i like. laws may be passed that defy what i feel the country is all about and everything will fall apart.</p>
<p>My personal opinions on the issue of civil disobedience are that (once again) it depends on the context of the situation. I don’t just feel cheated when I have to pay taxes to fund a war that I don’t support, I feel partially responsible for the atrocities that occur. Then again, if people had the right to reject any law they felt opposed to, government would simply break down–we kind of tried that with nullification and the Articles of Confederation (although that was states, not individuals). Standing up to a law is one thing, but flat-out refusing to obey it to the detriment of another is a different issue. I think there are times that call for measures of civil disobedience, especially in the event of sedition or other constitutional violations (in which case you wouldn’t /really/ be breaking the law, because the U.S. Constitution is superceding). As long as one is not causing direct harm to anyone else, there is no reason to justify infringement of our rights to peacefully protest… It really is a complicated issue. There needs to be a delicate balance between being a citizen concerned for national interests, and someone who fights for protection of individuals freedoms. I think that in any event that Constitutional rights are infringed, civil disobedience is not only justified, but a moral imperative.</p>
<p>i agree, do i like paying my taxes (which i dont do cuz i dont have a job, just sales tax) no but i do it cuz it serves a purpose. do i like the war no will i maybe stage a protest probably, do i expect anything to change, not really. but i should in no way be stopped from having my march, i know that.</p>
<p>moreover what is my role in society? i would never do anything for my country that involves holding my tongue at all times. our government is not completely right and standing by its actions no matter what, doesnt make total sense.</p>
<p>It definitely is a complicated issue. I mean, reading the novel now, I’m still slightly phased when Thoreau says that he doesn’t pay taxes, but I completely agree with his reasoning. You said that government would break down if everyone refused to pay taxes, but I think that’s a good thing. The government has slowly morphed from a representation of the people to the “master” of the people. Honestly, do you feel like the government has ever done anything that you thought was in your own good? Government is meant to be under the people, not over.</p>
<p>umm way back when they gave blacks and women the right to vote. and those civil rights acts before they subverted and ignored them.
but mostly no.</p>
<p>I just realized, whenever the government is referred to, it is referred to as “The Government,” not “Our Government.” Isn’t that slightly strange?</p>
<p>I think the current administration has become patronizing, telling us what is “good” for us as citizens, which it has no right to do. It’s almost as though we’ve learned to an aristocracy, with the “elites” in power, looming over us “peasants.” But I really think that government is for the best, probably because I would be squished in a state of nature. Social contract was naturally formed out of a mutally beneficial agreement. But the bureaucracy is out of hand. Every government should be subject to its own laws as well, not above them.</p>
<p>“The government” – probably because the administrators in Washington are so physically and emotionally foreign and distant from their constituents that they are no longer a part of us any more. It’s funny how some Americans will go on and on and on about their perfect democracy… the reality is far from it.</p>
<p>no it fits perfectly, cuz the government isnt our government, hasnt been for a long time. it is an entity to be revered and wary of, not given possessive pronouns to. (is our a pronoun?, i never could remember that stuff)</p>
<p>Both of those groups were awarded suffrage for the governments own purposes.
Also, the government has been in existence for over 230 years. In that time there should be more than two things that we can all agree were pretty swell on the part of the government.</p>
although expect there were probably only like 5 entries anyway…</p>