Outside Reading Set #2

11/27/10

“ ‘How To Become A Scandal’ Is Smart, But Timid”

Susan Jane Gilman

Book Review

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129404422

Employing many short, pithy paragraphs and rhetorical questions, Susan Jane Gilman delivers an engaging critique of the Laura Kipnis’s book How to Become A Scandal. From a psychoanalytical point of view, Gilman asserts that Kipnis does a decent job. However, Gilman criticizes mostly from a formalistic angle; she complains that “Although How to Become A Scandal takes an intelligent look at the psychology behind bad behavior, the second part gives way to deconstructions of Linda Tripp and James Frey, at which point the book's thesis blurs.” In particular, her comment about the book’s thesis indicates that Gilman takes greatest issue with the nature of the text itself, typical of formalism. Connecting this to what we learned earlier in the school year, Gilman does not think that Kipnis backs up her claim or thesis with enough evidence. Therefore, the latter’s argument is unsound. This reminds me, as well, of the article we read in which the author wildly asserts that Oedipus Rex is one, gigantic sexual innuendo. The author twists the text to suit his thesis, but his warrants are extremely illogical. In other words, our critique of that article is similar to Gilman’s critique of Kipnis’s book: if there is lack of logical evidence, readers will not buy the argument.

Gilman’s voice comes through clearly in her writing. To emphasize her points, she uses many punctuation marks usually not used in excess, such as the exclamation point. This is demonstrated well by:

Kipnis also leaves many huge, American scandals unmentioned. "I've avoided the glitziest cases, which tend to become too encrusted with opinion to yield surprises," Kipnis writes. Fine — but this feels like a cop-out. Why not take on the most infamous scandals — and recast them with fresh insight? Isn't this precisely what new scholarship should do? Besides, you're discussing scandal! Don't pussyfoot around!

Gilman also plays with sentence structure, often adding asides or comments on at the end, such as “And this isn't misleading. Kipnis has taken on a big, titillating, inflammatory subject — rather timidly.” By doing this, she creates a buildup in the first sentence of anticipation which leads to the ultimate punch line: the aside at the end. Using this technique, Gilman effectively crafts her own voice and holds readers’ attentions.

This piece cites the original book many times, so its evidence is sound. Furthermore, Gilman’s arguments are logical, making her criticism strong. However, one weakness of the piece may be its failure to expand on the other critical approach it mentions: psychoanalysis. However, this may have been a strategic choice on Gilman’s part, since she wanted to give a mostly negative review of the book, as opposed to the positive one that could have resulted from taking a psychoanalytical perspective.

11/27/10

“The Last Taboo”

Belinda Luscombe

Editorial

published in Time, 2007 (here’s an online copy: http://thelittleblackdressblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/last-taboo.html)

In her editorial piece “The Last Taboo,” Belinda Luscombe relies on an unpredictable pattern of sentence lengths, witty personal asides and interjections, and unconventional sentence structures to craft a strong voice. She often transitions from long, descriptive sentences to short, pithy one-liners. To further emphasize those punch lines, she rephrases them and drops them one after the other, as shown by the end of the first paragraph: “I’m talking, of course, about marrying outside your looks. Marrying a few degrees up or down the hotness scale. Refusing to stay within your cute-gory.” These sentence fragments add more flavor to the piece. They draw readers in and engage them. By sprinkling shorter sentences in once in a while, Luscombe ensures that the audience does not drown in long, complicated ideas.

Other elements Luscombe incorporates quite well into her writing are quick asides and interjections. These are often humorous as well, such as “My mother—well, let’s just say that when she comes to visit, the kids hide the broomstick and the big cooking pot” and “What they—who am I kidding, we—desperately need is a celebrity spokescouple, a famous mixed-assortment pair willing to step into the limelight and explain the challenge specific to this unequal yoking.” Through these asides, Luscombe communicates more directly with the readers and truly connects with them. Reading it, I personally felt that we were having a conversation and I could relate more to her, as opposed to feeling like she was simply lecturing me through her writing. Several times, Luscombe directly addresses the audience through rhetorical questions, such as “Do you and your spouse disagree on how many mirrors should be in the home, what angle they’re placed at and how well they’re lit?” These questions also help create more of a conversation between the writer and the reader.

To further illustrate her points and add humor, Luscombe utilizes allusions, such as the reference to the gay community. She also incorporates metaphors, such as “there’s a world of difference between what people will accept in the innocent suburbs of hooking up and the judgmental metropolis of marriage.” These literary devices help give a larger perspective, which enhances the single voice of Luscombe.

This piece is highly persuasive and captivating. Its greatest strength lies in its ability to fully draw readers in and hold their attention until the very end. It sells its point well and cites plenty of evidence to illustrate its point. Despite these strong points, however, the writing in this editorial does not suit the AP exam, mainly because it is written with such an informal voice. From that angle, its loose style may be considered a weakness. Elements such as the sentence fragments work in this context, but are not appropriate for the AP essay.

11/27/10

“The Shell Hunter”

Nancy Gibbs

Reflective Essay

published in Time, 2008 (here’s an online copy: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1853317,00.html)

Immediately in her essay, Nancy Gibbs creates a serene atmosphere through the line “It’s a chill morning, the light is thin, the air sweet….” After setting up the scene, she switches to past tense, telling an anecdote with just a tinge of nostalgia. Throughout her essay, Gibbs employs different tenses often to separate description from reflection. The tranquil background tone Gibbs sets up allows readers to perceive more clearly the deep appreciation and admiration she feels for Sue Harmon, the breast cancer survivor Gibbs writes about. By fading the details of her writing into a soft blur, Gibbs emphasizes the inspiration and conclusions she draws from Harmon’s story.

Gibbs uses the power of three and repetition in general throughout her essay to emphasize her points. For example, to underscore the unfairness of Harmon’s relapse, she says, “She did everything she was supposed to. She has a mental attitude so positive, you could sell shares in it and retire. She runs at least five miles several times a week and had regular tests and scans. This just feels wrong.” To illustrate the depth of her admiration towards Sue and the extent of Sue’s impact on others, Gibbs often uses colorful metaphors, such as the one in the previous quotation: “She has a mental attitude so positive, you could sell shares in it and retire.” She also compares Harmon to the sun, saying “She’s like sunshine with skin.” The title of the whole piece is a metaphor, which Gibbs explains at the end of her essay. On the topic of shell hunting, she writes: “You have to see through the debris the waves bring in, so much random waste, so carelessly tossed aside. She walks that beach with her eyes sharp, and she finds treasures, gathers them, and brings them home.” This beautiful, sunset-like ending brings the piece full circle, cleverly tying things back to the morning scene Gibbs starts with. This almost surreal ending solidifies the reverence Gibbs holds towards Sue Harmon.

Gibbs’s simple style is this piece’s greatest strength. She does not excessively praise Sue Harmon through superfluous adjectives. Instead, she quietly muses throughout the entire piece, therefore communicating her appreciation and admiration in a much more effective way than hammering readers on the head by ranting on about Sue’s virtues. As a reader, this tone draws me into the piece much more and I feel that I can connect with both Gibbs and Harmon. The plain language also makes the writing easier to follow, so each idea is clear and I am never lost.

From the perspective of an AP essay, perhaps a weakness of this piece is its lack of analysis. Gibbs’s reflections flow naturally with the rhythm of her piece, which is largely anecdotal and thus does not follow the traditional organization of an AP essay. Her musing, quietly appreciative tone works for a reflective essay, but perhaps lacks the assertiveness needed for an AP essay.