HI MEGAN! I think your analysis of Julian Barnes, where you argued that he was contrasting those who put everything they have into love and those who live for the “etc.”, was very well-worded and logical. I have to wonder if you could take that analysis in a different light and argue that Barnes was actually criticizing those who put their everything into love through his characterizations of Stuart and Oliver. Though Stuart is portrayed in the novel as the more successful man, as he’s gained wealth and respect in his career and community and is able to provide for his family, he is also stuck in the past, chasing after a woman who already loves someone else. In such a sense, though Oliver may not have the same financial stability as Stuart, he is still characterized as more desirable—rather than let the past dominate him, Oliver is willing to move on to the future. Contrast is created between those who believe love is everything and those who are more focused on the “etc.”, and it would appear that Barnes is more favorable towards those who fall into the latter category. Such a line of reasoning would also fall into the Postmodernist qualities you’ve identified in Barnes’ writing, one of which is “the refusal of Modernism’s implicit or explicit distinction between 'high' culture and commonly lived life” (brocku.ca). Stuart would be representative of the higher culture and Oliver of the commonly lived life, but the two are intertwined in their lives with Gillian. Most interestingly is that Oliver is the one portrayed as the greater man between the two, if we take a happy life with Gillian to be the determiner of which man is more worthy. Barnes again reiterates the theme of “a sense of discontinuity” as the traditionally attractive man—Stuart, who is not only wealthy and successful but also willing to chase hopelessly after a woman in the name of love—is overwritten by the traditionally normal man—Oliver, who is in no way outstanding but who still manages to capture Gillian’s heart even without the financial ability and motivation of Stuart (brocku.ca).
I'm sorry, I didn't include parts of my reflections in the sheet I submitted to Ms. Wilson because they didn't add much in the way of content to the reflection, and I copied my post from that submitted sheet. Do excuse me for commenting again! Megan, I'd like to say that you as a presenter were one of the most engaging out of everyone I saw. Not only did you boast a wealth of knowledge about your author and his time period, you made the effort to be charismatic, likable, and approachable, and that's something many of us sacrificed that made our presentation much less effective. Because you were so amiable, I actually wanted to listen to what you were saying, and I think this is a skill that only enriched your presentation as a whole.
First of all, your cookies were delicious! I loved the symbolism and simplicity behind them, and of course they fit perfectly with your theme without being repetitive (there were a lot of chocolate-chip cookies these past few days). You did a great job in your presentation. Everything was clear and succinct, and you drew in the audience with your humor and wit. There were also many new literary devices I hadn’t heard of before, which will certainly come in use during the AP Exam, so thank you!
In reading your AP Open Question #1 Essay, I was definitely hooked by your introduction: “Betrayed by love, betrayed by a so called friend, betrayed by love itself”. The repetition is very effective and captures the themes of your essay. I did notice the use of “bum”, which is a bit colloquial, so you could edit that. You did a great a job of incorporating quotes from your book, as well as using them to prove your point. There is minimal summary and good analysis, though your thesis could use some more elaboration. At first glance I see more of the obvious statement rather than an argument. Otherwise, fantastic job!
HI MEGAN!
ReplyDeleteI think your analysis of Julian Barnes, where you argued that he was contrasting those who put everything they have into love and those who live for the “etc.”, was very well-worded and logical. I have to wonder if you could take that analysis in a different light and argue that Barnes was actually criticizing those who put their everything into love through his characterizations of Stuart and Oliver. Though Stuart is portrayed in the novel as the more successful man, as he’s gained wealth and respect in his career and community and is able to provide for his family, he is also stuck in the past, chasing after a woman who already loves someone else. In such a sense, though Oliver may not have the same financial stability as Stuart, he is still characterized as more desirable—rather than let the past dominate him, Oliver is willing to move on to the future. Contrast is created between those who believe love is everything and those who are more focused on the “etc.”, and it would appear that Barnes is more favorable towards those who fall into the latter category.
Such a line of reasoning would also fall into the Postmodernist qualities you’ve identified in Barnes’ writing, one of which is “the refusal of Modernism’s implicit or explicit distinction between 'high' culture and commonly lived life” (brocku.ca). Stuart would be representative of the higher culture and Oliver of the commonly lived life, but the two are intertwined in their lives with Gillian. Most interestingly is that Oliver is the one portrayed as the greater man between the two, if we take a happy life with Gillian to be the determiner of which man is more worthy. Barnes again reiterates the theme of “a sense of discontinuity” as the traditionally attractive man—Stuart, who is not only wealthy and successful but also willing to chase hopelessly after a woman in the name of love—is overwritten by the traditionally normal man—Oliver, who is in no way outstanding but who still manages to capture Gillian’s heart even without the financial ability and motivation of Stuart (brocku.ca).
I'm sorry, I didn't include parts of my reflections in the sheet I submitted to Ms. Wilson because they didn't add much in the way of content to the reflection, and I copied my post from that submitted sheet. Do excuse me for commenting again!
DeleteMegan, I'd like to say that you as a presenter were one of the most engaging out of everyone I saw. Not only did you boast a wealth of knowledge about your author and his time period, you made the effort to be charismatic, likable, and approachable, and that's something many of us sacrificed that made our presentation much less effective. Because you were so amiable, I actually wanted to listen to what you were saying, and I think this is a skill that only enriched your presentation as a whole.
First of all, your cookies were delicious! I loved the symbolism and simplicity behind them, and of course they fit perfectly with your theme without being repetitive (there were a lot of chocolate-chip cookies these past few days). You did a great job in your presentation. Everything was clear and succinct, and you drew in the audience with your humor and wit. There were also many new literary devices I hadn’t heard of before, which will certainly come in use during the AP Exam, so thank you!
ReplyDeleteIn reading your AP Open Question #1 Essay, I was definitely hooked by your introduction: “Betrayed by love, betrayed by a so called friend, betrayed by love itself”. The repetition is very effective and captures the themes of your essay. I did notice the use of “bum”, which is a bit colloquial, so you could edit that. You did a great a job of incorporating quotes from your book, as well as using them to prove your point. There is minimal summary and good analysis, though your thesis could use some more elaboration. At first glance I see more of the obvious statement rather than an argument. Otherwise, fantastic job!