sing me back home

Although it isn't a book that I would pick up and read at my own leisure, I can see how someone with a deep heartfelt appreciation for music of any genre (not necessarily country) could read Sing Me Back Home and relate to the idea of certain songs and artists narrating one's daily life. Although I do love music, I personally can't relate to one music genre or artist setting the tone for my entire childhood, and perhaps it's that fact that makes reading Sing Me Back Home a difficult task for me to undertake. However, while I may not necessarily agree, I can certainly appreciate both the undeniable outpour of pure emotion that Jennings  has penned in his autobiography, as well as the unique writing style of a comprehensive country music guidebook infused with humorous and jolting personal anecdotes. 

Catching up #4(Last one, Bookseller of Kabul)

I think that Bookseller is really effective in showing not just that women are oppressed, but that women are REALLY oppressed in her country. It makes all other life struggles seem trivial compared to the daunting task of trying to overcome something to deep rooted as the Muslim way of life. She really goes out of her way to dehumanize the woman to the farthest extent. What particular struck me was her use of synechdoche. She dehumanizes the women to the point where they are nothing more than "burqas." The Burqa is a symbol of oppression, of inequality and of similarity. The women are closed off from the rest of society, all made to look the same, but different from the men. It makes them stand out, but all look the exact same. The Burqa takes away all that amkes them unique and human, their facial features and expressions. It's truly a devastating image that the author uses to shock the reader and expose the horrible conditions that women are forced to live under.

Catching up #3 (Anythign English)

I know it's totally late to be talking about the appeal of the androgynous man, but I'm going to any way. I think it was a really ineffective peace.Gross starts out her essay with a false promise. Her first 2 lines seem to hint that a personal anecdote will follow, but none ensues, thus making the audience skeptical of her writing. She proceeds to describe a lot of qualities without making any connection to her reader, just a simple list. She has a purely factual tone which eliminates most appeal to pathos and thus lessens the effectiveness of the work. She then continues to generalize about all men, thus making any male reader feel, frankly, like crap. She says that all men are pretty much brutes who only care about beer and pretzels. It is full of sweepy generalizations that detract from the ethos of the work. The piece seems to be a scathing review of men in general with no personal stories, no wringer to hook the audience, just a list. If she can be this critical of men, I can be this critical of her list of qualities.

Catching up #2 (First they killed my father)

I know all the close readings are in and the book is done with, but my blog account was not working for a while. So i think that in First They Killed My Father, Ung uses her rhetoric purely to show the insights of a scared child. While most people imagine something happier, Ung continues to stay trapped in her imagined scenes. These scenes provide insight and establish a connection with the audience. She lets them into her world, into her thoughts. This is very effective because the audience feels important and connected to the writer. In the scenes that she imagines, she imagines death and strife, not the usual escapist thoughts that most would imagine. She uses scenes that would only prove how trapped she is. Not only does her imagery convey this, but so does her diction. She uses words that covey a sense of hopelessness and entrapment. "My mind chases me." her sentences are brief and crisp in order to show the brevity of the situation, how she only has a moment to reflect.

Sing me back home!

So I'm a bit late to submit this, but I think that the best aspect of Sing me Back home is the connection that the author forms with the audience. He's constantly using italicized words in order to put an emphasis on them. When he says "Listen!" the word physically stands out from the rest of the page, thus making the reader see it very clearly. It's obviously something that he wants them to pay attention to. By doing this, he creates a very strong and authoritative voice that the reader is obligated to listen to. However, this does not only make him credible, it also engages the reader in the text and makes him/her feel important and involved. This device makes the audience feel more connected and the book can not relate on a more personal not than most memoirs.When a reader feels more engaged on that personal level, the following text is definitely going to hit closer to home.

So far we have read three books, The Bookseller of Kabul, First They Killed My Father, and the "Country Music" book Sing Me Back Home, and of all the three First They Killed My Father was my favorite. What put this book above the other was the response that I had. No genocide is not a familiar subject to me that I can personally relate to, but the emotions Ung describes in her novel are easy to understand and vaguely parallel to hypothetical scenarios (i.e. losing a sibling or parent). On the contrary, in Sing Me Back Home, i can't make parallels to country music. However this doesn't create a barrier disabling my perception of Jennings' purpose throughout the novel. Music, no matter what genre, is expressed through it tone and most importantly lyrics. The lyrics of songs serve as the backbone and foundation of most music. And lyrics are decoded to tell stories and express emotion. This is what Jennings is basically doing, using his stories as lyrics to create the "ultimate" country song. Mentioning other country songs and country artists could also serve as helping to guide his story (country song).

sorry that this post is somewhat jumbled.

Reaction to classmate post

            I think that it should be okay to expose the issues in one family and give them problems in order to expose the problems of an entire people. It is okay for both historians and journalists to do this because there are instances where this is the only way to shine a light on some problem in society. The basic question here is do the problems of many outweigh the problems of one, and the answer is that they absolutely do. Although the bookseller himself might not like this, Seierstad had apparently helped a large amount of Afghan women. With regards to the limits of documentary and fiction, I believe that if you cannot add specific facts with evidence and proof to back them up, and if you aren’t drawing on secondhand stories and narrators with personal bias, then and only then you can call you work documentary or nonfiction. If you present ideas or stories that cannot be substantiated by something concrete, you have to call your work fiction.

Description in Bookseller

            I think that it should be okay to expose the issues in one family and give them problems in order to expose the problems of an entire people. It is okay for both historians and journalists to do this because there are instances where this is the only way to shine a light on some problem in society. The basic question here is do the problems of many outweigh the problems of one, and the answer is that they absolutely do. Although the bookseller himself might not like this, Seierstad had apparently helped a large amount of Afghan women. With regards to the limits of documentary and fiction, I believe that if you cannot add specific facts with evidence and proof to back them up, and if you aren’t drawing on secondhand stories and narrators with personal bias, then and only then you can call you work documentary or nonfiction. If you present ideas or stories that cannot be substantiated by something concrete, you have to call your work fiction.

Bookseller Controversy

            I think that it should be okay to expose the issues in one family and give them problems in order to expose the problems of an entire people. It is okay for both historians and journalists to do this because there are instances where this is the only way to shine a light on some problem in society. The basic question here is do the problems of many outweigh the problems of one, and the answer is that they absolutely do. Although the bookseller himself might not like this, Seierstad had apparently helped a large amount of Afghan women. With regards to the limits of documentary and fiction, I believe that if you cannot add specific facts with evidence and proof to back them up, and if you aren’t drawing on secondhand stories and narrators with personal bias, then and only then you can call you work documentary or nonfiction. If you present ideas or stories that cannot be substantiated by something concrete, you have to call your work fiction.

First they killed my father

            First they killed my father was a great book to read. One thing I really liked was that her writing was easy to understand. The everything was pretty brief and to the point, which helped the book flow better. The one thing that really jumped out to me was at the beginning of the book how quickly her life changed. She was not someone who was previously living in poverty or someone who didn’t live in the modern world. Her family was middle class, her father had an important position, and her life from day to day was stable. But in the blink of an eye all of that disappeared and she had to go through an impossible ordeal. This stuck out to me because I could see myself in her situation at the start of the novel, but I could not imagine what it was like to lose every material thing I had in a matter of a day. Another thing that really made the novel great were the imaginary sections. They were so effective at putting the audience into a situation because they were extremely descriptive and contained vivid imagery. Even though all of these stories were not actually witnessed by Ung herself, her vivid description of events built ethos; I trusted everything she said in those sections. The imaginary sections allowed me to put myself right into the situation and into the shoes of whoever she happened to be talking about.  

            First let me start of by saying I really, really hate country music. I do not understand what people see in it, I can’t listen to it without dying a little inside. The beginning of the book is not very riveting; in fact, I had to struggle to keep reading the book. But although I don’t particularly find the book interesting, I do like the way that he integrates various country songs and artists into the novel. He uses country to parallel what goes on in his life and what goes on in rural America. He shows how country music paints a real image of the lives of rural Americans. I think this is an original strategy, and I think if you were into country music, the book would appeal to you more. The book did help me have a greater appreciation for country music though. I can see how important and influential it was for him, and how important it must be for millions of other people who grew up like him. That said, I still don’t like the music.

Conflicting Feelings About Sing Me Back Home

I feel like Jennings' book can be divided into two types of writing: the fluid, flowing poetic style that he employs to describe his life in the country and the heavy, sluggish lists of country music titles and singers. When mixed, the occasional reference to a famous song or singer meshes well with the other sounds, sights, and events the author. However, when he launches on a page long list of song titles and country singers, I immediately become a unattached and disinterested reader. Despite the heavy focus on his "country" heritage, I find his prose to be extremely skillful and the rhythm of his writing addictive. However, my interest and admiration for his skill wanes at the mention of another ten or fifteen writers and singers that I don't know about. I think that if these types of writing that are apparent in his novel were more cohesive, this memoir would retain my interest more effectively. 

Impressions on Country Spiritualism

One of the things that has made an impression on me most from reading Sing Me Back Home has been Jennings development of spiritualism surrounding the music in his life. Devoting such reverence to Johnny Cash and other artists like him is almost like giving them sainthood in his eyes. Even his diction in reference to them changes, almost as if they're too good to be real. I was really surprised that Jennings would put this much faith in a musical artist or song. The book was prefaced for me by several classmates indicating that "[the book] was terrible because it talked about country music", and I expected some reference or parallels, but not with this much fervor. I'm enjoying the book even more with this newly "enlightened" understanding of Jennings's view on the artists that shaped his childhood

Lost in Country Music

In the first few pages of Jenning's book, I became lost in a sea of unfamiliar comparisons, references, and music. I feel that an author ought to engage his reader, take his reader along for the journey through the book; however, I feel as if I am an outsider looking into a world that is unfamiliar and strange to me. Although not every book, whether novel, short story, or biography, relates to the specific "world" we live in, something about it draws us in and resonates with us. It is what keeps us engaged. In Jenning's book, that something isn't quite there. I feel completely isolated from this little "country-music-lovin'" world, and the book doesn't make me interested in this world either. This book is written for someone, but it's not me. Maybe this is because I can't relate to the story at all, but I think Jennings changes his tone too often. As he switches from a history lesson on country music to his experiences in rural New Hampshire, his tone transforms from formal, historian-like, to real, uncensored, "country." Maybe this is another reason I find it hard to relate to and become engaged in. 

Books about Genocide

I'm going to backtrack a little to Ung's "First They Killed My Father." It made me think of other books we've read about genocide, like "What is the What?" When comparing the two, I immediately recall Ung's skillful manipulation of description and specific details that I enjoyed. I think I'm able to remember Ung's story more clearly because it was paced expertly, keeping the reader captivated and involved. I was able to read the book in pretty much one sitting (on an airplane). When I think about "What is the What" I cannot even remember what the "what" was. I remember the joyous feeling I had when I managed to escape failure on a plot quiz. I remember feeling like the book was endless, especially when the protagonist was going through the desert. While the style of writing really made the reader FEEL like they were traveling through an endless desert, I constantly found myself tuning out. Like in "the Bookseller of Kabul," the author of "What is the What" didn't narrate historical explanations very well. I think the length of Ung's story intensified the pathos that the text evoked in me because I felt like the characters were being torn from the story. This was a pretty unorganized rant but my point: Ung's story about genocide was more effective than that of "what is the what." 

All About Subject Matter

I've been thinking about what makes any given reader like the book they are reading. Like Rob, i think it comes down (quite obviously) to what the central theme of the book is. In the case of "Sing Me Back Home," from reading posts I can see that many people find themselves in direct conflict with the focus of the novel: country music. This can prevent them from ENJOYING the novel, but i don't think it has to stop them from appreciating what Jennings has to say. I think what is going to help me through the dense country music portions of the book will be the deep appreciation i have for Jennings passion for music and his rhetorical skill. When I prevent myself from overanalyzing some of his rather grand statements, I find myself enjoying the dramatic flair of his writing. Chapter One concludes with, "I will tell you why it's my music, but also why its emotion-drenched wisdom also belongs to you, belongs to all of this." The dramatic repetition at the end of this line is encourages me to continue reading, even though I'm not particularly enthused about the core of the book. 

Jennings and Country Music

I've heard a lot of negative comments about Jennings's book. The interesting thing about these comments is that few of them are about the way he rights or about his rhetoric. Most of them are simply about the subject matter: country music. I think that a lot of people had problems getting into the memoir simply because the subject matter is dense and, for some, hard to relate to. As for me, I really enjoy this memoir. Reason? I really enjoy country music. So when I read Jennings's thoughts on Johnny Cash's first album and Hank Williams and other country music staples, I can't help be interested. I think that this says a lot about what people want out of their reading material. In the end, the readers must be interested in the subject matter. Some people loathe the very core of country music. Those people may very well loathe the very core of Jennings's memoir. That's just how it goes.

Dana Jennings

I think that my favorite part of Dana Jenning's book so far is the way that he uses description. For example, in the first chapter when he describes his background he uses a number of images to help the reader identify with an upbringing/ lifestyle that they may be unfamiliar with like "record ripe with country darkness." I also thought that the analysis of Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line" was really great, because it showed how someone who didn't have a country upbringing might interpret a country song differently, that the people who have real country roots get more out of the music than those who listen to it purely because its on the top 100 hit list. 

reactions to jennings book

i feel like i shouldn't say this because we have a connection to the author, but i don't really like this book. i think its interesting when he talks about his family, but the long stretches of analysis of country music is just not interesting to me. i find it very repetitive and like i'm getting better acquainted with Johnny Cash than Dana Jennings.
what i do like about this is that the writing style makes me think in a country accent. it's very distinct however it does make it dense and hard to read at times.

Sing Me Back Home Reactions

I started the book after most people and had already heard how difficult it was to get through. While I admit I am still in the beginning and not finding the specific references too fascinating, the content connects to large enough themes that to a certain degree, I can relate. I found the extended metaphor opening work to intrigue the reader, but left a lot up to interpretation. Being pretty ignorant in the field of country music, I was hoping for a more clear cut, explanatory introduction. However, what I got was something better. By page 20 I understood completely the appeal of country music, not through his passion, but through his ability to relate it to a certain lifestyle and a certain identity. I feel one of the most powerful statements was that country music could provide such amazing escapism: "for a few minutes you could forget that you were a few months behind on the rent and that the light company was threatening to shut the electric" (12). The strength of country music comes through in this passage. Although country music doesn't have this amazing effect on all of us, most of us have a favorite weekly television show that we allow ourselves to get completely sucked into until we forget reality. While country music is more in tune with specific communities and cultures, the idea of desperation and escapism is universal.

Love, Death and Country Music

In Jenning's novel, he describes a force that has raised him, has defined him... one that identifies him while simultaneously instilling a pride in his people, and uniting them through a common love. It was easier for me to read this book without thinking of that "force" as the country music that I know -- the somewhat goofy, bucktoothed cartoon-like figure playing a broken banjo. Thus, instead of hearing the "twang" of actual country music while I was reading, I heard the "twang" of Jenning's voice: the voice he tried to give country music, to legitimize it in the eyes of others, and to bring people to understand that it is much more than "hick".

The amount of pride that Jennings writes with, combined with the fact that his prose reads like lyrics and has a "hymnlike hum" itself, made it easy to hear Jenning's unique voice.

I haven't finished the book, but I haven't yet been convinced of Jenning's argument. I think the thing that bothers most of us is that Jennings is trying to make us all identify with country music, trying to argue that it is inherently American and thus applies to all of us. This is hard for me to believe mainly because I think country musics isolation is its main source of power.

It reminded me of my mother's family -- they were all born and raised in Jamaica. You can always tell when we have family over because true country Reggae will surely be playing (not the kind anyone would ever hear on the radio -- the kind only people who have lived in the country would have heard). The fact that most can't identify it, that most don't understand its lyrics, makes it more unifying for us. We find power in the fact that only we can understand it. I feel like country music has the same sort of power, that although Jennings is spending time trying to make us relate, and translating this genre for us, we will never truly understand. And I think that's ok.

Sing Me Back Home

Well, I don't want to speak for anyone but myself but having read some of the other blogs, it appears that the common consensus is indicates that most of us are struggling to feel connected to the text. Certainly for me, establishing a connection with this book has been challenging. I think it was easy for us to throw ourselves into the readily emotional prose of First They Killed My Father--Ung's simple, passionate honesty made it easy to feel as though we were a part of the action, although the situation she presented to us is something wholly alien to most American high schoool students like ourselves. But at the same time, Jennings offers us what seems to be a story into which his emotions are equally as invested, and about a situation (rural New Hampshire and country music) that, however ironically, I know less than I do about the Cambodian genocide. It strikes me as odd that It was so easy for me to become enveloped in Ung's description of a foreign country but I feel as though I'm an outsider looking in on Jennings' account of somethign that's actually a large part of my own country's culture.

Country Music..?

ok, it is very difficult to trudge through a list of country songs and artists most of us aren't very familiar with. i have this feeling that what jennings is doing with his name dropping is some sort of intricate, marvelous weaving of country music, rural life in New Hampshire, poverty - yet when I don't recognize the threads, how can I appreciate the art? 

It's not only the country music references that are hard to pick up - it's the whole lifestyle behind those lyrics that none of us at MKA can understand completely. 

But in the realm of rhetoric- where we've learned to look through content and into the strategy and devices, I think jennings really stands out. The tone is unlike anything we've seen - the academic analysis mixed with slang and colloquialisms? That's pretty rare. The use of definition is apparent - in a way, the book is an extended definition of country music - and all its facets - love, death, poverty, working life. Illustration, alliteration, it's all there, and it's easy to see when what he is actually saying is going over my head. 

My post isn't working.... so sorry if this comes up 7 different times.

Reading this book was not necessarily something I was "dying" to do. I didn't feel that I could relate personally to anything that Jenning's was writing about. I didn't grow up in the rural mountains, I grew up in a suburb 14 miles from NYC. I've fortunately never experienced the Great Depression, while Jenning's swears that it consumed his childhood. Most importantly, I didn't grow up listening to country music--I knew all the lyrics to "Genie in a Bottle" by the time I was 8.

But reading everyone elses posts, I could see that I was not alone.

It was really unsettling to me that I couldn't relate to anything that Jenning's was writing about. When my Nana visited me at my horse show this weekend, she asked me what I was reading in school. When I told her about my "situation", she laughed. Little did I know what my family background really was and how much I could, in fact, relate to Jenning's writing.

What I found out was that my ancestors on the Asher side of my family came over to explore the US with Daniel Boone. This same group settled in rural Kentucky, where we still have relatives living today. My dad used to go to his cousins' house in Kentucky and ride their horses bareback through the wooded mountains. My Nana would recall the family poker games that would always get out of control and sometimes ended with a toothless family member.

Now hold on, could this really be my family? The stereotypical deep southern folk who loved their whiskey, cards and country music?

So I stepped back to reevaluate what I had read. What I found was rather interesting. The language was not particularly my taste- the context wasn't either. And honestly, hearing how closely my family was related to Jenning's story didn't change anything for me and my connection I felt with the book. What I could relate to, however, was the truth I found in Dana Jenning's words. His conviction was evident and unswayed throughout the entire book, and if I didn't necessarily agree with what he was saying, I never found myself disagreeing with Jenning's personal beliefs. I guess when you get down to it it doesn't matter about the context of the writing, but the believe in one's words that really can create a connection between an author and his audience.

Country Music

Reading this book was not necessarily something I was "dying" to do. I didn't feel that I could relate personally to anything that Jenning's was writing about. I didn't grow up in the rural mountains, I grew up in a suburb 14 miles from NYC. I've fortunately never experienced the Great Depression, while Jenning's swears that it consumed his childhood. Most importantly, I didn't grow up listening to country music--I knew all the lyrics to "Genie in a Bottle" by the time I was 8.

But reading everyone elses posts, I could see that I was not alone.

It was really unsettling to me that I couldn't relate to anything that Jenning's was writing about. When my Nana visited me at my horse show this weekend, she asked me what I was reading in school. When I told her about my "situation", she laughed. Little did I know what my family background really was and how much I could, in fact, relate to Jenning's writing.

What I found out was that my ancestors on the Asher side of my family came over to explore the US with Daniel Boone. This same group settled in rural Kentucky, where we still have relatives living today. My dad used to go to his cousins' house in Kentucky and ride their horses bareback through the wooded mountains. My Nana would recall the family poker games that would always get out of control and sometimes ended with a toothless family member.

Now hold on, could this really be my family? The stereotypical deep southern folk who loved their whiskey, cards and country music?

So I stepped back to reevaluate what I had read. What I found was rather interesting. The language was not particularly my taste- the context wasn't either. And honestly, hearing how closely my family was related to Jenning's story didn't change anything for me and my connection I felt with the book. What I could relate to, however, was the truth I found in Dana Jenning's words. His conviction was evident and unswayed throughout the entire book, and if I didn't necessarily agree with what he was saying, I never found myself disagreeing with Jenning's personal beliefs. I guess when you get down to it it doesn't matter about the context of the writing, but the believe in one's words that really can create a connection between an author and his audience.

A Few Different Thoughts on Jennings' Book

As I've seen is similar by reading others' blogs, I was not pulled in by anything about Love, Death, and Country Music. Nothing seemed to appeal to me, not the title, the subject, the prologue, or the beginning of the book. I was so turned off after reading the first ten pages that I did not pick up the book again for more than a week. Because of this, I'm still not that far in the text, yet I have gotten further into it and now have a greater and somewhat different reaction. Yes, as most others have said, I do not particularly enjoy country music either, but I don't hate it. I mean I think I like some soft country music. For me, it was not only the complete focus on country music and just country music which caused me to immediately dislike the book, but also the writing style. I am bothered not as much by the country music aspect of it as by the way he discusses country music. However, these are all just my personal reactions so far and I still fully understand his purpose and goals in writing this. I appreciate the risk he took in writing such a different and personal piece, and I also know I have to read more before I create a more complete opinion. On this more positive note, I like Jennings' use of rhetoric. I've noticed a number of techniques including alliteration, illustration, metaphor, and more generally, comparison. However, I have trouble understanding his reasoning behind these strategies. It's hard for me to understand his rhetoric and determine why and what effect he intends to create by including this language. Maybe because I haven't been able to connect with the writing as much as I would have liked to, I haven't been able to find the link between his rhetoric and his meaning.

Beyond Country Music

Although I was not "hooked" within the first 20 pages of the novel, and haven't found it particularly "interesting", once I look past my personal views, I can assess, and truly understand Jennings methods. His continuing list of country songs serves to represent certain episodes in both America and his life. He is able to speak about something that he finds so close to him, and relate it to his life. Although I am not familiar with his "country singer name dropping" throughout the book, what I can take from it, is that this genre of music means much more to him than guitars and lyrics. His style (in terms of his rant about country music) can be compared to any writer who has written a story and connected it to an object or sport that they love. Jennings shouldn't be judged on what he parallels his life and American events to (country music), but should be judged on the effectiveness of his writing style. Yes his ongoing prose about Johnny Cash and other country singers may get annoying, but he is able to clearly illustrate his stories and the story of growing America, I find it very interesting that he is able to find connections between country songs and these topics.

I wish I liked country...

I really wish I liked country. If I liked country music, I would think that Jennings creates a literary masterpiece embodying the essence of the country genre of music. I would revel in his fluid style of writing, absorbing and wholly appreciating the lyrical quality to his prose that is saturated with alliteration, consonance and the pervasive feeling that the memoir belongs to the genre of country music itself. I would recognize and admire his cleverly-placed references to famous country pieces and musicians, my heart would squeeze faithfully every time I saw the word "Cash," and I would be able to pretend that I myself had grown up in the 1960's running and singing barenaked as a child and chasing dogs away from chicken coops.

Sadly, though -- I don't.

I think I get it. Jennings' memoir is a song in its own right: a compilation of hundreds of references to songs and musicians that can only exhibit a unique sound as a single entity if the smaller bits resonate individually. I feel that in order to truly appreciate the novel, the reader would have to inwardly sound the majority of Jennings' references to the country music of forty years ago so that his memoir could resonate as a whole. I really do wish I was familiar with the hundreds of song references that Jennings draws from to compose his novel, but because I'm not, I can't ever truly appreciate Jennings' memoir for the masterpiece that it probably is.

Love, Death and Country Music

I'm not that far into the book so I can't give a full judgment on it but so far I don't find it particularly grabbing. The books that I find the most appealing sort of pull me in from the beginning. For example, "First They Killed My Father" opened with a vivid description of Phnom Penh, and then Ung transitioned to more specific details about her family. I immediately felt pulled into the scene and interested. In Jennings' book, I found less of an initial pull. I found myself struggling to see the story through all the drawn out descriptions of the country music. So far, I find that the numerous sections dedicated to country music's history cause me to lose focus and do not inspire me to keep reading. Maybe someone who is very interested in country music would enjoy this book more, and be able to relate to it in a way that I can't. From reading the comments of others I see that this sentiment is shared and as I keep reading I'm going to take the advice of Michelle (I think it was her) and try to skip the boring descriptions so I can try to understand the story more.

ughh country music..

I HATE country music. When I first read the title of the book, Love, Death, and COuntry Music,  I HATE country music. When I first read the title of the book, Love, Death, and Country Music, I thought the 3 words had no significance when placed together. I thought the author had just chosen 3 random words, used them a few times in his novel, so as to simply draw attention to his book. The 'creative' title, and the artistic cover would draw attention to his novel nonetheless. Honestly, when I started reading the first two chapters, I was bored. I REALLY REALLY don't like country music, and had no idea what he was talking about half the time. At first, I thought it would be best to look up some of the songs and artists he refers to, but it would take way too long. I didn't really understand why he added so much detail about the music in the beginning. I feel like he could've explained his background and values without so much extra boring fluff. After waking up various times with the book on my face, I realized I kept stopping in the same spot. I decided to skip that section and come back to it later, and it worked. I got past the first 2 chapters and finally noticed the diction and the purpose behind his descriptive writing. So far, it's not that bad. I can't wait to keep reading and see what other surprises he has for the readers.

Maybe I would understand it better in French...

When I started reading this book, I honestly felt like I was reading the Rosetta Stone. The country music references, lack of grammar or punctuation, and incessant mentioning of Johnny Cash were totally overwhelming. I would normally associate this style of writing with novels about the Civil War (i.e. Huckleberry Finn) or perhaps Reconstructionist southerners. NEVER would I imagine this literature with any place north of Maryland or east of Ohio. But, sure enough, here it is.

Perhaps this is Jennings' point: the idea of the least likely thing in the least likely place. His relationship to music clearly propels him throughout the novel, some metaphors and allusions seem more fitting than others. Yet, he makes all of these associations as a caucasian male from New Hampshire. You look at the cover of the book and think it's going to be about some country music fanatic and/or artist. But no. He's an educated writer living (currently) in suburbia. Don't judge a book (even one about country music) by its cover.

So far, my favorite part of Jennings' novel is "Hillbilly Fever," in which he makes paragraphs worth of metaphors relating country music to horseshoes, Johnny Cash (of course), two-stepping rats, and poverty-stricken existentialists. He breaks up this dense yet poetic diction with "Are you listening?" or "Listen!" These interruptions either shock the reader (as they did for me when I first read this passage because I felt my eyes glazing over the words) or they simply remind the audience of what they're reading, and of course, that they should pay attention. Many of these allusions come back later in the book.

The first few chapters were rough to get into and actually begin reading, but I think his diction and figurative language are amazing. I am no fan of country music (unless you count the Dixie Chicks), but Jennings really does, in my opinion, convey the impact of country music on his life to his audience effectively. Does he do it efficiently? That remains to be seen...

WE GET IT ALREADY!

One of my greatest pet peeves has to be when a writer believes that his or her audience lacks intelligence. I understand that there is a certain stereotype about Americans—that for all the power and money we have, we're simply not as smart as we think. But I think that many writers don't give their audience enough credit, believing that their readers won’t be able to understand certain metaphors or deeper meanings. I love writers like Fitzgerald and Golding that force you to dig into the book to pull out the message.

Jennings' book leaves me no ground to dig. He presents this metaphor comparing country music to his own life right out in the open, in the prologue, and leaves you wondering, what else is there for me to look for? And he drills in this "core message" throughout the entire novel, as if we as an audience were unable to make the connection. Frankly, this book did not "grab" me—it made me a passive reader rather than an active one. 

On a separate note, I believe Jennings also alienates his audience. I felt that I couldn't see myself in his story because I’m not Southern. As Joe said, I don't know anything about country music, and thus, instead of feeling at "home" in Jennings' story, I felt like an outsider. While Jennings book did leave me interested in learning more about country music, it left me with little else.

Say Johnny Cash one more time...

While Jennings clearly cared whole-heartedly about country music and its significance in history and present day, I could not force myself to evoke the same connection or relationship to this seemingly foreign world and music. The audience of his book is someone at least vaguely familiar with the genre, and if an expert reads this book, he or she will be able to extract much more than a novice to the country lifestyle will. Perhaps my age or upbringing has generated too great of a schism between his "Southern" poverty found in New Hampshire and my personal life for me to gain anything from what he attempted to explain. Whatever the reason, the repetition of the same few great country singers over and over again for novices such as myself were enough to make the first 20 pages almost unbearable. I even tried to play some Johnny Cash I had on my iPod to attempt some feeble understanding and relationship to the music, but nothing worked. In the suburbs of NYC, we are physically ignorant of the lifestyle he depicts and therefore the personal stories are the only effective element in his book that evoke pathos from the reader. The anecdotes create a personal feel and allowed me to imagine how I would feel if I lived in a similar situation and needed an escape. I gleaned a greater figurative understanding of the significance of country music in the lives of those in the poor rural south.

I will forever be biased

I despise country music. I have since before i can remember and i doubt it will change any time soon. I can see how if i put this deep and abiding hatred aside for the times i sit and read Sing Me Back Home, the book might be able to speak to me a bit more, since music is a gigantic part of my life and i completely understand why Jennings makes such an effort to try and ingrain into his audience's head that it can help shape our lives. But i just could not seem to get past the fact that the majority of this book was about country music. Just getting through the first couple pages was a struggle for me, and the personal anecdotes, which are few and strewn completely randomly throughout the book, were the easiest sections for me to get through, and considering their subject matter that should not be the case. I understand how his use of pathos is amplified by helping to relate a huge part of his life and the lives of his family to ours through our emotional connection to music, but the overall effect started off at a severe disadvantage with me, seeing as a large portion of my family thoroughly enjoys country music, and i've already spent a good part of my life learning to tune out their attempts to convert me. Jennings makes a valiant effort to subtly convince me of its merits, and its surprisingly wide range of members and their backgrounds, as well as the power of their lyrics. But while i come away from this book certainly with a more well rounded education in the history of country music, i remain the same in my abhorrence of the genre. In addition, while the personal aspects of Sing Me Back Home were obviously powerful and moving, the lack of consistency and the fact that they often seemed to take a back seat to the musical aspect of the book never really let me connect emotionally to the author or the book in general.

A World Foreign to My Own

Having just read Ung's scintillating memoir about her struggle in Cambodia, I expected Jennings' Sing Me Back Home to be much of the same. As I began to read his memoir, I felt like I was being forced into a world foreign to my own. A world that relied on a different language for communication. A world, for me, that was lost in translation. While Jennings' dialect relies strongly on his relation with country music, my own relies on the hip liberal scene of present day America. I was never able to begin to be able to fully understand the meaning of his descriptions telling me how much country music drives the life of his people. From my perspective, the only country music I have heard was some song "Jesus take the wheel",  a Rascal Flatts hit or two, and a few of Johnny Cash's famous number one hits. However, other than that, I have never entered the country music realm. I honestly feel like it comes from a different world, to a certain degree. 

In turn, the fact that I have no real relation with country music resulted in my inability to connect with Jennings' book. I felt that on every page he opened up a different argument and then tried to prove it with examples from country music [I know this is obvious but I am restating it because after thirty pages I was already, figuratively dying]. There was no break, just argument after argument after argument. His writing style really impeded my ability to read the book with any ease.

However, I urge that everyone give the utmost respect to Jennings because he took a huge risk in writing this book. I am sure that not many people have written a book about their lives through examples from country music, and I do not think many people will do this in the future. Jennings was "man-enough" to take a risk and I tip my hat off to him for that. 

A new way of looking at it

Ok, so this one hasn't been as easy as I expected it to be. I mean, yes I like it when writers write in a more colloquial language.. but really? It took me a while to get past, better yet get used to, all of the country music references... every paragraph, every sentence, ever word >.<... I've never really been a fan of country music (honestly the last full length country song I listened to was in the car with my Pennsylvania cousins.. it was about some guy that shot his wife because she didn't like the fact that he was going fishing-- a story he was telling his "hound"... needless to say its not my favorite song). But Jennings's book is causing me to gain growing appreciation for the affect (okay, okay how it elicits Pathos) of country music: what it influences and what it is derived from, how it is an intimate part of many people's lives, no maybe how it is life itself to many people. I guess I never took country music seriously, but that's wrong considering what music is to me: air, water, blood; if my music can be such a part of me then I shouldn't have discounted what it is to other people, to each his own. Jennings has been telling me about the air he breathes, the water he drinks, and the blood in his veins: country music. It is to him what my music is to me, so my remedy is reading it how I would listen to it. His country music.. maybe my jazz, my classical, my R&B. His Johnny Cash.. my Ella Fitzgerald, my Sonny Rollins, my Stevie Wonder, my Denise Graves. I would be doing Jennings and his work no justice if I didn't make it mean to me what it means to him.

I'll Never Like Country (And That's Just Fine)

When I first learned that one of the books we read in this course was a part memoir, part music history, I was pretty excited. When I learned it was about country music, though, my feelings changed. I'm not in anyway a fan of country music and probably never will be. However, I began reading the book and started to realize that my views of the genre as a whole were skewed. I learned that country music does not just come from the south, that country fans lived all over the country and that female country singers were just as emotional and rough as their male counterparts. Any false preconceived notion I had of country music was shot down by Jennings. The mini biographies Jennings' gives of the musicians and his breakdown of the lyrics helped me understand the deeper meaning behind the music and what country really was. All in all, he is really successful on describing a certain topic and giving examples to further present his views. Jennings' rhetoric reminds me of Hurston's in "Their Eyes Were Watching God."Hurston uses sophisticated description as well as a Southern language to beautifully tell her story. While Jennings definitely makes an attempt to mix his sophisticated English and country voice, it utimately fails. There is no distinct break between the two, thus taking away from his book.

While "Sing Me Back Home" is definitely successful in teaching about country music, its origin and its true meaning, I sadly say that I feel in no way connected to this book. I don't think its badly written or that its unenjoyable, its just that I can't really connect to the whole musical aspect. For example, "Killing Yourself to Live: 85% of a True Story" by Chuck Klosterman is an easy book for me to connect to because its all about rock music, a genre I actually listen to. Had "Sing Me Back Home" been about a genre I enjoy, I might not have learned as much but I might have enjoyed the book more.

Until i read this novel, I never truly realized the power music has, especially country music. Nevertheless, Jennings was able to give me a deeper appreciation of country music, and the influence it had on its millions of impoverished listeners. Country music gave poor rural Americans songs to cry, laugh, and drink to. In "Sing Me Back Home" Jennings is able to show how every aspect of life in rural America, be it good or bad, can be found in country music. Whether it be the pain from being hit by your drunken father, or the thrill of strock car racing, or any other multitude of feelings, it can all be found in country music. Consequently it is this ability to relate to its listeners that makes country music so powerful. Country music provides that shoulder to cry on or that friend to laugh with to many of its lonely fans. Jennings is able to show how almost all of the hopes, fears, and everyday life of an entire subgroup of people can be found in country music. During the 1950s and 1960s counrty music was not concerned with selling albums and making profits, instead many country artists merely wanted to tell the story of the hard working Americans who were not able to enjoy the post World War II prosperity that so many other Americans were able to experience.

Country Music's Purpose

Until I read this book, a song represented nothing more to me than a mood or a specific event the artist sang about. The deepest lyrics I had ever listened to were probably about one of the singer's tough break-ups. And as for country music, to me it was happy, simple songs about life on the farm. Before reading "Sing Me Back Home," I definitely underestimated the power of a song, especially country songs.
Jennings opened my eyes to the ability of a song to sing not only to your current mood, but also to your lifetime expereinces, the experiences that shape who you are. As he paralleled various country songs with his life, I realized how central they were to his identity, and the identity of others with his lifestyle. They not only got a struggling, angry man through the day, but they also served as a testament to everything he lived through and died for.
Jennings connected the lyrics of each song to a common aspect of country life. However, one of his most powerful and effective strategies to relate country music with country life is his telling of the artists' lives. Suddenly the lyrics become more than rhymes, they epitomize the life of the singer as well as the lives of the listeners. Jennings shows us that country singers are really just musically talented country boys and girls.
This book truly showed me how ignorant I was about music and especially country music. While it was difficult to get through at times for a reader who has never listened to more country than Taylor Swift, it was definitely worth reading and his message was worth learning.

Learning from Jennings

Anyone who knows me knows that I take ridiculous notes (probably way too exact and comprehensive). This book was really hard for me too take notes on. I spent 3 boring days trying to just get through the first 20 pages. First of all, nothing made sense to me. Jennings referred to a thousand different songs and mentioned Johnny Cash about 15 times in a sentence. I was frustrated because I could not put a tune in my head to match the songs that Jennings listed. Then, I put my pen down and STOPPED TAKING NOTES. I read quickly, not focusing on the foreign details, but rather focusing on the big picture that Jennings presented between country music and his life. Without knowing anything about country music, the references to songs and artists still helped me understand Jennings' connection to country music.

I have never listened to any country music, and I probably never will. It just does not appeal to me. I have never experienced poverty or the life that Jennings tags as a "Sh#t" lifestyle. But, by reading this book, I have arrived at a greater appreciation for music, artists, and listeners. The book beat the message into me. "Music is a form of expression for all types of people". Country appeals to Jennings because the music and his life are parallel lines. I like different music because other types of music coordinate with my life experiences.

To sum it up- I hated the book, but it taught me about Jennings, music, and life.

Our Music is Our Name

Country music is not just the collective noise of toothless, overall-clad hicks strumming out notes on beat-up banjos; it is the feeling and the emotion behind a forgotten community in post-World War II America. To some, it sounds like a nonsensical clatter of mismatched chords intended for the rednecks of the rural countryside; to others, it sounds like the voices, not of angels, but of other hardworking people who know the struggle endured by the listener. Over and over again, Jennings brings up the idea of being defined by music. Is there really a genre of tunes that can capture who we are in a matter of beats and measures? It is undeniable that music can affect how we feel in a moment (hence why people listen to pump-up music to get ready for a game, laid-back music to unwind after a long day, etc), but can our entire beings be wrapped up and performed on a musical scale? If so, what would it sound like? If our hearts were boom boxes and without thinking, we just hit play, what would we hear? The throbbing bass of techno, the measured swing of jazz, the back-breaking power of rock, the unfettered spirit of an instrumental solo? Or perhaps some mix of it all, some medium where the flow and finesse of a ballad meets the rigid and unrelenting pounding of a drum? Whatever we would sound like, the important point that Jennings makes is that we would all make noise. No matter how quiet someone might seem, no one is silent; no one has simply nothing to say. Like the forgotten country-loving society in which Jennings grew up, there is a sound for everyone. We simply have to listen.

Proving a Point

In doing the Close Readings of First They Killed My Father I realize all of the things we inevitably miss when reading something for the first time. How frustrating it must be for the writer, knowing his or her book will only be skimmed and even if it is read thoroughly the fullest meaning will not be understood. A large portion of the time we interpret symbolism and rhetorical devices in a way that the author did not intend. If writers' merits are measured based on how effectively they prove their points, we can never accurately judge the their skills without being 100% sure of their intentions. So instead we judge how well they prove a point but what if the author was trying to prove the opposite. Seems unlikely but when an argument gets complicated enough like in "The Sweet Smell of Success" miscommunication is entirely possible.

That's so emo.

"That's so disturbing," my mom said when she first heard about the "emo" phenomenon. I tried to explain that emo wasn't just the epitome of teenage angst, but then I realized I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. I hear the term all the time, but what is emo? A genre of music, a fashion, a lifestyle? 

The essay on "emo" begins by saying that part of what defines emo is its lack of definition.   I loved the lack of the formulaic "essential definition" in the essay. Instead one sentence to sum up the tenuous term, the author focuses on quirky details (like the specific number of results of a google search on "emo") and humorous lists of synonym-like definitions. Interestingly, he claims that emo most closely resembles adolescence. Not only the the longing and the self-absorption, but the interaction between the "emo" and the "teenager."  Emo is about perception, or as he says, turning a "monologue into a dialogue."   Emo, short for emotional, short for emocore, is more than one definite definition- and that's because feelings- our reactions, our yearning, our melancholy- are never easily defined.

Love, Death, Country Music

Okay, so I honestly havent gotten very far in my reading of Love, Death, and Country Music but I already feel like I have a good sense of his style and rhetorical "personality." Ive noticed that he creates and continually repeats parallel structures. Even more so, or rather, what seems more effective, Is his personification of country music. He says things like, "country music is" and "country music knows" thereby giving it a persona. I think that this investment of character in "coutnry music" is symbolic of (and reinforces for the reader) the significant it had in Jenning's life.

Emo-tional Blogging

I just re-read the Emo essay from a few class periods ago, and I can't believe how dated it is already. Actually, I'm not sure if it's dated or if the writer doesn't know jack about pop culture (seeing as how the author writes for Spin, the latter seems unlikely). He kept on making the assertion that no one wants to subscribe themselves to the "emo" label, how there isn't a single band out there today that labels themselves under the all-elusive "emo" genre. I just don't see how that is the case. I did an iTunes searh for emo. Though there isn't an emo genre, there is a band called Emo and an iTunes essential called emo. Bands today with that certain grungy sound need to label themselves as emo because of the semi-new phenomenon of the "Emo Kid," AKA the scenster, the goth, or the kid-who-will-forever-be-in-his-or-her-awkward-phase, complete guy-liner, bandans, chains, and strangely-located piercings. "Emo Kids" crave anything and everything emo. This demographic is the reason bands like Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco are popular, and the reason the Bamboozle Festival can still exist in a time when the music business is slowly but surely dieing. So when the writer of the essay says that no one will ever label themselves as emo, I strongly disagree.

Musings (please don't read if you don't like the idea behind the word "musings")

I'm going to try to keep this as simple as possible since I've been thinking about this for around 45 minutes, and whenever I think of writing an elaborate piece on this particular type of idea I feel invariably self-conscious. Anyway, just jumping right into it, I sometimes feel that the fast-paced and individualized nature of the world today has caused people on the whole to lose their connection to people. So much nowadays is about following general patterns and precise definitions that I feel as though producing/asserting anything (thinking, opinions, quantity of work, one's self even, etc.) is valued so much more greatly than the acts of perceiving or listening. I often think that where it is possible, especially in schooling environments, there should be some class or setting where participants are encouraged to participate by attuning themselves to the environment, people and ideas surrounding them, and not only to participate through speaking. I feel like we're missing out on some other kind of dimension entirely by never taking time to meditate on the connections and similarities between each and every one of us. I generally find ideas and thinking in today's sort of learning environment to be rigid when it might be more natural for them to be fluid instead. After going through those ideas, I guess the obvious next question becomes, How do you create a learning environment that encourages this type of thinking? This is where the connection to English comes in -- if I had to name an environment that best fulfills the ideas above, I would without question name my freshman year English class that out of the members of our current class, only Jake and Elana had with me. It's difficult to describe in words just what the environment was like, but literary discussions in the class were essentially philosophical conversations and the act of listening was the most thoroughly engaging I've experienced out of any class I've ever had. I could go on about all of this without end, but to give this post some sort of conclusion, I'll encourage you to take a few minutes whenever you think of it to attune to something, or to appreciate someone, or to just feel happy, because they're all the same thing in the end. Thanks for reading.

Definition of Success

I really liked the essay "The Sweet Smell of Success Isn't All That Sweet" that we read a few days ago because I think it hit upon one of the key issues we face as college-bound high school students. I don't know about anybody else here, but I've been struggling with the concept of what "success" really means to us as MKA students. As Laurence Shames explains, there is a conflict between contemporary notions of success (which is more formulaic and restricting) and previous notions of success (shooting for an impossibly high cause and almost certainly failing). When I think about it, I pretty much face the same dilemma. I feel like our environment does push this "contemporary success" notion onto us. In order to succeed, I should follow a certain formula: get good grades, take the hardest classes, get into a good college, get a good job, etc. Right now, getting the grades and the acceptance letter outweigh the general purpose of education itself- to become educated (and we all know that sometimes, letters aren't the greatest indication of our general knowledge). Furthermore, is the reason we chose to attend MKA a result of this "contemporary success"? Did we all come here becuase MKA is a "college prepatory" school? Or did we come here to work towards the older notion of success? In the end, this essay kind of reinspired me to shoot for a noble cause that is worth failing at. Maybe there is something way too restrictive about our current view of success.

Prose Choices

Ok so my post doesn't have much to do with anything...
But after starting to (kindof) skim through "Love, Death, and Country Music" I was reminded of something that has been in the back of my mind since we started this class...
Back in the beginning of the semester, "audience" and the "purpose of the writer" was something that we spent a lot of time and focus on. It made me realize how we make these unconscious prose choices in every part of our life... and I've been wondering what they mean.
For example, I feel like members of our class (and myself) often talk differently when sharing a thought in our AP English class than in other classes. Maybe other people disagree, but I feel like there's a certain raised standard that we feel we have to reach, which should be true of an AP class... but at times it feels somewhat unnatural, and I find myself carefully analyzing each word I'm about to say before sharing an opinion.
I mean, this is for better or worse... I'm not saying that its unfortunate, I do think that it improves my skills and should be expected in a high level class.
But are we unconsciously putting ourselves in a higher class? Is our diction during class elitist?
Even when writing these blogs, I sometimes feel like I'll be judged... that an "AP writer" shouldn't produce something wishy-washy or grammatically incorrect in any form of writing. Again... I'm not saying this is bad: in this age of over-simplified writing and speech patterns, what with facebook and aim and an increased amount of slang, it's intellectually healthy for me to become aware of my phrasing, and try to "AP-itize" it.
Anyway... to tie this back to "Love, Death, and Country Music", even after skimming through I saw that Mr. Jennings had made some interesting prose choices... choosing to show his "country" side, the non-grammatical, as well as the more educated side. I'm excited to read the entire book, so that I can determine whether this was to his advantage or not.

life, death amd country music

i began our new book this week while i was waiting o meet with my college counselor. i've got to say, what struck me most was Dana Jennings's very unique writing style. he uses parentheses a lot more than other writers that i have read, and i find the style to be very rich almost to the point of density but not quite. i haven't quite reached a decision on whether i like it or not, but i find it extremely intriguing. what was cool though was that when i was reading it, Mrs. Jennings walked by and saw me reading it. it kinda reminded me that we had a connection to this author, which made reading it pretty cool.

When is it Rape?

When we did group work in class on Wednesday, my group talked about "When is it Rape?" by Nancy Gibbs and I just wanted to expand on that a little... The thing that I like the most about this piece is the way the author presents the controversy without much bias. She lays out the topic to the reader, including differing examples and opinions, and allows him or her to interpret it in their own way. This way of writing is good because the reader can do more thinking, without as much authorial influence. It is really difficult to write from an unbiased perspective and Gibbs does this relatively successfully.

The Sweet Smell Of Sucess

I really liked reading the sweet smell of success because I think that the way it projected failing is really pertinent to the way life is today. Personally, I know that a lot of times I'll settle for something mediocre without aspiring more, or taking my ambitions to the next level. The article reminded me of the phrase "shoot for the moon because even if you miss you'll land in the stars." The article really put failing in perspective for me, and reminded me that its not always a bad thing, especially if your standards were set high to begin with.  Today, the lacrosse team lost a game to vernon 11-10. Technically this would be considered a failure because we didn't win, however at half-time we were losing 7-0, and we proceeded to score 7 goals in the first 6 minutes of the second half. I watched the girls who played channel every effort into winning the game, and even though we didn't win in the end, it felt like we did. We won the second half 10-4, to a team who had beaten us 7 to 0 in the first half and we had played the best we had all season. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the article made me re-evaluate the way I've been looking at both success and failure, and has applied to some recent events that are relevant and relatable to me. 

Friends

We read an essay a REALLY long time ago about types of friends - the one you love to hate, the perfect one, the silly one, the smart one, etc. I found myself finding at least one of my friends who matched each description. It made me realize that friends do more than function as just, well, your friends. They fill spaces in our personalities or in our habits that we lack. My personal favorite was the "relative friend" - I could name about 20 of those. It's interesting to actually think about and categorize friendships. In a way, it almost makes you evaluate the purpose of each one, seeing where it fits in.

I had to pick something to write about... so that's it. :)

To do with English...

I wanted to talk a little bit about one of the essays we read in our textbook under Cause and Effect, "Why We Keep Stuff..." by Caroline Knapp. I really enjoyed reading this essay, and felt she proved her point effectively and efficiently to the reader. I agree that it is often not the actual stuff that we feel we must keep, but the act of letting go of the stuff that is difficult. In addition, although all stuff does not have psychological value, Knapp's argument is valid that often the things we keep represent what we have hidden inside. As someone who is a pack rat and keeps so much stuff, I think I've gained insight into why I may keep some of my stuff. A great amount of the things I keep are entirely unnecessary and not useful; however, it is the act of letting go of old movie ticket stubs, old gift cards, and old notes that I cannot get myself to do. Like Knapp says, I don't really want to cut off my options or let go of some things that may cut off certain parts of myself. In addition, a large amount of the stuff I have definitely reflects some of me and what I don't want to give up.

On another note, I'm excited to start reading the next book that we are starting. I think it'll be extremely interesting and a great learning experience to meet and talk to the author as we read his writing.

Ung Cover

When I finished reading "First They Killed My Father," I looked at the cover and realized the colors and placement of words have some significance. The words "First They Killed My Father" are placed over Loung Ung's eyes. This could symbolize how her young eyes should have been shielded from the violence and cruelty she experienced in the war. Or it could mean that the eyes of the young girl have been scarred by what she had seen. Or even that the young, innocent eyes are gone and they are replaced by ones that are mature and experienced. The color red is also really significant in the novel. Red symbolizes freedom, happiness, and hope, such as the red scarf or red dress, but it could also signify blood. I might be looking too deep into this cover, but it seems like the cover could be interpreted in a number of ways. 

AP Exam

I've never taken any AP classes before, and I'm really nervous for the exam. In the SATs, I always do the worst in the English reading and literature sections. I like to take my time and read all the choices carefully. I get the lowest score on that section because I NEVER have time to finish it. If I do finish, I'm never completely sure of my answers. I second guess myself all the time and sometimes I'm right. I didn't realize that the AP Exam had a section like that until after I signed up for the class, even though it's pretty obvious that an English exam should include reading comprehension multiple choice questions. In class today, I  tried the multiple choice questions, and although I left one blank because I was unsure, I got to almost all 13 questions in 15 minutes. I know that I should work on time management and try to get everything done, but I don't want to rush and misinterpret the passages either. Hopefully, I'l do better than usual and have enough time to get everything done. It's a huge relief to know that we can get half of the multiple choice questions wrong and 5's on the essays and still get a 3 on the exam. I definitely want to get a score higher than a 3, but just in case I mess up my questions, I'm relieved.

English Homework 4/15

Hello Everyone,

So I know that we read about Emerson a while ago, but there was something about what he wrote that has been really bothering me. Mr. Kelly pointed this out to me when he stopped in to listen to our class. In Emerson's piece, American Scholar, he writes about challenging the system of education. He tells us all to question what we hear and what we are expected to accept. But how ironic, that he is almost demanding of us to question what we learn while he is trying to teach us at the same time. Is he tricking us? Or does he not realize the effect of his own words? And if we believe him, then aren't we not thinking for ourselves?

Ung Reading

I really did enjoy the book, "First they Killed my Father". I thought that the way Ung wrote (very clearly and brief) helped to move the book along rather quickly. Also, she was able to sneak in longer and more decorated sentences when detail was necessary without the reader losing their reading "flow". The saddest part of the book for me was when her friend's head is blown off when they were in one of the camps running away from the government. I could never imagine going through half of the experiences that Ung did, and for that I give her so much credit. Another sad point to the book was when Ung returned to her family, and they did not recieve her for she had turned into someone different than they knew. One of my greatest fears is not being accepted by my family, so this really hit home with me.

I found the speech of Long Ung throughout the book very accurate in her attempt to remain in the mindset she had at that age. I thought that the observations and style of speaking in the dialogue and the narrative would have evolved as she aged but Ung still managed to maintain an air of childishness. While she endured the harships she eventually stopped asking querstions, but her voice remined thre same in the narrative. I thought that as Ung became desensitized to the violence and experienced even more hardship, her childlike voice would gradually become harder and more adult sounding, but i thought that she maintained a consistent and accurate childlike voice.

"Innocence" in First They Killed My Father

In reading first they killed my father, the reader is given an interesting and new perspective into the experience of a refugee. Because she writes from the point of view of her five year old self, Loung Ung frees her account of the story from the complication that a more sophisticated slant on the event. An older narrator would likely have tried to imbue the account with attempted insight and speculation. Instead, Ung writes with the air of simple uncomplicated honesty that comes from the innocence of a childish outlook. This in itself lends straightforwardness to her prose, and consequently allows her to focus on the emotional journey without the added aspect of wondering at the nonsensical complications of genocide and politics.

first they killed my father

One aspect of the novel that I found unsettling was the accuracy with which the narrator, 5-year-old Loung Ung, remembers very specific details about her ordeal such as the exact number of people in the camps or the exact names of people they stayed with and towns they were moved into. Although Ung was undoubtedly forced to achieve a high level of maturity because of the extreme situation that befell her, while reading lavish description of the exact amount of bags of rice her brother Kim stole from the soldiers, or exactly what the Ung family ate that night, I no longer can truly believe that this is purely from the viewpoint of a 5-year-old. However, whether or not this discrepancy between the age of Ung at the time and the detail with which the novel was written effects the overall goal of the novel, I'm not sure. 

Feminism in At First They Killed My Father

Although I don't necessarily believe that it was the most important aspect of the book, or even a driving force in any way, Loung Ung's evolving perspective on feminism throughout it's plot line was extremely interesting to me. Initially, she described herself as an inquisitive, courageous female figure in a world where girls are expected to remain quiet and subservient. She described her sisters as ideal Cambodian, both beautiful and shy, but herself as her father's favorite.

When Loung Ung began to lose her natural curiousity, and replaced it with a sense of reluctant acceptance that comes with survival during these trying times, the impact was huge. The loss of soul that Loung Ung began to experience, from the young age of 5, was almost too much for me to bear. It served as a constant reminder for the person she could've been, and the person that was destroyed.

I was equally moved as the females in the book began to lose their beauty. Though it may seem superficial, great emphasis was placed on Loung Ung's Chinese background in the beginning chapter. This made her and her sisters stand out as beautiful, exquisite Cambodian women. When Loung's face transformed from an image of beauty to one of a villain, I grieved for her helpnessness. Then, the women started showing the symptoms of starvation, disease, overwork, and all of the turmoils that came with the great oppresion of this genocide. Their beauty, once the focus of all females in traditional Cambodian society, became impossible as their skin paled and stretched over their skeletal figures, their bellies expanded from starvation and their hair was reduced to oily strands. Everything that could remind them of their past life slowly deteriorated, as they strayed away from beauty and towards death.

When Loung Ung begins her road to recovery on her trip to America, she is stricken by the possibility of being "beautiful" once more. In a passage that I found very powerful, she has her hair put into curls and is ready to become part of a family, to receive opportunity instead of despair. Just as the mountains of Cambodia retained their beauty as a reminder of its halcyonic past, Loung's beauty is slowly restored as she begins the mending of her soul.

First They Killed My Father

One of my favorite things about First They Killed my Father was the perspective from which it was written. I liked the child's perspective because it essentially shows how Ung was forced to grow from a child who was protected from the evils of the world to a strong and independent adolescent who has to fight to survive. I was surprised at how detailed Ung's memory was considering how young she was when the cambodian civil war happened. However I guess that such traumatic events never leave your memory, and that this is why the book is titled as a memoir because some of the text may not be completely accurate. I have to say that I was pretty disturbed at the horrific scenes that Ung had to bear witness too, particularly the parts about people dying from eating the poison mushrooms and having other malicious diseases. All around I thought it was a good experience to have read because before I read it I was unaware of the cambodian civil war and the atrocities that went with it, all and all I think that the book serves as a powerful way to inform. 

Imagination in First They Killed My Father

Childhood: the state of being a child. That may be the dictionary definition of childhood, but to me it means imagination, curiosity, and innocence.  I think what especially touches all of us about Loung is the fact that she is only five years old when the story begins. 

I noticed her powerful sense of wonder, especially when she asks one street vendor selling frog legs: "Mister, did you catch the frogs from the ponds in the country or do you raise them? What do you feed frogs? How do you skin a frog? Do you find words in its stomach? What do you do with the bodies when you sell the legs?" (5).  Clearly, Loung is adorably inquisitive. However, when genocide spreads, Loung must use her imagination to understand how Khmer Rouge slaughters her parents.  

Not only is her imagination disfigured by visions of death, but Loung's innocence is completely stolen. When the Khmer first invades Phnom Penh, Loung naively asks her father "What is a Communist?" A few years later, Loung has grisly fantasies of murdering these Communists. I guess what I'm saying is that the perspective of a child is just beyond moving. 

first they killed my father

One thing that I could trust about this book that was somewhat harder to do in the Bookseller of Kabul, was that the emotions that were expressed through Ung's telling of her story, from the very start of the book to the very end, were sincere. With observing first hand such a traumatizing event, her emotions could not have been less than engrossing and honest. Ung's emotion, detailed accounts and precise ways of expressing are what kept the pages turning quickly.

I would also like to touch upon the title of the book, First They Killed My Father. From the very beginning of the novel, Ung's relationship with her father is very strong, and Ung makes this visible throughout the first chapter when she describes the dynamics between her and her father. It is obvious in the book that Ung's sister is the first to be killed however, Ung watches her Father slowly "deteriorate" on the inside emotionally as the novel progress, thus supporting the title, First They Killed My Father.

First They Killed My Father - Title

The title of Loung Ung's narrative, "First They Killed My Father," in my opinion, is not only appropriate but logical as well. It is true that Ung's sister Keav died first from the influence of the Khmer Rouge, yet the first family member to die directly by the hand of the soldiers, mentally, then physically, was her father. Ung had the closest relationship to her father in comparison to the others in her family. The first few chapters are dedicated to their connection and closeness. Her description of her father, Pa, makes it very easy for the reader to understand how special Ung's father was to her. The little stories mentioning his advice and his unyielding defense of his daughter were consciously chosen by the author to make clear their bond. Thus when the Khmer Rouge attacked the family's city, "they" killed her father by murdering his spirit and his past self that Ung had loved so much. They may not have physically killed him, but mentally he was never the man he used to be. In addition, when her father was taken away by the soldiers to be murdered, his disappearance had the deepest impact upon Ung. Each death in her family was tough on young Ung, but when Pa died, everything and everyone changed.

First They Called My Father Entry

One aspect I found particularly compelling about "First They Called My Father" was the way in which Ung wrote the book. Telling her story through the perspective of someone much younger (a 5 year old) is a difficult task that Ung does very well. The reason her writing is so successful is because she captures the essence of a young person using specific diction. By not using complicated language yet still writing well, Ung successfully writes the book from this perspective. I also really like the actual events of the book. Many memoirs are written about a young person who grows up in a poor neighborhodd and survive in an even worse environment. In Ung's case, she comes from the middle class and is pretty well off. This makes the book, for me, somewhat relatable.

"First They Killed My Father"

After reading "First They Killed My Father", I had a lot of different thoughts but I found what made the book hit center was the language. Hearing the happenings of this book from any person would have an impact, but hearing them from a young girl made it ring true. Children are the most genuine people there are because they're yet to be hit with the world. Even though I know that she writes this book as an adult, having this portrayed from her 5 year old point of view really sold the story to me. Everyone trusts the emotions of children more than they trust those of adults. Children merely express what they feel, not what seems appropriate or what they think people want to hear. All she wanted to do was go home to what she knew, with the people she loved, but instead her life was being stripped away piece by piece. This is something no child should have to go through, but so many children did. 

Reaction to First They Killed My Father

After reading memoirs like the Bookseller of Kabul and a Million Little Pieces, I have to admit that I lost a little faith in the memoir genre. The authors of the majority of the memoirs I read previous to First They Killed My Father had undermined the impact of their stories by blurring the line between fact and fiction (and with good reason, since audiences understandably enjoy reading fiction more than fact). The reason why Loung Ung's memoir is so different is because it has a truly genuine voice. Loung Ung's use of her 5 year old self's innocence and brutal honesty make for a convincing and moving read. The death of her family members as well as her nation's brutal descent into a state of chaos moved me more than the trials of the fictional and of those in other memoirs, and I believe this was mainly becuase of her choice to relate her story through the eyes of her past self.

The first advantage that comes with narrating from the view of a 5 year old is credibility. Although it goes against our nature to trust the judgement of a naive child over that of an experienced adult, when it comes to relating a mass genocide, somehow the child seems to be the more credible witness. Her naiveness lends a sense of objectivity that differs from the narration of a poltically biased, cynical adult. Another benefit Loung Ung gains from having the child version of herself tell her story is an access to relatable emotions. It is extremely difficult for us in northern New Jersey to imagine the horrors of a senseless genocide becuase we are incapable of imagining ourselves thrust into the midst of a war torn country. As a child going through the transition from a peaceful, comfortable life to one of extreme chaos, Loung Ung is able to reach her audience more effectively becuase she starts in a position that we can relate to.

Overall, I thought this memoir was a much more effective piece than the Bookseller of Kabul. Not only can this be attributed to Ung's choice of a child narrator, but also to her consistency as a child narrator. Loung Ung assumes the perspectives of other characters rarely, thus allowing her to develop her own character more effectively as well as make her story more believable to her audience.

A Defense of Ung's Choice of Title

I believe that the title of Ung's memoir "First They Killed My Father" is completely appropriate due to the clear significance of her father's death. While Ung was close to her sister Keav, Keav's death did not mark the major change and turning point in Ung's outlook and character. I agree with Taylor that Ung, at such a young age, would perhaps not recognize that Keav was the first to be killed, for she died of an illness rather than assassination. The murder of her father was the final step in the completion of Ung's loss of innocence and all hope that her life could revert back to what it was in her childhood home. Although Ung was suffering from starvation and grueling conditions, Ung's father was constantly there for her to lean on and gave Ung the strength to continue on--Ung believed that as long as her father was around, her family could stay together and survive. When Ung's father is murdered, Ung's character changes, for she now desires to murder others. Ung has lost her "safety net" and all her remaining faith. Because of the magnitude of this death in Ung's life, I believe it is fitting--even if not completely factual--for the author to name her memoir after this crucial moment.

Defending the Title: First They Killed My Father

At least one person's blog, as I've only read one so far, argues that the title of Ung's blog is not accurate, as Loung's sister, Keav, dies first. However, I wholeheartedly support Ung's title. The narrator of this memoir is Ung as a young child. She takes us through the experience in the present tense, describing the action and emotions in the events rather than reflecting on them. In a simple child's mind, "they" did not kill Keav. Keav died from sickness that would not have occurred had she not sufferred the abuse of the Khmer regime. For the 6 year old Loung to come to the conclusion that the Khmer indirectly killed her sister is unrealistic and inconsistent with the tone of the memoir. In her mind, though she is well-aware of the Khmer abuse that led to millions of deaths by dyssentery, Keav died from sickness.
It is only when the soldiers come and directly take her father away that the young Loung can admit the direct connection between the soldiers and her family member's death. She had long been aware that her Pa worked for the old government and was constantly paranoid of someone discovering his connection to it. Thus, Loung could blame noone and nothing else but the soldiers for her Pa's death; he was not hanging onto his life when the soldiers came for him.
Ung's title is in the same tone the entire memoir is in: a young child's observation. The title is incredibly effective; from the moment you look at the cover an image of a young girl watching these overwhelming events around her take place comes to mind. In order to remain consistent with the thought process of young Loung, the author made the title, too, a simplistic yet heartbreaking observation. I, personally, prefer this title to, "First My Sister Died From Dyssentery Caused by Their Abuse."

In her novel First They Killed My Father, Loung Ung effectively elicited pathos from her readers. The emotional response Ung creates is very strong. Her fluid, and descriptive writing partnered with the horrors she described thoroughly moved me. At points I am amazed at how successfully Ung's presents the events of the novel through the innocent eyes of her five year old self without losing any valuable information. Futhermore, Ung's humble tone throughout the novel only enhanced her ability to evoke pathos.
I would also like to say that have no problem with Ung titling her novel First They Killed My Father. Although Keav did die first, the Khmer Rouge did not directly kill. They did cause her sickness, but no member of the Khmer Rouge personally killed her. On the other hand, soldiers from the Khmer Rouge did in fact murder Ung's father. In addition, I believe her choice to use "father" as opposed to "sister" in the title makes the book more appealing because it has a profounder affect on the reader. Her father is the one watching over her and protecting her, however her sister is merely her close friend.

Narration in First They Killed My Father

While reading this novel, I paid close attention to narration and if it was believable in the lens of a 5- year-old girl's world and perspective. I might have had too critical an eye while reading the novel, but my impressions of her narration were that she strove to show her descriptions and what happens to her through the eyes and mind of a child, yet included adult insight. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, for a novel that is written only with a young girl's thoughts in mind would most likely be a simple text with not much intellectual depth. I could not help but notice how in tune Loung was to her emotions and what exactly they were and what caused them. In some passages I wondered, could Loung actually be thinking this? Is this too complex a thought for such a small mind? At the same time, Loung acknowledged the "5 year-old" world by describing images through the eyes of a child while also evoking the naivete and oblivion a child experiences when faced with serious or complex situations. Often, I found that Ung used the child perspective, thought process, and words or the insightful, intellectual one depending on which one was most appealing to pathos. In other words, whichever perspective sounded more pitiful and and was most likely to draw a tear from the reader's eye or a shiver of disgust, Ung used. As I noted I was very critical in observing the narration and it is unrealistic to have a novel completely based on a child's mind. I believe Ung's narration was very good as she desired to tell her story through the eyes of her former self. 

Bookseller of Kabul Original Post (just a little late..) and comparison of the two books

Aisne Sierstad classifies the story as a novel so she is able to incorporate her personal opinions and Western bias in order to elicit the intended emotional response from the reader. The audience notes these opinions, responds to them emotionally and eventually accepts them as truth because of the numerous examples that support her notions. In her descriptions, pathos is utilized effectively and her diction is logical and powerful. Her opinions are presented in a way that convinces the audience that the life of the typical Afghan woman is one of serious oppression and there need be societal reform to allow the females freedom of heart and mind. 

In Bookseller of Kabul, I found that the descriptions were often less effective though because of the heavy amount of poorly constructed historical content. The historical information, while relative and important, often felt very "listy" and you felt like you could skim it very quickly and get the gist. After reading a very lengthy and boring passage with unnecessary amount of historical detail (structured so that you felt you could barely breathe), the well-written descriptions that followed did not have as great an impact because I felt like i was drowning in dry information (i'm being a drama queen). 

In First They Killed My Father, the historical information was presented in a concise and comprehensible manner, and i feel like I even managed to retain some of the history (which is quite an accomplishment for usually it goes in and right back out). Also, the brevity of this information kept me engaged and made the descriptions all the more powerful. I enjoyed first they killed my father much more than the Bookseller of Kabul for this reason. 

First They Killed My Father

I started reading searching for as much information about Pa as I could, because I, probably because of the title, thought he would not be alive for a large portion of the book. In analyzing Pa through Loung Ung's perception we see only the image of a perfect father. While she loves all of her siblings and her mother, she shares anecdotes in which they make her angry or do something wrong (like the coconut incident). Pa, however, escapes any and all blame regardless of the fact that he makes all of the choices that ultimately determine the future of the family. I think Pa's perfection in action contrasts his newly corrupt mind and jaded nature. We're able to see through flashbacks and the remnant's of his true personality, the extreme degradation of Pa. Since Loung Ung views life in a very clear cut manner (right and wrong, good and evil) Pa's spiritual and mental death is undeniable and even harsher than it might have been if she'd truly understood the circumstances.

No, First They Killed Keav, not your Father

When I was reading the book, I was pretty confused. Now I am no longer confused, I just disagree. Ung titles her book, "First They Killed My Father". However, when I was reading the book, I was confused because first Keav dies, and then Pa dies. When I was reading, I allowed it to slide, thinking that maybe there was a mistake or that later on in the book, Ung would say that Keav actually never dies and that a misinterpretation had occurred. But, now that I look back on the book, I feel that I can say with conviction that Keav was killed first, not Pa. Pa was probably killed by the hammer of a Khmer Rouge soldier as Ung describes, but really, Keav was killed by the Khmer Rouge regime. Keav died from diarrhea, but she had diarrhea because of her malnourishment caused by the Khmer Rouge. If the Khmer Rouge had not starved her along with all of the other Cambodians, no one would have died in the attempted Communist regime. 

Even though I thought that the book was well written, touching, moving, etc., I felt that the poor choice of title took away from the book. I felt that by not writing that Keav died first, Ung ignored all of the Cambodians who suffered and died indirectly from the Khmer Rouge soldiers. Physically attacking someone is not the only way to kill that person, and I believe that Keav was KILLED by the policies and actions of the Khmer Rouge. In my opinion, the title of the book should be, "First They Killed Keav". 

Can anyone else come up with a better word for how Keav died other than being "killed"? Please, because it might change my opinion of the title, because if Keav was not killed, then Pa would really be the First One Killed

First They Killed my Father Reaction

Although a number of others have already discussed description in Loung Ung's book, I also want to touch on the subject because of its prevalence in the novel. Ung undoubtedly uses continuous description in her writing; however, while sometimes too much description can be tiring and unnecessary, this description is different due to its underlying purpose. Every object, event, person, or journey that Loung Ung describes feels purposeful to the writer. I truly believe that the immense details are crucial to the novel. While I am often one of those people who drown under too much description, this was not the case when I read Ung's meaningful description. In addition, the book includes description not only on Ung's personal experience, but also on the history surrounding her story. However, unlike in the Bookseller of Kabul, in which the history seems to be very separate and segregated from the rest of the text, the history that Ung includes is meshed into the rest of her writing. Rather than seeming as if Ung just added the history passages because they were necessary for the reader to understand the background of the story, which is a necessity, the history did not stand out to me as an addition, but rather part of the surrounding story. Additionally, Ung not only focused on her family, but also many other people entirely unrelated to her. She goes into detail on many other individuals such as the monks and other girls who she does not even know, rather than keeping her writing entirely personal. However, this inclusion makes her story more powerful and even more interesting that a young girl could know so much about the people who are not directly around her. Finally, I feel that Loung Ung's writing has so many levels. It's hard for me to explain exactly what I mean, but her writing feels extremely deep to me and became even more developed the more I read. The writing evokes pathos in continually deeper and more touching ways, that really impact the reader. This pathos is a new kind in the way that it causes a bad feeling in one's stomach, and brings tears to reader's minds and a feeling of shame when putting down the book, as some others have said.