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.