Q3APWiki+Jason

Evaluation: Yura's poem
1) What does the person do well in analyzing? She links love to vitality She points out that the angel is a symbol of love She talks about the different types of love She did a good jpb of analyzing the different poetic techniques that Angelou utilizes- personification and enjambment.

2) what is something you found surprising? or amusing? I thought it was interesting how Angelou compares love to an angel.

3) If the person had to do this again, what would you recommend in analysis? She needs to synthesize her arguments and relate that to the poem better. For instance, she does well pointing out the different types of love, but does not divulge where in the poem the reference is made. Also, I wish she could have had the poem for us to see as she was doing her analysis.

4) Comment on the visual portion of the video. I found the picture of the pigeon very surprising because it was so clear. The variety of pictures and videos were also very nice. I liked the video with the cheerleaders

I'm Nobody! Who Are You? by Emily Dickinson. I'm nobody! Who are you? Are you nobody, too? Then there's a pair of us - don't tell! They'd banish us - you know! How dreary to be somebody! How public like a frog To tell one's name the livelong day To an admiring bog! Content: “I’m nobody!” - means that she is not someone who is not social “Then there's a pair of us” - the narrator has another person to talk with “They’d banish us” - people would speak out The exclamations at the end of the last two lines of the first stanza create a sense of secrecy and importance. This also breaks the flow of the poem. The poem is a reflection of Dickinson’s life which was generally reclusive during her life. She spent little time in the public eye for nearly 40 years. “How dreary to be somebody!” - the narrator becomes more confident with her speaking Together with another nobody “To tell one's name the livelong day” - having an identity In summary the poem is about a loner finding one of his/her own and finally having someone to talk to. By doing this however, the loner is no longer alone.

I. Nobody 1. The narrator is just a normal person 2. Meets another nobody 3. Wants to stay a nobody

II. Being a somebody 1. Too little intimate relationships 2. Life is boring

Use screencast to show poem for the duration. Use photos while reading the poem.

media type="youtube" key="OzwPns0Dfts" height="344" width="425"

Vonnegut's works largely reflect his own experiences as a person ie. Newt.

1. Newt's siblings are akin to Vonnegut's 2. The war in Dresden is an experience and Billy Pilgrim and Vonnegut share

1. Not all of the seemingly conspicuous similarities between Vonnegut's life and his stories are real

Start with small plot summary Expand on Vonnegut's life Find small examples Expand on larger examples Find disagreements and fight back

__LINDSAY & MICHELLE COMMENT:__ Jason took the readers line by line and explained the meaning of each line in detail. He explained the connotations well too. Next time, it would be nicer if he had visuals as he is analyzing the poem. Something amusing was how Jason mentioned that the poem was quite humorous, yet he read it with no energy at the end. :) Could the frog have been a connection to one of the children's stories (We can't remember the title) about a frog prince?.... The meaning of the last line is still unclear. It was good that he put himself in the video, but he didn't have enough pictures that could grab the readers' attention. The poem itself is really nice, we like it!
 * 1. Analysis -- what specifically does the person do well in analyzing?**
 * 2. Analysis -- if the person had to do this again, what would you recommend in analysis?**
 * 3. What is something you found surprising? or amusing?**
 * 4. What is something you don't understand or find confusing?**
 * 5. Comment on the visual portion of this video.**
 * 6. Other?**

Alex & Patrick 1. Analysis-what specifically does the person do well in analyzing? He has a very strong textual analysis. He doesn't talk about the theme only, but also with the text, which in our opinion, is very important. 2. We would recommend him to do a quick look at life of Emily Dickinson, the poet of this poem, and do an introductory TPCASTT for easier understanding. 3. Jason found the poem humorous, and We thought it was surprising because when we read the poem initially, we couldn't find a humor, and Jason did a good job of pointing out what part of the poem is funny. 4. We didn't get the structural aspect of the poem, and it appeared bland, and initially, it seemed simple and straightforward, but Jason pointed out the mechanical aspects that we didn't see. 5. Jason's video was SO visual, emphasizing on minimalism. 6. It was quite difficult to understand his voice, and he needs to speak up more.

Self evaluation 1. What specifically does the person do well in analyzing? I think that I did a decent job in analyzing the poem. The organization was there and I think I synthesized the ideas somewhat well. 2. If the person had to do this again, what would you recommend in analysis? After watching other peoples' videos, I would go back and include more poetic techniques in my video since I feel that would have improved my analysis. I also could have organized my analysis better since I do feel I skipped around once or twice. 3. What is something you found surprising? or amusing? Now that I think about it, its kind of amusing that I only used the screencast of my poem for a few minutes. Other people used footage while doing their analysis so thinking about my video makes me chuckle. 4. Comment on the visual portion of this video. As I mentioned before, I definitely needed more visual portions in my video. I have very little visual aids and I feel that I could have drastically improved my video if I had included them. I guess that in a few ways, its possible that using only the screencast allows the viewers to really get a feel for the poem since they are looking at it the entire time while watching. While I made my video, I had problems with having pauses so I had to redo the entire thing a few times. I really wish I included more pictures and video inside of it. I think I should get a B because although I feel my analysis is up to par, the visual elements of my video are lacking.

Jason Cho February 25, 2010 AP Literature Porter Kurt Vonnegut: 4 Pages In his novels, Kurt Vonnegut is able to turn serious subjects such as religion, war, and morality into laughable tidbits. With the use of this ability, Vonnegut fully communicates his ideas while at the same time, keeping his readers interested. The popularity of his novels are largely due to his talent in satirical analysis, and due to the popularity of his novels, he is able to get across his messages to the world in a manner that brings the subject down to Earth. Vonnegut’s use of satire and comedy is the root of his success and acclaim as a novelist and humanitarian. According to Dictionary.com, satire is “the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or reriding vice, folly, etc.” It is apparent that by using satire to highlight the mistakes and problems of mankind, the writer would gain fame and respect from people all over the world. An example of a writer gaining fame through the use of satire is Jonathan Swift’s well known work, Gulliver’s Travels. By using various ironical situations which include the protagonist being a part of a species of humans a twelfth the size of a normal man, Swift is able to depict a society that reflects 18th century England, Swift’s target. Swift was able to successfully show the faults in society and human nature itself, and from his success, Gulliver’s Travel is known by children and adults alike. Now you may be asking how Jonathan Swift’s success as a satirist relates to Kurt Vonnegut, but you probably have already noticed the relationship between the two. Although not as critical as Swift, Vonnegut’s use of satire has the purpose of bringing human conflicts like war to light. By displaying war in a negative fashion through the use of characters like Billy Pilgrim who occasionally has lapses in his mind that he interprets as traveling back through time, Vonnegut appeals to the emotions of his audience and allows them to sympathize with his cause. Vonnegut’s method of writing has the end result of creating a work that is both funny and meaningful. Not only is his ability to be satirical appreciated, but his gift in writing as a whole is unprecedented. Vonnegut’s success as a satirist is amazing. But what exactly is it that makes people fall in love with his novels? It is highly unlikely that a person would find deep connections with the characters that Vonnegut depicts, since in novels like Cat’s Cradle, the situation of the protagonist, Jonah’s, through all points in the plot is incredibly uncommon: Flying from place to place, with the sole purpose of gathering information about a person. So what is it that made Vonnegut’s two most well known novels, Cat’s Cradle and Slaughterhouse-Five, so popular? The answer can be found by looking into Vonnegut’s own life. By experiencing the tragedies that occurred during World War II, he gained an understanding of war that not many people understood, or even understand today. It was the understanding that war should be avoided at all costs because of the mental and physical destruction it causes among the people involved. With first hand experience in war, he gained a sort of authority regarding war, which could very likely be the reason that the novel became so popular. Think about it, would you want to read a war novel by a woman in her twenties who never experienced it herself? The time period in which Vonnegut released his most popular novel, Slaughterhouse-Five, made a world of difference. Released during the Vietnam War in 1969, the audience was ready to suck in a novel that appealed to them: An anti-war message. With a large fraction of Americans ready to buy his novel, Vonnegut, armed with his goal to become a famous writer, was ready to fulfill his goal. Roy Blount Jr., a New York Times book reviewer, cites Vonnegut’s son regarding his goals in writing. He writes: “Kurt could pitch better than he could catch,” Mark writes. “It was routine for him to write and say provocative, not always kind things about people in the family. We learned to get over it. It was just Kurt. But when I mentioned in an article that Kurt, wanting to be a famous pessimist, might have envied Twain and Lincoln their dead children, he went ballistic.” Understandably, I would say. (1) More so than popularity during the time it was published, Slaughterhouse-Five’s lasting impression on readers worldwide is strange. Sure, not many people you meet in the street will recognize the novel or the author, but the fact remains that the novel is popular enough to be considered a classic; meaning it is in the same realm as a novel like Frankenstein. Of course the classical nature of the novel can be attributed once again to the time period the novel was published in, but there is more to it than just this; Slaughterhouse-Five was revolutionary: Billy blinked in 1965, traveled in time to 1958. He was at a banquet in honor of a Little League team of which his son Robert was a member. The coach, who had never been married, was speaking. He was all choked up. “Honest to God,” he was saying, “I’d consider it an honor just to be water boy for these kids.” Billy blinked in 1958, traveled in time to 1961. It was New Year’s Eve, and Billy was disgracefully drunk at a part where everybody was in optometry or married to an optometrist. (Vonnegut 43) Using time as a plot device, Vonnegut was successfully able to incorporate sudden shifts in time without causing awkward breaks and by being able to do this, he can more thoroughly detail the nature of Billy Pilgrim, the protagonist of the novel, whose life is jumbled around just as much the novel jumps through time. There is little t