Web Page 5: The Motivation of Learning

Reading Prose’s I know Why the Caged Bird Cannot Read and St. Augustine’s The Motivation of Learning comes to me, upon distillation and reflection, as quite a privilege.  Privilege because I can, in the year 2010, reflect upon the chasm that exists between the two writers.  In essence, St. Augustine writes in a time without writers and readers, a time in which 95% of the world’s population “suffers” from illiteracy.  In effect, St. Augustine preaches to a choir. Only a few could read his words at the time, and those who could read and write were an elite few.  Prose’s audience reflects the exact opposite:  her audience, world, time and place, perhaps reflects an 80% literacy rate. Prose speaks to me, a 16 year old, as we meet in an anthology of writing, reading and opinion.  Prose writes to a competitive audience, spraying an opinion about learning that she hopes will stick somewhere.

St. Augustine writes as one crying in a wilderness, a vocal prayer, in the hope that someone might hear, someone might understand, that someone might read. St. Augustine writes of the meaning of language, communication, of sounds and speech. It’s a formative approach, rudimentary and, ultimately, faith based. In comparison, Prose message comes across as a commodity, buy this for this reason.

Privilege, then, to read a reasoned sermon and plea from St. Augustine to uplift the soul through our minds and language; Prose might as well hawk her thoughts and wares on the Atlantic City boardwalk, lots of listeners and buyers, just passing through to the next stall, the next opinion or next argument.

St. Augustine has no spin, just a sermon from the trenches, to enlighten anyone with ears to hear.

Web Page 4: Rhetorical Devices in Wife of Bath

In The Wife of Bath's Tale, Chaucer uses many rhetorical devices, or techniques that authors or speakers use to convey to the listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective. The topic that Chaucer was trying to convince his audiences to having a new perspective on was the matter of women and their rights in society.  The traditional view of women was that they were domesticated people who shouldn’t have rights, much of a say in anything, or an education. Their purpose was to get married young, have a lot of children, and stay home to take care of their children and the household, while their husbands were at work. Chaucer uses many rhetorical devices some of them being similes, allusions, and alliteration.

Alliteration refers to a repetition of a particular sound in the first syllables of a series of words and/or phrases. Examples of this in the text are: “fair fame” and “liege lady.” Using alliteration in one’s work will give it a rhythm, a lyrical edge; a nudge in the direction of music, and it will call attention to specific sections in the work. Rhythm is used throughout Chaucer’s work. Another rhetorical device used is allusion. Allusions are a figure of speech that makes a reference to, or representation of, a place, event, literary work, or myth. In this case, an allusion is made to King Arthur, “now in the olden days of King Arthur, Of whom the Britons speak with great honor.” (30) King Arthur was a legendary British leader of the late fifth and early sixth centuries. Allusions help the audience relate and understand something better because it’s something that most of the audience would be familiar with, so it’s easier for Chaucer to get his idea across. An allusion to Ovid’s tale of Midas is also made. “Ovid, among some other matters small, Said Midas had beneath his long curled hair, Two ass's ears that grew in secret there. ’’

 Another rhetorical device Chaucer uses is a simile. A simile is a figure of speech that indirectly compares two different things by employing the words "like", "as", or "than". A simile used in the Tale is, “Here was but heaviness and grievous sorrow; For privately he wedded on the morrow, And all day, then, he hid him like an owl; So sad he was, his old wife looked so foul.’’( 226-227) This simile compares the Knight to an owl. The Knight basically hid from his wife to be all day. As does an owl hide all day, for they are nocturnal and only come out at night.

Web Page 3: A Description of a Character in Beowulf

When one first reads of Grendel in the poem Beowulf, he is described as “being spawned in slime, conceived by a pair of those monsters born of Cain, murderous creatures banished by God, punished forever for the crime of Abel’s death.” (18-23) By lineage, Grendel is a member of “Cain’s clan, whom the creator had outlawed / and condemned as outcasts.” (106–107). Grendel was banished from the city, the banquet hall (Herot) and all of human society. Therefore, Grendel lurked in the dark and mysterious place of what was known as the swamplands, totally secluded from society. Grendel was now an outsider who just hungered and longed, not for eating human beings, but rejoining and reconnecting with society.

Despite Grendel’s many animal attributes with a grotesque, monstrous appearance, he seems to possess the inclinations and emotions of a human being: the feelings of jealously, anger, and vengeance. Grendel demonstrates more of what a human feels inside, not necessarily a monster, which might come as a surprise. Heritage and ancestors provide models for behavior and often help establish one’s identity, but if your ancestor was a “murderous creature banished by God,” (19) it’s hard to break yourself from being identified as being like that also. Grendel may or may not have the same values as demonstrated by Beowulf such as loyalty, bravery, and pride, or even any values in general. However, Grendel has never been given the opportunity to prove himself, and be seen in a somewhat positive light of not being such a hideous and bloodthirsty monster. One can sense that Grendel’s deep bitterness about being excluded from the celebration at the Herot can be attributed, in part, to his ill-fated status.

“So Hrothgar’s men lived happy in his hall, Till the monster stirred, that demon, that fiend” (15-16). Hrothgar’s men awoke “the monster” out from all of their celebrating and carrying on. Grendel didn’t bother them until they started carrying on. Perhaps Grendel had hit his breaking point, a point at which he could no longer contain his rage and fury, much like how humans feel when they have reached their breaking point, when they get tired and bothered by something. Perhaps Grendel had reached the point, as we humans often do, of losing sight of his “values.” Grendel was irritated and bothered by society’s ostracism of him simply because of something he was “supposed” to be, but might not be.

Web Page 2: A Description of a Character in Chaucer

The Knight is the first pilgrim whom Chaucer describes in the General Prologue. Chaucer characterizes the Knight as representing the ultimate medieval Christian man of arms. In saying, “He was a true, a perfect gentle-knight,” it is understood that the narrator greatly admires him. Chaucer further describes the Knight as having, “truth, honor, generousness, and courtesy.” The narrator then reveals the Knight’s military career, which includes a discussion of his fighting in the Crusades, wars in which Europeans traveled by sea to non-Christian lands and attempted to convert whole cultures by the force of their swords. Another character quality the narrator tells us about the Knight is his meek and gentle manner, writing, “He [the knight] was wise and his bearing modest as a maid. He never yet a boorish thing had said in all his life to any.” Chaucer comments on the Knight’s physical appearance, of his nice horses, but suggests “he was not gaily dressed.” The Knight, we are told, “wears a tunic made of coarse cloth, and his coat of mail is rust-stained,” as he has recently returned from a voyage.

The narrator’s description of the Knight depicts admiration of a Knight that is meek, not head-strong. The Knight is not shown to be a show-off or act conceited. He doesn’t wear flashy, shiny armor; he wears commoner clothing or a “fustian tunic.” One might expect a Knight to be uptight in demeanor and posture, foraging for the next fight, a uniform in tip-top, Marine-like shape, his armor shining and polished to the hilt. But this Knight does not and did not; physically he appeared and acted as if and just like anyone else not a knight; he doesn’t appear to aspire to be more or better than everyone else. For these reasons, I think the narrator looked-up to the Knight, not for what he could be or for what others think he should be but for whom he was: an ordinary person who did extra-ordinary things, but never boasted about what he did.

Admiration for whom you are not for what you are supposed to be.

            

Web Page 1: The Relationship between Meaning and Language

Meaning is the message that is trying to be conveyed to the reader, it’s a form of expression. Linguistic language helps a speaker to communicate and voice their opinions to the reader.  But understanding a speaker is not just a matter of understanding their linguistic language. Linguistic language can never fully capture the intent, passion, and nature of one’s thoughts, perhaps there isn’t the right word (s) to express their true intent or passion. That’s when you look at the meaning behind the words one uses, look at the accompanying information that the speaker intends a reader to rely on. A reader must understand and take a closer look at the context of the message not just the word (s) in order to truly understand the intention or meaning.

In the essay Mother Tongue, Tan writes, “Her [ Tan’s mother’s] language, as I hear it, is vivid, direct, full of observation and imagery. That was the language that helped shape the way I saw things, expressed things, made sense of the world.” Even though Tan’s mother spoke “ broken” or “fractured” English and her mother’s English wasn’t of the highest standard, it doesn’t mean that her mother didn’t have any meaning behind the words that she spoke.

Linguistic language is important, but if it just consists of words strung together, it is pointless. For instance as Tan describes, “ Here’s an example from the first draft of a story that later made its way into The Joy Luck Club, but without this line: That was my mental quandary in its nascent state. A terrible line, which I can barely pronounce.” The line is terrible because even to Tan these words are colorful and highly lavish, but they don’t express how she really feels and  they have no meaning behind them, so why would they have any meaning to the reader?