"Class"- Sherman Alexie

In Class by Sherman Alexie, I chose to focus on Edgar Eagle Runner, the main character in the story. This character is very observant, to an almost crazy stage. He notices every detail about every room he’s in, every place he’s gone, and everything he’s done. First off, when Eagle Runner is talking about how he met his wife, he mentions that “she was the tenth most attractive white woman in the room” which exhibits the fact that he payed close attention to everyone who was in the room especially to have noticed that she was the tenth (Alexie 37). Another thing he mentions, with great detail, later in the story is all the things he did in the first two years of his marriage with his wife such as “thirty-seven cocktail parties, eighteen weddings, one divorce, seven Christmas parties, two New Year’s Eve parties…” (Alexie 42). It seems to me that Eagle Runner pays so much attention to detail because he’s just bored with his life. He’s an American Indian but he’s a lawyer and he’s upper class, or at least he pretends to be. He doesn’t necessarily live his life to enjoy it but more because he has to. It seems that he just goes though the motions of living day after day. He seems to have lost who he is in his attempt to live his boring, non eventful life. The attention to detail of the character sort of contradicts the lack of detail in his everyday life. 

Alexie, Sherman. The Toughest Indian In the World. 1st ed. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1966. 35-56. Print.

Responding to Student Writing

In “Responding to Student Writing” by Nancy Sommers, she talks about the importance teacher’s comments on students writings and how they need to encourage revising. Another thing that Sommers touches on is that most teachers write vague comments that could pertain to anyone’s paper and because of that students tend to get confused on what they're supposed to do to their paper. Sommer’s main argument is that comments from the teacher are supposed to help “show [the students] through [the teachers] comments why new choices would positively change their texts” for the better (346). 

Comments are important for writers because it shows some kind of guidance for the paper and it also gives the writer a view from the reader’s standpoint. Comments help the writer to see questionable composition that they are otherwise blind to. Sommers thinks that teachers tend to take the text away from the student in a sense that they stop focussing on what the teacher wants them to fix rather than continuing to think about what their purpose was in the first place. Sommers calls this appropriating the text. I would definitely agree with Sommers on this point because I’ve been in the situation where the teacher gave me very vague instructions. It’s sort of like a guessing game and by that time, I was focused on fixing what I was told to fix that I didn’t even realize what I was writing about anymore. 

Sommers states that teachers always correct grammar and give generic comments more than anything and that they aren’t useful in any way. Every paper and writer is different and using generic comments such as “needs thesis statement” or “use more detail” doesn’t help a student much because it could mean anything. As for spending time on grammar, it’s also a waste of time especially if it’s just the first draft. Sommers says that teachers need to start giving comments that are appropriate for the text that the student is writing. If it’s the first draft, there’s no need to spend time on grammar because that sentence that was supposed to be fixed might not even be in the paper at the end. 

I would say that I have to agree with Sommers in all points that she makes because I’ve written papers before and I’ve gotten comments from teachers and they do all of the things that Sommers says are not the best way to comment. I relate to being confused by the vague comments teachers leave and it’s not helpful at all. 

Sommers, Nancy. “Responding to Student Writing.” College Composition and Communication 33.2 (1982): 148-156. Web. 

Lea Ramsdell

In “Language and Identity Politics: The Linguistic Autobiographies of Latinos in the United States,” by Lea Ramsdell, she talks about three different autobiographies by Richard Rodriguez, Ariel Dorfman and Gloria Anzaldua and how their views on their different language differ from one another. Ramsdell states the differences in how each author feels differently about their multilingual cultures. Ramsdell states that “Language is identity and identity is political in the beginning of her essay. The way I understood it was that our language, the way each of us speak, is a part of who we are. Our language defines a big part of our identity and depending one how we speak, we are all categorized in different groups and different classes as well. People who speak the same language, tend to have the same ideas and think similarly to each other therefore, our languages and identities become political.

In all three of these autobiographies, language probably plays the main role. Every one of these authors main objective was that their linguistic background had an impact on their life and made them who they are as people. For all three of the authors, language defines who they are as people. Whether they want to be viewed as Spanish speaking Americans or English speaking Chicanos, language characterizes their originality. 

Rodriguez was, in a way, forced into speaking English. His first language was Spanish and when his parents forced him to speak only English, he was a bit upset. For him, English and Spanish were on “opposite poles” (Ramsdell 169) and they couldn’t be combined. Each language meant something different to him. As for Dorfman, he sees each language as “competing for his loyalty” (Ramsdell 169). Dorfman thinks of each language as two languages that don’t go together. He wrote the same book twice, once in English and once in Spanish, which shows the respect he has for both languages. Then, you have Anzaldua who’s opinion is the exact opposite that both of the other two authors. She wanted to speak both languages and she didn’t care what anyone would say. Anzaldua’s relationship with her language is that she loves it and to her, it’s who she is. She doesn’t want to get rid of either side of it. Rodriguez and Dorfman both believe that it’s one or the other. Spanish and English are completely different and it can’t be both of them. Anzladua, on the other hand, believes that she can have both languages and use them simultaniously because she is both of them. Both languages describe who she is as a person and she can’t bear the idea of having to separate them. 

I would say that I agree with Ramsdell because language is who we are. Slang and proper language all define us at people. The way one speaks also defines where they came from, their cultural background, and those who speak similarly, think similarly and have the same morals and ideas. Language is also political in that sense. Again, the political side of language goes back to discourse communities and how each community has a different way of speaking and interacting with each other. 

Ramsdell, Lea. “Language and Identity Politics: The Linguistic Autobiographies of Latinos in the United States.” Journal of Modern Literature 28.1 (2004): 166-76. Web.  

Anzaldua, Chapter 7

In chapter 7 of  “La conciencia de la mestiza: Towards a New Consciousness,” by Gloria Anzaldua, the author explains what it’s like to be a mestiza, a multiracial woman, in an Anglo driven world. Anzaldua wants the reader to believe that even though she is biracial and woman, that she is not inferior to those around her. She is just as capable as anyone to change the world and the ignorance in the world. 

Anzaldua uses quite a bit of metaphors in her writing. One significant metaphor was the physical border that divides the United States with Mexico. For Anzaldua, the physical border symbolizes the boundaries that she feels she is held to because of her cultural issues. She is caught between two extremely different cultures which is like being on the border of different countries. They may be so close to one another but yet, they still seem to be very different and have very different beliefs. Because Anzaldua has many different cultures, she feels she doesn’t belong anywhere specific because she’s different than those who may not be biracial. 

Anzaldua also mentions that she has a mestiza consciousness. The mestiza consciousness is “the idea of dualistic thinking.” Having a mestiza consciousness helps see things for more than one point of view. It helps her see problems from different sides which in turn, can help her solve certain issues. She also believes that embracing this consciousness helps one because you’re not stuck in just one way of thinking. You have more of a mix of ideas. It helps you also because you know who you are, ironically, because you have to fight more to be yourself. You have to learn to love who you are because not everyone is going to like you. 

I would have to agree with Anzaldua because although I am not biracial, I am a minority. I’m hispanic and a lot of the times people don’t think you are capable of doing the same things they are because you don’t come from the same background as them. Anzaldua is different is so many ways and she learns to embrace them because her distinctions are what set her mind apart from others.

David Bartholomae- "Inventing the University"

In“Inventing the University” by David Bartholomae, the author talks about how a beginner writer becomes an expert writer. Bartholomae is saying the a writer needs to learn how to communicate with his audience effectively and learn to speak their language and learn to change their language depending on who the audience is when he states that the author has to “invent the university”. Batholomae talks about what it takes to become an expert writer and what writers do wrong to make them perceived as a beginner. He ways that beginner writers tend to slip in their language. Expert writers write as if they are equal to the person who is reading it and continue that language thorough the writing. Whereas, beginners can start off that way but tend to switch and make it seem as a student writing to a teacher or someone superior. An expert writer knows what kind of language to use and when to use. They also know how to keep the same language going throughout a piece. Beginning writers may not be aware that they are supposed to use a specific language therefore, they tend to slip throughout. Bartholomae also says that beginning writers don’t know much about “common places” or how they are used in writing. A “common place” is our opinion which we must always elaborate on and defend when we are writing something. 

Bartholomae says that if teachers were to let their students write as if they were their colleagues instead of their students more often, then students would believe that they were equal rather that just students writing to a teacher who is obviously more educated on a subject that they are. 

I have to agree with Bartholomae because as a student, I would consider myself a beginner writer and when I write, I don’t take into consideration who my audience is all the time. I just write because I have to write. I also think that if us, students, were taught more that our ideas mattered and that out teachers valued our knowledge we’d be able to write more scholarly papers. Bartholomae has valid points in his papers such as knowing our “common places” and knowing our audience as well. 

Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” 1986. Web. http://www4.ncsu.edu/~catonell/documents/D.Bartholomae.pdf