English 1000-43

I realize that this is more of a children’s book than something a college student should read.  But I have been compelled to read it again and again since the eighth grade when I first read it.  From the very first page, she draws you into the story, she develops her characters before she gets to the meat of the story.  Some authors dive right into the main content of the story, and some of them do a great job, but I think the way that Paterson wrote this book is the best way to get your audience to connect with the characters and the story. 

I also like how she makes it controversial without really arguing for a specific point.  Her main female characters, Leslie and Miss Edmunds, are not typically what a female of the time period would be.  But they are still accepted as part of the society. They are not shunned by the people in their town- sure, people talk about them, but they’re not complete outcasts.  Neither Miss Edmunds or Leslie are trying to ’stick it to the man.’ That’s just the way they are.

It’s a great book. It doesn’t take long to read. I reccommend it to anybody that wants to escape for a little while.

Most of the subject matter in this particular chapter not only went over my head, but it also didn’t really seem to pertain to the supposed subject of the book (lingugistics).  But that’s beside the point. I could decipher quite a bit with the way he formed his sentences and paragraphs.  It’s set up more like a textbook.  Each passage that differs in actual subject, but that pertains to the subject of the chapter as a whole, has it’s own heading or subtitle.  This is very good when dealing with more advanced or more confusing subjects because it helps organize everything, not only for the reader, but for the author as well.  I don’t really want to say that Eco ‘dummed it down,’ but it seems like that’s what he did.  He knew that he was dealing with a very deep (or confusing) subject in this particular chapter, so he let the reader focus on the meaning of what he was writing rather than having to decipher complicated sentence structure.  It’s a really good book- so far.  You just have to be interested in the origins and differences in language and have an open mind. 

This read like any other textbook, I suppose. It’s boring, tedious, and you get the smallest spasm of excitement when you find a typo just because it’s a change of pace.  I realize that it’s college reading (wow- obvious). However, I had to read and re-read several passages because of how the sentences were formed.  It follows what constitutes ‘proper sentence structure,’ but most of them had way too much information crammed into them.  Each sentence should be one complete thought and together, the sentences should form the main idea or basic concept.  If it were only a few reandom sentences here and there, it wouldn’t be so bad, but it occured in nearly every sentence.  I think that’s a bit excessive. 

This isn’t really a book for the faint of heart. You also have to be patriotic and proud of the military to really appreciate it. I guess that’s more about the content than the actual writing, though. The point of view and ‘voice’ of the novel is really interesting. The authors talked to veterans and their families to get the information provided, but it doesn’t sound like a documentary. It sounds like the soldiers are actually talking to you, like they are standing in front of you telling their story. It really draws you into the book, into the time and places that these snipers sat and watched Charlie.I think that everyone should strive to do that in their writing. Try to make it sound like you (or your narrator) are talking to your audience and telling them your story or your ideas, rather than just writing them down for other people to read.  Care enough to fully develop your ideas and make it interesting as well. 

Why I decided to read this abomination again, I have no idea. My trip down memory lane with Anthem must have made me wonder if this could possibly have been as awful as I thought it was four years ago.

It is.

It’s unbelievably tedious. Sure, it’s got grammar and details and he develops the ’story’ well, but there isn’t any meat. It’s all bread and garnish. Who wants a lettuce and mayo sandwich? It’s hard to believe that the same author that wrote A Farewell to Arms and The Sun Also Rises wrote this. Part of why I despise this novel could be the month long analysis of ‘Santiago As A Christ Figure’ and reading it again dredged up painful memories. We kept trying to pull meaning out of it even after a classmate found a quote from Hemmingway himself saying that this was just a story. No symbolism. Seriously?

Writing is supposed to be a form of expression, is it not? Whether you’re rebelling or expressing an opinion or voicing your doubts or anything…. it’s supposed to mean something, right? So, then why write the story if there’s no meaning behind it? I think the story sucked (and so does everyone in my Freshman Pre-AP English I class, for that matter).

I probably should’ve chosen different material for my first analysis.  But the book kind of chose me, I guess.  This is one of my favorite novels. Mainly because of the content, but also in how she delivers the idea.  It is written from a first person perspective, but in the plural. For example we for me/I and ours for mine, etc. Most of her sentences are short or choppy, which usually bugs me, but it fits in perfectly with the rest of the novel. I like how she get to, or eludes to, the point quickly and efficiently. I’ve never read anything like it, and the concept intrigues me. I’m not really sure if I have any questions about it. I already incorporate abrupt sentences into some of my writing. If used correctly, and sparingly, it adds to the character of the piece. Writing in the plural, however, had never occured to me before I read Anthem. I doubt it would work in “formal” college writing. But for short stories or creative writing (or novels, obviously) it would have a powerful impact on the reader. As I said, I should’ve read something else, but I suppose that’s water under the bridge now. It’s a great short novel and an amazing story with awesome concepts that I’m sure would raise some questions or ideas in anyone that reads it.

So. A blog entry it is. And not just any blog- a blog that criticizes writing. I’m not a writer. I am a reader. An avid reader. And I believe that authors are a blessing, that they are selfless to bestow their talent among those of us that aren’t fortunate enough to be able to write well. How am I supposed to criticize such a being? I am merely a college student, who knows virtually nothing of the ways of the world. Novels are little gems of knowledge just screaming to be loved. Textbooks, however, are an entirely difference species. Yes, they are books. And yes, their authors are gifted. But textbooks are generally excruciatingly dull. What place do I have to complain about one misspelled word out of hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of text? Or one sentence that annoys me because it’s incorrect grammar? I’m sure even the author himself gets bored. Textbooks aren’t meant to entertain anyway, they are meant to educate. I suppose that everyone has the opportunity to take something from everything that he reads, and some ignore that glorious opportunity. I also suppose that this could be one of the best assignments that has ever been given. Thanks Brock!