June 20, 2007
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to those who spend the precious time reading the works in this portfolio. The portfolio displays what the aims and topics of the academic writing class I attend this spring semester concentrate on. My instructor, Mr. Ron Corio, is shooting for improvement of professional writing skills of his students. With his help and suggestion, the five works, arranged into three sections, have witnessed my step-by-step progress on formal written English.
In the first section, three works, included in the reverse chronological order, are different versions of “Class Distinctions: the Source of Misery”, an interpretive essay on “The Necklace” by Guy de Maupassant. The major concern about the novel is the underlying points the author tries to express. These three drafts have traced my language learning process by analyzing, writing, reviewing, editing and proofreading. I didn’t start my essay until the outline was well-developed with the thesis clearly stated and with the evidences adequately collected. Although my outline seems good to guide a potential writing, the first trial draft remains far beyond my expectation and satisfaction. The biggest problem I met was how to determine an effective organizational pattern for my essay. Readers would note that there is a huge difference between Draft One and Draft Two as various beneficial structures I have been learning at class facilitate a relatively easy approach to well organizing the essay. When writing Draft Three, my major job was focused on polishing the sentences as well as simplifying the paragraphs in order to make the essay tempting and smoothing. In other words, the final draft did not give to birth within one day; instead, it is a natural product of intention on self-control of writing. Given the three revised drafts of my essay, this section fully demonstrates my growth in English writing.
In addition, thanks to peer reviewing, the feedback or criticism I received has provided me a new way to re-read my work that never occurred to me. For example, when reading my analysis on “the physiological gap” of Mathlide, one classmate suggested that I should discuss in depth the meaning of the second paragraph in “The Necklace”, which reveals the contradiction of value between the society and middle-class women. Mr. Corio also helps me a lot, offering suggestive ideas on my introduction and citation.
The second section is my final timed-writing. Different from the first section, timed-writing places emphasis on high efficiency regardless of careful revisions. This challenging item relies heavily on a wide breath of abilities and skills. Actually, the academic writing lesson I attend has organized timed-writing for three times. The scene of my bewilderment of arranging time effectively during the first timed-writing stays in my mind until now. However, I refused to give up. By communicating with my instructor, I am gradually gasping the key points of timed-writing, that is, to outline the article, and then to write down in spite of grammatical errors or other faults, and finally to spare time for revising and editing. As my writing becomes more mature and more productive, the work I include in the portfolio is representative, required to be finished within forty-five minutes with the topic of creating a filmed advertisement for a movie based on The Grass-Eaters.
I chose as the last section “Reading Log on ‘The Americanization of Shadrach Cohen’ ” of my four reading logs. This work is typically representative of the goals of reading logs aiming at initial reactions exposure. My personal experience is expected to be similar to Shadrach Cohen’s. So I discussed my “increasingly upset” mood as well as my appreciation of Shadrach Cohen’s “great courage to cling to his own culture” in this reading log. To be honest, it was the first time when I felt writing was so smooth that commonplace hesitation to verbalism and phrasing was all faded away. I see such a situation as a sincere naturally-expressed feeling, with no relationship of improvement of writing skills. Writing a reading log has incredible impact upon me because I become aware that any work will not be merely composed of perfect writing skills. Conveying true feelings will lend lasting vigor to work and easily arouse readers’ interests.
Finally, when preparing for this portfolio, I feel lucky and proud. The luck stems from the active academic environment of the class. Mr. Rocio is a strict but patient teacher. Not only does he pick up my incorrect or improper expressions, but also he introduces various professional skills and helpful guidelines for written English. By his instruction, my attention has been drawn to structure, style, format and phrasing. Meanwhile, people in the class are passionate. When I feel uncomfortable with my work, many of them will volunteer to read it over for providing appropriate criticism. The pride derives from my self-improvement on writing. At the beginning of the class, my weakness related to how to convey meaning accurately and how to develop an article logically was all exposed to the sunlight. But as time flies, I have a clear idea of writing strategies. When compared with the freewriting I did in the first lesson of the academic writing, the last one proves to be skillful and fluent, both in content and in style. Now I am aware of varying the sentence structure and exploring the meaning in depth. Although there remain some weaknesses of my overall writing abilities, I think I am getting through, full of confident to reach full improvement. Furthermore, What I have learnt in the class will not end up with this portfolio; instead, the notions on written English will be extended to application of writing in my future life.
Sincerely,
Christine WANG, Yuting
Christine WANG, Yuting
June 10, 2007
Draft Three Class Distinctions: the Source of Misery "Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death!" was one of the most well-known slogans of the French Revolution, which was widely regarded as a pivotal turning point in the history of France – from the age of aristocracy to the age of democracy. It claimed the doctrine of "natural rights", including rights to life, liberty, and property, trying to put into practice the idea that France should be ruled by the ‘best’ of its society instead of the so-called hereditary class.
Despite the trans-age significance of the French Revolution, class distinctions, however, undeniably remained an integral part of French society, where privileges and reputations of an individual person were still based on his/her wealth. Born into a middle-class family, Guy de Maupassant had to become an ordinary civil servant because of no money to support his law studies. So he had a deep-felt understanding of class distinctions. In his novel ‘The Necklace’, Maupassant tells a story of Mme. Mathilde Loisel, who borrows a seemingly pricey necklace for an upper-class party but loses it. She and her husband take a ten-year poor life to pay off the debts on the necklace that is practically worthless. The dramatic ending may at first appear to be the natural result of Mathilde’s vanity but in fact involve condemnation on the society itself. Virtually, class distinctions of French society are the underlying cause leading to Mathilde Loisel's misery.
The story begins with a description of Mrs. Mathilde Loisel, drawing readers’ attention to have a close look to how class distinctions greatly influence destiny of the girl “born in a family of clerks” (38). “Pretty and charming” (38), she, in sharp contrast, has to marry “a little clerk” (38). Hence, a psychological gap opens between dissatisfaction of her trivial marriage and pride of her own natural fineness. The gap, amplified later when she finds no jewel to wear for the party, turns to be a prerequisite for subsequent tragic outcomes. What causes her psychological gap? It is easy to trace the story for the answer, that is, she insists on the idea that “there is neither caste nor rank: and beauty, grace, and charm act instead of family and birth” (38). Unfortunately, the society with strict class distinctions, in which men set higher standard for women, is all the opposite of her idealistic thought. “A man often chose a wife on the basis of how large her fortune was.” (38) Therefore, in the society where dowry seems everything to girls, Mathilde’s failure to offer a decent dowry forecasts her doomed misery.
Besides her current situation, class distinctions of French society also deeply affect Mathilde’s attitude to the upper-class ball. Important but invisible evidence is the following words said by Mathilde’s husband:
But, my dear, I thought you would be glad. You never go out, and this is such a fine opportunity. I had awful trouble to get it. Everyone wants to go; it is very select, and they are not giving many invitations to clerks. The whole official world will be there. (39)
The narration seems thought-provoking in two aspects. One is why everyone is eager to go to the ball; the other is why there are only a few invitations to clerks compared with the whole official world. Apparently, those two phenomena are right incompatible with one another. The upper-class identification is not easy to everyone whereas the middle class is dreaming to enter into the mainstream of the upper class. So the opportunity to attend the upper-class ball turns out to be a freaky symbol of social status and reputation. Naturally, Mathilde is not the exception. Like other middle-class women, she feels complicated facing to the invitation. By seizing the opportunity, she would probably “be envied”, “be charming”, and “be sought after” (39). However, she, at the same time, has a clear conception of her incapability of perfect self-demonstration because the upper class judge women not only by natural beauty but also by delicacies and luxuries they are in possession of. The author conveys Mathilde’s awareness, whether of consciousness or of subconsciousness, that besides beauty, charm and grace, money also works. Such a shilly-shally attitude to the upper class, a vivid reflection of class distinctions of French society, later grows to be the major motivation for her to borrow jewel -- a key fact leading to her misery.
Another detail presented in the story is related to Mathilde’s attitude to the lower class. In debate with her husband on what to wear at the party, she says: “there's nothing more humiliating than to look poor among other women who are rich.” (40) By taking into account the derogatory term of ‘humiliating’, the contempt beneath her statement is not only a portrayal of her vanity, but also consistent with class distinctions. Actually, it indicates that contempt to the lower class prevails in her society. Personality and character of an individual are judged by his/her class, and further the class is identified by money or property. In other words, a poor woman has no access to be recognized as nobility. Suffering from the popular social system of judgment, Mathilde tries her best to carefully avoid being mistaken to “look like distress” (40). Her method responding to her attitude is to borrow a necklace to impress others. In the pressure of class distinctions, the method is what will ensure her self-improvement, as well as what will cause her tragedy.
Mathilde’s reactions in the story are also the direct results of imperceptible influence of class distinctions. One of her reactions constituting vital factors of plot development is as follows when she returns the replaced necklace to Mme. Forestier.
If she had detected the substitution, what would she have thought, what would she have said? Would she not have taken Mme. Loisel for a thief? (43)
At first glance, it appears to be, in some sense, ridiculous psychological activities. Why, you may wonder, would her friend see her as a thief? Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “A friend is a person with whom I may be sincere. Before him I may think aloud.” Mathild’s worried reaction, on the contrary, suggests that her uncertainty about friendship between Mme. Forestier and herself. This kind of uncertainty derives from the common trend in her society because people are divided by social classes. So the reasonable explanation for her unusual reaction is that class distinctions invisibly held back their healthy mutual communication. She thinks too much, subconsciously with the agreement that because of her family and birth she is likely to be considered as a thief even if she claims that the necklace is lost. The burden of potential charge with theft is too heavy to bear, causing Mathild’s hesitation to tell her friend whatever happened. If Mathilde had done it, she might have had an opportunity to find the truth. It is a pity that she fails it, dominated by her reactions affected by her deep-rooted notion of class distinction.
In addition, a minutia of Mathilde’s sensitive reaction when the ball is over reminds readers of the influence of class distinctions. As her husband attempts to prevent her from catching a cold with “modest wraps of common life” (41), “she felt this, and wanted to escape so as not to be remarked by the other women, who were enveloping themselves in costly furs.” (41) It is a complicated description of her subtle feelings. She has a clear understanding of her own status, but she refuses to accept the fact that she is of the middle class. That is not merely the result of her vanity. Rich women would laugh at her modesty because it is a ruthless society where judgment is easily made by money and property. And due to class distinctions, there is no way for her to merge into the upper class even if she is of great elegance. In deeper level, what she wants to “escape” is her social station in life. However, her tragedy is that class distinctions will not allow her to escape although she reacts sensitively and cautiously.
With the story developing, Mathilde’s dramatic fate is tempting and sympathetic. When compared with the slogan of French Revolution quoted in the first paragraph, the miserable ending of Mme. Mathilde Loisel is sharply ironic. She is always trying to be treated equally. Unfortunately, she fails, and furthermore pays heavily for the trial.
In his paper “Six Questions on the French Revolution”, Troy Southgate once evaluates the famed slogan by the term of “pseudo-egalitarianism”. The very notion of equality had become widely embedded in the society where Maupassant lived. Nevertheless, the visible marks of class difference could be found everywhere. Those with idealistic dreams were heavily hurt in the face of the antinomy. In fact, Mathilde represents thousands of those victims of class distinctions of French society in the time of post-revolution. By picturing the tragedy of the major character, Maupassant expresses his confusion and discontent on the issue of class distinctions, in the purpose of self-awakening all over the country.
Work Cited
Maupassant, Guy de. “The Necklace.” 1884. Rpt. in The International Story: An Anthology with Guidelines for Reading and Writing about Fiction. Ruth Spack. New York: St. Martin’s 1994. 38-44.
Southgate, Troy. “Six Questions on the French Revolution.” Historical Pamphlets Series. http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/hist23.php.
Christine WANG, Yuting
May 13, 2007
Draft Two Title
‘Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death!’ was one of the most well-known slogans of the French Revolution, which was widely regarded as a pivotal turning point in the history of France – from the age of aristocracy to the age of democracy. It claimed the doctrine of "natural rights", including rights to life, liberty, and property, trying to put into practice the idea that France should be ruled by the ‘best’ of its society instead of the so-called hereditary class.
Despite the trans-age significance of the French Revolution, class distinctions, however, undeniably remained an integral part of French society, where privileges and reputations of an individual person were still based on his/her wealth. Born into a middle-class family, Guy de Maupassant had to become an ordinary civil servant because of no money to support his law studies. So he had a deep-felt understanding of class distinctions. In his novel ‘The Necklace’, Maupassant tells a story of Mme. Mathilde Loisel, who borrows a seemingly pricey necklace for an upper-class party but loses it. She and her husband take a ten-year poor life to pay off the debts on the necklace that is practically worthless. The dramatic ending may at first appear to be the natural result of Mathilde’s vanity but in fact involve condemnation on mechanism of the society itself. Virtually, class distinctions of French society are the underlying cause leading to Mathilde Loisel's misery.
The story begins with a description of Mrs. Mathilde Loisel, drawing readers’ attention to have a close look to how class distinctions greatly influence destiny of the girl ‘born in a family of clerks’ (38). ‘Pretty and charming’ (38), she, in sharp contrast, has to marry ‘a little clerk’ (38). Hence, a psychological gap opens between dissatisfaction of her trivial marriage and pride of her own natural fineness. The gap, amplified later when she finds no jewel to wear for the party, turns to be a prerequisite to subsequent tragic outcomes. Nevertheless, what causes her psychological gap? It is easy to trace the story for the answer, that is, she insists on the idea that ‘there is neither caste nor rank: and beauty, grace, and charm act instead of family and birth’ (38) whereas the reality is right opposite to her idealistic thoughts. It is the society with strict class distinctions, in which men set higher standard for women. Besides beauty, grace, and charm, money or property also works. ‘A man often chose a wife on the basis of how large her fortune was.’ (38) Although it is completely unfair that dowry seems everything to girls, Mathilde’s fate appears to be understandable in her society. As a member of the lower-middle class, she fails to offer a decent dowry in the pursuit of her happiness. Even though she reasonably will do her best to change it later at the ball, her looming misery is doomed.
Besides her current situation, class distinctions of French society also deeply affect Mathilde’s attitude to the upper-class ball. Important but invisible evidence is the following words said by Mathilde’s husband:
‘But, my dear, I thought you would be glad. You never go out, and this is such a fine opportunity. I had awful trouble to get it. Everyone wants to go; it is very select, and they are not giving many invitations to clerks. The whole official world will be there.’ (39)
The depiction seems thought-provoking in two aspects. One is why everyone wants to go to the ball; the other is why there are only a few invitations to clerks compared with the whole official world. Actually, those two phenomena exactly suggest what kinds of class distinctions exist in the society. First, the rigid upper class is not easy to step into, revealed by the limited invitations, together with the comparison between clerks and the official world. Secondly, ‘a fine opportunity’, ‘it is very select’, and etc indicates that the middle class is eagerly dreaming to enter into the mainstream of the upper class. What’s more, those fundamental points disclosed are apparently incompatible with one another. So as for the middle class, the opportunity to attend the upper-class ball turns out to be a freaky symbol of social status and reputation. Wealth a middle-class lady owns fails her dream to identify herself at the extravagant ball, while the social station she is in encourages her attempt for a social climber. Naturally, Mathilde is not the exception. Like other middle-class women, she feels complicated facing to the invitation. By seizing the opportunity, she would probably ‘be envied’, ‘be charming’, and ‘be sought after’ (39). However, she, at the same time, realizes her incapability of perfect self-demonstration because the upper class judge women not only by natural beauty but also by delicacies and luxuries they are in possession of. Such a shilly-shally attitude to the upper, a vivid reflection of class distinctions of French society, later grows to be one of crucial reasons for jewel borrowing -- a key fact leading to her misery.
Another detail presented in the story is related to Mathilde’s attitude to the lower. As written by the author, in debate with her husband on what to wear at the party, she gives her seemingly righteous reason: 'there's nothing more humiliating than to look poor among other women who are rich.' (40) By taking into account the derogatory term of ‘humiliating’, the hidden meaning beneath her statement is not a portrayal of her vanity, but correspondence between her contempt and class distinctions. Actually, it indicates that contempt to the lower class prevails in her society. In details, in the society with rigid class distinctions, personality and character of an individual are judged by his/her class, and the class is identified by money or property. In other words, a poor woman has no access to be recognized as nobility. Therefore, one measure to be admired is at least to look rich, as a way of pretence to be of the upper class. Suffering from the popular social system of judgment, Mathilde tries her best to carefully avoid being mistaken for a lower-class woman at the ball. Her method responding to her attitude is to borrow a necklace to impress others. In the pressure of class distinctions, the method is what will ensure her self-improvement, as well as what will cause her tragedy.
Mathilde’s reactions in the story are the direct results of imperceptible influence of class distinctions. One of her reactions constituting vital factors of plot development is as follows when she returns the replaced necklace to Mme. Forestier.
‘…her friend had so much feared. If she had detected the substitution, what would she have thought, what would she have said? Would she not have taken Mme. Loisel for a thief?' (43)
At first glance, it appears to be, in some sense, ridiculous psychological activities. Why, you may wonder, would her friend see her as a thief? Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, ‘A friend is a person with whom I may be sincere. Before him I may think aloud.’ So, it is no doubt that friends trust each other. Mathild’s worried reaction, on the contrary, suggests that her uncertainty about friendship between Mme. Forestier and herself. This kind of uncertainty derives from the common tread in her society because people are divided by social classes. So the reasonable explanation for her unusual reaction is that class distinctions invisibly held back their healthy mutual communication. She thinks too much, subconsciously with the agreement that because of her family and birth she is likely to be recognized as a thief even if she claims that the necklace is lost. The burden of potential charge with theft is too heavy to bear, causing Mathild’s hesitation to tell her friend what happened. If Mathilde had done it, she might have had an opportunity to find the truth and would have no use to spend the following ten years on repaying. It is a pity that her deep-rooted notion of class distinction plays a dominating role of her reactions.
In addition, a minutia of Mathilde’s sensitive reaction when the ball is over also reminds readers of the influence of class distinctions. As her husband attempts to prevent her from catching a cold with ‘modest wraps of common life’ (41), ‘she felt this, and wanted to escape so as not to be remarked by the other women, who were enveloping themselves in costly furs.’ (41) It is a vivid description of her subtle feelings. She has a clear understanding of her own wealth, but she refuses to accept the fact that she is of the middle class. That is not merely the result of her vanity. Due to class distinctions, rich women would laugh at her modesty because it is a ruthless society where judgment is easily made by money and property. And due to class distinctions, there is no way for her to merge into the upper class even if she is of great elegance. In deeper level, what she wants to escape is her social station in life. However, her tragedy is that class distinctions will not allow her to escape although she reacts sensitively and cautiously.
With the story developing, Mathilde’s dramatic fate is tempting and sympathetic. When compared with the slogan of French Revolution quoted in the first paragraph, the miserable ending of Mme. Mathilde Loisel is sharply ironic. She is always trying to be treated equally. Unfortunately, she fails, and furthermore pays heavily for the trial.
In his paper ‘Six Questions on the French Revolution’, Troy Southgate once evaluates the famed slogan by the term of ‘pseudo-egalitarianism’. The very notion of equality had become widely embedded in the society where Maupassant lived. Nevertheless, the visible marks of class difference could be found everywhere. Those with idealistic dreams were heavily hurt in the face of the antinomy. In fact, Mathilde represents thousands of those victims of class distinctions of French society in the time of post-revolution. By picturing the tragedy of the major character, Maupassant expresses his confusion and discontent on the issue of class distinctions, in the purpose of self-awakening all over the country. Work Cited
1) Shafer, David
Unsettled Idealism: The French Revolution's Ambiguous Legacy
Eighteenth-Century Studies - Volume 34, Number 3, Spring 2001, pp. 447-450
The Johns Hopkins University Press
Eighteenth-Century Studies 34.3 (2001) 447-450 2) http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/hist23.php
Six Questions on the French Revolution
By Troy Southgate
"Indeed, unless the 'rights of man' are offered to all people, regardless of social distinction or circumstantial qualification, the very notions of ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’ are reduced to a complete sham. Not, of course, that the pseudo-egalitarianism of the French Revolution was ever going to be workable anyway."
Christine WANG, Yuting May 8, 2007 Draft One
Title (I haven’t decided it)
‘Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death!’ was one of the most well-known slogans of the French Revolution, which was widely regarded as a pivotal turning point in the history of France – from the age of aristocracy to the age of democracy. It claimed the doctrine of "natural rights", including rights to life, liberty, and property, trying to put into practice the idea that France should be ruled by the ‘best’ of its society instead of the so-called hereditary class.
Despite the French Revolution’s epoch-making meaning in the western democracy, Class distinctions, however, undeniably remained an integral part of French society, where privileges and reputations of an individual person were still based on his/her wealth. Born into a middle-class family, Guy de Maupassant had to become an ordinary civil servant because of failing to afford tuitions and fees to continue his law studies. He had a deep-felt understanding of class distinctions. That is why he was able to vividly depict the tempting plot in ‘The Necklace’. In the story, Mrs. Mathilde Loisel, the major character, borrowed a seemingly pricey necklace for attending an upper-class meeting, but finally lost it. It took more than ten years for her and her husband to pay for the lost necklace which in the end proved a worthless fake. The dramatic ending of the story may at first appear the natural result of Mathilde’s vanity but in fact involve condemnation on the mechanism of the society itself. By careful rereading, it is easy to understand that class distinctions of French society are the underlying cause leading to Mathilde Loisel's misery.
At the beginning of the story, Maupassant tried to draw readers’ attention to have a close look to the destiny of a girl ‘born in a family of clerks’ (38). She, later known as Mrs. Mathilde Loisel, is ‘one of those pretty and charming girls’ (38). Under normal circumstances, a beautiful girl could be undoubtedly loved, and even wedded by a rich or outstanding man, given a proper approach to demonstrating her elegance. However, her fate is far beyond our imagination. She has to marry ‘a little clerk’ (38), in sharply contrast to her own natural fineness. What causes her disappointing marriage is simple but thought-provoking, as said by the author, that is, ‘no dowry’ (38). Why, you may wonder, does dowry, not the girl herself, determine her own future? Actually, the author indicates that, without wealth or property, there is no measure to jump from the lower class to the upper one in the society where Mathilde lives. It is the society with strict class distinctions that keeps Mathilde from the pursuit of happiness. Dowry seems everything to girls, and it is completely unfair. Naturally, such a situation will arouse dissatisfaction as well as vanity of girls with good conditions, e.g. Mathilde, which at last will lead to her tragedy. As a matter of fact, in the first paragraph, her misery is looming, and is doomed.
The ball is another strongly supportive example revealing class distinctions of French society leading to Mathilde’s tragedy.
When talking about the exciting invention, Mathilde’s husband says, ‘I had awful trouble to get it. Everyone wants to go; it is very select, and they are not giving many invitations to clerks. The whole official world will be there.' (39) At first glance, it seems out of understanding for two aspects. One is why everyone wants to go; the other is why there are only a few invitations to clerks compared with the whole official world. With productive thinking, a reader would certainly grasp the subtle meaning underlying those sentences. The opportunity to go to the upper-class ball is a symbol of social status and reputation, pushing everyone, especially in the lower class, to seize it. On the other hand, the limited invitations indicate that the attempt to entering into the mainstream of the upper class is far from a simple game. The upper class looks down to the lower one, judging people from the lower by their property and setting higher requirements for those who are not the ‘best’. By Mr. Loisel’s words, the author offers the real-world situation where people, in the upper or lower class, are deeply influenced by the notion of class distinctions. As a native member of French society, Mrs. Loisel apparently has no excuse to be the exception. So she plans to attend it, at least with sorts of delicacies and luxuries. That becomes her beginning of lasting misery.
When deciding what to wear in the ball, Mathilde has a debate with her husband. As written by the author, she gives her seemingly righteous reason: 'there's nothing more humiliating than to look poor among other women who are rich.' (40) Ostensibly, it shows Mathilde’s vanity. Actually, as readers will find later, such a shamed feeling is the main motivation inspiring her to borrow from her friend the necklace, paste but wrongly regarded as a priceless treasure by Mathilde. But what results in her vanity? Someone may be dissatisfied with his/her current status, but it is rare that he or she takes a totally negative attitude to the social class he or she belongs to, unless self-depreciation prevails in the lower-class society. After all, value, habits, and spirits of a specific class will affect people who are born and grow up in it. When discussing the poor as above, Mathilde used the derogatory word ‘humiliating’, suggesting that she lowers her own class, and what’s more, the whole class lowers itself. The similar description could also be found when the ball is over. As her husband attempts to prevent her from catching a cold with modest wraps of common life, ‘she felt this, and wanted to escape so as not to be remarked by the other women, who were enveloping themselves in costly furs.’ (41) Those are overt signs of deeply-rooted class distinctions, and even the weaker side of the society is poisoned.
(This paragraph should be composed according to my evidence 4. But I find a little difficulty to compare the 53rd paragraph with the first two paragraphs. I hope I will produce it in the draft 2.)
Mathilde’s thought that she would be seen as a thief, indirectly forcing her to pay for a flake necklace, is also a reflection of class distinctions. 'She did not open the case, as her friend had so much feared. If she had detected the substitution, what would she have thought, what would she have said? Would she not have taken Mme. Loisel for a thief?' (43) It appears to be, in some sense, ridiculous psychological activities. Why could her friend regard hers as a thief? Usually, her friend should believe what she said. In sincere friendship, it is no doubt that friends trust each other. Were my friend to notify me that what I lent to her was missing, I would believe what he/she stated. If Mathilde had abandoned her idea related to theft, she might have had an opportunity to talk with her friend and finally have found truth of the necklace. Unfortunately, she fails to do it. Class distinctions hold back her normal reactions. Her ridiculous thought derives from the common trend in her society. She subconsciously agrees that people in the ‘best’ class are the best whereas those in the ‘worst’ one are also the worst. It is a pity that she debases her own personality. However, the underlying reason causing her debasement is due to class distinctions.
With the story developing, Mathilde’s dramatic tragedy is appealing. It is natural to ask what on earth leads to it. The answer turns out to be various, ranging from vanity to destiny. When compared with the slogan of French Revolution, the misery of Mrs. Mathilde Loisel is sharply ironic. (Now I fail to continue to create a satisfactory conclusion. I hope I will improve it.)
Name: Christine WANG, Yuting Date: June 21, 2007 Timed-Writing Three
Directions: If you were to create a filmed advertisement (a "trailer" ) for a movie based on The Grass-Eaters, which scene would you select? Why? Discuss ways in which you might film the scene.
If I were to create a trailer for “The Grass-Eater”, I would prefer to select the scene that Ajit Babu is satisfied with his disabled leg, with the notion of self-deception and self-optimism.
I choose it because I think this scene vividly contrasts the harsh life Babu is facing and his seemingly-tragic optimistic attitude to the current situation. Actually, such a type of contrast is commonplace in the whole story. However, this one reaches a climax. Without delicate dishes, he is content with grass; Regardless of his dead children, he imagines bright future of his family. After all, those satisfactions are related to so-called happiness. But given his severely physical disabilities, the issue should be seen as a matter of survival instead of happiness. To be honest, one will hardly be calm to accept the fact of the loss of one leg. Hence, Babu’s impassive, even humorous tone of narrating his horrible experience will shock almost everyone. Any successful movie relies on conflicts, and will resonate among the audience. I think such a sharp contrast, representative of the topic of the story, will arouse interests as well as sympathism of audience, in purpose of drawing their attention on the movie.
As for how to film the scene, the best way is to amplify the contrast. There are many approaches to the effect. The first point is the background music because different kinds of music influence one’s mood without notice. I would like to select “Elove Song” by Goddess Reborn, which is a sad song with a relatively soft tune. The song may at first appear to be happy, but after careful listening, people would find sorrow lingering. It perfectly displays the topic. The second point is to use montages, a method of filming that place emphasis on contrast in one single composition by juxtaposing or superimposing many pictures or designs. I will film his relative who badly totters but has two legs, and then Babu’s satisfaction with his one leg, and then what happens on the roof of the train, and in the end, his optimistic words, “I think one leg is good! One leg saves on footwear and what I need now is only one sandal.” The montages should be used within a short time in order to amplify the conflict of humane nature and self-deception of Baju. At last, there goes a sentence for the ending - “Optimism? Tragedy!”
This story really impressed me. I forecast my situation similar to Shadrach Cohen’s when he just arrived in America because I will pursue my higher education as a graduate student in the U.S. in August.
His appearance was a perfect type the native residents frequently ridiculed. Will it be same to me? Actually I felt increasingly upset when reading the story. Ethnicity, accent, value, and customs, all those will separate me from the mainstream society in the U.S. Maybe this problem is disturbing not only me, but all the newcomers that have to begin their life in United States. Yes, I am fascinated by the country’s vigor, spirit, value, attitude, democracy, independence, liberty, etc. But it seems that I have to make some kinds of sacrifice. It is common that two different cultures will conflict, and that those new immigrants have to put their own one aside; otherwise they will find themselves totally excluded from the society. In some sense, it is called ‘Americanization’, instead of ‘Culture Shock’. Sometimes I feel confused what the definition of liberty is. That’s why I was impressed by Shadrach Cohen. He was of great courage to cling to his own culture, regardless of what others talked about. What’s more, he won respect by his diligence, faith and courage. Shadrach Cohen reminded me of Dun TAN, music composer of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and the Oscar winner. He insists on composing music with Chinese characteristics in the U.S., now deserving admiration and appreciation. I think he is another vivid example similar to Shadrach Cohen. What he did is correct. To newcomers, the best way to merge into the society is not to throw away all they have brought from their own background, but to take advantage of good virtues for success. But I know it just remains in my mind. When facing to the reality, few people will do what Shadrach Cohen or Dun TAN did. And, I think I will be classified into the majority. So, after reading, I feel sad. I will be Americanized, but not alike Shadrach Cohen.
|
