Closed Reading: "Failure is Good"

Failure is Good

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/opinion/krugman-failure-is-good.html

Most of the times, when we think of failure, we think of it as bad, don’t we? However, Paul Krugman argues the case that failure can actually be a good thing—especially in the political process. Using diction, syntax, and details, Krugman describes why failure can actually be good in the political world.

Krugman’s word choice is very concise and pointed; he uses words such as “slashing”, “pose”, and “destructive” to describe Republicans and their views on reducing future deficits, while he uses “moral” and “raising” to create a slightly more positive connotation when discussing the Democratic view of reducing future deficits. Krugman also creates a negative aura when discussing this issue by using words such as “doomed”, “fail”, and intransigent”. By creating this negative view of the issue, Krugman manages to convince readers that the failure of this issue will indeed benefit our lives.

Syntax is also used to help support Krugman’s view that failure can actually be good. Krugman often uses rhetorical questions to get readers to think about what he said- and he manages to prove himself right! Krugman says “Does anone doubt that he was speaking for many in his party?” in reference to Rick Perry’s view of Social Security. When Krugman inserts this question, readers realize that his point is in fact valid- that Perry’s views do apply to many Republicans. Krugman also uses dashes to explain his thoughts, creating a sense of casualness, making his article more relatable. The pause caused by the dashes also help readers to make a distinction between the explanation of specific points and the actual points. With this easy distinction, this work is easy to follow, making readers more likely to agree that in this case, failure is actually good.

Krugman successfully uses details to explain why he –and you too- should believe that failure is good in this case. Krugman talks about details such as how government works, and the difference between the two parties to explain this. By detailing the ways the two major parties run, Krugman manages to explain that in this “supercommittee”, there will be policy gridlock, which is why their goal to reduce future deficits will fail to meet the deadline. Also, he explains the Republican’s “true” views about reducing deficit spending. Purposefully attempting to pin the issue as a Republican view, Krugman manages to make Democrats feel stronger about this issue. By explaining the issue and detailing how it would not help the United States to decrease deficits, Krugman convinces anyone, who was not already convinced, that this issue is better left a failure than a success.

Through the use of diction, syntax, and details, Krugman successfully elaborates why failure can be a benefit to people for the current hot issue about reducing future deficits.

I Couldn't Really Think of a Clever Title...

These past weeks have been rather eventful. First of all, we finished the close read of Death of a Salesman, which was quite interesting. I found myself hating Willy’s character more as the story progressed, and I’m not sure if it’s because I already had a prejudice against him (because of the movie), or his character was just that despicable. By the end of the play, I didn’t really pity him when he committed suicide. Is that a bad or a good thing? I wasn't sure if Miller was trying to get readers to pity Willy or not, but I know that I sure didn't! Although I didn't really want to admit it, I felt like some of the things that Biff was doing were actually justified. No, not the stealing, but the others, such as his hope to have a better life, not one his father set out for him. Personally I relate to this a bit because my parents and I have different views on what my future should be like. Overall, I personally liked Biff's character more than the others because he was more relatable.

We also did research over literary eras, which was informational. Parts of it were interesting, such as figuring out how it related to modern literature, but some parts were a bit confusing. I hadn’t quite figured out what exactly the question was asking, so I felt a bit lost when I was searching for information. After a while though, I finally figured out what the question was pertaining to, so the research went much more smoothly. I found it funny how many modern works of literature use techniques and styles of previous eras! I would have thought that a new era meant completely starting over again, but I guess I was wrong!
This week was quite a fun week, and I hope AP Lit only gets better!!

Open Prompt 5

1994. In some works of literature, a character who appears briefly, or does not appear at all, is a significant presence. Choose a novel or play of literary merit and write an essay in which you show how such a character functions in the work. You may wish to discuss how the character affects action, theme, or the development of other characters. Avoid plot summary.

Sometimes, the people readers do not see may in fact be the most important. Take the baby boy that Mommy and Daddy adopted, for example, in the play The American Dream. This baby does not make any appearance in the novel, but plays a significant role as he shows the mentality and disillusionment of the characters.

The baby is not given a name, like many characters in The American Dream, however, it is know that he is a toddler boy, around three years old. Readers also find out through the course of the book that Mommy and Daddy mutilated this baby boy, and they have no shame of it. On the surface, this shows that Mommy and Daddy would most likely benefit from some psychotherapy, that the mentality of some of the characters is less than stable. Contrastingly, characters such as Grandma and the Young Man show disdain regarding these cruel actions, which shows that their mentality is much more healthy. The actions done to this innocent child that is never physically seen in the play are how this can be interpreted: what sane person would take a child and cut off parts of their body?

Not only does the baby show the instability of the mentality of the characters in The American Dream, it also shows the disillusionment of the American Dream. Say the baby boy represents the American Dream: Mommy and Daddy only adopted the child for the sake of their satisfaction. Unfortunately, the baby boy did not satisfy them, so they took the boy and murdered him. This parallels the American Dream; Mommy and Daddy can’t seem to reach their “American Dream”, so they try to manipulate the idea that they use to reach the American Dream. They take it and tear it apart just because they were not satisfied with the outcome, much similar to how they treated the innocent boy, as if mutilating it will make it any better.
Although the baby boy is mentioned frequently in this play, he does not physically appear, but nevertheless makes an important presence. Although never seen, the innocent baby boy shows the mentality of the characters, as well as the disillusionment with the American Dream.