Essays from Fall 2005

Dear Readers,


Here are a lot of essays from school (fall 2005, my first semester at NAU) that I have not put on Telemoonfa Time yet. I put some of my comments in brackets and italics. Enjoy.


[I wrote this Yvain paper really quickly. I was really scared about writing it because it was my first essay that I had to write at NAU. NAU is a lot harder than EAC. It's kind of a cheesy paper.]



Three Recurring Elements in Yvain


A butterfly in India flapped its wings too hard, which caused a rainstorm to ruin the picnic you were going to have in America. Instead of the charming meal outdoors, you went with your wife to a restaurant, where occasionally they accidentally put large chicken bones in the clam chowder. You ordered the clam chowder, got the unlucky dish, and choked. This caused your wife to scream, “Does anyone know the Heimlich Maneuver?” Upon hearing her cry, a man in a nearby booth rose and saved your life, using that wonderful throat-clearing remedy. All was well, until the rescuer insanely demanded a $5,000 reward, which you paid. Due to this unforeseen expense, you had no money to buy your children Christmas presents. Your kids never forgot the Christmas Santa didn’t come, and they developed severe emotional and psychological disorders.


As in the preceding unlikely anecdote, events in life can seem random. We cannot explain why things occur, or why they occur when they do. However, despite this randomness, there are patterns in life from which we can learn. The sun rises; the sun sets. Spring follows Winter; Summer follows Spring; Fall follows Summer, and Fall turns into Winter. People come; people go. We are angry; we are happy, and hopefully from these things we learn the best way to live and possibly we’ll learnthe meaning of life.


Much like the sporadic events in life, the sporadic events in Yvain (The Knight With the Lion) make us wonder what factors, if any, offer us completeness. Is there a theme to Yvain? Is there a point? Is Yvain a series of unrelated adventures, or are there certain elements that make the literary work cohesive?


In this essay I will show that just as we learn from examining recurring events in life, we can learn from recurring events in Yvain. What we learn from life’s repetitions is up for your pondering, but let me present three lessons we can learn from the motifs in Yvain: 1) The theme of interdependence teaches us that we need each other. 2) The theme of chivalry teaches us to prize good behavior. 3) The theme of piety teaches us to be faithful.


First, one of the recurring elements in Yvain is the idea of interdependence, from which we can learn that we need each other. Two relationships exemplifying this interdependence are Yvain’s relationship with the hermit and Yvain’s relationship with the lion. In Yvain’s relationship with the hermit, we observe that both parties entered into and fulfilled an agreement. The hermit provided Yvain with a daily meal. “…the bread and pitcher were always on the window ledge to feed the madman” (Chretien de Troyes, Arthurian Romances, trans. D. D. R. Owen [Vermont: Everyman, 1993], p. 320). In turn, Yvain provided meat for the hermit. “Not a single day passed without his bringing some wild beast to the hermit’s door for him.” (p. 320) By providing for each other, both Yvain and the hermit profited.


In Yvain’s relationship with the lion, we see that Yvain rescued the lion from the fire-spitting serpent, and in turn, the lion later rescues his master from many dangerous situations. For the rest of the tale, Yvain and the lion are loyal friends. “The lion stays close by his side, for never again will it leave him but always stay with him, wishing to give him service and protection.” (p. 327) Their relationship is glorified through the many noble deeds they perform and the adventures they have. So, through Yvain’s association with both the hermit and the lion, we can realize that, as humans, we depend on one another.


Next, the theme of chivalry teaches us to prize good behavior and courtly associations. In the opening lines of this tale, the narrator tells his audience why his story is worth being told and listened to: “For those who used to love had a reputation for courtliness, integrity, generosity and honour; but now love is made a laughing-stock… But let us leave those who still alive to speak of those who once were!” From this quote, we see that the narrator explains why he wants to tell us about some of the great people of the past. He says that the legendary subjects of his tale knew how to love and were full of true chivalry.


Now listen to one of the several glorifying descriptions of a party that King Arthur and his knights have: “…there were some ninety ladies there, every one beautiful and attractive, noble, intelligent, prudent, sensible and a damsel of high breeding. So the men could enjoy themselves by embracing and kissing them, talking to them, looking at them and sitting by their side:” (p. 314) This scene of chivalry and good behavior tells us of people who knew how to have a responsible good time. They could enjoy the company of the opposite sex without degenerating into base creatures of lust. These are members of high society who understand the etiquette and propriety linked with their social standing. Is not this the type of behavior worthy of our emulation? I submit to the reader that the glorification of courtly social interactions among the nobles illustrates how we too should conduct ourselves.


Finally, the recurring element of piety shows us that we should be faithful. Over and over, we hear characters in this story praying to God, invoking the blessings of heaven, and name-dropping each member of the Trinity. For example, when the maiden searching after Yvain is tracking him down, the text reads: “A maiden might well be highly alarmed to be unescorted in a forest in bad weather and on a foul night so dark that she could not see the horse she was riding. That is why she called continuously on God first, His Mother next, and then on all the saints of either sex:” (p. 346)


For another example, shortly after Yvain frees several damsels from their slave labor, they give to him beautiful faithful parting words. “…each [damsel] bows before him [Yvain] and in their prayers express the wish for him that God may grant him joy and health and the achievement of his desire wherever he may go in the future.” These damsels certainly have faith in God, which is shown by their parting words to Yvain. So, all throughout this story, characters walk in the fear of God and are always mentioning his name. What can be the point of this except to teach that the faith of these people was inseparably connected with their lifestyle? Could King Arthur and his legendary knights of the round table existed without the heavy influence of Christianity? I believe not. So, by showing the faith of these characters frequently, the author subtly instructs us to be faithful.



The motifs in the sometimes episodic Yvain were not put in the story by accident. Rather, the author deliberately repeated certain themes to catch the readers attention and to suggest something important. In review, the theme of interdependence teaches us that we need each other, the theme of chivalry teaches us to prize good behavior, and the theme of piety teaches us to be faithful. Just as in life, that seems random at times, there are motifs in Yvain that help us hold the story together and learn important lessons.



Upon Reviewing NCTE Standards for the English Language Arts, In Prose.


When some teachers here the word standards, they think of standardized tests: kids silently filling in scantron sheets with # 2 pencils. But a standard is only an idea that says something meets a certain criteria or level of achievement. Standards aren’t bad. They are our friends! With this happier vision of standards, the NCTE (National Council for the Teachers of English) has published a document called the Standards for the English Language Arts. This document is a list of 12 standards that the NCTE believes should be applied to Language Arts class around the country.


The list of standards reminded me of the Bill of Rights; (Only it’s not as influential or historically important) it is a short list of brief statements that could be interpreted many ways. It does not spell out things like, “sophomores must read the Scarlet Letter” and “3rd graders will have cursive mastered by April 10th” Instead, this list is general. It empowers teachers to think for themselves about what is best for their own curriculum in their own particular classrooms. It acknowledges English Teachers as professionals who understand what knowledge is worthy of study in the classroom.


By being general, it avoids controversy, mostly. I found a few things in there that some people might disagree with. One was:

8. Students use a variety of technological and information resources (e.g., libraries, databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge.


What could be the problem with this? Ask the Amish. And ask Neil Postman and ask that guy who wrote the Medium is the Massage. Some intellectuals are fearful that technology is changing our brains and changing our schools in a negative way. In Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman proves how school curriculums have been changed by the television and videos and other electronic-vision paraphernalia. He cites an educational TV program called “the Voyage of the Mimi”, in which a family takes a lovely voyage on the ocean to observe whales. “The Voyage of the Mimi” shows plenty of beautiful shots of whales breeching, of the ship sailing. It also develops characters and attempts to get us emotionally involved with the ship crew. In the process of all this entertainment, the students are supposed to learn about the different whale species and learn science stuff. I myself actually went through “the Voyage of the Mimi” curriculum in 7th grade science class. I memorized different whales names, learned rudimentary oceanography, and etc. So I know what Postman is talking about here. So, Postman says that the only reason science-classes learned about whales for a long time was because whales are televisable, that is photogenic and able to be televised. Cinematography is involved here. Entertainment is involved here.


But most people don’t have a problem with standard # 8. In today’s world, to get most good jobs and become “successful,” you need to know how to use a computer. And to understand allusions to pop culture or to have chit-chat with your co-workers on your smoke break, you should some TV. But again, the NCTE totally discriminates against the Amish here. (ha ha ha)


The next possibly controversial standard is standard # 10:

10. Students whose first language is not English make use of their first language to develop competency in the English language arts and to develop understanding of content across the curriculum.

What does this mean, exactly? Is this against the English Immersion philosophy? I would say yes, it is against the English Immersion philosophy. And where are we going to get enough bilingual teachers? This standard is not very specific. In conclusion, the standards generate discussion and want clarification.


Talking vs. Writing


I want to know what it’s like to grow up in an oral-only society. I imagine that people would be together more, spatially. They would have to gather together to transmit news, values, and heritage to one another. Mostly knowledge, in both oral-only and literate societies, is passed on from parents to offspring. But also elders, community members, and peers teach children about the society they live in and the world around them. In an oral-only society, knowledge is created and shared by the group. (Sort of like Constructivism)


In contrast, a written language, a highly literate population, and a mass availability of printed materials changes a few things. We are now able to say, “Go by yourself into that corner and read this book by a dead guy who lived really far away.” Perhaps a written language, a highly literate population and a mass availability of printed materials isolates us from another. Perhaps mental and emotional disorders are on the rise because we have cut ourselves off from the warmth that friendly faces and comforting hands bring. In isolating ourselves, we lose a sense of community, of shared values, of a place in society, of usefulness, a sense of purpose, of being known by name and likes and dislikes, of tradition, and self-worth. We see ourselves as a function of a large machine, the company we work for, the society we live in. We are a number; our emotions are non-productive; knowing our neighbors is not as important as knowing the periodic table of the elements or the multiplication table.


But I don’t want to romanticize oral-only societies and demonize highly literate societies. I’m a supporter of reading and writing; after all, I’m planning to be an English teacher. See, I believe that a written document can provide stability. Or it can help us think and sort out all the stimulus that bombards our eyes, ears, mouths, noses and skin. Books can take us to other worlds in our imagination like Never-never land, Narnia, the Middle-Earth, or Gotham City. Literacy and technology don’t have to lead us into 1984 or a Brave New World or an unemotional uncaring electric circuit computer robot soulless metropolis. We created the alphabet! We created the computer! They are tools for us to use! We are the masters of technology! Technology is not our sovereign! We can keep values, traditions, communities, and families where we want them, alive in our breasts, if we care enough.


I have a great respect for the Amish. Although I disagree with their doctrine, I respect their way of life. The Amish have not allowed literacy or technology to interfere with their religious beliefs or their culture. They have strong family units; they share what is important with each other. Even though a television or radio is available in a short walk’s time, they have been intractable enough to shun these modern inventions. Even though modern farming equipment would make their work ten times easier, they prefer to do it the old hard way. I believe we can learn from the Amish; we can hold on to important values while still using convenient new inventions. Again, we just have to care enough to do so.


The preceding has been some of my thoughts after reading the article “Protean Shapes in Literacy Events” by Shirley Brice Heath. In this article, Heath explores the line between oral-only cultures and highly literate cultures. She reports a study on levels of literacy in Trackton, a town which contains people who can all read and write, yet they still rely heavily on oral tradition ways. Trackton is “a Piedmont community of the Carolinas between 1969 and 1979.” I loved the sentences, “Among Trackton adults, reading was a social activity which did not focus on a single individual. Solitary reading without oral explanation was viewed as unacceptable, strange, and indicative of a particular kind of failure, which kept individuals from being social. Narratives, jokes, sidetracking talk, and negotiation of the meaning of written texts kept social relations alive. When several members of the community jointly focused on and interpreted written materials, authority did not rest in the material themselves, but in the meanings which would be negotiated by the participants.” Again, this reminds me of Constructivism, where the meaning of a text is constructed through people discussing the text.



The people of Trackton have a greater respect for their community members than they do for a pamphlet some carpetbagger brought in. By studying the oral literacy habits of Trackton residents, we can see the line between oral-only societies and highly literate societies. We can take the qualities from both ways of communication and uhh… think about them a lot.



[I think this next one has a funny title.]



From Goo-goo and Gaa-gaa to Goulash and Gerontomorphosis


Jerome S. Bruner’s article “Learning the Mother Tongue” proposes a new theory, explaining how children learn their first language. In the first paragraph, Bruner quotes St. Augustine’s explanation of the language acquiring phenomenon. Augustine says that as older people pointed to objects and said the corresponding word, he associated the object with its word. Therefore, we must assume that after a few years of enough adults pointing to enough stuff and saying the corresponding word, he became fluent in English. Upon first glance, this explanation seemed alright to me. After all, when I point to a ball and say “ball” to my niece, and after a few repetitions she says “ball,” I fancy myself an English language teacher extraordinaire. But this simple explanation that linguists, by the way, accepted for centuries, does not account for the complex grammar rules prevalent in all languages. Nor does it account for the volumes of vocabulary words, many describing abstract qualities that cannot be pointed at.


Nevertheless, Augustine’s theory held. It stuck around until the famous linguist Noam Chomsky proposed his LAD (Language Acquisition Device) theory. “According to this view, language was not learned; it was recognized by virtue of an innate recognition routine through which children, when exposed to their local language, could abstract or extract its universal grammatical principles” I had to read this sentence a few times before I understood what it meant, and I looked up the word innate in the dictionary. It turns out that innate means, “existing in one from birth; inborn; native.” So, Chomsky said that just as some animals have instincts, humans have a language acquisition device. Does this mean that people come to this earth with knowledge? Maybe that is what Chomsky was saying.


Now, Jerome S. Butler has proposed a new theory. It seems bold to me to propose a new theory that dissents from Augustine and Chomsky, but if Butler is a linguist and feels like he knows what he’s talking about, then I say more power to him. Butler calls the new theory the “fine-tuning theory” In this theory, and I don’t understand it completely, the child learns through dialogue, attempts to communicate. In other words, the child learns a language by trying to communicate. First a child cries and reaches something, and the mother gives the child oatmeal (or a cookie or milk). This is communication happening. Eventually the child learns the word for oatmeal (or a cookie or milk) and says it. The parent understands the child and communication has happened on a higher level. So, it is only through talker-child interaction that a language is learned. In the words of the article, “According to this theory, if the LAD exists, it hovers somewhere in the air between mother and child.” This is how I’ve come to understand the fine-tuning theory as presented in this article.


The rest of the article describes communication between a talker and a child at different ages. It focuses on the fine-tuning theory and tries to support it with research.


I thought that this was an interesting article about an interesting subject. I’m taking an introduction to linguistics class right now and my professor, Fredricka Stoller, said that the way children learn a language is miraculous and nobody understands it. I’m certain that language acquisition will continue to be discussed in the future. More studies will be done. More theories will be proposed.

However, I don’t think the human race will ever figure it out and nail it down or make it a fact with a capitol F, just like Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492. After all, humans haven’t figured out yet where they’ll go after they die, even though they’ve been thinking about it ever since birth came around.


Poem Explicating vs. Tire Changing: What’s Better?

During the summer between my sophomore and junior years of college, I had a job at a department store as an overnight stocker. One of my co-workers, who I came to respect, dropped out of high school as a freshman. He said that he had never much cared for reading, writing, or math. In today’s society, we would call him dumb, right? He’s not as smart as high-school graduates, is he? Perhaps we would pass such a demeaning judgment on my former co-worker, but you should have seen him operate the forklift, or the pallet jack, or the walkie-stacker. Or I wish you would have been there to see him fix the cardboard baler. You see, my high-school dropout friend had mechanical skills and hands-on know-how that made me stand back in awe. My association with this co-worker taught me that everybody has different strengths, weaknesses, and different ways of learning. In this essay I’ll briefly discuss Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, my strongest intelligence, and how I plan to apply this theory as a high-school English teacher.


Howard Gardner, psychologist and author, proposed in his theory of multiple intelligences in 1986. According to this theory, some learn a new concept or skill by talking about it, some by reading and writing about it, and others by applying it hands-on. If this theory is true, (and I and most educators are convinced that it is), the questions then follow: in what ways do you and I learn and how can educators capitalize on this new theory?


It turns out that my strongest intelligence is Interpersonal. Our class textbook states, “Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand other people, an ability that we all need but is particularly important for teachers, salespeople, and politicians.”


As a high-school English teacher, I plan on nurturing the different intelligences in my classrooms. I will not have all my students memorize new vocabulary words by recitation, thus only appealing to the verbal/ linguistic intelligent people. I will assign creative projects like drawing a picture about a poem, or writing a poem about grammar rules. Perhaps I could have students act out some of the stories we’ll read. Whatever assignments and lesson plans I create in the future, I will always strive to produce new creative assignments that appeal to all of the 8 different intelligences as outlined by Howard Gardner. When I am a teacher, I will try to nurture student’s strengths, thus boosting their confidence and motivation, and appreciating who they are as individuals.


[I quoted a lot of the Bible in this next paper. Remember, all these essays I'm posting today came from the fall of 2005, my first semester at NAU. That's when I was still pretty fresh off of my LDS mission, and I was pretty fresh from a college where Mormon thought dominated the campus- Eastern Arizona College. I bet I would not quote the Bible in a paper I turned in nowadays. I'm too enlightened for that.]


How to Be Successful and Better


Lisa Delpit wrote an article titled, “The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse” which addressed some of the issues teachers have had with teaching minorities. Many teachers may have trouble teaching minorities the dominant discourse, because they feel that they are destroying the students’ culture. “Dominant discourse” here means the dominant culture or the richest, most powerful culture. In America, it is generally understood that white males have most of the money and influence. To illustrate, remember that all the U.S. presidents have been white males, most politicians are white males, and most business leaders are white males. There is a dominant discourse, or a unique literacy, that exists among these movers and shakers. A way of speaking, writing, and reading is shared among these white males. This dominant discourse is akin to secret clubhouse handshakes and code words. So, are we supposed to teach the dominant discourse in school?


Well, first, Delpit says that it is possible to teach the dominant discourse in a classroom. Some have wondered that if a school culture is so different than a home-life, can a dominant discourse really be taught in school? In other words, can a black kid from the projects learn to be like George Washington? Delpit says yes, people can distinguish between their home discourse and their school discourse; it’s just kind of hard.


But whether the dominant discourse can be taught or whether it should be taught are separate questions. Again, some teachers feel that by teaching the dominant discourse to minorities, they are destroying the minorities’ culture.


But is destroying culture always a bad thing? I would say no, it’s not. For example, suppose you met a culture that practiced female infanticide. Would you say, “Wow, how neat, I really appreciate your traditions.” Or would you say, “That’s wrong! Stop doing that!” I would say the latter. But this hypothetical scenario brings up a good question: Is one culture inherently better than another culture? And what does “better” mean? Who decides what better is? The people with the biggest bank account or the biggest military? The majority? Should we vote on what “better” means? Or does a Higher Power decide? Here’s a hard pill to swallow: Deuteronomy 7: 1-6, from the King James Version:

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

I wouldn’t call the Old Testament God multicultural.


But of course destroying a culture isn’t always right. Suppose I went to Mexico and saw some guy wearing a sombrero, knocked it off his head and said, “Hey stop wearing that funny-looking hat! Wear a New York Yankees ball-cap instead!” I don’t think that’d be too cool.


But what do we mean by better? Do we mean happier, or more peaceful or richer or more powerful? I don’t know. (This is supposed to be an English paper, not a philosophy, sociology, anthropology, or theology paper. Although they all get mixed together, don’t they?) But I think we can agree that in America it’s good to “succeed,” meaning to be healthy, to have money, and to not do anything illegal. And if we want students to “succeed” in this way, we have to give them the secret handshakes and the passwords into the dominant discourse. I guess it all goes back to the question of what a school’s purpose is. If school is supposed to be a social escalator, then I say it’s necessary to teach the dominant discourse. If people feel that the public schools are destroying their culture, maybe they should write poetry about it or attack the schools with guns and create their own schools. But if guns aren’t a part of their culture, than I guess they have a lot of peaceful protesting to do.


Oh, so much societal stuff to think about; so little time. Anyway, I think Delpit says in her article that we should teach the dominant culture to minorities, because the dominant discourse is a person’s passport to success (whatever that means) and gives them a better life (whatever that means).


[The last sentence of this next essay is the funniest part, I think.]

How Many Fingers Am I Holding Up?


When I type the word envisionment on my computer using the latest Microsoft Word software, a red squiggly line appears beneath it. The red squiggly line means that envisionment isn’t a bona fide dictionary-approved word. Rather, “envisionment” is the latest in a string of freshly invented terms I’ve found after reading several scholarly articles about English education. Indeed, envisionments is in the tradition of “whole-language method”, “transaction”, “scaffolding”, and “weaving.” But before I criticize the making of another catchy term, I must acknowledge the marvelous substance behind this new word.


Langer introduces, describes, and defines his term “envisionment” in the first section. The author says it: 1) refers “to the world of understanding a person has at any point in time.” 2) Is built “when we make sense of ourselves, of others, and of the world.” 3) Is similar to Rosenblatt’s idea of transaction, and 4) Grows and changes and becomes “enriched over time, with thought and experience.”


So, different people get different meanings out of different texts.


Langer says we make envisionments when we receive any type of information, not only when we read. For example, we make envisionments when we see a movie, meet a new person, or watch the sun set. We take in information with our eyes, ears, mouth, nose, skin, and possibly our souls, and then we internalize and interpret the information. As humans, we desire all this information to make sense. We have a passion for meaning. So, we connect new information to previously-processed information. When we see the sunset, we may think: “Oh good, the sun set. I knew that was going to happen. It happened yesterday, and it will happen tomorrow. Now it will get darker and darker because the sun is not giving the earth light anymore. This new information, the sun setting, fits in with the routine- my paradigm”


So, different people get different meanings out of different texts. Thus, when I ask, “How many fingers am I holding up?” to people with varying degrees of sight, I might get a few different answers.


But even though envisionments are made in nearly every facet of life, the author concentrates his chapter on the envsionments that are made during reading. To further illustrate the meaning of “envisionments,” Langer reprints a poem called “Forgive My Guilt” along with notes made by Jim, an average seventh grader, as Jim was reading the poem. An excellent comparasin is made between the idea of meeting a new person and Jim’s reading of “Forgive My Guilt”


There are four stances the reader can take during envisionment building. They are:


1) Being Out and Stepping into an Envsionment. This stance refers to the position of the reader upon first encountering a text. The text is new; he or she knows nothing about it. Hypotheses are formulated based on not much antecedent information.


2) Being In and Moving Through an Envisionment. This stance refers to the position of the reader when he or she has read some of the text and has a good idea of what it’s about. This is when an envisionment is established and then refined here and there.


3) Stepping Out and Rethinking What One Knows. This stance refers to the position of the reader when the text affects the way the reader looks at the world. For instance, I’m reading a pretty controversial book right now called The People’s History of the United States that does not put Christopher Columbus in a very good light. I used to think that Columbus was a brave righteous hero inspired by God to find America. But this book shows me some of his negative attributes, like his tendency to exploit Native Americans. So that book has made me rethink what I call my knowledge.


4) Stepping Out and Objectifying the Experience. This stance refers to the position of the reader after he has completed a text and is reflecting on it. It’s the critical eye- where you wrinkle your brow, stroke your beard and say “hmmmmmm.”


We assume these stances in a non-linear sequence, and it’s hard to say when one stance starts and where one stance ends; they all can blend together.


Anyway, I loved the chapter. It was clear. It made sense to me, gave me something to think about, and taught me a new buzz-word to throw around. I can see the mission statement on my resume now: “Telemoonfa: weaving knowledge into students, while simultaneously scaffolding envisionments”

[E. D. Hirsch really is an interesting guy with really interesting ideas about culture and education. I would like to read more of his stuff some time.]

E. D. Hirsch and Cultural Literacy


Once, during free time in my sophomore English class, my friend and I were discussing comic books. Specifically, we talked about the works Alan Moore, including V for Vendetta, the Watchmen, and others. My English Teacher, Mrs. Butler, was sitting by us and said she couldn’t participate in the conversation, since she wasn’t familiar with the writings of Alan Moore or comic books in general. Mrs. Butler, even though she had a bachelor’s degree in English and had taught high school English for several years, couldn’t converse with us 14-year-olds because she was not comic-book literate.


Comic-book literacy is based on knowing the prominent superheroes of the Marvel and DC universes, knowing some of the characters from the other comic book publishing companies, and generally being aware of the possibilities inside comic book worlds. So, being able to converse about comic books depends upon shared knowledge. If you are not familiar with the world of comic books, you can not, figuratively speaking, join the kids in the tree house and say, “Who would win in a fight, Wolverine or Gambit”


The same goes for other topics of interest. I can’t have a meaningful conversation about the laws of thermodynamics with physics majors; their jargon and concepts would confuse me. Beyond personal interesting topics, there are ethnicities, religions, and backgrounds that differentiate and divide us. For example, when a jaded New York City hot-dog vender speaks to an Amish preacher, you might as well be talking about Martians and Earthlings coming into contact.


But is there something that Americans should have in common? Is there a shared knowledge that American adults collectively feel should be passed on to the next generation via free public education? These are the major questions asked and answered by E D Hirsch, Jr. founder of the Core Knowledge book series and proponent of the cultural literacy movement.
In this paper I will 1) write a brief biography of E. D. Hirsch 2) Quote and discuss Hirsch’s motives for writing his books 3) Defend Hirsch’s educational philosophy.


1) Brief Biography of E. D. Hirsch


First, Hirsch’s biography: E. D. Hirsch is the author of several books, all having to do with education, mostly English education. He wrote Innocence and Experience: An Introduction to Blake, The Philosophy of Composition, The Schools We Need, the Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, and, most famously, Cultural Literacy. He is currently a professor of English at the University of Virginia and lives in Charlottesville, Virginia. He has been involved in educational reform for many years, being an influential author, speaker, and intellectual.
And what type of person is he? I get the feeling from reading his writing that he is a practical, old-fashioned man. A quote in one of his earliest books is very telling.
“For I write as one converted from aestheticism to the more practical side of an English teacher’s responsibilities.” (Hirsh, The Philosophy of Composition, xiii) So, he wants to depart from flowery creative writing in the classroom and focus more on practical composition.


I would also like to say that I do not know E. D. Hirsch personally. I do not know what his family is like. I don’t know how he interacts with children. I can only catch glimpses of his character from reading the things he has written. And, since his writings are not about his own life, but about his educational theories, a subject he feels strongly about but which does not involve his own life to a great extent, I really don’t know who Hirsch is.


2) Quotes and Discussion of Hirsch’s Motives


Second, Cultural Literacy, Hirsch says, “presents a broad challenge: to bring the currently hidden curriculum out in the open where it belongs and to make its contents the subject of democratic discussion.” (Hirsch, 145) Hirsch, with his books, has added to the national discussion concerning school reformation. He invites the reader to become involved in this important national discussion. In fact, he gives you his contact information: “Comments and suggestions are welcome and should be sent to Dr. Hirsch at the Department of English, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903.” (Hirsch, 146)


Another quote: “To suggest that it is undemocratic or intolerant to make nationwide decisions about the extensive school curriculum must not any longer be allowed to end the discussion.” Hirsch raises a good point here. Can’t we, as adults, and as American citizens, decide on the content that we want taught to our children? If not, then what business do we have reproducing? If, after decades of life, we feel that we cannot discern a good book from a bad book, or a worthwhile story from pornography, and if we further cannot decide on what content is best for our children to study, then what do we think of ourselves? Socrates, in Plato’s Republic, asks, “Shall we carelessly allow children to hear any casual tales which may be devised by casual persons, and to receive into their minds ideas for the most part the very opposite of those which we shall wish them to have when they are grown up?” (Hirsch xvi) Of course the desired answer is no; we will not carelessly allow our children to hear such things. We will guard them, protect them, and teach them what we have found to be good.


Another quote: “By stressing the essential role of content in reading, this book should have punctured the myth that reading and writing are like bike riding or map reading, skills that require only a narrow range of specific information plus some practice” (Hirsch, 144) All throughout Hirsch’s writings, he stresses that effective communication is based upon shared knowledge. “Common knowledge or collective memory allows people to communicate, to work together, and to live together. It forms the basis for communities, and if it is shared by enough people, it is a distinguishing characteristic of national culture.” (Hirsch, Dictionary of Cultural Literacy ix) Is there any who disagree with this? Is it not understandable that people create meaning in groups? Also, the sounds of words are arbitrary, but the word’s meaning depends on those who employ the words.


3) Defense of Hirsch’s Educational Philosophy


Cultural Literacy turned about to be a best-seller. It was widely talked about among teachers, administrators, intellectuals, and parents. Some, like William J. Bennett, Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan, and editor of The Book of Virtues and The Moral Compass, praised it, while others derided the book and its ideas. Probably the most controversial part of Cultural Literacy is the appendix, titled, “What Literate Americans Know.” This appendix consists of a long list of what, like the title says, Hirsch thinks “literate” Americans know. Here is a sample of that list, taken from the M section: “mainframe, mainspring, mainstream, majority floor leader, make a clean breast of it, make a mountain out of a molehill, make a virtue of necessity, make ends meet, Make haste slowly, Make hay while the sun shines” (Hirsch, Cultural Literacy, 186). The list has been criticized as being narrow-minded, Euro-centric, white, male, and middle-class. But I think that we should be allowed to get specific about the content we want taught in public schools. And Hirsch is simply offering a list of things that most literate Americans understand. I would like to offer my support for Hirsch’s ideas and defend his educational philosophy.


In this paper, I have provided a brief biography of Hirsch, quotes from E. D. Hirsch, discussion about those quotes, and argued in his favor.Just as Mrs. Butler, my high school English teacher, could not converse with my friend and me about comic books, so too are people unable to converse in the democratic process and climb the social ladder if they don’t know the key shared knowledge. Hirsch has brought this argument to the forefront of the national public education discussion. His ideas are controversial, and so I would recommend that all concerned parties would read both Hirsch books and the books of his opposition, to get a clear view of the issue.


[This next one is about Utopia, the book by Sir Thomas More]

Raphael Nonsenso Is Radical; Let’s Listen To Him


I come from a straight-laced Christian family. So when my older sister brought her new boyfriend, Eric Woodall, home, the family was unsettled. Eric had long dyed-black bangs, but the rest of his head was shaved. With enough hair gel, he could spike up his hair like devil horns. Once, he showed me his diagram of his theory of the universe, complete with parallel universes and vortexes, drawn on a napkin.


Having such a character close to me made me question my lifestyle. He confronted me with radical ideas, departing drastically from my upbringing. Back then, my middle-school brain thought, “Maybe this strange character really does have the answers. Perhaps he’s enlightened. Perhaps he comprehends the meaning and the intricacies of the universe.” Likewise, Sir Thomas More presents a character like Eric Woodall in his book, Utopia. This provocative character is Raphael Nonsenso. What Eric Woodall did to me, Raphael did to Thomas More.


In this essay I will: 1) Show how Thomas More the character and Raphael Nonsenso differ in appearance and in levels of political involvement. 2) Affirm that Raphael incites us, the readers, to ponder our society. 3) Claim that a conversation involving opposing points of view is therapeutic.


First, Thomas More the character and Raphael differ in appearance. Although there is no explicit description of More’s appearance in Utopia, we can infer a few things. We know he is a middle-aged man, with a wife and children. When the story occurs, he is on a business trip. The following passage suggests that More, the character, is a rather ordinary gentleman who follows social norms. “I then walked up to Raphael and shook hands with him. After making a few stock remarks, as people generally do when first introduced…” (More, Utopia, trans. Paul Turner [New York: Penguin Group, Inc., 2003], p. 17). I imagine More being clean-shaven, and typically dressed.


Raphael Nonsenso, on the other hand, is described by Thomas More, the character, as “…an elderly foreigner with a sunburnt face, a long beard, and a cloak slung carelessly over one shoulder. From his complexion and costume I judged him to be a sailor.” (More 16) Since he is an aged foreigner, this suggests wisdom and new ideas. The sunburnt face shows that he spends much time outside. Also, the getup of a sailor would differ greatly from the outfit of a businessman. So, Thomas More the character and Raphael Nonsenso differed greatly in appearance.


They also differ greatly in their levels of political involvement. Thomas More, the character, works within the established governmental system, while acknowledging its imperfections. Although he may encounter frustrations dealing with officialdom, More accepts his society as a good attempt at social order and peace. We see that he personally participates in the government when Book One opens with More, the character, running an errand for King Henry the VIII of England. This, by the way, reflects the real life of Thomas More, who was a lawyer, a politician, and, at one time, the second most powerful man in England.


Raphael, however, is a nonconformist who lives on the outskirts of the established governmental system. He does not compromise his ideals to work within what he sees as a fundamentally flawed system. Instead, he devotes his life to travel, intellectual pursuit, and adventures. The difference is exemplified in a dialogue between More and Raphael. More, after hearing of Raphael’s wisdom about government, philosophy, and several other subjects, says to Raphael “But surely it would be quite in keeping with this admirably philosophical attitude if you could bring yourself… to apply your talents and energies to public affairs? Now the most effective way of doing so would be to gain the confidence of some great king or other, and give him, as I know you would, really good advice.” (More 20) Raphael rejects More’s suggestion. Raphael explains that kings really only want yes-men around them: advisors that always simply agree with them. Also, he replies that kings are usually preoccupied with their own wealth and power. Raphael further criticizes kings by saying, “They’re far more anxious, by hook or by crook, to acquire new kingdoms than to govern their existing ones properly.” (More 20)


Second, Raphael Nonsenso incites us to reconsider many of our fundamental views. By showing us radically different living arrangements, marriage rituals, and wealth distribution, we are encouraged to think, “Where do these radically new ideas fit into my worldview? Would some of these new ideas improve my society?”


Consider for a moment the marriage rituals of the Utopians. Before a couple decides to marry each other, both the man and the woman are stripped nude. This procedure is attended by a male chaperone and a female chaperone. They both inspect each others bodies, and then make the decision of whether or not to marry. The Utopians defend this tradition by arguing, “When you’re buying a horse,… you take every possible precaution. The animal’s practically naked already, but you firmly refuse to buy until you’ve whipped off the saddle and all the rest of the harness, to make sure there aren’t any sores underneath. But when you’re choosing a wife… you’re unbelievably careless.” (More 84)


Both modern readers and readers of Thomas More the author’s time would probably disagree with the Utopians marriage customs. The most glaring beef is the lack of love. How can you compare the magic and mystery of a romantic courtship, engagement, wedding, and honeymoon with purchasing a work horse? So, this example of a controversial Utopian custom makes us sit up and say, “Wait a minute; Utopia may not be so utopian.”


Next, Raphael confronts us with another thought-provoking aspect of Utopian society: their simple laws. The Utopians possess simple laws because they feel that, “it’s quite unjust for anyone to be bound by a legal code which is too long for an ordinary person to read right through or too difficult for him to understand.” (More 87) Immediately, this may cause readers to wonder why most law books are so reader-unfriendly. This passage may also cause us to ask: why do we need lawyers who get rich by interpreting cryptic texts? We are drawn into a debate here, in which we must attempt to explain why society is the way it is.


Finally, I claim that hearing and thoughtfully considering new controversial ideas are therapeutic. Not only should we listen to and think about radical ideas, but we should respond to them. Thomas More the character, after hearing Raphael’s description of Utopia, says, “I cannot agree with everything he said…But I freely admit that there are many features of the Utopian Republic which I should like – though I hardly expect – to see adopted in Europe.” More (More 113) Which features would Thomas More, the character, like to see adopted in Europe? He does not say. But I get the sense that Utopia is designed to get us thinking about these issues, and then to reaffirm our beliefs in our values. Characters like Raphael should not be locked up and silenced, but we should listen to and respond to them. Listening to such characters is a therapeutic exercise, in which we take an inventory of our own lives and societies. We are invited to discern what is important, what should stay the same, and perhaps what should change.


In this essay, I have: 1) Shown how Thomas More the character and Raphael Nonsenso differ in appearance and in levels of political involvement. 2) Affirmed that Raphael incites us, the readers, to ponder our society. 3) Claimed that a conversation involving opposing points of view is therapeutic.Raphael Nonsenso, like Eric Woodall, the boy my sister brought home once, confronts us with radical new ideas. These nonconformists and the thoughts they bring challenge our ways of life. But not in an aggressive, attacking way. Rather, they encourage us to defend our own opinions and our ways of life. And after we have listened to the new ideas and then carefully respond to them, we become better prepared to explain the status quo and to live our lives.


[I think this might be one of the best essays I've written, as an undergraduate, anyway. I wrote it really quickly, too, like the morning it was due or something.]

The Decameron as Subversive Literature


Historically, much of what has been viewed as respectable, socially helpful
writing has been produced in the church, the government office or the university. Treatises, sermons, law books and textbooks have preserved social order by providing a permanent record of values, laws, customs, and other social demands. This writing has helped convince people to stay in their place as a peasant, or to be content with their lot in life. "Don't rebel. Go to church. Do what the government official tells you to do." This seems to be the language of documents preferred by the ruling class. And by being written on stone, or on paper kept safely in castles, these writings are hard to overturn. But the Decameron is subversive.



In the fourteenth century, Giovanni Boccaccio wrote the Decameron with this purpose stated in his Preface, "I wish to make up in part for the wrong done by Fortune, who is less generous with her support where there is less strength, as we witness in the case of our delicate ladies. As support and diversions for those ladies in love... I intend to tell one hundred stories…" (Boccaccio, The Decameron, trans. Mark Musa & Peter Bondanella [New York: Penguin Group, Inc., 2002], p. 5) Also, in the Authors Conclusion, Boccacio defends his work as saying that the work itself is not harmful. He says that words become hurtful or helpful depending on the heart of the reader. If the readers are good, they will receive from the stories good things; contrariwise, if the readers are bad, they will receive from the stories bad things. Also, Boccaccio says that his stories were written only to entertain ladies, who are seeking to pass the idle hours of the day. But these claims only hide the author’s real purpose: to change society.


From reading and interpreting the Decameron, I claim that Boccaccio saw the inequality, injustice, and intolerance all around 14th century Italy, and, with his book, attempted to reverse the unfairness. In this essay, I will expose several themes and ideas throughout the Decameron that work counteractive to the status quo of the day. The social and cultural institutions attacked by Boccaccio are: 1) divine right 2) the Catholic Church 3) marriage covenants 4) the inferiority of women.

First, Boccaccio challenges the social institution, divine right, which give kings their kingdoms and give peasents their poverty. In the seventh story of the sixth day, Madonna Fillipa, "in a lovely tone of voice," said, "The laws should be equal for all and should be passed with the consent of the people they affect." And, she continues "...when this law was put into effect, not a single woman gave her consent, nor was any one of them ever consulted about it; therefore, it may quite rightly be called a bad law." (p. 464) Madonna Fillipa here presents a profound political philosophy that in fact underscores the government of the United States of America: that government derives its power from the consent of the governed. How blasphemous this would be in 14th century Italy! Then and there, society did not allow for much social mobility. If you were born a prince, you would become a king. If you were born a peasant, you would die a peasant.


Next, the Decameron challenges the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. There are many stories which aid Boccacio in his assault. One story tells of a convent of nuns, who have been married to Jesus and taken a vow of celibacy, who all sleep with Masetto da Lamporecchio, the gardener, who is pretending to be a deaf mute. Another story tells of Ser Cepparello, a wicked man, who makes a false confession just before his death and afterward gets appointed to Sainthood, and has his name changed to Saint Ciappelletto. If believers pray to Saint Ciappelletto, the story asks us, then who other wicked people are feigning intercession? Another story tells of a young monk who seduces a woman, and has sex with her in his cell. The Abbott catches the monk, but, in the end, both get to have sex with the woman whenever they want.

These stories expose some of the corruption Boccacio saw in the Catholic Church, but one story even offers the possibility that other faiths could also bring salvation. In the first day and third story, Melchisedech, a Jew, tells a parable about three rings, which represent Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Melchisedech says, concerning these three faiths, "…each believes itself to be the true heir, to possess the true Law, and to follow the true commandments, but whoever is right, just as in the case of the rings, is still undecided." (p. 45) To readers in the twenty-first century, this does not seem offensive. We recognize that there are many churches, creeds, denominations, faiths, and spiritual paths now available. We can learn about different religions any time we want. But in Boccaccio's time, the Catholic Church reigned supreme. There was no church shopping as there is today; everybody was Catholic, they attended mass, attended confession, and said thousands of Hail Maries in their lifetime. So, to bring up the possibility that there were other churches containing truth in the world, and that those churches possibly were true, was extremely liberal and controversial. In response to Melchisedech’s parable, the Pope would have said, “It is decided who is right! We, the Catholic Church, are right!” By telling this story, Boccaccio wanted the people of his time to question their faith.


Third, Boccacio challenges marriage covenants, including the sexual faithfulness required with such covenants, by presenting strong, noble, righteous people, who also cheat on their spouses. One example is Madonna Fillipa. Fillipa is described as, “…beautiful and more in love than any woman could be,” and “the most beautiful and very well-bred as well as most courageous,” and she possessed, “a steady gaze and a firm voice,” (p. 463). Surely these descriptions invite us to side with Fillipa, to hold her in high regards, and to respect any action she would take. Well, Fillipa also found it good to take a lover, and sleep with Lazzarino many times while her husband was away.


Another example of such an unfaithful person is Guiglielmo Guardastango, from the fourth day and ninth story. Guardastango “happened, nonetheless, to fall totally in love with the very beautiful and charming wife of Sir Guiglielmo Rossiglion,” (p.349). And his lover, Rossiglione’s wife, “knowing him to be a most valiant knight… began to fall so much in love with him that her only desire, her only love, was for him…”(p.350). How could this pure love that brought so much happiness be wrong? Again, Guardastango, who stole the wife of his friend, is presented as a noble romantic hero who was doing what Love would have him do.


The examples of both Madonna Fillipa and Guiglielmo Guardastango show us Boccaccio’s views on adultery. Boccaccio felt that as long as two people were in love, and their lovemaking did not physically hurt anyone else, then what’s the harm in fooling around? Some people feel this way today, but back in 14th century Italy, the Catholic Church and societal norms highly frowned upon such behavior. In fact, they not only frowned on it, but asserted that such action would get you sent to Hell.


Fourth, Boccaccio challenges the notion that women are inferior to men. In the author’s time, women were very much seen as inferior. In high society, they were used as bargaining chips and married off for unromantic reasons. Women had virtually no power when it came to government and important civic decisions. But the Decameron affirms that women are capable of being leaders, and should not be in such a lowly station. In this book we learn of two noble women: Zinerva and Pampinea.


Zinerva is a refined and resilient woman, who, despite her husband’s lack of faith in her, manages to rise to the top of the situation. She cleverly disguises herself, gains favor with the Sultan, figures out the mystery, and heroically restores justice.


Pampinea is a character among the seven ladies in the frame story, and seems to be the leader of the ten who leave the city. In the Introduction, she says, “…proper use of reason can do harm to no one. It is only natural for everyone born on this earth to sustain, preserve, and defend his own life to the best of his ability… And if the laws dealing with the welfare of every human being permit such a thing, how wrong or offensive could it be for us, or anyone else, to take all possible precautions to preserve our own lives?” (p. 16) Here Pampinea shows wisdom, logic, reason, and leadership. She does not express foolishness and the need to be guided by a man.


In the positive portrayals of Zinerva, Pampinea, and many other women, Boccaccio shows us that women should be treated equally. They are brave, strong, possess leadership abilities, and often have more sense then men so. Again, today this idea is celebrated, and you can even major in Women’s Studies at college, but back in the 1300’s in Italy, such things were unheard of.


The Decameron is subversive literature. It does not perform the social service that a sermon or law would serve, while disguising itself as merely an entertaining collection of stories. It counters many of the honored norms of Boccaccio’s time, including: 1) divine right, 2) the Catholic Church 3) marriage covenants, and 4) the inferiority of women.



[my favorite part about this next one is that I use the word "phantasmagoria"]



B, C, A, C, D, B, B, C, A, C, B vs. an Interpretive Dance

How do we know if students have learned? After 50 minutes of lectures, group activities, reading, or worksheets, do the students understand what has been taught? These questions have been around ever since school has been around. The answers involve assessment. To assess is to gauge the level of someone’s skills and knowledge. In other words, to assess is to examine something in order to judge or evaluate it.


Before I discuss what types of assessment there are, let us ask the question: is any assessment necessary?


I can think of a few areas where assessment seems vital. A driver’s license and a certification to practice medicine come to mind. We do not want whippersnappers, ragamuffins or nincompoops not using their turn signals here and transplanting kidneys there; no, we want safe drivers on the road! And we want a sparkly glow-in the-dark neon flashing stamp of approval on the forehead of any scalpel-toting romper wanting to dig around our pancreases! Thus, doctors get their name changed when they enter into doctor-hood. Instead of Mr. or Mrs. or Miss or Ms. Somebody, they become Dr. Somebody. Their name immediately signifies their knowledge and skill to all prospective patients.


So, status-quo makers have deemed it mandatory and good to assess students. Types of assessment break down into two camps, which I call the B, C, A, C, D, B, B camp, and the interpretive dance camp.


Each camp thinks the other camp consists of morons. No doubt the camps would exterminate themselves in a gory brawl involving exposed gall bladders and moans of considerable decibels if it weren’t for strict societal norms restraining such phantasmagoria.


To quote a member of the touchy-feely interpretive dance camp, who viciously attacks B, C, A, D, B, B adherents, Claire B. Berube says that all standardized tests are used everywhere only because, “1) it is cheap. 2) it is easy to read. 3) it is simple to grade.”


In conclusion, I am a distant philosopher. I have retreated from this world’s ills. I live off rain and raven meat. I collect shiny rocks and store them in a leathern knapsack. In accordance with this, my intellectualism, I have taken the name “Mr. Detached Observer” to be my own. I side with neither camp, considering them both to be waves of the ocean, winds of the sky, or small clouds that are part of a bigger metaphysical cloud.

I Can Transact Better Than Laurence Olivier Can Regular-Act

The article “The Literary Transaction: Evocation and Response” by Louise M. Rosenblatt discusses the transaction that occurs between a text and the reader. Some people think that a text contains one ultimate meaning. If your view of a texts meaning conflicts with that one ultimate meaning, then you’re wrong. Speaking of interpretations, probably no text in recorded history has so many different interpretations as does the Bible.

I spent two years as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in West Virginia, Virginia, and Ohio. As a lay preacher I would often discuss the Holy Scriptures with people with different interpretations of the Bible. Some people believed that the Bible meant one thing, and others thought it meant another. Different interpretations of the Bible have led David Koresh to claim he was Jesus, Mr. (I don’t remember his first name) Armstrong to claim he was the prophet Elijah returned, and Puritan ministers to execute alleged witches. But, on a more positive note, different interpretations of the Bible have also led people to bake bread for their new neighbors. Again, different sects, all of which claim that the Bible is Holy Writ, believe different things about the nature of God and his plan for us. Does not this show that a text is open to interpretation? Moving away from the Bible, what about the cryptic poems of T.S. Elliot? Different people come away with different interpretations of his poems.

Now let us take the example of a play director, presented with a script. When he or she gets the script, they have different ideas as to how they want to present the play. They may want to tinker with lights, costumes, sets, etc. They may see some characters as more key to the stories than others would. In short, they have transacted with the script and come away with a unique vision of how the play should be presented.

Some of us are familiar with the Rorschach ink-blot test. In this psychologist test, the doctor holds up meaningless ink blot, purposely made to represent nothing recognizable, and asks the patient, “What does this look like?” If the patient says, “knives, guns, blood, death, and carnage,” chances are the guy needs a few more therapy sessions. If the patient says, “Flowers, smiles, chocolate-chip cookies and a hug from my grandmother” the doctor stamps a big red OK on the patients hand. This test works insofar as it relies on the transaction between the patient and the ink-blot. If there was no transaction, this test would be nullified.

You can probably tell by now that I believe that a transaction does take place between the written word and the reader. But is there a transaction that occurs with all texts? What about a sign that says, “Employees must wash hands before returning to work”? Is there room for interpretation here? I don’t see any. Every literate person reading that sign would surely know that the sign means that, if you are an employee there, you have to wash your hands after you go to the bathroom. If someone were to say they felt the sign meant that they were supposed to wash their spiritual hands with the soap of vortexes or something hippie like that, we might have a lot of dirty-handed, albeit free-spirited, employees making our hamburgers. Who wants that? Not me.

I proclaim that some types of texts have a one ultimate meaning, while other texts are open to interpretation. But what texts fall into what category? That, my friend, is the million dollar question. And I am in no position to answer it.

By now you’re probably thinking that I didn’t read the article at all, that I just took the idea of transaction and digressed about it for two double-spaced pages, but no!- and to prove to you my scholarliness, I’ll summarize a little.

Louise M. Rosenblatt comes up with two terms to define two different types of reading. For the fact-gathering, coming-away-with-the-one-ultimate-meaning type of reading, she uses the term efferent. And the feel good, it-means-whatever-you-feel-it- means type of reading she calls aesthetic.

The article also says that children prefer aesthetic reading over efferent reading. Children naturally react to the sounds of words, the tone of a book, they identify with a protagonist, and so on. Only when we turn wide-eyed toddlers into fact-memorizers, through formal schooling and other adult-ifying means, kids know they have to read efferently.

My pick for the most important pair of sentences in the whole article is:

“Sometimes, of course, readers adopt an inappropriate attitude- for example, reading a political article aesthetically when they should be efferently paying attention to the facts. And many people, alas, read the texts of stories and poems efferently.” This brings us back to the question: what should be read aesthetically and what should be read efferently? Again, I have no idea. But let’s keep talking about it!

Indeed, may the discussion of transaction forever pervade the thoughts of our minds and the feelings of our hearts!

Giving, Understanding, and Trusting: Native Americans in the Classroom

Native Americans are longer the stuff of campfire tall tales. They’re real. They’re here. And they’re in our schools. Chapter 28 of Literacy by McCarty and Watahomigie firstly provides some statistics about how many Native Americans are attending public schools, stressing the prominent presence of the indigenous people. Certainly if I stay in Arizona to teach, I’ll have some Native Americans in my classroom.

Next the authors talk about how the United States educational system has historically dealt with Native Americans. We used to take children away from their families, cut their hair, give them pilgrim-looking clothes, spoke English at them, and otherwise “civilized” or “Americanized” them. Back in those days kids were physically punished for speaking their native language or showing loyalty to their own culture. This history can’t be ignored; the prejudices are still very much with us. It’s good to learn about the past, because it helps us understand the present. In the 1960’s the Native Americans fought for their civil rights much like other minority groups. Discrimination is less prominent, today, against Native Americans, but, like I said, is still around. For instance, when I played cowboys and Indians as a boy, I always wanted to be a cowboy. Why? What’s the matter with being an Indian? (I don’t know if I actually played cowboys and Indians, but my Dad got me a very Western-looking rocking horse for me once.)

Next the authors exhort us to appreciate the language diversity and cultural diversity that exists among the Native Americans. There are hundreds of different languages, tribes, rituals, and legends from the North and South Americas. They don’t all have mo-hawks, live in teepees, smoke peace pipes and scalp pale-faces. They aren’t all like the Indians from Never-never land. We must appreciate this diversity and avoid stereotypes and generalizations. On the other hand, we need to recognize that they are different from WASP’s, and they may learn differently. So, the article discusses many different types of Native American culture and says we need to appreciate them all. I agree with that.

Next, the article moves into more practical application classroom activities. The main point I got from this portion was that we need to attempt to understand Native American culture. We need to care for our students individually, learn about their home life, their parents, tribal traditions, etc. I believe that everybody has a unique story to tell. I believe that all student backgrounds can enrich the lives of others. Every heartfelt student poem is beautiful and valuable. I’m grateful for my parents and teachers who listened to my opinions and concerns, even though, looking back, some of them were underdeveloped or immature. So I want to provide the same sort of loving, caring, understanding environment for my students, regardless of their particular color, creed, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, or political affiliation. We need to be involved with the community to be sure that all cultures are represented in the classroom. (I believe that at the same time, though, that the dominant discourse must be taught.) We need to remove personal prejudice and bigotry from our souls. This does not mean we have to compromise our own beliefs or lifestyles, but it does mean that we can’t be imperious.

This article by McCarty and Watahomigie helped me appreciate how badly need bilingual educators are needed, especially on Indian Reservations.

Addendum: I learned that an “orthography” is the newly written form of a traditionally only oral language. People are writing down some of the oral-only languages in order to preserve it. But in the act of writing it down, some tribal elders say, you destroy some of its magic. That’s understandable to me. Whenever a novel is turned into a movie or a play, or translated into another language, things are lost in translation.

Someone said once, “The medium is the message.” In other words, how you tell a story is almost as important as the story itself. Picasso used oils, not markers, because oil paints best did what he wanted. Similarly, special things about oral only languages are lost when orthographies are made. Is this sad? I don’t know. Cultures come and cultures go. I guess it is sad that English colonization and the Industrial Revolution and assembly line and the computer have changed so much.

[I like this next one a lot. I talk about myself!]

22 Years of Progress: Telemoonfa’s Musings about His Own Literacy

Clearly I remember my three older siblings, Morris, Christy, Leah, and me lying on the living room floor of the house we grew up in, each with a book in hand. Mother walked in and said something to the effect of, “Wow, all my kids are reading books, instead of rotting their brains with that Super Nintendo! Isn’t that great?” She warmly smiled and then went about her business.

Through this experience and others like it, reading got me positive feedback from the adults in my life. The grown-ups at home, at school, at church, and at other social situations all smiled or patted my head when I talked about reading books or showed some of my English skills by using big words. So, as a child wanting love and attention, I read books. It was as if the all the adults had decided on a set of values and were doing their best to pass on their respect for reading to the younger generation by positive reinforcement. To the literate kids went smiles and lollipops, and to the struggling readers went remedial classes and red frowning faces on their schoolwork.

However, psycho-analysis aside, I believe that I naturally did like books and did enjoy reading.
But, before I began reading by myself, I had other people read to me. I remember my father either telling or reading me bedtime stories. Sometimes he told me stories extemporaneously about his youth growing up on a farm in Wyoming. He would also tell me three billy goats Gruff, the three little pigs, and little red riding hood. He told me fairy tales and other children’s stories, orally, without referring to a book, so every time it was a little bit different. I enjoyed the funny voices my Dad would use. He had a low, grumbling voice for the troll beneath the bridge, saying, “Who’s that walking on my bridge?” And he had a high, girlie voice for Little Red Riding Hood, when she said, “My, Grandma, what big teeth you have!” He also made entertaining sound effects and hand gestures throughout the story. Other times, he read me children’s books before I went to sleep. Other people in my family read to me, too, sometimes. When my older brother Morris was a teenager and loved The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien, he wanted to read the book aloud to me. I’m not sure how long that lasted; I don’t think we finished the whole book, but still, it is a good memory of gaining a respect for books.

Another influence on my literacy early in my life was church. Every Sunday growing up our family would attend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, where I would go to Sunday school and learn stories from the scriptures. At church I learned about the holy books- books that we sang about, memorized carefully, and handled carefully. So before I could read or write on my own, I was being instructed in the ways of spirituality through religious classes in the church building.

At home, I’m sure I could sing the alphabet song before entering kindergarten. My older brother and sisters were a big influence in that. I heard the big kids say their ABC’s and I saw them read books, so just by being around them, I started to become literate.

Then my formal education came. I must say, as most Americans do, that school is where I really learned how to read and write. From kindergarten throughout elementary school, we learned the alphabet, the sounds the letters could make, and correct English grammar. We also learned how to read simple words, spell correctly, write proper sentences, and otherwise become literate students.

Gradually I became able to read and write on my own. But even though I was able to do those things, I was not always prone to do them outside of school. After all, kids usually like T.V. and video games, or more active entertainment like sports or playing outside. My friends and I in middle school would spend much of our summer-times in the desert building forts, riding bikes, and using our imaginations. And at home, much of my free time was spent keeping up with cartoons and sitcoms or blasting away digital enemies on the Super Nintendo.

But my mother frowned upon too much time in front of the television, encouraging us to read books. I remember that at the beginning of many of my elementary and middle school summers, Mother would take the kids to the library and sign them up for the summer reading program. Upon signing up, we received a chart with many blank squares forming a path to a drawing of a pot of gold or a fantasy island or something fantastical. Every year the chart was different, but the idea was that for every 15 minutes you read, you got to color in a box. Once you filled in enough boxes, you returned to the library to redeem little prizes like candy, bookmarks or miscellaneous doodads. The prizes were small, but they were enough to motivate me to check out some R. L. Stine books from the library and read about children getting scared by mummies or vampires or whatever monster was in the neighborhood.

Around 6th grade came the biggest love affair with books of my life: Comic Books. It probably mostly came from my older brother Morris, who proudly possessed an impressive comic book collection, but it also came from a Saturday morning cartoon, X-men, that I was in love with. And maybe it also came from some of my friends who also liked comic books. There was something about superpowers and dialogue balloons that really captivated my imagination. For years, I spent all the money I could squeeze out of my parents on comic books. I went to comic book shops, bought a few at grocery stores from the magazine aisle, but mostly I ordered them from catalogs. I organized my comics by title and chronologically, checked their price in “Wizard” magazine, and wouldn’t let my little brothers near them. At one point, I even wanted to become a comic book artist and write my own comic book stories.

I mostly read the X-titles, namely, X-men, Excalibur, the Uncanny X-men, Generation X, X-Factor, X-man, and X-force. But I also dabbled in Spiderman.

But then, around my freshman or sophomore year of high school, I slowly lost interest in comic books. I guess I could blame it on what was happening with the X-men at the time. Professor X, the leader of the X-men, had some really bad part of his psyche come alive and this negative-thought-substance-stuff turned into Onslaught, this really really bad and powerful dude who threatened the entire Marvel Universe. Onslaght ended up killing a bunch of superheroes. By Professor X turning into Onslaught, he fulfilled Bishop’s prophecy that one of the members of the X-men would betray the team and cause the death of a bunch of them. I didn’t like this storyline. I was tired of all the crossovers and huge storylines where you have to buy 20 titles a month to keep up with it, and alternative holographic or chromium covers to comic books. After a long break from the comic book scene, I returned for a short time when I read the Maxx series and the Watchmen graphic novel. Those were more mature than the X-men comic books and were very good. But the Golden Age of my comic-book love was gone, and the Silver Age soon fell.

I still read some books besides comic books, but mostly I read for school assignments. In school, I did well in my English classes, and my English teachers were always my favorite ones. And I enjoyed many of the readings that I was assigned throughout high school, especially Lord of the Flies.

Additionally, on the various aptitude tests they administered throughout my formal schooling, I fared better on the English portions than on the math and science portions.

So now I’m twenty-two years old, attending college, majoring in English Education, and planning to become a high-school English and Drama teacher. Boy, my Language and Literacy class especially has helped me understand more about literacy and think about how people learn how to read and write. I still enjoy reading and writing, and I know that literacy will be a big part of the rest of my life. I’m thankful for the literacy skills that I have, and look forward to passing on the value of literacy to the next generation.

Sincerely,
Telemoonfa