"Class" Analysis

        The short story “Class” in The Toughest Indian in the World is a personal narrative by the character of Edgar Eagle Runner. Throughout the short story Edgar describes the period of his life in which he first met his wife and the proceeding years and events after their marriage. The motif emitted through the short story is that of sexuality. It is omnipresent through the text. The constant presence of the concept of sexuality, relating to women and intercourse, sheds light on his self-identity issues, and pride.

Through the various encounters he has with women, and his articulation of such, Edgar implicitly highlights the effect self-identity issues play on his life and how they impact his everyday decisions. Such can be seen when he says “As for me, I’d told any number of white women that I was part Aztec and I’d told a few that I was completely Aztec. That gave me some mystery, some ethnic weight, a history of glorious color and mass executions” (Alexie, 40).  The concept is also present when Sissy states “But we live in this world and you live in your world…Do you know how much I want to live in your world” (Alexie, 55).  The passages demonstrates how Edgar struggles to identify himself with a cultural belief, due to him having Native American blood yet residing and practicing an Anglo life style. Edgar struggles to come to terms with the inherent implications each culture carries; he fails to comprehend the roles each culture wants him to develop and ends up failing to fulfill both. Through what is perceived as a voracious sexuality and a great sense of pride Edgar wishes to hide his self-conflict and need to belong. The aforementioned psychological impact and issue with self-identity communicate to the audience Edgar’s personality and values, helping to comprehend further actions in the story.

Sommers Summary

            Nancy Sommers comments on the faults of teachers commenting in student writing throughout the article entitled “Responding to Student Writing”.  Summers argues that comments are important for the writer in order for them to understand flaws in their writing, and moments in which they did not adequately communicate their message with the reader. Without any comments the writer may overlook certain sentences that only make sense to the author, but not the audience. Sommers views how teachers critique student essays yet how these critiques are done in a counterproductive ways. She attempts to portray to the reader that the generic, widely accepted revision of essays should be replaced with one that does not affect the student’s writing progress.

            To show the reader the inadequacy in teacher revision, Sommers produced a study. In that study she viewed, together with her associates Lil Brannon and Cyril Knoblach, the comments on first and second drafts of 35 professors at New York University and University of Oklahoma who commented on the same set of three student essays. Additionally the research group interviewed a representative number of the teachers analyzed and their students. As a reference point Sommers utilized a student essay was written into the “writer’s workbench” computer program. The aforementioned detailed methodology births various issues and limitations. The 35 teachers analyzed may not be representative of the teacher population as a whole. Additionally, surveys/interviews often aren’t accurate due to the format questions were asked in, and the population interviewed these may distort the statistics.  Finally, the computer program doesn’t understand the topic and veracity of an essay’s arguments and only edits structure and grammar, limiting its critiquing purpose.

            Through the study Sommers concludes that teachers’ comments affect a student’s writing and purpose of writing. Teachers tend to appropriate an essay, meaning that they make it theirs inputting what they wish the text would say, imposing their beliefs instead of the student’s on the writing. Additionally teachers make general comments on structure and grammar; these are counter beneficiary to the purpose of revision. Such corrections tell a student that the draft is a final draft, and should only be fixed in grammar. These two flaws disown the essays content from the student and don’t allow for the clear presentation of his ideas.  Sommers conclude there should be a new way to evaluate student’s writing which comments on ideas not grammar. I agree with her, as many times teachers’ loose comments deviate my essays from the message they try to convey initially.  Utilizing a critique to ideas will allow me to better communicate my thoughts to the audience in any essay I create. 

Ramsdell Summary

          Ramsdell analyzes the impact language has on autobiographical works through this journal. She attempts to view how language is not only a means of communicating but also a manner of fabricating a façade to convey a deeper message by the author. Ramsdell states “language is identity and identity is political” through these words she attempts to communicate the fact that language presents a part of the self, expressing one’s identity. However, this identity one express has a lot to do with the way one is perceived by society. This is so because certain languages carry particular implications about socioeconomic influence and power. Ramsdell decodes the effect language has on a bilingual and multicultural author’s work, how such language creates an identity for the displaced author and how it impacts the reception of the author’s work.

            Viewing the works and experiences of bicultural autobiographers, Rodriguez, Dorfman, and Anzaldua, Ramsdell presents the different effects bilingual writers experience in their writings.  Rodriguez grew up speaking Spanish, however due to his education he was forced to only speak in English. Rodriguez could finally identify himself and be recognized with the Anglo and the academic community. He gained acceptance and monetary success; however, neglecting his mother tongue and losing a part of his personality. To Dorfman English and Spanish could never coexist, he chose one and neglected the other, depending on which gained his loyalty during that period of time. Ultimately, he ended up writing in both languages, yet never combined them. Dorfman sees the two languages as too different to mix. The third author Ramsdell views is Anzaldua. She choses to write in Spanish and English, to present herself as the proud mixed woman, not choosing one language over the other nor adhering to social standards. Anzaldua differs from the other authors, as she is the only one who mixes both languages in her writing. She feels that the message she has to transmit can only be fully understood through that way. While Rodriguez and Dorfman believe success is obtained and their identity is presented by separating Spanish and English, Anzaldua has a communal consciousness, accepting both languages and what each has to offer to present her full identity.

            Ramsdell presents to the reader different forms in which authors approach being bilingual. She highlights that in all the examples the two languages play a big role in the creation of identity. I agree with that because the language you speak is more than a form of communication. For example there are untranslatable words, even if you speak the same language sometimes it is difficult to understand terms from Mexican Spanish or pure Spanish. Each language comes equipped with cultural stigmas, implications, or forms of writing that only people who speak that language would understand.

Anzaldua Summary

            Anzaldua speaks of the psychological dispute, an individual with various backgrounds faces in everyday life, giving her personal experience. This psychological dispute is stemmed in the fact that her backgrounds contradict and place a stigma on the other. She aims to conceive a manner in which the contradicting ideologies of her backgrounds can coexist while not failing to pay homage to each. Throughout the article Anzaldua describes the difficulty in dealing with multiple backgrounds, the implication this carries, and the painstaking process of balancing opposing ideologies.

           The author analyzes her own experiences as a way of describing the issue of borders. Borders are a representation of not only physical separation, yet psychological separation. Borders hinder the unison of different philosophies, such as the coming together of Mexican customs to those of the Anglo. To bring these contradicting ideas together and stop those identity conflicts Anzaldua states the new consciousness is created. This new consciousness is the mestizo consciousness; it is in charge of uniting ideas and bringing down paradigms to accept biculturalism.  This mestizo consciousness is associated with pain, uncertainty, dualistic thinking and a communal consciousness. It is this same communal consciousness that would help in the dealing of social and economic issues affecting minorities in America. Anzaldua argues, that the mestizo consciousness creates a uniting of all peoples, accepting of their histories, and a community with a similar mindset. The machismo and racism in society and other social issues would be ignored; given the understanding that humanity has similar backgrounds.

            Anzaldua concludes that the new mestizo consciousness would get rid of prejudice and ignorant conjectures postulated by preconceived biases throughout different cultures. Duality would be transcended by a new way to perceive reality, and perceive oneself. Anzaldua wants the reader to transform the way of perceiving others, and come to terms with biculturalism and contradicting dogmas. I agree that to further societies’ progression it would be beneficial to change one’s mindset and ignorant biases. However, this idea to come up with a balanced ideology is naïve. This is so given that human being is based on greed and egocentrism. Socioeconomic problems for oppressed group worldwide would be dealt with this mestizo consciousness, yet it is implausible for such consciousness to become universal.

Bartholomae Summary

             In the academic article “Inventing the University” Bartholomae speaks to the audience aiming to define a manner in which to better novices’ writing skills. He aspires to properly analyze the causation of university student’s academic deficiencies in formulating essays.  The author states that writers have to “invent the university” each time they write an essay, meaning that students have to create an audience for which the essay will be directed to. To this he adds the idea of students learning to “speak our language”, which is basically to appropriate the way of writing used by the branch being written about. However, given the fact that the knowledge necessary to write from an academic perspective in the topic isn’t adhered until the end of the college career, the student rather replicates the tone and perspective of the topic’s “language”, what Bartholomae calls carrying “out the bluff”.

           

            Bartholomae studies two excerpts to show flaws of beginner writers. The author notes that in the first essay, written by a freshman on clay models, he attempts to enter the setting of a researcher and duplicate the discourse utilized in that area. However, he fails to play the role of a scholarly individual, rather recurs to the voice of teacher authority failing to deliver an academic conclusion. The beginning writer fails to adhere to the role; while the expert writers understand the goals they share with the reader and structures their essay to resemble such. When Bartholomae views the essay of the beginning writer he highlights that the author of that essay fails to use “commonplaces”, these allow a writer to highlight points which have preconceived explanations to disseminate and arrange ideas of accepted conclusions and analysis. The fact Bartholomae used two excerpts of beginners’ essays may limit his conclusions, as he can be generalizing and oversimplifying the mistakes of novice writers highlighted in the article. To further strengthen his conclusion he could have looked at more essays, or surveyed freshmen university professors about students’ writing skills.

            Bartholomae concludes that learning should require invention and discovery. Students should emerge themselves in the discourse community of their branch and learn the conventional writing commonplaces, conclusions, and tonality. As a student writer Bartholomae’s conclusion is one I agree with, given it would aid my writing process. It is true that many times I attempt to replicate the diction and tone accepted within the topic I am writing for, which creates a disjointed and unclear essay. As we discussed in class discourse communities are important to clearly communicate or transmit one’s message. To become a better write I should become familiar with the academic discourse community and conventions for the topic which is being dealt with.