Choose 4 of the 5 questions below with which to work (omit one). For each, write a short essay (350-500 words) addressing the question. Please start each on a fresh page, beginning with the question number; print in a 12pt. font. You should do this work on your own, without any external research; but please do make reference to the texts and quote from them when appropriate. Please email me with any questions: sherwood at iup dot edu.

Completed, typed exam is due in the classroom on Friday, Dec. 15th at 12:30pm — or before, in my LEO 110 mailbox. 

1. Throughout the semester, we’ve viewed and discussed examples of digital literature that exaggerated certain qualities of traditional literature, or raised familiar questions to the extreme. Please look at the following piece, which we have not discussed: Project Tachistoscope. I’d like you to first view it and reflect on the experience. Then discuss the following questions about the reader, author and literature itself: What are we invited to do in reading it? 2) What idea of an “author” lies behind it? 3) What implied function does it fulfill (entertain, please, teach, inform, raise questions, move emotionally…)? You may compare and contrast it with other examples of digital literature if you like. Click Here

2. Kesey’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest has been seen as a one of the emblematic books of the 1960s, in its theme of oppressive authority that extends beyond the walls the psychiatric ward. At the same time, some have seen the novel as being backward or constrained in the way it imagines women and sexuality. Does it reflect a radical or conservative ideology? Discuss the depictions of female characters and the role sexuality plays in the efforts of McMurphy and the men to gain power. Decide whether the book is radical in this respect or repeats familiar stereotypes, and explain why.
3. We discussed how Lorca’s “Blood Wedding” may have been inspired by a new clipping about a real event, but it transposes fact into tragedy–giving us a drama that explores subjectivity and the struggle with social conventions and constraints. Discuss how this imaginative approach could be seen to deepen the truth or information conveyed. (You may focus on gender roles, family loyalty and ties, marriage conventions; mention at least one non-realistic detail).
4. Alexie’s short stories can be seen as attacking aspects of American ideology (habitually accepted values and perspectives) yet, at the same time, can be hilarious, especially if one doesn’t mind laughing at oneself. Identify one or two mainstream values or ideas that Alexie skewers, discuss how he does so in at least two different stories, and explain how he uses humor or irony to do so. In concluding, consider whether his approach means that Alexie has a different attitude towards or use for literature than some of our other authors (and why).
5. Why literature? You may be aware that IUP is currently reconsidering the framework for liberal studies requirements; the year-long discussion includes the reexamination of what courses, skills, and knowledge every undergraduate should have. Consider what the chair of the English department recently said, to the faculty senate, in defense of requiring literature: If we think of literature as an educational frill or a pleasant afternoon pastime, we are missing the point: the importance of literature in a vibrant society. Literature is one of the key places in which a civilization situates and preserves its values, its sense of what is important, its formulations of big questions, and its experiments with possible answers. It fleshes out dry facts and statistics. It fosters imagination and enlarges the capacity for empathy. It allows an opportunity to consider the beauty and force of language, for both good and ill, and the craft and patience that go into creating powerful literary works. Literature provides a chance to “create ourselves” (Misson and Morgan) and to try on or try out the lives of others.
   Write about whether you think these claims hold up, making reference to at least two works we have read this semester. Can literature do what Dr. Berlin claims, in your experience? How does your reading of Kesey, Lorca, Allende, or Silko support one or more of these ideas about the importance of reading?

Improvising in NY Heavyweight Poetry Bout (vs. Patricia Smith)

Please prepare to turn in your portfolio (blogs since mid-term only) on the last day of class (12/11).  Staple, include a cover sheet with your name, and preface the blogs themselves with a 1-2 pp. cover letter discussing your blog entries.

Final

You will write a take-home final, as we did with the mid-term. You’ll find the questions in advance posted to the blog. It will be due, typed, each response beginning on a new page on Friday, 12/15 at 12:30 in Leo 204 (OR BEFORE, turned in to my mailbox, Leo 110 during business hours).

See Hendrix’s Star Spangled Banner

Share your groups responses with the class (3 min each group).  Best group’s responses earns an extra quiz grade of %100.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

A: Reponses how master of concepts, reading, and ability to shape a developed response to the question.

B: Familiar with concepts, themes, and text, but the response is less-developed but coherent. Should deal with the question.

C: Somewhat limited response, perhaps lacking evidence of full familiarity with concepts or literary reading; perhaps lacking concentrated organization, direct address to question, or clear conclusion

D: Lacking evidence of reading, significant comprehension, or engagement with significant issues relevant to the text.

F: Unacceptable work.

COMMENT BELOW: with ideas for format changes in the “final,” and rationale for in-class, open-book, or take-home format. Scope of the final will be readings from the second half of the semester only.

Find a relevant passage and make prepare to make the case (5 min):

1. McMurphy’s ward-mates are justified in losing faith in him, seeing him as the self-serving instigator and con-man described by the nurse.

2. The decision to adminster shock therapy, unless he “admits he was wrong” is reasonable therapy (for the time).

3. McMurphy’s stubborn readiness to endure shock treatments shows he is trapped in his role as ward hero.

4. McMurphy’s final attack is justified and noble, despite being effectively a suicide act.

5. Chief’s smothering of McMurphy is a sacrifice benefiting the men, not an act of mercy.

HW:

Read first 15 pages of Sherman Alexie for a content quiz Friday.

Discuss how the conflict between McMurphy and the Big Nurse, or between human agency and the crushing power of the combine suggest a view of the world outside that of the mental hospital. Can you extend elements of Kesey’s vision to say what broader political, psychological, or philosophical issues the book takes on?