#thewolfspostscript

[yourandy96]

Analysis Review

C2: Looking at my Analysis 1, where I compare and contrast the different aspects of Caliban and Prospero in The Tempest, I feel that I present many ideas but I do not exactly support them with any concrete evidence. Especially with the quote I provide, it does not seem to support my assumptions as much.  

Excerpt: “Both Prospero and Caliban fail to see the vices within themselves due to the fact that they are too busy in accusing the other of not being virtuous”  

Revision: Prospero accuses Caliban of being a monster as we see in the initial moments in which Caliban is introduced, however Caliban does the exact same to Prospero. Essentially, they both consume themselves in this process of accusations which ultimately hinders their ability to change for the better and grow as individuals.

J1: Also in my Analysis 2, where I analyze the Wolf in the Wolf’s Postscript. Although my position was quite interesting, however it seems that my argument is too opinion based which forces the reader to view the Wolf in my perspective only. I do not allow the reader to develop their own thoughts through my analysis.

Excerpt:  The irony is the fact that the Wolf hopes to use death as a way to teach children what not to do

Revision: The Wolf tries to teach children a lesson through his death, essentially becoming a martyr for a much greater cause. Although the Wolf finds his actions justified, which some argue to be quite reasonable, however the Wolf seems to miss a much bigger picture and that is he is now exposing children to death. Granted the Wolf may call it to be necessary, however death can be very impactful to a child and such an impact cannot be guaranteed positive.

[myartisticbathtub-blog]

Notes 4 (Reflection)

I’ve mostly written paragraphs starting out with some background information before moving into deeper analysis, so it was difficult for me to leave out the “broader material” in my analysis because I don’t know how to really jump into analyzing my quote without giving the reader more information about the evidence. After realizing the critique that there are gaps in my logic, I agree. I based my analysis more on my own opinion rather than what was explicitly stated in the text, which makes it harder to build analysis upon that because then my argument would not tie in as well to the evidence. For example, I wrote that the quote “implies that the story of Little Red Riding Hood is supposed to teach the importance of right and wrong based on the suggestions and demands given to children by their parents, as they know that what they tell their children is generally in their best interests.” However, I don’t know for sure that the story is supposed to teach the importance of right and wrong due to the suggestions of parents. What I said seems to imply that I personally believe that parents generally give suggestions that are for the well-being of their children. In addition, now that I’m looking back on my paragraph, it doesn’t seem like my ideas flow very well; it seems like I’m trying to go back and forth between several ideas without solidly sticking to one. For instance, the sentence after, I talk about the wolf’s role in the story and how he believes himself to not be an antagonist, which doesn’t have much connection with my evidence. Lastly, I see that I do not actually analyze the focal word, “mustn’t”; I gloss over it at the end of the paragraph. However, I think that it was good that I had so many ideas going through my mind. For my next analysis, I will try to hone in on one specific idea and one quote/evidence, and then build my argument around those.

[erinannelore-blog]

The Wolf's Postscript

Pre-writing:

Quotation: “You may call me the Big Bad Wolf, now my only reputation.” (Ali, stanza 3, ll. 1-2).

Mini-summary of immediate context: The wolf seems to try to appeal to his audience’s better nature through an abstract excuse for his actions.

Mini-summary of broader context: He relates his reputation with his actions with the underlying reasons behind his actions.  He tried to use this to make the audience thing of him differently while the other lines in the poem suggest that his title may well be validated (i.e. “I did it for posterity” and “I was no child-molester though you’ll agree she was pretty.”)

One focal word or phrase: “you may call me”

Strand of evidence to which focal word belongs: acknowledging society’s view of him

2-3 binaries, divisions, concepts, or themes relevant to quotation: truth/falsehood, reputable/non-reputable, good/bad

2 implications of the focal phrase:

The focal phrase suggests that the wolf is acknowledging the binary between truth and falsehood in this situation - that while the audience believes one thing about him, there is a possible alternate explanation. 

It seems to me that the wolf is suggesting that the audience has already heard of the tale of the “The Little Red Riding Hood.” This helps support his explanation of the story, since his motive in his version of the story was to teach a lesson, and if he was heard of, so was the lesson with which he is associated.

2 implications of the focal word:

The word may could imply either of two things: that there are two versions of the story (one right version, one wrong version), or that the audience ‘may’ have heard of the wolf.  But since the wolf is saying that they may “call” him something, and they’d have to have heard of something first before ‘calling’ it anything, it would make more sense to assume that the wolf simply wants to draw the audience in to hear an alternate story and change their perception of him.

Since the word ‘may’ goes to allow or suggest something, it is not necessarily saying that the wolf isn’t “The Big Bad Wolf.” The wolf, in this way, leaves his argument pretty open-ended; the audience is left wondering wether or not to believe him or the tale they were likely told.

Reference to one other moment in the text that provides additional insight: “But I was no child-molester though you’ll agree she was pretty” (Ali, stanza 3, 3-4)

While the wolf is trying to convince the audience that he was of good intentions, he - presumably a fully-grown male character - continues to acknowledge the attractive appeal of the little girl.  Were he to only be trying to convince the audience that he wasn’t responsible for the actions which he is accused of, he wouldn’t try to excuse the idea of hurting the little girl because ‘you’ll agree she was pretty.’

Reflection/Analytical Paragraph:   The wolf essentially sets-up the post-script to be ambiguous; while he is claiming that he is looked at in the wrong light, he gives the audience room to speculate wether or not the original story or his side of the story is the truth.  Through phrasing his words as, “you may call me The Big Bad Wolf,” rather than directly stating what he ‘is’ or ‘isn’t,’ he is demonstrating that there is another version of this story other than his own - and therefore, some degree of falsehood must exist in one of the stories. Furthermore, he is implying that the audience has likely heard this story before.  After all, the audience would not be able to call him anything had they never heard of him.  This adds another layer to the ambiguity of the story, since the claim of the wolf’s story is that he was trying to get his ‘lesson’ heard for generations to come. This would support his story, since it means that the goal he claims to have had was completed, and it gives an explanation as to why his lesson was passed on for so many years: he was making a spectacle of himself.  However, this claim is ambiguous in that he is also claiming that his lesson was taught and passed on because he had made it look like he is a predator.  Since, in the post-script, he is telling people that he only made himself look like a predator, he is destroying the principle by which his interior motives were once ‘secret.’ In this way, his story is once again both plausible and falsifiable.