Finding poetic devices in prose connects students to prior learning

This week's Frank Bruni "For the Love of Sentences" featured a number of examples of using those terms we had to memorize in English classes in middle school (or earlier).

Let's take a look at four. 

Alliteration
New York Times obituary writer Margalit Fox noted: “Barry Humphries, the Australian-born actor and comic who for almost seven decades brought that divine doyenne of divadom, Dame Edna Everage, to delirious, dotty, disdainful Dadaist life, died on Saturday in Sydney.” 

The Dame Edna character will not be familiar to today's students, but there are additional challenges here, mostly due to students not knowing some of the key vocabulary. Two terms that will need some background: "doyenne" and "Dadaist." But even young readers will be able to hear the repetition of the d sounds.

Margalit further defined Dame Edna as “a stiletto-heeled, stiletto-tongued persona who might well have been the spawn of a ménage à quatre involving Oscar Wilde, Salvador Dalí, Auntie Mame and Miss Piggy.”

Here the writer shifts to repeats s-sounds, and then ends with allusions to four famous people from history or entertainment. Students won't know Wilde or Dali, but may recognize Mame or the Muppets. The inclusion of a French phrase will likely need to be explained. But I hope students would grasp how repeating "stiletto" combines a descriptive use of the word with a metaphorical use. Bottom line: it's quite a complex sentence.


Allusion
New Yorker writer Louis Menand examined the creative impulse: “You need to have a pretty informed idea of what the box is before you can think outside it.”

This is a version of some common advice we often give students about them needing to learn the basics and understand underlying principals before they can unleash their creative urges. It could be fun to start discussion on this sentence by talking about various "boxes" students may be encountering (and perhaps being confined by).  


Metaphor
The Wall Street Journal sportswriter Jason Gay marveled at the price under discussion for the Washington Commanders football team: “Six billion. It’s far and away an all-time U.S. record for a sports franchise — all for a jalopy of sadness coasting on the fumes of decades-old accomplishments.” 

The metaphor is comparing an NFL team to a jalopy, and students may or may not have encountered that term for an old, dilapidated car. The second half of the sentence just begs for support to follow, and that is another great discussion point. This is where we can work on creating questions, whether the students know much about the team or not.


Hyperbole
In The Washington Post, Carl Hoffman reviewed “The Wager,” a new book by David Grann about a maritime voyage gone disastrously wrong: “Reading it is like living one of those anxiety nightmares in which you’re just trying to get to that job interview, but you’re lost and your teeth are falling out and, wait, when your car dies you realize you’re naked, and then you’re attacked by flesh-eating zombies.”

The exaggeration comes from piling on standard nightmares... eventually four misfortunes, and each misfortune becomes more dire for the dreamer. Building to the most "out there" example is a classic tactic for creating a series of examples that maintain momentum.

As we get near the end of the semester, it occurs to me that I need to go back through past blog posts that comment on Frank Bruni's collection of fine writing and find some ways to incorporate the best of them into some sort of lesson... or perhaps a series of short readings.

With only two weeks to go, and lots of important assignments still to come, maybe I should not be spending much time thinking about revisions to my writing courses... but that's where I am right now. More about potential changes next Friday.

A nation of (potential) killers

In the past few years, some Americans have begun asking about just what horrific mass shooting would move the needle on gun safety. Well, I have been wondering, anyway.

I am forced to make this observation: there is nothing that will be enough. No one massacre. No particular school shooting of children. No "knocked on the wrong door" outrage. No raw numbers of shooting and deaths and maimings. 

Guns are the number killer of American children, as new statistics show, but many states and many individuals simply accept those appalling deaths as a cost of "freedom." Leaders throw up their hands and claim there is nothing that can be done. 

"It's a mental health problem!" many exclaim, while offering not a single program that might actually address such issues. And no discussions about why the U.S. contains so many damaged people are allowed. No discussions of the overwhelming numbers of weapons can be shared. 

America is armed to the teeth and ready to fire at almost any provocation. And our TV and movie choices routinely offer spectacular murders, exhibit almost no remorse or guilt, and provide only the fleeing satisfaction of the "bad guy" being killed by the avenging guns of "good guys."

Many legislatures in Angry White People states are actually making it easier to own guns and many don't require as much as a training course in gun use for people to be packing. We haven't gone that far in Colorado yet, but even with Democrats firmly in control of all levels of state government, a bill to stop new sales of automatic weapons failed just this week. 

Ironically, the bill was killed early in the morning of April 20, the 24th anniversary of the Columbine HS massacre.

No matter what any of our fine leaders may claim, we really don't value children's lives as much as guns. Oh, they'll offer those pointless "thoughts and prayers," as will many of our pious neighbors who love their own children and grandchildren so much, or so they say, while continuing to support MORE weapons, more bullets, more danger. 

Douglas County, home of comfortable but aggrieved white people, elected a Democrat in 2022... a huge surprise. But he was one of the three Dems on the legislative committee who killed the attempt to limit assault weapons. He said he has promised his constituents that he would not support "more" gun laws. Mostly, he just wants to be reelected, I guess. In the end, he's just another gun worshipper.

Innocents are being shot -- and some killed -- every day in the "land of the free." Many, many more simply turn their guns on themselves. Strangers fire wildly at anyone they don't know or that randomly show up at their homes. 

And in place after place, the common refrain from the survivors is "this is not who we are."

But it is. 

When the three pillars of government all seem wobbly... the courts in particular

Perhaps this is just the way the world works: a long-standing institution, full of history and tradition, suddenly seems to break up right before our eyes.

The U.S. Supreme Court has self-destructed, though lots of forces have produced the rapid descent into squalor. It is happening quickly, but it seems likely that there has been a long period of norms and traditions breaking down. We just kept assuming the ship would right itself.

Clarence Thomas certainly rose from abject poverty to become a successful lawyer and judge on the highest court in the country. Got to give him that. But there is no cause and effect existing between "boy grew up poor and Black" and "man demonstrates strong morality, ethics, and judgment." 

In fact, there might be all sorts of motivators for someone desperate for money, fame, recognition, power, etc., to go off the rails, so to speak.

Thomas has now crossed into being a generally immoral or unethical man, along with his wife (who grew up among John Birchers in Nebraska, not that that should be an excuse). 

I assume he was guilty of most of the things Anita Hill (and other women) accused him of 30 years ago or more. But I also assumed that his close call might have been a wake up, and that he would at least keep his misogyny and overt sexism under wraps. Maybe that did happen.

But, at an even more fundamental level, Thomas's absolute power has produced a small, angry, and entitled man. Learning that he pals around with a billionaire who lavished Thomas and family with money and expensive trips and gifts may simply mean that our second Black justice is just like so many politicians and public figures. Greedy. Scornful of the general citizenry. 

But the latest revelations about him reaping a profit from selling that billionaire a home he inherited, and then having his mother continue to live there at no cost to Thomas... well, that is clearly breaking the law and clearly leveraging his position.

He's no Trump, but the difference between Thomas and Trump is more one of scale than content or quality.

Both are ugly blots on the nation. Both need to go away.

They can bathe in their wealth, but could they please do it privately? 

"Have you no sense of decency?" is the question from attorney Joseph Welch asked Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954. McCarthy had no answer other than descending into alcoholism and dying in 1957. 

Where is the person with power on the Supreme Court who can ask Thomas a similar question? Until it is asked and answered, the court remains a travesty that few Americans can respect. 

Could this be a 'tipping point' for the country?

I know there is a tendency to look for significance where there may not be any, but this whole "toss the angry Black guys" from the Tennessee legislature is so egregious, so obviously racist, so clearly punitive, that maybe we really are a tipping point of some sort in this country.

There was a time when I thought the Republican Party was all in on "freedom." Now the party has moved to all in on mandates and restrictions and using brute force to get its way.

In my head I realize that we can't brand an entire state with any labels due to the actions of certain individuals, but my heart tells me that Tennessee as a political entity has declared itself one of the overtly racist states. At some point, don't the everyday citizens of such a state need to accept the burden of their elected leaders being racists?

If I never visit Tennessee again, that will be fine with me. In fact, a boycott of the state would be fine with me, even if it hurts some minorities and progressives... at least temporarily. And I know that there might be a counter-movement of angry white people who cancel out those doing the boycotting. 

But we can't continue to simply shrug and accept fellow citizens as racists (or bigots of any kind). 

Trump is a sleaze and we just shrug. Trump sneakily advocates violence. We shrug. American is governed by a backward-looking minority of citizens. We shrug.

We need to get "mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore"!

Do women really need to 'play like girls,' or can they just play?

Most of the world could not care less, but the Iowa women's basketball team and the NCAA championship game and the ensuing brouhaha about "class" and (maybe?) racism have been on my mind for days now... and this is my chance to pull some of my random thoughts together about it all.

Part of my sadness resulting from the loss to LSU has to be tied to the suddenness of it all. We have been watching the team for many years -- love the Big Ten Network -- but we have been even more avid viewers these past three years... and the starters have not changed over that time. It is a bit nutty to admit this, but Kathleen and I have developed some sort of long-distance relationship with the players and coaches (not to mention the entire athletic program). 

It's illogical and completely one-sided, so it's not a relationship in any meaningful sense. But rooting for the Hawks helps get us through endless winters (and I am fully aware that they are not nearly as brutal in Colorado as in Iowa). 

So the sudden end to the season, win or lose, was going to be a shock. I'm sure we are not alone in that feeling. But the final whistle did not end the season, as there is the need for confetti and screaming and after-the-fact analysis. 

Was the whole "trying to get in Caitlin Clark's face with the hand gestures" thing that Angel Reese so gleefully exhibited lacking "class"? I suppose, though it's not all that different from various occasions where I have "flipped the bird" to wacky drivers while I was in a bad mood or simply startled. I have tried to limit such demonstrations over the years, particularly considering the possibility of the recipient of my ire being armed. I assume LSU fans found the whole thing quite satisfying, but I don't assume they are all "bad winners." 

Caitlin Clark possesses lots of weapons, from her shooting to her passing to her general court awareness, but no weapons were involved. Just a guess: Ms. Reese's action grew from passions getting a bit out of control and in a different situation would likely not occur. Heck, Reese and Clark could easily become teammates in a future Olympics.

I was taught by many coaches in my youth that my best "default" while playing any game was to keep my emotions hidden. The logic was that showing too much would give opponents an advantage. I would guess that lots of men my general age were taught something similar. We all learned that even predicting an outcome publicly was bad karma: disaster was likely to ensue. How many of the outraged social media comments came from my generation?

Was there any racism involved in either the competition, the celebratory taunting, or the social media blow up that followed? Probably. After all, Iowa started five white women and LSU was all-Black, as was South Carolina in the semifinals. At least for some viewers, this likely triggered some sort of comparison between races. For the athletes, I'm quite sure that the race issue was irrelevant. They were athletes playing a sport and results are what matters. A good player is a good player.

And what does it all mean if a player is "mixed race"? Can racists of all types rejoice in some percentage of each player's success?

A more likely motivator for Angel Reese going out of her way to try to taunt Caitlin Clark was the universal emotion of jealousy. After all, Ms. Reese had a fine season and used her size and talent to set all sorts of records and to eventually be part of a national championship team... yet Caitlin swept all the player of the year awards. Reese is competitive and surely believes SHE is deserving of the honors. There is no science involved, so who knows?

In the end, my thought was that Angel Reese reflected her coach's personality as much as her ethnic identity in her celebrations, and that Caitlin Clark did the same. The LSU coach represents a style of coaching that is characterized by being in the spotlight, being very demonstrative, essentially becoming part of the action... all the time. It works for her.

We could argue that Reese's hand gestures don't rival the fact that Coach Mulkey spent as much time on the court as most players, though I have no idea how much that affects opponents or referees. She bends the rules, that is certain, but rules are meant to be tested. If officials choose not to notice or not to penalize, that is a different problem.

Lisa Bluder, the Iowa coach, represents a different style, one that keeps the spotlight on the players and the program and that does not demand constant attention. That works for her. But she also is fine with sometimes outlandish gestures from her top player. Clark is not "Iowa nice," I guess, but most Iowans cheer at her passion and emotional displays.

To her credit (and emphasizing her consistency), Caitlin Clark has publicly stated that Angel Reese should not be criticized for a few moments of exuberance. Ms. Clark has certainly baited and taunted and generally ticked off opponent fans for three years now, after all. It's part of who she is and she usually backs up her brash confidence and public celebrations with winning results. 

Would we want her to change? No way. And if we are OK with Caitlin's outgoing personality, it's a bit hypocritical to pile on an opponent who is also outgoing. 

Bottom line: it's almost always the losing team (and mostly the fans) who complain about a lack of class or proclaim that they would rather the team lose with dignity than win with crassness or braggadocio. 

Winning teams just enjoy the trophies. 

Fans everywhere like a bit of spice, and it's nice to see women's basketball producing some extra spice. That is what may keep people tuned in.

The men's championship had the lowest rated TV audience in years. The women's was the highest ever. I didn't see the same breakout personalities among the men as I did among the women. It's tough to overlook the difference.

I vividly remember the battles between a white Larry Bird and a Black Magic Johnson, beginning in college and extending for more than a decade. Was that white vs. Black? Maybe. Was it a contrast in style? Sure. Did Bird and Magic enjoy a bit of taunting (trash talk). Yep.

It all added spice to the NBA, and the women's college game is now benefitting from some of that spice. 

Isn't it better to argue about basketball than who is more "woke" or why someone will continue to vote for a sleazy excuse for a human being... all in the name of "owning" opponents? There were no riots in Iowa City after the loss on Sunday. There were tornadoes striking close to Iowa City twice in the last week. 

Let's worry about those.

And Go Hawks!

It's fun to feel part of something special

Back after a quick break, during which we visited friends in Florida -- we did not stay in the West Palm Beach area long enough to feel the weight of the expanding culture wars site that Florida has become. In fact, we found ourselves mostly surrounded by other older white people who enjoy Motown-style music (we went to an outdoor concert) and didn't seem obsessed with politics of any kind. 

We watched a pre-season baseball game between the Nationals and Astros, and were impressed by the new rules that officially began in the major leagues on March 30. The handling of the pitch clock between the home plate umpire and whoever was hitting the start button each pitch and at-bat was fascinating to watch. 

And I am late enough with this post to note that the Rockies are off to a 2-0 start behind strong starting pitching... which likely means I will experience frustration and disappointment as the season goes along. That's the thing about baseball. Those 162 games eventually reveal all flaws (and positives, of course). Experience tells me that a few pitchers will get injured, a few rookies will flame out, and that the Rockies will eventually sink into last place in their division. 

But you never know, right? Upsets really do happen, as we have seen numerous times in the March Madness tournament for both men and women. How about those Hawkeyes!?

Iowa women's basketball is highly ranked, so the team's upset of South Carolina last night doesn't even come close to the remote possibility of the Rockies even making the playoffs. Still, few gave Iowa much of a chance. Certainly not the "expert" commentators from ESPN. 

BTW: the folks at ESPN must be beside themselves with the women's tournament providing superstars, tight matchups, and personalities that the men's game lacks -- at least this year. I can imagine the suits from the network high-fiving everyone around them as last night's national semi-final defied expectations. 

Kathleen and I have been watching Iowa women's games each winter for nearly a decade, mostly due to the Big Ten Network and the series of fine players and strong teams that Coach Bluder and her staff have produced. We have been devoted fans of Caitlin Clark since her first game as a freshman, and have often recommended watching her in action to our family and friends.

Most of them ignored our recommendation. But not any more. Much of the nation seems to have discovered Caitlin Clark and everyone is raving about her now, as she prepares for Sunday's national championship game with LSU. 

I am amused by how many national commentators and sports figures seem to have only recently discovered what can only be described as the astonishing talent of Ms. Clark. Welcome to the bandwagon, folks! Hey, better late than never. 

Last night's fourth quarter, which was tight and tense and physical, provided the sort of athletic experience that most fans long for. But few have ever seen one player essentially take over the game from the defending national champs, despite players and coaches who absolutely knew that Caitlin would be handling the ball and shooting every possession. She scored 16 of Iowa's 18 final period points and assisted on the other two. 

The only comparison that came to me was Michael Jordan when he was leading the Chicago Bulls to six championships in seven years. I recall the way the rest of the Bulls often ceded the ball, the shots, the big moments, to Jordan. His skills rarely let his team down.

But what truly separated Jordan from other gifted players was his sheer willpower. 

Kathleen and I discussed the need for other shooters to come through for the Hawks in order to overcome the depth and talent of South Carolina. "She can't win it all by herself, can she?"

It turns out that our sage wisdom didn't really apply. She did kind of win it by herself (though she always praises her teammates and coaches and the rabid Iowa fans). In the end, Iowa earned the win mostly because Caitlin Clark's willpower was just too much for what on paper was a superior team.

Now I am worrying that Caitlin and her teammates may have a letdown in the championship game. After all, that's what mere mortals often experience. It's human nature. That worry is part of my Hawkeye fan DNA, of course. Disappointment comes with the gig.

#22 is on a roll right now, and perhaps her joy in playing and her will to win will reward not just me, but anyone who is exciting to see a once-in-a-lifetime player at her best. One thing I know: Caitlin Clark has no doubts.

Go Hawks!