Jessi Snider

June 28, 2008

Midterm Part One:  Web Review

(About 35 minutes of prep time, then 1 hour and 5 minutes writing.)

http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/HSH/Whitec/LITR/4333/models/20065731/midterm/mt06ess/mt06esslockett.htm

            The first midterm I chose to critique is Sharon Lockett’s “Multicultural Literature:  Narratives of Hunger.”  Choosing a unique theme, Lockett explores how the many texts studied in class possess literal and metaphorical instances of hunger.  In reading her assessment of the “ambivalent minority,” New World Hispanic immigrants, I was able to understand why this term is seemingly apt for a group of immigrants who often reject the dominant culture, a practice more in line with the minority tradition.  Her paragraph concerning this topic was well phrased and highly informative, as she clearly expressed how the experiences of New World immigrants are more ambiguous and variable than that of other groups.  However, while choosing to focus on the theme of hunger as a universal trait in the texts is creative and novel, at times it feels as though the concept is forced.  Toward the end of the essay particularly, Lockett will not mention hunger for an entire paragraph and will then insert the term into the last sentence in an attempt to tie the paragraph into the larger theme.  Overall though, this is a clean, well organized essay that highlights the multi-faceted nature of the immigrant/minority dichotomy. 

http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/HSH/Whitec/LITR/4333/models/20065731/midterm/mt06ess/mt06essrobison.htm

The second model assignment I am choosing to examine is “We Are Just Alike, Only Different” by Daniel Robison.  I chose this essay primarily because the title caught my eye, but also because the essay felt insincere and strained, and therefore gave me much to work with.  While not poorly written, I take issue with some of the assumptions that Robison works from, and some of the conclusions that he draws, without elaborating or making an argument as to why he feels as he does.  Robison’s critique of Cade Bambara’s “The Lesson,” for example, misses the nuances of the story and instead sees it strictly as an overly harsh critique of the dominant culture.  While examining the dominant culture is certainly an aspect of the story, it is by no means the central point.  In one paragraph in his essay, Robison twice uses the exact phrase that imagery of African-Americans being kept “down is too easy of an image.” He then accuses the story of focusing on such imagery, and ultimately dismisses the relevance of this line of discussion.  Though the plight and victimization of African-American’s has received much press, acknowledging their struggle is still a worthwhile endeavor.  However, this entire point ends up being a straw man argument because “The Lesson” is ultimately a tale of transcendence:  transcending small-mindedness and separatism, and actively sharing in the spoils that a wealthy nation such as America has to offer.  Robison claims that “that there is no balance,” but reading Robison’s essay made me feel as though he was utilizing the language of liberal acceptance only superficially, and offering no balance himself between his sense of being criticized and what the stories were also saying beyond dominant culture critiques.  His contention that “we are just alike, only different,” combined with his specific interpretation of the minority narrative seems to fit perfectly the concerns we expressed in our first class about the problem inherent in buying into the immigrant narrative wholly:  that anyone can succeed if they just work hard enough, conform enough, and let go of the past.  If nothing else, this class has shown that this is simply not a universal truth.

http://coursesite.uhcl.edu/HSH/Whitec/LITR/4333/models/20065731/midterm/mt06ess/mt06esspalmer.htm\

            The final midterm I chose to examine is “The Thin Line between ‘Minority’ and ‘Immigrant’” by Diane Palmer.  Well structured and thematically coherent throughout, Palmer’s essay was particularly interesting regarding minorities and the minority experience as expressed in the texts we examined.  Palmer evaluates the minority choice of accepting or rejecting the social contract as it stands, or choosing to create a new one entirely, explaining that “equality is not something that exists,” and that minorities have to essentially create success on their own terms, sometimes in ways contrary to the ways the dominate cultural would choose to do so.  Although Palmer’s strength is discussing the minority narrative, her weakness seems to be discussing the immigrant narrative.  She does not center much of the essay on the immigrant experiences present in the stories, and instead sums up rather quickly after discussing the similarities between the two groups.  Perhaps this is precisely her intention, as her thesis is that the groups are closely related, but it still feels as though the immigrant side of the equation did not get its fair share of coverage.