SUMMER READING
SUMMER READING ASSIGNMENT FOR 20132014 AP LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION
NOTE: ANY STUDENT NOT COMPLETING THE SUMMER READING WILL
NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN THE COURSE!
Part 1: NON-FICTION BOOK ASSIGNMENT – Free Choice
Essay (100 pts.) DUE JULY 8TH!
Choose a book from the New York Times Bestselling Non-fiction list.
Feel free to pick any book that appears on the list from the past six months. Each
book may be chosen by only one student, on a first-come-first-serve basis. Before
you begin reading your book, you need to email me ([email protected]) to
make sure it is available. You will not receive credit for completing an assignment on
an unapproved book. It is in your best interest to choose a book early to ensure
that you get something that interests you. When you have finished reading the
book, respond to the following prompt in a 3-5 page essay:
1. Why is this book on the bestseller list?
2. What about this book has made it so popular? Consider both the topic and
the way in which it was written.
3. Why do you think it is relevant to so many people at this particular point in
history? What type of people does does this book interest and why? What
does its popularity say about our culture?
4. What is the ethos, pathos, and/or logos of the book? See the summary
provided for you below.
ASSIGNMENT TOPIC:
Write a 3-5 page essay explaining how the author of your book has used
Aristotle’s persuasive appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos) to persuade his/her
readers of his/her philosophical point of view (his/her beliefs in mankind, nature,
God). Be sure to talk about the author’s specific use of words and ideas to
affectively persuade the readers to see his/her own personal beliefs.
REQUIREMENTS FOR ESSAY:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3-5 page essay
12 point font and double-spaced
Good introductory paragraph and conclusion paragraph
Textual support - A minimum of 3 quotes directly from the text of your
novel per persuasive appeal, (i.e. 3 for ethos, 3 for pathos, and 3 for
logos)
Correct formatting of MLA citation from your book. If you have
any questions about that citation process, please go to http://
owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/08/
A works-cited page is not required.
Correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization must be used.
Email your final essay to me by the due date.
Please take these assignments seriously. You are entering into
a college-level class—my expectations are quite high and these
assignments will significantly impact your first semester grade.
Expectations:
ü This is an AP class. All work will be held to my highest standard. Each
assignment should be a polished, final draft, free from grammatical and
mechanical errors.
ü Each essay should have a strong thesis statement, a clear focus, and an
insightful, developed argument supported by textual evidence.
ü Your writing should be sophisticated, clear, concise, precise, and charismatic.
The best essays will be not only informative, but also a pleasure to read.
Ethos, Logos, Pathos: Three Ways to Persuade
by Dr. John R. Edlund, Cal Poly Pomona
Over 2,000 years ago the Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that there were three basic
ways to persuade an audience of your position: ethos, logos, and pathos.
Ethos: The Writer’s Character or Image
The Greek word ethos is related to our word ethics or ethical, but a more accurate modern
translation might be “image.” Aristotle uses ethos to refer to the speaker’s character as it
appears to the audience. Aristotle says that if we believe that a speaker has good sense,
good moral character, and goodwill, we are inclined to believe what that speaker says.
Today we might add that a speaker should also appear to have the appropriate expertise
or authority to speak knowledgeably about the subject matter. Ethos is often the first
thing we notice, so it creates the first impression that influences how we perceive the rest.
Ethos is an important factor in advertising, both for commercial products and in politics.
For example, when an actor in a pain reliever commercial puts on a doctor’s white coat,
the advertisers are hoping that wearing this coat will give the actor the authority to talk
persuasively about medicines. Of course, in this particular instance the actor’s ethos is a
deceptive illusion, but the character, background, and authority of the speaker or writer
can be a legitimate factor in determining whether we find him or her credible.
A writer’s ethos is created largely by word choice and style. Student writers often have
a problem with ethos because they are asked to write research papers, reports, and other
types of texts as if they have authority to speak persuasively, when in fact they are
newcomers to the subject matter and the discourse community. Sometimes students try
to create an academic image for themselves by using a thesaurus to find difficult and
unusual words to sprinkle throughout their texts. Unfortunately, this sort of effort usually
fails, because it is difficult to use a word correctly that you have not heard or read in
context many times.
Sometimes a writer or speaker will use what is called an ad hominem argument,
an argument “against the man.” In this strategy, the writer attacks the character or
personality of the speaker instead of attacking the substance of his or her position. This
kind of argument is usually considered to be a logical fallacy, but it can be very effective
and is quite common in politics. This type of argument undermines a speaker or writer’s
ethos. When you are writing a paper, consider the following questions.
Questions to think about:
1. What kind of image do you want to project to your audience?
2. What can you do to help project this image?
3. What words or ideas do you want to avoid in order not to harm your image?
4. What effect do misspelled words and grammatical errors have on your image?
Logos: Logical Arguments
In our society, logic and rationality are highly valued and this type of persuasive strategy
is usually privileged over appeals to the character of the speaker or to the emotions of the
audience. However, formal logic and scientific reasoning are usually not appropriate for
general audiences, so we must rely on a more rhetorical type of reasoning.
For Aristotle, formal arguments are based on what he calls syllogisms. This is reasoning
that takes the form:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
However, Aristotle notes that in ordinary speaking and writing we often use what he
calls a rhetorical syllogism or an enthymeme. This is an argument in which some of the
premises or assertions remain unstated or are simply assumed. For example, no one in
ordinary life would think that Socrates could be immortal. We would simply assume that
Socrates could be killed or that he would die of natural causes after a normal lifespan.
As a result, we can logically say the following: Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is
mortal. Not all assumptions are as obvious as this one, however.
For example, when the bubonic plague swept through Europe and parts of Asia in the
14th century, killing as much as three quarters of the population in less than 20 years, it
was not known how the disease was spread. At one point, people thought that the plague
was spread by cats. If one assumes that cats spread the disease, the obvious solution to
the problem is to eliminate the cats, and so people began killing cats on sight. However,
we now know that the plague is spread by fleas which live on rats. Because cats kill rats,
killing off the cat population led to an increase in the rat population, a corresponding
increase in plague carrying fleas, and thus an increase in cases of plague in humans.
Killing off the cats was a logical solution to the problem of plague, but it was based on a
faulty assumption.
Rhetorical arguments are often based on probabilities rather than certain truth. The
people of medieval Europe really had no way to determine what the real cause of the
plague was, but they felt that they had to do something about it, and the cat hypothesis
seemed probable to them. Unfortunately, this is true of many of the problems we face
even today. We cannot know with absolute certainty what the real solution is, yet we
must act anyway.
Persuasion, to a large extent, involves convincing people to accept our assumptions
as probably true and to take appropriate action. Similarly, exposing questionable
assumptions in someone else’s argument is an effective means for preparing the audience
to accept your own contrary position.
Questions to think about:
1. Imagine some arguments that start from faulty assumptions, such as “If pigs
could fly,” or “If money grew on trees.” What would be some of the logical
consequences?
2. Do you think that logical arguments are a better support for a position than
arguments that are based on authority or character? In other words, would you
support a policy just because a celebrity or an important expert supported it?
3. Can you think of a time when you successfully used a logical argument to
persuade someone of something? What was it?
Pathos: The Emotions of the Audience
Most of us think that we make our decisions based on rational thought. However,
Aristotle points out that emotions such as anger, pity, fear, and their opposites,
powerfully influence our rational judgments. Due to this fact, much of our political
discourse and much of the advertising we experience is directed toward moving our
emotions.
Anger is a very powerful motivating force. Aristotle says that if we want to make an
audience angry we need to know three things: 1) the state of mind of angry people, 2)
who the people are that this audience usually gets angry at, and 3) on what grounds this
audience gets angry at those people. While the actual causes of a war may be economic
or political, and thus related to logos, the mobilization of a people or a nation to war
inevitably consists of appeals to pathos. Leaders mobilize their followers to go to war by
reminding them of their historical grievances against other groups or nations, blaming
other groups for economic difficulties, and focusing on perceived insults, crimes, and
atrocities committed against their own citizens by others. In the twentieth century, such
appeals to pathos inspired the Holocaust in Germany, genocide in Rwanda, and ethnic
cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. Individuals were inspired through pathos to attack,
rape, or kill neighbors who had lived near them all their lives, simply because of their
ethnicity or religion.
Many political decisions have an emotional motivation. For example, when a gunman
with an assault rifle shot up a schoolyard full of children, people were suddenly interested
in banning such weapons. In this case, several emotions are involved, but perhaps the
strongest one is pity for the small children and their families. The logical arguments for
banning or not banning assault rifles had not changed at all, but people were emotionally
engaged with the issue after this event and wanted to do something.
Of course, not all appeals to pathos result in violence or political action. Advertisements
for consumer goods often aim at making us insecure about our attractiveness or social
acceptability and then offer a remedy for this feeling in the form of a product. This is a
common strategy for selling mouthwash, toothpaste, chewing gum, clothing, and even
automobiles.
Appeals to the emotions and passions are often very effective and are very common in
our society. Such appeals are not always false or illegitimate. It is natural to feel strong
emotions about tragedies, victories, and other powerful events as well as about one’s own
image and identity. You may find it effective to use pathos in your own writing.
Questions to think about:
1. Can you think of an advertisement for a product or a political campaign that uses
your emotions to persuade you to believe something? Describe it, and analyze
how it works.
2. When do you think it is unfair or deceptive to try to use emotions to persuade
people?
3. Have you ever made a decision based on your feelings that you regretted later?
4. Did emotions ever serve you well in making a decision?
Part 2: FICTION CHOICE – Theme: Dystopia and
Oppression: Going Where No Man Wants to Go (DUE
AUGUST 15TH!)
For summer reading, students will also read Plato’s “Simile of the Cave” from The
Republic, VII, 7, and either 1984 by George Orwell or Brave New World by Aldous
Huxley.
NOTE: Whichever book you choose must be annotated. Instructions
for annotation are on a separate sheet and must be followed carefully to
receive full credit.
To complete this assignment, first read the following excerpt which considers the effects
of modern media on our society.
What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What
Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book for there
would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would
deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so
much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared
that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would
be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
(Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in
the Age of Show Business. Harrisonburg, VA: Donnelly, 1985, vii-vii.)
As you read this summer, you should ask yourselves the type of questions that follow:
•
Which characters in your book are in the cave (disconnected from truth and
reality) and unable to distinguish between real objects (truth) and shadows (false
ideas)?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Which characters are in the sunshine, blinded by the brightness of the light
(departing from false reality but not quite able to embrace truth yet)?
Is one character a philosopher (one who understands truth) who can help other
characters (cave dwellers who are disconnected from the truth) come out of the
cave and adjust their vision to the bright light (embrace truth)?
Is any character a false philosopher (one who asserts that he has the truth but does
not)?
How does the society in your book pervert the family?
How does the society manipulate language in order to maintain power?
Who is God (or a god) in your book’s society?
What strategies do those in charge employ to create unity and passivity in the
population? How do these strategies work, and which goal do they pursue—unity
or passivity?
Who are misfits in the society of the book? Why are they misfits?
What does the society promise the characters? What do the characters receive?
How can we avoid falling into the oppression of either society?
Is man capable of inventing/sustaining a utopia? Why or why not?
Students choosing to read both texts will receive extra credit. If pursuing this option
(Option B), include the following questions in your journal discussion.
•
•
•
How would John fare in Orwell’s society? How would Winston fare in Huxley’s?
In 1984, Big Brother uses war to maintain his power. Why is there no war in
Brave New World?
Huxley and Orwell composed their visions of the future in different decades.
Who is the more accurate prophet?
NOTE:
1. Students should record answers to these questions and any other observations they
make about the text in a reading journal that will contain their considerations and any
they may have of Postman’s discussion as well.
2. They should write an entry for each day they have read; each entry should be between
300 and 400 words.
3. There should be a minimum of 10 well-thought out and legible entries for me to
evaluate upon their return to school (13 for Option B).
Upon returning to school, students are to come to class prepared to discuss their book(s)
and any correlation to the cave dweller/philosopher that it may contain. They can expect
to take a test on their reading (Plato and the assigned book) during the first week of
school. They can also expect to participate in panel discussions of their book. Panel
discussions will last about 30 minutes per panel, and each student will discuss one aspect
of the book for several minutes. Students will discuss the author’s argument, character
development, plot, and the historical context of the work.
Plato, The Allegory of the Cave
The son of a wealthy and noble family, Plato (427-347 B.C.) was preparing for a career
in politics when the trial and eventual execution of Socrates (399 B.C.) changed the
course of his life. He abandoned his political career and turned to philosophy, opening
a school on the outskirts of Athens dedicated to the Socratic search for wisdom. Plato's
school, then known as the Academy, was the first university in western history and
operated from 387 B.C. until A.D. 529, when it was closed by Justinian.
Unlike his mentor Socrates, Plato was both a writer and a teacher. His writings are in
the form of dialogues, with Socrates as the principal speaker. In the Allegory of the
Cave, Plato described symbolically the predicament in which mankind finds itself and
proposes a way of salvation. The Allegory presents, in brief form, most of Plato's major
philosophical assumptions: his belief that the world revealed by our senses is not the
real world but only a poor copy of it, and that the real world can only be apprehended
intellectually; his idea that knowledge cannot be transferred from teacher to student,
but rather that education consists in directing student's minds toward what is real and
important and allowing them to apprehend it for themselves; his faith that the universe
ultimately is good; his conviction that enlightened individuals have an obligation to
the rest of society, and that a good society must be one in which the truly wise (the
Philosopher-King) are the rulers.
The Allegory of the Cave can be found in Book VII of Plato's best-known work, The
Republic, a lengthy dialogue on the nature of justice. Often regarded as a utopian
blueprint, The Republic is dedicated toward a discussion of the education required of a
Philosopher-King.
The following selection is taken from the Benjamin Jowett translation (Vintage, 1991),
pp. 253-261. As you read the Allegory, try to make a mental picture of the cave Plato
describes. Better yet, why not draw a picture of it and refer to it as you read the selection.
In many ways, understanding Plato's Allegory of the Cave will make your foray into the
world of philosophical thought much less burdensome.
*
*
*
*
*
*
[Socrates] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or
unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground cave, which has a mouth
open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they have been from their
childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only
see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above
and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners
there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like
the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the
puppets.
[Glaucon] I see.
[Socrates] And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of
vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various
materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.
[Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.
[Socrates] Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the
shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?
[Glaucon] True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never
allowed to move their heads?
[Socrates] And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see
the shadows?
[Glaucon] Yes, he said.
[Socrates] And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose
that they were naming what was actually before them?
[Glaucon] Very true.
[Socrates] And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other
side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice
which they heard came from the passing shadow?
[Glaucon] No question, he replied.
[Socrates] To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the
images.
[Glaucon] That is certain.
[Socrates] And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are
released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and
compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the
light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see
the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive
some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he
is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a
clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is
pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be
perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the
objects which are now shown to him?
[Glaucon] Far truer.
[Socrates] And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in
his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which
he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are
now being shown to him?
[Glaucon] True, he now.
[Socrates] And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged
ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely
to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he
will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.
[Glaucon] Not all in a moment, he said.
[Socrates] He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first
he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water,
and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the
stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than
the sun or the light of the sun by day?
[Glaucon] Certainly.
[Socrates] Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the
water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will
contemplate him as he is.
[Glaucon] Certainly.
[Socrates] He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the
years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause
of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?
[Glaucon] Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.
[Socrates] And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the cave and
his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change,
and pity them?
[Glaucon] Certainly, he would.
[Socrates] And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those
who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went
before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best
able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors
and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,
Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,
and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?
[Glaucon] Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these
false notions and live in this miserable manner.
[Socrates] Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be
replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?
[Glaucon] To be sure, he said.
[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows
with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak,
and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire
this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men
would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was
better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him
up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
[Glaucon] No question, he said.
[Socrates] This entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the
previous argument; the prison-house is the world of sight, the light of the fire is the sun,
and you will not misapprehend me if you interpret the journey upwards to be the ascent
of the soul into the intellectual world according to my poor belief, which, at your desire, I
have expressed whether rightly or wrongly God knows. But, whether true or false, my
opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen
only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all
things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and
the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual; and that this is the power
upon which he who would act rationally, either in public or private life must have his eye
fixed.
[Glaucon] I agree, he said, as far as I am able to understand you.
[Socrates] Moreover, I said, you must not wonder that those who attain to this beatific
vision are unwilling to descend to human affairs; for their souls are ever hastening into
the upper world where they desire to dwell; which desire of theirs is very natural, if our
allegory may be trusted.
[Glaucon] Yes, very natural.
[Socrates] And is there anything surprising in one who passes from divine
contemplations to the evil state of man, misbehaving himself in a ridiculous manner; if,
while his eyes are blinking and before he has become accustomed to the surrounding
darkness, he is compelled to fight in courts of law, or in other places, about the images or
the shadows of images of justice, and is endeavoring to meet the conceptions of those
who have never yet seen absolute justice?
[Glaucon] Anything but surprising, he replied.
[Socrates] Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments of the
eyes are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from coming out of the light or
from going into the light, which is true of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily
eye; and he who remembers this when he sees any one whose vision is perplexed and
weak, will not be too ready to laugh; he will first ask whether that soul of man has come
out of the brighter light, and is unable to see because unaccustomed to the dark, or having
turned from darkness to the day is dazzled by excess of light. And he will count the one
happy in his condition and state of being, and he will pity the other; or, if he have a mind
to laugh at the soul which comes from below into the light, there will be more reason in
this than in the laugh which greets him who returns from above out of the light into the
cave.
[Glaucon] That, he said, is a very just distinction.
[Socrates] But then, if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when
they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like
sight into blind eyes.
[Glaucon] They undoubtedly say this, he replied.
[Socrates] Whereas, our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists
in the soul already; and that just as the eye was unable to turn from darkness to light
without the whole body, so too the instrument of knowledge can only by the movement
of the whole soul be turned from the world of becoming into that of being, and learn by
degrees to endure the sight of being, and of the brightest and best of being, or in other
words, of the good.
[Glaucon] Very true.
[Socrates] And must there not be some art which will effect conversion in the easiest and
quickest manner; not implanting the faculty of sight, for that exists already, but has been
turned in the wrong direction, and is looking away from the truth?
[Glaucon] Yes, he said, such an art may be presumed.
[Socrates] And whereas the other so-called virtues of the soul seem to be akin to bodily
qualities, for even when they are not originally innate they can be implanted later by
habit and exercise, the of wisdom more than anything else contains a divine element
which always remains, and by this conversion is rendered useful and profitable; or, on
the other hand, hurtful and useless. Did you never observe the narrow intelligence
flashing from the keen eye of a clever rogue --how eager he is, how clearly his paltry
soul sees the way to his end; he is the reverse of blind, but his keen eyesight is forced
into the service of evil, and he is mischievous in proportion to his cleverness.
[Glaucon] Very true, he said.
[Socrates] But what if there had been a circumcision of such natures in the days of their
youth; and they had been severed from those sensual pleasures, such as eating and
drinking, which, like leaden weights, were attached to them at their birth, and which drag
them down and turn the vision of their souls upon the things that are below --if, I say,
they had been released from these impediments and turned in the opposite direction, the
very same faculty in them would have seen the truth as keenly as they see what their eyes
are turned to now.
[Glaucon] Very likely.
[Socrates] Yes, I said; and there is another thing which is likely. or rather a necessary
inference from what has preceded, that neither the uneducated and uninformed of the
truth, nor yet those who never make an end of their education, will be able ministers of
State; not the former, because they have no single aim of duty which is the rule of all
their actions, private as well as public; nor the latter, because they will not act at all
except upon compulsion, fancying that they are already dwelling apart in the islands of
the blest.
[Glaucon] Very true, he replied.
[Socrates] Then, I said, the business of us who are the founders of the State will be to
compel the best minds to attain that knowledge which we have already shown to be the
greatest of all-they must continue to ascend until they arrive at the good; but when they
have ascended and seen enough we must not allow them to do as they do now.
[Glaucon] What do you mean?
[Socrates] I mean that they remain in the upper world: but this must not be allowed; they
must be made to descend again among the prisoners in the cave, and partake of their
labors and honors, whether they are worth having or not.
[Glaucon] But is not this unjust? he said; ought we to give them a worse life, when they
might have a better?
[Socrates] You have again forgotten, my friend, I said, the intention of the legislator,
who did not aim at making any one class in the State happy above the rest; the happiness
was to be in the whole State, and he held the citizens together by persuasion and
necessity, making them benefactors of the State, and therefore benefactors of one
another; to this end he created them, not to please themselves, but to be his instruments in
binding up the State.
[Glaucon] True, he said, I had forgotten.
[Socrates] Observe, Glaucon, that there will be no injustice in compelling our
philosophers to have a care and providence of others; we shall explain to them that in
other States, men of their class are not obliged to share in the toils of politics: and this is
reasonable, for they grow up at their own sweet will, and the government would rather
not have them. Being self-taught, they cannot be expected to show any gratitude for a
culture which they have never received. But we have brought you into the world to be
rulers of the hive, kings of yourselves and of the other citizens, and have educated you
far better and more perfectly than they have been educated, and you are better able to
share in the double duty. Wherefore each of you, when his turn comes, must go down to
the general underground abode, and get the habit of seeing in the dark. When you have
acquired the habit, you will see ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the cave,
and you will know what the several images are, and what they represent, because you
have seen the beautiful and just and good in their truth. And thus our State which is also
yours will be a reality, and not a dream only, and will be administered in a spirit unlike
that of other States, in which men fight with one another about shadows only and are
distracted in the struggle for power, which in their eyes is a great good. Whereas the truth
is that the State in which the rulers are most reluctant to govern is always the best and
most quietly governed, and the State in which they are most eager, the worst.
[Glaucon] Quite true, he replied.
[Socrates] And will our pupils, when they hear this, refuse to take their turn at the toils
of State, when they are allowed to spend the greater part of their time with one another in
the heavenly light?
[Glaucon] Impossible, he answered; for they are just men, and the commands which we
impose upon them are just; there can be no doubt that every one of them will take office
as a stern necessity, and not after the fashion of our present rulers of State.
[Socrates] Yes, my friend, I said; and there lies the point. You must contrive for your
future rulers another and a better life than that of a ruler, and then you may have a wellordered State; for only in the State which offers this, will they rule who are truly rich, not
in silver and gold, but in virtue and wisdom, which are the true blessings of life. Whereas
if they go to the administration of public affairs, poor and hungering after the' own
private advantage, thinking that hence they are to snatch the chief good, order there can
never be; for they will be fighting about office, and the civil and domestic broils which
thus arise will be the ruin of the rulers themselves and of the whole State.
[Glaucon] Most true, he replied.
[Socrates] And the only life which looks down upon the life of political ambition is that
of true philosophy. Do you know of any other?
[Glaucon] Indeed, I do not, he said.
[Socrates] And those who govern ought not to be lovers of the task? For, if they are,
there will be rival lovers, and they will fight.
[Glaucon] No question.
[Socrates] Who then are those whom we shall compel to be guardians? Surely they will
be the men who are wisest about affairs of State, and by whom the State is best
administered, and who at the same time have other honors and another and a better life
than that of politics?
[Glaucon] They are the men, and I will choose them, he replied.
[Socrates] And now shall we consider in what way such guardians will be produced, and
how they are to be brought from darkness to light, -- as some are said to have ascended
from the world below to the gods?
[Glaucon] By all means, he replied.
[Socrates] The process, I said, is not the turning over of an oyster-shell, but the turning
round of a soul passing from a day which is little better than night to the true day of
being, that is, the ascent from below, which we affirm to be true philosophy?
[Glaucon] Quite so.
HOW TO ANNOTATE A TEXT
1. At the top of the page or on a post-it, mark the important plot events. Every page will
not necessarily be marked.
2. Be sure to figure out any unfamiliar words through context or by using a dictionary.
You can write the definitions right in the text for yourself.
3. Highlight and mark for yourself any conflicts that occur with the main character
(protagonist). Note your ideas about these conflicts in the text (who / what is involved,
attempts to resolve conflicts, etc).
4. Highlight and mark for yourself words and phrases that help describe the personality of
characters. Note your ideas about the characters right in the text (personality, motivation,
fears / dreams, etc).
5. Highlight and mark for yourself any symbolism and note your ideas in the text as to
what abstract ideas or concepts these tangible objects may represent.
6. Don’t mark too much. If you mark everything, nothing will stand out.
7. Once you are completely finished the book and annotating, pick the three most
important thematic statements from the following list that your book addresses. Write
those themes on an inside cover or any blank pages of your book AND find supporting
evidence from the text to support your ideas. Mark those supporting passages with postits.
Annotation is a key component of close reading. Since we will annotate texts all year,
you need to develop a system that works for you (within the following guidelines).
Effective annotating is both economical and consistent. The techniques are almost
limitless. Use any combination of the following:
* Make brief comments in the margins. Use any white space available – inside cover,
random blank pages, etc.
* Make brief comments between or within lines of the text. Do not be afraid to mark
within the test itself. In fact, you must.
* Circle or put boxes, triangles, or clouds around words or phrases.
* Use abbreviations or symbols – brackets, stars, exclamation points, question marks,
numbers, etc.
* Connect words, phrases, ideas, circles, boxes, etc. with lines or arrows.
* Underline – CAUTION : Use this method sparingly. Underline only a few words.
Always combine with another method such as comment. Never underline an entire
passage. Doing so takes too much time and loses effectiveness. If you wish to mark an
entire paragraph or passage, draw a line down the margin or use brackets.
* Highlight – use CAUTION – don’t highlight everything!
* Create your own code.
* Use post-it notes ONLY if you have exhausted all available space (unlikely).
Close Reading. What should you annotate? Again, the possibilities are limitless. Keep in
mind the reasons we annotate. Your annotations must include comments. I want to see
evidence of thinking.
* Have a conversation with the text. Talk back to it.
* Ask questions (essential to active reading).
* Comment on the actions or development of a character. Does the character change?
Why? How? The result?
* Comment on lines / quotations you think are especially significant, powerful, or
meaningful.
* Express agreement or disagreement.
* Summarize key events. Make predictions.
* Connect ideas to each other or to other texts.
* Note if you experience an epiphany.
* Note anything you would like to discuss or do not understand.
* Note how the author uses language. Note the significance if you can:
• effects of word choice (diction) or sentence structure or type (syntax)
• point of view / effect
• repetition of words, phrases, actions, events, patterns
• narrative pace / time / order of sequence of events
• irony
• contrasts / contradictions / juxtapositions / shifts
• allusions
• any other figure of speech or literary device
• reliability of narrator
• motifs or cluster ideas
• tone / mood
• imagery
• themes
• setting / historical period
• symbols
NOTE: The most common complaint about annotating is that it slows down your
reading. Yes, it does. That’s the point. If annotating as you read annoys you, read a
chapter, then go back and annotate. Reading a text a second time is preferable anyway.
Approach the works with an open mind. Let them inspire you and stretch your
imagination. If you have questions before school starts, feel free to email me. Bring all of
your annotated texts to class the fist day.