User talk:William Rau/sandbox

Will, Where's the draft?Fuiszl (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)fuiszl

Antioch County, Illinois (Addition to Censorship header beneath Controversy section)

In the summer of 2009, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian was introduced to Chicago’s Antioch High School on a summer reading list for incoming ninth graders. It was not long before parents caught wind of the book’s references to alcoholism, sensitive cultural topics, and sexual innuendos—weeks (be more specific if possible) after the school year had ended, seven Antioch parents attended a 117th District school board meeting to request that the book be removed from the curriculum (Fuller).

John Whitehurst, the chair of the high school’s English department, cited exposure to alcohol and the presence of social tension as two relatable and important themes for students to understand before high school (Fuller). The novel’s description of alcohol as a destructive societal factor, in the eyes of Whitehurst, was a legitimately positive message for incoming freshman (change to freshmEn) to understand. He also suggested that since recent studies suggest a lack of interest in reading among teenage males, a novel with an active male protagonist would be conducive to reversing the negative trend (lol not an actual criticism, but as if there is a lack of male protagonists in literature?!) (Fuller).

However, Jennifer Andersen, one of the parents who attended the meeting, did not equate the novel’s positive messages with those that she perceived as inappropriate. Andersen asserted that while teenagers do use profanity on a daily basis, the inclusion of foul language in school curriculum indicates scholastic approval (I don't know if this language is appropriate for Wikipedia. They ask us to keep it simple . "Indicates scholastic approval" is maybe a little much. Your call) (Fuller). “I began reading, and I started to cross out sections that I didn't want [my 14-year-old son] to read. Soon I thought, 'Wait, this is not appropriate; he is not reading this,'" Andersen told The Chicago Tribune in 2009 (Fuller). She concluded that the most viable solution was a universal “warning label” on books. Importantly, both the parents and the superintendent told the Tribune that they had read the book before discussing its potential censorship (Fuller).

Unlike many of the novel’s censorship cases, Diary was not banned from Antioch High School’s curriculum following the controversy, nor did the school accept Andersen’s proposition. Instead, the English department introduced an alternative option for summer reading. Students who preferred to read Down River were permitted to do so, and the controversy ended in a peaceful compromise (Fuller).

Sherman Alexie’s Biographical Background and Purpose

In The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, Sherman Alexie reflects on the cultural mistreatment of Native Americans through the lens of a reliable protagonist. As a native of the Spokane Indian Reservation, Alexie uses Junior’s experiences to discuss those of his own childhood, and explores the ideas of suffering and inferiority (Signal phrase and cite). Jan Johnson, a writer and literary critic, discusses Alexie’s purpose in “Healing The Soul Wound,” an article that examines connective elements and common literary tools among Alexie’s publications.

Johnson immediately identifies the “soul wound,” a concept that evolved from the mistreatment and exploitation of Native Americans (Johnson, 225). This phenomenon is responsible for the characterization of Native Americans as individuals who are constantly suffering, and according to Johnson, this struggle has become a distinct trait of Native Americans. Johnson writes, “Alexie feels that—as a result of this grim history—suffering and trauma are fundamental to the experience of being Native American. Ceaseless suffering attains an epistemological status” (Johnson, 227). Alexie paints an image of such a “wounded” individual through his depiction of Junior, his alcoholic father, his misguided sister, and his defeating social life. Through Diary, he aims to make a larger statement about the need for change in both the structure and the external perception of Native American communities in the United States (cite, maybe examples).

In his own writing, Alexie has explored the concept of upward mobility in Native American life. “A smart Indian is a dangerous person,” Alexie writes in a personal essay, “widely feared and ridiculed by Indians and non-Indians alike” (Alexie, 130). Such an experience is true of Junior, who receives strong censure after leaving the reservation to improve his prospects of a better future. Alexie continues to explain that Junior’s experience parallels that which he experienced as a precocious child on the reservation. Alexie reveals, “I fought with my classmates on a daily basis. They wanted me to stay quiet when the non-Indian teacher asked for answers…we were Indian children who were expected to be stupid…we were expected to fail in the non-Indian world” (Alexie, 130). Thus, Junior’s eventual success in the “non-Indian” world is Alexie’s ideal situation for Native American children. He is hopeful for the future.

Percymetcalfe (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)PercymetcalfePercymetcalfe (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Will,

I looked over your draft and the content is in general very good. I feel I got a full understanding of the Antioch case. It's very clearly described. A few pointers though:

A lot of the language (I marked one place specifically) is potentially too complicated for your average wikipedia reader. I'd imagine that a lot of the people reading the Diary page are high-schoolers or younger. In one of the tutorials they told us not to use to much complicated language or sentence structure, which we've stretched a little for the sake of being college students in a college class.

Some of your statements are quite broad and sound like your own interpretation of the book. The first sentence in the biographical background section is an example of this. I think you should cite somewhere that told you that piece of information.

Is there an explanation anywhere about why the Antioch school decided not to ban the book?

I also put this in the talk page, with a copy and pasted/copy edited/commented on version of your draft.

Percy

Percymetcalfe (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)PercymetcalfePercymetcalfe (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

See sandbox for newest draft (11/29/16).

William Rau (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)William RauWilliam Rau (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)