We're going to take a different approach to the blackboard discussion this week. As we work on our AP Exam preparations, I think it will be helpful if we read, discuss and analyze the practice essays. This week's essay "The Company Man", by syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, is a fairly easy piece to begin with. You've already done a couple of these in your summer portfolio, and we're going to go back to those after we've practiced with a few new ones. I hope you will see a noticeable improvement in your analytical skills when we review the essays you wrote last summer and compare them to the work we're doing now.
For this week, read the Goodman piece and discuss your ideas for analysis. Remember that it is to your advantage to follow the assignment guidelines to the letter - they will usually tell you exactly what the AP test writers want you to focus on in your discussion. Remember, too, that it is important to be able to identify the writer's rhetorical mode(s) - narrative, use of examples or illustrations, cause-effect; comparison-contrast; argumentation-persuasion; description; categorization; definition; etc.
I'd like to see everyone post at least 4 times this week - they don't have to be long - 3 - 4 sentences each, featuring your observations and questions.
These AP essay discussions will be worth 10 points each week beginning with this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
I agreed with Greg, the author was critical of the business world. At the end of the piece she uses an example of replacing a worker to show how bad the corporate world. The boss starts to find a replacement for the man and shows no sorrow for his lost life. This shows that she clearly does not agree with the corporate world. It shows that her opinion is the corporate world only cares about making money and continuing on in the world.
It is obvious that the author is condemning the business empire. I think it is most apparent in lines 65 to 68. The author does not bother to use the names of the wife, Phil, or the company president, and refers to them by their ages (the sixty-year-old company president, the forty-eight year-old wife, and the fifty-one-year-old deceased). The lack of names makes the people insignificant, as though Phil was a dispensible worker in the grandiose scheme of business. His wife's feelings are negligible, and the company president is nothing more than a title.
S- Ellen Goodman
O- Ellen Goodman confronts the concequences of climbing the ladder in corporate America, after the death of a workaholic.
A- The Public
P- The author wishes to reveal the downfalls of a workaholic.
S- Informal
Tone- Patronizing, Ironic in parts
The author uses the rhetoric device parallelism constantly. She also uses anaphora in lines 17-27.
The piece “The Company Man” does indeed criticize Phil’s actions. One aspect of Goodman’s writing that stands out is her use of repetitiveness. She repeats words or phrases at various places in the work for emphasis. Examples of such repetition include, “he was a perfect Type A” (line 6), “Phil was a type A” (line 75), “He worked himself to death, finally and precisely at 3:00 a.m. Sunday morning” (line 1-2), “This man who worked himself to death finally and precisely at 3:00 a.m. Sunday morning” (line 10-11), and “when he finally worked himself to death, at precisely 3:00 a.m.” (lines 77-78).
This repetitiveness is also obviously a form of parallelism.
At the end of reading the passage, I couldn't help but feel that the author is not only condemning the corporate empire, but also has some sort of bitterness. Looking deeper, I started to wonder if maybe the author too was married to someone like Phil. The way she described Phil had a hint (or more) of bitterness. It seemed to me that the author is writing about this subject not just because she observed it, but because she experienced it. What was her purpose really? Is it just to explain about Phil, or is it to let out some past frustration in her life? This is what made me wonder the most.
Stephanie points out that Goodman doesn't use names, but refers to people by their ages and titles. For what purpose might the author resort to this technique? What is she implying by NOT using names.
Alison also makes a good point in identifying the author's use of repetition. Look at specific words the author repeats - esp. "precisely" and expressions like "Type A," "perfect Type A." What point does Goodman hope to convey to the reader by repeating words and phrases like these?
Will, you have a good grip on the writer's purpose, but when you take the AP, you must be careful NOT to summarize, as you tend to be doing in your entry here. Explain HOW the author illustrates, through her diction, that the corporate world is uncaring when it comes to the individual.
Beth, you will have to look beyond SOAPSTone in this instance. Try to find specific devices that reveal to the reader to negative side of being a workaholic.
Amy - how does Goodman convey her bitterness? What specific passages point to her cynical attitude toward the corporate world?
I'm still going to stick with my original thought that the author is critical in this essay, but I also think there is quite a bit of irony. First, he worked himself to death "on his day off" (Lines 11-12) He probably didn't need to be working at 3:00 a.m. and especially not on his only day off. Also, Phil's idea of "casual Saturday" was a sports jacket instead of a suit. I'm glad to see Phil didn't get too carried away with dressing down on Saturdays!
The author also mentions his eldest son as a "hard-working executive" (46) who had to research his father before the funeral. This suggests the son was just another copy of his dad and will probably live a very similar life, or lack of life.
One thing that stood out to me was the use of "dearly beloved" in line 45. I get the feeling that she is saterical in saying this because like in line 1 she states "he worked himself to death." Because he worked himself to death, he had little time to devote to his family. This bitterness is brought out through the satericalness of "dearly beloved."
The author uses an ironic tone in lines 33-41, and also during lines 45 and 46. By placing quote marks around the word survivors, the author is really telling the reader that he, Phil, has no survivors. His wife just wanted the finances straightened out, and his children don't even know what he was like. Goodman continues the ironic tone by placing dearly beloved, which describes Phil's children, in quotes.
I think that Alison makes a good point about the use of repetition. Another example is that of "the three men,"(lines 30-31) and "three men"(lines 82-83). Goodman mentions these people more than once because is conveying that these people will/are going to be the "next Phil". When the president starts to replace Phil the day of his funeral and asked, "Who's been working the hardest?", I think that Goodman is stating tht there is a cycle in the world of corporate America. The next guy in line steps up, works too hard, loses his conncection with his family, works too hard some more, begins to care about work only, etc., and dies. She conveyed a rather detailed example of the life of one man, and ends by asking, who's next? Goodman goes beyond what the general public may think of corporate America, and tells a more patronizing account on the lives of those involved.
When the author refers to the people in the piece by only their ages, I noticed that the company president is nine years older than the vice president, Phil, who worked himself to death. Maybe the company president did not spend his life only working and separating himself from his family, and maybe Phil did not have to work as hard as he did to try to move up the business ladder.
As far as the lack of using names goes, I think the author does this so that we get a sense of the life Phil knew. We know nothing more about his children than he did. We know his wife's name because she was the most significant part of his life outside of work. We never learn hardly anything about the children because Phil hardly knew anything about them. We also never find out the company president's name. To Phil, the president was just a position he would like to be promoted to.
In line 20, "He worked like the Important People." This simile shows how hard he worked. "Important People" is capitalized to give the significance of his work ethic. "Important People" are the successful poeple that have worked hard to get where they are today. This simile gives the reader background information about how hard ha has worked throughout the years.
In lines 65-68, Goodman writes "At the funeral, the sixty-year-old company president told the forty-eight-year-old widow that the fifty-one-year-old deceased had meant much to the company and would be missed and would be hard to replace." She names all of them with their age and not their name. She does this in order to give the reader an idea of how old one has to be to advance in the company. The president is sixty-year-old and is still alive, but the fifty-one-year-old is dead because he worked so hard. The company sill miss him but he will be replaced, that is why he sould have spent more time with his family because you cannot replace a dad but you can replace a businness man.
I guess it is possible the author used ages to show how old you had to be to in order to advance in the company, but I thought she used ages to make each person less of a person and more of a number. I compare it to a really big college where every student is given a number that they must remember in order to sign into computers or buy something under their own name. The university along with the company both have bigger things to worry about than names, it's about business and being successful.
I agree with Stephanie about referring to people with their age instead of their names. The author effectively uses this to show how insignificant the people are in his life. However Stephanie says that we know his wife's name because she is the most significant part of his life. If we are to say this then we defeat the point that the author is trying to show. If Phil was a true workaholic then his wife would be insignificant as well. She uses the wife's name to show that Phil wasn't always a workaholic. At one time, Phil was a family man, The author is showing us what the coporate world does to a person.
I think Goodman only uses ages instead of names because each person is replaceable. In the the world of cooperate America no one really needs to know your name, but how old you are and how quickly you'll be out of the picture. There is a lack of emotion and cynicism in the piece that is apparent at an occasion that should be depressing.
I agree with Greg's statement that the author diplays a critical tone. Ellen Goodman condemns the business/corporate world in this piece. I thought that perhaps she was a victim of the tragedy she writes about. Maybe someone in her family was a workaholic and she is letting out her anger by critisizing the corporate world.
I also noticed that Goodman uses parallelism constantly througout this critical piece. The examples that Alison gave are perfect examples of how Goodman uses parallelism to emphasize what she is trying to say. Goodman also uses simile and irony in her work to emphasize her feelings about corporate America.
Another phrase that stood out to me was "dearly beloved". Those of you who have seen RENT know that Mark opens La Vie Boheme with those exact words. He is making fun when he starts the song that way. Goodman does the same thing. She is satirical by saying "dearly beloved". Phil's family never saw him and he never saw them. It was almost like a non-existent family force to say they were related. I didn't feel that there was any love within the family, so therefor, Goodman's use of "dearly beloved" is quite ironic and simply a way to satirize the love in a family living in corporate America.
Goodman uses ages rather than names to define the people in her piece in order to remain impersonal. This allows her work to come across as more detached, rather than obituary-like. This adds emphasis to the central message she is trying to convey. She is using her piece to warn others of the damages of having only one main focus in life (in Phil’s case, work) and the importance of obtaining some form of balance.
I got a sense of bitterness from Goodman as I read this passage. Phil was always working or conserned about work and Goodman displays her bitterness through Phil's wife. Goodman states in lines 36-39 "She had, according to her daughter, given up trying to compete with his work years ago, when the children were small." She knew how important work was to him and she just could not compete with his work. In those same lines, it reffers to the daughter as "her daughter" instead of their daughter because Phil was not around very much to help raise their daughter or any of their children. Goodman being a woman has a sense of bitterness towards Phil because he cared more about work than he did about his family.
I’m sorry that all my posts are close together, but this has been a fun-filled wrestling weekend for me with sectionals on Friday and Saturday, and Jr. High districts today. Congratulations to Kyle, Jeff, and Ben, our 3 district qualifiers, Zach, our district alternate, and Scott and Ryan on getting 6th place! It is a tough tournament, but all our wrestlers did well.
Amy mentioned earlier that Goodman seemed bitter. I definitely agree with her. This piece of work is passionate. The work is not merely informational, but filled with deep emotions under the surface. The work seems almost more personal than Goodman would have liked (like a debater who becomes so overwhelmed with emotion that they become upset).
After reading this essay and thinking about it for a few days, the one word that I came up with to describe the attitude presented in the piece was "cold". Goodman seems to have a very negative view of the "company man". This negative view seems to go past the point of simple unpleasant feelings to complete disrespect. This shows in her specifis word choices.
Goodman is definitely condemning the corporate world in her piece, but what are her motives? I again agree with Amy when she explained that it seemed Goodman was referring to something that happened in her own life. This scenario seems extremely plausible after reading the piece. I think understanding the author’s motives after reading a piece helps you truly understand the work. Any feedback concerning Goodman’s motives for writing this piece would be great.
I don't believe Alex is correct when he says "Goodman, being a woman, had a sense of bitterness toward Phil." Goodman may have some bitterness toward "workaholics," and she may be trying to display that in this piece, but it's not because she is a woman. Obviously in this piece, the reader is made to sympathize with the wife and family; "I already have," and "asking the neighbors what he was like" certainly have pathos. I believe the pity comes from knowing the family grew broken, rather than the fact that she is a woman dealing with a workaholic man
An essential part of this piece is the ending, the lines that ask who should fill Phil’s position. I completely agree with Beth in her statements that Goodman does this to explain to her reader that Phil’s life is a cycle. It’s a corporate cycle that continues on and on. I think Goodman’s point is the condemnation of this cycle. She uses this derogatory cycle throughout her essay in order to warn, or inform others of how harmful and idiotic it truly is.
I realize that according to the question we are supposed to address Goodman's feelings toward Phil, but to me she seems to house more antagonism toward the Corporate America than toward Phil himself. She mocks the "Important People" and characterizes all people by their ages and jobs. (This mimics the Business World where one's age and title gains respect.) Goodmans also ends the piece showing the horrendous cycle of the business. No matter how hard one person may work, he can always be replaced instantly. In the business world, individual people do not matter. To me, this notion irritates Goodman moreso than Phil falling into the trap of the business world.
I have always had trouble understanding how we can take a piece of literature and disect every little word or phrase and identify the authors purpose for choosing that particular word or what the author wanted the "tree"(for a general example)to symbolize. Sometimes I wonder if maybe the author just wanted it to be a tree. I guess I don't seem to think they would take the time to think each word choice through, but in this Goodman essay it seems she did just that. In every sentence there is some word or phrase that completely de-humanizes the people involved and makes them seem unfeeling and out of touch. The first paragraph is home to the statement, "thought for five or ten minutes about the way they lived" (referring to the the people when they heard of his death). This makes even the people around him seem out of touch. Goodman makes the word choices carefully in order to show how detatched these people are from reality.
Goodman doesn't just focus on making Phil look out of touch. She does this with everyone. She only mentions Phil and Helen's names once or twice and then refers to them by their ages. When she mentions that Helen doesn't show her bitterness because she knows that the company president will be needed to "straighten out the finances" this even makes the wife seem a bit backward. And the last cold statement, "Who's been working the hardest?" just finishes off the piece by showing the lack of compassion. Goodman is not just showing bad feelings toward "the company man", but she is negative about "the company" itself for being the cause, and the "compay family" for allowing the madness to continue and not making an atempt to jump back into reality.
Most of us agree with the bitterness that can be perceived by this piece. This piece has many components to it that come forth to prove that the critical side of a person can come through as very bitter and emotional. It's as if Goodman wanted to prove a point to all who read this piece that people who are consumed by their work will be easily replaced. The "Type A" person may be good at the work place, but Goodman takes it to the next level by showing how inconsistent they are at the homestead. Bitterness is crucial in this piece because bitterness can go hand in hand with being critical.
Just read essay again and noticed Goodman casually mentions that Phil died "on his day off". It's not as if he could pick the exact moment he would die, but by adding that small little fact it almost seems that Goodman is criticizing Phil for not having the decency to die on a work day. I feel horrible for saying it, but that made me laugh.
Goodman sounds a lot like she's trying to get you to take her side against "The Company Man." She's giving you all these ridiculous scenarios of things that happened around this one man's death and by the end of it you almost say to yourself, "That's disgusting!" The whole company turns into a heartless monster with a mean company president who's only worried about replacing his dead employee. The company is like an army trying to win a great battle and if they lose a few men on the way it's not going to matter in the long run because someday they will win and the survivors will be happy.
I feel like every line is meant to show some lack of the common sense these people have. The way they are living makes a person who isn't stuck in the corporate ladder scheme feel superior because at least they might have a boss who would pause for a moment and feel genuinely sorrowful over a death of an employee.
Goodman may have been writing a persuasive essay here, but if she was, she wasn't writing it to persuade us to be disgusted with a company. She might be using her own personal experiences, or she might simply be fabricating a story after having heard or seen a destructive "workaholic." Either way, Goodman's purpose for writing was to suggest to the reader to take "five or ten minutes" and think about the way he/she lives. She doens't even tell the reader what a good, nonworkaholic person does, so we can rule out the idea that she is telling us how to live. She is simply warning the reader that trying to leave a legacy in a workplace is like trying to leave a footprint in the sand. Given time, any at all really, no one is even going to remember you were there.
I must say, I agree with Greg. I feel like Goodman's whole purpose is to convince the reader that living a life of big business is disgusting. I know that I got to the end of the reading and thought to myself, "Well, that's just horrible." I think that the essay, though, is a gross oversimplification. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, and Goodman's point is no exception. She paints Phil as a "perfect Type A" workaholic, but can you truly and accurately describe any individual in so few words? This oversimplification, however, aids Goodman's message. By giving the reader a picture of a one-dimensional man who seemingly ignored his family, she is able to make her point much more easily than if she had tried to address Phil's point of view. For example, we never are told exactly why Phil worked so hard. Was he selfish and just wanted to make money, or was he overly concerned with providing for his family? Without knowing his motives, it is unwise to draw conclusions about Phil's actions. Is it not possible that Phil grew up in a home without enough money and so, when he had his own family, he strove extra hard to make sure his family had all they needed?
I feel that Goodman is overly critical. Between simplifying and stereotyping, she writes a convincing essay about the evils of the corporate world, but is there not another point of view present. I was taught to address the counterargument when trying to convince a person of one of my ideas. Goodman, however, neglects to do this, and, to me, it makes he paper less convincing in the end.
I know that Phil's wife is not the MOST significant part of his life, since obviously his job is because it led to his heart attack. I said that outside of work, she was probably the most important person. I meant this as opposed to his children, or neighbors and so on. She is the only other person in the piece who is called by name.
In my opinion, the whole piece gave me a depressed feeling. How sad is it that this middle-aged man never really took the time to get to know his family? I think the author is trying to teach the readers a lesson of where to put their priorities in life.
Throughout "The Company Man," numbers are frequently repeated in different contexts. People are refered to by ages, Phil was 20 to 25 pounds overweight, he was one of six vice presidents, three people were considered for the president's job and the vice president's job, Phil died at 3:00 a.m., and the funeral was at 5:00 p.m. As many of the other comments on this topic have said, these numbers make people insignificant. As in the business world where the foundation is mostly built on numbers, Ellen Goodman creates this family to basically be a number through her writing.
Amy's posting was thought provoking. We cannot rule out entirely the possiblity that Phil was working extra hard because he came from a poor background, and he wanted to do better for his family. However, if that were the case, the wife probably would have been more understanding and more upfront with him. Instead of giving up "trying to compete with his work years ago," she might have suggested to him that the money he made was good enough; time with the children would make for a better life for the family. Goodman doesn't want us to see the story like that however. I think Amy is right in saying that she used this lack of explanation as a means of getting her point across. His life was simple and repetitive, therefore her piece about him is simple and repetitve. His relationships were cold, distant, and unattached, therefore she writes about him in a parallel manner. If she wanted to convey to the reader that he was a more convoluted man than seen at face value, she would have incorporated that into the article. She uses her rhetorical devices and dction to ensure that the reader will see him exactly as she views him.
It seems that we have all realized that Goodman uses numbers instead of names to identify people to show that they are insignificant. She portrays the whole corporate world as this.
I agree with Alex about Goodman having a bitterness because she is a woman. Typically a woman is pictured being on the bad side of an "overworked man". However it is not in a negative connotation as Tina percieved it. This actually causes us to have more empathy because we just picture the countless movies we have seen where the woman is left alone waiting for her husband to get home from work.
Alex and Will both make points with how women are emotional. Tina has a right to think that this is ridicules, but at a point we all must say that women are quite dramatic. Women are known for being angry and bitter, but that is a stereotype. I'm not afraid to say that women are emotional, because I am a woman and I am very emotional. I would be bitter too if my husband was never around and never there for his family. Even though women can be known as bitter, Amy makes the point on how we don't know the whole story. We are only shown one side and none of us have a valid point, because we don't know the entire story.
The one comment that really rings out to me in all these postings is that Goodman "dehumanizes" Phil. That's a strong word and an apt one in this setting. Several of you have pointed out that she uses numbers to emphasize the impersonal nature of the corporate world. Someone also mentioned that Goodman makes people "insignificant" through the use of numbers.
A couple of you have brought up the fact that she is a woman and that she might possibly be bitter because Phil is shirking his paternal duties. Stay away from this kind of chauvinism in your AP Exam essays. Readers are very critical of any kind of sexism (regardless of whether it is accurate or not). Also, avoid trying to get into the writer's head by questioning her background (she may have experienced the same thing) or by speculating on the subject's background (Phil may have come from a poor family). In an analysis like this, that is irrelevant - work with the facts provided by the author and focus on the author's choice of language and literary device in conveying her message.
One or two postings refer to the writer's message, or to the writer's point without identifying exactly what the point is.
Lines 17-26 are an example of description. It details a day in the life of his career. It also suggests the subsequent matters that will lead to his death (i.e. being overweight).
Lines 73-80 show a cause/effect relationship (Phil being both overweight and a Type A personality). Thus, it was no surprise when he died.
I have to agree with Amy, it seems like there is some sort of bitterness in this excerpt. Lines 65-73, and her relation of the story of his widow, makes me wonder if she is not a widow herself.
This passage makes me think of the Pink Floyd song "Dogs" off of the album Animals. In this song, Roger Waters chastises the business and corporate world. He states that:
"You have to gain the trust of the people that you lie to, So that when they turn their backs on you, you get the chance to put the knife in." The song made me think of Goodman's excerpt when he sings:
"And after all is gone
You'll reap the harvest you have sown...You'll just go out and bury your head in the sand, all alone dying of cancer" and ending with the refrain "Who was told what to do by the man".
This particularly makes me think of the case of Phil, who it seems dies in pursuit of corporate excellence.
Post a Comment