You all did an excellent job dissecting a college level critical essay yesterday! I am really proud of the work you did and thank you for welcoming me into your AP English community. It means a lot to me to be working with you all throughout these next six weeks.
Today we will be finishing our discussion of the Sanchez critical essay. The partnerships/groups that did not go yesterday will go today.
After our class discussion you will be doing some reflecting on the following quote:
"History is a kind of fiction in which we live and hope to survive, and fiction is a kind of speculative history, or superhistory, by which the available data for the composition is seen to be greater and more various in its sources than the historian supposes...There is no fiction or non fiction as we commonly understand the distinction: there is only narrative"
-E.L. Doctorow
-What does Doctorow mean when he says "History is a kind of fiction in which we live and hope to survive"?
-Do you agree with Doctorow when he says that there is no fiction or non fiction, only narrative? Why or why not?
-Sanchez supports the claim that Doctorow's Ragtime was created as an illusion of the truth. How is Sanchez's claim supported by Doctorow's quote above? Why do you think Sanchez decided to open his critical essay with this quote?
Matan and Noah
ReplyDelete1. He means that no one really knows what history is and that is made up and therefore fiction.
2. Yes because history is only an interpretation so calling something fiction or non fiction is merely subjective and totally irrelevant.
3. Sanchez's claim is supported by the quote above because if there is no fiction or non fiction than the best something can hope to be is an illusion of the truth. Sanchez probably decided to open his critical essay with this quote because it opens the readers mind to a new way of thinking about history.
1. Doctorow means that history is indeed fiction, but it's a fictional story about our lives. We struggle inside the fiction that is history.
ReplyDelete2. I do agree with him. Essentially, all fiction and non-fiction can be considered narrative, since all of it is a story. They always share some kind of relation with one another, and since fiction is primarily narrative, so long as non-fiction shares fictional elements, it can be considered narrative.
3. The Doctorow quote refers to a superhistory, which could essentially be what Ragtime is. It takes parts from history, but it proceeds to distort them into such a way that it creates a new type of story. It follows historical events and changes them into such a way that it can show further details that, while they are extremely fictional, add a degree of depth to history itself.
1. He means that nobody has a perfect grip on history and what it is, therefore it is partially fictional.
ReplyDelete2. Yes, because history is written by the victor, and you only hear what you are told.
3. Sanchez's claim is supported by the above quote because of the way he uses his words in his essay and such, and probably chose that quote because it very much supported his essay.
-I think he means that History is not a definite thing to our generation because we have not lived through it. If you didn't live through the events how can we be sure they are true? We base our lives today off the past and what we know about it, which could either be positive or negative to us.
ReplyDelete-I agree to a certain extent. Historical events are "non-fiction" but we still cant be sure everything we read about the past is truth. However I think if it is something like a autobiography, or a direct source is it more true than a total fiction novel.
- I think it is an illusion to the truth because he added historical characters, but not how we remember them from the past. The book erases they real live characters and turns them into fictional people.
1. I think by him stating that he means to say that history is determined by the victors, we as regular people are just going through day to day motions and interpretations can be clouded by personal experiences or opinions and if we fail our stories will never be shared. But as we continue to survive and push through we're left with memories of what existed.
ReplyDelete2. I do agree. Because interpretations of reality can be really different. If I want to believe in Santa or Tinker Bell or God for that matter who are you to call those things false. It's all about your perspective of reality or true and false. Your own opinion can tamper with something that truly took place therefore fiction can become non-fiction once your ideals and feelings are drawn into something that may have really took place. So it all boils down to narrative and your point of view.
3. It kind of goes hand in hand because their saying the same things with different words. They are describing how reality can become an illusion of what's true and what's not. I think he intended to link that idea.
- This first quote tells the readers Doctorow's vision, that history is basically a fictional reality that we live in.
ReplyDelete- Agree, and writer or author can adjust history to represent their own personal point of view.
- Sanchez's claim can be a example to support Doctorow's quote. He uses it to expand the readers view, and also give a twist as readers read his essay.
AHMED ALI-
Maya&Dayanara
ReplyDelete1. We think that he means that we live off of the history that people once lived, and we accept the stories told to us about previous times because we assume they are true.
2. We agree because it doesnt matter if the book is fiction or non fiction, it is still a story written by an author that was not at the original event, or that made up the story on his or her own.
3. He the opened the essay with this quote because it sets the tone for the essay, and proves the point he is trying to make to be true. By doing this he opens the readers mind to other options of what is true and not true
1) The quote explains how questionable history can be at times. When you think about it, there's no type of source that is completely reliable. Even memories can be disrupted, there's no way to know that a detail was actually completely true.
ReplyDelete2) When you're telling somebody a story, it doesn't matter whether it was true or not; you're telling a story. There's always a narration going on.
3) Part of what Ragtime is doing as historical fiction is making you think it's all true. Stories of real people are told that aren't true, and it all seems true. Sanchez uses the quote to support his entire essay, to show how Doctorow takes portions of the truth and plays with them to make them into what he wants them to be for his story.
1. Doctorow is referring to the fact that reality is blurred and surviving is crucial when you don't know whats real or not
ReplyDelete2. Yes because no matter what a story is a story wether or not it is true or false and a story needs a narrator.
3. His essay is completely supported by the quote because his whole essay is about whats real and what is not, and in Doctorow's quote he is saying the possibilities in history and stories for falsehoods are endless
1. History, like fiction, is merely another story to be told. We do not know what events or public figures will survive in it's pages.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Doctorow's idea that both fiction and non-fiction are narratives, however I would not go so far as to say that they are the same. While fiction is written with the intention of being a story, non-fiction is at least based off of someone's perception of fact.
3. Doctorow's quote justifies all of the claims that Sanchez goes on to make in his paper.
1.Doctorow is trying to say that history is told and understood through facts and interpretations.
ReplyDelete2. I mostly agree with Doctorow’s statement because I feel that both nonfictions is never completely true, and can never be fully true, and that fiction is generally based on some truth or encompasses ideas that are true.
3. Because the quote above completely validates Sanchez’s point.
- Doctorow means that all history is fiction, and that after we are gone, our lives will become a part of this fictitious history
ReplyDelete- I do agree with Doctorow. Over generations history is distorted and becomes fiction. this blending of the lines between fiction and non-fiction creates a belief that all of writing is narrative, whether it be based on a "true story" or only on the creations of the imagination.
- Sanchez's idea that Ragtime is a fictitious representation of truth is supported by the quote above. This quote states that all things are fictitious, even recorded history, which is what Sanchez is saying.
-What does Doctorow mean when he says "History is a kind of fiction in which we live and hope to survive"?
ReplyDeleteHe means that history isn't necessarily clear to the human mind, and that we just go about life day by day hoping to find our way.
-Do you agree with Doctorow when he says that there is no fiction or non fiction, only narrative? Why or why not?
Yes, because if you look at it from the perspective of fictional novels, these stories may not necessarily be true in the book itself but can occur in reality.
-Sanchez supports the claim that Doctorow's Ragtime was created as an illusion of the truth. How is Sanchez's claim supported by Doctorow's quote above? Why do you think Sanchez decided to open his critical essay with this quote?
I feel that the two are on the same page, with Sanchez obviously following behind Doctorow's opinion.
-What does Doctorow mean when he says "History is a kind of fiction in which we live and hope to survive"?
ReplyDeleteBy this he means that history isn't always truth, its open to interpretation and will always have a biased point of view- eventually we will become part of this "fiction."
-Do you agree with Doctorow when he says that there is no fiction or non fiction, only narrative? Why or why not?
I do agree, because history has always been written down or told by someone, and a its impossible to find a completely unbiased, third perspective which will just give you all the facts. Non fiction relies on true events but fiction is written with the intent of being false.
-Sanchez supports the claim that Doctorow's Ragtime was created as an illusion of the truth. How is Sanchez's claim supported by Doctorow's quote above? Why do you think Sanchez decided to open his critical essay with this quote?
He opened his critical essay with this quote to set the tone and trough diction you can tell that Sanchez and Doctorow agree and the two go together.
1. Doctorow means that history is another story and the history that everyone knows and takes for granted has the elements of fiction. It has the bias, perspective, climax, conflict, etc., that stories have.
ReplyDelete2. I agree. I think that narrative envelops both fiction and non-fiction. Even though one is made up and one is truth, they can both be stories that have opinions and points of view.
3. Sanchez used this quote because it fully supports his claim to Doctorow's affected history. He opened with this quote because it introduces the reader to the topic and explains the basis/background of his thesis in a succinct way.
1. Doctorow is saying that history is fiction, because everything is questionable and open to interpretation. History become stories, and those stories can be categorized as both history and fiction.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with this, everything is narrative whether it's fiction or non fiction. They are all stories being told, and at one point they start to blend.
3. He opened with this quote because it sets the tone for the essay, and it also shows that they held the same views.
1. Doctorow is saying that history is in itself a form of fiction. It is a interpretation of the past which we have come to commonly accept as the truth as it is based in fact.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Doctorow. Non fiction and fiction are stories that draw from reality on different levels.
3. Sanchez's claim is in perfect agreement with Doctorow's quote. Sanchez's essay is about how Ragtime is able to blends history with fiction to create an illusion of the truth as the story is truthful, just not actually real. Doctorow's quote explains why this is possible as history and fiction are versions of truth.