Students, below appears an example of the six- to eight-page longer paper, discussed on the course website here. In this case, it is derived from the earlier contrast paper, although you are not obliged to expand upon your own contrast papers to put yours together. When formatted as it ought to be for submission as a paper--which it is not on the blog--it is of a good length for submission.
As in previous semesters, I color-code to highlight various parts. The text brought straight over from the earlier version appears in white, as it did before. New material in support of my thesis is in blue. The counter-argument and its materials are in red, while the rebuttal and its are in green. Please do not color-code your own papers; I do so as a convenience for you.
The typifying features of good citizens are their normal adherence to and participation in the structures of public order coupled with a willingness to set aside those structures when they become unduly oppressive or otherwise untenable. Both Corran Horn from the Star Wars Expanded Universe and the Asimovian Hari Seldon are figured as good citizens by their respective authors. Of the two, however, Seldon is clearly the superior example of good citizenship.
Of course, there is not consensus that good citizenship is in something as simple as participating in public order while being willing to step outside of the structures that support it. In one sense, criminals and villains--who are not normally considered good citizens--appear to be good citizens when good citizenship is measured by the rubric of participation in structures of public order and the willingness to set aside those structures. Certainly, they fit the latter; crime is, by definition, a transgression of the prevailing social contract, a setting-aside of public order, so that criminals by their very criminality begin to adhere to at least one definition of good citizenship. And in doing the latter, they can be argued to do the former. One of the things that any structure requires to define itself is something in opposition to which to define itself; we know what we are as much by what we avoid as by what we do. Criminals and villains provide a foil for public structure, and in so doing, they support those structures by giving them something against which to align. So to label citizenship merely as participation in public structure coupled to willingness to step outside of it appears to be overly simplistic, and therefore a poor basis for judgment.
Appearance, however, is not necessarily truth. Although it is true that by their actions, criminals and villains provide a useful focus for the structures of public order and therefore help to guide and focus them, such participation is not typically considered "normal," a status for which the earlier definition calls. Also, being willing to step outside requires that there be a common state of being inside the structures, and criminals and villains are generally not regarded as being within the systems that they oppose. And in any event, the definition of citizenship as participation in and selective exception from the structures of public order accords with a summary of definitions of citizenship reported in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Dominique Leydet, who labels citizenship as membership in a political community along with the assumption of the rights and duties thereto appertaining. One of the duties commonly understood as attendant upon membership in a group is to work to maintain and enrich that group, which from time to time means that the group's practices and policies must be evaluated--which can only be done from outside. There is thus a prevailing concept of citizenship that requires the ability to stand outside the system to support it.
There is admittedly no question that Corran Horn is a good citizen, thusly defined, in the Star Wars universe. Certainly, he participates actively and amply in the structures of public order across a significant span of time. His initial in-storyline appearance is as an officer of a local constabulary, one conducting an investigation into a kidnapping (Stackpole, Omnibus); as a member of the constabulary, he is necessarily a participant in the structures of public order, since it is in many respects law enforcement groups who are the primary points of interaction between the general populace and governmental structures. When he reappears in the story, he does so as a commissioned officer in the armed forces of the New Republic, one seeking entry into an elite unit (Stackpole, X-Wing 1-28); commissioning as an officer is a specific and somewhat rarefied recognition of status among the structures of public order, being a position of command in the vital maintenance of the public against external enemies. Both his positions and the actions he takes within them quickly assert his deep engagement with the structures of public order, showing him as willing to offer his skills and his life at some of the highest levels of performance and utility to an underpinning of public order. Some years of storyline after his attempt to enter an elite New Republic force, Horn is a ranking officer in that same force, showing that he has remained engaged with it in a substantially acceptable way (Stackpole, I 10). Horn’s ranking as a captain, and therefore position of command within an elite unit, represents his display of significant ability in the support of public security and order, and therefore engagement with them.
Most importantly, Horn accepts his role as a Jedi, taking a place among "the foundation of stability in the galaxy" (Stackpole, I 482). In doing so, he lodges himself firmly as a member of the core proponents of order in the Star Wars universe, so that his involvement in the supporting structures of the public is absolute. And he does more in that regard; he rises, in time, to the rank of Master in the Jedi order, speaking on behalf of the Jedi to various interplanetary governments (Allston 8). In doing so, he displays himself as participating in high levels in the structures of public order, since diplomacy cannot be conducted absent those structures, and it is not carried out by the mean. By occupying a position of command among the very underpinnings of public order, therefore, Corran Horn cements himself as a participant in them.
Just as there is no question of Horn’s participation in civic structures, there is no doubt the he does, at times, set aside his participation in them to serve other ends. During his constabulary service, he deliberately misleads an overseeing officer from higher governmental authority. Not much later, he participates in a firefight to protect people who are themselves engaging in illegal activities, not only protecting them, but also inflicting property damage on non-combatants and allowing those he protected to escape any consequences for their participation in illegal actions (Stackpole, Omnibus). In neither case does he adhere fully to what his participation in social structures would require--as a peace officer, he should not aid and abet illegal activity, and he certainly ought not to violate the rights of others in doing so--although in both cases his actions serve the greater good. The same is true of an incident in his service among the military elite of the New Republic--an outgrowth of an illegal rebellion whose legitimacy was still contested (Stackpole, X-Wing 99). In the incident, he effectively commandeers a squadron for a run on an enemy, a contravention of military protocol and in fact a violation of direct orders (Stackpole, X-Wing 229-35, 241-42). Even though charges against him for his breach of discipline are dropped (Stackpole, X-Wing 259-60)—itself something which smacks of a detachment from social structures, since the maintenance of public order requires that deviations from it be dissuaded, typically through punishment for transgressing—that they are brought is an indication that Corran Horn is willing to set aside the structures of public order, even though he more commonly is an avid supporter of them. Taken together, they validate him as a good citizen.
The Asimovian Hari Seldon, however, is a better citizen than is Horn. For instance, his participation in civil structures occurs at higher levels and is more varied than that of Horn, so that it can be spoken of as stronger. In Asimov’s Forward the Foundation, Seldon begins as the head of the mathematics department at a major research university in the governing seat of a galaxy-spanning empire (6-7). The position is one of some responsibility, not only in teaching--which is itself a significant civil structure, since it is through teaching that social structures are inculcated into new participants in them--but in research and in administration; it is itself an iteration of and privileged position within a social structure, so that Seldon’s tenancy in it situates him as participating in the structures of public order. Later in the novel, he is appointed from that position to the highest non-hereditary post in the empire, that of First Minister (112). In a very real sense, in his appointment as First Minister, he becomes the structure of public order, so that he necessarily is a powerful participant within it, and to a degree much greater than any warrior in service, however skilled the warrior or elite the cadre in which the warrior serves. Moreover, much later, Seldon serves as the founding editor of an encyclopedia described as being a comprehensive collection of the knowledge and understanding of the galactic empire (Asimov, Forward 456-61). The attempt to encapsulate the sum of a society’s knowledge for its preservation cannot be anything but an intimate engagement with the structures of public order, since public order is built upon a society’s knowledge of itself.
The encyclopedia Seldon founds serves as a cover for a deeper and more vital work of maintenance of the structures of public order. The research he had done as a department head was directed towards that work, as well. For Seldon had become aware that millennia of progress were being negated and much that was good being lost, with a dark age of thirty thousand years to follow the dozen or so millennia of stable society at the end of which Seldon stood (Asimov, Foundation 36-37). The encyclopedia project served to hide a nucleus for the immense reduction of the scope of the dark age, a seed from which galactic civilization could regenerate itself in one thousand years instead of thirty times that many (93-96). The system relies on his ability to predict future events with mathematical rigor, dealing in broad probabilities in a manner analogous to that in which the behavior of subatomic particles can be predicted en masse (Prelude 15); the system therefore relies on a stable foundation (if the pun may be pardoned). By setting up a system which would allow the structures of public order which he had served to renew themselves in a thirtieth of the time it would otherwise take them to do so, Seldon makes of himself something of a messianic figure, one who comes to be in fact the focal figure for systems of public belief (Foundation 158; Edge 7, 16). Even more than during his stint as First Minister, then, he is an embodiment of public order, making his participation in its structures manifest.
At the same time, Seldon is regarded as setting aside normal social conventions. Apart from common accusations that the professoriate is removed from public life or, worse, that it is aligned against civic structures, Seldon is viewed as a threat to public order. In Prelude to Foundation, Seldon spends quite some time as a fugitive from Imperial officials, which is hardly an alignment with the usual standards of participation in civil structures. Further, while on the run, he violates a number of the socio-cultural norms of the populations which agree to hide him. Most notably, he violates the sanctity of the Mycogenian Sacratorium both in terms of entering it as an outsider and in bringing a woman where women are forbidden, which hardly rings of going along with cultural expectations, espeically since his doing so is a capital offense (237-41, 259-65). The death penalty is not capriciously handed out, so that the assignment of it to Seldon serves as a marker of just how far he has stepped outside the normal bounds of good conduct in order to further his scholarly mission. Certainly, he goes further outside of it than Horn, who is up for rebuke but not for any kind of major punishment by the society against which he transgresses--and a disciplinary rebuke is far less than execution, so that the latter indicates a more grievous offense.
Also, in Foundation, he is brought up on charges of treason, not least because he asserts from the knowledge given him by years of socio-mathematic study that the empire in which he lives and which he once served so prominently is doomed to die (31-38). As a result, he is exiled along with his followers to a world at the end of the galaxy, one appropriately named for being at the end of it (42). Whatever the reason for his making the assertion--and he is correct in making them, it must be admitted--the mere facts of his statements serve to undercut broad belief in the stability of social systems, so that in making the statements, Seldon is disengaging from the structures of public order. More than simply disobeying orders as Horn does, he is undermining confidence in the ability of society to endure, which is a much stronger detachment from the structures than is bucking the chain of command. Seldon therefore goes farther afield from the normal dictates of society than does Horn, even as he is more thoroughly engaged in those structures during his long life—even to the point of being a messianic figurearound whom systems of belief are built. He is therefore clearly a superior example of a good citizen.
That Seldon is the better image of good citizenship serves as a reminder that older works—and Asimov’s novels of Seldon are older than Stackpole’s works with Horn—yet have much to teach. They provide useful standards for judgment yet, and so they ought not to be set aside blithely.
Works Cited
~Allston, Aaron. Star Wars: Fate of the Jedi--Outcast. New York: Del Rey, 2010. Print.
~Asimov, Isaac. Forward the Foundation. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Print.
~---. Foundation. New York: Bantam, 1991. Print.
~---. Foundation's Edge. New York: Del Rey, 1982. Print.
~---. Prelude to Foundation. New York: Bantam, 1991. Print.
~Leydet, Dominique. "Citizenship." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford U, 1 August 2011. Web. 5 March 2012.
~Stackpole, Michael A. Star Wars: I, Jedi. New York: Bantam Spectra, 1998. Print.
~---. Star Wars Omnibus: X-Wing Rogue Squadron. Vol. 3. Milwaukie, OR: Dark Horse, 2007. Print.
~---. Star Wars: X-Wing--Rogue Squadron. New York: Bantam, 1996. Print.
Showing posts with label Contrast Paper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Contrast Paper. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Sample Contrast Paper
Students, below appears an example of a contrast paper, as discussed on the course website here. Please note that the example, when formatted appropriately for submission as a paper (which it is not as it appears on the blog), is at the high end of acceptable length for a shorter paper in ENG 101.
The typifying features of good citizens are their normal adherence to and participation in the structures of public order coupled with a willingness to set aside those structures when they become unduly oppressive or otherwise untenable. Both Corran Horn from the Star Wars Expanded Universe and the Asimovian Hari Seldon are figured as good citizens by their respective authors. Of the two, however, Seldon is clearly the superior example of good citizenship.
There is admittedly no question that Corran Horn is a good citizen in the Star Wars universe. Certainly, he participates actively and amply in the structures of public order across a significant span of time. His initial in-storyline appearance is as an officer of a local constabulary, one conducting an investigation into a kidnapping (Stackpole, Omnibus). When he reappears in the story, he does so as a commissioned officer in the armed forces of the New Republic, one seeking entry into an elite unit (Stackpole, X-Wing 1-28). Both his positions and the actions he takes within them quickly assert his deep engagement with the structures of public order, showing him as willing to offer his skills and his life at some of the highest levels of performance and utility to an underpinning of public order. Some years of storyline after his attempt to enter an elite New Republic force, Horn is a ranking officer in that same force, showing that he has remained engaged with it in a substantially acceptable way (Stackpole, I 10). Horn’s ranking as a captain represents his display of significant ability in the support of public security and order, and therefore engagement with them. Most importantly, Horn accepts his role as a Jedi (Stackpole, I 482). In doing so, he lodges himself firmly as a member of the core proponents of order in the Star Wars universe, so that his involvement in the supporting structures of the public is absolute.
Just as there is no question of Horn’s participation in civic structures, there is no doubt the he does, at times, set aside his participation in them to serve other ends. During his constabulary service, he deliberately misleads an overseeing officer from higher governmental authority. Not much later, he participates in a firefight to protect people who are themselves engaging in illegal activities, not only protecting them, but also inflicting property damage on non-combatants and allowing those he protected to escape any consequences for their participation in illegal actions (Stackpole, Omnibus). In neither case does he adhere fully to what his participation in social structures would require, although in both cases his actions serve the greater good. The same is true of an incident in his service among the military elite of the New Republic. In the incident, he effectively commandeers a squadron for a run on an enemy, a contravention of military protocol and in fact a violation of direct orders (Stackpole, X-Wing 229-35, 241-42). Even though charges against him for his breach of discipline are dropped (Stackpole, X-Wing 259-60)—itself something which smacks of a detachment from social structures—that they are brought is an indication that Corran Horn is willing to set aside the structures of public order, even though he more commonly is an avid supporter of them. Taken together, they validate him as a good citizen.
The Asimovian Hari Seldon, however, is a better citizen than is Horn. For instance, his participation in civil structures occurs at higher levels and is more varied than that of Horn, so that it can be spoken of as stronger. In Asimov’s Forward the Foundation, Seldon begins as the head of the mathematics department at a major research university in the governing seat of a galaxy-spanning empire (6-7). The position is one of some responsibility, not only in teaching—which is itself a significant civil structure—but in research and in administration; it is itself an iteration of and privileged position within a social structure, so that Seldon’s tenancy in it situates him as participating in the structures of public order. Later in the novel, he is appointed from that position to the highest non-hereditary post in the empire, that of First Minister (112). In a very real sense, in his appointment as First Minister, he becomes the structure of public order, so that he necessarily is a powerful participant within it, and to a degree much greater than any warrior in service, however skilled the warrior or elite the cadre in which the warrior serves. Moreover, much later, Seldon serves as the founding editor of an encyclopedia described as being a comprehensive collection of the knowledge and understanding of the galactic empire (Asimov, Forward 456-61). The attempt to encapsulate the sum of a society’s knowledge for its preservation cannot be anything but an intimate engagement with the structures of public order, since public order is built upon a society’s knowledge of itself.
At the same time, Seldon is regarded as setting aside normal social conventions. Apart from common accusations that the professoriate is removed from public life or, worse, that it is aligned against civic structures, Seldon is viewed as a threat to public order. In Foundation, he is brought up on charges of treason, not least because he asserts from the knowledge given him by years of socio-mathematic study that the empire in which he lives and which he once served so prominently is doomed to die (31-38). As a result, he is exiled along with his followers to a world at the end of the galaxy, one appropriately named for being at the end (42). Whatever the reason for his making the assertion—and he is correct in making them, it must be admitted—the mere facts of his statements serve to undercut broad belief in the stability of social systems, so that in making the statements, Seldon is disengaging from the structures of public order. More than simply disobeying orders, he is undermining confidence in the ability of society to endure, which is a much stronger detachment from the structures than is bucking the chain of command. Seldon therefore goes farther afield from the normal dictates of society than does Horn, even as he is more thoroughly engaged in those structures during his long life—even to the point of being a messianic figure. He is therefore clearly a superior example of a good citizen.
That Seldon is the better image of good citizenship serves as a reminder that older works—and Asimov’s novels of Seldon are older than Stackpole’s works with Horn—yet have much to teach. They provide useful standards for judgment yet, and so they ought not to be set aside blithely.
Works Cited
Asimov, Isaac. Forward the Foundation. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Print.
---. Foundation. New York: Bantam, 1991. Print.
Stackpole, Michael A. Star Wars: I, Jedi. New York: Bantam Spectra, 1998. Print.
---. Star Wars Omnibus: X-Wing Rogue Squadron. Vol. 3. Milwaukie, OR: Dark Horse, 2007. Print.
---. Star Wars: X-Wing--Rogue Squadron. New York: Bantam, 1996. Print.
The typifying features of good citizens are their normal adherence to and participation in the structures of public order coupled with a willingness to set aside those structures when they become unduly oppressive or otherwise untenable. Both Corran Horn from the Star Wars Expanded Universe and the Asimovian Hari Seldon are figured as good citizens by their respective authors. Of the two, however, Seldon is clearly the superior example of good citizenship.
There is admittedly no question that Corran Horn is a good citizen in the Star Wars universe. Certainly, he participates actively and amply in the structures of public order across a significant span of time. His initial in-storyline appearance is as an officer of a local constabulary, one conducting an investigation into a kidnapping (Stackpole, Omnibus). When he reappears in the story, he does so as a commissioned officer in the armed forces of the New Republic, one seeking entry into an elite unit (Stackpole, X-Wing 1-28). Both his positions and the actions he takes within them quickly assert his deep engagement with the structures of public order, showing him as willing to offer his skills and his life at some of the highest levels of performance and utility to an underpinning of public order. Some years of storyline after his attempt to enter an elite New Republic force, Horn is a ranking officer in that same force, showing that he has remained engaged with it in a substantially acceptable way (Stackpole, I 10). Horn’s ranking as a captain represents his display of significant ability in the support of public security and order, and therefore engagement with them. Most importantly, Horn accepts his role as a Jedi (Stackpole, I 482). In doing so, he lodges himself firmly as a member of the core proponents of order in the Star Wars universe, so that his involvement in the supporting structures of the public is absolute.
Just as there is no question of Horn’s participation in civic structures, there is no doubt the he does, at times, set aside his participation in them to serve other ends. During his constabulary service, he deliberately misleads an overseeing officer from higher governmental authority. Not much later, he participates in a firefight to protect people who are themselves engaging in illegal activities, not only protecting them, but also inflicting property damage on non-combatants and allowing those he protected to escape any consequences for their participation in illegal actions (Stackpole, Omnibus). In neither case does he adhere fully to what his participation in social structures would require, although in both cases his actions serve the greater good. The same is true of an incident in his service among the military elite of the New Republic. In the incident, he effectively commandeers a squadron for a run on an enemy, a contravention of military protocol and in fact a violation of direct orders (Stackpole, X-Wing 229-35, 241-42). Even though charges against him for his breach of discipline are dropped (Stackpole, X-Wing 259-60)—itself something which smacks of a detachment from social structures—that they are brought is an indication that Corran Horn is willing to set aside the structures of public order, even though he more commonly is an avid supporter of them. Taken together, they validate him as a good citizen.
The Asimovian Hari Seldon, however, is a better citizen than is Horn. For instance, his participation in civil structures occurs at higher levels and is more varied than that of Horn, so that it can be spoken of as stronger. In Asimov’s Forward the Foundation, Seldon begins as the head of the mathematics department at a major research university in the governing seat of a galaxy-spanning empire (6-7). The position is one of some responsibility, not only in teaching—which is itself a significant civil structure—but in research and in administration; it is itself an iteration of and privileged position within a social structure, so that Seldon’s tenancy in it situates him as participating in the structures of public order. Later in the novel, he is appointed from that position to the highest non-hereditary post in the empire, that of First Minister (112). In a very real sense, in his appointment as First Minister, he becomes the structure of public order, so that he necessarily is a powerful participant within it, and to a degree much greater than any warrior in service, however skilled the warrior or elite the cadre in which the warrior serves. Moreover, much later, Seldon serves as the founding editor of an encyclopedia described as being a comprehensive collection of the knowledge and understanding of the galactic empire (Asimov, Forward 456-61). The attempt to encapsulate the sum of a society’s knowledge for its preservation cannot be anything but an intimate engagement with the structures of public order, since public order is built upon a society’s knowledge of itself.
At the same time, Seldon is regarded as setting aside normal social conventions. Apart from common accusations that the professoriate is removed from public life or, worse, that it is aligned against civic structures, Seldon is viewed as a threat to public order. In Foundation, he is brought up on charges of treason, not least because he asserts from the knowledge given him by years of socio-mathematic study that the empire in which he lives and which he once served so prominently is doomed to die (31-38). As a result, he is exiled along with his followers to a world at the end of the galaxy, one appropriately named for being at the end (42). Whatever the reason for his making the assertion—and he is correct in making them, it must be admitted—the mere facts of his statements serve to undercut broad belief in the stability of social systems, so that in making the statements, Seldon is disengaging from the structures of public order. More than simply disobeying orders, he is undermining confidence in the ability of society to endure, which is a much stronger detachment from the structures than is bucking the chain of command. Seldon therefore goes farther afield from the normal dictates of society than does Horn, even as he is more thoroughly engaged in those structures during his long life—even to the point of being a messianic figure. He is therefore clearly a superior example of a good citizen.
That Seldon is the better image of good citizenship serves as a reminder that older works—and Asimov’s novels of Seldon are older than Stackpole’s works with Horn—yet have much to teach. They provide useful standards for judgment yet, and so they ought not to be set aside blithely.
Works Cited
Asimov, Isaac. Forward the Foundation. New York: Doubleday, 1993. Print.
---. Foundation. New York: Bantam, 1991. Print.
Stackpole, Michael A. Star Wars: I, Jedi. New York: Bantam Spectra, 1998. Print.
---. Star Wars Omnibus: X-Wing Rogue Squadron. Vol. 3. Milwaukie, OR: Dark Horse, 2007. Print.
---. Star Wars: X-Wing--Rogue Squadron. New York: Bantam, 1996. Print.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Sample Contrast Paper
Students, please find below a sample of a contrast paper, as discussed here. As with earlier papers, please keep in mind that this is a draft and therefore likely could stand to be improved upon. Also, keep in mind that when it is formatted for submission, as indicated here, it is at the higher end of acceptable paper length.
Unlike earlier examples of contrast papers I have posted, this example follows what the course textbook describes as the block pattern.
The anti-hero can be defined as a character who achieves heroic ends by carrying out actions that are themselves generally considered evil; they attain fair ends by foul means. Both Wolverine, as depicted in Ultimate X-Men, and Hida Kisada of the Legend of the Five Rings roleplaying game can be regarded as anti-heroes. Of the two, Hida Kisada is the superior example of the type.
That Wolverine of the Ultimate X-Men series of graphic novels is an iteration of the anti-hero is fairly obvious. Certainly the "hero" part is widely acknowledged. The fact that he is regarded as part of the heroic X-Men speaks to his heroic status. There are other factors in his heroism, as well. In Ultimate War, it is remarked that Wolverine had served with Allied forces in World War II. As the Allies were allied against the clearly-evil Nazis, they must be regarded as protagonists, and so Wolverine's service to those powers casts him as a hero--and one of the "Greatest Generation." In Absolute Power, Wolverine works to end the manufacture and distribution of a drug that has horrific effects on those who use it. Acting to limit the contact people have with a dangerous substance, even at personal risk (Wolverine loses a leg at one point and is subjected to the immediate effects of a large chemical explosion in the course of eliminating the substance), is typically regarded as a helpful act of bravery--in brief, the act of a hero. That Wolverine performs the act helps identify him as a hero.
He is also clearly given to evil actions. When he is introduced in the Ultimate X-Men series, it is as a highly-ranked agent in the service of Magneto, the series' main antagonist. That he is in such service (which takes the form of double-agency, with its overtones of necessarily evil betrayal) indicates early on that he is party to evil deeds, an indication reinforced by the initial graphic representation of Wolverine with hands still bloodied form killing a large reptile in close combat. Soon after, he is described as "the most dangerous killer in the world," which is hardly a pleasant image. Later in the series, in Return of the King, he leaves one of his comrades-in-arms for dead, not because of tactical necessity (which is suspect at best), but to eliminate him as a rival for the sexual attentions (not love, just carnal pleasure) of a young woman significantly his junior. That the action takes place at all casts Wolverine's morality into doubt. That it takes place to secure sexual favors clearly condemns him. That it secures those favors from a decades-younger person--one who is, in fact, still a teenager--further blackens Wolverine's character, affirming the evil actions from which Wolverine goes on to carry out heroic deeds. He is a solid example of an anti-hero.
Even so, Wolverine is not as prominent an example of an anti-hero as is Hida Kisada. Certainly, Kisada's heroism is more pronounced than is Wolverine's. As the Champion of the Crab Clan, Kisada occupies a key position in the defense of his homeland against actual demonic hordes. In Way of the Crab, it is remarked that "Since the coming of Shinsei [a major religious event], the Crab have defended Rokugan's southern border against the unholy forces of Fu Leng [the Satan-analog of the game]," and Kisada is the linchpin of that defense (8). This clearly marks him as a heroic figure, one whose every deed works to save the very souls of his countryfolk. Even more pronounced a mark of his heroism, however, is his posthumous elevation to godhood. The Vacant Throne notes that he "lived for two years with a wound that would have killed any other man instantly, and upon his death was declared the Fortune of Persistence," elevating him to the status of a minor deity as a reward for his aid in defeating Fu Leng (124). Returning to mortal life for a time, he fought against a massively powerful evil sorcerer and died only after slaying "nearly two dozen of his attackers" in his last battle (124). Upon his second death, he returned to his status as a minor god, clearly achieving a noble end to another life. He far exceeds Wolverine's heroism in doing so, for the X-Man falls far short of either defeating or attaining godhood as Kisada does.
Kisada takes a dark road to reach his brilliant end, however. Although he is sworn to fight against the forces of the underworld, he makes alliance with them during the uncertainties of civil war (Wulf, Carman, and Mason 8). That he betrays his duty is an evil act whose evil is compounded by his alliance with literally demonic forces. The evilness is further marked by Kisada's actions towards his own children in the name of that alliance. The younger of his sons "is sacrificed and placed upon the Terrible Standard of Fu Leng," and the elder "is forced to lend his name to an oni," binding his soul to a demon from the darkest pits of hell (33). It cannot be called good when a person slays one son and parades his body as a war-banner while selling the soul of the other son to a devil. Although it is certain that Wolverine commits evil deeds, his failings are as nothing compared to the depravity in which Kisada indulges. Because Hida Kisada exceeds Wolverine both in his degree of heroism and in the degree of evil he enacts before coming to that heroism, he stands as a superior example of an anti-hero.
That the lesser-known of the two characters is a clearer example of a character type than the better-known suggest that more widely disseminated ideas become less pronounced as they reach a larger audience. If the suggestion is accurate--and it will take more study to verify or deny it--it will have some decidedly negative implications for mass media.
Works Cited
~Carman, Shawn, et al. The Vacant Throne. Alderac Entertainment Group, n.d. Print.
~Coleite, Aron E. Absolute Power. Ultimate X-Men 19. N. pag. New York: Marvel, 2008. Print.
~Millar, Mark. Return of the King. Ultimate X-Men 6. N. pag. New York: Marvel, 2005.
~---. Ultimate War. Ultimate X-Men 5. N. pag. New York: Marvel, 2005. Print.
~---. Ultimate X-Men 1. N. pag. New York: Marvel, 2003. Print.
~Vaux, Rob. The Way of the Crab. Five Rings Publishing, 1999. Print.
~Wulf, Rich, Shawn Carman, and Seth Mason. Time of the Void. Alderac Entertainment Group, 2001. Print.
Unlike earlier examples of contrast papers I have posted, this example follows what the course textbook describes as the block pattern.
The anti-hero can be defined as a character who achieves heroic ends by carrying out actions that are themselves generally considered evil; they attain fair ends by foul means. Both Wolverine, as depicted in Ultimate X-Men, and Hida Kisada of the Legend of the Five Rings roleplaying game can be regarded as anti-heroes. Of the two, Hida Kisada is the superior example of the type.
That Wolverine of the Ultimate X-Men series of graphic novels is an iteration of the anti-hero is fairly obvious. Certainly the "hero" part is widely acknowledged. The fact that he is regarded as part of the heroic X-Men speaks to his heroic status. There are other factors in his heroism, as well. In Ultimate War, it is remarked that Wolverine had served with Allied forces in World War II. As the Allies were allied against the clearly-evil Nazis, they must be regarded as protagonists, and so Wolverine's service to those powers casts him as a hero--and one of the "Greatest Generation." In Absolute Power, Wolverine works to end the manufacture and distribution of a drug that has horrific effects on those who use it. Acting to limit the contact people have with a dangerous substance, even at personal risk (Wolverine loses a leg at one point and is subjected to the immediate effects of a large chemical explosion in the course of eliminating the substance), is typically regarded as a helpful act of bravery--in brief, the act of a hero. That Wolverine performs the act helps identify him as a hero.
He is also clearly given to evil actions. When he is introduced in the Ultimate X-Men series, it is as a highly-ranked agent in the service of Magneto, the series' main antagonist. That he is in such service (which takes the form of double-agency, with its overtones of necessarily evil betrayal) indicates early on that he is party to evil deeds, an indication reinforced by the initial graphic representation of Wolverine with hands still bloodied form killing a large reptile in close combat. Soon after, he is described as "the most dangerous killer in the world," which is hardly a pleasant image. Later in the series, in Return of the King, he leaves one of his comrades-in-arms for dead, not because of tactical necessity (which is suspect at best), but to eliminate him as a rival for the sexual attentions (not love, just carnal pleasure) of a young woman significantly his junior. That the action takes place at all casts Wolverine's morality into doubt. That it takes place to secure sexual favors clearly condemns him. That it secures those favors from a decades-younger person--one who is, in fact, still a teenager--further blackens Wolverine's character, affirming the evil actions from which Wolverine goes on to carry out heroic deeds. He is a solid example of an anti-hero.
Even so, Wolverine is not as prominent an example of an anti-hero as is Hida Kisada. Certainly, Kisada's heroism is more pronounced than is Wolverine's. As the Champion of the Crab Clan, Kisada occupies a key position in the defense of his homeland against actual demonic hordes. In Way of the Crab, it is remarked that "Since the coming of Shinsei [a major religious event], the Crab have defended Rokugan's southern border against the unholy forces of Fu Leng [the Satan-analog of the game]," and Kisada is the linchpin of that defense (8). This clearly marks him as a heroic figure, one whose every deed works to save the very souls of his countryfolk. Even more pronounced a mark of his heroism, however, is his posthumous elevation to godhood. The Vacant Throne notes that he "lived for two years with a wound that would have killed any other man instantly, and upon his death was declared the Fortune of Persistence," elevating him to the status of a minor deity as a reward for his aid in defeating Fu Leng (124). Returning to mortal life for a time, he fought against a massively powerful evil sorcerer and died only after slaying "nearly two dozen of his attackers" in his last battle (124). Upon his second death, he returned to his status as a minor god, clearly achieving a noble end to another life. He far exceeds Wolverine's heroism in doing so, for the X-Man falls far short of either defeating or attaining godhood as Kisada does.
Kisada takes a dark road to reach his brilliant end, however. Although he is sworn to fight against the forces of the underworld, he makes alliance with them during the uncertainties of civil war (Wulf, Carman, and Mason 8). That he betrays his duty is an evil act whose evil is compounded by his alliance with literally demonic forces. The evilness is further marked by Kisada's actions towards his own children in the name of that alliance. The younger of his sons "is sacrificed and placed upon the Terrible Standard of Fu Leng," and the elder "is forced to lend his name to an oni," binding his soul to a demon from the darkest pits of hell (33). It cannot be called good when a person slays one son and parades his body as a war-banner while selling the soul of the other son to a devil. Although it is certain that Wolverine commits evil deeds, his failings are as nothing compared to the depravity in which Kisada indulges. Because Hida Kisada exceeds Wolverine both in his degree of heroism and in the degree of evil he enacts before coming to that heroism, he stands as a superior example of an anti-hero.
That the lesser-known of the two characters is a clearer example of a character type than the better-known suggest that more widely disseminated ideas become less pronounced as they reach a larger audience. If the suggestion is accurate--and it will take more study to verify or deny it--it will have some decidedly negative implications for mass media.
Works Cited
~Carman, Shawn, et al. The Vacant Throne. Alderac Entertainment Group, n.d. Print.
~Coleite, Aron E. Absolute Power. Ultimate X-Men 19. N. pag. New York: Marvel, 2008. Print.
~Millar, Mark. Return of the King. Ultimate X-Men 6. N. pag. New York: Marvel, 2005.
~---. Ultimate War. Ultimate X-Men 5. N. pag. New York: Marvel, 2005. Print.
~---. Ultimate X-Men 1. N. pag. New York: Marvel, 2003. Print.
~Vaux, Rob. The Way of the Crab. Five Rings Publishing, 1999. Print.
~Wulf, Rich, Shawn Carman, and Seth Mason. Time of the Void. Alderac Entertainment Group, 2001. Print.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Sample Contrast Paper
Students, please find below a draft of a contrast paper, as discussed during class. As with the earlier sample definition paper, keep in mind that it is a draft and not a finished work. Do also note that the larger group at work is not allowed for student use.
Oh, two other things:
1) This is an example of how to make the argument. It is not necessarily true.
2) The example is the average acceptable length for your own papers, when formatted for class submission.
An antagonist is anything that hinders or prevents a focal figure or focal figures from pursuing an end goal. The household chores of doing laundry and of washing dishes both perform antagonistic functions. Of the two, the more antagonistic is the dishwashing.
Laundry is certainly antagonistic to those who have to do it. For many in New York City and the surrounding urban sprawl, the chore requires an excursion to a laundry facility, which effectively prevents at-home relaxation. Even if a person lives in a building with its own laundry rooms, as is the case with many college dormitories, that person is obliged to remain with the laundry while it is being done, lest the clothes be stolen or thrown aside in favor of another person's wash. In addition, then, to hindering many people's at-home relaxation--a goal common to a great many people and almost-universally regarded as a good thing--laundry day invites other persons to act as antagonists, thereby admitting the possibility of its own prevention. Further, laundry facilities are expensive, taking money away from being spent on more favored pursuits and thereby acting antagonistically financially.
Even for those who are fortunate enough to have washers and dryers in their homes, laundry is antagonistic. Because the machines are in the home, they intrude upon the home-dweller's awareness to a greater extent than does the laundromat walked by on the way to the bus stop or subway station; that intrusion tends to inhibit enjoyment of other activities, making it antagonistic. Also, the presence of machinery in the home opens up the possibility of mechanical malfunction in the home. Specifically, washing machines can flood the rooms in which they sit, and dryers can cause fires. Both are generally considered to be detrimental to the conduct of other household activities, and since those activities are typically desirable end goals, insofar as the equipment needed to do laundry inhibits them, the task is antagonistic.
Dishwashing is hardly an enjoyable task. Since dishes become dirty primarily through use, and the use of dishes typically involves foodstuffs, dirty dishes are commonly festooned with unused food and drink. Being largely organic, that food and drink begins to corrupt soon after it is set aside, and corrupting foodstuffs have an unfortunate tendency to stink. Bad smells are typically regarded as inhibiting enjoyment, and enjoyment is a prized end-goal of a great many people. Since dishwashing tends to create a situation in which an end-goal is inhibited, it is necessarily antagonistic.
In addition, dishwashing exerts a number of physical ill-effects upon those who do it. In many cases, the activity involves sticking one's hands into water through which one cannot see. Knives, forks, graters, and the occasional broken glass appear among the dishes that are concealed by such water, and so sticking one's hands into it invites cuts, punctures, abrasions, and other injuries. Even leaving aside such directly concrete instances of harm, washing dishes requires repetitive wrist motions, which common understanding notes leads to carpal tunnel syndrome and in turn prevents people from effectively performing any number of manual tasks. Since many of the things that are enjoyed are done with the hands--and, as noted before, enjoyment is a common end-goal--that which prevents the use of the hands is necessarily antagonistic. Similarly, the height of a sink typically requires that the dishwasher either bend over repeatedly or assume a hunched position, both of which tend to cause back pain and thereby inhibit enjoyment in a manner like to wrist injuries.
Worse yet, dishwashing is a frequently-necessary activity, needing to take place daily or more often. As such, each of the annoyances and inhibitions of enjoyment that it provokes happen every single day in many households. While it may be argued that the intensity of annoyance and degree of hindrance offered by a single instance of dishwashing is equivalent to that of a single instance of doing the laundry, because dishwashing takes place so much more frequently than doing the laundry--commonly regarded as a weekly occurrence among household chores--the intensity and degree are amplified to a much greater level than is the case for laundry, making dishwashing more antagonistic.
In truth, it is difficult if not impossible for any one person to fully maintain a household of more than one person, so that the division of chores becomes a necessity in short order. Certainly, among siblings and among roommates and families, much attention is paid to who does what and how hard each thing is. Knowing which chores are most onerous, then, has a direct effect on the harmony of many households, and that harmony is a thing which ought well to be protected.
Oh, two other things:
1) This is an example of how to make the argument. It is not necessarily true.
2) The example is the average acceptable length for your own papers, when formatted for class submission.
An antagonist is anything that hinders or prevents a focal figure or focal figures from pursuing an end goal. The household chores of doing laundry and of washing dishes both perform antagonistic functions. Of the two, the more antagonistic is the dishwashing.
Laundry is certainly antagonistic to those who have to do it. For many in New York City and the surrounding urban sprawl, the chore requires an excursion to a laundry facility, which effectively prevents at-home relaxation. Even if a person lives in a building with its own laundry rooms, as is the case with many college dormitories, that person is obliged to remain with the laundry while it is being done, lest the clothes be stolen or thrown aside in favor of another person's wash. In addition, then, to hindering many people's at-home relaxation--a goal common to a great many people and almost-universally regarded as a good thing--laundry day invites other persons to act as antagonists, thereby admitting the possibility of its own prevention. Further, laundry facilities are expensive, taking money away from being spent on more favored pursuits and thereby acting antagonistically financially.
Even for those who are fortunate enough to have washers and dryers in their homes, laundry is antagonistic. Because the machines are in the home, they intrude upon the home-dweller's awareness to a greater extent than does the laundromat walked by on the way to the bus stop or subway station; that intrusion tends to inhibit enjoyment of other activities, making it antagonistic. Also, the presence of machinery in the home opens up the possibility of mechanical malfunction in the home. Specifically, washing machines can flood the rooms in which they sit, and dryers can cause fires. Both are generally considered to be detrimental to the conduct of other household activities, and since those activities are typically desirable end goals, insofar as the equipment needed to do laundry inhibits them, the task is antagonistic.
Dishwashing is hardly an enjoyable task. Since dishes become dirty primarily through use, and the use of dishes typically involves foodstuffs, dirty dishes are commonly festooned with unused food and drink. Being largely organic, that food and drink begins to corrupt soon after it is set aside, and corrupting foodstuffs have an unfortunate tendency to stink. Bad smells are typically regarded as inhibiting enjoyment, and enjoyment is a prized end-goal of a great many people. Since dishwashing tends to create a situation in which an end-goal is inhibited, it is necessarily antagonistic.
In addition, dishwashing exerts a number of physical ill-effects upon those who do it. In many cases, the activity involves sticking one's hands into water through which one cannot see. Knives, forks, graters, and the occasional broken glass appear among the dishes that are concealed by such water, and so sticking one's hands into it invites cuts, punctures, abrasions, and other injuries. Even leaving aside such directly concrete instances of harm, washing dishes requires repetitive wrist motions, which common understanding notes leads to carpal tunnel syndrome and in turn prevents people from effectively performing any number of manual tasks. Since many of the things that are enjoyed are done with the hands--and, as noted before, enjoyment is a common end-goal--that which prevents the use of the hands is necessarily antagonistic. Similarly, the height of a sink typically requires that the dishwasher either bend over repeatedly or assume a hunched position, both of which tend to cause back pain and thereby inhibit enjoyment in a manner like to wrist injuries.
Worse yet, dishwashing is a frequently-necessary activity, needing to take place daily or more often. As such, each of the annoyances and inhibitions of enjoyment that it provokes happen every single day in many households. While it may be argued that the intensity of annoyance and degree of hindrance offered by a single instance of dishwashing is equivalent to that of a single instance of doing the laundry, because dishwashing takes place so much more frequently than doing the laundry--commonly regarded as a weekly occurrence among household chores--the intensity and degree are amplified to a much greater level than is the case for laundry, making dishwashing more antagonistic.
In truth, it is difficult if not impossible for any one person to fully maintain a household of more than one person, so that the division of chores becomes a necessity in short order. Certainly, among siblings and among roommates and families, much attention is paid to who does what and how hard each thing is. Knowing which chores are most onerous, then, has a direct effect on the harmony of many households, and that harmony is a thing which ought well to be protected.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Sample Comparison/Contrast Paper
Students, please find below a sample comparison/contrast paper, of the kind discussed in class. As with the earlier sample definition paper, keep in mind that it is a draft and not a finished work. Note also that the genre, progressive rock, remains unavailable to you, and that, again, my prewriting has come from some thought and classroom examples.
Regarding length, this essay is at the high end of what is expected for class.
Progressive rock is a genre of music typified by songs longer than the usual length for rock, intellectualized lyrics, orchestral instrumentation, and unusual-for-rock rhythmic constructions. Both Boston's "Foreplay / Long Time" and Kansas's "The Pinnacle" fall firmly under the heading of progressive rock. Of the two, though, "The Pinnacle" is the better example of the genre.
Progressive rock largely relies on songs that play for longer than is typical of rock music. Most rock songs play for three to four minutes. Boston's "Foreplay / Long Time" runs for just less than eight minutes, or twice the length of the common rock song; it clearly fits the length expected of progressive rock. Kansas's "The Pinnacle," however, runs for just shy of ten minutes, close to three times as long as a more mainstream rock song. As such, its length is well in excess of Boston's song, and so it more fully fits the expected length of progressive rock.
Intellectualized lyrics typify the genre. That is to say that the lyrics of progressive rock songs exhibit some of the features traditionally associated with "high art," such as references to literary canons and historical events, complicated poetic forms, and epic storytelling. Boston's lyrics open with a simple stanza of ababcdcd rhyme, but the chorus moves to a convoluted abcbadd pattern, and the song takes on an even more complicated rhyme scheme in later verses. Additionally, the metrical line-length shifts from an unusual trimeter to a common tetrameter and thence into an oscillating, irregular pattern. Thus, even though the lyrical content itself is simple, it is couched in a complicated metrical and rhyme structure that partakes of the most critically analyzed verse, thus demonstrating the intellectualism of its lyrics.
Kansas's lyrics, however, display greater variety of metrical construction and rhyme. In addition, they make explicit reference to the prevailing canon of Western literary tradition. Metrically, the lines open in iambic hexameter, which is an uncommon line-length in English prosody. Occasionally, one or two lines of septameter are inserted, such as when the singer snarls "Lying at my feet I see the offering you bring / The Mark of Cain is on our faces, borne of suffering," and a similar structure of a tetrameter line followed by a trimeter is used to punctuate the lyrics. In terms of rhyme, the lyrics open with couplets, though after a pair of couplets, the lyrics shift to displaying a pair of lines which do not rhyme together but do rhyme internally, a complicated structure that, since the internal rhymes accompany the tetrameter/trimeter construction reinforce the punctuation of the lyrics. Also, the aforementioned "Mark of Cain" referenced in the lyrics is an explicit reference to the book of Genesis and the consequences of the second human sin. In making that reference, as well as in utilizing complicated metrical and rhyme structures, "The Pinnacle" fits the requirements of progressive rock; in exhibiting a greater degree of intellectualism than "Foreplay / Long Time," Kansas's song marks itself as a more prominent example of progressive rock.
The genre is also noted for its use of orchestra-style instrumentation. Boston, in "Foreplay / Long Time," largely relies upon the traditional rock trifecta of guitar, bass, and drums, but it does utilize organ, as well as what sounds like a low-end piano line, extensively; the former is particularly notable in the soft, gentle transition from he first section of the song to the second. As such, the piece does qualify as progressive rock in its instrumentation, though it cannot do so to the extent that Kansas does. Violin is integral to the sound of Kansas's "The Pinnacle," so that the manifestation of orchestral instrumentation in Kansas is beyond doubt. Also, a number of rock bands employ organs of various types, so that Boston's use of it is hardly exceptional; Kansas, for instance, uses a variety of organs. That it adds violin, and thus another orchestra-style instrument, means that it uses more of the orchestra than does Boston, and so its song is a better example of progressive rock in that respect.
Progressive rock is marked by its use of unusual rhythmic constructions. Rock, and much other Western music, relies on a four-beat rhythm that divides in pairs. Boston's "Foreplay / Long Time" does have a fundamental pattern of four, but overlays that fundamental beat with triplet patterns in an oscillating rhythm that occludes the four-beat pattern. Also, the song divides neatly into two movements bridged by an arrhythmic organ passage, a maneuver unusual for mainstream but well within the parameters of progressive rock.
Kansas's song also employs triplets extensively. In addition, as with many of Kansas's songs, the fundamental rhythm changes repeatedly in the introductory instrumental passage of the song, beginning in four and diving through a number of far less common meters such as seven, before settling into four for the ease of the singers. Even then, though, lyrical lines do not begin, as is common, on the first beat or as a pick-up into that first beat; a number begin on beat three, which staggers sung lines over the played, creating an intriguingly confused rhythmic effect far different from the usual easily-danced patterns of rock. An instrumental interlude separates sung sections, with rhythmic changes not unlike those in the beginning section, and a symphonic finale ends the piece, forming a coda entirely uncommon to most rock but which pervades progressive rock. Even though the song does not divide into movements like Boston's, "The Pinnacle" does display greater rhythmic complexity, and so more fully exemplifies that part of the definition of progressive rock.
Kansas's "The Pinnacle," then, is a better example of progressive rock than Boston's "Foreplay / Long Time." As a more esoteric piece, it is one preferable for the usual audience of progressive rock; conversely, Boston's piece is more useful as a means to introduce new listeners to the genre. Both are well worth time and attention, and reward repeated listenings.
Works Cited
Boston. "Foreplay / Long Time." Boston. Epic, 2006. CD.
Kansas. "The Pinnacle." Masque. Epic, 2001. CD.
Regarding length, this essay is at the high end of what is expected for class.
Progressive rock is a genre of music typified by songs longer than the usual length for rock, intellectualized lyrics, orchestral instrumentation, and unusual-for-rock rhythmic constructions. Both Boston's "Foreplay / Long Time" and Kansas's "The Pinnacle" fall firmly under the heading of progressive rock. Of the two, though, "The Pinnacle" is the better example of the genre.
Progressive rock largely relies on songs that play for longer than is typical of rock music. Most rock songs play for three to four minutes. Boston's "Foreplay / Long Time" runs for just less than eight minutes, or twice the length of the common rock song; it clearly fits the length expected of progressive rock. Kansas's "The Pinnacle," however, runs for just shy of ten minutes, close to three times as long as a more mainstream rock song. As such, its length is well in excess of Boston's song, and so it more fully fits the expected length of progressive rock.
Intellectualized lyrics typify the genre. That is to say that the lyrics of progressive rock songs exhibit some of the features traditionally associated with "high art," such as references to literary canons and historical events, complicated poetic forms, and epic storytelling. Boston's lyrics open with a simple stanza of ababcdcd rhyme, but the chorus moves to a convoluted abcbadd pattern, and the song takes on an even more complicated rhyme scheme in later verses. Additionally, the metrical line-length shifts from an unusual trimeter to a common tetrameter and thence into an oscillating, irregular pattern. Thus, even though the lyrical content itself is simple, it is couched in a complicated metrical and rhyme structure that partakes of the most critically analyzed verse, thus demonstrating the intellectualism of its lyrics.
Kansas's lyrics, however, display greater variety of metrical construction and rhyme. In addition, they make explicit reference to the prevailing canon of Western literary tradition. Metrically, the lines open in iambic hexameter, which is an uncommon line-length in English prosody. Occasionally, one or two lines of septameter are inserted, such as when the singer snarls "Lying at my feet I see the offering you bring / The Mark of Cain is on our faces, borne of suffering," and a similar structure of a tetrameter line followed by a trimeter is used to punctuate the lyrics. In terms of rhyme, the lyrics open with couplets, though after a pair of couplets, the lyrics shift to displaying a pair of lines which do not rhyme together but do rhyme internally, a complicated structure that, since the internal rhymes accompany the tetrameter/trimeter construction reinforce the punctuation of the lyrics. Also, the aforementioned "Mark of Cain" referenced in the lyrics is an explicit reference to the book of Genesis and the consequences of the second human sin. In making that reference, as well as in utilizing complicated metrical and rhyme structures, "The Pinnacle" fits the requirements of progressive rock; in exhibiting a greater degree of intellectualism than "Foreplay / Long Time," Kansas's song marks itself as a more prominent example of progressive rock.
The genre is also noted for its use of orchestra-style instrumentation. Boston, in "Foreplay / Long Time," largely relies upon the traditional rock trifecta of guitar, bass, and drums, but it does utilize organ, as well as what sounds like a low-end piano line, extensively; the former is particularly notable in the soft, gentle transition from he first section of the song to the second. As such, the piece does qualify as progressive rock in its instrumentation, though it cannot do so to the extent that Kansas does. Violin is integral to the sound of Kansas's "The Pinnacle," so that the manifestation of orchestral instrumentation in Kansas is beyond doubt. Also, a number of rock bands employ organs of various types, so that Boston's use of it is hardly exceptional; Kansas, for instance, uses a variety of organs. That it adds violin, and thus another orchestra-style instrument, means that it uses more of the orchestra than does Boston, and so its song is a better example of progressive rock in that respect.
Progressive rock is marked by its use of unusual rhythmic constructions. Rock, and much other Western music, relies on a four-beat rhythm that divides in pairs. Boston's "Foreplay / Long Time" does have a fundamental pattern of four, but overlays that fundamental beat with triplet patterns in an oscillating rhythm that occludes the four-beat pattern. Also, the song divides neatly into two movements bridged by an arrhythmic organ passage, a maneuver unusual for mainstream but well within the parameters of progressive rock.
Kansas's song also employs triplets extensively. In addition, as with many of Kansas's songs, the fundamental rhythm changes repeatedly in the introductory instrumental passage of the song, beginning in four and diving through a number of far less common meters such as seven, before settling into four for the ease of the singers. Even then, though, lyrical lines do not begin, as is common, on the first beat or as a pick-up into that first beat; a number begin on beat three, which staggers sung lines over the played, creating an intriguingly confused rhythmic effect far different from the usual easily-danced patterns of rock. An instrumental interlude separates sung sections, with rhythmic changes not unlike those in the beginning section, and a symphonic finale ends the piece, forming a coda entirely uncommon to most rock but which pervades progressive rock. Even though the song does not divide into movements like Boston's, "The Pinnacle" does display greater rhythmic complexity, and so more fully exemplifies that part of the definition of progressive rock.
Kansas's "The Pinnacle," then, is a better example of progressive rock than Boston's "Foreplay / Long Time." As a more esoteric piece, it is one preferable for the usual audience of progressive rock; conversely, Boston's piece is more useful as a means to introduce new listeners to the genre. Both are well worth time and attention, and reward repeated listenings.
Works Cited
Boston. "Foreplay / Long Time." Boston. Epic, 2006. CD.
Kansas. "The Pinnacle." Masque. Epic, 2001. CD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)