LTW: Lesson 6 Essay

Here is Mariel's essay on Amy's cologne purchase:

“Christmas won't be Christmas without any presents,” grumbled Jo, lying on the rug.

“It's so dreadful to be poor!” sighed Meg, looking down at her old dress.

“I don't think it's fair for some girls to have plenty of pretty things, and other girls nothing at all,” added little Amy, with an injured sniff.

“We've got Father and Mother, and each other,” said Beth contentedly from her corner.

Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy March each had a dollar for Christmas presents. Instead of buying things for themselves, they agreed to make a Christmas basket filled with goodies for their Marmee. Jo bought a new pair of slippers, Beth embroidered ‘Mother’ on a pile of handkerchiefs and Meg purchased ‘a nice pair of gloves’. Amy was stuck. She decided that Marmee could use a bottle of elegant cologne.

Everyone agrees that making a Christmas basket for Marmee was lovely. Cologne was something that Marmee liked, and the basket was for her. But should Amy have bought something else?

Amy should have bought cologne for Marmee for three reasons. One, Amy needed to buy the cologne; two, Amy liked to belong; and three, Amy cared about Marmee.

The first reason that Amy should have bought the cologne is that she needed to buy the cologne. She had wanted to buy the slippers, but could not. As ‘the man of the house’, Jo beat her to them. This cologne was as elegant as Annie Moffat and also inexpensive.

The second reason that Amy should have bought the cologne is that she liked to belong. It was Christmas. People bought presents for loved ones. All her friends bought cologne for their mothers, and her sisters were buying presents for Marmee. Amy would have felt terrible if she had spent the dollar on herself—and not Marmee.

The third reason that Amy should have bought the cologne is that she cared about Marmee. Marmee liked cologne. Amy wanted Marmee’s new handkerchiefs to smell nice. All the other mothers wore cologne, and Amy wanted Marmee to be fashionable.

At first, I thought that Amy should not have bought the cologne for Marmee. I thought that Marmee was too practical, and that the cologne would just sit on her bureau.  But I was underestimating Marmee; she would love any present—especially if it was from one of her beloved daughters.

As an artist, I thought that Amy should have bought her coveted art pencils. Then she could draw something for Marmee. But Amy was rather selfish. Even she admitted that. That Christmas, she wanted to be unselfish and self-sacrificing. Marmee liked cologne, so Amy bought it.

Amy should have bought the cologne for Marmee. Amy needed to buy the cologne, Amy liked to belong, and Amy cared about Marmee.

This seems a very small matter. It is just a decision to buy cologne for a mother.  But Louisa May Alcott wanted the young, spoiled Amy to grow up a bit that Christmas. Amy could have been selfish with her money, but instead, she chose to be generous. At first, she bought a cheap, tiny bottle of cologne that did not take up the entire dollar.

But the next morning, without telling anyone, Amy slipped out of the house and returned the first bottle of cologne. When she came back to the house, she had a beautiful, large bottle of more expensive perfume that used up the entire dollar. 

LTW: Review and New

Mariel and I are a writing class of two this year.  We are starting with Lost Tools of Writing I Lesson 6.  We made it to Lesson 8 last year, but I wanted to review the persuasive essay before diving into the comparison essay which starts in Lesson 9.

Today she chose an issue and began defining terms.  We are reading Little Women in group time, mainly for her younger sister's benefit.  Since Mariel has already read the book, she decided to use it for her first LTW essay.  I encouraged her to choose a very simple issue, something that seems small in the grand scheme of the book.  I have heard that smaller issues often produce the best thought.  Her issue is:

Whether Amy should have bought Marmee cologne.

Stay tuned.  ;o)

LTW: A Tale of Two Essays

We just finished LTW Lesson 6.  The essays, though very much works in progress, are nonetheless beginning to resemble things I want to read rather than things I have to correct.  Here are two of Mariel's essays.  The first is from Lesson 2, written last September/October:

The fisherman, Grim, should not have killed Havelok for three reasons. Havelok had the late king’s birthmark; a red crown, the evil Earl was trying to take over Denmark, and killing people, especially royal important people, is generally wrong.

The first reason that Grim should not have killed Havelok is that he had the late king’s birthmark; a red crown. The second reason that Grim should not have killed Havelok was that the evil Earl was trying to take over the throne of Denmark. The third reason that Grim should not have killed Havelok is that killing people, especially royal, important people, is generally wrong.

Grim should not have killed Havelok because the boy had the late king’s birthmark, the evil Earl was trying to steal the crown of Denmark, and killing people, especially royal, important people, is generally wrong.

Now for Mariel's Lesson 6 essay, finished this week.  Keep in mind that scaffolding (designed to instinctivize-- is that a word?-- structure) is still strictly in place, so it doesn't flow as well as a 'real' essay.  Also, names have been changed to protect privacy:

M&Ms:  Plain or Peanut

According to a poll given by the author, more people will buy peanut M&Ms over plain.

Both peanut M&M and plain M&M supporters agree that chocolate, in any shape or form, is needed.  But peanut M&M supporter Louisa L. Babbit says, "Peanut.  Because the universe is in perfect harmony when you bite into that balanced blend of salty and sweet."  Many agree with her, but listen to how plain M&M supporter Darcy Smith eats these beloved sweets:  "Plain and heated in the microwave.  Middles melt and it's just awesome."

Mariel should not buy peanut M&Ms for three reasons.  M&Ms should only contain chocolate, peanut M&Ms give people problems, and peanut M&Ms cause unpleasant sensations.

The first reason that Allisons hould not buy peanut M&Ms is that M&Ms should only contain chocolate. You can melt plain M&Ms, peanuts disguise chocolate flavor, and the average-sized peanut takes up most of the space in an M&M.

The second reason that Allison should not buy peanut M&Ms is that peanuts give people problems.  Peanuts leave a bad aftertaste, they can cause food allergies, and peanuts give diverticulosis patients pain.

The third reason that Allison should not buy peanut M&Ms is that peanuts cause unpleasant sensations.  Peanuts get stuck in your teeth, peanut could choke you, and they cause indigestion.

Some people argue that Mariel should buy peanut M&Ms because they are healthy, they have less sugar and are natural appetite suppressants.  They forget that Mariel wants a sweet treat, not a healthy one.

They also protest that peanut M&Ms produce pleasant sensations.  They crunch nicely, the sugar and salt combine delightfully, and the ratio of peanut to chocolate causes pleasure.

But these two arguments give Allison no reason to buy peanut M&Ms.

Allison should not buy peanut M&Ms for these reasons:  M&Ms should only contain chocolate, peanuts give people problems, and peanuts cause unpleasant sensations.

Unfortunately, Allison's family is under the influence of peanut M&Ms, which captivate and allure as the mermaids' song, but then slip away, leaving a bad taste-- and, of course, indigestion.

Note:  Normally, I require them to choose issues from history, literature, religion, philosophy.  We easily generate "should" questions from these areas.  This time I judged it best to allow Mariel's math-and-candy-oriented issue.  She was excited about her math unit.  Generated by her own enthusiasm, she combined math, science and language arts.  She did research, conducted a survey, analyzed data using charts and graphs, and wrote this persuasive essay.  (All you see here is the essay.)  I stepped back in wonder and welcomed the Lord's mercies.  That is good education.

Still trying to figure it out...

I am taking the kids ice skating today.  While they skate, I am going to go through materials on writing, including progym and LTW, and compare them with CM's volumes and some great articles on how CM *is* classical education.  Oh yes, I am so excited.  :DDD

I got discouraged this week considering basic composition programs that are mostly based on progym.  I was recalled to sanity by a couple of posts by Cindy of Ordo Amoris.  When will I learn that much teaching is liable to kill learning?  I mean, I need to internalize this!  I must not have it if I still need reminders.

Here are the resources I plan to peruse.  (I probably will not get to all of them.)

Towards a Defense of Charlotte Mason by Cindy Rollins

"To divorce a subject from its meaning was the error of modernity, a mad quest to produce more in less time. The classical authors and educators from antiquity until now were not searching for efficiency and it is puzzling that modern classical educators have missed this point."  --Cindy

Toward a Philosophy of Education 

"Education is the Science of Relations; that is, that a child has natural relations with a vast number of things and thoughts: so we train him upon physical exercises, nature lore, handicrafts, science and art, and upon many living books, for we know that our business is not to teach him all about anything, but to help him to make valid as many as may be of 'Those first-born affinities/That fit our new existence to existing things.'" --Charlotte Mason

Teaching from a Place of Stress 

"There is a way to have both rigor and meaning but we must not take shortcuts through the avenue of too many subjects."  --Cindy

Language Arts:  My Opinion 

"The more important a 'subject' the greater danger we are in of over-teaching it."  --Cindy

The Classical Side of Charlotte Mason 

"She was seeking a classical education that would serve the needs of the general population, but founded in principles that had weathered well."  --Karen Glass

Several recordings from the 2011 Society of Classical Learning 

Since I don't know a whole lot about Classical Ed, I want to limit myself to teachers that have CM's principles at the heart of their teaching while also understanding Classical Ed.  I feel more certain of this with Andrew Kern than I do James Selby, but I really like Selby's presentation of the progym so far.

The Vertical Integration of Aphthonius' Progymnasmata 

This was the article that really scared me.  I am going to read it again, writing comments and questions in the margins.

I also have some materials from Kern's Lost Tools of Writing, Selby's Classical Composition program and the Classical Writing  program (by different authors).

Why am I doing this to myself?  Because I need to have a foundation of understanding.  When I work with my kids on their writing, I want it to be in a way that respects the nature of the student.  But I lack knowledge.  I have little understanding of the nature of writing!  I intuitively get some things but do not see the path on which to lead others.  I NEED this.  How can I teach otherwise?

Progymnasmata

This week, the word "progym" kept coming up in a thread on the LTW board.  It appeared to be a classical plan for teaching basic composition.  As I read digest this morning I thought, "I am going to have to ask about that, because I keep wanting to start LittleLa (5th grade) in LTW, but something is holding me back.  Maybe she needs progym...?"  Then another member of the group asked the question first.  Yay!  Other members explained and gave a link.

I am enjoying my foray into the classical education world.  I'm sure it is because I am following the excellent folks at the Circe Institute.  I appreciate their care and respect for children, as well as their commitment to virtuous ideas and careful habits.  I am just wading in the shallow end of the pool curently, but that is my impression.

I also enjoy the classical education discussions because of the words they use-- words like "exordium" and "trope" and "nominalization".  I relish five-dollar words.  Jargon can be fun.  It feels like secret code.  I am slowly learning these terms and will soon have enough to participate in the conversation.

Today I learned what I think must be the fanciest word in the classical lexicon:  progymnasmata.

It sounds like gymnastics, but from what I can tell, it means learning the basics of writing in a classical way. Lost Tools of Writing appears to be the next step after progym.  (They call it "progym" for short.  Like a nickname.  I suspect few people can actually spell the entire word without looking it up, lol.)  You can read more about it at the link above.

Anyway, I found the scope and sequence for the different parts of the progym, and guess what?  It looks a lot like what we do in our CM language arts studies!  (Go Charlotte...)  I won't detail the similarities here.  You can see those at the links.  The differences include:

1.  Classical folks use translations of ancient Greek and Roman texts to teach reading and writing, and, while CM advocated the teaching and reading of Latin for other reasons, she strongly argued for the use of texts originally written in English in order to broaden the base of ideas we may share with others regarding character and conduct.  It has to do with making education/discussion of ideas available to everyone rather than an elite few.  I don't explain it very well.  See CM Volume 6 Page 265 for more insight.  I suspect the folks at Circe already get this.  In LTW, the example issue is a book originally written in English.  The progym is from a group called "Classical Writing", which may or may not be affiliated with Circe, and all the texts they use were originally written in Latin or Greek.  The classical education world is a maze to "wonder" through...

2.  Although we do narration, copywork, and dictation, including specific narrations in which I ask the children to write a poem, compare and contrast two things, condemn or praise a character, etc.-- all things included in the progym-- I have NOT been satisfied with my efforts in this direction.  I get CM's ideas, but have a hard time putting shoes on them and walking them down the street.  I cannot believe my lack of skill in teaching writing.  My oldest is a junior in high school and a very talented writer, but needs more help with formatting, argument, style.  That's why we purchased LTW.  I need advice on how to structure the teaching.  I suspect that in Charlotte's day, most educated people had more basic knowledge of writing than me, so she didn't need to give detailed how-to instructions.  Sad to say, I cannot call myself educated in this area, although I do a pretty good imitation of a person educated in writing.

Because of these two differences, I plan to use Classical Writing's scope and sequence the rest of this year to analyze my teaching.  I want to see how far I have gotten in teaching the progym using just my own knowledge and CM's principles, where I disagree with Classical Writing's ideas, and where exactly I lack practical knowledge, before I decide to purchase something.  Then next year I will purchase exactly what I need.

Also, please note that although I am not satisfied with my efforts to teach writing, BOTH my middle school and high school children are thriving with LTW.  It is a challenge, but not to the point of discouragement.  So.  I couldn't have gone far wrong.  It's just that LittleLa wanders around the house needing something to do.  She is very quick to finish her schoolwork and wants to have the subjects her sisters have.  So I want to give her more writing assignments.

This rambling post has been brought to you by Pooh's Thotful Spot, lol.  Thanks for bearing with me as I figure things out.

LTW Lesson 5 Arrangement: Division

We are currently in Lesson 5, just beginning the section on Division.  Once the issue has been separated  into "affirmative" and "negative" sides, and you have chosen your side, you divide the other side more finely into the parts you agree with and the part you don't agree with.

This makes me happy.  Imagine the discussions we can have if we take a moment to walk to the other person's side and say, "here is where I agree with you".  And if we listen when another person divides his or her argument.  Proactively eliminating straw men.  Clearing the stubble so we can gather the wheat.

The only problem I can see with division is that people sometimes don't realize there IS a point of disagreement when you first give them the ways in which you agree.  People have short attention spans nowadays.  They don't always stick around to hear the end of the argument. ;o)

For instance...

Question/Issue:  "Is Kindergarten the best training ground for a child?" (from Charlotte Mason's Volume 1)

Affirmative:  Young children should attend Kindergarten.
Negative:  Young children should not attend Kindergarten.

Charlotte took the negative on this issue, but first she delineated all the ways she agreed with the Kindergarten movement.  Here is one example:

...in the Kindergarten the child's senses are carefully and progressively trained: he looks, listens, learns by touch; gets ideas of size, colour, form, number; is taught to copy faithfully, express exactly. And in this training of the senses, the child is made to pursue the method the infant shapes for himself in his early studies of ring or ball.

But it is possible that the child's marvellous power of obtaining knowledge by means of his senses may be undervalued; that the field may be too circumscribed; and that, during the first six or seven years in which he might have become intimately acquainted with the properties and history of every natural object within his reach, he has obtained,exact ideas, it is true––can distinguish a rhomboid from a pentagon, a primary from a secondary colour, has learned to see so truly that he can copy what he sees in folded paper or woven straw,––but this at the expense of much of that real knowledge of the external world which at no time of his life will he be so fitted to acquire. Therefore, while the exact nicely graduated training of the Kindergarten may be of value, the mother will endeavour to give it by the way, and will by no means let it stand for that wider training of the senses, to secure which for her children is a primary duty.

(Emphasis mine.)

See it?  First, she affirms the good of the Kindergarten movement ("the child's senses are carefully and progressively trained").  Then she offers her disagreement ("the field may be too circumscribed").  Then comes the division ("he has obtained exact ideas, it is true... but at the expensive of much real knowledge").  She says in some ways Kindergarten is an excellent idea, it fits a child with exact habits of observation and execution... BUT... what about real knowledge (by which she meant knowledge obtained by children at liberty in the open air, through exercise and investigation, albeit with some direction from mother).

(Note:  This also seems to contain antithesis.  Now I wonder what are the similarities and differences between antithesis and division...)

And this is just one point in her Kindergarten argument.  She did this with each single principle she felt was vital in the education of young children.  Yet I have had conversations with people who thought Charlotte was squarely in Froebel's camp.

btw, the Apostle Paul used division too.  Think about that the next time you discuss the book of Romans.

So. Division.  Excellent tool.  If we learn to use it, perhaps we will also learn to recognize it.  ;o)

LTW Journal 11/10: Defining the Ring

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)  

On to Lesson 4 Invention!

(Reminder of our practice essay issue:  whether Boromir should have tried to take the Ring from Frodo.)

We defined the Ring today.  It is a magic object, like:

1.  Merlin's wand
2.  H.G. Wells' time machine
3.  Frodo's light
4.  the nickel in Half Magic
5.  the metal horse from Arabian Nights
6.  the golden tablet of Ra from "Night at the Museum"
7.  the cake in Alice
8.  Lucy's cordial in Narnia

These are all objects that can be used to do something extraordinary.  The Ring is unlike these other objects in that it is immoral.  (The others are either moral or amoral.)

It has the following characteristics:

1.  it is round
2.  it has Elvish writing on it
3.  it is jewelry
4.  it is gold
5.  it was created by Sauron
6.  it is from Mordor
7.  it is evil
8.  it is hypnotic
9.  it is pretty
10.  it makes people invisible
11.  it corrupts its owners
12.  it is magic

LTW 11/4

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)  

I like Post-its.  I use them to remind myself of things I need to do, or ideas I need to internalize, or people I need to contact.  They are especially useful when beginning new habits.  A Post-it stating "Make your bed!" or something similar jogs me out of my default routine and challenges me to develop a better one.

The format of the LTW basic persuasive essay is like a series of Post-its.  When I wrote my own essay, I began to see the point of repeating the thesis in every paragraph. I had discovered so many interesting things during the research process that I kept abandoning my purpose and writing about something else.  Restating (and restating and restating) the thesis forced me to notice when my proofs and supports did not follow.

I was tempted to relax the requirement for my kids before I went through the essay-writing process myself.  Now I think I will let the requirement stand.  It is necessary in order to building better writing habits.

Here is my essay so you can see what I mean.

STANDARD OIL (Essay 3)

If you build a better mousetrap, will the regulators beat a path to your door?  John D. Rockefeller and his business partners experienced this very thing.

The Supreme Court should not have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust for three reasons.  The oil market regulated Standard Oil, the U.S. Government misunderstood the situation, and the Sherman Act contained vague terms.

The first reason the Supreme Court should not have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust is that the oil market regulated Standard Oil.  In 1882, more than 250 oil companies competed for business. Standard Oil gained market share and became wildly successful due to superior products and technology.  But by 1911, after forming the Trust, Standard Oil’s market share had fallen from 90% to 65%: it was in the process of losing its monopoly.

The second reason the Supreme Court should not have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust is that the U.S. Government misunderstood the situation.  Rockefeller and his partners formed the first ever holding company.  The government criminalized a business practice it did not understand.  After decades of observation and analysis, today’s antitrust experts believe that vertical integration usually does not damage competition. 

The third reason the Supreme Court should not have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust is that the Sherman Act contained vague terminology.  Congress did not define key terms like “exclusionary practice” and “restraint of trade”.  Congress meant for the Act to regulate business owners rather than workers, but President Grover Cleveland  invoked it against the American Railway Union to end the Pullman Strike of 1894.  The Supreme Court decision more narrowly defined the terms of the legislation, but it also introduced another vague term:  “rule of reason”.

The U.S. Supreme Court should not have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust.  The oil market regulated Standard Oil, the U.S. Government misunderstood the situation, and the Sherman Act contained vague terms.

The Morning Classroom

First thing each day we work as a group, and then I work with each student individually.  The Warrior Poet installed an HDMI cable so I can project whatever is on my computer onto the television.  Very handy!  I project chapters of read-alouds onto the TV so the kids can follow along.  Sometimes I highlight sentences or words to illustrate a point.  We also project running lists of characters, etc., onto the TV using the Office program on my computer.  Homeschooling in the 21st Century...

(Note the Amazon box, coffee cup, and Legos-- all indispensible educational tools!  Also, please note the Oxford English Dictionary-- on the entertainment center table-- awaiting its usefulness.)

In this picture, Mariel and I have just finished sorting through her ANI for Lesson 3 of LTW.  We listed her main proofs and subproofs on the white board and now she is copying them into her notebook.

We study throughout the house, but the living room is always our morning classroom.  We enjoy the light that comes through the south-facing windows.

LTW Journal 10/27(b)

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)  

My exordium examples are done.  I enjoyed making these!  I suspect one cannot have too many examples of a writing "hook", so I am sharing mine here.  Also, here is a link to sample imperative sentences.  And a link to a hilarious joke that illustrates the vague nature of competition law.  It might be a bit long for an exordium, but I liked it.

My essay issue is whether the Supreme Court should have ordered the dissolution of Standard Oil.

(I don't know how to fix the weird bullet points. Apologies for the formatting.)

UPDATE:  Let me know which one is your favorite!

Where is the balance between liberty and justice?

Should a cartel be allowed to suppress trade?

If you build a better mousetrap, will the regulators beat a path to your door?

In 1890 the Sherman Anti-trust Act was passed. That year, Standard Oil possessed 90% of American refining capacity. In 1911 the Act was invoked against Standard Oil, but due to competition from other firms, Standard's refining capacity had already gone down to 65%. (Wikipedia.)

By 1890, the United States was transitioning from an agricultural to industrial society. In the midst of unprecedented growth, the Senate passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act, 51-1. The Act then unanimously cleared the House and became a law. (Wikipedia)

Label the good guys and bad guys in this story: In 1870, John D. Rockefeller started in the oil business. His shrewd success reduced kerosene prices for Americans, and also put many would-be oil magnates out of business. Rockefeller got rich. He and his cronies were condemned for suppressing the oil trade with their innovative business model.

You are a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The world is changing. New technology and production techniques have brought about new business models. Decide which are lawful and which are not.

In my twenties, I tried to sell Avon. Competition was fierce, and I never liked to persuade hesitant customers. I was terrible at it.

“If I never had a cent, I'd be rich as Rockefeller... Gold dust at my feet, on the sunny side of the street.” (old song) 

In 1952, a representative from the Rockefeller Foundation called leprosy specialist Dr. Paul Brand. “Your work with leprosy shows good potential. Why don't you travel around the world and get the best advice possible? See anyone you want-- surgeons, pathologists, leprologists-- and take whatever time you need. We'll foot the bill.” The trip gave Dr. Brand much-needed confirmation of his findings on the dread disease. (Brand/Yancy, The Gift of Pain)

"Nothing was left to chance, nothing was guessed at, nothing left uncounted and measured. Efficiencies down to the smallest detail of the business were the order of the day. Economy, precision, and foresight were the cornerstones of [Standard Oil's] success.” (Professor Keith Poole, The American Experience, www.pbs.org) 

LTW Journal 10/27

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)  

Today we began the Arrangement portion of Lesson 3.  After introducing the types, we came up with some exordia for our practice essay.

(The issue is whether Boromir should have tried to take the Ring from Frodo.)

1.  If everyone was against you, would you still hold your opinion?
2.  Can all tools be used for good?
3.  Do you know the definition of pragmatic?
4.  Imagine being in a forest, chased by a tall dude trying to take the ring you inherited from your uncle.
5.  Consider having the fate of a world in the palm of your hand.
6.  80% of Men are prone to greed.  Nine of these men are Ring Wraiths.  One of them is Boromir.
7.  Only three Hobbits have held the Ring.  Two of them have been consumed.
8.  "It is a gift, a gift to the foes of Mordor.  Why not use this ring?"  --Boromir

(The kids thought of all but #3.  That one was mine.)

Now I am off to work on my own essay exordium while watching the Texas Rangers with the Warrior Poet.  :)  Here we go, Rangers!

LTW Journal 10/25

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)   

Most controversies would soon be ended, if those engaged in them would first accurately define their terms, and then adhere to their definitions.  --Tryon Edwards

We stayed in Invention today.  First we took turns reading our definitions.  The LTW way of defining a term causes us to look at both generalities and specifics.  We have to keep our focus on the actual issue, too.  At our house we tend to randomly include ALL the possibilities and go off on tangents, but definitions ought to discriminate.

After definitions, the kids turned in their ANI charts.  Aravis was distressed because she only had around eighteen things on each list.  (We were going for thirty.)  She had detailed sentences for most of her points, sometimes several lines long.  I was sure she already had thirty things on each list!  I told her to list only one detail per bullet point.  She was relieved.

On Thursday, we will move into Arrangement and learn about the exordium.  I am excited.  The exordium is the introductory part of the essay.  At our house we have always called it the hook.  This is the part where the writer reels us in and we as readers decide whether we want to stay.

I started this post with an exordium.  I came up with several others, too:

* Three out of five members of our family are learning to write using Lost Tools of Writing.


* There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire to become a great writer.  When asked to define great, he said, "I want to write stuff that the whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a truly emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl in pain and anger!"   

He now works for Microsoft writing error messages.


* Dare to define! 


 * I first learned about defining terms from Mortimer J. Adler in How to Read a Book.  He said to me, "Reader, you cannot understand where an author is coming from until you know his terms."  (Okay, I am paraphrasing a bit.)


 * Imagine a world where words have no meaning. 

LTW Journal: 10/24

Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)   

While the Warrior Poet watches the Rangers in the World Series, I am keeping him company.  Well, sort of.  We are in the same room, but I am working on my ANI chart for the question, "Should the Supreme Court have ordered the dissolution of the Standard Oil Trust?"

I have been working on this ANI chart for several days now. On the one hand, I think it is terrific.  It makes me slow down.  I have a sense of leisure about developing my opinion since I need thirty items each for affirmative, negative and interesting.  (I might as well wait until I have all of them before deciding.)  I need that time and additional information to correct my faulty notions about the issue, too.

On the other hand, it is torture.  It forces me to look at all sides of the issue! Besides being time-consuming, looking at all sides of an issue means I cannot get comfortable with a straightforward answer.

If I had chosen an issue from an organizing story, in which good and evil are presented in black and white, it would be easier.  Perhaps this is what my middle schooler needs as she learns the concepts in LTW.  But my issue this go-round is one of the first debates between big business and government in the U.S.  And it just is not that simple.  My middle schooler's issue this time is "whether Mr. Elton should have married Harriet Smith."  Much simpler than mine, but not quite an organizing story issue!

I learned about organizing stories in a book on learning differences.  Interestingly, I cannot find any info on it by googling. Organizing stories are fairy tales, parables, etc., that help us "organize" our ideas about good moral character.  Opposite are the more complex, mixed-bag stories in which people aren't only good or only evil.  In organizing stories, good always wins.  Children need organizing stories in their young lives.  They realize early on that "something is everywhere and always amiss."  They need to know that dragons can and will be slain.  And I am beginning to think issues from those types of stories are the simplest to debate when beginning to learn the persuasive essay!  Get all the messy issues out of the way while learning the process!  But I don't know.  It is wonderful the way these messy issues make us think.

Some folks believe that an issue like the dismantling of the Standard Oil Trust does contain characters stolidly good or certainly evil.  That is not what I found, though.  John D. Rockefeller and his cronies were complicated guys.  People representing the U.S. government, whether politicians or statesmen, had to grapple with their own interests as well as governing principles. The world was exploding with new processes and unprecedented success in many areas.  Failure flew in the face of such possibilities.  And people tried to fix things.

Today the world is exploding with children who think they can fix things.  Are these kids that did not have the benefit of organizing stories or never moved beyond them?  I wonder.  Probably the reason is something altogether different.  But they do seem to lack a sense of reality.

Now I am rambling!  I will stop.

Updated 10/28:  That last paragraph about lacking a sense of reality has bothered me ever since I published this post.  You mean we cannot fix things?  You mean we have to move beyond the idea that dragons can and will be slain?  That's not what I meant.  I was trying to make sense of my mind's intuitive leaps:  Katie, have you considered this?  Have you considered that? etc.  I need to be cautious about hitting 'publish' in the midst of ruminating!

We do not need to give up the idea that dragons can and will be slain.  They can be.  They will be.  But we need to understand that human beings are fallible-- more than that, they can be stupid, and greedy, and even evil (in some areas) at the same time that they are kind and generous and good (in other areas).  People are weird.  They have blind spots.  NO ONE is going to behave righteously every time.  Sad, but true.  It is just not going to happen.  That is reality here on earth.

The broader reality is that the good is coming, and it will not be ushered in by earthly governments, or by pure capitalism, or by parents or teachers or students or bosses or workers getting everything "right".

Should we try to get everything right?  Yes, we should.  We won't make it, but we will get closer than if we don't try.  Should we be surprised when others do not get it right?  No, we shouldn't.  People are unrighteous.  Should we work toward improving the likelihood that people will do right?  Yes.  (I'm sure I don't have to point out that we as individuals do not get it right either.  We all already know that about ourselves.  Right?)

As a nation we need to understand that people sin.  This is wisdom.  We also need to learn how our systems work.  Unfortunately, a lot of what gets passed off as teaching is merely talking points for one agenda or another.  When we learn to value mercy and truth more than we value our own 'side', we will be able to educate our children.  Perhaps then our children will be able to articulate what they think is right and wrong about the world, and act effectively in the direction of right, instead of flailing around in anger.  But only if they first understand that all have sinned, and do sin, and will sin.

Updated 10/27 to add a great article that illustrates the impact of reality on idealogy.

LTW Journal 10/19: Finding an Issue

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.) 

I realized this week that several posters on the LTWMentor group write essays along with their students, following the guidelines of their classes' current lessons.  I have not been doing that, although I consider our practice essay somewhat my own.  In this essay cycle, I decided to go through the process myself, doing everything I am requiring of my kids.

We are in Invention this week, so I have to find an issue.  LTW does not give too much guidance on actually picking something to write about.  I told the kids that this essay needs to be about what they are reading for school.  I am reading several books with the kids.  Gathering fodder for an essay is tough, so I want to pick a book that fascinates me.  Here are the ones I find most interesting:

1.  Plutarch's Life of Crassus
2.  Paul Johnson's History of the American People (currently dealing with 1880s-1920s)
3.  This Country of Ours (currently reading about the 1800s)
4.  Testament of Youth by Vera Brittain
5.  The Bible (Matthew/Leviticus)
6.  Emma by Jane Austen
7.  The New World (Henry VIII just established the Church of England)
8.  As You Like It by Mr. William Shakespeare

Next I need to discover anything debatable in these books-- an issue.  In other words, a topic that can be turned into a 'whether', ie., "Whether Boromir should have tried to take the Ring from Frodo".  (That is our practice essay issue.)  I did not peek into the books to make my list because I want to pick an issue that inspires me to wonder.  Off the top of my head, I wonder:

1. Whether Crassus should have decimated the legion
2a. Whether Congress should have dismantled the Standard Oil Trust
2b. Whether Congress should have enacted the Robinson-Patman Act (also known as the Anti-Price-Discrimination Act)
3. Whether General Jackson should have conquered Florida
4.  Hmm...
5.  (Sort of hard to find a debate in the commands of God (Leviticus).  Ditto for Matthew, since we are reading Christ's sermons.)
6.  Whether Harriet should have refused Robert Martin.
7.  Whether Henry should have broke away from the Catholic Church.
8.  Whether it is better to live at the ducal court or in the wilderness.

Here my two favorites:

*  Whether Crassus should have decimated the legion
*  Whether Congress should have dismantled the Standard Oil Trust

In the next LTW Journal post, I will let you know which one I picked. :)

LTW Journal 10/13: Defining Boromir

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)

One of the five tools in the Invention canon is Definition. Aravis and I went through workbook exercise to come up with this definition for Boromir:

"Boromir is the member of the Fellowship who does not want the Ring destroyed."

One result of this exercise was our realization that Boromir's motives place him directly in conflict with the rest of the Fellowship. Everyone else is committed to destroying the Ring by helping Frodo get to Mordor so he can throw it in the fire. But Boromir thinks he can use the Ring to destroy Sauron.

Cornflower observed and made comments, but Mariel was sick and stayed in bed. Cornflower then wanted to define her own term, so she and I came up with this about Sir Kay in the King Arthur legend:

"Sir Kay is a man who is Sir Ector's real son."

As the girls discovered, the exercise is a bit like a Venn diagram: How is this thing like others of its kind? How is it different?

The essay for this three-week cycle will be student's choice-- anything that has to do with their reading for school this year. I'm done giving them tough topics! Learning the form is tough enough.

Update:  Mariel is feeling better.  We worked together to come up with another definition for the Boromir issue.  She wanted to define the word, "take".  I was not sure this would be a good idea, but I was pleasantly surprised--

"The word, 'take', is an action verb with a negative connotation."

I am not sure we are using "connotation" correctly.  I think what we really want to say is that "take" is negative in this context.  I get context and connotation confused.


connotation:  an idea or feeling that a word evokes for a person in addition to its literal or primary meaning. (Google)


context:  the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.  (Google)

LTW Journal 10/9

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)

We are finishing Lesson 2 Elocution.

FYI:  The program is organized into three-week, three part lessons.  Each week we focus on a different canon, or "body of rules".  (LTW is based on the first three of the five canons of classical rhetoric:  Invention, Arrangement and Elocution.)  We whizzed through the first lesson, but the second one took longer than three weeks!  As long as we learn the material, I am okay with that.  But back to my subject.

One of the friendly people on the LTWMentors yahoo group helped me quite a bit by pointing out that I was making grammatical parallelism more complicated than it needs to be at this stage.  I needed to hear that.  I tend toward an inflexible attitude when teaching a new format, and run the risk of exasperating my children with too much detail work.

So.  The nouns do not have to be the same exact word.  They just have to be nouns.  Yay.  Sometimes things really are as simple as they look.

What follows are the first paragraphs of the girls' introductory persuasive essays.  I hesitated to post these, as they are political in nature.  Therefore, I might get unnecessary political traffic on my educational blog.  So if you are reading this post to find out more on Rick Perry or the TSA, please understand that we are doing a junior high/high school academic writing exercise.  We are not looking to debate these issues.  Yet.  Let us master our rhetoric skills first.  :)

(I wanted to use the Boromir/Frodo practice essay, but we did a lot of new work on it last week and I cannot find my notes.  Phrasing the proofs in different ways taught us more perfectly what we were trying to prove, so we decided to alter the proofs.  I'll post all that later if/when I find it.  :disorganized:)

They both ended up with subject, verb, direct object as their grammar in parallel.  (We found it much easier to rearrange words if we first analyzed the proof sentences a la Winston Grammar.)  These paragraphs are very simplistic, so remember (with me) that our efforts will get more refined over time.  Right now we are learning the form.

Aravis, age 17

The TSA should not be able to pat us down or put us through full-body scanners for three reasons. The TSA searches invade privacy, violate the law and do not catch terrorists.

Mariel, age 14

Rick Perry should be President of the United States of America for three reasons. He is a Republican, he shows leadership qualities, and he gets great results.

 

(For the record, her father and I are leaning more toward Herman Cain.  Again, not looking for a debate on the subject.  If you want to debate my husband, you can do so on FB.)

LTW Journal 9/29 (Addendum)

(Part of an ongoing series detailing our Lost Tools of Writing adventures.  Previous posts here.)

Update:  Grammar Girl to the rescue with a down-to-earth article on parallel construction!  I knew I was making it harder than it was.  Grammar Girl rocks.

I am getting in a little practice myself before my next teaching attempt.  I thought I would try again with the original thesis and proofs:

Boromir was not a fit Ringbearer
Frodo was a fit Ringbearer
Wise authorities chose Frodo

First I need to fix that last proof so it lines up properly.  Grammar Girl quoted Sesame street: "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong..."  I got confused looking at these sentences, but Aravis happened to be nearby.  She is insanely good at grammar.  This illustrates both a curse and blessing of homeschooling.

The curse is not knowing enough on some subjects to "be the teacher".  Often, the homeschooling mother ends up learning along with her students.  (When I taught Aravis grammar, the answer key was my best friend.)  The blessing is that by a certain age their affinities emerge and, never having had their enthusiasm quashed by institutionalized competition*, they begin passionate independent studies.  Eventually, they are able to help younger siblings in ways the mother never could.  Along the way the younger sibs embrace their own affinities and *they* start passionate independent studies.  Life becomes a joyous celebration of all the things God placed in the world for us to know.  I love learning.

Anyway, Aravis patiently explained that the first two sentences contain predicate nominatives-- a predicate that renames the subject.  The third sentence does not.  We either have to rename the wise authorities, or make Frodo the subject and rename him, or add Boromir as the subject and rename him.

(I should probably have Aravis teach the Elocution portion each time.)

Wise authorities were fit choosers.  (yuck)
Wise authorities were fit judges.  (hmm)
According to authorities, Boromir was a  bad choice. (complicated)
Boromir was a bad choice.  (too similar to first proof)

Or maybe we could take the predicate nominatives out of the other two sentences:

Boromir had bad qualities
Frodo had good qualities
Frodo had the confidence of the Council and Fellowship

It still seems like the subjects ought to be the same.  Otherwise, how to line them up in a sentence?

Boromir should not have tried to take the Ring from Frodo for three reasons.  Boromir had bad qualities, Frodo had good qualities, and Frodo had the confidence of the Council and Fellowship.

I don't know.  It still looks complicated.  If we could change the subject of #1 to Frodo, it might work.  But that first point is important, and Frodo has nothing to do with Boromir's bad qualities.

Still thinking...

*I am not against competition per se.  I think it is a useful tool in the learning toolbox.  However, I believe it is wrong to apply it arbitrarily across a system.

LTW 9/29

(Previous LTW posts)

Today we got bogged down again.  It started off well, though.  We reviewed the parts of speech and gave a nod to other notables of grammar.  Mariel gleefully remembered all her modifiers.  Aravis joked that we ought to add Lynne Truss to our list of essential grammar-tools.

Then we learned the definition of parallelism.  Still good.  Aravis quoted Strunk and White, and I asked what Paula La Rocque might say about it.

Strunk and White:  "Omit needless words."
Paula La Rocque:  "Choose the precise word."

Then we smugly pulled out the practice essay issue and main proofs:

Thesis:  Boromir should not have taken the Ring from Frodo.
1st Proof:  Boromir was not a fit Ringbearer
2nd Proof:  Frodo was a fit Ringbearer
3rd Proof:  Wise authorities chose Frodo

We could not get these three proofs to do the parallelism thing.

Honestly.  They would not cooperate.  The reason seemed to be that the proofs each had different subjects.  We tried to switch the sentences around so Boromir was always the subject, but that did not work.

At this point, I realized I was in over my head.  I was sure there was a way to make this thesis and these proofs work, but I could not see it. 

Finally, we decided to use the sub-proofs from Proof 1 (Boromir was not a fit Ringbearer) as the main proofs, since they all had Boromir as the subject.  Now our outline looked like this:

Thesis:  Boromir should not have tried to take the Ring from Frodo
1st Proof:   Boromir was spoiled
2nd Proof:  Boromir was obsessed
3rd Proof:  Boromir was unsupported

Here is the introductory paragraph:

"Boromir should not have tried to take the Ring from Frodo for three reasons.  Boromir was spoiled, obsessed and unsupported."

Looking at this now (late at night, in the quiet), I think it would work better if it said, "Boromir was spoiled by his father, obsessed with Gondor, and unsupported by Aragorn." 

Do you see the parallelism?  It is the repetition of the same parts of speech in each proof.  We got it in there, if rather simply.  And this is just the practice essay.  We will probably change it again on Monday.  We work on it together as a teaching tool-- then the kids apply the same process to their real essays.  I am very thankful for it, especially since I am learning along with the kids.  We figure out what might be a problem when we try a new concept on the practice essay. 

I did not give the kids any homework.  I feel like this new concept muddied the waters a bit.  I want to review and take another shot at parallelism in the practice essay on Monday before having them work on their actual essays.

LTW Journal 9/27

(Previous Lost Tools of Writing posts)

Today's session was exciting.  I thought so, at least.  After last week's feeling that the sub-proofs were "off" somehow, I was encouraged by the LTWMentor group to decide whether to deal with logic now or work up to it in the next lesson.  Since Aravis has studied logic and Mariel has been introduced to it, I decided to mention sequitur and non sequitur and see what happened. 

Yesterday I visited with Mariel about how a point either "follows" an assertion or it does not.  If a point "doesn't follow," it is a logical fallacy, which makes a very weak argument.  She pointed out that no one was going to read her little essay and asked if it really mattered.  I listed the various ways she would use her persuasive abilities throughout her life.  She hadn't thought of it that way and decided she should practice persuasion now.  This made me happy.  :)  I asked her to find the unity (unifying thought-- this is from How to Read a Book) for each of her groups.  After some questioning and discussion, she had actual main proofs to go above her sub-proofs.  Then she determined which sub-proofs were strongest and edited her outline. 

(Aravis' sub-points followed her main proofs already.)

This morning we went to work on the practice essay outline.  We ended up rewriting the main proofs.  Discussion was lively.  As we talked about the third proof, Mariel objected to using only wise authorities that favored Frodo, saying that we were not considering both sides of the argument.  I rejoiced inwardly and explained that Mariel was exactly right, and that later we were going to add an excellent element called "refutation", but first we needed to get the foundations straight and strong.  And I saw the light dawn for Aravis, who has felt a little like the rudimentary essays are a waste of time.  Now she is ready to do the tedious early work.

THEN Aravis mentioned Matthew Henry's commentary on Leviticus.  We are reading that along with the book of Leviticus for our Bible twice a week.  Mr. Henry got poetic this morning with his comments on the meat offering.  Here is the portion we talked about:

Leaven is the emblem of pride, malice, and hypocrisy, and honey of sensual pleasure. The former are directly opposed to the graces of humility, love, and sincerity, which God approves; the latter takes men from the exercises of devotion, and the practice of good works. Christ, in his character and sacrifice, was wholly free from the things denoted by leaven; and his suffering life and agonizing death were the very opposites to worldly pleasure. His people are called to follow, and to be like him.

See how it fits with Boromir and Frodo?  Aravis said we could contrast Frodo's fitness as Ringbearer with Boromir's lack of fitness.  This sort of gets into the Elocution portion of the lesson, which I hadn't planned to teach until Thursday... but I went ahead and talked about "parallelism" and how we were setting up a lovely opportunity to employ that scheme.

It was like being in a fast-moving stream, teaching that class this morning.  We are heading somewhere good.

Here is the revised practice essay outline:

(the old outline for comparison)

%Boromir was not fit to be Ringbearer:

1)  He was spoiled.
2)  He was obsessed with saving Gondor.
3)  He was a Man.

#Frodo was fit to be Ringbearer:

1)  He was humble.
2)  He wanted to save Middle Earth
3)  He was chosen by the Council and the Ring

+Wise authorities chose Frodo.

1)  Aragorn let Frodo go.
2)  Gandalf refused the Ring when Frodo offered it to him.
3)  Galadriel resisted the Ring when Frodo offered it to her.

LTW Journal 9/25

I seriously questioned my set-up this week.  My two students have different needs.  I wondered if I was serving them both adequately by teaching them together.  The LTWMentor yahoo group helped me decide what to do for now:  I will keep introducing the lessons to both of them together with discussion, and then give as much individual help as necessary.  It is okay for one to go deeper than the other.  I am going to have Cornflower sit in on the intro and discussions too.  She will learn a lot.


***************


I find myself thinking of everything in terms of Invention, Arrangement and Elocution.  It's a fun new game:

In math--  Invention is uncovering questions to be answered, Arrangement is placing terms in the proper formula, and Elocution is the (hopefully elegant) solution. 

In piano--  Invention is the combination of tones and rhythm, Arrangement is phrasing and dynamics, Elocution is touch and artistry.

In personal relationships-- Invention is discovering connections, Arrangement is good manners, and Elocution is warmth.


(I am either embracing the three canons or imitating the medical student that diagnosed his friends with every disease he studied.)