The second text is an excerpt from an interview with the famous film critic Roger Ebert after he lost his lower jawbone and the ability to speak, eat, and drink as a result of his battle with cancer. The article, written by Chris Jones for Esquire, describes the joy and suffering Ebert experienced in his post-surgery life. Roger Ebert died on April 4, 2013 at the age of 70.

•What do you know about Roger Ebert? Do a quick internet search and see what comes up. Look at pictures of him pre and post surgery if possible.

•What kind of writing—what genre—do you think this text is?

•Do you think Ebert’s claim about the value of life will agree with Hamlet’s or not?

Because the excerpt from Chris Jones’s interview with Roger Ebert is a moderately complex text to read, you will review a few vocabulary words prior to reading. Look over the handout and notice which sets or pairs of words are related to each other.

As you read, keep your vocabulary handout next to you. When you run into these words during your reading of the text, note the context of each word and write a “best guess” synonym for it. Notice which words seem to have a deeper or different meaning from their regular usage.

Read the article by Chris Jones. As you read, pay attention to the way Ebert talks about the value of life. As you did with Hamlet, try to determine whether Ebert appears to be generally pessimistic or optimistic in this interview. In addition, answer this question: Does Ebert also present an argument about the value of death? Be sure to distinguish Jones’s words from Ebert’s words. Annotate the text as you read with at least 3 comments or questions per page.

Draw a line under the introduction, before the conclusion, and between each of the body sections.

• Title each of these sections in the left hand margin.

• The introduction can be labeled “introduction”, and the conclusion can be labeled “conclusion.” Other sections need to be titled appropriately.

Create a Say/Do Chart for each section

• As you did with the Shakespeare text, you will mark Jones’s interview with Roger Ebert. This time, use a highlighter to highlight the sentences, phrases, or words Ebert uses to describe what he thinks it means to be alive. Remember that most of Ebert’s direct quotations will be in italics.

• Then, working with a partner, mark some of the commonly highlighted parts with a “+” or “–” sign to indicate whether each quote shows a generally positive or negative outlook on life. Discussing the results with your partner, decide how you would answer this question about Ebert’s outlook on life: Was he an optimist or a pessimist?

1. What details in the first two paragraphs convey a sense of the ordinary, behind-the-scenes routines of film critics? What words or phrases suggest the longevity of Ebert’s career as a movie reviewer?

2. Jones writes that, at the end of the film, “it looks as though [Ebert’s] sitting on top of a cloud of paper.” Jones then describes how Ebert “kicks his notes into a small pile with his feet.” Why are these images important? What side of Ebert’s personality do they reveal?

3. What does Jones mean when he says that the moment Ebert said his last words before losing the ability to talk to cancer “wasn’t cinematic”? Why is this significant?

4. What details are important in Jones’s description of Ebert’s second-floor library? What do the objects in this room suggest about Ebert’s current life?

5. What words and phrases suggest the post-cancer, post-voice surge of productivity Ebert experienced in his writing?

Questions about Logic (Logos) 1.An interview is a form of nonfiction—a text that tells the “truth.” Do you think Jones is being truthful in his observations of Roger Ebert? Do you think Ebert is being truthful in his statements about himself? Are you more likely to believe what someone else says about a person or what the person says about himself or herself? Explain your reasoning.

Questions about the Writer (Ethos) 2.What evidence, if any, can you find that suggests Ebert is more of an optimist after fighting cancer than before?

3.What evidence, if any, can you find that suggests Chris Jones admires and believes Roger Ebert?

Questions about Emotions (Pathos) 4.Why does Jones describe Ebert’s medical crises in 2006 in graphic detail? What words suggest the brutality of the cancer treatment and recovery process Ebert experienced?

5.How do you think Jones’s description of Ebert’s “open smile” might impact readers?

Writing a Rhetorical Précis• A rhetorical précis is both a summary of an article

and it shows understanding of its arguments. In a précis you demonstrate comprehension of the complexities and nuances in sophisticated writing. The rhetorical précis includes five parts.

• Part 1: Introduce the author, the title, and the main argument.

• Part 2: Explain how the author develops or advances the argument.

• Part 3: State the author’s purpose of the text.• Part 4: Describe the intended audience and the

author’s relationship to the audience.• Part 5: Explain the significance of this work.

Part 1: Introduce the author, the title, and the main argument You are already familiar with this part from our

summary work. Here’s a sample from an essay.

In her essay “Don’t Take Valuable Space in My School,” Jenny While, a senior at El Cajon Valley High School, argues that students who are unmotivated and misbehaved take away from the learning environment and cause teachers to slow down and lower expectations. According to While, these “space-takers take away valuable instructional time,” leaving little for those who want to learn.

Fill in the part 1 worksheet for the Ebert article.

Part 2: Explain how the author develops or advances the argument

When completing this section of the précis, consider how the author has developed or supported his or her central claim. What does the writer or speaker do in each paragraph and in each section? For instance, authors will illustrate an idea, describe an event, share an anecdote, draw a comparison, or do some other work. The explanation for this section typically follows the sequence of ideas in the text.

She supports this claim by first describing the types of students who “take up space” in her school. Then, she makes a connection between her school’s poor performance on state and local exams and the “space-takers” who have done very little to prepare themselves for these high stakes tests. Toward the end of the essay, While challenges the effectiveness of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and outlines its limitations.

Fill in the part 2 worksheet for the Ebert article.

Part 3: State the author’s purpose of the text

Does the author want to persuade us, entertain us, call us to action, inform us, etc… These are not the only reason a writer writes, these are just example genres.

While’s purpose is to call attention to the flaws in educating all students—especially those who outwardly reject the opportunity—in order to prompt schools and districts to formulate practical solutions for low-performing students while taking care of those who want to learn.

Fill in the part 3 worksheet for the Ebert article.

Part 4: Describe the intended audience and the author’s relationship to the audience

Who is the author writing to and what’s the connection between the writer and the audience?

She establishes a formal tone for educators, politicians, and other concerned parents who have children in high school. Although she is writing to an adult audience, her message extends to her peers—high school students.

Fill in the part 4 worksheet for the Ebert article.

Part 5: Explain the significance of this work.

Why does this work matter? It does matter snarky teens :)

This work is significant because it challenges

those in education to rethink classroom dynamics; specifically, how the various skill levels and attitudes in one classroom can affect the quality of learning.

Fill in the part 5 worksheet for the Ebert article.

Make an entry in your chart for the Ebert text. Fill it out as you did with the soliloquy. When you reach the entry for “How does this text connect to other texts?,” briefly describe the ways in which Ebert responds to or challenges the assertions Shakespeare makes in his soliloquy for Hamlet.