Dear MHS,
In last month’s issue of “The
Globe,” I wrote an Op-Ed about the rigors of outlining “American History: A
Survey,” the AP U.S. History textbook, and included an interview conducted with
the book’s author, Alan Brinkley. I am pleased to report near-unanimous
positive feedback on the article. As junior Nicole Gerszberg, features editor
of “The Globe”, said, “Wow, Evan, this is very insightful, and you even got an
interview with Brinkley!”
Hearing students and teachers
revel in the misery “American History” has caused Brinkley still leaves me
struggling to contain my laughter, a feeling tantamount to being the only one
in on a inside joke; except, the said emotion isn’t tantamount – it’s perfectly
applicable. Many people, it seems, failed to realize that the conversation was entirely fictitious,
while I had full knowledge of its fallacy. Brinkley wasn’t wearing a Columbia
University polo. Neither of us was on the subway. In fact, I wasn’t even in
Manhattan that day. So, if my article has caused you confusion (or the current
one is causing self-loathing), I sincerely apologize. Had I known MHS was so
gullible, it would have been published in “Calliope.”
Seen another way, the failure, by
many, to recognize sarcasm and textual clues in my article highlights our
school's educational deficiencies. Despite producing Ivy Leaguers and,
prospectively, Rhodes Scholars, MacArthur Geniuses, and Nobel Prize winners, a
considerable number students weren’t able to identify the simple pun
"where the truth lies" when they saw it.
If Mamaroneck is to maintain its
perennial superiority over Scarsdale, pun identification is a skill we can ill
afford to spurn. But, while it is perhaps understandable that a few individuals
aren’t well versed in double-enténdré’s and have a habit of disregarding the
collection of bolded, capitalized, “Imprint MT Shadow’ed” words that adorn the
top of every page, inattentiveness to the article’s final sentence (“It’s too
bad my motivation to outline is as feigned as my conversation with Mr.
Brinkley”) is inexcusable.
“Feign” (rooted in the 14th
century Old French word feindre, defined as “pretend,” which is itself rooted
in the Latin word fingere, defined as “devise” or “fabricate”), and its various
forms, is almost certain to be found on the SAT and, regardless, is simply a
good word to know. If you find that evidence insufficient, simply remember that
English teacher Maria Fairbairn will have a fit if she discovers her students
can’t define “feigned.”
Of course, there is an
extraordinarily basic solution to this entire quandary: pick up a dictionary.
If you are still stumped, confabulate amongst your peers and pedagogues to
discern what was purported.
Sincerely,
Evan Rothman
