Discussion Questions Week 2

****Note: Noticing there weren't any posts yet for this week, I checked the settings and realized the post was saved but not "published". For that I apologize. Should you need the extra time, you may take through Tuesday of next week to answer.
***Because you're assigned three literary texts this week, you will need to address all of them in your posts. (Two original posts on two different texts, and one reply post on the third).

1. Choose one of the "critical contexts" selections based on "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufock. This is a beautiful but highly complex and difficult to understand poem, so reading the context literature will really help you make some sense of it. Keep in mind also that Eliot, who headed the theory of interpretation referred to as either formalism or New Criticism believed that good literature should be highly complex and difficult to understand, that readers would benefit from having to work to achieve meaning. You'll read about this theory later on in the class. To the question: what did you get from the contextual article you read? Do you agree with the author? Disagree? How do you feel about the poem having read this interpretation? (Hint: do not assume the critic is automatically "right" -- he/she offers an interpretation -- yes, a scholarly, professional one, but this by no means makes the interpretation the only valid one out there.

2. Discuss “Rose for Emily” in light of the title: What significance does the “rose” hold? Where in the text do you see a rose . . . or do you? Explain your observations and ideas.

Consider narration in “Rose for Emily” – you’re told the narrator is the “townspeople”, which means the “person” speaking is recounting not a highly personal take but a more generalized understanding of Miss Emily. Do you think this narrator is reliable? Do you think we “get” the exact truth about her character and actions taken by both Emily and other players (static/flat characters)? Why would this be important?

3. One of the questions in your text that follows “Rose . . .” asks whether it’s possible for a mentally ill/disturbed person to be “in love”, that is, to believe, feel, and act in accordance with traditional and normative definitions of being in love. Is it? Answer the question using “Rose . . .” as the basis of your ideas.

4. Considering the time period and well-documented constraints on and expectations of women, what do you make of Chopin’s portrayal of a woman’s presumably guilt-free indiscretion? What do you think Chopin was hoping to convey, thematically, regarding romantic love and/or sex, marriage, trust, self-awareness, female pleasure?

5. The symbolism in the “The Storm” is readily recognizable; the reasons for Calixta’s decision aren’t. As we know nothing of the marriage and next to nothing about the characters besides their locations, we can surmise that Chopin isn’t asking us to consider this indiscretion as a response to something specific – we aren’t given a reason as to why she might have made this choice. With that in mind, explain why you think Chopin gave us so little to work with here, why she makes it difficult for us to “pin” the affair down as meaning this, that or the other.

6. From your text (and you may answer this one in first-person as it invites a “reader-response”-themed response. “Are you bothered by [“The Storm’s”] happy ending? Are stories supposed to reinforce the dominant values of a society? What do you think would (or should) have happened in real life?” (658)