Langston Hughes

Langston Hughes’ “Let America Be America Again” speaks open and honestly about oppression during a time when it was still taboo to speak about these topics. Integration was new and novel while both sides were still marinating in its nuances. Hughes speaks of many groups who were and still are oppressed in one way or another. African Americans, Native Americans, poor whites, immigrants, farmers and workers are all given equal grounds to stand up in this poem and demand equality. Although he does single out the African American’s journey as of more significance and importance throughout by way of multiple references, Hughes does a thorough job of making it clear that they are not the only victims of racism and oppression. In his lines, “I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart, I am the Negro bearing slavery’s scars. I am the red man driven from the land, I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek”, it is clear that he is purposefully including many marginalized groups of the society in 1938 that most likely were forgotten by the writers at the time.

Reflective of the Depression that so defined this era, Hughes’ line, “Who said the free? Not me? Surely not me? The millions on relief today?” sums up what is obvious homage to the degradation of the financial landscape at the time. In a similar line, “The millions who have nothing for our pay”, reflects the desperate times that were facing Americans during the Depression. In yet another line, Hughes not only references the materialistic views of the upper classes, but does so in a way that is still highly relevant in our time, “Tangled in that ancient endless chain Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land! Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!....... Of owning everything for one’s own greed!”. How true and insightful is this line even today as we see the capitalistic market more ominous than ever.

So, for Ancillary 3...

we can do it on any piece of literature we'd like?

Discussion Questions, Week 10/26

This time around, I'm going to let YOU pick the questions. You may post about anything you like that you feel is of import in the texts about which you choose to write. This is, of course, your last "required" blog (remember that you do have "blogs" of a sort that correspond to the research project, but this is the last of the blogs as you've known them).

I'm quite interested to see what you'll come up with!

Assignments this week.

Can someone please list all the assignments that need to be done this week. There are still no discussion questions, the midterm is not available, and the groups for the workshops are not listed.

I have three other classes, so it is rather annoying that this class is behind with what needs to be done all the time.

Thanks.

Discussion Questions from last week?

Do we have them? Did I miss them? or are we not doing them and no one told me?

Week 7

Everyday Use:
1. Consider the relationship between the story’s content and title. Ultimately, is “everyday use” a good thing? The narrator uses this term in the story itself, referencing the possibility that Maggie will receive the quilts. One sister has a very negative association with the idea that such items will be used “everyday”, and in a casual manner; the other appears to believe that such items should be used in order to demonstrate value – unused items have no value in Maggie and her mother’s household. Which definition of “everyday use” does the story, as a whole, appear to uphold?
The story in this case appears to uphold the definition of everyday use as something more practical. I think the mothers strong arguments, not only to defend Maggie but the fact that a promise had already been made to hand down a family heirloom stands as more important than how the quilt will actually be used. Dee wants it for nostalgic purposes, to have a constant and shown reminder of her heritage. Personally, we have a quilt that is a family heirloom and this story was so interesting to me because if that quilt were in my possession, I would do like Dee and hang it to be viewed, not used. How could something like that be replaced? I’m a huge fan of practicality but not for an item such as that.
1. “Is this story optimistic or pessimistic about true love? Is the old couple a positive or a negative example of true love? What about Nick and Laura? What about Ed? Could you argue that he was in love?” (Making Literature Matter 685)
Pessimistic! The couples are so drastically different! The question can’t helped but to be asked is love purely chemical, a physical reaction to another person or is it fate, something that is romantic and in the hands of destiny as though only two people were meant to be? That is left in the opinion of the reader! Laura is a hopeless romantic, flirting with Nick the whole time the story is taking place. Ed, might have been in love but it was such a distorted kind that nobody in the story could possibly relate to. Ed, took his own life for the sake of love and that could be considered the ultimate sacrifice….how isn’t that similar to love, say in comparison with Romeo and Juliet?

CAN NOT REACH YOU

Mrs. Bolaski,
I have been trying to reach you since Tuesday regarding the Midterm problem that I had. Please reach me as soon as you can, I am concerned about missing the deadline for the test.
Thank You Desiree

Week 7/ Question 1 & 3

1. I enjoyed reading this story, it kept my attention the entire time. All of the characters contradict one another at some point during the story. Terri’s previous relationship with an abusive husband is the topics of conversation around the table. Terri’s empathy for a man that once loved her seems to have no sign of normalcy to the others during conversation. The behavior described by Terri’s abusive ex-husband is odd, and does raise a concern when anyone is faced with that same situation. It’s hard for me to judge whether the obsession was completely Terri’s ex-husband, because in my mind she presented herself as obsessed as well. In a way Mel had a great deal of resentment about the situation, and in the story he appeared to change his attitude toward Terri. In any relationship I think it’s hard to start a healthy relationship with a problem like Mel and Terri had with her ex-husband. To me, that is a form of love but not healthy love. It completely depends on how severe a situation might be, so one may debate whether to “work it out” or leave the situation. She is hanging on to a feeling toward her ex-husband the entire time, and I think if Terri was given the chance, she would have stayed.
3.The story brought clarification to true love, so it was nor positive or negative toward the thought of true love. The older couple seemed to have a lot of insight on the dynamics of a long lasting relationship. The younger couple seemed as though they were learning everything, they could, about the obstacles they might be faced with one day. Ed, I do not doubt that he truly loved Terri, but he did not know how to express it in a healthy way.

Important: Please read

Hi all,
As I have had trouble getting paper #2 back to you in the time frame I have allotted myself, I feel that an extension on the next assignment (should you want it) is only fair. I do not wish to burden you with the combination of reasons that the return of your work is slow this week; suffice it to say that I'm trying to post the rest of the papers as we speak. I cannot post announcements or email you through Blackboard. I can only upload papers intermittently. I have no idea why this is the case but am trying to get some help from tech services. I do not know if this is a system-wide error or not. Hold tight if you are trying to access or post anything in BB and it doesn't work. The problem sees to lie primarily with posting rather than accessing.

--Amy

Page Number for Poem, "Legal Alien"

Hello Everyone,
I hope that everyone is having a blessed week this week, and that everything is going well. :-)

Anyway, I thought I would let you guys know about something I found out about one of our poems that we have to read this week. The poem is titled, "Legal Alien," and our homework list does not contain a page number. That is perfectly okay, because I just usually look it up in the beginning of our book. However, the textbook lists the wrong page number! It says, "page 875." I went to page 875 and it is the play "A Doll House." After I did a bit of searching, I found the poem on page 975. I hope that this helps everyone. :-)

Have a wonderful week, everyone, and God Bless!

Sincerely,
Jillian

Looking for this week's blog questions and lecture..

I've checked all the folders in the course shell, my student email, and this blog and I can't find the prompt for the blog or the lecture we're supposed to have on Gilman.

Anyone have any ideas?

Week 10/12 DQ

3. Consider the lecture on feminism (if you've read it or plan to; it's supplemental, but should be read if youa re planning at all to use feminism as a lens for your research paper). Do you think the text is feminist in nature? Why? How? Why not? (You will need t provide a clear, working definition of feminism to answer this-- whatever yours is.
I would say no. I would say that this is more on the gender identity or role playing in both stories. If this story revolves more on feminism, I would say that the author would not be very specific on how the male gender and the female gender differs when it comes to their abilities or what their roles are. I would say that, there is an equality in "job distribution". Like for example when the men went outside, they have to go out and use the other room or the barn, which is more "manly" in nature.
Well, at this time in age, both husband and wife should have a partnership going on in the kitchen. I know that some still thinks that the woman's place in the home is to maintain the household. That the man is only to sit and provide. Well, no (for me). Also, when the women solved the crime in the end of the story means that, women are equal to men. The mentality that men are superior than women, I do not think so but it is also reflected early in the story when the author said, "Mr. Hale is already outside waiting". That means to say that men should not be there waiting ahead of a woman? I do not think so, he can wait as long as it takes for her to get ready.
4. The play relies primarily on symbolism and some foreshadowing to develop the plot. Which elements are symbolic? How do you know?
I think the cannary is one of the symbolisms used in the story as well as the quilt. The Cannary is symbolizing Minnie. It is affirmed in Mrs. Hales statement," “come to think of it, she was kind of like a bird herself. Real sweet and pretty, but kind of timid and — fluttery.” But the women find the bird dead; strangled, a symbol for Minnie’s squelched liveliness in a drab house. Just as Mr. Wright had clipped his wife’s wings and left her to toil alone in an insufficient kitchen, Mr. Wright killed the bird, “a bird that sang. She used to sing. He killed that too.” The bird once the wings are cut, it defeats its purpose of flying, meaning the bird is worthless in a sense. It is true with Minnie. When her husband leaves her in the house and that means Minnie's husband taking that "life" of Minnie in singing is just like taking part of her. Her happiness is also based in her singing.
Another example would be the quilt. The quilt are suppose to be a compilation of squares sewn together. At first, the quilt was neatly sewn by Minnie, meaning she was happy and content. Later on, the quilt's stitches were not uniformed and she uses a different way of stitching and tying together. Of which made the ladies conclude that it is the same way she is doing it to her husband. She was once happy with her husband then later, she uses the same knot she used on her husband's neck which ties the knot to Minnie's guilt.

Discussion Questions

2. Consider the lecture on Trifles, and this question particularly: "What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what's the crime at hand...The legal crime, or the emotional one?

Personally, I think it's important to take into account all aspects of a crime: emotional and legal. And yet, the country we live in, as well as most countries in the world, see murder as murder. But in some special cases, people are excused. A crime is a crime. The law defines it. But I am torn on this issues because of emotions came into account, then so many people would get their chargers cleared because of the excuse of emotions. A while ago, I read something about a girl who was molested by her cousin in Oklahoma. No charges were pressed because the family ignored it, and the girl forgot about incident until she was fifteen. After it had happened, the girls grandmother confronted the boy, and he stated that he was dreaming about his girlfriend, and that he was sorry. Should he have been forgiven? Of course not! and that would be the issue if emotions came into account in the matter of legality. In Trifles, I found myself praising the fact that the woman took the box, because I feel as though any normal human would react in the same way, but, the law does not apologize, and that could either be a good thing or a bad thing.

4. The plot relies primarily on symbolism and some foreshadowing to develop the plot. Which elements are symbolic? How do you know?

First and foremost, the kitchen, where most of the play and conversation takes place, is symbolic but only to the women. In the time where the play is set (or where it seems to be set), women were closely associated with kitchens, you know, the typical housewife stuff. The men are sitting around criticizing this women's kitchen, picking it apart, pick her apart, probably much like her husband did. Also, the canary (clearly) being strangled. The reader is put under the impression that her husband strangled the canary, and in turn, probably emotionally or mentally strangling her, ultimately, causing her to kill him.

I know this is off topic, but I really enjoyed this play and breaking it down. I hope everyone is well.

The Many Crimes Committed In Glaspell's Plays

English 103 Blog

Discussion Questions

#1, and #2

"Trifles" and "A Jury of Her Peers" By Susan Glaspell

1) Which “version” do you prefer – “A Jury of Her Peers” or Trifles?
Why? Which elements seem better demonstrated/conveyed in the version of your choice? (You will need to provide a basic interpretation to answer)
Susan Glaspell, the author of the play, “Trifles,” and the short story, “A Jury of Her Peers,” wrote these two pieces to demonstrate how everyone can be guilty of crimes – whether they be defined by the law or not. Both of these stories do a very good job at conveying such an important message by staging a very strong plotline. Minnie Foster, one of the characters in both of the stories, is under arrest for the murder of her husband. There are five people going through her home, looking for possible evidence: Mrs. Peters, the wife of the sheriff, Mr. Peters, the sheriff, Mr. Henderson, the young county attorney, Mr. Hale, the person who stumbled upon John Wright’s dead body, and Mrs. Hale, the wife of Mr. Hale. Mr. Hale starts explaining to Mr. Henderson exactly what happened when he came to visit that night – Minnie was acting very strange, and she did not even hide the fact that her husband was in the other room – dead from a rope around his neck. After the proper authorities are brought in, Minnie is taken away, and these people go through her house to look for evidence. The men do most of the searching while the two women start to discuss what happened to her, and how tough her life was with John Wright. As they get deep into the discussion, they spill their guilt out to one another about how they should have been better neighbors to Minnie, and how that is also a crime that should be punishable. They go through her things, and find a quilt that she was working on. It is a beautiful log cabin pattern quilt, and is neatly done, except for one area of the quilt. This one area bothers Mrs. Hale, and she starts to undo it and fixes it. When she looks for the sewing box, she and Mrs. Peters find an unexpected and unpleasant surprise: a dead pet bird with a broken neck. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters know that this is an important piece of evidence, but decide that they have never seen this evidence and conceal it – for Minnie’s sake. The play and the story both end this way, leaving the reader to ponder a few things for themselves.
The “version” of the play that I preferred was “A Jury of Her Peers.” This is my favorite version because it contained a more “in-depth look” at Mrs. Hale’s and Mrs. Peter’s emotions, and it explained a little bit more of the story in depth than “Trifles.” Glaspell gives us a more “in-depth” look at Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters through the use of vivid imagery through their conversations. Readers of the story get to see the guilt of these two women, and how they consider their actions crimes when it came to being bad neighbors to Minnie Foster: “I could’ve come,” retorted Mrs. Hale shortly. “I stayed away because it weren’t cheerful -- and that’s why I ought to have come. I’ -- she looked around – “I’ve never liked this place. Maybe because it’s down in a hollow and you don’t see the road. I don’t know what it is, but it’s a lonesome place, and always was. I wish I had come over to see Minnie Foster sometimes. I can see now- -” She could not put it into words” (Glaspell 273). From examining Mrs. Hale’s side of the conversation, it is clear that she is feeling quite guilty for not being a friend – or even a good neighbor – to Minnie Foster. She is realizing that a lack of friends and neighbors to check on her or to be there for her when she needed it could have caused Minnie Foster to turn to desperate measures, especially when it came to her destructive husband, John Wright. Mrs. Peters tries to comfort Mrs. Hale throughout the whole story (due to the fact that she did not know Minnie Foster too well), until Mrs. Hale brings up something about how the bird being “still” could have triggered something in Minnie. This really affected Mrs. Peters and she explains to Mrs. Hale that she understands what “stillness” is: “I know what stillness is,” she said, in a queer, monotonous voice. “When we homesteaded in Dakota, and my first baby died -- after he was two years old -- and me with no other then- -” Mrs. Hale stirred. “How soon do you suppose they'll be through looking for the evidence?” “I know what stillness is,” repeated Mrs. Peters, in just that same way. Then she too pulled back. “The law has got to punish crime, Mrs. Hale,” she said in her tight little way” (Glaspell 278). This particular incident in the story triggers something inside Mrs. Peters, and she understands what Minnie Foster is going through for a brief moment. Mrs. Peters is the sheriff’s wife and deep down, after seeing the dead bird and hearing how Minnie Foster reacted to Mr. Hale, she has a good feeling that Minnie was responsible for the death of John Wright. However, after Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters continued their conversation for a while, they felt they were guilty of a crime as well – a crime of being worthless, uncaring friends and neighbors to a suffering woman. This realization causes them to make the decision that they did concerning the evidence they found: “Slowly, unwillingly, Mrs. Peters turned her head until her eyes met the eyes of the other woman. There was a moment when they held each other in a steady, burning look in which there was no evasion nor flinching. Then Martha Hale's eyes pointed the way to the basket in which was hidden the thing that would make certain the conviction of the other woman -- that woman who was not there and yet who had been there with them all through that hour. For a moment Mrs. Peters did not move. And then she did it. With a rush forward, she threw back the quilt pieces, got the box, tried to put it in her hand-bag. It was too big. Desperately she opened it, started to take the bird out. But there she broke -- she could not touch the bird. She stood there helpless, foolish. There was the sound of a knob turning in the inner door. Martha Hale snatched the box from the sheriff's wife, and got it in the pocket of her big coat just as the sheriff and the county attorney came back into the kitchen” (Glaspell 281). The conversations that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters had in secret – away from the prying ears of the men – allowed them to understand that Minnie Foster was suffering in her home. That was the reason none of tasks that Minnie started ever got completed, and why her home did not feel welcoming. Minnie Foster needed a friend, but lacked friends or neighbors. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters realize this is why they are guilty of a serious crime. Everyone needs someone they can turn to when they are hurting – if they do not, it can cause them to seek desperate measures in order to find the solutions to their problems. Minnie Foster had no one to confide in, and she probably felt that everyone abandoned her when she needed them the most; this lack of people in her life caused her to seek a desperate solution to a problem in her life she did not know how to deal with. She probably did not even know if this was the right thing to do or not – she did, however, know that it would end the suffering that she was enduring, and that was good enough for her. But, as far as it being right or wrong, she probably was lost and confused because she had no one to tell her she was making a big mistake. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters realize this, and to atone for their sin, they hide the evidence that they know will convict Minnie Foster. They want to give her a second chance, and by giving her a second chance, they also give themselves a second chance to be good neighbors and good friends to her. Therefore, they hide the evidence, and Minnie is given a better chance at the trial. The story, “A Jury of Her Peers,” is wonderfully pieced together through the use of vivid imagery. The detailed conversations that go between Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters help readers to understand their feelings more, and how their feelings play an important part in this story. Without understanding Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, the readers would not understand the story. This is what occurs in “Trifles” – readers do not get what is going on because only the surface of the conversations are given, and are not given the whole thing. It is kind of like just being given a taste of a piece of pizza, but not allowed to eat the entire piece. To me, this is what “Trifles” was like. “A Jury of Her Peers,” however, was the entire piece of pizza – bold and full of flavors. This is why “A Jury of Her Peers” is the version of Glaspell’s story that I prefer the most – it helps readers to get a better understanding of the “whole” story, and not just pieces of it, like in the play, “Trifles.”
“A Jury of Her Peers,” written by Susan Glaspell, is the version that I prefer due to the fact that it helps readers to get a better understanding of the whole story between all of the characters through the use of imagery, instead of small pieces of the story, like in “Trifles.”

2) Consider the lecture on Trifles, and this question particularly: “What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what’s the crime at hand . . . The legal crime, or the emotional one?
The lecture on the play, “Trifles,” was an excellent supplement because it helped us to consider some of the difficult, but important questions that readers must answer when reading this play. The main questions that are brought up in “Trifles,” are “What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what’s the crime at hand . . . The legal crime, or the emotional one?” I think these are very important questions that everyone should consider – even when not reading a piece of literature – because it affects how we view events that occur around us, as well as our daily lives. These are two very important questions that I have explained below.
After considering the excellent lecture on the play, “Trifles,” and considering the questions, “What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what’s the crime at hand . . . The legal crime, or the emotional one?” I believe that a crime can be labeled under both of these definitions – that is, real, solid crimes that people know they should not commit, such as stealing, murdering, kidnapping, etc, but I also believe that emotional injustices are also a crime as well because they can cause great pain or other grievances. After I read the play, “Trifles,” it was evident that there were a couple of things going on. Minnie Foster was having some problems with her husband, and it was also clear that it was these problems that led her to this last, desperate act – the final solution to her “problem.” No matter the circumstances, she did commit a crime – Minnie Foster committed murder. She took her husband’s life. If she did this out of self-defense – that is, her husband was beating and beating her, and then she found a weapon and killed him in order to defend herself – then that would be legal. However, she killed him while he was defenseless, and it makes her look like a murderer in court. Therefore, this is one of the crimes currently at hand, and what constitutes a legal crime under these particular circumstances. An emotional crime, however, is a little bit different because there is not a written “law” that says people are committing crimes if they are hurting other people emotionally. It is more of an unspoken crime that harshly convicts people straight at their subconscious level; therefore, they know they have wronged the other person. What constitute an emotional crime could be many things – such as feelings of loss, fear, abandonment, anger, or betrayal – that other people have caused. These particular feelings can cause people to feel as though everyone in the world is against them and that they have no friends to turn to or confide in – and therefore can be devastating. It can also cause people to do horrible things because they may not know how to deal with these devastating feelings. A perfect example of this principle is Minnie Foster. She was probably feeling all of these horrible feelings due to the fact that her husband was abusive to her, and to the fact that nobody cared enough to come over and be friends with her. These people – Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters – are guilty of emotional crimes, and they know they are. They are deeply convicted by their conscious, and they know they have wronged Minnie. They even have admitted they should be punished for these wicked emotional crimes, and I agree! Emotional crimes cause so much pain and agony. I can speak from experience. I am the victim of an emotional crime – just this last week, someone I love and care for deeply, emotionally wounded me, and I am physically and emotionally exhausted from the experience. That person, in my opinion, is guilty of a crime. That person betrayed and abandoned me in ways that I never thought she would. She is guilty of this horrible crime, and I hope that she is convicted of it, because I am a victim of it, just like Minnie was. I have not done anything crazy because of it, but I do have the horrible feelings that are packaged with this horrible crime. Minnie probably experienced it, just like I am right now. If there was some type of punishment for emotional crimes, I believe that everyone who was a victim would seek justice. They are just as evil as legal crimes, and they cause so much pain. I also believe that the amount of emotional crimes committed would drop if punishment were enforced. No one wants punishment, and this would be a perfect way to get rid of the pain that people cause each other emotionally. The person I deeply cared for caused me deep emotional pain, and I have yet to recover from it; I would hope that a punishment system would rid emotional crimes so other people would never experience what I am experiencing right now. Emotional crimes are just are devastating are legal crimes and come with devastating consequences – people need to realize they are just as awful and destructive as legal crimes and should be recognized as such.
After considering the lecture on the play, “Trifles,” and considering these two very important questions, “What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what’s the crime at hand . . . The legal crime, or the emotional one?” I believe that legal crimes and emotional crimes are both the crimes at hand because they can cause the same amount of devastating damage, which is evident in the story, but can also be evident in life.

The Many Crimes Committed In Glaspell's Plays

English 103 Blog

Discussion Questions

#1, and #2

"Trifles" and "A Jury of Her Peer" By Susan Glaspell

Discussion Question #1

1) Which “version” do you prefer – “A Jury of Her Peers” or Trifles?Why? Which elements seem better demonstrated/conveyed in the version of your choice? (You will need to provide a basic interpretation to answer)

Susan Glaspell, the author of the play, “Trifles,” and the short story, “A Jury of Her Peers,” wrote these two pieces to demonstrate how everyone can be guilty of crimes – whether they be defined by the law or not. Both of these stories do a very good job at conveying such an important message by staging a very strong plotline. Minnie Foster, one of the characters in both of the stories, is under arrest for the murder of her husband. There are five people going through her home, looking for possible evidence: Mrs. Peters, the wife of the sheriff, Mr. Peters, the sheriff, Mr. Henderson, the young county attorney, Mr. Hale, the person who stumbled upon John Wright’s dead body, and Mrs. Hale, the wife of Mr. Hale. Mr. Hale starts explaining to Mr. Henderson exactly what happened when he came to visit that night – Minnie was acting very strange, and she did not even hide the fact that her husband was in the other room – dead from a rope around his neck. After the proper authorities are brought in, Minnie is taken away, and these people go through her house to look for evidence. The men do most of the searching while the two women start to discuss what happened to her, and how tough her life was with John Wright. As they get deep into the discussion, they spill their guilt out to one another about how they should have been better neighbors to Minnie, and how that is also a crime that should be punishable. They go through her things, and find a quilt that she was working on. It is a beautiful log cabin pattern quilt, and is neatly done, except for one area of the quilt. This one area bothers Mrs. Hale, and she starts to undo it and fixes it. When she looks for the sewing box, she and Mrs. Peters find an unexpected and unpleasant surprise: a dead pet bird with a broken neck. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters know that this is an important piece of evidence, but decide that they have never seen this evidence and conceal it – for Minnie’s sake. The play and the story both end this way, leaving the reader to ponder a few things for themselves.
The “version” of the play that I preferred was “A Jury of Her Peers.” This is my favorite version because it contained a more “in-depth look” at Mrs. Hale’s and Mrs. Peter’s emotions, and it explained a little bit more of the story in depth than “Trifles.” Glaspell gives us a more “in-depth” look at Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters through the use of vivid imagery through their conversations. Readers of the story get to see the guilt of these two women, and how they consider their actions crimes when it came to being bad neighbors to Minnie Foster: “I could’ve come,” retorted Mrs. Hale shortly. “I stayed away because it weren’t cheerful -- and that’s why I ought to have come. I’ -- she looked around – “I’ve never liked this place. Maybe because it’s down in a hollow and you don’t see the road. I don’t know what it is, but it’s a lonesome place, and always was. I wish I had come over to see Minnie Foster sometimes. I can see now- -” She could not put it into words” (Glaspell 273). From examining Mrs. Hale’s side of the conversation, it is clear that she is feeling quite guilty for not being a friend – or even a good neighbor – to Minnie Foster. She is realizing that a lack of friends and neighbors to check on her or to be there for her when she needed it could have caused Minnie Foster to turn to desperate measures, especially when it came to her destructive husband, John Wright. Mrs. Peters tries to comfort Mrs. Hale throughout the whole story (due to the fact that she did not know Minnie Foster too well), until Mrs. Hale brings up something about how the bird being “still” could have triggered something in Minnie. This really affected Mrs. Peters and she explains to Mrs. Hale that she understands what “stillness” is: “I know what stillness is,” she said, in a queer, monotonous voice. “When we homesteaded in Dakota, and my first baby died -- after he was two years old -- and me with no other then- -” Mrs. Hale stirred. “How soon do you suppose they'll be through looking for the evidence?” “I know what stillness is,” repeated Mrs. Peters, in just that same way. Then she too pulled back. “The law has got to punish crime, Mrs. Hale,” she said in her tight little way” (Glaspell 278). This particular incident in the story triggers something inside Mrs. Peters, and she understands what Minnie Foster is going through for a brief moment. Mrs. Peters is the sheriff’s wife and deep down, after seeing the dead bird and hearing how Minnie Foster reacted to Mr. Hale, she has a good feeling that Minnie was responsible for the death of John Wright. However, after Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters continued their conversation for a while, they felt they were guilty of a crime as well – a crime of being worthless, uncaring friends and neighbors to a suffering woman. This realization causes them to make the decision that they did concerning the evidence they found: “Slowly, unwillingly, Mrs. Peters turned her head until her eyes met the eyes of the other woman. There was a moment when they held each other in a steady, burning look in which there was no evasion nor flinching. Then Martha Hale's eyes pointed the way to the basket in which was hidden the thing that would make certain the conviction of the other woman -- that woman who was not there and yet who had been there with them all through that hour. For a moment Mrs. Peters did not move. And then she did it. With a rush forward, she threw back the quilt pieces, got the box, tried to put it in her hand-bag. It was too big. Desperately she opened it, started to take the bird out. But there she broke -- she could not touch the bird. She stood there helpless, foolish. There was the sound of a knob turning in the inner door. Martha Hale snatched the box from the sheriff's wife, and got it in the pocket of her big coat just as the sheriff and the county attorney came back into the kitchen” (Glaspell 281). The conversations that Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters had in secret – away from the prying ears of the men – allowed them to understand that Minnie Foster was suffering in her home. That was the reason none of tasks that Minnie started ever got completed, and why her home did not feel welcoming. Minnie Foster needed a friend, but lacked friends or neighbors. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters realize this is why they are guilty of a serious crime. Everyone needs someone they can turn to when they are hurting – if they do not, it can cause them to seek desperate measures in order to find the solutions to their problems. Minnie Foster had no one to confide in, and she probably felt that everyone abandoned her when she needed them the most; this lack of people in her life caused her to seek a desperate solution to a problem in her life she did not know how to deal with. She probably did not even know if this was the right thing to do or not – she did, however, know that it would end the suffering that she was enduring, and that was good enough for her. But, as far as it being right or wrong, she probably was lost and confused because she had no one to tell her she was making a big mistake. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters realize this, and to atone for their sin, they hide the evidence that they know will convict Minnie Foster. They want to give her a second chance, and by giving her a second chance, they also give themselves a second chance to be good neighbors and good friends to her. Therefore, they hide the evidence, and Minnie is given a better chance at the trial. The story, “A Jury of Her Peers,” is wonderfully pieced together through the use of vivid imagery. The detailed conversations that go between Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters help readers to understand their feelings more, and how their feelings play an important part in this story. Without understanding Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, the readers would not understand the story. This is what occurs in “Trifles” – readers do not get what is going on because only the surface of the conversations are given, and are not given the whole thing. It is kind of like just being given a taste of a piece of pizza, but not allowed to eat the entire piece. To me, this is what “Trifles” was like. “A Jury of Her Peers,” however, was the entire piece of pizza – bold and full of flavors. This is why “A Jury of Her Peers” is the version of Glaspell’s story that I prefer the most – it helps readers to get a better understanding of the “whole” story, and not just pieces of it, like in the play, “Trifles.” “A Jury of Her Peers,” written by Susan Glaspell, is the version that I prefer due to the fact that it helps readers to get a better understanding of the whole story between all of the characters through the use of imagery, instead of small pieces of the story, like in “Trifles.”

2) Consider the lecture on Trifles, and this question particularly: “What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what’s the crime at hand . . . The legal crime, or the emotional one?

The lecture on the play, “Trifles,” was an excellent supplement because it helped us to consider some of the difficult, but important questions that readers must answer when reading this play. The main questions that are brought up in “Trifles,” are “What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what’s the crime at hand . . . The legal crime, or the emotional one?” I think these are very important questions that everyone should consider – even when not reading a piece of literature – because it affects how we view events that occur around us, as well as our daily lives. These are two very important questions that I have explained below.
After considering the excellent lecture on the play, “Trifles,” and considering the questions, “What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what’s the crime at hand . . . The legal crime, or the emotional one?” I believe that a crime can be labeled under both of these definitions – that is, real, solid crimes that people know they should not commit, such as stealing, murdering, kidnapping, etc, but I also believe that emotional injustices are also a crime as well because they can cause great pain or other grievances. After I read the play, “Trifles,” it was evident that there were a couple of things going on. Minnie Foster was having some problems with her husband, and it was also clear that it was these problems that led her to this last, desperate act – the final solution to her “problem.” No matter the circumstances, she did commit a crime – Minnie Foster committed murder. She took her husband’s life. If she did this out of self-defense – that is, her husband was beating and beating her, and then she found a weapon and killed him in order to defend herself – then that would be legal. However, she killed him while he was defenseless, and it makes her look like a murderer in court. Therefore, this is one of the crimes currently at hand, and what constitutes a legal crime under these particular circumstances. An emotional crime, however, is a little bit different because there is not a written “law” that says people are committing crimes if they are hurting other people emotionally. It is more of an unspoken crime that harshly convicts people straight at their subconscious level; therefore, they know they have wronged the other person. What constitute an emotional crime could be many things – such as feelings of loss, fear, abandonment, anger, or betrayal – that other people have caused. These particular feelings can cause people to feel as though everyone in the world is against them and that they have no friends to turn to or confide in – and therefore can be devastating. It can also cause people to do horrible things because they may not know how to deal with these devastating feelings. A perfect example of this principle is Minnie Foster. She was probably feeling all of these horrible feelings due to the fact that her husband was abusive to her, and to the fact that nobody cared enough to come over and be friends with her. These people – Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters – are guilty of emotional crimes, and they know they are. They are deeply convicted by their conscious, and they know they have wronged Minnie. They even have admitted they should be punished for these wicked emotional crimes, and I agree! Emotional crimes cause so much pain and agony. I can speak from experience. I am the victim of an emotional crime – just this last week, someone I love and care for deeply, emotionally wounded me, and I am physically and emotionally exhausted from the experience. That person, in my opinion, is guilty of a crime. That person betrayed and abandoned me in ways that I never thought she would. She is guilty of this horrible crime, and I hope that she is convicted of it, because I am a victim of it, just like Minnie was. I have not done anything crazy because of it, but I do have the horrible feelings that are packaged with this horrible crime. Minnie probably experienced it, just like I am right now. If there was some type of punishment for emotional crimes, I believe that everyone who was a victim would seek justice. They are just as evil as legal crimes, and they cause so much pain. I also believe that the amount of emotional crimes committed would drop if punishment were enforced. No one wants punishment, and this would be a perfect way to get rid of the pain that people cause each other emotionally. The person I deeply cared for caused me deep emotional pain, and I have yet to recover from it; I would hope that a punishment system would rid emotional crimes so other people would never experience what I am experiencing right now. Emotional crimes are just are devastating are legal crimes and come with devastating consequences – people need to realize they are just as awful and destructive as legal crimes and should be recognized as such.
After considering the lecture on the play, “Trifles,” and considering these two very important questions, “What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what’s the crime at hand . . . The legal crime, or the emotional one?” I believe that legal crimes and emotional crimes are both the crimes at hand because they can cause the same amount of devastating damage, which is evident in the story, but can also be evident in life.

Discussion Questions

Which “version” do you prefer – “A Jury of Her Peers” or Trifles? Why? Which elements seem better demonstrated/conveyed in the version of your choice?

The version I preferred was "A Jury of Her Peers". It was a shorter version, and while I enjoy long stories, I enjoy even more when stories get straight to the main point of what the story is involving. Trifles was definitely the version where the reader had to try and interpret the story for themselves. In the short story version, you are able to know what Mrs. Hale is doing and thinking. The elements seemed better in "A Jury of Her Peers" since there are details provided about the characters. Trifles is nice to read through see the interactions between the characters, but the length of the play makes it a little tedious to read after a while.

The play relies primarily on symbolism and some foreshadowing to develop the plot. Which elements are symbolic? How do you know?

There were quite a few symbols in the story. The canary died in the same way the murder occurred, and the death of the bird caused Mrs. Wright to snap since it was the one thing that brought her happiness. I looked up the word trifles and it can mean "a matter, affair, or circumstance of trivial importance or significance", or, "a dessert usually consisting of custard and cake soaked in wine or liqueur, and jam, fruit, or the like." Her jar of trifles were significant to her even if they were considered to be of no importance to others. The uneven quilt was symbolic as well, since it could be seen that there was something that distracted her from completing it correctly, or the tools to create the quilt could be used for different motives.

DQ For Week of 10/12

1. Which “version” do you prefer – “A Jury of Her Peers” or Trifles? Why? Which elements seem better demonstrated/conveyed in the version of your choice? (You will need to provide a basic interpretation to answer)

I preferred the short story version, “A Jury of Her Peers” rather than the play. As I read both versions, it seemed like the play gives more interaction between the characters trying to understand what occurred, but this version allows to hear what other people saw and heard when they went to talk to Mrs. Wright. It is more straight to the point as to what they saw and from the play it mostly asks questions. I like the idea of trying to figure out what happened through objects and looking at the surroundings, but interactions with others as how Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peter had with Mrs. Wright helps understand even more. The short story allows the reader to know what the exact emotions, facial expressions, and tones Mrs. Wright had when confronted about what had occurred to her husband. This tells a lot about a person, the way they act when confronted about a situation.

4. The play relies primarily on symbolism and some foreshadowing to develop the plot. Which elements are symbolic? How do you know?

I found that the bird and the birdcage both seem to be symbolic in the play. The canary is a symbol of Mrs. Wright and the cage also relates to Mrs. Wright but symbolizes a sort of imprisonment for Mrs. Wright from her husband. These symbols allow the reader to understand some part of the relationship Mr. and Mrs. Wright had amongst each other and what type of people they were. Even Mrs. Hale tells she saw Mrs. Wright like a bird, “real sweet and pretty, but kind of timid and fluttery.” Another important symbols is the unevenly sewn quilt. Mrs. Hale and Peter make note that she was a quilter and maybe taking the quilt could help her mind clear up a bit. The fact that it is sewn unevenly shows that she could have had several things on her mind.

week 6 questions 2 and 4

4. Why do you think Mamet allows us a window into John’s life (signaled by the constantly ringing telephone, an apt metaphor for his connection to the outside world) but none into Carol’s (we have no sense of who she is or her life outside of this series of exchanges with her professor nor any events leading up to them)? Is Mamet empathizing with John by developing his character more than Carol’s? Do YOU sympathize with John and think perhaps the development of John’s character (as a professor, husband, father, recipient of a surprise party, etc.) might have something to do with where your empathy lies?
At first, I didn’t empathize with John. I thought he was being rather full of himself, acting like he was trying to help…I honestly think he was….but I thought he went about it in an i-know-all-im-the-professor-you-are-the-pee-on approach. With that said, I think Mamet’s intentions were to allow the reader to see that John was human; he had a life outside his role as a professor. We as readers did not have the fortune to have immediate insight to John’s life. I wish Mamet would have let us into Carol’s life a little bit more but with her, its easier to gather more about her, her past, her general attitude about men in general. My empathy is with both characters….I feel for Carol, she needs guidance but I empathize with John too, I still think he was set up.
2.Consider the portion of the conversation (the first meeting) in which Carol offers up her reasoning, as it’s implied, for her performance in the class: “No, no, no. I’m doing what I’m told. It’s difficult for me. It’s difficult . . . I don’t . . . lots of the language . . . The language; the “things” that you say . . . It is true. I have problems . . . I come from a different social . . . a different economic . . . No. I: when I came to this school: . . . does that mean nothing . . . ?” (702-703). what is Carol trying to say? Are her points legitimate? (Consider the context in which she’s offering them). Why or why not?
I feel that Carol is trying to say that she’s not getting what she came for. She may have came to that school knowing about John as an instructor and the class he offered in critical thinking. I don’t think she’s legitimate in her points, she’s crying wolf. Her economic reference is of little relevance. I feel that her points don’t matter a whole lot because I think she’s trying to open a whole different can of worms

Discussion Questions Week of 10/12 Reed Steiner

1. I most definitely preferred Trifles to "A Jury of Her Peers". I read the play first and really thought it was good. Then I was thrown off guard at first because I did not know both stories were going to have the same plot. I thought reading them both of the was interesting at first because I thought it was fun searching for the differences in either story. I liked how "A Jury of Her Peers" was told from Mrs. Hale's point of view and the reader could get inside her head so the psychology of the characters more because she was explain it. After I was about half way done with "A Jury of Her Peers" I started to get board only because I knew what was going to happen. I thought Trifles was better to read, not because it was shorter or anything, but because it seem more suspenseful. Less of the information was being spoon fed to the reader. This forced to think harder and question what was going on. The play made the reader feel more like a detective because they were presented with all the same evidence Peters and Hale were given and had to come to a conclusion on their own. With Mrs. Hale explaining everything it was not as fun.

2. In the play Trifles and the short story "A Jury of Peers" there were quite a few people committing crimes. There was both Mr. and Mrs. Wright and even Mrs. Hales and Mrs. Peters were breaking the law. I would argue that a crime is the violation of mortality. Sometimes the law must be comprised because of moral choice. This would mean that both Mr. and Mrs. Wright did technically commit a "crime", but who's crime is the "crime at hand" or the main crime in the play. I believe that it is possible to break the law, but still do what morally right.

Mr. Wright, has a husband, had a moral duty to his wife to love, protect, and cherish his wife, but he did not do so. Making Mr. Wright the guilty one. Mrs. Wright was confided and suppressed so much that she was no longer herself. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters remember when Mrs. Write used to dress nice and sing they even refer to her as her maiden name suggesting that that was the person she really used to be. By the end of the story the reader comes to the conclusion that Mr. Wright was an abusive husband that drove his wife to murdering him. If you are unhappy it better to leave the man or get some kind of help to stop the abusive spouse, but their home was secluded and Mrs. Wright did not have any friends to turn to and it seems as though murder was her only option. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters were able to discover all the emotion and hidden baggage just by looking through Mrs. Wright kitchen. Knowing this, Hale and Peters hid the crucial evidence that would convict Wright of murder. Both Hale and Peters knew who was responsible for Mr. Wrights murder, and that was himself. Hales and Peters took the law into their own hands and do what is morally right because they were able to see the real crime.

Discussion Question # 1 & 4 Week of 10/12

1. I enjoyed the trifles version. The events were narrated through several perspectives; therefore the play was able to cast the theme clearly. Two men that bared witness to the first moments of the murders and how the wife acted. I was able to depict one judgment from the other, and cast my own judgment as to why the wife slayed her husband.
4. The play does have a specific symbolism within the plot. The main symbol that was transparent in the plot was the importance of trifles. Trifle can be one of two definitions. One definition could be something of little importance, or desert such as custard, jelly, and jam. In the play there is a scene were the two men stumble upon jarred trifles, and stated how important they were to Minnie. She truly wanted to save the jarred trifles, and worried about them freezing in the cold weather. On the other hand trifles additional definition was a direct reference to Minnie's feelings within her broken marriage. The symbolic message sent by these two definitions were that Minnie's feelings were important, and just as important as a jar of trifles.

Workshop #1 How does it work?

Does anyone know how the workshop is suppose to work? Is it all dont here on the blog?

Thanks,

Reed

I know what stillness is.

2. Consider the lecture on Trifles, and this question particularly: “What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what’s the crime at hand . . . The legal crime, or the emotional one?

Trifles raises several interesting questions, a major one dealing with the issue of crimes and violence. It is clear that John Wright was at the least mentally abusive towards his wife Minnie, if not so physically. The fact that he killed her canary by breaking its neck points out that he may in fact have been physically abusive, but this is not proven. While Minnie did commit a crime in that she murdered her husband, a legal crime, spousal abuse and domestic violence were not considered legal – or even emotional – crimes at the time of the play’s conception. Glaspell seems to be making a point in this vein. While today women can use an affirmative defense in cases against their husbands or partners, this kind of violence towards women was in many ways status quo in the Midwest during the early 20th century. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove an emotional crime to defend Minnie’s actions against her husband, but that emotional crime was the underlying cause of John Wright’s death.


4. The play relies primarily on symbolism and some foreshadowing to develop the plot. Which elements are symbolic? How do you know?

Glaspell uses several images in Trifles. These symbolic images include the canned fruit, the unfinished quilt, the dead canary, and its broken cage. Probably the most obvious symbolism is the canary. Mrs. Hale recalls Minnie Foster singing in the town choir as a carefree young woman before she became Mrs. Wright. Canaries are known for their song and the correlation of Mr. Wright killing the canary with Mr. Wright killing Minnie’s spirit is an easy one to make. It is also easy to connect the bird’s broken neck with the manner in which Mr. Wright died. This brings up the next symbolic element in the play: the unfinished quilt. Quilts can either be knotted or quilted in order to attach the top, batting, and backing. When Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters note that the quilt was going to be knotted, they are making an allusion to the knot in the noose that killed Mr. Wright. At the first mention of knotting, the women seem to answer the question innocently and with no other connotation. But when the men ask again at the end of the play, Mrs. Hale’s reply carries a much more knowing tone. The women have figured out what happened and their answer is a veiled admission of this fact. Mrs. Wright’s canned fruits froze and burst in their jars when the fire in the kitchen stove went out over night. There are several symbolic elements to be taken from this observation; the first being that the fire went out. Fire is equated with passion and desire, and it can be said that Minnie’s desire to stay in her marriage had been extinguished when her husband killed her canary, her source of light and happiness. And just as the fruit burst, so did Minnie when she strangled her husband. The fact that only one jar remains could symbolize the need the other women feel to protect Minnie, to keep her from completely bursting and losing everything. These images are fairly obvious from a literary standpoint because they are easy to decode, but Glaspell links them to the reader through the title of her play. The men laugh at the wives for being concerned with ‘trifles’, but it is these ‘trivial’ details that uncover the truth that the men are unable to pinpoint.

Susan Glaspell

Question #1

The play Triffles by Susan Glaspell seems to be a bit more difficult to read as intonations from Glaspell are left to interpretation by the actors or the reader’s imagination. In contrast, the short story, A Jury of Her Peers gives full and complete detail regarding the characters’ feelings, facial expressions, tone, and emotions. In the short story, Glaspell states, “A frightened look blurred the other thing in Mrs. Peters' eyes” which is part of the character development for Mrs. Peters. In addition the paragraph not included in the play that shows a glimpse into the soul of Mrs Hale states, “‘the law is the law--and a bad stove is a bad stove. How'd you like to cook on this?’--pointing with the poker to the broken lining. She opened the oven door and started to express her opinion of the oven; but she was swept into her own thoughts, thinking of what it would mean, year after year, to have that stove to wrestle with. The thought of Minnie Foster trying to bake in that oven--and the thought of her never going over to see Minnie Foster--.”

The play leaves any characterization out of its descriptions, and only inference from the actors would clue the audience into these small details. The short story allows the reader insight into the authors mind, and develops intention behind the actions of her story’s personalities. Vividly developing Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters’ emotional constitutions also highlights the author’s views on feminism, male chauvinist behavior, and spousal abuse.

Question #2

Aside from the obvious homicide inflicted by Mrs. Wright, crime, defined by the law, would be any of the acts that are performed by the two women, Mrs. Hales and Mrs. Peters, during the course of their occupation in the Wright’s home that inhibited the finding of additional evidence. They were both fully aware of their wrong as they struggled to hide their behavior seen when they discover the lifeless canary and the harried stitching on the quilt. Both cases would give reason to believe that they were obstructing justice and the discovery of evidence. These seem to be minor crimes, and crimes motivated by the obvious defense of the horrible injustices they see within the Wright home.

The state of Mrs. Wright’s oven, her tattered clothing, and the obvious isolation she must have felt, and the canary’s obvious rage induced killing is only signs of a much larger crime against her. Most likely the culmination over many years of emotional damage to her psyche by this man, Mrs. Wright crumbled at this final act of deadly hate and killed her husband. Crime cannot be measured, and any feeble attempt to do so is consistently met with gross injustices. What crime has more evil? If considered that one crime sparked the other in the Wright’s case, then it is easy to see that damage inflicted over the years was the motivating force behind the secondary crime, and was completely preventable. Had Mrs. Wright not been subjected to years of emotional damage, would she have killed Mr. Wright?

Discussion Questions Week of 10 12

Discussion Questions Week of 10/12 English 103 Fall 2009

1. Which “version” do you prefer – “A Jury of Her Peers” or Trifles?
Why? Which elements seem better demonstrated/conveyed in the version of your choice? (You will need to provide a basic interpretation to answer)

2. Consider the lecture on Trifles, and this question particularly: “What constitutes a crime and under what circumstances? That is, what’s the crime at hand . . . The legal crime, or the emotional one?

3. Consider the lecture on feminism (if you’ve read it or plan to; it’s supplemental, but should be read if you are planning at all to use feminism as a lens for your research paper). Do you think the text is feminist in nature? Why? How? Why not?(You will need to provide a clear, working definition of feminism to answer this – whatever yours is.
4. The play relies primarily on symbolism and some foreshadowing to develop the plot. Which elements are symbolic? How do you know?
5. Consider the question above . . . if the play relies on those literary elements, on which do “A Jury of Her Peers”? Do you find similarities in terms of method of development (characterization, symbolism, point of view, tone, plot, etc.) Major departures?

Week #8 Blog?

Hello Everyone,
I hope that everyone is having a wonderful weekend, and that your essays are going great! :-)
I have a question....I just want to be sure...we do not have a blog for this week, correct? I have checked our homework schedule, and it looks like the only thing we have to submit is our essay. Is that correct? I just want to be sure. :-)

Thanks so much for the help in advance, and enjoy the rest of your weekend. God Bless!

Sincerely,
Jillian

We Belong in a Zoo . . .

Thank you, those of you who sent kind messages about my son. We were able to go the Wild Animal Park today -- just for a few hours, but still -- he'd never been. Everyone needs a break, right?

Reading Schedule

Hey guys,

Does anyone have the reading/due date schedule for weeks 9-18? I've tried to open it on multiple computers and I keep getting the schedule for weeks 1-8. Am I missing something or are other people having the same problem? My email is myxwesternsky@gmail.com if someone who has it wants to email it to me.

Thanks!
-Leslie

Week #7 Blog

English 103 Blog

Discussion Questions

"Everyday Use" Discussion Question #3

3) “Although many students seem to prefer Maggie to Dee, most would probably rather be Dee than Maggie. Is this true for you? Why/why not?” Provide character analysis in your answer (Making Literature Matter 303)
In the short story, “Everyday Use,” written by Alice Walker, the author writes a wonderfully rich story about a mother and her two very different daughters. The mother in the story talks about Dee, her oldest daughter, and Maggie, her youngest daughter. These two girls are very different from each other; they have different personalities that have shaped their characters. The blog question for this particular story was a relatively easy one for me; it asks, “Although many students seem to prefer Maggie to Dee, most would probably rather be Dee than Maggie. Is this true for you? Why/why not?” For me, my answer is Maggie hands down. This is due to a couple of reasons, and they will be laid out below.
In the story, Maggie is a very down-to-earth, sensitive, gentle, and intelligent individual due to a hardship in her life. The family’s house burned down and this contributed to a limp that she will have for the rest of her life: “Have you ever seen a lame animal, perhaps a dog run over by some careless person rich enough to own a car, sidle up to someone who is ignorant enough to be kind to him? That is the way my Maggie walks. She has been like this, chin on chest, eyes on ground, feet in shuffle, ever since the fire that burned the other house to the ground” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 298). Furthermore, Maggie looks different due to the fire. Her skin is not smooth and pretty like Dee’s and therefore, she has learned to be stronger about this aspect in her life, even though she does get jealous of her sister and does wish she had Dee’s beauty: “Maggie will be nervous until after her sister goes: she will stand hopelessly in corners homely and ashamed of the burn scars down her arms and legs, eyeing her sister with a mixture of envy and awe” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 297). I have to say, in this aspect, I am like Maggie a little bit. I have a disability as well, and sometimes I can feel a little bit out of place. However, I do not feel like that every moment of the day, nor do I feel sorry for myself, as I think is the case with Maggie. Sometimes, however, there is a moment that can creep up that disabled people do wish they had the health of everyone else. This is something that I can relate to easily with Maggie. However, the one thing that I do admire about Maggie is her humble intelligence. She has a sharp, quick memory, and is something even her sister admires about her: “Aunt Dee’s first husband whittled the dash,” said Maggie so low you almost could hear her. “His name was Henry, but they called him Stash.” “Maggie’s brain is like an elephant’s,” Wangero said, laughing. As can be seen from Dee’s statement, Maggie is sharp, but does not quickly display this intelligence. It is as if Maggie thinks intelligence should not go with a disability, and therefore, she is afraid to show it. I do like how she is not a “show-off” with her sharp memory, but I wish that Maggie could have seen the gift that she had with her intelligence, and used it to open up more opportunities in her life (such as school, career, etc). However, being a shy and sensitive soul, Maggie did not even knowledge this gift and kept it to herself. Again, I like how she did not use this to act “better” than other people, but I also wish she could have seen the potential in herself and enjoyed life a little bit more. JJ One last thing that I admire about Maggie is her ability to sacrifice what she wants to make other people happy. When Dee was pouting for the quilts, trying to get Mama to give them to her, Maggie calmly came up to Mama and told her that Dee could have the quilts and that she could remember their “Grandma Dee without the quilts” (303). This piece of evidence from the story shows how self-sacrificing Maggie is – she cares about the needs and wants of others. Even though she really wanted those quilts, she was willing to let them go if she knew that her sister wanted them that badly. This is another great quality that I like about Maggie (everyone should think about what would make other people happy even if it means sacrificing your happiness for a while; I know this is a quality that is important to me and that I like to practice JJ).
Maggie’s sister, on the other hand, is the complete opposite from Maggie. She is flashy, physically beautiful, has to have the best in life, and will not take “no” for an answer. Dee speaks her mind, and it is obvious when she does not like something. In fact, as her mother points out, Dee was happy when their first house burned down because she “hated” the house: “And Dee. I see her standing off under the sweet gum tree she used to dig gum out of; a look of concentration on her face as she watched the last dingy gray board of the house fall in toward the red-hot brick chimney. Why don’t you do a dance around the ashes? I’d wanted to ask her. She had hated the house that much” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 298-299). Furthermore, Dee was what I like to call a “material girl.” She loved to have nice things and wanted them all of the time. Now, I do not have any problem with anyone wanting nice things once in a while – it is in our nature. However, I do have a problem with people who have to have nice things all of the time, and then they show absolutely no gratitude for them, especially when they know that it caused the family a huge sacrifice. I think Dee was this type of “material girl” as the following piece of evidence suggests: “Dee wanted nice things. A yellow organdy dress to wear to her graduation from high school; black pumps to match a green suit she’d made from an old suit somebody gave me. She was determined to stare down any disaster in her efforts. Her eyelids would not flicker for minutes at a time. Often I fought off the temptation to shake her. At sixteen she had a style of her own: and knew what style was” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 299). One last thing that I really do not admire about Dee is her “I will not take NO for an answer” attitude. When she was trying to persuade Mama to give her the quilts, she already acted like Mama told her she could have them: “Some of those pieces, like those lavender ones, come from old clothes her mother handed down to her,” I said, moving up to touch the quilts. Dee (Wangero) moved back just enough so that I couldn’t reach the quilts. They already belonged to her” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 302). However, when Mama told her that she promised those quilts to Maggie, Dee became furious: “She gasped like a bee had stung her. “Maggie can’t appreciate these quilts!” she said. “She probably be backward enough to put them to everyday use.” When Mama stated that she hoped that Maggie would put them to good, everyday use, Dee became even more furious: “But they’re priceless!” she was saying now, furiously; for she has a temper. “Maggie would put them on the bed and in five years they’d be in rags. Less than that!” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 303). Dee had a horrible attitude about these quilts. She wanted her mother to give in to her, and did not even consider Maggie’s feelings for one second. That is a shame, and it is also a shame that Dee thinks that the entire world will revolve around her. I do not like these “diva” attitudes that people acquire, nor do I admire them. It is pathetic, especially when it comes to not considering the feelings of others.
After analyzing these two characters, the answer to this particular question comes very easily to me. Not only do I prefer Maggie to Dee, but I would rather be Maggie than Dee. I would not want to be Dee! I would want to be Maggie any day of the week, with disability and all. Dee’s personality shaped her character into a person that does not care about other people at all; rather, she cares only about herself. Dee wants nice things, Dee wants people to give her things, Dee will not take no for an answer. The world revolves around Dee. Dee’s attitude and personality makes it really difficult for me to imagine anyone really wanting to be like her. Maggie, on the other hand, I could imagine being like. She may have a physical disability (with her limp) and scars from the fire, but she has a sensitive, gentle personality. Maggie thinks about the feelings of other people. When Dee was pouting like a spoiled child for those quilts, Maggie told Mama that Dee could have those quilts if she wanted them. Maggie was willing to give those quilts up to make Dee happy. Maggie cares about other people. In addition to being a gentle, sensitive, caring soul, Maggie is intelligent as well. But, Maggie does not use that intelligence in a boastful manner to gain attention to herself. That is a quality that I admire, but I wish that she would use her intelligence to open up different opportunities in her life, such as school, career, etc. Maggie could, but chose not to. This is the only thing that I would change if I were to be Maggie. I would be a little bit more out-going, and would not be extremely ashamed of my disability as Maggie is. However, in compassion to Dee, I would be Maggie no questions asked. I just do not like Dee’s personality or character, and therefore, prefer Maggie and would be Maggie if I had to choose between the two characters. In the short story, “Everyday Use,” written by Alice Walker, the author presents two very female characters that showcase how personality differences can shape a person.

"Kaspar Hauser Speaks" Discussion Question #2

2) Are you intrigued by Kaspar Hauser’s story? Do you find that you want to keep reading, or are you turned off by the narrative? In your explanation, consider structure: the author uses a “frame narrative” to concretize the story (here, within the confines of a speech to a group of people). How do you think you would have responded differently were the context NOT a speech but, say, a story told from an objective, third-person narrator?
In the short story, “Kaspar Hauser Speaks,” written by Steven Millhauser, the author presents the speech of a person who has recently become “civilized” after living in a dark tower all of his life. After reading Kaspar’s story all of the way through, I have to say, yes, I was intrigued by it. It was really interesting, sad, and inspiring at the same time. It was all of these things mixed into one due to the fact that Kaspar lived in complete isolation all of his life, and then made a remarkable recovery after he placed into Professor Daumer’s care. Yes, I found that I wanted to keep reading Kaspar’s speech; I really enjoyed reading it solely from his point of view, and not anyone else’s. I wanted to keep on reading because it was interesting hearing his story about how he viewed his life in confinement compared to his new life living among people. It helped me imagine what people, like Kaspar, feel like after such a life-changing ordeal. It was quite an interesting experience reading this story. In no way was I turned off by the narrative. It was the Kaspar’s narrative that “turned me on” so of speak. I really enjoyed it.
The author of the story, “Kaspar Hauser Speaks,” uses a frame narrative to concretize the story (in this story, within the confines of a speech to a group of people). If the narrative were not a speech, but told from an objective, third-person narrator, I would have to say that I do not think I would have responded as well to this particular story. This story really lends itself to the first-person point of view speech that Kaspar gives himself, and if it were told from a different point of view instead of Kaspar’s, then I do not think it would have the same effect. Kaspar is telling the audience, in his speech, about his experiences during his time of confinement, and his experiences after he was released. This makes it not only more believable, but also more personable. One experience that Kaspar tells the audience about during his speech that I found sad and interesting at the same time was when he was describing his frightening experience with the black hen: “One day I was taken for a walk in the streets, in the company of two policemen. Suddenly a black thing came toward me, a shaking black thing. Terror seized me, I tried to run away. Only later, much later, could I be made to understand that I had seen a black hen” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 1087). This particular experience with the hen could only be recounted in Kaspar’s words. Only he could recount to the audience what terror he felt at that particular moment when the hen ran towards him – this could not be told from a third person point of view. Another experience that could only be recounted to the audience in Kaspar’s own words was his progress after he left the confinement of the dark tower: “Within three months I had learned to speak, to write, to understand the difference between things that are alive, like cats, and things that only appear to be alive, like paper blown by the wind. The ball didn’t roll along by itself whenever it wanted to: this too I learned, with difficulty. Who had cut the leaves into their shapes? Why did the horse on the wall not run away? Professor Daumer was very patient. I felt bursts of power and curiosity, followed always by a fall into melancholy, as I became more deeply aware of the big hole in my life” (qtd. in Schilb and Clifford 1088). I realize that Professor Daumer or even Professor Daumer’s family could have recounted these experiences in different ways as well, but it would not be the same because it is important to note how Kaspar felt during this amazing time of development for him. Only Kaspar, and Kaspar alone, could recount how he felt during this particular time in his life. Therefore, considering these things, the story would not have been the same for me if it were not in the speech form, and written in an objective, third-person narrative. This particular story, in my opinion, has to be written from the perspective of the person who went through the actual experiences – in this case, Kaspar Hauser himself.
In the short story, “Kaspar Hauser Speaks,” written by Steven Millhauser, the author presents the speech of a person who has recently become “civilized” after living in confinement for the majority of his natural life.