Discussion Questions Week 7 Reed Steiner

What We Talk About When We Talk About Love:

2.Wow, I really enjoyed reading the lecture for What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. I definitely understood that Teri was being belittled and put down by her husband, Mel, but I was not specifically thinking social classes. In fact, social class never crossed my mind. I did this because I automatically categorize married couple as being in the same social class; the whole concept of being married into one’s social class. The wife would usually assume the same social level of the husband in marriage; love would overcome the social differences, but this is not the case. The lecture explained their social differences very clearly and suddenly the story became much more than about love or a verbally abusive husband. It helped me understand the philology behind why Mel was belittling Terri. It’s because he sets himself higher than Terri. So the question this lecture led me to as was: Does Mel really loves Terri as much as he thinks if he sees her on another social level? My answer is, no he does not. Maybe Terri abuse ex-boyfriend has just as much love for Terri as Mel because they both look down and Terri and abuse her. Both men do not treat her as a human being. Therefore neither of the men really have a true understand for what love is.

Kaspar Hauser Speaks:

2. I though Kaspar Hauser' s story was very intriguing and I was drawn in even more because of the narrative format it was in. I wanted to keep reading and find more things out about the character. I wanted to know more about what life was like being shut out for the world in a dark bock. The frame narrative he used by speaking to a specific group of people really set the stage giving it a real authentic, old, and foreign setting or where the speech was given. It definitely would not have been as effective as told for third-person. I believe the reason that I was drawn in so greatly was because it was so personal. As I was reading I was convinced the speaker really did experiencing the traumatic events and detached life he was explaining. This authentication would have been lost if it was explained by an outside person. The third-person or omnipresent point of view might still have been interesting, but the reader would not have been able to empathize as much. Without this empathic tone the reader would feel disconnected and less interested.