AmLit: Discussion Board Archive

 

Looking for the message board? Click here.


Date:
24 Jan 2001
Time:
19:40:20
Remote User:
 

Comments

Name a character from a movie you've seen recently whom you might say is "riding an Emersonian high." Why is s/he doing so, and is there a good Emerson quote that might apply to him/her? Leave me a thought. -Mr. M.


Date:
24 Jan 2001
Time:
20:44:18
Remote User:
 

Comments

Although <I><B>"Castaway"</B></I> is the obvious choice, I would have to say that being forced to rely on yourself isn't a great philosophical act. I think the most <I>"Emerson-esque"</I> quote I have heard in a movie lately would have to be what Michael Douglas' character's daughter says to his character when he catches her smoking crack.<BR> "F--- you."<BR> Although crude, she gets her point across and manages to prove Hawthorne and Melville right at the same time. People tend to evil if left untended. This girl was not only high on crack, she was also riding an Emersonian high, unwittingly being herself, even though what she was was an angst-ridden drug abusing teen. She wasn't concerned with the past, of her great grades or accomplishments, or conforming to anyone's rules*.<BR> Sick of sitting around, doing nothing but being misunderstood, she turns to the drug life as an escape. While not the smartest escape, in the end, neither was McCandless'. The difference is that she is saved, eventually, from her seeming fate, while McCandless dies, alone, in the wilderness.<BR> I hope we can discuss this in class, because there is much more to say, and I don't want to waste posting space.<BR><BR>

*anyone attempting to argue against me with the theory of <B>conforming unconformists</B> will be ignored. At least we try. Thank you.<BR><BR>

<A HREF="http://www.teknokrazy.com">Teknokrazy</A><BR> aka Myles


Date:
24 Jan 2001
Time:
20:44:38
Remote User:
 

Comments


Date:
24 Jan 2001
Time:
20:44:57
Remote User:
 

Comments

1


Date:
24 Jan 2001
Time:
23:15:53
Remote User:
 

Comments

"Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles" This made me think of the movie The Rock and how General Hummell took over Alcatraz Prison and took 81 hostoges inorder to get 100million dollars from the government to pay benefits to his soldiers family's who were forgotten in his black opp stings in Korea and Desert Storm. The strikes were secret so when the soldiers didnt return thier familys were told lies to cover up the operrations and the death of their family members. Hummell feel that the only way to get the benifits paid is to get the governments attention in this way. His principles and personal happiness cannot exsist unless he takes care of this problem. And... he uses the F word a whole lot throughout the movie.


Date:
24 Jan 2001
Time:
23:28:23
Remote User:
 

Comments

The Quote from Emerson that I am using for my character is... "Trust thyself, every heart vibrates to that iron string"

The movie I am refering to is "Save The Last Dance" In this movie this girl, I can't remember her name, has one passion and that is to dance. Her mother helped her with this dream as long as she could remember. Years pass and it is time for this girl to go to college. She wants to get accepted into this special dance collge. Anyway, her mom ends up passing away during her audition to the college. The girl is crushed and looses all ambition to dance. She then moves from the all white area she lived in, to an all black area, where her father lives.She has a tough time adjusting and doesn't have many friends. For a long time she forgets about dancing, and blames herself for killing her mother. Finally, she meets this guy, I can't remember his name eaither..sorry, and he gives her the strength she needed to go on and dance. Her love became so powerful again that she worked on her moves 3 or 4 hours a day to live her dream of going to that special dance college. She was on an Emerson high because she lost hope, but in the end she found herself, that special thing in he life that kept her going, and in her case it was dancing.

Thanks, Dani Statuto


Date:
25 Jan 2001
Time:
01:35:31
Remote User:
 

Comments

The movie I'm using is Dead Poet's Society. I think that a character that is on an Emersonian high is Neil Perry. For years he had done what his father wanted him to do, which was to go to an elite prep school, Welton Academy, and then attend an Ivy League college in order to become a doctor. However, when Neil meets John Keating, he learns that he must do what he wants, and live his life to the fullest. Neil really wants to act, so he joins a play and gets the lead role. He loves acting and he is truly happy because he is finally doing what he wants to do. Although, his father hates the idea of acting and forbids Neil from doing it anymore. Neil eventually commits suicide because he can't live his life the way he wants. A quote, from Emerson, that applies to this is, "I must be myself. I cannot break myself any longer for you..." Neil didn't want his dad to control his life anymore. He felt that if he couldn't live his life the way he wanted, then he didn't want to live at all.

Mike Bannister


Date:
25 Jan 2001
Time:
01:58:23
Remote User:
 

Comments

The character, Caraticus Pots, in the famous "Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang" is a character whom I believe shares characteristics that portray a belief in the ideas of Transcendentalists. "To be great is to be misunderstood." The name Caraticus Pots, being so unusual as it is, is the first indication that this man is by no means common. He is a man who lives on a dirt road on the outskirts of town, where there is plenty of room for his grand house, full of inventions. Half of his house is composed of random inventions that do not yet work, but on which he continues to work until they are perfected. It is as if he has an oversoul, or an inner light, creative inclinations that keep him at work on these "silly" inventions. Those that meet him, such as the woman of a wealthy candy manufacturer believe that he is crazy for "wasting his time" on such frivilous ideas. He soon proves society wrong when he invents a candy that also acts as a whistle, and makes a significant amount of money off of his work. He also takes a racing car that "society" feels has its right place at a junk yard, and turns it into the envy of the town. All this time of invention, he is living in a family, where his children run wild and free, and secure a position that is almost equal to his own position as father of the family. This was not the conventional way to live in those times. Though he does not travel to the west, as do so many other characters on an "Emmersonian high", he travels away from the conformity of society, relying on his own instincts, while misunderstood by those who only believe in the cosistency of society. He believes in the social argument of the organic form. The candy manufacturers can not turn him away from his ideas, and can not tell him that his inventions are not valid. His greatness is proven by his success in attempts unheard of by those that conform to conventional laws. -Thanks, Kristine Seigars


Date:
25 Jan 2001
Time:
02:00:32
Remote User:
 

Comments

"What I must do is all that concerns me and not what the people think." A film that could be related to this quote is the movie Rudy. In the movie, Rudy is a small, white male who has dreams of playing football for Notre Dame. He is slow, weak, and unathletic and throughout his whole life people have been putting him down and telling him to give up his foolish dream, to many, his childhood fantasy was far-fetched and would never become a reality. Anyway, after numerous attempts, he finally makes it to Notre Dame. he begins helping the football team with maintenance, management, and making sure the field is ready each day. after a period of time Rudy finally makes the team, but he never gets a chance to play. He gets dissed by the players and coaches and his family showed little support and belief in him. Still Rudy did not let this stop him from achieving his goal. in the final game of his senior year Rudy gets in last play of the game, in which he sacks the opposing quarterback. This quote relates to the movie because although Rudy gets put down his whole life for his lack of talent and is told he would never make it, he never stops believing in himself, and strive to achieve his dream. He doesn't what others think or say, he stays focused on his goal, and in the end he showed them by playing in the game. by John N.


Date:
25 Jan 2001
Time:
02:07:25
Remote User:
 

Comments


Date:
25 Jan 2001
Time:
02:48:06
Remote User:
 

Comments

" To be great is to be misunderstood."

The character The Grinch is a creature who is misunderstood. He is a creature who has a big heart, even though he does not know it yet. As his heart begans to grow the people of Whoville began to understand what a special person the grinch is. The began to see past his look at what he has to offer. At the end of the movie when the Grinch learns the true meaning of Christmas is when he is riding that Emersonian high. The people then learn that "to be great is to be misunderstood." Trish Goodwin


Date:
25 Jan 2001
Time:
04:33:53
Remote User:
 

Comments

"I must be myself. I cannot break myself any longer for you, or you."- Emerson When I read this qoute, a few movies seemed to stick out in my mind, but the one I'll choose to talk about is Varsity Blues. The character, Mox (James Van Der Beak) is a football player. In the beginning of the movie, he's counting down the games until the season is over, because he's a nobody. He's the back up for a star quarterback who never seems to make a mistake. When this star quarterback does get injured however, Mox is sent out to play. Mox and his coach had had many disagreements, the way Mox played just wasn't the coach's style. The coach wanted everything to go his way, and only his way, because that was how it had always been done. The coach believed this, along with everyone else in the town. Even Mox's father was pressuring him to do just as everyone else was doing. His father told him that football was his chance to get some where in life, when in all reality, Mox had no intention of playing after highschool. To make a long story short, Mox and the rest of the football team ended the season without their coach. During the half time of their state championship game the team told the coach that the only way they were going back onto the field was without him. Mox just got so fed up with trying to please the coach, trying to please his father, and everyone else. They were all telling him exactly what to do, and he couldn't stand it. He was the sort of person who had his own life planned, and didn't intend for anyone to tell him how he would live. So, as Emerson's qoute says, Mox broke loose from everyone, and was true to himself, the one that counts the most.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
25 Jan 2001
Time:
15:49:28
Remote User:
 

Comments

A movie that reminds me of this Emerson quote: "Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string" is "Wild Hearts Can't Be Broken." In this movie, the girl wants a job as a diving girl where she jumps a horse from a tower into a pool of water. I guess this was very popular in the 20's and 30's. She runs away from home and she gets a job as a stable groom. Later when the star diver is injured, they give her the job as diver and she does great. She is finally doing the thing that she has always dreamed of. After jumping off the tower one day, she hits the water with her eyes open and she goes blind. Everyone tells her that she can't ever dive again, but she follows her heart and after many months of secret practice, she dives off the tower blind. This related to the quote because she believed in herself, and followed her heart, she didn't let anyone else tell her what to do. ~Jen Bolton~


Date:
25 Jan 2001
Time:
15:54:59
Remote User:
 

Comments

In the movie HOLLOW MAN Kevin Bacon plays a guy that is envisable to the naked eye. At first he respects his power however he turns this outragous gift into a power to do evil.

BEN CHEEVER


Date:
26 Jan 2001
Time:
01:04:43
Remote User:
 

Comments

"To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men..."

This quote reminded me of the movie "Shawshank Redemption." The main character in this movie is accused of a murder, while he is in fact innocent. He goes to prison for life, though he knows he is innocent and people he meets along the way begin to believe he is innocent as well. He soon escapes from prison and is again a free man living his dream. This shows that if you truely believe, and don't give up you'll get what you want in the long run. The truth always comes through in the end. Jessica Schlieben


Date:
26 Jan 2001
Time:
01:04:54
Remote User:
 

Comments

"To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men..."

This quote reminded me of the movie "Shawshank Redemption." The main character in this movie is accused of a murder, while he is in fact innocent. He goes to prison for life, though he knows he is innocent and people he meets along the way begin to believe he is innocent as well. He soon escapes from prison and is again a free man living his dream. This shows that if you truely believe, and don't give up you'll get what you want in the long run. The truth always comes through in the end. Jessica Schlieben


Date:
26 Jan 2001
Time:
02:21:39
Remote User:
 

Comments

Well, I'm not a real movie lover, but there are some characters from a series of movies I can think of that would fit in this situtation. The frist, I would say is Han Solo from the Star Wars movies. Han think he is above all the rest and is the best pilot. In "A New Hope" Han travels out into the cold snow planet with just his animal to try to find Luke. C3PO tells him the odds of survival. Han doesn't like to know the odds. He also travels through a meterod shower in the M. Falcon. Leia thinks he's crazy. He proves everyone wrong and survives the tough times. Another character I can think of is another great role played by Harrison Ford, Indiana Jones. All the Indiana Jones movies are adventure. In "The temple of Doom" Jones pulls off all the tricks in the book to survive. Jones is so misuderstood by the rest of the world, that when he acceives the unacceivable, all think he is great. I'm sure there are better examples, but these two characters played by Harrison Ford do the trick for me. -Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
26 Jan 2001
Time:
02:22:31
Remote User:
 

Comments

Well, I'm not a real movie lover, but there are some characters from a series of movies I can think of that would fit in this situtation. The frist, I would say is Han Solo from the Star Wars movies. Han think he is above all the rest and is the best pilot. In "A New Hope" Han travels out into the cold snow planet with just his animal to try to find Luke. C3PO tells him the odds of survival. Han doesn't like to know the odds. He also travels through a meterod shower in the M. Falcon. Leia thinks he's crazy. He proves everyone wrong and survives the tough times. Another character I can think of is another great role played by Harrison Ford, Indiana Jones. All the Indiana Jones movies are adventure. In "The temple of Doom" Jones pulls off all the tricks in the book to survive. Jones is so misuderstood by the rest of the world, that when he acceives the unacceivable, all think he is great. I'm sure there are better examples, but these two characters played by Harrison Ford do the trick for me. -Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
26 Jan 2001
Time:
14:35:41
Remote User:
 

Comments

When considering what movie to compare w/ the "emerson high" I think of "All in The Faith" . This movie was about the struggle three best friends go through. Two of them are men one a priest the other a Rabbi. When their childhood best friend comes home from cali to reunite these mens world goes upsidedown. In the end both men fall for her inspite of god,famiy,past,and society.a. cleary


Date:
29 Jan 2001
Time:
15:09:16
Remote User:
 

Comments

McGonegal's Week II question: First of all, let me say how impressed I was by week I's work. We did a lot of good thinking about Emerson's "presence" in recent films. This week, consider this question: was Chris McCandless's journey "into the wild" American, or unAmerican? I'd like to know what you think about this. Let me add this criteria this week: begin your response by agreeing or disagree with something someone else has said, e.g. "I disagree with McGonegal when he says..."


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
00:22:47
Remote User:
 

Comments

Well, i would love to disagree with someone but there arent any other responses posted yet so im just gonna have tell you my two cents. I think Chris McCandless is a complete lunatic who got to cought up in what he was reading and was persuaded very easily by the literature he chose to read and study. He just up and ran from everything American that surrounded him. His family, society, laws and regulations. In many ways what Chris did was American becuase he chased his dreams of living off the land and doing what he wanted to do and living by his rules. But I cant see how someone going off into the wild with nowhere near enough food or supplies, ditching his car in the dessert and totally obandoning his loving family who was totally willing to support him is an American act. ~~your favorite student- J~~


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
00:48:19
Remote User:
 

Comments

I agree with people when they say Chris McCandless is crazy. What would persuade a young, twenty year old to just pick up everything and leave without a word to his family. After he roamed the country having one near death accounter after another , and praticaly straving himself, what makes him think he could surrive in Alaska? To think you can surrive on the things he took is crazy and unamerican. Most Americans would never dream of doing something crazy like that. McCandless may have been American by where he was born but defintley not in his ideas and views.


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
01:12:20
Remote User:
 

Comments

I agree with Andy Horowitz, one of Chris McCandless' friends from his cross-country team at Woodson High School when he said that Chris "was born into the wrong century. He was looking for more adventure and freedom than today's society gives people." When Horowitz spoke of today's society, he meant today's American society. Ever since the western frontier was declared settled by the 1890's and there was no longer any land on which to start or seek a new life, and even more so today as the population grows, people have settled down into a more organized, uniform way of life. Ever since the Industrial Revolution started to standardize people's lifestyle's, and people began to reley less on themselves in providing necessary items for survival, such as food and clothing, a certain sense of reliance of the individual was lost. As the basic necessities were taken care of, attention fell upon complexity and simplicity was lost. This simplicity is what Chris McCandless searches for, and perhaps what the peoneers searched for when settling the West. Since McCandless could no longer find this simplistic, honest way of life in an America so populated with people and dense with their reiterized, overused ideas, he searched for his own ideals in the Alaskan wilderness, a place unihabited by soceity and unattatched to the American continent. Chris McCandless' journey "into the wild" is a past American escapade of the America that was, before simplistic ideals relating to the present were overcome by complexities tied to the past and the future. This "journey into the wild" is not an ideal that has been forgotton, however, for there were many more people cited in this book who searched just as Chris McCandless did, isolated in the wilderness, such as Everett Ruess, Gene Rosellini, and Carl McCunn. By Kristine Seigars


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
01:19:31
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think this is a great website if you are in one of the English classes listed. I like to be able to print the different essays out to have them for myself. It is great that the essays are posted according to what we are learning in class.

Erin Primiano


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
01:52:44
Remote User:
 

Comments

OK, I disagree with people when they say that Chris is crazy. I don't think that he is crazy, I think that he is just misunderstood. He went on this "journey" because he felt he had to do this great transcendentalist act, and he just got a little carried away with it. I think that in his mind, he thinks this is truly right for him to do, and nothing anyone can say can change his thoughts. I think his journey is American, because all these transcendentalist authors are Americans and they are Chris's inspiration for his trip "into the wild." In their writings, they encourage the type of journey that Chris is taking, and think it is something all Americans should do. ~Jen Bolton~


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
01:52:49
Remote User:
 

Comments

OK, I disagree with people when they say that Chris is crazy. I don't think that he is crazy, I think that he is just misunderstood. He went on this "journey" because he felt he had to do this great transcendentalist act, and he just got a little carried away with it. I think that in his mind, he thinks this is truly right for him to do, and nothing anyone can say can change his thoughts. I think his journey is American, because all these transcendentalist authors are Americans and they are Chris's inspiration for his trip "into the wild." In their writings, they encourage the type of journey that Chris is taking, and think it is something all Americans should do. ~Jen Bolton~


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
02:26:47
Remote User:
 

Comments

I disagree with Jen, but I agree with Jay. I think Chris McCandless is a complete lunatic. I also think he is an idoit. Personally, I also think Emerson is a quack. I think Transcendentalism is a bunch of BS. Guys like Emerson and Thoreau who wrote stuff to critique human behavior and give ways to become a "better person" is stupid. I say, let people live the way they live. Why judge? Chris McCandless is a complete idoit, but I'm still interested into what pushed him over the edge Thanks, Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
02:44:27
Remote User:
 

Comments

I agree with Jay. I find it extremly weird that this guy thinks that he can read a few books and all of a sudden galavant across America smelling bad, looking gross, and feeding off the land. I think its good that he follows his dreams, I mean yeah thats what American is known for, but leaving all family contact behind and not acknowlegeing their existance is just wrong. I definetly do NOT think he this is an American act, its pshyco. The more I read, the more angry I get. I mean everything is so spiritual or something to him. I mean he gets mad that his parents have money! What is that, right?

Thanks, Dani Statuto


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
03:27:46
Remote User:
 

Comments

Even though I do agree with Jay, that Chris McCandless was crazy, I feel that what he did was very American. He followed his dreams. I think that the reason fro coming to America was and still is for many people, that they want to follow their dreams, whether it be ridiculous to most or not! Thanks-Annelies


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
04:20:02
Remote User:
 

Comments

I'm gonna have to agree with Jay about one thing, trancesndentalists have a lot of time on their hands. I'm they're not all fat and drunk though. Chris McCandless in my mind is not crayz. he's just a guy who knows what he wants. He is willing to put in a lot of effort to get it. Being able to put that much effort into something you want is a characteristic i think every American should have.-Justin W.


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
05:18:28
Remote User:
 

Comments

I agree with Dani and Jay and just about everyone else...I think McCandless is a nut. It's one thing to like to travel and to like to live with nature, but you don't have to do it to the extreme that McCandless does. I don't think that this is an American act because today's America is not about living in nature. It maybe have been back in Thoreau's day, but it's not anymore. In reality, the United States is a superpower that is all about business and how much money you can make. The "American Dream" is to have a good time, and make all the money you can. This may not be the best thing ethically and morally, but in the United States, it's reality. McCandless doesn't live in this reality, nor in the American culture. He's missing a few screws in his head. He was just a kid who had no common sense, and was on a quest that was pointless from the beginning. Mike Bannister


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
14:10:53
Remote User:
 

Comments

I do not agree that Chris McCandless is crazy,a lot of people have said this, therefore I can't/ won't point a finger at anyone for saying it. But, I don't believe he is. He was being American. In America our dream is to go off and stake our own claim, be ourselves. Chris was being himself. I believe that because he went to Alaska and wasn't very prepared, people think he's crazy, but how many times have you got caught up in the moment and forgotten everything else? Yes, he did some rash things, but when you follow your dreams,doing what you feel is right isn't rash to you, just everyone else. Chris was willing to do anything to follow his dreams, and so people think he's crazy. He's not, he's the same unique individual as everyone else, trying to accomplish something that he feels very strong about. --Christina Russell--


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
14:57:02
Remote User:
 

Comments

I guess Im gonna have to say that it depends on how you look at it. I think there are two different views of Americans. We always follow our dream. We go where life takes us. If you look at it this way, yes, Chris was very American and I'd have to agree with about everybody. There is also the steriotypical American though. Americans are thought to be self involved, money hungary and dependant on others. If you look at it this way, than no, Chris was not very American. In fact he was a true unamerican. But oit all matters on how you look at things. ~Jessica Schlieben


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
15:44:08
Remote User:
 

Comments

I agree with Jen because I think that what Chris did was like a transendentalist in that he went out and did what his heart told him to do. He was following the advice of the American transendentalist writers and, because of this, what he did can be considered American. Chris may have gotten a little carried away with the concept, but he had the right idea. -Erin Thornton


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
15:51:22
Remote User:
 

Comments

I don't agree with j. Just because you think differently or act on a singel thought I do not think that makes you crazy. Do I think that Chris McCandless was all there in his head not really. However just because he went unprepared does not make him a loony. I also think that he had to prove to himself that he could do anything he wanted to. I think a lot of people in this day of age trust to many people to quickly. BEN CHEEVER


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
17:46:28
Remote User:
 

Comments

I feel that Chris is just trying too hard to be a transcendentalist. There is nothing wrong with following your own path but there is also nothing wrong with admitting to the need of material items, it took a deep thinker to create and find ways to use things. The American way is to give yourself your own definition. Deep thinkers don't need to go on a suicide mission to prove who or what they are. go into the wild and find your "true self" just remember you are still the person you were weeks earlier using money and your real name to fulfill your present needs. - Tirra


Date:
30 Jan 2001
Time:
17:52:39
Remote User:
 

Comments

I do not think Chris McCandless was crazy or a lunatic, nobody understood the way he tought or wanted to live his life. he did what he wanted. i think that his journey can be viewed many different ways. you could say he was being an American by taking charge and going into the wildernessand following his dream. he followed his heart and lived the same way as the American transcendentalist writers. but he also was unamerican in which he rebeled against society, the government and laws. he also left his family and everyone that cared for him. john


Date:
31 Jan 2001
Time:
02:07:37
Remote User:
 

Comments

I would have to disagree w/ J- when he says that what McCandless did was an Un-American act. Chris took the Ideals of being American that were put together by our founding fathers{Life Liberty and the pusuit of happieness} in an extremly transendentalist way unlike Krackour who had the beliefs but was able to obtain them and live for the most part with in society's "norm". All transendentalists studied so far have been american and have the American ideals{not to say that there are not transendentalists in other parts of the world}and essentially in a different way than I choose to be American but we all have those three things in common with them.Life.Liberty and the Pursut of Happieness. Amanda Cleary


Date:
31 Jan 2001
Time:
06:37:15
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that Chris is the ultimate American. Everyone sits around all day, day after day, month after month, year after year, trying to figure out what the American Dream is. Doing what you want, when you want to is the American Dream. Wealth, status and every other trivial thing we concern ourselves with each day are useless; George Burns once said: "I would rather be a failure at something I love then a success at something I hate." A true American is an optimistic, nihilistic, anarchistic athiest, free of almost all moral and ethical obligations, the blushing long since past.

-Myles


Date:
02 Feb 2001
Time:
17:45:32
Remote User:
 

Comments

In the book Krakauer talks about his experience along with the experiences of other men who have gone into the wild like McCandless. Why is it that he only mentions men and is there something about the male population that makes them want to do something like this? Trish Goodwin


Date:
02 Feb 2001
Time:
20:35:19
Remote User:
 

Comments

I do find it interesting that Krakauer only talks about men doing things like Mccandless does in _Into the Wild._ You did see women like Jan Burres occassionally, but no one so brazenly neo-transcendental as Chris of the opposite gender. I'm thinking ahead to the kinds of stories we'll be reading--Kerouac, Gatsby, Huck, early America--many stories of MEN and their struggles with nature (inner nature as well as lions, tigers, and bears). I did some research in college on the women's westward journey, and would like to excerpt from one or two books when we get to that era. I have also debated whether or not we might read _The Awakening_ by Kate Chopin, a woman's struggle with inner and outer nature written at the turn of the 20th century. Who's game for that? It would be helpful, I think, to do some comparison/contrast on the gender issues in our texts as we go. --Mr. McG.


Date:
03 Feb 2001
Time:
20:58:48
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that Krakauer only mentions adventures of men because I don't think many women would actually do those types of adventures. I mean I am sure there are a few, but I bet the majority wouldn't. I think the stories that Krakauer told were insane! I mean pretty much those guys wanted to die, I mean how could you think you are going to conquer the wilderness...its impossible, and I don't think they gave it enough respect. Dani Statuto


Date:
04 Feb 2001
Time:
19:46:19
Remote User:
 

Comments

"Like Chris, Carine is energetic and self-assured, a high achiever, quick to state an opinion. Also, like Chris, she clashed fiercely with Walt and Billie as an adolescent. But the differences between the siblings were greater than the similarities." When Krakauer compares Chris with his sister Carine, there is no doubt that the two share the same physical looks and same strong personlities. However, it is mentioned that Carine made up with her parents and claimed in an interview that their relationship was "very good". Chris never did fully make up with his parents. Carine led a lifestyle similar to her parents, a normal lifestlyle. Chris died on an adventure where he was destined to live apart from the conformities of life. It is striking that the two siblings who lived close to the same lifestyle as children, turned out so differnent as adults. This is an example of what frequently happens with the two sexes in life as expressed by Krakauer. I think that Krakauer mentions so many men as performing out of the ordinary things because it is men that represent these "calls into the wild". The simple fact is that there are not many women who do these things. Perhaps men leave society because they have for so long been allowed to conform to the its measures . Women are just beginning to get a grip on being a true citizen of the American society. Before they were not allowed to take part. For instance, it is Carine, Chris McCandless' sister who owns her own business with her husband and is perfectly content with her life. In all of history, it is the men whom we have heard of taking risks in the "untamed West" and participating in the excitment of war. Perhaps it is the inspiration of history and the influence of literature and myth that these men are following these uncleared paths. By Kristine Seigars


Date:
05 Feb 2001
Time:
00:27:48
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that Krakaueur only mentions men because like Dani said, not many women would want to do something that crazy. I personally would never do something as stupid as Chris did, and I'm sure that lots of other women would agree with me. ~Jen Bolton~


Date:
05 Feb 2001
Time:
01:05:38
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think there are a couple reasons why women would not do something like what Chris did. First off-girls are never brought up to climb trees and go off into the woods in search for themselves. Boys are the ones incouraged to do these type of things. I was having some trouble with this question, so I decided to talk to a male point of view; my dad. He too agrees that there is just something refreshing about the idea of getting lost out in the wilderness and being able to conquer it. But from a women's point of view, I don't see anything refreshing about it. Women are always the pecimistics. They think of all horrifing possibilities until they talk themselves out of doing something completely idiotic. So-it comes down to the fact that all men think that are undistructible, and when worse comes to worse, they will be able to fend for themselves. Jessica Schlieben


Date:
05 Feb 2001
Time:
03:10:04
Remote User:
 

Comments

I agree with jess when she says that boys are brought up to climb trees and get dirty. I alos agree with her when she says that women are pecimistics. Also, the idea of a women wanting to tag along with a scruffy, dirty, somewhat crazy man on a trip across the country eventually ending up in Alaska where they would live in the wild on nothing but a 15 pound bag of rice and anything they could shot with his .22 rifle. I think the females were just a little more mature and saw that Cris was a looney. ~~your favorite student J~~


Date:
05 Feb 2001
Time:
03:22:47
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that Krakauer doesn't mention women because he simply doesn't know any women who have done something like what McCandless did. I think the thing about the male population is that men tend to be more outdoorsy than women and sometimes you can go to the extreme with something. And that's what McCandless did...he took his liking of the outdoors to the extreme. Mike Bannister


Date:
05 Feb 2001
Time:
03:36:02
Remote User:
 

Comments

There are many reasons why Krakauer doesn't mention women. But the biggest reason that goes along with Jess' answer is that instictivley women don't have the desire to do something Chris did. I think it is completely instincts and the way women and men were brought up. Women were built to reproduce and take care of children, while men were built to hunt and go into the wild and survive.I can't think of one women I know that would even think of doing something as crazy as Chris did. Thanks-Annelies


Date:
06 Feb 2001
Time:
23:00:55
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that a lot of women just aren't as stupid as guys to do somethign that crazy, sorry guys. I have two younger brothers, and they always want to do something like Chris did. They always beg me to go hiking with them, or snow shoeing, and most of the time I give in, but being the girl, I always want to get home and be safe before night fall. That's another thing. Women always want to be safe, and the men think that they can do that, so in order too, they want to prove they can survive on their own in the wild. I think women just have a more down-to-earth attitude about how to survive. It's also the nature of men to be hunters. The hunters in early societies might have had to camp out in the woods after a day of hunting before returning to the camp. That might be a reason the guys of this century think they can do the same. Thanks-Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
07 Feb 2001
Time:
02:17:22
Remote User:
 

Comments

I believe when Krakauer wrote this book most stories he had heard from others had been from men. I agree w/ Jess that instinctivly women don't hsve the same drive as men, especially when it cames to comparison to Into the wild. Most women do have that child baring instingct from our evolving world culture. Not to say that it could be different otherwise;but Krakauer didn't mention many women on purpose, he didn't mention many women for the fact that it really doesn't apply as well. Thanks -A. Cleary


Date:
07 Feb 2001
Time:
12:19:43
Remote User:
 

Comments

I don't know why there are only men mentioned i'm sure woman have tried it or maybe women are being transcendentalists by taking over the men's jobs and proving to the world the sexes are equal. Truth is women have been and are finding them selves in society and earning respect . A female president will be a true transcendentalist because it has never been done before. So rather than going out into the wild of nature, women are logically going out into the wild of America today and succeeding. -Tirra


Date:
07 Feb 2001
Time:
14:18:50
Remote User:
 

Comments

The sex issue has always been a large issue in everything, throughout life. However, we cannot say only men do these... interesting (for lack of a better word) journey's. True, all we have heard about is what men have done, but maybe they do it to a larger extent to women, maybe that is why we don't hear about women. To mention things in almost a sexually discriminate way, women just wouldn't do it. We wouldn't give up everything we had and vanish into the world. Women need modern things, and even someone like me who doesn't depend upon makeup or a blow dryer every day... I certainly depend upon a shower! Women are very different than men. I don't believe only men go on these journey's, I'm sure a few women do, but not enough to report about because I'm sure it doesn't happen often. Not to mention, at times men do rash things to "prove" themselves... I believe it's a male instinct, and a reason to go on these adventures. (I'm not trying to male bash here!) --Christina Russell--


Date:
07 Feb 2001
Time:
17:31:49
Remote User:
 

Comments

Krakauer didn't mention many women adventurists because he was interested in connecting the readers with McCandless. He wanted to compare him with others who had been much like him. Naturally he is most compared with men. Another reason that Krakauer mentions very few women is because women, as a majority, don't have a desire to seek danger and conquer the impossible. The way that women behave in this country is a result of the ideals established in our history as well as the media today. -Erin Thornton


Date:
07 Feb 2001
Time:
17:32:24
Remote User:
 

Comments

Krakauer only mentions men cuz only men do those kind of things. men are raised that way, and it is instinct to be outdoors in the wilderness. throughout the history of America men typically hunted and trapped and survived off the land while women did indoor work, cooking and stuff. (not trying to be sexist) i also agree with jay in that not many women would want to go on a dirty outdoor cross country adventure that Chris did.


Date:
07 Feb 2001
Time:
17:33:45
Remote User:
 

Comments

the above comment was written by john. i forgot to write my name


Date:
07 Feb 2001
Time:
17:53:14
Remote User:
 

Comments

Yes there is something about men that makes them want to participate in these outdoor activities. It is more their nature than a woman's to want to be in the wild. While there are adventurous women out there, they are more scarce. Also, only mentioning men helps keep the focus on Chris Mc. and he was not interessted in women.


Date:
07 Feb 2001
Time:
17:54:31
Remote User:
 

Comments

The last comment was submitted by Kayla.


Date:
09 Feb 2001
Time:
13:05:16
Remote User:
 

Comments

I would have to say that Julia Roberts new movie Erin Brokovich is a good example of an "Emerson High". The character Erin is a independent and self-relient person. Although she does not live in the wild or choose to do so at any point in herlife,the similarities between her and Emerson's idea's of transcendentalist are significant. She is a woman who stops at nothing and will not permit society to drag her down to its satisfication. Erin is appalled at the way society works with the Pacific Gas and Electric company. PG&E wrongly takes charge of a small needy town called Hinkley. After hard work and determination nearly all by her self with little support other than the lawyer who is her employer, Erin recieves little support in the fight to victory over PG&E in Hinkley and the head quarters. Thanks, Erin.


Date:
09 Feb 2001
Time:
15:51:21
Remote User:
 

Comments

For the longest time it has been the roll of the male to hunt and gather for his family. In this roll some males get lost. When trying to provide for his family the males intrest takes over and he starts asking questions that HE must answer. I think that the roll of the female although recently changed has been to stay home and cook, keep the house clean and to raise the childern. This has kept the females from exploring thier feelings to thier full extent. Ben Cheever

 
Date:
12 Feb 2001
Time:
15:44:59
Remote User:

Comments

Test.


Date:
12 Feb 2001
Time:
18:46:04
Remote User:

Comments

I definetly think there is a dark or lonely side of Robert Frost. In some of his poems it is obvious that he seems a little idiosyncratic. For example: The poem "Fire and Ice" is kina sick. I mean its about how the world is going to end, I mean come on cheer up a little. Also, in "The Road Not Taken", it is kinda like he chooses to take the lonely harder path, as if he doesn't want others to be with him in life. Another good example is in "Mending Wall". This poem is about how neighbors introvert themselves from one another. The line: Good fences make good neighbors... implys that not seeing or hearing of you neighbor make them a good one. It seems that Frost liked his distance from people.

Dani Statuto


Date:
12 Feb 2001
Time:
21:25:36
Remote User:

Comments

Robert Frost definetly has a dark side. In his poem about the earth ending, "Fire and Ice." He says, "I think I know enough of hate." That right there is obviously saying he's had a lot of hate in his life, and that's a pretty pessimistic point of view saying he knows enough of hate. Then, in another poem, "Acquainted with the Night," He writes, "When far away an inturrupted cry came over houses from another street, but not to call me back or say goodbye." He makes it sound like he's very lonely, and that he's used to it... Robert Frost definetly has a dark side, of course, so does everyone else --Christina Russell--


Date:
12 Feb 2001
Time:
22:54:12
Remote User:

Comments

I don't think that Frost had a "dark" side, it is a part of every human nature to see the bad or evil of the world. Every human goes through stages of depression or negativity, although I hardly suspect that is what Frost was going through. Robert Frost simply wrote poems to express his thoughts and I'm sure he is not the only one to wonder how the world will end or notice how much hate is in the world today, as he dicusses in FIRE AND ICE. It seems unfair that critics critize Frost for being too negative when he might be just a down to earth kind of guy and sees things as they really are in a world that isn't all dreams and fantasies. Thanks, Erin Primiano


Date:
12 Feb 2001
Time:
23:54:41
Remote User:

Comments

I believe that Frost himself did not have a "dark side," but he definetely wrote about the world having one. In his poem "The Road Not Taken," he writes after the first three paragraphs: "I doubted if I should ever come back." This poem is about which path you should take in your life, and that you should choose the one less traveled by. In this line, he shows his dark side of the poem by showing that you only have one time in your life to choose your path, and you probably will never have that chance again. That shows one way that Frost shows the world's "dark side." It is not his personal dark side, but the whole world in general.


Date:
12 Feb 2001
Time:
23:55:01
Remote User:

Comments

The above is by Jen Bolton


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
00:14:29
Remote User:

Comments

Robert Frost could be considered to have a dark side but maybe he did'nt have a dark side at all. Maybe he was a lonely,old, depressed man but maybe he wrote his poetry to have a dark sides so that people know that the world is a cruel place sometimes. Maybe he made his poems so dark and deary so that people could know what it is to be alone. It could be said he has a dark side but I think he wrote using the dark side image to help people have a better image of humankind. Trish Goodwin


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
00:35:25
Remote User:

Comments

I think Robert Frost has had his depressing poems. Tkae "Nothing Gold Can Stay" for example. IN that poem he says "Nature's first green is gold, her hardest hue to hold; Her early leaves a flower, but only so an hour." Basically, the best will never last. This could be used for anything, school, love, friendship, or even money. So the first hour that the leave flowers, take advantage of that hour. I personally believe this and I think that Robert Frost is great because he tells not the best in life....Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
01:02:39
Remote User:

Comments

To me, this question doesnt have much depth. Who would question if another human being has a "dark side." Who would this person be without any pecimistic thoughts in his life? To write a poem is to lay your guts out on paper, and somewhere in there, there is gonna be bitterness in hate about something or other. So again, is your going to ask if Frost has a "dark side," we may as well ask if he ever lived. ~Jessica Schlieben


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
01:51:45
Remote User:

Comments

Mr. M. here.

Listen: a TAUTOLOGY is a needless repetition of a thought or idea as presented in a question or argument. To ask whether or not Frost has a dark side is to ask whether he is human, and what good is that? I agree. It took us five or so responses to the question to arrive at that (via Jess). But I tried to push the question a step further (if only once in my paraphrase of it) in class, by asking, does the dark side dominate in Frost's poetry? And remember that the poet is not necessarily the narrator of the poem. Is the narrator, rather than the poet, of these poems essentially a "glass-half-empty" thinker? Look at something like Fire_and_Ice and you can say yes, anyone who doesn't even discuss the possibility of the world ending on a positive note is a pessimist. Conclusion: the narrator is a pessimist. But don't jump from there to, "Frost is a pessimist, too" (the editors of our book may have done so). Rather, push the question further by saying, does Frost let the pessimist-narrative voice dominate his work? Or is there some saving grace for humanity, some hope that underlies the gloom?

If we reduce Frost to being "simply human" because he has pessimist tendencies, we commit the same readerly crime as those who criticize him for being the guy who just liked to write about "trees and snow and stuff." In other words, we commit a tautology, too.

My two cents, Mr. M.


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
03:18:57
Remote User:

Comments

I agree with Jess when she says that every person has a dark side. _Fire and Ice_ is really pretty much all dark thoughts. He's talking about the end of the world. And an even more dark thought is that he chooses fire to end the world instead of ice. The fire in the context of this poem could symbolize hell. I don't know for sure but that's something that came to my mind while I was thinking about this. However, I don't think that Frost wrote only dark poems. I think that _The Road Not Taken_ doesn't have anything to do with darkness. It's just about taking the path that is going to challenge you, make you a better person, and make your life extraordinary. Mike Bannister


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
04:23:06
Remote User:

Comments

"I have been one acquainted with the night. I have walked out in rain- and back again in rain. I have outwalked the furthest city light." The narrator in Robert Frost's poem, "Acquainted with the Night" emphasizes a knowledge of the existence of a dark side in life. The narrator himself has experienced this darkness throughout his life. He emphasizes having gone out past "the furthest city light", or to the extreme of life's horrors. However, it would appear that it is Frost's interrpretation to say that, "Proclaimed the time is neither right nor wrong." Frost believes that life is a mixture of ups and downs, empasizing each extreme in its own time. In "The Road Not Taken", Frost again illustrates a mixture of pessimistic and optomistic views of life. In this poem, it is, however, one's choice as to where their life will lead. The idea in this poem is that one must choose the road on which to traval. If one takes the right road, they will lead a fullfilling life. However, it they choose the wrong road, their life could be very miserable indeed. Frost's poems realize a combination of gains as well as losses in different situations in life. -Kristine Seigars-


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
15:41:07
Remote User:

Comments

I believe every person has a dark side. Robert Frost definately had a dark side in my mind. He shows it in saying things like "I think i know enough of hate." in the poem fire and ice. It sounds like he's had a lot in his lifetime, and it has built up inside him. -Justin Wilk


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
15:43:26
Remote User:

Comments

I agree with Jess when she says that this is a stupid question. If someone were to write all their poems without ever adding a dark side in them they would be unhuman. In fact, i think it might be easier to write poetry about stuff that saddens you and makes you upset becuase its a way to express yourself and get some of your anger on paper. So, in clossing, Robert Frost was human and needed to vent his feeling and the best way to he thought he could was through poerty.~your favorite student J~


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
16:23:39
Remote User:

Comments

In many of his poems, Robert Frost shows a dark side that is not always apparent. For instance, in the Mending Wall, Frost talks of walls between people. At first read, this poem may seem to have a happy meaning about loving your fellow neighbor and getting to know others. Its darker side is shown in the lines "And on a day we meet to walk the line And set the wall between us once again We keep the wall between us as we go." Frost is saying that the walls are put up between neighbors because we as people can't share and can't get along well enough with others. In another line, "Good fences make good neighbors." he shows that people don't trust or need others anymore. This poem reminded me of the Butter Battle Book by Dr. Seuss. -Erin Thornton


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
18:03:50
Remote User:

Comments

The movie Mulan portrayed a young woman going off to fight a war leaving all that is her behind even going as far as to change her identity for what she believed in. She was doing what she strongly believed against all odds one of the very few Disney movies without a damsel in distress. - Tirra


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
18:14:10
Remote User:

Comments

In the poem " Acquainted With The Night" it tells us about the mysteries and allures darkness has to offer. I don't feel he's morbid he just chooses to write about dark things or words that other authors are sometimes afraid to use. This is an example of the road not taken he uses mistakingly dark words to describe bright, beautiful things. - Tirra


Date:
13 Feb 2001
Time:
23:20:54
Remote User:

Comments

I agree with most people when they say that Frost wasn't necessarly a pessimist, but merely a human. He had a different opinion that wasn't always positive. His works should not be overlooked or criticized just because he had some negative thoughts in his writing. the world is an imperfect place, and Frost expressed his anger through his poetry. Every human has a "dark side" and Frost was able to make poetry about it. however not all of Frost's poem were completely negative. Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening is an example of this, in the poem he write about a winters night in some man's peaceful forest. I also think that it is stupid to argue about this kind of stuff since we will never know the real answer. we will never be able to tell what Frost was really thinking or writing about, and its too late to ask him. john


Date:
14 Feb 2001
Time:
04:14:16
Remote User:

Comments

Frost expresses to us a way of thinking about things in a postive and negative light. He does however, give negative suggestions in most pieces we have looked over in this unit. The fact is that if you don't see and experiance both sides of the coin- Indeed you would not be human. A.Cleary


Date:
14 Feb 2001
Time:
15:49:54
Remote User:

Comments

I definately agree with Jess when she said that everyone has a "dark side". I also feel that, especially for me, that it is easier to write about some of the darker parts of life. A story seems to stay with people more, when it is tragic(it is more sensational). Look at the news on tv. Most of it is tragic or sad, but that is how the stations get people to watch the broadcasts. But, I also feel that Frost isn't necessarily writing about a "dark side". He is mearly writing what is true in life. Annelies Hanson


Date:
16 Feb 2001
Time:
20:51:58
Remote User:

Comments

T.S. Eliot often includes some sort of hint of "salvation" for the terribly morose and depressing characters in his poetry. For Prufrock, is there any hint that this man's paralysis (state of indecision) will change? Let me know what you think about this before Monday's class. Thanks.

Mr. M.


Date:
16 Feb 2001
Time:
22:05:06
Remote User:

Comments

I think the character in "The Love song of J. Alfred Prufrock" is a little disturbed. It seems like he has little self-esteem and there is no hope for him changing in his ways. I don't know why TS Elliot wrote this poem, its so depressing, maybe he was paralleling it to his own life. The woord "I" pops up alot, but I dunno maybe I'm Just thinking too hard. Dani Statuto


Date:
16 Feb 2001
Time:
22:07:06
Remote User:

Comments

I think the character in "The Love song of J. Alfred Prufrock" is a little disturbed. It seems like he has little self-esteem and there is no hope for him changing in his ways. I don't know why TS Elliot wrote this poem, its so depressing, maybe he was paralleling it to his own life. The woord "I" pops up alot, but I dunno maybe I'm Just thinking too hard. Dani Statuto


Date:
18 Feb 2001
Time:
20:18:03
Remote User:

Comments

The first time I read this poem (which was not in class) I felt sorry for the character. Prufrock might have social anxiety disorder. Maybe even T.S. Eliot has it too. The first time I read this poem I did feel "blown away". It was like taking a look into someone's life who isn't good around people. I think there might be a way to change the charatcer by just maybe one person becoming friends with him, and then he wouldn't be so nervous if at least one person liked him. ~~~Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
18 Feb 2001
Time:
21:07:15
Remote User:

Comments

When we read this poem in class I thought that TS Elliot had some problems. I thought this because he writes about a person in a poem ( who I personal think is him) who is very depressed. I kind of feel sorry for the person who this peom is written about. Trish Goodwin


Date:
19 Feb 2001
Time:
00:43:14
Remote User:

Comments

Robert Frost has a dark side that appears in some of his poetry, as does every good poet, and everyone else. I think having a dark side is helpful to portray dark emotion in poetry. His dark side is not over powering.~Kayla


Date:
19 Feb 2001
Time:
00:55:02
Remote User:

Comments

I found The Love Song poem to be very long and not really about love, but this man's insucurities. I thought it was an alright poem but I wasn't too fond of it.~Kayla


Date:
19 Feb 2001
Time:
02:15:46
Remote User:

Comments

Around the time that Eliot wrote this poem, many other writers were beginning to write about their own experiences. Therefore, my first impression was that T.S. Eliot was writing about his own insecurities or lack of confidence. He seems to know what Prufrock is going through because he gives many details in the poem. And no, I don't think that there is a sign that things will change because he says towards the end of the poem, "I do not think that they will sing to me." He is talking about the mermaids and that quote clearly shows that he still lacks confidence. Mike Bannister


Date:
19 Feb 2001
Time:
02:37:48
Remote User:

Comments

I do not think there is any hint of "salvation" for Prufrock in the poem. there doesn't seem to be any sign of change to the mans mournful, hopeless life. the character in the poem is very unasure of himself and is apprehensive of the situation he is about to enter (talking to women) the man has no self esteem, and his physical appearence makes him feel insecure. he has no confidence and cannot talk to women, he is afraid to fail. the whole poem is very depressing and shows no sign that things will get better for Prufrock. throughout the poem he can only dream of being loved and is living a false reality. in the last line, when "human voices" awaken him from his dreaming, he cannot respond to the real world and he "drowns" the death at the end of the poem show that there is no possible salvation for Prufrock, that he will never be able to love a woman. by John Nieskens.


Date:
20 Feb 2001
Time:
03:12:06
Remote User:

Comments

After reading T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", it appears that their is no hint for Alfred Prufrock of any kind of salvation from his world of apparent depression. The whole poem emphasizes his lack of ability in dealing with the world around him as a result of his insecurities. It almost seems as if he tries too hard to be at least "normal" in the eyes of those he considers elites. All the true happiness in his life comes from his fantasies and dreams of seeing "sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown." In looking at this poem through a different light, one could assume that Prufrock's dreams of seeing mermaids are workings of salvation. These dreams could be the symbols of hope. The dreams show the reader that Prufrock is at least able to realize his goals or at least see what he truly desires. The only thing standing in his way is the border of reality. -Kristine Seigars-


Date:
20 Feb 2001
Time:
13:44:05
Remote User:

Comments

I feel that there wasn't any sign of change in TS Eliot's poem. He also seems to be writing about his own experiences, because of the detail he goes into about how he feels around women. he seems very unsure in the poem and unwilling to change the way he feels. Annelies


Date:
21 Feb 2001
Time:
04:06:09
Remote User:

Comments

Prufrock is in a solitary state. I believe that Eliot shows no hope for this character through the entire piece. The last line, -"Till human voices wake us, and we drown"- shows hope for nothing, even life itself. A. Cleary


Date:
23 Feb 2001
Time:
15:45:21
Remote User:

Comments

Mr. McGonegal here.

PATRIOTISM. You saw it alive and well in this HBO hockey documentary. Is it that alive and well today? Why or why not? Happy holidays.

JLM


Date:
23 Feb 2001
Time:
22:04:39
Remote User:

Comments

Yes, I do think patritoism is alive today. I just think it was more evident back then (in the 80s) because there were so many issues going on, sorta like a depression. It seems like back then all Americans would do anything to feel better and help their, and maybe that is why it seems more patriotic than nowadays. Now we are a little spoiled, there are not huge issus that threaten the status of our country.

Dani Statuto


Date:
26 Feb 2001
Time:
02:14:42
Remote User:

Comments

I think that dani is right about our country today. We are at an ultimate high and there isnt much to be patriotic about. Im sure there are many patriotic acts everyday but nobody notices because it isnt breaking up any kind of monotany. The reason that that hockey game stuck out so much was because american people were in need in some kind of victory. It seems like we have been getting endless victory with things so those things don't get the recognition that they should. So i guess my answer is yes, there are many patriotic acts happening, its just that americans are just too busy to take any notice. Jessica Schlieben


Date:
27 Feb 2001
Time:
16:15:36
Remote User:

Comments

I deffinetly do not think PATRIOTISM is alive at all anymore. In the olympics and national competition we have our pro atheletes go and represent ua and anything less then a gold medel is unexceptable. I think what made the 80'gold medel so special was that we were the underdogs being represented by the youth of America and we had to play the professional russia team. Now the tables have turned and we have turned into the russians expecting nothing less then a gold. Hope your vacations are all going well. ~your favorite student J~


Date:
27 Feb 2001
Time:
23:25:03
Remote User:

Comments

I do not think that patriotism is alive and well today in America. Being in the largest economic boom the United States has ever seen in its history, the country is considered to be stable and without much need for complaint by its citizens. We are so stable that sometimes we are considered to be the world's policemen, working to "improve" the welfare of other countries with our democratic policies. We are very prosperous one might say. The citizens of the United States feel safe, not because all of the other countries are in agreement with us, but because we are economically safe and strong enough to overcome great obstacles such as war and other foreign relationships. Citizens of the United States are already indirectly bonded by our strength. In times of crisis, such as in the early 1980's when the economy was poor and our relationships with other countries, in particular Russia, was highly competitive, we needed the patriotism to turn a weak country into a strong country. The United States hockey team needed to believe in their abilities in order to prove to the Russian's that pure pysical strength was not the only thing that was needed to win a gold metal. The US hockey team had faith in their team members and in themselves, inspired by a devoted coach. When this single hockey team won the gold metal over a strong Russian team, the whole country cheered and was inspired as a single unit under the United States name. The Russians one could say lost because of a lack of patriotism. They were so pysically strong that they didn't need to develope an underlying belief in themselves. They had won games so many times that they no longer apprieciated their success. I suppose that one could say that the United States is like that today. Our own former president, Bill Clinton, was involved in a sex scandel that world wide countries were notified about. To some he is still considered to be a role model, an example of the best our country has to offer. The fact that some citizens don't care about how our leaders advertise the accomplisments of our country does not say much about how much pride is instilled in individuals concerning the United States.


Date:
27 Feb 2001
Time:
23:54:26
Remote User:

Comments

The above response is by Kristine Seigars. (I forgot to put the name down when I submitted it. Sorry!)


Date:
04 Mar 2001
Time:
20:36:32
Remote User:

Comments

I believe that patriotism still exists in the United states today. I think thatpatriotism had declined since the 1980's. I think people are more concerned with other things but I still think patriotism exists. Trish Goodwin


Date:
05 Mar 2001
Time:
04:53:52
Remote User:

Comments

No I don't think that it is as alive today. If you just look at the news you can see a good example with that guy Hanssen spying for Russia. We tend to only show patriotism when our morale is low, just like it was before the hockey game in 1980. Right now morale is pretty high with a good economy and therefore patriotism isn't being shown. -Mike


Date:
06 Mar 2001
Time:
00:33:56
Remote User:

Comments

I agree with Mike and Kristen. PATRIOTISM doesn't exist. There's pride for your country, but not the patriotism that existed back when our country wasn't so well off. IN the early 80's the cold war was still on, and Americans disliked the Russians, and the Berlin Wall was still there. Back then, there was reason to be patriotic to the US. Now, it seems the people shouldn't be proud of our country. I mean, look at teh terrible things in our country. First the presidental election, where a country couldn't even fairly elect a leader, Columbine, the shooting at Santana High School today, the Dartmouth killings, Bill Clinton's affairs while in the white house, the man caught spying for Russia, all the betrayal, and all the rape and violence in our country. who is proud to be american when we know want really goes on inside of our shorelines? Who would go to a country and brag about all this? There are some good thinkgs about America, but not enough to build a strong PATRIOTISM.

Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
07 Mar 2001
Time:
06:24:34
Remote User:

Comments

I think Patriotism is a myth and an lllusion as much as ethics or morals. Patriotism is an excuse to do what one wants to and not feel bad about it... much like most religions. Patriotism is alive only because it is an easy out, a scapegoat. It is well only because it is called on so often. There was once a day when patriotism had meaning and was a good thing; World War 1 + 2 (and most other wars.) Never has our country been so proud to be itself as the post-war boom; we can rejoice in the fact that every other country in the world has at least a little respect for us, and may even stand in awe. -Teknokrazy aka Myles Forrest


Date:
07 Mar 2001
Time:
06:30:24
Remote User:

Comments

(old question about Robert Frost) Yes, Robert Frost has a darkside. We all do; it's called the id. Some people are just more prone to do what their id tells them to do then others. Most "dark" or gloomy people are just more in touch with their desires, instincts and urges then others... arguing that R.F. has a darkside is futile, at best. One could argue, if one was extremely bored, that R.F. was more in touch with himself then most of the rest of us. Fire and Ice, as well as other poems that instill a gloomy feeling (ie, Stopping by the Woods...) show us that while by no means a completely crazy, he is able to provide us with a sense best described as "creepy".


Date:
07 Mar 2001
Time:
06:30:56
Remote User:

Comments

Oops... That last one was by me. -Myles


Date:
07 Mar 2001
Time:
13:07:26
Remote User:

Comments

I think that there is such thing as patriotism but its true meaning has long been lost. Nobody knows what it really is any more. Patriotism is fake and in my opinion, is why it represents America so well. We are a very fake country and there isn't much left in the world that is truely true and still holds genuine value. Erin Primiano


Date:
07 Mar 2001
Time:
13:13:24
Remote User:

Comments

I agree with leigh in that i felt sorry for the charachter in J. Alfred Prufrock. I think a lot Elliot is trying to describe is own feelings and i don't think that they are really disturbed but just lacking a certain order that allows poems to sound disturbed or not disturbed. I think that the charachter or t.s. elliot wanted to portray what goes through many people's minds... confusion. I know that my thoughts are often random and confused but they make sense to me just as this poem may have made sense to the author though it is confusing for us. Erin Primiano


Date:
07 Mar 2001
Time:
19:47:35
Remote User:

Comments

I don't think that there is Patriotism in America today. I agree with Leigh, when she stated that there is pride. Most of America is very proud of our country, because of our advanced technology,wealth and accomplishments. But we, as a country, haven't seen patriotism throughout the country in a very long time. I feel that the only thing that would bring back a lot of patriotism in our country would be some sort of war or fight that would bring the country together again. Maybe something that we would all want to fight for; an issue that the whole country strongly does or does not believe in. -Annelies


Date:
07 Mar 2001
Time:
20:20:30
Remote User:

Comments

Where is the new question for march 7th?????

Dani Statuto


Date:
08 Mar 2001
Time:
01:09:48
Remote User:

Comments

I think that patriotism still exists. I do agree with Trish though, in that it has declined since the 1980s. You don't see that many people excited about their country anymore. Patriotism is something that all countries in this world have, including ours. I believe that we should have patriotism, because we are lucky to be living in this country and not a third-world country, where thousands of people die everyday. ~Jen Bolton


Date:
08 Mar 2001
Time:
01:53:54
Remote User:

Comments

I have been having a hard time finding the question for March 7th. Are we supposed to answer a question on something other than the message board, like the online discussion for the Great Gadsby? -Kristine Seigars


Date:
08 Mar 2001
Time:
02:20:32
Remote User:

Comments

Like usuall im confussed and cant find the question captain. your confussed student J


Date:
08 Mar 2001
Time:
03:00:37
Remote User:

Comments

Like everyone else, I don't see a question either. -Mike


Date:
08 Mar 2001
Time:
14:29:36
Remote User:

Comments

Well, I don't see the March 7th question, but since I wasn't here during the last question, I'll anser that one. America has patriotism, though I don't believe it's quite as apparent as it used to be. As Americans, I belive we are very proud of our country and of the power that we hold in comparison to other countries. I believe also, as american's we tend to not be thankful for the rights bestowed upon us that other countries don't receive. We tend to tske our country for granted, and don't appreciate it. That may be where our lack of patriotism may be coming from. I believe our country does have patriotism, but that it's seriously dwindling in this day and age.

-- Christina Russell --


Date:
08 Mar 2001
Time:
15:51:17
Remote User:

Comments

I cannot find the question for March 7th. Erin Thornton


Date:
08 Mar 2001
Time:
15:53:32
Remote User:

Comments

i agree with jay in that there is not much patriotism in the current olympics. america is always expected to dominate every event and win gold medals, but not too many people seem to care. there was patriotism during the 1980 hockey game because america was going through a rough period in history, and the team was the underdog going against the best hockey team in the world. everyone came together routed for the Americans because they wanted them to beat the hated Russians. right now our country is very successful and the economy is strong so no one really cares about patriotism anymore. john


Date:
09 Mar 2001
Time:
17:48:14
Remote User:

Comments

Had Gatsby been the narrator of the story, what would be our impression of Nick? -Erin Thornton


Date:
10 Mar 2001
Time:
17:40:15
Remote User:

Comments

If Gadsby were the narrator of this novel, our inpression of Nick would probably be one of uncertainess. Being such a passive and nonjudgmental person on the outside, rumors about him, made aware by other characters would be the only means by which the readers would get any information on him, whether or not they be true or not. Having Nick as the narrator gives the reader insight into his thoughts and feelings and even the judgements he claims not to make. Having anyone else as the narrator would make Nick seem like an unimportant character, thrown in for unnecessary purposes. I think Nick's purpose in this novel so far is to provide the reader with thier judgments of other suspicious characters, such as Jay Gadsby. Nick is used as a tool for readers to make their own judgements. On a more specific note, through the eyes of Jay Gadsby, Nick might seem like a character to keep a close watch on. Being so hard to understand, never leaning toward one side or the other, he is a suspicious character, one prone to hidden judgements. Perhaps their is another reason, other than Daisy, that Gadsby keeps a close watch of Nick.


Date:
10 Mar 2001
Time:
17:41:17
Remote User:

Comments

The above comment was submitted by Kristine Seigars.


Date:
11 Mar 2001
Time:
16:27:02
Remote User:

Comments

I agree with Kristen. I think Gasby doesn't compleltly trust Nick... he never scolds nor judges other characters in the book to anyone besides the reader. I think this makes him one of those people who you can never really trust...because you never really know what they think of you. Gatsby is aware of Nicks secretivness, and I think if he were the narrator he would not say wheather of not nick was a kind fellow or this or that...I just think he would keep a close eye out for him and watch his every move and reaction to situations that occur.

From Dani Statuto


Date:
11 Mar 2001
Time:
20:36:08
Remote User:

Comments

I think that if Gatsby was the narrator of the story, then Nick would be portrayed completely different then he is now. I think that Gatsby would portray Nick as quiet, and not at all outspoken because Nick doesn't judge anyone and keeps all of his comments to hisself. From the impression that I have had of Gatsby, he seems to trust Nick, so I disagree with Dani on that comment. Nick and Gatsby seem to be good friends, so I think that Gatsby would view Nick as an important character in this book. ~Jen Bolton~


Date:
11 Mar 2001
Time:
22:54:33
Remote User:

Comments

i dont think that gatsby would work well as the narrator. to be a narrator, you cannot carry much emotions or judgements about what is going on. Gatsby is obviosly filled with emotion with the situations happening. Though it would be interesting to get into Gatsby's head, i think that it isnt completly nessesary. He seems to share enough with Nick to be able to know what is going on with him. Nick makes a good narrator because he seems to always be the eyes of situations. He is always there, but never gets involved. So, i do not feel that the book would be as good with Gatsby being the narrator.


Date:
11 Mar 2001
Time:
22:55:07
Remote User:

Comments

Jessica Schlieben above.


Date:
11 Mar 2001
Time:
23:25:14
Remote User:

Comments

If Gatsby was the narator of the story I believe that we would get many different opinoins on Nick. I think this because Nick is a character who has many different emotions and personalities. Trish Goodwin


Date:
12 Mar 2001
Time:
01:55:33
Remote User:

Comments

I think that if Gatsby were the narrator, there wouldn't be much of a Nick character. He'd just be existent, but there wouldn't be much to him. Since Nick keeps everything inside of him and only shares with the reader, there isn't a way that a character like Nick could be explained in the book unless he is the narrator. ~Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
12 Mar 2001
Time:
03:14:17
Remote User:

Comments

I think Gatspy would see nick as a very gutless individual because Nick keeps his thoughts and feeling to himself and never says anything judgemental. I think Gatspy would find Nick a questionable figure because of his quitness. So i agree with Dani. This is from J


Date:
12 Mar 2001
Time:
03:25:29
Remote User:

Comments

If Gatsby were the narrator of this book, i don't think Nick would be a big part of the story. Gatsby seems to know a lot of people, and is involved with a lot of different things. There would have been an impression given when they were together, but i don't think Gatsby thinks too much of Nick when he's not around. -Justin Wilk.


Date:
12 Mar 2001
Time:
06:55:11
Remote User:

Comments

I agree with Justin that Nick wouldn't have a big role. When we look at Gatsby through Nick's eyes, we only see about 1 hour out of one day. Gatsby has to do other things during the day, and most of those things probably do not involve Nick. So if we looked through Gatsby's eyes, Nick wouldn't be mentioned too many times. And I also agree with Dani and Kristine, that Gatsby wouldn't really trust Nick. Just look at the time when Gatsby had Nick invite Daisy over. Gatsby had everything done, like mowing the lawn, so that way Nick couldn't screw things up. So I think things would be very different. -Mike


Date:
12 Mar 2001
Time:
13:54:45
Remote User:

Comments

I agree with Leigh and Mike in that had the story been told through the eyes of Gatsby, there wouldn't be much said about Nick. Having Nick as the narrator allows the reader to see glimpses into the lives of several different characters almost in a non-judgemental way. Nick seems interested in analyzing and watching others. Had Gatsby been the narrator, we would probably get a lot of information on Daisy and his feelings about her. Nick would not be spoken of in the same way that he speaks of Gatsby. -Erin Thornton


Date:
12 Mar 2001
Time:
15:46:36
Remote User:

Comments

It takes forever to find these questions! But, now that I'm done with my complaining... I believe that if the story was narrated by Gatsby, Nick would be a completely diferent character. Basically because being the narrator is one's own opinion. Nick is telling us the story the way that he sees everyone and everything. If Gatsby, or anyone else narrated this story, everything would be different.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
13 Mar 2001
Time:
02:35:14
Remote User:

Comments

I agree with Leigh that if Gatsby was the narrator, there wouldn't be much said about Nick. I think that Gatsby would only portray Nick as one of his many friends that he "uses" to get his way in life. Gatsby also wouldn't be a good narrator because unlike Nick he shares his views with everyone. Nick only shares his personal views with the reader. Also I think that Nick is Much more intregued by Gatsby than Gatsby is by Nick. Even though Nick doesn't always believe Gatsby, he is intregued by his complexity. -Annelies Hanson


Date:
13 Mar 2001
Time:
03:36:23
Remote User:

Comments

If Gatsby was the narrotor of the book Nick would not be very involved in the story. He would be just another person at one of Gatsby's parties. The book would probably be mostly about Gatsby's dream love interests and the past. Gatsby would mention Daisy a lot more because of their relationship. The character Nick also keeps most of his thoughts and judgements inside, so there is not much to say about him, and like most peope already said, he could not be trusted. if Gatsby was the narrator, the story would change. -John


Date:
13 Mar 2001
Time:
04:35:21
Remote User:

Comments

I think our impression of Nick would be (obviously) skewed from how we perceive Nick now. Nick seems to be "holier then thou", but he won't really admit what he believes... I think that Gatsby would find him as fake as we think Gatsby is now. Kind of ironic, putting two "dishonest" people together and asking them what they think of each other... -Myles


Date:
14 Mar 2001
Time:
16:34:49
Remote User:

Comments

I think that if Gatsby were the narrator of the book that Nick would often be mentioned. Nick played a fairly large role in involving Gatsby and Daisy again. I think that Gatsby is truley thankful for what Nick has done for him. However, even though I think that Nick would still be a big part of the story, I don't think that we would know much about his true personality. I think that we would only know Nick on the outside as Gatsby sees him. Erin Primiano


Date:
14 Mar 2001
Time:
16:59:43
Remote User:

Comments

Our country is deffinatly less patriotic today. This is because America is doing great for itself and citizens don't feel that their support is needed. Also, America isn't involved in any war right now so people don't have the "fight for your country" pride.


Date:
14 Mar 2001
Time:
17:00:34
Remote User:

Comments

The above comment was submitted by Kayla.


Date:
14 Mar 2001
Time:
17:09:43
Remote User:

Comments

Assuming by everyone's comments that the question is: If Gatsby was the narrator how would he portray Nick? I would say that Gatsby would show him as a good enough guy who can help him get what he wants. I think Gatsby is interested in him because he sees potential for Nick to help him in his business and to get Daisy.~Kayla


Date:
14 Mar 2001
Time:
18:02:32
Remote User:

Comments

If the book wasn't narrated by Nick he wouldn't really be one of the main characters because everything we know about him is only told to the reader. We wouldn't know any of his opinions or views on what's happening and Nick would be one of those characters put into books to take up paper. - Tirra


Date:
15 Mar 2001
Time:
01:15:33
Remote User:

Comments

If this book wasn't narrated by Nick we would get- if anything at all a very small description of Nick. Besides Gatsby talking about the guy next door who comes in handy every now and then. A.Cleary


Date:
15 Mar 2001
Time:
15:42:34
Remote User:

Comments

If Gatsby was the narrator then nick would some what of a big charactor because no one knows what to think about him so maybe some rumors would be spread. Nick would not be the main charactor because he does not have alot of depth meaning he does not say much and trys not to judge others. The book would be totally different if Gatsby was the narrator. BEN C


Date:
16 Mar 2001
Time:
20:33:39
Remote User:

Comments

McGonegal here! Two questions for this weekend of 3/16/01. Answer one of them. 1> If Tom had not been cheating on Daisy would Daisy have cheated on Tom? (Did Daisy know? Compliments of Tirra); 2> What role does Jordan Baker play in this book? (compliments of Kristine)


Date:
16 Mar 2001
Time:
21:45:38
Remote User:

Comments

I think that Daisy and Tom married eachoother for security reasons. I don't think that they were ever in love. Gatsby was Daisy's true love, however if she couldn't wait a couple years than there has to be some other reason why she married Tom..and that other reason is the million $ that are sitting in the bank. I think both Tom and Daisy are fakes....especially after seeing the movie.

Dani Statuto


Date:
18 Mar 2001
Time:
22:44:33
Remote User:

Comments

Jordan is the envy of all the significant characters in this book, including Tom, Daisy, Gadsby and to a lesser degree, Nick. Born into wealth, she continues a life that reaps the benefits of its power. Unlike Tom and Daisy, she keeps away from the trouble that the poor can sometimes bestow upon a life of wealth and happiness, as is made clear through examples in this book. Tom with Myrtle and Daisy with Gadsby impinge on another class of people outside of the promise of marriage. Gadsby's whole life is spent rising up from his humble background in the hopes of winning a lover who is beyond his grasp. Daisy lives on East Bank, and no matter how hard he tries and no matter how much money he makes in his adult life, Gadsby will always life on West Bank. Before Jordan gets too far involved with Nick, who himself is from a modest west, she backs out. In the last chapter, Jordan reminds Nick of how he once told her when in the car that she was only safe until she met another bad driver. Jordan replied that she would make sure that all the other drivers were safe drivers. To Jordan, Nick was a poor driver and thus must be taken from her path. Jordan is the smart woman who does not let foolish love fall in her way, unless she fall in love with someone whom she felt was a safe driver. It is not a coincidence, that Fitzgerald does not mention Jordan as being from the West, while Nick, Tom, Daisy, and Gadsby are all distinguished by their backgrounds. -Kristine Seigars-


Date:
18 Mar 2001
Time:
22:48:29
Remote User:

Comments

I think it is hard to say if Daisy really loved. I personal think she did to some degree. If she had'nt loved Tom why did'nt she just leave him or get a divorce. Yet she stayed with Tom all those years. So she must have loved him even if he did'nt love her. Trish Goodwin


Date:
18 Mar 2001
Time:
23:09:11
Remote User:

Comments

I think that Daisy would have cheated on Tom regardless of if she knew or whatever. She really loved Gatsby and that made it so that it didn't matter if she knew or not. And the question about Jordan...I'm really not sure. She was kinda just someone to keep Nick happy, someone he could confide in. -Mike


Date:
19 Mar 2001
Time:
02:32:59
Remote User:

Comments

I don't think that Tom had any influence on Daisy's cheating. She still had a thing for Gatsby when she married Tom. It was bound to happen. It's the fault of their marriage. I'm not sure if it was ever up hill, but somewhere it went down hill. Probably because Daisy only married him for his money.~Kayla


Date:
19 Mar 2001
Time:
13:29:41
Remote User:

Comments

I think that Daisy, no matter what, would have cheated on Tom. She married Tom so she could have a stable life, not for the love. If Tom didn't have the affair, I think that Daisy's affair would have been kept much more secret though. Since she knew about Tom's affair she didn't really seem to care about telling him about her and Gatsby. -Annelies Hanson


Date:
19 Mar 2001
Time:
14:29:27
Remote User:

Comments

The question: If Tom had not been cheating on Daisy would Daisy have cheated on Tom? (Did Daisy know? Compliments of Tirra)

My answer: Daisy and Tom have a horrible marriage. It waasn't mentioned if Daisy had ever cheated on Tom before, but Tom had done it to her multiple times. Daisy of course knew that Tom had another girl, she even heard phone conversations. I don't think she would have been so willing to cheat on Tom if she hadn't thought Tom was cheating on her. I don't believe Daisy would have cheated on Tom without having someone there who was or is special to her, which Gatsby provided. Gatsby also provided the courage Daisy needed to finally confront Tom and tell him that she wanted to leave him, which may change the entire marriage. I think knowing that Tom was cheating definetly helped her to cheat on him without much guilt. If Tom hadn't been cheating, I don't believe Daisy even would have thought to cheat on him.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
19 Mar 2001
Time:
15:30:02
Remote User:

Comments

I think that Daisy would have cheated on Tom even if he wasn't cheating on her. Either way she would have met Gatsby, and she loves him, so she would have cheated on Tom no matter what. I also think that Daisy knows Tom is cheating on her, but she really doesn't seem to care very much for some reason.

~Jen Bolton~


Date:
19 Mar 2001
Time:
15:41:00
Remote User:

Comments

I think that no matter if Daisy knew that Tom was cheating on her, she would have done it anyway. If you think abut it, she really only married Tom for the money. She's a gold-digger. She "couldn't" marry Gatsby because he had no money. At one point in time she might have loved him, because she was forced to if she was going to marry for money. But as I think, once you love someone you can never go back to saying you don't love them. Love always exists, though it might not be as strong as before, but it will always be there. ~Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
19 Mar 2001
Time:
15:41:26
Remote User:

Comments

I think that no matter if Daisy knew that Tom was cheating on her, she would have done it anyway. If you think abut it, she really only married Tom for the money. She's a gold-digger. She "couldn't" marry Gatsby because he had no money. At one point in time she might have loved Tom, because she was forced to if she was going to marry for money. But as I think, once you love someone you can never go back to saying you don't love them. Love always exists, though it might not be as strong as before, but it will always be there. ~Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
20 Mar 2001
Time:
13:41:39
Remote User:

Comments

I don't think that Daisy would have stayed faithful to Tom. She wouldn't leave him completley, however, if she had not found another wealthy man such as Gatsby. She was just waiting for an exuse to get out. Erin Primiano


Date:
20 Mar 2001
Time:
13:42:30
Remote User:

Comments

I think that Jordan Baker was just another person to show how the wealthy really were. She also shows that even Nick can be dragged into such things. Erin Primiano


Date:
21 Mar 2001
Time:
02:36:46
Remote User:

Comments

Daisy would have cheated on Tom in any situation. Their marriage was not very successful and it was based around Daisy's attraction to Toms cash and power. she did not love him and the marriage was fake. Other than that Tom was pretty much a jerk. Daisy really loved Gatsby, during her entire time with Tom. she also didn't try to keep her affair too much of a secret, so she probably didn't care what tom thought.John


Date:
23 Mar 2001
Time:
17:28:06
Remote User:

Comments

This is the question for the week by Erin Primiano... If Robert doesn't have any money than what, if anything, is Mrs. Pontellier after?


Date:
23 Mar 2001
Time:
17:42:49
Remote User:

Comments

I absolutly think that Robert Frost has a dark side. He has kindof expressed it in his poetry. Like in the poem "Fire and Ice", he is talking about the world coming to a end, and what would be the cause of it. In the poem 'The Road not Taken", Frost is on a journey by himself, and he seems lonley and sad. At the end of the poem, he ays "and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep." Here he is talking about his own death, and how he had time to live before he died. In the other hand you cant be totally shore if he wants to travel all those miles, or he wants it to end. There is definitly dark things or feelings expressed in the poetry of Robert Frost, but also expressions of beauty, and love.


Date:
23 Mar 2001
Time:
17:48:13
Remote User:

Comments

The last message posted on the board, was done by Justin Osgood


Date:
23 Mar 2001
Time:
19:04:46
Remote User:

Comments

I think that Mrs. Pontellier is just looking for some affection her husband doesn't pay attention to her and Robert does thus the need to be around him.-Tirra


Date:
25 Mar 2001
Time:
20:06:36
Remote User:

Comments

I don't believe that Edna Pontillier is after Robert for anything excepting his companioship, as her equal. She enjoys going down to the beach with him, without obligation. She likes to bask in the sun, free of responsibility. When she is in his company, doing such things that please her, I think she feels liberated. However, whenever he tries to protect her, or to make her task easier, he annoys her. She does not appear to accept authority by others, nor does she like to act as an authority figure (condering the relationship she holds with her children). She likes to be under control of herself, regardless of the responsiblity put on her by society. Robert is her companion and friend when on an equal bases with him, yet does not accept his aid when it comes to taking care of her life. -Kristine Seigars-


Date:
25 Mar 2001
Time:
22:46:27
Remote User:

Comments

If Robert does not have any money than maybe Mrs. Pontiellier is after something else. Maybe all she wants is a friend, someone who will listen to what she has to say and treats a lot better than her husband does. Maybe Mrs. Pontiellier is not like Daisy and does not look at people for how much money they have. I think that Mrs.Pontiellier is not a snobish character. ~ Trish Goodwin


Date:
26 Mar 2001
Time:
03:16:23
Remote User:

Comments

I think that Edna is just looking for someone who will treat her as she wants to be treated, and most of the time Robert does that. With Leonce he doesn't treat her as an individual and with most of the women in town (especially Adele) she sees the kind of women who she does not want to be like. Therefore Robert is the only one she can, most of the time, be completely free and open with. -Mike


Date:
26 Mar 2001
Time:
18:07:43
Remote User:

Comments

Prufrock just has a low self esteem and no confidence. I'm sure that if perhaps he approached a woman and struck a conversation it might have broken the "shy" barriers that hold him back from being the life of the party. It takes two to make a conversation. He needs to stop stressing the little things like his appearance, it is far beter to have someone like you for who you are, you won't always have your looks, but you'll always be who you are whether or not your hair accompanies you. Communication makes relatonships last, so it is time for him to speak up. - Tirra


Date:
26 Mar 2001
Time:
18:15:21
Remote User:

Comments

Patriotism isn't as apparent today than before we sometimes take for granted how good we have things and complain when are we are the ones who have to change it. Sports and the olympics bring out patriotism because of the pride and satisfaction that comes along with winning. Being proud of your country doesn't mean you agree with everything that goes on within it. I know I would like to change a lot of things and it makes me proud to Know that if I try hard enough I can. - Tirra


Date:
26 Mar 2001
Time:
19:23:47
Remote User:

Comments

I don't think she cares about money at all. I think she wants to feel important and loved. Since Mr. Pontellier does not do that, it seems obvious that Robert already does. I mean he follows her around and talks to her. She feels cared for. She wants to be needed and wanted. Dani Statuto


Date:
26 Mar 2001
Time:
21:50:50
Remote User:

Comments

All she is looking for in Robert is comanionship and love. She doesn't get that from her husband. I think that everyone needs love and companionship from somewhere. And if they don't find it from thier signifigant others they will go elsewhere, no matter how much money the other person has.


Date:
26 Mar 2001
Time:
21:51:12
Remote User:

Comments

The above was written by Annelies


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
01:13:18
Remote User:

Comments

(Prufrock question) Prufrocks state of indecision is pretty constant throughout the whole poem. He lets us into his mind and is pretty set on his thoughts. He doesn't seem very willing to change the way he is feeling any time soon either. The thoughts portrayed in this poem are so visualistic, that is hard to say that TS Elliot is not narrating his own thoughts of indecision. On the other hand that may be just what he wants the reader to think. Jessica Schlieben


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
01:28:21
Remote User:

Comments

(Gatsby response Q #1) I believe that Daisy still would have cheated on Tom even if Tom hadn't. One of them had to start it. It was a pointless marriage only for money and comfort. Besides, Daisy wasnt even aware of Myrtle anyway. Jessica Schlieben


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
01:40:46
Remote User:

Comments

I believe that not everybody at the turn of the century were only into money. There were the rich and snobby who had a heart as well. Even if they used it in only their advantage, it was still there. Sometimes they couldnt help letting it run loose and i think that is what Mrs. Pontellier has done. I think she is trying to hold back, but cant help but enjoy his company. Jessica Schlieben


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
02:14:19
Remote User:

Comments

Ithink that Edna is just looking for a friend. Or maybe a lover. Like the saying goes "Money can't buy me love" (beatles, oh yeah!!). Who cares if he has no money. The thing that matters is if there's love between two people. If I were Edna, I'd say screw the loveless marriage; get divorced and find true love, because the only things that last forever is love and friendship, not money. And like everyone old says "You're only young once, so enjoy your life". Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
03:19:22
Remote User:

Comments

answer to #7. This was a sad poem and i felt bad for the person who it was about. I couldnt help but think that maybe this poem was about Elliot himself. I agree with Dani in saying that the word I comes up a lot in this poem. I think that maybe Elliot had some social problems and this was his best way of venting himself to the world without letting everyone totally know what his real problem was. Sorry this was late MrM. Thanks for letting me make it up. ~your thankful student J~


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
03:23:28
Remote User:

Comments

Answer to #10. I think Daisy should have cheated on Toms skany butt. He was a complete loser and didnt deserve Daisy. Daisy on the other hand should have cheated on Tom a long time ago. She should have gone off with Jay not only becuase he has a kick a name but also becuase by her being by his side that would have made both Jay and Daisy happy. A lot happier then she is with gay Tom anyway. ~your favotire student J~


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
03:29:15
Remote User:

Comments

All she wants in Robert is a little play and companionship. Also, i think that she has a false sense of security by being with a man with so much money. I think shes only with him because she knows when he keels over, she'll get everything. and if they divorce, she'll get atleast half. Welcome to America. ~your favorite student J~


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
03:39:55
Remote User:

Comments

Kevin spacey plays a character in the movie American Beauty that i think is on an Emersonian high. He is living by the phrase today is the first day of the rest of your life. He starts his life over by living each day to it's fullest. Whether it be buying his dream car, or quitting the job he hates, he is living it up to the fullest.


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
03:47:34
Remote User:

Comments

Kevin Spacey plays the rolse of a character who i think its living on an emersonian high, in the movie American Beauty. Spacey is living by the phrase today is the first day of the rest of your life. HE is starting his life over and lving each day to the fullest, whether it be buying his dream car or quitting the job he hates. -Justin Wilk


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
13:13:26
Remote User:

Comments

Is Patriotism alive and well today? Feb. 23 I beleive that patriotism has taken the "back burner" in our society. In the last century our country has built itself up to extreme prosperity. We have gotten so used to not having to prove that we are aren't the underdogs like in the hokey flick that we watched. Now we are sailing in calm winds. I believe that there will come a time were the US goes back to patriotism but that will not happen until we have some kind of delema to deal with as a country. Such as Education,it is becoming a reality that the chineese and japonese are exeeding us in technology and recieving more education than the common person in the US. Therefor as a country we need to keep up. A. Cleary


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
13:32:24
Remote User:

Comments

If Tom hadn't cheated on Daisy would she have cheated on Tom? March 16 I bet that Daisy still would have gotten permisqueos on Tom. I believe that Daisy married out of desperation for security,the times also played a part here. Women were expected to be married and if they weren't - something must be wrong with them. Society has obveously changed since then. Daisy wasn't in the relationship for the right reason, love.She and Tom displayed that well in the book- what kind of marrage leaves both people cheating on each other? One that both people aren't happy. a.cleary


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
13:40:22
Remote User:

Comments

Mrs. Pontellier must either belive that she will get something out of the whole thing or she likes his companionship of someone who she enjoys the company of opposed to her husband.Truly money doesn't change who you like A.Cleary


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
19:11:28
Remote User:

Comments

I believe that Edna is not after money. She simply wants to feel true affection and she wants to be her own woman, she wants to feel for herself things that she has never had before. This is why she is after Robert.

~Jen Bolton~


Date:
27 Mar 2001
Time:
19:15:21
Remote User:

Comments

Prufrock question: I think that this poem is very depressing. I feel sorry for the character in it. I think the author is writing about hisself, and it doesn't sound like he will ever reach his state of salvation in this poem. ~Jen Bolton~


Date:
28 Mar 2001
Time:
13:57:42
Remote User:

Comments

I don't think that Krakauer wrote of woman in his book for two reasons one, that he didn't know enough stories that in his opinion "topped" the other stories he tells; and two, I don't think that he really realizes he isn't writing about woman. The book is about a man, and so the rest of the book simply follows the theme. Erin Primiano


Date:
28 Mar 2001
Time:
13:57:45
Remote User:

Comments

I don't think that Krakauer wrote of woman in his book for two reasons one, that he didn't know enough stories that in his opinion "topped" the other stories he tells; and two, I don't think that he really realizes he isn't writing about woman. The book is about a man, and so the rest of the book simply follows the theme. Erin Primiano


Date:
28 Mar 2001
Time:
14:30:53
Remote User:

Comments

Ok, I'm catching up... In the poem "The Love song of J. Alfred Prufrock", the character is unsure of himself. He has very low selfesteem and seems to be afraid of women. I feel bad for this man because he's so frightened, and insecure about the world around him. There seems to be no salvation for this man, he seems forever hopeless.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
28 Mar 2001
Time:
14:33:22
Remote User:

Comments

Now, for today's question, I believe Edna is after Robert because she needs someone. She's lonely and she wants a companion, a friendship. Robert has that, and this is why Edna is going after him. I don't think she's in love with him, but sees that he will offer her that frienship and companionship that she's forever looking for.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
28 Mar 2001
Time:
15:32:38
Remote User:

Comments

Patriotism is at a low right now, definately i believe. We have nothing going on right now though. No wars or feuds with other countries. You do not necessarilly need those things to have patriotism though, but i think thats when patriotism shows up most. -Justin


Date:
28 Mar 2001
Time:
15:36:50
Remote User:

Comments

Jordan Baker always seems to just be there in this book. She never eally gets involved with other peoples issues. I'm sure she has her own things going on, but none of them really come out in the book. -Justin


Date:
28 Mar 2001
Time:
15:39:23
Remote User:

Comments

J. Alfred Prufrock is a very shy lonely man. He is intimidated by his surroundings in the poem. He's intimidated by the women in the poem. He seems to be a very frightened person. He is very insecure and has a low self-esteem. -Justin


Date:
28 Mar 2001
Time:
15:45:08
Remote User:

Comments

It's obvious Edna can look past money and everything else like that. She is looking for affection from the man she loves. That's what she wants, she doesn't need anything involving money, she only wants him to love her back the she loves him. -Justin


Date:
29 Mar 2001
Time:
01:24:22
Remote User:

Comments

For some reason Men are more adventurous than women. More men than women like to hunt and fish and camp and all that stuff. Most women stay away form things like that. I don't know what it is about men that make them want to do more adventurous things, maybe it's because Men are very prideful. They want to proove their manhood, and going on little adventures does it for a lot of us. Prooving people wrong does it for a lot of us. -Justin.


Date:
29 Mar 2001
Time:
12:24:33
Remote User:

Comments

The one movie that I think has the "Emersion High" constructed into it, would be Bonnie and Clyde. It is a movie about murderous bankrobbers on the run from the law. In the end, the crooks hit a bridge, and had to face reality.- Justin Oosgood


Date:
29 Mar 2001
Time:
13:20:14
Remote User:

Comments

Edna is interested in Robert because he is always there when she wants him. He keeps good company with her. He will wait with her until her husband comes home. I belive that she wants someone to share her feelings with and to confide in because she cannot do that with her husband.~Kayla


Date:
29 Mar 2001
Time:
13:37:49
Remote User:

Comments

In the movie "The Princess Bride" Westley was very adventurous and riding an Emmerson high. ~Kayla


Date:
29 Mar 2001
Time:
15:41:39
Remote User:

Comments

I do think that our country still has a strong force of patriotism to it today. Most Americans are devoted to our country, which is run fairley, and more suitable than any other country in the world.Any American citizen should be greatful to live in a country with fair rules, and were justice is served. Any citizen should be proud, and devoted to a country with such heritage as this one. Justin Osgood


Date:
29 Mar 2001
Time:
15:45:47
Remote User:

Comments

I think that the reason there are no women in Krakauer's stories is that, frankly, not many women have tried. I do not think that Krakauer is biased in anyway, I just think that there are not enough women trying to climb Everest. If there was a signifigant amount of women trying, then it would be worth mentioning. But there isn't. So no one mentions it.

-Myles


Date:
29 Mar 2001
Time:
15:49:44
Remote User:

Comments

3/16/01-I think that Daisey, and Toms marriage never really seemed to work. Not only did Tom cheat on Daisey, but they never seemed to be able to have a calm, regular husband wife conversation. If Daisey truley had love for Gatsby, and not his money like Tom, Then she should be with Gatsby. Whoever makes her happy, and have a good life. It seems to me that her and Tom, should never have been married. Justin Osgood


Date:
29 Mar 2001
Time:
15:52:43
Remote User:

Comments

My first impression of "The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock" was that the author was really lonely. All the images, colors and dialogue are depressing and dreary. Prufrock wanders around the city, seeking something (companionship?) and ends up at the ocean, where human voices wake us, and we drown. Seems like the perfect end to a sad, sad poem. The awakening of Prufrock (and us, the readers?) at the ending also seems filled with dread. Sad.

-Myles


Date:
29 Mar 2001
Time:
15:57:44
Remote User:

Comments

In "The Great Gatsby", I think that Jordan is there only to keep Nick happy. She really doesn't do much in the book except tease and amuse Nick. Nothing every comes of it, but she does none the less. She is funny in her own right, and also keeps the reader's attention, but she honestly doesn't do anything useful other then amuse Nick. All the other women in the book play major roles, affecting the outcome of the novel, making and breaking relationships, etc., etc., but Jordan does not.

-Myles


Date:
30 Mar 2001
Time:
03:20:51
Remote User:

Comments

#12 Since Robert doesnt have any money, i think Mrs Pontiellier wants his friendship. She wants someone to treat her with respect and listen to her feelings. since her real husban fails to do this she is desperate to find someone that will. everyone enjoys being wanted, and not all people are so shallow that all they are attracted to is money. Johnny Niesk.


Date:
30 Mar 2001
Time:
16:32:19
Remote User:

Comments

This weeks question: Is Edna's relationship with Robert wrong, even if its making her happier? ~ Jessica Schlieben


Date:
30 Mar 2001
Time:
17:38:17
Remote User:

Comments

As long as her relationship is friends based then its fine but if it turns into anything else she has to leave her husband first. Every woman yearns to be loved and sometimes they question whether or not they truly are thus giving them the notion to find love. - Tirra


Date:
30 Mar 2001
Time:
18:53:08
Remote User:

Comments

I thinks it is right for Enda to wantRobert, but I think it is wrong to commit to him while still married to Leonce. If she wants to follow her heart that she should divorse Leonce, not sneak around. She is going about it all wrong. She is acting like a whore. Dani Statuto


Date:
31 Mar 2001
Time:
17:33:01
Remote User:

Comments

If Edna's relationship with Robert is only a friendship and nothing more than it is not wrong. If there relationship becomes something more other than a friendship it is wrong because she is still married. But so far nothing of this nature has happened and it so it is not wrong. ~ Trish Goodwin


Date:
01 Apr 2001
Time:
02:41:22
Remote User:

Comments

Edna's relationship with Robert is wrong at the point that Edna is at in her life. Edna's feelings for Robert are not wrong, because they are true. She can't hide them and continue to live her life with her husband. She would be lying to herself it she pretended to be devoted to him. However, it is not right for her to carry on two relationships at once. One relationship is practical, while the other is fulfilling her fantasies. Her first priority is to think of her children's lives. She must think about how she will be best suited to raise her children. If that means being happy, then she must confront her fears and decide upon one relationship. It is selfish of her to carry on two. -Kristine Seigars-


Date:
02 Apr 2001
Time:
01:51:34
Remote User:

Comments

I don't think that Edna's relationship with Robert is wrong, they are just friends. If she was to go anywhere further, it would be. I agree with kristine, the relationship did come into her life a little too late, but as I see it, you only live once, so make it the best for love. If she loves him, I say she should divorce Leonce, and then persue her relationship with Robert (or Alcee now) Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
02 Apr 2001
Time:
02:27:20
Remote User:

Comments

I agree with Dani. I feel that if Edna wants more than friendship from Robert, Than she will have to divorce her husband. It is understandable to want to be loved, but it isn't right, fair or moral in any way for her to stay with her husband and have Robert as a lover. She has to choose! -Annelies


Date:
02 Apr 2001
Time:
02:50:48
Remote User:

Comments

I think that her feelings are not wrong because that is what she really feels. However, she shouldn't be as obsessive and as close to Robert as she has been, because she is still married to Leonce. If she really wants to be with Robert she should, as Dani and Annelies said, divorce Leonce and then anything that happened with Robert after that would be fine. But I also agree with Kristine, in that, Edna must think of her children when/if she makes any decisions. -Mike


Date:
02 Apr 2001
Time:
12:29:24
Remote User:

Comments

I donn't think that any realtionship of just friends is wrong at all. However, if the relationship betweeen Edna and Robert is intended to be more than that, I do think that it is wrong, seeing as Edna is married and further more has two children. A divorce would be an answer if entirely necessary. Erin Primiano


Date:
02 Apr 2001
Time:
12:34:40
Remote User:

Comments

This is a response to the Emerson question and I do feel that he is not a true transcendentalist. He can easily practice and give advice of "high authority" but he himself isn't a transcendentalist such was Krakauer or McCandless. Erin Primiano


Date:
02 Apr 2001
Time:
14:38:22
Remote User:

Comments

Ednas realationship with Robert is wrong because she is still married. However her marrige is also wrong if she loves an other man. She should either try and work out her problems with her husband or devorce him. If she works out her probelms then I think that the realtioship between Edna and Robert should slow down.

BEN


Date:
02 Apr 2001
Time:
14:49:10
Remote User:

Comments

I think that its not wrong for Edna to be seeing Robert, as long as its a friendship and she's not cheating on her husband. however since she is still married it would be wrong for her to pursue it further. if she feels so compassionate about Robert than she should make up her mind and divorce her husband, instead of leading them on. i also agree with kristine and mike in that she must consider the upbringing of her children in this situation. john


Date:
03 Apr 2001
Time:
00:46:23
Remote User:

Comments

Yes, the relationship between Edna and Robert is wrong. It is Ednas fault she is going about everything all wrong. If she wants to be with Robert, its wrong for her to think that sicne she is already married, but if she wants to be with Robert then she would have to divorce her husband. That is somethign that is kind of un heard of i guess in these times so i don't think things could work out in this situation.


Date:
03 Apr 2001
Time:
00:47:56
Remote User:

Comments

The above was written by Jwilk.


Date:
03 Apr 2001
Time:
03:31:58
Remote User:

Comments

Question #1: Emerson says "To be great is to be misunderstood." This reminds me of the movie "Good Will Hunting" because in this movie, a character named Will exposes his extraordinary mathematical to the world. Coming from the wrong side of the tracks, at first he has a hard time being taken seriously but after a while, his friends and teachers realize the gift that he has and what he can do with it. Oh yeah, and he has to go to a psychiatrist- one whom at first Will doesn't undertand and who doesn't understand him either. - Erin Thornton


Date:
03 Apr 2001
Time:
03:40:12
Remote User:

Comments

Question # 7: I agree with John when I say that I do not think that there is any sign that Prufrock will change or has changed by the end of the poem. It ends in pretty much the same way in which it started- a sad and lonely man pittying himself and lacking confidence. The conclusion to the poem also speaks of death as in "drowning". This says to me that the only change, if any, will be his vital status. -Erin Thornton


Date:
03 Apr 2001
Time:
03:49:40
Remote User:

Comments

Question #12: I believe that Edna first found a likeness to Robert through friendship. Having someone to talk to with similar interests and who treats you like your special and worthy of attention is enough to make anyone happy and want to be with that person as much as possible. Since spending mucho time with Robert, Edna has grown attracted to him due to the lack of a real connection with her husband. Now I would say she is looking for more than friendship with Robert. Friends aren't thought of and missed in the ways that she does Robert. -ET


Date:
03 Apr 2001
Time:
03:57:52
Remote User:

Comments

Edna's relationship with Robert is not wrong at all. The feelings she has for Robert have developed during her summer stay. What started out as friendship, has turned into lust- to Edna at least. It's things like this that happen to couples everywhere all the time. Its the classic "Your with someone- Mr. Someone Else comes along and you want him . . . " People get these feelings, then (sometimes) they get over it. Its healthy if you ask me. When Ednas feelings evolve into a physical relationship between herself and Robert is when most people consider it to be wrong- but that hasn't happened yet- and it depends who you ask. -Erin T.


Date:
03 Apr 2001
Time:
14:35:24
Remote User:

Comments

I believe that Ednas relations with Robert are okay but the way she is going about it is wtong. It isn't okay to hurt everyone around you to satisfy your own needs. The relationship they have is begining to do just that. Edna should divorce Leonce, if she chooses to pursue this notion of love for robert. Also in this Edna is not focusing on the thing which really is the most imortant in her life: her children. What she is doing is only making her happy when she should be looking at the whole picture instead of being selfish. A.Cleary


Date:
03 Apr 2001
Time:
19:45:14
Remote User:

Comments

Chris McCandless was not crazy. Only ambitious and adventurous. He wanted to be the best that he could be and experience all he could. McCandless did not want to die without having done all the things he wanted to do and there was a lot he wanted to do. He succeded in this and died without any regrets. ~Kayla


Date:
03 Apr 2001
Time:
19:49:42
Remote User:

Comments

Because Edna is married I beleive that is is wrong for her to have a romantic relationship with an other man no matter who it is. However I aso beleive that she should do what ever makes her happy and only she can know what the right thing to do is.~Kayla


Date:
03 Apr 2001
Time:
23:34:09
Remote User:

Comments

Thats a very open question. I say from one point of view, hell yes her relationship is wrong. she made a commitment to her husband when she said "i do" to him and got married. But on the other hand, he treats her like hell and she doesnt deserve to be treated to wrongly. Her temporary escape with Robert isnt right but i understand why shes doing it. But, shes crazy so who knows whats goin on in the womens mind. `your favorite stident J~


Date:
04 Apr 2001
Time:
12:35:19
Remote User:

Comments

(Sorry for being so late)A character that I can think of that is "riding on an Emersonian high" would be Melvin in "As Good As It Gets". He acts as if he can do everything for himself, by himself. He doesn't seem to want any help from anyone. He soon falls in love and that feeling changes. Annelies


Date:
04 Apr 2001
Time:
14:43:28
Remote User:

Comments

I think that Ednas relationship with Robert is wrong. If she is married and lives with her husband, than she shouldnt have a relationship with another man. If she ended her marrage to Leonce, than she would be free to make that choice. Although the last thing I think that Edna needs is a neather relationship. Justin O


Date:
04 Apr 2001
Time:
14:46:35
Remote User:

Comments

If Gatsby had been the narrator of the story, I dont think we would get a differnt impression of Nick. I think we might get a different impresion about Gatsby. Although I personally ;liked Nick as the narrator. Justin O


Date:
04 Apr 2001
Time:
14:46:37
Remote User:

Comments

If Gatsby had been the narrator of the story, I dont think we would get a differnt impression of Nick. I think we might get a different impresion about Gatsby. Although I personally ;liked Nick as the narrator. Justin O


Date:
04 Apr 2001
Time:
14:47:09
Remote User:

Comments

If Gatsby had been the narrator of the story, I dont think we would get a differnt impression of Nick. I think we might get a different impresion about Gatsby. Although I personally liked Nick as the narrator. Justin O


Date:
04 Apr 2001
Time:
16:29:54
Remote User:

Comments

When I first read this poem, I got the picture that T.S. Elliot wrote the poem about himself. He or whoever the poem is about seems to be depressed with himsefl, and expressed it in a poem. He seems intimitated by people, and the things surrounding him. Justin O


Date:
04 Apr 2001
Time:
16:37:00
Remote User:

Comments

I dont think that Edna is after anybodys money. I think she is confused, and needs somebody to turn to for help. With the relationship that she and Leance have, I dont think she feels comfortable doing that with him. I also think she dosn't want the victorian house wife life, that her husband has instore for her. She feels she can do as she pleases, and that Robert will give that to her. I still dont get why she would turn to Alcee for the sexual part of the relationship. Justin O


Date:
04 Apr 2001
Time:
18:06:18
Remote User:

Comments

I don't think that Edna's relationship with Robert is wrong, she just can't take it to that next level. If she wants to do that, then she needs to get a divorce from Leonce. I also think that she needs to think of her children, and what would be best for that. I know that being with Robert makes her happy, but she needs to take care of her children first. ~Jen Bolton~


Date:
05 Apr 2001
Time:
14:42:56
Remote User:

Comments

i don't believe Edna's relationship with Robert is wrong, the feelings involved anyway. I think it is wrong that she's cheating on her husband, but it's my point of view from 2001. Back in her time it wasn't suitable to get a divorce, so cheating on your husband seemed the only way to go when you're not in love with him. Edna's relationship with Robert isn't wrong, it's not exactly right either.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
05 Apr 2001
Time:
14:44:45
Remote User:

Comments

This is all the message board questions that i have missed all roled into one.I will start off with Tishs question about why Krakauer does not enrole wemon. I think that this question can be answered in a number of ways however i think that it is not something he maens to do. In the book "Into The Wild" there is no female character. That being the only piece i have read by krackauer i must think that it is just somthing that got over looked. My first impression of prufrock was one of of confusion. I did not want to judge him on what i heard but the more the less i was interested. So you could say that i found him boring. The question on patriotism. I think that we are at the same place because you still have people that think this counrty is the best and others who think it is wrong to do somethings we do. I think that we lose our patrioism with each generation that goes bye. Because we rake so much for granted. I think that Jorden palys a not so key role in the book. She helps nick see somthings differently tahn he is used to. I also think that she would not think twice about going after Tom. I would not trust her if i were any one in that book.

BEN



Date:
06 Apr 2001
Time:
16:37:58
Remote User:
 

Comments

Why does Huck want to go to the "bad place" which could be called "the waste land"? -Erin Thornton


Date:
06 Apr 2001
Time:
20:11:17
Remote User:
 

Comments

I had absolutly no idea why Huck wants to go to the bad place that could be the waste land. Maybe he just wants an adventure. He seems like the type of kid who never can sit still, always craving for something new in his life....maybe thats why. Dani Statuto


Date:
08 Apr 2001
Time:
14:21:36
Remote User:
 

Comments

Huck wants to go to the "bad place" because it is what he is used to. All of his life he has lived through horrible experiences. He has been born into a family with a mother who has died and a father who is a drunkard without a job. He has been neglected and has had to learn to take care of himself as a result. When he is taken into the care of the widdow it is hard for him to understand what it means for someone to provide for him. His reckless and unconventional personality has been shaped from his experiences. Hell would therfore be the only place in which he feels comfortable. The added benefit to that place would be having Tom Sawyer there with him as a comfort. Most likely the only one he has in the world. How ironic that in hell he should seek this comfort.-Kristine Seigars-


Date:
08 Apr 2001
Time:
17:25:25
Remote User:
 

Comments

Maybe Huck wants to go to the bad place so he can look tough in front of his friends. Huck may want to go there for an adventure. He seems like the kind of boy who likes to get himself in trouble. ~ Trish Goodwin


Date:
09 Apr 2001
Time:
00:10:41
Remote User:
 

Comments

Huck is a small kid and feels that he has something to prove in my mind. By going to the bad place he is trying to prove he isnt scared of anything or anyone.~ your favorite student J~


Date:
09 Apr 2001
Time:
00:14:49
Remote User:
 

Comments

though i do not know why huck goes to the wasteland, maybe it is to impress the kids he hangs out with by trying to create a fearless image for himself. it seems like he enjoys going against authority and not doin what people tell him to just because he doesn't want to. john


Date:
09 Apr 2001
Time:
04:20:16
Remote User:
 

Comments

I thought that the "bad place" meant Hell. He might want to go there because he doesn't figure that he can get into the "good place," Heaven. Plus when he asks Miss Watson if Tom will get to the "good place" she says no, and then Huck says good because he wanted him and Tom to be together. So that might be another reason for him to want to go to the "bad place" because Tom would be there. -Mike


Date:
09 Apr 2001
Time:
11:25:00
Remote User:
 

Comments

Huck wants to go to the "waste lands" because it is not in his best interest to waste his entire life trying to avoid such "bad" places. The widow and Mrs. Watson are set on living thier lives "correctly" so they won't go to hell, and they make every effort to see that Huck does the same. The "Waste lands" are already "bad" as most would call them, and maybe Huck figures that by living amoung those lands it might be eaiser to relax, enjoy life, and not do anything that will further add to the "waste lands" sins. Erin Primiano


Date:
09 Apr 2001
Time:
13:49:42
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that I ahve to agree with Krisitne on this one. I think that he wants to go to the "bad lands" because that is all his life has been and that is all that he is used to. He never really had a good life, so he wouldn't know what it would be like. Annelies


Date:
09 Apr 2001
Time:
14:37:48
Remote User:
 

Comments

Not knowing why Huck wants to go to the "bad place". I think that it is just his interest in doing things that others would not even think about.


Date:
09 Apr 2001
Time:
14:37:54
Remote User:
 

Comments

Not knowing why Huck wants to go to the "bad place". I think that it is just his interest in doing things that others would not even think about.


Date:
09 Apr 2001
Time:
14:39:22
Remote User:
 

Comments

The entry above was by BEN


Date:
09 Apr 2001
Time:
14:46:54
Remote User:
 

Comments

I agree with Christine. Huck wants to go to the "bad place" because that is all he has known in his life. He probably feels more comfortable there than if he was at the widow's house. He doesn't know any better on how to tell what is right or what is wrong, so that is why he turns to the "bad place."

~Jen Bolton~


Date:
09 Apr 2001
Time:
14:48:54
Remote User:
 

Comments

I don't think Huck wants to go to the "bad place" that we're all associating with the words. We think of Hell or some really horrible place to be, but Huck thinks of something he's used to. Something that is more enjoyable then his life now. It's not that Huck wants to go to Hell, or a place like that, he wants to go someplace that he believes will be fun. Someplace he'll actually enjoy living. When the Widow describes to him what Heaven is like, he doesn't like the sound of it. He thinks Heaven is a place where all he'd be able to do is play a harp, and nothing else. Would that be a "good place" for a child like Huck? No. He wants to go to the "bad place" because when that was described to him, it fit his likes better then the "good place" seemed too.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
10 Apr 2001
Time:
01:14:51
Remote User:
 

Comments

Huck wants to go to the "bad place" because playing harps all day doesn't sound like fun to him. He loves adventure and is used to having to look out for himself. Also if Tom is going, he wants to go too. ~Kayla


Date:
10 Apr 2001
Time:
16:52:46
Remote User:
 

Comments

What is Hucks view on how a person should be?-A.Cleary


Date:
10 Apr 2001
Time:
17:01:21
Remote User:
 

Comments

Wasteland Answer:I think that I could argue the Nature VS. Nutrure argument here. Although Huck has an adventurous nature, he has also gone through more in his life than a 13-14 yearold (estimation of age)should ever be exposed to. Which in turn would lead him to make these decisions. His faimly is unstable, their lifestyle shows it.The nurturing part got a little fumbled.- Cleary


Date:
10 Apr 2001
Time:
17:20:13
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that Huck thinks that a person should be free to do what he or she wishes. Whether they want to be "sivilized" or not is up to them. As long as they don't try to push their beleifs on others. Dani Statuto


Date:
10 Apr 2001
Time:
18:34:59
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think Huck just wants to go to a place were he feels comfortable and safe. He wants to leave behind all of his problems, and start a new life. In a goog place or a bad place. Justin O


Date:
10 Apr 2001
Time:
18:38:29
Remote User:
 

Comments

I would think that Huck wants a person to be themsevls, and do as they see fit for themselves. He has proven to do as he wishes for himself to do. Justin O.


Date:
10 Apr 2001
Time:
22:59:25
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think Huck does'nt care what he does. He just does what he wants, what he needs, and whatever else come to mind for him to do. I think Huck has a lot of confidence in what he does. ~ Trish Goodwin


Date:
11 Apr 2001
Time:
01:18:56
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that Huck's view is exactly what other American's view is, and it is what this country was founded on, freedom. He seems to value that above everything else. He thinks that a person should be allowed to do whatever he/she pleases. -Mike


Date:
11 Apr 2001
Time:
01:38:14
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think Huck thinks all people shoudl live life the way they please. I agree with Mike, Huck does value freedom. I don't think he'd help Jim if he didn't value the free of others. Huck would probably agree with Emerson when he says "What I must do is all that concerns me, not what the people think." Huck wants to live his own life and do things his way, like McCandless. ~Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
11 Apr 2001
Time:
01:46:46
Remote User:
 

Comments

Dating back to Erin's question, I think Huck doesn't want to go the to "bad place", I think he doesn't know where he wants to go. I think he just might want to go where he can have fun and not worry about what someone else wants him to do. I also think he wants to go to the "bad place" because he knows the widow won't be there. You can't really control a kid like Huck which is what the widow is trying to do, and that forces him to tryto be bad harder. ~Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
11 Apr 2001
Time:
02:15:03
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that Huck feels people should be themselves and do what they feel is right for them. He seems to also only care and worry about himself. That was the way he was brought up. It is very much an Emersonian point of view of life. Annelies


Date:
11 Apr 2001
Time:
13:12:16
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think Huck feels that every person should be free do to as they please, and live life however they want too. I think he also feels that everyone should be carefree, sort of like him. I think he thinks everyone lives the way they choose, and everyone should live according to their own needs, instead of listening to society.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
11 Apr 2001
Time:
14:32:05
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think, like Mike and Leigh said, that Huck's view is that everybody should be free to do what they want. Huck himself just wants to be free, and that is what he is doing right now, just being free; from his father, the widow, school, and everything else in his life. I feel that Huck thinks that if somebody else wants to be free just like him, then they should just to it.

~Jen Bolton~


Date:
11 Apr 2001
Time:
15:01:44
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that most importantly Huck thinks a person should be honest. When I say honest, I don't mean that they shouldn't lie, cheat and steal because these are obviously things that Huck enjoys doing. I mean that Huck wants people to be true to themselves- do what makes them happy and he'll respect them for it. -Erin Thornton


Date:
11 Apr 2001
Time:
15:23:56
Remote User:
 

Comments

I don't think Huck has high standards of how a person should be. He does not enjoy overly educated and proper people. Huck probably likes adventurous people who he can have fun with. People who don't complain and are low maintnece and friendly. ~Kayla


Date:
11 Apr 2001
Time:
17:11:18
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that Huck is just looking for some excitement an event to make his mark. He seems like an adventurous kind of kid gullable to tall tales and ready to be "brave" and have something to talk about after he did it. -Tirra


Date:
11 Apr 2001
Time:
17:19:51
Remote User:
 

Comments

Huck sees people as being either "brave"-doing "scary" things, taking risks, being adventurous, and being known by people and having their stories told over and over of their courage, not needing anyone to survive an explorer, and the "average" people , people who go through life by all the rules, listening to what others say, living by what others teach, "followers" and he wants to be a brave person and to hear his legacy spoken by children and adults until their throat runs dry, "Huck Finn" , a legend. -Tirra


Date:
12 Apr 2001
Time:
01:06:09
Remote User:
 

Comments

Huck's view on how a person should be is one which correspond's to that person's preference. Often he lets people alone and allows them to live their own lives without complaint by him. It is only when their lifestyles are intruding on his own that Huck seems to have a problem. When Ms. Watson tries to make him "sivilized", he objects. This his only because he is forced into it and not because he cares how Ms. Watson lives her life. At times however, it is almost as if Huck doesn't really know where to turn. His morals are disorderly. For instance, when he contemplates about his behavoir in helping to bring Jim to freedom instead of turning him in. He feels guilty knowing that all other whites would wish that Jim was turned in and shows a conformity to society in that way. Yet it is his free spirit and conscience that leads him to believe that it is of no harm to bring Jim to freedom. Like his life of instability and change, his views on character and morals seem to be without order. He lives life from day to day and survies through intelligence and improvision. -Kristine Seigars-


Date:
16 Apr 2001
Time:
01:04:02
Remote User:
 

Comments

Erin's question~I think I agree with mike on thins one. When I hear the expression "the bad place" i usually think of hell, and in the context it was used, it seems as though this is what he meant. Jessica Schlieben


Date:
16 Apr 2001
Time:
01:09:46
Remote User:
 

Comments

I agree with pretty much everybody when they say that Huck believes that a person should be able to do what they want to do without rules or regulation. Huck believes that freedom is the answer. Jessica Schlieben


Date:
16 Apr 2001
Time:
01:19:36
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think Huck wants people to be free to do whatever they want to do. I think he wants everyone to be themselves and be as they wish as long as they dont try to control others and make them do what they feel is the right thing to do. ~your favorite student J~


Date:
17 Apr 2001
Time:
18:04:28
Remote User:
 

Comments

Mine was Number 2. on page 36. This person is basically saying that people like to read adventurous realistic types of books. It says that this is one of them and thats maybe why people have enjoyed reading it so much. I agree with this person,it is very realistic and adventurous. Dani Statuto


Date:
17 Apr 2001
Time:
19:17:27
Remote User:
 

Comments

Number 7.- Explains how Huck wants to fall into the background which he prefers. He wants to give up the role of a hero, for he is modest in all things. Justin O


Date:
17 Apr 2001
Time:
21:28:06
Remote User:
 

Comments

Response #13 (Readers' Supplement) This quote expresses the thought that Mark Twain's Huck Finn is flawed in its illogical plot and conflicting themes. The author of this quote believes that Mark Twain tries to critize civilization through Huck and Jim's escape from it. However, he does not think that Twain is justified in doing so, as the freedom that Jim seeks is never obtained especially since they float down the Mississippi River, away from freedom. I agree, in that the plot is conflicting and somewhat illogical. However, I do think that Twain is justified in doing so. He had no intention of writing a novel relating to romantism in which the plot must be legitimate in order for the individual to reach his fate. He meant to write a book based on realism. In reality, one's life is not perfectly logical. In this way, I think that Twain succeeded in creating a fictional reality. -Kristine Seigars-


Date:
17 Apr 2001
Time:
22:28:26
Remote User:
 

Comments

Richard F. Adams (14) says that Huck is a character that children/adults are able to relate too. He says that readers are only beganing to relate and understand Huck. I disagree with Richard F. Adams, because I can not relate with Huck. Yes, I do have a sense of adventure but I also have a sense of responsiblity ( somewhat) and can not just drop everything to raft the Mississippi. ~ Trish Goodwin


Date:
17 Apr 2001
Time:
23:02:45
Remote User:
 

Comments

Number 6, V.S. Pritchette says the book shows "The emotion of nostalgia" that floods all american literature. V.S. says Huck Finn is probably the funniest book in all literature. He asks if we are moved by it, or feel the sentiment of sympathy only. He says that the book only touchs the top of all the feeling in a stream of emotions. I disagree with V.S. Pritchette. I think the book doesn't even come close to dealing with feelings in a person. Yes it may be a funny book, but I don't think the funniest in all literature. The book might deal with Huck's feelings on what a man is, but other then that, the book is just pure adventure. ~Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
18 Apr 2001
Time:
01:48:17
Remote User:
 

Comments

My group had #'s 4, 16, 17, and 19. I agree with all of them when they seem to send the message that Huck seemed to break away from agreeing with slavery completly and the old traditions he was expected to follow and became his won person. J


Date:
18 Apr 2001
Time:
01:51:54
Remote User:
 

Comments

W.R. Moses says how he likes the adventurous parts of Huck Finn, and that those are the only parts he likes. The book would be unbareble if it didn't have those parts he says. I agree with the him, i especially like the adventurous parts, especially when i've never read it before and i dont know whats going to happen. -Wilk


Date:
18 Apr 2001
Time:
03:40:25
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that Van Wyck Brooks (#4) is saying that Twain must have taken a risk by writing this and he says that Twain himself actually opens up more and more in the book. However at the end, he seems to retract those statements in the last sentence when he says, "...he was not indulging in that costly kind of cynicism in the days when he wrote _Huckleberry Finn_." I agree with Brooks' first statement, that Twain took a risk. He uses some questionable vocabulary throughout the book. -Mike


Date:
19 Apr 2001
Time:
14:25:59
Remote User:
 

Comments

Bernard DeVoto, #5, says about Huckleberry Finn, "here is America." I agree with DeVoto when he says this, the book basically summarizes southern America back before the Civil War, very predujiced and very different from the North. We also see America in the character of Huck, wanting freedom and independence from others. ~Jen Bolton~


Date:
19 Apr 2001
Time:
17:59:06
Remote User:
 

Comments

I dont think that Jim is the hero of the story. He is just trying to exscape the dredfull life instore for him. People feel he is a good honest person and Huck feels the same way. Most of his fellow kind look up to him, and give him much respect. In there eyes he is a hero. Justin O


Date:
19 Apr 2001
Time:
18:16:20
Remote User:
 

Comments

I am going to answer the question about the race issue of Huck Finn. I think people are reading into it way to much. The book was written a long time ago and it was appropriate to use the word "nigger" back then. I am not saying I agree that that word is appropriate cuz I think it is a rather cruel and hurtful word, but I think people should lighten. Maybe they should not make it a requirement in schools, they should make it optional. Thanks Dani Statuto


Date:
19 Apr 2001
Time:
23:09:05
Remote User:
 

Comments

I can understand the people points of view about Huck Finn having some raciest comments. I also understand that it could make some people feel uncomfortable about themselfs. I feel that this book describes the life of poor white trash and black American's of this time period. Students should have to read this book to understand what life was like back then. People should not use this book for negative comments towards other. If a raciest comment is made because of the reading of this book it is because racism has already existed in that person. ~Trish Goodwin


Date:
19 Apr 2001
Time:
23:59:11
Remote User:
 

Comments

My passage was no.10 on page 40. In this, Leo Marx discussed reviews of Huckleberry Finn done by T.S. Elliot and Lionel Trillig. He stated that these two men did not feel the same way as most people did about Mark Twain's "bad" conclusion of Huckleberry Finn. Eliot and Trilling tried to defend this ennding on the same level. I, however, have not read the ending yet and cannot form a solid opinion on it. ~Kayla


Date:
20 Apr 2001
Time:
00:07:56
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think people who get all worked up about the word nigger in a book are just too sensitive or like to get worked up. In this context it is not directed to be hurtful towards anyone reading the book. Also it's realism, that was how people of the south talked back then. That fact just needs to be accepted and people should move on. I can understand that if this type of language brings racism to the surface in a high school then there is a problem. But, as we heard in the movie, the problem is already there within the school. ~Kayla


Date:
20 Apr 2001
Time:
12:35:00
Remote User:
 

Comments

This comment is reguarding the prejudice in the book Huck Finn. I feel that there are prejudice words in the book, but they were used by people in real life during the time the book is based. And the book should be taken as a learning experience of how blacks were treated during that period, not how they are treated today. About the other issue of using the language from the book by students, I feel that is an issue of what a teenager knows as right and wrong. That is something that is learned from the parents. If they have been taught that it is ok to use the word "nigger", they will use it. But there are many other ways of finding the word. Like the man said on the show yesterday, "The problem was already there." Annelies


Date:
20 Apr 2001
Time:
14:55:57
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that the people in the movie are delusional. People act like the book is calling them "nigger" and throwing stones at them! The book is not only not racist, it is anti-racist. The whole book is about a white boy who befriends a black slave and helps him escape. How is that racist? If everyone would relax, they would realize that while there is, of course, still racism, it is not half as bad as it used to be. People getting all worked up over nothing isn't helping either.

-Myles! (own3d!)


Date:
20 Apr 2001
Time:
16:46:27
Remote User:
 

Comments

Question #13, I think that this critic is saying that the book doesn't have any real meaning and like Huck and Jim, the book doesn't move or go anywhere. Erin Primiano


Date:
20 Apr 2001
Time:
16:47:45
Remote User:
 

Comments

I don't think that Huck knows what he wants a person to be, he excepts all people and has no expectations of them. Erin Primiano


Date:
20 Apr 2001
Time:
16:50:13
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that the documentary has many great points however, the best point was that if a teacher must ask will this book be a problem, then there already is a problem. Erin Primiano


Date:
01 May 2001
Time:
22:47:22
Remote User:
 

Comments

Even though I did not watch the documentary on Huck Finn, in regards to the prejudice of the book I would have to say that I am glad that Mark Twain chose to tell it like it was. You simply can't erase history and pretend that blacks were not treated as less than human. Though the way in which black slaves were treated may have been cruel and inhumaine, you can't make facts fiction. Learning about the way different races of people were treated in the nineteenth century gives people of today insight, perhaps influening them to see the cruelty in it. If one looks at the book as being anti-slavery, one could say that it had an impact on the future movements toward the uplifting of American blacks. If people during that time were trying to ban this book because of its content, perhaps they knew of their wrongdoing and were simply trying to cover it up. -Kristine Seigars-


Date:
01 May 2001
Time:
23:25:37
Remote User:
 

Comments

I thought that all the people in the documentary that spoke of Huck Finn as a racist book that shouldn't be read were rediculous. Mark Twain used the words he did because that is how people spoke back then. People who are getting all worked up about it obviously don't want their kids to learn about history and have some mental health issues. They would probably be happy if the book set Jim as the free man and Huck as the slave but how true would that be? -Erin Thornton


Date:
01 May 2001
Time:
23:32:22
Remote User:
 

Comments

In critical excerpt #15, Gilbert M. Rubenstein speaks about the moral structure of Huck Finn. He says that the book shows two very different types of cruelty- the deliberate kind, like Pap toward Huck, and the unintentional kind, like Miss Watson wanting to sell Jim down the river. I agree with him, but I think that these two concepts were not as apparent in the reading as he made them out to be. I didn't find myself thinking about these two types of cruelty when I was reading. -Erin Thornton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Date:
02 May 2001
Time:
04:58:50
Remote User:
 

Comments

About the documentary, I agree with Annelies. There are prejudice things in the book and they are not really right, but at that time, they were generally accepted. I don't think that this book should be banned because if we learn how things were then we are more apt to not repeat them. -Mike


Date:
02 May 2001
Time:
14:45:11
Remote User:
 

Comments

Ok, the people in that movie are taking this book way to seriously. The word "nigger" is a horrible word when taken out of context, but this book was written in a time period when it didn't matter. African American's were referred to as "niggers." Mark Twain did everything in that book as though Huck were actually writing it, Huck would refer to African American's as "niggers." I realize people have a problem with the word, but maybe they're taking the word a little too seriously. It's a book, written in the voice of Huck Finn, and he doesn't know any better than saying that. People need to forget what it means now, read the book and realize that this book isn't racist.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
02 May 2001
Time:
14:48:31
Remote User:
 

Comments

#1 pg. 36 I believe this passage is saying that the author enjoys reading Huck Finn because he's his own character. You can't find another character like Huck Finn anywhere, he's very unique. The story is through his eyes and his words, and that is what makes this book so well written. There is no other book like it.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
04 May 2001
Time:
14:41:34
Remote User:
 

Comments

I agree with Christina, and Dani, in that "nigger" isn't a word that should be used now, but in the time period when the book was written it was appropriate. It is also written with Huck's voice, and like Christina said, he doesn't know any better. The book could be a lesson to youth of today to think of their actions towards others. ~Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
04 May 2001
Time:
14:47:07
Remote User:
 

Comments

I agree with many of the people who wrote their response on the board. I also think that Twain's use of the word "nigger," was just the way that the people talked about blacks in Huck's time period. I don't understand why the African Americans in the documentary were so upset about this book, but I also know that I might not understand because I'm not African American. All I know is that times have changed, and things are different now then when it was Huck's time period, before the Civil War. This book was written to show how life was back then, and it is a part of history. Therefore, I don't think the book should be banned. It is a piece of American literature/history, and it is important for all Americans, black or white, to read and understand the issues in this book. ~Jen Bolton~


Date:
10 May 2001
Time:
01:03:13
Remote User:
 

Comments

Everyone keeps saying how either Jim or Huck are the heros of this story, well what about the damn raft. Its always the people in the stories and not the posessions. Huck and Jim would have been nothing without the raft that got them down the river. I think a lot of people need to open up thier eyes a little wider and see that the raft is the real hero of the book. It signifies strength and persistance.


Date:
11 May 2001
Time:
13:53:17
Remote User:
 

Comments

McG. here, with a question for the weekend of 5/11: Which period of American lit made better poetry: the revolutionary period or the modern period? Support your answer with a line of poetry you think is the best. Due: Monday.


Date:
11 May 2001
Time:
18:44:38
Remote User:
 

Comments

"Quote the raven, nevermore".....enough said.

Dani Statuto


Date:
13 May 2001
Time:
16:02:56
Remote User:
 

Comments

Modern poetry is much better than revolutionary poetry. Revolutionary poetry is more practical than reflective. Pieces such as the Star-Spangled Banner focus on the strength of a newly-founded country. But its strength is not defined. Instead it ends in a question. Will the country prosper or will it fall? Modern American poetry serves to answer this question. It is a reflection on the decades past, either in negative critism or in encouraging praise. In a return to Romantism, e.e. cummings, in "everybody loses all the time" returns to the account of the individual, Uncle Sol. "...and down went Uncle Sol and started a worm farm." Uncle Sol, after having worked all his life in trying to start some kind of farm, finally starts one in his death. His body is used practically in providing a farm for the worms underground. Yet, somehow the message of this poem is more profound than practical. It says that somehow this individual did suceed through all his hard and seemingly worthless life work. It does not serve a purpose, such as being the country's national anthem, but reflects on the past to end in the explanation of the profound idea, hope. -Kristine Seigars-


Date:
13 May 2001
Time:
21:40:53
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think the period of revelitionary poetry is better than the period of modern poetry because it is easier to relate to. If you look at the first line of the Raven " Once upon a Midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,....." Just from this line you can tell that the narator is upset or frightened about something and can not sleep. I think being able to relate to a poem is what makes it great. ~ Trish Goodwin


Date:
14 May 2001
Time:
02:14:10
Remote User:
 

Comments

I'm not much of a poetry lover, but i did like the most recent poem we've read entitled the raven. So that being my favorite peom we've read i have to say i like that kind of poetry better.-Justin.


Date:
14 May 2001
Time:
04:32:29
Remote User:
 

Comments

Modern poetry is better than revolutionary poetry. Revolutionary poetry is too self-involved, it only deals with who we are as Americans. Modern poetry deals with who we are as human beings. "To watch his woods fill up with snow." This is part of Frost's poem _Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening_. It is showing a man stopping at another man's woods, as if the other man is sharing the beauty of his land, and the charm of snow, with someone else. -Mike


Date:
14 May 2001
Time:
11:18:44
Remote User:
 

Comments

I don't think that I can say that I like one type of poetry more than the other. Modern and Romantic or revolutionary poetry all have their ups and downs. However, I seem to relate more to the modern poetry for a couple of reasons. One is that modern poetry tells how the poet sees the world in their eyes and I also like that their is often a double meaning in what they write. Many modern poems tell about the past and the future and how people can't let go of things, which is why I liked the 'the raven' and his line "nevermore" Erin Primiano


Date:
15 May 2001
Time:
01:33:42
Remote User:
 

Comments

Modern poetry is much better to relate to the human mind. It is real, and moving. People love to see another persons thoughts. Im modern poetry, the poet spills them out on the paper completly exposed for the whole world to see. There is no particular example to explain what i am trying to say, so im leaving it at that. ~Jessica Schlieben


Date:
15 May 2001
Time:
12:29:17
Remote User:
 

Comments

Modern poetry is much better then revolutionary poetry. Modern is more involved with a human's feelings, and if you aren't American, it can relate to you, or anyone for that matter. Revolutionary poetry is too involved with the feelings of an American during the revolutionary time period. If you're studying that tim eperiod, it's a good source for feelings of the time. If you are just reading it for fun, you can see the feelings, but you can't relate it to yourself. So modern poetry is much better. "Down goes dawn to day, nothing gold can stay". This is Robert Frost's poem. Anyone reading a poem like this can relate any of modern poetry to themselves. Modern poetry was written to relate to the human race, not just American, Making modern poetry better then revoluiontary. ~Leigh Courtemanche


Date:
15 May 2001
Time:
12:29:52
Remote User:
 

Comments

I believe Modern poetry is best, only because I am more used to modern poetry than I am Revolutionary. I grew up with modern poetry, so I'm more comfortable with it. I understand it more, and can explain it better than if I were to explain Revolutionary. Also, a lot of modern poetry is musical and has a rythmic feeling involved, since I am a musician, it makes me feel and enjoy the poem. "I took the one less traveled by and that made all the difference" ("Two roads diverged in a Yellow Wood", by Robert Frost) This poem is so rythmic, and so easy to relate too, that I enjoy it. It's one of my favorite poems, and it's a modern poem. Modern poetry just means more, and is closer to my heart.

--Christina Russell--


Date:
15 May 2001
Time:
14:21:12
Remote User:
 

Comments

I like the modern period of poetry better. In the revolutionary period, poets were mainly talking about America as a country. They didn't really focus on the individual. When the modern period was reached, poets finally started writing about the individual, human nature, and nature itself, like Frost did. A line of poetry that I like a lot is in Frost's poem "Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening." The quote is: "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep, And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep." This quote shows both nature and human nature in it, and that is how I define a piece of modern poetry.

~Jennifer Bolton~


Date:
15 May 2001
Time:
14:37:36
Remote User:
 

Comments

I think that modern poetry is more enjoyable than revolutionary poetry because is has less guidelines to follow and its subjects are much more varied. Instead of writing about war, depression and other such things, poets find themselves scribbling down notes about sunsets, woods and even jars! -Erin Thornton


Date:
15 May 2001
Time:
14:55:58
Remote User:
 

Comments

Romantic poetry is better then Modern Poetry because I simply prefer the "0ld sk00l flava." I don't know, but "The Raven" just seems to instill more feeling then any of the other poetry we have read so far. It reads better, and is kinda creepy. Also, Poe in specific is a master of writing tools, as we talked about... Alliteration and such.

-Myles


Date:
15 May 2001
Time:
17:19:53
Remote User:
 

Comments

I like both types of poetry, they each have good qualities. I find modern poetry easier to relate to, more creative and to have less rules. However, it requires more for a piece of romantic poetry to be exceptional. This is because the writer must work withen more guidlines and be able to easily adabt to them. So my final answer is that I am more impressed with such poems as "The Raven". "Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary" ~Kayla


Date:
17 May 2001
Time:
16:21:42
Remote User:
 

Comments

I personally would prefer to read modern poetry. I find them easier to read, and more enjoyable at the same time. Other than that, I dont really like reading poetry at all.


Date:
17 May 2001
Time:
22:04:06
Remote User:
 

Comments

When it comes to deciding what era of poetry I like most I would say THE MODERN STUFF. Reason being that modern peotry is not only interesting but written so that I can relate to it. I can see what the author is writing about -day to day context not the whole "I am a speck in the universe" type of deal. A.Cleary

 

 

 

 

 

 Back to the message board: Click here.