The third act of Our Town portrayed a negative side of humanity. Within the third act, the people that are dead discuss how the living don't appreciate the little things in life and don't try to enjoy every opportunity. I feel that this depicts the reality that people don't appreciate what they have. Usually, people are stressed, or worried, or disappointed about something and they don't take the time to appreciate what's around them because they are so distracted by the negative things in their lives. Society gets bogged down by all the negative things that they forget to think about the positives and enjoy them while they last. For instance, as a kid, Emily couldn't appreciate that her mother made her breakfast every morning, and that her father came home with a present for her. After her death, she is so hurt by the fact that she couldn't appreciate it then and she could so much now that she couldn't even face the event again. After she returns to her grave, Simon Stimson tells her that living is a waste of time because everyone lives in a self-centered way, which also lends to an accurate negative portrayal of society.
While the dead are sitting there during Emily's funeral, they are removed from humanity and the living and are waiting for the eternal part of their nature to occur. This is another commentary on society, saying that we are unsure about what happens after death, if anything at all. The dead have a sad existence, waiting for something that might never come. While they are removed from the living, they don't often associate with each other often either. There is nothing for them to look forward to, really, except for this eternal thing to happen them that might never happen.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Thursday, February 28, 2013
HFPP Paper Blog
I know that I will not agree with the school board; Huck Finn should be kept in the curriculum.
I know that I will not focus strictly on the issue of race; not only is that too simple of a topic, but if that is the only defense for reading or not reading Huck Finn, the argument would never end because people can never agree about race.
I think I'd like to focus on childhood and how Huck Finn accurately represents children, even though the book is fairly old and was written in a different time. Comparing Huck to today's students could help show that children are the same despite time period, race, class, or any number of things. Which I guess would help lend to the topic of racial equality in the book and racial equality of today and how they differ or are still the same.
Or I could focus on how Huck defies the barriers set for him by his elders and society, and how he never actually conforms. It could help students develop their own individuality and sense of self while still having them engage in a literary work from the past.
Most importantly, I need to focus on the fact that although the ELA classroom has changed through the use of technology and teaching methods, that students themselves haven't changed. They are still capable of being educated and interested in the same things students of the past were educated and interested in. Steps simply have to be taken to intertwine the modern classroom setting with works from the past to help enhance the learning experience. I could talk about integrating film into the unit, or the reenactment/exploration of scenes, or some sort of short video experience (youtube) that somehow incorporates Huck Finn.
Huck Finn and Night of the Hunter
1. a) Huck Finn shaped my viewing experience of Night of the Hunter by creating a lens in which I watched the movie with the intent of finding connections between it and the book. In the movie, I noticed how The Pastor was an irresponsible father figure, similar to how Huck's father was irresponsible. Both had an interest in money that belonged to the children. Consequently, Huck, John, and Pearl all realized that the money was too much responsibility for them to handle. Huck decides to give his money to the mayor because he doesn't want to have to deal with his father. John hits The Pastor with the doll full of money when he's at his breaking point, saying he doesn't want it anymore and that it is "too much". Pearl tells The Pastor where the money is after much interrogation. All these things point to the fact that children should not be left to control large sums of money.
b) Both works address the topic of responsibility of adults. Huck Finn has an irresponsible father, and the role of a good parent is taken up by The Widow. This is to show how Huck's father was supposed to act and how he fell severely short of the standards of a good, responsible parent. In Night of the Hunter, the kids' father decides to steal money from a bank in order to give his kids a good life that doesn't involve them roaming the streets. However, the ends don't justify the means in this case, and the money ends up causing lots of problems for the children later on. Their mother doesn't do a much better job, because she invites a murderer into their house and marries him. The Pastor is not a good father-figure either, because he only wants to take the money from the children, and doesn't really care about their well-being (he starves them, lets them get dirty, etc.). The only proper adult figures in the film are the old couple who worries after the family, and Uncle Berdie, who helps John fix the boat him and Pearl use to escape with. And even then, all three of them aren't good parental figures either because the old couple is misled by The Pastor, and Uncle Berdie drinks too much.
3. I don't know if I'd teach Night of the Hunter with Huck Finn. Although I can see the merits of doing so, I don't believe that the two are the best match. Both works are fairly old, so if I had to teach Huck Finn, I would probably pick a newer movie to pair with the book in order to keep students' interest. I'd probably pick Matilda or some other movie about a child with an inappropriate family, and have students focus on how parents should act with their children, and what was wrong with how the parents in the book and film acted. I could also make them focus on things like greed and magic, which are prevalent in both works.
b) Both works address the topic of responsibility of adults. Huck Finn has an irresponsible father, and the role of a good parent is taken up by The Widow. This is to show how Huck's father was supposed to act and how he fell severely short of the standards of a good, responsible parent. In Night of the Hunter, the kids' father decides to steal money from a bank in order to give his kids a good life that doesn't involve them roaming the streets. However, the ends don't justify the means in this case, and the money ends up causing lots of problems for the children later on. Their mother doesn't do a much better job, because she invites a murderer into their house and marries him. The Pastor is not a good father-figure either, because he only wants to take the money from the children, and doesn't really care about their well-being (he starves them, lets them get dirty, etc.). The only proper adult figures in the film are the old couple who worries after the family, and Uncle Berdie, who helps John fix the boat him and Pearl use to escape with. And even then, all three of them aren't good parental figures either because the old couple is misled by The Pastor, and Uncle Berdie drinks too much.
3. I don't know if I'd teach Night of the Hunter with Huck Finn. Although I can see the merits of doing so, I don't believe that the two are the best match. Both works are fairly old, so if I had to teach Huck Finn, I would probably pick a newer movie to pair with the book in order to keep students' interest. I'd probably pick Matilda or some other movie about a child with an inappropriate family, and have students focus on how parents should act with their children, and what was wrong with how the parents in the book and film acted. I could also make them focus on things like greed and magic, which are prevalent in both works.
Friday, February 22, 2013
The Ending of Huck Finn: Rascist?
Essentially, I think the answer to this question is no. Upon reading the ending of the book, I was not struck by its racism, although it is present. What I focused on more was the pure childishness of the two boys. Huck and Tom both acted very childishly throughout the whole ordeal of freeing Jim. The two of them scared Tom's relatives half to death, stole and ruined a lot of their personal property, and put Jim through a lot of trouble, all because they were pretending they were prisoners trying to break out of jail. This is a dangerous thing because the boys can't tell real life and make-believe apart, which will cause a lot of heart-ache and distress for Tom's family in the future.
Tom, especially, is severely childish because he knew the facts about the situation the whole time. Not only did he suggest the whole notion of the three of them being prisoners that had to break out, but he's the one who suggested they break Jim out the hard way, rather than just letting him go free. And the whole time, he knew that Jim was already a free man! He could of told his aunt how Jim was already free, or he could have easily gone with Huck's plan of just letting Jim go, and everything would have worked out fine and would have been very easy. But no, Tom had to have his "finesse", and so he put Huck and Jim through all that trouble to "break out of prison".
The worst thing about it is that people were hurt by the boys' decisions. The aunt was extremely distraught for days, afraid of everything that moved. Huck had to lie for extended amounts of time, pretending he was someone else. Jim had to go through all the trouble of following Tom's directions because he didn't know any better, and then proceeded to be caught again and treated worse than before. And Tom got himself shot, which seemed to have become infected judging from the way he acted afterwards.
I can see the racist elements within the ending of the story, but I believe that the ending Mark Twain created was meant to do more than purely show the power race has. It was meant to show how imaginations can run wild and end up hurting others. It was meant to show the naivety of children. It was meant to show Jim's trust in the boys, and how his trust may have been misplaced. And I'm sure it was meant to do a lot of other things, as well.
Tom, especially, is severely childish because he knew the facts about the situation the whole time. Not only did he suggest the whole notion of the three of them being prisoners that had to break out, but he's the one who suggested they break Jim out the hard way, rather than just letting him go free. And the whole time, he knew that Jim was already a free man! He could of told his aunt how Jim was already free, or he could have easily gone with Huck's plan of just letting Jim go, and everything would have worked out fine and would have been very easy. But no, Tom had to have his "finesse", and so he put Huck and Jim through all that trouble to "break out of prison".
The worst thing about it is that people were hurt by the boys' decisions. The aunt was extremely distraught for days, afraid of everything that moved. Huck had to lie for extended amounts of time, pretending he was someone else. Jim had to go through all the trouble of following Tom's directions because he didn't know any better, and then proceeded to be caught again and treated worse than before. And Tom got himself shot, which seemed to have become infected judging from the way he acted afterwards.
I can see the racist elements within the ending of the story, but I believe that the ending Mark Twain created was meant to do more than purely show the power race has. It was meant to show how imaginations can run wild and end up hurting others. It was meant to show the naivety of children. It was meant to show Jim's trust in the boys, and how his trust may have been misplaced. And I'm sure it was meant to do a lot of other things, as well.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Why English?
Huck Finn should be taught in an English class rather than a History class because it is a literary novel, not a historical textbook. It is a subjective novel, and therefore is better suited for English; more objective texts should be taught in the History class. Huck's story has themes of acceptance and equality that are not widely felt by others of his time, making the novel inappropriate for a history text. Usually, history texts represent the majority of opinions felt at the time period instead of the minority, like Huck.
Another reason Huck Finn should be taught in English rather than History is because of the literary elements present throughout the novel. Things like literary themes, new language, deeper readings, and symbols are things present in Huck Finn that just never would be covered in a History class. Other things unrelated to the history of the novel, like the relationships between parents and children, as well as friendships; would also not be covered in the History class but would be paramount to the understanding of the novel itself. The basis of the novel revolves around individual relationships, which would make it useless to a History class which focuses on the big picture.
The last reason Huck Finn should be taught in English classes is because of the controversy about the novel. By giving the novel to the students to read, we allow them to make their own decisions about the novel. Rather than relying on the opinions of others, students should be making their own opinions.
Another reason Huck Finn should be taught in English rather than History is because of the literary elements present throughout the novel. Things like literary themes, new language, deeper readings, and symbols are things present in Huck Finn that just never would be covered in a History class. Other things unrelated to the history of the novel, like the relationships between parents and children, as well as friendships; would also not be covered in the History class but would be paramount to the understanding of the novel itself. The basis of the novel revolves around individual relationships, which would make it useless to a History class which focuses on the big picture.
The last reason Huck Finn should be taught in English classes is because of the controversy about the novel. By giving the novel to the students to read, we allow them to make their own decisions about the novel. Rather than relying on the opinions of others, students should be making their own opinions.
Jim's Take on King Solomon
Rich vs Poor
Many siblings vs Only child
Stupidity vs Intelligence
Lawful vs Unlawful
Shallow reading vs Deep reading
Misunderstanding vs Understanding
Simplicity vs Complexity
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Huck and Jim as Friends
At the end of Chapter 15, Huck plays a mean trick on Jim. He tells Jim that the ordeal with them both being lost in the fog and separated was just a dream, and Jim believes him for a while until he sees the damage to their raft. He becomes very upset about it and tells Huck that friends don't do that to each other. Huck, in return, apologizes and vows never to do that again to Jim. He says he would "kiss his feet" if it would make Jim feel better about it.
This chapter shows the beginning of Huck's and Jim's true friendship. To Huck, slavery and color of skin don't matter. Jim is still a person in Huck's eyes, and deserves the same amount of respect as he would give Tom Sawyer. In return, Jim views Huck as a friend instead of a slaver or a boss. In each other's eyes, they are equal.
In Chapter 14, I thought it was interesting that Huck was talking to Jim about King Solomon and how he solved the dilemma about the two women claiming ownership of a child. The fact that Jim thought King Solomon was unwise because he would cut a child in two because of his upbringing is a very smart thing to remark on, even though he doesn't have the right idea about the moral of the story. This shows that Jim has more intelligence than society would give him credit for. I also thought it was interesting that Huck tried to convince Jim that French people don't speak English through the Socratic method. In one of my other classes, I'm reading The Republic by Plato, and the way Huck tries to convince Jim is exactly how Socrates tries to convince his companions on justice. Maybe this suggests that Huck would make a good philosopher, or at least has more intelligence than the widow gives him credit for.
This chapter shows the beginning of Huck's and Jim's true friendship. To Huck, slavery and color of skin don't matter. Jim is still a person in Huck's eyes, and deserves the same amount of respect as he would give Tom Sawyer. In return, Jim views Huck as a friend instead of a slaver or a boss. In each other's eyes, they are equal.
In Chapter 14, I thought it was interesting that Huck was talking to Jim about King Solomon and how he solved the dilemma about the two women claiming ownership of a child. The fact that Jim thought King Solomon was unwise because he would cut a child in two because of his upbringing is a very smart thing to remark on, even though he doesn't have the right idea about the moral of the story. This shows that Jim has more intelligence than society would give him credit for. I also thought it was interesting that Huck tried to convince Jim that French people don't speak English through the Socratic method. In one of my other classes, I'm reading The Republic by Plato, and the way Huck tries to convince Jim is exactly how Socrates tries to convince his companions on justice. Maybe this suggests that Huck would make a good philosopher, or at least has more intelligence than the widow gives him credit for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)