Category Archives: Group A

ALBD, American Born Chinese, announcements, Check in, CR Post #1, CR Post #3, CR Post# 2, Final Project Check-Ins, Frankenstein, Graphic Narrative Assignments, Group A, Group B, Group C, Group D, Group E, Monster, Monster by Walter Dean Myers, Monster Readings 1, Monster Readings 2, The Bluest Eye, The Outsiders, Turner Readings, Uncategorized

Group D: Final Project , Shatavia, Jeleah, Kye, Angel

1 Comment

What:  For our group project we are going to create a scrapbook.  A scrapbook is a book of blank pages for sticking clippings, drawings, or pictures in.  The scrapbook is going to be designed exactly how we think Jefferson, Grant, or a character from the book would create it.  We will be filling up the scrapbook with Jefferson’s important memories, moments, recipes, and his time in jail.  In order to do this, we will be looking for symbols in magazines, things from the internet, clippings in newspapers and physical objects.  Being in jail and confined to one place causes a person to use their imagination.  Similar to Jefferson and Grant they are both trapped in situations that cause them to do a lot of imagining and thinking.  Something our group will be doing in order to create the perfect scrapbook that represents “A Lesson Before Dying”.

 

Why: In the book “A Lesson before Dying” a lot of the book has to do with symbols and teaching.  Jefferson is being taught a lesson by being sentenced to death.  Grants job as a teacher is to teach and he is also asked to teach Jefferson how to become a man.  Since teaching plays a huge role in this book, the scrap book will be created to teach others about our insights, thoughts, and main ideas about the book.  We all thought it would be a good gesture to create a visual.  This way our imagination and how we views things from the book can be brought to life.

Group A, The Outsiders

The Outsiders Close Reading

When I was just a kid, I read The Outsiders and my favorite character was Dally. His tough demeanor made me admire him a lot. Even after rereading the novel, I still think Dally was the coolest.  Throughout the book Dally is always described as mean and cold-hearted. Ponyboy often says how he likes Dally the least out of the gang. In fact, most of Dally’s interactions with other characters would almost always turn out to be negative. However, as the story goes on the reader as well as Ponyboy get to see glimpses of Dally going out of character or doing things that he normally wouldn’t do. These moments typically happen with Johnny around.

An example would be when Dally and is driving Ponyboy and Johnny when Johnny asked “I don’t guess my parents are worried about me or anything?”(87). Dally attempted to protect Johnny by saying how the boys were all worried, but when Johnny persists, Dally gets angry. “Blast it, Johnny, what do they matter? Shoot my old man don’t give a hang whether I’m in jail or dead in a car wreck or drunk in the gutter. That don’t bother me none” (88). Here we get to learn about Dally’s family for the first time, and it’s important because we never knew anything about him before except how he was in jail, fought, stole, etc. Ponyboy always said how Johnny was the gang’s pet and that’s why Dally treated him differently. From this passage we can see that Dally avoids giving the news straight to Johnny and when he does, he tries to show him how tough he is without his father’s care and how little it means to him. This moment doesn’t just show how much Dally cares about Johnny, it also draws a comparison between them. Dally had no parents’ love and it can be assumed that it was a reason he became the “cold hoodlum” he was.

Although his attitude, looks, and actions initially give off a heartless vibe, as time went on the way he treated Johnny and Ponyboy started to contradict Ponyboy’s description of him. He even went into a flaming church to save Johnny. The final evolution of Dally’s character can be seen during Johnny’s death. Before he goes in to see Johnny, he says “I was crazy, you know that, kid? Crazy for wantin’ Johnny to stay outa trouble, for not wantin’ him to get hard. If he’d been like me he’d never have been in this mess” (147). I see this as the beginning of Dally breaking down, knowing that Johnny might not make it. Even Ponyboy was confused at how he talked because “he never talked like that”. Dally goes on, “You’d better wise up Pony… you get tough like me and you don’t get hurt. You look out for yourself and nothing can touch you”(147). Dally’s words here can be seen as a front, trying to convince himself that not caring about anything is the only way to not get hurt, yet he winds up getting attached to Johnny and the opposite happens. I feel as if Dally saw Johnny as a version of himself. A boy with no one except his gang and when that one person he cared about died, he just couldn’t deal with the feelings of grief that he had. He never truly loved anyone like he loved Johnny, and when he lost him, he decided to follow suit. Dally was a tough, cold greaser. I don’t think he was one by choice. Possibly due to neglect, abuse, or situations that were out of his control, he had to become tough to survive. He really was a tragic character. One thing he wasn’t though, was heartless.

 

CR Post #3, Group A, The Outsiders

The Outsiders CR Reading

2 Comments

What does it mean to be tough? Does it mean having the strength to endure vigorous pain or to stone faced in the presence of danger? In S.E. Hinton’s The Outsiders, the main character Ponyboy explores what it means to be tough, which can be seen through a comparison of how he handles hostile Socs near the beginning of the novel and how he handles hostile Socs near the end of the novel. Both scenes contain a moment where Ponyboy must hold a broken soda bottle, but the shift in responses to the bottle provide detail on what Ponyboy had learned through the course of the novel.

In the first scene, Ponyboy, along with Johnny and Two-Bit, walk two girls Cherry and Marcia back to their homes when they are stopped by Socs in a blue mustang. In this scene Ponyboy shows his immaturity by dropping the bottle given to him by Two-Bit. Hinton writes, “I pulled her to one side. ‘I couldn’t use this,’ I said, dropping the pop bottle. ‘I couldn’t ever cut anyone…” I had to tell her [Cherry] that because I’d seen her eyes when Two-Bit flicked out his switch” (47). Ponyboy’s actions reflect an attempt to preserve the image of goodness Cherry sees in Ponyboy and in Johnny. While it is good that Ponyboy remains non-violent, given that this event occurs in the immature phase of the hero, Hinton is showing the audience that it’s bad since he can’t protect himself from danger .Even though he say “I could never cut anyone,” one should see that over time he at least becomes capable of know he could through observing someone as kind and pure like Johnny kill a Soc.

At a later scene, where Ponyboy is confronted by Socs after Johnny’s death, Ponyboy exhibits a new look on life. In this moment, it is Ponyboy alone fending off Socs and he breaks the bottle rather than receiving it from Two-Bit. Here Ponyboy shows to pull out references to tough people he knew in his life. He says, “I started toward them, holding the bottle the way Tim Shepard holds a switch—out and away from myself, in a loose but firm hold” (171). He also says the phrase “Get smart and nothing can touch you” (171), words taken from his late friend Dally, described as being one in the same as Shepard in the novel. Ponyboy, by making reference from them, see value in who they are as characters. Dally was a character born without a parents love and raised partly on the streets of New York and what Ponyboy derives from Dally is getting stronger than the world can hit you. This kind of toughness is exhibited in the same scene as Ponyboy says, “I didn’t feel anything—scared, mad, or anything. Just zero (171).” Ponyboy learns that toughness is a hard acceptance of your reality, not a perpetuation of an ignorance to one’s conditions.

After the Socs back away from Ponyboy, he shows that he hasn’t turned completely into Dally by his action of picking up the broken pieces, saying that he “didn’t want anyone to get a flat tire” (172).  Ponyboy exhibits here the goodness that distinguished him from other greasers as described by Cherry.

From these two scenes, Hinton shows the audience Ponyboy’s transformation and hope. Ponyboy like the pop bottle was broken after being subjected to incredible conflicts, but that experience made him jagged to defend himself without breaking him completely.

Frankenstein, Group A

Frankenstein Side by Side: Cornelius Agrippa vs Paradise Lost (creator vs creature literature)

9 Comments

In Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, there are many parallels between Victor Frankenstein and his monster. One of which that really stood out to me was their shared interest in reading and learning. However, the differences between the two characters can be seen clearly from what books they are interested in.  The first book to be introduced was in a sense, Victor Frankenstein’s pathway to creating the monster. “In this house I chanced to find a volume of the works of Cornelius Agrippa. I opened it with apathy; the theory which he attempts to demonstrate and the wonderful facts which he relates soon changed this feeling into enthusiasm.” This moment coupled with his father’s dismissal of the book led him to his fascination with alchemy, natural science, and the creation of life. He continued to study this type of mystical science all the way into his university years.

On the other hand, Frankenstein’s monster was learning about the world through a completely different perspective. Victor was someone that had everything in life; friends, family, education, a lover whereas his creation, and in a way, his son, had nothing. They both were finding themselves through literature, but coming from two different worlds.  The monster’s favorite book was “Paradise Lost” and he felt like his situation and Adam’s were the same.  In Chapter 15, the monster explains, “I often referred the several situations, as their similarity struck me, to my own. Like Adam, I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect. He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator; he was allowed to converse with and acquire knowledge from beings of a superior nature, but I was wretched, helpless, and alone.”

The most interesting aspect I found about the Cornelius Agrippa volume and “Paradise Lost” is that one character took something real and tried to make it fake, and the other takes something fake and tried to make it real. Basically, Victor was a man of science, but he kept trying to apply alchemy and mystical science as fact and truth. Meanwhile, the monster does the the opposite of that, by taking “Paradise Lost” as a “true history” but it actually was a work of fiction. My analysis of this is that Victor lived a world of reality but was pursuing a fantasy of these philosophies. This ultimately leads to him going along this path of “magic” and creating the monster. The monster is the fantasy in this real world, desperately trying to validate his own existence.  The irony is that he connected to a work of imagination, like he himself was.

Both Victor Frankenstein and the monster were young in their lives when finding the books that defined their characters. They were both impressionable at the time of reading the books. I feel like Mary Shelley included this parallel of reading on purpose, but made what they were reading different in order to show where the lines of similarity between the creator and creature are blurred.

Full textual moments:

Chapter 2- In this house I chanced to find a volume of the works of Cornelius Agrippa. I opened it with apathy; the theory which he attempts to demonstrate and the wonderful facts which he relates soon changed this feeling into enthusiasm. A new light seemed to dawn upon my mind, and bounding with joy, I communicated my discovery to my father. My father looked carelessly at the title page of my book and said, “Ah! Cornelius Agrippa! My dear Victor, do not waste your time upon this; it is sad trash.”

If, instead of this remark, my father had taken the pains to explain to me that the principles of Agrippa had been entirely exploded and that a modern system of science had been introduced which possessed much greater powers than the ancient, because the powers of the latter were chimerical, while those of the former were real and practical, under such circumstances I should certainly have thrown Agrippa aside and have contented my imagination, warmed as it was, by returning with greater ardour to my former studies. It is even possible that the train of my ideas would never have received the fatal impulse that led to my ruin. But the cursory glance my father had taken of my volume by no means assured me that he was acquainted with its contents, and I continued to read with the greatest avidity. When I returned home my first care was to procure the whole works of this author, and afterwards of Paracelsus and Albertus Magnus. I read and studied the wild fancies of these writers with delight; they appeared to me treasures known to few besides myself.

Chapter 15-“But Paradise Lost excited different and far deeper emotions. I read it, as I had read the other volumes which had fallen into my hands, as a true history. It moved every feeling of wonder and awe that the picture of an omnipotent God warring with his creatures was capable of exciting. I often referred the several situations, as their similarity struck me, to my own. Like Adam, I was apparently united by no link to any other being in existence; but his state was far different from mine in every other respect. He had come forth from the hands of God a perfect creature, happy and prosperous, guarded by the especial care of his Creator; he was allowed to converse with and acquire knowledge from beings of a superior nature, but I was wretched, helpless, and alone. Many times I considered Satan as the fitter emblem of my condition, for often, like him, when I viewed the bliss of my protectors, the bitter gall of envy rose within me.

CR Post #1, Group A

What is a Monster?

95 Comments

In her article “What is a Monster?” Ph. D. candidate Natalie Lawrence argues that society invents and reinforces monsters in order to better define the scope of human rationality and morality. Lawrence uses the example of the death of Cecil the Lion at the hands of Dr. Walter Palmer, where Dr. Palmer received the severe title of monster for committing the heinous act of killing the lion for sport. She argues that by referring to criminals like Dr. Palmer as a monsters, a person attempts to make sense of something that lies beyond the perceived limits of his own moral barriers. Because the individual cannot actualize something so foreign to his norm, he categorizes these things under “other,” reaffirming his own sense of normality and dismissing any infringements on that normality as a part of the supernatural realm. She then articulates how the monsters that we create hold economic value as objects sought after for their oddity.

What I found particularly interesting in the article was the inclusion of the treatment Dr. Palmer received for his misdeed of trophy hunting. According to the article, Palmer was forced to “resign from his practice, flee from his home, and hire armed guards to protect himself and his family” (Lawrence). Here we see how society’s responds to people, things, and ideas that we cannot comprehend to exist in normality: with violence and hatred. Despite people believing themselves constructive and expecting to approach every unknown fact with understanding, one sees that the innate response to something alien is to deny it legitimacy and/or attack it. This can be seen not only in Dr. Palmer’s willingness to shoot a lion because it’s strange to him, but also the crowd’s instinct of attacking Palmer and designating him to a position of “barely human” for his actions. This can be connected to how society views criminals in general: despite being people with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations, they become symbols of degeneracy, caricatures of their sins for people to rebuke.

Questions:

  1. If the “monsters” represent things society cannot accept as normal, are the actions to remove the undesired being justifiable such as the backlash against Dr. Palmer? Aren’t we in danger of becoming monsters ourselves in this pursuit?
  2. As society marks monsters as attacks against normalcy, is “monsterfication” a definite result for those who exist outside of societal norms?
Group A

CR Post 1 Group A

in “What is a Monster?” by Natalie Lawrence, she talks about the how society dictates what a monster is. By using Walter Palmer’s shooting of Cecil the lion and European discovery of the dodo birds, she is able show how our ideas of monsters has changed based on time. Palmer killed a lion and was deemed a monster, while the dodo was a bird that defied what they classified as a bird. She therefore classifies a monster as an oddity that can be sold to the public as entertainment.

I think that Lawrence is right that we as a society tend to now blow up events where we think that someone who is a monster is involved. The news would plaster the face of a killer all over television, showing everyone the person killed, motive, etc. Learning that monsters were being used as a selling point for the masses at things like freak shows doesn’t surprise me. It just shows how drawn we are to look at monsters and try to understand them. We want to know how they work. People like Palmer that were deemed monsters my never be able to live it down. Monsters now may never live down that stigma.

 

 

CR Post #1, Group A

What is a monster?

In the article “What is a Monster?” by Natalie Lawrence, the idea of what makes a monster is explored as well as the roles that monsters have in society.  Lawrence doesn’t explain things in black in white, she writes about positive and negative attributes and leaves the reader to decide what makes a monster.  Lawrence connects people that have been labeled as monsters (like ‘The Dentist’) with gothic monsters, and states that they have certain characteristics that our society has trouble acknowledging whether they be psychological or cultural. Therefore, by excluding them and treating them like scapegoats we are removing those monstrous traits that they have from ourselves. Lawrence explains that in order for something to be defined as monstrous, there has to be the definition of what’s “normal”. She goes on to show examples of when birds that didn’t fall into the definition of the term “bird” at the time were introduced and changed the norm.

Natalie Lawrence then discusses the most interesting idea to me, which was that with monsters came profit and marketing. I thought this was a unique perspective of roles that monsters have. Typically, when I think of monsters I don’t think of people getting interested in them and buying merchandise. I think of negative things like people leaving towns or being afraid. However, there is a lot of truth in what she said. Monsters generate interest and curiosity. People will pay to see rare sights or things they are different from what they’re used to. That can be proven by just looking at how popular horror is as a genre. Lawrence doesn’t just mean fictional monsters either. She points out that the story about Cecil the Lion and “The Dentist” was used by various media outlets to cash in on the story. You can even say that with all the attention that people give to monsters, real or fake, that they’re getting glorified in a way.

  1. Should monsters or monstrous acts like ‘The Dentist’ killing the lion be used for money, marketing, or personal gain?
  2. By giving monsters so much attention, are we glorifying them/ giving them more acknowledgment than they deserve?