Huck Finn Debate

I thought Mr. Beddingfield won the debate. You were very explicit in
your opening statement and rebuttals. However, I thought you had
curved what you said previously. If I recall, I thought you had said
the debate was for or against the ban of the book, not the mere debate
of whether or not it should be taught. Your opening statement was rather... skewed(?). I felt that it was hard to argue your point because it seemed to pertain to your own class (however I found it very funny when you basically implied that we're your guinea pigs, because we are to the school system.) But that isn't the point I'm
interested in making as I think it's irrelevent. In debates, I don't
think you're allowed to know the stance of your opponent until their
opening statement anyway. Overall, the debate felt as if both sides
were arguing on different stances: your's on it shouldn't be taught
and our's on why it should be banned - two different stances.


The debate was... amusing, I suppose. I liked the camareaderie amongst
my classmates and our attempt at in being coherent under a five minute
limit. It was difficult also. With more people, sharing each thought
was more difficult. In the end, the loudest and most imposing often
gets the their point through. Our rebuttals were very incoherent
compared to your's and ultimately, it was easier to form a coherent
rebuttal if you were by yourself. We're not a hive mind and we don't
have telepathy. Again, I liked the subject matter but not how it was
implemented.  And now to my shortened, tangential rant...


We fear being wrong that we're unwilling to ever take chances. we're socially conditioned to be biased in reltaion to history. We're conditioned to think socialism and communism are bad. yet, both have their merits and are considered good, overall. 


You taught us HoD and TFA. Are you endorsing your students to uphold the stereotypes depicted within those books? Generalize a whole entire race? to dehumanize people? That white people are merely missionaries bent on destroying cultures? As a rebuttal to your scenario, on an all-white class being taught Huck Finn, this class itself could be seen as it's antithesis. You're the only white (besides Diana, I suppose) person amongst us (and by that, I meant it objectively and not of racist implication) Are you endorsing us to think that white people are evil? Conversely, you don't uphold those vices we've seen within the books. 


I think every novel (well everything really) is subjective.  Maybe it's my fondness for Solipsism, haha. Huck Finn is only giving a starker contrast. Why should students be "protected" all the time? Innocence of mind? We didn't ask for it. We want to be better people and determine for ourselves, our own opinion. A teacher shouldn't just be a sage of the stage, but also a guide of the side. But only I can speak for myself. Huck Finn also, on a more introspective level, is less about racism and more about what it meant to be a human and to treat one another with human qualities. 

Huck Finn: Mark Twain drops the N-bomb

I find it quite amusing that some of the criticisms were centered around his use of the n bomb and made it into a huge controversy. I don't think that it's serious because the book isn't a racist book; it's simply depicting what life was like back in the south when slavery still existed: raw and unedited. Afterall, we should experience history just as it is and not sugar-coated. Even history books can be bias. We're socially conditioned to think certain things and I think that was most of what Twain was depicting in Huck Finn. Huck, as a child, is questioning the social dogma around him because he's been condition to think that blacks are second-class citizens and the aspects of religion, specifically Christianity. However in the end, he's unwilling to accept that and I think that's what makes the book great. Accept things that you like and not what you're forced to. 

My favorite criticism would be T.S. Eliot's. He explicitly states certain aspects of the book I didn't clearly understand or knew during the book. Most of all, he talked a lot about how the book was influenced by Twain himself. Also, when many of the criticisms judged Twain or rather, Huck Finn, Eliot simply states that Twain was just writing from the vantage point of an observer. He allows us to judge for ourselves whether the book was good or bad; he was objective in his book's depiction of the antebellum south. Eliot also talks about the river as an archetypal device and Huck and Jim in relation to another. While many other critics talk about each other as separate entities, Eliot believes that they were ultimately one entity in the sense that the two of them formed the book and they would be incomplete without each other. Eliot forms a rather sympathetic view on Jim because he's been through so much "bear, and bear along, the responsibility of a man."   

Braindead Teen only capable of rolling eyes and texting

http://www.theonion.com/video/braindead-teen-only-capable-of-rolling-eyes-and-te,27225/

Well, you can't euthanize a kid for just being like that. they're mocking teenagers of today. well, making it humorous draws attention while also making it more serious that it has to be, paradoxically, i suppose. If they said it directly, it'll just be like what every parent say and it's boring.

Dear Mr. Twain...

Dear Mr. Twain,

Huck Finn is surely an amusing book to read and the funniest I've read in a literature class. It's satirical nature attracts readers and it also brings up many social issues like racism, morality, ethics, and my favorite, human nature. Moreover, you seem to make almost every character morally ambiguous. As a reader, I have conflicted feelings on almost every character! The conflicted feeling is invited however. In life, no one is truly good or bad and I think it's best to say that it's either the good or the bad deeds that outweighs the others. You certainly have the talent to make serious topics rather funny. However, have you ever thought that by making serious topics less serious would undermine what you were trying to convey to your readers? Your use of the word, "N," does provide a rather profound effect on society. It's amazing how one word used in your book could have a profound affect on people and education. ]


Overall, I would love to hear your inspiration on your work of Huck Finn. The book seems to almost mirror someone's life, perhaps your's? he dialect within this book is so genuine and distinct from the two characters, Jim and Huck. The book is very rich in themes and symbols and my favorite must by Huck's introspective nature. He questions almost every social dogma and he witnesses so much "bad" as a child, I wonder how it'll change him. Some people eventually turn into bad people themselves and use that as an excuse while others become better people.

Huck Finn Part 1

Haha, I used Shakespeare's famous line (in a way) as the title of my research: "To fear or not to fear: the role of NMDA receptors in appetitive and aversive learning."

Overall, I feel as if the river serves as an allusion to the biblical snake that persuades Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. As Huck goes further down (or up?) the river, it seems as if the events he witnesses just get worse and worse; it seems as if he's losing hope for humanity and developing a digust towards it. First, when he witnesses the shooting of a drunk man in front of his daughter, then the lynching mob followed be an ironic turn of events, when Sherburn confronts the mob with a rifle. It seems as if Huck is also witnessing social revolution in away. Then primarily, tagging along with the fake Duke and daulphin. Huck feels utterly repulsed by them because they just lie and con again and again.

Theme-wise, Twain seems to question social conformity. Therefore, I suppose, one of it's theme would be "always be observant and never conform to a society without thinking 'Why?'" Huck witnesses very extreme social conventions and he does question them unlike the others. For example, the cause of feud between the Grangerfords and Sheperdsons are unknown yet they still fight. Why does racism exist? Why are women/children considered second-class citizens? Is it okay to lie? What is friendship? Twain generally seems to satirize western society.

Othello Part 2

Answer questions 1-3 and 5-6 of act IV and questions 1 and 4-6 of act V on
pgs. 1601-1602. Post the answers on your blog.

Come prepared to write tomorrow!


Act IV
1. Othello overhears the conversation between Iago (who plotted it) and Cassio talking about the sexual advances Bianca made towards whose name was never explicitly stated and boom - she comes in and adds fuel to the fire by showing the handkerchief given to him by his "lover." 


2. It's an outlier, I suppose. the probability of that occurring is very rare; it seems too artificial to be coincidental. The handkerchief is very important for Othello and it is what drives him crazy since it's the most tangible evidence. Sadly, it's being manipulated by Iago. It represents Othello's marriage, Desdemona's importance to him, and in her losing it (or him rejecting it earlier); it's as if she's figuratively 'throwing away' the marriage -- it is of not importance to her. 


3. He sees her as a whore of Venice since so many men want her yet she rejected them. He's confident he misjudged her due to her 'cleverness.'


5. Desdemona takes marriage seriously and she's the pinnacle of the virtues of a wife and a woman in society. She's faithful. Emilia, on the other hand, is quite "eh" implying that's she isn't all a role model nor the other side of the spectrum either. She finds infidelity okay. She rationalizes that women have the same urges as men do and doesn't find why they should be allowed yet women aren't. They're as much to blame. 


6. Desdemona requests that her wedding sheets be laid on the night of her murder(?)! Oh, and when Emilia and Desdemona try to find who the suspect is; that the person responsible for Othello's fit is the same that suspects Emilia of sleeping with Othello. Seriously, why would Othello sleep with Emilia when he's faithful? or who else besides your husband would care so much about the suspicion that you may be sleeping with Othello? Your husband, duh. 


Act V
1. Iago plots Rodrigeo and Cassio to kill each other. They fail, Iago finishes the job. Miscommunication happens. Othello kills Desdemona. Emilia explains everything. Iago tries to kill her, but he fails. Everything unravels. Othello regrets; grows angry at Iago; stabs him. 


4.What impels Othello to kill Desdemona is out of betrayal, to say the least. He was faithful to her and expected the same. In hearing accusations that she was unfaithful, it violated what he expected from her and it gave him a sense that he was betrayed. I suppose he decided to kill her because he emotionally invested too much in her and it seemed like she just outright violated it all, which infuriates him. It would infuriate anyone really. The greatest weapon anyone can use is your mind and Iago's good at that. 


5. He loves a person very much, but it isn't always the 'right' person. He is very much capable of love, but he can't choose the right person to love (but you did, stupid). 


6.  Yes, well, he always had his dignity and nobility, the issue was his trust in people. Yes, I agree because he dedicated his life to serving the military and his love. He was great of heart in more than one way. Including his trust. 

Othello Part 1

Well, I don't know what to talk about with the lack of a topic! I need a topic to be deeep! Anyways, our doubts are clarified in the two acts because Othello, unsurprisingly, is very trustworthy. You know what they say, "Be polite. Be Professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet." Lago, however, begins to think that he is evil (no, he's just really selfish), but he rationalizes his actions as helping his men. And Desdemona is coming full throttle with her feminism (because there's a lack of it in the material we've read)!