Irony embraces The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail. It’s everywhere. My favorite ironic part is when Edward and Henry are searching for Huckleberries. Edward gets a giant basket full of berries, and then trips and falls. He begins to cry because he’s lost his berries, but then Henry turns the entire situation around by saying, “Well, it’s a good thing to spill em’! Now you’ve planted an entire patch of Huckleberries, an entire patch for Edward Emerson.” Then they go to find more berries, with the sole purpose of spilling them over. Very ironic, they go to the meadow for berries and end up leaving most of them on the ground? Interesting. The other very ironic conversation was the one between the Thoreau brothers, talking about Ellen Sewell. John evidentially proposed, and Ellen declined. That should have been a sad moment, but they are uncontrollably laughing? Very ironic.

     The first very important character is Henry Thoreau himself. I would have Tom Hiddleston play Henry, because in the Thor movies Tom is always playing a part that is searching for something greater – a part that, even though it’s evil, is always dreaming of the future and wisely portraying it. The next important character is Bailey. I think Johnny Depp would play a great Bailey. Bailey sounds like a hill-billy drunk to me, and Johnny Depp plays a great part like that in Pirates of the Caribbean. Lastly, John was very important. I think Chris Hemsworth would play a great John. Partially because Chris and Tom have worked so greatly as brothers in the Thor movies, and partially because Chris is awesome at playing a wise and superior part in the movies he’s been in.

     Henry’s protest to the world does not prove successful – most of the world hasn’t heard of Transcendentalism, let alone lives it; or at least I don’t know anyone that thinks in this way. But was his goal itself to change the way other people thought, or was he just trying to change himself? If he was concerned to live his own life, I think he was very successful. He ended the book by leaving the city, going out into the world, and I imagine he’d lead a life of people into his way of thinking. So in this way, for his own good, he was very successful. But as for the rest of the world, so far, the idea isn’t that popular that I know of.

     Huckleberries were used in ‘The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail’ as symbolism to the classroom’s ideas. It was put something like, “We’re searching for ideas the way you search for huckleberries in the forest.” I was altogether surprised at all the symbolism and wise notes in the text, especially this one. If these quotes are anywhere close to accurate, Henry Thoreau was a very wise man at a very young age. He understood the world completely in his own words, he refused to let the ideas of others come in the way. I really liked his quickness to responding to the simplest of things with a wise answer, and the huckleberry part was no exception. The principal comes in and asks what the class is doing. Most teachers would try to answer something along the lines of, “Discussing the text,” or “Responding to what we read,” or anything simple and unsuspicious like that. Something that doesn’t get them in trouble. But Mr. Thoreau answers, “We’re huckleberrying, sir.” Searching for ideas like people search for huckleberries in the forest. Maybe it was just me, but I couldn’t help but think when I read that; “So is the whole world huckleberrying?” Everyone is searching for something. Whether it be peace, or happiness, or something else; everyone is constantly searching, or ‘Huckleberrying’ for what they want. It’s a piece of symbolism that could relate to the whole world, couldn’t it?

*How do we see that desire + danger = drama?  Discuss how this is true or not in BOTH the Odyssey and MDG

- This is true in both the Odyssey and Most Dangerous Game – in the Odyssey, there is a strong desire to get home. Ulysses reaches many dangers on the way home and even when he is home. There is much drama in the Odyssey. In MDG, there is a desire from the hunter to hunt – and it is so strong, he even plays with the idea of murder. He seems a crazy man because of this desire. The danger is obvious – the general has the life and death of Rainsford in his hands.

*Compare and contrast the following elements from MDG to these elements in The Odyssey:

1.  Exposition: background information required for seeing the characters in context
There is no comparison in the Odyssey to MDG in this context. The Odyssey had many many many backstories, while in MDG we know almost nothing about either Rainsford or the General. Did we need these backstories? The Odyssey might not have needed all it’s backstories, but it definitely needed some of them – while we can make do with knowing almost nothing in MDG.

2.  Conflict: is it a character versus the internal self or an external something or someone?
In the Odyssey, it’s character against external conflict. Ulysses wants to get home, and gods and people keep getting in his way. In MDG, it’s the same. Rainsford wants to survive, and he fights against the general’s forces.

3.  The complication: one or more problems that keep a character from his or her intended goal
There are many in both stories. In the Odyssey, the main complications are Neptune keeps stalling and hurting Ulysses, hindering him from getting home. And the suitors in the home are ruining Ulysses’ house; forcing Ulysses to fight a bunch of brave men almost by himself. In MDG, it’s the General and his dogs, the bugs of the forest, Ivan, and the quicksand.

4.  Flashback: remembering something that happened before the short story takes place
Not much of this is seen in MDG. Because it is a short story, there was only room for the action. In the Odyssey, however, there were several books dedicated to flashback – such as the books Ulysses told his story of his troubles at sea.

5.  Resolution: when the internal or external conflict is resolved.

In this matter, the two books are similar. Both have a conflict, and that conflict is resolved. Rainsford won his game, and Ulysses beat Neptune and killed all the suitors. For both stories, there are more problems yet to come. In MDG, Rainsford has to go home still; in the Odyssey, Ulysses has to deal with the people accusing him of murder. But besides those little conflicts, the main conflicts are ok and resolved.

Final Thoughts on the Odyssey

    I really enjoyed reading the Odyssey. It had many advantages and disadvantages. I think the one fatal flaw of the story is it just drags itself out. Every character and even object has to have a backstory, and not just a simple think such as “These arrows were from a god” but it would drag the story of how that god gave the arrows to whoever had them on and on for some two pages.  In the end, the many backstories like that did not help the story at all; it only made the whole thing drag along. Besides this, however, the rest of the story was good. It was for sure a very interesting book. The storyline was great, and it was interesting how the timeline was set out. I always laughed at how fancy they talked, but I guess it was a different culture back then.  Ulysses was very smart, and wise; but he seemed a little full of himself for a lot of the story. That may have been his downfall. The gods were very interesting too, they were almost like a higher class of humans. They fought over each other and were wrong just as many humans do. They controlled humans almost like pets, only very smart pets. If they were angry with a pet, they’d punish it. Just like in real life. Overall, I think it was a very interesting story, but could have been much better if it hadn’t dragged out so long.

1.      The one thing I had a question about more than anything throughout the Odyssey was the bard. What is a bard? They seem to sing, and sing epic stories – but what does the word mean exactly? Upon research, this is what I found. “1.

a poet, traditionally one reciting epics and associated with a particular oral tradition.”

 

A bard, therefore, doesn’t even have to sing but can sing if he wants to. He tells stories, that are passed down through generations… Interesting… so was it through bards that the story of the Odyssey was carried down orally?

     Response to Books of the Odyssey, V-XII

     Throughout these eight books in the Odyssey, I noticed a few things. First of all, Ulysses is always talking extremely fancy. I can’t help but laugh at him! Come on. When he sees the girls washing clothes, and he’s naked? He talks to himself. Think about how realistic this is. “Will they kill me? Are they evil? Is she a goddess? I know what I will do! I will go out and see for myself. That is how I will know.” Yeah, if you were put in Ulysses’ position, you wouldn’t say all that in that situation. You’d might think it, but to say it out loud? No. You wouldn’t. Secondly, I noticed that even though all these people are hospitable, they can be just as cruel – such as when the one blessed man sent Ulysses away saying, “You’re cursed.” Thirdly, Ulysses is clever and wise – but he does, like everyone else, have a big head. He is easily provoked into joining in the games, and immediately starts bragging about how he is the best at all of them and will accept any challenges. All of that due to one little insult. This “ego” shows up a little throughout the story.  
     As the storyline itself goes, I found it to be much the same as Percy Jackson and the Sea of Monsters. The Sirens, Circe, Scylla, and the whirlpool all show up in the Percy Jackson story as well. I found that interesting. God’s intervene all over the place, such as when Mercury appeared to give Ulysses the root dispelling him from all charms – where did Mercury come from? Why did he do that? It was very quick, I thought. Also, I’ve heard audio books on the Odyssey before, and I remember the tales of Scylla and the whirlpool and the Cyclops being much harder than this reading. It was described in much further detail, and I they were barely hanging on for life. But when I read it this week, it seemed like they made it through each of those without too much difficulty. They lost some men, sure. But they just kept going, and seemed to forget about it. I’m not sure if this is due to a lack of detail from Homer, or if Ulysses just skipped over some parts, or if I listened to an inaccurate audiobook. Either way, I was surprised that so little time was spent on each of these hardships.
     One of the other things I noticed that was strange was the swift changes in attitude in Ulysses. He asked the singer to sing a song about the Wooden Horse in Troy. He was “weeping bitterly” according to the Odyssey. The king asks the singer to stop, and then asks Ulysses to tell his story – and Ulysses just starts telling the story like an honorable hero. Did some time pass for him to stop crying, or did he simply stop crying and tell the story like a true adventure man? That’s a far-fetched attitude change, I think. The last thing I noticed is the king of Phocaea throwing a mini Olympics for this man [Ulysses], of which he knows nothing about. He doesn’t even know Ulysses’ name, but judges him rather on how he talks and looks. What kind of culture is this? Did people really trust others that much back then?

Odyssey Response, Books II – IV

It’s getting interesting! In these books, Telemachus is looking everywhere for his father. My thoughts and reactions were not really on the story, but the way it was written – did anyone else get annoyed by the “rosy fingered Dawn” thing? I laughed every time I read it. Also, how easy was it to get someone to cry back then? I mean, the only crying part in this story so far where the character actually deserved to be “weeping” is the part where Menelaus finds out his comrades are either dead or aren’t doing well. I’d cry for that. But if I were a maid, and my mistress was weeping, I wouldn’t start weeping too just because she is. I found that part, along with all the other crying parts, very strange and kind of comical. Also, I found the suitors are pretty stupid. Who in their right mind would walk into someone else’s house, and stay there forever? Think about this happening today – it’s unheard of! The people would be in jail at once. Why aren’t the local authorities taking action on the suitors? Was that kind of behavior actually legal back then? That seems so weird, that people would really just do that. Anyhow, I’m looking forward to reading more, and getting into Ulysses’ half of the story.

Heroes – “A Hero is a selfless person who is courageous and overcomes fear to benefit others despite any obstacles.” That was our class definition. I looked up the site on the blog, and found three of those four definitely abiding by this definition. The people who raised the flag at Iwo Jima totally fit this, I read a book on them once – each one didn’t care about themselves, more or less did what they did to fight for America’s freedom. They raised that flag, despite the bullets flying from all directions and rough, crazy terrain – despite all those obstacles. They most definitely fit the definition. I’m not sure I understood the second example, I wasn’t familiar with what it or he was and there wasn’t anything to read about. Batman? He was a hero. He didn’t care about himself, and ran around catching those villains so the people could live in peace. So he did what he did to benefit others… no matter what the cost, or the obstacles. And firefighters are everyday heroes that save hundreds of lives all the time. They risk everything to get an innocent person out of a fire, no matter what the cost to them, and no matter how bad the fire is. They are selfless, and get that person out despite any obstacles. These fit the definition perfectly, “selfless” “benefit others” “despite any obstacles”. All those examples fit our definition perfectly. By the way, I think we should send our definition into Webster – all they have on hero is “A person who is greatly admired.” While that may be true in some cases… I like ours much better.

 

 

Response to the Odyssey Book I

I enjoyed it, I’ve always been a huge fan of Greek Mythology so I’m looking forward to reading this poem. What I found most interesting is Zeus is referred to as Jove. I’ve heard Zeus named as Jupiter before, but never Jove, so that was interesting. I found the text a little confusing. It’s just old language I guess, and it takes a little more thinking to comprehend than newer more casual writing. Nothing surprised me that much, not yet anyways. Active reading helped me understand the tricky language better than usual, through re-reading and summarizing it was much easier to understand the language. Looking forward to Book II!

Response to Geeks Bearing Gifts
     The two main writing techniques I see here are the organization of the paragraphs and the suspense of the “conclusion” paragraphs. The organizing of the paragraphs I thought was cool – he had a paragraph of her going out into the public, and then a paragraph with her sitting down with her boyfriend telling him how it went. That was kind of like a paragraph where the information was stated, and then a paragraph where it was concluded. Basically it was “information”, then “conclusion”. But it occurred almost every two paragraphs, and therefore gave the essay a unique kind of flow; a very confident flow where the reader always understands what just happened. This would help my writing a lot, because I know I tend to ramble on sometimes and give my writing a somewhat messy flow.
     But at the end of each one of these “conclusion” paragraphs, there was a sentence that led you to look forward to the next time she went out in the public – which leads me to the second technique. In these sentences, the author gives you a feeling of suspense for what’s going to happen; the result of this is that when the essay finally ends, you’re left wondering what happens, or what will happen. It’s always good to make your readers want more, it shows you know what you’re doing as a writer. My short stories could always use more suspense, perhaps this technique could be used to achieve it.

     First of all, I really liked this reading… Never have I read something that brings the story to life as well as that did. The descriptions of the woods were so sharp it immediately connected with my memories of the wilderness and I was living where she was. And yet, with these sharp descriptions, it’s also so mysterious in ways. Or that’s the effect it had on me, anyways. To sum it up, the descriptions were awesome, and I really liked the reading.
     To respond to the questions, I believe the significance of the title could be two things. First, it could be simply the fact she knew that path in the woods very well. And she’d taken it many times according the lady in the store; therefore calling it a ‘Worn Path’ is understandable. It could also be referring to her life, in a way her entire life has been a ‘Worn Path’: we’re not given a time reference, but I believe we can assume she grew up in the mid-late 1800’s and is currently in the 1930’s or 40’s, just because of the racial slurs of the first man and the way she talked. The seemingly high value of a nickel also is a clue to this time in history. A life for a Negro in those times, as we all know, was very hard. She seems to have lived it with an iron heart; therefore we can call her life a ‘Worn Path’.  
     The name Phoenix is appropriate because it sounds tough, and it’s not a name we hear very often. If we used another more common old lady name, such as Gertrude, we get an image of a standard kind hearted old lady – not this tough iron hearted character we read about in this book. And I believe most common names actually would give us this image. Phoenix, however, sounds tough to me. Like the character as well sounded tough.
     The most memorable place where the birds are used as a symbolic creature is when the part where she steals the man’s nickel – a bird flies by and she says, “God’s been watching me this whole time as I’ve come to stealin’,” or something like that. So God comes as the image of a bird. The meaning of birds all of a sudden becomes ten times what it usually is. Birds aren’t that important, but here they have a powerful meaning and therefore add a powerful effect on the story.
      Another motif I caught was the thorns – she made them sound like the guardians of the forest, never letting anyone pass. Well let’s just say I’ve had my many experiences with thorns, and never really thought to think of them as something as ‘royal’ sounding as Guardians of the Forest. If someone asked me, I would’ve probably said thorns were simply the annoying part of the forest. But here they have much more meaning, the ‘Guardians of the Forest’, and by giving them this meaning, it seemingly changed the old lady’s common struggle through the thorns more towards the idea of an epic battle against ‘Guardians of the Forest’. That’s the impression I got from it, anyways, and it added a sweet flavor of mystery to the story.
      The question being “What is symbolic about her journey back?” Well that’s an extremely hidden meaning, or that’s the impression I get from it. Because the story really was about the journey there, not back. But you could say if the ‘Worn Path’ is her life, so then the journey back symbolizes that life always returns to the Creator. But the story really ends before she journey’s back so it’s really not implying that meaning in the story… but that’s certainly a meaning you could take from it.