Ms. Cavallaro’s Class Blog

Journal Numbers…
#1 – Your notes on Act 1
#2 – Synthesis of group’s meeting on Act 1
#3 – Your notes on Act 2
#4 – Synthesis of group’s meeting on Act 2
#5 – Your notes on Act 3
#6 – Synthesis of group’s meeting on Act 3
#7 – Your notes on Act 4
#8 – Synthesis of group’s meeting on Act 4
#9 – Your notes on Act 5
#10 – Synthesis of group’s meeting on Act 5

Group Meeting Dates
Act 1 – Thurs 12/10
Act 2 – Weds 12/16
Act 3 – Tues 12/22
Act 4 – Mon 1/4
Act 5 – Thurs 1/7

In Frankenstein, we will encounter the battle between science and nature. What is “acceptable” science and medicine? Who decides? How can society balance the benefits of new medical discoveries against ethical or spiritual questions they may pose? In your response, consider such scientific and medical advancements as dissection, cloning, organ transplants (from both humans and animals), pre-natal testing, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, etc. Do the benefits of such advancements outweigh the shortfalls, or are science and technology are advancing much more rapidly than is our wisdom to use them properly?

Please be sure to respond to at least one specific comment made by a classmate. In addition, connections to other texts, film, pop culture, etc. are encouraged.

Responses are due by beginning of class on Tues 11/10

In Frankenstein, we will encounter the battle between science and nature. What is “acceptable” science and medicine? Who decides? How can society balance the benefits of new medical discoveries against ethical or spiritual questions they may pose? In your response, consider such scientific and medical advancements as dissection, cloning, organ transplants (from both humans and animals), pre-natal testing, stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, etc. Do the benefits of such advancements outweigh the shortfalls, or are science and technology are advancing much more rapidly than is our wisdom to use them properly?

Please be sure to respond to at least one specific comment made by a classmate. In addition, connections to other texts, film, pop culture, etc. are encouraged.

Responses are due by beginning of class on Tues 11/10

Ethics

by Linda Pastan

In ethics class so many years ago
our teacher asked this question every fall:
if there were a fire in a museum
which would you save, a Rembrandt painting
or an old woman who hadn’t had many
years left anyhow? Restless on hard chairs
caring little for pictures or old age
we’d opt one year for life, the next for art
and always half-heartedly. Sometimes
the woman borrowed my grandmother’s face
leaving her usual kitchen to wander
some drafty, half-imagined museum.
One year, feeling clever, I replied
why not let the woman decide herself?
“Linda,” the teacher would report, “eschews
the burdens of responsibility.”
This fall in a real museum I stand
before a real Rembrandt, old woman,
or nearly so, myself.  The colors
within this frame are darker than autumn,
darker even than winter—the browns of earth,
though earth’s most radiant elements burn
through the canvas. I know now that woman
and painting and season are almost one
and all beyond saving by children.

– Linda Pastan (b. 1932)

===============

You are required to comment on this post twice.

For your first comment, consider the following questions: What is Pastan attempting to express? How does “Ethics” connect to  1984 and all that we’ve been discussing? In your response, be sure to cite specific phrases from the poem. Dig into this poem, and s t r e t c h your brain as you respond. For the poetryphobic among you, this poem can be interpreted many different ways, so there is no one “right” answer. In addition, I want you to trust your own analysis skills. Resist the urge to rely on other people to tell you what this poem is about. Write what you think it’s about and how you think it relates. Please do NOT reference or respond to other people’s comments. Save that for your second comment.

This first comment is due by Tuesday a.m.

For your second comment, you must respond, in writing, to one of your classmate’s initial comments. Ideally you will be responding to someone who has analyzed or interpreted the poem differently than you did. Tell them what you think about their analysis, including both what you think works well and what you think doesn’t work so well. Be specific in your response by including references to both the poem and 1984. In addition, you are expected be thoughtful, respectful, and constructive. For this response, you may critique someone in your class or someone in Period C.

This second comment is due by Wednesday a.m.

Ethics

by Linda Pastan

In ethics class so many years ago
our teacher asked this question every fall:
if there were a fire in a museum
which would you save, a Rembrandt painting
or an old woman who hadn’t had many
years left anyhow? Restless on hard chairs
caring little for pictures or old age
we’d opt one year for life, the next for art
and always half-heartedly. Sometimes
the woman borrowed my grandmother’s face
leaving her usual kitchen to wander
some drafty, half-imagined museum.
One year, feeling clever, I replied
why not let the woman decide herself?
“Linda,” the teacher would report, “eschews
the burdens of responsibility.”
This fall in a real museum I stand
before a real Rembrandt, old woman,
or nearly so, myself.  The colors
within this frame are darker than autumn,
darker even than winter—the browns of earth,
though earth’s most radiant elements burn
through the canvas. I know now that woman
and painting and season are almost one
and all beyond saving by children.

– Linda Pastan (b. 1932)

===============

You are required to comment on this post twice.

For your first comment, consider the following questions: What is Pastan attempting to express? How does “Ethics” connect to  1984 and all that we’ve been discussing? In your response, be sure to cite specific phrases from the poem. Dig into this poem, and s t r e t c h your brain as you respond. For the poetryphobic among you, this poem can be interpreted many different ways, so there is no one “right” answer. In addition, I want you to trust your own analysis skills. Resist the urge to rely on other people to tell you what this poem is about. Write what you think it’s about and how you think it relates. Also, please do NOT reference or respond to other people’s comments. Save that for your second comment.

This first comment is due by Tuesday a.m.

For your second comment, you must respond, in writing, to one of your classmate’s initial comments. Ideally you will be responding to someone who has analyzed or interpreted the poem differently than you did. Tell them what you think about their analysis, including both what you think works well and what you think doesn’t work so well. Be specific in your response by including references to both the poem and 1984. In addition, you are expected be thoughtful, respectful, and constructive. For this response, you may critique someone in your class or someone in Period F.

This second comment is due by Wednesday a.m.

This blog is a place for us to engage in various discussions of literature: our thoughts, our reactions and ideas, our struggles, and our questions. It’s also a place for us to ponder and respond to each other. Here there’s no real “rubric,” and responses may wander off on a tangent from time to time. In other words, we are a community of thinkers engaging in dynamic discussion. You are free to comment more than once and to bring up questions that may seem only parenthetically related to the topic.

In order to receive credit, the only “rules” to follow are that you respond thoughtfully and eloquently to all the questions posed, and that you read all of your classmates’ posts and respond to at least one of them.

For this first post, we’re going to dive right into 1984 and some weighty questions related to Orwell’s classic text. Our fair protagonist, Winston, is expected to unquestioningly follow the rules and norms of his society. Indeed, nearly all of his peers seem to mindlessly march to the beat of Big Brother, since the government in Oceania discourages any sort of behavior that would cause a person to be distinguished from his/her peers. The idea of an individual being recognized for anything other than traitorous acts is basically nonexistent.

This topic of the individual’s role in his society is relevant not only to 1984 but also to our modern world, and it connects directly to many of the issues currently being debated in the media.

And so this leads us to our big questions: What are the real-life consequences of putting the individual before the community or vice versa? Is the role of a human being to become one with his society and to sacrifice individual needs for the greater good? Or should we as a society be more concerned with the individual’s rights and privileges? Is there a middle ground? Should there be a middle ground? Please be sure to refer to 1984 in some way in your response.

Responses are due by beginning of class Thursday 9/3

This blog is a place for us to engage in various discussions of literature: our thoughts, our reactions and ideas, our struggles, and our questions. It’s also a place for us to ponder and respond to each other. Here there’s no real “rubric,” and responses may wander off on a tangent from time to time. In other words, we are a community of thinkers engaging in dynamic discussion. You are free to comment more than once and to bring up questions that may seem only parenthetically related to the topic.

In order to receive credit, the only “rules” to follow are that you respond thoughtfully and eloquently to all the questions posed, and that you read all of your classmates’ posts and respond to at least one of them.

For this first post, we’re going to dive right into 1984 and some weighty questions related to Orwell’s classic text. Our fair protagonist, Winston, is expected to unquestioningly follow the rules and norms of his society. Indeed, nearly all of his peers seem to mindlessly march to the beat of Big Brother, since the government in Oceania discourages any sort of behavior that would cause a person to be distinguished from his/her peers. The idea of an individual being recognized for anything other than traitorous acts is basically nonexistent.

This topic of the individual’s role in his society is relevant not only to 1984 but also to our modern world, and it connects directly to many of the issues currently being debated in the meda.

And so this leads us to our big questions: What are the real-life consequences of putting the individual before the community or vice versa? Is the role of a human being to become one with his society and to sacrifice individual needs for the greater good? Or should we as a society be more concerned with the individual’s rights and privileges? Is there a middle ground? Should there be a middle ground? Please be sure to refer to 1984 in some way in your response.

Responses are due by beginning of class Thursday 9/3

Read 1984 by George Orwell.

Lost your book? Then head to the local library or book store and get yourself one. You could even peruse an etext here, though you are expected to arrive in class with a paper copy of the text.

This is where, theoretically, I could insert a bunch of teacher-type stuff about the merits of this text or what you should be looking for while you read — or even what you should think about the book. But I won’t, because that’s not what senior English is about.