While watching the film Once in class, we discussed much about the selflessness and caring that the guy had for the girl. So much so that he took it beyond your typical love story: he let her go. Some people may think that to love someone you must always be attached to them, etc, etc. But one thing we focused a lot on was loving someone was doing the best for their needs. It's realizing that it's not just about you; it's what's best for the other person too. We talked a lot about this while discussing what the film taught us about love. The girl put her family first and did what was best for her daughter, not for her. In turn, the guy did this for the girl by letting her go and do what was right for her. Also, he did so especially through the piano. He met her needs and gave her a piece of him and their memories.
So, while we may watch many sappy love movies where everyone must pursue every means possible to be together in the end and whatnot, those don't get at the other side of love, selflessness. By doing what's best for someone else, you are showing that you understand them and care for their happiness more. And as people realize this, this idea can be reciprocated. So, perhaps if you do something better for someone, another person may come along and do something for you. In the girl's case, because she gave up her wantings for her daughter, the guy, who realized this aspect, had done something for her too, because he loved her. It's important to see the dialectic between love and selflessness so that every relationship isn't forced with someone pushing their way through to get what they want, but to compromise and want to see the other happy.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Blogging Around: Mary and Darrell
Mary's Best of Week: Side Conversations
Mary's post was about listening to side conversations around her and realizing that many of them aren't just about clothes, TV shows, or other classes, but many were deep, insightful, and relevant to the class discussion.
Mary, this is a well written post, and you made many good insights. I for one, talk so much, even though it's not always intentional, and completely agree that it's easier to listen when I'm not talking. But in a classroom full of 28 genius children, it's hard to always get to say what you want, because even when you think of something great, there are so many others who are the same. So, what do I do? Turn to someone next to me and tell them or just save it for break. Sure, my side conversations aren't always about a book we are reading, but when they are, I think it's quite acceptable to be having them.
Another aspect of your post that I really enjoyed is the hope that other people can do the same. I know I've done a post and even seen a few saying, 'What will come of our society?' but I like the optimism that comes out of your post because there are people who think out there.
Darrell's Captured Thought: A Life Without Opposites
This post was about the importance of opposites and how cannot fully experience things or understand them without hearing out both sides.
Darrell, this is such a cool insight! And I completely agree with it, because I've seen resonating instances too. How do we realize what success is without failure? How can we appreciate joy without having felt sadness? We can't fully experience things we take for granted all the time without understanding the opposite side. It's like an argument too: you shouldn't shut down the other side without hearing them out at least and then making a decision. We'd be ignorant without opposites, which is a great point you bring up. Nothing would be worth enjoying without seeing what else is out there. We'd be missing so much without opposites and you made a deep connection with this. And don't apologize for thinking of something that's so interesting!
Mary's post was about listening to side conversations around her and realizing that many of them aren't just about clothes, TV shows, or other classes, but many were deep, insightful, and relevant to the class discussion.
Mary, this is a well written post, and you made many good insights. I for one, talk so much, even though it's not always intentional, and completely agree that it's easier to listen when I'm not talking. But in a classroom full of 28 genius children, it's hard to always get to say what you want, because even when you think of something great, there are so many others who are the same. So, what do I do? Turn to someone next to me and tell them or just save it for break. Sure, my side conversations aren't always about a book we are reading, but when they are, I think it's quite acceptable to be having them.
Another aspect of your post that I really enjoyed is the hope that other people can do the same. I know I've done a post and even seen a few saying, 'What will come of our society?' but I like the optimism that comes out of your post because there are people who think out there.
Darrell's Captured Thought: A Life Without Opposites
This post was about the importance of opposites and how cannot fully experience things or understand them without hearing out both sides.
Darrell, this is such a cool insight! And I completely agree with it, because I've seen resonating instances too. How do we realize what success is without failure? How can we appreciate joy without having felt sadness? We can't fully experience things we take for granted all the time without understanding the opposite side. It's like an argument too: you shouldn't shut down the other side without hearing them out at least and then making a decision. We'd be ignorant without opposites, which is a great point you bring up. Nothing would be worth enjoying without seeing what else is out there. We'd be missing so much without opposites and you made a deep connection with this. And don't apologize for thinking of something that's so interesting!
Monday, March 1, 2010
Best of Week: Views in Heart of Darkness
One of the best discussions we had this week occurred after we listened to Achebe's opinions and began talking about an African's point of view in Heart of Darkness. We noticed how it isn't brought up, because in 1899, this wouldn't have been 'acceptable,' or rather, it would've been perceived as revolutionary and a huge shift. All because of the portrayal of Africans during this time period. Would we even be studying this book had it an African's view? Like Vicki had mentioned, the entire essence of the book would be changed because it wouldn't have the harsh reality and treatment illustrated in such manners. I completely agree that the entire novel would be different. However, would it be for the worst? Perhaps, but this thought sparked my mind into thinking what effects having an African's view would have on the novel.
After brainstorming possibilities-introduce a close slave, make the narrator black, make the harlequin black- it seemed that the most feasible was to make the narrator black. But wouldn't this change how we as readers perceive Marlow? We'd see him as immoral and cruel, while really, he's the character struggling to find the balance of morality in a world of immorality, whether he succeeds or not. This would change the entire meaning behind the novel in terms of this major theme. I believe that this wouldn't get across the reality from the time period. When we brought up how South African students would feel reading this book now compared to us, this would be flipped 180 degrees had the narrator been black. It would make us hate everything about Marlow while he is just on a journey trying to find his way. So did Conrad make the right decision? I would say yes, because that's what makes me feel these strong emotions while reading Heart of Darkness. It allows readers to envision the horror more so by seeing how the Africans' voices were unimportant at the time; how they were treated in terrible, terrible ways.
This discussion made me realize that there can be two rights. Yes, the essence of the novel would change, but there are possibilities to introduce an African's POV whether it be for better or worse. It made me see how multiple sides played out and in the end how my judgment ruled based on the ideas of both sides.
After brainstorming possibilities-introduce a close slave, make the narrator black, make the harlequin black- it seemed that the most feasible was to make the narrator black. But wouldn't this change how we as readers perceive Marlow? We'd see him as immoral and cruel, while really, he's the character struggling to find the balance of morality in a world of immorality, whether he succeeds or not. This would change the entire meaning behind the novel in terms of this major theme. I believe that this wouldn't get across the reality from the time period. When we brought up how South African students would feel reading this book now compared to us, this would be flipped 180 degrees had the narrator been black. It would make us hate everything about Marlow while he is just on a journey trying to find his way. So did Conrad make the right decision? I would say yes, because that's what makes me feel these strong emotions while reading Heart of Darkness. It allows readers to envision the horror more so by seeing how the Africans' voices were unimportant at the time; how they were treated in terrible, terrible ways.
This discussion made me realize that there can be two rights. Yes, the essence of the novel would change, but there are possibilities to introduce an African's POV whether it be for better or worse. It made me see how multiple sides played out and in the end how my judgment ruled based on the ideas of both sides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
