Yesterday, we viewed House in class. Now, it is your turn to respond to the episode through the Moral/Philosophical Lens. Consider our discussion on Tuesday about positive and negative role models on television. Respond to the following in about 3 solid paragraphs.
Respond to one or more of the following questions:
Which character do you sympathize with the most based on values/morals/beliefs, and which character do you sympathize with the least based on values/morals/beliefs?
How do the characters act, and what sort of model do they provide to a reader? (positive or negative)
How do the morals of the story differ from your own morals?
What is the lesson being taught in the episode/series? Do you agree or disagree with this message?
You might also consider the following in your response:
To what extent does a work mirror the morals and values of a culture (or society at large)?
What consequences do characters face for right or wrong choices?
How do the morals of the story differ from yours?
Friday, December 14, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Blog #5: The Lottery
When Shirley Jackson first published “The Lottery”, she was
bombarded with bad reviews and angry letters and phone calls. However, Jackson
maintained that her story was relevant to society, its morals and its values.
From a moral and philosophical standpoint, why do you believe Jackson wrote
this story? What lessons was she trying to teach? Also, how do the characters
of Tessie Hutchinson, Old Man Warner and the townspeople reflect the members or
groups of our society? (Keep in mind that one character in the story may reflect
an entire group of society). (Blog post by Mr. Nebel)
Friday, December 7, 2012
Blog Post #4 Example Response
Deep-rooted family conflict drives characters' adventurous motives in both the novel Into the Wild and the film Fantastic Mr. Fox. Both texts have characters that are motivated to act the way they do by their fathers’ behaviors. In Fantastic Mr. Fox, Ash is constantly seeking the approval of his father. This affects his overall disposition towards life, as shown in the scene when Kristofferson arrives and both younger foxes dive into the pool from the tree branch. When Kristofferson is praised for his perfect dive by Mr. Fox, Ash responds by asking his father for equal praise in his own athletic ability. When Ash doesn’t get the affirmation he is looking for, he gets angry. This tension builds throughout the movie, also creating a projected tension between Ash and Kristofferson.
Kristofferson is only a likeable character: he is friendly, balanced, and has many talents. This can be backed up by the fact that most other characters in the film like Kristofferson. Ash only dislikes Kristofferson because he seems superior to Ash in everything he does, and it highlights Ash’s perception of himself that he is somehow inferior to others. This motivates him to “prove” himself to others, his father most importantly, and coerces him to take unnecessary risks, such as going after his father’s tail in Boggis’s kitchen, in order to gain his father’s approval. This mentality is so prevalent in Ash’s mindset, he even goes as far as trying to impress other father-like figures, such as the whack-bat coach, who only reinforces Ash’s sense of inferiority when he indirectly tells Ash he’s still living in his father’s shadow.
Contrastingly, Chris McCandless was motivated to avoid any connection (or approval) from his family, especially his father. His disapproval of his father’s past was one stepping stone in Chris’s increased motivation for avoiding people entirely. “Chris would fixate on his father’s own less than sterling behavior many years earlier and silently denounce him as a sanctimonious hypocrite” (122). His “self-righteous indignation that was impossible to keep bottled up” may have extended to others in the form of a defense mechanism: his ability to distance himself from others emotionally (122).
This mentality, once again, is extended to other father figures in Chris’s life. Chris uses adventure as a means to avoid his relationship with Wayne Westerburg, as described in his last written correspondence to Westerburg: “This is the last you shall hear from me, Wayne … If this adventure proves fatal and you don’t ever hear from me again, I want you to know you’re a great man” (69). The way Chris writes, whether he died or not, he had easily set the groundwork for avoiding Westerburg once again. His finality in the first statement shows he may not have returned to Carthage. This same situation also occurs with Ron Franz and Jan Burres.
In many ways, the avoidance of making strong personal connections seems to be one of the main driving forces for Chris’s nomadic ways and adventurous spirit. By avoiding a traditional lifestyle, he is also able to avoid any ties to others, thus avoiding responsibility all together. In Ash’s case, his strong need for approval drives his passion for adventure. In both of these characters, their motivations for seeking adventure stem from family issues that have, over time, become ingrained into their perceptions of and attitudes towards life.
Kristofferson is only a likeable character: he is friendly, balanced, and has many talents. This can be backed up by the fact that most other characters in the film like Kristofferson. Ash only dislikes Kristofferson because he seems superior to Ash in everything he does, and it highlights Ash’s perception of himself that he is somehow inferior to others. This motivates him to “prove” himself to others, his father most importantly, and coerces him to take unnecessary risks, such as going after his father’s tail in Boggis’s kitchen, in order to gain his father’s approval. This mentality is so prevalent in Ash’s mindset, he even goes as far as trying to impress other father-like figures, such as the whack-bat coach, who only reinforces Ash’s sense of inferiority when he indirectly tells Ash he’s still living in his father’s shadow.
Contrastingly, Chris McCandless was motivated to avoid any connection (or approval) from his family, especially his father. His disapproval of his father’s past was one stepping stone in Chris’s increased motivation for avoiding people entirely. “Chris would fixate on his father’s own less than sterling behavior many years earlier and silently denounce him as a sanctimonious hypocrite” (122). His “self-righteous indignation that was impossible to keep bottled up” may have extended to others in the form of a defense mechanism: his ability to distance himself from others emotionally (122).
This mentality, once again, is extended to other father figures in Chris’s life. Chris uses adventure as a means to avoid his relationship with Wayne Westerburg, as described in his last written correspondence to Westerburg: “This is the last you shall hear from me, Wayne … If this adventure proves fatal and you don’t ever hear from me again, I want you to know you’re a great man” (69). The way Chris writes, whether he died or not, he had easily set the groundwork for avoiding Westerburg once again. His finality in the first statement shows he may not have returned to Carthage. This same situation also occurs with Ron Franz and Jan Burres.
In many ways, the avoidance of making strong personal connections seems to be one of the main driving forces for Chris’s nomadic ways and adventurous spirit. By avoiding a traditional lifestyle, he is also able to avoid any ties to others, thus avoiding responsibility all together. In Ash’s case, his strong need for approval drives his passion for adventure. In both of these characters, their motivations for seeking adventure stem from family issues that have, over time, become ingrained into their perceptions of and attitudes towards life.
Blog Post #4: Into the Wild, Fantastic Mr. Fox, and the Psychological Approach
Over the past two weeks, we've read and viewed both Into the Wild and
"Fantastic Mr. Fox." We've also been studying critical approaches and looking at
these texts through the psychological approach lens. Now, it's your turn to put
it all together.
For your first blog post, you will need to make a psychological statement about both Into the Wild and "Fantastic Mr. Fox." It is possible to write just one statement about both, or you might choose to write multiple statements and respond to each text individually. You must, however address both texts in this post. Maybe you will address the adventurer's spirit or look at a specific relationship between characters. It is up to you to determine the direction of your approach.
After you come up with a pyschological statement, use this as a topic sentence for your response. Include your own ideas/interpretations along with examples/support from both texts. Be as specific as possible. This means citing page numbers with examples from Into the Wild. For "Fantastic Mr. Fox," use specific scenes and characters in your response.
Remember, the more support, the stronger your case. Your response should be at least 3 paragraphs.
For your first blog post, you will need to make a psychological statement about both Into the Wild and "Fantastic Mr. Fox." It is possible to write just one statement about both, or you might choose to write multiple statements and respond to each text individually. You must, however address both texts in this post. Maybe you will address the adventurer's spirit or look at a specific relationship between characters. It is up to you to determine the direction of your approach.
After you come up with a pyschological statement, use this as a topic sentence for your response. Include your own ideas/interpretations along with examples/support from both texts. Be as specific as possible. This means citing page numbers with examples from Into the Wild. For "Fantastic Mr. Fox," use specific scenes and characters in your response.
Remember, the more support, the stronger your case. Your response should be at least 3 paragraphs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)