Mr_Shank

The first quote I chose was from Act 1 Scene 1:

“My good Lysander!
I swear to thee, by Cupid’s strongest bow,
By his best arrow with the golden head,
By the simplicity of Venus’ doves,
By that which knitteth souls and prospers loves,
And by that fire which burn’d the Carthage queen,
When the false Troyan under sail was seen,
By all the vows that ever men have broke,
In number more than ever women spoke,
In that same place thou hast appointed me,
To-morrow truly will I meet with thee.”

I chose this quote because it is when Hermia and Lysander plan to run away to get married and will meet in the forest. Since this is a writing of Shakespeare’s, how is this play similar to the play we all read, Romeo and Juliet?

The second quote I chose is from Act 2 Scene 2:

“Through the forest have I gone.
But Athenian found I none,
On whose eyes I might approve
This flower’s force in stirring love.
Night and silence.–Who is here?
Weeds of Athens he doth wear:
This is he, my master said,
Despised the Athenian maid;
And here the maiden, sleeping sound,
On the dank and dirty ground.
Pretty soul! she durst not lie
Near this lack-love, this kill-courtesy.
Churl, upon thy eyes I throw
All the power this charm doth owe.
When thou wakest, let love forbid
Sleep his seat on thy eyelid:
So awake when I am gone;
For I must now to Oberon.”

I chose this quote because this is when Puck throws the magic herbs onto Hermia and Lysander’s eyes so that they will fall in love with whoever the see first when they wake up. This is the start of all the trouble between Hermia, Lysander, Helena, and Demetrius. Of what we’ve seen of Puck, do you think that he is all to blame for what he does? Or is it someone else? Why?

~Sarah L.

Colin Easter

H.G. Wells leaves off the story of the Morlocks as soon as the Time Traveller gets his Time Machine back.  ”But at last the lever was fitted and pulled over.  The clinging hands slipped from me.  The darkness presently fell from my eyes.  I found myself in the same grey light and tumult I have already described.”  From here, the Time Traveller discusses the twilight world of the future.  The only time the world of the Morlocks and Eloi is mentioned afterword is about the flower in the Time Traveller pocket (offering proof of his travel).  The story of that world is abruptly stopped and no more commentary is provided about it.  This is interesting because the author spent a lot of time establishing the subplot, setting, commentary, and details about that world.  However, by leaving the story off like that the author allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.  It also allows the author to not have to write a conclusion or disappoint readers. The escape itself was not exciting.  This makes me think that it is a combination of the two reasons.  The author also uses this same tactic at the end of the story.  The Time Traveller says that he’ll be back in half an hour, but he still hasn’t returned three years later.  All we know is that he went somewhere with the Time Machine and a camera.  Do you think that the author does this to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions so they that are not disappointed?  Is he just lazy or uncreative enough to write his own endings?  Does it fit with a science fiction theme to have a clear cut ending?  Finally, do you prefer conclusions that are clear cut or ones that allow you to draw your own conclusions?

   This is said by Caroline to Al when talking about the deed that Doro gave to Caroline. pg 228 “I’m happy right where i am. You’ll get bored with me.” “naw. That just makes us compatible honey,”             

   I agree with Caroline is right. That Al will get bored with her. He is used to moving around and not being tied down at all. This deed is making a commitment and will more likey bore him. Also, Phoebe having a disorder will not be able to move like Al wants.

  What do you guys think that Al will do about this? Will he stay and be a father to Phoebe? or will he cut his ties and live free?

What do you think of Pauls actions?? Of him doing pot and destroying the dark room. Do you think that he will throw his life away? Do you think of David handled that was responsible??

This had to be one of the best books I have ever read.  I was a little disappointed with the ending.  I wish we learned what happened to Denn.  Did he beat Artie, or did he lose?  What do you guys think of this book and its ending?

“I got some advice for you, sweetie.  Take that ten grand I gave you and use it to buy yourself a ticket to Alaska.” (Pg.158)  This is said by Morty to Cattie.  Morty says this because Cattie gives Artie bad cards.  This shows how powerful Artie is.  You guys know that he does anything to get people back.  He took all of Denn’s money because Denn beat him in poker.  Who goes that far to get someone back?  This takes me to why Cattie did this.  Cattie did not give Artie the cards.  This either means she hates Artie or likes Denn.  What do you guys think about this?  I believe that this is her love for Denn.  First she gives him 10 G’s to get into the “Big Deal”, and now she stops helping Artie from winning.  She even gives Denn a couple cards while she was dealing at his table.  Next I would like to talk about Artie’s poker skills.  They must not be to good if he always is cheating.  This makes me very mad.  He barley has any poker skills, but he still wins because he knows people.  I wounder if Vegas is actually like this.  Can people win because of there money?  In this story this was very true.

“All-In” (Pg. 174).  These were the last words said by Denn in this novel.  These are the words that left us thinking “did Denn win?”  He was in the final of the big deal.  Denn only had a thousand chips left.  He called Artie, who had 999,000 chips.  Even if Denn would have won he wouldn’t have enough chips to cover the blind.  This was a great way for the author to keep the reader thinking.  This whole story has built up to this moment.  And now we learn that it is up to us, the reader to decide.  Did you guys like this cliffhanging ending?  Why or why not?  Also, in your mind did Denn win or lose?

-Julian Garcia

Colin Easter

The beginning of this week’s reading provided an interesting possibility as to the location of the future events and how they came to be.  On page 52, the time traveller says, “All the old constellations had gone from the sky, however: that slow movement which is imperceptible in a hundred human lifetimes, had long since rearranged them in unfamiliar groupings.”  Since all of these stars have moved far away, the earth must have moved also.  The time traveller also says, “And amid all these scintillating points of light one bright planet shone kindly and steadily like the face of an old friend.”  The time traveller doesn’t say anything more about this planet.  However, I think that it is earth.  The time machine stops in the location that it starts.  The time traveller made this clear by telling us how he worried about stopping inside a solid object.  If the location stays the same and the earth moves around the sun, the time machine probably wouldn’t land on earth.  The time traveller landed on a different planet in the future.  This society could have been formed as a space colony.  This would explain the underground ventilation system.  It could also explain the war between the Eloi and the Morlocks.  If they lost communication with earth, they could have fought against each other if they were from different countries.  The similar locations of the rivers that the time traveller mentions would be a coincidence.  The same rivers wouldn’t be there after around 800,000 years, would they?  The museum could be a collection of fossils that they brought from earth, showing how the colony could preserve things (the fossils would have to be extremely old by then).   What do you think of this possibility that they are on a different planet than earth?  Is there any more evidence supporting it?  Is there any evidence against it?

Hey guys, I really do not know if we need to blog, but whatever.

    I think Norah is becoming very jealous of her sister, Bree, and is becoming extremely bored with her marriage. This quote supports my theory. Its not really a quote per say. Its extremely short. After that wierd guy appears at the beach David says quote ” I like that guy” after some stuff Norah says “So do I”. This may not seem interesting at all to you BUT I think that when she said “So do I” I think there was a under message. I think that Norah actually “like likes ” this guy. I think Norah is soo bored she might go as far as to enter an affiar. This would further seperate the marriage which would make sense becuase that is all this book is about. Do you think that Norah could stoop so low to do this? What do you think she meant by this??? Please actully read some of this so you know what your talking about! Thanks

Thats means you Derrick. I dont think Heather will blog!! bummer

The third chapter of this book is a very gloomy one and a bad time for John Grady and Rawlins.  They are thrown into jail and undergo many hardships while imprisoned there, and when they are freed Rawlins decides to leave Grady and go back home.  But despite all the troubles these two went through in this section,  i would like to focus on the one who did not make it: Jimmy Blevins.  Blevins was captured earlier in the book while attempting to steal back his pistol.  The three met up again when they were being taken to jail.  Unfortunately, Blevins was executed along the way.

“John Grady watched the small ragged figure vanish limping among the trees with his keepers.  There seemed insufficient substance to him for him to be the object of men’s wrath.  There seemed nothing about him sufficient to fuel any enterprise at all.”

These are John Grady’s thoughts as his friend Blevins is being taken into the woods to be killed.  I chose this section because it shows that Grady is not feeling remorse or sadness or even any guilt at Blevins death, just amazement in the cruelty of other men.  I am not saying that he is a bad person for this; in fact, John Grady is a very righteous person at heart.  Why do you think that Grady is not feeling any sympathy towards Blevins after his adventures with him?

“They caint just walk him out there and shoot him, he [Rawlins] said.  Hell fire.  Just walk him out there and shoot him.

John Grady looked at him. As he did so the pistol shot come from beyond the ebony trees.  Not loud. Just a flat sort of pop.  Then another.”

This is the description of Blevins death.  There is very little suspense leading up to it, and his execution is extremely anticlimactic.  Why do you think McCarthy doesn’t add a little excitement to this scene?  Is Blevins life not important to the story?  I believe that the death of this boy shows how fragile and meaningless lives can be.  The only friend that Grady and Rawlins had was just executed, and they, mostly Rawlins, are only concerned about getting on their way.  The lack of build up and suspense in this part just shows me that the author is intending to show how meaningless and short life can be for people like John Grady and Lacey Rawlins.  What would have done if you were forced to sit idly by as your friend was killed?  Would you try to be a hero and save him, even if the odds were not in your favor?  Or would you be more concerned about keeping yourself alive?  Be honest.

-Ditz

A lot has happened in this part of the book, but i would like to focus in on one small part of it; Alejandra.  The writing style that McCarthy uses throughout the novel is very short and to the point.  The dialogue between characters is often very short and choppy and sometimes scenes seem a little nondescript.  When Alejandra is being described however, this changes.  She is described in eloquent and romantic ways compared to the language used in the rest of the book.  John Grady also acts out of character around her.  He is normally quiet and shows no emotion whatsoever, but he seems to fall in love with Alejandra at first sight… “Her eyes had altered the world forever in the space of a heartbeat.”

Why do you think that McCarthy changes the way she writes and how John Grady acts in this part of the book?  What is the importance behind this?  And do you think that the affair between him and Alejandra will end happily, or will it end sadly for both of them?

-Ditz

Colin Easter

Communism is being presented as one of the theories of how this future society came to be.  It also seems very likely.  On the bottom of page 25, the narrator has a thought that the situation in the future was brought about by communism.  He goes on to describe how the people looked almost exactly the same.  The other deficiencies that the little people have can also be brought about by communism.  The houses that they have, while ornate, are falling into ruin.  Communism always results in a lower quality of life, which could explain the crumbling buildings.  The little people don’t work and are weak.  In a communist society, business weakens and collapses.  Could this be the reason why the little people just sit around, eat, and play?  The narrator comments on how the people don’t make their own clothes and how he doesn’t see any way to manufacture them.  They are being given clothes by someone, who seem to be the underground people.  This is much like the government giving people everything in a communist society.  It also references the decline of art in a society like this, since the people don’t make it themselves.  The decline of the society, the collapsing buildings, the lack of activity of the people, and other reasons point to communism as the source of this society’s downfall.  Do you think that communism caused this downfall?  If so, are there any other facets of the society that point to this?  If not, what do you think caused them to have this kind of society?

I found this quote when Paul at the age of six broke his arm at the party.

      “You siad nothing would happen, ” Norah said, ” and now he has a broken arm. Just like that. It could have been his neck. His back.”  Pg, 154

  This raised questions for me about Norah. Since Norah’s daughter “died’ it seems that she is overly reactive and overly protective about her son Paul. Also the seperation between David and Norah has grown greatly. David now resorts to photography has his love.

   Who’s fault do you think Norah’s and David’s seperation falls upon. David? For making the decision to “kill” the baby six years ago. Or. Norah? She seems to be holding on to this loss too much.

   Why do you think that Norah is so overly protective about Paul? She makes him take off a necklece (how do you spell that) because she think he could trip and hurt himself with the necklece (?) on! Talk about crazy.