Comments for Multiethnic Literatures in the U.S. http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org Course Blog of ENGL 113--University of Illinois at Chicago Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:07:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 Comment on Aloft by kristinpoleski http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/03/14/aloft-2/#comment-41 kristinpoleski Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:51:18 +0000 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/03/14/aloft-2/#comment-41 i think jerry using the plane as a tool to "get away" from reality is a good thing. everybody needs to escape every now and then just because life can become so overwhelming. we see this when people use drugs and drink heavily. these things alter their moods so they can deal with their problems easier. instead of jerry using something that can possibly make him violent and angry, he found a peaceful release for himself- the sky. eventually, everybody has to deal with thier problems and i know there's that saying "don't put off till tomorrow what you can get done today," (something like that) but sometimes you need to put things off till tomorrow. people need time to think and evaluate life. that's how they make the best decisions they possibly can. i think jerry using the plane as a tool to “get away” from reality is a good thing. everybody needs to escape every now and then just because life can become so overwhelming. we see this when people use drugs and drink heavily. these things alter their moods so they can deal with their problems easier. instead of jerry using something that can possibly make him violent and angry, he found a peaceful release for himself- the sky. eventually, everybody has to deal with thier problems and i know there’s that saying “don’t put off till tomorrow what you can get done today,” (something like that) but sometimes you need to put things off till tomorrow. people need time to think and evaluate life. that’s how they make the best decisions they possibly can.

]]> Comment on in the heart of the valley of love by dimah http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/29/in-the-heart-of-the-valley-of-love-2/#comment-39 dimah Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:30:24 +0000 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/29/in-the-heart-of-the-valley-of-love-2/#comment-39 You're right. Throughout the novel Francie is always making references about her friends and families about the past, but i think thats what Kadohata intended for Francie character to do a lot. You have a nine-teen year old girl living in the chaotic future and is always looking at the past to make her feel better. Rather than changing the future you have someone who doesn't let go of the past. I think thats what the author is maybe saying about our youth today. We are so concerned with things that dont really matter while so much is happening infront of us. You’re right. Throughout the novel Francie is always making references about her friends and families about the past, but i think thats what Kadohata intended for Francie character to do a lot. You have a nine-teen year old girl living in the chaotic future and is always looking at the past to make her feel better. Rather than changing the future you have someone who doesn’t let go of the past. I think thats what the author is maybe saying about our youth today. We are so concerned with things that dont really matter while so much is happening infront of us.

]]> Comment on In the Heart of the Valley of Love by kristinpoleski http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/03/02/in-the-heart-of-the-valley-of-love-3/#comment-38 kristinpoleski Mon, 03 Mar 2008 04:12:13 +0000 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/03/02/in-the-heart-of-the-valley-of-love-3/#comment-38 people destroy and ruin things for the most part when they are angry and sometimes when they need their voice to be heard. the government is regulating the wrong part of people's lives. they ration gas and water, but don't prevent crime. it is the rationing that causes people to destroy things. they need to survive and to do that, they need necessities that fall short with each ration they are given. since crime goes unnoticied almost, people can riot and tear places down and ransack every place they can get into to obtain more of the necessities they need. the goverment only wants to help themselves and it's causing the people to destroy one another. in this book, people are angry and they steal from their fellows to get what they need. it's the only way they think they'll be able to make it through rough times. they need thier voice to be heard. this is the voice that comes in barely a whisper above the anger causing riots saying "help us government, we need you." people destroy and ruin things for the most part when they are angry and sometimes when they need their voice to be heard. the government is regulating the wrong part of people’s lives. they ration gas and water, but don’t prevent crime. it is the rationing that causes people to destroy things. they need to survive and to do that, they need necessities that fall short with each ration they are given. since crime goes unnoticied almost, people can riot and tear places down and ransack every place they can get into to obtain more of the necessities they need. the goverment only wants to help themselves and it’s causing the people to destroy one another. in this book, people are angry and they steal from their fellows to get what they need. it’s the only way they think they’ll be able to make it through rough times. they need thier voice to be heard. this is the voice that comes in barely a whisper above the anger causing riots saying “help us government, we need you.”

]]> Comment on In the Heart of the Valley of Love by Dave Mc http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/03/02/in-the-heart-of-the-valley-of-love-3/#comment-37 Dave Mc Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:39:08 +0000 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/03/02/in-the-heart-of-the-valley-of-love-3/#comment-37 Why would the rioters want to destroy instead of making a point to the government? The rioters are destroying things to make a point. They are pointing out that they are fed up with everything the government does. Sometimes you just have to destroy shit to make a point. Its harsh but someone has to do it. Why would the rioters want to destroy instead of making a point to the government?

The rioters are destroying things to make a point. They are pointing out that they are fed up with everything the government does. Sometimes you just have to destroy shit to make a point. Its harsh but someone has to do it.

]]> Comment on IN THE HEART OF THE VALLEY OF LOVE by malber3 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/25/in-the-heart-of-the-valley-of-love/#comment-36 malber3 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 03:44:52 +0000 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/25/in-the-heart-of-the-valley-of-love/#comment-36 Interesting comment that her plants represent Auntie Annie. I hadn't picked up on that, but going back and looking at those passages, that makes perfect sense. Interesting comment that her plants represent Auntie Annie. I hadn’t picked up on that, but going back and looking at those passages, that makes perfect sense.

]]> Comment on Religion: A Distraction or Necessity? by Dave M. http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/20/religion-a-distraction-or-necessity/#comment-35 Dave M. Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:57:36 +0000 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/20/religion-a-distraction-or-necessity/#comment-35 I agree that religion is somewhat a lot of BS. It also screws with most people that believe in a certain religion too much. I have seen people so far into a certain religion that you cant even have a civilized conversation with that person. We actually have probably seen it first hand. I dont even know if I would consider myself a religious person, but I can care less. Good write up by the way Jason I agree that religion is somewhat a lot of BS. It also screws with most people that believe in a certain religion too much.

I have seen people so far into a certain religion that you cant even have a civilized conversation with that person. We actually have probably seen it first hand. I dont even know if I would consider myself a religious person, but I can care less.

Good write up by the way Jason

]]> Comment on Parable of the Talents by kristinpoleski http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/18/parable-of-the-talents-2/#comment-33 kristinpoleski Thu, 21 Feb 2008 04:42:41 +0000 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/18/parable-of-the-talents-2/#comment-33 if we question the traditional definitions of mothering and fathering, there is a possibility that the reading of the book would change. But how would we define these roles? Typically in society today, we see the mother as the nurturer and giver of life, the baby does grow inside of her. Fathers are seen as providers. Bad fathers are seen as sperm donors. So we can flip the script on Bankole and Lauren... to change the meaning. In this case, the mother, Lauren, would be the provider, the sperm donor(for lack of better term). Bankole on the other hand would be the kind, nurturing one. Now, we have a new perspective. Bankole wanted to leave Acorn for the safety of his child, so she could grow up in semi-safety, in a more secure place than Acorn in the wilderness. He was willing to leave his land for her, a sacrifice Lauren just couldn't make. Lauren on the other hand had provided a place for Larkin to grow for 9 months, but just like a sperm donor, she didn't feel it necessary to look out for the best interests of her daughter. She stuck to her guns and saw Lauren as an addition to what she was already doing, not a lifestyle change. Bankole was ready for the lifestyle change. For the most part, we see mothers who change their lifestyles when they have a child, but fathers who continue on the same path with this little person in tow. Lauren now had a little person in tow... possibly a successor to lead the people of Earthseed.... just like how a king passes on the crown to his oldest son perhaps?? So, if we consider Bankole as the "mother" and Lauren as the "father," than what we read is what we might expect from those traditional roles. if we question the traditional definitions of mothering and fathering, there is a possibility that the reading of the book would change. But how would we define these roles? Typically in society today, we see the mother as the nurturer and giver of life, the baby does grow inside of her. Fathers are seen as providers. Bad fathers are seen as sperm donors. So we can flip the script on Bankole and Lauren… to change the meaning. In this case, the mother, Lauren, would be the provider, the sperm donor(for lack of better term). Bankole on the other hand would be the kind, nurturing one. Now, we have a new perspective. Bankole wanted to leave Acorn for the safety of his child, so she could grow up in semi-safety, in a more secure place than Acorn in the wilderness. He was willing to leave his land for her, a sacrifice Lauren just couldn’t make. Lauren on the other hand had provided a place for Larkin to grow for 9 months, but just like a sperm donor, she didn’t feel it necessary to look out for the best interests of her daughter. She stuck to her guns and saw Lauren as an addition to what she was already doing, not a lifestyle change. Bankole was ready for the lifestyle change. For the most part, we see mothers who change their lifestyles when they have a child, but fathers who continue on the same path with this little person in tow. Lauren now had a little person in tow… possibly a successor to lead the people of Earthseed…. just like how a king passes on the crown to his oldest son perhaps?? So, if we consider Bankole as the “mother” and Lauren as the “father,” than what we read is what we might expect from those traditional roles.

]]> Comment on Parable of the Talents by JasonMazur2 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/18/parable-of-the-talents/#comment-32 JasonMazur2 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:12:26 +0000 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/18/parable-of-the-talents/#comment-32 I think you hit the nail on the head in that last paragraph. I really feel that Lauren has not yet matured fully, or she just gets too engrossed in her religion of change. She seems to take the religion far too seriously, and towards the end of the novel she obviously realizes that she must engross herself in other more important tasks that precede over her "obligation" to understand change. I think you hit the nail on the head in that last paragraph. I really feel that Lauren has not yet matured fully, or she just gets too engrossed in her religion of change. She seems to take the religion far too seriously, and towards the end of the novel she obviously realizes that she must engross herself in other more important tasks that precede over her “obligation” to understand change.

]]> Comment on Parable of the Talents by dimah http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/18/parable-of-the-talents-2/#comment-30 dimah Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:41:36 +0000 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/18/parable-of-the-talents-2/#comment-30 So what the book is implying is that since many of the older traditions didn't work including being parents because they weren't able to protect their children from the world and do whats best for you're children even if it means breaking old traditions like the mother and father roles. So what the book is implying is that since many of the older traditions didn’t work including being parents because they weren’t able to protect their children from the world and do whats best for you’re children even if it means breaking old traditions like the mother and father roles.

]]> Comment on Parable of the Talents by m.nilges http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/19/parable-of-the-talents-3/#comment-29 m.nilges Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:28:10 +0000 http://multiethnicliterature.edublogs.org/2008/02/19/parable-of-the-talents-3/#comment-29 Where does the novel ultimately seem to come down on this problem? Is there a sense that religion has a redeeming quality? If so, what is it? In other words, is what happens to Lauren and Jarret (and, more importantly, to the people around them) their fault? Is it religion' s fault (an inherent contradiction/problem)? Is it a combination of both? Where do we see this in the text? Where does the novel ultimately seem to come down on this problem? Is there a sense that religion has a redeeming quality? If so, what is it? In other words, is what happens to Lauren and Jarret (and, more importantly, to the people around them) their fault? Is it religion’ s fault (an inherent contradiction/problem)? Is it a combination of both? Where do we see this in the text?

]]>