September 29

AGENDA:


1. Don't let this be you!
2. Peer editing


HW: Analysis due Wednesday; Test tomorrow; vocab quiz Friday

September 30

AGENDA:

1. Unit Test


HW: Vocab on Friday; Paper due tomorrow; bring your ID tomorrow - we are going to the library

September 26

AGENDA:

1. Vocab review quiz
2. Study for your Test or work on your analysis... make good use of your time!



HW: Analysis on Persepolis Monday in class. (No Names - only code names);
Test on everything we have covered so far, short stories, literary terms, Persepolis, grammar on Tuesday.

September 25

AGENDA:

1. Persepolis The Movie


HW: Vocab unit review quiz tomorrow 1-3; bring your ID's with you tomorrow


Typical English Honors student.....hang in, hold on, buckle down, eat, sleep, see you on Monday.

September 24

AGENDA:

1. Themes + motifs = paper 
2. Analysis assignment
3. Literary Terms for your Unit Test on Tuesday
4. Banning Persepolis


HW: Vocabulary unit review on Friday; analysis due on Monday in class.  No Names - code word only   Remember - write critically and lose the FLUFF!

September 23

AGENDA:

1. Journal Write:  
Have you ever felt like no one understood you or that you didn’t fit in? Explain. Why is Marjane always an outsider? Why is this an important theme in the book?

2. Quiz on book 
3. Close study of two chapters assignment due tomorrow in class


HW: Vocab review on Friday Unit 1-3

September 22

AGENDA:

1. Bildungsroman - what are some famous Bildungsroman tales?

2. Visual Presentation
3. Read articles and discuss argument in groups/class

HW: Vocab review on Friday Units 1-3; complete the Persepolis tonight

September 19

AGENDA:

1. Complete presentations


HW: Read through "The Cigarettes"

September 18

AGENDA:

1. Quiz on reading through "The Trip"
2. Group presentations in class on Persepolis


HW: Read through Chapter "F-14s"

September 17

AGENDA:

1. Short videos on Marjane Satrapi
2. Prepare for tomorrow's presentations - I am expecting great things from you!



HW: Read "Moscow," "The Sheep," "The Trip" tonight; tomorrow you will be presenting in class on your chapter and outside source materials - at least two sources should be presented as you educate and inform the class on what you read and how it pertains.

September 16

AGENDA:

1. 2 Reasons why making a group seem inferior would be useful?
2. Gallery Tour and observations
3. Assignment for Thursday's class on assigned chapter and related material
4. Who were Che? Trotsky? Fidel? How do they relate to this story?
5. If time, Persepolis from a feminist pov, religious pov, artistic pov, negative and positive images representing Middle-eastern people?


HW: Read "The Party" and "The Heroes"

September 15

AGENDA:

1. Hand back analytical papers and go over
2. Prejudices 


HW: Read "The Letter" (next chapter in Persepolis); #1 Literature Analysis due October 15

Literary Analysis #1

Each student must complete two Literature Analyses each semester; you may do more for extra credit. (each additional L.A. will be worth 50 points, not to exceed 100 points)

LITERATURE ANALYSIS QUESTIONS

Please answer the following questions about the book you selected.  Make sure to provide appropriate examples to support your ideas.

Title

1. What connection do you make with the title of the book and its content

Author

1. Biographical information about the author and how does it pertain to the book
2. Genre 
3. Historical information about the period of publication

Setting

1. Where/when does the story take place?
2. Does the author use one setting or more?  Why?
3. Over how long a period of time is the story told?
4. Could the story have been told in a different setting (such as the old west, a different planet, 200 years in the future, a tropical island)?  How would this change the story? 

Plot

1. What is the inciting incident?
2. Did the author use foreshadowing or introduce a plot twist that surprised you?
3. Could you imagine the story happening to someone you know?  Was it realistic?  Why/why not?

Characters

1. Describe the main characters and explain whether the author uses direct or indirect characterization.
2. Are these people you would like to know?  Why or why not?
3. Are the characters realistic?  Do they resemble people in real life?  How?  Why do you think the author wrote them in this particular way?

Style

1. Describe the author’s syntax and diction.
2. Does the author use lengthy descriptions of settings and characters, or does s/he focus on action?
3. What is the tone of the book?  Did it make you feel happy, curious, sad or another emotion?  Describe.
4. Is there a lot of dialogue?  Do the characters have to talk for you to know what they are thinking?
5. Was there irony? Symbolism?

Theme

1. Does the book have a central message?  Do you think there is a universal theme or moral of the story?  What is it?
2. Why do you think the author wrote the book?  What was his/her purpose?

Memorable Quotes and their significance:

1.

2.

3.

September 12

AGENDA:

1. Vocabulary Quiz
2. Intro Persepolis - background

3. Dictators / Historical Background

HW: Begin reading Persepolis - through page "Persepolis" - take notes as you go of what it's saying, what it's meaning, how it feels, what you see, explicit and implicit denotations and connotations, etc. Always be thinking about critical questions to ask about each section for class discussions and contributions. Without books we will depend on your notes for in class work.


Full Text of Persepolis

September 11

AGENDA:

1. Turn in DFW questions - discuss
2. Journal Write - What has been the most important event in your life to date?
3. Comic strip assignment - 5 panels minimum with speech bubbles



HW: Vocab quiz tomorrow; comic strip panels.....

September 10

AGENDA:

1. Chart the irony in the short story - why?
2. David Foster Wallace "This is Water"
3. Discussion and questions - due tomorrow


HW: Vocab Friday; finish questions tonight on DFW due in class Thursday

Transcription of the 2005 Kenyon Commencement Address - May 21, 2005
Written and Delivered by David Foster Wallace

(If anybody feels like perspiring [cough], I'd advise you to go ahead, because I'm sure going to. In fact I'm gonna [mumbles while pulling up his gown and taking out a handkerchief from his pocket].) Greetings ["parents"?] and congratulations to Kenyon's graduating class of 2005. There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"
This is a standard requirement of US commencement speeches, the deployment of didactic little parable-ish stories. The story ["thing"] turns out to be one of the better, less bullshitty conventions of the genre, but if you're worried that I plan to present myself here as the wise, older fish explaining what water is to you younger fish, please don't be. I am not the wise old fish. The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about. Stated as an English sentence, of course, this is just a banal platitude, but the fact is that in the day to day trenches of adult existence, banal platitudes can have a life or death importance, or so I wish to suggest to you on this dry and lovely morning.
Of course the main requirement of speeches like this is that I'm supposed to talk about your liberal arts education's meaning, to try to explain why the degree you are about to receive has actual human value instead of just a material payoff. So let's talk about the single most pervasive cliché in the commencement speech genre, which is that a liberal arts education is not so much about filling you up with knowledge as it is about quote teaching you how to think. If you're like me as a student, you've never liked hearing this, and you tend to feel a bit insulted by the claim that you needed anybody to teach you how to think, since the fact that you even got admitted to a college this good seems like proof that you already know how to think. But I'm going to posit to you that the liberal arts cliché

turns out not to be insulting at all, because the really significant education in thinking that we're supposed to get in a place like this isn't really about the capacity to think, but rather about the choice of what to think about. If your total freedom of choice regarding what to think about seems too obvious to waste time discussing, I'd ask you to think about fish and water, and to bracket for just a few minutes your skepticism about the value of the totally obvious.
Here's another didactic little story. There are these two guys sitting together in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of the guys is religious, the other is an atheist, and the two are arguing about the existence of God with that special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer. And the atheist says: "Look, it's not like I don't have actual reasons for not believing in God. It's not like I haven't ever experimented with the whole God and prayer thing. Just last month I got caught away from the camp in that terrible blizzard, and I was totally lost and I couldn't see a thing, and it was fifty below, and so I tried it: I fell to my knees in the snow and cried out 'Oh, God, if there is a God, I'm lost in this blizzard, and I'm gonna die if you don't help me.'" And now, in the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist all puzzled. "Well then you must believe now," he says, "After all, here you are, alive." The atheist just rolls his eyes. "No, man, all that was was a couple Eskimos happened to come wandering by and showed me the way back to camp."
It's easy to run this story through kind of a standard liberal arts analysis: the exact same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, given those people's two different belief templates and two different ways of constructing meaning from experience. Because we prize tolerance and diversity of belief, nowhere in our liberal arts analysis do we want to claim that one guy's interpretation is true and the other guy's is false or bad. Which is fine, except we also never end up talking about just where these individual templates and beliefs come from. Meaning, where they come from INSIDE the two guys. As if a person's most basic orientation toward the world, and the meaning of his experience were somehow just hard-wired, like height or shoe-size; or automatically absorbed from the culture, like language. As if how we construct meaning were not actually a matter of personal, intentional choice. Plus, there's the whole matter of arrogance. The nonreligious guy

is so totally certain in his dismissal of the possibility that the passing Eskimos had anything to do with his prayer for help. True, there are plenty of religious people who seem arrogant and certain of their own interpretations, too. They're probably even more repulsive than atheists, at least to most of us. But religious dogmatists' problem is exactly the same as the story's unbeliever: blind certainty, a close-mindedness that amounts to an imprisonment so total that the prisoner doesn't even know he's locked up.
The point here is that I think this is one part of what teaching me how to think is really supposed to mean. To be just a little less arrogant. To have just a little critical awareness about myself and my certainties. Because a huge percentage of the stuff that I tend to be automatically certain of is, it turns out, totally wrong and deluded. I have learned this the hard way, as I predict you graduates will, too.
Here is just one example of the total wrongness of something I tend to be automatically sure of: everything in my own immediate experience supports my deep belief that I am the absolute center of the universe; the realist, most vivid and important person in existence. We rarely think about this sort of natural, basic self-centeredness because it's so socially repulsive. But it's pretty much the same for all of us. It is our default setting, hard-wired into our boards at birth. Think about it: there is no experience you have had that you are not the absolute center of. The world as you experience it is there in front of YOU or behind YOU, to the left or right of YOU, on YOUR TV or YOUR monitor. And so on. Other people's thoughts and feelings have to be communicated to you somehow, but your own are so immediate, urgent, real.
Please don't worry that I'm getting ready to lecture you about compassion or other-directedness or all the so-called virtues. This is not a matter of virtue. It's a matter of my choosing to do the work of somehow altering or getting free of my natural, hard-wired default setting which is to be deeply and literally self-centered and to see and interpret everything through this lens of self. People who can adjust their natural default setting this way are often described as being "well-adjusted", which I suggest to you is not an accidental term.

Given the triumphant academic setting here, an obvious question is how much of this work of adjusting our default setting involves actual knowledge or intellect. This question gets very tricky. Probably the most dangerous thing about an academic education -- least in my own case -- is that it enables my tendency to over-intellectualize stuff, to get lost in abstract argument inside my head, instead of simply paying attention to what is going on right in front of me, paying attention to what is going on inside me.
As I'm sure you guys know by now, it is extremely difficult to stay alert and attentive, instead of getting hypnotized by the constant monologue inside your own head (may be happening right now). Twenty years after my own graduation, I have come gradually to understand that the liberal arts cliché about teaching you how to think is actually shorthand for a much deeper, more serious idea: learning how to think really means learning how to exercise some control over how and what you think. It means being conscious and aware enough to choose what you pay attention to and to choose how you construct meaning from experience. Because if you cannot exercise this kind of choice in adult life, you will be totally hosed. Think of the old cliché about quote the mind being an excellent servant but a terrible master.
This, like many clichés, so lame and unexciting on the surface, actually expresses a great and terrible truth. It is not the least bit coincidental that adults who commit suicide with firearms almost always shoot themselves in: the head. They shoot the terrible master. And the truth is that most of these suicides are actually dead long before they pull the trigger.
And I submit that this is what the real, no bullshit value of your liberal arts education is supposed to be about: how to keep from going through your comfortable, prosperous, respectable adult life dead, unconscious, a slave to your head and to your natural default setting of being uniquely, completely, imperially alone day in and day out. That may sound like hyperbole, or abstract nonsense. Let's get concrete. The plain fact is that you graduating seniors do not yet have any clue what "day in day out" really means. There happen to be whole, large parts of adult American life that nobody talks about in commencement speeches. One such part involves boredom, routine, and petty frustration. The parents and older

folks here will know all too well what I'm talking about.
By way of example, let's say it's an average adult day, and you get up in the morning, go to your challenging, white-collar, college-graduate job, and you work hard for eight or ten hours, and at the end of the day you're tired and somewhat stressed and all you want is to go home and have a good supper and maybe unwind for an hour, and then hit the sack early because, of course, you have to get up the next day and do it all again. But then you remember there's no food at home. You haven't had time to shop this week because of your challenging job, and so now after work you have to get in your car and drive to the supermarket. It's the end of the work day and the traffic is apt to be: very bad. So getting to the store takes way longer than it should, and when you finally get there, the supermarket is very crowded, because of course it's the time of day when all the other people with jobs also try to squeeze in some grocery shopping. And the store is hideously lit and infused with soul-killing muzak or corporate pop and it's pretty much the last place you want to be but you can't just get in and quickly out; you have to wander all over the huge, over-lit store's confusing aisles to find the stuff you want and you have to maneuver your junky cart through all these other tired, hurried people with carts (et cetera, et cetera, cutting stuff out because this is a long ceremony) and eventually you get all your supper supplies, except now it turns out there aren't enough check-out lanes open even though it's the end-of-the-day rush. So the checkout line is incredibly long, which is stupid and infuriating. But you can't take your frustration out on the frantic lady working the register, who is overworked at a job whose daily tedium and meaninglessness surpasses the imagination of any of us here at a prestigious college.
But anyway, you finally get to the checkout line's front, and you pay for your food, and you get told to "Have a nice day" in a voice that is the absolute voice of death. Then you have to take your creepy, flimsy, plastic bags of groceries in your cart with the one crazy wheel that pulls maddeningly to the left, all the way out through the crowded, bumpy, littery parking lot, and then you have to drive all the way home through slow, heavy, SUV-intensive, rush-hour traffic, et cetera et cetera.
Everyone here has done this, of course. But it hasn't yet been part of you

graduates' actual life routine, day after week after month after year.
But it will be. And many more dreary, annoying, seemingly meaningless routines besides. But that is not the point. The point is that petty, frustrating crap like this is exactly where the work of choosing is gonna come in. Because the traffic jams and crowded aisles and long checkout lines give me time to think, and if I don't make a conscious decision about how to think and what to pay attention to, I'm gonna be pissed and miserable every time I have to shop. Because my natural default setting is the certainty that situations like this are really all about me. About MY hungriness and MY fatigue and MY desire to just get home, and it's going to seem for all the world like everybody else is just in my way. And who are all these people in my way? And look at how repulsive most of them are, and how stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman they seem in the checkout line, or at how annoying and rude it is that people are talking loudly on cell phones in the middle of the line. And look at how deeply and personally unfair this is.
Or, of course, if I'm in a more socially conscious liberal arts form of my default setting, I can spend time in the end-of-the-day traffic being disgusted about all the huge, stupid, lane-blocking SUV's and Hummers and V-12 pickup trucks, burning their wasteful, selfish, forty-gallon tanks of gas, and I can dwell on the fact that the patriotic or religious bumper- stickers always seem to be on the biggest, most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest [responding here to loud applause] (this is an example of how NOT to think, though) most disgustingly selfish vehicles, driven by the ugliest, most inconsiderate and aggressive drivers. And I can think about how our children's children will despise us for wasting all the future's fuel, and probably screwing up the climate, and how spoiled and stupid and selfish and disgusting we all are, and how modern consumer society just sucks, and so forth and so on.
You get the idea.
If I choose to think this way in a store and on the freeway, fine. Lots of us do. Except thinking this way tends to be so easy and automatic that it doesn't have to be a choice. It is my natural default setting. It's the automatic way that I experience the boring, frustrating, crowded parts of

adult life when I'm operating on the automatic, unconscious belief that I am the center of the world, and that my immediate needs and feelings are what should determine the world's priorities.
The thing is that, of course, there are totally different ways to think about these kinds of situations. In this traffic, all these vehicles stopped and idling in my way, it's not impossible that some of these people in SUV's have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive. Or that the Hummer that just cut me off is maybe being driven by a father whose little child is hurt or sick in the seat next to him, and he's trying to get this kid to the hospital, and he's in a bigger, more legitimate hurry than I am: it is actually I who am in HIS way.
Or I can choose to force myself to consider the likelihood that everyone else in the supermarket's checkout line is just as bored and frustrated as I am, and that some of these people probably have harder, more tedious and painful lives than I do.
Again, please don't think that I'm giving you moral advice, or that I'm saying you are supposed to think this way, or that anyone expects you to just automatically do it. Because it's hard. It takes will and effort, and if you are like me, some days you won't be able to do it, or you just flat out won't want to.
But most days, if you're aware enough to give yourself a choice, you can choose to look differently at this fat, dead-eyed, over-made-up lady who just screamed at her kid in the checkout line. Maybe she's not usually like this. Maybe she's been up three straight nights holding the hand of a husband who is dying of bone cancer. Or maybe this very lady is the low- wage clerk at the motor vehicle department, who just yesterday helped your spouse resolve a horrific, infuriating, red-tape problem through some small act of bureaucratic kindness. Of course, none of this is likely, but it's also not impossible. It just depends what you what to consider. If you're automatically sure that you know what reality is, and you are operating on your default setting, then you, like me, probably won't consider possibilities that aren't annoying and miserable. But if you really learn how

to pay attention, then you will know there are other options. It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, hot, slow, consumer-hell type situation as not only meaningful, but sacred, on fire with the same force that made the stars: love, fellowship, the mystical oneness of all things deep down.
Not that that mystical stuff is necessarily true. The only thing that's capital-T True is that you get to decide how you're gonna try to see it. This, I submit, is the freedom of a real education, of learning how to be well-adjusted. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn't. You get to decide what to worship.
Because here's something else that's weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship -- be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles -- is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It's the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It's been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness.
Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful, it's that they're unconscious. They are default settings.
They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing.

And the so-called real world will not discourage you from operating on your default settings, because the so-called real world of men and money and power hums merrily along in a pool of fear and anger and frustration and craving and worship of self. Our own present culture has harnessed these forces in ways that have yielded extraordinary wealth and comfort and personal freedom. The freedom all to be lords of our tiny skull-sized kingdoms, alone at the center of all creation. This kind of freedom has much to recommend it. But of course there are all different kinds of freedom, and the kind that is most precious you will not hear much talk about much in the great outside world of wanting and achieving and [unintelligible -- sounds like "displayal"]. The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day.
That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing.
I know that this stuff probably doesn't sound fun and breezy or grandly inspirational the way a commencement speech is supposed to sound. What it is, as far as I can see, is the capital-T Truth, with a whole lot of rhetorical niceties stripped away. You are, of course, free to think of it whatever you wish. But please don't just dismiss it as just some finger- wagging Dr. Laura sermon. None of this stuff is really about morality or religion or dogma or big fancy questions of life after death.
The capital-T Truth is about life BEFORE death.
It is about the real value of a real education, which has almost nothing to do with knowledge, and everything to do with simple awareness; awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, all the time, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over:
"This is water." "This is water."

It is unimaginably hard to do this, to stay conscious and alive in the adult world day in and day out. Which means yet another grand cliché turns out to be true: your education really IS the job of a lifetime. And it commences: now.
I wish you way more than luck. 


Questions HERE

September 9

AGENDA:

1. Read, "Whatever Happened to the Guy Stuck in the Elevator" 


HW: Vocab on Friday

September 8

AGENDA:

1. Grammar Time!


HW: Vocab quiz Friday

September 5

AGENDA:

1. "Yellow Wallpaper" continued
2. Discuss weekend analysis and choices for the paper - refer to your thesis work and class notes on writing


HW: Analysis due Sunday by midnight to dbyrne@righetti.us

REMEMBER: 

A thesis is an argument - We prove an argument with sound evidence -  a mature intellect, guide reasoned argumentation.

We prove an opinion with our emotions. A thesis is NOT an opinion......

Analysis Topics to choose from:

1. The narrator's life seems full of male doctors. Her husband John is a physician, as is her brother. Then, of course, there's Dr. Mitchell. Examine the significance of this relationship between make doctors and women in "The Yellow Wallpaper."

2. Writing is mentioned throughout "The Yellow Wallpaper" as an almost forbidden act. Develop an argument and analysis around the significance of the narrator's writing and its relationship to her mental state.

3. The narrator identifies herself and her husband as "mere ordinary people" who "very seldom" have the opportunity to "secure ancestral halls for the summer." What effect does this statement have on our reading of the narrator's perspective on class and her own character.

4. The narrator describes Jennie as "a perfect and enthusiastic housekeeper, and hopes for no better professions." What is the narrator's attitude toward Jennie's work? What kinds of work does the story, as a whole, seem to value? Use the story to develop a class argument and analysis about "valued work" and its relationship to women.

5. About midway through the story, the narrator begins to use the word "creep" in various ways: as a verb, an adjective, a gerund. How do the various forms of "creep" relate to the way in which the narrator develops as a character? Write an analysis that tracks the uses of "creep" in the story in order to devise an argument about the narrator's development throughout the story.

6. Compare the narrator to Jennie, John's sister. How are the two women different and how are they alike? What does Jennie's character help reveal about the theme of madness and its relationship to "woman's work'? Write an analysis that comparatively analyzes the two characters in order to develop an argument around the theme of madness.

7. Light appears throughout the story as, often , a source of anxiety for the narrator, especially in relation to the yellow wallpaper. According to the narrator, the subtle patterns in the wallpaper can only be seen in "certain lights" and, later, the narrator exclaims the "at night in any kind of light, in twilight, candlelight, lamplight, and worst of all by moonlight, the pattern becomes bars!" Track the variations of light used in the story and the potential narrative patterns found in the use of light. Write an analysis in order to develop an argument about the function and significance of light in the story.

8. Is the ending of "The Yellow Wallpaper" a moment of liberation for the narrator? Define the type of liberation (if any) that exists at the end of the story and the significance of that liberation (or lack thereof) to the story's political and philosophical contexts.

9. Write an analysis about the mysterious "woman in the wallpaper" - her changing appearance in the story, her function in the story, and her relationship to that narrator. Trace the variants of the "woman in the wallpaper" throughout the story in order to develop a nuanced argument about her significance to some of the story's larger concerns.

September 4

AGENDA:

1. "The Yellow Wall Paper" background
2. Take out your Level 2 and 3 questions
3. Discussion with questions


HW: Read your Literature Book .... this is a good NO English homework window to do that; Extra Credit tonight if a parent shows up and signs in

September 3

AGENDA:

1. Finish "Allegory of the Cave"
2. Sign up for the PSAT - extra credit - 20 points!
3. Back to School Night - if your parents come and sign in - 10 extra credit points
4. Background on "The Yellow Wallpaper"
5. Characterization - how to understand characters (indirect and direct) (flat/round)



HW: Tomorrow Socratic Seminar on  "Yellow Wallpaper"

September 2

AGENDA: 

1. Journal Write - 

Sculptor Jacques Lipchitz once said, "Cubism is like standing at a certain point on a mountain and looking around. If you go higher, things will look different; if you go lower, again they will look different. It is a point of view." With this in mind, describe a moment when your perspective changed.

2.  Socratic seminar with our answers from Allegory of the Cave
3. Level One, Two and Three questions



HW: Read "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Gilman tonight and bring to class one Level 2 and one Level 3 question for Wednesday's class


Text of the Yellow Wall Paper