At last...English!!

I'm putting myself into an awful cycle... staying up LATE... when work starts back up in September, getting back on track will be dreadful. Furthermore, why is it that during the schoolyear, I can't stay up "late," even on a Saturday night? So annoying.

Just read the Journal of Adolescent/Adult Lit article for Wednesday. I actually enjoyed reading it. The sentences were written normally; everything was comprehensible. When I finished reading the article, I actually recalled information. I felt that my time had been spent well.

I have an "issue" with academic journals and publications. The language is so unneccessarily awkward and lengthy- kind of reminds me of reading Nathaniel Hawthorne in high school--- does each sentence have to be 50 words long? Is this some kind of rule in the world of academia?

I used to be obsessed with using "big vocabulary"- this is something that admirers of language tend to go through, especially in high school and college. Instead of large, we say voluminous. Instead of small, we say minute. Instead of sadness, we say melancholy[we LOVE melancholy because it can be BOTH an adjective and noun- woo hoo!] . If we're really feeling uppity, instead of sad, we say...lugubrious?!? Now I am not saying that there is anything wrong with big words, but if they sound out of place or if they confuse the reader, then they are pointless [in that particular piece of writing].

I'll never forget how one of my college professors spoke of the act of writing: The goal of the writer is to communicate to the reader. Sounds so obvious, but it is one of those things that you have to hear aloud.

You can use all the fancy words you want, but if your reader is left perplexed, then you might as well throw your Roget's in the trash.

Yay for the scholars and researchers who write in English instead of in Academic Snobberish!

Cleaning Leads to Self-Discovery

I made an error this morning. I had a workshop on the use of United Streaming in the classroom. The workshop was scheduled for August 1st. I woke up, bright and early, and got ready for the workshop. I was ten minutes late for the workshop, arriving at 9:10... It was only when I was in the tech building, standing at the receptionist's desk, that I was made aware that today is only July 31st. So technically I was 23 hours and 50 minutes early for the workshop. Oops.

I'm home now and for some odd reason, I decided to clean my bookshelves. I guess this is a process that should be completed every few years or so...

Emptying the shelves, and then refilling them, made me realize some of my idiosyncrasies...idiosyncrasies which must have previously been layers and layers beneath me.

1] I have a tendency to have multiple copies of books. I know that this occurrence arises because I like to look for books at flea markets, used bookstores, thrift shops, and other "cheap spots." Case in point: I have 2 copies of Catcher in the Rye. Neither copy is the "cool" original copy that came out long ago--- the maroonish cover with the gold writing. I also have 2 copies of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Both copies are the lame movie tie-in versions, with Jack Nicholson donning a black knit cap. At least I can say I have read Catcher in my life, 2x actually. I haven't even read Cuckoo's Nest, yet I own 2 copies. The book version is tarnished after you have seen the movie. I hate when you see the movie version first, only to later find that the movie was first released as a book. I also have two copies of the same professional book: Discipline with Dignity...guess I thought I needed so much assistance with that area of teaching that I somehow acquired two copies... I have not read it yet.

2] I have a habit of stopping halfway through books. It seems silly- why exert the effort and get halfway through the book, only to stop?? Some of my books had random sheets of paper [pseudo bookmarks] smack-dab in the middle of them: Me Speak Pretty One Day, The Hours, and Tropic of Capricorn. I'm guessing my reasons for stopping are as follows: David Sedaris wasn't AS funny as I hoped; The Hours was depressing; Tropic of Capricorn was not as erotic as people have made it out to be.

3] I have quite a few Hemingway books, even though I have only read Moveable Feast and Sun Also Rises. The Old Man and the Sea has been beckoning me for years but... even though it is a SHORT book about fishing, I just... I can't read it. 1 page of fish-talk is 1 page too much for me.

Going through the shelves is refreshing- I'm finding books I haven't thought about in ages: Written on the Body by Jeanette Winterson [I loved that book but have since been unable to find another Winterson book that I like]... Hottest State by Ethan Hawke [yes, the actor Ethan Hawke...it's actually a pretty good book, and rumor has it that Lisa Loeb --yes, the one-hit wonder Lisa Loeb, was the inspiration for the girlfriend in the book]... Seduction Theory by Thomas Beller [read it in high school- it's highlighted and everything--- kind of a memory book of my mind in the past]...

Found a quote online ---isn't too tough to do; I swear that I find the same cheesy Aristotle "true love/souls" quote every time I look up quotations online... Since guns/gun control and consumerism have been topics of discussion in our past classes, I thought this quote was fitting:

“The rules have changed. True power is held by the person who possesses the largest bookshelf, not gun cabinet or wallet.”
----Anthony J. D'Angelo

[If only that were true- us English majors would RULE the world!]

What a blogger scam....

I recalled hearing a statistic about Americans' spending habits on NJ Channel 12 yesterday. I went online to news12.com and saw that several of the reporters had "blogs." I randomly clicked ontoTom Layson's blog- I was led to a page which told about the exact statistic I was looking for... BUT... Layson doesn't really have a blog. His blog is just verbatim of what he reported on the air... lame!!!

Anyway, here is part of his blog "entry" copied/pasted...

It's Your Money: Cash flow

Americans are the most cash-strapped people in the world.
Big surprise huh?
An AC-Nielsen survey shows that 22-percent of Americans have NO money left once they've paid their expenses and spent what they BELIEVE is their discretionary money. Behind us is Portugal; and then we have Canada, the United Kingdom and France.
The result? Very low savings rates.

There are some signs of hope though:
Six months ago, 28-percent of us said they had nothing left after expenses and discretionary spending - - so that number is down 6-percent. 42-percent of Americans now say that if they have extra cash, they pay off debt - - that's up 9-percent from the last survey. Not only that - - more than 60-percent report that they've cut-down on eating out, power consumption and entertainment.

affluenza vs. simplicity

I have a bumper sticker that I purchased awhile back: It reads Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live. I haven't put it on my car yet; I have a tendency to buy random things sometimes. Kind of odd, huh? A sticker promoting simplicity, yet I purchased it and have not even used it yet.

Oh affluenza, mon cherie. I know well about affluenza. While I do not think I live a "luxurious" life and while I do restrict myself from buying, I still own tons of stuff... at least 600 CDs [some bought "used" though...so those are justified purchases], at least 500 books [an estimate... I try to buy used books, but sometimes cave into Borders or amazon.com], much more stationary than I will ever need, lots of candles [they are in my closet...I don't even use them!], etc.

Ok, so I am not a candidate for Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous... I still have a lot of stuff though. Recently, I've been impacted by a combination of readings and viewings. I'm just thinking a lot about how most of us Americans act. I've read Affluenza and Culture Jam; I've recently seen some documentaries on both rich people and the homeless of America [one documentary showed how people live under subways and have their own community... it was amazing...the documentary was done in the mid 90s...]; I've also recently seen some episodes of Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days.

In one episode of 30 Days, Morgan and his fiancee live on minimum wage for one month, in order to see what it is like. They had to literally count every bit of cash they had. Even something like a pastry was something they couldn't give to themselves as a treat. In another episode of 30 Days, two people from the Bronx live in a village that is "off the grid." Basically, in this village [in the U.S.], the people make their own crops and use resources such as solar panels, in order to have sources of electricity. In lieu of toilets, there was a different bathroom system, which led to the use of "hu-manure" for the land. It's easy to say that we're not going to have a movement where Americans want to live "off the grid"- that's hardcore simplicity... I wouldn't want to live "off the grid" either...although the idea of solar electricity interests me. I know Leonardo DiCaprio just had some kind of house built for himself, all "environmentally friendly," solar panels and all...oh, if we could all be Leo....

Back to the point...

While I try to be careful with my money [trying to be cautious of my purchases, not buying tons of take-out food, etc], I do have the ability to buy the things that I want. When I think of the simplicity move and its role in America, I think that Americans could simplify their lives- they just don't want to. I think if you were to somehow broadcast a video like Affluenza across the nation, or somehow make people all have their computers linked to www.simpleliving.net at the same time, that most people would comment, "Yeah- I could live more simply, but why?" I think that people are aware, to an extent, of their impulsiveness with shopping or of their waste of goods, but I don't think a majority of Americans are willing to change.

It's just crazy to know that an informal survey showed 1957 as being the year that Americans were the happiest. It's now 2006 and we've made so many advances, or so we thought, yet we're not happy. The weirdest thing I find is that in this country there are tons of people working like crazy and not spending time with their family. These people might also be seeing therapists. Maybe if they worked a little less and bought a little less, the whole family and happiness "thang" would work out.... ?

Then there's tons of people working like crazy, just to be able to feed their family. What about them too?

Mean Creek..."important" teen flicks...

When I think of "ultimate teen movies,"I immediately think of movies I watch/watched. I suddenly recall tons of 80s flicks that my friends and I watched in middle school and/or high school. I wans't technically a teen in the 80s, but those teen movies from the 80s definitely impacted me during my teen years. Some of the movie lines are still stuck in my head:
"If I was in a Turkish prison with you, I'd still be having a good time." [Pretty in Pink!!! Is there a movie quote/pointless knowledge gameshow in existence??]

I looked online at google for "best teen movies ever." Practically every list had a majority of 80s flicks, most of which I had seen. Most lists included movies such as: 16 Candles, Breakfast Club, Karate Kid, Pretty in Pink, Ferris Bueller's Day Off... Some lists included more recent movies, like Cruel Intentions, Dazed and Confused, Clueless, and even Mean Girls! For the most part though, the list was 80s-centric.

I felt like watching a teen movie that I had never seen. After much thought, I decided on watching Mean Creek, a 2004 drama. Quickly said, the movie is about a boy named Sam who is bullied and beat up by a "fat kid" named George. Sam's older brother, Rocky, and his friends come up with a plan to get back at the bully. The plan is to invite George on a "boating trip" at the local creek. It is planned that a game of Truth or Dare will ensue--- George will be dared to jump into the river naked. Sam, Rocky, and his friends plan on having George find his own way home, without clothing. Their form of revenge is utter humiliation.

If this was Wikipedia, I could forewarn you about "spoiler details" ahead. I don't plan on giving away the movie.

The point is this: The movie was clearly about bullying and its origins. Is it worth it to try to get revenge? Isn't revenge just carrying the bullying farther?

I felt that this was the perfect "teen movie." It taught a complex lesson but the film didn't feel "preachy." The kids in the film felt like real teens and they had "real" issues in their lives: busy parents, alcoholic parents, siblings acting as replacement-parents, and so on. I also liked that the film used fairly unknown actors...it gave it a more realistic feel.

Even though I think this is a wonderful film for teens, if I did an informal survey, I guarantee the numbers would be low for who had heard of it, let alone seen it. I think that "teen movies" are fun--- movies like Not Another Teen Movie, Napoleon Dynamite, American Pie--- but I wonder if enough teens are exposed to movies like Mean Creek. Would teens find it too serious? Would they think that a movie about bullying was lame? I wonder....

In the meantime, I've been told that Not Another Teen Movie is hilarious-- I've never seen it! I'm slightly ashamed that I have never seen it... I'm into pop culture references and I'm sure I'd love this movie! Even though Comedy Central has showed the movie countless times, I've managed to avoid it. I don't know why...movie snobbery, I suppose... although I watched the movie Waiting the other day, so what am I talking about? Another Teen Movie is supposedly FILLED with 80s references...that will be in my upcoming Netflix queue. Let's see...it was only released in 2001!!!.....

On a side note, I searched online for "current top teen movies" and most lists did not match one another. Timothy Shary, a professor from Clark University (Massachusetts) created his own list of top teen films since 2000...again, we have to also think about what makes a "top teen film"-- what are the criteria? Anyway, his list included Saved! (starring Mandy Moore). A friend had told me that was a funny movie too but again...that stupid movie snobbery must have been in bloom during that time of year. Saved! is another movie for the Netflix queue.

The speeding Hearse...

Tonight, while driving home on rt 80, I saw a Hearse zip past me... it had to be going 70/80mph... but that's pretty normal on route 80- despite the recent "crackdown" on speeding, drivers on NJ highways still have the mindset that 70mph is the minimum, myself included. It was just really odd to see a Hearse zooming down the highway at 9pm. I'm trying to imagine the circumstance for that: undertaker's son trying to meet curfew? emergency trip for embalming fluid? It just seemed odd.

Seeing that Hearse made me think of this documentary that I saw the other day: A Certain Kind of Death. Basically, the film takes a look at what happens to people after they die [people that do not have any "next of kin"]. The film was interesting in that the Coroner's Office does everything it can to try to track down someone related to the decedent [new vocab word!]. All of the decedent's bank accounts, property, etc are stored safely. If no next of kin is found, the body is cremated and the ashes are stored at a facility. After 3 years, if the ashes are not claimed, they are buried at a local park. This whole process just strikes me as fascinating-- truly making sure that everyone who leaves this world is put to rest in a respectful way.

This then got me thinking about animals that die on the highway. This sounds so bizarre but for about 3 weeks, I noticed the same dead deer on rt 46. I'm an observant person, maybe a little too observant sometimes. It's quite contradictory--- how quick we are to care for "our" dead, but how long of a time we sometimes wait to care for perished animals...And most likely, it is a driver who killed that deer in the first place.

understanding [frustration] comics....

I am in the process of reading Understanding Comics. When I saw this title on the syllabus, I thought, "This is going to be such an easy read. Only about 200 pages, and done in comic book style--- simple!" I started the book last week and am feeling quite frustrated with it. I think that Scott McCloud's idea, to turn a book about comics for novices into an actual comic book, is quite intelligent but... I've read comics already... I feel like he is getting so detailed with talking about the history of comics and HOW you should read them.

For me, initially, comics were a struggle to read. Whereas most readers are pulled into the storyline by the fascinating artowork, I would find myself being distracted by the art. I soon got over that struggle. I have also read some Manga too. At first, I hated making the adjustment to how the Manga-style books are written. Then, I eventually got used to it and was able to read at a faster pace. No one had to instruct me on how to read these books or how to interpret the frames or blank space between the frames--- I just knew.

It just seems silly to me, reading a book about how to read a book. I mean, there are tons of "how to" books out there, so it isn't as if McCloud's concept for a book is different than any of those other how-to books. I suppose I would just rather read some new comic titles, just plunge in and explore what's out there. After I read a chapter in McCloud's book, I find myself struggling to recall what I just read. I've started taking notes on some of his ideas but that just seems odd; I think the last thing McCloud would want his readers to be doing is taking notes.

1/2 left... and counting.

mean girls & girl world...

Even though parts of Mean Girls were over the top and included in the movie for pure comedy purposes, I do think that the film captured a good grasp of what it is like to be a girl growing up in America today. Beyond that, I think that the movie captured cliques well, not just girl cliques.

It is not right to condone stereotyping, but honestly, if you have 1000+ "kids" in a school building that are interacting with one another, they will eventually disperse themselves according to some system of classification. Additionally, there will always be cliques. It's people's natural inclination to seek others that are like themselves. However, what matter is how the cliques treat each other, and how they treat other individuals.

Even though Mean Girls had stereotypes in it, I think that they were fairly accurate with the types of cliques that today's high schoolers would see/identify with: The Math Geeks, the Nerdy Asians, the "cool" Asians, the Plastics, the Jocks, The JV Jocks, The Band Geeks, The Stoners, The Art Kids...

When I think of other movies that have tried to portray cliques or types of people, most movies have done a lame job with depictions. I'm currently thinking of movies like She's All That and Drive Me Crazy...yes, I was once "into" those types of movies too. In those movies, cliques were not portrayed accurately. In She's All That, the main character [Janie?] is THE "nerd" in the movie...as if no one else in the school has her traits...At the end of movies like those, all the cliques "live happily ever after" and, somehow, every person in the school has knowledge of the same choreographed dance routine.

When I think of Mean Girls and think of my own experiences, I am glad to say that I do not really "connect" too closely to the movie. In high school, I had a circle of friends that were from different "cliques," sub-cliques actually... I never liked to clump myself in with one group; I've always been like that... In high school, I kind of travelled back and forth between "the Freaks" [dyed hair, punk music, Doc Martens, multiple piercings...though I had none of that] and the "nice" kids in my Honors classes.

There have always been cliques in school and there have always been girl groups in school. I think that "girl groups" and "girl world" is even more evident nowadays because of the emphasis on brand names and certain items: Coach purses, Abercrombie and Fitch, Lucky brand jeans, Ipods, ... While I realize that brand names have always been part of youth culture, it seems like they are more prominent in today's world- there's a greater emphasis on brands and brand-consciousness.

Overall, Mean Girls makes a good point- in the end, you don't have to be friends with everyone or even like them; you just need to respect people and their differences. If someone doesn't want to make fashion a high priority, who cares? If someone could care less about the school sports team, who cares? This idea though, respect people and their differences, is a hard concept for high schoolers... I even think it is a hard concept for adults.

On a last note, Mean Girls reminded me of the the 1980s movie, Heathers... the Heathers all wear different colored ties in their hair, but all wear the same style hairties. When they play croquet, each one has their own assigned color. Heathers ends quite differently than Mean Girls, but it still depicts the same kinds of ideas about cliques, girl "culture," etc. The cast of Heathers is cool too:
**future-arrested-on-shoplifting-charges Winona Ryder
**Christian Slater
**inspiration for the WE HATE BRENDA newsletter, Shannen Doherty

Heather Chandler: "You wanted to be a member of the most powerful clique in school. If I wasn't already the head of it, I'd want the same thing. "

fascination with a little ol' place off of rt 46....

Since I have been in this area [about 4 years], I have been fascinated with a bar that is off of rt 46 West in the Little Falls area. Every time I drive home from class, I pass the bar on my way home. I want to just stop on in and see what it is like! It's set back from the highway quite a bit and the letters in "Great Notch Inn" are lit up in bright red. Sometimes the bar's parking lot is near-empty; tonight it was totally filled. Driving by, all I could see was a collage of chrome...tons of motorcyles... I'm guessing it is a "biker bar."

I've always heard the word "biker bar" used, but I don't know exactly what that means. I am reminded of the bar that Pee Wee Herman visits in Pee Wee's Big Adventure. My uncle is a "biker guy," a proud owner of a Harley who has taken countless road trips across the country on his bike.

I went to the Great Notch Inn's website... the fascination continues. On the website's menu, they have a listing of all of the beers available at their bar.It's all pretty generic beer, so I find it amusing that time has been taken to actually list the beers. Additionally, they have a schedule of bands that are playing there- band names included Slippery Chicken, The Raunchtones, and Butterball. I am mystified even more!!!

We talked about cliques and groups tonight... and about spatial theory. I can only imagine what area of the bar I would find myself in if I visited Great Notch Inn. I should ask my friend, Jaime, to go with me...she's "game"- it would be entertaining. One time, in the city, we unknowingly ended up at the Coyote Ugly bar. Now there was an experience!

On an endnote, we have been discussing feminism and gender roles in class. The bar's website has a quote of the day...what a coincidence...today's quote relates to women and men:

"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." ---Timothy Leary

Hahaha...amusing.

Feminism quotes...from a tshirt website, of all places!

www.northernsun.com- a very cool website. They have bumper stickers, tshirts, and all sorts of paraphernalia related to feminism, politics, the environment...and George Bush, among others.

There are a few quotes about feminism that I saw awhile ago on this site... I feel like an idiot for citing quotations from a tshirt website, however, I am sure that these quotes are floating around online on other "reputable" feminism sites...

"I have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiates me from a doormat."
---- Rebecca West, 1913.

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
----Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

"Well-behaved women seldom make history." ----Laurel Thatcher Ulrich




And for everyone's amusement:

"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." - Reverend Pat Robertson

Feminism..."freewriting".

NOTE TO READER: I composed this entry last night... I feel like it just seems to be a rambling, not a random rambling, but a rambling nonetheless. I'm not sure if I am answering what feminism is or what it is not. I questioned whether I should post this... here goes....
************************************************************************************
Feminism- whenever the word is said aloud, there seems to be an instant reaction. Some people want to hear "nothing about it" and roll their eyes. I mean, why should we be a nuisance and tell others of our striving to be treated equal?? Others, upon hearing the word "feminism," react differently. Their faces contort into an intense expression; they're ready for a lonnnnng conversation full of intellect and reasoning.

I'd be a fool if I didn't call myself a feminist. I went to an all-girl's school--- I think that that makes me an honorary member of the group. I support reproductive rights for women, as well as supporting women in the military. I also have educated myself and have independent control of my finances. While I live with my "beau," I feel like I make my own choices in life about my career and my continuing education. I feel like a feminist.

I used to be a bit more vocal with my feminism. Seriously though, I recall my first few years of college. I would get very upset AND vocal whenever women were ridiculed; I hated the idea of radio shows like "Opie and Anthony" - they had this promotion called "WOW" stickers [Whip 'Em Out Wednesdays]- basically, if you were a female and saw a car that had a "WOW" sticker, you could "feel free" to expose yourself to the driver of the other vehicle. Additionally, in college, I expressed disgust at the idea of strip clubs and pornography--- all of those outlets objectified women and were negative to our gender and its depiction...

Or so I thought....

I later reached a point where I decided that I didn't have a problem with any of these "arenas" for sexual expression. Women make choices to work these jobs and do these actions, don't they? Why should I condemn them? Women should be free to pursue what they want.

I guess I used to see feminism as "freedom"- or just the idea that we could do as much as men: have as many opportunities, get as much power as them, and be accepted by society.

In 2006, I have a different stance on feminism. In class tonight, we talked about 3 "waves" of feminism. We also read an article which discussed "sex differences" and "gender roles." When I think of women in our country today, I feel like we are taking feminism backwards, instead of forward. Sex is obviously a huge part of today's American culture. People may not know about new art exhibitions at museums or new in-depth films at little indie theatres in place like Montclair, but they know about the Pam and Tommy Lee video and the Paris Hilton sex tape. Paris has gone on to having a TV show and releasing a full-length album. Jenna Jameson's book, How to Make Love Like a Porn Star, held a spot on the NY Times bestseller list. "Pop" sensation Ashlee Simpson contemplated posing for Playboy magazine. The September 2004 Playboy featured nude photos of our "honorable" female Olympians. Greta Van Susteren, formerly of CNN, got cosmetic surgery before going on to hosting Fox News Channel's On the Record. Carmen Electra now sells workout videos that show viewers how to do a Striptease workout.

Why do I mention these scenarios in relation to feminism? Well, inevitably, people would say that all of these women have "power"- they're powerful forces in the entertainment industry and are wealthy. In a way, I guess one could say that they are "free," in regard to their sexual freedom and expression. They also seem to have control of their careers and are revered by both men and women.

I feel that women's actions, like those above, are making feminism go backward. The sole concern is on the woman's appearance. In addition to appearance, there also is an emphasis on the acquisition of material goods. The material goods and appearances are directly linked. This isn't just a Hollywood phenemenon either. Nowadays, even upper-elementary schoolers know what Coach purses are. Middle schoolers know what French manicures are...and get them. Mall stores like Club Libby Lu allow young girls to have "makeover parties" and have VIP pampering...because that's just what a 9-year-old needs on her birthday. A Club Libby Lu girl can even get a stuffed animal dog that resembles Paris Hilton's dog, Tinkerbell. Also-remember how we looked at myspace profiles? How many of those pictures had "cute, goofy pictures" versus the amount that had the "sexy, pouty-lipped look, provocative clothing, etc"? I saw the profile of one of my sister's friends: she had a close-up picture with a "seductive look" on her face and had some cleavage showing- the caption under her picture was "The classic MySpace pic."

I don't know if any of my ideas are connecting, but it seems like in today's world [at least in the United States], women are "free" in the sense that they seem to be doing what they want. We can even "put the ball in our court" and choose to ask a guy for his number, stand him up for a date, or wait "2 days" before calling after our first date. However, the aftereffects of all of this freedom are detrimental. By acting out in certain ways, I think that males may agree, "Yeah, yeah, you're free, that's great," but underneath, I think our actions are causing us to be less respected. Wasn't one of the first objectives of feminism to get respect and be treated as equals?

A recent book that I read, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture [Ariel Levy], is coming into my mind as I write this post. I know that the title is a bit over the top and, obviously, just from seeing the title, one can easily guess Levy's stance. Levy talks about how women like Paris Hilton and Jenna Jameson appear to be "icons" for the current generation of women. Really think about it. If you were to ask adolescents of today, in addition to post-adolescent women, about "strong" female figures in today's society, which names do you think they would mention?

The names that come to my mind are Hillary Rdoham Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, and Oprah Winfrey. Yes, I admit it, it is a pretty generic list. I might mention Jane Hirschfeld too, a female poet who has been through such amazing experiences in her life [lived and studied with Buddhist monks for years]. I don't think this list is short because I am unknowledgeable or misinformed. I just don't think that strong female figures are prominent in today's society. I KNOW that they exist; however, their accomplishments are overshadowed by what I feel are less worthy women.

I'm worried about feminism in today's society. Proof enough: I googled "feminism" and the first entry I got was from Wikipedia... not from NOW or Planned Parenthood. I went to the Third Wave Foundation's website. After looking through the site, I didn't see anything that made me feel "empowered."

I worry about us, women and men, in the year of 2006. I worry about the adolescent males and females growing up in this society. What has happened to us?? What will happen to them??

MacBeth, fast food, and Christopher Walken- brilliant!!

Well, the film fest at my apartment has not yet ended. Yesterday, I saw SCOTLAND, PA. This movie is a "modernization" of Shakespeare's MacBeth. I used the " " marks around the movie title because it seems like everything nowadays is either a remake or a modernization.

I have read MacBeth once in my life. I had to recite some lines for it in front of my class: "Out out, brief candle...life is a stage...poor players strut upon." That's all I recall. I also remember Lady MacBeth being OBSESSED with the "blood" on her hands. that's IT- it is amazing how you could put so much time into reading a book and then, later on, only remember a few details. Another book I recall: A Separate Peace. All I recall from that book is that a teenaged boy falls from a tree.

Back to Scotland, PA. The movie is set in rural PA in the 1970s... Joe and Pat "Mc"Beth work as underpaid employees at a fast food joint. This is the early 70s so it isn't like there is a Mcdonald's, Wendys, and Taco Bell on every corner- fast food was still kind of new and hip. Joe has all of these great ideas for the fast food joint [a free fry truck where people can sample the fries and get "hooked]. His boss doesn't really care... Pat and Joe kill their boss [a clever death scene involving fries and grease] and then somehow, by a twist of fate, inherit the fast food joint. They name it McBeth's. An investigation ensues. Pat is obsessed with a burn on her hand. There is a Tony "Banquo" Banconi in the movie too. The parallels to Shakespeare's McBeth are awesome! Awesome is not a spectacular adjective but it works for this movie...

I think that students would enjoy seeing clips of this movie, paired beside the Shakespeare text. Every teen [well, except for the spoiled ones] can relate to working a crummy job and feeling like you're not going to get ahead. And everything else in the movie- let's hope they don't "connect" to it.

Modernizations are so fun. The modernization of Hamlet from a few years ago was pretty good too...(with Kyle MacLachlan and Ethan Hawke)... Hawke, as Hamlet, gives the "To be or not to be" speech amidst the aisles of a Blockbuster video store!

I obviously respect the original texts and think that Shakespeare [and "others"?] was an amazing playwright--- the writers who can take that text and modernize it are just as amazing.

I was checking out reviews on RottenTomatoes.com -whatever I like, most people dislike and whatever most people I like...you can fill in the blank. I ran across this ridiculous quotation:
"I enjoyed the movie in a superficial way, while never sure what its purpose was."
[Roger Ebert, Chicago-Sun Times].

I'll end this post with this question: Do movies have to have a point?

Her name is Lola...she is a kitten....

I went "down the Shore" [I love how everyone "up here" uses that phrase for traveling to Jersey's beaches...why can't they just say, "I went to the beach"?] Thursday night through Friday night... spent time with my sister and went out to dinner with my Mom. Luckily, our dinner conversation flowed pretty well and I didn't have a headache by the end of the meal. But... the real "big event" of the weekend was my acquisition of a kitten.

I don't know what it is about animals in baby form- they're just so cute. Kittens, puppies, baby lemurs, baby naked mole rats, ...anything- they're so cute! Humans, on the other hand... I don't know, I don't think infants are cute.

Anyway, there is this overly enthusiastic animal lover in the office where my mother works... she found a litter of kittens in the woods... she was able to find homes for 3 of the 4 kittens... Lola remained. She [we "think" it is a she] has been living at Weichert Realtors in Lacey township for the past week. My mother's co-workers even gave the kitten her own office! My mother told me about the kitten and I just wanted to stop by and see it... well, I ended up driving home with it...

Lola [the name is another story] is black and white. She is predominantly black, with white on her feet and belly. Her face is white and black; black surrounding the eyes like an awesome superhero mask.

There are some challenges with the kitten...

1- My mom's coworkers named it Lola. I'd like to change the name but... at this point, I am unsure if the kitten is a female... I know that sounds completely bizarre...gender is usually obvious but she is a young kitten. No name change will take place until the gender is verified. I don't want to confuse the kitten.

2- FLASH is another challenge. Flash is my male cat, 4 years old....CRAZY and frisky. He pushes his paws through our door's mail slot and swipes his claws at the mailman. I think that this kitten will be good for Flash [companionship, comraderie, and all that]...but...he seems to have no interest in her...or him. If "Lola" is a him that could be bad too. I've read about that having 2 male cats is not a good idea.

But this kitten is SO cute... Now I definitely need to get rid of the arsenal of Fuji disposables and buy a digital camera... Lola? [or soon-to-be-other name] pics will eventually be here!!

Thank you, John Parr!!!

I feel odd, having this post follow my post on morality. It just seems to be an odd arrangement of ideas. I can't get to sleep though...there is an explanation behind it.

Tonight, I went to the gym around 8:30. This is a ridiculous idea. Most people think, "Oh, the exercise will tire you out and you will get a good night's rest." WRONG. It energizes me and then i am up all night... luckily, this blog is here to keep me entertained.

Anyway, while I was jogging, I was thinking of Kate from Catalyst [how nerdy is that?] I was thinking of how she would run in the book, pound on the pavement, try to outrun the boys in the weight room... It actually helped my "workout."

It takes me about double the time of a normal person to run one mile... I work hard though...sweat dripping down my face, body staying at a consistent pace, breathing in and out, face turning crimson...

Sometimes I am propelled forward at a faster speed by certain songs. I haven't given in and bought an ipod...yet. I rely on the gym's "Cardio theatre." It's just odd how a certain song can affect my workout. John thinks it is funny. Sometimes I will suddenly start spastically running, just because a "good song" came on. One might say that if I had the ipod, I could ensure that "good songs" were on all the time--- thus, making all of my workouts awesome. I'm kind of lazy sometimes...maybe that's why I don't have the ipod...I don't want TONS of good music to motivate me TOO much.

Anyway... tonight "Man in Motion" [by John Parr...from the St. Elmo's Fire soundtrack] came on. That song always gets me moving...and it is so cheesy too!

A slice of "Man in Motion":
You're just a prisoner and you're tryin' to break free
I can see a new horizon underneath the blazin' sky
I'll be where the eagle's flying higher and higher
Gonna be your man in motion, all I need is a pair of wheels

I will list no more lyrics... 4 lines is enough.

Other songs that make me run faster...Cardio Theatre, I love you...

All American Rejects: "Swing Swing"
Semi-Sonic: "Singing in my Sleep" [ah, one hit wonders...]
Blur: "Song 2" [gotta love that title.... WOO HOO!]

Link to "A Rose for Emily"

Just in case you're interested....

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~drbr/wf_rose.html

Morality: I'll eventually surrender and get a dictionary definition....

It was interesting how we were discussing morality the other evening and how none of us could "define" it. It's obviously a noun... but we couldn't get much past that summation, when trying to create a defintion for it.

I think that it is far simpler to define immorality, rather than morality. When I sense that something is immoral, I get an uncomfortable feeling in my body; there is a physical reaction. It is kind of like that gulping sensation in your throat, when something scares you. Additionally, it is easier to pinpoint something as being "bad." It's the same as when you discuss people that you know. It is so much easier to describe someone and point out their negative qualities- because the negative is always so prominent. Plus, I think that most of us revel [even if we don't admit it] in the negative qualities of others; those negative qualities make us feel superior.

In today's society, we are constantly shown images of immorality. I'm thinking of the 5:00 news: murders, public [or private, but discovered] affairs, theft, lying, and so on. Rarely, are examples of morality depicted on the news.

To me, morality is: [noun] the act of doing what is "right" or "good," according to general assumptions about what is "right" or "good."

Like a dictionary definition, the above definition is vague... it's like when you ask someone a question and they kind of answer it, but not really. You're left sitting there, pondering the same question that you asked in the first place.

When I think of morality, one of the pieces of literature that I am reminded of is Faulknor's "A Rose for Emily." The story has scattered pieces left in my mind... all I recall is an old woman who dies and is left alone. I guess that to me, that is "immoral." Surely, there had to be someone in the old woman's neighborhood who knew her, who could have been a friend to her.

I reread the story online and my recollections returned. In the story, the townspeople seem to be obsessed with talking about Miss Emily, behind her back of course. They talk about how she doesn't pay her taxes; they complain about a putrid odor emanating from her home; they "feel" sorry for her but never act upon their feelings; they pity her and say "Poor Emily;" and when she requests to purchase arsenic at the pharmacy, no one really questions her. It is even mentioned that, "So THE NEXT day we all said, "She will kill herself"; and we said it would be the best thing."

At the end of the story, Miss Emily dies alone... we find out that her husband died awhile back [she killed him with the arsenic]- his body has been in her house for years.

To me, I think of the issue of morality when I think of this story because, all along, Miss Emily clearly needed companionship and love of the people around her. They constantly spoke about her behind her back; sometimes they "seemed" to be concerned, but they never acted upon their concern. To me, that show a lack of morality, or goodness, in the townspeople.

We could go on and on for days, interpreting why Emily kills her husband-to-be... but clearly, she does not kill him out of maliciousness. She is clearly a disturbed woman and for years, no one has comforted her or even sought out help. And despite nobody visiting her over the years or trying to intervene in her life, the WHOLE town comes to her funeral... "the women mostly out of curiosity to see the inside of her house."

"A Rose for Emily" leaves me with an uncomfortable feeling. It also reminds me of a documentary that I got from Netflix today: A Certain Kind of Death. The documentary revolves around the question of: "What happens to people when they die and have no 'next of kin'?"

As humans, as neighbors, as people- we are supposed to love one another. We don't live in a perfect world and thinking that everyone will love one another is a thought for fools. But the idea of a person dying alone, despite being surrounded by people in a neighborhood or other community... there's something wrong with that....

I feel as if I am rambling on and on. I am going to take the easy way out and end with the dictionary definition of "morality:"

n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, ethics, morals]

Hmmm...that didn't help all too much either. What IS right? What IS wrong?

Dear Dr. Coles...

Dear Dr. Coles,

At last, I am writing you. It has taken awhile, but here I finally am.

I just finished reading your book The Call of Stories: Teaching and the Moral Imagination. Your book is a required text in the Adolescent Literature class that I am taking. I have to admit, that upon a first reading, your book was difficult for me to get through, in terms of the writing style. At times, I found myself frustrated. You would go on for multiple paragraphs about the personal experience and reading experience of a student or a patient; then you would simply shift your ideas and discuss another person. I felt lost as a reader- I was thinking to myself, almost ready to shout aloud, "Wait...but what happened to Richard? What happened to the girl that related to Toni Morrison's Beloved?"

After reading your book, I think my questions of "What happened to...?" have been answered. Does it really matter what happened to them? The important thing is that literature assisted many of your students and patients in their quest for understanding themselves and their families. Literature also assisted you.

Most notable for me was the story of Ben- reading the book Invisible Man, Ben suddenly saw issues in his life brought to life. Despite the fact that he was a priviledged, young white man, he began to feel the plight of African-Americans. He too, under different circumstances, felt "invisible." At one point in your book, Ben mentions how his parents sometimes would neglect him, going on vacations without him...as if he was the "invisible son." Ben eventually went on to get involved with programs with inner city youth.

The message of Ben's story and the message of your book is clear: stories change us. Whether they are our stories that we are telling others or whether they are fictional stories that we are reading on our own--- we become changed. By reading William Carlos Williams, you were changed as a doctor and began to see that empathy and sincerity are just as important as knowing different medical conditions and diagnoses. The same goes for us teachers- we don't just need to be knowledgable in academic areas; we need to possess empathy and sincerity--- we need to make sure that our students see that side of us too.

Some might find the argument that one can learn about their morality through literature to be an extreme argument. I agree with the findings of your book- that literature can lead to changes and realizations in the self. No one really wants to confront their own morality; we are full of fear. Who wants to really look deep inside themselves without having a guide? Literature can guide us and can make us see things in ourselves that need changing/mending. Our morality, or lack thereof, is safer to confront if we confront it in the form or fictional stories or novels.

Your book didn't really change my viewpoint on any issues. Your book confirmed my viewpoint on the issue of the power of stories and how one's reading life affects their "path" in life. Stories can either inspire us or allow us a way to escape from our lives. Your students and patients mentioned life-changing literature such as: Invisible Man, Old Man and the Sea, "Death of Ivan Ilych," "Gooseberries," Last Gentleman, and Middlemarch. Each reader has their own reading life, which directs their path in life.

For me, life-changing books that have called to me include: She's Come Undone, Tuesdays with Morrie, Stargirl, Sun Also Rises, and Raisin in the Sun.

On a final note, your book has changed my opinion of doctors. I previously saw doctors as cold and unemotional, comparable to robots. Every doctor I have ever encountered has solely focused on a diagnosis, and not on ME. Your book leads me to feel hopeful about the men and women in medical professions.

Thank you for your thought-provoking book.

PS I plan on reading a Walker Percey book sometime soon. It is on my "To-do" list.

Zidane pic...

Zidane is in the white; Materazzi is on the ground. I don't know what prompted Zidane to headbutt Materazzi but, really, is any excuse justifiable??

"Great way" to teach kids that bullying/bad sportsmanship is wrong...

I will begin this entry by saying that I am not a soccer fan. In high school, soccer was "interesting"- all of the guys that I thought were good looking were on the soccer team. This suddenly made soccer tolerable. In general though, I don't like soccer. There seems to be so much time where players are just running back and forth, up and down the field. The game ends in an exciting way, if the final score is anything other than a tie.

I did not watch more than a total of 10 minutes of the World Cup. I figure that with any major sports event, I will just wait until it is over, catch up on the important events from the game during the 10:00 news- then when I go into work the next day, it will not appear as if I live on Mars.

I do have to say I was interested in the whole Zidane-Materazzi situation. If you live on Mars like I sometimes feel I do, here is the recap... short and sweet... Zidane was the French captain, Materazzi was a player on Italy's team. Zidane head butted Materazzi- Zidane got a red card and was kicked out of the game. Italy then got a penalty kick and went on to win the World Cup.
What shocked me the most was the news article I read this morning... [listed below]. How could Zidane get any award that is called "Best Player Award." He, the CAPTAIN of his team, head butted another player. What are we showing kids about sportsmanship? Headbutt, kick, taunt another team's player...as long as you play your sport well, it will be all okay??? Disgraceful...

Zidane wins World Cup's best player award

By JOHN PYE, AP Sports Writer1 hour, 58 minutes ago

France captain Zinedine Zidane, sent off for headbutting Marco Materazzi late in Sunday's World Cup final loss to Italy, won the Golden Ball award for the tournament's best player.

The results were released Monday morning in Berlin by FIFA.

Zidane polled 2012 points in the vote by journalists covering the tournament, beating Italians Fabio Cannavaro (1977 points) and Andrea Pirlo (715 points) in the ballot.

Zidane, who put France ahead with a penalty kick in the opening minutes, was given a red card after slamming his head into Materazzi's chest during the tense second period of extra time.

It was his last act as a professional player and one that was widely criticized in France and abroad.

With the score locked 1-1 after 120 minutes the French missed Zidane's prowess in the penalty shootout, which Italy calmly won 5-3 to collect its fourth World Cup title.

Zidane, 34, a former international player of the year and 1998 World Cup champion, announced last month that he was retiring from soccer after the tournament.

He wasn't particularly outstanding in France's opening draws with Switzerland and South Korea and missed the last group match against Togo due to suspension. But Zidane produced some vintage performances in the wins over Spain, Brazil and Portugal in the knockout phase.

Voting for the 2006 Golden Ball closed at midnight Sunday. In previous tournaments, the ballot has closed at halftime in the final and the winner announced soon after the match.

Italy captain Cannavaro could be considered unlucky in the voting.

He led an Italian defense that conceded only two goals in the tournament: an own-goal against the United States and Zidane's penalty.

The final was his 100th cap for Italy.

"I got my award, that's it right there," Cannavaro said, gesturing toward the World Cup trophy sitting on the table in front of him. "I'm extremely pleased with what I have."

With fellow central defender Alessandro Nesta injured, Cannavaro played every minute of Italy's seven games.

Many pundits tipped Cannavaro as the winner, including 1986 winner Diego Maradona.

"Fabio Cannavaro was the best player of this World Cup," the Argentine great said. "Yes, it was a tournament without one dominant player, but Fabio was huge."

Germany goalkeeper Oliver Kahn won the Golden Ball in 2002. Other previous winners were Brazilians Ronaldo (1998) and Romario ('94) and Italy's Salvatore Schillaci ('90).

Germany striker Miroslav Klose was the Golden Shoe winner for the tournament's leading scorer. He won with five goals. Ronaldo won the award in 2002 with eight goals.

Stood up again [him, not me]

I am lovin' bloggin'. I keep getting new ideas for posts all the time...just general everyday life "stuff," but I guess that's the point of the blog.

Well, I stood up Dr. Coles again.... but I have an excuse for why I "stood him up" yesterday. I was in the city, at BODIES: THE EXHIBITION. John and I NEVER go into the city, but this exhibition was something we were both interested in. Nothing ever gets done unless I do the planning, and I am not too skilled at planning anyway. On Friday, I ordered the tickets. Yesterday, we left bright and early....um 11am... and took the train to Penn Station. Easy. Once at Penn Station, ugh! Figuring out the subway was close to impossible. John was getting angry and I felt helpless. I knew the number of the train we needed to take but, once underground, the whole subway system is an enigma. We were standing at an area labeled "2 and 3" trains, yet the only trains that kept arriving were labeled "1."

We finally made it to the exhibition. I definitely have to say that BODIES: THE EXHIBITION was an intense experience. At the beginning of the exhibit, there are bodies in motion- you can see the different muscles and how they work together/affect one another. Most of the "specimen" were male bodies, which I thought was odd....although these bodies were donated to science. I don't know why, but donating your body to science seems like more a "male" thing to do.

The most "emotional" rooms were the rooms for the reproductive system and for fetal development. They even had a "warning" sign for the fetal development room, giving an alternate exhibition route if you wanted to skip that room. I guess those two rooms were so emotional to me because both rooms deal with the cycle of life and how that cycle can be demolished at any time.

Overall, the exhibit made me even more aware of how complex our bodies are. I never was good in science/biology- the mechanics of the body endlessly perplex me. But this exhbition made me realize how if I am given such an amazing gift- these organs, arteries, veins, everything working together succinctly- that I need to take care of it. This is not an idea that has just come to me. Sometimes this gratitude for being alive is my motivation for exercise..sure, I hate it and it is boring and I'd rather be doing something else...but if 30 minutes a day helps sustain this amazing "body machine," then I might as well do it....

Today's goals:
1] laundry /Coles book [Coles is my forced entertainment while being at the laundromat. Inevitably, someone will come up to me and say, "Looks like you're reading for class" or "You're reading that pretty seriously, must be schoolwork"- this ALWAYS happens... I don't know what I look like when I read, but I must have some kind of intense look on my face...people always question me about my reading material]
2] respond to Coles...at last!
3] exercise...

"Procrastinators Unite!!! ...Tomorrow"

I once saw "Procrastinators Unite!!...Tomorrow" silkscreened on a tshirt. I thought it was funny, in that cheesy kind of way. I even bought the tshirt. I thought it would make a good "gym shirt." To this day, I still haven't worn it.... I hate having people read the front of my tshirts. Still though, I love that slogan.

The "goal" today was to procrastinate by watching a movie and then to read ch 7, minimum, of the Coles book. The "goal" last week was to exercise 5 consecutive days. Has either goal been accomplished? Nope....

I actually OVER accomplished the movie goal. I watched two documentaries today- and what an odd juxaposition of movies. The first doc. was called Born Rich, directed by Jamie Johnson, heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune. It was supposed to be an "inside look" into the lives of the extremely wealthy- an "inside look' to get a sense of the complexities of their world... I don't know- I saw Jamie Johnson talking about the documentary on Oprah...I put the documentary in my Netflix qeue and then it arrived. In retrospect, why do I care about the complex lives of the rich? they're rich; I'm not- end of story. Jamie Johnson was basically whining about how he feels the need to have a job and a passion in life... well, you're a millionaire...stop whining and instead get a job, a passion, or whatever else you're looking for.

Ok...so after Born Rich, I should have read Coles' book... I postponed my rendez-vous with Coles until tomorrow...

I decided to watch another documentary, It Was a Wonderful Life. This documentary was made in the early 90s and discusses the "invisible women," the population of homeless women in the U.S. This documentary actually moved me- these women were living out of their cars, literally, and still got up every morning and "gave it their all." One woman had the "luxury" of renting a UHaul truck for a month. She used the back of the truck as her home. She slept with the back of the truck unlocked [because you can't lock the back of the truck from the inside]; one evening someone lifted up the back enclosure and tried stealing her knapsack. She pulled a gun on him- it made me think of Give a Boy a Gun. Just holding the gun scared the man away.

Another woman has 3 children and lost her job. She is a well-educated woman and when she even tried to get a minimum wage job she was rejected- for being "too qualified." She lives with her kids in a motel and is even sending her oldest daughter to college. The bravery of these women was astounding. It reminds me that I shouldn't complain/moan and groan about things like doing the dishes, exercising, or most of all- reading a book for a grad school class.

Tomorrow, I WILL read the Coles book... I also want to take Nickel and Dimed off of my bookshelf and start that too....

Reader's Response Criticism Anecdote...

When I was in college, I read Ernest Hemingway's Sun Also Rises during my junior year. While reading the novel, I perceived that all of the main characters were nihilistic-- they just sat around cafes and drank all day--- the main female character, in my mind, was promiscuous.

Those were thoughts that I made based on my interpretation of the text.

One year later, I read Sun Also Rises for a second time. As a reader [and as an older person with "slightly" more experience in life], I had a completely different viewpoint of the book. I felt that the characters were using things like alcohol and sex to emotionally deal with their trauma in a post-WWI world. I no longer saw Lady Brett, the main female character, as being promiscuous and without morals; instead, I saw her as a deeply hurt individual who didn't know how to correctly deal with her sadness.

Which interpretation of the text was "correct"? I surely could back up both interpretations by going back to the text and discussing evidence from the text in detail... I could probably do research and find lit critics who agree with both of my ideas... although I do think the second idea is "deeper."

The answer is that both interpretations are "correct." Or, in words from the third website link we were given: "The literary text possesses no FIXED and FINAL meaning or value; there is no one 'correct' meaning." As a reader, it is quite freeing to be "allowed" to have different interpretations of a text.

Reader's Response Literary Theory-- I'm a fan!

From my high school years, I recall having "good" experiences with literature, although one has to bear in mind that I liked to read, no matter what. In terms of how novels were taught, I do recall some mundane activities: reading, comp questions, those dreaded quizzes with questions like, "What color hat did Pip have on in ch 7?"

When i was in middle school, i recall my teacher having lit circles in the classroom. The students had to act out scenes from their assigned novel. I dressed up as a grandfather, powder-grey [literally] hair, plaid pants, and all. That book that we were acting out was called After the Rain. The book is about a young teen who has to deal with the fact that her grandfather is dying, a topic that surely most middle schoolers can somehow relate to. Because we had to recreate a scene from the novel and connect it to ourselves (and because we could easily connect the novel to ourselves), that novel remains vivid in my mind, even today.

I guess those two examples, intertwined with my knowledge on reader's response theory, allow me to say that I think that Reader's Response literary theory is beneficial for classroom use. When students can connect with the text and are permitted to express those connections, they have a positive experience with literature. In the Wikipedia entry, it is mentioned that Louise Rosenblatt once said that, "It is important for the teacher to avoid imposing any preconceived notions about the proper way to react to any work." I think this quotation is significant, especially in relation to the middle school/high school classroom. If a teacher addresses the study of a novel by dissecting the text and pinpointing every minute excample of symbolism, metaphors, and "important quotations," readers are immediately turned off. This "turning off" not only affects the students' comprehension of one novel, but also affects their attitude toward future novel studies.

Reader's response theory allows the reader to be in control of his/her reading experience. Instead of having the teacher steer everyone in the same direction, each student can choose a different path, based on their own experience. An important idea to keep in mind with reader's response theory is: "To the reader-response critic, however, reading is always both subjective and objective, and their question is not which but how." When teaching, I think that this quotation is an important one for instructors to keep in the back of their minds. We want students to feel open and comfortable with reading/interpreting literature, but we also want them to realize that every viewpoint needs to be substantiated. For example, if a reader can relate to a character's experiences and thinks that the character's actions are "foolish" [dumb would be the word more students would use], the reader needs to support his/her viewpoint with evidence from the text.

I have personally used Reader's Responses in the classroom, mainly through the use of double-entry journals. I have students write down "important" quotes of their own choice; the challenging part is that they have to explain to me why the quotation is important-- what does it show about the main character? does it relate to something in today's society?--- and so on. Some students have difficulty with this concept, because they are used to being told what IS important. Having students pinpoint what they think is important also helps with increasing their level of confidence, in relation to literature. Not EVERY student is a "good reader," but every student can relate to/connect to SOMETHING in their given text.

While I agree that Reader's Response is a valid form of literary criticism, I think there is room for other forms of lit crit too: historical criticism [especially when students are reading books from "long ago"- you HAVE to at least consider some historical factors when reading/analyzing the book], feminist criticism, and on and on. I think the different forms of lit crit are especially important for literature majors in college; I know that I had a research experience with different forms of lit crit.

For middle school and introductory classes in high school, Reader's Response theory is a non-threatening way to get students to interact with the text. Reader's Response theory is also beneficial to EVERYONE in the classroom setting; sometimes even the teacher learns something new!