Be prepared to start with these questions (and feel free to venture answers here):
Jeff Richards, LD
1) What do you think about the concept of "normal" in describing people? What percentage of people do you think are "normal?"
2) Do you feel familer with the trait of telling stories in random order without references?" (middle page 166: brooch=>dream=>dinner plans=>child crossing street=>brooch"
3) What do you think about his argument that LD corresponds to "rich inner lives" and that society needs people with LD for imagination and creativity as he asserts.
4) Do you think society has an obligation to pursue the costly diagnostics and special summer school and tutoring sessions that Richards' parent arrange for him?
5) Do you get the sense that at her first school "they" are treating Richards' daughter Hannah by trying to make her brain more normal? What do you think of that strategy?
Ashley Warwick, "What We Come Across"
1) What do you think the broader meaning of her question is: "would I have noticed these birds had I not been noticing birds in the Optimist's Daughter?" Have you ever been similarly intoxicated when something from school informed something that happened in your life?
2) List some of the important things you didn't\ learn in school...which are the most important?
3) How did you feel reading about the grandmother; her resistance to going on the drive to the family cemetery? Have you had similar experiences with old people?
4) Do you think she was too critical of the students in Mexico City as people too young to put symbols in their hands?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I don't think anyone is normal because everyone is different in one way or another. Just like cultures are different and have their own idea of normal which may look strange to others.
I found Warlick pretty off-putting, especially as she got to the part about the Mexican students. By passing judgement on them--calling them immature, uninformed, "too young to value" symbols--she's setting up a comparison between them and herself--someone deeper, more in touch with what's important in life.
Except I didn't think she was saying anything all that profound. She values the simple things in life? That's not exactly breaking news. Something she read in a book changed the way she looked at events in her life? Isn't that the point of reading literature? Every book I've deeply enjoyed, I've loved because it resonated with and informed my life somehow.
As for Richards' somewhat biased-sounding assertion that society needs people with LD for their imagination and creativity, nobody should know the answer to that better than the Cornish student body, right?
i have many written responses, however since i'm under the assumption that we'll be verbally discussing this all in class i will just post one.
My thoughts on question 3.
having a rich inner life can be achieved in more ways than just being withdrawn from people. As for the influence that LD/abnormal people contribute to society, i agree with Richards. They are important, very important, but that doesn't mean that you can down play the importance of people who went through the system in the normal or average manor. Perspectives frowm all parties are equally important in shaping a society, or just in the creation and maintenance of a structure in general.
I feel the same as Josh, i'll just post one answer.
About Ashley Warlicks essay, question 4) Maybe the symbolism doesn't make any sense coming from her background, but what if you were living in Mexico City? What if you were offered free higher education all your life and suddenly your country decides to privatize like the country that borders yours? I still think the symbols that were used were out of place, but you still have to keep in mind that if one person in a crowd is holding a sign, that doesn't mean everyone there agrees.
Post a Comment