Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
RE: missloock
A Single Shard takes place in 12th century Korea, in a village by the name of Ch\’ulp\’o. This precinct of Korea is distinctly known for its manufacturing of exquisite pottery. Park\’s intent was to tell the life story of the unknown potter of \”The Thousand Cranes Vase\”. In A Single Shard she portrayed Tree-ear to be that unknown potter, and concocted a fictional story about his life. She was then limited to a setting, and chose Korea because it held sentimental value to her. She conveniently deemed the village\’s expertise as pottery, because that aspect of the village could be tied into the story of a famous potter. The over-arching historical theme is \”An individual can change their social status by hard work and an overwhelming desire to achieve their aspirations.\”
In I, Juan de Pareja, Borton de Trevino set the novel in Spain during the Age of Reason (17th century). The Renaissance had passed, and the promotion of both science and skepticism was rampant throughout Europe. She chose a time when slavery and lethal plague were common. She also chose a time when slaves were beaten and treated horribly by their masters. I believe that Borton de Trevino chose this setting to convey that, despite all the deterrents Juan faced, or could have potentially faced, he achieved his goal in the end. She built up an atmosphere of oppression around Juan, but Juan\’s bold desire to paint was stronger than any hindrance that he faced. She depicted that, despite the most dire circumstances, one can change their social standing by having a dream, and pursuing it.
Why do you think Linda Sue Park set her novel, A Single Shard, in a time period in Korea that is not distinctly known of?
RE: abbielee
Why do authors choose to write about topics that are close to their heart? Does this trait make for a better story or does it make the author more vulnerable?
It definitely makes authors prone to criticism, because if they make an error, people will question their knowledge of the subject that is supposedly \”close to heart\”. However, it also makes for a great story. Authors who know the subject of their writing very well will produce a better story. They take the knowledge they have of precise history, and fabricate stories based on that knowledge. Ultimately, writers choose to write stories that are close to heart because it is effortless for them, as they have both inspiration and knowledge of accurate events and time periods.
RE: If Tree-Ear and Juan de Pareja never existed, what affects would that have on our world today?
Tree-ear is a fictitious character. He had no effect on the world. Juan de Pareja was real, but the novel you just read is a fictional autobiography. No one can comprehend the exact history of what happened in Juan\’s life, as there is little to go off of. Borton de Trevino provided her own inferences to fill in the unknown gaps of history. No one can be sure what effect Juan really had on the world.
RE: jesuaflores
Did both servants\\\’ masters have similar characteristics and personality traits?
No, I don\’t believe that their masters had similarities. Don Diego was always kind to Juan, and never became angry with him, whereas Min would become irate when Tree-ear committed miniscule errors. Min\’s feelings were arbitrary, but Don Diego\’s personality remained constant throughout the entire novel. Don Diego showed affection for Juan and acted as a father figure to him, but Min became rash whenever Tree-ear came around. Also, Don Diego did not make Juan do intense labor. He merely made Juan grind colors or stretch canvases. On the contrary, Min made Tree-ear complete arduous tasks such as carrying heavy logs, and felt no remorse if Tree-ear was injured.
RE:gracietran
Does it matter how a person achieves their goals? In other words, is it okay to achieve dreams in any way, even if you have to break some rules?
It all is dependent on what the goal is. If the goal of an individual is to pursue an art, I think that to break the rules is just. If something or someone has an oppressive nature and obstructs an individual from achieving their aspirations, the action of dissent should be considered. Petty restrictions should not be placed on the liberty of an individual.
In A Single Shard, Tree-ear\’s immense respect for Min\’s pottery work gives him motivation to become a potter of his own. Min\’s rashness towards Tree-ear causes him to desire Min\’s satisfaction with his work, but Min is never pleased. Tree-ear decides to work harder and harder, remembering what he did well, and changing what he did wrong. Tree-ear\’s social status was another contributing factor in his determination to become a potter. Tree-ear and Crane-man were on the verge of starvation every night, and Crane-man could not work due to a lame leg, and Tree-ear was only a child. Tree-ear took the initiative to begin work for Min after serving him as a debt, and began to receive food for both him and Crane-man.
In I, Juan de Pareja, Juan\’s drive to become an artist came from working with Don Diego himself. Don Diego was the finest artist in Spain, and would have been the best mentor concerning the art of painting. Juan\’s respect for his master, like Tree-ear\’s respect for Min, caused him to desire to make art. However, Juan faced the hindrance of the law from keeping him back from painting, whereas Tree-ear faced the concept of pottery being a father/son occupation. Despite the opposition Juan and Tree-ear faced, that did not stop them from fashioning their art in secret. They both had an overwhelming desire to create art, and would stop at nothing to achieve their goal.
My question is: How did the protagonists\’ social statuses obstruct them from achieving their goal of becoming an artist?
I did my original posts separately, and wanted to organize them into one post.
We are governed by both fate and free will.‘Free will’ and predestination work together to determine the destiny of an individual. It is always a matter of either/or in these debates whether we have free will, or life is determined. The notion of ‘free will’ states that we are free and responsible for our choices, and that the future is undetermined. Predestination states that life is determined, and our choices are meaningless. Why not both? This is however, an antinome, like light. Light sometimes acts in waves, and sometimes as particles. This is an apparent contradiction, but we accept it, because otherwise we wouldn’t know how to handle light. We should do the same for the predestination/free will issue. No one ever considers that both work in accordance to God’s sovereign will.
In The Giver, however, Jonas lives in a community of submissive citizens who must adhere to the strict rules and procedures of the Elders. Jonas is selected as Receiver of Memory with no choice. That is the predestination aspect of the community. However, what he does with this new task is up to him. It was his destiny to receives memories, both good and bad. As soon as he realizes the depravity of this community in light of morality, he breaks the community’s regulations, and smuggles his brother Gabriel out of the community. This occurrence was unplanned, perhaps driven by impulse. Jonas was able to change his role in society and his destiny as Receiver by escaping from the community. This novel illustrates that characters can in fact alter their destinies.In The Westing Game, Sam Westing offers the guests lavish rooms at low prices, the opportunity to win a good deal of money, etc. He controls the circumstances and fashions them in a way so that nobody would want to leave, which is exactly what he wants. He gathered them all together, taking them from a common living place to a large apartment complex. That alone changed all of their destinies.
The heirs still have a choice to leave, but Westing’s manipulation of the circumstances coerces them to stay. Westing knows these people too well and ultimately acts as a puppeteer of their destinies. It was fate for Sydelle Pulaski to take part in the Westing Game. She taught Angela that defiance is necessary in certain circumstances, and gave her the courage to disagree with her mother for once. Angela probably would have never decided to go to college if \\\”the mistake\\\” would have never showed up in Sunset Towers.
Did Jonas\\\’ truly change his fate by escaping the community, or was that his fate all along?
Luke Lomeli, and here is my original post.
The aspects of the Giver that may have been censored are the lethal injection of infants and elderly and the depiction of a somewhat socialist government system. The lethal injection of infants and the elderly may seem ludicrous today, but late term abortion of infants and active euthanasia of the elderly seem to be synonymous to the community\’s procedures. The United States, being the staunch capitalist country that it is, evokes fear in its citizens by the mere utterance of the words \”Socialism\” and \”Communism\”. The depiction of Jonas\’ community being a somewhat socialistic country setting could evoke a sense of fear in people concerning what could be right around the corner for the United States (even though this thinking is illogical).
In The Westing Game, the creation of greed may be the root cause of the censorship. Sam Westing\’s game brings about many pleasant results, but the greed aspect is not one of them. The influence of greed causes Madame Hoo to steal and Angela to place bombs inside of the apartment complex. The results of greed bring about grave danger in the competition.
Was the Westing Game meant to be a harmless competition?
RE: jesuaflores
Is it right to censor books if they contradict Christian values?
Of course not. Everyone has the freedom of speech and press as allowed by the first amendment to the Constitution. Anyone can say or write what they please, even if it offends the followers of a large world religion. They do not have to read the book. The author is not forcing every Christian to read the book against their will. If many people enjoy the books being produced, and only a few Christians want to censor the book, the majority will always win out anyways.
RE: kiryavalle
My question is, what makes someone considered an adult? Is it their age? Maturity? Both?
Answer: I would have to say that age would be the determining factor. Maturity does not define someone\’s adult status, as there are many people who are adults, yet are as immature as they were in their childhood years. If maturity defined someone\’s adult status, then many children who were mature for their age would be branded as \”adults\”. At the age of eighteen, we become labeled an adult, and from there we choose whether we want to be mature or not.
RE: babbagem
Is the aging/maturing system in The Giver a good idea?
Answer: Yes, despite the many flaws of the society in The Giver, their promotion of hard work at a young age is praiseworthy. They instruct the children of the community to maintain a good work ethic as they all work together to keep the community functioning. They also instruct the children to work without teaching the concept of incentive, which causes them to provide high quality work efforts in their area of expertise without disagreement.
The two reoccurring themes in both The Giver and The Westing Game are:
1. All children must become adults (the age of innocence/ tension between childhood and adulthood)
2. The importance of memoryThe first theme that is present is all children must become adults. As Jonas takes his first steps into manhood with his encounter of \”the Stirrings\”, we see that he is maturing physically. He also matures mentally. Jonas must begin to realize the immorality of the community by himself. He learns to both act and fend for himself and Gabe once he discovers that his parents are unreliable. Near the close of the novel, he must make decisions on his own, without consulting his parents or even The Giver. His choice to smuggle Gabe out of the community was both risky and could have had lethal consequences, but it was a sacrifice that Jonas was willing to make. In general, children must become adults after the Ceremony of Twelve. They are all given are role in life, and must forget their past lifestyle of playing and having fun. Children must mature and become adults in order to handle the responsibility of their jobs, because the community functions on each job being completed. Jonas in particular must mature in order to take on the pain and hardships of his assignment of Receiver of Memory. In The Westing Game, Turtle must begin to think critically like an adult in order to solve the mystery. Also, Angela must stop acting as a child and consider her own opinions before blindly following her mother\’s instructions. Doug Hoo must learn follow his own aspirations, despite what his father wants.
The second theme that is present in both The Giver and The Westing Game is the importance of memory. In The Giver, the community’s highest roles (excluding the Elders) are Giver and Receiver of Memory. The memories are very important to the society, for if they escape the grasp of the Giver and Receiver and enter the community, it will cause utter chaos. In The Westing Game, the importance of memory is demonstrated by the heirs trying to remember the will. Many of the heirs regret not writing down the will, and practically beg Sydelle Pulaski for a look at the will. The importance of memory can also be seen as remembering clues. Angela listens into the other heirs’ conversations and remembers their clues in order to give her an advantage.
Did Sydelle Pulaski’s shorthand copy of the will ultimately give her an edge in the competition? Why or why not?
Luke Lomeli, yeah.
I haven\’t made an original post but I really want to answer Hannah\’s question.RE: hshipway
Question: What are other words our society uses today to minimize the reality of a word, such as the term \”release\” in The Giver?
Answer: Some other terms that are synonymous to the concept of \”release\” in Jonas\’ society, that are used in today\’s society are: lethally injecting, aborting, terminating a pregnancy, and euthanizing (both passive and active).
These all \”sugar-coat\” the underlying truth of these actions; they all bring about death.
RE: jackobious1
Do we make the choices or does someone else?I forgot to relate this to the Giver and critique your argument. When the community decided to implement \”Sameness\”, they knew that it would result in the removal of all choices. The choices were made for Jonas by the Community. Also, in response to your \”When those rules are broken, he [Jonas] is criticized or punished\” comment. You should have made this a generalization, because Jonas does not get into any real trouble throughout the novel (Asher is punished more than Jonas).
RE: jackobius1
Question: Do you make the choices or does someone else?
Answer: This question is very vague, but I\’ll answer it to the best of my ability. We make choices in life everyday, and no one makes them for us. As @abbielee said \”our fate is the boundary our choices work within\”. We make choices that are ultimately part of our destiny, but we cannot change our destiny. We may believe we can change our destiny, or even have already changed our destiny, but we only perceive it that way. Our destiny is already made, and our every day choices work towards our destiny.
In The Westing Game, Sam Westing offers the guests lavish rooms at low prices, the opportunity to win a good deal of money, etc. He controls the circumstances and fashions them in a way so that nobody would want to leave, which is exactly what he wants. He gathered them all together, taking them from a common living place to a large apartment complex. That alone changed all of their destinies.
The heirs still have a choice to leave, but Westing’s manipulation of the circumstances coerces them to stay. Westing knows these people too well and ultimately acts as a puppeteer of their destinies. It was fate for Sydelle Pulaski to take part in the Westing Game. She taught Angela that defiance is necessary in certain circumstances, and gave her the courage to disagree with her mother for once. Angela probably would have never decided to go to college if \”the mistake\” would have never showed up in Sunset Towers.
Is there anything we can do on our own free will to ‘unseal’ our fate?
Luke Lomeli, hello.
RE: hshipway
I agree with Hannah relating these two novel\’s similar emphasis concerning irresistible grace versus \’free will\’.However, I disagree with many of these posts (including Hannah\’s) that accredit the determination of the future to one\’s ‘free will’ alone. As I\’ve said before, ‘free will’ and predestination work together to determine the destiny of an individual. If our destiny was formed by our free will alone, then God would be in heaven waiting for us to make a decision to form our own path, without knowing it beforehand. This would place a limit on God\’s infinite knowledge. This cannot be true, as God is omniscient (all-knowing). This omniscience (all-knowing) gives God foreknowledge of future events. He has predestined these events (Ephesians 1, Romans 8-9). Our free will does not fashion our destiny alone. We shape our destiny by making choices in everyday life, and God works it out for good (Romans 8:28). God is fixing everything in the way He wants not despite our choices, but through our choices.
Also, concerning the Giver, you stated that Jonas had to face “consequences such as leaving his family”. How exactly is leaving his family a consequence? His family was found to be incapable of loving him, and he began to feel desolate as a result. One of the many reasons why he left the community was due to the lack of empathy. Leaving his parents was not at all a consequence, but rather a blessing.
Luke Lomeli, hello.
RE: hshipway
I agree with Hannah relating these two novel\’s similar emphasis concerning irresistible grace versus \’free will\’.However, I disagree with many of these posts (including Hannah\’s) that accredit the determination of the future to one\’s ‘free will’ alone. As I\’ve said before, ‘free will’ and predestination work together to determine the destiny of an individual. If our destiny was formed by our free will alone, then God would be in heaven waiting for us to make a decision to form our own path, without knowing it beforehand. This would place a limit on God\’s infinite knowledge. This cannot be true, as God is omniscient (all-knowing). This omniscience (all-knowing) gives God foreknowledge of future events. He has predestined these events (Ephesians 1, Romans 8-9). Our free will does not fashion our destiny alone. We shape our destiny by making choices in everyday life, and God works it out for good (Romans 8:28). God is fixing everything in the way He wants not despite our choices, but through our choices.
Also, concerning the Giver, you stated that Jonas had to face “consequences such as leaving his family”. How exactly is leaving his family a consequence? His family was found to be incapable of loving him, and he began to feel desolate as a result. One of the many reasons why he left the community was due to the lack of empathy. Jonas leaving his parents was not at all a consequence, but rather a blessing.
We are governed by both fate and free will.‘Free will’ and predestination work together to determine the destiny of an individual. It is always a matter of either/or in these debates whether we have free will, or life is determined. The notion of ‘free will’ states that we are free and responsible for our choices, and that the future is undetermined. Predestination states that life is determined, and our choices are meaningless. Why not both? This is however, an antinome, like light. Light sometimes acts in waves, and sometimes as particles. This is an apparent contradiction, but we accept it, because otherwise we wouldn’t know how to handle light. We should do the same for the predestination/free will issue. No one ever considers that both work in accordance to God’s sovereign will.
In The Giver, however, Jonas lives in a community of submissive citizens who must adhere to the strict rules and procedures of the Elders. Jonas is selected as Receiver of Memory with no choice. That is the predestination aspect of the community. However, what he does with this new task is up to him. It was his destiny to receives memories, both good and bad. As soon as he realizes the depravity of this community in light of morality, he breaks the community’s regulations, and smuggles his brother Gabriel out of the community. This occurrence was unplanned, perhaps driven by impulse. Jonas was able to change his role in society and his destiny as Receiver by escaping from the community. This novel illustrates that characters can in fact alter their destinies.Did Jonas\’ truly change his fate by escaping the community, or was that his fate all along?
