Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Amelia Navarro No it doesn’t erase Darcy’s mistakes and wrongdoings because you can never truly forget what has been done but this is where the sayings that love covers a multitude of sin and love conquers all come into play showing that though she wont forget what Rochester did she can forgive him.
@kadenheadington When we first see Rochester yes he seems like a hero. Seeing this mysterious figure coming down the rode that Jane can fantasize will save her but past that moment we really have to dig a bit to see Rochester’s heroic side since he is rude to Jane.
HERO
“My bride is here,” he said, again drawing me to him, “because my equal is here, and my likeness. Jane, will you marry me?” To admit this would have been a huge blow to ones ego let alone a mans ego and yet alone again a mans ego at the expense to a woman. He must have truly cared about Jane to put away all of his pride to say this to her. Though she does not know it yet at the moment Mr. Rochester has set up a huge proposal offer by letting Jane see his vulnerable side. If Mr. Rochester loved her all along why did he mess with Jane so much past the point where it seemed he was no longer doing it to make her jealous?@ashleyfabella I feel like the book would have been popular in the 1800’s as it is now but for different reason as it is now. Now we see the book as a classic novel and see the different style Bronte wrote in, then though it may have caused quite a stir with the implications it made like with women being viewed as non superior beings. This may have caused the women to feel empowered and felt like this could be true and the men see it as a terrible idea that such a thing was happening and that society was fine the way it was.
@adriennedwyer we can see Bronte’s feministic views through out the novel by the way she portrays each individual man, each with their different faults and somehow connects them together to form her bad view of men through the novel.
Within Jane Eyre many female characters have come into play into role in Jane’s life. These characters help move the story along and provide insight into Jane’s life, thoughts, personality, and characteristics. Without these women we may not have know all we do about Jane Eyre or have the insight we do of all that she does. All these women play the important part of being Jane’s foil characters being everything she is not or having things she never did. A great example of this would be Helen Burns of Lowood. While Jane was forward and driven by anger Helen was calm and took punishment as a guide and driven by the future of heaven. We know more of the female characters than the male characters because the view of the entire book is from the view of Jane Eyre who happened to be a woman and the perspective of the insight to a woman’s mind was so accurate because the author herself was a female. The contrast between the male and female perspective through out the book allows us to see into the world Jane, as a woman, lived. That they were seen more as dainty objects than commanding philosophical thinking capable women. We see this in the way that Mr. Rochester was shocked or surprised way Jane’s speech and the way she talked to him and was very straight forth in her thoughts toward him. Without this character Mr. Rochester do you think Jane would have developed in the story the way that she has?
@hallegj I feel like we all look at others for guidelines to follow so we know that what we do is not wrong in the eyes of those around us and that we are socially acceptable and that people wont question our actions because that is what everyone else is doing.
@adriennedwyer I feel like we base our lives on almighty gods because as humans we feel like we are to flawed and imperfect to bring about goodness and perfection in the world, and who better to do that than “perfect” beings themselves.
by example because as humans we have a natural tendency to follow a figure whether it be a rule book or those just around us we need a source to show us how to live our lives and what is considered socially acceptable and hot to become socially acceptable and to do so we look at things around us to tell us what they are. So when we have theses myths doing exactly that its hard for us not to shift towards this output of ideas. This idea though of just following a list does not quench this search to fit, but when we get examples especially humanistic examples we try to be these role models it gives us a guideline to follow and different ways of following because though we say we want to be individual our nature tell us to be different and singled out is not a good thing and to be like the crowd just in a personalized way is the way to go about things. We cant just do this all the time because our natural curiosity of how things work and where did they come and why are we here kick in and these myths give us these explanations and answer our questions. Whether or not they are true was not the matter it was the quenching of the questions and doubt was the concern. And knowing these questions of our origin and having these answers for living life gave us the reason and meaning for life and that’s all we really want is to know that this life counts for something and its not just fleeting moments of nothing, but that there is a goal in the end. Whether that be attaining social status or pleasing the gods it gave us a standard to strive for daily. What is the cause for us wanting a logical explanation of our origins?
I agree with all of them. Here is the way I can best explain it; myths give us this stability and foundation on what we place our life in while showing us how to live and showing us how to do things and what to do by telling us who did those things and they did them and why you should do it because it was important that they did helping us to understand or place things we don’t get to make applicable to our lives which gives us a meaning to life and a reason to live knowing that its all not for nothing and that there is a bigger picture that we are apart of. Ok, so let me expound on the very confusing way I have put it. As humans we naturally need to put our trust in something whether it be a god or a story we need something we believe is true and that we can trust will provide a sufficient source of support to put our faith in. But to do so we need to follow by example because as humans we have a natural tendency to follow a figure whether it be a rule book or those just around us we need a source to show us how to live our lives and what is considered socially acceptable and hot to become socially acceptable and to do so we look at things around us to tell us what they are. So when we have theses myths doing exactly that its hard for us not to shift towards this output of ideas. This idea though of just following a list does not quench this search to fit, but when we get examples especially humanistic examples we try to be these role models it gives us a guideline to follow and different ways of following because though we say we want to be individual our nature tell us to be different and singled out is not a good thing and to be like the crowd just in a personalized way is the way to go about things. We cant just do this all the time because our natural curiosity of how things work and where did they come and why are we here kick in and these myths give us these explanations and answer our questions. Whether or not they are true was not the matter it was the quenching of the questions and doubt was the concern. And knowing these questions of our origin and having these answers for living life gave us the reason and meaning for life and that’s all we really want is to know that this life counts for something and its not just fleeting moments of nothing, but that there is a goal in the end. Whether that be attaining social status or pleasing the gods it gave us a standard to strive for daily. What is the cause for us wanting a logical explanation of our origins?
Theogony is the ancient tale of creation from the perspective of the Greeks belief in “the gods” where as the seven days of creation is the truth of how the world had come into existence. The difference between Theogony and creation is not only the truth it hold but the whole process of how our world had came forth. Theogony is the process that larger more descriptive things come out of broader categorized things, like moving from night to love. Creation was the segment in the beginning where God created everything from himself which he knows and contains all life. The difference between the two is that Theogony went from disorder to order back to disorder while Creation go’s from order to disorder due to mans sin.
1.Amazon-modern day meaning: a famous website/company that allows people to buy and sell items and have purchased items delivered via mail to them. Modern day landmark: a river located in South America that flows through Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, and Brazil named after a Spanish explorer who said he had been confronted by fighting women along the river. Greek meaning: the Greek believed that Amazon was a particular race of warrior women.
2.Arcadia-modern day meaning: a particular city in L.A. Greek meaning: Arcadia was believed to be a Utopian society where Pan and inhuman like creatures were living.@ashleyfabella Arthur would not have seen the reasons behind stuff without these adventures. Sure Merlin may have told him but he may have forgotten without the experience. Like the warless goose and how fighting over lines that are not there is pointless and how leaders can rule lives over manipulated information like the ants.
@taylornicholas13 Without Merlin Arthur may have become a spoiled brat in the courts because Merlin was the one who dropped him off at Sir Ector’s. And without Merlin’s advice his reign might have been like any other even if his childhood was nice at first Arthur found war fun so he might have gone after war all the time. But it was Merlin’s perspective of people dying and innocent people unhappy that started Arthurs drive for might for right and the reason behind the round table.
Goshawk makes the statement of people questioning the man feeding squirrels if that was mans work of the day. By saying this they implied shooting and war was the right thing to do. This was what was seen as right in Arthur’s time as well. Everybody found war thrilling and right in their own eyes as did Arthur at the beginning of his reign. As did Arthur after coming home from war he found it extremely exciting an fun or so he thought, till Merlyn put into perspective how many people die in these wars. Soon Merlyn changed his look on the subject to as Goshawk puts it, “It was useless to tell them that I would rather shoot rabbits than people.” Arthur’s view similar to the “intelligent fellow” is now to use might for right. These commoners like the men in the Goshawk statement go into these wars almost blind spoon fed what the leaders want them to know so they fight willingly. Arthur wants to change this and not fight to just fight but fight for the better of everyone especially the helpless. This idea and truth Merlyn told him is what sparked the establishment of the round table, and the whole premise of the book. Goshawk’s statement is true in a way to shoot people for life, fun, blindly is useless. If Mordred had died would Arthur be better off or would his kingdom still be falling apart?
@hallegj For your first question I do not think so because of the toll it would have taken on both of them mentally, and even if they did get over their love for each other there is always the memory of each other which could either bring regret or memories of love and start those feelings all over again.
As a child Lancelot was always a “holy boy” and tried to keep this image up as long as he could and dedicated himself to knight-hood. For most of his life this is what his identity was placed in. Lancelot always seemed to putting his identity in something never really find who his true self was. Soon he finds himself in a scandal which overtakes his life as well as his identity in his mind. Caught up in this lie and deceitfulness Lancelot finds his world turned upside down and his identity snatched away no longer being able to see himself as a loyal knight/friend or “holy boy”. Hoping to find his identity once again Lancelot embarks on a quest. In chapter 45 Lancelot finds himself in an incident where a wounded man is healed by his touch which apparently only pure and chaste knights are able to perform such miracles. This brings distress upon Lancelot further because it means that all which he identified himself with is untrue or that even all that is reverend is defiled now. Thus making his quest useless in his search for identity. This is like life we often identify ourselves with what we do and who we are with, not in who we truly are or want to be, in doing so when we can no longer identify with that thing or person we lose sight of what is right and true and often things become muddled and ruined. Lust for worldly things often bring us down and without God we cannot find our way back to peace. Do you think Lancelot was his own obstacle of why he lost his identity and couldn’t find it, or the obstacles themselves?
@alleydimmel I think the brothers will stay forever bonded over their years spent together and what not but will eventually go their separate ways to live their own lives. But I do not think they will have a fall out but remember their connection for life.
Wart’s and Kay’s relationship can be described on as hierarchy and respect between them. Truly I think there is reverence between them and respect for the one in the “above” position but no true deep love of those like true brothers. This can be seen when they were younger and Wart would do anything to please Kay because of his position above himself and his obedience as squire when Kay becomes a night. Though the tables turn when Wart is found to be the true heir to the throne and Kay accepts this by being Arthur’s helper. This is not the case however with Agravaine, Gawaine, Gaheris, and Gareth theirs is built on their brotherhood which brings out their mutual respect for one another. Their bond is one of survival compared to their cousins bond of education and knightly upbringing. The Orkeys relationship is based on family, love and loyalty while Kay’s and warts is based on respect. Could this be due to the fact that Wart and Kay are not true brothers like the Orkeys or because of their upbringings and parenting?
@dchin I think the first book was more humorous and light-hearted because it was the age of Wart’s innocence when he had not yet known about the true troubles surrounding the kingdom. It was the peak of his ignorance of looking at life as none other than a game. It was also when Wart had all of his childish adventures.
