taylornicholas13

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Mr. Rochester: Villian or Hero #10217

    @amelianavarro
    I don’t think that Mr. Rochester’s love for Jane excused his mistakes, because he could have simply told her the truth from the beginning. Even though he was hurt didn’t mean he needed to hurt someone else in the process.

    in reply to: Mr. Rochester: Villian or Hero #10216

    @alexharakas

    I don’t necessarily believe that Rochester can be both a villain and a savior, but I do believe that he can be a villain and have some good characteristics. Bad people can make good choicee, but aren’t necessarily viewed as a “savior”.

    in reply to: Mr. Rochester: Villian or Hero #10215

    HERO

    “I flatter myself I had hard and tough as an Indian rubber ball; pervious, though, through a chink or two still, and with one sentiment point in the middle of the limp. Yes: does that leave hope for me?… Of my final re-transformation from the Indian-rubber ball back to flesh?” (Brònte 138)

    This quote could one of two things: he was admitting himself as a villain or he was admitting his faults and showing he wanted to change. What do you think Rochester was trying to prove by saying this? Do you think he described himself accurately?

    in reply to: Dominating Women In Jane Eyre #10190

    @hallegj
    Jane’s world would be different if she hadn’t met Helen, because we as readers wouldn’t have been able to understand her fully. I also believe that her life would have been difference, because Helen helped Jane realize who she truly was.

    in reply to: Dominating Women In Jane Eyre #10189

    @peyton pointer
    I think that Mr. Brockelhurst did influence Jane’s view of men, because he was one of the first men in her life besides her father.

    in reply to: Dominating Women In Jane Eyre #10188

    Many of the female characters that surround Jane throughout the story are foils and show us many of Jane’s view that weren’t previously revealed. The character Helen Burns is the antichrist of Jane, and shows us her views of God. Helen believed that God was loving and forgiving. Jane, however, believed that God’s role in her life was to smite all who wrong her. Other women surrounding Jane made her more aware of the social inequality between men and women. Men such as Mr. Brockelhurst are depicted as unkind and cruel. Who do yo think played the most important role in Jane’s life? Why?

    in reply to: Forum 9.22: Why Do We Mythologize #10051

    @peytonpointer

    I think that the Greeks answered questions to creation as well as hey could have. Their myths are full of detail and answer many questions to their view of creation.

    in reply to: Forum 9.22: Why Do We Mythologize #10021

    @amelianavarro
    I disagree with mythologies view that good came from evil, because evil was originally good. No one would be able to tell if the world was truly evil if there wasn’t anything good to compare it to in the first place. However, in different circumstances I believe that God can change a person’s intentions and use the bad for good.

    in reply to: Forum 9.22: Why Do We Mythologize #10020

    I agree with: ++ Myths explain the unexplained. They reveal our fate after death, and the reasons for crises or miracles, and other puzzles — and yet they retain and even encourage an aura of mystery. Myths also satisfy our need to understand the natural world; for example, they might state that a drought is caused by an angry deity. This purpose of mythology was especially
    important before the advent of modern science, which offered the Big Bang theory to replace creation myths, and it gave us the theory of evolution to supplant myths regarding the genesis of humanity. And yet, science creates its own mythology.

    I agree with this statement, because mythology was origninally created by the Greeks to explain the unexplained.

    Why do you think that mythologies views and ideas are detail oriented?

    in reply to: Forum #4: The Entire Novel #9896

    @angelicacastaneda
    If Arthur never met Merlyn, I think his reign as king would have been very destructive. Without him, Arthur’s beliefs would have been different, and his destiny may not have been fulfilled.

    in reply to: Forum #4: The Entire Novel #9870

    @amelia152016
    I think that Lancelot was a better friend, because he was always there when it really counted. Lancelot saved both Guenevere and Arthur many times. Lancelot never did care for one over the other, he loved both of them equally. Without them, Lancelot would truly be lost. Even though Lancelot made mistakes, he never stopped loving his friend, and Arthur never stopped loving him.

    in reply to: Forum #4: The Entire Novel #9860

    In The Goshawk, the speaker mentions the peoples’ talents being wasted. While Arthur was a squire, his talents were not of use. His main responsibility was to be Kay’s servant. Merlyn was the only one who knew Arthur’s destiny. Arthur’s destiny is not revealed to him until he pulls the sword out of the stone. (White 198) The speaker also mentions the ideals that Merlyn implements into Arthur after he becomes king. Merlyn taught Arthur to value life in all aspects. Arthur learned that might is not of any use, unless it is used for right. This is where Arthur gets the idea of the Round Table and implements the term “Might for Right”.This quote is true, because everyone’s life and destiny are valuable. Why do you think Merlyn played such a critical role in Arthur’s life? Do you think Arthur’s life would have been different without his guidance?

    in reply to: Forum #3: Book 3: Knights #9694

    @alexharakas
    I think that Lancelot’s biggest regret was when Elaine took his virginity from him. He felt that he had sinned and couldn’t be forgiven, so he just kept on making the same mistake but with Guenevere. I think that Lancelot has taken it so far where he can’t fix the mess he’s made.

    in reply to: Forum #3: Book 3: Knights #9693

    @angelicacastaneda
    I think that it was more of Lancelot’s fault, because he was the one who let Guenevere become a distraction. He shouldn’t have pursued her when he knew she was married to his best friend.

    in reply to: Forum #3: Book 3: Knights #9692

    @amelia152016
    Yes I do think that Guenevere was bipolar in this situation. I also believe that the jealousy of Elaine having a child overwhelmed her, and confused her all at the same time. So, she pushed Lancelot away not knowing how to deal with the problem.

    in reply to: Forum #3: Book 3: Knights #9691

    Every teenager struggles with their self identity at some point. Just like Lancelot, we struggle to know who we really are and what our purpose is in life. We all want to perform that “miracle”, or make a difference in some way. Lancelot grew up loving the Lord, but soon fell away due to his love for Guenevere. Guenevere can represent the things in our Christian life that distract us from God. Lancelot was also always hard on himself, because of his appearance.Everyone always said he was the ugliest man they had ever seen, but also the most noble one. Even though he was ugly, Lancelot had better qualities that made up for it. Lancelot was kind, compassionate, and caring. Every teenager struggles with appearance as well, but what really matters is their internal character. Why do you think Guenevere, Arthur, and Elaine were able to see past Lancelot’s ugliness?

    in reply to: Forum #2: Book 1 and 2: Humor #9690

    @angelicacastaneda
    I think that the story changes from humorous to more serious, because in Book 1 Arthur was just a child. He found a lot of things more funny and interesting than he did when he was older. As he grew up and became king, he had less time to joke. He had to step up and be responsible over his whole kingdom.

    in reply to: Forum #2: Book 1 and 2: Humor #9689

    @alexharakas
    I believe that humor used in different eras is not always understood the same way in our current culture. People all over the world find different things funny. Some of the things the characters laugh at, is not always as funny to us as it was to them. I think that this affects the book, because T.H. White may have implemented things that were funny to him, but aren’t necessarily funny to us.

    in reply to: Forum #2: Book 1 and 2: Humor #9688

    T.H. White uses humor to bring light into dark situations. He uses different characters like King Pellinore, to make both Arthur and the reader more interested and entertained. Arthur first met King Pellinore while he was lost in the forest. When Arthur saw him, King Pellinore’s armor and helmet were falling off awkwardly. Arthur’s anxiety soon went away after King Pellinore started sharing stories about the Questing Beast. Another person who added humor to the story was Sir Grummore. Sir Grummore and King Pellinore had a tilting competition, which was organized by Merlyn. During the awkward fight, both men would have to take breaks to catch their breath because they were exhausted from fighting for so long. After finishing their fight, they became friends and would be incorporated throughout the rest of story to keep us entertained. What do you think the story would be like without the use of humor?

    in reply to: Forum #1: Book 1 and 2: Relationships Compared #9676

    @amelia152016
    Ever since they were kids, the Orkney brothers had tension. I think that the tension they had as kids will only grow stronger as they age. Gawaine and Agravaine are more violent and let their temper get the best of them, while Gareth and Gaheris are more slow to anger and understanding. I think their future will be complicated partly because of their different personalities, but also because of the decisions they make. As far as Kay and Arthur, I don’t think that they will drift apart. So far, Arthur and Kay have only grown closer since Arthur has become King. I think their relationship will continue to grow stronger.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 22 total)