We’ve finished up Things Fall Apart and are now moving on to Camus’s The Stranger.  This is an interesting take on the identity theme we’ve been exploring, so I’m excited to see how you like it.

This story is a classic example of existentialist literature (as we discussed in class), so this should be a good representation of the “personal choice” aspect of our breakdown of identity, but we may find otherwise.

We will read to Part Two this weekend (page 59, I believe).  If you have any questions or strokes of insight, please post a comment below.

Here’s the “From the Board” on Things Fall Apart.  Remember, all homework for this session is due this Thursday the 18th.  I won’t accept anything after this.  We will be discussing chapters 4-6 tomorrow.

We’ve had some great discussions the past few days.  If you are still uncertain about a topic, ask Stacie.  She keeps cranking them out then disowning them. 

We decided to finish the book by Tuesday, which seems reasonable.  Don’t rush if you’re feeling behind. Enjoy the book, read a bit every day, and you’ll be fine.

Here again are the board clips (less jumbled this time):

Sherrie presented her idea for synthesizing Ellison’s short story, MLK’s “Letter…,” the novel, and Montaigne’s quotation on conformity.  (Keep us updated!)

The question I put before the class was:  Are they happy?  If so, why?  If not, does it matter?  We went through a list of things in our lives that upset us, then crossed out those that are eliminated in the BNW.  The next question was why is Bernard unhappy initially, and what is the source of Hemholtz’s discontentedness?

If you come up with an idea, want to offer one to the class, have a question, or a general observation, comment below for the good of all.

We had a great discussion today, guys!  Here are my notes.  The screencast thing didn’t work, but here is a copy of my notes, jumbled for your interpretative pleasure:

(Click on the pics to make them printable/legible.  Well, larger, anyway.)

Thanks, guys, for keeping me on task.

During our last few discussions we have found it easy to dismiss the dystopian society described in Huxley’s work.  “Of course someone would rebel against a society that cares so little about its citizens.  Of course it is not right to determine someone’s caste from birth.  Of course a person should rebel against morally unjust laws.”  Maybe, maybe not.

Enter Plato.  Written around 360 B.C.E., Plato’s Crito is a dialogue between Socrates, who has been condemned to die by the government of Athens, and his friend Crito, who wishes to help Socrates escape before his sentence can be carried out.  Their debate centers on the question of whether it is just to disobey laws one does not find just.  This may seem like a simple question, but we’ll see just how complex it is.

To add another position to the argument (from a related situation, but not the same), we will read Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”  In this letter, Dr. King makes a moral argument for disobeying unjust laws.

With these two readings, we will return to Brave New World with perhaps a different perspective.  Each of us may or may not come to a personal conclusion to these questions, but we will have a better awareness of the intricacies of this particular aspect of the Conformity/Rebellion discussion.