Or, Tsuru no Ongaeshi, a classic Japanese fairy tale.

As you read, see if you can find any of the archetypes we’ve been discussing.  Also, if you’re familiar with The Decemberists, check out the lyrics for their album The Crane Wife.

Read twice, annotate.  We’ll talk about it on Monday.

During what turned into “storytime” on Monday, we looked at Ursula K. LeGuin’s short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.” Finish the story.  We’ll discuss it tomorrow. 

We’ll have a discussion of conformity tomorrow and seek answers to questions of equality, specifically: What is the overlap between a society that values conformity above all things and a society that values equality above all?  Is there any overlap?  Michel de Montaigne, considered by many to be the father of the modern essay (now you know who to blame), says of conformity:

Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul.

Which, of course, raises the question: What are the “finer senses”?  (See Kurt Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron“) After freeing himself from the equality devices, Bergeron dances with the prima ballerina.  Can we make the argument that the arts are made possible by these “finer senses” and thus non-conformity or rebellion?  Of course, Bergeron also declares himself “a greater ruler than any man who ever lived!”  So there’s the wrench in that analysis.  Thoughts?

Your homework for this weekend is to keep reading Brave New World (reading journal=friend) and finish Harlan Ellison’s “‘Repent, Harlequin!’ Said the Ticktockman.”  First question: What’s with the jellybeans?  I leave you to come up with other questions that pop up.

Bonus reading: Ursula LeGuin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.”  This is a quick read, but a very haunting story.  Read it if you so desire, but we will be focusing on Brave New World and Ellison’s story in class on Monday.

P.S.  If for any reason you have trouble opening Ellison’s essay, download a free PDF reader or read LeGuin’s story.  Discussion is impossible if we’re not all on the same page.

I’ve been very impressed by our discussions over the New Yorker article “Raj, Bohemian.” It’s interesting that 1st and 3rd hour came to fairly different conclusions about the narrator and what it means to be “bohemian.”

Here’s a synopsis of both arguments. Please let me know what you think of each, and whether I’m accurately recounting the discussion.

First hour: The narrator has set himself up to be robbed of his “cultural capital.” By placing such importance on the exclusivity of his interests and actions, he has allowed his personality to be dictated not by any actual interests he may have but by the sense of originality they afford him.

Third hour: This short piece highlights the impossibility of unselfconscious uniqueness in modern society. Because modern individuals are constantly bombarded by commercial goods and advertisements, it is impossible to make a completely personal choice about taste

Also, the narrator may be crazy.

Any thoughts?

Tomorrow we will be discussing the narrator’s self image in relation to the other chracters and his comments on his environment.

Cool side note: Hari Kunzru is the author of The Impressionist (2002), Transmission (2004), and My Revolutions (2007). His first won several awards in Great Britain and Transmission was a NYT notable book of the year. I haven’t read any of these. If you pick one up, let us know what you think.