The Lesson

Sentence: The Lesson is a story literally about a woman taking some kids out to a toy store, but with the theme of (un)equal opportunity.

Questions:
Level One: Where do the kids and Miss Moore go?
Level Two: Do the kids appreciate what Miss Moore is trying to tell them?
Level Three: Does it matter if America is a land of equal opportunity or not?

Observations:
First of all, we did all the ‘Is America really the land of equal opportunity?’ and whatnot last year, so I feel like I’ve already said all there is to say on this subject. (I.e., that no it’s not and that’s really bad and we can’t really do much about it.) However, there are other aspects of the story I can address.

I didn’t particularly like the piece. First of all, I didn’t like the main character. ‘Sylvia’ did not seem like a nice or sympathetic person. Her telling of how she locked ‘Sugar’ in the shower, among other things, was not particularly conducive to my ability to sympathize with her. Also, she seemed sort of a blatant plot device- her only purpose to allow the author a way to explain how America wasn’t the land of equal chances and opportunity and dreams. The addition of her ‘tough’ personality seemed like a bad attempt at giving her more dimension and disguising her plot device function. (The same thing applies to Miss Moore and the rest of the kids in a lesser degree; the only exist in order for the author to use them to talk about equality; any original qualities they own seem contrived and artificial.)

Second, if the author was subtly and artistically trying to make a point about poverty and unfairness, she (or is it a he?) failed. Not at making the point- that was glaringly obvious- but at artistic quality and subtlety. Sugar’s questioning speech about democracy and equal chance ruined any subtlety the piece possessed, which wasn’t much to begin with. The characters seemed to be there in order to explain that ‘all these wasteful toys cost a lot of money which could go to better things but they don’t so that’s not quite ‘American’ is it?’ The whole thing seemed contrived and was annoying. I tried to enjoy it, because I agree with the message completely, but this short story was not the way to explain the point literarily. The author would have done better with an essay.

As for my Level Three question, yes, I do think it matters. I thought that that might apply to this story because some of the kids in the story did not seem impressed with the message Miss Moore and Sugar were trying to convey. To them, does it matter if America really is the land of the equal and fair? They probably don’t think about questions such as these, so consciously, it doesn’t seem to matter to them, as in they don’t care. But the answer to questions like that does affect them. America is not a land of equal chance, which definitely affects their lives even though they don’t think about it.

Joe#3

Joe is realizing that the people in charge of the war, the government, etc., are seeing the future and know that if another war 'needs' to be fought, if Joe shows and tells everyone who and what he is, then no one will fight (or fewer people, anyway). Joe's perception of this is that he needs to point the gun at the people who told him to fight in order to clear them away so he can tell his story and people will listen and believe and war will be less and life will be better. Like we discussed in class, he feels he needs to fight in order to stop fighting.

Joe#2

I agree with what Joe wants; I think it's a good thing to communicate to people what he went through and why it's necessary to have as little war as possible. In a similar situation, I'd want that too. It goes beyond Joe's earlier desire of just talking with someone- he actually wants to communicate his suffering and ideas to others. In a sense, he'll be speaking for the dead (which is almost the name of that one book). I think he's uniquely qualified to do that because like he said earlier in the novel, he is the closest thing to dead and he needs to tell people that life as they know it should not be taken for granted.

Joe #1

Joe has lost his arms, legs, nose, mouth, eyes and ears. It matters a lot (to him). It makes him think of himself as a spokesperson for the dead because he can understand what they feel like because he can't interact with the world- just lie there. It changes his entire outlook on life. He no longer believes in 'fighting for a word' because he doesn't believe it was worth it, compared to what happened to him. His mind also becomes more active (after briefly losing his grip on reality). To him, it feels like he is someone else now.

To everyone else, it mostly doesn't matter. His friends and family and girlfriend will grieve for him, the doctors who helped him live will be proud of their medical accomplishment (he talks about that at one point) but everyone else doesn't care that one American in a war where millions have died is still alive, though mostly insensate. He's less than a statistic to them. (Did they have statistics back then? Did anyone care? As much as now?)

Wolfson

He makes it his first task in extensively describing marriage because it is the central theme in his argument. We learned about that one type of argument in class where defining your X was how you had to write the argument. If your audience doesn't understand exactly what you're talking about, you won't convince them of anything because they will argue with you about what you are doing and not about what you meant to say.

He defines marriage today (key point-TODAY) as a legal union of those who love each other, regardless of gender/sex. I think this definition is slanted to his point of view. I agree with him, but I still think it is slanted. Many people would define marriage as sacred or as a convenient arrangement. Take for example other cultures. I think Wolfson's definition of marriage is what the definition of marriage should be, but just using the words 'should be' makes it automatically slanted. Not incomplete or illogical, just not taking into account other's views because he believes they're wrong.

Santorum

This means that marriages work, say 99% of the time, whereas single-family households work only, say, 80% of the time. I disagree with this, but that's not what we have to do, we have to analyze it. I really don't know what to say about the metaphor, the meaning of it is slightly obvious. I do think, though, that one can't quantify the amount of marriages that work (for the kids, as is his point). You can't count every single marriage and you can't objectively decide how good it is for kids. This is also a value judgement in black and white that you can't make. If the kids turn out bad, it might not be the fault of the family situation. So his stats, while numerous, don't make sense. Although, I've digressed from the metaphor. I still think the metaphor is based on opinion and not fact.

Appearances

She waits because it gives it more effect. It's like a surprise, a shock, and gives her tale more impact. She discloses it because it shows how antigay violence affects more than just gays and leads her to her explanation of gender betrayal. It affects more than just gays, which makes her argument to stop it stronger because if this type of violence hurts more than just the target (however unjust the violence is) it is more than just wrong to participate in/allow it; doing so is dumb. Why foster prejudice when you could be the one to get hurt? This leads her to the term gender betrayal because she has to explain that gays aren't the 'gender betraying' 'menaces' prejudiced people think they are. Heterosexuals can look 'gay' and vice versa. So this changes the issue of antigay violence for those people who were for or sort of for it originally. (People originally against it would be against it no matter what). Realising that stereotypes are wrong and can affect you would change your thinking a lot.

Girl: #7

keep your room clean; keep your bathroom clean; don't leave papers lying around; don't leave books where they can get wet; don't smack your gum; don't chew with your mouth open; be nice to your sister; do your homework; eat all the food on your plate; remember what you have to bring; take your dishes to the sink; tie your shoe; brush your teeth; don't pick your nose; don't stay up late; this is how you make noodles; this is how you make eggs; this is how you do the laundry; this is how you wash the table; sweep the floor; be polite to people you don't know; tie your other shoe; keep up, don't wander off; don't lose your temper even when the other person deserves it; bring your dirty clothes up, don't leave them on the floor; don't talk back; this is how you sit at a fancy restaurant; speak clearly; get up on time; keep your shower clean; don't tell secrets; don't pick fights; don't give in to peer pressure; don't buy things you don't need; this is how you use the oven; this is how you braid your hair; write legibly; don't smoke; don't do drugs; listen when I talk to you; don't spend all day on the computer; wash the cheese off the bowls; respect others; don't draw on yourself; wear your bands; wear your retainer; just kill the spider, it won't hurt you

''Manliness''

Even according to Mansfield's definition of manliness, then no, it and sensitivity are not incompatible. Mansfield defines manliness as 'gallant', 'protective', 'courageous', 'aggressive', 'confident', 'frank'. He defines sensitivity as understanding and sympathizing with other's mindsets. The two definitions are not mutually exclusive. Nowhere does it say that you can't be both, say, sympathetic and courageous, or understanding and confident. The word aggressive might be a little more difficult to be along with sensitive. Of course, that doesn't mean all men are both 'manly' and sensitive. Look at Eustace Conway. He fits the definition of manly. He can be gallant (charming, courteous) if he chooses. He's protective of the environment and of his land and ideas. He's courageous-you don't go fighting with wild animals unless you are. He's definitely confident and aggressive, and he's also direct and honest- frank. However, he's not sensitive. He doesn't understand people, especially women, and how to understand and get along with them. He can't sympathize with anyone- he think if everyone acts like him, then all will be well and doesn't understand that not everyone is like him. So, while manliness and sensitivity according to Mansfield can be traits of the same person, they don't have to be.

The Last American Man

Gilbert believes that Eustace is the last American man because he lives in the way that traditionally is defined as the true role of American men. He lives in the wild, carving his way to what he wants through strength, self-sufficiency and guile. In the past, that's what defined an American man- when he went out west and built a log house and ate deer and fought off bandits. Literally, men don't do that anymore. Figuratively, some still do- their strength is in maybe athletics, their self-sufficiency isn't literal but motivational or financial (they rely on themselves to find their way in life and pay for it) and their intelligence is in a college degree or a career skill. But not everyone does this and not everyone thinks of it as similar to the pioneer man.