It's time for required post #3 DUE BY THURSDAY AT 7:40. Please reflect on today's discussion over "Popular Mechanics" and "Soldier's Home."
QUESTIONS
1. Who made you think during today's discussion? What did they say that either changed your reading/interpretation of the stories, OR what did they say that you had not previously considered?
2. What additional comments or observations do you have about the stories?
**AS IN CLASS REFLECTION, PLEASE TRY NOT TO SIMPLY REPEAT WHAT OTHERS HAVE ALREADY POSTED. If someone posts what you also had for reflection, try to add something original or look at a different aspect of the story or discussion. It's ok to agree with what has already been posted, but YOU MUST ADD YOUR OWN ORIGINAL ideas as well.
**ALSO, PLEASE CONSIDER RESPONDING TO THE POSTS OF OTHERS IN YOUR REFLECTION. YOU MAY POST MORE THAN ONCE IF SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING TO WHICH YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND.
14 comments:
I agree with Tamara about Coleigh's comment, but also Lauren's and Ben's comments made me think when they brought the story into perspective and talked about selfishness and how the story represents real custody battles. I took the story very literally and missed the "significance to the work as a whole," haha.
In Popular Mechanics, at first I had thought that the "issue" was that their divorce was final and their relationship was through. Yet when Sarah and Colten mentioned that they thought the baby had died at the end, I hadn't even thought of it in that perspective. Then Coleigh's comment was an even different view on the story. It's interesting to hear different perspectives of things I would have never considered.
In Soldier's Home, in the religious aspect, I wondered if maybe Krebs going to war through a Methodist school possibly played a part in turning him away from God.
Okay, so I know I already posted, but I was thinking about the question on Popular Mechanics that said to read 1 Kings 3, and I just did...it totally changed the way I looked at the story (again). To summarize the story in the Bible, it's about King Solomon judging a case between two women who both claim one baby belongs to them. He tells them to cut the kid in half and give half to each woman. One woman says, No don't kill him, and the other woman says, That's only fair. King Solomon knew the first woman was the mother because she didn't want the baby to die.
So....maybe the issue was decided because the man was like the second woman when he "pulled back very hard," and it became obvious that the mother cared about the baby more. Did anyone else read this, and does anyone else have any thoughts?
P.S. Sorry this post was so long. =)
Coleigh's comment about the baby picture really changed my thoughts about "Popular Mechanics." I had only looked at the obvious things stated in the story.
to Sarah: Your last post definately just helped me understand the story a lot more. I agree with you =).
I also liked Colten's suggestion of the theme selfishness in "Popular Mechanics." I think a lot of marital problems are based mainly on something that is selfish.
1. Coleigh's remark that the parents could have been struggling over possession of a picture vs. the real baby definitely made me think; I examined the story with a keener, more alert pair of eyes after that comment.
2. We were talking about what else the mother could have done to help Krebs at one point in the seminar. I think listening to him talk about the war would have made him much more open with her and would have improved his ability to cope with his experiences in the war.
Sarah,
I love that you went back and read that passage. I was wondering if anyone would bring that up during discussion, so I'm glad you included it in your reflection. Does that change or enlighten anyone else's perspective? If so, explain.
1.) I would've originally posted about Coleigh's comment, however Max's comment about the war and life after the way made me think about how people are treated. The Vietnam vets were not honored when they returned home.
2.) Sarah, I like the passage from the Bible you posted. Are you interpreting it as the father was less considerate and pulled the child hard as if it were just a possession? That is my thought.
-Have a great day everyone. =)
1. Sarah's new blog post gave me a new perspective on the story. To be honest, I didn't even see the part where it said to read 1 Kings Chapter 3. I personally thought that the father ended up with the baby because his force outweighed the mothers.
2. I couldn't remember if we spoke about this in class, but in "Soldier's Home," Krebs states that he didn't want to come home from war. I have always thought that soldiers couldn't wait to come home to their families. This gave me a new aspect on how soldiers deal with wartime experiences.
Really there wasn't any one thing tha changed my opinion about either story. I liked Max's comment about how badly the Vietnam vets were treated when they came home. It made a lot of sense (the comment, not the treatment). One thing I wanted to get in the discussion was from "Soldier's Home". I was just going to say that one of the things I thought the author was trying to get across was that war steals your innocence. Krebs might have been happily naive before the war but when he came home he was suffering from PTS and antisocial disorder. That's what made him so cold.
Ms. Harl, since I wasn't in class do I have to post?
I agree with Colten about how the baby possibly died at the end of "Popular Mechanics". Now, I also see the meaning behind the ending that at first I missed. I see now that the baby, whether it died or not, signifies the damage that a nasty break-up can have on a child.
I really liked what Coleigh had to say about what if the whole entire ordeal in "Popular Mechanics" was all over the photograph of the baby mentioned in the beginning of the story, and the whole entire time they were arguing over who was going to take the picture. It also kind of led me to believe that something happened to the baby prior to the fight, and thats what may have led to the divorce and separation, and the argument of who was going to keep the photo of there late child. Like Sarah I took the story to literally and missed the work as a whole and the signs and symbols it was trying to show.
Honestly it has been a while and I dont remember the discussion a whole lot. The ones that stick to be is obviously coleighs since it was so "outside the box". Also I just read sarah's comment about the connection with the bible. It kind of answers the question on what it was about and it brings a whole new perspective. Also it gives the story more meaning and understanding.
Post a Comment