 VCCS Litonline
Page TitleCriteria for Effective Forum RepliesEffective responses to questions asked in forums are
Background on This Forum: This page is excerpted from about two hours of work on consecutive days for a summer class who went to a computer lab, opened the forum site by typing its URL into Netscape's "location" field, and typed answers to each other to a few teacher prompts on specific works, comparisons of two protagonists, or "global" questions that caused them to write about any of several works from the course. They could also ask their own questions. In addition, notes by 3 teachers are included from their postings to the forum. In reality, many forums focus on a single topic, such as one author or one literary work. Also, links jump to other pages, not to a place further down the page. In most of the forums for this online introduction to literature course, you will be asked to "reply" to a question asked by the teacher or to "reply" to another student's response. As you get more experienced with forums, you will learn some of the usual features and options, like these:
Directions: Click on links or scroll down to read sample entries. (This
page is self-contained--the samples have been gathered below, names removed, and
in index provided in the listing of entries just below. S = student
entries; T = notes from other teachers.)
In an actual forum, the following entries would pop up
on separate pages when you clicked on their link from the forum list.
They're stacked here for your convenience so that you can compare entries
easily. An entry is marked by lines above and below. They are listed
in the same order as their links in the forum list, above.
Willy, like Oedipus, becomes a savior but at the cost of his own life. But Willy dies happier than Oedipus. Back to the top of the list.
In reply to "Death of a Salesman" posted by Prof Hibb on July 22, 1997 at 12:54:07 It is difficult to compare Oedipus and Willy. Oedipus was, in reality, well known and a king, while Willy only pretended and made up stories about being well known. In a sense they both come to a tragic end, only Oedipus saves his kingdom from a plague. In his end, Willy actually ruins things for his wife and does not really have a positive effect on either of his kids. While we feel that Hap will continue being this "player", we almost know that Biff will become a fence mender. I do not see how this could possibly be a salvation for anyone but Willy himself. Now it is true that he left 20,000 dollars to his family through a life insurance policy, but we don't even know if they ever receive this money, since many policies don't pay for suicides. Back to the top of the list.
In reply to "Death of a Salesman" posted by Prof Hibb on July 22, 1997 at 12:54:07 I would not call Willy Loman a savior of anything except his own grief. That
is the only thing he Comparing Oedipus to Willy Loman is a difficult task. While there is tragedy in both stories, the settings and time periods are so different it is difficult to see them as similar. Oedipus was a savior by solving the riddle of the Sphinx, but a murderer and a commiter of incest, even though he did not know that until after he had done it. Oedipus was more courageous than Willy because even though he did inflict injury upon himself, he did not kill himself, but lived with his grief and his ostracism. Willy was a coward, for taking the easy way out, and also for never having the courage to follow his heart with his job choice, since it was mentioned that "there was more of him in those front steps than in all the sales he ever made", and he was good with his hands and enjoyed making and fixing things. One would wonder what would have happened to the Loman family had Willy decided years ago to follow his true calling and work with his hands, doing something he enjoyed and being true to himself instead of trying to make himself something grand with his big pipe dreams. Back to the top of the list.
Which character is the more blameworthy for the killing he does--Oedipus, Claudius, or Hamlet? Back to the top of the list.
In reply to More blameworthy murderer posted by Eric P. Hibbison on June 23, 1997 at 15:12:31 All have committed unnecessary murders. They should all be blamed for their murderous acts. But out of Oedipus, Claudius, and Hamlet, I would have to say that Claudius was the most "blameworthy." Claudius had committed murder purely for self-advancement. He killed King Hamlet (the first) because he wanted his power, kingdom, riches, respect, and his wife. He had no justification in his actions, such as, defending himself or a family member. Hamlet killed out of rage, love for his father and mother, avenging his father's death, and dislike for a very bad person. Hamlet's reasons are justified, although the way he handled his revenge caused other people to die unnecessarily. Oedipus also was a murderer who didn't have any real cause for the murders he committed. Although he wasn't as bad as Claudius, his reasons for killing were poor and stupid. He unknowingly killed his own father along with some of his guards, at the place where three roads meet (Phocis), just because he felt he should have the right-of-way. Back to the top of the list.
In May, 1997, I posted this question to a listserv for community college English teachers. The first 2 responses are from other teachers who also use that listserv, who are quoted with their permission. Post your response by clicking on "follow up." Here's an hypothesis regarding an old chestnut, Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily," which many of us use in an Introduction to Literature course or American Lit. Survey. Please agree or disagree with the following statement and tell why: Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily" reads better as a symbolic short story than as a literal narrative. Back to the top of the list. Re: "A Rose for Emily": literal or symbolic story? Posted by Eric P. Hibbison on May 23, 1997 at 16:47:23 In reply to "A Rose for Emily": literal or symbolic story? Posted by T1 on May 23, 1997 at 16:40:26 Re: Rose for Emily. I also thought Ol' Homer had just somehow died, and that Emily simply couldn't bear to be without him. However, I found a book of criticism of this story in the Clemson University library (which I can re-find if you'd like). It included some information that according to some of Faulkner's papers, he originally had included a short scene that would've told readers that Emily and her Black hired helper had an agreement that if he'd keep a secret she'd give him money upon her death. The Black guy allegedly ultimately became disgusted with this arrangement, but stuck to his end of the bargain. The actual secret was not revealed. According to this book, and, I guess obviously, Faulkner later deleted this scene. SM () Back to the top of the list.
In reply to "A Rose for Emily": literal or symbolic story? posted by Eric P. Hibbison on May 23, 1997 at 16:40:26 I wouldn't count on the story being literally impossible. Before you reject
the possibility of Emily keeping Homer's body in her home or in her bed, realize
that parallels exist. In Delaware not too long ago (late 1980s?), after an
elderly man died in bed, his wife and adult daughter lived in the same room with
him for several years. Neighbors' complaints about odor finally led to discovery
of the body. There wasn't a clear crime involved. He had died of natural causes,
and this probably wasn't pension fraud. Apparently, both women really had
convinced themselves that the man was ill and therefore not eating much.
(Understandably, there were some doubts about the women's sanity and about the
possibility of folie a deux.) Let me know if you want the exact newspaper
references. Carolyn Back to the top of the list.
In reply to "A Rose for Emily": literal or symbolic story? posted by Eric P. Hibbison on May 23, 1997 at 16:40:26 The question of whether or not Faulkner's story "A Rose for Emily"
is literal or symbolic could be Looking at the symbolic aspect of "A Rose for Emily", I can think of two symbolic meanings right off the top of my head. First of all, the title of the story suggests that Emily gets a rose, but this rose is not a real rose, and not even what most people would consider a rose. Homer Barron is Emily's rose, the only bright spot in her life, though not much of one if you ask me. She did enjoy his company, and being courted by someone outside of her social class has some element of excitement to it. The other element of symbolism is what was mentioned in class, that the curtains in the room where the decayed body of Homer Barron was found were pink or rose colored--a decorating pun, if you will, by Emily to demonstrate the meaning of Homer to her. These curtains are possibly the only hint of bright, airy coloring in the entire house, setting it apart from the dim and dreary attitude lingering in the other rooms. Back to the top of the list.
Who is the more blameworthy murderer--Emily Grierson or the Misfit from
"A Good Man Is Hard to Find"? Re: "A Rose for Emily" Posted by T3 on June 16, 1997 at 21:57:28 In reply to Re: "A Rose for Emily" posted by Eric P. Hibbison on March 09, 1997 at 15:48:47 How sure are we that either of these characters committed murder. Sure, the
conventional thing to do is to convict these characters on pretty circumstantial
evidence. Do we see Emily feed Homer the toxins? Perhaps he had a heart attack
in a fit of passion! And the Misfit's father? Perhaps his memory is more
reliable than the shrink's diagnosis despite the Misfit's cruelty now. Oh, these
two are pieces of work all right. But murderers? Maybe not.... Re: "A Rose for Emily" Posted by Student 2 on July 23, 1997 at 12:11:09 In reply to "A Rose for Emily" posted by Eric P. Hibbison on March 09, 1997 at 15:48:47 I would have to say that The Misfit from "A Good Man is Hard to Find" is a more blameworthy murderer than Emily Grierson because of the motives behind the killings. The Misfit killed basically for the fun, and excitement of it, not caring how many people he killed, who they were, or why he was killing them. Recklessly, he was running around killing people, with no plan of action except to get things like clothes and vehicles and keep on running from the law. It may sound strange, but somehow, killing seems to have more justification if there is a reason for it. Not that that makes it right, by any means, but it makes it more human, I guess. Emily killed Homer Barron because she wanted to possess him; granted, this is a twisted way of possessing and loving someone, but we must keep in mind that Emily was not a mentally stable individual. She was only trying to hold on to the only good thing she had ever had, and she learned about possession from her father, so in a sense it is not really her fault. Maybe that is letting her off the hook, and being hard on The Misfit because he is a hardened criminal. What do you think? Back to the top of the list. END OF SAMPLE
|
|
