[Emily Peterson]

I think that prejudices inhibit our ability to learn today by being so deeply ingrained in us from the very beginnings of our education that often times, students aren’t even able to recognize these prejudices, and instead interpret them as the norm, and cease to think critically about certain behaviors. In order to educate ourselves to overcome these prejudices, we must first learn how to recognize them, and also how to critically think about our own behavior. What are our motivations? If a student is not able to recognize why telling someone that they “throw like a girl,” is incredibly offensive, that student has no hope of overcoming sexist tendencies. It can be difficult to assess your own behavior and understand what motivates the decisions you make when you didn’t even realize that you were making a decision about something. It can only be through intense self-checking that these prejudices can be overcome, and that we can carry on learning without being influenced by these ideas.

[Emily Peterson]

Like Emily, I found the changing of the the capitalization of the word “liberty” to have the biggest impact on the meaning of the address. In capitalizing “liberty,” Lincoln seems to be giving the word more credence. Capitalizing this word gives it the appearance of a proper noun—something that is recognized and respected. It also feels less like a mystical concept, and more of a concrete idea when it is capitalized.

I found the change from a semi-colon to an em-dash in the line “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation…” (that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation…”) I believe that em-dashes serve to create a much more dramatic pause, and add emphasis the word that was used right before it, in this case the word “vain.” I also think that this em-dash more accurately represents the way someone would speak this line, and not just read it in their head.

[Emily Peterson]

To me it seems like Thoreau’s commentary in this particular section of Walden is meant to highlight to animalistic qualities of humans.  He is saying that since war is found in all levels of “civilization”—from ants to humans, perhaps the way we rank civilization is more arbitrary than we think. If war exists among ants, who (as far as we know) don’t have a sense of “higher purpose” as humans do, what does that say about humans? To put it simply, Thoreau is suggesting that war is in fact a natural fact of life and the fact that humans engage in war demonstrates their animal nature.

[Emily Peterson]

You bring up a really great point about this contradiction. I would certainly agree that Thoreau was a social author, intending his book to be read by the public. At the risk of committing an intentional fallacy, I think we can agree that Thoreau wrote Walden with the intention of capturing the attention of a wide audience. We know that Thoreau was an avid journal keeper. This information lends itself to the belief that Thoreau made a distinction between in his writing of what was meant for himself and what was meant for a larger audience. As far as whether or not Thoreau was betraying his belief in the value of the individual over the society, that’s much harder to answer. If we read Thoreau’s work as a call to action for the individual—to take up and live a solitary life like Thoreau, than I think you could argue that Thoreau is not betraying this belief. But if you read Walden as a work meant to bring people together and to discuss and think, than I think yes, Thoreau is contradicting himself.

[Emily Peterson]

I’m not entirely sure that shorter titles necessarily create an aura of mystery in most cases. Yes, a title can be catchy and inspire intrigue, but I think most of the mystery created in a novel would come from the text within. As far as being an “uninformed reader” goes, most books include a brief summary on the back jacket. These jackets, I suppose, do what the long titles of the past used to do. The purpose of titles has certainly changed, but not in a way makes the reader less informed. Titles should be read and interpreted as just part of the text.

[Emily Peterson]

I think that how a reader approaches a text is more crucial than the form of the text. One may argue that the aesthetic form of the text (e-reader, iPhone, physical book, etc.) affects the reader’s “experience”. But is this “experience” that we talk about what we hope to gain from a text? I think that ultimately what is contained within the words of the text and how we choose to interpret them will transcend whatever medium they happen to take shape in. While feeling the weight of a codex on your hands may feel like a more satisfying experience, at the end of the day the information that is contained within the text is what we have to hold on to and interpret. Reading doesn’t have to exclusively serve the purpose of gathering information, but if that is your purpose than whatever form the information is delivered should not matter as much as the information itself.

[Author]

Posts