1984 Socratic Seminar Preparation Sheet #4

Part I: Summarization

Winston and Julia are captured by the Thought Police and sent to prison.  Winston is brainwashed and tortured until he is forced to believe the ideology of the Party and love Big Brother.  His love for Julia is destroyed, as is her love for him. 

                                                                                                                                     

Part II: Question Development

What values does the Party fear?

When Ampleforth is put in jail with Winston, he says he was put there because he “allowed the word ‘God’ at the end of a line [of a poem].”  This shows that the Party fears religious devotion, as it might spur hope of revolution.  This contrasts with modern popular belief in the freedom of religion and the freedom to worship any god.  Ethical appeal.

What evidence suggests that criminals are still loyal to the Party?

When Winston asks who denounced Parsons, Parsons replies “‘It was my little daughter’…with a sort of doleful pride.”  This shows that even though Parsons is imprisoned, he still remains loyal to the Party by agreeing with his punishment.  Logical appeal.

What evidence suggests that Big Brother is not alive?

When Winston is in prison, he asks O’Brien if Big Brother is alive in the same way that he is, with arms and legs and u unique absolute location in space, to which O’Brien replies “It is of no importance.  He exists.”  This shows a certain level of doubt in O’Brien as he does not fully answer the question and tries to change the subject, suggesting that Big Brother might not be real.  Logical appeal.

What suggests that Oceania has hindered scientific progression?

O’Brien states that “The earth is the center of the universe.  The sun and the stars go round it.”  This ideology was an ancient thought prevalent before Renaissance times, and modern science shows that the sun is the center of the universe, which is the popular belief of all educated people.  Ethical appeal.

To what extent can the Party control humans?

When discussing future Party plans, O’Brien mentions that that “We shall abolish orgasm.”  This idea seems too farfetched for a government to exert on its people.  Therefore the Party is shown to be capable of controlling minds but its power is restricted concerning human instincts.  Logical appeal.

Based on the end of the book, is the authority of the Party really absolute?

The last words of the story are “[Winston] had won the victory over himself.  He loved Big Brother.”  This goes directly against Winston’s rebellious attitude towards the party before he was sent to prison and brainwashed.  This shows that humans are powerless in the face of the Party, and therefore that the party’s rule is unstoppable.  Logical appeal.

How strongly is human emotion influenced by other people?

Without the influence of other human beings, emotions such as love and pain cannot exist because they are impossible to apply to someone else.  Therefore, human contact is necessary for the development of emotion.  Emotional appeal.

Does human powerlessness actually exist?

Human powerlessness does exist because in the face of natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornados, and tsunamis, humans cannot do much to prevent these tragedies.  In a way, despite the pollution and deforestation of the planet, humans will never be able to gain power of nature.  Logical appeal.

Are humans weaker or stronger in the face of death?

In the face of death, humans are stronger because they are forced to accept their imminent death, regardless of if they want it or not.  This takes a certain courage which is only accessible if one is really faced with life and death situations.  Logical appeal.

Part III: Tracking Evidence

“‘It was my little daughter,’ said Parsons with a sort of doleful pride.  ‘She listened at the keyhole.  Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day.  Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?’” (Page 233)

“The beatings grew less frequent, and became mainly a threat, a horror to which he could not be sent back at any moment when his answers were unsatisfactory.” (Page 241)

1984 Socratic Seminar #3 Reflection

      The seminar influenced the way I thought about the fictional society of Oceania as a whole.  While talking about the three superstates, Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, I developed a better since of the fictional world Winston lives in, and how it came to be.  One thing said during the seminar which I hadn’t thought of in depth was a question concerning the possible nonexistence of Eurasia and Eastasia, meaning that Oceania would be the sole world power.  I thought that this could be true since there is evidence to support this.  For example, In Book Two, Julia says that she thinks the bombs dropped on Oceania are really bombs dropped by the Party to scare the citizens.

      The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the most is that the world of the Hunger Games would be a better society to live in than Oceania.  I agree with this statement because there is no constant surveillance of people in Panem, while in Oceania, the citizens are constantly watched.  The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the least is therefore that the world of Oceania would be a better than Panem because in Panem, you have a chance of dying.  I disagree with this statement because although there is a chance of dying in the games, this chance is very slight.  If I had the opportunity to add anything to the seminar, I would have pointed out that it is ironic that we are watched and assessed during the seminars just as the citizens of Oceania are supervised by telescreens.

      Some things that worked really well for the seminar were the use of emotional and logical appeals.  When talking about the love between Winston and Julia, there was a strong emotional feeling in the room, especially during a debate concerning the legitimacy of their love.  As always, logical appeals were also frequently used because they are by far the easiest of the three rhetorical devices.

      Some things that needed improvement were ethical appeals and participation.  Unfortunately, my prediction that ethical appeals would be more frequent did not come true.  Very few ethical appeals were made and in my opinion, these rhetorical appeals are not harder than emotional appeals.  Another issue in the seminar was participation.  Although most people participated, a select few clearly dominated the conversation while other were not left much time to contribute meaningfully.  

1984 Socratic Seminar #2 Reflection

      The seminar influenced the way I thought about the right for people to have privacy.  After having the seminar, I found myself asking many questions relating to this subject.  How much privacy is one allowed?  At one point does supervision become a violation of human rights?  These questions may have many different responses, and are not at all easy to answer.  One thing said in the seminar which I hadn’t thought of in depth before was how Big Brother could possibly not be a real person.  I thought this could be true, since it seems that nothing is directly carried out by him, but rather by his puppet ministry workers.

      The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the most is that the Party limits sex and sexual pleasure to enforce devotion to the government.  I agree with this because if people cannot be attached to each other, and are only brought up to love the government, it will be almost impossible to start a rebellion.  The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the least is that Big Brother is obviously a real person.  I disagree with this statement because there is absolutely no proof to concur that he exists.  If I had the opportunity to say anything else in the seminar, I would have mentioned the fact that Winston must write articles to honor a nonexistent person, which may imply that other people, such a Big Brother, do not exist either.

      Some things that worked really well for the seminar were the increasing use of emotional appeals and good question-asking.  Compared to the last seminar, there were a lot more statements made in which references from the text helped appeal to emotion instead of logic.  I thought this was definitely an improvement, although many logical appeals still dominated the conversation.  The seminar also brought about very thought-provoking questions that were applicable to our society today, such as the issue of privacy, totalitarian governments, and the effect of violence on children.

      Some things that needed improvement in the seminar were the use of ethical appeals and participation.  Because more emotional appeals were used in the second seminar than in the first, I feel confident that more ethical appeals will be used in the third seminar.  However, I cannot say the same for participation because in my opinion, many less people contributed in the second seminar than in the first.  This may have been due to lack of preparation, given that the seminar preparations are extensive.  However, I hope to see more people participate in the third seminar so that more ideas can be shared and analyzed.

1984 Socratic Seminar #1 Reflection

      The first seminar influenced my thinking by applying the themes of George Orwell’s 1984 to our current society.  Many comments were made on how the war, hangings, and appreciation of violence in the book compared to violent video games and the excitement of school fights in our world today.  Also, the subject of privacy was discussed, and the increasing prominence of targeted ads and email verification paralleled to the lack of privacy Winston experienced in the story.  One thing that was said which I hadn’t thought about so much before was how the name “Big Brother” was meant to sound protective and reassuring when in reality, Big Brother was an oppressive dictator.  This also could relate to our world today, as many authoritarian leaders are embraced by the people living under their rule.

      The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the most was that the Party’s regime very closely resembled that of Nazi Germany.  It was mentioned that the Two Minutes Hate rally was meant to turn the people of Oceania against soldiers resembling Jews and Asians.  This favoritism of a “superior” race was one of the main components of Hitler’s administration during World War II.  The statement made by one of my peers that I agree with the least was that the entire population of Oceania was brainwashed into supporting the government.  If I had the opportunity to respond to anything in the seminar, I would have responded to this question, saying that Winston’s revolutionary thoughts are proof of hatred towards the Party.

      Some things that went well in the seminar were extensive preparation, participation, and use of logical appeals.  Everyone in the seminar had obviously prepared, as excellent points and textual evidence were used throughout.  Also, almost everybody in the conversation made helpful contributions that in general, helped maintain the flow of the conversation.  Only one or two people did not fully engage in the seminar, and this may have been due to lack of preparation or shyness.  Finally, the use of logical appeals was very strong because most people referenced the text or their own lives to prove a point.

      Some things that needed improvement in the seminar were use of ethical and emotional appeals.  As the seminar was meant to practice the use of all three rhetorical devices, the lack or ethical and emotional appeals caused a sort of gap in the conversation that was never filled.  Some people, including myself, attempted to bring up an ethical or emotional argument, but the conversation always quickly steered away from the appeal.  Although the seminar was educative and gratifying, the use of these appeals could make the next seminar stronger.       

Othello Dramatic Reading Words and Actions Video

A. Delivery Technique

http://youtu.be/3A_OuQj-OAA

B. Statement of Intent

The passage I chose to read for my dramatic reading was Iago’s plot-twisting soliloquy in Act 2 Scene 3.  I found this specific soliloquy remarkable because it reveals Iago’s duplicity and multi-sided personality – he appears to be supportive of Cassio but reveals himself to the audience as a villain in disguise.  To emphasize this disingenuous personality of Iago’s, I chose to switch the tone of the character midway through the speech, becoming dark and cunning as the character reveals his plan.  I included a slight pause before this tone shift to indicate Iago’s villainous side to the audience.  When speaking in Shakespearian, it is also crucial to put emphasis on important words, so that there is at least some comprehension of the archaic language.  This is why I chose to stress phrases like weak and divinity of hell, to demonstrate Iago’s hatred of Othello.  Lastly, I varied my inflection of each sentence in the soliloquy to keep the speech exciting and realistic.

By “becoming” Iago for a small period of time, I learned much about the character and the play as a whole.  I had realized in the start of the play that Iago was not an ordinary villain, as he masks his jealousy towards Othello and Cassio with kindness and amiability.  However, Iago’s willingness to share his plan brought about an outgoing aspect his personality that I had never before seen.  This openness differed greatly from Iago’s devious attitude up until that point, and it exposed a new dimension which I actually enjoyed.  This soliloquy also taught me the next phase of Iago’s ongoing plan to destroy Othello: while Cassio urges Desdemona to help him, and Desdemona urges Othello to forgive him, Iago will convince Othello that she “repeals him for her body’s lust,” meaning that Desdemona is helping Cassio not out of sympathy, but because she is in love with him. He believes that this will result in the downfall of all the other characters.

The impact of Iago’s Act 2 Scene 3 soliloquy on the play is that it further complicates the relationships between the characters.  Because Iago formulates his fatal plan in this soliloquy, it results in Othello’s suspicion of Cassio even though Cassio has done nothing to Desdemona.  It also paves the way to Othello’s distrust and infuriation towards Desdemona, which eventually leads to both characters’ deaths and Iago’s incarceration.  Furthermore, the soliloquy characterizes Desdemona and Cassio, giving the audience a better understanding of their dispositions.  The speech describes Desdemona as “fruitful as the free elements,” showing that she had a kind nature filled with undying goodness.  It also criticizes Cassio, calling him an “honest fool,” which suggests that he is slow and gullible.  While most of Iago’s monologues in Othello are rather impractical, his soliloquy in Act 2 Scene 3 adds suspense to the plot as well as characterization of himself and others.         

Title Justification Paper #3: Paths Taken and Expectations Fulfilled

The last two chapters of The Other Wes Moore are grouped into one final section– Paths Taken and Expectations Fulfilled.  This section is undoubtedly the most defining moment of the novel, the one the reader has been waiting for.  From the beginning, the reader knows the fates of the two Wes Moores, but they are intrigued on how their lives will play out.  While chapter seven breezes over author Wes’s military recognition and the other Wes’s return to drugs, chapter eight is when the final life-altering murder occurs and the other Wes is sentenced to life in prison.  Paths Taken and Expectations Fulfilled is an appropriate name for this section because it focuses on both boys’ diverging paths as each does what is expected of him – the other Wes engaging in drugs and robberies to support his family and author Wes excelling in military schooling and receiving his Rhodes Scholarship.

The other Wes’s choice to turn back to drugs and rob the jewelry store was the result of the expectation to support his family.  At the end of chapter seven, the author writes that, “The pressure was wearing Wes down.  Alicia complained that he was not giving her enough money to provide for the kids they shared.  Cheryl was now constantly calling him about wanting more time with the kids – which meant she wanted more money to take care of them…Wes held the plastic bag with both hands and poured in nine ounces of cocaine.”  This quote shows that so many people depended on Wes to make money that he was almost forced to reenter the drug game.  Furthermore, in chapter eight, one of Wes’s jewelry-robbing accomplices is quoted saying, “‘I was told I could make fifty-thousand dollars just to break some glass.’”  This demonstrates that the robbery was motivated by Wes’s poverty, which he was expected to alleviate.  Because Wes was expected to provide for his family, he chose to take the wrong path which eventually ended in a heinous murder and prison.  By contrast, peoples’ expectations of author Wes were academic-based and eventually led to his good fortune in life.  In chapter eight, Wes recounts that, “[Mayor Schmoke] did more than just point me to the Rhodes Scholarship; he instructed me to learn the larger historical context of the world.”  This shows that along with his mother and teachers, Mayor Schmoke had expected great things of Wes, and Wes did not fail to impress him.

Because author Wes achieved success in trying to please his mentors, and the other Wes took a dangerous path in life to relieve his family’s poverty, Paths Taken and Expectations Fulfilled is a fitting name for section three.  The real question posed in this section is how and why the expectations for the boys differed, and how their fates would have changed if the expectations had been different.  Could their stories have been interchanged?  Who is there to blame for ruining the life of one Wes when another Wes with a parallel childhood excelled?  Perhaps Wes Moore leaves these questions to suggest to the reader that very little in life is solely determined by the person living it. 

Chapter 8: Surrounded

      ·         “A day later, another member of the crew was captured.  He also confessed to being at the scene but said that he was not the one who pulled the trigger.  In fact, he was later quoted as saying, ‘I was actually unarmed.  I was just told I could make fifty thousand dollars to break some glass.’” (Page 148)

This quote shows that no violence was intended in the jewelry store robbery that Wes was part of.  It demonstrates that the only motive of the crime was to get money, and therefore unveils that this crime, and many others in Baltimore at the time, were induced by poverty.

      ·         “And then one of the officers addressed the group.  ‘Y’all know there is a reward for Tony and Wes if you just tell us where they are.  It’s a lot of money.  You sure you don’t need that money?’” (Page 152)

This quote shows a police officer bribing some of Wes’s friends and family assuming their disadvantaged financial situations.  It illustrates a gap between the rich and the poor in Baltimore, and shows that richer people, such as the cop, believe that they can exploit the lower classes.

      ·         “North Philadelphia reminded Wes of the Baltimore neighborhood he had just left.  The check-cashing stores instead of banks, the rows of beauty salons, liquor stores, laundromats, funeral homes, and their graffiti-laced walls were the universal streetscape of poverty.  The hood was the hood, no matter what city you were in.” (Page 153)

This passage explains that the stereotypical infrastructure of poverty extended across all U.S. cities.  Judging from this, it seems that segregation appears in cities between the nicer parts of town and the “hood” that contains dilapidated shops and services.

      ·         “The truth is that there are two Baltimores.  Almost every other major city in this country leads the same double life.  Those who brag about Baltimore often ignore these substandard areas.  Yet these were the areas Mayor Schmoke knew would determine his legacy of success or failure.” (Pages 158-159)

This quote explains how Baltimore and other U.S. cities are divided between a rich and middle class section and a poor, less developed section.  The quote shows that it is crucial to integrate these areas, especially under a political leader such a Schmoke, so that all of the people in a city can thrive.

      ·         “As I moved closer to the home where my host family lived, I couldn’t stop staring at the shantytown.  Living in the Bronx and Baltimore had given me the foolish impression that I knew what poverty looked like.  At that moment, I realized I had no idea what poverty was – even in West Baltimore we lived like kings compared with this.” (Pages 165-166)

In this quote, Wes explains how visiting a slum in South Africa made him realize how poverty in the U.S. was not nearly as severe as in other places of the world.  This shows that poverty is only a notion that can always be considered better than the situation of others.  In a way, the quote gives hope by saying that even dreadful conditions are not so bad in scope.