Final Exam Assignment: The Global Curriculum (due by Friday, May 5th!)

In case you lose it, here's the final assignment for class! Thanks for all your hard work and dedication this semester; it was a true privilege to teach this class and it was easily my favorite EQ2 class of the 4 times I've taught it over the years. Thanks for a wonderful experience, and I wish you luck on your finals! I'll let you know your final grade on the assignment and in the class as soon as I have all the grades together (and I'm still waiting on Dr. Benton to let me know about your Engagement grade). Let me know if you have any questions, and enjoy the break which is only a few weeks away! 

Honors EQ2 

Final Exam Assignment: The Global Curriculum  

 

Knowing what cannot be known— 

    what a lofty aim! 

Not knowing what needs to be known— 

    what a terrible result! (Tao te Ching, Verse 71)  

For your final exam assignment, I want you to reflect on the nature of the books and ideas in this course, which is supposed to reflect some of the “Enduring Questions” of our society. However, as compared to 1923, we live in a much more ‘global’ world, where the relationships between the US and, say, Iran, are harder to ignore, even if you never plan to travel there. There’s so much more to know, to be aware of, and to think about, which means it’s increasingly harder—and possibly, dangerous--to be ignorant about the world outside your door.  

With that in mind, I want you to write a short response to the following question: what is one of the most important ideas which you discovered in 2 or more books from class that might be extremely relevant to the 21st century? In other words, since these books all take a perspective outside the US and much of the Western world, what is one important idea that helped you understand another culture, another society, another religion, or another way of life? Why might it be important for 21st century college students to come to a deeper understanding of this idea in literature, especially? And how do the books in question help you—and help others—see this idea from different perspectives and contexts?  

Be sure to QUOTE from at least TWO books in the class so we can see what you mean and why it’s significant. This doesn’t need to be a formal response, but it should be honest, and should be specific. Try to write to someone who is NOT in this class, so you can explain and introduce a little more than you would to me or a classmate.  

This is due NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MAY 5th BY 5pm! No late papers accepted since I have to start grading immediately to get grades in on time. But don’t take this more than it is: it’s just an honest reflection based on the ideas that most remain in your mind after the dust of the semester has settled. 

For Wednesday: Finish Persepolis! Last Questions for the Semester!!

This is it. The last questions you'll ever have to respond to in EQ2. So try to enjoy them and maybe answer all four of them just for fun! (kidding, just answer TWO as usual...)

Q1: Why does Marjane betray her youthful ideals in early on in these chapters and earn her grandmother's scorn? What may have caused her to change in this way and act so against her values and character? (and why is she so initially pleased with herself?)

Q2: Related to the above, how does she rediscover her revolutionary spirit and youthful rebellion? Why are the stakes even higher now for disobedience than they were when she was a child? 

Q3: Surprisingly, in a traditional society focused on a very narrow definition of women's roles, her mother is strongly against her marriage to Reza. Why does her mother object so strongly, and why also does her grandmother approve her later desire for a divorce? How does this show us a different side of Persian culture?

Q4: What is the final straw that sends her packing to leave for Europe once more? After her experiences in Vienna, what would make her think that leaving her family behind would be the lesser of two evils? (consider, too, that this time she never returns home...as of 2023, she has never returned to live in Iran, and makes her home in Paris). 

For Monday: Persepolis, 223-284

Whoops!--this didn't post as I thought on Friday, so I'm posting it a little late. I apologize for the inconvenience!

Read from the chapter "The Croissant" through "The Exam"

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Throughout her time in Austria, people either betray her or accuse her of being a thief or a liar. Do you think this is Satrapi's way of revealing the racism that is at the core of European (and perhaps, Western) society? Or is she indicting herself as a homesick, insecure drug-user who couldn't fit in? Would this have happened anywhere--or just here?

Q2: When she first arrived in Austria, she had trouble adjusting to the attitudes and values of her peers? Why does the same thing happen when she returns home to 'her people'? How have people (or how has she) changed? 

Q3: Related to the above, how does she begin to fit into Iranian society again? Why might this involve a compromise of her identity as sharp as the one she made in Austria to fit in among her 'punk' friends?

Q4: Discuss a passage where the images are crucial to telling Satrapi's story even more than the words. In other words, what scene almost needs to be a comic to really sell the idea (or the emotion) of the story? Explain how you read the picture in tandem with the words/story. 

For Friday: Satrapi, Persepolis, pp. 155-222

Read the chapters "The Soup" through "Hide and Seek" for Friday's class. NO QUESTIONS, but we'll have an IN-CLASS response, so think about some of these ideas:

* What stereotypes and ideas do Austrians have about Iranians? Are these similar to what we think about them today?

* What does Marjane find most strange or upsetting about Austrian society? Why is life in the 'free world' less emancipating than she expected? 

* Related to the above idea, how does she use her perspective as an Iranian to critique the Western world? Where does it fall short? What makes it less than a utopia, even to someone from a very dystopian society?

* How does her experience in Austria mirror, somewhat, Ganesh's own journey in Trinidad? What makes them both, in a sense, colonials in a metropolitan world? 

* What is the difference between revolutionaries in Iran and Austria? Why are the so-called Communists and anarchists in Europe not quite what she expected?

* How might these chapters shine a light on the difficulty of the immigrant experience? Many people here assume they are leeches trying to steal opportunities from American citizens? But how does it look from the other side? 

For Wednesday: Persepolis, pages 72-153

NOTE: Read from "The Trip" through "The Dowry," which is the end of Persepolis I (Part II begins right after that, since they were originally two different books).

Answer two of the following:

Q1: How does Marjane and her family maintain their normal way of life (and beliefs) under the new regime? Why do they think many of these activities and practices are worth risking their lives for (esp, music)?

Q2: What is the significance of the "key" during the war, and why doesn't Marjane or any of her friends receive one? How does this reveal the despite the change of regime, some things remain exactly the same?

Q3: Despite the extreme circumstances and the completely different culture, why is being a teenager pretty much the same in 1980's Iran as in modern day America? What things did you personally recognize in Marjane's teenage rebellion, and why do you think a girl who faces death for disobedience would still want to be "punk"?

Q4: Why do Marjane's parents send her away to Vienna instead of having the entire family emigrate their together? And why did she have to go now, rather than earlier or much later? What did her parents fear another year or two might bring? 

For Monday: Satrapi, Persepolis, pp.3-71

In case you have a different version, read from Chapter "The Veil" through "The Sheep." 

Answer two of the following:

Q1: In her Introduction to the book, Satrapi writes that “I believe that an entire nation should not be judged by the wrongdoings of a few extremists.  I also don’t want those Iranians who lost their lives in prisons defending freedom…or who were forced to leave their families and flee their homeland to be forgotten.”  How does a comic book/graphic novel help her do this—that is, memorialize those who are forgotten in place of the more visible extremists? 

 

Q2: Why do you think Satrapi tells her story from the perspective of a child?  Since a child knows very little about politics, religion, or war, this would seem a very limited perspective to discuss history and extremist governments.  What does it allow her to do, say, or reveal that an adult narrator might not? 

Q3: How does Satrapi try to communicate the more ‘non-Western’ elements of Iran through the novel?  In general, why might this novel—though written in French and published in Paris—be a work similar to The Mystic Masseur?

Q4: In the comic, Satrapi remarks that "it was funny to see how much Marx and God looked like each other" (13). Why was Marjane brought up to revere writers/thinkers such as Marx, when we're often taught to despise them in the West? Why might she see Marx as, like God, merciful and omnipotent? 

For Monday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 9-11

 

Answer TWO of the following…

NOTE: Try to finish the book for Monday or get as close as you can. Even if you don't quite finish, you should easily be able to answer two of the questions below.

Answer any two as usual: 

Q1: How does Naipaul satirize democratic elections in a ‘brand new’ postcolonial nation like Trinidad?  How does the system not work—and how is the very idea of democracy often misunderstood by Ganesh and others? 

Q2: Once the American soldiers arrive in Trinidad, America begins to have a much more profound influence on Trinidadian life than Britain.  Where do we see the “American” influence in its day-to-day life?  How does Ganesh himself try to institute “American” popular culture? 

Q3: Once Ganesh enters politics he emulates the reforms and ideals of Gandhi, who liberated India from British control.  But is his mimicking sincere or somewhat hypocritical?  Gandhi followed the teachings of the Gita as his polestar: does Ganesh? In general, what kind of political leader does he make?

Q4: How do you understand the end of the book, when the Narrator, now a grown man, encounters Ganesh in London?  Why does he change his name to “G.Ramsay Muir”?  How does he respond to the Narrator’s advances?

For Friday: Naipaul, Chapters 7-8 (In-Class Writing)

SORRY--this don't post yesterday but got saved as a 'draft'! 

Remember, no questions for Friday, but read Chapters 7 & 8 for our discussion. We'll start with an in-class writing over the chapters, which might include some of the following ideas:

* Is Ganesh 'fated' to become a mystic and a great man of Trinidad? Or is his autobiography (which the Narrator quotes throughout the book) merely trying to sell his life as such? Does the Narrator write against this belief? Is he satirizing Ganesh's mystic pretensions?

* Where else do we see the line become blurred between satire and ridicule? What do you make, too, of passages where the narrator casually uses the N-word? Why does he include this, since the word refers to him and Naipaul (both of whom would be called this by the English). 

* Ganesh establishes his reputation by saving the young boy, Hector, from the 'dark cloud.' Is this a true testament to his abilities as a mystic? Or is it a clever piece of showmanship? Is he a sage or a charlatan? 

* Why does he end up going to war with Ramlogan? Why might this be a problem of success in a 'small place' like Trinidad?

* A local paper starts making fun of Ganesh as the "business Man of God." Why is this an insult? And is there any true to the insult?

* Why might this novel also be a satire on commercialism and the very Western desire to turn everything into a profit? Does Ganesh represent the 'Eastern' point of view or the 'Western', do you think? 

For Wednesday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 4-6

NOTE: We'll include Chapter 4 again in our reading/questions since we didn't really get to discuss it on Monday (and also, in case someone is behind in their reading!). 

Answer two of the following: 

Q1: As the hero of our tale, Ganesh undertakes the most heroic task of all: to become a writer of books. What obstacles does Ganesh face on his path? Why is writing a book all that more difficult in a postcolonial country than, say, in England or America (where it's hard enough!)? 

Q2: In Chapter Four, Naipaul writes, “It was their first beating, a formal affair done without anger on Ganesh’s part or resentment on Leela’s; and although it formed part of the marriage ceremony itself, it meant much to both of them. It meant that they had grown up and become independent.” What do you make of this scene and others like it? Is this simply part of the "Indian” culture of Trinidad? Are we supposed to shrug our shoulders and keep reading...or is supposed to be more disturbing than the narrator lets on? 

Q3: Ritual and tradition plays a big role in these chapters, yet we also see that "East Indians" aren't quite the same as their compatriots back in India. Do you feel that Ganesh is more of an "West Indian" (of Trinidad) or an "East Indian" (of India, but living in Trinidad)? How do we see this? 

Q4: In Jamaica Kincaid’s A Small Place (a non-fiction work about the Caribbean island of Antigua), she writes that “people in a small place cannot give an exact account, a complete account of events…The people in a small place can have no interest in the exact, or in completeness, for that would demand a careful weighing, careful consideration, careful judging, careful questioning.” Though Naipaul seems to come to the same conclusion about Ganesh and his neighbors, he typically resorts to humor to do so. Do you ever feel that Naipaul is mocking or outright making fun of these "small people" and their "small island"? Are we supposed to find them, as people in the metropolis would, as "ridiculous and unlikely?" 

For Monday: Naipaul, The Mystic Masseur, Chapters 1-4

REMEMBER: No class on Friday! Paper #2 is due by 5pm!! 

NOTE: A “masseur” is a term denoting something between a sage, a mystic, a spiritual healer, and a prophet.  Part of the comedy of this work is how Ganesh enters into this profession, and whether or not V.S. Naipaul feels there is anything heroic in his career: can a man with the wrong intentions ever come out right?

Answer TWO of the following…

Q1: What role do books and knowledge (esp. English/European knowledge) play in Trinidadian society?  How might this play into the conflict between East and West that we’ve seen in previous works?  Consider Ramlogan’s comment, “This reading, sahib, is a great great thing” (34). 

Q2: In Chapter One, Naipaul writes that “I myself believe that the history of Ganesh is, in a way, the history of our times” (18). In what way might Ganesh’s early career mirror the struggle of many citizens in the postcolonial world? Why is it difficult for Ganesh to find himself and establish a career and a life for himself?

Q3: When this novel was written, Trinidad had only recently gained its independence from Britain (in 1962). Yet how is Trinidad still very “British” in its ways and ideas, and how it this often comically portrayed by Naipaul? You might also consider why the society clings to these colonial ideas instead of replacing them with more native laws and ideas.

Q4: Naipaul writes much of this work in dialect, capturing the natural speech of the island and the Indian communities of Trinidad. Why might this be important for a book with such a non-English point of view? Recall an earlier class where we discussed the great literary debate of postcolonial societies: which language to write in? How does Naipaul have his cake and eat it, too, in this case? 

For Wednesday: Naipaul, "East Indian" (handout)

Read the short essay, "East Indian" that I gave out in class on Monday by V.S. Naipaul (who wrote our next novel) for Wednesday's class. There are no questions, but we'll do an in-class writing when you come to class over it. Here are some ideas to think about that dove-tail with our discussion on Monday:

* What is the difficulty with being an "East Indian"? Why is it a hard identity to carry around with someone? And why is it so hard to understand?

* What is the problem with the word "Indian" even today? What does it say--and what doesn't it say? Why do we still use it?

* Why were the Indian immigrants to Trinidad called both "West Indian East Indians" and "East Indian West Indians"? Do we have examples of such slippery racial descriptions even today in America?

* Are Indians in the West Indes still "Indian"? Are they Trinidadian? Carribean? African? What would someone be who grows up in Trinidad, speaks English with a Trinidadian inflection, but is still Hindu or Muslim? 

* What does he mean when he says "to be a colonial is to be a little ridiculous and unlikely"? What might he, as someone with a colonial identity, feel "ridiculous"? 

Paper #2: Through a Glass Darkly, due Friday March 24th!

PROMPT: Akutgawa’s stories are like Surrealist versions of reality: they seem strange and exotic, yet they are distressingly familiar to our day-to-day existence,  just slightly askew. From the obsessed painter in “Hell Screen” to the liberated executive in “Horse Legs,” each of these stories are parables of a world poised between old-world values and new-world aspirations. Even today, in the 21^st century, we cling to tradition while trying to define ourselves on social media. So how can these stories help us see ourselves through a distorted mirror to the ‘truth’ of our modern existence?

CHOOSE ONE of the following passages to compare to a real-world situation in your own life, or in the world around you, that this passage could illustrate or analyze. In other words, how could this ‘imaginary’ passage actually be a metaphor for characters and situations we see right outside our window? Be sure to explain the passage in your paper, and compare it to a situation where the passage works as a ‘lens’ to reveal a hidden truth about the ‘real world.’

ONE: Somehow or other, E’in too began to feel that the dragon would actually ascend—thought at first, it was more a feeling that he could not be certain it would not…Could it be that the feeling shared by the many spectators came at some point to possess Storenose himself? Or might it be that he felt so guilty about the uproar he had caused…that, before he knew it, he had begun wishing with all his might that a dragon really would ascend for him?” (35).

TWO: “As a rule, I can only paint what I have seen. Or even if I succeed in painting something unknown to me, I myself cannot be satisfied with it. This is the same as not being able to paint it, does not His Lordship agree?... “Which would mean that if you wanted to paint a screen depicting hell, you would have to have seen hell itself.”” (63).

THREE: “How could I possibly force this master of mine into retirement for the sake of the “House”—a mere name?...And yet, if I let my master have his way, the House is not the only thing that will perish. Terrible things may happen to my master himself as well. In calculating what is best for everyone, the policy adopted by Rin’emon was undoubtedly the wisest—indeed, the only course to take. I see that perfectly well. And yet, for me it is an impossibility” (99).

FOUR: “It was a truly disappointing way to die. Fortunately, however, society rarely offers critical comment regarding the way a person dies. The way a person lives is what evokes criticism. Thus it was that Hanzaburo managed to avoid disparaging commentary. Far from it: without exception, his superiors and colleagues expressed their deepest sympathies to the widowed Tsuneko” (131).

REQUIREMENTS

• No page limit,  but enough to create a meaningful conversation between the passage and your real-world example
• Quote/discuss the passage in  your paper and make sure we understand its context
• Be specific with your real-world example: don’t just say “this is like how people are trying to be successful,” etc. If possible, find an actual example from your own life, or the media, or even another film or book. Make us SEE the connection.
• DUE FRIDAY, MARCH 24^th BY 5pm

For Wednesday: ????????

 NOTE: In re-reading the last stories in the Akutagawa book for your final story, I decided that the last stories (written when he was battling depression and other ailments) aren't the best way to conclude this section. I think our last two stories, "Horse Legs" and "The Story of a Head That Fell Off" are actually the best introductions to our next book, V.S. Naipaul's The Mystic Masseur. So why not stop right where we are? 

Instead, I have another idea for Wednesday's class, which will involve no reading. So if you're behind, or didn't turn in Monday's questions, I'll give you until Wednesday to do so. We'll use the Akutagawa stories soon enough! 

See you on Wednesday...

For Monday: "The Story of a Head That Fell Off" & "Horse Legs"

NOTE: you can skip the brief story, "Green Onions," since it's not as important for our discussion as the other two stories (and it gives you less to read!). So read those two are here are some questions...we're almost done with these stories, so be sure to catch up if you fell behind. 

Answer two of the following: 

Q1: How does Japanese society respond to Hanzaburō’s disappearance and his strange diaries? Consider, especially, the newspaper articles written about his “insanity” and his brief reappearance at his wife’s home.

Q2: What do you think Major Kimura means in “The story of a Head That Fell Off,” when he says, “It is important—even necessary—for us to become acutely aware of the fact that we can’t trust ourselves” (119)? Is this the true moral of the story? Or yet another unreliable narrator imposing his view on the reader?

Q3: Despite the level of satire, “Horse Legs” is also a kind of modern-day fable or fairy-tale. What might be the metaphorical significance of a normal man, in a normal job, who suddenly dies and returns to life with horse legs? How might this represent something ‘real’ in our own world—or a condition someone might actually have or feel?

Q4: When the Chinese soldier, Xiao-er, looks back on his life on the moment of death, “he recognized all too well the ugliness that had filled it” (116). What ugliness do you think he (and Akutagawa) is referring to, and how might this connect with previous stories we’ve discussed?

For Friday: Akutagawa Stories: "Dr. Ogata Ryosai," "O-Gin," and "Loyalty"

NO QUESTIONS for Friday, bit be sure to read the following 3 stories: “Dr. Ogata Ryosai,” “O-Gin,” and “Loyalty” since we'll have an in-class writing over it instead. Here are some ideas to consider: 

* Two of these stories are unique for their mixing of East and West, Buddhism and Christianity. What side does Akutagawa seem to be on in each one (or in different ones)? Are these anti-Western stories, or does he use the West to criticize Eastern values and ideas?  

* Japanese society follows elaborate ceremonial rites of etiquette that bind the various classes of society. Even death, in these stories, one has to follow the proper procedure! So why might a madman be particularly troubling to members of this society? Do you feel Shuri is doing this on purpose; does he know what he’s doing?

 * Akutagawa’s narrators are one of his trademarks, particularly someone like Dr. Ogata Ryosai, who doesn’t really “get” the big picture (like the narrator of "Hell Screen"). How does he inadvertently see ideas we might otherwise miss, or place a satirical spin on the characters or events?  

* Many of these stories almost seem like non-stories, as nothing particularly dramatic happens, and the stories end without any particular conclusion. As Western readers, we find this very unsatisfying (in general) and baffling. So why did Akutagawa, who knew Western culture very well, write them this way?  Why do many of his stories seem to be more like anecdotes or gossip than truly fleshed-out stories? 

For Wednesday: Akutagawa, "Hell Screen," "Dragon: The Old Potter's Tale," & "The Spider Thread"

There are three stories for Wednesday's class, but the first two are very short. Try to read "Hell Screen" first, because it's the longer and more important story. Get to the last two afterwards, and worse case scenario, focus on "Hell Screen." That said, I think you'll enjoy the other two stories, which share a lot of themes with "Hell Screen," but are a little more silly/humorous.

Answer two of the following:   

Q1: How does “Hell Screen” share with stories like “Rashomon” and “In a Bamboo Grove” a very cynical view of human nature? According to these stories, why is there no fundamental difference between a thief, a painter, and a lord? Why might the moral of “Rashomon,” that “All I can do is become a thief” be the moral for this story as well? 

Q2: The painter, Yoshihide, claims that he can only paint what he has personally observed with his own eyes—and nothing else. This often leads him to observe rather gruesome spectacles, such as rotting corpses and chained prisoners (and at the end of the story, something even worse). Responding to criticisms of this practice, he responds, “Other painters are such mediocrities, they cannot appreciate the beauty of ugliness” (48). Does this strike you as a very Tao-like sentiment, that true beauty is also to be found in ugliness? Or is this a misinterpretation of the Tao te Ching? 

 Q3: In “Dragon: The Old Potter’s Tale,” the monk, E’in, hopes to prove that people are foolish and gullible in creating a story about an ascending dragon. By the end of the story, however, even he claims to have seen the dragon rise himself. Is his own credulity further proof that humans can be convinced that white is black, or the moon is the sun, under the right circumstances? Or is the story/narrator actually offering us a different moral? How do you read the end of this strange story?

Q4: Each of these stories is told by a Narrator, who, like the characters from “In a Bamboo Grove” doesn’t have complete knowledge of the story. For most of them, this is a story they have only heard second-hand, that happened long ago, and might never have happened at all. How does the storyteller in one of these stories color the narrative and influence what we see and how we read it? How might we also read it against their interpretation?  

For Monday: Akutagawa, Stories: “Rashomon,” “In a Bamboo Grove,” and “The Nose”

Answer two of the following for Monday’s class:

Q1: “Rashomon” is the basis for the frame story in Kurosawa’s film, but he changed it significantly by adding two characters from “In a Bamboo Grove,” and removing the old woman. However, what aspect of the story remains the same and helps us see his overall theme in the film? In other words, why might this story have given him the idea for the entire movie?

Q2: Why do you think both “Rashomon” and “The Nose” focus so much on grotesque facial features—a pus-filled pimple and a dangling nose? What do they tempt the world to see/feel about such people that we associate them with a physical imperfection? And why do they make a convenient literary device?

Q3: On page 13, Tajomaru says to the judges, “When I kill a man, I do it with my sword, but people like you don’t use swords. You gentlemen kill with your power, with your money, and sometimes just with your words: you tell people you’re doing them a favor.” Why might this comment say a lot about how we read the morality of this story: who else ‘kills’ people with words?

Q4: Though the character of Zenchi Naigu in “The Nose” is a Buddhist priest, how might we read his character through the lessons of The Bhagavad Gita? Why might this entire story almost be a cautionary tale included in the Gita itself? What is his ‘sin’ or crime in this story?

For Monday: Questions for Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950) due on Monday

Before you forget about the film entirely, answer TWO of these questions for Monday's class (though you can turn in these questions at ANY TIME on Monday).

Q1: Why might this story be more effective in an old black and white film than in a modern-day, color production? What does the lack of color and other stylistic effects lend to the unique nature of the story being told here?

Q2: There are five versions of the story of "what happened" in this film: the Witness' first version (which he told the court), his second version (which he told his companions), Tajomaru (the thief)'s story, the wife's story, and the dead husband's story. Though several things remain the same in each story, what is the biggest detail that seems to change from story to story? Why might this be significant?

Q3: Why does the wife come off so badly in every version of the story except her own? Does this suggest she is lying, or as one of them says, "women use their tears to fool everyone"? Related to this, why does the husband blame her in most versions of the story, including his own?  

Q4: One of the 'frame story' characters, the one who is robbing the baby of its blanket, tells his comrades that "unless you're selfish, you can't survive." Though the other two men refuse to believe this, is that the true message of the film? Is that what the story of the murder is trying to teach us? 

Q5: The movie was made in 1950, and Akutagawa was writing in the very early 20th century about characters and events hundreds of years earlier. However, they are both basically writing about the times of chivalry and King Arthur in Japan--the days that the Japanese even today celebrate as heroic and honorable. What might the film be saying about such times, and about the idealized visions of men and women? 

Oral Presentation Sign-Up Schedule

I meant to distribute this in class on Friday, but I'll do so on Monday with as many names as I get this weekend filled in. If you can, let me know which time below you would like to come in next week and do your brief Oral Presentation. You can sign up on Monday's class as well, but I wanted to give you time to think about it (and maybe, go as late as possible!) :) I'll do my best to give you your first choice of time, but if everyone wants to go at 2:40 on Friday, I might have to ask for second choices! 

NOTE: the presentation probably won't take 20 minutes, but I want to give plenty of time to hear your ideas and throw in a few questions of my own. 

TUESDAY

1:30

1:50

2:10

2:30

2:50 

WEDNESDAY (some of these are during our normal class time)

10:40

11:00

11:20

11:40  ALYSSA

1:00   ABIGAIL 

:20    CARLY 

:40    BYRON 

2:00  HAILEY 

:20   HUNTER 

:40  CHARLIE 

THURSDAY

1:30    JAKE

1:50    REESE

2:10

2:30   AUGUST 

2:50

FRIDAY (some of these are during our normal class time) 

10:40

11:00

11:20  ALDAN 

11:40

1:00   CATHERINE 

1:20   MADDOX

1:40  ALEXUS

2:00  GWENDOLYN 

:20  LIZZIE 

:40 

For Monday: The Bhagavad Gita, Parts 15-18 (last questions!)

NOTE: The Oral Presentation assignment is in the post below this one, and contains the 5 passages to choose from the Tao te Ching (which I didn't have room for on your handout). 

This is our final reading and questions for The Bhagavad Gita, so read these passages with an eye towards the Oral Presentation due the week after next. Look and listen for 'echoes' of the Tao te Ching, since the more you find, the easier it will be to respond to the assignment. Here are a few questions to help you along...

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What do you make of the curious contradictions that seem to creep into the work, especially around Part 16? Though Krishna says that through love all men will be saved, and even the worst sinners can be saved through a single act of selflessness, here it also says that "[sinful men] come not to me, Arjuna; but they go down the path of hell" (75). What do you think he means by "hell" (since that's an English word) and do you read this as a contradiction? 

Q2: In Book 18, Krishna says that "if one merely sees the diversity of things, with their divisions and limitations, then one has impure knowledge" (81). What do you think he means by the "diversity of things"? What might this say about modern society, which values diversity, choice, and endless combinations? 

Q3: One of the more controversial passages for the modern reader is also in Book 18, where it explains the roles/duties of the various castes. The Western world typically reads these as social hierarchies that bestow status and rewards on the 'upper castes'. But is this how the Gita explains them? Is one caste inherently better than another, despite the nature of the work? 

Q4: Krishna calls all life "puppets in a play of shadows" (85). Why might this be a fitting title for the entire work? And how might this phrase work almost equally well for the Tao te Ching, too?