shortstories1-socratic-sem

**Group 1 topic:** disability and weakness. Monday, March 22. **Group 1 contributors:** Ben, David, Greg, Kumar (a.k.a. Kumah), Victoria. **Notetakers:** Andrew, Caroline, Jeremy, Luke.
 * Socratic Seminar on short stories:** Garland, “Under the Lion’s Paw”; O’Connor, “Good Country People”; Carver, “Cathedral”; Walker, “Everyday Use”; Ortiz, “The Witch’s Husband”

V: **Cathedral**, very literal disability with blind man. Blind man has disability, but the husband is blind metaphorically B: (2370, Cathedral) “…all this without ever seeing what she looked like…how pitiful a life” Shows how blind the husband is. Ignorant, beyond his understanding D: **Cathedral** relates everything to sight, all about vision. “What I just heard him say.” Still has acute senses, he’s not completely disabled K: **Cathedral**, husband takes things too literally, nothing deep to his thoughts, just takes things as he sees them. Blind Man- Has been forced to look deeper into things. Can still understand the world more than the husband V: 2376, the Man says, “how could I ever describe it?” the Blind Man can see that the Man doesn’t do anything more than see K: **TWH** - The grandpa now has strength, even though he’s disabled. Tremendous strength to let his wife go. The grandma has tremendous weaknesses. (2551, “yes, abandoned them, never to return”). //Shell of strength.// B: “I smile back and kissed him on the cheek.” Still loves him despite dementia. K: “I still loved him.” ** ULP **, love also plays a big role V (moving on): In other two stories, “disabled” person is actually strong. **GCP** shows disability in a negative light. Joy not only physically disabled, but weak in her character as well. D: Hulga’s weakness was her attitude about her own intelligence/hubris. Seems to be on high horse, act sophisticated. Joy was hurting herself in the way that she was blocking out others with her attitude. Just a façade, as she falls for Bible salesman. Loses, as he makes off with her leg. B: **GCP** the odd one out. All the others, compassion and pity are of benefit. But sympathy that Mrs. Hopewell feels does not help. (“Woman, do you ever look inside?”) Actually destroying Hulga. V: No one else had the advantage of going to school and getting Ph.D., but it ended up being a disability. D: Her whole façade comes falling/crashing down. V: Education is not everything, you also need street smarts. B: **EU** (2475, “Something hit me in the top of my head…hugged Maggie to me, snatched up quilts and dumped into her lap…real smile, not scared”) Maggie’s happiness was due to sympathy from mother about sister. K: Maggie was a shy girl the whole store, and Wangero was belittling. Love “cures” the weakness. V: Dee stood out with a disability. She came back. She has advantages over her family and others, but is very shallow. (“Not Dee, Wangero”) D: Hulga very snobbish. Could use her PhD, but just uses it to prove her superiority to people. V: Same thing with Dee/Wangero (“Gonna hang them up”). B: (“Like losing own life and recovering it again miraculously,” 2223) The boy betrayed her, started to feel sympathetic. She was starting to change, trying to redeem herself, trying to be more pleasant and less separated from people. One time she doesn’t use her cold instincts she was betrayed. D: Didn’t feel “ha-ha” at her fall. She was trying to redeem herself. Give one guy a chance, maybe he can help her. The one time she let down her guard she got burned. V: __All in all, even if you are more able than other people, if you act higher and better than them, it can become your weakness.__ G: Plot line of ignorance toward the world.

**Group 2 topic:** which story would best fit Chekhov’s definition? Monday, March 22.
 * Socratic Seminar on short stories:** Garland, “Under the Lion’s Paw”; O’Connor, “Good Country People”; Carver, “Cathedral”; Walker, “Everyday Use”; Ortiz, “The Witch’s Husband”
 * Group 2 contributors:** Andrew, Caroline, Jeremy, Luke. **Notetakers:** Dan, John, Julia, Liz.

J— Chekhov: most compelling problem would involve one character and a major conflict, solution isn’t necessary. A—**Cath** has major conflict, **EU** has a family dynamic conflict C—the story seems to be about Dee but is really about Maggie and her mother together L—Chekhov would like **ULP** best because the family lost everything twice, big problem for farmers at the time J—**ULP** is a real, immediate problem, everyday use is an emotional family problem A—**ULP** not most compelling because it is a set of three problems: Haskins has to find a home, has to get started, and has mortgage problem “why don’t we stop and settle here,” and first two problems are solved immediately. The one that doesn’t get solved is compelling but still is not the most compelling problem in the stories. L—Chekhov felt solution is not important, the problems are the important thing “don’t you ever come across my line again if you do I’ll kill you” J—final problem is a tragic resolution C—how to define the problem in **EU**? A—family conflict, “Dee is dead,” mama’s dream vs. who Dee really is C—the issue in everyday use is not deep J—not compelling problem, intense situation L—real problem is Maggie’s self-esteem issues, resolved when her mother helps her stand up to Dee “have you every seen a lame animal…Maggie’s been like this” (2470) C—“Maggie smiled maybe at Dee’s sunglasses” A—**WH** also has family conflict “waiting for my opportunity to talk sense into her” trying to convince grandmother that she can’t take care of him anymore L—he trusted her, she would be loyal to him forever, once she tells her granddaughter the gd understands J—problem is not compelling, narrator was there because she had to be A—“frankly I’m a bit appalled at what I think is the martyr complex” but then sees that it’s not a conflict, understands C—Chekhov would not approve, because the witch story is out of fear and the grandmother does it out of love L—the illness problem is not very compelling, **ULP** is much more so C—the witch story was not an asset, just there J—interesting but not intense enough A— More internal conflict…we often don’t see them as being a strong conflict. We only see phsycial conflict/external as being more important. **ULP** more physical, **Cath** and **GCP** more internal conflicts L—**Cath** narrator is ignorant, big problem, blind person helping him was compelling C—most compelling, clear-cut resolution, blind man is not really blind, narrator is J—stirred up more emotions, narrator was so bitter, “I don’t have any blind friends”. The story was able to influence emotion which is the first sign of a compelling problem. A—compelling because you can see the problem right away, the narrator doesn’t understand the world “I remembered having read somewhere that the blind didn’t smoke because they couldn’t see the smoke” makes you feel like you have stuff to learn too J—as a reader you see more of a problem than the narrator, see his ignorance L—“my idea of blindness came from the movies” makes you sad that this person thinks this way, makes resolution more compelling J—the examples of his ridiculousness make the resolution more compelling C—the husband seems stupid and ignorant but is not incapable of a higher level of thinking, “never being able to see his wife in makeup” A—in **GCP** joy is a mirror of the husband, “she thought that it was idiotic and showed simply that she was still a child…” L—Hulga has a PhD, blinded by her illusions of superiority, doesn’t understand the real world “you ain’t so smart, I been believing in nothing since I was born”

**Socratic Seminar on short stories:** Garland, “Under the Lion’s Paw”; O’Connor, “Good Country People”; Carver, “Cathedral”; Walker, “Everyday Use”; Ortiz, “The Witch’s Husband” **Group 3 topic:** evaluate – what //doesn’t// work, or what //does//? Monday, March 22.
 * Group 3 contributors:** Dan, John G, Julia B, Liz. **Notetakers:** Anna, Julia L, Rebecca, Troy

John-stories less as problems, more as situations that are carried along by events, not decisions Chekhov would be pleased b/c of tension in **ULP** Dan-**ULP** has benefactors to Haskin, Haskin is worked upon by events, not working on events No physical disability, American dream—negative shadow Liz-no development in characters of **ULP** or solid lesson or symbolism/object John-good story, interesting to read, but not a good //short story// Dan-if developed more, better story à lack of continuity Julia-not clear why **WH** had the small story inside it Liz-disagree, at the end it became clear: last line “blessing” If you love them let them go John-in beginning “woman defined by suffering”—problem in story is the g’daughter trying to force g’ma to leave g’pa Dan-g’daughter believes g’ma wants to sacrifice, but g’ma is actually doing what she wants to do—not a sacrifice for her Julia-family conflict where girl will learn what is important to g’ma Dan-changing names in **GCP** and **EU** Wangero-Dee has boyfriend “Barber” who is so far away from the family Miss Wangero steals quilts, Dee will not be allowed to Hulga didn’t give much to the story-Joy to something ugly, which Mrs. Freeman uses to say that she sees Hulga as ugly (people calling Joy “Hulga” is like them saying, “yeah you are ugly”, even if Hulga wants them to) Liz-Hulga worked b/c displayed something about Hulga’s superficiality, belief in her own difference from the others Julia-liked Hopewell b/c she says she doesn’t judge, but she does, which is point of story (she was simple, in the end) Dan-didn’t like ending, but does go along w/Chekhov’s idea of no solutions Too quick swing leads to lack of character building-show that people aren’t perfect Julia-point of story is to show that people are complex, even if they only seem like simple bibleseller Dan-last line of **Cathedral** unsatisfactory, could have been soliloquy to show author’s opinion John-brings in Raven, is blind man actually blind? Julia-did **Cathedral** really change narrator? Although little steps, he can’t really change Dan-people are capable of other things, opening narrator’s eyes to world Liz-symbolism in **GCP** is effective: suitcase w/ alcohol and cards, inside corrupted Dan-education corrupts, stories by women more prevalent Wangero/Hulga John-societal education, people’s relations to other people Julia-education as an eye-opener, yet loss of flexibility Dan-young generation looking poorly on older generation  Education vs. family principles—also in **GCP**
 * WH**-3 different morals not connected
 * WH**-morally connected life is stronger for g’ma