I am sure that Dr. Jerz will mention this in class, if someone else doesn't bring it up first. If I remember right it might have been touched upon during the last class. My agenda item for the week is, is Gatsby really great? In my honest opinion, I believe he is. Sure he tells little white lies and strecths the truth from time to time. If the definition of great should mean a "perfect character," no character in any literary work qualifies. Everyone has flaws and short comings. Despite his I believe Fitzgerald was really trying to display Gatsby as great.
Any time I ever hear the title Great Gatsby, it reminds me of Back to School starring Rodney Dangerfield. When asked, "how do you characterize F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'Great Gatsby." He replied "...well, he was...Great!"
On a serious note, I have a few questions about the first couple of chapters. Nick lives next to Gatsby, who lives in a mansion, I a bit confused as to when Nick lives in a cheap rented house surrounded by mansions? Perhaps someone knows the answer, either that or I just missed some important detail. Second, I know that Nick is related to Daisy and her husband Tom. Tom and Daisy are obviously wealthy, especially when Fitzgerald explains the amount of moving that they have done, just out of a matter of complacency. But my questions is, Nick seems to me that he is portrayed as not being wealthy, so why is he "hanging around" all of these well to do people.
It has been a while, but I believe that I have read the Adding Machine before. Rice was portraying the difficulties of workers and their families during the time that unions were coming about and the struggles of working families.
Personally, I was a bit more confused by this story than any of the others. There was no specific date mentioned, but by the wording and descriptions, I picture an older midwestern town in the nineteenth century. I do believe that it mentions the city of Omaha as being close by. I am clear on the fact that story is a murder investigation, however, I am uncertain with many of the details that Glaspell was trying to convey. Examples would include the bag of flour on the kitchen counter, they kept mentioning that it was half sifted, but I never remember hearing a reason for this or any resolution. References to the quilt pattern was also very unclear to me. The birdcage was another detail that I was unclear about. It is clear that the bird was killed by a broken neck. Beyond that it doesn't specify much else about it other than the fact that the other women were hiding the bird's broken neck from the sheriff and attorney. The ending, I feel left a lot to be desired. There was no closure in my opinion. It just ends with the ladies saying it was a knot.
Personally, I found the written version to be far more detailed and intricate than the movie portrayed. Perhaps it is just my observation of the movie, but I got the feeling that very little was given about the other members at the dance. Fitzgerald goes into much more detail with the both the people and the setting. I could be mistaken, but I don't remember even hearing many names in the movie. Fitzgerald describes each one in the story. I also noticed differences such as the fact that in the story Warren dances with Bernice, in the movie this event does not occur. The biggest difference between the movie and the story was that the story was told through the point of view of a narrator, the movie lacked this perspective and therefore gave a different outlook on the characters.