testing

Group Consensus?

Can we reach a group agreement as to whether we should continue to blog or not? I personally believe that we should continue, only if certain changes are made. Groups should be expanded to groups of six to eight people, as there would be more posts to comment on. Having more members would mitigate the negative effects from members who do not post in a timely manner.

I find that there are so many possibilities when using Blogger. An important aspect is learning how to make constructive comments on other people's work. It helps that Blogger's comments are so much faster than written comments. It is vital to be able to make constructive comments, as it allows you to work with others by pointing out flaws in others' work while at the same time being encouraging. In addition, considering  how Blogger is an electronic medium, it is susceptible to various techinical issues. This forces us to use critical thinking should a problem arise. In addition, Blogger emphasizes the necessity of aesthetically pleasing and legible visual representation. Essentially, blog administrators must design a blog that would at the same time be easy to read and appear attractive.

What do the rest of you feel about continuing to blog? Can we all agree upon a course of action?

Should We Continue With Blogging?

I think that blogging is a very advance way of showing our thinking using the technology we have today. Using this type of method to show our thinking has many pros, like the fact that we can change anything that we write. This way, what ever we type can be changed by simply clicking a button and changing the part that we miss interpreted. We can also have the privacy we need in our homes to comment on others to improve their writing, in a respectable way of course. Nothing in the world can be one hundred percent help to anyone, including this blog. There can be a lack of communication, as we can not constantly look at our comments for an answer to our questions. There are also people that can abuse the privileges of using this technology, as we can stray off topic and talk about something else (Also spam). Since I believe everyone feels very secure and free about what ever they are writing about, my answer will be a yes.

Should we continue blogging?

Miss Lees asked us if we should continue blogging with other projects. Blogger did help us problem solve such as my router problem, but some groups got "lazy" and did not post there writings so there peers could not complete their homework by commenting. Though there are many pros to blogging I strongly disagree with some of my peers that we should continue blogging. There were too many technical issues involved with blogger and some students got easily distracted with other forms of media while on the computer. I think we should just do it the old-fashioned way and write our work.

Should we continue blogging?

In response to Ms. Lees' question, we should continue blogging. When blogging, we are using an effective data output tool, with one’s posts able to be seen by people from all over the world. As well, comments, an indispensable resource, are so instant and convenient through Blogger. That way, we can quickly receive feedback for our work and use it to revise our work. On a side note, designing a template for our blogs and making it aesthetically pleasing while at the same time legible is a useful lesson in presentation.

When using blogger, we learn a multitude of skills, such as learning how to make constructive comments on other people's work and using others' feedback to improve your own work. Having such expedient comments through blogger certainly helps. Being able to make constructive comments is a vital life skill, as it allows you to work with others by collaborating and pointing out flaws in others' work while at the same time being encouraging. In addition, bearing in mind how Blogger is an electronic medium, it is susceptible to various techinical issues. This requires us to use critical thinking in order to solve issues that may arise. For example, if the spaces in your posts appear different from how you wrote them, you could experiment with Blogger to find a solution, such as editing the text directly in HTML to fix formatting errors.

As for suggestions to augment our blogging experience, larger groups would be a better idea. In a group of six to eight people, there would be more posts to comment on. As well, if the teacher said to comment on three other posts, and someone garnered numerous comments while another received none, it would be a valuable lesson in sense of audience. As well, having more members would mitigate the negative effects from members who do not post in a timely manner.

links

I like the links you have added - the MSND full text will come in handy for those who forget their books.

5 questions - posted very late

I am glad to see you catching up on your posting. However, I can tell that with two weeks past since we had the lesson, practiced together in class, and assigned the task, you have forgotten some of the directions and criteria we discussed. For example - several of the questions are way too brad and big for the purposes of our blog positing.
Hopefully, this helps to emphasize the need for timely completion of your work.

Revising The five Questions

My question: How do you think people reacted when an act of unfairness is done?

M F
How has life changed from Shakespearean England? Why?

After: How has the life from Shakespearean England differ from today's life? Why?

KB
Do you see a difference in modern England and enland in the book (1600s).

After: Is there a difference in Shakespearean England compared to the England now?

JC
I think he blog questions should talk about “what will happn f you don’t study hard right now or do you think people who are smart and intelliget has a better jobs? Because it is an important or interesting thoughts were in high school and should know more about it/ Blog is a fun experient.

After: I do not think this question should be used. This has nothing to do with Shakespearean England, and this refers to life now.

RM
Was Shakespeare as poplular a writer in the time of the sotry as he is today? Will he be in the future?
Why do certain events occur? Does it have to do with the arts or people’s interests?

After: I think the question that should be used is the first one because, this sounds like two parts. Also the two questions are not related.

NR
Does the law in Shakespearean times similar to the way the law is today?

After: Is the law in Shakespearean England similar to the laws today?

Response to Question #4 (Revised)

Men and women of Elizabethan England were certainly not equals. How did this inequality fare in their society? How was this portrayed in Cue for Treason?

"Historical fiction is a popular genre, but when reading it can be difficult not to apply today's values to the past (the same is true when studying history in general). The character of Kit causes the reader to examine the role gender plays in our society. What can we learn about the differences between the role of men and women in Elizabethan society through the characters of our novel? In your argument, discuss both how they are treated and how they are portrayed. Finally, do you think they are realistic portrayals for the time period?"

The novel Cue for Treason is set in Elizabethan England, at a time when the roles of men and women were very distinct. This is evidenced in the family of Peter Brownrigg, who is the novel’s adolescent protagonist who flees his home to escape from the law. The men in his family go out to do work while the females work at home. This contrast is also reflected with Mr. and Mrs. Desmond, a couple who makes their living as travelling actors and working in the theater. The men in these families play a dominant role, while the women backed the men up. In the novel, the women were generally not treated as well as the men, though they appeared content with where they were. Most of them were realistic portrayals of Elizabethan women, save for Kit, a girl who escapes a forced marriage and disguises herself as a boy in order to pursue a career as an actor.

In Elizabethan society, men act as the family breadwinners, while women play a supporting role in the family. They would perform copious amounts of work, such as tending to their children, cooking and preparing meals, mending clothes, and all sorts of housekeeping chores. In Peter’s family, for example, his father and brother would be the ones to go out to do work, such as tending to their animals and splitting logs (p. 216). His mother and sisters, on the other hand, would be making cheese or preparing meals (p. 31: “My sisters were cheese-making.”). In the example of Mr. and Mrs. Desmond, their roles are even further contrasted. Mr. Desmond would be the one who acted onstage and lead and direct the players of his company. Mrs. Desmond, however, would be backstage, doing nothing but stitching and darning costumes (p. 84: “…Mrs. Desmond, with nothing more important to do than darning and sticking costumes.”). The men would do the more “important” jobs, with the women helping them with numerous “minor” jobs.

Women in Elizabethan England were definitely not treated as equal to men. Rather, they were treated as second-rate, and performed the upholding roles. Overall, they appeared content with their role, and were happy to do their jobs. This was probably because they knew no other way of working, and for the time period, it was the only way to sustain a family. However, Kit Kirkstone (a.k.a. Katharine Russell) feels differently, and she challenges the social norm of excluding women from the theatre. Having been forced into a formal public engagement to a man who wants to marry her only for her property, Kit escapes it by running away from home and disguising herself as a boy to become an actor, as women are not allowed to act. The very notion of it was completely unheard of. (p. 84): “There would be a fearful scandal if any of our audiences had realized that we had brought a young girl on to the public stage.” But, aside from Kit, the women in the novel are portrayed as “ladylike” and seem satisfied with their role in the family.

Peter’s mother and sisters, along with Mrs. Desmond, are accurate representations of Elizabethan-era women. They take a backseat role in their households, with Mrs. Brownrigg and her daughters maintaining their home and completing various chores around the house. Mrs. Desmond also worked in a similar way, with a comparatively minor role to her husband. As travelling actors, Mr. Desmond and his company would perform the plays, while Mrs. Desmond would fix costumes and organize their props (p. 51). Kit, however, is not a realistic portrayal; she did not adhere to the social norms of the time. She escaped from a forced marriage, acts onstage, and eventually ends up working as a spy for Queen Elizabeth’s Secret Service. Conventionally, women of the time would live peaceful lives and make no attempt at avoiding forced marriages. They would be expected to support their husband and family, and would not break any social norms. Even Queen Elizabeth describes Kit, in the novel, as “very unladylike”, citing how Kit went “gallivanting about the country on stolen horses disguised as a boy”. Suffice to say, all women in Cue for Treason were realistic, save for Kit.

Though women’s roles in Elizabethan England were very distinct and arguably inferior to men’s, women at the time complied with the social norm. Though they may have been considered second-rate, women during Elizabethan England were certainly vital in sustaining their families. The supporting role they had was necessary ensure the overall success of the family. The novel Cue for Treason is an excellent historical source in regards to its realistic portrayal of women, with the exception of Kit, whose unorthodox behaviour was evidently fictitious. Even though women of Elizabethan England had a backseat role to men, they were absolutely important in maintaining their households.

Treason Q

My Question:
In Shakespearian England women seem to have almost no rights when it comes to almost anything. For example, Kit must disguise herself as a boy to perform in the plays. Why do you think that men were considered better than woman at this time?
SK
Original: Why was the people at that time so violent? What do you think? Is it similar to today?
Revised: Why were the people at that time so violent? Is it similar to today? What Do You Think?
JZ
Original: Why would the Spanish-backed Fifth Column of Sir Philip Morton want to install a new Spanish-Friendly Government by assassinating Queen Elizabeth.

How was the Elizabethan Era, referred as a "Great English Renaissance" really that great? Oppressive government policies like the counter-productive Enclosure Act which sent thousands into poverty, could potentially cause rebellion, would the Renaissance be really called a renaissance or an age of oppression?

Is the Anglo-Spanish War still occuring? If so then... (refer to question 1)
Revised:Why would the Spanish-backed Fifth Column of Sir Philip Morton want to install a new Spanish-Friendly Government by assassinating Queen Elizabeth? Why was the Elizabethan Era considered a "Great English Renaissance" as it is reffered? Oppressive government policies like the counter-productive Enclosure Act which sent thousands into poverty, could potentially cause rebellion, would the Renaissance be really called a renaissance or an age of oppression?

Is the Anglo-Spanish War still occuring? If so then refer to question 1

RM
Original: Are things that were enjoyed in the past, be enjoyed by people today? Or will technology change how we view the those past entertainers?
How does the arts from the past connect with current events during that time? How can it connect with current events in our world today?
Revised: Are things that were enjoyed in the past, be enjoyed today? Or is technology changing how we view entertainment? How does the arts from the past connect with current events during that time? How can it connect with current events in our world today?

Response to Question #4

"Historical fiction is a popular genre, but when reading it can be difficult not to apply today's values to the past (the same is true when studying history in general). The character of Kit causes the reader to examine the role gender plays in our society. What can we learn about the differences between the role of men and women in Elizabethan society through the characters of our novel. In your argument, discuss both how they are treated and how they are portrayed. Finally, do you think they are realistic portrayals for the time period."

The novel Cue for Treason is set in Elizabethan England, at a time when the roles of men and women were very distinct. This is evidenced in the family of Peter Brownrigg, who is the novel’s adolescent protagonist who flees his home to escape from the law. The men in his family go out to do work while the females work at home. This contrast is also reflected with Mr. and Mrs. Desmond, a couple who makes their living as travelling actors and working in the theater. The men in these families play a dominant role, while the women backed the men up. In the novel, the women were generally not treated as well as the men, though they appeared content with where they were. Most of them were realistic portrayals of Elizabethan women, save for Kit, a girl who escapes a forced marriage and disguises herself as a boy in order to pursue a career as an actor.

In Elizabethan society, men act as the family breadwinners, while women play a supporting role in the family. They would perform copious amounts of work, such as tending to their children, cooking and preparing meals, mending clothes, and all sorts of housekeeping chores. In Peter’s family, for example, his father and brother would be the ones to go out to do work, such as tending to their animals and splitting logs (p. 216). His mother and sisters, on the other hand, would be making cheese or preparing meals (p. 31: “My sisters were cheese-making.”). In the example of Mr. and Mrs. Desmond, their roles are even further contrasted. Mr. Desmond would be the one who acted onstage and lead and direct the players of his company. Mrs. Desmond, however, would be backstage, doing nothing but stitching and darning costumes (p. 84: “…Mrs. Desmond, with nothing more important to do than darning and sticking costumes.”). The men would do the more “important” jobs, with the women helping them with numerous “minor” jobs.

Women in Elizabethan England were definitely not treated as equal to men. Rather, they were treated as second-rate, and performed the upholding roles. Overall, they appeared content with their role, and were happy to do their jobs. This was probably because they knew no other way of working, and for the time period, it was the only way to sustain a family. However, Kit Kirkstone (a.k.a. Katharine Russell) feels differently, and she challenges the social norm of excluding women from the theatre. Having been forced into a formal public engagement to a man who wants to marry her only for her property, Kit escapes it by running away from home and disguising herself as a boy to become an actor, as women are not allowed to act. The very notion of it was completely unheard of. (p. 84): “There would be a fearful scandal if any of our audiences had realized that we had brought a young girl on to the public stage.” But, aside from Kit, the women in the novel are portrayed as “ladylike” and seem satisfied with their role in the family.

Peter’s mother and sisters, along with Mrs. Desmond, are accurate representations of Elizabethan-era women. They take a backseat role in their households, with Mrs. Brownrigg and her daughters maintaining their home and completing various chores around the house. Mrs. Desmond also worked in a similar way, with a comparatively minor role to her husband. As travelling actors, Mr. Desmond and his company would perform the plays, while Mrs. Desmond would fix costumes and organize their props (p. 51). Kit, however, is not a realistic portrayal; she did not adhere to the social norms of the time. She escaped from a forced marriage, acts onstage, and eventually ends up working as a spy for Queen Elizabeth’s Secret Service. Conventionally, women of the time would live peaceful lives and make no attempt at avoiding forced marriages. They would be expected to support their husband and family, and would not break any social norms. Even Queen Elizabeth describes Kit, in the novel, as “very unladylike”, citing how Kit went “gallivanting about the country on stolen horses disguised as a boy”. Suffice to say, all women in Cue for Treason were realistic, save for Kit.

Cue for Treason Questions

My question:

Kit must disguise herself as a boy in order to pursue a career as an actor. Females are not allowed to act at all; in fact, a girl acting in the theater is completely unheard of. Peter asks, “Why shouldn’t women act women’s parts?” referring to how all women’s parts are acted by boys. Kit responds, “Just what I say! It’s a stupid, old-fashioned idea, not letting them. Men are scared that women would act them off the boards if they were given the chance.”

Do you agree with Kit’s reasoning? Why do you think that men did not allow women to act? Taking into account the historical roles of men and women, do you think that this exclusion was justified?

SK
Before: Why was the people at that time so violent?  What do you think?  Is it similar to today?

After: Could the people during the time of Elizabethan England be considered violent?  Is it similar to today? Explain and provide examples. 

- Question had grammar errors, and was also biased.

SS
Before: Are things that were enjoyed in the past, be enjoyed by people today?  Or will technology change how we view the those past entertainers?
How does the arts from the past connect with current events during that time?  How can it connect with current events in our world today?

After: Will things that were enjoyed in the past, be enjoyed by people today?  Or will technology change how we view past forms of entertainment?
How do the arts from the past connect with current events during that time?  How can it connect with current events in our world today?
- First, second, and third questions needed rephrasing.

RM Before: Are things that were enjoyed in the past, be enjoyed by people today?  Or will technology change how we view the those past entertainers?
How does the arts from the past connect with current events during that time?  How can it connect with current events in our world today?

After: Was Shakespeare as popular a writer in the time of the story as he is today?  Will he be in the future?
Why do certain events occur?  Does it have to do with the arts or people’s interests?
- Third question is too general, needs background.

JC
Before: I think he blog questions should talk about “what will happn f you don’t study hard right now or do you think people who are smart and intelliget has a better jobs?  Because it is an important or interesting thoughts were in high school and should know more about it/  Blog is a fun experient.

After: I think the blog questions should talk about “What will happen if you don’t study hard right now?” or “Do you think people who are smart and intelligent have better jobs?”  Because it is an important or interesting thought. We’re in high school and should know more about it. Blog is a fun experiment.
- Difficult to understand question, needed to be translated into English.

JZ
Before: Why would the Spanish-backed Fifth Column of Sir Philip Morton want to install a new Spanish-Friendly Government by assassinating Queen Elizabeth.

How was the Elizabethan Era, referred as a "Great English Renaissance" really that great? Oppressive government policies like the counter-productive Enclosure Act which sent thousands into poverty, could potentially cause rebellion, would the Renaissance be really called a renaissance or an age of oppression?

Is the Anglo-Spanish War still occuring? If so then... (refer to question 1)

After: Why would the Spanish-backed Fifth Column of Sir Philip Morton want to install a new Spanish-Friendly Government by assassinating Queen Elizabeth?
How was the Elizabethan Era a "Great English Renaissance", as it is called?

Taking account inconsiderate laws at the time, such as the Enclosure Act, which can render peasants destitute, would the Renaissance be really called a renaissance or an age of oppression?
Is the Anglo-Spanish War still occurring? If so, then refer to question 1.

- First question requires historical research, and the second and third questions are biased.

Chapter 1 & 2 Response

"I felt rather pleased when he said that, about "the fewer who know the better." Though I was only fourteen, I had been counted in with the men. They could say that they liked, but there was a certain amount of danger. Sir Phillip was a bad enemy to croos, though up to that time none of us knew just how bad an enemy he could be"
(p.15)
When I read this I knew that the fight with Sir Phillip was not going to be over with them knocking over the walls. I knew that Sir Phillip would find out who knocked it over when Peter said that "up to that time none of us knew just how bad an enemy he could be", this was a foreshadow of what would happen in the story. This also shows that the narrator is saying this after everything happens.
""You don't know the law," my father said grimly. "No, they mustn't get hold of him now, while Sir Phillip's in his mad mood. Besides, we owe it to our neighbors to get him away. If the court lays hands on him, they'll question him about his companions at the time" (p.30)
This part of the story the plot thickens. Peter is now faced with the decision to run away or to be tortured and thrown into jail. Peter chooses to run away but that still leaves consequences in his part. He will have to suffer from hunger and always be on alert for Sir Phillips or any of his men.

Response to Chapter 1 and 2 (including connections)

Cumberland, when I first heard that place I thought it was referring to the Cumberland in B.C, if so the story is going to be very familiar. I wasn't surprised when I heard that this Cumberland is in England, because of all the similar places in the world. I knew in an instant that this Story takes place in Renaissance England. It was really interesting how the story started, when Peter (the main character) explained how he wouldn't be here telling us the story if his dog was there, I knew he was in trouble. I thought it was really unfair that Sir Phillip Morton encircled the land that belonged to the farmers to share. When the farmers went to push down the wall, I really thought they would get away. The questions I had when the farmers were running away was, "Will they make it?" I know that the concequences back then include, hanging and death sentence, so I knew they were in trouble. I hoped that when Peter threw the stone, It would hit someone but I should have known better.

Part. 1

The Big A

Since the beginning of mankind people were given choices and with those choices they either triumphed or they failed. It doesn't matter if people are born in a rich family or a poor one, it only matters who you choose to be. I do not believe that a man's path is decided before they are born, but can make his own path like the man in the clip. Before Steve Jobs was born his mother put him up for adoption. Steve Jobs path was decided before he was even born. Also, being cared by drop outs Steve Jobs managed to go to university. Even though Steve Jobs was raised by drop outs he chose to go to university. Now Steve Jobs will be remembered forever as the CEO of Apple and Pixar.

The Big Answer

I think a persons life path was determined while they live through their life. In ancient Greece, the people believed that there were three Gods of Fate, one that control when the life start, one that control what happens during that life, and one that controls when the life ends. The Gods do all this by knitting a long scarf that contains the starting point of one's life and the events the person has to go through. The Fates keep knitting until, the Fate that controls when the life ends cut the string to end the life. All this happens while the person is going through their life, the Fates just plans ahead to see if the person will follow thier path. People say even the Ancient Gods themselves are affected by the Fates choices.

I think a person can change his own path today, not the Fates. The person can change his stars by making the right choices that lead them towards their goal. By doing this, the person can follow thier own path and plan their own future.

Response to Chapters 1 & 2

Think Aloud Response:

"If Snap [the dog] had gone with us that night, as he wanted to, I should never have come into the peril of death, and this story would never have been told. But it's no good crying over spilt milk, and perhaps it wasn't such a bad thing after all." p.15

This passage gives the reader immediate foreshadowing and predicts that something bad will happen. The narrator and protagonist, Peter Brownrigg, narrates this after the fact, and hints that what is about to happen ends up being a dangerous situation for him. However, he also makes note that what is about to happen isn't worth regretting, and maybe wasn't actually that bad. I wonder what difference it would have made if Snap did go along?

"We'd been a happy enough family in our valley till young Sir Philip Morton inherited his grandfather's estate a couple of years before... But Sir Philip soon showed us that he wasn't a soft young man. In fact, he was extremely hard. We were sorry for the lowland farmers who rented lands from him, for their rents began to go up like rockets. Then he turned his attention to us. ...Heaven help the man who puts a stone wall round [our meadows] and calls them his-even if he has money and men in livery and a "Sir" in front of his name. That's what Sir Philip did that summer." p.17

I feel sympathy for those farmers; their lives were going smoothly. Then, Sir Philip comes in and tries to mess everything up. I wonder about Sir Philip's motive behind making life difficult for the farmers–was it greed? Why didn't he just follow his grandfather's example and let everyone live a good life? The description Peter offers of Sir Philip is interesting; it shows the contempt that the farmers feel for the new landlord. And it was somewhat amusing (in a twisted, sardonic way) how Sir Philip ultimately goes ahead with the one thing that will rile the farmers in the valley. This was done without a rational reason; he arbitrarily removes the right of the farmers to access the land. This ties in with our preview activity pertaining to our rights as a student and our response to their arbitrary removal. His behaviour seems almost typical of a modern-era English noble: use your money and power to your own benefit; it doesn't matter who you hurt or what collateral damage you cause.
"We all clustered round, and he [Peter’s father] made us swear a solemn oath we'd tell no one a single word about the night's doings. Sir Philip could do nothing to the whole village, but if he got proof against one or two individual men, he'd try to get his revenge on them... Then we all set to work with a will to throw down Sir Philip's wonderful wall." p.18

Finally, the purpose of the men sneaking out at night is revealed, though the fact that the reason was related to the wall was previously hinted at. I agree with the farmers' idea to rebel against Sir Philip. People have right to rebel against unjust treatment. The farmers seem to have a good plan–have the whole village tear down his wall, because Sir Philip can't do anything against a whole village; there are just too many people.

"Soldiers say that dawn is a dangerous time. I have heard that from men who have fought in Ireland and the Low Countries and in the steaming forests of the Spanish Main. It's the time when sentries get slack and their eyelids droop, and a wise enemy chooses his moment to launch a surprise attack." p.20

This is a definite foreshadowing. It corresponds with the chapter name "Dawn is Dangerous", and it relates to the current situation, when it is approaching dawn. When it mentions that “sentries get slack”, it can be interpreted as the sentries becoming complacent because there is no one in proximity, or they might just be tired and not as alert as they should be. I predict that one of the two will happen: someone becoming cocky or someone becoming tired.

“I skipped into the shelter just before the cavalcade reached me. Then I was tempted by some devil I couldn’t resist; I turned round with a piece of rock in my fist and shied it straight at Sir Philip. I don’t think it touched either man or horse, they were traveling too fast, but it made the horse shy, and threw the men behind into temporary confusion.

‘There’s one of ’em, sir!’ a man shouted, and flung up his pistol. The muzzle flamed in the twilight, and it is a wonder my story didn’t finish there and then.” p.22&23

It turns out that Peter makes a cocky move. He is tempted to throw the rock, and does not resist the temptation. If he had thought carefully, he would have realized that throwing a rock at Sir Philip and his men could very likely result in a disproportionate punishment. And that disproportionate punishment was being shot at by a pistol. It was a narrow miss, however, and the bullet grazed his hair and blew the cap right off his head. I wonder if his lack of self-control was due to the fact that it was dawn, or if it was just his teenage instincts.

“Anyhow, I promised myself, I’ll go back there tonight when the coast’s clear and find my cap. A cap with a bullet-hole–that’ll be something to show at school, something they’ll have to believe in. They all know that green cap of mine, and it has my name in it, anyhow, so they can’t pretend I’ve got hold of someone else’s.” p.26

It seems silly at first that Peter would show off his cap even though it might provide proof that he angered one of Sir Philip’s men. Peter’s behaviour, however, could largely be attributed to the fact that he is a teenager. He wants to show off to his peers how he survived such a scrape, which would result in them admiring him. It might get him into trouble, but it seems worth the risk if he can successfully show off.

“‘Two men,’ he said. ‘One of them’s the constable, but I don’t know the other. They’d got that green cap of yours–’

As soon as he mentioned the green cap I knew that it was serious. I must have gone very white. Tim stared at me.” p.27&28

All of a sudden, Peter’s excitement about the cap turns into utter fear. I can relate to the fear portion. It’s that anxiety that you get when you get called to the principal’s office after you did something that might have been against the rules. I wonder what Peter will do–will he run away or comply with the master’s request to see him?

“Here was a nice mess! Just my luck! Of all the twenty or thirty who’d helped to demolish Sir Philip’s wall, I was the only one they had traced, and actually I had done less than all the others. But then I’d committed an assault… thrown a stone, which I had missed. It didn’t sound like much... This, though, was Sir Philip Morton, and it made a difference.” p.29

It’s unfortunate that Peter realizes that throwing the rock was a bad idea after he gets in trouble for it. He should have contemplated the possible negative outcomes of throwing the rock instead of falling into temptation. If he had had some self-control, everything would have been fine. Throwing the rock wasn’t worth it. But, as the narrator said before, there’s no use crying over spilt milk. Maybe something good will come out of this, as it was hinted at.

“I laughed, though I didn’t feel at all like laughing, and went tramping on up the mountain.
            I’d always wanted to see the outside world, I’d always wanted adventure, and now I was going to get it with a vengeance” p.32

The reason why Peter didn’t feel at all like laughing was because of the circumstances he was in. It must have been so difficult for his mother to see him go away for an indefinite amount of time. But, on the bright side, now Peter can fulfill his lifelong dream: to explore the world. It doesn’t matter if he’s in deep trouble, because now he can go on an adventure. Therein lies the irony: He should be sad and sobered by his situation where he has to leave home because people are after him for his misdoings, yet he is jubilant at the opportunity to see the outside world.

The Big A

Ms. Lees asks: "Was a person's life path determined before they were born? Is it today? Or can a man change his stars as the clip suggests?"

To provide some background, the clip shown is an excerpt from the movie A Knight's Tale. It portrays William, a poor squire, trying to convince his fellow squires, Roland and Wat, that they can use the money that they won from a jousting tournament to "change their stars" and reach glory and riches. In the end, William is successful in persuading them.

This also relates to one of the preview activities we did in class. One group was asked to make a chart displaying Canadian hierarchy. At the bottom were the homeless people and sanitation engineers (a.k.a. janitors), while at the top were the govenment officials and pop culture celebrities. The question is asking whether it's possible for someone at the bottom to work their way up.

The answer to the question depends on the definition of "life path". Assuming that it doesn't mean "fate" or "destiny", then my answer would be: yes. In bleak situations, such as William's in A Knight's Tale, a person can persevere and try to make their situation better by taking chances to better their situation, instead of staying stagnant and trying to be content with their current situation.

In previous times, such as 18th-century France, there were rigid class distinctions. If you were born a peasant, you would stay a peasant. The chances of a person in a lower class being able to advance to a higher class was next to impossible. Now, with the concept of "all men are born equal", it is much easier for a person to "change their stars" and improve their life.

Today, people have many opportunities to take chances and better their lives. The probably most well-known epitome of "rags to riches" is the late Steve Jobs. Born into a family that later broke up, he was raised by an adoptive family. In college, he made ends meet by sleeping on the floor in friends' rooms, returning Coke bottles for money, and getting a weekly free meal at the local Hare Krishna temple. Two years later, he finally got a permanent job. In 1976, two years afterwards, Apple was founded, and Jobs later became manager for Apple's Macintosh division. In 1985, he was removed from his position at Apple, and later resigned from Apple to found a new company, NeXT Inc. It would be eleven years after his termination from Apple before he returned and was finally made CEO. His company would go on to revolutionize the electronics sector, releasing products such as the iMac, iPod, and iPhone.

This anecdote just goes to show how much a person can do even with a poor initial situation and setbacks on the road to success. If Steve Jobs gave up in the electronics sector and settled for something else, there would not be Apple as we know it today. Changing one's stars might not be easy, but it can result in great things if one perseveres.

Welcome

Welcome to our newly established blog pertaining to the novel Cue For Treason. Please try to maintain proper grammar and make sure that your posts are relevant.

hi people

hi im the first to post on this blog
ya!!!!