Owen/Manus in Translations

These two characters change plays throughout the entire play of translations. Although I am not sure transformation occurs I believe this information represents a shift of opinions in Ireland during National Oridnance Survey. It could also represent the uneasiness of opinions of the Irish

Manus is a lame, intelligent, poor, and underpaid son of Hugh. He teaches at the hedgeschool, but seems quiet and submissive to his father when his own intelligence might even surpass Hugh's. Owen is quite the opposite. He is arrogant, wealthy, has left home to join the English military, but he does still speak Gaelic.

In Act one-

We are introduced to both characters and their descrbed personalities. Manus has a particular moment with Sarah (a student in the school) where his compassion for the Irish and their language shows.He discusses his father's whereabouts with her using hand signals and few words.

In Act two-

We being to see Owen defending his Irish heritage while making the new English map with an officer. However, Owen still moves along with the military's orders as planned. While discussing the places on the map that they are renaming he begins to see the absurdity and how the original names connect with his heritage.

Also during this Act Manus finds out that an officer is "stealing" his "girlfriend"

In Act three-

It opens on a conversation with Owen and Manus. Manus is in a hurry to leave because he afraid that he is the reason the officer who "stole" his girlfriend went missing. He leaves his future job, his students, and his home for a new life.

Owen on the other hand seems to stay. He seems to feel a new connection to his home. The rvidence of this comes from a conversation with the same student Manus had one with in Act one. Just like the first conversation, Owen discusses his father's whereabouts with Sarah using few words and hand signals.

A new kind of compassion has come to Owen of his home and at the same time has left Manus

Persepolis - The Movie

I wasn't really crazy about the movie on its own because it seemed to have a very disorganized timeline. I'm not sure if this is because I know the order of events in the book or if people who have only seen the movie have felt this way. By skipping important events (such as her mother's visit to Vienna) I felt kind of lost in the animation. However, I did think the present day being in color cleared things up the few times the scene appeared.

Things the movie added to my knowledge of events in the book:

• The biggest component the animation added was weight to the corpses and multitudes to the people walking the streets. These items really put the gruesome events of the wars and the people's demand for revolution in the book seem more intense, graphic, and much much larger events.  Before, these events seemed to be small compared to the life story of Satrapi. Now, they add much more to the graphic world scenerey effecting Satrapi.
• The sound effects however, kept the aspect of childhood interpretation. One scene in particular where Anoosh's uncle is executed, the gun makes a popping sound instead of an actual gunshot. It reminded me of one of those popping, cork guns my brother would put next to my ear and annoy me with. It truly captured a child's interpretation of the event while still showing the weight of the death. 
• The colorful "present" day sequences gave me some extra perspective of Satrapi's interpretation of herself. It also showed how everything seemed dull around her in the airport of Vienna (?). She was the brightest object in the scene making her thoughts or reactions the most important.
• It also did not occur to me how big of a part speaking french was in her life. I'm not if her family speaking french is only for the movie. However, it did show me how important her french schooling must have seemed to her parents and how difficult it was to transition back into Iranian culture when she returned. It really made her problem of not ever being able to fit in stick out because she speaks french in Iran, but in Vienna no one understood her perspective of life. 

Charlotte Perkins Gilman - Exhibit

The whole library exhibit

Drawings of The Yellow Wallpaper

The library exhibit on the Charlotte Perkins Gilman added many components to the story, "The Yellow Wallpaper", for me.

The first addition to my information of the story and author was her drawings of key scenes in the story. I work much better visually and it formed a more well-rounded picture of the narrator in the story's surroundings. In the image to the right are these drawings. The top drawing is of the bars on the windows of the narrators designated room. I always thought the bars were either figurative or were there for the children who occupied the room before her. Her attachment to the window in the image leads me to believe the bars were put on to keep the narrator in. The drawing in the bottom right shows the narrator discovering the "other woman" trapped inside the wallpaper. I believe this character now represents not only the narrator being trapped but also Gilman's actual hallucinations during the treatment. It adds a new level of the amount of stress put on the narrators mind in the story not just representation of being trapped as a female. The last drawing added the most to the story for me. One of the suggestions during our class discussion was that her husband killed himself and the narrator's word "fainted" was only because of her delusion. Clearly in the drawing he did not kill himself but he did faint and she did crawl over him. However the personality of the narrator is more caring in the drawing. In the story she just crawls right over him, but the drawing shows her trying to pull him up. It changes the mental state of the narrator to a more "sane" or caring one instead of a dominant one.

Life events of Gilman

The other additional information I gathered was Gilman's personal history. How she grew up in particular helped me contextualize The Yellow Wallpaper. Her first (unhappy) marriage and child also added to this. Her life as a woman had been typical up to the point of "The Yellow Wallpaper". In my paper I wrote on her purpose for writing the Yellow Wallpaper. She had so much to break free from as child, wife, and mother. "The Yellow Wallpaper" acted as an actual form of therapy for her as well as to show others what rest-cure did to women. It was interesting to see my theory of writing as therapeutic play out through her life. Her childhood was torn by her father and her unhappy marriage with a dominant husband pushed her to understand her place as a woman. When she had to endure rest cure it must have been the last straw before she wrote "The Yellow Wallpaper" to touch upon her thoughts of it. 

The rest of her history included in the exhibit was situated after the story was written. She re-married and reunited with her daughter, and she lived a happier life. Her story had paid off for her as well as somewhat in the medical world.

Persepolis "Current Events" Response

• What are your reactions to this decision and the subsequent reaction by students, faculty, and the media? 

At first I was appalled at the thought of censoring something to students, but then I started thinking like a teacher and the platform you stand on as an educator. I believe their concerns about the book are valid, but an outright ban would underestimate the students. 7th-12th Grade students (a lot of times even younger) have seen violence, profanity, and harsh imagery. Teaching educators how to present and discuss this type of material would help out a lot of students cope with these sort of experiences. So, I was especially impressed when Barbara Byrd-Bennett asked schools to train their teachers with this content. I also believe Satrapi's memoir would be a perfect example of this material because it is so current, but also a new material for students. 

Also, just like any situation, media and extreme opinions seem to blow it out of proportion. The question of democracy near the middle of the article shows the media's attraction to the story. I also wondered who might have wanted the book out of schools. The way extreme opinions effect the students and public worried me most. 

It reminded me of the kind of decisions I'd have to make in my own classroom, or just in life, to set an example of how to react to that sort of violence or harsh experiences. 

The young students responses to Satrapi exemplify how much students know and how faculty and media should not underestimate their capacity to understand. 

• Why do you think this book has been targeted? Why now?

I believe the book has been targeted partly because it is on material that is (even loosely) connected with 9/11 and the always feared "threat" to democracy. I also believe that graphic novels get a bad rap in the educational world as non-valid sources of education. These novels are becoming really popular and students will see them more often, but they have't been as accepted by educators. 

• What are your thoughts about book censorship? Is it ever appropriate? What is lost/gained with such decisions? 

I believe at a certain point book censorship is appropriate. I only believe this because in a public place, like a school, everyone will say their opinion about books, etc. that is appropriate for the public. Although the public gains some type of peace (or at least someones opinion was satisfied), the public also misses out on a learning experience. 

• For the future educators in the class, who should ultimately make decisions about curriculum? The teacher? The principal? Does it matter that this is for 7th-graders? Should there be a procedure put in place? In other words, it could be argued that the "questionable content" is not entirely "questionable", but this decision might be best explored through dialogue. How would that work? Would that work?

I think the fact that it regards 7th graders is the real conflict I have with this "ban". I feel as though the amount of experiences a student has lived through in this day and age is different from the curriculum they are learning. Denying them a book that might relate to them while teaching a new method (such as reading a graphic novel, or dealing with these life experiences, etc.) denies to them a more meaningful/valuable education. It takes a higher level of cognitive learning (such as creativity, analysis, evaluation) out of their education and only leaves basic memorization and comprehension. (which is a real problem with education today)

As for who should decide curriculum, I believe the students deserve more input. Of course they will want something "cool" or new like a graphic novel, but if that method works for them as well as teaches them a NEW valid method of learning then it deserves to be in the curriculum. Questionable dialogue comes up in most schools by students (on accident or on purpose) anyway. I feel the best idea is to have dialogue on how to handle it. How can education make that questionable content a teachable moment? Ignoring the content only enables the student to speak without thinking in the future. 

Going through the process of becoming a teacher has taught me to think with both my student brain and my teacher brain. This is a subject they both agree on.