ForumsDialogue is Action
Last Post Update: May 8
Posting is now closed for the year!
- 3+ Weeks of Credit: abuzz, xwing37, aplitstudent123, MangoMan,
- 2 Weeks of Credit: --
- 1 Week of Credit: Nikki, savhoisington, Nicole, Persephone
Defence of Authors
I'm very interested in what your thoughts are that we have to go and choose authors to defend. I think the author which you choose says a lot more about you than the author itself. I don't think that it is a coincidence that we are doing this under the psychological theme unit. I think that the author that you choose is really just a representation of the values unto which we wish to push forward with the journey through AP Literature. I would really like to here you thought about it and what would make you choose one author over another
I think I agree with you for the most part regarding how the author you pick reflects upon you, but it's not just about defending authors we like or agree with. In the module where you pick your author to defend, it mentions something about prediction. So this whole defending the authors thing has more to do with who we think will be attacked by the marginalia in the first place, rather than just deciding on one because we might like them or their ideas. I do agree with you though, this is 100% not a coincidence being under the psychological theme unit.
@persephone - I agree with you on the part about defending the authors. Choosing to defend an author could mean that you suspect the marginalia of attacking the author and not just because you like the author. One could defend an author they like, but that defense doesn't mean anything unless the marginalia are planning to attack that specific author. I don't think that these choices are a true reflection on the person attacking or defending.
@username27 I will piggyback on you with that one. No one really knows who is up next for the Marginalia. I think the psychological aspect of this is game theory. How will you predict who will be attacked or if you will be able to defend the author well enough? Like what @username27 pointed out, these choices aren't a true reflection on the person attacking or defending.
Id like to add on my original reply a bit. After some thinking, I think that picking an author you like might even be counterproductive in some ways. I mean, you can literally pick any author that you want, granted it is a canon one, but if you pick an author that has nothing to do with what were learning about, then what is the point? Moreover, picking an author based solely on who you like, would generally not benefit you if they are not a suspected target.
@aaparrot I do think that Carl Jung will be a likely next target for marginalia because he is the author's whose ideas we will be covering next. We say that Freud was attacked because he was the author that was looked at by our class. I did find it interesting however that the Greek author Homer I did find it interesting that homer was attacked I think maybe it would be a good idea to forum a list of authors who could be likely targets for the marginalia means the notes in the margins of a novel so this is a intresting fact which could lead to the more imformation being found out about them. Im just spitballing some idea here so i think we will go and look at alot of more new imformation which can help us in the furture. Let me know what you think
@jacksonvon - I agree with you. It doesn't seem like there is a point of the marginalia killing canon authors that don't relate to what we are learning. The author Homer was really a surprise, but I feel like many of us saw the attempted murder of Freud coming. I agree with you in saying that Jung could be next and that we should begin to list out suspected targets and work on defending them each chapter.
I agree and think that attacks will most likely align themselves with the chapter themes and teachings. There isn't much to be gained from interacting with Canon Authors that are not relevant at the time of the attack. The entire system of attacking and defending Canon Authors does seem to be fairly cool, especially just being able to see the different names of authors and whether they were defended by someone or if no one deemed them worthy of defending.
This makes me think, why are the marginalia even attacking authors related to our current learnings? What's the point, I suppose? Maybe it's just me, but I find it hard to hold any ill-will towards an idea I've learned intimately and don't have a massive problem with. Is it just whatever is on their minds? Defending is really more a reaction than an action, since it's only ever a response to an action. If starting this during the psychology discussion means anything, maybe it's saying something about the id vs. the superego?
@jacksonvon I agree. I think authors attacked will most likely have connections to the current curriculum, so there is something there. But, while it is smart to protect these current authors, it would also be smart for the Marginalia to attack random authors that the guardians are not thinking of defending, so I think the Guardians and the Marginalia should both not get too ahead of themselves in a possible enemy strategy.
@salmon I found myself wondering the same thing as well. If you are against the literary canon (which I am not sure why you would want to be) then just ignore it, dont read books from it or acknowledge them. But I feel like it would be hard to or near impossible to avoid the ideals that are talked about in books from the canon. I did not think about this part of the class coming up during the psychology part of the curriculum but maybe there is something there. The id instinctual, so I'm not sure the connection there, but maybe the superego has something to do with it. Maybe our superego responds to something in the id that gives us one opinion or another on the canon? Im not sure. Or the timing of this part of the game is complete coincidence
@salmon - I have been wondering the same thing as well. If the marginalia believe they are working for a greater cause, how does death support that? I feel like morally, if you are working towards something, you shouldn't be promoting killing people from the other side. I mean it seems super pointless unless they believe that the canon authors somehow stand in the way of their goals. Still, I feel like there is a better way to work around that instead of just killing them off.
I thought I would post some new information I've got from chisnell here, as I think it is useful. Last chapter, I successfully protected Freud from a marginalia attack, and in the process gained a lot of questions... I found myself struggling to choose someone to protect this chapter and so I wondered if Freud could somehow be attacked again. So, I asked Chisnell and he did say that an author could be attacked more than one time. Do with this info what you will, but I am protecting Freud again this chapter out of curiosity to see IF he will be attacked again, as well as WHO will attack him this time. I wonder if the same assassins will try again, or if perhaps there will be a more powerful foe this time around.
@persephone Freud was a higher level than most of us so it seems fruitless for the marginalia to (but beneficial for guardians) continue to attack them. Although the thing is, no one has figured out which authors are part of the canon nor what level they are. Until someone figures it out, we're probably going to see a lot of blind attacks coming from the Marginalia.
It almost feels symbolic of literature itself, since every idea and work has an author but it's not necessarily clear what belongs to who. To take down an idea, you have to sort of shoot blindly. However, if you want to defend an author's ideas, you have to do it at the source. I almost think it could be a commentary on how criticizing something is a lot harder than defending it, and it basically feels like this class is all about learning criticism. It falls apart when killing authors and criticizing them diverge, but it's close.
- Only Substantive Posts earn credit.
- Five posts/week earn 100% for that week.
- Deadlines are Fridays at 11:59 pm.
- Any single week can earn up to 150%:
- Six posts = 120%
- Seven posts = 140%
- Eight posts = 150%
- Nine posts = 150%, etc.
- One successful podcast replaces 5 posts.
- Are usually several thoughtful sentences in length:
- Demonstrate that reading was done or a concept is understood
- Might quote text
- Express a thoughtful idea about that concept/reading
- May be questions, but if so, also speculations
- Demonstrate that reading was done or a concept is understood
- Are constructive and productive to the discussion
- Are supportive of other members and their ideas
- May/should challenge/provoke/take risks in thinking