Gwynn and Steinbeck

In the poem "The classroom at the Mall", again was difficult to read but the in class disscusion really helped. I think he was sarcastic in his poem. He exaggerated a hair-do and then mentioned that it was attached to a women. A girl walks by and he thinks of Helen of Troy. He compares himself to an academic Santa Claus. The situation in the poem is there's a classroom in the mall that has big glass windows looking out to the rest of the mall, which he mentions distracts him from teaching his students. Its during Christmas time so he gets to see all the people out shopping. He is somewhat flusterated by the fact that he has to teach his students in a mall. He thinks that is mocking the structure of education. The speakers attitude toward his teaching assignment is flustration because his boss thought it a good idea to put a classroom in a mall, also its hard for him to concentrate because its Christmas time. He thinks he's undervalued and the people in the mall value wealth while he values proper education. By the end of the day he is ready to go home.

Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath was long and confusing. I would have to re-read it a couple times to fully understand it but right now I dont have time. maybe one day I will get a chance to read it all. I dont want to even try and explain it cause I have no clue on whats going on.

Bradstreet and Kafka

Bradstreet: This was a hard poem for me to read so i googled it and read what others had to say about to fully understand the poem.
Bradstreet felt embarrassed because it got published without her consent before she could edit them. Bradstreet speaks of her poems as her children because for one she had many childred that she raised and she had many poems that she wrote. So maybe while writing her poems she felt she put a lot of thought and effort into these poems as she did with her children.

Kafka: I thought it was weird at first but after i read it over and figured out what was going on i thought it was a pretty good story.
The hunger artist was popular because it was a joke that happened to be in fashion. It soon became less interesting to the public because they grew tired of watching the hunger artist day and night and could not fully know whether he was really fasting the whole time. The watchers play the role of the public who would watch the hunger artist for entertainment; the impresario was his boss who would manage his appearences to the public when fasting; the overseer is a man who is helped out by the notice board. These roles helped make his job worth meaning, without them there isn't a hunger artist.

Andrew Carnegie The Gospel of Wealth

At first it was hard to read and I feel like I always say the readings are difficult to read maybe because i have a low comprehension but I do like to read, anyways it was kinda long and a little boring at parts. I felt like some parts just kept on going and never ended. So the question arises, “Does Carnegie’s argument apply today”? Carnegie argued that individual capitalists were duty bound to play a broader cultural and social role in which will help improve the world. Carnegie felt that wealth was brought by those ‘who have the ability and energy that produce it”. He also believed in the three modes in which wealth can be distributed after death; left to close relatives, public proposes or administered during their lives by its possessors. He also mentions that in other countries, such as Europe, that the property and a majority of the wealth are left to the first son to keep their title going for generations. But why should they leave their fortune to their children? Maybe because they are their close relatives and want to help support them. That doesn’t teach people to work hard to get what they want when they get handed a large amount of money. Take the Hilton family for example, Paris doesn’t have her own personal income. The money she gets is from what her family earned from the hotels. Everything is always given to her. She has no clue what its like to have a normal life in which she would have to work and earn the money she spends. This is a perfect example of what Andrew Carnegie is trying to explain the reasons why its not a good idea to just give everything to your children. They need to learn to work for what they want. Now its okay to leave some sum amount to your children to help support them but not to give them more then they need.