Reply to comment

My fellow summariser is far more organized than I am and has managed to get this summary onto the forum before me. Most of what she has said is what I too had written down- but there were a couple of points that were discussed during our tuesday and thursday sessions that I will add.

On Tuesday, as Danielle said, we discussed the pros and cons of literary analysis. The debate was a lively one but many seemed to agree on the fact that in order to enjoy a piece of writing the reader had to impart both her own meaning to the text and find meaning that was already there.

It was also decided that there was a distinct difference between analysing literature for ones self and for others and that one would enhance the emotional understanding of the experience but the other might ruin it.

Thursdays class, as Danielle mentioned, initially revolved around our responses to the play 'Galileo'. Most students appreciated the fact that the play showed a more 'human' portrayal of the great scientist. The class then began to discuss the role of the church in the play- and indeed the role of any body which restricts free thought.

Some students believed that the church still had a great deal of control today- although in a more subtle way- through the relgious and conservative nature of the government. This affects what students are taught in schools and what kinds of scientific research are allowed and not allowed to happen. This of course led to the discussion on Paedophelia- wether all kinds of scientific observation should be possible.

Professor Grobstein ended our class with a few questions for us to ponder- what causes stories to change? Why is a story better or worse than another story? Is everything we do and everything we believe in simply a variation of one story?