Thursday, February 7, 2008

Period 5 Self Assessment / Joyce Discussion


Dali's Soft Self Portrait, on which a student wrote an excellent psychoanalytic analysis based on the myth of Narcissus for her research paper last year.

Before I grade you on your class discussions on the critical theory essays on Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, I would like to read your self assessment of that week--sometimes you can offer insight into my observations. I will not give you a grade until you post. Please be specific with your responses.

  1. What was your role in the small group discussions? What did you add to the group?
  2. How would you rate your performance in the large group discussion? Why?
  3. Out of all the discussions, what were the two most insightful observations that you gained from the discussion, and who made those points?

PERIOD 5 POST HERE BY MONDAY FEBRUARY 11th, 4:00p.m.

29 comments:

ashley S5 said...

my role in the group was that i brought in edvidence into how I portrayed the novel in a feminist perspective. I did research on what is feminist and how it formed and how the novel implies and illustrates the concept of the novel. i would rate my peformance in the large group as a seven.I did well based on my ideas and showing edvidence but i should have went more in depth. the two most insightful observations that i gained from the discussion was when Chris explained the concepts of Stehpen's growth through the novel. He stated that as a child, Stephen was able to find guidance from his surrounding however as he aged he was able to make dissions on his own terms. Another observation was when Angela pointed out the meaning of ulling out the eyes and how Stephen was punishing him self for committing his sinful actions.

Angela S5 said...

My role in the small group was helping my classmates understand what psychoanalytical criticism was. Also, we split into pairs and I helped my partner find passages in the text which could be analyzed through psychoanalytical criticism. I also helped him understand the criticism on a deeper less literal level.

In the large group discussion I don’t feel that I contributed anything substantial. I did a few journal entries and was prepared for class, but I just was not 100 percent comfortable with the discussion. One of my contributions was that I applied the psychoanalytical criticism to the passage when Stephen broke his glasses and said how that connected to loss of masculinity and loss of ability to write. I felt that finding this passage helped me analyze psychoanalytical thought on a deeper level. I also touched upon the essays and how the loss of eyes related to castration and how when Stephen fears castration he turns to poetry and art.

The two most insightful observations were made by Mark Damon and Chris O. Mark was in the feminist group and he discussed how that in this book or in general one can not put women on a pedestal and make them these pure untouched creatures. This is how Stephen thought of certain women in the book. Mark explained that females are humans too and make mistakes and must be treated equal to men. I found this interesting and liked when they discussed it. Chris discussed Stephen’s evolution and how he viewed the maternal and female figures in his life and how Stephen became less dependent on his mother and more dependent on his art later in the book. Also, someone else in the feminist group maybe Chris, discussed the difference between “semiotic” and “symbolic” writers. They said how it was interesting that Joyce’s writing is “semiotic” even though he is a male writer.

Rodney B5 said...

My role in the small group discussions was to bring up topics to everyone in the group so everyone could get a better understanding of the reading. Others in the group would elaborate on them and we could learn from each other. I tried to clear up the reading with the group by using my knowledge on psychology especially when they used certain topics that are big in psychology like the ego and superego.

My performance in the large group discussion was not good. I did not contribute anything that was being discussed. I was prepared because I brought in notes and had quotes ready but I did not find the time to share them with everybody.

Out of all the discussions, the most insightful observations that I gained from the discussion was Chris’s and Mario’s passages from the book that gave new insight in the topics being discussed. Chris elaborated on Stephen’s growth from the beginning of the book until the end. He shared how Stephen was dependent on everything around him when he was younger such as his mom but as he got older he did not need them and instead depended on art. Mario brought up the passage that showed how Stephen did not want to take the purity away from anybody. He was not correct on his initial statement but the passage he had brought up led the class into a deeper discussion about Stephen and his search of purity.

Kristin D. 5 said...

My role in the small group discussions was being prepared for class. I made sure that I read the essays and post-it and noted down everything that I understood and did not understand in order to actively participate in the group. I tried to help answer questions that anyone in the group had or share my opinion on things and when the whole group did not understand I made sure that I flagged Mr. Gallagher down.

In the large group discussions I feel like I did contribute very well. I tried to speak as much as I could and even spoke during the feminist group's discussion. I would rate myself a 10 because I tried my hardest to participate and I must have read the essays atleast 6 times each.

I do not really remember who contributed what but I will post that all later because I have it all marked down in my notebook.

=]

Ricki L5 said...

I was placed in the Psychoanalytic group for the critical essay assignment. In the group discussions, each member contributed in some form. In each essay, each member took about two pages each and analyzed and pulled out useful information. I analyzed parts concerning why Stephen turns to the prostitute in the first place and his relationship with his mother. I was an active participant and helped my group members as they helped me.

I would rate myself as a mediocre participant in the large discussion if anything. I added my thoughts but I rarely went in depth nor continued a discussion.
I look back on it now, and I wish I had contributed more, I just didn't know when or where I'd begin. If anything, I could have went beyond the text and looked up references to certain things and ideas the authors mentioned.

Each discussions gave me insight on topics I had not thought of before, and they really helped me understanding the text. One observation Angela made was how eyes can be a phallic symbol, and she supported her statement with quotes from the book. I also thought Mark's analization of how Stephen believed women were ivory towers and that brittish viewed that this was not the correct way to view women. Each of these insights helped in the group discussion.

Diana P5 said...

1. What was your role in the small group discussions? What did you add to the group?

As for official role i don’t think anyone really had anything assigned. Our group basically read everything than if we had any comments/questions we mentioned it when we were all together. I added insight from some of the goddesses/gods referenced and spoke more about the points I thought was important to not only my paper but to my group as a whole.

2. How would you rate your performance in the large group discussion? Why?
I would rate myself a B because as much as I tried to remain focused I was distracted by everything that was going on in the room. Also whenever Mr. G would look at me I became nervous and even if I had something to say I didn’t in fear I would say something wrong or that didn’t fully make sense to anyone besides me. Lastly I didn’t feel I gave a complete 100% I gave about a 90%.

3. Out of all the discussions, what were the two most insightful observations that you gained from the discussion, and who made those points?

One observation that stood out to me was how Stephen isolated himself from everyone feeling art was his only true way to express himself without sin which was originally said by Chris O but repeated afterwards. Secondly, Mr. G saying that the reading we are attracted to is only because we have a connection, whether it is attraction, curiosity, or real life experience.

Kevin Ta 5 said...

I was in Feminist Group 2, and my role in the small group discussions was primarily to contribute to and aid in the understanding of feminist criticism. We talked about various topics, including the "black and white" portrayals of women that Stephen's mind envisions, the stereotypical attributes of the pure virgin and the sinful strumpet, and the cycle in which a boy's detachment from his mother eventually leads him to find another woman, or "womb". I mentioned how Stephen had two woman influences early in his life: his mother and Dante. Stephen sees Mrs. Dedalus as the pure, maternal virginal figure, while Dante is the sinful, metaphorical strumpet.

Unfortunately, I did not contribute to the large group, since the few ideas I had were quickly mentioned, and I was not as prepared as I would have liked. Excuses aside, I was going to talk about the roles Stephen's parents had in Stephen's life in accordance with feminist theory. Mr. Dedalus, the "primordial storyteller", fascinates Stephen's imagination. As the father, Mr. Dedalus offers Stephen advice and, from the beginning of chapter 1, gives him a few coins as he enters Clongowes for the first time. Mrs. Dedalus, on the other hand, is the pure maternal figure who, despite all her attempts to care for Stephen, can not protect him from all the evils of the world. She cries as Stephen enters Clongowes and is unable to prevent him from seeing the violent argument over state and church during the Christmas dinner.

I definitely observed many insightful contributions during the large group discussions. Andrew mentioned the fear that Stephen had of losing his masculinity and his eventual fear of "returning back to the womb" (that is, if I recall correctly...). Mr. G also brought up an interesting fact that Mrs. Dedalus's first name, Mary, is a direct reference to the Virgin Mary, possibly the most pure of all women.

Doris T5 said...

I was in the feminist group 2. My role in the group was to help my group gain an understanding to what feminist criticism was. I did this by bringing up questions on passages that I didn’t necessarily understand. This helped me as well as my group. I also contributed what I thought some of the answers were to questions that were asked by other members of my group. We brought up many topics that eventually helped in the discussion of feminist criticism.

In the large group discussion I would give myself an 8. I felt that I contributed to the other member’s questions and what they thought about a certain topic. I even brought up a quote that tied in with Ashley’s quote which was previously introduced. This quote was based on men being symbolic and women having a semiotic understanding. This confused some of the members in the large group so I wish I could have elaborated more thoroughly. I felt that maybe I could have participated a little more. I didn’t go into depth that much which is what I would have liked to do in order to have done a better job.

There were many insightful points brought up from the discussion. The one that stands out was Andrews and Angela’s comment of Stephen’s eyes. They both mentioned that his eyes were seen as part of his masculinity and when Dante says “apologize pull out his eyes” in the beginning of the novel, it was like a loss of masculinity. Any form of castration seemed to be that loss. This helped me a lot because I used this quote in my essay to emphasize my point. Another part that stands out in my mind was Mr. Gallagher’s comment on how Stephens’s desires symbolize his art. The desires help Stephen create his art. Overall I thought that both the feminist and the psychoanalytical groups did good job. Their comments helped me to better understand both criticism and also helped me write my essay.

Wendy C.5 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wendy C.5 said...

In our group, we did not have individual roles. We all try to share our understanding of feminist criticism was. I contribute to the group with example from history to simplify the possible explination of the essay and ask question. Most of the time my comments are not suited and Mark rejected it.

My rate on my performance would probably be low because I only said one good comment and I do not think I have a good grasp of Feminist critisim.

One of the insightful thing said was from the psychoanalysis group said by Ronald that Mercedes represent his unconscious ideal of his mother which explain why in the feminist essay it said the mind or soul is a female or something similar to that. Another one is from Will saying about the father reoccuring is a parental threat which explain Stephen's oedipal complex.

Chris O5 said...

My role was to read and try to analyze the book and try to figure out what the writer was trying to do with her language to portray her opinion. I also was trying to get an idea if any of my opinions of where the writer was trying to get was close to anything that was actually trying to be said. I added to my group alot of great ideas that help us get a better understanding of who stephen was. I also helped out by trying to help and back up some of the opinions that some of the other people had either questions or they wanted to make sure that they were heading in the right direction.


I would rate my performance pretty well but of course i could not have done it without the opinion of some of the other people in our group discussion. I also thought that i was a good asset in the group because i got alot of the people to think of some form of opinion that they could have backed up in the story of stephen. I could not have done it as well for the people in the psychoanylitical group because alot of the ideas that they were saying gave me some other ideas that would help me get a better understanding a diffrent approach to try and understand the femist author.


The people who made the most insightful observations in the book that i gained was Mr. G who added a futher explination of the ideas that people were talking about. I think that I made a really good observation that helped understand Stephen as a whole person and they steps the mental change that he had to make everytime that he was face with something troublesome or that he was away from the people who he was use taking the advice from.

Chris O5 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William C5 said...

My role in the small group discussions was to help separate between written text embedded within the essay from speculations and misconceptions. I tried my best to locate and provide evidence to aid the group through several arguments and quarrels to better understand psychoanalytical criticism.

In the large group discussion, I feel that I did well. My performance was not spectactular, although it was not under par, either. Of the things I brought up, I remember discussing the repeated and evidently shown antagonistic father figure. If I had to rate myself, one way I could describe my performance is: mediocre to the higher end of mediocrity.

The two most insightful observations I gained from the discussion were from Angela and Steven. Angela brought up an extremely interesting and topic full of depth regarding eyes representing a phallic symbol. Steven discussed Stephen's art through psychoanalytical criticism, describing how and why Stephen's art works.

Ronald d5 said...

My role in the small group discussion was to take on the other side of things where people would agree on. When one view was announced where everyone was convinced, surely I jumped to it to oppose the view and offer a possible other scenario to the view. Most of the time I was not successful in convincing the group but it did make for a great discussion. It made the members of the group sort of debate more over who was right and it helped us because everyone had to cite evidence to support their certain view.

I think I deserve a B+ in the group discussion because I did contribute but honestly I was not always prepared for some of the discussion. I did offer my views and opinions when open and diligently took down as much notes as I could and as neat as possible.

One of the most insightful observations was mentioned by Angela. She was talking about the eyes being a phallic symbol and even cited an example of when Stephen was in school and was punished when he had lost his “eyes.” I thought it was most insightful because it helped me develop my strand because I related this phallic symbol to being a male. The male usual wants to be the dominant one and in this case Stephen becomes on the other end of things when he loses his eyes. Another insightful observation mentioned I think was that art in Stephen’s life. It explained what it was to have such a passion for a hobby. To have art that is so important that it is like Stephen having sexual relations intrigues me. This was explained by Stephen.

CasieS P5 said...

1.My role in the small group discussions was to give my own opinion of the feminist criticism. As was it many others role to give their opinions. I evaluated the feminist criticism and helped my group have a better understanding of the feminist point of view of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. My own personal input helped the group along in finding a more solid interpretation of the criticism. I was able to put myself in the place of the authors of the essays and try to express the points they made through my own voice.
2. When in the large group discussion I was taking notes vigorously because the points that the smaller group made where being discussed more in depth within the larger group. My performance was not well evolved because my thought process was intrigued by the other conversation that was being held.
3. The most insightful observations were from the idea of the Oedipus complex within the feminine criticism, and most of these points were made by Kenny M, Chris O, and Mario.

Derek said...

My role in my group was just as a normal participant. We divided the critical essay into smaller portions and each worked out what we thought about the sections. When necessary, I would also put forth a question to help develope some ideas.

I believe my role in the psychoanalytical discussion was a large one. I worked to develope more complex ideas and to try to direct the others to clarify and delve deeper into the ideas.

One of the most interesting insights made during the discussion was mentioned by Angela. Specifically Angela mentioned that eyes could be interpreted as a symbol of masculinity, and linked it to the story of Oedipus. Mr. Gallagher also mentioned a very interesting comment about how Stephen envisions his art as a sort of sexual release. Which was an idea I used in the writing of my paper.

Stephanie P. 5 said...

I thought everyone in my group had an obligation to bring their opinions to the group discussion. I had more trouble than I thought I would have trying to form my opinions. I know that it appeared that I didn’t seem to talk at all but that wasn’t the case. My role was to bring the questions to the group and thanks to it we never stopped talking.

If I were to rate my performance on a scale of one to ten I would definitely give myself a seven. I tried hard and this should have been an easy grade but the feminist criticism was a struggle. My group stayed on the Mother and Child essay for a long time and there were parts that I didn’t understand that were crucial to the discussion. There were many things I think I should have spoken up about to give myself a better understanding and the things that I did ask about seemed to be irrelevant when Mr. Gallagher came to help our group out.

When Mark sorted the types of criticism into the whom what and how I thought that was really helpful to me and when I believe Mr. Gallagher gave talked about Stephen’s Mother and Religion have or have these morals that Stephen seems forced to abide by and gave the example of the scene when “apologize” is repeated by the mother and someone else.

Andrew D 5 said...

My role in the small group discussion was to make sure we covered as much text to the best of our abilities given the time we had. I tried to organize the group and make sure we covered everything thoroughly instead of breezing through it. I suggested we split the essay up between the group so that the next day we could discuss with our partner the pages we were to cover. My partner really helped me because I had a lot of clarifying questions and she had some good answers for me. I helped add depth to the discussion because of the smaller groups we made inside our small groups. The great part about it was that the next day after the duos spoke, there were only two people clarifying their section of the essay and answering questions that arose because of their findings.

I would rate my performance in the large group discussion on a scale from 1-10 with a 8.6964. I knew there was allot to cover in the Sheldon Brivic essay so I wanted to break the ice with the idea of Stephen’s mom and the thought of her was a safe haven for Stephen whenever he felt less of a man. It was something anyone in the room could have commented on and for the most part everyone did. I tried to be calm and comfortable about being the first one to speak because I knew everyone had to have been a little tense and it was not due to lack of things to say but the exact opposite. I had a lot of things to say about everything and quotes to back them up.

One of the most insightful observations was previously discussed in my small group inside our small groups where Angela and I spent the majority of our class time discussing this idea of castration and what it meant on several levels, and trying to dig up evidence for our theories. Castration had a literal meaning but of course Joyce didn’t mean that, instead Brivic made it to be a sign of loss of manhood.The other most insightful observation was made in the feminist discussion which hit on Joyce being a feminist writer and leaving things more open ended which made my hand shoot up and mention the paternal figures in Stephen’s life and how there is more than one which led to more hands going up with things to say about Joyce being a feminist writer.

Kenneth M5 said...

I felt that in the small that I had an important role with understanding what feminist criticism. The group had nice feel with bouncing ideas off each other until we had a clear view on how we could explain what feminist criticism. The rest of the small group had a real nice equal participation from the group. The place that I hit it out of the park and made my biggest contribution was understanding the part of the book that was called the Blessed Virgin, which went right along with my strand. I had prior knowledge, which led to that portion of the essay being thoroughly understood by me and then passing on the knowledge.

In the large group I would give myself a very high rating. I passed on knowledge that I had to other people by responding to specific question. I also elaborated on others ideas which led to further question. I tried to keep my ideas flowing as well as on topic. I felt like a very important part of the discussion. I even commented a bit during the criticism that I wasn’t a part of. When I wasn’t actually speaking I was taking notes of what every person said.

The two most insightful comments were the topics of were made by Angela and the phallic connection with eyes. It was pretty interesting to think of that concept and it spawned a lot of discussion and could be applied a lot through out the book. I also really enjoy pretty much anything Stephen said. His analysis of Stephan’s art and why he made it sticks out in my mind the most.

Mark D5 said...

Mark
Per. 5

The small group was a very nice way to enhance the knowledge that we got from the reading. There were a couple quiet ones which made it hard to keep the conversation going but in the end we hit some key topic on Feminism. When we were really confused about specific topics I think I did a good job on dissecting the text to see what the author was really saying. If we were still confused I had us look at every word until we got the idea. We usually did, but when we didn’t we just sat and bounced ideas off each other until it got pointless and repetitive. When this happened I had us change the subject because sitting there not getting anyway is worse than not talking at all in my opinion.
I would rate my first day of discussion very highly. I brought up many ideas that I talked about in our small group. My favorite was the idea that Americans have by believing that women are “perfect”. The British idea against the Americans is what I hit on by thinking it is ridiculous to think of women as untouchable by culture and society. I tackled the issue of Stephen thinking about women in the American fashion. My second day of discussions was not as good as the day before but I wasn’t silent. Chris O. and I bounced some really nice ideas off each other for some of the class but for the rest of it I just couldn’t seem to add to others conversations.
I think the two most insightful observations were by Stephen T. in the psychoanalytic group by stating how the womb was were Stephen Dedalus wanted to return to because it was a comfortable safe-haven. This brought up many other sub-topics. Most of the time I was Stephen T. says makes a lot of since in my opinion and he does a good job explaining himself.

Kevin Tr . 5. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin Tr . 5. said...

I was in Psychoanalytic Group 1.
I contributed by listening attentively. Also, at many times we'd have conflicts within the group on an idea or concept. I took part by clarifying a role or topic being discussed trying to clarify without being prejudiced to a point of view. Beside from setting some of the arguments in agreement, I was fond of the stating an idea others found difficult to understand. Coming to conclusions on topics and themes, I also clarified ideas others tried to get across by providing even more evidence, though the evidence stretched through parts of the book, it got the idea across. Though my strand was blindness, I brought up some of the ideas and examples of castration. I liked to think about the comparing and contrast between Stephen's mother and E.C.

In the larger group discussion, I don't think I participated as much as I could have. I would rate my own performance a B- to a C. I have a habit of waiting till someone else starts talking about the topic I want to talk about before I initiate my own examples or questions, but their so many people in the room that when the right time comes along, other's hands get picked and then the subject gradually changes. But I didn't exactly do nothing as I contributed towards the end of the first day, and the beginning of the second on the matters between Stephen's mother and E.C. Also, I contributed to the conflicting imagery that Stephen has of his mother being a perfect Virgin Mary like woman, and a prostitute like whorish woman who does have some sin on her hands.

The most insightful and memorable discussions brought up were that of Stephen's eyes being linked to the idea of masculinity and castration first brought up by Angela but eventually deeply discussed by others, and the discussion of the conflicts of Stephen's own masculinity being brought near feminine quality but always being shot towards a more masculine side with his natural sexual habits kick up.

Natalia A5 said...

My role in the small group discussion was to take notes and help discuss how we could better understand certain passages from the Feminist Criticism essays. I participated in some of the conversations my group would have about certain ideas that we thought a passage through out the essay meant, and I also gave my own opinion on what I thought a passage meant. At first, we mostly discussed on how the French, British, and American feminists differ from each other. Then, we tried to figure out if Stephen was afraid of women because they led him to sin. Most of the time I was not the one in my group doing the talking. I listened to what every one would say, and I probably gave my opinion about three times. I wish I had spoken more but the assumptions and the points that my group was making were very interesting, so I’d rather listen and make my own conclusion from what I heard afterwards.

In the large group discussion, I would probably rate myself a six out of ten. The reason is because even though I only spoke once, about one passage, I was attentively taking down notes on what everyone said, and I was also listening and making my own assumptions about what others would say. Unfortunately because I am timid I held myself back from giving out my opinions on many of the small discussions we had. Still, I think I made an effort to at least talk about a passage and give my opinion on it.

Out of all the discussions, the two most insightful observations that I gained were the ones that Mr. G and Chris made. Mr. G mentioned how Stephen learns morality from the females in the novel and Chris explains how Stephens struggle was basically that in the beginning he was being directed by his parents, teachers and priests. Then, as he became older, he started to be more independent and think of his own actions instead of doing what others told him to do, so he struggled with that because he had to go against many people to be able to make his own decisions and be independent. These two observations were insightful because they helped my write my paper on the book.

Mr. G said...

It is the morning after the assignment was due, I'm just making a note for myself.

Mario R. 5 said...

my role in the small discussions was to read and talk about text and what i had gotten out of it and keep the conversation going. I talk about stephen fears of women.

In the large group discussion i had not done as good as i would have hope to have. Out of 10 i feel like i was doing level 4 work because i wasn't that confortable talking in large groups.

out all the discussions the two most insightful observation that i gain was when mr. g help break down my passage on how stephe fear of women the other one was from angela when she was talking about mascline and castration which lead to a big disscusin which help me understand what was going on.

Danielle S. 5 said...

My role in the my groups discussion on Feminist criticism was bringing to the group valuable insight into how various races and populations viewed feminists insight in the communities of different countries, towns and cities. In doing so I used contextual evidence from the novel and the Feminists criticism essay along with examples from the actual novel.

If I were to rate my own personal discussion in the large groups I would probably give myself a 75 just because I didn’t speak that much in the large group. I tend to find that I have more trouble speaking in a large group rather than a smaller group because I sometimes feel like what I have to say isn’t good enough compared to what others around me are saying in the discussion.

Out of all the discussion that went on the most insightful statement that was made came from Chris O. and he stated something along the lines of “Stephen obviously seems very confused throughout the novel but I think that is due to the fact that he hasn’t had the right influences, the people there for him to guide him and show him the proper direction to go. So therefore its not a matter of confusion its more a matter of the lack of influences.” I found this to be such a strong quote because that day the whole class was taken up by people thoughts and ideas about Stephens’s confusion and then when Chris said this it was the final statement that answered all the theories, and predictions.

Edmund H5 said...

I was in group one of the psychoanalytic group discussion. The discussion dealt with the unconscious meaning of the author’s choice of words and also of the characters. The group discussion was very quite at first but luckily one of the group member broke the silence with an off topic discussion but it was quickly directed back to the psychoanalytic essays when Mr. G arrived.
During the conversation I would add examples when a speaker was making a point of view that he could not provide. The examples come from the essays or from the novel itself. When the group discusses about topics that relates to psychology I was able to give the group some insight about certain terms like the Oedipus Rex Complex or tabula rasa, as well as some theories Freud had that people disagreed upon. As I give my ideas I could not help but feel that I was not giving any topics to discuss about but only examples to back up the speaker. But when I give examples that goes against someone’s idea that is when I feel like I am adding to the quality of the group discussions. The job my group tasked me with is to read passages or to look up words in the dictionary that the group did not understand which made me feel more useful to the group.
In the large group discussion I felt extremely nervous before and during my part of the discussion. I can not help but feel that what I am saying is not useful information and that what I am saying does not add to the quality of the discussion. I would have to say that I would prefer to be in a smaller group setting because it is less intimating to prove my points of view. I feel that I had a symbiotic relationship with the speakers of my smaller group as when a topic was presenting by the speaker I would give back my knowledge of what they said. I feel that I am a leech during the big group discussion, only adding a few tidbit of information to the group and taking a huge portion of information out from it. If I would have to rate my performance I would to give myself as “could do better” but with the courage and bravery I have to muster up in me to speak to such a large group I would have to rate myself as “exemplary!” Not only do I rate my bravery but also my ability to keep myself together and to stay on topic.
I enjoyed the small discussion very much for it is preparation for the larger discussion. The smaller group allowed me to formulate topics I would have like to talk about during the big discussion bust luckily other people brought it up so I guess lucky for me. Overall if I have to name names I would have to say Derek, Kristin, and Ronald are the ones who added a lot of sight into the psychoanalytic discussion and kept the conversations going. The best one I can remember clearest in my mind is about eyes representing castration and Stephen’s treasury of vocabulary.

Shaun N 5 said...

I did not participate in the discussions for either the psychoanalytic groups or the feminist perspectives. I felt like everything that needed to be said was said, but I had a hard time generating my own ideas for comments on the essays that we read.
When just with the groups, prior to the actual class discussions, I did participate in giving some insight on the particular essay that was read: I was in a psychoanalytic group with Andrew, Angela, Derek, and Stephen. One of the things I said that was particularly insightful, I thought, at least in helping my understanding of the text, was a connection to a movie called Mr. Brooks in which I was able to better explain the ideas of Freud and his "id/ego/superego" theory.
Unfortunately, I cannot remember any one thing that any one person said during the discussion. None of it was fully understandable for me. It's no one's fault but my own, and I recognize that I did not do a sufficient amount of work in terms of notes to be able to get the most out of these discussions. I am capable, I know, and I will try harder to take notes and get the most I can out of the text for next time.

Steve T 5 said...

Well, for starters, i was in the phsychoanayltic group with shaun, andrew, angela, ricki, and derek and i believe that together, we got a lot done; each of us got a part to read in the back of the book, and we did so. Then, we had our own group discussion about what we read about, and put our formulated ideas together. It was done nicely, considering most of us got are parts done, and we all spoke with prior/prepared knowledge. That of course, includes myself, so saying i did my part should be completely valid. I researched, and was able to summarize how to actually phscyanaylze text. Then i shared my mediocre ability with my companions, and like i said, we got a lot done.

As for the large discussions, i did a satisfactory amount of talking, and a super job at listening. To be honest, i think i had most of the right ideas... except for the introduction of the feminist disscussion. So, i put it upon myself to speak open comments and questions to keep the conversations going, and to keep us on the track i believed was most correct. Then, if the conversation was going well without my help, i'd shut up. I didn't want to take someone else's ideas, and i realized that if i had spoke more, i would have done just that because a lot of points spoken were statements i had already thought of. Thus, it's safe to say i was on top of the discussion, because i really was, haha. Then again, i can't really say who thought up of the similar statements first, so there's a chance some were on top of the discussion, and on top of me. Though instead of getting confused with that type of possiblity, I believe that the class was well together. Everyone almost understand everyone else, and we stayed in unison during topic changes, and i was a part of that.

Now uh... I'm currently looking for my missing english notebook... so i can't really recall the specifics of the large discussion. But the most insightful observations that i gained from the discussion were probably the observations i made... seeing how i'd probably observe and absorb the information that i would find most insightful, not what the guy next to me finds most insightful. Though of course, the observations everyone else shared would occasionally fuse with my own, so almost every active classmate assisted me in creating my own refined observations. Like how deeply we may desire our mother; how deeply we desire a female. Or how much we fear our father; how much we are effected by what we are taught and told.