If one looks at the language of Chaucer and then at Shakespeare, there was a dramatic change in a short amount of time.  I am convinced that this is what is happening now.  The language is changing.  Just as “you” used to be only plural, other words will morph and adapt according to the needs of the younger, technological generation.  Am I saying that I look forward to reading papers full of abbreviated words and smiley faces – absolutely not.  But I do accept that technology has changed the way we speak and read.  When will the transformation be complete?  I do not think it will ever be complete, and the younger generation will continue to complain against the generation after them.  I think it becomes to job of the language arts teacher to attempt to preserve the integrity of the language as it changes.  We cannot stop the change; the most we can do is to guide it and hope it has a safe landing – TTYL! 

   I began to see the text through their eyes, and I was disappointed.  It reminded me of the same reason I would never teach music – “I love music too much to teach it.”  Did I love literature too much to teach it to my students?  We could not go in-depth like I had envisioned, and I certainly was not learning any new insights for my own development.  It was frustrating, and I think my biggest mistake was really not taking enough time with the text.  I was used to analyzing as I went, and here my students were, barely hanging on. 

    I think that taking more time with the text so that the students are not rushed will help them to understand it better and be more receptive to deeper issues.  I am under no illusions, though, on the time restraints teacher’s face.  However, if it is possible, at least an extra day on a text could be enough to help address those issues.  In the past, I have set aside a special day for discussion in order to directly go after deep themes and messages within texts.  I believe that giving just a little extra time could really make a difference as far as student analysis is concerned.    

      I am curious as to the Marxist view of marriage.  For some reason, this little cultural/political institution really does bring about the worst in people - and it all goes back to class as far as Austen is concerned.  What happens when two people want to marry?  Well, if they are of the same socio-economic status and ethnicity, then not much.  But when there is a class difference, as is the case with most of Austen’s lovers, then eyebrows are raised and heads begin shaking.  Austen uses marriage as a catalyst in order to expose the weaknesses of her class-based society.  This is the real reason why she is one of my favorite authors; she mocks us in our pretensions and uses the innocent device of love to show us the hypocrisy of our social structures.   

       “The teacher provides a simple prop such as a chair, a mirror, or a spoon.  Students can show how different characters in the play they are studying would use the prop in a stage performance.  The actions should suggest something important about each character’s personality” (120).

      I think that as a student this could be interesting and helpful if done correctly.  But it comes across as innately tricky.  How does one differentiate between the characters, and does one use this for every single character?  For example, by using a chair, how would one go about representing Lady Capulet?  Romeo might be easy - sit down in the chair and cry over Rosaline.  Juliet might be easy as well - walk around the chair mooning and looking love struck.  But how effective could this practice be? 

   I suggest a twist on the prop idea that many have done throughout literature and cinema before.  To help idenitfy characters and their personalities, one could assign different props to each character.  Romeo could get a (Cupid’s) arrow.  Juliet could get a flower that has not blossomed.  This could help with the minor characters, too.  It could possibly show connections as well.  For example, to show his insensitivity to his daughter’s plea, Capulet’s prop could be pruning shears (work that one in how you might.)  The props become symbols, and this could take care of the concept of symbolism as well.  By having the kids assign symbols, they show that deeper thinking that instructors are always trying to go for.   

            “Miss Smith, why we gotta know this?”

            “You don’t have to know it, but you do need to learn from it.  The pieces offer a new look from a very different culture into issues that still concern us today: fear, hypocrisy, greed, bragging, glory, and duty.”

            “What’s this gonna teach us?”

            “Well, why go through something and learn the hard way when you can read about it and get the same message without the pain and risk?  This is just offering a new perspective.  It’s all about perspectives…” From here, literary critical theory is very easy to introduce.  Reading the series of fairytales and their different interpretations made me think of another twist I have read – Politically Correct Bedtime Stories by James Finn Garner.  He does this very same thing with his own humorous flare.  Once my students can see the different ways there are of viewing a text, I believe it can actually turn into a sort of game.  Garner may become a standard classroom text for my students at this rate.