Eh, that was a stretch.

First Hour

Finish chapter six of A Heartbreaking Work.  If you’re interested, here’s the Eggers video from TED.com:

Third Hour

We’ll be reading through page 73 for tomorrow.  To continue the discussion of a book’s impact on how we frame our language, write a journal entry in the style of Charlie.  The topic does not matter, though I would suggest pulling from the previous week’s events.  It is not necessary to think of something exciting.  In fact, a banal event night be best.  Look at it through the eyes of a "Wallflower."  How did the people act?  Why?  Try to "understand" as Charlie does.  He’s grappling with some very new concepts, and has been thrust into a world that he does not always understand.  How is he affected by this?

Charlie mentions reading To Kill a Mockingbird.  He is about the same age as Scout, and they are put into similar situations.  Are their reactions similar?  Why?  Maybe this quote by Shunryu Suzuki can shed some light:

In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities; in the expert’s mind there are few.

This article from the NY Times describes the newfound importance of right-brained intelligence in the workforce.  One more reason to get your M.F.A.  NYT Story

Another update in the development of video games.  Christopher Williams of Popmatters reviews NiGHTS.  Popmatters story

We will be discussing The Tipping Point up to page 59 tomorrow.  If you have not purchased the book from Border’s Midtown, today is the last day to use my educator’s discount on your purchase.

While reading (and journaling, marking, or post-iting), consider the "three agents of change" Gladwell describes on page 19: "the Law of the Few, the Stickiness Factor, and the Power of Context."  He briefly describes them in the first chapter.

• Do you see the Tipping Point in your own life?  (Think homework, perhaps.  At what point do you "shut down"?)
• Are there other trends that this can be applied to?
• Are there trends that the Tipping Point doesn’t explain?  How do you explain those?

In Chapter Two, he explains "the Law of the Few" in more detail, labeling three types of people that generally make up "the Few": "Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen" (Gladwell 30). 

• Are you a "Connector"?  I new 19 people from the list on 40.  Suppose I should update my address book.
• Do you know anyone who might be a Connector?  What is your connection to him or her?

Talk to your parents and friends about this.  See how well they do with the name test, or see what trends they remember—either national or local ones.

After four years of researching, a Pentagon group has discovered that while the Iraqi regime has assisted and collaborated with (and even trained) terrorist groups, there is certainly no connection between Al Quaida and Iraq.  NPR Story

Eyeteeth blog interview with Brian Ulrich, a photographer documenting America’s consumer culture.  Eyeteeth Story (w/ slideshow and links)

Second Life on college campuses. NYT Story

Review of My Kid Could Paint That, a documentary following the art of four-year-old Marla Olmstead.  Popmatters Story

will be fueled by our creations.

Today we discussed motivations, which led us to Freud’s pleasure principle. Here’s a clip from the board:

How’s the search coming? If you have a video that you’d like to share, post it in the comments section below. Here’s one from Gwyn that she posted under the previous header:

The video’s from Ted.com are always amazing, and this is no exception. The speaker contends (among many other things) that adults have learned to be frightened of being “wrong.” Has anyone seen Meet the Robinsons?

Our discussion tomorrow will be based on the articles and information we bring in. Remember, it is one thing to know something, but quite another to understand and use this understanding to create.

Here are a few more articles from you guys:

• The declining American high school graduation rate: Evidence, sources, and consequences
• Successful School Breaks the Rules

And one from another teacher:

• What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?

I’ve been very impressed by our discussions over the New Yorker article “Raj, Bohemian.” It’s interesting that 1st and 3rd hour came to fairly different conclusions about the narrator and what it means to be “bohemian.”

Here’s a synopsis of both arguments. Please let me know what you think of each, and whether I’m accurately recounting the discussion.

First hour: The narrator has set himself up to be robbed of his “cultural capital.” By placing such importance on the exclusivity of his interests and actions, he has allowed his personality to be dictated not by any actual interests he may have but by the sense of originality they afford him.

Third hour: This short piece highlights the impossibility of unselfconscious uniqueness in modern society. Because modern individuals are constantly bombarded by commercial goods and advertisements, it is impossible to make a completely personal choice about taste

Also, the narrator may be crazy.

Any thoughts?

Tomorrow we will be discussing the narrator’s self image in relation to the other chracters and his comments on his environment.

Cool side note: Hari Kunzru is the author of The Impressionist (2002), Transmission (2004), and My Revolutions (2007). His first won several awards in Great Britain and Transmission was a NYT notable book of the year. I haven’t read any of these. If you pick one up, let us know what you think.