How O'Brien highlights the difference between the "real world" and the "safe world".

Throughout the story O'Brien draws a line between the "real world" and the "safe world". The real world being Jimmy's world, the war, where men are die everyday, where the people live under extreme conditions, where life itself becomes a burden sometimes and needs to be carried by the men. The safe world being Martha's world, where they care about literature, have no danger to life, enjoy with friends, and live life to fulfill their dreams.
O'Brien compares the life of the people in both the worlds and shows the significant different. This is done mainly through the comparison of the life of Jimmy Cross and that of Martha. Even though the story is mainly about Jimmy's realization, it can be seen that a difference is established by the end of the story. Jimmy Cross even talks about the difference. "...she belonged elsewhere. He would shut down the daydreams. This was not Mount Sebastian, it was another world, where there were no pretty poems or midterm exams, a place where men died because of carelessness or gross stupidity"(O'Brien 383). This sentence is one of examples given by other to outline the two separate worlds.
Jimmy Cross lives in a world of pistols, machine guns, grenades, tanks, jet fighters, etc. and Martha lived in a world of poetry, shopping, beaches, parties, movies, etc.
The moments where Jimmy Cross escapes from reality are the moments where the differences can be noticed and these moments usually came after a description of their weapons was given. It can be noticed that by putting the story in such a format the author is actually trying to establish somewhat of a boundary between the two worlds. This pattern is followed till the second last page of the story where the story changes to a somewhat different format to describe the ending of the story.

In Gryphon, describe three ways Baxter intertwines the conventional and unconventional and for what purpose this interplay is used.

Baxter intertwines the conventional and unconventional in very significant ways.
There is the conventional teacher Mr. Hibler and then there is the unconventional teacher Ms. Ferenczi. Baxter does a great job of outlining the differences between them. Mr. Hibler teaches according to the curriculum and does not stray from it whereas Ms. Ferenczi does not like teaching the usual stuff and goes out of the lesson plan to tell the kids what she thinks about different topics. For example, when the students tell her that Mr. Hibler always started with the pledge she just ignores it and goes dirctly to the book to start studying. Here we can see that she is being unconventional by clearly defying Mr. Hibler's usual routine. She never teaches the students by the lesson plan but rather comes up with material created by herself, this shows that Ms. Ferenczi is an example of how Baxter intertwines the conventional and the unconventional.
Another example is when she declines the offer to go to the teacher's lounge to eat with the other teachers. Even though every teacher goes there to eat she refuses and says that she preferred eating with the students. Here it can be seen that she is again being unconventional by separating herself from the other teachers. This example may not be as significant but small examples like these show how Baxter excels at showcasing the personality the of a person by minute details.
Another example is when she comes to teach the students a second time. She does not even look at the lesson plan and starts telling the fortune of the students. This example is the most significant one and can be seen by even those people who are not looking for evidence to show the conventional and unconventional. Firstly, a classroom is not a place for superstitious things like fortune-telling. Secondly, the teacher should have taught according to the lesson plan. This shows that she likes to teach by her own ways and not be conventional. But Baxter balances it out with the last paragraph where the kids taught the lesson properly hence intertwining the conventional and the unconventional.

In a story about the Das Family and their taxi driver while on vacation, do you believe Jhumpa Lahiri constructed a hopeful story? Or otherwise?

I believe that the ending of the story is hopeful and that Jhumpa Lahiri was actually trying to create a hopeful ending. It may be argued that it is a depressing story with a sad ending but there are several instances in the story which will make the reader think that it is indeed a hopeful story.
One of the most notable instances is the ending; Mrs. Das shows through her actions that she does care for her family, that she loves Bobby even though he is not Raj's son and was never intended to be born. This act of affection from Mrs. Das towards her family is a proof that it is a hopeful story. At the start of the story she is confined to herself, she does not pay much attention to any of her kids, has her glasses on at all times as if hiding guilt under them. But at the end she gets out of the car without putting on her glasses, this is a big step toward getting more involved and attached. Also she is worried about Bobby; all of this show that she is trying to change and that she is becoming a person who cares a lot about her family. It is seen that towards the end she is willing to help Bobby. The fact that she wants to change to become a better human being is an indication that it is a hopeful story.
The monkeys who are usually known to be wild and uncontrollable become silent and calm towards the end. This is an unusual behavior and therefore cannot be overlooked. Perhaps they are portraying the feelings of the Das family at any given time. At first they are loud and frustrating like the feelings of guilt inside Mrs. Das but later on they are silent and calm probably like Mrs. Das who has started to realize that her pain is really guilt and therefore her pain has decreased.

How does Jhumpa Lahiri use the minor action and subtle details to express the unmet needs of the characters?

Jhumpa Lahiri does a fantastic job of putting in minor details like the exchange of gum, the details about the use of the camera, the use of the type of clothes that each character is wearing. All these minor details tell a lot about the characters. Usually these minor things are described in a way which makes you feel that the details are being thrown at you but in this short story Lahiri does not do that. For example, Mr. Das is glued to his camera all the time. He never leaves it and seems to care more about the pictures than the holiday itself. It probably shows his need to showcase the happy moments of his life, his need to save those happy moments for later. The gum is an example to conversation. Gum is offered to Mr. Kapasi when Mrs. Das starts taking interest in his story. Gum is also offered to Bobby after he is attacked by the monkeys. These examples show that gum is a minor but significant detail.
In one part of the story Mr. Kapasi is thankful that he was wearing his grey suit and not the other one. This is a minor detail but it shows the growing affection that Mr. Kapasi has for Mrs. Das. Even a detail as small as the color of the suit is shown significant by the author.
Another minor but significant detail is the doll. The author describes the doll as a gorl who's hair has been cut and who is naked. The little girl slams the doll again and again due to frustration. It shows that she is angry at her mother and therefore is taking out her anger on the doll. Lahiri does a very brilliant job of showing the little girl's emotions through her actions towards the doll. She is probably thinking about doing what she did to the doll to her mother. Again Lahiri does a brilliant job of making minor details significant.

Why are writers driven to write, according to Tobias Wolff? Also, what does Wolff say should be our motivation in reading short stories?

"The social act of a solitary act"(Pg.11, 19) is how Jack Yeats described writing. This line implies a lot of things about the life of a writer. Why is it the act of a solitary man? Does this mean that a writer is someone who is alone and cannot express their views and feelings? On thinking more clearly I found that this line made much sense. It said that it was a social act, which probably pointed to influencing other people's lives, of a solitary man in my opinion meant any person who cannot or has difficulty in expressing their views and opinions, someone who has no one to share his/her experiences and imaginations with. So in short a writer is driven to write because he/she is influencing other people's lives with their experiences and because it gives them a way of telling the world about their ideas. Also he says that "romance" is what keeps them going. "Making life where there was none"(Pg.16 29) is what Wolff describes as the writers's ambition. I think this is one of the only reason why a writer is interested in writing. To create something out of nothing, which is impossible scientifically, is the goal and passion of a writer.
As Wolff says there are a lot of things that motivate us to read. The most common of which would be the hunger for knowledge. Usually people are interested in knowing how everything around them works, what is beyond their eyesight, etcetera. This huger for knowledge makes people learn more and more and people basically end up learning about their surroundings for the first 20 to 30 years. But that is not what Wolff says should be our motivation in reading. According to him our motivation to read should be to look for that life where there really was none. To recognize the imagination or the experiences of the author. That is what I think Wolff says should be our motivation for reading.

No News From Aushwitz: What is the implication of giving a newspaper article the title 'No News...'? Also, in what section does Rosenthal's piece belongs in the NYT and why?

I think "No news from Aushwitz" implies that there is nothing worth reporting, not that it is a boring place which will not interest anyone but because it did not have any recent activity and therefore there is nothing new to report. The author probably wants to say that everything is the same and that it was nothing noteworthy. The title "No news from Aushwitz" was probably chosen because it makes the reader think why there is no news. It makes the reader think that Aushwitz is a deserted and dangerous place which is why no news is available.
I don't think this article can be turned into a newspaper article. It has too many thoughts from the author's point of view and not as many facts. If it were a newspaper article then it would go in the travel section of the NYT. Probably because it describes a now tourist spot to show the past inhumanities done by mankind upon their own kind. The article clearly shows that it was meant for a travel section as there are tourists and giudes in the article itself. Also it is noteworthy that the article gives some imformation like "12000 inhabitants", "....miles from the main town", and such. This kind of articles which have information are usually found on the front page like ".... number of people died in a plane crash", "number of votes a party has after an election", etcetra, which shows that this article could be on the front page with all the statistics as well.
It would also be suitable for the side sections of any page because this article is very interesting and therefore will fit into any page's side sections. The article has information as well as an emotional effect to it and therefore I think that it would be best fit on the 1st page near the ending.

Shashwat's Wordle

Compare and contrast: Hair by Malcolm X and English B by Langston Hughes

After reading both Hair by Malcolm X and Enlish B by Langston Hughes I found that they were both focussing on the topic of racism. Their ways of approach was different but still both of them gave the same message. Malcolm X shows how racism made him feel inferior to others, he criticizes racism and states that all the human beings were created by god as equal and no one question it. Langston Hughes approaches racism differently. He does not criticize it but rather tries to tell how they were not different and why they are a part of each other. These are two different ways in which both Malcolm X and Langston Hughes try to give the same message which is "everyone is equal and how racism destroys people.

Hair by Malcolm X

After reading the memoir a couple of times I came to the conclusion that Malcolm X alters the tone at the end of the memoir because at that point he talks about how a black person's mind is affected by all the white people around them. He says it in a way that shows that he is ashamed of himself and that he feels like he had become like the other black people who thought white people were superior. Also Shorty who conked Malcolm's hair seemed to be another one of those people who accepted that blacks are inferior. This shows that the people around him were not believers of equality so it was almost imposible for him to have been a believer of equality at that time. Although later on he says how stupid he was but he probably wants to show the readers that questioning your equality to other people was wrong and that the very thought that blacks were inferior was wrong.
Knowing more about his life certainly changed the way I looked at the memoir. Looking at how being a black affected his life made me realize that he had been a victim of racism and thats why he had wanted to change and become a white. We can clearly see that in the last two paragraphs of the memoir Malcolm X changes his tone and tells the reader how stupid he was. He probably does this so the readers can understand that he was a subject to racism and had been forced to think that blacks were inferior and white were superior and that other black people should never make the same mistake. Looking at his biography it is easy to say that he lost almost everything because that he was black and therefore should have hard feelings for the white which I think is the purpose of this memoir, to show people that thinking black people are inferior is wrong.

By Any Other Name

After reading the story for a fourth time today I was asked by the teacher to think on one topic, "The name of a person does not change who they are and that they remain the same as they essentially were".

This topic really got me thinking as I was not able to raise any points to prove this. The major point that was raised in our group by Jeffery was that Premila and Santha both returned to their former self by the end of the story. I totally agree with him on this topic, even though Premila had tried to change herself and become more like a  Britisher she had finally rejected the idea after going though opression and Santha also had rejected "Cynthia" from the very start which proves that none of the two sisters had changed from their Indian self to their British counterpart. Another point that was raised was that "A dog's tail remains curly". Even though I agree with him on the topic but I do not agree on this sentence as it does not prove anything.

After thinking through this I came to the conclusion that a person does change even if his/her name is changed.