Socratic Seminar Reflection: Kite Runner Seminar One

The Socratic seminar on The Kite Runner helped me understand my classmates' opinions on the first section of the book, specifically the relationship between Amir and Baba. Before having the discussion, I had focused mainly on the friendship between Amir and Hassan, with Amir and Baba's equally tumultuous relationship as a relative afterthought. However, the conversation drew my attention to new complexities in the father-son relationship that I had never thought of before, such as the possibility that Baba resents Amir because his mother died giving birth to him, rather than just not fully understanding him. The anecdotes that my classmates gave about their own relationships with their parents, and even their experiences with other pieces of literature focusing on estranged parents, really helped me see Amir and Baba in a new light.

During the discussion, I most disagreed with Sangeeta's statement that Hassan is so loyal because he and Amir have grown up together and are basically like brothers. Although I can see why she came to this conclusion, I don't think that this statement alone of their shared history is enough to justify Hassan's unwavering fidelity. After all, Amir has also grown up his entire childhood virtually dependent on Hassan to do his chores, cook his breakfast, and wash his clothes. It seems as though Amir would be the one who would value Hassan's friendship most because he relies on it so much, but throughout the first section of the novel the exact opposite is true. While according to Sangeeta's statement Amir should also see Hassan as a brother, the loyalty is very one-sided, to the point where Hassan would give his life to protect Amir while Amir won't even step in to prevent Hassan from being bullied. I personally thought that Hassan's loyalty was partly due to the personality he was born with and partly came from the influence of his father, Ali, a man every bit as kind and gentle as his son. One of the statements I agreed with most was Ben's explanation of why Baba might subconsciously like Amir less because his birth led to the death of Baba's beloved wife. Previously the blatant statements "he hates him because he killed his wife" had seemed far-fetched to me because I couldn't imagine a father hating his own son for something that he so obviously had no control over. However, I thought that Ben had a much more subtle way of explaining it when he said that because of his wife's death, Amir is Baba's only chance at a son, and consequently he wants to make him the best son he can be and is disappointed when he does not meet up to expectations. I can definitely see this; it makes sense both logically and using textual evidence, such as when Baba is disappointed that Amir doesn't like soccer because he enjoyed playing soccer as a child and will not have a "second chance" son to push the sport onto instead. One thing that I wished could have been discussed during the seminar was Amir's need to be respected by Baba. I thought that it was interesting that we talked about whether parents should automatically be respected by their children, but not whether children should automatically be respected by their parents, which ultimately seemed like a greater theme in the novel. I would have asked what lengths my classmates would go to in order to gain the respect or admiration of a parent or a trusted peer. This would have opened the way for some really interesting emotional appeals, and I think that it is important for us as readers around the age of the narrator to continuously be comparing and contrasting ourselves with Amir, asking ourselves if we would make the same choices that he did or think the same thoughts. I often find that taking this approach to novels helps me get much more enveloped in the story and the minds of the characters, and I would have found it interesting to see if my classmates felt the same way about it.

I thought that everyone did a great job using emotional appeals during this Socratic seminar. At first I was slightly apprehensive about the idea because we had done so poorly at using emotional appeals during the 1984 Socratic seminars, usually relying on logical or ethical appeals to make out cases instead. However, both the restrictions of the preparation and the many hard-hitting emotional aspects of The Kite Runner led to a really pleasant Socratic seminar that didn't feel too forced or gushy, despite the fact that everyone was using emotional appeals. For example, I was especially impressed with how my classmates were able to bring up experiences from their own lives to share with the class, like Nick's story about his mother, but at the same time relate it back to the book and the topic of discussion. Overall I thought that the level of conversation was just as advanced as it had been during the 1984 Socratic seminars if not more so, and the use of emotional appeals combined with personal anecdotes was refreshing and allowed more people to share their thoughts who sometimes don't get as much of an opportunity to talk.

One thing that I thought that we could work on in the next Socratic seminar is moving away from ideas if we have been talking about them for too long. Although I loved the conversation about parents and parenting, and I thought that it brought up some very important and insightful idea, it came to a place where it seemed like people were just repeating what the person before them or previous peers had said, to the point that certain quotes were even repeated. Especially because we are reading a book with so many characters, ideas, and multifaceted storylines, it seems wasteful to spend the whole discussion on one topic that everyone seems to agree on or where everything that needed to be said seems to have already been said. In the future, I hope that the discussion leader can play a larger role in guiding the conversation and making sure that it does not get stuck on one particular topic, but is fluid and covers more than one aspect of the novel. 

1984 Socratic Seminar Four Preparation Sheet

Part I: Summarization

1984 by George Orwell is set in a world where a totalitarian government exercises complete control over its citizens. Winston and Julia are caught by the Thought Police and sent to the Ministry of Love, where Winston is tortured to the point that he loves Big Brother completely.

Part II: Question Development

LEVEL II

What do the rats symbolize that appear throughout the book?

Rats are seen several times throughout 1984. First, a rat appears in Mr. Charrington’s room as Winston and Julia are having sex. Next, and perhaps more strikingly, Winston is tortured with the threat of sticking his head into a cage full of rats to the point that he sacrifices Julia to endure the punishment instead of himself. It is safe to say that the rats carry more symbolic meaning than just creepy rodents. To Winston, rats are representative of everything that is bad about his society. First, rats are associated with pestilence and disease. They have been known to eat dead bodies and scavenge around garbage, and were responsible for spreading the Black Plague across Europe and Asia. In short, rats are the essence of non-humanity; the perfect example of beasts who have devolved so far from being human that they would never be considered intelligent or “man’s best friend.” Thus the image of rats scares Winston so much because he fears that this is the fate that his own society is plummeting towards as well; in Book II he tells Julia that “we are not human” (137). He is worried that the level of insensitivity and mindlessness will eventually change humans to the point that they are no longer human, and he has seen the process begin to take place during his own lifetime. For this reason, although the rats are on the surface level simply carnivorous animals, on a deeper level they provoke a fear response in Winston because of what they symbolize in terms of his own hopes and forebodings about the future of himself and of humanity under the totalitarian rule of Big Brother.

RHETORICAL DEVICE: Logos

What is the significance of the phrase “the place where there is no darkness”?

When Winston meets O’Brien at his apartment in Book II, he tells him that they will meet again in “the place where there is no darkness,” a line he remembers from a dream, without really having any idea what it means. In Book III, the significance of the phrase becomes clear: the place without darkness is the Ministry of Love, where the lights are kept on every hour of every day in order to constantly monitor the prisoners. However, symbolically “the place where there is no darkness” carries a deeper meaning. If darkness is to represent traditional anti-governmental activity; “shady” behavior, as it is colloquially referred to, more commonly described as subterfuge or betrayal, then the Ministry of Love is the place where darkness is truly eradicated. As O’Brien describes, “We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us; so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him” (210). Here it is seen that “darkness” in the form of thoughts of sabotage are not only punished in the Ministry of Love, but are completely reversed and ultimately done away with. Thus it can truly be said that the Ministry of Love is the place where there is no darkness; when people who once conspired against the government leave the Ministry of Love, they have no more desire to work against Big Brother and instead love him fully and completely, like Winston at the end of the novel.

What does Winston’s eventual sacrifice of Julia say about the role of the individual in 1984?

Winston’s eventual sacrifice of Julia reinforces Orwell’s implied message that to be a member of a communist society is to give up your individuality. Throughout the book, parallels to Communist Russia are made painstakingly obvious, including the shortage of goods and the persecution of former leaders of the Party that mirrors the treatment of Trotsky by Vladimir Lenin. One of the principal tenets of communism is the communal sharing of land and property, something that greatly disturbed most capitalist consumers and governments. Here Orwell tells his reader that even in a society that purports to be equal, there will never be true equality. The individual will always hold himself above all others, and act in a way to save himself even if it costs the life or liberty of others, like Winston’s screaming to put Julia in the cage with rats instead of himself. Winston’s actions prove that there is only so much a person can do to save themselves when their lives are in the hands of another, because if there is a choice between your own life and someone else’s, for many the answer is painfully obvious. This, Orwell argues indirectly through the actions that take place in the book, means that in a communist society individual relationships between people, though they are supposed to be stronger because of the sharing of property and labor burdens, are actually weakened. For this reason, affection between the members of the society in 1984, especially Party members, is strongly discouraged. If everyone is equal, then everyone must have equal affection for everyone else as well; having stronger bonds between some people than between others would tip the already fragile balance between alleged equality and the necessity of some higher organizing power that must command loyalty above all else.

RHETORICAL DEVICE: Logos

What is the significance of the song that plays in the Chestnut Tree Café?

The song that plays in the Chestnut Tree Café, though seemingly lyrical, has a threatening tone. It blares, “Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me” as the changed Winston sits alone at his table (page 241). Both the lyrics and the incidence of the song itself have deeply personal meanings to Winston. The song being played reminds Winston of his days as a rebel, when he heard it in the context of the three enemies of the state in the Chestnut Tree Café and found concrete evidence that Big Brother was falsifying the facts of their betrayal. On this level, hearing the song play in the Chestnut Tree Café is painful because it is a reminder of the life that Winston has left behind, and a life that now he no doubt finds gravely disturbing because of his forced conversion to belief in Big Brother. On another level, the fact that it is a song at all displays a perversion of the other songs that Winston was fascinated with, such as the one that both Mr. Charrington and O’Brien sing to him about the old churches in London, which remind him of the older past and his own childhood. Instead of being a happy memory of childhood and the way life once was, however, this song is a corruption of the classic positive tunes and instead endorses the authoritarian government’s values of betrayal. Finally, the theme of betrayal in the song is important because Winston’s betrayal of Julia is one of the pivotal moments in the book, and one that drives apart a relationship that had the potential to be revolutionary. Thus the song and its lyrics about selling each other has a personal meaning for Winston about the selling he has done and the sacrifices he has made to be where he is.

RHETORICAL DEVICE: Ethos

Is it implied that the Brotherhood exists or not? Why would the government purposefully keep the details of its possible existence so vague?

When Winston asks about the existence of the Brotherhood, though O’Brien readily answers the rest of his questions with gusto, he does not provide a clear response. He tells Winston, “’That, Winston, you will never know. If we choose to set you free when we have finished with you, and if you live to be ninety years old, still you will never learn whether the answer to that question is Yes or No. As long as you live, it will be an unsolved riddle in your mind’” (214). This statement reveals one of the deepest perversions of the Party, which O’Brien later describes in plain terms to Winston: the reason that the prisoners in the Ministry of Love are being tortured is not really for anything they have done wrong, but for the sole purpose of torturing them and for the power that it gives. There is no enjoyment to be found in torturing a person who has already given up, because their spirit is already broken. The power that Big Brother and people like O’Brien find from their work at the Ministry of Love is in breaking the spirits and revolutionary mindsets of people that truly believe that there is action that can be taken against the government, that there is hope for a better future. For this reason, it does not really matter in the context of 1984 whether the Brotherhood exists or not. If it does exist, it is because the government is allowing it to exist but keeping it under close tabs whenever it threatens to do anything potentially damaging, because the idea of hope existing within the government of Big Brother is ultimately the only thing that gives them the ability to take hope away. Similarly, if the Brotherhood does not exist then it has been fabricated by the Party for the exact same reason: to provide a false source of hope that allows them the release and expression of power of torturing and changing those who truly believe in the message of possible rebellion.

RHETORICAL DEVICE: Logos

What is the significance of the different prisoners that Winston sees in the Ministry of Love, specifically Parsons and Ampleforth?

During the first scene in the Ministry of Love, Winston sees two people that he recognizes from his old life: Parsons and the poet Ampleforth. Though they have all ended up in the same place and will likely undergo largely the same treatment, the reasons for their capture are gravely different. Parsons, still a loyal Party member to the core, has been turned in by his daughter for purported thought-crime; she accused him of saying “Down with Big Brother” in his sleep while listening at his door with surveillance devices. Unlike Winston and perhaps Ampleforth, Parsons feels nothing but regret at his detainment, and even in the dire circumstances he is in, he continues to believe that he has a duty to obey and respect Big Brother. He tells Winston that when he goes before the tribunal, he will tell them “‘thank you for saving me before it was too late’” (192). The optimism in the comment about the tribunal—although he is locked up in such dismal conditions, he still believes that he will be treated with justice and fairness—displays Parson’s lingering loyalty to the Party. He is truly one of the mindless drones that Winston most fears becoming, unable to process any possibility that the Party could be bad or that any action purportedly taken to help the Party could be false. But Parsons also represents Winston’s future; as much as he disgusts Winston, he is the very model of what he will become after his treatments by O’Brien. Ampleforth, on the other hand, has perpetrated true rebellion against the government, but not for the same reasons as Winston. Unlike Winston, who disagrees with every aspect of the society he lives in and has disobeyed wholeheartedly, Ampleforth seems focused on only the minute details and indeed it is unclear to what extent he actually has rebellious thoughts about Big Brother. His infraction is one caused because of his love for language; he tells Winston “’I allowed the word God to remain at the end of a line,’” but maintains that it was only because of the utter lack of any other rhyme for the word (190). Here we see that Ampleforth represents the third type of person in Orwellian society besides the completely revolutionary Winston and the mindless lackey Parsons. He skirts in between the lines of both of them, neither disobeying nor completely obeying Big Brother except when it suits him best. Ultimately Orwell uses the three prisoners to describe the different reactions that members of society can have to authoritarian rule.

RHETORICAL DEVICE: Ethos

LEVEL III

In 1984, Winston is tortured mercilessly until he admits to every crime he can think of and ultimately is forced to love the government he once swore to overthrow. Could anything like this ever happen under the United States government?

Before this year, I probably would have answered this question with a vehement “Of course not!” However, my experiences in debate and the independent book project have given me a very different viewpoint on the United States’s prison and legal system. In the autobiography of Assata Shakur, the independent book that I chose to read in this unit, a member of the Black Liberation Army tells of the horrible treatment she had to face in prison—being beaten by prison guards even when she was pregnant, put in solitary confinement for months at a time, having to participate in juries where all of the evidence against her was falsified and the jury had been chosen unfairly by the prosecuting side. Reading 1984 and the scenes where Winston is imprisoned in the Ministry of Love, all that I could think about what the treatment that Assata had to endure and how similar it was to Winston’s—and much more frightening and disturbing because of the fact that all of it is true. I think that as citizens of the United States we are trained to think that our government is perfect and fights for democracy and liberty selflessly, both abroad and among its citizens. We see images of the happy people across the country every day juxtaposed with stories about the terrors of life in North Korea or war in the Middle East, and we think about how lucky we are that we live here and not there. But there is an underground war going on in our backyards, right down the street from us, sometimes even in our own homes, and it is perpetrated by the United States federal government against its own citizens. Reading about Assata and other Black Panthers and members of the Black Liberation Army that shared her fate or worse makes me more reluctant to exalt the virtues of the country I live in, even in comparison to the totalitarian world of 1984.

RHETORICAL DEVICE: Logos

At one point during the torture, O’Brien plays a recording for Winston of the time he said he was willing to throw acid in a child’s face, murder, and deceive to support the party. Do you think that actions such as this are objectively wrong, or can they be justified depending on the circumstance?

I don’t think that throwing acid in a child’s face is permissible in any circumstance. I may just be overly sentimental, but I don’t think that it is ever okay to hurt someone who has not done anything wrong, and I cannot think of any situation in which a child could do something that would be justifiably punishable with torture. Murder and deceit, on the other hand, are more tricky subjects. I do not believe that I personally would be able to murder someone, even if it was in the name of the greater good. However, I don’t think that taking another human life is always unquestionably wrong. Sometimes violence is necessary in order to achieve happiness for the greatest amount of people to the point where, although it may seem counterintuitive, it really is the best and most ethical possible option. For example, the Haitian slave revolt would not have been possible without the brutal killing of the slave owners themselves and the loss of hundreds of lives, both enslaved and free. However, the sacrifice of the lives of the bigoted landholders allowed a new and more righteous generation of freed slaves to work the land, people that may not have been freed for many years without their revolt. If the slaves had protested peacefully, it would have been simple for the French army or the upper class plantation owners to massacre them to shut down the resistance. Violence, even murder, was necessary to prove that they were serious about what they were doing, to send a message about their cause. I don’t think that murder in the case of murdering a bigoted, racist slave owner that has indirectly or directly caused the deaths of tens if not hundreds of people is objectively a bad thing.

RHETORICAL DEVICE: Pathos

Room 101 is the place that each prisoner in the Ministry of Love dreads the most because it contains their deepest fear. What do you think would be in Room 101 for you if you were a prisoner? Is your biggest fear necessarily the most influential force in torturing you?

If I were a prisoner, I am honestly not sure what would be in Room 101 for me. My biggest fears that I can think of are not things that can be put in a glass box, like rats for Winston. They are more abstract constructs, like having people hate me or failing at something I really want to do well at. I think that in some ways this would make it more difficult for Room 101 to have a big impact on me, because that type of situation—especially the first one—isn’t really possible without the entire scene and atmosphere playing out, including the presence of people I respected which would probably be a hassle for the Ministry of Love. In other words, my fears are more situations or feelings than objects, so they are a lot harder to fit into a box or even to use against me except for through psychological warfare. This leads into my answer for the second question—I don’t think that my biggest fear would necessarily be the most influential force in torturing me, like rats are for Winston, or more essentially in getting me to sacrifice someone else. Some things, even if I’m not afraid of them per se, have a much greater effect on me than my biggest fears. For example, I love my family very much and although I’ve never been afraid of having them taken away from me, I think that I would probably be driven to sacrifice someone else at the cost of having my family taken away from me. I also don’t fear having my memory erased, but I would definitely sacrifice someone else, depending on how close they were to me, if I was threatened with that punishment.

RHETORICAL DEVICE: Pathos

Part III: Tracking Evidence

Page 190—“‘These things happen,’ he began vaguely. ‘I have been able to recall one instance—a possible instance. It was an indiscretion, undoubtedly. We were producing a definitive edition of the poems of Kipling. I allowed the word God to remain at the end of a line. I could not help it!’ he added almost indignantly, raising his face to look at Winston. ‘It was impossible to change the line. The rhyme was rod. Do you realize that there are only twelve rhymes to rod in the entire language? For days I had racked my brains. There was no other rhyme.’”

Page 192—“‘Are you guilty?’ said Winston. ‘Of course I’m guilty!’ cried Parsons with a servile glance at the telescreen. ‘You don’t think the Party would arrest an innocent man, do you?’ His froglike face grew calmer, and even took on a slightly sanctimonious expression. ‘Thoughtcrime is a dreadful thing, old man,’ he said sententiously. ‘It’s insidious. It can get hold of you without your even knowing it. Do you know how it gold hold of me? In my sleep! Yes, that’s a fact. There I was, working away, trying to do my bit—never knew I had any bad stuff in my mind at all. And then I started talking in my sleep. Do you know what they heard me saying?’ He sank his voice, like someone who is obliged for medical reasons to utter an obscenity. ‘Down with Big Brother!’ Yes, I said that. Said it over and over again, it seems. Between you and me, old man, I’m glad they got me before it went any further. Do you know what I’m going to say to them when I go before the tribunal? ‘Thank you,’ I’m going to say, ‘thank you for saving me before it was too late.’”

Socratic Seminar Reflection: 1984 Seminar Three

As always, the third Socratic seminar on 1984 helped me think about the different ways in which my classmates had processed and thought about the book on a personal level. It was especially interesting to me that whereas in my first reading of Book II I had focused mainly on the political aspects of the revolution and the heavy reading that Winston does in Goldstein's manifesto, most of my classmates talked instead about the relationship between Winston and Julia and the definition and veracity of love in the book's totalitarian society. This allowed me to think about 1984 in a more emotional way, and relate it back to my own life and the relationships I have both seen and experienced, instead of simply thinking about it in terms of similarity to historical events. I love getting the opportunity to hear the unique and distinct opinions of my classmates every time we discuss the sections that we have read.

During this discussion, the statement that I disagreed with the most was probably when Stuart said that Syme was dangerous because he did not use doublethink. In my reading of the book, I had concluded almost exactly the opposite: it seemed to me that Syme was the model example of a Party member besides the fatal flaw of his great intelligence, because he both understood what he was doing in changing the entire language of the people of Oceania and reveled in it, and remained loyal to the Party to the utmost degree, without ever entertaining even the slightest thought of rebellion despite his knowledge of the power of the written and spoken word could hold. This is probably one of the best examples of doublethink, albeit a more subtle one, present in the entire novel. One of the statements that I most agreed with was Victoria's when she said that she thought that Winston and Julia's "romance" was primarily a political act, though it may later have developed into something more as they got to know each other. When I first read the first chapter of Book II, I was very surprised when Julia dropped the note that said "I love you" into Winston's hand despite the fact that they had never talked in person before. Based on this, it seemed obvious to me that the main reason Winston and Julia were together was to enact a form of rebellion, a sort of solidarity between each other against the suppression of their government. I was glad to know that someone in the class agreed with me and did not think that Winston and Julia were simply instantly attracted to each other. I really wished that I had gotten the opportunity to speak at the end of class after Victoria said that she thought that the United States would fall eventually. Everyone laughed, but I didn't think that it was that funny-- I thought that we could have had a really interesting conversation about it. I think it needed to be said that the United States and our oh-so-perfect government is not as perfect as we may be led to believe it is. Someone mentioned the possibility that one of the three great powers in 1984 could eventually decide to wage war for real and exterminate the remaining two powers. What wasn't mentioned was that this could also easily happen in the United States. Our country has spent decades upholding dictatorships in "Latin" American countries that have killed thousands of innocent people, fighting wars abroad, and sponsoring drone attacks on civilians and even American citizens in the Middle East-- but somehow we never think about what might happen if someday somebody gets fed up and decides to strike back. I wanted to be able to talk about this more during the Socratic seminar and hear about what my classmates thought about these important ideas.

I was incredibly impressed by my classmates' maturity in beginning the Socratic seminar while Ms. Hunter was held up by traffic. There were no teachers watching us and we easily could have split into groups and talked instead of doing any actual work, but instead we organized ourselves and started the discussion without any outside prompting. We even distributed the tracking sheets and wrote the questions on the board because there were not enough papers for everyone in the outer circle. I actually thought that the discussion that took place without Ms. Hunter there was one of the most thoughtful, enlightening conversations our group has ever had, perhaps because there was less pressure to speak and ask good questions, and instead we could actually talk about what we had actually thought about the book. Probably due to this, I noticed much more emotional appeals during the Socratic seminar than had been used in previous discussions, which really added another level of depth and maturity to the conversation.

One thing that I think still could be improved is overall participation. Throughout the seminar, a few students talked for a large percentage of the time, while several barely talked at all. I think that one good way to change this would be to include more level three questions in the discussions, so that even students who didn't have the chance to read the selection or didn't understand it fully would be able to get some points and participate in the conversation. We could also try to set aside a few minutes at the beginning of the seminar to ask some simple level one questions about what happened in the assigned section of the reading, or to read and share our summaries and ask questions about it. This would give people who didn't feel as if they understood the reading completely the opportunity to share their uncertainties with their classmates. Then in the following discussion they would be more confident about talking about their deeper ideas because they would not be focused on whether their interpretation of the basic plot and facts of what happened was correct.

Socratic Seminar Reflection: 1984 Seminar Two

The second Socratic seminar on 1984 helped me see the different perspectives that my classmates had about the book. It was incredibly interesting to see that although we all read the same section of the book, different people interpreted it in very different ways and took different things away from it than I had. For example, I had never anticipated the conversation about marijuana that took place in the seminar because when I first read the chapters, I had focused on the government's restrictions of privacy instead of their restriction of consumer goods. Hearing what my classmates had to say about what had taken place, especially the conversation about legalizing marijuana and other illicit substances compared to legalizing chocolate in the world of 1984, was illuminating.

I agreed most with Victoria's statement that the government of Oceania used language to control the relationships between its citizens. I had also written about this in my preparation sheet, and had concluded that Big Brother wanted the Party members to be loyal to him above all others, even their spouses. For this reason they must call each other comrades, while Big Brother alone is given a familial, kindly name. During this Socratic seminar, I did not find any statements that I disagreed with as it seemed as though everyone was in agreement with each other, and most of the discussion was spent using historical examples and evidence from the text to back up the popularly held opinion. In fact, I think that something we should work on is ensuring that there are more "controversial" topics brought up during the seminar in order to provoke meaningful discussion where we can learn from each other, instead of reiterating the same information and points of view that everyone already agrees on. For example, I was hoping that some people would have differing opinions on my question about whether the government should be able to restrict privacy under certain circumstances, because I know that some people believe that in situations such as the war on terror it is a necessary evil to increase surveillance and government interference in the lives of their citizens, while others agree that there is no rational reason to restrict a person's freedom of privacy, no matter what. One thing that I think could have been discussed more during the seminar was the relationship between the government surveillance portrayed in the novel and the current scandals with the NSA and wiretapping going on today. The fact that this book is so relevant to the modern world, particularly the United States, in terms of the current measures of security being used definitely deserves a more detailed discussion so that we can relate Orwell's ideas of the future to the future that we are currently experiencing.

I think that everyone always brings very interesting ideas to the table, but I was especially impressed by the depth and amount of thought-provoking questions that were discussed in the seminar. I thought that the questions that my classmates asked led to some very interesting conversation. For example, I thought that Laura's question about why the government of Big Brother promoted consorting with prostitutes but not Party members led to a very interesting discussion about the importance of interpersonal relationships in the novel. I also thought that most of the participants contributed very provocative thoughts and ideas to the discussion, and the citing of textual evidence was done more often than in previous seminars. Finally, whereas in the previous seminar there had been a lack of emotional appeals, a lot of the question and responses in this discussion used pathos very convincingly to prove their points.

One of the things that most needed improvement during the discussion was the fact that everyone agreed on most points. I really liked Lina's idea about having one person be a designated devil's advocate, so that the discussion is more than just everyone agreeing with each other. However, I think that the person who was chosen to disagree on some points would have to use appropriate, well-thought-out responses as opposed to just blurting out contradictions in order to move along the conversation. I also think that it is important that the person remains anonymous and is as subtle as possible, and that their overall goal is to create more interesting conversation and not just to make everyone else in the class laugh by throwing out absurd ideas about every topic.