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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment