Period 1 Blog #18

Why ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ Keeps Getting Banned

By Becky Little

A school board’s decision to remove To Kill a Mockingbird from eighth grade curriculums in Biloxi, Mississippi, is the latest in a long line of attempts to ban the novel. Since its publication in 1960, the novel about a white lawyer’s defense of a black man against a false rape charge by a white woman has become one of the most frequently challenged books in the U.S.

Typically, challenges to the book over the past century have usually cited the book’s strong language, discussion of sexuality and rape, and use of the n-word.

“The Biloxi School Board “just says it ‘makes people uncomfortable.’” This argument is unconvincing because “the whole point to classics is they challenge the way we think about things.”

One of the earliest and most prominent challenges was in Hanover County, Virginia, in 1966. In that instance, the school board said it would remove the book from county schools, citing the book’s mention of rape and charged that the novel was “immoral.” The board changed its decision, however, after residents complained about it in letters to local papers. One of the most prominent critics of the decision was Lee herself, who wrote a letter that began “Recently I have received echoes down this way of the Hanover County School Board’s activities, and what I’ve heard makes me wonder if any of its members can read.”

Into the 1970s and 1980s, school boards and parents continued to challenge the book for its “filthy” or “trashy” content and racial slurs. Over time, attempts to ban the book shifted from removing it from school libraries to removing the book from school curriculums, as is the case with Biloxi (the city will keep the book in school libraries).

The book, though imperfect, can spark important discussions among students about racial tolerance.

Moving Beyond the Ban Discussion

Many have denounced Biloxi’s ban by citing the book’s message of racial tolerance. Still others have taken a slightly different approach. Writer Kristian Wilson argues that although the novel shouldn’t be banned from schools, its use as a teaching tool should be reassessed.

“Lee’s is not the best book to teach white kids about racism, because it grounds its narrative in the experiences of a white narrator and presents her father as the white savior,” she writes.

Again, this doesn’t mean that To Kill a Mockingbird shouldn’t be taught in schools. But it does suggest that teachers should encourage their students to think critically about the text as whole.

-What are the various reasons that people have been trying to ban To Kill a Mockingbird for years?

- Do you agree books that make people uncomfortable should be banned? Or do they make people uncomfortable with the purpose of teaching them something? Explain your response.

-Based on this article, can you make any predictions about To Kill a Mockingbird? Do we know what kind of case Atticus might be dealing with later on in the book?

Period 3 Blog #18

The Link Between Money And Corruption Is More Insidious Than We Thought

Mandi Woodruff

6/13/13

It's human nature to look at white collar criminals like Bernie Madoff and cast them off as greedy, money-grubbing crooks.

But what if we all have a little Madoff inside us just waiting to rear its ugly head?

Researchers have increasingly explored the subconscious link between money and corruption -- called behavioral ethicality -- to find out why even morally conscious people are able to cause harm to others.

In a first-of-its-kind study from the University of Utah and Harvard University, hundreds of participants proved that simply the idea of money could lead them astray.

In four studies, 324 participants were asked to perform simple tasks, like word scrambles, that gave them subtle reminders of money with words or images. Control groups performed tasks without the money cues.

Afterward, researchers tested them in different ethical scenarios, such as watching an actor perform unethical tasks and deciding how likely they would be to do the same. Another test placed them in a hypothetical job hiring situation and asked them how likely they would be to hire a candidate who promised to divulge insider information on a competitor.

Across the board, participants who had been given money-related tasks had a greater likelihood of unethical intentions, decisions and behaviors, study co-author and Psychology professor Kristin Smith-Crowe told Business Insider.

"What was happening with our participants is that the exposure to the concept of money was actually affecting the way they were thinking," Smith-Crowe said. "The money cues were triggering a business decision mind frame, which meant that they focused on a cost benefit analysis as motivation to pursue their own self-interest, rather than thinking about things more broadly."

Even people who took tests with super subtle money cues -- such as a word search that contained money-related terms -- were more likely to engage in unethical behavior, they found.

"It makes a lot of sense that greed would produce evil," Smith-Crowe said. "But we were interested in the fact that maybe it's not even love of money, but just the mere subtle exposure to the concept of money that, in and of itself, may also be corrupting."

The question now is whether we can stop people in places of power from making the kinds of self-promoting decisions that tend to harm others. Many companies ask employees to undergo ethics training, but Harvard researchers say that isn't enough.

"If ethics training is to actually change and improve ethical decision-making, it needs to incorporate behavioral ethics, and specifically the subtle ways in which our ethics are bounded," wrote Harvard researchers Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel in their study, "Blind Spot: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It."

But according to Smith-Crowe, studies like hers are further-reaching than just the business world.

"It's still pretty amazing to us that these subtle cues to money can have that big of an effect on our decisions and our behavior," she said. "We feel like we know right from wrong, but we have to recognize that we're affected by things without realizing it."

-Are you surprised by the findings in this article? Why or why not?

-Do you believe that money is powerful enough to corrupt anybody?

-How might this article relate to our reading of The Great Gatsby? Has money affected the morality of any of those characters?

Period 4/5 Blog #18

The Link Between Money And Corruption Is More Insidious Than We Thought

Mandi Woodruff

6/13/13

It's human nature to look at white collar criminals like Bernie Madoff and cast them off as greedy, money-grubbing crooks.

But what if we all have a little Madoff inside us just waiting to rear its ugly head?

Researchers have increasingly explored the subconscious link between money and corruption -- called behavioral ethicality -- to find out why even morally conscious people are able to cause harm to others.

In a first-of-its-kind study from the University of Utah and Harvard University, hundreds of participants proved that simply the idea of money could lead them astray.

In four studies, 324 participants were asked to perform simple tasks, like word scrambles, that gave them subtle reminders of money with words or images. Control groups performed tasks without the money cues.

Afterward, researchers tested them in different ethical scenarios, such as watching an actor perform unethical tasks and deciding how likely they would be to do the same. Another test placed them in a hypothetical job hiring situation and asked them how likely they would be to hire a candidate who promised to divulge insider information on a competitor.

Across the board, participants who had been given money-related tasks had a greater likelihood of unethical intentions, decisions and behaviors, study co-author and Psychology professor Kristin Smith-Crowe told Business Insider.

"What was happening with our participants is that the exposure to the concept of money was actually affecting the way they were thinking," Smith-Crowe said. "The money cues were triggering a business decision mind frame, which meant that they focused on a cost benefit analysis as motivation to pursue their own self-interest, rather than thinking about things more broadly."

Even people who took tests with super subtle money cues -- such as a word search that contained money-related terms -- were more likely to engage in unethical behavior, they found.

"It makes a lot of sense that greed would produce evil," Smith-Crowe said. "But we were interested in the fact that maybe it's not even love of money, but just the mere subtle exposure to the concept of money that, in and of itself, may also be corrupting."

The question now is whether we can stop people in places of power from making the kinds of self-promoting decisions that tend to harm others. Many companies ask employees to undergo ethics training, but Harvard researchers say that isn't enough.

"If ethics training is to actually change and improve ethical decision-making, it needs to incorporate behavioral ethics, and specifically the subtle ways in which our ethics are bounded," wrote Harvard researchers Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel in their study, "Blind Spot: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It."

But according to Smith-Crowe, studies like hers are further-reaching than just the business world.

"It's still pretty amazing to us that these subtle cues to money can have that big of an effect on our decisions and our behavior," she said. "We feel like we know right from wrong, but we have to recognize that we're affected by things without realizing it."

-Are you surprised by the findings in this article? Why or why not?

-Do you believe that money is powerful enough to corrupt anybody?

-How might this article relate to our reading of The Great Gatsby? Has money affected the morality of any of those characters?

Period 9/10 Blog #18

Why ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ Keeps Getting Banned

By Becky Little

A school board’s decision to remove To Kill a Mockingbird from eighth grade curriculums in Biloxi, Mississippi, is the latest in a long line of attempts to ban the novel. Since its publication in 1960, the novel about a white lawyer’s defense of a black man against a false rape charge by a white woman has become one of the most frequently challenged books in the U.S.

Typically, challenges to the book over the past century have usually cited the book’s strong language, discussion of sexuality and rape, and use of the n-word.

“The Biloxi School Board “just says it ‘makes people uncomfortable.’” This argument is unconvincing because “the whole point to classics is they challenge the way we think about things.”

One of the earliest and most prominent challenges was in Hanover County, Virginia, in 1966. In that instance, the school board said it would remove the book from county schools, citing the book’s mention of rape and charged that the novel was “immoral.” The board changed its decision, however, after residents complained about it in letters to local papers. One of the most prominent critics of the decision was Lee herself, who wrote a letter that began “Recently I have received echoes down this way of the Hanover County School Board’s activities, and what I’ve heard makes me wonder if any of its members can read.”

Into the 1970s and 1980s, school boards and parents continued to challenge the book for its “filthy” or “trashy” content and racial slurs. Over time, attempts to ban the book shifted from removing it from school libraries to removing the book from school curriculums, as is the case with Biloxi (the city will keep the book in school libraries).

The book, though imperfect, can spark important discussions among students about racial tolerance.

Moving Beyond the Ban Discussion

Many have denounced Biloxi’s ban by citing the book’s message of racial tolerance. Still others have taken a slightly different approach. Writer Kristian Wilson argues that although the novel shouldn’t be banned from schools, its use as a teaching tool should be reassessed.

“Lee’s is not the best book to teach white kids about racism, because it grounds its narrative in the experiences of a white narrator and presents her father as the white savior,” she writes.

Again, this doesn’t mean that To Kill a Mockingbird shouldn’t be taught in schools. But it does suggest that teachers should encourage their students to think critically about the text as whole.

-What are the various reasons that people have been trying to ban To Kill a Mockingbird for years?

- Do you agree books that make people uncomfortable should be banned? Or do they make people uncomfortable with the purpose of teaching them something? Explain your response.

-Based on this article, can you make any predictions about To Kill a Mockingbird? Do we know what kind of case Atticus might be dealing with later on in the book?

Period 11 Blog #18

The Link Between Money And Corruption Is More Insidious Than We Thought

Mandi Woodruff

6/13/13

It's human nature to look at white collar criminals like Bernie Madoff and cast them off as greedy, money-grubbing crooks.

But what if we all have a little Madoff inside us just waiting to rear its ugly head?

Researchers have increasingly explored the subconscious link between money and corruption -- called behavioral ethicality -- to find out why even morally conscious people are able to cause harm to others.

In a first-of-its-kind study from the University of Utah and Harvard University, hundreds of participants proved that simply the idea of money could lead them astray.

In four studies, 324 participants were asked to perform simple tasks, like word scrambles, that gave them subtle reminders of money with words or images. Control groups performed tasks without the money cues.

Afterward, researchers tested them in different ethical scenarios, such as watching an actor perform unethical tasks and deciding how likely they would be to do the same. Another test placed them in a hypothetical job hiring situation and asked them how likely they would be to hire a candidate who promised to divulge insider information on a competitor.

Across the board, participants who had been given money-related tasks had a greater likelihood of unethical intentions, decisions and behaviors, study co-author and Psychology professor Kristin Smith-Crowe told Business Insider.

"What was happening with our participants is that the exposure to the concept of money was actually affecting the way they were thinking," Smith-Crowe said. "The money cues were triggering a business decision mind frame, which meant that they focused on a cost benefit analysis as motivation to pursue their own self-interest, rather than thinking about things more broadly."

Even people who took tests with super subtle money cues -- such as a word search that contained money-related terms -- were more likely to engage in unethical behavior, they found.

"It makes a lot of sense that greed would produce evil," Smith-Crowe said. "But we were interested in the fact that maybe it's not even love of money, but just the mere subtle exposure to the concept of money that, in and of itself, may also be corrupting."

The question now is whether we can stop people in places of power from making the kinds of self-promoting decisions that tend to harm others. Many companies ask employees to undergo ethics training, but Harvard researchers say that isn't enough.

"If ethics training is to actually change and improve ethical decision-making, it needs to incorporate behavioral ethics, and specifically the subtle ways in which our ethics are bounded," wrote Harvard researchers Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel in their study, "Blind Spot: Why We Fail to Do What's Right and What to Do about It."

But according to Smith-Crowe, studies like hers are further-reaching than just the business world.

"It's still pretty amazing to us that these subtle cues to money can have that big of an effect on our decisions and our behavior," she said. "We feel like we know right from wrong, but we have to recognize that we're affected by things without realizing it."

-Are you surprised by the findings in this article? Why or why not?

-Do you believe that money is powerful enough to corrupt anybody?

-How might this article relate to our reading of The Great Gatsby? Has money affected the morality of any of those characters?

Period 1 Blog #17

The Legend of the Loch Ness Monster

The most famous mystery about Loch Ness surrounds the phenomenon of an enormous creature that is believed to live in the water – known universally as the Loch Ness Monster, or ‘Nessie’ as she’s affectionately known.

The first recorded sighting of the monster was in 565 AD, when it was said to have snatched up and eaten a local farmer, before being forced back into the waters by St Columba.

Over the years, rumours spread far and wide about ‘strange events’ at Loch Ness. Some believe that ancient Scottish myths about water creatures, like Kelpies and the Each Uisge (meaning ‘water horse’), contributed to the notion of a creature living in the depths of Loch Ness.

The excitement over the monster reached a fever pitch when an actor, film director, and big-game hunter were hired to track down the beast. After only a few days at the loch they reported finding the fresh footprints of a large, four-toed animal. They estimated it to be 20 feet long and made plaster casts of the footprints and sent them off to the Natural History Museum in London for analysis. While the world waited for the museum zoologists to return the results, legions of monster hunters descended on Loch Ness, filling the local hotels.

The bubble burst when museum zoologists announced that the footprints were those of a hippopotamus. They had been made with a stuffed hippo foot—the base of an umbrella stand or ashtray. It wasn't clear whether the actor, film directos and hunter hired had been the perpetrators of the hoax or gullible victims. Either way, the incident tainted the image of the Loch Ness Monster and discouraged serious investigation of the phenomenon. For the next three decades, most scientists scornfully dismissed reports of strange animals in the loch.

In 1933, construction began on a major road that runs along the north shore of the Loch. The work involved considerable drilling and blasting and it is believed that the disruption forced the monster from the depths and into the open. Around this time, there were numerous independent sightings and, in 1934, London surgeon R. K. Wilson managed to take a photograph that appeared to show a slender head and neck rising above the surface of the water. Nessie hit the headlines and has remained the topic of fierce debate ever since.

In the 1960s, the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau conducted a ten-year observational survey – recording an average of 20 sightings per year. And, by the end of the decade, mini-submarines were being used for the first time to explore the depths of the Loch using sophisticated sonar equipment. New public interest was generated in the mid 1970s when underwater photographs of what appeared to be a ‘flipper’ were made public.

To this day, there is no conclusive proof to suggest that the monster is a reality. However, many respectable and responsible observers have been utterly convinced they have seen a huge creature in the water.

Prehistoric animal? Elaborate hoax? Seismic activity? A simple trick of the light? It’s even been said that the whole mystery could be explained by the presence of circus elephants in the area in the 1930s.

-Based on the evidence, do you believe in the loch ness monster or do you think there is a more rational explanation for the whole thing? Why or why not?

-Based on the evidence we have so far in To Kill a Mockingbird do you believe all the wild stories about Boo Radley? Is he really a 6 ½ foot tall monster who eats raw squirrels and animals? Or do you think he will turn out to be a regular person? Why or why not?

-How do you think the crazy stories surrounding both the Loch Ness Monster and Boo Radley are similar? How are they different?

Period 3 Blog #17

Five reasons 'Gatsby' is the great American novel

Deirdre Donahue, USA TODAY

It's time to revisit that ultimate literary cage fight: Which classic deserves The Great American Novel victory belt. In March, a Publishers Weekly poll crowned To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Other factions agitated for Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, The Sound and the Fury and The Grapes of Wrath.

Set on Long Island and New York City, The Great Gatsby is narrated by 29-year-old Midwesterner Nick Carraway. After coming East to learn the bond business in the summer of 1922, Nick reconnects with his cousin, a Southern debutante named Daisy. She is the wife of Nick's racist Yale classmate, the staggeringly wealthy ex-football star Tom Buchanan. Nick also becomes friendly with his neighbor, a mysterious millionaire named Jay Gatsby. Gatsby's obsession fuels this tale of longing and loss, of dreams and disillusion.

Here are five reasons why The Great Gatsby should rank as The Great American Novel:

1. It's the most American of stories. Encoded at the very center of our national DNA is admiration for the self-made success story, the mythic figure who pursues and fulfills his dream — someone like Jay Gatsby, a "Mr. Nobody from Nowhere" who rises from obscure poverty to immense wealth.

"It's the Great American Dream," says Jeff Nilsson, historian for the bimonthly The Saturday Evening Post. "It is the story that if you work hard enough, you can succeed."

Leading Fitzgerald scholar James L. W. West III agrees. He calls The Great Gatsby     "a national scripture. It embodies the American spirit, the American will to reinvent oneself."

West says it is no coincidence that The Great Gatsby is probably the American novel most often taught in the rest of the world. "It is our novel, how we present ourselves. ... [Fitzgerald] captured and distilled the essence of the American spirit."

Yet Gatsby also explores the dream's destructive power. "Americans pay a great price for that dream," says Nilsson.

The Great Gatsby also captures money's power to corrupt, to let the rich escape from the consequences of their actions. Here's Fitzgerald's description of that original 1% couple: "They were careless people — Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money …"

2. The romance of the Roaring '20s. Fitzgerald was the poet laureate of what he named "The Jazz Age," the most raucous, gaudy era in U.S. history.

"The 1920s is the most fascinating era in American culture," says Nilsson. "Everything was changing so much." Youth in revolt didn't start in the 60’s with Woodstock.

It was the 1920’s flappers, cars, sex, movies, gangsters, celebrities, a stock market minting money, everything awash in illegal booze. The wildest parties and bad behavior among the rich and famous today have nothing on the you-only-live-once hedonism depicted in The Great Gatsby.

3. It remains relevant. It offers complicated characters who can be interpreted in fresh ways for new readers. Is Nick in love with Gatsby? Could Gatsby — the other, the outsider — actually be a black man? Often dismissed as a selfish ditz, is Daisy victimized by a society that offers her no career path except marriage to big bucks?

At a recent press conference, the most recent actor to play Gatsby noted its relevancy today. "It is one of those novels that is talked about nearly 100 years later for a reason," says DiCaprio who first read Gatsby when he was 15. "It's incredibly nuanced and it's existential and at the center of this movie is this man who is incredibly hollow."

4. Crazy love. What makes Gatsby magical is his motivation. Although he's made his fortune as a bootlegger and gambler, greed doesn't drive him. Rather he's on a quest to reclaim Daisy.

Still, The Great Gatsby isn't a romance about how a nice millionaire almost wins back the girl of his dreams. It's about a narcissistic obsession with the past. To Gatsby, Daisy isn't a married woman with a daughter. She's an object, something he lost and wants back. Which makes his actions — such as buying a mansion across the water from the Buchanans so he can stare at the green light at the end of their dock — well, kind of creepy and stalker-like.

5. Imperishable prose. Forget the critics, the theories, even the characters. For Fitzgerald's fans, it's the language. "Fitzgerald had a pitch-perfect ear," says West. "There's not one flabby sentence," says Nilsson.

For evocative beauty, what can ever beat the last line of The Great Gatsby, which is engraved on the grave Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda share. "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

-Do you agree that The Great Gatsby is “The Great American Novel?” Why or why not?

-If not, then what novel do you think should be considered for that title?

-According to this article, how does The Great Gatsby relate to this idea of The American Dream? And does the book believe in the dream or critique it?

Period 4/5 Blog #17

Five reasons 'Gatsby' is the great American novel

Deirdre Donahue, USA TODAY

It's time to revisit that ultimate literary cage fight: Which classic deserves The Great American Novel victory belt. In March, a Publishers Weekly poll crowned To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Other factions agitated for Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, The Sound and the Fury and The Grapes of Wrath.

Set on Long Island and New York City, The Great Gatsby is narrated by 29-year-old Midwesterner Nick Carraway. After coming East to learn the bond business in the summer of 1922, Nick reconnects with his cousin, a Southern debutante named Daisy. She is the wife of Nick's racist Yale classmate, the staggeringly wealthy ex-football star Tom Buchanan. Nick also becomes friendly with his neighbor, a mysterious millionaire named Jay Gatsby. Gatsby's obsession fuels this tale of longing and loss, of dreams and disillusion.

Here are five reasons why The Great Gatsby should rank as The Great American Novel:

1. It's the most American of stories. Encoded at the very center of our national DNA is admiration for the self-made success story, the mythic figure who pursues and fulfills his dream — someone like Jay Gatsby, a "Mr. Nobody from Nowhere" who rises from obscure poverty to immense wealth.

"It's the Great American Dream," says Jeff Nilsson, historian for the bimonthly The Saturday Evening Post. "It is the story that if you work hard enough, you can succeed."

Leading Fitzgerald scholar James L. W. West III agrees. He calls The Great Gatsby     "a national scripture. It embodies the American spirit, the American will to reinvent oneself."

West says it is no coincidence that The Great Gatsby is probably the American novel most often taught in the rest of the world. "It is our novel, how we present ourselves. ... [Fitzgerald] captured and distilled the essence of the American spirit."

Yet Gatsby also explores the dream's destructive power. "Americans pay a great price for that dream," says Nilsson.

The Great Gatsby also captures money's power to corrupt, to let the rich escape from the consequences of their actions. Here's Fitzgerald's description of that original 1% couple: "They were careless people — Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money …"

2. The romance of the Roaring '20s. Fitzgerald was the poet laureate of what he named "The Jazz Age," the most raucous, gaudy era in U.S. history.

"The 1920s is the most fascinating era in American culture," says Nilsson. "Everything was changing so much." Youth in revolt didn't start in the 60’s with Woodstock.

It was the 1920’s flappers, cars, sex, movies, gangsters, celebrities, a stock market minting money, everything awash in illegal booze. The wildest parties and bad behavior among the rich and famous today have nothing on the you-only-live-once hedonism depicted in The Great Gatsby.

3. It remains relevant. It offers complicated characters who can be interpreted in fresh ways for new readers. Is Nick in love with Gatsby? Could Gatsby — the other, the outsider — actually be a black man? Often dismissed as a selfish ditz, is Daisy victimized by a society that offers her no career path except marriage to big bucks?

At a recent press conference, the most recent actor to play Gatsby noted its relevancy today. "It is one of those novels that is talked about nearly 100 years later for a reason," says DiCaprio who first read Gatsby when he was 15. "It's incredibly nuanced and it's existential and at the center of this movie is this man who is incredibly hollow."

4. Crazy love. What makes Gatsby magical is his motivation. Although he's made his fortune as a bootlegger and gambler, greed doesn't drive him. Rather he's on a quest to reclaim Daisy.

Still, The Great Gatsby isn't a romance about how a nice millionaire almost wins back the girl of his dreams. It's about a narcissistic obsession with the past. To Gatsby, Daisy isn't a married woman with a daughter. She's an object, something he lost and wants back. Which makes his actions — such as buying a mansion across the water from the Buchanans so he can stare at the green light at the end of their dock — well, kind of creepy and stalker-like.

5. Imperishable prose. Forget the critics, the theories, even the characters. For Fitzgerald's fans, it's the language. "Fitzgerald had a pitch-perfect ear," says West. "There's not one flabby sentence," says Nilsson.

For evocative beauty, what can ever beat the last line of The Great Gatsby, which is engraved on the grave Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda share. "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

-Do you agree that The Great Gatsby is “The Great American Novel?” Why or why not?

-If not, then what novel do you think should be considered for that title?

-According to this article, how does The Great Gatsby relate to this idea of The American Dream? And does the book believe in the dream or critique it?

Period 9/10 Blog #17

The Legend of the Loch Ness Monster

The most famous mystery about Loch Ness surrounds the phenomenon of an enormous creature that is believed to live in the water – known universally as the Loch Ness Monster, or ‘Nessie’ as she’s affectionately known.

The first recorded sighting of the monster was in 565 AD, when it was said to have snatched up and eaten a local farmer, before being forced back into the waters by St Columba.

Over the years, rumours spread far and wide about ‘strange events’ at Loch Ness. Some believe that ancient Scottish myths about water creatures, like Kelpies and the Each Uisge (meaning ‘water horse’), contributed to the notion of a creature living in the depths of Loch Ness.

The excitement over the monster reached a fever pitch when an actor, film director, and big-game hunter were hired to track down the beast. After only a few days at the loch they reported finding the fresh footprints of a large, four-toed animal. They estimated it to be 20 feet long and made plaster casts of the footprints and sent them off to the Natural History Museum in London for analysis. While the world waited for the museum zoologists to return the results, legions of monster hunters descended on Loch Ness, filling the local hotels.

The bubble burst when museum zoologists announced that the footprints were those of a hippopotamus. They had been made with a stuffed hippo foot—the base of an umbrella stand or ashtray. It wasn't clear whether the actor, film directos and hunter hired had been the perpetrators of the hoax or gullible victims. Either way, the incident tainted the image of the Loch Ness Monster and discouraged serious investigation of the phenomenon. For the next three decades, most scientists scornfully dismissed reports of strange animals in the loch.

In 1933, construction began on a major road that runs along the north shore of the Loch. The work involved considerable drilling and blasting and it is believed that the disruption forced the monster from the depths and into the open. Around this time, there were numerous independent sightings and, in 1934, London surgeon R. K. Wilson managed to take a photograph that appeared to show a slender head and neck rising above the surface of the water. Nessie hit the headlines and has remained the topic of fierce debate ever since.

In the 1960s, the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau conducted a ten-year observational survey – recording an average of 20 sightings per year. And, by the end of the decade, mini-submarines were being used for the first time to explore the depths of the Loch using sophisticated sonar equipment. New public interest was generated in the mid 1970s when underwater photographs of what appeared to be a ‘flipper’ were made public.

To this day, there is no conclusive proof to suggest that the monster is a reality. However, many respectable and responsible observers have been utterly convinced they have seen a huge creature in the water.

Prehistoric animal? Elaborate hoax? Seismic activity? A simple trick of the light? It’s even been said that the whole mystery could be explained by the presence of circus elephants in the area in the 1930s.

-Based on the evidence, do you believe in the loch ness monster or do you think there is a more rational explanation for the whole thing? Why or why not?

-Based on the evidence we have so far in To Kill a Mockingbird do you believe all the wild stories about Boo Radley? Is he really a 6 ½ foot tall monster who eats raw squirrels and animals? Or do you think he will turn out to be a regular person? Why or why not?

-How do you think the crazy stories surrounding both the Loch Ness Monster and Boo Radley are similar? How are they different?

Period 11 Blog #17

Five reasons 'Gatsby' is the great American novel

Deirdre Donahue, USA TODAY

It's time to revisit that ultimate literary cage fight: Which classic deserves The Great American Novel victory belt. In March, a Publishers Weekly poll crowned To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Other factions agitated for Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, The Sound and the Fury and The Grapes of Wrath.

Set on Long Island and New York City, The Great Gatsby is narrated by 29-year-old Midwesterner Nick Carraway. After coming East to learn the bond business in the summer of 1922, Nick reconnects with his cousin, a Southern debutante named Daisy. She is the wife of Nick's racist Yale classmate, the staggeringly wealthy ex-football star Tom Buchanan. Nick also becomes friendly with his neighbor, a mysterious millionaire named Jay Gatsby. Gatsby's obsession fuels this tale of longing and loss, of dreams and disillusion.

Here are five reasons why The Great Gatsby should rank as The Great American Novel:

1. It's the most American of stories. Encoded at the very center of our national DNA is admiration for the self-made success story, the mythic figure who pursues and fulfills his dream — someone like Jay Gatsby, a "Mr. Nobody from Nowhere" who rises from obscure poverty to immense wealth.

"It's the Great American Dream," says Jeff Nilsson, historian for the bimonthly The Saturday Evening Post. "It is the story that if you work hard enough, you can succeed."

Leading Fitzgerald scholar James L. W. West III agrees. He calls The Great Gatsby     "a national scripture. It embodies the American spirit, the American will to reinvent oneself."

West says it is no coincidence that The Great Gatsby is probably the American novel most often taught in the rest of the world. "It is our novel, how we present ourselves. ... [Fitzgerald] captured and distilled the essence of the American spirit."

Yet Gatsby also explores the dream's destructive power. "Americans pay a great price for that dream," says Nilsson.

The Great Gatsby also captures money's power to corrupt, to let the rich escape from the consequences of their actions. Here's Fitzgerald's description of that original 1% couple: "They were careless people — Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money …"

2. The romance of the Roaring '20s. Fitzgerald was the poet laureate of what he named "The Jazz Age," the most raucous, gaudy era in U.S. history.

"The 1920s is the most fascinating era in American culture," says Nilsson. "Everything was changing so much." Youth in revolt didn't start in the 60’s with Woodstock.

It was the 1920’s flappers, cars, sex, movies, gangsters, celebrities, a stock market minting money, everything awash in illegal booze. The wildest parties and bad behavior among the rich and famous today have nothing on the you-only-live-once hedonism depicted in The Great Gatsby.

3. It remains relevant. It offers complicated characters who can be interpreted in fresh ways for new readers. Is Nick in love with Gatsby? Could Gatsby — the other, the outsider — actually be a black man? Often dismissed as a selfish ditz, is Daisy victimized by a society that offers her no career path except marriage to big bucks?

At a recent press conference, the most recent actor to play Gatsby noted its relevancy today. "It is one of those novels that is talked about nearly 100 years later for a reason," says DiCaprio who first read Gatsby when he was 15. "It's incredibly nuanced and it's existential and at the center of this movie is this man who is incredibly hollow."

4. Crazy love. What makes Gatsby magical is his motivation. Although he's made his fortune as a bootlegger and gambler, greed doesn't drive him. Rather he's on a quest to reclaim Daisy.

Still, The Great Gatsby isn't a romance about how a nice millionaire almost wins back the girl of his dreams. It's about a narcissistic obsession with the past. To Gatsby, Daisy isn't a married woman with a daughter. She's an object, something he lost and wants back. Which makes his actions — such as buying a mansion across the water from the Buchanans so he can stare at the green light at the end of their dock — well, kind of creepy and stalker-like.

5. Imperishable prose. Forget the critics, the theories, even the characters. For Fitzgerald's fans, it's the language. "Fitzgerald had a pitch-perfect ear," says West. "There's not one flabby sentence," says Nilsson.

For evocative beauty, what can ever beat the last line of The Great Gatsby, which is engraved on the grave Fitzgerald and his wife Zelda share. "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."

-Do you agree that The Great Gatsby is “The Great American Novel?” Why or why not?

-If not, then what novel do you think should be considered for that title?

-According to this article, how does The Great Gatsby relate to this idea of The American Dream? And does the book believe in the dream or critique it?

Blog #16 Period 3

Your comment post should be at least 350 words this week and is due Tuesday by 11:59 pm. You will be responsible for responding (respectfully) to one of your classmates in at least a one paragraph reply entries by Thursday at 11:59 pm.

A Flapper Who Called Great Neck Her Home

ALTHOUGH F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald lived on Long Island for only a year and a half, they are one of the area's most celebrated couples. They are remembered as glamorous symbols of Jazz Age extravagance. They are also remembered for their great talent.

Scott's short stories earned him wealth during his lifetime, and his novels, especially ''The Great Gatsby,'' secured him literary prestige after his death. Zelda's talent was less recognized in her time but much more multi-faceted. She wrote both short stories and a novel and became a proficient ballet dancer. She also had a third creative outlet -- painting -- that is often overlooked.

That talent is showcased in a new exhibition, ''Flappers in Fashion: Zelda Fitzgerald & the Jazz Age,'' at the Long Island Museum of American Art, History and Carriages in Stony Brook. The show incorporates an exhibition of 54 of Zelda's paintings. But also on display are many photographs, documents and artifacts from the early 1920's, when the Fitzgeralds were part of a literary and Broadway crowd that lived in Great Neck.

The Fitzgeralds moved to 6 Gateway Drive in Great Neck Estates in October 1922, two years after Scott, then 26, gained fame for his first novel, ''This Side of Paradise.'' Zelda, who was then 22, was known best as the inspiration for her husband's flapper heroines, although she was also developing skills as a short-story writer.

Some of the exhibition's artifacts relate directly to the Fitzgeralds, like a silver-plated hip flask that Zelda gave to Scott during World War I. To evoke the free-wheeling Fitzgerald lifestyle, the museum has recreated a Jazz Age party with period furnishings and mannequins in a setting loosely based on the Fitzgerald’s living room.

Zelda began painting when she was 25; her work appeared in several exhibitions throughout her life, but received little attention. Her paintings in the show range from depictions of life of the 1920's to ones with religious themes, created in the 1940's. She died in 1948.

''Her pictures don't necessarily fit into the category of impressionism or realism but somewhere in between, both real and dream-like,'' said Joshua Ruff, the museum's history curator. ''She had a wonderful sense of color, these lush tones of coral, pink and blue that really tie in with the colorful clothing styles of the Jazz Age.''

The couple’s high-living antics could often be disconcerting for Zelda. ''She was a bit overwhelmed by the huge hordes of people she entertained,'' Ms. Cline said. ''It was both quite exciting and quite tense-making.''

When the Fitzgerald’s left Great Neck for Europe in 1924, Zelda began to pursue her own creative careers more diligently. She studied painting in Capri in 1925; her husband had just written ''The Great Gatsby,'' set in a fictionalized version of Great Neck. Two years later, back in the United States, Zelda began intensive training in ballet. Her interest in dance would eventually have an influence on her artwork. ''The figures in her paintings truly leap and move…and there's this elongation of the feet and hands that brings to mind the way muscles are used in dancing.''

In 1930, Zelda suffered her first breakdown. Diagnosed as schizophrenic, she underwent treatment in a series of mental institutions for the next 18 years. She wrote her only novel, ''Save Me the Waltz,'' while a patient at the Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic in Baltimore in 1932, but painting became her foremost pursuit.

''Her painting at this time was very useful to her as an artist because she was able to try new techniques, and very helpful in boosting her low self-esteem because she was able to work at something she was good at,'' Ms. Cline said.

Zelda died in a fire that destroyed Highland Hospital in North Carolina, where she was then institutionalized. The fire also destroyed many of her paintings. Scott died of a heart attack in 1940, while writing ''The Last Tycoon,'' his novel about Hollywood.

While Mr. Ruff believes Fitzgerald's artwork has aesthetic merit on its own, he also views her paintings within a psychological context. ''There is an almost anguished look to be found in these pictures,'' he said. ''Not just that but a mixture of optimism and anguish that matched her own experience at the time.''

-Compare and contrast Zelda’s troubled life with that of the fictional troubles of Daisy Buchannan.  What is similar about their lives and struggles and what is different?

-Zelda and her husband were both artists in their own right; she was a painter and he was a writer. But why do you think that she was never famous for her art the way that her husband was for his?