play

I can see why Hal can be viewed as selfish because there hasnt been much time to mourn the death. However I can also see how it can be seen as a tribute to a man who was clearly very intelligent. He was convinced that no one else would be able to produce any type of mathematics like what was in those notebooks and he wanted others to be able to see and learn from them. I think that this argument really can go both ways depending on which way you looked at it. His daughter of course thought that it was completely self- absorbed to want to get money from her deceased fathers work and while I can see why she thought that- I dont really think that those were his true intenetions. I really do think that he wanted others to be able to admire the brillance that was portrayed on the pages.
I thought it was interesting how in the opening lines of the play, you have no idea that she is talking to her dead father. At first I thought that she was talking to her friend/boyfriend whom she lived with. After we learn that he is dead, it seems a bit more intriguing. The entire length of the play, she is trying to convince herself that she is not crazy but all the while talking to her dead fathers ghost. How sane is this? I do agree with her father that "you can not inherit" insanity but I dont agree with her own personal claim that she is not crazy.
But then that raises the question that was posed in the play itself which is- if you can consciously say that you are crazy, does the fact that you can recognize it negate the fact that you actually are? I think that sometimes everyone feels a bit crazy, and we are aware of it and voice this outloud but how many of us are actually really crazy?
I dont think that you can inherit insanity from someone. I have seen many instances where one or both of the parents were crazy and the child was not. If you are living with two crazy people, I can see how you could be strange- but theres a fine line between craziness and just being a little bit odd. I do think though that if she continues to segregate herself from society that she could possibly end up like her father- she could drive herself mad , but as far as her being "destined" to be just like him , I think is a far fetched idea.
I think that being able to portray a full situation simply by dialouge is talent and I as well would enjoy the opportunity to read the entire play. I would be curious to see how the entire thing plays out.
I think that the title of the play symbolizes what is Catherines internal conflict throughout the entire play. She is trying to proof/disprove that she is crazy. Is she crazy? Does the fact that she is talking to her dead father prove this? She is convinced that Hal is trying to steal things from her, seems to become paranoid, is this proof that she is crazy even though she turns out to be right? And i guess the most important question is.... what does being "crazy" actually entail?

play

I think the play might have been titled Proof because maybe the encounter with her father's ghost is proof that she might be crazy. It makes me think that because when her father is attempting to convince her that she is not crazy, he fails. I think he was trying to just make her feel better by not telling her that she might be in fact crazy. "You're sitting here. You're giving me advice. You bought me champagne." "yes." "which means..." "For you?" "Yes." "For you, Catherine, my daughter, who I love very much...It could be a bad sign." I like those lines of the play, because it reminds me of how our parents sometimes try to protect us from things that might hurt us. In this case, Robert was trying to protect his daughter by trying to convince her that she was not crazy. Robert knows that she feels depressed perhaps by the possibility that she might end up like her father, and i agree with earlier posts, that she almost resents him for it. I think in life also, we resent our parents for certain things, whether its physical traits, characteristal traits or the type of life we now live, or have lived. Wether resenting or parents is right or wrong, I don't think we can help it because we are humans but can only help cope with what we were given. Does anyone else view Hal as a selfish, suspicious character? After all the funeral hasn't even happened yet, and Hal is thinkinf of having his work published instead of mourning his death?

Proof

Just by reading a scene, it makes me want to read the whole book and even watch the movie. I think it’s a very interesting story. It manages to portrait the characters only through the way they speak and act, without any description. Also the dialogue is very active and it is able to capture the reader’s attention. I think the good thing about theater plays is that the dialogue makes the story more realistic because we know exactly what each character says so it is possible to recreate the scene as if it was happening in real life.

I really like how Catherine is portrayed in this scene. She seems to be very selfish and mean with her father and with Hal but somehow the reader is not repulsed by her character. I think there’s a deeper reason for her behavior. It is interesting that she has inherited her father’s skills in mathematics but it also seems that she has inherited her father’s insanity. Maybe she blames her father so much because she knows that she’s like him. I think the reason for her behavior may be her father’s death but she’s also kind of aware of her similarity with him and is afraid to end up like him. She never stops claiming that he’s crazy, “The problem is you are crazy!”, “There’s nothing up there. It’s garbage. (…) He was crazy. There’s no ideas. It’s like a monkey at a typewriter. A hundred and three notebooks full of bullshit.” This shows us that she’s trying to convince herself that she’s not crazy, that she’s not like her father. When she’s talking with Hal, she says “No. I’m not crazy”, the words “I’m” are in italics, which stresses the point that she doesn’t want to be like him.

Also in her imaginary conversation with her father, she expresses her fear of having inherited his insanity. Her father tells her: “There are all kinds of factors. It’s not simply something you inherit. Just because I went bughouse doesn’t mean you will.” I think she’s kind of stuck in her life because she thinks she’s going to end up like Robert, she can’t move on and be successful because of this. Her father has had a huge impact on her, she not only inherited his abilities but her depression and her fear of not being normal is also provoked by what happened to him. We also notice their similarities when Catherine says that his father talked to people who weren’t there or imagined that aliens were sending him codes, but Catherine is also imagining having conversations with his dead father.

I think that when her father says that it is a good sign that they can talk about Catherine’s problems he means that it is a good sign that she is able to recognize what she’s doing wrong. She is aware that she may be crazy, she knows it’s not normal having conversations with dead people. “Crazy people don’t sit around wondering if they’re nuts.” Which is what Catherine does all the time, sits around wondering if she’s like her father, if she’s going to have the same life. Therefore, she’s not crazy. Crazy people are just crazy, they don’t realize it. I think that further on in the story Catherine will be able to forget about his father’s illness and appreciate his talent, so she’ll be able to move on and be herself, not an image of her dead father’s flaws. At least that’s what I would like to happen next in the story, it would be kind of boring if she had the same life as her father.

Why do you think “Proof” was the title of this play? Do you think the biological inheritances will turn out to be stronger than Catherine's unique personality? Is she condemned to have the same destiny as her father?

responding to the play

I felt like the dialog moved fast which made it more affective. What was going on in the scene was very sad. Is Catherine crazy? does she have any hope of turning her life around? I think that after her fathers funeral she may finlay get it together. That last blow with Hal reality checked her. The whole time Catherine and Hal were arguing i was thinking she was completely out of line and selfish. It really pissed me off that she would not listen to a word that he was saying because he had a good point. She was only being pessimistic and not even thinking about her dead father. Obviously she loved him very much. Why wouldn't she want his work published, its what he would have wanted. I hope she apologizes to Hal in future scenes in the play. The dialog had a lot of emotion in it. I could really here each individual voice and see the looks on each persons face as they spoke. At first i thought she was sweet on Hal but maybe i am the only one who flirts with people by being mean, I like testing guys. After reading the untitled scene i think that it will help me grow to write dialog. I'm a little nervous because its hard to really connect with readers if your dialog is boring. I'm afraid my dialog will be boring.

Proof

The dialogue format is different from a short story, where the author describes and narrates, but it still draws the reader into the action. The only description comes in brief notes, so a lot depends on the actor (when it is performed), and on small sentence details (when it is read): question marks, exclamation points, ellipsis, italics, dashes, etc. These small details animate the dialogue, because they indicate how the characters are delivering their lines. For example, when Robert says to Catherine, "After midnight..." (pg. 5), the ellipsis helps get across that he is a father, that he is concerned about his daughter, that he wants to talk and waits for an answer. In a short story the author may directly describe the two characters, but that intrusion into the dialogue can be trimmed by punctuating effectively. When Catherine is on the phone with the police, her sentence is cut off with an em dash, and it stops the reader short, so that the dramatic moment is captured: "Yes, I'm at 5724 South—" (pg. 22). There's no need for a narrator to explain that she stopped short, it's already in the dialogue.

I thought the author kept the dialogue interesting by developing the characters. At first it seems that Catherine is just talking to her father on the porch, which might get boring after a while, but then we learn that he is actually dead, which gives her character and her dialogue a whole new direction. The same thing happens with Harold. Catherine accuses him of stealing, and she is proven wrong when she checks his bag. But we still don't know who he really is, whether he is trying to make himself famous by her father's work, or whether he is an innocent math teacher who respected his mentor. When the notebook falls out of his jacket, it's another surprise in the story, and his character appears to have selfish intentions. But then we learn why he has the notebook, and our previous questions about him are answered. These small moments of suspense and character development help the dialogue so that it has a purpose, and doesn't just seem like two people talking on a porch. The reader wants to continue reading the conversation because it adds up to something larger, a story.

If you had to guess about the rest of the play, do you think that Catherine is crazy herself, or is she just grieving?

Are These Actual; Miles?

This story was short and real. I liked the way it seemed like something that someone I knew went through. It was a realistic yet sad story.
The story seems as though Leo and Toni met by fate. They seemed to at one point be in love with getting everything they wanted if not with eachother. Leo was it seems in love with Toni from the beginnning. He bought children's encyclopedia's from her without even having children.
As the story progresses, it seems so obvious that Toni doesn't have respect for her husband. She teases him in such a way would break someones' heart that is in love with them to hear. She tell's him he's nothing and that he has no money and his credit is lousy. These things would kill a mans pride to hear from a woman he loves. She tries to act as though she means it jokingly, but to me it seems as though she is mad at him for the situations she helped them to be in. She is acting as though his opinion doesn't matter and doesn't take him seriously. She puts in the time and effort to dress up to sell the car and promises to call , but fails to do so until after its been hours after she was supposed to and at that, she continuously talks over him and cuts him off. She treats him as though he doesn't matter.
Leo is left to ponder what has become of his life. He has thoughts of suicide and I believe that becuse of the constant disrespect from his beloved and the fact that he feels worthless as a provider makes this seem like an alternative. He drinks heavily it seems to mask the pain and thoughts but can dismiss them from his clouded head. He is worried about his wife, but it wasn't so clear to me at first whether he wa worried about her saftey or that she was going to leave him for someone else.
I believe though that being in the situation he was in warrants him to be worried about those things when his wife is as Toni is. A superficial, materialistic, snob it seems. She tells him that she is on her way home only to stubble in intoxicated and ignorant at dawn. Leo struggles to stay in control eventhough his emotion would be fair in this case go off on her ass. She is however "so much" to him. She is impaortant ans the fact that he will start over on Monday and make it all right keeps him hanging on.
At the end of the story when he stop the man in the convertible, i wondered why he felt the need to explain about Monday. He wanted to prove something more that defend his pride it seemed. I would've expected more drama. The man asks "are these actual miles?" as though it was maybe too good to be true. Just like the deal it seems he has just gotten. A night with Leo's wife and a car for a steal of a price.
Leo's obvious obessionwith the car though is caught at the end mostly when he strips his wife of her clothes, and traces he stretchmarks with his fingers back and forth, thinking they are like roads. He remembers then the morning after they bought the car and it gleaming in the drive way from the sun.
I wish this story had a little more to it. I liked it alot. folled it well, but was disappointed with the ending. I think a bit more passion should have been invloved.

Are These Actual Miles?

I think that by using the title “Are these actual miles?” Raymond Carver wanted to stress on how important the convertible was for Leo and Toni. It makes us think about their past, the miles they rode on that car and everything they had lived together which is now gone with their bankruptcy. I like the fact that the title is an extract of the dialogue in the story: “Well, goodnight, the man says and coughs. Take it easy, hear? Monday, that’s right. Okay, then. He takes his foot off the brake, puts it on again after he has rolled back two or three feet. Hey, one question. Between friends, are these actual miles? The man waits, the clears his throat. Okay, look, it doesn’t matter either way, the man says. I have to go. Take it easy.”

Because Carver chose the title “Are these actual miles?” we know that the climax of the story is located at this point, in the dialogue between Leo and the man who bought the car. We can notice that the central theme of the story is Leo’s life and how desperate and lonely he feels. He is always abandoned by people who never take time to have a proper conversation. There’s a sense of rapidity and stress in the whole story.

First of all, the way that the story is written gives a sense of anxiety and pressure by listing action verbs one after another without stopping: “He circles the kitchen and goes back to the living room. He sits. He gets up. In the bathroom he brushes his teeth very carefully. The he uses dental floss. He washes his face and goes back to the kitchen” and so on.

Second, this sense of stress and anxiety is also shown on what we said before, the fact that Leo is always wanting to talk and wanting people to wait, not to hurry, to take time to explain things to him or to be with him. “I told you, she says. I have to go now. Wait, wait a minute, for Christ’s sake, he says. Did somebody buy the car or not? He had his checkbook out when I left, she says. I have to go now. I have to go to the bathroom. Wait! He yells. The line goes dead.” Also, Toni always hangs up first, without even saying goodbye or letting him finish his sentences.

It’s the same situation when Leo encounters the man who bought the car, the man is about to leave, but Leo needs to talk to him. “Wait! Leo calls and starts down the steps. (…) What is it that you want? The man says. Look, the man says, I have to go. No offense. I buy and sell cars, right? The lady left her makeup. She’s a fine lady, very refined. What is it?”. I think that this story may be portraying the American society because it shows how some business people act. There are a lot of people that are always hurried and stressed, walking on the street without caring about others. Maybe the fact that Leo wants everyone to wait, to relax for a while, is showing that people are anxious almost all the time. I did some research and found that Carver changed the title of the story; before being entitled “Are these actual miles?” the story was entitled “What is it?”, a part of the dialogue that also shows stress and anxiety, which is also focused on Leo’s feelings.

Why do you think the author changed the title form “What is it” to “Are these actual miles”?
Would there be a difference if the author hadn’t introduced Ernest Williams as a witness?

are these actually miles?

When I first finished the story,I was a little confused because throughout the whole story I thought that Toni knew the reason why they were selling the car- but then at the end it became very clear that she had no idea what the real reason was. "Bankrupt!" she screams. She twists loose grabs and tears his undershirt at the neck. "You son of a bitch". I think that as a husband, it was not fair for him to keep her in the dark, considering all the trouble the she went through to help him get the car sold.

I think that it was really great the way in which carver uses description. there isnt to much detail yet the reader is still able to see what is actually going on in the story. There is not alot of drama in the story to grab the readers attention,but its still entertaining.

I also think that within the context of the short story, the author is saying a little bit about the debt problem that millions of American families face. He says on pg. 148 " they buy what they want. If they cant pay, they charge" and I think that so many people in todays society fall into this cycle. Leo is clearly someone who is unhappy with his own life- we can see through his heavy drinking habits that he is trying to avoid some type of reality. The whole instant gratifcation idea and depression kind of go hand and hand because many people think... oh I am sad- so let me buy things that I think will make me happy and as the the things they buy just continue to get bigger , so do the prices, and with those two things increasing, the hole that is within also gets bigger. So many people think they need so many material things to make them happy and hardly nobody realizes how unhappy its actually making them.

Im not sure if its because I am completly missing something- but the title threw me off a bit. I guess I can connect the miles part with the convertible but I dont understand why at the end Leo says "between friends, are these actaully miles?" and the man responds "look, it doesnt matter either way" p.151 . What does the title actaully mean? and do you think that anything that carver wrote in the context of this story reflects the society we live in today?

Are These Actual Miles?

I like the sparse writing-style that Raymond Carver uses. His descriptions are short and direct: “He sits. He gets up. In the bathroom he brushes his teeth very carefully. Then he uses dental floss” (pg. 149). Every once in a while the author incorporates a longer sentence, so it doesn’t seem like you’re reading a list. Even though the writing is brief, it still has some good detail. For example, he mentions at the beginning that Leo “taps his lips with his knuckles” (pg. 146), and later he “puts the heel of his hand against his eye and pushes” (pg. 149). These small mannerisms reveal a lot about the mind state of the character.

I also like how the author introduces Leo’s suicidal thoughts. He doesn’t write a dramatic scene, he just briefly mentions it. The reader notes it and moves on, and this reflects how Leo’s thoughts aren’t a moment of desperation, but a slow fog in his life, something that he just lives with and doesn’t think too much about. He eats chili and crackers and thinks about biting the rim of the glass and watches television and brushes his teeth. The understatement in the action makes the small details stand out even more. There could be more complex description, but if the reader gets inundated with detail, he may not pay as much attention.

If this story were continued, would Leo recover from his bankruptcy?

On the golden porch

I think that the point of this story was to demonstrate the way in which children view the world, how innocent they really are. One of the best quotes in this short story was " childhood was a garden... without ends or limits without borders and fences". Here, I think that the author is trying to express how as children we have a much better imagination than adults do. To children everything is an opportunity to create something magical, where as to adults that very same thing could be viewed as plain and impractical.

Also, I think that throughout the short story, the narrator grew and matured. By having the child age while telling the story allows the reader to see the changes that most children go through from childhoodto adolescents and then adolscence into adulthood. In the beginning of the story, the child was fascinated by what was kept in his uncles room. " Will you show us the room". this statement expresses the childs anxiety in discovering and exploring new things however once he grew up and finally did see the room- we are able to see the disappointment due to the lack of something exciting." So thats it? thats what enchanted us? All of this second hand rubbish, these chipped painted night tables, these tacky oil paintings... these cheap beads".
For kids, these things probably would have provided hours of entertainment however for an adult its just a bunch of stuff thats taking up to much room. The quote "surfacing from the magical bottom of childhood, we open our chilled fist in the cold wind but what have we brought up with us besides cold sand" reinstates this point. For young minds, the possibilities are endless yet for adults we are searching for something magical but bring up nothing but a fistful of cold sand and let downs.

I also noticed a difference in the childs attitude towards his uncle as he grew. I think the same can be said for everyone, that once we hit a certain age, we were to busy and wanted to spend the smallest amount of time possible at home. Of course we all had much better things to do. As a child the narrator seems to be eager to be with his uncle and learning things from him, but towards the end he says " Well, alright I have five minutes for you.Its been so long since I have been here..."(572) This quote is showing his impatientness and how he wants to make a hasty exit to move onto the much more important things of the day.

I cant decide if the author at the end of the story was a full grown adult, or in the teenage years. What do you think his age is, and how it reflects his actions throughout the story.

Golden Porch

I had to read this short story twice because i was confused the first time i read it, and to be honest i didn't really get any more out of it the second time. I think that it is written or told from the mind of a child, a very young child. It was very "enchanting" in the description of things, I loved the imagery it gave me, and I'm sure the imagery is different for every person that reads it. I find that amazing, there is so much imagination in the way it was written it seems like it was actually written by a child. Although it was internally beautiful it lacked an overall plot, the only thing that i was positive about was when the uncle dies. It was very traumatic for the little girl because her uncle is who showed her "Alladins cave" which i believe to be the attic full of junk. To adults its crap but treasures to children. I don't really have much more to add I didn't really underatand the material.

On the Golden Porch

I think the authors point was not to show how a girl fears death, but more to show how children view the world, compared to the way adults see things. I think she develops this by using poetry and lyricism to engage the reader into the mind of a child.

I think the wonderment and imagination, and creativity of children is just as she described it. The contrast between when their uncle showed them "Aladdin's Cave" when they are children and when they are adults was great. They thought it was a magical place, all of those things were so foreign to them, things they had never seen before were fantastical. When they were adults it was just a bunch of junk oil paintings, cheap beads, and chipped painted night tables and they didn't have time for their tradition of when the clock strikes and the goblet hits the table, Uncle Pasha plays the midnight sonata. When they were children they begged him to play and were in awe of his power to enchant them... They used to "be grateful" and as adults they didn't even have time. "No. Excuse me, Uncle Pasha. I have to go."

I also found the plot to be a little confusing, but that might have been lost in translation. Or maybe it was meant to keep us guessing, keep us imagining. Do you think Uncle Pasha's death might have not been his death but rather the death of their enchantment with him? That maybe Uncle Pasha's ashes were actually his things, his livelihood?

On the Golden Porch

I think this story was almost like a poem, it was all made of metaphors and lyricism. “Childhood was a garden. Without end or limit, without borders and fences, in noises and rustling, golden in the sun, pale green in the shade, a thousand layers thick”. I really liked that side of the story because the reader is able to imagine the place and characters. I think the author’s goal was to make the reader dream. The story uses the lexical field of nature and freedom, which gives us a sense of peace: “pines”, “white roses”, “raspberry patch”, “life is eternal”. The beginning of the story made me think about a genesis, how the world started according to some religions, with a beautiful paradise and a naked man.

However, I think the story lacks of details in telling what is happening. I really like the descriptions but it was very difficult for me to understand the plot. I think the story was a bit confusing, there are too many characters and it focuses too much on describing the visual part of it, instead of telling us what is happening. I like the fact that there is some dialogue, but sometimes it was difficult to figure out who was talking.

At the beginning of the story, after some description, the dialogue begins without any introduction: “They say that early in the morning they saw a completely naked man at the lake. Honest. Don’t tell Mother. Do you know who it was? – It can’t be. – Honest, it was.” We don’t know who is talking or who Honest is. Later in the story, we understand that two girls are the narrators, “a red-and-green rooster cocks his head and looks at us: what do you want, girls? We’d like some strawberries”. Then there is the description of Uncle Pasha, but we don’t know what happened to the girls “Aargh! Let’s get out of here, run, it’s horrible – an icy horror – shed, damp, death…”. After that we learn that Uncle Pasha sold and egg to mother, but what does an egg have anything to do here? I think that the author wanted to capture the point of view of two very young girls. It seems that reality is mixed with dream and imagination. Everything is unclear and mysterious.

Personally, I prefer to have lyricism in poems, where there’s no need to have a plot, but in a short story, it makes it kind of confusing. I think that it is until the end that we actually understand it better, although it’s still kind of mysterious. After the girls leave: “Eight, nine, ten. No. Excuse me, Uncle Pasha, I have to go”, suddenly, Uncle Pasha appears death in the scene: “… Uncle Pasha froze to death on the porch.” I think that by making the story lyrical and abstract, we lose the active part of it.

Was the author's goal to show how a little girl fears the death of an uncle? Is there any meaning in the story that we can find beyond the lyricism?

On the Golden Porch

This kind of story is strange on the first read. It's the literary equivalent of an abstract painting. You know there has to be some point, but it just looks like random shapes and colors. There are a lot of great images; for example, "a caravan of camels passed with spectral tread through your house and dropped its Baghdad wares in the summer twilight" (pg. 570). I think the writer has to be able to paint those vivid images because the story doesn't work otherwise. There's no conventional plot for it to fall back on. The enjoyment in this kind of story is the imagery. It's like watching a movie with great special effects. The writer draws you away from plot and details and characters, and you enjoy the words and images for themselves. I don't think this would work as an ordinary style, because most stories need plot and structure. But it can be interesting as something different.

This style stretches the writer's imagination to create a dream atmosphere for the reader. With other kinds of story, the imagery has to be more subtle. You have to balance it with setting and character and plot and dialogue, whereas this style is more expressive. It can sharpen your ability to insert imagery with the same power into more traditional stories. She does tie it all together at the end, which is important so that there is another level beneath the imagery.

Does the author weave in clues about what the speaker is seeing and what is really there, or does the perspective only make sense at the end, when the speaker is grown up?

Ysrael and All Because of the Mistake

I think he already is just like his brother to answer the question. He was obvoiusly more naive than his brother at the time and i think this is a classic case of boys will be boys. I didn't find Ysrael to be as shocking or upsetting as a few others had. I guess I expect that to go on between boys, ie: stealing (not paying for the bus ride), beating up a helpless disfigured boy Just Because. They found that sort of thing exciting, I can see why. It's cruel, but its honest and its real.

To comment on the structure of the two, I really didn't get the numbering... It didn't seem to have any real reason to be there.

I did enjoy All Because of the Mistake. I did love how they said YOU all of the time. It reminded me of my childhood, when your father would tell you a bedtime story that made you imagine these fantastical things, well thats how i felt about that story.. I feel like it opened up the imagination and put you in the driver's seat (no pun intended).

Ysrael

I found this story very shocking. How can children be left alone as those two children have been, with their father only “sending them presents at Christmas” and their mother working most of the time at a chocolate factory “without having the time or energy” to take care of them? These two children have a lot of liberty and they seem that they haven’t been taught any moral values. They fight a lot, steal money and criticize others for their appearance. It is very shocking to think that this story may be based on reality, that there are girls out there who think that “they won’t get pregnant if they drank a Coca Cola afterwards”. I found there was kind of a dark humor in the story, because this sentence made me laugh, but still made me feel bad because it may be actually true. This makes me think about the inequalities between different countries, how unfair it is that there are innocent children who have to struggle because of poverty and lack of education when they don’t deserve it. I think the author’s objective was to show how difficult can be the life of a child who has to face this situation.

I liked the fact that the story was written from the nine year old child’s point of view. I think this stresses even more on the gravity of the social problems described in the story. By writing the story from an innocent child’s point of view, we can see how he is influenced by what surrounds him, and how he ends up following his brother’s bad attitude. It shows us how he is innocently led to be violent, without even knowing that he’s following a wrong path in his life. But does he have a choice?

I also found interesting the style on which the story was written. I liked that the author didn’t translate some words into English, and left them in Spanish. This makes the story more familiar and realistic, from the point of view of a child using words as “Mami” or the nickname “Rafa” to refer to his brother. I liked that this story seemed to be real; I would have thought that the author was writing about his own childhood if I didn’t know that it is a fictive story. However, even if it’s just fiction, the story deals with real social problems and therefore makes us think about reality.

Do you think that the little boy is going to end up being as his brother is?

Ysreal

The story was realistically harsh. I think the story was based around the character Rafa even though his little brother narrated it. It followed Rafa's every move until the cruel end. It must be terribly hard for Rafa and his family but nowhere near as hard as it was for Ysreal. The cold truth is that you have to be tough growing up in a place like that, Rafa was tough and normally a persons cruelness is not there fault but the way that they were raised. In this case Rafa's younger brother was kind hearted or at least young enough to be Innocent, but I'm sure enough time with his brother will change that.The detail in the story was incredible i think my favorite part is when Rafa walks of into the woods to meet a girl and after a while you can only see is a blur of the color of his shirt through the leaves. That imagery stood out to me most because in my mind i could picture it perfectly even the silhouette of the leaves with a light coming in from behind Rafa. I'm also sad to say that i think Rafa is right and that American doctors will not help Ysreal and even if they do he will be scarred for life, stupid pig. The end made me cringe a little bit, but if the story kept going i would see karma taking a toll on Rafa and things only getting better for Ysreal.

Ysrael

This story was sickening to me. That doesn't take away from the way that the writer tells the story. I felt like I was right there with Rafa and his little brother in The Dominican Republic. The detail was great. "Columns of ants had found a pile of meatless chicken bones at my feet and were industriously carting the crumbling marrow."Page 216. The wat Rafa tormented and spoke to his little brother as though he was so annoying was realistic to the point of where i was remember people I know that talked that way to there sibling. I absolutely hate the ordeal with Ysrael. I can not stand when children pick on eachother. The way children behave to those with disablitites sometimes is the most disgusting thing you'll even encounter. Rafa was a complete asshole that didn't much about anything but getting his pinga sucked. He is a typical peice of shit character. The way he is descibed so well makes me believe he is an actual person. Rafa's little brother seems to have a bit of a heart but I think that his brother will eventually change him into a disgusting pig like himself. What do you think happened to Ysrael? Do you think that Rafa could have maybe killed him with the hit over the head from the coke bottle? Do you think that they'll get in trouble for what they did? I wish this story went on more. Good Read, bad story.

All Because of the Mistake

Now this story was an interesting yet confusing read for me. I wish as stated earlier that the age description of the person was given. A little more detail would have went a long way. The way the story reads is like a diary. I felt like I was reading something that I had wrote,but, it wasn't making sense because of all the plane talk. The whole of the story though is what fets through to me. The insecurities we have within ourselves in life. We are given instructions as to what we have to do to survive and there are people there for us to guide us through the tough times in the beginning. Then, at some point we need to go off by ourselves. We have to figure it out for ourselves, but how? How do we know when we're ready? Especially when we doubt our own capabilities. The word responsibilty haunts us. We want so badly to things without the help of others, but sometimes are afraid that we will mess up and be soley to blame. The fact that Bruno knew that This pilot was ready for his solo flight by making a mistakle and correcting it on his own was brilliant. I read this story thinking to myself,"how blah", then just as the last page comes around everything comes into play. It is then you understand what all the fuss was about. I like this story alot.

All Because of the Mistake

I liked very much how the story starts. At first we don’t know what the author is referring to, by starting to describe some feelings that the reader should have, writing the story with “you” as the main character. I found this very original, I think it’s the first story I read which uses “you” as a character, this makes it easier for the reader to be able to understand the character’s feelings, since the reader is forced to put himself into the character’s situation, and wonder what it would be like if he had to face that kind of things. Personally, I could really feel the stress and nervousness of the pilot, as well as all the doubts he has about himself being able to do everything right.

I also like the way the narrator tells the story, by having flash-backs, which makes it sound more realistic. As if someone was telling us exactly what he’s thinking at that moment. “You glide along the coast in a fantasy of immobility and timelessness, on the right the island, on the left the sea, you glide along thinking of the first time you made the ascent with Bruno, the first time, the orientation and test flight” (pg. 207).

I think that the author chose not to give any details about the character to make the story more general. The pilot could be any person, and that makes it easier for the reader to think that he could be that pilot. Also, I don’t think that the narrator suffers from any disease; I actually think the author made a very good job to make the character’s feelings very life-like. We all have felt nervous and unsecure in some point of our lives, and I think this story is able to make the reader recall those feeling. Overall, I think it was a very good story because somehow the reader immerses in it and experiences the same feelings of the character.

How would the story change if it had been written in the first person narrator?

"Ysrael"

Instantly we see the bond of two older brothers right off the bat with the story; although it takes a while with detail to get that full amount of information. The narrator idolizes his older brother as most of us tend to do with an older sibling that doesn't beat the crap out of us daily. they would pick on us all the time; but they and we always had a soft spot for one another because we were the same blood.
The narrator at first feels sorry for Ysrael, stating that he used to throw rocks at the person. But the narrator always had a respect for Ysrael, because when this would happen; he would out-run any tormentor in his path. the two brother's begin their gig on Ysrael, the narrator pretending to be sick, and the older brother playing the stronger role; but none of them are truly intelligent. After they bate Ysrael into their plan, the older brother, Rafa proceeds to beat the crap out of Ysrael for no apparent reason. None other than to exacerbate the "male dominance, protector or territory" role that has plagued much of man kind over the centuries. Why do some of us continue to behave in such a manner?

"All Because of the Mistake"

I first of all want to strate that the format of "All Because of a Big Mistake is great. You can actually sense the tenseness of the author/narrator's tone by the format of the writing. No simple breaks in paragraphs, just pur details in a consecutive format that can not stop. Why?! Because the pilot is on the verge of losing his mind; he thinks he is about to die. How can an aspiring pilot have this much stress and intensity when flying?! I would want him to be my pilot thats for damn sure.
The narrator has a million thoughts running through his head, and because of these million thoughts the pilot forget simple tasks that Bruno has to watch over. Its very possible that the narrator suffers from some form of A.D.D. (Attention Defecit Disorder) because he can't seem to focus on exactly what he should do; he's too focused on what could possibly go wrong.
After this on-going descriptions of the thoughts and worries that plague the narrator's mind he's finally called in to land. As you lands the author worries about the physical gestures he's made that might negatively influence Bruno, even though Bruno hasn't seen a thing. The narrator is truly an insecure individual.
As someone who's never been a pilot we can empathise with the narrator's situation. There's many different little things that must be done for a successful flight. Do any of us think we could handle that kind of pressure?

All Because Of The Mistake

All because of the mistake was not an easy read for me. The narrators constant stream of consciousness mad it a little hard to understand exactly what was going on. I also think that everyone can relate to this story because everyone make mistakes, maybe not as life threatening as forgetting to lift the plane flaps but we do. I can also remember a few times when I'm trying to do something new and someone like Bruno is there to help you but doesn't really do much but in the end the lesson is stronger. I never really thought about the stress that a pilot would have because usually I'm too worried about the plane crashing when I'm on it that the pilots fear would never cross my mind.I love the part where he compares the first time flying a plane to the first time he had sex because i remember how nervous i was and it gives me a better idea of how scared he was, also I'm sure it brings the same relief and satisfaction at the end of it all. I liked All Because Of The Mistake because it takes you into the mind of the pilot and i could feel the tension and insecurity in the narrators voice or words i guess. I think not only was the main character looking for signs from Bruno but really anything that could tell him something was wrong and what the future to come may be.