Session 8 readings

[Anonymous]

Yes! I love happy endings. And I am always in favor of reason winning. What is illogical in this story is that two friends were presented with the same opportunity to flee; One chose to leave his family to save himself, the other chose to stay and take care of his injured father's farm, and the irony of life is that the man who was going to be shot was the one who chose the honorable path. But it is a good example of how making assumptions is a bad idea most of the time. It was only through questions to draw out the truth that the policeman found that his childhood friend was not deserving of death after all.

[Anonymous]

The introduction of the story describes Yi in a somewhat derogatory fashion for adopting a slave consciousness, and as a chameleon who begins to see himself belonging to the 'world of the dominators.' He is clearly a survivor, and holds his personal well-being and reputation above everything else. In the end, he achieved his goal of besting his dominators and consistently coming up with strategies that brought him the results he desired. Love and compassion were not his goals. This is a story of a man who did whatever it took to keep himself in the good life as much as possible. It is hard to tell if Yi just became stuck in survival mode, or if being self-centered was just his true nature. Most likely we have all known narcissists, and that is the personality disorder that seems to best describe his character, in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

This is a passage suitable for middle school and high school kids. The biggest discussion I see coming from this is of loyalty and responsibility. Both characters are farmers, only one flees and one stays on the farm to carry out his loyal duty. However, the ending forces us to question the former character's loyalty at the end: to country of friendship.

[Anonymous]

I found the short story, "Cranes" by Hwang Sunwon interesting and revealing because of the message of friendship and the setting and time period and location where the story takes place. At first read, I was confused about the message or purpose of the story. At first glance, I felt it was a story about the relationship between two friends during a time period of political strife in North Korea. Then I started to analyze and try to find a theme or message and felt that perhaps the author was trying to find a less political message and more of a humanistic theme by suggesting that despite the differences in the two friends given the political nature of their country, they both can overcome these differences and changes in their environment and see what is more important: their friendship. Songsam's compassion for Tokchae stems from their childhood friendship and not from the political ideologies that divides Korea. Songsam shows takes an interest in his former childhood friend by asking qeustions and learning more about him and shows empathy by sharing a cigarette and reminiscing on a lost opportunity for escaping to the south. Furthermore, despite Tokchae's death sentence, there's a message of peace and friendship. The author ends with a story of Songsam & Tokchae capturing cranes near the 38th parallel border when they were the age of 12. The use of the crane, I felt, especially in the location of the 38th parallel, suggests that peace and friendship, despite political strife in their country and among the people was possible. I felt that despite Tokchae's death sentence, both Songsam and Tokchae were able to reach other and overlook political differences that were not able to control in their lives and make a connection as childhood friends and as people. I feel that the author despite the problems in North Korea offers a sense of hope in ending this way for a people who may feel destitute and helpless.

[Anonymous]

As I was reading Our Twisted Heros by Yi Munyol, I felt that it was a political allegory just as Animal Farm was for totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union or The Crucible for the Red Scare in America. The allegory of course centered around the relationship between the two protagonists, Han Pyongt'ae (the new student at the school from Seoul) and Om Sokdae (the class leader who exerts power and control over the students). As I read about the interactions that they had in school, while unviolent, I felt that Han represented Western nations & thought and Om represented traditional or even communist or tyrannical rule. As much as Han tried to exert power and tried to control his class, hoping that they might be impressed by the fact that he's originally from the city, to his dismay, he was not influential. On the other hand, Om was not only able to control and exert power in class, he did so with almost an air of tyrannical force (while non-violent). I felt that his interactions with classmates and control over them was much more precise and deliberate. Han on the other hand, I find is much more critical of the school system and Om taking control. He critiques the apathy of his teachers, especially in allowing Om Sokdae to take control of the class and exert influence over the students. I wonder how much of that is a critique of North Korea or the communist influence in the area over the people in the Korean peninsula. Finally, I felt that there was a sense of criticism about the current status of the school (i.e. the political system and troubles in the Korean peninsula) and also a sense of frustration over the students who were so easily influenced and controlled by Om Sokdae (perhaps the same type of apathy expressed by certain Koreans over the control that communist regimes and tyrannical rule had over people). I still searching to find meaning in the piece, but liked it as a possible read for students.

[Anonymous]

After reading the section on The Korean War from Michael Robinson's book I consulted my classroom texts for comparison. Our World History book (Glencoe) gives a brief two paragraph summary- okay three paragraphs but this would then cover Korean history from 1905 to the present. Our American History book (American Vision, also Glencoe) offers much more detail 9two whole pages including maps). I'm happy our American History book includes the bit about the absent Soviet delegate to the UN Security Council is included, it seems both Glencoe and Robinson attribute the UN approval for US action to his blunder.
Details of atrocities on both sides, including the American bombardment of the North are not included in the Glencoe text.
Language in the Glencoe text seems to be pro-American and pro-MacArthur- his strategies are applauded as "daring" he returns home to a "Hero's welcome". Robinson is not so generous, being very critical of the very idea of a military "police action" in particular when said police action involves a "dreadful campaign of bombing".
I appreciate being able to compare texts. Robinson is certainly more free with his use of subjective language, but in comparison our classroom text isn't exactly objective either.

[Anonymous]

Students may need support to understand this text, especially a deep understanding of war and survival. The main character, Dr. Yi, is indeed narcissistic, but one can also argue that his narcissism supported his self-survival, which he is successful at achieving in the end. Is he a loyal husband or a sacrificial father? Perhaps not, but this text is not about that! It's about using one's skills for self-survival.

[Anonymous]

Here is a link to the graphic novel I mentioned in class today:
http://tinyurl.com/q5ljmvt
Guy Delisle has also written about his experiences animating in China in another graphic novel called "Shenzhen". These books are available inexpensively as paperbacks (or used hardbacks). My students have really enjoyed them.
edited by dhorowitz on 11/17/2015

[Anonymous]

What stuck with me about this short story is the role of geography in the fate of both men. The one who chose to stay and farm is in handcuffs, while the one who ran is armed. The one who obeyed his father lost, and the one who disobeyed "won". Their fate is also determined by the randomness of the TMZ. For two years they fought over the same hills, which may have included the village in the story, being so close to the line. If by a fluke the line had been further south the roles would be reversed.

[Anonymous]

I liked the Discussion on all the leaders of South Korea over the years dating from the 70’s to today. I did not know the story previously of Park Geun-hye’s family. That her mother was assassinated during her father’s (Park Chung -hee) speech in public and the father continued his regularly scheduled speech. Was there a gap in time there? I looked into the story a bit further and the gunman for the KCIA took 4-5 shots in the theater where the speech was held attempting to assassinate Park and missed him, hitting his podium and next hitting and killing his wife. Did he immediately continue the speech without flinching? Or did they stop and carry on later that day? When did the shooting stop and Park know that he was safe to continue? The article stated that upon finishing his speech Park gathered his wife’s shoes and purse from the stage. This whole situation is just weird and I was curious if anyone else was surprised at this story or knew any more information on it?

[Anonymous]

I felt the introduction of this reading was very telling of the character of the main people involved in the story. The introduction mentions that the short stories Hwang Sunwon are known for often dive into the “inner mood of characters by private images and symbols” and “shows subtle insight into their psychology.” I thought this was interesting in moving forward with the reading and paying close attention to the actions of the two childhood friends in the story. I was a bit confused on the ending with the story at first and needed to read the story a few times to really understand it. It seems as though Songsam planned to take his childhood friend to his punishment and through reliving some of their childhood memories he comes to have a sense of compassion for his friend and instead of leading him to punishment, or even death, Songsam helps free Tokchae. The symbolism of the pair of cranes I felt was symbolic of the friendship.

Anyone else pick up on interesting parts of the storyline or symbolism?

[Anonymous]

I really liked this piece, and I think the symbolism makes it a great short story to use with high schoolers. While they would need some historical background in order to understand the significance of the war (and the mentioning of the North vs. South), the overall question of the choices each character faced during wartime could transcend the study of Korea. I particularly liked how despite being short and plain in language, the story brought up the issue loyalty and the role the past plays in our perception of adversaries.

[Anonymous]

I loved reading Hwang Sun-won's short story Cranes. In researching Hwang, a common theme in his writing is the resilience of the Korean spirit in times of adversity, and the discovery of love and goodwill even in the unlikeliest of circumstances. This theme can be clearly seen in Cranes, as two childhood friends overcome their ideological differences to preserve both friendship and life. For such a short piece, Cranes is particularly rich in theme, symbolism and language. The two main characters represent the two Koreas. The aggressors symbolize a divided Korea that punishes any who don't cut ties with the other side. And, the crane symbolizes the unity, hope, and the repair of relationships broken and damaged by war. I would love to teach this story in my classroom.

[Anonymous]

I found the information about current Korean president Park Geun-hye particularly interesting.
I learned she was elected president in 2013, the daughter of former president. I found it interesting that her goals while in office are to erradicate sexual violence, domestic violence, school violence and unsafe food. Despite these goals, she has faced several problems while in office--ferry that sank in 2014 MERS (2015), and most recently, her goals of the nationalization of high school history text book due out in 2017 seems suspicious.

[Anonymous]

So many glorious tidbits - from "rebels" hand-writing and sharing banned books to cheap Russian models to ships sheared in half with the light bulbs eerily left intact. I also must check out Kyo Chon - that fried chicken sounds mouth-wateringly delicious. I found the discussion about unemployment and its impact on society both fascinating and heartbreaking. So interesting that many men who lost their jobs would get up, dress for work, go drink, then come home at the end of the day as if they were at work all day. What a nightmarish period of time - violence, divorce and the abandonment children was rampant. Layoffs were everywhere, the middle class declined; and yet, of course, the rich got richer. It was interesting to see how this crisis influenced change - banking systems and corporations were restructured. The government and banks became increasingly liquid. There were tighter lending policies and a desire to look beyond western leadership. Enthralling stuff!
edited by khumphreys on 11/30/2015

[Author]

Posts