Sunday, November 15, 2015

Act 3 Discussion

We are going to have a silent discussion today.  Please follow ALL directions.  For the first part of class, we will be discussing Act 3 in itself, then we will transfer to real world questions.


1.  Respond to 3 of my questions first-please use textual support where need be.  Your choice!  Write out number to which you are responding.
2.  When you are done responding to my questions I want you to ask a critical/ real world question (under neath your responses) to start the discussion on a real level.  You must respond to at least 3 other people and continue to ask more critical questions as you move through.  I want analysis, depth of thought and thoughtful insight.  

1.  Why did the jury find Cates guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond at the end of the trial?  Why did Cates "win"according to Drummond?  What is the personal significance to Cates of the outcome of the trial?

2.  What did you think of Hornbeck at the end of the play?  What impression did you leave with concerning his characterization?

3.  What is the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play?  (see stage direction)

4.  What did you think of Drummond's advice to Bert with regard to the story he told about Golden Dancer?

5.  What important first in history does the trial introduce?  Why was this so groundbreaking?

6.  How does Rachel change at the end of the play?  What does she ultimately understand?


90 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1.) In my opinion this jury was over before it happened, their was literally no possible way that Drummond could have won with what he had, and what he did was the best possible outcome. By the end of the play it shows that the jury did not really matter too much because even though they lost the battle, the won the war.
    5.) This trial is so groundbreaking because this was not the first time this had happened, or the last, while not exactly the same people were still in this exact position, being on trial for an unconstitutional reason.
    6.) Rachel understands that whether the earth was created by god, evolution, or anything else doesn't matter what matters is that you have the freedom to choose how or what to believe in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with your view on the case. Despite Drummond's ability to open the minds of so many people, the verdict of the case had already been decided. The location, time period, and people in the jury seemed to make a decision before the case even started.

      Is it possible for a premature conclusion to be changed over time?

      Delete
  3. Hornbeck at the end of the play has a serious character change. He posts bail for Cates, "MEEKER: This fella here put up the money. HORNBECK: With a year's subscription to the baltimore herald, we give away - at no cost or obligation - A year of freedom." (123) the fact that Hornbeck himself gave up $500 really shows that underneath his rough exterior, there is a man who is willing to give up so much to fund a man who stood up for what so many people believe.

    When Drummond holds out both the Bible and the Theory of Evolution, it shows his inner conflict. As an agnostic person, he has not put a label on what he believes. The motion of him holding out both of the books shows great power in the way that Drummond can put his personal beliefs aside and defend a case as fairly as he can.

    This trial introduces the idea of broadcasting a trial for millions to see. When millions can see a trial, it makes it so that it is either following the law or it will be criticised for being an unjust trial. This idea of anybody seeing a trial was important to news companies everywhere, because it also added a new industry, covering criminal trials. Now that so many people can see a trial, it makes it impossible for there to be a bias in the court.

    Why do we cling so wholeheartedly to specific words and people? is it an escape for people?

    Why do people so easily fall under the “Mob Mentality?” How do we become blind to actual things that are happening simply because we are doing what everyone else is?

    Why does popularity change the way that we act to and around other people?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree with what you said about Hornbeck. I feel that he did not change as much as you said. Truthfully I feel that he became more hostile than he was.

      Delete
    2. What makes us attracted to someone? How quickly can someone's opinion on someone change?

      Delete
    3. I also disagree because he seemed more mean in the end because he said mean things about Brady when he died.

      Delete
    4. I think people change their personality and views in order to form to whatever trend is popular at the moment. People that have a strong influence, like actors or professional athletes, tend to be followed by those that wish to be like them.

      What does it take for someone to start something new?

      Delete
    5. Anne I really agree with what you said about hornbeck but if you look farther in the book you can see his character change between mean and happy.

      How can people change so quickly?

      Delete
    6. I believe that Hornbeck actually became more cold hearted towards the end of the book. Although he did payed the bail for Bert Cates, I think it was more for himself and the publicity he would get then doing it for Cates.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My question is, how can the way people act, affect who they are close with?

      Delete
    2. I think that the decisions that people make and the way they act can affect everyone. The decision that Cates made to teach evolution obviously affected the whole town.

      Delete
    3. Why do we act differently around other people? What does our ego have to do with our charisma?

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 2. At the end of the play, I felt you really got to see Hornbeck’s true colors. He is mean and cold hearted and is only out for himself. He doesn't understand why Drummond is so nice to his enemy and can’t see that the world is not only about looking out for yourself. He left me with the impression that he only cares about himself.

    3. I believe that Drummonds final gesture is so important because he is, in a way, weighing the importance of each book. He then “slaps them together and puts them in his briefcase side by side.” It shows that one isn't more important than the other and you don’t have to choose just one book. In the end, science met the bible and ended up coming together to form something totally new.

    6. Rachel has finally found her voice and is not afraid to use it any more. She realizes the trial was never really about monkeys and evolution, but instead about the right to have an opinion and a voice in this world.She understands that she does not have to like all of the opinions or ideas that she hears, as long as she can have some of her own.

    How far are some people willing to go to change the world and it’s opinion, even if it means putting their personal life on the line?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although, so many people in our society just follow the rules, it is important for people like Cates to stand up to traditional standards and to change the course of the world. It takes a tremendous amount of courage to be able to stand up against the mob

      Delete
    2. I feel like some people have such a strong passion for something that they will do anything they possibly can to make that happen. For Cates, he wished to open the minds of people around the country. Despite the trouble he went through in the process, he made that happen.

      What does it take for someone to be so dedicated to something as to spend their entire lives working towards it?

      Delete
    3. I think that people try very hard to change the world. It is an incredibly hard task but is possible, and putting your life on the line is an easy way to do it. If you've heard the news recently, a guy at Missouri University went through with a hunger strike in order to change the racist ways of the school. He confessed that he was ready to die for it, and made change because of it.
      What kinds of things are people trying to change these days? What similar trials are being held that could change the outcome of our future?

      Delete
    4. Does love us to an extant that we don't necessarily want to go to?

      Delete
  8. I agree with Mark, hornbeck was being an absolute tool... after this long heartbroken weekend, we all know that dying by all means is absolutely no laughing matter. What hornbeck did was cruel and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't really think that was what Lawrence and Lee were trying to say about hornbeck I think that they just wanted to show you his many character traits.

      How many characteristics can one person have?

      Delete
    2. I believe that one can have as many characteristics as they want. They can show a significant amount of emotion, passions, hobbies, and other characteristics. The amount of characteristics in which one person has is determined by that person.

      Why do we use characteristics to discriminate people?

      Delete
  9. 2. I felt Hornbeck was being, quite honestly, a dick. Brady died and Hornbeck seems to be happy about that, which should not be the case. He might not have liked Brady but that by no means gives him the right to be so cruel and heartless. Hornbeck after this is not the kind of person I would like to eat lunch with, that's for sure.
    3. I guess it would be a gesture of respect to any and all. Drummond and Brady had their differences but in the end Drummond respects the guy and wants to remember him and what he fought for, when it came to his opinions, granted he might not agree with Drummond. And for the Origin of Species, simply because he is open to ideas of all kinds, and in a way uses those to form his own.
    6. Rachel gained confidence in herself again. Thanks to the trial she now knows she is her own person, in control of her life, can think for herself. She now knows her thoughts aren't confined to her fathers wishes.

    Why do we always feel we have to conform with the rest of society just to fit in, so much so we lose our independent thought?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We feel that we have to have the same views as the rest of society because we don't want to be different. In school we usually have some of the same ideas as our friends because you want to be cool and like them.

      Delete
    2. As humans, we want to be liked and I don't believe anyone wants to be different or viewed as an outsider. Thats why we are willing to hide our true selves in order to fit in with society.

      Why do people stand up for what they believe in, if they know that it might ruin their reputation and might lose all of their family and friends?

      Delete
    3. I agree with your statement when you say that Drummond respects Brady during the end. The reason I say that is because Drummond wants people to respect each other for who they are. Drummond respects Brady for what he believes even though Drummond may not agree with Brady's opinion.

      What causes people to have the courage to express there opinion which helps others in a good way?

      Delete
  10. 1. Cates was found guilty by the jury because he did something illegal. Even though Drummond supported Cates so much, that is not enough for Cates to not be guilty. All though Cates lost the trial, there was still some good to come out of it. “What jury? Twelve men? Millions of people will say you won. They’ll read in the papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke!”(pg. 122) Drummond believes that Cates won the trial because he made the law a joke. Cates made people think differently about the law. “This is your book, Bert. I’ve read it. All the way through. I don’t understand it. What I do understand, I don’t like. I don’t want to think that men come from apes and monkeys. But I think that’s beside the point.”(pg.124) This was important to Cates, because of what Rachel said to him.

    2. “This fella here put up the money.”(pg.123) I was very surprised when Hornbeck put up the 500$ fine for Cates. I was very confused on why he did it though. Did he feel that Cates was not guilty, or did he just know that a teacher couldn’t pay $500? My impression on Hornbeck at the end of the play is that he changed for the better.

    6. At the end of the play, Rachel finally understands where Cates is coming from. Even though she doesn’t like the idea that men come from apes, and she doesn’t want to believe it, it may be true. When Rachel gives Cates his book, she is not so much angry, but she is confused.

    Today, do people accept other peoples beliefs even though they might not believe in them?




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I do believe that people blindly accept other people's beliefs. Simply because that is what everyone else is doing. Everyone just wants to be a part of something, its human nature. And some people would go so far as to give up their own beliefs just to be a part of something. And although we say that it is so good to be an outlier, it wouldn't be as special to be an outlier if every single person was one. It is necessary in our society to have those mindless drones, because they make up the majority of our population and without them, there would be no order in the world.

      Delete
    2. What is the importance of religion in our culture? How can we accept other people's beliefs?

      Delete
    3. I don't think people do except others beliefs even though they should.

      Delete
    4. Honestly in today's society, we tend to stick to our own beliefs, and stereotype others. Sometimes we even tend to stereotype beliefs very similar to ours. I think today's society needs to look at other belifs, and accept more of them.

      Delete
    5. I don't think that Rachel was confused at the end of the book, but instead certain that new ideas and thought should be spread around, not condemned to the mind.
      I think that in terms of accepting other's beliefs, people have different sides. In public places, people are scared to bash other people's religions. In their homes and minds, however, they may strongly speak against certain religions or lack of religion, as they likely won't directly offend anybody in the process.

      Delete
    6. Also, why do people argue against other religions in their home and mind? They aren't going to change many people's beliefs in those places (if that is their goal), so why wouldn't they say their arguments in public?

      Delete
    7. I think our society is very similar to the one in the book we read in the fact that someone who believes something that we don't, we do tend to categorize them as outsiders.

      Delete
    8. Jack I think your totally right with your question after thinking long and hard about it and reading the book over some more I realize that most people don't respect others beliefs we saw this in paris this week.
      Will there ever be a time when people accept others beliefs?

      Delete
    9. I think this is a great question because so many people believe different things, that we don't know if we accept them. I think some people are understanding and accept others beliefs, but I also think that there are others who judge and aren't understanding. Great question!

      Delete
    10. How does religion affect how we live our lives? Does it hold us back?

      Delete
  11. 2. I think that Hornbeck was not really as good of a man as I thought he was. He does not understand how people's views can change by events that happen to them. Hornbeck truly is not a good man for what he said and what he did. But I agree with Drummond's statement that Brady did have the right to be wrong.

    3. It is showing that drumond now see that people take the Bible and the Origin Of The Spices as equal ways of thinking. Also by him putting both of them in his briefcase he is shows that he agrees with points made from both, ie agnostic.

    4. I think that the advice from the story of golden dancer was that something may look good at first glance, but in the end it may not be as good as it truly should be. I think that this applies to the case because Drumond in the beginning wanted Cates to go free. But in the end by Cates losing the case it had more of an impact of the world.

    Why can't people look past their prejudice to see things from another’s point of view?

    Why do people have a problem letting others be “wrong” in their faith?

    How can people be so neglectful to their children, like brown was?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why can't people look past their prejudices to see things from another perspective?
      I think that's because people wanna stay in their comfort zone where the things are that they know. That's where they feel safe. And prejudices evolve most of the time because people are different When people seem different to somebody that means they look, act, ... not the way he does. That's when someone normally starts judging others. Should people indulge in group pressure or is it good to be different? What’s wrong in being different and having different believes? Do some things just have more than one side to believe in?

      Delete
    2. I think that everybody wants people to be like them, so when someone else believes something different, then there is an issue. People dislike people that aren't like them because that is seen as the "unknown" and people fear the unknown simply because it cannot be controlled.

      Delete
  12. 2. At the end of the play, Hornbeck shows his dark side. He was usually impartial towards the attorneys, but he scorns on Brady. I got the impression that he was very rude about someone's death, and wasn't being respectful towards him. "Why should we weep for him? He cried enough for himself! The national tear-duct from Weeping Water, Nebraska, who flooded the whole nation like a one-man Mississippi! You know what he was: A Banurm-bunkum Bible beating bastard!" (Horseback, 125) I believe that Hornbeck is being too harsh on Brady, and is quite irrational. I thought that Hornbeck was a fairly impartial reporter in the beginning, but now I have the impression that he is very incoherent.
    4. "Bert, whenever you see something bright, shiny, perfect seeming -all gold, with purple spots- look behind the paint! And if it's a lie -show it up for what it really is!" (Drummond, 110) This quote was very powerful in my opinion, because Drummond is making a whole metaphor for this entire case. Everyone has always loved Brady, and was masked by his exterior. But the defense showed who he really was as a person. In our society, many people look likable and "cool" because of their looks, but are truly rotten and cold on the inside. Our society picks and chooses what people are accepted, because of what they are like on the surface. That has always been a problem. I know so many people who are completely different than what they look like, and I believe labels and stereotypes are hurting them. Drummond is making wonderful advice, and is helping me realize to look deeper into people. I believe it takes a strong individual to reveal who they are as a person to know the truth.
    6. "I was always afraid of what I might think-so it seemed safer to not think at all. But now I know. A thought is like a child inside our body. It has to be born. If it dies inside you, part of you dies too! Maybe what Mr. Darwin wrote is bad. I don't know. Bad or good, it doesn't make any difference." (Rachel, 125) This statement shows how Rachel has really realized that people will always have different opinions, and that a new possibility or idea may not always be bad. I believe that she is growing up in a sense, and is moving on towards being more open to other people's beliefs. I'm glad she is started to have more individual thought, and isn't just doing what everyone else in the town is doing. She finally understands the freedom of thought, in my opinion.

    Haat is the importance of justice in our society? How can someone recover after such a serious moment in their life?

    Why do we, as people, trust our beliefs more than solid facts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that we trust our beliefs because that's what we want to be true. People are in denial when something they believe in isn't what turns out.

      Delete
    2. Hornbeck does absolutely show his dark side, his comments made me hate him as a character. When he says, "Why should we weep for him? he cried enough for himself" (p 125) I felt like that was a wrong thing to say, and it was uncalled for.

      Delete
    3. I think we trust our beliefs more than facts because that's what we know. The facts are unknown to us. We were raised by our beliefs and if you see it this way, then our beliefs are the facts for us. They are the facts we belief in, that we trust in. Why do people today want to believe others’ beliefs more than their own ones?

      Delete
    4. I think we trust our beliefs more then sold facts is because it is what we have spent years and years believing to be true. And one or multiple facts would be hard to change the mind of something that goes against your beliefs.

      Delete
    5. I believe that as people we have or beliefs to comfort us. If anything tries do disrupt our comfort or make us think, it's scary and we choose not to believe the facts.

      Delete
  13. I now agree with Mark and Max. I didn't see it until now, but I feel like Hornbeck could've put up the money for Cates fine as a way to piss Cates off.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The jury still found cates guilty after the case because of the town’s major beliefs. Cates “won” according to drummond, because he did not have to go to prison or jail, and he had a very small fine.
    At the end of the play, I saw hornbeck as a bad person, I all the sudden respected him less. To be happy that someone died is never ok. I felt like he did not have to display his opinion, as it was unwanted, and unneeded. He left a bad impression on his characterization.
    Rachel changes lots towards the end of the play. Rachel starts to understand everything... She starts to realize how much thoughts matter, as she said on page 124, “A thought is like a child. It has to be born. If it dies inside of you, part of you dies too!” Rachel starts to realize how much thoughts matter to not only you, but other people as well.
    How can the way people act, affect who they are close with?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the the way people act does very much define they we are and who they are close with. It is not our look that defines who we are, it is our actions, what we do, our goals. If people like what we do then they start liking us. If someone acts in a way someone else likes, then they get closer. But if you see someone act weirdly its an instinct to go away and don't be friends with him. What makes people biased against others? What pulls this trigger in our head to think bad of somebody even if we haven’t got to know them?

      Delete
    2. I think that Drummond thought Cates won because he showed the world that thoughts should be shared, even if they sound crazy. Also, I think that some (maybe even many) people were happy when Osama Bin Laden died. Was it ok then?
      I think that the way people act can make them closer to people who act the same way. They are like-minded, which usually forms bonds. If one person acts against something, those who also act against that thing will be closer to them. Take war for example; those who fight against one country will usually become allies with other countries who are fighting against the same country.

      Delete
    3. Also, how do the people someone is close with affect how they act?

      Delete
  15. 2. At the end if the play, Hornbeck expressed his true feelings towards Brady. He showed his inner feelings towards Thomas Brady, saying that he flooded the entire U.S. with false information and calling him a "bastard". I believe that Hornbeck did not have the right to describe Brady in such a terrible way, as he was acting selfish and foolish too.
    4. When Drummond told Cates about Golden Dancer, he was referring to Brady. Although Brady seemed nice and powerful, just as Golden Dancer was covered with gold and purple polka-dots, Brady was evil and unstable on the inside. I believe that Drummond had metaphorically told Cates that if somebody is perfect-seeming, look inside of them, and if they are not perfect on the inside, then reveal their true inside self.
    6. At the end of the play, Rachel changed in a positive way. Rachel knew that although many people thought teaching evolution was evil, it was not that bad. She was able to understand that there are too sides to a problem. Only one of those sides are the solution.
    Critical Question-How do people respond to change in a positive and negative way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People respond very differently. The people that like change would obviously see it positively... On the other hand the people that struggle adjusting to change see it as more of a negative action.

      Delete
    2. I love your question because people today react so different to change that we don't know if change truly is good or bad. Your question brings up a good point on how people respond to it because they can take it in both ways like you said, negatively or positively.Great question!

      Delete
  16. Adam Meyer
    2. What did you think of Hornbeck at the end of the play? What impression did you leave with concerning his characterization? I didn't like Hornbeck at the end because she was being really mean to Brady when he died. He left me with the impression that he isn't that good of a man and he didn't care if Brady died. At the beginning of the book he said that she was worse than the devil and in this part he was. Hornbeck said in the text, ¨Matthew Harrison Brady died of a busted belly. You know what I thought of him, and I know what you thought. Let us leave the lamentations to the illiterate! Why should we weep for him? He cried enough for himself! The national tear-duct from Weeping Water, Nebraska, Who flooded the whole nation like a one man Mississippi! You know what he was: A Barnum-bunkum Bible-beating bastard.¨ That monologue was just sad to listen to.

    4. What did you think of Drummond's advice to Bert with regard to the story he told about Golden Dancer? I believe that he was telling Bert that you can't always win, but you should always try hard because maybe someday you will get that rocking horse. Hopefully it won't break though. Earlier in the book she talked how he wanted an easy case that he could win in a heartbeat. This was not that case.

    5. What important first in history does the trial introduce? Why was this so groundbreaking? This trial introduce the teaching of evolution in school. It was so groundbreaking because now days it is the most supported theory.

    Critical Question- How do people's views change so quickly when people start to deny it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I interpret your critical question as wanting to fit in. Which is something everyone seems curious about. I think it is just for that reason.

      Do we prefer opinion over fact?

      Delete
    2. I think that most people prefer opinion over fact. Most people like to use biased opinions in order to make something look "better", instead of telling the actually facts of the object/person.

      Why don't we use facts as much as we use opinions?

      Delete
  17. 6. Rachel understood that the most important thing is staying true to and. She now sticks to her own opinion and understands what she wants. Before the trial she was more concerned about what the townspeople might think of her and her relationship to Cates. She didn't want to say anything that would have made the townspeople talk bad about her and Cates. The trial made her realize that it doesn't matter what other people say about her as long as she know what's true. What she knows is that she wants to be with Cates and nobody can stop her from doing so, not even her father. She stepped out of her father’s shadow and at the end of the book she is leaving to start her own life. But although she did change her thinking, she didn't change what she believes in. She read Darwin’s book and said she didn't like it. She did what nobody else wanted to do: Hearing the other side before deciding what's right. What makes people trustworthy? What makes us believe somebody is worth the trust to believe him? Should our opinion depend on anybody else’s than our own beliefs?

    5. The trial was the first one broadcasted on radio. That helped to get the attention of more people for the trial; it made it a nationwide topic of conversation. It also was the first still unsolved trial. We still don’t know what side to believe in. As Drummond said, “they never figured it would light up the whole sky” (pg. 108). Before the trial nobody had ever publicly questioned creationism. It showed that everybody had the right to believe what he wants to believe in. Nobody else ever had the courage to stand up for himself even if it is against other beliefs. Although the question will probably never be solved, it was important to be asked to show the people how much more there is outside their beliefs and that they can just grow theirs by evaluating and getting to know the ones from others. Is progress really inevitable? Does change sometimes throw us back to how we used to be? Are we always gaining more when we are changing or are we sometimes just gaining something back?

    1. The jury found Cates guilty because even though his beliefs might be right, he still violated a law. If the jury wouldn’t have found him guilty that would make it okay for criminals to violate laws without getting prosecuted. Drummond said Cates won because he didn’t have to go to jail for what he believes, he just had to pay money. Cates didn’t really lose because he showed his opinion to the world. He made everyone think about what’s right or wrong and like Drummond said, “he helped the next fella”. It’s always going to be a big question and he gave other people the courage to stand up for themselves. The main reason why Drummond thinks that Cates has won is that he convinced so many people of his opinion. “Twelve men? Millions of people will say you won.They’ll read their papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke.” (pg. 122) Cates violated the law but he made everybody question the law he violated, even the jury. Where does guilt end and where does regret start? How important is it to stand up for someone’s own beliefs? What does it take to change the belief of a whole crowd? What makes us change what we belief in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This case was a very important part of history because everyone across the nation got to witness it. It was a big lesson for people it taught people that they don't just have to have one belief, but many. Great Job!

      What do people take away from jury cases?

      Delete
    2. How do other's actions affect us?

      Delete
  18. 1. Despite what seemed to be a general opinion change of the people to the side of Drummond and Cates, the jury still found Cates guilty. Not only was that the final decision, but the decision was unanimous, indicating that not one of the jury members voted in favor of Bert Cates and the teaching of evolution. The reasoning the outcome turned out the way it did was because even before the case began, the final verdict already seemed to be decided. Prior to the case, the people of Hillsboro, and most people nationwide, believe completely in the word of God. By teaching the theory of evolution, Cates was viewed as someone who did more than just break the law, but going against “the Word” as the Reverend so often referred to it. The scene was set to ensure a victory for the beloved Matthew Harrison Brady and the Word of God. Banners hung in front of the courthouse reading “READ YOUR BIBLE”, and when asked whether or not to take it down, a workman said, “The Devil don’t run this town. Leave it up” (pg. 59). All of this prejudice and the environment itself very strongly influenced the outcome of the trial. So, even when Drummond seemed to change the minds of so many people and really shift the momentum of the case, the jury decided to stick to the older ways and the side of Matthew Harrison Brady and declare Bert Cates guilty. Despite the jury’s decision, Drummond truly believed that Cates had won the case. In response to Cates questioning who really won the case, Drummond says, “What jury? Twelve men? Millions of people will say you won. They’ll read in their papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke!” (pg. 122). Drummond’s explanation means that despite the decision of an extremely lopsided jury, the case meant much more to the general ideas and views of the world. The personal significance to Cates at the end of the trial includes his pride in being a school teacher and his refusal to pay the find no matter how much. Cates was here to prove a point, and he did that at the end of the case.

    2. At the end of the play, I saw Hornbeck as a man that spoke openly about what he thought and observed, and did not seem to care what other’s opinions entailed. Hornbeck had a very sarcastic tone and arrogant inflection. Despite the fact that Brady had just passed away, Hornbeck proclaimed, “Why should we weep for him? He cried enough for himself!” (pg. 125). This is just one example of the countless times Hornbeck made a sarcastic, slightly cruel comment. Even though Brady just died, Hornbeck showed no mercy be almost laughing at him and accusing him of being some sort of cry baby.

    6. From the beginning of the story to the end, Rachel, her ideas, and her viewpoint change so much. At the beginning and throughout most of the story, Rachel fights an internal battle of questions regarding what she should and should not believe. There are two very influential people in her life that place themselves on complete opposite sides of the spectrum: her lover, Bert Cates heavily supported the theory of evolution, while her father, Reverend Brown, followed the Word of God. This debate going on inside her head and all of the different ideas being forced upon her made Rachel scared to really think at all, for she didn’t want to face the consequences of choosing one side over the other. Finally, at the end of the story, after Rachel actually read Darwin’s book, she realized that, even though she didn’t agree with the theory of evolution, she agreed that all people have the right to think for themselves, and all ideas should be shared. Rachel states, “Bad or good, it doesn’t make any difference. The ideas have to come out - like children” (pg. 125). Rachel really found pride in herself at the end of the story as she was able to finally think for herself, as supposed to being beaten by the ideas of her loved ones.

    Why do people make premature conclusions? How do first impressions affect our views and the outcomes of certain actions? Is it possible for these conclusions to change over time?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People make pre-mature conclusions of people based on what they look like, and how they act. First impressions can either make you like someone, or not like them.

      Delete
    2. I believe people make pre-mature decisions by their prior experiences. First impressions are so important because they set up the relationship you have with that person and have a lasting impact. But, I do believe that the conclusions you make do change as the person changes.

      Delete
    3. I agree with you faith about first impressions. Because if you come off as a bad person like Brady or Drummond or even Cates all had bad first and some even final bad impressions and could not easily or at all make a good relationship with others.

      Delete
    4. I believe that people make pre-mature conclusions based on their back round, or similar instances that had happened prior to the on they're drawing a conclusion on.

      Is religion a necessity?

      Delete
  19. Question 2: I thought that at the end of the play, Hornbeck showed what he really thought of Brady and was less likable because of it. He let all of his feelings towards Brady out, and showed his true nature, which is a quite a bit more than a critic. I thought that he should not have said what he said from pages 125-128 because it made him look like less of the snarky, sarcastic character and more of a man with evil emotions in the back of his head, just waiting to tell people about his actual feelings. Maybe the feelings that came off of what Hornbeck said sounded more evil because Brady had died before he said them out loud.

    Question 4: I think Drummond’s advice to Bert was very true. Even if things may seem nice, you need to look further to confirm that they are actually nice and/or useful. When he said, “And if it’s a lie-show it up for what it really is” he is very correct, and that is relevant to more things than rocking horses. When something is more faulty than realized, you should inform others so that they don’t make the same mistake. If a law that you must vote on has some hidden loopholes, it would be nice to inform others so the government can’t say “you voted on it, so we can do it!”. When people have more sources to think about, they tend to make more informed decisions.

    Question 6: From pages 124-125, Rachel realizes that whether the Bible is right or Darwin’s theories are right, it is besides the point. The point is ideas that are created need to be released so that other people can think about them. She understands that certain ideas might be more likable than others, but they are still ideas which can be used to challenge others, and overall create a better outcome. Advancement starts with a couple ideas, and if those ideas aren’t heard, the possibility of that advancement is unlikely. I think part of what Rachel said is that ideas are sometimes extinguished by laws and beliefs, but even if the idea is thought of as bad, people should still share them out, just in case they start a revolution of some sort.

    Critical Question: How do we know how people truly are until we see all of their sides? Which one should we judge them on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we initially judge them on what we see first. For example, if someone is sporty, and they see someone else like them, they will try to become friends. Once they get to know each other, they start to judge each other by something deeper down.

      Delete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 1. Towards the end of the book, we start notice that Drummond is in favor of winning the trail. Later, the book concludes by the jurying finding Cates guilty. I believe that the trail had a set ending from the start. No matter what Drummond said or did, it would have never changed the mind of the people. Most people in the town were raised believing the things Brady was standing for. Years and years of believing the same thing, Drummond had no chance of changing the minds of them within a few days. Regarding this, Drummond tells Cates he “won” the trail even though he was found guilty. On the subject on this, Drummond says, “You don’t suppose that this kind of thing is ever finished do you? Tomorrow it will be someone else- and another fella will have to stand up. And you've helped give him the guts to do it!” Meaning, yes he was found guilty but he helped the next guy, and the guy after that for generations help change this law. And as a final point, the personal significance to Cates of the outcome of the trial would be Cates never stopped believing what he believes in, in order to fit in with society.

    3. The significance of Drummond's final actions at the end of the play is when he grabbed both the Bible and The Book Of Darwin in both hands and looks at both before throwing them in his bag. Shortly before the end of the play, Hornbeck accuses Drummond of being more religious then Brady was, but yet Drummond defended Cates and The Book Of Darwin. He picks up both books, one being the thing he believes in, and the other one being the one he defended. Drummond quotes, “I didn't come here to be paid.” I think he did not defend The Book Of Darwin itself, but rather defending the right to think what you want to think, and have the right to talk or teach what you believe. To conclude, Drummond actions show he possibly believes in both or thinks both should be equal by putting them together.

    6. Rachel’s point of view of both the Bible and The Book Of Darwin are altered completely after the trail. With Cates, being the guy she loves, and her father who believes the complete opposite, Rachel is faced with internal conflict. Throughout the book, Rachel is faced with multiple decisions of whether she chooses her beliefs and her father or the guy she loves and bringing with him. In the end of the play Rachel comes to terms with her beliefs and says to Cates, “This is your book, Bert. I’ve read it. All the way through. I don’t understand it. What I do understand, I don't like. I don't want to think that men came form apes and moneys. But I think that’s beside the point.” To sum up, Rachel in the end of the play has come to a medium of what she beliefs and who she loves.

    Why do some people want to find their beliefs or their true selves in order to fit in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harper, I fully agree with you when you say that Rachel's beliefs on God and the Book of Darwin have changed after the trial. She shows this when she says she no longer wants to with her father. She does not like when her father is trying to force people to believe nothing different than the word of God and the Bible.

      What makes people so narrow minded when expressing their opinion?

      Delete
    2. Harper, I like your critical question. I asked one very similar. I truly believe that the human naturally wishes to be accepted. So I think that we just change our beliefs so that others will not find something wrong about us.

      Why do we believe?

      Delete
  22. 3. What is the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play? Drummonds significance at the end of the play was a very important role because he taught people to stop thinking so narrow minded. He got his point across, which changed people's views on people. He taught people that it is okay to believe differently than others. At the end of the story he tells Cates he won because he brought attention from all over the nation. Drummond tried to tell people not to criticize others because of what they believe. He wanted everyone to accept what others believe, instead of others just believing in the word of God and the Bible. Overall Drummond was the backbone of this case.

    4. What did you think of Drummond's advice to Bert with regard to the story he told about Golden Dancer? I thought his advice was motivational because it taught Cates his perspective on cases and how he views them. I like how he related it to the Golden Dancer rocking horse to the case because they are very relevant. He tells Cates that he thinks of the law as a horse race. In horse races horses go around a track multiple times. He relates this to this case because Reverent Brown keeps going on and on about Cates not believing in God and the Bible. Brown reverts back to the bible to defend his opinion. The Golden Dancer was a rocking horse that was supposed to best of the best of all horses. Drummond wanted the Golden Dancer because it was better than the other rocking horses. His point to this story is that people need the information to convict somebody just like horse racer needs the best horse to win the race. Drummond was trying to tell Cates that they needed more information to convict him. He does this through his story of the Golden Dancer.

    6. How does Rachel change at the end of the play? At the end of the play Rachel changes because she no longer wants to be with her father because of what he has he has done to her throughout the case, putting her in a position she did not want to be in. She did not like what her father did to accuse Cates, she did not like how her father was using the Bible to wish bad on Cates. What does she ultimately understand? She ultimately understands that it is okay to believe in other things besides the bible. She starts to understand what others believe in when she goes into jail to tell Cates that bad thoughts should not prevent people from thinking them. She is not against people that believe different things like Reverend Brown her father. Rachel in the end wants to have a voice and express her feelings.


    What cause others to wish bad on people because they don’t believe the same thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your question is very good. It sure is a thinker, and it is one of the big points of the piece.

      Can people's beliefs be changed by others?

      Delete
  23. 1. I think that the reason that they found Cates guilty is because they were unwilling to leave the past and look more into the future because I think for such a small town it was really big for someone to just come into the town and say that there beliefs were wrong. I also think that why drummond thought cates had won was because he had “Smashed a bad law”Pg122. I think that the personal significance to Cates is that even though he lost he is able to see the world in a new way and that he can now change the world at an even higher level.
    5. I think that the important first is that Cates brought a new light to a law that should have been changed before that. I think he also showed a lot of young kids and adults that there maybe different ways than just that god created a world in 7 days. I think it was so groundbreaking because it was seen as obscene back then and it's so groundbreaking because it showed a new light that not everything was already planned out
    2. It really amazed me how much Hornbeck changed at first he was really sarcastic then in the second scene he really wasn't there then in the third scene he was really mean and chose enemies and friends like it was a normal thing when he attacked Brady you could tell he had made brady and enemy but I think he thought of Cates as a friend because you don't just pay 500 dollars to get someone out of jail. My impression of him was how much a person can go from being hated to being loved and also how dynamic a character can be because you never knew what hornbeck was going to do even when you thought you knew what he was going to do you didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1) The jury found Cates guilty because he broke a law. What he did may have not been wrong but to them it was against their religion, which might he disrespected god. Cates won to Drummond because he had this huge trail and his charge wasn’t that big.
    4) The advice that Drummond gave Bert with the regard to the story was something may look all nice, shiny, and new it just want it seems. The golden dancer look shiny and nice but when Drummond got the golden dancer it broke it two pieces. The advice can also relate to never judge a book by it's cover until. The book about evaluation was judged way before they read it and the gold dancer was judged to be this amazing toy and end up being nothing. Judging something before you know the truth about. The golden dancer was basically saying never judge something on the way it looks.
    ~ Why do people judge before knowing the truth?
    6) The advice that Drummond gave Bert with the regard to the story was something may look all nice, shiny, and new it just want it seems. The golden dancer look shiny and nice but when Drummond got the golden dancer it broke it two pieces. The advice can also relate to never judge a book by it's cover until. The book about evaluation was judged way before they read it and the gold dancer was judged to be this amazing toy and end up being nothing. Judging something before you know the truth about. The golden dancer was basically saying never judge something on the way it looks.
    ~ Why do people judge before knowing the truth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love your critical question because a lot of people today judge before they get to know someone when they should understand the person before they judge. I think people do this because we want to be better than others. Great question!

      Delete
  25. "What did you think of Hornbeck at the end of the play? What impression did you leave with concerning his characterization"?
    I thought Hornbeck was very dramatic as if he was going through difficult times.
    He left me with the impression that he was hurt, that he was confused of the atmosphere and everything around him, that he was angry with the world and all individuals inside of it.
    "What did you think Drummond's advice to Bert with regard to the story he told about the golden dancer"? I think Drummond's advice to Bert is that he always wanted this one thing and he hoped but if he doesn't do anything about it besides just hope, he will never get it.
    "How does Rachel change at the end of the play? what does she ultimately understand?" Rachel changed at the end of the play by becoming a less depressing person and less anti-social and scared of the world like a chihuahua in the rain. She was proud of Cates and herself fighting through the whole situation.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 3) During the final gesture that Drummond makes he picks up both the Bible and Book of Darwin and pretends to weigh them equally with his hands. This is an important gesture because what this is saying is that the books are equally true, Both books have great values, and ideas that make people believe in them. When Drummond slaps the two books together he knew that the two books were equal and that he had made people believe that.

    5) The important first that this case brought to history was that it is ok to be an evolutionist, and that it is ok to believe in evolution. The case explains this because Cates was charged for teaching evolution and Drummond defended him. Drummond said Darwin's theory is his thoughts and there is nothing wrong with one sharing his thoughts. This was important because it explains that it is ok to express your thoughts.

    6) How Rachel changed at the end of the play was that she spoke up for herself which she didn’t do previously in the book. Through Drummonds testimony Rachel learned to understand one thing. Rachel learned to understand that it's ok to express your ideas, and thoughts. At the end of the book Rachel explained to Drummond on what she has learned.

    Critical Question: Why don’t people stand up for their beliefs more?

    ReplyDelete

  27. (2) My opinion on Hornbeck truly changed throughout the book. He started out as a very colorful man in my eyes. He had some great and quotable sayings, and was a completely different man from the one who almost seemed to appreciate Brady’s death. His sudden change in character really upset me, and I’m wondering if he even cared to begin with.

    (4) I loved the words that Drummond gave the Cates. I feel that that the story also had quite a bit of influence on Drummond when it happened originally. But the moral of the story basically shaped the way I read the rest of the book. I loved the fact that we saw a deeper Drummond.

    (6) During Act 1, Rachel was in disbelief that any of it was happening. I could see the passion she had for Cates. She did not want him locked away. But as she heard the trial, I think she really changed in a sense that Cates did nothing wrong. She quit questioning it. In the final scene, there was brilliant dialog. I could see how much Rachel had changed.

    Why do our beliefs change to fit society?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree with your views on Hornbeck. He seemed like an intelligent man in the beginning, but towards the end, he became very negative.

      Do people hide their true emotions?

      Delete
  28. 1. The jury found Cates guilty because they were all biased, and believed that the bible is 100% true. On page 122, Drummond says, “What jury? Twelve men? Millions of people will say you won” because Cates doesn’t think he won. According to Drummond, Cates made the trial for the next person easier. On page 123, Drummond says, “You don’t suppose this kind of thing is ever finished, do you? Tomorrow it’ll be someone else-and another fella will have to stand up. And you gave him the guts to do it!”
    5. This is the first trial for creationism against evolutionism. It was so groundbreaking because even though Cates lost, a lot of people's view was changed. Like when Drummond had Brady on the witness stand, and a lot of the people in the courtroom started to side with Drummond.
    6. On page 124, she says, “This is your book Bert. I’ve read it. all the way through. I don’t understand it. What I do understand, I don’t like. I don’t want to think that man come from apes and monkeys. But that’s beside the point.” She might not agree with it, but before the trial, she probably never would have touched that book.

    What makes something so different that no one wants to endure it?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Question 1:
    How does Rachel change at the end of the play? What does she ultimately understand?
    Rachel changes at the end of the play by 1. telling Bert she is going to leave Hillsborough and her father (the priest) who to me Rachel seems to have a personal conflict with as though something happened between the two. 2. Rachel changes by going from telling Bert he should just tell the townspeople and the judges it was all a joke and he won't do it again to being more on Bert's side and actually reading Charles Darwin's book of evolution and understanding more about Bert's ideas and thoughts. Just like Drummond stated “You can't make an argument about something you know nothing about.”
    Question 2:
    What did you think of Drummond's advice to Bert with regard to the story he told about Golden Dancer?

    After hearing Drummond’s advice to Bert regard to the story he told about Golden

    Dancer it made me respect Drummond more because he's correct Golden Dancer was so beautiful that's all he thought about but once he got on Golden Dancer it broke into pieces he didn't think about the structure of the rocking horse on the inside; he was blinded by the beauty not paying any attention to if it was actually stable. Like many people say you can't judge a book by it's cover.
    Question 3:
    Why did the jury find Cates guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond at the end of the trial? Why did Cates "win"according to Drummond? What is the personal significance to Cates of the outcome of the trial?
    The jury found Cates guilty because to the townspeople and the judges Cates was still breaking the law, but in Drummond’s eyes Cates “won” because he was only given a fine and not sentenced to death lastly Cates and Drummond's argument showed the townspeople and the judges any man has the right to think and that is exactly what Cates was doing. He caused no harm to anyone he just spoke what he was thinking which is not breaking any law.

    why is everyone so biased in the town?

    ReplyDelete
  30. 2. I liked Hornbeck throughout the play, but at the very end, my feelings changed about him. At first, I thought he was a clever man, who had an insight about everything. I thought he was very open to thought, and supported everyone's opinion. But at the end of the book, he came across as extremely closed-minded and caught up with himself. Newspaper editors aren’t supposed to show their feelings, especially not in the paper. Hornbeck said he was going to publish a column about the hate he had for Brady. Hornbeck, to me, started off likeable, but towards the end of the book, I thought rather negatively of him.

    3. Drummonds gesture at the end of the book, was kind of the message of the entire thing. Instead of giving Darwin’s book back to Rachel, he put it in his suitcase, directly next to the bible. Drummond is a very thoughtful man. He believes everyone should be able to think. Because the two main ideas in the book were based on religion and evolution, thinking is the conflict everyone in the book has to deal with. At their furthermost points, the idea of creationism and evolution are polar opposites. Whenever an thought goes against what someone else thinks, the other person gets upset. When Drummond put Darwin’s book, and the bible side-by-side in his suitcase, it suggested that Drummond believes no thought is a bad one, and anyone can think what they want.

    5. The trial was a first for many different things. One being the fact that it was broadcast across the nation. Not only does this inform many more people, but it somewhat eliminates the bias in the courtroom. Obviously, the people in the small town still favor the ideas of Brady, but there must be people somewhere in the country that support the idea of evolution. Although Drummond is fighting for the right to think, not evolution, the people in the courtroom don’t know that; They think he is the big bad guy who goes against the word of God. Also, it was most likely the first time the two top attorneys went back and forth with each other. Perhaps that was the reason it was a nationwide phenomenon. Finally, it might have been the first time the prosecutor was put in the witness chair. That changed the entire outcome of the trial. If Brady was not put in the witness chair, Drummond may have not even believed Cates won the trial. Although Brady technically won the trial, a lot of the “firsts” changed how Drummond and Cates viewed the outcome of the trial.

    How easily can one’s opinions on someone change?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought that you had a great question. I believe that one's opinions on someone changes based on their beliefs. If their own beliefs are different than someone' beliefs, their opinion can change easily. If their beliefs are somewhat similar to another person's, their opinion on them may not be as easily changed.

      Delete
    2. A question in which I can relate to Ethan's question is "How does one's opinions someone change?"

      Delete
  31. 3. Drummond’s action at the end of the play really helps sum up the whole story and theme. It shows you what Drummond believes a little more. He shows that the informational and importance of them are equal in his eyes.

    2. You see that Hornbeck is very one sided and cannot see beyond some of Brady’s characteristics. He is very mean and disrespectful to the people around.

    5. This shows the first time someone fought the bible belt and their decision to not teach evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 2) I think that at the end of the play, Hornbeck was quite cruel. He kept "dissing" Brady even though he had just died. From my perspective, Hornbeck was the type of person that spoke the cold hard truth, and didn't think before he spoke. He was the type of person that didn't care what people thought of him. Hornbeck spoke what he thought was right, and nothing could hold him back.
    4) Drummond's advice to Bert about Golden Dancer towards the end of the play is quite good. He's basically saying that looks can be deceiving. Even though something may look good on the outside, doesn't mean that it is always good on the inside. And if it's bad on the inside, it has to be brought out for what it really is.
    5) The Scopes Monkey Trial was the first broadcasted trial in American history. It changed how people viewed the world. This has brought us a long way as we can now broadcast almost anything, and is very beneficial to how we live our lives today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How does thinking we are better than others affect how we treat each other and how our trust is affected?

      Delete