Title Page | Overview | Documents | Surveys | Exercises
Clips | Profiles | Results | Reflections | References
@2006 Ed Gallagher, Professor of English, Lehigh Lab Fellow. Lehigh University.
Copyright, Terms of Use and Privacy Policy applicable to this site.

Some Examples of the "Nine Legs" (Response Options)

~ A place to start when thinking about how to reply in discussion ~

In virtually all of the following examples (taken from courses subsequent to the one that was the subject of the project) I have excerpted just the pertinent language that signals what type the response option is rather than give the entire post.

Level 1

1) agreeing:

1.1  I totally agree with you [the host poster said pride had Shane and Joe fighting at the bar],  the movie revolved around pride in the fight between Joe Starrett and Shane.
1.2  Joey annoyed me greatly too.  I can see where you saw a vague comparison to the sopranos, although I never would have thought of that myself.  Good work!

1.3  [The host poster had said that throughout the movie it seemed as if the lesson was "you need to be who you are and you can't change that." ]   Yes, you need to be who you are and you can't change that.  This sentence surely explains Shane's theme.

1.4I like your comparison to Braveheart -- my favorite movie.  I was biased towards Wischmann's article, but you do have a point that he sometimes lacks hard evidence.  I liked your post, you have strong convictions.

1.5  I posted before I even read your post and you used the same exact quote as I did...the one about the trap door and the screaming... I did not feel that he was as "bland" "emotionless," "cut and dry" as everyone seemed to feel.  I felt that I was reading a drama, as you say.  His article was filled with adjectives that added so much life to the story.  I did not feel like I was reading an account of a historical event, but rather a story from a book.  I hear you loud and clear on this one, stephen. 

1.6  Hey peeps!  I would have to agree.  I do not think that Red River was nearly as dark as OxBow.  OxBow i see as more of a real Western type film with gun fights and all that good stuff. 

2) questioning:

2.1  Was the world really made safe for families by men like Shane?  Or is he the kind of hero we imagine in our dreams?  And what does that say about us and "reality" if so?

2.2  Jaime, I'm riding right with you up to here.  Just me, or does this climactic part make good sense?  By not turning a cheek he give the message to follow big Joe????  Doesn't compute for me.  How do you figure that?

2.3  I'm confused, would someone want to tie up the meaning of the Shane/Joey relationship, especially as it plays out in the teaching scene?

2.4  In a film about our orientation to violence, what kind of model is Shane, and how are Wilson and Tory foils?  More to think about here, eh -- would anybody like to respond.

2.5  You make an excellent point about the different effects Suskind and Wischmann achieve by paying attention to (or not) the defendant's families.  I wonder what would happen if one of these authors had emphasized the dead policeman's family -- maybe that would've balanced some of the concerns.

Level 2

3) enhancing:

3.1  Marion, hmmm, yes -- and the point that Warshow makes in the reading for today that the women never seem to understand that a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do also fits your interpretation.
3.2  I also caught on quickly that Marion had a bit of a crush on Shane.  But I first realized this when Joe, Joey, Marion, and Shane sit down to dinner upon their initial meeting. . . . .

3.3   I can also see why Marion did not want her son to be like Shane, but be attracted to him at the same time.  It's like this:  . . . .

3.4  Alexander, I'd like to support your idea of the film being directed at little boys.  I was 12 or 13 when I saw the film and was profoundly struck . . . .

3.5  Although this conversation took place on wednesday, thursday, and friday,  I hope you guys get a chance to see this post (I fell behind for a while, but I'm back).  All of you have been making valid points, and I agree with a lot of what erin saw in her first reading of Wischmann's account, but.  .  .  . Ok thats enough for now, just wanted to add more ammunition to what you guys started to talk about . . . good stuff.

4) answering:

4.1  [What kind of model is Shane?]  Shane is a real difficult character to discuss, but. . . .

4.2  [Are cowboys born or made?]   Hmmm, maybe Joey's pre-shane behavior is meant to be indicative of the fact that everybody has  to come to terms with how to handle violence.

4.3  To answer your first question, I think . . .

Level 3

5) building:

5.1  i agree with you that the story was simple, but I believe that made the story more believable. . . .

5.2  I had the same reaction while watching this movie.  A sort of "Where have I seen this before?"  Yeah, the Soprano's, but also in almost every action movie made in the 1990s.  For example . . . .

5.3  Yes, there's always a kind of nostalgia hovering around many western films -- mourning the passing of a stage in our history.  But maybe it's more complex than that. . . .

5.4  I would like to start off by agreeing with Nancy that Wischmann sets a clear tone from the beginning asserting that she sympathizes with the protestors.  Drawing from that, I would like to focus not on the protestors but instead on the people and speeches that the two articles include. . . . As Nancy had noted. . . . However, what I believe is even stronger. . . .

6) disagreeing:

6.1  Tareq and Kyle both have a tentative response to Joey, and I thought I'd run against that for a bit.

6.2  But against your second point, my inclination is to say that you are applying a realistic standard to what most critics think of as a mythic story here.

6.3  You brought up the point about how Tory or Stonewall has to die because the side he's on has lost and the country is in celebration of union and independence. . . . does Wilson have to win because he's being associated with the union when called a "Yankee"?  If this is the case, how is it Shane defeats him?  As they prepare to draw, Shane too calls Wilson a "Yankee."

6.4  You rightfully point out that "one key difference between the students of Kent State and the anarchists (or at least one anarchist): the Law shooting was prompted by the thrown bomb."  But i'd qualify that claim on two accounts. . . .

7) weaving:

7.1  Thinking back on Suskind's article, I've been wondering why you and Lauren found it to be so boring, and I think you're right when you characterize Suskind as being too objective. . . .  I note that he even introduces. . . .  So this has me thinking about the politics of Suskind's narrative -- that is, what happens when the historian removes the agency of individuals.  Isn't it as though, for Suskind, that there are . . . . This, then, leads me back to Nancy's observations about . . . .  It seems to me that Nancy might be right -- Suskind's depicting the masses as adopting the powerful people's opinion -- but he's certainly on a trend in talking about people en mass.

8) re-directing:

8.1  On a different point, your post reminded me that Tory is an avowed southerner still fighting the war. . . .

8.2  For some reason, Kyle's post got me remembering the opening scene with Joey stalking the deer.

8.3  I like your point, Pam, and it fits with another idea that I wrote about in another post --  that one track of the film is about a battle over shaping Joey's values.

9) re-thinking:

9.1  I concede a bit. . . .  So, you're correct, they weren't being tried for the effects of the bomb . . .  But I still think that's wrong -- it's like the people who try and sue recording artists b/c their children act out the lyrics in the song . . . But I do see where you're coming from now (see, I'm trying!).

9.2  I felt I had to respond to your post.  I felt myself initially to be captivated by Wischmann's account of the Haymarket Affair. . . . But you really opened my eyes to a greater truth, and a more objective view of the situation. . . . The police WERE doing their jobs, and I highly doubt they intended to wound one another.  Thank you for your insight.

9.3  Thanks for your reply.  The way I read the 2 readings -- I did not really see your side of it until now.  I still think that the fact that they were not given a fair trial nor proven to throw the bomb -- it was outrageous that they were hung.  Then again -- it may be the author's interpretation influencing me.   I'm glad you brought up the other side though -- maybe these men were extreme anarchists and thru the angry workers, they caused the tragic event.  And very true that police often get blamed for violence when they are just doing their jobs.  Thanks for helping me see this side -- it will affect the rest of my thinking in this unit i'm sure.

9.4  I agree with you in your conclusion of the two writers.  Reading both articles for a second time leads me to believe that this particular time in history wasn't researched as well as it should've been.  I guess i liked Wish's account better b.c it was melodramatic, and Suskind seemed to bore me.