-
Lesson 9
Reply to post your assignment.
-
10 Replies
-
LESSON 9: Part 1 – ANDREA’S 12 ANGRY MEN ANALYSIS (part #2 is below)
1. What I learned doing this assignment:
Each individual has their own point of view, set of beliefs, filters of perception and values based on their early experiences in life, or what their society/family taught them to believe and how to view the world. It’s hard to change this way of thinking as this becomes our operating system (OS). Most importantly, this OS or conditioned mind as I call it, colors and shapes our reality – so it’s crucial to examine ourselves on a regular basis.
It was interesting to see how as the men in the movie whittled the details of the testimonies down, they were able to see how reality wobbled. They couldn’t be sure anymore. Their original beliefs, based upon subconscious ideologies were replaced with reasonable doubt through deeper scrutiny and questioning.
2. Old Ways in 12 Angry Men:
Jurors #2 and #10 were the most stubborn, loud, ignorant, angry, and biased individuals to convince. #2 had a personal vendetta – his anger was projected onto the accused, whether it was anger at himself or his son – guilt was plaguing this guy from the get-go.
#10 was a self-righteous bigot. He was blinded by his absolute belief about “this kind” being untruthful, immoral and a menace to society. He felt that way about the foreign man sitting next to him. In fact, anyone who disagreed with him was a target for his wrath, judgement, and criticism. “What are you so polite about? Juror #11 For the same reason you’re not – it’s the way I was brought up”
Assumptions were made about the ones (old man and woman) who made testimonies in the case – that they were right – until Juror #8 poked holes in their abilities to see or hear what they claimed.
Many assumed the 18 yo was lying because of his ethnicity – but again doubt was raised about the weapon being unique, the fact that he returned when he said he did, and his possible motives – which were very slim.
Many of the jurors didn’t really bother to think very much into the case and just accepted the evidence presented on the surface until it got picked away for them to see clearly. And many, like jurors #7, #3 and #10 got angry when others started asking questions and making them think deeper and challenge their previous assumptions.
Many people in our civilization act this way – walking in their sleep accepting whatever the news or social media tells them is true instead of questioning and digging deeper – making up their own mind. In fact, #7 was challenged by #11 for just rolling over with his verdict of not guilty because he said he was just tired of it. #11 said, “Don’t you think you have the guts to do what you think is right?”
It was interesting how “the facts” that made the boy guilty by many were easily twisted or reversed to make for reasonable doubt when a new perspective was introduced. Juror #10 “You can twist the facts any way you need to…” and #9 replied “Exactly what this man (#8) has been saying.” Reality can be so subjective when we are speculating on possibilities. It’s a good reminder to not take our own judgements, biases, or perspectives so seriously, especially when changing our perspective could tip the odds in our favor.
REGARDING CHALLENGES:
It was notable to see certain men rise to the task of “policing” each other on their bad behavior, assumptions, prejudices, ignorance, playing games, telling stories to distract from the business at hand, not paying attention, taking the case personally, bullying and so forth. The biggest challenge was for Juror #10 when almost everyone stood and turned their back on him for his persistent racism and bigotry.
I would love to see a remake of this film for modern times – it’s really relevant right now.
LESSON 9: PT2 – ANDREA’S OLD WAYS CHALLENGE CHART – (I did create a chart, but it could not be pasted into this format)
1. What I learned doing this assignment:
There seems to be a lot of OLD WAYS in my story – and I wonder if I will dilute the focus of my purpose addressing them all. I suppose they can be consolidated a bit – but I can’t decide yet now which to focus upon. This is the challenge that lays ahead.
2. OLD WAYS
* Jill has little confidence in herself.
* Jill assumes she has few options or power to influence her life.
* Jill responds to stress with sarcastic humor and dissociated flights of fancy.
* Jill does not trust people.
* Jill cannot go deeper with her novel’s characters b/c she is disconnected from her emotional body -> where the pain lives.
* Jill takes responsibility for other’s needs before her own, thus avoiding the shadow.
* Jill (as Skyler) loses her cool due to repressed emotions coming to the surface.
3. CHALLENGES:
* Publisher challenges Jill to look deeper.
* Half-brother Conner urges Jill to find another place to live besides his place.
* Employer, Rachel, pressures Jill to take the promotion to manager at the restaurant – even though Jill belies she would be selling out.
* Jill’s defensive asocial behavior gets her into trouble at work.
* Jill’s comfort zone is challenged when she seeks help from a hypnotherapist.
* Jill’s hypnotic journey puts her face to face with the source of her repressed feelings.
* Jill (as Skyler) is tested in the hypnotic journey in being able to control her emotions, while raising her vibrations on order to be able to fly a specific type of spacecraft – crucial to the mission. But it’s not enough.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by Andrea Gilbert. Reason: Lesson was in two parts
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by Andrea Gilbert.
-
Andrea – I just wanted to say kudos on the essay/reply above. Very thorough and detailed. And regarding your comment on seeing a remake of this – I concur. Have you read/listened to the story about Alice Sebold (Author of LUCKY) in the New Yorker? (link below) Miscarriage of justice creates more tragedy than the crime itself. And Sebold/Broadwater story would make a great central piece for the remake. It’s an enthralling, epically tragic story of two lives ruined by miscarriage of justice.
Here’s the link to the story: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/05/29/the-tortured-bond-of-alice-sebold-and-the-man-wrongfully-convicted-of-her-rape
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 12 months ago by
-
Susan A. Willard’s 12 Angry men Analysis
What I learned doing this assignment is the progression of small harmless seeming challenges can make a big difference over time.
What else I learned doing this assignment is that Old Ways that exist everywhere are being challenged every day, and most people don’t see, look for, or acknowledge them.
12 ANGRY MEN – Old Ways and Their Challenges:
Old Ways, with their Challenges Listed below:
1. Assumption Of Guilt
· In the beginning of the Jury deliberation, 1 Jury member voted not guilty, challenging all other Jurors to think deeper about their assumption of the guilt of the boy on trial.
· Challenge: “Suppose we are wrong?”
· Challenge: “I just want to talk about it. (Trial proceedings, facts, evidence)”
· Challenge: “Are you willing to discuss it for 5 minutes?” “Let’s take an hour.”
· Challenge: “He doesn’t have to prove he is not guilty. He can keep his mouth shut.”
2. We Don’t Owe the Kid Anything
· Challenge: “What if that were you?” (If you were on trial?)
· Challenge: “I don’t think that the type of person makes a difference in this case.”
· Challenge: “We have a responsibility. We are notified by mail to serve. We have nothing to gain or lose. This is not personal.”
· Challenge: Personal prejudices always distorts the truth.
3. Just Want This Over
· In the beginning of the Jury deliberation, 1 Jury member voted not guilty, challenging all other Jurors to think deeper about their just wanting the trial to be over so they could go on with what they want to do.
· Challenge: “Are you willing to discuss it for 5 minutes?” “Let’s take an hour.”
· Challenge: “What difference is it going to make if you’re here or at the ball game?” (answer = “No difference Pal, No difference at all.”)
4. Not Caring
· In the beginning of the Jury deliberation, 1 Jury member voted not guilty, challenging all other Jurors to think deeper about their not really caring about the outcome of the trial, the trial spoke for itself.
· Challenge: (To Jurors playing tick-tack-toe and telling stories), “This is not a game.
· Challenge: “We have a responsibility. We are notified by mail to serve. We have nothing to gain or lose. This is not personal.”
· Challenge: (To the Juror that asks, “Why are you so polite?”) “The same reason you are not. The way I was brought up.”
5. Prejudice Against Wild Youth of The Day
· Challenge: (Response to comment that the Kid on trial was heard to say, when fighting with his father: “I’m going to Kill you.”) We hear people say these words in the heat of rage every day. They don’t mean that they are literally going to kill the person.
· Challenge: (Response to one juror yelling, “I’m going to kill you.” In a rage during their argument): “Just because you said, “I’m going to kill you.” Doesn’t mean you are going to kill me… does it?” No answer was given. The person retreated to himself in deep thought.
· Challenge: “I don’t think that the type of person makes a difference in this case.”
6. Prejudice Against People Living in Low Income, Poverty or Slums
· Challenge: “I have lived there.” “I came from there.”
· Challenge: “You don’t have to know his story.” (Background details)
· Challenge: “Listen, I’ve lived in a slum all my life. Our garbage is filled with garbage. Maybe you smell it on me.”
· Challenge: The Jurors began to physically challenge the loud-mouthed prejudiced Juror when he went on a rant saying, “Not one of those kids are any good. His type are wild.”
· Challenge: Personal prejudice always distorts the truth.”
7. Prejudice Against Older Citizens or New Immigrated American Citizens
· Challenge: About the older witness, said by the older Juror: “I am probably the best one to be able to know the situation of this witness.
· Challenge: New Immigrated American Citizen, when prejudice Juror statement: “The kid is a common slob that don’t speak good English.” Challenged by the new Immigrated American Citizen with “doesn’t speak good English.”
8. Not Looking Beneath, The Surface #1 – Lack of Paying Attention (Observation) during Trial
· Challenge: (To Jurors playing tick-tack-toe and telling stories), “This is not a game.”
· Challenge: The older Juror challenges the other Jurors to remember how the old man witness as he looked, his emotional, social, mental, and physical situation all determined by observation.
· Challenge: The older Juror challenges the other Jurors about dents around the female witness’ nose, which determined that she wore glasses and would not be able to see the murder, because she didn’t have time to put her glasses on within the 20 seconds in which the L-train windows were available to her. – A reasonable doubt.
· Challenge: The knife is a common switchblade found in a junk store.
· Challenge: The jurors were challenged several times to remember the boy’s demeaner and answers, more closely.
9. Not Looking Beneath, The Surface #2 – Lack of Critical Thinking about Trial
· Challenge: (The lone Juror challenges the other 11 Jurors to take the time to continue thinking about so-called-facts, observations, and trial information by saying) “Ill step out of the vote. If you all vote guilty – I’ll vote guilty, and we are done. If anyone votes not guilty, we’ll all stay and talk this out.”
· Challenge: One more Juror votes not guilty. The older gentleman stated it was his duty as Juror to have respect for his desire to talk out the evidence, so he wants to talk the issues out. He said, “I want to hear more.”
· Challenge: (About the man downstairs that identifies the kid’s voice.) “I wondered how clearly; he could hear through the ceiling. It’s not Easley to identify a voice, especially a shouting voice.”
· Challenge: Consider how the switchblade is used with people who used to using them.
· Challenge: Consider that anyone could have purchased and use a similar switchblade.
· Challenge: Consider the Old Man’s presentation, the boy’s presentation, and the woman’s presentation in the court room. Many details that were not discussed were evident by observation.
10. Not Looking Beneath The Surface #3 – Not Understanding “A Reasonable Doubt”
· Challenge: A push back comment about not being able to get answers to the jurors’ questions, “There are a lot of questions I would have asked.
· Challenge: “I am just saying that it is possible that someone found the knife and stabbed his father.”
· Challenge: “I’m saying a coincidence is possible. “The same knife can be bought at the same junk store by a juror, two blocks away from the boy’s house for six dollars.”
· Challenge: “It is possible that someone else stabbed his father with the same type of knife. “
· Challenge: “I don’t have to be loyal to one side or another, I am simply asking questions.”
· Challenge: “I don’t have to defend my reason to you. There’s a reasonable doubt in my mind.”
· Challenge: “I feel there’s room for doubt for a lot of the details that never came out.”
· Challenge: “Maybe you don’t understand reasonable doubt.”
11. Assuming The Evidence Is Not Questionable
· Challenge: “What does that evidence mean?”
· Challenge: How can the witnesses hear the argument, screaming, the body hit the floor and other noises, when the L-Line Train was so loud it was almost deafening?
· Challenge: How could the boy have murdered his dad with the knife, creating the down and in wound, when the boy is seven inches shorter than his dad, the switchblade knife is used by holding and using it underhanded, and the knife is a common knife easily acquired for $6.00 in his local neighborhood?
· Challenge: How could the woman see the murder, while the L-line passed by, with her room was on the other side of the train, without her glasses on? She saw blurred motion.
· Challenge: “I am just saying that it is possible that someone found the knife and stabbed his father.”
· Challenge: “I’m saying a coincidence is possible. “The same knife can be bought at the same junk store by a juror, two blocks away from the boy’s house for six dollars.”
· Challenge: “It is possible that someone else stabbed his father with the same type of knife. “
-
ASSIGNMENT Day 9.1
Bob Rowen’s 12 Angry Men Analysis
What I learned doing this assignment is an appreciation for a well-written complex interaction between the old ways and the challenges to them.
DISCUSSION OF OLD WAYS AND THE CHALLENGES PRESENTED TO THEM:
Initial vote 11-1 guilty. Let’s talk.
Let’s get this over with because I’ve two tickets to tonight’s Yankee game. I’ve lived among them all my life. They’re born to lie. Isn’t she one of them, too? Facts are facts. Guilty from the beginning. The role of prejudice was clearly evident. Smack them down. We’ve got the boy here. I’m a working man and don’t do a lot of supposing, I let my boss do that. He said “I’m going to kill you!” Don’t people often say that and don’t actually mean it? #2 has an angry outburst and says the same thing to #7 who responds, “You didn’t actually mean that.” The “unique” Swiss blade knife was brought into the room, then #7 produced another identical one he purchased the night before in a pawnshop in the neighborhood of the accused. The old man brought up the eyeglasses issue of the elderly lady who testified. The timing of the L-Train passing by the window and #7 raising doubts about the testimony. All this after #2 had said throw out all the other evidence because the whole case was based on her testimony. Then #2 (the last of the holdouts for guilty) said what about the other evidence; he was then reminded that he had previously said to throw it out. #2 came face to face with the baggage in his own life regarding the relationship he had with his son and was told by #7 the accused was not his son.
ASSIGNMENT Day 9.2
Bob Rowen’s Old Ways Challenge Chart
What I learned doing this assignment is how to brainstorm the weaving together of the storyline in draft form.
Old Way: Wade believes he should be able to teach history as it actually happened and the Principal agrees.
Challenge: President of the school board has a very different view.
Old Way: Wade skirts the teaching of current affairs for political reasons.
Challenge: Sixth period student, Trevor Blake, demands to know why current affairs are not being included in Wade’s instructional program.
Old Way: Wade invites guest speakers into the classroom.
Challenge: School board president is opposed to the practice.
Old Way: School board has its own very conservative curriculum agenda.
Challenge: The Principal, Don Walker, disagrees with it.
Old Way: All library books must be approved by the school board.
Challenge: Wade is opposed to banning books in the school library.
Old Way: Wade creates a classroom library to support his curriculum.
Challenge: School board president is opposed to the books in Wade’s classroom.
Old Way: Students are not allowed to form political groups on campus.
Challenge: Wade encourages students to get involved and be politically active.
Old Way: The school’s curriculum is controlled by conservative political interests.
Challenge: Sixth period students, the Progressive Students Club, demand Wade advocate for academic freedom.
Old Way: Wade carefully teaches about how fragile democracy is by addressing what the Founding Fathers had in mind and why.
Challenge: Sixth period student, Trevor Blake, believes democracy is currently being threatened and Wade is not adequately or directly addressing it in the classroom.
-
Susan A. Willard’s Old Ways Challenge Chart
What I learned doing this assignment is that I need to learn more about (and practice more) the progression of small harmless seeming challenges can make a big difference over time.
What else I learned doing this assignment is that Old Ways can have different types of challenges, from Emotional, Psychological, Physical, Environmental, Social…The amount and types of the challenges that can come against our old ways of living seem to be infinite.
Old Ways, with their Challenges Listed be low – (Walter Ingle):
1. A Self-First Sedentary Life:
(A Desire).
Idea for Challenges:
· The Activity of the Quest will force Walter to be active.
· Keeping up with his grandson will keep Walter active, maybe a bit overactive.
· Landon’s comments about Walter’s activities.
2. Live Independently:
(Belief & Desire: I worked for it. I deserve to do it. My House, My Car, My Stuff)
Idea for Challenges:
· Landon questioning Grandpa about living with them. Landon could use help now and then.
· Walter, progressively, starts wanting to live somewhere else because he is feeling unsafe.
· Walter is tired of the responsibility of living alone but is now slowly seeing he is tired of it.
3. I’m an Expert:
(A Belief – Filtered through Perspective:
I will always know the best Problem-Solving Expert, because that was my life’s work.)
· Since Walter is an expert, he should know about things he doesn’t.
· People look to Walter to do things he says he is expert in, and he doesn’t want to admit it.
· He tries to do things that he is expert in and fails and fails.
4. Don’t Question Professionals:
(A Belief – Filtered through Perspective:
Professionals are educated and specialized. They know what they are doing.)
Idea for Challenges:
· When Walter sees professionals do things they shouldn’t.
· When Walter sees things wrong about professionals.
· When Grandson asks about the professionals not acting, the way they should.
5. Things Were Better When I was Growing up:
(A Belief – An Assumption through his experiences)
Idea for Challenges:
· Clash between Walter and grandson on how to do things.
· When Walter is confronted with trying new things.
· When Walter must find a way to do things that were not possible when he was growing up.
6. Family Time is scheduled:
(A Habit – through Life Experiences)
Idea for Challenges:
· When challenged by others about his time with family.
· When Grandson needs his attention outside of scheduled time.
· When compared to others’ use of time.
7. Follow all the Rules, All the Time:
(A Belief – through his experiences through social virtues)
Idea for Challenges:
· When someone suggests the only way to do something which is urgent.
· When Grandson sees something unusual.
· When Walter sees something unusual.
8. Don’t need Church to Believe in God
(A Belief, A Habit through Life and Social Experiences)
Idea for Challenges:
· When Walter starts praying and has difficulty.
· When Grandson prays for him.
· Conversation with Grandson.
-
Bill Southwell’s 12 Angry Men Analysis.
What I learned doing this assignment is the necessity of showing the old ways before they are challenged.
A. Old ways: Old man downstairs heard “I’m going to kill you” Challenge: Could not hear over noise of El train. And, common expression—doesn’t really mean it.
B. Old ways: Old man say the boy running down the stairs. Challenge: He was old and dragged his foot—demo’d that it would take 41 sec not 15 as claimed
C. Old ways: Woman across the street saw the killing. Challenge: She could have only seen it in 2 seconds, the last 2 cars of the train. In court she rubbed her nose indicating she wore glasses, but people do not wear glasses to bed.
D. Old Ways: The knife was unique and was sold to the boy. Challenge: Jurur 8 presented an identical knife bought in the same neighborhood. The wound was downward stabbing. But a switch blade knife would have been an upward stabbing.
E. Old Ways: Prejudice. “The boy’s no good. His kind is dangerous, wild.” Challenge: He was abused by his father all his life. All that was required by the jury is to say there was reasonable doubt. This juror was biased because of his own son who disappointed him. This revealed subtext.
My observation is that the Old Ways were mostly all challenged with scientific-like reasoning. The demonstrates that biases were broken by rational reasoning. This is an important insight. The last juror was challenged by the silent response of the other jurors, who finally realized he was biased based on his feelings about how own son.
-
Bill Southwell’s Old Ways Challenge Chart. Day 9 Part 2.
What I learned doing this assignment is that the story gains in audience appeal as scenes are structures with progressing from Old Ways, challenging them, and obtaining New Ways.
A. Charis is a bright girl enchanted with her ability to manipulate others, mainly boys, and hopes to someday achieve greatness in a man’s world. She hung out with a group of young sailors stationed near her home and once convinced one boy to have his car painted pink. But these attitudes changed when she was diagnosed with a life-threatening disease. From this time forward she developed humility and empathy for others. With this change of attitude, she began a transformational journey which included being blessed with improved skill in writing poetry.
B. Bill is introduced to her near the beginning of this transformation. He sincerely loves her and feels her new-found empathy for others. He encourages her to pursue her writing, getting her to go to college and take creative writing classes. He is the change agent or at least her cheer leader in her advancement. But he, likewise, begins with the hope of getting a degree to get a job and support himself and family. This is an Old Way of thinking for him (which is quite common—and not a bad thing.) But Charis sees in his a brilliance as a physicist and encourages his to work for his PhD to enable him to be creative in his field. So she is the change agent for him. He obtains his PhD as she develops into an accomplished poet. But they face the challenge of her medical condition. The love grows as they go through these challenges.
-
Day 9 The Old Ways of 12 Angry Men
Jim Clark
What I learned from this assignment is that the level of tension can be manipulated
by the writer through the process of challenging/not challenging the old ways.
Old Ways
Habits: Interrupting others; Not paying attention; bullying
Challenge: Pay attention to the subject; stop bullying; “the word is doesn’t, not don’t”.
Assumptions: The knife was rare; prior trouble with the law; The L Train was not a problem.
Challenge: Henry Fonda proved it was no uncommon; prior trouble with the law doesn’t equal murder in this case; The L Train makes a lot of noise as it passes, so it’s possible the witness didn’t hear what he said he heard
Filters: Racism;
Challenge: We’re all “one of them” to somebody;
Social Values: Poor people tend to be criminals
Challenge: I grew up poor and I did okay.
-
Roback Profound Assignment 9 Part 1
What I learned: Point counter point. Action, reaction. The problem with 12 Angry Men is that it is too on the head. What I am aiming for in “Story of A Girl” is more subtitle. My goal is to tell the story and show the growth of the main character through images. But it would be useful to have a character filter the story and the lessons learned. Perhaps this is the role of the grandson, who is listening to the stories and trying to make sense of what happened, from his six year old perspective.
Old ways Challenge
Jurior 3 Talk over nothing That is what juries do
#3Slap these kids down before they #8 Kid’s mother died at 9
Make trouble Was in an orphanage for a year while father
In prison
#10The kid’s a dangerous killer. You #8 – Kid’s been knocked around a lot
Could see that. A beating every day
#7You couldn’t change my mind if you Agrees to talk for an hour
Talked for 100 years
#10 I’ve lived among them all my life #9 You think you were born with a
You can’t believe a word they say monopoly on the truth?
They’re born liars
#2He looks guilty #8 Onus of proof on the prosecution
Defendant doesn’t have to open his mouth
#3 man in apt below heard “I’m gonna
Kill you. Then heard body drop. Ran to
Door to see kid fleeing. Irrefutable facts
#4 Kid said he went to the movies but couldn’t
Remember title or who was in it.
No one saw him enter or leave theatre
#10 Eye witness to the murder – woman #8 Through the windows of a passing train
Across the way – She’s known him all her If you don’t believe the boy, why believe the woman?
Life – She’s one of THEM too.
#6 Motive – fight earlier that evening. #8 Kid has been hit all his life – not a sufficient motive
Father hit the kid twice. Kid left
#7 Kid is five for five. Threw rock at #8 – Tough life. A lot of beatings.
Teacher, stole car, father beat him regularly
#7Kid fast with a knife. Two knife fights. #8 Father used his fists on the kid.
A mugging.
#3 His kid hit him at age 16 #3 That was how he raised his kid – to hit – to fight
#4 Slums are breeding grounds for
criminals
#10 – kids from the slums are real trash #5 I’ve lived in a slum all my life
Maybe you can still smell the garbage on me?
#8 The defence lawyer let too many things #10 If lawyer let things go it was because he knew the
Go – not a good lawyer answer – wouldn’t help kid’s case
#8 boiled down to two witnesses #8 kid’s lawyer should have challenged them
Against the kid Maybe they were wrong. People make mistakes
#3 Switch blade knife unique #8 Pulls out another just like it and throws it into the desk
#4 Kid claimed his switchblade knife
Fell out of a hole in his pocket.
Reality – he wiped the blade clean of
Fingerprints
#10 He’s a common, ignorant slob. He #5 He’s too bright to yell “I’m going to kill you.”
Don’t even speak good English.
#10 I know how these people lie. It’s
Born in them.
They don’t know what the truth is!
And lemme tell you, they don’t need
any real big reason to kill someone
either! No sir!
You know, they get drunk… oh they’re very big drinkers, all of ’em, and bang, someone’s lying in the gutter. Oh, nobody’s blaming them for it. That’s how they are! By nature! You know what I mean? (shouting it violently) Violent!
I’ve known a couple who were okay, #4 (quietly) If you open your mouth again I’m going to split
but that’s the exception, you know your skull.
what I mean? #8 And no matter where you run into it, prejudice obscures the truth
-
Gordon Roback Profound Assignment 9 Part 2
I am still working out the kinks in the story. The lesson I learned from this assignment is to look at the situation from the pov of the Priest. Rather than being evil and oppressive, he is genuinely hurt by Fanny’s refusal to send her children to the catholic school. Since she makes it very clear she does not want to be part of the French Catholic community he tells his flock not to “encourage the outsiders.” Giving the priest a bit of humanity will give depth to the story and the conflict.
The old way
Fanny is basically an indentured servant as a wife. She looks after the home, looks after the children and looks after the store.
The new way
As the children get older they take on more responsibility for running the home and the store. However she continues to observe the rules of kashruit.
The old way
Fanny has nothing to do with gentiles.
The new way
Fanny gets to know the customers and likes them. They reciprocate and seek her advice about child rearing. Unlike her husband she learns French. The children learn French on the street, playing with the local kids. They learn English in the Protestant school
The old way
Fanny has no use for the Catholic Priest.
The new way
Fanny treats the local Catholic customs with respect, even while continuing to avoid them.
The old way
She does what her father tells her to do, then what her husband tells her to do.
The new way
When they are facing starvation during the boycott she seeks practical solutions, while her husband does nothing, counting on G-d to intervene.
Log in to reply.