A quote that struck me in this book is found at the end of the Chapter 'Happy Days' :  "The day was ending in perfect satisfaction.  They were all there together.  All the work, except the supper dishes, was done until tomorrow.  They were all enjoying good bread and butter, friend potatoes, cottage cheese, and lettuce leaves sprinkled with vinegar and sugar."

What a vision of what family can look like.  The satisfaction of being with your family, accomplishment of the work needed, and enjoyment of food and time together.   So simple sounding and so hard to pull off.

This book is full of nuggets about creating a successful home culture and community.  I think sometimes when we read these books as youth but don't re-read them as adults we miss out on a lot of lessons or ideas.

I don't know that I appreciated this book the first time I read it.  Recently I have been studying family culture and decided I needed to revisit this book.

When I was starting to homeschool, I was looking into so many things and ways to figure it all out.  I had not intended to homeschool.  It sorta just happened.  When I started raising a family, I did not think about family culture or what a good family culture would be.  I was too busy trying to get a list of things done that I thought needed doing.  I didn't set out to build a specific family culture...it just kind of happened.  I have to say this is one area that I am studying more now because I can see the affects of my family culture on me and those things that I tried to change in my family.  As I think about how to deliberately build a family culture, Understood Betsy becomes a classic for me in that it contrasts independence and dependence.   What do we want to teach in our homes and why?  Why is it so important to examine what we might or might not being doing in our homes?

I have to believe that Aunt Frances did the best she could with the knowledge that she had but as we see in the story it creates a lot of fear and feeling of helplessness with Elizabeth Ann (Betsy).  In many ways the transition that Betsy experienced when she moved to the farm is how I felt being introduced to the TJEd philosophy.  There was so much that I didn't understand or know how to do. I have never felt that I had a great education and have struggled with what that even looks like or means.  I just knew something was missing and I wanted different.  But I didn't know what that difference was.  I started to see how things could be different as I studied the ideas taught in the TJEd philosophy.   Today I have been spending more and more time liking about how to build a family culture that unites and heals people and communities.   

Interesting how as you better understand who you are and who you want to become, your classics change.  Books that you thought were only okay become books that you later can use to help you see yourself and the world around you better.   

After first reading this book I wondered how this book was different than The Odyssey in its main idea of what an 'ideal man' was.  I reviewed the Teaching Company recordings by J. Rufus Fears which state that a major theme for this book was in that we will all die (fate).   The book seems to focus on living as best you can and leave a legacy of greatness.

As I was re-reading this book I noticed how much the book talk about feuds.  Why do we feud so much?  Why do we seek revenge and not let things go?  Why is the warrior so much a focus in writings?  The Iliad is a long feud...and then a feud within a feud.  Why is this such a common theme?

The warrior is a common theme in our literature, sometimes just named differently through time.  I can think of many books along these lines:  Ender's game (Most of Orson Scott Card), L'Amour books, Sanderson books, Tolkien books, and many others.  We seem to still be grappling with this idea of what an ideal man is.  What makes a man a good warrior or hero?  Why?   Why is it so important for us to be remembered?  

One question posed by Prof Fears was "How will you handle trouble?  as a warrior with honor or with pride? "

I liked this question and have wondered how would I handle trouble?   Of course I don't know that I am facing a Grendel but maybe I am after all.  It just acts, looks, and smells different then the monster in this story.  What is the best way to handle the troubles we are facing?  Is it important to me to leave a legacy of greatness and what does that look like for me?

This time after reading Mistborn by Brandon Sanderson I decided to read The Prince by Machiavelli.   I have to say that reading a book that is based on having a tyrannical government and then The Prince really helps you connect better to ideas.   This was not my idea.  TJEd High has their reading program set up to read these two books together, so I was curious.   The government in Mistborn lines up with several ideas that Machiavelli addressed in his writings.  

Mistborn is a story about Revolutionaries (although they did not start as revolutionaries) who end up over throwing a very old government that was repressive to the common people and created slaves out of most of the population (even those that were considered nobles).   We can see the corruption, suffering, destruction and power struggles of the people in general.  But when the country as been ruled this way for centuries the people are accustomed to it with no real effort on doing something different because revolution seems impossible to the people, yet a small group of determined people end up succeeding at bringing down their ruler.  

Now they have to re-establish a government.  Machiavelli says this: "there is nothing more difficult in taking hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things". (p. 9)  What will Brandon Sanderson do with the rest of the series?  Are they good ideas or not?  

Frankenstein has way more depth then I had imagined.  There are several ideas in this book.  You can compare this with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  Both main characters hew there action was wrong but did it anyhow.    It seems the idea that we can control things and keep things secret is still happening today. 

You can look at the upbringing of Victor F. and try to determine where things went wrong for him in trying to create a monitor and then running off when he decided it was to shocking to deal with.  

You can look at the arguments of nature v. nurture or the role and responsibility of science/technology.

When looking at the ideas of virtue and vice (excessive or deficient virtue)  there seems to be a work that I would like to add to the discussion and that word is anti-virtue which is being defined as dong the wrong thing but knowing the right thing. 

I believe Victor knew what he was doing was wrong but pursued his ambition with a singlemindedness that destroyed all those around him.  When he had awoken the monster he deemed it ugly and ran away.  Why create something that you name ugly and run away?  Is it because you knew what you were doing was wrong and then could not stop the result?  Running and keeping secrets was such a huge part of Victor's life!  He had the option of talking with several people about what he was doing but when he was banned from continuing his experiments, what did it do?  Continued on in secret.  He cut himself off from all those that would have or could have helped him work through his problem and choose a different way.  He created a monster and then hide what he did, never taking responsibility for what he had created and deserted.   The cost was paid by all of those around Victor.   We can turn this mirror toward ourselves and look for ways that we knowingly do what we know is not right and then try to hide that from all those around us.  What will the end result be?  Will we keep going on to destroy all that we hold dear or will we decide to stop the secrets and take responsibility for our actions and do all that we can to repair the damage?

This novel might have been written as a campfire ghost story but has so much depth to it.  

I believe if you label the protagonist as Hyde and the Antagonist and Jekyll with the foil as Dr. Lanyon you can come away with an interesting idea.  Dr. Lanyon (and Dr. Utterson) is a rational Victorian gentleman in the story.  If he has all the virtues of a Victorian gentlemen than Dr.   Jekyll has excessive of the virtues (rash, single-mindedness, boastful) and Mr. Hyde has the deficiencies of the virtues (deprived, mean, addictive).    Through decision with the Scholar Moms group, I would agree with the idea that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are not opposites but both bad.  One has an excessive of a trait and the other the lack of the a trait.   So are we too letting our virtues slumber instead of actively pursing virtue?

Someone shared a quote on this so I had to read it.   On the first page of the book is states:  I wonder if there isn't a lot of bunkum in higher education?"  It is a short book about Helen who learns to live and enjoy life.  That in itself is work the read.  Made me really think about the things that I am doing that stop me from enjoying life.  

One last quote:
"...when you sell a man a book you don't sell him just twelve ounces of paper and ink and glue-you sell him a whole new life."

​After two reads, I am not loving this book however there are moments in the book that I marked and did learn several things that I missed in the debrief.  It could be that I did not like the Prince and wanted so badly for someone else to remove him from his position or realize his game.  The politics of this book stood out more this read and reminded me too much of real life. But then as the author points out, 'life isn't fair'.    I wanted Buttercup to do something differently in her situation.  :(    So that then leads me to the question, how am I like Buttercup in this situation?

​This would probably be a fun play to see.  Moliere seems to know how to poke fun at hypocrisy.  

In Act 1 the Dancing Master says, "There is nothing, in my opinion, that pays us better for all our fatigue; and it is an exquisite delight to receive the praises of the well-informed."

I find this very applicable today, there are many people who feel that they deserve more for their efforts (and maybe they do) but this Dancing Master seems to spend very little time working or helping Monsieur Jourdain master the art of dancing.  

Later he states, "All of the misfortunes of mankind, all the dreadful disasters that fill the history books, the blunders of politicians and the faults of omission of the great commanders, all this comes from not knowing how to dance".

How easy it is to make such a broad declaration without much evidence to support the opinion.   That seems to be the way of many experts.   As an ex-teacher, I spent so much time discussing or debating different philosophies with other teachers who were never parents yet felt they were experts in how to raise a child or what a child needed to be successful.  

A friend of mine once defined an expert like this:
ex - a has been
spert - drip under pressure

His definition makes me laugh. However, there can be a serious problem when we rely on experts and an even bigger problem when we rely on those who think they are experts but are not.   Having experts in our society is not a bad thing but it does become a bad thing when we stop thinking for ourselves or discount our thinking solely on the word of another.  I love that my mechanic can figure out what is wrong with my car but how do I know I have a good mechanic without out some knowledge myself?  Another problem I see is when we hand off responsibility to someone else in the name of being an expert so we don't take the time to figure out what we should do or what the principles should influence us.    This play shows what Mr. Jourdain did.  He allowed other people to think for him and act for him, instead of figuring out for himself how best to be a true gentleman.  Everything in this play was focused on the appearance of what a gentleman should be like and not on becoming a true gentleman.  

For me, it was frustrating to hear teachers who were not parents express theories that they had but have never attempted to apply or practice themselves.  The teaching license and time in the classroom does not make you an expert on parenting or any particular child.   To give advice in this situation is to be a hypocrite. 

 Another place where there is so much discord is in the bureaucracy of our country.  Many of the experts only see the problem based on their expertise and entity.  There are so many entities within the bureaucracy, how would you pick an expert?  Those individuals will be so focused on protecting their interests that they may not hear another’s opinion.   Just like in this play in which each master thought their subject was the most important.  Each wants to have the money and recognition for their teaching.  Each needs to justify their position and belief of why a gentleman needs to have the skills they can offer.   Or a would-be gentleman.  Mr. Jourdain will not become a “people of quality” until he determines for himself what that means.  Experts do not mean “people of quality”.   Poor Mr. Jourdain is so focused on being popular and accepted that he is listening to the wrong voices.   How about me?  How am I just like Mr. Jourdain? 

I can relate to the pretense theme in the book but not a lot more.  Some say that there is a theme of family love but if that is the case I don't want this relationship with my family.  I don't ever want to be this rude or crude.  There is a conversation about religion all through this book that is very confusing.  It is a mix of eastern and western thinking.   You have to really dig even to determine what is being talked about it is so unclear.   If intensions and teachings are so unclear it is not a wonder the characters are struggling with life.  Too many mixed ideas with no clear understanding or position.   This work is just not my 'cup of tea'.   You can't find peace in life without a clear understanding of who you are, who you want to become and where you are going.