​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. 

I think Ayn Rand did a great job pointing out the flaws and dangers of socialism and totalitarianism in this easy-to-read novel.   The story shows a society that focuses on conformity ("We strive to be like all our brother men" and "that all men are one and that there is no will save the will of all men together").  I do also disagree with several parts of this novel.  The main character moved from "we" to "I".  There are just as many flaws with this thinking also.  To me for a society to thrive and be good there needs to be public virtue (service to the community), providence, liber (learning), georgics (care and love of the land), and freedom.  This book focuses just on freedom and learning along with self.  I don’t see how a better world is created by focusing on ‘I’.  Afterall the character moved to a home that was built and had a library, he did not do that himself, he owes the person who left things behind for him (we).   Society needs both I and we.   Society needs more public virtue then selfishness along with georgics instead of collectivism; freedom instead of totalitarianism and liber instead of ignorance.   All five items are needed for a society not just one or two if you want the society to last.  
 
The author writes:  "There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men.  To be free, a man must be free of his brothers.  That is freedom. That and nothing else”. 
 
I disagree with this definition of freedom.    We are not meant to roam the world alone with no responsibility to anyone.   The man character has children.  I believe he is responsible to them in many ways.  He created them and is responsible in providing for them.  That means he must lose some of his freedoms to take care of what he created.  You can't have freedom without responsibility to others.   There is also no freedom from anxiety, work, or survival without community.   One man roaming the world who is "free" is living very poorly and will be very lonely.  In order to have freedom there must be the protection and support of the community and family.  It can't just be free to do all or what you would like, there must be guards or protections in place to protect all not just one.  Freedom requires responsibility or it is not truly freedom.  

This short story is truly short.  In these  short two pages a vivid story was told.  Many times when I read short stories they don't feel as complete as this story did but there is a complete story arc.  The author uses a lot of imagery to share the feeling of the story.  This story is not a character story, a big event story nor trying to solve a problem.  It is all about the setting.  I don't find many stories that are milieu stories however in this story the protagonist enters and explains the surroundings wonderfully. 

As I ended my reading, I asked myself the question why where the people in those dark homes not really living?

Reading the Henry IV part 1 and 2 plays so close to Henry V play changes what things stand out in the play.  The famous speech of St. Crispin's Day can be seen as a very motivating speech. Placing all the plays together shows new insights that I had not seen as clearly.  Richard II is shown as a weak king and is overthrown by Henry IV with some help.  We then see that Henry IV is still seeking to increase his power and glory but must deal with rebellion.  He has not earned and kept the loyalty of those who helped him come to power leading to more civil war and strife in England.  Prince Hal or Henry V is not busy playing practical jokes and hanging out with a shady group of friends.  When he becomes king, he throws off his friends and decides he needs to behave differently now that he is king.  Has he really changed or is he just pretending to change to get what he wants?  My personal opinion is that he has not really changed.  He uses the church to support his desire to increase his power by starting a war in France.  Then as part of the peace settlement requires Princess Katherine's hand in marriage.  There is quite a scene in the play of Henry V wooing Katherine, but I don't think it is real myself.  I think it is just Henry pretending.  

To me there is evidence that Henry V is playing a part hidden within the play.  Here are a couple of spots I see:
1.  Act 1 Scene II:  Henry V gets the church to approve of his move to attack France and to take responsibility for the decision to go to war.  
2.  He does cast aside his old 'friends' because it will not look good on him to keep them.  Some of his new friends are conspirators and are quickly eliminated. 
3.  Act II Scene IV:  Henry seems willing to do whatever it takes to win include being very cruel to civilians.
4.  Act III: His war speech asks the nobles to lay aside their virtues and become animals as they war with France.  Then appeals to their manhood, ancestry, and love of England.  We see that his old friends don't buy into Henry's 'noble cause' as some of the other leaders.  He pushes his army until they are sick and cold yet expects them to fight cheerfully. 
5.  Act V Scene II: "She is our capital demand..."  not a request but a demand.  He also states in the scene in which is is trying to convince her that he loves here that if they don't marry the war will continue.  
6.  Act V Scene II: "O Kate, nice customs curtsy to great king".  Tradition and virtue really don't seem to mean much to Henry here.   

Overall, to me it looks like Henry V is 'playing the system' to get what he wants.   If this is Shakespeare's ideal king, I think there is a problem.  But as Lord Action says, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.    

For me these plays have grown in their importance, showing how important it is for us to look at the words and the actions of the leaders to determine what they really believe and want.  Do their words ALWAYS match their actions?  Do they pick their friends well and treat them well?  Do they do the right thing for the right reason or try to justify that they have the right reason?

Before I re-read Henry V, I decided I needed to visit the Henry IV plays.  I had only read part 1 in the past.  Let's see if this time I can get through all the Henry IV plays.  

I can see how this play is relevant for our day as it shows that those that are rebelling against the king tend to be just as dishonest within their group.  Near the end of the play one of the leaders withhold correct information because they don't want peace.    This leads me to wonder why they didn't want peace.  In this case it was because they (the older leaders) would have a short life if peace were made and were determined that the king would find a way to dispose of them.  Since Henry IV disposed of his brother Richard II that seems to be a reasonable assumption.  

This play also shares a lot of information on Prince Hal (Henry V).  He, like is father, seems to treat people poorly.  He plays practical jokes on Flagstaff leaving him in trouble with the law and sees no problem with it.   Prince Hal says much of his behavior is just an act but is it really?

Are King Henry and Prince Hal similar in the idea that they treat people badly?  I believe so.  Part of the reason that some of his leaders were rebelling was because of their treatment by the King.  I feel that this play is a good example of how we can pretend to be good people but in the end something this shows alerting others to the truth of who we are.  How we treat people is critical in establishing our character and our leadership.  Pretending may work for a short time but then the truth always slips in.   Hopefully we can learn this lesson without needing personal experience, but I am afraid that is not the case for many.  We don't know how to determine if our leaders are good people because they are so far away so they can trick us into thinking they are good leaders.   Shakespeare provides us a platform to discuss what a good leader should look like if we take the time to learn his language and discuss his work. 

I have read the Dover translation (Baker & Miller) and listened to the Richard Wilbur translation.  I like the Wilbur translation much better.  

As I was discussing this book one of the things that I started to wonder about was who was the hypocrite:  Orgon or Tartuffe? I looked up the words imposter, deceiver, and hypocrite to help me decided.  It was interesting.  I think Orgon was a hypocritical father and Tartuffe was a deceiver.   We learn of Orgon's hypocrisy because he chose to listen to Tartuffe over his family.  The story ends with Orgon being rescued from his poor decisions in what appears to be a "happy ending" but if you were one of his children what would you do?  What would Orgon need to do to repair the damage he did to his family?

This is one of those books that I just don't connect with.   There are several books that I have seen on classic lists that I just wonder and wonder about.   This is one of them for me (along with Robinson Crusoe).  I have read both of them a couple of times and still don't connect.   But I have learned a couple of more things from the rereading of this book.   I do have to say that I need Mentoring the Classics (TJEd.org) to help me through seeing this better.  I don't know that I understand the author's point.  However, I looked up several of the poems to find what they were referring to and took more notes.  Maybe there is more to this then I think.  Maybe because I am not from the culture it was written in I am missing out on the clues that I need to figure it out. 

​I still have not watched the movie, so maybe I will have more to say afterward.  Molly was introduced to several family cultures:  
1.  Her father's home
2.  The Cumnor Family /  The Towers 
3.  Hamley Hall
4.  Her home after the marriage to Claire Kirkpatrick
5.  The Miss Brownings

She manages to make friends with them and and live peaceably with them all yet is the most influenced by Mrs. Hamley and Roger.  These 2 invited her into their lives and helped her through her challenges.  Here she was invited to grow and develop her mind and heart.  

This is a very different experience from her step-sister Cynthia who is sent away to school at a young age and is not invited into any family culture until Mr. Gibson marries her mother.  Imagine how things would have been different for Cynthia if she had been invited into a home and encouraged to develop her mind and heart the way that Molly had.  

No wonder Cynthia had so many struggles and yet look at all the good things about Cynthia's character!  We know nothing about her time away but I wonder if there was a mentor or two in her past.  Hopefully, the school she was sent to was not like the school that Jane Eyre was sent to but I think there must have been a mentor or two there to help Cynthia.  Yet how sad that Cynthia did not have a family culture that would help her as she struggled through growing up.  

Molly and Cynthia both have the opportunity to take these experiences they have had to build their own family cultures.  I wonder what they will choose to include.