I have some concerns about all your postings, guys. It's early still, so I'm not able to see much progress yet. But what I am seeing is people just saying what they already think and people then agreeing or disagreeing with the course. That's not the task in the blog. I don't want you to agree or disagree with the major ideas in the class. I want you to demonstrate through your writing that you understand them or are trying to understand them and that these ideas are somehow affecting how you read the text. It's fine to say how you were trained to read. I asked for that. But not to say, therefore, this is true, or this is right, or whatever. Notice, I often refer to myself as Catholic, but I never argue that the Catholic view is correct. No. The point is, I have assumptions, these assumptions influence how I read. You have assumptions, they influence you. Fine. But, what about other assumptions? What are they and how might they influence reading?

This is just like a take-home essay exam, guys, just a little more informal and, I hope, interesting: I need to see you demonstrating an understanding of what the course is teaching.

The only one who comes close here is Brian, in his second entry.

But I also want you all to be more detailed, use examples, and really talk about class.

As I say, it's early days, and there's not a lot to go on here. And I appreciate you all posting. But you've got to step it up a notch. Otherwise, I'm worried that I won't be able to give you the check.