The future, so important but yet seen so differently

Question number 1 of the classroom questions we recieved tuesday asked "Where are you/we heading?".  While this a short and simple question the variety of answers possible is limitless.  So many different things come into factor when answering this question: a persons life ( where they live, parents, siblings, pets, etc etc), mental state, physical condition, etc.  So to answer this question to the best of your ability you have to not over think, but put the first thing that comes to mind, because that is what you actually feel and you won't over think it.  People who are in very similar situations can even answer this question completely different.  I personally wrote down that I saw myself heading through a day of school to go home and take a nap, because at the time I was tired and out of it.  Other people in my class wrote things down such as they saw themselves going to college and moving on in life, others, that or more fatalistic, wrote that everyone is heading to death.  Now why I don't personally know everyone in the class, I do know a few personally and know that we relate in a lot of ways, and they had completely different answers then me.
This question applies to a lot of literature that we read for class, and not necessarily in the reading itself.  I personally know I think a lot about  where each character is heading in their life through their actions and thoughts.  To me it feels like to many characters in literature do not think about this question at all and just react instantly or on the opposite end over think where they are going.  An example that has both sides of the spectrum is Hamlet.  Laertes reacts instantly to the death of his father and does not think at all about where fighting Hamlet to the death will lead him.  Hamlet on the other hand, from what I perceived, over thought everything to death and procrastinated a lot. 

Gore and Violence, a staple to many dramatic scenes nowadays, why?

Question number four on the Oedipus the King Socratic Seminar was a very intriguing question and shows the changes of how peoples minds work over time.  I think nothing is lost by not showing the gore of Oedipus goring his eyes out.  The main point of his wounds were to show his mental anguish and what he was feeling.  Also by not showing the violence it left more up to the imagination of the viewer making it more terrible and dramatic.  If the violence and gore of his wounds were shown it would have taken away from the mental aspect of them, people would have been too focused on that.  The horror of it all is still shown by the servants reaction to what they saw, and his screams that would have been heard off stage.  I think it was great that they didn't show the violence because it put everything in perspective of how awful the situation was.
Thinking of this question in context of how people act today, I feel that not a lot of people would agree with what I said.  So many of today's movies and shows that have to deal with horror, drama, or action go in the exact opposite way of Oedipus, and not for a while now, but in just the past decade or two.  Horror movies are the biggest example of this in that movies from the 70's and 80's showed very little violence, but would show a victim being caught by the bad guy and screams of terror leaving all of what was happening up to the imagination of the view much like Oedipus' self inflicted wounds.  Nowadays movies show every bit of violence and gore and that is what now is accepted as scary and dramatic, and I have to ask why?  I feel that many people do not have the imagination that they once did thanks to things like CGI and other special effects which is sad because I feel you really aren't getting the full effect of the horror and drama then.
So all in all I feel that nothing at all was lost by not showing the violence of Oedipus' wounds, but instead was a terrific move by the author and let the viewer/reader experience the mental anguish and pain of Oedipus fully.  I also feel that is sad that people nowadays have moved away from that idea and feel that much is lost by showing everything possible.

A veil over Americas eyes

I think that question 10 on the Invisble Man Socratic Seminar questions was a very important question.  The question asks if you think that the veill over the founding father statue is truely being removed or if it is being more firmly put in place.  I personally feel that the veil was being more firmly put in place in The Invisible Man for many different reasons.  One of the biggest examples of this was of The Brotherhood who while acting like they cared about the people of the city in reality had their own plans all along.  They only used the city to make themselves bigger and become globally known.
I also believe that the veil is being pulled over many peoples eyes in America today.  This veil is not a specific one either, it has to do with politics, economics, religion, etc.  Politics is probably the most prudent of all of them however. Many politicians specifically republicans want to cut education which obviously is a bad thing to do, but what people don't realize is that uneducated people are more easily swayed in their voting choices. So by cutting education you are in fact pulling the veil over the people because the people are becoming more and more oblvious to what is going on around them.
I think then that it is terrible what was done in the book to the people and what is being done to people now adays. It is completely unfair that this happens and it should be changed, but saddly will most likely not change which is a shame. The only part about this that makes me less quick to anger is that while some people are taken advantage of not on their own accord their some people however who are just plain dumb enough to have the veil pulled over them.