As an artist, I'm not particularly fond of measuring, being required to fill out quantitative data for grant proposals and add up points for grades, in a process that sometimes seems arbitrary. However, numbers seized my attention this week, bringing a new respect for the humble digit.
Half listening to public radio on the car radio, my foggy consciousness heard: "I would say we have to have an economy that isn't based on growth." Hmm. Not possible, since the way we "measure" how well our economy is doing is based on a growth model, isn't it? That started me thinking, since we're all worried about jobs and budgets.
Then the newspaper: "Broken Promises," shouted the Tribune headline today. Thinking it was another senator's scandal, I picked up the paper. Hmm. I see. The promise of low cost, higher education for all in California has slipped away compared to 50 years ago. For some reason, I decided to type in 'US Economy' on the internet.
A New York Times article reassured me that there are fewer recessions now than there used to be. Great, I had no idea! Wikipedia was a little less optimistic. There were lots of different sections in that article and -- wow! Look at all those percentages letting me know what went up and what went down! To my surprise, this article had a section on Education, my area of interest, being a part time arts educator. Hmm. We're 15th out of 29 rated countries in college completion, just above Turkey and Mexico. This is so interesting, I could do this all day.
But then, sadly, I scrolled to the section on Employment. I knew most of it already, from my own job situation and the struggles of those around me, old and young. But the numbers? The numbers I read today were harsh, if true. What do we as educators in the Oakland Public Schools make of it? Perhaps our new Superintendent is right: the focus of our high schools from now on will be in training and placing young people in jobs. The numbers I read are for the entire U.S., so California would be a bit different, but here they are:
"The unemployment among African-Americans continues to be much higher than white unemployment (at 14.9% vs. 8.6%).[46] The youth unemployment rate was 18.5% in July 2009, the highest July rate since 1948.[51] 34.5% of young African American men were unemployed in October 2009.[52] Officially, Detroit’s unemployment rate is 27%, but Detroit News suggests that nearly half of this city’s working-age population may be unemployed."
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Point of View
Ask two witnesses to tell you exactly what happened, and more often than not you'll get two very different reports. This is the wonderful thing about teaching in the arts: instead of starting with an adult picture of things, we get to ask the children (or teens) first what they think. And it's always wonderful to notice differences in perception.
For example, a second grader recently greeted me with the remark, "When I saw you, I thought you were a beautiful princess!" But from a teenager in my high school class: "Ms. Susannah, you could be on that (TV) show about 'what NOT to wear!'"
It's really one of the best things about teaching.. the surprises from discovering students' points of view. When asked why students drop out of high school, a random sampling of my juniors and seniors reported differing reasons:
1. they can't handle the pressure and the work is too hard so they drop out
2. they're lazy, have other interests, and don't want to do the work so they drop out
My lovely second graders were quite knowledgeable this week about ocean life, describing it eloquently with hands drawing shapes in the air. "I've SEEN coral, and it's wavy up and down like this. It's soft." "I should be the one to draw the coral. It's a big block. It's hard with holes in it and the fish can go in the holes." When exploring how to show setting in a play, the learning happens in the wondering and questioning. One answer leads to another question and another answer and so forth, in a process that seems like a kind of forensics. Too often, I've seen the yawns and glazed eyes when I set out the total picture for my students ready-made. At times I have to simply teach basic skills or information, but when a class is really exciting, it seems as if we're all teaching each other.
Where does appreciating another's point of view end and deciding on the "right" course begin? For example, in the case of determining what is torture at Guantanamo, or which services to cut in order to solve the budget deficit. Will our educational system prepare our students for solving life's complex problems?
For example, a second grader recently greeted me with the remark, "When I saw you, I thought you were a beautiful princess!" But from a teenager in my high school class: "Ms. Susannah, you could be on that (TV) show about 'what NOT to wear!'"
It's really one of the best things about teaching.. the surprises from discovering students' points of view. When asked why students drop out of high school, a random sampling of my juniors and seniors reported differing reasons:
1. they can't handle the pressure and the work is too hard so they drop out
2. they're lazy, have other interests, and don't want to do the work so they drop out
My lovely second graders were quite knowledgeable this week about ocean life, describing it eloquently with hands drawing shapes in the air. "I've SEEN coral, and it's wavy up and down like this. It's soft." "I should be the one to draw the coral. It's a big block. It's hard with holes in it and the fish can go in the holes." When exploring how to show setting in a play, the learning happens in the wondering and questioning. One answer leads to another question and another answer and so forth, in a process that seems like a kind of forensics. Too often, I've seen the yawns and glazed eyes when I set out the total picture for my students ready-made. At times I have to simply teach basic skills or information, but when a class is really exciting, it seems as if we're all teaching each other.
Where does appreciating another's point of view end and deciding on the "right" course begin? For example, in the case of determining what is torture at Guantanamo, or which services to cut in order to solve the budget deficit. Will our educational system prepare our students for solving life's complex problems?
Sunday, April 4, 2010
A New Day?
The mainstream media is announcing a new day of the "improved economy." Heartened, I spent a week attending official meetings that hinted at future hope. I went to a strategic planning meeting of the Oakland Unified School District, a Broad Based Coalition meeting of the Oakland Unified School District, and an Oakland City Council budget committee hearing. Our government agencies hard at work.
The fact that these bodies allow public comment/input, and appear to listen, is extremely laudable. The fact that these august bodies are talking about distribution of pennies to bail out the sinking boat of education, the arts and city services(don't you love to mix metaphors?), is horrible. Cuts, cuts, cuts and more cuts.
The programs and plans discussed at all these meetings were wonderful. The language soared. The hopes and dreams soared even higher. The charts handed out gave a feeling of things being done, progress being made, problems solved. This is what we're going to do and isn't it wonderful? I can hardly wait for these things to materialize, these things being announced.
But why is it that the directors of Oakland non profits talk about cutting positions, cutting programs, possible closing? Why has the Oakland City Council proposed a 50% cut in funding to arts organizations and artists? Why are many schools laying off arts teachers in order to keep "more basic" programs running?
The new day is back to the old day: wealthier areas will continue to have more resources and options for their children; poorer areas will continue to have less. All the high sounding speeches about equity and focusing on those "needing intervention" are no more than clanging cymbals. Artists will continue to create, as we always have, but I wonder how many children won't discover the arts because their parents don't have the resources to pay for them?
The fact that these bodies allow public comment/input, and appear to listen, is extremely laudable. The fact that these august bodies are talking about distribution of pennies to bail out the sinking boat of education, the arts and city services(don't you love to mix metaphors?), is horrible. Cuts, cuts, cuts and more cuts.
The programs and plans discussed at all these meetings were wonderful. The language soared. The hopes and dreams soared even higher. The charts handed out gave a feeling of things being done, progress being made, problems solved. This is what we're going to do and isn't it wonderful? I can hardly wait for these things to materialize, these things being announced.
But why is it that the directors of Oakland non profits talk about cutting positions, cutting programs, possible closing? Why has the Oakland City Council proposed a 50% cut in funding to arts organizations and artists? Why are many schools laying off arts teachers in order to keep "more basic" programs running?
The new day is back to the old day: wealthier areas will continue to have more resources and options for their children; poorer areas will continue to have less. All the high sounding speeches about equity and focusing on those "needing intervention" are no more than clanging cymbals. Artists will continue to create, as we always have, but I wonder how many children won't discover the arts because their parents don't have the resources to pay for them?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Fact or belief or truth?
As this week of importance for Jews and Christians begins-- Holy Week and Passover-- I've been thinking about belief, fact and truth. How do we help students prepare for the future beyond just ingesting information and building skills for citizenship or the workplace? Is educating the "whole child" a realistic option?
This week I heard an interesting exchange among students in my high school drama class who are normally not very engaged (just in the class because counselors told them they needed these credits). I had asked them to do a quick-write about one of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The students at one table started talking about the right to freedom of thought. Two students said they believed that God made the Earth and its inhabitants. Another student said she was an atheist.
I didn't handle this the way I wanted. What I later wanted to do was to extend the discussion, to say, "Hey, I'm so glad you're looking at Human Rights and seeing how they apply to you personally. I applaud the fact that you are thinking. And by the way, do you think it's worth it to kill someone whose religion believes differently from yours?" I missed the chance to talk about Darwin and the history of this topic in our country, and the importance of respecting each other's beliefs, and the importance of separation of Church and State.
It reminded me of another incident that occurred in the early 1980's in my work in Oakland publc schools. We were doing a musical show that traced historical periods in the U.S. I happened to quote writers about early America, all of whom said that Native Americans immigrated to this continent many thousands of years ago. After the concert, I was confronted by a delegation of fifth grade Native American students, who accused me of prejudice and mis-information. For them, quoting various historians was quoting falsehood Native Americans were here from the beginning of history. There was no immigration from elsewhere. This was clearly a fact in their minds, not a belief. And perhaps it is a fact. I am grateful for what I learned from these passionate students.
As a drama and creative writing teacher in public schools, I find matters of belief come up fairly often. It seems important to allow students to talk about these things-- topics that are important to real lives. What is the truth? As long as we are not forcing our own belief system upon our students, I believe it's valuable to let the study of one topic bring up discussion about another, to respect different beliefs, and to explore choices. If we are so afraid of exploring beyond the prescribed subjects, we will miss opportunities for minds to flower.
Perhaps we can plant the seeds of tolerance, and learn the lessons of wars over religion. Perhaps this week I'll be able to make up for the opportunity I missed last week.
This week I heard an interesting exchange among students in my high school drama class who are normally not very engaged (just in the class because counselors told them they needed these credits). I had asked them to do a quick-write about one of the rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The students at one table started talking about the right to freedom of thought. Two students said they believed that God made the Earth and its inhabitants. Another student said she was an atheist.
I didn't handle this the way I wanted. What I later wanted to do was to extend the discussion, to say, "Hey, I'm so glad you're looking at Human Rights and seeing how they apply to you personally. I applaud the fact that you are thinking. And by the way, do you think it's worth it to kill someone whose religion believes differently from yours?" I missed the chance to talk about Darwin and the history of this topic in our country, and the importance of respecting each other's beliefs, and the importance of separation of Church and State.
It reminded me of another incident that occurred in the early 1980's in my work in Oakland publc schools. We were doing a musical show that traced historical periods in the U.S. I happened to quote writers about early America, all of whom said that Native Americans immigrated to this continent many thousands of years ago. After the concert, I was confronted by a delegation of fifth grade Native American students, who accused me of prejudice and mis-information. For them, quoting various historians was quoting falsehood Native Americans were here from the beginning of history. There was no immigration from elsewhere. This was clearly a fact in their minds, not a belief. And perhaps it is a fact. I am grateful for what I learned from these passionate students.
As a drama and creative writing teacher in public schools, I find matters of belief come up fairly often. It seems important to allow students to talk about these things-- topics that are important to real lives. What is the truth? As long as we are not forcing our own belief system upon our students, I believe it's valuable to let the study of one topic bring up discussion about another, to respect different beliefs, and to explore choices. If we are so afraid of exploring beyond the prescribed subjects, we will miss opportunities for minds to flower.
Perhaps we can plant the seeds of tolerance, and learn the lessons of wars over religion. Perhaps this week I'll be able to make up for the opportunity I missed last week.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Education reform
A while ago I wrote about teacher/student burnout and the cuts to education in California.
Something connected happened in a second grade drama class I was teaching in Berkeley yesterday. We were playing a warm up game called "Brain P.E." in which kids have 10-20 seconds to make little lists, as a precursor to using spontaneous thinking for improvisation. When I asked for a list of 3 things they'd like to change about the world, one boy wrote, "No School," as well as "no violence." A few hours later, I read five brilliant essays by Mike Rose in Truth Dig online magazine (recommended!), titled "Why Send Kids to School?" His comments feel important, because with a new national policy under consideration for schools, I want to know how it will affect my students.
Remember, I also noted that teachers have been pegged as the problem in the high stakes education game. Recent studies reported that the schools that were "successful" when No Child Left Behind started are still successful, and many of those that were "failing" in the past are still not doing well, in spite of massive restructuring. Could it be that teachers are being asked to fix society's and the system's ills? Well, here's what Rose says:
Rose: "When children are raised in communities where economic opportunity has dramatically narrowed, where the future is bleak, their perception of and engagement with school will be negatively affected.... the business community has not thought deeply about the profound effect economic despair can have on school achievement.... (nor have people considered) the negative influence of commercially driven verbal and imagistic messages that surround our young people.. that work against the very qualities of mind the community says it wants schools to foster... our young people grow up on an economy of glitz and thunder. The ads that shape their needs and interests champion appearance over substance, power over thought... highlight glamour and poise over knowledge and blur fact as simulation."
Me: But why do we need school for our children? Why not agree with my second grader, who finds school unnecessary? Can we all home school? Can everyone study online and settle for occasional live contact with a teacher?
Rose: "The answer given for decades... is that education prepares the young for the world of work and enables the nation to maintain global pre-eminence... but the tendency in current social policy is toward magic bullet solutions that are simplified responses to complex problems... the current philosophy of education is an economic one: the primary goal of school is to create efficient workers."
Me: Some truth here. For example, when I asked my high school students why they should finish school and go to college, the unanimous answer was, "to get a good job and make money." But somehow this idea (they've learned it from adults) results in school being perceived as a kind of holding pen before being released into an automatic High Paying Job, or the NFL, NBA, WNBA, etc. There's something missing. What about curiosity, the pure fun of looking up a new word to see what it means, or being able to imagine solutions and try them out? And how would an economic purpose for going to school relate to the experience my Chorus students just had, doing a solo song recital on Wednesday? Words escape me to describe the joy of hearing each individual voice, touching lyrics, beautiful melodies emerge, the sound so true and lovely, in spite of nerves and the stage of technique each singer showed. Can going to school to get a job result in the human experience of shedding tears in the presence of beauty and truth, or the excitement, pride, and opening of hearts of those singers?
Rose. "In the current talk about school reform, there is one phrase you will hear in every proposal: 21st century skills. These include the ability to use a range of electronic technologies ... to think critically and creatively and evaluate the product of one's thinking. The ability to communicate effectively and collaborate with others. .. what's new about these skills?.. Some of these you'll find in Aristotle. But there are topics you won't find in these lists: aesthetics, intellectual play, imagination, the pleasure of a subject, wonder. The focus of the 21st century skills lists is utility and workplace productivity..... But, the one thing that's become clear to me after 40 years of teaching is the multiple purposes and meanings that education can have. It provides intellectual stimulation.... protected social setting.... connections to adults... our world gets bigger... a place where we define who we are."
Me: Amen to Mr. Rose's conclusions. There are so many reasons for our young people to go to school, not the least learning to appreciate the rich, diverse cultures on our planet and our common humanity. Not to mention, building the values and character it takes to become a responsible, thoughtful, caring adult.
Something connected happened in a second grade drama class I was teaching in Berkeley yesterday. We were playing a warm up game called "Brain P.E." in which kids have 10-20 seconds to make little lists, as a precursor to using spontaneous thinking for improvisation. When I asked for a list of 3 things they'd like to change about the world, one boy wrote, "No School," as well as "no violence." A few hours later, I read five brilliant essays by Mike Rose in Truth Dig online magazine (recommended!), titled "Why Send Kids to School?" His comments feel important, because with a new national policy under consideration for schools, I want to know how it will affect my students.
Remember, I also noted that teachers have been pegged as the problem in the high stakes education game. Recent studies reported that the schools that were "successful" when No Child Left Behind started are still successful, and many of those that were "failing" in the past are still not doing well, in spite of massive restructuring. Could it be that teachers are being asked to fix society's and the system's ills? Well, here's what Rose says:
Rose: "When children are raised in communities where economic opportunity has dramatically narrowed, where the future is bleak, their perception of and engagement with school will be negatively affected.... the business community has not thought deeply about the profound effect economic despair can have on school achievement.... (nor have people considered) the negative influence of commercially driven verbal and imagistic messages that surround our young people.. that work against the very qualities of mind the community says it wants schools to foster... our young people grow up on an economy of glitz and thunder. The ads that shape their needs and interests champion appearance over substance, power over thought... highlight glamour and poise over knowledge and blur fact as simulation."
Me: But why do we need school for our children? Why not agree with my second grader, who finds school unnecessary? Can we all home school? Can everyone study online and settle for occasional live contact with a teacher?
Rose: "The answer given for decades... is that education prepares the young for the world of work and enables the nation to maintain global pre-eminence... but the tendency in current social policy is toward magic bullet solutions that are simplified responses to complex problems... the current philosophy of education is an economic one: the primary goal of school is to create efficient workers."
Me: Some truth here. For example, when I asked my high school students why they should finish school and go to college, the unanimous answer was, "to get a good job and make money." But somehow this idea (they've learned it from adults) results in school being perceived as a kind of holding pen before being released into an automatic High Paying Job, or the NFL, NBA, WNBA, etc. There's something missing. What about curiosity, the pure fun of looking up a new word to see what it means, or being able to imagine solutions and try them out? And how would an economic purpose for going to school relate to the experience my Chorus students just had, doing a solo song recital on Wednesday? Words escape me to describe the joy of hearing each individual voice, touching lyrics, beautiful melodies emerge, the sound so true and lovely, in spite of nerves and the stage of technique each singer showed. Can going to school to get a job result in the human experience of shedding tears in the presence of beauty and truth, or the excitement, pride, and opening of hearts of those singers?
Rose. "In the current talk about school reform, there is one phrase you will hear in every proposal: 21st century skills. These include the ability to use a range of electronic technologies ... to think critically and creatively and evaluate the product of one's thinking. The ability to communicate effectively and collaborate with others. .. what's new about these skills?.. Some of these you'll find in Aristotle. But there are topics you won't find in these lists: aesthetics, intellectual play, imagination, the pleasure of a subject, wonder. The focus of the 21st century skills lists is utility and workplace productivity..... But, the one thing that's become clear to me after 40 years of teaching is the multiple purposes and meanings that education can have. It provides intellectual stimulation.... protected social setting.... connections to adults... our world gets bigger... a place where we define who we are."
Me: Amen to Mr. Rose's conclusions. There are so many reasons for our young people to go to school, not the least learning to appreciate the rich, diverse cultures on our planet and our common humanity. Not to mention, building the values and character it takes to become a responsible, thoughtful, caring adult.
A while ago I wrote about teacher/student burnout and the cuts to education in California.
Something connected happened in a second grade drama class I was teaching in Berkeley yesterday. We were playing a warm up game called "Brain P.E." in which kids have 10-20 seconds to make little lists, as a precursor to using spontaneous thinking for improvisation. When I asked for a list of 3 things they'd like to change about the world, one boy wrote, "No School," as well as "no violence." A few hours later, I read five brilliant essays by Mike Rose in Truth Dig online magazine (recommended!), titled "Why Send Kids to School?" His comments feel important, because with a new national policy under consideration for schools, I want to know how it will affect my students.
Remember, I also noted that teachers have been pegged as the problem in the high stakes education game. Recent studies reported that the schools that were "successful" when No Child Left Behind started are still successful, and many of those that were "failing" in the past are still not doing well, in spite of massive restructuring. Could it be that teachers are being asked to fix society's and the system's ills?
But why do we need school for our children? Why not agree with my second grader, who finds school unnecessary? Can we all home school? Can everyone study online and settle for occasional live contact with a teacher?
When I asked my high school students why they should finish school and go to college, the unanimous answer was, "to get a good job and make money." But somehow this idea (they've learned it from adults) results in school being perceived as a kind of holding pen before being released into an automatic High Paying Job, or the NFL, NBA, WNBA, etc. There's something missing. What about curiosity, the pure fun of looking up a new word to see what it means, or being able to imagine solutions and try them out? And how would an economic purpose for going to school relate to the experience my Chorus students just had, doing a solo song recital on Wednesday? Words escape me to describe the joy of hearing each individual voice, touching lyrics, beautiful melodies emerge, the sound so true and lovely, in spite of nerves and the stage of technique each singer showed. Can going to school to get a job result in the human experience of shedding tears in the presence of beauty and truth, or the excitement, pride, and opening of hearts of those singers.
There are so many reasons for our young people to go to school, not the least learning to appreciate the diverse cultures on our planet and our common humanity. Not to mention, building the values and character it takes to become a responsible, thoughtful, caring adult.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Market Economy Re-Interpreted
Alright, I am an artist and a teaching artist. I spend a lot of time interpreting texts and teaching others to do so. There are gigabytes of literary interpretation in the world but still, some mystery remains. For example, the old children's rhyme: "This little piggy went to market" (working title for all I know). It remains unexplained. In light of the current non profit and economic crisis, I will make an Attempt, hopefully with the creative rigor the work is due. Let me begin. Ahem.
The ancient rhyme, "This little piggy went to market," sheds light on early understandings of the economic forces inherent in Western capitalism and had a profound influence on Adam Smith. The first line, "this little piggy went to market," clearly refers to the small stratum of the population with purchasing power. This first piggy represents the gainfully employed, perhaps with health insurance. Underlying the text is the implication that this shopper also had transportation, as it does not say, "walked to market." We also see here a monopoly, there being only one Market. This piggy's primary position in the text means that the Purchaser with money has status in the applicable culture.
The second line, "this little piggy stayed home," raises serious questions. Was the piggy ill, unemployed, lazy, or an oppressed female required stay home to do the housework and take care of the children? (The gender of the two piggy's we've studied so far is not indicated.) Or perhaps this second piggy had to stay home to fix the plumbing, which had flooded the bathroom. Note that the word 'home' will be the rhyming word, anticipating its importance in the text. In actuality, here we have the first hint of the ups and downs of the Market. The population stays home in an economic downturn. The poor stay home because of no money; the rich stay home waiting for deliveries.
The third line, "this little piggy had roast beef," points to the essence of the Market Economy: lack of equity. Roast beef is a metaphor for the good life, the American Dream of being high on the food chain. And the next line brings it pitilessly home: "this little piggy had none," a fourth line that speaks volumes. No elaboration, too bad little guy, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, no bail-out or even food stamps for you.
The last line is the most challenging of all: "This little piggy cried, 'Wee, wee, wee, wee, wee!' all the way home!" Was he euphoric from his shopping trip, on drugs, lamenting his smallness (wee bitty thing) or needing to use the restroom? Perhaps he was looking forward to time on the internet and history has foretold a misspelled wii. Or he's lonely and wants to find the 4 other pigs, or being an intellectual, he has read the story about the 3 little pigs and knows the wolf is around the corner. I will boldly offer my own answer to decades of confusion among generations of children. The fifth line clearly refers to one of two things: the last piggy either just won the lottery or he/she works for a non profit arts organization.
Ah, what propaganda hath our nursery rhyme wrought? As with all good literary interpretation, the final choice is up to you, the reader.
The ancient rhyme, "This little piggy went to market," sheds light on early understandings of the economic forces inherent in Western capitalism and had a profound influence on Adam Smith. The first line, "this little piggy went to market," clearly refers to the small stratum of the population with purchasing power. This first piggy represents the gainfully employed, perhaps with health insurance. Underlying the text is the implication that this shopper also had transportation, as it does not say, "walked to market." We also see here a monopoly, there being only one Market. This piggy's primary position in the text means that the Purchaser with money has status in the applicable culture.
The second line, "this little piggy stayed home," raises serious questions. Was the piggy ill, unemployed, lazy, or an oppressed female required stay home to do the housework and take care of the children? (The gender of the two piggy's we've studied so far is not indicated.) Or perhaps this second piggy had to stay home to fix the plumbing, which had flooded the bathroom. Note that the word 'home' will be the rhyming word, anticipating its importance in the text. In actuality, here we have the first hint of the ups and downs of the Market. The population stays home in an economic downturn. The poor stay home because of no money; the rich stay home waiting for deliveries.
The third line, "this little piggy had roast beef," points to the essence of the Market Economy: lack of equity. Roast beef is a metaphor for the good life, the American Dream of being high on the food chain. And the next line brings it pitilessly home: "this little piggy had none," a fourth line that speaks volumes. No elaboration, too bad little guy, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, no bail-out or even food stamps for you.
The last line is the most challenging of all: "This little piggy cried, 'Wee, wee, wee, wee, wee!' all the way home!" Was he euphoric from his shopping trip, on drugs, lamenting his smallness (wee bitty thing) or needing to use the restroom? Perhaps he was looking forward to time on the internet and history has foretold a misspelled wii. Or he's lonely and wants to find the 4 other pigs, or being an intellectual, he has read the story about the 3 little pigs and knows the wolf is around the corner. I will boldly offer my own answer to decades of confusion among generations of children. The fifth line clearly refers to one of two things: the last piggy either just won the lottery or he/she works for a non profit arts organization.
Ah, what propaganda hath our nursery rhyme wrought? As with all good literary interpretation, the final choice is up to you, the reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)