In Response to Leah's Blog 9

I really wanted to respond back after reading your blog for this week because you brought up many details that I did not consider in my previous blog, and I concur that I could have definitely used some that you mentioned to expand my own. I think the point you made concerning the fact that he brought part of current day ( the book ) into the past with him is a valid one. To me it is almost like an anchor. I also found your suggestion that we are looking for a balance between our "civilized" self and our "barbaric" one interesting. In class Stephanie mentioned how the boarder between the city and The South is blurred in the story. We really do not know where one truly ends and the other begins. Perhaps this is a statement that we often find ourselves in that area of confusion one which way we should go. My conclusion is that, as you said, the past belongs in the past. We can venture back into the past to learn from it, but ultimately  we need to live our lives pushing forward into the future. Another point that comes to mind is that he went to the South to die. Technically he did not know he was going to perish there, and technically we do not know if he actually did, but the way I have interpreted the story was that he imagined the South and went there to die. So therefore, it might be appropriate to step out of the blurry area and into the past, and the "barbaric" way of life, when we are going to soon become a part of it.