Question 1

Of course it would be rather odd for the Heroic Protagonist like Peter to have to run from the authority, normally in a novel, the protagonist would be the victor, whereas the antagonist is running away from the forces of good. I believe that what Peter did, to run away was a rational choice by a rational person. I think that it is good to run away from your troubles or stay and face it depending on situation, it is more of situational compromise, doing whatever is best for success. Peter ran away when he was weak with no capabilities to retaliate against the powerful Sir Philip, he ran and recuperated, made relations with theatre companies and later with the Queen’s spymaster. After recuperating away from Sir Philip, he fought back against his antagonist and managed to get him arrested.

The author is trying to message us through the text that sometimes the protagonist is not as strong as the antagonist and that retreating or running away from your troubles may be your only choice to win if opposing forces is too strong.

Here is a situation where running away will help…

Example, Mao Zedong and the Long March

Mao, and the People’s Liberation Army of the Communist Party is on the verge of defeat by the antagonistic Guo Ming Dong (Fix to GuoMinTong) (KMT). They then made a massive retreat, just like how Peter in “Cue For Treason” ran away from Sir Philip. The retreat caused hardship to the soldiers participating, like how Peter was reduced to the travelling poor in Elizabethan England. The Long March at the end was successful, they PLA managed to gain strength and support from the farmers and at the end, defeated the KMT in the Chinese Civil War.

Mao Zedong and the Long March shows situational compromises, if you need to run away from your troubles, then do so and recuperate, gather strength and make the final push against your antagonist.

Peter could stand and fight against Sir Philip, but because of his weak power, his retaliation against Philip WILL NOT be enough to win. If Peter do stand, he would probably be caught and probably hanged by Sir Philip’s Justice.

In conclusion, I believe that it is better to run away from your troubles if your situation does not favour you.

Jonathan Zhan
Oct. 30st

"Cue for Treason" Chapter One/Two Response

The first and second chapter includes the introduction, initial incident and a small chunk of rising action for the protagonist, Peter Browning.

I found this chapter very interesting because it gave the reader, being me, a taste of how 16th century lifestyle was for regular farmers on the historic county of Cumberland. This chapter also explained to me a bit of a nobleman's powers, government and policies during that time.

Researching told me a lot more about the historical accuracy of the story...

I was curious about the farmlands of Cumberland. I conducted research and found that the Cumberland was actually a historical county that exist during the 12th century of England. Cumberland was at the very northeastern tip of the Kingdom and shared borders with Scotland, this made sense since there were many Peel Towers mentioned in the vicinity of Cumberland.

A shilling during the 16th century was actually worth $10.16 today, it shows that the author was historically accurate during that time.

In the beginning of the story, I found it absurd that Sir Philip stole land from the common farmers of Cumberland, I researched more about 16th century farming policies and found that Sir Philip was able to take land because of the "Enclosure Act" during that time. The Enclosure Act was a prominent part in the beginning of the story, where the greedy and selfish nobleman, Sir Philip Morton used the Enclosure Act process to acquire land without the common farmer's consent.

The beginning of the story, involving the toppling of the walls did gave me the point of view of the common people and Peter in this small rebellion against the Enclosure Act.

I do wonder, if Sir Philip Moron was certain that the farmers were responsible for the attacks on his wall, why doesn't he try to prosecute the farmers? Sir Philip had the wealth advantage in court.

Jonathan Zhan
Oct. 25th

A Question for all...

Question 1
Why would the Spanish-backed Fifth Column of Sir Philip Morton want to install a new Spanish-Friendly Government by assassinating Queen Elizabeth.

Question 2
How was the Elizabethan Era, referred as a "Great English Renaissance" really that great? Oppressive government policies like the counter-productive Enclosure Act which sent thousands into poverty, could potentially cause rebellion, would the Renaissance be really called a renaissance or an age of oppression?

(Note to Ms. Lees - "I know... this question was not really worded out correctly, please correct me if necessary")

Question 3
Is the Anglo-Spanish War still occuring? If so then... (refer to question 1)

Question 4


I know these question sucks... I hope to hear some constructive criticism from you!

Jonathan Zhan
Post - Oct 25th

The Big Q #1 Response

A person's life path is always determined before the person is born. The individual's life path is pre-determined depending on his family's status, whether if they are poor or rich, powerful or weak. Imagine a person born as a peasant would begin his life as a peasant, just like a person born as a noble, however they can still change their course of life.

I also believe that a man can still change his stars if he puts enough effort to change it. There has been examples of people from the low-birth of a poor family and with enough effort the people can still change his outcome in the future. Changing the direction of lives before the modern era was extremely hard, it involves recklessness, extreme effort and some luck to be successful.

ADDED - OCT 25th
-----------
In ancient times, people who were born into wealth of nobles would always be ahead of the common people, however the difference between a common child and the son of a noble is just the amount of effort placed into achieving the individual's goal.
-----------
Example...
John D Rockefeller - Born into an average family of six children, his constant studious effort and risking everything to win, bear fruit. At the end of his life, he had created the Standard Oil Company, the biggest oil monopoly in the world. John is a example of how normal individuals with reckless gambles, studious works and a bit of luck can change the outcome from such low-birth into the man of the century.

Today it is much more easier to change your stars because to change it now only involves extreme studious effort and luck.

Example...
Jim Pattison - He was born as an average child of an average family in the modern era. Jim started his job as a regular cars salesman, however his hard efforts in car dealerships allowed him to rise high into the company. At the end he left the company and started investing into his own. Today he owns the $5.8 billion conglomerate, the Jim Pattison Group. He is a modern example of how the average can turn their outcome as a "average Joe", his hard work as a salesman allowed him to leave his job and invest as a wealthy investor.

ADDED - October 25th
---------
People, born into a pre-determined life-path as a wealthy individual can also change their stars, most placed enough effort to either gained or lose all their wealth...

In summary, I believe that people born into their pre-determined lifestyle can still change their fate with just plain hard effort and a bit of luck. The difference between a person of high-birth and low-birth is the amount of effort required to reach their goal, and the amount to reach is just fate.
--------

Note - Please comment some constructive criticism, this is my first blog post and I hope to improve on it!

You wanna bet that my long posting wouldn't be as good as Jeff's Posting???

Jonathan Zhan
Oct. 22nd

Posting???

Where is Jonathan's posting?

Don't forget to comment.

Response for "Cue for Treason" Ch 1&2

In the first chapter you get introduced to Peter, who I would call the protagonist. Also you meet Sir Phillip, who I would believe to be the antagonist. The conflict in this chapter is that Sir Phillip builds a wall in which he claims to have been passed to him by his grandfather. The farmers/villagers get angry by this because they all believe it is thier land he is building a wall in. So during the night the village men go to tear down the wall with Peter. Later peter is put on watch duty and when he sees' Sir Phillip and his men coming he throws a rock at them missing all but causing confusion. I agree with Jeff, I don't believe the throwing or potential damage of the rock made Sir Phillip angry. It was the fact that his authority was being challenged/questioned. In chapter 2 Peter is plannig his escape from what he is expecting is Sir Phillips wrath. I don't think it would be smart to face Sir. Phillip because he doesn't seem like a resonable person.

Response for Chapter 1&2

Sir Philip is a very hard, selfish and proud man, he does not care about others' feelings and he wants more power and wealth. The villagers want to protect their common land, which is claimed by Sir Philip and surrounded it with stone walls. When people's rights, or property are taken unreasonably, people will revolt. The villagers gather up and try to overthrow the walls, while Peter is guarding them. When, Peter sees Sir Philip and his people coming toward them, he throws a rock at Sir Philip with no hesitation, which slows Sir Philip's people down and give the villagers the time to run away. Though Peter eventually escapes from them, and the rock does not hit Sir Philip, but Sir Philip is very mad at this and finds out that it was Peter. I think here, the rock is a symbol of revolting against injustice, and what makes Sir Philip mad is not the "throwing" put, it is that he feels his authority is being questioned. Chapter 2 ends with Peter escaping from the constable sends by Sir Philip, I believe this plot will not just end here, Peter, the villagers and Sir Philip will eventually face each other, and the conflict is just starting.

My response to the Big Q

What does it mean to have your life path chosen before your born? To me it's very confusing. If you had your life path already decided, that would mean each person had a fate or a destiny. Now I believe having a fate and fulfilling your destiny are two  different things. Having a fate would mean that you have an unavoidable thing that you could not get around. While fulfilling your destiny means that you must do something everyone else believes is going to happen. Anyways people don't like to believe in a pre-determined life path. They don't want to think that they are slaves to someone else's plan. So when many of you believe that if you are born a pheasants son it is your fate to end a mere pheasant, but if you change your "stars" you can end up something greater or even lesser perhaps. Many think that if you start a pheasant and somewhere in between you can "change your stars" by doing something.Well, personally I believe that it was already decided that you would "change your stars" during your life and become something else than what expected. In conclusion, no where in your life did you change your stars, I think it was pre-determined that a change would happen.

My Response for the Big Q

Though everyone was not born equal, but a person's life path was not determined before they were born. In ancient times, if you were born in a noble family, then you would obviously get more congenital advantages than a peasant's child. But, these congenital advantages made you more ahead than the peasant's child, they would have to put much more effort to achieve the goal which the noble child could easily achieve. So, a person's life path was not determined before they were born, it was a matter of how much effort you put into achieving your goal.

The same theory applies to today's people. If you do not change your direction, you will eventually arrive your destination, no matter where you start. Such as Stephen Hawking, who is severely disabled by motor neurone disease, but still writes several science books with the only three fingers that he has control of.

Everything is possible, if he does not change his direction, a man can change his stars.

"Cue For Treason" Chpt. 1 and 2 Response

Sir Philip, took over his grandfather's land, after he died, because of the change in the land owner, not to mention the harshness of Sir Philip, people did not like his ways. Therefore, when someone's part of land gets taken away by Sir Philip, the people will get angry. Peter Brownwigg, is the main character, and is also the one who threw a rock at Sir Philip, knowing the trouble he will get into if or when is is found out. And just to his lick he is found out because of his cap, which had his name in it, and decides to leave, and come back after the whole thing blows over. I believe that Peter, will run into trouble on the way out and to Peril.

The Big "Q" Response

I think that someone's life path isn't determined before they were born, because, if it was, everyone would be walking around full of confidence that they wouldn't have to do anything properly, or be ambitious to be what they want to be. One person can change who they become in their everyday lives, just by doing the best they can everyday. So yes, i believe that it is possible to change his/her stars if they are very determined on their goal.

This is a very good blog

This is a very good blog.
Throughout the centuries, there have been people created blogs that seemed impossible, some people ask why, but we ask, why not? Everyhing is possible in our belief!