<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Phineaus Whedon- Analysis for the Best Bad Luck I Ever Had by </title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/phineauswhedon/s0hs1aijzj2ki1xx</link>
      <description>Made with mirth. Here it is!</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2020-10-07 15:56:16 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2020-11-30 14:34:46 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Symbolism</title>
         <author>phineauswhedon</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/phineauswhedon/s0hs1aijzj2ki1xx/wish/819004110</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>1) The buzzard is a powerful symbol in the novel.<br><br>2) I think that the buzzard is representative of Dit's character change. Throughout the text so far, we have seen both of our main characters change a considerable amount. While Dit helps Emma to step outside of her comfort zone and how to be a kid, Emma teaches Dit to be more understanding of the fact that animals are living creatures too. In chapter 6, Dit goes into the woods to practice his hunting skills, with Emma tagging along. Emma doesn't think he would be able to shoot a buzzard that flies by and, frankly, doesn't really want him to kill it anyways. But Dit, taking this as a dare, shoots the bird of prey, nearly killing it. I think this buzzard represents Dit's character change, specifically the way his view on killing animals changes. From the beginning of the book, it is clear that Dit doesn't have much care for how an animal may feel in its last moments. He doesn't feel any guilt over killing a yellowhammer, nor does he feel even the slightest pang of pity when he feeds it to the eagle. But Emma knows better than him. She sympathizes with the animals and understands the statement, "How would I feel if I were in that animal's position?" That's why she always criticizes Dit when he kills something. This sort of attitude rubs off on Dit throughout the story, and he starts to understand the pain that he is putting these animals through simply for his own pleasure. The defining moment comes when he and Emma go to check up on the buzzard three months after Dit thought he killed it. But it turns out that the buzzard somehow suffered through three months of agony and survived to see the boy that put it through that pain. Dit, seeing the torment he put a fellow living creature through, has an epiphany at that moment. He realizes that animals feel pain just like him. He learns empathy and pretty much vows to never hunt for sport. Although Emma helps him along, this buzzard is the turning point that pushes Dit over the edge and drives him to be a better person. Plus, hunting for sport is kind of like playing God. Anybody with common sense knows that holding the fate of someone other than yourself in your hands is wrong, and this is pretty much what Dit is doing. The buzzard convinces him how wrong hunting is, especially for his own enjoyment.<br><br>3) Dit has changed a lot since we first met him. He started out as somebody who took pride in his aim and precision while shooting birds with a stone. But now he'll risk his life for the wellbeing of a pair of kittens. The text states, "'You killed it!' Emma gasped. 'Yeah,' I said, grinning. Everyone was always real impressed with my flip-it skills." This shows how he was unaware of the yellowhammer's wellbeing. If he could understand the situation from the point of view of the bird, he surely would not have killed it. But the thing is, he does learn from his mistakes. After some trial and error, he finally understood the suffering he put the animals through and differentiated a kill shot on a healthy animal from a pity shot on a weakened animal. The text states, "I  thought about how I was wrong to shoot the buzzard the first time but right to put it out of its suffering the second. Thought about wings healing crooked and longing to jump in the air and fly but being forced to scuttle on the ground." This shows that Emma's beliefs are finally getting through to Dit. He feels empathetic toward the buzzard he hurt because he realizes how he would feel if put in the same situation. In summary, the buzzard is a powerful symbol in <em>The Best Bad Luck I Ever Had</em>.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-10-10 23:45:36 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/phineauswhedon/s0hs1aijzj2ki1xx/wish/819004110</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Conflict</title>
         <author>phineauswhedon</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/phineauswhedon/s0hs1aijzj2ki1xx/wish/819004146</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>1) A conflict in the story is how different the two main characters, Emma and Dit, are.<br><br></div><div>2) Our two main characters, Harry "Dit" Otis Sims and Emma Walker, are two very different people. Just about the only similarities between the two are that they are both 12 years old, and they are both human beings. They had wildly different upbringings, and from these differences stems many different mini-conflicts. For example, Kristin Levine wrote on page 16, "Emma ignored me. 'You shouldn't keep an eagle in a cage. They're supposed to fly free. Poor bird.' 'Poor bird?' I asked. 'I just gave her a delicious supper.' 'I wouldn't want a free supper if it meant I had to be locked up in a cage.' She stroked the side of the cage with one finger, then gave me that look again." This shows how different their views truly are. While Emma believes that the eagle should be free, Dit doesn't think it cares. There are so many examples of this. You could look at physical characteristics, too, like Dit being white and Emma being black or like Dit being a boy and Emma being a girl. They are different in so many ways. While Dit simply thinks of animals as food and tools for humans to use, Emma believes that animals shouldn't be killed, and should be free. Their views clash so often, but this is usually a chance for them to improve each other. Their different walks of life are always a chance for the other to improve. For example, the text states, "'Anyway, I gotta get on home. maybe Mama finally has time to help me with my long division.' 'I can help you with that,' said Emma. 'You can?' I asked. Before I could say anything else, Emma had shown me how to divide 4,673 by 22, explained how to bring down the numbers and write the remainder at the top. Didn't take but five minutes, and Emma smiled when we were done." It also states, "One hot August afternoon, me and Pearl decided to teach Emma to swim, so the three of us started walking down to the swimming hole." Both Emma and Dit have different things to offer since they grew up in different areas. A good way to summarize all of this is that Emma is book-smart and that Dit is street-smart. Dit and Emma teach each other many things during their friendship, but their differences often land them in a conflict. The book reads, "'You let them go?' 'Of course.' 'I set those traps!' Emma looked at me blankly. 'You did?'" This is such a long quote that I won't write all of it down, but the gist is that Emma releases rabbits that get trapped in Dit's traps, and Dit gets angry at her for doing this. If Dit and Emma had the same views, Emma wouldn't have let the rabbits go and this dilemma would not have occurred. Also, at the beginning of the story, as soon as Dit sees how different the two of them are he immediately wants to ditch Emma. In conclusion, the differences between Emma and Dit sometimes create conflicts that separate them, which prevents them from being friends. And if they don't become friends, they can't improve each other, which is a pretty big deal. </div><div><br>3) This is an external conflict<br><br>4) This is a man vs. man conflict</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-10-10 23:45:41 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/phineauswhedon/s0hs1aijzj2ki1xx/wish/819004146</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Setting</title>
         <author>phineauswhedon</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/phineauswhedon/s0hs1aijzj2ki1xx/wish/819004202</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>1) <em>The Best Bad Luck I Ever Had</em> takes place in 1917, in a sleepy southern town called Moundville, Alabama. It takes place in the southern United States, and the text states, "We all live in a big old house that Pa built himself right off Main Street in Moundville, Alabama." The text also states, "The United States had just entered the Great War, and I guess the soldiers were getting ready to ship out," so we know it takes place in 1917. We know this because that's when the United States got involved in the Great War, or World War I. The town is scattered with mounds, likely created by Native Americans who used to live there, and this is how the town got its name. Also, "Most of the people in Moundville are farmers like my pa. Just about everything grows well in our rich, dark soil, but especially corn and cotton." <br><br>2) This setting creates a deceptive sense of peace and calm that, when you dig deeper, is trumped by a lot of racial inequality and a hard life when we learn more about the setting. When I think of life in the South, I think of an easy life surrounded by nice animals and great views, and if you don't look past that facade that covers up the real problems this setting introduces, you'll never be able to see the hardships that it hides.<br><br>3) Discrimination has been around for as long as we can remember. Every civilization has put a certain group through some sort of discrimination, and the U.S. is not innocent of this crime. Discrimination was especially bad in the U.S. in the 1900s, and even worse in the south than in the north. The time period, the early 1900s, and the geographical location, Alabama, really have a huge impact on the atmosphere of this book. Historically, the majority of people who lived here during this time period were very racist (or at least reported to be.) Assuming this book is historically accurate, the general society is probably pretty biased against black people. If this was set in present-day Alabama, the plot would surely be much different, but the date and location guarantee that racism will be a driving part of the novel.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-10-10 23:45:49 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/phineauswhedon/s0hs1aijzj2ki1xx/wish/819004202</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Character</title>
         <author>phineauswhedon</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/phineauswhedon/s0hs1aijzj2ki1xx/wish/819004265</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>1) Big Foot is my character.<br><br>2) Big Foot, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Pooley, is a pretty hateful character. He is resentful toward African-Americans and acts very racist almost every time he appears in the book. Not only is he hateful, but he's very hateable. He's disliked by most of the town, but they don't want to fight back against his heinous actions because he is a powerful authority figure. He instills a sense of dread in the people of Moundville, especially the people of color, and his intimidating repertoire ensures that nobody messes with him. <br><br>3) Big Foot has racism in his blood.</div><div>His father owned a slave plantation, and while it is entirely possible for your opinions to not be influenced by your parents, it is highly unlikely, especially back then. "'My grandpa was a white man, a big plantation owner.'" I don't want to bring forth a stereotype, but if you have African-Americans as slaves, you're probably racist. These ideals were probably passed onto Big Foot from Mr. Pooley. The text also states, on page 70, "'Only one school around here for a *N-word*. And if you ask me, that's one too many.' I looked up at him. His mouth was drawn up in disgust, as if he had just caught me picking my nose. Emma stared at the chalk in her basket. 'Thought I told you, Dit,' he continued, 'stay with your own kind.'" This shows how racist Big Foot is, and his hate for African-Americans will likely be used as a tool to move the story along. Also, the quotes, "'I don't like that man,' Emma said. 'Nobody likes him much,'" and, "'Why you let Big Foot steal from you?' I asked. Doc Haley ignored me till Big Foot turned the corner out of sight. 'Well, Dit, there is some things in life that are worth making a stink over,' said Doc as he put the fish in a pan on the stove. 'But a bottle of hair tonic ain't one of them,'" show that Big Foot isn't liked by many, but most of these people are scared of him nonetheless, and always give him what he wants.<br><br>4) Big Foot could be identified as a flat character since really his only personality trait (that is shown) is being racist, as well as a static character since he hasn't and probably won't change throughout the course of the text. He could even be identified as a stock character since southern sheriffs/cops are often stereotyped as racist.<br><br>5) So far, Big Foot hasn't really changed at all. If anything, he's become more racist in our eyes since we've seen more examples of him acting like so. Although it is possible, it is very unlikely that Big Foot will experience any character change in this book.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-10-10 23:45:57 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/phineauswhedon/s0hs1aijzj2ki1xx/wish/819004265</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
