Othello Socratic Seminar Reflection

Overall, the socratic seminar was able to deepen my thinking on the text Othello by William Shakespeare. The seminar influenced my thinking by seeing certain things in a different point of view. For example, when people were talking about the significance of Emilia as a character it deepened my thinking on the how authors develop theme by creating complex characters. Additionally, the conversation of how the unit theme: Fate v. Free Will was important in the text also made me think more analytically about that controversial topic. The socratic seminar allowed me to question prior predispositions in the text as well as think about the deeper reason for literary tools in the respective text.

Many claims were made in the socratic seminar that I completely agreed with however, there were also some that in which I did not completely agree. The statement made by one of my peers that I most agree with is that Emilia was a symbol used to develop the theme of the nature of women versus their role. Before that statement was made I had not realized the full importance of Emilia. Although, now I realize that she was extremely important in developing subtle social conflicts in the book. One of the statements that I disagree with least is that Othello did not have a choice but to kill Desdemona. I understand their perspective, on the contrary I do that her murder could have been avoided. Their must be another more peaceful way in which people can settle things. I talked  quite a bit during the seminar, as a result I do not have that much more to say to any given claim in the seminar because I responded to most of the statements.

In the seminar many things were executed successfully. Everyone disagreed politely and did not say one thing was wrong or incorrect. People in the seminar were able to keep an open mind of each others' ideas. The questions and claims made did not make the conversation choppy or backtrack the conversation. The claims made were relevant to the statement beforehand. The questions that arose in the conversation pertained to the text and kept the flow of the discussion. Additionally we were able to touch on many topics and did not stay on one question for too long.

With these good comments to the conversation, there were also drawbacks. Due to the way we were split up there were many interruptions and it was hard for people to talk. This led to people not being able to participate as much as they had wanted. Some people had little or nothing to add to the conversation. This led to the same people talking for the majority of the seminar and other people being frustrated about what they did not have a chance to say.