So I kept wondering why people don't comment on my journals and I am pretty sure it is because I never get to the point and I spend forever boring them before there even is a point. I wanted to say that you did a very good job of getting to the point in your journal and that I strive to write like this but for some reason I guess I insist on recapping EVERYTHING! :)

And, I thought the same thing about reading the first story, it was very hard to follow and I had to read it through twice before I got the jist of what was being conveyed.
Courtney D

I agree that the non-fiction did not seem entirely accurate. There were definitely some biases in them, especially the second. I think that probably the author's accounts of what happened at Merrymount were exaggerated. For instance, when he said that Morton had a school of atheism.

der Grimnebulin

Jesi,

I love your differences, "1. The non-fiction stories were short and factual whereas the fiction story was long and eloquently detailed.
2. The non-fiction stories focused on Morton and the mythological and spiritual background of the maypole traditions and Merry Mount. The fictional story focused on the fantasy and storytelling side of the maypole.
3. The non-fiction and fiction stories have different tones when you read them. The non-fiction is straightforward and seems more serious. The fiction stories seemed fantasy-like and flighty. The sentences were flowy and light. It seemed the author wanted to tell the story in a storybook sort of way."
(I wanted to quote them all because I felt the same way about each pointyou made.) :)

Personally, the fiction story was my favorite and the one that I felt to be most accurate, as strange as it may seem. It almost seems like there was less bias in the fiction writing as opposed to the real-life accounts of people in the non-fiction. With personal accounts of an event there is always that sense of bias in whoever is reiterating the situation.

To me, the fiction portrayed fantasy aspects and certainly played with the reader's imagination, but you can't miss the acuracy of the points made about the religious and ideaological conflicts between the Puritans and the English.

-Erica

I agree that the non-fiction is more a fact based piece of writing, and I have to question it also. I found it really frusturating to read that story with all the spelling errors, but I think it was to tell it in a more traditional way. How do you think were supposed to learn about history if everything we read has 20 different stories and versions of it. I find it frusturating and unfortunate that we have to question our own history, but everyone see's things differently. You did a nice job explaining it and picking up on the flaws of each piece.

"The fiction stories seemed fantasy-like and flighty. The sentences were flowy and light. It seemed the author wanted to tell the story in a storybook sort of way."

Thats a good way to put it. I found the stories very direct in who they were writing for, people wanting the "story book" feel. On the fantasy part, I really thought including the details of the "gothic monsters" and tying in different Gods really made it feel fictionish. You kind of want to think, "it wouldnt happen like that... they didnt dress up like that..."

Derek Mickelson

Sorry, I forgot to put my name; Jesica Berlinger

I like your point that the passages could actually have a little bit of fiction in them. I think the best way of looking at it is that the writers were writing their interpretation of the facts. Because they were still writing facts, I think it would still be considered non-fiction even if the facts were a little biased or inaccurate. Joy Clark