Sorry for the first and last late post, professor! I had no chance to write a good response that would convince me to post.  Also, I confused the due date with another date.

In Rip Van Winkle by  Washington Irving, the tale narrates the story of the main character Rip Van Winkle as a simple, good-natured man who experienced a weird event while he was away from home. For the rest of the village, Rip Van Winkle was a “kind neighbor” and an “obedient hen-pecked husband.” However, when he was at home, he would not contribute to his wife, Dame Van Winkle. Even his children well ill-mannered and ragged, meaning that he did not take care of them as well. Overall, his relationship with his family was not right and healthy as he had with the rest of the neighbors.

In the introduction, I got a little grasp of how the setting looked in the Kaastill mountains. Moreover, it gave me an excellent impression of how well described was the village where our main character lived. It was also good to know a little bit of historical context about who were the founders of the town. The reason is that in the following paragraphs, I could make a connection of why Rip saw some Dutch references in the stranger’s clothes who he guided.  Furthermore, this story was entertaining by the use of humor, which Irving included every time he narrated Rip. For instance, when he portrayed Rip Van Winkle as an unfortunate man of his circumstances on his farm, “It was the most pestilent little piece of ground in the whole country; everything about it went wrong, and would go wrong, in spite of him.”

A passage that I found enjoyable was when  Rip Van Winkle showed up in the middle of the village. The narrator described his looks and his surroundings: “The appearance of Rip, with his long grizzled beard, his rusty fowling-piece, his uncouth dress, and an army of women and children at his heels, soon attracted the attention of the tavern politicians. They crowded round him, eying him from head to foot with great curiosity. The orator bustled up to him, and, drawing him partly aside, inquired, “on which side he voted?” Rip stared in vacant stupidity.  Finally, I think the meaning of the tale was how time keeps flowing and does not wait for anyone.  Rip Van Winkle was not a person who would move forward in his present, but despite of that the rest of the people did. It was really unfortunate of him that what everything that he knew disappeared the next day. Nevertheless, that is how life has been working for many years.

In contrast with the tale, I watched the “Mannahatta Project” by Eric Sanderson to get a view of how New York City used to be in colonial times. New York City has been the home for many people and including myself.  However, the city that we know in the present went through different changes to be the metropolitan city that we know today. In the video “Eric Sanderson: New York Before the City,” the speaker gave the audience an insight into how New York looked for the past 400 hundred years ago.  Meanwhile I was watching it, I was amazed how different the appearance of New York was in the past. I came with an epiphany that we are living right now the “future” that many authors and analysts presented in their books or researches. However, going back of the origins of where we are living, it has demonstrated that time has never stopped once and we have kept moving forward.  It was not a big surprise finding that relationship with the case of Rip Van Winkle who “traveled” (for not saying transporting) to the future. Rip Van Winkle noticed that everything of the past was vanished and something new and big was in front of him. The time in history plays a big role not only in the texts, books or newspapers but also in our lives.