Because the protagonist, John, is drawn to (perhaps even enamored by) the Place of the Gods, no reader should be surprised to find that the original title of Benét’s story was “The Place of the Gods.” After all, to John and his people it is a forbidden place, yet he goes there and is evidently quite changed by the experience—so changed, in fact, that he tells us, “When I am chief priest, we shall go beyond the great river. We shall go to the Place of the Gods.”
The two most common pitfalls on Response 1 are that students either (1) merely retell (summarize) the story’s action, or (2) talk abt the wrong spot in the action. The first pitfall is a failure to recognize the difference b/w analysis and summary. Given last week’s work, you shld know that analysis/explanation is what I want from you, not summary. The second pitfall is a failure to read the prompt carefully: it is asking abt the character’s (John’s) future decision (a decision we never actually get to see him carry out) to return—both he and his people—to the Place of the Gods; this is a decision he tells us abt at the end of the story. The prompt is not asking abt why he decides at the beginning of the story to go to the Place of the Gods in the first place. Far too many students answer the prompt as if that were the spot in the story the prompt is asking abt. It’s not. It’s asking abt his decision to return.
— above is just some helpful tidbits my professor posted about the assignment.
Prompt ~ Write an MLA-formatted response that explains whether this premeditated future decision of John’s represents a “victory” for him and his people or a “failure.” Consider his motivation to return to the place as well as the textual clues that cast a shadow on that decision. (Avoid summarizing plot.).
I have attached the story .