On p. 143, Walter states, "There ain't no causes - there ain't nothing but taking in this world, and he who takes the most is smartest - and it don't make a damn bit of difference how." Do you think that this is true? Why or why not?

I think that Walter brings up an interesting point because rather than saying the world is made up of takers and givers, he says that everyone is a taker and that whoever takes the most is the smartest. I agree that everyone in this world is a taker, because everyone takes something from this planet just by existing. However, I disagree that the person who takes the most is the smartest. I think that it is not the person who takes the most who is the smartest but the one who gives back the most when looking at the percentage they've created and given to the world in comparison to what they originally had. The people who have made the most money in this world have it because somewhere along the line, they gave the people something that they wanted that was worth more than what they originally had. Hence, they gave more than they took. Let's look at an old lady who donated a dollar to charity. She had worked her whole life to get a few dollars because she was paid so low that a dollar to her was worth a million to us. She gave all of it charity, and that charity declared her as the biggest donor not because she gave the most money but because she gave the biggest percentage of what she had. Another person at the charity donated billions, but he didn't get the title despite having given the most money because to him, a couple billion was nothing compared to how much money he had altogether. Therefore, I think that defining intelligence by whoever has the most is futile. Rather, I think it is the person gives the largest percentage to the world compared to what they originally had to begin with that is the most intelligent. This intelligence shows in the academic skills to be able to build up what they had into something better, the emotional maturity to be able to let go of everything you have and give it to the world even if you don't know if it will reap anything for you, and the social awareness to be able to create something that could benefit a lot of people out of something that at first only benefitted you.

In Act II, Scene 2, Mama puts Walter in charge of all of the money. Why do you think that she does that?

I think Mama put Walter in charge of the money because she thought that the knowledge of her trusting him would cause him to use it wisely, and as she asks. She does not trust him, and Walter believed this to be so but was not certain. As a result, her trust is highly valued by him, because he does not see the emotion translate into something tangible often. Mama knew Walter wasn't going to spend the money wisely even if he had it because he puts his emotions before logical thought. So, if she made him think she trusted him, then that might counteract his thoughtless actions because of the pressure that knowledge would put on him.

However, Mama's calculated risk was wrong. Walter does not value Mama or her opinions. He only values her when she has something to offer him that he wants, such as money. As a result, Mama's trust is shocking, but not of great importance to him. It is not enough to make him think through his decision, otherwise he would have put the money in the bank, not given it to Woody. I don't think he intentionally was illogical. That is simply how he is, and Mama's false trust couldn't change that no matter how good of an actress she may be.

Lorraine Hansberry used a line from Langston Hughes poem, Harlem, as the title of her play. Considering that which you have read so far (Act 1), why do you think she did that?

  A sad fact of life is that people's dreams contradict each other. Not everyone can achieve their dreams because individuals and resources do not have the means to achieve these dreams. For example, if Martha and Stewart want to be the top psychologist in the world from 2030 to 2040 consecutively, then only one of them can be if it isn't someone else entirely. This is an example of a dream that individuals cause to contradict. Now, let's look at Amanda, who's dream is to buy a Lamborghini. This is a dream that multiple people can achieve, so individuals don't cause it to contradict. However, Amanda is a lower class American citizen with no money saved up in the bank and bad credit. Amanda needs good credit and a lot of money to buy a Lamborghini. Amanda doesn't have the money or the credit, so the resources causes her dream to contradict reality. For Martha and Stewart, the reality is they can become the top psychologist, but not both of them. For Amanda, the reality is she can purchase a Lamborghini, but she isn't able to because she doesn't have the resources to buy it.

    In Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun, the characters dreams contradict each other, and where there are not dreams that contradict each other, there are hopes. This is seen in Walter and Beneatha's contradicting dreams- they both need Mama's money, but for different purposes. Beneatha cannot pursue her dream, to be a doctor, without Mama's money to provide her with the necessary education. Walter cannot pursue his dream, to be a successful black man, without being a monetarily successful black man, and, in his perception, the best chance he has at that is by investing in the purchase of a series of liquor stores. Walter can only achieve this through Mama's money. There is one resource, and conflicting dreams. Mama wants her children, Beneatha and Walter, to be happy, but she hopes that the means in which they pursue their happiness are not the ones they dream of. Each of them express their desperation to achieve their dream differently- Beneatha's festers like a sore, Mama's sags like a heavy load, and Walter's has become crispy sugar. Considering that this is Act 1, I expect that the other protagonists will have a different way of dealing with dead dreams, each one having been mentioned in Langston Hughes's poem. I think the purpose of having each protagonist have a different way of dealing with dreams is to see if they all end the same- explosion.