Slip Of The Mind

 Well, i guess this is my fist official late assignment...that sucks.

What makes Cat’s Cradle Postmodern is its heavy reliance on Bokonon. The whole Bokononism is a kind of postmodernist religion. With all these -isms claiming, (capitalism, communism, socialism?) and that is: that only their -ism is the right one for the world. The founder of Bokononism was Lionel Boyd Johnson, whose name was corrupted by the island dialect. Bokononism contains the postmodernist misreading, combination and anarchy at once. Even the first verse in the Book of Bokonons says: "All of the true things that I am to tell you are shameless lies." Here we can see Vonnegut's opinion about religion. He tells us, that people always look for something to what they can believe. "Truth was the enemy of the people, because the truth was so terrible, so Bokonon made it his business to provide the people with better and better lies." The religion just covers the horrible truths out there. Bokononism is like a play. All the people are actors, which are fed with lies and like in a Christianity or other religions, they don't question it, they just blindly follow it. They believe in their made up religion, they believe in something which is not. Like Cat's Cradle, which for some people is just a bunch of strings, for some a real image of a Cradle. The crisis of Christianity (religion) is according to interview with Vonnegut: "The adults can not regard themselves as God's little sheep anymore." This a postmodernist feature, which is typical for many postmodernist books. The main faith is not based in some religion, but in man himself.  Even Felix Hoenikker was described as person so innocent, that he was practically a Jesus.  An open critique of the Catholic Church is included in one of the Calypsos as well:

On the Natives of San Lorenzo:
Oh, a very sorry people, yes,
Did I find here.
Oh, they had no music,
And they had no beer.
And, oh, everywhere
Where they tried to perch
Belonged to Castle Sugar, Incorporated,
Or the Catholic church.

This shows, through Vonnegut’s almost attire of religion, just how postmodernist Cat’s Cradle is. Blog OVER! & that's what i'm throwing. 

Are We Human Or Are We Dancers?

Throughout the discussion of Brave New World  we constantly talked about that society in this novel lacked morales, and was completely perverse.  I have a problem with this. Although personally, yes, i think that this society is freaking psycho and absurd, I believe that, in order to completely understand Huxley's purpose you must delve into the definition of "social norm." What makes you normal in society? What drives the creation of your personal morales, and those of society? What are these morale, or what makes a person morale? To even continue this, why follow these morales? What is a morale? What is normal? What makes you human? I think this would be an interesting argument to present for BNW is an exaggeration of today's "morales" being completely absent. Addtionally, i would like to analyize the influence of technology and marketing on morales and normality. To dive into these topics, the articles from Postman's Technopoly and Klein's No Logo.  Postman's article talks about the concurrent evolution of technology and society, and its effect on society as a whole, by using this theoretical government of "Technopoly." This can be comparatively analyzed with BNW and it's manipulation of technology to control it citizens, in order for supreme efficiency. That's is the ideal objective. Then how does this technology manipulate morales and norms to better this efficiency. Why manipulate these aspects of life? What is its effect? Additionally, i want to bring in Klein's article and its discussion of the effects it has on society, with emphasis on the youth. The market controls the idea of what it is like to be "cool" by presenting brands worn by these people, or billboards depicting those people. In a generation of youth striving towards "freedom", youth were being consumed by their "yuppie" counterparts, and succumbing to western consumerism. I find this interesting, because I want to discuss a different machine, besides the government, that can influence society, consumerism and the market; (Albeit that most likely the government has some role in controlling the market).  How this  other machine can define social norms and morales, and how this relates to BNW. I feel like this could be an interesting essay, because i can explore what it is that makes us "human." What if BNW's society isn't perverse at all? Is it only perverse because society defines it to be? Are we human or are we just dancing along with the metaphorical tune of society, letting it take us where it wants? (I may even, if i'm feeling extra ambitious, throw in a parallel to Edward Scissorhands and how his "abnormal" behavior reveals the perverse nature of our "normal" behavior, and go into a discussion on Huxley's purpose was to reveal this same perverseness in BNW, but only if it i feel like it) & that's what i'm throwing.

God Forbid Separate Male and Female Facilities In School!

            Sir Ken Robinson makes some interesting parallels to Brave New World. Firstly is the idea of medicating our children to the point of utter nothingness, in order for the child to become educated, as defined by society. Soma, in Brave New World, is like the Ritalin of today, but rather than being taken to learn, it is being taken to forget. Both of the process are done to keep the metaphorical machine of their own respective government and societies. The next point Robinson makes is the assembly line metaphor of taking these drugged kids and placing them with groups of students in their age group, to go and be educated, and be found out to the smart, or not so smart. The same way the people in Brave New World are conditioned in their predetermined group to be their respective role in life, to be a Alpha or Beta, Smart, or Delta, Epsilon, or Gamma, not so smart. Robinson is trying to show that our society today is looking at education in the wrong way. The way education is set up, is the same way brave new world  is set up, disallowing for there to be any change in one’s life once your are put in your predetermined group. You are essentially doomed to the system. As you can see here, "The greater a man's talents, the greater his power to lead astray. It is better that one should suffer than that many should be corrupted. Consider the matter dispassionately, Mr. Foster, and you will see that no offense is so heinous as unorthodoxy of behavior. Murder kills only the individual-and, after all, what is an individual?" As Huxley and Robinson are explaining this lack of individualism, in education for example, where your predetermined state is where the assembly line of life will take you. You are doomed to the system.

             My personal opinion of this video is seen with a little skepticism. Here are just some questions, if given the opportunity, I’d like to ask Sir Robinson. You describe each child as being, and learning differently, then what do you suggest we do to our system? Make a school for each individual child based on their needs? I’m not saying this idea isn’t a great. I just think that you are presenting a problem, and answering it in a vague, unsupported fashion that causes more confusion than solution.

Last Late Blog....EVER!

The idea of being human is nonexistent in Adulous Huxley’s Brave New World.  Rather than experiencing natural accomplishments or events, the citizens are now just taking soma to feel good. The things in life that  only bring  momentary happiness, are what are emphasized in this society. One does not have a, dare I say the word?, long-term relationship with anyone. Families, who needs them? People in society have been designed to know what they want, to want simple things, and to know the exact way they should achieve this. They have been told what to feel since early childhood through a constant stream of brainwashing tapes played in their sleep. They have been conditioned to believe that all the impulses, feelings, and desires they have are indeed natural, but even more, they are to be expended as much as possible in the most basic and easiest ways possible. “Everywhere exclusiveness, a narrow channeling of energy and impulse” The society is based on impulsive actions, no complex thought whatsoever.  Why? Because these thing rob productivity, and that is the goal of the society that worships the epitome of productivity, Ford.  If one is to truly feel any sort of human emotion, one will became distracted halting the assembly line, slowing down  the machine. The complexity of the relationships, the emotion one must expend to maintain these relationships, it is all seen as too many limitations on mankind. How can one get what they want when they want if they held back by a relationship? & that’s what I’m throwin’ 

(Actual post date later than what appears, In order to stifle confusion.)

Circumstantial Tardiness (Essay Preparation Blog)

In discussions of how a text should be read, the traditional view is formed by George Will and his view of analyzing the text for its aesthetics. However, there may be other ways to think about this text. For one thing, Stephen Greenblatt explains that texts should be read for their political value to forward society to learn from previous mistakes or triumphs. And  Greenblatt also contends that if we only discuss text for its aesthetic value we will lose on the value of the text as a learning mechanism. “The best way to kill our literary inheritance is to turn it into a decorous liturgical celebration of the new world order. Poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in the social cement.”. Therefore, taking these positions into account, we can see that both argument have a sense of truth and must find a perfect medium for literature to fully be appreciated for its worth.

For this essay the best source would be the article entitled “Literary Study, Politics, ad Shakespeare: A Debate” This article outlines everything one needs to know about this debate, giving both side to the debate in a lengthy fashion. I can quote from these articles to further the development of my essay, but in the same token, it allows me to conjure up my own values in this debate. Another beneficial essay to use would be Cesaire’s A Tempest. Her interpretation of The Tempest  completely amplifies the amount of post colonialist values in the play. Her text could allow me to make an argument for both sides of the debate showing how it could add or detract from the literature of the play itself. I think these articles in combination would be the right recipe for a great essay. & that’s what I’m throwin’

(Posted 10/20/2010 but like the previous blog the date has been changed to reduce confusion and interference). 

Back in the Swing of things...

Well, obviously this post is like eons late, but now that my grievance period is over it's time to make up work!
So two sides to reading a text One side thinks it's wrong to analyze a text for its political meaning, only focusing on its aesthetics , whereas the other side believes that disregarding the politics of a story is ignorant and retard our ability to grow as a society.  
Representing the right side of the Argument is George Will. His ideal is that all text should be read for their aesthetic value, like their symbolism, imagery and thing related. This current trend of analyzing text for their politics is detracting from the art of literature. Its no longer like analyzing a piece of art, its like reading a history book. Will explains by saying, "The supplanting of aesthetic by political responses to literature makes literature primarily interesting as a mere index of who had power and whom the powerful victimized." Will is just trying to say that if we continue on this path, we lose literature as an art, which cannot be done in his eyes.
On the opposite side of the spectrum is Stephen Greenblatt. . He refutes everything the right side believes in. His argument is that the politics are the key aspect of literature and should be to advance society. He also believes these styles of analytical reading with help the people of a nation to implement their first amendment rights. He disputes that “For [the Rightist critics], what is at stake is the staunch reaffirmation of a shared and stable culture that is, as Mr. Will puts it, ‘the nation’s social cement.’ Also at stake is the transmission of that culture to passive student”  
Where i stand would most likely be in the middle of this argument. I think literature needs both of these arguments, because i believe that art consists of both of these argument. to trash one of the other would limit literature, and in those terms limit art, which is uncalled for. So like i said, we need to find that perfect balance between the arguments to fully understand what literature is, a work of art, criticizing any aspect of society, artfully. & that's what i'm throwin'
(Posted 10/20/2010 but dated as a different time to disallow confusion and interference)

Shakespeare's a Racist?!?!?!

Well, not really. Shakespeare was only writing for his time. You see the Tempest is a story of power, renege, and colonialism. Caliban, the native to the island, oppressive Prospero lands on, is depicted as a sort of monster. Which is nicely described by our friend Trinculo, "

What have we here? A man or a fish? Dead or alive? A fish. He smells like a fish, a very ancient and fish-like smell, a kind of not-of-the-newest poor-john. A strange fish! Were I in England now, as once I was, and had but this fish painted, not a holiday fool there but would give a piece of silver. There would this monster make a man. Any strange beast there makes a man. When they will not give a doit to relieve a lame beggar, they will lay out ten to see a dead Indian. Legged like a man and his fins like arms! Warm, o' my troth. I do now let loose my opinion, hold it no longer: this is no fish, but an islander that hath lately suffered by a thunderbolt."

 This, in today's scope of thinking, would be kinda racist. Can we blame him however? Most people in the 18th century stereotyped the "others of the world, like the middle east and beyond, as infidels and savages.  Shakespeare was making a show that was intended to be viewed by most Europeans.  so if a=b and b=c then a=c as well. its common math, i think? So yes, he did present a stereotype according to today's standards, but it was quite different then. 
Another way to justify this claim would be through his other play, The Merchant of Venice. In this play a Jew is portrayed as an evil character that is out to steal everyone's money, and has every other Jewish stereotype. The people that were viewing this show were, well you guessed it, Anti-Semitic.  If Shakespeare were to portray the Jew any other way, well he would have at least been chastised, but i fear it may have been much worse.
This "racism" of sorts was carried on through all of the colonialist times of the world. Take for example Rudyard Kipling's "White Man's Burden." This poem dramatized the role of society to go to these so -called savages of th Philippines, a parallel to Caliban, Christianize them, and make them "white." This ideal was shared by most white folks in America.
So you see Shakespeare wasn't a racist at, here was merely weak willed, conformer :) & that's what I'm throwing
This Post was orginally done on September 23, but i had trouble uploading it untill now, hopefully that's okay?

Thou Liest, Malignant Thing!

                  Prospero, a lone islands appointed leader (appointed by himself), rules over the land with aggression, magic, and words. If something isn't going right, with just a flick of the wrist of swipe of the tongue, Prospero can control Caliban, his man servant, Ariel, his magical nymph/genie/thing, and his daughter, Miranda, to do whatever he wants.
                       Take Ariel for example. Prospero has, according to the text "I Prithee, Remember i have done thee worthy service, told thee no lies, made thee no mistakings, served without or grudge or grumblings. Thou didst promise," promised him his freedom. Since Ariel is very useful to Prospero, he doesn't want him to go, so he retells the story of how he saved him , blah blah blah, used some highly convincing worths and BAM! Ariel was convinced to stay, as long as he set him free in  a few days.Just by the way he spoke to Ariel, Prospero is able to contol and morph Ariel's thought to bend to Prosperso's will.

                   This method proves to work on Miranda, he innocent and naive daughter, as well. But in this case it is slightly different, for Miranda came to the island when she was very young, and has no remembrance of what happens before they came to the island. Prospero is able to make up any story that suits his needs and Miranda will believe him, for she has nothing else to believe in. HE also has magical control of his daughter too, "Thou art inclined to sleep. 'Tis a good dullness, and give it way. I know thou canst choose. Miranda Sleeps" It is almost creepy or disturbing the amount of power Prospero has over his daughter. He can not only control her mentally and emotionally, but physically as well.. Weird....

& that's what I'm throwin'

      

Chinchillas and Barf (Single Story Blog)

Imagine, you are with a group of friends. One “friend” decides to steal a glorious chinchilla fur muff to keep her hands warm during the cold months.  Minutes later, the police shows up and asks, “Who stole this glorious chinchilla muff?” All of a sudden this same friend points to you, while the muff is on her arm, and puts the blame on you. The police then proceed to pat your “friend on the head and tell her “thank you for tracking down this muff-napper. Here is a cookie.” They then arrest you and fine you triple the value of the glorious chinchilla muff and slap you hand.  While this story is quite ridiculous, it emphasizes the hazard of the “Single-Story.” If society only listened to one side of the story or trusted merely the information we are taught through history or literature we would ultimately “rob people of dignity… and make our recognition of our equal humanity difficult” (Adichie).

In Literature, nowadays, the premise of the single story is beginning to disappear for we live in the postmodern era where novels are written for whatever the author want it to be written.  This was untrue during the enlightenment and before, because books were written to a center, like the church. Adiche focuses her speech on the western world’s misconception of Africa and other cultures based on our literature written on it. Can we blame solely literature for this misconstruction? What about what history tells us? It also seems that the history in the postmodern world has moved on past the “single story. In 7^th grade for example, the curriculum included learning about all the major religions of the world, not just Christianity, and require individual research from a large amount of sources. We could probably rule history out then. Maybe it is just the ignorance of select Americans that gets amplified through media, for example Jay Leno goes out into the streets of New York and asks simple questions, where most of the people give hilariously wrong answers. This process fails to show anyone who answers the questions correctly. In this case we are also given merely one side of the story, the ignorant side. Here’s something to think about: What if Adiche is merely stereotyping Americans based on a few experiences she had with them?

This article was not meant to say that the single story dilemma is not a bad thing or is not present anymore. It was merely to conjure up the idea that maybe we cannot blame the history books and the narratives for giving us the single story.  Society is moving past the days of the singe story, and rather than dwell on the fact that it was a problem of the past, change it. Heck! The internet connects the world to each other allowing this multiple story “machine” to inform society.

However, when it comes down to it, most people are not mal-informed, they are merely rejecting the idea of another story, based on what they want to believe. ...And that is what I am throwing

(Wow this jumped everywhere!  All my ideas came out  at the same time and word barf was produced, oh well. Enjoy my barf! :) )

Existentialism

What can we observe here?

Angst? Sorrow? Struggle?

 You tell me.

Or more importantly.

Let Frogbert tell you.

With his eyes.

(That's What I'm Throwin')