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)