See the Cat... See the Cradle...

I think this book is interesting-ish a lot more easier to read then BNW hmm I wonder why is there so many pages that pretty much equal to all the chapters.  You can tell there is a lot of postmodernist ideas in it.  To get started  postmodernism is of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes; largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality.  In the beginning of the book it already tells us that "nothing in this book is true".  By stating that first we can already tell that postmodern ideas will be generated through this, because in a modern society everything that is stated would have to be structure in an original way such as reality and truth.  Furthermore when Newt continues on and says "See the cat?  See the cradle?"  This proves in Cat's Cradle the game that there really is nothing because you really don't see a cat or a cradle, leading them to believe that there really is no truth to anything in there society.  Which leads into the character Jonah who "was a Christian then" (1) making Christianity the center or grand narrative, however he continues on "I am a Bokonoist now.  I would have been a Bokonist then, if there had been anyone to teach me the bittersweet lies of Bokonon" (2).  Bokonon is now considered his "center" without really "discovering what they are doing".  Postmodernism is present once again through this because their religion does not really have an actual purpose they're rules that are stated everyday to keep the people going without really knowing what is to be done.  If that makes sense.  All in all there are a lot of other places in the book that we can use to show there is postmoderism in it.

Break from BNW essay!!!

The Joy of waiting Last Minute

This is so lame, we just got done with the book give us a break and we are going to start reading a new one too.  So many ideas  I am not sure which one I want to talk about....
Well I think after talking about this in class I got a better sense of what we are doing.  However, when I got home I totally went blank. So I think I am going to use  Sir Ken Robinson  video and how everything is structure to prove that a "better world" is not very satisfying.  Also that being grouped together due to the fact that the only thing they have in common is the age to prove that they are stoping there growth on learning and there way of thinking.  Whick will lead into using an example from the text with the whole class rank and stuff.  Furthermore I will be using Frederick Winslow Taylor as more other source for the perfect work enviorment, and the perfect person to do so. 
I also wanted to do something with reality and the whole soma thing where they only use to get out of reality and live in their "fairytale" world.  Using the postmodernism article and how those two incorporate with each other.  But like I said I am still thinking of what I really want to do with this wonderful great essay that we will be writing about and then commenting and revising it yay us.

Totally Forgot we had to do one of these this week!!!

There are several parallels that were drawn between the video and Brave New World.  One that caught my attention was when they were talking about was that street kids and working class kids were incapable of learning how to read and write.  This leads on to Brave New World and the classes they are born into "... Delta Children wear khaki... and Epsilons are still the worse.  They're too stupid to be able to read or write" (27).  This goes to show that not only does the 19th century frown upon the lower class, but in Brave New World where you are "put into" determines on how people look at you and treat you.  Furthermore it leads on into education and it being modeled on the interest of industrialization and children being "batched" by age groups rather then individual knowledge.  Just like the book babies that are born within the same tube is batched together linking that the only they have in common is age.  Where as one can be more academically smarter then another, and the only reason they are in this certain category is because them were told they will be getting a high education and a better job.  However just like the video said that having a degree now and days means nothing and in Brave New World they are already destined to be a "Gamma, Delta, Beta, and Epsilon" which gives them a reason to not further there education.

Also the other thing that stuck out to me was anaesthetic which shut your senses off, deadened yourself to what is happening, it is similar to soma where it " gave [the] perfect [holiday] and, if the morning after was disagreeable, it was so, not intrinsically, but only by comparison with the joys of the holiday" (154).  Both of these gave you the will to shut down when ever life was getting hard and you need an escape.

Brave New World

Alrighty so I now understand what you guys were talking about in class, about the whole going back and fourth thing and it being confusing. They better have a good reason to do that!  Also my opinion on this society is that they are beyond corrupt and EASY that's the nicest way I can put it. Anyway I shall start my blog.

In Chapter 3 from the book family, monogamy, impulse, feeling and desire are all useless traits and people to them.  When giving the children a tour of the factory Mr. Mond ask them if the ever, "been compelled to live through a long time-interval between the consciousness of a desire and its fulfilment?" (45) one boy speaks up about having to wait on a girl and felt "horrible" Mond then goes on how the "ancestors were so stupid and short-sighted... when the first reformers came... to [offer] to deliver them from [these] horrible emotions... they wouldn't have anything to do with them" (45).  He gives them the impression that feelings or desire are useless and that having these emotions are a waste of energy. He continues with giving them the idea that a home and a mother is a bad thing with "no air, no space; an understerilized prison; darkness, disease, and smells" (37).  He creates the image where home is not a safe place and a mothers affection was "dangerous, insane, obscene relationship" (37).

Then it goes on to a scene with Fanny and Lenina where he gives off the impession that being stuck with one person to long is a bad form to go on and on like [that] with one man" (41), and that the D.H.C would object to anything being long term.  This just proves even more that relationships are corrupt and being held down or having a home is more dangerous then wondering the streets.

Well there you go done before 11 CRAZY!!

Prep for Tempest

In discussion of  "The Tempest" many people have argued the meaning and the way Shakespeare had intended it to bethought of and read. In George Will article he refers to Shakespeare "The Tempest" and state that it should be read in one way and one way only.  Dictating that an open minded reading will get you no where as a formatted way of reading will allow you to see the meaning behind the text.  However Greenblatt article states that reading Shakespeare work should be read with an open mind.  He pints out that we are held back by this guidelines and that by breaking out of it we are capable of understanding the text.  Agreeing with Greenblatt you can see that Shakespeare work such as "The Tempest" is a hard play to read, but using your imagination you can see the meaning.  Furthermore we also had a discussion about Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, and Queer Theory where we see how others view the play.  Some may suggest that the book was somehow about colonialism while others may disagree and state the it is just theater magic.  By attacking upon the play we are capable of seeing how each persona can view it.  In the article of Postcolonialism they give off that Shakespeare "Tempest" is nothing but a way of showing us "savages" and how they are brought upon us.   However after watching Hollywood interpretation of these savages we quick to learn that colonialism is nothing but a way of overtaking a foreign land and bring there own dominate culture into it.   Therefore after looking at all these articles and attempt to see how Shakespeare really wanted us to see is work, we can tell that not only is it confusing but can see in many ways and is a good way of teaching us to think outside the box instead of being imprison by templates.

I hope it makes sense!!

Annoyed by blogger right now it took be about 4 hours to get this out!!!  Dumb site wouldn't let me write!!!

Debate!

  This has to be the most confusing thing I have ever read but I am trying to do my best on how to answer our prompt.  So basically this is what I think is going on.


  The two articles that we just read talks about two people George Will and Stephen Greenblatt who debate over literary studies, politics and Shakespeare because it says so.  George who is a journalist states that "all literature is political" (111).  He goes on by giving examples from other sources such as Shakespeare, Jane Austin, and Emily Dickinson to show how "critics strip literature of its authority' (112).  He then continues on how Iannone "refutes are captives of the conditioning of their class, sec, race" (111).  Which means that literature is nothing more then political. 


  However Stephen argues that "the art that matters, is not cement" (115).  He goes on about how reading in the lines only keeps us limited that we need to expand ourselves and not be kept in solitary.  He then goes on about Western civilization and it being sabotage through text.  And that the only way to remove "inheritance is to turn into a decorous liturgical celebration of the new world order" (115).  Will states that the Tempest suggest that academic readers that interpret Shakespeare "in the light of colonialism, feminism, and other current preoccupations are rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary readers and playgoers" (110).  Greenblatts counters it with the fact that by doing so it will only keep the readers mind imaginative instead of "underming it" (110).
   
  I agree with Greenblatt that literature should not be giving a guide line.  That we need to express ourselves and not be limited.  Will argument is mainly listing what is wrong and how so.  While Greenblatt gives off examples that lead to his source to give better insight on what he is trying to prove.  I also agree with Greenblatt when he states " A love of literature is a forge community... found by imitative freedom" (115). 

Cant think of a creative title

     What is consider a savage?  Is it someone who kills another, a monster or is it someone who is uncivilized.  Hollywood portrays Native Americans as "vicious killer who are not even human...blood thirsty savages."  Furthermore; the chapters of Cultural Studies and Post-colonialism concludes that "all races other than white were inferior or subhuman... These subhumans or "savages" quickly became the inferior and equally "evil" (Bressle 236).  These "other" were to go to the dominate culture and be "quiet; deny yourself, and all will be well" (Bressle 234).   These early western stereotype and article connects with Shakespeare "The Tempest" where he portrays Caliban as a "savage and uncivilized" (Shakespeare 99).  When Caliban first meets Stephano he is mesmerized by the wine that is given to him, and soon makes Stephano his "master" telling him that he would show Stephano all the good around and the island shall be his.  However, unlike your typical "savage" that is portrayed through Hollywood Caliban out smarts Stephano and Trinculo into doing what he wants without being violent to them.  Although the articles states for the "others" to deny themselves Caliban does the opposite.  Unlike the portrayals of Native Americans, Caliban is respected by Stephano who tells Trinculo to not say such things to him.   In my opinion I think Shakespeare is unjust to the Native Americans and portrays the "white man" as superior.  I think that Shakespeare is somewhat sympathetic towards Caliban but leans more towards the "white man" dominate culture.  The article states that the "West became the colonizers, and many African and Asian countries and their peoples became the colonized" (236).  The video also proves that the west has always been the dominate, motion picture in the United States was made for white audiences to make money and portray history, however; "a nation that does not know his history has no future."

The Tempest!!!!

     Manipulation is the key to getting people to do what we want.  It is through that, that Shakespeare shows us how Prospero is able to get Miranda, Ariel, and Caliban to do what he wants.  Through the first act we see how he is capable of cheating those around him.  By not only using his magic powers but as well as using his words he is able is exploit those around him.   

     One of his biggest victim is his own daughter Miranda he is able to get her to see things his way by telling her "everything [he's] done has been for [her]" (Shakespeare Act 1 Scene 2).  Because she is naive she accepts his statement without questioning his morals.  The trust she has for him gives him the upper hand to manipulate her even more.  When telling her about how they came about on the island he stops every once in awhile to  see if she is paying attention.  By doing this he catches her off guard into finding the real meaning of why he has brought his enemies to the island.  However; with his servants like  Ariel his spirit helper he uses the fact that he gave him his freedom and stopped the "torture [he] freed [Ariel] from.  Even though Ariel has "never lied... or made mistakes, and never grumbled" (Act 1 Scene 2 pg 11) Prospero exaggerates the story even more so he thinks that he owes it to him to be there and help him.  Because of this he is consider the "master" which gives him the authority to further his dictatorship.  Through his harsh words and power not only his Ariel the only one who is afraid of him but as will as Caliban his other servant  the son of the which.  Caliban believes that this island is his and that Prospero "took it form [him]... (Act 1 Scene 2 pg 16)."  However; the two use to have a loving relationship Prospero use to " petted [him] and took care of [him], but in return Caliban showed Prospero "features of the island, the freshwater springs, the saltwater pits, the barren places and the fertile ones." (Act 1 Scene 2 pg 16).  At the time Caliban did not think anything of this, but as time went by he soon figured out that Propero was taking over his island.  The love and kindness shown was Prospero way of manipulating a young Caliban into thinking nothing was going to happen to him; however, now Caliban fears the man for he is now harsh and threatens to use harm and magic to get Caliban to do what he wants  " I have to obey. He’s got such strong magic powers that he could conquer and enslave the god... (Act 1 Scene 2 pg 17)."

     Through his words and magic not only do those around him fear him but see him as a higher authority.  Just like 1984 how the government uses slogans to get the people of Oceania to see things their way, Prospero exaggerates stories to get his daughter and servant to see things his way as well. All in all through just like 1984, Prospero also uses manipulation to get what he wants and get things done.  He is able to create fear which makes him able to control their emotions and control them altogether.  Even though to some he is consider as the dictator, he is also seen as a hero who goes out of his way to help others. 

What we talked about this week - TEXTBOOKS

     What we talked about in class was interesting, and important to us. As the generation we will be the ones to look back and see what history has become and how it is slowly changing. Sure it would be nice to have a text book to void any basis. However; we learned that it is impossible; students should be given the choice to see what they want to learn, not be forced upon by people who do not have a degree in history.
     I feel that because teachers are given a direct guide lines on how they are suppose to teach and avoid certain topics that it is holding back the students. Due to that it lessens the teachers to expand into new territory to develop skills they need to not only help themselves but the individuals who want to learn more but are limited due the textbook material. A topic that was brought up was minorities and whether or not there should be more material regarding them. History is just not about what happen to a certain group or race of people but other as well. I think that the text should have more diverse groups in it, there are always many events happening around the world with different culture but do we wish to focus on it, depends on the writers of the books.
     Why is it that the Board of Education wants to change the text when they are not the ones the class room reading about it and remember dates? I think that students should be given the time to look up what they want to learn in history through videos, textbooks and the Internet so they can have many sides of the story not just one, because the writers portray someone as a hero or villain. I think by taking out certain things in the textbook and adding more of others, the board is slowly changing history and before we know it, no one will remember what happen in a certain moment in history. The students should be given a chance to vote on this situation not the people who think they know what they are doing, but really do not because not one of the members on the board has a degree in history.

OhMGee

KP you should feel special my first blog is about you.  Well not really just so I can take up room up in here I put your name in here.  Well thats all, got your hopes up you thought I was going to write a long blog about you, you're special but not that special.