Monday, May 16, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
MausII.
Minor scare, people reading this. I forgot my password. Thank goodness for email-password retrieval, or else my grading contract would be in jeopardy. I suppose next time I should just write it down...
For this assignment, I am not going to cite an article. I am going to analyze Maus II through the lens of a book written by Elie Wiesel, called Night. I have always been interested in learning about the Holocaust and have subsequently read books and watched documentaries about it. By far, Night has been one of my favorite books on the subject, and I think it is a perfect text to use in analysis of Maus II.
The book, only 99 pages, is a firsthand account of Weisel's journey throughout the Nazi concentration camps of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and his eventual escape to freedom. He shows the brutality of his time spent in those camps, while still profoundly illustrating his thoughts on the suffering implemented amongst the prisoners, soldiers fighting, the brainwashed Nazis, and where God comes into play throughout the war's entirety.
I found there to be many parallels between Night and Maus II - one of the most obvious being that they were both centered around the effects that Hitler had upon their Jewish families and themselves. Despite the difference between Spiegelman and Wiesel's points of view (Wiesel experienced the camps effects directly, while Spiegelman experienced the effects indirectly), I think both make a powerful statement on the horrors that the Nazis implemented.
The most interesting thing I found in comparison of the two novels, is that they both successfully depict such a profound, honest, message, despite their length. Going along with what class has been centered around, both books are indeed, postmodern - in the sense that they stray away from the modernistic notation that a novel needs lengthy chapters filled with elevated language and whatnot.
To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what I want to convey in my essay just yet. There are still some themes that I am debating writing about, but I will definitely be using Night as my foundation for analysis.
For this assignment, I am not going to cite an article. I am going to analyze Maus II through the lens of a book written by Elie Wiesel, called Night. I have always been interested in learning about the Holocaust and have subsequently read books and watched documentaries about it. By far, Night has been one of my favorite books on the subject, and I think it is a perfect text to use in analysis of Maus II.
The book, only 99 pages, is a firsthand account of Weisel's journey throughout the Nazi concentration camps of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, and his eventual escape to freedom. He shows the brutality of his time spent in those camps, while still profoundly illustrating his thoughts on the suffering implemented amongst the prisoners, soldiers fighting, the brainwashed Nazis, and where God comes into play throughout the war's entirety.
I found there to be many parallels between Night and Maus II - one of the most obvious being that they were both centered around the effects that Hitler had upon their Jewish families and themselves. Despite the difference between Spiegelman and Wiesel's points of view (Wiesel experienced the camps effects directly, while Spiegelman experienced the effects indirectly), I think both make a powerful statement on the horrors that the Nazis implemented.
The most interesting thing I found in comparison of the two novels, is that they both successfully depict such a profound, honest, message, despite their length. Going along with what class has been centered around, both books are indeed, postmodern - in the sense that they stray away from the modernistic notation that a novel needs lengthy chapters filled with elevated language and whatnot.
To be honest, I'm not exactly sure what I want to convey in my essay just yet. There are still some themes that I am debating writing about, but I will definitely be using Night as my foundation for analysis.
Friday, December 10, 2010
I love cats.
Yeah. They're adorable. Especially mine!
I loved the socratic circles this past week. I especially enjoyed how involved my group was in the discussion, and how many topics that were touched on between the two. Any questions that I had were answered with such interesting and different perspectives from my peers, so it was awesome to see. Both discussions have given me a lot of interesting points to take away with me that I will definitely keep in mind when it comes time to write an essay about the novel. We need to do those more often, because I always get a lot out of them!
Anyway, OF COURSE the two can be compared; Cat's Cradle and postmodernism go together like white on rice. Kind of.
Postmodernism is, as I'm sure you can tell, a movement that happened after modernism, in the 18th century. The movment rejects all ideals of the modern times. Such ideas include the idea of a "center," which is instead rejected, along with an embrace of chaos, rather than a "grand narrative." Postmodernism recognizes how beautifully diverse art, literature, language, and culture are, and encourages others to do so as well. So, logically, the movement has transcended amongst artists and people alike.
When viewing Cat's Cradle through a postmodern lens, many similarities between the two come to mind. I will type a few of them for funsies.
The structure of the chapter titles can be paralleled with postmodernism, with "A Nice Midget" and "O.K., Mom," being such unusual choices. This choice in titles is a complete rejection of the modern formally written titles. Moreover, the amount of chapters within the novel (125) and the short length of the book suggest that Vonnegut is disregarding the previously conceived notion that in order to be considered a ground-breaking novel, chapters should be lengthy and readers shouldn't be able to read it within a few days. Yeah, well, Vonnegut proved all of those people wrong! Why am I so passionate? Maybe because this book isn't as intensely depressing as the other ones. It's a little bit of a lighter read, and I find it more interesting than the others we've read thus far. I'll let my passion live on...
Vonnegut's creation of Bokononism, the most ridiculously complicated religion in the world, is one that makes a powerful, postmodern comment on religion in society. His depiction of Bokonoism suggests that religion itself is an endless cycle of searching for a truth that won't ever be found, making his point very clear in a conversation where the title of a training camp for soldiers, "Fort Jesus," was questioned, in which Stanley replied, "'Sure. Why not?'" In the Christian society, Jesus Christ is the "Way, Truth, and Life," and no one will recieve eternity in Heaven if he does not believe in Jesus and what He did in order to save those said Christians from a life of sin. So, Jesus is the center of that religion, with every aspect of Christian life revolving around Him, while Vonnegut's satirical tone suggests a completely postmodern rejection of a religious "center." His parallels between Bokononism and Christianity depict that there is no Absolute Truth, and his ironic implications show his thoughts about a search for that Truth is a waste of time, which is completely opposite of the modern acceptance that there is nothing but Absolute Truth, and that every one should accept that.
These are just a few examples of things that I saw in Cat's Cradle through a postmodern lens. I'd write more, but I want to go watch the Glee Christmas Special, because I didn't get to earlier this week. So bye!
In short: cats are precious, I want more socratic circles, postmodernism and Cat's Cradle are besties, and I'm a gLeek.
POSTMODERNISM, FTW! Just kidding.
WINTER BREAK, FTW!
One more week.
I. can. do. this.
I loved the socratic circles this past week. I especially enjoyed how involved my group was in the discussion, and how many topics that were touched on between the two. Any questions that I had were answered with such interesting and different perspectives from my peers, so it was awesome to see. Both discussions have given me a lot of interesting points to take away with me that I will definitely keep in mind when it comes time to write an essay about the novel. We need to do those more often, because I always get a lot out of them!
Anyway, OF COURSE the two can be compared; Cat's Cradle and postmodernism go together like white on rice. Kind of.
Postmodernism is, as I'm sure you can tell, a movement that happened after modernism, in the 18th century. The movment rejects all ideals of the modern times. Such ideas include the idea of a "center," which is instead rejected, along with an embrace of chaos, rather than a "grand narrative." Postmodernism recognizes how beautifully diverse art, literature, language, and culture are, and encourages others to do so as well. So, logically, the movement has transcended amongst artists and people alike.
When viewing Cat's Cradle through a postmodern lens, many similarities between the two come to mind. I will type a few of them for funsies.
The structure of the chapter titles can be paralleled with postmodernism, with "A Nice Midget" and "O.K., Mom," being such unusual choices. This choice in titles is a complete rejection of the modern formally written titles. Moreover, the amount of chapters within the novel (125) and the short length of the book suggest that Vonnegut is disregarding the previously conceived notion that in order to be considered a ground-breaking novel, chapters should be lengthy and readers shouldn't be able to read it within a few days. Yeah, well, Vonnegut proved all of those people wrong! Why am I so passionate? Maybe because this book isn't as intensely depressing as the other ones. It's a little bit of a lighter read, and I find it more interesting than the others we've read thus far. I'll let my passion live on...
Vonnegut's creation of Bokononism, the most ridiculously complicated religion in the world, is one that makes a powerful, postmodern comment on religion in society. His depiction of Bokonoism suggests that religion itself is an endless cycle of searching for a truth that won't ever be found, making his point very clear in a conversation where the title of a training camp for soldiers, "Fort Jesus," was questioned, in which Stanley replied, "'Sure. Why not?'" In the Christian society, Jesus Christ is the "Way, Truth, and Life," and no one will recieve eternity in Heaven if he does not believe in Jesus and what He did in order to save those said Christians from a life of sin. So, Jesus is the center of that religion, with every aspect of Christian life revolving around Him, while Vonnegut's satirical tone suggests a completely postmodern rejection of a religious "center." His parallels between Bokononism and Christianity depict that there is no Absolute Truth, and his ironic implications show his thoughts about a search for that Truth is a waste of time, which is completely opposite of the modern acceptance that there is nothing but Absolute Truth, and that every one should accept that.
These are just a few examples of things that I saw in Cat's Cradle through a postmodern lens. I'd write more, but I want to go watch the Glee Christmas Special, because I didn't get to earlier this week. So bye!
In short: cats are precious, I want more socratic circles, postmodernism and Cat's Cradle are besties, and I'm a gLeek.
POSTMODERNISM, FTW! Just kidding.
WINTER BREAK, FTW!
One more week.
I. can. do. this.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
CAN'T WAIT TO WRITE THIS ESSAY!
To be honest, I really have no clue what I'm going to write about. There's a few ideas running through my head, but none of them are as well developed as I'd like them to be to write an essay on. I've been sitting here trying to think about it for a while, and I think that I've picked an idea. It might change and definitely needs work, but I'll most likely write about this:
In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley illucidates how emotions are supressed in order for those in power to maintain control and be progressive, therefore completely manipulating the reality in which the citizens live. If I decide to argue this, I want to use George Orwell's 1984 and Sir Ken Robinson's "Changing Education Paradigms."
1984 follows the state of Oceania in the year 1984, specifically Winston Smith, an Outer Party member living in London. It depicts how the Party, the government in power, is able to control the people of Oceania through the destruction of individuality, thereby enabling reality to be manipulated. I think that this relates well to my stance on Brave New World, because the emotions that a person feels are unique to that individual; so, with the absense of emotions through governmental control, an absense of individuality is present as well.
In the video, "Changing Education Paradigms," Sir Ken Robinson comments on education in today's society. He says that education is modeled after and made in the image of "the interests of industrialization," with schools "organized on factory lines" that "educate children in batches." Similarly, the Utopian society created by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, is assembled around factory line technology, going as far as creating each individual through "human invention" (13). His comments on education can be paralleled to the way in which individuals in Huxley's world are seen not as individuals, but as a whole, being manipulated in "batches." Those "batches" of people further diminize their individuality, because of how they are viewed, along with literally taking away the human aspect of each person. bymaking it sound like they are just making cookies! Cookies don't even have emotions! But in all seriousness, focus in that world is on the overall progression of scientific knowledge and industry at the expense of the individual.
Ah well, I'm sorry that this isn't very well written. Hopefully within the next few days, I'll have a set idea. If you have any suggestions, feel free to lay it on me!
In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley illucidates how emotions are supressed in order for those in power to maintain control and be progressive, therefore completely manipulating the reality in which the citizens live. If I decide to argue this, I want to use George Orwell's 1984 and Sir Ken Robinson's "Changing Education Paradigms."
1984 follows the state of Oceania in the year 1984, specifically Winston Smith, an Outer Party member living in London. It depicts how the Party, the government in power, is able to control the people of Oceania through the destruction of individuality, thereby enabling reality to be manipulated. I think that this relates well to my stance on Brave New World, because the emotions that a person feels are unique to that individual; so, with the absense of emotions through governmental control, an absense of individuality is present as well.
In the video, "Changing Education Paradigms," Sir Ken Robinson comments on education in today's society. He says that education is modeled after and made in the image of "the interests of industrialization," with schools "organized on factory lines" that "educate children in batches." Similarly, the Utopian society created by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, is assembled around factory line technology, going as far as creating each individual through "human invention" (13). His comments on education can be paralleled to the way in which individuals in Huxley's world are seen not as individuals, but as a whole, being manipulated in "batches." Those "batches" of people further diminize their individuality, because of how they are viewed, along with literally taking away the human aspect of each person. bymaking it sound like they are just making cookies! Cookies don't even have emotions! But in all seriousness, focus in that world is on the overall progression of scientific knowledge and industry at the expense of the individual.
Ah well, I'm sorry that this isn't very well written. Hopefully within the next few days, I'll have a set idea. If you have any suggestions, feel free to lay it on me!
Thursday, October 28, 2010
A "Humility" BY rocks!
less than 2 hours until it's Friday... YES! HALLOWEEKEND! :)
In the video, "Changing Education Paradigms," Sir Ken Robinson comments on education in today's society. He says that education is modeled after and made in the image of "the interests of industrialization," with schools "organized on factory lines" (you know, school bells ringing, separate buildings for different subjects, sitting in classrooms in rows and rows of desks, etc) that "educate children in batches." He expands, saying that the only thing that matters in a student is their "date of manufacture."
Similarly, the Utopian society created by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, is assembled around factory line technology, going as far as creating each individual through "human invention" (13). Through their "modern fertilizing process," people are literally assembled together through different rooms through Bokanovsky's Process, for the "good of Society" (5). They too, center around industry, mapping time in years A.F. (After Ford), the "Father of Assembly Line Technology," which revolutionized industry in not only our country, but in the world. People in Huxley's world are seen not as individuals, but as a whole, being manipulated in "batches," just as students today are being educated. Focus in both worlds is not on developing an individual, but is on the overall progression of scientific knowledge and industry.
Oh no, he wasn't done making weirdly similar parallels to the two worlds yet .
Robinson talks about students in our country with ADHD, who are being "medicated as routinely as we have our tonsils taken out." They're being drugged with Ritalin and other drugs in order to calm them down and help them focus on the ultimate goal of education, which allows them to be productive members of society. He says the arts are programs that suffer the most from the "fictitious epidemic" known as ADHD, being that those drugs are anesthetic, taking away all emotion from an experience, not allowing the person under the influence to be "fully alive."
Likewise, soma, the drug in Brave New World is given to citizens in order to "make lives emotionally easy," saving them from those "horrible emotions;" feeling is therefore suppressed, shortening "that interval of time between desire and its consummation," which "breaks down all of those old unnecessary barriers" (44,45). Soma was "passed from hand to hand" like a routine tonsil visit. Both soma and Ritalin suppress the emotions of those who are under the influence of the drugs. With that suppression of emotions, the ultimate goal of becoming progressive is achieved. Progression does not necessarily require an emotional connection, but rather an anesthetic connection, thus enabling it to be achieved.
In case you didn't catch on, my title is referring to Amanda Brown Young. Bye! :)
In the video, "Changing Education Paradigms," Sir Ken Robinson comments on education in today's society. He says that education is modeled after and made in the image of "the interests of industrialization," with schools "organized on factory lines" (you know, school bells ringing, separate buildings for different subjects, sitting in classrooms in rows and rows of desks, etc) that "educate children in batches." He expands, saying that the only thing that matters in a student is their "date of manufacture."
Similarly, the Utopian society created by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, is assembled around factory line technology, going as far as creating each individual through "human invention" (13). Through their "modern fertilizing process," people are literally assembled together through different rooms through Bokanovsky's Process, for the "good of Society" (5). They too, center around industry, mapping time in years A.F. (After Ford), the "Father of Assembly Line Technology," which revolutionized industry in not only our country, but in the world. People in Huxley's world are seen not as individuals, but as a whole, being manipulated in "batches," just as students today are being educated. Focus in both worlds is not on developing an individual, but is on the overall progression of scientific knowledge and industry.
Oh no, he wasn't done making weirdly similar parallels to the two worlds yet .
Robinson talks about students in our country with ADHD, who are being "medicated as routinely as we have our tonsils taken out." They're being drugged with Ritalin and other drugs in order to calm them down and help them focus on the ultimate goal of education, which allows them to be productive members of society. He says the arts are programs that suffer the most from the "fictitious epidemic" known as ADHD, being that those drugs are anesthetic, taking away all emotion from an experience, not allowing the person under the influence to be "fully alive."
Likewise, soma, the drug in Brave New World is given to citizens in order to "make lives emotionally easy," saving them from those "horrible emotions;" feeling is therefore suppressed, shortening "that interval of time between desire and its consummation," which "breaks down all of those old unnecessary barriers" (44,45). Soma was "passed from hand to hand" like a routine tonsil visit. Both soma and Ritalin suppress the emotions of those who are under the influence of the drugs. With that suppression of emotions, the ultimate goal of becoming progressive is achieved. Progression does not necessarily require an emotional connection, but rather an anesthetic connection, thus enabling it to be achieved.
In case you didn't catch on, my title is referring to Amanda Brown Young. Bye! :)
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
we'll all float on alright...
Am I the only person who thought that the way those babies were treated was horrible? :( Chapter 3's multiple conversations were confusing, too. What a disgusting color khaki is. Just thought I would express my love for this book. It's so uplifting!
"Wheels must turn steadily, but can not turn untended. There must be men to tend them, men as sturdy as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment."
In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, society has been manipulated through "human invention [and] a series of arrests of development" in order to create "social stability," or "progress." The entire population is created through scientific processes, in which those people "tend" to those wheels. They work as a machine, controlling the production and fixation of how society functions, in order to keep order on a stable "axle." The Controllers, a group of ten people that control (crazy how those names work...) the different designated classes of people maintain the motto that "the machine turns, turns and must keep on turning - forever."
Everyone who is working as a "machine," tending to the "wheels," are able to be "stable in contentment," because in these days of A.F., through "wordless conditioning,...sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth." The Controllers are able to condition those underneath them to abide and enjoy whatever has been taught to them. Various things are manipulated in the wheel that must be "tended" to.
For example, people in Huxley's world are "taught no history," in order to protect citizens from "corrupted, old forbidden books," which were "suppressed before A.F. 150." The Controllers are able to keep the citizens focused on consumption, because throughout life, the people will have "not a moment to sit down and think." Those books manipulate the human experience completely, being that they strip those humans from any exploration of thought. Without an exploration of thought, along with "wordless conditioning," the value system guiding Huxley's society is completely manipulated to produce the desired outcome of consumption, and thus, "progress."
Furthermore, in order to further "stabilize" humans, emotions like passion and desire are suppressed, in order to make "lives emotionally easy...from those horrible emotions" Those in power strive to "shorten" the interval of feeling, which "lurks...between desire and its consummation." By stressing how easy life is without those horrible emotions, there is a perception that the controllers have the best in mind for those controlled. Since those people feel grateful for that absence of emotion, human experience is easily manipulated, so satisfaction and stabilization is then easily implemented into their minds. For those who might not feel as much gratitude, Controllers offer "soma,...the perfect drug," in which "stability was practically assured." Humans are able to experience an alternate reality through the drug, which was, still created by Controllers, so human experience is still easily manipulated. The drug enables satisfaction to be maintained, since it offers an escape. With the combination of an emotional void and an alternate reality, desired outcomes designated by those in control are easily achieved. Through the manipulation of various aspects of life in Huxley's Brave New World, men are able to obediently tend to the wheel of "Progress."
Au revoir.
"Wheels must turn steadily, but can not turn untended. There must be men to tend them, men as sturdy as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment."
In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, society has been manipulated through "human invention [and] a series of arrests of development" in order to create "social stability," or "progress." The entire population is created through scientific processes, in which those people "tend" to those wheels. They work as a machine, controlling the production and fixation of how society functions, in order to keep order on a stable "axle." The Controllers, a group of ten people that control (crazy how those names work...) the different designated classes of people maintain the motto that "the machine turns, turns and must keep on turning - forever."
Everyone who is working as a "machine," tending to the "wheels," are able to be "stable in contentment," because in these days of A.F., through "wordless conditioning,...sixty-two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth." The Controllers are able to condition those underneath them to abide and enjoy whatever has been taught to them. Various things are manipulated in the wheel that must be "tended" to.
For example, people in Huxley's world are "taught no history," in order to protect citizens from "corrupted, old forbidden books," which were "suppressed before A.F. 150." The Controllers are able to keep the citizens focused on consumption, because throughout life, the people will have "not a moment to sit down and think." Those books manipulate the human experience completely, being that they strip those humans from any exploration of thought. Without an exploration of thought, along with "wordless conditioning," the value system guiding Huxley's society is completely manipulated to produce the desired outcome of consumption, and thus, "progress."
Furthermore, in order to further "stabilize" humans, emotions like passion and desire are suppressed, in order to make "lives emotionally easy...from those horrible emotions" Those in power strive to "shorten" the interval of feeling, which "lurks...between desire and its consummation." By stressing how easy life is without those horrible emotions, there is a perception that the controllers have the best in mind for those controlled. Since those people feel grateful for that absence of emotion, human experience is easily manipulated, so satisfaction and stabilization is then easily implemented into their minds. For those who might not feel as much gratitude, Controllers offer "soma,...the perfect drug," in which "stability was practically assured." Humans are able to experience an alternate reality through the drug, which was, still created by Controllers, so human experience is still easily manipulated. The drug enables satisfaction to be maintained, since it offers an escape. With the combination of an emotional void and an alternate reality, desired outcomes designated by those in control are easily achieved. Through the manipulation of various aspects of life in Huxley's Brave New World, men are able to obediently tend to the wheel of "Progress."
Au revoir.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
In preparation of writing about The Tempest!
Just a head's up for you, I'm pretty much ready to crash, so this blog might not make sense. If you have anything to say that might help me, you should comment on this. It would be greatly appreciated. :)
In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been whether or not Shakespeare intended for an emphasis on colonialism to be analyzed. While it is agreed upon that the play does highlight colonialism throughout, the issue of whether or not it should be analyzed has been debated. George Will argues that the analysis of literature is "rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary reader and playgoer." On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt says that analyzing literature through a "lens" such as postcolonialism will deepen "the ordinary reader's pleasure rather than undermine it."
Even though I've said previously that I was on the fence between who I agree with more, I have decided that I agree with Greenblatt moreso than I do Will. While they both make valid points on the analysis of Shakespearean literature, Greenblatt's stance on analyzing in order to find a deeper meaning within literary works allows me as a writer to have a lot more freedom when writing about The Tempest. When I say that I have more freedom, I am talking about the fact that looking at and analyzing the play through different perspectives, I will begin to see and develop new insights to the play itself. Through the use of analyzing Shakespeare's emphasis on colonialism through lenses such as postcolonialism, I can formulate my own ideas, and therefore contribute to the overall discussion between Will and Greenblatt on the analysis of literature. By using both Will and Greenblatt's ideas and combining them with my own, I think that my overall paper on The Tempest will be stronger and have a valid contribution to the debate presented.
In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been whether or not Shakespeare intended for an emphasis on colonialism to be analyzed. While it is agreed upon that the play does highlight colonialism throughout, the issue of whether or not it should be analyzed has been debated. George Will argues that the analysis of literature is "rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary reader and playgoer." On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt says that analyzing literature through a "lens" such as postcolonialism will deepen "the ordinary reader's pleasure rather than undermine it."
Even though I've said previously that I was on the fence between who I agree with more, I have decided that I agree with Greenblatt moreso than I do Will. While they both make valid points on the analysis of Shakespearean literature, Greenblatt's stance on analyzing in order to find a deeper meaning within literary works allows me as a writer to have a lot more freedom when writing about The Tempest. When I say that I have more freedom, I am talking about the fact that looking at and analyzing the play through different perspectives, I will begin to see and develop new insights to the play itself. Through the use of analyzing Shakespeare's emphasis on colonialism through lenses such as postcolonialism, I can formulate my own ideas, and therefore contribute to the overall discussion between Will and Greenblatt on the analysis of literature. By using both Will and Greenblatt's ideas and combining them with my own, I think that my overall paper on The Tempest will be stronger and have a valid contribution to the debate presented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)