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.

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!

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! :)

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.

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.

Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate

This article summarizes the opposing perspectives that George Will and Stephen Greenblatt have on the emphasis of politics and ideology in the study of literature, particularly Shakespearean literature. Debate was sparked in 1991 after Lynne Cheney, a chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), nominated Carol Iannone to join the board as well. The Executive Council of Modern Language Association (MLA) opposed the nomination, saying that she didn't have "scholarly credentials," but its criticized that the real reason had to do with her conservative political background. So? Who cares, right? Well the NEH has the wallet to fund academic humanities research, and if they're choosing members based on politics, someone is bound to get the short end of the stick. To add to the issue even more, the NEH/MLA dispute isn't the first; similarly, The National Endowment for the Arts has had conflicts on whether to fund "controversial or offensive" art.

Will, a Pulitzer-prize winning political commentator, and Greenblatt, a Cogan University Professor of the Humanities at Harvard University, both claim to "speak for no one but themselves;" however, they each make a convincing argument on the debate that just about any other individual could take a "side" on.

Will understands the Average Joes out there in the world. Basically, he thinks that analyzing literature, Shakespeare or not, through a post colonialist or feminist "lens," for example, is unnecessary, being that most people don't. He says that doing so is "rendering the plays unrecognizable to the ordinary reader and playgoer." Will clearly shows what side of the fence he falls on in the NEH issue, saying that "all literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." He uses The Tempest as a prime example of the "imperialist rape of the Third World," in which a "literary canon" is used as an "instrument of domination...which is, by definition, irreducibly political." He parallels the analysis of literature through those lenses with "political decoding," which "[strips] literature of its authority." Will argues that this "decoding" creates a snow-ball effect, resulting in "amnesia and deculturation," which, he says, achieves the "political goal."
Greenblatt counters Will's argument, saying that "these preoccupations with political power" are something that Shakespeare and audience that his works were written for know well. He elaborates, saying that examining literary works through lenses like post colonialism or feminism will deepen "the ordinary reader's pleasure rather than undermine it." He doesn't deny Will's claim of The Tempest being about imperialism, since it is "very difficult to argue that [it isn't] about imperialism." Greenblatt says that "a love of literature...is a community founded on freedom...and scholarly honesty," but the best way "to kill literary inheritance" is the "celebration of new world order." He's saying that things like politics, religion, and history will influence a written work regardless and should therefore be analyzed to determine what the author was trying to portray. "Literary inheritance," according to Greenblatt, can be kept alive through the analysis of literary works through those different lenses, a "risk" that is necessary to take.

I'm sitting on the fence right now. I think that both Will and Greenblatt make valid points on how literature is emphasized when studied. Yeah, maybe most people don't analyze every piece of literature through a lens, but it doesn't mean that others who WANT to find a deeper meaning to those said pieces shouldn't be able to analyze through whatever lens they please. While one could "politically decode" that piece of literature, one could just as easily avoid "deculturation" by focusing on another aspect of that work. Greenblatt summarizes this concept well, mentioning that while The Tempest does focus on imperialism, "forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement" are also recognizable attributes of the play. I do agree that literature can reflect political ideology, but I also think that that one can read a book or watch one of Shakespeare's plays without having to touch on that issue. I don't think that there is a specific right or wrong way to analyze literature and each person's perspective is going to be different as is. With that being said, I agree with points that both Will and Greenblatt make.

Night!

I love No Fear Shakespeare...

It's true. NFS has my heart now. Okay. I'm done putting the pro in procrastination now, so here's my response.

After reading Acts II and III of Shakespeare's The Tempest and Bressler's Literacy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, I've noticed parallels between Caliban and postcolonialism, or post-colonialism - whatever suits your fancy. I don't really care, but I'm going to go with postcolonialism, because it's just easier to type one word.

In Bressler's "Historical Development of Postcolonialism," it is clear that "the colonialist ideology that all races other than white were inferior or subhuman,... [and these] subhumans or 'savages' quickly became the inferior and equally "evil" Others." Similarly, Caliban, referred to as a "slave," is seen as inferior to all that inhabit the island. The most apparent way being the way that Prospero threateningly told Caliban that he would "rack thee with old cramps, fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar that beasts shall tremble at thy din" if his will was not done (Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 374 - 376); despite Caliban's willingness to "kiss [Stephano's] foot [as his] subject," both Stephano and Trinculo are similar to Prospero in their desire to colonize the island, in order to acquire power (Act 2, Scene 2, Lines 65-66). All three men are able to dominate and manipulate Caliban in order to do their bidding, which then enables them to colonize the island.

Caliban is on his own with regard to having a say in his own fate on the island, since he is so easily manipulated by Prospero, Stephano and Trinculo. You'd think that over the past 12 years, Caliban would have learned to not put his trust in the hand's of someone who is already planning to "inherit" the island, but clearly, he hasn't made the connection (Act 2, Scene 2, Line 167). In his analysis of colonization and the resulting hegemony, Bressler proposed the question, "What happens... when one's ideas, thinking, or personal background does not conform?" Answering himself, he explained how "the traditional answer has already been articulated by the dominant class and its accompanying hegemony: silence...Conform and be quiet; deny yourself, and all will be well." Though Caliban has tried to break his "silence," he doesn't hold a candle on the island. Control is easily maintained, enabling one central idea to be acknowledged and implemented. Bressler summarizes that idea well, being that "the colonized became the Other,...and for that reason deserve to be ruled."

So yes, there is a clear representation of Caliban and the native peoples in The Tempest. That being said, I think Shakespeare has portrayed the superiority of the white man and therefore the necessity of colonization. Caliban is illustrated in such a way that paints an image of the need for colonization. He is ignorant and gullible, as is seen in his willingness to trust Stephano and Trinculo, believing that they have his best interest in mind, when just a short time before, he believed them to be spirits of Prospero's. Since Caliban is native to the island, he is a representation of all native peoples to that island, who are then portrayed as being in need of a higher authority to rule over them as well.

Postcolonialists believe that "their past and their present are intricately interwoven." Examining the connection between postcolonialism and Caliban, there are apparent similarities between Caliban and the native peoples of today. Both Caliban's portrayal and the early Hollywood images of Native Americans have a condescending tone to them. They are both negatively portrayed, and therefore negatively represented. In order to shy away from this "simplistic interpretation of human experience," Bressler advises people to "read a text in its fullest context,...questioning what part not only the text but also the reader and the author play in the interpretive process."

Hey Prospero...a pox o' your throat, you bawling, blasphemous, incharitable dog!

In Act 1 of William Shakespeare's The Tempest, it is apparent that, through the manipulation of historical narratives, Prospero's subjects are able to be controlled; similarly, as we all know, the totalitarian Party in George Orwell's 1984 is able to control the citizens of Oceania through the distortion of reality.

Prospero, like the Party, alternates the past in his favor, enabling control to be maintained. For example, during Prospero's speech to Miranda about how she had come to arrive at their current residence, he portrayed his brother, Antonio, to have been "perfidious,...[granting] suits, [denying] them, who t' advance and who to trash for overtopping (Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 68, 79-81)." This negative description of Miranda's uncle puts Prospero in a good light, however false it may be. Since there is no other side to the story of how Miranda has arrived at her current location, this is the only side in which she can base her opinion upon, one in which is in favor of Prospero. The fact that Prospero was, as he described, "all dedicated to closeness and the bettering of [his] mind with that which, but by being so retired (Act 1, Scene 2, Lines 89-91)," further improves his "image" in the eyes of Miranda. He places himself above others that surrounded him in this description as well, making him seem more intelligent.

Intelligence is definitely something that Prospero has, being that he seems to fully understand why it is necessary for him to alter the past to his favor. By telling Miranda (one of three in this Act that are manipulated) a history that emphasizes the contrast between the good deeds that he made with the horribleness of others, Prospero looks like a saint. Those altered histories give Prospero's subjects an understanding of the past in which Prospero himself looks heroic. Because of this, he has their trust. Thus, he is able to completely exercise his authority through magic and the manipulation of history.

Put simply, as Orwell said, "He who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." Prospero's, like the Party's, continual changes upon history enable him to maintain power in the past, present, and future.

Socratic Circle

Thursday was one of the most interesting ways I've ever spent a block period in English. When Mr. Dominguez first told our class about the concept of the socratic circle, I wasn't sure of how it would end up going for a few different reasons. Despite my skepticism, I ended up enjoying it a lot. I participated in the second inner circle group, which discussed Kirsten Gardner's article, "An Incomplete Version of the Past that Silences Important Struggles." While both conversations, or "circles," were both centered around the Texas curriculum issue, my group focused more on the way that the curriculum was taught, rather than what it included. Overall, our group was basically on the same page with how we felt about the importance of critical thinking, while still addressing the importance of learning the "basic conceptual building blocks of history."

To start off with what should be included in the textbook, there is an obvious need for an unbiased, factual book. With that, the issue of who should be able to decide what the book consists of should be a committee of balance. The committee should have an equal number of people with regard to political party members, races, to ensure a diverse, unbiased input from all areas. Of course these people need to know what they are talking about, which wasn't the case in "Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change," in which a dentist's thoughts are mentioned. "What is he doing? He's just a DENTIST!" is the best description for that, as was said by a classmate in that discussion. :) While this committee is ideal, whether it will be able to become a reality is debateable. If possible, this committee will have a hand in preventing a "limited version of the past that silences important struggles," in order to represent a "complete version of the American history." With a solid foundation on which to teach, teachers can enable students to know what happened in yesterday's history and how to prevent mistakes from happening tomorrow's future.

While what is included in the textbook has significance, I think that the way students are able to absorb that information is much, much more important. Speaking for myself, I am so much more interested in HOW these historical figures accomplished such amazing things, rather than just that they were achieved. Rather than just memorizing facts and dates, taking a test, and getting the grade that is necessary to pass a class, students who are taught by teachers who have a passion for what is being taught are able to leave the classroom with more than just that. Not only will those said students get so much more out of each daily lesson, their critical thinking will enable them to relate each historical figure, event, or date to their own lives. That relation will enable them to retain the information much better, because they will CARE about what they are learning. They will be motivated to learn, and in turn be more passionate and knowledgeable about the past and the future. The importance of critical thinking was encompassed by Dr. Gonzalez, in that it "allows us to imagine worlds beyond the one we know."

:)

La premiere!

I guess we  have to upload a picture, so here's my picture.
Capitola this past summer with two of my favorite people ever. :)