Cat's Cradle

The Lyotard and Postmoderism introduction includes Ihab Hassan’s table of differences between Modernism and Postmodernism. Though he lists a number of defining characteristics, one difference that relates the most to Cat’s Cradle is the comparison between design and chance.  Modernism favors the focus on the purposeful design of all aspects of the universe.  This supports the notion of religion because such religions usually depict one almighty creator becomes the “designer” of everything that occurs.  This creator defines the reason and meaning to life; everything that happens is due to this creator’s will and purpose. 

 I like the whole concept of postmodernism and its somewhat rough and self-gratifying edges which is pretty much Cat’s Cradle. I like to compare it to Frank Gehry’s sketches, at first they just seem like random lines and squiggles, but instead they turn out to be this beautifully composed drawings of what will become a breathtaking piece of architecture… art, like Pablo Picasso once said “Art is the lie that tells the truth,”  it is misleading yet straightforward at the same timei. Just what Bokonon says “all of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies.” Cat’s Cradle might seem like just a bunch of chapters strewn together that sort of fits, but upon looking at it as a whole the purpose of it comes across, just like Gehry’s sketches.

Cat’s Cradle breaks away from the traditional methods of writing; it defies the norm of the literary works before it. It separates itself from the “normal” structure and dives into literary anarchy. Small nonsensical chapters make up this delicate work of literature. The whole book is pretty much the epitome of postmodernism, even the title itself takes upon the sort of disorder of postmodernism as a whole. There’s “no damn cat, no damn cradle,” it is all just perception and can in reality be anything we want it to be, just like Newt’s painting which was perceived as a cat’s cradle and as hell. Vonnegut also implies the instability of a true religion with an ultimate “designer” of the universe.  Instead, Vonnegut argues for the concept of chance that defines the reason to life, and this supports the idea of Postmodernism. 

Developing a Topic for Brave New World

     Well, that was definitely a different book… Not that I didn’t enjoy it, but it’s just not my type of book I guess. Just glad it’s over! Anyways, in my Brave New World essay, I’m leaning toward writing my essay on how the present day world is similar and different to the novel. In some way, I want to add that the world in Brave New World reflects the way our world today may start turning into. I will do this by describing and analyzing the many ways in which people in the novel are controlled and explaining how these are related to ways we are controlled in our current world. Some questions I wish to address in my essay are, what is Aldous Huxley’s warning for our society about allowing the government to control our ideas, and is any of the fantasy in the novel now reality? Some of my ideas I wish to consider are history and literature in the Brave New World, conditioning methods, drugs, and absence of pain and discomfort. Furthermore, my overall purpose for my essay is to convincingly argue that Brave New World describes what actually could happen, has happened, or is happening by linking happenings in the modern world with specific events and ideas in the novel.

       As my examples, I want to use Sir Ken Robinson's youtube video, and Brave New World Revisited by Huxley. I would use Sir Ken Robinson’s video to pin point the similar things in today’s world to Brave New World, definitely that of the educational system. I would use Brave New World Revisited to describe what Huxley was thinking when he wrote it, the purpose of why he wrote it, and help me make the point that I am making when writing my essay.

       Well, that’s it! Hopefully I write a good essay this time! :P 

Brave New Education

      

       I know this is a tad bit late, but I was busy all Thursday and Friday soo I planned to just finish my blog on Saturday, but unfortunately my glass shower door decided to shatter on me as I was getting out. So I pretty much spent my day in the Emergency Room, getting glass out of my feet. You’d imagine I would do it Sunday, but I kinda sorta forgot… So here I am on a Monday night finishing a blog that was due on Friday… Sorry! Anyways go ahead and read my sucky blog entry! J

        After watching the video, "Changing Education Paradigms," Sir Ken Robinson points out our education in society today. He explains that education is created and formed in the model of  "the interests of industrialization," with schools "organized on factory lines.” Ken Robinson’s lecture goes over the issue that education is not really educating us or helping us learn. 

In the very beginning of the video, Robinson mentions the two false generalizations that most people believe; (The belief that there are “smart” people, and rest of the people are “non-smart” people.) Later on in the video, Robinson states that this mindset makes those who are considered smart think highly of themselves, while that makes the other “dumb” individuals reduce themselves to a much lower status in a humiliating way.  Being labeled in a higher status, these people begin to believe this nonsense which results in society and education restraining their highest potentials.

In Brave New World, the Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons also have this problem. For example, If a Gamma was created to be a Gamma, he would immediately reduce himself to a much lower status. Furthermore, “Gammas are stupid” and “Alpha children are frightfully clever”, which labels the Gammas as “non-smart” people and the Alphas as the “smart” people. 

That's it... Bye!!!

Brave New World Chapter 3

       In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley's reveals a whole new world with a society that has been manipulated through human inventions. Pretty much everyone is made from scientific processes. From the moment they are made, the embryos are manipulated to fit society. They are then taught to feel or desire certain things. They got rid of unnecessary feelings because “feeling lurks in that interval of time between desire and its consummation. Shorten the interval, break down all those old unnecessary barriers.” Also, the word "family" does not exist like it does today. To be a parent is just asking to be an outcast.  To me, this is just plain weird! To think that people are no long made by mommies and daddies (you know what I mean) is just crazy!

The people in Huxley’s world are taught no history. This is because the Controllers believe this will keep the citizens focused on consumption. The Controllers are a group of ten people that control different classes of people and they keep to their motto,  "the machine turns, turns and must keep on turning - forever."

They don’t want the people to have “a moment to sit down and think.” People are even encouraged to act impulsively. They believe that, “Impulse arrested spills over, and the flood is feeling, the flood is passion, the flood is even madness: it depends on the force of the current, the height and strength of the barrier. The unchecked stream flows smoothly down its appointed channels into a calm well-being.“  

This book somewhat reminds me of 1984. For example, like how the government dehumanized all mankind and made people have no sense of feelings, and families rarely even existed. Both books display how Humanity is now under the control of the government and manipulated for their own means.

Writing About Tempest

In this weeks blog we were asked to discuss what we think would be interesting to write about for The Tempest along with other works that offer different points of view and different ways to interepret the play due to history and events from the past. For me, I think that William Shakespears The Tempest relates most clearly with the points discussed in Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, And Queer Theory. One of the controversial issues between these two writings is whether or not Shakespear wrote the tempest in favor of colonialism or in favor of the natives otherwise known as "the others". In my opinion I think that Shakespear wrote The Tempest in favor of colonialism and the British Empire that are discussed in Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, And Queer Theory. Shakespear portrays these issues through the main characters of his play, Caliban and Prospero, Caliban being the native or "the other" and Prospero being the British Empire. The reason I believe that Shakespear wrote The Tempest in favor of colonialism is because of the way he portrays these two characters and what they represent. Caliban is portrayed as an uneducated savage that doesn't have any self control. While Shakespear portrays Prospero as being the wise and powerful man who controls Caliban. On the other hand, I believe that Aime Cesaire's adaptation of The Tempest was portrayed in a more humurous and comical way compared to Shakespear's original play which is more on the serious side of things. Although Shakespear did intend this play to come off on a more serious note I don't think that Aime Cesaire's version of The Tempest could necessarily be considered wrong or disgraceful. I think that Aime Cesaire's take on The Tempest is more practical and modern which is easier for people to relate to now a days. This is only my opinion on these two issues and I'm sure there are many more ways to interepret them as well.

Literary Debate

In these two different articles, two men, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt,  argue about the main point or purpose of the Tempest, or just overall Literature itself. The articles display both their different views on how literature emphasizes on politics and ideology, most commonly in Shakespeare's literature. 


George Will, a Pulitzer Prize-winning political commentator, believes that literature is based off of Politics. For example, George states that, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." He believes that literature's main purposes revolve around politics. In the Tempest, he explains that it "reflects the imperialist rape of the Third World." He thinks that literature is first and for most about Politics and everything else falls under that. 


Stephen Greenblatt, the Cogan University Professor of the Humanities at Harvard University, has a whole different view on literature. He states that, " The Tempest is not about imperialism. (It is of course, about many other things, as well, including the magical power of the theatre.)" He believes that literature can be about politics, but that's not the main focus. He stresses the fact that literature teaches one a life lesson. For example, he explains that, "The Tempest has to teach us about forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement if we do not also come to terms with its relations to colonialism." He thinks that literature conveys the emotions we feel and experience within our lifetime. 


I myself believe that literature is more like what Stephen Greenblatt describes it as. He argues that literature is an expression of everything, and I don't feel like it is only limited to politics. To me, good literature is something I can connect with, whether or not it's something I am going through or am emotionally feeling. It's interesting to see and learn about certain things in a book that symbolize politics; however, I believe that an author uses the expression of human experiences and emotions to create good literature.


That's all folks! :) 

Tempest Acts 2-3 and Cultural Studies

After reading Acts two and Three from the Tempest, by Shakespear, and "Cultural Studies," by Charles Bressler, I found some contrasts between Caliban and Colonization.

In the Tempest Acts Two and Three, Shakespeare reveals the true natures of his characters. Stephano makes Caliban look like a fool when he forces Caliban to drink his wine in order for him to calm him down. As a result, Caliban wishes to be Stephano’s slave and praises him, calling him “thou wondrous man.” This makes Caliban look like a savage or as Shakespeare describes it a “monster of the isle.”

In the article called “Cultural Studies,” Bressler describes savages similarly to how Shakespeare portrays Caliban, since he is native to this island. Caliban also represents all the native people to that island, who are also in need of a ruler. Caliban becomes known as a savage just like the native peoples after worshiping and praising Stephano for his amazing wine. Shakespear describes Caliban as scummy, worthless, ignorant, and even a "monster.”

What I also found interesting was how Stephano taking over Caliban was similar to how Great Britain took over or “dominated her colonies.” After drinking the fine wine, Caliban saw Stephano as a superior, just like how the colonies gave up their countries “in exchange for what material goods the colonized desired or were made to believe they desired by the colonizers.”

I enjoyed reading both The Tempest and the “Cultural Studies” article, even if they did take forever to read. However, I learned a lot about postcolonialism and colonization that I never knew about, so I guess it was pretty interesting. There were some similarities that clicked for me between Caliban in the Tempest and the “savages,” described in the article. Well that’s pretty much it... See ya! :)

The Tempest

 I really enjoyed reading Act 1 of The Tempest by William Shakespeare; however, it was really hard to understand the way Shakespeare writes, so thank goodness for the modern day translation, because I would have been lost the whole way through it!!!

In the first Act of The Tempest, Prospero manipulates and controls other characters by making them do what he says. Out of everyone, Prospero controls Ariel the most. The character, Ariel, is Prospero's slave; however, Ariel is grateful to be under the control of Prospero. Prospero retells his story once a month to Ariel to reassure him that Prospero saved him from his past, so Prospero's salvation should be imprinted into Ariel's mind. Prospero has a way to almost brain washing Ariel into making him think that he his some kind of hero for saving Ariel from his pervious life. He takes away Ariel's sense of reality and what is and what is not the truth. This type of brain washing and manipulation can be compared to the totalitarian Party in the novel, 1984. Ariel is brain washed into thinking that his life is better with Prospero when in reality, it’s not any better than his previous life. This relates to 1984, because the citizens of Oceania are controlled and brain washed into thinking that their lives are better with Big Brother watching over them. They learn to worship Big Brother and believe that he is their hero, just like the way Ariel thinks of Prospero being his hero and savior. Prospero in The Tempest, and the totalitarian Party in 1984 both know how to distort reality by brain washing, controlling, and manipulating others. 

Socratic Circle Observation

During our block period on Thursday, September 2nd, we read an article concerning the issues on the fact that Texas is wanting to change the content of their history books that are being used in their classrooms. By doing this, they plan to keep the main focus of their history books on white conservatives rather than minorities that have also made an impact on American history. For example, Latinos wanted more role models that represented their culture, but were immediately denied. I myself do not agree with this, because we live in a diverse country, therefore our main focus should not be on one dominant skin color or culture. There are a lot more historical figures that students should learn about that are not white. I myself do not know of a lot of diverse historical figures which I think is saying something. I haven't learned about a lot of minorities, instead I've learned more about white conservatives in American history. I believe that every part of American history is important and should be taught to students. 


When my group was put in a circle to discuss this issue, I really enjoyed hearing others voice their opinions. Everyone was very open and made some really good comments that I agreed with. However, things got a little chaotic and hostile when not everyone agreed with one's comment. This should not have happened in my opinion, because everyone has their own opinions and shouldn't be shot down for them. I feel like one person had a target on them and almost couldn't even say anything after being totally looked down upon by his/her peers. When this happened, I was afraid to voice my own opinion in the fear that I would be shot down or criticized for what I said. I'm not saying whether or not I agreed with everyone's opinions, but I did respect them all, and I only hope we can all do the same. 

These are my most important friends in my life. My boyfriend, Zach Nevills, and my best friends Molly Clutts, Christina Wesson, Nicole May, and Barrett Clutts. They all mean the world to me :)

AP Lit