Is it possible to have a working computer these days?

Cat’s Cradle can be considered a postmodern work of literature most specifically because of the way it is written and how the book starts. The first sentence of the book is “Call me Jonah” which is not a reference from the book Moby Dick about a lost man trying to find his way. The name of the man though is in contrast to  Moby Dick  as it is the biblical name of the man who was swallowed by a whale not a man who hunted a whale. Vonnegut uses both the name and the reference to another book to create a contrast and a postmodern style from the first sentence. The book starts with Kurt Vonnegut’s view of the world after the atomic bomb was used to end WWII. The narrator John or Jonah is writing a book “The Day the World Ended” which is about the day the atomic bomb was used on Hiroshima and included in his book is a section about the bomb’s creator Felix Hoenikker. John’s research includes Hoenikker’s family which includes his midget son, 6 foot tall daughter, and bug obsessed son. Ihab Hassan in his essay “Toward a Concept of Postmodernism” defines Postmodernism as: Paraphysics/Dadaism, Antiform (disjunctive, open), Play, Chance, Anarchy, Exhaustion/silence, Performance/Happening, Participation,  Decreation/Deconstruction, Antithesis, Absence, Dispersal, Text/Intertext, Rhetoric, Syntagm, Parataxis, Metonymy, Combination, Rhizome/Surface, Against Interpretation, Misreading, Signifier,  Idiolect, Desire, Mutant, Polymorphous, Schizophrenia, Difference-Differance/Trace, The Holy Ghost, Indeterminacy, and Immanence. It is clear from the second title of the book “The Day the World Ended” postmodern ideas are being used. The description of the family is also an aspect of postmodernism as they are not the normal nuclear family and they are different and strange and even ironically described as a family of freaks. This is also a comparison to the affects Hoenikker’s bomb had on people as it created mutants in similarity to his family. "The only way I can feel the least bit important is to think of all the mud that didn't even get to sit up and look around" further shows how Vonnegut’s style of writing is dark and contains postmodern stylization such as misreading and antiform.  Cat’s Cradle is filled with postmodern ideals.

This is more fun than SADIE'S!

In the novel Brave New World, author Aldous Huxley expressly contemplates the idea of a futuristic society with no regard for morals, ethics, or even a hint of societal values. Like the fmaous Orwell novel 1984, Brave New World deals with a futuristic society that hasdisregarded all of its moralistc past. Brave New World specifically addresses the issues of technology running rampant and how it could potentially affect the course of humanity. It can be argued that Huxley wanted to show how the rampancy of technology and oppression of society negatively changes the course of humanity.
The Youtube video covering a lecture by Sir Ken Robinson can be effectively used as a juxtaposition to the novel with in accordance with Robinson's views of the education system. Robinson thoroughly describes the modern education system and then proceeds to explain what is wrong with it and what he believes could help fix public education. Sir Robinson explains that the modern education system widely used today was intended for the Enlightenment era and that it is not suitable for today's students. He goes into detail about how today in the age of technology, that information is so readily available to everyone and that technology gives students things, such as video games and unlimited televsion, and that today's children don't do well in school simply because they are bored. Now this video closely relates to how the children in Brave New World are grouped together and the manner in which they are mass-educated, each child the same as the next. Brave New World can be used in my analysis to directly link how technology has changed students and negatively affects education.

In Tempest, William Shakespeare uses his setting and characterization to create a riveting story of a tyrannical dictator. The story of the slave Caliban and his "master" Prospero directly relate to Brave New World and the oppressive and all-powerful technologically enforced government controlling humanity. Tempest can be used to argue my position by using the play to show how an oppressive government in Brave New World adversely controls and changes the entire course of humanity with its technological advances.

I Love Blogging and Watching Youtube For Homework

The lecture given by Sir Ken Robinson helps to  address the striking similarities between the modern education system and the society visualized in Brave New World. Robinson's lecture explains how the modern education system is faulty and that it was created for the Enlightenment era. In today's technological era, Robinson hypothesizes that so many children are being diagnosed with ADHD not because there is an "epidemic" but simply because children are bored. Kids nowadays grow up around technology and the accessibility to information and that the things being taught in school are dull in comparison. The lecture also explains how the modern education follows the "factory model" in that batches" of children are processed through the system. This is similar to the societal trends of Brave New World and how the children are raised in groups to be similar to one another. "… all wear green," said a soft but very distinct voice," (Chapter 2) shows how everything about these "batches" are meant to be the same including what they wear and how they act. Robinson also explains how the education system today is impersonal and how the deciding factor on how "batches" are formed is based solely on age and not intelligence or skill level. This level of impersonality is similar to that of the society in the book. "For you must remember that in those days of gross viviparous reproduction, children were always brought up by their parents and not in State Conditioning Centres," (Chapter 2) shows how the system in the book is impersonal to a flaw. He further lectures on this fact by explaining how today's society has formed a mandate on whether a person is intelligent based on their job. His example of a furniture mover being told by society that he is stupid and him believing it relates to Brave New World and their society's view of different people. This relation to the book is shown by how the Indians are different because they are not genetically engineered as the rest of the population and how they are treated as inferior. Sir Ken Robinson addresses many key problems with the modern education system, many of which are relatable to the society depicted in Brave New World.

blogging is almost as fun as cornmazes....

In Chapter 3, I saw that there is no one ensuring that this technology and lifestyle doesn't go rampant. There is no person safeguarding morals and ethics. In this quote, "You all remember, I suppose, that beautiful and inspired saying of Our Ford's: History is bunk," (Chapter 3, pg. 34) you see how this society is viewed. People like this society and have withdrawn all morals and values from the past, replacing them with their faith in their technology. There is no one who is trying to safeguard and regulate humanity by making sure technology does not take over and manifest itself in all aspects of people's lives.
Chapter 3 shows how different and cold this world is by describing naked children playing like animals and a crying child being sent to a psychologist instead of being comforted, and and being uncomfortable with the word "mother." You can see just how cold and harsh this society is and how everyone is used to this lifestyle and no one is trying to change it. This type of society is enforced by sending a crying child to a psychologist because of the belief that he is abnormal.
Chapter 3 also helps to show the value system that the people believe in. Children must be "fixed" by psychologists when they are acting "differently" and the bonds between child and mother do not exist. Instead, all faith has been put into technology. The conditioning used on these children helps to regulate and control them and form them into socially conformed beings. All ties with other people are not caring bonds, they focus completely on being socially acceptable. The World State is making children without family ties and no feeling or impulses. A perfect society where everyone is the same is the goal. From the time the child is born, the World State brainwashes them and nurtures them into mindless beings.

I really haven't had enough of the Tempest yet.

In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been theme of colonialism. On the one hand, Will argues we are over-analyzing the text and steering away from its original meaning. On the other hand, Greenblatt contends in-depth analyzing gives readers more of an understanding. However, my own view agrees somewhat with both.

George Will strongly believes that too much analyzing of a text can distract readers from the true meaning. Totally understandable. Sometimes when analyzing texts in classes I highly doubt that a dad wearing a black raincoat means he's going to die tomorrow. Some of the things people come up with just seem ridiculous. Over analyzing and trying to dig deeper and deeper on one subject can really ruin the true meaning. Readers get so caught up in analyzing and analyzing that they forget what it is truly about. Although I do agree with his opinion, I also agree with Stephen Greenblatt.
In opposition, Greenblatt thinks that digging further into texts helps readers understand more what the intent it. Also very true. When I am analyzing something in class, I get many different perspectives and ideas. Maybe it could mean this or maybe the author really was portraying him that way. There are so many options on how to interpret texts.  Despite the fact that analyzing deeper into a text can better help me understand it, I do not want to be told how to interpret my text.
As for the Tempest, I can see both perspectives of Will and Greenblatt. In the instance of Caliban, some think he is a savage, while others see him as a victim. Greenblatt would delve deeper into Shakespeare's' writing, coming up with possible ideas that he may of had. I find these opinions of portrayal interesting, however I cannot be 100% sure of what exactly Shakespeare was trying to get out of the character. We could spend hours and hours debating over Calibans' character, or we could look at it, think about it, and form an opinion. I feel there is no need to dig so deep into something that we lose the original meaning. Shakespeare wrote the Tempest for a reason, and although we may not know the exact reason why, we are free to interpret it in whichever way we want.

Will vs. Greenblatt?!?

            George Will’s main argument is that not all literature has political tendencies. He firmly argues that scholars and academics are looking for political messages in everything and that it is ruining literary pieces. Will describes his belief on why Carol Iannone’s nomination to the NEH advisory board is being met with so much opposition by the MLA. Will’s thought is that the MLA, which is “saturated with the ideology that politics permeate everything,” does not accept Iannone because she is not “one of them.” He describes how she is the vice president of the National Association of Scholars whom firmly believe against the politicization of higher education. In short, Iannone is against the MLA’s most dear beliefs.

            Stephen Greenblatt’s response to George Will’s article focuses on the belief that literature, most specifically The Tempest, are filled with highly politicized messages. Greenblatt believes that “it is very had to argue that The Tempest is not about imperialism” and that Shakespeare clearly wrote with a political stance in mind. Greenblatt then casts off the idea of “a wicked plot by renegade professors bent on sabotaging Western civilization by delegitimizing its founding texts and ideas” as an insane conspiracy theory. In short, Greenblatt portrays George Will as a lunatic.

            I am more inclined to agree with George Will for several reasons. Will gives more information about Carol Iannone and clearly describes her and her beliefs. He gives strong evidence to support his portrayal, such as the fact the she is the VP of a group that is against the politicization of higher education. Will also shows his opinion about the MLA and their beliefs by giving other’s political interpretations about famous works. In doing so, Will shows how people often find political messages when the author had no intention of doing so. I also found George Will to be a more credible source simply because of how Stephen Greenblatt responded. Greenblatt spends more time describing and attacking Will and making him seem like an idiot than arguing Will’s assertions. I felt that Greenblatt had a weaker argument because he spent so much time creating a crazed persona of Will than arguing and rebutting Will’s remarks. Also, Greenblatt said very little about Carol Iannone and the MLA specifically.

 

Caliban & Post Colonialism

Now after reading three acts of The Tempest, I have more of an insight of Caliban, and Shakespeare's intent of his character. Caliban was a native to the island, until Prospero came and took over. After showing him all of the natural resources of the island, Caliban became his slave, just as the Native Americans were first to America, and then "white man" took over. Similarly to Prospero and Caliban, the "white man" took all the information from the Native Americans and then made them into their slaves, regardless of them being human beings as well. Both had their customs and beliefs changed by a "higher authority" as they were forced into slavery. Caliban says, "As I told thee before, I am subject to a tyrant, a sorcerer that by his cunning hath cheated me of the island". He tells Trinculo, and Stephano of how Prospero took his island from him, and should get revenge. This information of Caliban provides sympathy from its readers, showing that poor Caliban has had everything stolen from him. I definitely do not think that Shakespeare was trying to justify the superiority of the "white man" in this play. It seems as if he was trying to do the opposite, by showing the poor quality of Cailbans' treatment, and how everyone that comes to the island just uses him. It is possible to argue either side, however there is more evidence of sympathy shown towards Caliban than not.
The article discusses how any race other than white was inferior or subhuman, "These subhumans or "savages" quickly became the inferior and equally "evil" Others". Likewise, Prospero calls Caliban a savage, and therefore assumes him inferior and evil. When Trinculo finds him under the cloak, they think he is an evil monster of some sort. Once he talks to him and realize he is just a native, he makes him tell him everything about the island just as Prospero had.

The Tempest Act 1

As seen in 1984, Prospero manipulates the past in order to get people to do things for him. Anything he wants he can get, because of the control he has over everyone.

Firstly, Prospero "explains" his and Mirandas' story to her, making it sound like it was gruesome and haunting. Automatically, Miranda pities her father, believing every word that comes out of his mouth, "Oh, my heart bleeds To think o' th' teen that I have turned you to, Which is from my remembrance! Please you, farther." As Prospero goes on, manipulating the story, he gets Miranda's opinion formed about him and his enemies. Just as in 1984, the people of Oceania believed everything in "the book" because it was all they knew. Miranda was too young to have any memory of how she came to live with Prospero, so she believed everything from his story. 

Similarly, Prospero "reminded" Ariel of how horrible his torture was, how he saved him, and how he is so much better than Sycroax. The fact that he has so much power and is so forceful, Ariel agrees with what he tells him. When reminding him, he manipulates the story to make him sound like the "good guy", "It was mine art, When I arrived and heard thee, that made gape The pine and let thee out.". For saving his life, Ariel has no choice but to perform every task he asks him to. Even though he treats him badly, making him his slave instead of merely freeing her, he has brainwashed him into believing he is not mistreated. 

By making the stories unfold the way he wants them to, Prospero can make anyone believe what he tells. Ariel and Miranda look up to him, because according to his stories, he "saved" them, and now have a better life thanks to him. Even though he mistreats Caliban now, Prospero has still assured him that if it weren't for him, "I have used thee, Filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged thee In mine own cell...". His false narratives allow him to maintain power because none are able to test his authority. All believe he has done good to them, and therefore must "repay" him with labor. 

Reflection of the Wonderful Socratic Circle

When I first heard about the socratic circle I was a little nervous about not knowing what to say or that it would be awkward and no one would talk, but I was pretty impressed with the way our group discussed it. There were no huge disagreements, everyone was respectful to each other and their opinion, and everyone seemed very open-minded to different views on the topic. When I first read the article, I thought, well that was dumb, they should just leave things the way they are and that was it. Once we started talking about it in the circle I began thinking more about it and gaining different insight. Some of the things people brought up really made me think. What if the things that we have been learning isn't actually true? Is America portrayed differently because the way history was written? All these things made me think, well maybe it isn't that big of a deal to change some things in the book. However, I found that it was not right that just because some parents didn't like the way some things were written or displayed they want to completely cut some people out of history. I don't think that it is fair or right that they change history books so drastically. The idea of books being biased also really made me think. Is it possible for a book to be un-biased? If it is, can't people still take it as being biased? Or have an opinion that's different from others. As hard as it may be, I think history books should be as factual and unbiased as possible. That way, it gives everyone a fair chance of learning and understanding it. However, I think that what you learn also depends on the teacher and how they teach it. This socratic circle really made me think about a lot of different issues presented in the discussion.

yay for blogging

:):):):):)