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.