Postmodernism in CC

Kurt Vonnegut’s vision of the world followong the atom bomb has many postmoder ideas. The major points of postmodernism are in chapters 74-79. The main point is Newts painting and how it is supposed to be a Cats Cradle but all you see is X's and as Julain would guess, "hell". Newt however, sees this painting as a representation of the childhooh game his father would brainstorm with, and I think he questions a lot in his world because the Cat's Cradle shows how you may think you see something , but nothing is really there. Newt questions all these so called "truths" when he askes "See the cat? See the cradle?" This painting is very different than a modernists point of view because it it both abstract and there is no real meaning to the picture, which is an underlying theme in the book, in my opinion, because throughout this novel we are told that religion is not the truth and John says that Cat's Cradle is "shameless lies",and I think his point is how do we know what is truth and what is a lie? In bokonism it basically questions all faiths which comes back to the question: what is and isnt the truth?

After all postmodernism is a rejection of the modernist movement and throughout Cat's Cradle we see that. Whether its through the sybolism in Newts picture, the underlying views of the bokonistic faith, or anything esle throughout the novel. Postmodernism is definitely a big part of Cat's Cradle

BNW

Alright,
I guess its time for another essay. In Brave New World Aldous Huxley shows how the things that we love will be the death of us, while in 1984 George Orwell shows the things we hate can also be the death of us. In this next essay this is what I'm mostly going to discuss, and how the two books both have valid points.

 Sir Ken Robinson writes, well, draws the parallels between the two differences in his video. He also talks about education and that it is outdated and should be reformed to fit students needs. I'm also going to discuss education and the similarities between Robinson's views about education and conditioning practices in Brave New World. Throughout Brave New World the conditioning they use to "civilize" people and brainwash them into what is and isn't reality, is like our education system today and what we learn in the classroom. The discussion of whether conditioning is right or wrong and if there is such a thing as a perfect world. More than that, can you always be happy? Should we as students just listen to whatever the teacher decides to teach us? Should we just believe that history is the whole truth? These are all topics that should be discussed in our next essay. I think this next essay will be really interesting because it ties in to all the other things we have read and discussed as a class and will help me write this nest essay.

Education and Brave New World

Throughout Brave New World people are "conditioned" to do and say what the government wants. They are conditioned on what to like who to be and what to do. They dont mind having to do a certain job that you or I may hate because they are told to love it.

 In education we are also taught what to do in school and how to do it, even if we are totally uninterested in the subject entirely. For example, in elementary school we are especially reduced to these old methods of teaching and half the kids in class dont have the attention span for classes they could care less about anyway. What we learn is the same thing that teachers have been teaching for years, and whatever they teach you is what you memorize and are tested on. Even if you suck at memorizing(or studying, whatever you want to call it) It seems to me that even if you learn differently than others then your out of luck if that teacher has been teaching only one wa foe a very long time. Doesnt everyone learn differently? I would say so and some people catch on as faster as others. In the video we see how education is taught today and how inefficient it is. The practices we use to teach kids are "outdated", and do not meet the standards of this new generation/era.

New technology has made it so much easier learn and teach so there is no reason why technology can advance and education cant .If we spent time fixing our ways of teaching as much as we spent time on the newest Ipod or 3D t.v. then we can definitely update how we are taught. So what happens now? Should we be forced to be educated by an inefficient method of teaching.  I disagree, if technology advances, so should education.

Brave New World

Throughout Brave New World human experience is manipulated through family, monogamy, impulse, feeling,and desire. To produce the desired outcome the D.H.C produces humans, through producing human you control how they feel about family because they technically arent born more so created, they dont have a mother so they dont have a maternal or paternal connection to anyone, just like the D.H.C doesnt view humans human they dont veiw each other as human and see each other more as "meat". There desires and impulses should be fulfilled when I say this i mean sexual desires because thats all they really want, they seem to have no other needs because they have everything provided for them through the D.H.C. Monogamy is unheard of, they have been taught that it is bad to be in a serious monogamous relationship and there experiences with lots of other people is correct and how it should always be. I think the reason the D.H.C wants to control sex so much is because it is a big part of human nature and if you can control all aspects of human nature you can therefor control humans.

the tempest preparation

In discussions of The Tempest, the traditional view is whether Shakespeares writings were addressing imperialism or not, if there was a message hidden in The Tempest concerning his veiws about conquering other lands or "white imperialism", However, there may be other ways to think about this text. For one thing, Aime Cesaire's A Tempest  explains that The tempest doesnt have to be so serious and there can be humor throughout the piece. During our discussion in class we all saw the humorous side to the story that Cesaire wrote, this made me see hoe fuuny the play could have been and i liked Cesaires version much better, Stephen Greenblatt also contends that when he states that literature is not political and should be enjoyed as literature not as a hidden imperialist opinion.

I think his opinion was more accurate even though while reading I like to read something and delve into the deeper meaning of what the author was trying to say, that expands your knowledge of literature and the text you reading which helps you become a better writer and reader, so I guess im in the middle of both opinions, but sometimes its just better to enjoy the writing for its external meaning.Therefore, taking these positions into account, we can see that Through The Tempest we see that literature can be read in a serious tone and looked at as political or, we can have some humor in these writings and just enjoy his work as if it were a painting or a musical number.

Stephen Greenblatt & George Will

I think Mr. Greenblatts points out states that not all literature ia political. Unlike George Will who says "All literature...is political." Greenblatt questions why will cant enjoy Sheakspeares writing without trying to find a political meaning behind it. Throughout Greenblatts article he seems distraut that will finds all literature one way. He is troubled by how will thinks too much about the peices he reads. George Will seems to think that if you argue that all literature isnt political you are full of stupidity. I think the reason will is so passionate in his opinion towards Greenblatt is only partly because of how Greenblatt veiws literature, i think it is also how Greenblatt veiws politics that shapes wills opinion of him and throughout his article it turns into that than the issue of Lynne v. Cheney being on the NEH advisory board? I agreed moreso with Stephen Greenblatt because i agree that all literature is NOT political. Certainly someone could argue that but in my opinion not verything has a political meaning. Sure, Many authors, playwrites, and journalists write their works with this hidden agenda but i think itsall about how you interpret what your reading. Take StarWars for example, George lucas didnt purposely create all the hidden symbols and connections to religion when he wrote the saga, but many people watch those films and mold their own opinions about what Lucas was trying to say.

Caliban

In many ways caliban is much like the native American Indians who lived here yaersago and still do today. Throughout Shakespeare's  Tempest Caliban is portrayed as a "monster". In many ways so were the indians according to "white men" They were called savages and beasts. The native Americans lived here first. The "white man" came along and was taught how to live off the land like the Indians did. Instead of seeing the indians as actual people they abused and took advantage of them. In many ways Caliban experiences the same things the indans did. Caliban states "He stole it from me.. ". The "white man" also stole the native americans land with no remorse for taking there homes and disrespecting them. Stephano and Trinculo get him drunk and delusional in order to take advantage of the fact the he is a native on the island. Caliban proceeds to tell them that he will show them how to survive of the land. I think that hollywood portrays the indians to be bloodthirsty violent people when that is not the case. Im sure some tribes were violent but there are some people in American society that are crazy and phycotic but that doesn't make our society bad as a whole. It isn't fair to portray indians as only savage beasts. How can they all be this way if they showed us how to survive using their techniques in the beggining? So far i would say Shakespeare presents a semi sympathetic tone towards Caliban. I feel sorry for him. I think he is arguing against colonization because Prospero sent them there as part of his elaborate plan and i don't think he is saying that people should go colonize in other places, i don't get that vibe at all.

The Tempest Act one

Throughout the first act Prospero manipulates people around him through his magic. He threatens Fernidad and Caliban countless times. I think that through his magic he makes people believe he is very powerful and that they should do as he says. He also manipulates people by telling them something that isn't necessarily true. For example,he constantly asks Miranda if she is listening to him when he explains how they got to the island and why he is no longer Duke of Naples. I think this shows he wants to make sure she is taking in everything he is saying and making sure she knows his "single story".

The danger of a single story

The danger of a single story is that with one story we only have one perception of someone or something. When we only know one thing to be true about Africa for example that stereotype is a single story. Out of that one story there are many others besides Africa being a poor country. Adichie's speech relates to our discussions because like her single story, Texas is creating a single story of history. Just like the danger of a Adichie's single story, Texas' single story is in my opinion dangerous to our counrty because in our discussion it was brought up that if history is changed and rewritten how will we learn from it to benefit our future? My answer is we cant learn from it if what we are reading is only half correct. In that sense it is dangerous because we are predisposed to repeat our mistakes.

Greek Festival

This weekend I went to the greek festival and it was really fun. I had never been to a greek festival before and im definitely going back next year. The best part was all the dancing and learning all the different dances. I had soo much fun.