Satirical Ad for Carl's Jr?

My best attempt at satire...

Maus Research

I had a tough time finding strong articles relating to Maus that weren’t already used, but I did find this video on Youtube.  This video comes from a Battle of the Books competition in Britain.  I don’t know very much about these competitions, but from what I’ve read online, they are for students to “read books and come together to demonstrate their abilities and test their knowledge of the books they have read”.  So the students quiz each other and answer questions about the books they have read, and they gain points for answering these questions correctly.  However, in this particular video, it only shows one part of the battle, and it doesn’t seem as if there are points involved.  In this battle, Kev F. Sutherland, who runs the UK’s biggest comic festival, argues for Maus I and II and how both are excellent representations of the Holocaust.  He notes that there are two stories being told: one about Vladek and his survival during the Holocaust, and the other about how Art obtains this story from his father.  Sutherland supports the statement that the graphic novel “presents the unspeakable through the diminutive”, as one of the hosts describes it.  Sutherland claims that the comic does not exaggerate the events that took place during the Holocaust, and because Art transcribes Vladek’s story so closely (with his broken English included), the comic becomes “honest and simple”.  He comments that what became of Vladek becomes an important point to the significance of these events, and the fact that Art does not hold back in revealing these issues also plays into bringing this comic to new heights.  I found it interesting that the woman mentioned and emphasized Art’s issues such as his depression and how this impacted him writing the comic.  I’m not entirely sure if this video presents new insights into the comic, but I thought it to be helpful in pointing out how the lack of exaggeration really made the comic even more effective in portraying a substory of the Holocaust.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soUHcd-dIjE

Postmodernism and Cat's Cradle, yes.

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. 

However, in Cat’s Cradle,  Kurt Vonnegut presents a satirical view towards religion and the concept of design in Modernism.  Vonnegut describes a new religion in his novel called Bokononism.  As the narrator explains the religion as the novel progresses, the religion becomes the center of satire towards creation and purpose.  One of the characters, Julian Castle depicts The Books of Bokonon, the religion’s bible, that is “hard to come by” and is never complete because “Bokonon is adding new things everyday”.  To this description, Little Newt mockingly asks “See the cat? See the cradle?”.  Here, Vonnegut emphasizes the faults to organized religion as he alludes to the fact that the Books of Bokonon may not even exist.  Vonnegut perhaps suggests that religion, in a sense, is nonexistent altogether.  The only way religion plays a role in society, according to Vonnegut, is through the believers of religion.  He also highlights the constantly changing concepts in the Books of Bokonon that further suggests the lack of concrete direction and purpose in religion.  Vonnegut again 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. 

Vonnegut also includes a training camp for soldiers named “Fort Jesus” in the novel to present his sarcasm towards religion.  The narrator Jonah asks Stanley, Frank Hoenikker’s major domo why they named the camp such a name, and Stanley replies, “Sure. Why not?”  Vonnegut uses the name of Jesus to label a camp that does not support the ideals and morals of religion to mock the meaning behind Jesus’ name.  Stanley sees nothing wrong with labeling the camp after Jesus, and Vonnegut suggests again that religion is only a name and nothing more.  Vonnegut supports the notion that chance dictates the happenings in the universe as opposed to the concept of design and purpose. 

I’m not entirely sure if this makes sense, and I’m sorry if I caused any confusion…

Topic for Brave New World

Again, I’m not quite sure what exactly it is that I want to argue in this upcoming essay. 

But I can attempt to form some sort of argument for this post.  Through Huxley’s novel Brave New World, Huxley implements ideals of extremely exaggerated progress and advancement to create a nightmare-ish world much different from our own, similar to the concept behind 1984.  However, the setting in his novel consists of a world based upon industrialization and standardization.  His dark pessimistic picture of these exaggerated ideals in his novel ultimately illustrates Huxley’s negative prediction of a society obsessed with technology and efficiency. 

An important concern I would like to address would be the presence of standardization, especially in our education system.  Sir Ken Robinson’s Youtube video provides an excellent source of commentary for this issue.  He boldly states that education is not really educating.  Rather, Robinson argues that society works to simply “get kids through education”, comparing the education system to an industrial factory.  He finds that the process of learning is of mere value; the result or finished product is the major concern with this system.  The standardizations also found in the education system hinder capacity to grow and progress in a beneficial direction.  His video gives important insights to the all too standardized education system that “educates” the youth of America, and I completely agree with his views. 

I also thought the technocracy article by Neil Postman contributed some interesting insights towards the concept of standardization beyond the educational system.  Postman argues that in a technopoly, society finds “technological calculation superior to human judgment”.  Standardized scientific measurements become the only right answer in a technopoly, since subjectivity serves as “an obstacle to clear thinking”.  Divergent thinking becomes obsolete with this mindset, and it becomes a significant problem in Brave New World as well as 1984 and the rest of the material in our curriculum for this year.  I plan on using Postman’s insights on the characteristics of a technopoly to analyze the overbearing presence of standardization in our world today. 

I hope this makes some sense...

Education doesn't exactly educate nowadays.

Basically, this video rocked.  Not only were the drawings exceptional, but the lecture Ken Robinson gives is truly phenomenal.  It directly connects with our reading in Brave New World as well as the education system that we are so fond of today. 

Ken Robinson’s lecture addresses the concern that education is not really educating us.  Rather, education serves the purpose of conforming students, similar to the way an industrial factory produces identical products. 

At the beginning of his lecture, Robinson mentions that there are two false generalizations that most make: one being the belief that there are so called “smart” people, and the other generalization being that the rest of the people are “non-smart” people.  He later states that this mindset perhaps benefits those who are considered smart, but it ultimately demeans the other “dumb” individuals.  Being labeled as inferior, these people begin to believe this to be true, and thus, society and education repress their potential as the people end their attempts in developing intelligence.  In Brave New World, the Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons also share this identical problem.  If a Gamma was created to be a Gamma, he would never gain the opportunity to climb a rung on the social ladder, let alone demonstrate any sort of intelligence at all.  With speakers endlessly projecting facts such as “Gammas are stupid” and “Alpha children are frightfully clever”, society immediately assumes these lower class individuals as the “non-smart” people and the Alphas as the “smart” people.  Though these individuals have the same amount of intelligence as an Alpha or Beta, the ideals society holds about them stunts their potential, ultimately leaving them in the same uneducated state indefinitely.  

Robinson further describes the meaning of an aesthetic experience: one where the senses are at a peak; where the individual is “fully alive”.  However, Robinson contends that education and ADHD medications serve as anesthetics that deaden the senses.  Similarly, the presence of soma in Brave New World serves almost an identical purpose, allowing the people to “take a holiday from reality whenever they like”. Though they may not feel a thing, the people are “getting through” life, just as kids in today’s schools “get through education”.   But what is learned and experienced through such anesthetics?  Here, Robinson makes a powerful point: we must wake students up!  And I agree completely.  We can’t accomplish greatness until we are truly alive.

Chapter 3 analysis

The passage reminded me somewhat of The Grapes of Wrath with its varying point of view changes, from narrative to lyric-like passages.  I found the “lyric” sections of chapter three in Brave New World to hold the most interesting information in regards to this value system that the society follows. 

Mustapha Mond initially mentions the concepts of family, monogamy, and romance, depicting them as “everywhere exclusiveness” and “a narrow channeling of impulse and energy”.  Mond describes the families of the past with negative connotations such as “exclusive” and “narrow” so as to emphasize the immorality of such beliefs in history.  Through this insight, Mond additionally reveals one strong principle that the society enforces: “everyone belongs to everyone else”.  This principle ultimately eliminates outsiders from society by looking down upon families and couples.  The presence of such exclusive relationships between people leads to emotions, feelings, desires, both negative and positive.  But instead of highlighting the wonderful rewards that come with families and monogamy, Mond speaks of the “fierce and foamy” wild jet of emotions that such relationships entail, with only one outlet.  He reminds his students of the dangers of feeling strongly and how it leads to “lonely remorses” and “endlessly isolating pain”.  In this way, Mond demonstrates the common belief that the absence of pain keeps men sane and “stable in contentment”, thus keeping the wheels upon their axels.  Without pain, there are no uncontrollable streams of emotion.  And this, Mond contends, is a much better way to live. 

With these goals established, Mond continues to describe the new definitions of principles used today, revealing the clever manipulation Huxley uses to prove his point.  For instance, chapter three incorporates Fanny and Lenina and their many relationships.  Ironically, Fanny shows her utter disgust at Lenina for staying with the same man for nearly four months when she really should be with a new man each day.  Here, Huxley stretches the principle of “everyone belonging to everyone” to a ridiculous extent by revealing the backward thinking of this society. 

Additionally, Mond mentions the drug soma, the substance that allows one to take a holiday from reality at any time.  Here, Huxley manipulates the concepts of impulse, feelings, and desires because the drug keeps society from feeling its real impulses.  Rather, it reaches a high where pain cannot enter the mind.  A state of numbness, you might say.  Feeling nothing is better than feeling both joy and pain, apparently.  

Sorry, this post was a bit longer than I thought... 

Introduction to the Tempest Essay

Keep in mind that I wasn't in class on Friday, so I'm not entirely sure if I completed this correctly...

     In the discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been the supporting or scrutinizing the idea of colonialism.  In his play, Shakespeare presents the issue, but he never fully reveals his true intentions colonialism.  On one hand, George Will argues that literature contains merely one concrete interpretation intended by the author, usually indicating a strong political stance on a given matter.  In the case of The Tempest, Will would agree that Shakespeare wrote the play initially in order to reflect the “imperialist rape of the Third World”.  Will feels that this stance ultimately demonstrates a “deculturation” as students mindlessly listen to the words they hear.  He contends that the literature that reveals political bias destroys the purpose of the literature itself and wrongly influences the readers of the particular work.  On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt argues another side entirely.  He feels that a literary work can be interpreted in many different ways, and he promotes those who attempt to find more than one interpretation to such a work.  Greenblatt argues that The Tempest has endless amounts of interpretations, hinting at the idea that Shakespeare could be both supporting and condoning colonialism.  I agree with Greenblatt’s proposition here, since I see evidence for both opinions towards colonialism.  Shakespeare could very well be giving a surface impression that favors colonialism, but underneath, Shakespeare could also be sending strong indications of a disapproval of the matter. 

        To write this essay, I will use citations from the literary debates of Will and Greenblatt.  This article contains two diverse opinions on a similar ground topic, and this will allow me to elaborate further on my own argument.  Also, I will use Bressler’s description of postcolonialism in my paper.  This addition to the argument will help to clarify the definition of the argument at hand, and it will also help to prove the possibility of Shakespeare supporting both diverse opinions within his play.