Monday, June 8, 2009
In response to theOX...
If you have anything further to say, I'd be glad to hear it. I take interest in your peculiar responses to my fellow classmates. If you'd rather not hold a mature conversation, or think that you are incapable of doing so (you did hint that you failed out of class), then ADMIT your own personal shortcomings and KINDLY MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS rather than make childish, inane statements on others' blogs, especially assignments that you ought to know are not undertaken with any goal other than for passing the class.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
This I Believe video project
The following is my This I Believe project, both transcript and video. It is what I believe; hence the title of the project being, "This I Believe." If you'd like to comment on the essay, feel free to do so. It would be greatly appreciated, though, if commenters refrain from delving into a philosophical or religious debate. I am not writing this to prove, disprove, or bicker about any spiritual realm that may or not be. If you don't agree with my ideas regarding such, kindly buzz off and keep your aggressive postulates to yourself, or post them on a blog debating such. Thanks a bunch.
Earlier on in my life, I considered myself fairly lucky to have so many family members. I had pets, aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents, grandparents, and even a great-grandmother. Of course, nothing, and no one, lasts forever. The only downside to having so many family members is that they’ve all got to go at some point.
The first to go was my father’s father, but I couldn’t really know what to think of that. I hadn’t really known him, seeing him perhaps once or twice a year, and was also fairly young. As a result, the funeral was a strange experience. My godfather’s death, on the other hand, was much more distinctive and destructive. He was around almost all the time, and died on a cruise. Because of the nature of his death, the body vanished for fear of biohazardous bacteria, or something along those lines. Just like that, a close friend, gone. My great-grandmother was apparently already on the way out, so to speak, suffering from a failing mind and considerable confusion, so I was upset but not very surprised when she died. Her peaceful passing, compared to her nervous and troubled state of existence prior, made it easier to accept her death. And, of course, the pets also have their time; in the space of a day, one of my cats suddenly fell ill and died due to gradual degradations of undetectable cancer.
Of course, there’s no point in repeating this solely to focus on the misery and anguish of death. It’s inevitable and harsh, and certainly everyone has seen the chaos it wreaks on survivors. However, there’s one pleasant thing to be gained from these grim surprises, one thing that at least I believe in.
I suppose the critical shift came when I began to see dead people. Not any dead people, and not in everyday activities; no, that would be disturbing. But in my sleep, I would dream and see whatever my mind created, and occasionally I would see the deceased. Occasionally I still see the deceased, but it would primarily occur shortly after the death of the visitor. It seemed similar to some final comfort before they headed their separate ways. I could clearly hear the voice, see the person, and it appeared to me that I wasn’t merely dreaming. For example, my godfather and mother’s parents kept two cats, one of which died; following my own cat’s death, I saw my cat with my grandparents’ cat, which were both with my godfather. And they all acted, sounded, responded to me as they would, as they did, before death; there was a clear presence.
Whatever it was, be it some supernatural revelation, an active and grieving mind, or whatever I ate for dinner, it was something. And the more I knew, the more that I saw in my sleep. The more I remembered, the more that I had experienced, the more realistic the dreams became. I’ve never been able to actually converse with these dead, but I personally believe that they are there. Wherever there may be.
Now, some philosophers have reasoned that all is within the mind of God, that the physical world is the manifestation of the spiritual world. If that is so, perhaps that is what my dreams mean. Perhaps there is life after death, within one’s own mind. Perhaps there is a universe within the mind where one can recreate their life, the existence they knew, as philosophers believe God did with this universe. Of course, if one hasn’t lived, there can’t be a world to create; there are no paints, no ideas, nothing worth drawing.
I believe that the purpose of life is to live, so that at life’s conclusion there is a place where your mind can go. Think of life as a template and as a buffet; the more you see, the more you can keep. And the more dreams can become realistic, the more senses can perceive, and the more fulfilled one can be in the end. Death might be final, but it certainly doesn’t have to be such a dreaded horror. Consider it a deadline, pardon the pun, announcing when the research period ends and the main task of eternity begins. And, after all, so long as one has memories, nothing will ever truly vanish.
I intend to see, do, and understand as much as possible, knowing that everything that was still is, still can be, when my time comes. I still have fears, doubts, but at least I have a belief. And that belief is telling me that I am never alone, that those before me have lived and now have their eternity, and that before I can receive mine there is still so much that has yet to be done. My belief about death is what allows me to live.
Earlier on in my life, I considered myself fairly lucky to have so many family members. I had pets, aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents, grandparents, and even a great-grandmother. Of course, nothing, and no one, lasts forever. The only downside to having so many family members is that they’ve all got to go at some point.
The first to go was my father’s father, but I couldn’t really know what to think of that. I hadn’t really known him, seeing him perhaps once or twice a year, and was also fairly young. As a result, the funeral was a strange experience. My godfather’s death, on the other hand, was much more distinctive and destructive. He was around almost all the time, and died on a cruise. Because of the nature of his death, the body vanished for fear of biohazardous bacteria, or something along those lines. Just like that, a close friend, gone. My great-grandmother was apparently already on the way out, so to speak, suffering from a failing mind and considerable confusion, so I was upset but not very surprised when she died. Her peaceful passing, compared to her nervous and troubled state of existence prior, made it easier to accept her death. And, of course, the pets also have their time; in the space of a day, one of my cats suddenly fell ill and died due to gradual degradations of undetectable cancer.
Of course, there’s no point in repeating this solely to focus on the misery and anguish of death. It’s inevitable and harsh, and certainly everyone has seen the chaos it wreaks on survivors. However, there’s one pleasant thing to be gained from these grim surprises, one thing that at least I believe in.
I suppose the critical shift came when I began to see dead people. Not any dead people, and not in everyday activities; no, that would be disturbing. But in my sleep, I would dream and see whatever my mind created, and occasionally I would see the deceased. Occasionally I still see the deceased, but it would primarily occur shortly after the death of the visitor. It seemed similar to some final comfort before they headed their separate ways. I could clearly hear the voice, see the person, and it appeared to me that I wasn’t merely dreaming. For example, my godfather and mother’s parents kept two cats, one of which died; following my own cat’s death, I saw my cat with my grandparents’ cat, which were both with my godfather. And they all acted, sounded, responded to me as they would, as they did, before death; there was a clear presence.
Whatever it was, be it some supernatural revelation, an active and grieving mind, or whatever I ate for dinner, it was something. And the more I knew, the more that I saw in my sleep. The more I remembered, the more that I had experienced, the more realistic the dreams became. I’ve never been able to actually converse with these dead, but I personally believe that they are there. Wherever there may be.
Now, some philosophers have reasoned that all is within the mind of God, that the physical world is the manifestation of the spiritual world. If that is so, perhaps that is what my dreams mean. Perhaps there is life after death, within one’s own mind. Perhaps there is a universe within the mind where one can recreate their life, the existence they knew, as philosophers believe God did with this universe. Of course, if one hasn’t lived, there can’t be a world to create; there are no paints, no ideas, nothing worth drawing.
I believe that the purpose of life is to live, so that at life’s conclusion there is a place where your mind can go. Think of life as a template and as a buffet; the more you see, the more you can keep. And the more dreams can become realistic, the more senses can perceive, and the more fulfilled one can be in the end. Death might be final, but it certainly doesn’t have to be such a dreaded horror. Consider it a deadline, pardon the pun, announcing when the research period ends and the main task of eternity begins. And, after all, so long as one has memories, nothing will ever truly vanish.
I intend to see, do, and understand as much as possible, knowing that everything that was still is, still can be, when my time comes. I still have fears, doubts, but at least I have a belief. And that belief is telling me that I am never alone, that those before me have lived and now have their eternity, and that before I can receive mine there is still so much that has yet to be done. My belief about death is what allows me to live.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
A Humble Suggestion
It has come to my attention that the United States faces a severe problem, which has plagued politicians and nativists alike since the foundation of this nation. America is the land of opportunity, where freedom reigns supreme and all men are created equal. We, as patriotic citizens, have fought for this country countless times to ensure its survival and support the spread of its ideal (and by “we,” I mean our ancestors and our neighbors in the armed forces). Unfortunately, some people are of the mind that such freedom should be freely given to all the oppressed, regardless of the logistics and facts of reality. Such persons, eager to jump on the bandwagon and attain their free share of freedom, which we have long toiled for, are likely at this very moment successfully breaching our border, especially in the South. I speak, my friends and fellow Americans, of the issue of Mexican immigration.
There is nothing wrong with the Mexicans. Allow me to explain that my motives for addressing this problem are not connected in any way to prejudice and ill will against our Spanish-speaking vecinos. My only issue is one of detached calculations. The unchecked flow of immigrants into America has taken and will continue to take an immense toll on all aspects of our life. Mexicans currently enter illegally into the nation across the southern border, usually fleeing miserable or hopeless conditions at home, trying to make a living and reach that dream of a stable, comfortable life. Cubans also enter the country via rafts, fleeing similar conditions and a perhaps less-than-respectable leader. These people will come seeking jobs, and being illegal, will have to be paid under the table. This will result in countless jobs going to non-Americans, which will raise unemployment throughout the country. The possibility for abuse and mistreatment runs high, as no Mexican will be able to go and report such an injustice without being deported. Furthermore, there have been efforts to help these immigrants apply legally for citizenship, granting them access to Social Security and healthcare benefits. Some even toy with the thought of legalizing all of them at once, seeing no way to halt the inward flow from Mexico. Such events would place an enormous strain on the economy, already in poor shape and watching with fear as the baby-boomer generation ages. And there are the regular daily questions to answer, as well. Where will they live? How will they live? How will we understand what they are saying? The inherent lack of knowledge of the American language and culture may lead these poor, huddled, teeming masses to take up several lesser positions, such as taxi driving and fast-food window operators. The language barrier will prove an obstacle to everyday life for many, especially since Spanish classes are being replaced by French and Chinese in several higher educational facilities. Soon our country will break under the financial and cultural stress, and democracy itself will be in peril. I hate to say it, but there just isn’t enough freedom to go around.
Therefore, I would like to put forth my own humble suggestion in solution to this impending crisis in the South. I suggest that we follow the lead of one of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, who had previously proposed a similar idea while awaiting the green light for a radio broadcast. During the Cold War, Reagan had been endlessly seeking a way to put an end to the Evil Empire of Communism, and was overheard to have uttered a groundbreaking proposal minutes before a national address. Reagan’s plan to completely outlaw Russia never got off the ground, but perhaps this idea still holds some final hope for today’s issue. I propose that we pass legislation that completely outlaws Mexico, and utilize our immense nuclear arsenal to wipe the Hispanics off the map entirely.
When one considers it, the potential benefits to this course of action are numerous and appealing. First, it will solve the central issue of Mexican immigration. Any Mexicans caught in the future will be immediately disposed of, saving us the price of gasoline to return them and the food and lodging necessary to take care of them until they are carted back to their native soil. This will free up the previous under-the-table positions held, allowing more jobs to be taken by American citizens rather than illegal immigrants. This will also eliminate the danger of economic stress from legalized Mexicans of both the naturalization process and the legislative process. Several knowledgeable persons have declared that immigrants often take the positions that Americans refuse to take. If this is so, then perhaps the American youths who will take such occupations will have improved attitude and insight that only menial labor can adjust, restraining the slothful and humbling the haughty. Employment will rise, and big businesses will be deprived of their secret pay plans, now forced to pay minimum wages and properly care for their employees. And there are more international bonuses as well. First, the Mexican-American border will now be sealed airtight. Walls and fences cannot perform as efficiently as a lake of radioactive sludge can. This will end the endless Congressional stalemate over the problem, perhaps bringing both sides closer to unity with one less divisive issue to argue over. Additionally, it will eliminate the threat of terrorist infiltration across the borders. Though terrorists can easily get into the US with fake passports or with the help of allies, when the airports and docks clam shut with improved security measures, there may be no better alternative than a leaky border than even a Mexican teen can cross. The bombing of Mexico will remind other nations that we do in fact have a nuclear arsenal and are not afraid to use it against anyone, which will entice other nations with whom we have rocky relations to “not mess with Texas,” as it were. The bombing will prove an effective way to reduce our nuclear arsenal, perhaps as a gesture of friendliness and good will, increasing our ability to call for limitations on nuclear power and reduction in atomic weaponry across the globe. Or, if the United Nations agrees, all nations can demonstrate their desire for world peace by simultaneously launching most of their nuclear stockpiles at Mexico along with us. This mutual assured destruction of nuclear arms will help banish the grim specter of a nuclear Armageddon, and should ease tensions between nations and stand as a symbol of international cooperation.
One will find that my proposal’s benefits are made all the more agreeable by the presence of faults associated with several other plans. Though this plan has perhaps one great fault, and that is the unfortunate waste of so many cheap laborers, it more than makes up for it in global unity and economic stability. And after all, we can always find other sources of cheap labor in other nations; businesses such as Wal-Mart have already established facilities overseas abundant with willing workers. And the culture of Mexico will be perfectly preserved by countless establishments even here in America, in museums and Taco Bells in countless scenic locations. Yet what faults do other notions have? Plans for a border fence, or heaven forbid, a border wall, are outrageously expensive. The cost of border-building, especially when building a solid and impassable border, are astronomical, and the cost for labor would be appalling. The only way to feasibly pay for the labors would involve less-than-respectable practices, and such cruelty to the Mexicans is unnecessary and unjust. Our current method of tracking down illegal immigrants has provided little tangible results, and the personnel necessary for continual effective monitoring of the nation is also costly. And neither of these solutions address the continued legal migration from Mexico. The root of the problem lies in America’s reputation as a land of freedom and opportunity, and also the apparent lacking of livelihood in nations south of the border. One might think that calling upon Mexico to take care of its borders better could produce results; if they cannot even take care of their own, how could they take care of their own border? International agreement to improve Mexico, so that Mexicans are not compelled to flee their homeland, is a pleasant but unrealistic thought. Rarely will an international effort actually benefit an entire people, and cooperation frequently dissolves as soon as difficulties arise. Besides, I am sure that my suggestion will hardly be met with must international outcry. If Europe cares not about genocide in Africa, what reason have they to be concerned about Mexico? And the concept of a simple missile launch for world peace is much easier to agree on than combined, prolonged international aid. It’s more of a fireworks warty than a sleepover.
I am willing to hear further suggestions towards the solution of this issue, but am confident that this proposal is the most appealing and best remaining option. Personally, I shall miss Mexico, but I am willing to make a sacrifice in order to keep my nation and future Social Security payments as sound and secure as possible. I do hope that all persons interested in progress consider carefully my argument and perhaps make some united movement to a prosperous and memorable conclusion to this issue.
(notice: This is a satire. Do not comment thinking that this is a serious proposal. You have been warned.)
There is nothing wrong with the Mexicans. Allow me to explain that my motives for addressing this problem are not connected in any way to prejudice and ill will against our Spanish-speaking vecinos. My only issue is one of detached calculations. The unchecked flow of immigrants into America has taken and will continue to take an immense toll on all aspects of our life. Mexicans currently enter illegally into the nation across the southern border, usually fleeing miserable or hopeless conditions at home, trying to make a living and reach that dream of a stable, comfortable life. Cubans also enter the country via rafts, fleeing similar conditions and a perhaps less-than-respectable leader. These people will come seeking jobs, and being illegal, will have to be paid under the table. This will result in countless jobs going to non-Americans, which will raise unemployment throughout the country. The possibility for abuse and mistreatment runs high, as no Mexican will be able to go and report such an injustice without being deported. Furthermore, there have been efforts to help these immigrants apply legally for citizenship, granting them access to Social Security and healthcare benefits. Some even toy with the thought of legalizing all of them at once, seeing no way to halt the inward flow from Mexico. Such events would place an enormous strain on the economy, already in poor shape and watching with fear as the baby-boomer generation ages. And there are the regular daily questions to answer, as well. Where will they live? How will they live? How will we understand what they are saying? The inherent lack of knowledge of the American language and culture may lead these poor, huddled, teeming masses to take up several lesser positions, such as taxi driving and fast-food window operators. The language barrier will prove an obstacle to everyday life for many, especially since Spanish classes are being replaced by French and Chinese in several higher educational facilities. Soon our country will break under the financial and cultural stress, and democracy itself will be in peril. I hate to say it, but there just isn’t enough freedom to go around.
Therefore, I would like to put forth my own humble suggestion in solution to this impending crisis in the South. I suggest that we follow the lead of one of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, who had previously proposed a similar idea while awaiting the green light for a radio broadcast. During the Cold War, Reagan had been endlessly seeking a way to put an end to the Evil Empire of Communism, and was overheard to have uttered a groundbreaking proposal minutes before a national address. Reagan’s plan to completely outlaw Russia never got off the ground, but perhaps this idea still holds some final hope for today’s issue. I propose that we pass legislation that completely outlaws Mexico, and utilize our immense nuclear arsenal to wipe the Hispanics off the map entirely.
When one considers it, the potential benefits to this course of action are numerous and appealing. First, it will solve the central issue of Mexican immigration. Any Mexicans caught in the future will be immediately disposed of, saving us the price of gasoline to return them and the food and lodging necessary to take care of them until they are carted back to their native soil. This will free up the previous under-the-table positions held, allowing more jobs to be taken by American citizens rather than illegal immigrants. This will also eliminate the danger of economic stress from legalized Mexicans of both the naturalization process and the legislative process. Several knowledgeable persons have declared that immigrants often take the positions that Americans refuse to take. If this is so, then perhaps the American youths who will take such occupations will have improved attitude and insight that only menial labor can adjust, restraining the slothful and humbling the haughty. Employment will rise, and big businesses will be deprived of their secret pay plans, now forced to pay minimum wages and properly care for their employees. And there are more international bonuses as well. First, the Mexican-American border will now be sealed airtight. Walls and fences cannot perform as efficiently as a lake of radioactive sludge can. This will end the endless Congressional stalemate over the problem, perhaps bringing both sides closer to unity with one less divisive issue to argue over. Additionally, it will eliminate the threat of terrorist infiltration across the borders. Though terrorists can easily get into the US with fake passports or with the help of allies, when the airports and docks clam shut with improved security measures, there may be no better alternative than a leaky border than even a Mexican teen can cross. The bombing of Mexico will remind other nations that we do in fact have a nuclear arsenal and are not afraid to use it against anyone, which will entice other nations with whom we have rocky relations to “not mess with Texas,” as it were. The bombing will prove an effective way to reduce our nuclear arsenal, perhaps as a gesture of friendliness and good will, increasing our ability to call for limitations on nuclear power and reduction in atomic weaponry across the globe. Or, if the United Nations agrees, all nations can demonstrate their desire for world peace by simultaneously launching most of their nuclear stockpiles at Mexico along with us. This mutual assured destruction of nuclear arms will help banish the grim specter of a nuclear Armageddon, and should ease tensions between nations and stand as a symbol of international cooperation.
One will find that my proposal’s benefits are made all the more agreeable by the presence of faults associated with several other plans. Though this plan has perhaps one great fault, and that is the unfortunate waste of so many cheap laborers, it more than makes up for it in global unity and economic stability. And after all, we can always find other sources of cheap labor in other nations; businesses such as Wal-Mart have already established facilities overseas abundant with willing workers. And the culture of Mexico will be perfectly preserved by countless establishments even here in America, in museums and Taco Bells in countless scenic locations. Yet what faults do other notions have? Plans for a border fence, or heaven forbid, a border wall, are outrageously expensive. The cost of border-building, especially when building a solid and impassable border, are astronomical, and the cost for labor would be appalling. The only way to feasibly pay for the labors would involve less-than-respectable practices, and such cruelty to the Mexicans is unnecessary and unjust. Our current method of tracking down illegal immigrants has provided little tangible results, and the personnel necessary for continual effective monitoring of the nation is also costly. And neither of these solutions address the continued legal migration from Mexico. The root of the problem lies in America’s reputation as a land of freedom and opportunity, and also the apparent lacking of livelihood in nations south of the border. One might think that calling upon Mexico to take care of its borders better could produce results; if they cannot even take care of their own, how could they take care of their own border? International agreement to improve Mexico, so that Mexicans are not compelled to flee their homeland, is a pleasant but unrealistic thought. Rarely will an international effort actually benefit an entire people, and cooperation frequently dissolves as soon as difficulties arise. Besides, I am sure that my suggestion will hardly be met with must international outcry. If Europe cares not about genocide in Africa, what reason have they to be concerned about Mexico? And the concept of a simple missile launch for world peace is much easier to agree on than combined, prolonged international aid. It’s more of a fireworks warty than a sleepover.
I am willing to hear further suggestions towards the solution of this issue, but am confident that this proposal is the most appealing and best remaining option. Personally, I shall miss Mexico, but I am willing to make a sacrifice in order to keep my nation and future Social Security payments as sound and secure as possible. I do hope that all persons interested in progress consider carefully my argument and perhaps make some united movement to a prosperous and memorable conclusion to this issue.
(notice: This is a satire. Do not comment thinking that this is a serious proposal. You have been warned.)
Monday, March 9, 2009
1984 and Brave New World - Ties to Today
Two of literature’s most famous dystopias, created by Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, haunt societies around the world. The debate rages on, pondering which one of them is most likely to happen and dominate mankind. Neil Postman believed that Huxley’s world of satisfaction and pleasure is more prominent today than Orwell’s world of misery and despair. Though it may seem that Huxley’s Brave New World is far more relevant today, Orwell’s 1984 still lurks in some parts of the world. Which threat is largest, it would seem, depends on the circumstances in that specific region.
Our society here in America is frequently one of convenience, and such a trend appears in other nations as well. Electronic devices, instant service and connection, availability, comfort, and other such social pleasantries suggest Huxley’s vision is close to being realized. Sex is spreading to lower age groups, or at least becoming more prominent, and the frequency of lawsuits in response to minor discomfort (often brought on by stupidity) suggests a growing need to keep the masses satisfied. However, international crises threaten this lifestyle. Shortages of supplies (for example, oil) and worldwide economic downturn prevents this utopia from coming to fruition. Not only that, people are too aggressive, prejudiced, and hateful to hold the carefree and loving attitude trademark of Huxley’s fantasy. And, as much as we have drugs today, there is nothing close to soma (in fact, most drugs today carry multiple unpleasant side effects, the exact opposite). We have some conditions similar to Brave New World, but we are far from reaching it.
On the other hand, there is Big Brother and Orwell. Many countries overseas are dominated by Oceania-like governments, and the boot grinds daily into the face of humanity. Other nations, too content to care, look on with a disapproving tsk, but do nothing more. Unnecessary waste will remove resources, and wars with other nations are used to fuel patriotism and act as excuse for violations of civil liberties. 1984 could happen, and there would be no relief from it. Of course, the American population are not the Proles; we are well aware of our situation, and will doubtlessly rebel in such circumstances. There are too many nations to set in place a series of waste-wars to keep us down; additionally, we hate the wars we already have, for the most part, so patriotism is out of the question. And, even more, unless our government suddenly becomes a dictatorship taken over by one party, there is no threat of a Big Brother crushing us underfoot. Elections will switch out someone else soon enough, and both parties will not agree to oppress us; they would not dare work together even for today’s crises.
Both utopias exist in our society (and others) in small amounts. Neither is close to fruition; barring any major world-changing event, neither will be achieved. What we must be cautious of, however, are advances in such smaller categories as described above. We must, in areas where a governor or statesman leads through fear, power, or corruption, remove that official. Where people are disconnected from the outside world, and are apathetic to world events, we must inform and evoke effort and action. We must keep ourselves vigilant against drifts to one society or another, while still understanding that what may result is not irreversible or catastrophic. Nor will these changes occur overnight; the conditions for sustaining these societies are too numerous and complex. We must avoid hysteria or needless fear, but still make sure that we avoid being too lax in accordance with either Orwellian or Huxleyan “nightmares.”
Our society here in America is frequently one of convenience, and such a trend appears in other nations as well. Electronic devices, instant service and connection, availability, comfort, and other such social pleasantries suggest Huxley’s vision is close to being realized. Sex is spreading to lower age groups, or at least becoming more prominent, and the frequency of lawsuits in response to minor discomfort (often brought on by stupidity) suggests a growing need to keep the masses satisfied. However, international crises threaten this lifestyle. Shortages of supplies (for example, oil) and worldwide economic downturn prevents this utopia from coming to fruition. Not only that, people are too aggressive, prejudiced, and hateful to hold the carefree and loving attitude trademark of Huxley’s fantasy. And, as much as we have drugs today, there is nothing close to soma (in fact, most drugs today carry multiple unpleasant side effects, the exact opposite). We have some conditions similar to Brave New World, but we are far from reaching it.
On the other hand, there is Big Brother and Orwell. Many countries overseas are dominated by Oceania-like governments, and the boot grinds daily into the face of humanity. Other nations, too content to care, look on with a disapproving tsk, but do nothing more. Unnecessary waste will remove resources, and wars with other nations are used to fuel patriotism and act as excuse for violations of civil liberties. 1984 could happen, and there would be no relief from it. Of course, the American population are not the Proles; we are well aware of our situation, and will doubtlessly rebel in such circumstances. There are too many nations to set in place a series of waste-wars to keep us down; additionally, we hate the wars we already have, for the most part, so patriotism is out of the question. And, even more, unless our government suddenly becomes a dictatorship taken over by one party, there is no threat of a Big Brother crushing us underfoot. Elections will switch out someone else soon enough, and both parties will not agree to oppress us; they would not dare work together even for today’s crises.
Both utopias exist in our society (and others) in small amounts. Neither is close to fruition; barring any major world-changing event, neither will be achieved. What we must be cautious of, however, are advances in such smaller categories as described above. We must, in areas where a governor or statesman leads through fear, power, or corruption, remove that official. Where people are disconnected from the outside world, and are apathetic to world events, we must inform and evoke effort and action. We must keep ourselves vigilant against drifts to one society or another, while still understanding that what may result is not irreversible or catastrophic. Nor will these changes occur overnight; the conditions for sustaining these societies are too numerous and complex. We must avoid hysteria or needless fear, but still make sure that we avoid being too lax in accordance with either Orwellian or Huxleyan “nightmares.”
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Claim Statement - Animal Farm
Fear has the capacity to paralyze the masses. A single person might speak out, but the general populous is slow to rouse. Strength in numbers may eventually overwhelm a tyrant, but if those numbers never materialize, the people will not take action. And if the tyrant moves the masses for his own purposes, his followers will overrun those who understand the truth. Unless there is a general agreement among the majority of the society, and preferably the situation becomes one of life or death, a tyrant will not be overthrown by his or her subjects.
There have been attempts by single people to overthrow a government. However, smaller numbers of people can move to action faster than the entire society. Secret societies are often formed from the percent of the population that would, by nature, always resist the tyrant regardless of the situation. If this number was, say, 15%, there would be an equal amount on the other side of the political fence that would always support the tyrant for whatever reasons. The central 70% must be won over, but it is extremely difficult to persuade two-thirds of the population over the opposition. It is much easier to act alone, but this will not cause the masses to move in unison. Several times in history, the assassination of a dictator has been met with indifference; after all, another would soon take his place, and their condition does not change. The masses are generally provoked, over time, to either support or oppose the tyrant, but to provoke them to rebel is another extreme case entirely.
In Animal Farm, the animals agree to rebel against mankind at one time or another. This was a decision supported by all present. When Jones failed to feed the animals, and then drove them from their food by whip, the starved animals reacted through instinct. To secure food to survive and to drive away the common threat, the animals together removed Jones from power. This supports the fact that a coup only occurs with prior agreement and in critical situations. When Napoleon took control, the situations may have been critical, but there was no general consensus to overthrow Napoleon. No animal could offer a solid reason; no common irritation existed. The sheep, seeing no overt act of tyranny, continued to bleat slogans, as did Boxer. And between the two of them, no one rose to challenge the pigs, who tactfully silenced any single individual who spoke out. Additionally, at the mass execution, there was no objection, even though the situation had become life or death, because the remainder of the animals had not agreed to overthrow Napoleon. They may have been shaken, but certainly weren’t moved into action.
1984 also shows an occasion where no general impetus exists to remove a tyrant. Individuals committed crimes, but the general masses quietly obeyed Big Brother regardless of what was said. Conditions may have been poor, but they were not life or death so long as the rules were followed. The proles could never be united against the Party; they had no reason to. Thus, tyrants are capable of remaining in power so long as they keep their subjects in their control. If the masses are not allowed to agree to overthrow the leader, they will never do so with a concerted effort. With careful statements and strategic assassinations, the tyrant can prevent a general consensus against him and ensure that, perhaps even in a life or death situation, he will find no great opposition.
There have been attempts by single people to overthrow a government. However, smaller numbers of people can move to action faster than the entire society. Secret societies are often formed from the percent of the population that would, by nature, always resist the tyrant regardless of the situation. If this number was, say, 15%, there would be an equal amount on the other side of the political fence that would always support the tyrant for whatever reasons. The central 70% must be won over, but it is extremely difficult to persuade two-thirds of the population over the opposition. It is much easier to act alone, but this will not cause the masses to move in unison. Several times in history, the assassination of a dictator has been met with indifference; after all, another would soon take his place, and their condition does not change. The masses are generally provoked, over time, to either support or oppose the tyrant, but to provoke them to rebel is another extreme case entirely.
In Animal Farm, the animals agree to rebel against mankind at one time or another. This was a decision supported by all present. When Jones failed to feed the animals, and then drove them from their food by whip, the starved animals reacted through instinct. To secure food to survive and to drive away the common threat, the animals together removed Jones from power. This supports the fact that a coup only occurs with prior agreement and in critical situations. When Napoleon took control, the situations may have been critical, but there was no general consensus to overthrow Napoleon. No animal could offer a solid reason; no common irritation existed. The sheep, seeing no overt act of tyranny, continued to bleat slogans, as did Boxer. And between the two of them, no one rose to challenge the pigs, who tactfully silenced any single individual who spoke out. Additionally, at the mass execution, there was no objection, even though the situation had become life or death, because the remainder of the animals had not agreed to overthrow Napoleon. They may have been shaken, but certainly weren’t moved into action.
1984 also shows an occasion where no general impetus exists to remove a tyrant. Individuals committed crimes, but the general masses quietly obeyed Big Brother regardless of what was said. Conditions may have been poor, but they were not life or death so long as the rules were followed. The proles could never be united against the Party; they had no reason to. Thus, tyrants are capable of remaining in power so long as they keep their subjects in their control. If the masses are not allowed to agree to overthrow the leader, they will never do so with a concerted effort. With careful statements and strategic assassinations, the tyrant can prevent a general consensus against him and ensure that, perhaps even in a life or death situation, he will find no great opposition.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
1984 - About THE BOOK
"Goldstein's" book, really written by O'Brien, was exceedingly peculiar. It was allegedly written by Goldstein, who opposed the Party, yet seemed to define a good deal of what Ingsoc was. The arguments were surprisingly coherent and logical, though lengthy and a tad boring. Two chapters of the book were detailed in the novel. And since it was really O'Brien who wrote it, is this therefore expressive of the Party's beliefs, or is it something completely different altogether?
Chapter 3 of the book seemed to explain how things came to be, to expand the setting beyond London to the state of world affairs that held constant ever since the Cold War began. Essentially, the war was a conflict between Oceania, the United States, and Eurasia, the Soviet Union. The Cold War seems to have split the world up into only two superpowers, perhaps a remark on the nature of the Cold War and both superpowers' aggressive interference in foreign nations. This erupted into an atomic war in the 1950's, another fear of the people at that time, which led to the creation of three supernations that could never destroy each other. "Goldstein" then argues that continued, vicious warfare, though without purpose or end, could be the solution to civilization. He argues that equality for all would cause the elimination of a power caste, and to give wealth to one group would result in a collapse of power; the only solution was to engage in continuous warfare to throw away goods while keeping the people's attention. Though the logic is reasonable, the application to the real world is slightly peculiar. This required that there be only a couple superpowers, all of which agreeing to reduce their countries to a pitiful existence barely above the limit at which humans could exist. This doesn't sound like Communism, but rather a reason to promote a dictator. This foreshadows O'Brien's later claim to power and corruption.
Meanwhile, Chapter 1 discusses how equality would not be beneficial to the society. By keeping a rich upper class and a severe restriction of freedoms, the "pendulum of history" could be "frozen" at a specific point in time. "Goldstein" argues that "inequality was the price of civilization," but then decries past dictators as "half-hearted" attempts at totalitarianism. Again, the book seems to be supporting O'Brien's later claims in the Ministry of Love. Also explained is why the Party exists, which apparently is because the wealthy upper class can more easily hold the majority of Oceania's goods if they're sharing them all. "Goldstein" also tries to explain that the Party will never fall, and discusses crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink. Winston can't help thinking that the book only tells him what he already knew, what he had already been taught; in fact, several passages, I believe, were cut-and-pasted from earlier chapters in the novel. This repetition doubly stresses the peculiarity of such an allegedly offensive book.
When I first read this, I knew that something was off. This perhaps made the Party seem incredibly offensive, but it explained exactly what the Party was doing. It was pure propaganda written by O'Brien, a school textbook, even. Such echoes of power and authority, and a deep description of doublethink and its various forms seem to be persuading one that the Party is, in fact, perfect. The underlining of Oceania's everlasting, eternal condition suggests to the reader that there is nothing they could do to stop the Party, and explains how one should act while a part of it. Already O'Brien was trying to ingrain the Party philosophy into the minds of Winston and Julia; perhaps the time limit for reading the book was to get them to read it before the Party made them disappear. Undoubtedly this was an honest description of the Party, and to have it written under Goldstein's name could be yet another example of doublethink. The importance of the book within the book, I feel, was to have O'Brien explain to the reader more clearly the what and how so that he could explain the why during interrogation and confession. The book, in context to Winston, was solely to glorify the Party and begin to transform Winston into a loyal Party member once more.
Chapter 3 of the book seemed to explain how things came to be, to expand the setting beyond London to the state of world affairs that held constant ever since the Cold War began. Essentially, the war was a conflict between Oceania, the United States, and Eurasia, the Soviet Union. The Cold War seems to have split the world up into only two superpowers, perhaps a remark on the nature of the Cold War and both superpowers' aggressive interference in foreign nations. This erupted into an atomic war in the 1950's, another fear of the people at that time, which led to the creation of three supernations that could never destroy each other. "Goldstein" then argues that continued, vicious warfare, though without purpose or end, could be the solution to civilization. He argues that equality for all would cause the elimination of a power caste, and to give wealth to one group would result in a collapse of power; the only solution was to engage in continuous warfare to throw away goods while keeping the people's attention. Though the logic is reasonable, the application to the real world is slightly peculiar. This required that there be only a couple superpowers, all of which agreeing to reduce their countries to a pitiful existence barely above the limit at which humans could exist. This doesn't sound like Communism, but rather a reason to promote a dictator. This foreshadows O'Brien's later claim to power and corruption.
Meanwhile, Chapter 1 discusses how equality would not be beneficial to the society. By keeping a rich upper class and a severe restriction of freedoms, the "pendulum of history" could be "frozen" at a specific point in time. "Goldstein" argues that "inequality was the price of civilization," but then decries past dictators as "half-hearted" attempts at totalitarianism. Again, the book seems to be supporting O'Brien's later claims in the Ministry of Love. Also explained is why the Party exists, which apparently is because the wealthy upper class can more easily hold the majority of Oceania's goods if they're sharing them all. "Goldstein" also tries to explain that the Party will never fall, and discusses crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink. Winston can't help thinking that the book only tells him what he already knew, what he had already been taught; in fact, several passages, I believe, were cut-and-pasted from earlier chapters in the novel. This repetition doubly stresses the peculiarity of such an allegedly offensive book.
When I first read this, I knew that something was off. This perhaps made the Party seem incredibly offensive, but it explained exactly what the Party was doing. It was pure propaganda written by O'Brien, a school textbook, even. Such echoes of power and authority, and a deep description of doublethink and its various forms seem to be persuading one that the Party is, in fact, perfect. The underlining of Oceania's everlasting, eternal condition suggests to the reader that there is nothing they could do to stop the Party, and explains how one should act while a part of it. Already O'Brien was trying to ingrain the Party philosophy into the minds of Winston and Julia; perhaps the time limit for reading the book was to get them to read it before the Party made them disappear. Undoubtedly this was an honest description of the Party, and to have it written under Goldstein's name could be yet another example of doublethink. The importance of the book within the book, I feel, was to have O'Brien explain to the reader more clearly the what and how so that he could explain the why during interrogation and confession. The book, in context to Winston, was solely to glorify the Party and begin to transform Winston into a loyal Party member once more.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The Things They Carried - Passage Qualification
O'Brien states that the essence of a person remains the same. I would agree with that statement given certain qualifications. A person most certainly does not change when one considers the identity. However, if one considers the personality, the one part of a person that truly defines that person, that makes them different from anyone else in a sea of clones, then I would have to disagree. Who you are remains the same. What defines you changes with time.
O'Brien compares his fear of defying the playground bully with his fear of draft-dodging mockery when he received his draft notice. He attempts to state that, deep down, he is no different than he was when he was in the fourth grade. This isn't the part of him that remains unchanged. Sure, it's the same type of inability to act, but that part still changes. In the first example, the fear was more of a fear of injury. The second fear was of embarrassment. The type of fear is different, though he is still fearful. The first fear is something that can be fairly easily overcome, with time and growth. The second very few people can overcome, ever. In "In the Field," O'Brien tells us how he was the one who let Kiowa go under the muck. He describes himself without using his name, but illustrates himself frantically searching for the picture he lost during the attack. He was likely searching in order to keep himself busy, as a pleasant distraction, but he, as the narrator, states that he was doing so in case "something might finally be salvaged from all the waste" (173). As O'Brien tells his stories, he is really doing the same thing he was back in the field. He is searching through all of his stories, retelling them, in the hopes that something good might have come out of Vietnam. This search, in contrast to the former frantic search out of anger and guilt, is more exploratory, more purposeful. Where before he searched to save what little he had left, now he searches to find what he never had, even for what little is left of others, and possibly leave it for the future.
Having acknowledged that a good deal of similarity can be undone by purpose, I still maintain that O'Brien is right in the sense that his identity is unchanged. He discusses in the final chapter how he and his comrades kept the dead alive through stories. In the two detailed retellings and short return to the man he killed, O'Brien describes the characteristics and possible future of that person. The man's overall identity, that of a young Vietnamese soldier who would rather not be a soldier, remains unchanged. He's still the same person walking down the road, and in O'Brien's mind, he still is the same person walking right back down the road. Linda is unchanged, preserved in his mind, in his stories. Though what defines a person changes, who they are as a physical being does not. Rat Kiley slowly lost his mind, and Mary Anne vanished into the jungle. However, they remained Rat Kiley and Mary Anne regardless of where they went or what they did. No matter what kind of person one becomes, they are still essentially the same person. But their personalities change the definition of who they are. Tim O'Brien remains Tim O'Brien, but what is the definition of Tim O'Brien?
Response to "theteach":
Perhaps personality might not have been the best word for me to use, but I believe that one's preferences and actions can help define a person for a specific time frame, a specific purpose. People do change as time goes on, be it from one significant experience or several lesser experiences. Like words with multiple meanings, people can only be judged concretely in a specific context. Yet to analyze the overall word and its general connotation, all definitions must be analyzed. If, following your example, one was gregarious or retiring, it would help define who that person was at that time. But if the person reversed and became the opposite, that would change the temporary definition and add to the overall definition. By no means does one single personality define the person entirely, but all personalities taken together would roughly define them. Thus, one could use a personality only to define a solitary aspect of that person, in a specific context. In the end, you're still using the same word, with the same spelling. And like language, definition is not concrete all around the world. Definitions don't ever replace other definitions, they just add to what's already there. Therefore, personality partially defines a person in the sense that it offers a new definition, a new purpose and meaning.
O'Brien compares his fear of defying the playground bully with his fear of draft-dodging mockery when he received his draft notice. He attempts to state that, deep down, he is no different than he was when he was in the fourth grade. This isn't the part of him that remains unchanged. Sure, it's the same type of inability to act, but that part still changes. In the first example, the fear was more of a fear of injury. The second fear was of embarrassment. The type of fear is different, though he is still fearful. The first fear is something that can be fairly easily overcome, with time and growth. The second very few people can overcome, ever. In "In the Field," O'Brien tells us how he was the one who let Kiowa go under the muck. He describes himself without using his name, but illustrates himself frantically searching for the picture he lost during the attack. He was likely searching in order to keep himself busy, as a pleasant distraction, but he, as the narrator, states that he was doing so in case "something might finally be salvaged from all the waste" (173). As O'Brien tells his stories, he is really doing the same thing he was back in the field. He is searching through all of his stories, retelling them, in the hopes that something good might have come out of Vietnam. This search, in contrast to the former frantic search out of anger and guilt, is more exploratory, more purposeful. Where before he searched to save what little he had left, now he searches to find what he never had, even for what little is left of others, and possibly leave it for the future.
Having acknowledged that a good deal of similarity can be undone by purpose, I still maintain that O'Brien is right in the sense that his identity is unchanged. He discusses in the final chapter how he and his comrades kept the dead alive through stories. In the two detailed retellings and short return to the man he killed, O'Brien describes the characteristics and possible future of that person. The man's overall identity, that of a young Vietnamese soldier who would rather not be a soldier, remains unchanged. He's still the same person walking down the road, and in O'Brien's mind, he still is the same person walking right back down the road. Linda is unchanged, preserved in his mind, in his stories. Though what defines a person changes, who they are as a physical being does not. Rat Kiley slowly lost his mind, and Mary Anne vanished into the jungle. However, they remained Rat Kiley and Mary Anne regardless of where they went or what they did. No matter what kind of person one becomes, they are still essentially the same person. But their personalities change the definition of who they are. Tim O'Brien remains Tim O'Brien, but what is the definition of Tim O'Brien?
Response to "theteach":
Perhaps personality might not have been the best word for me to use, but I believe that one's preferences and actions can help define a person for a specific time frame, a specific purpose. People do change as time goes on, be it from one significant experience or several lesser experiences. Like words with multiple meanings, people can only be judged concretely in a specific context. Yet to analyze the overall word and its general connotation, all definitions must be analyzed. If, following your example, one was gregarious or retiring, it would help define who that person was at that time. But if the person reversed and became the opposite, that would change the temporary definition and add to the overall definition. By no means does one single personality define the person entirely, but all personalities taken together would roughly define them. Thus, one could use a personality only to define a solitary aspect of that person, in a specific context. In the end, you're still using the same word, with the same spelling. And like language, definition is not concrete all around the world. Definitions don't ever replace other definitions, they just add to what's already there. Therefore, personality partially defines a person in the sense that it offers a new definition, a new purpose and meaning.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Group memoir: "Why I Write"
Why I Write - by Irene Gutowna Opdyke
When my country was invaded by the Germans and the Russians, my life changed. Many of my friends and neighbors died. Many others whom I never knew also died. Most of them died because they were not wanted by the Germans, and the Russians felt no different. I somehow managed to survive, despite all that I had gone through. Somehow I survived, and somehow I was able to save the lives of my friends. As "just a girl," I managed to save the lives of twelve people, in defiance of all of Germany, and I survived in defiance of all of Russia.
I do not write my story for myself. I risked my life for my friends and my country, and would have gladly died for them. I do not write so others can marvel at my accomplishments. After all, I was "just a girl" at the time, and really am not that much different than any other person who lived in Poland at that time. What makes me different is that I did what I felt was right, in spite of the odds and the consequences. And I write to tell you two things. First, there is no running from the past. All these things happened. This nightmare really happened, and it is my duty to remember all of it, and to tell you so that you may not forget what we are capable of doing to each other. Second, I write to remind you that you are always able to do something. Though what I did was but a drop in the ocean, it was still that drop. I still did what I believed in, and I always will. If you also do what is right, God willing, you will succeed. And there is no righteous deed that is worth so little as to not warrant doing. This is my will: to do right; to tell you; and to remember.
(P.S. The last line was taken from the end of the novel, page 265.)
When my country was invaded by the Germans and the Russians, my life changed. Many of my friends and neighbors died. Many others whom I never knew also died. Most of them died because they were not wanted by the Germans, and the Russians felt no different. I somehow managed to survive, despite all that I had gone through. Somehow I survived, and somehow I was able to save the lives of my friends. As "just a girl," I managed to save the lives of twelve people, in defiance of all of Germany, and I survived in defiance of all of Russia.
I do not write my story for myself. I risked my life for my friends and my country, and would have gladly died for them. I do not write so others can marvel at my accomplishments. After all, I was "just a girl" at the time, and really am not that much different than any other person who lived in Poland at that time. What makes me different is that I did what I felt was right, in spite of the odds and the consequences. And I write to tell you two things. First, there is no running from the past. All these things happened. This nightmare really happened, and it is my duty to remember all of it, and to tell you so that you may not forget what we are capable of doing to each other. Second, I write to remind you that you are always able to do something. Though what I did was but a drop in the ocean, it was still that drop. I still did what I believed in, and I always will. If you also do what is right, God willing, you will succeed. And there is no righteous deed that is worth so little as to not warrant doing. This is my will: to do right; to tell you; and to remember.
(P.S. The last line was taken from the end of the novel, page 265.)
Friday, September 26, 2008
Group Memoir: Quote Analysis
"People glorify all sorts of bravery except the bravery they might show on behalf of their nearest neighbors." -George Eliot
Often, people tend to ignore the person next to them. It's all about what one can obtain for oneself. Particularly, bravery is attributed to a willingness to oppose a great danger. That great danger, however, had better be caused by something powerful and mighty, say, a dragon or a whole army of elite soldiers or something fantastic like that. One might say that, the more ridiculous the odds are, the more stupid the decision, the braver the person. This doesn't often apply to people who do things in the name of others. Irene put her life on the line frequently to save her friends, who were facing the same threat of painful death. However, she did encounter many who did not particularly relish the thought of someone aiding the Jews due to the sentence given for doing so. They found it awfully stupid. Schulz, for example, helped her in her quest to aid the Jews without ever acknowledging what she was doing. Rather than support her, he merely aided her silently, as if reluctantly letting her do what she wanted to. Silent aid and occasional support and encouragement are two completely different things; the first suggests tolerance rather than the second's approval. Another significant example is when Irene goes to church for confession following her first night as Rugemer's mistress. Despite the fact that she was saving twelve human lives, the priest denied her absolution for the specific reason that she was committing a mortal sin. Given, he may have been following the rules, since adultery is a violation of the Ten Commandments, but there are certainly unstated qualifiers in that instruction. Furthermore, his response clearly shows an indifference to the stakes: "'They are Jews.' [...] 'Father, I cannot throw their lives away' [...] 'Then I cannot give you absolution'" (217). When a religious man can tell someone they're going to Hell for saving twelve people, that gives you an indication of just how little neighborly bravery is worth. Furthermore, her Jewish refugees frequently told her to turn them in, just because what she was doing was plain stupid. As modest and caring as it is to tell your friend not to risk her life for you and your family, when she is doing that I'd expect it to be appreciated. The problem is that, compared to the Polish resistance, which fought relentlessly against their conquerors, neighborly bravery seems almost pathetic. Fighting physically against incredible odds is bravery, especially when it is for one's country or for one's personal gain. However, self sacrifice is the worst way to gain glory. That doesn't seem to be bravery, just stupidity. Self-preservation, adherence to rules, and kindness are not excuses for failing to provide praise. They discourage that bravery, or at least allow that person to struggle alone, because in the end it does not seem to be a cause worth fighting for. If neighborly bravery was worth anything in the eyes of others, Irene would have had a little more encouragement than this.
Often, people tend to ignore the person next to them. It's all about what one can obtain for oneself. Particularly, bravery is attributed to a willingness to oppose a great danger. That great danger, however, had better be caused by something powerful and mighty, say, a dragon or a whole army of elite soldiers or something fantastic like that. One might say that, the more ridiculous the odds are, the more stupid the decision, the braver the person. This doesn't often apply to people who do things in the name of others. Irene put her life on the line frequently to save her friends, who were facing the same threat of painful death. However, she did encounter many who did not particularly relish the thought of someone aiding the Jews due to the sentence given for doing so. They found it awfully stupid. Schulz, for example, helped her in her quest to aid the Jews without ever acknowledging what she was doing. Rather than support her, he merely aided her silently, as if reluctantly letting her do what she wanted to. Silent aid and occasional support and encouragement are two completely different things; the first suggests tolerance rather than the second's approval. Another significant example is when Irene goes to church for confession following her first night as Rugemer's mistress. Despite the fact that she was saving twelve human lives, the priest denied her absolution for the specific reason that she was committing a mortal sin. Given, he may have been following the rules, since adultery is a violation of the Ten Commandments, but there are certainly unstated qualifiers in that instruction. Furthermore, his response clearly shows an indifference to the stakes: "'They are Jews.' [...] 'Father, I cannot throw their lives away' [...] 'Then I cannot give you absolution'" (217). When a religious man can tell someone they're going to Hell for saving twelve people, that gives you an indication of just how little neighborly bravery is worth. Furthermore, her Jewish refugees frequently told her to turn them in, just because what she was doing was plain stupid. As modest and caring as it is to tell your friend not to risk her life for you and your family, when she is doing that I'd expect it to be appreciated. The problem is that, compared to the Polish resistance, which fought relentlessly against their conquerors, neighborly bravery seems almost pathetic. Fighting physically against incredible odds is bravery, especially when it is for one's country or for one's personal gain. However, self sacrifice is the worst way to gain glory. That doesn't seem to be bravery, just stupidity. Self-preservation, adherence to rules, and kindness are not excuses for failing to provide praise. They discourage that bravery, or at least allow that person to struggle alone, because in the end it does not seem to be a cause worth fighting for. If neighborly bravery was worth anything in the eyes of others, Irene would have had a little more encouragement than this.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Extremely Loud: discussion question 17
Oskar's use of the term "heavy boots" to describe his depression is pretty good. It conveys an image of dragging one's feet, which certainly helps the reader understand exactly how Oskar feels. However, the heavy boots are also what's holding him down. He refers to the birdseed shirt a couple times, and how he dislikes being in high places. Perhaps it can be interpreted that his boots are keeping him from rising above his current circumstances. Personally, as an article of clothing, boots can be put on and taken off by the wearer at will. I think that "heavy boots" does more than just convey an image, reminding the reader that Oskar is leaving said boots on his feet and not trying to take them off. He often remarks on how he prefers not to get heavy boots, but rarely works to lighten the load. Perhaps Oskar is donning his heavy boots because he has no idea what else to do. The depression may very well be self-induced, as are his bruises. It also suggests Oskar his dragging his feet through life, emphasizing that he is merely drifting around and not trying to move forward of his own will. In addition to commenting on Oskar's emotions, it acts as a symbol for the fact that Oskar is not trying to improve his situation, but merely accepting depression and struggling unnecessarily under the weight of his situation.
Responses to Comments:
In response to "juno":
I do believe that Oskar needs some time to get over his loss and face that loss. HOWEVER, it has been a year and he seems to be resisting any efforts, or at least not understanding any, to aid him in accepting his father's death. As for Oskar not taking off the heavy boots, I do not mean he keeps them on because he likes them. He believes that he knows how to remove them, and those around him are not helping him by pushing forward instead of staying behind a little longer. He feels the answer is in the past, not the future. Consider the segment about the Reservoir of Tears, and how he feels his mother should be adding to it. The journey is certainly for the purpose of him removing the boots, but also realizing that they must be removed with the help of others when the wearer is ready to take them off and leave them behind. Oskar needs to accept his situation first, which I feel is the purpose of his journey, before he can move on. He has been doing things on his own, thinking his boots can come off only if he does something special. He hasn't realized he can take his boots off whenever he wants. Finding that key alone will not unlock the shackles that are his boots.
In response to "ziggy":
See above response. As I stated above, I think Oskar is trying to stay back rather than move forward. He would prefer to watch those pictures in reverse of the man flying back up to the tower, coming home to him, being safe. I agree with your statements on pain, but I do believe that Oskar is not trying to take off the boots directly by his quest. It occurs because he feels that finding the key will let him find his father, who will let him remove the boots. He still keeps his father's last messages in his closet. He is trying to hold back in the past rather than advance into the future. That is why he goes to the graveyard at the end, to accept that his father is gone and that he must move forward with what he has now. In this respect he is, though he persists otherwise, not trying to remove his boots but rather let them come off in reverse.
In response to "kas43091":
I don't think the dead horse would mind much. As I said, he isn't trying to remove the boots because he's trying to get back to what happened before. He's not, in my mind, a pessimistic little twerp who brings down society when he's in a bad mood. However, he is not moving forward of his own accord. He is trying to hold back. Perfectly logical if it weren't for the fact that he can't go back. He plods forth for the key and believes the boots can come off then and only then. By finding out that the key does nothing for him, he realizes that he's had the answer to his problems all along. That, and getting Hawking's letter: "today is the day I've been waiting for." The key word is "waiting."
In response to "ssnickel":
Hadn't thought about him needing to keep the boots on until he learns his lesson. (not in the negative connotation, but literally until he understands what he has to do) Again, I feel that he is not trying to remove the boots directly because he thinks the key to his problems are, well, in that key. Though he is trying to "lighten his boots," he is still trying to lighten them only, not remove them. Now that I think of it, perhaps he feels that he has to have boots, that he cannot take them off. Perhaps taking off the boots signifies leaving behind this part of him. Maybe the journey was less of removing the boots than it was learning to accept the fact that they will always be heavy, and that he must learn to share his load with the others around him. Let the birds on the birdseed shirt help life him above his troubles, if you will, learn to trust in the birds.
In response to "zeus":
As I stated in the first response, he certainly needs the help of others. If he can't learn to accept help from others, he will never learn how to help himself. However, by the same token, he will not be small forever. Which is why, in my opinion, his removal of the boots could be viewed as a rite of passage. He should definitely accept the support of others, but should also try to take that support and use it to learn for himself how to solve his problems. One can say that he relied on his father to remove his heavy boots, and that is why he had such difficulty when his mother and Ron tried to help. It is why he was unable to help his mother.
In response to "tennis":
Yes, I also agree that mourning helps to remember the small details of his father. As I suggested above, perhaps removing the boots means leaving behind certain things and moving on. However, there are many ways to remember someone. I refer to the storage room and Oskar's attempts to save a disposable razor. While it certainly holds value to Oskar, he has to find other ways to keep his father with him. Perhaps the visit to the graveyard is representative of a shift from clinging to material objects towards a more, how do I word this, not spiritual, but yeah, some sort of acceptance of his father's death and knowing he'll always be with him in other ways. Oskar needs to mature past the material objects, past the heavy boots, and find other ways of both remembering his father and enjoying the rest of his life.
Responses to Comments:
In response to "juno":
I do believe that Oskar needs some time to get over his loss and face that loss. HOWEVER, it has been a year and he seems to be resisting any efforts, or at least not understanding any, to aid him in accepting his father's death. As for Oskar not taking off the heavy boots, I do not mean he keeps them on because he likes them. He believes that he knows how to remove them, and those around him are not helping him by pushing forward instead of staying behind a little longer. He feels the answer is in the past, not the future. Consider the segment about the Reservoir of Tears, and how he feels his mother should be adding to it. The journey is certainly for the purpose of him removing the boots, but also realizing that they must be removed with the help of others when the wearer is ready to take them off and leave them behind. Oskar needs to accept his situation first, which I feel is the purpose of his journey, before he can move on. He has been doing things on his own, thinking his boots can come off only if he does something special. He hasn't realized he can take his boots off whenever he wants. Finding that key alone will not unlock the shackles that are his boots.
In response to "ziggy":
See above response. As I stated above, I think Oskar is trying to stay back rather than move forward. He would prefer to watch those pictures in reverse of the man flying back up to the tower, coming home to him, being safe. I agree with your statements on pain, but I do believe that Oskar is not trying to take off the boots directly by his quest. It occurs because he feels that finding the key will let him find his father, who will let him remove the boots. He still keeps his father's last messages in his closet. He is trying to hold back in the past rather than advance into the future. That is why he goes to the graveyard at the end, to accept that his father is gone and that he must move forward with what he has now. In this respect he is, though he persists otherwise, not trying to remove his boots but rather let them come off in reverse.
In response to "kas43091":
I don't think the dead horse would mind much. As I said, he isn't trying to remove the boots because he's trying to get back to what happened before. He's not, in my mind, a pessimistic little twerp who brings down society when he's in a bad mood. However, he is not moving forward of his own accord. He is trying to hold back. Perfectly logical if it weren't for the fact that he can't go back. He plods forth for the key and believes the boots can come off then and only then. By finding out that the key does nothing for him, he realizes that he's had the answer to his problems all along. That, and getting Hawking's letter: "today is the day I've been waiting for." The key word is "waiting."
In response to "ssnickel":
Hadn't thought about him needing to keep the boots on until he learns his lesson. (not in the negative connotation, but literally until he understands what he has to do) Again, I feel that he is not trying to remove the boots directly because he thinks the key to his problems are, well, in that key. Though he is trying to "lighten his boots," he is still trying to lighten them only, not remove them. Now that I think of it, perhaps he feels that he has to have boots, that he cannot take them off. Perhaps taking off the boots signifies leaving behind this part of him. Maybe the journey was less of removing the boots than it was learning to accept the fact that they will always be heavy, and that he must learn to share his load with the others around him. Let the birds on the birdseed shirt help life him above his troubles, if you will, learn to trust in the birds.
In response to "zeus":
As I stated in the first response, he certainly needs the help of others. If he can't learn to accept help from others, he will never learn how to help himself. However, by the same token, he will not be small forever. Which is why, in my opinion, his removal of the boots could be viewed as a rite of passage. He should definitely accept the support of others, but should also try to take that support and use it to learn for himself how to solve his problems. One can say that he relied on his father to remove his heavy boots, and that is why he had such difficulty when his mother and Ron tried to help. It is why he was unable to help his mother.
In response to "tennis":
Yes, I also agree that mourning helps to remember the small details of his father. As I suggested above, perhaps removing the boots means leaving behind certain things and moving on. However, there are many ways to remember someone. I refer to the storage room and Oskar's attempts to save a disposable razor. While it certainly holds value to Oskar, he has to find other ways to keep his father with him. Perhaps the visit to the graveyard is representative of a shift from clinging to material objects towards a more, how do I word this, not spiritual, but yeah, some sort of acceptance of his father's death and knowing he'll always be with him in other ways. Oskar needs to mature past the material objects, past the heavy boots, and find other ways of both remembering his father and enjoying the rest of his life.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Switchover: On to AP Language!
From this point forward, my AP Lit blog becomes my AP Lang blog. Therefore, do not go any farther into the past than this point if you're looking for AP Language posts. Just a notice...
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Passage Analysis -Comedy
I'd say Shrew's Introduction deserves a look at. In summary, the drunk Sly ends up falling asleep (drunk) outside a bar, where a lord comes and pulls a prank on him, telling him when he wakes he's a rich nutty noble. Now firstly, I'd like to point out that the same technique was used in Midsummer Night: a play within a play. Now, the shorter bit last time was the play in a play, Bottom's screwy tale. This time the shorter bit is the "reality," and the play in a play is the story. However, the point remains that there is still a story in a story. Bottom's interlude played its part, as it were, as does Sly's little tale. Considering the constant motif of secrecy and disguise, I'd say it's got its own hidden meaning. Sly is being presented a play in which a shrew is made a proper wife, and a proper wife is revealed to be a shrew. Well, I'd say the shrew made to a proper wife describes Sly, and the proper wife to a shrew is the lord. Why? Well, if I were a proper lord, I wouldn't consider it very lordly to screw with the minds of drunks. Sounds like a high school prank more than a bit of good mannered fun. Sly is now being slowly changed into a right nobleman. Or is he? Really, the lord is no different than he was before, nor is Sly. Is Kate going to remain exceedingly weak and mild-mannered? Heck, no, I'm half-thinking if Petruchio let her she'd drift right back to being outspoken, though more obedient in the end. Plus, I doubt that Bianca is that much worse than Kate. She might be independent, but she's a little more considerate and isn't as likely to fly off the hook. Point? The lord isn't that lordly and never was, he's a bit of a prankster at heart, and Sly is a drunk through and through, nothing to change that ever, not robes nor manners. He'll act the part soon, but revert back to a moron as soon as the jig's up.
Now back to the point of this...There's plenty of reasons why this is being included. One is the above. Secondly, the lord is only dressing Sly properly. He is not changing his personality or mannerisms. Outward appearance is nothing, echoed by Tranio and Petruchio's actions. Also, Bianca's "hidden" personality. At first glance, you'd be well fooled, but spend any amount of time around Sly or the others and you'd have them figured out fast. Also, the thought of things not as they seem to be could be applied to Shakespeare's work itself. He could have left this out, and the above message could still be obtained. Why stress again all is not as it seems? This is a play within a play. Sly is being given a play to mock him. Perhaps the play can be taken as mocking those that would marry solely for personality, or outward appearance? Perhaps he really doesn't want, nor think it possible, for women to echo Kate's final speech? By the way, that question's rhetorical, I really do think Shakespeare's playing games with us, as the lord did to Sly. Shakespeare is not glorying women like Kate. He mocks men like Lucentio and the fact that Petruchio went to such lengths to brag about his wife. The lord is going through very little effort to mock the simple Sly. And he mocks him for his idiotic pursuits and desires which are far out of his reach. The purpose of this intro is to stress that we cannot merely assume the outward appearance is true, and also to never think that our personal desires should be reality. We must think of what reality is and mend our dreams to a reasonable objective, and know that not everything will go our way.
Now back to the point of this...There's plenty of reasons why this is being included. One is the above. Secondly, the lord is only dressing Sly properly. He is not changing his personality or mannerisms. Outward appearance is nothing, echoed by Tranio and Petruchio's actions. Also, Bianca's "hidden" personality. At first glance, you'd be well fooled, but spend any amount of time around Sly or the others and you'd have them figured out fast. Also, the thought of things not as they seem to be could be applied to Shakespeare's work itself. He could have left this out, and the above message could still be obtained. Why stress again all is not as it seems? This is a play within a play. Sly is being given a play to mock him. Perhaps the play can be taken as mocking those that would marry solely for personality, or outward appearance? Perhaps he really doesn't want, nor think it possible, for women to echo Kate's final speech? By the way, that question's rhetorical, I really do think Shakespeare's playing games with us, as the lord did to Sly. Shakespeare is not glorying women like Kate. He mocks men like Lucentio and the fact that Petruchio went to such lengths to brag about his wife. The lord is going through very little effort to mock the simple Sly. And he mocks him for his idiotic pursuits and desires which are far out of his reach. The purpose of this intro is to stress that we cannot merely assume the outward appearance is true, and also to never think that our personal desires should be reality. We must think of what reality is and mend our dreams to a reasonable objective, and know that not everything will go our way.
Passage Analysis -History
For Richard III, I'll analyze the first speech by Richard at the start of the play. One of the interesting things done in this passage is Richard's descriptive and in-depth discussion of the setting. He tells us specifically that it was absolutely god-awful terrible before, but now it's absolutely fantastic, happiest it's ever been. However, Richard's an ugly duck, and couldn't get a date to save his life. (not without some crafty double-talk) He can't enjoy the peace and prosperity without being constantly reminded, "DARN, I'm ugly!" Therefore, he's going to be a real SOB and make everyone miserable.
Overall, this helps to show us early on just how corrupt and terrible Richard is. A fantastic peace has just rolled in, and everyone's having a terrific party. But he's not happy so he's going to screw it all up. So he feels better knowing everyone's as miserable as he is. He is directly opposed to the peace, the merriment, the good things in life. He just about makes himself the nemesis of all goodness right then and there. You are supposed to hate this guy from the start. And he tells you why, so you don't have any questions as to whether or not there's a shave of goodness somewhere in that black pit of his heart. Shakespeare obviously is trying to make a point here. Few characters would need to be defined as pure evil. Perhaps for the purpose of the play, we shouldn't have any doubts, stressing the deviation from history that makes the play fiction based on truth. Shakespeare wouldn't need to do this otherwise, as the audience would know what to expect if the real Rich III was that bad.
And right from the beginning, Rich is attempting to work his magic on us. He doesn't have a choice in the matter, he couldn't be a good guy even if he wanted to. This is all he's got left...boohoo... Yeah, right. Considering how he sweet-talked his way around later, I doubt his plight in the beginning made any sense. He's playing the audience from the start. Shakespeare is stressing the fact that this guy is a tricky, sneaky, double talking jerk, and doing it for a reason. From the start he's lying to us. From the start he's trying to get us on his side. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to tell us that one must always be on our guard, because evil is against us from the very beginning to the very end. Also, would we have trusted him as well, had he not told us his plans? Maybe Shakespeare is giving us insight into the mind of an evil politician because we can rarely distinguish between good and evil ourselves. We can view things objectively, and we know who the real problem is. Had the opening stopped before he stated he would "prove the villain," we might have felt sorry for him, and been shocked when he executed Clarence. Perhaps the point is: can we always know what people are thinking?
Overall, this helps to show us early on just how corrupt and terrible Richard is. A fantastic peace has just rolled in, and everyone's having a terrific party. But he's not happy so he's going to screw it all up. So he feels better knowing everyone's as miserable as he is. He is directly opposed to the peace, the merriment, the good things in life. He just about makes himself the nemesis of all goodness right then and there. You are supposed to hate this guy from the start. And he tells you why, so you don't have any questions as to whether or not there's a shave of goodness somewhere in that black pit of his heart. Shakespeare obviously is trying to make a point here. Few characters would need to be defined as pure evil. Perhaps for the purpose of the play, we shouldn't have any doubts, stressing the deviation from history that makes the play fiction based on truth. Shakespeare wouldn't need to do this otherwise, as the audience would know what to expect if the real Rich III was that bad.
And right from the beginning, Rich is attempting to work his magic on us. He doesn't have a choice in the matter, he couldn't be a good guy even if he wanted to. This is all he's got left...boohoo... Yeah, right. Considering how he sweet-talked his way around later, I doubt his plight in the beginning made any sense. He's playing the audience from the start. Shakespeare is stressing the fact that this guy is a tricky, sneaky, double talking jerk, and doing it for a reason. From the start he's lying to us. From the start he's trying to get us on his side. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to tell us that one must always be on our guard, because evil is against us from the very beginning to the very end. Also, would we have trusted him as well, had he not told us his plans? Maybe Shakespeare is giving us insight into the mind of an evil politician because we can rarely distinguish between good and evil ourselves. We can view things objectively, and we know who the real problem is. Had the opening stopped before he stated he would "prove the villain," we might have felt sorry for him, and been shocked when he executed Clarence. Perhaps the point is: can we always know what people are thinking?
Passage Analysis -Tragedy
Being short, I'll analyze Act 5, Scene 1. The whole thing. Firstly, the doctor and nurse are concerning themselves with Lady Macbeth's involvement in the crimes. However, they seem to be surprised more at the fact that she herself is involved, not the fact that Macbeth, also mentioned, has knowledge of it. After all, the nurse heard this before getting the doctor and neither of the two turned from trying to treat her due to this knowledge. It seems that they're expecting Macbeth to be involved, not Lady Macbeth. Thus, Lady Macbeth has been getting away with murder until now. No one suspects her, yet Macbeth is apparently very suspicious. Of course, the irony is that she orchestrated the beginning of this whole story. She is possibly the most responsible for the novel's events.
However, she was kept oblivious of Banquo's murder plans. From her quote on lines 44-45, she may also have been oblivious to the murder of Macduff's family. She's only really responsible for the one murder of Duncan, and she only carried up the daggers! Now Shakespeare's got to be stressing that all of these murders are her fault and the respective blood is on her hands. If it weren't for her pushing Macbeth, none of this would have happened. She is the real slaughterer here. And, interestingly enough, she was the one that was aggressive in the beginning. Now she's even more nervous than Macbeth was then. A sort of role reversal here. Now she's wishing she didn't push Macbeth to get involved in any of this. Sure, the king for the crown, but not everybody else around...
Guilt by association is the main point here. Guilt in two ways, in fact: legal and personal. She's responsible for these murders. She knows they're her fault. And she later kills herself for it. It's a little tragic in the sense that she ended up involved in a good deal of blood after Duncan, and having only made that one bad decision, but she is as guilty as Macbeth. She pays the price as well. Perhaps Shakespeare is also attempting to stress that, despite the appearance of being a good idea, it can be quite the opposite and much more than bargained for. A little evil goes a long way, so to speak. Better not to commit any one crime so as not to be guilty of any further, as it were. Another amusing point is that the nurse and doctor seem sympathetic to her. Again, it's an unfortunate mistake, but she is still responsible for it.
However, she was kept oblivious of Banquo's murder plans. From her quote on lines 44-45, she may also have been oblivious to the murder of Macduff's family. She's only really responsible for the one murder of Duncan, and she only carried up the daggers! Now Shakespeare's got to be stressing that all of these murders are her fault and the respective blood is on her hands. If it weren't for her pushing Macbeth, none of this would have happened. She is the real slaughterer here. And, interestingly enough, she was the one that was aggressive in the beginning. Now she's even more nervous than Macbeth was then. A sort of role reversal here. Now she's wishing she didn't push Macbeth to get involved in any of this. Sure, the king for the crown, but not everybody else around...
Guilt by association is the main point here. Guilt in two ways, in fact: legal and personal. She's responsible for these murders. She knows they're her fault. And she later kills herself for it. It's a little tragic in the sense that she ended up involved in a good deal of blood after Duncan, and having only made that one bad decision, but she is as guilty as Macbeth. She pays the price as well. Perhaps Shakespeare is also attempting to stress that, despite the appearance of being a good idea, it can be quite the opposite and much more than bargained for. A little evil goes a long way, so to speak. Better not to commit any one crime so as not to be guilty of any further, as it were. Another amusing point is that the nurse and doctor seem sympathetic to her. Again, it's an unfortunate mistake, but she is still responsible for it.
Genre Commentary -Tragedy
Well, like the Comedies, the Tragedies seem to have a couple messages and morals of their own. Of course, these are the more corrupting and terrible faults of mankind rather than simple human screw ups. Macbeth, for example, had a brilliant life ahead of him and likely could have gotten far as thane of Cawdor and Glamis. Of course, he ended up tempted by the prospect of being king and blew it all. Even the greatest of heroes can fall given the right leverage. And of course, he ended up arrogant later after the second volley of prophecies from the witches. Again, a major and classic moral of arrogance being one's downfall. The tragedy genre, being like the comedy genre, in that respect, I think might be used to drive a point home rather than pass it along with a laugh. The comedies give a fun day out and a lesson for the day, but tragedies could be meant to make something absolutely clear. A touching story meant to grab you, stop you, and make you understand something particularly important. (Didn't Joyce ramble something on tragedy to that effect in Portrait?) The tragedy genre is more of a lesson play than an enjoyment play. And, like I said earlier, the story is not static like a history. First Macbeth is the good guy, then he's the nervous bad guy, then he's the complete bad guy. First Lady Macbeth took center stage for evil, then she fell apart by the end of the play quite pathetically, with Macbeth leading the way where she stands unsure of her deeds. It keeps one's interest better than a history, because something's always happening. Thus, unlike Histories that allow you to think, "Well that sounds familiar," Tragedies make a point clear and don't let your thoughts wander. Purposeful and entertaining.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Genre Commentary -History
Histories were not quite history as much as story. (I suppose one can say they got rid of the friendly "hi") The purpose may have seemed to have been a cruel representation of Richard III, but I think it is a political play. Yes, to imagine Shakespeare a politician! Really, though, Shakespeare lived in a time where what Richard did in the play was commonplace in real life. Henry VIII executed two people only a few days after he took the throne (at a young age, mind you!) just because Daddy didn't like them. (Yes, even though Daddy was dead he still lopped off their heads.) Shakespeare also had several plays banned at different times because they had characters or events that were similar to events that had recently happened. Sound similar to stuff over here? Shakespeare was a politician as much as he was a literary genius. He was making a statement about the events of his time through fiction where anyone else of less prominence could lose their heads for so much as uttering it. Also, the play's events were based on rumor, and Richard was just as bad as the devil if not worse. I doubt the real Richard the Third was actually that bad. Sure, he may have made a few mistakes and done some unpopular things, I haven't checked exactly what, but I doubt he was the very incarnation of evil. Current example? Richard Nixon. Personally a snake like that shouldn't be allowed to roam the White House halls as freely, but he did do some decent things during his presidency. Of course, he did several less popular things, which is what the public always remembers. Perhaps there is a correlation between the two Richards. (though I'm sure they weren't nicknamed "Dick" for nothing, another amusing coincidence)
Either way, Shakespeare did use the Histories as a form of political discussion. He also keeps the audience objective by making the villains villains and the heroes heroes. The story is fairly static. There isn't a great change in character for anyone. Nothing to mourn except the events of the story, nothing to laugh at except the foolish nature of the characters. It's just telling a story, not trying to entertain us. It's telling us what's going on, not leaving us to wonder the next twist of the plot. The purpose is not to entertain, but to inform. And it is not informing us what history is comprised of, but more that history can repeat itself. What one sees can very easily have happened, and what could have happened may still happen later.
Either way, Shakespeare did use the Histories as a form of political discussion. He also keeps the audience objective by making the villains villains and the heroes heroes. The story is fairly static. There isn't a great change in character for anyone. Nothing to mourn except the events of the story, nothing to laugh at except the foolish nature of the characters. It's just telling a story, not trying to entertain us. It's telling us what's going on, not leaving us to wonder the next twist of the plot. The purpose is not to entertain, but to inform. And it is not informing us what history is comprised of, but more that history can repeat itself. What one sees can very easily have happened, and what could have happened may still happen later.
Genre Commentary -Comedy
Why oh why did I choose to do each bit separately? Ah well.
The Comedy Genre for Shakespeare wasn't a simple slapstick pass-the-day-away laughfest. He kept things witty and clean (to a degree). Rather than simply have someone get smacked around, although there was plenty of that in some, he had comical situations, unfortunate events, and simple irony and sarcasm. Rather than simply have people laugh, he had them laugh and think. It was more on a mental level than a reflex level. Of course, he also made an attempt to keep his works important by hinting or directly quoting certain morals and messages, which I will refer to as M&M's because they are small, sweet, and too numerous to be individually worth savoring. Shrew had a meaning beneath the outward appearance of obedience, which is emphasized by the introduction and ensuing action. If it weren't for that constant appearance as a motif, there would be little purpose to Petruchio's actions save a less acceptable one. Midsummer Night's morals were less moral and more, "Well don't be dingbats." Bottom is self-explanatory, and Oberon's whim ended up causing the four Athenians much trouble. However, no real harm was meant, and that was the purpose. All was good-natured, even the insults at the end to the actors. Perhaps even a warning not to be too carefree, because all actions have consequence. However, as restated by Robin near the end, don't take everything seriously and to heart. A simple prank can turn out badly in the end, but it is not meant to laugh at one but instead with one.
The Comedy Genre for Shakespeare wasn't a simple slapstick pass-the-day-away laughfest. He kept things witty and clean (to a degree). Rather than simply have someone get smacked around, although there was plenty of that in some, he had comical situations, unfortunate events, and simple irony and sarcasm. Rather than simply have people laugh, he had them laugh and think. It was more on a mental level than a reflex level. Of course, he also made an attempt to keep his works important by hinting or directly quoting certain morals and messages, which I will refer to as M&M's because they are small, sweet, and too numerous to be individually worth savoring. Shrew had a meaning beneath the outward appearance of obedience, which is emphasized by the introduction and ensuing action. If it weren't for that constant appearance as a motif, there would be little purpose to Petruchio's actions save a less acceptable one. Midsummer Night's morals were less moral and more, "Well don't be dingbats." Bottom is self-explanatory, and Oberon's whim ended up causing the four Athenians much trouble. However, no real harm was meant, and that was the purpose. All was good-natured, even the insults at the end to the actors. Perhaps even a warning not to be too carefree, because all actions have consequence. However, as restated by Robin near the end, don't take everything seriously and to heart. A simple prank can turn out badly in the end, but it is not meant to laugh at one but instead with one.
Reaction to Shakespeare -Tragedy
A less historically accurate, but more enjoyable, history.
Kidding. However, this is a drift back to the morals and messages of the Comedies. The only difference is one is happy and the other's sad. Also, these morals are more at warnings than the, "Now remember kids..." of the Comedies. Macbeth was going to have everything, and the idiot blew it all. Personally, this is often so many people in the world today. The greediest of all fall in the same fashion. Be it for power or possession, they all get wind of the chance to get some freebies, and they go ahead and choke on the stuff. Still, unlike the Histories, you've got a good guy that comes to the rescue, goes bad, and then some other little unknown guy comes to the rescue and beats the former good guy. It's sort of like all of the Star Wars movies packed into one less spectacular production. There was a lot more depth, so I found it more amusing than the histories, but it does reflect on how easily people can be corrupted. It also reflects on how people are essentially good and can easily do evil and regret it later. There's plenty who have been tortured as Lady Macbeth was, and it can be safely assumed that just about everyone will hesitate like Macbeth did unless he's egged on by an outside force. Though it's a better story than the Histories, I prefer the Comedies. Fantastic plot and all, but I like to keep a pleasant outlook whenever possible. I tend to lose that outlook quickly enough without already knowing what will tick me off.
Kidding. However, this is a drift back to the morals and messages of the Comedies. The only difference is one is happy and the other's sad. Also, these morals are more at warnings than the, "Now remember kids..." of the Comedies. Macbeth was going to have everything, and the idiot blew it all. Personally, this is often so many people in the world today. The greediest of all fall in the same fashion. Be it for power or possession, they all get wind of the chance to get some freebies, and they go ahead and choke on the stuff. Still, unlike the Histories, you've got a good guy that comes to the rescue, goes bad, and then some other little unknown guy comes to the rescue and beats the former good guy. It's sort of like all of the Star Wars movies packed into one less spectacular production. There was a lot more depth, so I found it more amusing than the histories, but it does reflect on how easily people can be corrupted. It also reflects on how people are essentially good and can easily do evil and regret it later. There's plenty who have been tortured as Lady Macbeth was, and it can be safely assumed that just about everyone will hesitate like Macbeth did unless he's egged on by an outside force. Though it's a better story than the Histories, I prefer the Comedies. Fantastic plot and all, but I like to keep a pleasant outlook whenever possible. I tend to lose that outlook quickly enough without already knowing what will tick me off.
Reaction to Shakespeare -History
So history can be amusing...Interesting...
Well, for a play about a corrupt and murderous (not to mention incestuous) SOB, at least, it came out all right. Though really, I still found it a tad boring. The story is based loosely on history and rumor, but I doubt it was for that purpose. Frankly, a History in my opinion, is just a Tragedy sans emotion. At least this one is. But it certainly does bring to light the details of the time, and reflects a few things about all people. How many people in that time period killed or were killed in similar fashions or for similar reasons as were presented in the play? (In case you don't know, A LOT.) For Shakespeare, this was the equivalent of taking a step back and looking at the corrupted nature and track record of the government, if one could call it that, and giving an honest analysis of it. (And making a living at the same time.) There were terrible things going on, and the play was likely just a view of how things would have happened if the rumors were all true. I think there are PLENTY examples of this in our day and age. As much of a crude jerk Nixon was, he ended up doing a great deal of things for the American people. If Richard Nixon was a decent soul in the end, I doubt the real Richard the Third was any different. However, this novel was too much evil and trickery on one person. Frankly, to desire someone dead that long is going to wear you out in the end. It's just irritating. I am willing to bet that somebody in that audience stood up at the end and said "Finally!" or "Took ya long enough!" back in Shakespeare's time. Like today's documentaries; if you aren't seriously interested in what they're talking about, you are floating happily in your own little world. Good stuff, but a tad too consistent.
Well, for a play about a corrupt and murderous (not to mention incestuous) SOB, at least, it came out all right. Though really, I still found it a tad boring. The story is based loosely on history and rumor, but I doubt it was for that purpose. Frankly, a History in my opinion, is just a Tragedy sans emotion. At least this one is. But it certainly does bring to light the details of the time, and reflects a few things about all people. How many people in that time period killed or were killed in similar fashions or for similar reasons as were presented in the play? (In case you don't know, A LOT.) For Shakespeare, this was the equivalent of taking a step back and looking at the corrupted nature and track record of the government, if one could call it that, and giving an honest analysis of it. (And making a living at the same time.) There were terrible things going on, and the play was likely just a view of how things would have happened if the rumors were all true. I think there are PLENTY examples of this in our day and age. As much of a crude jerk Nixon was, he ended up doing a great deal of things for the American people. If Richard Nixon was a decent soul in the end, I doubt the real Richard the Third was any different. However, this novel was too much evil and trickery on one person. Frankly, to desire someone dead that long is going to wear you out in the end. It's just irritating. I am willing to bet that somebody in that audience stood up at the end and said "Finally!" or "Took ya long enough!" back in Shakespeare's time. Like today's documentaries; if you aren't seriously interested in what they're talking about, you are floating happily in your own little world. Good stuff, but a tad too consistent.
Reaction to Shakespeare -Comedy
Well, this was quite an enjoyable genre. Particularly compared to the doom gloom and misery of the past few novels. Joking aside, though, I wasn't expecting this out of Shakespeare's comedies. They were funny, obviously, but I wasn't referring to that, rather the depth involved, particularly in Shrew. Unlike other comedies that can be just simple purposeless comedies, the novels were sort of individual and witty, with important morals and messages even. Midsummer Night wasn't just chuckles, and actually had a bit of seriousness to it. It begins out with serious circumstances and only becomes comedic later in the play. Oberon's attempt at revenge ends up backfiring terribly, partly due to Robin's screw ups, but there's still the fact that his one other idea ended up causing even greater trouble. Perhaps it could be taken to mean that if something means that much to you, you could take some care to see that it is taken care of. Oberon simply passed the task off, and ended up causing massive problems in the end. And as much as Shrew could be taken to be a simple comedy with a bad message of inferior women, I personally feel that Shakespeare was after something else. Lucentio bet on his own wife's obedience under the assumption that she would obey orders, being beautiful and kind in contrast to her sister. The fact that Shakespeare has the turn-around in the end could be a repeat of the classic "don't judge a book by its cover." Also, perhaps, a nod toward people falling in love for looks rather than character. For lighthearted comedies, they certainly have quite a depth to them. More depth than, say, Mel Brooks. Nothing against his movies, but I can't quite think of many messages in there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)