Dead Poets Society deserves very nearly a 9.9. Robin Williams, two young studs, poetry, and a splash of rebellion, no movie can be better than this. This film is the story of a group of high school students learning to live life for themselves, despite the discouragement of doing so from authority. DPS was a solid ten until the main character decides to ruin everyone else's life by taking his own. I understand that this act makes the movie more moving and worthwhile, but it is disappointing anyhow. Everyone loves a happy ending, and this film barely provides one. (Except for the very powerful scene of standing on desks accompanied with the usual triumphant music).
This movie was not exactly about poetry, quite the opposite in fact. It does not actually address poetry's structure, but instead the importance of creating it. This movie stresses the need for people to disassimiliate, think for themselves, and live life unchained to obligation and expectation. It instead suggests Carpe Diem, live life to the fullest. Robin Williams gives a very inspiring performance with a type of role that he needs to take up again, and very soon.
The Dead Poet Society poses poetry in a unique way different than what is typically taught in English classes. It avoids offering a mathmatical and definedway to analyze and create poetry. It actually denounces these methods. Instead, this film tells people that poetry is not a mathematical equation, but a simply the expressing of emotions and thought. That is all. It can be done anywhere, any way, and by anyone as long as it is passionate truth.
This movie should be shown in every English class, not only AP. It brings beauty and appreciation back into poetry, of which was lost (or perhaps not even known to students) through the many tedious years of analyzing poetry in previous grade levels. I did not enjoy poetry at all prior to this movie. However, after seeing this movie my only lack of money is keeping me from buying a poetry book, a notion I never before had. There is a much bigger world of poetry out there, bigger than the usual "thyth flowers are blooming in the spring's soft breath..." banter. The dead poet society sounds very fun, and I only wish it was a program at Thurston. Maybe then appreciation for poetry's beauty and free eloquent expressions of thought will reestablish itself in people.
By the way::
I have adopted Carpe Diem as a new life motto.
I would suggest other humans do so too, as a way of making the world more colorful.
We all know it definitely needs it. People need to take of their shoes and walk barefoot through life. It's the only way to live
Monday, December 3, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Present to the Past
Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman centralizes around past occurrences rather than those in the present. By having Willy, the main character, constantly reminiscing of the past Miller poses the idea that the past and its actions affect a person's present state.
Using Willy's delusions of the past Miller reveals human's tendencies to linger on the past as a way to avoid present hardships. Willy finds it easier to remember the high times in life rather than dealing with the less happy state of of his life during old age. Humans tend to do the same. Miller warns against this and suggests that it doing so may lead to a person's own demise, just as it did with Willy. It was a character of his past, his uncle, who encouraged suicide.
Willy's past actions prove not only to affect his own present state,but others as well.This cause and effect cannot be helped and usually not intended. Willy did not intend to ruin his son's life with his affair in the past, but nonetheless it happened. Miller seeks to stress the importance of past actions by utilizing Willy and Biff's situation. He suggests to the reader that taking great care for one's current actions may improve a person's own future as well as the future of another.
Although the past occurs and then continues on, it still eaves a lingering impression on a person. Miller understands this idea and portrays it in his play. With Willy's hardened nostalgia the play becomes Miller's plight to humanity to pay attention to the pastas well as the present. He utilizes Willy's pathetic and desperate state to conjure readers' sympathy towards the subject matter, which in turn heightens his/her awareness. It is then that a reader will attempt to heed Millers' message.
In this playMiller confronts a person's actions and its affect on the future by using Willy's past, his son's past,and his own reminiscence of it all.
Using Willy's delusions of the past Miller reveals human's tendencies to linger on the past as a way to avoid present hardships. Willy finds it easier to remember the high times in life rather than dealing with the less happy state of of his life during old age. Humans tend to do the same. Miller warns against this and suggests that it doing so may lead to a person's own demise, just as it did with Willy. It was a character of his past, his uncle, who encouraged suicide.
Willy's past actions prove not only to affect his own present state,but others as well.This cause and effect cannot be helped and usually not intended. Willy did not intend to ruin his son's life with his affair in the past, but nonetheless it happened. Miller seeks to stress the importance of past actions by utilizing Willy and Biff's situation. He suggests to the reader that taking great care for one's current actions may improve a person's own future as well as the future of another.
Although the past occurs and then continues on, it still eaves a lingering impression on a person. Miller understands this idea and portrays it in his play. With Willy's hardened nostalgia the play becomes Miller's plight to humanity to pay attention to the pastas well as the present. He utilizes Willy's pathetic and desperate state to conjure readers' sympathy towards the subject matter, which in turn heightens his/her awareness. It is then that a reader will attempt to heed Millers' message.
In this playMiller confronts a person's actions and its affect on the future by using Willy's past, his son's past,and his own reminiscence of it all.
Josh Groban <3 [[ If God could sing ]]
Weeping
Josh Groban
(feat. Ladysmith Black Mambazo)
I knew a man who lived in fear --It was huge, it was angry,--It was drawing near.--Behind his house a secret place--Was the shadow of the demon--He could never face. --He built a wall of steel and flame--And men with guns to keep it tame--Then standing back he made it plain--That the nightmare would never ever rise again--But the fear and the fire and the guns remain. --It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow--He tells the world that it's sleeping--But as the night came round --I heardIts lonely soundIt wasn't roaring, it was weeping--It wasn't roaring, it was weeping. --And then one day the neighbours came--They were curious to know about the smoke and flame--They stood around outside the wall--But of course there was nothing to be heard at all"My friends," he said, "We've reached our goal--The threat is under firm control--As long as peace and order reign--I'll be damned if I can see a reason to explain--Why the fear and the fire and the guns remain." --It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow--He tells the world that it's sleepingBut as the night came round I heard--Its lonely sound--It wasn't roaring, it was weeping--It wasn't roaring, it was weeping. --Say ah, say ah, say ahSay ah, say ah, say ah
[Ladysmith's solo]
It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow--It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow--It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow--He tells the world that it's sleeping--But as the night came round I heardIts lonely sound--It wasn't roaring, it was weeping--It wasn't roaring, it was weeping.Say ah, say ah, say ahSay ah, say ah, say ah [to end]
Josh Groban
(feat. Ladysmith Black Mambazo)
I knew a man who lived in fear --It was huge, it was angry,--It was drawing near.--Behind his house a secret place--Was the shadow of the demon--He could never face. --He built a wall of steel and flame--And men with guns to keep it tame--Then standing back he made it plain--That the nightmare would never ever rise again--But the fear and the fire and the guns remain. --It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow--He tells the world that it's sleeping--But as the night came round --I heardIts lonely soundIt wasn't roaring, it was weeping--It wasn't roaring, it was weeping. --And then one day the neighbours came--They were curious to know about the smoke and flame--They stood around outside the wall--But of course there was nothing to be heard at all"My friends," he said, "We've reached our goal--The threat is under firm control--As long as peace and order reign--I'll be damned if I can see a reason to explain--Why the fear and the fire and the guns remain." --It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow--He tells the world that it's sleepingBut as the night came round I heard--Its lonely sound--It wasn't roaring, it was weeping--It wasn't roaring, it was weeping. --Say ah, say ah, say ahSay ah, say ah, say ah
[Ladysmith's solo]
It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow--It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow--It doesn't matter now it's over anyhow--He tells the world that it's sleeping--But as the night came round I heardIts lonely sound--It wasn't roaring, it was weeping--It wasn't roaring, it was weeping.Say ah, say ah, say ahSay ah, say ah, say ah [to end]
Thursday, November 15, 2007
music album
Often times, analytical poems do not bode well with me. They sound beautiful, but the second I am told to brutally analyze the piece, the beauty is lost. However, I have come to acknowledge that poetry is found in song lyrics such as those on the album assigned to the class. This heightened my understanding for poetry analysis. I am slowly realizing that analyzing the poems, if done correctly, could offer a different meaning and insight into the poem.
Mr. Hughes’s choice of music generally sounds as if it comes from the same group of like artists. Their Beetles influence, for me, is impressive and gives the albums more of a classic hard edge devoted to the classics. Yet, the bands never fail to insert their own personality into their music.
Although its melody and beat resembles the classic bands, great consideration has to be taken to the words being sung in order to actually appreciate the poetry behind it all. Every song present in this album has lyrics that spout the speaker’s desperation and regret for lost love. The listener can feel his despair, and they cannot help but cheer for his hopeful happy ending. Yet, a happy ending does not come. Nonetheless this poetry is filled with emotion, which is tied with the emotions of its listeners. Poetry can be much stronger than any novel, if written correctly.
Poetry thrives on literary devices to add eloquence and meaning into the piece. Its ambiguity is never due to negligence, but is incorporated as a way to emphasize the poem’s purpose. When one has to think about the meaning of a poem, one will learn and appreciate it that much more. In these lyrics so many devices could be found. That is the beauty to poetry.
These men who are the speaker in most of these songs portray their desperation so well. The listener feels the love the men once had, and they feel sorry for its loss. By the end of the songs the listener cannot help but feel a sense of determination to make their relationship work, no matter its condition. The repetition was especially touching for me because it made the man more vulnerable, as if he is repenting his wrongs by doing a simple load of laundry, yet it is not enough. Vulnerability is not often found in a man, and yet every one of these speakers is filled with it, giving them a lot of character.
In return of listening to these songs, I have come to see poetry as a form of art rather than a droning off unmeaning piece of ambiguity meant only for looks. No, poetry strikes emotion and teaches the reader/ listener many things.
Mr. Hughes’s choice of music generally sounds as if it comes from the same group of like artists. Their Beetles influence, for me, is impressive and gives the albums more of a classic hard edge devoted to the classics. Yet, the bands never fail to insert their own personality into their music.
Although its melody and beat resembles the classic bands, great consideration has to be taken to the words being sung in order to actually appreciate the poetry behind it all. Every song present in this album has lyrics that spout the speaker’s desperation and regret for lost love. The listener can feel his despair, and they cannot help but cheer for his hopeful happy ending. Yet, a happy ending does not come. Nonetheless this poetry is filled with emotion, which is tied with the emotions of its listeners. Poetry can be much stronger than any novel, if written correctly.
Poetry thrives on literary devices to add eloquence and meaning into the piece. Its ambiguity is never due to negligence, but is incorporated as a way to emphasize the poem’s purpose. When one has to think about the meaning of a poem, one will learn and appreciate it that much more. In these lyrics so many devices could be found. That is the beauty to poetry.
These men who are the speaker in most of these songs portray their desperation so well. The listener feels the love the men once had, and they feel sorry for its loss. By the end of the songs the listener cannot help but feel a sense of determination to make their relationship work, no matter its condition. The repetition was especially touching for me because it made the man more vulnerable, as if he is repenting his wrongs by doing a simple load of laundry, yet it is not enough. Vulnerability is not often found in a man, and yet every one of these speakers is filled with it, giving them a lot of character.
In return of listening to these songs, I have come to see poetry as a form of art rather than a droning off unmeaning piece of ambiguity meant only for looks. No, poetry strikes emotion and teaches the reader/ listener many things.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Symbolism Prompt
In The Metamorphosis Kafka allows the beetle to be more than an insect, but a symbol signifying humanity as a whole.
Kafka uses Gregor’s character to represent humanity and all of its faults. Gregor is transformed into a bug as a way to further demonstrate to the readers the symbolism prevalent in the novel. As a bug Gregor is forced into solitude and loneliness, just as humans are pushed into their own solitude. Even with his family Gregor remained alone. Society structures itself in such a way that independence is not only encouraged but forced; Kafka recognizes this fatal flaw and points it out using Gregor as its device.
Kafka also utilizes Gregor as a tool to reveal the humanity’s cruelties, especially those formed from the solitude pressed upon society. Gregor’s family’s abandonment of Gregor after his metamorphosis represents the lack of attachment humans have with one another, and it grows worse. This solitude and unattached tendencies encourages humans to be cruel to one another, just as Gregor’s own family was cruel. His family would not even look at him, let alone help him in his dire situation, thus demonstrating humanity’s cruelties.
The many symbols present in Kafka’s novel contribute meaning and purpose to the novel. Without such devices, the novel would be simply an abstract story lacking any literary merit. Instead, Kafka’s acquired credibility allows him to unveil humans’ faults. He reveals his pessimism for humanity to his readers through his symbols. Symbols force the reader to think, and therefore appreciate all that Kafka has to say.
Through his own life experiences Kafka realizes that humans are prone to be lonely and in turn become cruel to one another as a way to maintain their solitude. This understanding is portrayed in his novel through Gregor’s character and by doing so provides the novel with purpose.
Kafka uses Gregor’s character to represent humanity and all of its faults. Gregor is transformed into a bug as a way to further demonstrate to the readers the symbolism prevalent in the novel. As a bug Gregor is forced into solitude and loneliness, just as humans are pushed into their own solitude. Even with his family Gregor remained alone. Society structures itself in such a way that independence is not only encouraged but forced; Kafka recognizes this fatal flaw and points it out using Gregor as its device.
Kafka also utilizes Gregor as a tool to reveal the humanity’s cruelties, especially those formed from the solitude pressed upon society. Gregor’s family’s abandonment of Gregor after his metamorphosis represents the lack of attachment humans have with one another, and it grows worse. This solitude and unattached tendencies encourages humans to be cruel to one another, just as Gregor’s own family was cruel. His family would not even look at him, let alone help him in his dire situation, thus demonstrating humanity’s cruelties.
The many symbols present in Kafka’s novel contribute meaning and purpose to the novel. Without such devices, the novel would be simply an abstract story lacking any literary merit. Instead, Kafka’s acquired credibility allows him to unveil humans’ faults. He reveals his pessimism for humanity to his readers through his symbols. Symbols force the reader to think, and therefore appreciate all that Kafka has to say.
Through his own life experiences Kafka realizes that humans are prone to be lonely and in turn become cruel to one another as a way to maintain their solitude. This understanding is portrayed in his novel through Gregor’s character and by doing so provides the novel with purpose.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Metamorphisis Writing Prompt
Conflicts fall heavily in characters as a way to demonstrate the conflicts humans must also face, as described in Steve Soderbergh’s movie Kafka. In this movie, Kafka’s inner struggle between obedience and rebellion is one that enhances the movie’s deeper meaning and purpose of warning the public.
Kafka’s obedience toward authority represents the many citizens who live ignorant, even if they are unaware of this ignorance. Just as Kafka is not aware of the horrors occurring in the castle, so are citizens unaware of every action their government is doing. Both Kaka and the people rely on what authorities tell them, and blindly hope that it is the truth. Soderbergh uses Kafka’s character to symbolize the ignorance everyone in society has, and the choice they must make: ignore the idea that a person does not know everything that is occurring around him/her, or fight back.
Kafka’s search for the truths about his authorities reveals he has more courage that most individuals in the world. Soderbergh suggest that the truths the government hides may be so horrible that knowledge of them is not worth it. Kafka journeys to find answers to his bosses’ many mysteries, yet when he does discover the truth he subjects to it. Soderbergh concludes the movie with Kafka silently dealing with the truth, as a way to warn readers of the possible futility of rebelling against the lies anyway.
Using Kafka’s struggle between living ignorant and living with the truth, Soderbergh poses the same question to his readers. He makes the reader wonder whether they enjoy living their lives believing all the government has to tell them, or should they break free and discover the truth. He does warn that such truths mean to be kept hidden and their discovery may be unsettling, but perhaps a reader sees this as being worthwhile. This inner conflict makes the movie more than a tale of conspirators, but one that makes every reader evaluate his/her own intelligence.
In this movie Soderbergh awakens citizens of their ignorance. Then, by utilizing Kafka’s own struggle he forces people to confront their unintelligence or ignore it, but recognize it nonetheless.
Kafka’s obedience toward authority represents the many citizens who live ignorant, even if they are unaware of this ignorance. Just as Kafka is not aware of the horrors occurring in the castle, so are citizens unaware of every action their government is doing. Both Kaka and the people rely on what authorities tell them, and blindly hope that it is the truth. Soderbergh uses Kafka’s character to symbolize the ignorance everyone in society has, and the choice they must make: ignore the idea that a person does not know everything that is occurring around him/her, or fight back.
Kafka’s search for the truths about his authorities reveals he has more courage that most individuals in the world. Soderbergh suggest that the truths the government hides may be so horrible that knowledge of them is not worth it. Kafka journeys to find answers to his bosses’ many mysteries, yet when he does discover the truth he subjects to it. Soderbergh concludes the movie with Kafka silently dealing with the truth, as a way to warn readers of the possible futility of rebelling against the lies anyway.
Using Kafka’s struggle between living ignorant and living with the truth, Soderbergh poses the same question to his readers. He makes the reader wonder whether they enjoy living their lives believing all the government has to tell them, or should they break free and discover the truth. He does warn that such truths mean to be kept hidden and their discovery may be unsettling, but perhaps a reader sees this as being worthwhile. This inner conflict makes the movie more than a tale of conspirators, but one that makes every reader evaluate his/her own intelligence.
In this movie Soderbergh awakens citizens of their ignorance. Then, by utilizing Kafka’s own struggle he forces people to confront their unintelligence or ignore it, but recognize it nonetheless.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
A novel, movie, bugs, and bad morals
Kafka’s The Metamorphosis was a novel that seemed to have little meaning in its tale of a human changed into a large insect. Since it has no substance as a story, all of its meaning must be hidden in metaphors, symbols, and other literary devices. Otherwise, I cannot see any use for the novel. Its exact literary purpose was hard to discover at first, one needs to use a little more creativity and thought than expected. The movie Kafka did help me understand the meaning of the novel a little more. I began to understand the situation Kafka was coming from when he wrote the novel. The themes of The Metamorphosis were given light and more meaning behind them. It helped in relating Kafka with his work. He was living in just as much solitude as Gregor. Obviously Kafka wanted to portray this loneliness and futility that he himself felt in his novel, and I realize he did just that, but with purpose.
The simplicity of the story makes it so that there are countless morals that could come out of it. For the movie, I believe the most important could be that people are always ignorant of what the real truths, whether they like to admit it or not. A person should never trust everything that is dictated to them. This usually applies to the government. However, the novel focuses more on the solitude of humanity. Humans cannot manage to get close enough to each other no matter how hard one try. It is tied into human’s nature, and makes it so that every human is truly always alone, or has the eminent probability of becoming alone at one point. No matter how much love people have for each other there is constantly the possibility of betrayal and so 100 % trust does not exist anywhere. Kafka realized this constant loneliness and used the novel to try to explain it.
Kafka thought families were not immune to this possibility of betrayal. If anything he stressed that it was worse in families. Although Gregor supported his entire family they were extremely quick to disown him after his metamorphosis. Even worse they tried to comfort themselves by the excuse Gregor no longer was alive inside the hideous beetle, even though they made no effort to figure out if it was true or not. Institutions are the same, only they have no obligations toward an individual. The three men rooming in the apartment instantly rejected Gregor, but not being family members they had no real obligation to do otherwise anyway.
I do not have the talent of the ingenious AP committee, but I will try and create a suitable AP question. One that would make them proud…
Symbols are often used in literature to mean something greater than a physical object the author describes. Select a novel or play of literary merit in which an object, person, or place symbolizes a greater meaning. Then write a well-organized essay in which you describe the symbol and explain its relevance to the work as a whole.
I doubt this will not be used on an AP test anytime soon. Still, I am not heartbroken.
The simplicity of the story makes it so that there are countless morals that could come out of it. For the movie, I believe the most important could be that people are always ignorant of what the real truths, whether they like to admit it or not. A person should never trust everything that is dictated to them. This usually applies to the government. However, the novel focuses more on the solitude of humanity. Humans cannot manage to get close enough to each other no matter how hard one try. It is tied into human’s nature, and makes it so that every human is truly always alone, or has the eminent probability of becoming alone at one point. No matter how much love people have for each other there is constantly the possibility of betrayal and so 100 % trust does not exist anywhere. Kafka realized this constant loneliness and used the novel to try to explain it.
Kafka thought families were not immune to this possibility of betrayal. If anything he stressed that it was worse in families. Although Gregor supported his entire family they were extremely quick to disown him after his metamorphosis. Even worse they tried to comfort themselves by the excuse Gregor no longer was alive inside the hideous beetle, even though they made no effort to figure out if it was true or not. Institutions are the same, only they have no obligations toward an individual. The three men rooming in the apartment instantly rejected Gregor, but not being family members they had no real obligation to do otherwise anyway.
I do not have the talent of the ingenious AP committee, but I will try and create a suitable AP question. One that would make them proud…
Symbols are often used in literature to mean something greater than a physical object the author describes. Select a novel or play of literary merit in which an object, person, or place symbolizes a greater meaning. Then write a well-organized essay in which you describe the symbol and explain its relevance to the work as a whole.
I doubt this will not be used on an AP test anytime soon. Still, I am not heartbroken.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Why the Future does not Need Us
The new reading, "Why the Future does not need us" is one about the dangers of human's advancements in technology. Joy's thesis is that with the current rapid rate of improvements in technology and science, humanity could be in danger. He suggests that robots could easily take control over human beings, or that human beings will become useless, and therefore go into extinction. Joy offers only a couple of solutions to this pressing problem. One is for humans, especially scientists, to become aware of this threat before it is too late and nothing can be done to change anything.
Both Huxley and Orwell would agree that the future can be very dangerous and bleak for the human race if action is not taken right now. Huxley, in his novel BNW, also warns against the threat that advancing science may cause. In BNW Huxley uses tragedy to show that the genetic manipulation and control may result in the end of humanity, just as Joy suggests. In an intriguing conversation between the two like minds, they would very likely discuss the faults of humans, their science, and their dependence on science. Such a conversation would be very interesting since the subjects are so closely related. However, Joy only refers to genetic science in a general sense, while Huxely's entire novel is based on the dangers of genetics. So, Huxely would agree with a lot of what Joy explains in this article, but he would probably stress the genetics problem as being more important than the possible overrun of the human race by robots.
Joy is not a fear monger, but a concerned person for the future. True, he does seem very enthusiastically afraid of what could occur centuries from now, but this is just what he happens to be passionate about.
Joy uses the first person throughout the story, making it seem more of an informed stream of conciousness. It is as if he is writing to a friend of his thoughts. This approach makes the piece much less formal and takes away from the credidentials of it. Joy spent a lot of time off task describing his accomplishments, which delude from the impact of the story as well. In all, this article had very good ideas, but if it was executed in a more formal way then the impact would have been much stronger and would have had an easier time convincing the reader of the problem's urgency.
Both Huxley and Orwell would agree that the future can be very dangerous and bleak for the human race if action is not taken right now. Huxley, in his novel BNW, also warns against the threat that advancing science may cause. In BNW Huxley uses tragedy to show that the genetic manipulation and control may result in the end of humanity, just as Joy suggests. In an intriguing conversation between the two like minds, they would very likely discuss the faults of humans, their science, and their dependence on science. Such a conversation would be very interesting since the subjects are so closely related. However, Joy only refers to genetic science in a general sense, while Huxely's entire novel is based on the dangers of genetics. So, Huxely would agree with a lot of what Joy explains in this article, but he would probably stress the genetics problem as being more important than the possible overrun of the human race by robots.
Joy is not a fear monger, but a concerned person for the future. True, he does seem very enthusiastically afraid of what could occur centuries from now, but this is just what he happens to be passionate about.
Joy uses the first person throughout the story, making it seem more of an informed stream of conciousness. It is as if he is writing to a friend of his thoughts. This approach makes the piece much less formal and takes away from the credidentials of it. Joy spent a lot of time off task describing his accomplishments, which delude from the impact of the story as well. In all, this article had very good ideas, but if it was executed in a more formal way then the impact would have been much stronger and would have had an easier time convincing the reader of the problem's urgency.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Harrison Bergeron
Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" tells of a society forced to be equal in every way. Vonnegut makes the government control so strong that it satires the path the U.S government is heading toward. In the U.S different organizations try to make people equal in practically every way, which is what Vonnegut is ridiculing. For example, affirmative action has been created to get minority groups equal to caucasian groups, equalizing their chance at oppertunities. Recent efforts have been made to restrict affirmative action because people believe minority groups are getting too much of a handicap, making the playing field unequal once again. It is a game of tug of war trying to make every single citizen equal.
In "Harrison Bergeron" Vonnegut tries to explain that all things are not always meant to be equal. People are different and it is in these differences that create an interesting and creative world. Without it, life would be like it is in the society Vonnegut describes. "They weren't really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway" (Vonnegut pg.1 par. 3). With everyone handicapped to be the same, talent is not able to be expressed, or even exist. Life is bland and without thought stimulation there is not room for progress. Art, thought, talent, innovation, are all repressed. But, atleast everyone is equal and no one is left envious of another person.
His purpose is strengthened by making the story told in third person instead of in first. By doing this he makes the situation more official, as if it is probable that the world could become as it is described. Had the story been in first person it becomes more fiction and the meaning and intensity is lost. It keeps its formality and allows the reader to think and even to worry.
In this story Vonnegut further states that "...men and women remaining fundamentally the same, no matter what technology surrounds them” . This is the whole basis of Vonnegut's story. Both women and men are given handicaps as a way to make everyone equal to one another. This makes the statement true. In "Harrison Bergeron" George is said to be smarter than his wife, Hazel. Because he is more intellectual, he is forced to be subjected various noises in his ears which prevent any extensive thought. Thus making Hazel and George to be equal in every way.
In "Harrison Bergeron" Vonnegut tries to explain that all things are not always meant to be equal. People are different and it is in these differences that create an interesting and creative world. Without it, life would be like it is in the society Vonnegut describes. "They weren't really very good-no better than anybody else would have been, anyway" (Vonnegut pg.1 par. 3). With everyone handicapped to be the same, talent is not able to be expressed, or even exist. Life is bland and without thought stimulation there is not room for progress. Art, thought, talent, innovation, are all repressed. But, atleast everyone is equal and no one is left envious of another person.
His purpose is strengthened by making the story told in third person instead of in first. By doing this he makes the situation more official, as if it is probable that the world could become as it is described. Had the story been in first person it becomes more fiction and the meaning and intensity is lost. It keeps its formality and allows the reader to think and even to worry.
In this story Vonnegut further states that "...men and women remaining fundamentally the same, no matter what technology surrounds them” . This is the whole basis of Vonnegut's story. Both women and men are given handicaps as a way to make everyone equal to one another. This makes the statement true. In "Harrison Bergeron" George is said to be smarter than his wife, Hazel. Because he is more intellectual, he is forced to be subjected various noises in his ears which prevent any extensive thought. Thus making Hazel and George to be equal in every way.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Why the future doesn't need us
...Robots taking over the world... one way or another...
1. As humans are becoming more reliant on machines, do you think that a time of robot consciousness and their control over humans is in the near future.
2. Why are the machines becoming more powerful and persuasive in human lives?
3.How could humans allow such a take over occur? Are they even aware of it happening?
4. Is human birth rate threatened by this robot advancement?
5. In such a controlled society will humans be "free"? Will life be better than it is today?
6. If Asimov and Billy (and even Ray) were to get together, what would they agree on or disagree one [if anything]?
7. In what ways would the machines take over humanity?
8. Will they have enough consciousness to call themselves, or at least see themselves, as humans (like Elvex had in his dream)? Would this be more threatening?
9. Does humans' desire and greed to live longer overrun their fears of being taken over by robots and becoming useless?
1. As humans are becoming more reliant on machines, do you think that a time of robot consciousness and their control over humans is in the near future.
2. Why are the machines becoming more powerful and persuasive in human lives?
3.How could humans allow such a take over occur? Are they even aware of it happening?
4. Is human birth rate threatened by this robot advancement?
5. In such a controlled society will humans be "free"? Will life be better than it is today?
6. If Asimov and Billy (and even Ray) were to get together, what would they agree on or disagree one [if anything]?
7. In what ways would the machines take over humanity?
8. Will they have enough consciousness to call themselves, or at least see themselves, as humans (like Elvex had in his dream)? Would this be more threatening?
9. Does humans' desire and greed to live longer overrun their fears of being taken over by robots and becoming useless?
yet another crazy society
"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas". This article was one of the more detailed out of the ones we have read so far. The story requires more energy and thought in order o find is meaning and purpose. This piece is a little disheartening because it tells of a happy society, were music is always playing and dancing is always being done. But, it goes on to describe a lonely child locked up in a cellar simply deteriorating with every moment. Every single citizen is aware of this child, but nothing is done because to do something runs the risk of ending the city's happiness. But, LeGuin does not leave the reader without hope, because there are a select few people who visit the child and do not return to their old lives, but instead leave Omela in search of something else. This story i an intriguing one that leaves the reader thinking. However, it does not go on my top list of most impressive pieces of literature. I guess it is the ambiguity of its meaning. I am left with too many questions bouncing around in my head.
Honestly, I see this Omela story as a resemblance to Brave New World more than the novel 1984. 1984 talks of a society that was not constructed around a the happiness of a society, but solely on the government's power over its peoples' lives. BNW and Omela take a different approach to authority control. Similar to BNW is the idea that the betterment of society as a whole, as a unit, is much more important thanthe happiness of one individual; "to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one" (LeGuin). More imporantly, these two stories talk to a society that is worried mstly about keeping its citizens in a state of extreme happiness. In BNW the government uses a drug called soma to keep people in jolly state. Omela even suggests the use of a drug by saying "drooz which first brings a great lightness and brilliance to the mind and limbs..." (LeGuin), and also suggests beer.
If forced to compare this story to the novel 1984, I would have to focus on the imprisonment of the lonely child. As in 1984, this society has no trouble with the sacrificing of one person's happiness for the assurance of order and happiness of society. Winston, Julia, and this child have this in common. They were the sacrifices of the continuing of society in the strict way.
As in any good or even credible piece of literature, literary devices are important to the meaning of the piece. In Omela, there a a number of literary devices. Imagery is an important and prominent device used. The author uses tons of imagery to show the reader what a happy society he is describing. By building up this sense of beauty, it makes the situation with the child in the cellar that much more appalling. The imagery and the child contrast in such a way that makes it impact the reader that much stronger. Hyperboles are used in the description of the city as a way to heighten the extravagance of the society. Also, similes, metaphors, etc are used.
To end this, I pose these questions:
1. Where do those select people who, after seeing the child, choose not to go back home but leave Omela all together?
2. Who are these people that leave? Are there certain characteristics that they all hold?
3. The is described as perhaps being a boy, or even a girl. Why is the child not given any specific qualities, but they are instead left to the reader's imagination?
4. What was LeGuin's purpose for writing this?
5. are the people of Omela truly happy, or are they only happy because they are brought up to be so and are ignorant of anything else?
... there you have it.
Honestly, I see this Omela story as a resemblance to Brave New World more than the novel 1984. 1984 talks of a society that was not constructed around a the happiness of a society, but solely on the government's power over its peoples' lives. BNW and Omela take a different approach to authority control. Similar to BNW is the idea that the betterment of society as a whole, as a unit, is much more important thanthe happiness of one individual; "to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one" (LeGuin). More imporantly, these two stories talk to a society that is worried mstly about keeping its citizens in a state of extreme happiness. In BNW the government uses a drug called soma to keep people in jolly state. Omela even suggests the use of a drug by saying "drooz which first brings a great lightness and brilliance to the mind and limbs..." (LeGuin), and also suggests beer.
If forced to compare this story to the novel 1984, I would have to focus on the imprisonment of the lonely child. As in 1984, this society has no trouble with the sacrificing of one person's happiness for the assurance of order and happiness of society. Winston, Julia, and this child have this in common. They were the sacrifices of the continuing of society in the strict way.
As in any good or even credible piece of literature, literary devices are important to the meaning of the piece. In Omela, there a a number of literary devices. Imagery is an important and prominent device used. The author uses tons of imagery to show the reader what a happy society he is describing. By building up this sense of beauty, it makes the situation with the child in the cellar that much more appalling. The imagery and the child contrast in such a way that makes it impact the reader that much stronger. Hyperboles are used in the description of the city as a way to heighten the extravagance of the society. Also, similes, metaphors, etc are used.
To end this, I pose these questions:
1. Where do those select people who, after seeing the child, choose not to go back home but leave Omela all together?
2. Who are these people that leave? Are there certain characteristics that they all hold?
3. The is described as perhaps being a boy, or even a girl. Why is the child not given any specific qualities, but they are instead left to the reader's imagination?
4. What was LeGuin's purpose for writing this?
5. are the people of Omela truly happy, or are they only happy because they are brought up to be so and are ignorant of anything else?
... there you have it.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Collegio
My future is sort of undecided.
I did have a plan.. but who knows..
COLLEGES:
[[Definitely]]-- U of M Ann Arbor
Im in the middle of this lovely application right now
For the sake of taking up space..
Michigan State
Dartmouth University.
There you have it.
=]
I did have a plan.. but who knows..
COLLEGES:
[[Definitely]]-- U of M Ann Arbor
Im in the middle of this lovely application right now
For the sake of taking up space..
Michigan State
Dartmouth University.
There you have it.
=]
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Asimov Reading Response
It seems that these days everyone is afraid of what the future may bring humanity, whether it be global warming, a tyrannical regime, or free thinking robots. And so this fear of the unknown is brought into literature with such pieces as 1984 by George Orwell and "Robot Dreams" by Isaac Asimov. "Robot Dreams" is a story whose freethinking robot brings up the worries of what technology advancement will bring humans. This reading confronts the question of whether humans will be able to control their creations, or if their advancements will get ahead of them and out of human's control. Both Orwell and Asimov have very creative and threatening ideas for the future of human kind.
"Robot Dreams" and 1984 are such a close parallel that it is intriguing to compare the two. Both pieces of literature express worries for the future as they question the essence of freedom and its loss. The bases of the characters resemble each other, as it was easy to correlate character for character in both readings. Elvex resembles Wilson in an uncanny way. Both are controlled by a higher power, have no freedom, and are still unsure of what freedom means because of their lack of having it in the first place. Yet both characters slowly become rebellious, with Winston questioning the basis of The Party and Elvex rebelling against human control over him (all done subconsciously in his dreams). Elvex has the intuition to dream of a world where he has disregarded the three rules given to him by humans and has only recognized the one rule that "robots must protect his own existence" (pg. 8; par. 11). His intellect has grown so much that he is now thinking for himself and having dreams of being free, as humans are. This is a large step for his robot mind and poses a very large threat to Lisa Calvin, just as Winston was a threat to O'Brien and Big Brother.
In this reading Asimov created a character similar to O'Brien: Lisa Calvin, the old, wise, and controlling doctor. She, as O'Brien did to Winston, controlled Elvex's freedom and limited it to her own standards. She could not stand the idea that this robot had freedoms she did not consent him to have, so she eliminated him. Winston was equally taken care of when O'Brien discovered his rebellious thoughts against authority, or free thought at all. Both Winston and Elvex imagined a freer future for their kind, an idea that threatened the present authority. Thus, both were eliminated before their thoughts had the chance to spread. The problem of rebellion was kept under control and authority remained established.
Both Amistov and Orwell had the same worries for the future and for humans' follies that are leading toward it. A dinner conversation between the two minds would be an intriguing thing to see. I would definitely pay money to see such a scene. But, since this is clearly impossible, I must imagine its content myself.
Such a conversation would spark many points of agreement between the two debtors, especially based on the happenings of humans today. They no doubt would criticize humanity's direction and would spawn ideas on how to make humanity better. Both may agree that freedoms are in dire jeopardy of being lost, and from human's own doing. They may also agree that if humans do not notice their follies now, it may become to late to act on it later. Yet, a very good argument would soon come about in this conversation as to the exact actions of humans in which we should blame. Should it be technological advances that will spark moral questions and repercussions to come about; or will it be human ignorance that causes them to relinquish all freedom to the hands of a controlling government? This question could cause any two intellects to raise both their voices and hands in exasperated rage. So, I leave this possible dinner conversation to the imagination of the reader.
"Robot Dreams" and 1984 are such a close parallel that it is intriguing to compare the two. Both pieces of literature express worries for the future as they question the essence of freedom and its loss. The bases of the characters resemble each other, as it was easy to correlate character for character in both readings. Elvex resembles Wilson in an uncanny way. Both are controlled by a higher power, have no freedom, and are still unsure of what freedom means because of their lack of having it in the first place. Yet both characters slowly become rebellious, with Winston questioning the basis of The Party and Elvex rebelling against human control over him (all done subconsciously in his dreams). Elvex has the intuition to dream of a world where he has disregarded the three rules given to him by humans and has only recognized the one rule that "robots must protect his own existence" (pg. 8; par. 11). His intellect has grown so much that he is now thinking for himself and having dreams of being free, as humans are. This is a large step for his robot mind and poses a very large threat to Lisa Calvin, just as Winston was a threat to O'Brien and Big Brother.
In this reading Asimov created a character similar to O'Brien: Lisa Calvin, the old, wise, and controlling doctor. She, as O'Brien did to Winston, controlled Elvex's freedom and limited it to her own standards. She could not stand the idea that this robot had freedoms she did not consent him to have, so she eliminated him. Winston was equally taken care of when O'Brien discovered his rebellious thoughts against authority, or free thought at all. Both Winston and Elvex imagined a freer future for their kind, an idea that threatened the present authority. Thus, both were eliminated before their thoughts had the chance to spread. The problem of rebellion was kept under control and authority remained established.
Both Amistov and Orwell had the same worries for the future and for humans' follies that are leading toward it. A dinner conversation between the two minds would be an intriguing thing to see. I would definitely pay money to see such a scene. But, since this is clearly impossible, I must imagine its content myself.
Such a conversation would spark many points of agreement between the two debtors, especially based on the happenings of humans today. They no doubt would criticize humanity's direction and would spawn ideas on how to make humanity better. Both may agree that freedoms are in dire jeopardy of being lost, and from human's own doing. They may also agree that if humans do not notice their follies now, it may become to late to act on it later. Yet, a very good argument would soon come about in this conversation as to the exact actions of humans in which we should blame. Should it be technological advances that will spark moral questions and repercussions to come about; or will it be human ignorance that causes them to relinquish all freedom to the hands of a controlling government? This question could cause any two intellects to raise both their voices and hands in exasperated rage. So, I leave this possible dinner conversation to the imagination of the reader.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Watts Reading Response
Watt's thesis is the philosophy that what is"common knowledge" for humans are changing and are entirely too abstract to result in a clear-cut answer that applies to everyone, if an answer at all. Watt views religion established in societies today are kept extremely private, but for no good reason. He says that the Bible's message and the messages in most religions are hidden beneath too many abstract stories and complex puzzles, that the message becomes unimportant. Watt holds the idea that God is hiding inside everyone. He believes that a devotion to faith only restricts a person's mind and makes them close-minded. Religions are filled with followers who try to be the best and mightier than all the rest. He suggests that instead of a religion, people discover the feeling to be "you".
Watt believes that by attempting to conquer nature humans ignore the relationship the environment has to everything. By conquering and disturbing this interdependence, it disturbs the basis of one's self. "...will end in destroying the very environment from which we emerge and upon which our whole life depends" (p.9 1st paragraph).
Watt defines this new experience as finding one's self. "we need a new experience-- a new feeling of what it is to be 'I'" (p. 11, 2nd par.). He says that all humans' lives are a hoax; that people must find themselves behind their masks and egos.
Watt sees that myths are used to explain the unexplainable. He uses them to answer philosophical questions whose answers are not concrete. By using a myth, he believes things run in a full circle, just because. Watt suggests a beliefs similar to Vendanta philosophy as a tool to find one's true identity. The bodies and lifestyles humans take on today are only superficial and will not matter in the end.
In the end Watt urges people to break free and "awaken from the ego-illusion and help save the world from disaster" (p.21, 2nd par.). He suggests that the life people live in today are just hum-drum as people live life in a daze, similar to 1984. Watt urges people to rise up and discover what they cannot see now, and insists that they prove to themselves that 2 + 2 does not equal five. By doing so they will awaken to this illusion of life that they have been systematically living in for so long. Just as in 1984. Change, any at all, needs to be made.
Watt believes that by attempting to conquer nature humans ignore the relationship the environment has to everything. By conquering and disturbing this interdependence, it disturbs the basis of one's self. "...will end in destroying the very environment from which we emerge and upon which our whole life depends" (p.9 1st paragraph).
Watt defines this new experience as finding one's self. "we need a new experience-- a new feeling of what it is to be 'I'" (p. 11, 2nd par.). He says that all humans' lives are a hoax; that people must find themselves behind their masks and egos.
Watt sees that myths are used to explain the unexplainable. He uses them to answer philosophical questions whose answers are not concrete. By using a myth, he believes things run in a full circle, just because. Watt suggests a beliefs similar to Vendanta philosophy as a tool to find one's true identity. The bodies and lifestyles humans take on today are only superficial and will not matter in the end.
In the end Watt urges people to break free and "awaken from the ego-illusion and help save the world from disaster" (p.21, 2nd par.). He suggests that the life people live in today are just hum-drum as people live life in a daze, similar to 1984. Watt urges people to rise up and discover what they cannot see now, and insists that they prove to themselves that 2 + 2 does not equal five. By doing so they will awaken to this illusion of life that they have been systematically living in for so long. Just as in 1984. Change, any at all, needs to be made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
