POST.MOD.IN.CAT'S.CRADLE

Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle is considered a postmodern text in that it exemplifies many displays of anti-form or more specifically, anti-art.  According to Jim Powell in Postmodernism for Beginners, “Postmodernists often create, compose, or paint entirely by chance--- spilling or throwing paint on canvasses, randomly determining the pitch and duration of musical notes in a melody, seeking to de-define art--- to create non-art or anti-art” (18). Postmodernists try to see the world as it is for what it is in the present, reflecting on the complexity and diversity of life. They express what they see and feel into this form of non-art, finding new ways that could represent life in it’s wholly matter.

For example, in finding Newt, Jonah comes upon Newt’s painting, all “small and black and warty… consist[ing] of scratches made in… black… [and] framed in a misty view of the sky, sea, and  valley” (Vonnegut 164). Such an empty and solid color came to life in the hands of Newton. Particularly, the color of black against the view is something to take note of; however, in comparing it to the world, the picture seems to reflect the emptiness of the world, despite all the happiness we see. Like the random strokes of black, life is shown to be just as haphazard in its truth. In addition, when Angela played her clarinet, she “went from liquid lyricism to rasping lechery to the shrill skittishness of a frightened child, to a heroin nightmare” (Vonnegut 182). Her music flowed right through her soul and poured over into life. Although her music played in tuned to another, her form of art went against whatever was there originally and was blasted into the formation of a more perplexed emotion, plainly showing her lack of happiness in the world.    Further more, even the house where Jonah resided displayed an amount of postmodernism, having an effect that “was not so much to enclose as to announce that a man had been whimsically busy there” (Vonnegut 163). 

well, that's all i have time for; sorry it was mostly all CD and not enough analysis to back it up. time has ran out.   

prep for BNW essay

Well, I really do not know how this will turn out and if it will even work out, but I will go ahead and use the idea of how BNW reveals the reality that people have become slaves of technology or of knowledge. Does that make sense? I want to go more to the theme of how BNW reveals how we have become slaves to knowledge; like how society today has too much knowledge, causing the need to hide away that knowledge, and in turn compromising people’s emotions and their reactions to those feelings (i.e.  poetry, songs, religion, etc.).  Of course, I will have to think this out more thoroughly, but this is only what I can think of now.

 From BNW, I plan to use how the people think they have freedom when actually their realities have been pushed inside their brains, using examples of how babies are raised and how their emotions and actions are always checked. Then, from the video of Robinson, I want to use how kids are taught in schools and maybe use the definitions that I used from the video in my last blog to compare people to. I also want to use the chapter of that gaming lesson to show how repetition works and link it to how babies’ realities are made in the same repetitive way. And with this, I want to follow in with how because they are slaves, they have no true emotions. I already have examples that I want to use, lines that go with Lenina and Linda on both accounts, and maybe some other lines when I am able to find them; however, for now, this is what I have stored in my mind.

I also want to give examples of what is fake, using John and his relation with living. This will all go with the “no emotions” topic. So yeah, this is what I can think of now. I need to find flaws in this theme and its examples though.

BNW with Sir Ken!

Okay, so here I am, staying up very, very late to do this blog. Honestly, I did not really know what to write at the start. I just opened up a bunch of other people’s blogs to see what they wrote. From doing so, I saw that the majority basically pointed out the same stuff, quoting similar lines from both resources. Well… now that I have read a bunch, I do not have a “want” to write toward those ideas; I feel as though if I did, I would just be repeating what other’s have already said. And so, in order to get something to spark in my head with what Sir Ken Robinson said, I watched the video over and over dozens of times; and I might say so myself that I fell asleep at certain parts (that is partly why I had to watch it over). Well now, after all the hard work, I have found something!

From watching the video and listening to Robinson, I have found a parallel to add to the list. Y’alls remember when he was going on about ADHD and how it “increases as you travel east across the country”? Well, a bit after, he says that the Arts “are the victims of this mentality,” and he goes on to explain the meanings of being aesthetic and anaesthetic. Well, thinking of BNW, don’t these definitions apply to the differences between the savages and the people of London? As Robinson was saying, “an aesthetic experience is one in which your senses are operating at their peak,” “when [one is] fully alive.” There are many incidents among the savages, including John, when one can see this effect. For one, I can recall back to when Bernard and Lenina visited Malpais; there, they saw “two young women giving breast to their babies” (Huxley 111). Here, the women surely feel “alive” for they can feed their children; they, unlike the citizens of London, are alive with feelings of love for their child. Through that bond, both the mother and child are dependent upon each other for happiness, and is it not out of love that the mother looks for food for the children? However, in that same scene, you can see Lenina on the side with her face blushing and “turned away… She had never seen anything so indecent” (111). Although no soma is mentioned here, one can imagine her crave for it as it, like the definition of an anaesthetic, “[shuts] your senses off and [deadens] yourself to what’s happening.”

Of course throughout the book, there are many more examples to which one could match with the aesthetic effect; for example, whenever John cries or goes in an outrage, or when Mitsima teaches John the “work of clay,” but one can especially relate an aesthetic effect to John when he so fluidly repeats Shakespeare by memory. As he does so, his emotions surges forward and because he cannot express it physically, he does so with words. Furthermore, whenever his emotions flows out of him in these forms of either rage, tears, or words, he finds himself distanced even more as the people of London look at him with distaste; but remember, they themselves are examples of the anaesthetic.

Yup. I want to get into more detail, but as you can see, it is already… FIVE! Holy monkey! Gotta go!

BNW with chap3

Hmm… Consider the following quotation from Mustapha Mond: "Wheels must turn steadily, but can not turn untended. There must be men to tend them, men as sturdy as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment."

Okay, so when he is referring to wheels, does it matter what the wheels can represent? So, say it represents… the works of life, or humanity… Could that work or no? Or does it just represent technology? (with technology, I do not really get how it would work out) I do not know, but, to me, it seems like the wheels are of life and humanity. So like, the wheels of life (circle of life?) turn, but because humanity is the main factor that causes its turn, it deeply depends upon humanity to change life; therefore, life turns steadily, but not without humanity. And in order for life to turn steadily, humanity would have to be controlled, and thus the need for the sane, obedient man, stable in contentment.

Now in order to have steady rotations, control is a must, and where there is control, there is power. Where there is power-in-control, you know that manipulation is at its best, and just like in 1984, the… higher-ups manipulate people’s reality and keep their emotions in check. [Since I am on the subject, I want to say that these two are very alike in how their reality thrives (although, BNW seems to have a cleaner world). Both worlds live with their reality distorted, having the human values grow inside out. Funny thing, too, since both novels concentrate a lot on the relationships between people; actually, I think it is pretty darn cool that both novels have similarities.] Well yeah, anyways, with the manipulation of such things, the aspects of human experience come in. As they manipulate and change reality, they take over the history of the past experiences and replace them with the kind they want. This way, the emotions of love and respect go to the higher-ups, which are the Directors and Controllers... I think. (hey, just like with Big Brother!) 

Each human value loses its original value; words of love and family are understood as dirty, and the roles of the family itself are ruined. Images of a "mother [brooding] over her children" is compared to the brooding of "a cat over its kitten; but a cat that could talk" (Huxley 37). And then, what is more funny, Mond goes and gives the students permission to shudder. It is as if the image of a mother treating to her kids is more absurd than a talking cat. The feelings of love both shown in the cat and mother are just quickly pushed aside like a bothersome object, not even having the chance of acceptance. Love is quickly burned away, and left to ashes for the past to pick up. The image of a family is ruined as no one is in need of it. Feelings and desire are now long gone with the repetition of whisperings and actions; the experiences of it all are pushed and forced upon them, diminishing it's values and recreating reality.
With these accomplishments, they create a sane man, obedient to the ones in power; looking closely, the men they create are slaves, accustomed to do and like what they are told to do.  

Okay then, considering that I am really, really tired, I will stop here. Sorry if at many points, I was just repeating myself; I felt the need to get stuff across but... looking back, I didn't do such a good job with it. Sorry again if it feels incomplete.   

JYJ "Empty" remix ver

Yay! JYJ is here, in the US! They're going to have a concert in LA and SF soon! Wish I could go...
Oh well; I think their album, THE BEGINNING, is up for sale online... I'm not sure. Anyways, awesome randomness before I get to work on the next blog! 

Penelope!

 So, I really just love the whole idea of "the single story," but writing about it?

...not so much... 

Anyways, this movie keeps on popin' up in my head when we talk of the single-story, so I just wanted to express it. 

First of all, have you guys seen a movie called Penelope? Well, if you have not seen it, you should; it is super awesome and cute and funny! (although, some acting parts are just... awkward) However, that is only my “single-story” so, believe it if you want; still, check it out. Anyways, I was recalling about the part where the evil rich-guy (Simon Woods picture) saw Penelope’s face, and had, later on, described to the press that she was a monster or cannibal or something of the sort. He described her face in a scary way, the way he thought she looked like the first time around. I mean, when they showed the footage of his illusion (he was in a car and he saw her out the window...i think) , I was pretty darn spooked. Well yeah, anyways, everyone totally believed him and everything until they really saw her.

Yup, it just reminded me of the one-sided story subject that we wrote on with the video. I’m pretty sure every movie has a single-story told in it but that’s ok; there is no need (or want) to write them all. So, that’s all. Thanks for reading!  

P.S.   Reese Witherspoon is in this movie! How awesome!       

prep for Tempest essay

In our discussions of The Tempest, one major controversy that never seems to fail in popping up is the question whether Shakespeare intended to make this play based upon post-colonialism and imperialism or not. According to Cultural Studies: Post-colonialism, African-American Criticism, and Queer Theory, post-colonialism “concentrates on writings from colonized or formerly colonized cultures… that were once dominated by, but remained outside of, the white, male, European cultural, political, and philosophical tradition” (236). Its theories are based on the happenings of their culture clash, always as one overcomes the other. With that in mind, looking at Aime Cesaire’s rewrite of The Tempest, he chooses to portray the ideas of post-colonialism as he adds in more emotion and examples into the play. With the changes of tone and diction in his version, he reveals his characters to a more extreme point where their traits correspond with those of the Europeans and the dominated. Compared with Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Cesaire’s takes on a more realistic view as the reader finds that not all the characters come with the sort of innocence and obedience found in Shakespeare’s original play. With these changes, Cesaire is able to draw out suggestions that are hidden but not fully developed and adjust them so that they go along with post-colonialism and its theories.   

On the other hand, George Will debates in his article that academics are reading too carefully into what Shakespeare has to say. He suggests that as they do so to label his work as something of post-colonialism, feminism, or other preoccupations, they are deducing its original meaning. He also suggests that they are ignoring the rights of Shakespeare’s piece of work, trampling over what the piece has to say. However, like Cesaire, Stephen Greenblatt contends that The Tempest does have to do with the theories and ideas of the post-colonial times. He argues that without them, one can not find reason to see the lessons and values of forgiving and regretting one’s and another’s crime; he also argues that without the mess of various arguments, one takes the risk of spoiling and leaving the culture of ideas and creativity behind, causing “art” to lack color and imagination.

 And so, in my opinion, I agree with Cesaire and Greenblatt; I believe the play was meant to address the theories of post-colonialism. In The Tempest, there are many situations in which it gives you examples of the types of judgment and rule that went between the Europeans and the natives of the land. To prove my position in this controversy, I plan to find and use the examples above in my essay as best as I can. I will use the three of the arguments presented to try to, hopefully and successfully, prove my point.

confusing political debate

In his article, George F. Will suggests that academics are rendering their readings to an unrecognizable state, reinterpreting the original to a state that is undistinguishable to its everyday audience. Stephen Greenblatt replies back with an article of his own, arguing that there is a far greater risk if academics refuse to question about the past, since the understanding and recognition of literary and political issues are needed to deepen the reader’s insights.

The argument I would have to agree with would be Greenblatt’s, because I believe that what he argues about is true. Unlike his, Will’s argument seems a little more impossible to me. Maybe the fog of sleep is getting to me, but what Will argues about does not seem to reach my agreement, nor even reach me; I am partially confused with what he is arguing about half the time. Except from what he tells of Carol Iannone, only some of his writing got across to me. For example, I think I get it when he states that “by attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority” (Will 112).  By “attacking the meaning,” it would mean for people to have read and studied the meaning, and therefore replace with their own interpretation, right? And because everyone has their own opinions and their own view on things, our interpretations would differentiate if not the same, right? Maybe, I do not get this line as much as I claim to because why would having one’s own interpretation “strip literature” of its own powers? Literature has its own ways of spelling out what it means with words of feeling, phrases of imagery, symbols, etc, but cannot we all analyze our readings differently still? By rendering a reading, would we not understand it more? Or am I not even close to Will’s train of argument?

Although Will’s article is harder, still, for me to understand, I find Greenblatt’s to be easier and more compatible with what I believe. In his article, he states that “art… is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing.  A love of literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty, and not on flag waving, boosterism, and conformity” (Greenblatt 115). The freedom of speech is at work here or should be at work. Whatever we think of cannot be tamed with our professor’s values or point of view; unless we are on the wrong train of thought; in a way, this reminds me of our multiple choice questions. Anyways, the curriculum of literary scholars should not be built of uniformity because there are several ways in which people can make their argument. Like how there are several roads in which our lives can head to, or like how we have not one but many choices to life, or something of the sort. Literature is not meant to be tamed, quite, or grey; it should be like something of a painting with expression shown through every shape and color.
I know this has been very off topic, but I could not exactly get to the point, so... sorry for a poor analysis.

postcolonialism and tempest

A few days ago in class, we began a discussion similar to this blog about what Miranda meant with the word “savage.” Of course, who’s to say what a savage is when one cannot see one’s self. But concerning this discussion, in history, it has been written down and shown throughout Hollywood specials what a “savage” really is. According to those back then, the savages were uncivilized natives who slaughtered and massacred other white men; “they [were] vicious killers, all of them; they [are not] even humans” (The Great Sioux Massacre [1965]). Then again, these lines are just stereotypes made for the perfect American story. 

Upon reading Act II and III of The Tempest and the article of postcolonialism, however, I found parallels concerning Caliban’s similarity to natives and how others came to label him as a “savage”. For example, in Act II, Trinculo encounters Caliban for the first time and commented that “in England this strange monster would be just like a man” (Shakespeare Act II, Scene 2). Just like how Miranda had called him a savage, Trinculo calls Caliban a monster; with Trinculo from another place entirely, it would be normal to find surprise and maybe awe at the newly discovered individual; however, immediately after his first sight, Trinculo names him the most vulgar of names. Shakespeare might have created an unfair stereotype of “others” to give us the image of how he portrayed this Caliban character, and with this image he creates, it does give us the sense of colonization and how the white man is superior. But then, incidents like this has happened throughout history where stereotypes were put onto a populace according to how they lived, what environment they lived in, and what their physical appearance was like; in colonial times, natives were labeled according to how different they were. With the images of the white man in superiority, consider the article when it says that “many British people believed that Great Britain was destined to rule the world,” and had an assumption that “Western Europeans… were biologically superior to any other race” (“Cultural Studies” 236). Going back to the quote I used up there, Trinculo also mentions that he is from England, which further reveals that Shakespeare tries to portray the image of this postcolonialism to his readers through his play. With these stereotypes, Shakespeare represents the people of the colonial days, and maybe with his labels, allows others to sympathize with these characters.   

tempest act one

In the first act of The Tempest, Prospero constructs historical narratives and manipulates those around him by using their emotions against them. He narrates his stories at his angle of view and is always changing his nature depending on who he is talking to. He manipulates not only his servants but his daughter too. For example, before he explains to Miranda what his brother stole from him, Prospero described his brother as someone “whom- aside from [her] - [he] loved more than anyone else in the world” (Shakespeare 4). Prospero deliberately throws this image at Miranda, forcing her emotions to unconsciously churn. Because she has no knowledge of any relative, her love pours purely for the thought of having one; however, after hearing the painful past, her love for this unfamiliar relative transforms instead into compassion for her father’s pain. With this, Prospero sets up the perfect scene in which he is the pitiful hero. Also, as Prospero talks with Ariel, he brings up Ariel’s tender past, reminding him of what those days were like, and threatened to “split an oak tree and lock [him] up in it” (13). Prospero is in control because he holds the truth; he takes Ariel’s past and brings forth the fear that hides deep within his heart. By utilizing that fear, he lets him know who is in control and what torment can take place if orders are not followed. In addition, as Caliban explains to Prospero how his love for him changed, Prospero quickly denies his faults and redirects the conversation, bringing up the incident where Caliban “tried to rape [his] daughter” (16). By redirecting the conversation, he takes control over the emotions that come of it, and controls over the conversation itself. With the words coming from his own mouth, he is able to maintain reality in how he sees it; he holds the truth and utilizes it however he wants to, taking control of them with their emotions.

a one-sided story

     With only a single story, the truth lies in the hands of the speaker. Through the speaker’s eyes, the world is seen at an angle. His view on the world may not be at the same angle of everyone else’s, but that is the beauty of human minds; our minds are not meant to function uniformly, even robots have the possibilities of malfunctioning. Therefore, just because an event has happened, it does not mean that the event will go unbiased. Many stories will be told and passed around, others will be written down, and some will go untold. Because a single story is an incomplete story, the truth is vague and measured upon one’s feelings, and therefore, dangerous.     
     In single stories, you hear from only one side as if the other ear is clogged. Like how we give a blind eye to the unwanted, we are giving the blind eye to the other side of a complete story, setting up barriers to what truth we want to keep and what truth we want out; this extinguishes the chances of being able to learn the whole truth. Narrators and storytellers are good examples as to how one can construct a story. They may read lines and recite phrases from a story, but when the time comes, to make things more appropriate, they change the story around. In Orwell’s 1984, the government is somewhat like the narrator of a story; although the people have the books in their hands, the government ad-libs along the way, changing history with the people’s unconscious consent. The government has the truth and the stories, but they respond by giving out one story, and all is depended upon that. 
     As history goes down, either in writing or in words, it descends in the same pattern, repeating after one another, following the one story made from the start. They trail behind the story that began it all and create a cycle of one-sided truths, consequently, like what Adichie said, making one story the only story. 

white hair?

do you guys have the gene where at a certain age, you'll start growing white hair?
well, i do. it's kinda sad yet scary, weird, and cool at the same time. because i have long, dark hair, my imagination runs wild with the image of me and white hair. right now, you can't really see them untill you look, but you'll only see roots that are becoming white.
yeah, on the day i found out, my world was basically shattered. seriously. and the story is, my sister-in-law saw some white roots on the back of my little sister's head, and so she told her about it. then, my lil' sis' came to me and told me about it, asking me to take pictures of it... so i did. i found a few; they weren't all that big. and so then, i told her to search through my hair, and she did. she told me that i did have some, but that it wasn't as long as hers. i was... shocked. then, i went kinda hysterical... kinda...
yup... i know i'm making a big deal of this, but i never, ever imagined that i would be growing white hair in my teens... but i guess. my whole family has this gene; i've watched my older brothers and sister go through with this. but you know, they all got it (except one) in middle school, so because i didn't, i figured i didn't have the gene. but here i am, talkin' about it. well then, laters!