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.