Satirical Ad of Starbucks

My summary to a critical essay of Maus

     I found an essay entitled, "Retelling the stories of the Holocaust in the 'Shoah' and 'Maus': distorted images of a monstrous past."  The article was mainly about how the Holocaust was such a traumatic event that it can not be truly represented in a film or by a piece of literature.  The essay examines a documentary film called the 'Shoah' (which means The Holocaust) and Maus.  The author discusses that Spiegelman portrays the Jews as mice because they were viewed by the Nazis as disgusting vermin that needed to be eradicated.  This becomes important, argues the author, because it brings an answer as to why the Nazis would kill innocent Jews for no apparent reason.  The author states that the Nazis did not view their actions as atrocious because they did not view the Jews as people, rather, they were just animals, so their lives had no significant meaning.  I though this was interesting because it is another example of how big of a role grand narratives have on a society.  We view the actions of the Jews as intolerable and insane, but to the Nazis, they were doing a necessary task; just as we would kill an insect that was unfortunate to wander in to our house.  Furthermore, by portraying the characters as animals, the author claims that Spiegelman puts the reader in to the shoes of those involved in Auschwitz.  The reader sees the different animals and automatically assumes their morals and beliefs and can even predict their future actions, just as people involved in the Holocaust could discriminate based on the people they encountered.  In addition, the author of this essay continually claims that there are no true survivors of the Holocaust because no one can survive a 'death camp' and that the Holocaust can never be accurately represented because the author will always choose what to put in a scene and his or her decisions will not always be accurate.  I feel the author puts it best when he says, "In that sense, Maus and Shoah represent possible methods for looking through Auschwitz – an attempt to create an image of the Holocaust that, although not entirely accurate, can successfully claim to hold more meaning than the impossible ‘true’ image."  This essay was very insightful and I am glad I found it. 

  

Cats Cradle as a Postmodern Text

       Cat's Cradle can be viewed as a Postmodern text with relative ease.  The structure of the book itself is antithetical to traditional Modern works in that it feature short, rather than lengthy, chapters.  The book is a criticism on society's goal of creating a perfect utopia and the belief that science and understanding will pave the way to this utopia.  Vonnegut writes the novel to show how society's quest to create a uniform utopia that believes in a common purpose is idiotic because there can be no one center of a society.  The grand narrative of a society is only partially true in any scenario because some people will reject the grand narrative and hold a different idea or thought as their own personal grand narrative.  Therefore, establishing a single grand narrative in society is futile.  Vonnegut expresses this point through the use of his characters.  Newt is a mdiget, while his siter is a giant, and together they have a radical brother-not exactly a stereotypical American family from the mid twentieth century.  In addition, Vonnegut uses Newt to display that society is filled with masked lies that conform to fit the grand narrative.  For example, after Newt describes how dishonest and unfaithful Anjelah's husband is, John (the narrartor) says, "From the way she talked, I thought it was a very happy marriage," and Newt promptly responds by saying, "See the cat?  See the cradle?"  Newt is implying that Anjelah is hiding her unhappiness in her marriage because she feels she must fit in to the grand narrative that says women should be maried to a handsome man and be happy with their lives from then on out until they die.  However, by referring to a cat's cradle, he is stating that it is just lies and misleadings designed to give the appearance of adherence to the grand narrative.  Vonnegut does this in order to show how all people do not fit in to the grand narrative, yet they force themselves to appear as if they fit in to the dominating cultural standards.  He argues that this is a fundamental problem in society, therefore advocating that grand narratives do more harm than good and people should not waste time trying to descover the one grand narrative that applies to all people in a society.  

Brave New World Essay Blog

     In response to the novel Brave New World I would like to explore a variety of topics that apply to the book and what it has to say.  In the novel, the citizens and the World Controllers and everyone in society is working so that the wheel of production does not stop turning.  Everybody regards this perpetual production as the most important part of their society, but what exactly are they working towards and when are they ever satisfied with what they have done?  I want to argue that the citizens of the World State will never be authentically happy with their lives and how they spend it because there is no higher purpose or higher calling in their lives.  To satisfy themselves the people take large doses of soma, which the government has provided in order to calm the people.  The objective of all people in power is to maintain their power and different rulers do this in many different ways, some use violence, some use force, but in the World State, they choose to calm the people with soma, a much more effective method since people can not revolt if they are "happy".  In addition, the argument can be made that if the people in the World State are happy and content with their lives, then let them live their soma-filled lives of sexual promiscuity and never ending labor because they are content with that lifestyle.  However, this is a delicate state of happiness, it can be destroyed by one event, such as the introduction of the "savage" John.  Lenina's life was basic and nothing was able to interrupt her happiness until John showed up and made her question how their society works.  This proves that when someone is not happy with the truth of their life, they can be lured out of their synthetic happiness relatively easily.
     In support of my arguments I will use the Sir Ken Robinson's video which describes the educational system we have today and the flaws that go along with it.  I will use the video in support of my argument that a society can be focused and hard-working, but what are they working for, is it just to keep the wheel turning? If so, then the question of "Why am i here" will arise in society through people such as John.  Also i will use the article we received in the beginning of the year on Postmodernism and any thing else on Postmodernism I can find to talk about how some might argue that if the people in the World State are happy then there is nothing wrong with that society.  I think that Postmodernism is in support of this theory so i will be able to use it as a counter to my own argument.  We will see how my essay goes, it will probably change, because I could find other sources that fit my essay in a better way.

Sir Ken Robinson's video connected to Brave New World

     This video was very similar to Brave New World in my opinion.  As Robinson points out, our modern education system is based on the type of thinking of the Industrial Revolution, therefore, everything in school emphasizes efficiency and speed.  Similarly, in Brave New World, their society praises Ford because he was able to come up with an efficient ways to mass produce.  Also, the World State in Brave New World wants to keep manufacturing new people so they can take the place of the people dying and make sure the "machine" never stops, but it is unclear at what they are all working towards, is their goal to create a perfectly efficient way of producing people? If so, what purpose does this serve?  In the same way, modern education is focused on teaching students what they need to know so they can pass and move on to the next grade, but students in high school and below are not taught how to apply their knowledge.  Basically, when students graduate they are left with a brain full of knowledge, but no way to improve the world with it.  Students have little power to change this, they are forced to attend schools (which most follow this format) and can not do anything about it except take their ADHD medications and try to stay awake during class.  Similarly, when Mustapha Mond is reading Bernard's report about John the savage and Bernard criticizes the World State's society, Huxley writes, "Mustapha Mond's anger gave place almost at once to mirth.  The idea of this creature solemnly lecturing him-him-about the social order was too grotesque."  In relation to education, this reflects the idea that the people who enforce our modern system of education and implement standardized testing believe they know what is best for students and rarely listen to students' opinions on education.  Therefore, students are like Bernard, trying to make suggestions on how to improve the current system and the government, or whoever implements the education system is like Mond, denying any constructive criticism of the way things are and believing he knows what is best.

Built Ford Tough

     This quotation proves that society in Brave New World is just a machine, a machine designed to thoughtlessly produce whatever is needed.  The society regards characteristics that we think are inherently human as vile and disgusting.  Therefore, as Mustapha Mond refers to the time before the World State, he says, "The world was full of fathers-was therefore full of misery; full of mothers-therefore of every kind of perversionfrom sadism to chastity" (Huxley 44).  This society regards strong relationships with other people (such as a mother or father) to be dangerous, they regard it as the cause of all blight.  To remedy this "problem," they retard most of population and give them Soma to make the illusion of happiness permanent.  In this society, people are no longer human, but rather mindless robots and this suits the needs of the Alphas.  This system works for the Alphas because it creates stability in society.  The Deltas and Epsilons are unable to question why they do the same meaningless tak everyday because they do not have the ability to think, making them robots in a sense.  Furthermore, Bernard is regarded as an outcast to society because, although an Alpha, he does not follow the standard life that others do.  Huxley ctreats Bernard in this manner to augment how brainwashed the people are, he is the closest thing to being human in the futuristic society.  Also, the students on the tour magnify society's focus on efficiency.  They write down every spoken fact, without truly knowing what is going on in the baby-manufacturing plants.  Basically, the students know everything there is to know about the factory, but can not grasp what is actually happening there, but then again, no one can.  It is the focus on industrialization and efficiency that this futuristic society destroys human nature in the pursuit of technology.

Preparing for an essay on the Tempest

       In discussions of  "The Tempest," one controversial issue has been the subject of colonialism and whether or not Shakespeare supported or opposed the imperialistic habits of European countries.  On the one hand, political commentator George Will claims that literature is valuable because of its beauty and tradition and claims, "The supplanting of esthetic by political response to literature makes literature interesting as mere a mere index of who had power and whom the power victimized."  Will opposes the practice of reading a piece of literature in an unorthodox manner because he believes it discredits the beauty of the piece.  On the other hand, Aime Cesaire's "A Tempest" presents Shakespeare's play in a new light where the characters are not controlled by Prospero and Prospero is portrayed as seeking to destroy Caliban.  Cesaire's play magnifies the argument that Shakespeare wrote the Tempest to criticize colonialism when it was at its peak.  However, my own view is that Shakespeare wrote The Tempest so it could appeal to both colonialism supporters and those who opposed it.  In the Elizabethean era, Shakespeare wrote for the queen, so he had to make it look as though he was praising colonialism; however, textual evidence exists to support the viewpoint that Caliban is exploited by Prospero and that Shakespeare is arguing against colonialism.  Here enlies the true beatuy of the play, it can be interpreted in any way the reader wants.  In Elizabethean England, the people chose to accept the Pro-colonialism reading because they wanted to feel good about themselves.  In today's world, some people in society (with a slightly more suspicious reading) interpret the play to be criticizing colonialism.  The play is not great because of the classic beauty that Will describes, the beauty is that Shakespeare allowed for different interpretations of the play and that literary discussions could develop based on his work.
      In my essay, I will use Will's argument to augment the fact that some people argue that the traditional reading is what makes literature great and then use that to build my argument that literature is great because people can interpret it in different ways and then talk about their interpretations, therefore advancing knowledge about the piece.  I will use Cesaire's play to show how others support the anti-colonialism theme of the play and then use that to show how a different interpretation is beneficial because it may enlighten some people who have never seen the alternative way of reading literature for its unorthodox themes and show them there are alternatives to accpeting the classic interpretation of a piece.