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.
 

The debate over literature

     These two articles discuss the issue of interpreting literature in different ways and the effects the interpretation can have.  In his article, George Will comments that straying from the traditional interpretation of a piece degrades it and essentially discredits the very ideas and works that Western Civilization was founded on.  He also says that politics play an influential role in literature as he says, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political."  In response, Stephen Greenblatt argues that it is not demeaning to literature to explore its "hidden" meanings, but rather it is essential in order to fully grasp the true meaning of the piece.  Both sides make a strong argument, but I agree with Greenblatt; literature is meant to be explored and interpreted in a way that may be different from the accepted meaning, the interpretation must be made by the individual.
     I agree with Greenblatt because literature is nothing without interpretation and connections with history and issues throughout the world.  When discussing how some people feel about the controversial issues in Shakespearian plays such as racism and anti-Semitism, Greenblatt says, "It is, I believe, all but impossible to understand these plays without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare's art so powerfully draws."  This point is powerful because we do not know what message Shakespeare was trying to convey when he wrote his pieces, we do not know if he wrote the Tempest to praise or criticize imperialism; therefore we must form our own opinions about the text and interpet it in our unique way.  When commenting on the people who believe in these ideas of literary interpretation, Will claims that, "social disintegration is the political goal of the revolution that is sweeping campuses."  His claim is understandable, to him (and others who agree with him) new interpretations of classic texts would be concerning and frightening; however, new ways of understanding literary works is not contributing to "deculturation," but rather to a further understanding of what the author may have been attempting to convey when he or she wrote the piece.  Students must interpret pieces in new and clever ways because that is the only way new ideas will be born in to the discussion of literature and not be hindered by the "social cement" of traditional interpretations. 

The Tempest and Colonialism

The Elizabethan Era was a time of vast imperialism for England. Their empire invaded unknown lands and encountered unknown people. In the Tempest, Shakespeare uses Caliban to portray these foreign people and allow the reader or viewer ot identify him as the helpless native who must be introduced to a "more civilized" life. It appears Shakespeare is demoralizing Caliban, and therefore native people, as he describes Caliban as, "A most ridiculous monster, to make wonder of a poor drunkard." This characterization forcers the reader to look down upon Caliban and native people. This makes sense because Shakespeare often wrote for the Queen and royalty always likes to be told whatthey are doing is right. In addition, Shakespeare made his audience feel superior to the native people in the colonies, which made more people attend his shows. However, a less-biased interpretation of the play may show that Shakespeare allows the reader to discover an intelligent aspect to Caliban. Caliban realizes Prospero mistreats him, so he encourages Stephano to kill him, Caliban says, "There thoust mayst brain him, having first seized his books or with a log batter his skull..." While this appears to be a savage request, is is actually logical. Caliban wants Prospero out of h is homeland, just as the Native Americans wanted English settlers out of their land. It is impossible to know if Shakespeare was for or against Colonialism, but in The Tempest he allows the story to be read from either angle, enabling each reader or viewer to interperate the play which ever way that person chooses. Furthermore, in the piece Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, the author comments that the dominant culture sends the message of, "conform and be quiet, deny yourself, and all will be well," to the minority culture. In the same way, Prospero threatens Caliban earlier in the play and Caliban's "brutality" is just a reaction to being oppressed. Shakespeare skillfully presents the play so a person who wants to believe Caliban needs the saving of  white men is able to, but at the same time he is telling every one else that the native people are not fragile and in need of rescuing, but rather powerful people with a strong grudge who are eager to take back what is their own.



Why Rosalinda is so amazing is beyond me.....

Prospero's Grip on History

          Prospero influences those around him by manipulating history and portraying it in a way that only suits him.  He tells Miranda, his own daughter, the history of his life, yet he portrays it as he has made no faults and that it was only his enemies who did anything wrong.  While telling his story, he mentions, "I pray thee, mark me (that a brother should be so perfidious)."  This emphasizes that it was Antonio who performed an evil act, when he was just reacting to the laziness and irresponsibility of Prospero.  Prospero's angle of telling the story causes Miranda to hold him in high regard.  She says, "Your tale, sir, would cure deafness," and, "I, not remember how i cried out then, will cry it o'er again," meaning she considers it as amazing and shocking that someone could betray her father.  Also she assumes she must feel for her father because she is basing her feelings on the story Prospero has told her and nothing else.  Prospero has presented Miranda with a single story-a single story of his life.  Miranda holds her father's story in high regard because it is the only version she knows.  She is oblivious to the fact that Prospero did not perform his duty as duke because Prospero purposely hid that information from her for his benefit.  Furthermore, he repeatedly asks if she is listening because he wants to make sure she hears only what he is telling her and will not be side-tracked by anything that could contradict his story. 
           Also, Prospero belittles Ariel when he asks for a year to be removed from his service.  Through this tactic, Prospero hopes to intimidate Ariel in to thinking that he needs Prospero.  While reciting the story Prospero, he says, "Though, my slave," and calls him "too delicate" to do anything.  This diction in his story allows Prospero to demean Ariel so he will never ask for freedom again.  By rearranging historical facts and changing how history itself is told, he effectively manipulates the people around him.   

The Dangers of a Single Story

    This video addresses important issues concerning the way people's opinions are formed.  Too often people accept what they are told or what they read from TV or newspapers without any hesitation because it is convenient, rather than seeking multiple accounts of an event in order to form their own opinions.  Consequently, the individuality of people does not show, instead societies as a whole can be represented by one idea like how Adichie's room mate assumes she does not know how to use a stove and listens to tribal music because she is African.  If people are told something enough times they will begin to believe it, even if it is not true.  Every person is unique, yet certain places are identified by certain actions or beliefs according to the single story as Adichie points out.  The danger of this is what if the public opinion is formed to be aggressive or hateful towards a place or society.  If this happens, then the government (or whoever created the public opinion) will be able to manipulate the public in the same way as the public is manipulated in 1984. Therefore, individuality and personal opinions are valuable to ensuring freedom.  In today's day and age, so much focus is put on finding a supreme answer of some kind that will solve all problems, settle all disputes, and create uniformity, but this is not what we should be trying to find, nor what we should want to find because the problem is not being unable to solve all disputes, the problem is assuming there is an answer to fix everything.  An example of this is the textbook issue.  There will never be an objective history textbook that represents everyone equal, but the history book should be just one source of knowledge, people should use the textbook, but also use a variety of other sources before their opinions are formed.  As it pertains to the video, Adichie believed the negativity she had heard about Mexicans, but when she traveled to Mexico, she found it was not true.  In this case, the other source she used was going to Mexico, and she used it to changer her opinion in to her own opinion.  The beauty of being human is the diversity that exists between people.  Two people may see the same thing, but describe it in different ways, this is not a bad thing, rather it is good because it allows a third person to make his or her own opinions after hearing both of the other people's accounts of what happened.  People have a remarkable ability to think for themselves, but a lot of times they do not because it is easier to believe what they are told, but in order for the world to move forward, people need to form and believe their own opinions.

The greatest movie ever

No matter what anybody says this is the best movie ever because it is hilarious.  There are countless classic lines that will leave you laughing for days because you will randomly remember them and you will laugh, guaranteed.  I've never met anybody who does not like this movie because once again, its the best ever.