Cats Cradle

There is a lot of post modern examples in Cats Cradle. We may not be able to find all of them, but there is still a lot in the book that we can find. The many examples he talks about in the book are very different from today's view of things. The book in a way really has no meaning I don not think. Its like the meaning of the book gives the book itself no. Throughout the book some chapters and sayings are hard to find. The meaning of the sayings and chapters sometimes make you think is there really a meaning at all. Like in the book it says “Jesus is my hero” when the book has like a meaning of starising religion but not really religion more like saterising anything that people think could lead them to an ultimate truth, and maybe he is even saying Jesus is his hero just because he is such a religious figure and gives so much power to people that he is kinda jealous of him. Although I do not know if they even new who he Jesus really is. They might not know the real meaning if Jesus and being a hero. But I am not really sure, because today in our sacratic circle people talked about how he may not mean it when he says “Jesus us my hero”, you never know. And really maybe there is no meaning at all maybe it is just a curve ball thrown into the book to mess up the meaning for some and not for others of something. Although he could have wrote the book and had ment to put in a meaning. Maybe he just wrote random things. Or we just do not look deep enough into the text to understand the meaning.

Brave New World Yay!!

For my Brave New World essay I am still not sure exactly what I am going to write about, but one thing I know for sure is that sir Ken Robinsons video, it made some very good points on like how society has made kids more like a machine or a conveyor belt and not like life as it should be, because I think that there are some very good points in that video that would make my argument better, and in my argument I will try to say that the world state isn't good and that it takes away too much from what life is supposed to be. Another thing I plan to talk about it or at least reference is the tempest. Because the title of the book is from the tempest so obviously the author must have had the book in mind. Also I see so easy connections to the tempest like the savage thing and how the savage is so mistreated and treated badly just because he is a savage so that is like in both A Brave New World and the Tempest. That is all I have planned right now to write about but I am sure once I start the essay more will come to me. Because there is so much in A Brave New World that really you take from anything and I think that there is a lot of things to talk about how they try to make life like a machine and I think that is what I will base a big part of my essay on. Maybe I will talk a little bit about 1984 and like how in 1984 they try to control every aspect of peoples lives just like they do in Brave New World.

Brave New World and Sir Ken Robinson

After watching the video in class I knew there was something that connected to Brave New World. There are many parallels that can be connected between the book we are reading and the video by Sir Ken Robinson. The authors main point in the video we watch was that the education system is not very sufficient. Today there is a thing called A.D.D and supposedly many kids have it. A.D.D causes kids to not be able to pay attention in class and loose focus very easily. Kids are given these pills to help them focus and pay attention. Now in Brave New World there is something very similar to this.

In Brave New World in the World State if your feeling down or sad you take a soma. A soma something that will make you “happy” in their world. But there is no way to tell whether or not the soma actually works. The text from the book says “nothing short of a pistol shot could have called Lenina back from her soma-holiday” (144).This makes me wonder if the soma really works or even the A.D.D medicine given to children today. To be honest I think its all in their head, but I don't have A.D.D so I don't know whether or not it works. Another parallel between the book and video is that kids today are “manufactured”. Today when we go to school were have all different teachers, different classes, but we are with the same age group from pre - school all the way to senior year in high school. Robin questions this situation. He argues that some kids may be smarter than others even if they are younger or older. He also thinks that children all learn differently; like with different discipline at different times. Now this is the opposite in Brave New World. In Brave New World the people are programed to do exactly what they are told and when to do it.

Another confusing and weird story!

Okay well im soo confuse with the story already, but I'm going to give this a shot! "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." To me this meant that there should be some kind of certain power that can control everyone. It reminded me of 1984, which took me a while to understand too. From my point of view this was Mustapha’s way of interpreting totalitarianism, and that the government always knows best no matter what the situation is. Mustapha said that those who experienced strong feelings were unstable once again like 1984 when the two main characters fall in love. When he refers to these kinds of people he say, “No wonder these poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked and miserable. Their world didn’t allow them to take things easily, didn’t allow them to be sane, virtuous, happy” (41). According to Mustapha, family, impulse, feeling, desire, and monogamy require such strong feelings that cause people to become unstable and they therefore need someone to “tend” to them. A hypnopaedic proverb said, “…every one belongs to every one else” (40).. This statement kind of confused, but I think it also cleared some things up for me in a way too. Monogamy can't be alive if everyone belonged to someone, because exclusive relationships wouldn't be good. The same thing goes with the family situation I think. Technically you don't really have a family your just related to one another in theory. There is no proof of you being related by blood. This causes people to want to do things like have a family and a special someone, because they aren't suppose to. Just like teenagers. To me the more you tell these kids NO you can not do that the more they are going to want to do it. But these people have the choice just like teenagers to decide whether they will be smart and obey their parents or the government for instance. Or disobey them.

Yay Preparing to wirte about the TeMpEsT!!!!

n discussions of The Tempest one of the controversial issue is colonialism written in the text. There have also been many different opinions about Caliban. Such as seeing him as a savage or as a person who had been taken advantage of. In the packet givin to us a while ago, Will argues that discussing statements and digging deeper into the meaning of the passage it takes away from the original meaning of the text. He also believes that we over analyze everything and we were missing the real purpose that the author intended us to read. But then you have Greenblatt who thinks the exact opposite of Will. Greenblatt states that digging for deeper meaning does not distract from the intended message the author puts in the passage. He believes you should look deeper into the text, because it will help the reader understand the passage better. Although I have to agree with both sides. If you think about it sometimes the author write things the way there are suppose to be. Where as many authors write the passage, so you have to use your brain and analyze the meaning of the passage. When the author puts a message in the text it allows us to use critical thinking to discover the meaning. But then again it is also could to use your imagination when you write like a form of art. Writing is a way to express yourself just like painting a picture. Everyone has their own opinion on who is right and who is wrong; and almost everyone can argue for what they believe is correct. Sometimes we many not even know what the real meaning of the text is, because you can not ask the author whether or not you should dig deeper and read in between the lines or just read what is written on the surface. So, basically if you have an idea of what you think the author wants you to analyze I think your opinion is right, because you will never know what the author wants.

The Debate Between Greenblatt & Will

Okay to start off I think the debate between the two authors is about analyzing the texts and the finding politics within them. George Will argues that "all Literature is political"(111). He supports his argument with examples of literary works from Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, and Jane Austen. His support includes political models such as feminism, colonialism, and, racism. His believe by criticizing literary work the critic will make the authors intended purpose into a political argument. He feels that literary work should be defined by what the text implies not what happens between the lines. He also says that if literary work is criticized it becomes a matter of "who had power and whom the powerful victimized"(111).

Now on the other hand Stephen Greenblatt believes the complete opposite. When he finds the message in the passage he believes that the message heightens the readers experience. He thinks if we do not find the hidden politics and analyze them we will face “the risk that we might turn our artistic inheritance into a simple, reassuring, soporific life.” Greenblatt doesn't think that there should not be a specific way to analyze the literature. He says that "art is not cement"(115). He believes that the reader should be able to have their own opinion about the text and should be able to state their opinion.

After reading both the debate between both authors I could not decide on whose side I would take. Half of me agreed with George Will and the other half agree with Stephen Greenblatt, but something about Greenblatt made him stand out more to me. So i would probably agree with Greenblatt only, because everyone interprets passages or the message from the passage differently. Whether their belief or thought about the passage or its message be right or wrong, everyone has their own opinion. I believe people should be able to state them too just like Greenblatt believes. Literature is a place were the mind can sorta run free and just be whatever it wants too be.

PoStCoLoNiAliSm :)

The video I watched this weekend “How Hollywood Stereotyped the Native Americans” it explains how the Native Americans had a rough time in the past years with negative stereotypes. It made me feel bad because the man that got interviewed said when he was a young boy he did not no a lot about his culture. He said he did not know anything more than the white kid sitting next to him. In a way this is very bad, because not everyone knows who and what Native Americans are and how they live. This video along with the packet we read on postcolonialism all have something to do with The Tempest. In Act II and III there is proof that Caliban is a part of the native people . For example, Prospero says to Caliban “thou poisonous slave, got by the devil himself upon thy wicked dam, come forth!”, and in the text about postcolonialism alternity is said to be “the others” being “excluded from positions of power and viewed as different and inferior.” In the Tempest Prospero does the same thing to Caliban in. Prospero treats Caliban really bad and makes him a slave. Caliban had to give over his island to Prospero even though he was a native, because he did not have any more power. Prospero the manipulated Caliban just like on George Orwell's book 1984. So all these stories relate to each other in some way. The Tempest and the article relate to each other between Caliban and the Native Americans. Caliban had to give up his land to Prospereo and the same thing happened to the Native Americans.

The Tempest :)

According to the Tempest Prospero is manipulating reality. Prospero does this by twisting the stories around so people do not know what really happen. By doing this he can get any kind of reaction out of the people that he wants. He also has a servant who can obviously make things happen when he wants them too. For instance the storm. He made it seem like it was real and everyone believed him. He also only told one side of the story and left the other part out. He only says he was pushed out of power by an evil force. This make Miranda think differently about who he is. Right now she thinks of him a s a good guy that was treated bad, but she does not know the other side of him. Miranda tells Prospero how she feels about him, but with a few words he can totally brain wash her into thinking totally different about him. For example Prospero’s personality shows when he causes problems between Miranda and Ferdinand. Prospero says, “They are both in ether's powers, but this swift business I must uneasy make lest too light winning make the prize light.” By saying this he is explaing if how, if he does not cause problems they won't appreciate his love. He makes up these dumb lies about Ferdinand so that the couple will have to go through turmoil. He also puts Miranda in hard situations. For example when she has to choose between her father and Ferdinand. He does this because he thinks it will help their relationship. He uses his manipulative personality and words to get change reality just like in 1984.

Text Book issue

To solve the text book problem in Texas, I think the parents and the children from Texas and maybe through out the United states should take a vote on what they would like to see in the history books. All the parents and kids have their own opinion, but it may help the board realize what is the most important thing to there buyers. There is not going to be an unbiased text book, because everyone has their own opinion in what is the most important thing their children should learn. The children may not want to learn about history, but if they have a say in what is in the books it may help them want to learn about history. There for if you take the majority of the children and parents at the high schools in Texas or even in the United States and have them vote it will be less bias as to having 15 people at the board vote for everyone.

In my opinion I think they should give the students and the parents a variety of things that the board and others in the committee believe are the most important and have them chose what they would like to see in
the history books. If we let the kids participate in choosing what they learn, they will be more willing to pay attention and want to learn in my opinion. Then their school participation may go up too. I think it matters what you include in the books, because in order to make our future better we must know what we did wrong in our past. But that puts us back to choosing what goes in the history books. Like I said before I believe the students and the parents should have a say and including the members of the board in that department.

This relates back to our summer book 1984 by George Orwell. By taking out Thomas Jefferson after a while people will forget and it will be like changing history.

Favorite Store

This is my favorite Store EvEr and whenever the ladies at the register ask me if i'd like to sign up for a victoria's secret credit card my parents say no bc ill max it out that day!