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.