eh.....

Alright so just to establish what i've learned about post modernism i would just like to extend my own ideas in summary form of what i think it's all about. Postmodernism's literal meaning is "after modernism" obviously while "modern" itself refers to something "related to the present", the movements modernism and postmodernism are understood as cultural projects or as a set of perspectives. perspectives such as; style in art, architecture, literature, philosophy. and anything could be or be considered if they just acquire a reaction against principles and practices of established modernism. Postmodernism in a lot of our class readings come by way of irony. Ironic plots, deaths, situations that could be picked apart to even find the irony in the already obvious irony. Which makes it incredibly easy to read cats cradle as a postmodern text, it's full of these weird characters that have different yet profound effects on the earth with their actions. Which in all respect (for these fictional characters) they did not ever mean any harm or real danger, but thats the "irony" i guess. The fact that even though their intensions were good, it in fact turned out to be ALL BAD. And then besides the obvious plot of the whole story being ironic, now we pry deeper and look for more. The title of the book "cats cradle" plays a part in the book that relates to a life style called "bokononism" that is a complete lie but makes it known that it's all lies and it's ok with that! So their view is that their is no real answer...and their ok with that just as long as their conscious lies keep them happy. And so like the cat's cradle which has no end, the bokonon religion, or lifestyle has no real center. So when your not just happy with the way things are and try to look for the truth...you'll never find it...because it's not their. "No damn cats, and no damn cradle!"

another let down

alright.........who said it was ok for all books to get really good towards the ending and then just end up being a giant let down?!?! i guess the rats actually had some significance finally, and now what...he just is a totally committed member just like that?!?! i don't even understand!! a little threatening a he just snaps, he should put on a skirt for not fighting back!! but then it all just ends up being a total mind game, he tried too resist for a while i guess but im just so darn upset about the way things turned out i might not ever read again!! and it was a total set up the whole time, and the guy who rented that room out for them should be punched in the face. i have a lot of pent up anger from all the books that are considered "good literature" that we read throughout our high school career. its almost all a let down, depressing, or weird! what happened to normal, what happened to good times and happy endings? maybe authors are just depressed unhappy people. happy people aren't authors because they're probably out having too much fun in their happy life! anyways...im bummed about the ending, but i guess in a way i should have expected it a little. so 1984, you and i are over.

extreme love

alright alright alright, im not quite finished with the book yet, but i can already tell that its goanna end like one of those many books that i despise. i do love the way that both winston and julia take things into their own hands. not being afraid to take that leap of faith in their love for each other. there are a few things tat i would like to talk about though, like...whats with the rats?? it's been mentioned like twelve times!! it's not important at all!! i think it's a form of foreshadowing or symbolism...but i cant tell. i was starting to love o'brien more and more, until he seemed to good to be true. i believe that somethings up there but i guess i'll find out. it's like this book seems a little all over the place not in terms of plot, but in symbolism. my feelings toward different aspects of the book have been everywhere and i just prepare myself now to be ready to be unsure whenever i put the book down...it's like all the sudden i'm there, and i don't trust anybody! haha it's like an extreme personification tactic written by a genius to make you confused and sketched out. i know that i don't have much to say, but thats because i dont have a central thought on the whole thing yet...is it going to surprise me and turn out victorious...or is it going to dissapoint me and make me upset just like every other book in the world.

1980...somethin'

Alright alright alright, i wanted to be in on all the "big brother" jokes...and im getting there. but basically what i've read so far in my catch up game is that my boy Winston Smith lives in a crazy communistic place called Ociana...controlled and run by these different "Parties" but not the fun kind of parties...like if you sneeze they might execute you, i think the term they use is vaporize. which means much more, theres an entire party thats purpose is to make it seem like you've never existed. it's like they've got a party for everything it seems like. now, because im supposed to dive a little deeper, and i've been trying to, ummm i have been noticing that this book has many similarities with other books of these sorts, in sophomore year in mr d's class we read about a guy named equality, who had a very similar situation. these must be common i guess. but yea, he lived in a crazy place just like this, he even had the crush on the girl thing goin on too. its like this is just a much more detailed in depth version of that book...whose name i can't remember. also, another connection i made with another book that i read last year, "the giver," and in that book they "released" people instead of "vaporizing" them. so i dont know what was going on with everybody back in these times when these books were written, or if they all collaborated with each other, but i was finding many similarities between different authors and their stories.  

im done with tradition

alright, to satisfy the assignment at hand, here is my best attempt to fill in the templates given. so, In discussions of The Tempest, the traditional view is that Shakespeare wrote it with intensions of interlacing a political agenda of exposing the barbaric nature of colonial expansion. However, there may be other ways to think about this text. For one thing, George Will explains that we are to adopt and accept the ideas that have been impressed upon us by our teachers and other supporting literature. And Stephen Greenblatt says that we need to break free from the impressions that others assume or accuse texts of inferring agendas. and that we should read the texts ourselves and judge them personally according to the impression or influence it leaves on us, in other words "think for ourselves". Therefore, taking these positions into account, we can see that the argument at hand is whether or not to accept this perspective of colonial expansion that has been said to be embedded in Shakespeare's  "The Tempest" that many have written about. so do we accept their views as an actual fact of the text...or are they just opinionated views.
i plan on attacking this argumentative subject by basing a lot of it on the debate between george will, and stephen greenblatt. i would also like to strengthen the topic in question by finding other sources that disprove the point and also agree with the my point in that i do not believe that all of these hidden meanings behind his literature. i want to find others who support the unpopular argument that he wrote just to please. and that in fact it was just the way of life and there was no intended meaning behind it all. so i am attempting to take sides with stephen greenblatt and ironically not side with anyone...if that makes any sense... 

the debate that won't ever end

     as i attempt to write this blog posting, i would first like to admit that the debate that was taking place in this article was extremely hard to follow. and i would like to briefly rant about my distain for those who feel like when they write that they have to use a full array of ridiculous vocabulary that is not necessary. i am simple, and in my simple opinion i feel that these two were arguing over something that will not ever be resolved and they use this sort of diction for the pure fact that they are trying to convey their superiority over the other through their speech or word choice. i view it as a form of intellectual immaturity, call me ignorant for my thoughts on this subject of using nonsense vocabulary to try and prove a simple point.
      but i must move on to the prompt at hand, i will try and do the best i can to fulfill all of the requirements. ok, so george will was basically saying that having opinions about the literature at hand is how we make it understandable to our own intellect. He states an excerpt from a reference used, "...the transmission of the culture that unite, even defines america." i think he was trying to explain how we in our culture pass down examples to make sense of different elements of life, including understanding literature and how teachers are trying to help us along their path of thinking. now, stephen greenblatt on the other hand pushed the ideals of having every student make their own judgment and decisions based on their personal ideals. he relates us to poets who apparently are some of the elect few who have broken the mold of common or popular belief when he says, "poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement." meaning that we cannot create our own ideas or opinions when we are influenced by all the things that surround us. he wants us to break the mold and be completely individual thinkers. which i like the sound of, so i am going to attempt siding with him. i say this because i like the sound of not being tied down or influenced by things which i might not even think are influencing me. but wait!! if i side with him on this matter of thinking for myself...does that mean i just allowed him to think for me and therefore lose my opportunity to be an independent thinker trying to break my feet loose of this hardened social cement?!?! independent and individual is what i want to be. the entire argument will tear me in two if i think any harder about the deeper meaning that never ends. it becomes impossible to think.      

Those Outsiders are Funky Lookin'

In acts 2 and 3, Caliban is portrayed as an inferior native to the island. he is ruled by one master and then by the next, only hoping that doing so will lead him to the freedom which he desires. In the Post Colonial article, natives are referred to as "subhuman, and inferior." which is clearly shown by Shakespears writing in the extreme by Stephano and Trinculo calling him a "monster." They (Stephano and Trinculo) treat him as lower, and less educated. Just like in the article where it states that "Western Europeans, and, in particular, the British people, were biologically superior to any other race".....or so they thought. Now that all of these men are now on this island, many of them have the thoughts of fulfilling their own desires by taking over what they believe they have the right to control. The island is now up for grabs so to speak. But in the way of representation of a native people such as the video with the indians. Representation is a huge part of staying in control or to refuse the changes that others see fit to put into play because they believe that they are more refined because of a title that they pride themselves in having from wherever they came from. which in my opinion has no meaning once in a new land, or place. unless they had the proper representation in this new place. You don't see a CEO of one company go into a company in another part of the world and say, "Monster sweetie, be a good monster and just speak once." like Stephano and Trinculo  did to Caliban. It's a hard cycle to change because those with power often believe that they deserve things which is an instinct of the natural man. It's been cultivated in the past and has twisted history. It's intense stuff.     

Act 1 Son!!

            Prospero is a professional manipulator! yes it is true that the most prominent example given from what we have read so far that most completely shows his complete lack of mercy he gives to get what he wants is obviously what he did to that boat through one of his spirit slaves...i think Ariel is some sort of a a spirit anyways. But the reason that Ariel is his slave is because Prospero holds the story about saving him over his head and often reiterates the traumatic story of his previous' masters abuse. He continues stringing him along by promising him freedom, he says that  "I’ll set you free in two days." for some reason i have a feeling that he's been promising him that for a while to keep him around to do all of his dirty work. But he doesn't only do that to one of his servants, he also does that almost exact same thing to Ferdinand. He is the designer of a mass of webs designed to keep all of those who are a part of his intricate chess game looking to him for the next move. He's so good at this game that he even brings his own enemies to the island...i don't think its for a tea party either. So as he carries out his plans of which he only knows, he even uses some of his own servants against others under his influence to manipulate the events which will ensue, to his liking. An example of that is when he tells Ariel to, "Go disguise yourself as a sea nymph. Be invisible to everyone except yourself and me. Take this garment, put it on, and then come back here. Hurry, go!" The web in which we see being spun in act 1 is already ridiculous, i'm excited to continue reading to see whether he can stay one step ahead of everybody and come out victorious and sit on his throne once more; or will he just get tangled in his own web and loose everything once more?     

Socratic Circle

         My thoughts surrounding this weeks socratic circle make me wonder, did the history we learned sway us as a youth and as a culture now-a-days to be more liberal. I am conservative myself and am quite astonished at how many comments were geared towards preserving liberalistic values. But those who say those things don't see them as liberal ideas, but rather as "protecting" the growing generation of any ideas being possibly embedded into them while in their youth.

        Which leads me into my thoughts of the subject matter, textbooks are changed and updated all of the time. But i think the argument in texas comes from the point that it's not what their putting in the new history books, it's why. My personal opinion is that our liberalistic ideas of how things should be run is something that we inherited just as the new generation would if the read the new history books. They would see nothing wrong with any of it.

       My guess is that you would say thats because they don't know the other side. But did we know know the other side? Or are we all in the same situation that the growing generation is possibly facing, only seeing one side? Or is it all the same but from a different perspective? It also makes me question regarding the single story. If the growing generation learns from this new perspective, will it help us as a nation to have them grow up and communicate, make decisions, and new laws together with those that received the same schooling that we did because then we would have two stories, two foundations to go off of. 

      My personal opinion of what their trying to do in texas is that they are trying to rebuild patriotism by cultivating the young minds of children to think in a different way. A more pro-American way. A right way? A wrong way? I don't know who is qualified to make that decision, but to understand the situation before we judge against the actions that they are trying to take to change a few things in their history books, maybe we should ask ourselves...are we being hypocrites by relying on our own single story? Do we care enough about the subject matter enough to take a step back and see it from a different view? Who's to say?    
   

Blogging for school?? Tight!!