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...