My idea of Maus completely changed when we went over it in class. I found the concept of representation to be very interesting so I feel that my essay will probably be geard towards that. Linda Hutcheon's Potsmodern Provocation: History and "Graphic Literature" provided me with numerous ideas on the topic of representation. Linda discusses how different geners "mix to create hybird forms." In class we discussed how Maus might be categorized in a book store and this lead to questions and ultimately confusion. Maus is a a representation of Linda's "mix genres," because, although we may deem this nonfiction--"true" historical accounts--it is ultimately a narrative: a story told from the mouth of, how Linda indirectly asks, a realiable or unrelilable soucre? However,Linda later describes how, "Facts deemed historical are perhaps more made than found.'' So perhaps therewere never really generes or the "borders defining them" never existed because as we all know, history is not objective. So I may expand upon this...maybe.
Maus, in regards towards postmodern concepts, then begins to blur the lines of representation. Linda writes tha, "The Holocaust opens up the question of whether we can ever truly represent reality." The Holocaust can never be truly represented with words, so can anything really? It all becomes very confusing. Maus, in a round about way, tell of the horror, however, doesn't represent the Holocaust in its entirety; but representation wasn't the objective. As we know, keeping the momory alive was, so I may posssibly wites about that.
I'm confused now...
Spiegelman choosing to illustrate the Holocaust through a comic book may also be a topic of representation. We have always known comic books to be pointless forms of literature mainly geard towards entertainment, however, I found this mediuma better form of reprsentation. The text in combination with the pictures, to me, made the story and underlying concepts easier to grasp.
However,
I feel that this stuff is too onvious to write about...
I may write about the author's intent and how he chose to represent the Holocaust and his father, and some stuff.
Ok Happy Holiodays!
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
So this article was very interesting or at least the first couple paragraphs :P
I really liked the way Vonnegut structured Cat's Cradle. I know it may show that I have a lack of focus, but the short chapters and quick transitions made it a lot easier to read. This also, for me, made the book easier to understand. I don't know if I agree with the whole Google making us stupid. I think that people in today's society have just adapted to life in the 21rst Century. If I really wanted to I could read a long book and even maybe understand it, I just don't want to because I don't have time. Maybe its not Google but that fact that an average person has a billion things to do a day and no time to think or read. Anyways, I don't even use the internet that often but I really do believe that the interenet and Google have done more help than harm. It has really opened up a lot a lot of doors and kind of bridged the gap between many cultures. I get the whole shortened attention span thing but oh well :)
I really liked the way Vonnegut structured Cat's Cradle. I know it may show that I have a lack of focus, but the short chapters and quick transitions made it a lot easier to read. This also, for me, made the book easier to understand. I don't know if I agree with the whole Google making us stupid. I think that people in today's society have just adapted to life in the 21rst Century. If I really wanted to I could read a long book and even maybe understand it, I just don't want to because I don't have time. Maybe its not Google but that fact that an average person has a billion things to do a day and no time to think or read. Anyways, I don't even use the internet that often but I really do believe that the interenet and Google have done more help than harm. It has really opened up a lot a lot of doors and kind of bridged the gap between many cultures. I get the whole shortened attention span thing but oh well :)
Cats Cradle Second Blog
Did Derrida describe deconstruction?I think so, anyways continuing on this blog, the Hoenikkers are creepy.Felix represents, to me, this sort of satirical version of a scientist. He cares nothing of human emotion and he's pretty much indifferent to human responsibility. Also, the creator of ice-nine, he has pretty much created this abomination to society. His children represent, to me, the epitome of human stupidity. Vonnegut throughout the novel has seemed to maybe argue that people and what they do with technological/scientific advance is just crazy. Example..."The answer is yes, on one condition: that we, the celebrants, are working consciously and tirelessly to reduce the stupidity and viciousness of ourselves and of all mankind." Anyways, the Hoenikker children, who have divided the ice-nine, did whatever they could to reach ultimate happiness, which is sort of representative of society. Angela and Frank end up using the Ice-nine to buy them happiness that they never get. Little Newt too, although he didn't really give it away. Anyways, this selfishness and need to happiness pretty much leads to the Apocalypse. Another topic: I have pretty much forgotten about deconstruction but I'll do my best. I'm not entirely sure how Cat's Cradle may reveal this whole deconstruction thing but here its goes. So deconstruction is where you take away the center, because centers undermine and discriminate...So how does this relate to Cat's Cradle. Well I've seen pictures and there doesn't seem to be a center in a Cat's Cradle.
"Form the way she talked I thought it was a very happy marriage." "Little Newt held his hands six inches apart and he spread his fingers, See the cat? See the cradle?""Little Newt snorted. Religion. See the cat, see the cradle?" 'Ok so this whole cat's cradle may have something to do with deconstruction and the lack of a center and putting opposite meanings as a norm. Maybe its trying to argue that life is a cats cradle and there is/can be no real definition to things.
"Form the way she talked I thought it was a very happy marriage." "Little Newt held his hands six inches apart and he spread his fingers, See the cat? See the cradle?""Little Newt snorted. Religion. See the cat, see the cradle?" 'Ok so this whole cat's cradle may have something to do with deconstruction and the lack of a center and putting opposite meanings as a norm. Maybe its trying to argue that life is a cats cradle and there is/can be no real definition to things.
Cat's Cradle Chapters 1-7
Ok, so I just moved and I've been without internet and I realize that I could've gone to the library, but I have had marching band and homework, and I spend like 30% of my time in the studio, and the other 70% of my time thinking about my next session in the studio, and when I'm famous someday I'll look back to this moment and be thankful.
Anyways Chapters 1-7.
So I guess the Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, was a period where ignorance and superstition were being pushed aside, and where science was being embraced. Yeah we knew that. How Cat's Cradle embraces postmodernism? Well the first thing that jumped out to me was, "Anyone unable to to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either." Science was meant to to slove all problems in a nutshell. But I think what Vonnegut may be arguing with Bokononism is that Science may provide the answers, but not the answers to the questions people need to give their life meaning.Vonnegut believes that religion gives meaning and purpose to people‘s lives. Truth can play no part. This fantasy of meaning and purpose that a religion provides is what matters. Bokononism stay away from forming cruel religious dogmatism mainly because there is no truth for which to fight. “It is a free-form amoeba.” Although religion contains no truth whatsoever, it is needed to cotnrol the masses. Scientific advancement has offered millions of people a better standard of living, while simultaneously, has also produced or human suffering on many levels. Atom bomb? Chemical weapons? Cat's Cradle is a sartire of society and the awful things people can do with techonoligcal/sceintific advancement. Although this is Cahpters 1-7, Dr. H invented Ice-Nine. I'll stop here and continue on the next blog.
Anyways Chapters 1-7.
So I guess the Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, was a period where ignorance and superstition were being pushed aside, and where science was being embraced. Yeah we knew that. How Cat's Cradle embraces postmodernism? Well the first thing that jumped out to me was, "Anyone unable to to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either." Science was meant to to slove all problems in a nutshell. But I think what Vonnegut may be arguing with Bokononism is that Science may provide the answers, but not the answers to the questions people need to give their life meaning.Vonnegut believes that religion gives meaning and purpose to people‘s lives. Truth can play no part. This fantasy of meaning and purpose that a religion provides is what matters. Bokononism stay away from forming cruel religious dogmatism mainly because there is no truth for which to fight. “It is a free-form amoeba.” Although religion contains no truth whatsoever, it is needed to cotnrol the masses. Scientific advancement has offered millions of people a better standard of living, while simultaneously, has also produced or human suffering on many levels. Atom bomb? Chemical weapons? Cat's Cradle is a sartire of society and the awful things people can do with techonoligcal/sceintific advancement. Although this is Cahpters 1-7, Dr. H invented Ice-Nine. I'll stop here and continue on the next blog.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Essay Ideas for Brave New World
Well my first reaction is to write about BNW's concept of progress. Something about it being progressive maybe scientifically and economically but not so in other ways, duh. Well I like this topic because it sort of ties into cloning which is a controversial topic nowadays. However, after reading into it a little more, cloning in today's world does show "progress" scientifically, although I'm not sure if I personally agree with it or not, anyways here is a link http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pecorino.html which talks about the different uses for cloning in the future. All in all I would like to write about progress and maybe how it ties into today's world because I think It's an interesting concept. I'm not done with the book and all of this may change but I would like to mention postmodernism maybe how the definition of progress forms society, which is a lot to talk about, but its not set in stone, so thanks for reading.
Monday, September 21, 2009
9/21/09
"Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child's mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult's mind too, all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides. But all these suggetsions are our suggestions!"
It was brought up in class that Brave New World society disregards any meaning to life, however, in order to argue that, this meaning has to be defined. I'm personally not religious and my beliefs change day to day so neither of these for me really define the meaning of life. Of course I know the standard differences between right and wrong because they've been ingrained into me since birth, however, I don't think my "moral compass" or anything can give my life meaning. It was brought up that to BNW citizens, their standard of living is normal to them. Of course just because WE say something is RIGHT or NORMAL doesn't make it so. So even knowing this information, a society where humans are "pharmaceutically anesthetized to passively serve a ruling order" still bothers me. Although the people are content and it can be said that they live in a sort of utopia, I guess what bothered me most was the complete disregard of freewill, not so much the meaning of life, or maybe they're the same thing, I'm not entirely sure. But anyways, I believe free will allows humans to make decisions, to love, to make history, etc, so I guess in a way it does give a life meaning. The above quote demonstrates how the childrens' minds are able to be manipulated into anything their "superiors" want it to be and I don't like this neglect of decisions and the individual mind. Man was predestined to have freewill right? Anyways, maybe Huxley is trying to argue that postmodern society is becoming mindless and incapable of complete free thought, with all of the technology and the propaganda, etc.
"..the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power..." -Huxley
It was brought up in class that Brave New World society disregards any meaning to life, however, in order to argue that, this meaning has to be defined. I'm personally not religious and my beliefs change day to day so neither of these for me really define the meaning of life. Of course I know the standard differences between right and wrong because they've been ingrained into me since birth, however, I don't think my "moral compass" or anything can give my life meaning. It was brought up that to BNW citizens, their standard of living is normal to them. Of course just because WE say something is RIGHT or NORMAL doesn't make it so. So even knowing this information, a society where humans are "pharmaceutically anesthetized to passively serve a ruling order" still bothers me. Although the people are content and it can be said that they live in a sort of utopia, I guess what bothered me most was the complete disregard of freewill, not so much the meaning of life, or maybe they're the same thing, I'm not entirely sure. But anyways, I believe free will allows humans to make decisions, to love, to make history, etc, so I guess in a way it does give a life meaning. The above quote demonstrates how the childrens' minds are able to be manipulated into anything their "superiors" want it to be and I don't like this neglect of decisions and the individual mind. Man was predestined to have freewill right? Anyways, maybe Huxley is trying to argue that postmodern society is becoming mindless and incapable of complete free thought, with all of the technology and the propaganda, etc.
"..the ruling oligarchy will find less arduous and wasteful ways of governing and of satisfying its lust for power..." -Huxley
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
9/8/09
These concepts confuse me:
Simon describes how Texas is battling over emphasizing the role of the Bible in American History. To me it is not the Christianity in textbooks that is bothersome, it is the fact that some people believe they have the right to control certain, if not not all aspects of other people's lives. To me it had nothing to do with politics or religion, just changing history in general bothers me may it be a small change or a tiny slant. I feel robbed. I've been confused about this History thing. How should a history book be written? But how DO you write a history book objectively? I stumbled upon this quote: "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."- Napoleon Bonaparte
Again this added to my confusion. History should be completely objective. But we all know that is impossible. So to even have history we must agree and the majority must decide on what is relevant, what truly happened, and who came out victorious. There are too much many cultures represented in today's society to even come close to some sort of agreement. Still my heart tells me, history should be objective, it is unfair to to change events so a certain group gets more recognition, or comes out the "good guys." How I have interpreted 1984 (subject to change): 2+2=5 is wrong. Winston ends the novel by writing 2+2=5 in the dust on the table. This move is symbolic of the Party's power to control the majority. "What knowledge do have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in ALL minds truly happens." Right now I'm arguing the 1984 defines reality/history as a majority vote, just as Napoleon did. Is 1984 society wrong for believing 2+2=5? Its what the majority believes, you die if you don't believe it. The most confusing part is that, to me, the History problem is impossible and the majority should rule. 1984 seems to argue that 2+2=5 if everyone believes it is so.
Ultimately what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is history should be objective, but that's impossible. But how do we make history as objective as possible? In 1984 society history is defined purely as majority, however, we don't live in a Totalitarian regime. There are too many aspects to our culture to come close to agreeing upon anything. In trying to answer the question how do we write history objectively I've pretty much decided that you can't. Writing history that will bests serve the education and future of the populous as a whole that a majority decides upon just seems logical. Obviously we aren't 1984 hypothetical London and I'm definitely not saying the Party is correct, I'm just saying the book argues a majority rule concept and maybe that is what Orwell tried to show. Maybe society can't handle too much information. But why beat a dead horse?
Simon describes how Texas is battling over emphasizing the role of the Bible in American History. To me it is not the Christianity in textbooks that is bothersome, it is the fact that some people believe they have the right to control certain, if not not all aspects of other people's lives. To me it had nothing to do with politics or religion, just changing history in general bothers me may it be a small change or a tiny slant. I feel robbed. I've been confused about this History thing. How should a history book be written? But how DO you write a history book objectively? I stumbled upon this quote: "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."- Napoleon Bonaparte
Again this added to my confusion. History should be completely objective. But we all know that is impossible. So to even have history we must agree and the majority must decide on what is relevant, what truly happened, and who came out victorious. There are too much many cultures represented in today's society to even come close to some sort of agreement. Still my heart tells me, history should be objective, it is unfair to to change events so a certain group gets more recognition, or comes out the "good guys." How I have interpreted 1984 (subject to change): 2+2=5 is wrong. Winston ends the novel by writing 2+2=5 in the dust on the table. This move is symbolic of the Party's power to control the majority. "What knowledge do have we of anything, save through our own minds? All happenings are in the mind. Whatever happens in ALL minds truly happens." Right now I'm arguing the 1984 defines reality/history as a majority vote, just as Napoleon did. Is 1984 society wrong for believing 2+2=5? Its what the majority believes, you die if you don't believe it. The most confusing part is that, to me, the History problem is impossible and the majority should rule. 1984 seems to argue that 2+2=5 if everyone believes it is so.
Ultimately what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is history should be objective, but that's impossible. But how do we make history as objective as possible? In 1984 society history is defined purely as majority, however, we don't live in a Totalitarian regime. There are too many aspects to our culture to come close to agreeing upon anything. In trying to answer the question how do we write history objectively I've pretty much decided that you can't. Writing history that will bests serve the education and future of the populous as a whole that a majority decides upon just seems logical. Obviously we aren't 1984 hypothetical London and I'm definitely not saying the Party is correct, I'm just saying the book argues a majority rule concept and maybe that is what Orwell tried to show. Maybe society can't handle too much information. But why beat a dead horse?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)