I see the cat AND the cradle. Fear me.

Who doesn’t want to write this blog post? Olivia doesn’t, Olivia doesn’t! But I will, because I love you all, and I know how much you love reading my enthralling posts, and links. You should definitely check out my links, right now. Don’t even read my post, just start clicking. You’re welcome. Okay back to why I’m here;

By definition, we are told that postmodernism is a style in architecture, art, literature, and criticism developed after and often in reaction to modernism, characterized by reference to other periods or styles in a self-conscious way and a rejection of the notion of high art. I think it’s apparent throughout Cat’s Cradle that the author is trying to reflect this idea in his work by use of characters and situations that reject and almost satirize the idea of absolute truth.

The narrarator of the novel follows a religion called Bokonism, which so happens to be all founded on “shameless lies”. By having a religion that is founded on lies, the author is clearly satirizing the idea of religion that is normally founded upon its own “absolute truth”. This fictitious religion in the story also serves as the foundation for the entire novel which clearly shows how the entire book is oozing with postmodern ideals and themes.

Another example of postmodernism in the story can be found in Newt’s painting.  It’s described as “small and black and warty” with “scratches made in black, gummy impasto”. Clearly this abstract painting does not follow the strict guidelines of modernism; neither does the fact that each character was able to freely critique and derive his/her own meaning from the piece. By refusing to follow any rules when creating the painting and see one clear dominate meaning in it, the characters are defying all ideals of modernism and embracing those of postmodernism.

Who's done writing their blog post? Olivia is, Olivia is! That's right suckers.

Get the "factory" out of our schools.

          

           

         Well, Brave New World is over, and with it comes another essay. Yayyyy. I actually really enjoyed this book, and it brings to light a very interesting point that I happen to be very passionate about. The books theme, in my opinion, pushes the argument that there is no such thing as a perfect world or social structure by showing the numerous imperfections that lie in an assembly line oriented society. I think this theme can easily be applied to today’s educational system. In my essay I would like to discuss how although we cannot teach students without structure, schooling them through giant industrialized factories is not only stunting their creative thinking, but it is depriving them of any preparation for a world outside of standardized testing. Neil Postman has many interesting views on the growth of technology that I plan on exploring and analyzing in my essay.

The internet has supplied students with endless information that can be accessed with a click of a button, and because of this, employers are shying farther and farther away from people with lofty educations and moving towards creative thinkers who will build up their companies with new ideas.   As Sir Ken Robinson explains in his video, schools continue to group students by age, completely ignoring the fact that not everyone at one age learns or thinks the same. They stuff them with individual standardized testing not realizing that by alienating children they are inhibiting their ability to learn and grow as much as they could if they were in a group.  It is my opinion that if schools wish to be successful in educating students and preparing them for the real world, they need to realize that due to the advances in technology, stuffing students with endless amounts of information is both unnecessary and disabling. We need to stop standardizing and uniforming students and start encouraging them into new and innovated ways of thinking.

Well I'm off to work, I mean school, I mean, ugh, give me my pills.

Education today is a joke. Students all around the country are being shoved into these giant industrialized melting pots that completely deprive them of any self expression or individuality. Creative thinking is stunted at a very young age by teachers that train students to think that there is only one answer to everything. Instead of expressing themselves, students are stuffed with pills and told to focus; blaming their attention span on a disease rather than the actual cause, modern technology. With so many outlets of entertainment in today’s technological world, of course students are going to barely be able to pay attention when listening to a boring monotonous lecture. They group students by age, completely ignoring the fact that not everyone at one age learns or thinks the same, and stuff them with individual standardized testing not realizing that by alienating children they are inhibiting their ability to learn and grow as much as they could as when they are in a group. Schools have quickly turned into educational factories, educating children by batches down a long assembly line of knowledge in an attempt to standardize and uniform the population.

There are many parallels that can be drawn from this to Brave New World. Individuality and creativity is also stunted at a young age by scientists who genetically engineer people in jars before they are born so that they can be taught and produce in whatever group or batch was preordained. Also similar to our education system, their society is set up in the form of an assembly line, operating under the slogan "Community, Identity, Stability" and stuffing everyone  with pills and medication to keep them stable and useful. The whole society has been thrown in a giant melting pot that completely deprives them of any self expression.

Mmmm...yeah yuck.

"Wheels must turn steadily, but cannot 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." This quote spoken by Mustapha Mond in “Brave New World” elucidates the mechanic society that exists due to debauched morals that are ensiled into the population to drive it towards complete and utter stability.  Stability is achieved by organizing society into a giant assembly line of jobs and responsibilities, replacing God with Henry Ford. The population is dehumanized through engineering that predetermines each individual’s biology so that they can serve their preordained purposes efficiently and contently.  The whole structure thrives on pleasure which allows men and women of every profession, whether prominent or low-end, to behold total satisfaction with their lives, and the government to maintain efficiency.

To obtain and retain this pleasure, the government completely transforms Christian morals, making them a taboo subject of the past. The whole family structure is completely torn down thanks to modern technology that allows people to be conceived, grown, and manipulated in test tubes and rooms that are kept and monitored in large buildings. There is no longer such thing as a “mother” or “father”, in fact the words themselves are extinct. By erasing the family structure, the government is keeping people both dependant and devoted to them and to society as a whole. Because of this, sex is no longer looked upon as a binding act between a man and woman, but rather a leisurely pastime for everyone to partake in. Sexual feelings and impulses are encouraged while marriage and sanctity are abhorred things of the past. In this world, "Every one belongs to everyone else". In fact, it is highly looked down upon to only have one partner. If one wishes to be refined, he or she will “have” as many people as possible; so the more promiscuous the better. By keeping sexual relations light, the government is preventing anyone from getting emotionally attached, again keeping them 100% percent devoted and satisfied to them.

I see your point....but you're still wrong. Sorry.

 

 

There is a question on The Tempest that directly delves into the core of education; should we critique a piece of literature solely by face value, or should we dig deeper and take the history and context of the piece into consideration? There have been many discussions on the subject, particularly surrounding The Tempest, and there are numerous opinions.  Stephen Greenblatt agrees with the later. He finds it extremely necessary for the reader to search into the text and derive for themselves any and all possible meanings from the words that lie between the lines; especially in the case of The Tempest.  To him, researching and interpreting can only heighten the reader’s experience and is the reason why we read in the first place. On the other hand, George Will finds this method of reading to be highly counter-productive and insulting to the author’s original intent. He thinks that by reading too far into a text, we can completely destroy the author’s meaning and replace it with our own. He argues that this is what political powers often do to strengthen their arguments, and that we should just enjoy the work for its face value and nothing more. In the case of The Tempest, enjoy the beauty of the words that Shakespeare artfully designed unto the page and leave it at that. To help keep it at this, he suggests that we establish one concrete interpretation of every literary work. My own argument lies somewhere between the two. I think Shakespeare's views on colonialism can be found without having to dig unnecessarily deep into the text and it is my plan to make and support my own argument on the interpretation of The Tempest by pulling evidence and ideas from both Greenblatt and Wilson. Mmhmm. I do. It’s a fact.

I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Both George Will and Stephen Greenblatt present very interesting and opposing views on the subject of literary study. Will believes that literary writings have become a tool used for political gain, like “a literary canon”, and states that all writing is essentially a political statement.  He argues that by reading too far into the text and over-analyzing it, critics are completely misinterpreting the author’s original implications to fit whatever argument they are trying to make.  He supports his point with the example of the NEH nominations in which he claims that Lynne Cheney’s writings were over-analyzed and interpreted to a meaning that differed from her intention. He suggests that there should be one concrete interpretation of literary text that is derived from the words rather than the stuff that lies between the lines.

Greenblatt could not disagree more. He feels that “we might turn our artistic inheritance into a simple, reassuring, soporific life” if we refuse to play around and look deeper into possible meanings and interpretations of a writer’s work. In fact, he thinks that interpreting only heightens the reader’s experience. He claims that art isn’t concrete and that there should not be a cut-and-dry way to interpret literature.

I think my own argument lies somewhere in the middle of Greenblatt and Will’s, more leaning towards Greenblatt. Although I agree that text can often be overly interpreted to mean things that are completely off the spectrum of the author’s original intent, I feel that it is impossible to establish any one interpretation of anything; especially when the artist is no longer living. The whole fun of art is the process of taking what the artist has given you and deriving for yourself some sort of meaning or message from it. Once the author has released it, it is put entirely into the public’s hands and should be open for interpretation. Of course there will be disagreements, and of course it will be used in the wrong way from time to time, but that’s what art is. And literature is art.

The Tempest: Appealing to your audience.

There is an article on postcolonialism that introduces the idea of hegemony, or, “the dominant values, sense of right and wrong, and sense of personal self worth” that minorities are consciously and unconsciously asked to mold themselves to. This idea most heavily applies to the colonization of numerous indigenous lands and their inhabitants by the domineering white man, and the portrayal of Native American Indians in early Hollywood westerns. There is no doubt that when writing The Tempest, Shakespeare wrote the character of Caliban as a representation of these native peoples. We are shown this through the initial encounter between Caliban and Stephano. When Stephano first sees Caliban, he believes that he has become the victim of a practical joke asking, “Have we devils here? Do you put tricks upon’s with savages and men of Ind, ha?” He then goes on to say that he will “keep [Caliban] tame” and sell him as a present to a wealthy emperor. Because Caliban is not of the same race or upbringing as him, Stephano immediately names him a savage, believing him to be of a lower and inferior species that can be sold and traded. Stephano’s attitude directly reflects the Colonist’s attitude towards those they met in Africa and the Indie’s. They believed themselves to be of a superior race and felt that it was their duty to save these “others” from their plight by teaching them their ways and molding them into their own hegemony. Because Shakespeare was financially dependent on the wealthy colonists and government officials, he had to write The Tempest in a way that would compliment colonization by writing the character of Caliban into a negative light that ultimately gave natives an unjust stereotype in the same way that movie producers needed to make films that would most appeal to the dominating white population.. Shakespeare did this by composing Caliban as a deformed, crude, and gullible man who will believe and do anything about and for the man who has the liquor; in the same way, movie producers made Indians come across as bloodthirsty savage killers. By making Caliban and Indians truly come off as a “savages”, Shakespeare and Hollywood are both justifying and glorifying the obtainment and enslavement of natives, and by doing this, are naming white colonists the hero and natives the enemy.

The Tempest: Manipulation of a Former Duke.

 

Prospero is one of Shakespeare's more powerful and controlling characters. He is able to manipulate those around him not only with his extraordinary powers, but with his clever use of speech as well. With simple words Prospero is able to twist any situation to make him appear to be the victim so that he can maintain the support of his daughter and servants when he needs to use them for his schemes.  When accused by his daughter Miranda to have conjured up the storm that bared his enemies, he immediately denied having anything to do with the weather claiming that "by accident most strange" the storm had occurred, and that he had taken every care to make sure that "not so much perdition as an hair betid to any creature in the vessel". He then delves into an epic story explaining how he was deceived, robbed and then banished from his Dukedom, by his brother, and marooned on this island. Now of course none of this is true, but because Miranda has grown up with no other company or mentor besides her father, she automatically has to trust and believe everything Prospero says simply because she has no one to tell her otherwise. With no other person to provide her with guidance or company all her life, Prospero has become to Miranda an omniscient god, father, and friend; a consequence he uses this heavily to his advantage.

But Prospero does not use his powers of persuasion exclusively on his daughter. He also uses his rhetoric and powers to manipulate his two servants Ariel and Caliban. Prospero keeps and abuses Ariel and Caliban as slaves, justifying his actions with exaggerated stories that once again, make him appear the victim and they the one’s in debt.  When Ariel requests her freedom, Prospero throws back a fuming no, reminding her, as “he must once in month recount”, how she was enslaved by a horrid witch and trapped in a tree for twelve years before he came along and freed her. Now we don’t know how much if this story is actually true, but the fact that Prospero has to keep drilling it into Ariel’s head every month suggests that this story is too somewhat bogus and that he is brainwashing Ariel into feeling indebted towards him. Because Ariel feels she must continue to repay him, she will continue to serve him until he sets her free. Prospero also defends his reasons of slavery against Caliban, explaining how the reason he went from being treated lovingly to as a slave was because he attempted “to violate the honor of” his child, Miranda. Although Caliban knows the real reason for his mistreatment is Prospero had sucked all of the information he wanted out of him and no longer needed him, he will continue to serve him because he knows how powerful Prospero is and fears that he may use this magic against him. In this way, Prospero is able to maintain control over everyone around him.

A Single Story Response.

          Chimamanda Adichi's speech took an issue that I had already been familiar with and brought it into a new light that had me seeing the situation very differently. Most of us are already aware of the government's manipulation over society by means of changing the way we think and feel towards certain things, but we can't seem put our finger on exactly how or why it happens. As Adichi explains, the views and opinions that we have towards certain peoples, places, and cultures are sprung from an exposure to a single (or one-sided) story; sometimes this is due to the government's manipulation, and sometimes it's result of nothing more than a basic lack of information. Whatever the case, the truth remains that most of the world's opinions and "certainties" are false. Adichi provides many examples of this that are derived from her own childhood. For example, Adichi tells of when she first came to America how her roommate was surprised to find that she was not poor, abused, uneducated, or enlightened in traditional African music; her roommate was exposed to only a single story of Africa, a story that labeled Africa as a single failing country rather than a continent filled with both successful and unsuccessful countries. We are so quick to snatch up anything that is fed to us and  label it as an absolute truth without really taking the time to validate anything, and as result we have created many stereotypes towards people and countries that we don't even fully understand. We have made it only too easy for the government to manipulate our minds and influence us in shameful ways. We need to take the time to hear the full story, too see the real truth, before we make any great judgments.

Bugs always beat the mashed potatoes.

I was sitting in my room building an army tank when an armadillo flung itself at my window. I was shocked and a little offended; normally the animal flinging itself was a platypus. I immediately rose with my machete to investigate. Upon arriving at the window I was surprised and pleased to find the armadillo holding a water skiing lesson with Liza Minnelli on our miniature golf course. Being a water skiing virgin I figured it would be in my best interest to join, so I parked my fork lift and headed outside.
"Utilizing humanity minimizes knotty composed things!"   The armadillo shouted to me as I approached. He was an excellent teacher. I handed him a coffee bean as a sign of my everlasting devotion, and walked to the back of the class where I met a garden gnome named Phantasmagoria. He was purple and looked like a pedophile. I decided not to judge and gave him a hug. He gave me a goldfish. I named him Ruby.
We sat and listened to the armadillo speak, riveted by every syllable that passed his furry lips. At one point during his speech it started to rain diced avocados; in fact, it's still raining. I'm trapped in an avocado mountain with no chips, no cheese,  and no mariachi bands. I guess it all just goes to show, don't go to McDonald's on a Wednesday.