MAUS II

Once again I don't know what to write about for this essay. So once again I made a simple search on Google and found an interesting interview with Art Spiegelman and Harvey Bloom. Anyway, I fumbled through it until I came across something that had to do with postmodernism (because I don't know how this book relates to it, and I wanted some help) and I found some things.
First of all just the genre that it is in helps to classify it as a postmodern work. The whole, "deconstruction" idea, like trying to break something down, or in Bloom's words, "Postmodernism also implies genre meltdown, so that it gets very hard to classify things, including distinctions between fact and fiction." Its not the traditional comic book. The comic book itself it deconstructed to its simplest form, the form that McCloud refers to as, "juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or produce and aesthetic response in the viewer."
Well, I still dont know what i'm going to write about, and I definately dont have a halfway decent thesis idea, but here are some intersting things I picked up on as i read...
First of all, the irony and self awareness that it employs. I think it's in the 1st chapter when Art and Francoise are driving, and he, says something like, "You'd never let me talk this long in real life." It knows its a comic, and it not trying to be anything more than that by pretending it is actual representation of the holocaust.
2ndly, some of the irony includes two people who die after surviving the entire camp of Auschwitz. The first and probably more obvious is Anja, who committs suicide. I'm guessing she did this out of some sort of guilt, like she didnt feel worthy or something to be alive after tons of people were killed. She must've felt like she hadent done anything special, or that she was just lucky. Either way, its an ironic situation. Another example of this is on page 132. You can go read it if you want but basically one of the guys made it through and got hung right at the very end.
These are just some of the things that I thought were interesting and maybe i could develop them farther when it comes time for me to write this essay.

Google response

After reading Carr’s article, “Is Google making us stupider,” I must disagree with most of his arguments. First of all, no one and nothing can “make” you do anything. You choose to do everything. Weather that means choosing to read an article less closely or “bouncing” from site to site, it is all up to you how deep you look into a certain text. In the article, Carr quotes Bruce Friedman, who said, “I now have almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print,” I however think this claim in context is completely absurd. What I mean is that although this may be true, it is not the internets fault that this man has lost this ability. If he truly wanted to “read and absorb” and article, he just has to be willing to do it. The fact that the internet has made information available to us within just a few seconds makes us think that we don’t need to really learn the information, because the it’s saved into cyberspace. However just because we don’t necessarily need to retain this information is not making us any dumber. After all, we’re the ones who choose not to thoroughly read the article, or who choose to “bounce” around web pages.

Friedman continues to say, “Even a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs is too much to absorb. I skim it.” To me this statement seems ridiculous. I don’t think it has anything to do with the internet that this man doesn’t read articles deeply anymore. To me it just sounds like he’s lazy.

Another thing I didn’t like about the article was how much it generalized. “When we read online…our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged.” First of all, this article is online and I’m pretty sure all of Mr. Dominguez’s AP Literature classes read it. Now how deeply they read it is a different story, but they must have read it deep enough to write a 300 word response to it. So just in doing this assignment I think we’ve proven this claim to be false. Sure, it may be true some people have lost that ability, but to claim that “we” as an entire group have lost the ability is not true.

pseudo-modernism

After watching the, “Did You Know” video and reading part of the article by Dr. Alan Kirby, I think we may indeed be reaching an era of “post postmodernism”. In the article, Kirby calls this idea, “pseudo-modernism.” “Pseudo-modernism includes all television or radio programmes or parts of programmes, all ‘texts’, whose content and dynamics are invented or directed by the participating viewer or listener.” We talked about this same idea in class when we talked about how anyone can post something on the internet. We invent the text, we create new ideas, and as the video shared, “we’re preparing students for jobs that don’t even exist yet.”

Also in this article, Kirby relates this “pseudo-modernism” concept to the show, Big Brother, by saying that without the voters, the audience, the show could not exits. We create the results. “By definition, pseudo-modern cultural products cannot and do not exist unless the individual intervenes physically in them.” Simply take the internet for example, it cannot exist without the information that we put on it. With this information growing exponentially as shown by the video, we stray form the main ideas of post modernism and into those of pseudo-modernism.

“Postmodern philosophy emphasizes the elusiveness of meaning and knowledge.” Pseudo-modernism however doesn’t care how hard it is to define meaning or knowledge. Knowledge is out there, and how or where we get it from isn’t the point. Science for science does not apply, the concept is now science for progression. Knowledge is climbing so fast, we can hardly keep up with it. Okay well this might not make any sense, but oh well.

Cat's Cradle

This book Cat’s Cradle I think has a lot of post modernistic themes within it. The first thing I noticed in this book that seemed to relate most with what we’ve been talking about in class is found in the beginingish of chapter 4. “All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies.” At first, this statement seems like an obvious contradiction, but when I thought about it in terms of what we’ve been talking about in class, I came to realize that nothing can be considered an “absolute” truth. This is why he says that even though the things he says are true, the words he uses to say them are not. However, just because things, or words in particular, can never be absolute truths, does not mean that there can be no truths. I mean, how else would the human race communicate if not for the attachment of “words” to certain objects or even non-tangible things, such as emotion? “Words” are an obvious necessity, even if they are just symbols for the real object, and I find it funny that this seems like a big deal.
Anyway, I also remembered the part in the end of chapter 6 where Dr. Hoenikker questions the true nature of sin. For the sake of the assignment, I’ll quote it. “A scientist turned to Father and said, ‘Science has now known sin.’ And do you know what Father said? He said, ‘What is sin?’” Sin, being a non-tangible object, cannot be clearly represented. Since the word sin cannot be attached to an actual object, it is connected to other words, that are connected to more words. This is similar to what we talked about in class, about not being able to reach an end to definitions, or to find an absolute truth.
Anyway, I mostly just think that even though things or ideas can never exits naturally, they still do exits, because we made them. And that’s ok.

Essay Stuff

So honestly I have no idea what to write about because I don't think I'm very good at just coming up with my own essay prompts. So I cheated and went to spark notes and other internet sources to come up with ideas and to get me thinking. Here are some ideas or possible theses I might like to explore in the upcoming essay:

First of all, I might like to explore the idea that these people are “happy” and talk about the effect that soma has on them. Also the theme truth vs. happiness would be a possibility. I would talk about weather truth is more important than happiness, or vice versa.

I also think it’d be interesting to talk about John and if he is more “free” (as spark notes would say) than the members of the World State. In my opinion he is, because he, unlike most people in this society, reads and studies Shakespeare. This allows him to be able to express how he feels at times where as other people can’t because of there lack of vocabulary.

Another possible essay topic I would like to write about is the power that technology has on the society. In this essay I would talk about how the people take medicine that helps them avoid their true emotion, and are pretty much made artificially in a factory. I also might connect hypnopaedia with modern day hypnosis and discuss their similarities. Are we really that different from this society? Sure they are alive for a different reason, to be efficient, but are we not similar to them in that our lives are centered around technology? Imagine what life would be without a T.V. or without the convenient use of cell phones.

These are the things that I might want to talk about in the essay. Unless I think of or read something better between now and then. In the mean time, thanks the internet.

Myths, Narratives, and Grand Narratives

I think the reason why myths and more specifically narratives are created is to explain the unexplainable. It is human nature to always want to have a right answer, but when one cannot be found, an answer, any answer, is made up. Powell explains Lyotard's theories on why myths work by saying, "Myths legitimize themselves-make themselves believable-just in the telling.” He means that just by telling the story and getting everyone to believe it, the story actually becomes a reality. It is no longer a myth if all of a society agrees on it. In a way, this is how all things work. Like Mr. D’s example with stoplights, green does not actually mean, “go” nor does red mean, “stop.” It is merely the fact that society agrees on a certain color to represent a command that makes those colors have an affect on us.

He continues by saying, “The myth requires no authorization other than itself.” In some ways, the culture becomes based off the myth. “[It] defines what has the right to be said and done in the culture.” Based on what is said in the myth, the standards of society will follow. The myth sets the “rules” in which society lives by.

Grand narratives or metanarratives are similar to narratives only they are, “big stories of mythic proportions, that claim to be able to account for, explain and subordinate all lesser, little local narratives.” Unlike narratives, metanarratives don’t focus on one topic, but instead a more general idea. In my opinion, most religions are metanarratives, composed of many narratives. Most religions have a central idea that is supported by many smaller ideas that support the larger one. These kinds of narratives are created for the same reason, that is to account for something that cannot be proven, only it is on a much larger scale. That’s about all I’ve got to say.

Brave New World

This whole Brave New World book is in my opinion a little sickening. To think that a world exists where humans are “manufactured” seems like an oxymoron in itself. How can a human even be “manufactured?” One can’t. I’d say the “humans” in Brave New World are more like robots than anything. They’re made for specific jobs, to like certain things and to dislike other things.

The whole society in Brave New World seems completely backwards to me. It is socially acceptable to go out with tons of different people, but if you are seeing someone steadily, it is considered abnormal. Furthermore, children are encouraged to play “rudimentary sexual games.” When one child doesn’t do this, the nurse freaks out. She says, “It’s just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play.” If there was one sentence to show how messed up this society was, I think it’d be this one. A little boy who doesn’t want to play erotically? And the nurse takes him to the Assistant Superintendent of Psychology??? Really!? And to top it off, this erotic play is not like an every once in a while thing. It’s, “ordinary.” What does that even mean? As the children grow up, are they exposed to “sexual games” daily? The thought of that really just makes me feel like throw-up.

Also, the idea of hypnopaedia seems like a cool deal, but I feel it is being used in the absolute wrong way. To use it for intellectual gain would be one thing, but it seems like they’re using it to sort of, “brainwash” young kids into liking their particular status. They’re taking away their natural instincts, and replacing it with artificial thoughts. How then, can these children actually be called human? Although it is not these kids’ faults, they still cannot be called human, because as the principle of hypnopaedia is put into effect, the children lose the first basic quality that all humans should possess: being able to think for one’s self. Without this, how can these people or children be called human?

History

I have never really thought about "history" the same way that I am thinking of it now. To me “history” has always been the facts. Year after year, a teacher has taught me what the textbooks tell them to teach us. But as I’ve been thinking, I’ve realized that “history” can never be factual in the same way that other subjects such as mathematics or sciences can be. The reason for this is that in order to write “history” one must recall the situations and events that took place. Therefore, the best source for truth would be the primary source, someone who actually witnessed the event taking place. And to get a more accurate list of these “facts” many points of views must be combined to make a single “fact” that becomes what we know to be, “history”.

But who is to say what is good enough to make it into these textbooks? Why does it matter what you put in the curriculum? What is important? Can the question of importance ever be answered? I think not. Here we find the dilemma of religion being inserted into textbooks or staying out of them. We all know that separation between church and state is a huge part of our country, but where is the line drawn between the two? Do we exclude any and all forms of religion? Or is it ok to teach about religions, but not necessarily to preach them. If we make it ok to teach about religions, we will encounter the problem of biased teachers and even students. Religion is an emotional thing, in which people get very passionate about. If a textbook teaches about the principals of Christianity, and the course is being taught by a teacher of another faith, the class lecture could easily erupt into a religious debate. On a similar note, if not all religions are represented within the text, then the text itself becomes biased.

This brings us back to the question, where is the line drawn? Once the influence that one religion has had on a country enters a textbook, all religions and their “influences” (again, who is to say what religions have or have not had significant impact on a country?) must be entered. If this is the case, will then other historical figures such as Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall be “vaporized” as Sean pointed out, or as the article suggests?

With all these questions in play, one must consider the consequences that inserting religion into textbooks would have.