Cat's Cradle and Modernism

so, i just got home from a night of ice skating and teazer's tea. definitely got pulled over by the cops. scary. but yeah, this post is due in less than five minutes and i just started, sadly. the best i can do is present you with this analysis of postmodernism of Cat's Cradle i found online. i did not want to simply disregard the assignment, and this is the best i can do considering the time i have to complete this. sorry i didn't do it yesterday, but at least i didnt lie and plagarize? heh :)

When talking about Bokonon, the whole Bokononism is a kind of postmodernist religion. The ending - ism itself refers to the thesis, which all these -isms claim, (capitalism, communism, socialism?) and that is: that only their -ism is the right one for the world. The founder of Bokononism was Lionel Boyd Johnson, whose name was corrupted by the island dialect. Bokononism contains the postmodernist misreading, combination and anarchy at once. Even the first verse in the Book of Bokonons says: "All of the true things that I am to tell you are shameless lies." Here we can see Vonnegut's opinion about religion. He tells us, that people always look for something to what they can believe. "Truth was the enemy of the people, because the truth was so terrible, so Bokonon made it his business to provide the people with better and better lies." The religion just covers the horrible truths out there. Bokononism is like a play. All the people are actors, which are fed with lies and like in a Christianity or other religions, they don't question it, they just blindly follow it. They believe in their made up religion, they believe in something which is not. Like Cat's Cradle, which for some people is just a bunch of strings, for some a real image of a Cradle. The crisis of Christianity (religion) is according to Vonnegut: "The adults can not regard themselves as God's little sheep anymore." In another interview he says: "We can not believe in Christianity anymore, we know too much about the world." (Zelenka, 87) This a postmodernist feature, which is typical for many postmodernist books. The main faith is not based in some religion, but in man himself. Vonnegut states a very original opinion about God's creation: "Whoever writes about other humans, and creates their pains, loves, sorrows and passions, he tastes personally the process of God's creation and for these characters he becomes a God himself." (Zelenka, 89) Even Felix Hoenikker was described as person so innocent, that he was pract ically a Jesus. The essay "Understanding Religion Through Cat's Cradle" presents further analysis of Jesus and Christianity. "Once the comparison is made it is surprisingly relevant in that Jesus created a religion that would, over time, cause hundreds of thousands of deaths also." (3)

http://kurtvonnegutcorner.eu/essay-collection/c2006013108-Postmodernist-Features-in-Vonnegut-s--i-Cat-s-Cradle--i-.html

Developing a Topic for Brave New World

This “Brave New World” that we have read about manipulates its members of society from birth. Sir Ken Robinson’s video regarding the system of education includes some parallels to Brave New World. George Orwell's novel, 1984, does as well. Throughout the video, Robinson criticizes education today and the road to getting a college degree and job. He explains that our level of creativity decreases as our ages increase. In Brave New World, creativity is shut out from an early age so that there is no such thing at all. Robinson also brings up the question of why we are taught in classes grouped by age. He throws out the notion that kids these days are being educated in the same way goods are manufactured. He says, "only thing important about the children is date they’re manufactured." This relates to the idea of Brave New World. The children are placed into a certain lifestyle before they are born. Humans are made to work and function the way that the leaders want them to. "Wheels must turn steadily, but cannot turn untended." This means that the people in Brave New World are being monitored so that they all function the same. In schools these days, kids are taught the same principles, and are tested on the same skills. There is no room for creativity, as Robinson points out in his video. As students grow older and learn about what is valid and real, they shut out creativity and the ability to see things that are extraordinary

Brave New World has parallels in 1984, because of the way each society controls their members. However, Brave New World has more positive tactics and controls them through pleasure, while 1984 uses pain and strict rules. Although these differences are quite contrasting, both tactics are aimed at the same purpose. Both societies keep their subjects from feeling genuine emotion. These tactics keep the citizens from causing rebellion or distress among the people; it keeps everything in order. Also in that from birth, they teach the children that live in their societies to be robots. They follow the same routines because they are told to do so, in 1984 with the junior spies and in Brave New World, with the children displaying sexual acts because they were taught to do so.

Brave New Education?

Earlier this week in AP literature, we watched a video by Sir Ken Robinson. The video consisted of Sir Ken Robinson’s view on education in today's society and the flaws it is based on. His beliefs were illustrated with vivid animations. Personally, the video was quite interesting and brought up some very good points. Throughout the video, Robinson criticizes education today and the road to getting a college degree and job. He explains that our level of creativity decreases as our ages increase. In Brave New World, creativity is shut out from an early age so that there is no such thing at all. Robinson also brings up the question of why we are taught in classes grouped by age. He throws out the notion that kids these days are being educated in the same way goods are manufactured. He says, "only thing important about the children is date they’re manufactured." This relates to the idea of Brave New World. The children are placed into a certain lifestyle before they are born. Humans are made to work and function the way that the leaders want them to. "Wheels must turn steadily, but cannot turn untended." This means that the people in Brave New World are being monitored so that they all function the same. In schools these days, kids are taught the same principles, and are tested on the same skills. There is no room for creativity, as Robinson points out in his video. As students grow older and learn about what is valid and real, they shut out creativity and the ability to see things that are extraordinary.

Brave New World Order

Mustapha Mond states that "Wheels must turn steadily, but can not 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." Brave New World focuses on the creaton and manipulation of human life. In the state of growing, humans are put through numerous circumstances so they will be adapted to their predestined future. Mustapha utters these words with the belief that human life is not stable on its own. Each individual's "wheels", or brains must be put into gear so that these individuals can be useful to this new society. However, these brains cannot be allowed to opperate freely. Without guidance, society would only fall into chaos.  While giving his speech to the boys, Mustapha Mond blames the previously sacred institutions of family, love, motherhood, and marriage for causing social instability in the old society. According to the state's motto, the reason for all this artificial reproduction is to provide stability in their community, and personal feelings and sacred institutions only conflicted with this goal. Therefore, these institutions are removed so that individuals are trained only to focus on what is important to the state. This also goes with what Mond says about wheels that can not turn untended. It is important that they guide the growth of produced adults so that emotion, religion, etc. is eliminated at an early start. War, disease, and such is eliminated and everyone lives together toward a soul purpose.
Commonly throughout the chapter, Henry Foster states, "Every one belongs to every one else." In relation to Mond's words, Henry is building off of the fact that there are no feelings of love or commitment in their world. Relationships are not true relationships in which only two people commit to each other. For example, Henry and Lenina are dating, yet she accepts Bernards invitation to his place. Also, Henry conversates with another man in the changing room about Lenina and talks of her as if she is a piece of meat. Henry says to the other man that in time, he will have her too. These words are not unusual, especially since Lenina treats herself in the same manner.

Preparing to Write about The Tempest

The Tempest can be interpreted in various ways. In George Will’s Literary Politics, he argues that The Tempest can only be analyzed through a political viewpoint. However, there are undoubtedly other ways to think about this text. For one thing, Aime Cesaire's version, A Tempest, puts the story into a new perspective. Although the thought of colonialism has been brought up numerous times in out class discussions, Aime Cesaire’s revisioning of the play further develops this concept. By rewriting the dialogue of the characters, she directs the readers’ attention to the relationship between Caliban and Prospero. With her revsioning of the play more focused on this relationship, it becomes easier to grasp the theme of colonialism. As she constructs the dialogue in a way that reveals more of Caliban and Ariel’s feelings, we are able to grasp how natives must have felt during British colonial practices. In the last scene of Cesaire’s work, Ariel and Caliban are found discussing their status as slaves of Caliban. While Ariel believes in achieving freedom in less violent means, Caliban deems Ariel’s beliefs as foolish. Caliban, a symbol of the natives dring British colonialism, believes in taking back his land through force and war. His thoughts can very well be compared to the colonists’ rebellion toward British authority during the American Revolution. Furthermore, In Literarcy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice), Charles Bressler also contends that colonialism is a central theme in The Tempest. Bressler supports Caliban’s thoughts on the idea of learning a new language by describing Fanon’s thoughts on the matter. “Fanon believes that as soon as the colonized…were forced to speak the language of the colonizer…the colonizer either accepted or were coerced into accepting the collective consciousness of the French [the colonizers].” Alone and forced to provide for his master, Prospero, Caliban serves as a symbol to any race or group of peoples that have been oppressed or colonized. As Bressler puts it, Caliban is one of the “Others. Therefore, taking these positions into account, we can see that The Tempest is a play focused on the topic of colonialism.  

A Literary Debate

Okay so I hope I wasn’t the only one who has a difficult time reading this but I learned that George Will, a Newspeak columnist, and Stephen Greenblatt, college professor, are two intelligent men with opposing arguments regarding the politicization of literary studies, particularly Shakespeare’s The Tempest. While George Will happens to believe that the The Tempest is centered on political views, Greenblatt disagrees. He says that numerous things like religion, politics, and colonization together influence the way an author writes, and that there is always a message that the author is trying to portray. In Will’s essay, he states, "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." This quote clearly exemplifies Will’s take on the matter. He also claims that “as esthetic judgments are politicized, political judgments are estheticized: the striking of poses and the enjoyment of catharsis are central in the theater of victimization in academic life.” Will claims that every piece of writing involves some type of political reference. It is a part of literature that cannot be avoided, in his opinion. On the contrary, Stephen Greenblatt declares that, “it is similarly difficult to come to terms with what The Tempest has to teach us about forgiveness, wisdom, and social atonement if we do not also come to terms with its relations to colonialism." By this, Greenblatt claims that The Tempest presents many ideas as well as the subject of colonialism, and we must learn to take all of these ideas into account. In my opinion, I believe that both men present interesting concepts. It is true that a great deal of literature can be interpreted in a political way, whether they are intended to be or not. Actually, most things in our world can be interpreted through a political viewpoint. However, although this is possible, not everything is meant to be interpreted in this way. I believe that authors write to convey some type of message, whether it is a religious, emotional, or ethical message, and politics fit into this concept. Politics is not the center of all literature, it is an individual message within literature, just as religion and colonization. Therefore, I side with Stephen Greenblatt on this matter. I hope this makes sense…

The Tempest, Act II and Act III: What is a Savage?

In the article, "Cultural Studies," by Charles Bressler, an interesting question is asked: "how...do we come to agree upon public and social concerns...if reality is different for each individual?" This is where the idea of hegemony emerges. This term states that “the dominant values, sense of right and wrong, and sense of personal self worth” that are contained within a society are unique to that culture; those that are a part of a culture must conform to the prescribed hegemony. This idea represents white settlers and their ability to conquer land throughout America along with its primary inhabitants. The natives that previously owned the land are looked upon as savages because they do not speak the same language or look similar to the white race. This article relates to the Tempest in the form of the character of Caliban. He is portrayed as a foolish, unintelligent creature that is below the rest of the island's inhabitants. This can be seen as Prospero makes Caliban feel lowly in Act I when he constantly states that he is the one the taught Caliban words. Miranda too sees Caliban as a savage because he did not know their language when they first arrived at the island. Caliban was on the island first, so maybe in his eyes, Prospero and Miranda were the savages. In Act II, as Stephano stumbles across Caliban for the first time he questions, "What’s the matter? Have we devils here? Do you put tricks upon ’s with savages and men of Ind, ha?" Because Caliban does not look the same way that Stephano does, Stephano automatically assumes that he is some type of monster when in reality they are both human, yet merely separate races. This concept is also reflected in the video "How Hollywood Stereotyped the Native Americans." As far back as Hollywood films date, Native Americans have been stereotyped as savages and inferiors to the Euro Americans. This has taken place for so long that it is hard to see the Native Americans in a more positive light. Movie after movie, the Native Americans have been degraded, mocked, and humiliated, and simply because they had a different way of doing things. One white man stated the the indians were "not even human." Their clothes were different, as well as their utensils, weapons, and languages, and the Euro Americans came on their land, saw this, and felt the need to conform these "savages" into their own way of living. They believed that they were more intelligent and advanced, yet they were all equal. The technology of the white people may have been more advanced but is that what sets a savage apart from a human? Is it technology, is it appearance, or is it certain intellectual aspects? I believe that a savage is not based on either of these. The dictionary's definiton is: uncivilized; barbarous. In my opinion, a savage is someone that is out of control and facing moral corruption, regardless of race. Every person has their own interpretation of what is uncivilized and barbarous, and to Stephano, Prospero, and Hollywood's white colonists, anything that is not of the white race is savage.

and i dont know how to un-hilight this so if you know, comment below please haha.

The Tempest, Act I: Prospero's Manipulative Character

Prospero is a name derived from the Spanish word prospero, meaning happy, prosperous, and successful. Prospero proves to be quite an efficacious character in Act I of Shakespeare's The Tempest. His sly nature allows him to control those around him as he falsely displays affection towards them. For example, Prospero leads Ariel to believe that he has done so much for Ariel and that Ariel practically owes him his life. When Ariel complains even for a second, Prospero is quick to hush him. He questions Ariel “Hast thou forgot the foul witch Sycorax, who with age and envy was grown into a hoop? Hast thou forgot her?”  He reminds Ariel of his torturous past and tells him that he should not forget who is responsible for his sparing. In this way, Prospero manipulates Ariel into believing that Prospero is a good man and should be repayed.

Prospero uses his cunning tactics on his own daughter, Miranda. As he tells her the story of his past, he makes sure that she is intently listening and completely interested in his words. He asks “Dost thou attend me?” "Dost thou hear?" She obediently assures him that she is listening and hanging on his every word. This pleases Prosperous to know he has her undivided attention. Prospero proves to be manipulative once again when Ferdinand, the new king of Naples, arrives on shore. Ferdinand and Miranda fall in love at first sight as Prospero has planned; however, it is not enough. He meddles with her love life even further by personally placng hardships into the young couple's relationship. He leads Miranda to believe that he does not trust Ferdinand when indeed he has planned for them to be together in the first place. In 1984, O'Brien leads Julia and Winston to believe that they are all part of an organization against Big Brian, but O'Brien has been working against them all along just as Prospero is playing two different roles in this scene.

Lastly, Prospero's decietful character can be seen through his relationship with Caliban. Caliban described how he had love for Prospero when he fist set foot on the island. Caliban showed Prospero every aspect of the land and in return, Prospero taught Caliban his language.  Caliban took advantage of Prospero's kindness and tried to harm his daughter, Miranda. Therefore, Prospero turned away from Caliban and shut him in a cave to live as his servant. Prospero inflicts fear upon Caliban with threats of severe pain so that Caliban will obey Prospero's demands. This is similar to the way O'Brien inflicts fear and pain upon Winston in order to conform Winston to the ways of the Party.

the text book issue.

Last week we had a socratic circle discussion regarding history textbooks throughout the United States. According to "Texas Conservatives Win Curriculum Change" by James C. McKinley Jr., the group of people who come together to decide the context of the hitstory textbooks in the state of Texas are mainly Republican; therefore, the context chosen is biased. The books are more conservative, American capitailism is made superior, and Republican political philosophies are presented in a more positive light. The board only puts in the information that they want the students to learn about. They leave out anything that makes Republicans look bad or anything they believe to be unimportant. With these changes, the board believes that they are "adding balance." However, they are further tipping the balance to the right. The board should allow all of American history to be open to the public, unbiased. Students across Texas deserve the opportunity to learn about American history, whether thay are willing to take this opportunity or not.

Textbooks in Texas, and many other states, fail to include minorities consistently. Hispanic board members work to include more Latino role models for the state's large Hispanic population; however, they are constantly denied. It is important that minority groups, as well as caucasians, are a part of American history. The unique thing about America is that it is composed of many different cultures and ethnicities. In America, anyone can come and be free of discrimination. Furthermore, it was the Native Americans who had first founded America, and history textbooks do not digress on the matter. In the textbooks, students only learn about the struggles of Native Americans and how they were pushed off of their land. The books fail to mention their accomplishments and their heroic leaders. Even in Hollywood, they are portrayed as savages. In our socratic circle discussion, as we were talking about minorities discarded from our textbooks, I realized that i could name many important caucasian figures in American history, but it was quite difficult for me to recall more than one or two Hispanic figures. This only strengthens the point that the minority groups of America are being neglected in terms of history. A student in our discussion brought up the point that the reason most minority groups can not be included in the early American history is because they were not around at the time. This is a good argument; however, how do we truly know what groups were around at the time? The notion that only white people existed during the basic founding of America has probably been placed into our minds by people like the Republican board members of Texas. History has proven to be skewed when we were little as we learned that Christopher Colombus sailed around the world, when it was actually Ferdinand Magellan.

As we further discussed the textbook issue in our circle, we once again brought up the fact that the majority of the board members are Republican and these members come together to decide the context of our books. We realized that this board does not include historians. Furthermore, Dr. McLeroy, who seems to have a strong opinion on the textbook issue, is actually a dentist. Dentistry is completely irrelevant to history. It seems that the obvious way to resolve this issue is to have historians write the textbooks. They are unbiased and know the real American history. It was also called to attention that there should be separation of politics and education, just as there is separation of church and state. This a great idea. Why should politics get in the way of our education? It is important for students to learn all of American history in an unbiased manner. American history is important because it is a part of our culture as Americans. Furthermore, a student in our circle mentioned that it is important for us to learn history so that we do not end up repeating our mistakes. This is a valid point. If politicians get in the way and make their party appear superior and perfect, we will not know of their mistakes, and it is most likely they will take place once more in the future.