Postmodernism vs. Cat's Cradle

Honestly, I think Cat's Cradle is still somewhat confusing on some different levels. I still do not understand what the MAIN point is in a way, but anyways here goes my blog. 

Postmodernism, the way I understand it, is something that is not really understandable, if you can understand what I just wrote. But it is something that is debated a lot about because there are different theories as to what it truly can be. In the article of Lyotard and Postmodernism, it states that ““Postmodernism”- whatever it is- is an attempt to make sense of what is going on now- and we can see the present clearly only in retrospect.” According to Ihab Hassan in the same article, postmodernism is an “anitform,” “anarchy,” something left to “chance,” “dispersal,” and focused on what is “happening,” just to list a few. Postmodern theories are completely going against modern theories where there are centers and purposes to everything.

            The one example that clearly stands out to me as a postmodern act is the chapters that follow Newt’s painting. According to the article, “postmodernists often create, compose, or paint entirely by chance… to create non-art or anti- art.” In “Cat’s Cradle,” Jonah finds Newt asleep beside his painting of something “small and black and warty. It consisted of scratches made in black, gummy impasto” (164). This “painting” of his definitely follows a non- traditional art form. As Newt, Jonah, Julian Castle, and Angela all look upon the painting, they all come up with their own ideas as to what the painting is of and their own criticisms. It is the “dispersal” of ideas and own views; there is not a central theme as to what the painting is. In a modernist view, the painting would have to have a central meaning as to the purpose of the painting and why it was composed.

            With religion in “Cat’s Cradle,” there is not a central religion per se. The two religions that do occur are Christianity and the made up religion of “Bokonism.” In the Books of Bokonism it warns its readers by saying “All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies” (5). Obviously, there is no true center of religion because there is a choice of one religion over the other. Within Bokonism it is even a broken center, a center that should be based on truths but clearly based on all lies. This is evidence of postmodern theories.

I need somaaa ! (:

So while we were discussing the blog during class a couple days ago, I wrote some ideas that I might want to explore when it comes to doing the actual essay. These are really general and I'm not sure how I might approach these topics exactly, but I'll do it eventually when the time comes.

1. The obsession with the efficiency of society prohibits mankind from being ethical. (Not feeling it much, but I think I can expand.)

2. With the vision of a perfect utopia, also comes their flaws. Or in other words, a "perfect world" cannot exist no matter how hard it is visioned or looked for.

3. The scientific aspect of trying to create a perfect society cannot succeed as long as mankind knows that there is a better, natural order of things.

Using the third idea I had, I tried to think of ways to maybe incorporate Frederick Winslow Taylor's writings. He has four new duties to create a more efficient work environment. The way he assembles the men and how they should "develop a science for each element of a man's work" is like how the hatchery develops Alphas, Deltas, etc. to do specific work in society. The two concepts are connected through conditioning or science in a more general sense. In Taylor's writings, he uses the example of the Bethelhem Steel Company to describe the amount that they produced and what they should be. That's like the idea of how many of each class type the hatchery should be producing. I have a feeling that if I go this route, Taylor's piece of writing will be greatly incorporated into my essay.

And then using Lyotard's Postmodernism article, I saw a section that had a bigger font of writing that said "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world." So upon reading that little bit, I thought of point number two of my ideas. The hatchery and idea that efficiency and progress creates this fake wonderful world filled with pleasure and soma. But because John the Savage comes to have a significant role throughout the novel, "things fall apart." This outsider has brought new ideas of freedom and liberty into a world locked up in invisible chains. He is the "mere anarchy" that let's loose his ideas that come to affect others and their productivity. For example, Lenina when she did not know if she gave a certain chemical to a test tube and many years later the product of that certain test tube dies way before his time. 

I'm pretty sure if I thoroughly read all the articles that can be used I can find way more ideas, but for now, I'm too tired so I'll do it eventually. (: But I have a feeling I will enjoy this essay WAY more than the Tempest. 

We're products of this generation, emphasis on PRODUCTS.

Of course, many parallels were drawn between the video posted by Mr. Dominguez and our novel Brave New World. What I did not expect as much were the same parallels and unexpected truths about our modern society and how schools operate.

For me, the most significant part I remember from the video was the part where Robinson drew the students coming out of the machine in batches. They were grouped according to age, thne further split into different areas of subjects, like math science, etc. Basically, "schools are organized on factory lines; ringing bells, separate facilities" and etc. It is very similar to what they at the Hatchery, "rack-full of test-tubes [entered] a large metal box, another rack-full was emerging" (6). How the citizens of this new industrialization period is almost exactly the same as how schools, in a way, manufacture their students. This modern society is creating a group of "Epsilons, Gammas, Alphas" and whatever name they would like to group humans into just by grouping kids into the same age groups. This is based on the comparison of our society now and in the text. Our society assumes that just because we're all the same age, we learn and function all the same way. With the actuals groups of people from the text, they Hatchery workers modify the newborns to different conditions that class them into their hierarchy.

Another significant parallel I drew was the part from the video where the doctor was giving an "anaesthetic" injection to a student. "Anaesthetics shut your senses off and deaden yourself to what is happening." This line draws a complete parallel to the concept of a "soma" in Brave New World. In the video it mentions that we are given these anaesthetics in order to keep focused on our schoolwork, rather than the bigger picture going on in reality. Well, the "soma" creates that same sense but based for work instead of schooling. The drug allows them to get their fix in a way where they can be more productful.  

Brave New World.

First off, I hated the whole back and forth thing at the end of chapter 3. Just kind of got confusing as to who was talking after awhile, considering that I am somewhat confused on the craziness of this whole society itself. Not really, I just hated the back and forth thing.

According to the readings of chapter 3 in Brave New World, the family and whole system of their being good(faithful, loving, etc.) relationships is undermined. As Mustapha Mond was talking to the children that were receiving a tour, he told them that a home had " no air, no space; an understerilized prison; darkness, disease, and smells" (37). He created an image where the life they were living right now was superior. In the sense that the whole family system was a trap, encasing individuals to lives that were dreadful. With this chapter, Mond goes into detail about his views, and in turn, everybody's views of the "old" world.

And with the passages about Lenina getting ready and talking to her friend, Fanny, it also shed light on the whole not being monogamous in a relationship concept.Doing so, I think it emphasized the corruption of relationships. You are seen as an outcast in a sense if you are devoted to one man or woman. According to Fanny, its not only disapproving in the eyes of the D.H.C. but its "bad form to go on and on like [that] with one man" (41).

Now going back to the whole situation with Mond, when he explains the idea of a home, he speaks about homes and the value of a family as being to tight and "recking with emotion" (37). He basically is saying that the parents suffocated the children with to much love or too much emotional feelings that, in turn, ruined the child for life. So the society itself tried to eliminate all the pleasurable emotions like love, thinking that they created a life where it is perfect and there are no feelings to get in the way of productivity. With the manipulation of life and all the important aspects being eliminated, the value system of life is ruined, and it becomes a life about work and progress, rather than living the moment.

If you didn't notice I did what this chapter did, sort of, with the whole going back and forth thing. Clever right? Just kidding!

Too Many Interpretations.

Warning: I was not in the best of moods while writing this & I'm exhausted. I had a major brain fart. Its just one of those days. So, if this blog seems kind of, ehh, not meaningful in a way I guess, sorry in advance!

In dealing with The Tempest, we have read many articles, had many discussions, and found new ways and also took the interpretations that have been established to explore deeper into the meaning of this play. In George Will's case, he thinks it best to read The Tempest with only one interpretation in mind, while Greenblatt found that it might be more meaningful and realistic that the play had several different interpretations to it. Upon agreeing with Greenblatt, one can see that The Tempest was written to appeal to certain types of audiences at the time, but it can be seen as if Shakespeare was siding with the colonists. Although the central theme of this play seems to be colonialism, the play digs into the deeper meaning between those who are coined the term "savages" and those who come thinking they are the rightful land owner. The article we have read, Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, And Queer Theory somewhat goes into depth on this. Caliban is silenced, like how every minority race is, and Prospero (the colonist) comes and thinks that teaching him the "moral" ways will appeal to Caliban and make him grateful. Just as "the others" would be portrayed, Caliban is the typical image of a savage native. This article also presents the minority writers and thinkers who have thought of new views and many interpretations of one issue. Aime's A Tempest presents the more easy to understand version of what might have occurred between Prospero and Caliban. In her version of the text, she reveals the true feelings of Ariel and Caliban. Both are longing for freedom but both go about in two different ways. This presents more of an understanding that natives are human and not just a different race of people. For me, it sort of presents the idea of the anger and great patience it takes in serving someone that decides to rule over you and treat you like an animal. Taking the different aspects of colonialism into account, most of the articles or texts we have read reveals some corruption within their system. 

I know there are more things than colonialism going on, but all I can think about is the colonial part right now. 

My shot at this confusing issue?

Honestly, I did not really understand anything about these two articles, but I will take a shot at it anyways.

Two scholars, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, are in a debate about "the new emphasis on politics and ideology in the academic study of literature and of Shakespeare in particular."  Will is speaking on how Carol Iannone is making literature sound as if it were politics. But "writers, say the academics Iannone refutes, are captitves of the conditioning of their class, sex, and race." Greenblatt is arguing against Will's article on which he discusses the issues of Iannone and literature. He is saying that although the Tempest was written about imperialism and colonialism, there are still more parts to the play that need to be explored. If we are to only think of the Tempest only pertaining to those issues, then as students we are not able to explore the different subject matter at hand.Greenblatt say that the "best way to kill our literary inheritance is to turn it into a decorous liturgical celebration of the new world order."

If I'm understanding this correctly, I would have to go on the side of Mr. Greenblatt. He is telling us as readers and the writers to explore the different subjects or issues involved with a text. He says that "the art that matters, it is not cement." The meaning is not solid or concrete; we are allowed to think outside the box and see that a text, like the Tempest, can be about not only imperialism, but about colonialism and "social atonement."  All sides of view should be taken into consideration if there is a way to back it up with evidence or reasoning.

Then again, I really did not fully understand these articles and their meaning, so I might have gone completely off topic with this one. But hey, at least I tried!

Caliban=Parallel to Native American?

                

      To start off, Caliban is the very portrayal of Native Americans and the meaning of a savage to the European descents that arrive on the shores of the island in Shakespeare’s “The Tempest.” As Caliban associates with Trinculo and Stephano, the two more dominant figures refer to Caliban as a “servant- monster” (120). The stereotype that Shakespeare created within his play was to portray the way he found native savages to be. But as the way the short video clip “How Hollywood stereotyped the Native American” said that “over the last 100 years, more than 4,000 movies have casted Indians in that role of blood thirsty savages.” Caliban does not fit that particular description but instead conforms to Trinculo and Stephano. He uses words and diction that let Trinculo and Stephano know that they are the dominant ones to get what he wants, instead of being the stereotypical savage that is violent.  With the article of “Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African- American Criticism, and Queer Theory” it states that “the message sent to these “others” by the dominant culture have been clear and consistent- conform and be quiet; deny yourself, and will be well.” In Caliban’s case, he doesn’t necessarily follow this formula.

       I think that Shakespeare is creating an image to appeal to the “white man”; therefore, he is trying to create a justification of colonization (which I do not agree on). In a subtle way, he might be on Caliban’s side, but the overall message is displaying that Shakespeare is on the side of the dominant group. Although Caliban is not following the original “hemegony,” he is still seen as the savage and the lower life form of the trio. Shakespeare portrays Trinculo and Stephano in such a light that they are going to be the ultimate heroes for Caliban and that they are the ones doing him a favor by bringing him out of wrongful, miserable life.  How do we really know what a savage is? If we were to be outsiders to a foreign area or country, should we be considered as savages just because we may not have the same customs or values as the natives? I feel as if the way “savages” are portrayed are unjust because everyone has a different way of living, conforming them may not always be the way to go. Caliban is conformed to the way Prospero wanted him and in turn, he despises what he now knows. But he also uses this as an advantage when he meets Stephano and asks for help to bring Prospero out of power. I guess there is a pros and cons side to everything, but for the overall general picture, the term savage is misleading in getting to understand a person or group of minorities. 

Tempest Act 1, Action!

Prospero is able to gain the outcomes of what he wants through the use of not only his magical powers but by using the only people he has access to, his daughter Miranda and servants, Ariel and Caliban. His words are the most powerful force in manipulating them to follow his orders and create rules for. Just by the first act, you can see what kind of figure Prospero is and what kind of hold he has on his surroundings.

His subtle ways are using the rhetoric form of emotion in order to control his people. In the case of Ariel, one of his servants and a spirit, Prospero reminds him that is was his “magic that saved [him] when [he] arrived on the island” and freed Ariel from the torture that he had endured (Shakespeare 13). In telling the story, Prospero presents the aspect of guilt to make Ariel feel like he owes Prospero everything for saving his life. Therefore, he follows Prospero’s commands in order to feel like he has paid back his debts, although he finds it unfair. Prospero does the same for Caliban. For both of his servants, he uses harsh words in order to feel like he is the superior one compared to lowly dogs that serve him and obey him. The difference between the Ariel and Caliban was that Caliban listens to Prospero more because of his fear in Prospero’s magical powers. When Prospero threatens to hurt Caliban in unimaginable amounts of pain, Caliban is forced to say to himself that he has to “obey… [because] he’s got such strong magic powers that he could conquer and enslave the god, Setebos, that [his] mother used to worship” (17).The use of lust is somewhat in play as well, with Prospero using his daughter and her beauty to lure Ferdinand into following Prospero’s commands. Despite all that Ferdinand lost during the ship wreck, he still manages to tell Prospero that he “could look through [his] prison windows once a day and see this girl. [And he] don’t need any more freedom than that” (23). Prospero purposely brings his daughter with him in hopes that a plan to create a distraction would work. Now that Ferdinand thinks he has fallen in love with Prospero’s daughter, in order to get to her, Ferdinand has to follow the orders of him. The manipulation of words and the use of other people helps Prospero in his ability to control and create a better life.

When talking to each of his servants and daughters, Prospero exaggerates his stories in making him feel like he was the ultimate hero in saving them in one way or another. Prospero uses the nature of words to the best of his ability in order to create a feeling of guilt to make his loyal subjects feel like they owe it to him because he is the cause of their life being spared. He is able to control, basically, the minds of his subjects through fear and other emotions. This manipulation matter relates to our current studies in that leaders or worldly figures utilize the use of emotions and exaggeration of being a hero-like figure to achieve the loyalty of their people or subjects.

That's so dangerous .

The spoken words of Adichie relate to the articles that we have read in class in that they both talk about the single sided, bias of a story or history, etc. The way stories are told manage to lead our minds to believe that that is the absolute truth, and we are forced to look at the subject that certain way. Every story has a side to it, whether it’s from the narrator’s point of view or another character’s. Once roles have been switched, we are told a different side of the story. For the articles on the history textbooks in Texas, those books are becoming biased in that they are going to tell one point of view for each historic event. Truth be told that history is recorded by the winners in a situation. If we are only allowed to view the winner’s point and not explore any of the cold hard facts that surrounded the situation as a whole, then we are forced to miss any details that may have led to the event.

For stereotypical matters, the danger of knowing only one side to a story leads you to perceive that the stereotypes are true. If you only know one thing all your life or you believe that enough evidence backs up the “truth,” then it is going to be difficult to understand the actual reality of things. In Adichie’s case, the incident with her room mate and the single story was dangerous in the sense that she already formed an idea because of stories told to her beforehand. Her room mate then makes the mistake of perceiving Adichie in a way she is not in reality. Minority’s voices are just as important as the majority.  They need to have a say in order to be able to get their point across and delete the existence of stereotypical ideas. In the end, everyone is a person with their own opinions, experiences, and life.

The danger of knowing a single story is that we are missing out on the bigger picture. Details of the little things are left out while the focus is the main point. Adichie went through many experiences pertaining to a single story. The danger of it was that she or the others around her formed ideas in their heads that made them believe that that was the only way it was. It was due to what someone read, heard, or believed they saw. The way words, stories, history, etc is recorded is somewhat of a great importance. In order to be non-biased, facts, and nothing but facts, should be recorded. Even then, it may contain bias because the writer has his/her own opinions. I believe there is really never going to be an un-biased story or history book because each person has opinions and a mind. Robots and an all seeing eye would probably be the only ways to guarantee no bias. Adichie repeats the terms “what if they knew..” If people were to know more than their one general point of view towards something, then there would not be a danger of a single story anymore.

The articles  and Adichie’s words draw a parallel to 1984 in that they all seems to refer to single stories of things. 1984’s government takes control of history and the making of it in that they are able to re-write it in the way they prefer correct. They show their biased views in creating events that most likely never happened to make them see great and winners. The danger of these single sided stories in 1984 and the articles is that they are not able to know the whole truth. The manipulation of reality is able to occur with the manipulation of past events. We then take those manipulated "facts" and turn it into the truth, not knowing that there was ever another side to the story. Overall, the danger is not knowing the absolute truth and creating a biased view point for a certain matter.  

First blog for the year.

First week of school as a senior, accomplished. I am somewhat stressing out already because I have hard classes and too many hours of work. Hopefully it gets easier from here on out. Yeah right, I wish.I cannot wait to graduate!