"Cat's Cradle" and Postmodernism

       There is plenty of evidence that Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle is a Postmodernist text; it is a novel that does not conform to the form or beliefs of the many novels that preceded it. In the very first pages of the book itself, without even touching on the novel reveals this partly. To begin, the table of contents reveals that a book of about 290 pages has 125 chapters. If that was not strange enough the words printed almost at the very front of the entire piece is "Nothing in this book is true." These are obviously not the basic constructs of a Modernist text; definitely not following the shape or form of what were considered "ideal" frames for books. But first appearances can be deceiving. However the text proves its Postmodernist intentions. One thing that the novel attacks is religion, specifically Christianity. The main character early on describes himself as "I was a Christian then." as he begins his book of remembrance. Yet he presents himself as a a very un-Christian like soul. He describes how he had "...more than fifty-three women..." and shows absolutely no regret for that in any way. He also reveals himself to be someone so easily swayed by the words of Bokonon and believes that "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."; foma being "harmless untruths". I believe Vonnegut is using John and Bokononism as a way to express his overall belief that religion is just that; a series of lies that humans use to justify their lives and provide them comfort. He also satirizes how we look upon religion as in one example, he describes how the people of San Lorenzo have a base they called "Jesus Christ." This is definitely not a part of the Modernist theories and the way he could present such a dark and disturbing view is also different in its presentation. The satirical view of the humans and religion is what makes it a Postmodernist work; and overall a potent one at that.               

Forming "Brave New World" Topic

       Alrighty then, that sure was a happy book huh? Well time to move on then. In my Brave New World essay I want to connect the present day world to the novel and try to discuss how Aldous Huxley predicted some aspects of the future; similar to our 1984 essays in which we had to also connect the novel to the present. I want to say that Brave New World is the direction the world may have actually been headed toward. I want to use primarily as my examples in my argument for the present are Neil Postman's From Technocracy to Technopoly, Sir Ken Robinson's youtube video, and both Brave New World Revisited and a letter to the author George Orwell from Aldous Huxley. Neil Postman's writing describes like the title says our turn from a Technocracy to a Technopoly and will definitely help go over the history Huxley might have been working upon and the efficiency is always being headed towards even to the extremes. I would use the Robinson video as a way to discuss the present day parallels to Brave New World especially that of the educational system and that restriction on curiosity and intrigue. And finally I will use Brave New World Revisited by Huxley to describe what he was doing when he wrote it, some points that he tried to make, and gain an insight into the mind of this writer and hopefully help the stance that I am taking. I also wanted to use Huxley's letter to Orwell because within it Huxley describes his own piece of writing while also complimenting and discussing 1984 which I think is both intriguing and helpful in content. Overall I think these sources will help make a really intriguing essay. Hopefully though I may do a little more research and draw on some more sources preferably on the bio-medicine aspect of the novel. However, I think the choices that have been chosen will suffice and still stay on topic.  

Is an Education Worth It If It Makes You Stupider?

       Well I have watched the video and must say Sir Ken Robinson is absolutely right; but also paints a disturbing picture of what our educational system has become and that it sometimes closely resembles the world of Brave New World. Sir Robinson as a part of his discussion describes the so called "ADHD Epidemic." He tells us that ADHD medication is given out to kids who just can't sit still or concentrate; but why can't they do this. Robinson poses that it is not a legitimate medical reason but that the curriculum and entire learning experience is boring. So what do we do, feed them drugs to calm them down; and stifle their active imaginations at the same time. And well in Brave New World  there is "...always soma, delicious soma, half a gramme for a half-holiday, a gramme for a week-end, two grammes for a trip to the gorgeous East, three for a dark eternity on the moon; returning whence they find themselves on the other side of the crevice, safe on the solid ground of daily labour and distraction..." The people of the novel utterly disappear in this substance and become restrained by it; and of course it sponsored and handed out by the government. The only difference here is that the government knowingly restricts the peoples minds. At another point in his discussion, Robinson also discusses how the schools are now organized on factory lines, we educate children batches, and its as if their "date of manufacture" (age) is most important. In Brave New World, these are things necessary to their world motto is "Community, Identity, Stability." It is scary to see these parallels and we need to find a way to escape the hold of these wrong teachings and ideals hopefully escaping these parallels to Brave New World and hopefully find safety and a different way.         

The Loss of Modern Civilization in Huxley's "Brave New World"

       In this quotation from Mustapha Mond:  "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." the reader is given the uncomfortable feeling of something slightly off. There is an unsettling quality in the words of the Resident Controller of Western Europe, yet that does not stop him from being absolutely correct about how the value system of Brave New World. This is a world which runs on "Community, Identity, and Stability"; everyone has their own place in the world, Alpha pluses at the top and Epsilon minuses at the bottom; and all work and are treated according to their position. And in this world of pleasure run a muck, the only ones who can lead it are the ones not prey to the pleasures; with their goal of maintaining a unified and controlled society.
       Humanity is now under the control of the government and manipulated for their own means. The word "family" is nonexistent in the sense that we have today. "Mother" and "father" are considered "smutty" words. To be a "parent" is to be an outcast. Monogamy is even a foreigner experience than parenthood, and is in fact has disappeared. It is considered normal and appropriate to "'Have somebody else from time to time...'" as opposed to staying with the same person the entire course of a relationship. People are encouraged to act impulsively and that "'Impulse arrested spills over, and the flood is feeling, the flood is passion, the flood is even madness: it depends on the force of the current, the height and strength of the barrier. The unchecked stream flows smoothly down its appointed channels into a calm well-being.'" Feeling is almost nonexistent, as the D.H.C. stated, "No pains been spared to make your lives emotionally easy-to preserve you, so far as that is possible, from having emotions at all." It is a place that is driven by desire and pleasure and in this way this world's people are trapped.     
    

Taking a Stand on Literature

       In the analyzation of literature, especially those of controversy ( really all literature is controversial, I know), such as Shakespeare's The Tempest, one issue has been brought up that is quite serious and the decision on this issue can heavily impact the educational community and the analysis of this play; that is, the issue of whether to judge a piece of literature on at its face value (by what is on the page), or by its history and its context (the story behind the story). On one hand, we have George Will, a political commentator for Newsweek. He sets his  position on the former of the two sides. He believes that people should go on what is presented them on the page and that the over analysis of literature makes "...the literary canon...an instrument of domination..." and "...radically devalues authors..." He thinks that the text itself is the "concrete" that should be tread upon in analysis. Thus something as The Tempest is to be judged primarily or solely on the fantastical revenge story presented. On the other hand, we have Stephen Greenblatt who believes that the historical context is extremely necessary, and in the case of The Tempest, all the stories behind the story makes for a better, more detailed, and righteous analysis of the text. However, my own view has yet to be seen, so thus I have to say that there needs to be a balance been the two because the fact is that both are extremely important for a full analysis; and to find that The Tempest has more to say than the text presents and presents a view on colonialism and its treatments of its victims that was appropriate for the times but considered wrong for the present day. In my analysis I plan on using both arguments to support my thoughts as well as Aime Cesaire's A Tempest because it insinuates Shakespeare's intentions. That's all folks, buenos noches.     

The Abyss of Literature

       If you were to see an abyss, what would you think of it? It would present you with a scene of awesome scale; something both beautiful and frightening, only that of nature can bring. But, is this the only way you can view it? Of course not, but instead you could view it from the abyss itself. Where a small stream runs and strange animals which one has never seen before or even thought could exist. New life is brought to the abyss, and a beauty you could never have known unless you went down there; searching for the answers to how it got there and why it is here. And thus is the debate between George Will and Stephen Greenblatt on the abyss of literature.
        George Will, writer for Newsweek, discusses his position on the state of literature and how it should be read and analyzed. He states that "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." and he says that "The supplanting of esthetic by political responses to literature makes literature primarily interesting as a mere index of who had power and whom the powerful victimized." Will believes that a narrative should be analyzed really by just going on the narratives merit because he believes that if literature is judged in this way, the "...literature canon..." becomes "...an instrument of domination." On the other hand Stephen Greenblatt, believes that critics of delving deeper into a text do not want to deal with "The painful, messy struggles over rights and values, the political and sexual and ethical dilemmas that great art has taken upon itself to articulate and grapple with..." And in rebuttal to Will's statement that the face value of a text "...is the nation's cement..." he says "But art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing." In short he believes that analyzing literature in this way is not only essential for an analysis but an essential part to understand the elusiveness of a text and its purpose.
       Personally I believe that we need to analyze behind the text and take it for more than just face value. It needs to be done because it completes the text in a way; causes it to come in full circle and brings it to a new light. Greenblatt is correct in his assessment but Will is not completely wrong; a full analysis still needs the bare text just as much as the back story. But we need to be willing to take the plunge; to face the possibility of something terrifying, or something beautiful to find the answer to the question: why is it here?  

The Bastardization of a Culture and its Victim Caliban

       In complete knowledge of stating the obvious, the world is big. In a word enormous. IT is full of varying cultures with their different beliefs and cultures; each one special in its own right, making that culture unique. Yet, in this glorious present day, with the days of Imperialism are supposedly over, why is it that, according to Charles Bressler's Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, "Colonialism is not a thing of the past but continues today-albeit in subtler and less open ways..." Maybe people need to be reminded of the obvious, because this as Bressler says is "...a form of oppression..." and needs to be eradicated.
       This impulse is not as subtle as it is today as it was long ago; these ideals of superiority existed long before our time and as early as there was the feeling of supremacy of another. The beliefs of what is right and what is wrong is spread by its culture as propaganda and as seen in the colonization of the 17th century, goes to infect the cultures of others. What to a people may seem wrong or uncivilized in another may be perceived as being just as civilized. And thus the cycle begins in which there is no real end; a cycle filled with false perceptions, misinformed, interpretations, and the inevitable impressment of a culture to another.
       This is just the case with the character Caliban. This was a man who was forced to adopt the "ways of civilization." And as described in the chapter in Bressler's book, "Forced labor of the colonized..." ensued. Shakespeare in a way both sympathizes with Caliban while also projecting the stereotypes of the era. Caliban is constantly being treated as he is described as the characters, "savage" or "monster", but is someone who in fact only wishes to have his own home back; without any foreign disruptions. And there is the only sympathy we have for Caliban, the kind of sour feeling of the maltreated creature, and the rest turns to stereotypes. Caliban is so quickly turned to saying "I will kiss thy foot. I prithee, be my god." to Stephano (the drunk butler no less), because he gave Caliban a drink of wine or as Caliban recounts "...liquor from the heavens...". That idea that a person can be so taken by the gifts that only a "civilized" world could bring forth is not only stereotypical but also presenting Shakespeare's own beliefs of the natives of the New World, being able to be bought for so little and willingly do anything luxurious from the Old World. And then we have the violent prospects of the "savage" exemplified in Caliban's description of ways to kill his present master. As he speaks to Stephano of what he may do he says the following, "...thou mayst brain him...", "...or with a log Batter his skull...", "...paunch him with a stake..."(to stab into the belly), "...Or cut his weasand with thy knife."(to cut the windpipe of). These suggestions give of this feeling of viciousness and ferocity that can only come from stereotypes.
       The question is will Prospero die because of the actions of Caliban and will Caliban ever be able to reclaim his home?     

Prospero, the Conjuror, the Real Duke of Milan, and a Guilt Abusing Old Codger

       Wow, what an intriguing first act of The Tempest; and even early on we can notice the similarities between Shakespeare's  fantasy classic and Orwell's science fiction masterpiece. Two works of two very distinct natures with a similarity important in both. That is of course, the obscuring of history to appear in the right. As in 1984 it was the Party and their need to always be correct, to appear to always be in a state of absolute perfection; it is the case in The Tempest. History is altered by the scorned Duke of Milan so that he may use it as a persuader to justify his actions to all those whom he controls.
       We first get a taste of this in his discussion with his daughter, Miranda. She is both sickened and saddened for she has"...suffered with those that..." she "..saw suffer." at the hands of her father and the "supposed" cruelty in which he stirred a storm and a sank a vessel thereof. Even though she tells how "... the cry did knock against my very heart!" Yet, how does her father justify this action? But with nothing less than a horribly sad story. He tells of his brother who, as he says, "...whom next thyself of all the world I loved and to him put the manage of my state..." and of how his "perfidious" brother would "...should presently extirpate me and mine out of the dukedom..." of Milan and did. He then goes on to explain how after arriving on the island by "providence divine," how he, with no doubt a purposefully placed attempt to extract from guilt from her describes how he "...made thee more profit than other princesses.." And only after he has a control over her emotions, and having made her mourn their bitter history, does he reveal the reason for his actions.
       In a similar way, does he control the actions of both Ariel and Caliban. Even though Ariel has"..done thee worthy service, told thee no lies, made thee no mistakings, served without or grudge or grumblings." He is in a supposed debt to Prospero for him so kindly "...that made gape the pine..." from whence he was trapped "...and let thee out." And is the case of Caliban the deformed slave of Prospero "... born of an old hag..." and as Prospero says "... I have used thee, filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged thee in mine own cell..." There is a definitive pattern to Prosperos persuasions, that he was never once in the wrong in anything that he had done or any any action he has committed. He tries to rely on the sympathy of the audience in question. The question now is, how long can he control these very desperate peoples with this technique and what will come next?


 

Fighting Against a Single Story View

       What a wonderful world we live in. A world full of ideas and opinions that can coincide with one another or contrast but either way not all of them will be the same. My question is, how can we just take and accept one view as truth, when we should explore all others as well?
       The fact is we are all guilty of this, whether it be consciously or unconsciously, we will have a limited view of something. We share the common flaw of, as the writer Chimamanda Adichie calls it, going by a "single story." What Adichie believes and what I believe as well, is that we need to destroy this limitation of the "single story" view and be willing and able to decide our beliefs for ourselves and not have to depend on others to form them for us. In Adichie's interview "The Danger of a Single Story," she reveals many different examples of having these limiting views and from them spring an immense mix of ignorance and stereotypical thought. Her description of her time in America is composed primarily of her being constantly singled out by her ethnicity more than anything else. She tells of a roommate she once had and the shock she had when she heard her speak English so well, not knowing that English was the national language of Adichie's native country Nigeria. And then the same roommate continued to assume that Adichie was in fact unfamiliar with simple technologies like a stove for instance. For much of her time in school she was expected to know things about Africa whether or not it was involved with her home country or not. She herself formed these ignorant type of ideas in her own life about the illegal immigration of Mexicans into the U.S.; people, as she was told by the media, were desperate and miserable, only to find that they were just a group of people living their lives.
       We cannot allow ourselves to be reliant on one view presented us; we need to be capable of looking at other view and must escape from these shortened views of a much larger world and only then can we determine what is right what is wrong, what are lies and what are truths.

Some Pictures I Took Of The Golden Gate and Alcatraz Over the Summer!