Blog Portfolio Quarter 2

Coverage:


We Can't Think of Something That Doesn't Exist

•  28/10/10

Children are so gullible

•  1/11/10

Know What You're Fighting For

•  7/11/10

A Backlash Against Women- in the novel and in our lives

•  8/11/10

Love: Women's Bane

• 21/11/10

Fiction is an Art

•  22/11/10

Good vs. Bad

• 29/11/10

Depth:


Love: Women's Bane

This is my semi-commentary on a passage, which I felt I discussed pretty well. I enjoyed talking about the literary elements and what they did to the excerpt, as well as the over-arching ideas. Also, I looked up other people's thoughts on love, which are quite... unique.

Interaction:

A Backlash Against Women

Although at first I merely blogged about the article Blame it on Feminism, I later went back and read other people's responses to the article. I found Julie's particularly thought-provoking, and so I added to my post in response to Julie's.

Discussion:


Know What You're Fighting For 


This blog started a good conversation about limitations on women, and spreading to the limitations on everyone in the world, and how this problem could be solved- or if it could. I found the comments fascinating, both the ones that agreed with me and the ones that didn't. I think I learned a lot and thought about things I usually don't think of.


Xenoblogging:


Nina's blog: Can we overcome the beauty myth?

Nina's blog was a great blog to comment on. She brought up a lot of ideas that I agreed and disagreed with. It's fun to debate and discuss questions that relate to novels from class and the real world. I brought up some new points, and relating them from one world to another.

Wild Card:


The Importance of Children

I came up with this idea that the dystopian novels produce when I was searching for my IOP- and I was seriously considering using this as my topic. However, I didn't, but I still felt that the importance of children deserved some kind of discussion, and so I was happy to blog about it. What I especially love was the connection from the novels to the present world, and also to my different classes. It is a good reminder that topics from one class can easily overlap with another, and how connected the world is.

The Importance of Children

Having read four different dystopian novels, I have noticed that all of the authors place importance on children. Both those in power and those suppressed look at the younger generations as a good thing.

The ones who hold power believe the children to be easier to manipulate and mold to 'perfection'. In Orwell's 1984, the Party brainwashes the young to become spies and even betray their parents. Atwood reveals how children can be used when the aunts in A Handmaid's Tale talk of when newer girls train, they will find it easier to become handmaids- and Offred reads in between the lines to see that young girls will not know any better. Even in The Road, McCarthy has the bad guys using the boy against his father, when one bad guy holds a knife to his son. The antagonists in dystopian novels- the Party, the men, the aunts, cannibals, and ect.- all use children to gain more control over others.

Ironically, the 'good guys' also put their hope on their children. In Zamyatin's We, one of the leaders of the resistance is I-330: a young woman with new ideas. And in The Road, all of the father's hope is placed in the boy. He believes that his son holds humanity- so much morality, kindness, and innocence that even the father cannot understand. The father exists solely to help his son. When the boy is sick, his father is in tremendous pain: "He tried to staay awake all night but he could not. He woke endlessly and sat and slapped himself or rose to put wood on the fire. He held the boy and bent to hear the labored suck of air. His hand on the thin and laddered ribs. He walked out on the beach to the edge of the light and stood with his clenched fists on top of his skull and fell to his knees sobbing in rage" (McCarthy, 250). Although the author does not come right out and say it, the clenched fists on top of the father's skull reveals his frustration and anger, giving a hopeless mood to the scene.

Even the boy feels that he has some duty and is somehow important: "You're not the one who has to worry about everything. The boy said something but he couldnt understand him. What? he said. He looked up, his wet and grimy face. Yes I am, he said. I am the one" (259). The boy knows that he is the future, although not in those exact words. He just knows that he is important, and has his own ideas that his father cannot even begin to comprehend.

I find this topic, how important children are, very intriguing. Not only is its relevance in dystopian novels interesting, but its relation to me, and children of the world as a whole. Again, I am reminded that "we are the future"- and as cliche as that sounds, its true. It's actually quite similar to my propaganda poster and its slogan "Students for the Future". The importance of children is still a pressing issue today. The Road to Nowhere addresses the stress we (as a society) place on children- and the question is, do we put too much? I'm not sure about this; because the future is important, and entails some stress. I think the way to go about answering this problem is to find a balance between pressure and learning and having fun. Is our education system working, or does it need to change drastically? And how will this impact children and their future? In history class, we looked at an article from The New York Times, where Shanghai scored the best. However, we talked about the education in Finland- how students are given the initiative, and the effect of this system- Finland has been at the top consistently. Everyone agrees that children are important- but now we have to find out how to best prepare them for that future.

Good vs. Bad

I find that in McCarthy's The Road, the descriptions he gives and the metaphors he uses to portray the scene are wonderful- specifically the diction and imagery used to give the mood and description. On the first two pages of McCarthy's novel, he introduces the environment that will be continued throughout the story. The imagery of darkness give a depressive mood- I imagine an entirely grey world- more like the moon than the earth. Describing the sky as "Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before" shows that the future seems only to get worse. The entire first paragraph is dark and black- the father's "stinking robes", traveling with his son "like pilgrims in a fable swallowed up and lost among the inward parts of some granitic beast". At first the world McCarthy is introducing us to is lonesome and hopeless- but the use of the word "pilgrim" shows us that the father and son are good, and that they have a goal and hope for themselves.

The second paragraph, however, is more of a white color than a darker one. Speaking about the father's dream of a creature, it is described as having "eyes dead white", "pale and naked and translucent", and having "alabaster bones". All of these things are of light color, in contrast with destroyed reality. Talking it over with others, none of us could decide what the creature represented- the good guys or the bad guys. We all agreed that we got a sorrowful and lonesome feeling from the creature, but the words and descriptions used can be construed as a creature with a wild nature. Made from the earth, the creature could represent the land that represents the bad guys- burned, destroyed, and unhelpful to people.  Also, it has a "dripping mouth", and stares into the light with sightless and white eyes. These are all elements that an animal would have- perhaps even the cannibals within the novel- and the creature seems to be blind to the light. Light is often a good and holy thing- perhaps the creature does not understand the 'fire' that the boy carries with him and the morality it represents. Also, it has a "brain that pulsed in a dull glass bell", which kind of shows that it isn't too smart. However, the words "pale and naked and translucent" can have a double meaning: it could be sickly and unhuman, but also innocent and defenseless- not something of a cannibal at all.

I have been going back and forth between the idea that the creature represents the good guys or the bad guys. What do you think?

I quite appreciate the diction and imagery used to create and show the scene- however it also has its drawbacks. Although the writing contains a lot of inner meaning- fascinating and descriptive- there lacks a connection with the character. The writing style seems impartial and separate from the reader (which has its own advantages and meanings as well), which causes the reader to not be as engrossed in the novel. Although we are exposed  and empathize with the father and boy and the world that they live in, we, as readers (or at least I) do not feel as much. This in itself has its own purpose (like showing how the father and boy must live and survive by living without as much emotion and ignoring some things, and stressing the importance of different things), but takes away the things that draw a reader in. There is not as much suspense, mystery, or intrigue. Despite all this, I find it a very good book- I just had to learn how to read it before I could entirely enjoy it. As the story progressed, I learned how to read it and how to take it all in. Different from the books I usually read, I still like the plot and the themes that McCarthy has done.

Fiction is an Art

The chapter Narrating, in James Wood's How Fiction Works speaks on the cons and pros of third person verses first person. They each have their own benefits and negatives: according to Wood, first person narrative, while seeming to be unreliable, can be "reliably unreliable", as we get to know the character and learn what is true and what is not. Third person omniscient narration, on the other hand, while covering many characters, portrays an author more than the character of whom he/she is describing.

Of this I have to agree. First person narrative often gives more character and personality to the protagonist- not only do we see the character's actions and expressions, but his thoughts- all with a certain pizazz and closeness. In third person, novels take a removed point of view, and, if the author is not an excellent one, a less exciting relationship with the characters, story, and themes of the novel. However, third person can also cover a lot more- creating a different mood for a different kind of book. I have to say that it depends on the author, story, and novel- at times first person is needed, and at others third. There is not black and white way to write fiction- it is an art.

In this aspect Wood seemed to agree with me. He continued on to say that solely third person is not possible: a good author will combine the two, in what the author calls "free indirect speech or style". The narration still is in third person- yet in manages to include the voice of the characters. One example that Wood gives is in What Maisie Knew, by Henry James. The last sentence in the excerpt- "Mrs. Wix was as safe as Clara Matilda, who was in heaven and yet, embarrassingly, also in Kensal Green, where they had been together to see her little huddled grave" Wood analyzes to show the diction James uses to portray both himself and Maisie. The word "embarrassingly" is Maisie's word, a word that conveys Maisie's embarrassment "for a child to witness adult grief, and embarrasing that a body could be both up in heaven and solidly in the ground", as well as the adult opinion of Mrs. Wix. However, the word "huddled" is written by the author for the reader- giving us a picture of the scene and the atmosphere that Maisie need not give.

Wood continues with examples of free indirect speech- and the points he makes are good. It is excellent to mix both first and third person together, but I have to disagree with one thing Wood has said. When he says that specific words are at times the author's when it should be the character's, I can agree with him. However, I do not think that the author and the character should be entirely separate. Cannot the author be the character, or the scene, or the animal? I think any book, whether it is fact or fiction, contains an element of the author- and it should. Some good authors become a part of the story- and without them there, the story would not seem as real. There is no "correct" style to write fiction: like art, it depends on interpretation.

McCormick, in The Road, uses free indirect style quite well. Mixing descriptions of actions and the scene with the thoughts of the father, images are created both by the author as well as the development of the characters. One example I think brilliantly portrays this is on page 256.

"He looked at them. He looked at the boy. He was an outcast from one of the communes and the fingers of his right hand had been cut away. He tried to hide it behind him. A sort of fleshy spatula. The cart was piled high. He'd taken everything."

Here, a father and his son find the thief that stole all of their belongings. While this is clearly third-person, with everything being described by the author- "He was an outcast from one of the communes...", giving a context to who the thief is, McCormick also manages to describe the thief's hand as "a sort of fleshy spatula". Not only is this absolutely repulsive, and stomach-churning, but a word that seems to be the character's. While further discussing the thief's hand, it is a word chosen by the father- and reveals not only who the thief is, but the father's. I have to say, upon seeing a hand without any fingers, "a sort of fleshy spatula" are not the first words I would think of. By thinking of these words first, the father is shown that things considered absolutely repulsive and stomach-churning are not in The Road.

All of this intricate web of alternating third-person and first narrations brings together a whole story, mood, and way of reading. One thing is for sure: what McCormick does- or all fiction writers, for that matter, is an art.

Love: Women's Bane

In this excerpt, Offred talks about the ups and downs of love. Talking with the Commander, Offred has already accepted her position as a handmaid, before the Commander's wife has found her out. Atwood describes the love that women feel, and how obsessive they get that has lead to their position in society. Using diction, irony, and tone, Atwood reveals that love is the cause of women's downfall.

Using diction, Atwood has shown that women have now lost all of their love, and are in that we vs. them position. For instance, she uses "we" a lot, and never mentions who "they" are- although with the context, the reader can assume that Offred is talking about men. Also, at the end of the excerpt, Offred asks questions, one after another, repeating: "Who knows what they do, on their own or with other men? Who knows what they say or where they are likely to go? Who can tell what they really are?" Here, throwing questions out like gunfire, Atwood illustrates that there is a deep fear that women will lose men, and because of this, they are in a lower position in society. Men are surrounded by words like "who"- and even if women love them, they still don't trust them. Also, Atwood even more specifically describes the downfall women take because of their love for men: "Falling in love, we said; I fell for him. We were falling women... this downward motion: so lovely, like flying, and yet at the same time so dire, so extreme, so unlikely". Here, Atwood uses the word flying to give both a fantastic and terrible feeling- much like flying itself. This compares love to a drug- it can feel wonderful and lovely, but in the end they know it is extreme. (I'm not saying this is true, but) Women in this society have fallen for men- not in the traditional sense, but a literal one. All of these words, repeating and stressed, have shown the reader that the fallen position they have- that "we vs. them" has been because of the almost obsessive love that women have for men.

The irony used also contrasts the love that women feel with the reality of their situation. Many similes are used to do this- at first comparing love "like heaven", then "like pain", and showing that women would feel "like a mutant" if they were not married. This contrast of heaven and pain further enhances the idea that women's love is their happiness and their bane. Because of love, women are degraded- but because of their lack of love, women are unhappy. Love made women stop fighting, since they love men, and do not want to fight their love- but in doing this, they have lost men. They do not have any love anymore- from men, friends, or parents. Like in the real world, love is a mystery.

Tone throughout the passage also reveals the emotions that women have on love. At first happy and full of praises with love, the excerpt gradually becomes panicked, hateful, and hard. Offred strongly supports love- "It was the central thing; it was the way you understood yourself". Women's entire being exists for love- "so lovely, like flying". Yet later on, Offred's voice becomes harder and gritted: "You'd wake up in the middle of the night, when the moonlight was coming through the window onto his sleeping face, making the shadows in the sockets of his eyes darker and more cavernous than in daytime". Women have found that love brings them nowhere- and have begun to hate men. Much like their history, women at first trusted men, and thought the fight was over- but now, as they begin to realize, their love and trust is misplaced. Like love, the women at first trusted their new role in society- but now know that their place is not as safe and happy as they thought it was.

Just to add some further thoughts on this, looking at people's opinion of love, it varies, just like Offred does. On this website, blurtit.com, people have literally blurted out what they think. Some love love, and some hate love. However, reading all of the comments, of which there are many, I can conclude (although one is never sure) that love is both good and bad- beautiful, but can cause pain and suffering, as Offred says in the passage. Several of the rather good quotes from the website are:

"It's evil. RUN !!!!" by Mrpiggy

"Love is blind its not good thing it destroys our studies  and etc............... And not good too bad................and destroys all things and it makes that he and she alone in this world is no t nice and all knowlege of ours will go off .............." by Anonymous

"Love is so.......good" by Tejeswar

So we can see that love is both good and bad- but I think it's interesting that all these people who commented seemed to have experienced love. Despite the somewhat lack of good communication from many of the commentators, love is a rather interesting question- and is both good and bad. This is the central idea of what Offred is saying in this passage- it feels wonderful, but once it is gone, life is horrible. This could be contrasting the past and the present, with love being Offred's love for Luke, and the present her lack of love from anyone.

A Backlash against Women- in the novel and in our lives

Susan Faludi's Blame it on Feminism brings up the idea of backlash against feminism- how many are saying that feminism are responsible for the lack of equality and happiness, while those who accuse are actually the ones to blame.

I think this is one of the main ideas in The Handmaiden's Tale. Throughout the novel, women are constantly to blame for all the problems- infertility, crimes, ect. This all probably stems from the religion the government is based on, and how from the very beginning, Eve ate the apple, thus betraying God. Women are told that they are the problem, and must pay the consequences.

For example, the problem of infertility worries the minds of the handmaidens. When the protagonist has an appointment with the doctor, he tells her the truth: "'Most of those old guys can't make it anymore,' he says. 'Or they're sterile.' I almost gasp: he's said a forbidden word. Sterile. There is no such thing as a sterile man anymore, not officially. There are only women who are fruitful and women who are barren, that's the law" (Atwood, 61). Although men are to blame for the lack of children, the problem is blamed on the women. Not only is it common thought, but the law: women are put on the bottom of the pyramid. This is a classic example of backlash- much like the lack of children and unhappiness of women are blamed on the females in the real world, in the novel it is much the same.

When Janine tells everyone that she was gang-raped at fourteen, it is not the fault of the men who raped her but hers: "But whose fault was it? Aunt Helena says, holing up one plump finger. Her fault, her fault, her fault, we chant in unison. Who led them on? Aunt Helena beams, pleased with us. She did. She did. She did. Why did God allow such a terrible thing to happen? Teach her a lesson. Teach her a lesson. Teach her a lesson" (72). Not only are women themselves taught that everything is their fault, but that God condemns them too. If Janine's case were in real life, it would seem ridiculous to accuse and humiliate her. Yet in the novel's society, this is what happens. Apparently, women are the cause for every horrible event.

Women are told that they are the cause of problems- and some of them believe it. The backlash in the novel retracted "the handful of small and hardwon victories that the feminist movement did manage to win for women". Although women are more protected, have duties, and are safer overall, they still have not won- far from it.

Reading Julie's reaction to the article, in Equality: Achievable?, I'm not sure how I'd answer the question if inequality will always exist. Julie points out the hypocritical thinking of equality yet self-interest, and how optimistic we could be, thinking that equality will become reality, but I have to say that equality should exist. At any rate, we will constantly be progressing towards equality- we've already improved so far: who's to say that won't continue. There will always be those who wish to oppress and have power (shown by the many dystopian novels that are out there), but the fact that the idea of equality exist means that humanity has a conscience. Unlike Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory, I believe something a little bit different: the world will continue to progress into something better- not only physically stronger but mentally and morally as well. It is not only about power, but the society. Although those who are stronger and smarter do usually run the world, I think humanity works together not to make a better individual, but society. Right now, as Julie said, equality seems to be against the most basic human instincts- but the fact remains that despite our instincts we see equality as a good thing- and so this latter idea will prevail and become a part of reality.

Know What You're Fighting For

The Beauty Myth article played along the similar lines of the other feminism articles that we have been reading. Society places constraints upon women by creating that image of the "perfect woman" who must be beautiful. Instead of women knitting and cooking all the time, now it's face painting and hair brushing that occupies their time.

While this concept is true, I am not sure that it can ever be totally erased- society always has a "norm" that we all try to attain. Although I agree that women are overly dehumanized and beautified, variations of the "beauty myth" can apply to all ages, genders, and people. Of course, not everyone has to be beautiful, as women are expected to be, but society has a place where a perfect person should be. Men usually are expected to be strong, tall, macho, and whatever. On television they are often shown to watch the sport games and drink beer... Just as women are expected to look pretty and be successful- for some reason, the two are connected. Children are supposed to be polite and calm, yet active and healthy- any child who dislikes socializing will automatically be looked down upon. What I'm trying to say is that society tries and labels every person within the community- not just women.

Despite these facts, I have to agree that the "beauty myth" is stronger among women. The author keeps relating the war for women earlier to now, and how we (us females) shouldn't lay down our weapons just yet. I have to agree. There is still much to be done to equalize women- not just in action, but mentally. Often times people, both men and women, see and perceive women in a certain way- the idea of that "perfect women" has not quite changed yet, and the media and other corporations are not helping any. At the end of the article, however, the author brings up an important point- that women have to start to change. For that idea of what women should be is all in our heads- if we women stop caring about our looks, so will everyone else. The image of a woman is being carried on through our minds and how we see women. If all of us stop dressing ourselves up and spending hours in front of a mirror, the media will stop portraying women in a certain light- because we won't care so much, and therefore not buy so much. Us women, if we change our ideas, can continue the fight against inequality.

The fight that happened before, winning equal jobs and voting rights, still exists now, but must be fought in a different manner. There is no physical wrong, but a mental one- and so, if we are to overcome this problem, we can fight mentally.

And this is where the idea connects to The Handmaiden's Tale. I think we can take the author's concept in The Beauty Myth, about women taking up the fight again, and connect it to the women in the novel. For one thing, many women have stopped fighting, because they have already fought one battle, and won- and have fallen into a false victory, thinking that their fight was over. Like the real world, their problem was not solved. While women stopped being in pornography magazines and clothing became not so revealing, among many other crimes ended, women are now being put into a different, yet equally oppressive society in the novel. If women stop accepting the society they are in and limitations they have, all of them, then they could pose a successful threat against their societal limitations. Much like in the article, men have given new and old things to the women to keep them busy, doing menial labor. Serena makes millions of those scarves for those outside of the community- whom the protagonist does not even know if they exist. The main character herself does not know what to do with free time- if she has it, she is uncomfortable and unused to the idea. Always these women have duties to keep them busy- duties that aren't so important in the first place. Serena's scarves are most likely not needed, nor the protagonist's physical exercises, to keep her healthy and fertile. The women may be oppressed and unhappy, but before they fight back they have to realize that first.

Children are so gullible

Both klaus barbie, and other dolls i'd like to see and Teen Mags: How to Get a Guy, Drop 20 Pounds, and Lose Your Self-Esteem address an idea that does not only apply to girls: the impact of things (socially-accepted/enforced) on a child.

Both barbies and teen magazines create preconceptions and images in a child's mind that stick for life. First ideas and memories are important for anyone, and thus a child is particularly susceptible to creating stereotypes and false preconceptions when they are young. Children are known to be innocent and trusting- so they'll believe what anyone (including magazines) say. In early life, the objects that surround a child are telling them what image is perfect, what they should be, and what is wrong. Barbies, like Susan Jane Gilman says, are particularly stereotypical and just plain horrifying. I never thought about this before , and since my access to barbies is severely limited (I am proud to be able to say that I've never owned a barbie), I am not sure as to what extent the ideas a barbie creates effect a child's mind. According to this article, however, it seems pretty great. What shocks me completely, though, is the fact that a child's obsession with barbie does not end with the end of childhood. Reading about the lady who wanted to become a barbie really freaked me out. Sure, she is probably an extreme case, but the fact remains that the majority of people want to be freakishly tall, have blond hair, and be a barbie. How could we have put the idea of perfection upon a scary doll?

Like barbies, I have tended to stay away from teen magazines. In fact, I am not aware of having a role model as a child... unless one counts my older sister- but what younger sister doesn't love and respect her older sis? My experience in the area of teen magazines and their articles is lacking, suffice to say. I was not aware of how stereotypical and dehumanizing these magazines are. What's interesting is how many girls know it is silly and idiotic, yet read it, perhaps unknowingly falling in the trap of these stereotypes. Hanging out with girls, sometimes I listen to them complaining about their weight, or their hair, or how they need to get in shape, when I haven't noticed any difference with their appearance. Of course, I don't usually notice these things anyways, even if there is something to notice, but the point is that girls do have that image of perfection in their minds, of a barbie-like figure that they are forever trying to attain. Not to a drastic degree, but that goal is still there. It's hard to understand why people go on diets or fret about their shape- they look perfectly normal to me.

It is not only barbies that create this image of a 'good and perfect' girl. This concept is everywhere. In Disney movies,the girls are often portrayed the same. Sure, their hair color may differ, but they still remain thin, relatively helpless in a fight, needing a man to come save them, and completely loving and morally pure. Of course, there is Mulan, which gives a fighting image for girls, but her looks are still regarded as that 'pretty perfection'. Diversity in Disney is only just now starting begin (much like barbies)- The Princess and the Frog may have a black woman as the protagonist, but the list at the end of the barbie article of barbies that should be could very well apply to Disney girls. There are no "Dinner Roll Barbies" or "Body Piercing Barbies" in the Disney world either.

What I would like to know is which objects, articles, and toys have an effect on boys to create some preconception of what they should be. For it seems to me that children believe what they see and hear as they take in their surroundings- and why not? They don't know how the world is, or should be. They don't know that the world should not have a should be. As as child, people are just trying to adjust and learn their way around the world. If they are being told the wrong thing, well- who's to tell them that?

Comic on 1984

My sister, after hearing about us reading about 1984, showed me this comic:

http://www.recombinantrecords.net/docs/2009-05-Amusing-Ourselves-to-Death.html

It's by Stuart McMillen, comparing 1984 with another novel, "A Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, which seems to be another dystopia-ish novel about controlling people. You don't actually have to read the book to understand the comic. It states very clearly the point of both Huxley's and Orwell's books. It gives me a creepy feeling, at the end, to know that both can be true.

Just thought I would show this.

We can't think of something that doesn't exist

Talking Back by Bell Hooks and Sins of Silence by Mai Kao Thao were very thought provoking. There are similarities between both women's lives- how they were told not to "talk back", how every family member punished them for it- male and female. Yet I find it interesting that Bell Hooks continued to talk, while Mai Kao Thao kept her silence.

I think the one major difference between their lives is the fact that for Bell Hooks, she saw and heard women talking, with power and without fear. Although for her it was a crime to talk, she knows that it is possible for women to talk- "And yet it was hard not to speak in warm rooms where heated discussions began at the crack of dawn, women's discussions filling the air, giving orders, making threats, fussing" (15). Bell Hooks sees women talk, and considers it a beautiful thing- describing it as so rich and poetic that she felt compelled to join in. This is where she gains her determination to speak no matter the consequences.

For Mai Kao Thao, however, there are no women she interacts with that she can look up to- there is no knowledge that women have ever spoken up or have a right to speak. Her mother stays silent and does not argue, and when Mai Kao Thao sees this, she accepts it as how life is. Making sure there is no trouble around her becomes the goal of her life. It is not only until she comes to America that she realizes how life was in Laos, and the effect of the silence she kept. Before coming to America, Mai Kao Thao didn't know she could talk back, and that she didn't have an individuality as a child.

I guess for someone like Bell Hooks to gain determination, she had to see it happening and know that it was possible, so she had something to hold on to through the punishments she was given. Since Mai Kao Thao had no one, perhaps the idea that she would 'talk balk' couldn't even occur to her. We often accept life how it is and do not question why life is the way it is- we cannot. How are we to know of something that isn't in life? Mai Kao Thao did not think of talking back because she didn't know it existed.

This ties in with all of the dystopia novels we have read. In We, D-503 does not think of rebellion until after I-330 shows him a life other than the One State's. He hadn't thought of this, because he did not know such a thing could exist. In 1984, the Party limits the Outer Party members' thoughts (with Newspeak and the like) so they cannot think of rebellion- as Sime mentions, it will be impossible to think of rebellion because the words simply won't exist. In A Handmaiden's Tale, one of the Aunts tells the handmaidens that it is harder for them to do their job because they remember the past- but later generations will have it easier because they won't know of any other life. Thus, without knowing that something exists, how can we think of it?

Blogging Portfolio Oct. 5

 Welcome to Adrienne's Blogging Portfolio October 5 for Quarter 1! Below you will see different categories connecting you with some of the best blogs and comments (If I do say so myself) that I have written! Accompanying each link is a short paragraph that explains why they are the best blogs ever. Some of these blogs overlap with each other in the different sections, but each blog corresponds with the varying topics, focusing on different aspects. Pardon me if they sound a bit autobiographical and pro-me. I know I am slightly biased. Nevertheless, please enjoy reading my blogs- and feel free to comment further on any of them! (And sorry for all of the exclamation marks too...)

Coverage:


Forests: The Shadow of Civilization

I think this blog represents my ability to blog. Not only do I summarize and write my thoughts on the article Forests: The Shadow of Civilization, but thoroughly analyze and improve upon the ideas of the article. Reading really makes me think about lots of things, and writing all of these thoughts down is what a blog is for. The only thing I would change is the title- I would refine it to something like "The Circle of Life: an Unhappy Family Tree". In my blog Forests: The Shadow of Civilization, I feel that I got down a lot of insightful ideas and address many of those "unanswerable" questions that can be talked (or blogged) forever.

Depth:

Why do we read novels?

Although at first this blog was merely a spurt of ideas from my mind directly to the keyboard, once Julie and I started discussing the broad ideas of mine things started to clear up. In one of my comments, I reference a book that helps clear up my ideas and give evidence that proves the fact that books are our friends more undeniable. As Julie and I continue to discuss, our ideas and comments become stronger and explicit as we support them with evidence from other books and writers. This discussion shows that a lot of depth can be achieved with a simple question: Why do we read novels?

Interaction:


Reaction to Psychology of the Novel

In this blog I respectfully point out a different interpretation of Psychology of the Novel, giving a comparative to Aishwarya's opinion. I think Aishwarya wrote out her thoughts quite clearly, and it made me think about what the author might have meant about the ideas he wrote about. In replying to Aishwarya's blog, the varying explanation leaves room for argument, leaving the door open to further discuss novels.

Discussions:

Why do we read novels?

This blog not only demonstrates that the blogs I write can be thought provoking (I hope), but also begins a discussion between another fellow blogger and I.  It is so easy to have a discussion on something that one is adamant and strong about. I loved blogging on this subject, and discussing it even further with Julie was enjoyable.

War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery

This blog of mine about the North Korean Gulag and its connection to 1984 seemed to have trigger a lot of thought from fellow classmates. They agreed with some ideas I had, and wrote about things I hadn't expanded on. As Monique says, I "allow the reader (me) to really ponder what you are saying. (which is the effect a blogger should have on a reader)". I have found that writing these blogs have shown me what blogging is about: not just writing down ideas, but a discussion with anybody out there who cares to read about your opinions. These comments told me what I was doing right and what I needed to improve upon.

Totalitarian State of the 21st Century

This is Julie's blog about the North Korean Gulag: all by itself a complicated story. However, on Julie's blog, together we think further not only on the implications of the story but the thoughts behind Shin, and why he feels what he feels. We discuss thoroughly what makes Shin leave, why Shin regrets his decision, and what might happen afterwards. Through several comments, a lot of information is processed, uncovered, and explained. I feel that this blog portrays a good element of both Julie's and my ability to look in-depth and discuss an idea/article.

Xenoblogging:

Nature vs. Machine: What is Humanity?

Nina's blog on the relationship between nature, machine, and humanity sparked a lot of thought for me. So, I commented. Not only was I the first to comment and think about what Nina had blogged on, but I expanded on what she said and the ideas she had. I took a statement that I thought was particularly astute and developed it into a firm idea, grabbing facts and stories from life (well, Animal Planet, but... It's a creditable source). Nina's blog was quite profound, and I was happy to comment and broaden her ideas.

Manipulation of Truth: What is Truth?

The blog Javiera wrote on the manipulation of truth made a good beginning, and I was happy to comment further on the concepts that she talked about. Here, I talk a little about the ideas she says and ask questions to invoke a bigger discussion relating a broad idea to the world today. I think these comments show an intellectual discussion that both of us maintain and keep going.

Write and Wrong of Writing

In Sabrina's blog, I comment about what I think is definitely right about her ideas and what I feel needs a little more explaining. I ask several questions about the statements she makes, as well as bringing up examples from our world to reveal other perspectives about writing, and what it should and should not be used for. This idea of what writing is used for is an interesting idea, and I'd like to keep talking about this.

Wildcard:




Polar Opposites

In this blog, I talk about an idea (inspired by Nina) and hope to make my readers think about my opinions that may influence how they think and what they think. I want people to consider both motives and actions, as well as love the world. I try and show readers how I view the world a little bit, and connect my thoughts to even broader, larger ideas that involves every human being. I have learned that blogging is not only writing, but discussing, and I believe that this is what I accomplished here.

Polar Opposites

I have come to realize that polar opposites are, in fact, more similar and go together than many other things in life. This idea I have really thought about after reading Nina's blog about how nature and machines are sort of the same, and complement each other. Polar opposites seem to have a lot in common, and this concept applies to many things.

The first thing that comes to my mind are people: it is often enough that those who seem completely different from each other tend to get married. My parents, for one. There are a multitude of differences between them- their personality, the way they look at things, even their physical attributes. Black and white vs. the philosophical discussions, straight to the point vs. taking forever to get to the point,  and practical vs. loving to go around on walks taking pictures of random things. For some reason, although one person dislikes a majority of things that another person loves to do, two people can still be the best of friends. Arguments are not always a bad thing. Sometimes slightly raised voices debating over an idea does not mean that there is anger. Many times when my parents 'talk', there are smiles and laughs between the- yet if I hadn't been there I would have thought they were serious and quite angry. Perhaps it is because of the way I have grown up, but I notice many times when polar opposites get along much nicer than those who are almost the same.

Not only can couples make great polar opposites, but individuals themselves (and no, I am not talking about dual personalities). Inside the human body, there are scores of contrasting systems. For instance, our brain. Split into two sides, the left brain is empirical, with analytical and scientific thought. The right side is the opposite, not looking at the facts, but the imagination, using creativity and art. It is interesting to notice that in one brain, and one body, there are antipodes.

http://share.sweska.net/files/left_right_brain_xp.jpg

Contrasts can be found not only in the brain, but in the entire body itself. Around 60% of a person is water- yet despite consisting more than half of oneself being water, we still drown in a few minutes. Isn't that weird?

This irony carries on through all people and the world.

Anyways, my parents, despite their minds seeming incompatible, still manage to find common ground- and love each other all the more for it. They love all that antique stuff, exotic foods, and a bunch of other stuff. Even though I admit that my parents are not at all alike, I could not exactly put them on the opposite sides of a line. The same goes for the brain: one may be analytical and the other creative, both rely on each other to make decisions and live life. I think it's safe to say that polar opposites are closer to each other than we realize.

Also, not only do polar opposites somehow have things in common, but cannot exist without the other. I mean, without polar opposites, there cannot even be a word to define just one word (without its antonym). Let me take the example of good and evil: one cannot exist without the other. If there was no evil, no poverty, hatred, death, ect., then I do not think that good could exist either. Out of poverty can come determination, from hatred forgiveness, and death to love. For if we have no reason to be determined, than how can determination exist? Or forgiveness, love, or friendship? If no evil existed, we would not be able to recognize that good exists, because without this comparison, it would just be life, and everything would be the same. Part of loving humanity comes from the ability to get past evil and be good. If poverty causes people to strive and do great things, can this be considered bad? And without hatred, forgiveness could not exist, because we must first hate before we can forgive. The definition of forgive (according to the Oxford Dictionary) is this: "to stop feeling angry or resentful towards (someone) for an offense, flaw, or mistake". "Evil" may live in the form of arrogance and mistakes, but good is what is morally correct. If everything was morally correct, than we would fail to think about what is right, and we would not be good- we would just be conforming to the norm. Forgiveness is- what I think- an aspect of humanity, and without forgiveness, humans would not the humans they are today.  Furthermore, if death were not to be, there could not be a strong love between people and the world (not to mention a colossal population). Death causes us to hold on all the more strongly to ourselves, others, and the things we value. If nothing died, and everything was always there, we could not appreciate what we had. Like the common saying goes, "we don't notice it's there until it's gone" (or along those approximate lines). To be good, we must truly think about what and who we are, with all of our motives underneath. An act of good, let's say giving a bunch of videos to someone, can be considered kind, but if the motive is merely because the videos were poorly made and the giver just wanted to get rid of them, it takes away at least a bit of the good from the action.

I think the idea that there are polar opposites (yet not polar opposites) illustrate a much grander and mind-boggling idea: that nothing has only one truth/fact. We live in a 3D world, and there are multiple perspectives to a single object or idea. There is not black and white, but a rainbow: and nothing can be said for certain and without debate.

War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery

 War is Peace

Born and Raised in a North Korean Gulag by Choe Sang-Hun was a shocking story. I hadn't known what happened in North Korea, and Shin Dong Hyok's story brought a lot of emotions along. As I was reading, the first thing I noticed was how the authorities, the cause of Shin's miseries, was merely "a part of life" to him. They had always been there, and always would be. Instead, Shin blames the ones closest to him- the ones that love him the most: his mother. Even now, knowing what he does, still he blames his mother. When he is told that he was paying for his ancestor's crime, he also blames them, and hates them for this. I guess, from the view of the North Koreans, turning the hate onto friends is a useful tactic. This same tactic is used in 1984. Instead of party members joining together against Big Brother, the Party turns any hatred anyone might have onto Goldstein and their fellow members. People, especially children, are encouraged to denounce any disloyal follower. This denouncing of friends also accomplishes something else that both the Party and the North Korean gulag try and accomplish. In the Korean prison, much is done to destroy any semblance of unification or relationships. An arranged "marriage" is given to exemplary workers, and the couple see each other a few times a year. Even a child like Shin after growing up (age 11) fails to see his entire family at one time. This broken relationship leaves little chance of any rebellion or even talking of a better time. In Orwell's novel, people are expected to first love Big Brother before their spouse, and along with creating a shameful image of sex, makes marriage dull and relationships lacking any real love whatsoever, seen when Winston talks about his past marriage. By both preventing marriages/relationships and turning hatred onto friends, along with all the work piled up on the workers, rebellion, and more importantly thought is a rare occurrence.

Ignorance is Strength

Shin lives in his own fishbowl world: a world that consists only of his own work camp. I was unaware of how little he knew of the world, let alone his own country. This ignorance prevents him from knowing about the outside world, and how life could be. Although ignorance gives another person control over oneself, one thing that Yoon Yeo Sang of the North Korean Human Rights in Seoul said brought more thoughts upon my head. When he commented on the North Korean work camps, "'He comes from a place where people are deprived of their ability to have the most basic human feelings, such as love, hatred and even a sense of being sad or mistreated'", it seems like a bad thing: who wouldn't want to love? However, along with the life of knowledge of the world comes hatred, sorrow, and mistreatment.  At first Shin can't stand being in a camp when there was a whole world to explore. Afterward, though, Shin begins to regret- something that is very hard to understand. "Shin said he sometimes wished he could return to the time before he learned about the greater world, 'without knowing that we were in a prison camp, without knowing that there was a place called South Korea'". This statement, while seeming very sad and mad to us, makes sense to Shin. In the gulag, he didn't have all these emotions, which complicate life so much. He wanted instead security, and to forget about the world, along with all of its problems. In his ignorance, he was happy, and that is where he was strong. In the world, he can't even obtain a driving license. I think what he doesn't understand, is that without problems and sorrow, we couldn't enjoy life as much as we do. The happiest moments are when you overcome your problems, and if there was no evil in the world, how would we know what was good?

Freedom is Slavery

So Shin would prefer to be told what to do, and to be back in that prison camp, in his slavery. He felt he was happier there. Or perhaps, he didn't know what happiness was, and so he could not be unhappy either. Freedom is not just doing what one wants to do, but surviving and being happy. To Shin, the prison camp was happy, because life was always the same, and the problems that he had (for instance torture and all that stuff) was not a problem to him: just a part of life. Shin was free of worry and of problems. In that way, freedom is slavery. As in 1984, the workers in the prison camp did not worry about jobs or transportation or any of the usual things that most worry about. Winston is kept so busy so he has a limited amount of time to think those rebellious thoughts. And although all of the Outer Party members live in relative poverty, none of them think much of it because it has always been like that. They are free of worry of almost everything (apart from fear of being taken to the Ministry of Love).


These phrases may apply, but not to the common man. They work only when one looks at the overall Party's ideal: to stay in power. In order for the Party to keep their reign, they use these three phrases: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. To keep peace within their realm, they make war with Eastasia and Eurasia. Turning anger upon others instead of themselves is a handy way to keep "peace".  Freedom, and more specifically, happiness, exists only when people do not have to worry too much about problems, and gain security: thus, slavery. And in ignorance, people are united and cannot question their leader, and thus together, they have strength. It is interesting to see that these quite contradictory sayings are, in fact, true. A subjective truth, however, because these truths are only an illusion. Although it may seem like war is peace, it is not. And while freedom is slavery, it is not. It just isn't. War may cause a little peace, but not all of it. And slavery is not freedom. Freedom is more than that. These three phrases serve only as an excuse for Oceania to keep on living the way it is.

Truth... Does it exist?

Talking and presenting in class was helpful to clear out what truth is. Not that truth is any clearer, but it is easier to say what isn't truth. The objects and concepts that the class had were placed relatively where I would put them, give or take a few inches. I think the ones I most disagree with are the scientific concepts that are counted as objective truths. The one problem I see with this is that theories are based upon no other forces interacting- but in the real world, there are always these other factors. So technically, we can't actually test a concept, since there will always be other factors to affect the result. So how can we really know? However, I do consider science to be objective (I'm just not sure it can be proven to be so). Sure, it will change, but science as a whole works. This considering that objective truth is our world and the things we see and touch, it not being a hallucination and brain-washing and living in a false world. For that would just get chaotic and confusing, and probably make us all go insane.

The truth that we told in class was more of a truth to ourselves, if not to others. For some reason, you believe in something, even if there is no proof: your own personal truth. In the articles that we read (and changed) before, there is a manipulation of truth. Not that what they say might not be true, but they try very hard to make it your truth too, not by stating facts, but by giving you emotions. We never seem to be able to think straight when we are angry, loving, or sad. Each article uses vague words, for example "weapons of mass destruction", which give images and terror to our minds, more so than just "bombs" or any one specific thing. Some also create metaphors and imagery in our mind, making us feel righteous, or using words that show how the victims are feeling. Writing is more than just stating facts: it's about allowing the reader to feel what you are feeling. And in some cases, manipulate the reader into feeling what you want them to feel.

In 1984, by George Orwell, this sort of happens. In the Ministry of Love, the "torturers" turn your world upside down until what you imagine and believe is true: 2 + 2 = 5. O'Brien doesn't allow Winston to think, to rationalize, and so Winston can't defend his world and truth. So, Winston's truth is torn away from him and replaced with not truth at all. Newspeak also helps with this destruction of truth. Language itself is subjective, with several meanings to one word and different words for the same meaning. Orwell considers language to be vague and broad, and in Newspeak, it becomes even more so. As words are taken away from the dictionary again and again, words and meanings become vaguer and vaguer until all truth is lost. How can one prove something if what you are saying does not even mean anything? This also helps take away control and power from someone over themselves, and disables a person from defending what they feel is right. I guess, seeing that the Outer Party members are left with nothing to hang on to sanity, they are forced to love Big Brother. Not because they actually love him in the full sense of the word, but because they need a constant to keep their world straight. If not, then they would be insane. Up would be down and left would be right. So destroying someone's reality gives control and power to another.

This is the whole reason we have science: to understand the world and put it in terms we can understand. Our curiosity to understand the world is what has created science. We must have facts and knowledge to keep our sanity, and feel like we have an understanding of ourselves and what we perceive as our world and life.

So perhaps whether truth exists or not should not be answered. Even if we never did get an answer, just the debate would make us crazy. If we did eventually find an answer, it could destroy all our perceptions.

Orwell vs. Modern Times

I found changing those two articles quite hard. For one thing, not being the author, I didn't know exactly what the article meant all the time, so in changing the sentences I might have changed the meaning. Also, I don't think Orwell or modern times are perfect in English.

I understand why Orwell thinks what he thinks, but the major thing I do not agree with are the metaphors. I don't think that all the common ones have lost their meaning. "A picture speaks a thousand words" may be overused, but, for me, I still get a feeling from it. While it may be better to make your own metaphors, I don't think it's wrong to use some ones that already exist. That being said, some of the articles were quite exaggerated with their use of metaphors and imagery. I mean, I was sometimes laughing at how "powerful" the speaker was trying to get. Trying being the important word. Writing like that just takes away the point of what you're talking about. Which may be the point in some politicians. But, overall, I think both Orwell and modern English have their own applications, and as the world changes, so should English. Neither one should be used all the time. Perhaps Orwell will cringe at this next phrase, but I have a strange urge to write it anyways: "There's a time and a place for everything".

Sometimes writing is used to make a person think a certain way. And in that case, some authors do everything they can to brainwash and force your to think their way. Communism, propaganda, and politicians all do this. Even nations do this a little bit to create a stronger unity and nationalism. It's part of human nature to want to control a bit of life, and gullible people are like sitting ducks. That's why education is important. It's not the grammar, history lessons, or math equations that I come to school for- it's because at school, there are thoughtful and important lessons to be learned. I learn about life: how people think, how they might manipulate you, or love you, and how we should think, and how to live in the world. In English we are learning to question what people write, and to not just take it all in and believe it. In history we look past all the facts to analyze why leaders act as they do. We look at several books, all of which say the opposite, and get down deeper into the past. In math, we use equations in everyday life so we can apply all that we learn in school to the outside world. In each case, we have to learn grammar, history lessons, and math equations. Now that we've got the basis of that down, it's interesting to really go in depth- even if that's hard, because we've been trained to accept everything a teacher says.

Back to my original point, no matter if Orwell is right or wrong (and I think he is a little of both), I doubt we (as a world) are going to end writing to manipulate. People in power love this all too much. What we can do, however, is, in school, learn to know what people are meaning (not just saying) and choose to agree or disagree, with all the facts in hand.

Language and Thought

George Orwell's Politics and the English Language brings up good points about the English language. What I liked most was the overall idea about how language has begun to limit thought rather than express it. Language nowadays seems to cover and confuse what we are saying- not clarify it. Now that this idea has taken hold in my mind, every time I write I find myself thinking about how vague I am. It's not specific. Writing is hard...

This concept that Orwell says applies to Newspeak in 1984 too. Orwell says "... to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration". Newspeak limits the ability to think, cutting down thousands of words and adding to the vagueness- no longer are their synonyms (although every synonym is slightly different from each other): a replacement of "good" for superior, beneficial, exceptional, and magnificent. Just good, doublegood, plusgood, ect. In Orwell's novel, he brings up the idea that soon, when Newspeak is all that the people of the Party know, they will not have the ability to rebel because the concepts and words to think of rebellion will simply not exist. On the last page, The vague words have multiple meanings and can be twisted any way.

I also found that Orwell's examples of modern English, while they sound much more knowledgeable, are also a lot more confusing. There are so many multi-syllable words that just fuzz up the mind. They flight right over me. Modern English seems to consist of long sentences and uncommon words. Like Orwell says, people have to think less and less- just using the phrases already created: "prose consists less and less of WORDS chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of PHRASES tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house". More limiting of the mind. Also, reading the well-known verse (not that I knew it) from ECCLESIASTES, his writing seemed much more meaningful and thoughtful than the impersonal scientific modern English version. It seemed almost like a joke.

When I write, I am going to try and think about what I am thinking about- and see that image in my mind. I want to make sure it makes sense. What Orwell writes sort of freaks me out- "A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance towards turning himself into a machine". It scares me because it is sort of true. I've always thought that thinking is what makes us human (Not the only thing, but pretty much at the top of the list). If we don't think as we write or speak, what are we? Also, Orwell comes up with an even more important "enemy of clear language": insincerity. Not only does language cause us to lose our intelligence, but our emotions as well. If thinking is at the top of the list of what makes us humanity, emotion is in second place. Our thoughts and emotions make us who we are. It seems that we are losing both. We gotta think for ourselves. I don't think that we are losing all thought and independence so far, but we are on our way. Perhaps that is a warning in 1984- our society is losing thought and independence, by language and loss of compassion and humanity! Even Winston, who thinks more than many other Outer Party citizens, kicks away that arm like a piece of garbage. Still gives me shivers. I trust in us humans, though, not to lose what we call humanity.

Why do we read novels?

The Psychology of the Novel has a fascinating way of looking at how authors write their novels, how readers read, and what really makes a good book. Although I have thought about many of the author's ideas, there are quite a few new ones that hadn't occurred to me. According to the author, there are many different elements that make a story interesting. The narration of a novel creates a relationship with the reader. I find it interesting that the author creates an analogy by comparing a novel to a friend. It often seems that way to me. Not that I actually talk to it, or anything, but a good novel is one that you feel understands who you are and what you believe. It's comforting. The author says that a "novel is the only imaginative form that must have both action and point of view, suspense and reflection. In this it seems to mimic the way life feels". I guess that's why I like novels too. It is like life, but not.


One thing I didn't understand was when the author said "the world is full of people who are rather proud they don't read novels". What the author says afterwards, about"enlarging a reader's willingness to suspend disbelief" is very true. Reading is about your imagination, about walking (or more accurately, reading) down a path of thought that you have not taken before. About learning something new. About living a different life and learning from others' mistakes. About expanding your imagination, understanding others, and more importantly, understanding yourself! How can people be proud to not read about other opinions, stories, about failing to learn?! It is incomprehensible! Anyone who does not love reading is either in denial or has just not read the right book yet. Books... are books. There is no other word to describe them.


There was one concept that I found intriguing about the first line of a book and what it does to the reader. The author says that it creates the atmosphere and prepares you for the story, so you know where it will lead and accept the rules of imagination. I read the first line of a few books I had lying around the house, and the author's concept applies. Although the first line also tries and hooks you with a weird sort of thing that makes you want to find out what on earth the author is talking about, it also tells the reader about the style of the author, and what to look forward to further down the novel. For instance, comparing the introductions to Great Expectations by Charles Dickens and The Star of Kazan by Eva Ibbotson, one can tell the books are for different audiences and with different styles. The former novel begins with "My father's name being Pirrip, and my Christian name Philip, my infant tongue could make of both names nothing longer or more explicit than Pip" (Dickens, 6). From this sentence we can deduce it is from the first person point of view about a child, and the style of the author is rather a more educated way of writing than the novel by Eva Ibbotson. A children's writer, this is obvious from her first sentence, "Ellie had gone into the church because of her feet" (Ibbotson, 6). One should really pay attention more to the first sentence of a book.


As I was reading about suspense and how at times it is better to slow down reading then scouring through it, a thought occurred to me. The speed of reading, for me, changes. A book may be read better and more understandable if read slower or faster, but I think the speed can be determined by the author. I have read many books, and the speed that I read at changes with each book and at different times. My reading changes because the writing from the author changes. As suspense increases, the author writes in a style that makes me read faster and quicker- but if I need to pay attention to details, the author writes more details, and the words make me read slower and pay more attention. A good author should be able to control what the reader looks at and what the reader notices.

One thing the author also says about novels is that they incorporate different aspects that people read. Some read for intellectual reasons, some for adventure, some just for a simple story- the list goes on. However, I think that the books that one rereads are the ones that contain multiple of these aspects. The author late says that good books "work perfectly at lower levels of play... even though there is more to be discovered as the reader grows more sophisticated". This is why some books are better to read than others. For instance, I have read Ender's Game I don't know how many times. I like this book because it has a good plot but also makes someone think about bigger things too. I understand Ender, as well as many other characters, and a very interesting and absorbing storyline. However, there are different parts of the book that contain different intellectual, suspenseful, and thoughtful elements, and so sometimes I can just open to a certain part of the book depending on what mood I am in.

There are so many things in a book that determine whether it is a good fit for a reader. Lots of things. The Psychology of a Novel points out many of these components. However, I think that the most important thing that the author has mentioned about a good book is that a novel is your friend. Reading a novel is a relationship: if you don't like the book, you don't "hang out" with it anymore. And if you love it, because it understands your thoughts and emotions, then it's your friend. You read it more than once. You feel what the author writes, and you live the author's story. And it remains a memory.

Books are books.

Forests: The Shadow of Civilization

          Forests: The Shadow of Civilization brings up an interesting point- and from the perspective of humans, an important one. Rober Pogue Harrison claims that mankind comes from the forest. Whether this is true or not, it revolves around at least one central point: forests play a large role in humanity. The way I think it, is that forests are viewed from humans in a certain way. To us, forests represent wilderness and the uncontrollable. Forests can seem ominous- where one is surrounded by tall trees, wild animals, and nature in its most primitive form. Being in the forest can seem oppressive and different. At night, one has only the company of animal sounds and darkness. One thing is for certain- when you are in the forest, it is just the forest and you. In daylight or nighttime, all that one can see is forest. Humans seem to be out of their element. For man likes to be in control- and in a forest, it seems the other way around.

          If we take this into account, perhaps it makes sense that humankind, as Harrison claims, continues to destroy the forest in their climb to the sky and knowledge. Rome gained its grandeur only after destroying its forest. It seems that "the mythic forests of antiquity stand opposed to the city in some fundamental way", and humankind is bent on commanding the forests. Because forests are uncontrollable by man, humans must show their dominion by either changing it or ultimately destroying it completely. In We, the One State does this by living in a glass dome.
Vico also states that humanity cannot stand nature- for it is a "submission to something external", and man, with its enormous ego, must be the one in control. This, I think, is what guides mankind through the path that we have taken. Everything we do is to make ourselves more powerful and more knowledgeable- more like God. God, a perfect being, is who man strives to be. All the technology we have made has gone to benefit us humans. And to do this, humanity had to be at the top of the tower. Forests enclosed mankind, with its leaves on top and the earth below. So, man got rid of the trees, showing their dominion over the lands. And, to conquer the sky, as Harrison mentions later, "space travel remains its [the giants] ultimate ambition".

          But all things are connected. We rely on the forest for food and shelter (our homes and furniture are even made out of wood), and it is our true home. The sky is the unknown- our religion, our intelligence. We seem to need the forest for our physical needs, and the sky supplies us with our minds. Perhaps we need not fear either of these elements, instead embracing it wholly. But then again, should we? For that would mean leaving our technology, our comforts, our wants. Our curiosity and crave for knowledge takes us on a never-ending journey. Mankind can survive solely on the forest and sky- but our wants and desires takes us further into the land of logic and technology. We fear each of these three things- the forest, the sky, and technology. Stories are told of forests where people never come back out, where wild beasts lie. The sky holds an entire universe of the unknown and unconquered, and God, almighty and all powerful, waits to judge humanity. Technology, the one that we most control, could grow to become the most destructive of all. It is strange that the three things that we hold on most dear to we also fear the most.

          What's interesting is that if we consider that man was born from the forest, the forest is like its home and mother. We often refer to the world as "Mother Earth" and the sky the father. Zeus, Jupiter, and Jove are all men. Perhaps mankind is going through some kind of "teenage year" where they insist on rebelling against their "mother" by running away from their sylvan home and exerting their control over the forest. For mankind does follow this cycle that starts and ends in the forest. Vico declares that "Men first feel necessity, then look for utility, next attend to comfort, still later amuse themselves with pleasure, thence grow dissolute in luxury, and finally go mad and waste their substance". The free giants, after hearing thunder, build homes and societies, and then gain knowledge and science, which helps make their lives comfier, and then they believe themselves to be happy, and then, because mankind has never-ending wants, decide to go back to when they were "free". This cycle is also touched upon in We when Zamyatin brings up the idea of infinite rebellions. And this does seem true. The French Revolution began and ended with a monarchical government. People rebelled because they were starving and living out on the streets. In the Grand Inquisitor, perhaps what the Grand Inquisitor says applies as well. "Give people bread, and then ask them of their virtue". And this is what the One State does. It gives people bread, and thus the people no longer worry  when they have this security. Freedom of Democracy addresses this as well. Individuals conform to society and to each other, thus minimizing the differences and living as one. Whatever the case, the idea seems to be a one that we humans think of often and deeply.

Testing 1. 2.. 3...

Hello

My name is Adrienne.

This whole blogging thing is a new concept for me. It is kind of like a diary, I guess. Or a journal for a class. Although I have never ever blogged before,

I think I like blogs.

For one thing, it saves paper. Lots of it. I am all about saving the world. Paper by paper, blog by blog.

Every little bit counts.

Plus, it keeps all of your journals neatly in order. And it helps when you types out your thoughts quickly. You can access this thing anywhere!

A little off topic,

I actually have no idea what these blockquotes do

- which is why I am using them everywhere.I hope it's nothing drastic. Anyways, this is enough of testing the blog thing out- not only learning what all the buttons do, but also the thinking that goes behind a blog- so...

Yeah!

Questions of Conquest, Freedom and Democracy

I found both of these writings quite ingenious in their ideas and fascinating to read.  They both relate to each other and We. The first one, Questions of Conquest, talks about Indian cultures versus Spain's, and how they mixed together. The most interesting part of this article is when Llosa begins to talk about the "modernization" of the Indians by the Spaniards. According to the author, it was the Indians' culture that ultimately led to their defeat. The empire of Tawantinsuyu is a fascinating one. The Incan society was a whole- one body. All were fed, all were housed- and all were one. Llosa says the Incan individuals "lacked the ability to make own decisions either with the sanction of authority or indeed against it and were incapable of taking individual initiative". The authority (in reality the emperor/god/master) represented his empire of twenty million. Without their god, the Incans could not think nor protect themselves, and thus were they slaughtered by the spaniards.

This relates quite well with We (by Zamyatin) as the culture of the One State is all about crushing individual and living "happy" as one. As all beings are given numbers, and individuality and creativity are discouraged. Heavily. So much so that I-330, when she raised her hand alone against the Benefactor, she was about to be arrested. This is the same as in the Tawantinsuyu community. In Questions of Conquest Llosa states that the empire "was... Able to evolve slowly and with care in the field of knowledge, inventing only that which could support it and deterring all that which in some way or another could undermine it's foundation". Workers of the one state could only write propaganda-ish stuff, or spend time dutifully doing what one was told (except for one free hour) or else be taken, interrogated and, eventually, given a removal of one's imagination. Other factors of Incan society are similar to those of the One State. Llosa refers to the community as "machinery", as D-503 often does. One significant connection is the relation of religion to the people.. Llosa says this: "The individual had no importance and virtually no existence in that pyramidal and theocratic society whose achievements had always gene collective and anonymous... A state religion that took away the individual's free will and crowned the authority's decision with the aura of a divine mandate turned the Tawantinsuyu into a beehive- laborious, efficient, stoic". Llosa could have just as well been talking about We. The Benefactor, like the Incan emperor, was the Godlike figure to his society. D-503 could only bare to look at the Benefactor's feet, overwhelmed by the seeming power and religion the Benefactor held. Much like Tawantinsuyu, the One State was a colony of efficiency, perfection, and one-ness. The numbers worked hard at their duty, whatever it was and however long, and the conditions they lived in (glass houses with no playtime) gave them a stoic life. The numbers of the One State and the Incans are perhaps not too different.

Freedom and Democracy also contains several connections to Zamyatin's novel, if more theoretical than real. There are several points that the author makes which are key ideas in We. The author of Freedom and Democracy also manages to relate it to not only a fiction story, but to now in the 21st century. Here, the author points out reasons why an individual fails to, well, individualize himself and instead conform to society. What is most important is the loss of identity. In this article, it is said that "because we freed ourselves of the older overt forms of authority, we do not see that we have become prey of a new kind of authority". This relates to the first story we read about people with only perceived freedom- but in reality it being only an illusion to gain people's compliance. In this article, it also says "the loss of the self has increased the necessity to conform". The author means that all of us question who we are- and in lack of an answer to the disturbing question, we push it aside and out of our minds, and instead merge into society- "I am 'as you desire me.'" the author later tells us that "By conforming with the expectations of others, by not being different, these doubts about one's own identity are silenced and a certain security is gained". This is what the One State has done. As the numbers refer to themselves as "we", they loose their individuality and imagination, but gain security- no loss of self, no hunger, no boredom, no questions. Life just is. It's a fact.

Both of these articles led me down a train of thought and invoked a lot of imagination on my part. The questions that were asked I asked myself- "who am I"? I found myself agreeing with some parts and disagreeing with others. For instance, I do not believe that individuals are solely only individuals or part of a bigger community. We are both. I am what my parents made me, of all that has happened outside of myself, but my thoughts are my own. I do not always agree with something that anyone says, and often I find something quite different to say. I am unique, as are we all.




                  Jorina's Comment

                                Hey, I agree with the connections you made between the

                  articles and We, well done on that part. The points you made
                  about the society in the One State in connection with the society
                  described as the Inca Empire are very well developed and I
                  completely agree with you. But is creativity in the One State
                  really discouraged? Think about the fact that there are poets,
                  writing poems, D-503 creating a new building, the Integral...
                  Also I wouldn't say that the Benefactor is the number's religion.
                  Of course there are significant relations to God and the way they
                  admire him, but it's not like they believe in the Benefactor, but
                  maybe I'm wrong?
                              I also feel that you could have developed more the
                  connection between the two articles. There are some interesting
                  connections like the fact that in 'Questions of Conquest' the author
                  thinks that the way we are as an individual all came from the
                  ancient empires and that we 'grew' into it as a society; The other
                  article says that our individuality developed the way it developed
                  because of our parents, the school we went to and the people that
                  'shaped' us. I believe that's an interesting point you could have
                  mentioned.
                             Otherwise I think that your reaction is thoughtful and
                  interesting. You mentioned some things that I didn't even see
                  before, good job Adrienne !

                  Jorina

Zamyatin's "We" and "On Language"

Considering that Zamyatin wrote both "We" and "On Language", of course their are similarities between the two. What Zamyatin has said in "On Language" greatly applies to his novel "We.

In "On Language", Zamyatin states that, in good literature, there is no difference between poetry and literary prose. He instead separates literary works into two different categories- lyrical and epic. Describing the writer as an actor, the epic writer must "reincarnate himself wholly into the characters, the milieu he is portraying". Zamyatin believes that the writer must think like his characters, and write what they would write. A writer should not be afraid to make up his own words or anecdotes- if that is what the character would do. He then focuses on a more specific aspect of writing- spoken language. Spoken language refers to everything- the descriptions, the dialogue, and the characters. In an epic work, the character must be present in everything.

This is how Zamyatin wrote in "We". The whole book is written from D-503's point of view- every sentence, every description, and word is from D-503. So not only do we learn about the events that occur, but D-503 himself, and how he thinks. We can tell his emotions from what he writes- whether he is confused and submerged in chaos- "I clutched at him. 'Quick-let's go to your office... I must... immediately-about everything!'" (Zamyatin, 227). D-503 is not thinking straight. At other times the author uses many periods and dashes to portray this confusion and lack of concentration. However, D-503 is sometimes clear in what he knows, with a mathematical, reassuring knowledge of all. For instance, on page 231- "The facts are as follows: that evening, my neighbor who had discovered the finiteness of the universe, I, and all who were with us were seized because we had no certificates to show we had been operated upon and were taken to the nearest auditorium..." D-503's thoughts are straight, using a normal procedure of time- "the facts are as follows... because". There are no questions, confusions, or periods. Thus, we know that something has happened to cause him to be calm.

In "On Language", Zamyatin also says to let the reader use his imagination to fill in the blanks (which is ironic, since "We" is about taking away imagination), and in his novel, Zamyatin does this. For instance, on page 219, D-503 says "... I must-you hear? At once, I cannot...". The reader must fill in what is not said- I must find I-330, and so on. Throughout the book Zamyatin uses this technique, which can help the reader feel confused, calm, or whatever emotion should be felt.