Cat's Cradle

Postmodernism has no distinct center or controlling source where it originated from, which makes it difficult to exactly define what is postmodernism. In  the book Postmodernism for Beginners, the author describes life as "all the world's cultures, rituals, races, databanks, myths and musical motifs are intermixing like a smorgasbord in an earthquake." Meaning that postmodernists' goal is to take the separate groups, or as Kurt Vonnegut would say "granfaloons", and represent them. Postmodernists seem to believe that there is no central truth to life and that there is beauty within the chaos of multiple perspectives of life. I would even go so far as to say that postmodernists would say that holding a central ‘truth’ to life leads to the destruction of humanity because then everyone conforms to that idea and the idea of the individual is obliterated.

In Cat’s Cradle the postmodernist views come out when analyzing it with the lens of postmodernism. For starters, in the book there is a man named Bokonon who creates a religion on his discovered island in order to form a utopia of sorts, and in the first line of his book that defines the religion, he says: "All of the true things that I am to tell you are shameless lies." This shows that Vonnegut’s, the author, opinion of religion in itself is faulty since people are always on the search for something that they can believe and place their trust in. And with this quote in the very beginning of a religious text, the postmodernist ideals come out because Bokonon is straight forward in saying that it is all a lie, and that people trust that his religion is the ultimate truth are misleading themselves into finding ‘happiness’. Philosophies, like "Bokononism," are simply meant to give man something to think about, another way to sidetrack himself from the brutality of reality. This happiness that people find themselves in is usually because of the ignorance of what is truly going on around them and how cruel the world really. Postmodernists have this same ideal because you are broken off from the rest of the world and are in your own state of mind that everything is good in the world, which is embracing the different perspectives of life; just like what Cat’s Cradle is showing its readers.

Developing a Topic for Brave New World

So after reading Brave New World and pondering over the purpose of the writing, I finally found a solid argument to base my essay on. It has come to my attention that a major parallel that can be crossed between life under the government in the New Order and life today is that the majority of people live in such a way to obtain instant gratification.Whether its from popping soma to having sex more often than rabbits, people under the control of the government are conditioned to please their feelings in the moment. Likewise, in the world today everyone seeks to please themselves through the consumerism and fast-food nation we have become.
The sources I plan on using to help contribute to my arguments is Sir Ken Robinson's Youtube video about Changing Education Paradigms and Naomi Klein's chapter in her book called "Alt. Everything: The Youth Market and the Marketing of Cool". In Sir Ken Robinson's video, there is a point when he talks about the "Epidemic" of ADHD and how if you pop a pill, everything instantly becomes better since the student can now focus in class instead of paying attention to the distractions around him/her. This shows the parallel between the New Order and life today by soma being the "solve all" pill if you ever feel down, which follows the same paradigm as with ADHD pills. In Naomi Klein's writing, it is mentioned that the youth today are all about consumerism and how if there was a concert without any merchandise, there would be an uproar; meaning that Americans are 'programmed' to buy, buy, buy. Likewise, in the New World government, the people that are produced are conditioned to consume whatever the output the economy is creating, whatever it may be. This conditioning occurs during the early production of the fetus and is necessary to the overall stability of the New World, which in a way is the same as the economy today.

Brave New.. Education?

     First off, I just want to say that this clip is very informational and the man who created is an absolute genius basically because.. he is right. Something that I found interesting in these short 10 minutes of film is that the current system of education was designed and conceived for a different age: the Enlightenment. This is absolutely the truth because at the time, you were either rich or poor; or in a better sense, smart or non-smart. Some benefit from this system, but the vast majority doesn't. This is because there are a select few who are deemed as smart and then focused on to become prodigies in their certain field of genius. Education is modeled on interests of industrialization and the image of it, or in simpler terms, a production line. Kids are placed through the schooling system based on their age, or production date, and then are sent to the world to make a difference armed with the knowledge of what they obtained in school. The smart ones receive the most attention because teachers want to make them into great success stories, while the average are hidden in the background doing what they do best.. being average. And for those who don't believe it's the kids fault, they diagnose them with AD-HD saying that all they need to do is pop a pill to focus and everything is going to be all right.
      There are many parallels in the education system of American and the world in general to the society of Brave New World. For one, when talking about the creation of new life, it is mentioned that "ninety-six [seems] to be the limit" and that it promotes "social stability" (8). The parallel with this is, like being taught in the education system, kids are produced on a factory line and already predestined in regards to what their job is going to be in life and what social class they are a part of. Likewise, in the real world students are given out grades and based on their efforts it gives a basis on who will succeed in life and who will struggle with intelligence. Soma is also a drug that makes the world easier to bear, like when Lenina recognizes Bernard is upset, she says "'.. take soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You'd forget all about them. And instead of feeling miserable, you'd be jolly. So jolly'" (92). In the education system of America, if a person isn't "normal", that is of the same caliber of "intelligence", then they are diagnosed with a learning disability and are given pills to make them better and obtain knowledge better. Soma has the same effect in the World State, if you are not feeling in tip-top shape, just take some soma and in a snap you are all better with "happiness". How surreal?

Brave New World Order

We are finally done with The Tempest! now onto something completely different.. sort of.
In Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley, the government, like that in 1984, works to control the population through the desensitization of sexual desire and the obliteration of the concept of family. In chapter three, Mustapha Mond talks about the inter workings of the function of the government:  "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." Ultimately this means that everything must work in unison, with no unnecessary parts, but if left alone it will be demolished. Those who tend to this process are men who have had the values of family and desire stripped from them since birth so that the only thing they know to love and are content with is in the work they do to provide for the success of the government. You may ask though, how does the government handle what has happened in the past and the questions that rise from it? Well, according to the Controller, "history is bunk." Or in other words, a lie or unnecessary in accordance to the world in which they live in. This means that all the family values and desires of the body that happened in the past were obliterated for the new age of babies being made in factories, deeming the process of childbearing pointless and a waste of time. The reason why this is done is so the government can condition the babies when they are born to like what they were born to do and be afraid of whatever the government wants them to be afraid of; so in a sense they control society through fear and manipulation. Although this is not the only method the government uses to control its own, it is definitely a big part of it.

I wish I could "vaporize" The Tempest...

In discussions of Shakespeare's The Tempest, one controversial issue has been deciphering the meanings and characters Shakespeare uses and whether said characters portray the events that paralleled its time period . On the one hand, many scholars, such as George Will, argue literary works should be viewed distinctly from the text, leaving inferring out of the question of analyzing its meaning. He goes as far to say that "by 'deconstructing,' or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority. To only look for political meaning in books and make it the only perspective you, or the people you influence, look at, then it takes away what the piece of literature is bring forth to the world. On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt contends that it is suitable, and even sometimes necessary, to look between the lines of literature and seek out meanings that are intended for the reader to discover. "I am deeply committed to passing on the precious heritage of our language, and I take seriously the risk of collective amnesia." He feels that looking for political values in literature is a necessary component in reading literature and to take that away is to take away and wipe out the memory of all that has occurred in the past. Language is what intertwines us as a people and the collective history our ancestors have created, and, according to Greenblatt, taking that away is like taking away all that they have done. Although I do agree to this perspective somewhat, I believe that limiting ourselves to analyzing literature with only one lens to spark our creative thinking causes us to miss the bigger picture of what message the piece of literature is actually portraying. It is good to let keep open the possibilities of each perspective, but the ultimate conclusion of what each work is about should not come from anyone else except for what the individual believes. Nothing more, nothing less.

A Few Good Reasons Why Not To Think So Hard.

For as long as literature has been around, there has always been that one person who decided that there MUST be a deeper meaning to what they were writing. After reading two essays on the deeper meaning of works of literature, I have come up with my own theory that would suffice in looking further into literature than necessary. But first, I must explain the opposite views these writers posed.
The first of the essays was written by George Will, an intelligent man with a knack for writing, not to mention a Pulitzer Prize in his pocket. To start off his essay, he blatantly stated that "all literature is.. political". This poses the question, why exactly? He dives a little deeper into saying "culture is oppressive and a literary canon is an instrument of domination". Oh? So what he's really trying to say is every book ever written has a certain reason as to why it is being written, whether it is to show the oppression of the domination culture of to drop slight hints on feminism. This is a very interesting take on the perspective of books, but lets take a look at the other side of things..
Stephen Greenblatt, a professor at Harvard University, takes us on this walk on the wild side (according to George Will at least). His ideas are rooted in that fact that professors of the "curriculum" of looking in the deeper meaning of books are "bent on sabotaging Western civilization by delegitimizing its founding texts and ideas". Interesting. What does he mean by "delegitimzing you say? Greenblatt goes a little further by saying "[literature].. is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing" and that "[writers] cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement". So in a sense he is saying that looking at literature through the peep hole of everything being political, the readers and everyone else are missing the fact that there is actual beauty in literature. One could go so far as to saying it is a form of art.
After all this, do you really want my point of view? Well too bad if you said no, because here it is anyways. Yes, I believe that there are some books and stories that have a deeper political meaning, but to say that every book has one? Now that is just too far. Looking at literature with different "lenses", such as the political lens, the religious lens, or even the ethical lens, distorts and manipulates one's self into thinking and seeing something in a piece of literature that may or may not be there. An example of this is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The majority of the Christian community believes that the entire story is a giant allusion to Christ's death and resurrection and rapture. In all honesty, why not? You can see whatever you want to see in stories such as those and who's to say that you are wrong? It is all opinion, with no right or wrong answer, unless of course you ask the writer yourself, then maybe there is a right answer. Just maybe..

I'm not really enjoying this book..

After reading, and rereading due to the failure to understand what happened the first time through, I believe that Caliban is definitely a correlation to the natives today and the effect of the dominating culture. Before Prospero and his daughter Miranda came to the island, Caliban was there learning all there is to know about what was on the island and how to live in harmony with it. When Prospero arrived, Caliban taught him everything he needed to know about living there and in return Prospero decided to civilize Caliban up to the standards of the rest of the world. Likewise, this also occurred when the Europeans came to the Americas for the first time and pushed the Natives out for there own good.
After further investigation and deeper thought, I believe that Shakespeare is actually sympathizing with Natives today because when Caliban was telling Stephano about Prospero's unrighteous overtaking of the island, he said "'... he used witchcraft to take this island. He stole it from me.. take revenge on him for that...'" The connotation of the word stole makes it seem like Caliban was the innocent one with Prospero acting out of selfish ambition to take the island away from him. Literacy Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practic also gives some valid points as to the sympathy of the "Others", such as it "has already been articulated by the dominant class and its accompanying hegemony: silence." Pondering this statement, you will find that it has been brought up that the minority of those oppressed are forced into silence, denied their natural rights, and virtually erased from the thought of the dominant culture.
The video on Native Americans was very accurate and is very dangerous their portrayal to the public. Since the white man won over Natives, they have the obligation to show what the Indians did in any way they chose. Although there were not many similarities between mine opinion on Shakespeare's Caliban, it shows the other spectrum of Natives being evil, bloodthirsty criminals; which causes racist prejudice which is not easy to reverse.

The Tempest. bleh.

Although Prospero is alone on an island, it is fair to say that he is not without his subjects. His power reins over Miranda his daughter, Caliban, and Ariel by manipulating what actually happened in the past and what they believe. This manipulation is most evident with his daughter Miranda such as when he was telling her about him being the Duke of Milan, he asks her, "But how is it possible that you still remember this, through all the darkness of the past?" This is meant to make Miranda to question her own sanity and if Prospero does this enough times she will begin to believe that whatever she remembers is false, therefore leaving her mind as a blank slate so it may be written with whatever nonsense Prospero chose. With this ultimate power, Prospero decided that it would be best to make him out to be the good man who had been done wrong in his life by saying "We were pushed out of power by evil deeds.. But we were blessed being helped toward this island". This is his effort to justify that everything that he had done during his reign as Duke of Milan by saying that he was done wrong and unfairly sent away to the deserted island.
As well as manipulating the past, he also uses his power of magic to make people do whatever pleased him. When Caliban did unsatisfactory work, Prospero was far from pleased and screamed at him "If you neglect my orders or do them grudgingly, I'll double you up with pains and cramps, and make all your bones ache, and make you scream so loud that the wild animals will tremble when they hear you". Prospero is able to use this threat effectively because he has the ability to conjure magic and issue pain to anyone he wishes ill-will upon. This reigning power over everyone else helps him to further manipulate them to do his will and nothing else because the ultimate factor of fear of pain and suffering sparks their behavior without question.
These examples, although from an entirely different time period, correlate with the book 1984 exceptionally well. From the manipulating of history in books and magazines to the sheer power over the citizens, Big Brother has dominating characteristics that correlate with the demeanor or Prospero. These characteristics are necessary because it shows that power is present, but not to an extent to where their subjects are able to tell that they are being swayed in their thinking and logic.

The Dangers of a Single Source.

When I first heard about the Socratic Circle, I was very skeptical about how it will be beneficial to me and thought that it would be just a complete time waster. However, I am pleased to say that this is far from the truth because it is actually very beneficial in expanding knowledge and deepening your understanding of the world around us.
During this time of discussion, there were many great ideas brought up, but the underlying question of what are the dangers of a single story or source must be pondered. One problem with a single source is that there is complete bias from the creator and that the reader must accept what is being told to him, for he knows no other way. A parallel of this truth comes from the book 1984, written by George Orwell, it is about a totalitarian government that holds a monopoly on all information and with this stranglehold of power, they are able to tell their citizens whatever they like and the citizens must go along with it because they don't know any better, thus open to whatever lies they are fed. An example from this book would be the Ministry of Truth in general. The reason for their existence was to blot out any errors that Big Brother made in newspapers, books, and broadcastings because they wanted to show the people that Big Brother is always right and there should never be a reason to question them. Since Big Brother was the only outlet of news and information, lies could be fed be fed to the public and it would be soaked up as fast as a sponge absorbing water, with no conscience challenging it.  The biggest problem with a single source is that one cannot tell if it is the truth or a bundle of lies unless there are other sources that back them up. Personal bias has a profound effect on single sources in that it lets the reader in on only what the writer wants them to know, throwing everything else out deeming it unnecessary information. From this, I hope you gain the knowledge to challenge whatever is told to you until there is further sources to back it up.

Put that thing back where it came from, or so help me!

This is the way I felt when summer ended...