D.A.R.E. to set an example

I get all pessimistic and irritable when I have a blog post due. Just saying.

To keep in the Holocaust topic, I found an article done by BBC News titled "Holocaust book yields new insights." The article begins by introducing David Irving, a man who was arrested in Austria for being a "Holocaust denier." He had "sued American historian Deborah Lipstadt for libel in Britain," lost his case, and was then deemed a denier of the Holocaust.

The article goes on introducing a variety of people who are fascinated by the idea that anyone could ever deny a historical event so tragic and solemn as the Holocaust. A woman by the name of Lyn Smith said, "That's something I just cannot understand - that people like Irving continue to deny, when there is so much evidence." The book this article is written about includes "excerpts of recordings from survivors and witnesses, tracing the Holocaust chronologically," and Mrs. Smith claims, "It is as near as you can possibly get to first-hand views of the Holocaust." The book includes a man named Jan Imich, who remembers the trips he had to make daily to a crematorium, where, upon arrival, had to witness the process of the taking of innocent bodies into a furnace and watched them burn to death. He goes on to add that one day, after leaving the crematorium he collapsed and began to cry. A man, whose job it was to kill people, approached him. However, instead of shooting Imich, he smiled and told the Kapo to let him go.

A woman named Zdenka Ehrlich used these words when recalling one of her experiences: “I was one of three hundred…just like a dying animal lying there on the floor - completely left to my own devices.”

Stanley Faull, another survivor of the Holocaust, was asked by his brother to describe his experience, and “Stanley started to tell him and his brother started to cry. Stanley was so upset he vowed never to tell anyone.” It is astonishing to many that with all the death and trauma that was the Holocaust, how could people who were there and went through it have possibly survived? Things were so indescribably horrific that many survivors did not share their experiences until decades after the events happened.

Truly, no person could ever make up such stories as this. So with such somber descriptions of what people went through, how can anyone NOT believe that the Holocaust happened? How can anyone deny such a thing? These insights can prove any non-believer wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4456446.stm

Well. My Internet FINALLY decided that it would work.

This is what I get for living in a portion out in the country that only offers the speed of the Internet that only the Amish would ever tolerate.


Okay, after reading the article "Postmodern Architecture and Art," I think that I have a much different, and thorough, I think, understanding of the postmodern concept than I did the first time I was assigned to write about it. So, if you don't mind, I am going to re-teach the idea to myself before I proceed in mentioning Cat's Cradle-because I need to. Sorry, ahead of time. Evidently, postmodernism was established by some intellectual Englishmen, who were intrigued by the technological advances being made in America in the 1960s. So, what I got from that was that it was a focus on "more." What more can be done? How can we progress even further? Because we can always have more, BETTER. Also, mentioned in the article were these people called 'futurists.' So it is a focus on the future. Postmodernists placed their focus on the future, always anticipating. Charles Jencks defined Postmodernism as "double coding: the combination of Modern techniques with something else in order for architecture to communicate with the public and a concerned minority..." In Postmodern architecture, said double coding is played out through eclecticism, "[creating] parody, ambiguity, contradiction, paradox." Again, appealing to that idea of more. Postmodernism is there to make people think. And not just a specific group of people; it is there for the most intellectual adult AND the most simple-minded of people, even children. Because it takes simple objects and adds a sophisticated, complex feel-even something as simple as a teapot. It takes the popular and adds classic, to add sophistication, while still remaining simple, thus appealing to all audiences.
Okay, rant over. I think I'm clearer now.
Well, it was much toward the beginning of the book, but I recall Asa Breed's son resigning from his job at the Research Laboratory because he claimed that everything a scientist ever did was set out to become a weapon. Now, I see this as a Postmodern idea, not because he was so focused on advancing for a more technological future (which, as a scientist, in fact, that is precisely the case) but because he saw that any advancements and discoveries he made, being a scientist and all, would contribute to others' uses of his discoveries for society's advancements in the future. So, no, this was not her son's way of portraying Postmodern beliefs, but he was aware of the fact that society is all about the future, and better, and more. And scientists are the ones who even give us the ideas for better and more because they are the ones doing all of the research; we just put it to use to make for a more "efficient" tomorrow. Okay, I think I may be going in circles, and I may not even make sense. But that is what I came up with, and it kind of makes sense to me. So there.

from soma to orgies

That was a fun reading, let me tell you...

So, I think for my essay, that I am going to address the idea of people controlling their own realities, well, controlling their own realities and the realities of many, many others. In Brave New World, the DHC, Henry Foster has ultimate control over the mentioned societal specimens. They like consumption in his society, so he does what he can to increase consumption, by changing what could be simple games into these huge apparatuses (apparatusses/apparati?); people take soma to escape reality; reproduction is bad, and people are created, and women take contraceptives to prevent conception. ALL THAT JAZZ. I also intend to include examples from 1984 and The Tempest as well. I do not remember all of 1984 very vividly at this point, but I do know that I am going to mention something about Big Brother. I will talk about how Big Brother monitored ever so closely the lives of its subjects, what with all of those telescreen contraptions and microphones (Was there a name for those things? I can't remember right now) and probably more examples of that nature from 1984. I am also planning on discussing Prospeo's character traits from The Tempest. I think, just maybe, I will talk about how he did his best to build himself up in his own mind, and in the minds of others, too, by the ways in which he told his stories. For example, when he was telling Miranda of her childhood, Prospero made himself out to be the hero through the context he used (and, most likely, chose not to use). And I will quote him for that portion. However, at this point, that does not sound to me like it will pose as a very convincing argument. So I'm thinking I will mention also, maybe even instead, how Prospero used his servant spirit Ariel to concoct that infamous tempest over the sea, and why exactly he did it (because it was all about the power). He wanted power to be his reality, so he did what he could to get the reality he wanted.

I'm thinking I'll save the 1984 portion for the last of my body paragraphs; it is definitely presenting itself as the stronger argumentative foundation of the two at this point. Even though it might not sound so strong right now, I assure you, my overall essay will be amazing, The Tempest part just as strong as the other. Just you wait...

This blog post sucks! (If I I were still in Ms. Led's class, that would have been a letter)

I have not had so much trouble getting myself to even start on a blog post until this one. Seriously, this was ridiculous. But that may be because I don't understand very well what is going on. But I swear, I'm working on it. Okay anyhow, down to business sorta.

In the argumentative articles regarding the views of Stephen Greenblatt and George Will, the issue at hand was the presence of politics in literature. One guy sees politics in literature, the other guy does not; they argued about it. It was lovely, long-worded, long-sentenced, and just beautiful...yeh, not. As in my last post, I will stand by my own idea that politics are not incorporated in literature unless it is intended that they be. However, it is all up to one's own upbringing to decide what he or she gets or does not get out of the piece being read.

When it comes to Shakespeare, though, well he always has something different to say. Every one of his plays is different from the next, and I find that beautiful, amazing even. I do not see politics in his pieces, no. But each piece has its very own meaning. I don't understand his style most of the time, but I do respect his diversity. And that is how I see all literature; every novel, poem, play, whatever has its own unique style to portray its theme, or moral.

The way I see it, literature is just literature (the "just" isn't being said out of nonchalance or ignorance; I just mean that people are putting all these extra and unneeded ingredients into it). It is a way for the writer to express himself or herself in whatever way he or she pleases; it doesn't matter how things are said. And as far as the readers go, well we should read with just the same freedom as the writers write. We do not have any set format in how we should interpret what we read. Nonetheless, we should have complete and utter freedom in doing so. That is literature.

To be [political], or not to be [political]

Well, Shakespeare is boring enough to read, let alone when I have to THINK about it. Ugh. But the sarcasm used throughout these articles was pretty good, I won’t lie. Truthfully, I don’t know who to agree completely with, but if I did have to choose a side, I think I would go with that of Stephen Greenblatt…and not just because his last name is kind of funny. I choose him partly because of what he has to say, and also, I was somewhat distracted when I was reading George Will’s article, and thus what he had to say didn’t seem very interesting or appealing.

I will start my argument (Is this an argument?) by saying that the only thing, in particular, that George Will stated that caught my attention is that "…culture is oppressive and a literary canon is an instrument of domination." Well, I guess I can admit that SOME areas of culture are oppressive, but I wouldn’t blame that on culture; I would say that that is human nature, to feel the need that we are higher than others and thus are cruel to them to feel that power. So to bring culture into it, to me, sounds oblivious, like he was just saying it to say it. Weak. And about the literary canon: Wow; he really thinks that we are just controlled by the guy with the puppet strings (in his mind, the author), that we fall for whatever we read? I don’t think so. Real life tends to take bigger charge in molding our beliefs, I think. Not what some guy made up. Just saying.

"The student of Shakespeare who asks about racism, misogyny, or anti-Semitism is not on the slippery slope toward what George Will calls "collective amnesia and deculturation,"" says Stephen Greenblatt. So true. Literature is not some disease, in the awful way George Will describes it to be. I may not be some literary scholar or read classics in my spare time, but I do appreciate bits and pieces from them. They’re enlightening, not controlling. So Will can calm his butt down. We read it (or SparkNotes) because we have to, and I don’t think that will be changing anytime soon. In the meantime, let us go on our merry way, reading what is required of us—NOT being subconsciously manipulated by the lines and what may metaphorically lie between—and continue to be enlightened, or not, the way we always have or have not been. Why mess with the classics? They’re classic for a reason, apparently.

Pretty sure I may have gotten the guys' views opposite of what they actually are; I didn't follow the articles a bit, so my opinions are based solely on the quotes I've cited and probably not on the entirity of each article, due to my lack of attempt at comprehension. Just saying..

Caliban was there first.

Caliban is a very similar character to that of the native peoples, when it comes to who has (had) the power. Just as the natives made it to America first (hence the term ‘natives’) and were taken over by white men and women, Caliban arrived at the island in Shakespeare’s story first and foremost, and still he was overruled. As “Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, and Queer Theory” points out, “the other—that is, any person defined as “different from,”.” Somehow, Caliban was seen as “different,” and thus he was vulnerable [to becoming subject to anyone who believed he could have the higher power over Caliban]. Therefore, just as the native peoples allowed themselves to become subject to the white men and women, Caliban allowed himself to become a subject of Stephano’s.

Caliban claims such things to Stephano as “I do adore thee” and “I’ll show thee every fertile inch o' th' island. And I will kiss thy foot. I prithee, be my god.” Okay, well that’s nonsense. Caliban was obviously there first, and he could do whatsoever he pleased. And here he is, probably the only one who knows what every nook and cranny beholds upon the island, and he is just giving it away. (Mind you, within some of those nooks and crannies are freshwater springs, probably the most sacred places on the island…since, well, they’re on an island.) Yet, Caliban is mindless enough to give it all up  because he now worships this Stephano guy. Well, his loss, for giving up all that knowledge to who is now evidently a higher power.

See the parallel? Who ran our land before we did? The Native Americans did. Who runs it today? We do (the white people). Why is that? It is because the Native Americans ultimately gave us the “power.”