KILLER FASHION...Literally.

MAUS

Well hello everyone! I seriously feel like it's been forever since we've had to post a blog so excuse me if this one is a bit rusty. In this blog posting we are supposed to find an article on the graphic novel we just finished reading, Maus part 2 and summarize what the article was about. I chose an article titled, Art Spiegelman's Maus: An Analysis of Honesty and Imperfection by Stacy Affleck. I found this article quite interesting and I really enjoyed reading it because it made me realize something about the novel that I didn't recognize on my own. This article really stresses the idea that this novel is a way of portraying the fact that humans are imperfect no matter what horrific episodes they have survived they are still human and are still flawed. Stacy Affleck pointed out that Maus is very different than any of the other novels and stories written on the holocaust. The main reason why Maus is so different besides the fact that it’s a cartoon is the fact that Art Spiegelman doesn’t necessarily portray the survivors of the war to be these perfect heroes that can survive anything but simply humans who are people just like us. Affleck talks about how Spiegelman really shows how raw the connections were between the Jewish prisoners in the camps. One way Spiegalman does this is by showing readers how his father, Vladeck was so eager and willing to put himself before anyone else and how he did anything he could to survive even if it costs other prisoners their life or sometimes worse, their suffering. By showing this aspect of the prison camps and the prisoners inside them Art Spiegelman really illustrated how the connection between prisoners became inhuman not because they were bad people but because in the situation they were put in they really had no other choice but to act like that. Affleck’s article really points out the fact that Maus is a very honest illustration of the Holocaust and that it portrays the survivors of the Holocaust not as these perfect heroes but as what they really are, humans.


http://www.suite101.com/content/an-analysis-of-honesty-and-imperfection-in-art-spiegelmans-maus-a323850

cats cradle woooooooooooooo

Before I discuss the post modernistic theme in Kurt Vonnegut’s novel
Cat’s Cradle I would first like to express how much I enjoyed this
week’s Socratic circle on Thursday. Listening my peer’s thoughts and
insights really helped me understand some of the key themes and
concepts that appear in Kurt’s novel and opened my eyes to things I
didn’t realize on my own. The main issue that concluded our Socratic
circle yesterday was that Kurt Vonnegut related post modernism to his
novel Cat’s Cradle. Post modernism was a movement in response to the
ideas and elements of Modernism. Modernism is primarily based upon the
proposal that “decoration is sin” and revolved around regularity and
standardization. Post Modernism criticizes these ideas and purposes
that there is no right way of seeing or understanding a piece of art or
literature. Post Modernism purposes that different individuals will
visualize and react to the same piece of work in their own way based on
their individual backgrounds and environment. The theme of Post
Modernism appears strongly throughout Cat’s Cradle but mainly in the
chapters we discussed in our Socratic Circle (Chapters 74-80). The
major focal point of these chapters is the different reactions of Newt
Hoenikker’s painting. The painting is described as “Small and black and
warty. It consisted of scratches made in a black, gummy impasto. The
scratches formed a sort of spider’s web.” By this description of the
painting it’s clear to tell that this piece of art doesn’t follow the
ideas of modernism and structural elements. Because this painting is so
abstract and doesn’t have a set meaning it can be related to post
modernism. This painting’s purpose and meaning will differ based upon
the individual viewing it. Each person will view it differently and
there is no right way of seeing it. Kurt included this painting in his
novel to represent post modernism

Brave New Worldddddd

Alright first of all I would just like to say that this book was very depressing and made me want to kill myself in the end J although it was very interesting to read and crazy to try to imagine or even picture inside my head. For this essay we are preparing to write on this novel I think I’m going to relate the novel we read over the summer, 1984 and Brave New World to show how a world that is controlled entirely by a government or a group of controllers will usually end in chaos. In both of these novels the public and the majority of people’s lives were controlled and manipulated to fit what was considered normal. In 1984 the public was completely controlled by the government with false propaganda and their lives were basically a lie that revolved around the government. Similarly the people in Brave New World are basically controlled by birth in that they are created in factories and each person is created for a certain purpose. Anyone who is not made perfectly in one of these factories is considered an outsider and is banished. Also in the novel 1984 any person who happens to think differently than what the government wants and acts out on their thoughts is put through intense torture that will psychologically change their minds and make them “normal” Likewise in Brave New World once someone begins to be aggravated or provoked they are given a drug called Soma which instantly relieves their stress and makes them happy and once again makes them “normal”. Also I might include something about The Tempest using the character of Caliban and the character of the savage in showing how both of these characters were treated poorly and looked down upon just because they were different than everybody else. I think this is so interesting because it seems like in our world today everyone is striving to be different and almost wants that attention that is earned by being unique.

Sir Ken Robinson Vid

Sir Ken Robinson has a very interesting point of view on things but he also makes a lot of important points that became clear and believable. Throughout the video I was really surprised by the relation he made with our current mind set for society and children along with how the world and soceity we live in is what set the standards for which we think is acceptable made complete sense. I also really liked the point he made on how our society today has changed in the way we want to diagnose the many children or few adults with a disease like ADD or ADHD for the reason why some children can't live up to those "standards" or why they are unable to meet the criteria we have created. So now doctors think we can "cure" them by giving them a drugging them and giving them a pill that will sedate them so they can sit still with every other child in the classroom. So they can fit and be the same as every other child who doesn't suffer from ADD or ADHD. This is similar to Brave New World because in the novel everyone is born exactly the same way and for a certain purpose and once someone seems to be thinking differently or anything that strays away from the "norm" they exile them or like our society they drug them. Just like today, how we are giving heavy drugs to the children who think differently so that they can fit in and meet the expectations is just like how the controllers in Brave New World would drug anyone who was different or thought differently so that they could fit in with the "norm". If fitting in means being drugged and not being able to think naturally for myself then count me out cause that's not thinking at all.

Brave New World

In the novel Brave New World the entire culture along with their values are completely manipulated to be the exact opposite from what we think is normal, in other words the morals we have in our world today would be considered crazy to the people of Brave New World. In Brave New World babies are manufactured and created inside of factories instead of the “normal” way we reproduce in our society. In Brave New World there is no such thing as family or relationships and the public in Brave New World lives by the motto that “everyone belongs to everyone else”.  The people of society are conditioned to believe that having multiple partners is completely encouraged and accepted. In our society we grow up and are conditioned to believe that we must find one other partner in which we spend the rest of our lives with and create a family with. In my opinion the motto that “everyone belongs to everyone else” really means that no one belongs to anyone. If no one has any strong or deep attachment to anyone else then what are they really worth? Also the entire economic social system is manufactured to work correctly or smoothly. For example from the Mustapha Mond the quote that”Wheels must turn steadily, but cannot 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." This certain quote shows how the entire work world is produced to run without any complications by creating people for each system. For example, the lower working system is filled with people who were created to do simple jobs so that they are always satisfied with doing even the simplest of tasks. This is made so that everyone is conditioned to be happy with what they do in life.

Preparing to write about the Tempest

In this weeks blog we were asked to discuss what we think would be interesting to write about for The Tempest along with other works that offer different points of view and different ways to interepret the play due to history and events from the past. For me, I think that William Shakespears The Tempest relates most clearly with the points discussed in Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, And Queer Theory. One of the controversial issues between these two writings is whether or not Shakespear wrote the tempest in favor of colonialism or in favor of the natives otherwise known as "the others". In my opinion I think that Shakespear wrote The Tempest in favor of colonialism and the British Empire that are discussed in Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, And Queer Theory. Shakespear portrays these issues through the main characters of his play, Caliban and Prospero, Caliban being the native or "the other" and Prospero being the British Empire. The reason I believe that Shakespear wrote The Tempest in favor of colonialism is because of the way he portrays these two characters and what they represent. Caliban is portrayed as an uneducated savage that doesn't have any self control. While Shakespear portrays Prospero as being the wise and powerful man who controls Caliban. On the other hand, I believe that Aime Cesaire's adaptation of The Tempest was portrayed in a more humurous and comical way compared to Shakespear's original play which is more on the serious side of things. Although Shakespear did intend this play to come off on a more serious note I don't think that Aime Cesaire's version of The Tempest could necessarily be considered wrong or disgraceful. I think that Aime Cesaire's take on The Tempest is more practical and modern which is easier for people to relate to now a days. This is only my opinion on these two issues and I'm sure there are many more ways to interepret them as well.