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.

Dear George Will and Stephen Greenblatt, i hate you.

Although this text was very confusing and challenging for me to read I'm going to attempt to analyze and explain it's points. :) These two debates written by George Will and Stephen Greenblatt are based upon the idea of whether or not a certain piece of literature is always going to reflect political beliefs or if an author's text is influenced by politics, colonization, religion, and other things of that matter that can also be interpreted differently throughout generations. George Will believes that a certain piece of literature is always going to reflect political beliefs and states in the text that "All literature is, whether writers are conscious of it or not, political." By stating this Will makes it very clear that all literature is meant to mean something very specific and all major authors, although they may not realize it, are always going to produce a work that reflects political beliefs. On the other side of the debate, Stephen Greenblatt thinks that an author's text is influenced by politics, colonization, religion, and other things of that matter that can also be interpreted differently throughout generations. In his article Stephen Greenblatt states that "A love for literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language, and scholarly honesty, and no t on flag waving, boosterism and conformity." In this statement, Stephen Greenblatt is saying that although a piece of literature may reflect and create an idea of political view, the most important part of writing is the fact that the author has the freedom to be imaginative and write to an audience that may interpret their writings in each a different way. In my opinion I agree with Stephen Greenblatt considering I feel that when I read a piece of literature I usually relate to the creative and individuality of the authors writing and not so much the political aspect of it. This may be because I don't pay much attention to politics as it is so my opinion and view on this may change as I get older and become more involved in politics. Although I personally agree with Stephen Greenblatt I think that both of these men made very strong and interesting points within their debates.

The Tempest & Postcolonialism

Yes I believe that in act 2 of The Tempest Shakespear does portray a sense of postcolonialism through the character of Caliban. In this section after Stephano finds Caliban and labels him as a "monster" Stephano forces Caliban to drink his wine to calm him down and to stop his trembling. After drinking and feeling the effects of Stephano's wine Caliban instantly wants to worship Stephano and become his slave. He says, "These be fine things, an if they be not sprites. That’s a brave god and bears celestial liquor. I will kneel to him." Here Caliban is saying that because this wine that Stephano has given him is shockingly amazing and like nothing he has ever had before that means Stephano must be an amazing god of some kind that he should worship. In the chapter on cultural studies and postcolonialism it states that "Using its political and economic muscles, Great Britain, the cheif imperialist power of the nineteenth century, dominated her colonies, making them produce and then give up their countries' raw materials in exchange for what material goods the colonized desired or were made to believe they desired by the colonizers." After reading this I realized that in the Tempest Caliban represents the colonized or the countries that were taken over by the colonizers and Stephano represents Great Britain. Caliban thinks that he needs to serve Stephano because Stephano has introduced him to this amazing wine which represents the material goods that he desires just like Great Britain did to the colonized countries in the nineteenth century. Now Stephano has complete control over Caliban all because of the fact that he was the one who introduced Caliban to this amazing material good, the wine. Also, I do believe that Shakespear created an unfair stereotype of "Others" with his characterization of Caliban. Shakespear portrays Caliban as a dirty, almost worthless, and ignorant "monster". This shows that Shakespear believes that the "others" may be like Caliban which is unfair and definately an insult to the "others" talked about in the chapter of cultural studies and post colonialism.

The Tempest Manipulation

In the first act of The Tempest the magical character Prospero practically controls the world around him by manipulating the other characters to work for him. The main and most obvious way Prospero manipulates his surroundings is the way he has complete control over Ariel. Ariel is Prospero's slave. Unlike most other slaves, Ariel is grateful to be under the control of Prospero. This is because Prospero constantly makes Ariel think that Prospero is his hero for saving him from his horrendous life he previously once lived. When referring to the story about Ariel's past life Prospero states that " I must Once in a month recount what thou hast been, Which thou forget’st." Here Prospero is saying that once a month he must retell the story to Ariel in order to keep it fresh in his mind so that Ariel won't forget of the terror Prospero saved him from. Because Prospero is going to constantly be reminding Ariel of his past life and how bad it was he will also be constantly reminding him of how much better his life is now that he is Prospero's slave. Forcing this into Ariel's mind will keep him from thinking anything else that might contradict Prospero or his plans. It's almost like Prospero is brain washing Ariel into thinking exactly what Prospero wants him to think so that he can use him as his slave. This type of manipulation can be compared to the manipulation by the government party in 1984. Both Prospero and the big brother party use the past events to manipulate other people’s reality of the present. Ariel is being manipulated into believing that his life now is extremely better than his life before when in all reality Ariel is still a slave just under a different master. Ariel is told to be grateful for being saved when really his new reality is just as manipulated and terrible as his past.

Socratic Circle Observation

During our block period on Thursday September 2nd we discussed a very controversial subject having to do with the fact that Texas is wanting to change the content of their history books used throughout their classrooms. The officials of Texas education are trying to rewrite the content of the history books in a way that will showcase and focus on more white conservative movements which is what they think is most important. By doing this they will be forced to focus less on the minority movements that have been made throughout history. I believe that every part of history is just as important as the next. Our history is what makes us who we are today and without many of the minority movements that were made in the past we wouldn't be the same nation we are now. Having said that, I also believe that students should have the right to learn about every historical figure who changed history and made an impact on the world, no matter what color their skin or what language they spoke.


I really enjoyed some of the comments that were made while I was observing this discussion. It was reassuring to know that many people agreed with how i felt about the changing of the history books. I think that this subject was really interesting and appealing to us as students because this is something we have in our lives every day. Changing text books and the material that students learn would strongly affect us being high school students. I know that as a student I want to learn about everything and everyone that made a difference in the past. After listening to the discussion and listening to my peers express themselves about this subject I can conclude that many students strongly feel that this change really isn't fair and defiantly isn't necessary.

Last First Day

This is a picture of my bestfriend, Kaylee, and I on our first day of senior year. This picture represents our last first day of high school! It's crazy to think that this is my last year in high school considering it seems like just yesterday I was walking around a scared little freshman. I'm really excited for this year but I know it's going to be really bitter sweet come graduation day!