I believe that this book is extremely similar to The Great Gatsby in the sense that it has the same basic structure of hero, antihero, amd villain. The protagonist in this book, the cheif, speaks sparsely and is merely an observor of what goes on in the mental ward. He keeps to himslef and doesn't appear to be the hero although I can certainly see the audience rooting for him.
McMurphy is going to be the antihero and that is the closest that we will come to a hero in this book. He is a brute and he can sometimes be a jerk to the other patients but he is someone who will work against the system. When McMurphy says, "...it's just foul the way they tore into you like that," to Harding, the audience knows that he will at least try to turn the system on its head. Thus, although we may not agree with him, he is basically the only character to root heavily for.
The villain is obviously the big nurse. From the way the patients describe her as being a fearsome and sometimes cruel woman, along with the power she holds among the staff and the doctors, she controls the hospital. She simply has too much power and thus will do anything to maintain order, setting her up ideally to abuse her power and maintain control.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Great Gatsby #3
Interpretive: What do the eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckelberg symbolize in the novel?
From the beginning of their mention in chapter 2, the large billboard eyes were looking down over a desolate wasteland known as the valley of ashes. To me they symbolized someone looking down upon the people and judging them. Then George Wilson compared them to the eyes of God and that belief was reinforced somewhat but in a different way. I now believe that those eyes are those of God looking down uon the valley sadly because of their dilapidated nature.
Interpretive: What does the green light symbolize?
The green light I believe is mentioned twice: once at the beginning of the novel when Gatsby is reaching towards it and at the end when Nick is describing the light and what the people that first came to the sound must have thought about it. To Gatsby the light was his one huge dream of winning Daisy back; that much is obvious. When Nick talks about it in regards to the settlers coming there, I think the green light takes on the idea of the "American dream" and striving to obtain ones dreams.
Evaluative: If this book was a commentary on how hollow the aristocracy of America is, then why have Tom Buchanan win Daisy in the end?
I understand that this book's main purpose is to show how unattainable dreams really are through the death of Gatsby; that is clearly evident. I also believed though that another theme of this book was of how shallow and ill natured the rich are through characters like Buchanan and symbols like the valley of ashes or Eckelberg. Why then doesn't Tom get what he deserves in the end? Unless he was also commenting on how the rich come out on to despite their horrid nature.
Evaluative: How effective is it that the protagonist in the story (Nick) doesn't benefit at all from Gatsby and winds up depressed and alone at the story's end in communicating the messages of the book? Does it affect the story at all? I think it is interesting that Fitzgerald would have the person who reserved all judgements and would have feelings similar to those of the audience in such a poor state by the story's end. While Nick contributes almost none to the story's main themes, I think it says something of Fitzgerald's ideas about us if the character who is supposed to represent us is worn by life at the novel's end.
From the beginning of their mention in chapter 2, the large billboard eyes were looking down over a desolate wasteland known as the valley of ashes. To me they symbolized someone looking down upon the people and judging them. Then George Wilson compared them to the eyes of God and that belief was reinforced somewhat but in a different way. I now believe that those eyes are those of God looking down uon the valley sadly because of their dilapidated nature.
Interpretive: What does the green light symbolize?
The green light I believe is mentioned twice: once at the beginning of the novel when Gatsby is reaching towards it and at the end when Nick is describing the light and what the people that first came to the sound must have thought about it. To Gatsby the light was his one huge dream of winning Daisy back; that much is obvious. When Nick talks about it in regards to the settlers coming there, I think the green light takes on the idea of the "American dream" and striving to obtain ones dreams.
Evaluative: If this book was a commentary on how hollow the aristocracy of America is, then why have Tom Buchanan win Daisy in the end?
I understand that this book's main purpose is to show how unattainable dreams really are through the death of Gatsby; that is clearly evident. I also believed though that another theme of this book was of how shallow and ill natured the rich are through characters like Buchanan and symbols like the valley of ashes or Eckelberg. Why then doesn't Tom get what he deserves in the end? Unless he was also commenting on how the rich come out on to despite their horrid nature.
Evaluative: How effective is it that the protagonist in the story (Nick) doesn't benefit at all from Gatsby and winds up depressed and alone at the story's end in communicating the messages of the book? Does it affect the story at all? I think it is interesting that Fitzgerald would have the person who reserved all judgements and would have feelings similar to those of the audience in such a poor state by the story's end. While Nick contributes almost none to the story's main themes, I think it says something of Fitzgerald's ideas about us if the character who is supposed to represent us is worn by life at the novel's end.
Monday, February 27, 2012
The Great Gatsby #2
1) The purpose of Wolfsheim as a character is to give us a shady idea of Gatsby's business exploits. Since Gatsby says that he was involved in the fixing of the 1919 World Series, it connects Gatsby to a criminal. This gives the reader the notion that Gatsby isn't what they have previously believed he is.
2) The backstory informs us that Gatsby is determined if not a borderline stalker of daisy. To buy a house across the bay specifically for her and then wait five years for the right time to reveal himself to her seems a bit strange to say the least and makes the audience a bit wary of Gatsby as a person. At least thats what it did to me.
3)The story of Gatsby's past for me established him as a legitimate person, one who did not steal or cheat to get his money.
4)I see Gatsby still as a mysterious person. The way he acts around daisy to when he first confronts her is particularly odd and combined with the fact that he was so in love with her that he bought his house because of her makes me question his sanity. Although he has somewhat of a confirmed background, his shady underground dealings also put him in a dark light.
2) The backstory informs us that Gatsby is determined if not a borderline stalker of daisy. To buy a house across the bay specifically for her and then wait five years for the right time to reveal himself to her seems a bit strange to say the least and makes the audience a bit wary of Gatsby as a person. At least thats what it did to me.
3)The story of Gatsby's past for me established him as a legitimate person, one who did not steal or cheat to get his money.
4)I see Gatsby still as a mysterious person. The way he acts around daisy to when he first confronts her is particularly odd and combined with the fact that he was so in love with her that he bought his house because of her makes me question his sanity. Although he has somewhat of a confirmed background, his shady underground dealings also put him in a dark light.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Great Gatsby Blog 1
I believe that the hero of the story is Nick is the hero of the novel because he is from what we can tell a honest man and he is the protagonist. He doesn't have any vices or evil qualaties, in fact in chapter two he recollects that he'd only ever been drunk once before that evening. So he has good judgement compared to most of the other characters in the story so far.
I believe that Jay Gatsby is most clearly the antihero at this point in the story. In these three chapters he is a very mysterious man and one even when we do meet him is peculiar. In chapter 3 Nick observed that Gatsby was, "standing alone on the marvel steps looking from one group to another with approving eyes," (50). He throws extremely lavish parties but doesn't participate in them or mingle much; he only watches from afar. This I believe is someone who is not necessarily bad, but may have some other motivations for what he does.
I believe that Tom Buchanan is the closest thing to a villain so far. With all the money and property one could ask for, Tom still has poor, almost mean attitudes towards life, is unfaithful, and is abbusive to people. Even when taking on a mistress, Tom breaks her nose in a drunken fury. He represents everything wrong with aristocratic life and thus is the villain.
I believe that Jay Gatsby is most clearly the antihero at this point in the story. In these three chapters he is a very mysterious man and one even when we do meet him is peculiar. In chapter 3 Nick observed that Gatsby was, "standing alone on the marvel steps looking from one group to another with approving eyes," (50). He throws extremely lavish parties but doesn't participate in them or mingle much; he only watches from afar. This I believe is someone who is not necessarily bad, but may have some other motivations for what he does.
I believe that Tom Buchanan is the closest thing to a villain so far. With all the money and property one could ask for, Tom still has poor, almost mean attitudes towards life, is unfaithful, and is abbusive to people. Even when taking on a mistress, Tom breaks her nose in a drunken fury. He represents everything wrong with aristocratic life and thus is the villain.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Bua art
It is abstract art because the proportions in all of the paintings aren't realistic. All of his paintings include African American culture in relation to music which in combination with the abstract natures of the paintings I believe speaks on how challenging the life of a musician is. Also some of them have troubled expressions which I believe adds to that notion.
John Coltrane
Mood is used to set the stage for the music in instrumental music. In Coltrane's version of "My Favorite Things" he uses the drums and a piano as a sort of base at the beginning of the song and then comes in with his instrument to establish a more joyful melody.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
the decemberists
The song is about how Americans are dying fighting at war and despite this celebrities are still the main focus on tv.
The theme of the song is that people have incorrect values. These soldiers gave their lives for their country but instead of honoring them and their wives, we pay more attention to celebrities instead.
The theme of the song is that people have incorrect values. These soldiers gave their lives for their country but instead of honoring them and their wives, we pay more attention to celebrities instead.
the Death Penalty
Between the two writers that give different arguements for the abolishment of the death penalyt, Mencken and Kroll, it is obvious that Kroll's paper is more effective because it utilizes ethos and pathos while Mencken's paper only uses logos.
In his paper where he details the grim death of his good friend, Kroll continuously builds a case against the death penalty. By making the audience feel some of the pain he went through, he effectively makes them sympatherize for him and his friend; the main purpose of ethos. Combine that with the fact that he subtly uses pathos when he mentions that the stay of execution was issued by ten California judges, a direct use of pathos, and he presesnts a well built case.
Mencken's paper on the other hand uses logos, which when dealing with something very controversial, doesn't stand well on its own. Pure common logic with no specific examples or authority are the basis of his essay and that is why his arguement is flimsy. For people to be convinced it usually takes hard evidence of specific cases or great emotions which Kroll details in his paper. Logos is effective but not when it is the basis of on arguement.
In his paper where he details the grim death of his good friend, Kroll continuously builds a case against the death penalty. By making the audience feel some of the pain he went through, he effectively makes them sympatherize for him and his friend; the main purpose of ethos. Combine that with the fact that he subtly uses pathos when he mentions that the stay of execution was issued by ten California judges, a direct use of pathos, and he presesnts a well built case.
Mencken's paper on the other hand uses logos, which when dealing with something very controversial, doesn't stand well on its own. Pure common logic with no specific examples or authority are the basis of his essay and that is why his arguement is flimsy. For people to be convinced it usually takes hard evidence of specific cases or great emotions which Kroll details in his paper. Logos is effective but not when it is the basis of on arguement.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
JFK Fallacy
"Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join me in that historic effort?"
This is an example of a loaded question where if someone answers no I will not join in that effort, he or she will seem unpatriotic or immoral.
We remember speeches like this despite their fallacies because fallacies sometimes captivate and inspire us. Take for example the loaded question: of course Kennedy is asking a real question but that is not what the audience interprets it as. They see it as a call to action because the alternative is not an option, so the question really becomes more noble than what it is.
This is an example of a loaded question where if someone answers no I will not join in that effort, he or she will seem unpatriotic or immoral.
We remember speeches like this despite their fallacies because fallacies sometimes captivate and inspire us. Take for example the loaded question: of course Kennedy is asking a real question but that is not what the audience interprets it as. They see it as a call to action because the alternative is not an option, so the question really becomes more noble than what it is.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Duck and Cover
The overt message is to follow saftey instructions regarding an atom bombing.
The covert message is to tell about the presence of atom bombs and the dangers they pose in order to rouse support for the defense of America. In short to create a sense of fear.
Informational because it is not trying to convince anyone of anything nor persuade anyone. It is merely promoting saftey. If you interpreted the meaning of the covert message to mean an arousal for America's military, it would then take on a propaganda basis but that is somewhat of a stretch because it never makes mention of the military, let alone to show support for it.
The covert message is to tell about the presence of atom bombs and the dangers they pose in order to rouse support for the defense of America. In short to create a sense of fear.
Informational because it is not trying to convince anyone of anything nor persuade anyone. It is merely promoting saftey. If you interpreted the meaning of the covert message to mean an arousal for America's military, it would then take on a propaganda basis but that is somewhat of a stretch because it never makes mention of the military, let alone to show support for it.
Destination Earth
Overt message: oil and competition keep society functioning.
Covert message: Anti-communist propaganda because it is promoting a free market and competition, something that goes against communinism.
Propaganda- the cartoon is trying to get you to see why America is great as well as the flaws in communism.
Persuasion- it is trying to persuade people that oil is not bad for society by demonstrating its importance as well as its many applications.
Covert message: Anti-communist propaganda because it is promoting a free market and competition, something that goes against communinism.
Propaganda- the cartoon is trying to get you to see why America is great as well as the flaws in communism.
Persuasion- it is trying to persuade people that oil is not bad for society by demonstrating its importance as well as its many applications.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Poster Post
The overt message is obviously to eat less bread.
The covert message I thought was somewhat of a sexist one because it is depicting a patriotic woman in the kitchen. Thus, telling that a great place that wemon can assist is in the kitchen which is somewhat sexist.
The covert message I thought was somewhat of a sexist one because it is depicting a patriotic woman in the kitchen. Thus, telling that a great place that wemon can assist is in the kitchen which is somewhat sexist.
The Clash Song
The song is about powerful people manipulating the weak into basically doing their bidding. Also one could interpret it as how the government oppresses the average citizens. It is displayed through the lines that detail, "The men at the factory are old and cunning... it's the best years of your life they want to steal." In the quote there is clearly and elite class that are forcing labor upon the young and strong population.
I suppose the guitar is loud and somewhat rebellious.
In the line, "kick over the wall because the governments to fall," it is overt propaganda because it is directly telling the audience to rebel against the government because the government will lead you the wrong way.
I suppose the guitar is loud and somewhat rebellious.
In the line, "kick over the wall because the governments to fall," it is overt propaganda because it is directly telling the audience to rebel against the government because the government will lead you the wrong way.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Propaganda Persuasion Rhetoric and Arguement
#711
#744
#783
#751
#744 History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. Napolean Bonaparte
The old adage "history is written by the victor" was realized here through one of the most powerful rulers ever to surface in Europe. The idea that history has become muddled by people who have conquered others is not a radical one; on the contrary it is accepted by historians. We never know the full, unfabricated truth about a sizeable portion of history before advanced record keeping and even after we still don't because people will lie to cover their tails. That is the essence of Napoleans quote: people will change history through record keeping to put themselves in a better light. He demonstrates his idea through a witty quote which utilizes rhetoric in that the quote itself is a hyperbole. Peopl don't actually agree on how history will be written, but important people will change how events are recollected in books, documents, the media, etc. and therefore are in a way changing history.
#744
#783
#751
#744 History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. Napolean Bonaparte
The old adage "history is written by the victor" was realized here through one of the most powerful rulers ever to surface in Europe. The idea that history has become muddled by people who have conquered others is not a radical one; on the contrary it is accepted by historians. We never know the full, unfabricated truth about a sizeable portion of history before advanced record keeping and even after we still don't because people will lie to cover their tails. That is the essence of Napoleans quote: people will change history through record keeping to put themselves in a better light. He demonstrates his idea through a witty quote which utilizes rhetoric in that the quote itself is a hyperbole. Peopl don't actually agree on how history will be written, but important people will change how events are recollected in books, documents, the media, etc. and therefore are in a way changing history.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Final Brave New World Blog
1) Could the World State exsist without soma?
Soma to the people of the world state represents instant gratification. In the novel the only reason that humans have essentially given up their humanity is for this reason: their desires are always met through the soma. Although one could make the arguement that it could exsist because of the genetic engineering, I still believe that without this drug, people wouldn't accept the state. They would want something deeper in their lives as is this the case with John.
2) Can people be truly happy living like the people in Brave New World?
I think that it is possible for most people living in the world state to be happy according to what they believe is happiness. They have never experienced anything but instant gratification. No true complex feelings like John has. Because of this, they are completely ignorant to people like John's (our) view of happiness and therefore, are as happy as they can be.
3) Both novels are of course portrayals of utopias turned dystopia but what are the purposes of the books really. Were they both warnings to humanity or more to point out the flaws of human ideology?
I think that 1984 was more of a warining to its audience than in Brave New World because of the stictness of its rule. The brutality seen in 1984 can be linked to brutality that was going on in the world at that time. Brave New World on the other hand I believe was more of a criticism of humanity, but still a warning of how absolute power is dangerous. In that novel, I believe it is more of a criticism of instant gratification and how humanity is slowly creeping towards that area of thought. Both books I would consider criticisms of humanity but only 1984 as a true, loud warning call.
Soma to the people of the world state represents instant gratification. In the novel the only reason that humans have essentially given up their humanity is for this reason: their desires are always met through the soma. Although one could make the arguement that it could exsist because of the genetic engineering, I still believe that without this drug, people wouldn't accept the state. They would want something deeper in their lives as is this the case with John.
2) Can people be truly happy living like the people in Brave New World?
I think that it is possible for most people living in the world state to be happy according to what they believe is happiness. They have never experienced anything but instant gratification. No true complex feelings like John has. Because of this, they are completely ignorant to people like John's (our) view of happiness and therefore, are as happy as they can be.
3) Both novels are of course portrayals of utopias turned dystopia but what are the purposes of the books really. Were they both warnings to humanity or more to point out the flaws of human ideology?
I think that 1984 was more of a warining to its audience than in Brave New World because of the stictness of its rule. The brutality seen in 1984 can be linked to brutality that was going on in the world at that time. Brave New World on the other hand I believe was more of a criticism of humanity, but still a warning of how absolute power is dangerous. In that novel, I believe it is more of a criticism of instant gratification and how humanity is slowly creeping towards that area of thought. Both books I would consider criticisms of humanity but only 1984 as a true, loud warning call.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Communist Utopia
It indicates that Communism is a government system that has complete control over its people with little freedom for the people. This is displayed through the eyes that are watching the man as he walks by.
It is a sinister practice because he paints such dismal, depressing colors yet calls the piece a communist's utopia or perfect place.
The title is "Communist Utopia" because the author believes that the ultimate form of communsim is one where there is no freedom whatsoever, which is expressed through the eyes.
It is a sinister practice because he paints such dismal, depressing colors yet calls the piece a communist's utopia or perfect place.
The title is "Communist Utopia" because the author believes that the ultimate form of communsim is one where there is no freedom whatsoever, which is expressed through the eyes.
Don't You Want Me
A man wants to be with a woman and she likes him but feels like it's time for her to move on.
The man sees himself in a better light and the girl is somewhat indifferent to him. This is displayed in the line "but even then I'd knew I'd find a much better place." So despite the man's pleas which are the chorus of the song, the woman doesn't feel as strongly for him as he does for her.
I have to side with the girl because she probably needs to move on if she doesn't love him like he loves her. I still feel sorry for the guy though.
The man sees himself in a better light and the girl is somewhat indifferent to him. This is displayed in the line "but even then I'd knew I'd find a much better place." So despite the man's pleas which are the chorus of the song, the woman doesn't feel as strongly for him as he does for her.
I have to side with the girl because she probably needs to move on if she doesn't love him like he loves her. I still feel sorry for the guy though.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Brave New World Post 2
What is the signifigance of the use of Shakespeare as the one work John receives?
Of all the pieces of literature that Huxley could have used for John to have read he chose the works of Shakespeare. This I believe stems from the fact that Shakespeare is a stark contrast to life that people live now compared to before Ford. When John quotes The Tempest at the end of chapter eight Bernard remarks, "You have a most peculiar way of talking sometimes," (Huxley 139). Thus I believe Shakespeare is used to emphasize the barrier between our world and one with the moral values of Brave New World.
Why have the moral values completely changed in the World State?
In the utopia that Huxley has created, the moral values seem to have taken a huge regression backwords. This is exemplified through how much sex the wemon of the utopia have. What fascinates me is that John, the one who is considered the savage, has more restraint than a person like Lenina. When John finds himself lusting over Lenina while she is passed out on soma he thinks ,"Detestable thought!He was ashamed of himself," (145). The idea of sex has become the idea of an act of pleasure and not intimacy that someone not apart of the society holds more values than someone apart of it. The only exlanation is people no longer need sex because of cloning so they accept it more than someone from our society.
Why do the words father and mother now take on a pornographic connotation?
Father and mother, people we think as caring, loving people have become nowhere short of scandelous in this world. While seeing the director for the first time John shouts out my father which is taken as a gross, smutty word which humiliates the director immensly (Huxley 151). It is understandable that the director would be embarressed for no one has children in this society, but what the author emphasizes is the use of the word father. In this case, being a father is an insult! The most plausible explanation for the negative connotation of this word is that fathers were only present in savage tribes and not "normal."
Of all the pieces of literature that Huxley could have used for John to have read he chose the works of Shakespeare. This I believe stems from the fact that Shakespeare is a stark contrast to life that people live now compared to before Ford. When John quotes The Tempest at the end of chapter eight Bernard remarks, "You have a most peculiar way of talking sometimes," (Huxley 139). Thus I believe Shakespeare is used to emphasize the barrier between our world and one with the moral values of Brave New World.
Why have the moral values completely changed in the World State?
In the utopia that Huxley has created, the moral values seem to have taken a huge regression backwords. This is exemplified through how much sex the wemon of the utopia have. What fascinates me is that John, the one who is considered the savage, has more restraint than a person like Lenina. When John finds himself lusting over Lenina while she is passed out on soma he thinks ,"Detestable thought!He was ashamed of himself," (145). The idea of sex has become the idea of an act of pleasure and not intimacy that someone not apart of the society holds more values than someone apart of it. The only exlanation is people no longer need sex because of cloning so they accept it more than someone from our society.
Why do the words father and mother now take on a pornographic connotation?
Father and mother, people we think as caring, loving people have become nowhere short of scandelous in this world. While seeing the director for the first time John shouts out my father which is taken as a gross, smutty word which humiliates the director immensly (Huxley 151). It is understandable that the director would be embarressed for no one has children in this society, but what the author emphasizes is the use of the word father. In this case, being a father is an insult! The most plausible explanation for the negative connotation of this word is that fathers were only present in savage tribes and not "normal."
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Brave New World Post 1
They have created equality and confromity in several ways. Most importantly they have used cloning for three of the five classes so that equality and a collectivist attitude is promoted. Not only that but they genetically engineer people to be skilled for their future careers. They also utilize hypnopaedia which is drilling messages into children's brains as they sleep. This spreads the same messages and ideas into the minds of the youth which affects their mental processing and their individuality. Finally there is the soma which is a drug which is the perfect drug. Using this, the society ensures that people can always feel good and youthful, emphasizing how good their way of life is.
I would say through what I've read this is a utopia. Despite having many moral flaws in regards to our society, most people are content with this world and there seems to be little suffering meaning that this could be a "perfect world".
I would say through what I've read this is a utopia. Despite having many moral flaws in regards to our society, most people are content with this world and there seems to be little suffering meaning that this could be a "perfect world".
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Final 1984 blog
I believe that Big Brother has won because that would prove the point Orwell was trying to make when writing this book. If the party, which was representative of totalitarian rule and oppression, didn't win through in the end, the book would not send as clear a message as Orwell wanted to communicate. It would just be another phase of humanity.
I suppose if the state were to be brought down in would be from the way that the party gradually decreases rations, which could eventually provoke a rebellion. Even this is unlikely though because the party alters history so no one knows the rations lower dramatically.
As soon as he started loving Big Brother, it doesn't especially matter when he actually dies I think. The instant he gave into the party and its demands, his old self, the person that was a rebel and a freethinker, "died" and he became a puppet of the party like most of the population. Whether he lived on or was shot the next day doesn't make much of a difference seeing as how his ideas about resistence, life, and all other things not relating to the party were crushed.
I suppose if the state were to be brought down in would be from the way that the party gradually decreases rations, which could eventually provoke a rebellion. Even this is unlikely though because the party alters history so no one knows the rations lower dramatically.
As soon as he started loving Big Brother, it doesn't especially matter when he actually dies I think. The instant he gave into the party and its demands, his old self, the person that was a rebel and a freethinker, "died" and he became a puppet of the party like most of the population. Whether he lived on or was shot the next day doesn't make much of a difference seeing as how his ideas about resistence, life, and all other things not relating to the party were crushed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)