Potential Maus Thesis Ideas

Okay so this week we are supposed to think about possible thesis topics for the Maus essay. This is definitely one of the more interesting books that I have read in my day but writing an essay for it might be a little harder than I originally thought it would be. I think that in my essay I will most likely be talking about point of view, what it does for the story, how it does it, and why it does it. I will go with point of view mainly because I was interested in how the story switches from Vladek telling his story about Auschwitz to Artie telling about Vladek’s personal life as well as parts of his own. I haven’t ironed out the details yet but that is what the last two days of Christmas break will be for.

I will most definitely use some of the sources that we have gotten in class. I really found that McCloud one to be very interesting and think that it will help prove the point I will be arguing. I don’t know how but I might try to incorporate common misconceptions about graphic novels and how they can tell just as good stories as all other novels if not better than some. I also might use the other article by Linda Hutcheon we got in class. That also had some good insight into this book. I don’t know exactly if I will be using postmodernism, it just seems a little irrelevant to what I will potentially be trying to prove. But if I have a good idea/epiphany I will surely incorporate it into my essay.

Although I haven’t done so yet I most likely will go and look at additional outside sources and see if they can help me in better understanding the seemingly simple yet multi-layered book. So that’s about all for right now.

Google is making us more dumberest?

I don’t want to catch any of you guys off guard so I’ll just let you know ahead of time, this is gonna be a long one so please bear with me.

Well I must admit there were a lot of interesting and true things stated in this article. I couldn’t exactly find where in the article, but it said something along the lines of the internet giving us a shorter attention span. I unfortunately have to agree with this. In the course of reading the article I drove to Fresno AM Track, watched TV, ate dinner, took a nap, made some online purchases, and watched half a dozen YouTube videos.

I constantly found myself wanting to do something anything else, than read the article then and there. But for the last half of the article I forced myself to sit there and read the whole thing through, which I successfully accomplished I might add. I felt a little like Carr when he said “Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.” What does that say about people using the internet more frequently? I think it says that we no longer legitimately try to sit there and read something, a book for example, the whole way through and have the same deep thoughts and reflections that we used to have. The thoughts in solitude that added to the glory of books and all that was in them. We now just surf the net looking for the most entertaining thing to read/do and then move on to the next topic rapidly. We allow ourselves to be distracted and look for that thing that captures our attention most and act upon that.

For example I, while reading the article, obviously got distracted and went on random searches. I wanted to search most visited websites on Google but before I could start the word “visited” it showed an alternate list of things I might be “interested in.” And I’ll be damned, I was. I saw most expensive cars and got curious and clicked that and searched that for a little bit then went on over to YouTube and see some of these cars in video. While on YouTube I was distracted with another thought and this time it was Parkour (also known as free running). While I watched some of those videos I realized what was happening to me and got frightened. I got distracted by Parkour while I was checking out nice cars when I was supposed to be checking out most visited websites while I was supposed to be reading the article. I got distracted while being distracted while being distracted essentially. And I wondered what am I doing? Why can’t I just do what I initially set out to do?

The answer to this was because of the availability of the sources on the internet. Google allowed me to search whatever sporadically came to my mind and YouTube let me actually see that stuff. Maybe that’s why it sometimes takes me so long to get work done on the computer. I feel like my mind is being hijacked by the internet. Sounds kinda weird but I really think that’s what happened.

Google is essentially trying to do this as Sergey Brin and Larry Page “speak frequently of their desire to turn their search engine into an artificial intelligence, a HAL-like machine that might be connected directly to our brains.” As Page said in a speech of his “‘The ultimate search engine is something as smart as people—or smarter’”. Just as with the invention of the clock “in deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock”, is Google that new invention that is slowly going to creep up unbeknownst to us and try to control the very way we think and function? In his interview with Newsweek Brin said “‘Certainly if you had all the world’s information directly attached to your brain, or an artificial brain that was smarter than your brain, you’d be better off.’”

How would we be better off with an artificial brain? How? Granted we would know all the facts to know about life but that would be it: facts. What about the very things that makes us human; thoughts and opinions? What about those things? Would they just disappear? I don’t know my brain was just rattled by that comment made by one of the FOUNDERS of Google and I’m still reeling a bit. But that’s about all I have to got say right now and follow the link below if you wanna check out one of the videos I “discovered.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB4uzs_C8dU&feature=related

Oh and sorry for not relating any of this to Cat’s Cradle, I’m sure there are lots of connections between the two though.

R.I.P.: Postmodernism—you served us well.

Could it be true? Could postmodernism really be dead, gone, buried, and irrelevant? According to Dr. Alan Kirby, it has been. “Postmodernism—whatever it is—is an attempt to make sense of what is going on now—and we can see the present clearly only in retrospect” (Powell 17). Retrospect by definition is the “contemplation of the past; a survey of past time, events, etc” (Dictionary.com).

That seems a bit ironic doesn’t it? That what was happening 40 or 50 years ago would be able to tell us what is happening today. How could people back then possibly have imagined the things we do today? If we had a chat with someone from the past I highly doubt that they could have predicted us having cell phones with internet capabilities so that we can update our facebook status. That just seems absurd to me. Looking at the past to see what is going on today would be like trying to drive on the freeway with your head turned around and looking at the cars behind you. The reason why we don’t do that is because we’ll crash!

Maybe that’s why Dr. Alan Kirby thinks that postmodernism is dead and gone. Because in an ever-evolving world we can’t let the past hinder or dictate what we want to do or where we want to go.

Dr. Alan Kirby says that “In postmodernism, one read, watched, listened, as before. In pseudo-modernism one phones, clicks, presses, surfs, chooses, moves, downloads” (The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond). In postmodernism, things happened to us; we watched and listened. In pseudo-modernism we are the ones doing the doing; downloading, clicking, phoning, etc. We no longer live vicariously through the world around us, the world lives vicariously through us. That seems like a narcissistic and egotistic thing to say, but think about it. All those call in shows where we cast our votes wouldn’t have a fraction of the success they have if no one called in. Shows like The Office and Parks and Recreation and movies like The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity have the success they do not only because they are entertaining, but because they actively engage the audience. They make us feel as if we are right there crapping our pants or right there listening to one of Michael Scott’s lectures. The line between spectator and participator seemingly disappear.

When surfing the web or watching TV, we leave an inerasable footprint of the things we’ve clicked the channels we’ve visited. To Dr. Kirby “This is a far more intense engagement with the cultural process than anything literature can offer, and gives the undeniable sense (or illusion) of the individual controlling, managing, running, making up his/her involvement with the cultural product.” And to some extent I must agree with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCdpdK8lbUQ

Cat's Cradle

“Thus, where Yeats, Eliot, and Joyce sought to restore a deep new purpose, a new sense of design, form and depth, a new sense of primordial origin in myth, Postmodernists often see no reason for a center” (Powell 18). This is one of the central themes of Postmodernism; no center. No absolute truth that is the epicenter of all knowledge. No particular reason why we exist. No religion that satisfies all the questions of every single person. No universal meaning of life.

Cat’s Cradle shares some of these postmodernistic ideas. For example, when John the narrator says “Nowhere does Bokonon warn against a person’s trying to discover the limits of his karass and the nature of the work God Almighty has had it do. Bokonon simply observes that such investigations are bound to be incomplete” (Vonnegut 4). John accepts that there are things happening that are beyond his comprehension. No matter how hard he tries, no matter what he does he will never be able to solve the puzzle of God. So he simply does not try to. People all around him on the other hand do and he ridicules them for attempting something so outlandish.

I think postmodernism also tries to get away from the notion that science can explain everything. This is displayed in the novel, somewhat. Felix who represents science “started playing with [the string]. His fingers made the string figure called a ‘cat’s cradle’” (Vonnegut 11). Cat’s cradle is a string game that is never ending. It just continues to make more and more complex webs and entanglements. Felix who was playing with it represents what science is doing. Science just keeps on delving and delving into more and more complex things in an attempt to explain the simpler things. However, those complex things also need an explanation. So science is a never ending quest for knowledge and some form of truth. No one is to say how far science will go and what it will lead to.

Possible topics for an essay that our fingers are itching to type

Okay. One the thing I find interesting about this book is everything. The society depicted is so backwards compared to today’s standards that this whole book seems to be one giant compilation of things unfamiliar. However, they have seemingly created a Utopia. How is this possible? Is it because their “backwards” world is so convoluted that is actually works? Maybe. But the question I would like answered is: Is living in a utopia worth getting rid of the individuality of every person?

Now before you pounce on this thought and reject it immediately, think about it. What do they have that we today are always striving for? They have no wars, no conflicts, no crime, unlimited happiness, and the acceptance of who they are on the social ladder. But at a price. And this price is individuality. So my question comes up again is living in a utopia worth getting rid of the individuality of every person?

My answer/thesis to this would be: Taking into consideration all the benefits of living in a world like Brave New World, I would have to say that living in a utopia is not worth eradicating the individuality of every person.

Now that was the primary interest of my concern. Other topics that I would like to explore would be things like why is the structure of the society so indispensable? Why would this society not be a utopia if there was no social order.

Finally, the character Bernard Marx is very interesting. He is like the black sheep of Brave New World. He just doesn’t seem to fit in. While others want sex, he actually wants to get to know the women beyond the physical level. While others want sex; he wants to look out into the ocean. And while others want more sex, he wants to have long midnight walks (or something to that effect). So it is quite obvious that he doesn’t fit in. His abnormality makes him one of societies “flaws.” This is peculiar because his abnormality gives him something the others don’t have; a voice. A voice that lets him state his own opinions, his own thoughts, and his likes as well as his dislikes. Ironically, he is the only person that serves as something “correct” in the society according to our standards.

Other books that I would use to help with this whole process would definitely be 1984 and Postmodernism. Now I haven’t read all that many books in my lifetime but I have seen quite a few movies. And one movie in particular that stood out to me in relation to what we have been reading is The Island. Now I probably wouldn’t be able to quote from this but I think it would serve as a good guide.

Postmodernism/Brave New World Blog

Lyotard’s definition of grand narratives is “big stories, stories of mythic proportions—that claim to be able to account for, explain and subordinate all lesser, little, local narratives” (29).

Grand narratives are in essence big stories that try to oversimplify complicated subjects.
They try to convey a complicated message as easily as they can and in doing this other stories and narratives can be marginalized. A grand narrative would say something to the effect of, settlers from Europe came over to the 13 colonies, expanded, fought some wars (one within themselves), and became known as the country America. Now this is “basically” what happened. But by telling the story in this grand narrative the readers don’t know why the settlers came over to America is the first place, why they expanded, why and whom they fought in the wars, and how they became known as America. Many many important and significant details are missing from this story and although the central message is told the complete story is still unknown.

The grand narrative in Brave New World would be something like, many years ago a man named Ford created a method in which something could be produced with maximum efficiency. Scientists infused their ingenuity with this method of productivity and were able to create a society in which babies were produced into castes and they each led a happy life. Now if the characters in Brave New World were to read this they would form a general idea of what their life would consist of. That would be to be produced in a factory under a certain caste, stay within that caste and lead a happy life. They would not question why babies are produced they would just know that they are. They would not know why everyone was so happy after the creation of the castes; they would just know that they would have to be too. They would know nothing of how Ford came to be or how the people before him came to be. They would know nothing about anything before Ford’s time. They would only know what the grand narrative told. For a lack of better words they would be oppressed. Oppressed because the grand narrative forgot to mention religion, conflicts and compromises between peoples and societies, or something as fundamental as why people should constantly try to better themselves. The people would know...nothing. Which is in part why I believe this is the grand narrative of the novel, because the less the people know the less chance they have of going against the grand narrative.

Brave New World Blog

This is definitely one of the most interesting books I've read in a while to say the least. Life in this "Brave New World" would not be much of a life at all. From birth your caste and rank in society are pre-determined, your job in society is already decided, people don't really have many options in life other than who to fornicate with which they seem to be doing a lot of. They coin the term "Every one belongs to every one else." Unbelievably it is looked down upon and thought of as suspicious if two people see each other too often. The D.H.C. would become wary that people should not become too intimate with each other. They don’t want people to form romantic relationships or relationships in general where any emotions are expressed; they just want the people to “try” each other out as often as possible.

Babies are manufactured by the thousands and just like a modern factory today productivity is of the utmost importance. The more babies they can produce per egg the happier the D.H.C. is. Babies are genetically manufactured. The best traits go to the alphas and betas while the less desirable traits go to the deltas, epsilons, and gammas. This is how class distinction is displayed; the lower castes’ seem to be shorter and dumber than the other ones. The castes’ are told repeatedly their position in society many times as are other things that the D.H.C. wants the respective babies of each caste to learn. “They’ll have that repeated forty or fifty times before the wake; then again on Thursday, and again on Saturday. A hundred and twenty times three times a week for thirty months. After which they go on to a more advanced lesson” (28). The lessons are usually things that the State wants those specific babies to hate or love. These babies or embryos I should say are brainwashed before being hatched. They already have a mindset coming into the world and that is work, sex, buy stuff, soma, work, sex, buy stuff, and some more soma. There is no room for individuality in this world. The only individuality belongs to those who are genetically “altered” than the rest. They find that through their defects they become DIFFERENT.

Other than the genetically “altered” there is no individual thought; just a collective group thought. The people lead a happy life because they don’t know what is outside the cerebral walls the State has constructed. They are people without souls, without conscious’, without purpose. They might as well be brain dead people that are just doing the motions and not thinking. Just like when you wander off while reading; you still read the words you just don’t comprehend or understand them. They don’t know any better than to just do these simple things. They only emotions they express are happiness and sadness and there is always that get me up pill for the sadness.

What I also found shocking was the shock therapy that they performed on the children. They do this primarily to handpick what the babies will like and dislike. For example, words like family, mother, father, and love are thought of as atrocious words. WHAT! What happened to the good ole’ normal bad words like the f-word or the b-word. We think of these words as bad and not polite so we don’t use them (or try not to use them). Similarly the kids are taught from a young age that love, father, and mother are things that they don’t want to express or be when they get older. This is a very misconstrued place in which these people live in.

First Blog For AP Lit

History. Our second favorite subject after English. What should be in the history books that we read? Who is to decide what should be in them? Should a certain religion be more highlighted than it already is? Does it matter if certain groups are not represented in history? Who should be left in and who should be kicked out?

History books should contain facts and that is it. Although it is hard to do this without taking a side it should be tried. An objective point of view is the best point of view. The way we see things may not be the same way other people may see things and that I believe should be respected. Germans in Germany may believe that Hitler was a self-righteous man doing the world a favor and that the Americans were at fault by engaging in warfare. Although we might think differently we cannot sit here and judge them based upon what they have learned. Different people will have varying viewpoints on what is right and what is wrong, and although we do not have to agree we should be respectful.

The people who decide what should be written in history books are historians and college professors that have extensive learning in the field. It should not be politicians and it definitely should not be reverends. This is because historians and college professors know what is important and what should be taught. They know what kids should learn to get the overall grasp of what was going on in the past. And although they may bring a slight bias it is nowhere near the biased that a reverend would bring when expressing what should be in history books.

As far as religion goes I don’t think that history books are the right venue in which to articulate ones beliefs. The amount of emphasis that Christianity gets in the history books that we have right now is fine. It doesn’t need to be lessened or greatened. Leave religion for church and facts to history.

America today is not the same America as it was 200 years ago, not by a long shot. America today is a myriad of many cultures, races, and religions while America back in the day it was predominantly white. It is important that today’s minority groups are represented in history books. Just because the minority groups weren’t there from the beginning doesn’t mean that they should be totally neglected and forgotten. It would be nice to see how the many cultures got to where they are today.

When it comes to who should be left in history books and who should be left out my belief is this; if a person or a group of people made a profound affect on history then there is no reason to exclude them. Anne Hutchinson, Caesar Chavez, and Thurgood Marshall should not be left out of history just because they had different beliefs than those of what was common. These people did affect history and should be left in.