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.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, September 7, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
