1.) The fact that there are giant eyes everywhere indicates communism due to the fact that under communism, the government oversees everything. It's a play on words. Under communism, the government watches and tells business what to do, represented by the eyes.
2.) It is a negative view, not only due to the dreary, depressing setting the picture is in (it has a mostly grey and black color scheme) but also due to the fact that there are giant, prying eyes on the walls. the artist represents how communism oversees people's lives through the use of huge, creepy eyes, which carry a negative connotation.
3.) It is a "communist's utopia" only for the higher-up communists, since they are powerful and get to look in and decide what people should do. It is not a utopia for common people, like the man in the painting, due to the fact that they have no say in what they do.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Don't You Want Me? by The Human League
1.) The subject mater is a discussion between a man and woman concerning the woman's success. The man claims that he's the one who helped her get where she currently is, and that without him, she would have none of her current success. This is shown by the lyric: "But don't forget, it's me who put you where you are now, and I can put you back down, too". The man can't stand the thought of the woman saying she doesn't need him. ("You know I can't believe it when I hear that you won't see me") The woman claims she would have been plenty happy and successful with or without him. ("But even then I knew I'd find a much better place
Either with or without you") She enjoyed the time they spent together, but says that he didn't contribute to her success. She left him because she felt as though it was time for her to live her life on her own, without him. ("The five years we have had have been such good at times I still love you But now I think it's time I lived my life on my own I guess it's just what I must do")
Either with or without you") She enjoyed the time they spent together, but says that he didn't contribute to her success. She left him because she felt as though it was time for her to live her life on her own, without him. ("The five years we have had have been such good at times I still love you But now I think it's time I lived my life on my own I guess it's just what I must do")
2.) The woman says that "even then [she] knew [she'd] find a much better place either with or without [the man]". The man tells her "don't forget, it's [him] who put [her] where [she is] now, and [he] can put [her] back down, too". The two sides are the man saying he got her to where she is and the woman saying that's not true.
3.) I would need more details about exactly how the girl became successful to see whether or not the guy actually is the sole and main reason she now has "the world at [her] feet". Without this information, I side with the girl, since if the man wasn't what aided her success, I understand as to why she would want to leave him - it's not fair for him to claim something untrue.
Monday, November 21, 2011
First Brave New World Reading Response
Conformity is created through the use of color-coded castes with titles such as Alpha, Beta, etc. People are conditioned to want to be a part of whatever caste they're born into. It's an unequal system, but the lack of desire people have to interact with other castes at least maintains some sort of equality in that people only interact with those in their own caste.
This society wants to say they have no religion, but their worship of Ford and their seemingly religious practice of waiting together for the great coming speaks otherwise. This 'church' is state enforced, too, giving off even more overtones of a state religion. This unity that people feel (and the fact that if they were to oppose this 'religion' they would surely be punished) helps prevent conflict. There are no conflicts with relationships because everyone is incredibly promiscuous. In fact, any sort of stable, committed relationship is frowned upon. A person is seen is dirty if they don't have multiple partners. In terms of individual rights and emotions, "When the individual feels, the community reels" (Huxley 103). After all, if someone were to have a certain emotional reaction to something, while someone else had the opposite reaction, (for example, anger and joy) there would be a conflict. By having personal emotions looked down upon, it discourages these conflicts.
Although the majority of people in this society are happy, this is a dystopia. Since everyone is born into separate castes and conditioned to enjoy the caste they are in and not associate with other castes, a sort of widespread societal contentment is created. It's a dystopia, however, because any sort of individuality is crushed. If someone wishes to have only one partner and wishes to commit solely to them, they're looked down upon. If someone has any sort of feeling about something, you are looked down upon. A person might be happy with the way things are, but they still cannot do as they might please.
This society wants to say they have no religion, but their worship of Ford and their seemingly religious practice of waiting together for the great coming speaks otherwise. This 'church' is state enforced, too, giving off even more overtones of a state religion. This unity that people feel (and the fact that if they were to oppose this 'religion' they would surely be punished) helps prevent conflict. There are no conflicts with relationships because everyone is incredibly promiscuous. In fact, any sort of stable, committed relationship is frowned upon. A person is seen is dirty if they don't have multiple partners. In terms of individual rights and emotions, "When the individual feels, the community reels" (Huxley 103). After all, if someone were to have a certain emotional reaction to something, while someone else had the opposite reaction, (for example, anger and joy) there would be a conflict. By having personal emotions looked down upon, it discourages these conflicts.
Although the majority of people in this society are happy, this is a dystopia. Since everyone is born into separate castes and conditioned to enjoy the caste they are in and not associate with other castes, a sort of widespread societal contentment is created. It's a dystopia, however, because any sort of individuality is crushed. If someone wishes to have only one partner and wishes to commit solely to them, they're looked down upon. If someone has any sort of feeling about something, you are looked down upon. A person might be happy with the way things are, but they still cannot do as they might please.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Ethnography
1.) They both have benefits. EMIC perspective can clear up any misinformed opinions outsiders have about a certain group due to the fact that insiders know the truth of the matter through interactions with other people in the group. However, EMIC perspectives can be biased in the group's favor. ETIC perspectives can provide straight-up scientific facts, such as statistics, about a group, which counteracts the EMIC perspective's biases. However, as mentioned before, outsiders can be misinformed about the group. A combination of both is needed to find the truth.
2.) These rules exist so that the ethnography can be both accurate and respectable. By acknowledging your biases, the reader can better analyze where your biases come in and why they're there. Having an informant from the group you're studying adds authenticity to the information you're presenting, since it's coming from a primary source. By being up-front about your intentions, the reader knows what to expect and how to react.
2.) These rules exist so that the ethnography can be both accurate and respectable. By acknowledging your biases, the reader can better analyze where your biases come in and why they're there. Having an informant from the group you're studying adds authenticity to the information you're presenting, since it's coming from a primary source. By being up-front about your intentions, the reader knows what to expect and how to react.
"Rain On The Scarecrow" by John Mellencamp
1.) It's about a man who has lost his farm and is in financial strife due to it.
2.) Some conflicts the song addresses are that John called his friend to try and auction off his land, but he can't. This is a man vs. man conflict. There's also the man vs. society conflict of John losing his farm due to society's shortcomings.
3.) The scarecrow in the rain symbolizes how a symbol of traditional farming (a scarecrow) is being drowned out and destroyed by rain (society). The blood on the plow symbolizes how the farmers worked the land so hard and diligently that it's as though they put their blood into the land.
4.) Rain and blood are sad-sounding words with negative connotations, giving the song a sad feel. Mellencamp uses these words because he wants to convey a sad feel.
5.) He seems to favor the farmers and presents them in a sympathetic light. He is on their side. He mentions how his grandma is praying and singing on the porch. She is a part of this farming family and is hoping that they can continue to survive. This paints her (and her family) in a sympathetic way.
2.) Some conflicts the song addresses are that John called his friend to try and auction off his land, but he can't. This is a man vs. man conflict. There's also the man vs. society conflict of John losing his farm due to society's shortcomings.
3.) The scarecrow in the rain symbolizes how a symbol of traditional farming (a scarecrow) is being drowned out and destroyed by rain (society). The blood on the plow symbolizes how the farmers worked the land so hard and diligently that it's as though they put their blood into the land.
4.) Rain and blood are sad-sounding words with negative connotations, giving the song a sad feel. Mellencamp uses these words because he wants to convey a sad feel.
5.) He seems to favor the farmers and presents them in a sympathetic light. He is on their side. He mentions how his grandma is praying and singing on the porch. She is a part of this farming family and is hoping that they can continue to survive. This paints her (and her family) in a sympathetic way.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Othering
1.) The West views the East as being homogeneous, with the people there being anonymous masses rather than individuals. The West also views the East as being exotic, mystical, and seductive.
2.) It means they see Eastern peoples as not having any sort of individuality when it comes to their actions. They are like a hive mind that act on emotions and racial considerations.
3.) Their actions are determined by instinctive emotions rather than by conscious choices or decisions. Their emotions and reactions are determined by racial considerations rather than by aspects of individual status or circumstance.
4.) It benefits the West by giving the impression that if the group of Eastern people as a whole are kept happy, (since they act of off emotions and act as a group, and discontent would incite a group uprising) they will be easy to conquer and control. By taking control of the hive mind, Westerners would have total control over people. Creating a common enemy will enable people to more easily band together to combat their enemy.
5.) In a sense, perhaps. Not as much as before, back when the West was still encased in the blissful throes of colonialism and imperialism, but it still exists to an extent.
*The placement of objects/events/etc. in such a way as to emphasize the differences between them.
2.) It means they see Eastern peoples as not having any sort of individuality when it comes to their actions. They are like a hive mind that act on emotions and racial considerations.
3.) Their actions are determined by instinctive emotions rather than by conscious choices or decisions. Their emotions and reactions are determined by racial considerations rather than by aspects of individual status or circumstance.
4.) It benefits the West by giving the impression that if the group of Eastern people as a whole are kept happy, (since they act of off emotions and act as a group, and discontent would incite a group uprising) they will be easy to conquer and control. By taking control of the hive mind, Westerners would have total control over people. Creating a common enemy will enable people to more easily band together to combat their enemy.
5.) In a sense, perhaps. Not as much as before, back when the West was still encased in the blissful throes of colonialism and imperialism, but it still exists to an extent.
*The placement of objects/events/etc. in such a way as to emphasize the differences between them.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Final 1984 Reading Response
Big Brother has undeniably won. Through Winston's feelings towards Big Brother going from hatred to adoration, Big Brother has obviously won. Eliminating opposition (in this case, through torture and brainwashing) ensures that no one will try to stop you, thus reinforcing Big Brother's victory. Throughout the book, Winston was against what Big Brother stood for. Even in the beginning, when he hadn't just yet started performing his acts of defiance, he hated Big Brother. During the Two Minutes' Hate, a time during which Goldstein, an enemy of Big Brother, is to be despised, "Winston's hatred was not turned against Goldstein at all, but, on the contrary, against Big Brother..." (16). To have this long-lasting hatred and dissension turned into love and conformity constitutes winning.
One way the One State could be brought down is through the proles. This chance is slim, however, seeing as how not only are they uneducated as a whole, they simply don't believe that any sort of life could be better than the one they have now. Seeing as how the only life they have lived is that that the One State provides for them, they can't imagine anything else. They could, conceivably, band together and rebel and possibly win by sheer numbers alone, seeing as how proles constitute 85% of Oceania's population, but the thing is is that they have no reason to. The Party has ensured that.
By the end of the novel, Winston has become a product of the One State. He no longer has any sort of dissenting thoughts. He is like a machine. He will go along with what the Party says, he will support what they support and value what they value. He is essentially a model citizen, even if that means chugging gin and not questioning what is asked of you. All in all, the Party, and Big Brother, have won.
One way the One State could be brought down is through the proles. This chance is slim, however, seeing as how not only are they uneducated as a whole, they simply don't believe that any sort of life could be better than the one they have now. Seeing as how the only life they have lived is that that the One State provides for them, they can't imagine anything else. They could, conceivably, band together and rebel and possibly win by sheer numbers alone, seeing as how proles constitute 85% of Oceania's population, but the thing is is that they have no reason to. The Party has ensured that.
By the end of the novel, Winston has become a product of the One State. He no longer has any sort of dissenting thoughts. He is like a machine. He will go along with what the Party says, he will support what they support and value what they value. He is essentially a model citizen, even if that means chugging gin and not questioning what is asked of you. All in all, the Party, and Big Brother, have won.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Love Language
1.) What were some assumptions you made while watching the video?
I assumed she couldn't speak English at first, but after she started writing, I assumed she was deaf.
2.) Is this a cultural conflict? If so, explain.
No, because being deaf isn't a culture. Deafness does not affect a certain culture, it affects people of all different cultures. All deaf people undergo the same experience of being deaf and a lot of them experience learning sign language, but other than that, every deaf person has a culture unique to them. As such, this isn't a cultural conflict, it's just a difficulty in communicating due to the girl being deaf.
3.) Name an external conflict from the video.
The boy wants to talk to the girl, but the girl won't/can't.
4.) Name an internal conflict from the video.
The girl experiences a man vs. self internal conflict. It's a conflict she's never going to win, however, since her deafness can't be cured and learning how to talk would be very hard. Her conflict is that she wants to talk to the boy and hold a conversation, but she can't actually speak. Her deafness is what's causing this conflict, since it's a part of herself she can't change.
5.) How is this conflict resolved?
It was resolved through the boy and girl talking through written messages, getting to know each other, and the girl ultimately revealing her deafness.
I assumed she couldn't speak English at first, but after she started writing, I assumed she was deaf.
2.) Is this a cultural conflict? If so, explain.
No, because being deaf isn't a culture. Deafness does not affect a certain culture, it affects people of all different cultures. All deaf people undergo the same experience of being deaf and a lot of them experience learning sign language, but other than that, every deaf person has a culture unique to them. As such, this isn't a cultural conflict, it's just a difficulty in communicating due to the girl being deaf.
3.) Name an external conflict from the video.
The boy wants to talk to the girl, but the girl won't/can't.
4.) Name an internal conflict from the video.
The girl experiences a man vs. self internal conflict. It's a conflict she's never going to win, however, since her deafness can't be cured and learning how to talk would be very hard. Her conflict is that she wants to talk to the boy and hold a conversation, but she can't actually speak. Her deafness is what's causing this conflict, since it's a part of herself she can't change.
5.) How is this conflict resolved?
It was resolved through the boy and girl talking through written messages, getting to know each other, and the girl ultimately revealing her deafness.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
1984 Reading Response Journal #2
what they are fighting for, who they are rebelling against, the way their protests seen by the government, the way their protests are seen by the masses. Ultimately, the purpose of this blog is to examine how Orwellian we have become.
Winston is having a hard time buying into what Big Brother and the State are selling because not only does he remember a time before society became like this, he also has a (destroyed) piece of evidence that the Party is twisting the truth into lies. His job, which takes place in the Ministry of Truth, adds to this latter issue, due to the fact that he is directly involved in altering the truth and making everything fit in to what the Party is currently preaching.
I don't think that his acts of questioning are necessarily protest. They are certainly defiance, since they go against what the Party wants him to be thinking, but in my opinion, protest involves actively doing something to oppose a different view. Winston is not making it obvious that he has these differing thoughts, he is not marching in the streets carrying a sign as in a traditional protest. He is protesting in his mind, but only through acts of defiance against the Party. He is most definitely rebelling, just not in any sort of overtly apparent way. After all, if he were to make it public that he's part of the Brotherhood, he would be killed instantly.
As I mentioned before, the defiance Winston is exhibiting and the protests of our society, such as those by people who support Occupy Wall Street, are very different. While people in our society are marching in the streets with signs, Winston is simply performing small acts of rebellion that are not directly in the public eye. Obviously, these are like apples and oranges. Those taking part in Occupy Wall Street are essentially asking for changes in policies that they oppose. Winston just wants to live in a society where your every move and thought aren't monitored and controlled through fear and lies. Winston is fighting against Big Brother and the Party's doctrines and control while Occupy Wall Street is fighting against rich businessmen. Those taking part in Occupy Wall Street are seen to be exercising one of the basic freedoms of being American. As Americans, we are allowed to protest against things that we feel are unjust, we are allowed to assemble and petition and express our thoughts, no matter how opposed they may be. Also, practically everybody has heard of these protests, while Winston, Julia, and O'Brien are the only ones to know about Winston's acts of rebellion. Winston is not doing these things in public, his actions are not being broadcast. Our society is definitely not Orwellian, for if it was, we would be much more closely monitored and a protest such as Occupy Wall Street would be shot down in an instant.
Winston is having a hard time buying into what Big Brother and the State are selling because not only does he remember a time before society became like this, he also has a (destroyed) piece of evidence that the Party is twisting the truth into lies. His job, which takes place in the Ministry of Truth, adds to this latter issue, due to the fact that he is directly involved in altering the truth and making everything fit in to what the Party is currently preaching.
I don't think that his acts of questioning are necessarily protest. They are certainly defiance, since they go against what the Party wants him to be thinking, but in my opinion, protest involves actively doing something to oppose a different view. Winston is not making it obvious that he has these differing thoughts, he is not marching in the streets carrying a sign as in a traditional protest. He is protesting in his mind, but only through acts of defiance against the Party. He is most definitely rebelling, just not in any sort of overtly apparent way. After all, if he were to make it public that he's part of the Brotherhood, he would be killed instantly.
As I mentioned before, the defiance Winston is exhibiting and the protests of our society, such as those by people who support Occupy Wall Street, are very different. While people in our society are marching in the streets with signs, Winston is simply performing small acts of rebellion that are not directly in the public eye. Obviously, these are like apples and oranges. Those taking part in Occupy Wall Street are essentially asking for changes in policies that they oppose. Winston just wants to live in a society where your every move and thought aren't monitored and controlled through fear and lies. Winston is fighting against Big Brother and the Party's doctrines and control while Occupy Wall Street is fighting against rich businessmen. Those taking part in Occupy Wall Street are seen to be exercising one of the basic freedoms of being American. As Americans, we are allowed to protest against things that we feel are unjust, we are allowed to assemble and petition and express our thoughts, no matter how opposed they may be. Also, practically everybody has heard of these protests, while Winston, Julia, and O'Brien are the only ones to know about Winston's acts of rebellion. Winston is not doing these things in public, his actions are not being broadcast. Our society is definitely not Orwellian, for if it was, we would be much more closely monitored and a protest such as Occupy Wall Street would be shot down in an instant.
This Land Is Your Land by Woodie Guthrie
1.) Is Guthrie's message individualist or collectivist? Explain.
Guthrie's message is individualistic, not only because he's talking about the U.S., an individualist society, but due to the lyrical content. He mentions that "nothing living can ever stop (him)", indicating that he is an individual that can do as he pleases. He works for his own desires. He also mentions a sign with 'Private Property' on one side and nothing on the other, and how this blank side was made for "you and me". The blank side represents how he is free to go where he pleases without any restrictions, indicating that he's free to do what he wants as an individual. He values individual rights. There is no mention of how the land is for 'us', which would lean towards being collectivist.
2.) Do you find this song to be pro-government or anti-government? Explain.
It appears to start off neutral, not really supporting or being against the government, simply celebrating the nation's beauty. Near the end, however, he mentions a sign banning trespassers and "his people" hungry and lining up for food. This is more negative than the cheery first few stanzas and appears to be anti-government. He is displeased that the government doesn't feed the people and doesn't grant them the total freedom to go where they want.
Guthrie's message is individualistic, not only because he's talking about the U.S., an individualist society, but due to the lyrical content. He mentions that "nothing living can ever stop (him)", indicating that he is an individual that can do as he pleases. He works for his own desires. He also mentions a sign with 'Private Property' on one side and nothing on the other, and how this blank side was made for "you and me". The blank side represents how he is free to go where he pleases without any restrictions, indicating that he's free to do what he wants as an individual. He values individual rights. There is no mention of how the land is for 'us', which would lean towards being collectivist.
2.) Do you find this song to be pro-government or anti-government? Explain.
It appears to start off neutral, not really supporting or being against the government, simply celebrating the nation's beauty. Near the end, however, he mentions a sign banning trespassers and "his people" hungry and lining up for food. This is more negative than the cheery first few stanzas and appears to be anti-government. He is displeased that the government doesn't feed the people and doesn't grant them the total freedom to go where they want.
The Egg
1.) He was a simple man, and was a farmhand. he was happy with his life and didn't want to rise in the world. After marriage, he came much more ambitious and wanted to get up in the world. His wife's nature and desire for him and their son to do well in life spurs him on to become more ambitious.
2.) The narrator hates chicken and eggs. They are a symbol for hopelessness and how you can try really hard but not get what you want.
3.) They are used to try and entice and entertain the man in the cafe. He thinks that if he gets at least one young person interested in his grotesques, more will come and he (the dad) will be able to get money and become rich off of it.
4.) It means that the egg has triumphed in showing its own symbolism. It has succeeded in showing the hopelessness of never getting what you want no matter how hard you try.
2.) The narrator hates chicken and eggs. They are a symbol for hopelessness and how you can try really hard but not get what you want.
3.) They are used to try and entice and entertain the man in the cafe. He thinks that if he gets at least one young person interested in his grotesques, more will come and he (the dad) will be able to get money and become rich off of it.
4.) It means that the egg has triumphed in showing its own symbolism. It has succeeded in showing the hopelessness of never getting what you want no matter how hard you try.
Aristotle Quote
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristole
Do you agree or disagree with this quote? Explain.
I do agree, due to the fact that someone who is smart can consider different points of view without actually believing them. Being educated implies that one has been taught open-mindedness and tolerance of other views, or that other points of view actually exist. Someone who is educated can discuss certain thoughts and see the pros and cons of them while still holding fast to their beliefs. An uneducated person is not as open-minded and cannot see any other sides of a topic besides the one they've been taught.
Do you agree or disagree with this quote? Explain.
I do agree, due to the fact that someone who is smart can consider different points of view without actually believing them. Being educated implies that one has been taught open-mindedness and tolerance of other views, or that other points of view actually exist. Someone who is educated can discuss certain thoughts and see the pros and cons of them while still holding fast to their beliefs. An uneducated person is not as open-minded and cannot see any other sides of a topic besides the one they've been taught.
Collectivism vs. Individualism
1.) In a collectivist culture, what personality traits are likely to be considered ideal? What about in an individualistic culture?
Individualist: motivation, individuality
Collectivist: loyalty, being humble
2.) In what type of culture might elders or people who have professional distinction receive more respect and less challenge from people lower on their culture's/group's hierarchy? Explain your answer.
I think this represents an individualistic society, since the individual with the most experience and knowledge is praised more and given more attention than an individual who has accomplished less. The latter is seen as inferior and not as worthy of compliment due to their lack of experience. This is valuing an individual person more than it is a group, indicating that it's more individualistic than collectivist.
3.) Create a specific problem a teacher may encounter when he/she moves from teaching in a collectivist culture to an individualist culture or vice versa. Explain the specific values/influences/obligations/desires caused by the clash.
If a teacher comes from a collectivist culture to an individualistic one, there would be an internal conflict, since she wouldn't feel comfortable fitting into the individualistic mold of congratulating individual students. She would be much more accustomed to feeling the group's contributions should be celebrated. The sense of loyalty to the group isn't present in individualistic cultures, since individualistic cultures value a single person's work. This could be resolved by the teacher assigning group projects in order to replicate a sense of group unity or by being taught more about an individualistic culture.
4.) What is an acquaintance? Does the word have a positive, negative, or neutral connotation? Explain.
It's someone who you know by name and talk to on occasion, but don't know very well. I feel as though it's neutral, since you get along well and don't have much of an issue with each other, but you don't know each other well enough to make judgments as to whether or not you like or dislike each other.
Individualist: motivation, individuality
Collectivist: loyalty, being humble
2.) In what type of culture might elders or people who have professional distinction receive more respect and less challenge from people lower on their culture's/group's hierarchy? Explain your answer.
I think this represents an individualistic society, since the individual with the most experience and knowledge is praised more and given more attention than an individual who has accomplished less. The latter is seen as inferior and not as worthy of compliment due to their lack of experience. This is valuing an individual person more than it is a group, indicating that it's more individualistic than collectivist.
3.) Create a specific problem a teacher may encounter when he/she moves from teaching in a collectivist culture to an individualist culture or vice versa. Explain the specific values/influences/obligations/desires caused by the clash.
If a teacher comes from a collectivist culture to an individualistic one, there would be an internal conflict, since she wouldn't feel comfortable fitting into the individualistic mold of congratulating individual students. She would be much more accustomed to feeling the group's contributions should be celebrated. The sense of loyalty to the group isn't present in individualistic cultures, since individualistic cultures value a single person's work. This could be resolved by the teacher assigning group projects in order to replicate a sense of group unity or by being taught more about an individualistic culture.
4.) What is an acquaintance? Does the word have a positive, negative, or neutral connotation? Explain.
It's someone who you know by name and talk to on occasion, but don't know very well. I feel as though it's neutral, since you get along well and don't have much of an issue with each other, but you don't know each other well enough to make judgments as to whether or not you like or dislike each other.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
2+2=5 by Radiohead
1.) What is the song talking about lyrically?
It's about how this man is trapped in a world where he is not like everybody else. He is a dreamer. The world he lives in is able to convince people of falsehoods, like 2+2=5. He is persecuted for thinking differently and for not fitting in to the mold his society has carved out for him. He wants attention from everyone else who is trapped in this system so that maybe they'll realize the world they live in is a lie, and as a result can make an attempt to break the system. He's sick of thieves stealing the truth from everybody.
2.) How does the music mirror or help push the message?
It sounds very helpless and sad at times, especially the beginning, emphasizing the hopeless and dreary nature that society has imposed on everyone. However, when the tempo picks up and the lyrics start talking about how he wants attention, it gives off a vibe of desperation.
3.) The title is an allusion to 1984... explain the connection.
In 1984, Winston thinks that eventually, in the future, the Party will have such control over the truth that they'll eventually say that 2+2=5, and everyone will have to believe that that's true.
It's about how this man is trapped in a world where he is not like everybody else. He is a dreamer. The world he lives in is able to convince people of falsehoods, like 2+2=5. He is persecuted for thinking differently and for not fitting in to the mold his society has carved out for him. He wants attention from everyone else who is trapped in this system so that maybe they'll realize the world they live in is a lie, and as a result can make an attempt to break the system. He's sick of thieves stealing the truth from everybody.
2.) How does the music mirror or help push the message?
It sounds very helpless and sad at times, especially the beginning, emphasizing the hopeless and dreary nature that society has imposed on everyone. However, when the tempo picks up and the lyrics start talking about how he wants attention, it gives off a vibe of desperation.
3.) The title is an allusion to 1984... explain the connection.
In 1984, Winston thinks that eventually, in the future, the Party will have such control over the truth that they'll eventually say that 2+2=5, and everyone will have to believe that that's true.
Conflict
1.) Identify the conflict. Is this an internal or external conflict?
The conflict is that of globalization's effect on how women from non-Western cultures are viewed. It is an external conflict.
2.) How/Why does globalization create conflict? In the speaker's opinion globalization has flown in one direction. What does she mean by this?
It creates conflict because there are clashing ideas meeting, and when ideas about things aren't the same on both sides, there is obviously going to be conflict. She means that the Western world has influenced non-Western cultures but not the other way around. Western culture has not been 'globalized' to be like Muslim culture, for example.
3.) Although the speaker feels globalization has been one-sided, she notes there has been one benefit related to the process. What benefit does she mention?
Women in non-Western cultures have been exposed to positive female role models from the West, something they might not necessarily have in their own culture. This influence is obviously a good one, since women need positive role models, even if they are from other cultures.
4.) The speaker says Muslims and Westerners live by/are obligated to two different sources of truth. What two sources does she mention? (2 texts)
The Quran and the Constitution.
The conflict is that of globalization's effect on how women from non-Western cultures are viewed. It is an external conflict.
2.) How/Why does globalization create conflict? In the speaker's opinion globalization has flown in one direction. What does she mean by this?
It creates conflict because there are clashing ideas meeting, and when ideas about things aren't the same on both sides, there is obviously going to be conflict. She means that the Western world has influenced non-Western cultures but not the other way around. Western culture has not been 'globalized' to be like Muslim culture, for example.
3.) Although the speaker feels globalization has been one-sided, she notes there has been one benefit related to the process. What benefit does she mention?
Women in non-Western cultures have been exposed to positive female role models from the West, something they might not necessarily have in their own culture. This influence is obviously a good one, since women need positive role models, even if they are from other cultures.
4.) The speaker says Muslims and Westerners live by/are obligated to two different sources of truth. What two sources does she mention? (2 texts)
The Quran and the Constitution.
Monday, October 17, 2011
1984 Reading Response Journal #1
Equality and conformity are strictly enforced in 1984's society, Oceania. Party members are forced to wear the same blue overalls as a uniform, causing everybody to look alike. A mindless routine is set into play, and anyone who so much as gives some sort of facial cue that they're opposed to what they're doing is strictly punished, oftentimes 'vaporized', meaning that any record of their existence is wiped out. The Thought Police exist to ensure that individuals don't so much as think any sort of dissenting thought, and if they do commit thoughtcrime, as it's called, they will be put to death. This rigid set of rules forces every person to act exactly alike out of fear of severe punishment, and out of this conformity, equality is emphasized. After all, if everybody is scared of the same thing and under the same set of rules, everyone is equal.
Conflict is nonexistent. Any source of possible conflict, such as different religions and the aforementioned opposing thoughts, has been completely wiped out. Anybody who has desires opposing those of the Party are seen as insane. Winston worries about his mental health while writing in his diary, so intense is the drilling of 'dissension equals insanity'. Relationships can barely even be called that - the only reason people form 'relationships' is to have children, and Winston's account of attempting to do is displayed as being painful and unpleasant. There is no attraction between them, they were simply put together to reproduce. Individual rights are seen as being akin to slavery, as one of the Party's mottoes states that "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY". The freedom to do as you please (and, in this case, go against the Party) is seen as enslavement, emphasizing the populace's lack of individual rights.
Although no one in Oceania is truly happy, they are meant to appear happy. No negative facial expressions are allowed, and if you are caught by another person or by the telescreen giving any sort of look that indicates that you aren't content, you will be punished. Everyone must be happy with the way things are, and if someone isn't, they get vaporized. This emphasizes conformity, for if one person is unhappy, they are going against the grain, and must, therefore, be extinguished.
Oceania is the opposite of a utopia. In a utopia, everyone is genuinely happy, and there truly are no conflicts or suffering. It is a dystopia. Winston is one example of someone who is unhappy, and there are many descriptions of the suffering endured not only by him, but by others as well. Winston thinks he is alone in his unhappiness with his society, but given the conditions described above, nearly everyone must be discontent with their situation, save for those who have been brainwashed and completely absorbed in the Party and its beliefs. Given the horrible conditions under which the populace of Oceania live, it is undeniably a dystopia.
Conflict is nonexistent. Any source of possible conflict, such as different religions and the aforementioned opposing thoughts, has been completely wiped out. Anybody who has desires opposing those of the Party are seen as insane. Winston worries about his mental health while writing in his diary, so intense is the drilling of 'dissension equals insanity'. Relationships can barely even be called that - the only reason people form 'relationships' is to have children, and Winston's account of attempting to do is displayed as being painful and unpleasant. There is no attraction between them, they were simply put together to reproduce. Individual rights are seen as being akin to slavery, as one of the Party's mottoes states that "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY". The freedom to do as you please (and, in this case, go against the Party) is seen as enslavement, emphasizing the populace's lack of individual rights.
Although no one in Oceania is truly happy, they are meant to appear happy. No negative facial expressions are allowed, and if you are caught by another person or by the telescreen giving any sort of look that indicates that you aren't content, you will be punished. Everyone must be happy with the way things are, and if someone isn't, they get vaporized. This emphasizes conformity, for if one person is unhappy, they are going against the grain, and must, therefore, be extinguished.
Oceania is the opposite of a utopia. In a utopia, everyone is genuinely happy, and there truly are no conflicts or suffering. It is a dystopia. Winston is one example of someone who is unhappy, and there are many descriptions of the suffering endured not only by him, but by others as well. Winston thinks he is alone in his unhappiness with his society, but given the conditions described above, nearly everyone must be discontent with their situation, save for those who have been brainwashed and completely absorbed in the Party and its beliefs. Given the horrible conditions under which the populace of Oceania live, it is undeniably a dystopia.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Utopia
1.) A utopia is a place where everyone gets along and is happy and everything works out well and there are no problems whatsoever. It's a perfect place.
2.) My ideal world would be one where I can do as I please and not have to work and i can just travel and play around and write and draw and can sleep for as long as I want and I can choose whether or not I have to be around people. I want to be able to do as I want without restrictions - total freedom, essentially. I don't want any sort of troubles or worries.
3.) Depends on my mood, but it would mostly be chillwave and electronica, like Washed Out, Toro Y Moi, and Crystal Castles, though I could also play some Sigur Ros and Modest Mouse. It would all be generally soothing and happy, almost sleepy, but with upbeat songs thrown in the mix whenever I feel excited in any sort of way.
2.) My ideal world would be one where I can do as I please and not have to work and i can just travel and play around and write and draw and can sleep for as long as I want and I can choose whether or not I have to be around people. I want to be able to do as I want without restrictions - total freedom, essentially. I don't want any sort of troubles or worries.
3.) Depends on my mood, but it would mostly be chillwave and electronica, like Washed Out, Toro Y Moi, and Crystal Castles, though I could also play some Sigur Ros and Modest Mouse. It would all be generally soothing and happy, almost sleepy, but with upbeat songs thrown in the mix whenever I feel excited in any sort of way.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
You Were Right by Built To Spill
1.) Make an inference about the lyrical content of the song and explain it.
The singer has obviously gone through some hard times, indicated by how he says that the person he's talking to was wrong about everything being alright, showing that things were not alright. Another indicator is where he states that manic depression's a frustrating mess, implying that he suffers from manic depression, an entirely unpleasant, and, as the speaker states, a frustrating mess of a situation to endure.
2.) Write one analytical statement about the musical content of the song and explain/support it.
The tempo is fast, and the sound is rather upbeat, though this is in contrast to the gloomy lyrics. This juxtaposition is meant to emphasize the song's meaning.
3.) Make one evaluative statement about the song's overall effectiveness and support it.
I think the song is fairly effective, it displays a melancholy mood well with its lyrics, and the happier sound of the music adds to the sad feel of it all. It gives a sense of accepting the hopelessness of everything.
The singer has obviously gone through some hard times, indicated by how he says that the person he's talking to was wrong about everything being alright, showing that things were not alright. Another indicator is where he states that manic depression's a frustrating mess, implying that he suffers from manic depression, an entirely unpleasant, and, as the speaker states, a frustrating mess of a situation to endure.
2.) Write one analytical statement about the musical content of the song and explain/support it.
The tempo is fast, and the sound is rather upbeat, though this is in contrast to the gloomy lyrics. This juxtaposition is meant to emphasize the song's meaning.
3.) Make one evaluative statement about the song's overall effectiveness and support it.
I think the song is fairly effective, it displays a melancholy mood well with its lyrics, and the happier sound of the music adds to the sad feel of it all. It gives a sense of accepting the hopelessness of everything.
"Young Life" by Bo Bartlett
3 claims w/ a supporting fact for each
1.) Claim: The artist supports hunting, and believes that hunters should be proud when they kill, and will get women by hunting.
Supporting fact: The stance of the boy is proud, and his girlfriend is embracing him.
2.) Claim: The young boy wishes to be a hunter as well, and wants to carry a big gun. He pretends his large stick is a gun.
Supporting fact: He has joined the boy and his girlfriend on the hunting trip, and carries a stick as big as the boy's gun.
3.) Claim: The artist thinks that older people are who teach younger people to be violent, and the older boy is teaching the younger boy to live a violent life.
Supporting fact: The young boy has come along with the older boy on the hunting trip.
Paragraph: The young boy wishes to be a hunter, just as the older male is, and wishes to carry a gun as big as the young man's. This is demonstrated both by the fact that he's carrying a large stick and that he came with the young man and woman on the hunting trip. Young boys like to use sticks and pretend that they're guns, so the young boy in this picture was probably pretending that his large stick was like the older boy's gun, seeing as how they are about the same size. Also, since he came on the hunting trip with the young couple, the young boy either has no issues with watching the older boy kill a deer, or is trying to learn how to do such a thing, and has a desire to emulate the young man's actions.
1.) Claim: The artist supports hunting, and believes that hunters should be proud when they kill, and will get women by hunting.
Supporting fact: The stance of the boy is proud, and his girlfriend is embracing him.
2.) Claim: The young boy wishes to be a hunter as well, and wants to carry a big gun. He pretends his large stick is a gun.
Supporting fact: He has joined the boy and his girlfriend on the hunting trip, and carries a stick as big as the boy's gun.
3.) Claim: The artist thinks that older people are who teach younger people to be violent, and the older boy is teaching the younger boy to live a violent life.
Supporting fact: The young boy has come along with the older boy on the hunting trip.
Paragraph: The young boy wishes to be a hunter, just as the older male is, and wishes to carry a gun as big as the young man's. This is demonstrated both by the fact that he's carrying a large stick and that he came with the young man and woman on the hunting trip. Young boys like to use sticks and pretend that they're guns, so the young boy in this picture was probably pretending that his large stick was like the older boy's gun, seeing as how they are about the same size. Also, since he came on the hunting trip with the young couple, the young boy either has no issues with watching the older boy kill a deer, or is trying to learn how to do such a thing, and has a desire to emulate the young man's actions.
Shame by The Avett Brothers
1.) ID subject and tone:
The subject is a man who realizes that his lady left him because he's selfish and doesn't think of anyone but himself, and he's admitting that he feels shame for his actions in an attempt to win her back. The speaker's attitude towards this is sorrowful and pleading, since he's sad that he lost her and sad that he behaved in such a way as to make her leave. He seems rather pleading in that he keeps saying things that show that he hopes she can believe that he's changed and feels sorry for what he's done and will eventually take him back.
2.) Choose 3 words that push the tone and explain how they do that.
The subject is a man who realizes that his lady left him because he's selfish and doesn't think of anyone but himself, and he's admitting that he feels shame for his actions in an attempt to win her back. The speaker's attitude towards this is sorrowful and pleading, since he's sad that he lost her and sad that he behaved in such a way as to make her leave. He seems rather pleading in that he keeps saying things that show that he hopes she can believe that he's changed and feels sorry for what he's done and will eventually take him back.
2.) Choose 3 words that push the tone and explain how they do that.
- overwhelming - it shows just how crushing his guilt and shame for his actions is
- always cold - when discussing his heart, he is admitting that he's always been a rather cold person, but hopes that she will take him back
- sink - this emphasizes how sad he is about losing her, and is sinking into depression over his loss
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Reading Critically Summary
Critical reading takes a lot of work and effort, but you shouldn't try too hard to suck in every detail of a piece on your first reading of it. However, when you do attempt to read critically, there is a process you should go through. Examining the title, any information about the author, and where and when the work was published can help give you a preliminary idea as to what the essay will be about, and will aid in your understanding of the piece. It helps if you hold a writing utensil or highlighter while you read, so that you can annotate and make notes on the essay, such as circling words you don't understand or adding personalized comments about what the piece is talking about. Summarizing the content of an essay can also aid in your understanding by chopping the reading down into manageable chunks. Doing a conscious analysis of what you are reading can also bolster your understanding of the piece, including making inferences and synthesizing ideas. You might also evaluate the work's quality after reading it.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Voice Video
1.) What is voice in literature? What writing devices are used to create it?
Voice is when the writer of the piece sort of puts their own personality into their writing, and is essentially a personalized style of writing, based almost on how the person talks. Any sort of writing device, such as word choice and tone, can be used to show voice.
2.) Write a sentence or sentences about a topic of your choice. Then explain how that example reflects your own voice. What writing devices from #1 did you use?
Voice is when the writer of the piece sort of puts their own personality into their writing, and is essentially a personalized style of writing, based almost on how the person talks. Any sort of writing device, such as word choice and tone, can be used to show voice.
2.) Write a sentence or sentences about a topic of your choice. Then explain how that example reflects your own voice. What writing devices from #1 did you use?
“Oof!” There was suddenly a heavy weight upon his back, coupled with arms linked trachea-crushingly tight around his neck and ankles linked around his waist. He practically doubled over at the sudden addition of a human backpack, his knees trembling in protest. There was a triumphant giggle behind his head, and he felt lips grant a chaste kiss to his jaw – the closest they could get to his cheek – as he hooked his arms beneath black-clad knees and gave a slight hop to readjust the weight.
This reflects my voice in that I give a lot of description to things (such as explaining not just how someone jumped on his back, but the fact that he had arms around his neck and legs around his waist) and focus much more on this description than I do on dialogue (at least in fiction writing).
3.) According to the documentary, people in eastern Kentucky talk around a subject. Identify a topic you would talk around, and explain why you would handle the topic in that manner.
I could talk around certain subjects that are sensitive to me, such as uncomfortable events from my past, or subjects that I know could make me seem like a bad person or that would upset who I'm talking to.
4.) Why is voice important in nonfiction? What are some things we normally avoid in academic essays?
It adds some interest and personality to something that would otherwise be really boring and formulaic when you read it. You avoid talking too casually, being too wordy, and using 'to be' verbs. Using 'I' is also discouraged.
5.) What are some ways we can develop our own voices?
Just keep writing about a lot of topics, so you can develop your voice in writing.
Friday, September 23, 2011
SOAPSTone - "Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out"
SOAPSTone – “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out”
Bay P.
9/22/11
Subject: The subject of Dave Barry’s “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out” is that men and women perceive the world around them in vastly different ways, and, as such, react to their surroundings in vastly different ways. This mental wall of perception between the sexes is illustrated by Barry’s use of a hyperbolic description of women’s stereotypical trait of hyper-cleanliness (claiming that they are able to spot dirt on a microscopic level, for example) as compared to his own gender’s ignorance to the mess until it becomes too much to handle (such as his fictionalized explanation as to why so many people were buried beneath the ash of Vesuvius). This emphasizes Barry’s opinion on the ways in which both genders analyze and react to the world around them by showing that men and women react in vastly different ways to a lack of cleanliness – women are meticulous in their efforts to stop and clean up messes, while men couldn’t really care less.
Occasion: “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out” was written during the mid-80’s. The essay’s time of creation is illustrated not by anything explicitly stated in the essay, since it is written in such a way as to make it essentially ambiguous as to the time period during which it was written, but due to the fact that the technologies of the time of this writing are not implemented in the explanation of how the men managed to go sneak off and watch the World Series during a visit. If this essay were set during 2011, the men probably wouldn’t have to make excuses to zip out of the room and go crowd around the TV – instead, they might have been able to take out their smartphones and watch the game on there. The probable place of this essay’s creation is New York, seeing as how Barry was born there, (as the blurb before the essay states) but not necessarily in his hometown of Armonk – he might have moved.
The time and place of the essay’s creation influence the essay by giving it a more innocent feel – due to the fact that the men aren’t just using their phones to ignore the conversation going on about them, it makes them appear to be less sneaky, although I’m unable to argue as to whether or not it makes them seem less desperate. The place of his writing also probably influenced the author’s view on how both genders behave – if he lived somewhere where, for whatever reason, traditional gender roles were reversed, the essay would have been completely different.
Audience: Barry’s specific audience for “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out” are those who are confused by the behavior of those of the opposite sex – or those of their own sex, if they act differently from the rest of them, that is. The author’s target audience is exhibited by the topic of the essay, which are the radical differences between the two genders when it comes to perception of the world. This is done by discussing various disparities between how men and women react to various things – such as dirt, cleaning, and sports.
The author’s general audience for the essay is anyone looking for a good laugh about the ridiculous behaviors of both the opposite sex and their own sex. The author’s general audience is shown by the tone of the essay, which is rather humorous and tongue-in-cheek, definitely not meant to be taken as truth in the slightest. The fact that Barry attempts to explain the deaths of those at Pompeii with the fact that the men only noticed the ash falling when it had practically covered up the children emphasizes the light-hearted tone of it all. This is obviously meant to be funny and not taken seriously, and provides humor for those who are mystified by male behavior.
Purpose: Barry’s purpose in “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out” is to display just how truly ridiculous both genders can be about various things, and implores for us all to laugh good-naturedly at each other and ourselves – taking stereotypes into play, of course. The sheer silliness of how the two sexes behave, especially in regards to the clichés associated with their behaviors, is illustrated by Barry stating that “… a hormonal secretion takes place in women that enables them to see dirt that men cannot see, dirt at the level of molecules, whereas men don’t generally notice it until it forms clumps large enough to support agriculture.” By adding to the stereotype that women are hypersensitive neat freaks and men couldn’t care less about the cleanliness of things, Barry demonstrates his purpose in an easily understood, but tongue-in-cheek manner. The purpose is further revealed by his anecdote concerning him being told to clean his son’s bathroom. Even though Barry thinks that all is clean, despite having just wiped everything down with Windex, his wife gives him an angry look and insists that the bathroom is filthy. Barry is baffled as to how she’s seeing dirt everywhere, even though he just cleaned the place. Although in this case Barry seems to be teasing his own gender rather than the opposite gender, his point is still made – that both sexes perceive things, namely cleanliness, with varying degrees of importance.
Speaker: Dave Barry, who married his first wife in 1976, believes that there is a fundamental difference in how men and women behave. This is illustrated by his quote stating that “[t]he primary difference between men and women is that women can see extremely small quantities of dirt”. This is not the only quote of his that supports this belief, seeing as how not just dirt but also the importance of sports is discussed in the essay. This influenced the essay’s purpose by showing that men and women are different creatures of different natures, and he included this value to emphasize how the two genders of the same species can be similar yet so different, but in a funny way.
Dave Barry, who has been called the funniest man in America, also believes that we as a species should be able to laugh at ourselves. This value is illustrated by his use of self-deprecating humor, such as his discussion on how the residents of Pompeii were crushed by ash due to the fact that the men “never even noticed the ash until it had for the most part covered the children. ‘Hey!’ the men said (in Latin). It’s mighty quiet around here!’” By making fun of his own gender – saying that they’re so oblivious to even deadly amounts of dirt that they don’t notice until someone’s perished – Barry emphasizes his wish for us to laugh good-naturedly at each other and at ourselves. This expressed value influences the essay’s purpose by showing that Barry wants this to be a humorous essay, and it shouldn’t be taken seriously. He included it in order to show the reader that he’s not being serious when he says such things.
Barry’s use of imagery is evident in the section where he describes how the men of Pompeii “never even noticed the ash until it had for the most part covered the children”. This gives the reader a very vivid image of a bunch of children floundering about in ash. This use of imagery influences the essay’s purpose by showing that the content of this essay is meant to be silly – although the thought of children dying is an upsetting one, he presents it in such a way as to make it humorous. He used this rhetoric in order to aid in the effectiveness of his essay, emphasizing how the male perception of ‘filthy’ can be seen as funny.
Tone: Barry exhibits a self-deprecating and tongue-in-cheek attitude about the way in which men and women see and react to various aspects of the world around them in “Batting Clean-Up and Striking Out”. These attitudes are expressed with his use of phrases such as “I ‘clean’ the bathroom, spraying Windex all over everything…” This exacerbates his self-deprecating tone by explaining that, as a man, he doesn’t care about whether or not the bathroom is truly clean, and takes the simple way out by simply dousing the room in cleaning spray. This is also tongue-in-cheek due to the fact that he’s obviously being hyperbolic when saying that he sprayed absolutely everything with Windex, including the “six hundred action figures each sold separately” that are there. It’s not meant to be taken at face value, and is intended to be humorous. This tone greatly serves the purpose of the essay by allowing us all to realize how strange and clashing the behaviors of the sexes are, emphasizing his point that men and women see and react to the world in different ways. The latter point is demonstrated by his explanation of the contrasting reactions of himself and his wife to his son Robert’s bathroom – Barry thinks it’s clean, while his wife believes it to be filthy. This validates my claim by showing that although a man may see one thing and react one way, a women might see something completely different, and react accordingly.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Eleanor Rigby - Dubstep vs. Beatles
1.) Which of these do you like better? Why (be specific)?
The original version, since I'm just not fond of dubstep in the slightest. Also, it's just more emotionally fulfilling and more pleasing to the ear, unlike the repetitive, uninspired noises of dubstep - it has originality. There are just so many aspects of the original that are superior - the vocals, the orchestration, and the structure.
2.) Which of these is more pleasing to listen to? Why (be specific)?
The original is more pleasing to listen to because it just feels more substantial, and when music is substantial, it's easier to get lost in and appreciate it. The dubstep version seemed more repetitive, and that can get boring after a while. The emotion of the original is lost due to the fact that the vocals are covered up by the loud, throbbing beat. The original keeps your interest because you can hear the lyrics and melancholy instrumentation, unlike in the dubstep version, where everything is muffled, save for the electronic music.
The original version, since I'm just not fond of dubstep in the slightest. Also, it's just more emotionally fulfilling and more pleasing to the ear, unlike the repetitive, uninspired noises of dubstep - it has originality. There are just so many aspects of the original that are superior - the vocals, the orchestration, and the structure.
2.) Which of these is more pleasing to listen to? Why (be specific)?
The original is more pleasing to listen to because it just feels more substantial, and when music is substantial, it's easier to get lost in and appreciate it. The dubstep version seemed more repetitive, and that can get boring after a while. The emotion of the original is lost due to the fact that the vocals are covered up by the loud, throbbing beat. The original keeps your interest because you can hear the lyrics and melancholy instrumentation, unlike in the dubstep version, where everything is muffled, save for the electronic music.
Kandinksy vs. Pollock
1.) Which of these do you like better? Why (be specific)?
I prefer Kandinsky's because it has a wider color palette, and is very vibrant and eye-catching. The shapes and lines are simple, which gives an air of being easygoing, though some aspects, such as the dark violet and black circles in the top left (which I think looks like a big, evil eye) give it an air of underlying darkness and insanity to it all, with the painting's lack or organization and rhyme or reason adding to this manic effect. To me, that's very enjoyable, if in a sort of creepy way.
2.) Which of these is more pleasing to look at? Why (be specific)?
The Pollock is more pleasing to look at because it's more collective and focused, with the monochrome palette keeping things relatively toned down, despite the frantic, splattering effect of the paint. It also seems more comfortably created, less angular and precisely measured than Kandinsky's.
I prefer Kandinsky's because it has a wider color palette, and is very vibrant and eye-catching. The shapes and lines are simple, which gives an air of being easygoing, though some aspects, such as the dark violet and black circles in the top left (which I think looks like a big, evil eye) give it an air of underlying darkness and insanity to it all, with the painting's lack or organization and rhyme or reason adding to this manic effect. To me, that's very enjoyable, if in a sort of creepy way.
2.) Which of these is more pleasing to look at? Why (be specific)?
The Pollock is more pleasing to look at because it's more collective and focused, with the monochrome palette keeping things relatively toned down, despite the frantic, splattering effect of the paint. It also seems more comfortably created, less angular and precisely measured than Kandinsky's.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Sign Language - Short Film
1.) What single effect did you get from this short film?
The whole thing felt ironic - the main character is very happy and optimistic, while everyone around him seems very dull and neglectful, and he mentions finding the little, beautiful things in life while at the same time neglecting the fact that there's a pretty girl that he has a crush on right under his nose.
2.) Give 3 specific things that led you to that single effect.
When discussing his co-workers, the main character says that one of them is a joker, his tone of voice very happy, though it's apparent that this so-called 'joker' is miserable and grumpy.
The main character also mentions that his job holds a lot of community, while at that point, none of his co-workers have talked to him or even really spared him a glance, and everyone on the street is just bustling on by, and not paying him any sort of mind.
As mentioned before, the main character states that his job is to help people notice the little, beautiful things in life, and the camera flickers over to the girl he's never talked to and has a crush on, thus emphasizing his naivety to the fact that he seems to have ignored the beautiful girl right in front of him.
3.) If you could change one aspect, what would it be and how would it affect the film's single effect?
I think it would have made the irony of it all a lot more apparent if perhaps the scene took place at night, and only the main character and the girl were under bright streetlights, with everyone else shrouded in darkness. That would have made the single effect much more obvious.
The whole thing felt ironic - the main character is very happy and optimistic, while everyone around him seems very dull and neglectful, and he mentions finding the little, beautiful things in life while at the same time neglecting the fact that there's a pretty girl that he has a crush on right under his nose.
2.) Give 3 specific things that led you to that single effect.
When discussing his co-workers, the main character says that one of them is a joker, his tone of voice very happy, though it's apparent that this so-called 'joker' is miserable and grumpy.
The main character also mentions that his job holds a lot of community, while at that point, none of his co-workers have talked to him or even really spared him a glance, and everyone on the street is just bustling on by, and not paying him any sort of mind.
As mentioned before, the main character states that his job is to help people notice the little, beautiful things in life, and the camera flickers over to the girl he's never talked to and has a crush on, thus emphasizing his naivety to the fact that he seems to have ignored the beautiful girl right in front of him.
3.) If you could change one aspect, what would it be and how would it affect the film's single effect?
I think it would have made the irony of it all a lot more apparent if perhaps the scene took place at night, and only the main character and the girl were under bright streetlights, with everyone else shrouded in darkness. That would have made the single effect much more obvious.
Harry Nilsson - "Good Old Desk"
1.) SOAPSTone this song.
Subject: an old desk that gets a lot of use
Occasion: 1970's America
Audience: American listeners
Purpose: to express his love for his desk
Speaker: one should appreciate the little things, like a faithful desk
Tone: happy, content, upbeat
2.) What is he talking about?
He's actually talking about his relationship with God, using his desk as a symbol, and essentially saying that his desk - God - is always there for him. He's fond of his desk, because it's very comfortable and reliable. He's happy that it's unmoving, thus being unable to leave him, and he's just very glad that it's there.
1.) It's the one thing I've got
2.) To keep my hopes alive
3.) It's the friend I've got, a giant of all times
Subject: an old desk that gets a lot of use
Occasion: 1970's America
Audience: American listeners
Purpose: to express his love for his desk
Speaker: one should appreciate the little things, like a faithful desk
Tone: happy, content, upbeat
2.) What is he talking about?
He's actually talking about his relationship with God, using his desk as a symbol, and essentially saying that his desk - God - is always there for him. He's fond of his desk, because it's very comfortable and reliable. He's happy that it's unmoving, thus being unable to leave him, and he's just very glad that it's there.
1.) It's the one thing I've got
2.) To keep my hopes alive
3.) It's the friend I've got, a giant of all times
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
“Shooting an Elephant” SOAPSTone
Subject: The subject of George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is an incident in Burma during which the author was urged to shoot an elephant that had gone ‘must’, and his feelings on the shooting and the events leading up to it. The execution of the rogue animal is illustrated with Orwell’s recounting of being told of the elephant’s rampage and subsequently goaded on by the natives’ desire to see him shoot the creature, ultimately succumbing to the pressure brought on by their inevitable teasing had he not shot the elephant and mortally wounding it. This illustrates the identified subject by detailing his thoughts on the natives’ reactions to his behavior if he were to simply allow the animal to be rounded up instead of killing it, as they wanted him to do, showing that he would not have been able to stand being laughed at for not shooting the elephant, even if it had trampled him to death.
Occasion: “Shooting an Elephant” was written in 1936. The essay’s time of creation is exhibited by the date at the bottom of the article, but also by Orwell’s talk of the Burmese natives’ oppression by the British, which came to an end in 1948, stating that “For at that time [he] had already made up [his] mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner [he] chucked up [his] job and got out of it the better. Theoretically — and secretly, of course — [he] was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.” This proves my claim by discussing events during a certain time period, the British rule in Burma, with the year in which Orwell wrote this being a part of that time period. The probable place of the essay’s creation is in Orwell’s London home, proven by the details at the end of the article.
The time and place of the essay’s creation influence the essay in the terms that Orwell uses, such as Burma, imperialism, British Empire, coolie, British Raj, as well as the way he describes his feelings towards the Burmese natives, with the then-current British rule influencing his opinion of them. This is illustrated by his statement, mentioned earlier, that he supported the Burmese and was against their British oppressors.
Audience: George Orwell’s specific audience for “Shooting an Elephant” is those interested in the life of a British citizen living in one of its colonies, specifically, in this case, Burma. The author’s target audience is revealed by Orwell’s mentioning of how “… it is the condition of [one’s] rule that [one] shall spend [one’s] life in trying to impress the ‘natives’, and so in every crisis [one] has got to do what [one is expected to do by the ‘natives’]. This reveals the target audience by showing those that may be intrigued by what the life of a citizen of an empire is like in an empire’s colony that things aren’t nearly as grand as they may seem, providing more intrigue for the reader.
The author’s general audience for the essay is anyone who may be a citizen of a colonial power, such as Britain, or anyone who is under the command of a colonial power, such as, though this is no longer the case, Burma. The author’s general audience is shown by his statement, as previously mentioned, discussing his feelings towards imperialism – that it is an evil thing – and that he wished to escape it. This demonstrates that he’s not solely concerned with British imperialism, but that any form of imperialism is going to have both negative effects on the empire and whoever may be under the empire’s control, with the former seeming to lose their freedom, and with the latter being subject to all the unpleasantries of being an empire’s colony.
Purpose: George Orwell’s purpose in “Shooting an Elephant” is to emphasize the fact that even though he was British and despite Burma being a British colony, those who are British in Burma aren’t necessarily allowed due to societal pressures from the natives to exact what would seem like inevitable colonial control. This lack of ruling power that has been stifled by the expectations of the natives of the colonized country is manifested by Orwell stating that “… it was at [that] moment, as [he] stood there with the rifle in [his] hands, that [he] first grasped the hollowness, the futility of the white man's dominion in the East. [There he was], the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd — seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality [he] was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. [He] perceived in [that] moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys.” This proves my claim by illustrating that the ‘yellow faces’ of the Burmese were what prevented him from exacting ‘the white man’s dominion in the East’. The purpose is further articulated by the lines stating that “To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at [his] heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing — no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at [him]. And [his] whole life, every white man's life in the East, was one long struggle not to be laughed at.” This proves by claim by emphasizing the fact that the societal pressures – in this case, the threat of the Burmese natives laughing at him for not shooting the elephant – threatened the strength of Britain’s hold over Burma, and that in order to feel as though control had not been lost, Orwell would have to shoot the elephant.
Speaker: George Orwell, a hater of imperialism, believes that when one man becomes a tyrant over another, the tyrant loses his own freedom. This value is illustrated by the aforementioned quotes that state that despite being British, and as such, having dominion over the Burmese, Orwell simply could not resist the social pressure exhibited upon him by his colonial subjects. This influences the essay’s purpose by emphasizing that ‘the white man’s dominion in the East’ is not as powerful as it seems. This was included to add to the strength of the purpose, thus making the essay more influential on the reader.
George Orwell, a supporter of equality, also believes that people should not be oppressed. This value is illustrated by his descriptions of the squalor the Burmese live in, and the abuse they endure, such as being “flogged with bamboos”. This, coupled with his hatred for his nation’s imperialistic government, illustrates his support for equality by showing that he feels guilt and disapproval towards the methods used to keep the ‘natives’ under control. This influences the essay’s purpose by emphasizing in this case the negative effects imperialism has upon those being colonized, and shows that, despite being more powerful than the Burmese, he still sympathizes with them.
George Orwell’s use of imagery is evident in his description of the shooting of the elephant, with one example being that “At the second shot he did not collapse but climbed with desperate slowness to his feet and stood weakly upright, with legs sagging and head drooping.” This influences the essay’s purpose by showing that Orwell’s inability to resist the pressures from the Burmese natives on him causes agony and pain for the elephant he has to shoot.
George Orwell’s use of chronological structure is evident in the fact that the events move in a coherent, chronological order, with the third paragraph explaining the scenario – an elephant had escaped, and Orwell was sent to deal with it – and the final paragraph discussing the happenings following the elephant’s shooting. This influences the essay’s purpose by building up and emphasizing the negative aspects of imperialism, such as the oppressor’s loss of freedom, as well as the effects on the oppressed, ending on a melancholy note, giving the reader a stronger impression of the unpleasant nature of it all.
Tone: George Orwell exhibits an angry and disapproving attitude about imperialism and its negative effects not only on those beneath it, such as the Burmese, but also those who are doing the colonizing, such as the British, in “Shooting an Elephant”. These attitudes are expressed with his talk of how imperialism is “evil”, how the motives of an imperialistic government are “despotic”, and discussions of conflicting feelings on both the oppressors – the British Raj – and the oppressed, stating that the British Raj is an unbreakable tyranny, but also expressing desires to stab a Buddhist priest. These express his angry and disapproving attitudes toward imperialism by using hateful and effective language, thus more clearly illustrating to the reader that imperialism is not a good thing. This serves the purpose of the essay by showing the readers that even those who are doing the colonizing experience negative feelings towards their imperialistic government. This is supported by his statement that he is an “absurd puppet”, illustrating the fact that imperialism has negative effects – it takes away the freedom of those who are a part of the colonial power – and emphasizes his angry attitude towards imperialism as a whole.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Norman Rockwell's "The Runaway"
When one thinks of Norman Rockwell's art, one gets images of the American 1950's - such as a happy family on Thanksgiving, a schoolteacher, etc. - all classic Americana. However, despite the overall 'feel-good' nostalgia factor of his work, a large amount of it seems to ignore what was going on during the 1950's - a cultural rebellion. One particular image of his, "The Runaway", depicts a young boy in a bright yellow shirt sitting at a lunch counter, a bindle with his belongings in it at his feet, looking up at a cop who appears to be giving him a disapproving gaze, with the man behind the counter looking amused at the scene. Though quaint and enjoyable to look at, the picture does not reflect at all what was happening during those times, instead focusing on something that will make you grin when you look at it, as though yearning for when the viewer was a child. Rockwell's "The Runaway" overlooks the fundamental rift that was rising in America throughout the 1950's - an emerging counterculture that was not concerned with how things were in America but rather how they are.
"Across The Universe" by The Beatles
1.) Identify three images in this song.
2.) Are any of these images symbols in context? Explain.
I don't see how any of these are symbols for anything, in or out of context. It all seems like imagery and figurative language to me, with no symbolism.
3.) Explain one symbol that you know to be a symbol. What makes it more than an image?
A peace sign is, obviously enough, a symbol for peace, although it also can be used to represent the destruction of Christianity. It is more than just an image because it represents a value - peacefulness - and a person's desire for peace, thus giving it a more wholesome and personal meaning.
- Words are flying out like / endless rain into a paper cup
- Images of broken light which / dance before me like a million eyes
- Thoughts meander like a / restless wind inside a letter box
2.) Are any of these images symbols in context? Explain.
I don't see how any of these are symbols for anything, in or out of context. It all seems like imagery and figurative language to me, with no symbolism.
3.) Explain one symbol that you know to be a symbol. What makes it more than an image?
A peace sign is, obviously enough, a symbol for peace, although it also can be used to represent the destruction of Christianity. It is more than just an image because it represents a value - peacefulness - and a person's desire for peace, thus giving it a more wholesome and personal meaning.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Inspiration Information by Shaggie Otis (1974)
1.) What is the overall feel of this song?
It feels very upbeat, happy, but rather relaxed. It sounds like a funk-rock song. It just gives me the impression that everything's alright and is very chilled out.
2.) What musical elements put off that vibe?
The guitar (I think that's what it is) sounds real upbeat, and the drums make the song sound relaxed. The instrument that sounds kind of like someone clicking their tongue causes the song to feel happy, and adds to its relaxed nature.
3.) Identify the choices the musician had to make to get this feel and why they worked?
He chose to make the music faster instead of slow, which adds to the happy nature of it all, since a slower song can imply sadness. He also chose to make the funky beats prominent, which adds to the upbeat feel of it all. They all worked because all the sensations gained from the individual elements mesh together well, forming a chill, relaxed, but also upbeat and happy song to listen to.
It feels very upbeat, happy, but rather relaxed. It sounds like a funk-rock song. It just gives me the impression that everything's alright and is very chilled out.
2.) What musical elements put off that vibe?
The guitar (I think that's what it is) sounds real upbeat, and the drums make the song sound relaxed. The instrument that sounds kind of like someone clicking their tongue causes the song to feel happy, and adds to its relaxed nature.
3.) Identify the choices the musician had to make to get this feel and why they worked?
He chose to make the music faster instead of slow, which adds to the happy nature of it all, since a slower song can imply sadness. He also chose to make the funky beats prominent, which adds to the upbeat feel of it all. They all worked because all the sensations gained from the individual elements mesh together well, forming a chill, relaxed, but also upbeat and happy song to listen to.
Semeadores by Diego Rivera
1.) SOAPSTone the painting.
Subject: workers in a field
Occasion: early 20th century
Audience: Mexican laborers/rich white people
Purpose: to show the toil planters go through
Speaker: hard labor should be distributed fairly among many people
Tone: rather grim, almost encouraging
2.) What is the meaning/theme/big idea the artist wanted you to think about? Support your answer with artistic choices he made (i.e. color, style, subject, position, etc.)
Rivera wanted the viewer to acknowledge that the hard work performed by these two planters is unpleasant and should involve more people working together to get the job done. This is shown through the use of putting dark shadows on the man working, with the stark contrast to the bright yellow ground representing that working in the fields is arduous. The subject, two planters, shows that not much work is getting done with just two people working in the fields, emphasizing the fact that more people should work together.
Subject: workers in a field
Occasion: early 20th century
Audience: Mexican laborers/rich white people
Purpose: to show the toil planters go through
Speaker: hard labor should be distributed fairly among many people
Tone: rather grim, almost encouraging
2.) What is the meaning/theme/big idea the artist wanted you to think about? Support your answer with artistic choices he made (i.e. color, style, subject, position, etc.)
Rivera wanted the viewer to acknowledge that the hard work performed by these two planters is unpleasant and should involve more people working together to get the job done. This is shown through the use of putting dark shadows on the man working, with the stark contrast to the bright yellow ground representing that working in the fields is arduous. The subject, two planters, shows that not much work is getting done with just two people working in the fields, emphasizing the fact that more people should work together.
Monday, August 22, 2011
Wilco & The Creative Process
1.) Summarize Wilco's approach to creating a song.
They go for the most straightforward way of playing the song, then sort of deconstruct it, and demolish their song in a creative way to make it more exciting.
2.) What is your creative process for writing?
Unless it's required, I don't use any sort of graphic organizer, and just sort of outline things in my head. At the very most, if I have an idea about something beforehand, I'll write it down, but only so I'll remember it later.
3.) Explain in detail the steps you go through.
I think about what I have to write, and mentally organize what I want to say, sometimes writing a few words down as indicators of what I had been thinking of, and then start writing.
They go for the most straightforward way of playing the song, then sort of deconstruct it, and demolish their song in a creative way to make it more exciting.
2.) What is your creative process for writing?
Unless it's required, I don't use any sort of graphic organizer, and just sort of outline things in my head. At the very most, if I have an idea about something beforehand, I'll write it down, but only so I'll remember it later.
3.) Explain in detail the steps you go through.
I think about what I have to write, and mentally organize what I want to say, sometimes writing a few words down as indicators of what I had been thinking of, and then start writing.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Hello, I'm The Nostalgia Critic. I Remember It So You Don't Have To.
1.) What is nostalgia?
Nostalgia is fondly remembering the past in such a way that sort of disregards any negative aspects of the memory. It's also a yearning to go back and relive days gone by because you miss how things were back then. What you remember is sort of glorified as being better than how things are today.
2.) What images come to mind when you hear this music?
Rock Around The Clock - I get images of boys and girls having a good time, dancing, and having a party in the gym of their school, with couples dancing together.
3.) What images pop in your head when you think of your childhood? What smells, sounds, and feelings are associated with these images?
I remember playing on the playground at Maxwell, smelling the gross smell of mulch, hearing other kids screaming and yelling, and feeling rather elated that I had a break from school. I also remember having Easy Mac for lunch during preschool, with it smelling like pasta and cheese, and hearing the sound of me stirring the mac and cheese and the spoon hitting the edge of the bowl, and feeling hungry and happy that one of my favorite foods was on the menu.
Nostalgia is fondly remembering the past in such a way that sort of disregards any negative aspects of the memory. It's also a yearning to go back and relive days gone by because you miss how things were back then. What you remember is sort of glorified as being better than how things are today.
2.) What images come to mind when you hear this music?
Rock Around The Clock - I get images of boys and girls having a good time, dancing, and having a party in the gym of their school, with couples dancing together.
3.) What images pop in your head when you think of your childhood? What smells, sounds, and feelings are associated with these images?
I remember playing on the playground at Maxwell, smelling the gross smell of mulch, hearing other kids screaming and yelling, and feeling rather elated that I had a break from school. I also remember having Easy Mac for lunch during preschool, with it smelling like pasta and cheese, and hearing the sound of me stirring the mac and cheese and the spoon hitting the edge of the bowl, and feeling hungry and happy that one of my favorite foods was on the menu.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
The Pinch Of Poverty
1.) What are the major contributing factors to poverty?
Sometimes there's a lack of jobs available, people simply aren't educated enough to find work, pay is bad, and/or people are born into impoverished families.
2.) How does this artist portray poverty (pos/neg light)?
It seems to be rather negative, since the family looks very pathetic, sad, cold, and desperate. This just reinforces the notion that poverty's a bad thing - it just brings in unpleasantness. Although one could argue that the brightness of the flowers carried by the girl signifies that there is a positive aspect to being poor, upon closer examination the entire family just seems rather worn out and generally hopeless.
3.) What is the artist's message about poverty?
Poverty is a bad thing, since it leaves people in bad condition overall, urging them to take desperate measures to get money - for example, the young girl in the painting selling flowers. However, as mentioned before, the bright flowers are like a small beacon of hope - by selling flowers, the girl and perhaps the rest of her family could break free from the bonds of impoverishment. The overall tone of the painting, though, gives the impression that it's going to take a lot of work to do that, and that hope has almost run out anyway.
4.) Identify and explain two elements of art that enhance the message.
The lack of bright colors in the painting gives the impression that poverty is like a shroud of darkness that makes your life miserable and dreary. The placement of the family, all clustered together, shows that they need to support each other in order to stay alive.
Sometimes there's a lack of jobs available, people simply aren't educated enough to find work, pay is bad, and/or people are born into impoverished families.
2.) How does this artist portray poverty (pos/neg light)?
It seems to be rather negative, since the family looks very pathetic, sad, cold, and desperate. This just reinforces the notion that poverty's a bad thing - it just brings in unpleasantness. Although one could argue that the brightness of the flowers carried by the girl signifies that there is a positive aspect to being poor, upon closer examination the entire family just seems rather worn out and generally hopeless.
3.) What is the artist's message about poverty?
Poverty is a bad thing, since it leaves people in bad condition overall, urging them to take desperate measures to get money - for example, the young girl in the painting selling flowers. However, as mentioned before, the bright flowers are like a small beacon of hope - by selling flowers, the girl and perhaps the rest of her family could break free from the bonds of impoverishment. The overall tone of the painting, though, gives the impression that it's going to take a lot of work to do that, and that hope has almost run out anyway.
4.) Identify and explain two elements of art that enhance the message.
The lack of bright colors in the painting gives the impression that poverty is like a shroud of darkness that makes your life miserable and dreary. The placement of the family, all clustered together, shows that they need to support each other in order to stay alive.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Live Free and Starve/The Singer Solution to World Poverty
Let me start this off by saying that I read Live Free and Starve first, and went into The Singer Solution to World Poverty agreeing with the first article. However, upon delving into the second article, I was immediately bombarded with what seemed to me cries of how I'm a terrible person, etc. etc. Needless to say, my opinion on the second article sank rather low and barely lifted its head throughout the reading.
The first article, Live Free and Starve, was written by Chitra Divakaruni, an Indian woman who has seen first hand the effects of poverty on people. Her article discussed a bill to be passed by the House banning all imports of goods from factories that use child labor. She continues by explaining that despite the fact that these children are working in terrible and inhumane conditions, they do need this money to make ends meet in some fashion. Like, Singer, she does encourage donation to those stricken by poverty, though in a much less forceful way and for a different reason - she wants money to be sent towards providing education and healthcare for the children who are suddenly without any source of income, instead of letting them be free of abuse, but suddenly bogged down by the pressure of trying to stay alive. She says that 'It is easy for us in America to make the error of evaluating situations in the rest of the world as though they were happening in this country and propose solutions that make excellent sense - in the context of our society.' This just goes to show that we, as Americans, and generally unknowing of the consequences of ending the inhumane practice of child labor, don't necessarily take into account the repercussions of our actions in terms of other cultures. It is a selfless gesture, one could say, but at the same time, Americans as a whole are thinking only of their own society when it comes to this particular bill.
The second article, titled The Singer Solution to World Poverty, is a rather conceitedly named article discussing, obviously, the author's 'solution' to world poverty. He argues, essentially, that Americans simply squander their money on frivolous luxuries, when studies have shown that $200 can help a 'sickly two-year-old transform into a healthy six-year-old', and practically orders the reader to donate that money as soon as possible, even going so far as to make the claim that 'In the light of this conclusion, I trust that many readers will reach for the phone and donate that $200. Perhaps you should do it before reading further.' While I do understand his point of view, that those of us in first-world-countries certainly do have a lot of disposable income that could go towards providing for those who are much less fortunate than us, simply the way his article is presented and how he phrases everything is what makes the reading, as a whole, undesirable. His intentions are good, but when it comes to the practicality of it all, Singer falls short. Not many Americans are willing to give away their money, even if for a good cause. After all, his order that 'Whatever money you are spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away,' can be disputed. That $600 laptop someone buys enables them to gather information about the world around them, and learn about all the strife going on in less-developed nations, and ways to aid them that aren't just buying them food.
Prior to reading these articles, I can't exactly say that I had any sort of bias. I was, admittedly, ignorant on what exactly 'ending child labor' would result in - Divakaruni educated me on that, helping me realize that simply removing children from such horrible conditions isn't enough, that money should go into preventing those children from being a financial burden on their already troubled family. This, to me, is a much more powerful argument than Singer's constant cries of heartlessness and wastefulness, which is more of a deterrent to what he's saying than anything. All in all, Divakaruni's article is the one that I much prefer and agree with. Her argument is simply presented in a much more understandable, educational, and academic way, as compared to Singer's seemingly radical, aggressive article full of statistics and emotional manipulation.
The first article, Live Free and Starve, was written by Chitra Divakaruni, an Indian woman who has seen first hand the effects of poverty on people. Her article discussed a bill to be passed by the House banning all imports of goods from factories that use child labor. She continues by explaining that despite the fact that these children are working in terrible and inhumane conditions, they do need this money to make ends meet in some fashion. Like, Singer, she does encourage donation to those stricken by poverty, though in a much less forceful way and for a different reason - she wants money to be sent towards providing education and healthcare for the children who are suddenly without any source of income, instead of letting them be free of abuse, but suddenly bogged down by the pressure of trying to stay alive. She says that 'It is easy for us in America to make the error of evaluating situations in the rest of the world as though they were happening in this country and propose solutions that make excellent sense - in the context of our society.' This just goes to show that we, as Americans, and generally unknowing of the consequences of ending the inhumane practice of child labor, don't necessarily take into account the repercussions of our actions in terms of other cultures. It is a selfless gesture, one could say, but at the same time, Americans as a whole are thinking only of their own society when it comes to this particular bill.
The second article, titled The Singer Solution to World Poverty, is a rather conceitedly named article discussing, obviously, the author's 'solution' to world poverty. He argues, essentially, that Americans simply squander their money on frivolous luxuries, when studies have shown that $200 can help a 'sickly two-year-old transform into a healthy six-year-old', and practically orders the reader to donate that money as soon as possible, even going so far as to make the claim that 'In the light of this conclusion, I trust that many readers will reach for the phone and donate that $200. Perhaps you should do it before reading further.' While I do understand his point of view, that those of us in first-world-countries certainly do have a lot of disposable income that could go towards providing for those who are much less fortunate than us, simply the way his article is presented and how he phrases everything is what makes the reading, as a whole, undesirable. His intentions are good, but when it comes to the practicality of it all, Singer falls short. Not many Americans are willing to give away their money, even if for a good cause. After all, his order that 'Whatever money you are spending on luxuries, not necessities, should be given away,' can be disputed. That $600 laptop someone buys enables them to gather information about the world around them, and learn about all the strife going on in less-developed nations, and ways to aid them that aren't just buying them food.
Prior to reading these articles, I can't exactly say that I had any sort of bias. I was, admittedly, ignorant on what exactly 'ending child labor' would result in - Divakaruni educated me on that, helping me realize that simply removing children from such horrible conditions isn't enough, that money should go into preventing those children from being a financial burden on their already troubled family. This, to me, is a much more powerful argument than Singer's constant cries of heartlessness and wastefulness, which is more of a deterrent to what he's saying than anything. All in all, Divakaruni's article is the one that I much prefer and agree with. Her argument is simply presented in a much more understandable, educational, and academic way, as compared to Singer's seemingly radical, aggressive article full of statistics and emotional manipulation.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Round and Round
The fact that this song has harmony in it doesn't necessarily affect my opinion of the song - harmony in songs can be really cool and interesting if done well, emphasis on the 'done well'. In Round and Round, the harmony doesn't seem to be very... well, harmonic, with the voices being layered on top of each other in such a way as to make the song incomprehensible. This incomprehensibility is what negatively affects my opinion of the song, since most of the time, I really want to be able to clearly hear lyrics in whatever music I'm listening to, and this song does not deliver in that department. The fact that it has a prominent bassline could sway my opinion closer to the positive spectrum of things, since it certainly makes the song catchy and fun to listen to, but the garbled lyrics sort of overpower any positive aspect the bassline could have donated to my opinion of the song overall. The correlation between the facts I picked out and my opinion in this situation is that the harmony causes me to dislike the song and the prominent bassline somewhat increases my liking of the song, but not by much. I do have biases in music, one of which being the aforementioned desire to hear the lyrics clearly, which certainly aided in forming my opinion of the song. However, songs with this sort of 'sound' to them, full of synthesizers and the like, are not unfamiliar to me, so, overall, any sort of instrumentation bias didn't come into play. All in all, my opinion of the song was pretty much single-handedly made negative by the indiscernible lyrics caused by a shoddily executed attempt at harmony.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)