A Maus Article

Link: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/bassr/218/projects/oliver/MausbyAO.htm#The%20Unusual%20Structure%20ofhttp://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/bassr/218/projects/oliver/MausbyAO.htm#The%20Unusual%20Structure%20of

“…It must be reiterated that MAUS is not merely a narrative of the Holocaust, but also a story of human suffering and struggle, not just after a devastating experience like the concentration camps, but also afterwards; not just of one generation, but also of succeeding ones..” says author Antonio Oliver in his article “Art Spiegelman's MAUS: A Different Type of Holocaust Literature.” This author hopes to convey several points about the Maus series including: the weight of responsibility the Holocaust has on second generation family members, the unique format of the graphic novels, and man’s destructive nature.

Oliver begins by noting that survivors and their families of the Holocaust choose to honor their loved ones in different ways, yet all seem to feel a sense of obligation to honor their relatives. Spiegelman is not unique in that he struggles to find the best way to respectfully honor the struggles of his family’s past.

Next, the author analyzes the structure of Maus and how its unique form and characters provide fresh insight to the portrayal of the Holocaust. Oliver particularly focuses on the animals that Spiegelman chose to represent the Germans and the Jewish: cats and mice. He argues that all animals are not capable of possessing consciences and that Spiegleman hopes to make a similar statement about people. Those who are capable of causing such terror, cruelty and destruction to others can certainly not do so with the presence of a conscience.

Lastly, Oliver describes the Holocaust as an example of man’s ever-destructive nature, and how time can impact the light in which people view the actions of those who fought in the war. Previously, people celebrated the defeat of the Nazi’s and the end of the Holocaust, but now people are less inclined to celebrate any event with so much violence. He compares Nagasaki to the Holocaust, and the irony of these events being executed on opposite sides of the war.

In conclusion, Oliver describes several aspects of the Maus novels.  In addition to analyzing the novels themselves, he offers insight to people’s ideas about World War II and the Holocaust. Oliver ends his article with a warning that man is destructive, and his actions should not be ignored.

A Cradle of Postmodernism

Kurt Vonnegut's novel Cat's Cradle exhibits postmodern characteristics throughout its course. The author of “Postmodernism in Architecture,” states that Postmodern view recognizes that the past cannot be altered since it cannot really be destroyed, it must be revisited with "irony, not innocently." With this in mind, a careful examination of Cat's Cradle reflect this idea as well. 
Vonnegut creates a complex religion, Bokononism, ironically to show that the search for ultimate truth seems ridiculous. Instead of a religion more like typical past religions, Bokononism is built upon the ideas that nothing is true. Bokononists rely on random occurrences in life to guide them, yet also abide by ideas uniting them with strangers into "karasses." Vonnegut here is commenting on the fact that any religion of the past that appears to be "true" cannot be, as the ultimate truth can be anything.
When John visits the laboratory where Dr. Hoenikker used to work, the secretary recalls a conversation she had with the doctor about God. Although the Dr. Hoenikker refuses to acknowledges her beliefs, she insists that they are real by saying, “But Go really is love, you know…no matter what Dr. Hoenikker said.” By portraying religion as something that offers people hope, yet cannot really be justified for the most part more than that by this woman, Vonnegut makes his point. The author takes an ironic look at religion, as well as science. Science during the Renaissance and before postmodern writing was supposed to offer answers, yet from Vonnegut’s portrayal, no reader would gather that same opinion of the science shown by Dr. Hoenikker and company. Dr. Hoenikker does not offer ultimate truths that are relevant to the common man. “Protein is the key to life,” is an “answer” suggested by one such scientist. Another instance of this is when Miss Pefko states that she has trouble understanding anything the scientists she worked for say. “I take dictation from Dr. Horvath and it’s just like a foreign language. I don’t think I’d understand-even if I was to go to college.” Knowing this will not truly help anyone. Just empty knowledge that makes little to no difference to others cannot really be full of truth, according to people like the secretary.  Vonnegut reveals through these characters the irony of the past and even present, just like postmodernism.

Blogilicious

            Brave New World reflects some of the same ideas that authors such as George Orwell wrote about in 1984. Adolphous Huxley warns that excess focus on technology and social “advancement” may lead to, in fact, detrimental results for the societies affected. Similarly, George Orwell revealed that an all-powerful government dedicated to “bettering” society, from only one perspective will create analogous results. Furthermore, the author Technopoly adds that technology typically goes hand-in-hand with culture, even the religion, and develops how this relationship further shapes these societies into what he calls “technocracies,” or places where technology rises above all other aspects of life. People no longer are singularly motivated by religion for salvation from poverty, as they can utilize technology to build themselves a better life, for example. All three of these authors, point in their own ways to both the positive, but predominately negative results of governments systems as these.

            Although people in these places seem outwardly content, they lack the spirit and knowledge of true happiness. They can only gauge happy from what they have been allowed to experience, and lack the ability to feel, really feel the satisfaction that comes from a strong family, relationships, and learning without limitations. Both societies in Brave New World and 1984 claim that people are being improved, or will somehow benefit from their treatment, yet this is a subjective opinion. It takes a powerful individual who is willing to step out of the state of conformity and confront what is normal, for the reader to “see” what these oppressed citizens are missing. In these novels the men who do this are Winston and Bernard, respectively. Although they face dangers and unwelcome peers, daring to dream and object sheds light on the problems suggested by both authors.

To seek a new world may seem like a good idea, but poses dangerous consequences due to the negative realities of the authoritative governments, or even “technocracies.”

Do We Live in a Brave New World?

Certain ideas prevail cmpletely in American society's ways of educating and in how people live atogether in Sir Ken Robinson's video and Huxley's Brave New World. These ideas can be helpful in some people's eyes, but mainly detrimental in my own opinion. The need for conformity in both selections ends up overpowering any creativity or variety that sometimes provides enrichment.
In the video, Sir Ken Robinson proposes that as technology improves and there are more distractions for children who are supposed to focus in a classroom setting. Instead of utilizing these "distractors" to channel learning potential in a different direction, more children are being medicated for ADHD. Robinson points out that as you move across the country towards the east coast, more children are "distracted." Similarly, in Brave New World, the people are told and encouraged to take soma, a drug that takes them to a simple, happy place.  "...gramme is always better than a damn . . . A gramme in time saves nine . . . One cubic centimetre cures ten gloomy sentiments . . . " the members of society repeat to themselves. By essentially "dumbing them down," the government can control society in the direction they wish. Instead of alloing the human minds to progress with the cuttingedge medical and technological advances that the society in this book utilize, people's thoughts are shut down before they can grow into something tangible. Additionally, in the video, the author notes that children are still educated based on age, not ability or learning style, like a factory. He proposes that students be given the best possible success rate by placing them in an environment most nurturing to their needs. Some students who work best in the  mornings, may have all their difficult classes in the late afernoon, for instance. In Brave new World, a close resemblance to this would be how the created humans are classified by their genetic makeup, and eventual appearance. Hiwever, this system does not always work out that well for social "oddballs" like Bernard. Bernard looks and acts differently than the other Alpha Pluses, and therefore struggles to succeed.
In these selections, according to the people in charge of education or society as a whole things are running smoothly, but in reality, nothing is really intellectually running at all.

Brave? New World

Brave New World focuses intensely on the idea that men can be used similarly to machines, ceasing to stop working, being endlessly productive. “And if they [people] cannot tend the wheels…The corpses of a thousand men and women would be hard to bury or burn” (Huxley 43). This exemplifies the attitude of Mustapha Mond, a powerful character in the novel, who believes that men must be put to use, or will be a nuisance, not something to be cherished just for living. In order to fulfill this twisted goal, the members of society in the novel are encouraged to act frequently upon sexual desire, yet are asked to quash all lasting feelings towards others, including their partners. The quick relationships are encouraged, a they are not as meaningful to people if they occur all the time. In fact, family, is nonexistent, as humans are instead manufactured. “…every one belongs to everyone else,” Fanny says to Lenina, after Lenina remarked that she wasn’t feeling as promiscuous as usual (Huxley 43). Society’s ideals are ingrained in the citizens from an early age, even while they sleep. “”We always throw away old clothes. Ending is better than mending…” a voice croons to sleeping children (Huxley 49). By repeating the desired morals to the children on a daily basis, the children naturally are inclined to act upon these ideals. Additionally, drugs, “soma,” are utilized to create false sense of happiness. This further creates a sense of stability. If no one is ever in a bad state of mind, why would they object to any of the practices around them, particularly if everyone else finds them satisfactory? The ways that society behaves in this novel is indeed “new,” yet I think that it would take more “bravery” to fight these accepted practices, than to swallow them.

One Author, One Play, Many Opinions

In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been how to interpret Shakespeare's text "correctly." On the one hand, the author of "Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, and Queer Theory" (I''l call him Author X), argues that post-colonialism is a valid belief and suggests that The Tempest might be included in what is considered postcolonial work. On the other hand, George Will contends that interprtations of any text cannot be considered the ultimate truth. Others, called New Critics, even maintain that potsolonialism in literature is not a valid interpretation, as it takes into account historical events of the authors' time periods. However, my own view is that Shakespeare wrote his play to please audiences, not necessarily to reflect his own beliefs, although some political undertones due to his environment may have seeped into his work .


In discussions of The Tempest, the traditional view is that Caliban is a conquered slave to Prospero, the colonial "dictator." This paints Shakespeare to be a political commentor, not just a businessman in the business of pleasing audiences. However, there may be other ways to think about this text. By stepping back from the novel as a whole, even, one can critique how to even approach reading the actual text, as opposed to merely analyzing the characters themselves.  For one thing, Will explains that, “By ‘deconstructing,’ or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority. Criticism displaces literature. Critics displace authors of bestowing meaning.” With this view in mind, any absolute interpretation of Shakespeare's play might detract from the author'soriginal work of art . Author  X also contends that, "Postcolonial critics also guard against ascribing their own cultural ideas into postcolonial works, realizing that any attempt to understand comletely a subaltern group will be impossible and can lead to another form of repression." Meanwhile, New Critics might argue that Postcolonialism itself is a form of bias when reading; it does not let the author's theme stand alone. Will, then, might be inclined to agree. Therefore, taking these positions into account, we can see that many critics feel strongly about how The Tempest should be read. Whether they are concerned mainly about the author's perspective and how it relates to history and thus is interpreted, or how the reader should not consider any interpretations "right," they all feel that they offer valid suggestions to academia. These ideas helped me come to the conclusion that with an open mind, I think that Shakespeare was not particularly moved by events around him to create a politcal statement, nor do I think  that I offer the ultimate answer in this discussion. I think that, quite simply, Shakespeare jsut wanted to earn money, and wrote plays to please the audiences that could pay his rent. I might also be inclined to agree with Author X, however, and think that Shakespeare may have subconsciously written about a post colonial sruggle due to events around him. Just as Shakespeare seems to blend a variety of culture and possibly "answers" into his text, critics provide their own similiar literary blends for readers to carefully indulge in, tasting new ideas carefully.

What is the "Right" Way to Read?

Literature has always provided the reader with the opportunity to apply different interpretations to its meaning. However, when people begin to label what is the “right” meaning, conflict begins. Two authors in this chapter do just that. George Will’s “Literary Politics” examines the idea that people read too much into the meanings of literature, creating artificial insight as to what the author meant, usually taking the shape of political ideas. On the other hand, Stephan Greenblatt notes in “The Best Way to Kill our Literature is to Turn it into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order” argues that more evidence points to the idea that culture, politics, religion, etc. influenced authors, than does not. Will argues that the political inferences become ridiculous and comical, as they grow more far-fetched. Will states that, “By ‘deconstructing,’ or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority. Criticism displaces literature. Critics displace authors of bestowing meaning.”  Additionally, this author argued against the ideas of Lynne V. Cheney, chairman of the National Endowment of the Humanities, because she supports exactly what he opposes. On the contrary, Stephan Greenblatt writes that literature must have subliminal messages and ideas reflecting more than just the “story.” Greenblatt reveals that part of the beauty of the art form of literature is that it evolves with time to mean different things, and that taking this quality away would be detrimental. “Poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in the cement,” he states. Greenblatt uses the example of Shakespeare’s The Tempest to show that it is highly supportable that the author was reflecting ideas about imperialism in his play.

            I agree partially with both opinionated authors, leaving my opinion somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. I think that although literature may indeed be written to allude to cultural ideas, politics, or religion, this is not always the case. I think that any reading of any piece of literature results in subjective feelings about the selection, so one can never be quite certain about what the author intended the piece to reflect. In fact, I think that authors know that literature is interpreted in this manner, and may even purposely write with a level of vagueness to inspire the reader to insert their own ideas into the text. Or, authors have an idea in mind, but are comfortable with the fact that, just like any form of art, different people will “see” and respond to different aspects of it. On the other hand, however, I do not support forcing any one person’s view of any text on others as the “correct” reading. Who is one person to say what a text means? After all, why should people have the ability to read between the lines?