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?

Caliban: The "Other"

Interpreting texts has evolved to a point where one can choose to look for the “right” interpretations of a text, or analyze how the reader, time period, and author’s influence together compose a text’s central message. I believe that Shakespeare’s The Tempest can be read with several different perspectives, as postists (those who believe literature is a from of discourse and that the language used to compose work is relevant) would agree. From this standpoint, my interpretation as a reader may be used as argument towards Shakespeare’s main idea. With my current knowledge of the novel, I believe that the author portrays Caliban as a savage, inferior individual, and therefore reveals that Shakespeare does not oppose colonization. However, I also think that Shakespeare wrote with outside influences and his own’s cultural hegemony weighing on his thoughts. No one is free of their culture’s influence, and Shakespeare may have written this play in a manner that he thought would please the audiences of his times, and thus may have written his play to further his career more than to broadcast political and cultural messages. As Bressler states, “All people in a given culture are consciously and unconsciously asked to conform to the prescribed hegemony.”

Shakespeare points out that Caliban is unhappy that Miranda taught him the language that she and Prospero speak, because he now expresses himself through the influence of the offending culture he so dislikes. By doing so, the author provides evidence that Caliban in not just a single character, but a symbol of other natives that may have been colonized and forced to conform to a new culture. Bressler supports Caliban’s thoughts on the idea of learning a new language by describing Fanon’s thoughts on the matter. “Fanon believes that as soon as the colonized…were forced to speak the language of the colonizer…the colonizer either accepted or were coerced into accepting the collective consciousness of the French [the colonizers].”

Alone and forced to provide for his master, Prospero, Caliban serves as a symbol to any race or group of peoples that have been oppressed or colonized. As Bressler calls these unlucky individuals, Caliban is one of the “Others.” Although Shakespeare appears to give hope to Caliban’s cause of freedom by providing him with a new “master,” Stephano, he is indeed not sympathetic towards Caliban, and what Caliban represents in The Tempest. Instead, Caliban meets his new master with an unflattering display of affection, thus portraying him, and those who have been colonized, as desperate and pathetic. “How does thy honor? Let me lick thy shoe,” Caliban grovels. Shakespeare thus paints the colonized as he portrays Caliban: pathetic and subservient.

Prospero's Influence

Prospero is able to control those around him with a magic possibly more powerful than that found in his cloak: his words. In the case of Miranda, his version of history is the only history she can recall. "I have done nothing but in care of thee, Of thee, my dear one—thee my daughter, who Art ignorant of what thou art, naught knowing Of whence I am, nor that I am more better Than Prospero, master of a full poor cell, And thy no greater father," Prospero claims to Miranda. He admits that Miranda is naive and knows nothing of her past, or even Prospero's, except for what Prospero informs her. Miranda then replies, More to know did never meddle with my thoughts," furthering the reader's conclusion that she can be molded by Prospero to believe anythig he desires. Later, when explaining to Miranda her past Prospero describes Miranda's uncle as dsloyal. "Your disloyal uncle—are you paying attention?" he asks. Prospero single-handedly tells Miranda here to distrust her uncle, without letting her form her own opinion. Prospero also continually reminds Miranda to pay attention, as though his words may  be more important to his own agenda, than to Miranda.
Even Ariel is vulnerable to Prospero's words, causing her to change her attitude from disagreeable to obedient in one swift change. "Once in a month recount what thou hast been, Which thou forget’st. This damned witch Sycorax, For mischiefs manifold and sorceries terrible,To enter human hearing, from Argier, Thou know’st, was banished. For one thing she did, They would not take her life. Is not this true?" Prospero tells her. Prospero continually reminds Ariel of how he rescued her, although it seems that Ariel cannot remember the detais herself.  Prospero always has a word or two up the sleeve of his magic cloak, in case those aroun dhim do not do his bidding.
In response to Caliban's belligerent attitude, Prospero once again retalliates with his rhetoric explaining how those around him owe him something. "Thou most lying slave...I have used thee, Filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged thee, In mine own cell till thou didst seek to violate, The honor of my child." Even Caliban, the most angered of all of Prospero's "helpers" gves in to Prospero's version of what occurred. Nothing seems to be able to stop Prospero's influence.
Finally, Prospero tells Ferdinand things to anger him, in order to manipulate the situation and help Miranda and Ferdinand fall in love. "One word more. I charge thee, That thou attend me. Thou dost here usurp, The name thou owest not, and hast put thyself, Upon this island as a spy to win it, From me, the lord on ’t," Prospero persuasively states. Frdinand plays right into the hands of Prospero without even realizing it, and quickly becomes angered. Additionally, Prospero's magical incantations further create people to act at his wll. Howeer, Prospero's words seem to work just as well as his magic to accomplish what he desires.

Socratic Circle Analysis

The Socratic Circle provided our AP Literature class with a unique opportunity that allowed me to expand my ideas and thought process in ways that I hadn't before. The topic of a "fair" or at least unbiased textbook particularly caught my attention. I believe that to alter what history that has been recorded and is now common knowledge would be a huge undertaking that may not be successful. However, we do have the opportunity to learn from our mistakes.Our time would be better devoted to making sure that future generations have the opportunity to learn about all sides of history, even those events that may put the U.S. in a bad light. In order to do this, an unbiased textbook would be essential. How do we create an unbiased textbook? Just like any scientific process, this creation would need to undergo lots of editing and revision, and may never be perfect. But who wants to go to sleep at night knowing that they allowed a few self-righteous individuals on a school board decide for the nation what the next generation will know as the truth? In order to insure that all sides are represented, I believe that a large public forum should be established following events in history (maybe a year after the event so that tempers may cool down some) and individuals can have the opportunity to share their ideas of what occurred. Any event may be written about, no matter how seemingly insignificant, but at least two sides would need to be presented for it to be reviewed. This opportunity to write and submit data would need to be available to all social classes, races, etc., so  drop off locations for written ideas would need to be established. Then, a specially elected part of the government (whose members serve only a short period of time, so no biases are developed) would review the material and record the information without a certain point to view. Although news channels, newspapers, etc. will have already presented the news in a certain light, at least the textbooks would be less opinionated. Although history books may be not as exciting, the public could be assured that they included as factual information as possible. The public would also have the opportunity to read any other form of material regarding these events that may be written, and recieve biased information elsewhere, if they so desire. Children would then have the best chance possible to form their own opinion about history, although nothing can really stop outside influences such as teachers and parents from slanting what they teach. Howver, at least history would be protected for future generations to judge, for how can we learn from our mistakes if, according to "history," we didn't make any?

I never thought I would have a blog...guess there is a first time for everything

My roommate and new friend Katie Jo at Girls State this summer :)