ap lang

a world apart?

2008-04-27T16:02:00.000-07:00

In considering two ground-breaking novels, such as Huxley's Brave New World and Orwell's 1984, it is important to look closely at their similarites as well as their differences. The interesting point about the differences between these two books is that they really aren't differences at all. In the article, "Conclusion: The Two Futures: A.F. 632 and 1984," the author examines the novels side by side. While Huxley and Orwell have concocted two different worlds happening centuries apart, they achieve the same point. Both novels were written as warnings to the people about the power of the government. Although the means are seemingly different, they meet in the middle to form a similar end.

In one world, the people are controlled by fear while in the other, it is pleasure. These are two very interesting controlling factors since they both reach oppression of a society. "These are very different intoxications, but they are different - or opposite - in the way two sides of the same coin are different and opposite" (124). The world we live in now is fast approaching it's fate as portrayed in both novels. However, it is difficult to tell which way the scale will fall. How will we finish ourselves off? From power and fear or from pleasure? Because honestly, it could go either way as of this point in time. On one hand, the government manipulates and controls its people, just as in 1984. We hear what they want us to hear. But on the other hand, we have become a society so obsessed with pleasure and comfort that this could just as easily become our fate, as in Brave New World.

The comparison of Winston and Bernard is an obvious one. They both have this sense of non-conformity and make efforts (weak one in Bernard's case) to change the society in which they live. However, the more important comparison is between Winston and the Savage. They share a striking resemblence to one another. They both live in the past... Winston is obsessed and fascinated with objects and momentos from the past just as the Savage is in love with Shakespeare. They also love their mothers. This is an important similarity because both men live in worlds where mothers hold no importance whatsoever. But most importantly, Winston and the Savage are the only remaining "real" humans. Even if this is not true, it is important that they both think they are because thought is the only real power they posses. However, they differ in the fact that the Savage is the one with the hero quality while Winston basically has no guts. The author of "The Two Futures" suggests this is because in 1984 there is no real God... he no longer exists. That position has been taken over by Big Brother. "In the Savage we can still see Christ. In Winston Smith there is only a Christ who has sold out to the devil" (127). While the Savage gave in to his sexual desires, he still holds onto the core of his beliefs.

The fact that Brave New World and 1984 were published so close in date makes for a very interesting drama indeed. Very honestly, the article makes Orwell sound like a whiny, accusatory baby, but maybe that is just my opinion. Having read We, I can first handedly say that the similarities are indeed striking between all three novels. Although some ideas had to have been taken, not necessarily plagerized, but looked at, perhaps these similarities are further proof that the demoralization of society is predictable and fast appraoching. There are so many dystopian novels out there (I have read more than my share) and it seems that they all come to a frighteningly similar conclusion. None of them have happy endings, which is a disappointment for society. Maybe this should be a clear message for us... WATCH OUT.

objectify this.

2008-04-08T12:42:00.000-07:00

Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty

It may appear at first that men and women in the United States have risen to a day and age where equality is finally a reality. It can't be dismissed that this reality is within closer reach than it has been, but it hasn't been grasped yet and the media makes sure of that. The exploitation of women in the media is a gigantic issue as well as an extremely offensive one. Using women to sell anything (from products to toys to movies) has become a billion dollar business. There is a sweet reward in it for the "masterminds" behind it all, but nothing so sweet can be found in reward for the average woman. Everyday in the United Sates, Americans are bombarded by the media with images that objectify women and present them in a degrading fashion. Half the time we don't even know it because we've grown used to it. Therein lies the problem.

Anywhere we go and everywhere we look, our minds are filled with the exploitation of women and their bodies. It appears in every form of media, such as music, movies, tv, magazines and so on. These images present women as objects more than people. The media often focuses on individual body parts instead of the individual herself. Somehow, it seems that every part of the body is sexy besides the face, where a woman's self expression is most likely to come through. Hollywood is it's own little world... a make-believe place, full of make-believe people, with make-believe bodies and make-believe perfection. But average people don't necessarily pick up on the fact that Hollywood is a fancy pretend world. They mistake it for reality and figure that these stars naturally look beautiful.

In movies, it's become a normality to show a woman's breasts for millions of people across the country to see. The movie only has to be rated PG-13 for the Motion Picture Association to approve of it. So therefore it's logical reasoning that thirteen year old children are watching this on a screen dozens of times bigger than their televisions. In movies, women are often portrayed as sexual objects instead of individuals. An actress that will not appear naked in a movie shows class but unfortunately, they are an endangered species in the film-making business. A person can usually tell whether the director of the movie is male or female very easily. In a movie directed by a woman director, the love scenes are shot naturally and passion is exuberated. However, many times when a male directs a movie, the love scenes turn into sex scenes and the passion becomes raunchy. I refuse to watch a movie where all the girls have "gone wild" and the boys drink it in and wait for another lap dance...

Movies are certainly not alone in this portrayal of women because the music industry is just as ugly. It's mostly rap and hip-hop that show women in this purely sexual role. The lyrics to many songs have inate sexual inuendo and others come right out and say it plainly. Songs aren't centered around a woman's personality. The mentality is like "I want your body." As if the songs on the radio are not bad enough, it must be pointed out that these songs usually have unedited versions that are twice as degrading. And what makes this situation even worse is the fact that these songs are made into music videos. Honestly, the music video industry is a disgrace. In hip-hop or rap videos where the artist is a man, he is always shown as being in control of the women that surround him. And it cannot go unnoticed that these women are nearly naked, often wearing only bathing suits while dancing seductively.

Many people may argue that "sex sells" and they are completely right. But that is the problem. Our culture is driven by sex and it is undeniable. There have to be ways to make money while respecting women at the same time. Because in the long run, the negative effects outweigh the money made off these advertisements and all the rest of it. In the past few years, Dove has been promoting their products using average people as models: Aged women, heavier women, women with freckles, etc. They have taken something considered "average" by the eyes of sex-driven America and turned it into beautiful. The "sex sells" objection is no longer a valid one. By seeing the effects the exploitation of women is having on everyone else, the media should begin to have a heart; A heart driven by compassion rather than by naked bodies and money.

Studies reveal that all this bombardment from the media is having a negative effect on young women in America. Girls see these movies and advertisements on television and notice that they do not look like these women and aren't sexy like that. It sets off a trigger in the mind that boys won't like them if they don't look and act like these women. The portrayal of women to young girls is leading to depression and eating disorders because women are becoming less more unhappy with themselves more often. A size two is the ideal clothing size, apparently. Females find it hard to cope when they cannot squeeze into an unrealistic size. We begin to feel worthless and self esteem plummits. So if, by "sex sells", they mean that women are paying for breast implants and expensive diet plans, then yes, it certainly does sell. But it comes at a high price... the dissatisfaction a young woman sees when she looks in the mirror and thinks, "I'm not good enough."

The blame cannot be completely placed on men. Instead, it should be divided between the two sexes. Men often view women as objects and therefore, that's how women begin to view themselves. Instead of men selling women, women are now selling themselves. They're giving up their body and their privacy to earn some money. Such examples are strip clubs and magazines such as Sports Illustrated (Swimsuit Edition). Women degrade themselves and as long as this continues to be a normality, we will never be able to advance forwards. It is the women that dance in music videos and pose naked in magazines who encourage this patriarchal society. Men disrespect women, yet women disrespect themselves.

But what can anyone expect when people are drooling over Playboy? What is happening to America is a terrible shame. Almost every girl you look at has had some sort of issue with her body because of the way the media objectifies women. Thank you Mr. Heffner! What about a woman's mind? It has so much more to offer than a naked body. But the problem is that no one really focuses on intelligence anymore. So call me a feminist if you must and I'll be proud. As a young woman I have been victimized by the media far too many times. I can't stand the thought of one day having to assure a daughter that she is, in fact, beautiful because the movies she watches or the music she listens to tell her she isn't. I'm ready to take a stand because I believe this is a cause worth fighting for.

bedlam, pandemonium, and complete mayhem

2008-03-08T09:08:00.000-08:00

Imagine a world where babies are placed upon shelves in a supermarket, genetically designed with synthetic genes. Although it is obviously an outrageous idea, science is not as far off from "designer babies" as most would like to think. Technology is reaching a new height in today's modern world and human genetic engineering is a fast approaching horizon. At first, it would begin with eliminating unwanted diseases, such as diabetes. Not long after, however, the new available technologies would take a nasty turn for the worst. Eventually, scientists will have forgotten about ethics and consequences and the human population will have evolved as a result, creating disarray. Although genetic engineering could eliminate disease in the world, it has the ability to create complete social chaos because of its lack of morality and ethics.

If genetic engineering were to become regularity, the divide between the social classes would become even larger than they are now. The cost for parents to personally hand pick blue eyes and blond hair (with a smattering of athleticism here and a smidgen of intelligence there), would be high and impossible for the impoverished to afford. Therefore, the children of the rich would grow up "perfect," while the children of the poor would continue to be looked down upon. Lee M. Silver, author of Remaking Eden, predicts the eventual outcome of two species of humans, the synthetics and the naturals.

As absurd as his idea may sound, Silver is not the only one making such predictions. In Brave New World, written by Aldous Huxley, we are introduced to a society of genetically engineered humans void of disease and difficulties. However, we also see the opposite side of the spectrum at the reservation. These "savages" were born, not decanted, and have no synthetic additions or conditioning. The advance of the first society has actually created two different species, resulting in the control and complete out casting of the "savages." Instead of being an equal piece of society, those who do not undergo this engineering will become circus attractions. This completely throws off the balance that is constantly being striven towards and solidity becomes unreachable.

Morals come into play when one considers the result of genetic engineering in an entire society. One of the most fascinating and important characteristics about humans is the fact that no two are alike in thought. Everyone is an individual and diversity is celebrated. If everyone were to be genetically designed to perfection, an extreme loss of identity would occur. Everyone would look, act and talk the same, for the most part, according to what is considered perfection.

However, in reality, once perfection is reached by all, it becomes obsolete. If everyone becomes perfect, the word has lost all of its meaning because perfection is supposed to be a goal, not a reality. If this were to occur, competition would also be eliminated. Although it may sound like a terrific evolution, it would throw society into complete unrest. Humans thrive upon competition and need it to survive happily. We are a competitive organism, some more than others. Life would become boring if there were no daily struggles and Social Darwinism might as well be thrown out the window. The bottom line is that human beings need competition. They need to succeed over their peers and fail as well. Success creates the feeling of importance and substance. It gives people a logical reason to continue living. However, failure also plays an important role in happiness because it allows progress and the feeling of wanting to try again. If success and failure were to be eliminated, there would not be much to base everyday living on.

Speaking of perfection, who decides what that exactly entails? It would be most logical to realize that the government would eventually come to control the definition of perfection. It would invade our lives and give power to authority. When Hitler experimented with eugenics, the German government was given extreme power over its people, concluding in a mass genocide of those considered "imperfect." If genetic engineering were to progress to this magnitude, it cannot be ruled improbable that a repeat of history would be in order.

Although many may argue that this technology has incredible potential to rid the world of all disease and mental retardation, they are not fully considering the long term consequences. By eliminating disease, the life span of the average person would undoubtedly increase. Without disease to keep the population under control, the world would become over populated, leading to economic problems as well as environmental problems. Countries such as China already have difficulties controlling their populations. Imagine what would happen if an influx of births were to occur there. This would lead into even more government control. As one can see, all the dilemmas that appear with genetic engineering are entwined within one another.

Brave New World is an ideal example of what could happen in the unfortunate event of genetic engineering progressing. There is no creativity and clearly little emotion. They know nothing of love or jealousy. Freedom of speech is obviously frowned upon, as Bernard has learned. He does not fit in with his society. He feels real emotions and is presented with the problem of having an identity. "But wouldn't you like to be free to be happy in some other way Lenina? In your own way, for example; not in everybody else's way" (91). It is obvious this "utopia" will be proven unsuccessful by the last page of the book.

It is even being suggested that perhaps eventually, babies could be programmed with animal traits, such as the keen smell of a dog. It is completely unnatural! Humans were not meant to play in the role of God. Scientists seem to be constantly forgetting that they are also mere humans. Perhaps it all sounds good and dandy on paper, but then again, so does Communism. The possible outcomes of genetic engineering are devastating to society and outweigh the positives of the idea.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
Darnovsky, Mark. "The New Eugenics: The Case Against Genetically Modified Humans." March, 8 2008. .

rise to it

2007-11-21T17:10:00.000-08:00

I'm thankful for a lot of things in my life. But I don't always appreciate them. Lately I've been realizing how important it is to appreciate everything you're thankful for because you'll never know when it'll be gone. I have always been thankful for my family. But recently it's taken on a whole new meaning for me. I'm learning there's a difference between being thankful and being appreciative.

Just under two weeks ago, my grandpa... my PopPop... passed away. I never appreciated him the way I should have. He was my crazy grandpa who would go down to the sidelines at my brother's football games and talk to the coach. My crazy grandpa who whistled, I'm convinced, the same tune for all his life. But I remember he would always slip me $5 whenever I saw him. I remember how he used to sit outside and admire the world. He was the loudest man I've ever known and even until the day he died, he was singing and making jokes. He loved his newspaper and the Jets. But more importantly, he loved his family and his life.

He died in the hospital on a Friday. On Thursday, I drove down to see him. A lot of my family was there, all standing around his hospital bed. He was dellusional... in the process of dying, although I didn't know it. I'll admit I was terrified. My aunt brought be close to the bed and talked to him like he was a child, because essentially that's what he was. But he tried looking at me and asked me for a kiss. My mom told me later that I was the only one all day he requested a kiss from. I don't think I will ever forget that moment. I didn't get to say goodbye. I didn't realize he was going to die the next day. But that moment and other blurs of moments over the next few days will never escape me. I won't let them.

I watched all my older cousins say goodbye at the wake, knowing they all had more memories with him than I did. I was jealous towards them and angry at myself. I had all these years and I was never friends with my PopPop eventhough it was never out of reach. I let an age get in the way and I regret it more than I've ever regretted anything. There was so much to learn from him but I took advantage of it all.

So this year, I'm making a Thanksgiving resolution. I'm going to appreciate my family a lot more than I have been. I'm thankful for my family. I'm thankful for my friends. I'm thankful for the sympathy gift baskets. I'm thankful for the light touch in the hallway accompanied with an "I'm really sorry." I'm thankful for each day I'm alive and every breath I take.

So remember, there are so many blessings every single one of us has. But what would you do if you knew in a day it would all be gone? So be thankful while you still can. Be happy, be free and love others. Life is an occasion. Rise to it.

jeanette walls

2007-10-22T19:33:00.000-07:00

I liked how she explained the glass castle in the video. She said you can think of it as another one of her father's drunken promises or hope for the future. I think it is an interesting perspective. How did you think of it and what does that say about you?

Did anyone else notice that she was smiling the entire video? I feel that it was a genuine smile and she was really happy about what she was speaking of. She's truely happy that she finally told the story of her past and now is able to move on from shame. She embraces her past and that's why she's smiling.

Kiowa

2007-10-11T08:43:00.000-07:00

Several chapters in The Things They Carry are devoted to Kiowa's death in the field of muck. His sudden death had a strong impact on many of those around him. The deaths more towards the beginning of the novel seemed to hold less importance than those later on. By this time in the story, all of the men had grown close to one another. His death tore close friends to pieces and brought up the all important subject of blame. Who was to blame for his death? This single instance sends a signal through all of them how lucky they are and how much influence luck has on them. Kiowa's death has a different impact on everyone and they deal with his death in very different ways. This single death is perhaps the most significant throughout the novel because it is so complex.

Kiowa is Norman Bowker's best friend and they have grown into each other like brothers. He watches Kiowa get shot and sink into the ooze in the field and does close to nothing. He tries to grab Kiowa's boot but finds himself sinking too and releases his best friend. He is very calm about the entire ordeal and regrets not saving Kiowa... he could have gotten a Sliver Star (he repeats this several times). Kiowa's death was an internal struggle more than anything. He did not let his emotions seep through to the outside, instead he kept them deep down where they were doing more damage than he knew. After the war, he drove around that lake in circles for hours on end just THINKING. Thinking about everything that was hurting him. About how badly he wanted to talk about it.... but he just cannot. He claims that there is nothing to talk about and he would never be able to talk about it. By driving around in circles, he does not have to talk. He can simply think and be alone.

When Kiowa died, so did Bowker. "'It's almost like i got killed over in Nam... Hard to describe. That night when Kiowa got waster, I sort of sank down into the sewage with him... Feels like I'm still in deep shit'" (156). He knows that he could not have easily saved Kiowa but he also knows that he was the one who let him slide away. Since then, he had been an empty shell. Norman Bowker commits suicide in the locker room of a YMCA gym...

Jimmy Cross was detatched from the rest of the man. He was standoffish and never really got to know them. He was a good man, it just was not in his nature to get close to his men... it was his job to lead and protect them. Therefore, when Kiowa was killed, he viewed his death as another letter home. While looking for the body, he is writing the letter in his head. What he knew of Kiowa was that he was a good man and died a death that any father would be proud of (irony?). Kiowa's death forces him to realize that he does not want the responsibility of leading these men. He feels unexperienced and a disgrace. "Twenty-four years old and his heart wasn't in it. Military matters meant nothing to him. He did not care one way or the other about the war , and he had no desire to command..." (168) His mind is always back home thinking about his girl and instead, his primary focus should be on his men. He never wanted this responsibility but it was given to him and on his watch a good man died. Now he has to send an apology letter home for all the things he did wrong. What a terrible burden.

A major theme within the instance of Kiowa's death is blame. Everyone searches for who is to blame, no matter what the situation. Pointing the finger at someone is human nature. We always need SOMEONE to blame, no matter how abstract the connection is. In the sense of Kiowa, the blame cannot really be placed, as is true many times in life. It is spread out into tiny pieces to everyone in the world. "'Nobody's fault,' he said. 'Everybody's'" (176). Bowker is correct in saying this. Everyone contributed to Kiowa's death in some way. Some choice or decision changed his course of life. But to blame a single person for his death is strange and wrong. If it was not him, it would have been another soldier.

The worst is when someone blames themselves, such as Norman Bowker. Blame can eat someone up inside and tear at a persons heartstrings... especially a soldier's. Bowker blames himself and lets it eat him up inside to the point where suicide is his only way to stop FEELING. He is sick and tired of feeling like he did not do enough. It was not his fault though. It was the bullet and the mud that killed Kiowa, not Bowker. Blame is overpowering. Everyone needs someone to point the finger at. We just do not want that finger pointed in our direction.

Kiowa's death is a crucial point in the story, just as it is a crucial part in the men's lives. When Tim returns to Vietnam with his daughter (who we now know is nonexistent), he dives to the bottom of the "shit field" where Kiowa was killed and leaves his belongings that were recovered. This is his way of closure. He has freed himself from that field and is able to release his guilt. Unfortunately, Norman's closure was much more drastic. But in some way or another, Kiowa's death forced everyone to rethink their lives and why they are who they are. It triggered a reaction, which was missing in many other of the soldiers' deaths. His death tears the men apart but brings them closer to each other.

Tim O'Brien interview

2007-10-04T08:34:00.001-07:00

I found an interview of Tim O'Brien on the internet that I found completely relevant to many things we discussed in class:

"DS: In "Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong" you describe Rat Kiley, an inveterate liar, as a man for whom "facts were formed by sensation, not the other way around." Do you work like that?

O'Brien: Yes.

DS: Are there aesthetic risks?

O'Brien: No, but I'm willing to hear what they may be. In general, though, for me one of the fundamental things to be accomplished in fiction is to convince. That is, to convince the reader of the stuff that is happening in the now that it's occurring, whether it's a fairy tale, something fabulous, or something realistic. No matter what it is, fiction requires a sense of underlying credibility. And so when one's inventing fact, and the so-called invented facts aren't convincing, then there's a problem. But, when you're inventing things, what you try to do is to make them seem as if they are truly occurring. I guess every fictional writer runs the risk of invention all the time. I'm sure Mark Twain ran into it, writing about trout or a kid going on a raft down the Mississippi. Much, almost all, of that story is invented, though Twain does draw on remembered images, remembered dialogue. Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court? That stuff can't happen at all. You can't go back in time that way. Here especially you have to develop this sense of things happening, and that requires good technique, that requires keeping the dream alive, the way dreams are alive when we're truly dreaming, a state that we're constantly at risk of disrupting if we lose the sense of credibility. This disruption can be done in a million ways. You can lose your readers' faith by putting a stone here rather than there, or by having a comma in the wrong place. You can do it by melodrama, by making your stuff seem too cartoonish. You can lose the sense of credibility in all kinds of ways. And what one tries to do is not to make those kinds of mistakes."

(Oh, and by the way, according to what O'Brien says in the interview, Norman Bowker is not real. How do you feel about being lied to? Is it in fact lying or is it okay with you? Your decision. The whole interview is pretty interesting. So take a look.)

http://www.wooster.edu/artfuldodge/interviews/obrien.htm