Billy's Fears

       I am actually starting to enjoy the randomness of Slaughter House Five because it allows for Vonnegut to plug some random philosophical thoughts and ideas into his writing.  One of my personal favorites from Chapter 8 was, "There are almost no characters in this story, and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces.  One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters" (208-209).  I think in this quote we see what Billy is trying not to become although he does have his moments being the "listless playthings of enormous forces" such as the Tralfamadorians.  He wants to be a character, he wants to be in this book, and he wants to have a story to tell so badly that he finds himself jumping from place to place in time to find something interesting enough to make himself a character. Although Billy has made it quite obvious he doesn't fear death because he has seen it happen many times, I think he fears being forgotten or not having an interesting enough story to tell.

Weirdness

As I was reading chapter 5 tonight, I could not help but notice that Billy (apart fromm being just really weird) maybe can "become unstuck in time" sort of all the time.  For instance, on page 135, Billy says how Derby describes the "Earthlings" and the weather and how the "Earthlings" dont want to inhabit "Earth" sometimes.  But, they aren't on Tralfamadore.  They're in the hospital prison talking about war, yet Billy can see Derby in one eye talking to him and Derby being shot in the future in the other eye, while using terminology one can relate to science fiction/Tralfamadore.  I just think its weird.

Vonnegut attempting to be subtle

         As I was reading the first half of Chapter 5 I saw many instances where I couldn't tell if Vonnegut was being blatantly obvious or attempting subtlety and failing.

         For instance, in chapter 1 Nancy is eating a Three Musketeers Bar, In chapter 2 we find out that Billy's group in the War was called the Three Musketeers, and in Chapter 5 Billy's wife to be is eating none other than a Three Musketeers Bar.  Now, either Vonnegut really likes his chocolate covered fluffy whipped candy Bars or he is attempting to be subtle in showing how war is everywhere.

        Another instance is when two separate people speak of how the War is the Children's Crusade.  Although this is a nice comparison, it is quite rare that two people would have the exact same specific thoughts on the war.
     
        Another observation I made was how Vonnegut often contradicts himself severely.  On page 127, Billy explains how everyone thought he was going crazy because of how his father had thrown him into the pool and taken him to the edge of the grand canyon.  Then on page 132 Rosewater says how its a shame that Billy's father is dead because "a boy needs a father." Now, if this were true and Billy did need his father, why would he be the reason that he is going crazy in the first place?

     And on a completely separate note, what was with the giraffes on page 126? Was anyone else a little confused about that one?

Ahh so this is what its forr...

Heyy guys I don't about you but I got a little too excited seeing 3 vocab words in the reading! We saw covetously, unmitigated, and unambiguous!!! WOAH!! Pretty cool, I'm more impressed at the fact that I still remember their definitions, so it goes. 

Hipster Quotes and STUFF

Nicki and I discovered a lil' gem while flipping through Slaughterhouse Five.  We found some quotes that are constantly leeched and hardly ever given proper credit. For example, I'm sure you've seen the occasional 'hipster' (ugh) bring out the "everything was beautiful and nothing hurt" quote in some sort of attempt to one-up everyone. Yes, we all love to tweet these interesting and scholarly things, but I think it's a little weird to equate knowledge with the amount of classic books we can quote.

Think about it, I mean, if someone around 20 years old told you they've never read The Catcher in the Rye, what would be your reaction? It's just a little silly that there's an expectation to be familiar with certain books, and if you're not, you're deemed an idiot or something. Is reading Shakespeare is a prerequisite to having a brain? I have a feeling Mrs. K might think so. But anyway.

What do you guys think? Does reading Vonnegut, Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Bukowski, Salinger, etc. make someone smarter? Or does at least seem that way? I can quote a lot of Salinger, maybe Bukowski, but not much Hemingway, and I have an awful math grade. I'd probably date a guy that knows more Beastie Boys lyrics than he does Shakespeare sonnets. But this is all just my opinion. What about yours?

So it goes

Vonnegut must really love the saying "so it goes" because it seems to appear in every other paragraph. I just keep getting the feeling that Vonnegut either does not buy the stories of others, and feels the need to share this with the reader by including "so it goes" or maybe he is not completely sold on his own story. I found myself not trusting him completely, it is hard to explain in words why I feel this way. An explanation would probably include many hand gestures, which I cannot convey over the internet.  By the end of the reading I could not stand seeing the words "so it goes," I personally found it very annoying and unnecessary, but I am sure there is some purpose to it that I have just not discovered yet.

Titles

I don't know why, but for some reason I have extreme difficulties choosing a title. I always write my essay first, then do all my proof-reading and rewrites, then eventually chose a title. Sometimes I don't even write a title and hand in a name-less paper. I'm not entirely sure what makes deciding on a title so difficult, but maybe it's just one of those things that I'm incapable of doing for no reason. Does anybody else have paper-writing mental blocks on one certain thing every time?

"You don't believe in God until the plane is crashing"

Throughout the last chapter there was a lot of reference to religion. When asked, Catherine said she didn't have a religion. A better answer would be my husband, or Frederic as she stated earlier. Also when the baby was dead, Frederic said even though he doesn't follow a religion, the baby would have been baptized. So we see all this secularism, the suddenly BAM!, Frederic sounds like the most religious person you would ever meet. When Catherine is in her last breaths, Frederic prays to God like he never has before. He also asks Catherine if she wants a priest to come. Where is this coming from!? He also contradicts these feelings with thoughts of death, how it is inescapable. Yes it is what is expected when someone is dying, but I never thought we would see this change in Frederic.

The ending

I love that the ending of AFTA was abrupt. At first I was aggravated, because I wanted to know more, but after I while I found myself content with the ending. An ending any different I don't think would have fit. I also enjoyed that fact that it was raining when Catherine died, and how before she had seen death in the rain. Maybe, she saw her own death in the rain. Frederick did not go back to the war in book five the war came to him. When Catherine died, it was like being at the front again, where death is all around Fredrick. Catherine died in a hospital, and while there is a lot of life in a hospital, there is also a lot of death, just like there is at the front.

A Farewell to Fretting..phew!!

Sooo I don't know about you guys, but I actually had a LOT of fun writing this parody and was stressing over nothing..phew!! I thought it would be impossible to mimic this wonderful author's techniques but  I am surprisingly proud with my work. It was kind of a way to take a breather over the heavy topic of the book, yet  still staying focused.  I think we should have more assignments like these, what do you guys think??? :)

Tummy

While reading, one thing really stood out to me, and it is probably one of the most insignificant things: that Fredrick used the word tummy. He tells Catherine: "Tell me when you're tired," I said. Then a little later, "Watch out the oar doesn't pop you in the tummy." (237) Personally, when I think of someone using the word tummy, I think of a child or a mother. I first I thought that maybe Hemingway was calling to light Fredrick's immaturity, but personally I think Fredrick has grown up in the past couple of chapters. Also I don't take Fredrick for a "tummy" kind of guy. I sure, when he was in the army, if he had used the word tummy, he would have got slapped. Honestly, I have no idea why this stood out to me.

Contradictions

So I realized while reading last night, that is whole book is really contradicting itself. Going way back when, to when we did the harkness, one of my only comments was about the horse race chapter, and how the characters almost excepted defeat when they bid on the horses they liked, and not the ones that would win them money. But if the horse race really did represent war, then why would they except defeat? Didn't they say that defeat was worse than war? And if so, why do they keep wanting everyone to stop fighting and stand down? Wouldn't that mean they were all defeated?
And also, all the male characters in the book talk about sex and girls without any restrictions really. I mean, some of it is disguised, but its pretty easy to figure out when they are talking about sex. But then, whenever they use a swear, its cut out of the book. On pg. 171, Aymo tells one of the girls, "'Don't worry...No danger of --' using the vulgar world. 'No place for --.' I could see she understood the word and that was all." What word are they talking about? It can't be that bad, considering they talk about sex like its a game. Just some food for thought.

Just a Thought

This is of course meant to be a less formal post...... but is it just me or is 'A Farewell to Arms' falling apart a little bit? Or perhaps, it's just Frederic Henry. I'dve thought it'dve been that Catherine was the one to fall to pieces without him, and granted, we've not heard from Catherine, but it seems almost as if Frederic's bought into her 'no separate me' story. Maybe it's just the drudgery of war without their love story - an interesting and valid point Hemingway could be making, but it really seems as if things are falling apart a little bit. Most of us aren't huge Catherine fans, but I have sympathy for her and I'm almost missing her part in the novel at the moment. It's as if Frederic's gone back to his apathy, but minus the independence he possessed before Catherine.

Then vs. Now

In class we've talked about how it is somewhat unfair to judge Frederick based on today's standards and I think there is proof of how much the world has changed in the reading due today. On page 164 they mention how the prostitutes from the soldiers whorehouse are being put into a truck as part of the evacuation and Bonello says, "I'd like to have a crack at them for nothing. They charge too much at that house anyway. They government gyps us." Today, the government would never even consider providing prostitutes for soldiers at war, let alone possibly making a profit from it. Because exploiting women in this way was normal during WWI, the way Frederick treats Catherine and how he interacted with her before they really knew each other seems much more normal to me.

Will war ever end?

As I was reading the assignment for tomm, the only thing that I kept thinking was... Can Hemingway address the question of whether or not the war will end one more time? Almost every chapter includes the characters commenting on how the Austrians will attack/not attack, and whether they will attack or not attack and how they're all "so tired" of war in general.  But yet the entire time, not one person actually gives the reader a sense of WHEN the war will ACTUALLY END.  The fact that the characters have no idea of the war's end and basically in their eyes war will go on almost forever it seems, reiterates the essential theme in the novel that war is a "circle" and is "never-ending".

Mountains

Throughout A Farewell to Arms Frederic mentions the mountains whenever he speaks of the war.  In the beginning of the novel, Frederic says that all of the mountains beyond the river haven't been taken or invaded.  Later in the novel (Chapter 19) Frederic says "I did not see how it could go on.  Even if they took all the Bainsizza and Monte San Gabriele there were plenty of mountains beyond for the Austrians.  I had seen them.  All the highest mountains were beyond".  Through his descriptions, Frederic makes the mountains seem pure and untouchable, as if they were a peace he could reach out to but never touch.  They also symbolize the desire to take over more and more land in a war, and how you could never have enough because the highest mountains/largest desires would always be beyond.  I think the mountains really bring up questions about Frederic's desires in the war, and his desires with Catherine.

Victory vs. Defeat

          As I was reading chapter 26 a few quotes grabbed my attention and offered some interesting questions. Frederick is talking with the Priest about the war (all anyone seems to talk about) and Frederick says, "It is in defeat that we become Christians" (156). He then later on goes on to say that you become "like Our Lord".  This made me question what he was trying to say here.  Did he mean that we die in defeat and therefore join our lord in death and heaven or do we in death become closer to the lord?

          Another confusing conversation I found in chapter 26 was when Frederick and the Priest were debating about whether defeat or victory was worse.  They say that they have hoped for victory but they also don't believe in it anymore.  When Frederick says he he doesn't believe in victory the Priest responds by saying he doesn't believe in defeat.  Perhaps the most confusing part of his comment is when he says "Though it may be better"

         In summary, the main questions I am asking are, How in defeat do we become Christians? and How is victory worse than defeat? or phrased in another way, How is defeat better than victory?

Kasprak Weighs In

I wish there could be "like" button on the blog. (Now that I have said that, I'm willing to bet some smart techno-savvy type will tell me it's possible....) You're all doing a great job, and I especially love when something we read in class connects to something you're doing just for fun, like movies or other books you've read.  Also enjoying the close reading of the text in some posts. Keep up the good work.... See you all tomorrow!

Bourne Ultimatum

I know that we have already talked about war, and if there is a way to actually win a war, but last night I was watching Bourne Ultimatum (here is a link to a summary for those who have not seen the movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0440963/synopsis)  and it got me thinking on the topic again. At one point in the movie a head of a CIA search team, whose job it is to hunt Jason Bourne, orders someone to kill two CIA agents: one for leaking information on a dirty operation, and the other for presumably helping Bourne. Another agent protests and says "You start down this path (killing two of your own agents), where does it end?" to which the head agent responds "It ends when we've won." Just be be clear in the movie Jason Bourne and the CIA are at "war." The quote brings up the question of how does one win a war? People are killed on both sides, and in the end nothing is really gained. I have to say when this part came on I became really excited since it connected to A Farewell to Arms.  I hope I did not ramble on and I hope this makes sense to everyone.

:(

As I was reading through AFTA tonight I was just overcome with the feeling of sadness.  Why you may ask? Well, I think all of Fredric's desensitization is finally starting to get to me.  Throughout tonights chapters, Fredric seems more and more removed and unable to sympathize with his comrades.  Although there are many examples of his desensitization, I think the best example is on page 146 when he has this conversation with Rinaldi,
"This war is killing me Rinaldi said, "I am very depressed by it." He folded his hands over his knee. "Oh" I said.
"What's the matter? Can't I even have human impulses?" (146)
Perhaps Fredric's desensitization is simply a coping method...ideas?

An Ambiguous Sentence...

At the beginning of chapter 19 on page 102, Frederic updates the reader on his daily activities to pass time.  In this section I have found my favorite sentence in the book thus far: “The rest of the time I was glad to kill”.  In context, it is clear that Frederic is finding ways to pass time, but out of context the sentence takes on an entirely different meaning.  Of course there are sentences that could be interpreted differently out of context, but this one jumped out at me.  Despite his injury and slow recovery process, Frederic is not only desensitized and utterly indifferent about the effects of war, but he also seems to take pleasure in the effect of war.   He hasn’t killed anyone yet, but he has seen people die and has not illustrated that he was affected in the least by the death of his friends and comrades.  Ultimately, I think the dual meaning of this sentence provides a lot of insight into Frederic’s view of war.

Mind vs. Heart

In our harkness today it was mentioned how Frederick makes decisions with his mind, and Catherine, with her heart. While I agree that Catherine acts based on her heart, I think that Frederick does as well. Frederick first begins talking to Catherine because he finds her attractive, then he kisses her and from then on they are sexually involved. If Frederick was thinking with his mind he wouldn't get Catherine pregnant in the middle of the war knowing he has to go back to the front and leave her alone to have the baby, especially in the early 1900s child birth was extremely dangerous and anything could go wrong. He could come back from the front (assuming he survives until the end of the war) and find her and his child dead. Being romantically involved with Catherine only benefits Frederick physically and romantically.

VOCABBB

Just some lovely flashcards for the vocab quiz Friday :)
Vocab 1      Vocab 2

Catherine's Ulterior Motives

        I have been thinking about what Nicki and the rest of the class were talking about today about how Catherine is being used by Fredrick and becoming a less confident woman.  Re-reading some sections and reading the new chapters for tonight, I have begun to believe that Catherine is actually controlling Fredrick, rather than Fredrick controlling Catherine.

         Before Fredrick got injured he said he had never been in love, and how what he was doing with Catherine was all just a game in order to get her in bed.  However, when he went to the hospital suddenly he was in love with her and wanted to get married.  All of his previous thoughts changed and he became the man that Catherine had wanted him to become in her fantasy's.  Although she comments on how he is her religion and how there is no her anymore(a seemingly unconfident non woman's rights comment) she ends up winning the argument and they never actually get married.

          Other than sleeping together, it seems that Catherine wins more arguments than Frederick does and he ends up doing more for her than she does for him.  When they are at the horse races, Frederick is enjoying himself with some Italian friends but when Catherine wants to leave, they immediately do.  She doesn't want to get married and therefore they do not.

          Another moment where Catherine is using Frederick to hide her true intentions is when she tells him about how she is pregnant on page 120.  Although Frederick says on multiple occasions that he is not upset and he is not worried she keeps on making it seem like he is the one who is freaking out.  Instead, Catherine is hiding the fact that she is really nervous and worried about having the baby but instead of telling that to Frederick she just makes it seem like he is the one who is nervous and upset.

       Although Catherine has strange ways of showing it, I believe that she really knows exactly what she is doing and is too smart to let someone like Frederick completely control her.  She is simply playing innocent and nice so that when she wants something, she will be able to get it from him.

misconception?!?!?!?!?!1?!

Hi! I just wanted to share a little biggish thought I had regarding a quote we really briefly brushed over in class today, and that is regarding Frederic's first experience at the hospital. Now I know we've had a lot of fun bashing Catherine in class and talking about how stupid/not stupid she is, but I'd say we've actually been harder on Frederic, since we see him as a chauvinistic, sex-hungry, immoral, desensitized, morbid lunatic, which I really can't deny. What caught my attention, though, was his interaction on page 75 with one of the nurses (Gage, I think). She tells him that he asks many questions for a sick boy, and he responds "I'm not sick, I'm wounded." As well as it fits in the context of the book, just demonstrating his frustration with a poorly run hospital, I think it's interesting to compare it to how we see him as a sick, as in "despicable," human being. Could it be that he isn't a 100% terrible person or at least wasn't always a 100% terrible person and he was emotionally "wounded" somehow in the past? Perhaps this is a misunderstanding not only on the nurse's part but on our part, assuming that he's just a plain bad person without any reason behind it all. Since this isn't an essay I'm not going to go fishing for other evidence to support this or elaborate much more, but it's worth keeping an eye on and considering. I just thought that quote was neat. Ok. Bye.

From blah to mwahh!

It might just be me but I think Frederic's time off from war is helping him more than he thinks. Other than the obvious medical attention, he is getting somewhat re-sensitized. He again shows back his deep love for Catherine and he is spending more time in decisions, taking more interest in what goes on around him. He asked for many different suggestions on what to do about his leg before actually taking action. He's learning to use his brain again for reasons other than to kill. His new location, Milan, could also have this effect on him.

Similar to Oskar's journey in Extremely Loud, Frederic comes back to his senses through these chapters. Oskar finally learns to let go of his father while everything will still be okay. Oskar was stuck in an uncomfortable state of panic and greif before he spent so much time with the Blacks and finally opened up. Frederic was in a static state of numbness, until he took himself out of the tense, war environment and realized how life regularly swept on.

Chapter 9

In this weekends reading, I was very taken aback my the beginning of chapter 9. We were talking about in class on Friday about how the characters in A Farewell To Arms address the war as  "a show" and how they dehumanize the characters in the novel.
Well I found this point clearly proved in this chapter. Just in the first couple pages, Frederick (the narrator) address's the coming attack as "it" and "the thing." On pg. 40, he even says "It was a one-road show." This clearly dehumanizes the soldiers in the war, making the attack look like just another day in their lives, and proving war to be even worse than it already seems.
To add to this, throughout the whole chapter, Frederick and the other drivers continuously talk about how during the attack, they won't be able to get any food. They make it seem like their meal is the biggest concern during this dangerous mission. Frederick even runs through the attack zone to get food for him and the drivers, who are in the dugout, "sitting against the wall, smoking" (46).
This whole chapter just makes war seem like it's taken over everyone in the novel. Like its the only thing they know, and it really doesn't scare them anymore. Or at least, that they're used to being scared.

Why Frederic Creeps Me Out (also a potential movie recommendation?)

Has anyone here seen the movie American Psycho? If not, and you've just finished watching the trailer, (hint, give the video a quick peek!) then you might be wondering what it has to do with A Farewell to Arms.

First of all, the protagonist of both stories are obsessed with sex. Frederic's journeys to brothels is evidence enough of that, as well as his obvious game with Catherine. Patrick Bateman, the main character in AP, has a frequent habit of picking up prostitutes and taking them back to his hotel. Unlike Frederic, he kills them when he's had his fun (see: blonde with awful fringe in movie trailer).

Secondly, both characters are monotonous and emotionless. At the beginning of AP, Patrick goes on a monologue saying that he wears a constant mask. Being a serial killer, I'm not surprised that he has no compassion whatsoever. He says that he'll shake his hand and make you feel like your lives are comparable, but he simply isn't there. Frederic does show a little bit of this when he refers to the war as a "show",  as well as his empty and cold narration style.

I'm not trying to say Frederic is a serial killer. However, his slight fascination and joy from the deaths resulting in war are a bit alarming. When he says things like that, I can't help but think back to this movie. I've heard a lot about people with murderous thoughts/behaviors going off to war as an outlet. I thought for a bit that maybe Frederic has a hidden affinity for death and destruction. Then again, I haven't gotten through a lot of the book yet.

If you've seen the movie, let me know what you think. If you haven't, and you plan to, keep your parents AWAY. It's a really twisted film. Seriously. 

food for thought

Hello bloggers! As I was reading through to page 67, two questions came up on page 43 and I thought it would be interesting to try and find some answers/opinions from everyone on the blog.  The questions (one of which was actually asked in the book and the other that I came up with from something that was stated) are as follows.
#1: What is defeat?
#2: Is there anything as bad as war?

Expanding on Katherine's #2

Okay, like Mary C., now that I have found out how to actually post on this blog, i would like to expand on Katherine's previous post about #2, which she and I discussed in class.  Other than the example she provided (TV), and the explanation Sophie gave later on the same topic, I would like to add an example of the somewhat opposite nature that Katherine and I also talked about that relates to the topic.

Katherine and I discussed other examples in which the opposite is true: places where technology was intended for a purpose and in fact, at the beginning was less than the purpose intended for the new time being until it became up and running.
We discussed the first forms of telephone and telecommunications and how at first the idea proposed people from two different sides of the country to speak to each other in real time, but at the time these forms of technology were first being created, people in Texas had no need to talk to people in Maine for pleasure really.  The idea was dismissed by people for a while but as soon as people realized that communication in real time was valuable and more efficient than other forms of communication, they used it frequently and it developed into something that can fall into the category of "going beyond its first intended purpose".

Basically, Katherine and I concluded that sometimes people view technology as not helpful at the beginning, but once the "greater purpose" or "expanded purpose" of the technology becomes clear, then people begin to embrace technology.

Im not saying this is true for every piece of technology that comes out, I only wish to point out that Neil is correct by saying technology can be used for more than its first intended purpose.

-Caitlin/ Meerkat

Chapter 4 with a modern example

I liked the idea about rewriting a Postman chapter with modern examples, so I wrote a miniature version of Chapter 4: The Typographic Mind.

As media changes, so too does our perception of knowledge.  While people were once able to sit and listen to long speeches, that skill set is long lost because fast transference of information requires brevity.  As a young child, I loved receiving snail-mail (and still do), but it isn’t likely that any such mail should arrive at my house on a daily basis.  People have transferred to texting.  No one writes “dear, …” at the beginning of the letter and all the filler about hoping to see the recipient soon has been dropped.  “Where r u?” is a text.  “What was hw?” is a text. 

New media is a double-edged sword.  There are the clear negatives, which Postman has aptly demonstrated, but I think there is a really positive aspect to brevity.  Throughout history people with time have been able to innovate - the Renaissance is a clear example.  Well, perhaps if we do not spend time writing addresses and searching for postage stamps we can think about the world in a way we never have before.  Perhaps if we do not spend ten minutes driving to the post office we could innovate and improve society.  While “r” doesn’t carry the same respect as “are”, maybe it’s for the better.

Well now that I've found out how to actually post on the blog, this is me discussing my views on Amusing Ourselves to Death (because we already talked about #20 in class).
Although I think Postman discussed an interesting topic, I found reading his book a little uninteresting. He tended to go on and on about something that could just have easily been summarized in a few sentences.  Most chapters were just excessively repetitive, and using not-so present day examples didn't help anything along. In fact, it really just made readers less able to relate to the book.
One of the only points of his I actually found interesting, however, was his chapter discussing the use of "Now...This" in news broadcasting. Before school every morning, I watch the news while eating breakfast (because my parents turn it on, not because i prefer it over morning cartoons), and I found this point about short topics completely true. The news does tend to make short and unemotional stories, and although they may not actually say "Now...This," it is true what he says.
And that, my friends, is what I though of Neil Postman's rant on television killing the minds of young people.

Why I Hate Neil Postman

I decided to post a rant about why I hate Neil Postman because it's only fair since he ranted for the entire book. I, however, am numbering my reasons (Neil should have done this)...

1.  He used the word "discourse" too many times. Use a thesaurus. Define the word maybe. I think if I got a penny for every time Neil used that word, I would be rich. He couldn't even resist putting it on the cover!
2. I very much agree with what Sam said in class about the lack of statistics or, in other words, evidence, to support Mr. Postman's claims. Without them, the book becomes a giant editorial. It was all opinion and no fact.
3. Continuing with the opinion theme, books that talk about opinions generally at least state once what the opposing argument would be. Not Neil. That would take away from his style of expressing his opinion. I think his plan was to repeat his opinion enough times until we gave in and accepted it as the truth.
4. He never stuck with television which is what the book was supposed to be about- isn't that why the people on the cover have t.v's for heads? I agree that television had its disadvantages, but he had no right to attack photography. It's kind of an art form. And its certainly not poisoning our minds or making us stray away from novels and towards picture books. And the telegraph? That was a quality and not to mention unprecedented idea that turned into arguably the most innovative invention of all time. Choose your battles, Neil.
5. Postman missed the obvious a lot. For example, while proving the overwhelming pace of news programs made news trivial, he missed the point that they go through it so fast because there is so much news to go through. Without news shows, we would all be confined to our little CT bubble and not know what was going on in the world at all until 10 years later when a book came out about it. Where is the logic in that?

I could go on all day but I will end it there.

While Shiza did a lovely job conveying our thoughts, I would like to add a couple of things. Another way, referring to television, in which public conversations have become baby-talk is the news. I know this was on our quiz but, I somehow feel compelled to mention it again. While watching the local news, I've noticed that the anchors never spend more than five minutes on a story. Therefore, the viewer can watch the news for an hour and not be more informed. The stories of are petty things: cats being rescued and other cute stories about animals. Perhaps, this is because we live in Connecticut, and nothing ever happens in Connecticut. Also, being uninformed contributes to the "culture-death," which brings fear to Postman. Before school started I watched a video where twelve voters were asked twelve fairly basic questions about the candidates. The most common answer I don't know and the could not answer basic questions about the candidate they had chosen. I believe this is a good representation of the "culture-death" Neil Postman talks about. 

BAM! its #19, don't miss out :)

#19: "In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours. There is no need for wardens or gates or Ministries of Truth. When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; culture-death is a clear possibility"

After discussing this in class with Lauren, we thought of a few examples of these impediments in our modern society. Referring to public conversations becoming baby-talk, the best example we came up with The Simpsons. This drastically dumbed down version about the problems of our civilization is a mindless, satirical way of attempting to explain what is going on in the world. I'm sure the show is largely watched all over the world, but not as as a form of gaining knowledge. This is show is probably so successful because it is so purposeless, as Postman explains. This television trend also slams you with lots and lots of trivia that you will most probably use of space in your brain to remember something you will never use again, lovely! Trivia is unimportant information and seen everywhere on our TV screens.

Reality shows and TV series also suck in most of the audience. Keeping up with the Kardashians, Gossip Girl, Jersey Shore, Pretty Little Liars, the list is endless. Every time I unfortunately give in to these acts, I suddenly think how sick it is that these people are only rich because of me watching them so much. Otherwise they would be struggling through high school years, if they managed to get it. Some would be orange lobsters alarming people on the streets. They would have no future, no success if it was not for us.

Our lives have come to the point where our work and other errands are scheduled around TV. Rushing back from work to catch the end of Criminal Minds, scrambling to finish homework in time to watch Dance Moms, it actually is pretty sad. We have unconsciously become slaves to every person we continuously watch on television. If Neil was to see this culture-death would be much more of a possibility than it ever has been.

Maybe Postman's predictions are the ones we should be worrying about, not Nostradamus.

Internet's Metaphor

What is the Internet's metaphor?  What illusions does it create or destroy?
To continue on with some of the points that Max and I made in class today, we stated that the Internet says it's building a community but in fact is isolating humans from direct contact with other humans.  In this community, so much personal information is available to be shared with anyone who could want it, including those we may not want to know this private information.  So many people post on their facebook pages about their currant location, when they will be on vacation, and other private information such as phone numbers.  By freely giving out this information to anyone that will have it, we are opening our lives to people who will mistreat this information.  The internet creates the illusion that only your friends will really care what is on your facebook page but in reality, complete strangers are reading about you family vacation this weekend and now know when the best time is to rob your home. The internet creates a false sense of security when in truth it is destroying personal information and allowing complete strangers to enter into your life.

Mary Lessard

I think what is interesting about #2 is that an embedded idea in a tool can be detrimental, but if we do not look past the basic function of the tool to an idea then we are, in sense, curbing innovation.  It is a highly paradoxical idea because powerful mediums, such as newspapers are charged with informing the public.  However, they stretch beyond their basic function.  The large majority of newspapers do not objectively report.  They are riddled with political biases and they taint stories to change the public’s view of current events.

"The purpose of education is to free the student from the tyranny of the present."

I'd like to start this one off by saying the grass is always greener. There are masses of people who romanticize the past and claim they were born in the wrong decade. While the past has its charms and the present never seems to have any, we must all recall that the past was the present at some point or another. 

Let's take, for example, the overwhelming amount of today's teenagers that claim the 90's was the golden era. For a generation that hasn't even lived two decades, this is an odd statement. Regardless, I'm sure that while we all had a good time eating sweets and not attending high school, our parents remember the 90's as a time in which they changed many diapers and spent many sleepless nights hearing our cries.

My point is that one period in time is no better than any other. Saying the 90's > the 00's is an opinion from a unique perspective, as is claiming our present condition is tyranny. While there are many disturbing aspects of the present world, there are also countless redeeming aspects.  This quote, from what Nicki and I have gathered, is about taking those disturbing aspects and improving upon them. We must build a future so great, the 90's will seem like the real tyranny (NO INTERNET?! HOW IS THAT THE GOLDEN ERA?!). 

The quote above states that the positive progression of mankind can be achieved through education. We must not only educate ourselves on our current condition, but also discover the many ways we can improve it. 

Earlier today, Nicki and I touched upon the example of global warming in our chat. By educating today's generation about the dangers of mindlessly consuming the Earth's resources, we can at least hope to slow down the damage being done. Nicki and I were shamelessly pessimistic about the possibilities of "saving the Earth", though.

- taylor kennedy

I think I posted in the wrong place so here it is again:

11. "Information creates the illusion of knowing something but in fact leads one away from knowing"

Ex: When studying for a test, you have all of the facts, dates, and events recorded in your notes. Although you may be able to memorize all of the information, you don't have a deeper understanding of the material, and when asked to describe the significance of certain "things", you have no idea what to write. This situation reveals that you may be able to literally understand information and get every factual question correct, but you still may have no idea how to connect ideas and see the big picture. This quote represents the difference between memorization and true comprehension.

Sam W (with aid from Cat, of course) discusses:

16: "Tyrants of all varieties have always know [sic] about the value of providing the masses with amusements as a means of pacifying discontent. But most of them could not have even hoped for a situation in which the masses would ignore that which does not amuse... How delighted would be all the kings, czars, and fuhrers of the past to know that censorship is not a necessity when all political discourse takes the form of jest."

This statement, like several others, touches upon multiple topics explored in AOTD. In class I believe we touched briefly upon the way that entertainment is taken for granted as truth. I don't mean this as a sweeping generalization; I refer only to, of course, television. Much of the population will view programs of any subject, virtually all of which are designed solely for pleasuring, numbing the minds of, and gaining money from subjects, as assistance in the pursuit of knowledge. Certainly, any propaganda-exploiting ruler would  love this-- all it takes to get the masses to follow you is for you to provide them with entertainment? A real dream come true.

Another useful tendency for people, most active in politics, is the way that people so vehemently follow a certain leader under no threat of any sort, simply because they identify with certain beliefs and a certain political party. It seems to be a tendency for people to take a very ardent interest in what their corresponding candidate believes and shape their beliefs on that, rather than choosing a candidate based on their beliefs. The current dichotomous political system combined with televised and now internet-based passive-aggressive squabbles between candidates really cause people to choose sides strongly, something that really causes public opinion to be swayed one way or another quite easily. Isn't that helpful? One barely has to try to influence public viewpoints.

On a smaller scale but still something to consider, I often find that teachers are largely selected as "good teachers," or at least desirable teachers, based not only on their empathy, intelligence, and tactics but also on their wit and having a conscience that allows them to waste a class period with something that isn't even pertinent. Of course, there's nothing wrong with wit or even wasting time; both are really my favorite things in the universe. It's just another way of showing that we really can't be educated effectively without having fun. It's just how we are, I'd say. Not only that, but we really do respond much more effectively if something can be made into a joke of some sort. We're so easy, aren't we?

Ok I am finished thank you have a good night bye yes thank you goodbye

#2. "In every tool we create, an idea is embedded that goes beyond the function of the thing itself."

Give an example.  In the example you've chosen, show how this idea could be either beneficial or detrimental.  Meerkat and I chose TV.  Going along with the quote, TV itself is something that for sure has an idea that goes far beyond it's actual function.  As Neil Postman writes throughout his entire book, TV has changed our perception of "serious matters" such as religion, politics and the news and turned them purely into forms of entertainment, with attractive actors, beautiful sets, and background music.

11. "Information creates the illusion of knowing something but in fact leads one away from knowing"

Ex. #2
Like Neil Postman said in Amusing Ourselves to Death, TV can provide information that leads a person away from knowing. For example, on the news a new story is told every few seconds. In this way people aren't given the time to really learn, question or understand the material, and because of this are likely forget it entirely by the end of the day. Although they have been exposed to new information, they have no greater knowledge because of it.

How to Post?

Though I am somewhat technologically limited myself, it would be helpful (and easier to read) if you all POSTED, rather than commented. On my screen (which may be different from yours since I am the blog creator/administrator) the option to POST appears in the top right corner. If you are officially invited to the blog, which I can do for you once I have your email address, then perhaps that gives you the option of posting versus commenting. Or maybe you can post without such preliminaries... but if given the choice, please choose POST vs. COMMENT. Thanking you! (No worries for those of you who have already commented...)

Welcome to AP Voice and Vision

   To access this blog, you must have a gmail address, which is free and easy to create.  After you email me your new or existing gmail address, I will send you an official invitation to join the class blog. From here on in, you'll be able to read and create posts that  follow the guidelines outlined in the introductory handout, which include two blog posts (minimum) per week.  These will build on the class discussion, or comment on some aspect of the text that we didn't get to in class.