Voyage, the beginning play of the trilogy The Coast of Utopia by Tom Stoppard is based on philosophical principles and revolutionary ideas from the Romanticism of the nineteenth century. Each character carries on a different element used by the author to recreate love in a family of four daughters awaiting a time to marry. In this particular work of literature, the characters are part of a Russian family where the quick and interchanged dialogue is continuously established. With this revolutionary style of dialogue, a successful picture of a casual family reunion can be described. Being this point the prominent characteristic of the Voyage.
Anyhow it is not only the dialogue that takes part of the essence of this piece for the expressionism of the ideas is clear and dynamic. The pragmatic thought behind the theatre containing the space for these works to take action, has opened the possibility for the freedom of expression. A freedom developed in every line said by each character based on philosophy, but a philosophy based on the strongest emotion, love. In between followers attached to each of the four sisters, match-making initiatives are the base of the context in this first part of the trilogy. For instance, “Stankevich: The philosopher of love Liubov: Yes, she says love is the highest good. Stankevich: Perhaps in France. Kant says, the only good actions are those performed out of a sense of duty, not from emotion . . . like passion or desire. . . Liubov: So to act out of love can never be good? Stankevich: Kant says you cannot take moral credit from it. Because you are really pleasing yourself. Liubov: Even if it gives happiness to another?”(Stoppard 26). In this example of courtship taking place with a philosophical basis. Even though they talk about George Sand, the romantic novelist of the time, it is a good method to bring up a conversation. The female part in this dialogue results being intense and constantly attacking the young teacher with deceiving questions. Theories are based on other thinkers, reflecting the dependent personality of Stankevich to support his own answers. Is it just an element to support his grandiosity? Or does he intend to hide his insecurity with many facts?
Life is a voyage, containing passionate adventures and treasures to desire. This play is based on this idea, searching for the perfect match. The game of love is a main topic in this act, replacing the complicated political opinions that will appear in the next play, Shipwreck.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Meaningless
Act II is the beginning of the end for the troubles of Voinistky, the protagonist of Chekhov´s play Uncle Vanya. It is Helena, the woman, the cause of men´s problems who drives him crazy. Unlike the mythical Pandora´s box, this woman only opens the heart of a poor farmer who only seeks to finish his life in peace. Certainly finish a boring life, but in mortal peace. However, life cannot keep up this slow pace. It is here, in the middle of his empty life where this female character turns his world around. Exasperation reins this second act, filling it with meaningless, fast dialogues that in the end make no difference. Not even the shot makes a difference. Men have no power to change things, only destiny. And destiny has no will of changing them, causing the same emptiness as in the beginning. Humans will always live to die, and life, in the end(if there is an end), is an eternal return. We will always finish where we started.
Troubles of a Russian Guy
Love, desire, emptiness; words that describe the life of a Russian guy that lives to die. The main character of Chekhov’s masterpiece, Uncle Vanya speaks to the deepness of the soul. This play narrates the empty life of Voinistky, a lonely man deprived from love and the actual sense of life. The character revolves around lethargy: his whole life has been spent nurturing a farm that will soon be taken away from him. As most of the other characters, he seems to have lost all hope, to be floating aimlessly in an endless sea of despair and futility. Voinistky is the most obvious demonstration of this hopeless desolation. Moreover, it becomes the structure of the whole play. The character´s emotion can be tracked without any difficulty, getting to analyze the simplicity of the situation. In other words, love denied equals to a harmed heart which will probably drive Voinistky to the climax of emotions. These are the final words of a guy that will live to die in surrendered peace.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
A Simple Life
Should we follow the moral taught by realistic novels like the distinguished piece of literature by Saul Bellow, Seize the Day and the thrilling book by Gustave Flaubert, A Simple Heart? It depends on each one of us, our opinions and ideas, like everything in life revolves around the difference. It is trail and error what life is about. for whom we owe acquiring knowledge and the satisfation to fill our human curiosity. The seeking to seize the day resembles the idea to live the day as if it is your last, but does it really benefit you in any way? Feeling the stress of having to take advantage of this last day must not be very comfortable. And crying for the meaningless life you have lived will not help much either. Tears will dry and will not change anything, only your eyeball color (and your mascara will be ruined). For this same reason we should simply do as our hearts tell us, not our minds. At the end it is easier, but practice is needed. Practice is essential for everything, even subconsciously, like repeating things to yourself, with enough practice you will believe what you are saying. Following karmas can be very useful sometimes, as long as the unnecessary thoughts are wiped away from your mind. This is the key to open up your heart and receive the peace from inside.
Using the heart as a guide is the simplest way to achieve happiness. Like Gustave Flaubert’s A Simple Heart which is a great example, with practice, obstinacy, perseverance and a great amount of faith, a human being can get rid of any obstruction in its path and achieve happiness. For instance Félicité, a woman with an admirable character receives the gift of a simple mind and a devoted heart. Even though she has experienced tremendous disgraces (starting with the loss of all her family), she faithfully persists in the goodness of the people. A remarkable person, getting to die with a smile on her face even though her life was worthless, should never be forgotten. We must seek for happiness to make our lives worth the pain.
Using the heart as a guide is the simplest way to achieve happiness. Like Gustave Flaubert’s A Simple Heart which is a great example, with practice, obstinacy, perseverance and a great amount of faith, a human being can get rid of any obstruction in its path and achieve happiness. For instance Félicité, a woman with an admirable character receives the gift of a simple mind and a devoted heart. Even though she has experienced tremendous disgraces (starting with the loss of all her family), she faithfully persists in the goodness of the people. A remarkable person, getting to die with a smile on her face even though her life was worthless, should never be forgotten. We must seek for happiness to make our lives worth the pain.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Methods to Seize the Day
To be able to seize a day, mastering the feeling of love, nurturing your intelligence, and banishing perturbing memories are some required skills. Without forgetting the most important one, to learn the best way to live life, a skill that can only be taught with experience. A character who is learning this lesson is Wilhelm, a fotry-aged man who I am the most sorry for. Hi life can't be worse, his wife hates him, he doesn't live with his family, he is unemplyed, did not finish school, and his father is well-known and he is a nobody. In one day his whole life is demonstrated through phone calls and memories. the search for the key of a happy life is this the moral and the only opportunity the dead man at the end of the novel has given the character to seize the day. The only opportunity to make the day worth something, at least a tear. Saturation is the word for the amount of shame I feel for Wilhelm, at least he took the opportunity to live life.
Anyway there are so many combined thoughts that it can be summarized with this quote,"I labor, I spend, I strive, I design, I love, I cling, I uphold, I give way, I envy, I long, i scorn, Idie, I hide, I want." (page 111) Usding this tool to represent the worries and troubles of so many people that on that same day are actually experiencing. I would like to emphasize the use of love, just for the reason that this is the strongest feeling humans can experience. Even though this novel talks mainly about one unique character, love is always present. It is there implicitly simbolizing the heart, which does not always love but the opposite as an effect of love. This can be a reason why love is present everywhere except in the novel, The Crying of Lot 49 where sex steals the place of true love. Working, for instance, is an effect of love for your family and for your confort, your social life and finally yourself. Actually these are the reasons to love money, created from labor. In a couple of words, love and money help you live life as good as it can be and it can be done in just one day.
Anyway there are so many combined thoughts that it can be summarized with this quote,"I labor, I spend, I strive, I design, I love, I cling, I uphold, I give way, I envy, I long, i scorn, Idie, I hide, I want." (page 111) Usding this tool to represent the worries and troubles of so many people that on that same day are actually experiencing. I would like to emphasize the use of love, just for the reason that this is the strongest feeling humans can experience. Even though this novel talks mainly about one unique character, love is always present. It is there implicitly simbolizing the heart, which does not always love but the opposite as an effect of love. This can be a reason why love is present everywhere except in the novel, The Crying of Lot 49 where sex steals the place of true love. Working, for instance, is an effect of love for your family and for your confort, your social life and finally yourself. Actually these are the reasons to love money, created from labor. In a couple of words, love and money help you live life as good as it can be and it can be done in just one day.
Try to Seize the Day
Picture yourself in the middle of a crowd walking through 5th avenue as the mob pushes you from side to side. Loitering smells and stirring colors mix in the air. It is here, in the middle of New York City where the novel written by Saul Bellow depicts the daily life of a man facing his own failure. Feelings inside the author gather to create Tommy Wilhelm the unsuccessful actor whose dreams crashed at a certain period of his life. A period marked by ten decisions that changed the course of his life. The worse thing is that these decisions where taken without any kind of supportive ideas or explainable reasons. During this special day he keeps remembering his unwanted past. During this few pages he describes the encounter with Maurice Venice, the first step to Wilhelm's disastrous life. The sensible details of each scene make of this book a close reality of the human heart.
“I was too mature for college.” Can this be called satire against oneself ? This declaration explains the immaturity of the character itself. Falsity, lack of confidence and a great way to hide mistaken decisions, are few of the characteristics of Wilhelm. The main character goes through a period of crisis which his own childhood cannot describe with all his problems, like divorce, unemployment, etc. His desperation turns to indignity and humiliation. Nevertheless he conserves an inner peace with himself. The detail in each memory awakens human emotions. Aimed for the reader's emotions this book becomes a masterpiece of reality.
Profound thinking and questioning take this character to the deepest spot in the human heart it is this that attracts the reader. “Listen, everywhere there are people trying hard, miserable, in trouble, downcast, tired, trying and trying. They need a break, right? A break-through, a help, luck, or sympathy. ‘That certainly is the truth,’ said Wilhelm. ” (page 18). It is this style of phrases that touch the majority of the people, because probably they are experiencing it also. Around the globe people suffer for thousands of reasons, and Bellow finds the best way to summarize it all in just a couple of sentences. There few pages made me feel sorrow for the unlucky things Wilhelm have to overcome for his stupid decisions. In any case, Wilhelm never takes a reasonable decision, it is his fault foe being where he is now. This feeling resembles the movies. I feel so sorry for Venice and even more for Wilhelm although it is a fictional character. I really hope this book will not continue with this fooling of emotions.
“I was too mature for college.” Can this be called satire against oneself ? This declaration explains the immaturity of the character itself. Falsity, lack of confidence and a great way to hide mistaken decisions, are few of the characteristics of Wilhelm. The main character goes through a period of crisis which his own childhood cannot describe with all his problems, like divorce, unemployment, etc. His desperation turns to indignity and humiliation. Nevertheless he conserves an inner peace with himself. The detail in each memory awakens human emotions. Aimed for the reader's emotions this book becomes a masterpiece of reality.
Profound thinking and questioning take this character to the deepest spot in the human heart it is this that attracts the reader. “Listen, everywhere there are people trying hard, miserable, in trouble, downcast, tired, trying and trying. They need a break, right? A break-through, a help, luck, or sympathy. ‘That certainly is the truth,’ said Wilhelm. ” (page 18). It is this style of phrases that touch the majority of the people, because probably they are experiencing it also. Around the globe people suffer for thousands of reasons, and Bellow finds the best way to summarize it all in just a couple of sentences. There few pages made me feel sorrow for the unlucky things Wilhelm have to overcome for his stupid decisions. In any case, Wilhelm never takes a reasonable decision, it is his fault foe being where he is now. This feeling resembles the movies. I feel so sorry for Venice and even more for Wilhelm although it is a fictional character. I really hope this book will not continue with this fooling of emotions.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Breakfast at The New Yorker with George Lois
Retrospectives
Cover Guy
by Nick Paumgarten April 21, 2008
George Lois
The Big Idea at breakfast last week with Mr. Big Idea, the advertising and graphic-design legend George Lois (“I Want My Maypo”; “I Want My MTV”; the world as we know it), was probably “Well, it’s about time.” This was, by his reckoning, and in his words, “the angle of the dangle,” the underlying sentiment, the thing you might put in a blurb. What’s been overdue is high-calibre recognition for his magazine work. Later this month, the Museum of Modern Art will present an exhibition of Lois’s Esquire covers from the sixties, which, though widely celebrated and frequently (if faintheartedly) imitated, have never had the full curatorial treatment. Sonny Liston glowering in a Santa hat, Andy Warhol drowning in a can of soup, Muhammad Ali with arrows, Roy Cohn with halo: these images helped Esquire define a decade that already had a lot of help in getting defined, and created a visual language that people in the media still feel they must learn to understand, if not speak well.
At breakfast, Lois, who is seventy-six, took his time getting around to this particular Big Idea. As zippy and reductive as he is in his work, at table he’s a “So anyway where was I?” kind of guy—meaning discursive and expansive, as opposed to doddering or absent-minded. A big, fit Greek-Bronxian with a shaved head, a Columbo growl, and a profane tongue, he started at the beginning of his life (fistfights, flower deliveries) and over several hours worked his way up to vindication at the hands of the modern-art establishment.
This was at his apartment, in the Village, spacious and filled with tribal art. Lois’s wife, Rosemary, to whom he’s been married for fifty-six years, served the first course, a dollop of sherbet atop a bowl of fresh berries, as he recounted an early art-school epiphany about how an image had better have an idea. “Thank you, girl,” he said, and Rosemary went back to the kitchen. “She’s a piece of work. All my life I’d leave the house at five-thirty to go to work. I needed three hours to myself in the morning, and I never needed much sleep. And she’s up making corn muffins, or whatever. Like, eight of them, so if anyone else was at work early he could have something to eat. She’s the last of the Mohicans.”
So, anyway, where was he? The Army, Korea, CBS, Madison Avenue, and the early days of the “creative revolution,” when art directors like Lois began taking over the ad game from the copywriters. By the time Lois, in this biographical account, got to a 1962 lunch at the Four Seasons (“I was doing their advertising, I saved their ass, too”) with Harold Hayes, the editor of Esquire, Rosemary had appeared with another course: a thin omelette, prosciutto, homemade Greek bread, and a scoop of caviar. (How about a retrospective devoted to the Lois breakfast?)
Hayes was looking for help with his covers. Lois asked Hayes how they did theirs, and Hayes explained a collaborative process involving the magazine’s staff. Lois went on, “And I’m thinking, Holy shit, a group fucking grope. I said, ‘You gotta get one guy, a guy who’s news literate, who reads, who understands the history of art and politics and culture and the movies.’ And I’m trying to think of a name.” Hayes had one in mind already, and so about a week later Lois delivered his first cover, a staged photograph of a Floyd Patterson look-alike flat on his back in a boxing ring, in an empty arena. The image was pegged to a championship bout between Patterson and Liston, which wouldn’t be contested until a week after the magazine came out. “Called the fight,” Lois said. “It took big balls. By the way, those weren’t my big balls. They were Harold Hayes’s.” Liston won, Esquire’s newsstand sales took off, and a ten-year collaboration—a prolonged provocation, really—ensued.
Magazine editors regularly call Lois to tell him that they have produced Lois covers of their own—worthy homages, at least—and his response tends to be “I don’t think so.” In general, he disdains the wan, cluttered magazine covers of today. “They go out and test: Do you like this person? Do you like this blurb? Do you like this blurb better than this blurb? It’s unbelievable. I’d do a cover that would knock your eyeballs out. Whether you liked it or hated it, you knew there was a magazine that was pumping blood.” He went on, “Now everyone’s sweating bullets. They all sit there with their cover, their this and their that, their testing, who’s the guy gonna be, who’s the woman gonna be. Do we do tits and ass. They’re all going wacko on their covers. And the covers get worse and worse.”
Time for lunch? ♦
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/04/21/080421ta_talk_paumgarten
Responding to this piece I believe that this has no defined thesis. Besides, while reading I can only find a conversation with the recognized Georges Lois during breakfast. With this piece of literature I discovered a biography type of article which puts in writing only what this person said. I was not in persuit of a written conversation but I found this one particularily interesting. I also believe that this piece is another way of commercially selling this character. Even though it is interesting to read what Lois said, the quotations are overused. The sentences are in a run-on-context, cutting the fluency as well as reader’s attention. This piece shows only one point of view which basically demonstrates adoration towards Lois. For example, “As zippy and reductive as he is in his work, at table he’s a “So anyway where was I?” kind of guy—meaning discursive and expansive, as opposed to doddering or absent-minded.” It is the only sentence found with an interesting description, which uses quotations in a graceful manner.
The writer has a liberal mind and uses slang word choice, for instance “A big, fit Greek-Bronxian with a shaved head, a Columbo growl, and a profane tongue, he started at the beginning of his life (fistfights, flower deliveries) and over several hours worked his way up to vindication at the hands of the modern-art establishment.” It is interesting how in just one sentence a person can be described in such a stylish way.
After all not even the cartoon applies to the text. Getting the old fish out contradicts completely the idea of idolatrizing the “old fish” or Lois. To support this idea, Lois is already seventy-six years old, a considerable age. The irony is expressed with the figurative action of taking the old fish out. But, there is no new fish to be seen in the contextual picture, nor in the cartoon.
There is not even the author’s point of view, nor the narration of their breakfast. The only clue that brings the reader back to a time lapse is the following quote, “Time for lunch?”. This quote left my mind floating in space. I kept thinking that they will keep talking during an invitation to have lunch. I believe that having breakfast, and talking the whole morning without any complete sentence would be extremely indecent. Although there is another point of view towards this phrase, like a good-bye, time is over.
In any case the tone of the piece can be described as curious and admiring. The structure can be differed from other pieces by the guidance of time in representation of the evolution of a conversation.
Cover Guy
by Nick Paumgarten April 21, 2008
George Lois
The Big Idea at breakfast last week with Mr. Big Idea, the advertising and graphic-design legend George Lois (“I Want My Maypo”; “I Want My MTV”; the world as we know it), was probably “Well, it’s about time.” This was, by his reckoning, and in his words, “the angle of the dangle,” the underlying sentiment, the thing you might put in a blurb. What’s been overdue is high-calibre recognition for his magazine work. Later this month, the Museum of Modern Art will present an exhibition of Lois’s Esquire covers from the sixties, which, though widely celebrated and frequently (if faintheartedly) imitated, have never had the full curatorial treatment. Sonny Liston glowering in a Santa hat, Andy Warhol drowning in a can of soup, Muhammad Ali with arrows, Roy Cohn with halo: these images helped Esquire define a decade that already had a lot of help in getting defined, and created a visual language that people in the media still feel they must learn to understand, if not speak well.
At breakfast, Lois, who is seventy-six, took his time getting around to this particular Big Idea. As zippy and reductive as he is in his work, at table he’s a “So anyway where was I?” kind of guy—meaning discursive and expansive, as opposed to doddering or absent-minded. A big, fit Greek-Bronxian with a shaved head, a Columbo growl, and a profane tongue, he started at the beginning of his life (fistfights, flower deliveries) and over several hours worked his way up to vindication at the hands of the modern-art establishment.
This was at his apartment, in the Village, spacious and filled with tribal art. Lois’s wife, Rosemary, to whom he’s been married for fifty-six years, served the first course, a dollop of sherbet atop a bowl of fresh berries, as he recounted an early art-school epiphany about how an image had better have an idea. “Thank you, girl,” he said, and Rosemary went back to the kitchen. “She’s a piece of work. All my life I’d leave the house at five-thirty to go to work. I needed three hours to myself in the morning, and I never needed much sleep. And she’s up making corn muffins, or whatever. Like, eight of them, so if anyone else was at work early he could have something to eat. She’s the last of the Mohicans.”
So, anyway, where was he? The Army, Korea, CBS, Madison Avenue, and the early days of the “creative revolution,” when art directors like Lois began taking over the ad game from the copywriters. By the time Lois, in this biographical account, got to a 1962 lunch at the Four Seasons (“I was doing their advertising, I saved their ass, too”) with Harold Hayes, the editor of Esquire, Rosemary had appeared with another course: a thin omelette, prosciutto, homemade Greek bread, and a scoop of caviar. (How about a retrospective devoted to the Lois breakfast?)
Hayes was looking for help with his covers. Lois asked Hayes how they did theirs, and Hayes explained a collaborative process involving the magazine’s staff. Lois went on, “And I’m thinking, Holy shit, a group fucking grope. I said, ‘You gotta get one guy, a guy who’s news literate, who reads, who understands the history of art and politics and culture and the movies.’ And I’m trying to think of a name.” Hayes had one in mind already, and so about a week later Lois delivered his first cover, a staged photograph of a Floyd Patterson look-alike flat on his back in a boxing ring, in an empty arena. The image was pegged to a championship bout between Patterson and Liston, which wouldn’t be contested until a week after the magazine came out. “Called the fight,” Lois said. “It took big balls. By the way, those weren’t my big balls. They were Harold Hayes’s.” Liston won, Esquire’s newsstand sales took off, and a ten-year collaboration—a prolonged provocation, really—ensued.
Magazine editors regularly call Lois to tell him that they have produced Lois covers of their own—worthy homages, at least—and his response tends to be “I don’t think so.” In general, he disdains the wan, cluttered magazine covers of today. “They go out and test: Do you like this person? Do you like this blurb? Do you like this blurb better than this blurb? It’s unbelievable. I’d do a cover that would knock your eyeballs out. Whether you liked it or hated it, you knew there was a magazine that was pumping blood.” He went on, “Now everyone’s sweating bullets. They all sit there with their cover, their this and their that, their testing, who’s the guy gonna be, who’s the woman gonna be. Do we do tits and ass. They’re all going wacko on their covers. And the covers get worse and worse.”
Time for lunch? ♦
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/04/21/080421ta_talk_paumgarten
Responding to this piece I believe that this has no defined thesis. Besides, while reading I can only find a conversation with the recognized Georges Lois during breakfast. With this piece of literature I discovered a biography type of article which puts in writing only what this person said. I was not in persuit of a written conversation but I found this one particularily interesting. I also believe that this piece is another way of commercially selling this character. Even though it is interesting to read what Lois said, the quotations are overused. The sentences are in a run-on-context, cutting the fluency as well as reader’s attention. This piece shows only one point of view which basically demonstrates adoration towards Lois. For example, “As zippy and reductive as he is in his work, at table he’s a “So anyway where was I?” kind of guy—meaning discursive and expansive, as opposed to doddering or absent-minded.” It is the only sentence found with an interesting description, which uses quotations in a graceful manner.
The writer has a liberal mind and uses slang word choice, for instance “A big, fit Greek-Bronxian with a shaved head, a Columbo growl, and a profane tongue, he started at the beginning of his life (fistfights, flower deliveries) and over several hours worked his way up to vindication at the hands of the modern-art establishment.” It is interesting how in just one sentence a person can be described in such a stylish way.
After all not even the cartoon applies to the text. Getting the old fish out contradicts completely the idea of idolatrizing the “old fish” or Lois. To support this idea, Lois is already seventy-six years old, a considerable age. The irony is expressed with the figurative action of taking the old fish out. But, there is no new fish to be seen in the contextual picture, nor in the cartoon.
There is not even the author’s point of view, nor the narration of their breakfast. The only clue that brings the reader back to a time lapse is the following quote, “Time for lunch?”. This quote left my mind floating in space. I kept thinking that they will keep talking during an invitation to have lunch. I believe that having breakfast, and talking the whole morning without any complete sentence would be extremely indecent. Although there is another point of view towards this phrase, like a good-bye, time is over.
In any case the tone of the piece can be described as curious and admiring. The structure can be differed from other pieces by the guidance of time in representation of the evolution of a conversation.
Pessimism against Candide
Martin, the new character is introduced by an ironic event. Candide after being robed in the most disgraceful way decides to choose somebody to talk with. In the contest of looking for the best candidate the reader will never see what Candide saw in Martin to be able to trust him. Maybe the amount of misfortunes that happened to Martin molded his character to be so pessimist and careless about life. With the basis of this character it will be of no use robbing Candide. There will be even less temptation to rob when he is going to be supported by Candide´s fortune. In any case, it is Martin´s point of view amplifying the voice of Voltaire´s opinion. His point of view is narrated in his trip with Candide to Bordeaux. Besides, throughout the whole novel he supports his pessimism, for instance not ever finding one sole happy soul. The main point rests upon the idea that men are evil. In which I don´t agree, I believe that men become evil. Humans become evil for various reasons, money, love and the thousand feelings that are attributed to our specie. But at the end men are born evil because are born with feelings and the free will to decide. As Voltaire constantly remarks the idea of free will, it is also mocked, because Candide never receives the right of deciding for himself. It is interesting the idea of free will which appears as well as in Slaughterhouse-Five. Basically it explains that only on this planet there has ever been the creation of this way of thinking. In conclusion there will never be a completely happy person on earth except in Eldorado.
Monday, April 14, 2008
El Dorado
The novel Candide, written by Voltaire was destined to attack every aspect of the human being, from its own absurdity to its darkest side.
As always this novel is full of satiric humor and peculiar events. For instance being saved by the death of another, which in fact is the brother of your beloved, reinstates the irony of the novel. Voltaire also uses absurdity. Using the Oreillons as a group of natives who celebrate the feast among the Jesuit meat, which unfortunately is Candide himself. By the way oreillon is a contagious virus in French. Even though Candide is not Jesuit (he is optimist) he is in the wrong place at the wrong time after committing various mistakes. Mistakes which he never thought that were going to be the wrong decision to make, for instance killing the monkeys. Who in the world would think that the girls had sympathy for these creatures? Ironically Candide had a great aim, but aimed at the wrong target. As well as the obsession for gold Voltaire describes a utopia were precious stones are the soil of this strange world. With scarcely any value, gold is the main topic of El Dorado. Symbolizing that what society in his time period desired most is the dirt of this perfect world. It is his point of view where the government is useful, where everybody is happy and craves for nothing. Like in Trafalmadore instead of gold it is forgetting that Vonnegut desires most. Representing his ideas in a three dimensional world where nothing matters. Anyhow it is different because Voltaire is intending to attack society in his time. At the same time Voltaire attacks ambition by sending Cacambo and Candide with the idea to rule the world but making them loose almost all their possessions.
As always this novel is full of satiric humor and peculiar events. For instance being saved by the death of another, which in fact is the brother of your beloved, reinstates the irony of the novel. Voltaire also uses absurdity. Using the Oreillons as a group of natives who celebrate the feast among the Jesuit meat, which unfortunately is Candide himself. By the way oreillon is a contagious virus in French. Even though Candide is not Jesuit (he is optimist) he is in the wrong place at the wrong time after committing various mistakes. Mistakes which he never thought that were going to be the wrong decision to make, for instance killing the monkeys. Who in the world would think that the girls had sympathy for these creatures? Ironically Candide had a great aim, but aimed at the wrong target. As well as the obsession for gold Voltaire describes a utopia were precious stones are the soil of this strange world. With scarcely any value, gold is the main topic of El Dorado. Symbolizing that what society in his time period desired most is the dirt of this perfect world. It is his point of view where the government is useful, where everybody is happy and craves for nothing. Like in Trafalmadore instead of gold it is forgetting that Vonnegut desires most. Representing his ideas in a three dimensional world where nothing matters. Anyhow it is different because Voltaire is intending to attack society in his time. At the same time Voltaire attacks ambition by sending Cacambo and Candide with the idea to rule the world but making them loose almost all their possessions.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Candide, Voltaire's Satiric Masterpiece
The satiristic essence of the novel Candide by Voltarie makes the reader have fun while reading. It has the power to keep the reader’s attention even in the most distressing moments. Fortunately it is a short novel. In any case it is a novel defined as an exaggeration of the ridicule out of different targets narrated throughout the story. The author uses an exceptional simple and direct ironic tone of voice during the novel. Enrolled as the adventures of Candide, Voltaire uses the events to directly attack the Catholic Church. For instance, on page 49 “I am the daughter of Pope Urban X and the Princess of Palestrina.*” where Abigail started to recall her origins. It is ridiculous the fact of being the daughter of a pope and a princess. Mainly because in the Catholic Church it is completely illegal to have any kind of relationship with anything else that is not God. By the way princesses must marry before having children. Amongst this quote the most satirical example can be the authors’ foot note. For the fact of denying the real existence of the clerical ruler it is absurd to emphasize this attack with a footnote. In such a peculiar way as talking in third person in order to acclaim his discretion.
Another specific attack on the Catholic dogmas was the following, “And it was part of the scheme of things that my dear Anabaptist (the best of men!) should be drowned in sight of land? Besides this also results to be ridiculous, and part of black humor. Referring to Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five when somebody is killed for taking a teapot after Dresden’s bombing.
To analize the satiric sense of Candide absurdity results to be the easiest to find. For instance the Metophysico-theologo-cosmolo-nigology lesson Pangloss dictates. Another example can be the Thunder-ten-tronckh family’s last name. Another peculiar name is given to the governor of Buenos Ayres, “Don Fernando d’Ibarra y Figueora y Mascarenes y Lampourdos y Souza, a nobleman with a degree of pride appropriate to one who bore so many name.”(page 58)
Even love is absurd, to touch the Lady Cunnegund’s lips and keep thinking of her, even fainting for her death after so much time without seeing her. As well as the way women think. Even the old experienced lady recommends Lady Cunnegund to accept the Governors offer for ridiculous reasons, ignoring who they are talking about and the real feelings, if there are any. “Madam, you have seventy-two quarterings to your coat of arms but not a farthing to your name;you have only yourself to blame if you do not become the wife of the greatest nobleman in South America with the most handsome of moustaches.”(page 59)
Hyperbole is of outmost importance in the art of satire. It is described throughout the whole novel; although it has not been only used in Candide, referring to Dantes Inferno, the punishments and poetic justice are an example of hyperbole. In Candide, the lineage of the pox infection describes an exaggerated account of its origins.
While reading the novel I didn’t catch every example of satirical mockery. I even doubted if inverting Candide’s robes used in the auto-da-fe, while Pangloss’ where upright meant anything in particular. I read this in page 36.
Another specific attack on the Catholic dogmas was the following, “And it was part of the scheme of things that my dear Anabaptist (the best of men!) should be drowned in sight of land? Besides this also results to be ridiculous, and part of black humor. Referring to Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five when somebody is killed for taking a teapot after Dresden’s bombing.
To analize the satiric sense of Candide absurdity results to be the easiest to find. For instance the Metophysico-theologo-cosmolo-nigology lesson Pangloss dictates. Another example can be the Thunder-ten-tronckh family’s last name. Another peculiar name is given to the governor of Buenos Ayres, “Don Fernando d’Ibarra y Figueora y Mascarenes y Lampourdos y Souza, a nobleman with a degree of pride appropriate to one who bore so many name.”(page 58)
Even love is absurd, to touch the Lady Cunnegund’s lips and keep thinking of her, even fainting for her death after so much time without seeing her. As well as the way women think. Even the old experienced lady recommends Lady Cunnegund to accept the Governors offer for ridiculous reasons, ignoring who they are talking about and the real feelings, if there are any. “Madam, you have seventy-two quarterings to your coat of arms but not a farthing to your name;you have only yourself to blame if you do not become the wife of the greatest nobleman in South America with the most handsome of moustaches.”(page 59)
Hyperbole is of outmost importance in the art of satire. It is described throughout the whole novel; although it has not been only used in Candide, referring to Dantes Inferno, the punishments and poetic justice are an example of hyperbole. In Candide, the lineage of the pox infection describes an exaggerated account of its origins.
While reading the novel I didn’t catch every example of satirical mockery. I even doubted if inverting Candide’s robes used in the auto-da-fe, while Pangloss’ where upright meant anything in particular. I read this in page 36.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Overview from the Magnificent Castle
It is amazing how literature (and a few words) can make you laugh in such an absurd way. While reading Chapter 1-3 of How Candide Was Brought Up in a Magnificent Castle and How He Was Driven Thence by the illustrated and satirist Voltaire, I found a way of having fun while reading. A completely new feeling of curiosity and insight laugh reveals this for the first time. The following may be presented by a string of thoughts. It starts like this: a little overview of the first chapter, wow… I hope I never get as fat as My Lady Baroness. Just by the name of the landlord I can infer it is the direct target. The satire will be against him and the wealthy aristocrats. Though, why was the
On chapter one, Voltarie is inmediatly directed to the personality of the main character, Candide. As the reflection of his youth, his "face is a true index of his mind". The reader can suppose his mind is not very mature, but simple and childish. Starting with the facts of his origin, the most interesting one is the gossip from the servants. Similar to a mexican novel, having the protagonist coming from a past with different information from other sources. Having the protagonist absent to reveal his own cruel past. It is attracting the voice of the narrator, how simple, naive and absurd it sounds. For instance, "for his castle had not only a gate, but even windows." Somehow expecting the reader to find surprise in this fact, which it is quite absurd. The reader might think that in every building there must be windows. Maybe in that moment it wasn't so usual to have windows in castles, though I doubt it. I didn't get the last sentence, "and he never told a story but everyone laughed at it." The word that does not make sense is "...but". This word confuses the grammar of the sentence. Placing the orator in another context that the one the audience is in. Is Pangloss, the oracle of the family whom Candide listens as a child, the son of the Baron? There is no link in this paragraph to relate Pangloss with the daughter of My Lady Baroness. Actually the fact of being siblings may bring the answer to this hidden link. The next paragraph quickly overviews the absurdity of lessons Panloss teaches Candide. I am certain that the personality of Candide will not grow much in knowledge.
From hearing the lessons how did Miss Cunegund pop out of nowhere? I guess she is the Baronesses' seventeen year-old daughter, though it does not state anything about it. What was Doctor Pangloss thinking by teaching the Baronesses' chambermaid in the middle of the 'park'? It is funny the romantic story of Candide and Miss Cunegund. Specially when they get caught by the Baron. Why on earth would she faint for such a silly situation? Anyhow it is here where the theory of cause and effect takes place. Candide kisses Miss Cunegund and effectively he is kicked out of the Magnificent Castle in Westphalia.
While reading the second chapter of Candide, I realized how Voltaire uses his brains to combine philosophical ideas with comedy. Getting into detail the philosophical ideas can be described as the free will. "and he determined, in virtue of that divine gift called free will, to run the gaunlet six and thirty times." Recalling chapter one, another idea was that everything is best, not right. Everything fits with everything, like the nose for spectacles. However, glasses were made according to the nose, not vice-versa, as Voltaire declares. What is the punishment of running the gauntlet six and thirty times? The scene I understood reminded me of the biblic situation of Jesus Christ being stroked to save humanity. What was Candide punished for? At the end the protagonist couldn't die, basically I infer his revolutionary ideas saved him.
Relating punishment to the ideas from Dantes, it is different. There is no poetical justice, on the contrary there is no reason for being ruled over by a pair of bulgarian guys. Moreover, Candide was handcuffed, and sent to a dungeon for no valid reason. Possibly it is a resemblance of humanity fighting for freedom or social inequality.
Finally the third chapter is marked by blood and gruesome images of death. Escaping this, as Vonnegut intended, Candide continues his search of acerting the ideas Master Pangloss taught him. Resuming this in the following quote, "I conceive there can be no effect without a cause;everything is necessarily concatenated and arranged for the best."
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Me, Myself and I: The Only Things You have to Worry About
About the Handbook, a guide to life, one could say that it defines the only way to be in peace with one self and consequently with others. It is the simplified version of the set of clues to remind you of things that will help you in how to live a happy life. I find this piece of antique literature so advanced for the time period it was written on. Besides it is already incredible enough to find so many cases where the ideas of this particular handbook apply to. In a mere conclusion this piece of paper is amazing in all aspects. From the first section until the fifteenth it describes with such simplicity and accuracy the best ways to solve conflicts in order to be happy. Although this is so great I disagree with one of the examples to explain the first section in the handbook. It may have not been well translated, but I think that the reputation one has is because of the actions you have taken. So in the end it is up to us to win the reputation of ourselves in society. Even though the text is clear, it is funny how at the end of the first section a conclusion has the impression of being popped out of nowhere. This may happen because the reader looses the string of thoughts the writer has written. While I read the passage, I questioned myself constantly of how to know when some things are up to me and when is it not, or what is the time-being to postpone things and when is it too late. The doubt of being capable of recognizing what is the right time to do things is always fluttering over my head.
“You are an appearance” relating this quote with Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five, it resembles the appearance of dead people. Who which are not dead, but seem to be. “When a Trafalmadorian sees a corpse all he thinks is that the dead person is in a bad condition in that particular moment.”
I don’t quite understand the point of the third section of the Handbook. What is the use of kissing or naming something you are fond of? For instance what would be the use of kissing the milk just before it spills?
The fourth section is explicitly confusing; I suppose that it simply means that if you make a decision, accept the consequences of your actions and be happy.
I am happy simply for the fact of entering and tabbing each paragraph, so I am following the selfishness this passage proposes.
I believe that the fifth section is exceptionally popular because it even happens to me. Actually, it happens all the time, resulting easy to fall on this kind of suffering. People get upset for their own judgments of things and events. Learning from this fragment I will aim to achieve complete education so I don’t blame myself or others for getting upset. Besides it is so common to get upset for such silly things, that it is even difficult to get out of the frustration of being upset. Although I am not a person that frequently gets mad, I feel it is harder to get out of it than getting into the feeling of anger.
Getting happy about the superiority of something or someone else is so commonly confused with true happiness that it is funny. Including the fact that even egocentric people fall into this falsity because it is “theirs”. For instance “my bag is amazing”, what you are saying is that the bag is amazing, not you for possessing it. It is interesting that it happens so often, and we feel good about the comment.
What might the boat represent? The voyage? The captain calling? It is clear that the wife and the child are the shellfish and the vegetable, which by the way are left behind and used only for the man’s own pleasure. But the question still remains, might this saying be called from an antique way of representation we have assumed mistakenly? What I infer from this section is that family is only used for the man to take advantage of, but still it has to follow the voyage of life, without looking back. It is extremely egocentric, seeking for the happiness of only one human being, you. The happiness of others is their problem. Although the technique could work, if every single soul is fond of itself, everybody would be happy.
I believe that if you have made a hundred percent effort for something to happen, and results a completely different thing, it must be really frustrating. However the handbook suggests simply wanting things to happen as they do happen, it never mentions effort from anybody.
Simply trust your abilities to confront hardship. One of those you might be looking for first is self-control, then endurance and finally patience. Getting used to this might be hard, but it will create a confident self who will not be taken away be appearances. So in other words the only real person in the world is you.
Whatever is given to you it is not yours. Every section revolves around the idea of what is yours, what you are concerned about, what should or shouldn’t be perceived in a certain point of view. This point of view this handbook is trying to teach is individuality, selfishness and anything related to your own happiness.
“Nothing comes for free.” Even getting upset has a price. In this section a specific example is given, which involves stealing wine and spilled oil, very traditional in Greek customs. So in order to progress paying a price for tranquility is essential for your happiness. Having the slave boy as the example explains that these theories of stoicism were more influential in the upper classes of the Graeco-Roman world.
In the last sections of the Handbook, the search for progress is the main theme of the ideas, without discarding the idea of your own happiness. Reputation shows an important role in the society of this moment, since Epictetus mentions what people think about you. Actually suggests a very peculiar thing; make others think you are a mindless fool. How on earth will this help? Basically what most people suffer for is their reputation amongst their society, getting to be the most important factor of preoccupation. Why might the translator only use the word “upset”? Le mot just is essential to make this piece interesting. But this would unnecessarily confuse the audience, so using basic terminology might be a better choice.
Nothing lives forever, it is necessary to accept the loss of the ones you need to be happy. You want things that you don’t have, you want the eternal existence of your family and friends, and finally you don’t want to fail getting your desires so the only thing in your power is to let it be.
From the last passage I believe that opportunities come in the way food comes in a banquet. So I conclude from the idea of the last fifteen sections that the only things that matter are Me, Myself and I. Consequently I deduce that food makes me happy, if it makes others unhappy, it is not my business. It is a good idea to receive whatever the "giver" gives you, but treat as if it was not your property. Besides I have to pay a price for my own happiness, food that feed this happiness. But watch out, I may confuse it with true happiness by mentioning the superiority of the product I am eating and being satisfied with it.
“You are an appearance” relating this quote with Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five, it resembles the appearance of dead people. Who which are not dead, but seem to be. “When a Trafalmadorian sees a corpse all he thinks is that the dead person is in a bad condition in that particular moment.”
I don’t quite understand the point of the third section of the Handbook. What is the use of kissing or naming something you are fond of? For instance what would be the use of kissing the milk just before it spills?
The fourth section is explicitly confusing; I suppose that it simply means that if you make a decision, accept the consequences of your actions and be happy.
I am happy simply for the fact of entering and tabbing each paragraph, so I am following the selfishness this passage proposes.
I believe that the fifth section is exceptionally popular because it even happens to me. Actually, it happens all the time, resulting easy to fall on this kind of suffering. People get upset for their own judgments of things and events. Learning from this fragment I will aim to achieve complete education so I don’t blame myself or others for getting upset. Besides it is so common to get upset for such silly things, that it is even difficult to get out of the frustration of being upset. Although I am not a person that frequently gets mad, I feel it is harder to get out of it than getting into the feeling of anger.
Getting happy about the superiority of something or someone else is so commonly confused with true happiness that it is funny. Including the fact that even egocentric people fall into this falsity because it is “theirs”. For instance “my bag is amazing”, what you are saying is that the bag is amazing, not you for possessing it. It is interesting that it happens so often, and we feel good about the comment.
What might the boat represent? The voyage? The captain calling? It is clear that the wife and the child are the shellfish and the vegetable, which by the way are left behind and used only for the man’s own pleasure. But the question still remains, might this saying be called from an antique way of representation we have assumed mistakenly? What I infer from this section is that family is only used for the man to take advantage of, but still it has to follow the voyage of life, without looking back. It is extremely egocentric, seeking for the happiness of only one human being, you. The happiness of others is their problem. Although the technique could work, if every single soul is fond of itself, everybody would be happy.
I believe that if you have made a hundred percent effort for something to happen, and results a completely different thing, it must be really frustrating. However the handbook suggests simply wanting things to happen as they do happen, it never mentions effort from anybody.
Simply trust your abilities to confront hardship. One of those you might be looking for first is self-control, then endurance and finally patience. Getting used to this might be hard, but it will create a confident self who will not be taken away be appearances. So in other words the only real person in the world is you.
Whatever is given to you it is not yours. Every section revolves around the idea of what is yours, what you are concerned about, what should or shouldn’t be perceived in a certain point of view. This point of view this handbook is trying to teach is individuality, selfishness and anything related to your own happiness.
“Nothing comes for free.” Even getting upset has a price. In this section a specific example is given, which involves stealing wine and spilled oil, very traditional in Greek customs. So in order to progress paying a price for tranquility is essential for your happiness. Having the slave boy as the example explains that these theories of stoicism were more influential in the upper classes of the Graeco-Roman world.
In the last sections of the Handbook, the search for progress is the main theme of the ideas, without discarding the idea of your own happiness. Reputation shows an important role in the society of this moment, since Epictetus mentions what people think about you. Actually suggests a very peculiar thing; make others think you are a mindless fool. How on earth will this help? Basically what most people suffer for is their reputation amongst their society, getting to be the most important factor of preoccupation. Why might the translator only use the word “upset”? Le mot just is essential to make this piece interesting. But this would unnecessarily confuse the audience, so using basic terminology might be a better choice.
Nothing lives forever, it is necessary to accept the loss of the ones you need to be happy. You want things that you don’t have, you want the eternal existence of your family and friends, and finally you don’t want to fail getting your desires so the only thing in your power is to let it be.
From the last passage I believe that opportunities come in the way food comes in a banquet. So I conclude from the idea of the last fifteen sections that the only things that matter are Me, Myself and I. Consequently I deduce that food makes me happy, if it makes others unhappy, it is not my business. It is a good idea to receive whatever the "giver" gives you, but treat as if it was not your property. Besides I have to pay a price for my own happiness, food that feed this happiness. But watch out, I may confuse it with true happiness by mentioning the superiority of the product I am eating and being satisfied with it.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Ending the Nightmare
The novel is finalized with the typical world war movie ending, freedom. In representation a bird asks him, “Poo-tee-weet?” Actually it had already been mentioned at the beginning of the story of Billy Pilgrim. Like a circle, a never ending cycle. So it goes. People will keep looking dead, though Vonnegut never mentions reincarnation. So, what happens to the dead?
In the article about Vonnegut’s death, it is clear that only after death a person is recognized for his works. Every good novel and details from his creation were displayed in this TIME article. What for if he is already dead? “So it goes.” And nobody can do anything about it.
I find the first small paragraph quite confusing. I keep asking myself what is that Kurt Vonnegut never did and what did he do for too long. The author of the article does not give any clue about this argument. However the author makes an attempt to support this idea with a quote from this passed away celebrity. I believe that this quote does not fit in the paragraph or sustain the main idea of the article. The reader can ask itself, it is humorous, but what is its purpose? The reader can suppose it is the essence of this character reflected on this sole quote about his death. There are various factors that hide its functional use. For instance the fact that it is a citation that expresses black humor entertains the reader. Although it is not very intelligent what he said because he passed on. By the way it is not mentioned why he died. What kind of death is caused by injuries suffered in a fall? It creates an air of doubt in reliability of the source. He could have actually passed away because of lung cancer, a very common disease in smokers.
The information given by this article about Vonnegut mother’s death suggest that she committed suicide as a consequence of being an unsuccessful writer. I suppose that this is how Vonnegut received the genes of an untalented and depressed writer.
It is certain that this author did not get to meet Vonnegut himself, but simply read the summary of the novel Slaughterhouse-Five on Wikipedia. From this piece of literature the author based the whole article. Besides, extra commentaries from Vonnegut were recollected from the Rolling Stone Magazine. It is easy to assure that the information was recollected on a rainy Sunday while finding no other productive thing to do.
To end this article the author chose such a strange and mysterious quotation from Cat’s Cradle, novel from Vonnegut which reinstates the emptiness of life. Emphasizing the point of view about life in Vonnegut’s eyes. He whose eyes were shut from the magic of life. In his perspective, finally ending the nightmare.
In the article about Vonnegut’s death, it is clear that only after death a person is recognized for his works. Every good novel and details from his creation were displayed in this TIME article. What for if he is already dead? “So it goes.” And nobody can do anything about it.
I find the first small paragraph quite confusing. I keep asking myself what is that Kurt Vonnegut never did and what did he do for too long. The author of the article does not give any clue about this argument. However the author makes an attempt to support this idea with a quote from this passed away celebrity. I believe that this quote does not fit in the paragraph or sustain the main idea of the article. The reader can ask itself, it is humorous, but what is its purpose? The reader can suppose it is the essence of this character reflected on this sole quote about his death. There are various factors that hide its functional use. For instance the fact that it is a citation that expresses black humor entertains the reader. Although it is not very intelligent what he said because he passed on. By the way it is not mentioned why he died. What kind of death is caused by injuries suffered in a fall? It creates an air of doubt in reliability of the source. He could have actually passed away because of lung cancer, a very common disease in smokers.
The information given by this article about Vonnegut mother’s death suggest that she committed suicide as a consequence of being an unsuccessful writer. I suppose that this is how Vonnegut received the genes of an untalented and depressed writer.
It is certain that this author did not get to meet Vonnegut himself, but simply read the summary of the novel Slaughterhouse-Five on Wikipedia. From this piece of literature the author based the whole article. Besides, extra commentaries from Vonnegut were recollected from the Rolling Stone Magazine. It is easy to assure that the information was recollected on a rainy Sunday while finding no other productive thing to do.
To end this article the author chose such a strange and mysterious quotation from Cat’s Cradle, novel from Vonnegut which reinstates the emptiness of life. Emphasizing the point of view about life in Vonnegut’s eyes. He whose eyes were shut from the magic of life. In his perspective, finally ending the nightmare.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Persecution
thursday 154-182
The crash of the airplane where Billy and his father-in-law traveled on was a crucial event in the story. It is like when the wolf finds little red riding hood. This event can be taken in depth by the idea of demise persecuting Billy Pilgrim. Like in the film from 1957 The Seventh Seal, the first scene is marked by death and the allegory of itself. As the main character, Death runs after Antonius Block without the possibility of avoiding its results. Time traveling also chases Billy, who doesn’t have the power of changing his past, neither the present nor the future. With some factors which make suspense happen, indicate that death is near. For instance the lights of Dresden shut down, because of the possibility of bombers attacking. The author makes a comparison with what an amazing event could be such a daily action as the city lights turning on one by one, reflected on the Elbe River.
Death appears once again with the commentary made by the kitchen war widow.
“All the real soldiers are dead.”
For instance this can be the main theme of the motion picture released in 1972 based on this novel. In any case everything and everybody revolves around death and birth. Nothing to do about it, there is even more stress in a war which considers such brutality.
Another example of persecution by Death is the story of Professor Isak Borg in the movie Wild Strawberries released in 1957 directed by Ingmar Bergman, the same director as Tthe Seventh Seal. Getting to remind things from the past in base with the events of the present trip he makes with his daughter-in-law. Regreting, and wanting to change his past just before his death. It is interesting that many movies refer to death as a way of enslaving humans to enjoy life on real world. For instance the recently released film The Bucket List directed by Rob Reiner. Having escaped from a cancer, two men are headed on a road trip with a list to-do. Still having limited one year life-time and diagnosed with a terminal illness they intend to make their last chess game with Death.
The crash of the airplane where Billy and his father-in-law traveled on was a crucial event in the story. It is like when the wolf finds little red riding hood. This event can be taken in depth by the idea of demise persecuting Billy Pilgrim. Like in the film from 1957 The Seventh Seal, the first scene is marked by death and the allegory of itself. As the main character, Death runs after Antonius Block without the possibility of avoiding its results. Time traveling also chases Billy, who doesn’t have the power of changing his past, neither the present nor the future. With some factors which make suspense happen, indicate that death is near. For instance the lights of Dresden shut down, because of the possibility of bombers attacking. The author makes a comparison with what an amazing event could be such a daily action as the city lights turning on one by one, reflected on the Elbe River.
Death appears once again with the commentary made by the kitchen war widow.
“All the real soldiers are dead.”
For instance this can be the main theme of the motion picture released in 1972 based on this novel. In any case everything and everybody revolves around death and birth. Nothing to do about it, there is even more stress in a war which considers such brutality.
Another example of persecution by Death is the story of Professor Isak Borg in the movie Wild Strawberries released in 1957 directed by Ingmar Bergman, the same director as Tthe Seventh Seal. Getting to remind things from the past in base with the events of the present trip he makes with his daughter-in-law. Regreting, and wanting to change his past just before his death. It is interesting that many movies refer to death as a way of enslaving humans to enjoy life on real world. For instance the recently released film The Bucket List directed by Rob Reiner. Having escaped from a cancer, two men are headed on a road trip with a list to-do. Still having limited one year life-time and diagnosed with a terminal illness they intend to make their last chess game with Death.
Good against Evil
Tuesday 136-153
Listen: it would be nice to hear the author, and probably argue with him about his points of view. Especially discuss about the point where he emphasizes the theme of goodness against malice used with characters and events. Actually it reminds me of the film The Passion of the Christ where at the end the death of Jesus marks the evil-possessed hearts of humanity and the triumph of evil over sanctity. It is clearly stated when the people of Rome vote for more of the torture penalty laid upon Jesus of Nazareth. Even though this was meant to be, so at the final decision it was good who won evil by pardoning all humanities’ wrongdoings with the death of Christ.
Paul Lazzaro is the style of character psychologically hurt since the beginning of his youth. Creating traumas and making his cruel side appear. This trauma may be caused by his size and consequently socially rejected. The usual case is to be rejected by society for being different, so this personage has to defend his own self, something Billy did not do. For instance the horrible trick Lazzaro made on the dog, Billy cannot even hurt a fly. Or another point of view can be described as the seducing power of sweet vengeance taking over the character of Lazzaro, who has probably been psychologically hurt in his childhood.
On February thirteenth of 1976, Billy Pilgrim is, had and will die. It will be the triumph of evil over goodness. Lazzaro, insane and keeping his promise will shoot Billy, he says. It is clearly evident of Billy’s insanity, for instance the prediction about the division of the United States of America into twenty nations, following the idea of the US Balkanized. Although both are loosing their minds, Lazzaro has permitted his wicked side appear, while Billy has not even discovered this side yet. This refers to the polemic question, are some people born for the only purpose of being evil?
Although the death of Billy Pilgrim is not as impactating as Chirst's, who changed the rules of nature, in Billy's point of view they will only experience death for a while, as stated by Trafalmadorians.
Listen: it would be nice to hear the author, and probably argue with him about his points of view. Especially discuss about the point where he emphasizes the theme of goodness against malice used with characters and events. Actually it reminds me of the film The Passion of the Christ where at the end the death of Jesus marks the evil-possessed hearts of humanity and the triumph of evil over sanctity. It is clearly stated when the people of Rome vote for more of the torture penalty laid upon Jesus of Nazareth. Even though this was meant to be, so at the final decision it was good who won evil by pardoning all humanities’ wrongdoings with the death of Christ.
Paul Lazzaro is the style of character psychologically hurt since the beginning of his youth. Creating traumas and making his cruel side appear. This trauma may be caused by his size and consequently socially rejected. The usual case is to be rejected by society for being different, so this personage has to defend his own self, something Billy did not do. For instance the horrible trick Lazzaro made on the dog, Billy cannot even hurt a fly. Or another point of view can be described as the seducing power of sweet vengeance taking over the character of Lazzaro, who has probably been psychologically hurt in his childhood.
On February thirteenth of 1976, Billy Pilgrim is, had and will die. It will be the triumph of evil over goodness. Lazzaro, insane and keeping his promise will shoot Billy, he says. It is clearly evident of Billy’s insanity, for instance the prediction about the division of the United States of America into twenty nations, following the idea of the US Balkanized. Although both are loosing their minds, Lazzaro has permitted his wicked side appear, while Billy has not even discovered this side yet. This refers to the polemic question, are some people born for the only purpose of being evil?
Although the death of Billy Pilgrim is not as impactating as Chirst's, who changed the rules of nature, in Billy's point of view they will only experience death for a while, as stated by Trafalmadorians.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday Blog
While reading pages 119-136, Billy Pilgrim reaches a state of indifference with his wife, Valencia. He does not tell her his experiences of war with enthusiasm, but more likely in an unconcerned way. At least Billy had a millionaire father-in-law who gave him a new Buick Roadmaster, and an apparently happy future. During their honeymoon it is sad that Valencia thought she was never going to marry. She must be really ugly, but wealthy. That is the only reason she got married. Why does the author call people Earthlings even though the event is not taking place in Trafalmadore?
Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt.
This lapid might mean the time while Billy was dosed with the morphine. Even the Coronel envied him, being half dead and still counting as alive.
After his trip through time travel and the dose of morphine, the Russian captive helped this crazy American “scarecrow” to untie itself from the barbed wire. This could mean various international relationships between both countries interpreted in as simple a scene as going to the bathroom.
The sight in the latrine really wasn’t necessary, just to introduce the author into the story. It is the first time I read a piece of work where the author narrates another character, and suddenly gets himself into the story through this character. After this, did Billy really mean that he missed his wife? In my opinion, he just missed the period of peace and tidiness.
I belief it is a penetrating simile used by comparing people sleeping, with spoons resting. Basically it causes impression because it does look similar and makes a perfect image of people sleeping.
What impresses me the most is the opening sentence of Howard W. Campbell, Jr. This sentence reflects the whole way of thinking of this person; the problem is that the truth is completely opposite. For instance, when he discusses the uniform of the American soldiers, it reflects a point contradicting his first opening sentence. This politician really does not make sense.
The theory that Mr. Trout helped Billy create his own world may be proved by the appearance of Montana Wildhack on Trafalmadore.
Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt.
This lapid might mean the time while Billy was dosed with the morphine. Even the Coronel envied him, being half dead and still counting as alive.
After his trip through time travel and the dose of morphine, the Russian captive helped this crazy American “scarecrow” to untie itself from the barbed wire. This could mean various international relationships between both countries interpreted in as simple a scene as going to the bathroom.
The sight in the latrine really wasn’t necessary, just to introduce the author into the story. It is the first time I read a piece of work where the author narrates another character, and suddenly gets himself into the story through this character. After this, did Billy really mean that he missed his wife? In my opinion, he just missed the period of peace and tidiness.
I belief it is a penetrating simile used by comparing people sleeping, with spoons resting. Basically it causes impression because it does look similar and makes a perfect image of people sleeping.
What impresses me the most is the opening sentence of Howard W. Campbell, Jr. This sentence reflects the whole way of thinking of this person; the problem is that the truth is completely opposite. For instance, when he discusses the uniform of the American soldiers, it reflects a point contradicting his first opening sentence. This politician really does not make sense.
The theory that Mr. Trout helped Billy create his own world may be proved by the appearance of Montana Wildhack on Trafalmadore.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Friday Blog
During the pages 96-119, Kurt Vonnegut, speaks about the cruelty of the prison camp the Americans have just arrived to. Actually it describes the party the lucky English soldiers give to the newcomers. Evidently these novices arrived in a humiliating state. Especially Billy Pilgrim who starts a fire with the jacket the Germans give to him. In this moment the degree of degradation is such, that he was fatigued of answering questions. It is very interesting the way this dishonored soldier reacts to the play Cinderella, shrieking instead of laughing. By the way the word choice in this piece of entertainment is quite British and vulgar. This reminds me of other movies about war, naturally I’m not expecting princess-like words, but each offensive word attacks human dignity.
Under morphine, Billy feels part of the herd of giraffes, related by the height. The effects of morphine
He finds himself in the hospital near Lake Placid, New York being accused of being crazy as a cause of his childhood phobias. Very similar to the case of the book I am the Cheese, by Robert Cormier. Even the use of nature is used in both pieces of writing, the “Poo-tee-weet?” of the birds. The greatest difference is that Billy Pilgrim has no secret information to hide, nor brainwashed by the scared politicians. Both characters live their past once more, remembering their happy moments as well as experiencing the changing of time period so suddenly. In any case, both persons are completely crazy.
The character of Billy Pilgrim uses the stories from the books of Kilgore Trout to escape the horrible past he had lived. During his stay in this hospital Rosewater introduces this author to him, recognizing that this is a perfect lie to occupy his mind with. Besides his living companion, Billy has death to accompany as well, interestingly even a cup filled with water faces the claws of death.
Still in the hospital, his mother, who is still alive and embarrasses him for making her give him birth to a life he detests, visits him. At this time his father is dead and he is engaged to a fat woman daughter of the director of the Optometry College. At least he gets money from this lifetime marriage. There is a song by Harry Belafonte which says with a happy tone, “If you want to be happy for the rest of your life make an ugly woman your wife.” He falls asleep and travels again to the prison camp where the author uses humiliation and bestiality as a pretext to make this book an anti-war novel. A point of view of which I agree, war is nonsense. Who can have such courage to create weapons to kill in such a disgusting way?
While the author describes the travel to Trafalmadore, I wonder what kind of power has encursed such insanity into Kilgore Trouts head. For I know it is this personage influence that soothes the pain from Billy but as well gets him even more insane.
In this part of the novel, a new period of time in Billy’s life is introduced to the reader; he gets married and is sent out to the zoo in Trafalmadore. Meanwhile he is just getting consiousness from the morphine.
At last it is necessary to remark the answer from the crowd of trafalmadorians, which after Billy’s speech of having a planet to violent to be reasonable, simply tells him to enjoy good times and forget the past.
Under morphine, Billy feels part of the herd of giraffes, related by the height. The effects of morphine
He finds himself in the hospital near Lake Placid, New York being accused of being crazy as a cause of his childhood phobias. Very similar to the case of the book I am the Cheese, by Robert Cormier. Even the use of nature is used in both pieces of writing, the “Poo-tee-weet?” of the birds. The greatest difference is that Billy Pilgrim has no secret information to hide, nor brainwashed by the scared politicians. Both characters live their past once more, remembering their happy moments as well as experiencing the changing of time period so suddenly. In any case, both persons are completely crazy.
The character of Billy Pilgrim uses the stories from the books of Kilgore Trout to escape the horrible past he had lived. During his stay in this hospital Rosewater introduces this author to him, recognizing that this is a perfect lie to occupy his mind with. Besides his living companion, Billy has death to accompany as well, interestingly even a cup filled with water faces the claws of death.
Still in the hospital, his mother, who is still alive and embarrasses him for making her give him birth to a life he detests, visits him. At this time his father is dead and he is engaged to a fat woman daughter of the director of the Optometry College. At least he gets money from this lifetime marriage. There is a song by Harry Belafonte which says with a happy tone, “If you want to be happy for the rest of your life make an ugly woman your wife.” He falls asleep and travels again to the prison camp where the author uses humiliation and bestiality as a pretext to make this book an anti-war novel. A point of view of which I agree, war is nonsense. Who can have such courage to create weapons to kill in such a disgusting way?
While the author describes the travel to Trafalmadore, I wonder what kind of power has encursed such insanity into Kilgore Trouts head. For I know it is this personage influence that soothes the pain from Billy but as well gets him even more insane.
In this part of the novel, a new period of time in Billy’s life is introduced to the reader; he gets married and is sent out to the zoo in Trafalmadore. Meanwhile he is just getting consiousness from the morphine.
At last it is necessary to remark the answer from the crowd of trafalmadorians, which after Billy’s speech of having a planet to violent to be reasonable, simply tells him to enjoy good times and forget the past.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Thursday Blog
Chapter 4:
During this chapter the reader can experience, with more intensity, the time travel. To confirm Billy Pilgrim's insanity the book refers to Alice in Wonderland with a champagne bottle. (On page 73)"Somebody had stoppered it again. "Drink me," it seemed to say." Besides the champagne was half empty and the author stated it was dead, why did he? I still don't know. "So it goes". This happened when Billy felt he was going to be picked up by the Trafalmadorians in their flying saucer. Why does the author infer on Adam and Eve? In chapter 3 with the boy who accompanied the Germans and then on page 75 he adresses them again as "perfect people" which they aren't because of the apple. They were made by God, but still they are humans.
It is curious that Tralfamadorians don't speak, and think in such a time- scale way, for instance the moment, there is no questions. For Kurt Vonnegut, Tralfamadorians are his point of view of perfection.
What could be the meaning of the forty-year old hobo who repeated that their situation wasn't bad? Why did the old man and Weary die on the same day? What was the trauma with the Three Musketeers? Maybe to show that Billy as not the only one loosing his mind, characters like Roland Weary, and Wild Bob appeared. What I feel unfair is that this unsecure, insane Weary would start accusing poor Billy Pilgrim for his death, getting everybody against him. Already having his boxcar mates scared of him for kicking and shouting while being asleep.
It is very peculiar the introduction of the English prisoners of war, compared to the Americans and the Russians. Human dignity is destroyed with the treatment "Jerry" gives the American prisoners, for instance Billy's jacket and how it was hilarious for the English troops. It is supposed to be funny, but it gives a laugh that only sadness can show.
During this chapter the reader can experience, with more intensity, the time travel. To confirm Billy Pilgrim's insanity the book refers to Alice in Wonderland with a champagne bottle. (On page 73)"Somebody had stoppered it again. "Drink me," it seemed to say." Besides the champagne was half empty and the author stated it was dead, why did he? I still don't know. "So it goes". This happened when Billy felt he was going to be picked up by the Trafalmadorians in their flying saucer. Why does the author infer on Adam and Eve? In chapter 3 with the boy who accompanied the Germans and then on page 75 he adresses them again as "perfect people" which they aren't because of the apple. They were made by God, but still they are humans.
It is curious that Tralfamadorians don't speak, and think in such a time- scale way, for instance the moment, there is no questions. For Kurt Vonnegut, Tralfamadorians are his point of view of perfection.
What could be the meaning of the forty-year old hobo who repeated that their situation wasn't bad? Why did the old man and Weary die on the same day? What was the trauma with the Three Musketeers? Maybe to show that Billy as not the only one loosing his mind, characters like Roland Weary, and Wild Bob appeared. What I feel unfair is that this unsecure, insane Weary would start accusing poor Billy Pilgrim for his death, getting everybody against him. Already having his boxcar mates scared of him for kicking and shouting while being asleep.
It is very peculiar the introduction of the English prisoners of war, compared to the Americans and the Russians. Human dignity is destroyed with the treatment "Jerry" gives the American prisoners, for instance Billy's jacket and how it was hilarious for the English troops. It is supposed to be funny, but it gives a laugh that only sadness can show.
Tuesday Blog
Chapter 3:
How can humans make other humans suffer so much? Although it is as shoking as any other novel or movie from the Second World War. What makes this novel different from the rest is the main character, following the role of a serious case of a psycological disorder caused by inhumanities of war. Though, I wonder why does the author choose such unusual moments to make these time changes happen. It is such a drastic peace-war state of mind, that he uses it to make a greater emphasis on the horrible aspects of this particular war. As well, the movie Schindler's list also uses different characteristics to make the suffering more realistic. For instance the use of black and white through out the movie, and suddenly show a girl's red dress in the middle of a scene. It is very interesting the bursting change to color, from a dull, agonic film. In this chapter Kurt Vonnegut uses the time of peace contrasting with the time of the absence of human pride.
How can humans make other humans suffer so much? Although it is as shoking as any other novel or movie from the Second World War. What makes this novel different from the rest is the main character, following the role of a serious case of a psycological disorder caused by inhumanities of war. Though, I wonder why does the author choose such unusual moments to make these time changes happen. It is such a drastic peace-war state of mind, that he uses it to make a greater emphasis on the horrible aspects of this particular war. As well, the movie Schindler's list also uses different characteristics to make the suffering more realistic. For instance the use of black and white through out the movie, and suddenly show a girl's red dress in the middle of a scene. It is very interesting the bursting change to color, from a dull, agonic film. In this chapter Kurt Vonnegut uses the time of peace contrasting with the time of the absence of human pride.
This quote on page 60 is another particular tool he uses to mark this difference,
"God grant me
the serenity to accept
the things I cannot change,
courage
to change the things I can,
and wisdom always
to tell the
difference."
and what is even worse is that the author using his cruel humor he says that Billy, the main character who travels in time cannot change the past, the present nor the future. Personally I like this quote because it is very useful in life, although it is hoping the help from God and I believe that this are the things we have to learn by ourselves.
In conclusion, the author contrasts utopia with dystopia. To make this point more clear, we can say that utopia is Trafalmadore(his own insanity) and the real world recognized as his dystopia.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Monday Reading Blog
While reading Chapter Two from the book Slaughter-House Five (underlined) written by Kurt Vonnegut I intended to compare this piece of writing with my own life. In the least I believe I am not losing my mind, and fortunately I have not had any event in life which could suggest so. That I can remember, the worst accident I have experienced (concerning my head) was falling head first against a steel pole. It happened during gimnastics training after an intent of making a roll in the air. Well, as an effect of this I only ended up with a strange bump in the top of my head.
The most interesting paragraph from the whole chapter was in page 27 with the writing of the second letter to the newspaper. The idea of the Tralfamadorians, about life and death and time really made me think. Supposedly when a person dies it only appears it. It is just the perfect idea to console a deeply injured heart from the idea of loss. The commentary that states the controversial idea that we live in an illusion which makes us think that once a moment has passed it has gone forever. "So it goes."
I feel personally attracted to these ideas, which apply to me in a special way, since it will happen to all of us one day. So I conclude from this segment of the book that; Death, accompanied hand by hand with the cruelty of War are the reasons poor Billy Pilgrim has gone nuts.
From this fragment of the book what shocked me the most was the first sentence, which strangely enough, the author gives special importance. "Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time."(page 23) As reading this a strange envy rised, it would be so cool to have this same power! After a few sentences my feeelings became illusions, then collapsed. He did not have control of it. Besides this, the war stories he has to perish through are agonizing, which gave me the idea that each event or object could perfectly be used as punishent in the Inferno of Dante Alighieri. I feel sorry for the cause of the violence Weary uses, but I do hate the character, he is such a bully and disgusting person. I even dislike his name, it gives a weary sensation. But I feet even more sorry for Billy, his craziness based on unexpected time changes and his wishes to die, gives such a hopeless emotion.
The most interesting paragraph from the whole chapter was in page 27 with the writing of the second letter to the newspaper. The idea of the Tralfamadorians, about life and death and time really made me think. Supposedly when a person dies it only appears it. It is just the perfect idea to console a deeply injured heart from the idea of loss. The commentary that states the controversial idea that we live in an illusion which makes us think that once a moment has passed it has gone forever. "So it goes."
I feel personally attracted to these ideas, which apply to me in a special way, since it will happen to all of us one day. So I conclude from this segment of the book that; Death, accompanied hand by hand with the cruelty of War are the reasons poor Billy Pilgrim has gone nuts.
From this fragment of the book what shocked me the most was the first sentence, which strangely enough, the author gives special importance. "Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time."(page 23) As reading this a strange envy rised, it would be so cool to have this same power! After a few sentences my feeelings became illusions, then collapsed. He did not have control of it. Besides this, the war stories he has to perish through are agonizing, which gave me the idea that each event or object could perfectly be used as punishent in the Inferno of Dante Alighieri. I feel sorry for the cause of the violence Weary uses, but I do hate the character, he is such a bully and disgusting person. I even dislike his name, it gives a weary sensation. But I feet even more sorry for Billy, his craziness based on unexpected time changes and his wishes to die, gives such a hopeless emotion.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
A. What is the difference between a blog and a book?
B. How have blogs changed recently?
C. Why might you read a blog?
D. Is there reason to doubt the objectivity of a blog? Why? Why not?
E. If you kept your own blog, what would you title it?
A. After reading a piece of writing from Sarah Boxer on Volume 55, Number 2 · February 14, 2008, a new point of view about what a book and a blog differ from can be easily understood. Basically books are traditional pieces of literature; while on the other hand, blogs are “reckless” pieces of information. Just as well we can say that blogs are a fast method of wasting time. It is peculiar that books may also be looked as a slow technique of enjoying the wasted time. By the way the author describes it, books are a form of expressing art and blogs are just a way to communicate gossip. Although this point of view may be quite controversial, the definition itself explains the real difference between both. A blog can be defined as a web site that contains an online personal journal also called Weblog with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer. It can be read and responded by anyone with access to internet. As to definition, books are completely the opposite idea. Defined as: a set of written sheets of skin or paper or tablets of wood or ivory b: a set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together into a volume c: a long written or printed literary composition as well as something that yields knowledge or understanding. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Book . Books are from another generation, it is the past. Actually reading books can be easily done by internet summaries, Sparknotes for instance. Besides to write books and make it profitable, the theme has to be extremely interesting. Even more important,(just in case the topic is not that interesting) it has to follow the 5 writing traits, and contain as many literary devices as the author can create. In the other end, blogs need of no interesting topic nor complicated writing schemes. It gives the possibility of anyone(with access to internet) to enforce the right of freedom of expression. In a small conclusion books and blogs are completely opposite ideas.
B. Recently blogs have changed in a short amount of time. Consequently interrellated with new technology and the access to internet for a great quantity of people. With more people, more topics and effectively more gossip. It is more like a wheel that can´t stop, kept on inertia forever, until one day global warming will destroy everything we knew of. It could be represented as capitalism, it will grow faster within minutes. The cause of this is the simple and easy way a blog can be created, as well as commented on. The force that produces inertia is the ability for humans to create diferent points of view and the continuation of a discusion through commentaries. This way it will keep growing the number of blogs. Which it is not bad, it is just a way to entertain and spend time in an intellectual way. Getting back to the point, blogs have changed so much because of the easier way to access the internet than it was ten years ago. As well new systems to use internet have made it simpler than it was before. From mobile phones, even from iPods we have access to internet. Managing it, a 5-year old can do it. In conclusion, we have developed, and technology even more.
C. A blog might be read to keep up with recent news, comment about them, getting informed of what is happening at the other side of the world. In few words, to get communicated and spend time.
D. There is reason to doubt the objectivity of a blog, simply following the fact that we are all humans managing pieces of information. In a blog we will most certainly find bias, ideas without support, accidental mistakes, or non-accidental, we will find our own personal interests reflected through information. It is all based on communication which is the taking and giving of news.
E. If I kept a blog about myself I would not even title it because I don't have time. Only if it is schoolwork, then I would have the obligation. Thinking about it, I would prefer having many blogs, each one titled with each hobby I practice. This way I could have discussions about each sport. For instance one about swimming competitions, another about horseback-riding show competition, another about archery, other about visiting Japan/China, and finally a special one about Colombia.
B. How have blogs changed recently?
C. Why might you read a blog?
D. Is there reason to doubt the objectivity of a blog? Why? Why not?
E. If you kept your own blog, what would you title it?
A. After reading a piece of writing from Sarah Boxer on Volume 55, Number 2 · February 14, 2008, a new point of view about what a book and a blog differ from can be easily understood. Basically books are traditional pieces of literature; while on the other hand, blogs are “reckless” pieces of information. Just as well we can say that blogs are a fast method of wasting time. It is peculiar that books may also be looked as a slow technique of enjoying the wasted time. By the way the author describes it, books are a form of expressing art and blogs are just a way to communicate gossip. Although this point of view may be quite controversial, the definition itself explains the real difference between both. A blog can be defined as a web site that contains an online personal journal also called Weblog with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer. It can be read and responded by anyone with access to internet. As to definition, books are completely the opposite idea. Defined as: a set of written sheets of skin or paper or tablets of wood or ivory b: a set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together into a volume c: a long written or printed literary composition as well as something that yields knowledge or understanding. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Book . Books are from another generation, it is the past. Actually reading books can be easily done by internet summaries, Sparknotes for instance. Besides to write books and make it profitable, the theme has to be extremely interesting. Even more important,(just in case the topic is not that interesting) it has to follow the 5 writing traits, and contain as many literary devices as the author can create. In the other end, blogs need of no interesting topic nor complicated writing schemes. It gives the possibility of anyone(with access to internet) to enforce the right of freedom of expression. In a small conclusion books and blogs are completely opposite ideas.
B. Recently blogs have changed in a short amount of time. Consequently interrellated with new technology and the access to internet for a great quantity of people. With more people, more topics and effectively more gossip. It is more like a wheel that can´t stop, kept on inertia forever, until one day global warming will destroy everything we knew of. It could be represented as capitalism, it will grow faster within minutes. The cause of this is the simple and easy way a blog can be created, as well as commented on. The force that produces inertia is the ability for humans to create diferent points of view and the continuation of a discusion through commentaries. This way it will keep growing the number of blogs. Which it is not bad, it is just a way to entertain and spend time in an intellectual way. Getting back to the point, blogs have changed so much because of the easier way to access the internet than it was ten years ago. As well new systems to use internet have made it simpler than it was before. From mobile phones, even from iPods we have access to internet. Managing it, a 5-year old can do it. In conclusion, we have developed, and technology even more.
C. A blog might be read to keep up with recent news, comment about them, getting informed of what is happening at the other side of the world. In few words, to get communicated and spend time.
D. There is reason to doubt the objectivity of a blog, simply following the fact that we are all humans managing pieces of information. In a blog we will most certainly find bias, ideas without support, accidental mistakes, or non-accidental, we will find our own personal interests reflected through information. It is all based on communication which is the taking and giving of news.
E. If I kept a blog about myself I would not even title it because I don't have time. Only if it is schoolwork, then I would have the obligation. Thinking about it, I would prefer having many blogs, each one titled with each hobby I practice. This way I could have discussions about each sport. For instance one about swimming competitions, another about horseback-riding show competition, another about archery, other about visiting Japan/China, and finally a special one about Colombia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
