Postmodernism in Cat's Cradle

We’ve been considering, all along, how Cat’s Cradle helps us see an emphasis in postmodern literature on the construction of reality, rather than the objective representation of it. The idea of ‘postmodern literature’ can be interpreted in many different ways. Some would say it’s any written piece after World War II took place, or it could be described as literature with views going against those ideas occurring during the Enlightenment period. With keeping these two aspects of postmodernism in mind, it is very easy to apply the concept of postmodernism occurring in the novel Cat’s Cradle.

One reason would be that Cat’s Cradle was written in 1963; roughly ten years after World War II took place. This was about the time all postmodern concepts started to emerge within literature. In Cat’s Cradle, the idea of Newt, a character in the novel, paints a picture which seems off, or abnormal, some might say ugly, to the character of Julian Castle who states, “it’s black. What is it- hell?” Newt just nonchalantly replies, “It means whatever it means.” The idea of this dialog being postmodern is that it shows that postmodernism may conclude to no absolute truth, or maybe people are just a product of their own culture i.e. Bokononism.

Vonnegut’s playfulness with language, especially his invention of new words for Bokononism (such as karass and sin-wat) seem very postmodern. Bokononism is the belief or representation that people are a product of their culture or ‘social norm’. Because of this novel, everyone is secretly a Bokononist, or so it appears to be. This could be debated because everyone says everyone believes in the same thing, Bokononism. Others would say they’re restricted from believing anything else because of the social norm of that society. When it comes down to it, the people in this novel are influenced by their culture, whether negatively or positively, and this reflects a very postmodern viewpoint.

Gattaca, Medical Ethics, and Brave New World

Okay, so I guess it’s time for another essay to be written. I’m not going to lie; this moment has come way too soon. When stopping to think about all the different aspects of Brave New World, I think I’ve decided to compare this novel to my medical ethics unit in my Biochemistry CART class. During this unit, we had to watch the movie Gattaca and analyze the problems within that society.

This movie was about an unpleasant future; Vincent, the main character, is one of the last “natural” babies born into a sterile, genetically-enhanced world, where life expectancy and disease likelihood are ascertained at birth, wants to travel into space. Because of his “natural” birth, society has categorized him as less than suitable given his genetic make-up and he has become one of the underclass of humans that are only useful for unskilled jobs. To pursue his life-long dream of traveling to the stars, he takes the identity of Jerome Morrow, a perfect genetic specimen who is a paraplegic as a result of a car accident. Vincent learns to deceive DNA, hair, skin, and urine sample testing to match Jerome, not himself. During this time society analyzes your DNA and determines where you belong in life. This futuristic society now discriminates against your genes, not your gender, race or religion. Because Vincent was born with a congenital heart condition which would cast him out of getting a chance to travel in space, he assumes the identity of an athlete who has genes that would allow him to achieve his dream.

I feel this movie we analyzed in class really relates to the futuristic society of Brave New World. One obvious example of this is that all the babies in this society are genetically engineered and given synthetic enhancements, instead of just the natural birth process. This movie and medical ethics are outside sources that I would like to compare and relate to this novel, Brave New World.

America's School Systems and Brave New World Philosophies

A parallel I found right off the bat from this video, RSA Animate- Changing Education Paradigms, is between the American school system and the society of Brave New World. For starters, the older generations of society constantly drill into their students and kids that in order to be successful in life you need to go to school, get a college degree, to in turn obtain a good job and make decent money. Adults see the importance of this system; however it has been proven that a college degree doesn’t necessarily equal success in life; especially when it takes the identity of the child away to better fit in with the norm. This aspect of American culture best ties into how the society of Brave New World raises their children. Each is treated equally in that they are synthetically born and developed all in the same routine. “Liquor was drawn off from the test-tubes; how it was let out drop by drop onto the specially warmed slides of the microscopes; how the eggs which it contained were inspected for abnormalities; counted and transferred to a porous receptacle…to undergo Bokanovsky’s Process” (Huxley 17). Each embryo is processed identically the same as all the others so that every single being can be equal. Just like the way America’s educational system drills students into taking the same paths to success, the society of Brave New World drills the idea that each embryo needs to be evolved in the same matter to each equal productivity and success.

Also, the narrator of the video demonstrates the idea of divergent thinking; in that there’s no one “right” answer to every single question. As an example he uses the paper clip; how many different ways can a paper clip be used that you can think of? Most adults would range about 10-15 different ways, children on the other hand, before they’re introduced into the school system, can think of around 99 ways. This shows that our school system narrows our minds into thinking there’s only one correct answer, when in actuality there could be numerous answers. This philosophy pertains to Brave New World; everyone in that society believes there’s only one way to do things because the government has told them since they were merely infants. Because it’s all they’ve ever known, they are unable to consider other possibilities to do things.

Finally! The Start of Something New :)

In Brave New World, particularly in chapter 3, the passage demonstrates on how the society of this world is manipulating humans both genetically and psychologically. This society genetically engineers its embryos to fit some sort of purpose later on in life. The scientists of this world produce a certain number of smart people and a certain number of ‘dumb’ or ‘not so smart’ people so that the economic work force can always stay in balance. (For instance, the smart people become the scientists and the dumb people become the factory workers.) To a certain group of children, scientists classically condition their infants into hating books and flowers by giving them an electric shock every time they go to grab one of the two. This allows them to hate books, therefore they won’t accidentally become infatuated by books and fail to attain their true purpose in life; which was the only reason they were created.

“One hole produces a strong jet. However, many small holes produce calm streams of water.” This indicates that the mentality of this society believes that strong human emotion, whether it be inspired by family relationships, sex, and delayed satisfaction of desire, goes directly against stability and productivity. Without this stability, civilizations will cease to exist.

Furthermore, the date of the launch inauguration of the Model T by Henry Ford was chosen as the start of the new, production era. All the crosses had their tops cut off to make them look like ‘Ts’. Soon after, the new discovery of soma reached the shelves, and the problem of old age and suffering was solved; people could retain the mental and physical structure of their 30’s throughout their entire life span. Additionally, no one was allowed to sit alone and contemplate; no one was allowed “leisure from pleasure.”

A Somewhat Weird Warm-Up to the Actual Tempest Essay...

In discussions of The Tempest, by William Shakespeare, one controversial issue throughout the play has been whether or not Shakespeare meant to convey a particular view on imperialism. When looking at the opinion of George Will, The Tempest would be about this very issue. Portrayed in the story, Caliban is a native that is “civilized” and taken advantage of by outsiders. This is considered the traditional, black and white-cookie cutter view… what most people consider the play to be about. But could there be another “traditional” view? I mean after all the play was written over five hundred years or so ago. Will argues that “critics strip literature of its authority. Criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” So, in this sense, is traditional meaning and historically accepted the same thing?

On the other hand, we have critics like Stephan Greenblatt that believe that “the painful, messy struggles over rights and values” is what ultimately begins progression and prevention of cultural compliance. The Tempest can be interpreted as a direct parallel to someone else’s own experiences, and not just the traditional view. Greenblatt believes that students in this day and age are passive and simply accepting everything they are being told by teachers… just like the traditional way of learning; a teacher lectures, you listen and take notes, study, then regurgitate it on a multiple choice test, forgetting everything the very next week. Stephen Greenblatt would argue that people need to start challenging the ‘traditional’ interpretation of literary works.

All in all, I would have to say that both views have their strengths and weaknesses. Classics become classics because they can be interpreted in ways that can relate to each day in age, every new and emerging decade can benefit from its message. However I do believe it is important to consider its original or perhaps “traditional” meaning.

Literature: What's Right, What's Wrong?

After today’s class discussion on how multiple choice tests on literature are flawed, and after reading this two articles, I’ve come to find that literature; whether it be poems, novels, etc., are subjective. Not every single individual can read a piece in the same way. Literature is a way to develop our critical thinking and come up with different interpretations to its meaning, and provide evidence to back it up.

If multiple interpretations can come about when assessing the right meaning, is there truly a right meaning? If so, which one is ‘right’? Two authors have opposing issues on what’s considered right when analyzing literature. George Will’s “Literary Politics” exercises the idea that readers interpret too much into the text, most often creating false inside on what the author really wanted to portray. The second author, Stephan Greenblatt points out that more evidence points to the idea that culture, politics, religion and so on influenced authors, more so than not in his article “The Best Way to Kill Our Literature is to Turn it into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order.”

In George Will’s article, he argues that political inference become unnecessary; in a comical and absurd sort of way. “By deconstructing, or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority. Criticism displaces literature. Critics displace authors of bestowing meaning,” affirmed Will. Contrasting, Stephan Greenblatt expresses that literature has subliminal messages and ideas reflecting more than just the literal story. Greenblatt states that “art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing. A love of literature may help to forge community, but it is a community founded on imaginative freedom, the play of language…” He believes that literature in itself is an art form, it can evolve over time to mean different things relating to the current season, and taking this aspect of literature away could be detrimental.

In my opinion, I must say I don’t agree entirely to either party; both sides have some valid points. However, I do tend to lead in Stephan Greenblatt’s direction. I believe that each person’s perception; whether it be literature, movies, music, etc., is different. We as individuals have the right to view any piece the way we want to, or what they believe the author intended. I think that’s what makes some books and movies classics; because they can relate to each period in time a little differently.

Acts II and III: Shakespeare and Colonialism

After many attempts of reading the I, II, and III Acts of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, I finally can to somewhat of an understanding that Caliban is without doubt a correlation to the natives and the effect of the dominating culture today. When Prospero was duke, he spent the majority of his time gaining knowledge about the island (which he is currently now living on with is daughter Miranda) and how to ultimately live in harmony with it. Like when the Europeans first came to America and the Native Indians thought them how to survive on the unfamiliar territory, Caliban taught Prospero everything he needed to know about living on the island when he arrived. In return, Prospero decided to civilize Caliban to meet with the customs of the rest of the world, just as the Europeans did.

         

When taking a step back from the book I came to realize that possibly Shakespeare is sympathizing with the Natives today. Evidence of this sympathy is when Caliban was telling Stephano about Prospero’s depraved overtaking of the island, “he used witchcraft to take this island. He stole it from me.” With this statement it makes it seem that Caliban was the innocent one and Prospero was the wicked one; only looking out for his own selfish ambition to take the island away.

When watching the video on Native Americans, I found it to be very accurate in a sense of what they portray to the public eye. Because the white Europeans won over the Natives of America, they have the responsibility to show what the Indians did, whether it’s entirely accurate or not. In the old Hollywood films Indians were seen as bloodthirsty animals who killed the whites. Because the audience was under the influence of a one-sided story, they had very negative views of the Native Americans and very positive views of the white Europeans.

The Use of Manipulation in Shakespeare's The Tempest (Act I)

When reading Act I of The Tempest it introduced me to the world of Shakespeare, and his mysterious leading character Prospero. Because of Prospero’s vindictiveness and absolute power over the other characters in the play, it makes him very hard to like or admire, regardless of his unfortunate past.

When sharing with Miranda, his daughter, about their past experiences, Prospero in my eyes seemed to have an attitude of arrogance, and constantly asked Miranda if she was ‘paying attention’. “To what tune pleased his ear, that now he was the ivy which had hid my princely trunk, and sucked my verdure out on ’t. Thou attend’st not.” Prospero was able to gain self-respect and pity from his daughter by telling her the story of how he was taken out of power in Milan by his brother, Antonio. By manipulating her perception of her past, Prospero is able to win over her loyalty and trust.

It is evident in the play that Prospero uses violent powers as a means of controlling the world around him. For starters, he used his powers to conquer a terrible storm in the beginning of the play. “If by your art, my dearest father, you have put the wild waters in this roar, allay them” (Act I, Scene 2). Also, he threatened Caliban to comply with his wishes; otherwise he would use his powers of magic against him. After the treat, Caliban remains hesitant and rude, but ultimately follows orders; secretly wishing harm upon Prospero.

Additionally, Prospero seems to take advantage of the debts Ariel possesses to him. Ariel was a servant to Sycorax; who treated him terribly. She ended up locking him up in a pine tree; who died before she could let him out. Only people with magical powers could let him out, and Prospero did just that. However even after her debt was payed, Prospero still believed she had another year remaining.

Eliminating Bias in Public Schools by Analyzing the Text

So I must say, I enjoyed reading An Incomplete Version of the Past that Silences Important Struggles because it really opened up my eyes to the world of public education. The author, Kirsten Gardner, specifically points out the education system in Texas, and how the board changed the curriculum to favor conservative views of the United States.

 Before I negatively judge Texas however, it would be best to get both sides of the story, something that I feel Kirsten emphasizes.

When teaching our history, it’s almost impossible to not add one’s own personal bias, possibly slanting another’s view. So why, instead of just listening to the teacher lecture, shouldn’t the students participate themselves, and decipher for themselves why an occurrence happened? It’s inevitable that teachers will slant the view of their students by added one’s own personal opinion, not to mention the bias of the author who wrote the textbook. So instead of students being passive learners, they should be ACTIVE learners. Not only will this change the way students view the world, but it will also help the students develop critical thinking skills, an ability needed to acquire before entering college.

“The contemplation of different versions of the past, the analysis of evidence, and the willingness to complicate linear narratives-is not being taught in the current or proposed curriculums.”

With stating this from the article, we as students lack the ability to understand the meaning behind our past. Yes, we know that the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Japan in 1945, but do we fully comprehend why? What was Truman’s reasoning behind it? Did he consider the pros and cons? How did Japan feel after the incident? THIS is the type of history we should be learning. Because after all, the reasoning behind our country’s decision is what makes us who we are today; as a society and even as an individual.

Joshua Jordan Rupert

Joshua Rupert

 January 17th, 1991-June 22nd, 2010.

Rest in peace Joshy. You were such a blessing in my life. I love you very much, and missing you like crazy.