Crapshootin’: A Writer’s-Blocked Freewrite

So, I have no clue what to write about. It’s AMAZINGLY frustrating, feeling like this. Am I the only one incapable of sitting down and writing something of substance or is this a common phenomenon? Maybe I should try hypnotherapy or drinking Smartwater or something. I hear it’s done wonders for Jennifer Aniston! Oh wait…no I haven’t….

I’m not beating this whole 300-word-count thing, am I?? *sigh*

I suppose this is something like what Art experienced in Chapter 2, albeit to a much lesser (and less important) degree. I guess I could write about that: the struggle, turmoil, and frustration inherent to expression.

Then again, there isn’t really that much about it in the book, and then my essay runs the risk of becoming nothing more than the convoluted, melancholy whining of an angsty teenage “artist.”

Hey, what about those Scott McCloud articles! Maybe I could discuss comics’ function as a storytelling medium, like what makes it work and what makes it difficult (I found those articles very intriguing). Then, I could also discuss why Art struggles so much with drawing Auschwitz in comic form.

While I’m at it, I could analyze how Maus successfully conveys the author’s intent through the comic devices pointed out by Mr. McCloud (maybe I should find that book and read the whole thing…). I suppose I could consider how it’s ineffective as well. Nah, better not; don’t want to bite off more than I can chew.

Ooo, I liked Spiegelman’s use of the animal “masks” he has all the characters wear (and why he then calls attention to their, er, “maskiness”). He seems almost self-conscious through out this book as a storyteller. Almost self debasing. A very postmodern attitude, in my opinion. We feel kind of like we’ve seen it all, like we know so much and are so aware of the “tricks of the trade” in storytelling that it we feel the need to let the reader know that we know that they know what we’re doing, and that we can all have a good laugh at our trying to be smooth.

Yeah, this could work…(Wow, I’ve become a big fan of elipses recently…I should watch that…)

Or I’ll end up writing about something else entirely.

Okay, I'll just jump right into my thoughts on this article:

While the intial title of this article is to me a tad misleading, I do agree with the message of the article. I myself have experienced the same ADD-like symptoms that Nichola Carr and others described. "Media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation."

And perhaps the trade-off for this internet age will be worth it. The gains in knowledge, progess, and efficiency may benefit our generation in ways that far out way any criticisms. However, I agree with Carr that it is changing us and we have to consider what these changes mean for us as individuals.

I also found Carr's discussion of Friedrich Nietzsche and how the method through which we communicate affects what we communicate. I know that I much prefer to write 1st drafts of my creative writing by hand and in cute notebooks; my mind feels far more relaxed and able to let ideas flow. (In fact, I've begun to consider writing the first draft of my academic essays by hand before typing it) Prior to reading this article, I had not been willing to take seriously the fact that how you do something can affect what you are doing, but why not?

Done! I think...

“What does it mean?”—Well, since you asked…

“The Death of Postmodernism.” A dramatic title, to say the least.

Unfortunately, as with most of my blogs, I am writing this with a slight sense of uncertainty. I’m afraid my mind has not completely absorbed all of Dr. Kirby’s article—not to mention that video (which I re-watched)—so forgive me if I only comment on aspects of both that immediately piqued my interest. I also apologize if there are a lot of typos (there will be) and I seem to jump from topic to topic.

One of the first things that struck me in both the video and the article was how much information is being not only transmitted, but created. Entirely new things, that have never been tested by prior generations, are being thrust into our lives now. For me, this provokes the concerns that I’m sure every respectable lab rat has encountered, as well as a slightly more philosophical question: As we need to absorb more and more new knowledge just to survive in this increasingly technological world, will the human brain have to “make room” for this info? And if so how? I believe Dr. Kirby might have that answer, as he talked about the “technologised cluelessness [that] is utterly contemporary…He or she can direct the course of national television programmes, but does not know how to make him or herself something to eat.” This fusion of power and helplessness kind of puts the human race out on limb. As we become increasingly dependent on technology to accomplish menial tasks, nuclear winter looks less and less desirable…

Another thing that stuck out to me, this time in just the article, was Kirby’s commentary on the “desire to return to the infantile” that he sees in pseudo-modern society. The entire final paragraph of the article, all I could think of was Brave New World. At the point in the novel when John Savage is addressing the Deltas awaiting their soma ration when he askes them if they “like being babies?…Mewling and puking.” This is a reference to a monologue in Shakespeare’s As You Like It where the character is talking about the seven stages of a man’s life; “mewling and puking” is used to describe the infants. Will/has this rapid influx of information and technology actually had the effect of suspending the human race, rather than advancing it?

The pseudo-modern turn towards primitivism is , to me, not terribly unexpected. Theoretically, postmodernism becoming such a specialized Discourse (in both content and language) that it gradually alienated the common man, widening significantly the gap between the intellectuals and the common man. (see Cat's Cradle Ch 11: Protein) As a result, when Joe Average once again gained hold of the reigns of pop culture through pseudo-modernism's penchant for interactivity, content naturally verred in the direction of the primal; the masses were undergoing artistic/intellectual denegration while postmodernists where busy talking Grand Narratives.

I think I’ll end it here. Thanks for reading, Reader!

Caution! Postmodernist at work.

Well,  here we are again, I suppose. Another blog; another attempt to make sense. Let us begin…

Cat’s Cradle, to me thus far, just screams postmodernism. The random hops from topic to topic seem in keeping with postmodernism’s lack-of-structure theorums. Additionally, the characters that have been mentioned are more than a little unconventional, and Vonnegut clipped, witty writing style serves to highlight everyone’s absurdities.

More specifically, there is the character of Dr. Felix Hoenikker; both he and John (or should I call him “Jonah”) are posterboys for postmodernism. Felix is completely indifferent to any set moral code. Why, when one scientist says to Felix following the first atomic bomb’s explosion, “Science has now known sin”, Felix glibly replies “What is sin?” (p.17) Now THERE’S a postmodernist question if I ever saw one! After all, in order for one to judge right from wrong , one must hold some truths to be self-evident; one must have some sort of moral center against which one can compare shades of gray—a metanarrative of some kind. The postmodernist notion that there is no such thing as absolute truth, that metanarratives can only be trusted to marginalize lesser narratives aligns quite nicely with Felix’s refusal to subscribe to a moral code.

Then, of course, there is Bokononism, revealed through the eyes of John (Jonah). It seems perplexing, almost impossible that a religion that admits to being false can still gain followers. This deeply reflects, in my mind, the postmodernist ability to hold two contradictor thoughts at the same time, rather like double think. (ie: There are no more metanarratives. P.S. This is a metanarrative. –-Love, Jean-François Lyotard)  Bokononist know that their religion is made of lies, yet they live by it’s rule’s and feel secure in the sense of purpose it gives their lives. I believe Vonnegut is making commentary on both religion and the human race through this religion. First, he is saying that all religions are equally false and founded on lies—anything, I suspect he is saying, that claims there is sense in this madness we call life must be founded on lies. But on the other, I believe he is also saying that human beings need a sense of purpose in this world to keep from going crazy. Bokononism admits to being false, bypassing the fanaticism that would spring from a religion that its follower’s believed to be true, while giving its believers the illusion of something solid to rest their feet on. Add the concepts of “karasses” and “sinookas” (p.6), and you’ve got Postmodernist religion at its best, I presume.

A Brave New Freewrite

In case you missed the title, this is a freewrite and therefore probably won’t make sense to anyone outside of my head. So in advance I would like to say: My bad!

There are several themes, or questions, that have caught my interest while reading Brave New World. Some of them actually emerged from our Socratic circle last Wednesday. (Thanks, Pavin!) One of them is whether our society today is closer to the New World or the Savage Reservation. Along those same lines, I wonder if which one Huxley’s society was closer to at the time of his writing BNW. He most likely saw it as heading towards the New World, which then raises the question, did Huxley’s writing of Brave New World succeed in inoculating society against certain evils. Exactly what evils are those? And another question that has been nagging at the back of mind since about chapter 3: What gives Huxley the authority to try and correct society. I understand that he has every right to write a book (Haha! “right to write”. Funny.) get it published, we all do. But why should we worry about anything he says? How are we to know that he was seeing the world accurately, that he’s a visionary rather than a crackpot?

My thesis would revolve around the relationship between the societies in the novel and real world societies. I would also place an emphasis on the life and times of Aldous Huxley himself—gathering research from outside resources like (auto)biographies, the encyclopedia, and the internet—in an attempt to see how much the man influenced the work and how that affects the relevence of the novel now.

FIN. C];{D

But where do I put my safety line…?

I begin this week’s blog with an unnerving uncertainty. Somehow that seems fitting given all this talk of postmodernism, metanarrative-destruction, and navigating the general nebulousness that is our sorry human existence.

Postmodernism and I have a bit of a love-hate relationship, I’m afraid. One second I’m rejoicing in its recognition of marginalized minorities, and the next I am perplexed by its ability to contradict its own theories. (As in: “But isn’t Lyotard’s story about disbelief in metanarratives just another metanarrative?” Yeah, explain that! Wait, you’re not going to explain it?! You’re just gunna say “Yes.” and move on?!?!?! WTF??!??!)

The entire realm of Postmodern thought seems determined to tear one from his/her mental footholds and hurl one, flailing, into a great abyss of ambiguity and conjecture. It’s rather unsettling, I must say.

Now, I consider myself a bit of a thrill-seeker; few things give me more pleasure than the squirm of my stomach during a drop on a rollercoaster, the cheering of an audience after making it through a live performance in one piece, or even the surprised looks of friends and family after getting an extreme hair cut. ( ;{D ) But even in these instances, I have some sort of safety line protecting me from total desolation; rollercoasters are carefully planned and built so that margin of error is infinitesimally small, performances are preceded by hours (sometimes years) of practice and training, and I had pictured myself with short hair for so long that I wasn’t too shocked by what I saw when it came time for the actual cut. When it comes to my world view, my Christianity is my safety line—my metanarrative, if you will—and I refuse to abandon it for more reasons than I am able to name at this point in time. So where does that leave me in regards to Postmodernism—a way of thinking that demands one leave all the absolutes at the front door?

Vlog Colab >8D

The fabulous Jessica Arnold and I teamed up this week to produce a video discussing the questions Mr. D gave us on BNW.

While we possess many positive traits (ie: beauty, brains, irresistible charm, etc.), staying on topic is not one of them. Due to this slight tendency to ramble and/or digress, the video ended up being 20 minutes long and I had to split it into 2 parts. The 2nd vid can be found on Jessica's blog.

I hope you find this somewhat interesting; it was fun for us at least. :)

EDIT: for some reason the whole video isn't showing up in this window and as a result we can only see half of Jessica's face (you may have noticed that the volume button is cut off as well). I suggest you link to the actual video so that you can see all of Miss Arnold's lovely features. Here ya go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv9wqNq-I14

Let’s see where this road leads…

So, I guess this is my first blog post. (Captain Obvious has reported for duty.)

Does anyone else feel slightly awkward doing this? No? Just me? …‘kay.

Despite spending quite a bit of time ruminating on this subject, I admit to being a little lost for words. (Watch this turn into a 1,000+ word post.) In many ways, I feel as if this topic is rather pointless.

When I say pointless, I’m not implying that the question of how to handle history/education is at all unimportant, quite the opposite in fact. I merely believe that things will continue to go on as they have always gone on. What ever group holds the power will tell the story from their perspective. Who controls the present DOES, in my opinion, control the past. And who controls the past DOES control the future. After all, how better to influence the next generation than through interpretation and/or manipulation of the past?  At least until “[the High loses] either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side…. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle splits off…and the struggle begins again.” (1984 p.166) Gee, thanks, Mr. Orwell!

The fact that further representation of minority groups in history is even becoming an issue is a sign of the shifting of power the world. Through innovations in both transportation and communication, the world is both shrinking and growing. It is getting easier and easier to travel further and further, making the physical distance between Discourses (U C WUT I DID THAR??? ;{D ) shrink relative to time. Conversely, by being able to more easily interact with a higher number of Discourses, our perceptions of the world around us are being forced to expand, or at least acknowledge, the perceptions of others. (The “our” and “us” I speak of are all human beings as a whole of individuals. The “others” refers to the instinctual distinction all human beings draw when encountering someone outside our the Discourse we are intimate with)

If I may be allowed a slight change in subject, I would like to address something I said in class on Wednesday. I have not heard any complaints, but I just wanted to clarify my stance in regards to race relations in history.  I certainly hope that no one inferred from my little shpeel on Wednesday that I believe bigotry and ignorance to be traits especially inherent to those gosh-darn Caucasoids.  I’m not so foolish! Bigotry and ignorance are universal because fear is universal and I know that had African tribes stormed Europe and raped Europe of its resources or Native Americans sailed across the Atlantic and “discovered” Spain, we would be debating similar social/ethical/political/economic gray areas today.  Only the role of the players would be different. If there is one thing growing up biracial has taught me it’s that neither good nor bad is race specific. I just feel that’s it’s important to ask the hard questions like “Who is the ‘us’ in American History?”, to challenge the status quo. Even if a status quo will always exist, i think it’s important that we acknowledge it’s existence.

 

558 words. Not too shabby, wot wot! C];{D

Oh wait. 569.