“Paycheck”, by Phillip K Dick, was a pretty interesting short story. It was somewhat of a mystery, but a thriller as well. Overall, I think there a couple major themes integrated into this piece of literature, but one theme seemed to dominate the story. So, I picked out a couple passages that demonstrated that select idea. The first excerpt is from page 26, and says the following:
“When an individual person was defenseless, a business was not. The big economic forces had managed to remain free, although virtually everything else had been absorbed by the Government.”
The second excerpt is from page 33: “As far as I’m concerned, I’m an individual caught between two ruthless forces: government and business.”
And the final excerpt, which is somewhat long, is from pages 51 and 53: “An individual has no place to turn to, anymore. No one to help him. He’s caught between two ruthless forces, a pawn between political and economic powers. People can’t live this way, tossed back and forth by political and economic powers. Masses of people shoved this way and that according to the needs of this government or that cartel. There’s gong to be resistance, someday. Not by big people, powerful people, but by little people.”
I think these quotes relay a powerful, major theme, which is that a citizen in today’s day and age is trapped, theoretically. We are trapped between the power and control of the government, as well as the regulations of large corporations in the world. It is almost impossible to stand alone on your own accord. In this story, Jennings is literally in conflict with the two ends of the spectrum (the government police force and the Rethrick company), but I believe this is meant to be interpreted as more than the actual conflict in the piece. I believe Jennings is an example of someone in today’s society, in which one is looking for safety and feels as if turning to one of these havens would be smart, but it turns out it isn’t, because both government and big business are becoming hurtful. And then finally, referring to the final quote I listed, I believe people are eventually going to realize this and fight back, rebel, create a resistance. This idea has been proposed before, such as in John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, in which the idea that people have the right to dissolve their government if it does not work solely in their best interest. I believe that “Paycheck” is also driving home this idea as well.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Blog Post #11 - "The Garden of Forking Paths"
“The Garden of Forking Paths”, by Jorge Luis Borges, was pretty interesting to me. As I was reading, I found myself to be confused for the most part, but I was able to piece together some information and form a general idea of what was going on. At the end of the piece, however, I got some closure, and kind of summed it all up. From what I gathered, the narrator had to let Berlin know the name of the “secret city” they must attack, and the narrator felt the only way to do so was to murder a man whose name was the name of desired city. In doing so, however, the narrator seemed to get close to this man because he owned and had studied the riddle that the narrator’s ancestor had written. Together, these two find meaning in the riddle, and it opens up new ideas to the narrator.
I did pick out a section that I found “significant”, if you will. It’s on the bottom of the second page. It doesn’t really correspond to what I have previously spoke of, but oh well.
“I told myself that the duel had already begun and that I had won the first encounter by frustrating, even if for forty minutes, even if by a stroke of fate, the attack of my adversary. I argued that this slightest of victories foreshadowed a total victory.”
I believe this is alluding to when the narrator first narrowly escapes being seen by Madden. But, in a broader sense, I feel this passage can apply to any person reading this piece of literature. If you feel you’ve won even the littlest battle, you can feel as if you can assure overall victory. This may not be too significant in relation to this story, but it stuck out to me while reading.
I did pick out a section that I found “significant”, if you will. It’s on the bottom of the second page. It doesn’t really correspond to what I have previously spoke of, but oh well.
“I told myself that the duel had already begun and that I had won the first encounter by frustrating, even if for forty minutes, even if by a stroke of fate, the attack of my adversary. I argued that this slightest of victories foreshadowed a total victory.”
I believe this is alluding to when the narrator first narrowly escapes being seen by Madden. But, in a broader sense, I feel this passage can apply to any person reading this piece of literature. If you feel you’ve won even the littlest battle, you can feel as if you can assure overall victory. This may not be too significant in relation to this story, but it stuck out to me while reading.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Blog Post #10 - Change
Blog Post #10
I thoroughly enjoyed reading through Act IV of The Crucible. It was very entertaining and made me want to continue reading. There were a couple sections of the text that I found significant; one more than the other, but both interesting in my opinion. The first excerpt is on page 96, when the people of the court are speaking of the poppets that may or may not have been in the Proctor’s home.
Parris: Why could there not have been poppets hid where no one ever saw them?
Proctor: There might also be a dragon with five legs in my house, but no one has ever seen it.
Parris: We are here, Your Honor, precisely to discover what no one has ever seen.
When I was reading, this section struck me as interesting. Everyone is arguing about the witchcraft objects, poppets; a small, tangible object that is considered during the trial. But, the line that Parris says, about how everyone is there to discover what no one has ever seen, stuck out to me. He’s speaking about the whole witchcraft idea, and is relating a small idea to the grand scheme of everything. It may be miniscule, but I found it interesting.
The next passage is at the end of Act IV, on page 110, when Mary Warren, exposes Proctor to the court and tells that he is, in fact, in contact with the devil. While I was reading, this came as a huge shock. In my head, I was visualizing the court room in my head, and when I read this, I could totally envision it. This information really changes the play, and really makes me want to finish this piece of literature.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading through Act IV of The Crucible. It was very entertaining and made me want to continue reading. There were a couple sections of the text that I found significant; one more than the other, but both interesting in my opinion. The first excerpt is on page 96, when the people of the court are speaking of the poppets that may or may not have been in the Proctor’s home.
Parris: Why could there not have been poppets hid where no one ever saw them?
Proctor: There might also be a dragon with five legs in my house, but no one has ever seen it.
Parris: We are here, Your Honor, precisely to discover what no one has ever seen.
When I was reading, this section struck me as interesting. Everyone is arguing about the witchcraft objects, poppets; a small, tangible object that is considered during the trial. But, the line that Parris says, about how everyone is there to discover what no one has ever seen, stuck out to me. He’s speaking about the whole witchcraft idea, and is relating a small idea to the grand scheme of everything. It may be miniscule, but I found it interesting.
The next passage is at the end of Act IV, on page 110, when Mary Warren, exposes Proctor to the court and tells that he is, in fact, in contact with the devil. While I was reading, this came as a huge shock. In my head, I was visualizing the court room in my head, and when I read this, I could totally envision it. This information really changes the play, and really makes me want to finish this piece of literature.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Blog Post #9 - Paranoia
Blog Post #9
So, somehow, I totally forgot to write my blog post last Thursday. I’m hoping this isn’t too late.
Compared to The Crying of Lot 49, The Crucible, in my opinion, is a much better and easy to read book. I used to find myself drudging through The Crying of Lot 49, but with The Crucible, I am flying through pages and enjoying the book quite a bit. The only gripe I have, so far, is all the different characters. I believe we’ve been introduced to most of them, which is good, but as of now, I’m still having to go back and re-read certain passages to refresh my memory. It’s not too bad, however, and it’s getting easier.
A passage that I found interesting, or significant, was on pages 61 through 64. We actually spoke about it in class, but I meant to write about before our class. Anyway, this passage is where Hale comes to visit Proctor and Elizabeth, and questions them about a few things to prove their innocence. I think this passage is pretty significant, mainly because it shows to what extent the people of Salem went to in order to find out who was practicing witchcraft. The questions Hale asks, such as why the couple doesn’t attend church that often, why only two of their three boys are baptized, or if Proctor knows all the Ten Commandments, just prove how serious these people are. It proves the idea of paranoia that we spoke of in class; the people of Salem were paranoid when it came to witchcraft, and this passage shows how the process of finding people guilty or innocent sat on that same line of paranoia and insanity.
So, somehow, I totally forgot to write my blog post last Thursday. I’m hoping this isn’t too late.
Compared to The Crying of Lot 49, The Crucible, in my opinion, is a much better and easy to read book. I used to find myself drudging through The Crying of Lot 49, but with The Crucible, I am flying through pages and enjoying the book quite a bit. The only gripe I have, so far, is all the different characters. I believe we’ve been introduced to most of them, which is good, but as of now, I’m still having to go back and re-read certain passages to refresh my memory. It’s not too bad, however, and it’s getting easier.
A passage that I found interesting, or significant, was on pages 61 through 64. We actually spoke about it in class, but I meant to write about before our class. Anyway, this passage is where Hale comes to visit Proctor and Elizabeth, and questions them about a few things to prove their innocence. I think this passage is pretty significant, mainly because it shows to what extent the people of Salem went to in order to find out who was practicing witchcraft. The questions Hale asks, such as why the couple doesn’t attend church that often, why only two of their three boys are baptized, or if Proctor knows all the Ten Commandments, just prove how serious these people are. It proves the idea of paranoia that we spoke of in class; the people of Salem were paranoid when it came to witchcraft, and this passage shows how the process of finding people guilty or innocent sat on that same line of paranoia and insanity.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Blog Post #8
Blog Post #8
Dana Watson
As I was finishing up The Crying of Lot 49, I came across a passage that seemed almost identical to a movie I have seen pretty recently. The passage is on pages 91 through 94, and explains how the founder of the W.A.S.T.E. almost took his life, but then decided not to. Then, towards the end of the excerpt, it tells about how the man will found a society of isolates, dedicated to swear off love. Well, this passage closely resembles the movie Wristcutters: A Love Story. In this movie, the plot resembles around characters who all commit suicide in the real world. After taking their life, rather than going to heaven or hell, they are taken to a new, desolate place and start a whole new life with others who have killed themselves. Also, in this new society they are apart of, emotions are not allowed; they cannot smile at all.
As I was reading, I pieced together quite a lot of similarities between the book and the movie. In both, those who are suicidal only want to be surrounded and contact by those who have the same thoughts and feelings as themselves (letters to the founder of WASTE and the “society of isolates”, as well as the suicidal community in Wristcutters). Also, both instances are void of any emotion. In the book, the founder wants a society of isolates that swear off love, whereas in the movie, emotions are forbidden.
Now, I’m guessing The Crying of Lot 49 and Wristcutters: A Love Story have no bearing on each other at all, but I just found the similarities to be quite interesting.
Dana Watson
As I was finishing up The Crying of Lot 49, I came across a passage that seemed almost identical to a movie I have seen pretty recently. The passage is on pages 91 through 94, and explains how the founder of the W.A.S.T.E. almost took his life, but then decided not to. Then, towards the end of the excerpt, it tells about how the man will found a society of isolates, dedicated to swear off love. Well, this passage closely resembles the movie Wristcutters: A Love Story. In this movie, the plot resembles around characters who all commit suicide in the real world. After taking their life, rather than going to heaven or hell, they are taken to a new, desolate place and start a whole new life with others who have killed themselves. Also, in this new society they are apart of, emotions are not allowed; they cannot smile at all.
As I was reading, I pieced together quite a lot of similarities between the book and the movie. In both, those who are suicidal only want to be surrounded and contact by those who have the same thoughts and feelings as themselves (letters to the founder of WASTE and the “society of isolates”, as well as the suicidal community in Wristcutters). Also, both instances are void of any emotion. In the book, the founder wants a society of isolates that swear off love, whereas in the movie, emotions are forbidden.
Now, I’m guessing The Crying of Lot 49 and Wristcutters: A Love Story have no bearing on each other at all, but I just found the similarities to be quite interesting.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Blog Post #7
Blog Post #7
Dana Watson
As I’ve been reading through the Crying of Lot 49, I’ve been trying to solve the “mystery” along with Oedipa, in which the book is centered around. But, however, I’m finding it really difficult to find a connection between everything we’ve found out and how it all fits together. In the book, it seems that in every chapter, Oedipa finds out two or three new facts, clues, or leads to work with, but when that happens, I get even more confused. Also, the whole book is just hard to take as a serious mysery novel, mainly because leads that Oedipa discovers never become evident so easily. For example, in chapter four, when Oedipa “got lost” during the stockholder’s meeting and runs into Stanley Koteks and receives a bunch of information; that’s hard to believe. But, I guess it comes with this type of novel. Overall, I’m just confused with the direction of the book. I’ve re-read portions and usually read parts of each chapter multiple times, but there are still a lot of holes for me. I may be reading through the book in a lighter way than I should; maybe I should dig deeper into the text and get the real meaning or message. As of right now, though, you could say that I’m pretty lost.
Dana Watson
As I’ve been reading through the Crying of Lot 49, I’ve been trying to solve the “mystery” along with Oedipa, in which the book is centered around. But, however, I’m finding it really difficult to find a connection between everything we’ve found out and how it all fits together. In the book, it seems that in every chapter, Oedipa finds out two or three new facts, clues, or leads to work with, but when that happens, I get even more confused. Also, the whole book is just hard to take as a serious mysery novel, mainly because leads that Oedipa discovers never become evident so easily. For example, in chapter four, when Oedipa “got lost” during the stockholder’s meeting and runs into Stanley Koteks and receives a bunch of information; that’s hard to believe. But, I guess it comes with this type of novel. Overall, I’m just confused with the direction of the book. I’ve re-read portions and usually read parts of each chapter multiple times, but there are still a lot of holes for me. I may be reading through the book in a lighter way than I should; maybe I should dig deeper into the text and get the real meaning or message. As of right now, though, you could say that I’m pretty lost.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Blog Post #6 - Evolution of Oedipa
Blog Post #6
As I have been continuing my journey through The Crying of Lot 49, I’ve become to think a lot deeper into the person that is Odepia. At first, I didn’t really know what to think of her. To me, initially, she just seemed to be a little cooky, and, for lack of a better word, a slut. She plays with the advances of other men, and she also cheated on her husband with Metzger. But now, as she’s going to San Narciso and learning more about Pierce and his business deals, it seems as if she’s becoming more a serious character. Maybe, as the book progresses, she becomes more serious about the executing of the will and everything that it involves. Because now, she seems like she really wants to learn about the whole “bone” situation. I read about the island and boat part, but it seemed a little confusing at first – basically I got that Pierce bought bones from a country, or something. I don’t know; as of right now, I’m still trying to get a feel for book and where it is headed, as well as the characters and how they are going to evolve throughout the rest of the novel.
As I have been continuing my journey through The Crying of Lot 49, I’ve become to think a lot deeper into the person that is Odepia. At first, I didn’t really know what to think of her. To me, initially, she just seemed to be a little cooky, and, for lack of a better word, a slut. She plays with the advances of other men, and she also cheated on her husband with Metzger. But now, as she’s going to San Narciso and learning more about Pierce and his business deals, it seems as if she’s becoming more a serious character. Maybe, as the book progresses, she becomes more serious about the executing of the will and everything that it involves. Because now, she seems like she really wants to learn about the whole “bone” situation. I read about the island and boat part, but it seemed a little confusing at first – basically I got that Pierce bought bones from a country, or something. I don’t know; as of right now, I’m still trying to get a feel for book and where it is headed, as well as the characters and how they are going to evolve throughout the rest of the novel.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Blog Post #5 - Needle
As I started reading The Crying of Lot 49, I realized there was a lot more thought and meaning hidden deeper into the text than I thought there was going to be. I read through the first two chapters initially, but found myself going back to re-read the chapters a second time to fully grasp the events and possibly find any satire or symbolism that I possibly missed.
I came across a passage, where the town of San Narciso is described, and found it to be symbolic, perhaps. The passage is from the bottom of page 13 through the bottom of page 15. Here a few specific portions from that large section:
“But it had been Pierce’s domicile: the place he’d begun his land speculating…, and so put down the plinth course of capital on which everything afterward had been built, however rickety or grotesque, toward the sky…would set the spot apart. But, if there was any vital difference between it and the rest of Southern California, it was invisible on first glance.”
I think this passage is pretty symbolic of Pierce and his personality, perhaps. This city is a big city – high skyscrapers, big buildings, but most of them built poorly and grotesque-looking. The passage makes it seem that Pierce didn’t care what it looked like – he just wanted the city, “his” city, to become and icon in California. So, when Oedipa arrived, she became aware of the “real” city: smog everywhere, buildings surrounded by barbed wire, and large industries.
The next short passage is on the bottom of page 15. It is as follows:
“What the road really was, was this hypodermic needle, inserted somewhere into the vein of a freeway, a vein nourishing the mainliner L.A., keeping it happy, coherent, protected from pain, or whatever passes, with a city, for pain.”
I think this quote is very significant explaining San Narciso. It basically says that this city was created to be an outlet of all things bad that are associated with Los Angeles. San Narciso is a city created to nourish L.A. and keep it pure and protected from evils; evils that take haven in San Narciso. So, this shows what kind of town that San Narciso is and how the feelings of the characters, while in this city, are justified.
I came across a passage, where the town of San Narciso is described, and found it to be symbolic, perhaps. The passage is from the bottom of page 13 through the bottom of page 15. Here a few specific portions from that large section:
“But it had been Pierce’s domicile: the place he’d begun his land speculating…, and so put down the plinth course of capital on which everything afterward had been built, however rickety or grotesque, toward the sky…would set the spot apart. But, if there was any vital difference between it and the rest of Southern California, it was invisible on first glance.”
I think this passage is pretty symbolic of Pierce and his personality, perhaps. This city is a big city – high skyscrapers, big buildings, but most of them built poorly and grotesque-looking. The passage makes it seem that Pierce didn’t care what it looked like – he just wanted the city, “his” city, to become and icon in California. So, when Oedipa arrived, she became aware of the “real” city: smog everywhere, buildings surrounded by barbed wire, and large industries.
The next short passage is on the bottom of page 15. It is as follows:
“What the road really was, was this hypodermic needle, inserted somewhere into the vein of a freeway, a vein nourishing the mainliner L.A., keeping it happy, coherent, protected from pain, or whatever passes, with a city, for pain.”
I think this quote is very significant explaining San Narciso. It basically says that this city was created to be an outlet of all things bad that are associated with Los Angeles. San Narciso is a city created to nourish L.A. and keep it pure and protected from evils; evils that take haven in San Narciso. So, this shows what kind of town that San Narciso is and how the feelings of the characters, while in this city, are justified.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Blog Post #4 - The Transformation
Dana Watson
Blog Post #4
As I finished the book this week, I really started to notice a change in Gulliver. In the beginning of Gulliver’s Travels, Gulliver was somewhat indifferent towards his situations and just learned to adapt. In the second portion of the book, you slowly see Gulliver become cynical and change his views towards humans in general. Then, finally, in the last part of the book, where he is on the island with the Houyhnhnms, he totally changes and forms strong hatred towards human people, or yahoos, because of his long and life-changing stay with the Houyhnhnms. His enjoyment of being on that island is cited in several places throughout the last portion of the book. Here are a couple:
On the top of page 254, Gulliver explains that during his stay with the Houyhnhnms, he never:
“found the treachery of a friend, nor lawyer to ruin my fortune… Here there were no pick-pockets, no cheating shopkeepers, nor lewd, expensive wives…”. There's actually a whole paragraph devoted to vices and temptations he didn't have to face when on the island.
And continued to page 255, Gulliver explains how much he loves the island how attached to the people he had gotten. And then finally, on page 257, when he was informed that he had to leave the country:
“I was struck with the utmost grief and despair…and that death would have been too great an happiness rather than to leave…”.
These passages show how much he enjoyed the island with the Houyhnhnms and how much he hurt when he had to leave. He saw this island as a utopia.
Once he left though, his cynicism toward other Yahoos really started to show.
On page 264, Gulliver “strove to conceal my antipathy to human kind”, and then on page 265, his hate towards humans is taken to a whole new level, when Gulliver says “…my family received me with great surprise and joy…but I must freely confress the sight of them filled me only with hatred, disgust and contempt.”
Gulliver’s views of humans (Yahoos) totally changed when he was in the presence of the Houyhnhnms. He learned of the vices and troubles that humans have and how corrupt and impure our race really is. So, once he returns to England, he is just disgusted with everyone around him, and even himself at times. I think these passages are very significant, because it really shows his change in character that took place throughout the book, culminating in some strong feelings that you would have never really picked up at the beginning of the book.
Blog Post #4
As I finished the book this week, I really started to notice a change in Gulliver. In the beginning of Gulliver’s Travels, Gulliver was somewhat indifferent towards his situations and just learned to adapt. In the second portion of the book, you slowly see Gulliver become cynical and change his views towards humans in general. Then, finally, in the last part of the book, where he is on the island with the Houyhnhnms, he totally changes and forms strong hatred towards human people, or yahoos, because of his long and life-changing stay with the Houyhnhnms. His enjoyment of being on that island is cited in several places throughout the last portion of the book. Here are a couple:
On the top of page 254, Gulliver explains that during his stay with the Houyhnhnms, he never:
“found the treachery of a friend, nor lawyer to ruin my fortune… Here there were no pick-pockets, no cheating shopkeepers, nor lewd, expensive wives…”. There's actually a whole paragraph devoted to vices and temptations he didn't have to face when on the island.
And continued to page 255, Gulliver explains how much he loves the island how attached to the people he had gotten. And then finally, on page 257, when he was informed that he had to leave the country:
“I was struck with the utmost grief and despair…and that death would have been too great an happiness rather than to leave…”.
These passages show how much he enjoyed the island with the Houyhnhnms and how much he hurt when he had to leave. He saw this island as a utopia.
Once he left though, his cynicism toward other Yahoos really started to show.
On page 264, Gulliver “strove to conceal my antipathy to human kind”, and then on page 265, his hate towards humans is taken to a whole new level, when Gulliver says “…my family received me with great surprise and joy…but I must freely confress the sight of them filled me only with hatred, disgust and contempt.”
Gulliver’s views of humans (Yahoos) totally changed when he was in the presence of the Houyhnhnms. He learned of the vices and troubles that humans have and how corrupt and impure our race really is. So, once he returns to England, he is just disgusted with everyone around him, and even himself at times. I think these passages are very significant, because it really shows his change in character that took place throughout the book, culminating in some strong feelings that you would have never really picked up at the beginning of the book.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Blog Post #3 - Oh, politics...
As I was reading through Gulliver’s Travels this week, I lost some interest during some parts that just seemed hard to stay engaged with; I don’t know why, exactly, but it was just a little tougher for me. But, when Gulliver was allowed to visit the Academy of Lagado in the Metropolis, I couldn’t put the book down. I just thought it was really interesting all of the different professors working in the academy and all the crazy inventions and ideas they were working on. Some of the ideas they possessed seemed a little too crazy and even a little hard to comprehend, but some were somewhat feasible and comical, such as the idea to abolish all words for health reasons and to replace language with the association of things. Or, the disgusting project to pick apart human feces and recreate the food that the waste was composed of. Another project that is implausible but kind of fun to think about, was the architect that was working on building buildings from the roof down, contrary to what has been done in the past.
A passage I found that was really significant to me is on page 176, the third paragraph and running to the top of page 177. It is when Gulliver is speaking with the ingenious doctor that was well-versed in the system of government. Here’s an excerpt:
“He likewise directed, that every Senator in the great Council of a Nation…should be obliged to give his vote directly contrary; because if that were done, the result would infallibly terminate in the good of the public.”
This passage literally made me laugh out loud. To me, it shows that Swift is just making fun of politicians here. He’s saying that when politicians vote, they always seem to vote for what the public doesn’t want. Here’s insinuating that politicians have no idea what their constituents want and when voting, should go against their judgment, since that is what the public wants.
The next passage, which is the last paragraph on page 176, is another passage poking fun at politicians. Here’s an excerpt:
“…you take leaders of each party, find a couple whose heads are nearest of a size; then let two operators saw off the occiput of each, so the brain is equally divided. Let the occiputs be interchanged, applying the head of his opposite party-man.”
This passage is basically saying that politicians can never agree, and the only solution is to cut their brains in half, so that the two parties can each occupy one part of the brain, in hopes of actually coming to solutions in government. I think that so far, in this book, this is the most satirical passage I’ve come across. Swift is just blatantly making fun of politicians and the government in general, which seems pretty significant.
A passage I found that was really significant to me is on page 176, the third paragraph and running to the top of page 177. It is when Gulliver is speaking with the ingenious doctor that was well-versed in the system of government. Here’s an excerpt:
“He likewise directed, that every Senator in the great Council of a Nation…should be obliged to give his vote directly contrary; because if that were done, the result would infallibly terminate in the good of the public.”
This passage literally made me laugh out loud. To me, it shows that Swift is just making fun of politicians here. He’s saying that when politicians vote, they always seem to vote for what the public doesn’t want. Here’s insinuating that politicians have no idea what their constituents want and when voting, should go against their judgment, since that is what the public wants.
The next passage, which is the last paragraph on page 176, is another passage poking fun at politicians. Here’s an excerpt:
“…you take leaders of each party, find a couple whose heads are nearest of a size; then let two operators saw off the occiput of each, so the brain is equally divided. Let the occiputs be interchanged, applying the head of his opposite party-man.”
This passage is basically saying that politicians can never agree, and the only solution is to cut their brains in half, so that the two parties can each occupy one part of the brain, in hopes of actually coming to solutions in government. I think that so far, in this book, this is the most satirical passage I’ve come across. Swift is just blatantly making fun of politicians and the government in general, which seems pretty significant.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Blog Post #2 - "The state can't hug children."
As I was reading through the first portion of Gulliver’s Travels, I came across a passage that really hit home for me and I could easily relate to. It also helps explains the Lilliputians a little more, but I was mostly taken aback as to how this passage reminds me of one of my biggest role models and favorite teachers throughout my schooling. The passage is as follows:
“… For the Lilliputians think nothing can be more unjust, than for People, in subservience to their own Appetites, to bring Children into the World, and leave the Burthen of supporting them on the public.”
Concerning the nation of Lilliput and the inhabitants of it, this passage shows that the Lilliputians care about their kin. They feel that if you bring them into the world, you tend and care for them. I think this shows that their morals and values are in the right place and shows us that their beliefs aren’t really far from our own.
On a separate note, this passage really relates to me. My favorite teacher, coach, and role model in my life, Mr. Jerry Becker, has been apart of my life for as long as I remember. But, when I read this passage in Gulliver’s Travels, a certain memory of Coach Becker popped into my head. During his College Government lectures my junior year of high school, he would always splice in little life lessons during his class, and one of his most-stated lesson and most passionate advice was this:
“Never, and I repeat, NEVER, bring children into this world unless you can care and provide for them. Do NOT bring children into this world and expect the state to take care of them. The state cannot hug children.”
The passage in Gulliver’s Travels is almost identical to what Mr. Becker always said to us kids. For me, I found that pretty interesting, as well as significant… well, in my eyes at least.
“… For the Lilliputians think nothing can be more unjust, than for People, in subservience to their own Appetites, to bring Children into the World, and leave the Burthen of supporting them on the public.”
Concerning the nation of Lilliput and the inhabitants of it, this passage shows that the Lilliputians care about their kin. They feel that if you bring them into the world, you tend and care for them. I think this shows that their morals and values are in the right place and shows us that their beliefs aren’t really far from our own.
On a separate note, this passage really relates to me. My favorite teacher, coach, and role model in my life, Mr. Jerry Becker, has been apart of my life for as long as I remember. But, when I read this passage in Gulliver’s Travels, a certain memory of Coach Becker popped into my head. During his College Government lectures my junior year of high school, he would always splice in little life lessons during his class, and one of his most-stated lesson and most passionate advice was this:
“Never, and I repeat, NEVER, bring children into this world unless you can care and provide for them. Do NOT bring children into this world and expect the state to take care of them. The state cannot hug children.”
The passage in Gulliver’s Travels is almost identical to what Mr. Becker always said to us kids. For me, I found that pretty interesting, as well as significant… well, in my eyes at least.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Blog #1 - We've all been there.
Although confusing at first, the poem “Marriage” had certain passages in it that I could really relate to and found pretty interesting.
The first passage:
“When she introduces me to her parents, back straightened, hair finally combed, strangled by a tie…”
I found this passage significant to me, mainly because I have been in this type of situation, which I’m assuming many have before. When you meet your significant other’s parents, you do your best to impress them, usually by being well-groomed, dressed properly, and overly polite. I just find how the author wrote about this type of uncomfortable situation back during his time and how it still applies today, in the 21st century, to be interesting. It seems like nothing has changed.
This second passage is a little different. I feel the author was being very satirical here, and foresaw how society might be in the future:
“…not rural no snow no quiet window, but hot smelly tight New York City, seven flights up, roaches and rats in the walls, a fat Reichian wife screeching over potatoes Get a job! And five nose running brats in love with Batman.”
I just find it kind of comical how he knows that not everyone will end up in that cookie-cutter lifestyle they dream of, especially those that lived in the 1950s. Everyone thinks they will live the ideal life, including the author, but then if you think about it, there’s always that opposite side of the spectrum that exists. I also feel that what he wrote kind of generalizes, or pokes fun, at today’s society. Nowadays, there are families that eat around a television instead of a table and idolize superheroes more than real role models.
Even if the author didn’t mean to put this much emphasis on these passages, I find them to stand out when I read through the poem.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
