A Key Idea from This Semester

The main reason why I felt that this video represents one of the key ideas of the course so far is the content of the poem itself. The poem, The Laughing Heart by Charles Bukowski, urges readers to charge of their lives and live life to the fullest. It can be translated to this course as a message to actively participate in and take control of our learning, allowing it to make us well-rounded, intelligent people. Many of the things we do in this class deal with that idea, but I felt that this was the most blunt example.

Epigram

An epigram is a terse or witty statement, often found in verse.

Latin poet Martial is known for his twelve books of Epigrams. The video below shows a recitation of a few of them.

(Warning: crazyrabbit, as he calls himself, isn’t the most entertaining fellow to watch… but these examples are excellent as far as epigrams go… so bear with me, and watch it. :) )




Epigrams can also be humorous, like these:



• "No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend."
(Groucho Marx)

• "I am not young enough to know everything."
(Oscar Wilde)


epigram-icons Images


Or more insightful/satirical, like these:


epigram Pictures

• "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."
(Tacitus)

Either way, an epigram is short, pointed, and (most importantly) full of meaning.

Thinking Outside the Box, Take 2

Although Plato and Sartre had different intentions in writing each of their respective pieces ("Allegory of the Cave" for describing effective leaders and "No Exit" for describing the existentialist vision of a true "hell") they both took advantage of several literary techniques, such as allegory and symbolism, to describe the limitations of human thought.

"Allegory of the Cave" and "No Exit" were two allegories that illuminated their author's philosophy regarding the way humans think. Both Plato and Sartre used a form of symbolism to demonstrate the idea that our concept of reality restricts our ability to think/act freely. For Plato, this was manifested graphically by shackles chained around the cave-dwellers bodies, physically limiting the men's abilities to view the real world. Sartre's example was much less graphic, and much more implied. One example of symbolism in "No Exit" would be the representational value of the character Garcin.

Because the men imprisoned in "Allegory of the Cave" were shackled in a certain position, they were incapable of seeing everything that was happening behind them. (There stood the puppeteers that cast Forms in front of the light.) Instead they could only see images reflected onto one of the cave walls-- shadows. These shadows are abstractions, ideas that are separated from their tangible form. Because they were chained in for all of their lives, they were comfortable with their condition-- implying that they innately believed everything they saw reflected on the cave wall was real. However, Plato insists that the men are intellectually limited to realizing what is real because they constantly mistake the abstractions for the real thing. For instance, if one of the puppeteers held an object like a pencil up to the light, the men would see the image on the cave wall and say "I see a pencil." When taken at face value, this seems quite reasonable. But Plato points out that the speaker is wrong because he is in fact seeing the shadow of a pencil, not an actual pencil. The man doesn't realize that he is wrong because never knew differently from the shadows, therefore they had no reason to disbelieve what he saw. What is important here, and what I am getting at, is that Plato believed that our thinking was limited and/or flawed at birth. This is shown by the fact that the men (representative of society at-large) are being kept in the cave against their own will. All that they ever knew were the shadows, the abstractions; they must be disabused of their perception of reality by the enlightened philosophers.

As an existentialist, Sartre gave a very different interpretation on why human thought is limited. Existentialists focus on the fact that humans think differently about their own existence and mortality than other animals do. They tend to examine how the human mind copes with the ideas of true individuality, the possibility of empathy, and the authenticity of our motivations through internal reflection. This is primarily why Sartre's philosophies are so much different from Plato's. With "No Exit", Sartre demonstrated that man creates his own hell by thinking about his being and his existence. For example, Garcin was entirely consumed with reflecting on his life on Earth. At one point in the play, he called on his roommate, (for lack of a better term), Inez to pass judgment on whether or not he was a coward. Since Garcin felt that she had encountered many of the same moral obstacles during her lifetime that he had, he assumed that she would identify with his struggles and ultimately support him. His "torture", and what made the room so hellish for him, was the fact that his Inez refused to empathize with him. In this case, Garcin was limited to thinking about his short-comings because he refused to be candid and true with himself about his actions on Earth. Sartre implies that man (symbolized by Garcin) is completely aware of his true nature, as seen by Garcin's anxiety and guilt, but refuses to accept it, thus restricting his ability to think freely and inadvertently creating a sort of personal hell.

Both pieces venture even further into the human psyche to explain why an expansion of the human mind is nearly impossible for its characters by giving them an opportunity to escape their confines and explore another world. In "Allegory of the Cave" the prisoners are confronted by freed man who claims to have seen the Forms and knows what is real and what is abstract. Though the men are given a chance to escape the cave and the confines of their thinking, they revolt against the man and kill him. This could only be explained by an innate human fear of the unknown, demonstrated by the men's rejection of the free man's assertions. They were so comfortable with their own sense of reality that they would-- and did-- kill to preserve that norm. A similar scenario occurs in "No Exit". When the door opened upon Garcin's request, and he and Estelle where given a chance to escape their hells, they refused to walk out of the door. Even Inez, who completely resented the torture that Garcin and Estelle bestowed upon her, was afraid to be thrown out. This is because they were all so desperately afraid of the unknown that they would "rather bear those ills [they] have Than fly to otters that [they] know not of."

Thinking Outside of the Box

Although Plato and Sartre had different intentions in writing each of their respective pieces ("The Allegory of the Cave" for describing effective leaders and "No Exit" for describing the existentialist vision of a true "hell") they illuminated very similar limitations on human thought.

Both Plato and Sartre used a form of symbolism to demonstrate the power that a fear of the unknown possess over the mind. For Plato, this was manifested graphically by shackles chained around the cave-dwellers bodies, physically limiting the men's abilities to ascertain new knowledge. The fear was also shown in the men's rejection of the free man's assertions. They were so comfortable with their own sense of reality that the would-- and did-- kill to preserve that norm.

Sartre's example was much less graphic, yet so entirely conspicuous and blatant it could not be ignored. When Garcin and Estelle where given a chance to escape their hell they refused to walk out of the door. Even Inez was afraid to be thrown out. This was because they were all so desperately afraid of the unknown they would "rather bear those ills [they] have Than fly to otters that [they] know not of". (I couldn't resist...) This fear is the very same fear that shows up in Plato's "Allegory of the Cave", and it also restricts the characters' abilities to think and act.

The Big Question.

My big question deals with the human psychological state of anxiety. Specifically, I want to explore three main questions: (1) what is the nature of anxiety? (2) to what extent is it genetic, environmental, cultural, or learned? and (3) how can one effectively manage or cope with their anxieties?

Hamlet versus Beowulf

The difference between Hamlet and Beowulf lies with the influence that self-overhearing holds over Hamlet. Beowulf did not concern himself with over-analyzing his actions, reconsidering his motives, or foreseeing the consequences that would befall him. His words did not constitute his actions. He simply did what he felt was necessary of him.

Beowulf, like the several other heroic figures of the era, did not waver over decisions and consequences. He acted impulsively, without regard. For example, when Beowulf heard that the danes were in trouble he immediately set out to help them. He didn't think much of whether or not his men wanted to go with him, or if his presence would even be welcome in Denmark, he just felt that it was his responsibility as a great warrior to take their battle (with Grendel) upon himself.

There's a scene in the play where Hamlet witnesses a similar sort of dutifullness. In act IV scene iv Hamlet comes across the men of King Fortinbras headed for battle over a small plot of worthless land. His conversation with the captain reveals that even though over twenty thousand men may lose their lived over this squabble, they feel no ambivalence because it is simply their responsibility to fight for their king and their land. Upon his astonishment, Hamlet utters: "How stand I then, That have a father killed, a mother stained, Excitements of my reason and my blood, And let all sleep". During this soliloquy Hamlet self-overhears and realizes that he has all the reason in the world to kill Claudius; all he needs is the conviction. From this session, Hamlet learns that he mustn't have context to take revenge on Claudius, as he thought when he first saw the players, and resolves to kill his uncle.

The example above also shows the role that language plays in Hamlet. Since Hamlet is stuck in a sort of paralysis, he relies on his thought processes and his words to motivate him to action, and sometimes to explain his inaction.

The "to be or not to be..." soliloquy is an example of Halmet's dependence on thought and reflection to explain his inability to act. Although Hamlet has already decided to avenge his father, he still has not done it, and continues to buy time with endless reanalysis. During the soliloquy Hamlet self-overhears to discover what is truly holding him back-- "the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country". He says: "To die, to sleep-- To sleep-- perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub, For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause." Hamlet reveals his inability to act with that statement alone. He admits that the consequences of his actions (in this case, the life after death) are far too great to be ignored. "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all".

Beowulf would never be caught second guessing himself, much less allowing his own thought-process render himself impotent to fulfill his responsibilities. As you can see, the role of language is much greater in Hamlet than it is in other epics like Beowulf, and distinctly characterizes Hamlet as a unique type of protagonist/hero.

Performative Utterances in Hamlet

It is a common misconception that Prince Hamlet’s ultimate struggle, his dilemma, is whether or not to avenge his father. However, after studying Shakespeare’s Hamlet, it is evident that Prince Hamlet never wavered over that decision. Hamlet resolved to exact revenge on his uncle very early in the play. His true difficulty is in connecting his words and his actions. For example, even though he decides to avenge his father, he repeatedly fails to allow his thoughts to manifest in real-life actions (i.e. killing Claudius). This can be explained through Fredrik de Boer’s paper on performative utterances, in which he explains the character of Hamlet through J.L. Austin’s theory of performativity and Harold Bloom’s idea of self-overhearing.
 
Austin’s theory of performativity explains the power of spoken language by dividing it into three forces: the locutionary, the illocutionary, and the perlocutionary forces. The locutionary force consists simply of the words that are said; the illocutionary force is the way that the words are interpreted, or what is meant/implied; and the perlocutionary force is the response to or the consequence of what was said. Austin holds that these three forces are responsible for language’s ability to create a sense of reality by establishing facts in the world and, in some cases, constituting action.

The character of Hamlet is certainly one of those cases. Hamlet is characterized by his inability to kill Claudius. While some think this is because Hamlet is insane, others think it is because he is depressed and indecisive. The truth, to the contrary, is that Hamlet is neither mad, nor irresolute; he simply lacks the ability to translate his thoughts into action. Thus, his words (thoughts) are his only form of execution. This is why Austin’s theory of performativity is pivotal to understanding Hamlet the character, and in a greater sense, Hamlet the play.

Hamlet’s action exists in the transition from the locutionary to the perlocutionary forces. Since he suffers some kind of psychological paralysis—which will be discussed later on through Bloom’s idea of self-overhearing—Hamlet is incapable of physically taking revenge on Claudius. Therefore he must use his words to manipulate the other characters in the play. Hamlet choreographs his “mad” outbursts to draw certain reactions from Gertrude, Claudius, Polonius, and the others. Forcing everyone around him to concentrate on something as significant as insanity distracts them from Hamlet’s true thoughts and allows him ample time (and opportunity) to kill Claudius. For example, hhhidhhdsgjlhljhgfjbfdsljbgslkjkljnbsbsnlnnnlfdHamlet uses his interactions with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to feign a sort of madness. He reacts to their presence with rage and incomprehensible utterances (locutionary), causing them to believe that he is insane (perlocutionary). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern then report back to Claudius and Gertrude that Hamlet is still in bad temper. This keeps them wondering what could be troubling him, defining certain plot events and giving Hamlet the time he needs to take out his uncle.

Another example of Austin’s performative language is the play acting in Act II. Hamlet is astonished at how the player’s words, devoid of meaning or context, can be delivered with so much conviction (illocutionary) as to draw such an impressive response from his audience (perlocutionary). This causes Hamlet to recognize his own flaw and reflect upon it.

This reflection comes in the form of what Harold Bloom calls self-overhearing. Self-overhearing is any instance in which a character hears himself speaking and consequently learns about himself or his motivations. Immediately after Hamlet meets the players, he undergoes a self-overhearing process (Act II, scene ii). In this scene Hamlet realizes the power of words and his own inability to act with conviction. He develops. Hamlet continues to develop with every sequential soliloquy. Though it is not a form of action for Hamlet, self-overhearing is his means of growth, allowing him to realize his ultimate flaw and motivate him to act against Claudius.

Just as self-overhearing plays a big role in Hamlet, it has played a big role in my life. When I think about the decisions I have to make I often tend to actually stop and think about why I want to go with a certain option and why that would/would not be a good decision. This self-overhearing session gives me insight into my character and motivations. It also creates a sense of reality. Though I do not believe that it defines who I am, I do believe that it refines my memory of the past. For example, if I tell myself a story about what happened on any particular day, I find myself revising it; I think of things that could have happened to make the situation better or funnier and inadvertently change my memory of the event.

Thus, performative utterances play a tremendous role in the development of the characters in Hamlet and in myself. In Hamlet, Austin’s theory of performativity explained Hamlet’s form of action and Bloom’s self-overhearing explained Hamlet’s character development. Self-overhearing has also had an impact on my sense of reality by giving me insight into myself and motivations, and by minutely altering my memories.

Guest Speaker: Roy Christopher

Roy Christopher joined our English class today via video chat. He spoke briefly about himself, technology, and the impact of digital media. These are my notes:

Roy Christopher—Background

·         Became interested in the internet during the mid-nineties, when he learned that it was an easier way to distribute his BMX/skateboarding magazines

o    His friend (who was in web-development) introduced him to it, and it was a “slippery slope” ever since

§  The internet was barely growing during this time, so it was impossible not to get completely sucked in

·         His self-published book has begun to sell more now than it did when it first came out 4-5 years ago        

o    Attributes this to the fact that people are learning more and more about the internet and social media, making his ideas more significant/understandable/relevant

·         Focuses on mash-ups, remixes, and repurposing technology… not ramifications of social media

His view on Technology

·         Cited Program or Be Programmed by Douglas Rushkoff

o    Said learning about technology is just like learning about your car: you don’t need to know every detail about how exactly it works, but the more you know, the more prepared and “digitally mature” you are

·         Learning technology is like working out or mowing your lawn: some people will do it, some people won’t

o    For example, he doesn’t have a  car or smart phone because those are technologies that he has chosen not to participate in

§  **This idea poses problems:

·         Can you ignore the evolution of technology, or is there a point where it is necessary to adapt?

·         Although it seems like mobile technology is moving in to supplant older technologies (i.e. television, desktop computers), big things, like movies and books and complex web-pages, will always require technologies like the TV and the desktop computer because they are too difficult to view on mobile devices

o    Doesn’t buy into the whole sci-fi idea of rapidly growing technology taking over our lives just yet

·         Believes the older generations should trust the youth with new culture and technology

o    Every generation has that suspicion, that resentment of the fact that the new generation is destroying your generation’s traditions

o    People his age grew up just fine, even though the older generation was discouraged

o    The practice of changing the way you talk for different mediums is nothing new, so “text talk” shouldn’t be an excuse for the older generations to bag on the younger

·         Technology is only a vehicle to your “end”

o    It doesn’t change your motives or goals, it just helps you get to the ones you already had either more quickly, or more efficiently

o    You can choose what technologies to use and to which extent you use them; we are in control of the technologies, not the other way around

Advent horizons

·         “A fish knows nothing of water.” – Marshal McLuhan

o    Technology that was invented either before or very early in a person’s life has virtually no effect on the person

§  They grew up with it, so it’s natural to them (called digital natives)

·         Advantages:

o    If they are born into, they are more accustomed to it, more fluent

o    They can teach it to others and potentially replace the digital immigrants that don’t understand as well

“The medium is the message.” – Marshal McLuhan

·         The nature of each individual medium forces the characters/aspects of a story to be changed in translations from medium to medium

o    For example, in the books, James Bond is smooth, suave, incognito; but on film he is overtly physical and obnoxious

Learn more about Roy Christopher on his website: http://roychristopher.com/

Literary Analysis: Of Mice and Men

1.     Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck is about two migrant workers, George and Lennie, who travel to the Soledad area during the 1930’s. (Lennie is very child-like and has a mild mental disability and a troublesome past, so he must depend on George for guidance and protection; George is a small, quick-witted man who is devoted to protecting his friend Lennie.) When they arrive in Soledad, George and Lennie begin working on a farm in return for small payment and housing. They meet several men on the farm, and are able to befriend all of them except for Curly, the farm owner’s son. Candy, the farm’s oldest worker, has a dog that gives birth to a group of puppies and dies shortly after. He gives Lennie one of the puppies to keep, because he knows that Lennie likes soft things. One night, Lennie slips out to the barn to visit his puppy. Though he only meant to pet it, Lennie accidently crushed it. He freaked out, and Curly’s wife tries to help him. Lennie tries to keep her quiet and accidently kills her, as well. George finds Lennie and tells him to go hide in the woods where they slept before they got to the farm. When the men find out what’s happened they set off to find Lennie and hang him. George is able to get to Lennie first, and shoots him in the back of the head as a final act of kindness/protection for his friend.

2.     There are two major themes to this novel: the importance of friendship/companionship, and the pursuit of the American dream.

At some point in the novella everyone, with the exception of George and Lennie, harbors a feeling of loneliness. All of the workers travel alone; Candy feels broken and alone when his dog (and best friend) is put down;Crooks admits loneliness; even Curly’s wife feels lonely, as suggested by her constant need for attention and reaching out to Lennie. The only two characters who don’t feel that pain are George and Lennie, who have always had each other. This is also shown by the devotion that these two have to each other (mostly George’s dedication to Lennie) and by the astonishment that everyone shows when they learn that George an Lennie travel together. Also, the story is set in a town called Soledad, which means

The second theme, the pursuit of the American dream, pops up frequently throughout the novella, with the most obvious example being George and Lennie’s dream of one day owning a self-sustain, isolated ranch of their own. Candy indulges this dream with the hopes of owning a couple of acres. Even Crooks gets in on it with the hopes of farming a small garden on Lennie’s property. Another example would be Curly’s wife’s secret ambitions. Although she had given herself up to an unhappy marriage, she always dreamt of living a better life as an actress, as she confessed to Lennie just before dying.

3.     The tone changes throughout the novel, but the most notable change is the one from hopeful to hopeless or denial.

Hopeful:

·         “Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don’t belong no place. . . . With us it ain’t like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us. We don’t have to sit in no bar room blowin’ in our jack jus’ because we got no place else to go. If them other guys gets in jail they can rot for all anybody gives a damn. But not us.”

·         “S’pose they was a carnival or a circus come to town, or a ball game, or any damn thing.” Old Candy nodded in appreciation of the idea. “We’d just go to her,” George said. “We wouldn’t ask nobody if we could. Jus’ say, ‘We’ll go to her,’ an’ we would. Jus’ milk the cow and sling some grain to the chickens an’ go to her.”

            Hopeless:

·         “I seen hundreds of men come by on the road an’ on the ranches, with their bindles on their back an’ that same damn thing in their heads . . . every damn one of ’em’s got a little piece of land in his head. An’ never a God damn one of ’em ever gets it. Just like heaven. Ever’body wants a little piece of lan’. I read plenty of books out here. Nobody never gets to heaven, and nobody gets no land.”

4.     Imagery:

·         “They had walked in single file down the path, and even in the open one stayed behind the other. Both were dressed in denim trousers and in denim coats with brass buttons. Both wore black, shapeless hats and both carried tight blanket rolls slung over their shoulders. The first man was small and quick, dark of face, with restless eyes and sharp, strong features. Every part of him was defined: small, strong hands, slender arms, a thin and bony nose. Behind him walked his opposite, a huge man, shapeless of face, with large, pale eyes, and wide, sloping shoulders; and he walked heavily, dragging his feet a little, the way a bear drags his paws. His arms did not swing at his sides, but hung loosely.”

            Foreshadowing:

·         “ ‘’Course you did. Well, look. Lennie—if you jus’ happen to get in trouble like you always done before, I want you to come right here an’ hide in the brush.’”

            Dramatic Irony:

·         Well, the quote is too long to post, because it contains the entirety of, like, four pages… so I’ll explain it instead. George finds Lennie in the clearing that he told him to hide in. Lennie asks George to tell him about the happy future that they’re going to live together, and he is overcome with joy. George has Lennie remove his hat and look out across the river and image the ranch as George describes it to him. Lennie smiles and is relieved that George isn’t mad at him for killing the puppy and Curly’s wife. George holds a gun to the back of Lennie’s head and does him in before the other men get to him. This is dramatic irony because Lennie is completely oblivious to what’s happening, and the readers would have never guessed that George would be the one to kill Lennie.

Tools That Change the Way We Think

"Back in 2004, I asked [Google founders] Page and Brin what they saw as the future of Google search. 'It will be included in people's brains,' said Page. 'When you think about something and don't really know much about it, you will automatically get information.'

'That's true,' said Brin. 'Ultimately I view Google as a way to augment your brain with the knowledge of the world. Right now you go into your computer and type a phrase, but you can imagine that it could be easier in the future, that you can have just devices you talk into, or you can have computers that pay attention to what's going on around them and suggest useful information.'

'Somebody introduces themselves to you, and your watch goes to your web page,' said Page. 'Or if you met this person two years ago, this is what they said to you... Eventually you'll have the implant, where if you think about a fact, it will just tell you the answer."

-From In the Plex by Steven Levy (p.67)

Answer this not-so-simple question: How does extensive Internet/media/technology use change the way you think? Focus on your memory, your ability to concentrate, your sense of time and priorities, and the subjects/topics that interest you most.

Learning about the Internet and technology and web 2.0, and such, has forced me to begin to think about how my thinking processes have been affected. Upon reflection, I have realized that I’ve (automatically) become lazier, for lack of a better word, and increasingly less able to maintain a high level of concentration and/or focus. I am constantly getting sidetracked; I find it hard to stay focused on one task at a time; I constantly feel the need to move on to something different; I want to move through things quicker. I can hardly sit down and read an academic text for longer than twenty minutes before I start checking how much is left, itching to skim through the remainder, move on, and just get someone else to fill me in on what I missed.

I think that most of these consequences stem from the rapidity and brevity of information shared through technology. For example, if I want to research President Lincoln’s role in the Civil War all I would have to do is type “lincoln + civil war” into the search engine and out comes about 24,700,000 results in only .17 seconds. Simple enough. But if I wanted to do this very same research offline I would have to actually read through a number of texts and decipher the useful information for myself. Just twenty short years ago this was the norm. But now, with all of the advances made in technology and Internet sharing, offline research is perceived to be inefficient and, consequently, rendered obsolete.

These values are definitely reflected in the tendencies I mentioned above. Why sift through (what feels like) mountains of information when everything that I need is just a click away? My frequent/prolonged use of technology has me convinced that the internet is a much better and more effective resource than a reference/text book.

In Search Of..

Some questions to think about during Eli Pariser's talk (seen here):

a)     What new information did you learn from the video?

b)    How does this information make you think differently about what you see online?

c)     What questions does this video raise about the Internet in general? And

d)    How can you improve the effectiveness of your searches?

And my own answers:

a)   I was surprised to learn that Google search results are different for every person/computer, and that most sites (Washington Post and New York Times included) tailor the information on your screen to you.

b)   It alarms me. I never realized that I was getting such a small percentage of the information available to me. I feel like I’ve missed out on some things that I probably should know about.

c)   The video raises several questions. One being who really is in control of your internet experience—you or the algorithm writer? Another question addressed was if the internet has lived up to its reputation as the great information resource. If the internet is only shelling out a small percentage of the information on a subject, is it really that good of a resource? Or does its bias hinder the user’s learning?

d)   Since the information output is based on all of my past activities, I can’t really think of a quick way to circumvent the filters. I suppose a deliberate effort to switch up my browsing habits could throw a couple of kinks into the algorithm and hopefully diversify my results.

Notes on Hamlet

            Upon learning that we were about to begin Shakespeare’s Hamlet I was not at all excited or motivated to read it. Though I can hardly say that I get excited to read each assigned portion, I no longer dread reading Shakespeare. After learning different ways to augment my understanding of the text I have actually began to enjoy Hamlet.

            With this new understanding of the text I have learned a lot about the characters, particularly Prince Hamlet. I went into the play with the preconception that Hamlet was crazy and emotionally unstable. After studying the plot events and Hamlet’s soliloquies I have learned that he is in fact very thoughtful and methodical.

            As for the remainder of the play, I predict that Hamlet will pull even more ploys to ensure that he is ready to take the revenge. He is constantly rethinking and reanalyzing his actions, the repercussions of his actions, and even the consequences of those repercussions. This behavior will likely extend throughout the play, forcing Hamlet to spend tons of thought on each of his decisions.

To Facebook, or Not to Facebook?

This post is in response to Emily Bazelon's article in the NY Times, "Why Facebook is After Your Kids", published October 12, 2011.

Facebook. Why such a fuss about Facebook? Honestly, who really cares about any of this stuff? I'm absolutely positive that not one of my classmates has ever given thought to the subjects discussed in the article, nor did they ever intend to. And I'm almost equally certain that none of them are going to go home tonight and change every last security setting on their profile. It's ridiculous.

Today, my teacher made the comment that he did not assign the article to incite "paranoia"-- with the stipulation that "paranoia" is, by definition, an irrational fear-- but to make us aware of the very enlightening and very alarming realities of the online world. He said that things like public information sharing are things worth fearing.

Not to make him sound irrational, but believing that every little thing you post on the Internet CAN AND WILL be seen/used by anyone and everyone in the world seems a little paranoid to me.

Yes, I do understand that almost everything we post on Facebook is viewable by others ("friends of friends", to be specific), and yes, I do understand that Facebook examines our "likes" and couples them with bits of information or ads that it calculates we might also like. I get it. What I don't get is why that is so scary to some people. Why wouldn't I like to see ads for things that correspond to my interests? I'm not going to go hunting just because I saw an ad for a great deal for hunting rifles on Facebook. (I'm not a big fan of hunting, by the way..) It wouldn't make sense to have advertisements all over my page that have no relevance to my interests. And just a quick note, I don't think that the world revovles around me or even that everyone thinks the same way I do; I'm not delusional.

I also fully understand the idea of a "digital footprint", and that once something is on the Internet it is very, very difficult (if not impossible) to remove. But I don't think that means that there is no such thing as privacy. For example, if you log on to your Facebook account and find the "Privacy Settings" menu, or even the "Security Settings" menu, you will find a dozen different ways that you can control who can view your posts and information. (Once all of your settings are conducive to maintaining your privacy, the worry that advertising companies are stealing your information and using them to their advantage should fade.)

So I guess what I got from the article and from our in-class discussionis a better understanding of the so-called risks of Facebook (namely, broadcasting the details of my life to an audience unknown), or any social-networking website for that matter. I will continue to be conscious of what I post online.

Who Was Shakespeare?

The Man

William Shakespeare was supposedly born April 23, 1564 to John Shakespeare and Mary Arden, a couple living in Stratford-upon-Avon.  John Shakespeare was a glover, successful leather merchant, alderman, and high bailiff of Stratford.  His mother, Mary Arden, was a land-owning local heiress.  The couple was relatively prosperous during William’s early life, but any wealth faded around 1570.

William was the third of eight children. Records from Holy Trinity Church prove that he was baptized at that church on April 26, 1564, three days after his alleged birth date.

Scholars believe that William attended a free grammar school in Stratford, as evidenced by his knowledge of both Latin and Classical Greek. Although they don’t know how long William was in school, these scholars are certain that he did not receive any university-level schooling.

William, 18, married 26 year old Anne Hathaway. Together, they had three children: a daughter named Susanna, and a set of twins named Hamnet and Judith. Hamnet died when he was only 11 years old.

After making his way to London, William began to establish himself as an actor and playwright. By 1594 he had joined Lord Chamberlain’s Men, a troupe patronized by royals, and wrote/acted in many of their plays. Lord Chamberlain’s Men quickly became the most successful company of their time.

William sold his plays, showing an immense amount of success, and designed the Globe. He accumulated enough money to buy a new house and retire in Stratford in 1611.

The Myth

Not very much is known about William Shakespeare. (We don’t even know his real birthday.) There are substantial chunks of his life missing from historical records. For instance, there is a 7-year period of time, called the “Lost Years”, after the birth of his twins where Shakespeare virtually disappeared. Some speculate that Shakespeare had to do time for poaching rabbits and deer, while others suggest that he was an assistant schoolmaster in Lancashire. This period of time, among others (like his childhood and education), are scarcely known about.

All of this speculation has caused quite a bit of controversy. Uncertainty regarding his schooling, for example, has caused people to suspect that he may not have been capable of writing such great plays.

The Legend

Shakespeare’s legacy is huge. Consisting of at least 37 plays, Shakespeare’s body of work has lasted over 400 years, and is still alive today. It would be safe to say that almost every English speaker in the modern world knows at least one of Shakespeare’s plays, or at least Shakespeare is.

This being said, there is somewhat of a stigma to reading Shakespeare. They are all written in Old English, needless to say, so they are often very hard to understand and, more importantly, to interpret. Thus, when a student hears that they will be assigned a piece by Shakespeare, their initial reaction is to sigh with agony.

For me, reading Shakespeare is still a very daunting task. However, I don’t hate it as much as I thought I would. This school year, I have learned that there are several resources that can help me understand the text in a different way than I originally read it. I find it helpful to watch live-action renditions of the play after I have read through it to help me better visualize the play’s action. I usually have to read through the text twice to acquire a complete understanding of section, though.

(Don't) Be Hamlet

Now that you've mastered the text of "To be, or not to be..." reflect on Hamlet's dilemma and help him make up his mind. Use the text of the play and your own logic to support your opinion.

Although the opening lines of the “To be or not to be…” soliloquy directly address the thought of committing suicide, I do not believe that Prince Hamlet’s primary concern at this point in the play is whether or not he should take his own life.  By this time, he had already confessed his desire to die—“O, that this too too solid flesh would melt/ Thaw and resolve itself into a dew…” (Act I, scene ii)—making it safe to say that he does not fear death.  The following lines show that he does, however, fear damnation in the afterlife: “…Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d/ His canon ‘gainst self-slaughter…” (Act I, scene ii).   This same sentiment is revealed about half-way through the “To be or not to be…” soliloquy. “To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there’s the rub: / For in that sleep of death what dreams may come… Must give us pause…” (Act III, scene i).  From this point on, Hamlet begins to realize that his real fear is not death, but rather, what will become of his soul after death.  He struggles to reconcile what he feels that he needs to do with his religion, in the form of the consequences said to descend upon him.  This question—namely, what will become of him in the afterlife—is the true dilemma of this particular soliloquy.

As for my advice, or helpful words, to Hamlet, there is not much to say.  Hamlet’s conflict is unavoidable in a situation such as this, and his decision will be very very hard to come to terms with.  Whether he kills his uncle or kills himself, Hamlet is still committing a sin that is punishable by eternal damnation (according to his own belief system). Given the conditions of young Hamlet’s life, it’s hard to say that he would ever be truly happy, so he may as well do what would be the closest thing to a resolution or sense of contentment that he will ever find—take revenge on Claudius.  

Response..

Thanks for all of the comments and questions everybody! Normally, I would have posted my response as another comment, but apparently I don't have access to post comments on my own blog... so here it goes:

Dania and Hannah,

Kafka never explains why Gregor’s metamorphosis –and yes, he does actually take the permanent physical form of an insect—takes place, nor does Gregor ever attempt to discover why it happens. He treats it the same way that any one of us would treat a typical cold, with mild disregard.

To answer Dania’s final question: yes, it was the actions of Gregor’s family that embodied the limits of human sympathy. They could only deal with Gregor for so long before they began to neglect him and put other affairs before his needs. By the end of the story (which only encompassed a couple of months) his family had come to the agreement that they must to get rid of the burden Gregor that had become.

Emily,

I wouldn’t necessarily say that the story lacked or deemphasized tone… It was actually one of the most important devices used. Kafka’s neutral tone shows sobriety and frankness, which tells us that he doesn’t think anything extraordinary of Gregor’s metamorphosis, or events like it. This, in turn, suggests that he believes our lives to be so filled with chaos and irrationality that nearly anything can be regarded as mundane. I believe that it is his failure to present an emotional response [that readers see] befitting to the situation that leads us to misinterpret his sobriety for apathy.

So, what I’m getting at is this: the piece doesn’t lack tone; it’s full of it. It does, however, lack the emotional charge that a common person would expect, leading us to believe that the author has no distinct attitude towards the subject, even though this isn’t at all true. Sorry if my original post was misleading…

Gregor’s death came as a result of his family’s neglect (they had nearly stopped attending to him altogether) and the psychological stresses of the metamorphosis. Gregor was struggling to reconcile the conflict between his mind, which was human, and his body, which was insect-like.  Gregor spent the last hours of his life thinking about how burdensome he has been, and wishing that he could disappear so that his family didn’t have to deal with him anymore.

Annais,

Bugs are gross. Just sayin'.

But on the real, I think his reason for choosing to use such a form was to create the strangest situation possible and subject it to a neutral telling. This choice further illuminates Kafka's perspective on the world we live in by adding significantly to the chaos and absurdity of the story's premise, while eliciting no emotional response from the narrator. No one would expect that a story about turning into a disgusting cockroach (the description of Gregor highly resembled that of a cockroach, though it wasn't explicitly stated) could be told with such an emotional disconnect.

Literature Analysis: The Metamorphosis

1. In Franz Kafka's novella The Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa wakes up to find that he has transformed into a gigantic insect. He thinks briefly about his condition before realizing that he is extremely late for work. (Gregor is a traveling salesman, with a very tyrannical boss. His family relies on him to defray their debts.) Soon after his parents realize that he hasn't left for work, the chief clerk arrives to inquire about Gregor's absence. Gregor struggles to get up out of bed, all while repeatedly telling his family and the chief clerk that everything is okay, and that he is presently getting ready for work. He finally opens the door and allows everyone to see his condition. They were all terrified, and the chief clerk runs away. Mr. Samsa chases Gregor back into his room, where he fell back asleep.
   Gregor reawkens in the mid-afternoon to find that his sister has left food out for him. This becomes the routine: Grete, Gregor's sister, lays food out for him regularly in the morning and the afternoon. No one visits him. This system remains intact until Grete and Mrs. Samsa go into Gregor's room to rearrange his furniture. This threatens Gregor's sense of humanity, so he comes out of hiding to protect his remaining possessions. Mr. Samsa misconstrues Gregor's actions for an attack on his mother and retaliates by throwing apples at him. Gregor is severely injured, and feels even less human as a result. The family tries to be more accepting of him, so they leave his door open for him to observe the family.
   The story concludes with Gregor's discovery. Three lodgers have come to stay in the Samsa house (to aleviate the pressure of living expenses). One night, as Grete is playing the violin, Gregor is drawn out into the living room. One of the lodgers spots the giant insect and is utterly repulsed. They declare that they are moving out, effective immediately. After the commotion dissapates, the family decides that the insect in their house is not in fact Gregor, and that they need to get rid of him. Gregor is left to lament his metamorphosis. The next morning, the charwoman finds Gregor's corpse lying in the middle of the room. Mr. Samsa evicts the lodgers, fires the charwoman, and leaves with the rest of the family on a trip to the countryside.

2. The story has several themes.Among them are the limits of human sympathy and the struggle to understand personal identity and/or humanity.

3. Kafka related the story in a very neutral, or sober tone. His diction lacked any emotional charge, or reflection of a distinct attitude towards the subjects of the story. Actually, the apparent lack of tone is somewhat absurd (due to the outrageous events told in the story) and creates a very disturbed mood for readers.

•   "As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect-like creature. He was lying on his hard, as it were armor-plated, back and when he lifted his head a little he could see his domelike brown belly divided into stiff arched segments on top of which the bed quilt could hardly keep in position and was about to slide off completely. His numerous legs, which were pitifully thin compared to the rest of his bulk, waved helplessly before his eyes."
• "Gregor's eyes turned next to the window, and the overcast sky-- one could hear raindrops beating on the window gutter-- made him quite melancholy. What about sleeping a little longer and forgetting all of this nonsense..."

4.  Kafka's use of imagery, symbolism, setting, characterization, and irony all help the reader to understand the theme.

• Symbolism: "And so he rushed out-the women were just leaning against the writing desk in the next room to give themselves a breather-and four times changed his direction, since he really did not know what to rescue first, then on the wall opposite, which was already otherwise cleared, he was struck by the picture of the lady muffled in so much fur and quickly crawled up to it and pressed himself to the glass... This picture at least, which was entirely hidden beneath him, was going to be removed by nobody."
• Irony: "Once during the long evening one of the side doors was opened a little and quickly shut again, later the other side door too; someone had apparently wanted to come in and then thought better of it. Gregor now stationed himself immediately before the living room door, determined to persuade any hesitating visitor to come in or at least to discover who it might be; but the door was not opened again and he waited in vain. In the early morning, when the doors were locked, they had all wanted to come in, now that he had opened one door and the other had apparently been opened during the day, no one came in and even the keys were on the other side of the doors."