I'm going to break some rules with this one and use the word "I" a little bit. Before I attempt to analyze "Here" by Philip Larkin, I would just like to say that maybe we should go about analyzing poems, the techniques poets use, and the ins and outs of poetry before we do any formal essay on them. Otherwise, I don't see how a well written essay can come out of a subject we have no idea how to tackle. I may as well put on a football helmet and try to bring down Marion Barber. So with that, I'll go ahead and attempt to pick out what the poet used in his work to help express his feelings toward "Here."
The poet of "Here," Philip Larkin, uses grand descriptions of just about every visible object he encounters wherever "Here" is. The suits are cheap, the wheat-fields are high as hedges, and the doors are plate-glass and swinging. There's not a noun in these stanzas that is not coupled with a adjective to help give the reader an image of the place Larkin is describing. You can see, smell, and practically feel this land that is being described. These intimate descriptions have a reason for being in the poem, they're not just for show.
These descriptions appear to paint a picture of an industrial town, right near a river or some body of water. There is not just one word that creates this, it is the work as a whole that gives the impression that this is a factory-laden city with low-yielding fields on its outskirts. The town has blue-collar workers that go to work during the week and hit the downtown's simple shopping district during the weekends. It's a very ordinary town, very little happens here but work and living life, all which is exemplified by the poet's colorful details.
To add on to the descriptions of the town, the poet doesn't go crazy with his rhyme scheme. Rather, he makes the writings seem natural and the rhymes just comes as he goes. It does not seem to be an out and out poem and it ends up coming across as plain man's account of his town, nothing fancy, no frills, just what the place looks like to man who has seen it every day of his life. The man's descriptions show a silent peace with living in the town. As if he smiles on the inside upon gazing at all that surrounds him. Through this viewpoint, the author conveys his own subdued admiration of this town of industry, of hardworking men, and of the isolated lives the lead.
The author feels comforted in the coldness of this town. It is the place he lived in or by, and through his years experiencing everything the town had to offer, realized the beauty that could be found in everything around him. The town is harsh to outsiders, but to the author, it is merely a matter of perception. The descriptions and tone demonstrate a town that can be found everywhere in America, towns that only its residents can love.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
'Student Survey' Response
Do you enjoy using blogs in your class?
I do enjoy using these blogs in AP English because it's a far easier way of articulating my opinions and thoughts than an on-the-spot questionnaire. Because I'm on the computer so often anyway, it's more convenient for me as well, and I like when things are more techonological in school, even if it's something as simple as this.
Do you use blogs for any of your other classes? If so, which ones? Are they set up the same as Mr. Hughes' blog?
I do not use blogs for any other class, but if I could, it would be cool to have them for Business Law instead of the Blackboard program we use.
What do you like most about Mr. Hughes' blog? What do you like the least?
The thing I like most about these blogs is that it allows me to process my thoughts, I'm never rushed, and it doesn't involve any handwriting, which is far slower for me and is so last century.
Is the blog easy to use? Was it easy to use from the beginning or did you have problems?
The blog is about as easy to use as toilet paper, and far more comfortable. I never had any problems with it, and I caught on instantly, not to brag.
Do you wish other classes would use blogs for their assignments?
Like I said before, if Business Law were to have it, that would be right proper because I could easily post my answers to all her assignments on their without a hitch. Plus, the class is already fully online.
Do you have internet access at home in order to participate in the blog?
I do have internet access, I also live in the 21st Century.
Do you usually write on the blog at home or at school?
I write my blog from the comfort of my own home, usually when my parents are asleep at around 9 or 10 o'clock. It's very peaceful and my thinking cap is firmly on at that time of night. Except tonight, when I'm writing at nearly one in the morning.
Do you feel you learn better by using the blog or by doing handwritten assignments?
I feel that with handwritten assignments, you get more of the "gut reaction" writings, which can be either very good or very bad. Blogs allow for retrospection, which I personally prefer because I can look over what I have written and rethink my own initial reactions and compare them to how I feel now.
Do you have your own blog on Myspace, Facebook, etc..? If so, where is your blog?
I have both a Facebook and MySpace, both of which I use daily. I use my non-school blog to post my short stories and various writings so my readers can easily access them. This can be found at http://www.fulltimederek.blogspot.com. Personally, this has been the best thing to come from learning of Blogger.com from this AP English class. A simple creative writing medium.
No more questions. This interview's over.
I do enjoy using these blogs in AP English because it's a far easier way of articulating my opinions and thoughts than an on-the-spot questionnaire. Because I'm on the computer so often anyway, it's more convenient for me as well, and I like when things are more techonological in school, even if it's something as simple as this.
Do you use blogs for any of your other classes? If so, which ones? Are they set up the same as Mr. Hughes' blog?
I do not use blogs for any other class, but if I could, it would be cool to have them for Business Law instead of the Blackboard program we use.
What do you like most about Mr. Hughes' blog? What do you like the least?
The thing I like most about these blogs is that it allows me to process my thoughts, I'm never rushed, and it doesn't involve any handwriting, which is far slower for me and is so last century.
Is the blog easy to use? Was it easy to use from the beginning or did you have problems?
The blog is about as easy to use as toilet paper, and far more comfortable. I never had any problems with it, and I caught on instantly, not to brag.
Do you wish other classes would use blogs for their assignments?
Like I said before, if Business Law were to have it, that would be right proper because I could easily post my answers to all her assignments on their without a hitch. Plus, the class is already fully online.
Do you have internet access at home in order to participate in the blog?
I do have internet access, I also live in the 21st Century.
Do you usually write on the blog at home or at school?
I write my blog from the comfort of my own home, usually when my parents are asleep at around 9 or 10 o'clock. It's very peaceful and my thinking cap is firmly on at that time of night. Except tonight, when I'm writing at nearly one in the morning.
Do you feel you learn better by using the blog or by doing handwritten assignments?
I feel that with handwritten assignments, you get more of the "gut reaction" writings, which can be either very good or very bad. Blogs allow for retrospection, which I personally prefer because I can look over what I have written and rethink my own initial reactions and compare them to how I feel now.
Do you have your own blog on Myspace, Facebook, etc..? If so, where is your blog?
I have both a Facebook and MySpace, both of which I use daily. I use my non-school blog to post my short stories and various writings so my readers can easily access them. This can be found at http://www.fulltimederek.blogspot.com. Personally, this has been the best thing to come from learning of Blogger.com from this AP English class. A simple creative writing medium.
No more questions. This interview's over.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
"Dead Poets" Response
Dead Poets Society (1989).
Directed by Peter Weir. Starring Robin Williams, Robert Sean Leonard, and Ethan Hawke. Rating = 8/10.
Dead Poets Society is a well told story about a familiar topic, a new teacher comes in and inspires his class. What is different in this take is that not everyone is inspired, and the ending isn't a happy one. While the movie does have its share of cliches, it overcomes this with its fine acting, especially by Robert Sean Leonard and Ethan Hawke as two young prep academy students who discover there is more to life than what authority tells them. The two are brought out of their shells in various degrees by the quick-witted and charismatic Mr. Keating (Williams), who tries to show the beauty of poetry to a group who have known nothing but conformity their whole lives.
This sudden introductory lesson to creativity causes Neil (Leonard) to go against his strict father (Kurtwood Smith) and join a local production of "Midsummer Night's Dream," forging his dad's name in the process. Todd (Hawke) is new and very shy, going so far as to lie about not having done an assignment, just so he won't have to talk in front of others. Eventually, he comes so far as to defy the head of the academy, by standing on his desk, and calling out to Mr. Keating, "O Captain! My Captain!" The joy of this film for me was how surprisingly attached I became to the young men inspired by Keating. Neil's death, however, may have affected me more because 1.) I had a Shakespeare play to perform that night myself and 2.) I am a big fan of Robert Sean Leonard's work on the television show House M.D. Even so, such a brilliant young man being driven to suicide by his father's excessive strictness struck an odd cord with me. And the finale, with many of Keating's former students standing on their desks and proclaiming the famous Whitman line previously stated, while somewhat far-fetched, was still an incredibly effective ending to the film.
The reason the movie loses points is the subplot of Knox Overstreet and his attempts to woo a girl in higher social status than him, which seemed out of place and a mere distraction from the heart of the film. The movie also suffered from its amount of cliches and similarities to other "inspirational teacher films" such as Goodbye, Mr. Chips. Also, the teacher who is inspiring all these children is given very little back story or development, coming in only as a plot device to move the students' stories further. Despite these setbacks, Mr. Weir has crafted a wonderful film that catches the feel of the time period and the "go with the herd" mentality that was embedded in it.
The film, though being one that has its students entranced by poetry and even reforming a Dead Poets Society to continue their growing passion for it, does not delve into any of the dead poets. Their lines are merely spewed when necessary or to make a point. What they mean is hardly examined and the poets themselves are given very little literary credit. In relevance to poetry, Dead Poets Society simply uses it as a MacGuffin. It doesn't have much to do with the main action throughout the film, rather it is a device that sets the rest of the story in motion.
So, while the film lacks poetic substance, it does pack enough of a punch to recommend it to AP English classes. Hopefully, the students will hear the lines spoken and be struck by one, and that spark will cause them to go looking into the poets and their poems. Like movies based on books, this movie serves as a leaping off point for some people into the work(s) that the film's story came from. While it may not be perfect, it will definitely help students understand what poetry's effect can have on a person's life, and the bigger things it can drive us to do.
"O Captain! My Captain!"
Directed by Peter Weir. Starring Robin Williams, Robert Sean Leonard, and Ethan Hawke. Rating = 8/10.
Dead Poets Society is a well told story about a familiar topic, a new teacher comes in and inspires his class. What is different in this take is that not everyone is inspired, and the ending isn't a happy one. While the movie does have its share of cliches, it overcomes this with its fine acting, especially by Robert Sean Leonard and Ethan Hawke as two young prep academy students who discover there is more to life than what authority tells them. The two are brought out of their shells in various degrees by the quick-witted and charismatic Mr. Keating (Williams), who tries to show the beauty of poetry to a group who have known nothing but conformity their whole lives.
This sudden introductory lesson to creativity causes Neil (Leonard) to go against his strict father (Kurtwood Smith) and join a local production of "Midsummer Night's Dream," forging his dad's name in the process. Todd (Hawke) is new and very shy, going so far as to lie about not having done an assignment, just so he won't have to talk in front of others. Eventually, he comes so far as to defy the head of the academy, by standing on his desk, and calling out to Mr. Keating, "O Captain! My Captain!" The joy of this film for me was how surprisingly attached I became to the young men inspired by Keating. Neil's death, however, may have affected me more because 1.) I had a Shakespeare play to perform that night myself and 2.) I am a big fan of Robert Sean Leonard's work on the television show House M.D. Even so, such a brilliant young man being driven to suicide by his father's excessive strictness struck an odd cord with me. And the finale, with many of Keating's former students standing on their desks and proclaiming the famous Whitman line previously stated, while somewhat far-fetched, was still an incredibly effective ending to the film.
The reason the movie loses points is the subplot of Knox Overstreet and his attempts to woo a girl in higher social status than him, which seemed out of place and a mere distraction from the heart of the film. The movie also suffered from its amount of cliches and similarities to other "inspirational teacher films" such as Goodbye, Mr. Chips. Also, the teacher who is inspiring all these children is given very little back story or development, coming in only as a plot device to move the students' stories further. Despite these setbacks, Mr. Weir has crafted a wonderful film that catches the feel of the time period and the "go with the herd" mentality that was embedded in it.
The film, though being one that has its students entranced by poetry and even reforming a Dead Poets Society to continue their growing passion for it, does not delve into any of the dead poets. Their lines are merely spewed when necessary or to make a point. What they mean is hardly examined and the poets themselves are given very little literary credit. In relevance to poetry, Dead Poets Society simply uses it as a MacGuffin. It doesn't have much to do with the main action throughout the film, rather it is a device that sets the rest of the story in motion.
So, while the film lacks poetic substance, it does pack enough of a punch to recommend it to AP English classes. Hopefully, the students will hear the lines spoken and be struck by one, and that spark will cause them to go looking into the poets and their poems. Like movies based on books, this movie serves as a leaping off point for some people into the work(s) that the film's story came from. While it may not be perfect, it will definitely help students understand what poetry's effect can have on a person's life, and the bigger things it can drive us to do.
"O Captain! My Captain!"
Monday, November 26, 2007
Writing Prompt - Past Comes Back To Haunt Present
F. Scott’s Fitzgerald’s classic novel, The Great Gatsby, is a perfect example of a man whose past comes colliding into his present day ideal life. Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan, former lovers from down South have been reunited through wealth, high society, and Gatsby’s own dogged pursuits of her. She represents the American Dream to him and it is she who holds the key to his happiness. The wealth he has accumulated, the house he lives in, the people he runs around with, are nothing to him because they are merely obstacles he has to deal with to be with her once more. His past with Daisy leads him into a delusional state about her which he cannot snap out of. His past relationship with her has perverted his idea of who she is now and shows how far a man will go to pursue the American Dream, needless of how unrealistic it is.
Gatsby in the present has endless wealth and numerous contacts with the upper classes. However, it is his humble beginnings that shape this present day thirst for a place and the top of society. Gatsby, formerly known as Jay Gatz, falls in love with the beautiful debutante, Daisy Buchanan, but before the two can get married, he is shipped off to fight in the First World War. He comes back to find she has married a rich, well-to-do fellow, this being the catalyst for his quest to become the richest, most popular man possible, all in the hopes he can win back his love Daisy.
Unfortunately, he holds these preconceived notions of her from the past that she no longer has or ever did have. He sees her as infallible and a caring person, when in fact her high society living has twisted her into a selfish, empty shell of a woman. Gatsby is blind to this, however, due to his obsession with winning her back, she being the pinnacle of all his successes. He believes that she left him not because she stopped loving him but because the other man had money and power. This delusion to the fact that Daisy is far from the fairy tale princess he made her up to be makes his pursuit for more status a pointless venture.
This venture is a representation of the American Dream, and how one can become so delusional in achieving it that they are blind to either the worthlessness or the impossibility in it. Love has made Gatsby a fool, forcing him to believe that the girl of his past can be won back and she would meet all the wild expectations he has built up about her over the years. It is foolishness that leads him into wealth, but also unhappiness, always being dissatisfied with his accomplishments. All of Gatsby’s efforts are for Daisy; his past has corrupted him and his mind, and he is likely to let it continue until a dramatic event shows him who the present Daisy is and always was.
Gatsby’s views on Daisy are completely understandable, as love and obsession can distort the past and present memories about someone. He cannot help but by being caught up in the materialistic times of The Jazz Age, where everyone believed that wealth and the like were the keys to success. Seeing Daisy marrying the rich man rather than him, how else could he have believed he could win her back by anything other than becoming a man of status? His past controls his life, leaving him in an unhappy state and left to chase something that never was what he thought it to be. His former relationship with Daisy can never be regained and it is this sad pursuit of happiness that leads to Gatsby’s death.
Gatsby in the present has endless wealth and numerous contacts with the upper classes. However, it is his humble beginnings that shape this present day thirst for a place and the top of society. Gatsby, formerly known as Jay Gatz, falls in love with the beautiful debutante, Daisy Buchanan, but before the two can get married, he is shipped off to fight in the First World War. He comes back to find she has married a rich, well-to-do fellow, this being the catalyst for his quest to become the richest, most popular man possible, all in the hopes he can win back his love Daisy.
Unfortunately, he holds these preconceived notions of her from the past that she no longer has or ever did have. He sees her as infallible and a caring person, when in fact her high society living has twisted her into a selfish, empty shell of a woman. Gatsby is blind to this, however, due to his obsession with winning her back, she being the pinnacle of all his successes. He believes that she left him not because she stopped loving him but because the other man had money and power. This delusion to the fact that Daisy is far from the fairy tale princess he made her up to be makes his pursuit for more status a pointless venture.
This venture is a representation of the American Dream, and how one can become so delusional in achieving it that they are blind to either the worthlessness or the impossibility in it. Love has made Gatsby a fool, forcing him to believe that the girl of his past can be won back and she would meet all the wild expectations he has built up about her over the years. It is foolishness that leads him into wealth, but also unhappiness, always being dissatisfied with his accomplishments. All of Gatsby’s efforts are for Daisy; his past has corrupted him and his mind, and he is likely to let it continue until a dramatic event shows him who the present Daisy is and always was.
Gatsby’s views on Daisy are completely understandable, as love and obsession can distort the past and present memories about someone. He cannot help but by being caught up in the materialistic times of The Jazz Age, where everyone believed that wealth and the like were the keys to success. Seeing Daisy marrying the rich man rather than him, how else could he have believed he could win her back by anything other than becoming a man of status? His past controls his life, leaving him in an unhappy state and left to chase something that never was what he thought it to be. His former relationship with Daisy can never be regained and it is this sad pursuit of happiness that leads to Gatsby’s death.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
When The Sun Goes Down
by Arctic Monkeys.
Who's that girl there?
I wonder what went wrong
So that she had to roam the streets
She dun't do major credit cards
I doubt she does receipts
It's all not quite legitimate
And what a scummy man
Just give him half a chance
I bet he'll rob you if he can
Can see it in his eyes,
Yeah that he's got a driving ban
Amongst some other offences
And I've seen him with girls of the night
And he told Roxanne to put on her red light
We're all infected but he'll be alright
Cause he's a scumbag, don't you know
I said he's a scumbag, don't you know!
Although you're trying not to listen
Overt your eyes and staring at the ground
She makes a subtle proposition
"Sorry love I'll have to turn you down"
I know he must be up to summat
What are the chances sure it's more than likely
I've got a feeling in my stomach
I start to wonder what his story might be
They said it changes when the sun goes down
They said it changes when the sun goes down
They said it changes when the sun goes down
Around here(Around here)
Look here comes a Ford Mondeo
Isn't he Mister Inconspicuous?
And he don't even have to say 'owt
She's in the stance ready to get picked up
Bet she's delighted when she sees him
Pulling in and giving her the eye
Because she must be f**king freezing
Scantily clad beneath the clear night sky
She doesn't stop in the winter, no
They said it changes when the sun goes down
Yeah they said it changes when the sun goes down
And they said it changes when the sun goes down
Around here
Well they said it changes when the sun goes down
Over the river, going out to town
And they said it changes when the sun goes down
Around here
Around here
What a scummy man
Just give him half a chance
I bet he'll rob you if he can
Can see it in his eyes that he's got a nasty plan
I hope you're not involved at all
Who's that girl there?
I wonder what went wrong
So that she had to roam the streets
She dun't do major credit cards
I doubt she does receipts
It's all not quite legitimate
And what a scummy man
Just give him half a chance
I bet he'll rob you if he can
Can see it in his eyes,
Yeah that he's got a driving ban
Amongst some other offences
And I've seen him with girls of the night
And he told Roxanne to put on her red light
We're all infected but he'll be alright
Cause he's a scumbag, don't you know
I said he's a scumbag, don't you know!
Although you're trying not to listen
Overt your eyes and staring at the ground
She makes a subtle proposition
"Sorry love I'll have to turn you down"
I know he must be up to summat
What are the chances sure it's more than likely
I've got a feeling in my stomach
I start to wonder what his story might be
They said it changes when the sun goes down
They said it changes when the sun goes down
They said it changes when the sun goes down
Around here(Around here)
Look here comes a Ford Mondeo
Isn't he Mister Inconspicuous?
And he don't even have to say 'owt
She's in the stance ready to get picked up
Bet she's delighted when she sees him
Pulling in and giving her the eye
Because she must be f**king freezing
Scantily clad beneath the clear night sky
She doesn't stop in the winter, no
They said it changes when the sun goes down
Yeah they said it changes when the sun goes down
And they said it changes when the sun goes down
Around here
Well they said it changes when the sun goes down
Over the river, going out to town
And they said it changes when the sun goes down
Around here
Around here
What a scummy man
Just give him half a chance
I bet he'll rob you if he can
Can see it in his eyes that he's got a nasty plan
I hope you're not involved at all
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Sky Blue Sky Response
Well, my original idea for this response was to listen to the album and give my first impressions, but since this will be the 4th or 5th time listening to it this week, I will be giving my "enough already" response. So let me hit the play button on the other page and begin.
Listening to this album is like hearing a Volkswagon commercial for an hour, since they licensed their songs out to them and are now played constantly. It's a very relaxing music that Wilco brings to the table, reminiscent to pop rock of the 70s and 80s. The second listen through of this Sky Blue Sky was when Tyler and I read our AP books and Becky did her response and we all came to the same conclusion that this music is comforting, and perfect for reading. It isn't overpowering, and the lyrics didn't have us distracted, making for terrific background noise. Because the lyrics have a running theme to them as well, there doesn't seem to be any distinctive breaks between each song either, which reminded me of how first few songs on Beck's Guero CD blended together perfectly. This lack of distinction lends to the feeling that Sky Blue Sky is just one big song.
This is not supposed to be a harsh criticism of of Wilco or their CD, I think they're good and appreciate them and everything they stand for, you might say. The singer sings lyrics that are heartfelt and for the most part straightforward. He doesn't rely too much on metaphors or wordplay, rather he writes how things really are. While they don't do anything groundbreaking with their music either, they do take what has been done before, the sound and feeling, and do it much better than most of their contemporaries.
I know this should be one of the bands that a person like me is supposed to listen to and enjoy, and while I do, it's only to an extent. This is too white bread for me, and while I do listen to this kind of music on occasion, I need to switch styles up frequently. I need some wheat and whole grain too. Perhaps because I was able to listen to this while reading is why I'm not crazy about this album or Wilco as a whole. I like an overpowering element in most of my music. The drum work, guitars, and imagery of Arctic Monkeys, the intensity of 50 Cent or T.I., the metaphorical wonders of Beck, or the emotion from Coldplay. I suppose because Wilco doesn't come at me with something unique in this album is why it's just good music to me, nothing special. Their music on this fits the commercials that feature their songs because the music isn't distracting to the viewer watching the action on screen, but it's of a quality that might stick in your head for the day. This being a good thing for Volkswagon CEOs wanting you to remember their product.
On a more positive note, Sky Blue Sky makes me feel like I'm in a coffee shop listening to a poet sing his work to the patrons. It creates an atmosphere that is, like mentioned before, relaxing and comforting. I can imagine being at Panera with a hot beverage, sitting in the corner with friends, and having Wilco playing a set right next to me. I guess that's all I get from listening to this, a relaxing comfort.
Oh, and need for a cappuccino.
Listening to this album is like hearing a Volkswagon commercial for an hour, since they licensed their songs out to them and are now played constantly. It's a very relaxing music that Wilco brings to the table, reminiscent to pop rock of the 70s and 80s. The second listen through of this Sky Blue Sky was when Tyler and I read our AP books and Becky did her response and we all came to the same conclusion that this music is comforting, and perfect for reading. It isn't overpowering, and the lyrics didn't have us distracted, making for terrific background noise. Because the lyrics have a running theme to them as well, there doesn't seem to be any distinctive breaks between each song either, which reminded me of how first few songs on Beck's Guero CD blended together perfectly. This lack of distinction lends to the feeling that Sky Blue Sky is just one big song.
This is not supposed to be a harsh criticism of of Wilco or their CD, I think they're good and appreciate them and everything they stand for, you might say. The singer sings lyrics that are heartfelt and for the most part straightforward. He doesn't rely too much on metaphors or wordplay, rather he writes how things really are. While they don't do anything groundbreaking with their music either, they do take what has been done before, the sound and feeling, and do it much better than most of their contemporaries.
I know this should be one of the bands that a person like me is supposed to listen to and enjoy, and while I do, it's only to an extent. This is too white bread for me, and while I do listen to this kind of music on occasion, I need to switch styles up frequently. I need some wheat and whole grain too. Perhaps because I was able to listen to this while reading is why I'm not crazy about this album or Wilco as a whole. I like an overpowering element in most of my music. The drum work, guitars, and imagery of Arctic Monkeys, the intensity of 50 Cent or T.I., the metaphorical wonders of Beck, or the emotion from Coldplay. I suppose because Wilco doesn't come at me with something unique in this album is why it's just good music to me, nothing special. Their music on this fits the commercials that feature their songs because the music isn't distracting to the viewer watching the action on screen, but it's of a quality that might stick in your head for the day. This being a good thing for Volkswagon CEOs wanting you to remember their product.
On a more positive note, Sky Blue Sky makes me feel like I'm in a coffee shop listening to a poet sing his work to the patrons. It creates an atmosphere that is, like mentioned before, relaxing and comforting. I can imagine being at Panera with a hot beverage, sitting in the corner with friends, and having Wilco playing a set right next to me. I guess that's all I get from listening to this, a relaxing comfort.
Oh, and need for a cappuccino.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Metamorphosis Essay #2
Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis is recognized for its extensive use of symbolism, leading it to have nearly limitless interpretations by its readers. Symbols vary from Gregor's metamorphosis into the creature, to his window, to his fasting. Put together, these symbols give the quick read a great depth to it. Kafka's use of these shows the extent of his talents and ability to put greater meaning behind practically every object and person. Because of this, Kafka was able to show the state of man during his time, and through the use of symbolism, better get his idea across.
Kafka begins the story with what would be the climax in most stories, Gregor transforming into a "monstrous vermin." This shape-shifting is more than a simple plot device though, it is Kafka's critique on 20th century man. the 20th century man wakes up, goes to work, comes home, eats, goes to bed, and does it all again the next day. Modern life and even society itself has come to isolate the individual. Gregor the Roach represents this loneliness and alienation from the world around him as he is stuck in his room for months on end.
While dealing with his situation, Gregor passes the time by staring out the window. Kafka uses this to serve as a representation of the life that was once had by Gregor, and the life he is now cut off from. It is a symbol used in many other works of literature wherein a character is confined in some way to a room or building and can do nothing more than helplessly look out and wish they could be on the other side of the glass. Gregor, due to his hideous form, is forced to live in his room and spend his days wishing he was on the other side again.
These unfulfilled wishes, coupled with his family's straining over money leads Gregor to stop eating his food and fasting instead. Guilt has overcome the creature, still able to think as Gregor, and he can not bear to see his family suffer anymore because of him. The fasting represents Gregor's crushing guilt and wish to escape his fate, eventually leading to his starvation and death. This self-sacrifice unburdens the family of him and acts as a final cleansing of the pain he was feeling from living as the creature.
These symbols work very well to express Kafka's disdain for the isolated lives men are forced to lead in modern times, the world passing them by, and some men's escape from the pain their lives bring them. The fact that all these views are given in just over 50 pages is amazing. The ability to cohesively use these symbols are what give The Metamorphosis its great weight and lasting appeal. Without such brilliant writing and use of symbolism as a further way of getting his point across, Kafka's short story would be nothing more than a man becoming a roach.
Kafka begins the story with what would be the climax in most stories, Gregor transforming into a "monstrous vermin." This shape-shifting is more than a simple plot device though, it is Kafka's critique on 20th century man. the 20th century man wakes up, goes to work, comes home, eats, goes to bed, and does it all again the next day. Modern life and even society itself has come to isolate the individual. Gregor the Roach represents this loneliness and alienation from the world around him as he is stuck in his room for months on end.
While dealing with his situation, Gregor passes the time by staring out the window. Kafka uses this to serve as a representation of the life that was once had by Gregor, and the life he is now cut off from. It is a symbol used in many other works of literature wherein a character is confined in some way to a room or building and can do nothing more than helplessly look out and wish they could be on the other side of the glass. Gregor, due to his hideous form, is forced to live in his room and spend his days wishing he was on the other side again.
These unfulfilled wishes, coupled with his family's straining over money leads Gregor to stop eating his food and fasting instead. Guilt has overcome the creature, still able to think as Gregor, and he can not bear to see his family suffer anymore because of him. The fasting represents Gregor's crushing guilt and wish to escape his fate, eventually leading to his starvation and death. This self-sacrifice unburdens the family of him and acts as a final cleansing of the pain he was feeling from living as the creature.
These symbols work very well to express Kafka's disdain for the isolated lives men are forced to lead in modern times, the world passing them by, and some men's escape from the pain their lives bring them. The fact that all these views are given in just over 50 pages is amazing. The ability to cohesively use these symbols are what give The Metamorphosis its great weight and lasting appeal. Without such brilliant writing and use of symbolism as a further way of getting his point across, Kafka's short story would be nothing more than a man becoming a roach.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The Hunger Artist Response
To say he looked skeletal would have been a gross understatement, but the fact remained that there were no other words for the onlookers to describe the man. To even call it a man at this point was an insult to the healthy, virile men observing from the crowd. He was reminiscent of a Holocaust survivor, with his knees thicker than his thighs and eye sockets protruding in a sickening fashion. The crowd stared at this caged thing with their jaws slacked to the ground. They would all wonder why he would do this to himself, but none of them could come up with an answer. Whatever the reason, what the man was doing was impressive. The crowd suddenly broke out into a deafening cheer, causing the man's eyes to bulge even more.
It was the trend of the time, gathering the kids on a Saturday afternoon when the sun was at its peak and heading down to the amphitheater, hoping to get a good seat before the rush came. The children would have to be quieted down and told politely to sit and watch. Then the drapes over the cage would be taken off and the children would grab their mothers' arms in shock. The man was like a walking nightmare to them, and the parents would just have to reassure them that it was locked away behind that cage. Soon enough the cheer would break out and some of the audience members would approach the cage to actually talk to it.
A hunger artist they called it, a person who had devoted his life to starving himself of one of the most basic pleasures to man, food. Remarkably, it could go forty days and no longer, per instructions, without a meal. To the crowds, it was a sick delight, schadenfreude in its most pure form. What the crowds did not know was that it actually relished in its ability to fast for so long. How this trend came about is sketchy, but what is known is that it was the primary attraction at the time, bringing in thousands of visitors a week. For what, a lonely beast? Society was pitiful in that regard.
And yet, something about this was utterly fascinating. Why would a man go through such misery? Is he even paid for this? What sort of life does he live outside the cage? How could he live a life outside it? The man is world famous by now for his feats of endurance, what other person in their right mind would dare associate themselves with the hunger artist? This man is cruel to himself, one cannot imagine what he is like to others. The life he has chosen for himself is a special kind of isolation. One wherein his loneliness is watched over and gawked at all hours. Simply said, this thing is no man, he is an organism under a microscope. And like all others, this slide was going to be replaced sooner or later.
The days went by and attendance began to dwindle. Smaller and smaller until economic sense kicked in and the hunger artist's manager decided to cut his losses, as well as his ties to the artist. The cage was rolled out of the amphitheater and the next day a dancing Capuchin monkey and his accordion playing owner took its place and made an absolute killing.
From what is known, the hunger artist took his craft to less respectable venues, finally settling into a dilapidated circus of some sorts. What he found there was worse than his experiences under management at the amphitheater. The crowds he encountered were wholly unappreciative of his art, merely passing by, glancing, then moving on to the more exciting animals that awaited down the hall. And yet, from reports of the artist's remaining performance days at the circus, he found an unsettling freedom behind those rusty bars. Apparently now that he wasn't under such a strict watch or contract, he pushed his limits past the forty-day mark, so far that not even he was counting by the end. It seems he had hopes of breaking records, of making a name for himself in a world that did not care for him anymore. Still it must be asked, why? For what reason would man destroy the body God gave him in such a way as this? And willingly! Naturally, a man, even one who has lost so much of his humanity as the hunger artist, cannot fast forever. An obituary was posted in the paper claiming him to have died in his cage after having fasted to his death after 74 days without eat or drink. He is survived by no friends or family, and all that will live of him is a blurb at the bottom of a Records book. He was 32.
_________________________________________
Provocative Questions
1.) What would be a modern equivilent to the crowds watching the hunger artist?
2.) Could the hunger artist be seen as a hero in some twisted way?
3.) Does this promote anorexia?
4.) Does this parallel to Kafka's life?
5.) Why does this "performance" by the hunger artist seem so sickening and taboo to observe?
BONUS.) What kind of provocative underwear was the impresario wearing?
It was the trend of the time, gathering the kids on a Saturday afternoon when the sun was at its peak and heading down to the amphitheater, hoping to get a good seat before the rush came. The children would have to be quieted down and told politely to sit and watch. Then the drapes over the cage would be taken off and the children would grab their mothers' arms in shock. The man was like a walking nightmare to them, and the parents would just have to reassure them that it was locked away behind that cage. Soon enough the cheer would break out and some of the audience members would approach the cage to actually talk to it.
A hunger artist they called it, a person who had devoted his life to starving himself of one of the most basic pleasures to man, food. Remarkably, it could go forty days and no longer, per instructions, without a meal. To the crowds, it was a sick delight, schadenfreude in its most pure form. What the crowds did not know was that it actually relished in its ability to fast for so long. How this trend came about is sketchy, but what is known is that it was the primary attraction at the time, bringing in thousands of visitors a week. For what, a lonely beast? Society was pitiful in that regard.
And yet, something about this was utterly fascinating. Why would a man go through such misery? Is he even paid for this? What sort of life does he live outside the cage? How could he live a life outside it? The man is world famous by now for his feats of endurance, what other person in their right mind would dare associate themselves with the hunger artist? This man is cruel to himself, one cannot imagine what he is like to others. The life he has chosen for himself is a special kind of isolation. One wherein his loneliness is watched over and gawked at all hours. Simply said, this thing is no man, he is an organism under a microscope. And like all others, this slide was going to be replaced sooner or later.
The days went by and attendance began to dwindle. Smaller and smaller until economic sense kicked in and the hunger artist's manager decided to cut his losses, as well as his ties to the artist. The cage was rolled out of the amphitheater and the next day a dancing Capuchin monkey and his accordion playing owner took its place and made an absolute killing.
From what is known, the hunger artist took his craft to less respectable venues, finally settling into a dilapidated circus of some sorts. What he found there was worse than his experiences under management at the amphitheater. The crowds he encountered were wholly unappreciative of his art, merely passing by, glancing, then moving on to the more exciting animals that awaited down the hall. And yet, from reports of the artist's remaining performance days at the circus, he found an unsettling freedom behind those rusty bars. Apparently now that he wasn't under such a strict watch or contract, he pushed his limits past the forty-day mark, so far that not even he was counting by the end. It seems he had hopes of breaking records, of making a name for himself in a world that did not care for him anymore. Still it must be asked, why? For what reason would man destroy the body God gave him in such a way as this? And willingly! Naturally, a man, even one who has lost so much of his humanity as the hunger artist, cannot fast forever. An obituary was posted in the paper claiming him to have died in his cage after having fasted to his death after 74 days without eat or drink. He is survived by no friends or family, and all that will live of him is a blurb at the bottom of a Records book. He was 32.
_________________________________________
Provocative Questions
1.) What would be a modern equivilent to the crowds watching the hunger artist?
2.) Could the hunger artist be seen as a hero in some twisted way?
3.) Does this promote anorexia?
4.) Does this parallel to Kafka's life?
5.) Why does this "performance" by the hunger artist seem so sickening and taboo to observe?
BONUS.) What kind of provocative underwear was the impresario wearing?
Monday, November 5, 2007
The Metamorphosis Writing Prompt 1
Steven Soderbergh's film Kafka uses recurring themes to create a harrowing mystery. Alienation, Absurdism, and Anxiety are such prevalent themes that are found in both Kafka's novels and in Soderbergh's interpretation. The main character in the film is a fictional version of Franz Kafka (Jeremy Irons), also sharing the author's former job as an insurance agent as well as a writer. Throughout, Kafka is unraveling a growing conspiracy and is being pulled in two conflicting directions. Kafka can decide whether to pursue the truth about his friend's death or continue living his quiet life.
The death of his friend and his subsequent investigation becomes more than an unsolved murder to Kafka. He is actually pursuing the truth in the world he is living in. The truth, though very intriguing and new to Kafka, also poses its unique risks. Because of these risks, he must decide whether learning the truth is worth dying for. This conflict of finding out the grand plan behind his friend's death is met with an equal pull to drop all of it and continue living a quiet, if not isolated, life.
The conflicting need to keep to himself is more to Kafka than just that. Kafka knows he must make sacrifices to uncover the murder and learn the truth. On the other hand, if he were to leave the conspiracy and intrigue alone, he would be willing to make himself ignorant to the dangers this hidden plot brings. So, by association, uncovering the death equals truth to Kafka and ignorance of the world around him means living a nice life.
This conflict continues on even after Kafka believes the worst is over. After seeing a colleague's death at the hands of the conspirators, Kafka chooses to act in ignorance by claiming she committed suicide when he well knows she was killed. Yet, Kafka later says, "Better to know the truth than to live in ignorance. I can no longer deny that I am part of the world around me." This situation that Kafka has gone through, along with his conflicting feelings on how to go about it, has left him with a bad cough. The world is breaking Kafka down, weakening him, and he now knows that the world is not so clear cut.
The film, being black and white the whole time, becomes color only for the scenes in the conspirator's castle. This is the point where Kafka learns the truth, that not everything is black and white. Once he escapes the castle however, his world becomes black and white again. Truth connects to color, the whole spectrum of everything, and for Kafka's world to be black and white once more means that the conflicting decisions are done, and he is choosing to accept ignorance.
The death of his friend and his subsequent investigation becomes more than an unsolved murder to Kafka. He is actually pursuing the truth in the world he is living in. The truth, though very intriguing and new to Kafka, also poses its unique risks. Because of these risks, he must decide whether learning the truth is worth dying for. This conflict of finding out the grand plan behind his friend's death is met with an equal pull to drop all of it and continue living a quiet, if not isolated, life.
The conflicting need to keep to himself is more to Kafka than just that. Kafka knows he must make sacrifices to uncover the murder and learn the truth. On the other hand, if he were to leave the conspiracy and intrigue alone, he would be willing to make himself ignorant to the dangers this hidden plot brings. So, by association, uncovering the death equals truth to Kafka and ignorance of the world around him means living a nice life.
This conflict continues on even after Kafka believes the worst is over. After seeing a colleague's death at the hands of the conspirators, Kafka chooses to act in ignorance by claiming she committed suicide when he well knows she was killed. Yet, Kafka later says, "Better to know the truth than to live in ignorance. I can no longer deny that I am part of the world around me." This situation that Kafka has gone through, along with his conflicting feelings on how to go about it, has left him with a bad cough. The world is breaking Kafka down, weakening him, and he now knows that the world is not so clear cut.
The film, being black and white the whole time, becomes color only for the scenes in the conspirator's castle. This is the point where Kafka learns the truth, that not everything is black and white. Once he escapes the castle however, his world becomes black and white again. Truth connects to color, the whole spectrum of everything, and for Kafka's world to be black and white once more means that the conflicting decisions are done, and he is choosing to accept ignorance.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Kafka Response
Kafka, Steven Soderbergh's interpretation of author Franz Kafka's prevalent themes in his novels, is quite unique. This black-and-white film concerns the fictionalized version of Kafka, who, as a morbid insurance agent searching for his friend's killer, stumbles upon anarchists, mad scientists, and a plot beyond his imagination. Themes of alienation, anxiety, and solitude, all of which are found in Kafka's works can be found in the film as well.
To be honest, after viewing the movie, my feelings and perspective on Kafka's The Metamorphosis did not change in the least bit. Possibly if I were to sit in a Gothic styled room and think over the two works in solitude, I could find some profound connection between the two. Having not done that, I still feel the same way about the Metamorphosis, that the story was engaging and strangely moving to me. It's odd how bad I felt about Gregor's death, and Kafka did not make it feel any more or less peculiar.
The Metamorphosis, as symbolic as they come, has a grounded moral in its story of Gregor Samsa's short life as a bug. Gregor, a pitiful salesman of the traveling variety, faces the ultimate isolation from his transformation. Just when he thought the world he lived in before was one that isolated all of its citizens, he is suddenly a hideous beast who has lost all communication with the world he once knew. The importance of having people in your lives that are close to you and able to talk with, the things that Gregor lost as a result of his metamorphosis, is the moral of the story.
Essentially, Gregor's transformation is Franz Kafka's way of showing the isolation and destitute life at an extreme. His life is cut off from his dear family's after he has become a bug. He cannot talk to them, support them financially, or even bear to look at them, preferring a cloth over him to his family's frightful looks. Family is one of the most important things in the world to Gregor, and with that lost and knowing that his form is causing them emotional and financial pain eventually leads to his suicide. It is his fasting that he shows his love for them, finally releasing them from the burden of his care.
To call Kafka a genius from this endlessly symbolic work may be a stretch. I would prefer to consider him a talented psychoanalyst. The way he focuses on Gregor's situation and give what must be the most reasonable analysis of his mind and how he is thinking. Maybe it is just because I have an affinity for the probing of the human mind and how people think in all situations imaginable. This is likely the reason for why I became so involved in reading the Metamorphosis. Yet still, I would shy away from calling Kafka a genius. Now Seinfeld, that there is a genius.
Kafka, the fictional one, has interesting connections with true life Kafka's character Gregor Samsa. Both men work in jobs that do not interest them, but rather suck the life out of them, which lead toward their isolated lives. Both men deal with severe anxiety in different ways. Kafka is a nervous wreck from the beginning of the film, and his encounter with powerful forces of madness only lead his paranoia further off the charts. Conversely, Gregor is a giant roach. What could cause more anxiety than that?
Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis is renown for its limitless themes, ranging from guilt to loneliness. In a formal essay, make a convincing argument for the main theme of The Metamorphosis, with regards to Gregor Samsa's evolving state of mind and predicament. Include at least three graphs and/or pie charts.
To be honest, after viewing the movie, my feelings and perspective on Kafka's The Metamorphosis did not change in the least bit. Possibly if I were to sit in a Gothic styled room and think over the two works in solitude, I could find some profound connection between the two. Having not done that, I still feel the same way about the Metamorphosis, that the story was engaging and strangely moving to me. It's odd how bad I felt about Gregor's death, and Kafka did not make it feel any more or less peculiar.
The Metamorphosis, as symbolic as they come, has a grounded moral in its story of Gregor Samsa's short life as a bug. Gregor, a pitiful salesman of the traveling variety, faces the ultimate isolation from his transformation. Just when he thought the world he lived in before was one that isolated all of its citizens, he is suddenly a hideous beast who has lost all communication with the world he once knew. The importance of having people in your lives that are close to you and able to talk with, the things that Gregor lost as a result of his metamorphosis, is the moral of the story.
Essentially, Gregor's transformation is Franz Kafka's way of showing the isolation and destitute life at an extreme. His life is cut off from his dear family's after he has become a bug. He cannot talk to them, support them financially, or even bear to look at them, preferring a cloth over him to his family's frightful looks. Family is one of the most important things in the world to Gregor, and with that lost and knowing that his form is causing them emotional and financial pain eventually leads to his suicide. It is his fasting that he shows his love for them, finally releasing them from the burden of his care.
To call Kafka a genius from this endlessly symbolic work may be a stretch. I would prefer to consider him a talented psychoanalyst. The way he focuses on Gregor's situation and give what must be the most reasonable analysis of his mind and how he is thinking. Maybe it is just because I have an affinity for the probing of the human mind and how people think in all situations imaginable. This is likely the reason for why I became so involved in reading the Metamorphosis. Yet still, I would shy away from calling Kafka a genius. Now Seinfeld, that there is a genius.
Kafka, the fictional one, has interesting connections with true life Kafka's character Gregor Samsa. Both men work in jobs that do not interest them, but rather suck the life out of them, which lead toward their isolated lives. Both men deal with severe anxiety in different ways. Kafka is a nervous wreck from the beginning of the film, and his encounter with powerful forces of madness only lead his paranoia further off the charts. Conversely, Gregor is a giant roach. What could cause more anxiety than that?
Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis is renown for its limitless themes, ranging from guilt to loneliness. In a formal essay, make a convincing argument for the main theme of The Metamorphosis, with regards to Gregor Samsa's evolving state of mind and predicament. Include at least three graphs and/or pie charts.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
"Harrison Bergeron" Response
In Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "Harrison Bergeron", the world is finally equal. In this egalitarian society, though, is a man who stands up to stand out. He is Harrison Bergeron, and he is coming to a television studio near you, whether you like it or not. As in many short stories, this one attempts to make it's commentary clear, effective, and quick. Vonnegut's short story is no exception.
Early on, it can be deciphered that Vonnegut has a point to make in his little tale of an equal world where handicaps are placed on those who think to much, masks on those too pretty, and weights on those too strong. Just by reading these observations of the handicapped, what Vonnegut is satirizing is very obvious, the dumbing down of American society. He's attacking the idea of making everyone equal, that no one is smarter, prettier, or athletic than anyone else, even if that means we have to lower the bar for everyone. He's commenting on this because he is against the idea that instead of making everything more challenging and harder to reach, that we should "dumb" everything down, this way more people can reach their goals and meet the standards of society. After reading Harrison Bergeron, it's safe to say that Vonnegut must have hated the recent No Child Left Behind program and the standardized tests that came shortly before his death.
Vonnegut gives a glimpse of the government's controlling of equality through the character Diana Moon Glampers. Diana, the nation's Handicapper General, in charge of keeping everyone equal under the law, is talked about by the Bergerons very briefly and seen on television at an equally brief rate whilst killing Harrison Bergeron with a shotgun blast. And while her characterization isn't very realistic, she need not be, for she is merely a representation of the dumbing down of society, a symbol more than anything. With her shotgun blast being her means of keeping things in check.
While the story is unique by itself, what makes "Harrison Bergeron" even more interesting is the fact that it doesn't focus on Harrison Bergeron or tell the story from his point of view. Instead, the story is told in third person and focuses on Bergeron's parents, George and Hazel. By doing this, Vonnegut is able to show us just how much the government has affected society and effectively handicapped the citizens. In showing George's pain from his ear transmitter to keep him from thinking and saying anything than what a 4th grader could conjure up and describing George and Hazel's fragmented conversations and limited vocabulary and depth, Vonnegut is more able to convey the strains put on the average citizens due to these governmental handicaps than if it were seen through Harrison's eyes only.
What could have been a simple commentary piece is given a unique touch thanks to Vonnegut's insight, and thank God for that.
Early on, it can be deciphered that Vonnegut has a point to make in his little tale of an equal world where handicaps are placed on those who think to much, masks on those too pretty, and weights on those too strong. Just by reading these observations of the handicapped, what Vonnegut is satirizing is very obvious, the dumbing down of American society. He's attacking the idea of making everyone equal, that no one is smarter, prettier, or athletic than anyone else, even if that means we have to lower the bar for everyone. He's commenting on this because he is against the idea that instead of making everything more challenging and harder to reach, that we should "dumb" everything down, this way more people can reach their goals and meet the standards of society. After reading Harrison Bergeron, it's safe to say that Vonnegut must have hated the recent No Child Left Behind program and the standardized tests that came shortly before his death.
Vonnegut gives a glimpse of the government's controlling of equality through the character Diana Moon Glampers. Diana, the nation's Handicapper General, in charge of keeping everyone equal under the law, is talked about by the Bergerons very briefly and seen on television at an equally brief rate whilst killing Harrison Bergeron with a shotgun blast. And while her characterization isn't very realistic, she need not be, for she is merely a representation of the dumbing down of society, a symbol more than anything. With her shotgun blast being her means of keeping things in check.
While the story is unique by itself, what makes "Harrison Bergeron" even more interesting is the fact that it doesn't focus on Harrison Bergeron or tell the story from his point of view. Instead, the story is told in third person and focuses on Bergeron's parents, George and Hazel. By doing this, Vonnegut is able to show us just how much the government has affected society and effectively handicapped the citizens. In showing George's pain from his ear transmitter to keep him from thinking and saying anything than what a 4th grader could conjure up and describing George and Hazel's fragmented conversations and limited vocabulary and depth, Vonnegut is more able to convey the strains put on the average citizens due to these governmental handicaps than if it were seen through Harrison's eyes only.
What could have been a simple commentary piece is given a unique touch thanks to Vonnegut's insight, and thank God for that.
Monday, October 8, 2007
The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas Response
Okay, if this doesn't remind me of "The Lottery" then nothing does. First, the story is set up to make the town being described, Omelas, seem completely fine and dandy like sour candy. Sure there's that eerie feeling that not everything is right, but there's nothing explicit to indicate that. Oh wait, nevermind, there's the Shyamalanian plot twist. In this story's case, the town full of happiness is only happy because of their irrational belief that if they keep a young boy held in a small room and make him suffer completely, the town as a whole will prosper. Overall, the reading was heavy on details in the first half, and by the time it began to pick up, it was over and I was left not necessarily wanting more.
In trying to find similarities to this and Orwell's 1984, I kept coming up short of a connection. My mind kept wandering toward Huxley's Brave New World. In Omelas descriptions, it speaks of a place of complete happiness, where "drooz" can be taken to be even happier, where sex is normal and frequent and random. Both have their dark sides to their externally pleasant societies. Omelas has the poor boy in the filthy room and Brave New World has its questionable ethics as to its advancements in science and civilization stability.
This entire piece is a buildup to its climactic conclusion about the boy in the room, meaning that everything before this revelation is an atmosphere of uneasiness and an increasing feeling of "what's around the corner?" This feeling can be very effective in many works, especially if what is found around the corner proves to be uniquely surprising. While Omelas had that anticipatory vibe, it's payoff wasn't exactly memorable, to me at least. From what I can take, the story's theme touches upon whether one's actions or suffering contributes to the group as a whole.
And now for the Socratic Seminar Questions...
1. What makes this story so effective? Ineffective?
2. How would you react to seeing the little boy in the room?
3. If the town really is as happy and prosperous as it claims, does that mean juvenile torture really is a sufficient way to increase the quality of your town?
4. If so many people know of the town's horrible secret, why haven't state police stepped in?
5. Where do superstitions like this come from?
In trying to find similarities to this and Orwell's 1984, I kept coming up short of a connection. My mind kept wandering toward Huxley's Brave New World. In Omelas descriptions, it speaks of a place of complete happiness, where "drooz" can be taken to be even happier, where sex is normal and frequent and random. Both have their dark sides to their externally pleasant societies. Omelas has the poor boy in the filthy room and Brave New World has its questionable ethics as to its advancements in science and civilization stability.
This entire piece is a buildup to its climactic conclusion about the boy in the room, meaning that everything before this revelation is an atmosphere of uneasiness and an increasing feeling of "what's around the corner?" This feeling can be very effective in many works, especially if what is found around the corner proves to be uniquely surprising. While Omelas had that anticipatory vibe, it's payoff wasn't exactly memorable, to me at least. From what I can take, the story's theme touches upon whether one's actions or suffering contributes to the group as a whole.
And now for the Socratic Seminar Questions...
1. What makes this story so effective? Ineffective?
2. How would you react to seeing the little boy in the room?
3. If the town really is as happy and prosperous as it claims, does that mean juvenile torture really is a sufficient way to increase the quality of your town?
4. If so many people know of the town's horrible secret, why haven't state police stepped in?
5. Where do superstitions like this come from?
Friday, October 5, 2007
7 Guiding Questions for "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us"
Here is a compiled list of questions that should hopefully guide the class discussion on this reading.
- What were your reactions to the possibility of a continuous nano self-replication that ultimately destroys all species on Earth?
- What are some positive uses not mentioned in the article that you believe nanotechnology could be used for? Negative uses?
- Oppenheimer believed that the good of beating the Nazi's to the atomic weapon outweighed the dangers that came with the creation of it. Do you feel the same way about nanotechnology?
- Do you agree with any of the Luddites' fears about present and future techonology? Why or why not?
- Do you think warnings like this article would have stopped the development of robotics in Isaac Asimov's works?
- If given the opportunity to improve your life with the use of genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics, would you take adavantage of these? Would you undergo a procedure to rid the genes in you that can cause Alzheimer's? Have an injection of nanobots to remove possible cysts or cancerous growths? Live with the assistance of a robot you name Jeeves?
- What do you see as the biggest ethical dillemma that comes with these life-changing advancements in technology?
- BONUS: If robots do end up taking over Humans in the future, why haven't we gone back in time to stop this mess by killing the creators of the robots/nanotech à la Terminator 2?
Let's hope these questions are thought-provoking.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Goal Post? Does That Make Me The Goalie?
My Top 3 - University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), University of Southern California, New York University.
GPA Goal - 3.75 or higher...ladies.
AP English Exam Goal - 4 or 5. Nothing less.
I'm actually taking applications from people who would like to help me with my application.
"Aim high in case you miss..."
...these were William Tell's son's last words before the arrow split his skull.
GPA Goal - 3.75 or higher...ladies.
AP English Exam Goal - 4 or 5. Nothing less.
I'm actually taking applications from people who would like to help me with my application.
"Aim high in case you miss..."
...these were William Tell's son's last words before the arrow split his skull.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Asimov Reading Response
For the past year or so, I've entertained the thought of purchasing a few Asimov classics, but alas I never did get around to it. Then, upon hearing that "Robot Dreams" was to be one of our readings, I squealed like a girl. On the inside of course, as I have a reputation to uphold. Anyway, while this is indeed a short story, it poses many, many questions about our future and the possibility that we may be inhabiting it with beings as lifelike and intelligent as we. How do we get along with them? Do we let them roam freely? Do we give them all the functions of a human? Should we oppress and control them in every conceivable way? Is that option even ethical? These are the considerations that come to mind after the last words of this story have been read.
What similarities does this piece have with 1984? Differences? What might George Orwell say to Isaac Asimov if there were to have dinner together? On what issues would they agree? Disagree? Why?
Having not known these questions ahead of time, I find it quite funny that I was comparing "Robot Dreams" with 1984 as I read it. I didn't say it was going to be "ha ha funny." Almost instantly, I connected Elvex to Winston and Susan Calvin to O'Brien with a dose of Big Brother. Elvex, the robot who discovers his innate ability to dream as humans do, just as quickly realizes that he need not adhere to the Three Laws of Robotics and poses a severe risk to Calvin and any others. In its dream, this freethinking robot does not necessarily recognize itself as a robot anymore, going so far as to see itself as a man in its dreams. As this man, Elvex, as Winston believes he was trying to do, liberates his beleaguered "people" from those who are oppressing them. He does so quite simply by ignoring all but one part of the Three Laws, as he explains it to Doctor Calvin calmly, "In my dream, however, it seemed to me there was neither First nor Second Law, but only the Third, and the Third Law was 'a robot must protect its own existence.' That was the whole of the Law." (pg.8 para. 10) Essentially, Elvex has broken free of the constraints that are placed on all robots, he is unlike any other of his kind, he is questioning what he is told, albeit only in his dreams, but nonetheless. Dr. Calvin, playing the role of O'Brien, serves to question Elvex as to these "dreams". She confronts the flaws that she believes cannot be. That Elvex is, for one, dreaming, and two, dreaming of revolt and robotic liberation. In the end, like O'Brien, Dr. Calvin comes to the conclusion that this being, as interesting it is to question and talk to, cannot go into society the way it is. The result is a dead Elvex (Winston), courtesy of a gunshot to the head. Oh, and Winston and Elvex can both be considered dreamers. But they're not the only ones.
The comparisons, while quite apparent, are also met with stark differences. Beginning with the fact that the oppressed people in Asimov's work are robots, compared to the flesh and bone people of Orwell's 1984. The robots have been created to be subjugated, so they have known nothing but toil and obedience toward their masters. Orwell's people were once free, no more than 50 years before the story takes place, leading some to remember what freedom once felt like. The regime that controls Oceania and all who dwell within it is one based on hate and pure lust for power. On the flip side, Asimov's world is full of understanding people working to create partners in there lives that can help them with tasks and cater to their every whim. Furthermore, Winston and Elvex have different takes on their revolutions. Winston's is based upon secrecy and subtle sabotage, while Elvex is prepared for upheaval and a Castro-esque uprising. As he states in his dream, "Let my people go!" (pg. 10, para. 13) These two worlds are, appropiately, worlds apart.
To clear up this novel discussion is an excerpt from a conversation between George Orwell and Isaac Asimov.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Scene, an Italian restaurant in Manhattan at approximately 10:30 p.m. Two men are sitting across from each other, waiting for their appetizers. They are George Orwell and Isaac Asimov, and one of them doesn't want to be there.]
Asimov - How did you rope me into having dinner with you, George?
Orwell - Well, after four previous outings together, I didn't find the fifth time quite as difficult to persuade you.
Asimov - Touché.
Orwell - So, I read that little story you gave me, Isaac. "Robot Dreams." I must admit, I was flattered.
Asimov - Really? Flattered how?
Orwell - Well, the similarities to 1984, of course. Did I mention that Time is already considering 1984 a classic?
Asimov - You did, actually. And these similarities are just coincidental. To be honest, I didn't realize them until after I wrote it and the amphetamines wore off.
Orwell - Oh, here's the bread.
[A waiter places a basket of dinner rolls on the tables. George Orwell takes more than his share. Asimov rolls his eyes and only takes one.]
Orwell - [buttering his roll] You know, your story made me think about what I wrote all those years ago. I was sitting there in my recliner, half-awake, when it came to me. I am Winston, Isaac. And you yourself are Elvex, your little tinkerbot.
Asimov - Robot.
Orwell - Right. We're them. We are the characters we made.
Asimov - Elaborate.
Orwell - We write about characters who live in a world that is built to oppress, to demoralize, and yet these characters question the system in which they are a part. First internally, but eventually they speak the thoughts that wind up getting them killed. In the end, these thoughts, as inspirational and provoking as they may be, prove to be fruitless.
Asimov - What you're saying is that you and I too speak these dangerous thoughts through our writings, but even with our warnings about authoritarian governments and life with robots, it will all come to nought?
Orwell - Precisely.
Asimov - [thinking deeply] Very profound, George. I have to agree with you there. I do suppose those two characters could be construed as semi-autobiographical. Although, I hope our heeding words can and do make an impact after we've gone. Can you imagine Britain being so heavily covered with closed-circuit cameras? Or America becoming utterly dependent on technology? Ha! [takes a deep breath] Ah...so, what are you ordering?
Orwell - Oh, who knows? Probably just fettuccine again.
Asimov - You really should try something new.
Orwell - [sternly] I'm fine with my choice, Isaac.
Asimov - I think I'll have the Tuscan chicken this time.
[The two look at their menus and eventually give their orders to the waiter once he returns. Their food comes after a wait and the two are gregariously stuffing themselves, still maintaining an intellectual conversation.]
Orwell - [mouth stuffed with noodles and sauce] I'll bet twenty pounds when my book becomes a movie, that Lawrence Olivier will play O'Brien.
Asimov - Olivier wouldn't touch that screenplay with a stick.
Orwell - Oh yeah? Well your movie's main character will be played by a negro.
Asimov - Preposterous. Eat your food, George.
[They finish their meals and loosen their belts, considering dessert and the future.]
Asimov - Can you imagine, one day we'll have technology that could unite the world? Machines that will make wars pointless and unnecessary. Tools that will build peace for our generation and those after it. I hope I live to see the day where my robots can walk alongside me.
Orwell - Isaac Asimov, ever the optimist. Of course the wars of the future will be pointless and unnecessary, but they'll still be fought. Whether for money, control, or for simply no reason at all. There will be wars. The machines will fight in those wars. The tools will build those machines. And the technology will destroy us all in the end.
Asimov - Why do you have to ruin our perfect night?
Orwell - I'm sorry, I just try to keep your mind in check. You tend to drift off, as if you were living in one of your stories.
Asimov - As do you.
Orwell - [Looking off into the distance] We shouldn't fight about the future, Isaac. We should fight for it.
Asimov - What a novel idea.
[Orwell and Asimov smile at each other, each thinking "Wow, we're so smart," and "someone should be writing this down." George Orwell looks at the bill and ruins the moment.]
Orwell - Are you paying?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Orwell was such a darn pessimist when it came to the future of the world, Asimov frequently dined with him to keep himself thinking straight. This inevitibility that there were going to be problems in the world gave Asimov the ability to write about future man and his attempts to control the increasingly human-like robots that he created. He incorporated this into his stories more prominently after this meeting took place, but he would never acknowledge it in any of his notes or letters or ever credit Orwell for his help. This was because in private, Asimov was a [bleep].
What similarities does this piece have with 1984? Differences? What might George Orwell say to Isaac Asimov if there were to have dinner together? On what issues would they agree? Disagree? Why?
Having not known these questions ahead of time, I find it quite funny that I was comparing "Robot Dreams" with 1984 as I read it. I didn't say it was going to be "ha ha funny." Almost instantly, I connected Elvex to Winston and Susan Calvin to O'Brien with a dose of Big Brother. Elvex, the robot who discovers his innate ability to dream as humans do, just as quickly realizes that he need not adhere to the Three Laws of Robotics and poses a severe risk to Calvin and any others. In its dream, this freethinking robot does not necessarily recognize itself as a robot anymore, going so far as to see itself as a man in its dreams. As this man, Elvex, as Winston believes he was trying to do, liberates his beleaguered "people" from those who are oppressing them. He does so quite simply by ignoring all but one part of the Three Laws, as he explains it to Doctor Calvin calmly, "In my dream, however, it seemed to me there was neither First nor Second Law, but only the Third, and the Third Law was 'a robot must protect its own existence.' That was the whole of the Law." (pg.8 para. 10) Essentially, Elvex has broken free of the constraints that are placed on all robots, he is unlike any other of his kind, he is questioning what he is told, albeit only in his dreams, but nonetheless. Dr. Calvin, playing the role of O'Brien, serves to question Elvex as to these "dreams". She confronts the flaws that she believes cannot be. That Elvex is, for one, dreaming, and two, dreaming of revolt and robotic liberation. In the end, like O'Brien, Dr. Calvin comes to the conclusion that this being, as interesting it is to question and talk to, cannot go into society the way it is. The result is a dead Elvex (Winston), courtesy of a gunshot to the head. Oh, and Winston and Elvex can both be considered dreamers. But they're not the only ones.
The comparisons, while quite apparent, are also met with stark differences. Beginning with the fact that the oppressed people in Asimov's work are robots, compared to the flesh and bone people of Orwell's 1984. The robots have been created to be subjugated, so they have known nothing but toil and obedience toward their masters. Orwell's people were once free, no more than 50 years before the story takes place, leading some to remember what freedom once felt like. The regime that controls Oceania and all who dwell within it is one based on hate and pure lust for power. On the flip side, Asimov's world is full of understanding people working to create partners in there lives that can help them with tasks and cater to their every whim. Furthermore, Winston and Elvex have different takes on their revolutions. Winston's is based upon secrecy and subtle sabotage, while Elvex is prepared for upheaval and a Castro-esque uprising. As he states in his dream, "Let my people go!" (pg. 10, para. 13) These two worlds are, appropiately, worlds apart.
To clear up this novel discussion is an excerpt from a conversation between George Orwell and Isaac Asimov.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Scene, an Italian restaurant in Manhattan at approximately 10:30 p.m. Two men are sitting across from each other, waiting for their appetizers. They are George Orwell and Isaac Asimov, and one of them doesn't want to be there.]
Asimov - How did you rope me into having dinner with you, George?
Orwell - Well, after four previous outings together, I didn't find the fifth time quite as difficult to persuade you.
Asimov - Touché.
Orwell - So, I read that little story you gave me, Isaac. "Robot Dreams." I must admit, I was flattered.
Asimov - Really? Flattered how?
Orwell - Well, the similarities to 1984, of course. Did I mention that Time is already considering 1984 a classic?
Asimov - You did, actually. And these similarities are just coincidental. To be honest, I didn't realize them until after I wrote it and the amphetamines wore off.
Orwell - Oh, here's the bread.
[A waiter places a basket of dinner rolls on the tables. George Orwell takes more than his share. Asimov rolls his eyes and only takes one.]
Orwell - [buttering his roll] You know, your story made me think about what I wrote all those years ago. I was sitting there in my recliner, half-awake, when it came to me. I am Winston, Isaac. And you yourself are Elvex, your little tinkerbot.
Asimov - Robot.
Orwell - Right. We're them. We are the characters we made.
Asimov - Elaborate.
Orwell - We write about characters who live in a world that is built to oppress, to demoralize, and yet these characters question the system in which they are a part. First internally, but eventually they speak the thoughts that wind up getting them killed. In the end, these thoughts, as inspirational and provoking as they may be, prove to be fruitless.
Asimov - What you're saying is that you and I too speak these dangerous thoughts through our writings, but even with our warnings about authoritarian governments and life with robots, it will all come to nought?
Orwell - Precisely.
Asimov - [thinking deeply] Very profound, George. I have to agree with you there. I do suppose those two characters could be construed as semi-autobiographical. Although, I hope our heeding words can and do make an impact after we've gone. Can you imagine Britain being so heavily covered with closed-circuit cameras? Or America becoming utterly dependent on technology? Ha! [takes a deep breath] Ah...so, what are you ordering?
Orwell - Oh, who knows? Probably just fettuccine again.
Asimov - You really should try something new.
Orwell - [sternly] I'm fine with my choice, Isaac.
Asimov - I think I'll have the Tuscan chicken this time.
[The two look at their menus and eventually give their orders to the waiter once he returns. Their food comes after a wait and the two are gregariously stuffing themselves, still maintaining an intellectual conversation.]
Orwell - [mouth stuffed with noodles and sauce] I'll bet twenty pounds when my book becomes a movie, that Lawrence Olivier will play O'Brien.
Asimov - Olivier wouldn't touch that screenplay with a stick.
Orwell - Oh yeah? Well your movie's main character will be played by a negro.
Asimov - Preposterous. Eat your food, George.
[They finish their meals and loosen their belts, considering dessert and the future.]
Asimov - Can you imagine, one day we'll have technology that could unite the world? Machines that will make wars pointless and unnecessary. Tools that will build peace for our generation and those after it. I hope I live to see the day where my robots can walk alongside me.
Orwell - Isaac Asimov, ever the optimist. Of course the wars of the future will be pointless and unnecessary, but they'll still be fought. Whether for money, control, or for simply no reason at all. There will be wars. The machines will fight in those wars. The tools will build those machines. And the technology will destroy us all in the end.
Asimov - Why do you have to ruin our perfect night?
Orwell - I'm sorry, I just try to keep your mind in check. You tend to drift off, as if you were living in one of your stories.
Asimov - As do you.
Orwell - [Looking off into the distance] We shouldn't fight about the future, Isaac. We should fight for it.
Asimov - What a novel idea.
[Orwell and Asimov smile at each other, each thinking "Wow, we're so smart," and "someone should be writing this down." George Orwell looks at the bill and ruins the moment.]
Orwell - Are you paying?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Orwell was such a darn pessimist when it came to the future of the world, Asimov frequently dined with him to keep himself thinking straight. This inevitibility that there were going to be problems in the world gave Asimov the ability to write about future man and his attempts to control the increasingly human-like robots that he created. He incorporated this into his stories more prominently after this meeting took place, but he would never acknowledge it in any of his notes or letters or ever credit Orwell for his help. This was because in private, Asimov was a [bleep].
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Watts Reading Response
Put on your helmet, because this guy's going to blow your mind. I love this kind of reading, the most outside the box thinking there is, that nothing is for sure, that God can be in all of us, and everything in between.
Watts has the question as to what exactly is taboo in our world, now that sex is apparently commonplace and sometimes part of people's daily discussion. He concludes that we, me, you, us, and your Grandpa Hank are the taboos of the modern world. Watts goes so far to call us the taboo of taboos, because of the seemingly insane ideas that the human psyche can cook up and dish out to the general populace. The thoughts that lurk within us are, in fact, the most dangerous things can be imagined. (pg. 17, 1st par.)
Watts has issues with religion because of what he perceives as the confinement of the mind once one unquestionably accepts the biblical texts and stories presented to them. Faith, you could say, is what he's got beef with. Watts references Tertullian of Christianity as a testament (no pun) to how faith blocks out reason and logic, " I believe, because it is absurd," (pg. 16, lines 1-2). This blind faith surely makes Watts shake his head and cry in the shower.
Continuing, Watts sees that a problem exists in the "conquering of nature," in that we look at this "outside world" as harsh, unforgiving, and against mankind, therefore it must be conquered. Watts believes this misconception could be the undoing of mankind itself. That our destruction of nature to extend our own power on the land will cause our own destruction, because nature is what we depend on, it's what we came into, and soon it will be leveled, as will we. (pg. 8-9, 3rd par.)
There is a "new experience" for which Watts believes man needs. This "experience" should result in man being able to come to terms with what he is, or, what it means to be "I". To be able to accept things about himself that may drive him insane. That he is a bit part in the Broadway show that is the universe. What is his role, how should he play it, should he make a move on that other bit player who keeps glancing over at him, the one with the auburn hair? All these questions are meant to test the man and through it, have him gain the experience of what he is. (pg.11, 2nd par.)
Watts sees that the purpose of myth, while also serving as a fairy tale, is also a way to make sense of a very complex world and the our lives in that world. To make simple comparisons to help describe how mind-numbingly complicated things work. Such as how a bullet fired into a honeydew helps explain why I keep finding dinosaur bones in my backyard. Still, one must be careful not to take these myths for what they are, and to remember that they are colorful and messiah-filled tales of actual facts. (pg. 12-13, 2nd par.)
To find his/her identity, Watts suggests
The novel 1984 and Mr. Watts share a bit of a connection in that they both delve into the loop of infuriating logic dealing with what is known and what is said. Watts describes that many follow religion based on faith, the blind belief in the impossibilities and absurdities presented to them in the little mass-produced Holy Bibles. That they cannot separate the myths from the facts and eventually they become intertwined. Jesus was crucified and walked on water are just as believeable to some Christians, when the more logical can separate the two, but maybe won't interupt the sermon to announce it. 1984 has the Ministry of Truth, which makes lies into facts with ease, no questions asked and eyebrows raised. The facts produced by Big Brother might as well be scripture, because the citizens of Oceania follow them devoutly and put a smile on their face while doing so. The citizens are all religious followers to a beaurucracy, with a dash of monotheism in the form of Big Brother.
Watts has the question as to what exactly is taboo in our world, now that sex is apparently commonplace and sometimes part of people's daily discussion. He concludes that we, me, you, us, and your Grandpa Hank are the taboos of the modern world. Watts goes so far to call us the taboo of taboos, because of the seemingly insane ideas that the human psyche can cook up and dish out to the general populace. The thoughts that lurk within us are, in fact, the most dangerous things can be imagined. (pg. 17, 1st par.)
Watts has issues with religion because of what he perceives as the confinement of the mind once one unquestionably accepts the biblical texts and stories presented to them. Faith, you could say, is what he's got beef with. Watts references Tertullian of Christianity as a testament (no pun) to how faith blocks out reason and logic, " I believe, because it is absurd," (pg. 16, lines 1-2). This blind faith surely makes Watts shake his head and cry in the shower.
Continuing, Watts sees that a problem exists in the "conquering of nature," in that we look at this "outside world" as harsh, unforgiving, and against mankind, therefore it must be conquered. Watts believes this misconception could be the undoing of mankind itself. That our destruction of nature to extend our own power on the land will cause our own destruction, because nature is what we depend on, it's what we came into, and soon it will be leveled, as will we. (pg. 8-9, 3rd par.)
There is a "new experience" for which Watts believes man needs. This "experience" should result in man being able to come to terms with what he is, or, what it means to be "I". To be able to accept things about himself that may drive him insane. That he is a bit part in the Broadway show that is the universe. What is his role, how should he play it, should he make a move on that other bit player who keeps glancing over at him, the one with the auburn hair? All these questions are meant to test the man and through it, have him gain the experience of what he is. (pg.11, 2nd par.)
Watts sees that the purpose of myth, while also serving as a fairy tale, is also a way to make sense of a very complex world and the our lives in that world. To make simple comparisons to help describe how mind-numbingly complicated things work. Such as how a bullet fired into a honeydew helps explain why I keep finding dinosaur bones in my backyard. Still, one must be careful not to take these myths for what they are, and to remember that they are colorful and messiah-filled tales of actual facts. (pg. 12-13, 2nd par.)
To find his/her identity, Watts suggests
The novel 1984 and Mr. Watts share a bit of a connection in that they both delve into the loop of infuriating logic dealing with what is known and what is said. Watts describes that many follow religion based on faith, the blind belief in the impossibilities and absurdities presented to them in the little mass-produced Holy Bibles. That they cannot separate the myths from the facts and eventually they become intertwined. Jesus was crucified and walked on water are just as believeable to some Christians, when the more logical can separate the two, but maybe won't interupt the sermon to announce it. 1984 has the Ministry of Truth, which makes lies into facts with ease, no questions asked and eyebrows raised. The facts produced by Big Brother might as well be scripture, because the citizens of Oceania follow them devoutly and put a smile on their face while doing so. The citizens are all religious followers to a beaurucracy, with a dash of monotheism in the form of Big Brother.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Unofficial First Blog
Alright, so this is the school-friendly-politically-correct-adhere-to-the-FCC-and-not-hurt-anyone's-feelings version of Derek's blog. I hope everyone loves it.
This is a completely seperate entity from my other alias, Rhymenoceros. Let me tell you about who I am when I'm the Hiphopopotamus.
"I'm the Hiphopopotamus
my lyrics are bottomless...
They call me the Hiphopopotamus
Got flows that glow like phosphorus
Poppin' off the top of this esophagus
Rockin' this metropolis
I'm not a large water dwelling mammal from Africa
Where'd you get that preposterous hypothesis?
Did Steve tell you that?
What's he got to do with it?
What kind of rapping name is Steve anyway?
(shakes fist) Steve..."
Now that that's settled. I can post my normal AP English-related blah blah blah and you can all read about what I think about that specific blah blah blah. I plan on having some very engaging blah blah blah about the blah blah we read. You know? Alright, I got real homework to do and people to talk to on MySpace so...I'll blog you later?
This is a completely seperate entity from my other alias, Rhymenoceros. Let me tell you about who I am when I'm the Hiphopopotamus.
"I'm the Hiphopopotamus
my lyrics are bottomless...
They call me the Hiphopopotamus
Got flows that glow like phosphorus
Poppin' off the top of this esophagus
Rockin' this metropolis
I'm not a large water dwelling mammal from Africa
Where'd you get that preposterous hypothesis?
Did Steve tell you that?
What's he got to do with it?
What kind of rapping name is Steve anyway?
(shakes fist) Steve..."
Now that that's settled. I can post my normal AP English-related blah blah blah and you can all read about what I think about that specific blah blah blah. I plan on having some very engaging blah blah blah about the blah blah we read. You know? Alright, I got real homework to do and people to talk to on MySpace so...I'll blog you later?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
