On Katie's post, Connection: King Lear and Poverty
"Though, yes, there needs to be people who go out there and actually ACT to create change, I disagree with you that money can't help. Who says that when you donate you're not doing good? The big causes we all think about now would be nothing without the rich backers who chose to make that their pet charity. Sure, they might not be doing it for the right reasons, but when the results are achieved (as much as they can be), who's to say who did more to help it?"
On Anna's post, iMedia: Levi's Commercials
"Most unfortunately (not really) I disagree. I guess it's cool that they're using these powerful imaging stuff and whatever, BUT WHERE IS THE ADVERTISEMENT? Personally, I've always hated Levi's commercials. Because of the fact that they never advertise their product. Why go spend millions of dollars to NOT advertise? Stupid. I saw a Levi's commercial once that was literally 1.5 minutes of a car racing around a desert and kicking up dust. I was thinking, "Greeeat, another Audi commercial." Then, a "real american man" gets out of the car, they zoom in on his butt and LOOK, he's wearing Levi's. Flash their logo and it's peace out.
No. You can't do that. It doesn't count as an ad. They might as well go spend their money on PSA's rather than the fake commercials.
Not sure why I felt the need to rant about that. Oh well, must go post my blogging around now."
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Connection: King Lear and Richard III
Here's a connection...they were both written by Shakespeare.
Only kidding!
But really, the thing that struck me most about both plays is the ambiguity about the "good guys" and the "bad guys." During Richard III as he's basically making a staircase out of the carcasses of his family and friends, Shakespeare intends for the audience member to have a little queasy part of their stomach sympathizing with him. When you watch all he worked and killed for come crumbling down around him, some of the audience is enjoying the karmic retribution, while others are feeling kind of bad for the guy. I mean, he's born a hunchback and nobody likes him, then finally once he gets some power for himself it all gets yanked out from under him.
It's similar in King Lear. I don't know who to feel bad for, who to hate, and who to sympathize with. I'm pretty sure the only person I can 100% qualify as good is Cordelia, and who knows, in an act and a half she can turn out to be a massive jerk. Even though Cornwall gouged Gloucester's eyes out, he was an enemy of Regan, who is turning out to be bad and an enemy of an enemy is a friend, right?
Now do you see where I get confused? There's such a thin line between good and evil and most of the characters are perched precariously on that line.
Thanks, Shakespeare. Now my brain hurts.
Only kidding!
But really, the thing that struck me most about both plays is the ambiguity about the "good guys" and the "bad guys." During Richard III as he's basically making a staircase out of the carcasses of his family and friends, Shakespeare intends for the audience member to have a little queasy part of their stomach sympathizing with him. When you watch all he worked and killed for come crumbling down around him, some of the audience is enjoying the karmic retribution, while others are feeling kind of bad for the guy. I mean, he's born a hunchback and nobody likes him, then finally once he gets some power for himself it all gets yanked out from under him.
It's similar in King Lear. I don't know who to feel bad for, who to hate, and who to sympathize with. I'm pretty sure the only person I can 100% qualify as good is Cordelia, and who knows, in an act and a half she can turn out to be a massive jerk. Even though Cornwall gouged Gloucester's eyes out, he was an enemy of Regan, who is turning out to be bad and an enemy of an enemy is a friend, right?
Now do you see where I get confused? There's such a thin line between good and evil and most of the characters are perched precariously on that line.
Thanks, Shakespeare. Now my brain hurts.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Dialectics: Medieval vs Renaissance Thinking
Reading King Lear and studying history sparked my curiosity to really nail down the differences between medieval and renaissance thinking, and what makes them so thoroughly different. I'll run through main points of thinking and the two can have at it.
Religion:
In the middle ages, religion was the highest form of law. It controlled politics, and many wanted to create a unified Europe under Christian rule. This was also (unfortunately) the time of the inquisition, and they weren't too nice to those who believed differently. In the renaissance, however, skepticism was on the rise. Not hard to believe, since many popes were corrupt, the state became superior to the church, and the reformation was in full swing. It's harder to have full confidence in your powerful church when the facade of its superiority is crumbling and people are pointing out its flaws.
Literature:
During the medieval period, books were hand-written and largely patronized by the church. Since most of the subjects were religiously based, there was little criticism or provoking literature. Not only was this true, but it was largely written in Latin and the vast majority of people were illiterate. The literacy rate improved slightly in the renaissance, but they also began to translate things into other languages and write about secular topics. The printing press allowed for mass distribution of literature and the authors tended to go back to their Greek and Roman roots.
Family:
In medieval times, there was virtually no divorce (since that's a no-no in the Catholic church) and marriage was lots of times arranged for economical purposes. Later, during the renaissance, people started to marry for love, and divorce became a little more popular, though most people stayed married.
Women's Status:
Going along with the shift to love-based marriages, in the medieval times there was a relative sexual equality, where in the renaissance period there was a huge double standard. The woman was supposed to make herself desirable to the man, and prostitution became more rampant. Their legal status was crap, and only the highly educated could be considered even a little important.
Politics:
In the middle ages, the church and politics were intertwined, with the church governing everything, but in the renaissance period the state became separate, with the "new monarchs" asserting their rule over the state churches.
So there we go. What's the big difference? In the middle ages, they looked for a man who was an expert in one subject. In the renaissance, they wanted a man with virtu, or a man who was well-rounded. Their polar-opposite thinking not only allows for some cool debate (though we're a little to late to hear the REAL thing) but it creates a nice dynamic in King Lear.
Religion:
In the middle ages, religion was the highest form of law. It controlled politics, and many wanted to create a unified Europe under Christian rule. This was also (unfortunately) the time of the inquisition, and they weren't too nice to those who believed differently. In the renaissance, however, skepticism was on the rise. Not hard to believe, since many popes were corrupt, the state became superior to the church, and the reformation was in full swing. It's harder to have full confidence in your powerful church when the facade of its superiority is crumbling and people are pointing out its flaws.
Literature:
During the medieval period, books were hand-written and largely patronized by the church. Since most of the subjects were religiously based, there was little criticism or provoking literature. Not only was this true, but it was largely written in Latin and the vast majority of people were illiterate. The literacy rate improved slightly in the renaissance, but they also began to translate things into other languages and write about secular topics. The printing press allowed for mass distribution of literature and the authors tended to go back to their Greek and Roman roots.
Family:
In medieval times, there was virtually no divorce (since that's a no-no in the Catholic church) and marriage was lots of times arranged for economical purposes. Later, during the renaissance, people started to marry for love, and divorce became a little more popular, though most people stayed married.
Women's Status:
Going along with the shift to love-based marriages, in the medieval times there was a relative sexual equality, where in the renaissance period there was a huge double standard. The woman was supposed to make herself desirable to the man, and prostitution became more rampant. Their legal status was crap, and only the highly educated could be considered even a little important.
Politics:
In the middle ages, the church and politics were intertwined, with the church governing everything, but in the renaissance period the state became separate, with the "new monarchs" asserting their rule over the state churches.
So there we go. What's the big difference? In the middle ages, they looked for a man who was an expert in one subject. In the renaissance, they wanted a man with virtu, or a man who was well-rounded. Their polar-opposite thinking not only allows for some cool debate (though we're a little to late to hear the REAL thing) but it creates a nice dynamic in King Lear.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Metacognition: Kite Runner Essay
If you sawed open my head at the moment I was writing my essay, you'd probably have a seizure if you're epileptic. Or even if you're not. I swear, sometimes I think strobe lights are flashing and there is an entire rave in my head waiting to bring me off on a tangent or distract me. For this essay specifically, I sat down and powered out about half of it, and then my brain rave took off and I couldn't focus. Was this because I'm possibly/probably insane? Maybe. But I had just written about guilt, and failed attempts at helping Sohrab. I think that the time the little ravers in my head chose to act out was significant, seeing as this is the break where my essay goes from Amir's failures to Amir's awesomeness.
When I write, I can't sit down and write a whole essay, or even necessarily write in the order it's going to be in in the final essay. My thinking pattern is a scattered one. Is this effective? Sure, it gets done. Maybe it's not the most efficient method of thinking, but it's definitely the easiest for my brain to grasp. During the break I took from writing my essay, I actually was reading A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, which I think helped me not only to get my mind away for long enough that I could come back and focus without getting a brain overload, but it allowed me to focus on writing through reading another writer's work.
So is my writing style effective or efficient? Maybe not for others, but it is for me. I know how my brain works, so I can follow my train of thought until the final paper comes together, but it's probably hard for others to do the same, so that's definitely something I will work on in the future.
And now the ravers in my head are calling me away, so I can go not do my other homework. :)
When I write, I can't sit down and write a whole essay, or even necessarily write in the order it's going to be in in the final essay. My thinking pattern is a scattered one. Is this effective? Sure, it gets done. Maybe it's not the most efficient method of thinking, but it's definitely the easiest for my brain to grasp. During the break I took from writing my essay, I actually was reading A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, which I think helped me not only to get my mind away for long enough that I could come back and focus without getting a brain overload, but it allowed me to focus on writing through reading another writer's work.
So is my writing style effective or efficient? Maybe not for others, but it is for me. I know how my brain works, so I can follow my train of thought until the final paper comes together, but it's probably hard for others to do the same, so that's definitely something I will work on in the future.
And now the ravers in my head are calling me away, so I can go not do my other homework. :)
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Blogging Around
To Anna's connection:
Well here's my comment, regarding both this blog post and responding to Jordyn's. Though they talk little about Bella's childhood, they do talk a lot about Sirius', and since they come from the same family you can see how they are much the same. Anna, I think you're absolutely right, and the little we know about both Assef and Bella's childhoods illustrate your point well. You said, "Assef grew up in a country where fighting had been a way of life for centuries and Bellatrix lives in a fictional world where the limits of one‘s imagination are tested." and I agree, but even if you think of Bella as a real person, she really has grown up in a society where fighting and fear was absolutely normal. Voldemort's army simply terrorized the wizarding world and everyone is afraid...even to simply say his name. They actually had remarkably similar upbringings, except for Jordyn's already stated point of Assef dominating his parents and Bella simply being taught by hers.
ps. I love you for making a connection to HP.
To Katie's It Matters:
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE.
Though I must say, I have read/watched most of the things you rag on, I completely agree. At the moment, I am finding time between homework and everything else to read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Why? Because I want to. I have so many friends who commonly say "I don't read." or "That's too many pages, it'll take me forever." What they don't know is that the power of words is MUCH more than what a director can pour into your mind in 2 hours. When you read a book you get to know the characters, and there are many times when I'll find myself trying to think of something a particular friend did or said and realize that I'm thinking of an event in a novel. Reading is such an integral part of life for me, my mom and I did the same thing as you and your mom. I can't imagine my life without the books I hold so dear. Plus, where would movies be if they hadn't come from books first? I don't know of any movie that can do more than what a book can, or that can bring you more joy. I simply don't understand why people don't find joy in reading...maybe they just haven't found the right book yet.
Well here's my comment, regarding both this blog post and responding to Jordyn's. Though they talk little about Bella's childhood, they do talk a lot about Sirius', and since they come from the same family you can see how they are much the same. Anna, I think you're absolutely right, and the little we know about both Assef and Bella's childhoods illustrate your point well. You said, "Assef grew up in a country where fighting had been a way of life for centuries and Bellatrix lives in a fictional world where the limits of one‘s imagination are tested." and I agree, but even if you think of Bella as a real person, she really has grown up in a society where fighting and fear was absolutely normal. Voldemort's army simply terrorized the wizarding world and everyone is afraid...even to simply say his name. They actually had remarkably similar upbringings, except for Jordyn's already stated point of Assef dominating his parents and Bella simply being taught by hers.
ps. I love you for making a connection to HP.
To Katie's It Matters:
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE.
Though I must say, I have read/watched most of the things you rag on, I completely agree. At the moment, I am finding time between homework and everything else to read A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. Why? Because I want to. I have so many friends who commonly say "I don't read." or "That's too many pages, it'll take me forever." What they don't know is that the power of words is MUCH more than what a director can pour into your mind in 2 hours. When you read a book you get to know the characters, and there are many times when I'll find myself trying to think of something a particular friend did or said and realize that I'm thinking of an event in a novel. Reading is such an integral part of life for me, my mom and I did the same thing as you and your mom. I can't imagine my life without the books I hold so dear. Plus, where would movies be if they hadn't come from books first? I don't know of any movie that can do more than what a book can, or that can bring you more joy. I simply don't understand why people don't find joy in reading...maybe they just haven't found the right book yet.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Connection: The Kite Runner and The Color of Friendship
If you've ever met a girl between the ages of 12-18 who owned a TV in 2000, odds are you've at least heard of the movie The Color of Friendship. Yes, it was a Disney Channel made-for-TV movie. Yes, my nerd is showing by blogging about this. and Yes, it is a wonderful movie.
Just to fill in those who HAVE been living under a rock for about a decade, The Color of Friendship was a movie that ran on Disney Channel starting in 2000. In the beginning of the movie, you meet Mahree, a white South African living in apartheid South Africa. She lives in a mansion, with her parents and her housekeeper, a black woman named Flora. Even though she considers Flora to be her best friend, she still holds deep-seeded racism that she has been raised with. Later, she goes to America with the hopes of living with a white family there. The family she does get placed with though, is the Dellums family. Piper, a girl Mahree's age, and her father, Ron, a congressman, were also hoping to get a black South African girl to live with them. Both parties are surprised, and it takes a while for them to warm up, but they go through the traditional Disney storyline of becoming friends and reconciling their differences.
Needless to say, this is a wonderful movie, but how does it connect to The Kite Runner? Well, the relationship of Hassan and Amir is very similar to the relationship of Flora and Mahree. Though she considers Flora her best friend, Mahree still is on the benefitting end of apartheid and is a wholehearted supporter of it. When she moves to America to live iwth the Dellums, she treats them like her servants until she starts to learn that the color of their skin does not automatically make them subservant to her. Hassan and Amir have almost the same relationship. Amir and Hassan might be best friends in someone else's eyes, but to Amir, Hassan is just his servant. It takes finding out that they were half brothers to make Amir see Hassan as an equal, and even then it is begrudgingly. Amir does not go through the Disney Channel happy machine and learn his lesson, but he does move on with his life. In Hassan's letter, it is obvious that Hassan forgave Amir, however undeserving Amir was. This makes it harder for Amir, because he wants to strive to be the person Hassan was in his father's eyes.
Thinking about the similarities between these two relationships makes the relationship in The Kite Runner easier to understand. Seeing how similar the white master, black servant relationship is to the Pashtun master, Hazara servant makes it easier for an American reader to understand. We are so informed about the civil rights fights in America and many people are very informed about Africa, especially apartheid South Africa. Many Americans, however, are far more uninformed about Afghanistan's social issues, and I can confess that I didn't know as much as I should have before reading this book. The relationships between Hassan and Amir and Flora and Mahree make for an interesting comparison between the different racism-powered regimes the world has seen.
Just to fill in those who HAVE been living under a rock for about a decade, The Color of Friendship was a movie that ran on Disney Channel starting in 2000. In the beginning of the movie, you meet Mahree, a white South African living in apartheid South Africa. She lives in a mansion, with her parents and her housekeeper, a black woman named Flora. Even though she considers Flora to be her best friend, she still holds deep-seeded racism that she has been raised with. Later, she goes to America with the hopes of living with a white family there. The family she does get placed with though, is the Dellums family. Piper, a girl Mahree's age, and her father, Ron, a congressman, were also hoping to get a black South African girl to live with them. Both parties are surprised, and it takes a while for them to warm up, but they go through the traditional Disney storyline of becoming friends and reconciling their differences.
Needless to say, this is a wonderful movie, but how does it connect to The Kite Runner? Well, the relationship of Hassan and Amir is very similar to the relationship of Flora and Mahree. Though she considers Flora her best friend, Mahree still is on the benefitting end of apartheid and is a wholehearted supporter of it. When she moves to America to live iwth the Dellums, she treats them like her servants until she starts to learn that the color of their skin does not automatically make them subservant to her. Hassan and Amir have almost the same relationship. Amir and Hassan might be best friends in someone else's eyes, but to Amir, Hassan is just his servant. It takes finding out that they were half brothers to make Amir see Hassan as an equal, and even then it is begrudgingly. Amir does not go through the Disney Channel happy machine and learn his lesson, but he does move on with his life. In Hassan's letter, it is obvious that Hassan forgave Amir, however undeserving Amir was. This makes it harder for Amir, because he wants to strive to be the person Hassan was in his father's eyes.
Thinking about the similarities between these two relationships makes the relationship in The Kite Runner easier to understand. Seeing how similar the white master, black servant relationship is to the Pashtun master, Hazara servant makes it easier for an American reader to understand. We are so informed about the civil rights fights in America and many people are very informed about Africa, especially apartheid South Africa. Many Americans, however, are far more uninformed about Afghanistan's social issues, and I can confess that I didn't know as much as I should have before reading this book. The relationships between Hassan and Amir and Flora and Mahree make for an interesting comparison between the different racism-powered regimes the world has seen.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Best of Week: Human Nature
In Friday's discussion, we talked about the power that others hold over us. When Assef raped Hassan, his two friends (who disapproved of the act) just stood by and watched. We talked about different studies where, when given a position of power, people will do crazy things to others. Mr. Allen brought up the Stanford Prison Experiment, which I had never heard of before. But when he started explaining it, I realized I had heard of it before. In an episode of Veronica Mars, My Big Fat Greek Rush Week, her boyfriend Logan and best friend Wallace are allowed an opportunity to get out of a 20-page essay for their psych class. Anyone who volunteers for a study and is on the winning team is exempt from it, and the losers only have to write a 10-page essay.
If you watch from 2:10-4:06, you see what happened in the show. The video clip doesn't show it, but in the end of the episode, they show the prisoner who gave away the fake address taking notes for the guard who was especially abusive towards him (Shawn from Boy Meets World), and saying that he's a "pretty good guy." Human nature is such an absurdly complicated topic, and I can't even begin to scratch the surface in one blog post, but I thought that it is such an important topic in Kite Runner that it deserved to be addressed. People's willingness to do wonders when given a position of power (like the experiment Mr. Williams talked about) is amazing, and makes you wonder what you would do when power-crazy. Most people would like to say they would hold true to their morals, but the question I leave you with is: Would you?
If you watch from 2:10-4:06, you see what happened in the show. The video clip doesn't show it, but in the end of the episode, they show the prisoner who gave away the fake address taking notes for the guard who was especially abusive towards him (Shawn from Boy Meets World), and saying that he's a "pretty good guy." Human nature is such an absurdly complicated topic, and I can't even begin to scratch the surface in one blog post, but I thought that it is such an important topic in Kite Runner that it deserved to be addressed. People's willingness to do wonders when given a position of power (like the experiment Mr. Williams talked about) is amazing, and makes you wonder what you would do when power-crazy. Most people would like to say they would hold true to their morals, but the question I leave you with is: Would you?
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Change of Mind: Loyalty
A big theme in The Kite Runner is loyalty. As I read the book, I am amazed at the amount of loyalty (or lack thereof) the characters show. Hassan shows amazing amounts of loyalty towards Amir and his father, even through the roughest of times, while Amir couldn't care less about the boy he had grown up with. Previously, I perceived loyalty as an absolutely necessary character trait. But when I saw where Hassan's loyalty got him, it made me seriously evaluate my feelings. Hassan had unwavering loyalty towards the family who had provided everything for him and his father, and rightly so. But Amir, his supposed best friend, had absolutely no loyalty to Hassan. Amir's only loyalty was to himself (and in a more god-like sense, his father). When he watched his best friend (though he won't admit that they are best friends) get raped, his first instinct was to make sure his kite hadn't been damaged. Amir didn't take a second look when he met up with Hassan after, the only thing he could think of was getting home as fast as possible to show his father the kite that Hassan retrieved for him. Hassan's unwavering loyalty became its worst when Amir hid money and the watch in Hassan's bed to frame him and get his family kicked out. Amir didn't think twice about how they would get by without the steady job that Baba offers them, and he was really surprised when Baba forgave Hassan. Amir thought that Baba and Ali had the same relationship that he and Hassan did, but obviously they didn't. When Hassan left, Amir didn't even shed a tear, but Baba fought tooth and nail to get them to stay. Reading this really made me reevaluate loyalty. Obviously, it's a really important characteristic, because without loyalty you'll never gain anyone's trust. But this specific case shows us that the most innocent of people can be duped by someone claiming to have their best interests at heart. It's hard to think about your friends doing this to you, but it makes you want to think about your relationships with people. You don't just want to assume everyone's out to get you, but you also need to evaluate how you feel about people. The characters in the novel are over-exaggerated to make a point, but they also represent the deepest darkest parts of us, and their desires. To a point, I do identify with Amir, because when I was younger, I was always the bossy best friend. But his lack of loyalty made me want to be physically ill when I was reading the novel, and it makes me sure to never get even close to that point with anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)