Marriage

Marriage is undefinable and is sought upon by many different types of individuals. It is thought of as a union of two people, a man and a woman, joined together in the eyes of God; or, it is seen as the coming together of two people, same sex included, to embrace the love they share for one another and the love that binds them. Just because one differs from the other, that does not mean that the marriage displays any differing sort of affection. The title still holds, it is recognized, and that's really it. Donne's "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" and Minty's "Conjoined" both exemplify differing views regarding the basis of marriage and its representation. While both use figurative language, similes, metaphors, and diction to generate perspectives, these perspectives could not be more contrasting. Donne sees marriage as a bond of love, cherishing, and calming, give and take sort of relationship. On the other hand, Minty sees marriage as a restriction: limited, miserable, distorted, and lonely.
Similes and metaphors are the object of discussion that reveal the meaning beneath both authors' poetry. However, the similes connote stories that are anything but similar. For example, Minty explains to his reader that marriage is like "an accident, like the two-headed calf rooted in one body, fighting to suck at it's mothers teat's; or like those other freaks, Chang and Eng." First of all, the imagery basically tells the story and reveals a unique vision of what the author was thinking when he composed this piece. Marriage should never be seen as an accident, it should be planned out and waited upon until the right moment occurs to take that next step. A two-headed calf did not choose to be the way it is; its path was chosen for it and now must live with this decision. Fighting for a bare essential of survival explains a couple's compromise over issues. One may want something different from the other, but because they are rooted together, this compromise must take place regardless if it results in happiness. Chang and Eng are siamese twins. They are separate individuals, different wants, needs, and desires, but are forced to remain together and make sacrifices based on the other: a marriage, according to Minty. Donne, however, sees the opposite and conveys the opposite with his figurative language. This author uses a compass, an instrument used for navigation or a different instrument used for drawing circles. In I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, there's a scene where Rob Schneider portrays a minister at a gay marriage chapel. Despite the fact that it's hilarious, Schneider brings about a point of view that I believe is shared with the author: love is like a circle. It is not square or a heart because there are sharp edges that can be broken, but a circle is continuous and fluid and everlasting, like a marriage and like the love that bonds the marriage and forever keeps it vibrant and refreshed. This compass draws circles, perfect circles, that symbolize the fluid and continuous compromise and strengthening of the love shared between two people. Donne uses the "twin compasses" as a metaphor, basically stating that the souls of the couple are joined as one and will navigate through life together in one direction. However, if and when they do part, yes they will become two souls, but the arms of their compasses will forever point toward each other, and the path they lead will never be strayed from. This symbolizes spiritual love at its finest, in my opinion, and recognizes that true love never dies. Donne creates this image to relay a visual message of overcoming obstacles together and creating a perfect union that circulates around them forever.
Diction was the major contrasting element between the two poems that really set them apart from each other and employed the correct mood and tone that was attempted to be revealed by each author. To begin with, the titles of each poem can clearly makes themselves identifiable to decipher between a positive and a negative connotation. Minty uses degrading and demeaning words such as "deformed, accident, doomed, freaks, and cannot escape" while Donne riddles his rhymes through a much different choice of words, such as "joys, love, innocent, refined, soul, and grows". Each explains the mood of the poem and reveals what the author was thinking during his or her composition. Maybe, these words were generated through the foretelling of a personal experience, but it could also just be the overall attitude that the author has chosen to display. Either way, these words create contrasting reflections of one another and once again show a lack of comparison between the two poems.
Marriage is signified in many ways, and though there are many opinions regarding this union, the union itself never differs. It is what is made of this union and the love that binds this union that sets each marriage apart from the rest, and authors Minty and Donne thoroughly deciphered their views on marriage through similes, metaphors, and diction.

Answer to the Article

I believe the author is trying to convey a sense of contradiction between historical explanation and personal experience. He is trying to persuade the audience that O'Brien could not be accurate in reitterating the happenings of Vietnam because it is all told from a personal experience. However, I believe that every historical fact ever told can only derive from a personal experience because, after all, a tale can only be told from that person's perspective, whether it is stating a fact or not.
I think the most interesting insight I gained from this is just reading all of the various perspectives that were obtained from critiquing and, rather, enjoying the The Things They Carried. It was simply cool to see that a single story could attribute to so much insight, and no two perspectives were ever even a slight match. The critics say that he keeps his faith to both the stories of Vietnam and to Vietam itself, and I agree with this because it wasn't all fluff and bunnies throughout the story. It was harsh and crude and a seemingly accurate portrayal of life during warfare, in my opinion.
The author does criticize O'Brien's lack of validity by saying, "For many critics, the war cannot be represented accurately through traditional literary modes..." He believes he has no place attempting to relay a message that can never be foretold to the extent that it needs to be in order to grasp the depth of the experience.

The Things They Carried

In the midst of all that has been going on with me, you know, spreading myself so thin I'm almost transparent, I've finally found the paper with my original password on it.. I'm thrilled. This is amazing I was seriously about to make a third blog.
Anyways.. The Dentist. Prideful, overbearing, showing no sign of weakness. Poor Curt Lemon displays the exact contradiction of his true character in this short story. His pride has taken over him and has literally made him seem like he belongs in an asylum. I mean honestly, its the dentist. I even get scared still; getting your teeth cleaned is pure misery. Number 53 on my Hate List.
He faints of course, succumbing to his fear that has built up inside of him, and his embarrassment completely overrides his sense of humor. You'd think he'd laugh about this sort of thing, but that does not happen. Being in the war and living the life of the ultimate bad ass has definitely gotten into his head. He should not fear such a minute phobia as going to the dentist, so he thinks, and it upsets him to see that he has leaked weakness through his emotions and lack of panic control.
He has succumbed to pride and let it override any other emotion he would like to express to the other men. Pride has taken the reins in his mind and is attacking every situation through its own perspective.
Through all this, I realized that people should be able to express their weaknesses. We are not made of stone, so why act like it? The author is trying to highlight that the men in the story know that showing any sign of weakness proves that they are less of a man and should not be shown as much respect. However, this is, in reality, a war mentality and not a feminist mentality, and it will be hard to understand unless reading from that perspective.
Basically, I think Pride is the central focal point that the author was trying to express through this story.

Google is making us REtarded.

I do agree that "What Taylor did for the work of the hand is what Google is doing for the work of the mind" because of the quickness it has added to our lifestyles. Taylor looked for ways to speed up the way humans operated they're daily lifestyles, while Google has offered instant answers for whatever questions someone can think of. Google has even become a verb, for instance someone will tell you to just "Google it" whenever there is an answer that you don't know. People can look up anything they wish and copy anything also from any site Google can produce. Copying whole essays and using Google during class has become more popular. They no longer have to think for themselves because it has become a means of convenience to just type in whatever you please. I wouldn't say we are becoming stupid, because after all these people still have to think of the questions to ask. I do say people have become lazy though because they do not venture into books or think up their own answers to these questions that they have. Google has branched itself into every aspect of people's lives now with tshirts, homepages for internet users, and of course the famous Google site. Seriously the guy that created this probably wipes his booty with 100 dollar bills. Insanity, I tell ya.. Haha sorryy for the mental image. Anywayss, oh yeah I forgot, you can text Google too if you didn't already know that. Yes, its made an impact on our cellular devices as well, my friend. 46645 or GOOGL is the number to text for like.. Business addresses and such. All in favor of who use it.. Ha, guilty. It has replaced paper research and made instant gratification that much more accessible, and the resulting product is none other than future generations of laziness and ignorance. Sad, sad day..

Post modernism - What does it all mean?

I believe that there has always been a correlation between knowledge and power, but recently times have indeed changed. Regardless of how smart you are, power is instituted by popularity and media now, not the ability to build mass contraptions for the good of humanity. Power is based on numbers. The more votes that can be pulled in, the more CD's sold, the more viewers for a TV station. I think that's what we're heading toward to be honest. It isn't necessarily the quality of the person, the work, the machine; I believe its the efficiency and what can be brought forth in the shortest amount of time possible. Yes, bigger is always better in most cases, and this theory was definitely kept in mind when new computers, iPods, and other technologically savvy devices were developed. Yet, they keep improving, why? When will we be satisfied? When, if ever, will humans seize the need for the split second gratification that has enveloped our society and morphed it into a postmodern idealistic world? The numbers keep growing, but what does this say? Is this good, bad, a sign of turmoil? Must we stop or continue on with this need for statistical comparisons that are used to constantly "improve" our way of living? We recently talked about deconstruction in class, and in a way this is what we are leading up to here. Numbers are being tossed and replaced so quickly, there is no foundation or basis to be politically criticized or argued upon, if I may paraphrase from Postmoderism. The world seems to turn a little more quickly on its axis these days, and we're all going to have serious migraines if all this improvement gets out of hand, if it hasn't done so already.

Cat's Cradle :)

So far, I like this book collectively. Kurt Vonnegut is a simplistic genius. There aren't really any pictures in this one, so that kinda sucks, but the imagery is priceless. Like when the youngest son is describing his father when he shows him the cat's cradle, how horrid you know? Vonnegut is so crafty when it comes to thinking out of the box, so right brain. The father I believe is a reflection of his thinking, that abnormal detachment that you don't find in most people. I mean, the guy is building an atom bomb and couldn't care less about the uses of this invention or the amount of deaths that will occur once its used.
For instance, "What is sin?" is a definite red flag that this guy has a screw loose. He's amoral. I wouldn't say careless, because it does seem that he has feelings and the potential to care about something by the way he treats that piece of string to make his cat's cradle. I wonder what the cat's cradle symbolizes. It's a support system for a cat.. Yeah I got nothing. I have to keep reading. Anyway, the layout Vonnegut has plotted so far is funny, in my opinion. There's a midget, a bug fighter, an estranged bomb maker, and a sister that has "3 kids", and a guy that is super fascinated with all of it. It's like a reality show. So clever. These all must symbolize something. The bug fighting son is a small scale representation of his father, D said that in class. The father sees absolutely nothing wrong with his son's activity, even though it is something many children do. But, when he hits his sister and she's screaming? He does nothing about it, and better yet, its almost a transparent occurrence to him because its like he never saw it at all. Strange.

Brave New World essay building

I think that the handouts D gave us are really going to help with my essay. This book has been crazy, from what I've heard and the small amount that I've read. I can't believe someone would make up something this backwards.. But really, how backwards is it? How wrong, well different, would it be for me to think that our worlds, in some aspects, are similar? The savages are like us in that they strive for individuality, sure, but our society also loves conformity and being the hypocritical contradicting so-called "liberals" that claim this individuality. Like the pregnant woman in the book, when someone looks especially out of the ordinary, or even slightly, do we not look at them differently or automatically assume that they are not like us, that there is no possible way that they are "normal"? Yeah, you see? I don't understand it either. Maybe this hypocracy has been taken to extremities with BNW, maybe this shows that these people are really, really striving for conformity, just like we subtly are, its satirical exaggerations speak for themselves thats for sure. That was a lot of commas, but you understand.
For my essay, I'm going to build on how important it is that we keep our individuality flowing and plentiful, to be found everywhere and expressed by everyone. I think humans are humans because we act as humans, not as mechanical robots. Humanism is expression, behaviorism, unpredicting, and to change any one thing that fits the human criteria is fatal to this needed individuality that is the fuel to our society's growth and circulation.
I can use those handouts because they explain the fatalities of revolutionization. Sure, some things becoming obsolete are much needed, but human nature? Come on. We aren't machines and we aren't animals. Even animals shouldn't be forced to perform under these restrictions because its just simply.. Unethical. Live and love as humans should, but don't use it as an incentive. It is fuel for the body's mind and soul, but these aspects of life are not all that we need for survival. No, we need much more.