The Holocaust as a Comic Book Metaphor: Maus II and Art Spiegelman by Timothy Sexton discussed how Spiegelman was able to draw/write the comic book Muas II with representation of the Holocaust through his characterization of the characters not as humans but animals. Sexton wrote, “The key to Spiegelman's success in avoiding charges of trivialization may possibly lie in his artistic choice to treat the Holocaust through metaphor.” Instead of making the characters in Muas II as humans but animals, he was able to avoid the questioning of the audiences if this is actually what happens in the Holocaust itself. Also, the audience are allow to not take the story into believing that it is the actual occurrences of the Holocaust. Sexton supported that “tradition-ally, the use of animal characters in an allegory are intended to draw stark distinctions between character types.” Animals tend to categorize and demonstrate who is who in the storyline. The readers could distinct that the Jews are the mice and the Germans are the cats. Furthermore Sexton states, “Spiegelman manages to take advantage of the filmic component of the comic book while also manipulating its inherent pulp components.” Because of the way how Spiegelman is able to draw the shadows and perspective look, the story itself is like more of a movie than a book with pictures. The audiences are allowed to picture the story continuous throughout their mind as a movie. Moreover, Sexton wrote that throughout many other cartoons, animals seemed to characterize human. For example, Bugs Bunny, himself, seems to be more of a human than an animal. People who not question why and how animals can talk because widely people accept the fact that animals can be humanize. Ever since as long remember, cats and mice were naturally enemies of each other. Sexton states that, “After thousands of hours spent watching Tom chase Jerry and Itchy carry out his sociopathic torture of Scratchy, the idea that cats and mice are actually conscious of their antagonistic relationship often requires a moment of lucidity to reject.” It was seemed natural that the Germans hated the Jews because cats and mice never gotten along. However, Sexton said, “Just as cats aren't really consciously aware of any antagonism toward mice-they are just food-Spiegelman's use of them serves to heighten the idea that maybe many Germans also weren't fully conscious of their own hatred of Jews.”

 Link: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/127349/the_holocaust_as_a_comic_book_metaphor.html?cat=37

Cat's Cradle Response

I think Cat’s Cradle is a very interesting book. Well, our discussion in the Socratic circle allowed me to really understand what Kurt Vonnegut’s novel, Cat’s Cradle, is about and how it relate to postmodernism. Postmodernists rejected modernist’s ideals of rationality and a central point. They tend to focus on abstract and individualism. For example, in chapter 76 when Julian Castle questioned Newt’s painting, Newt answered, “It means whatever it means” (165). The painting Newt drew takes on different meaning through the view of people. His painting is abstract. It does not have a central meaning or a focus object. It all depends on the person to see and comprehend what the painting means to them. Furthermore, when Angela played the clarinet, John “did not expect the depth, the violence, and the almost intolerable beauty of the disease” (180). The only way for Angela to express her real feelings was through her clarinet. Unlike modern, the music that Angela played can be interpreted into different ways. She did not have to play a depressing song to allow her emotion to show.   It is her way of being unique and abstract. In addition, Newt explained to John that “no wonder kids grow up crazy. A cat’s cradle is nothing but a bunch of X’s between someone’s hands, and little kids look  and look and look at all those X’s…” and they find no cat nor cradle (165). No matter how hard someone looks at a cat’s cradle none of both can not be found. The X’s does not seem to form some kind of picture. It is up to the observer to interpret the cat’s cradle into his understanding. Whatever he sees and wishes to understand from it is all up to him. Like the cat’s cradle, life is something is endless and does not have a define meaning to it. Therefore, people search for other meanings that will give them reasons to what life is and more understanding of the world. Bokononism allowed the people to find the purpose of life.  

Brave New World?

After reading Brave New World, there were different topics that I could discuss about. However, I am going to focus on how the novel itself applies to our world. I want to explain the parallels between our world and Brave New World through evidences from Frederick Winslow Taylor’s The Principles of SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT 1910 and Sir Ken Robinson's YouTube video, RSA Animate-Changing Education Paradigms.

Frederick Winslow Taylor’s The Principles of SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT 1910 discusses of how to improve the industrial efficiency through four of his principles: 1. They develop a science for each element of a man’s work, which replaces the old rule- of-thumb method. 2. They scientifically select and then train, teach, and develop the workman, whereas in the past he chose his own work and trained himself as best he could. This is a method which is used by the people in the novel. They created and trained people to a certain position for a certain job in society. In our own world, we are heading toward that kind if method. People are train to do certain things. For example, students are forced to become educated or else they will suffer in the future. Education is the one of the key to be successful like others. 3. They heartily cooperate with the men so as to insure all of the work being done in accordance with the principles of the science which has been developed. The people in the novel were allowed to do whatever they want, which allow them happily to do their part in society, to keep the wheel moving.  Like in reality, if the managers listen to their employees, then the employees ae willing to work better and efficiently. 4. There is an almost equal division of the work and the responsibility between the management and the workmen. The management takes over all work for which they are better fitted than the workmen, while in the past almost all of the work and the greater part of the responsibility were thrown upon the men.

Like how I explained in my blog about Ken Robinson's YouTube video, RSA Animate-Changing Education Paradigms, there are many things that are parallel between our world and Brave New World. For example, the way how the children “conditioned”, we, as students, are being train and function a certain way. Also the way how there are children are created and replacing the old ones in the novel. Students are graduating and going out into the world replacing the elders and “turning the wheel”.     

First of all, the video was very interesting and creative. I thought it was awesome how Sir Ken Robinson drew out the pictures to describing his sayings. The pictures actually help me understand the topic of the video better because I am a visual person. There were some similarities between Sir Ken Robinson’s video, RSA Animate-Changing Education Paradigms, and Brave New World. For example, in the video, Robinson drew at student being medicated and sitting in his desk; while the teacher said, “Take your pills and focus!” (4:52). The student is being drug in order for him to concentrate on education, instead of being distracted by others things such as iPod, T.V. advertising, and computers. The pill helps control and brainwash the students into focusing on the “boring things”.  Similar to this, in Brave New World, the people gather together and take a drug called soma (81). This drug help take the people into a higher dimension mentally, forgetting the physical world. They want to achieve happiness and worship the Fordship. Soma seems like a technique used to help control the people. Furthermore, in the video, Robinson drew each department of the school (6:54). Students go to school and have different kind of classes that they take. Each class taught a different subject; therefore, as students attend, they are being taught and learning varies of things. Just like this, in the novel, from developing in a tube to little children, they are condition through the process. They are taught to hate the cold and love the heat. They are brainwashed that family and relationships are bad things. In addition, Robinson states that students are being produces as batches through age. In the novel, Bokanovsky‘s Process was the production of thousands of twins. They graduate in groups and work on the same thing as groups. 

Brave New World: Chapter "Peb"

Mustapha Mond said, "Wheels must turn steadily, but can not turn untended. There must be men to tend them, men as sturdy as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment." I believe that he means that the machines cannot function without the tending of the humans. Without humans, the wheel would not even turn and just lay there. Humans are created to turn and maintain the machine. However, it cannot be any man who is created, it must be a man that follow and do what he is told. He should and like what they are doing and do not question what he are doing. Another way of looking at this is that the wheel is the circle of life, in order for life to proceed, humans control in a certain way. They can only live to a certain age, do certain things, and have certain abilities. If humans are not control then the humans can died out. In order to accomplish this method, the human experiences are manipulated to control the desired outcome, such as family and monogamy. For example, Mustapha Mond said, “…Psychically, it was a rabbit hole, a midden, hot with the frictions of tightly packed life, reeking with emotion. What suffocating intimacies, what dangerous, insane, obscene relationships between the members of the family group! Maniacally, the mother brooded over her children (her children)…” (37). He manipulated others to believe that families were such horrible relationships. The bonds between families are weird and crazy things to have. By manipulating others to believe this, they do not want people to desired bond with each other. A mother’s love is view as something scary and dirty. By destroying the bonds, it is easier to made people listen and obey. Furthermore, as Henry Foster said to the Assistant Predestinator and Fanny said to Lenina that “every one belongs to every one else” (47). They all believe that no one owns the other. Every one is sharing every one. Unlike our view of being married to only one person, their view is that every one is married to every one. There is not a personal bond that can develop within two people. They are going from one partner to another quickly. It seems that they are trying to destroy bonds. Bonds can affect the development of emotions in humans. Emotions can lead to rebellions in the humans. The people want to create certain kind of people to do certain jobs. For this to happen, emotions must be controlled.            

Preparing to Write About The Tempest Response

In discussions of The Tempest, the major controversial issue is that whether if Shakespeare did or did not emphasis on imperialism. On the one hand, Aime Cesaire argues that Shakespeare in fact did focus on imperialism through his version of The Tempest called A Tempest. For example, Caliban replied back to Prospero that “…Except to jabber in your own language so that I could understand your orders…” In the early sixteenth century, the Europeans came over and taught the Natives their language so they would understand the Europeans. The main purpose of teaching them was so the Europeans could use the Natives to their own benefits. They were new to the world and needed to learn and study the new environment. Therefore, since the Natives knew their surroundings well, they were used to allow the Europeans of such knowledge of the new world. Prospero stood as the Europeans while Caliban symbolized the Natives. Cesaire defends the theme of imperialism in The Tempest. On the other hand, George Will contends that most people are trying to read between the lines too much. For instance, Will stated, “By “deconstructing” or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary work, critics strip literature of its authority”. He believed that The Tempest may be not based on imperialism. It could have been created to entertain Shakespeare’s audiences and people are taking the play into serious consideration. Shakespeare might have thought of a different theme for the play and it could have been totally different from the theme of imperialism. Will proved the point that what if imperialism was not Shakespeare’s main purpose.

 However, my own view is that Shakespeare did emphasis on imperialism. Shakespeare could have written The Tempest differently without even mentioning Caliban in the play. The purpose of Caliban was to reveal the Europeans’ control on the Natives. Shakespeare wanted to demonstrate to his audiences the treatment of the Europeans to the Natives. Another evidence is the way how Shakespeare characterized Caliban. Why isn’t Caliban portray as an obedient slave instead of a rebellious slave? Shakespeare might have wanted to show how the Natives do not want to be taken over. He wanted to reveal the reactions of the Natives to the Whites’ domination over them. Furthermore, Shakespeare has everyone leave the island. Shakespeare could have suggested that the Whites do leave the New World and leave everything alone. By giving the Natives back their own land and returning back to the Old World. Shakespeare seemed to elucidate imperialism in his play, The Tempest.      

Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate Response

                In the language world, there is not only one way to see or read each text but many ways. You may have an idea and I could have another idea on the same topic and both of us can be right. Usually, people with different background and culture tend to observe things differently. In Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate, it demonstrates the argument between George F. Will, a political commentator, and Stephen Greenblatt, a university professor of how literary should or should not be view.

                George Will argues in his article, Literacy Politics, that when people tend to use political view to read a text, they could strips away the author’s purpose of the text. For example, he states that “the supplanting of esthetic by political responses to literature makes literature primarily interesting as a mere index of who had power and whom the powerful victimized” (110). From political perspective, the people are only interest on who have the power and who the power is using against. The reader is not focusing on the author’s teachings or purpose. They are reading in too much of the text that they are losing sight of the theme of the text. Will wants people to see that politic have mostly nothing in literature. In addition, Will wrote that “’by deconstructing,’ or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority” (112).

                Stephen Greenblatt’s The Best Way Kill Our Literary Inheritance Is to Turn It into a Decorous Celebration of the New World Order debates that texts should be read and analyze as much as possible. For instance, he wrote that  “it is, [he] believes, all but impossible to understand these play without grappling with the dark energies upon which Shakespeare’s art so powerfully draws”(115). Greenblatt believes that without doing researches and understanding Shakespeare himself, one cannot understand the true meanings of his writings. Therefore, by analyzing and researching the text, one gain the understanding and in the making of the thought-process. He encourages readers to view the text from any perspective, which allow the readers to comprehend what they are reading. Without ideas and opinion, literature would fade away.

                From both perspectives, I cannot help but agree with both Will and Greenblatt. I do agree with Will when he wrote that “’by deconstructing,’ or politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority” (112). Sometime if the people, with a political bias, can view the text in a totally new and different meaning then the author intended. The purpose of literature is taken away and is left with nothing. However, it is inevitable that the readers do view the text a different way because of their culture and background. Greenblatt states that “the risk that we might turn our artistic inheritance into a simple, reassuring, soporific lie” (115). Without different ideas and opinions of different literature can lead to a boring and simple lie. They are what are keeping literature alive by passing on our knowledge to the next generation and so on. People will always come up with different conclusions.