first off, i would like to say that it was really hard to find motivation to begin AND finish reading the article....you know senioritis is really kicking in folks....
okay. so we all obviously know that TTTC is a collection of stories about the vietnam war, and they are told by a Vietnam veteran who was there firsthand to experience it. after reading neilson's extremely long article, you also obviously know that neilsen is arguing that the vietnam war is rather postmodern.
but why is vietnam so postmodern? well, 'nam did not fit the cookie cutter definition of war did it? no, not really...well at least according to what's-his-face (i have my own opinions on war that i will not mention because it would rather pointless to type it all out...if you care to know what my views on war are, then you will ask me in person because you must obviously care). "The war itself cannot be represented adequately through traditional literary modes; only a postmodern aesthetic can convey something of the war's surreal, sense-shattering, media inflected nature." and he goes on stating that "the war, according to these critics, was defined by uncertainty-in motivation, history, strategy, official rhetoric, media representations, identification of friend and foe." and basically, well at least it seemed, the rest of the article stated the same thing but with different words....
okay it feels needed. mini history lesson for ya'll that do not remember much about the US involvement in 'nam. the background info helps create a hardcore arguement....well at least in my opinion.
'nam was NOT at all an american war (duh). it was more the US was dragged into the war. as if it fell into a hole way too deep that it could not climb out of. the majority of the american people did not understand it, support it, and so forth. ("hey, hey LBJ how many kids you kill today?" does that ring a bell? if not, google it folks.) even today most people do not understand 'nam, but most people do not care. so basically the war is postmodern because it defies the glorified, romaticized view of war.
i must say though, these words caught my attention: "The weakness of The Things They Carried is that O'Brien's imagination is virtually the only reality. O'Brien does not contextualize his experiences, does not provide us with any deeper meaning of the causes and consequences of the war, and does not see beyond his individual experience to document the vastly greater suffering of the Vietnamese." remember folks, the Vietnamese were the ones whose homes, families, and country was being destroyed. They didn't ask for the war to happen (okay, neither did the US soliders who were thrusted into war).
alrightly. i think that about wraps it up. i have nothing more to say...i think. mmm. i'm going to go finish the book now. hope you had fun reading that extrememly long article then writing a blog about it! wasn't it a marvelous way to end a three-day weekend? ;]
2.01.2010
The Things They Carried.
ah. time to write a blog about the theme in the book! yay! i was reading around and it seems like i'm the only one that is enjoying the book. i just get a kick out of things that are depressing. is that sad/lame? you should let me know if you're getting a kick out of the book too......
anyway..........
at first when i began reading the book, it seemed like nothing special. O'brien merely tells these war stories that honestly, we don't know if they are real or not. he even states "in a true war story nothing is ever absolutely true."(82). however, i think this applies to any story ever told. like not every one believes that i got pulled over by a cop just so he could tell me that he liked my snuggie. (it seriously did happen) unless one has been in the same situation, the story in a way looses validity.
life: it’s like a bunch of little stories combined into one complete book. experiences create individual metanarratives not necessarily true to all. obviously it’s only definitely true to that one person. take my snuggie story for example! truth is what you believe in your heart…it’s what is true to you.
what you experience is all about perspective. perspective is personal and biased. thus you cannot covey the "truth" no matter how hard you try.
i would go into further detail but i have fallen behind in reading. i'm still of "Friends."
anyway..........
at first when i began reading the book, it seemed like nothing special. O'brien merely tells these war stories that honestly, we don't know if they are real or not. he even states "in a true war story nothing is ever absolutely true."(82). however, i think this applies to any story ever told. like not every one believes that i got pulled over by a cop just so he could tell me that he liked my snuggie. (it seriously did happen) unless one has been in the same situation, the story in a way looses validity.
life: it’s like a bunch of little stories combined into one complete book. experiences create individual metanarratives not necessarily true to all. obviously it’s only definitely true to that one person. take my snuggie story for example! truth is what you believe in your heart…it’s what is true to you.
what you experience is all about perspective. perspective is personal and biased. thus you cannot covey the "truth" no matter how hard you try.
i would go into further detail but i have fallen behind in reading. i'm still of "Friends."
1.24.2010
...postmodernism...
fact: i promise that i am going to do my absolute best to not inject any Throughly Modern Millie lyrics randomly in this post (the songs are stuck in my head. if you have been around me the past couple of days you know.)
mmmm. so we have had a semester to understand what postmodernism is, so this means we should know what it is correct? well, let's see how well of a job i do of explaining it.
postmodernism is (in my opinion) a movement that leans toward objectivity that tries to show that there really is no supper myth or ultimate truth that unites all of man kind. it also takes the idea of not labeling to a far extreme - by focusing on one thing then one is marginalizing the "Other."
mmm. i guess this means i should explain what the other is. it is the opinion that you disagree with. easy peasy lemon squeezy.
you know what that means: you can't stop marginalizing people no matter how hard you try. how sad.
onward to binary opposites!! which basically means that for every opinion there is a counter. beautiful.
okay. i feel like i have summed up postmodernism up, but alas this only looks like it is about two hundred words long.
so. um. postmodernism is basically trying to blend in everything -- not trying to exclude anyone because there is no right nor wrong. nothing has to make sense. why? because, honestly, who cares?
thank you postmodernism for making up realize that our view of reality is not as real as it seems. oh and thank you BNW & 1984 for that also. sadly, according to postmodernism, there is no one reality, but many contradictory views of what is reality and truth.
i think that is what makes it's slightly appealing. well, that is why i find postmodernism so fascinating - it's complexity. it's like once you think you understand it something completely new and random idea is thrown at you and you think crap! how does this have to do with anything else? mmm. yeah. but i'm not going to lie....i will always enjoy something by the bard or j. austen way more.
mmmm. so we have had a semester to understand what postmodernism is, so this means we should know what it is correct? well, let's see how well of a job i do of explaining it.
postmodernism is (in my opinion) a movement that leans toward objectivity that tries to show that there really is no supper myth or ultimate truth that unites all of man kind. it also takes the idea of not labeling to a far extreme - by focusing on one thing then one is marginalizing the "Other."
mmm. i guess this means i should explain what the other is. it is the opinion that you disagree with. easy peasy lemon squeezy.
you know what that means: you can't stop marginalizing people no matter how hard you try. how sad.
onward to binary opposites!! which basically means that for every opinion there is a counter. beautiful.
okay. i feel like i have summed up postmodernism up, but alas this only looks like it is about two hundred words long.
so. um. postmodernism is basically trying to blend in everything -- not trying to exclude anyone because there is no right nor wrong. nothing has to make sense. why? because, honestly, who cares?
thank you postmodernism for making up realize that our view of reality is not as real as it seems. oh and thank you BNW & 1984 for that also. sadly, according to postmodernism, there is no one reality, but many contradictory views of what is reality and truth.
i think that is what makes it's slightly appealing. well, that is why i find postmodernism so fascinating - it's complexity. it's like once you think you understand it something completely new and random idea is thrown at you and you think crap! how does this have to do with anything else? mmm. yeah. but i'm not going to lie....i will always enjoy something by the bard or j. austen way more.
12.17.2009
my slightly amazing thoughts on Maus.
yeah. the title lies. this is merely gibberish on maus. well at least that is my opinion. there may be something worth discussing in this post, but i doubt. i actually decided to uppercase the "m" in maus in the title. you should be proud of me. have to say i really did enjoy reading this comic book yeah. wayyyy easier than reading a three hundred page novel. yup. anyone else notice how as the year progress, the shorter and shorter our books are getting???
anyway. back to maus - not that i really started talking about anything rather important......
mmm. okay. i have no idea what to right about. the only thing that seems like i could write approx. 1200 words on is the whole represenation junk ( you know, the mice, cats, dogs, and all other lovely animals). other than that my mid is rather blank. i must state that i did rather enjoy the book. wait, an idea just popped into my head.....how about writing about how things must be generalize so that more people can feel like they can relate in a way...like mix that with representation. i don't know. i don't even know if that made sense.
well, i haven't really done much research on outside sources for this upcoming essay....that's what winter break is for. :]
what i really fancy about the book is the fact that it was a comic book but it told a story about the jews – well not all of them. Okay yes but mainly the spegielman side mmmm. writing about how it breaks traditional form. how about that?? Or even how the author doesn’t even know what the whole point of him drawing such a comic was – besides telling his dad’s story…….
i don’t know. mainly because i didn’t catch much postmodernism in this story……..did you??
alright. i'm going to go study for AP Gov test tomorrow. yay.
anyway. back to maus - not that i really started talking about anything rather important......
mmm. okay. i have no idea what to right about. the only thing that seems like i could write approx. 1200 words on is the whole represenation junk ( you know, the mice, cats, dogs, and all other lovely animals). other than that my mid is rather blank. i must state that i did rather enjoy the book. wait, an idea just popped into my head.....how about writing about how things must be generalize so that more people can feel like they can relate in a way...like mix that with representation. i don't know. i don't even know if that made sense.
well, i haven't really done much research on outside sources for this upcoming essay....that's what winter break is for. :]
what i really fancy about the book is the fact that it was a comic book but it told a story about the jews – well not all of them. Okay yes but mainly the spegielman side mmmm. writing about how it breaks traditional form. how about that?? Or even how the author doesn’t even know what the whole point of him drawing such a comic was – besides telling his dad’s story…….
i don’t know. mainly because i didn’t catch much postmodernism in this story……..did you??
alright. i'm going to go study for AP Gov test tomorrow. yay.
11.15.2009
humans suck.
random fact: my group SUCKS at commenting on blogs. just thought i should share.
anyway......................
Google is making us stupid. perfect example: ME. i always self guess myself (mainly on spelling) and refer to google to make sure i have spelled it correctly (you know that handy dandy line that says did you mean: blah blah). however i do think that google is a blessing. i mean come on. all the knowledge you could possibly want unknowingly in front of you just waiting to be searched for. kudos to those two Stanford kiddos who thought of the whole concept of google.
i do think it is sad that google is like held up to the same level as food and water. you know. like you can not live with out it. it processes information for us and gives it to use in like a sentence or two. honestly. when i saw the article on the AP Lit blog the first thing i did was see how long it was. why? because i didnt want to deal with a long (possibly) boring article. i think we all do it. the longer the scrollbar on the right the better. no joke when i bought cat's cradle i was happy it had big font and not that many pages. i don't think we know how to handle a big book anymore or a big article. i know for my press releases for AP environmental science i skip over long articles. i think it's human nature. why? because of our dang small attention spans. not going to lie, reading carr's article was an irony in itself. the article was sort of long and i guess you could say somewhat difficult. there were a few moments when that my mind dove off to other thoughts (i was thinking about Thoroughly Modern Millie and how excited to see it this winter just incase you wanted to know) as you surf the net, carr says "A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we're glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper's site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration." yup. that happens to me all the time. in fact it just happened. thank you facebook. i think this also explains why everyones blog posts are so random. they jump from subject to subject but you know what. it's alright. why? because at least we can (well most of us) acknowledge our problem.
Vonnegut (fact: i just used google to make sure i spelled his name right) is a pure genius in my eyes for writing his book the way he did. i think it tricks the mind to think that its engulfing more information and being more productive than usual. like oh. i read 20 chapters last night when it was like fifteen pages yet we can still process and enjoy the book. magic.
it's quite scary how "stupid" and reliant we are on the internet.....let's just imagine how the younger generations are going to turn out.
anyway......................
Google is making us stupid. perfect example: ME. i always self guess myself (mainly on spelling) and refer to google to make sure i have spelled it correctly (you know that handy dandy line that says did you mean: blah blah). however i do think that google is a blessing. i mean come on. all the knowledge you could possibly want unknowingly in front of you just waiting to be searched for. kudos to those two Stanford kiddos who thought of the whole concept of google.
i do think it is sad that google is like held up to the same level as food and water. you know. like you can not live with out it. it processes information for us and gives it to use in like a sentence or two. honestly. when i saw the article on the AP Lit blog the first thing i did was see how long it was. why? because i didnt want to deal with a long (possibly) boring article. i think we all do it. the longer the scrollbar on the right the better. no joke when i bought cat's cradle i was happy it had big font and not that many pages. i don't think we know how to handle a big book anymore or a big article. i know for my press releases for AP environmental science i skip over long articles. i think it's human nature. why? because of our dang small attention spans. not going to lie, reading carr's article was an irony in itself. the article was sort of long and i guess you could say somewhat difficult. there were a few moments when that my mind dove off to other thoughts (i was thinking about Thoroughly Modern Millie and how excited to see it this winter just incase you wanted to know) as you surf the net, carr says "A new e-mail message, for instance, may announce its arrival as we're glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper's site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration." yup. that happens to me all the time. in fact it just happened. thank you facebook. i think this also explains why everyones blog posts are so random. they jump from subject to subject but you know what. it's alright. why? because at least we can (well most of us) acknowledge our problem.
Vonnegut (fact: i just used google to make sure i spelled his name right) is a pure genius in my eyes for writing his book the way he did. i think it tricks the mind to think that its engulfing more information and being more productive than usual. like oh. i read 20 chapters last night when it was like fifteen pages yet we can still process and enjoy the book. magic.
it's quite scary how "stupid" and reliant we are on the internet.....let's just imagine how the younger generations are going to turn out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)