Advertisement Satire

Conjoined

Marriage can be a union that is looked forward to, or it can be something that has a very negative stigma and feelings connected to it. Generally in today’s society, it is looked forward to as a happy occasion in which two people that love each other are joining their lives together, and will spend many years in wedded bliss. Not all people feel this way however. In the poem “Conjoined,” Judith Minty leaves no doubt about her negative feelings towards marriage through her use of metaphors and graphic diction.  

                Metaphors are used throughout the poem in order to show the nature of the speaker’s feelings about the institution of marriage. The first metaphor used is that of an onion, two parts joined together “under one transparent skin” (line 1). This comparison is showing the feeling of compression and smothering felt by the speaker when it comes to being married. The speaker feels that there are two distinct parts to the onion, each representing an individual, but they are being mashed and forced to be one entity when they may not want to. The transparent skin represents the thinness of the bond of marriage in the speaker’s mind. Instead of being something solid and strong, it is something frail, weak, and easily broken or torn. The next metaphor used is that of a “two-headed calf” (line 5). Just about anything that is “two-headed” in society is considered not normal to say the least. However, the metaphor continues when the speaker points out that they each “fight to suck at its mother’s teats” (line 6). This shows the feeling that each person in a marriage is attached to the other, and they have to fight each other to get what they need out of life. In order to survive, people need social acceptance, and when in a marriage, they each may have to fight each other for that “sustenance”. The following metaphor is very similar to the calf metaphor, in that it compares a married pair to “Chang and Eng” (line 7), who were Siamese twins that were never saparated. This metaphor is used to show how married people cannot do things separate though they may not want to. Just as Chang and Eng could not do anything, even sleep with women, separately, many marriages consist of doing literally everything with their partner.

Each stanza contains graphic diction that shows a very negative stigma towards the concept of marriage. In the first stanza alone, the speaker uses words such as “monster,” (line 1), “flat,” (line 3) and “deformed,” (line 3) to describe the metaphor of the onion. These words make the union of marriage seem scary and a freak thing that should not happen in a normal situation. The word flat in itself gives married life a connotation of being completely boring. Though marriage can be very happy, fulfilling, and enjoyable, the speaker of “Conjoined” seems very stuck on it really being and unnatural, unpleasant, terrible thing that should not happen to anybody. In describing the two-headed calf, the speaker uses the word “accident” (line 5) showing even further the feeling that marriage is not normal and should not have to happen to anybody. When talking about the two calves relationship, the speaker characterizes them as “fighting” (line 6); most married people think of their relationship as a cooperation and a two person effort. When people are considered fighting, they are against each other, both wanting to tear the other down. This contrasts the nature of most marriages which are working towards a common goal. This concept furthers the speaker’s point that marriage is not a “normal” thing. When talking about Chang and Eng, the speaker uses the word “freaks” (line 7), even furthering the connotation of accident and mishap that goes along with marriage in the speaker’s mind. The last line leaves a lasting Impact of impending doom due to marriage. It says, “…we cannot escape each other” (line 15). This line gives the reader a sense that even if the two people wanted to get away from each other, it would not be possible once they are married. Especially the word “escape,” because you do not want to “escape” from somebody you would want to spend the rest of your life with, giving the feeling that at some point, if you marry somebody you will want to get away from that person, which is not always entirely possible in a marriage.

Society today generally things of marriage as a cooperation, a mutual respect and love, a happy union of two people. This is clearly not the opinion of the speaker, due to the extensive usage of metaphors and graphic diction that continually reiterate the point that marriage is an accident, a mishap, a struggle, and should not have to happen to anybody.

Maus II

Maus has many themes inter-twined within it. One being the obvious totalitarian governments are bad, and the holocaust should never happen again, or anything like it. There is also the stand point that is shown time and time again that any recounting of these stories do not represent the entire event as a whole. This is because many different people had many different experiences, and the dead people had a different experience all together and those stories can never be told. This PDF file: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/rpw_center/pdfs/BERLAT1.PDF written about subjects similar to this topic tells how Speigelman is conscious of the ease in which people take narratives such as his, and say that is the entire story. That this is what the holocaust was all about for all people involved. Through the usage of constantly showing his internal conflict with sharing the story at all because of the danger of his narrative becoming the "truth" for people about the holocaust. This is also an example of postmodern theory in that he is rejecting the idea that there is one truth about the holocaust or one grand narrative that can completely tell the whole story. He is also showing this when he puts on the mouse mask. He is making the reader completely aware of the fact that though he is telling this story, and doing his best to represent the feelings and sentiments and hardships of those that were there, he was not one of the pople that was there. He is doing his best to represent the real thing, but he is not in the end the real thing. Making the reader constantly aware of this shows how hard he tries to represent his father's story, but even he cannot fully represent what his father felt because he is not his father.

No..darn..cat and no..darn..cradle

Lyotard's theory of postmodernism basically says that, "all the world's cultures, rituals, races, databanks, myths, and musical motifs, are intermixing like a smorgasbord in an earthquake" (Postmodernism for Beginners). He also says that it's the postmodernists job to represent the individual groups and cultures. Essentially postmodern, to my understanding, is the antithesis to finding a central "truth" in society, and letting the individual mind run.

I see this theory throughout Cat's Cradle. The biggest representation of this theory I see is the entire 'religion' of Bokononism. Before the novel even begins, Vonnegut starts by quoting the Books of Bokonon which says "live by the foma (harmless untruths) that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy". Throughout the rest of the novel, Vonnegut makes it a point to stress how Bokononism believes in lying to oneself in order to live a happy life. The point I think he is trying to make, by contrasting Bokonon with all the scientists looking for "absolute truth" which only kills hundreds of thousands of people (atom bomb), you can lie to yourself and live a perfectly normal, happy life. I believe he is making the postmodern point that individuals may live how they want to, and they do not have to be entirely structured the way the rest of society is, and still be happy without knowing the "absolute truth" about the universe (which is NOT protein).

These theories are not only present in literature, but other forms as well. Architecture is one main way the postmodern theory is expressed in today's society. Frank Gehry is a very notable postmodern architect. He does not like to conform to the standard, efficient, square way of designing buildings, but instead takes on a very individualistic, and artistic approach. This is one of the most concrete comparison's I can make with postmodernism away from literature.

Essay Time Again?

When entering into an academic conversation about Brave New World, the most interesting area to me would have to start at the points made about how Brave New World relates to education today. I think this is because I want to be a teacher when I finally decide it is time to grow up, but none the less, I think this topic is to say the least very interesting and thought provoking.

Ken Robinson's video draws very interesting points throughout his speech about education today. The main one that sticks out to me is the topic of ADD and ADHD. Many children have been diagnosed with these "diseases" or "disorders" just because they simply do not like to pay attention in class. So, instead of teachers finding interesting ways to engage the children in class, they drug them. Many medications simply make the students very passive and they will sit and seem to pay attention, but are they really learning everything they are supposed to learn?

This can be compared to Brave New World with the government's use of soma, which is very well described by Ricky Gehlhaus in his piece called "Brave New World: The Cost of Stability". He says that "the main reason for [the government encouraging the use of soma] is that soma puts the person into a deep numbness, void of all feeling". He also points out that this drug use is even more encouraged when the citizens are getting creative and thinking on their own.

So basically, my essay will revolve around the argument that educators should learn from the 'mistakes' of the government in Brave New World and get creative with engaging kids instead of drugging them into a stupor.

Brave New Education?

First off, I would like to draw the comparison between the RSA Animation video and Brave New World and then I'll tell you what I think. The strongest comparison to me was the ADHD drugs and soma. Sir Ken Robinson points out that Ritalin among other ADHD drugs are given to children that seem to be unable to force themselves to focus on the boring material they are being force fed in schools. They are given drugs that make them "turn their senses completely off" in order to 'pay attention' in school. Instead of livening their senses and stimulating them with exciting activities and information, they are basically putting them to sleep to say they are learning through paying attention in class. Soma has a similar purpose in Brave New World. Lenina showcases this purpose when she tells Bernard, "..take soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You'd forget all about them. And instead of being miserable, you'd be jolly" (92). Instead of letting natural senses take place in the society, the government issues soma to make the citizens so apathetic they are just happy all the time.

Now back to the education system itself, I like Robinson's point that all these problems educators are seeing have risen along with the rise of standardized testing. Instead of students figuring out what they like and teachers being able to dive even deeper into subjects it seems their students are genuinely interested in, they are made to force feed facts to their students so they can regurgitate them on a test. Instead of learning to question and be creative, all anyone learns anymore is the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 and 2+2=4. Especially considering the economic system no longer guarantees a good job along with a high school or even college diploma, students should really be allowed to study into what they like to learn about. If a student got to specialize starting in high school or even maybe junior high, in the subject area that interests them, they would be such specialists in that area they would be much more competitive for jobs once they get out on their own. I understand that everyone does need a basic knowledge of all subjects, but specializing even earlier could greatly improve a student's chances of finding a job once they are fresh out of college.

Brave New World

Brave New World is a novel based upon a "utopian" society, much like the society created in Orwell's 1984, however instead of basing the control of the government on fear, it is based upon contentment. The values of today's world are manipulated so that everyone is happy at all times, and if they are not, they can just pop a pill and they are back to feeling fantastic. Basically the goal of the government is to make every aspect of life acceptable to the public, so that they will not complain, and they will work very hard and efficiently all day long.
The value of monogamy is one that is completely destroyed and is very apparently destroyed when Fanny says to Lenina, "everyone belongs to everyone else". Promiscuous sex is encouraged because if there is no sexual frustration that gets built up between partners, then people will be that much less distracted at work and be that much more efficient.
The concepts of impulse and desire in our society today are viewed as good sometimes, but at other times they should be controlled. This is due to a stronger set of moral standards than are present in Brave New World. In that society anything that is distracting should be acted upon to get rid of the inefficiency of being human. In short, the government is trying to dehumanize all the citiziens and literally make them machines, moral standards are gone, and the manipulation of people and humanity is present in literature once again.