Pygmalion

What was kind of interesting as supplementary material to this reading was that we read it at the same time that my linguistics course was discussing phonetics, dialect/code switching, and the stigmatization of certain dialects - obviously tying in very closely to Higgin's project.

In this version and in every remake from She's All That to Pretty Woman, it seems that if you're teaching someone to be much different in their actions, speech or dress, they may appreciate the help at times, but they will surely be insulted since the teacher obviously believes there is something inherently wrong with the way they began.

The comedy of the lessons in combination with the drama that results is basically what makes this classic story so interesting and amusing for the audience. In addition, I think that the variety of personalities among characters allows each reader/audience member to relate to at least one of the characters, if not several at once.

The explanation of why Higgins and Eliza could not live happily ever after was not in the original publications, but was added later as a response to the many remakes and play directors who wanted to leave their audiences with a warm, happy feeling. I think that it probably should not have the explanation at the end, but I could definitely understand the frustration Shaw must have felt. It would be difficult to work the explanation into the play and is quite akward at the end of the book too, so to others, I would probably just recommend skipping the end explanation.

Importance of Being Earnest

I thought this play was one that would have been especially good/more entertaining as a performance. The plays on words, Ernest/earnest, etc. would be much more humorous in speech than just being read.
This is another example of a story full of absurdities that all tie up nicely in the end.
The notion of Bunburrying seems like a great pretense for humorous situations, but the fact that 2 grown men were leading double lives makes it twice as funny, in addition to the fact that they share the Earnest character.
The women characters are more than a little dissappointing. They are not very deep and are obvious supporting characters, but do not have much of a plot line themselves - they only react to the men in their lives.
Lady Bracknell seems surprisingly eager to change her mind at the end. She upholds the highest standards of a lady until the very end, then simply changes her mind. The women characters are so very simple and predictable too, acting in a way that requires little to no thought and simply accepting whatever stories are told to them - both before and after they know the truth.
This is one of the many stories we've read where we can see that the author had a very "old-timey" view of women and their simple, insignificant ways.

The Loved - One - of my favorites

I really think this is my favorite book of all that we read this semester and I don't really have an exact reason why. The focus on class and respectable employment gets turned upside-down by the course of the story. Dennis had taken on his shameful job at the pet crematorium, but later that job would save one of the very same people who looked down on that business. I guess that I like the justice, the tidy way it all wraps up. The "good guy" (if there is one) Dennis receives a decent lump of money to take back to England. Joyboy has nothing left but his mom and her bird, and the thought of the woman he loved being disposed of like a dog. The self-centered and more than a little pretentious Aimee brought herself to an end.
The absurdity of it all and the focus on appearances unfolds nicely and the thought of receiving a postcard every year for a pet, let alone a person that says that he/she is wagging her tail in heaven means that even if Joyboy is able to push it out of his head for months at a time, there will always be a yearly reminder.
One of the pretentious aspects of Aimee that I found very amusing is that she puts so much value in Dennis' ability to write and recite poems for her, but if she truly had any interest in poetry, she would have recognized those lines and not needed Joyboy to reveal the truth to her.
I also really liked Mr. Schultz's view of Whispering Glades vs Happier Hunting Ground. For most of us with pets, they do bring us more joy and love than the people in our lives, but we wouldn't think of just digging an unceremonious hole for a person. It brings up an interesting issue, that the social expectations are really what determines funeral arrangements, not actual love or respect for the person who died.
The warning at the beginning of the book is a great tool to help the reader get through the first chapter - at that point its not always clear who is speaking and it's a rather boring conversation, but with the previous warning against the gruesome parts, as a reader you know its going to get better.
One part I thought was not exactly believable was when Joyboy was making all of the corpses for Aimee smile. It wouldn't work out- families asked for a specific facial expression and there are many people who wouldlook absurd smiling through death. But I suppose it was further emphasis on his creepy forms of flirting.

The Day of the Locust

After seeing the terrible ending of the movie, it's hard to focus on the actual book...

Somewhat off topic, but there was a scene on the SNL X-mas special that switched a real person to an inflatable doll and as they were beating this doll, I couldn't help but think of the scene in the movie where Homer stomps on Adore. It was just as absurd.

Also, the very end of the movie looked like they went to Mexico and recycled some Day of the Dead decorations with the parade of skulls - it was strange.

One of the things that I found interesting while reading Day of the Locust was the vast differences shown by Tod's personality at times. There were many moments where he was a really gross creeper. Between his obessesion with pictures of Faye to his rapist fantasies, he was most horrifying in the way that he would have appeared to be totally normal to most of the people in his life. He was at times a genuinely nice guy and a good friend, especially to Homer.

Despite the fact that Tod had many rape fantasies throughout the book, near the end, he even helps the girl in the crowd who is being groped by another man - he recognizes that as wrong and hits the man, but doesn't seem to find anything sick in his own perversions.

Another section of the book that I thought a bit more about after our class discussion was the scene in chapter 14 where we see Earle in front of the fake Western goods store. In class we had discussed that the window display of "a large collection of torture instruments... fancy braided quirts, spurs with great spiked wheels, and double bits that looked as though they could break a horse's jaw without trouble," could be seen as foreshadowing to the violence that was to come. Realistically, none of these things are regularly used for any form of torture or pain. They are all used on horses, but not for pain, only gentle encouragement. It's more about cues, sounds and slight adjustments to the reins and leg pressure. I understand the point of West describing them as torture instruments, but I just wanted to point out that isn't really accurate.

I do wish that we could have read more of Faye's perspective. She seems to be a very troubled person who regularly uses others, but often finds herself being used and objectified, not that she seems to consider that a negative thing. Between her dancing at camp and her behavior at the party at Homer's house, I felt like she didn't really get much of an explanation, besides just being a young woman in show biz. I was left with a lot of questions about her motives and thoughts, but the story really revolved around Tod and his thoughts/motives, so I can see how hers were not really vital.

Fate in Slaughterhouse-Five

The idea of fate is represented many times throughout Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five. The phrase "So it goes," is the most obvious and repeated suggestion that life continues and there really is nothing a person can do to change it.

There are many scenes that show Billy's belief in fate. One of the first times we see a suggestion of fate is when Billy is following Weary and the two scouts. He is shot at, but does not respond. He is completely unconcerned and allows the gunman a second chance.

We also can look at Billy's explanation of Tralfalmadore's views on life and death. They say that all moments in time have always existed and will always exist. This is also where the phrase "So it goes," comes in.

Another point in the story that may suggest fate to the reader is during the scene after the scouts ditch Weary and Weary is winding up to kick Billy in the spine. That is the exact moment the Germans show up, preventing Billy from paralysis or death. Obviously, this may just have been a necessary interference by the author - it would not have made a very good book if the main character was paralyzed and left for dead in a snow bank in the first 51 pages.

Another portion of the book is the reference to the serenity prayer that Billy kept on his office wall. After the prayer passage, the narrator explains that "Among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future." Basically, re-inforcing the idea of fate and that no matter what decisions a person made, their fate was already decided.

As an American prisoner was pulled out of rank and beaten (pg 91), the American asked "Why me?" Then the German who was beating him replied "Vy you? Vy anybody?" As if there were no reason, but it had already been decided and there was nothing that could be done about it.

On pg 103, we get a discussion of death between Billy's mother and Rosewater. They place no emotion on the topic and seem to act as if death is no big deal. It's just something that happened/happens.

Then we can also look at Billy's thoughts on his own marriage. He accepts it as inevitable and since he's already "seen" most of it, knows it will be at least bearable all the way. He seems locked into his life and has no desire to change things, never questioning what if. He even thinks of his contribution to the green berets (his future son) after having sex with his wife.

Even when thinking of his own wife's death or later in the bookstore of Jesus Christ's death, Billy's only response is "So it goes."

Near the end of the book, Billy addresses the tralfalmadore's thoughts on death again, mentioning their great interest in Darwin and explaining "that those who die are meant to die."

The entire book takes us through many moments in Billy Pilgrim's life, but not one of those involves him trying to change the future or the present. He simply accepts everything as inevitable and believes that his past, present and future have always existed and always will. Of the many themes involved in Slaughterhouse-Five, it is not difficult to see the way that fate plays into each moment.

Election

I like the idea of getting the perspectives of each character, but as we talked about in class - this felt like pre-teen fiction and the voices weren't very different for each character. I guess that the fact that all the character voices blurred together might make it an easier read- youll never have to refer back to who is talking, because it doesn't really matter - the narrative lines up perfectly as one whole story.
A lot of people (in class) talked about the way that the movie had more well-rounded characters, but I'm not really sure I agree. In the movie Tracy had only one side to her personality and the affair didn't really make sense with that preppy picture, but in the book she was smart and nerdy, but also sexual in the way that she dressed/acted, much like the stereotypical good girl behaving badly fantasy. Paul also seemed a little deeper at times in the book. In the book, Paul was still a jock, but surprisingly bright, in the movie he was just trying not to drool on himself.
I think my other disagreement with the book/movie convo was about the end. In the book - everyone comes to the realization that it was only high school and it doesn't really matter once its over (which I certainly think is a realistic view of it!) In the movie, it basically determined the rest of each character's life: M was still angry and had to escape his "old life", Tracy was still the same person who had no personal growth and was still the overacheiver with no friends clawing her way to the top. It just seemed like the characters were all still looking back at high school as the most significant part of their lives and usually people who do that never leave the town their in or go on to do anything bigger/better.
This was definitely not my favorite book of all we read, but 8 years ago I probably would have enjoyed it more.

Final Paper Topic

For weeks, I've debated what exactly to write my final paper on. I couldn't decide exactly what portion of Dorothy Parker and/or Dawn Powell's writings I wanted to discuss, so I've decided to take an easier route. I'm fairly certain that I will compare/contrast the movie "Thank you for smoking" with the book. At first, I didn't think that would be a very interesting topic - I've tried to watch the movie 4 times now and have always found myself bored with it and not paying attention. Now that I'm reading the book, it's a very interesting story to me. The book is great and is definitely something I would read for fun, but the humor and wit does not transfer very well to the movie (atleast I don't think so, I rented it again and will make myself pay attention this time.) The characters in the book are much more likeable and developed. The meetings of the "mod squad" are always funny, as well as the creation of the marketing spin of the Academy.
I (quickly) tried to find an interview with Christopher Buckley after the movie was filmed, about Thank You for Smoking. The following is what I found and I thought the quote about good books=bad movies and bad books=Good movies was very fitting!

CG: When you wrote “Thank You For Smoking,” did you see this as something that could become a film?
CB: I write books to be books. I don’t think as I’m writing, “Oh, this would be a great vehicle for Robert Altman.” I think you get into trouble that way. I have to say, I think you can do much more with a book than with a movie. It’s great when someone comes along and makes a book into a good movie. In terms of what you can accomplish with a book, with characters and their backgrounds and their motivations, movies are terribly limited with that — which isn’t to say some movies don’t do that brilliantly. But I stand by the statement that a good novel is artistically superior to a good movie.
CG: I just saw “Children of Men.” Terrific film, terrible book.
CB: You know, there’s a Hollywood adage: “Good books make bad movies, and bad books make good movies.” I think you’d have to look at it on a case by case basis, but I kind of get it. I now appreciate the skill required to turn a book into a movie [after “Thank You For Smoking”].
CG: Were you satisfied with the film’s casting?
CB: Yes, I was very happy with the cast. I had nothing to do with it, but I thought Aaron Eckhart was very good. I was tickled with Robert Duvall, one of my favorite actors, and another one of my favorite actors, Sam Elliott, played the dying Marlboro Man … a lot of very good actors were in it for three minutes, and they brought glory to it.
CG: And William H. Macy.
CB: Oh, I just love him. When you see the movie, his funny line — I won’t give it away — he came up with it.

Find the full interview at: http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=2047
This isnt the site I originally found it on, but it is the same interview.

How Can We Raise Awareness In Darfur Of How Much We're Doing For Them?

I thought this was great Onion News Network Video Clip. Find it at: http://www.theonion.com/content/video/how_can_we_raise_awareness_in

It seems like almost everyday I encounter people (at work, on campus, on the "real" news, etc) that do charity work or speak out for a cause just to make themselves feel good. Every person wants to feel like they matter, especially in the grand scheme of things. In reality, online petitions and small town rallies have little to no effect, but it allows individuals to attach themselves to a cause, feel like they are making a difference and have evidence that they are good people.

I love this fake news show's discussion, suggesting that it may be the people of Darfur's responsibility to spread the news of how much America cares. They suggest dropping press releases, putting up billboards, relying on African storytellers, and even hosting charity events in Darfur - in transparent tents, so that the people of Darfur can see just how much work caring Americans (like Clooney & Damon) are doing for them.

One of my favorite quotes is, "I think we're doing a terrific job." It sums up the entire idea behind this satirical video clip. Many people will say they support a charity or sign a petition and then pat themselves on the back for their extrordinary effort.

Another great part of the clip is when they debate what an appropriate "thank you" would be from the people of Darfur. A card perhaps, with a child's handprint, signed by elders, or even a clay pot- they make those in Darfur, right?

Then, not surprisingly, the entire team of newscasters is distracted by mention of the new batman movie. The worst part of watching this "spoof" news show debate is that at times, it was easy to forget that it was satirical and not a true news report.

I tried to find one of my favorite Onion articles ever, but I could not track it down in the archive. It was the story of a group of college-age roomates that all lived together and shared resources (food, alcohol, toilet paper, etc.). This story served as the latest evidence that communism does not work. Obviously, the roomates began fighting over distribution of goods and responsibilities. At the time that I first read it, I was living with 5 guys and the article basically described our house to a T!

The Colored Museum: Discomfort & Reflection

The Colored Museum is intended to make the audience uncomfortable. As readers or viewers, we are not sure how exactly we should respond to such a light-hearted, stereotyped re-telling of the trials, cruelties and expectations put on black Americans. I felt especially uncomfortable when I began reading this play. Not only from the content of the play, but I had brought it with me to read while waiting at the Secretary of State. As I began reading, I realized I was sitting very close to several black Americans, close enough for them to see my book and then I realized that several pages basically had very loaded racial terms in bold face print. At that point, I put the book away to read it later.
When I actually sat down again to finish reading the book, I not only felt uncomfortable from the content of the play, but also because of my experience at the S.O.S., hoping not to offend those around me. I think that the discomfort that comes from reading/watching this play is deliberate. When we are no longer comfortable in a situation, it makes us re-evaluate and reflect on our own thoughts and feelings. It makes us consider what our thoughts and feelings are vs. what they should be.
At the time that we were reading this play, I was also studying and discussing the use of African American Vernacular English in my American Dialects class. Many of the same issues and struggles were presented in both classes. To sum up the main issue: How do you find a way to move forward and at the same time, never forget where you came from.
There are many debates over AAVE, whether it is best to allow students to use it in the classroom, whether to require them to learn"standard" English, or to teach them that both are okay depending on the setting.
Language is not the only place where we can see the struggle between pride in your heritage and moving forward with every possible advantage. Ideally, no one should have to deal with the stereotypes and stigmatization of certain cultures, but we do not live in an ideal world and it is unlikely that we will any time soon. That leaves us without an answer to the struggles that non-mainstream America faces and no answer for the educators who must determine their own ways to approach cultural differences.
I do think our discussion may have been more interesting if we had a bit more diversity within our classroom.
Oh- I also think that the clip we watched in class, really ruined the whole play for me. A lot of times when I read things, I create what the characters look like and act like in my head, so to see that version - well, it was bad.

Big Boy from Me Talk Pretty One Day

This is a horrifying story, but funny and completely relatable. In this essay, Sedaris tells of a time that he and his sister Amy went to a friend's house in Chicago for Easter Sunday. He excused himself to go to the bathroom and upon entering the bathroom, encountered an extremely large, solid matter looking back at him from the bowl. He attempts to flush it several times, but it is more than the toilet could handle. He doesn't want to leave it and be blamed for it, but someone begins knocking on the door. In desperation, he finds the plunger and "breaks it up" so that it will finally flush.

He panics that the other guests will blame him for the giant poop, but tries to remind himself of the talk his mother had with him as a child; Everybody poops. This does nothing to calm him down. To think of other people, friends, family, etc pooping grosses out the average person. We all assume that other people feel the same way and don't want to acknowledge that we poop.

At the end, he concludes that the real pooper didn't care, so why should he? I think that people should care, just because it is a natural thing that everyone must do does not make it appropriate publicly, the act, the view or discussion of the topic. It doesn't stand alone, most matters of personal hygiene, grooming and bodily functions should all be kept private.

My aunt told a very similar story to Sedaris and I'm still not sure if it was true, half true, or completely fiction. The only difference is that she knew exactly who it was, since he had called her in to witness it (he also took pictures, that they still have) and in that situation, they ended the day with one less kitchen utensil. BTW, I now use an electric mixer to make mashed potatos because I just can't bear to think about using a potato masher.

At several of my past jobs, there would only be one bathroom and 1-3 people working at any given time. This led to quite a few situations similar to "Big Boy." If someone left something, you were pretty sure you knew who it was and that is a disturbing, intrusive thought to have while trying to work and chat with that person. On the other hand, if someone else just left the place stinky, or on the rare occasions we might let a customer use the bathroom and stink it up - you're left wondering whether the smell might be blamed on you and even if you are lucky enough for the existance of air freshner in that bathroom - sometimes all that means is that the room will smell like well-fertilized flowers. Of course, you might think of a third option of embarrassing bathroom situations, but I'm a girl and everyone knows girls don't poop.

He Loves To Fly

I really can't say that this is my favorite episode, but I wanted to choose one that was still fresh in my mind. The opening scene had several references to the movie, with the chalkboard "I wont wait 20 years to make my next movie," the large breasted eskimo lady and Spiderpig on the couch. In "He Loves to Fly," Homer, after thoughtful consideration, decides to pull Mr. Burns out of the fountain that he fell into while trying to take a penny. Mr. Burns is basically an example of parody in himself, the "typical" penny pinching billionaire. It may even be a bit of cosmic irony that Mr. Burns almost dies trying to grab more money, the very thing he lives for.
Soon enough, Homer is on Mr. Burns' private jet as thanks for the rescuing. They flip on the TV to find Itchy & Scratchy, dark comedy because the focus is blood, guts and death, situational irony because it is portrayed as a children's show, but obviously is not. At the same time, The Simpsons looks like a children's show, but truly is not.
Next, Lionel Ritchie is on the private jet to serenade Homer, who requests that the lyrics be changed to be about beer. This plays into the masculine, lower middle class father that makes Homer a walking parody.
They refer to Chicago as the Miami of Canada. Then when they are leaving, a man yells,"While you were here, we felt like New York!" This pokes fun at Chicago, like it's the big city that's trying too hard.
Another great line is when Marge asks if Homer flew commercial and his response is that only losers and terrorists flew commercial. This makes fun of the "common" folk and the airlines too.
After Homer becomes depressed with the knowledge that he will never fly on a private jet again, Marge hires a life coach hired by Stephen Colbert. Homer insists he will not speak to any shrink, therapist or doctor, but upon hearing the label "life coach", Homer replies, "Oh-Tell me more." I think this is a commentary on the use of labels in our society and society's reaction to those labels.
After Homer falls down the stairs trying to put on a sock, Colbert pulls out a marker and tells Homer to remember NDC (while writing it on the wall) for Never Dont Concentrate. This makes fun of a great deal of self-help programs, books and coachs (Satire!). They often have little acronyms or abreviations that stand for something moronic and overly simplistic. Many people treat these simple statements like a great new revelation and actually try to put them to use.
Next Colbert uses a series of puns, "shoe attitude" and "bowling people over." These are not really within any of the types of comedies that we study, but I think that puns should be. They aren't funny on their own, but with the knowledge that it is supposed to be funny, it's funny that someone is trying to pass off a pun as funny. I suppose this could be a stretch, but maybe we could consider it dramatic irony, because the audience knows that it's an old man joke, but finds it funny precisely because of that.
When Homer comes home from the job interview, we hear the whole family exclaiming that they knew he could do it, they knew he'd get the job, but we see bart edge to the side and thrown away the cake that says, "At Least You Tried." This is dramatic irony because we know that they did not believe in Homer, but they act as if they did. Then we go to another scene of dramatic irony, when Homer spends his days at a fast food place while the family thinks he is working hard at his new job.
Bart catches Homer and explains that Homer has to tell Marge. She's been buying brand-name groceries, like rich-people brand name: Campbells, Pepsident. This is one of many Brand Name, Social Class commentaries that we have discussed for class.
Homer then pulls some strings, by claiming to be a Marine, to rent a private jet for himself and Marge to break the news. When the pilot mentions the Marines again, Homer says, "Semper Fudge" and gives a salute. Then once in the air, the pilot passes out after a hard day of heroin use. This pokes fun at pilots, the airlines and the not so enforced regulations of the FAA.
As the plane is going down, Marge calls the life coach to talk Homer through it. We see the life coach sitting in a gross apartment on a gross couch in his underwear eating a TV dinner. As a life coach, you'd expect to have a good handle on your own life, but we see the opposite is true in this case. (Situational Irony)
This episode wraps up with one last bit of dramatic irony when Homer "quits" his new job (which he never got) to go back to the powerplant. We know the truth when Marge does not.

I also want to add something to the New Simpsons vs. Old Simpsons debate. I don't like the really old ones (where the animation is totally different). I also think that the New episodes are not the best. I want to add a category of the Early Years of the New Simpsons. Somewhere around the middle was really the highpoint for me, but that was about the time I was in middle school, so maybe the classmates who say we're too old to really appreciate it are right.

The $30,000 Bequest

Basically, this couple who is fairly well-off in their small town are contacted by an old, ill uncle Tilbury Foster and told that if they make no mention, attempt no contact and do not show up at the funeral, then they will inherit $30,000. At this point the couple begins planning, the wife planning on how to invest and the husband planning on how to spend the money they expect to come into shortly. I thought it was interesting the the Husband was named Saladin, but called Sally and liked to shop and spend money on extravagant things. While the wife was named Electra, but called Aleck and handled all of the financial matters, used a level head and wanted to invest their money to work for them. The gender roles seem to be reversed from what we view as normal or traditional. Any way, the couple begins planning what to do with the money and who their daughters can wed as they move up the income brackets (in their minds). The uncle dies early int he story, but the couple do not find out since it was pushed out of the small town newspaper and they continue planning both investments and spending. The wife finds different investment options and follows them as if they have already received the money and are making earnings off of it. After 5 years of planning and making themselves into multimillionaires, the market suddenly drops and they truly are distressed, until the husband points out that they have actually invested yet and that they have learned to be wiser for when the $30,000 if truly theirs. Through coincidental circumstance, a citizen of the uncle's town comes by and mentions Tilbury by the phrase, "Land, it's tough as Tilbury Foster!-as we say." and the couple carefully inquire of the uncle. At this point they are told that the uncle has been dead for 5 years, but did not have a cent to his name. His town had to cover the cost to bury him. After 5 years of planning and imagining a great future, this cruel bit of news crushed the couple's mental state and sent them into shock. They remained in shock and could only mumble incoherent partial phrases as two more years passed. Just before death took them (on the same day) the husband tells a warning of the greed that brought him misery and says that in the uncle there, "was no generous spirit, no pity, no-"

This story serves as a warning to how slippery a slope greed is. The couple began by only making small compromises of their morals and beliefs, but as time went on they continued to slide further and further into the depths of greed and eventually their own personal hell.

I do wonder why the uncle chose to lay this cruel act on his only surviving relatives. Toward the end the husband mentions that they had done him no wrong, yet earlier in the story it mentions that the husband tried to contact the uncle to make amends years ago, but would not make that mistake again. Was he just a miserable old man who wanted others to be just as miserable? Was he wronged by the family as a whole, many years ago and holds a grudge against those who were not even involved? Or was it not meant to be so cruel- he died within a week of the letter and it would seem much less cruel and more like a practical joke if they had found out then.

Like I mentioned before, the gender rolse seemed to be completely switched and I'm not sure why Mark Twain does this. I have to wonder whether Twain looked at other stories or tragedy and misery and noticed that it is almost always the woman's fault (all the way back to the very first story of tragedy - Adam & Eve. In this role reversal, it seems to be more like the man is causing a lot of the fantasies of wealth and then is more accountable for their eventual fall.

There are quite a few references to religion that make it worth noting. As the the couple imagined more wealth, they slowly turned away from their faith, but only inwardly - they still went to church and the wife wanted to build churches with some of their money, but in the privacy of their own home and minds, they stopped observing the sabbath, they thought about drinking and even had champagne (before they were for temperance!) The couple slowly made new excuses and exceptions for anything they wanted to do, even if they knew they should not.

I think that the point of this story is not only to be aware of the slippery slope and greed, but also to realize that nothing in the future is definite. If you close your mind to any other possibilites, when changes occur, they will definitely rattle you.

We see people struggle with these problems on a regular basis, and with credit cards so easily available, most people don't stick to imaginary spending alone. Also, you'll hear people talk of losing a job they've had for 20 years + and now they have no idea what to do and sometimes no identity, because they never expected changes or uncertainty. There are parts of this story that have the reader imagining along with the couple, imagining all the luxury items and new houses, you really hope that they get the money, but all along you have a good idea it won't work out. It wouldn't be very interesting if it did.

Mark Twain - Ramblin' Man

A lot of people complain that Mark Twain is too dry, too boring or just simply rambles on and on... I think that's part of his style. Twain does not attempt to do an over-the-top dance (American Psycho, maybe?) to keep our attention. He simply relates a funny experience he had or could imagine having. Not all comedians/writers want to serve up comedy on a platter with no requirement of additional thinking. Almost every Twain story that I have ever read is funny because it reminds me of someone I have met or even several people I have met, usually at work. I can see how some may not enjoy his style, but I do not think it's a time to call into question Twain's writing abilities. Also, the short stories we have read lately seem to have very little "southern" dialect - I didn't even notice any until it was brought up during class. I think that different dialects make the writing more interesting and I guess have read enough books/stories with southern settings that I don't even notice them.

A Modest Proposal Meets Male Modeling Spoof

As I sat down to write about A Modest Proposal, I took another look at my book. The title appears like this:

A MODEST PROPOSAL

FOR PREVENTING THE CHILDREN OF POOR PEOPLE IN IRELAND FROM BEING A BURTHEN TO THEIR PARENTS OR COUNTRY, AND FOR MAKING THEM BENEFICIAL TO THE PUBLIC.

It reminds me of the movie Zoolander (Ben Stiller movie) when Derek forms the idea and then a model of the center is presented to him, the title of the center is:

THE DEREK ZOOLANDER CENTER

FOR CHILDREN WHO CANT READ GOOD AND WANNA LEARN TO DO OTHER STUFF GOOD TOO

Not entirely relevent, just thought it was funny. I don't think that Jonathan Swift meant that to be an awkwardly long title, but it is. And obviously, even if they were in the same time period, I'm fairly certain that Mr. Swift would have nothing in common with Mr. Stiller if he could help it! (Please no one be alarmed, I'm not trying to say that Ben Stiller and Jonathan swift use the same humor techniques.)

Anyway...on to A Modest Proposal.

I had read it before, and even before that had heard of it, so I knew what to expect in the beginning which allowed me to notice some of the more subtle hints. I think that the main problem that such a piece of writing would run into is that even though it is so absurd that we cannot imagine it being a serious proposal, there are many, many absurd people out there who would miss the joke. These people would either be horrified and think Swift was serious OR nod in agreement and think Swift was serious.

One odd part of Swift's calculations is when he figures that a child just born will weigh 12 lbs and in one year increase to 28 lbs. Most babies are born under 10 lbs, I believe 6-7 is within the normal range. And those are born to well-fed modern American women. Somehow I doubt many Irish peasants in Swift's day were birthing giant babies, especially since statistically people and children are growing taller and heavier now than in the past.

Also, Swift mentions the fact that deer are growing scarce, so perhaps child-hunting could be possible. (He talks himself out of that since they would be gamey and so close to breeding age!) I just don't think it would appeal to the same hunters. Deer are quite dumb and easily shot. I think hunting people would prove to be much too difficult for most casual sportsmen. Just yesterday while walking my dog and my parents' dog, we came upon 3 deer who continued to graze and did not even care that we were within 2o feet of them. Deer hunting is not much of a challenge, most hunters sit in the woods and wait for a deer to come to them - children would not be a good substitute for hunting...unless maybe you only take the least intelligent children - plus that would be an extra incentive to score higher on the MEAP!

"Men would become as fond of their wives during the time of their pregnancy as they are now of their mares in foal, their cows in calf, their sows when they are ready to farrow; nor offer to beat or kick them (as is too frequent a practice) for fear of a miscarriage."

This paragraph struck me as particularly absurd and funny, until I began to really consider it - then it just seemed sad and true. It's sad that even in our world today, parents still beat their children, spouses still hit one another, and if it was for profit instead of love, then perhaps all the abused women and children out there would be treated at least as well as barnyard animals. Sorry for the sterrotype (but they do exist for a reason), but while working in a small town grocery store during high school, I was unfortunate enough to encounter several men who were quick to defend and protect their dog or truck or motorcycle but would spend the entire time in the store yelling at, insulting and "spanking" their kids. (Spanking is in quotes because it sounds nicer than beating and some people believe there is a difference.)

After launching into a patriotism speech (at which point you can just imagine the orchistra chiming in with the star spangled banner (I know he wasnt American, but I am -so it's what I imagine) he continues to explain that he has nothing to gain from this and merely looking out for his country and fellow countrymen. Oh and by the way - his kids are too old to qualify and his wife can have no more. Just an after-thought barely worth mentioning that the proposal cannot affect his family, just others.

Well, enjoy your weekend!

Oh- and Little Murders is one of the only movies that I've seen where it seemed totally okay for the main character to die. Also, I've been to a wedding where the minister was not much better than the one in the movie!

Okay - for real now -Go Enjoy your Weekend.

Toward a Definition of - IRONY - Takes a Holiday

I don't think that we are actually required to blog on the Irony handouts, but I figured better to blog unnecessarily and hey, why not get into the habit? First I think I may try to track down "The Big Book of Irony," seems like a good deal of short, amusing bits. I especially liked the comparison by Luigi Anolli of irony to the act of wearing dark glasses to hide that you've been crying. The act seems to suggest that you do not want to come right out and express what you are really thinking/feeling, but does just that anyway. It almost serves as a social safety net. If a person does not agree with the ironic statement, they may choose to ignore it since it was not directly stated. In the same way, a person could ignore the crier's sunglasses if that person did not care to hear about the crier's problems.
In Irony Takes a Holiday, the writers discuss the fate of irony in post 9/11 America. I could never imagine believing that irony is dead, particularly in a time of tragedy. I understand how some people would feel that any criticism or humor would be inappropriate immediately after, but there are also many people (like myself) who deal with grief, loss and tragedy through humor. In a time of tragedy, what else do you have left, and if there is anything at all to laugh at, why not laugh a little? With time, obviously, it became appropriate to poke fun at our nation's leadership, security measures, etc. Cynicism, humor and irony: just part of the healing process as far as I'm concerned.
Have a Wonderful Weekend.