Hey guys-
I've read a portion of the day's essays...they're better than you would
have led me to believe. Have some confidence in yourselves!
Finish reading Heart of Darkness over the weekend. Look over the "Hero's
Journey" notes I gave you and the list of archetypal symbols. Blog a
semi-brief entry describing which archetypal elements appear prominently
in the text. Also discuss to what degree the novel adheres to, and
diverges from, the archetypal hero's journey. If you feel like looking up
the Wikipedia entry on Dante's Inferno, that would only help you better
understand Conrad's narrative structure.
There's still six people who need to blog last night's entry (one line
from the first half of the novel, discussed in terms of significance).
Please do so. If more than one half of the class doesn't blog a new entry
over the weekend, then there will be a penalty...to be determined.
HAVE A FABULOUS WEEKEND!
The most obvious archetypal symbol would be the title itself, "Heart of Darkness" in which "Darkness (or Black)" represents chaos, mystery, the unknown, death, wisdom, evil and melancholy. We can assume that Marlow looks that the Africans as an inferior race and that Africa, in general, is an uncivilized, chaotic, yet mysterious and unknown, place.
The "Call to Adventure" is Marlow going to Africa. "Crossing of the first Threshold" would be when he reaches and witnesses Africa in all its glory. There is no "Woman as the Temptress" because there is a lack of women. He doesn't refuse to leave Africa ("Refusal of the Return"). He tries to make sense of everything when he returns to England ("The Crossing of the Return Threshold").
In relation to Dante's Inferno, Marlow first states that it seems like he is traveling to the center of the Earth. When he reaches Africa (like how Dante traverses Hell), he goes through encounters much like how Dante goes through the nine circles of hell, each generally one of the seven sins. Marlow experiences most, if not all, of the aspects of each sin.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
Heart of Darkness: Part 1
"It's queer how out of touch with truth women are! They live in a world of their own and there had never been anything like it and never can be. It is too beautiful altogether, and if there were to set it up it would go to pieces before the first sunset. Some confounded fact we men have been living contentedly with ever since the day of creation would start up and knock the whole thing over." (12)
So far there have been a lack of women in the novels we've read (besides Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea) who aren't portrayed as contemptuous... yet again. I chose this line (or paragraph) because it is very applicable in more than one sense. The narrator could be assumed to be christian because he is European and his use of "day of creation." He probably supports what the Bible has to say like "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" (1 Timothy 2:12). Oh, the Bible had quite some humor. He views women as a narrow-minded sex who never bother to look beyond their own concerns and what not and are incapable of that. And if that were to even happen, their understanding of the world would be shattered. Yet, the narrator, a white man heading to Africa, will most likely act in the same manner in which he perceives women. He will become the narrow-minded because he will refuse to understand African culture and will undermine them because he will believe his culture is imperialistic. So far, it is he who has lived in his own world and this is his first time heading to Africa.
So far there have been a lack of women in the novels we've read (besides Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea) who aren't portrayed as contemptuous... yet again. I chose this line (or paragraph) because it is very applicable in more than one sense. The narrator could be assumed to be christian because he is European and his use of "day of creation." He probably supports what the Bible has to say like "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" (1 Timothy 2:12). Oh, the Bible had quite some humor. He views women as a narrow-minded sex who never bother to look beyond their own concerns and what not and are incapable of that. And if that were to even happen, their understanding of the world would be shattered. Yet, the narrator, a white man heading to Africa, will most likely act in the same manner in which he perceives women. He will become the narrow-minded because he will refuse to understand African culture and will undermine them because he will believe his culture is imperialistic. So far, it is he who has lived in his own world and this is his first time heading to Africa.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Wide Sargasso Sea: Part 2
The point-of-view changes to Rochester's perspective. Rhy does this to show us what Rochester is thinking and for us to decide for ourselves whether or not Rochester deserves the sympathy he did in Jane Eyre. We're also guranteed that the story told so far throught Big Bertha's narration is not a skewed interpretation of her self-pity. In that, we get to see from a third-person point-of-view of Big Bertha and how she is viewed. We feel more sympathy for us as she tells her story to Rochester.This is now Rochester's story.
Bertha tells Rochester that if she were to die, she would want to die now when she is happy and would he be willing to murder her because she's confident that he'll be the person taking her happiness away. Rochester now feels obligated for her happiness and if he leaves her, she'll be correct. If he stays, she'll be happy but he'll be miserable. Only a truly self-serving selish person would decide to leave. If Rhys or Bronte allowed him to leave her; they'll be supporting the stigma of humans on that we are all innately selfish.
Bertha tells Rochester that if she were to die, she would want to die now when she is happy and would he be willing to murder her because she's confident that he'll be the person taking her happiness away. Rochester now feels obligated for her happiness and if he leaves her, she'll be correct. If he stays, she'll be happy but he'll be miserable. Only a truly self-serving selish person would decide to leave. If Rhys or Bronte allowed him to leave her; they'll be supporting the stigma of humans on that we are all innately selfish.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Wide Sargasso Sea: Part 1
Hey guys. Long time, no e-mail!
Read part 1 of Wide Sargasso Sea (approx. pg. 56) for tomorrow. Blog about
your reading with pertinent questions about the story's structure,
point-of-view, characterization of Bertha (or Antoinette, as you will), or
connections between the text and Jane Eyre.
Also, look up the terms "Marginalization" and "Post-Colonialism" on good
ole Wikipedia. Be prepared to discuss in the latter half of class.
If everyone blogs, no quiz. If more than one person blogs, then there will
be a quiz. Cool?
See you tomorrow.
If it isn't another seemingly depressing novel! Jane Eyre was the only book we've read that had a happy ending. Jane and Big Bertha have many similarities in their childhood, the most obvious is that they are alienated and secluded. Conversely, they have many differences due to their similarities. Jane never succumbed to conformity nor compromised her sense of righteousness -- she was a feminist. She could be compared to today's notion of an "independent woman." Jane is more fierce and dominating whereas Big Bertha is more innocent and subservient. She does nothing when her friend cheats her of her pennies and her clothes and then gets a rock thrown on her forehead! On her first day of school, after the house inferno incident, she gets picked on and yet does nothing then she goes and cries! I don't recall Jane crying as pathetic as that. I'm sure Jane would have fought back just as she did to John and Mrs. Reed (verbally).
The readers will unequivocally gain a immense sympathy for Big Bertha's life. She is a victim of racism and social status; her mother had a mental illness; she has no friends; people don't like her; and her brother dies. For a young child, she has experienced many things people experience within a lifetime. Readers who've read Jane Eyre know what lies in her future. She is obliviously seeing her future through her mother's. She ultimately never finds happiness and no one will ever love her; she will only become a nuisance. Interestingly, I am looking forward to the story because it has many deep and profound meaning towards it. Mainly, how Big Bertha will act toward her mother as her disorder worsens and how she is going to react if she discovers that the woman, who is her mother that is slowly becoming a stranger, is who she'll be in the future. It is as if you have discovered the day that you will die and with that knowledge, decide what to do with your time because you realize how short it is.
Read part 1 of Wide Sargasso Sea (approx. pg. 56) for tomorrow. Blog about
your reading with pertinent questions about the story's structure,
point-of-view, characterization of Bertha (or Antoinette, as you will), or
connections between the text and Jane Eyre.
Also, look up the terms "Marginalization" and "Post-Colonialism" on good
ole Wikipedia. Be prepared to discuss in the latter half of class.
If everyone blogs, no quiz. If more than one person blogs, then there will
be a quiz. Cool?
See you tomorrow.
If it isn't another seemingly depressing novel! Jane Eyre was the only book we've read that had a happy ending. Jane and Big Bertha have many similarities in their childhood, the most obvious is that they are alienated and secluded. Conversely, they have many differences due to their similarities. Jane never succumbed to conformity nor compromised her sense of righteousness -- she was a feminist. She could be compared to today's notion of an "independent woman." Jane is more fierce and dominating whereas Big Bertha is more innocent and subservient. She does nothing when her friend cheats her of her pennies and her clothes and then gets a rock thrown on her forehead! On her first day of school, after the house inferno incident, she gets picked on and yet does nothing then she goes and cries! I don't recall Jane crying as pathetic as that. I'm sure Jane would have fought back just as she did to John and Mrs. Reed (verbally).
The readers will unequivocally gain a immense sympathy for Big Bertha's life. She is a victim of racism and social status; her mother had a mental illness; she has no friends; people don't like her; and her brother dies. For a young child, she has experienced many things people experience within a lifetime. Readers who've read Jane Eyre know what lies in her future. She is obliviously seeing her future through her mother's. She ultimately never finds happiness and no one will ever love her; she will only become a nuisance. Interestingly, I am looking forward to the story because it has many deep and profound meaning towards it. Mainly, how Big Bertha will act toward her mother as her disorder worsens and how she is going to react if she discovers that the woman, who is her mother that is slowly becoming a stranger, is who she'll be in the future. It is as if you have discovered the day that you will die and with that knowledge, decide what to do with your time because you realize how short it is.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Crime and Punishment: Done
So Svid lost his attraction to Dunya and is engaged to a teenager. Obviously, there's something wrong with that. Then he goes and kidnap Dunya and locks her in his room and practically gives her an ultimatum: marry him or get raped and if she reports it, he'll report her brother! It turns out, that his wife did indeed die "unnaturally" because he poisoned her. Is it all just for a woman?! and after realizing that she doesn't love him, he goes and commit a suicide and told people that he'll be "leaving for america." But not before, donating (all?) his money to Sonya and his fiancee's family, which was a really kind gesture considering his character. Maybe that was his redemption. Rodya finally confesses to his family and he realizes how much the murder has affected himself and his family and crumbling the future that his mother and sister had worked so hard for. He could have a bright future. He was told to confess midway to the police station and after kissing the ground, he could not go through with it. Really, was is necessary to kiss the floor? that's disgusting. People will think you're a crazier man. Later, after confessing, he goes to prison and has a trial. He has a light punishment due to confessing and is sent to Siberia for hard, unpaid labor! And Sonya goes with him! Raz and Dunya marries and Pulch dies from knowing that her son is murderer. She can't handle the truth, can't she? Despite, being in jail, Rodya is practically the same and the prisoners don't like him, but they like Sonya, haha. Story ends with them revealing their love and getting it on. Gosh, Rodya is one emotional guy.
One question that's on my mind: Why did Nikolai confess? I just don't understand why he would confess something he didn't do. As for the story itself, I felt that this would have been more interesting to read if I was older and had more time to "ingest" it. I had to rush my reading often times and practically skim through the novel so I wasn't able to fully enjoy the novel. The story was pretty good overall but the ending felt a bit cliche with "love" and stuff and gave us too much of a happy feeling. But I guess that's the point because the whole story was depressing until the end. For someone in his teens, I would really enjoy reading a book that I would truly enjoy. I believe there is a book that exists that can provide us with insight to light and profound things while still appeal to the young people. I have to say, the novel was more of an insight in a criminal's mind rather than action. The action was so mundane.
One question that's on my mind: Why did Nikolai confess? I just don't understand why he would confess something he didn't do. As for the story itself, I felt that this would have been more interesting to read if I was older and had more time to "ingest" it. I had to rush my reading often times and practically skim through the novel so I wasn't able to fully enjoy the novel. The story was pretty good overall but the ending felt a bit cliche with "love" and stuff and gave us too much of a happy feeling. But I guess that's the point because the whole story was depressing until the end. For someone in his teens, I would really enjoy reading a book that I would truly enjoy. I believe there is a book that exists that can provide us with insight to light and profound things while still appeal to the young people. I have to say, the novel was more of an insight in a criminal's mind rather than action. The action was so mundane.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Crime and Punishment... Rodya confesses.
1. Continue to read Crime & Punishment. Before Monday complete pgs.
342-399 (the rest of part V and chapters 1-3 of part VI). Blog a response
to convince me that you read. Comment on any appearance of your
theme/symbol/motif in the assigned reading.
So Rodya finally confesses! I was surprised at how sympathetic Sonya was to him and how God would forgive him if he confesses the murder publicly. I expected her to be shocked and repulsed by his actions. Despite confessing, he is still confident and wants to find, even if it's just a little, proof that he is, indeed, an ubermensch. I am shocked at Katerina's treatment towards her children. How can she, as a mother, demand her children to go beg in the streets while saying that they all have aristocractic blood. I highly doubt begging in a street surrounded by poverty and demanding that you're "richer" than everybody else is going to help you. It's also quite ironic, i suppose. She dies and even after her death, forced people to pay for her problems. This time, Svid pays for her funeral and takes care of the children. Why don't you just dig a deep in the ground and call it a day?
I think I've found my favorite characters (finally) who would be Svid and Porfiry because they're smart men. Rodya is smart also, but he's an emotional wreck and committed the murder. Even without much evidence, Profiry is confident in his assumption that Rodya is in fact the real murderer and Rodya's words does not sway him. He even has the courage to tell him where he hid the loot if he decides to commit suicide. Svid is a cunning man, he plays life like a game of chess. He's quite an eavesdropper and with his play on the board, he is might be able to manipulate Rodya to his own gain.
342-399 (the rest of part V and chapters 1-3 of part VI). Blog a response
to convince me that you read. Comment on any appearance of your
theme/symbol/motif in the assigned reading.
So Rodya finally confesses! I was surprised at how sympathetic Sonya was to him and how God would forgive him if he confesses the murder publicly. I expected her to be shocked and repulsed by his actions. Despite confessing, he is still confident and wants to find, even if it's just a little, proof that he is, indeed, an ubermensch. I am shocked at Katerina's treatment towards her children. How can she, as a mother, demand her children to go beg in the streets while saying that they all have aristocractic blood. I highly doubt begging in a street surrounded by poverty and demanding that you're "richer" than everybody else is going to help you. It's also quite ironic, i suppose. She dies and even after her death, forced people to pay for her problems. This time, Svid pays for her funeral and takes care of the children. Why don't you just dig a deep in the ground and call it a day?
I think I've found my favorite characters (finally) who would be Svid and Porfiry because they're smart men. Rodya is smart also, but he's an emotional wreck and committed the murder. Even without much evidence, Profiry is confident in his assumption that Rodya is in fact the real murderer and Rodya's words does not sway him. He even has the courage to tell him where he hid the loot if he decides to commit suicide. Svid is a cunning man, he plays life like a game of chess. He's quite an eavesdropper and with his play on the board, he is might be able to manipulate Rodya to his own gain.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Crime and Punishment: (Almost the End)
Convince me you read! Read pgs. 305-342 (chapter 1-3 of part V) and blog
thoughtfully. What's interesting about these chapters? Significant?
Notable? Confusing? Obfuscating? Be sure to spellcheck and proof your blog
entry before posting. Sound as smart as you are.
Those of you who blog thoughtfully will not take tomorrow's quiz.
Also, work on locating lines and excerpts that support your gorup's
theme/motif/symbol. A good strategy might be folding a sheet of paper in
half, writing lines on one side of the paper, and writing the significance
or the way in which they support your theme/motif/symbol on the other
half. I'll review your notes tomorrow and then we'll discuss.
Finally, some good ol' family action (kind of)! We realize how materialistic Luzhin actually is and the breaking of their engagement seems right now. It is amusing how Luzhin thought that giving more presents to Dunya would help convince her to still stay with him if he had done it. Really now? You would have lost more money that you would have now. We can anticipate what's going to happen when they arrive to Katerina's memorial dinner soon enough. It will certainly highlight Luzhin's self-serving nature. Not so charitable as he was first described in the novel. Katerina uses so much of Rody'a donation to them of a memorial dinner! How does she have the audacity to do that?! Obviously, with your husband's death, you are doomed for more poverty than you already have. Swallow your pride for goodness' sake, you have children to take care of. Your pride doesn't even cost that much and you claim to be noble?! How convincing considering where you're living now. Do you think your claim will suddenly bring you money? You're going to be the same position you were the previous day: poor. And then you go insult your guests and argue with your landlady! You're asking to die, really, you're already coughing blood and all that. Can you not think?! (I learned that (?!) is called an interrobang, interesting fact...) It's ironic that Luzhin's friend, Leb, tells everyone that Sonya was indeed innocent and Luzhin was plotting to ruin her reputation. It's a hit towards her morals because despite being a prostitute, her morals are better than probably everyone else's.
This is were the lines are probably blurred. I don't resent Rodya as much and his murder isn't the focus of the story. We see worse people, Katerina and Luzhin. This makes Rodya seem like the protagonist now when you contrast them together, but it still doesn't change the fact that he murdered somebody.
thoughtfully. What's interesting about these chapters? Significant?
Notable? Confusing? Obfuscating? Be sure to spellcheck and proof your blog
entry before posting. Sound as smart as you are.
Those of you who blog thoughtfully will not take tomorrow's quiz.
Also, work on locating lines and excerpts that support your gorup's
theme/motif/symbol. A good strategy might be folding a sheet of paper in
half, writing lines on one side of the paper, and writing the significance
or the way in which they support your theme/motif/symbol on the other
half. I'll review your notes tomorrow and then we'll discuss.
Finally, some good ol' family action (kind of)! We realize how materialistic Luzhin actually is and the breaking of their engagement seems right now. It is amusing how Luzhin thought that giving more presents to Dunya would help convince her to still stay with him if he had done it. Really now? You would have lost more money that you would have now. We can anticipate what's going to happen when they arrive to Katerina's memorial dinner soon enough. It will certainly highlight Luzhin's self-serving nature. Not so charitable as he was first described in the novel. Katerina uses so much of Rody'a donation to them of a memorial dinner! How does she have the audacity to do that?! Obviously, with your husband's death, you are doomed for more poverty than you already have. Swallow your pride for goodness' sake, you have children to take care of. Your pride doesn't even cost that much and you claim to be noble?! How convincing considering where you're living now. Do you think your claim will suddenly bring you money? You're going to be the same position you were the previous day: poor. And then you go insult your guests and argue with your landlady! You're asking to die, really, you're already coughing blood and all that. Can you not think?! (I learned that (?!) is called an interrobang, interesting fact...) It's ironic that Luzhin's friend, Leb, tells everyone that Sonya was indeed innocent and Luzhin was plotting to ruin her reputation. It's a hit towards her morals because despite being a prostitute, her morals are better than probably everyone else's.
This is were the lines are probably blurred. I don't resent Rodya as much and his murder isn't the focus of the story. We see worse people, Katerina and Luzhin. This makes Rodya seem like the protagonist now when you contrast them together, but it still doesn't change the fact that he murdered somebody.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
There is no meaning to your existence...
Hey folks -
Read the rest of part IV of C&P (to approx. pg. 300). Read the Wikipedia
entries for "Friedrich Nietzsche" and either "Existentialism" or
"Nihlism." Make some connections.
Post a brief response to both readings on your blogs. If everyone posts,
there will be no quiz. All blog posts must address both the novel and the
Wikipedia article, though. THOUGHTFULLY.
Oh, how I have pondered so much on my existence and the difference between existing and living with myself and my friends.... this reminds me of The Doors of Perception and The Road. I believe we're both existing and living, in a scientific sense. If I were to "live," in society's context, I'd probably be in jail or if it were possible, drop out of school (because it's so mundane here) and attend college. Gosh, I regret not applying for an early application and skip my senior year... I believe that we cycle through "existing" and "living" throughout our lives. Some people get goals, achieve, set more goals, and the cycle starts over. Others like to live for the joyful times. It seems that in order to live by society's context, you must always be happy and kept at a constant mental high (soma?). We try to find some purpose, some meaning in our lives because without it, we question our existence and what is the point of living? Just like the man and the boy in The Road. One's belief in a god or superior being gives one a purpose to live and that by abiding to the the rules, one will be granted a good afterlife for one's efforts or suffer for all eternity. Everybody wishes to go to heaven, but no one wants to die. The rapture was the most boring apocalypse, by the way. My blog's name "my karma just ran over your dogma" also references towards God. Nihilism states that there is no meaning to life (and frankly, I don't think there is). In a world of about 7 billion people, many people simply just exist for the sake of living and nothing else. It is arbitrary is to find the meaning of life. I'll give you a hint, it's 42.
Rodya isn't religious and after having Sonya read the story of Lazarus out loud, he finds some hope that he can start his life anew. Rodya doesn't exactly have any reasons for living, he lives in poverty and was a student. Sonya, on the other hand, being a prostitute, the family situation, and everything still has optimistic views. Is this a product of her faith in the existence of a God? Who knows. Would she be as strong in character as she would be if she didn't believe in a deity or would she also fall as low as Rodya is.
I like Nietzsche and his philosophy. I can understand his nihilistic and existential views. His Ubermensch ideology is also quite fascinating and I can understand why. Some people could be innately superior to others (and this brings in the debate of nature versus nurture), but I prefer certain individuals not white supremacy or any race in general. I do believe that Ubermensch should help benefit human society as a whole. Too often, we see how selfish and greedy a country can be. However, I don't think it's an excuse for you to kill someone like how Rodya killed the pawnlady to "benefit" everyone else. There could have been another alternative instead of killing her, like robbing her as Robin Hood would do? No need to murder her and for an absurd reasons also! He then proceeds to questions himself if he is indeed an Ubermensch when he harbors that guilt and mental distress within himself.
Read the rest of part IV of C&P (to approx. pg. 300). Read the Wikipedia
entries for "Friedrich Nietzsche" and either "Existentialism" or
"Nihlism." Make some connections.
Post a brief response to both readings on your blogs. If everyone posts,
there will be no quiz. All blog posts must address both the novel and the
Wikipedia article, though. THOUGHTFULLY.
Oh, how I have pondered so much on my existence and the difference between existing and living with myself and my friends.... this reminds me of The Doors of Perception and The Road. I believe we're both existing and living, in a scientific sense. If I were to "live," in society's context, I'd probably be in jail or if it were possible, drop out of school (because it's so mundane here) and attend college. Gosh, I regret not applying for an early application and skip my senior year... I believe that we cycle through "existing" and "living" throughout our lives. Some people get goals, achieve, set more goals, and the cycle starts over. Others like to live for the joyful times. It seems that in order to live by society's context, you must always be happy and kept at a constant mental high (soma?). We try to find some purpose, some meaning in our lives because without it, we question our existence and what is the point of living? Just like the man and the boy in The Road. One's belief in a god or superior being gives one a purpose to live and that by abiding to the the rules, one will be granted a good afterlife for one's efforts or suffer for all eternity. Everybody wishes to go to heaven, but no one wants to die. The rapture was the most boring apocalypse, by the way. My blog's name "my karma just ran over your dogma" also references towards God. Nihilism states that there is no meaning to life (and frankly, I don't think there is). In a world of about 7 billion people, many people simply just exist for the sake of living and nothing else. It is arbitrary is to find the meaning of life. I'll give you a hint, it's 42.
Rodya isn't religious and after having Sonya read the story of Lazarus out loud, he finds some hope that he can start his life anew. Rodya doesn't exactly have any reasons for living, he lives in poverty and was a student. Sonya, on the other hand, being a prostitute, the family situation, and everything still has optimistic views. Is this a product of her faith in the existence of a God? Who knows. Would she be as strong in character as she would be if she didn't believe in a deity or would she also fall as low as Rodya is.
I like Nietzsche and his philosophy. I can understand his nihilistic and existential views. His Ubermensch ideology is also quite fascinating and I can understand why. Some people could be innately superior to others (and this brings in the debate of nature versus nurture), but I prefer certain individuals not white supremacy or any race in general. I do believe that Ubermensch should help benefit human society as a whole. Too often, we see how selfish and greedy a country can be. However, I don't think it's an excuse for you to kill someone like how Rodya killed the pawnlady to "benefit" everyone else. There could have been another alternative instead of killing her, like robbing her as Robin Hood would do? No need to murder her and for an absurd reasons also! He then proceeds to questions himself if he is indeed an Ubermensch when he harbors that guilt and mental distress within himself.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Psychopaths
Hello AP Lit-ers,
For HW today, please read C & P, part III, chapters 1-3 (ending on approx.
pg. 200). Anticipate a breif reading quiz tomorrow.
Listen to the rest of the This American Life episode: “The Psychopath
Test.” Self-administer the “Socialized Psychopath Test.” Remember to
answer the questions as though they are about yourself. Post a BRIEF
response on your blog to JUST the TAL ep and your results on the test.
Here are the links:
http://www.thisamericanlife.
(This American Life) & http://bob.bofh.org/~robm/
Socialized Psychopath Test").
The TAL episode was very interesting and while I was listening to it or the lack of it, it made me realize just how deviant psychopaths are. They lack emotion entirely (I wonder how that feels). I thought psychopaths would have at least a little emotion to feel as they're killing or whatever. That one-hour talk show took too much time! Especially because if I "multi-task," I would be unable to fully put all my attention towards it. To be honest, I was watching the news on mute and eating while I was listening to the show on full volume because I was I afraid I'll fall asleep. Studies do show that it is impossible to multi-task because you have to divide your attention which leads to inefficiency.
So after the TAL episode, I was excited to take the psychopath test because I'm not a psychopath! After all, they said that psychopaths lack emotions entirely. So you guys, no, I am not a psychopath, but I did answer many of them with with "Fully." I also don't agree with some few questions they had that displays psychopathic behaviors like "displays of human emotions unconvincing," "blame others for their mistakes," "quick to lost their tempers," "sexually promiscuous," "unrealistic about their long-term aims," and "regard them as essentially irresponsible?" Maybe because I watch too many psychopathic movies or shows, like... Dexter. I should stop referring him so much or else it'll rise questions... but from a film's perspective, many psychopaths don't seem to reflect those and they're more rational. Or maybe that's just the better or the psychopaths? The only reason why know Dexter is emotionally unconvincing because we can hear what he's thinking and he is certainly not sexually promiscuous. Though, the other murderers who are probably psychopathic like he is displays those emotions. Agh! Such contradictions! I'm done, I feel so hypocritical. Interesting note: it's awesome how they can portray his violent psychopathic nature with everyday routines during the opening and the new season is about to start! :D
So does the test constitute every psychopath?
For HW today, please read C & P, part III, chapters 1-3 (ending on approx.
pg. 200). Anticipate a breif reading quiz tomorrow.
Listen to the rest of the This American Life episode: “The Psychopath
Test.” Self-administer the “Socialized Psychopath Test.” Remember to
answer the questions as though they are about yourself. Post a BRIEF
response on your blog to JUST the TAL ep and your results on the test.
Here are the links:
http://www.thisamericanlife.
(This American Life) & http://bob.bofh.org/~robm/
Socialized Psychopath Test").
The TAL episode was very interesting and while I was listening to it or the lack of it, it made me realize just how deviant psychopaths are. They lack emotion entirely (I wonder how that feels). I thought psychopaths would have at least a little emotion to feel as they're killing or whatever. That one-hour talk show took too much time! Especially because if I "multi-task," I would be unable to fully put all my attention towards it. To be honest, I was watching the news on mute and eating while I was listening to the show on full volume because I was I afraid I'll fall asleep. Studies do show that it is impossible to multi-task because you have to divide your attention which leads to inefficiency.
So after the TAL episode, I was excited to take the psychopath test because I'm not a psychopath! After all, they said that psychopaths lack emotions entirely. So you guys, no, I am not a psychopath, but I did answer many of them with with "Fully." I also don't agree with some few questions they had that displays psychopathic behaviors like "displays of human emotions unconvincing," "blame others for their mistakes," "quick to lost their tempers," "sexually promiscuous," "unrealistic about their long-term aims," and "regard them as essentially irresponsible?" Maybe because I watch too many psychopathic movies or shows, like... Dexter. I should stop referring him so much or else it'll rise questions... but from a film's perspective, many psychopaths don't seem to reflect those and they're more rational. Or maybe that's just the better or the psychopaths? The only reason why know Dexter is emotionally unconvincing because we can hear what he's thinking and he is certainly not sexually promiscuous. Though, the other murderers who are probably psychopathic like he is displays those emotions. Agh! Such contradictions! I'm done, I feel so hypocritical. Interesting note: it's awesome how they can portray his violent psychopathic nature with everyday routines during the opening and the new season is about to start! :D
So does the test constitute every psychopath?
Monday, September 19, 2011
This is why I refuse to be a lawyer.
Hey class-
Read Dick's short story, "The Minority Report," the MSNBC article on the
neuroscience of criminals, and the lyrics to "I Don't Like Mondays" for
tomorrow. Blog thoughtfully regarding any connections you see between the
short story, the article, and Crime and Punishment. You might consider
what each has to say about how criminals differ from non-criminals, the
role fate plays in human existence, or the problems inherent in pro-active
approaches to crime prevention (though this idea is more relevant to the
story and the article than C&P).
If EVERYBODY IN THE CLASS blogs THOUGHTFULLY before I check your blogs on
Monday morning, then there will be no reading quiz. However, I will not
accept a blog entry via e-mail (since it's not really a blog entry anyway)
or overly brief or vague blog entries. If your blog entry does not clearly
demonstrate to me that you read the assigned readings then you will not
receive credit.
- Mr. B
P.S. All of your e-mail addresses are in this e-mail. If you really don't
want to have a reading quiz tomorrow then I suggest corresponding with
each other to ensure that nobody drops the ball here.
For clarification, I copy and past the instructions for my convenience and to get my thoughts together., it isn't some eccentric habit i have! By the way, I've watched Changeling and Collateral during the weekend; there's also correlation towards them also!
So I did some research on the song: "I don't like Mondays." (because I suck at interpreting vague lyrics without any firm ground or comparison to). I don't like Monday's either, ironic that it is today. I don't like it only because it's the first day of school! I can't wait for college, I think I'll take two classes in the afternoon for Mondays. The song was inspired by Brenda Ann Spencer, who actually did what the song said. Her reason to shoot up the elementary school: "I don't like Mondays; this livens up the day." We both don't like mondays... but going to school to shoot innocent kids is outrageous. Even more so, you've killed two kids and injured nine. Now, the two kids were innocent and yet you don't feel remorse. I personally have a huge animosity towards her right now. She could have either channeled that "dark energy" elsewhere, either to herself or something more positive (like Dexter). I mean, c'mon, your dad apparently bought a gun for you think you'd kill yourself. Rodya also feels no remorse for killing the pawnlady and his reason for killing her was because he didn't like her and she ripped him off. I don't like either of them, but I suppose I can empathize with them. Though, I won't go around actually killing people! If you don't like monday, go read a book, go do something productive, or sleep. And if you were apparently sexually abused by your father, you should have bust a cap in his head, especially when he bought you that gun also and thought you were going to kill youself with it. I wonder what the nine injured kids think of you now. I wouldn't be happy with you lying in prison having the necessities of life yet feel no remorse and one of the two dead kids could have been my best friend. You deserve to be tortured. The song was catchy until i found out more about it.
The article was interesting, mostly because I do neuroscience research, but mine is related to PTSD, not neurocriminology. It brings up a lot of ethical and moral issues, especially with the study that involved young children. I hope they didn't actually "fear-conditioned" them with electric shocks! This reminds me of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment for some reason. The articale states that some children are innately criminals, yet when they become adults, some will have criminal behavior and some will not. Yet the children prone to criminal behavior can also be nurtured to become the opposite. This really puts into perspective nature versus nurture. I also don't agree with invasive surgical treatment because personality is what makes a person and though they may become criminals, what gives you the right to change a person through invasive surgery even if you're the parents? I think it's only right if the person gives you the consent with the full knowledge of the repercussions. I also think that just because you might be "born to be a criminal" it doesn't justify you to act upon it and have reduced responsibility to do it. You're born into a society and you know what it right and wrong. The only difference is that you have the feeling. "Psychopaths know right and wrong cognitively, but don't have a feeling for what's right and wrong." I say, "just be like Dexter; pretend that you have emotions and know what's right and wrong and if you have to go kill, kill the bad people in the world." Rodya has antisocial behavior and is quite depressed. At first, he is sure that he can't possible commit a murder yet he is able to. I think the dream about the dead horse also serves as a foundation to why he behaves this way. Man, maybe I should have chosen the other lab and got a free MRI scan and see what my brain looks like. I wonder if I show symptoms of a psychopath...
The minority report was amusing in a psychological sense. Somehow, this reminds me of cognitive dissonance and many psychological experiments like the one where everyone tells you that you're dreaming and you begin to doubt even yourself, haha! Anderton is paranoid and he doesn't know whether or not to believe Kaplan or his wife because he doesn't know who is lying and who is not. It also puts into perceptive about the arrest of precriminals. In the end, I go agree with it under the assumption that there is only one circumstance, which was Anderton's case and the plausibility of any subsequent Police Commissioner. So under that assumption, he was been arresting precriminals and not innocent people because they are unaware that they're about to commit a crime... but shouldn't they be aware of it when they commit? Maybe they're acting rashly. I think it's more ethical though, to tell the precriminals that they're about the commit the crime and see what happens. Afterall, with the precogs, nothing unexpected can really happen because everything have been predicted within a one week timeframe. What is there to lose? In the end, "Mike" did predict what was going to happen any way. None of the precogs were wrong, they were just invalidated due to new variables. This also mirrors a lot with the movie, Paycheck, and after some googling -- what a coincidence! The movie was adapted from a short story by the same author, Philip Dick! I suppose, with no one knowing what Rody committed. it related to this story and what would have happened if he decided not to murder her, murder her more elaborately, or whatever. There's many ways the story could have gone.
I think the wisest way to combat criminals is a ban on guns. Guns can go both ways; good or bad. But you know what? There's a great risk involved with it (no, duh america). I think it's just safe to ban it altogether and learn self-defense. Look at the heath benefits! America, you can stop yourself from being called obese. Have you no shame in being the most hated country in the world for almost everything you do wrong? You can protect yourself without a need for a gun and if a gun had been taken from you, not all hope is lost! With the inclusion of the ban, a gun's threat is out of the question. Jujitsu and Hapkido are great for self-defense.
I think I should start writing less.... but for now, I should go brush my teeth and get ready for another dreadful monday imprisoned inside a cement box for the next 8 hours of my life. But, your class is the only one I look forward to, seriously! I wish I could spend the 8 hours here instead... doing something more interesting of course, like film studies and watching movies. what ever happened to learning for the sake of learning?
Why I refuse to be a lawyer:
I don't want to defend a guilty person (I don't even know if he's innocent or not or if's he's lying) and then everything gets blurred and whatnot. things get complicated. and lawyers have a sad life. I also don't want to be a doctor to save a murderer's life.
Read Dick's short story, "The Minority Report," the MSNBC article on the
neuroscience of criminals, and the lyrics to "I Don't Like Mondays" for
tomorrow. Blog thoughtfully regarding any connections you see between the
short story, the article, and Crime and Punishment. You might consider
what each has to say about how criminals differ from non-criminals, the
role fate plays in human existence, or the problems inherent in pro-active
approaches to crime prevention (though this idea is more relevant to the
story and the article than C&P).
If EVERYBODY IN THE CLASS blogs THOUGHTFULLY before I check your blogs on
Monday morning, then there will be no reading quiz. However, I will not
accept a blog entry via e-mail (since it's not really a blog entry anyway)
or overly brief or vague blog entries. If your blog entry does not clearly
demonstrate to me that you read the assigned readings then you will not
receive credit.
- Mr. B
P.S. All of your e-mail addresses are in this e-mail. If you really don't
want to have a reading quiz tomorrow then I suggest corresponding with
each other to ensure that nobody drops the ball here.
For clarification, I copy and past the instructions for my convenience and to get my thoughts together., it isn't some eccentric habit i have! By the way, I've watched Changeling and Collateral during the weekend; there's also correlation towards them also!
So I did some research on the song: "I don't like Mondays." (because I suck at interpreting vague lyrics without any firm ground or comparison to). I don't like Monday's either, ironic that it is today. I don't like it only because it's the first day of school! I can't wait for college, I think I'll take two classes in the afternoon for Mondays. The song was inspired by Brenda Ann Spencer, who actually did what the song said. Her reason to shoot up the elementary school: "I don't like Mondays; this livens up the day." We both don't like mondays... but going to school to shoot innocent kids is outrageous. Even more so, you've killed two kids and injured nine. Now, the two kids were innocent and yet you don't feel remorse. I personally have a huge animosity towards her right now. She could have either channeled that "dark energy" elsewhere, either to herself or something more positive (like Dexter). I mean, c'mon, your dad apparently bought a gun for you think you'd kill yourself. Rodya also feels no remorse for killing the pawnlady and his reason for killing her was because he didn't like her and she ripped him off. I don't like either of them, but I suppose I can empathize with them. Though, I won't go around actually killing people! If you don't like monday, go read a book, go do something productive, or sleep. And if you were apparently sexually abused by your father, you should have bust a cap in his head, especially when he bought you that gun also and thought you were going to kill youself with it. I wonder what the nine injured kids think of you now. I wouldn't be happy with you lying in prison having the necessities of life yet feel no remorse and one of the two dead kids could have been my best friend. You deserve to be tortured. The song was catchy until i found out more about it.
The article was interesting, mostly because I do neuroscience research, but mine is related to PTSD, not neurocriminology. It brings up a lot of ethical and moral issues, especially with the study that involved young children. I hope they didn't actually "fear-conditioned" them with electric shocks! This reminds me of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment for some reason. The articale states that some children are innately criminals, yet when they become adults, some will have criminal behavior and some will not. Yet the children prone to criminal behavior can also be nurtured to become the opposite. This really puts into perspective nature versus nurture. I also don't agree with invasive surgical treatment because personality is what makes a person and though they may become criminals, what gives you the right to change a person through invasive surgery even if you're the parents? I think it's only right if the person gives you the consent with the full knowledge of the repercussions. I also think that just because you might be "born to be a criminal" it doesn't justify you to act upon it and have reduced responsibility to do it. You're born into a society and you know what it right and wrong. The only difference is that you have the feeling. "Psychopaths know right and wrong cognitively, but don't have a feeling for what's right and wrong." I say, "just be like Dexter; pretend that you have emotions and know what's right and wrong and if you have to go kill, kill the bad people in the world." Rodya has antisocial behavior and is quite depressed. At first, he is sure that he can't possible commit a murder yet he is able to. I think the dream about the dead horse also serves as a foundation to why he behaves this way. Man, maybe I should have chosen the other lab and got a free MRI scan and see what my brain looks like. I wonder if I show symptoms of a psychopath...
The minority report was amusing in a psychological sense. Somehow, this reminds me of cognitive dissonance and many psychological experiments like the one where everyone tells you that you're dreaming and you begin to doubt even yourself, haha! Anderton is paranoid and he doesn't know whether or not to believe Kaplan or his wife because he doesn't know who is lying and who is not. It also puts into perceptive about the arrest of precriminals. In the end, I go agree with it under the assumption that there is only one circumstance, which was Anderton's case and the plausibility of any subsequent Police Commissioner. So under that assumption, he was been arresting precriminals and not innocent people because they are unaware that they're about to commit a crime... but shouldn't they be aware of it when they commit? Maybe they're acting rashly. I think it's more ethical though, to tell the precriminals that they're about the commit the crime and see what happens. Afterall, with the precogs, nothing unexpected can really happen because everything have been predicted within a one week timeframe. What is there to lose? In the end, "Mike" did predict what was going to happen any way. None of the precogs were wrong, they were just invalidated due to new variables. This also mirrors a lot with the movie, Paycheck, and after some googling -- what a coincidence! The movie was adapted from a short story by the same author, Philip Dick! I suppose, with no one knowing what Rody committed. it related to this story and what would have happened if he decided not to murder her, murder her more elaborately, or whatever. There's many ways the story could have gone.
I think the wisest way to combat criminals is a ban on guns. Guns can go both ways; good or bad. But you know what? There's a great risk involved with it (no, duh america). I think it's just safe to ban it altogether and learn self-defense. Look at the heath benefits! America, you can stop yourself from being called obese. Have you no shame in being the most hated country in the world for almost everything you do wrong? You can protect yourself without a need for a gun and if a gun had been taken from you, not all hope is lost! With the inclusion of the ban, a gun's threat is out of the question. Jujitsu and Hapkido are great for self-defense.
I think I should start writing less.... but for now, I should go brush my teeth and get ready for another dreadful monday imprisoned inside a cement box for the next 8 hours of my life. But, your class is the only one I look forward to, seriously! I wish I could spend the 8 hours here instead... doing something more interesting of course, like film studies and watching movies. what ever happened to learning for the sake of learning?
Why I refuse to be a lawyer:
I don't want to defend a guilty person (I don't even know if he's innocent or not or if's he's lying) and then everything gets blurred and whatnot. things get complicated. and lawyers have a sad life. I also don't want to be a doctor to save a murderer's life.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Crime and Punishment: Part 3
For tomorrow, read the rest of part II of Crime & Punishment (chapters
4-7, approx pgs. 111-165). Blog about the novel and the idea of
redemption. Do you think that people can be redeemed or not? If someone
does something terrible, then what do they have to do to atone? You might
also want to consider why you feel the way you do in regard to this issue.
Parents? Teachers? Literature? Friends? Religion? TV? What influences your
values?
A deal I'm willing to strike: if everyone in the entire class has blogged
thoughtfully by the time I check your blogs (during my planning period,
around 10am), then there will be no reading quiz. However, if only one
person does not blog then there will be a quiz. Cool?
Rodya apparently thinks he has redeemed himself. I don't understand how he has the audacity to think like that and his rationalization as to why he considers he is is so enraging. He should be consumed with guilt! He doesn't deserve to walk alongside society and act so pompous after such an act! Does he not feel sorrow anymore? How can he be so bold as to talk directly to the detective about the murder and even return to the scene of the murder (why do so many murderers like to return anyway? To view their work? That is just so sick)?
People can be redeemed relative to the severity of their crime. Petty ones that don't necessarily affect anyone in a serious manner or only yourself is redeemable if you are truly, sincerely, and genuinely feel sorry and regretful. Now, for murders and robbers, oh how i despise them (considering they're murdering and robbing innocent people)... they can never redeem themselves. There is no atonement for them. I value justice more than mercy. They were (obviously) aware they were going to kill and rob someone; it's rational to think of the consequences! I don't care if you truly, sincerely, and genuinely feel sorry and regret; it's not going to bring the dead back to life. You can be tortured for all eternity. People like Albert Fish deserve more than torture, I want them to experience the worst pain possible... and still be alive. Yeah, I'm cruel. But did you know what that man did? He raped, killed, and ate the children he abducted. Even more enraging, he wrote letters to the victim's parents describing vividly how he did those things to them. Put yourself in the parents' shoes. I will never forgive that man, but killing him would be too easy. I want him to experience what my child went through. He should be one of those amputated prisoners in the basement from The Road.
Reader-response theory (sort of), haha. I'm influenced by everyone I've met, the things I've watched, my experiences, and the stories I've read. Parents? That's too personal. Let's just say that some merciful and kind people are just too merciful and kind. Teachers? I think it's a crime to waste even a second of my young life and I won't be able to get it back. Also, let's just say that I don't like most teachers and I love very few. Literature? Oh yeah, that plays a pivotal role in influencing me. Friends? Somewhat. Religion? Also quite a bit. TV? Dexter would be one, haha. White Collar? Fringe? Lie to Me? There's a lot of things that influences my values, but I'm too tired today to rant about it (just imagine how much I would have written!).
Oh and yeah, you! Remember that girl who told you to and I quote "don't (yeah) touch me!" and "don't (yeah) look at me!" during the fire drll? She's must be very mysophobic and subconscious about her appearance... I don't like her.
4-7, approx pgs. 111-165). Blog about the novel and the idea of
redemption. Do you think that people can be redeemed or not? If someone
does something terrible, then what do they have to do to atone? You might
also want to consider why you feel the way you do in regard to this issue.
Parents? Teachers? Literature? Friends? Religion? TV? What influences your
values?
A deal I'm willing to strike: if everyone in the entire class has blogged
thoughtfully by the time I check your blogs (during my planning period,
around 10am), then there will be no reading quiz. However, if only one
person does not blog then there will be a quiz. Cool?
Rodya apparently thinks he has redeemed himself. I don't understand how he has the audacity to think like that and his rationalization as to why he considers he is is so enraging. He should be consumed with guilt! He doesn't deserve to walk alongside society and act so pompous after such an act! Does he not feel sorrow anymore? How can he be so bold as to talk directly to the detective about the murder and even return to the scene of the murder (why do so many murderers like to return anyway? To view their work? That is just so sick)?
People can be redeemed relative to the severity of their crime. Petty ones that don't necessarily affect anyone in a serious manner or only yourself is redeemable if you are truly, sincerely, and genuinely feel sorry and regretful. Now, for murders and robbers, oh how i despise them (considering they're murdering and robbing innocent people)... they can never redeem themselves. There is no atonement for them. I value justice more than mercy. They were (obviously) aware they were going to kill and rob someone; it's rational to think of the consequences! I don't care if you truly, sincerely, and genuinely feel sorry and regret; it's not going to bring the dead back to life. You can be tortured for all eternity. People like Albert Fish deserve more than torture, I want them to experience the worst pain possible... and still be alive. Yeah, I'm cruel. But did you know what that man did? He raped, killed, and ate the children he abducted. Even more enraging, he wrote letters to the victim's parents describing vividly how he did those things to them. Put yourself in the parents' shoes. I will never forgive that man, but killing him would be too easy. I want him to experience what my child went through. He should be one of those amputated prisoners in the basement from The Road.
Reader-response theory (sort of), haha. I'm influenced by everyone I've met, the things I've watched, my experiences, and the stories I've read. Parents? That's too personal. Let's just say that some merciful and kind people are just too merciful and kind. Teachers? I think it's a crime to waste even a second of my young life and I won't be able to get it back. Also, let's just say that I don't like most teachers and I love very few. Literature? Oh yeah, that plays a pivotal role in influencing me. Friends? Somewhat. Religion? Also quite a bit. TV? Dexter would be one, haha. White Collar? Fringe? Lie to Me? There's a lot of things that influences my values, but I'm too tired today to rant about it (just imagine how much I would have written!).
Oh and yeah, you! Remember that girl who told you to and I quote "don't (yeah) touch me!" and "don't (yeah) look at me!" during the fire drll? She's must be very mysophobic and subconscious about her appearance... I don't like her.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Crime and Punishment: Part 2
Please read chapters 4-7 of part I of C&P (approx. pgs. 33-74) tonight for
HW. Enjoy the bloodshed!
Additionally, please read the Wikipedia entry for Fyodor Dostoyevsky and
follow any links that explain relevant parts of Russian history with which
you might be less than familiar (e.g., Tsar Nicholas, gulags, etc.).
Blog about the following:
A. A connection you find between Dostoyevsky's own life and his work, as
represented by C&P.
B. A THOUGHTFUL response to one of the following questions, with regard to
the most recent events occurring in C&P (the murder, duh): Is it a crime
if no one finds out? Is it a crime if someone other than yourself
benefits? Is it a crime if you do it for good reasons? For example: If you
could go back in time and kill Hitler, would it be the right thing?
He is apparently a founder or precursor of existentialism which will serve as a reference to my rather eccentric quote that i would like to add: "Life isn't about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself." because I had an interesting conversation with my friend today. He moved to St. Petersburg, where the story takes place, to attend a Military Engineering Institute. It was located on one of the most horrible ares which apparently made a lasting impression and this can be seen in his description of the setting within the novel. Also Marmeladov's drunkeness reflects his father's drunken fits; quite ironic that he died from drowning from vodka (assuming the murder is true).
A crime, by definition (thanks to google), is:
HW. Enjoy the bloodshed!
Additionally, please read the Wikipedia entry for Fyodor Dostoyevsky and
follow any links that explain relevant parts of Russian history with which
you might be less than familiar (e.g., Tsar Nicholas, gulags, etc.).
Blog about the following:
A. A connection you find between Dostoyevsky's own life and his work, as
represented by C&P.
B. A THOUGHTFUL response to one of the following questions, with regard to
the most recent events occurring in C&P (the murder, duh): Is it a crime
if no one finds out? Is it a crime if someone other than yourself
benefits? Is it a crime if you do it for good reasons? For example: If you
could go back in time and kill Hitler, would it be the right thing?
He is apparently a founder or precursor of existentialism which will serve as a reference to my rather eccentric quote that i would like to add: "Life isn't about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself." because I had an interesting conversation with my friend today. He moved to St. Petersburg, where the story takes place, to attend a Military Engineering Institute. It was located on one of the most horrible ares which apparently made a lasting impression and this can be seen in his description of the setting within the novel. Also Marmeladov's drunkeness reflects his father's drunken fits; quite ironic that he died from drowning from vodka (assuming the murder is true).
A crime, by definition (thanks to google), is:
1. An action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law: "shoplifting was a serious crime".
2. Illegal activities: "the victims of crime".
So... yes, it is a crime if no one finds out or if you do it for good reasons (I live in a very grey world, haha). Now the repercussions and intentions will blur the crime's negative connotation and severity of the punishment (Crime & Punishment, I see why it's named as so). It was criminal for Rodya to kill the pawnlady. His intention was simpleton because her death would bring marginal benefits to any party. The cost outweighed the benefits. You could have just robbed her house whenever she left. Also, why an ax? It's not stealthy at all. You could have suffocated her or twist her neck. No bloodshed, clean kill. For a person of his intellect, I expected more thoroughness. He made a mess with the bloodshed and killing two people when his objective was one.
Now, a crime relative to my opinion would be something immoral or unethical. Then again, I'm quite pragmatic. Is it a crime if no one finds out? well, let's assume to things: that the crime isn't discovered and the criminal's mental stability. It is a crime if the criminal deems that he has, in fact, committed something immoral or unethical. A feeling of guilt would prove that. It isn't a crime if the criminal deems that it was justified or he is insane/crazy/mental. I don't think animal research is a crime but PETA especially thinks so. Well, they're the hypocrites. Saving animals, my butt.
It is not a crime if you do it for good reasons such as.. let's say... a man was going to rob you and kill you. Let's assume certain things: 1) he has already made a threat to you, 2) he is aware that he is risking his life, and 3) he is willing to die. Afterall, why would you rob someone without reflecting upon the consequences? The fact that you are robbing this man implies that you're willing to die. So, yes you should kill the man, but I prefer torture. No... I'm not some psycho, crazed student. I just think that allowing murderers to die is too easy for them. They should be aware and ready to die afterall. Now, putting them through torture allows them to experience what their victims went through and worse. How does it feel that you don't have the power to end your own life? You have no control, you're powerless yet you had so much when you decided to kill your victims. Being tortured and not having the power to end your life is my cup of tea in what society should do to murderers. But it's frowned upon society as inhuman and unethical. C'mon... they were the first to be inhuman and unethical, they don't deserve to be that ascended. Also, what's up with communism? There's such a negative connotation. This is conditioned to americans! It's a sick plot to support our economic system! No I'm just kidding, but I do support communism assuming the leader would not consumed by his pride and power. Seriously, no leader has ever done that.
As for travelling back in time to kill a person... I do not support it. What's done is done. Certain misfortunes can bring brighter futures. What if the Holocaust or the two world wars didn't occur? Who's to say what wouldn't occur due to that? It's also reminiscent to the time where we discussed about whether it was right to arrest a person with the knowledge that the person will commit a crime but at the moment of arrest, he/she has yet to commit it. You're just arresting an innocent person. Now... I would like to bring in the idea of parallel universes and that there is no past, present, or future, and eleven dimensions of reality but i shall not. It would be superfluous for a literature class. So I say "go on with the holocaust, the civil wars, and the genocide! May you experience a brighter life in an alternative universe." As cruel as it may sound, what if the world's savior was a product for a genocide or of the misfortunes of the world and if that mishap did not occur, it wouldn't produce the world's savior and we'd be doomed. Tabula rasa, man, a person is a person based on their experiences and perceptions. Humans nature isn't good nor evil. To even say what is good or evil is to play God because they are not objective terms. This would have been a very strong point to make for the in-between group. I'm sure I would have lost if the topic was arose.
Crime and Punishment: Part 1
Blog about the ways in which Dostoyevsky uses 1) mood, 2) point-of-view and 3) characterization in the early chapters in his novel.
The mood is very depressing and through his descriptions of the surrounding and it seems to have a lot of criminal activity or at least activities frowned about society. First with the distinction between Raskolnikov's and the people around him, which makes him looks much more decent than they are. Secondly, with the drunk man, Marmeladov.
The point-of-view seems to change through the first three chapters, each focusing on a particularly different character. First, with Raskolnikov. Second, with Marmeladov and his family. And third, with his mother and sister, Pulcheria and Dunya. We can still glance at Raskolnikov's thoughts though which would also reflect our mood because of his antisocial behavior and murderous thoughts of his landlady.
Dostoyevsky characterizes this novel very uniquely. It seems that he describes his characters through their families and also makes us give some sympathy towards them because we know why have to do certain things, like prostitution and being a maid. Usually, if we're presented with those two topics, we generalize them to be lazy and foul people, but because we know their stories, we feel sympathy towards them. Sonya has to prostitute to support her family and Dunya has to be a maid to support our main character, Raskolnikov. Because of this, we feel a sort of digust where it is due (Marmeladov and Raskolnikov). More so for Marmeladov because he's drunk when we met him. I wonder how excited the class must be with the amount of depressing reading we have to do, haha.
The mood is very depressing and through his descriptions of the surrounding and it seems to have a lot of criminal activity or at least activities frowned about society. First with the distinction between Raskolnikov's and the people around him, which makes him looks much more decent than they are. Secondly, with the drunk man, Marmeladov.
The point-of-view seems to change through the first three chapters, each focusing on a particularly different character. First, with Raskolnikov. Second, with Marmeladov and his family. And third, with his mother and sister, Pulcheria and Dunya. We can still glance at Raskolnikov's thoughts though which would also reflect our mood because of his antisocial behavior and murderous thoughts of his landlady.
Dostoyevsky characterizes this novel very uniquely. It seems that he describes his characters through their families and also makes us give some sympathy towards them because we know why have to do certain things, like prostitution and being a maid. Usually, if we're presented with those two topics, we generalize them to be lazy and foul people, but because we know their stories, we feel sympathy towards them. Sonya has to prostitute to support her family and Dunya has to be a maid to support our main character, Raskolnikov. Because of this, we feel a sort of digust where it is due (Marmeladov and Raskolnikov). More so for Marmeladov because he's drunk when we met him. I wonder how excited the class must be with the amount of depressing reading we have to do, haha.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
The Road: Part 3
Yesternight, I was cold, sleepy, hungry, and without electricity. It was difficult reading a book with a flashlight and candle in hand. In the book, they mentioned how useless the books are in the world they live in now. Quite ironic, considering that we're reading books. It also made me realize how unprepared I'd be if an apocalypse would have occurred. I still find it difficult to rationalize why the boy chose to give the old man food. Is he insane? Maybe he is a representation of God (and hope). The man and boy are, in a sense, evil. Good and Evil can be a subjective terms. The man and the boy can be considered the "bad guys" by being selfish and robbing houses (it can't helped).
I also feel very sorry for the boy. He has been having nightmares lately that alludes to his father's death. First, when he mentioned his father that he was crying and "Papa" wouldn't wake up. The man said sorry until the boy said that it was in his dreams. How cruel it is to have your own child forecast your death... The boy also cries after he finishes swimming in the freezing gray sea. Is it because he didn't get to have the childhood his father wanted and that fact that he has lived a life that's been so cruel for a young chilld?
Finally, I give props to the man! Was he Bear Grylls' apprentice?! This man can survive and has impressive survival skills! Is it luck that he always end up finding food and not resorting to cannibalism or is it skill? The boy is also learning to survive and maybe, survive on his own. Afterall, he learned from the "master."
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Road: Part 2
Part A:
"He'd had this feeling before, beyond the numbness and despair."
It seems that the feeling he has is the the "will of life." Despite the conditions he and his son has to life and suffer, they still persevere. What hope do they have? That's each other. Are they living? I think so and that is for each other. Some would say "What is the point of surviving?" or "They aren't living anymore." I can't deny the fact that they are living to surviving but the definition of "how and what to live for" is subjective. We often define it based on our society: our aspirations and our entertainment. But to the man and the boy, they are living for each other. Isn't that reason enough? Why be give up on one's life so quickly when one doesn't even have a chance to live it? Yes, I feel sorry for the boy. Their perseverance is admirable without having resorting to abandoning their sense of morals and ethics to survive.
"Could you crush that beloved skull with a rock?"
That's probably the most explicit thought of killing his child yet. I think he was able to do it considering the circumstances. Innately, he has faced the truth and he is capable of doing it, but he refuses. Luckily, it didn't have to come to that and the story continues! We know very well that the gun isn't the only thing that's capable of killing a person so he could have ended both their lives if he decided so (should keep an obsidian rock in that knapsack of his for "emergencies").
Part B:
I'd have to say that the poem is absolutely dense, difficult to read, and has many references (especially to the Gunpowder plot and Dante's Inferno). It seems that the narrator is descending deeper and deeper into hell (Dante?) and as he (or she, for those feminists) descends, the people (would be more appropriate to kill them sinners?) seem to be more hollow. There isn't a difference between the hollowed man and the stuffed man besides that the stuffed man is, indeed, stuffed with straws "Headpiece stuffed with straws."Does he mean that we're all innately evil because we're all just really hollow men stuffed with "straws?" He also chooses the stuff the straws in our "headpieces" which would signify our thoughts and whatnot.
I the fifth section, the beginning and end are compared and in between. To be honest, I was lost, but I'll go out on a limb. It seems that there is a hell inside each of us "For Thine is the Kingdom" and that our death is ultimately causes by our thoughts(?). Due to that, the end of the world is ending inside each of us and that is way it goes out in a whimper, but a bang "This is the way the world ends, This is the way the world ends, This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper."
Yeat's and Eliot's poems differ, but can be related to The Road. Yeat's poem describes chaos and the "Second coming," In the novel, the second coming is depicted at the aftermath of the scorching of the Earth and how the survivors are doing. The lack of society and the conditions humans are resorting to e.g. cannibalism, "recycling" women (the pregnant one; babies; food) shows the "hell" in each of us. The world doesn't actually end "end" but the most, if not all, the people are because of what they're willing to do. I'm probably not making any sense...
"He'd had this feeling before, beyond the numbness and despair."
It seems that the feeling he has is the the "will of life." Despite the conditions he and his son has to life and suffer, they still persevere. What hope do they have? That's each other. Are they living? I think so and that is for each other. Some would say "What is the point of surviving?" or "They aren't living anymore." I can't deny the fact that they are living to surviving but the definition of "how and what to live for" is subjective. We often define it based on our society: our aspirations and our entertainment. But to the man and the boy, they are living for each other. Isn't that reason enough? Why be give up on one's life so quickly when one doesn't even have a chance to live it? Yes, I feel sorry for the boy. Their perseverance is admirable without having resorting to abandoning their sense of morals and ethics to survive.
"Could you crush that beloved skull with a rock?"
That's probably the most explicit thought of killing his child yet. I think he was able to do it considering the circumstances. Innately, he has faced the truth and he is capable of doing it, but he refuses. Luckily, it didn't have to come to that and the story continues! We know very well that the gun isn't the only thing that's capable of killing a person so he could have ended both their lives if he decided so (should keep an obsidian rock in that knapsack of his for "emergencies").
Part B:
I'd have to say that the poem is absolutely dense, difficult to read, and has many references (especially to the Gunpowder plot and Dante's Inferno). It seems that the narrator is descending deeper and deeper into hell (Dante?) and as he (or she, for those feminists) descends, the people (would be more appropriate to kill them sinners?) seem to be more hollow. There isn't a difference between the hollowed man and the stuffed man besides that the stuffed man is, indeed, stuffed with straws "Headpiece stuffed with straws."Does he mean that we're all innately evil because we're all just really hollow men stuffed with "straws?" He also chooses the stuff the straws in our "headpieces" which would signify our thoughts and whatnot.
I the fifth section, the beginning and end are compared and in between. To be honest, I was lost, but I'll go out on a limb. It seems that there is a hell inside each of us "For Thine is the Kingdom" and that our death is ultimately causes by our thoughts(?). Due to that, the end of the world is ending inside each of us and that is way it goes out in a whimper, but a bang "This is the way the world ends, This is the way the world ends, This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper."
Yeat's and Eliot's poems differ, but can be related to The Road. Yeat's poem describes chaos and the "Second coming," In the novel, the second coming is depicted at the aftermath of the scorching of the Earth and how the survivors are doing. The lack of society and the conditions humans are resorting to e.g. cannibalism, "recycling" women (the pregnant one; babies; food) shows the "hell" in each of us. The world doesn't actually end "end" but the most, if not all, the people are because of what they're willing to do. I'm probably not making any sense...
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Road: Part 1
AP Lit. HW, 8/30/2011
Begin reading Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. Read approx. pgs. 1-35 (up until the passage that ends “If you break little promises you’ll break big ones…”).
Look on Wikipedia and read the entire entry for “Apocalyptic and Post-Apocalyptic Literature.” Follow some of the links at the bottom and read about this subgenre in other media.
Read the entire Wikipedia entry for “Cormac McCarthy.”
Blog a response to The Road and the Wikipedia entries. In your entry answer the following questions:
- How could this novel be considered a work of post-apocalyptic literature? What are some other films or novels you’ve seen/read that come to mind after reading the Wikipedia entry?
- How is this subgenre of sci-fi similar to dystopian fiction? How is it different? Can you think of any films or novels that combine the two subgenres? Are there particular comments/values/philosophies/politics that one could address better than the other? Explain.
- McCarthy is both celebrated and derided (and sometimes even ridiculed) for employing a VERY distinctive prose style. How would you describe the style in which The Road is written? Why do you think it’s written this way? Do you like this style of writing? Why or why not?
This novel is considered a work of post-apocalyptic literature because it is set after an event that left the world in a desolate and cold state where even the sun is unable to shine and leaves a lackluster sky. Everything is described as monochromatic. Ash and dust is ubiquitous and there is almost no sign of life. After reading the Wikipedia entry, I'm reminded of the following films/novels: Resident Evil, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Daybreakers, Legion, 2012, Dawn of the Dead, The Core, The Day After Tomorrow, Dreamcatcher, I Am Legend, Terminator, Wall-E, War of the Worlds, Zombieland, Ender's Game, and Alas, Babylon,.
Apocalyptic and Post-Apocalyptic and Dystopian are similar in that they take place in a time ahead of our's. It seems like they provide scenarios for what might happen in our future and what becomes of it. Dystopian novels can also be seen as apocalyptic because they have taken over our sense of human civilization. Maybe the government will be the cause of our doom. After all, look at the history of nuclear warfare. The novel seems to take place after an extreme nuclear warfare. They're different because apocalyptic fiction lacks a society unlike dystopian fiction. There's an absence of a populace unlike the other. I think AEon Flux would be a good representation of both genres. It features a main character who questions her environment and discovers that all is not what it seems to be. The city is closed off from nature and a giant wall is built to separate them because it threatened their survival. Both subgenres can address certain issues better. Because there is a lack of society, there is no law to keep the people from doing what they want. They do not get punished for the crimes they commit. Without society, the moral and ethic codes are broken. Some will honor it and some won't. In novel, many people resort to cannibalism whereas the father and son doesn't. It puts into question the meaning and the lack thereof of life. The father explicitly states that the only thing that separates him form death is his son. They are each other's world. The father could easily use the revolver to kill both himself and his son (resembles "Beloved") if they continue to live this rather meaningless and cumbersome lifestyle. Oh, but what if it only has one bullet? The survivor could also easily surrender himself to the cannibals or surrender both himself and his son if their death could be made use of (what would be so cruel). As for dystopian fiction, it's forte is more inclined towards our stance on ethics and morals, conformity, and individualism. In general, dystopian fiction caters to society's questions where apocalyptic fiction, the individual.
The Road is written with a serious lack of punctuation and probably grammar. I think it's written that way to represent our thoughts. I doubt many of us think with punctuation and grammar (Oh, I need to stop for a period or quote what I'm thinking). If we put our thoughts on paper it would seem similar to McCarthy's writing. I am rather piqued at his writing because he is the only author I'm aware of who writes like he does. It certainly gives you a new way to read a novel albeit that it is a bit difficult with the lack of punctuation. It also gives the novel a sense of breathlessness (which I certainly would have if I've read out loud) which actuates the novel's setting; it's very lonely and desolate. I certainly do not mind reading like this despite it may violate what I have learned as a student, but it's unconventional and unique.
Monday, August 29, 2011
BNW Ending
BNW was a very enjoyable novel to read. It shows the problems we face in society and reminds us from time to time to celebrate being an individual. Though ignorance can be bliss, it isn't always best to run away from your problems. When Bernard, Hemholtz, and John and sent to the island, it seems that their characters have been in vain and that it's impossible to retrograde to the world before it, where freedom was respected and conformity frowned upon. Huxley shows the what humans are capable of that because of our capacity to think we will always have differences and difficulties.
Friday, August 26, 2011
BNW and "Can Science be Ethical?" Comparison
Having read both, there's a lot of correlation between the two that question the moral and ethics of society. Ultimately, I believe that our ethic and moral codes change with that of society's. Therefore, moral and ethics are not stoic and are subjective. It is safe to say, that the general consensus that BNW is considered unethical with their practice of mass producing humans, purposefully depleting oxygen to retard mental and physical development. This also raises with ethical concerns of today's world in animal testing and genetic engineering, specifically stem cell research. Is the use of human embryos ethical? They're humans after all. Is the cost of few human deaths to benefit the good of society ethical? John and the Director can be seen as extremists in the the ethical values they hold (how ironic, considering John is his son, which will be his downfall to his "empire.") John values the traditional "american" ideology while the Director prefers adult infants, ignorance, and lust. The director seems to represent vice itself. Dyson makes a point that technology that helps the general people are "good" technology. We can argue that the Director's use of technology is therefore "good" technology.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Brave New World Entry 2
Please read chapters 6-10 (approx. pgs. 58-98) of Brave New World tonight.
If you have not done so already, set up a blog on Blogger and e-mail me
the URL so that I can find it. This is a non-negotiable expectation. All
blog entries will need to be posted by 7AM the day on which they're due.
If I do not receive a URL by tomorrow morning AND find TWO blog posts by
tomorrow morning (Dajana excepted), then you will be penalized.
Also, for tonight's blog entry you should try and connect BNW to the
dystopian genre and a film that exemplifies that genre. Try to think of
films you've already see, but if nothing comes to mind you should do some
googling and some viewing. Ask yourself, what do these films have in
common? What sets them apart? What comments about society/people do these
films appear to be making? Why did the filmmakers choose the dystopian
genre to make this comment?
These questions are only suggestions to guide your blogging. Even better
if you come up with you own. Remember, now that we are several weeks into
this class we need to begin moving away from plot summary and toward
persuasive scholarly arguments. Your blog posts should have ideas with
which I, or anyone, could agree or disagree. They should not be merely a
summary of what happened chapter to chapter and to whom it happened. In
making your argument, either look for patterns or key scenes...ultimately
your writing should follow the format of:
"While reading I noticed _________________________. This is significant to
the novel because ________________".
As always, I am very available by e-mail if you have any questions. Feel
free to contact me.
(aeon flux, matrix, equilibrium, v for vendetta, ultraviolet, daybreakers, the fifth element, resident evil, wall-e)
Because BNW is a dystopian genre, it is already considered science fiction since dystopia is a subgenre (or subcategory) of science fiction. The novel seems to take place in alternative future because it doesn't correlate with our's. It takes place after the death of Ford, which is probably going to be set somewhere in the year 2500(?). The mass production of humans and artificial mediums in which humans can grow are not yet possible. At first, this appears to be a utopia but it actually has quite a lot of problems with Bernard's antisocial behavior and the exile to Iceland. He is also the protagonist that seems self-aware and starts questioning the world aroudn him. BNW features the same conventions as dystopian novels.
Equilibrium (E) exemplifies BNW because of their caste systems and repressive doctrine. In E, citizens are forced to inject themselves with a daily dose that suppresses emotion, there is a high level of conformity, and the caste system is represented in the stratification of police. In BNW, the people are inclined to take soma to make themselves happy, there is also a high level of conformity within each class, and the caste system is formed by the their physical traits which are intently genetically engineered. What sets them apart would be the use of the drug, human production, and in BNW, the people are allowed to feel emotion.
If you have not done so already, set up a blog on Blogger and e-mail me
the URL so that I can find it. This is a non-negotiable expectation. All
blog entries will need to be posted by 7AM the day on which they're due.
If I do not receive a URL by tomorrow morning AND find TWO blog posts by
tomorrow morning (Dajana excepted), then you will be penalized.
Also, for tonight's blog entry you should try and connect BNW to the
dystopian genre and a film that exemplifies that genre. Try to think of
films you've already see, but if nothing comes to mind you should do some
googling and some viewing. Ask yourself, what do these films have in
common? What sets them apart? What comments about society/people do these
films appear to be making? Why did the filmmakers choose the dystopian
genre to make this comment?
These questions are only suggestions to guide your blogging. Even better
if you come up with you own. Remember, now that we are several weeks into
this class we need to begin moving away from plot summary and toward
persuasive scholarly arguments. Your blog posts should have ideas with
which I, or anyone, could agree or disagree. They should not be merely a
summary of what happened chapter to chapter and to whom it happened. In
making your argument, either look for patterns or key scenes...ultimately
your writing should follow the format of:
"While reading I noticed _________________________. This is significant to
the novel because ________________".
As always, I am very available by e-mail if you have any questions. Feel
free to contact me.
(aeon flux, matrix, equilibrium, v for vendetta, ultraviolet, daybreakers, the fifth element, resident evil, wall-e)
Because BNW is a dystopian genre, it is already considered science fiction since dystopia is a subgenre (or subcategory) of science fiction. The novel seems to take place in alternative future because it doesn't correlate with our's. It takes place after the death of Ford, which is probably going to be set somewhere in the year 2500(?). The mass production of humans and artificial mediums in which humans can grow are not yet possible. At first, this appears to be a utopia but it actually has quite a lot of problems with Bernard's antisocial behavior and the exile to Iceland. He is also the protagonist that seems self-aware and starts questioning the world aroudn him. BNW features the same conventions as dystopian novels.
Equilibrium (E) exemplifies BNW because of their caste systems and repressive doctrine. In E, citizens are forced to inject themselves with a daily dose that suppresses emotion, there is a high level of conformity, and the caste system is represented in the stratification of police. In BNW, the people are inclined to take soma to make themselves happy, there is also a high level of conformity within each class, and the caste system is formed by the their physical traits which are intently genetically engineered. What sets them apart would be the use of the drug, human production, and in BNW, the people are allowed to feel emotion.
Brave New World Chapters 1-5
AP Literature & Composition, 8/23/2011, HW:
Look up the following terms/people on Wikipedia and read the ENTIRE entries:
1. Aldous Huxley (advocating/taking psychedelics; grandson to Thomas Henry Huxley (zoologist, agnostic, controversialist); father had botanical laboratory)
2. Henry Ford (assembly line; mass production; model T; "Fordism";
3. Dystopia (pay particular attention to the characteristics of dystopia. Which of these are already identifiable in Brave New World?) (society in repressive, controlled state; under guise of being utopian; social groups; nature; caste systems; hero; conflict)
Read the first 5 chapters of Brave New World (approx. pgs. 1-58)
Blog a response to the novel or any connections you see between the novel and the Wikipedia entries you read. Please do NOT regurgitate SparkNotes or Cliff Notes take on the novel. I read it already.
Note: If you find it at all difficult to comment on the novel, then try to apply Marxist theory.
The first five chapters' main points: artificial human production, (factory) tour, caste system (Alpha, Betas, Gammas, Deltas, Epsilons), Pavlovian (fear) conditioning, oxygen deprivation, Lenina, and Benard. The novel seems quite misleading at first, describing what seems to be normal assembly production and artificial growth for plants. The vivid description that resembles botany may stem from Huxley's father's botanical laboratory. We soon find out that humans are being mass productions and the concept of family and maternal/paternal lineage is extinct. The author, Huxley, inputs quite a lot of references to his interests and Henry Ford. Huxley was known for advocating the use of psychedelics and has even taken some himself. This is evident in the book by the use of "soma" which are essentially "happy pills." Psychedelics are known to be euphoric and the use of soma in the "orgy-porgy" scene reflects this.
Henry Ford, famous for being the founder of the assembly line and mass production, is also referenced throughout the novel. The generation in seem to revere Ford as a God. Statements that refer to god today e.g. "Oh my god" or "God!" are replaced with Ford. God does not exist in the novel because Ford is the God. Christian crosses are replaced with "Ts" which could be a reference to Ford's model T automobiles. The mass production of humans itself is reminiscent of an assembly line.
This is a dystopian novel because it has the characteristics of one. The society is artificial; that is, the people are trained and conditioned to be what they are and therefore they are hindered in both mind and body. The social stratification of humans are also controlled and social groups are formed: the alphas, betas, gammas, deltas, and epsilons. It also seems to foreshadow that there is a hero (Bernard?) that seems cognizant of the controlled state he is in and feels conflicted. He doesn't seem to hold the same ideology and "brain-washing" most people do (most because I don't beliave Bernard is the only one, Helmholtz seems to be also aware) which is obvious when he acts as if "he" is coming during the "orgy-porgy" scene. The soma doesn't seem to affect him either (or he refuses to take it, not sure ("orgy-porgy" scene). Bernard seems to be on the few true, unique individuals.
That being said, I would like to make references to other novels and movies that are dystopian such as the Giver (conformity all the way though. If I remember correctly, there is no or the lack of a caste system), Equilibrium (starring Christian Bale, who stops taking the pills that allows one to feel no emotion), and the Matrix (the production of humans for the survival of the machines that rely on bio-electricity generation).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)