Jordan Ackerman
06-04-09
Literature 223
Essay 4
Home, Sweet Home
It’s been said, so I’ve heard, that home is where the heart is. I’ve also heard it said that no matter where you are, you never forget your home or where you’re from. Cliché, though they are, these over-used statements hold a lot of truth for many people, even in this day and age. It causes some questions to arise as we grow older, though: What is home? How is it defined? More importantly, what does Home mean to me? First of all, we must specifically define what home is. According to dictionary.com, home is a word with over twenty definitions and fills four grammatical functions. Some of these definitions commonly refer to a kind of building or institution where one resides often or a place someone is from. Personally, I see home not necessarily as an intangible thing or ungraspable, but as something further, deeper than a structure with four walls and a roof. This means that home may not always or ever be the place in which I take up residence or even the place of my loyalty or citizenship, but my place of ministry, my place of business, or perhaps even, as in a game, a goal or a particular item or person precious to one’s self. To visualize this point more thoroughly, I will try to render some historical context, combined with a bit of gaming know-how, with which to help put it in perspective. Now, bear with me as I travel back and see how this definition is represented and evolves over the generations from the fifties onward to today.
During the 1950s, now that World War II was five years dead, things had seemingly simmered down among European nations and with America. It was also around this time that American women were beginning to be viewed more popularly in a more traditional sense, being depicted more often than not in pop culture as home makers and house wives that had children and did not work outside of the home while the man went out and brought home the bacon. Shirley Jackson’s We Have Always Lived in the Castle brings that ideal home, pardon the pun, in the form of personification with the character of Constance. The main difference in Constance, however, is that she almost never leaves the house and never walks any farther from it than the surrounding gate outside. This grants her virtually no social life outside of her sister, Mary Katherine or “Merricat” as she’s more commonly known, and her Uncle Julian and occasional visits from friends. She seems very content with her position as the head of the home as it were, another major difference between her and the stereotypical house wife of the fifties, obvious differences aside. She does, however, take responsibility for most of the house work and the garden, leaving Merricat to help a little around the house and go to town for groceries and books twice a week. Mary seems to look up to and cherish Constance the most above all everyone else in the story, even commenting in a narrative fashion that “She was the most precious person in my world, always.” So, in a way, Constance is Mary Katherine’s home and in the end she gets home all to herself, she wins.
Moving onward to the sixties, we move into a more tumultuous time, on both the war front and the home front, but especially on the home front. As shown in Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49, young people began living more independently, and, sadly, without purpose. Oedipa, the main character, seems to wander about aimlessly throughout most of the story attempting to either prove or disprove a massive government postal service conspiracy. While she’s out of town trying to figure that out, her husband Mucho, a failed former car salesman, apparently gets hooked on a prescription of LSD given to him by Oedipa’s psychotherapist, Dr. Hilarious. Mucho denies being hooked saying “It’s not like you’re some hophead. You take it because it’s good.”, though it’s also implied that he takes the pills to take away the dream he keeps having about the lot he used to work as a car salesman. Whatever the case, Mucho’s home, or rather his escape at this point, has become the LSD, a common theme that can be seen throughout the sixties and, later on, the seventies as well.
The seventies were also a time of political unrest in America, continuing to cause more and more rebellious young people, sleeping around with their peers and taking only God knows any number of illegal drugs while they were at it. This common every-day scene seems to be a stark contrast to the picture painted of the town of Stepford in Ira Levin’s The Stepford Wives. A quiet, peaceful little neighborhood, Stepford seems to be the picture-perfect town at first glance to main character Joanna. However, what had seemed to be the greener grass to Joanna at first steadily turns more into a nightmare of sorts as she finds herself swept into a kind of mysterious conspiracy cover-up created and supported solely by the town’s Men’s Association. As she becomes more suspicious of them, she progressively gets backed further into a corner. Eventually, before she can find out more, she’s cornered by the members of the Association, one of them being her husband, Walter, and becomes one of the Stepford wives in the end as the story implies; “She stopped. The Music is in case I scream, she thought. She’s not going to cut her finger; she’s going to-“. In this way, it’s game over for Joanna and she loses her sense of home when she’s replaced with a newly air brushed, shapelier version of herself in the end.
Nowadays, home has become a very ambiguous word to define accurately. Here, in capitalistic America, home can actually be fittingly described with the game analogy, pertaining mainly to that of video games. Life for us as Americans has become something like an RPG, role-playing game, of sorts in that we make our own decisions and reap the benefits, or consequences as the case may be, of our decisions with no rewind/erase button we can use to do it over. We have to live with our mistakes and shortcomings and once it’s over, it’s over, do not pass go, do not collect $200. In real life, there are no do-overs. I’ve found this out the hard way many times, myself, as I’m sure many of you have as well. That’s the thing about hindsite, it’s twenty/twenty. All I can do is learn from all my mistakes and move on with life. If I can do that and be honest with myself, I’d like to think that’ll help me find my way home in the end. Of course, I don’t rely solely on my own judgment to find that path, I can only choose to seek out the wisdom to help me find it. Otherwise, I will just wander around like so many others in the same pursuit who try to fill the void with material things that don’t last.
So, to recap what I’ve discussed in this short essay, home as it is described in the dictionary is not necessarily the way we, individually, may define home. The fifties portrayed home in a rather political and nuclear sense with a household made up of a mom, dad and two kids in a capitalistic society. Merricat and Constance go almost completely against this stereotype and obtain their goals anyway. Perhaps it’s this theme that became so popular sixties and seventies among young people rebelling against a corrupt government and doing their own thing. Oepida doesn’t really follow this idea that closely in her search for answers, though it leaves us with a vague sense of confusion and a feeling of being unfulfilled as it abruptly ends. Joanna takes a similar approach, though her outcome is far different and quite a bit more specific in detail. As for Americans today, home seems to be getting redefined all the time, having its lines blurred all the time like so many things today. In short, home can be defined as a goal or ideal which we strive to obtain. We must choose our own goals and paths on which we will travel to reach them. To borrow another somewhat cliché term, home is in the eye of the beholder.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Extra Credit: The Economist's Stokelys article
Jordan Ackerman
05-23-09
History 123
E.C. Stokely article
1. How does the article's text answer the title question? OR Does it answer the question?
There seem to be two separate questions asked before even getting into the first paragraph, only one of which is actually addressed any further than that in the body of the article. The question asked in the first title is “Just How Many Stokelys?” The structure of the question alone is a bit open ended which leads me to ask what the reporter, or the editor for that matter, was really asking; did they mean “How many Stokelys are in the U.S. at this point?” or was that just a typo that somehow slipped past the editor? The second title question asks “how long will the self-restraint last?” in reference to racial extremists in the U.S. who were keeping their cool, to a certain degree, “…despite extreme provocation on both sides.” The actual article itself talks about how disorganized uprisings are popping up and dying down off and on and have been doing so, even during King’s time, that they don’t seem to be directed particularly at whites or anyone else. And though the reporter makes it plane that he agrees that Dr. King’s assassination was a tragedy, he/she makes it clear that until congress stops alienating the Negro community it will continue to fuel petty crimes and arson by African-Americans for now and it may escalate if not kept in check. For now, there seems to be something of a level of self restraint at the time.
2. How do you think the author is viewing the fate of the American civil rights movement (the Economist is a British news magazine) in the wake of Martin Luther King's death?
According to the reporter, the civil rights movement seems to have become rather disorganized and dissatisfied if a little peeved at the notable lack of rapid progress toward passing supportive legislation for their cause. This is made evident in the fact that multiple riots and petty crimes by and among the African-American communities of the United States that seem to pass and revive as quickly as they rise up in turn.
05-23-09
History 123
E.C. Stokely article
1. How does the article's text answer the title question? OR Does it answer the question?
There seem to be two separate questions asked before even getting into the first paragraph, only one of which is actually addressed any further than that in the body of the article. The question asked in the first title is “Just How Many Stokelys?” The structure of the question alone is a bit open ended which leads me to ask what the reporter, or the editor for that matter, was really asking; did they mean “How many Stokelys are in the U.S. at this point?” or was that just a typo that somehow slipped past the editor? The second title question asks “how long will the self-restraint last?” in reference to racial extremists in the U.S. who were keeping their cool, to a certain degree, “…despite extreme provocation on both sides.” The actual article itself talks about how disorganized uprisings are popping up and dying down off and on and have been doing so, even during King’s time, that they don’t seem to be directed particularly at whites or anyone else. And though the reporter makes it plane that he agrees that Dr. King’s assassination was a tragedy, he/she makes it clear that until congress stops alienating the Negro community it will continue to fuel petty crimes and arson by African-Americans for now and it may escalate if not kept in check. For now, there seems to be something of a level of self restraint at the time.
2. How do you think the author is viewing the fate of the American civil rights movement (the Economist is a British news magazine) in the wake of Martin Luther King's death?
According to the reporter, the civil rights movement seems to have become rather disorganized and dissatisfied if a little peeved at the notable lack of rapid progress toward passing supportive legislation for their cause. This is made evident in the fact that multiple riots and petty crimes by and among the African-American communities of the United States that seem to pass and revive as quickly as they rise up in turn.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Essay 3: Social ideals for Women of the '50s (final)
Jordan Ackerman
05-18-09
Literature 223
Essay 3
By the early 1950s, American women, particularly housewives, had begun to see a rather notable decline in their working numbers in industrial labor. This, however, had begun even before the fifties with the end of World War II in 1945. This was brought about, mainly, due to the return of the veteran soldiers to America and their assimilation back into the workforce, now that the war is over. With the return of the veterans eventually came a public image of women returning to becoming housewives and homemakers once again instead of the short lived Rosie the Riveter image that had reigned prominently over the home front during the war. Because of this, a new popular ideal of the socialite stay-at-home-wife emerged and became more engrained in the American mindset and can be seen in shows like I Love Lucy and even in movies from the time and shortly afterward as well. Let us explore a few of these examples to see how each of the different characters reacts to such ideals in their own situations.
In the 1960s film, Splendor in the Grass, a film based on the story written by William Inge from his own experiences from the 1920s, the main character Wilma Dean Loomis, more commonly referred to as ‘Deanie’ in the story and the film, is a stereotypical good girl of the time, a beautiful young woman in love with Bud Stamper, a fellow classmate in high school and the angst-ridden son of a wealthy owner of an oil mining company. In the movie, Deanie seems to have a typical teenage social life inside the realm of high school that includes her circle of girl friends and a few guy friends with whom she is not romantically related at the time of the movie. This, however, changes, if only briefly, when one of them asks her out to a dance. Deanie’s social network seems to collapse when word gets around the school that Bud is secretly seeing another girl in her class, and this, indirectly gets her sent to the nuthouse for a couple of years, during which bud marries another woman, thusly robbing Deanie of her chance with him. Her social ties with some friends seem to last, however, when she is released from the correctional facility as shown when she’s picked up by a couple of friends and taken to see Bud one last time.
In the 1950s science fiction film, Attack of the 50 ft Woman, the main protagonist, Nancy Fowler Archer is a rich and well-to-do wife of Harry Archer who has been cheating on her for what is implied to be some time at the time of the film. The reason for his infidelity, as alluded to by both Harry and his love interest, Honey Parker, is Nancy’s alleged mental instability for which she’s been sent to a mental institution several times for extended periods of time. It is this condition of hers that, as the film insinuates rather blatantly, has somewhat stigmatized around town as someone who’s mentally unstable with a mean drinking streak. Because of this, Nancy doesn’t seem to have many friends outside of her butler, Jess Stout, and the doctor, Dr. Isaac Cushing. This is mainly due to the fact that they have both been by her side for most of her life since she was little, lending them a more personal relationship and a deeper understanding of her and why she does what she does.
In one of Hitchcock’s classics, Rear Window, Lisa Carol Fremont, Jeff Jefferies’ love interest, is interested in Jeff, though he seems distant to her as he spends most of his time staring out his rear window watching the lives of his neighbors across the lawn since he’s a temporarily unemployed photographer out with a broken, brought about by his last shoot as alluded to by a phone call in the beginning of the film. Lisa by contrast is quite well-to-do and has a thriving social life outside of her apartment as alluded to in the film by both Jeff and his house keeper, Stella, in the film early on. We do not, however, get any clues or hints that tell us anything about Stella’s own social life in the film or at all, for that matter. Across the lawn in the other building Jeff watches almost day and night, lives a very young and beautiful dancer whom Jeff refers to as Mr. Torso. Though she is not one of the main characters in the film, we do get a good look at her rather exciting social life as some would call it, including many late nights with multiple suitors and lots of champagne. It is revealed, at the end of the movie, that she has a boyfriend in the armed forces to whom she eventually remains faithful until his equally wild return. A young aspiring musician in an adjacent building seems to have an equally avid social life, also having merry parties just about every other night with multiple friends and lots of champagne as well. In sharp contrast, is Ms. Lonelyhearts in a floor level apartment in the same building as Ms. Torso, who, though she seems to keep well with the latest fashions of the time, seems to be more enveloped in her nonexistent love life, many times sitting down to dinner alone at night, pretending to be wooing an equally nonexistent young gentleman coming over for a date, with said would-be date ending in her drinking her loneliness away. Occasionally, she does manage to get a suitor to come to her apartment and will seem to be making progress with him, but will then, unintentionally do something to turn him off and thus leave her alone, in her apartment, yet again. One instance of this tragic scenario plays out mid-way through the film and ends with the young man stalking out of her apartment, leaving her to weep alone as Jeff and his two female companions look on. In the end, however, it is insinuated that she does finally manage to keep it together long enough to bag a handsome young man in the end, thus leaving a happy ending all around at the end of the film.
The stay-at-home socialite was the typical stereotype of women in the 1950s as shown predominantly in film and print media of the time. Whether or not this is or was an accurate representation of all women of the time is probably up to the historians, but this particular stereotype set a standard for American women in the ‘50s and has since, more or less. Those women with healthy social lives eventually ended up alright in the end for the most part and those with stigmas attached to their names were bound for the crazy house. The other idea that seemed to resonate during the time and in these particular films is that those who went to the nuthouse would never end up completely happy because of the permanent stigma attached to their name as a result. That, at least, seems to be the general consensus, anyway.
05-18-09
Literature 223
Essay 3
By the early 1950s, American women, particularly housewives, had begun to see a rather notable decline in their working numbers in industrial labor. This, however, had begun even before the fifties with the end of World War II in 1945. This was brought about, mainly, due to the return of the veteran soldiers to America and their assimilation back into the workforce, now that the war is over. With the return of the veterans eventually came a public image of women returning to becoming housewives and homemakers once again instead of the short lived Rosie the Riveter image that had reigned prominently over the home front during the war. Because of this, a new popular ideal of the socialite stay-at-home-wife emerged and became more engrained in the American mindset and can be seen in shows like I Love Lucy and even in movies from the time and shortly afterward as well. Let us explore a few of these examples to see how each of the different characters reacts to such ideals in their own situations.
In the 1960s film, Splendor in the Grass, a film based on the story written by William Inge from his own experiences from the 1920s, the main character Wilma Dean Loomis, more commonly referred to as ‘Deanie’ in the story and the film, is a stereotypical good girl of the time, a beautiful young woman in love with Bud Stamper, a fellow classmate in high school and the angst-ridden son of a wealthy owner of an oil mining company. In the movie, Deanie seems to have a typical teenage social life inside the realm of high school that includes her circle of girl friends and a few guy friends with whom she is not romantically related at the time of the movie. This, however, changes, if only briefly, when one of them asks her out to a dance. Deanie’s social network seems to collapse when word gets around the school that Bud is secretly seeing another girl in her class, and this, indirectly gets her sent to the nuthouse for a couple of years, during which bud marries another woman, thusly robbing Deanie of her chance with him. Her social ties with some friends seem to last, however, when she is released from the correctional facility as shown when she’s picked up by a couple of friends and taken to see Bud one last time.
In the 1950s science fiction film, Attack of the 50 ft Woman, the main protagonist, Nancy Fowler Archer is a rich and well-to-do wife of Harry Archer who has been cheating on her for what is implied to be some time at the time of the film. The reason for his infidelity, as alluded to by both Harry and his love interest, Honey Parker, is Nancy’s alleged mental instability for which she’s been sent to a mental institution several times for extended periods of time. It is this condition of hers that, as the film insinuates rather blatantly, has somewhat stigmatized around town as someone who’s mentally unstable with a mean drinking streak. Because of this, Nancy doesn’t seem to have many friends outside of her butler, Jess Stout, and the doctor, Dr. Isaac Cushing. This is mainly due to the fact that they have both been by her side for most of her life since she was little, lending them a more personal relationship and a deeper understanding of her and why she does what she does.
In one of Hitchcock’s classics, Rear Window, Lisa Carol Fremont, Jeff Jefferies’ love interest, is interested in Jeff, though he seems distant to her as he spends most of his time staring out his rear window watching the lives of his neighbors across the lawn since he’s a temporarily unemployed photographer out with a broken, brought about by his last shoot as alluded to by a phone call in the beginning of the film. Lisa by contrast is quite well-to-do and has a thriving social life outside of her apartment as alluded to in the film by both Jeff and his house keeper, Stella, in the film early on. We do not, however, get any clues or hints that tell us anything about Stella’s own social life in the film or at all, for that matter. Across the lawn in the other building Jeff watches almost day and night, lives a very young and beautiful dancer whom Jeff refers to as Mr. Torso. Though she is not one of the main characters in the film, we do get a good look at her rather exciting social life as some would call it, including many late nights with multiple suitors and lots of champagne. It is revealed, at the end of the movie, that she has a boyfriend in the armed forces to whom she eventually remains faithful until his equally wild return. A young aspiring musician in an adjacent building seems to have an equally avid social life, also having merry parties just about every other night with multiple friends and lots of champagne as well. In sharp contrast, is Ms. Lonelyhearts in a floor level apartment in the same building as Ms. Torso, who, though she seems to keep well with the latest fashions of the time, seems to be more enveloped in her nonexistent love life, many times sitting down to dinner alone at night, pretending to be wooing an equally nonexistent young gentleman coming over for a date, with said would-be date ending in her drinking her loneliness away. Occasionally, she does manage to get a suitor to come to her apartment and will seem to be making progress with him, but will then, unintentionally do something to turn him off and thus leave her alone, in her apartment, yet again. One instance of this tragic scenario plays out mid-way through the film and ends with the young man stalking out of her apartment, leaving her to weep alone as Jeff and his two female companions look on. In the end, however, it is insinuated that she does finally manage to keep it together long enough to bag a handsome young man in the end, thus leaving a happy ending all around at the end of the film.
The stay-at-home socialite was the typical stereotype of women in the 1950s as shown predominantly in film and print media of the time. Whether or not this is or was an accurate representation of all women of the time is probably up to the historians, but this particular stereotype set a standard for American women in the ‘50s and has since, more or less. Those women with healthy social lives eventually ended up alright in the end for the most part and those with stigmas attached to their names were bound for the crazy house. The other idea that seemed to resonate during the time and in these particular films is that those who went to the nuthouse would never end up completely happy because of the permanent stigma attached to their name as a result. That, at least, seems to be the general consensus, anyway.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Essay 3: draft 1
Jordan Ackerman
05-18-09
Literature 223
Essay 3
By the early 1950s, American women, particularly housewives, had begun to see a rather notable decline in their working numbers in industrial labor. This, however, had begun even before the fifties with the end of World War II in 1945. This was brought about, mainly, due to the return of the veteran soldiers to America and their assimilation back into the workforce, now that the war is over. With the return of the veterans eventually came a public image of women returning to becoming housewives and homemakers once again instead of the short lived Rosie the Riveter image that had reigned prominently over the home front during the war. Because of this, a new popular ideal of the socialite stay-at-home-wife emerged and became more engrained in the American mindset and can be seen in shows like I Love Lucy and even in movies from the time and shortly afterward as well. Let us explore a few of these examples to see how each of the different characters reacts to such ideals in their own situations.
In the 1960s film, Splendor in the Grass, a film based on the story written by William Inge from his own experiences from the 1920s, the main character Wilma Dean Loomis, more commonly referred to as ‘Deanie’ in the story and the film, is a stereotypical good girl of the time, a beautiful young woman in love with Bud Stamper, a fellow classmate in high school and the son of a wealthy owner of an oil mining company. In the movie, Bud explains to Deanie that there are two kinds of girls; good girls that men eventually want to marry and settle down with and have a family, and the not so good girls, also known as flappers, who men like to have ‘fun’ with. By fun, he means getting down and dirty in the car on Friday nights (translation: one-night-stands) and go drinking with to relieve their stress and cut loose from the responsibilities of their jobs and such. At first Deanie appears to be a good girl with a noticeable attraction to Bud and all seems to be somewhat normal. However, as Bud becomes more entangled in his angst of conflicting emotions, mostly brought on by the expectations of his father to go on to Yale and eventually take over his business, he becomes more distant toward Deanie and begins seeing another girl in Deanie’s class. The film implies that word gets around school, eventually getting around to Deanie, which causes her to take drastic measures when the school dance rolls around. This includes taking on a flapper-esque look and accepting an invitation from an old guy friend to go with him to said dance to meet Bud. Upon arrival, she finds Bud with another girl on the dance floor. This seems to push Deanie over the proverbial edge and she runs away from the dance to an old familiar spot where she and Bud used to make out in his car and proceeds to jump in the spring and begin swimming toward the water fall where she is eventually caught and brought back to the hospital, in shock. Bud, upon seeing her, leaves in horror for home and goes on to Yale as his father wished. Deanie comes to soon after Bud leaves the room, seeing only the nurse and says, “Someone was here. Someone was here” She then spends a couple of years in a mental institute before being deemed healthy enough, mentally, to return home. At this point, she returns a scarred, but resilient young woman to find Bud has already married after flunking out of Yale and expecting a second child with his Italian wife. She comes to terms with the way things are and the two of them go their separate ways.
In the 1950s science fiction film, Attack of the 50 ft Woman, the main protagonist, Nancy Fowler Archer is a rich and well-to-do wife of Harry Archer who has been cheating on her for what is implied to be some time at the time of the film. The reason for his infidelity, as alluded to by both Harry and his love interest, Honey Parker, is Nancy’s alleged mental instability for which she’s been sent to a mental institution several times for extended periods of time.
05-18-09
Literature 223
Essay 3
By the early 1950s, American women, particularly housewives, had begun to see a rather notable decline in their working numbers in industrial labor. This, however, had begun even before the fifties with the end of World War II in 1945. This was brought about, mainly, due to the return of the veteran soldiers to America and their assimilation back into the workforce, now that the war is over. With the return of the veterans eventually came a public image of women returning to becoming housewives and homemakers once again instead of the short lived Rosie the Riveter image that had reigned prominently over the home front during the war. Because of this, a new popular ideal of the socialite stay-at-home-wife emerged and became more engrained in the American mindset and can be seen in shows like I Love Lucy and even in movies from the time and shortly afterward as well. Let us explore a few of these examples to see how each of the different characters reacts to such ideals in their own situations.
In the 1960s film, Splendor in the Grass, a film based on the story written by William Inge from his own experiences from the 1920s, the main character Wilma Dean Loomis, more commonly referred to as ‘Deanie’ in the story and the film, is a stereotypical good girl of the time, a beautiful young woman in love with Bud Stamper, a fellow classmate in high school and the son of a wealthy owner of an oil mining company. In the movie, Bud explains to Deanie that there are two kinds of girls; good girls that men eventually want to marry and settle down with and have a family, and the not so good girls, also known as flappers, who men like to have ‘fun’ with. By fun, he means getting down and dirty in the car on Friday nights (translation: one-night-stands) and go drinking with to relieve their stress and cut loose from the responsibilities of their jobs and such. At first Deanie appears to be a good girl with a noticeable attraction to Bud and all seems to be somewhat normal. However, as Bud becomes more entangled in his angst of conflicting emotions, mostly brought on by the expectations of his father to go on to Yale and eventually take over his business, he becomes more distant toward Deanie and begins seeing another girl in Deanie’s class. The film implies that word gets around school, eventually getting around to Deanie, which causes her to take drastic measures when the school dance rolls around. This includes taking on a flapper-esque look and accepting an invitation from an old guy friend to go with him to said dance to meet Bud. Upon arrival, she finds Bud with another girl on the dance floor. This seems to push Deanie over the proverbial edge and she runs away from the dance to an old familiar spot where she and Bud used to make out in his car and proceeds to jump in the spring and begin swimming toward the water fall where she is eventually caught and brought back to the hospital, in shock. Bud, upon seeing her, leaves in horror for home and goes on to Yale as his father wished. Deanie comes to soon after Bud leaves the room, seeing only the nurse and says, “Someone was here. Someone was here” She then spends a couple of years in a mental institute before being deemed healthy enough, mentally, to return home. At this point, she returns a scarred, but resilient young woman to find Bud has already married after flunking out of Yale and expecting a second child with his Italian wife. She comes to terms with the way things are and the two of them go their separate ways.
In the 1950s science fiction film, Attack of the 50 ft Woman, the main protagonist, Nancy Fowler Archer is a rich and well-to-do wife of Harry Archer who has been cheating on her for what is implied to be some time at the time of the film. The reason for his infidelity, as alluded to by both Harry and his love interest, Honey Parker, is Nancy’s alleged mental instability for which she’s been sent to a mental institution several times for extended periods of time.
Friday, April 24, 2009
History project
Here's a little something I've been working on in Ben's class:
I also have the video on YouTube with audio if you wish to hear it as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiTkNss4QIo
I also have the video on YouTube with audio if you wish to hear it as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiTkNss4QIo
Now you may be asking yourselves why I did what I did. I wanted to show what life was like for many Americans back in the dust bowls in the 1930s. I wanted to capture the sense of poverty and economic despair that was sweeping the nation at that time in a simple compilation of pictures of poverty from that particular time period. I chose the particular song for the YouTube version from the audioswap option on YouTube for its length, its evident lack of lyrics and because I liked the way it flowed. I tried to avoid songs with lyrics, mainly because I wanted something that was more ambiguous, that I could more freely use to describe what I wanted to say. In a sense, I wanted to allow the viewer to see the video and draw there own conclusions from it, based off the pictures and the audio track and sort of judge for themselves. If nothing else, I wanted the viewer to come away seeing how much simpler life was for these poverty-stricken people back then.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Literature Essay 2
Jordan Ackerman
04-18-09
Literature 223
Essay 2
Memorialization is something that has been a part of society for a very long time, even since before the times of Christ. Memorials have taken many forms over the centuries and have been used by just about every culture and people in existence. Many of these memorials have lasted for centuries, some purposefully hidden away and kept safe within tombs or under lock and key in museums and observatories and the like. Some memorials became memorials naturally, preserved by accident because of some natural disaster or because of man-made disasters such as war. Some memorials [tomb stones] are placed in the ground at the head of a grave to mark it and distinguish it from other graves nearby. Memorials have taken many other forms besides graves and tombs, though. As we discuss the importance and significance of memorials in the last hundred years and in today’s culture, we will see how memorialization has evolved over time to encompass multiple forms of media as well, immortalizing people and events in words, pictures, music and in motion pictures, multiple times in some cases.
In the twenty first century, the current generation of teens and twenty-somethings has been blessed with such a broad range of ever-changing technology to change the world and enough technology savvy to keep that change on its toes in an ever-evolving online virtual world. With this tech-savvy generation came the creation of the ever popular MySpace.com, an online networking site allowing users to customize their profiles to express themselves online. In this way, users create something of a self-memorial through the customization of their profiles. This is made more abundantly clear through the creation of MyDeathSpace.com, a site that displays the profiles of dead MySpace users and hosts a discussion forum on which users can discuss death and other related topics, as well as utilizing their ability on the site to leave their condolences and comments to pay their last respects to the deceased. Informal as it may be, it can be posted and almost immortalized for all to see on the internet, even if it doesn’t stay on that particular site for long. That’s the thing a about the internet, once it’s out there, it’s hard to take it back and erase it for good. It’s not necessarily set in stone, but words, once they are said, cannot be taken back, for better or for worse. That, perhaps, is what is meant by the old saying that “the pen is mightier than the sword”. If what can be read on a person’s profile is written with words, could the text of the profile, then, be considered literature?
By definition, literature is “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.” In other words, just about anything in print could potentially be considered literature, depending on the tastes of the critic who happens to be determining what they think literature is. Literature, it would seem, is in the eye of the beholder, to reuse the old saying. There is more than one way to define literature outside of something in print. In the same way, memorialization can vary in appearance, depending on what the person or persons deem appropriate for the person, persons or event being remembered. Soldiers, for instance, are remembered by the uniformity of the design and arrangement of their graves and that of their comrades. Sometimes, however, family and loved ones want to specialize and customize the design of the tomb stone to make it special to that particular person. This can lead to conflict, then, with the federal government over how to memorialize a veteran of that family and eventually become an issue of national identity as a result.
National identity plays a big role in an argument over how a military veteran should be recognized because they not only represent their family, but their country as well through their marshal duties to the nation they served. It can also be argued that since they took an oath to serve their country in uniform alongside their comrades, that they should be buried with honor in uniform alongside their comrades in the same fashion so as to identify them by their service to that country, much like we do here in America. On the other hand, however, the family raised and lived with that individual and genuinely loved them for years. It can also be argued that it would be a breach of constitutional rights for the government and or military to decide the design and layout of the family’s loved one who served as it leaves the family little choice as to how the body and grave are displayed and what goes on the epitaph. In that sense, it is still a matter of what’s right and what’s honorable, not just a matter of national identity.
But, what would happen, say, of there were no uniformity of graves and memorials to recognize and remember fallen servicemen for everyone in the country? It could be seen as a good thing for the families of said veterans because it would allow them to completely customize their loved one’s grave and tomb stone to specially cater to the kind of person that particular serviceman of woman was, to honor them with a unique memorial that defined who they were as a person. On the flipside, however, it would make it harder to identify which graves were those of soldiers and which were those of civilians. It would make them more individually unique, but it would be more difficult to find a universal representation of national identity among them. In some ways, this form of customized memorialization already exists, thriving on this freedom of creativity and imagination which can be blatantly seen on a plethora of MySpace profiles. Many newspapers, on the other hand, like the now discontinued Seattle Post Intelligencer represent a more uniform type of memorialization. Whatever the source, though, memorialization appears to be a very important part of society, now just as much as any other time in history.
Memorialization is ultimately one of the most integral parts of just about any society as it holds and preserves their histories in something, whether it be a statue, a tomb stone, a video clip, a song, or even a MySpace page. Today we can memorialize just about anything and anyone in more ways than you can shake a mouse cord at. It doesn’t really matter what approach you use or what you write in it, you’re recording a piece of history, a piece of literature, and a piece of you into it. You have to pour your heart and effort into it, make it your own, and write it in your own words to make it special, to customize and personalize it. This is so important a thing to remember about memorialization so that it does not lose its authenticity. If we remember that, making and honoring memorials will live on as a way of honoring and remembering the past and memorialization, itself, will have done its job well and not be counted as a lost cause. May it live on forever in our hearts and help us learn from our past, that we may push forward to a better future.
04-18-09
Literature 223
Essay 2
Memorialization is something that has been a part of society for a very long time, even since before the times of Christ. Memorials have taken many forms over the centuries and have been used by just about every culture and people in existence. Many of these memorials have lasted for centuries, some purposefully hidden away and kept safe within tombs or under lock and key in museums and observatories and the like. Some memorials became memorials naturally, preserved by accident because of some natural disaster or because of man-made disasters such as war. Some memorials [tomb stones] are placed in the ground at the head of a grave to mark it and distinguish it from other graves nearby. Memorials have taken many other forms besides graves and tombs, though. As we discuss the importance and significance of memorials in the last hundred years and in today’s culture, we will see how memorialization has evolved over time to encompass multiple forms of media as well, immortalizing people and events in words, pictures, music and in motion pictures, multiple times in some cases.
In the twenty first century, the current generation of teens and twenty-somethings has been blessed with such a broad range of ever-changing technology to change the world and enough technology savvy to keep that change on its toes in an ever-evolving online virtual world. With this tech-savvy generation came the creation of the ever popular MySpace.com, an online networking site allowing users to customize their profiles to express themselves online. In this way, users create something of a self-memorial through the customization of their profiles. This is made more abundantly clear through the creation of MyDeathSpace.com, a site that displays the profiles of dead MySpace users and hosts a discussion forum on which users can discuss death and other related topics, as well as utilizing their ability on the site to leave their condolences and comments to pay their last respects to the deceased. Informal as it may be, it can be posted and almost immortalized for all to see on the internet, even if it doesn’t stay on that particular site for long. That’s the thing a about the internet, once it’s out there, it’s hard to take it back and erase it for good. It’s not necessarily set in stone, but words, once they are said, cannot be taken back, for better or for worse. That, perhaps, is what is meant by the old saying that “the pen is mightier than the sword”. If what can be read on a person’s profile is written with words, could the text of the profile, then, be considered literature?
By definition, literature is “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.” In other words, just about anything in print could potentially be considered literature, depending on the tastes of the critic who happens to be determining what they think literature is. Literature, it would seem, is in the eye of the beholder, to reuse the old saying. There is more than one way to define literature outside of something in print. In the same way, memorialization can vary in appearance, depending on what the person or persons deem appropriate for the person, persons or event being remembered. Soldiers, for instance, are remembered by the uniformity of the design and arrangement of their graves and that of their comrades. Sometimes, however, family and loved ones want to specialize and customize the design of the tomb stone to make it special to that particular person. This can lead to conflict, then, with the federal government over how to memorialize a veteran of that family and eventually become an issue of national identity as a result.
National identity plays a big role in an argument over how a military veteran should be recognized because they not only represent their family, but their country as well through their marshal duties to the nation they served. It can also be argued that since they took an oath to serve their country in uniform alongside their comrades, that they should be buried with honor in uniform alongside their comrades in the same fashion so as to identify them by their service to that country, much like we do here in America. On the other hand, however, the family raised and lived with that individual and genuinely loved them for years. It can also be argued that it would be a breach of constitutional rights for the government and or military to decide the design and layout of the family’s loved one who served as it leaves the family little choice as to how the body and grave are displayed and what goes on the epitaph. In that sense, it is still a matter of what’s right and what’s honorable, not just a matter of national identity.
But, what would happen, say, of there were no uniformity of graves and memorials to recognize and remember fallen servicemen for everyone in the country? It could be seen as a good thing for the families of said veterans because it would allow them to completely customize their loved one’s grave and tomb stone to specially cater to the kind of person that particular serviceman of woman was, to honor them with a unique memorial that defined who they were as a person. On the flipside, however, it would make it harder to identify which graves were those of soldiers and which were those of civilians. It would make them more individually unique, but it would be more difficult to find a universal representation of national identity among them. In some ways, this form of customized memorialization already exists, thriving on this freedom of creativity and imagination which can be blatantly seen on a plethora of MySpace profiles. Many newspapers, on the other hand, like the now discontinued Seattle Post Intelligencer represent a more uniform type of memorialization. Whatever the source, though, memorialization appears to be a very important part of society, now just as much as any other time in history.
Memorialization is ultimately one of the most integral parts of just about any society as it holds and preserves their histories in something, whether it be a statue, a tomb stone, a video clip, a song, or even a MySpace page. Today we can memorialize just about anything and anyone in more ways than you can shake a mouse cord at. It doesn’t really matter what approach you use or what you write in it, you’re recording a piece of history, a piece of literature, and a piece of you into it. You have to pour your heart and effort into it, make it your own, and write it in your own words to make it special, to customize and personalize it. This is so important a thing to remember about memorialization so that it does not lose its authenticity. If we remember that, making and honoring memorials will live on as a way of honoring and remembering the past and memorialization, itself, will have done its job well and not be counted as a lost cause. May it live on forever in our hearts and help us learn from our past, that we may push forward to a better future.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Essay 1 Revised
Jordan Ackerman
03-25-09
Literature 223
Craig McKenney, Instructor
Essay 1
What is literature? Maybe it’s just a novel on the New York Times best seller list. Maybe it’s an old book you find on grandma’s shelf in the attic. Maybe it’s a collection of stories with fictitious characters and made-up lands which were created to give us something to do on rainy days. Perhaps it is the stories of lives lived by real people in real times and places, meant to show us what happened hundreds of years ago. Or, perhaps literature is more than words on a page. I’ve read my fair share of books in middle and high school and seen multiple genres on multiple levels of grammatical creativity that I’ve both liked and disliked. I like reading a good book just as much as the next guy. But is literature based solely in books and novels alone, or does it go deeper than that? Perhaps, just perhaps, literature has more to offer than just another Tom Clancy series best seller. If one is to study it, they must study it in its’ entirety to fully understand it.
First off, literature should be defined to better understand what we are getting into. Literature (noun), pronounced [lit-er-uh-cher, -choo r, li-truh-], as described on dictionary.com, is “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.” Another definition describes it as “the body of artistic writings of a country or period that are characterized by beauty of expression and form and by universality of intellectual and emotional appeal”, or more simply put, “artistic writings worthy of being remembered.” So, literature is basically anything artistically or emotionally motivated in print. So, yes, books are definitely included in this definition. So, why learn about literature?
For starters, it tells us about ourselves and each other. We can learn a lot about a person from the way they act, but you can learn a lot more about them personally just by reading their writing. People usually pour their heart and soul into what they love doing so, when you read a book or poem you’re getting a taste of their heart and soul. It also allows us the possibility of immersing ourselves in a world of our own creation, a realm or reality formed in our imagination by the words written upon the pages we read. In other words, reading is like watching a movie inside your head. It’s really fun and it’s more than just a good way to pass the time on a rainy day. There’s also a variety to literature, it’s more than just books. As its definition suggests, literature is made up of a “artistic writings” [1], like poetry.
Poetry, in and of itself is a very artistic and almost always emotional in the way it is written. It can tell a story in many different ways, through rhyme or another sort of verse structure. It can be found all over the world in many different cultures, both ancient and still fairly young. Some nations have birthed their own artistic verse structures to which they have held somewhat traditionally, if not religiously. A prime example of such traditional structuring is that of the Japanese haiku. It is a strictly simple poetic structure, made up of three unrhymed lines of five, seven and five syllables, in that order. Haiku can be about just about anything, something like love or something as simple as another day at the office. Anything is game. Poets usually write about something they feel passionately about, putting their very heart and soul into each sentence or verse to show how they feel. Poetry is also a popular way of creating vivid mental pictures in the mind of the read through the use of creative grammar and well placed metaphors and similes. Books, themselves, can be poetic in the way they make the story come alive to the reader or in the messages they hold within the pages. If literature is, indeed, an art, then I would venture a guess to say that poetry is, perhaps, one of its more beautiful and popular forms.
However, there’s more to literature than books and poems, alone, you know. You like watching movies and television shows, don’t you? You know, the kind they play on the boob tube all day, making money for every couch potato that turns it on and watches one of their shows? The shows themselves are not really literature as we would normally think of literature, but the scripts and screen plays from which they are created and directed are. It is a form of writing, much like the scripts of plays and musicals from which they originated and that still continue to exist to this day in schools, small time theaters and, ultimately, on Broadway. Whatever it’s being used for, the script and or story board on which the actors and animators base their actions, lines and animations on is all in a descriptive writing that doesn’t just tell them what to do, but tells a story. It is a story the cast and crew help recreate on a visual scale to be viewed and enjoyed upon the stage, the big screen and, ultimately, the television set. It’s a kind of interactive literature of sorts and is just another example of its many forms.
So, now that we know that literature is more than just old dusty books at the library that only high school teachers and old college professors read, a new question arises: how the heck are we suppose to study it?! Is there one way to study literature as a whole? Well, you can’t really go wrong with reading the material and then discussing it afterward. That has been my general experience in English class in my early high school years and I thought it worked rather well in helping me understand what I was reading. Something I found about myself is that if I don’t understand something, I ask questions. Discussing the reading allows those questions to be answered and perhaps gain insights from my instructor and fellow classmates as well. Without discussion of the reading, the questions may go unanswered. When that happens, I may get frustrated and move on to something else and lose interest in what I’m reading.
Sometimes reading aloud a book or some other bit of literature in class can be a good way to learn about it because it gives you a chance to figure out the way it actually sounds, they way it’s meant to be read. It’s interactive and surprisingly fun if you do it right. It helps you connect with the heart and soul of the author in a vague sense. It also helps with pinpointing and remembering the main points of the reading and ultimately makes reading the material more fun to learn. The way literature is taught should be fun and interesting, or at least amusing if nothing else. The more fun a student has while involved in the class, the more interested they’ll be and, therefore, the more they will likely learn from it.
In the end, literature is the broad range of written media that comes in many forms. From books and poetry, to play scripts and story boards, literature has somewhat evolved over time and can be read more than one way. Studying that literature can be done simply by reading, analyzing and discussing it with others to understand it and fully grasp the author’s heart and mind, to get to know the author in a roundabout way through what they’ve written. That’s literature. What’s on your shelf?
03-25-09
Literature 223
Craig McKenney, Instructor
Essay 1
What is literature? Maybe it’s just a novel on the New York Times best seller list. Maybe it’s an old book you find on grandma’s shelf in the attic. Maybe it’s a collection of stories with fictitious characters and made-up lands which were created to give us something to do on rainy days. Perhaps it is the stories of lives lived by real people in real times and places, meant to show us what happened hundreds of years ago. Or, perhaps literature is more than words on a page. I’ve read my fair share of books in middle and high school and seen multiple genres on multiple levels of grammatical creativity that I’ve both liked and disliked. I like reading a good book just as much as the next guy. But is literature based solely in books and novels alone, or does it go deeper than that? Perhaps, just perhaps, literature has more to offer than just another Tom Clancy series best seller. If one is to study it, they must study it in its’ entirety to fully understand it.
First off, literature should be defined to better understand what we are getting into. Literature (noun), pronounced [lit-er-uh-cher, -choo r, li-truh-], as described on dictionary.com, is “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.” Another definition describes it as “the body of artistic writings of a country or period that are characterized by beauty of expression and form and by universality of intellectual and emotional appeal”, or more simply put, “artistic writings worthy of being remembered.” So, literature is basically anything artistically or emotionally motivated in print. So, yes, books are definitely included in this definition. So, why learn about literature?
For starters, it tells us about ourselves and each other. We can learn a lot about a person from the way they act, but you can learn a lot more about them personally just by reading their writing. People usually pour their heart and soul into what they love doing so, when you read a book or poem you’re getting a taste of their heart and soul. It also allows us the possibility of immersing ourselves in a world of our own creation, a realm or reality formed in our imagination by the words written upon the pages we read. In other words, reading is like watching a movie inside your head. It’s really fun and it’s more than just a good way to pass the time on a rainy day. There’s also a variety to literature, it’s more than just books. As its definition suggests, literature is made up of a “artistic writings” [1], like poetry.
Poetry, in and of itself is a very artistic and almost always emotional in the way it is written. It can tell a story in many different ways, through rhyme or another sort of verse structure. It can be found all over the world in many different cultures, both ancient and still fairly young. Some nations have birthed their own artistic verse structures to which they have held somewhat traditionally, if not religiously. A prime example of such traditional structuring is that of the Japanese haiku. It is a strictly simple poetic structure, made up of three unrhymed lines of five, seven and five syllables, in that order. Haiku can be about just about anything, something like love or something as simple as another day at the office. Anything is game. Poets usually write about something they feel passionately about, putting their very heart and soul into each sentence or verse to show how they feel. Poetry is also a popular way of creating vivid mental pictures in the mind of the read through the use of creative grammar and well placed metaphors and similes. Books, themselves, can be poetic in the way they make the story come alive to the reader or in the messages they hold within the pages. If literature is, indeed, an art, then I would venture a guess to say that poetry is, perhaps, one of its more beautiful and popular forms.
However, there’s more to literature than books and poems, alone, you know. You like watching movies and television shows, don’t you? You know, the kind they play on the boob tube all day, making money for every couch potato that turns it on and watches one of their shows? The shows themselves are not really literature as we would normally think of literature, but the scripts and screen plays from which they are created and directed are. It is a form of writing, much like the scripts of plays and musicals from which they originated and that still continue to exist to this day in schools, small time theaters and, ultimately, on Broadway. Whatever it’s being used for, the script and or story board on which the actors and animators base their actions, lines and animations on is all in a descriptive writing that doesn’t just tell them what to do, but tells a story. It is a story the cast and crew help recreate on a visual scale to be viewed and enjoyed upon the stage, the big screen and, ultimately, the television set. It’s a kind of interactive literature of sorts and is just another example of its many forms.
So, now that we know that literature is more than just old dusty books at the library that only high school teachers and old college professors read, a new question arises: how the heck are we suppose to study it?! Is there one way to study literature as a whole? Well, you can’t really go wrong with reading the material and then discussing it afterward. That has been my general experience in English class in my early high school years and I thought it worked rather well in helping me understand what I was reading. Something I found about myself is that if I don’t understand something, I ask questions. Discussing the reading allows those questions to be answered and perhaps gain insights from my instructor and fellow classmates as well. Without discussion of the reading, the questions may go unanswered. When that happens, I may get frustrated and move on to something else and lose interest in what I’m reading.
Sometimes reading aloud a book or some other bit of literature in class can be a good way to learn about it because it gives you a chance to figure out the way it actually sounds, they way it’s meant to be read. It’s interactive and surprisingly fun if you do it right. It helps you connect with the heart and soul of the author in a vague sense. It also helps with pinpointing and remembering the main points of the reading and ultimately makes reading the material more fun to learn. The way literature is taught should be fun and interesting, or at least amusing if nothing else. The more fun a student has while involved in the class, the more interested they’ll be and, therefore, the more they will likely learn from it.
In the end, literature is the broad range of written media that comes in many forms. From books and poetry, to play scripts and story boards, literature has somewhat evolved over time and can be read more than one way. Studying that literature can be done simply by reading, analyzing and discussing it with others to understand it and fully grasp the author’s heart and mind, to get to know the author in a roundabout way through what they’ve written. That’s literature. What’s on your shelf?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Literature Essay 1
What is literature? Maybe it’s just a novel on the New York Times best seller list. Maybe it’s an old book you find on grandma’s shelf in the attic. Maybe it’s a collection of stories with fictitious characters and made-up lands which were created to give us something to do on rainy days. Perhaps it is the stories of lives lived by real people in real times and places, meant to show us what happened hundreds of years ago. Or, perhaps literature is more than words on a page. I’ve read my fair share of books in middle and high school and seen multiple genres on multiple levels of grammatical creativity that I’ve both liked and disliked. I like reading a good book just as much as the next guy. But is literature based solely in books and novels alone, or does it go deeper than that? Perhaps, just perhaps, literature has more to offer than just another Tom Clancy series best seller. If one is to study it, they must study it in its’ entirety to fully understand it. It’s time to open your minds, people, class is in session.
First off, literature should be defined to better understand what we are getting into. Literature (noun), pronounced [lit-er-uh-cher, -choo r, li-truh-], as described on dictionary.com, is “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.” Another definition describes it as “the body of artistic writings of a country or period that are characterized by beauty of expression and form and by universality of intellectual and emotional appeal”, or more simply put, “artistic writings worthy of being remembered.” So, literature is basically anything artistically or emotionally motivated in print. So, yes, books are definitely included in this definition. So, why learn about literature?
What’s so important about literature? For starters, it tells us about ourselves and each other. We can learn a lot about a person from the way they act, but you can learn a lot more about them personally just by reading their writing. People usually pour their heart and soul into what they love doing so, when you read a book or poem you’re getting a taste of their heart and soul. It also allows us the possibility of immersing ourselves in a world of our own creation, a realm or reality formed in our imagination by the words written upon the pages we read. In other words, reading is like watching a movie inside your head. It’s really fun and it’s more than just a good way to pass the time on a rainy day. There’s also a variety to literature, it’s more than just books. As its definition suggests, literature is made up of a “artistic writings”, like poetry.
Poetry, in and of itself is a very artistic and almost always emotional in the way it is written. It can tell a story in many different ways, through rhyme or another sort of verse structure. It can be found all over the world in many different cultures, both ancient and still fairly young. Some nations have birthed their own artistic verse structures to which they have held somewhat traditionally, if not religiously. A prime example of such traditional structuring is that of the Japanese haiku. It is a strictly simple poetic structure, made up of three unrhymed lines of five, seven and five syllables, in that order. Haiku can be about just about anything, something like love or something as simple as another day at the office. Anything is game. Poets usually write about something they feel passionately about, putting their very heart and soul into each sentence or verse to show how they feel. Poetry is also a popular way of creating vivid mental pictures in the mind of the read through the use of creative grammar and well placed metaphors and similes. Books, themselves, can be poetic in the way they make the story come alive to the reader or in the messages they hold within the pages. If literature is, indeed, an art, then I would venture a guess to say that poetry is, perhaps, one of its more beautiful forms.
But wait, there’s more! Books and poems are definitely not the only pieces of literature out there, you know. You like watching movies and television shows, don’t you? You know, the kind they play on the boob tube all day, making money for every couch potato that turns it on and watches one of their shows? The shows themselves are not really literature as we would normally think of literature, but the scripts and screen plays from which they are created and directed are. It is a form of writing, much like the scripts of plays and musicals from which they originated and that still continue to exist to this day in schools, small time theaters and, ultimately, on Broadway. Whatever it’s being used for, the script and or story board on which the actors and animators base their actions, lines and animations on is all in a descriptive writing that doesn’t just tell them what to do, but tells a story. It is a story the cast and crew help recreate on a visual scale to be viewed and enjoyed upon the stage, the big screen and, ultimately, the television set. It’s a kind of interactive literature of sorts.
So, now that we know that literature is more than just old dusty books at the library that only high school teachers and old college professors read, a new question arises: how the heck are we suppose to study it?! Is there one way to study literature as a whole? Well, you can’t really go wrong with reading the material and then discussing it afterward. That has been my general experience in English class in my early high school years and I thought it worked rather well in helping me understand what I was reading. Something I found about myself is that if I don’t understand something, I ask questions. Discussing the reading allows those questions to be answered and perhaps gain insights from my instructor and fellow classmates as well. Without discussion of the reading, the questions may go unanswered. When that happens, I may get frustrated and move on to something else and lose interest in what I’m reading.
Sometimes reading aloud a book or some other bit of literature in class can be a good way to learn about it because it gives you a chance to figure out the way it actually sounds, they way it’s meant to be read. It’s interactive and surprisingly fun if you do it right. It helps you connect with the heart and soul of the author in a vague sense. It also helps with pinpointing and remembering the main points of the reading and ultimately makes reading the material more fun to learn. If nothing, the way literature is taught should be fun and interesting, or at least amusing if nothing else. The more fun a student has while involved in the class, the more interested they’ll be and, therefore, the more they will likely learn from it.
First off, literature should be defined to better understand what we are getting into. Literature (noun), pronounced [lit-er-uh-cher, -choo r, li-truh-], as described on dictionary.com, is “writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.” Another definition describes it as “the body of artistic writings of a country or period that are characterized by beauty of expression and form and by universality of intellectual and emotional appeal”, or more simply put, “artistic writings worthy of being remembered.” So, literature is basically anything artistically or emotionally motivated in print. So, yes, books are definitely included in this definition. So, why learn about literature?
What’s so important about literature? For starters, it tells us about ourselves and each other. We can learn a lot about a person from the way they act, but you can learn a lot more about them personally just by reading their writing. People usually pour their heart and soul into what they love doing so, when you read a book or poem you’re getting a taste of their heart and soul. It also allows us the possibility of immersing ourselves in a world of our own creation, a realm or reality formed in our imagination by the words written upon the pages we read. In other words, reading is like watching a movie inside your head. It’s really fun and it’s more than just a good way to pass the time on a rainy day. There’s also a variety to literature, it’s more than just books. As its definition suggests, literature is made up of a “artistic writings”, like poetry.
Poetry, in and of itself is a very artistic and almost always emotional in the way it is written. It can tell a story in many different ways, through rhyme or another sort of verse structure. It can be found all over the world in many different cultures, both ancient and still fairly young. Some nations have birthed their own artistic verse structures to which they have held somewhat traditionally, if not religiously. A prime example of such traditional structuring is that of the Japanese haiku. It is a strictly simple poetic structure, made up of three unrhymed lines of five, seven and five syllables, in that order. Haiku can be about just about anything, something like love or something as simple as another day at the office. Anything is game. Poets usually write about something they feel passionately about, putting their very heart and soul into each sentence or verse to show how they feel. Poetry is also a popular way of creating vivid mental pictures in the mind of the read through the use of creative grammar and well placed metaphors and similes. Books, themselves, can be poetic in the way they make the story come alive to the reader or in the messages they hold within the pages. If literature is, indeed, an art, then I would venture a guess to say that poetry is, perhaps, one of its more beautiful forms.
But wait, there’s more! Books and poems are definitely not the only pieces of literature out there, you know. You like watching movies and television shows, don’t you? You know, the kind they play on the boob tube all day, making money for every couch potato that turns it on and watches one of their shows? The shows themselves are not really literature as we would normally think of literature, but the scripts and screen plays from which they are created and directed are. It is a form of writing, much like the scripts of plays and musicals from which they originated and that still continue to exist to this day in schools, small time theaters and, ultimately, on Broadway. Whatever it’s being used for, the script and or story board on which the actors and animators base their actions, lines and animations on is all in a descriptive writing that doesn’t just tell them what to do, but tells a story. It is a story the cast and crew help recreate on a visual scale to be viewed and enjoyed upon the stage, the big screen and, ultimately, the television set. It’s a kind of interactive literature of sorts.
So, now that we know that literature is more than just old dusty books at the library that only high school teachers and old college professors read, a new question arises: how the heck are we suppose to study it?! Is there one way to study literature as a whole? Well, you can’t really go wrong with reading the material and then discussing it afterward. That has been my general experience in English class in my early high school years and I thought it worked rather well in helping me understand what I was reading. Something I found about myself is that if I don’t understand something, I ask questions. Discussing the reading allows those questions to be answered and perhaps gain insights from my instructor and fellow classmates as well. Without discussion of the reading, the questions may go unanswered. When that happens, I may get frustrated and move on to something else and lose interest in what I’m reading.
Sometimes reading aloud a book or some other bit of literature in class can be a good way to learn about it because it gives you a chance to figure out the way it actually sounds, they way it’s meant to be read. It’s interactive and surprisingly fun if you do it right. It helps you connect with the heart and soul of the author in a vague sense. It also helps with pinpointing and remembering the main points of the reading and ultimately makes reading the material more fun to learn. If nothing, the way literature is taught should be fun and interesting, or at least amusing if nothing else. The more fun a student has while involved in the class, the more interested they’ll be and, therefore, the more they will likely learn from it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
