Questions for blog:
1. What is the song about? How do you know?
2. What musical elements add to your lyrical interpretation?
3. How does this song relate to propaganda, persuasion, argument, deception, or rhetoric?
Answers:
1 and 3. This song is about the power of Hitler and the Nazi. I first began to realize this when they sand, "Taking off his turban, they said, is this man a Jew," followed by, "working for the clampdown." The clampdown represents the government Hitler is trying to create, and in the first line I mentioned, "they" represents the Nazis. The people who work for the "clampdown" are being tricked into doing what they're doing by persuasion, propaganda and deception. "The voices in your head are calling. Stop wasting your time, there's nothing coming," is the narrator's point of view on how the Nazis should respond to the propaganda ("the voices in your head").
2. The chorus's beat was harder and louder, showing how the narrator doesn't like these people "working for the clampdown." It makes his words (his opinion) sound harsh and strong.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Propaganda, Persuasion, Rhetoric, and Argument
I found quotes 1050, 1052, 1091, and 1098. The quote I chose to analyze was 1098:
"It has been said that the camera does not lie. But the camera does lie. It is a notorious, compulsive, unashamed and mischievous liar." ~RUSSELL WIGGINS
This quote is a metaphor for propaganda--the camera represents propaganda. One can tell this because propaganda can use the camera to present itself, and the two items are therefore connected. While propaganda doesn't always lie, it can and has. Even if it doesn't, it might not tell the whole truth. It convinces people something without giving a lot of information on the topic.
I agree and disagree with the quote. While propaganda can lie, I more often see things that simply don't depict the entire truth. There often isn't enough credible information about a certain piece of propaganda to be able to fully believe or endorse it.
"It has been said that the camera does not lie. But the camera does lie. It is a notorious, compulsive, unashamed and mischievous liar." ~RUSSELL WIGGINS
This quote is a metaphor for propaganda--the camera represents propaganda. One can tell this because propaganda can use the camera to present itself, and the two items are therefore connected. While propaganda doesn't always lie, it can and has. Even if it doesn't, it might not tell the whole truth. It convinces people something without giving a lot of information on the topic.
I agree and disagree with the quote. While propaganda can lie, I more often see things that simply don't depict the entire truth. There often isn't enough credible information about a certain piece of propaganda to be able to fully believe or endorse it.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Reading Journal: Brave New World (Chapters 13-18)
Questions about Brave New World:
1. If John hadn't killed himself, could/would he have greatly affected the World State?
2. What does Huxley want the reader to gain from John's actions?
Question about both Brave New World and 1984:
In our society today, could we become a world like ones in either of these stories? Which one (both?)?
1. If John hadn't killed himself, could/would he have greatly affected the World State?
2. What does Huxley want the reader to gain from John's actions?
Question about both Brave New World and 1984:
In our society today, could we become a world like ones in either of these stories? Which one (both?)?
Thursday, December 1, 2011
"Communist Utopia" by Thomas Hornung
Questions for blog:
1. What about this painting indicates communism?
2. What is the artist's view of communism?
3. Explain the title.
Answers:
1. The thing that strikes me as the most communist aspect of the painting is the abundance of eyes all around. They are there to represent how the government (or power) is always watching you, always able to call you out if you do something wrong. You're being monitored by it.
2. The artist seems to view communism as a bad thing, established immediately by the colors he used. Everything is painted with gray and black (except the eyes, of course). This shows that the artist views a world with communism as a dull, depressing one. He only paints the eyes with color, showing how the government is the only body within communism that benefits from it.
3. The title represents the idea that with the government in complete control, everything in life will be perfect (a utopia). It's sort of an ironic title, considering the artist's views communism as a bad thing. I think the title is supposed to be read sarcastically, because the artist really thinks that the world he painted is a communist dystopia.
1. What about this painting indicates communism?
2. What is the artist's view of communism?
3. Explain the title.
Answers:
1. The thing that strikes me as the most communist aspect of the painting is the abundance of eyes all around. They are there to represent how the government (or power) is always watching you, always able to call you out if you do something wrong. You're being monitored by it.
2. The artist seems to view communism as a bad thing, established immediately by the colors he used. Everything is painted with gray and black (except the eyes, of course). This shows that the artist views a world with communism as a dull, depressing one. He only paints the eyes with color, showing how the government is the only body within communism that benefits from it.
3. The title represents the idea that with the government in complete control, everything in life will be perfect (a utopia). It's sort of an ironic title, considering the artist's views communism as a bad thing. I think the title is supposed to be read sarcastically, because the artist really thinks that the world he painted is a communist dystopia.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Reading Journal: Brave New World (Chapters 7-12)
My Questions:
1. Why would the World State give the people of the reservation a chance to get out of their home to go to the World State?
2. What's going to happen to people like Lenina if/when the World State runs out of soma?
3. How would Lenina's reaction to John have been different if she wasn't so dependent on soma?
My Answers:
1. While I was reading, I kept wondering why the World State would let people from the Reservation go to their (the World State) world. Mustapha Mond says, in regards to having Bernard bring John and Linda with him, "Yes, I do find it of sufficient scientific interest. Bring these two individuals back to London with you" (Huxley 150). This was really the only insight that the readers gather about the reasoning behind letting Bernard take the two beings. There are two options that I see as the World State's actual reasoning. The first is that the people of the Reservation actually are of scientific interest, since no one really studies these beings. The World State might be able to use them for some scientific purpose. The second reason would be that there lies a hidden cause underneath their approval of letting people (like Bernard) take other people from the Reservation home with them. Maybe that reason will be revealed later on in the book.
2. Lenina is clearly extremely dependent on soma, as are many of the people in her society. The reader has to wonder whether or not the nation will eventually run out of its means for making soma, since so many are in demand. What is to become of the people without their soma? Lenina constantly says, "Oh, I wish I had my soma!" and "I wish I had my soma!" when she doesn't have any with her (Huxley 125). I think that maybe if she didn't have her soma, or didn't even know there was such a thing, she's be a lot stronger as a person (this is applicable to all of the characters who are always taking soma to block out the negativities of their lives). She wouldn't be so dependent, and she might be able to face and handle her own problems, instead of drowning them out.
3. "Drying her eyes, Lenina walked across the roof to the lift. On her way to the twenty-seventh floor she pulled out her soma bottle. One gramme, she decided would not be enough; hers had been more than a one-gramme affliction. But if she took two grammes, she ran the risk of not waking up in time to-morrow morning. She compromised and, inter her cupped left palm, shook out three half-gramme tablets" (Huxley 177). This is what Lenina results to after she was "rejected" by John. The quote describes how she measures and handles her grievances, which can give a good idea of how she handles every other problem in her life. I think maybe if Lenina was not so dependent on the soma, she might be very strong and able to handle situations like these, as I stated before. In this particular situation, I definitely think she would have persisted with John, maybe even tried to list reasons about why he should be with her, had she not been dependent on soma. Lenina could be much stronger when dealing with John if she didn't resort to soma every time she had a problem.
1. Why would the World State give the people of the reservation a chance to get out of their home to go to the World State?
2. What's going to happen to people like Lenina if/when the World State runs out of soma?
3. How would Lenina's reaction to John have been different if she wasn't so dependent on soma?
My Answers:
1. While I was reading, I kept wondering why the World State would let people from the Reservation go to their (the World State) world. Mustapha Mond says, in regards to having Bernard bring John and Linda with him, "Yes, I do find it of sufficient scientific interest. Bring these two individuals back to London with you" (Huxley 150). This was really the only insight that the readers gather about the reasoning behind letting Bernard take the two beings. There are two options that I see as the World State's actual reasoning. The first is that the people of the Reservation actually are of scientific interest, since no one really studies these beings. The World State might be able to use them for some scientific purpose. The second reason would be that there lies a hidden cause underneath their approval of letting people (like Bernard) take other people from the Reservation home with them. Maybe that reason will be revealed later on in the book.
2. Lenina is clearly extremely dependent on soma, as are many of the people in her society. The reader has to wonder whether or not the nation will eventually run out of its means for making soma, since so many are in demand. What is to become of the people without their soma? Lenina constantly says, "Oh, I wish I had my soma!" and "I wish I had my soma!" when she doesn't have any with her (Huxley 125). I think that maybe if she didn't have her soma, or didn't even know there was such a thing, she's be a lot stronger as a person (this is applicable to all of the characters who are always taking soma to block out the negativities of their lives). She wouldn't be so dependent, and she might be able to face and handle her own problems, instead of drowning them out.
3. "Drying her eyes, Lenina walked across the roof to the lift. On her way to the twenty-seventh floor she pulled out her soma bottle. One gramme, she decided would not be enough; hers had been more than a one-gramme affliction. But if she took two grammes, she ran the risk of not waking up in time to-morrow morning. She compromised and, inter her cupped left palm, shook out three half-gramme tablets" (Huxley 177). This is what Lenina results to after she was "rejected" by John. The quote describes how she measures and handles her grievances, which can give a good idea of how she handles every other problem in her life. I think maybe if Lenina was not so dependent on the soma, she might be very strong and able to handle situations like these, as I stated before. In this particular situation, I definitely think she would have persisted with John, maybe even tried to list reasons about why he should be with her, had she not been dependent on soma. Lenina could be much stronger when dealing with John if she didn't resort to soma every time she had a problem.
Monday, November 28, 2011
"Don't You Want Me?" by the Human League
Questions:
1. What is the subject matter?
2. What is the difference in the two sides of the story?
3. With whom do you side and why?
Answers:
1. The story is about a man who helped a woman reach success in her life. Now that she's on top, he wants to be with her, but she doesn't want him.
2. The man says, "Don't forget, it's me who put you where you are now," trying to remind the girl that without him, she wouldn't be on top. He thinks he deserves her. She, however, thinks that, "it's time I lived my life on my own," because she has moved on. She also believes that, "I knew I'd find a much better place, either with or without you."
3. I side with the man because the girl wouldn't be where she is without him. He deserves her, and she completely overlooks him. She doesn't appreciate the fact that he put her on top. He says, "I picked you out, I shook you up, and turned you around, turned you into someone new." She shouldn't leave him when he did so much for her.
1. What is the subject matter?
2. What is the difference in the two sides of the story?
3. With whom do you side and why?
Answers:
1. The story is about a man who helped a woman reach success in her life. Now that she's on top, he wants to be with her, but she doesn't want him.
2. The man says, "Don't forget, it's me who put you where you are now," trying to remind the girl that without him, she wouldn't be on top. He thinks he deserves her. She, however, thinks that, "it's time I lived my life on my own," because she has moved on. She also believes that, "I knew I'd find a much better place, either with or without you."
3. I side with the man because the girl wouldn't be where she is without him. He deserves her, and she completely overlooks him. She doesn't appreciate the fact that he put her on top. He says, "I picked you out, I shook you up, and turned you around, turned you into someone new." She shouldn't leave him when he did so much for her.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Reading Journal: Brave New World (Chapters 1-6)
In the novel, equality is created with the castes that the government created. People are randomly selected for each caste, and then they are conditioned to love the position they are in. For example, babies are whispered pleasant things about their designated social class over and over again while they are sleeping (a process called, "hypnopaedia") so that they will love their class. On page 40, Beta babies are being whispered the words, "Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides, they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta." Just like that, all people are conditioned to love their class, and their government as well. Another thing that the author stresses in the first few chapters of the book to create equality is that people are not exactly treated like people. They are more so identical products that are created in a factory. Each person has their identity taken from them when they are being brought to life, because so many thousands of other people will be exactly like them.
The World State has reduced conflict and created happiness through, once again, the conditioning. By conditioning everyone within a class to think the same way, no one will ever have any differing points of views. Everyone thinks the same way about relationships. Also, while they are being conditioned, because they are programmed to love their class and their government, they think that their lives are perfect, and they don't really see anything wrong with their given rights. Everyone is happy, and no one has any arguments against the government.
From the point of view of someone reading about the story, the book clearly discusses a dystopia. The readers can see that the government is abusing and limiting their citizens' rights (and a few select people in the book like Bernard and Helmholtz realize that they would rather be individuals). However, because the citizens are content with their lifestyle, and the government has control over the people perfectly (for now?), this lifestyle could represent a utopia. Everyone is happy, and no one tries to defy the government. There is constant order in everyone's life.
The World State has reduced conflict and created happiness through, once again, the conditioning. By conditioning everyone within a class to think the same way, no one will ever have any differing points of views. Everyone thinks the same way about relationships. Also, while they are being conditioned, because they are programmed to love their class and their government, they think that their lives are perfect, and they don't really see anything wrong with their given rights. Everyone is happy, and no one has any arguments against the government.
From the point of view of someone reading about the story, the book clearly discusses a dystopia. The readers can see that the government is abusing and limiting their citizens' rights (and a few select people in the book like Bernard and Helmholtz realize that they would rather be individuals). However, because the citizens are content with their lifestyle, and the government has control over the people perfectly (for now?), this lifestyle could represent a utopia. Everyone is happy, and no one tries to defy the government. There is constant order in everyone's life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)