Maus Criticism

http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/introser/maus.htm


The article that I found about Maus is from Ian Johnston. This literary criticism was given in a lecture at Malaspina University-College. I chose this article because I like some of the points that Johnston makes in his analysis of the book. His opinion on the novel is that "Maus I and II are not (and should not be approached exclusively as) another Holocaust-survivor narrative, but are rather an attempt to confront a collateral issue: How does one make sense of a Holocaust narrative? Or, more particularly, how does one, as an artist and the child of Holocaust victims (and thus someone with deeply personal and permanent emotional roots in those horrific events), make imaginative sense of the Holocaust?" (Johnston). I agree with this analysis because I do believe that Spiegelman did not write this book simply to retell the story of the Holocaust, which we have heard so many times; it rather asks the reader questions like Johnston introduced. It looks deeper into the effects of the Holocaust for the survivors and/or their children. 
Johnston also continues to analyze the characters of the story and gives his opinion on why Vladek should not be considered the main character. Vladek is not a very complex figure in Maus, in fact "He survives largely as a matter of luck (combined with a good native intelligence), but his experiences have left him crippled emotionally, and he has learned nothing particularly momentous as a result of his experiences—there's little sense that he understands or has even attempted to understand his experiences and their effects on him." (Johnston). This again shows how Maus is not another retelling of the Holocaust story. If it was, sure Vladek would be the main character because most of the story is retelling his experiences in the Holocaust; however, in my opinion, Maus was written to emphasize the effects the Holocaust made on the survivors and the understanding of those, but Vladek was lucky and has learned nothing from his experiences. 

Cat's Cradle Postmodernism

The article, “Postmodernism in Architecture,” states that Postmodern view recognizes that the past cannot be altered since it cannot really be destroyed, it must be revisited with "irony, not innocently." The novel, Cat's Cradle, is a novel that can be seen from a this similar view, and in my opinion, is to be considered as a postmodern piece of literature.Throughout the novel, Vonnegut creates this religion called Bokononism that is pretty much based off of lies. This religion is based upon the fact that nothing is true. Therefore, nothing can be altered or destroyed, because there is nothing there; there is no truth. Which is where the title, Cat's Cradle comes in. You can look and look for the cat and the cradle, but all you are going to find is a bunch of X's and holes. 
I don't really know much about architecture, but from what I have learned in the video from class, postmodern architects are creating new, original buildings that are different. It is going against traditions, or sometimes twisting them a little to create something new into the world of architecture. This is also similar with the world of literature. Books are being introduced, like Cat's Cradle for example, that bring new, fresh ideas that are considered to be wonderful. Postmodern architects are striving for new things, as are authors. 
Vonnegut introduces Bokononism, which seems very postmodern. Bokononism is the belief or representation that people are a product of their culture, or social norm. In the religion, he creates his own language with new words like karass, which is very new and different, very postmodern-like. In their society, everyone is secretly a Bokononist, or most of them at least. Some would say they’re restricted from believing anything else because of the social norm of that society. In the end, the people in San Lorenzo are influenced by their culture and this reflects a very postmodern viewpoint.

Brave New World

In discussions of Brave New World, it is pretty safe to say that their society is very hmmm...different. Probably my favorite source in comparison to this book is the video of Sir Ken Robinson and his lecture on our society and education. I like when he talks about ADHD and how people are saying that it is an epidemic that is spreading across the country uncontrollably, and that they are handing out pills and medications like no other. Pretty much, when a child is either bored, distracted, or not able to concentrate, they diagnose them with ADHD and start the medication. This is similar to Soma in Brave New World. Whenever they are having a "difficult" situation taking place in their life, they pop some Soma and everything becomes all dandy. Another idea that stands out to me in discussion of the type of society in Brave New World is the topic of morality and social norms. Sure we think their society is wrong and weird, but to them, that's normal. That's all they've known. The question is, who decides what these social norms are? What makes people "normal"? We tend to forget what we people are about. What makes us human. The society in the book as well as our society, I believe, is somewhat taking away the humanity and individuality of people. Each society is based on something different, and has their own social norms, but in reality, they're both controlling and disabling humans from what makes them human. For example, in the novel, their whole population of humans come into existence by machines and formulas and industry. They put their people into groups and the people in each category of human are all the same, with the same interests and the same intelligence level. They have different rules or guidelines on what's okay in their world and what's not. In our society, the media is telling us what is good or acceptable in the world. Sure it's not as extreme as Brave New World, but it's the same concept.

Robinson lecture video

There are many parallels being drawn by Sir Ken Robinson in this video to the culture in Brave New World. Something similar that was mentioned in this video is medicating the students in order for them to "focus" in school and to become "educated", or what it means to be educated in their society. Robinson theorizes that so many kids are being diagnosed with ADHD these days not because of an epidemic in our country, but simply because students are being distracted. All the new technologies introduced in our society today are distracting the kids and disabling them from being able to focus or become interested in school; therefore, their parents are giving them pills for ADHD to help them become engaged in school, which is really just slowing them down. But that's okay; there becoming "educated", right? These pills taken for ADHD are similar to Soma in Brave New World simply because these medications are altering their intellectual activity in order to meet the "standards" of what their government or society considers to be acceptable. For example, Lenina complains to Fanny how she cannot get John out of her head, even though he shouldn't be. Fanny tells her, "Take soma, then" (Huxley 188). Soma is used to forget things, as the pills used in society today for ADHD is used to "help them learn". Both are altering how one functions intellectually.
Sir Ken Robinson also discusses how in education today, the schools are kind of split up into certain groups  based on their ages. Why do they do this? He also includes that there are some kids that are younger that have more knowledge than the older kids simply because of the environment and the way they learned in school growing up. This is similar to Brave New World because in their society, they produce human beings that are split up into batches based on their intelligence: Alpha, Alpha Plus, Gamma, Epsilon, etc.

Brave New World

Brave New World  focuses on the concept of humans being treated like machines, or robots, that can be programmed to do something. Mustapha Mond, their leader, believes that all men are useful in the industry and should be put to work.  He says, “And if they [people] cannot tend the wheels…The corpses of a thousand men and women would be hard to bury or burn” (Huxley 43). Their society is based on industry. They believe that someone needs to be in control of every aspect of people's lives, and if people do not work, there is no use for them. Therefore, they create their people preprogrammed to "enjoy" certain things like work. There is no individuality in their creations of people whatsoever. They decide what "kind" of people they want to create, and this is based on quality in the workplace. For example, they create the not-so-smart people to be factory workers and the more intelligent to be scientists.

 The controllers manipulate their people by telling them that the "poor pre-moderns were mad and wicked and miserable. Their world didn't allow them to take things easily, didn't allow them to be sane, virtuous, happy" (41).  They are trying to convince them that the valued human experiences like family, monogamy, and desire, are useless and are not needed in order to be happy. They try to say that the "poor pre-moderns" were unhappy with all of these things, and life back then was nothing compared to what it is now. All the controllers are doing is creating robots that they think are making the world a better, easier place to live in. There is no such thing as families or other loyalties besides the industry. 

Tempest Intro

In discussions of The Tempest, one controversial issue has been colonialism. On the one hand, George Will argues that over-analyzing text can lead to unneeded misinterpretations of the text. On the other hand, Greenblatt contends that looking deeper into the meanings of the text allows the reader to get a better understanding of what the author's purpose is. However, my own view agrees a little with both sides. 
I do agree with what Will is saying because I know that not every piece of writing has a super deep, "hidden", meaning. I often find myself overthinking things in literature that are actually pretty simplistic and do not require much thought. Sometimes the reader, like myself, can get so caught up in trying to figure out a "hidden" meaning in the text that they are unknowingly drifting further and further away from the original intended purpose of the author. However, I do believe in Greenblatt's theory of analyzing the text deeper. I think I believe in this theory a little bit more, actually. In order to recognize the real meaning of a piece of literature, the reader needs to spend some time thinking and reading critically, to look for the commonly called "hidden" meaning. 
Regarding The Tempest, I think Greenblatt's theory of analyzing text is more accurate, with this piece of literature at least. I think it is interesting studying The Tempest more than just reading it because you are introduced into different ways of interpretation. For example, the reader's view towards Prospero and Caliban can be very different. Some have sympathy toward Caliban because he got his island taken away from him, and some think of him as a savage. Some could have the postcolonial sort of view of the text, and others can just believe that Shakespeare simply just wrote the play to entertain and to make money. 
We will never know what Shakespeare's real purpose was in writing this; therefore, we should not be straining our brains and overthinking everything. On the other hand, it is good to analyze writing and produce your own opinion of the text and be able to argue it. 

Literary Debate

Finally it worked! Yayyyy! So this is like 5 days late, gotta love computers! Sorry! Anyways, reading these articles was very interesting. At first I was very confused and it took me about double the time to read than it usually does, but I got through it. Stephan Greenblatt's article is talking about how no matter what the piece of writing is about, the author will usually (sometimes unwillingly) include their personal feelings on the subject in the piece. Greenblatt also discusses how because this is happening, all of our literature is going to be the same. All a piece of writing will be is the author's personal beliefs or feelings. Also, usually the authors that live in the same area or feel the same way about a particular subject will have similar ways of writing. Therefore, all literature will end up just being the same, lacking variety and uniqueness.On the other hand, George Will's article is talking about the differences and conflicts between Carol Lannone and MLA. One of the biggest issues between Carol and the association is that Carol is conservative and "not one of [them]." I do not think that is a fair judgement made by the MLA; however, whether some like it or not, all writing can be political in some way. It just depends on if the reader makes the choice to be open to the political meaning behind the literature or not. I think anyone can say any piece of writing is political in some way or another. It's all in the interpretation. 

I agree with Stephan Greenblatt's article. I agree because I have noticed that in many pieces of writing. I know that the purpose of the author in an article or essay is usually to make a point that he or she believes should be made. There will always be some way that the author puts in his or her own feelings, even if its not recognizable to some. I also like how  it was said that "art, the art that matters, is not cement. It is mobile, complex, elusive, disturbing." Art is like literature, and it can be interpreted in many different ways. It just depends on what way you choose to read it.