The problem with Power Pointing

I think Parker makes a superb argument against power point's "template thinking."  Being a user of both PC and Mac computers, I can testify that Microsoft is not the only culprit in the editing-your-ideas-for-you realm of things. When editing down video clips in iMovie, there are countless templates and cookie-cutter options into which your videos can be pasted.  The problem here is that people are thinking for themselves, but not organizing their own thoughts. Our computers are holding our hands for us more than ever before.  It's like in Middle School when we were first learning how to write five-paragraph essays. The teachers would say, "Your introduction goes first, then the body paragraphs, then your closing paragraph. Your introduction MUST contain your thesis and you conclusion CANNOT summarize your paper." The way we (Americans) learn and teach each other today is so formulaic and standardized that I think we have forgotten what it is to learn not for the purpose of passing a test, but to learn for one's own benefit.

Know It All

In my opinion, Wikipedia has always been an easily accessible, informal, somewhat-untrusted bank of information for the common consumer and/or student (it definitely helped me compile a few essays in high school), but I had no idea about its history. I have a cousin from Huntsville, AL and it was pretty cool to learn that the creator of a modern-day icon was also from there. Wikipedia shared the beginning of most other independent websites (slow!), but grew rapidly once the word got out.

While I absolutely love the philosophy and idea of Wiki, I'm not entirely fond of the effect it has on the over-user. For instance, I had a friend who would read Wikipedia articles for hours on end and was constantly convinced that he was correct in every argument (because he had read it on Wikipedia). Granted, there is a large amount of valid information on the site, and I am not arguing against its credibility (though a college professor will bring a gun to that swordfight).  It just seems to me that if people are shown articles written and "approved" by random individuals from all over the world, doesn't it stand to reason that at least some of it is absolute garbage? And don't you think that allowing people to be somewhat self-proclaimed experts on subjects by writing their own articles would contribute to just a little bit of narcissism?

All nitpicky criticisms aside, Wikipedia is an amazing website. Wales had the kind of revolutionary vision Zuckerberg had when he created Facebook: a new way to link even more people to even more information through our ever-growing technological society. When we can find out on our cell phones today what people had to go to a library to learn twenty years ago, I would say that it is a pretty remarkable period in our history.

Pygmalion Act 5 & Sequel

I was so excited to finally read Pygmalion!  I am a long-time fan of My Fair Lady, and couldn't wait to read the original play.  Henry Higgins is one of my most favorite characters from literature, and his personality is somewhat close to my own (at least I like to imagine so).  I remember the first time I had seen the play, I thought Professor Higgins was extending his sense of goodwill and charity to Liza, allowing her to live in his home while he fed and clothed her and taught her to use the English language properly.  However, upon finishing it, I was shocked to discover that he remains so callous towards the poor girl.  He knows full and well that she can only go back to her father in the slums and simply hope that someone will now hire her in a flower shop based solely upon her clothes and manner of speech.  Yet, he tries to send her away.  I doubt that Professor Higgins learned anything from his experience with Liza until it was almost too late. In fact, he doesnt even really show Liza any sort of affection other than declaring that he will miss her. I have always found Higgins' static mode of character to be somewhat remarkable, considering that in most other novels or plays, their time together is MORE than enough for the average literary characters to fall in unrequiteable love.

Marxist Criticism

I had no idea what the history was behind Marxist Criticism, let alone what it was. I found it very interesting to learn about all the thinkers of the era like Adorno, Lukacs, and Bahktin. The fact that Marx and thinkers like him could not "think of aesthetic matters as being distinct and independent from such things as politics, economics, and history" baffled me. While works of art can be satirical and influenced by economic and political happenings, they are, in my opinion, entirely different beings. However, the concept of the alienation of the worker resulting in the destruction of the arts (pg. 381-82) is something I had never heard of or thought about before, but it interested me greatly and seemed to have some truth behind it. After all, how could those who produce items on a massive scale retain any sort of identity or deviation for what it is that they create for themselves? I do agree with Adorno in his attack on Lukacs' "dogmatic rejection of nonrealist modern literature." Art is indeed a separate being from science, though it may be influenced to some small or great degree by our attainment of new knowledge.

Eagleton makes an interesting analysis of Wuthering Heights, but it seems that much of what the author has to say, we had already discussed in class to a certain extent. Heathcliff's relationship (or lack thereof) to the family, and Hindley's resulting spite for the foreign boy, Catherine's double-standard-lifestyle, substituting love for social status, and Heathcliff's revenge for the years of "arbitrary love," heartbreak, and estrangement from his adoptive family. It all sounds vaguely familiar...Either way, I definitely learned a few things from this section of the book, both about the complex network of relationships in Wuthering Heights and the process that is Marxist Criticism.

Wuthering Heights 2

The latter half of Wuthering Heights was a bit anticlimactic for my taste. After Catherine dies and the haunting of the estate is explained, the story just kind of...peters out. Bronte just seems to sort of kill off her characters while keeping them bickering, or perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention. Granted, it is a happy ending in that young Catherine and Linton grew up knowing nothing of the intense, emotional conflicts from which they came. Maybe I'm too used to today's fiction, but this was definitely not one of my favorite literary endings.

I don't think I will ever fully understand Heathcliff's manipulation over his loved ones, even those who never wronged him! The way he speaks to his son and forces him into courting young Catherine is deplorable. While I respect his cunning and skill in vengeful planning, I doubt I could consider him the hero of the novel.

Wuthering Heights 1

To say the least, I found the opening chapters of this book...confusing. Mainly, the abundance of Catherines was what I had trouble wrapping my head around. Either way, I felt very badly for poor Lockwood, threatened by dogs on multiple occasions, made to walk through a blizzard by himself, and being having the life scared out of him by the ghost of a Catherine, and getting thrown into the mix of the complex relationships and emotions at Wuthering Heights. The guy must not have had many options for himself (ha!).

While, at first, I found Heathcliff to be unfairly cruel and mean-spirited, but after considering how Hindley and Mrs. Earnshaw thought of him and treated him, how could you really expect much different an outcome? And, after all the further foul treatment of Heathcliff by everyone, I don't blame him one bit for wanting revenge on Hindley. I'm sure he takes delight in watching Hindley drink himself to death, and Hindley deserves so. His abuse toward his family and servants is completely uncalled for, especially when he accidentally (not that it matters) drops Hareton over the banister (81).

There aren't really any subtle tones of racism in this book. It's just kind of in-your-face-bro and serves as a reminder that, in those times, locking the black kid in the attic was the normal thing to do. WTF?

Politics and the English Language

I absolutely love what George Orwell has to say in "Politics and the English Language." I have always felt similarly about the (sometimes) intentional butchering of the English Language, not only by politicians, but by the population in general. While it is widely known and easily discoverable (just turn on C-SPAN) the ridiculous use to which our lawmakers put our language. Orwell says:

 "Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."

For me, this was one of the most resonant passages from the text. Aside from being perfectly parallel with my own opinion of "the-Government-is-constantly-doing-things-they-dont-want-us-to-know-about," Orwell's point here is that (in order to maintain good public standing in the case of controversy) politicians purposefully word their presented documents in such an incomprehensible way that only those of us with backgrounds in the drafting of legal documents would be able to understand them.

While the work seems to mainly criticize the improper, pretentious, and senseless way in which politics butcher the beauty and fluidity of our language, George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" brought to my attention just how trite and cliche the English Language has become. Over time, and still today, the English language has been evolving (or rather, the opposite of such) into a lazy, worn-out product of our ever-increasing desire for convenience. In America especially, our society, economy, and culture are driven by nothing more than pure desire; driven by an emotion that presents itself in early childhood and never seems to leave us. We crave things, and easier ways to obtain those things. Naturally, the integrity and sophistication of our spoken communications dissolves as we find easier, shorter, "better" ways of making our points and desires known to others. Why would you ask, "would you please pass me that pencil," when "give me that" is much easier and quicker to say? Just as "violence begets more violence," ignorance and laziness operate exactly the same way. With the development of the "drive-thru," which one may note is spelled improperly as a result of this mentality, we have pampered ourselves into shameful laziness, insatiable greed, and willful ignorance. The most meaningful excerpt from this text (for me, at least) is hauntingly apparent upon the examination of our modern spoken and written communication:

"...modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit..."

While no one is completely innocent when it comes to the murder of the English Language, not you or I...not even Orwell as he confesses, every living person should strive to keep their words fresh, clear, and most of all, intelligent.