Oryx and Crake - Blog Post 2 [Pg 300]

Psychoanalytic Criticism and Post-structuralism/Deconstruction 

I am choosing to write my blog response through the use of Psychoanalytic Criticism in relation to Snowman, along with Post-structuralism/deconstruction in regard to just Oryx.  If I remember correctly we were discussing how Oryx can be seen in two ways, one as a completely immoral being, and the other as a very morally advanced being.  In my opinion Oryx would be a very morally advanced individual because she is able to see passed the unethical treatment she received in the past.  Oryx was put through traumatizing events, yet she seems to be in a normal mental state.  The whole situation with child pornography would cause one to think Oryx was angry at the men who stripped away her innocence at such a young age.  Yet in reality she copes with it quite well.  She is able overlook the bad in life and indulge in the good.  She is very optimistic and even tells Jimmy that he himself becomes too angry when she tells him stories about her past.  She tells him that he should not worry if she herself does not care that much.  Oryx understands that in order for her to live she had to be sold, she had to do as she was told, and she had to do a good job.  Regardless of the fact that this seems completely immoral and disgustingly wrong, she accepted the truth and the reality of the situation.  By doing this Oryx made it easier on herself to live her life to the fullest.  I believe her experiences in life did not harm her psychologically but instead constructed a whole new outlook on life for her, a whole new perspective.  Furthermore, by accepting her past and fully understanding the reason as to why she was put through such difficult situations, made Oryx the person she is today, it made Oryx a morally advanced being who does not dwell in the past but instead strives to change her present and future.
As for Snowman in relation to Psychoanalytical Criticism, I would say he would fit into the Ego category.  Evidently he does not have much in his current situation so his first priority is to actually survive.  He needs to find ways to find food so he sets off on a journey to a place with several memories of him and his old friend Crake.  He needs a spray gun which will help him fight off the animals that will eventually become aware of the fact that he cannot defend himself without a weapon.  He doesn't really strive to live a better life morally, or ethically, but at one point in his life I believe he did.  I believe in Snowman's past, when he was referred to as Jimmy, he began to gain a greater sense of morality.  He suddenly began to feel viewing live suicides, and child pornography was wrong, especially when he saw Oryx in one of the movies.  He gained a moral conscience and tried to help Oryx and find out where she had lived and who had "abused" her, but Oryx herself did not mind as much.  Jimmy was making assumptions.

In conclusion, I don't actually really like analyzing text and literary compositions through Psychoanalytical Criticism, but I thought I would include it in this Blog post.  I enjoy analyzing the text with the use of post-structuralism/deconstruction by breaking down the psyche of the characters within the literary work.  Although there might not be a solid basis of proof or fact, I do believe you can look at the characters in this novel and come to a conclusion as to why they do what they do (act, speak, think, etc).


Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)

Literature Web - The Veldt

http://msgreen.shalev.ca/images/5099.png



Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)

Socratic Seminar 1- The Value of Science

The Value of Science - By Richard Feynman


Feynman raises very interesting points about the value of science in his article. His very first point is that value can be described as " the material or monetary worth of something" (Macbook Dictionary); therefore, regardless of science having a positive or negative impact on society it still maintains value.  I believe that if one follows the literal definition of value, science in any respect has value (good or bad), but if one determines value through reality and actuality, science may not always have value due to its negative impact on society, thus proving to be non-beneficial to the major population.  I believe value is perceived to many people as something society can benefit from or progress from.  Now, who determines progress?  There are different types of progress, such as technological, individual, and the progress of society.  The progress of technology would encompass the enhancement of previous technology.  This enhancement would essentially make this technology widely accessible, and perhaps easy to use, but the use of this technology can be good or bad.  The progress of society, in my opinion, is not defined by technological progression alone, but along with morality. 
Morality itself is a very complex idea.  The progression of science may not always be ethical or morally sound, if used in a negative manner, but Feynman raises a valid point, "Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad--but it does not carry instructions on how to use it".  People may use science to do good, or they may use it to do bad, either way, the scientists nor the scientific knowledge decide how one will use the progression of science.  This is why I believe morality comes from within each individual.  There is always that possibility that one may do good or bad.  
Scientists question, that is the basic foundation of science.  Science is theory, it does not include absolute fact.  I believe Feynman is articulating the separation between science and society.  It is true that society may use scientific knowledge to its benefit, but science on its own is the art of mystery and discovery.  Scientists strive to solve scientific problems.  They are interested in the ideas that they discover, whereas society is concerned with the use of the idea, like the cure for cancer.  
Overall I believe that it is not the scientists responsibility to determine the impact scientific knowledge will have on society.  They may take it into consideration but their profession is unique in the sense that they are more interested in the discovery of ideas, much less than the use of every idea.  Morality is an aspect of society that must be obtained through the people within the society.  


1.  Do you believe scientific knowledge leads to the progression of society? Why or why not?


2.  Is it the scientists sole responsibility to take into account the affect of scientific knowledge upon society?


3.  Can anyone control the use or misuse of scientific knowledge?  If so who decides and to what extent?

Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)

Oryx and Crake - Blog Post 1 [Pg 110]

Discuss:
Character development (Oryx, Crake, Snowman), the value of human life, gender/respect for women.


Notes made in class (Page 48)

Oryx and Crake

Notes

Aysha Chaudhry

Pg. 46

Basic Plot:

·      Snowman is Jimmy from the past

·      Both Snowman and Crake were in love with Oryx

·      Jimmy’s has a pet Rakunk, name is killer

·      Crake is “God”

·      Children of Crake (people)

·      Children of Oryx (animals/plants)

·      Jimmy and family live in compound

Family:

·      Jimmy, mother and father

·      Father works in a Genetic research/alteration factory

·      Makes pigs with several of the same organs

·      Works in OrganInc Farms

·      Mother seems to be very distant from the family (the unusual one)

·      Mother and Father fight a lot

·      Mother doesn’t show much emotion further on in the novel

·      Mother has a greater since of morality

·      Jimmy feels like he must get a reaction out of his mother

·      Jimmy does certain things just to see how his mother will react, and congratulates himself upon the results

·      Mother and father try to act as if they are a perfect, flawless family (ideal)

·      ^Fail! Jimmy hates how his mother and father act so fake

Government/Society

·      ­Monitor people within the compounds

·      Pleeblands seem to be like ghettos or “the outside world”

·      Pleeblands are viewed as a pathetic way of life in compounds

·      Security within compound is very tight and strict

·      Most people seem content with the way society is run, except for the odd few (Jimmy’s mom)

Character Development:


Margret Atwood spends a significant amount of time during these first few chapters developing Snowman and Crake's character.  We get to see a bit of Oryx's character but not in detail/depth.  Atwood describes Snowman's family and his interesting childhood, which gives the reader a better idea of why Snowman behaved and felt the way he did in his past, as Jimmy.  Jimmy always wanted to leave a mark on the people who he felt's opinion mattered.  First with his parents, his mom especially, and then with Crake.  As a child, Jimmy felt like he was surrounded by people who were very fake, people who would not express or show their true selves.  Jimmy's mother was "different" in comparison to his father and all of the other people who lived in the compound.  But once the story progressed further, it was clear that Jimmy's mother had a greater moral conscience than others, which in my opinion should not have been viewed in a negative light.  Snowman's past gives the reader a better understanding as to how he thinks and how he feels.  Although there is still more that can be learned about Snowman, Atwood does a good job developing his character from his childhood.  
With Crake the reader is able to build a better understanding of what kind of person he is.  Crake seems like a very omniscient being, or at least he views himself as one.  He is very mature and to a certain extent, emotionless.  The disturbing aspect of Crake is his lack of morality.  Crake and Jimmy both may watch these live suicides, lethal injections, electrocutions, child pornography, and such, but Jimmy feels disgusted with himself at times, whereas Crake laughs at these horrid events.  Yet there's more to Crake.  His personality is so complex, he is such an intricate individual.  He takes screen shots of moments he finds intriguing.  Why he finds these certain moments fascinating? That we do not yet know.  I believe Margret Atwood is slowly letting the characters within her novel, unravel with the progression of the story.  


The Value of Human Life:
For people, regardless of their age, to watch other human beings commit suicide, receive lethal injections, etc, is extremely disturbing.  This only goes to show how immensely corrupt the society is or has become.  There really is no value of human life.  People do not care if innocent individuals are dying or care enough to protest against other humans recording such vile acts.  Instead people enjoy watching such horror.  I understand that Stephan King was trying to make a point as to why people watch horror movies, but there's a difference when you know it is fake.  When something is real, that is disgusting.  For someone to laugh at such a thing is repulsive.  The thought of society lacking empathy and becoming so heartless is revolting.  Margret Atwood's novel, Oryx and Crake, really is a fantastic representation of Dystopia.


03.29_wounded_girl.jpg 

I chose this picture because I believe it exemplifies pain, cruelty, and torture.  All of which Crake would happen to laugh at.  All children are innocent and no single being deserves to be tortured and forced to feel such an immense amount of pain exerted upon ones body.  This child represents innocence that has been crushed, and destroyed.  This picture represents Dystopia.

Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)

Dystopian Literature - Wordle Picture

http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2566808/Vision_of_Dystopia


Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)

Jane Eyre Blog Post 4 [Chapters 28-38]

2.     Compare and contrast St. John to Rochester.  Who is the better choice for a husband for Jane?  Why?




St. John was a very quiet person who kept to himself.  He would speak very little and on the rare occasion it would prove to be for business purposes.  He proved to be the kind of person who would do anything that would benefit him.  In contrast to St. John, Rochester was a very lively person.  He was very talkative and passionate.  His company was enjoyable by others and he expressed genuine emotions.
St. John only wanted to marry Jane because he believed she would make a wonderful missionary's wife.  I would say that his intentions to do good for other people and promote his Christian faith was all in all good, but how he treated Jane was terrible.  He was so cold toward her, and he didn't truly love her.  Rochester on the other hand was so madly in love with Jane.  He loved everything about her.  He saw within her a beauty that no one else could see.  He loved everything about her.  Accordingly, Jane unconditionally loved Rochester.  Regardless of the fact that he was now blind and crippled she still held just as much love for him.  
I believe that the better choice of husband for Jane would be Rochester.  As Jane herself stated that St. John was not her husband and would never be, as she continued to say, "He does not love me: I do not love him.....I am not happy at his side, nor near him, nor with him.  He has no indulgence for me---no fondness.  He sees nothign attractive in me; not even youth---only a few useful mental points." (chapter 37, pg 451)
This is by far one of my favourite quotes throughout the novel.  Jane expresses how she feels so clearly and makes the choice for the better husband obvious.  Jane and Rochester belong together.  They love one another and he makes her happy, which is something Jane deserves.  Even though St. John may have took Jane in and provided food and shelter for her, thats not a good enough reason to devote the rest of your life to a man who does not even love you.  No marriage with love is far better than a marriage without it.  

http://www.margonaut.com/newblog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/love-11.jpg

I chose this image because it represents the love that Jane and Rochester have for one another.  It says love never fails, and in Jane and Rochester's case this is very true.  Even though they had been through hard times together and Jane left and found St. John, she never was able to experience the same feeling she got when she was with Rochester.  In the end their love prevailed and they got married. :)

My comment is posted here:
http://englishpassione.blogspot.com/2010/10/reader-response-chapters-28-38.html


Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)

Example Socratic Seminar

In this article Joan Didion emphasizes the idea of self-respect.  She talks about innocence as another "big idea" through the beginning of the piece.  I believe the authors perspective and opinion on self-respect is very narrow.  She only talks about this one view on what self-respect is, completely disregarding actuality.  Her opinion on self-respect is black and white; it is all or nothing, there is no in between.  But in reality, there is an in between.  You can have self-respect while feeling upset over a goal that was not met or any other type of "failure".  


I personally think that in order to achieve self-respect you must accept your flaws and imperfections.  You must be able to take in the bad, with the good.  Once an individual is able to do this and understand that they are not perfect, just like every other human being on this planet, they can achieve a level of self-respect that allows them to go on in life, face its challenges, and grow as a person.  I think experience has a lot to do with self-respect as well.  We are complex, spiritual beings that have emotions and we all have our good and bad days.  When our peers berate and degrade us it is a direct attack upon our self-respect.  It is only natural to feel upset about this but it does not mean you have any less self-respect.  


My last point about this article is character.  Didion mentions that when an individual has self-respect they "exhibit a certain toughness, a kind of moral nerve; they display what was once called character".  I agree that this may be true for many people but not all.  This is what I mean by an all or nothing.  A person who may exemplify character may not have a strong sense of self-respect, and vice versa.  Self-respect is not a concept which is absolute.  It can be analyzed through several different perspectives.  


Overall, I believe Didion does a good job defending her argument as to what self-respect is, but there is no particular method in order to define it.  Each person is different in regards to their behaviour, thought process, etc.  Self respect can be defined and demonstrated in many different ways.  


1. Joan Didion speaks of innocence as a direct relation to self-respect.  What is her opinion on the concept of innocence?  Do you agree or disagree?  If so what is your opinion?


2.  Do you agree that self-respect is in no way related to the approval of others? Why or why not?


3.  Do you agree that without self-respect one is just living a life filled with only failure and no accomplishments?


4.  Recall the part in this piece where Didion mentions that people who exemplify self-respect display character through their behaviour.  Do you believe that one's character is directly related to their level of self-respect? Explain.  



Yours Truly, yummyichigo;)