Prague blog #1 - theme (past)

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich & Mr. Korff

English

September 17, 2016

Theme Analysis - The Past

In my English (senior seminar) class, I have been reading a book called Prague, by Arthur Phillips. The story in the novel centers around a group of people, who go to Prague and are trying to find “themselves”. Although the book is focused around a group of people, it really centers in on the main character of the story, John Price ordinary man, who has some brother issues. As the novel progresses there seems to theme in the background of the story that is constantly recurring, which is the past. A lot of these characters are always talking about the past, and for some of them, that’s all they can think about.

John Price, although not the one to bring up the past the most, he certainly does talk about for a decent amount. One of the main reasons that John is in Budapest is to meet with his brother, whom he had a falling out with when they were younger. John also believes that by coming to Budapest he will find a better life, far better than the past he is constantly reminding himself of. In John’s friend group, there is another person who is always pondering on the past, a Canadian friend of his, named Mark Payton, who is all about the past. Mark Literally studies the ideas of nostalgia, longing for the past and its memories. Mark believes that the feeling of longing for the past could happen whenever and that “someone in the eighties longed for the seventies, whether that’s the 1970s or the 1470s, you know so I could daisy chain in decades. But then I realized I could actually document it even tighter. What about annually?”(Phillips 110). One time, when Mark was playing music that his entire apartment building could hear, the other residents hated it, but Mark said once he stops they would wish to hear it again just so they can remember those days Mark said was playing music. Mark, of course, is so curious about the past that he asks john about why he and his brother Scott had a falling out, but John doesn’t answer. Besides the book and it characters talking about the past in a philosophical way, individuals past’s are also told about. John and Scott meet a foreign, older woman, Nadja, who, when they are talking at some sort of jazz-themed club or cafe, her past and what her life was like growing up in harsher times. Nadja tells them how “In 1956, I was living in Budapest for ten years. I was married to a gentleman of great breeding and cultivation, but he had allowed himself to become embroiled in the anti-Soviet violence of that year. Wen Soviets decided to finish us once and for all, my husband and I opted for a hasty departure. We had left it rather late, incurable optimists that we were.”(Phillips 98-99). There is also another mentioning of a person's past, a man called Imre Horvath, the novel goes into detail about when “He lost everything, escaped Hungary to rebuild a family fortune, came back several times despite looming  threats and even some made good.”(Phillips 130). Besides, when the novel and it characters are talking about the past as some faint memory, when the characters talk about their actual pasts it gives their stories a more real feeling. Although they all talk about the past and are always reminding themselves of it, I think that the main reason that they talk so much about the past in novel, whether it be philosophically or literally, it is because they are all trying to escape it. That is one of the main reason these characters traveled, it was to hopefully live a better life. For example, John’s brother, Scott, left his family so that he wouldn’t be reminded of the life he lived as a child since he was constantly bullied and picked on as a kid and was overweight. This is probably why the past theme is so present because, in the book, it can be interpreted in multiple ways, and the past also has different effects on the characters, whether they want to no longer be reminded of it, or wish to dwell on it, like Mark’s character.

Sometimes I do wonder why the author, Arthur Phillips chose to have the characters be so focused on the past, could it be to make them more driven on their future goals, or is it just simply exposition so that we will understand the characters better? One thing is for certain though, and that is that these pasts have affected these characters all throughout their years and possibly their life choices.

Handmaid Tale Blog #5: Unpacking Quote

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

May 15, 2016

Unpacking pg 275 Quote

In the book The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood, we have learned more about the society that Offred has become apart of. As the story is moving forward, we see more ceremonies and rituals take place, which gives us more insight into how Offred feels about this world around her. While Offred is watching the ceremony she says, to herself, “A collective murmur goes up from us. The crimes of others are a secret language among us. Through them we show ourselves what we might be capable of, after all”(275 Atwood).

First, at the time Offred was saying this, she was at a woman’s “Salvaging” ceremony, which is basically a large-scale execution. The ceremony takes place at an old college, on top of a stage “but this stage is not the same after all, because of the three wooden posts that stand on it, with loops of rope”(273 Atwood). As Offred is in the crowd of Handmaids and Wives, Aunt Lydia is the one who is leading the ceremony. The ceremony begins and “on the stage, to the left, are those who are to be salvaged: two Handmaids, one wife”(273 Atwood) to which Offred says that it is not common for a wife to be salvaged.

The best way unpack the main quote is to break it up sentence by sentence. The first sentence in the quote is “A collective murmur goes up from us”(275 Atwood). This part of the quote doesn’t have a whole lot of deeper meaning to it other than that they have basically been “trained” to know when to be quiet and do as they are told and to watch the ceremony. Then, the second sentence in this quote is “The crimes of others are a secret language among us”(275 Atwood). Offred says that the crimes are a secret language, because everyone already knows what they are being killed for without anyone actually saying it, which was that the two handmaids could be in trouble for trying to kill their commander’s wife, and that the Wife was being hanged for killing her Handmaid, but Aunt Lydia refuses to share what they are truly being killed for since “we found that such a public account, especially when televised, is invariably followed by rash, if I may call it that, an outbreak I should say, of exactly similar crimes.”(275 Atwood). Although Offred will never know the exactly what happened, she (probably) at least understands why they happened. For the Handmaids, they probably were sick and tired of being treated poorly by the wives who looked down on them as sluts. As with the wife, whose motive probably stemmed from jealousy, not being able to have sex with the commander, thus having to have the Handmaid sleep with him, making the Wife feel useless. Lastly, for the final sentence in the quote: “through them we show ourselves what we might be capable of, after all”(275 Atwood). With this part of the quote Offred is saying that she too could commit a crime similar to these, but she doesn’t, mainly because Gilead has enforced these rules so strongly and have instilled fear into the people. This entire quote also foreshadows how the book ends. The quote has some “open-endedness” to it, like how Offred really doesn’t know what caused them to be hung. The end of the book is just like this quote, because at the end of the book Offred is taken away and we don’t ever really know why. So with both this quote and the ending of the book they leave it open for the reader to guess what happened, while also giving them some options, like how there were a few options as to why the women were hanged, and at the end of the book Offred is with Nick as she is being taken away, and he says to her “It’s all right. It’s Mayday. Go with them”(293 Atwood). This doesn’t necessarily mean that she is safe, it could be a trap to get her and take her away to be tortured or killed, but the reader will never have an actual answer, for both the quote and the ending.

In conclusion, this is a very powerful quote that says a lot about the world Offred lives in and how there isn’t always black and white in her society, much of what happens is covered in the grey area. This also shows that Offred does understand what Gilead is like and how she won’t always get answers. So, the quote certainly speaks volumes and tells a lot more than just about a simple hanging.

Handmaid Tale Blog #4: Problem with men

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

May 10, 2016

Problem With Men

In the book A Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood, we have learned more about the relationship between Offred (the main character) and the commander, who basically owns her. From previous parts of the story we have learned that their relationship is getting stronger and closer. As they are getting closer, the commander has begun to open up to Offred, and says to her “the problem wasn’t only with the women…. The main problem was with the men”(210 Atwood),

In this part of the story Offred and the commander have been having their little “get-togethers” for a decent amount of time and so one night when they are talking he talks This quote certainly says a lot about the roles men and women in this dystopian society and what the roles were like prior to the society. What the commander was trying to say about how “the main problem was with the men”(210 Atwood) was that, before the days of the Republic of Gilead, men were always meant to take care of and control the women. Once Gilead was created, the women were kept safe and did not need to be controlled or kept safe from any harms, because there are no harms, so basically “There was nothing for men to do”(210 Atwood). Of course the men did and still have sex to control, like how the commander talks about how “the sex was too easy”(210 Atwood) and that he could always just hire a prostitute. In the book, this quote (and the context around it) is also telling us a little bit more about the commander on an emotional level, and how he feels kind of useless, so him opening up to Offred, makes her feel kind of equal, since “Right now I’m not afraid of him. It’s hard to be afraid of a man who is sitting watching you put on hand lotion.” (210 Atwood). To add more emotional baggage on to the commander, he is always feeling guilty about the previous handmaiden that he would secretly talk to, who got caught by Sarena, his wife, and the handmaiden ended up killing herself. So from then on the commander also feels as if he needs to make sure that Offred is okay, so that she too doesn’t end up killing herself. This is very similar to a part of a paper we have read in our class, which talks about how men do not open up about how they are truly feeling, the connection between these two papers is that the commander feels that he is close enough with Offred, to the point that he can trust her with his sharing his feelings and guilt.

In conclusion, this quote speaks volume about the commander and how he feels in this society of equality. In a way it is almost understandable for him to think this way, since he is the commander of the house and even though there is less for him to do, he still needs to be the leader. So the relationship between Offred and the commander has gotten much deeper and more personal than Offred had imagined, as she is learning (and remembering) new (and old) things, and it doesn’t seem that she want’s it to stop.

Handmaid tale Blog #3: Who holds the power?

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

April 29, 2016

Who holds the power?

In the book, Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, we read about Offred’s and the commander’s “new arrangement”. In this part of the story we see that Offred and the Commander have a new and interesting bond. This delves more into Offred’s psyche, as she is trying to understand who really has power and control in this relationship that she has with the Commander. There is more to this relationship than meets the eye and to Offred, there is always that wonder of what the structure of power is in this relationship.

First, earlier in the story we learn that the commander wants to meet with Offred. Offred has no idea what the meeting about, or why it’s even happening, but she is scared for it, since she is unsure of what is to come, she is also not allowed to go into the commander’s room. Offred comes into the commander’s room and there are “books and books and books, right out in plain view, no locks, no box”(Atwood 137), so she is already shocked when she comes into the room, because all of the things in his room are not allowed in this new society. So as offred is coming into the room, she sits down, with the commander opposite of her. He says to Offred that “You must find this very strange,”, because she really is confused. After that the commander asks Offred if she would like to play Scrabble with him, which is not allowed. It is clear that offred is enjoying this very much, and after that when they are getting ready to finish up the night, the commander says to Offred “I want you to kiss me” (Atwood 139). In the beginning of their secret relationship, it seems that the commander has power over her, because he is getting her to open up with him, even though she wanted to “put my arms around him and slip the lever out from the sleeve and drive the sharp end into him suddenly between the ribs” (Atwood 140), so her emotions are mixed and she is unsure of how she really feels.

As their relationship continues, we see that he is treating Offred kindly and they feel more equal since the commander finds sex impersonal. Although the power has been evened out more, it will always be that the commander has more power, since he could just end it with Offred whenever he feels like, and have her sent away. We learn throughout the meeting between the two of them that the power on either side has been put in a state of equality as their bond progresses there is probably less tension, as they get more comfortable with each other. The stereotypes of a typical man and woman meeting are put into play here. In the new society Offred, the handmaid, is a servant to the commander and doesn’t get treated with any respect, but when the two of them meet in private, the commander is very polite and respectful, by offering a seat, when she is usually supposed to stand, and when she takes her seat, he pulls the chair out for her. So in a society that doesn’t care for women of her level, the commander is still a gentleman and treats other with respect.

In conclusion, only time will tell how the power is distributed in the secret relationship, but it seems that they both like the direction it is heading. This bond between the two of them is very interesting, it gives us more insight into the commander, and how he is not just the ruler of the house, but rather, a person who might also miss the olden days, since he still enjoys to play scrabble. So even though, in this relationship, the commander is the one in charge socially, it is still blurry as to who really has the power and control.

Handmaid #2: Who was it worse for?

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

April 22, 2016

Who was it worse for

In the book, The Handmaid’s Tale, the story revolves around one character, named Offred. As the we get more into the story we learn that she has been forced to live as a Handmaid, in a new society. The is one part in the book, chapter sixteen, on page 95, that illustrates what her purpose in this world is. While reading this part there is a quote said by Offred, which is “who was it worse for, her or me?”. this is meant to delve deeper into some of the characters perspectives, and we will solve who the “her” is and which of them it was worse for.

First, In the new society Offred is basically a procreating servant, who sole purpose is to make children. Than as we are getting to the part when Offred says her quote, it appears that she is with the commander and his wife, and they are reading the bible. The commander was reading from the book of Genesis, more specifically, the part about Rachel and Leah, and how Rachel was infertile, so her husband had to have sex with their maid in order for them to have a child. This is setting up for a parallel between what’s happening in the bible and what is going to happen in the story. After the commander has read from the book the commander’s wife, Serena Joy, is said to be infertile, therefore can’t have children. The commander decides to have sex with Offred, in the hopes of getting her pregnant. So they have sex and afterwards Offred is with Serena, who is grabbing Offred very tightly, to the point where it kind of hurts. Serena let's go and then Offred says “who was it worse for, her or me?”.

In my opinion, I would say that it was worse for Offred. It was worse for Offred because she is being forced to submit her body to sex. Also, the sex is solely for procreation, not for love and passion, and Offred doesn’t even get to keep the child, since the commander and his wife will take the child. On the other side of the spectrum, In Serena Joy’s case, it really wasn’t that bad for her, this, in a way, was kind of what she was hoping for. Even though she wishes that it was her having sex with the commander, which is probably why she grabbed Offred so hard after the sex had happened, she is unable to have children, so she wanted Offred to have sex with him, which would allow her to have a child. Serena joy is selfish and was using Offred and she only seems to care about having child. So it seems very clear that this was much worse for offred. When you really think about it both women have it bad. Offred is forced to have and bare a child, and Serena truly wants to have child, but will never get to experience of having her own (biological) child.

In Conclusion, this part of the book, definitely shows how all women have to struggle with this new society and that even people as high as being a commander's wife, or as low as a Handmaid, can still have troubles. In these chapters we also get a better feel for the characters and how they act in situations, and what people's true goals and purposes are. So even though I believe that Offred did get the worse of it, both Offred and Serena didn’t walk away clean and happy.

Handmaids tale blog #1: Then and Now

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

April 15, 2016

Then and Now

In the novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, the author, Margaret Atwood, likes to use flashbacks as a means of giving the reader information (which is just exposition). Atwood will do this throughout chapters and will then transfer back to present day. This is a very effective way of writing, it allows us to see the changes that have happened to the main character and the world in which she lives, while also giving us some background information.

First, the story begins with a flashback, so we start out in the past. Later on in the story we learn that our main character’s name if Offred, and she is a Handmaiden. It begins in the past and Offred seems to be in a gymnasium, with guards, called Aunts, surrounding them, it appears that she is going through (with what I can assume is) Handmaids training. Then she talks about how they walk around on a football field, but there are fences with wires all around them. We begin to get the feeling that she was in some sort of prison. This helps us realize what sort of world that she is living in. We know that it takes place in the future, but it seems that they don’t really care about education if they are using a school for prison-like facility. It can also be inferred that there used to be a society similar to ours (not so long ago), since there are mentions of pictures (of the high-school girls) that would reference a different type of living, and use of the gymnasium. Also, there is a flashback that goes even further back. Its is when Offred is a girl and is watching television and remembers about a singer, who in the present has become a wife, which is higher than a handmaid. In the story, giving information about the past is very helpful for the reader to have a much better understanding of what Offred's present is like.

Next, The story transitions back to the present, and Offred is in a room. We learn that this room is also like a prison, in which there is no escape and is basically suicide proof. What is different in the present that isn’t mentioned in her past is that she seems to serve a purpose that is sexual. In this present we also learn that everyone has a job, like how Offred is a handmaid, there are two other characters, Rita and Cora, who are Marthas, which is a job, higher than a handmaid’s job. So it is clear that there isn’t much choice or freedom within the world Offred lives in this future society. There is a big similarity between the flashbacks and the preset, which is that this world is very much centered around control.

In conclusion, flashbacks can be a very helpful means of storytelling, it can help the story progress without having the reader get lost or confused (including myself). It can also help us get an understanding of the characters and world that we are presented. Also, like with most dystopian literature there is some form of control over the people, and how the story tells us that Offred has been under control almost her whole life. Many (dystopian) novels don’t use flashbacks in their stories, and (I think) that this story uses it in a good and helpful way.

Anthem Blog #2: Discovery

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

April 8, 2016

Anthem Discovery

In the book Anthem the theme of discovery is a very important one. The reader is taken on a journey, with our main character Equality, about figuring things out and realizations. Many of the things that Equality “discovers” are concepts that the reader already holds as fact. Within this story Equality discovers so much about the past, his present, and who he is, or at least, who he wants to be. 

First, in the story we learn that Equality has always thought differently and “that the learning was too easy”(Rand 9). So he is also able to process ideas at a much higher thinking level. He realizes this about himself rather quickly, because he always says that he wants to be a scholar rather than just a petty street sweeper. Early on in the story Equality was sweeping a street behind a theatre and as he is doing so he finds a dark underground tunnel, but uses a candle to see, and as he was walking around “the flame of the candle stands still in the air. Nothing moves in this tunnel save our hand on the paper”(Rand 5). He begins to write in his journal, filled with curiosity and wondering if this is a place from the unmentionable times, but for the first time in his life he realizes that “We are alone here under the earth” and in his society “it is a fearful word, alone” (Rand 5). In Equalities society, everything is based around the community, like sharing ideas, and if someone brings up an idea that no one else has thought of than the idea is useless and no longer exist. This is the first time that Equality is alone, so this really gives him time to think about who he is and what he thinks life should be about, which is to find new things.

Another discovery that Equality makes throughout the story is his love of learning. He continuously goes into the tunnel from the unmentionable times and Equality makes a discovery that was unimaginable to him before, he discovers electricity. As he was working on figuring out this new found wonder he was learning that “This discovery haunted us. We followed it in preference to all our studies” and so he is so infatuated with it that, and he craves more knowledge, and so for him to learn more about electricity “We worked it, we tested it in more ways than we can describe, and each step was another miracle unveiling before us” (Rand 36). So rather than him just believing what the rest of society is supposed to believe, he has seen actual proof of new things, so he can make them facts and say that this logically makes sense (as Ayn Rand Would say).

Later on in the book once Equality has realized who he is and how he wants to live his life, with the Golden One, he does not want to live by the rules of his society. No longer does he use the word We when referring to himself (with the government), instead he finally decides that he is his own person and uses the forbidden word by saying “I am.”, that he is his own person, “I think.”, he has his own thoughts and ideas, rather than the collective people, and “I will.”, which is saying that he will do whatever he wants. (Rand 71). Equality has discovered that he can be himself and not what some government assigns him to be.

In conclusion, I believe what Ayn Rand was trying to convey within this story would be to discover your true self and work on becoming the best “you” you can be. Also, that we should have our own ideas, identities and desires, and no one should just be a follower, rather that a person should do what drives them the most, to learn and love. Discovery isn’t just an important theme within this story, but it is an important theme in life as well

Anthem Blog #1: Rand Philosophy in moder world

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

April 1, 2016

Rand’s Philosophy

Ayn Rand, the author of the book, called Anthem, has a much different philosophy on life and how someone should live their life. Ayn rand believes in a philosophy called objectivism, which is the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them. A lot of her beliefs, back when she was alive to speak about them, were looked at as not being a good way to live life or just not morally correct. Some of her ideas and philosophies can relate to, or go against with our modern world.

First, Ayn Rand always believed in looking at things logically, which is something that most people today can relate to. In today's world we are always looking at the facts, it helps us process things simpler, especially when it comes to things like science, the news, and life in general. When something is logically correct, it makes much more sense, rather than people who are religious and will say the reasoning behind things because god did them, with no proof behind them. When Ayn Rand said that believing things only if it makes logical sense, that can be true in today's world and a lot of people can relate to that idea.

Than, another belief of hers was that you can only love someone if they have overcome their weaknesses. This belief does not work now, nor did it work back when Ayn Rand was alive. If people, who also have overcame all of their weaknesses, only loved other people who have overcome their weaknesses, than many people would be alone forever and the amount of relationships in the world would be far less. Nobody is perfect, everyone has at least one flaw, so then the world would be a loveless and lonely world. Also, a lot of people accept other people because of their flaws and accept them for that and will try to help them overcome it. So this belief of Ayn’s certainly does not relate to this modern world.

Lastly, One of Ayn Rand's strongest beliefs is that you must only care about yourself and should not help other people in need. She believes this because she thinks that if you help other people it will slow you down from becoming the best version of yourself. Now (we discussed this in our english class) Ayn doesn’t mean that you can’t help some old lady across a street, since that hes little affect on you, but say that you decide to go Africa and help poor and starving towns, Rand would probably not believe in that. This philosophy so does not work today because so many people need help and it would come off as just being mean to other people, being selfish and having very little altruism. This completely clashes with the idea of being kind and considerate to one another in today's world.

At first it seems that it is easy to see that she makes her ideas present and very straight forward, but it is clear that not all of them can make a whole lot of sense it today's society. A lot of her beliefs are meant to help make a better you, but it would be such a struggle to succeed in doing that, while living in the world that we do today.

Blog #6: Social Stability

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

March 3, 2016

Social Stability

In the short story Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut, there are many themes that are shown very clearly throughout the passage. The three main themes of this passage are equality, social stability, and entertainment. Within Kurt's story, everyone and everything is equal, so there is social stability, and the government keeps this control by using waves of entertainment to distract the people. This story, and the themes it presents are very similar to the novel Brave New World, but the one theme that is the most obvious throughout both stories is social stability.

First, one way that these are similar is that in both societies, everyone is kept happy, or at least they are meant to stay happy. In Harrison Bergeron, the people are kept happy because they believe that everything is kept equal and that the are constantly watching entertainment. An example from H.B. is when George and Hazel are watching Ballerinas on the television and the dancing wasn’t even that good, but they were totally enthralled, but more like hypnotized. The parallels to this in B.N.W. are the feelies, which makes them entertained by feeling like they are doing something else, other than just sitting and it’s all fake. Another big way the people are kept happy are by having constant sex, which is a big distraction from questioning the way their society works, a couple of the slogans of the society is “everyone belongs to everyone” and “Community, stability, stability”. Lastly, the people in B.N.W. take a lot of pills called Soma, which is meant to keep people calm, this is somewhat similar to the ear transmitter, in H.B., that is put into the more intelligent peoples ear to keep them from thinking more.

Also, in both stories, another way that there is social stability kept in the world is that if there is someone who does not follow the normal social standards, they are to casted out of society, because the government feels that they pose a threat to society’s way of life. In Harrison Bergeron, when someone is too smart then they are sent to a prison, so that they can not tamper with society. Brave New world has a similar idea, and it’s when people who are not as smart live in a savage reservation, or if someone doesn’t follow the normal way of life, like how Bernard acts, they would either send him to another location, like Iceland, or make him go take a psych evaluation. So both cultures make it a priority to keep everything in control. Although, there is one contrast between the two societies. The difference is that in B.N.W. there are people who are smarter and are apart of a higher society, whereas in Harrison Bergeron everyone must stay at the same level of living standards.

In conclusion, both of these stories certainly use the dystopian novel traits, which is why they are so similar, but it works so well that they make people think about their own society. Keeping a social stability within these stories is imperative and it makes sense, otherwise they would have chaos and there would be no normal. In my opinion, the way they are written is so clever and displays so many underlying themes, which really makes me think, even in our society we try to keep social stability, obviously not the these extremes, but we certainly like it when everything in order.

Blog #5: The Deeper Meaning

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

February 26, 2016

Different connections

A writer, named Katharina Schramm, wrote a quote that says “While in the 20st century there were Marie Curie, John F. Kennedy and Neil Armstrong, the hero of generation Y lies somewhere between Gates, Murdoch and Zuckerberg. As the relevance of corporate elites grew, results sometimes came to overshadow the deeper cause, and all too often, our moral compass points towards money. Critically said, we crave myopic success and showers of narcissistic applause. More rocks, less moonlight.” a very inquisitive quote about famous people from the 20th century and 21st century and how we can make a connection between their relevance to each other and Brave New World.

First, all of these people are very significant to society in some way. The first three are from the 20th century and each of them made some type of impact on history. Marie Curie was a very intelligent physicist who helped discover radiation, which lead to making x-rays and other uses of radioactivity much safer. Also, there is another individual that played a part, even though it was sort of small, was John F. Kennedy. He was an important figure during the Cuban Missile Crisis, with being able to make sure that we were kept safe from the communists in Cuba. Lastly, there was Neil Armstrong, who was the first man to walk on the moon. Then in the 21st century, there is Bill Gates, who was a computer programmer and one of the first to create the modern computer (PC computer), created Microsoft, and is now one of the wealthiest men in the world. Next there is Rupert Murdoch, who is an entrepreneur, businessperson, who worked in media and is extremely wealthy. Then there is Mark Zuckerberg, who created the social media website, called Facebook, and is now one of the youngest and wealthiest people in the world.

Both lists of these individuals are different in a similar way. For the first there people even though they were not billionaires, like the second three, but they had made a huge impact during their lifespan. Madam Curie discovered radiation, J.F.K. made sure there was no fighting against Russia, and Neil Armstrong went farther than any man had ever traveled before. During their time, people saw them almost like heroes. For the three people in the 21st century, all of them made a huge impact on technology and how we get information. Without their ideas we would probably still be living like it was the 20th century (probably not, but you get my point), still having to send letters to each other to talk, or still having to go to a library to find out who all of these people are. So in today's world, some people do look up to these men as heroes, being pioneers of their time. It is said in the quote that “we crave myopic success and showers of narcissistic”, which is basically how we don’t care about brains, only how good someone looks. The reason that there is a connection between this and Brave New World  is because we look up to people who did something great and don’t really think about, just like with the people in BNW, who look up to Henry Ford for inventing something.

Also, there is so much more meaning within this quote, like in the line “results sometimes came to overshadow the deeper cause. The author is referring to these people and their achievements, and to us all we see them as are achievements, but to them, they saw it as helping mankind evolve and become smarter. Another line that clearly has a deeper meaning is “our moral compass points straight towards money”. This is an obvious statement that is saying how we have all become so greedy and do everything just so that we can earn some cash. Lastly, to be honest, I’m having a little trouble with this one because it seems to have a much deeper meaning because she wrote “more rocks, less moonlight”. I assume that she was trying to say that nothing is beautiful anymore, it’s all just machines and no art, but if that's the case then I would have to respectfully disagree with that. We live in a world where both rocks (bland, and boring machines) and moonlight (art and beauty) both can be expressed.

In conclusion, there is so much meaning within this text and how it translate to our world and the world of Brave New World. Katharina has a very interesting perspective on this. Overall I would say that the message of this article would be that we should not look up to anyone just for doing one thing, but we do things for ourselves, and not for a certain goal, but for a greater cause.

Blog #4: Reasons of the Savage Reservation

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

February 20, 2016

Everything is For a Reason

In the novel Brave New World, the story takes place in a future, dystopian London, and there is the New World State, which is a society of people who are always happy, have a lot of sex, and there is an artificial creation of people. This is where are two protagonists, Bernard and Lenina live. As the story progresses the two of them decide to take a trip together out to a place called the savage reservation. This place has a lot of meaning to the story, from the writer's perspective, and the character's perspective.

First, the author of the book is Aldous Huxley, who probably wrote the savage reservation into the story to prove that even in “perfect” society, not everything is so perfect. Maybe he wanted to show how humans still can act a little uncivilized, rather than being the embodiment of perfection like in the New World State. He also is writing it as if the people in the savage are the leftovers of society. In our society, it would be similar to going into a rich neighborhood and seeing how nice and clean everything is, then going into a very poor neighborhood and seeing how dirty and dangerous it is living there. So in a way, Huxley wrote this as a parallel to his time period, when there were the high and mighty wealthy class people, and the opposite of them, which was the bottom of the barrel, hard working, poor, lower class people.

Than, when Bernard and Lenina are on the reservation it is quite obvious that there is a juxtaposition happening because Bernard and Lenina are both like fishes out of water and we see from their perspective that they are a little scared because they think of these people as being crazy and disgusting. An example is when Lenina notices a woman who is older than her, but in Lenin's eyes, the woman looks extremely ugly and incredibly old. Bernard finds the way they live very unusual, but Lenina is almost terrified because she had never seen anything like this and everything she new in her society was the complete opposite of the savage reservation. In a way, the real reason that Bernard and Lenina are acting like this is because of the New World State, which has programmed, into their minds, a certain way of thinking and behaving. Also, while they are on the savage reservation they meet this man, named John and his mother, named Linda. As the characters are talking Bernard figures out that Linda was originally from his society and that John is the son of the director and this is also a juxtaposition, because Bernard (and the reader) realize that the director has a child, which is not allowed in the New World State.

In conclusion, everything Huxley wrote in this story clearly happens for a reason, which moves the plot further and further. I find it very interesting the way Aldous Huxley wrote this, with all of the connections he makes from his world to the story’s world. The way the juxtapositions are written into the plot are placed very perfectly is a very intelligent way of writing and truly adds some depth to the story.

Blog #3: Dystopian Characters

Ross Schonberg

Ms. Gubanich

English

February 12, 2016

Dystopian Characters

Throughout dystopian novel history there is always a world in which everything is either really good or really bad. No one seems to do anything about it, until we meet our main character, our hero, our protagonist, who acts differently than the normal citizen, wanting their to be change within the society. In Brave New World there are two protagonists, Bernard Marx and Lenina Crowne. There seems to be a pattern that in all dystopian novels that every main character shares the same traits. Some examples of these characters in other work could range from V, from V For Vendetta (book/movie) to Max, from the Mad Max series.

First, one trait that is recognizable throughout dystopian stories is that the main character doesn’t stand out a “protagonist” in the beginning of the story. They are usually just going along with the world they are in, trying not to stand out and be noticed, even though they know that they feel different. Like in the beginning of BNW, when Bernard is in an Orgy-Porgy and he doesn’t feel the same way about the sex and believing in Ford. Another dystopian character similar to that is Neo from The Matrix. In the beginning he is a nobody who, as the story progresses, becomes “the one”, the savior, who topples the controller's. Another good, but slightly different, rising character is Max, from Mad Max, because in his film Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. In the beginning of the movie he walks into a town and tires to draw as little attention to himself as possible, but as the story progresses he get involved in a plan with the leader of the town and becomes an important figure in a fight between him and the townspeople. On the other end of the spectrum there is the main character who is already wanting change and starts to set plans in motion on how to go against his/her suppressors.

Another trait that these dystopian pieces share is how the society reacts to what the main character is doing. In Brave New World when Lenina is talking to Fanny and Lenina says that she doesn’t want to have constant sex with other people Fanny looks at her as if she needs to see a psychologist. Also, with Bernard how he feels the same way, everyone starts to make fun of him and even fanny says that he is strange for not acting the normal way. Also, in the novel/movie V For Vendetta, the main protagonist V, who instantly goes against the norm feels that the people are being suppressed by a controlling govt., much similar to 1984’s govt. So V begins to destroy buildings and kill important figures from his past life, and giving passionate speeches to the people. This freaks out the government, who tries to stop him, but the society actually begins to rally around V and they see him more as an everlasting idea.

Lastly, within almost all of these stories there is a slogan that is repeated. In Brave New World there slogan is “community, identity , stability”. In other novels there are slogans similar, like in V For Vendetta the slogan is “Strength through unity, unity through faith” or in 1984 the people say “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength”. Within all of these stories the people believe that these slogans mean good things and are meant to keep them on the right path, and believe in the society. Really they are saying the exact opposite with a much deeper meaning in the slogan, and sometimes is meant to subliminally instill fear into the people, so that individuals like our main protagonist don’t try and revolt.

In conclusion, there is clear pattern within the stories and characters that dystopian literature and films seem to follow. It is obviously a very good way of writing a story, otherwise it wouldn’t be as popular as it is today. I find it a very interesting story, following this character through their journey, seeing them transform into the rebel they were meant to be.