Feed over all

Feed was a really interesting novel in that it gave me a different perspective on our society and how the media and television and ads affect not only the society as a whole, but us individually as well.

What really hit home for me though, is when I started to realize what the feed actually represented and I realized how we are actually programmed by media and public figures to think one way, and that we are robbed of a level of our individuality. We allow these influences to set the status quo for us and we are becoming puppeted by the media, all just by living in society.

What frustrated me about reading Feed was that Anderson wrote the novel in such simple language and that so many words were abbreviated. The book became almost frustrating to read because of the level of simplicity and basicity of the wording and language, although I did understand that it was an exaggeration of our society.

2/24 journal entry

I think Shylock is a comedic character because i believe that Shakespeare put him in the play to be the laughing stock of the people who were going to see the play performed. Even though now a days, we see pity and sympathize with Shylock because we feel bad for him, but he was actually meant to be laughed at. I think that's pretty obvious to the fact the he was Jewish, and even though it's harsh, the reality is the people wanted to laugh at the Jews despite their hardships.    

blog due 2/17

I think that Shakespeare gave Shylock the huge heartfelt speech in the Merchant of Venice because the persecution of Jews was so common at that time that it was a huge risk to write that speech in to the play without him getting in trouble. I think he wrote it in the Merchant of Venice specifically because it IS supposed to be light-hearted comedy, and he could get away with writing such a controversial speech against society because it would not be taken as seriously as if it were in a tragedy, or could be taken as a joke. I do believe that Shakespeare wrote it because he truly believed that Jews and Christians were equals, but was not allowed to say it publicly, due to the possibility that he could be punished, or possibly killed. His only other option to express his views on the matter was to sneak it in to this play, and write it off as a joke or no big deal.

Belmont vs. Venice

In the Merchant of Venice, I think it is obvious that Shakespeare separates the cities of Belmont and Venice into different "worlds". I thing that Belmont is the "Green World" and Venice is the "City World". Reasons for this is that like Belmont, the "Green World" is (for lack of a better word) ruled by women. So far, the only characters we have seen in Belmont are two female charecters (Portia and Narissa). In the city world, the "rulers" are the men, and so far we have seen Shylock, Bassanio, and Antonio in Venice, which are all men. Although the women and the men rule their respective areas, in the end, the men rule over "their women". An example of this is that although Narissa is the ruler of the Green World, her deceased father is ulitimetely the one who choses how her husband will be picked, and essentially gives her no choice. Her husband is chosen by a "lottery that [her father] hath devised in... three chests of gold, silver, and lead, whereof who choses [her father's] meaning choses [Narissa]".

Was the Renaissance period a thing?

I do believe the Renaissance Period was a "thing". Although at the time, the Europeans did not know they were living in a time in history that would forever change the course of the world, it does not meant they weren't. As John Green described it, the renaissance period was "a lot of mutually interdependent things that occurred over centuries". This time period is not necessarily about the separate events themselves, but rather the impact they had on the the world around them to this very day.

The amount of "stuff" that actually happened in the Renaissance period was immense. There was the rediscovery of Greek and Roman texts and learning, which affected politics, literature, math, and science, which altered the way people thought. This new found information put an emphasis on people starting to reason and question why things were the way they were, and this slowly led to a movement away from the church. Although they moved slightly away from the church's commands to not question anything, a common misconception is that the people at this time were not religious, which we know is very untrue (the CONSTANT depiction of the Madonna in paintings). Anyway, this new way of thinking fueled the scientific revolution (heliocentric universe discovered by Copernicus around 1514), and also glorified the individual, in that they were allowed to focus more on worldly pleasures (like science or philosophy or art not dominated by the church). In addition, after the plague had ended, there were many agricultural advances which fueled trade, and in turn brought in a lot of money. As we know, the Renaissance period took place mainly in Italy, and trade with other countries which Italy had access to (Africa, Europe, the Islamic world) not only made them wealthier, but also developed connections around the world.

Long story short, yes, the Renaissance might not be 100% set in stone and the events that make it up might over a relatively long and random period of time; but there is no doubt that the Renaissance period was dense with progression and innovation that changed the course of math, science, literature, philosophy, and politics.

12/6 journal entry

In my opinion, it was wrong of the Christians to impose their religion on the indigenous people, because the tribal people already had their own set of beliefs and religions and they deserve the freedom to be able to practice their own religion, just as the Christians did. I don't think there would be a problem if the Christians wanted to preach their religion, but it wasn't right of them to force it

The Hollow Men comparasis

I think the author used the Heart of Darkness reference at the beginning because HOD is heavily and in my opinion primarily highlights the struggle and oppression they had to go through when the Europeans were in their land.

In the first stanza, Eliot writes "Our dried voices, when we whisper together are quiet and meaningless as wind in dry grass or rats' feet over broken glass in our dry cellar" When I read this, it reminded me of the struggle that the Africans faced in HOD.