The Things They Carried Blog

I never know how to title these things but whatever. My response to this LOOONG essay by Jim Neilson is... huh? I am going to be completely honest i read the first three paragraphs like five times each and after that i said to myself "self, just read the rest one time through and then fill in the blanks in the blog." Reading this essay was alot like what Tim O'Brien attempted to describe about Vietnam. There was so much information to be read and such a limited amout of attention that could be payed to it.. (thanks to the t.v. and my VERY loud three-year-old brother), that i could not fully comprehend his contradictory words.. or were they.. idk like i said its hard wrap my head around. You can call me dumb for not taking an entire hour to read the essay and fully understand it but i felt that similar to the way Tim O'Brien did. He could only tell his story as he remembers, scattered. He had to put his experience into a cohesive story even though his experience in vietnam was completely incohesive. He didn't know who the enemy was nor did he fully understand why his country labled them as they 'enemy'. He only had time to read his chaotic reality once. This is my justification to not reading the essay repeatedly with my fingers in my ears and tunnel vision. He didn't why should I considering my house wouldn't be quiet before this blog is due.

... changing the subject.. NOW!

One thing I've always wondered and I've been wanting to discuss is how much information the author is actually aware of when a piece of art is written or created. I'm sure most of what they write diplays the meaning that they intend, but at what point do we twist the words into a new meaning that wasn't there when it was written. When people uncover the 'deeper' meanings in the book that i do not imediately see, i always wonder if the author meant to hide those meanings between the lines of his/her sentences or if they simply were unaware of his own 'deeper meaning'. Neilson draws attention to what O'Brien says about the nature of truth, "truth and reality are inseparable from thier imaginative reconstruction" and then he goes on by listing O'Brien's fragmented memories. These fragmented ideas are what i see as the meanings between the lines of a book, you can't find them clearly, they have to be in a way imagined or inferred. You have to draw on other words and ideas to find the 'truth'. Inferring is as true as the war was, Tim had to infer certain things that may have happened.

End of Blog! Seacrest Out!

postmodernism wrap up

This Blog is a little late because i was sick all weekend so now im trying to muster up the strength to get it done. All semester we've been discussing what postmdernism is all about. In 1984 we read how a society can manipulate reality. So we asked the question 'what IS reality' is our world controlled by the media, government or the people around us. The way i like to understand postmodernism is knowing that my ideas aren't necessarily wrong if they are not the 'right' way or the way of most everyone else. I really enjoyed reading what Jacques Derrida and Jim Powell said about the deconstruction of language, religion, and anything else that once defined me as a person. By establishing something as dominate it marginalizes everything else to 'less factual' or 'less worthy of attention'. Several examples come to mind of what is unnecessarily marginalized, but the ones that still effect me the most are the stereotypes givin to women. For centuries men were dominant and women were made to serve as a companion according to the bible. To me, I dont see how they are equal. Women were long marginalized by men. the postmodern era has given us some equality but not completely. Gender is a construction of society.
In Cat's Cradle, Angela says, " i wish Newt would take some lessons, so he could know for sure if he was doing something or not." This is one of my favorite quotes from the book because art isn't supposed to have a right way. Art is as postmodern as postmodernism should get... if that makes sense. Art should be an expression of mind and soul. To say your way of expressing your feelings is wrong then what IS right? There is no right. There is no right answer to anything. Virtually anything can be argued or replaced with an alternate answer.

myths vs narratiives

discussing myths and narratives in class is very interesting. i love that in this class topics that mr D presents to us arent taught but rather discussed. i think that myths are used mainly to explain what isnt fully understood. Last night i was watching ghost adventures and alot of the claims of paranormal activity were kind of a jump to conclusion instead of an actual explanation. now to be fully honest its hard for me to decide where the line between myth and narrative is. i understand what myths and narratives are but i cant explain what a narrative is without sounding like im talking about a myth. i can say that in todays world myths are less common because of our improved communication technologies. it allows us to view other cultures and opens our mind to ideas that small communities may have missed out on in that past. The small myths in this culture are dying out while grand narratives take shape in a bigger community. people who do not believe what everyone else does become the minority and the majority views their beliefs as false myths. i see this alot in religion and i know most people in the society i live in are very defensive of their faith so dont get offended when i say that typically religious stories told in the bible are myths. i read the first few pages and i think its really amazing how tradition of these stories and explanations of where the earth came from are still told and believed today. im not saying its wrong all im saying is the stories were written thousands of years ago. the advancement in technology does not affect the tradition at all which amazes me. we know so much more about the world now compared to then and they are still to this day believed. In brave new world they live to improve, i totally get it. but certain things will not change just because technology improves. it is a warning of what mat become if we put 'progress' in front of everything else and dont take other ideas into consideration. it would happen with anything believed by everyone everywhere. with no outside imput people cannot choose what they believe. all that is ever right is what society tells us.

U.S. Histoy Classes In Texas

This past week we, as a class, discussed the controversial fight over history curriculum. How much faith should be included, if any, into our history books? The conservative reviewers say "the curriculum should clearly

present Christianity as an overall force for good." America is composed of many different nationalities and religions, and to emphasize one religion as being the best in a public school is not what our founding fathers would agree to. If the Bill of Rights states in the first amendment that "congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion," then why should it be ok that one religion should be clearly presented as an overall force for good to highly susceptible children. I have no problem with teaching the Great Awakening as a historical movement or that early American settlers came here for religious freedom, but when the Board of Education crosses the line between historical fact and opinion, i become irritated. History should be taught as unbiased as possible. Whether or not a neutral history book is possible, the conservatives don't really seem to even try to accommodate to other peoples' beliefs and religions. The least we could do is create a history book that teaches history and not faith. If parents want their children raised and taught a religion, it should be taught at home. Not all families would agree that Watergate, the Vietnam War, and hurricane Katrina were judgements of God.

Several times in the article and during our discussion, comments were made about Christianity being the foundation of our country. I can't deny that there was a strong religious influence in the creation of this country. But the way i see it is that our country may have been founded by christian men, but it was not meant to be a christian dominated country. It was born a free country with open religious opportunities and should remain that way in the sense that there should not be a preference taught to children who are enrolled in public schools. If Rev Marshall is that passionate about the importance of Christianity taught in school, he should enroll his kids into a private christian school. There.. problem solved Rev!! Judging by his job title and his ability to be heard by the Board of Education, I'd guess he is fully capable to afford private education. Leave faith to church and parenting to be taught, not public school. What a jerkasaurus! :)

i dont get it

i need followers but how?? no worries il figure it out... soon