Shrek, The Notebook, The Hills Have Eyes, The Hangover, Inception, The Hunger Games

                 
                 In Mary Louise Pratt's book, "Arts of the Contact Zone", she discusses heated issues such as the mixing of cultures. She describes this process as a contact zone. A contact zone is, "the space in which transculturation takes place- where two different cultures meet and inform each other, often in highly asymmetrical ways." Through contact zones, people can interact with those whose cultures may vary from their own. "The idea of the contact zone is intended in part to contrast with ideas of community that underlie much of the thinking about language, communication, and culture that gets done in the academy". Also, by realizing our differences through the means of culture zones, we can relate to the differences and grow in our lives. 


                  She discussed a class that attracted a lot of students from a wide audience. The course was called "Cultures, Ideals, and Values". She says that, because the class drew in large crowds of students from mixed backgrounds, it was then a contact zone.


                   In my opinion, movies are much the same. The films draw from a large array of people and in any given movie theater, you have people from all different walks of life and from different backgrounds. Some people may be going because they love the actors and actresses, others because they love the plot line, some because they were forced by their boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse, friend, or parent, and yet another group may attend because it is up for an Oscar and they want to be able to judge the film themselves. 


                  Some people go to movies alone, others with friends, yet another group with either their parent or spouse. Once in the movie theater though, all the lines that divide us blur together and you can commonly be interested in the movie. Let's hypothesize that after the movie, a group meets up to have coffee and discuss the film. Each person brings to the table a different perspective or slant on the movie based on their personal convictions and background. Some may love the movie, while other despised it. In conclusion, movies are a huge contact zone that is commonly overlooked in our everyday lives. 


Question: What was the latest movie you saw? Did you realize your fellow movie goers had different opinions then you?

When You Get To The End Of Your Rope, Tie A Knot And Hang On- Franklin D. Roosevelt

               Percy Shelley states that there are two classes of mental action: principle reason and imagination. He says, "reason is the enumeration of quantities already known; imagination is the perception of the value of those quantities". For example, if one person sees a hot glue gun they picture a tool used to burn one's hand (reason). However, those people which we label as "craft queens" see their next do-it-yourself project in action (imagination). Shelley states that, "poetry, in a general sense, may be defined to be the expression of the imagination". 


              The Defence of Poetry states, "every author is necessarily a poet, because language itself is poetry". I believe this statement to be completely true. Certain quotes, in everyday language, echo deeply with my soul. Quotes can even make you cry, just like meaningful poetry. For example, "The minute you think of giving up, think of the reason you held on for so long". These words are nothing special, and yet their meaning is so inspirational. 


             This quote also exemplifies, "language is arbitrarily produced by the imagination and has relation to thoughts alone". It is supposed to make you think about what you truly want in your life, engaging your imagination for the future.


Question: Do you have a quote you live by? If so, does this quote spur you into deep thinking? 

Just The Bare Necessities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ogQ0uge06o 


             William Wordsworth, unlike our current society, says the best life is the life lived simply. Because in this simple, also known as rustic, condition "our elementary feelings coexist in a state of greater simplicity, and consequently, may be more accurately contemplated, and more forcibly communicated". In our current everyday lives, we are taught to be social butterflies. However, if one never spends some alone to gather their thoughts and simply regurgitates that which the popular public believes, one will never have their own convictions to live by. Therefore, their feelings will simply be copy-cats of others' views. 
  
            Wordsworth says, "for all good poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings". However, if an individual doesn't possess any powerful feelings that are primarily there own, then they can never be a good poet. William continues along this train of thought with, "For our continued influxes of feeling are modified and directed by our thoughts, which are indeed the representatives of all our past feelings". Yet, today's culture allows us to live either through others or through media sources. This leads to the danger of becoming numb to our surroundings. Without original thought, one can not make connections to past feelings. 


           This idea grows even bigger! Because Wordsworth believes, "by contemplating the relation of these general representations to each other, we discover what is really important to men, so by the repetition and continuance of this act, our feelings will be connected with important subjects, til at length, if we be originally possessed by much sensibility". Yet again, if one doesn't have original thoughts and connections to past thoughts, one can not possess common sense. 


           In conclusion, if one doesn't have their own personal thoughts, and follows our culture's example to numbness, then the person is no longer a value to society. These thoughtless copy-cats lack sense and relation to others. To combat this issue, people need to form their own opinions through educating themselves. Do not become a popular drone and prattle on about ideas that aren't even your own. 


          Question: Do you keep a journal or diary at night or throughout the day? Would keeping a journal help combat what Wordsworth says can happen to those who lack sense?

Don't Insult My Hallmark

             'Tis the season to be jolly and watch those Christmas movies on tv! I don't know about you, but I love settling in with a big cup of hot cocoa and a warm, fuzzy blanket, turning to the Hallmark channel, and being able to predict the plot-line of the story of my nightly movie within the first five minutes. I find these movies absolutely perfect and adore watching them. Therefore, when I read Aristotle's "The Poetics" I was saddened to learn these movies were not good movies!


              I believe Aristotle would dislike my Hallmark movie for multiple reasons. One being, "Poetry, therefore, is a more philosophical and a higher thinking than history". I highly doubt a movie that can be figured out within the first five minutes is classified under "philosophical and higher thinking", but within that simplicity lies a certain charm that some, like me, enjoy. In fact, Aristotle says, "an action which is one and continuous in the sense above defined, I call Simple, when the change of fortune takes place without Reversal of the Situation and without Recognition." In movies such as 12 Men of Christmas, the plot line never veers round to its opposite and the characters never go from ignorance to knowledge. These two criteria, reversal and recognition are key to a great story.


            My big issue arises when Aristotle says, "The change in fortune should be not from bad to good, but reversely, from good to bad." This statement slashes out the majority, if not all, quintessential chick flick movies. Therefore, Aristotle, I will have to disagree with your claims of what makes a good story. I believe that Aristotle miscalculates the audiences' need for a complex plot. He calls my fellow audience members dumber than those who find joy in tragedies. "Being the unrefined, it is evidently the lower of the two". 


          My question to Aristotle and my fellow bloggers is: How exactly does it make me less of an intellectual individual to like the happy ending? What justifies Aristotle in his ability to judge the intelligence of the audience to certain "unrefined" movies?

Tid Bits of Goodness

         In Alexis de Toqueville's, “Selected Quotations”, she makes claims about what America is or isn’t. She states, “in order to enjoy the inestimable benefits that the liberty of the press ensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable evils it creates”. Therefore, when a nation is offered liberty, some individuals will use this liberty to create evil for the nation. This is much like the common saying, “Give them an inch and they’ll take a yard”. She also says that colonists misuse the liberty in voting. "A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it”. Irresponsible voting and tax-paying leads to many cracks in the foundation for America. However, “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults”.

       

          “Laws are always unstable unless they are founded on the manners of a nation; and manners are the only durable and resisting power in a people”. However there is a key fault in this logic because Toqueville, just stated people vote frivolously and therefore laws could quite possibly be enacted by the democratic government which was lacking in manners.

      

        Toqueville also states, “The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live”. However, the Enlightenment was an anti-Christian movement towards liberty and democratic government. This simply cannot happen because Christianity cannot be for liberty and against liberty at the same time.

Was Christianity for or against liberty?       

Kan't Stop the Enlightenment

        

 

 In Immanuel Kant’s chapter, The Enlightenment Spirit: An Overview, defines enlightenment as “a man’s release from self-incurred tutelage”. He continues, “For any single individual to work himself out of the life under tutelage which has been almost his nature is very difficult He come to be fond of this state, and he is for the present really incapable of making use of his reason, for no one has ever let him try it out”. Therefore because man’s freedom is limited he cannot reach the enlightenment. “If only freedom is granted, enlightenment is sure to follow”. However, Kant states that there will always be some individual thinkers which will break away from the publics’ thought and create new, fresh ideas.

       

         Kant says that achieving true Enlightenment takes time. He says personal despotism and oppression may deliver Enlightenment, but this will never amount to a true reform in ways of thought. This process is very circular because new ideas and prejudices will only add to the existing prejudices. This great mass of restraints will hold the public thoughts tighter and tighter. Therefore, in order to attain Enlightenment, new ways of thought must emanate from individuals. However, these new prejudices will only be the source of more chains for those still under tutelage.   

Is it possible for everyone to truly reach Enlightenment if the process is circular?

Free! Free! Free!

        

 

 The Declaration of Independence states, “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant is unfit to be ruler of a free people”.  Basically, the Declaration of Independence is saying that it attempted to separate itself from England in a peaceful manner, but now due to a lack of response, America must become its own nation through forcible measures.  The desire for separation arose because, “attempts by their legislature to extent an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here”.

       

          This idea is exactly what the Enlightenment is talking about. The Enlightenment focused on the ideals of democracy and liberty. Americans had finally stepped up as individuals and united to take a stand against the oppression of Britain. Americans wanted freedom and through a unanimous vote of 56 men on July 4, 1776; they wrote and swore their Declaration of Independence.

Why did the Americans not rebel against England earlier?

Just Because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should.

       

       

        Thomas Paine’s article, “Common Sense”, discusses the actions and thoughts of American loyalists. Paine concludes that if England remains our mother country, it would be a horrible, non-caring mother. He digresses first stating that he is not making a statement about the King of England, but instead the monarchy of government, England itself, and its ability to rule over the colonies.  He states, “she (England) did not protect us from our enemies on our account; but from her enemies on her own account,” and continues, “we should be at peace with France and Spain, were they at war with Britain”. Therefore, Paine states that instead of protecting us like a good mother-country would do, we are fighting in battles in which we should have no part. “But the injuries and disadvantages which we sustain by that connection, are without number”. This is due to the fact that England was at war with France and Spain and, because were their “child”, we have to follow their leadership. “But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families”. Overall, if we were really England’s child, it would have been such an abusive relationship that no one would want to remain in that pain. In fact, “Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe”. In this statement, Paine takes a step back and really analyses the colonists. We did not all originate from England, but instead we immigrated from all over Europe.

        

        We said that we needed England for protection; however as Paine states we really had no need for protection. “Our plan is commerce, and that, well attended to, will secure us the peace and friendship of all of Europe; because it is the interest of all Europe to have America a free port. Her trade will always be a protection, and her barrenness of gold and silver secure her from invaders”. He concludes his article “Common Sense” by stating, “A government of our own is our natural right,” and we are “under the oppression of the conqueror”.

     

         “Common Sense” directly links to the Enlightenment's ideals in that the commitment most Americans had to Paine’s teaching made them realize England was corrupt and challenged the ideals of liberty that Americans held dear. The Enlightenment was the key to American recognition of liberty, democracy, republic, and religious tolerance. Paine stated that a separation from England would help all the Europeans who fled religious persecution and he said we also had the right to our government, a democracy.

Do you find Thomas Paine’s article theoretical and opinionated or more factual in nature?

Good Ol' Ma and Pa Farmers

         
           In class, I recently read Michel-Guillame Jean de Crevecoeur's article "What is an American?" This article really got me thinking about what, in colonial times, was considered American.


            According to Crevecoeur, Americans "are a mixture of English, Scotch, Irish, French, Dutch, German, and Swedes. From this promiscuous breed, that race now called Americans have arisen." Therefore, even though we came from a variety of different European countries, America is now our home and we are no longer European. "He is an American, who leaving behind him all his ancient prejudices and manners, receives new ones from the new mode of life he has embraced, the new government he obeys, and the new rank he holds." This description of Americanism includes a lot of self-definition relating to the rise of the individual American. This is because "his labour is founded on the basis of nature, self-interest." In America, "he now feels himself a man, because he is treated as such; the laws of his own country had overlooked him in his in-significancy." 


           This article's main purpose is to relate how Americans strive to satisfy their individual needs. In America, whatever the farmer produces is his own wealth. He no longer has to give it to anyone, tithe it away, and can simply choose to only benefit himself and his family. Unlike, "Ye poor Europeans, ye, who sweat, and work for the great--ye, who are obliged to give so many sheaves to the church, so many to your lords, so many to your government, and have hardly any left for yourselves--ye, who are held in less estimation than favourite hunters or useless lap-dogs." In Europe their personal bounty was not their own but also their government's. In America, your riches and your food were your own. Your individual needs were of key importance and the government did not interfere with those needs. 


How is it that the need for governmental independence also fostered family values in the new world?

Let's Get To Know Each Other

Hi everyone! Welcome to my blog! I'll be posting literary doodads on here from time to time as they coincide with readings from my AP English class. I hope you all enjoy! 


I'd like to start with a get-to-know-you quiz! Feel free to post your own "What Kind of Reader are You?" results in the comments section! 


Be Blessed-
      Allie-Lane