What You Like is Not Always Good

Criticism and Fiction by William Dean Howells serves to ask readers to really consider and analyze a literary work instead of labeling it good because they like it. It seems as though our logic of good and bad isn't always applied to literary works like it should be. In our lives, if a person likes alcohol to excess and is an alcoholic, it is still bad even though it feels good. Howells states, "Their taste has been perverted by their false criticism, which is based upon personal preference, and not upon principle; which instructs a man to think that what he likes is good, instead of teaching him first to distinguish what is good before he likes it" (Howell 1). Howell believes Jane Austen was the last author to have a mastery of this art. Her writings were good because she treated the matter she wrote about with entire truthfulness. Her principles, not personal preference, are evidenced in the book. This is what Howell believes distinguishes her writings from those of bad writers. Anthony Trollope followed Jane Austen's suit, except his instinct was to much for his ideal. He believed the civic relations and a bourgeois soul were equivalent to life, however his literary works expressed beauty in life. 


Fiction is a declining literary sector because it had become based upon fads and not the authors beliefs and principles. Vampire books have become very widely written, not because writers like vampires, but because it is a popular topic and will sell a lot of books. Fiction is "continued debasement as an art" (Howell 1), due to this developing economic standard. Jane Austen's book is popular because it encompasses not only romance which is a popular sector, but also because Austen really placed her beliefs in the book and when we read her books we can take a little piece of the Jane's principle pie. 

It's A Hardknock Life For Us

Life in the Iron Mills is a very depressing story which follows the lives of workers in an iron mill. The story develops by setting the scene which incases a smoke-covered factory in which hunger and poverty rates run extremely high. Some people are so poor that they can not even afford the mill's cheap housing and instead have to sleep on the stacks of the iron dust. After that sad description, we learn of Deborah, a work-working woman who is quite homely. Her body shows years of malnutrition and hard-labor. She is delivering a sandwich to a worker named Hugh. She walks many, many miles and once she arrives and gives Hugh the sandwich she can tell he is eating the sandwich out of pity instead of hunger.


While at the mill, the group realizes four strange men walking around the factory. Instead of continuing their work like they normally do when the routine inspections come along, the workers, this time, stop their work and analyze the strange men. They seem to be discussing voting amongst the workers. The men stop and recognize a small, beautiful statue of a woman. The level of detail and detail in the woman in tremendous. The artist, Hugh, should not be forced to work in these slums because he has potential to be a great man. All he needs is money to dig himself out of this hole- money that he has no way of acquiring until a friend named Deborah gave him stolen money. Hugh puzzled over whether to keep the money or give it back but ended up deciding to keep the money because he was "worth it". In the end, Hugh should have given up the money because he is later arrested and sentenced to nineteen years in prison. While in prison, Hugh commits suicide. 


The meaning of the story is very confusing. While it serves to show the truth on the American industrial industry, it also shows that America was not the land of prosperity that it set out to be. America has said to be the land where someone can go from nothing to something with enough hard work and dedication. This story rejects that opinion because Hugh had worked many hard years in the iron mills, and when he finally got his break to become something, the prison door was shut in his face. Hugh didn't steal the money and he was seemingly penalized for believing in himself. 


Hugh is the model of many American hopefuls who end up becomes nobodies. How many wannabe starlets move to LA or New York only to end up working in McDonalds or some other lower society position. The opportunities are open for those who already have their foot in door. No door will magically open unless you already have the means to make it happen. 


Question: Have you ever felt as though your dreams were smashed because of where you fell on the social ladder?

"Nope, I have the caffeine patch. It's my invention. Each patch is the equivalent of 12 cups of coffee. You can stay up for days with no side effects. Ahhh! Sorry."

                      In Jamais Cascio's article, he talks about how technology is not an evil, like "Is Google Making us Stupid?" argues, in fact, the truth is quite the opposite. Cascio believes that technology is making us smarter. He believes that all the details and tid bits increased technology made available, is picked up by our brain and stored away for future use without us even consciously doing so. Cascio calls this automatic gathering of information, fluid intelligence. The technological advancements for fluid intelligence go hand in hand with pharmaceutical improvements.  


                      Cascio says that in the drug field, scientists created a drug, called modifinil, that allows you to stay up for 32 hours straight without completely confusing your sleep schedule. In addition to pushing off sleep, the drug also allows people to think more alertly and with more clarity and focus. A Cambridge study supports Cascio's findings. "concluded the modifinil confers a measurable cognitive-enhancement effect across a variety of mental tasks, including pattern recognition and spatial planning, and sharpens focus and alertness" (Casico 3). Casico concludes that through the use of technology we get smarter, and our fluid intelligence increases. 


                     I think the findings in Casico's story to be eye-opening and kind or startling. The sleep process for humans is not only a time for physical rest but also a time for mental and emotion regeneration. A sleep deprived person can act recklessly and foolishly because their brain is hindered from exhaustion. According to Casico's theory, the brain would find a different way to refuel and while sleep-deprived it would actually work more efficiently. I find this dangerous because it goes against our nature. I believe that humans need that time everyday to sleep just to remain sane. Hustling and bustling artificially for 36 hours is unhealthy and has to have detrimental effects somewhere else on the body. 


Question: Would you truly like to be able to stay awake for 36 hours straight?

Am I Getting Dumber?

"Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicolas Carr unwraps a big problem in American society- the way in which we learn. Nicolas states before the internet was so widely used and accepted he would have to spend  days gathering information for a project but now with the internet this research takes only hours. This is due to a change in the way we learn. How often do we skim an article without even realizing we aren't really focusing deeply on the details? I know I personally do this a lot and it kind of scares me. Us Americans especially have so much information at our fingertips and yet we don't utilize this gift as much as we should. We skim the paragraphs, click an other link, skim that article, and repeat. Our brains now learn in little bits and pieces because we are constantly going back and forth between documents.

In addition to the quality with which we read and the way we learn, I think Nicolas should have touched on the quantity of material we should know but dont and google daily. By this I mean, I still have to google cooking conversion tables while I'm cooking even though I should have them remembered by heart. Because of the readily available materials we are less likely to remember things. This is because if we forget something we googled, we can always google it again.


Question: How many google searches do you search per day?

Internet Trolls

            
        After reading Panopticism by Foucault, I began to think about how monitored I am throughout the day without even my realizing it. In school, I sit at a desk where the teacher is in center-front of the room giving his lecture and the doors have windows that people routinely look through. Also, we have windows that lead to the outside. On the main floor, certain windows allow passer-bys to peek into the room. In my house, I also have windows. Here, however, people can see through them and determine whether others are home or not, awake or sleep, avoiding them or answering the door. Our windows are not darkly tinted and even the bathrooms don't go all the way to the floor or up to the wall. At any time during my day, I have no idea how many people are watching me. Even when we eat our lunches at a circular table, there is surveillance. The only time humans are truly without surveillance is our digital-lives and our relationship with online social media.


        The online world is harsh and cruel. It is a place where people who normally hide within the woodwork, now speak freely and critically. Foucault says that the Panoptican, "was also a laboratory; it could be used as a machine to carry out experiments, to alter behavior, to train or correct individuals" (Foucault 10). I believe this certainly true in the case of online bullying. When the bully is out int he open and everyone is watching her petty actions, she is less likely to continue the behavior. However, if she is left to her own devices evil words will flow over. Humans are,at the  a core, flawed being. The Panoptican allows us to check our moral code more often because we are always being monitored.  


Question:Have you ever written a mean comment on Facebook?

Self-Reliance

I loved reading Self-Reliance because it was filled with truth-bombs. So many of the statements really spoke to me, so I thought I would share a few really quotes that I found really applicable.


1. "We but half express ourselves, and are ashamed of the divine idea which each of us represents" (Emerson 2).  I find, in my daily life, I often restrain my thoughts in order to not offend people or not have to not share my ideas because what I would say would cause others to judge me. This statement is true especially when my opinion is different then someone else's. When discussing certain topics, some answers are expected and if our answer deviates from what the other person is predicting us to say, judgement and argument can follow. Often to avoid this altercation, I will say, "Hmmmm...I haven't thought about that yet". When in actually, I have and my opinion is just different from theirs.


2. To go along with my first observation, Emerson continues, "For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure. And therefore a man must know how to estimate a sour face" (Emerson 3). When encountering a situation like the one above, I read the person's sour face and then answer accordingly. The few times  I have given my non-conforming opinion I have been told I was wrong and received a very sour look (much like the one in the above picture) because of my nonconformity. Going to a Christian school really amplifies the degree to which this is enacted because many of life's unanswered questions are involving religion. When my opinion differs on a religious matter it is usually because the answer is not in the Bible, and therefore a question mark. Most of the time, people are very dead-set about opinion oriented questions in relation to the Bible. Therefore, when I tell my opposing opinion, I am shut down and my idea is rejected by the other person. The person was displeased with my answer, like Emerson said would happen.


3. In order to form opposing beliefs often I can't be in a group situation. Emerson says, "it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude" (Emerson 3). Like I mentioned above, in conversation I often find myself concealing my true opinion. However, when I'm on my own, I don't have to lie to myself or flee from the judgement of others because there is no one to flee from. I wish I could be the great man and not be afraid of the judgement of others, but for now I will stay under the cloak of "hmmm....I haven't thought about that yet".


Question: Do you often not share your opinion because of what others may think?

I Can Feel You All Around Me, Circling the Air I'm Breathing

                   Walt Whitman's "Crossing Brooklyn Ferry", from his book Leaves of Grass, is phenomenal at depicting the world we live with such descriptive narration.  It proved impossible for me to not apply his imagery to my own life. These are just of my observations of the world in relation to his. 


1. "Sea-gull, saw high in the air floating with motionless wings, oscillating their bodies" (Whitman 1). Whitman describes seagulls in such poetic terms. I, on the other hand, see less beauty in these creatures. Although their flight is pretty, Whitman failed to mention their awful attitudes. I had two seagull memories that pop-out in my mind. One was on a family vacation in North Carolina in the Outer Banks. It was summertime and we were one the beach. My parents thought it would be so perfect to feed the seagulls. Never again will I make this mistake. After I threw the first piece of bread, it was all over for me. The seagulls attacked me, with their majestic flight seemingly to cause me to have a heart attack, and I was left fleeing for what seemed to be my life leaving the loaf of bread for them to fight over. My second memory involves seeing the flight of a seagull up close. I was on a field trip in elementary school. We were on a boat in the Chesapeake Bay learning about the sea creatures. A seagull flew over us and the guide pointed out the beauty of its figure and such. In return, the seagull pooped all over the ship and us. Long story short, I remember nothing from that field trip except the angry, pooping bird. 


2. Whitman describes the port cities as, "Come on, ships from the lower bay! pass up or down, white-sail'd schooners, sloops, lighters!"..."Thrive, cities- bring your freight, bring your shows, ample and sufficient rivers, expand, being that which none else is perhaps more spiritual" (Whitman 4). While there is a ton of beauty in the way the ships glide across the water and how harmoniously sailboats sail, the port cities at the time period of 1855 were disgusting. Industrial growth around the ports led to huge amounts of people. This is only natural because people will flock to whether the jobs are, however with more people comes more problems and hygienic issues. The waters were murky due to the whaling industry and factory waste. 


             In conclusion, although Walt Whitman is correct about so much of the simple beauty of nature, he also fails to comment on the realities of life. Nature is not always as glamorous as Whitman would have it appear. From reading his article, it is understandable that so many Americans back in the day pictured these perfect little seaports and wanted to travel there only to be disappointed upon arrival. Nature shows glimmers of beauty, but also, the harsh reality is, it is also disgusting at times. I would have like Walt Whitman to pay tribute to both the beauty and the less-admirable parts of nature. 

Question: Have you ever had a gross encounter with nature when it was well, just being nature?