Ok....so this sketchy Jim fella that "Sheila" seems to be in love with or whatever....why couldn't she have chosen someone less sketch? Seriously, she's trying to avoid the Feds and all, yet Jim has the sketchiest alibi. He vaguely mentions that he works in computers (which gives him an excuse to go to Boston three times a week), and he was practically stalking them at the bar. I know it turns out that he's legit or whatever, because "Sheila" tells him the family secret and no one comes to take them in the middle of the night, but he's still a weird guy. The whole trying to be her father thing early on in the relationship? I know guys can be dumb, but is he seriously stupid? He's the boyfriend, not the dad, so back off buster.
Further more, with the whole trusting Jim thing, it makes me think that whatever Sandy did that was soooo terribly bad, isn't really that big of a deal. Maybe she's even making up the whole thing in her head, or maybe, something big really did happen, only she wasn't really a part of it, just planned to be and backed out the last minute but still thinks that she'll get in major trouble for it. I don't know, the whole situation just seems weird to me...there's fer sure something fishy going on.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Why is everything seen in black and white?
Alright, so we go to the extremely sheltered, extremely innocent high school of McFarland. The closest that we have ever come to segregation is the cliques at the lunch room tables. We don't see black and white, we see nerd, jock, priss, prick, pretty, ugly, sodapop kid, etc. etc. We know from our history books that people have been discriminated against for their race, but it seems like it happened on some distant neverland that never really existed, just some scary bed time story meant to keep kids in line when they're interacting with others.
From reading Caucasia though, that neverland seems to be materializing into reality. I can't imagine a father ignoring one daughter and doting upon the other just because of their skin color. They're both considered black, but just because one is a darker shade then the other, they are treated so incredibly differently. It's weird, people justify their cruel treatment by saying that "blacks are different" "blacks are dumb" and all that other stupid garbage. Birdie is black though, and you would never guess it by looking at her. She gets treated like all the other white people, but if they really believe what they are saying, isn't she too "different" and "dumb" for them to talk to? What about Cole? If black people are saying that the whites are a cruel race, then why are they preaching to Cole? Why are they so desperately trying to get her to fight on their side?
What it comes down to, is that it's real, it's stupid, it doesn't make sense, and people only look skin deep before they judge.
From reading Caucasia though, that neverland seems to be materializing into reality. I can't imagine a father ignoring one daughter and doting upon the other just because of their skin color. They're both considered black, but just because one is a darker shade then the other, they are treated so incredibly differently. It's weird, people justify their cruel treatment by saying that "blacks are different" "blacks are dumb" and all that other stupid garbage. Birdie is black though, and you would never guess it by looking at her. She gets treated like all the other white people, but if they really believe what they are saying, isn't she too "different" and "dumb" for them to talk to? What about Cole? If black people are saying that the whites are a cruel race, then why are they preaching to Cole? Why are they so desperately trying to get her to fight on their side?
What it comes down to, is that it's real, it's stupid, it doesn't make sense, and people only look skin deep before they judge.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Satire and the Election
Alllllright, so recently in class we’ve been talking about satire and one of the examples that was brought up was how satire is commonly used in SNL skits. This year, the majority of their satire was focused on the election. As we all know, satire is used to make a point by using humor, but can it also change people’s points of view? I’ve watched nearly allllll of the election skits on SNL and in my opinion, most of the banter was pointed at McCain and his running mate Palin. Yeah it was REALLY funny and I am totally 100% an Obama girl, but I can’t help but think that these skits influenced people about who they chose for the election.
Palin was probably made fun of the most, she was an easy target because she’s a white house outcast from Alaska, she talks weird, (you betcha) and Tina Fey was a nearly EXACT look a like. They gave her a lot of crap about the VP debates, in one skit, they even said that “If Governor Palin does not throw up, faint, or runaway, this debate should be considered a tie.”
They also put a lot of emphasis on the whole “I can see Russia from my window” and who can forget the replay of her failed interview?
All in all, although I found these skits to be funny and I personally think that Palin is not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, I can’t help but think that SNL might have made fun of her to the point that it affected the outcome of the election. Look at it this way, there are people who really don’t pay that much attention to politics, but they vote anyways. They watch shows like SNL that are paying particular attention to the stupidies of Palin, and then come election day, they cast a vote for Obama because of what they have seen on satire media. I’m by no means saying that this kind of stuff shouldn’t be allowed, we have the right to say whatever the heck we want to say and publicize whatever we want, I’m merely pointing out the fact that although something is comical, it can sometimes be taken too seriously and have more of an affect on us then we know.
Palin was probably made fun of the most, she was an easy target because she’s a white house outcast from Alaska, she talks weird, (you betcha) and Tina Fey was a nearly EXACT look a like. They gave her a lot of crap about the VP debates, in one skit, they even said that “If Governor Palin does not throw up, faint, or runaway, this debate should be considered a tie.”
They also put a lot of emphasis on the whole “I can see Russia from my window” and who can forget the replay of her failed interview?
All in all, although I found these skits to be funny and I personally think that Palin is not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, I can’t help but think that SNL might have made fun of her to the point that it affected the outcome of the election. Look at it this way, there are people who really don’t pay that much attention to politics, but they vote anyways. They watch shows like SNL that are paying particular attention to the stupidies of Palin, and then come election day, they cast a vote for Obama because of what they have seen on satire media. I’m by no means saying that this kind of stuff shouldn’t be allowed, we have the right to say whatever the heck we want to say and publicize whatever we want, I’m merely pointing out the fact that although something is comical, it can sometimes be taken too seriously and have more of an affect on us then we know.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Dresden Garbage
So I understand that this was a significant event and all, but honestly, this class is titled COLLEGE LITERATURE not WAR HISTORY. (I can't take credit for that, it was Agray's opinion) Why are we reading alllllllll of this extra garbage on Dresden? Yeah, we should have a BIT of a background on it if we are reading the book, but shouldn't the actual book be discussed in class first? I'm not the only one that thinks this too. This book is entertaining, but it's confusing. We should be discussing the ideas behind the book and what the author is trying to say and why he is writing it in this particular style first.
Speaking of the style of this book, what's with this whole time travel thing? Is Billy conscious of what is going on? How are the time jumps connected? Is this actually happening, or is it all part of Billy's imagination? Maybe there are no legitimate answers to these questions, but I personally think that we should be discussing what the class needs to know, instead of some garbage that no one wants to read about in the first place.
Speaking of the style of this book, what's with this whole time travel thing? Is Billy conscious of what is going on? How are the time jumps connected? Is this actually happening, or is it all part of Billy's imagination? Maybe there are no legitimate answers to these questions, but I personally think that we should be discussing what the class needs to know, instead of some garbage that no one wants to read about in the first place.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Craaazzzy Little Man...
Soooooooo about this Weary character…I find him to be quite funny actually. Of course, he is a little creepy, what with the freaky ninja weapons and the disturbing pony picture, but otherwise, he’s kind of amusing. I just get this image of this little toad-like guy all bundled up and running back and forth; delivering fake messages like a child would during a pretend game. Plus, the whole scene where he is beating up Billy, that was funny. Billy is this tall, calm, lanky guy. All he probably has to do is hold Weary’s head while he tries to kick him, like what older siblings do to younger annoying siblings. Instead, he just takes it and lets this teeny little guy beat the crap out of him. It just looks weird in my head and it makes me laugh a bit.
However, I do wonder about what made Weary this way. In my opinion, he is like a new little kid at school, just trying to be accepted, particularly by the older kids. It’s a bit sad in a pathetic way, he tries to get “in” with people, but all he does is push them away with his strangeness and his anger. The more he gets denied, the more upset he gets and the more he tries to get accepted. In the book, it mentioned how Weary would hook up with kids more pathetic then him, just for companionship, but then would beat them up because no one else liked him and he wanted the others to accept him, not some pathetic kid. In a way, it’s kind of like his relationship with Billy and the two scouts. The scouts are the older kids who won’t accept Weary, so he buddies up with Billy. Billy doesn’t have proper clothing and he bobs when he walks, making him more of a loser then Weary. He’s nice to Billy at first, trying to keep him going, just like any friend would. However, it’s not enough for him, because although he has Billy, he wants to be friends with the cool scouts. So, upon abandonment, he gets angry and takes it out on Billy. Its all one vicious cycle of a funny, yet creepy character.
However, I do wonder about what made Weary this way. In my opinion, he is like a new little kid at school, just trying to be accepted, particularly by the older kids. It’s a bit sad in a pathetic way, he tries to get “in” with people, but all he does is push them away with his strangeness and his anger. The more he gets denied, the more upset he gets and the more he tries to get accepted. In the book, it mentioned how Weary would hook up with kids more pathetic then him, just for companionship, but then would beat them up because no one else liked him and he wanted the others to accept him, not some pathetic kid. In a way, it’s kind of like his relationship with Billy and the two scouts. The scouts are the older kids who won’t accept Weary, so he buddies up with Billy. Billy doesn’t have proper clothing and he bobs when he walks, making him more of a loser then Weary. He’s nice to Billy at first, trying to keep him going, just like any friend would. However, it’s not enough for him, because although he has Billy, he wants to be friends with the cool scouts. So, upon abandonment, he gets angry and takes it out on Billy. Its all one vicious cycle of a funny, yet creepy character.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Meta...what?????
Ooooook folks, seriously, what is up with Kafka and the giant beetle? The climax of the ENTIRE book is at the beginning, and the rest is just a jumble of words and ideas. The writing isn’t fluid and there is no clear plot or idea. Even though there are some humorous parts, overall it is not a very good book in my opinion.
Everyone, of course, is entitled to his or her own opinion, but this garbage about how people think that Kafka was a literary genius and how they think Metamorphosis is an amazing book with depth….alllll crap!!!! Honestly, I think people just stumbled onto a book that they didn’t really understand, and tried to find “hidden meanings” to make sense of the book and make themselves feel better. What it looks like, is that Kafka had a general idea of what he wanted to write, but didn’t have the patience or the discipline to sit down and organize all of his ideas on to paper. This book looks like some sort of shitty first draft. Kafka himself even thought that Metamorphosis was no good.
Just look at the main points of the book:
Gregor turns into a beetle.
Gregor worries about not being able to go to work.
The rest of his family (who are in debt) finally get jobs.
His father lodges an apple in his back while his mother runs at his father half naked.
His sister cries, is bratty, and plays the violin.
There are three bearded men.
Gregor dies.
A deep meaningful message? I don’t think so. If some college student were to give a story like this to his or her professor, they would probably get an awful grade. But slap a name like Kafka on the cover, and all of a sudden it’s a literary work of art. It makes me wonder just how much emphasis our society puts into the name when we are judging the quality of work. Take music for example, hip-hop is fun and popular and all, but it’s not exactly meaningful. Less well known artists have better and more meaningful lyrics, but they don’t have a name like Kanye, so they don’t get any attention. It’s not just in music and books, it’s everywhere, people see a name associated with an item and based on that name they decide whether it’s good or bad. It’s such garbage. People always say “don’t judge a book by its cover”, but that’s exactly what we are doing.
Everyone, of course, is entitled to his or her own opinion, but this garbage about how people think that Kafka was a literary genius and how they think Metamorphosis is an amazing book with depth….alllll crap!!!! Honestly, I think people just stumbled onto a book that they didn’t really understand, and tried to find “hidden meanings” to make sense of the book and make themselves feel better. What it looks like, is that Kafka had a general idea of what he wanted to write, but didn’t have the patience or the discipline to sit down and organize all of his ideas on to paper. This book looks like some sort of shitty first draft. Kafka himself even thought that Metamorphosis was no good.
Just look at the main points of the book:
Gregor turns into a beetle.
Gregor worries about not being able to go to work.
The rest of his family (who are in debt) finally get jobs.
His father lodges an apple in his back while his mother runs at his father half naked.
His sister cries, is bratty, and plays the violin.
There are three bearded men.
Gregor dies.
A deep meaningful message? I don’t think so. If some college student were to give a story like this to his or her professor, they would probably get an awful grade. But slap a name like Kafka on the cover, and all of a sudden it’s a literary work of art. It makes me wonder just how much emphasis our society puts into the name when we are judging the quality of work. Take music for example, hip-hop is fun and popular and all, but it’s not exactly meaningful. Less well known artists have better and more meaningful lyrics, but they don’t have a name like Kanye, so they don’t get any attention. It’s not just in music and books, it’s everywhere, people see a name associated with an item and based on that name they decide whether it’s good or bad. It’s such garbage. People always say “don’t judge a book by its cover”, but that’s exactly what we are doing.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Bad Mama
Sooooo yeah, that little story that we read, The Life You Save May Be Your Own, PRIME example of bad motherhood. Seriously, this woman needs to get on Dr. Phil or something, because you don’t just give up to your daughter to some creeper character you only met a few days ago. When she first met the sketchster, Mr. Shiftlet, he talked allll about how you can’t trust anybody at all.
“…nowadays, people’ll do anything anyways. I can tell you my name is Tom T. Shiftlet and I come from Tarwater, Tennessee, but you never have seen me before; how you know I ain’t lying?”
How in the heck did that not tip her off that this Shiftlet guy is shady? Seriously? Honestly, no mother in her right mind would let her daughter marry some freaky one-armed stranger AND give him money. So even though she says that she wouldn’t give up her blond little angel Lucynell for a “casket of jewels,” I think that she’s lying and that she really wants to get rid of her daughter. Think about it, she says that her daughter is deaf, but there are hints in the story that suggest some sort of mental problems as well. Taking care of someone like that for nearly 30 years can’t be easy, even the most loving of mothers would need a break from time to time. But this woman doesn’t just want a break, she wants to get rid of Lucynell for good! She offers the sketchy Mr. Shiftlet money, a car, and the property to the house. Does that not sound like a bribe? Plus, she is the one pushing for the marriage, talking about how sweet Lucynell is, how pretty she is, how he should want a wife that won’t (can’t) talk back.
I imagine karma kicking in and doing something awful to this poor excuse of a mother. She forces her daughter to get married to some ugly sketchy guy and then that con-artist leaves her allllll alone in some diner with another sketchy guy drooling all over her sleeping body. If I were to write a sequel to this story, Mr. Shiftlet would crash the car and die and that awful mother would get struck by lightning.
“…nowadays, people’ll do anything anyways. I can tell you my name is Tom T. Shiftlet and I come from Tarwater, Tennessee, but you never have seen me before; how you know I ain’t lying?”
How in the heck did that not tip her off that this Shiftlet guy is shady? Seriously? Honestly, no mother in her right mind would let her daughter marry some freaky one-armed stranger AND give him money. So even though she says that she wouldn’t give up her blond little angel Lucynell for a “casket of jewels,” I think that she’s lying and that she really wants to get rid of her daughter. Think about it, she says that her daughter is deaf, but there are hints in the story that suggest some sort of mental problems as well. Taking care of someone like that for nearly 30 years can’t be easy, even the most loving of mothers would need a break from time to time. But this woman doesn’t just want a break, she wants to get rid of Lucynell for good! She offers the sketchy Mr. Shiftlet money, a car, and the property to the house. Does that not sound like a bribe? Plus, she is the one pushing for the marriage, talking about how sweet Lucynell is, how pretty she is, how he should want a wife that won’t (can’t) talk back.
I imagine karma kicking in and doing something awful to this poor excuse of a mother. She forces her daughter to get married to some ugly sketchy guy and then that con-artist leaves her allllll alone in some diner with another sketchy guy drooling all over her sleeping body. If I were to write a sequel to this story, Mr. Shiftlet would crash the car and die and that awful mother would get struck by lightning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)