SUM more Sean-Paul foe yo Ass!

Translation from one language to another (like Spanish to English) can dilute or even shift the author's meaning. & Translation can involve bending the language to new requirements.

Hopefully this helps to "drive it home."=idiom

"When a Frenchman, for example, says to other Frenchmen ‘The country is done for’ — which has happened, I should think, almost every day since 1930 — it is emotional talk; burning with love and fury, the speaker includes himself with his fellow-countrymen. And then, usually, he adds ‘Unless ...’ His meaning is clear; no more mistakes must be made; if his instructions are not carried out to the letter, then and only then will the country go to pieces. In short, it is a threat followed by a piece of Advice and these remarks are so much the less shocking in that they spring from a national intersubjectivity."
For Example: "Mann this country Gon blow up, unless Obama do sumthin bout this Health care."
"But on the contrary when Fanon (philosopher/critic of the gov) says of Europe that she is rushing to her doom, far from sounding the alarm he is merely setting out a diagnosis. This doctor neither claims that she is a hopeless case — miracles have been known to exist — nor does he give her the means to cure herself. He certifies that she is dying, on external evidence, founded on symptoms that he can observe."

Can you see the difference ,in function, of what is being said in the same language?
( how does the change in time effect the same statement?)

Is translation necessary?

This is kind of random, but

I've noticed that we've been throwing the word "authority" around in class a lot, and I wanted to point out the root word of "authority" is "author." Important? I have no idea. But I feel like it probably isn't a coincidence. Or is it is, it's a really cool one.

connecting AURA to the class

So by the end of this book I automatically heard Janelle's voice saying "So, why did we read this?"

I feel like the idea of being forced into the body of Felipe from the very beginning can easily be a symbol of authority manipulating a reader to believe and embody the role it wants you to take. By the end of the story, Felipe and Aura seems to have taken on the role of the General and Consuelo; there is the question, however, of whether Felipe and Aura have become these people or are they just another reflection of the two people. This could also be symbolic for an argumentative work that forces the readers to rethink their position and either take on a different idea or reinforce their previous position. Either way, the reader has changed by reading the work by experiencing the thought that both sides are possible.

I feel like overall, this story of Felipe and Aura can easily be a metaphor for a reader who is manipulated into believing something just by being presented with an idea that disguises itself as a reality.

Aura...well that was interesting...

I finished Aura by Carlos Fuentes last night, and while I guessed early on what was going to happen, I still got thrown into the book. I think it had a great deal with the use of the word "you" describing nearly everything that Felipe did. It kind of turned the reader into the character becoming a part of his movements and thoughts. It was almost as if we became the double of Felipe just as Aura was Consuelo's young double. On another note it really reminded me of the Notebook as it seems that Felipe slowly regains some comfort if not memory of the situation (memory was an important theme, and it had some awesome quotes). He finds the photos, and he is standing there with Aura, but it's Consuelo's name on the back. Maybe Felipe is the general's younger double. This is all a bit scattered, but that's kind of how the book left me. I'm excited to hear the class discussion!

Decartes

Just a little something I came across when my friend was working on a paper. 1. If I know something about the world then I know it is not possible that I am making an error. 2. I do not know it is not possible I am making an error. 3. I do not know something about the world. I doubt everything but my own existence. -Decartes I think it's very relevent to the cousre since it plays with the idea of perception and living in one's own reality. And it's cyclical to boot!

:All Black Everything

I was listening to this song and I thought it fit in with our material. This artists, like butler, uses the context or "power" of fiction/fantasy to explore reality. Fully hypothetical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71McnVwWPwU

In my Opinion this song is not about being one race, but taking race out of the picture, in order to reveal a very real perspective.

Preface to Frantz Fanon’s “Wretched of the Earth”

Violence; only violence itself can destroy them. The native cures himself of colonial neurosis by thrusting out the settler through force of arms. When his rage boils over, he rediscovers his lost innocence and he comes to know himself in that he himself creates his self. Far removed from his war, we consider it as a triumph of barbarism; but of its own volition it achieves, slowly but surely, the emancipation of the rebel, for bit by bit it destroys in him and around him the colonial gloom.

yo

Emily,
Yeah discussions do go all over the place, but that's because ideas can go so many different ways. and you shouldn't feel like there is nothing you can say about the readings, because you can say whatever calls to you. It could be something you think is a symbol (i mean, my question was if Butler is saying that love is a weakness.. that is nothing like what we are talking about in class, but it stood out as a potential question.) You're a smart girl, I know you will come up with something :)

You know.. the time travel that you were talking about.. I was about to answer "well the inanimate objects she brings back existed at one point, just maybe not in the form of a toothbrush, etc." but now i see what you're saying. even if rufus died, his body will still be decomposed beneath the ground 100 years later. (isn't it a theory that all matter will ALWAYS be on the earth, no matter how small?) so yeah i see what you're saying. she could have drug back a bunch of dust as his decomposed body or something lol. I think that would just get too technical for the novel though, and Butler decides to think that when a person dies, they do not exist. (which now it's really making me pissed, because if you crushed the tooth brush into powder, i bet Dana could have brought it back! it's not the same toothbrush, it's a dead toothbrush..)
well geeze emily. now you've got me thinkin about that haha

questions lingering about kindred

Although we have finished our discussions about Kindred, I still find that I have many questions regarding the novel. One of the Main ones being: Why did Alice kill herself instead of run away?
I found a somewhat decent answer on sparknotes.com and it goes as follows:

Alice kills herself because she has lost all of her possible identities. Running ceases to exist as an option, because Alice cannot lay claim to any of the identities she would need to embrace in order to flee. She cannot see herself as a fiery young rebel willing to risk the whippings, dog attacks, and death that running away might entail. After years with Rufus, she cannot see herself as Isaac’s wife, so desperate to reunite with her husband that she will flee the Weylins’ plantation to find him. Neither can Alice take on one of the identities she would need to inhabit to remain on the plantation. Because she thinks Rufus has sold her children, she can no longer think of herself as a mother. Although she had found some measure of peace with Rufus, she can’t conceive of continuing to live alongside the man who has robbed her of her children, and so she can no longer think of herself as Rufus’s grudging partner. Alice kills herself because it becomes impossible for her to imagine a way to exist in the world.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this analysis.

Kindred Reader's guide.

Reader’s Guide:

1. Other than the birth of Hagar, why else might Dana have been pulled into the past? Was the “reason” necessary and what were the implications?

2. How does race affect the conflicts within the novel- in both past and modern times? (If Dana were white?, If Kevin was Black?, If Kevin went back in time instead of Dana)?

3. What is the significance of Butler choosing a white man as Dana’s ancestor instead of a black slave who finds himself in danger?

4. In what ways can Rufus be compared to Kevin ? Are they foil characters? What ways do they develop differently throughout the novel?

5. In Kindred slaves marry and have children to be bound more to the land. Rufus lets love control his actions with Alice and Dana. Dana and Kevin go back in time to ensure the other’s safety. Is Butler trying to signify that love is a weakness?

Kindred

So, I still question why Dana was not able to bring Rufus back to the future with her. I mean, she could take backpacks, toothpaste, knives, all kinds of inanimate objects to and from with her, and (with respect to the dead) corpses are inanimate objects, aren't they? Anyway, sometimes in this class I have no idea how to contribute to the discussion. I read Kindred as a story and decided to listen to what people had to say about it and develop my own ideas based off of them. However, the discussion got jumbled and I was stuck thinking, "What on earth? ... " Yet I have still managed to come up with two questions I can base a thesis off of. Yay me!

P.S. I've noticed Alex in particular gets cut off in class a lot... Not fair.

Bieng Transparent

I agree with Dr. Jenelle, that being transparent in ones teaching methods can be ideal when teaching a course on free thinking, assuming that the individual is not already a free thinker. However, in the case of the opposite, informing the student of this method could reveal more than the instructor intended.

Kindred vs. Man in the High Castle

While reading Kindred, I couldn't help but compare it to the other novels we have read this semester. What stuck with me were the connections I made to Man in the High Castle. In both novels, there is the issue of multiple realities and how the characters deal with and live in these realities. Both novels also deal with race.

In Man in the High Castle, the characters live in a world in which the Axis Powers won the war, but are also presented with an alternate reality in The Grasshopper Lies Heavy, a reality that we come to recognize as "true" by the end of the novel. In Kindred, Dana is forced to live in the harsh reality of the antebellum south, while continuing to hold the knowledge of what life is like in the 1970s. I thought it was interesting that in both novels the characters live in one reality but are aware of another.

Another similarity that struck me was that both novels deal with the issue of race. In Kindred, the characters are confronted with slavery and the unequal treatment of blacks, whereas characters in MITHC are oppressed by the Germans and the Japanese.

More interestingly, though, was that in both novels the characters facing discrimination had knowledge of of an alternate reality, and in these realities racial tensions were not the same. For example, in the reality of The Grasshopper Lies Heavy whites would not have been discriminated against, and in Dana's life in the 1970s slavery was outlawed and racial tensions, although still present, had been eased. However, regardless of this knowledge, characters in both books find themselves adjusting to their position as an inferior race. As Dana said, "I never realized how easily people could be trained to accept slavery." I found this concept to be disturbing, and I thought it was interesting that both novels touch on this subject.

Kindred

Kindred so far has been my favorite book we have read in class. I was extremely engaged in the story and although we talked about it not really being suspenseful, because the novel started off with Dana being alive and well, I was enthralled throughout the book. I completely forgot that Dana would eventually be okay in the future, so I was constantly worried she would not make it out alive from her 1817 "reality". Also, I began to question whether Hagar would even be born and that Dana's 1976 "reality" would actually never happen. By the end of the novel, I was content with accepting that there was a time paradox and both times were actual realities.

FYI: Visit by a Tibetan monk

For those interested, there will be a Tibetan monk visiting campus on Monday, March 28 @ 7pm in Nunemaker Hall. It is free and open to all. All I've been told is that he will be giving a demonstration... of what, I'm not sure! (Though I have no doubt it will be engaging.)

A Man of His Time

While reading Kindred by Butler, I was always interested in how much people changed in accordance with their surroundings, even when that was the one issue they had refused to let happen. While Rufus was a child, he was much more open to everyone, and there seemed to be a chance that he could be saved from following in his father's path. Eventhough Rufus never made the decision not to be like his father, or least I did not find him to have focused to much on it, Dana had. She had decided she would not let it happen, yet it did. He became a greedy manipulator and a slave owner who followed the customary practices as such. Dana, although she told herself she would never be able to blend in, lost track of where she stopped playing the role of a slave and when she became a very submissive one. Kevin was so changed by his five years that he had great difficulty transitioning back into his present time of 1976. He had such a hard time he verbally lashed out at Dana, and began to throw things. They all seemed to struggle with being real, or atleast what others thought was the real them. Perhaps, we are a product of our time, who are simply unable to accept our real selves of the present. If we were never affected by anything there, would be very little to us as beings. We seem to be always searching for truth to the point that we forget to find it in the present through acceptance.

Past and Present

As I dug deeper and deeper into Kindred, I finally began to see a common trend emerge between all the books we have read this semester, and that trend is the presence of time, both past and present. In this current book, the main character is brought back a century into time to a world much different than hers, along the way experiencing slavery alongside her ancestors. All I can think about while reading this book is an extremely well-known (and my own personal favorite) quote from Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby: "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." Though decades apart, Fitzgerald and the author of Kindred, Octavia Butler, are on the exact same page in believing and writing that who we are today can be accredited to the past, the paths our families and ancestors have paved for us, the things we have seen, and the experiences we have experienced.

origin vs consequences

In philosophy we're currently learning about the beliefs of a philosopher, James, who says that the origin of ideas and things doesn't really matter, it's the consequences of the idea or origin, it's what they produce. This reminds me of part of our discussion of Dana on thursday. The origin of Dana is not only confusing to the reader but to Dana herself. Although she may seem lost her "true" origin isn't as important as her consequences, which would be overall saving Rufus to in turn save herself. This is what should be important to her, I haven't finished the book yet but I believe if she discovers this she will be more at peace with 1976 Dana and 1819 Dana. It doesn't matter which reality she thinks she belongs in but more her actions in both settings that influence the bigger picture. Eventually her two selfs will fall into each other and what time period she belongs in won't be as difficult for her to grasp because she knows who she is, what her life means and also that her consequences are the most important thing.

Random quote relating to our class..

Today I was reading a blog, and I came across a few statements that resonate with our class: "My memory of the conversation is more abstract than actual, and while the words have long since escaped me, the feeling of that interaction is as vivid as anything I remember. As a child it is not often that adults level with you and speak to you simply as a human being and not some lesser thing. At least I remember feeling that way back then." After reading this, I thought of our discussions about memories, especially when we were reading O'Brien's novel, and how events can never be retold exactly how they happened because we are always editing it, even in just our own minds depending on our perceptions. The idea that although we may not remember most of a certain event or conversation, the impression that it made on us can be more valuable and more meaningful than the actual experience itself- and therefore (in relation to O'Brien), a war story resonating that emotion is more accurate and important than a factual retelling of a war. I thought the statements above express this idea quite eloquently, and I was just really excited to find relevance to our class in a favorite band's blog.

What defines a slave?

Clearly we have (adamantly) discussed time travel and the different versions created by different perspectives at our last meeting. The question remains whether destiny has already predetermined a person's actions, which would mean that their actions (as purposeful as they may be) are not affecting what will happen or was meant to happen OR does history (past, present, and future) first depend on whatever actions a person may take (which would create multiple dimensions assuming time travel was even possible.

These questions can not and will not be answered until we are actually able to go back and forth. Even then, we will never be able to tell if somebody "changed the future" because if we decide that "future" is always an event that has yet to happen, if we experience it, go back and change something, and return to that point, the future was not changed but instead the "present" or to the time traveller the "past". The person still hasn't experienced the moment after they decided to go back to the past, and so how would they know if that moment later was always meant to happen or in fact changed due to their own actions? In fact, if time travel were even possible, there would never be a past, present, or future. Everything would be individually questionable. So I guess those questions of whether history determines actions or whether actions determine history (all a matter of controlling our "destiny") will never be answered.

Believe it or not, this post was not supposed to go on that tangent again, but I don't really use the delete button on my laptop, so everything is in my stream of thought. I always think before I type, but I rarely decide to erase something.

Anywho, I started this because I was thinking that actions determine history or vice versa would shape our view of Dana. If she has basically no control over destiny, she technically cannot be seen as weak. She'd just be another human roaming the earth to do what she was supposed to do. However, if her actions are what cause the history in the first place, the reader can definitely decide how to interpret how she acts. I'll just go with the second choice because then I can get to my point quicker (thank Jesus).

Though I have yet to finish the book, I have decided that it could go one of two ways (watch me be wrong). Dana could find a way to separate herself in the slavery era from the Dana in 1970's. This would require her to consciously remember the person she used to be before she was aware of time traveling: the passive, unhappy, woman whose marriage is not accepted by either family, and also the strong, educated woman she wants others to recognize. Though she was still affected by ignorance of others and even some racial issues with her husband, she must overcome these issues and as a couple, Kevin and Dana are in need of growing together. Dana could learn to understand that she does not have to internally accept what is being done to her in the slavery period as her "truth", and just play the game until she goes back to the 1970's. This is more difficult, however, because both she and Kevin are traveling and her decisions do not necessarily affect him internally.

On the other hand (more likely to happen I believe), Dana could be unaware of how easy it is to accept the slavery period as her truth, and be stuck in that role (both there and in the 1970's) until her death. If she is unable to separate one place from the other, the racial issues between both her and Kevin and even the problems with others can escalate. The visit to the slave era can create a realization that she needs to fight against these issues and prejudices, but if she is unaware of this concept, she would feel even more and trapped than before because of her acceptance of the ideas and beliefs of the slaves in 1816.

Though technically Dana is a slave in one time and free in another, the idea of "what defines a slave" comes to mind. Though one maybe is not whipped and by law unable to leave their master, the idea of slavery is also (by definition) a person who works very hard without appreciation. Also, it is a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something. If Dana is unable to separate what she decides to be truth or just a game she has to play IN ORDER to use both time periods and combine them to recreate herself (or continue on her destined path), she will enslave herself in both times and never be able to leave or forget the role of slave. She may give up and allow herself to be controlled by who is deemed "superior" because this is what others in the slavery period have convinced her to believe.

Though legally she is free, Dana may always be a slave to others and (if she is able to control this destiny) even herself.

I used to think that I always thought for myself

Thoughts from Tuesday's discussion continue to visit me. Thoughts about how the class has shaped us, the pressure of choosing a career, and the choice between producing work from you or simply restating the professor's views.

First of all, this class has definitely made me think more critically of myself as well as reevaluate the way I process information. For example: before this class, I used to think that I always thought for myself however, looking back, I also let society think for me sometimes. After realizing this, I stopped bullshitting myself and began to set goals based on what I want from me, and not what the world expects of me.

However, being honest with myself was harder than I thought. I am an art major. I really enjoy expressing myself through art, but lately, being strait up with myself, I can't help but feel a bit like a whore, like a professional people pleaser, simply because of the Art classes I'm taking now that exploit the commercial functions of art rather than focus on its expressive qualities.

A strange connection.

This evening I attended the Kronos Quartet concert over at Tunlane. There were no program notes, so for one of the pieces the first violin player gave a short explanation about how it was written and what the story behind it was. The piece was entitled "...hold me neighbor, in this storm..." and the violinist said that he asked composer, who is Serbian, to write a piece that explained the situation that was happening over there so that he,his group, and the audience could understand what was going on. He said this, and throughout the piece I kept thinking of Tim O'Brien and how he used his numerous books to try and figure out what happened over in Vietnam. O'Brien used words and Aleksandra Vrebalov used music to try and convey the emotional turmoil that they lived through.

When I grow up...

The discussion in class really had me thinking hard today about what I want to be and what i want with my life. As I was thinking I came to the realization that I had no earthly idea of what I wanted to be. I also figured out (as Janelle may have said in different words) that this isn't the time to have everything figured out. It's the time to grow, to change, to become a better person, to discover what a better person really is. I can honestly say that this course is making me reflect upon myself and "truths"... it has made me question mainly everything in everyday life. I can honestly say that now I am a skeptic.

freakonomics

I read Freakonomics for another class, and all throughout it I kept thinking of this class. For those who don't know much about Freakonomics, the book focuses on using economics to question certain quirky questions about the world. I really recommend the book to everyone, even if you think economics sounds extremely boring - I thought the same thing before I read the book. The authors make the material interesting and "provocative" as many of the reviews stated. The authors talk a lot about questioning conventional wisdom, and makes many great points about it, especially regarding parenting. Anyways, it made me think about how we accept certain "truths" about the world, and so many things are seen as general knowledge, but are they really the truth? Research data is questioned in the book, and the authors admit that many experts use information to their advantage for their own gains.. and therefore stretch the facts. The book just reinforced my use of critical thinking, and along with this course, is forcing me to question more than I used to. And because of that, the world, and everything, seems more interesting.