Metacognition: Jane Eyre Writing

Helping to write my group's Jane Eyre dialectic/discussion was a pleasant experience. The thought process was fairly straightforward given the nature of the assignment. Our topic, enlightenment and what happens after, lends itself very nicely to the format as we could easily ascribe certain views and opinions to Bronte and her creation. However, the process became interesting and challenged once we needed to create a philosophy for the Academy student (Deb Ator), which wound up post-dating both of their lives, and relating it to their systems of thought.
Not really doing ourselves any favors, we chose to have the Academite be a Nietzche-based nihilist, providing a strong counterpoint to the idea of enlightenment through religion, god, and loved ones, with enlightenment through selfishness.
Reflecting on the process, I think this was an effective choice to make. Although slightly extreme, it very nicely contextualizes the views and realities of Bronte and Eyre. It often is hard to capture the full implications of anything unless you provide an extreme opposite. I also think that the synthesis of these ideas provided meaningful insight into how we should live our lives- each of the characters were irrevocably devoted to something, which, we discover, is the only way to fulfill ourselves.
I was glad that the group's thinking led us down the path. Although Choi chose and propogated Nietzche (perhaps predictably), I was pleasantly surprised and enjoyed my ability to fit in those views with the somewhat more docile ones of Bronte.
The one part of the process I thought could be improved was developing more distinct ideologies between Bronte and Eyre to better illuminate not only why Bronte created Eyre, but also why Eyre has lived on through the centuries.

What if?: Writing a Short Story

The other day in English class Mr. Allen was talking to me about my short story. In the course of the discussion, the nature and likely responses of teenage boys came up. This was contextual to the likelihood that a teenager would stay and help an older stranger who needed help around the house or yard. Mr. Allen concluded that a kid would mostly like try and succeed in getting out of it, while I tried to defend myself and peers. That got me thinking. What if teenagers were selfless?
The most intriguing change would be in adults' perceptions. If teenagers were selfless, most likely brought on by better communal and self awareness, people like Mr. Allen wouldn't be so sure either of how my character or his students would respond to certain situations. We'd have a better reputation, and be able to take on much greater responsibility at home and in the community. That's not to say there aren't teenagers who don't do such things, this is just a question of perception. It seems like problems with substance abuse and accompanying illicit activities either wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be of concern to parents, authorities, or media, since they'd be assured of our appropriate, adult-like disposition to such activities. Isn't that why "responsible" adults drink?
Then again, there's a reason most teenagers are selfish; they're in the process of becoming selfless. Isn't that what growing up is all about?

Dialetics: Opinion and Fact

Two controversial concepts, the realm of politicians and journalists alike. Opinion and fact are melded together, mutually-supporting, and essential to any interaction between two humans.

Fact-
Facts are what are in most cases the result of research, experimentation, and consensus-based experience. Although commonly considered "true," beyond doubt, or in other ways proved, the most important factor in determining the validity of a fact is the ability of that fact's evidential support to convince a majority of people of its truth.

Opinion-
Most people build opinions based around facts. These are the proclaimed and accepted realm of influence- from peers, media, and family alike. Opinions are allowed to change, and, although they might be built around "true" facts, their actual "truth" value is simply in the eyes of the beholder.

"Truth"-
Somewhere in between opinion and fact is the truth- what each of us holds to have relative staying power as far as correctness and perhaps relevancy to our lives. When we combine the two together, it helps us realize that all opinions, facts, and truths are relative to what we perceive and consequently believe. Humans can convince themselves of anything. Our peers can convince us of anything. What have you been convinced of?

Blogging Around

Dan made a post likening the treatment of Africans by Europeans in The Heart Of Darkness to that of factions on all three sides- American, Israeli, and Palestinian, of that conflict. I responded.

"I find your point interesting, but strongly disagree with your basis for comparison.
The way Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians treat and construct each other is very different from Africans and Europeans. Africans were made out to be the dark, mindless inhabitants of a place we need to bring the light too. While some aspects of our treatment of terrorists can be seen to be slightly similar, they are portrayed as a dangerous and capable enemy, ready and willing to directly threaten our way of life. While still try to bring our way of life to them, we realize that the leaders of these peoples, as well as moderate factions within Muslim states can be bargained and cooperated with, to help reach the goals of both sides- peace and prosperity.
To defend Israel directly- when Israel goes to war it deliberately avoids causing excess amounts of civilian casualties, a problem complicated by Hamas's use of civilians as shields. Saying that attempting to save lives in spite of war in this way is akin to the disposablity Africans were treated with is almost offensive.
More importantly, your comparison overlooks a fundamental difference between the conflict in the Heart of Darkness and that in Gaza and Israel today. Israelis and Palestinians coexist in the same territory. The mothers, wives, and children of the men fighting for their right to exist live in close proximity to the conflict. They fight to protect a way of life. In marked contrast, young men went to Africa in many cases for the sole purpose of exploitation for a profit. These fundamentally different motives reflect the fact that while Europeans happily took advantage of the lands they went to, those involved in the conflict in the Middle East only want stability- even if it is on different terms."

Jenna what ifed about the Matrix, wondering what it would be like to wake up like Neo did, and going as far as to suggest that we were in the Matrix, and the machines used the movie to trick us into thinking we weren't. I responded.
"Jenna,
Your what ifing is interesting, but I would respond, at least to your last thought, with a so what?
So what if we're in a matrix fantasyland?
So what if you can never really know who or what you could be or are?
So what if there are actually holes in you?
Well, I guess you might like to know. But let's say you couldn't ever know. Let's say your actual body is in a soupy machine cell being harvested for energy.
Does it matter?
The human body is pretty limited to just being able to process, understand, and experience what our senses take. We conjecture and dream a lot, but even that is just based around experiences we've already had. That means that if we're living in a dream world, our body behaves as if that dream world were real. Your body doesn't care. It's pretty easy to trick. Maybe your mind is the same?"

Best of Week: Onion Skins

The best comment I heard this week was related to the short story Cathedral being read in class. In the story, the main character finds onion skins in a shopping bag he is using to undergo, little to his knowledge, a spiritual transformation. At this, someone mentioned the scene in Shrek http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9nJlXLF06k where ogres are compared to onions because of their layers.
This made a lot of sense in the context of the story, since it showed how even a pot-smoking fourty-something year old, who is also proudly unsophisticated, can in fact possess layered deeper qualities, that don't meet the eye, and might require some drawing out.
This made me have a much deeper appreciation for people around me. People who I find to be irritating, simplistic, apathetic, or too passionate might all in fact be quite different and understandable underneath their layers.
Although I never intentionally or maliciously have denied the existence of people's layers, the moment in class really but a nice ogre's face on the whole issue. This guy in the story, just like Shrek, have depths which might take a while to get to. Why, then, should I deny anyone I know that possibility?

What if?: I was a doorframe

Being a doorframe seems like it would be a lot of fun. Get to stand there, watch things, but only have people stay under you when they're yelling to the outside, or there's an earthquake. In any case, the story Boys contains a door frame who witnesses the childhood, infancy, and coming of age, in and without a particular order.
I think similarly being able to monitor a life in these snap shots would be compelling but also tedious. How much can you really tell about someone by the way they enter a house? Isn't what happens once you've entered what really matters? The story would say no, but I would say yes. I prefer a chance to actually get to know someone, to see them through an action, instead of before and after. That way you can actually understand the way they work, instead of the way the did work, and the way they will work. A door frame is still a cool mechanism for a story, but we don't learn nearly as much as we can about how the people involved fundamentally change. Rather, we learn what has fundamentally changed about them.

Connection: Heart of Darkness and The Wizard of Oz

This comparison was made in class, how Marlow goes into Congo-Oz down the Yellow Brick River, but I thought direct parallels, as well as theme resolutions deserved some fleshing out.
Marlow starts his journey in Kansas-Brussels, in the comfort of family and friends, to depart, on an eye-opening journey, for the Congo. Here the two stories are slightly different, but very helpful to each other. Marlow makes his initial journey from a place of comfort, on a ship, while observing a distant/unknown land. Similarly, Dorthy is in her house when she's uplifted, but the journey is in fact much quicker, since her destination is clearly not of this world. Conrad is here making a statement the Wizard of Oz doesn't in forcing us to realize that these horrors are part of our world.
In the interest of time and space, I won't go through the entire book, but make a few other connections.

Kurtz as the wicked witch. This comparison actually makes a lot more sense if you've seen Wicked. (which, for better or worse I have) The two stories inform one another in building a true sense of how the villain's role is more of a fall from grace, and less of a chosen path. In both stories, the character on the journey confronts the villain simply to help free them from the heart of darkness, not to defeat them. (Dorothy unknowingly aiding an escape, and Marlow preventing a return). Dorothy obviously doesn't feel a spiritual obligation to carry on the memory of the witch, but the Heart of Darkness is less of the classic hero's tale than the Wizard of Oz to start with.

The Manager as the wizard. This one's a bit harder, but in both cases, the two are essentially reluctant and somewhat incompetent masters of worlds they take by circumstance, staying healthy and dropping in a hot air balloon, rather than by design or prowess. In the end, we see that in both cases actual leadership skills are lacking and pure lack allows each to survive.

In the end we see why the Heart of Darkness is called the Heart of Darkness, and not the Heart of Fuzzy Bunnies- it's dark. The side of human character and nature it reveals is something the Wizard of Oz, a classic hero's journey, could never touch on. Even if they borrow some characters.