| Stevie Monster |
[Nov. 19th, 2006|11:03 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  scared | ] |
I thoroughly enjoyed the mock-trial of Frankenstein v. Monster v. Everyone. I had never been involved in what someone called a one vs. one vs. everyone trial and I learned it is difficult to persuade the jury that your client is innocent, especially when, that being true, blame must lie on either one other person/monster or everyone in the world including the jury itself. I would just like to say that every group had some good and some possibly refutable points about why their client was innocent. However, the stunning Venn diagram of the innocent and guilty parties clearly showed that Victor Frankenstein is the victim in this case and should probably counter-sue the monster for mass damages.
I am sad to say that I missed the last 30 minutes or so of Frankenstein last Thursday. Unfortunately, Georgia Tech basketball loyalty points are less forgiving than a library due date so I will have to borrow it unless someone has it. I am sure, though, that the last half hour was as well put together as the earlier parts of the movie. But I did find it strange when the monster tackled Victor into the tube of icy fun like in the movie Ice Age. I wondered how Victor would know exactly where to go on the huge mountain of ice anyway but it made for a good cinematic effect with the zoom out.
I highly doubt that in the future it will be possible to assemble people from “raw materials” but I would guess that due to advances in genetic engineering it will be possible to manipulate different human attributes. I just hope that if we become smart enough to change people that we will know how to make them unable to take a dislike to humanity and start killing people. |
|
|
| Comment on seanbedfordp1 |
[Nov. 12th, 2006|10:47 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  satisfied | ] |
I agree with you when you say that Shelley wishes for scientists to think before they create. For some, the knowledge of how to do something is enough. However, having been around many science-types at Tech, I will say that I do not think many scientists would pass up the ability to create life. |
|
|
| Frankenstein |
[Nov. 12th, 2006|10:43 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  giddy | ] |
This week I would like to discuss Shelley’s intentions for Frankenstein. Although it started as a competition between friends to write a ghost story, Mary Shelley brought in numerous undertones and ideas into her novel. Whether or not she wrote Frankenstein as a warning to scientists about the quickly advancing nature of science in the period, a commanding message of that sort comes through anyway. Who knows? Maybe Shelley was just writing because she had to and wanted a good story. After all, most ghost stories I have ever heard did not need any prevailing themes to accomplish their purpose of being scary. However, it has been discussed in class what Shelley’s opinions on the subject of science are but I do not think Frankenstein is a good source of these opinions. Perhaps if she had written an article about a new scientific revelation or product we would know more about her thoughts on science. We talked about how the film and television industries have taken her novel and changed it sometimes entirely to make Frankenstein and his creation different. I think though, that filmmakers have done less than what Shelley did in that they took a novel with a theme and other clues to affect readers and make it into a simple ghost story that achieves only the purpose of a ghost story. I do not wish to downplay the skills of either Shelley or the screenwriters, only to say that they are created to enthuse different audiences and achieve different purposes. |
|
|
| Comment on Sean Bedford's Post |
[Nov. 5th, 2006|10:54 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | calm | ] |
I read The Stranger a few years ago and I definitely remembered that scene because it was so strange. I too noticed the sun receiving the blame in Byron's works. Who knows? Maybe the sun is to blame. But what about the moon? Doesn't most crime happen at night? |
|
|
| Poets and Poetry |
[Nov. 5th, 2006|10:45 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | surprised | ] |
I would say that the definition of a poet is fairly simple; one who writes poetry. But since nearly everyone can write poetry, it would not make sense to say everyone is a poet. Rather, real poets, in my mind, have a gift that not everyone has. It is the gift of imagination coupled with the knowledge of how to write down the imagination.
I agree with Shelley’s sentence in “A Defence of Poetry” saying “poetry, in a general sense, may be defined to be ‘the expression of the imagination’”. However, as I said, not everyone can put their imagination on paper, so those people like me are forced to write poetry about mundane things using rhyme just to make myself seem like I am a “real” poet writing “real” poetry. I would also add that sometimes this “real” poetry cannot even be understood by normal people who are uninformed.
Several of the comments I received agreed with my definitions and some even added more ideas that I have not thought of but would also agree with. One comment was that “poets have the ability to convey their emotions like others cannot.” On top of that comment, one idea I received was that poets also have the ability to convey emotion and teach as well as inspire.
These comments and this exercise as a whole have given me a better idea of what poetry is. I still do not think poetry has a simple definition, but it takes a knowledgeable person to even attempt to define it. I do not claim to be knowledgeable by any means but now I have more ammunition with which to give an argument. |
|
|
| MY MIND IS ABLAZE! |
[Oct. 29th, 2006|11:06 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  sick | ] |
This week I have been led by others’ journals to comment more on the effects of drugs upon all of the art forms. I have seen others’ takes on what they believe the place of drugs has in art so I feel that I should have some input as well and find who agrees with me. Every idea about drugs that I have seen has points that I mostly agree with. However, I would like to theorize that drugs have no place in QUALITY art. In my last post I stated how I thought artists like Samuel Taylor Coleridge were gifted and somehow predisposed to creating brilliant works even before the use of drugs and I still hold that belief. But by “quality” art I mean art that was created simply by the mind alone. Therefore, I would say that the art created while off drugs took more skill to create.
I also had a thought last week during our class discussion of Pandaemonium about the existence of drugs. I was wondering whether, if mind-altering drugs did not exist, the world would have as many artists. But then I thought that there would probably be just as many artists (with some exceptions like those who gained their inspiration only while on drugs) but less total art. The question now is whether that surplus art created while mind-altered was as high-quality as the rest. Perhaps it is possible while on drugs to create art without having the predisposition to art, but it seems to me like that would be cheating those with God-given talent. Everyone has an opinion about what quality art is, and that is simply my definition. Although however it was created we are given more to study. |
|
|
| Comment on dvazquezp1's WUI |
[Oct. 22nd, 2006|10:54 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | chipper | ] |
I don't know much about drugs but I think Coleridge must have been gifted in poetry even without the drugs because he wrote great poetry before he took opium. I think his mind had those images and lines in it and they would have come out to paper but the opium just put his mind in the express lane. Another example of good art that I thought of that came from drugs would be the Beetles with such music as (L)ucy in the (S)ky with (D)iamonds (LSD). |
|
|
| Pandaemonium |
[Oct. 22nd, 2006|10:50 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | flirty | ] |
After watching Pandaemonium I was left with many questions about the nature of William Wordsworth’s relationship with Samuel Taylor Coleridge. The event that shocked me most was the burning of Kubla Khan at Wordsworth’s command. But then it occurred to me that Kubla Khan could not have been burned since it is in the Longman Anthology unless there was another copy somewhere or Dorothy Wordsworth recited it from memory in an opium frenzy and someone wrote it down. Overall, it seemed to me that the screenwriters and the director of the movie were sympathetic to Coleridge for some reason and portrayed Wordsworth as a backstabbing “friend” through several outrages during the movie where he questioned why he had not written anything as Coleridge had written almost all of Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Another event I questioned was Dorothy’s opium problem towards the end of the movie. I believe the director put that in because of Coleridge’s effect on her. I’m not sure if there were ever any feelings between them in real life but the movie made it seem as if they were extremely compatible. I think the screenplay made viewers sympathetic to Coleridge as well by making his addiction look as though he was the victim through his toothache and opium addiction that followed from his misunderstanding of opium’s power. Therefore, I think the great liberties taken in the movie were misplaced. Both poets were shown in mostly their faults. Coleridge’s addiction was not nearly as bad as it seemed in the movie and it became more manageable later in his life. Also, I have no knowledge that Wordsworth was as evil and power hungry as he seemed and he was given the title poet laureate unlike in the film. All I know is that both were highly respected poets in their time period as they are today and would be very unhappy with their portrayal in Pandaemonium. |
|
|
| Rime of the Ancient Mariner |
[Oct. 19th, 2006|04:39 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | flirty | ] |
I agree with most people that Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner involves the punishment of a wrongdoing. I find it interesting that the punishment, however, never physically hurts the mariner. Instead all of his shipmates die and he is emotionally troubled by their deaths. After I read it I wondered why the mariner would be punished by more deaths since he has no trouble killing the albatross but I suppose the deaths of his shipmates would affect him over time since it is probably impossible to operate a ship by oneself. So I imagine that to most people the message is about trial and punishment but to Coleridge while on opium it could have meant anything and if Pandaemonium was any indication I'm sure the meaning eventually changed for Dororthy Wordsworth as well. |
|
|
| Comment on seanbedfordp1's entry |
[Oct. 1st, 2006|05:40 pm] |
|
I agree with Sean about the ending of the novel in that Darcy's change is too sudden. Although, after the screening of Bride and Prejudice I have realized that maybe Darcy simply misspoke in the beginning of the novel and therefore was protrayed by everyone thereafter to be arrogrant and haughty. It seems to me that the movie's writers either understand character development more than us or just took some creative license to make the movie work without making it hours long. |
|
|
| Bride and Prejudice |
[Oct. 1st, 2006|05:37 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | ditzy | ] |
I had never seen a Bollywood movie before viewing Bride and Prejudice. I expected it to be full of “American” culture but instead it seemed to adhere pretty well to Austen’s novel. I enjoyed some of the references to western culture like how Balraj turned “into an Indian MC Hammer” and how Lakhi was said to be up all night texting. However, I could not tell if those lines were supposed to be an attempt at satirizing western culture or mimicking it. At first, I thought those were attempts to show what western culture is actually about, but then the gospel choir came out during the bonding scene on the beach. Apart from my struggle with the understanding of the screenplay, the movie’s adaptation was very close to the novel’s with some new-age twists. These modern elements make it more entertaining to today’s culture. As an example, Lakhi is rescued from Wickham and returns home rather than marrying him as in the novel. This is obviously because the movie would not make sense if her parents pressured her to marry Wickham because of simply running away with him. Another creative license was taken with Collins’ character. Of course, Collins can be made to look ridiculous in the movie more easily than in the novel because of his body language and expressions. The difference though, was in Mr. Bennet’s actions towards him. Instead of making fun of him without his knowledge, Mr. Bennet’s character is mostly silent at the dinner table and lets Collins make himself ridiculous. I got to thinking during the screening that Austen was simply more creative in writing Mr. Bennet’s subtleties against Collins than the screenwriters but then I realized that Collins’ actions exhibit funny subtleties of their own, just in a different, more modern way. Before I end I have to add that I loved Mrs. Bennet’s character in the movie. She was so crazy and occupied that even if a reader did not understand her nature in the novel, the movie would definitely clear everything up. |
|
|
| Mr. Bennet |
[Sep. 25th, 2006|08:56 am] |
| [ | mood |
| | quixotic | ] |
I have studied Pride and Prejudice for three years in a row now since it was on the IB English test. That said, I do not claim to know anything more insightful than a person who is reading it for the first time. It has been difficult for me to pay attention to all of the inuendos and other effects that Austen uses in her novel. I think some of this difficulty arises because I can't seem to identify with anyone in the novel past the first several chapters. You guessed it, Mr. Bennet is my favorite character. We share the same sense of humor and view of life in general. Rather than make a huge deal about everything, he is almost constantly sarcastic and enjoys watching the reactions of others, especially his wife and some daughters. I always chuckle when reading the section of the novel where Mr. Bennet gets excited when he learns Mr. Collins will be coming and he will get to make fun of someone without their knowledge. My favorite part in the novel is the dialogue between them. Mr. Bennet gets some of the only joy in his life by laughing at Mr. Collins’ stupidity. Mr. Bennet is a necessary character in the novel for several reasons. First, he is a man in a story with mainly female dialogue and provides guys reading the novel with someone to identify with. Second, he is the only character who seems to understand the absurdity of the whole courtship system. As an example, he is nonchalant to his wife and daughters when they say he must go meet with Mr. Bingley. But of course, he meets with Bingley anyway to make his daughters happy (and to continue the story). Last, he is the comic relief. Many people think Collins is the one to laugh at. This is true, but he may not come off as ridiculous if Mr. Bennet was not present to point it out. If anyone else has chosen Mr. Bennet as their favorite character let me know and maybe we can have an ongoing discussion. |
|
|
| Smart Women |
[Sep. 17th, 2006|08:14 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | silly | ] |
This is in response to Sean's entry this week. I can't seem to validate my email address to save my life. I think it would be safe to say that the girls in our class are good examples of the smart but still feminine women after hearing what they have had to say in class. If they were allowed to be in classes like ours back then, Robinson would have no point to prove because it would already have been proven if men had given them a chance. I liked your example of Natalie Portman...now if she could only use the force.... |
|
|
| Happiness in Poetry |
[Sep. 13th, 2006|09:39 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| | chipper | ] |
This entry is in response to multiple poems I have read over the years but was sparked by my recent reading of Mary Robinson’s Ode to Beauty. I have noticed that there seems to be a pattern with poetry that changes partway through. These types of poems exhibit a change in tone and mood when the subject changes. But they always seem to change from happy to sad, upbeat to melancholy, and enthusiastic to depressing. Robinson’s Ode to Beauty begins with uplifting words about a beautiful person and then changes quickly within the first paragraph to describe all of the forces which compromise this beauty. These forces show up in all capitals and compound on each other to destroy this beauty and eventually kill it. I would like to comment on this type of writing and I encourage anyone to comment on why it seems as though more poems go from positive to negative. Personally, I would much rather read a poem that goes the other way around and end up happier for reading it than slightly depressed, like I was after reading Robinson’s poem. The only explanation that I can think of is that poems with a negative ending create more of an effect on the reader and tend to be more controversial and provoke more discussion about why the author wrote the poem. I find this ironic, because I’m doing right now what I just said. To end this entry on an optimistic note, I would like to give William Blake’s The Chimney Sweeper as an example of a poem opposite to Robinson’s so everyone knows what I would deem an inspirational poem that I would get more enjoyment out of reading. If anyone has any other examples of poems that fit either of my loosely defined categories, post a comment. I think this could be an interesting topic to keep a discussion going. |
|
|
| Comment |
[Sep. 3rd, 2006|08:33 pm] |
|
I wanted to comment about mdreherp1's comment about emotion in Wollstonecraft's essay but I have not received an email verification email yet. I agree that in an article about important events, emotion should be taken out of the discussion. Any emotion that the author writes with will come across whether the author means to or not. This emotion only invokes more emotion on the reader's end, which is never able to solve any problems. An emotional person is not readily able to discuss, compromise, or make lasting decisions that will change a situation. |
|
|
| Howard Brown's Essay |
[Sep. 3rd, 2006|07:33 pm] |
I thoroughly enjoyed Howard Brown’s essay about what he calls “one of the most neglected periods in modern French history.” His essay is structured in a way that is very powerful yet I have not seen it used much. It begins with an example of theoretical government corruption exposed by extremist violence and used to not only oppress in ways made illegal by its constitution but to subsequently accomplish easily achievable goals in a dysfunctional time period. That example is used to lead into a walkthrough of the French Revolution during the years 1795 to 1804 including hints about the main idea of the essay, to forewarn people in the United States about possible government hypocrisies in the future of our country. In this central section of the article, events like September 11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are all hinted to. By alluding to these events, the discussion about the oppression from all sides of the French Revolution is read with the current situation of the United States in readers minds. As I read the essay, I was waiting for the section that would wrap up Brown’s ideas by comparing the French Revolution to the situation of the United States. But rather than write a long comparison, Brown uses only the last paragraph to remind readers to stay on top of the current events in our country to prevent any government oppression or even 1984-style government.
Like Brown, I do not think that our country will see any type of this hypocrisy any time soon. An event that comes to mind after reading the last paragraph of Brown’s essay was the sentencing of Zacarias Moussaoui, a man involved in the September 11th hijackings. He was given life in prison rather than executed. Moussaoui was arrested in August 2001 by the FBI for immigration violation. He was also suspected to have malicious intentions with his flight training. However, his laptop and personal rooms, were not allowed to be searched by federal laws. These events show me that our government is at least working according to its own laws and not using its full power to incriminate. Overall, I saw Brown’s article as a well-written, highly educated piece meant to both inform and forewarn without sounding anti-government, ultra-liberal, like many other authors. |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jakehouckp1's journal