Although the main story was kept the same in the newest version of The Great Gatsby there were plenty of changes that really made things interesting for those of us who had just read the book.
The one that I thought was the most intriguing was the idea that Nick had mental illness after it all happened. The doctor's notes had the fact that he was a major alcoholic with other mental problems going on. I think this play on it was really crucial to how the story was told. In the novel, we saw things from Nick's perspective, and I enjoyed reading how he always got stuck in the middle of bad situations. Seeing it from his point of view really enhanced the story, as an outsider would have very different observations from somebody who was in the action.
The fact that Nick was in a mental institution made it very easy to tell the story from his perspective. I'd be willing to bet that Luhrmann didn't want to get rid of the narration by Nick (since it adds so much to the story we might not otherwise see), so the decision to include mental illness provided a way to have him explain the story. It also gave him a chance to put Nick in as the author as some form of therapy, which might explain why the descriptions were so darn interesting in the book.
I know that some people didn't like the idea of Nick having a mental illness, but I actually think it added plenty to the story that may have been left out if he hadn't been the narrator in the movie. Having it told from a third person perspective would not provide the background information, and it might make the super rich seem much less despicable.
My favorite line in both the book and movie is "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
That particular line is one of those "drop the mic" lines. It is just so darn heavy with truth, and it really made the idea of them being careless about others very apparent. If that particular line hadn't been included in the movie (if Nick weren't in a mental health institution and narrating) it would be really hard to convey just how careless they are. Most people would find it easy to conclude that they were careless people, but this particular quote makes it even more real.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Mapping
1.This map shows the territory of the United States in both 1790 and in 1800. few parts of the actual map changed here. However, in the corner of the map, there is a population chart. The population of every state grew by at least a few thousand in 10 years. Other states experienced much larger population growths.
One change that did occur was the addition of Tennessee. Before 1800, Tennessee was just called “Territory Below the River Ohio”. Giving this state its name shows that we officially claimed it.
One last detail is that the Native American tribes are listed on here. In those 10 years, nothing changed in terms of their location or existence. No tribes were nearly wiped out during this era.
2. The story that this map narrates is how America began to feel a bit more settled in at this point. The population grew by quite a bit in each state, so people moved to America and stayed. Increased populations also show that during this time, people were living pretty healthy lives. If the population hadn’t grown much, or stayed the same, it would be easy to assume that people were having a hard time surviving in America. This map shows that Americans were all settled in and the number of Americans grew quite a bit.
To me, these maps give off the idea of the people being content. Other narratives I have read promote the idea of Americans being restless and wanting to conquer more land. Within those ten years, land was not gained nor lost, that leads me to believe that contentedness was constant. The people were making this more “homey” and organizing things to their liking. From 1790 to 1800, territories were established. Again, instead of District of Kentucky or Territory South of River Ohio, the United States gave them official names that officially admitted them to the country. Welcome home.
3. “This blessed People was as a little Flock of Kids”
This quote is discussing how later Native Americans were not seen as much of a threat. The map shows that, as they included the Native American tribes on the map, and just sort of left them alone. None of the tribes were wiped out in those ten years, but they were labeled on the map in careful, red writing. Although the Americans didn’t have the entire section that we have today, the populations were not large enough to fill up the big space they did have. That meant that the Native Americans and the former colonists had enough room to leave each other alone.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
America: the Land of Equal Opportunity..?
Born in Omaha, Nebraska, and raised near Madison, Wi to two lovely parents, I was lucky enough to grow up in a household that gave me everything I would need to pursue opportunity. Unfortunately, those that didn’t strike the jackpot in terms of financial well-being upon birth won’t have the same opportunities that I did growing up. And it breaks my heart.
Saying that people born into lower class families won’t have many opportunities may seem like a bold statement, especially in America: the land where you can work hard and pull yourself up by the bootstraps. After all, there are cases of famous people doing just that, right? Document D gives examples of those cases. Although Abraham Lincoln and Oprah grew up poor and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps, those cases are quite rare. After all, Paul Krugman, author of document G, wrote “America is both especially unequal and has especially low mobility.” and proved that point with the chart of intergenerational elasticity and inequality from a colleague of his. Although Krugman’s statement does not say that upward mobility is impossible, it does say it is especially low. Since it is so low, stories like Oprah’s become well known to everyone. Americans love to hear an underdog story because they are so rare, and they capture the idea that people from any background can make something of themselves. Stories of that sort give extremely hard-working lower class Americans all kinds of hope, too. Krugman also argues that instances of upward mobility will get even more rare, as we are “more unequal than we were a generation ago, [and] we should expect even less social mobility going forward”.
So if one is born into a poor family, why is it so difficult to move up? The secret has been out for awhile that getting an education is the most traditional, and arguably the best way, to create opportunities for oneself. Again, I was lucky; I had the great privilege of attending montessori school which gave me a very solid base for the rest of my educational career. Kids whose parents do not invest as much in their education many others do (because they can’t afford it or don’t see it as important) won’t have that base and may struggle later in school. Source B argues that talent comes from investing in something, whether that is education or art classes or piano lessons. For the rich, that’s good news; investing in their child’s future is no problem, and paying money to provide their kids with educational and recreational opportunities is a no-brainer. But, what if one cannot afford to invest in piano lessons or art classes? What if a family’s income is so low that the student must get a job to contribute to the family instead of getting involved in sports? Source A discusses how richer students are involved in extracurriculars and have better grades. There is a strong connection between involvement in extracurriculars and good grades, so those from families who cannot afford to invest in education nor extracurriculars face, once again, an academic disadvantage.
In the lower class families, those students tend to have many other problems to worry about that do not include getting good grades. For thousands of students out there, I would imagine it would be extremely difficult to take Algebra seriously when they worry whether or not they’ll have to go to bed hungry that night, or if the family will be able to afford rent that month. The academic gap between the rich and the poor is real, no matter how many of the rich Americans believe it is not. Moving up the financial and social latter is very difficult, and it appears to be getting even worse as time goes on.
Monday, April 21, 2014
A 'Middler'
After taking the "What Social Class Am I?" quiz, the results showed that I am a 'Middler'. This means that my personality reflects that of a person of the middle class. I actually think that I really agree with this result. I don't like to have a lot of things. Having physical things makes me feel really crowded, and I'd rather just not deal with that. I also watched a Ted Talk about those who have less physical stuff are statistically happier. That motivated me to stop impulse buying so much. I think it is true; I am happier after getting rid of so much of my stuff.
Even if I don't need the best of things, that doesn't mean I would feel comfortable just pitching a tent and roughing it. Although, I would really like to try that sometime. I think this quiz is more about what social class your personality reflects. One example was the question about how people in nicer cars tend to not stop for pedestrians. I know plenty of rich people that have more beat-up cars, but they choose to save their money instead of spending it on a nice sports car that they can show off to the world. I think because they have that mentality of not being show offs, it also makes them nicer, and much more likely to stop for pedestrians. It's a fascinating quiz, really, and I like how a person with a high class income can still have a "lower class" personality, and a person with a lower class incoming can maybe have an "upper class" personality.
I think about social class and how we get so caught up in it all the time. My personal experience is that people spend their money to impress other people. It isn't like products really make you happy (except for food), but what does make people happy is the satisfaction of knowing that other people like their clothes and/or envy them. Teenage girls go out and buy expensive clothes because they want to look all fancy to impress the boys. The one line that keeps being repeated in my head when I think of this is "it's all a show". All of it. Buying the biggest house one can afford (or can't afford) is not practical in any way, it's just a show.
This directly relates to The Great Gatsby because Gatsby has spent so much of his money on a house and on cars and on anything else that he thinks will impress Daisy. In the last section, Gatsby claimed that Daisy only married Tom because he himself was too poor. Now, he has been overcompensating by buying the best and making everything look good. It's all a show! It is all about impressing her and attempting to make her fall in love with him because now they are in the same class.
This also reminds me of the People Like Us documentary. The video said that people tend to stick with other people who are in the same social class. Although Gatsby and Daisy weren't originally in the same class, he forced himself into it so that they could be together.
Even if I don't need the best of things, that doesn't mean I would feel comfortable just pitching a tent and roughing it. Although, I would really like to try that sometime. I think this quiz is more about what social class your personality reflects. One example was the question about how people in nicer cars tend to not stop for pedestrians. I know plenty of rich people that have more beat-up cars, but they choose to save their money instead of spending it on a nice sports car that they can show off to the world. I think because they have that mentality of not being show offs, it also makes them nicer, and much more likely to stop for pedestrians. It's a fascinating quiz, really, and I like how a person with a high class income can still have a "lower class" personality, and a person with a lower class incoming can maybe have an "upper class" personality.
I think about social class and how we get so caught up in it all the time. My personal experience is that people spend their money to impress other people. It isn't like products really make you happy (except for food), but what does make people happy is the satisfaction of knowing that other people like their clothes and/or envy them. Teenage girls go out and buy expensive clothes because they want to look all fancy to impress the boys. The one line that keeps being repeated in my head when I think of this is "it's all a show". All of it. Buying the biggest house one can afford (or can't afford) is not practical in any way, it's just a show.
This directly relates to The Great Gatsby because Gatsby has spent so much of his money on a house and on cars and on anything else that he thinks will impress Daisy. In the last section, Gatsby claimed that Daisy only married Tom because he himself was too poor. Now, he has been overcompensating by buying the best and making everything look good. It's all a show! It is all about impressing her and attempting to make her fall in love with him because now they are in the same class.
This also reminds me of the People Like Us documentary. The video said that people tend to stick with other people who are in the same social class. Although Gatsby and Daisy weren't originally in the same class, he forced himself into it so that they could be together.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Sound And Fury (Not to be Confused With Balls of Fury)
I finished watching Sound of Fury on Netflix over the weekend, and I have to say that I found it incredibly interesting. I have only known a few deaf people in my entire life, and I didn't really get to know them, so going into this I was practically clueless.
I had no idea that some deaf people saw things like cochlear implants as defying nature. They think that because their children are born deaf, that is the way they were intended to be. Messing with that is seen as completely awful to many of them.
One scene in the movie showed the conversation between the mother of a deaf baby and the grandmother of that same deaf child. The mother wanted cochlear implants in order to help the child have a more normal life. To hearing people, it seems like that would be an easy decision. Yes, the child should be able to hear if there is something that can be done about it. The grandmother, on the other hand, said that she was happy when she found out her grandchild was born deaf. She was very proud of the deaf culture and wanted her grandchild to experience that.
Throughout the movie, it was very easy to see that, for the most part, the only people who were against cochlear implants were people who could not hear. Those who could were totally for it. That is, without a doubt, due to the what these individuals have experienced in the past. The father of a young, deaf girl was against cochlear implants. That probably has to do with the fact that at some point in his life, he had to completely accept that he was deaf. Once he accepted it, he used it as a part of who he is as a person. The fact that his daughter may not have to accept that she is deaf was foreign to him.
The many arguments that broke out over this issue clearly show that this issue has a lot of passion behind it on both sides. It's a personal choice for both the child and the parent, but both sides have very good reasons for believing what they do.
The main point of this documentary is to show that people believe the things they do because of the discourses they belong to. People who aren’t deaf couldn’t possibly understand what it must be like to have people wanting to use technology to allow deaf kids to possibly hear. They view it as changing nature, where people who have been able to hear their entire lives see nothing wrong with it.
I had no idea that some deaf people saw things like cochlear implants as defying nature. They think that because their children are born deaf, that is the way they were intended to be. Messing with that is seen as completely awful to many of them.
One scene in the movie showed the conversation between the mother of a deaf baby and the grandmother of that same deaf child. The mother wanted cochlear implants in order to help the child have a more normal life. To hearing people, it seems like that would be an easy decision. Yes, the child should be able to hear if there is something that can be done about it. The grandmother, on the other hand, said that she was happy when she found out her grandchild was born deaf. She was very proud of the deaf culture and wanted her grandchild to experience that.
Throughout the movie, it was very easy to see that, for the most part, the only people who were against cochlear implants were people who could not hear. Those who could were totally for it. That is, without a doubt, due to the what these individuals have experienced in the past. The father of a young, deaf girl was against cochlear implants. That probably has to do with the fact that at some point in his life, he had to completely accept that he was deaf. Once he accepted it, he used it as a part of who he is as a person. The fact that his daughter may not have to accept that she is deaf was foreign to him.
The many arguments that broke out over this issue clearly show that this issue has a lot of passion behind it on both sides. It's a personal choice for both the child and the parent, but both sides have very good reasons for believing what they do.
The main point of this documentary is to show that people believe the things they do because of the discourses they belong to. People who aren’t deaf couldn’t possibly understand what it must be like to have people wanting to use technology to allow deaf kids to possibly hear. They view it as changing nature, where people who have been able to hear their entire lives see nothing wrong with it.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Fear
Failure. That fear may seem like a mild inconvenience, but in reality, it has prevented me from doing some potentially amazing things. I try to imagine the what I would be able to do if I knew I couldn't fail, and the possibilities truly seem endless. Maybe I'd start a business or move to a new country and start a new life. If I knew I couldn't fail and things wouldn't be any worse than they are now (not saying things are bad, they're actually pretty good) I would be able to do almost anything and go anywhere.
I'm not a risk-taker and that is simply because of my fear of failure. If a so-called "risk" contains even a slight chance of failure, I would have a really hard time taking that risk because of it. Even if a failure would result in no ill consequences, I still fear it. For example, I cannot get myself to apply to colleges that I am not sure if I can be admitted. I fear a letter in the mail that would contain a denial or wait list. So, I've only applied to schools that I know I'll get into. It's odd, really. I know that I'm far from alone, though.
It may root back to critics of my past. Failures, when you're young, result in being laughed at or mocked. If you raise your hand in class and get the question wrong, everybody looks at you and makes you feel really small. Middle school is the prime time for fearing failure, as so many classmates are downright cruel. Middle school is where people are trying to find out who they really are. In the process, many go along with people that have power. Often, people with "power" are the mean ones. There is a lot of unkindness during that age, and although it may not have affected a whole lot me as far as I'm aware a whole lot, I'm sure many people are afraid of failure because of how people made them feel in middle school.
In golf, which is something I play A LOT, I fear shots sometimes. Golf is all about confidence, and if you know that you're going to hit a really good shot, you will. If you fear a potentially risky shot over the water, you'll hit it in the water. The rounds where I'm loose and I'm certain that all of my practice has paid off are the ones where I play out of my mind. As soon as it's pressured and, I forget about how much I have practiced, and I often have fear out on the course.
Fear of failure is something that I'd love to get over. I'm not sure how to go about that, but it needs to be done.
I'm not a risk-taker and that is simply because of my fear of failure. If a so-called "risk" contains even a slight chance of failure, I would have a really hard time taking that risk because of it. Even if a failure would result in no ill consequences, I still fear it. For example, I cannot get myself to apply to colleges that I am not sure if I can be admitted. I fear a letter in the mail that would contain a denial or wait list. So, I've only applied to schools that I know I'll get into. It's odd, really. I know that I'm far from alone, though.
It may root back to critics of my past. Failures, when you're young, result in being laughed at or mocked. If you raise your hand in class and get the question wrong, everybody looks at you and makes you feel really small. Middle school is the prime time for fearing failure, as so many classmates are downright cruel. Middle school is where people are trying to find out who they really are. In the process, many go along with people that have power. Often, people with "power" are the mean ones. There is a lot of unkindness during that age, and although it may not have affected a whole lot me as far as I'm aware a whole lot, I'm sure many people are afraid of failure because of how people made them feel in middle school.
In golf, which is something I play A LOT, I fear shots sometimes. Golf is all about confidence, and if you know that you're going to hit a really good shot, you will. If you fear a potentially risky shot over the water, you'll hit it in the water. The rounds where I'm loose and I'm certain that all of my practice has paid off are the ones where I play out of my mind. As soon as it's pressured and, I forget about how much I have practiced, and I often have fear out on the course.
Fear of failure is something that I'd love to get over. I'm not sure how to go about that, but it needs to be done.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Wiki Leaks
This whole issue of Wiki Leaks in an interesting one, that's for sure. Some people have very strong feelings on the topic, and those go both ways.
Many people see Julian Assange as a heroic figure, as he has helped leak different things that have actually changed the world. The election in Kenya is the best example that comes to mind. Because of that single leak, the election was swung by 10%. That changed the course of the election. For this, Wiki Leaks and Assange are viewed in a glorious and heroic light.
On the flip side, others think of Assange as just some trouble maker who doesn't have the right to leak this information. At times, the info that has been leaked has hurt some people in the process. One example would be Chelsea Manning. In a way, Wiki Leaks basically made her look like a traitor to the United States. That fact has, most likely, ruined the rest of her life.
In addition, some leaks are quite brutal make American soldiers look very heartless in the process. This is not something that most American enjoy seeing, and that makes many people dislike Wiki Leaks.
The main question remains: did Assange have the right to release these documents Although there are U.S. laws that state that the government has the right to have privacy over documents that have to do with national defense but according to the article, no news source has ever officially been punished for releasing secrets. I strongly believe that this fact has to do with the First Amendment. That protects our right to free speech, and I simply cannot see any court ruling against this because of the First Amendment.
A ton of people think of Assange as a hero. If he received a really harsh punishment, or if an "accident" happened to him, there would be a lot of anger out there. People would probably start riots and the government would have even more problems on its hands. I think that the government will stick to their current plan and just leave him be where he is. It's a passive strategy, but both the government and Assange are stuck right where they are, and there doesn't appear to be a way that either party would win if they came out of their stalemate.
Many people see Julian Assange as a heroic figure, as he has helped leak different things that have actually changed the world. The election in Kenya is the best example that comes to mind. Because of that single leak, the election was swung by 10%. That changed the course of the election. For this, Wiki Leaks and Assange are viewed in a glorious and heroic light.
On the flip side, others think of Assange as just some trouble maker who doesn't have the right to leak this information. At times, the info that has been leaked has hurt some people in the process. One example would be Chelsea Manning. In a way, Wiki Leaks basically made her look like a traitor to the United States. That fact has, most likely, ruined the rest of her life.
In addition, some leaks are quite brutal make American soldiers look very heartless in the process. This is not something that most American enjoy seeing, and that makes many people dislike Wiki Leaks.
The main question remains: did Assange have the right to release these documents Although there are U.S. laws that state that the government has the right to have privacy over documents that have to do with national defense but according to the article, no news source has ever officially been punished for releasing secrets. I strongly believe that this fact has to do with the First Amendment. That protects our right to free speech, and I simply cannot see any court ruling against this because of the First Amendment.
A ton of people think of Assange as a hero. If he received a really harsh punishment, or if an "accident" happened to him, there would be a lot of anger out there. People would probably start riots and the government would have even more problems on its hands. I think that the government will stick to their current plan and just leave him be where he is. It's a passive strategy, but both the government and Assange are stuck right where they are, and there doesn't appear to be a way that either party would win if they came out of their stalemate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)