http://homepages.wmich.edu/~cooneys/poems/cummings.nextto.html
This writing is very interesting (and not just because it was by E. E. Cummings, who is a very unique artist), and it has a good message to it.
We all know those high-strung individuals who are blindly loyal to some cause or another, those who when asked to give up something for the cause, their only complaint is they couldn't give more.
Not that having a cause to be loyal to isn't a good thing. Quite the contrary! "If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything" (Alexander Hamilton is credited for that quotation, if you're wondering)
The problem that Cummings (and myself personally) had wasn't having a cause, or having loyalty to a cause, but BLIND loyalty for a cause.
In this poem, the narrator questions the honor of dying for America in war. Dying isn't exactly something to just ignore or shrug off, yet there are a lot of people who feel that as long as it's for America, it's worth it.
Is it though? Is dying for anything worth it for that matter? That's a question we all need to ask ourselves, instead of getting sucked in to blind loyalty. And if after you thought about it, and you still believe giving your life to preserve or better America is noble and just, then all the more power to you! Just don't ignore the fact that the question needs to be asked.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
To register strength
"So Kyle, would you like to work on register?"
I have been working at a local Zaxby's for a few months now. This was my first job, and I was only hired for this job because my older brother pulled some strings from the Zaxby's he works. Regardless, I was thankful for the chance to have a job at all, and I was eager to prove to them (and myself) that I am more than just Vance's brother, so I have been working as diligently as I can.
"I... I guess I am willing to..."
My job is actually very simple and pretty easy. If you can sweep, wipe off counters and tables, and put things on a shelf, you'd probably be more than qualified for this job. My position is called "lobby", because basically I keep everything in the lobby clean: tables, counters, bathrooms, patio, trash cans, floors, all that fun stuff to clean. That's been my job since the first day I was trained, and if I may say so myself, I've gotten to be at least pretty proficient at it.
"Alright, great! I'll work you into the schedule for next week!"
This wasn't the first time one of our managers has asked me to work on register, and I'm sure it won't be the last. They all seem to think that I am ready for the register, unlike myself, who is perfectly content with sticking to sweeping (which is always what I tend to be doing when they ask me about register). I am comfortable with staying in lobby, I know how to do it.
The next day, in our Lit class, Dr. Vince assigned for us to go over Theodore Roosevelt, and when we read part of "The Strenuous Life", it kinda struck a nerve. Roosevelt challenged us to go out of our comfort zone and find obstacles, yet here I was avoiding my obstacles.
At work that night, I was frantically cleaning the lobby (we had a huge rush of people that night), and when I finally had earned some free time to get a soda, one of my managers approached me.
"So Kyle, has anyone asked you about working register?"
"Yes'm," I replied while looking away.
"Oh yeah? Well how would you like to work register then?"
"I wouldn't actually, sorry," I replied honestly, and her expression was genuine confusion.
"Oh, okay, that's fine, I just thought you were getting bored out there," she explained.
"Well, I'm used to it, but I don't think I'm ready to try anything new yet," I spinelessly muttered out, then excused myself to go back and check on the lobby.
While sweeping the floor, Roosevelt's challenge kept popping into my head. At first I tried to reason it away, surely it only applied to physical things, right? But eventually I realized that Roosevelt's message wasn't just about physical challenges (although without a doubt that's one of the things he was saying), but his challenge was to step out of ALL of our comfort zones to build our character. Keeping with what I know and getting lazy in it would only end up stunting my growth and keeping me from going forward.
After sweeping I found my manager again (ironically she was helping a coworker of mine learn how to get in physical shape and challenge her body), and I waited until they were done talking, then told my manager about my change of heart.
(sorry I couldn't find a link for the reading, it was just a part of the work, and not the whole thing, so I couldn't find a link that didn't have way too much more than what I had read...)
I have been working at a local Zaxby's for a few months now. This was my first job, and I was only hired for this job because my older brother pulled some strings from the Zaxby's he works. Regardless, I was thankful for the chance to have a job at all, and I was eager to prove to them (and myself) that I am more than just Vance's brother, so I have been working as diligently as I can.
"I... I guess I am willing to..."
My job is actually very simple and pretty easy. If you can sweep, wipe off counters and tables, and put things on a shelf, you'd probably be more than qualified for this job. My position is called "lobby", because basically I keep everything in the lobby clean: tables, counters, bathrooms, patio, trash cans, floors, all that fun stuff to clean. That's been my job since the first day I was trained, and if I may say so myself, I've gotten to be at least pretty proficient at it.
"Alright, great! I'll work you into the schedule for next week!"
This wasn't the first time one of our managers has asked me to work on register, and I'm sure it won't be the last. They all seem to think that I am ready for the register, unlike myself, who is perfectly content with sticking to sweeping (which is always what I tend to be doing when they ask me about register). I am comfortable with staying in lobby, I know how to do it.
The next day, in our Lit class, Dr. Vince assigned for us to go over Theodore Roosevelt, and when we read part of "The Strenuous Life", it kinda struck a nerve. Roosevelt challenged us to go out of our comfort zone and find obstacles, yet here I was avoiding my obstacles.
At work that night, I was frantically cleaning the lobby (we had a huge rush of people that night), and when I finally had earned some free time to get a soda, one of my managers approached me.
"So Kyle, has anyone asked you about working register?"
"Yes'm," I replied while looking away.
"Oh yeah? Well how would you like to work register then?"
"I wouldn't actually, sorry," I replied honestly, and her expression was genuine confusion.
"Oh, okay, that's fine, I just thought you were getting bored out there," she explained.
"Well, I'm used to it, but I don't think I'm ready to try anything new yet," I spinelessly muttered out, then excused myself to go back and check on the lobby.
While sweeping the floor, Roosevelt's challenge kept popping into my head. At first I tried to reason it away, surely it only applied to physical things, right? But eventually I realized that Roosevelt's message wasn't just about physical challenges (although without a doubt that's one of the things he was saying), but his challenge was to step out of ALL of our comfort zones to build our character. Keeping with what I know and getting lazy in it would only end up stunting my growth and keeping me from going forward.
After sweeping I found my manager again (ironically she was helping a coworker of mine learn how to get in physical shape and challenge her body), and I waited until they were done talking, then told my manager about my change of heart.
(sorry I couldn't find a link for the reading, it was just a part of the work, and not the whole thing, so I couldn't find a link that didn't have way too much more than what I had read...)
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The Real Question
Earlier in the semester, Dr. Vince asked us to read "The Real Thing" by Henry James (http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2098/), and after we discussed it in class, it really got me thinking about things being real vs. being fake.
I know, at first, that battle sounds like there's no competition. We've grown up in a world of mass advertisement, so the idea that the "real deal" is superior has been flaunted at us since we were old enough to be sat down in front of a TV (so basically, whenever you're born it's already forced onto you), so naturally we regurgitate that philosophy whenever the need arises.
But wait, there's more! (yay advertisement joke!) Henry James gave us one example of how the "real thing" is not only no better than the fake, but it's actually worse in this case. Of course, I suppose you could make the point that the Monarch's weren't real models, but rather Miss Churm and the Italian are the real thing in that perspective maybe...
But what about the placebo effect? (if you're unsure as to what the placebo effect is, check THIS out! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=placebo-effect-a-cure-in-the-mind. Skidoosh!) This effect shows that it doesn't take the real thing for something to work, as long as you think it'll work. And in another way, it actually could disprove that in some cases the real thing is better, because we could just THINK it would work better, when in reality, it's no different save for a brand label or social implications.
Also, take a look at some famous artists who, while portraying heterosexuals in some or all of their works, actually are homosexuals in real life, such as Neil Patrick Harris and Freddie Mercury. In the sitcom "How I Met Your Mother," Harris plays the womanizer Barney, and Queen's song "Fat Bottom Girls" is... well, self explanatory I suppose... Anyway, they seem to play the part of a heterosexual very well, sometimes better than actual heterosexuals could ever do.
So is the real thing necessarily better than others? I say no. But at the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean that the real thing is less than others either. Basically, my opinion is to just not take anything at face value and presume quality, but instead investigate for yourself what is good or bad.
I know, at first, that battle sounds like there's no competition. We've grown up in a world of mass advertisement, so the idea that the "real deal" is superior has been flaunted at us since we were old enough to be sat down in front of a TV (so basically, whenever you're born it's already forced onto you), so naturally we regurgitate that philosophy whenever the need arises.
But wait, there's more! (yay advertisement joke!) Henry James gave us one example of how the "real thing" is not only no better than the fake, but it's actually worse in this case. Of course, I suppose you could make the point that the Monarch's weren't real models, but rather Miss Churm and the Italian are the real thing in that perspective maybe...
But what about the placebo effect? (if you're unsure as to what the placebo effect is, check THIS out! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=placebo-effect-a-cure-in-the-mind. Skidoosh!) This effect shows that it doesn't take the real thing for something to work, as long as you think it'll work. And in another way, it actually could disprove that in some cases the real thing is better, because we could just THINK it would work better, when in reality, it's no different save for a brand label or social implications.
Also, take a look at some famous artists who, while portraying heterosexuals in some or all of their works, actually are homosexuals in real life, such as Neil Patrick Harris and Freddie Mercury. In the sitcom "How I Met Your Mother," Harris plays the womanizer Barney, and Queen's song "Fat Bottom Girls" is... well, self explanatory I suppose... Anyway, they seem to play the part of a heterosexual very well, sometimes better than actual heterosexuals could ever do.
So is the real thing necessarily better than others? I say no. But at the same time, that doesn't necessarily mean that the real thing is less than others either. Basically, my opinion is to just not take anything at face value and presume quality, but instead investigate for yourself what is good or bad.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Complaints for a seemingly happy ending
http://classiclit.about.com/od/stormkatechopin/a/aa_thestorm_kchopin.htm
The first time I read this story, I was outraged by the ending.
What?!?! Alcee and Calixta cheat on their lovers, and they just get away with it? And Clarisse is more than happy to have some time away from her husband? How is this a good way to end a story?!
Regardless, afterwards I tried to keep an open mind about it, so when we discussed this reading in class the next day, I tried to see where Kate Chopin was coming from.
Dr. Vince tried to explain that what Chopin was trying to get at was that, while society wants us to believe that love, marriage, and sex are all intertwined, people are more complex than that.
At first, I was able to accept that, and even wonder about that sort of thing myself, debating on whether or not it is possible to be in love with someone and have sex with another and not feel guilty about it. In the end, however, I came to the same conclusion that most of our society has rammed down our throats for years: no.
Scientific studies have shown that sex with love is more fruitful and satisfying than sex without love (http://www.livescience.com/11067-reasons-sex-linked-satisfaction-study-finds.html), and also there are countless examples of people who tried to have "meaningless sex" only to end up getting hurt because one of them falls in love with the other. While Chopin was true in believing that people are more complicated, she actually oversimplified the complex emotions that intertwine love, sex, and marriage, at least from what I can tell.
I suppose that my opinion is biased however, as I am interested in a monogamous marriage with plenty of sex (don't laugh, it's possible!), so I feel threatened by her ideals of unbounded passion. I'll let you decide for yourself, I hope this will inspire you to think for awhile (what a crime, how dare we think?), and I hope you enjoyed tonight's installment of American Lit: Kyle Style!
The first time I read this story, I was outraged by the ending.
What?!?! Alcee and Calixta cheat on their lovers, and they just get away with it? And Clarisse is more than happy to have some time away from her husband? How is this a good way to end a story?!
Regardless, afterwards I tried to keep an open mind about it, so when we discussed this reading in class the next day, I tried to see where Kate Chopin was coming from.
Dr. Vince tried to explain that what Chopin was trying to get at was that, while society wants us to believe that love, marriage, and sex are all intertwined, people are more complex than that.
At first, I was able to accept that, and even wonder about that sort of thing myself, debating on whether or not it is possible to be in love with someone and have sex with another and not feel guilty about it. In the end, however, I came to the same conclusion that most of our society has rammed down our throats for years: no.
Scientific studies have shown that sex with love is more fruitful and satisfying than sex without love (http://www.livescience.com/11067-reasons-sex-linked-satisfaction-study-finds.html), and also there are countless examples of people who tried to have "meaningless sex" only to end up getting hurt because one of them falls in love with the other. While Chopin was true in believing that people are more complicated, she actually oversimplified the complex emotions that intertwine love, sex, and marriage, at least from what I can tell.
I suppose that my opinion is biased however, as I am interested in a monogamous marriage with plenty of sex (don't laugh, it's possible!), so I feel threatened by her ideals of unbounded passion. I'll let you decide for yourself, I hope this will inspire you to think for awhile (what a crime, how dare we think?), and I hope you enjoyed tonight's installment of American Lit: Kyle Style!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)