Cellar Door

     Nothing shouts postmodern like an indie, science fiction film about an angst ridden, slightly psychopathic teenage boy who’s followed around by a spooky guy in a rabbit suit. However, what strikes me as the kind of “narrative collapse’ that Rushkoff discusses in his novel, Present Shock, isn’t the obviously eccentric plot points that the movie Donnie Darko is so well known for, but instead the deeper messages that lie behind the film, and the ways in which the filmmakers chose to portray said messages.
     Although released in 2001, Donnie Darko takes place in 1988. One of the main premises of the movie is to poke fun at the “perfect” lifestyles of middle-class, suburban Americans, and the director most likely felt that the most appropriate time period to do so was in the 80s. However, the movie was not written, filmed, or created during this time, and the actors’ choices, along with the topics chosen by the writers, are therefore prime examples of presentism, a topic brought up by Rushkoff in his book, Present Shock. Leading into a new millennium, the late 90s and early 2000s were consumed heavily by science fiction, with ideas such as time travel and powerful external forces circling the minds of all of those who were waiting for the type of future they believed would come with the 21st century. Therefore, with “The Philosophy of Time Travel” being a common motif throughout the film, despite the desired time periodization, it is made clear that some ideas behind the making of the movie were influenced by presentism. When discussing this phenomena in Present Shock, Rushkoff states, “Our society has reoriented itself to the present moment… It’s more of a diminishment of anything that isn’t happening right now—and the onslaught of everything that supposedly is” (Rushkoff). Although the director maintains the feel of a 80s movie, using proper clothing choices and appropriate characterization, Donnie Darko still focuses on something that the creators felt was important and interesting in 2001.
     Donnie Darko also challenges the idea of a strictly linear narrative. There is no clear beginning to the story, as we are almost instantly introduced to the conflict, when an airplane engine falls on the roof of the Darko house. Viewers are left slightly confused, as it feels almost expected by the filmmakers that we already know who the Darkos are, considering there is no clear introduction to each of them or their lives in Middlesex, Virginia. It also feels as though we should just accept the fact that an airplane engine has fallen from the sky, and landed perfectly in Donnie’s bedroom. Viewers are therefore left confused, until the plot is explained further, and each piece slowly begins to fit into the puzzle, as the storyline gets more and more complex. Then, when you almost think the last two hours you’ve spent finally make sense, everything contradicts itself in the last five minutes of the movie. However, this type of scattered chronology is a prime example of a “narrative collapse” which makes us question everything believed to be key to traditional story making.
     Some may argue that challenging traditional narrative formats creates the risk of a confusing storyline. Although a valid concern, considering many feel Donnie Darko isn’t worth the blurred line between reality and hallucinations that is often crossed too leisurely throughout the film, writers shouldn’t just stop taking risks, as it is important to separate ourselves from past generations. “As Korzybski put it, we see further because we ‘stand on the shoulders’ of the previous generation. The danger of such a position is that we can forget to put our own feet on the ground” (Rushkoff). Although building upon an already solid foundation left over by previous writers and thinkers is a valid strategy, it’s also not a bad idea for new writers to take the risk of creating a new format that may better fit the message of their piece: hence, the influx of postmodernism.
     In conclusion, the film Donnie Darko is a prime example of ideas expressed in Rushkoff’s Present Shock, such as presentism and “narrative collapse”. Although seen as a postmodern, breakaway story from traditional narratives, Donnie Darko still expresses traits of a hero’s journey. Donnie is called to adventure by Frank the Rabbit, goes through multiple steps of a hero, and finally ends the movie, and his life, by sacrificing himself in the wormhole. Although Donnie goes back and forth between both the antagonist and protagonist, the overall message of needing a hero that is commonly prominent in stories is still fairly clear. However, in Donnie Darko, the hero isn’t necessarily a person, but one could argue that it is instead the sanity of Donnie himself.

         Works Cited:
Rushkoff, Douglass. Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now. New York: Penguin, 2013. Print.

But can you describe that Moveable Feast in immense detail?

     Ernest Hemingway is known for his arguably excessive use of details and descriptions in order to back up his points in writing. However, in his novel, A Moveable Feast, I feel this extent of detail was almost necessary in order to get across his desired points. Being a reoccurring element in Hemingway’s writing, it comes to no surprise he utilizes in-depth descriptions for topics as simple as his meal for the day. For example, Hemingway reminisces, “…I ate the oysters with their strong taste of the sea and their faint metallic taste that the cold white wine washed away, leaving only the sea taste and the succulent texture, and as I drank their cold liquid from each shell and washed it down with the crisp taste of the wine…” (Hemingway, a Moveable Feast). Such details also provide a fairly straight forward, relaxed nature to the book. Considering the premise of A Moveable Feast was to be a recollection of Hemingway’s “better years” in France throughout his 20’s, this kind of straightforwardness allows readers to feel closer to Hemingway as an individual, rather than just as a writer.
     Although it is implied that A Moveable Feast takes place during Hemingway’s early life, a clear statement is never made informing readers as to whether the book is fictional or nonfictional, and what time the stories occur. Therefore, readers are left to interpret each part of the novel in whatever way they feel fit. That being said, Hemingway’s use of details makes it fair to assume the stories he shares are at least memories of actual events that occurred, and would therefore take place around the early 1900s. This fact is important to keep in mind when reading A Moveable Feast, as he discusses taboo topics rather openly, which allows the readers to have an inside look into what social life was like in Europe nearly a century ago, as subjects such as homosexuality, adultery, and a use of drugs and alcohol are discussed fairly heavily throughout the novel. Hemingway’s honesty towards such behavior of even the most patronized artists and intellects allows readers to feel comfortable with the material he writes, and therefore allows the purpose of his documentation of his life to come out very clearly.
     The purpose of reading this novel in our AP Lang class was most likely to both further our abilities to analyze an author’s implied opinions and messages, and also to take note of how different styles used by different authors aid their writing in different ways. I believe Hemingway wrote A Moveable Feast with the intentions of warning younger people to not let the prime of their lives go to waste. Considering the darkness that Hemingway suffered with throughout the latter years of his life, it is relatively clear that he felt he took advantage of the opportunities and people that he was provided with in France. It, therefore, is not entirely surprising that, later in his life, Hemingway would decide to write a book about his favorite or most notable memories of his glory days in Paris: A Moveable Feast.

    Works Cited
Hemingway, Ernest. A Moveable Feast. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1964. Print.

Narcissism in Today's Generation

           The American education system focuses heavily on how to prepare students with the academic skills they will need to pass college. However, what schools tend to neglect are the skills their students will need to survive in everyday life situations. In Neil Postman’s The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School, Postman discusses the tactics in our education system that he disagrees with, and suggests what he feels are better alternatives. One topic that is discussed by educators and intellectuals alike is whether school should be a place for strict textbook learning, or a place to adapt street smarts. Postman felt that school should equally be divided between the two, stating “What this means is that at its best, schooling can be about how to make a life, which is quite different from how to make a living.” (Postman, the End of Education).

            Although school is a place for learning skills such as math, science, and English, there becomes an age where children are in a need for learning how to interact with others, and communicate in an environment they may not be completely comfortable with. Without disregarding the importance of individual growth in a school setting, Postman writes, “… the idea of a school is that individuals must learn in a setting in which individual needs are subordinated to group interests… the classroom is intended to tame the ego, to connect the individual with others, to demonstrate the value and necessity of group cohesion.” (Postman, the End of Education). Without this kind of group exposure, people fall accustom to selfish thinking, and therefore a world of priorities that revolve almost solely around themselves. I am not attempting to make a large generalization that all adolescents are selfish individuals, but, according to the Association of Psychological Science, “College kids today are about 40 percent lower in empathy than their counterparts of 20 or 30 years ago” (Douthat, The Culture of Narcissism).

          Interestingly enough, Postman’s the End of Education was published around the time that said college students would most likely be first attending primary school. Although this may just be a coincidence, it is important to recognize that Postman practically called for this kind of self-absorbed public to be created in future generations. So the topic in question is how does one prevent this pattern from continuing? The first step is recognizing the cause. Schools now a days are guilty of handing out awards for simply showing up to an event. Therefore, students grow up with a sense of entitlement, and when they are placed into the workplace, they expect to be rewarded and praised for even the simplest of accomplishments.

          There is no denying that "Generation Y" is bringing innovations to the world greater than ever before imagined. However, the more an individual from this generation personally recognizes this fact, and the more that person will expect those around them to praise them for it, the less productive they will become, leaving themselves in an endless cycle of sugar-coated compliments. Constructive criticism is a vital aspect of learning, and, without it, society will cease to advance.

Works Cited:

Douthat, Ross. "The Culture of Narcissism." Ross Douthat The Culture of Narcissism Comments. The New York Times, 02 June 2010. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.
Postman, Neil. The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Knopf, 1995. Print.

What if Darwin ate at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?

*Huge spoiler alert: please don’t read this post if you have any interest in reading The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy because I completely give away the ending!!! Otherwise, carry on J

Although we already have a long list of great reads from Lang, I couldn’t help but write this post on a book from a different class. When thinking of philosophy and all of its complexity, one book from the summer reading list freshman year very clearly sticks out in my mind: The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. For anyone who hasn’t read the book, Douglas Adams is fairly similar to Gaarden in that he makes the reader question the significance and purpose of their existence (except through aliens, not philosophy) in a fairly complicated way, making it rather difficult to give a proper summary of his book. However, for the purpose of this post, I will be focusing on the part of the story that revolves around Earth.

Near the very beginning of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Earth is destroyed in order to make space for a hyper-space express route, leaving only one human, Arthur Dent, to roam the universe. However, near the very end, Arthur discovers that Earth was created and controlled completely by mice. This concept somewhat reminds me of Darwin’s theory of “natural selection”.

Charles Darwin was an English naturalist who believed in the concept of evolution and “survival of the fittest”. Gaarden points out in his book, Sophie’s World, that Darwin “proposed that all existing vegetable and animal forms were descended from earlier, more primitive forms by way of a biological evolution” (Gaarden 405). Gaarden also states that “Darwin proved that mankind had developed from animals” (Gaarden 197). Therefore, at least according to Gaarden, Darwin felt that the only separating factor between humans and animals was a human’s abilities to evolve faster than most animals.

However, notice my choice in wording. Although, in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Adams claims both mice and dolphins are superior species in intelligence and universal understanding, he does not seem to portray any other animals in such a way. Therefore, it is interesting to consider what Darwin’s beliefs may have been on the matter. Perhaps Darwin, being the scientific, well-educated man that he was, would question what in evolution separates mice and dolphins from other animals in Adams’s opinion. However, it’s also very possible that the concept of talking mice would be too absurd for a man of Darwin’s status.

Either way, it is clear that Douglas Adams agreed with Darwin rather strongly in a sort of “eat or be eaten” outlook towards the universe. In Adams’s book, humans were far behind in regards to the understanding of anything other than their own planet, and were therefore no longer seen as important to the rest of the life forms in the universe. The concept of extra-terrestrial activity would perhaps be too hard for Darwin to comprehend, considering topics such as aliens and space travel were most likely not as common in the early 1800s. However, “in Darwin's time there were a number of observations and finds which were putting traditional beliefs to the test” (Gaarden 405), so he may have in fact appreciated a concept so new and advanced to completely appall the church with, and hopefully use to make further philosophical and scientific discoveries.

Whether Darwin ever imaged such a system of science fiction so far ahead of the 19^th century as that going on in the head of Douglas Adams, their views on “natural selection” were noticeably similar, and the idea of one species completely dominating another in order to survive is prominent throughout the book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and also throughout the teachings and views of naturalist Charles Darwin. 

Works Cited:
Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie's World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1994. Print.

American Exceptionalism

The United States is known for many things, whether that be a mix of cultures, strong nationalism, or a fight for freedom and justice. All these characteristics were made clear in Bush’s speech in 2001 addressing the horrific tragedy that occurred at the World Trade Center in New York City on 9/11. Although it is said the goal of al-Qaeda was to break down our nation, the incident on 9/11 instead was viewed as an opportunity to bring together not only our country, but surrounding nations and allies. The common view in our nation was made clear by George W. Bush, when he stated, “The advance of human freedom… now depends on us… We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail”. However, one begins to wonder, at what price? What key characteristics that make the United States the country that it is was Bush and the rest of our nation willing to give up in order to get “justice” for this “crime against humanity”?

Questions like these are addressed continuously by Noam Chomsky in his post, Looking Back at 9/11 a Decade Later. However, a claim he makes very prominently is an incident that occurred a decade after Bush made his speech: the killing of Osama bin Laden. Not even necessarily criticizing the killing of bin Laden, but instead the way in which he was killed and treated, Chomsky discusses how, “the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law, beginning with the invasion itself”. One could argue, as Chomsky does, that the killing of bin Laden was done in such an inhumane way that it defied everything that we, as the United States, claim our nation stands for. This concept is known as “American exceptionalism”, in which, when faced with a political crime as large scale as terrorism, the United States begins to pick and choose which “inalienable rights” they would like to follow through with.

However, it is important to recognize that Bush does address the certain situation as an exception to what the U.S typically has to deal with, as the circumstances of the time themselves were anything but normal. Bush states in his speech, “Americans have known surprise attacks—but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day—and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack”. Considering this event as such an unexpected attack, and such a devastating one at that, it’s fair to expect things in our nation to change. Such a change was proven to be a goal, or possibly a last resort, for the U.S when Bush states, “Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen… Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists… We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans”. Therefore, despite Chomsky’s fair points, one could argue that this was somewhat of a warning to the world that, for the time being, our government was no longer focused on the rights of mankind, but instead the protection of the United States and its citizens.

Nevertheless, no matter how much warning Bush gave, that doesn’t justify the behavior of the U.S before 9/11. Chomsky addresses America’s fault in which we get ourselves involved in the business of other countries, with the benefit of humanity in mind, but almost always end up harming the country in which we invade, such as during the Vietnam War or the “First 9/11” nearly 30 year beforehand. However, despite the killing of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians by the American weapons and the American soldiers, we do not take a stand against such horrendous terrorism until it is our country that is under attack. It is believed that, as stated by Chomsky, “Those whose mission is to rule the world enjoy a more comforting picture”, meaning that countries who have large scale plans for the future tend to only acknowledge what they feel will lead their country to achieve those plans. An action such as this, though the intentions may be good, can lead to great hostility between countries and detrimental results.

With all of these points considered, I personally agree with Chomsky in saying that our nation was guilty of what he refers to as “American exceptionalism” during the time period of 9/11 and decades to follow. However, it’s also important to consider that, in his speech, Bush’s intentions were to not only persuade our nation, but also begin to warn the world that our priorities as a nation could no longer be steered towards the well-being and justice of even our worst enemies, as 9/11 was the wake-up call we needed to see that our nation was no longer “immune from attack”. Therefore, if the topic in question is whether or not 9/11 could have been avoided, then I would say it is fair to believe that such a tragedy was inevitable for our country. I in no means have the intentions of implying that our country "deserved it", but I do believe that after all the attacks we made on other countries, it was ignorant to expect that we would forever be "immune from attack". 

Language is Evolving?

Although I may have chosen this topic simply to play devil’s advocate for this question, I do not believe that makes the points I am going to make any less valid.

As the question does not specify throughout what time periods we should be discussing, I do believe that language has evolved from the place it was centuries ago. I would like to draw attention to, what Neil Postman would call, the “Age of Reason”, but instead refer to this 17th century, post-Enlightenment period as the Age of Education.

Before the emphasis on a print-based culture aroused, education was seen as a luxury, only available for the rich and “worthy”. Because of this, not only is it fair to assume, but studies have shown that illiteracy rates were fairly high in the common people. However, around 1650, the Enlightenment began to spread across European nations, and, in turn, began to spread to the European colonies in the New World. As men and women boarded the Mayflower in 1620 in hopes to find a home for religious freedom, they brought with them immense amounts of books, not only of religious relevance, but also covering topics of math, science, and especially language and literature. This is just one example of how European colonists began the spread of education into America.

Nevertheless, it did not stop there. Following the invention of the printing press, a print-based culture, as Postman often mentions, began to form and spread across the world. Novels, newspapers, and especially pamphlets made their way into the everyday life of America, catching the attention of people of every social class. One majorly important piece of literature to take note of is Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

Observe an excerpt from this pamphlet.

“But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families . . .”

Said to be one of the most read works of literature at the time, it is clear that Thomas Paine was able to address an issue that appealed to all audiences, while also fancying the rules of proper literature.

Considering this post revolves around education, it is valid that I point out the multitude of universities developing during this time. Some may sound a bit familiar.

·         Harvard University: founded 1636

·         Yale University: founded 1701

·         UPENN: founded 1740

·         Princeton University: founded 1746

·         Columbia University: founded 1754

·         Brown University: founded 1764

·         Dartmouth University: founded 1769

·         Cornell University: founded 1865

It therefore comes to no surprise that not a single University we formally know as the “Ivy Leagues” was formed until mid-17^th century because, prior to the Enlightenment, there was no such need for so many large universities. However, once a spark in interest towards education was lit, it to this day has yet to burn out.

An interest in politics began to arise far heavier than ever before, which is shown very prevalently in the amount of lecture halls in colonial times or the nature of debates such as those of Abraham Lincoln and Fredrick Douglas. One could argue that this certain interest in long lectures and debates has begun to decrease in the past century, but it would be foolish to argue that the emphasis on education has done the same. For example, in 1965 a law was passed known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in order to ensure that a full educational opportunity for every individual remained the priority of our nation. Therefore, I believe it is fair to argue that, even if almost every person in our nation was to not get an education higher than secondary school (which is not in any way the case presently), they would still be more advanced in language as a whole than the illiterate commoners that were so dominant in pre-Enlightenment times.

Which brings me to the conclusion that, although there are many arguments stating language has devolved in the past century, ones which I could not, in my right mind, disagree with, I must also point out that it would be ignorant to ignore how language and education have also improved immensely. In the past three or four centuries, we have experienced such drastic evolving in language that, in my opinion, would take more than a few “lol”s and “brb”s to justify its disregard.

Works Cited

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Philadelphia: W. and T. Bradford, 1776. Print