Welcome!

Welcome to the weblog for our American Literature class. Here's the place we will be continuing conversations from class and starting new ones. We'll be discussing and debating current events, historical controversies, and literary conundrums. We might even see a little poetry.

So, what's a blog? And how will we be using it class? For information on blogging and how to join and post to our blog, see "All About Blogging."

We're looking forward to a great year.

Make sure you check your e-mail for your invitation to join the blog. Also – and this is very important – the first step you should take after you accept the invitation is to edit your user profile so that you control how your identity and your communication preferences.  Click on the pull-down menu next to your name in the upper right corner of the browser and click on “Blogger Profile.” Then click on “Edit Profile.”

You can fill out as much of it as you want, but the only requirement is -- under “Identity” -- make sure your “Display name” is your first name and last initial only -- so we provide some anonymity while still allowing your classmates and teacher to be able to identity who you are. For example, change “Bernie Heidkamp” to “Bernie H.”

The Cycle of Abuse: Gun Violence

In America today, we have all heard something about the need to control gun violence. In Chicago especially, there was an entire "put the guns down" movement. While gun violence is sky rocketing and people are getting killed left and right, we also have to realize that some of the mistreatment of weapons is coming from our "trained" officers. How are we supposed to expect civilians, that acquire weapons illegally and have no proper training to use reasoning when our law enforcement seems to have no restraint.

The example set for the average person is to solve others disobedience with violence and excessive shooting. You cannot possibly preach the need to control gun violence, when the people put into position to serve and protect you are also mistreating the use of their weapons with no consequence whatsoever.  There needs to be a complete change on both side of the tracks.

Bo Burnham and His Postmodern Act

Bo Burnham is a comedian with somewhat controversial humor, that also includes postmodern touches in his jokes, giving his show a sense of reality (or lack thereof). Burnham's show "What." is one of my personal favorites and is available on Netflix. All of his jokes are not school appropriate, so I do not suggest watching them as a family thing, although they are all constructed to make you believe one thing and then immediately turn it on it's tail and throw it in the opposite direction.


During one of his sections, he is reading a story out of his book, and in the middle of a sentence turns the book around and says, "The pages are blank why am I lying to you?" and then continues to recite the story with the book on his head. A few sentences later, he gives a little "excuse me," takes the book off of his head, turns a page, and returns it onto his head. Not only is this funny, but it makes a statement, he makes a show of not making a show, if that makes sense. One of his whole bits is a song titled "Sad," all about tragedy, and he has everyone laughing just because he throws a positive spin. He's talking about all these terribly sad events and begins to connect that comedy stems mostly off of tragedy, and blatantly says it in his song.

(Cursing warning)

In another bit, he begins telling a story (the same story in the book mentioned above) with themes of love, and it seems to be heading in the direction of a happy ending, but instead it ends abruptly with the main character (a frog), being eaten by an alligator. Much like a true war story, the crowd is kind of baffled, not knowing if it was the end of the story or not, because it wasn't satisfying, although it was funny how it ended. 

A controversial yet brilliant comedian who plays the public with a great sense of postmodernism, making things hilarious even though they shouldn't be, raising the question "What is comedy?"

Order vs. Freedom

When analyzing the balance of order and freedom in our present day society it is crucial to look at each classes’ amount of freedom separately. If I was to answer this question based solely on my position in society as a lower-upper class white female I would be inclined to answer in disagreement to Arthur Miller and claim that I have many freedoms along with order in my life. However, when looking at people of lower classes, the amount of freedoms that they have and options they hold are resoundingly lower than mine. This evidence of a low amount of freedoms in the world without the added benefit of being in the upper class makes Arthur Miller’s argument ring true. Our society values order over freedom and this allows people of the upper class to scapegoat the lower classes and subsequently lessen their amount of freedom.

The existence of a police force in today’s society is indicative of an order based society and is the root of it. This order that exists gives one group of people power over another. Specifically when looking at recent events taking place in our nation, such as the cause of the riots in Ferguson or the New York chokehold death incident, it is clear to see that the group in charge is that of white males with the group without power being black males. In our society of racism and racial profiling the order that exists can be very harmful to the freedoms of a group of people or any groups of people not being white males. This problem is again evident when looking at the large numbers of black males that currently live in our prisons versus the number of white males. The opportunities, whether it be caused by jail time or just the color of one’s skin, are slimmed by a persons class and thus their freedoms are in jeopardy due to the order that exists.

Freedom Is Not More Important Than Order

Freedom and order are both so intrinsic to the society that we depend upon, it would seem dystopic if either integral part of America were to disappear. Then again, America is not unique in it's balance of order and freedom. The United States may tip it's balance towards freedom more than many other countries, but there is no society on Earth completely lacking order. A society without order is an oxymoron, as a society needs to have a group of people living together with collective rules or values to even be called a society.

However, freedom is not intrinsic to the strict definition of a society, and although it may seem necessary to have freedom to function as a society, it is possible to create a society devoid of freedom. Because it is essential to have order, and not freedom, in American society, we rely too heavily on freedom, and should value order more. More order does not necessarily come as a result of more legislation and more government, but can also come as a result of a more unified society, with similar views.

In modern American society, there are very few issues that the vast majority of the population believe in, so it is hard to create order without restricting freedom. I think that the only way to increase order in a society as diverse and large as the United States is through legislation which inhibits individual freedom for the common good. This view coincides with utilitarianism, as it strives to bring greater happiness to a greater number of people through order even if it means reducing the freedom of individuals.

The paradox is clearly visible in the gun rights debate. While it is important to have the freedom to own guns, the deaths from gun violence make it more beneficial to curtail the freedom and create order with laws reducing gun ownership. This solution may seem unfair or against traditional American views, but it is necessary if overall happiness is important to society. Freedom, however important, cannot be put above order when societal well being and individual safety are concerned.

Is The Matrix postmodern?

The Matrix is a science fiction film based in a dystopian society. The opening scenes do not initially appear dystopian, they seem to follow the actions of an everyday man. {spoilers}. As the film progresses, we learn that everyone is living in an altered reality, the matrix. Neo, the main character/part time hacker, is eventually aided in escaping the matrix and joins a group of fellow escapees. He learns that the humans were at some point taken over by an artificial intelligence, which began using their body heat for power/energy. Disgusted at these facts, Neo eventually learns that he has special powers inside of the matrix and vows to save mankind from its unknown oppressors.

There are many postmodern aspects of the film. For starters, the idea that everyone is living in an 'unreal-reality' out of their control is highly postmodern. At one point, a character, who knows the truth about the matrix, is being bribed by the villains inside the matrix. They are eating steak at a fancy restaurant. Mid-sentence, he looks down at his steak and begins describing how well his senses interpret the meal. He finishes by remarking that he knows the steak is fake, yet he does not care. 

The film transcribes the postmodern concept that our lives are never truly experienced because our lives are mediated by media into a plot where everyone's lives are controlled by an external force. 

The Matrix does not condone postmodernism; it is in fact intended to inspire against it. It portrays characters truly finding themselves both spiritually and emotionally only after they throw down the chains of a postmodern society. 

Living in a Postmodern World.

Postmodernism is an idea and way of thinking that has become increasingly popular over the past few years. This idea has become so popular that the current world we live in can be identified as postmodern. Thinking in a postmodern way means seeing things different that what they really are, or are supposed to be. The media has a monumental effect on the way that different things are perceived. There is a postmodern idea that claims "that things are only real because the media says it is so."  The media is capable of creating a false world that people believe is real, creating a fake world.

Living in a postmodern world such as this is somewhat paradoxical. We are given something and told it is true, yet at the same time we must question reality and believe it is fake. This makes it difficult to determine what is real and what is not, because we have to believe everything and nothing is postmodern.

Postmodernism Is Impossible For Me To Accept

To truly represent postmodernism, I cannot say what postmodernism is or is not. To be postmodern is to accept that all interpretations of the same piece of media or experience are different, and none of them can be blindly accepted as true or correct. Postmodernism cannot be constricted to a definition, and must be explained as a concept instead of a term.

Postmodernism is a constantly changing way of looking at the world without definite facts or personal biases. Because it is always changing, and relative to personal view, no one can fully understand postmodernism. Postmodernism argues that there is no truth, that logic and reason are not always correct, and that human nature is not innate, but instead a representation of the societie's impulses and culture.

This seems problematic to me, and probably many others, as our whole society is founded on truth, logic, and reason. If there is no absolute truth that can define a particular situation, than who is to say whether someone's actions are morally correct, or if something even happened at all. It seems as if postmodernism is rejecting our conceived notion of human nature, a reliance on truth and reason, by asserting that there is no human nature, and we only rely on truth and reason because we are brought up in a mediated world.

As a person who values the role of science in increasing the understanding in the world, even a moderate postmodernist appears to reject the notion of "science" and factual knowledge. To a postmodernist, there is no difference between a apparently preposterous view that the sun orbits around the Earth and the currently accepted solar system model. Neither can be correct, and neither should be valued as better. Postmodernism values the idea that objects and actions have no meaning, and the only meaning they carry is meaning that we bestow upon them.

I find postmodernism problematic, and cannot accept its beliefs, as it does not value the scientific method. It does not value evidence gathered from repeated tests. It does not value the absolutism of basic physical realities. I understand that scientific understanding changes, and events cannot be predicted, as many events are random, but rejecting all facts as opinions is not a valid response. When a philosophy says that gravity is just an opinion, and that things fall to the Earth only because the media and others around us believe it to happen, I am unable to agree with the philosophy.

The Things They Found, a Poem About What They Carried

War is beautiful; War is paradoxical,
We got ourselves a nice mellow war today.
All that peace, man, it felt so good it hurt.
It’s about sunlight.
you look up and see the sun and a few puffy white clouds,
you feel wonder and awe at the setting of the sun,
the immense serenity flashes against your eyeballs--
when he died it was almost beautiful,
the way the sunlight came around him and lifted him high
into a tree full of moss and vines and white blossoms.
-- and even though you’re pinned down by war you never felt more at peace.
The truths are contradictory.
War is nasty; War is fun.
But in truth war is also beauty.
For all its horror,
you can’t help but gape at the awful majesty of combat.
-- a powerful, implacable beauty--
you’re never more alive than when you’re almost dead.
that proximity to death brings with it a corresponding proximity to life.
--your truest self,
the human being you want to be and then become by the force of wanting it.
you love what’s best in yourself and in the world, all that might be lost.
you’re in touch with the far side of yourself.
It was a love story.
It’s about love and memory.
feeling both love and hate,
He hated her.
but it was a hard, hating kind of love.
because he was so much in love,
He loved her but he hated her.
“I love her.”

A War Poem

War is a ghostly fog, thick and permanent.

There is no clarity.

There is no virtue.

Right spills over into wrong.

War is ugly, war is beautiful.

War is a wide river turning pinkish red

It’s wonder and awe at the setting sun

And sunlight shining on the face of a buddy

And that same sunlight

Shining on pieces of skin and something wet and yellow that must’ve been intestines

Hanging from a lemon tree.

War is hell.

War is violence and death and obscenity and evil

That never leave.

War is a paradox.

Order blends into chaos,

Love into hate,

Law into anarchy,

Civility into savagery.

Nothing is ever absolutely true.

The only certainty is absolute ambiguity

And everything swirls

And the vapors suck you in

And you choke

Because war is a ghostly fog.


(Written with the words of Tim O'Brien in The Things They Carried)