Better for everybody, or just better for you?

It took me a while to wrap my mind around the insanity that was the first four chapters of Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, but once I managed to not lose my head (and my temper) at how children were, by today’s standards, abused and mentally poisoned I began to have an understanding of these so-proclaimed World Leaders and scientists. The altering of a human’s chemical makeup and the manipulating of an individual’s personality has proven in the society of “Brave New World” to be a stabilizing and controlling method that allow for the masses to be easily subdued. It would be no surprise if politicians today were considering funding projects like these so that the thoughts and ideas of those “free-thinkers” and “freedom-writers” would cease to be proclaimed. Their idea of a perfect utopian society is just a controlling lie covered up by a sly smile and a nod.
Throughout the first three chapters the Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning and a man known as Mustapha Mond, the Controller, mention how languages have gone extinct (Polish, French, German!), how history books have been eradicated, and lastly how the mere mention of “parents” causes the young students to blush. The fact is that these things and many others were done away with was because they stood in the way of COMMUNITY, IDENTITY, and STABILITY. The World State’s motto, first used in the first paragraph of the first chapter, at first may paint an amiable possibility but it just covers up the paranoia of those control freaks known as the World Leaders. The simple fact that humans are created through in vitro to allow scientists to genetically alter their appearance and minds to fit into a determined caste is a red flag in itself that warns of a lunatic society.
Oh, poor Bernard Marx. Even though you are quickly becoming the protagonist in my opinion, you still bare the blame of your society’s crazy antics to provide “stability” since you clearly demonstrate those ridiculous prejudices taught at a young age through the hypnopaedic process.

"Inescapable Social Destiny"

I have to admit; as I was reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley I had to laugh a bit. To be truthful this world does not seem like a Utopian society at all. In other words, it does not seem perfect, but its members think differently. Many of you may think it is the opposite and far from perfect. This book reminds me of The Giver by Lois Lowry, which I last read in eighth grade. Just imagine living in a world like this. It is unbelievable how human beings are already predestined for their roles in life. I do not agree with this type of government at all whatsoever. Everyone should be given the opportunity to make the best of his or her life. It is depressing to learn that some individuals are chosen to be less intellectual than others. While we read and finish Brave New World, maybe we should take the time to appreciate the world we live in? Others do not choose our past, present, or future for us. We do not have to hang in a bottle on a conveyor belt for 267 days instead of our mothers' wombs. There are not any voices whispering to us three times a week, one hundred and fifty times, and for five or six years. Our minds and physical states are not conditioned in any way, shape, or form. Also, there is no one on this planet that wants, desires, or has the power to force us to like an "inescapable social destiny." The only character in this book that desires freedom and liberty so far is Bernard Marx. On one occasion, he mentioned to Lenina that he wanted freedom and wishes he, an Alpha, was not useful to society. Sadly, Lenina and her friend just think he is odd and strange. On page 84, I thought it was funny how Bernard jumped up in unison with the rest to avoid feeling left out. He, like the rest, shouted and said, "I hear him; he's coming." I try to picture myself in this society, but I cannot come to a conclusion. Would I be happy and content? What do you all think?

Blogging for AP English: Brave New World

In the beginning Aldous Huxley explains how the world has evolve. Through vivid details he expresses how human beings are already predestined for a determine job or role for there entire life. Unfortunately I totally disagree with a world that people aren't allowed to reach their full potential the way they want to.Although someone choosing your career for you can make life simpler as far as this decision is concerned. So my question to everyone is this a kind of world where you could tolerate living in? Having someone make the important decisions in YOUR life, or not being able to conceive without the consent of someone that's has no connection to the child, through specialized bottles. Is this right...is this utopia a real utopia for everyone or for a certain someone how feels they deserve this power?

A Black and White World

While reading Brave New World, the book called The Giver written by Lois Lowry continuously popped into my head. Both books are similar because they each have some sort of utopian society. Utopian is "characterized by or aspiring to impracticable perfection." Although the readers might not think it is a perfect society, the characters in the books think that it is. Figuratively speaking, these characters live in a black and white world; every day goes by like the one before, nothing is unexpected, and everything is planned. Their black and white world causes the characters to have a lack of freedom; they must do whatever they are assigned to do, or forced to do. In the end of chapter one, it is stated that the workers "decant [their] babies as socialized human beings, as Alphas and Epsilons, as future sewage workers or future World controllers," highlighting that no choices are made. Before the chapter ends, the Director tells his students that one of their goals is "making the people like their inescapable social destiny," again, emphasizing that everything is destined for them.

"Mommy, Where Do Babies Come From?"

In chapter 2 of Brave New World, The director mentions the word 'parent' and the boys squirm. One boy quotes:

"Human beings used to be …" he hesitated; the blood rushed to his cheeks. "Well, they used to be viviparous."

Viviparous means producing living young instead of eggs from within the body. It made me wonder why it was necessary in A.F. 632 that words referring to family relationships have been made words of embarrassment, ridicule and pornography. But I assume this shaping of language has been a significant aid to the conditioning process. Reproduction is why we are on Earth and it is a truly beautiful thing. Thinking about the contrasts made me laugh, the director even said this:

"These," he said gravely, "are unpleasant facts; I know it. But then most historical facts are unpleasant."

This books, is similar to the book The Giver where they lived in an alleged "perfect world", so it makes me wonder if this were to be forced on us right now but we were educated and knew perfectly well from "right" and "wrong" and "ethical" and "unethical", would you accept being an Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta or Epsilon or would you rebel and break their conditioning process? And why? Is it because you want to reproduce babies of your own? Or is it because you want equality and Democracy? I'd love to hear your opinions.

I mean, what's so wrong with trying to make the world perfect? Ha.

Religious Television And Its Questionable Intentions

Does religion have the intentions of using the assurance of salvation to get to a viewer's pocket through television? Religious television programs have a great deal of influence over their community of viewers that entrust their time and money into being comforted by a preacher that assures them of a content afterlife. As Postman stated in Amusing Ourselves To Death, "[t]hough [God's name] is invoked repeatedly, the concreteness and persistence of the image of the preacher carries the clear message that it is he, not [God], who must be worshipped"(122). Using this and the television to milk the audience of ratings and money that either go to a funding program, a subscription to the organization's magazine, or other commercial based items that advertise religion as being fun and exciting, which is believed by some to be degrading religion altogether. Televised preachers are also portrayed by this community of viewers as celebrity like and usually consists of, as Neil Postman declared, "exceedingly handsome people" not only on the stage but in the audience as well. I strongly believe that religious television has gone beyond the necessary measures to keep up with modern times, such as using famous people as guests and giving free gifts to their audiences to attract not only viewers, but to convert as well. Due to this, television has now made it a competition between religions and religious organizations to see who can win over the most followers. Please consider my opinion and comment on what you make of this argument of whether television is aiding beliefs or abusing them.

A new world, Old ways

While reading Brave New World I noticed that they have abolished religion and set the citizens in social classes for their comfort. But Huxley's new perfect world is contradicted by Bernard feeling of being an outsider even among his own class. This may be a cause of the mistake that is believed to have occurred during his early childhood as an infant. Even in Huxley's new reformed world were "fitting in" and being comfortable in your surroundings is so important outcast are still present in their perfect society. This is a problem that is seen in there world and ours. Where as we try to fit people in from personalities to religion. For example as people are judged through their religious beliefs those who are seen to be outsiders whom may not agree with your beliefs will differ from their opinions or beliefs to fit in, or be seen as “Normal”. This is seen when Bernard screams out "I hear him, I hear him coming" because the others of his Solidarity Group exclaimed words of worship. Even with this new perfect world, old tendencies still prevail.

I am not a robot

This has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE, but this year, for some reason, kids are sending me emails without any text at all...the assumption, I guess, is that an empty text box is enough to communicate their purpose? Hey, you! You on the other end of this! Sign me up to the blog! Get to work, Email-Bot.

Honestly? Too busy for please or thank you? Too busy to write ONE correct sentence in English to your AP teacher? You really want to treat me like a machine?

I have not been responding well to this.

Images or Words?

While reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, my attention was caught when Postman stated “For on television, discourse is conducted largely through visual imagery, which is to say that television gives us a conversation in images, not words.” I think this is somewhat valid because a commercial for example, has a goal of convincing consumers to buy something. A commercial could involve no speech at all but by simply glorifying a product with eye-catching methods could make it more desirable. On the other hand, words may be needed and very important for advertisement of medicines and medical solutions. Then again, the image of an AD or commercial comes into play once again because a man dressed poorly in some dark gloomy place wouldn’t be advertising his medical services, because he would not be seen as a credible source. So I think that Postman was accurate in saying that television gives us a conversation in images, not words because in this case appearance is very crucial in order to exhibit something presentable to the public. But this does not mean that words are not an important influence also.

Astonishing Social Structures

While reading brave new world I am shocked at the division between the social classes. Even after such a war as the Nine year war I am astonished that citizens would allow other human beings to be treated with such discrimination. I understand that as infants this social formality is drowned into their heads during sleep but one would still think that some part of them in their deep subconscious would make them at least consider these social structures to be morally wrong. But when pondering on this idea it becomes apparent that social ideas such as these are present in existing societies. Which does give some reason as why it would be easy for these ideas to pass as a norm without a second thought from the mass.

Marlon Mc Laurin

Amusing Ourselves with Visual Imagery

It is very clear what you need to watch a movie or a t.v. show: eyes. On page 7 of Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman describes how a person's looks can determine whether or not they are successful or "amusing". I know for a fact that when I am watching a show, looks play a tiny role in whether or not I continue to watch. Whether they be extremely beautiful or outrageously odd looking, physical features that stand out keep me watching the show. However, those features are not the only things that keep my eyes glued to the screen. I also want to make sure the show is amusing. Am I being entertained? That is the main question I ask myself when watching a show. Is this show worth watching or could I be doing something better? As Postman says, looks play a big role in amusement. Many teenage girls, and even their mothers, have become addicted to the famous Twilight Saga. I have asked some of my lady friends why they liked it so much and I would get responses such as "Because Robert Pattinson is so hot" or "I wanna bake cookies on Taylor Lautner's abs." Half of these girls don't even know what the twilight saga is about. All they care about is what these characters look like. These twilight fangirls have proved Postman's point exactly. They could be talking about blowing up the United States, but because they look like an underwear model, they are "amusing." Now, the question is: Do some of our role models today hold that title because of looks or because they have actually made a difference?

Community, Identity, Stability, Natural disasters?

Although I have almost completed Brave New World there is something I noticed in the first chapter that caught my attention. On page 10 Mr. Foster, a factory worker makes this comment, "If you knew the amount of overtime I had to put in after the last Japanese earthquake!" Mr. foster is a insignificant character he literally only says this line. It came as a surprise to me in the middle of a chapter about how they were mass producing perfect people to hear about a natural disaster. In the utopia setting where there is nothing natural, everything is synthetic and perfect, so it seemed so out of place to hear about something so natural and horrible. The society's life revolves around being happy and stable , so I would have guessed they would have a scientific solution to avoid earthquakes and hurricanes and tornadoes.

Fletcher Checks In #4

I am leaving town for the weekend to go see my daughter in San Luis Obispo. I will be offline and unavailable until next Monday! A partial media fast. Have a good weekend.

The Transitional Generation

I mentioned Howard Reingold before -- today he sent out a series of tweets that I found intriguing...I am reproducing them for you here. You know that the limit on Twitter is 140 characters, so he just sent out a long series, referencing a book entitled Proust and the Squid. Hmm.


Reingold begins here:
Rereading Maryanne Wolf's "Proust & The Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain." A few short quotes are germane to N. Carr et al:

Fletcher here: [You will recall that Nicolas Carr is the author of "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" and The Shallows}

Back to Reingold, quoting Wolf: "In the transmission of knowledge the children & teachers of the future should not be faced with a choice between books and screens,

"...between newspapers and capsuled versions of the news on the Internet, or between print and other media.

"Our transition generation has an opportunity, if we seize it, to pause & use our most reflective capacities, to use everything

"at our disposal to prepare for the formation of what will come next.

"The analytical, inferential, perspective-taking reading brain with all its capacity for human consciousness, and the nimble,

multifunctional, multimodal, information-integrative capacities of a digital mind-set do not need to inhabit exclusive realms.

"Many of our children learn to code-switch between two or more oral languages, and we can teach them also to switch between

different presentations of written language and different modes of analysis."

End Reingold

I hope you see that this is a discussion of the tension between print and digital media. They need not be exclusive, obviously. Even Postman asserts that TV is not going anywhere. We must bring consciousness to our consumption of multiple media, and keep our analytical brains engaged.

Ms. Fletcher, Question #1

Throughout the Summer Homework Packet, it shows and explains five assignments. The only thing that confused me was that on the back it shows an extra assignment titled "Politics and the English Language", it says it is an annotated article aside from the annotated webography. I need clarity on this.

Fletcher Checks In #3

We are getting to the point where I will only want to answer questions out here on the blog...at first, when there's only one or two of you, I can personally answer questions, but I prefer to answer questions out here so that everyone can see it...that way, I can answer once and be done with it. More efficient. By the way, there are 37 people signed on to the blog, and 8 open invitations. Pretty big.

Remember, to earn extra credit, you need to write or comment. Being signed up is not enough. But also, the difference between 12 points and 15 points is not really a game changer, so you can wait until the last week of July and still get extra credit.

I love what you're doing out here. So far, most of the posts have been pretty interesting and thoughtful. Good job.

Here's some good advice: Keep track of your blog posts and comments. I am keeping track, but sometimes I think, "Did I count this comment?" When somebody goes back and comments on something I've already read, it can get by me. I guess I should set it up so that comments are emailed to me...but just in case I miss one, keep track.

I am teaching at Cal State Long Beach's Young Writer's Camp. I have kids ranging in age from 12 to 18, which makes for an interesting mix...especially the 8th grade boy/11th grade girl thing. The boys are kinda goofy, which I love, and they still seem innocent. I heard one guy say, "What the h-e-double hockey sticks!?" today.

And this from one of my eighth grade girls: "Guys with British accents are so sexy!"

(Eww.) I quipped, "Oh, you must love listening to that British Petroleum guy explaining himself to Congress then. Have you been watching a lot of CNN?"

Blank look.

Sometimes I teach expository writing at writer's camp, but this year, I have a group doing just straight writer's workshop: free choice, any genre, go nuts. Such a nice break from our focus at school. Overheard today: "I need a beautiful creature with wings and awesome sword skills! Elf? Should I put wings on an elf?"

Later when I checked in with this writer, she made it clear to me that she was thinking of a Lord in the Rings kind of elf, sort of muscular and cute, and NOT a Santa's workshop elf. Duly noted.

The Power of the Media

In Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman argues that the media uses distraction and persuasion to influence our choices. His argument can certainly be considered. The media does tend to take full advantage of things that capture our interest to manipulate the general public in their favor. But it can also have good effects as well.
We’re constantly bombarded by commercials for prescriptions, makeup, the latest and greatest way to lose weight, etc. To most people, these may seem stupid and pointless. But to the person who has been depressed and always thought there was no way for them to ever feel normal again, that commercial for antidepressants may convince them to seek treatment. Media’s positive effects can also be seen in the Amber alert system. Hundreds of children have been rescued just by having their picture in the news and on freeways. The examples of good media are tarnished by annoying commercials, but that’s no reason to do away with media altogether.

America Portraying The "Perfect" Image

When I started reading Amusing Ourselves to Death, something caught my attention. On page 4, it stated how President Richard Nixon offered Senator Edward Kennedy advice on making a serious run for the presidency, which was to lose twenty pounds. It also said “though the constitution makes no mention of it, it would appear that fat people are now effectively excluded from running for high political office.” Now only is this happening in politics but everywhere and on TV shows. Disney Channel is constantly portraying the perfect family and kids, and you don’t usually see actors/actresses being overweight, or having acne or any "beauty defects" on any Disney show. It is really odd when you actually see a person under that category on a Disney show. But why would they want to portray this perfect image? What’s wrong with being a simple kid on a show no matter what you look like? Why is America trying to portray this image from perfect presidents to perfect teenagers on TV? What do you think about this?

The Television and Our Notions of Truth

In Chapter 2 "Media as Epistemology" of Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman states that "a major new medium changes the structure of discourse; it does so by encouraging certain uses of intellect, by favoring certain definitions of intelligence and wisdom, and by demanding a certain kind of content - in a phrase, by creating new forms of truth-telling." This made me realize how people's perspective of the truth have changed quite significantly as our culture shifted from orality to writing to printing and now to televising. Comparing those people whose epistemology is based more on television to those whose epistemology is based more on books and newspapers, I wonder, who is closer the truth? Are information in print much more accurate than public discourse on television? According to Postman, "not necessarily." Before the age of media, our society favored writing as closer to truth than speaking. According to Postman, "the published word [was] invested with greater prestige and authenticity than the spoken word." But now, television has replaced print as our source of "truth." But wait...Isn't the television basically about talk shows, live gossips and interviews? Oh, the irony! How did we suddenly favor speaking over writing ? Two words: new technology. Based on my own experiences, I would often believe whatever Nancy Grace or Anderson Cooper says about politics or any other news. I am aware that they may be biased at times, but it is difficult not to listen to them simply due to the fact that they are on television. In the eyes of most average people, those people on television must be right or else they would not even be on TV. It may seem ignorant, but I know for a fact that many people in our society have developed this mentality, affecting our notions of truth. Do you agree or disagree?

Predestination and Morality: the Battle of the Wits

Reading more and more of Brave New World I find myself continually going back the basic idea of the book explained in the middle of the first chapter. The idea being that the inhabitants of this time period are so driven to create stability that they predestine "humans" to become certain people, as in how some are shown the "horror of cold" so that they will migrate to the tropics to be miners and the such. The Director states that it "is the secrect to happiness and virtue-liking what you've got to do." This statement brings in the idea of aiming people into their inescapable social destiny. Going over this idea in my head it bring up the moral question of right and wrong. Is it right to predestine certain individuals for greatness while others are meant to suffer and toil? True it might make the community more stable and possibly more effective and easier to control, but is it right? Personally I believe that predestination is a wise tale that, possibly, later in the book will unfold as an unreal fantasy that can not possibly last. As it mentions in the book it is possible to create mass amount of identical beings, but it not possible to mold their mind to think the same.

Lenin, Trotsky, and Ford, Oh, My

As I read into Brave New World, I began to see the historical undertones which reflect on 19th and 20th centuries, the time period in which this book was written. Huxley makes many allusions to many important historical figures by including them as his main characters in Brave New World. One of the most obvious characters is Mustapha Mond, who is claimed to be an allusion to Mustapha Kemal (Ataturk) in the first couple pages of the Forward. The majority of the other characters mentioned in Brave New World (in the first few chapters), are with reference to communist leaders. The two most prominent examples are Bernard Marx (a reference to Carl Marx, the founder of communism) and Lenina (a reference to Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the communist revolution in Russia in 1917). The mentioning of these two characters shows how communist leaders of the 20th century became integrated into a utopia, which is not that different from the ideal communist society envisioned by Marx and Lenin. An allusion to Trotsky (Lenin’s assistant in the Russian revolution of 1917) is made in the beginning of chapter three when a little girl in the garden says her name is Polly Trotsky.
The use of the phrase A.F. helps bring these characters into their right time period of focus, the late 19th and early 20th century, but it also adds some confusion. In the first couple chapters of Brave New World, characters exclaim Ford…this and Ford…that, which leads the reader to believe that Ford is a God to the Utopia, and that A.F. stands for After Ford (meaning after the 19th century). However, in beginning of chapter three, Ford is called Freud, which is an allusion to the inventor of modern psychoanalysis, Sigmund Fried. Freud ideas of psychoanalysis are put to use when people of their social classes are taught “lessons” while ideas of Ford’s ideas of mass production are used when large amounts of babies are produced in the Central London Hachery. This shows a possible mixing of two historical people, Henry Ford and Sigmund Freud, and the mixing of psychology and machinery in the minds of the Utopian people in Brave New World. A mixture of ideas from Ataturk, Lenin, Marx, Freud and Ford, is what may have allowed the Utopia in Brave New World to survive over 600 years past the time of Ford (or Freud).

To Gain, or Lose it All

I’ve been reading Postman’s book for awhile, and even though I’ve passed chapter two, “media as epistemology”, my mind keeps going back to what Postman expressed on page 29. “It giveth and taketh away, although not quite in equal measure. Media change does not necessarily result in equilibrium. It sometimes creates more than it destroys. Sometimes, it is the other way around.” This quote really made me think about the technology we have today. Take for example Facebook, it gives us the ability to communicate with one another without even leaving our house. When our parents were our age they would spend all summer playing outside. Now we all sit in our rooms staring at a screen. What is our world coming to? We’re losing a lot, but at the same time we gain so much. With the access of internet children no longer bother with getting a book at the library because you can read it online. Now people text instead of talking with a person face to face. I know there are still some people out there continuing with past events, but how long will that last. With time comes change, but is this change good for man kind? I wish to find some sort of answer in Postman or Huxley’s book to this question. Do you think our generation is gaining more or losing it all?

We will still sing and dance, "Even if The Sky is Falling Down."

I am only on Chapter 5 of Amusing Ourselves to Death, (slow reader, yes.) And I am still thinking of Chapter 1. Television "recreated and degraded" our conceptions of thinking and knowing. We see things on the computer screens and the T.V.s that seem to make us less intelligent, but what about the music?

Personally I am not a fan of Justin Beiber, New Boyz, Owl City or mostly any artist that comes on KIIS FM, but if you compare their lyrics and song meaning to artists and music composers of the 19th and 20th century, you can see where perception and comprehensive reaction breaks down.

In The End of Education Postman discusses Roger Waters album "Amused to Death" that was partly inspired by the book Amusing Ourselves to Death. He goes on to say that "the level of education required to appreciate the music of Roger Waters is both different and lower than what is required to appreciate...most American students are well tuned to respond with feeling, critical intelligence, and considerable attention...to popular music but are not prepared to feel or even experience the music of Hayden, Bach, or Mozart; that is to say their hearts are closed, or partially closed, to the canon of Western music...There is in short, something missing in the aesthetic experience of our young."

I agree with Postman's statement and I can see how it relates to the subject matter and content of Amusing Ourselves to Death. Kids these days aren't into Classical music, or better yet, "Oldies" but more into "easy-money", repetitive, It-has-a-nice-ring-to-it-but-it-makes-no-sense kind of music. Not only has print broken down to mere folly, but has music gone too?

Where the Wild Things Were

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Obama's Simplified BP Oil Spill Speech
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

This is a clip from one of my favorite shows. In the clip, pundit Stephen Colbert shows (hilariously) how America's reading level has gone down significantly while also taking jabs at BP CEO Tony Hayward. Watching it I thought about the second chapter of Amusing Ourselves to Death. In Media as Epistemology, Postman talks about our shift in thought and generally shows that being able to read, "constitutes a primary definition of intelligence in a culture." If our culture cannot understand a speech written "at near a 10th grade level," then how can we grow as a culture or people? Newspapers and magazines are slowly dying as the digital age comes and even books are becoming electronic. I know Mrs. Fletcher and Mrs. Sweick would probably have a heart attack if they found out print is dead, but some say it is imminent. So my question is: if print dies, will this culture still grow?

More Ubiquitous Than We Thought

You know how after you learn a new word you start seeing it everywhere. Well it seems that this is true for themes too. I saw Toy Story 3 last Friday and near the end Barbie says something intelligent that was obviously meant to be funny because her character is supposed to be dumb. For those of you who took World History last year, AP or not, you may remember John Locke and The Social Contract. Well this is exactly what Barbie's lines come from. She says, "Authority should derive from the consent of the governed..." Well when I heard that I realized that this theme of the delicate relationship between people and their governments is more ubiquitous than I thought. It's Toy Story a kid's movie, and here it is making serious statements about society. Apparently this theme isn't solely confined to the distopia genre.

As I read more into the world of Brave New World, I hope to find more occurrences like this. Meaning, I hope that more themes of our summer reading worm their way into the rest of our lives. Already this has happened, for as Lenora stated in an earlier post she noticed the "Now... this" phenomenon that Postman brought to our attention. I too have criticized these horrible segways from depressing topics to ridiculous ones. So I hope this blog becomes sort-of-a list of funny little happenings in our lives where reality and literati collide. After all, something I learned in history followed me to English and then into the movies.

Guilty as Charged; Caught Red Handed.

In reading the elaborate introduction of Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman's son, Andrew Postman, I was intrigued by something he indirectly suggested; a media fast. For 24 hours, refrain from electronic media (which I also recall Mrs. Fletcher speaking of a similar idea). I decided to give it a shot, because I strongly believe Huxley and Postman are right in the aspect that this generation is deeply influenced and consumed by media craze. I must admit that even though I am not a big "T.V." person, I am still eaten alive by the media and all it's glamour. "Each student has his or her own weakness-" Postman writes in the early paragraphs of the intro. Do you know how stressful it was for me to wake up in the morning by instinct and not by my always dependable alarm radio? Imagine how I felt when I skipped watching my favorite movies on the IFC last night. And might I mention, I literally felt like pulling out every strand of my eyebrows when I was just ITCHING to play a Fleetwood Mac vinyl or turn the T.V. to the Tennis Channel to catch a glimpse of Rafa Nadal! I thought it would be a piece of apple pie but being so immune to modern day technology and gossip in the media, it was a difficult challenge (and wasn't as sweet as apple pie but more like public-restroom-food-that-fell-on-the-floor-but-you-decide-to-eat-it-anyway kind of pie). It was challenging and I did cheat a little but quickly caught myself. But, here I am, 24 hours later, using a computer (Ahh, the irony.) During the fast I ended up reading half the dictionary, something I would never do if I had that access to the Internet. So after my fasting, I'm beginning to feel that the media hasn't left one thing, one subject, one concept untouched. EVERYthing is exploited. From children on shows such as 'Toddlers in Tiaras' to news stories on more graphic shows like 'To Catch a Predator'. So I raised a question; Do you think us humans would be able to think for ourselves without the media? Could we still continue to function without the medias opinions and or consent? Must we make things such as child abuse, tornadoes and weight loss entertaining by creating reality shows about them? What is so wrong with the written word and speech these days, Is it not powerful enough? I won't share with you my answer to this, not now anyway. Instead, I ask you to please attempt the media fast, and I'll guarantee that if you successfully go 24 official hours without electronic media (this including cell phones, ipods, radio, T.V., computers-Zilch! Nada! None!) then you'll figure out an answer of your own to my wonders.

Egg Surrogacy

When you kids get to Brave New World, and you're touring through the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre with the Director, please think about this little news clip, which was on the radio program The World: Egg Surrogacy. A gay Israeli man purchased an egg from a Caucasian woman in the US, shipped the egg to India for implantation in the womb of an Indian woman, and when the baby was born, he flew to India and picked up his child.

Fletcher Checks In #2

Fifteen bloggers on June 18, and eight open invites. You kids are amazing me...at least I think you are. I really can't remember how many kids were blogging last year at this time. But just wait. People will start blogging in August, and start talking about the Postman chapters we are talking about now, and you'll think, "Oh my goodness! That is SO LAST JUNE!"

I saw Amusing Ourselves to Death at the Long Beach Towne Center Barnes and Noble yesterday on the summer homework table, and of course, Brave New World is everywhere.

I mentioned in an earlier blog comment that The Shallows is blowing my mind. It IS. I am going to want to talk about that book, too. It's about how the internet is actually changing the way human beings THINK, and therefore has an impact on how the human brain actually FUNCTIONS. Your plastic brain is shaped by your experiences, and working/reading/playing online is definitely something we all experience. When we encounter those rare people who are NOT online (great Grandma, hermits, Aborigines, Mr. Jacobsma), we consider them Luddites. The important thing is that all this cultural change is going on without analysis. We need to just stop and ask, How is this changing the Human Being?? Because we ARE being changed, and we are mostly oblivious and uncritical. We just want to see what the new iPhone will DO.

Put In Music, Some Images, and We're All Good

In Chapter 7: "Now...This", Postman mentions a few times about how people on the television can lie as much as they want, but as long as they provide good looking people and/or music accompanied with pictures to look at, we'll pretty much absorb whatever they say. The worst part of this is that I know it's true because I have fallen victim to it myself; if television programs are too wordy or the people aren't good to look at, I'll most likely turn. But if there are plenty of images, catchy music, and good looking people, I'll stay on the channel, even if it's the news bringing up a depressing or boring topic.
What really interests me is that it's happening before our very eyes right now with the California govenor elections. If you truly pay attention and think about it, it's actually really funny how we all fall victim to it all. The candidates put up crazy photographs on exaggerated problems they plan to stop, put up pictures of them looking all serious, and then play the most menacing music when they're shooting down their opponents. It makes us think, "wow, they're an amazing candidate, and their opponents are horrible people. Let's vote for them!", but it's all a bundle of lies tied together. I challenge you to do this: whenever a candidate commercial comes on, write down what they say about themselves and their opponent. Then compare with the next candidate commercial. You'll be shocked at how much each lies and how hard it is to find the truth in it all.

I Disagree Mr. Postman

In chapter two of Amusing Ourselves to Death, Postman writes about how the written word is much more credible than the spoken word. He states that “The written word endures, the spoken word disappears; and that is why writing is closer to the truth than speaking.”(21) Although this is a valid argument, it is not necessarily true. Just because something is written, doesn’t make it true. This may be the case sometimes, but more often than not, the spoken word is just as legitimate as the written word. A great example of this would be the news. The news is a very credible source of information, and it is also spoken word.

Postman goes on further to explain how the spoken word is not sufficient because no one believes it. But, if the person who is speaking these words seems credible, people will believe it, especially if it is someone very important or widely known. For example, if our president, Barrack Obama announced something on tv, people would believe him because he is widely known and well-respected.

Is this a Goldilocks Situation?

I'm finding Neil Postman's book very interesting from the very beginning in the Foreward. He compares George Orwell's 1984 to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Both books are very similar and Huxley has even been accused of plagiarizing Orwell's work, but Postman points out the very important differences. Orwell talks of a world of control, totalitarianism, and government holding information from us. Huxley talks of a world where so much information is offered to us that we stop caring and would rather roam in a world of "passivity and egoism." But both end in similar outcomes as we let the Big Brother (or "externally imposed oppression" as Postman writes) take over either unwillingly or unknowingly. So are we in a Goldilocks situation? Is the best society a balance of freedom and control?

Housekeeping Memo #1

First of all, we have 11 kids signed on to the blog and five open invitations -- that has to be some kind of record for June 14. To earn the extra credit, though, you're going to have to say something, OK? You still have tons of time, though. June is only half over, and there's still 12 points on the table for July. In the big scheme of things, 3 points between June and July is not enough to worry about. It's like a butterfly sneezing on your arm.

Lenora Brown posted, and Breahna and Viola have both commented on her post. To see the entire thread all at once, click on the title of the post, and their conversation opens up. Another way to accomplish the same thing is to click on the time that appears next to the signature.

I like it that Lenora used tags -- I always forget to use tags, but these are very powerful little tools. It's a way of summarizing! I'm going to work on remembering to use them, and I want you to do the same.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Please read this article by Nicholas Carr entitled Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Erich Phinizy just told me about this guy's new book, and so I ordered it: The Shallows.

Politics Are Becoming Absorbed in the Media

I'm only on Chapter 1: The Medium is the Metaphor, and I've already found some information that shocked me. Politics aren't what they used to be; and though I'd already realized this, I didn't comprehend the true issue. Yes, though us teens don't really pay attention to politics anymore-Facebook is way more important, of course-we are all still aware that they aren't making the best choices out in the White House. Now, this may be a far-fetched idea, but could it be because America is only choosing handsome, or at least slightly decent-looking, people for the most crucial jobs in government?
As Postman says on page 4, "we may have reached the point where cosmetics has replaced ideology as the field of expertise over which a politician must have competent control". Basically, Schwarzeneggers' are being placed where Clintons' and Kennedys' should be instead. When society gets to the point where even politicians need to be surrounded by makeup artists, something is obviously wrong. Now my question is: does the public recognize this, or are they just choosing to ignore it?

Dear Early Blog Participants:

Hi, Enthusiastic Young People. Just love early adopters. Although you don't know exactly what it is you're supposed to be doing, you've jumped in anyway. I find that endearing.

So, here's one thing you might want to try. There are about eight of you on the blog already, and it is most likely that you haven't read much of the summer assignment yet. But you can still post here by responding to a link, or commenting on what I am posting, or asking questions about the content I am posting up here (more and more as time goes on), or directing me to internet content that you think might interest me.

This blog is not a ready-made text -- that's my favorite part about it. It is a text that you and I will create together. It's shape and direction is constrained by summer themes and ideas, but every year's text will be different because the people are different, the historical moment is different. Even I am different. I am the same person, of course, but I am constantly evolving teacher and thinker. Writing about literacy, technology, communication, media and culture doesn't get boring -- in fact, it grows deeper and richer with time. I like to learn new things, and hear what new people have to say about these topics. Every year's class shows me something new, so I await you with great anticipation.

Howard Reingold on Twitter-Literacy

Look up Howard Reingold if you're interested; here's a good use of Wikipedia: just a quick check to see if there's anything worth chasing down. I follow him on Twitter. His piece on Twitter Literacy for the SF Chronicle is a good read. I find myself bumbling around whenever I try to explain to others how and why Twitter can be a useful and productive tool.

Purpose Statement: AP English Language

Purpose:  English Language and Composition is intended to parallel a college composition course and is organized around the principles of writing.  Besides coming to know our own writing process through exploration of the writer’s craft, we write in a variety of genres, for varying purposes and audiences, while exploring a lively array of topics.  Our educational objectives are:

v     to prepare for the rigors of college writing;

v     to write confidently and effectively in any writing situation, both personal and professional;

v     to read actively and critically from a wide range of time periods, genres and contexts

To that end, the expository, analytical and argumentative forms are emphasized as the basis of most academic and professional writing, while the personal and reflective forms — the foundation of all good writing — are also regularly practiced.

Because this is a college class offered for college credit, the expectation is that students will read and produce prose that is rich and complex enough for mature readers.


Read what the College Board has to say about this class.

The NCTE Definition of 21st Century Literacies

The NCTE Definition of 21st Century Literacies

Where to buy the books

The Barnes and Noble at the Long Beach Towne Center has plenty of copies of Brave New World, and they put Amusing Ourselves to Death on order last week. I expect it will arrive this week sometime.

Also, I have additional summer homework packets copied for those students who had to leave today without one. Stop by!

Welcome to the blog

Let me introduce myself. I am Alexandra Fletcher, and I'll be your teacher next year. That's it for now.