Things Fall Apart- Feminist Lens

        So, for my essay, I will be writing about Chinua Achebe’s novel, Things Fall Apart, through a feminist lens, as the title of this thing suggested. I plan on discussing the very limited role women play in the novel. This is due to the patriarchy in the tribe, which is “the rule of society and culture by men” (167). 
        In the tribe, women have little value, and are not even valued as wives. It is ordinary for a man to have multiple wives, who are simply being used to produce and take care of the children, and serve the men. Okonkwo has no respect for any of his three wives, and even beats one of them during Peace Week, which is supposed to be peaceful as the name suggests, just because he believes she is being negligent.  This relates to the ancient Greek’s belief that “the male was to be superior and the female the inferior. Women, they maintained, lure men away from seeking after truth, preventing them from attaining their full potential” (171). I'm going to finish this thing up at some point tomorrow. Gooodnight!

Techno Stuff.

According to Postman, a technopoly is simply a totalitarian technocracy, with a technocracy being “a society only loosely controlled by social custom and religions tradition and driven by the impulse to invent” (Postman 41). This idea is strikingly similar to the idea that humans are produced with the sole purpose of maximizing technological efficiency in Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World. In Brave New World, there is most definitely an impulse to invent, and these impulses are taken to extreme measures by the government, therefore fulfilling the “totalitarian” aspect of a totalitarian technocracy.

“Technocracies are concerned to invent machinery. That people’s lives are changed by machinery is taken as a matter of course, and that people must sometimes be treated as if they were machinery is considered a necessary and unfortunate condition of technological development” (Postman 52). Nothing relates to this more than the way humans are manufactured (yes, I said manufactured) in Brave New World. In the novel, human eggs are fertilized and incubated in a hatchery (in other words, a factory), and then each embryo is put through a series of treatments in order to adapt it and prepare it for the roll it will eventually play in society. In this technologically driven world, humans only exist to provide a purpose for machines, and no one bothers to question it. That is, until Bernard starts contemplating the idea that he may have a larger purpose in life. When the Director begins to notice Bernard’s changing attitude, he threatens to send him to Iceland, far enough away so his thoughts will not be able to influence anyone else. This seems to agree with Taylor’s idea that “technical calculation is in all respects superior to human judgment; that in fact human judgment cannot be trusted, because it is plagued by laxity, ambiguity, and unnecessary complexity; that subjectivity is an obstacle to clear thinking; that what cannot be measured either does not exist or is of no value and that the affairs of citizens are best guided and conducted by experts” (Postman 51). The ideas in Postman’s chapter that machines and technology are superior over humans strongly correlate with Aldous Huxley’s ideas in Brave New World. 

Oh, Singularity...

“2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal” by Lev Grossman focuses on Raymond Kurzweil’s idea that technology will become so advanced that “humanity — our bodies, our minds, our civilization — will be completely and irreversibly transformed” by the year 2045 (Grossman). This idea is closely related to the ideas in Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World, where technology is the epicenter of humanity. Grossman’s article seems to insinuate that our society could ultimately end up like the society in Brave New World, with human emotions erased and technology used to perform any and every task possible.

Personally, I find this concept extremely creepy. I think if man merges with technology like it supposedly will, humans just wouldn’t be humans anymore. Sure, the intelligence of computers would reach above and beyond the intelligence of humans, but I think one must have an emotional conscious in order to be considered human. One must also be able to think creatively and outside the standard technological thoughts. “Creating a work of art is one of those activities we reserve for humans and humans only. It's an act of self-expression; you're not supposed to be able to do it if you don't have a self” (Grossman). In Brave New World, while staring at the ocean, Bernard expresses to Lenina that “it makes me feel as though…as though I were more me, if you see what I mean. More on my own, not so completely a part of something else. Not just a cell in the social body” (Huxley 90). By thinking this, Bernard is challenging the idea that humans only exist to provide a purpose for machines.

No matter what levels of intelligence computers reach, it is difficult to believe and unlikely that computers will develop emotional and romantic feelings like humans can. In Brave New World, babies continue to be born, but in test tubes, without the loving mother sentiment. I feel that these aspects are what make humans authentically human. If humans begin to lose touch with their emotional conscious, society could very well move towards the point where Singularity takes over. 

Rhetorical Analysis

Tori E. Gibbs’s essay, “Baz Luhrmann's ‘Romeo + Juliet’ compared with Shakespeare's Original Work,” does exactly what the title says. The author compares Shakespeare’s original Romeo and Juliet with Baz Luhrmann’s modern-day film version of Shakespeare’s written play. Having already seen Luhrmann’s modern version numerous times, and having read Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet my freshman year in English, I am fully aware of the differences between the two, and when I came across this essay, I was curious as to how Gibbs responded to these differences. This essay seems to be intended for anyone who has seen the movie and read the play and is curious about the author’s opinion, just like I was, or anyone curious about the differences between the two. The subject of comparing an original play/written work with its movie adaptation is something many students can relate to. There have been countless times where I have considered watching the movie version of a book I was supposed to read for class. Gibbs’s thesis, as stated in the title, compares all different aspects from the play and film, such as dialogue, props, costumes, setting, and music paragraph by paragraph. These are not standard 5 sentence minimum paragraphs with topic sentences, parenthetical documents, and closing sentences. Instead, these paragraphs are simple and to the point, taking a topic like costumes, and comparing and contrasting the costumes from both the film and the play. Gibbs also adds in commentary from interviews Luhrmann has given that explain why he changed the costumes, setting, etc. The author also brings in direct lines from the play and compares them to corresponding scenes from the movie, and gives specific examples in every paragraph in order to directly illustrate the differences between the film and play. This is a very logical and effective way of comparing, since the author separates all the different aspects into different paragraphs, making them extremely easy to read, and provides simple and direct evidence in these paragraphs. The type of evidence used is very appropriate considering people who are reading the essay want to know the specific differences between the book and the play. Throughout the essay, Gibbs’s language is not overly formal, but she doesn’t use everyday language that you would use with your friends either. The author has an extraordinary use of transitions, making the end of the paragraph about one topic seamlessly flow into the next paragraph for a completely different topic of comparison. Gibbs seems very knowledgeable and credible on the subject, and without a doubt has both seen the film and read the play, as one can clearly see through her opinions and examples. This essay was very different from the types of essays I have been used to. Since my freshman year, is has been constantly drilled into my head that the Schaffer method with its concrete details, and commentary, and so on, was the only way to write a decent essay. The essay I read by Gibbs completely went against everything I have been told the past three years, but that did not change the quality of it. Despite not using a strict guideline, the essay got its point clearly across, without needing to put its support in the standard TLQD form as I have been told to do. I enjoyed the free but not strict format of the essay, and I learned some new insight on ways the Luhrmann’s film and Shakespeare’s play differ that I had not thought of before.