Christine Witmer
English IV
Spring, 2009
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
The ending of “One flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest” has a bittersweet resolution. The very end is exciting, with the Chief busting out of the ward into the night. However, the fact that McMurphy ultimately looses to the system and become a victim of the lobotomy really got to me. All though the book, I thought that he could really win. Even though he didn’t win every “challenge” that the Nurse threw at him, I really felt that he would what it takes to beat her and the combine.
The fact that McMurphy delayed his escape to help Billy really showed me his true character. He knew the consequences of his actions and he stayed after to help his friend. This shows that McMurphy really didn’t care about himself, and he wasn’t just in the institution to “get something out” of the other patients. He sacrificed his escape, and really his sanity, to be with Billy, and I really admired that.
Looking back on it, I really cannot decide who really won, McMurphy or the combine and the nurse. Literally, the combine won because McMurphy was forced to receive his lobotomy and bend to the rules that were given to him. But instead of going down without a fight, the Chief busts him out right at the last minute, and in a very fitting fashion. By lifting up the water fixture, the training that he had done became full circle and everything fit into place.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (3)
Christine Witmer
English IV
Spring, 2009
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
On this blog I wanted to discuss the theme in the book regarding freedom. Sometimes I think that the book shows a bias. It seems that you can only be “free” or controlled by the combine. It also shows that if people choose to be “free”, than they are shunned by society and considered mentally unhealthy and thrown in an institution. I’m not sure how it was back in the sixties, but I feel that now, in this century, people have become more accepting of the “avant-garde” and conformity is not necessarily the most important thing.
When Chief Bromden is discussing the Combine, he makes it seem that it is the worst thing in the world, and that is a valid point. He says that if you begin to be controlled by the combine than your life is over, you become a person of the system, and I agree with that. However, I think that there aren’t just the two extremes, being free in the mind and being physically imprisoned, or being physically free but imprisoned in the mind. That’s one of the flaws of the book in my opinion. I think that people can find a happy medium and aren’t always put away for being different.
Maybe this book comes across like this because of the time period it was written in. Things back then were very different, especially with the treatment of the patients in the institution. Maybe back then it was those two extremes, and you had to choose which path you wanted to take. But I like to think that in these times, people are more accepting of people who are different.
English IV
Spring, 2009
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
On this blog I wanted to discuss the theme in the book regarding freedom. Sometimes I think that the book shows a bias. It seems that you can only be “free” or controlled by the combine. It also shows that if people choose to be “free”, than they are shunned by society and considered mentally unhealthy and thrown in an institution. I’m not sure how it was back in the sixties, but I feel that now, in this century, people have become more accepting of the “avant-garde” and conformity is not necessarily the most important thing.
When Chief Bromden is discussing the Combine, he makes it seem that it is the worst thing in the world, and that is a valid point. He says that if you begin to be controlled by the combine than your life is over, you become a person of the system, and I agree with that. However, I think that there aren’t just the two extremes, being free in the mind and being physically imprisoned, or being physically free but imprisoned in the mind. That’s one of the flaws of the book in my opinion. I think that people can find a happy medium and aren’t always put away for being different.
Maybe this book comes across like this because of the time period it was written in. Things back then were very different, especially with the treatment of the patients in the institution. Maybe back then it was those two extremes, and you had to choose which path you wanted to take. But I like to think that in these times, people are more accepting of people who are different.
Friday, May 22, 2009
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest #1
Christine Witmer
English 12
Summer, 2009
“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, #1”
In the first section of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, we are introduced to the ward and all of its inhabitants. The silent but steady nararation by Chief Bromden adds in his personal feelings about all of the members of the ward and its staff, which I think makes the novel seem more personal and heart felt. Kesey could had decided to add this detail to help the readers feel closer to the patients, so we can get a closer view to what they were actually going through.
If Kesey didn’t decided to portray the novel from a patients point of view, I think the novel would feel more cold and harsh. We wouldn’t know what they were going through, and we would have a harder time relating to the shock treatments and other forms of therapy that they are put though.
I decided to think, however, what the novel would be like if it was written by Nurse Ratched’s point of view. Which led me to the question, does she know that she is totally evil? Does she intentionally cause these people pain? Or does she truly think that she is doing some good in the world? We discussed in class the idea of whether people with mental handicaps should be kept away in wards, or if they had the right to live and survive just like every other citizen? Unfortunately, many people who need help don’t receive it, and end up having to live in poverty and even on the streets. It’s a tough debate, whether to keep free people locked up, even if they could function in a daily living situation with minimal help.
I truly think that some people, like Nurse Ratched, really think that they were doing the world a service by keeping people locked up and in poor conditions because they thought they were servicing the “greater good.” Thankfully, in the later years people became more aware of the cruel treatment that many patients were receiving and they are working of fixing the issue.
English 12
Summer, 2009
“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, #1”
In the first section of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, we are introduced to the ward and all of its inhabitants. The silent but steady nararation by Chief Bromden adds in his personal feelings about all of the members of the ward and its staff, which I think makes the novel seem more personal and heart felt. Kesey could had decided to add this detail to help the readers feel closer to the patients, so we can get a closer view to what they were actually going through.
If Kesey didn’t decided to portray the novel from a patients point of view, I think the novel would feel more cold and harsh. We wouldn’t know what they were going through, and we would have a harder time relating to the shock treatments and other forms of therapy that they are put though.
I decided to think, however, what the novel would be like if it was written by Nurse Ratched’s point of view. Which led me to the question, does she know that she is totally evil? Does she intentionally cause these people pain? Or does she truly think that she is doing some good in the world? We discussed in class the idea of whether people with mental handicaps should be kept away in wards, or if they had the right to live and survive just like every other citizen? Unfortunately, many people who need help don’t receive it, and end up having to live in poverty and even on the streets. It’s a tough debate, whether to keep free people locked up, even if they could function in a daily living situation with minimal help.
I truly think that some people, like Nurse Ratched, really think that they were doing the world a service by keeping people locked up and in poor conditions because they thought they were servicing the “greater good.” Thankfully, in the later years people became more aware of the cruel treatment that many patients were receiving and they are working of fixing the issue.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Hamlet Part II
Christine Witmer
12-1
Hamlet, Act ii
This act further develops the madness of Hamlet. He takes the appearance of the ghost in stride, and only for about two minutes does he think that the ghost is the devil is disguise. Hamlet is thoroughly convinced that the ghost is his father, thereby further convincing the audience that Hamlet has gone mad. Though he tries to convince his friends and his family that he is only mad at certain times and can keep himself under control all the others, by reading further on into the play it is obvious that Hamlet cannot be in his right mind.
Shakespeare uses the play “Hamlet” to allow the audience to question exactly what is considered “going mad” and what is considered just careful planning. One of the main questions regarding the play that stuck with me throughout its duration was whether Hamlet was actually crazy or just pretending to fool his family and friends. Considering his circumstances, I would assume that he would be deeply affected by the events that happened to him. (His father dying, his mother remarrying his Uncle, Ophelia, his girlfriend,breaking up with him). However, it was never actually said in the play that Hamlet was close with his father. Would the story have happened differently if Hamlet had not been as close with his father? Would he have cared that his mother had married his uncle? And, the bigger question is, maybe Hamlet would not have died if he had not tried to seek revenge on his Uncle. This, however, is the nature of Shakespeare’s tragedies. In “Othello”, “Romeo and Juliet”, and again in “Hamlet”, the characters are put in compromising circumstances that cause horrible things to happen to them. One large difference between these three plays is that Othello and Romeo and Juliet are all characters that killed other people (or died themselves) because they did not think things through. Othello died because he was to easily persuaded by Iago that his wife was cheating on him. In “Romeo and Juliet,” the two main characters could have survived except for a miscommunication about potions and sleeping and other nonsense. Hamlet is the only one who goes seeking revenge on his Uncle and get it. In the story Hamlet, though he dies, he achieves what he sets out to accomplish and finally reaches his destiny.
12-1
Hamlet, Act ii
This act further develops the madness of Hamlet. He takes the appearance of the ghost in stride, and only for about two minutes does he think that the ghost is the devil is disguise. Hamlet is thoroughly convinced that the ghost is his father, thereby further convincing the audience that Hamlet has gone mad. Though he tries to convince his friends and his family that he is only mad at certain times and can keep himself under control all the others, by reading further on into the play it is obvious that Hamlet cannot be in his right mind.
Shakespeare uses the play “Hamlet” to allow the audience to question exactly what is considered “going mad” and what is considered just careful planning. One of the main questions regarding the play that stuck with me throughout its duration was whether Hamlet was actually crazy or just pretending to fool his family and friends. Considering his circumstances, I would assume that he would be deeply affected by the events that happened to him. (His father dying, his mother remarrying his Uncle, Ophelia, his girlfriend,breaking up with him). However, it was never actually said in the play that Hamlet was close with his father. Would the story have happened differently if Hamlet had not been as close with his father? Would he have cared that his mother had married his uncle? And, the bigger question is, maybe Hamlet would not have died if he had not tried to seek revenge on his Uncle. This, however, is the nature of Shakespeare’s tragedies. In “Othello”, “Romeo and Juliet”, and again in “Hamlet”, the characters are put in compromising circumstances that cause horrible things to happen to them. One large difference between these three plays is that Othello and Romeo and Juliet are all characters that killed other people (or died themselves) because they did not think things through. Othello died because he was to easily persuaded by Iago that his wife was cheating on him. In “Romeo and Juliet,” the two main characters could have survived except for a miscommunication about potions and sleeping and other nonsense. Hamlet is the only one who goes seeking revenge on his Uncle and get it. In the story Hamlet, though he dies, he achieves what he sets out to accomplish and finally reaches his destiny.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Hamlet Act 1
Christine Witmer
12-1
Hamlet, Act 1 Analysis
The tragedy of “Hamlet” does not take very long to get off the ground, even in the start of Act 1. I believe Shakespeare chose to begin his play in this way so he could immediately capture the attention of the audience. Back in Shakespeare’s time, the theatre was not as it is today. With the poor people crammed into the hot, cramped space before the stage, standing, it was probably easy for them to be distracted. By starting the play with the appearance of a ghost, the reader (or watcher) is automatically thrown into the kingdom of Denmark and the interesting turn of events that the members of the palace are going through.
Shakespeare also requires the audience to pay total attention to the play by making it as complex as possible. Not only does Hamlet feel sad about the recent death of his father, but he is angry with his uncle and mother, even though he seems to truly love his mother. On top of that, his love interest, Ophelia, is being encouraged by her father and brother to stay as far away from Hamlet as possible. All of this is combined with the recent appearance of the ghost of Hamlet’s father. If this play was just a simple plot, the audience would quickly loose interest. Shakespeare knows exactly how to work the crowd to now allow them to loose interest for the duration of the performance.
In conclusion, Shakespeare was such a great story teller that he has the ability to keep people entertained, even for the total length of the play, which I believe is about four hours. For this reason, Shakespeare is one of the greatest literary masters of our time.
12-1
Hamlet, Act 1 Analysis
The tragedy of “Hamlet” does not take very long to get off the ground, even in the start of Act 1. I believe Shakespeare chose to begin his play in this way so he could immediately capture the attention of the audience. Back in Shakespeare’s time, the theatre was not as it is today. With the poor people crammed into the hot, cramped space before the stage, standing, it was probably easy for them to be distracted. By starting the play with the appearance of a ghost, the reader (or watcher) is automatically thrown into the kingdom of Denmark and the interesting turn of events that the members of the palace are going through.
Shakespeare also requires the audience to pay total attention to the play by making it as complex as possible. Not only does Hamlet feel sad about the recent death of his father, but he is angry with his uncle and mother, even though he seems to truly love his mother. On top of that, his love interest, Ophelia, is being encouraged by her father and brother to stay as far away from Hamlet as possible. All of this is combined with the recent appearance of the ghost of Hamlet’s father. If this play was just a simple plot, the audience would quickly loose interest. Shakespeare knows exactly how to work the crowd to now allow them to loose interest for the duration of the performance.
In conclusion, Shakespeare was such a great story teller that he has the ability to keep people entertained, even for the total length of the play, which I believe is about four hours. For this reason, Shakespeare is one of the greatest literary masters of our time.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Kubla Khan
1) The power of the imagination is often exalted in Romantic poetry. In your opinion, does “Kubla Khan” celebrate the imagination or caution against its indulgence? To whom might Coleridge be writing and for what purpose(s)?
I think that "Kubla Khan" was written to caution against the indulgences of the imagination. Coleridge shows in his poem that by giving into his imagination, the reader is taken on a wild ride, through a river and over the ground, beneath the moon,and through many other forms of nature. Coleridge also does something interesting when he writes his poem in a lyrical tone and with rhyme, though the actual words and the story he produces is choppy and jumps from subject to subject. THis is very interesting because dreams are often shown in a choppy manner, not exactly a story, just images running together.
2) Even in the brief space of a sonnet, Shelley suggests a number of narrative frames. How many speakers do you hear in "Ozymandias"? What does each of these voices seem to say to you (or to others) as listeners?
In this sonnet, the speakers appear to be a traveler and a sculptor. The traveler describes the ruins to the reader. The sculptor is spoken of because he was the one who created the art that the traveler is seeing. Ozymandias also makes an appearance in the sonnet, and it is ironic because on the worn down sculpture Ozymandias wrote very passionate piece of writing, but it is old and falling apart because of the sculptor.
I think that "Kubla Khan" was written to caution against the indulgences of the imagination. Coleridge shows in his poem that by giving into his imagination, the reader is taken on a wild ride, through a river and over the ground, beneath the moon,and through many other forms of nature. Coleridge also does something interesting when he writes his poem in a lyrical tone and with rhyme, though the actual words and the story he produces is choppy and jumps from subject to subject. THis is very interesting because dreams are often shown in a choppy manner, not exactly a story, just images running together.
2) Even in the brief space of a sonnet, Shelley suggests a number of narrative frames. How many speakers do you hear in "Ozymandias"? What does each of these voices seem to say to you (or to others) as listeners?
In this sonnet, the speakers appear to be a traveler and a sculptor. The traveler describes the ruins to the reader. The sculptor is spoken of because he was the one who created the art that the traveler is seeing. Ozymandias also makes an appearance in the sonnet, and it is ironic because on the worn down sculpture Ozymandias wrote very passionate piece of writing, but it is old and falling apart because of the sculptor.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
"The Chimney Sweeper" Poetry and Social Change
1) Do you agree with the editors of your textbook that Blake's poetry had the power to enact social change by appealing to the imagination of the reader?
I do agree with the editors of the textbook that Blake's poetry, and the work of other romantic poets had the power to enact social change. Especially with a poem such as "The Chimney Sweeper"people were awakened to the harsh conditions and were made aware of the hardships that children were actually going through. After reading this poem in this time period, I at least got the impression that change did occur, that poverty was ended and proper working conditions were provided for children and adults alike.
2) Why might the editors have included the Parliament transcript as a primary source document? How did it affect your reading of Blake's work?
I think to editors included the Parliament transcript to show us, the modern day reader, actually how the change occurred. After reading Blake's poetry, everyone thinks that change happened immediately and everything was fine. However, the excerpt from Parliament shows that change actually took longer to come into place and in our society today we are still struggling with changing the negative and bringing more positive into our society.
I do agree with the editors of the textbook that Blake's poetry, and the work of other romantic poets had the power to enact social change. Especially with a poem such as "The Chimney Sweeper"people were awakened to the harsh conditions and were made aware of the hardships that children were actually going through. After reading this poem in this time period, I at least got the impression that change did occur, that poverty was ended and proper working conditions were provided for children and adults alike.
2) Why might the editors have included the Parliament transcript as a primary source document? How did it affect your reading of Blake's work?
I think to editors included the Parliament transcript to show us, the modern day reader, actually how the change occurred. After reading Blake's poetry, everyone thinks that change happened immediately and everything was fine. However, the excerpt from Parliament shows that change actually took longer to come into place and in our society today we are still struggling with changing the negative and bringing more positive into our society.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Swift Student-Teacher Prep Work
Student-Teacher Prep Work
4 Questions regarding “Gulliver’s Travels”
1. To where exactly was Gulliver Traveling, and how did he end up in the land of the Lilliputians?
2. Is Gulliver a normal sized person and the Lilliputians are small? Or are the Lilliputians normal sized and is Gulliver a giant?
3. To become an elected official, what “contest” do the Lilliputians require the candidates to go through?
4. How did the war between Lilliput and Blefuscu begin?
Significant Points:
“….they shouted for joy, and danced upon my breast, repeating several times as they did at first, Hedinah degul. They made me a sign that I should throw down the two hogsheads, but first warned the people below to stand out of the way, crying aloud, Borach mivola, and when they saw the vessels in the air, there was a universal cry of Hekinah dugul.”
So far in the story, Swift has not used much dialog, explaining the events quickly and without many details. This is the first moment in the story where Lilliputian language is used. Why do you think that Swift has decided to use dialogue here, and what do you think these words mean?
Pg. 658: “Which two mighty powers have, as I was going to tell you, been engaged in a most obstinate war for six and thirty moons past. It began upon the following occasion. It is allowed on all hands, that the primitive way of breaking eggs before we eat them, was the lager end: But his present Majesty’s grandfather, while he was a boy, going to eat an egg, and breaking it according to the ancient practice, happened to cut one of his fingers. Whereupon the Emperor his father published an edict, commanding all his subject, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of the their eggs. The people so highly resented this law, that our histories tell us there have been six rebellions raised on that account; wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown.”
After reading this passage, could Swift be satirizing the very idea of war and how people try and justify going into war?
Predictions:
I predict that in this story students may have difficulties trying to decipher whether to take Swift’s language and tone figuratively or literally. Though he presents his story in a formal and informative tone, many of the adventures he describes between the Lilliputians could be considered satire.
4 Questions regarding “Gulliver’s Travels”
1. To where exactly was Gulliver Traveling, and how did he end up in the land of the Lilliputians?
2. Is Gulliver a normal sized person and the Lilliputians are small? Or are the Lilliputians normal sized and is Gulliver a giant?
3. To become an elected official, what “contest” do the Lilliputians require the candidates to go through?
4. How did the war between Lilliput and Blefuscu begin?
Significant Points:
“….they shouted for joy, and danced upon my breast, repeating several times as they did at first, Hedinah degul. They made me a sign that I should throw down the two hogsheads, but first warned the people below to stand out of the way, crying aloud, Borach mivola, and when they saw the vessels in the air, there was a universal cry of Hekinah dugul.”
So far in the story, Swift has not used much dialog, explaining the events quickly and without many details. This is the first moment in the story where Lilliputian language is used. Why do you think that Swift has decided to use dialogue here, and what do you think these words mean?
Pg. 658: “Which two mighty powers have, as I was going to tell you, been engaged in a most obstinate war for six and thirty moons past. It began upon the following occasion. It is allowed on all hands, that the primitive way of breaking eggs before we eat them, was the lager end: But his present Majesty’s grandfather, while he was a boy, going to eat an egg, and breaking it according to the ancient practice, happened to cut one of his fingers. Whereupon the Emperor his father published an edict, commanding all his subject, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of the their eggs. The people so highly resented this law, that our histories tell us there have been six rebellions raised on that account; wherein one Emperor lost his life, and another his crown.”
After reading this passage, could Swift be satirizing the very idea of war and how people try and justify going into war?
Predictions:
I predict that in this story students may have difficulties trying to decipher whether to take Swift’s language and tone figuratively or literally. Though he presents his story in a formal and informative tone, many of the adventures he describes between the Lilliputians could be considered satire.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Orwell Final Assessment
Humility is defined as “the quality or condition of being humble; modest opinion or estimate of one’s own importance, rank, etc.” O’Brien states that Winston has failed in humility, stating that he has not properly assessed his position pertaining to the party. This statement in itself is paramount in maintaining oligarchical collectivism because it shows that Winston has overestimated his importance to the party based on his previous actions in the book and is used to reinforce the thought that compared to the party as a whole Winston is an insignificant pawn. Submission is the price of sanity is an obvious attempt at oligarchical collectivism because it is basically a statement meant to say that by giving in to the dominant authority is the only way to maintain what is classified in this book as one’s sanity. It helps to reinforce the fact that the party and Big Brother control everything, even what is classified as sanity and even more-so what is classified as insanity. Therefore, the thought of having to submit oneself to a higher authority in order to stay sane is the only option or else the person would be classified insane.
O’Brien trys to maintain the system by telling Winston that the party is the only way to see life. The party is the existence of everything, and nothing is different then what they say. Throughout the book Winston wants to be more than he is, he wants to act out, but is constantly afraid because of what the party will do to him. For instance, Winston being in the area of town where he is the only one in blue trousers makes him stand out, then purchasing the book in the second-hand shop makes him suspicious once again. When Winston takes a further step in the way of renting the small old apartment above the old man’s shop for his love affair he makes a big mistake there. He believes that place is his home away from home where the party does not see him, yet little does he know that big brother is everywhere.
The party maintains all of it’s people by controlling them in their everyday lives. O’brien tells Winston that he will be killed by the party, and that it is inevitable to be defeated by the party. Winston’s ultimate fate in the end of the novel is defeat. Winston is broken down by big brother and the party being repeatedly beaten and having his spirit broken. Winston is put to the point of starving and bought back to life at the last minute, only to be subjected to beatings once again and put close to death again later on. The book ends with Winston admitting defeat, that he loves big brother and loves the party as well. In the end the most dominant statement made by O’Brien is “whatever the party holds to be the truth is truth”. This statement is pretty much the greatest portrayal of oligarchical collectivism because it flat out says that the party is absolute and thus establishes the complete and utter dominance of the party over Winston.
O’Brien trys to maintain the system by telling Winston that the party is the only way to see life. The party is the existence of everything, and nothing is different then what they say. Throughout the book Winston wants to be more than he is, he wants to act out, but is constantly afraid because of what the party will do to him. For instance, Winston being in the area of town where he is the only one in blue trousers makes him stand out, then purchasing the book in the second-hand shop makes him suspicious once again. When Winston takes a further step in the way of renting the small old apartment above the old man’s shop for his love affair he makes a big mistake there. He believes that place is his home away from home where the party does not see him, yet little does he know that big brother is everywhere.
The party maintains all of it’s people by controlling them in their everyday lives. O’brien tells Winston that he will be killed by the party, and that it is inevitable to be defeated by the party. Winston’s ultimate fate in the end of the novel is defeat. Winston is broken down by big brother and the party being repeatedly beaten and having his spirit broken. Winston is put to the point of starving and bought back to life at the last minute, only to be subjected to beatings once again and put close to death again later on. The book ends with Winston admitting defeat, that he loves big brother and loves the party as well. In the end the most dominant statement made by O’Brien is “whatever the party holds to be the truth is truth”. This statement is pretty much the greatest portrayal of oligarchical collectivism because it flat out says that the party is absolute and thus establishes the complete and utter dominance of the party over Winston.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Orwell First Post (Free Writing Assignment)
The book "1984" reminded me very much of the movie "V for Vendetta". Both stories revolved around a totalitarianism government, and how this government affected the people of the age. In a world where even your thoughts are monitored and the government has total control, it seemed that there is always some people who don't agree with the mainstream. In "1984" there was Winston and Julia, while in "V for Vendetta" there was the protagonist and his follower, Evie. These two pieces of media, and observations of our world today, show me that no matter where you are, there is always someone with a different thought process than you, and there will always be someone who disagrees with you.
In our country today, in the year 2009, we have a plethora of freedom. Once we reach a certain age, we can decide who we want to lead us, we can decide what we want to eat, what kind of car we want to drive. We also have the liberties to speak out if we believe something is wrong. We have freedom of religion, and we are allowed to read and believe what we want. And people do speak out. There are always riots or strikes, and some people even resort to violence to get their message across. In the novel, and also in the movie, people weren't allowed to speak out. All of their freedom and liberties were taken away, but there were rebels. My point is, in fact or fiction, literature, visual media, and everyday life, people are so....different. Even when united under a common banner, such as the United States, there are different beliefs and creeds. In America, these differences are often celebrated. In the novel, however, being different was considered a crime. But this just caused more rebellion. Even though it was a secret society, the Brotherhood was a working rebellion fighting for what it believed in. This shows me and all readers that people will always fight for what they believe in. Since the beginning of time, the human race has fought to be free. Through colonization and slavery, we are fighting to get our message across.
Even though it was a small act, Winston clearly wrote "Down with Big Brother" in his secret diary. It made him feel empowered, and he felt he needed to get his feelings out, or he would not have written his message. Orwell, when he wrote this novel, knew the fact that we are different. He wanted to show us, through a drastic exaggeration, that people will do anything to get their message out, even break the law.
In our country today, in the year 2009, we have a plethora of freedom. Once we reach a certain age, we can decide who we want to lead us, we can decide what we want to eat, what kind of car we want to drive. We also have the liberties to speak out if we believe something is wrong. We have freedom of religion, and we are allowed to read and believe what we want. And people do speak out. There are always riots or strikes, and some people even resort to violence to get their message across. In the novel, and also in the movie, people weren't allowed to speak out. All of their freedom and liberties were taken away, but there were rebels. My point is, in fact or fiction, literature, visual media, and everyday life, people are so....different. Even when united under a common banner, such as the United States, there are different beliefs and creeds. In America, these differences are often celebrated. In the novel, however, being different was considered a crime. But this just caused more rebellion. Even though it was a secret society, the Brotherhood was a working rebellion fighting for what it believed in. This shows me and all readers that people will always fight for what they believe in. Since the beginning of time, the human race has fought to be free. Through colonization and slavery, we are fighting to get our message across.
Even though it was a small act, Winston clearly wrote "Down with Big Brother" in his secret diary. It made him feel empowered, and he felt he needed to get his feelings out, or he would not have written his message. Orwell, when he wrote this novel, knew the fact that we are different. He wanted to show us, through a drastic exaggeration, that people will do anything to get their message out, even break the law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
