Literature

Literature is a very broad topic that cannot be encompassed with a single, objective definition. Literature is everywhere, but is typically published in some form. In my mind, I define literature as anything with the intention to be viewed and interpreted or appreciated by an audience. This includes, but is not limited to, novels, art and photographs, movies, theatrical performances, music, this blog post, and advertisements or other visual mediums. 

I don't think there is any question that literature has value in society. What separates humans from other forms of life? Intellect. And what does literature convey? Intellect. Literature provides a perfect example of what cultures believe in, stand for, etc. So literature helps define us as a society and creates an identity for us collectively as a whole. Whereas individuals have their own independent beliefs, our society holds it own set of beliefs, and since we are all members of society, we all are confronted with those beliefs.

I'm not sure I have a single favorite form of literature. I have favorite pieces of literature in each different subsection (novels, music, film, etc.) but it's impossible to compare The Godfather to the works of Tchaikovsky and rate one above the other. So I'm just going to name my favorite novels from different subsections of literature.

Novel: Redwall by Brian Jacques

There's not anything particularly revolutionary or new this novel, the first in a series about a land where intelligent animals live. There are about thirty or so novels that take place in the land, but the first is the most famous and is considered to be the best. It feels like a fantasy western novel, with a sort of pirate rat king that wants to take hold of Redwall Abbey, a castle held at the center of the land. It's not deep or meaningful, but it's extremely entertaining and brings me back to my childhood when I read the novel with absolute awe and wonder.

Film: Monty Python and the Holy Grail

I have no reason for this. It's immature and crude, but it's funny. I don't really have any other explanations or justifications for liking it, I just do.

Song/Composition: I can't narrow this down so I'm just going to list off a bunch that come to mind.

-Chopin's 12 Etudes

-Gustav Holsts' "The Planets Suite"

-Anything by Curtis Schweitzer

All of these works are instrumental and capture a wide spectrum of different emotions. Chopin's 12 Etudes is a series of you guessed it, etudes, that all vary from one to the other. Op. 10 No. 12 ("The Revolutionary") captures Chopin's frustration with the invasion of his native Poland by the Russia. Op. 25 No.9 captures the beauty of a butterfly as it floats through the Polish countryside. Gustav Holsts' "The Planets Suite" does a similar thing. Each piece represents a different planet and the emotions it conveys. Venus is peaceful and serene. Jupiter is brash and powerful. Neptune is mysterious and distant. My personal favorite in the suit is "Mercury: the Winged Messenger." I don't have some in depth reason why I like it; it's just bubbly, fun, and has a gorgeous climax right in the middle that just makes me smile. Curtis Schweitzer is a very small Norwegian composer who only does work for small video games but is extremely talented. Just listen to any of his work and you'll understand why. Aeterna, his latest album, was released in early April and is incredible. The work as a whole is independent and isn't meant to be used for a specific project but still gives you an amazing range of emotions. His music for "Starbound" is all meant to be background music for a small-budget video game, but the soundtrack is the star of the show. It captures the ambience of space perfectly and conveys a real sense of wonder and adventure.

Theatrical Performance: Spamalot or Curtains

For non musical enthusiasts, Spamalot is just the musical version of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. So for reasoning, just go up a few paragraphs and read why I like the movie. Curtains is a murder-mystery musical that I saw a few years ago. It's hilarious, really unique (the plot involves a production of Robin Hood inside the show in which someone starts killing the actors one by one), and has awesome music. I actually had the privilege of meeting David Hyde Pierce recently who played the lead actor for the show's original Broadway run.

1. I was made aware of a number of different essay types and how to effectively write them.

2. This class made me more aware of remaining unbiased in arguments until I've fully done my research.

3. I struggled with getting the hang of essays, especially in the second semester. I always seemed confused about exactly what the essays needed to have.

4. I'd say more essay grades. That could include in class essays as prep for the AP. It just seemed that way too much of our grade resided on a very small amount of essays.

The cover from Brian Jacques' Redwall

The Knights of the Round Table from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

The first page of Chopin's "Revolutionary Etude"

Norwegian composer Curtis Schweitzer

A House Divided

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America created the federal government as a government for the people that is determined by the people. The intention was to have the public vote serve as the only factor in determining which officials would have the opportunity and ability to serve the people. Unfortunately, a second group of constituents has appeared that was not drafted in the Constitution: money. Lawrence Lessig, an American political activist, expressed his concerns in a talk given at TED about how it is almost as important for candidates to satisfy the money election as the general election. Political parties make the problem exponentially worse, as the small amount of constituents who donate the majority of the money can dictate which party wins the election.

Lessig starts his presentation by imagining a version of America where there is an established government with two different elections: one is the general election where every citizen votes once, and the other is an election set aside in which only people named Lester can vote. The country is dubbed Lesterland as a result. Lessig continues by revealing that the Lester election is comparable to how money works. He noted that an incredibly small percentage of Americans (.000042%) contribute about 60% of the Super PAC’s total money. Lessig then says that the funders, the constituents who fund the PACs or candidates directly, can serve as the Lesters in the Lester election. A candidate wins the election by winning the general election, but that is usually only achieved by winning the Lester/funder/money election. That is where the problem lies. The candidates must try to appease the money equally (or sometimes even more) than the general population. If the candidate is elected, they must then do everything to keep the funders/Lesters on their side. So they are forced to continue to appeal to the Lesters/funders while in their term to seek consecutive terms for themselves or their parties because it all boils down to achieving/retaining power, not serving the people.

A political science textbook from Boundless begs to differ and claims that the competition between the two parties benefits the people. In businesses, competing companies often lower prices to compete with each other, benefiting the consumer. In a similar manner, parties offering certain beliefs or opinions (that can be put into law when power is attained) that are “better” or more popular than the opposing party’s will be more successful. Along with beliefs and opinions come incentives. One party might propose a new bill that will increase funding to find a cure for cancer. If a constituent has a family member or friend with cancer or even just supports a cancer-free society, they will be more inclined to vote for that party.

I want to write about the discrepancies and questions regarding the effectiveness of political parties to figure out how efficient and effective our current government is and whether or not it could be made more efficient and effective. Both the argument that money “corrupts” and competition benefits the consumer are equally valid theoretically, but the deciding factor is the moral quality of the candidates. Can we as a nation trust in our officials and believe that their intention is to benefit us, the constituents, instead of themselves?


Boundless Link: https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/interest-groups-7/the-two-party-system-54/the-two-party-system-313-5192/

The Death of Music

             In his novel Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman describes the relationship between substance and its appearance and discusses how society as a whole has begun placing a higher priority on appearance. Postman affirms this notion by using Japanese technology as an example: “Even the Japanese, who are said to make better cars than the Americans, know that economics is less a science than a performing art, as Toyota's yearly advertising budget confirms” (Postman 5). The Toyota workers in Japan have discovered this trend in society and have begun to increase advertising costs because consumers are beginning to prioritize flashiness over actual quality. Consumers are much more likely to buy products that look “cool” or increase their own social appearance than products that might be better or less costly.

In honor of the 57^th Grammy Awards that took place on Sunday night, let’s examine the American music industry and see how appearance, not talent, is the most important factor when it comes to succeeding. In the early parts of the 20^th century, when America’s music identity was forming, the most popular artists were people with actual talent – Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, Bing Crosby, etc. Musicians like those became successful not based on image but because they possessed pure talent through performance and/or music composition. While arguing about what kind of music is better can’t be done due to the subjectivity of music, comparing how musicians market themselves is a much more objective topic. Frank Sinatra is unarguably one of the greatest male vocalists in American history, and he achieved his fame through his pure talent. His image was consistent with most of other musicians at his time: he always donned a suit of some sort with a fedora. Generic, but still very classy. Compare that to a modern singer today such as Katy Perry, who unarguably is one of the most popular musicians in recent memory. Despite whether or not you like her music, one thing is certain: she doesn’t market herself through her music or talent; she markets herself through her body and image. Katy, along with many other popular young female musicians of today, make their fortunes through their looks and shock value. Just as Postman argues that what society is interested in reflects their values, the success of those musicians reflects American culture’s emphasis on the importance of sex. A young woman only makes it into the music industry if consumers find her attractive.

Understanding why this trend in American society has surfaced is not a huge leap. In the early 20^th century, technology was not nearly at the level as it is today. If you look online, you can find tens of thousands of articles that discuss the latest celebrity gossip. The speed of modern communication and use of social media makes it easy to keep up with celebrities. Back in the 20^th century, people didn’t know where Billie Holiday was at any given moment or what Etta James had for dinner the night before: they became popular through their sound, not image. American society’s ability to keep up with musicians forces modern ones to try to appease consumers through their image if they want to remain successful. That notion in turn created a trend that sacrificed music quality for appearance and marketability.

The Freedom to be Infringed Upon

Developing opinions is a paramount aspect of human nature, one that under no circumstances should be infringed upon in any way. But raising that point also presents a troubling situation: at what point does an individual’s use of freedom of expression infringe upon someone else’s freedom to express and defend his or her own personal beliefs? Recent events such as the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in France committed by Islamic extremists in response to a cartoon mocking the Muslim prophet Muhammad further question that notion. The extremists conducted the attack in protest of the ad, simply because the magazine’s freedom of speech infringed upon their religious views. Simply because the satirists hurt somebody’s feelings. In an article for The Atlantic, writer Karl Sharro quotes Kenan Malik: “’The fear of giving offence has simply made it easier to take offence’” (Sharro, “Charlie Hebdo and the Right to be Offended”). Malik argues that the fear of upsetting someone’s feelings might indirectly infringe on a writer’s (or cartoonist’s) freedom of speech. Additionally, succumbing to bullying that directly attacks freedom of speech makes the target that much more vulnerable. Since there is too much grey area to draw an outright line between critical and blatantly offensive, the only possible solution is to allow for absolute and unrestricted freedom of speech. Along with that comes for the need for universal acceptance and tolerance. Cartoonists shouldn’t have to fear for their lives in order to write about what they believe in, regardless of the topic. Political analyst and comedian Bill Maher chimed in on the Charlie Hebdo incident, and in a segment called “Self Censorship vs Free Speech,” he made the following remarks: “Opinions shouldn’t be illegal. Everyone can always come up with a reason why the thing that bugs you should get a waiver. But free speech only works if there are no waivers” (Maher, “Real Time with Bill Maher”). There can’t be a society that believes in freedom of speech unless you hurt someone’s feelings. That society can’t justify an attack or any violent response just because someone was offended. Free speech can’t have restrictions placed on it. Doing so contradicts the very thing that freedom of speech and expression is supposed to stand for and protect. The rest of Bill Maher’s segment on free speech and its recent opponents can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipu0ifyC-Xc. WARNING: It does use some choice language and makes controversial points, but there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that anyway.