We had a great discussion today, guys!  Here are my notes.  The screencast thing didn’t work, but here is a copy of my notes, jumbled for your interpretative pleasure:

(Click on the pics to make them printable/legible.  Well, larger, anyway.)

Thanks, guys, for keeping me on task.

During our last few discussions we have found it easy to dismiss the dystopian society described in Huxley’s work.  “Of course someone would rebel against a society that cares so little about its citizens.  Of course it is not right to determine someone’s caste from birth.  Of course a person should rebel against morally unjust laws.”  Maybe, maybe not.

Enter Plato.  Written around 360 B.C.E., Plato’s Crito is a dialogue between Socrates, who has been condemned to die by the government of Athens, and his friend Crito, who wishes to help Socrates escape before his sentence can be carried out.  Their debate centers on the question of whether it is just to disobey laws one does not find just.  This may seem like a simple question, but we’ll see just how complex it is.

To add another position to the argument (from a related situation, but not the same), we will read Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”  In this letter, Dr. King makes a moral argument for disobeying unjust laws.

With these two readings, we will return to Brave New World with perhaps a different perspective.  Each of us may or may not come to a personal conclusion to these questions, but we will have a better awareness of the intricacies of this particular aspect of the Conformity/Rebellion discussion.

Today we went over the old TP-CASTT model for poetry/music analysis.  Then we tore it apart.  In doing so, we found the most appropriate method for us to use in analyzing any work, but shorter pieces in particular.  Here is what we came up with:

Awesome.  You all (inadvertently?) created a workable representation of the rhetorical triangle using the common sense you apply to describe the things you enjoy.  This is going to be a good year.

The rhetorical triangle is used to describe the interaction of the reader, the writer, and the message itself.  From what you have given me, it could be constructed this way:  A writer presents some information (imagery, symbolism, or a straightforward statement to the audience.  The reader then takes this structure and applies it to what he or she has read (looking for allusions) or experienced.  This "reader history"  is then applied to the message.  If it fits, then you have a solid interpretation or analysis.  If not, ’round we go again.  (We’ll discuss this "application of reader history" in more detail tomorrow.

We will continue looking at poetry on Friday, so if you have a song that you particularly enjoy, share it!  Together we’ll try to find a new way of interpreting it.  The song’s author does not necessarily have to be British, but that would be nice.  Even better:  Can you find a poem or song similar to Stevie Smith’s "Not Waving but Drowning"?

Just one today. 

Scott Tobias of The Onion AV Club reviews Harold and Maude—thirty years after it came out.  This statement caught my eye, and inspired me to share the article:

As I said, the film is the birth of modern indie quirk, full of elements and attitudes that have become cliché: Heroes who are more whimsical conceits than real-life, flesh-and-blood creations; an offbeat and slightly twee pop soundtrack (here by Cat Stevens); authority figures painted as stiff, clueless, and completely devoid of humanity; and some vague leftist political references thrown in for good measure…. For me, the litmus test for quirkfests is whether there’s some genuine insight and depth of feeling behind all that willful eccentricity.

An interesting point, which begs the question: Why quirkiness?  I love Wes Anderson’s films very much, listen to Devendra Banhart, Johanna Newsome, Vetiver, read Salinger and Chip Kidd [everything’s connected], but why?  Why not jocularity?  Why not stoicism? 

What do you all think of this “quirkiness”?  Did it arise out of the post-Vietnam era only to become apropos again, thirty years later?  Is it true, as the author alludes, that we cannot find this type of sincerity anymore?

[Note the author says “twee,” then three of the responders follow.  Stickiness, anyone?]

you knoo-o-ow.  Not really.

Gladwell makes some interesting assertions in the second chapter, and today we focused on the effects of interpersonal communication.  He cites a study by Syracuse University that explains the impact of newscasters and their expressions in Presidential races, and explains what makes Tom Gau so convincing.  Derren Brown was brought up, and I promised videos.  Here they are:

Watch Brown’s movements as he talks to the man.  He mirrors his movements, then takes a step back.  The man follows.

This one is a bit off topic, but I think it effectively illustrates just how easily our creativity can be affected by our environment.  As always, you are what you eat, even if you don’t mean to consume it.

 

This one is similar.  You think you aren’t listening, but you are.

 

I’m trying to find video or an article explaining the microemotions explained in this chapter.  If anyone finds something, post it below.