Who's seen the movie Avatar... and who should?

Ok, I'm in Germany right now and this morning went out to see the movie Avatar. The scenery is pretty amazing and the film itself is simply beautiful. The plot line however (at least in my opinion) was heavily packed with social commentary. If any of you have seen it and want to share their ideas I would appreciate that. A lot of the things I noticed reminded me of "Season of Migration to the North"

The characters all seemed overly simple, but maybe I was expecting too much. So go out and see it, then share your thoughts.

final words (a little late i know, but i've never been in line with the world)

Hey class of reading:

to be quite honest, this class is amazing. i can honestly say that i found a beautiful thing inside each and everyone one of you :)! also, i wanted to apologize for how i acted on the last day of class.. apparently vodka and i were not on the same team that night, and probably did not help the fact that i was in the hospital a few days prior.. anyways, i just wanted to let you all know that i will never forget you and i hope to see you all sometime again in the future and we can ponder on the memories that took place in that little freezing room on wednesday nights.

- i can also say that i do not have one specific person that i would like to address, but the whole class together, because that's what we were and i felt like we were kind of a wednesday-night family:

this class is unbelievably intelligent (p.s. i stink at spelling so.. sorry!) and very moving in the way that each individual student had a different view and opinion to add to all our discussions. i loved how we did not just talk about what happened in the story, like every other reading class, but we talked about why certain things happened, and we had a chance to act out certain activities pertaining to the stories and authors, just everything was so unlike but so perfect for this class and i can not quite describe how much i will be taking out from this class.

however, i do want to say that i found almost everything Anneva said to be extremely intriguing.. maybe it was the way she said the things or just the matter-of-fact speaking, but it was all so.. true. it made me look at things in different ways, and not necessarily agree with them, but at least made me see alternative views to what i was thinking, which i found really surprising and interesting. i think that the things you said were so important because they made me ingaged in what we were talking about, they were intelligent sayings, but they also were very clear and understandable. this made me realize that there really can be multiple sides to every story and that if we just open our eyes and ears we can see those sides and look at every angel of the book. personally.. the end of the class come upon us too quickly, i wish i could have said goodbye in a different way, but i can not tell everyone how grateful i am that i got to meet you and hopefully will stay friends with for a long time. i have never been a strong reader or interpretor, but this class has helped me improve in so many ways it's kind of a miracle. life is too short to not do crazy, spontaneous, beautiful things, so i hope all of you go places that you want, do something just because you want to, and make all of your wildest dreams come true! you all truly deserve every bit of happiness that comes your way :)

final word - copied from my comments to Anneva in the hope that all of you might read it

So here is my official last act for RRT&F, but I want to attach it to Anneva's posting because I am a huge supporter of the Arts. All of you: Don't work in cubicles if your heart says no; do not be afraid to move outside of what feels normal or comfortable, normal is a trap; do not ever be afraid to speak your minds, follow your gut, admit you were wrong, or stand your ground; each of you revealed something personal by way of this blog, each of you risked something on a personal level in our class - each of you (I am sure of this)were outside of your comfort zones at one point during our class. We have Ben to thank for this in many ways - he led us to the water ... but we drank it down bravely and we took something away that was invaluable and irreplaceable. Look what happened! We met unusual people under unusual circumstances, we made human connections with each other, we looked like fools at various times and for various reasons - and the sky did not fall, no damage was done. In fact looking like fools brought us closer together. We are all so used to living risk-free lives - it is bullshit! I'm not recommending you take some of the risks that I took in life, but I have learned not to regret anything - some really crazy things paid huge life-affirming dividends. Buy my book if you ever see one for sale (presumably, I will have to write one first), if I have any balls at all (sorry ladies - that was sexist), the story will be about taking a lot of risks - some of which brought me back to school with all of you. How could I regret that? GO and LIVE!!! It goes WAY faster than you think it does.

Thank you all for another life - affirming experience - you were all wonderful. And special thanks to our East Coast, Jewish, Culturally elite, activist instructor ... the heart of a lion and the soul of Boal ... keep teaching, you're extraordinarily good at it!

Support Dance!

1) I've been cast in a piece for the U of M dance faculty and student show this Spring! This show consists of 2 faculty pieces: an Afro-Brazilian piece and a modern piece. The rest of the show will be works created by students for the American College Dance Festival Association through a sort of composition/audition process. I'm in the modern piece. Rehearsals don't start until February, but I know it's about fevers...having one, taking care of someone who has one, etc. Anyway, the shows will be on Friday, March 5th at 6pm and 8pm. The show will be in either Rarig or the Barbara Barker Center for Dance (both West bank). You should come!

2) Pilobolus is coming to Northrop on February 12 and 13! And because you are U of M students your tickets are only $10! You know them. Here's a reminder!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elWf8nI6ivw

Or this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiX-DW8Qk4w

Also, I'm going to miss you guys :( If you want to keep in touch you should find me on facebook :) Merry Christmas!

Anneva

Exit stage (very) left...

Everybody:

What an amazing experience it has been working with all of you! There is no doubt in my mind that between Ben's talent for getting students excited about class and the energy all of you brought, I will always remember you. Each one of you contributed to the class with your energy and your intelligence and I am proud to say I was one of the group. Thanks to every one of you.

Sean:

I'm going to direct my last written assignment toward you for a number of reasons, most of which are about reading and writing, but one of which is the very human tendency to try to file people into neat categories for the sake of convenience. I believe that the tendency is called stereotyping. Let's start there.

During our first class sessions, being my first time in a classroom in (many) years, I went through the same exercise I did during high school, plugging each person in the room into some category or another. By week two I thought I had it all figured out; by this week I know that I was wrong about basically everyone. But I was most wrong about you. High school and several more attempts at college taught me (I thought) which place to file the jocks - I'm sure I don't need to be overly explicit here. You and everyone else know what I mean. You dispelled my preconceived notions very quickly.

While I am unable to quote specific things you said during our class sessions, I can say that every time you spoke I was reminded of how wrong I was to pigeonhole an athlete into a less than dazzling intellectual classification. You said and wrote some really inspired things and I am really quite impressed by your depth in this class.

In particular, your blog posting of 11/29/2009 was inspiring for me. It was that posting that led me to select Wrinkle for my final paper, and your portrayal of evil had a direct impact on the arguments I made the: evil analogous to unquestioning conformity. You wrote "The evil of this story is made up of the people opposing the acceptance of differences which includes IT and to a lesser degree of evil the principal" [I specifically referenced the principal in my paper]. But, coincidentally, it is this text that ties most closely to the point I am trying to make: categorizing based on unfounded assumptions isconformity without questioning.

Prison requires and reinforces a host of negative ideological changes in its inhabitants, one of which includes a LOT of stereotyping. This habit became overly ingrained in me over time, reading your writing and listening to your participation in our class reminded me that I used to be less likely to generalize and that I ought to return to that perspective. Thanks dude.

Final Post

Christina,

I wasn’t in class when you said this, but the next class I attended I heard about what you said. It was something about how the students at Hailsham are similar to us at the University of Minnesota because we are both being prepared to go out when we graduate and work in jobs to better the rest of society. So many times in this class someone says something that I would never have thought of on my own, but this statement is especially insightful. I really wish I was in class when you guys were discussing (it was the snowstorm day) this book because I am sure I would have more to say about it.

Anyway, I’ll start out by saying what a brilliant comparison! Like always, it’s something I never would have thought of, but I agree with you to a point. There are many reasons why your statement shows the similarities between us and Hailsham. It is true that we are being trained to go out and get a career, and it is true that these careers are designed to help keep the world turning. Our professors are providing us with knowledge and helping us learn and discover things on our own. We are creating works of art just like the students at Hailsham. Although our art comes in the form of papers, presentations, blog posts and other various writing and reading assignments, I believe that the assignments we create are still art.

I see some ways this theory doesn’t match up perfectly with the students from Hailsham. For one, the work that we are creating not only proves we have a soul but it also proves we have a brain. The guardians at Hailsham had no intention or desire to prove if their students had brains; they wouldn’t need those to donate organs. Another important thing is that we have all chosen to come here, and not to mention we all pay a lot to be here. None of the students at Hailsham had any decision about attending; they were simply created and sent there. We also know what our future holds to some extent, unlike the students that were told nothing about what was in store for them. At least we have the ability to make choices about our future; we have freedom while they have no choice. Finally, we are not being lied to by our teachers. The guardians at Hailsham are keeping the secret from the students (maybe in attempt to keep them happy, maybe so they will keep producing artwork and not get depressed, who knows why), but our professors at the U of M are trying to give us as much information as possible for the world ahead of us. While they don’t know exactly where we will go with our life, they are not withholding any information (hopefully).

So after reading this, what do you think? Do you still have the same opinion? I am not trying to argue for or against your opinion, like I stated, I think it is both similar and different to our time here at the U of M. I am just wondering what you think about how I interpreted your statement. Is this kind of what you were thinking, or am I way off? Since I wasn’t in class the day you said it, I would really like to hear more about it from you.

I am going to remember everyone from this class for a long time (especially the last day lol :) ). I am going to take with me the skills I have learned about reading books and interpreting them in other classes I take at the U. I am also going to take with me the new found ability to look at both sides of something and look into the context of the writing. I will remember it is important to take a step back and look at the whole picture. I have already started to read a new book, and I found myself asking, “What would the people in my Lit class say about this?” I think that shows the significance you all have had on my learning. I really enjoyed all the discussions we had together, they were all really great and we all had so much to add to the conversation. I’m going to miss you guys! Merry Christmas, and good luck next semester. Good luck graduates!!

goodbye

Dear Rodney,

This didn’t necessarily happen in class, but shortly prior. I
would hope that is okay for this assignment. What you said really had
nothing to do with class specifically, but I couldn’t help but relate it.
John, Christina, and I were sitting in John’s bedroom about an hour
before class. Thinking it would be just us three, John’s phone rang. It
was you. One of the first things you said when you walked in is what made
me ponder everything we’ve done, said, and learned in this literature
class. You said something along the lines of, “I know, I don’t seem
like the type of guy to do this kind of thing” (this thing being
pre-gaming before class). My first thought was “totally, I did not expect
you at all.” Then I started to consider why it did surprise me so much
that it was you. I suppose it was mostly based upon the fact that I
generally saw you as one of the more quiet people in the class. This led me
to think about everyone in the class, and the judgments I had made simply
based upon how much someone had or hadn’t talked during the class.
I guess it really made me reconsider how my views about the people
in our class changed. Not like I really ever had negative thoughts about
the people in the class, I had just created these images for each student
and noticed that at first, I had rarely let them alter.
I related this to Never Let Me Go, and the conversation our class
has had about whether or not the clones can even be considered human. After
you said “I don’t seem like the type of guy to do this thing,” I
thought about the clones. I felt deeply saddened, thinking how they had
such a specific life-plan, how they were all expected to do everything in
life extremely similarly. Regardless of those expectations, every one of
those clones had their own story. It’s so depressing to think that the
“normals” could overgeneralize, and oversimplify, the complex feelings,
experiences, relationships, etc. that each of the clones actually
possessed. It just made me find yet another somewhat hidden connection
between Never Let Me Go and reality as we know it.
What you said that night helped sum up the most important thing
that I have learned and will take away from this class: to not be afraid.
Cliché, I know, but those first few Wednesday nights I was scared out of
my mind. I felt like I was the only freshman in the class, assumed I was
probably the only one that hadn’t read a book in months, I didn’t even
know how the class was going to be run. I would sit and hope that Ben
didn’t call on me, even if I really wanted to say something. I think I
learned how to be comfortable in the class, to accept all of the
differences in the class, and embrace those differences to strengthen my
knowledge. By having a small class and being able to discuss whatever crazy
thoughts shot into our heads…I learned more than just how to analyze a
book, but how to relate with others and discuss opinions, even if they are
different. Learning to understand that everyone does have their own story
has made me more comfortable in my own skin. Along with this, I can get to
know a person more easily, rather than focusing on that outer image.
We’ve all been taught to “not stereotype,” but I think what
I’ve learned goes deeper than this. It’s recognizing that there is a
lot more to someone like you, for example, than just a quiet person
that’s in my class.

I feel extremely privileged to have shared this class with so many thoughtful, intelligent individuals.

A Happy Ending and A Fond Farewell

The comment that I am going to use actually works out very well for the ending of this class. When discussing a Wrinkle in Time in class, Anneva was asked to describe her blog post, and why she said that the end of Wrinkle in Time wasn’t actually a happy ending. Thanks to having the blog as a reference, I know her what her arguments are; Anneva believed that the family was ignoring evil; after they had rescued their father and saved Charles Wallace, they did nothing anymore to try and destroy the Black Thing. It made me react in two very different ways.
I first reacted by wanting to fiercely defend the “Happy Ending” that is the final scene. I am a firm supporter of fairy tales, of the typical ending of “... and they all live happily ever after.” And, after sympathizing with Meg and Calvin and the entire family the whole book because of the fact that they are talked about, they are outcasts of the town, and that their family is missing an important person, a father, I wanted them to have the happy reunion, the ever-after. Why shouldn’t a family who has suffered as they have be deprived of a little joy? I just remember, in that immediate moment, I wanted to defend the scene do the grave.
But, and the reason I am writing this now, is that I have been stewing it over in my head for a while now, maybe you were right Anneva. Maybe they shouldn’t be celebrating so early. Even though we now they that continue to fight the Black Thing in later books, it’s still makes me wonder if they were celebrating too early, because they didn’t accomplish what the Mrs.’s wanted them to entirely. Charles Wallace even fell prey to what they warned him about. So, should there really have been a happy ending when nothing substantial was defeated?
As of right now, I am still completely undecided as to what Anneva’s argument makes me feel. At heart, I am a diehard fairy tale girl, and on the other hand, this class has taught me so much about seeing things from a million different perspectives. But I would like to thank you, Anneva, for making me question the quintessential Happy Ending. And you obviously got to me, because I have still been wondering about it even now.
And this post also allows me to connect with how I will leave this class. I will be able to leave with the knowledge that no matter what book or what discussion, there are always a million new ways to see something if you only listen to those around you. Every time we discussed, I heard something thought provoking, something that made me question my understanding, and things that delved deeper into reading, writing, telling and feeling than any other class I have taken yet in college. By the end of this semester, I definitely saw “us” as more of a book club rather than a class, which I think always made late night class go a little easier. Thank you all for such a fabulous semester in the one class I enjoyed to attend every Wednesday. I hope you all have an amazing holiday season!

so long and thanks for all the fish

Jason, thank you for showing genuine interest in what other people thought. Like they say in Fight Club, “when people think you're dying they really listen instead of just waiting for their turn to talk” Ok, slightly hyperbolic I know. I hope others don't take this the wrong way. A lot of the people in class showed the same degree of patience and curiosity for the thought of their classmates. I wanted to tell you this because of the way you seem to listen, think and then answer. I think it was during our reading of Strauss and Adler, you said that class discussion fundamentally changed how you look at texts. Being somewhat of a wiseass, I've always taken what I read or hear or learn or see with a serious grain of salt.

From the first day of class we had our moments, sitting outside waiting for things to get going, during the break or while we were moving tables around. You told me about your dad and how much you admire his intellect. From a few of the things you said I could tell we had some rather divergent viewpoints on the topics people have been using to divide the country for the past few years. At the same time you tried to keep your arguments and ideas clear and well structured without stepping on anyone's toes. You can't really say the same thing about me. I blurted out a number of rather off color statements (not all of which were meant purely to fuel the fire a bit)

I think you could say this is one of the things I hope to take away from the class. When a question is asked, it's not always necessary to blurt out the first thing that comes to mind. You showed me that it is completely acceptable to think for a second and give a well formulated answer to the best of your knowledge. Something else struck me in this class and it ties in to what I said earlier about divergent viewpoints. The texts we read could all be seen in a political light but we managed to stay civil in class. It seems like that huge rift in this country that the talking heads are trying to convince us of is something of an artificially created and over hyped phenomenon. Otherwise I don't think the two of us would have been able to be in the same room together, let alone engage in share ideas and learn from each other.

final blog:(

Quite honestly I cannot remember much from one specific person or a specific instance. I want to concentrate on the class as a whole. The class isn't something that I normally come in contact with. There was only one instance where there were so many people with so many different decisions and we didn't rip each others heads off. I want to stress everyone in class not just one person and commend you all for a great semester of class. We actually cared about each other, when someone had oppinions to share everyone listened and respected the speakers view. I remember having multiple conversations with Jim where he would shed more light on the readings for me, so many people were willing to help each other out on class material. When people needed help they had a plethra of people that were willing to help out. What I will take out of this is a bunch of friends that are dedicated to the sake of learning as well as being good friends. I will also take away from the different learning styles that everyone has presented in class. I will think outside of the box and think of new ways to tackle my homework. I also would like to continue the blog if people are interested, just as a forum for keeping in touch and sharing what we are learning in class to continue stretching our minds.


P.S. I had talked about in the context presentation of L'Engle that she was an armenian. Correction, She in the christian community would be considered heretical. See both calvinists and armenianists both believe that there is one way to get to Heaven and that would be to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and christianity is the only way to Heaven. L'Engle would argue that that doesn't need to happen that no matter what you believe in all religions lead to God and Heaven.

Good luck to everyone during finals and I hope we can all stay in touch and utilize this blog.

Final Writings!!

My blog is in the comment section..I couldnt copy and paste and I wrote it in Word first! Sorry!

My final finale!

Well - I'm going to write down some final thoughts about the class, seeing as though I am now officially done with my college career. (and I know that Ben won't fail me!) But I just wanted to thank all of you, it was a great semester. To be honest, there is a reason why I saved my lit requirement until my last semester, I hate to read. However, I do like dissecting books and getting into theoretical arguments over my thoughts, yes I know I am stubborn! It was enlightening to see things from a different perspective from the Carlson way of life. I had mentioned this to Ben on Wednesday, but I was truly honored to be in a class with all of you, it opened my eyes for the first time in three years.

So - I will give you an update on how you all have inspired me. Yesterday, I got a phone call pretty much telling me that the job offer that I had accepted in November was not going to be available - in other words my job got rescinded...sweet. However they told me that they had another job available in Ohio - for less pay - and sitting behind a desk calling doctors all day - can anyone see me doing that??? Doubtful, so inspired by all of you and your free spirits, I have decided to say fuck corporate America and find a different job here, close to my family and friends. Being with all of you this semester made me realize that life isn't really what Carlson portrays - you don't have to have the perfect job upon graduation to have a successful and happy life. Though this concept is still hard for me, I'm working on being okay with it.

Soooooo, thanks to all of you! I hope to be hearing from you! Facebook me :)

Kaitlin

life's a bitch and then you die

Christina,
A few classes ago, when we were discussing Never Let Me Go, you compared us as a class to the students in Hailsham. I distinctly remember you asking the class “Aren’t we all just like students at Hailsham?” I’m not quite sure if it was the question of the way you asked it that stuck with me. In your voice there was a sort of matter of fact quality, as if it was obvious that this was the case. Maybe that’s why it affected me, because I didn’t think it was that obvious.

Regardless of whatever it was, it made me think about the book in a different context: our own. For me, this was important because often times I find it difficult to compare literature to everyday life. I focus too much on the story itself and what’s going on with the characters that I forget to step back from it. In this case specifically, I think it hit me harder because of its implications, which I hadn’t considered. If we are just like students at Hailsham, then we are just being created and molded to fit into our respective places in society. It does not matter what we study, how we study or what we do in our free time. Our education is just an exercise to prepare us for our positions. While I don’t believe this is the case, the idea of it does freak me out. Without purpose there’s no responsibility and no consequences. It would be chaos. But then there’s the whole Matrix idea that reality is just all in our heads and none of this shit really exists.

At the end of the class, I can’t say I really have the answer to this question or many of the questions I’ve had. I have however, because of comments like yours, been able to challenge my own perspectives. I’ve been able to step outside of myself and look at things in a different way. While I think that some people would argue that not having the answers means that you didn’t really learn anything, I don’t agree. If anything, I think that me still having questions is better, because having answers means the end of discussion. Although I don’t think we’ve finished our discussions in this class, I think that’s the point. Throughout the semester I’ve learned how to think critically, challenge myself, and keep questioning things. If I can continue to do that, then I think that we’ve been successful.

Final Blog

Sean, that was a really fun and interesting interpretation presentation you, Erik, and Joey had created for the class when you three acted as the gods, gave me a pizza, and let me decide what to do with it. During the facilitation/discussion part of your group’s presentation the thing you asked that stuck with me for quite a while was, “How did that make you feel? Didn’t you feel powerful?” During the activity I definitely felt like I was given some sort of power and I still find it interesting to reflect upon how I acted with it. The whole activity reminds me of a famous quote by Abraham Lincoln that goes, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” Looking back on it, I feel like I learned a lot about myself. For instance, I never would have thought that I would find abusing power to be fun, but it I thought it was kind of funny to start eating a piece in front of everyone before giving any of it away. Another thing I started wondering is if great amounts of power is something that I would want to have. I mean, it definitely seems to be the things natural go as many strive to become better than others and having major influences on others, but with all of power comes the burdens of responsibility. From what I’ve experienced, whenever something went wrong at work, all the bosses and managers had to stay late and fix everything while I just sit in a menial position and watch them deal with all the stress. What’s weird though is that I still decided to become a supervisor at the place I work at a while ago. I think it’s kind of fun to feel important, call all the shots, be in charge of people and everything, I don’t really enjoy knowing that my employees were only listening to me, being nice, and laughing at all of my shitty jokes because they were afraid of getting fired or trying to advance themselves. I’m not totally sure on how I feel about having power, but the activity gave me a better idea of how I might end up dealing with it.

On a side note, I had gotten a feeling that your group was looking for someone in particular to give the pizza to because I was nowhere in any of your lines of vision when all of a sudden Erik spins around quickly and picks me for the activity. Just thought that was kind of funny.

final post

To Jim and Jason,

there was an example Jim made previously in this class that made me think a lot. it was during the debate about the good person of Szechwan when we were talking about what defines a good person, while we were all debating, you gave an example of the Target CEO making a huge amount of money annualy and he donated certain amount of his income to charity, therefore he is a good person. however later in class, someone argue back that if he wans't able to help EVERY poor people in the world then he is a bad person. Jason also made a good argument about being a good person also requires "ability", he said that it's impossible to help every beggar you see in this world since you might ran out of money if you do so. which makes me doubt that if there's a real definition about good person.
thinking about the definition of a good person also makes me think that what defines a bad person, because i think people do something bad for a purpose, what if their purpose is to help someone in need? for example i was talking about the very same issue in blog 8, i gave an example about the Sandman in the movie The Spiderman 3 in case you haven't watched that movie, part of the story was about a guy robbed money from the bank and everyone judge that he's a bad person. but in fact his action was because he needed money to save his daughter who has a serious illness and couldn't afford the doctor's fee.

To Jim, you always make some really good points in class and also you know how to appreciate others opinion. i also feel like you are a good leader, throughout the semester i had couple chance to see you leading others while we were having some group activities. I'm a person who is totally oposite of you, therefore i feel like i have a lot to learn from you if someone would want to become a good leader.

To Jason, i think you are a person who also makes very good points during classes and also you are a great close reader and you notice something that others can't notice. for example, during the last class when we were looking at the picture of "heaven, earth and hell" you discover so many things that i would have never notice. like how mother Mary was presented in the picture.
i would like to thank you for teaching me and giving me so much to learn.

Final Post

Kaitlin,

When we were reading House Work the class was discussing Willy and you made a point that struck me. You spoke on how Monica views her father. The class saw Willy as being this bad guy but you said something about Monica not viewing him that way. That to Monica Willy could be her hero. Willy was able to bring her mother back and to Monica Willy could be the world.

This view on Willy and Monica really made me think. What I found so interesting about your comment was the way you looked at Willy. I could not find any redeeming qualities to Willy. He killed a baby and was a mean man. There was nothing that would make Willy be anything but a monster to me, until you made me think from Monica’s point of view. Willy is her father and no matter what he does he will always be an important person to her. What you said made me not just see Willy as a monster. It forced me to look at Willy not just from my eyes but from many different angles. I would have missed out on a lot if I had not been able to set aside my thoughts and take in a different view point. My own personal views shade how I read; but I should not let it keep me from see all the sides. Willy was not just a murder but a father. He made not have been an ideal father but he is the only one Monica has. After hearing your comment it made me try to look at things more from a neutral stand point.

I am glad that I took this course because it has taught me to look beyond the surface and not just take the author words at face value. I should read between them and question why those particular words were chosen. It is alright to question and I should fully engage in the books I’m reading. The best part to me was Ben saying that there is no teacher edition to these books. I should look at these books from different angles. Also it could be beneficial to know who the publishers of the book are. I am also always curious to know how and who determines the book covers. Sometimes I just do not see why they choose those pictures. The choice of book covers always perplexes me. I will take from this class a new way of thinking. I should not just look at books through my view point but multiple views. Kaitlin thanks for showing me that I need to go beyond my views in order to fully engage in my readings. Everyone in class has improved my reading technique and I am thankful. I will leave this course knowing that is alright to ask questions and that I should ask questions.

FINAL BLOG. a little sad..

Dear (in the words of Christina 'reading') class,

I had such a hard time deciding on one person from this class--because, I seriously saw this class as a whole. Therefore, I am breaking the rules and writing to all of you in general but, a few specifically for examples.(Ben, I hope you are not upset by my choice to write to the class as a whole!)

Every individual in this class aided in creating this great group for talking, laughing, debating, acting, drawing, elaborating, more laughing, even eating. This all lead to the ultimate educational goal of learning--but, in a wonderful atmosphere in which we learned from each other. I saw in this class the ability for strangers from completely different backgrounds to join together and form a bond--outside of say a mutual interest group.

Whether you spoke out often and immediately after every point Ben made such as John, who I believe made a lot of valid 'thesis like' points tying things together before I had the chance to process the question being asked.--quite impressive! or less so, everyone had such good view points.

I think that someone else already said this in their blogging--but, Jamie you always had such thoughtful points about books when you spoke. Working with you on the Salih interpretation presentation gave me a chance to see those thoughts even more. In particular I remember a conversation we had about your idea that Mustafa was actually getting darker physically in the novel based on descriptions being made. Or your thoughts towards the cover of the "Never Let Me Go." I think that sometimes I can get so caught up in a story and figuring out the ending that I lose parts of the journey on the way and I felt that you really picked up on the bits that would have normally fell in the cracks for me. Thanks for those insights.

Anneva, I enjoyed that early on you were always quick to say that you didn't agree with something. I specifically remember a discussion about literature and art in general and the relevance of knowing the background of the author or the artist. I knew then and still believe that I enjoy something more if I know the background on where it comes from. Whereas, you disagreed you felt that you didn't need that but that you could appreciate the book or the art for what it simply was. Which I can appreciate. I loved that you continued to question peoples thoughts up until even the last day of class--I think you called John out on the architecture of the Jewish Memorial. :)

These different personalities of disagreements and picked up pieces and everyone working together and feeling comfortable with each other--is exactly as I imagine a Reading, Writing, Telling, Feeling class should be. The greatest thing I have learned through this semester is the power of community and the ability to learn even more when you are able to fully communicate with those around you and connect with them. Because, even if we all didn't talk as much as someone else or didn't listen as much as someone else--we were having a silent conversation of agreeing with those around us or learning from their thoughts.

I could honestly go through and list a memory about all of you--but, that would become very long. So, I will say to all of you---thank you, thank you, thank you for a wonderful semester. For making a Wednesday night class not only tolerable, but enjoyable. I am very glad I added this class at the last minute--it was a wise choice on my part. Feel free to email me, I would love to keep in touch with you all! Best to you all in this next year and have a wonderful break. -Whitney

Final Assignment

Dear Yerbol,

During the first class in which we discussed Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go, and prior to the break and our interpretation presentation, the class had been discussing how passive and utterly resigned the donors were to their fates (tangent: opposite of Oedipus. Is Never Let Me Go an Aristotilean tragedy? Do the donors have a tragic flaw???). As Ben announced the break, which I wasn't ready for, I turned to you and said something about how the Hailsham students were not educated in a way that would support critical thinking or the questioning of their role in society. Example: at Hailsham there was "good art" and "bad art," and to create "bad art" was to be ridiculed by the other students, as was the case for Tommy. If the students' artwork was so important, as implied by the existence of Madame's Gallery, and the students never questioned what made "good art" or "bad art," what does that tell us about their education? Furthermore, the Gallery, as important as it was, was so much of a secret that even the guardian Lucy honestly believed Tommy's "lack of creativity" was nothing to worry about! The point is, the Hailsham students weren't brought up to question the System because they were repeatedly "told and not told," what the System was (81).

It was in this context, Yerbol, while everyone else was filing out the door, that you mentioned your own education in a communist country, how you were left-handed as a child, but you were struck on your left hand to make sure you learned to write with your right, which is how you write today.

I've been thinking about what you said ever since. Most days I consider myself to be a mover who thinks, rather than a thinker who moves. It is because of this, I believe, that what you said hit me as hard as it did. The manipulation of the physical body by authority, such as being forced to write with your non-dominant hand or jumping rope/bouncing balls in rhythm, is something that makes me extremely uncomfortable. Our bodies were created from unique genetic codes that are specific to the individual. It is one thing to manipulate someone's mind (easily accomplished I believe) and another thing to change the way a person's body functions in space. Communism, you could say, altered a behavior patterned by your own DNA. As a mover who thinks, that's a really scary thought.

I find myself in awe of the power of oppression, thinking about how the characters in all the books we've read this semester were altered by authority. To what extent were their identities changed? Were they ever able to fully escape their oppression? I have to say, the most oppressive thing I’m dealing with right now is finals, and that’s nothing. Other people are fighting truly oppressive situations every day.

With the end of this class, I am thankful for your participation in discussion and the unique perspective you brought. I look forward to reading (for leisure!) with the ideas that you and others have brought to my attention. I will continue to examine the politics, explicit and implicit, behind what I read...and dance, etc., and consider how these politics present themselves in my life. No more passive book reading for me. Reading without close reading seems so incredibly boring now. Anyway, thank you for changing the way I read a book!

Merry Christmas!

last and final post

Jamie,
Throughout the duration of this course there were many times when I found myself struck by your comments. This is completely in a good way. I would really like to acknowledge your comments and ideas and questions that you brought up in class. What was amazing to me during the classes is that although you did not say much, when you did you made some of the most interesting points and came up with some of the best questions. I would have to say that you were the one that got me thinking more creatively not only in class but outside of class as well.
Unfortunately, I wish I could have remembered what you said during discussions that made me think so deeply about some of the readings and ideas, I should have written them down because I felt as though I was thinking the same way as you I just did not know how to put it in words. I really liked the comments that you made during our debate about whether or not it can be possible to be a good person and still live in a capitalistic environment. Unfortunately, I wish I could have been on the side that supported this thought, but I remember when you spoke it made the most sense to me than hearing what everyone else was saying. You made very good arguments in The Good Person of Szechwan about the old couple being good people and being able to survive in the village. I enjoy the comments about the old couple helping Shen Teh with the money as well as being very honest about the piece of clothing that Shen Teh tried on.
It seemed to me throughout the entire length of the class that you are a deep silent thinker. You did not say much during class but when you did say something it was very deep and very important and I certainly listened. To be honest, I wish you would have said much more during the discussions (coming from a person who didn't talk at all) because I was always waiting to hear what you had to say and when you raised your hand I knew you were about to give us another interesting discussion to talk about.
What I will take away from this class is your interesting comments and the way you got me to think more clearly. When you spoke or answered a question that I wanted answered, you made me understand in not only a way for me to completely comprehend, but made me think about it more deeply and in many different ways. Not only in the classroom did I start thinking more clearly about subjects, but outside I also started thinking differently about situations. I really enjoyed being in this class (more of an observer) and sharing the different and creative information that I will take with me every time I begin to read a book or someone asks me how to translate a piece of text, which I believe I have gotten much better at executing. Thanks for your insights and great experiences I have gotten to go along with.

Dreaming and Thinking

Jamie,
The class before the last class, the class was talking about what the students in Never Let Me Go wanted to be when they were older. Some wanted to be actors and some wanted to work at supermarkets. But Miss Lucy told them, “Your lives are set out for you. You’ll become adults, then before you’re old, before you’re even middle-aged, you’ll start to donate your vital organs. That’s what each of you was created to do,” (Ishiguro 81). Someone then raised the question why they were thinking of become these things when they knew they were going to die, and you said something along the lines, “People always dream of doing something even though it is most likely impossible. I dream of being the world’s richest woman but it probably won’t happen. Even though people dream of impossible things, they still do it.” I thought about this after you said it and I agree with you. I started to think of why people dream of things that are most likely impossible. My first thoughts were that it helps people set goals in life and it gives them hope. But it wasn’t until the final minutes of our final class when I was talking with Jason and telling him what I got out of taking this course when I thought of probably the best reason why people may dream of things that are improbable.
What I got out of taking this class that I think is most important is to THINK about everything that is presented to you. Things may have more than one meaning behind it and that if you look deeper into things past what is visible or obvious, there may be more important, hidden, and new messages. When people dream of things that may be impossible, they are thinking of something that is usually difficult to obtain but may be achievable by certain methods. These methods could be common or the person may be THINKING of new methods to reach an improbable dream. They may be thinking outside of the box to obtain that dream, and I think this ties directly to what we did in this course, which is to think outside the box with certain texts, look more in depth at things, and be creative. Thinking outside the box and thinking of new ideas is what progresses the world’s technology and helps the world become a better place. Thinking outside the box to obtain unlikeable dreams, even though plenty have been obtained, teaches people to think critically about everything and to think about everything more in depth. By looking at things more critically and more in depth, it definitely teaches people to be more open about people’s own ideas and to understand how and/or why someone reached a conclusion that you may not have thought. By doing this, you may start to think of other possible conclusions and how to arrive to those conclusions by a different thought process. In the end, you may even think that this new conclusion is better than your original conclusion. In conclusion, THINKING develops new things, allows a person to understand others’ points of view, and allows a person to see things more in depth.

Final Post

John,

One day in class when we were talking about the differences between the signifier and the signified you made a comment about the way comments made to different audiences have profoundly different effects. You made you point by saying that in Germany it is a pretty common and OK thing to say nigger and here in the U.S. that is clearly not OK. Furthermore here it is relatively accepted to make jokes about Nazis but that in Germany that not OK at all. I think that this statement is pretty profound and very applicable to how we interpret things. When you first said that, it completely took me off guard. Even writing this assignment I am sitting here feeling kind of bad typing out the word nigger. If our ideas of what is acceptable to say are so different, it makes me wonder what other things that I say, do, see or experience would also be signified differently by other people.

In several of the books that we read in this class it was important to note that interpretations could vary depending on the reader for this exact reason. It was consistently interesting to see how many people had such varied interpretations of the exact same text. The reading by Perkins (I can’t remember if we read this before or after your comment) made me think of what you said. Some of the comments that come out of that article would have been taken very differently by different sets of people. I think that most western economists would be able to hear those comments and think that makes perfect sense, we need to make money by acquiring resources and Africa has these resources. If someone from Africa heard these comments however, they would probably be interpreted in a very different way. I am sure that they would be a little more interested in the fact that someone saw their home as an asset to be “taken.” Even though either group would have heard the exact same thing word for word, the meaning would be vastly different.

Thinking about this comment also makes me think about just how much time must go into writing a book. It seems to me that an author must take a lot of time and effort to determine not just what to say, but how to say something that will communicate the desired meaning to their audience. For a piece of literature that attempts to investigate a controversial issue, this must be very challenging especially if that piece of literature is going to be read by a different audience. I am thinking to myself how I would talk or explain something to a good friend vs a teacher vs a coworker and all of these different situations would involve a different style of communication. I have never really thought about this before this class but I think that unconsciously (that’s for you Ben) I have always realized that what I say (signifier) can often be interpreted very differently (signified) depending on who I am talking to, and because of that it is important that I am aware of who I am communicating with and how their interpretations of something might vary.

In closing thanks for making the comment… It really made me think differently about how communication is not just dependant on the speaker/writer, but also on who is listening/reading

Final Posting

When thinking about someone who said something that has struck me is when Whitney and I were working on our context presentation, I told her how nervous I was for this class and how I didnt think i was smart enough to keep up with the class. I know that this didnt happen within the class but it had to do with what the class was about. I remember she told me that I am smart but I will continue to grow and that people older than me have more experience and that this class will only help me gain knowledge about literature and the world around me. I honestly didnt believe her at the time but now looking back she was very right. Yes, I didnt know alot of the things that people would talk about in class, but that strengthened my knowledge. Yes, I was still nervous to state my opinion but I found that other people in class were on the same page as me. After Whitney had told me this I took it to heart and started speaking up every once in awhile in this class and many of my other classes. I think in class we discussed alot about being or feeling like an outcast or having a lack of self confidence in class when discussing certain topics. I have learned that if I start believing what I say everyone else will start to believe it as well. Just like others were putting new thoughts into my head, I could also do the same with them. When walking away from this class I can say that this was one of the best classes I have been in so far and the true value of community was played out. Everyone really connected on a personal level and I think that is super cool because you dont get that in alot of college classes. I knew from that one project I had a new friend and mentor in Whitney and someone I could rely on if I had questions or concerns about the class. Even though Whitney is older than me I feel like we could be friends and if I later saw her we would joke about the little inside jokes we formed throughout the semster. So I just want to thank her for giving me that little inspirational speech only about 2 weeks into class and how that has impacted the way I participate in my classes and how I view myself when thinking abhout how smart I can be and also others around me.

Lessons Learned

Anneva, I was moved by the comment you made in your 7th blog. You wrote “Mustafa Sa’eed repeatedly uses large mountains and hills as metaphors for various destinations on his lifelong journey. This places emphasis on the nature of his journey--point A to point B, mountain to mountain, obstacle to obstacle. He is not simply free and along for the ride. He is worried about his immediate future and survival. Life is never easy, because between these mountains lies the metaphorical desert, vast and unforgiving. This desert reminds the reader that, despite his education, Sa’eed is a wanderer.” This is extremely relevant to Season of Migration to the North and the adventure of Mustafa Sa’eed but it also applies to so much more.
Your posting is a perfect example of what I believe Ben wanted us to learn how to do as readers. You clearly took an in-depth look at the assigned reading. You looked past the literal words on the paper. Then you applied context about who, what, and when this was written for. Next, you applied concepts, such as a metaphor and pulled out an “outsider” from the reader and other characters in the story. We hadn’t cover us, them, and it yet but you were already ahead of the curve in establishing who the target audience is, why the author is writing what he/she is writing, and what does the perspective of the reader/narrator do to implement these intentions. Lastly, you used your own feelings and insights to draw conclusions about what it is you just read, how it made you feel inside, and what effect it will have on how you understand this book, future literature you come across, and the world around you. I think it is safe to say that you have passed Ben’s test with flying colors! Congratulations!

This brilliant insight isn’t the only reason why I chose your quote for this assignment. The main reason why I selected this posting was because it seemed to be so relevant in summing up our own journeys within Reading, Writing, Telling, and Feeling. During the first 10-15 minutes of class on the first day of the semester I thought to myself “Oh boy, we are going to try and discuss these novels for 2.5 hours/week. Let the awkward silences and pauses begin!” It did not take long for my opinion to be completely flipped. I have talked to multiple people about this, and they all agreed, that the quality of discussion within this class was absolutely incredible. I was completely blown away. I mean there were multiple times that I would come to class with a thought about the book we had just read, sit down, and after 2 hours leave with a completely different outlook on the words I had just read. There are some incredible minds in this class and we have read some amazing works. So, to return to your quote, we in a sense just went from one “mountain” to the next by completing this course. As we go forth we are immediately faced with our own “survival” of our dreaded finals week, the rest of college, and our “immediate futures.” As we embark on these adventures I hope we all take away what we have learned about each other and ourselves with over the last few months. Thanks for the amazing time!

Why the hell don't they just leave?

Sean, a couple weeks ago in class we started discussing the book Never Let Me Go. We were on the topic of the Ruth, Kathy, and Tommy and Hailsham when you said, “Why the hell don’t they just leave?” Your tone made it sound so obvious that they should leave Hailsham. I agreed with you because I read the entire book and knew what was in store for the three children. But within seconds after you said that people were responding with reasons why they would not want to leave. The three children, along with other children at Hailsham, were essentially in Heaven. Why would anyone want to leave a place like the Garden of Eden? After looking at the triptych in class last night it reminded me of your quote. Everyone looked so joyous and peaceful in the first phase of that picture but things got dramatically worse in phase two, earth. In the last phase, Hell, people were definitely against each other and two sides were separated. If the people in the first phase had any clue what they were getting themselves into, they would obviously want to leave. But children in phase one basically get “hypnotized” into believing what they are told by a higher level of hierarchy.

What you said, “Why the hell don’t they just leave,” makes me think about different media and real life situations. So many popular movies and books follow a different triptych then Never Let Me Go. Rather then starting in Heaven, going to earth, and ending in Hell, popular books and movies start in Heaven, go through earth and come back to Heaven. In popular movies and books why the fell would they want to leave Heaven early in their lives if they are going to end up there? The more bogus a story is now the more popular it becomes. Stories that end with a tragic death or sadness are ones that rarely reach high levels of popularity among society. Is it because people in our current day and time are so blind to realize what they are going through?

I am sure many elderly people think, “why the hell don’t they just leave,” towards the younger generation. They have gone through Heaven and earth and are currently retired and bored with their lives (stuck in Hell). But our generation hears this from people either living in Hell or the end of their earth phase and chose not to believe it. We are already hypnotized by what media and society wants us to believe that we do not want to hear what our elders have to say. I always hear adults talking about how they just want to retire and be done working. Why would they want to leave earth and go to Hell? High school students always say they cannot wait to get to college, or college students talking about getting into the real world. The media portrays these different stages in life as progressively getting better, when realistically it is the start to a slow death.

FINAL ASSIGNMENT!

(What follows is, with no substantial changes, the final assignment as described in the handout in class.)

Think about one person in our class who said or did something in class that struck you as important and made you think about things we’ve discussed in class in a new way, and whom you’d like to follow up with. (Let’s leave me out of it; I’d prefer you address each other. I will read them all carefully, of course.)

During the next two days—sometime on Thursday, December 17th or Friday, December 18th—write a message to that person, at least 500-600 words in length, and post it here. This message can take whatever form is most appropriate to what you want to say and whom you’re saying it to, but in some way it should

1) describe what that person said or did in as much detail as you can muster,

2) reflect on why it felt important, and how it made you think about things we’ve discussed in class in a new way, and

3) connect this description and reflection to your own thoughts upon the end of this class—what will you take with you? What questions remain? What will you keep thinking about? How, if at all, did our time together affect the way you view and act in the world? If you later encounter this person again, as a carer or a donor, what might you two end up reminiscing about over biscuits and mineral water?

Finally, during the following two days—sometime on Saturday, December 19th or Sunday, December 20th—please comment on at least two other people’s messages. These comments should be a little longer and more involved than your average comment—say, 100-200 words in length—but the form and content is up to you, as long as you engage seriously with the message and have something thoughtful to say about it. You may, of course, want to comment on any messages directly addressed to you, but that is not required; all I require is two comments, to two different people. Try to make sure everyone’s message receives at least one comment!
.

Never Let Me Go

When I was reading Never Let Me Go, I felt a couple different things. First, I felt very sad for these poor children; they were being raised for the sole purpose of having their organs harvested! They were never really fully aware of this (they had hints from the guardians and hunches amongst themselves) and so they were excitedly making plans for their futures, as any normal adolescent would do. This feeling was brought up when the boys were talking before their game, waiting for the rain to stop. The fact they wanted to be movie stars and move to America made me sad because I knew this would never happen for them. I think this is part of the reason it made me so sad, but also because they are so young and innocent. They did not do anything to deserve what was coming to them. They were normal children like you and I with dreams and ambitions. What is important here? Well, I think the fact that the author can produce such sadness in me is important. It is important because he succeeded in making me feel empathy for his characters, which we have learned is one of the things that make a good story.
I also felt outraged, appalled and disgusted that human beings could do this to other humans. This feeling was brought up at various stages in the book as the readers are slowly gathering clues and putting them together to figure out what was going on with these children in Hailsham. I know that humans are very cruel to each other (murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery), but this is like taking murder to a new level. People are making these children with the intent to use their bodies and let them die when they are middle-aged, and this makes me so angry that people can be so selfish. I think the reason this is scary to me is because it almost doesn’t seem that far-fetched. Scientists are working on cloning, and we already have donations in hospitals, so it doesn’t seem that unlikely to put these two ideas together. This feeling of disgust is important because I think it means he is getting his message across. Because I feel this anger towards the people/scientists and sorrow for these children, it has made me think about the situation and now I am more likely to do something about it if anything like this should occur in our world.

Blog 10

So far, I think this is my favorite book that we have read so far. Maybe it's because of how the language moves in the book or the involvement of a scientific inquiry, I dont know. (Sorry Ben, but I honestly don't know what it is about it that I like so much) Our discussion last week was extremely interesting and it brought up so many ideas that didn't cross my mind while I was reading. Towards the end of class we were discussing which one of our groups was more necessary towards technilogical progress and this just furthered my inquiry as to why there is no technology in the book. The only thing I can remember is the walkman being introduced and groups of children sitting around in a cirlce passing it along like its a joint. Cloning is such a technological advancement and it just seems so weird to me that it almost doesn't exist in the book. It's almost frustrating.

Cyclops combines numbers nine and ten....

Colleagues,

Thank you all for your well wishes while I worked my way through the Eye Incident of 2009. I am approaching Ishiguro with some trepidation, there are some things I have to say that may not sit well, but say them I must:

In my opinion, the phrase "I don't know how it was where you were" refers to the clone-farm at which you were hatched. I think that one of the most important matters that the "where you were" phrase focuses our attention upon is that Miss Emily and Madame (and thus Hailsham) were, if not the vanguard of a new approach to clone farming, then they were certainly major material contributors to the idea that - if you will - treating your veal nicely before you eat it will produce better veal. Kathy is referring to the conditions at clone-farms around the whole of England when she uses this phrase. The assigned donors have fallen under Kathy's care after having been fatted under many types of conditions.

Clearly, Madame and Miss Emily participated in the 'softening' of the farming techniques of their time. We are never given the reasons for the temporary softening of the farming methods, but we are definitely given a historical summary that pre-dates the time of our narrative, "After the war, in the early fifties, when the great breakthroughs in science followed one after the other so rapidly, there wasn't time to take stock, to ask the sensible questions. ... And for a long time, people preferred to believe these organs appeared from nowhere, or at most that they grew in a kind of vacuum" (262); an entire range of conditions under which a clone might be produced and brought to harvesting time existed in this story, Hailsham, apparently, represents the apex of what was then possible.

When Ben and I last met, he mentioned that the absences of the story garnered a lot of attention from our class, and I would like to touch on that for a moment. To me, Never Let Me Go is a memorial to the fictional history of cloning. Kathy provides us with first person, eyewitness testimony to what most of us would (I hope) call an atrocity. Much like the Shoa, the crime against humanity which is the history of cloning defies description. Ishiguro has written what a victim of this Shoa might have said, had the history been true. Modern attempts to describe things like the concentration camps of the Holocaust and A-Bomb attacks have produced texts which are full of absences.

Ask yourselves, how would you design a memorial to the victims of the Holocaust? You only have two choices: literal and figurative. A literal memorial to the six million dead Jews of Europe would mean six million statues, some ovens and gas chambers perhaps. A literal memorial to the scores of thousands of victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, vaporized in an instant - how would you propose a literal memorial to these people be designed and constructed? All that remains in the face of our inability to construct literal memorials are figurative memorials, memorials which exist today and which leave the interpretation to the viewer's/visitor's discretion. Today we must memorialize ideas and ideologies, entire races missing, because the evil done in the name of an ideology is too immeasurable to encompass with a statue of a guy on a horse holding a sword.

The absences in this book are representative of the inability to come right out and say that, in the story, science found a way to address many of the worst health problems of the day; that the way science addressed those problems included cloning; that the clones were, for all intents and purposes, humans; that the clones were farmed and mass produced, raised to maturity, and then harvested like beef; that this was acceptable to a majority of "humans" of the day and that the ideology of the time allowed for this idea.

Ishiguro has done an amazing job of providing us with enough absence in this book to allow for the reader to reach a conclusion about this fictional possibility. Had he given us literal descriptions of inhumane clone-farms, behind concertina wire and machine-gun towers, places where the clones were only allowed to eat, drink, and (occasionally) fuck, we would have had the interpretation fed to us. Instead, we are given the story of one woman's life who was raised at the best and most humane farm (which still gives me shivers), and who was given a lot of extra time to avoid her slaughter. An example of absolute irony is the fact that Kathy's human behavior and empathy are the very traits which delayed her slaughter.

I will close with this weakness in Ishiguro's premise: there is no way that the ethics of physicians and biomedical researchers would have been able to be swayed so much, in such a short period of time. Whatever you do or do not believe about the Hippocratic Oath, or the dogma to 'do no harm' adhered to by most in the medical sciences, no person of good conscience could have allowed for this in their ethics - or could they? Let's talk about the mysteriousness of the idea that humans can be farmed and harvested, and that we can benefit from the harvest. Let's talk about why the clones might not have just run away and blended into the culture of the time. Why didn't they arm themselves and rise up against their guardians? Where was their free will and their survival instinct?

Blog 10

Well, this book brings a lot of thoughts into my head and so did last weeks conversation. One thing I don't think that we sufficiently hashed out was - should the guardians have told the students, or was it better that they were left in the dark? I would like to see a vote taken on this, I think everyone probably has their own personal opinions on the matter. I also want to know if the author was/is in fact saying something about biomedical research? I also wonder what the thoughts are in the class about the subject?

Additionally, I'm wondering if people liked this book or not? And how they felt while reading it? We touched on this a bit but I think there is a wider range of feelings than just "compassionate".

blog 10

my biggest concern is about the donors behavior, i still don't really understand why wont they stop donating organs even though they know they will end up losing their life. and secondly, why doesn't Kath stop being a carer after she separated with Tommy, is that all she can do? those were the biggest concern i have for the book and the questions we did not go through in class. Also I'm not sure if we went through about the significance of the boat completely, i remember people one of our classmate talk about her guess, she said its something about escaping their world. But why would that be important in the book? was the author just wanted to use a excuse to let them go on a road trip and let Ruth said what she wanted to say? I have a feeling about the boat being a big meaning, however i have no clue what it truly stands for.

Blog 10

One question that I have after last week’s discussion is whether or not Ishiguro is trying to make an argument about the ethics revolving biomedical research such as cloning or stem cell research. Is he trying to argue whether or not it’s wrong to harvest clones of their organs or stem cells of embryos? I think that it could be a possibility that he is arguing that it’s unethical through this story of potential lives clones may lead if we ever advance technologies enough to create human clones.

I think we might have already discussed this next topic a little bit, but was still wondering if ignorance really is a bliss. Were some of the guardians right about having the students more informed about the lives that are laid out before them? What can we make of Miss Lucy’s speech on page 81 explaining why the students can’t go to America to become famous and what we make of the students response, “Well so what? We already knew all that.”

blog 10

For one I was slightly confused for most of the book. Second I really felt for Tommy with as much as he was picked on really got me feeling sorry for him. I guess in a sense I emphasized with him much like Calvin in the "Wrinkle in Time". He was good at everything but still felt like an outcast. The difference is that he was taken in by pity from Kathy. She was more concerned about how much he loved his shirt rather than the way the kids treated him. I guess what I am trying to get at is the whole target audience is what is really getting to me. I haven't figured all out yet but I think Ishiguro is wanting us to revisit our past and why that is I am not sure yet. Also why would Tommy be so worried about his shirt than what the other kids are doing to him? It confuses me so much in that why would both of them be concerned about his shirt getting dirty?

it's just a book, it's just a book, it's just a book, it's just a book

I read the assignment for this weeks blog and thought, wow that's easy. Just plop down what I thought at the end of class and I'm done. Then I remembered that the story has been lingering with me for quite some time and I don't know where to begin with this. Why not where I left off on my last blog. The phrase "I don't know how it is where you were"

After thinking about it I remembered poetics one of our first readings. There was a lot of talk about pity and how it makes for a good story. The above mentioned phrase is supposed to stop Kathy H's audience from feeling pity. I'm talking about her direct audience here, the donor in her care, not us, Ishiguro's readers. Kathy H. is setting a tone. She is acknowledging that it is most likely her life was much better than the life of her patient. Several people in class talked about the participants in the donor programme not knowing any better. Kathy does. She knows that her life could have been worse had it not been for Hailsham.

She is telling her story in the complete and full understanding that everything she describes is better than what her audience has experienced. She is not asking for pity and that is what makes the story even more difficult to stomach. She isn't invoking any fear either. She did in me, but if I had been lying in bed recovering from whatever stage in the donation programme everything she said would seem comforting. A few people in class were deeply moved and almost choked up about this story I don't think they felt comforted by anything she said or described. Ishiguro has managed to take something truly horrific and frame it in a way that makes it seem like a happy childhood memory.

When I criticised L'engle for demonizing the personified evil like her man with the red eyes, Ishiguro has done the opposite. He has taken the guardians and made them human and fallible. The greater evil is recognized as such. "It" is the nebulous sickening thought that everybody is ok with the donor programme, the feeding of technological advance with bio mass, nameless, faceless, soulless. We come away from the book, not angry at the guardians or the doctors who perform the donation procedures but with us, the people who stand idly by. My feelings of frustration with the donors themselves are hard to place. If I identified with the donors, I could only do so knowing I wouldn't go down without a fight otherwise I think this book would be too much for me.

blog 10

At the end of class last week I was thinking about cures to diseases and the lengths to which we are will to go to get them. While there are certainly costs to obtain cures (other than just financial), I wonder if there is an acceptable limit. To me, it’s like the question of whether or not you could kill someone if you knew it would save 1000, 10,000 or even 100,000 lives.

Although I don’t know that I could make that decision, I do find it hard to believe that after finding a cure to a fatal disease, and thus finding the potential to save many lives, we would be able to go back to living without that cure. In terms of the book, I think it brings up an interesting ethical dilemma. While I think Ishiguro is definitely trying to get us to consider whether or not we should be killing to save, I think the debate is also about who/what is acceptable to kill in order to save. I think that this is a big issue for many people who consider some animals worthy of medical experiments, but humans not. I’d like to talk about this more in class to see what other people think.

The Guardians

After doing the interpretation presentation the role of the guardians stood out to me. I wondered why anyone would choose to be a guardian. What motivates the guardians to be a part of Hailsham. Do they believe in this mission? They must believe in it if they spend so much time there. I was also interested in how money affects this society. The students were able to buy things once they were living in the cottage, so they must have had some money. I also wondered how much the guardians were paid or if they were paid at all. They lived at Hailsham and were responsible for all these students. I wonder if they were heavily compensated for taking care of future donors.

Another topic I would like to discuss is the cover of the book. On my book cover there is a picture of a girl with blonde hair and blue eyes. There is no descriptions of anyone not physically so why this picture. Why did the publishers of this book think this was a good book cover?

# 10

We touched on this idea during our class discussion on Never Let Me Go but never looked at it in-depth. The idea of discussing the three different phases in this book. The first part, when the children were at Hailsham, was compared to Heaven or childhood. The second phase was when they were living their life, which was compared to earth or college life. The final phase was when they were donors and carers, which was compared to Hell or getting old/retirement. I thought this was an interesting way to break down the book and made me view the story a differently. I looked at each phase as a separate story and then made comparisons. When I read the book I viewed the children’s life at Hailsham as being trapped and forced into a specific, pre-destined life. But after making the comparisons to Heaven it made me focus on the fact that the children were living a great life. They did not have to make any major decisions and had their future decided and figured out.

I also enjoyed the discussion towards the end of class discussing the relationship and reliability of each other between humans and the donors. It was interesting to look at what life would be like with other one or the other.

A few of the questions that we listed at the beginning of class but didn’t discuss were:

How are the models chosen? And also discuss the lack of emotion of loved ones dying

What is human?

Never Let Me Go introduced a lot of issues that, although fictional, seem to strike home with me as being important in determining where our own world is heading and how we see the world around us. To some, it may seem far-fetched to imagine generations of human clones but in reality modern science is only a few steps away from being capable of actually creating human clones. In fact, the science is probably already in place. There is a moral divide on whether this actually acceptable. The ethics of cloning in general, especially humans, is something I certainly think Kazuo Ishiguro was targeting when he wrote this book. More specifically, and what I would like to continue discussing next week, is how do we as a society view things as “human” and “non-human” and how does that effect “us,” “them,” and “it.”

As I read the book I was disturbed to see how the “humans” in the story were treating the “clones.” I felt bothered by this because to me the clones within this story were still very much human. Just because they were not procreated does not mean that they are not human (at least in my opinion). Therefore, it is murder and absolutely inexcusable to raise “human clones” to slaughter for the benefits of previously living humans. The clones were capable of learning, socializing, and loving. The clones could do anything, with the exception of reproducing, that anyone else can do. To me, this one of “us” killing another of “us.” I feel like that is the ultimate moral question for issues such as cloning and abortion in our world. When is a clone a human? If it is unacceptable to clone humans, then why animals? When is a fetus a human? If the clones are not “human” as they are treated within the book, why are they treated so humanely (i.e going to school)? I think these are all questions we have to think about before we make judgment calls on issues like this in real world situations.

numero 1o

- Actually, I am still really thinking hard about what I brought up at the end of class on Wednesday.. about how much it seems like we (humans, right now, in today's time) are so very similar to the students of Hailsham (from the story). It seems as though their point in the world is: try and live it to the happiest they can and then they die.. what is our point in the world? For me, it is trying to live my life as best and happiest as is possible for me, and then eventually die (to put it blantently). It is so strange how so many different characters from the stories we read, who seem like they are from different worlds and completely insane in the way they do things, is so uncanningly similar to us. Especially in this story.. these "donors" or students from Hailsham are going through their cases of friendships, enemies, cliques, boy and girl troubles, teachers, etc... everything that we did and are still going through!! I just want to go over this subject in class next week to see how everyone else feels about this theory//statement I am making. I think some certain points that we did not reach in class last week, that maybe we should next week, is talking about ALL the books we have read through out this semester in the ways in which they are similar and different. It would be nice to reflect on the class as a whole and see where everyone stands at then end :(

Similarities and Differences of the Donors' Lives and a "Normal" Life

A question a feel like we haven’t really discussed fully in class yet is how restricted the donors’ lives really were? What similarities and differences are their between their lives and “normal” lives?

During the presentation at the end of class, I was in the “donors” group. As we went through the three questions on the board, I really began to think of to what extent the donors’ lives really are restricted and cut off from “normal” lives that we are accustomed to here in the United States and other free countries. The most noticeable difference from living a “normal” life is the fact the donors never had an actual, real family because they are clones. You could consider their friends and the guardians as their family but I’m talking about biological parents, siblings, and etc. Being a clone is also not considered a “normal” life. People (at least that I’m aware of) are not raised for the sole purpose to donate their organs and be killed. “Normal” people live their life on their own accord for the most part and aren’t raised to sacrifice their lives for others.
Even though it is obvious the donors do not live “normal” lives, some aspects of their lives can be related to a “normal” life in some parts of the world. We know the donors lived restricted lives, just like some people in the real world do. An example would people who live in North Korea. The donors are brainwashed at their school to believe that being raised to donate their organs is perfectly alright and an acceptable way to live a life. People in North Korea and citizens of other countries are sometimes brainwashed. In a society like North Korea, choice is very limited. The donors, as my group and I discussed, lacked a lot of choice in their life. They could not freely leave the school until they were sent off to the cottages. They didn’t have a choice when it came to if they wanted to donate their organs or not. When my group and I were answering the question, “Where do you see yourself 10 years from now,” (or something like that) we didn’t really have much of a choice but to say either being a carer for donors or donating organs ourselves, and not living a complete life.
I think it’s easy to say that the donors did not live “normal” lives but at the same time, some parts of their lives were “normal”.

blog #10

one last point i would like to touch on in the next class meeting is about the donors... this question was written on the board.. "confused by the behavior of the donors - why do they keep donating their organs, even though they know that they are going to die?" these donators were raised in an academy where the teachers tried to raise them the same as normal people. what makes the normal people so important that the donors have to give up their lives for them? this question seems very biased on my part because last week in class i was in the group known as being the "normal people", at the same time i can see where the donors, "they" would be very upset with giving their lives for the normal people, "us". i was also wondering another question.. Did the donors have another purpose besides just giving the normal people their organs?? were they supposed to calm the normal people or make peace with them?
i felt this book was very similar to the movie THE ISLAND, as someone else mentioned that last week. in the movie, everyone in the world was cloned so that if something happened to the normal person then the clone would give up their body parts to keep that person alive or without a limb. i would also like to talk about the quesion also mentioned... will our society ever get to this same point mentioned in the book? although our society is very close and is already cloning things, but i think it would be very interesting to talk about the future and see if there is a potential for this to happen.

blog 10

When we took part in the interpretation presentation near the end, I began to think very deeply about the book. My group was assigned the role of the guardians. When we were asked to defend why we were the most important to society (or whatever the statement was…something along those lines), we had difficulties supporting our side. Someone in my group said “without us, the donor’s lives would essentially be pointless.” Then someone else said, “well what does it matter if the donor’s lives are pointless, they are going to die either way?” I, and a few others I believe, instantly realized that this can relate to us in the exact same way. We’re living, we’re all going to die, so all we can do is try to make the best out of the time we have. Christina raised this point to the class at the end and running out of time, I obviously still wanted to talk about it a lot more. I feel like going off of this, we could get a bit into religion. Without being too controversial, I think this book could say a lot about why people have religion.

I also want to talk more about if the donors are necessary. When we discussed it a little bit, it made me think about animal testing. I once heard someone say “If a distorted animal saves my family from cancer, so be it.” I don’t know a lot about animal testing, but this statement sounded so cruel…until I thought about it more. For this reason, I’d like to talk more about how to donors are necessary, in a personal context. I want to consider one of my family members needing a donation, and how concerned I would be with where it came from. I don’t know how I feel about it, so I would like to get more of other people’s opinions on that.

Morningdale Scandal

The one thing that I instantly wrote down after class last Wednesday was the dialogue near the end of the book in which Ms. Emily describes the Morningdale scandal in more detail and we begin to find out what it was that even Ms. Emily didn't agree with. I found this section particularly disturbing because of the fact that Ms. Emily and, from how she says it, most of the population of England were afraid of a super-generation of kids, but completely okay with the killing of people for the donor programme. Its on page 264, and for some context, the quote ends like this: "It's one thing to create students, such as yourselves, for the donation programme. But a generation of created children who'd take their place in society? Children demonstrably superior to the rest of us? Oh no. That frightened people. They recoiled from it."

For me, this is ridiculously, plainly wrong. It's saying that they are completely fine with killing off "donors" for organs, but they would never have wanted a group of children that would live, but be better than the them, not to mention live in the same society and same "group". It seems incredibly perverse, but this novel has yet to show me some sane way of thinking. Maybe I am interpreting it wrong, but that's something I just thought was extremely disturbing, especially in the calm and remote manner in which Ms. Emily describes it, like it was no big deal, something completely offhand.

This part also explains more in depth that the reason Hailsham shut down was because of this scandal, because people were afraid to see the "donors" as people. The public at large didn't want to think about the programme anymore, and wanted it swept under the rug like it always used to be. This entire excerpt, for me, was something I wanted to hear everyone's opinions about, or maybe it was just me that found it particularly horrifying amidst the rest of the novel.

Never Let Me Go (Week 2)

From last week: Michelle...I'm pretty sure it was Michelle but I could be wrong...mentioned something I'd like to discuss further. She (a "Normal") was addressing the "Donor" group and said something along the lines of "we don't actually need you." Ouch. Since the Normals are already "harvesting" Donor organs, why don't they skin them at the same time and make decorative rugs?! I mean, they might as well be made into rugs, since the Normals treat them like game animals anyway, and why not walk on them (or does that make the power imbalance too painfully obvious)?

So what do we (meaning the people in this class, who live comfortably enough to afford college) actually need? Or I guess the real questions are: to what extent do we need comfort and luxury? and to what extent do we need to exploit others to get what we need? Also, why is it so damn difficult to be educated and responsible consumers? To what extent is this survival and growth of this country dependent on exploitation?

So yeah, that's what I'd like to talk about on Wednesday.

BLOG TEN? that's a lota blogs.

Because, I didn't have any real signifigant thoughts on what we were talking about at the end of class ie. what I thought the Guardians views on minimum wage would be, I am going to write about some thoughts I had about "Never Let Me Go" before class--thoughts we put on the board, but did not get around to talking about.

One main thought that I had through out the third part of the book--'the hell part' was whether or not Kathy was truly happy being a carer for so long. I know that we spoke briefly on the fact that she was not able to decide when to become a donor--but, I read it that she was for some reason (probably because they were able to decide when to start being a carer) and kept thinking she had a choice.

The reason I thought about this so much was because outside of the feeling of helplessness that I got from their situations in general, I felt an extra sense of hopelessness in Kath's life. While some might say she got longer to live, I saw her life as becoming a completely lonely place before her friends had even completed. There was such a sense of Us/Them/It in their roles. We touched on this in class, but they were ever evolving. Kath, Tommy, and Ruth were a definite Us when they were younger and as they grew up and Tommy and Ruth became donors and Kath remained a carer--things shifted. Both Ruth and Tommy made remarks about Kath not understanding things because she wasn't a donor.

This probably hit home with me because, being alone is a much scary concept than death to me. I, myself, would have hated to be facing being a donor alone with out the comfort of those I loved the most around me and as the book ended I just felt such a sense of hopelessness for Kath, she had gone through the steps vicariously with her friends and now she was left alone to do it herself.