Putting the REM in american dREaM

As a flag-flying, bald eagle-owning, passport-wielding Merican, the idea of the American Dream is important to me and my life. When I imagine the American Dream as it is presented in our culture, I think of this scene from Little Shop of Horrors.

It's the perfect image for this idea of the American Dream: the house in the suburbs with the nice neat fence and the nice neat grass, the nice happy marriage, and the nice happy life together. This idyllic scene disgusts me. I mean, I'm fine with people living this life if they want to; I have nothing against that. However, it is not the life for me. I see it as being too stable, too boring. I think that this image is not only against my own desires, but it is against the entire idea of the American Dream. In this country, there is a history of valuing the rights and freedoms of people over the simplification of life. Although traditional gender roles simplify life in a way that is comforting to many, civil rights leaders have worked for over the last century to protect the freedom of those that choose not to follow these guidelines for life. I have personally found that the idea of the American Dream is against stability, as it is all about the ability to rise through social classes and change your life for the better. To me, the American Dream is being able to forge your own path in life and to have society's support for your right to do so.

I think of wealth as a form of power. Those who have much wealth have the power to make more stuff happen than people with less wealth. This stuff can be anything, from sending your face to the moon to putting food on the table. Wealth can even be used, and often is used, to gain more wealth. Everyone needs a certain amount of wealth to survive, but often people desire to have as much of it as they can possibly get because it is so useful.

Both in the context that the Great Gatsby was written in and the context I live in today. wealth defines American society. The rags to rises story is highly valued in our society, whether it be the lucky person that wins the lottery or the frugal factory worker that won the lottery of life. However, this dream is less achievable than our culture likes to admit. With rampant income inequality leading to a distressingly large wealth gap, it is increasingly difficult for many to achieve the American Dream. I think that Americans' attitude towards wealth and poverty has some flaws. There is a vocal minority that pushes the idea that those in poverty simply aren't "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps." Most Americans seem to realize that this isn't the case, and systemic factors lead to many Americans being unable to realize the American Dream. However, it seems to me that the majority of Americans think of wealth as being earned. There is an assumption that people get paid more if they work harder, which is obviously not the case in North Carolina. Americans tend to find wealth to be a goal in life, although occasionally those who have it are vilified (I would argue often justifiably).

Growing up in the United States and in a position where I have not had to experience poverty has influenced my feeling on wealth. In the U.S., people don't like to talk much about money. It's rude to ask someone their salary, while in Chinese culture asking someone's salary is much more socially acceptable. I don't like the idea of talking about money, and I think I'd share Nick Carraway's belief that excessive wealth is something to be ashamed of rather than flaunted. I think that these feelings show a desire to reach a point at which there is equality of opportunity in our society. However, I think that, when applied to society as a whole, these principles can be more destructive than helpful. By not discussing wealth directly, and with wealthier individuals actively trying to hide their wealth, it makes it more difficult to identify that problems with wealth even exist. Although being able to have some wealth is a part of the American Dream, I think that excessive wealth helps to destroy it for others.

Insert Kafka Pun Here

Like Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody and The Stranger by Albert Camus, Metamorphosis explores the absurdity of existence and the conflict posed by tragic circumstances. After turning into a large, insectesque figure, Gregor Samsa is isolated from his family and work. I like to think that Kafka uses this physical change as a metaphor for the difficulty of communication with others that he may have felt after confronting the absurdity of existence. I imagine that Meursault may have felt like a cockroach, being looked down on with fear and disgust by society and being unable to get others to understand his philosophy. However, another layer is added to the difficulty of communicating ideas by the fact that I have to read Kafka' work in English, translated from the original German. Here is what I think of some of the translation of the first lines of Metamorphosis.

Notes

#1: As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect.

• Has a matter-of-fact feel to it due to the lack of punctuation despite the fact that a comma could be added after "dreams"
• "Gigantic" feels formal compared to the other word choices
• "As George Samsa awoke" Is a process and a dependent clause; not the most important part of the sentence and occurring as an experience
• "Uneasy dreams" implies oddness and irregularity, something that would make one feel sick

#2: Gregory Samsa woke from uneasy dreams one morning to find himself changed into a giant bug.

• Has a matter-of-fact feel to it due to the lack of punctuation despite the fact that a comma could be added after "dreams"
• "Giant" and "changed" feel too simple, especially with the word "uneasy" being used
• "Gregory Samsa awoke" isn't a process but rather an event, and is also an independent clause, emphasizing the idea of him waking and making the metamorphosis secondary
• Doesn't tell that Samsa is in his bed, making the scene painted less clear

#3: When Gregor Samsa awoke from troubled dreams one morning he found he had been transformed in his bed into an enormous bug.

#tfw you get changed into something enormous

• Lack of punctuation although it could be added after "morning"
• "Enormous" has a child-like feel to it, like something Roald Dahl would write
• "When George Samsa awoke" is an event, an instant in time, but it is not an independent clause, making it less important than him finding himself
• "Troubled dreams" sound lightly burdensome as opposed to sickening, implies negativity rather than irregularity

#4:One morning, upon awakening from agitated dreams, Gregor Samsa found himself, in his bed, transformed into a monstrous vermin.

• Uses much punctuation, creating a broken feeling, as if the narrator is meandering towards the inevitable reveal
• "Monstrous vermin" feels strange of Samsa to think of himself, especially considering his nonchalant attitude through the rest of the novel (or at least Part 1) about his condition
• "Upon awakening" is not even at the beginning of the sentence, making Samsa's experience of consciousness of even less importance
• "Agitated" and "monstrous" imply that the change was negative, although agitated can be seen as describing Samsa experience of discomfort during his sleep rather than a negative aspect to the change itself

Overall Analysis

The wording of each translation has a large effect on how Samsa's experience of life is communicated. Syntax and punctuation both affect how the experience of consciousness is communicated. I think that the second translation does the best job in this regard, due to it emphasizing Samsa's waking as an experience and does not interrupt his thought process. The diction and imagery in the translation colors Samsa's perception of the scenario and slightly changes meaning in the sentence. I believe the first quote does the best job with imagery, not coloring Samsa's predicament as negative or necessarily unfortunate. I also like how most of the translations use "he found himself" rather than "he found he had been." I think that finding himself rather than finding an action to him had occurred creates a better sense of his experience, describing the strange nature of gaining consciousness and shortly after self-awareness when waking from a dream.

Translation seems incredibly difficult to do. With the different grammatical structures, word connotations and denotations, and cultural contexts that are ingrained within every language, the task of trying to preserve an author's ideas seems almost like trying to recreate an art piece in a new medium. No matter how hard you try, there are going to be differences in your final product that will affect how the piece is interpreted. It makes the idea of even trying to take on translating a novel seem futile. However, between these four translation, I think that I have still been able to understand Kafka's ideas that he was trying to get across through this piece of literature. According to Google Translate, Kafka's writing described Samsa's new form as a "monstrous vermin." However, I think that the choice of most translators to use insect or bug instead better preserves the tone of the sentence, making it more matter-of-fact and indifferent to the peculiar circumstance (one of the many reasons to take Google translate with a grain of salt). Overall, I think that none of these translations was perfect, but all of them add value to the work, doing more than merely translating word for word in order to let us understand Kafka's intentions without knowing his language.

I See IOC Practice

I had to record this twice because I accidentally deleted the first recording, so if it sounds unusually coherent (which it won't), that's why.

(By the way , even though this has nothing to do with the IOC, I just wanted to note that most of the photoshop things in this are manifestations of concepts that were created by my smart peers, and the music at the end is Hall of the Mountain King.)

WELL I'm GLAD I Watched That

Malcolm Gladwell: The unheard story of David and Goliath

In this TED Talk, Malcolm Gladwell tells the story of David and Goliath, adding outside knowledge that can be applied to the story to create a better understanding of the event. His main argument in the talk is that powerful people, or "giants," are not as difficult to overcome as they seem. Gladwell touches the idea of perspective, showing how in the case of David and Goliath, a lack of understanding of the perspective of each of the men makes their actions seem to be motivated by completely different factors than once their perspectives are understood.

Gladwell analyzes the literary devices used in David and Goliath, noting how their subtlety makes the message of the story difficult to understand at first glance. Gladwell analyzes how dialogue contributes to the characterization of both David and Goliath. When offered armor to wear, David said, "I cannot wear this for I have not proved it." This hints at David's plans for combat, as he is an artillery soldier and plans to fight from a distance rather than in hand-to-hand combat. Goliath is characterized from the perspective of the Israelites as a powerful, humongous warrior. However, Goliath's dialogue reveals his weakness: Goliath has very poor vision. Goliath is incredibly vulnerable to long-range combat, so it is to be expected that in this battle, David would be victorious.

Gladwell uses a few techniques to get his audience to believe his interpretation of David and Goliath. Gladwell cites many facts to support his argument, such as the geography of the region, the estimated momentum of the rocks, and the medical diagnoses of Goliath based on the story. This is used both as logos, to be used as evidence to support more general claims, and ethos, to add to the credibility of the argument by pulling evidence from a variety of areas of knowledge. Gladwell also uses logos by the order in which he presents new information. He controls the way in which conclusions are reached, coming to multiple conclusions throughout the talk before reaching the ones that he wants the audience to leave with. This shows the audience that Gladwell put thought into this argument, not simply stopping at the first answer he was able to find. The use of pathos in this talk is minimal, as the purpose of the talk lends itself more to logical deduction and more in-depth understanding of the situation. Emotional words are occasionally used, including "terrifying," "weird," and "strange." These words are used to align the audience with the emotion that Gladwell wants them to feel, in order to make the logical progression of the talk make a larger impression on the audience. These words tend to be used before Gladwell add new information to the situation, making the emotion a signal to the audience that they do not fully understand yet what is actually happening.

I'm not completely sure why I picked this talk, but I'm glad I did. I've read a few of Malcolm Gladwell's books, and I enjoyed the way that he takes issues that seem to have one answer and analyzes them to logically find the answer that better fits the evidence. I was sure that anything involving him would be well thought out and would provide insightful revelations on the topic. I am not a religious person, so the biblical topic of the talk made me slightly nervous. I wasn't sure if most of the talk would go over my head or would focus on theology. However, I was surprised to find that the talk focused mostly on the real-life context of the story, including the culture, politics, and geography of the Levant. I like the message of the talk. I think that people tend to make things supernatural, as if they are too powerful to understand or change. It is nice to have Gladwell remind us that this we should be suspicious of this being the case.

This Has Gone Far E-Neff: Double Indemnity

#3.  Double Indemnity has been called “a film without a single trace of pity or love.” Do you agree with this statement? Think about the motivations that lie behind the actions of Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson when you consider your response.

Double Indemnity is a dark movie both in its lighting and its plot. However, the two most prominent characters in the film, Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson, are motivated to kill Phyllis's husband because of their love for one another. How could anyone claim that this movie doesn't even have a trace  of pity or love in it?

During the movie, we begin to learn that Phyllis is a very dark character. Her step-daughter Lola claims that she killed Lola's mother while working as her nurse. When Walter strangles her husband, Phyllis can be seen making an awfully pleasant facial expression that makes the audience uncomfortable and foreshadows her comfort with killing others. Phyllis's motivation is revealed through the movie to be solely to benefit herself, and her attitude towards others is portrayed as sociopathic. The only hint of pity, and arguably love, shown by Phyllis is when she can't shoot Walter a second time, claiming that it was the only moment at which she loved him. I would argue that this was pity and not love because she had just shot him only moments before, suggesting that she did not have much care for Walter's well-being.

There's something on the wing! The Twilight Zone,
which began in 1959, was influenced by both the film
style and the dark content of film noir, focusing on the
worst aspects of humanity and the natural world.

The definition of love comes into play when considering whether or not it was present in this movie. In its simplest form, love could be thought of as placing the interests and well-being of another person before your own. This can be seen when Walter gives a ride to Lola wen she lied to her parents about where she was going, and he kept that secret for her. He doesn't have to do this for her, and it takes away his valuable time and gasoline, but he chooses to help her anyway. However, this definition comes dangerously close to being a synonym for altruism, and doesn't seem to narrow down to what most people would consider love to be.

Often, people think of love as being irrational and something that cannot be controlled. I would argue that the thinking behind love is nonrational, and reason is not even consulted when actions are driven by love, meaning that the resulting behavior can be either rational or irrational. Walter might fall into this refined definition in his early interactions with Phyllis. He helps her with her predicament and agrees to kill her husband without much persuasion. However, helping Phyllis is not the only reason that he agrees to the plan to commit insurance fraud. Walter was making a rational decision to participate in a money-making opportunity. He could justify to himself his cold instinct to benefit himself by imagining that he was actually acting in the name of love. This allowed him to keep some sort of sanity while committing evil actions.

Overall, I would argue that there is not a trace of love in Double Indemnity, but there are instances of pity. These instances of pity are small and scarce, but they are shimmering lights of hope in a movie that paints humanity in an incredibly grim light.

Macduff's Gruff Playlist

Macduff is the best character in Macbeth. His name has the same number of syllables and letters as the main character's, and the first three letters are also the first three letters of the main character's name. Already he's drawing attention to himself. Who is this crazy guy trying to confuse us and pass himself off as the protagonist‽ Then his entire family is killed by an insane murderous king, and then he goes and kills that king! Two for two so far, this guy is on a roll! And even though he killed the king, he doesn't even get to be the king! Talk about integrity, this head-chopping Macduff guy is a solid role model. Who wouldn't want to get to the source of this man's moral principles? And of course there is no better way to learn good moral principles than to watch television. Without further ado, here's Macduff's Top 4-5 Favorite Shows that He Recommends that You Watch that Have Nothing to do with Oliver's Preferences when it comes to Television and Humor Although Oliver Does Have Very Good Taste When It Comes To Those Things.

Macduff's Top 4-5 Favorite Shows that He Recommends that You Watch that Have Nothing to do with Oliver's Preferences when it comes to Television and Humor Although Oliver Does Have Especially Good Taste When It Comes To Those Things

Dangerous situations present themselves often on The IT Crowd

#5 Or 4. The IT Crowd: Being from Great Britain, Macduff sure does like his dry humor, and this sitcom has plenty of it. Centered around three coworkers in the IT department of a large company, this show features painfully awkward situations and ridiculously dramatic events, things that Macduff can relate to from his interactions with Macbeth. Macduffs enjoys the struggle that the main characters face against eccentric and irresponsible bosses, as well as the humor found in the relationship between the different nations that make up the U.K.

#4, Maybe 3. The Return of the Pink Panther: I'm not sure if this is on Netflix anymore, but if it is Macduff totally recommends it. This 1975 film follows the famous Inspector Clouseau as he attempts to solve yet another mystery. There are plenty of scenes in which Clouseau and his assistant have long, intense fights that are meant to keep Clouseau alert and able to defend himself. However, they do a better job of destroying every object in sight. Macduff loves fight scenes and finds them very exciting, although he is able to keep his head if necessary
(This is from a different pink panther movie, but it is a funny scene).


#2-ish Or Something Like That. Firefly: Now no good exploration of moral behavior would be complete without this sci-fi western. Set hundreds of years in the future in a solar system of colonized planets, the one-season series depicts the struggles of a rag-tag crew in their efforts to keep going while laying low in the hostile depths of interplanetary space. The show explores themes such as the relationship between people and their government, the problems of vast economic disparities, and the love and conflict associated with being part of a crew.

You get it? Because it says "going mad"
and that's what Macbeth does in the play
like there's justification for me to use
this show in this post or something?
(P.S. That other gif really doesn't
connect to Macbeth at all but I put it in
because it's funny. I mean he puts not
one but two fingers in his mouth!)

Macduff's gotta include this show because the main character, Malcolm Reynolds, also has a very similar name to him, which would make it easy to confuse them if Macduff was a character in the show. Also, the show solves problems by killing people, which is the best way to solve your problems. But Macduff really loves this series because of the loyalty that Malcolm Reynolds has for and expects from his crew. Despite the universe's blatant indifference towards the survival of any human being, these guys manage to find a way to keep going, not because they are special, but because they manage to love each other and look out for one another no matter what happens. Macduff thinks that there's something beautiful about that.

Featured here from left to right are Large Rock Man &
Captain Amelia. She is loyal to the British Crown and a
strong fighter, just like Macduff!

#The Last One. Treasure Planet: Macduff tried to steer away from sci-fi as much as possible, but I guess he just couldn't resist this one. Treasure Planet surprisingly features characters on a quest to get to a planet that's core is made out of treasure. Which is realistic. Along the way, there are betrayals, murders, cover-ups: everything that Macduff loves to shed light on. Macduff can relate to the main character, who doesn't have a father figure in his life, because Macduff lost his entire family after they were all murdered by Macbeth. He also likes the lesson shown about how greed and disloyalty lead to negative consequences, as Macduff values loyalty and being content with what one has.

This concludes Macduff's Top 4-5 Favorite Shows that He Recommends that You Watch that Have Nothing to do with Oliver's Preferences when it comes to Television and Humor Although Oliver Does Have Especially Good Taste When It Comes To Those Things

Crushing it at Manliness

What is manliness? Who decides what is manly and what is not?  In modern times, manliness is changing. Different groups in the United States interpret manliness in different ways. However, there is one constant in manliness, from plaid-shirted hipsters to men that are the most interesting to bloodlines of duck-hunters: facial hair. Facial hair is something that is unique to men, that only they have the ability to produce. It acts as a sort of certificate of manliness, telling others, "You can trust me; I am definitely 100% a real, manly man."

Even the most interesting man in the world knows that facial hair is
key to being a manly man, and that Crush™ soda isn't the most
terrible drink known to man. 

This raises the question as to why men feel a need to prove that they are in fact "real, manly men." This makes more sense once you consider the advantages that come with being a male in a male-dominated society. With the inequality in pay and in attaining higher-level positions in the workplace between men and women, as well as the harsh views still held by some people of gender roles, there are advantages that exist for men in modern-day society. Social pressure for men to show their manliness in obvious ways makes it easier for people to be properly classified by others as either male or female and to be treated accordingly.

Similar to in The Shaggy Dog,
in which Tim Allen faces
challenges because of changes
to his form, Lady Macbeth faces
challenges with her form stopping
her from being able to address
her problems.

In Macbeth, the idea of manliness is interpreted in a similar way that emphasizes the physical aspects associated with being a man. When Lady Macbeth wants to take matters into her own hands and kill Macbeth, she asks spirits to, "make thick [her] blood," and to, "Come to [her] woman's breasts, And take [her] milk for gall." This shows that at the time, gender was seen as originating from the body and its physical composition rather than as a concept defined by society itself. However, Lady Macbeth asking for these physical changes also shows how the gender roles in Shakespeare's time defined men as being physically stronger than women. Although we may have a looser connection today between gender and physical strength, the idea of strength is still a part of what makes a "good man" in our culture.

There are many aspects to manliness that still separate men from women today. Men are discouraged from sharing their emotions with others. This isolates men from others, but it also stems from the idea that men should be strong. Emotions are difficult to control and are a huge part of who we are as individuals. For a man to share something that close to him would make him weak, as other men could use that against him for their own gain. The elements of manliness that still linger in and compose our culture define a good man as a strong man.

Being male, I don't like to think that manliness influences my actions or thinking at all, but it certainly does. I do absurd things in the name of concepts like strength, independence, and endurance. No, I don't need any help writing with my sprained wrist. No, I don't need to use the heat in my car when it's 30 degrees outside. No, I can carry this baby elephant up 30 flights of stairs by myself, because I am a strong, independent MAN who can complete any task without assistance. From my personal experience, being a good man involves acting in an irrational manner in order to present how strong and useful you are to others.

Macbeth also acts in an irrational manner in the name of being manly. However, my irrational behavior doesn't involve killing all of my friends in a delirious attempt to fulfill a prophecy and crown myself king. Lady Macbeth pushes Macbeth to kill King Duncan by peer pressuring him, claiming that, "When you durst do it, then you were a man." Apparently it is totally manly to kill people. But Lady Macbeth pushes it even further, saying, "to be more than what you were, you would be so much more the man." So killing people that have a cool job so that you can take their job and have a better job is the manliest thing you can do in the early 17th century. Seems like they needed some Netflix or something to calm them down.

This image vaguely ties in to the content of this
blog post.

I also find that being a good man involves being ignorant of certain things. I don't know if a cardigan is an article of clothing or a country that Fox News wants to stop all air travel to and from. I couldn't tell you the difference between eyeliner and eyeshadow if my eyes depended on it. A good man has to be ignorant of things that aren't manly. Macbeth interprets manliness as almost the exact opposite when he hides knowledge of the killing of Banquo from Lady Macbeth. He tells her to, "Be innocent of the knowledge, dearest chuck,till thou applaud the deed." As a man, he feels the need to protect Lady Macbeth from unsettling knowledge, using his strength to handle the unsavory deed.

In Macbeth, manliness is represented as almost a synonym for courage. As a man, you must be strong enough to overcome your fears and your doubts, and you must take on the dirty work that has to get done. As we can see from the reading, it seems like it is going pretty well for Macbeth, and it isn't affecting him mentally or emotionally in the slightest.