zBlogging the Literary Life - AP College English

Communism and Evolution

I just thought of another reason why communism sucks.

We often think of evolution as pertaining solely to biology.  However, it applies to any system that both replicates and is capable of change.

Ideas evolve just in the way that animals do.  If a new idea is well suited for replication, than it will do so.  If a new idea is not, than it won't.  An idea is well suited for replication if it is profitable (not necessarily in the money sense) for its host.  For example, if I have an idea, say, how to make a product more efficiently, than this idea is very profitable for me.  Others will witness it, note its profitability, and replicate my idea.  Such an idea is very fit for the environment.

If conversely, an idea is not profitable and harms its host, it is not likely it will reproduce, and it will die.

Now, lets consider the two different environments of capitalism and communism.  In capitalism, what is profitable for a host is well defined.  Ideas (not all, but many) reproduce because of their financial merit.  Capitalism is a very hostile and demanding environment.  As, a result evolution of ideas is much faster.  Just as a competitive environment jump starts biological evolution in the wild.

In communism, host profitability is far less defined. Because of the lack of monetary reward for good ideas, it is a much different environment for ideas.  It is an environment in which weaker ideas can thrive because they offer virtually as much profitability to the hosts as a strong idea would: little to none.  In such an environment, idea evolution stagnates, just as non-competitive habitats cause biological evolution to stagnate (look at the animals that have little competition in the wild, some haven't changed much in millions of years).

If you think about it, the only reason ideas evolve progressively at all in communist societies is because the world economy is capitalist.  A communist society here is not a pure communist society, it is a communist society nested within a capitalist society.  An entire communist nation in the world economy is akin to an individual in a capitalist economy, it must have somewhat competitive ideas or it will not profit.  Unfortunately this is not as powerful because countries don't have ideas, people within them do.

In other words, the only reason ideas evolve progressively in communist societies is because they must compete with capitalist societies in which ideas inherently evolve progressively.  If one could imagine an entire world that was communist, free of competition, the progressive evolution of ideas would cease, and the evolution would be slow and directionless.

Thus, an isolated capitalist society, because of its competitive environment for ideas, will progress faster than an isolated communist society.

I'm just sayin' is all.

In Class Essay

What is everyone's plan for the in-class essay on Monday? I was thinking about writing an outline for each of the prompts to be ready for any of them, but that seems like it will be a lot of work. Does anyone have any good ideas on how to prepare yourself for the essay, other than having a very good understanding of the book?

16. Some of the most significant events in literature are often mental or psychological; for example, awakenings, discoveries, changes in consciousness. Explain how these sorts of events are the pivotal and vital ones for characters in this work.

17. In some works of literature a character struggles to come to terms with past events. Explain how such a character is found in this work. Explain the nature of the struggle and how the character’s response to the past is a source of meaning in the work.

18. Some leading characters conform to the pattern of life expected of them; others rebel against this pattern. Select a character from this work and demonstrate the nature of the character’s conformity or rebellion and explain how it is important to the theme or some other important aspect of the work as a whole.

Why Listening?

Why does Roth tell Ira's story via Murry, through spoken word? Why is listening so important for Nathan? What makes the actual opening of the ears so alluring?

I think that a lot of it comes from the actual thinking that occurs when one actually listens. Its a basic difference between Ira and Nathan. Ira speaks, he is constantly giving speeches and talking of the progressive party but he never sits down to listen to the other side, whereas Nathan only listens. By listening Nathan gets more of the big picture, he gets the two sides. There comes a kind of greater comprehension, understanding when he listens because he doesn't have to think about anything else but what is being said. He gets lost in the words, lost in thought, and can maybe come to some sort of understanding. I would like to know what other people think about Nathan's mentors and what you think he has learned from their speeches as well as why people think Roth constructed the book the way he did. Thoughts?

My Villanelle

I can't think of anything else to post so here's my lame Villanelle. As Mr. Heidkamp called it, it's simple yet efficient. I actually don't remember if he called it that or not but it is. I got a check mark. I hope that's a good thing.

He was just a crazy old man
With a pencil-thick neck and a beard
And his body was shaped like an oil can

He still drove an old hippie van
Everyone thought he was weird
He was just a crazy old man

They all called him Dan
Spiders were all that he feared
And his body was shaped like an oil can

The last thing they called him was bland
He only ate his cream cheese smeared
He was just a crazy old man

His house was simply grand
When he first saw it, he cheered
And his body was shaped like an oil can
He was just a crazy old man

gravewalking

This is my villanelle that HK decided to lose. I will print out 5 copies of it and give it to him on Monday. :)

- - -

He lies like a grave,
with open, honest deceit.
Wandering in the cemetery, I know I must be brave.

In the darkness, the branches seem to wave,
but not with pleasure do they greet.
He lies like a grave.

I see nothing left to save,
but I won’t let my heart sink in defeat.
Wandering in the cemetery, I know I must be brave.

At the apex, night swallows the moon like a cave.
Thoughts are born and die on repeat.
He lies like a grave.

I see them sleeping below the hill and crave
the cessation of my heart’s beat.
He lies like a grave.
Wandering in the cemetery, I know I must be brave.

Irate Ira: Good guy, bad guy?

So, onto Ira.  Someone brought up in class yesterday that Ira is a good guy, who is unfairly mocked.  I'd like to challenge that definition.  When Ira and Nathan are at Goldstine's house, Nathan hears a lot of Ira's sordid history.  Ira, long ago, had told Nathan that he had been beat up by guys in the army who called him a "Jew bastard" (48).  Nathan and we the readers had felt bad for Ira.  Here's a passage from chapter one:

"Hours later Ira got ambushed in the dark and wound up in the hospital.  At best he could diagnose the pains that began to develop while he was working at the record factory, they were from the damage caused by that savage beating.  Now he was always pulling a muscle or spraining a joint - his ankle, his wrist, his knee, his neck - and often as not from doing virtually nothing, no more than stepping off the bus coming home or reaching across the counter for the sugar bowl in the diner where he went to eat" (49).

From this passage, we all sympathize with Ira.  But then, we learn Ira didn't tell the whole story.  The reason the army men beat up Ira is because he tried to drown one of their comrades and then almost killed another who tried to save him.  Yes, the man, called "Butts" came at Ira with a knife, but then Ira went crazy and tried to kill him, way after the threat was over, and then wouldn't let others save Butts when obviously Butts had learned his lesson.  It's not OK to kill a man just because they wronged you.  Goldstine calls Ira a "crazy fucking homicidal nut" (98).

Later on, in another passage, more is revealed about Ira's dangerous side:  "Ira knew his own nature.  He knew that he was physically way out of scale and that this made him a dangerous man.  He had the rage in him, and the violence, and standing six and a half feet tall, he had the means.  He knew he needed his Ira-tamers - knew he needed all his teachers, knew he needed a kid like you [Nathan] ... But after I Married a Communist appeared, he shed the finishing school education, and he reclaimed the Ira you never saw, who beat the shit out of guys in the army, the Ira who, as a boy starting out on his own, used the shovel he dug with to protect himself against those Italian guys.  Wielded his work tool as a weapon.  His whole life was a struggle not to pick up that shovel.  But after her book, Ira set out to become his own uncorrected first self" (123).

How do you explain these different versions of Ira?  Is he the good, misunderstood, unfairly criticized man we all originally thought him to be?  Or are some of the plights in his life of his own making, and he is not necessarily the hero we thought him to be?  Or, is he a product of his environment, and of the teachers he has had over the years? Is he really his own self?

The Impromptu

I am just wondering what everyone thought of our last impromptu we did today in class.  I thought that our last impromptu was actually pretty interesting.  It was interesting how her whole life is overshadowed by the way she looks.  I mean she is very musically talented and all of her skills are just looked over because she is not pretty.  I feel like that kind of happens a lot today.  Maybe not with sports or music (because who watches girls sports anyway) but with personalities.  Everybody is just judged by the way they look and it doesn't matter how amazing they really are.  It was just interesting how relavent this is today.  I am glad that we don't have anymore impromtus though.  Any thoughts?

Contradicting

I think Eve Frame is such a weird character.  She has this intense disgust for Jewish people, like on Page 53 where Murray tells Nathan "It was a sickness, that aversion she had for the Jew who was insufficiently disguised."  However she has no problem with the Jewish people who are actors, or famous, or rich.  She only hates the Jewish people she thinks are "common", the ones who also tend to be her biggest fans.   If she hates Jewish people how can she marry Ira, who is also Jewish?  I just don't why she is so specific on the Jewish people she hates and why she even hates them so much to begin with.

Poetry & Music

I chose to compare two songs for the poetry comparison paper and while writing it I started to think about the similarities between the two mediums. Back when poetry was really, really popular, they didn't have songs with lyrics, only classical music. However poetry was probably more popular than music at the time (music had no real method of playback back then, and you could read poetry whenever and wherever). Thus, poetry had a much more widespread appeal and was therefore used to reach a wider audience of people. Today, music is obviously extremely more popular than poetry. However, it is used much in the same way poetry was. Just like how poets would many times contain a message within their poem that required in-depth analysis to figure out, so do many songs today. Songwriters will often write lyrics based off of their own views on the world and situations that many people find themselves in to reach the masses and convey a message, much in the way poets did. Thus, songs are used today in the way poetry was way back when. The medium changes but many of the messages stay the same.

Can Poetry Be Bad?

Well, of course, I will be brave enough to take on poetry.  What makes poetry really good and how do we tell the difference?  I mean let's say we have Shakespeare and some Hobo on the street and they both write poems, wouldn't each one be brilliant in there own right.  Poetry I think is just a way for people to simply express themselves or an idea or something they have just been thinking about.  Some are in a scheme others are just in random lines.  Poetry is great to someone so there is no such thing is bad poetry.  Or is there?