Am I a Transcendentalist?

Transcendentalism eludes to a very complex definition which includes many factors and qualifications, but in simple terms, I believe it means that one is independent from society and does as he or she pleases.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they are rebelling in a negative way, but rather that they have become self-reliant and intuitive to their own needs and desires.  As far as strengths and weaknesses go regarding transcendentalism, I think it depends on the opinion of those classifying it; it's all in the eye of the beholder. Some may view it as a force of unnecessary rebellion.  A strength however, would be that an individual is going after what he or she wants versus simply sitting back and enjoying the ride.  They are not following those around them, but rather taking a chance and going after what he or she desires.

I agree with the fact that transcendentalists are go-getters.  It's nice to see that people go after what they want even if it defies any sort of social norm.  However, this could transform into something I would disagree with depending on the severity of the action one chooses to act upon.  Some situations may become too intense, and I would not feel comfortable participating.  Sometimes it's okay to just sit back and go with the flow depending on your beliefs surrounding the situation.

Personally, I do not view myself as much of a transcendentalist.  When it comes to my own opinions and desires, I am not exactly extremely vocal or authoritative about them.  I try to weigh both the advantages and disadvantages of a situation before taking action.  It is important to me that I understand the consequences of my actions before I act.  I always stand up for myself and try to lead by example, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I take all matters into my own hands.  I take into account how other people feel about an idea or how they may react to a situation before I jump right in.

The Great Gatsby

Most people recommend that one reads the book before the movie because the movie never gives the book justice; however, I did things backwards.  I happened to watch The Great Gatsby before reading the book in class, and my perception from the movie was quite different from what I interpreted while reading the novel.

Throughout the movie, I was rooting for Gatsby, hoping he would be able to win over Daisy in the end.  It only seemed right.  After all, they had never truly stopped loving each other -- at least that's the way Gatsby portrayed things.  While reading the book though, the way Gatsby went about things rubbed me the wrong way; it seemed a bit creepy.  Just think about it...Gatsby bought a house across the Sound to be able to keep an eye on Daisy, he threw huge parties only hoping she would show up, he knew Nick was her cousin, and he seemed to know everything about her life.  Its a bit stalker-like if you ask me.

For some reason, I did not catch this vibe from the movie -- it seemed normal and right.  In the movie I thought Tom was the one holding Daisy back because she feared what might have happened if she left him, but after reading the book I knew that was not the case.  Daisy was selfish and careless not because of Tom's influence, but because that is the kind of person she has turned out to be.  ¨They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money of their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they made...¨ is exactly how I would describe Daisy by the end of the book.

The book gives both Daisy and Gatsby a bad name.  They go about things all in the wrong way and pay for it in the end.

Bowling for Columbine

Before viewing the documentary Bowling for Columbine, I had never heard of Michael Moore.  It is quite possible that I have seen other films produced by him, but I wouldn't know.  One thing that I do know about Michael Moore though, is that he has strong, strategic strategies that pull in the audience and persuade each and every viewer to side with him, or at least realize that he does make a valid point.

Michael Moore uses a sense of sarcasm and humor, which draw in the audience and keeps them from growing bored.  The sarcasm was used to bring out some of the downfalls that exist within the gun control laws today, or shall I say lack there of.  Although it is addressed towards a more serious topic, it really helps open ones eyes to how bad the "laws" of gun control really are.  This same idea is also brought up when we are shown the a clip of Chris Rock's standup comedy show.  It was hilarious and kept my attention, but it also made me realize the faults of gun control in the United States.

Moore also provides insight into the debate about gun control by using graphic images and real video footage.  Because I have never witnessed or been so closely affected by a shooting like at Columbine or Flint, these occurrences don't seem as real to me.  I never think that something like this could happen at my school, but after viewing the video clips and images, it makes it seem much more real and possible.

What really pushed Moore's view to a great height was his use of statistics.  It was crazy to see the deaths by guns each year in America as opposed to other counties, Canada especially.  Moore practically sold me on the idea to move to Canada; it seems like a much safer place.  This also relates to Michael Moore's big idea that America is plagued by fear.  Maybe we all do live out of fear and that is why there is such a higher percentage of American's who are killed by gunfire each year.

Michael Moore definitely knows how to draw in an audience through an outstanding array of strategies.  He keeps the film interesting yet maintains the big idea.  If his documentary didn't get you thinking about our gun control in the United States, I don't know what will.  

Sound and Fury

While watching the documentary Sound and Fury, I was often times left feeling frustrated and angered by some of the situations and arguments that took place.  With the filmmaker’s stylistic choices for this documentary, it made it much easier to comprehend and follow.  The viewer is able to hear each argument and opinion of the individuals more clearly, because he or she is interviewed separately.  This cleared up any confusion and gave each character a say in the matter.  I also enjoyed the voiceover.  The filmmaker could have easily used subtitles, but it flows much more smoothly with verbal communication.  The voiceovers were very enthusiastic and personalized to each character. 

I find it interesting that at the beginning of the film, Peter and Nita were leaning towards the implant, but as time progressed, their opinion took a complete 180.  Nita starts out saying, “I want Heather to have the best of both worlds: to speak and to sign,” and “More options would be available to her if she were able to hear.  Life would be easier.”  However, after she finds out that it wouldn’t be in her own best interest to get a cochlear implant, her opinion, along with her husband’s, begins to change.  At the family gathering, Peter and his mother go at it.  I was left feeling a bit overwhelmed.  She argues the exact opposite.  “She will suffer more.”  “The deaf world is changing.”  “It’s not just a gamble.”  All of these statements provided by the grandmother cause conflict among the different Discourses.

The main Discourses are the connections among hearing people opposed to the connections among deaf people.  It is Deaf Culture that seems to be the most prevalent.  I always viewed deafness as a disability, but after watching this film, I realized that those who are deaf do not see it that way.  It is not a handicap, and they are proud to be who they were meant to be.  However, Mary, Peter’s sister-in-law, is very frustrated by this Discourse.  She was the only hearing person of her family and simply couldn’t stand it.  As a child she rebelled and refused to sign.  I found this Discourse among her family members to be very intriguing. 

Personally, I was extremely frustrated with the way Heather’s parents threw out and neglected the implantation of the cochlear.  Maybe it’s hard for me to understand because I am a hearing person, but I think that children like Heather would be provided with greater opportunities and could encompass even greater potential if they could hear.  Because I am a twin, I agree strongly with the choice made by Chris and Mari for their son.  I can’t even fathom how hard it would be if Lydia were hearing and I were deaf.  Being at home, being out with friends, going to school, going to work, and etc. would be extremely trying and difficult.  I would constantly feel one step behind and not as good as Lydia.  Just because one can be implanted with a cochlear, doesn’t mean that they have to neglect his or her Deaf Culture. 

It would be interesting to see how the cochlear in baby Peter has affected the family dynamic.  Are there any regrets among Mary and Chris or Peter and Nita in regards the decisions they made?   

Phone Books

Phone books

The response to the flu accompanied by elevated pyrexia will forever bring along a strong motion of anxiety.  It is when I begin to feel that I am on the verge of the flu that my worry spikes.  Irrational or not, the trembling from my fever only increase with my fear.  The wave of illness crashes upon my body, messing with my motor functions and altering my imagination.  My body tells me to thrash and writhe with each thought and image during my restless slumber.  Then it appears – the dreaded phone book.

Simply minding my own business, my mother arrives, lashing out with distinct hand motions.  She is shaking her finger at me, and her mouth is moving 100 miles an hour.  I can’t seem to make out the words, though.  It is evident that she is yelling, but it only comes out in a whisper.  I tremble even more, fearful of what is to come.  I look to my right.  Phone books.  Everywhere.  I am then forced to eat it, bite after bite, without slowing down.  As I open my mouth to engulf each and every bit of it, tears trickle down my face, and I am unable to find any mean of escape.  Trapped in this irrational dream with this irrational fear, I snap awake.  Sweat beads drip down my face, and the rest of my body is drenched with it. 

Thankful that it was just my imagination, I take in a slight sigh of relief.  However, I know that this won’t be the last time.  Each time that I am greeted with the flu, I become submerged in this retched dream cycle.  I will never be able to look at a phone book in the same way again.          

Hey Hey Hey. This is what I've got to Say...

Robin Thicke's music video that correlates to his song "Blurred Lines" is without a doubt pretentious.  As stated by Amy Davison in Lisa Huyne's article, “The women are clearly being used as objects to reinforce the status of the men in the video. The men have all the control and status...Whereas the women have no status and are totally open to be exploited ogled and used..."  However, if the women in the video allow for such provocative behavior and let it continue, then it makes it look okay - which in Robin Thicke's mind, it is!  When confronted about the subject he says, "What I enjoy about the video is that we’re not ogling and degrading them, we’re laughing and being silly with them.”  Is it truly harmless play?  

Jennifer Lai agrees with Huyne when she says, "It's true that the song's music video undoubtedly objectifies women."  When it comes down to it, I think that it's the music video that brings up all of the controversy. The song lyrics are not as bad as what the video entails them to be.  Lai does a perfect job of detailing many of the lines throughout the song, noting that women are actually given the upper hand in many of the statements. Robin Thicke's music video is definitely harmful to the eyes, but the song isn't any different from any other pop culture song.  In my mind, Robin Thicke is only playing a role in pop culture; he's making his mark and trying to stand out from other artists.  Hey hey hey...it got everyone's attention didn't it? 

Autobiography of a Face

"Autobiography of a Face" by Lucy Grealy is a novel that will keep you interested throughout the whole 223 pages.  I was unsure of what to expect when I first stared reading Grealy's tale, but as I continued to read, her story hit home.  It was great that I had the opportunity to read a novel by a character who I could truly relate to.  

Lucy was just an average nine year old girl; she had so much ahead of her.  However, one event out on the playground would change her life forever.  Lucy, not one of the most gifted athletes, was running to catch a kickball out at recess when her and another boy had a head on collision.  The prognosis was a broken jaw, but that was only the beginning.

Soon after the accident, Lucy continued to feel pain radiate through her jaw, and a bump began to grow there.  After careful examination, Lucy was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer.  I learned later on that if this accident never occurred, the tumor may not have even caused a problem.  It was also brought to my attention that she would not have found the cancer until it was too late if it wasn't for the accident.  With this said, the collision may have been a miracle.

This hits home with me because as a sophomore in high school, I was continually left breathless and in indescribible pain.  When I took a visit to the doctor I was diagnosed with ovarian cysts.  One day in march I left school for emergency surgery to have them removed, and the doctor decided to also remove my appendix.  I was later told that there was a malignant tumor in my appendix.  I then had to have an MRI to ensure that it had not spread elsewhere.  Thankfully, it hadn't.

Like Lucy, I was fortunate enough to discover the cancer early simply by chance.  If either of us had not been so lucky, I can't imagine what we could have been left to face down the road.