Loren’s Comments (group member since Sep 12, 2010)

Loren’s comments from the Ling AP Lit. and Comp. 2010-11 group.

She may represent America in Vietnam. How we came over there as naive people, some young boys barely 18 years old, and are forced to endure years of growth and development in months. Maryanne IS America. At the end of the war, we were a divided country. One whose morals and beliefs had been torn to shreds as quickly as some draft cards were. Marie Anne and Fosse were diveded and their belief in the American ideal life the were to live was shattered.

After reading what Ada wrote I have agree that O'brien tells the story to himself as a way of avoiding the reality. Kiowa tries to give him reassurances about the wrongness of his act by saying things such as, "No sweat man, what else could you do?" Kiowa encourages Obrien to talk about his act, but O'brien can't do it because he knows the reality of this humanless, emotionaless act that killed a man. Instead O'brien brings the man to life with a story so for the time he doesn't have to think of his guilt, but as Ada said, creating the story.

I agree with what many of the others are saying aboout social preassures being the cause for joining. But this seems rediculous. Why would someone rather die than be shamed. Furthermore, it is ironic when O'brien says, "I was a coward. I went to war." The war had caused him the feel the very he avoided feeling by joining the war. On a deeper level O'brien doesn't know why he went to war. "A true war story has no morals". There is no final justification for the war, and this is a truth that the soilders have live with.

It is interesting to see how the shame drove him into the war, but after the war he knew it was the wwrong choice. "I survived, but it's not a happy ending. I was a coward. I went to war." He felt shame for going to the war, and after coming back the soilders felt a distance from the people they were trying to prove themselves to, such as Norman not even knowing what to say to his father. The people who the soilders were trying to make proud by fighting didn't understand what the fighting did to them or what they went through.

As many of the others said, whether the events actually happened or not doesn't matter. What O'brien captures is the emotional tole on the people who fought in the war. For example, the story of Marie Anne was probably not true, it is just to far fetched to be true. However, it did show the irreversable effect on the witnesses of war, even those as pure as Marie Anne. The stories capture the effect of the war, the things that were carried with the participants after the act. What the acts were or how they happened is not as important.

I agree with Shigeto. By making up the story of the boy's life O'brien is giving a full story and not just bits and pieces of his own memory. Instead of analyzing his action as just an act of war committed against an enemy, O'brien is recognizing that he has put short a story that shouldn't have had war in it at all. The boy was not too far off from O'brien in that he was avoiding shame, "Beyond anything else, he was afraid of disgracing himself". The story of the boy is to show that there is more to war then fighting and a dead corpse, there is a story behind the limp body, and O'brien can't ignore that.

I like Alon's point about the Party being and idea. As long as the party is in control, it has the power to manipulate anything it wants, the reality is as O'Brian said "inconsequential". What the party wants to be the truth is the truth. Goldstein is merely a tool to used in order to keep the balance that the party desires, he is an enemy created by the the state, for the state. O'Brian said that Goldstein will never die, because the Party doesn't want a world that changes, it wants to have control over what the people love and what the people hate, with no room for variation. The Party's power is collective, so everyone must be the same.

I agree with Eitan that the Parson's has submitted to the party's doctrine. The party's power is collective, meaning that the Party is able to function because they have established a society in which the role of each citizen is to function for the Party. Parsons puts obedience for the party before even his own well being and acts accordingly. However the Party requires obedience down to the core, and as Parson showed, it is impossible to completely suppress the individual for it will shine through in dreams.

The party creates an enviroment where questioning the truth is not possible. With strict punishment for questioning the party, or even being anything that party doesn't deem as acceptable the people are placed in a position where they have to accept what they are told. When the inner party member announced mid-speech that it was not at war with Eurasia but indeed with East asia, the whole crowd agreed immediately. It is what the Party had made standard for them, it is a matter of survival to accept the Party's decrees.

I agree with you Eitan. Newspeak is just another way to control the people. The ability for people to express their thoughts is taken away because the language is so limited. It is ironic that Syme had such a great and intricate in Newsspeak, while the purpose of newspeak is to limit complex understanding. For innovative thought may lead to undermine the party, and that is a risk not worth taking for the party.

When O'brian explains the Brotherhood to Winston he asks Winston how far he is willing to go for the organization. He asks questions such as, "You are prepared to give you lives?...You are prepared to commit murder?" even so far as to ask, "You are prepared to lose your identity...", to which Winston answers yes. Why does Winston agree to all of these demand even though they seem to be exactly the kinds of evil that the party would push? Why is it finally Julia who says no to the idea of the lovers being separated.
Winston agrees to all of horrid scenarios because of the deep hate he has for the party, and the knowledge that it will not be in his lifetime that the party is overthrown. Winston is interested in a future, not in his own life. He says repeatedly, "We are the dead". However, if he can contribute in any way to the eventual demise of the Party, he will. The end justify the means.
Julia is different, she is interested in the present, and defying the party just for the sake of defying it. She isn't really interested in how the Party suppress people or even believes that it can be stopped, "she had only the dimmest idea of who Goldstein was and what doctrines he was supposed to represent." She didn't see life past herself and Winston, while Winston had a more idealistic hatred for the party.

I agree with David that it would not be an easy task to try and teach Ebonics in schools, but would that not be more the reason to try? If we are all so subconsciously haughty towards Ebonics, do we believe it is justified? If it is not justified then the only way to attack the issue is to make it available in classrooms. I do not believe it would make sense to change our whole language/arts learning structure, but maybe to include it as a couple units of study in the English curriculum. I believe this will have a positive effect on the push/pull because those who look down upon Ebonics will gain a better understanding and those who see it as a flaw in themselves will get a chance to recognize its non-negative distinction. And by knowing the distinction between their "mother language(or dialect)" and standard English, I believe it will give the students a more open minded approach to learning standard English.

Would Ebonics be considered a language or a dialect, and what would be the possibel social significance of the classification?
My response to this was that AAL would not be considered a language of its own. However I do still believe that it deserves it's own distinction and legitimacy as a separate dialect. Strides should be made to inform the public that as a different dialect, it is not below standard english, just unique. However, as Ian stated below, he disagreed and believed that due to the cultural development of the AAL, it has distinguished itself as a language of its own.

Celie had been told she was stupid throughout her life, and made to feel like the lesser sister. This was the case even though she had a great desire to learn. The language that Celie used in her letters may have been unsophisticated, but it was all her. This was effective because a main theme of the novel was Celie's gradual empowerment, and how she and other women like Sofie did not need men or society to define or rule their lives. By using Celie using her own style she is setting herself apart from the oppression she was placed under. She doesn't need some standard to define the way in which she communicates her inner most thoughts.
For the first half of the novel she addresses her letters to God, however as Ian said she changes this and addresses the letters to Nettie. I believe this represents Celie's further individualized development and empowerment because she is now writing to something that is real and tangible rather then something unknown. Almost as if she is taking control.