Eitan’s Comments (group member since Sep 13, 2010)

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

I agree with Ilana. While it is definitly tempting to look deep into Laertes' lines to Ophelia I think it is important to keep a sense of when the play was written and takes place. First of all, the Oedipal complex was first really thought of by Sigmund Freud in the late eighteen hundreds and early nineteen hundreds. To think that Shakespeare correctly anticipated Freud seems unlikely to me. Furthermore I don't think the text supports this view. While Laertes' comments seem strange to our eyes, his comments were not so different from the sexual banter that was littered throughout the play. Obviously these jokes were in vogue at the time and I think that they are more indicative of witty humor than deep seeded psychological issues.

Just like everyone else, I agree that Claudius' ends do not justify the means. At the end of the play the whole ruling structure of Denmark is in shambles. Most are dead and it is all Claudius' fault. His lust for power started the series of events that ended very badly for Denmark. Not only are the ends not justified in and of themselves but the means are equally repugnant. Claudius used regicide and fratricide in order to attain the throne and that is wrong. While some may blame Hamlet for continuing the feud and mixing things up by trying to show Claudius as guilty, Hamlet is not at fault because he was simply a victim of circumstance. He would not have been put in the position he was in if it were not for Claudius.

That is a great connection to real life, Arielle! I think that shows how what matters in a "true" war story is not the details but the gut-feelings. As O'Brien states "A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe" (78). What matters is how effective the story is not if every detail is correct. This relates back to the unit question of how storytelling affects truth. When truth is talked about in relation to storytelling it is different from truth about history. The truth in storytelling is the accuracy of the emotions, how the story affects others and how truly it fulfills its objectives. In history and other subjects truth is simply the accurate account of what happened. It would not matter whether the story has the true emotional weight behind it but whether it had the factual weight.

I agree, fear of being judged by others is one of the main motivations behind many of the characters' actions. This is especially pronounced in "On the Rainy River" when O'Brien decides not to flee to Canada to avoid the draft. This fear of what others think/will leads me to draw a connection to what some of us are studying in history. In American Foreign Policy we are learning about Groupthink and how groups of people seem to always make boneheaded decisions. This was shown by the Bay of Pigs Invasion when some of the smartest minds in America spectacularly bungled an invasion of Cuba. One of the main problems of Groupthink is that members of a group are terrified of being judged by others in the group. This is similar to what O'Brien felt and what Norman felt. They both wanted to do something but changed their minds becuase of their fear of how others would judge them.

In order to correctly answer the question of whether TTTC is a series of true war stories the definition of "true war story" must be taken. Like others, I will use O'Brien's definition from page 78 "A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe." These stories absolutely made my stomach believe. The stories illustrate the confusion of the Vietnam War and appear to be completely true. Even if the facts are not literally historical, it does not change the veracity of the story as long as we use O'Brien's definition

To the question of how the Party would best be brought down we can look at history. Orwell based the Party and that society on a combination of the USSR and if communism took over Britain. The USSR did not collapse due to organized resistance such as Winston's but much more due to external forces. However the internal forces which had some of the largest effects were the black markets which sprung up throughout the Soviet Union due to its economic failings. In a way, it is more similar to the disorganized acts of rebellion which Julia does in that people just did what they needed to in order to get by rather than doing it because of ideological reasons.
I think that the most fatal flaw of the Party is that it is simply a minority controlling a majority. In most societies where a majority is ruled by a minority, the minority will eventually rebell. The Party seems very succesful at using technology to keep the Proles pacified but eventually some leaks will spring and the Proles will revolt. This will be intensified by another fatal flaw of the Party, the horrific economic situation it is in. From the few press releases that Winston has edited it is apparent that their economic system is unsustainable. Eventually the populace will become fed up with the increasing poverty and will rebel. The Party cannot maintain its power without money and it looks like they have a negative balance.

To answer Anjali's original question, I believe that Parsons is more of a party supporter than Winston due to his ignorance and lack of caring. Just like real life, when something is morally wrong even those who realize it do not always care. Parsons may remember what life was like but he doesn't care enough. Also, he appears to be very brainwashed by the Party. He is a model party member who is even glad that his daughter turned him in. He obviously has fallen for the Party line hook, line and sinker. The huge amount of propaganda disseminated by the party, such as the ubiquitous pictures of Big Brother and the two minutes hate, have certainly influenced his thoughts.

I believe that Winston agrees to these terrible potential harms because the very fiber of his being yearns for truth. From the beginning of the novel Winston always had a need to rebel, starting with small things like writing down "DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER" repeatedly. He cannot stand the hypocrasy inherent in doublething and newspeak, the falsification of records unnerves him. The main change in Winston is that he now believes that he has allies, that he is not alone. Before, when he wrote in his notebook "He could not help feeling a twinge of panic." He felt that his ideals were important but he felt powerless to implement them. There is strength in numbers and it brings with it an inherent confidence. Now that Winston is not alone he can be willing to go the whole hog for his ideals.
When it comes to Julia I agree with Loren. She seems less motivated by ideals and more by a general sense of rebellion. She is just rebellious in nature nad owuld probably be rebelling against whatever society she lived in. As Loren quoted "she had only the dimmest idea of who Goldstein was and what doctrines he was supposed to represent." Her rebellion now has a different focus. While before it was more about just going against society, now it is going against society for Winston because she loves him. As a result of this she views her relationship with Winston as more important than the ideals of the Brotherhood so she puts her foot down to the idea of separating herself from Winston.

While reading the part about syme editing Newspeak into its final form the connection between language and thought was brought up. It is, I believe a major theme throughout this novel. I was wondering how vocabulary is used by the Party to shape the thoughts of the populace, particularly the Proles. By eliminating all synonims and antonyms, when in the book it is stated that "After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other words? A word contains its opposite in itself." By eliminating major swaths of vocabulary can the Party eliminate those subtle shades of meaning that those words represent, the difference between the words "nice, wonderful, good, great, and fine?"

I belive that the vocabulary which the party allows the populace to use does, in fact, affect their thoughts and their understanding. When we think, at least when I think, we think in words and sentances. Thoughts like "This pizza is scrumptious" and "That potato looks grotesque" are some examples of typical thoughts. However if we replace these sentances with newspeak they lose a lot of their power, "Pizza plusgood" and "Potato unplusgood." They simply do not convey the same message. While mathematically the sentances contain roughly the same meaning, the subtelties are completely lost. By altering the way that the people can think, the party alters the way the people do think.

I agree with Grace. History is definite and absolute. An event either happened or it did not; there is no middle ground. 2+2 will always equal 4. Facts are unable to be changed. Even if everyone says that an event did not happen it does not affect that event, only people's perceptions of it. Therefore, even if everyone believes one thing, that one thing is not neccessarily true. Changing the historical records does not change historical facts.

Contrary to some other opinions, I believe that the Proles are completely capable of a revolution. Considering that they constitute 85% of the population an organized revolt cannot fail. Just like the Russian Revolution upon which this book is based, a large enough, angry enough, lower class can overthrow a tyranous minority. I do agree with Chunsoo that in order for this revolt to happen a leader must emerge from the Proles and incite them or a member of the party would have to give them the information.

I disagree with Catie and Ilana's assertion that criticism of AAL is a type of closeted racism. Language can be separated from people and criticism of a language is not criticism of people. I see AAL as a form of self-segregation in that it is a way that blacks keep a separate culture from the rest of America. America is not just Blacks and Whites; there are other minorities who have adapted standard English and have integrated well into American culture. While there is nothing wrong linguistically with AAL, having it as a first language means that standard English will be the second on. By adopting AAL blacks hurt their own chances for success.

I would like to clarify my comment from class. All I wanted to state was that there is a fundamental difference between an amalgam of 2 languages or broken form of English as a second language and this uneducated southern black dialect in the book. Due to this fundamental difference I feel that a comparison cannot be done. As a result of this, I would imagine that one writing in a second language would probably be proud that they have written anything intelligable while The students' response to Celie's writing was shame. I think this is because that form of English carries negative social connnotations and could cause them to feel bad about their own speaking. Digging deeper, I believe that this shame at their own languages could have been caused by society looking down on anything different.