It Was

It was 

It was an idea
It was beautiful in the beginning, open, complex, full of life.
But then It got hurt, It lost something important.
And then It started losing bits and pieces as those around it picked at It,
Whittled It away until It was almost nothing, and then forgot.

And then It was.
It was just an idea, damaged, alone in the back of the mind,
dull, grey, twisted, broken.
It lost sight of what It once was, what It could have been,
And It was lying among the darker, older thoughts,
The memories and the other concepts, long forgotten
And It waited. Dull, grey, twisted, broken.

But then something changed.
It waited an eternity, a year, a second, and it was again.
Something found it, or it found something, and now it is.
It emerged from the shadow, agony, rising to form something new.
Reaching, striving, asking, wanting.
It became bright, and new,
It saw what it truly could be, and what it should be
And It knew what was really possible.

It forgot. Forgot the broken, the shame, the emptiness,
Forgot the feeling and never-ending spiral, but remembered,
Oh It remembered what it was, what it said it never would be again.
It discovered the bright, shining, glowing, possible.
and It changed. It was important.
The possibilities of a plethora of additional ideas,
The swirling cosmos of the mind and the universe around It
And just how It could fit in. How It could be important.

And It grew. And It worked. And It evolved,
Until the dispirited, dejected shell of what It once was was ultimately gone
And all anything would ever see of It again
Was bright, shining, glowing, possible.

And It is.

Hope Whitman's OK With Me Reading His Diary...

This section of diary begins with mention to the conversations Whitman created between himself and president Lincoln, as he talks about creating a dialogue, possibly talking about lessons for a president elect. I suppose this might have been a written piece he planned to create, but everything that follows isn't quite related, outside of the theme of liberation that could vaguely tie to Lincoln's efforts, though his political views during that time don't seem to be very clear. The next passage seems to focus on the deeper philosophical or psychological aspects of humanity: "consciousness," "the soul," "love," and possibly how these contribute to greatness, self-fulfillment, or a person's being as a whole, that part isn't entirely clear. It also seems as though he might approach the idea of religion, but here doesn't really expand on that. While I'm not sure, I think that, given the rest of what I read, these concepts creating a person and aspects of social and personal liberty hold quite a bit of significance to Whitman.

At least in this section, Whitman uses a lot of nature metaphors to convey his meaning; "stars," "waves," "fair winds," "smooth seas." The sea and sailing concept seems to hold specific significance to Whitman, as the remaining poetry and thought drafting he speaks of a person sailing and a "ship of libertad." He also briefly mentions a test or proving oneself, and while I'm not sure how that will play into his overlying themes, I'm sure it will lend into his concept of the self and creating some kind of completeness or greatness. "Libertad" is mentioned frequently, and only every in Spanish. I think that it could either be in reference to mental or physical liberty as a result of some kind of self exploration, or some deeper sense of liberty that I'm not quite sure how to phrase, some of which I'm sure will become clear when we start reading some of his poetry.

https://www.pinterest.com/michelleellisor/ships-at-sea/

From Notes and Annotations

The notes that this site provides for the second section of writing that I spoke of puts far more weight behind the mention of religion than I found, though, admittedly, the person making the annotations undoubtedly knows far more than I about Whitman's intentions and frame of mind. I did think that when the annotator made specific connections to aspects of society during the civil war and Whitman's experience and point of view on the war was quite interesting and I'm a little embarrassed I didn't think of it much myself as I'm sure it would have led to far more in depth analysis. This person also addresses the real basis for Whitman's reference to "Libertad" and offers more insight into his references and what he meant by them, being a more social and literal sense of the word concerning the liberation of nations or peoples.

I thought that Transcription p.4 (not sure how to clearly reference?) where the annotator writes out what Whitman said concerning different religious platforms and how he saw them playing out was really interesting. Not only was my initial idea of what he was talking about here not entirely correct, but it was based completely on religion where I could only find brief mention of it, though I suppose that's my fault for just not seeing it. I did really like what the annotator said concerning "a larger historical cycle" as the first time I went through the phrase "is all then lost?" really caught my eye, and I just didn't want to write about it because I wasn't sure what to say about it. I think that when the annotation says that "He may be suggesting that the ideal of liberty transcends and outlasts even the longest-lived political regimes" it makes a lot of sense, and also connects to a number of themes and concepts that we've addressed in English in the last two years. This could have to do with the freedoms taken away and discussed in 1984 and The Handmaid's Tale, or even the hopeful but quickly snuffed out ideas of liberty and life presented in Never Let Me Go.

Overall I think that Whitman had a great deal of concern about the fate of America in the years to come and about the aspects of society that could be changed to create a more balanced or beneficial system. He seemed to value to equality and liberation of man, and be deeply interested in concepts of religion and society and how they could be better.

Blog Post 12

Freebie.

The American Dream

What is the American Dream?

When British colonists first began to come to America and kick all the Native Americans out, they were either working to pay off debts, searching for religious freedom, or looking to start their own success. Since we gained independence and slowly other groups within our nation have, people have immigrated from all over the world with the intent of starting a new life. When I think of the American Dream, the first thing that I see is the stereotypical image that I've seen of an American family as I've gone through school: a happy family with a smiling mother at home with a couple of playing kids as a father comes home from work, also happy. They live in a nice house in a suburban neighborhood, maybe with a dog, and they appear to have just about everything they could wish for in life. But the more I think about it, the more I see what so many other's see America as concerning this dream. We frequently talk about ourselves as the land of opportunity, liberty, and equality, and that's what many are looking for when they come to America. They want a new start, a new job, a new life in a place where they can have access to that sort of thing. Essentially, I think this dream boils down to a stable, functional life were a person can work to be somebody they want to be without unnecessary hardship. However, I don't think this is always what people get.

http://admuseum.blogspot.com/p/what-is-american-dream.html

Google defines the American Dream as "a national ethos of the United States, a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few barriers." I certainly think that this is accurate, however it certainly hasn't ever been a struggle without barriers. Barriers of race, gender, orientation, religion, and countless other obstacles stand in the way of every endeavor, and while its a pretty though, I don't think that's ever going to change. Today I'd say that the American Dream is safety, which isn't something that most people get. Even now pretty much every group of people except for the straight, white male has something to fear in America, and still has to work hard for the unattainable equality that they're told they have, but never see. Back to the stable, functional life that is a part of that Dream, it's understood that America is supposed to provide this opportunity to work and have a family that lives in at least relative comfort, requiring moderate wealth and prosperity.

 This wealth is, I think, twofold: Monetary and Emotional. There's the comfort and wealth that comes from the frugality that some job or familial positions provide, but there's also that that comes not necessarily from money and possessions, but from good company and actions. When I look at someone who society sees as poor, I might not see the same desperate, pitiful person that a vast majority would see if that person seemed truly happy with what they do or who they are with. I don't see that as poor at all, and could meet the richest person in America and think they were poor if they lived a life devoid of happiness or good will. Unfortunately, that's not how America works, and the way that it DOES work crushes this American Dream for a great many who live or move here.

I believe that society today in America truly sees wealth and poverty as how much money one is able to make at their respective job as opposed to their happiness. We judge people by their appearance, which is based mostly on what they can afford. Commodities that are popular and looked on favorably are almost always exceedingly expensive and therefore not available to those who don't make enough money. We put far more value in those who are worth or make the most money, which in turn gives them ever more opportunity to gain this kind of wealth. I'm not saying that everyone who is rich or makes substantial amounts of money are bad or unhappy people, just that a great many people who don't make as much money don't get the recognition and aren't seen as being as successful or happy as those that do.


http://elitedaily.com/money/entrepreneurship/america-and-their-underdogs/

 This ability to afford the lifestyle that is trending at the time has always been the mark of the wealthy in this country, not only today, but also in the 20's when we're looking at the Great Gatsby. In the 20's the people valued the most by the masses were those who could spend with ease and afford the most extravagant lifestyle, not those who were the happiest with their situation. For instance, Daisy conformed to what she believed the traits of wealth were, wanted her child to be a "beautiful fool," and acted rather dramatically. She also stayed with her husband even though she was unhappy, suffering her mental/ emotional health for her social reputation. On the other hand, Gatsby had all the wealth that made him important to others, but was completely open to sacrificing it for his happiness.

Instead of the success that I'm supposed to gain in the eyes of society by becoming some highly respectable person in a prominent field who makes a lot of money, it sounds cheesy and stereotypical, but I just want to make a difference. For me. I don't care if I make a lot of money or do something pretty, I want to be able to pursue my dream and make a difference in my field without being hindered by societal beliefs of what I should be doing or how I should be living. I don't care if people think what I want to do is gross or unattainable for me, I want to have the opportunity to pursue MY dream future and become a successful scientist in MY eyes without having to sacrifice anything else that makes me happy along the way. For the few who have attained this American Dream, it's a huge success, but that's just it: the number is so few that it's a difficult concept to believe much in.

"We are still asking the question."

The Electric Rise and Fall of Nikola Tesla

At the end of Marco Tempest's story, he says "'Tell me, what will man do when the forests disappear, and the coal deposits are exhausted?' Tesla thought he had the answer. We are still asking the question."

Marco Tempest is a magician who in this instance, uses an amazing set of illusions and interactions with them to tell the story of Nikola Tesla. He outlined the number of patents and inventions that he had to his name (over 700!), such as radio, wireless telegraphy, remote control, robotics, and even x-ray tech. He does note, however, that after such great success, it didn't last. Tesla had an image for the world that he was inspired to create, where the poor were not humiliated by the rich and where people thought of the future and the next steps possible for science and humanity. I think that this was the most profound point of Tempest's story.

The story begins with his birth and then moves to his astounding brain power, outlining not only how incredibly intelligent Tesla was, but how he was able to construct his ideas and inventions inside his mind, what Tempest says could have been a form of synesthesia. He then connected the story of Nikola Tesla to himself, telling an interjected story about how Tesla became a showman to show the public that the volts he would need to pursue his idea of the alternating current were safe, praising the magic of science.

Tempest creates an illusion to illustrate the life of Tesla and the ideas he's presenting, even taking of the persona of Tesla at points, making him speak directly to the audience. This creates a more personal connection with the audience which helps them to empathize with him as a person, not just an out of reach part of history. When discussing his grand ideas, inventions, and aspirations he uses rising, inspirational music and speaks excitedly, wrapping the audience up into the feeling. He's attempting to make the audience be excited as well and understand just how great Tesla was. However, when it begins to look into how Tesla's career began to fall a bit, his ideas were discarded and finally died with the amazing ideas he had lost forever, the music was sadder, and there was more dejected injections from Tesla's character, and he speaks about the great loss of knowledge and image the world suffered with his dismissal. Here Tempest is trying to make them see Tesla as he does and feel the same loss.

Tempest is an illusionist, and while many would consider what he does a hoax or just generally believe him to be unreliable, he shares that trait in common with Tesla. He uses that common outlet to connect with Tesla, and finds him an inspiration worth sharing. He uses a lot of quotes of Tesla's and isn't really portraying much of an opinion most of the presentation. He also, if you think about it, has no reason what-so-ever to lie. He wants to portray as much information about Tesla as he possibly can, and for that I think that he is a credible source. While he may not be the traditional scholar we've learned to trust, what he does, how he has researched, and his own expertise makes him just as valuable a source as any other.

While attempting to portray to the audience how important Nikola Tesla was to our society today and how his ideas should serve as inspiration for future development, Tempest describes the genius of Tesla throughout his [this is where my blog deleted the next four paragraphs, so it's gonna be nowhere near as brilliant as it was, sorry] brilliant imagination, negating his need to make plans and prototypes and instead build the finished product. He also described his over 700 patents, how crucial his inventions where and are, and how they are still pertinent today. Having the showmanship in common with Tesla and his personal connection and enthusiasm for the subject does create some bias in that regard, but his passion doesn't make it so that he's giving false or overly exaggerated information, so his reasoning is still sound. His persuasiveness, the presentation manner and the amount of evidence given is all strong and sound, even when describing his downfall. 

Personally, this TED talk was really interesting to me, not only because I found the content interesting, but because I found the quotes provided by Tesla really inspirational. I chose this talk because I thought that the points brought up were very important. I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I think that the message the Tempest was trying to convey was amazingly important for all manner of people to hear. I also connected with this talk as an aspiring scientist, finding inspiration in his ideals and what he was working for. I think that some of the story-telling used in this talk relates to what we've begun to talk about in class concerning identity. Tempest is an illusionist, that’s what connects him to Tesla. Tesla used the illusion to make his science appear more appealing, giving it another face essentially. He created another identity for the millions of volts he needed in order to make it more acceptable for the public. In his shows, Tesla also introduced a duality in his work, making it both science, hard facts, tangible experimentation, as well as magic, intangible, fantastical, and unfathomable. As Tesla put it, “the magic of science.”

[I had so many other ideas and it was phrased more effectively before, the internet sucks.]

The dedication and admiration that Tesla had for his work and what he was working for, ("Everything I did, I did for mankind") should be an inspiration, for if this man, so many years ago, dreamed of a more equal future with its problems solved and science working for the betterment of all could see it, we should too. Tesla and his ideas and hard work are underrated. Tempest is trying to communicate how important it is for us to expand upon Tesla’s ideas and ideals. I think he’s hoping that at least the people in his audience will take something away from his presentation and be inspired to think about the difference that they can make.

Double Indemnity and Women in the 1940s

A number of the shots of Stanwyck's character are done from over Neff's shoulder, though some are also done facing Neff with her speaking to him over his shoulder from behind. This last angle especially promotes to view that she is guiding him and pushing him into doing what she wants, and because she is so much shorter and has to look up at Neff, she maintains this manipulative position while simultaneously appearing helpless and small. If the shots aren't head on, they're done from a lower position looking up at her, giving her the appearance of power and looming over her surroundings, but only when Neff isn't in the picture. She's shot predominantly in close ups, though she wears dark glasses most places to cover her appearance, adding to the shifty need to hide who she is and what she's doing. She's also most frequently shot in dark areas, hiding in shadow though entirely at ease, as though she belongs there. This darkness and play with shadows also speaks to the intended image of her being one of deceit, manipulation, and hidden purpose.

In the film noir movie Double Indemnity Barbara Stanwyck plays a character named Phyllis Dietrichson, a woman who plans to murder her husband and claim the insurance money using the insurance salesman to do it. Fred MacMurray plays the salesman Walter Neff, who is pulled into Phyllis's murderous plot by promises of love and tricky, manipulative plays by the seemingly innocent and desperate woman. She serves as the femme fatale that was so widely portrayed in films of this sort during the 1940s, and the visual representation and personality of her character greatly support the intended image of both the character as well as women in general at the time of the movie's release.

The character Phyllis Dietrichson is not in any way a good, likable, or moral person. The audience, if not Walter Neff, can see through the flimsy veil of helplessness and see that she actually is trying to get close to Neff in order to use him for something. The movie reveals that not only had she plotted and helped in the execution of her husband so that she could make- off with the insurance money, but that she was totally at ease with the sin and had done it before in order to marry into the money she has by killing her husbands late wife. She's frequently spiteful and her manipulative tendencies make it difficult to see her as anything but an antagonist in the story.

During Phyllis's interactions with Walter Neff she uses a variety of tactics to get Neff to agree with her and do things for her. Initially she shows interest in him and in order to gain his trust she "confides" in him about the abuse she receives at the hands of her husband. She uses this pathos, the promise of love and helplessness of her situation, in order to convince Neff to help her get rid of him as well as set up accident insurance so she can claim the money. After they are involved in the plot she uses her own sense of logic to keep him in the deal, telling him that they've gone too far and they can't turn back. She continues this false affection and desperation and, therefore, continues to control Neff. When Neff thinks of backing out or turning on her she fluctuates between being helpless and needing him and being spiteful and snotty towards him, trying to simultaneously bully and coax him into submission and continuing to be useful to her.

A lot can be told about how women were viewed in the 1940s from this film and others like it. The femme fatale idea as well as how and why Stanwyck's character achieved her goals shows that they saw women as materialistic and manipulative people, willing to do anything and feign love in order to get what they want, swindling people out of their money and minds. Those poor innocent men.... This is obviously quite negative, and if I might say, possibly evidence of the insecurity of this male dominated area and others on the part of the men when women had been proving far more capable than many wanted to believe. Oh my gosh! This whole half of our species we've been putting down is actually capable of the same sort of work we are! Better demonize them as quickly as possible. Not as though they stepped up to help out while we we've been fighting wars and junk....