Speaking of Courage in "Speaking of Courage"

*stares at blog prompt blankly*

Etto...I'd say that one way "Speaking of Courage" speaks of courage, so to speak, would be Norman Bowker's story. Not the completely obvious fact that he talks about getting medals, nor the fact that his father would have most likely said pointed out (heh. Look at that use of those writing lessons in class; that dialogue revision) "Seven. Count 'em. You weren't a coward either" about said medals.

Rather, I get the feeling he spoke of courage in a subtle, allusion-like way... Where am I going with this...

Whenever he imagined conversations about that night in the $#!+ field, Norman Bowker was really inwardly saying, "So, speaking of courage...I got all those medals, but I couldn't cut it when it mattered."

I improvised that last part, after the point of ellipsis, but yeah. I lost myself for a bit there. That small flash of inspiration's gone. So now it'll be harder to explain.

Um...I guess basically I think Norman was trying to bring up his courageousness and seven medals while attempting to link back to that night and explain how he wasn't courageous at all...

THE REST OF THE BOOK!!

A good example of the whole courage vs. cowardice thing is in..."ON THE RAINY RIVER"! (exclamation points all around here) Tim O'Brien the character has some courage crises in that chapter, before he goes to the northern border and after Elroy brings him within 20 yards of Canada. In general, O'Brien can either be "courageous" and go to war, or be a "coward" and duck out; run to Canada. Or--OR--he can be "courageous" and duck out; run to Canada, or be a "coward" and go to war.

And then--AND THEN!-- waaaay back in the book, as in "The Things They Carried", aka chapter 1, Tim O'Brien the author tells how being in war is a conflict, or a balance, between courage and cowardice.

Jumping around a bit, here are some quotes from pages 20 and 21 (blue book~):

"They carried the common sense of cowardice...They carried the soldier's greatest fear, which was the fear of blushing. Men killed, and died, because they were embarrassed not to." (20)
"It was not courage exactly; the object was not valor. Rather, they were too frightened to be cowards."

In the words of Mr. M, good stuff. I interpret all of that as people doing "courageous" things not necessarily because they are courageous, but because they are afraid to be cowards. Or, I can think of it as a character/person being too much of coward to be a coward. Like O'Brien said somewhere in "On the Rainy River," "I would go to the war...because I was embarrassed not to." Or even better yet, at the end: "I was a coward. I went to the war."

I feel like O'Brien is trying to say that, if anything, "courage" is something based on interpretation. Just what is "courage"? Like we discussed all the way before we started reading this book, it can be "courageous" to do the "cowardly" thing. I think O'Brien takes it a little bit further.

You can be a coward for doing the courageous thing.

Looking at a "Defensive Realization"

That's the memoir I chose; "Defensive Realization", by Jason in New York.

A brief summary: 'Twas Jason's first day of football practice and the season and such. He got to the field he belonged in to play the sport he loved. He enjoyed every minute, but there was always one thing: he didn't like playing defense. He said he didn't "hate" it, but he was no good at it, and as a result preferred offense and rarely played defense when given the choice. However, for one of the biggest games of their season, his coach put him in on defensive, and he wasn't very optimistic about it.

(I believe his words were, "With me in, our shutout was over for sure.")


He played anyway, wanting to get as much time as possible playing that beloved sport, and he tackled an opposing player, effectively ending the game. This also sparked a new passion for a skill he never knew he had.


Albeit relatively short, I believe Jason's was an excellent example of a great memoir. He mixed storytelling with his reflection so well I had a hard time discerning one from the other. He says "The season had gone as perfectly in my mind as possible." I interpret that as a reflection, because it seems like he's looking back on those seven weeks and seeing that they were indeed fantastic and special. Also, near the end he states that the "tackle ended the game but started something even more important." I don't think that in the neat of the moment, after someone makes a decisive tackle, they'd stop and think that the tackle "started something important". Jason is obviously recalling the experience and realizing that it was a turning point in his life for him.


Most of his memoir was telling the story of this realization, an idiosyncrasy, I would think, of memoirs; Jason told a story that took place over time, and he recounted the earlier events and transitioned to the significant later events appropriately: "The next seven weeks went by so fast and dream-like that I had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn’t in that deep sleep back on August 22nd."


He even went back to the beginning, cleverly alluding to that morning on the 22nd of August. It's not a perfect example of it, but that is similar to a literary technique I learned in elementary school called "full-circle ending."


Reading this memoir, I felt a little connection to myself. I also plan on writing about a seemingly small thing that started something new for me (aren't we all?). The way Jason ended his memoir kinda sums it all up: 

"For me, it started a new love for a new skill that I didn’t know I had."

Vietnamese War: Why'd We Do It?

"Why did America fight in the Vietnam War?" Hmmm...'cuz we're not all that bright? (And I say that nicely). Okay, okay, let's actually look this thing up...:

AH. Go figure. It was because we couldn't mind our own business and were concerned about Vietnam and its political issues. Bah. A little while after WWII, Vietnam wanted to be recognized as an independent and free country, as fought France to that point. After it became its own country, Vietnam experienced a divide in its government: northern Vietnam was a Communist state, and the souther part was trying hard to resist the north's pressuring to become the same.

The U.S. of A., a young idealist country with a democratic government, of course looked down on Communism and readily jumped to southern VIetnam's aid...

I don't really know why or how we got into Vietnam's business. Apparently we supported them in getting away from France, giving them $2.6 billion in financial support during that little revolt (Digital History).

$2.6 billion....and at the same time we were fighting the Cold War AND recovering from WWII. And we wonder why America's in so much debt.

That pretty much covers the questions...right? I don't really know what/which "opposition" is specified on Edline, but since I generally conclude that it was over Communism and between Northern Vietnam and its allies and Southern Vietnam and America and allies, I will also go over internal opposition slightly here...

Um, WE DIDN'T WANT THE WAR. A lot of the Americans at that time, anyway. After the Tet Offensive many were especially against American involvement in the Vietnam War. It cost America almost 60,000 deaths, and we'd involved 500,000 military personnel.

After all that fighting, Pres. Nixon recalled U.S. forces from the warring country, leaving Southern Vietnam to fend for itself. Then Northern Vietnam captured Saigon, and yeah. United Communist Vietnam is born.

I'm totally against war, so you actually get a short post this time around! :)

Sites I used: http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/vietnam/index.cfm

America is Not America

Ah, the much-anticipated Langston Hughes post...It's just not me until it's did the day before.

SO:

Heh. I like this poem~ Hughes was/is totally on the right track here. I could write 2 pages worth of post talking about this poem, but I have guidelines to meet, so I'll try and summarize my take on it. No hating if I'm not the least bit original or out of the box.

Basically: America is the Land of Phony...the "American Dream" is indeed just that. A dream dreamt up by Europeans--and actually, probably other peoples too-- who wanted something better than the reality they had. This was the dream of equality, happiness, and freedom (give or take some more desirable qualities). People came here hoping for a better life and a fresh start, and yet 200+ years later, we are in a glorified version of the countries we'd come from. "Freedom" and "equality" are just terms...used loosely and relatively.

In this country of diversity, there is no equality; and dreams are crushed by the cruel reality of the same game of life: eat or be eaten and winner take all. We, the people, who dreamed of such a great land, work hard for a seemingly unattainable dream and get nothing in return. We have nothing...except the hazy memory of the American Dream.

ANSWERING GIVEN QUESTIONS!!!!!

Hrmm...I'd say that the two perspectives in this poem were the optimistic view and realistic view. Namely, the delusion that America is the bestestest country ever, full of freedom, equality, and opportunity. 8D Now, the realistic perspective: all that is a bunch of PHOOEY. We're just technologically advanced, but inevitably that has led to a bunch of other problems, and the more complicated our society gets the more complex our problems become. And there is a ubiquitous existence of prejudice and unfair judgments and assumptions, no matter how small or how hard we try to cleverly cover it up.

Umm, I feel like that paragraph answered a lot of the other questions, so the rest'll be short answers!

Hughes calls for an America that is America--the very epitome of the "America" (dreamed land) people have hoped for, for centuries. A land of freedom, and opportunity, and equality...and this is really getting quite redundant... >. > At this point, I am using "America" as the Promised Land and dreamland of most people; it's just a..umm...symbol. There we go. (Hard to explain/put into words)

I would say the overall tone of this poem is... one of scorn and distaste. OH, and wistful too. Hughes is looking down on the America we've become, and dislikes the fact that the very people who tried to build up an ideal country of freedom and equal opportunity are the ones helping to make it what it is today...either they're the oppressed or the oppressors. Hughes hopes for a better America...an America that is truly "America".

I think Hughes criticizes the whole--well, the same 3 main traits/qualities/principles or whatever that I keep mentioning above--there is no equality, there is no freedom, there is no opportunity. Hughes is criticizing the lack of all of that.

Fitzgerald and Hughes must have been on the same page; they both are doubting the "America"-ness of this so-called "America." No equality in The Great Gatsby's  New York; no equal opportunity as proven by the differences in financial affairs and status. Etc., etc....

I agree with the criticisms 100%... or close enough to that. I mean, I've always been viewing the world in a kind of cynical way, so I'm already inclined to believe a lot of things are lies by default. I'm a skeptic, and I DEFINITELY do not think our America is the America. Everything is just a lie or jumbled up contradiction.

--STARBURST: IT'S A JUICY CONTRADITION!!!

--AJ out.

Link to GreGat Project

Blah.. Random post. ON LIT BLOG!!!

XD I must loll. Not "LOL", but loll.

Hey there. Here's a link to my our American Lit Great Gatsby project: http://keptinreserve.blogspot.com/

Make sure you go to older posts and read from the beginning!!

--Alex; aka Mr. Nick Carraway

The Cynical Nick: Surrounded by Idiots

I quite liked this assignment. I wouldn't mind getting one of these every now and again.

[NARRATOR: Nick, Chapter II, page(s) 33-34, party scene]

Catherine leaned close to me and whispered in my ear:

"Neither of them can stand the person they're married to."

I wasn't all that surprised.

"Can't they?"

"Can't stand them," she repeated, as if I didn't hear or couldn't believe it. She looked at Myrtle and then at Tom. "What I say, is, why go on living with them if they can't stand them? If I was them I'd get a divorce and get married to each other right away."

"Doesn't she like Wilson either?"

I started as Myrtle herself answered my question. Apparently she had overheard us talking, and she replied with a string of words so violent and offensive that I cannot and will not repeat them.

"You see!" Catherine exclaimed triumphantly. Then she lowered her voice again, so as not to attract attention. "It's really his wife that's keeping them apart. She's a Catholic, and they don't believe in divorce."

That was a flat-out lie. Daisy was not a Christian, nor was she ever one. Whoever had come up with such a stupid excuse obviously didn't give it too much thought, but I had to give them credit for their originality.

I had seen how Daisy had acted towards Tom the other night, and it made me wonder: Who was really "keeping Tom and Myrtle apart?"

"When they do get married," continued Catherine, "they're going West to live for a while until it blows over."

Until what blows over? I had the feeling that dear Daisy wouldn't shed so much as a tear over getting away from Tom.

And as for going West, nothing says "I did nothing wrong" like moving somewhere else to live.

"It'd be more discreet to go to Europe."

"Oh do you like Europe?" she exclaimed surprisingly. "I just got back from Monte Carlo."

The woman had just jumped to a completely irrelevant topic, diverging from our original conversation entirely.

"Really." I'd started to care less about conversation with this woman and her inability to focus, but it was best not to cause friction between other people and myself. Disinterest and distaste were not a reason to disregard etiquette.

"Just last year," Catherine went on. "I went over there with another girl."

How about that. "Did you stay long?"

"No, we just went to Monte Carlo and back. We went by way of Marseilles. We had over twelve hundred dollars when we started, but we got gypped out of it all in two days in the private rooms. We had an awful time getting back, I can tell you. God, how I hated that town!"

I do believe Catherine started a conversation about Monte Carlo just to complain about her unfortunate trip to France and its territories. To think we began with Tom, Myrtle, and their relationships with their spouses.

For a brief moment, I was blessed with the opportunity to look out of the window and separate myself from this chaotic congregation. My body was left there, but my mind drifted outside and basked in the gorgeous azure sky--until I was dragged back to present reality by Mrs. McKee, whose voice had the audial beauty of nails on a blackboard.

Americans' Dream

Nomnom...as I type I chew Havarti cheese. :)

I admittedly had no idea what the heck this "American Dream" everyone's talking about is. So, like any not-completely-lazy curious person, I did a likkle bit of research. The definition of this "American Dream" has changed quite a bit over time, but I guess:

The American Dream started as a "promise" (*cough, cough*) that here in America, the "Promised Land", there is happiness for any and all people.  A few of the sources I looked at refer to the United States Declaration of Independence, particularly the phrase "pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness." That was the original American dream.

Now, though, I'd say the American Dream roughly translates to living a (relatively) good life, with no financial or family or medical problems, among other things. The "good life" would be a successful life, and one filled with happiness and stability. This is the promise of the American Dream--provided you work hard.

After all, it just wouldn't be right if hard-working people toiled their lives away to get a well-deserved happy life and the fortunate people born with silver spoons just happened across this happiness.

SO, the American Dream today:

 "is split into two distinct camps: those who work to earn it and those who think it's owed to them."

The article I chose is "The American Dream--RIP," published January 13, 2012. It talks mainly about the American Dream's aspect of money. Reading it, I found myself agreeing completely with the author's idea that the one of the problems with America and its Dream is money. "Found money" in particular. The author referred to "easy come, easy go" a lot throughout the article, saying that although a minority of people in America are lucky enough to come across "found money", it is still too many.

Found money is basically easy money, or just money people didn't earn. The article cites investing in the stock market, fraud-committing CEOs, professional football and basketball players and Leigh Steinberg (a super-agent of star NFL players) filing for bankruptcy, and the lottery as examples of all that is wrong with the world. Or, at least, the world within America.

The problem is that when people just get money, they think they can do whatever they want with it. Which they can, I suppose, but not without oft-negative repercussions. Nowadays, people with easy money are quite extravagant with their spending, as we see in The Great Gatsby (which means even in the 1920s people were a little too liberal with their money). People tend to spend "found money" much more easily than money they've earned. Also, people's warped thinking has led some to the idea that they are owed such money, and thusly we have the Occupy Wall Street protests.

That is messing up the American Dream. Owed money my a--erm, foot. How lazy and greedy can you get? Those of us who don't have jobs now are anxious looking for jobs and ways to earn and save money, and you (protesters) who probably have jobs to be doing or looking for are spending your time lobbying for that 1% to stop being greedy and let you in on the action? Selfish little--go look for job openings, fools.

What's worse is that once people get their easy money, they blow it on worthless things--their "American Dream". The Lincolns and Cadillacs and $XX million dollar houses. Nice dream. The money that the working- and/or lower-class ( most of us aren't really working now...) deserves or would like to work for is given to lazy bums and wasted, and it rarely comes to the lower-class at all. Our "dream" is a living nightmare of economic atrophy and wasteful idiots.

How does all that relate to The Great Gatsby? Allow me to point out that most of the setting in the story is set in wealthy places. New York, the city of lights; West Egg, where Nick Carraway lives between two huge estates and where Jay Gatsby throws extravagant parties almost every night; East Egg, across the way and where the even more wealthy live in palaces of white.

The very setting of The Great Gatsby showcases Americans' liberality, "living the dream" as it's often put. Gatsby is said to have inherited his money, and Tom and Daisy Buchanan were born into wealthy families; Exhibits A, B, and C of easy money. They live in houses that easily impress our Nick Carraway, who comes from a "well-to-do," or prosperous, family as well. However, seeing as Nick actually works, I wouldn't classify him as one of those who live an excessively lavish life.

I don't think there's anything more to say. The American Dream today is that of high-class and expensive materialistic things to some, and to others it's just to be comfortable again. To relate it to GeGa (my new pet name for The GrEat GAtsby), many of the characters in the story set in 1920 are just as bad as the 1% in today's world.

I don't like it. You can control dreams, right?

Why don't we change this one.

"But there's nothing greedy about corporations selling products, making a profit, creating jobs, paying employees, benefiting investors, and everyone in the chain paying taxes that fund entitlements, government and infrastructure. Absolutely nothing."