The Great Gatsby

As we watched the film version of The Great Gatsby in class, I was surprised to see how similar the movie was to the book. I thought Baz Luhrmann did a great job of adapting a beautifully written book into an intensely visual and emotional movie. The most important moments in the book were kept in the film, and I found that the changes Luhrmann made for the most part did not detract from the story.

I loved the fact that Luhrmann decided to put actual quotes from the book into the movie. This seems to be a common stylistic choice of his (see Romeo and Juliet.) The novel is filled with beautiful lines, so it was nice to see the movie give a nod to Fitzgerald's writing. I thought the quotes were embedded very well, and they all made sense in the context of what was happening.

One change that I noticed right away was Jordan's character. Jordan appears far more in the book than in the movie-- she even has a relationship with Nick throughout the duration of the novel. This was probably taken out for the sake of time, which I do not entirely mind, but I liked their relationship in the book. Or rather, I liked the fact that they had a relationship. I felt that their relationship gave Nick a little more characterization in the book and made him seem like less of a background character. I still thought that the movie was successful without this relationship, though, because Nick was involved with so many other characters.

Another change that I thought was interesting was that, in the movie, Nick became an alcoholic after the events of his summer in New York. This really showed the impact that his summer and Gatsby's death had on his mental state, which I found brought a new light to his character. The only thing that didn't make sense about this, though, was that the movie kept the line where Nick says, "I've only been drunk twice in my life." I'm not sure if this is an error or just suggesting that Nick is not telling the truth, but it's not really a big issue.

Maps Activity

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~200289~3000175:The-Cottage-Ornament-?sort=Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No_InitialSort

• Details all around the border of the map
• Pictures of people of different nationalities
• Portraits of European leaders
• Presidents
• Solar system
• Time differences between countries
• World map and map of America

This map stood out to me because of the amount of detail in the border. The actual map of the United States may not even be the main focus, because there is so much going on in this map. The parts that contribute most to the story being told of America are the two sections that show pictures of people from different nations around the world. These are interesting because they seem to be more “caricatures” of these nationalities, rather than accurate depictions. This would then lead to misconstrued views about different races among Americans. Another example was given of this in the text, when Babb writes, “Bradford’s early perceptions of Native Americans, which evolved into popular racial representations, are an illustration.” (p. 60) The American citizens’ views would be based on these drawings, whether they are accurate or not.

Social Mobility and the American Dream

Most of us, since we were young, have heard the catchphrase of the American Dream, "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." It is often said that America is the land of freedom and opportunity, where those with next to nothing can build themselves up to be millionaires, and even billionaires. A few examples that are often given are Oprah Winfrey, Steve Jobs, J.K. Rowling, and more. It is certainly possible for someone born into poverty to beat the odds and rise up on the economic ladder. However, these individuals tend to be the exceptions. Most people in the "land of the free" remain stuck in the social class they were born into for their entire lives.

Source D is a prime example of a person who believes in the American Dream without much evidence to back it up. The author, Yasmina Shaush, is a Ukrainian immigrant who claims that America is "a land where the self-made man is found on every corner... a land where wealth and social status do not inhibit one's potential." While I admire her optimism throughout her story, I do not find it very realistic. She seems to have a very limited perspective on the social class problems in the United States. Because Oprah Winfrey made it to the top, why can't everyone? The problem is, according to Source G, America is both highly unequal, and has especially low social mobility. What Shaush does not consider is that while "hard work and determination are vehicles for success," not everyone who works hard and has determination is successful. And this is not their fault, it is the fault of America's economy.

Source A gives more realistic approach to the debate about class issues and social mobility. The article begins by stating, "the children of the rich perform better in school, on average, than children from middle-class or poor families." There is an immense rich-poor gap in education and test scores, and it is about 40% higher than it was 30 years ago. Why is this? Most likely it is because families with more money can afford better education for their children. As stated in Source B, "clever children were siphoned into special schools and showered with resources." This fact offers an explanation for the low social mobility in America. The rich are given, through education, the opportunities they need to be successful. People living in poverty and lower social classes have less access to a good, solid education. They are then kept in lower-paying jobs, where they have little to no chance to rise up. For many of them, there is a good chance that they will be stuck with this for their entire lives, and the cycle will repeat for future generations.

It would be nice to say that America is a place where everyone who wants to succeed has the same opportunity to, but that is just not the reality of our country. Some people are given a better chance through their social class than others, and that is not something that can be ignored or overlooked.

Social Class

The Christian Science Monitor quiz gave me the result: Middling. The description is as follows: "Your habits and perspectives most resemble those of middle-class Americans. Members of this group tend to be gentle and engaging parents, and if they're native English speakers they probably use some regional idioms and inflections. Your people are mostly college-educated, and you're about equally likely to beg children not to shout "so loudly" as you are to ask them to "read slow" during story time. You're probably a decent judge of others' emotions, and either a non-evangelical Christian, an atheist, or an agnostic. A typical member of this group breastfeeds for three months or less, drinks diet soda, and visits the dentist regularly. If you're a member of this group, there's a good chance that you roll with the flow of technological progress and hate heavy metal music."
I agree with the results of this quiz. Almost all of the points that the quiz brought up about me were accurate. I have always considered my family to be middle class. Both of my parents make an average income and all of my family has been or will be college-educated. My brothers and I have also had access to a very good high school education. 
My experiences with class seem to be very different from the different texts that we've studied in class. My life is not filled with the glamour and swank of the characters in The Great Gatsby, but I do have privileges that many people, like the lower class family in People Like Us, don't have. I have never had to walk 10 and a half miles to get to work or school, and I have never felt embarrassment at my family's social class. This part of the documentary really opened my eyes to the problems facing people in the lower class in America. In reading the different texts, I have also learned how difficult it is to move up the economic ladder. Shadowy Lines That Still Divide shows how bad it really is. Mobility is incredibly low in America for the lower class, which means that the poor stay poor. And while this is true for the lower classes, in the upper classes, mobility is much easier. Ranks may open up in more elite positions, where only the well-connected members of the upper class know about them. This allows people with more money to move up the economic ladder further while people with less money are stuck at the bottom.

Sound and Fury

I found this documentary very thought-provoking. It brought up a lot of points about deafness that I had never considered before. It was interesting to see how the deaf family and hearing family each viewed deafness and deaf culture. I found it difficult to form a definitive opinion on whether it is right or wrong to give a deaf child a cochlear implant and raise it in the hearing world.

Peter and Nita were obviously happy with and proud of their deafness. They loved living in deaf culture and they wanted their family to live in it too. One of the strongest points that Peter, Nita, and other members of the deaf society made is that deafness cannot always be considered a handicap. They were happy with who they were and they had fully functioning lives in the hearing world. They felt that hearing was not necessary for them. They also repeatedly made the point that parents should love their children however they are born, even if they are deaf. The parents should not make the child to get a cochlear implant until he or she is old enough to make a comprehensive decision about it.

On the other hand, Chris and Mari, along with the other families who had children with cochlear implants, had many strong points as well. They believed that being able to hear would make the children's lives a lot easier, because the world does not typically cater to deaf people. It is much harder to find a good deaf school than a good hearing school, so deaf people sometimes do not get great educations. Another strong point that they made was that cochlear implants work the best when children are young. It is much easier for children to develop their language and speech than adults, who might never be able to fully learn how to speak. If a child waits too long to get the implant, it might be too late.

It is hard to say whether it is better to allow a deaf child to grow up deaf, or to give them an implant to make them hear. There are benefits and consequences of both. Many deaf people are proud of their deaf culture and they do not want it taken away from them, but the ability to hear will provide a person with many more opportunities in life. I'd say the best choice is to leave the decision up to the parents, who should be well educated on each stance, and up to the children who are born deaf.

Fear of Spiders

I love to read in my bed. It's warm and comfortable, but is it safe? Not always. Not when, as I turn the page of my book, I see a small dark shape float down in front of my face. When I realize it's a spider, I panic. I shriek, my heart flutters, and I smack the spider out of view. This leads to my next problem: the spider is somewhere in my bed. I stumble out, trying desperately to get away from the horrible creature. Obviously, I'll be sleeping on the couch for the next three days.

I don't understand why I am so afraid of spiders. I know they can't do anything to hurt me, but when I see them crawling around or freaking hanging in the air by their webs, I experience the telltale signs of fear: pounding heart, sweaty palms, short, fast breaths. They are gross and freaky. What are all those legs even for anyway?
Still, my fear is not crippling. I don't faint at the sight of spiders. I'm just wary of them. I try not to be in the same room as them, if I can help it. As long as I have a friend around to squish them or bring them outside or something, I'll be okay.

Assange, Manning, and Snowden

Many people consider Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden to be heroes. Others consider them to be traitors. All three of these people have leaked secret government information to the public, and thus have been accused of espionage and treason. The question that many Americans are asking themselves is: Was it right for these documents to be released, or is it potentially dangerous?

I think the answer to this depends on the circumstances. The First Amendment protects the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of press. These rights are given to us to keep the government from hiding secrets from the public. We definitely have the right to know if the government is committing war crimes or being corrupt. The TED Talks video showed a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad that killed two journalists. Especially now, at a time when the media are more concerned with Miley Cyrus’s VMA’s performance that with what the government is doing in secret, it is important for us to get important information from sites such as Wikileaks.

There is a line that can be crossed, though. Wikileaks and other reporters need to be careful about what information they release. In the article Can the U.S. Bring Assange to Justice? it is stated that one of the leaks “contain[ed] the names of Afghan civilians cooperating with the United States. This can be dangerous for anyone who is named and those close to them. Reports like this should be kept censored so no one can get hurt.

As American citizens, we have the right to know what our government is doing. We should not have secrets kept from us, so for the most part I believe that Assange, Manning, and Snowden are heroes. They do need to be careful, though, of the information they release. Anything that could be dangerous to those involved should be kept secret, or at least censored, so it does not fall into the wrong hands.