Default Settings - Off

In class we looked at David Foster Wallace's speech "This is Water", and spent a large portion of class time picking it apart and analyzing very small details. However, along with the intricate details in the piece, we also were able to find the main purpose in the speech quite easily. Wallace's purpose is to encourage the graduates to utilize their liberal art education when thinking about a sometimes mundane life, and not allow themselves to sink back into their "default settings". This speech is extremely insightful and inspiring, in an unconventional way. Sadly, the brilliant speaker himself committed suicide in 2008. He was suffering from serious depression he had been battling for about 20 years. This very sad occurrence gives a whole new aspect to the speech however; it just goes to show that old cliché "easier said than done" is ultimately true. Like so many clichés Wallace spoke of in his speech. It can be very very difficult to switch your mind from its "default settings", but this does not mean people should stop trying to accomplish it. I think it is very fitting that David Foster Wallace's death can represent a cliché, especially since it is one that teaches us about our own minds. Even though struggle will always exist and we cannot force a minds out of their continuous loop all the time, it's important to still try. To try to change our thoughts from default to possibly customize.

Don't Panic! It's Not Crisis Time Yet

This phrase is quietly hilarious and ironic. After these two simple words slip (or lets be honest, are shouted) from a person's lips, every person in earshot blood pressure shoots up, their bodies tense, and they are ready to pounce on whatever threat is coming their way. The phrase DON'T PANIC breeds almost instant hysteria. Seeing those words in caps probably even made you a little more stressed. This phrase comes with good intentions however, for there truly is never a good time to panic. Ever. Panic just creates more problems. This is something I think Thomas Paine knew, while writing The Crisis he let the troops know that he knew what intense hardships they were going through and how he also saw how bleak the situation looks. However, instead of saying something as short sighted as don't panic he gave the men and country one of the best pep talks ever written. Reassuring them that their ploy is righteous and they are nobler men for taking on such a challenge. What should be taken from this today is, instead of saying the loaded phrase don't panic, say something along the lines of, we can do this.

Admit It, We All Love To Hate Her

Abigail Williams. What are horrible, godforsaken, coldhearted girl. One who deserves no pity or sympathy on account of all her actions. And she was given none of the above from my class. Everyone had an opinion on her character (None of which were positive) and the feelings in the room radiated a range of pure irritation to absolute hatred. So if talking about Abigail just creates frustration and anger, why do we do it? Because every story needs a villain. A bad guy, an antagonist, someone so outside the normal realm of humanity that all we can do is stand back and gape at them. Without these shocking characters there would be no story, no conflict. To relate to the world outside The Crucible, I believe Miley Cyrus demonstrates this effect beautifully. Though she is not putting up people to hang, she is still putting a very harsh imprint on todays youth. From going from sweet country girl to punk twerker, she can represent Abigail's shift from innocent village girl in love with John Proctor to an unfeeling sociopath. By giving Miley all this confrontational and negative publicity the public is keeping her famous or alive. Just as by talking about how horrible Abigail is, we keep her and The Crucible alive.

 

Psycho Killer

Abigail from the Crucible has turned out to be a manipulative, coldhearted character. She lies to everyone out of vengeance and to advance herself in society. She shows no remorse for her actions even though she has already gotten over a dozen people hanged, just by crying witch. I think the song "Psycho Killer" by the Talking Heads describes her as an individual very well (Her being the psycho killer). It also speaks to the feeling of panic and anxiety in Salem.

 

The song repeats "Run run away", this represents how the people being prosecuted feel. For they are being falsely accused, but with no way to remedy their supposed actions without confessing. Proctor's view can also be very well represented in this song. The band sings, "You're talking a lot, but you're not saying anything". This is how Proctor feels about the accusers because the claim all these facts without having any evidence what so ever. As for Abigail, like the song title "Psycho Killer" she is a murderer. But without her there would not be a play, as there would not be a song without a title.



So wait.. How angry is He?

The most interesting (and most controversial) piece I think we read in class was Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". The bulk of this sermon was focused on the ever looming threat of Hell and God's willingness to exploit it. This is where I pose a question. Is God an angry being? Is his power designed to threaten those who believe in him? There are many opinions that try to satisfy this problem, ranging from Edwards belief that God's wrath is endless to people who believe God would never harm a living thing. This sermon when spoken back then frightened a lot of people, some to the point of suicide, but now when read people may step back and question a lot of it. Who gets to decide how angry God is? Where does this authority come from? An interesting thought, and it does not just apply to God. Even in small quarrels between children, how does one know how angry the other is? The simple answer, they cannot. Anger like truth and fiction, is based on perception. No one can say how angry another person is without being in their minds, in their very beings. So how angry is God? Society will never know for sure as a whole, but each and every individual decides how angry or not God is based on their faith and connection with him. The link below is to a very interesting article about how the world views God. Read it and find out which percent you fall under, or if you view God in a different light.

http://www.charismamag.com/spirit/spiritual-growth/16922-god-is-not-mad-at-you

To Wield or Not to Wield, THAT is the Question

Power struggle has always been a popular topic. Especially between political candidates, or even countries. But this power struggle is not an external one that you can see. This power struggle takes place within everyone, battling with themselves for how much power the will use and can handle. I think of this eternal internal battle, when asked the question how much power does an individual wield? This vague question about humanity has many correct answers. In the novel, The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien, the author explores this all most impossible to answer question in a multitude of ways. One way to look at an individuals power is shown through the chapter "The Man I Killed". Power is shown in its simplest form, one man's power to take another man's life. O'Brien writes, "I was afraid of him- afraid of something- and as he passed me on the trail I threw a grenade that exploded at his feet and killed him" (O'Brien 125). It was so simple, physically, for O'Brien to kill this man, just a flick of his wrist and the threat is gone. In this moment, O'Brien chose to use or wield his power, even though mentally after he was a wreck for destroying another living person. Another way the author portrays an individuals power is through the character Jimmy Cross. In the chapter "In the Field", Jimmy Cross places his troops in a "shit field" (O'Brien 158) and Kiowa dies. Some readers may argue that it was not Cross' fault, because "the order had come from higher" (O'Brien 157). But, that very statement represents Cross' use of his individual power. Cross chose not to wield it and cost a life. Now if  Cross went against higher orders, would have been consequences? Quite likely. But, Kiowa would have probably survived that night. Both O'Brien and Cross chose to when to wield or withhold their internal power. In both circumstances there are consequences. This is what makes power tricky. How does a person decide when it is good time to use it? Who is so in control that they will know the outcome of the destruction power can lead to? The answer? No one. So how much power does an individual wield? A lot, they just chose when they want to show it.