The Elites

Kyle Petras

2/27/16

Gubanich

Blog #5

The Elites

In history, there have been people that have wowed us to the extent of being put in textbooks. They have shown their science breakthroughs, their amazing journeys, and their extreme wealth. There are specific types of elites. The ones who pushed the limits and the ones that seek money for fame. These people have different in that they represent two separate ideals. In this blog, I am going to delve deeper into a quote given to us in an article. I am going to see how her “idea of the current culture mirrors the culture in Brave New World”.

Marie Curie, John F. Kennedy and Neil Armstrong were people who pushed the boundaries of mankind. From innovations to going where no man has ever gone before. These people changed the world. Marie Curie was a chemist and physicist from Poland and France. She discovered the x-ray and researched into radioactivity. She was also the first woman to receive a Nobel Peace Prize, twice. John F Kennedy was president of the United States. In 1963, he was assassinated in Dallas. His presidency only lasted from 1961 to 1963. And lastly, there is Neil Armstrong. Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. He gave his famous speech, “ One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”. These 3 people broke the boundaries of the world. Nice people left great legacies and are remembered for what they did.

On the other hand there are three other people. Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. These are the people that are remembered for their great achievements. Bill Gates begin a company called Microsoft. He is now known as the richest man in the world. Rupert Murdoch began The News Corporation. He also became director of Australia's news Limited. Lastly there is Mark Zuckerberg who created Facebook. All three of these people have billions of dollars. These people changed the world around them. Their wealth equals power and fame. We know Gates, Zuckerberg and Murdoch because of their great achievements.

There were some words in the article that were more sophisticated than the others. They were relevance, myopic, and narcissistic. Relevance means that there is something important to the matter at hand. Myopic means nearsighted or lacking imagination. And narcissistic means having an excessive or erotic interest in yourself. So, when the quote says “myopic success”, it means that that a person focusses on one thing to be successful. “Showers of narcissistic applause” means that someone lives for people to worship them and bawl over how good they are.

A line shot out to me as being interesting. “Results sometimes came to overshadow the deeper cause”. The author is talking about the results of the causes of Gates, Murdoch and Zuckerberg. The results of these people are large companies that bring in millions and billions of dollars. The author talks about a deeper cause and that is what Curie, Kennedy and Armstrong did. The deeper cause is that there were people who didn’t live off of billions and still did amazing things in the world. The results overshadow the causes because fame and money is everything in this day and age. People look at the Jenners and see how they have so much money, when Malala is creating a school for girls in the middle east.

“Our moral compass points towards money”. This means that humans are wired and build to love the idea of money and fame. “More rocks, less moonlight” means that the more achievements you make that are actually good for the world, the less limelight will be shown on you. This whole quote has a message and I think it is, you don’t have to have all the money in the world to be an achievable person. If people looked past the fame and beauty and saw the deeper meaning, I think this world would be a very different place.

Decisions

Kyle Petras

2/21/16

Gubanich

Western Literature

Decisions

As we read on in Brave New World, we have discovered a new place, the savage reservation. It is wildly different than the new world state. The people are different and the practices are different. All is unfamiliar to Lenina and Bernard when they arrive. Huxley must have put this in the book for a reason. To give a new view or take on what life could have looked like. Or even foreshadowing what may happen to Lenina and Bernard. So that is what I am going to investigate in the blog.

Upon arriving at the savage reservation, Lenina is confused and really doesn’t like it. A ceremony is held and after it, Lenina was truly horrified. This “new world” is a polar opposite of the new world state. The two meet a young man named John, whose mother was originally from London. This world is completely foreign to both Lenina and Bernard. Huxley, I believe included this because he wanted a glimpse of hope for Bernard, another option for his future away from London. I think he did it primarily for Bernard. Someplace where he would feel normal. Where he could feel true romantic love.

Now to switch to characters, there is connection. All four seem to be similar. Bernard and Linda were the outcasts, and Lenina and John seem to be the more outgoing and adventurous couple. I think Huxley paired these four people together was to give a side of both worlds. He wanted to show the same perspective, but from different eyes. This offers a connection from two different places and two different sets of people. He wanted to give hope and a sense of fitting in for both Lenina and John, and Linda and Bernard.

Huxley’s worlds have some people that are not so different. His “new world”, the savage reservation, treats people that are different badly and only thinks about the people that are normal. Huxley wanted to show a glimmer of hope for specific characters to feel. He wanted a connection to people that felt like true love. His attempt at creating this connection come across loud and clear in my view.

Dystopian Protagonist

Kyle Petras

2/15/16

Gubanich

Western Lit.

Blog #5

Both 1984 and Brave New World, there are dystopian connections. To go even deeper, there are dystopian protagonist connections. Both stories share a main protagonist, Winston from 1984, and Bernard from Brave New World. There are connections from their emotions to their interactions in society. Both live and take place in a futuristic society, and the cool thing is, both authors wrote them in the past. So, in both stories it is interesting to see how they interpret the future. Now, to get into more detail about the protagonists, lets talk about Winston and Bernard and their connections.

In 1984 and Brave New World, both societies take place in the future. Winston and Bernard are the main protagonists of each story. Both see their worlds differently. Winston overthinks things and is curious of things that happen behind the scenes, and Bernard seems to be annoyed and gloomy wanting to break free from his world. Both seem like they want to rebel. In both societies, there is a higher being. In 1984, there is big brother, and in Brave New World, there is Ford. The two protagonists are seen as weird in their societies. They both are the “outcast”. They are odd and in a sense rebellious.

Winston and Bernard both have a “love interest” or woman who goes along with them. Winston has Julia and Bernard has Lenina. Both ladies follow behind Winston and Bernard through the stories. There is also a loving relationship between both.

There are many connections between both characters. They both live in dystopian societies in the future. They both want to leave or rebel against their governments and break free. They are also both seen as strange and odd. These connections boil down to the definition of a dystopian protagonist.

All Over the Place

Kyle Petras

2/7/16

Gubanich

Western Lit.

Blog #2

All Over the Place

In chapter three, there are three story lines going on at the same time. The text abruptly changes to another story at random times. You will be reading a line and in the middle of the sentence, it will change to another character talking. This type of writing isn’t seen in many stories. It’s an odd choice that Huxley made. Honestly, I could see this type of text as a movie. Going back and forth between characters and all that. But this is not movie talk. This is book talk.

So, I believe Huxley did this because he wanted the reader to feel some way. He wanted the feeling of busy things happening, something looming. A lot of this happens behind the scenes in this world. The creation of life for example. When Mustapha Mond is talking to the director, the reader is suddenly cut off with another story. This creates suspense and a curiosity. When Lenina’s story is being told, it is also suddenly cut off, making the reader want to learn more. This style of writing is unique that it interests the reader to be annoyed, yet eager to read more.

The pace of the chapter is odd as well. In the beginning, the paragraphs are lengthy and explain much more. As the chapter progresses, the paragraphs get shorter and shorter. By the end, each section of story line is only a line or two. I believe that Huxley did this to create a gradually more exciting chapter. He wanted something to be anticipated by the end. By doing this, he created three storylines that all had the same pace. The reader was anticipating where the story would end up.

As each story progresses, each set of characters change. To start, Lenina and fanny begin on a good note. As they begin to talk and discuss Henry, Fanny encourages her to stop seeing Henry and see other people. Lenina mentions Bernard Marx. Fanny warns her that he has a bad reputation. The chapter ends on a darker note than it began. Switching to Mustapha Mond’s story, the director is talking to his tour group about the children in the garden when Mond starts talking to them. He talks about how what the children do in the garden used to be frowned upon back in the day. The same thing happens in this story as with Fanny’s. Henry’s is very similar in that he and Bernard begin talking and he gets mad at Henry. All end on not happy notes. So, this is why I think Huxley wrote this chapter this way.