Metamorphosis 1

Metamorphosis #1

Kafka is torn in two directions in Kafka by Steven Soderbergh. The force of habit opposes the force of reason. The secrets of the Castle can not be ignored, and Kafka is finally forced to do something about it.
In the beginning of the movie Kafka just stays home and ignores the revolutionaries. He wants no part of their fight. He says that he has no reason to distrust the authorities. He has a common problem. Many people have the mistaken belief that they are unaffected by other’s problems.
As so often happens, Kafka’s problems become intertwined with the revolutionaries during the attack at his apartment. Another obedient man kills his friends. The brothers come for him and try to take him to the Castle. He knows that he has to do something after his rescue. There is no one else that can do it. Everyone needs to feel that responsibility at some point in their life.
Therefore, this conflict of emotions shows one of the themes. The movie shows how society can only be changed by action. Society can not be changed by staying home on the couch. Additionally, we have to help others so that there will be someone left to help us. Steven Soderbergh showed us that we can change our world and that sometimes we have to even when we don’t want to.
Even though Kafka doesn’t want to get involved, the secrets of the Castle compel him to take action. Steven Soderbergh uses Kafka to show the audience that awareness and action are needed in life. Evil will never triumph as long as good men take action. Will you do your part?

Kafka

I am not sure exactly how my perspective on the Metamorphosis has changed. I try to distance the story from the author. After the movie, it became harder to do that. It was obvious that Kafka was both sick and a whiner. The movie showed how Kafka would take little things in his mind and blow them out of proportion until the truth was obscured. He took the dredge of his family and his work life and wrote it down into the Metamorphosis. It is for this reason that I don't feel that he is a genius, or even pretty good. His book is just a linguistic complaint about life and how terrible it is and what a drag his family is on him. It is well written, but even Hitler's speech are long and beautifully composed complaints. Complaints have become increasingly more common since the fall of man in the garden.
The moral is that life is one big rat race where everyone scrambles to make as much money as they can. He shows how pathetic humanity has become. He feels that everyone is just trying to take advantage of everyone else. This is especially true for families. Kafka's experiences with his own father make him feel that families are no longer places of love or security. The parents just want to use their children as workers. The same is true of the other human Institutions. The companies and governments can only surcice and thrive by using the labors of the common people. They no this. So they try and keep the men down so that they can keep on living. Kafka's time in the accounting firm, which he blames on his parents, is the basis of his belief that humanity has been subjected into a permanent working role in modern society. This is contrary to what god wanted, and what he believes. He knows that now humanity is just one more species of draft animal, but that they should be something more.
The glorified work horse can be seen between the similarities between Kafka and Gregor. Gregor is forced into working for a company that he doesn't like because of the debts of his family, a feeling that mirrors Kafka's belief that his family could have kept him out of the insurance office. Both our godless men who still have a basic belief in the rights of man and that men have at least a higher purpose than money. If I were to write an AP question it would be; Sometimes Authors use their characters as cameos. Show how Gregor is a representation of Kafka and the time perriod inwhich he lived.

WHy the future really doesn't need us

1. Joy’s thesis is that current technologies could become so advanced that humans could lose control of them, and the survival of the human species could be endangered.

2. Joy suggested two different techniques for avoiding humans becoming obsolete or unnecessary. He theorized on either complete government control of development or scientists voluntarily slowing down research until safe guards could be developed. Both involve slowing down the development of these three technologies.

3. I think that Huxley would not believe the world destruction scenario. He would believe that the government would take control of the development before it got too out of hand.

4. One rhetorical strategy that Joy used was asking questions that the readers had to answer for themselves. He tries to involve the reader’s emotions. His arguments are very logical and demand to be listened to.

5. I think that Joy was a fear monger. Fear can be a powerful motivator. Fear is an appropriate emotion to use since the topic is the survival of the human race.

6. Joy uses several literary devices. He refers to specific historic and science fiction examples. He also uses outside conversations to give credit to his own theories.

7. One connection to Brave New World is government control of science for the greater good. This is a reality in the Brave New World, but Joy talks about is as an option to save the human race, (see 2.) Both the essay and the novel acknowledge how powerful science can be and what destruction it can cause. In Brave New World science only threatens social stability, but the government still views that as a danger.

Harrison Bergeron

I think that Vonnegut is satirizing society's issues with equality. People these days are so worried about how everyone is treated and not offending people that they don't develop their own potential. This story argues for letting every thing happen naturally and let everything develop on it's own. This story is told as if an observer was showing us about the future. This is more effective because it is able to use a tone that is not very serious. If the story was told from Harrison Bergeron's point of view Vonnegut would not have been able to show how the normal people, his parents, reacted to sadness and affliction.

The ones that walked away from Omelas

1. The reading was boring at first, but that made the punch at the end just so much more powerful. I read it and thought, "Wow, I hope that I would just walk away." I did not appreciate the fact that LeGuin insisted that no clergy lived in the town, or that people had sex as some kind of religious experience.

2. This piece tied in nicely with 1984. It expanded on the theme of individuals taking action. These actions were even more encouraging because only one person was being mistreated, and everyone else was happy. They took action eventhough there was no mass executions, no tyranny and no deprevations. It also showed that no gesture is too small too make a difference.

3. The author teased the reader a lot. She gave only a hint of detail, just enough to let you make assumptions. Also, the author did not give away her impact too early. She waited until the very end, and then dropped the bomb. Another way she increased the power of the impact was to end almost as soon as she finished delivering her message.

4.
1. Do you think that the little girl in the closet is meant to symbolize one specific person in history, or is she just included to show how some people will not tolerate any injustices?

2. Will walking away actually change anything?

3. Do you think that there are any other socitieis that "the ones who walked away" could join, or will they have to make their own?

4. How does keeping the little girl/boy in the closet keep all evil out of society? Would this actualy work in real life?

5. Would you like to live in Omelas? Why or why not?

Why the future doesn't need us

1. What are the Luddites and what do they stand for?

2. Should the Genetics and nanotechnology and robotics be controlled more than nuclear tecnologies?

3. Are any of the control options for the GNR weapons actually feasible. Why or why not?

4. Will transferring our concience in to robot bodies actually grant humans immortality, or will it be different than actually living.

5. Would it be possible to erect a shield to protect against all of these different threats?

6. Do these technologies present to dangerous a threat or do they have enough benefits to be worth continuing?

7. Is it possible that in the future men will be replaced by robots?

Goals

1. My top three choices for College are Yaler University, Dallas Theological seminary and MIT

2. I want my average GPA to be a 4.0 this year

3. I want my AP tests to be all 5's, as an actual goal