Against "Against Work"

            Long story short - I didn’t have much fun reading this essay.  The author talks often about how Americans work more hours than Europeans.  He talks about this like it is a bad thing.  I look at this fact and see a specific trend.  Americans also produce more.  When you think about it, in the earlier days of civilization people worked solely to live.  If they did not go hunting or grow food, they died.  Ever since then work has wandered from this way of life, but the end goal is still the same.  Clausen paints a world in which everyone sits around at a beach-side resort wasting the day away.  His view on this subject seems completely the opposite of human nature.  If nobody worked, then there would be no way to live either.  I think this piece boils down to one main point; people want to get without giving anything first.  But I will try and talk about the writing styles and such in this piece.

            Now onto what I believe Clausen did well in his writing.  I felt really pulled into his story about his work experience.  I could imagine everything he wrote about due to his great detail.  He talks about the changing of words like “workaholic” from a bad thing to good.  I agree with him on this.  The idea of someone doing their best for an employer is nearly revered in America, especially in situations when the employee does not see any personal benefit in it.  Clausen sees the world a little differently.  He has a very negative (depending on one’s perspective) view of work habits.  He says that most people basically try to avoid working any more than is required.  I just don’t think this is true.  I think that there are people with personalities that cause them to want to get things done, and that these people are generally successful.  It seems to me that Clausen would applaud this, because that person would be doing what fulfills them personally.  But he just doesn’t express this view.  What I see from this story is that our author is the kind of person that he describes in his writing, and he writes his piece as if everyone is just like him.  It seems to be an arrogant way to look at the world.

Research Plan post

In our group, we are going to examine Native Alaskan storytelling.  This topic seemed broad enough to allow us to find plenty of information, while still narrowing the subject down enough. 

We are contacting Lance Twitchell to get some insight on the more obscure facts.  There are a lot of these little things because most of these stories are only told orally, so having someone that has researched in-depth on the topic will help us to better understand our topic. 

My part in our group is to research the aspects of tradition within the storytelling.  This subject basically overlies the other subjects, as the tradition is basically the heart of our topic.  I am also going to assist Jake in the formatting of the page, and adding the content.  I’m looking forward to this experience as I have never edited or created any content on Wikipedia.

In my preliminary research, I could not find any information solely on the “tradition” of Native Alaskan storytelling.  The information I found was more specific, but it will still help form our end product.

Dolphin

            What can I say about The Cove?  Well, first of all, I’m not a big fan of the main (character doesn’t seem to fit)…guy.  He seems to be quite impressed with himself in general.  I just do not like his attitude.  That’s not really about the movie though; it’s more of a personal opinion of another person.  The Cove attempts to unveil the secretive dolphin hunting in Taiji Japan.  There were a lot of shocking scenes and testimonials in the movie that made the emotional impact very strong. 

            The movie has a very one-sided view of the topic.  The only times you see the Japanese point of view is when they are stuffing cameras into the faces of board members and things like that.  Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t really like the idea of killing dolphins but I don’t like watching a single-perspective documentary either.

            The movie makers do certain things to elicit outrage and make their side look better.  If you stormed into a meeting at a business and started showing pictures and sharing information, they would probably be angry and want you out.  This makes one side look like criminals and scoundrels, whether they are or not.  These kinds of tactics do not give an honest look into both sides’ perspectives.

            The “Trojan horse” comment is a brilliant explanation of this movie.  The movie is a documentary, so it serves a factual purpose, but it has enough action and suspense to keep viewers interested.  I’ll admit I had to look into some other reviews to come up with this idea, but it is intriguing nonetheless.

            In a culture that is very different from our own, many ideals do not apply.  In India, cows are a sacred animal and are not eaten, whereas in America the cow is a staple of many people’s diet.  Koreans and the Chinese eat dog meat.  And in some cases we feed cow meat to our dogs.  It’s a crazy little circle.  These kind of cultural differences apply between any two separate groups.  The point I am trying to make is that what is taboo for one culture may be perfectly acceptable in another.  Therefore we cannot judge based on cultural practices.  The Japanese people have lived off of the sea for a long time, and I doubt that one movie will change that.

            Now this same argument could be used in reverse to show that some cultural practices, like stoning or human sacrifices, are wrong no matter how you look at it.  And that is a fair argument as well.  But the main difference that I would like to point out is that the previous arguments are about food sources for the people.  This makes the two arguments incomparable to me.

            The Cove did well as both a movie and a documentary, and it was exciting to watch.  I still don’t like that main guy though.

Disneyfied? Going Native

                Initially I had trouble reading this work.  At first glance, this piece seemed to jump all over the place.  As I looked over it again, I started to see a pattern in the writing.  After this, I was able to understand what was going on in the essay.  My personal relation to Francine Prose’s writing is a different story.

                Francine Prose seems to have a pessimistic view our culture.  She talks about how many people try to adopt another culture without actually living by the ways of that culture.  According to her, these people “who attend regional powwows and decorate their homes with images representing a sort of airbrushed, mythical, Disneyfied version of the Native American Experience” try to make themselves feel better about their self image.  Prose describes this as a sort of cosmetic surgery for the brain, because nothing changes except the appearance. 

                Maybe I didn’t get the context of the beginning of this essay, but to me it seems like the author switches gears somewhere in the middle.  She begins by discrediting those that try to adopt another culture, but then describes her own experience of doing so.  I felt that this was a little hypocritical, like Prose felt that she was different from those people that she described earlier in the piece.   Or is it that she intentionally leads the reader down this thought path?  She could be taking the reader along the journey of how the average person sees those who choose to partake in a culture that is not their own.  I am more likely to see it as the first situation because that is what jumped out at me as I read.

                I have a problem with Prose’s idea that culture is a destiny.  She describes the life of Lafcadio Hearn, who never feels correct or at peace until he moves to Japan.  Her view of our place in the world is too absolute for my taste.  I prefer to think of culture as how you got to where you are, not as determining where you will go.  I believe that each person adapts differently to their surroundings, and that some people do better in more scenarios, but we are by no means tied to one way of life. 

                I guess what it all comes down to is Prose’s dislike of the “melting pot” ideal.  She has a very individualistic “I’m special because I’m different” feel to her writing, and I just don’t relate.  I think that in our society today, we focus on how we are different from each other, rather than how we are alike.  Prose’s position on the subject bothers me in this respect.

I never want to learn French...

            This excerpt from Me Talk Pretty One Day, by David Sedaris, is hard to read the right way.  I did not understand most of the context and tone until we listened to the passage read aloud in class.

Many sarcastic remarks in this story went over my head.  A good example of this is the "mosquito" conversation.  When read by Sedaris, the teacher is clearly mocking the student, whereas when I read the same words I thought the teacher was serious about her comment.  For the first few paragraphs the teacher seemed to be fairly nice, but this was not the case as far as Sedaris is concerned.  This is kind of the story of my entire experience with Sedaris' piece.

I think that this passage really only works when it is read aloud.  The tone of voice used is so important that if perceived the wrong way the entire story is changed.  I still came away with the black and white message of the breakthrough with learning a new language, but there were no deeper levels for me.

I picked up on so much more the second time when I heard the story read by the author.  Sedaris speaks in a slightly scared tone of voice, which adds new light to the story.  He sounds almost sheepish and sensitive.  The underlying sarcasm and satire are brought to the surface mainly because of the way he reads the sentences.  This is most evident when people in the class are called upon to talk about themselves.  The author jokingly makes a comment about the fact that nobody knows the exact vocabulary needed to convey their thoughts.  Then when called upon, the author mispronounces parts of his own speech and says that he loves typewriters and his floor waxer.

From Sedaris' point of view, everything the teacher says is loaded with disdain and sarcasm.  He humorously compares the teacher to a wild animal that could strike at any moment.  Sedaris also seems scared of upsetting her.  I do not know how true his perception of the teacher is, but I think this view tells a lot about Sedaris.  Maybe he is generally an intimidated person and this teacher was nothing out of the ordinary, or maybe she was really a wild animal.  He makes the teacher seem much meaner than I had previously thought, but also speaks with a sense of respect for her.  The author relays the feeling that through being tough on the class, the teacher helps them to succeed.

I think that this was the real message that Sedaris wanted his audience to take in.  Through her teaching style the teacher essentially forced her students to dive completely into their work or face ridicule.  While he did not like to take part in it, the author seems grateful to the teacher now that it is over.

Museum Post

The above image was taken of A.W. Brody’s “Guardians of the Valley.”  It is located in the Rose Berry Alaska Art Gallery upstairs in the Museum of the North.

There is a lot going on in the painting that probably is not visible in the picture that I took.  From a distance, it looks like a painting of some grass and rocks.  But upon further inspection, there is a great amount of detail in every shape.  Each separate element of the picture fades into another.  The grass thins as it climbs up the mountains, as the land flattens out there are fewer rocks, and the mountains in the background are engulfed by the clouds.  This aspect creates a nice balance, as if the valley is in sync.

The “guardians” part of the painting takes a minute to recognize.  In both the grass and the mountainside there are distinct shapes and faces.  Even the valley itself points towards a distinct figure in the clouds that seems to be watching over the land.  To me, it seems like the shape in the cloud reigns supreme over the others.  This figure is higher up and larger than the others, and has the most distinguishable shape.  This was the first shape I saw, probably as a result of these factors.  If the painting was called “Guardian of the Valley,” then I could accept that the only figure is in the clouds.  But since the artist fairly bluntly hints that there are more shapes hidden, I keep looking for more.

As I looked at this painting, I kept noticing more levels within it.  The grass is not all one color, or a uniform length.  The rocks are sometimes in formations and other times they are randomly scattered.  The sky is dissected into two main pieces by the pillar of clouds that hosts (or is) the figure in the air.  I do not believe that this was just for the aesthetics of the landscape.  I think that everything in this painting has a meaning to it, possibly alluding to the title.

This piece was the most attention-capturing for me.  I love the use of shades in the grass and the brush strokes that make up the mountains.  Looking at this painting made me feel calm and peaceful.  I still do not really know if I perceive this piece correctly, but I really liked making an attempt.

Places

Okay, so we braved the (kinda) cold to walk to a viewpoint last week.  The first thing I noticed as I looked out over the valley was the color of the sunrise.  A yellow-orange glow bursts over the horizon behind the distant clouds.  These clouds do not look normal though.  They are uncharacteristically three dimensional.  Normally in Fairbanks clouds are very flat and boring, but the sunrise brings this quality to the eye’s attention.  As my eyes pan downward from the sky, civilization comes into sight.  Chimneys belch smoke and cars sit motionless in the parking lot, bringing a great balance to the overall picture: invention mixed with nature.  Buildings eclipse parts of the horizon, but add their own beauty as a testament to man’s triumph over unlivable conditions.  Some might not agree that these buildings are just as natural as the trees and snow.  But how is this different from a beaver’s dam or a bird’s nest?  Since my sources tell me that concrete and steel come from the earth and not some distant planet, they seem quite natural to me.

Now we walk on to the Wood Center.  My first though upon opening the door is “this building seems highly inefficient, and the ceiling is crooked!”  It looks as though the builders dropped the top piece there accidentally and decided that it was close enough.  But wasteful as it seems to have room for an entire floor and only put a solitary table, the shape serves a good purpose.  It brings a new element into an otherwise cubic building.  The diagonal roof and curved concrete supports contrast the right angles of other areas in the building.  From the top of the “tower table” there is a different view of the entire building. It is almost like you could turn the building upside down and have roughly the same shape, but it might make a big mess.

Now we travel back in time to my childhood home.  In my head I play a kind of “virtual tour” of the entire house; The red door opening into the living room, the nasty brown carpet, the rubber marks on the kitchen linoleum from indoor roller blade excursions.  All of my memories of this house are played out in my head as if I was eighteen when I lived there.  I cannot remember being little there, I just have ageless memories.  Some of these memories are like when I took apart the door knob to my room and could not put it back together.  I obviously did this as a child, but no matter how much I think about it I do not feel like I was young when it happened.  Maybe this is simply BECAUSE I try to think about it, keeping the memory growing with me over the years.  Oh well...

For me, home is the people I am with more than a certain town or house.