This is a response to Aaron Wang's blog, which can be found following this link. http://tralfamadoriansrus.wordpress.com/
At first glance of Aaron's blog, it immediately attracts your attention from the contrasting dark background to the interesting, neon-like coloured banner. After that, if you scroll down, you can see an image of a supposed Tralfamadorian along with the prayer that Billy framed in his office and on the necklace of Montana Wildhack. Personally, I enjoy dark backgrounds with words that aren't very vibrant for it makes it much easier to read posts and it is a lot easier on the eyes, which is one of the main reasons why my blog is like that and why I chose Aaron's blog to respond to(along with his ideas, of course). Some more visually appealing things on Aaron's blog is the presence of some videos and images, which help aid the viewer to visualize what Aaron is writing about, or just to relate something to. For me, I personally like to keep things tidy and classy, therefore my blog looks very humble and lacks any of those interesting things. Now onto some analysis of Aaron's writing.
Dear Dr. Seuss…
I agree that parents make up a large majority of people who push towards the banning of certain products. Parents tend to shelter their children from the harsh realities of this world, something I respect, but believe that banning inappropriate things is not the solution. Of course, if I were a parent, I wouldn't want my children developing the wrong way as a child, but I would understand that banning isn't the best course of action. Instead of banning things that could "possibly" affect your child, why don't you prevent them from watching it or making contact with these things? If you ban something, you're ruining it for the whole group of people, especially those who do not mind content and can tolerate it. There are reasons why they have labels on certain products stating what age groups they're for. If your child just played a violent video game, please don't go and try to ban it. It was your fault for buying it for them or not monitoring what they spend their money on. I agree with your statement "Are you going to hide your child from certain realities in the world, telling them that there is no such thing as communism or massacres?" This world isn't a nice place. Sooner of later, your child is going to grow up and be pit against other people to survive in this harsh world, whether it be in the business part of our world of the social part of it. All you are doing is inhibiting the growth of your child. I also agree with what Aaron said about TV shows and videos. If you really want to put an effort into protecting your child, aim your lawsuits and problems at those things first, not books. Also, Aaron's sooo right... What kind of kid reads books anyways? Aaron also makes a really good point in that if we were to censor all the inappropriate materials in offensive books, we end up with similar pieces of work. What's so unique about a book is that it was written by a person with their very own ideas, each piece being different due to its own themes and content. As well, if we remove the inappropriate books and ban them, we are left with only a selective group of material for readers. It is clearly not fair to keep certain things and allow the public to access it while other pieces of works become inaccessible. Finally, Aaron's comment on just putting a book down and walking away if you don't want to read it is what I would like people to do, but sadly it doesn't happen. It is because people don't want others to read it(in the case of parents) which is why they end up wanting to ban things. But what's ironic is that the person who wants the thing(let's say book in this case) must have read it first to develop an understanding of why they want it to banned. So is it fair for someone to read something, finding it to be inappropriate and wanting to ban it? I don't think so. I think you should let the reader decide on their own for themselves. I might find something worth banning, and you might not. Who are you to decide the rest of society can't enjoy it?
Knowledge = No Knowledge?
Knowledge is a useful tool like you said Aaron and by furthering your knowledge, you further increase your ability to complete certain tasks(like upgrading your screwdriver with more add-ons... like LAZERBEAMS). I agree with your thoughts on more knowledge equals more questions. Through our knowledge of how certain things work in this world, we end up having more questions that go beyond to why and how THOSE things works, and so on... It's like a never ending cycle! Many people are afraid of the unknown, and that's certainly fine. The unknown holds many things that we do not know, and these things can come from our lack of knowledge, OR having too much knowledge, but then you can argue if one can really have TOO much knowledge. Also, I agree with how you say being richer is not always better, for their are problems that arise with being rich. In all, you make a very good argument on whether more knowledge is beneficial for us. In my opinion, I don't think we'll ever reach a point where we'll start questioning each and every little bit of our lives and the mysteries that surround each aspect of it. At some point, you become happy with what you have and your questions slip to the back of your mind, something which I think will probably happen to us. And yes, I do realize how many questions there are in your post.
Billy Pilgrim: The Master of Time
Well, to start things off... I have no idea who Dr. Emmet Brown, Marty McFly, and Hiro Nakamura are, but I'll take your word that they have time-traveled. Your first point on Billy being a time-traveler because Vonnegut wouldn't have made it any other way due to his writing style is a valid point. I believe - more like I want Billy to be a time-traveler is simply because it makes things more interesting and fun that way. I agree with your thinking that Vonnegut's stylistic humor and satire apparent in his pieces can be used as evidence that Billy is a time-traveler because it would be too out-of-place in his out-of-place novels. Onto your second point though, I have to disagree. Despite being old, people remember things that struck out to them during their life time. In some cases, the tiny details are what makes the moment so interesting or important. For example, let's say I got 100% on two different tests. But for one of the tests, I was unsure of one question and I guessed and got the answer right. You are probably more prone to remembering the test which you guessed rather then the other one, simply because of that minor detail which made a big difference. As well, I don't find the excerpt from the novel which you used is a "slight" detail. At that moment in time, it was right after Billy arrives at the POW camp and he meets the British soldiers. After being in harsh conditions, not being fed(if I recall) and barely surviving, Billy is bombarded with what seems like a feast in a palace to him. If you were on the brink of death in the North Pole, and then the next moment you get rescued and are treated in a warm hospital being fed food, do you think you would remember it in the future? Another point that someone who disagrees with Billy being a time-traveler is that maybe Billy is dying and he's remembering all the past events that happened to him. It is like the common explanation that a person on their deathbed sees a white light and their memories flash before them. Maybe this is the case for Billy? Well, I certainly hope not. I hope that Billy was actually a time-traveler. Unfortunately, we're never told, and Vonnegut's no longer here to confirm anything.... I guess we'll never know for sure.
No comments:
Post a Comment