Last blog

Alright, last blog of the year, right here, I think. The tell tale heart, what a fun story, great for the whole family. Its an entertaining tale, and teaches a good moral to learn in the end. But seriously, this story is really weird, and is made even stranger by the narrator being crazy. This thriller explores the mind of a maniac and puts the reader right in his shoes. In any other kind of story, putting us in the shoes of the main character would give us a better view of the story, but in this case, it only restricts the facts even more. Having the point of view of a insane man committing a murder is both confusing and somewhat disturbing.
The way this story takes you through the actions of a mad man killer makes you think about what exactly is going on. His ranting and attention to certain detail leaves you confused and wondering exactly what is going on. It makes you think about what goes on in the minds of the criminally insane, and how people can actually rationalize killing someone. Is this really what people are like? If so, it sure portrays it as a very scary reality for someone to have to live in. I sometimes wonder if I am insane, due to some of the strange things I catch myself doing. But then I start to wonder about being insane and aware of it at the same time. Can that happen? Can someone be fully aware and accept that they have a serious mental problem and are bonkers and still be as crazy, or even crazy at all. I usually side on the fact that being self aware of your insanity is probably a sign that you are not really insane, or at least not very, and I forget about it.
But anyway, yeah, Tell Tale Heart, good story, you should go read it to your children for their bedtime story. That will give em a nice goal for what they should be like when they grow up.
IDK....
sincerely,
Dennis J. Tierney
P.S. Don't read this to your kids, it will mess them up.

Monsters and Ourselves: Whats the difference?

For this months blog, I will be taking the random scribbled text on the back of a piece of paper titled "Essential Questions: Quarter 4 'Monsters and Ourselves'", which I wrote down as the rest of the class verbally discussed the questions on said paper. Please note that the following ideas and words are in fact incomplete and used merely as a sort of "thinking out loud" type of expression, only on paper, with a bic ball point pen. And I quote...
"Difference between "evil" and trying to survive. If people act like animals, we call them savage, heartless, evil, but do we call animals evil? When a wolf or lion kill a deer or antalope, it is not evil, but survival. When they defend each other, or territory, it is nature. The man has no nature anymore, we are "civilized"(Meaning taken away from natural settings, not the more widly used definition that implies "good" behavior.) too much, so the true "nature" of man is unknown. So what if what we "assume" to be "evil" is mans true nature? Is it truly "evil" then? Or is evil just an invention of a corrupted nature in order to destroy devolution, a development, a survival of the fittest. For if we believe in "evil" we will try to be "good", and shun our old nature of life, thus, thrusting us ever forward in a most evelutional concept."

The following are random things also on the paper, not full sentences:
"I expect from people to not do what I expect them to do"
"expect=assume" "know, or know not, never assume"
"I think, therefor I think I am"
"I assume, therefor I am man"
"I think, therefor I assume I am"
"I expect nothing of people, assumption is the downfall of man"
"The only assumption I make is that whatever I assume is probably wrong"

Thus concludes the interesting, and perhaps nonsensical, scribbles on this paper.(besides drawings of course, but those would be rather hard to put up on this blog.)
I'm not sure how this will do as a blog, but it is something that I would have said in class if I was the type of person who did such things. I hope you can make some sense out of my random thoughts bluntly transfered on to paper.

The Picture of Dennis Tierney

even though I am probably the complete opposite of Mr. Gray, the fabulous man he is...
This book, despite what everyone else is saying, is rather interesting to me. The only part I have been rather bored with was the details of folklore on jewelry and tapestry throughout the ages. I find the banter between the trio of characters to be quite enjoyable, while it has nothing and yet everything to do with the plot of the novel. The back and forth between Lord Henry and whomever might be his victim has awaken a part of my mind that has laid dormant for a few years. The philosophical arguments at the beginning of the story had me smiling, frowning, nodding, shaking my head, and laughing. The though bouncing between two similar yet un-similar beliefs, with Lord Henry and Basil jump-started my philosophic ideas and brainstorms from years past, and how different my ideas have become. This opening of a portal into the past through simple dialogue in a book about a man who corrupts his youth is quit interesting.
I find myself, more and more as the novel draws to an end, to be in line with poor Basil, long gone, (although some bias might be held due to my close relation to the visual arts) and a grand hater of Lord Henry, whom reminds me all too well of people in my own life. Everyone must have such people in their lives, people that play games, that pry into your mind, and plant the seeds of sin. Nowadays we have a public market for that, television and the Internet, even the education system can sneak this into a regular routine. But I start to sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist when I talk like this, and yet...
Well, I guess I enjoy the dialogue of the book more than I do the actual premise that a panting is reflecting a man's soul, instead of him getting old and ugly. And I am quite disappointed that Basil(love the name), however predictable, had to die. Goes along with the whole tortured artist deal though, so I guess I can look it over. Although, I could be saying this pre-maturely, seeing as how I need to read the last few pages tonight, but still. The good Lord Henry sure has made me think as much as he has made the characters think, but I think(hope, maybe the better word,) that his words are having about as much effect as they did on Basil. It is nice to be thinking again, drifting through the days hollow-minded was getting old. I should probably write some of this down... but no time for it now, got to finish this book first.
good night

Currenty revocering from 2 days of food poisoning, please be nice

I guess since the main thing we are talking about in class lately is gender roles and such, I'll try to touch on that. It has been interesting to talk about how drastic the differences in gender roles can be from a change in time period or country. However, being one of the seven to eight males in a classroom that is mostly female, including the teacher, I can't help but feel horrible when we talk of the past and read novels such as The Awakening and A Thousand Splendid Suns. But one thing I can do, is appreciate the difference I can see between the books and today's lifestyle of women. Granted, I might not be able to connect to the feminist novels as much as a woman in my class could, but I try. And it is always awkward talking or writing about this topic, I am always afraid I might say something wrong, and being in a groggy, half sick mind-set isn't helping think clearly anyway... but anyway.
It is almost mind blowing when you compare these novels to our life style. Compared to A Thousand Splendid Suns, women in America are a thousand steps ahead. Women can be whatever they want to be, don't have to rely on a man at their side or expected to produce a worthy offspring. Women are free to explore the possibilities of life, not sent off to the highest bidder when they are of age.
I am going to stop where I think I have made my point, and hope I didn't say anything stupid.
I am tired and haven't eaten anything in a day or so... I might try to hold down some toast... after a quick nap.
good night.

Article 7 From The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 1993, Second Edition

This article starts with a obvious point to it, that the only thing about morals that is the same between cultures is that we have them. As to what they are and how highly they are respected is but a luck of the draw in the cultures history books. It continues to explain how right and wrong is impossible to differentiate, seeing as how between cultures there is not a sound standards that we can judge from. "The 'right' way is the way which the ancestors used and which has been handed down." This makes perfect sense, and I can see it even within different families that I have interacted with, where certain traditions may seem odd to me, like getting presents on Easter, or eating dinner really early. It is natural to them, and I am sure it is the say way when they see my family. But, to bring this same idea to lead to therefore mean that there can be no natural morality that can be seen as true, is taking it a bit too far. I agree with this point in the article, but how they explain it, I find it pushing the limit of analogies, comparing the cultural difference in burial rituals to the debate over the shape of the earth. When it comes to morals, there is still some similarities seen across the world as to what is wrong and what is right, no matter where the culture began. The idea of murder, across the board, is looked down upon, but to every culture, the intensity of punishment or how much it is looked down upon can easily shift. Morals are effected by the cultures religious beliefs, environment and history, so it is obvious they will not all be the same, but the fact that sound roots of what is loosely right and wrong are still seen in each.
In the end, this article makes two important points about the Cultural Relativism theory, and it is what it has to offer, that is not totally out there, and I agree with both of them, and fear that most of our culture might not. The first is a warning about assuming that our way of life is the true way of life, and anyone who is different is wrong, which leads into the second, keeping an open mind. Both of these seem to be a problem in this world, and always have been. Is this not what all of the wars are about? We are right, you are wrong, lets kill each other to prove it.

All in all, this article basically said that the Cultural Relativism theory isn't a total load of crap, but is still pretty out there...
and now I'm going to go eat some cookies

That thing about Beowulf that was abunch of quotes

This article's basic focus is on The Hero and the Theme, and starts off with a bombardment of quotes and opinions from who I assume to be credible authors or literary critics, who are contrasting on the topic of what is central purpose of Beowulf, the Hero or the Theme, and how different angles can see it. As many different quoted persons have different views about if Beowulf can truly be a hero for the people if his emotions, inner thoughts, or basic views are not properly displayed. Most say, like Kathryn Hume, that he shows no "private thoughts or personal hopes or misgivings," and that he is just too superhuman to be able to relate to the audience. While others argue that there is insight on the hero, through the poetry, storytelling, and his crude sense of humor. Then, on the complete opposite end of the block, there is a name I can recognize, Tolkien, who says that the story is less about the Hero, per say, and more on the overall Theme, "the threat to human order posed by the monstrous ... Tolkien's Beowulf is significant and signifies, but has no character at all." I can finally interject and agree on something. I find this to be very true. Beowulf is given little to no character throughout the story, besides the fact that he is a big, giant guy that can break stuff and wants to do so to become famous( He would make a good wrestler).
As I struggle through the rest of this article, I see countless references to Beowulf's ancestors and recollections of past wars made, parts of Beowulf that also had me struggling to read through. I find this to be nothing more than just the importance of family, the importance of background. Just like anyone in today's society keeps track of their families history, or wishes to go back and find out who their great great great grand uncle was, this drive to know and either love or hate one's legacy knows no limits in time. It is quite evident, that history was important to the characters in Beowulf, because of them going back and telling stories again and again and again that had nothing whatsoever to do with the main plot of the story. It reminds me of and old man remembering the good old days, his memory jolted my some odd reference and goes off on one of his tangents about how "chocolate only used to cost one wheat penny", or what adventure they had with their childhood chums. But anyway, this is still seen today in society, the need to tell stories of past generations and any great tale someone can think of involving old uncle Tom.
The last bit of this article deals with the "monstrous" party that is being fought against by the "champion of right". It mentions the Irony that the narrator puts forth in the battle of Grendel and Beowulf, how the creature comes forth, comments "contrasting the unsuspecting monster's intentions to feast his fill on the hall's sleepers with God's power to thwart him...with tough luck and tough warrior awaiting him there." There is a sense of sad irony as Grendel enters the hall, and the fight taken place is that of the classic Good VS. Evil standards, where Grendel is basically beaten before he starts. In contrast, the battle with his mother is incredibly different. Where upon Grendel's mother is out seeking revenge, and is not entirely described as a monstrosity, and this reaction of seeking revenge for a fallen child is a common practice in Anglo-Saxon culture. Grendel's mother is almost humanized in her reaction and being dealt with in the story. And the battle with her greatly contrasts the battle with Grendel, where victory seemed instant. With his mother, the fight seemed to worsen and worsen at every turn. Only at the last second does Beowulf manage to win the battle.
This is how the Article basically sums up everything, " The poem's theme and the hero's goal are one." This... is a rather abrupt end, and is rather too much of a closed one in my opinion. I would rather side with Tolkien's views of the poem, where Beowulf is more of the messenger for the Theme than the theme itself, which focuses more on the fight of the monstrous things in life.
At least that's what I have to say.

really pissed because I forgot about this until 20 minutes ago...."October" blog

Heroes...
Clearly, if I was one, I would not be in this reoccurring problem such as forgetting about assignments until its too late... but a true hero needs to man up and bite the bullet.

Heroes have been portrayed throughout history, and have survived the test of time. It is obvious that there is something that everyone loves about a hero, someone you can root for, for better or for worse. Even if the story is not very intriguing, such a Beowulf, there is still the sense of heroism, and the classic good vs. evil that brings in a crowd. After reading and discussing things like A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, it is very refreshing on the brain to read a simple good guy beats up bad guy story, and I think everyone can enjoy such a story anytime due to the appeal of the hero.

On the other hand, you can have your tragic hero, such as Oedipus. A man doomed by fate to fall to ruin. Even in a story where the hero is destined to fail, the appeal is no less. Within defeat true character shows. Seeing a hero's reaction to a downfall is still an interesting story, if not more popular. If a hero can recognize his fault and make atonement for it, in the way seen fit, and do it with honor, that is almost more heroic than slaying a dragon or giant fish.

I think that the hero is the easiest character to use to get an audience interested in a story, give them someone to route for, someone to hope for. I know that happened to me while I was reading The Power of One. Wanting to see what amazing things a hero can accomplish is a very compelling urge. This is why I think that it was one of the first types of stories, and why it is alive and thriving today.
Now if only I could get the power of super memory I would be ok...