What is really helpful? Lexipedia. I am still attempting to write a weekly blog, though I -along with many other students- have quite the work load, not to mention studying for exam will have to be fulfilled.
However, along with the workload comes essays, projects, presentations etc. where speaking to an audience is the name of the game.
Lexipedia is a neat little handy dude. He’s been assisting me since September now.
Pfffttt thesauras.com
Is Hamlet Insane?
Pro: Mario D., Jessica T., Lori D.
Con: Kirk O., Franco D., Ashlea M.
Pro: Tended to alter debate slightly from “is Hamlet insane” to “schizo”, and “depressed”.
Pro: This resulted in their proof and defence being somewhat null.
Pro: Did not have an opening statement.
Pro: A lot of repition.
Pro: Used quotes.
Con: Defended their argument with relevant information.
Con: Used quotes.
Con: Formally presented facts
Con: Oops, started rebuttal at an incorrect time.
Con: Used information from Shakespearean era.
Decided -based on several other facts- Con won debate.
Jayme Bedell & Laura Crone
January 4th, 2010
Poetry Unit
British Romantic
ENG4U
Lesson Plan:
Objectives:
- To comprehend the British Romantic movement
- To recognize various important poets of the time
-To be able to point out and recognize British Romantic works in comparison to other pieces of poetry from different eras
Resources/Materials:
-Projector
-Laptop (Jayme’s)
-Chalkboard
Evaluation:
-Analyze a poem from the Romantic era in groups, and then discuss the meaning as a class
Methodology:
-Introduction to British Romanticism –Background, history, events that caused the movement etc.-
-Laura: Percy Shelly: Brief Biography, (Example of Poem)
-Jayme: William Woodsworth: Brief Biography, (Example of Poem)
-Laura: John Keats: Brief Biography, (Example of Poem)
-Jayme: Lord Byron: Brief Biography, (Example of Poem)
-Laura: Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Brief Biography, (Example of Poem)
-Jayme: William Blake: Brief Biography, (Examples of Poem)
-Interaction of the class; poetry game
-Closing: What does British romanticism truly mean
In fact i think my iron count is..zero?
I can’t stay awake!
It’s all i can do to write a post, let alone finish all of the other homework i’ve had for the holidays.
I frightened for the English test, and i cannot bear to think about the English exam.
Its the essays, they get to me.
I can’t write an essay so quickly! Well, I can, but not a good one.
That’s how I lose marks.
I wonder how long i could talk about nothing for this to be considered a valid blog post.
i think i’ve already succeeded.
Ugggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg i have to catch up on all of the other blog posts ive missed.
shit.
EXCUSE EXCUSE THIS IS AN EXCUSE!
Ha! I love it when students make an excuse, are accused of making an excuse and say…”it’s not an excuse.”
This is an excuse. Hell yes it is.
But an excuse does not have to be false.
The Magus: Essay?
To say I couldn’t do it would be a lie. To say I didn’t want to do it would be the truth. Written by John Fowles, one of my favorite authors, The Magus –as previously discussed with you Mr. Murray- is a novel that requires the reader to view its contents for the sake of enjoyment. In order to write a good essay on The Magus, you need to sit back, relax, and not think “essay topic, essay topic, thesis, essay topic, thesis”. This is exactly how I began reading Fowles work until, much to everyone’s surprise (cough, cough) we were pressed for time. Oh no, didn’t see that one coming. So, once again, shortly before school let out for the holidays I found myself reading The Magus just like any other novel I have had to read for the sake of writing an essay. I’m terribly sorry, but no thanks. I would rather appreciate the work without feeling bombarded by the word ESSAY on my own time, and be granted the ability to discuss the novel for what I truly thought of it, later.
So I turned to the cement garden based on three accounts:
1) I read it for the sake of sheer enjoyment last year and rather loved it.
2) I had wanted to write my large ISU on it last year, however it was already taken.
3) I knew it would be acceptable by your standards.
That book, is effed.
This also counts as a blog post.
Santa, Santa, you’re so fat
Fatter than my big fat cat.
Santa, Santa, you’re so large
large, large, large in charge.
Santa, Santa, you are big
people often call you “pig”.
And Santa you could make a wall
or an obese bowling ball.
But Santa, Santa, you’re so great
I’d like to take you on a date,
though Mrs. Claus -she might get mad-
I guess we’ll have to postpone that.
So as I was, you are the best,
and we can quiet all the rest,
nothing else that need be said
you know it all, its in your head.
Though don’t forget -just ’cause your cool-
your stomach size is of a pool,
and yes, you’re neat and all of that,
but Santa, Santa, you’re still fat!
An Essay on Watership Down
Nature, -and what is natural- are conditions unsimilar to modern science in the sense that what is natural is most often difficult to comprehend to its core. Acting upon instinct –no matter how bizarre- or possessing innate talents are branches of nature. It is a characteristic within many species to feel the need to understand and have answers for almost everything, however at times most of these species cannot define certain occurrences in nature, or give reasons for specific actions and events. This is due to the fact that, well, nature won’t allow it, and it is in that nature for species to be void of knowledge on numerous accounts.
Published in 1972 and written by Richard Adams, Watership Down is a novel that delves into the many aspects of nature. Using rabbits as main characters rather than humans, Adams creates a world of adventure allowing readers to examine what is believed to be the true characteristics of a rabbit’s life, and just how the world is perceived through a helpless, feeble species. However this is not all Adams’ novel offers. Audiences can make connections between rabbits and humans throughout the story, and attempt to explain how he relates the two species together. As well, one can question how valid the behaviour and thought process of the rabbits are in the book, and state that Adams was either entirely correct in his writings, or that his text was completely falsified.
Although these are interesting topics of debate, the concept of nature –or what is natural- seemed to radiate off of the pages of the book. The novel is a complex mish-mash of the behaviour of rabbits. Richard Adams applies both natural and unnatural aspects to the rabbits in his novel which allow readers to draw questions upon how the “normal” is defined in Watership Down. He sets his characters to possess natural and unnatural traits simultaneously, and during different periods of the book has them expressing both.
At first, it was assumed that the first band of rabbits introduced in the novel –which will be titled the “Watership rabbits”- were normal in every aspect. There was nothing odd about the way they behaved or thought until they came across the second group of rabbits –titled the “Cowslip rabbits”-. From here readers could begin to notice that although the Watership rabbits were presumed natural in the beginning, many of their actions and thoughts were not rabbit-like at all. Rabbits do not often find themselves migrating in groups of approximately eight to unknown locations for unknown reasons across miles of dangerous lands. Not to mention they are barely capable of performing such a task. This is unnatural and can be understood when Adams explains:
The truth was that every one of them was tired. Many rabbits spend all their lives in the same place and never run more than a hundred yards at a stretch. Even though they may live and sleep above ground for months at a time, they prefer not to be out of distance of some sort of refuge that will serve for a hole. They have two natural gaits – the gentle, lolloping, forward movement of the warren on a summer evening and the lightening dash for cover that every human has seen at some time or other. It is difficult to imagine a rabbit plodding steadily on: they are not built for it. (Adams, pg. 36)
The unnatural aspect in this quote is the fact that the rabbits’ physical anatomy alone does not allow them to quite successfully complete this adventure. As well, they would hardly find the motivation to travel to a new warren –when their original warren seems fine enough- without any direction as to where they are going, or if they are going to get killed along the way. It isn’t quite in their nature.
Besides the fact that their journey itself is odd enough, certain behavioural traits amongst the rabbits seems to illuminate the abnormality of the band. When a dilemma arises and the rabbits must cross a river, everyone begins to panic. Blackberry –one of the rabbits of the Watership pack- turns to the leader, Hazel and states:
Hazel…that’s a piece of flat wood – like that piece that closed the gap by the Green Loose above the warren – you remember? It must have drifted down the river. So it floats. We could put Fiver and Pipkin on it and make it float again. It might go across the river. Can you understand? (Adams, pg. 48)
Blackberry makes a number of quick realizations which he previously had no comprehension to until the river incident, as he is simply a rabbit. First, he states the wood is flat and came from the Green Loose above the warren. Then he understands that it must have drifted down the river. Already it seems queer that Blackberry suddenly comprehends this fact. His next declaration proves he somehow knows it floats, and that it will remain to float even if Fiver and Pipkin –two other rabbits from the group- are placed on it. From there, Fiver and Pipkin may simply be pushed across the rivers body, free of harm, by one of the other stronger rabbits.
The eccentricity of the Watership band continues from here. In the novel, the rabbits tell stories. There are numerous accounts where Adams uses personification, and the rabbits’ story telling is one of them. Adams uses the stories of El-aharairah –an idolized rabbit figure- by means of foreshadowing, while the rabbits use the stories as a guidebook on how to go about life. El-ahrairah is a risky trickster who performs any task whether rabbit-like or not by means of survival. This is how the Watership rabbits perceive the proper way of living to be. This is unnatural as rabbits do not tell stories –at least in the way Adams has them doing- yet also natural as these stories provide the Watership rabbits with a basis of how to live “appropriately”; performing any task by means of survival. The following quote explains how the Watership rabbits came to live the way they do when Frith –a God-like archetype to rabbits- visits El-ahrairah in his hole:
Very well, I will bless your bottom as it sticks out of the whole. Bottom, be strength and warning and speed for ever and save the life of your master. Be it so! …El-ahrairah, your people cannot rule the world, for I will not have it so. All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks, and your people shall never be destroyed. [Ellipsis mine] (Adams, pg. 40)
This describes how rabbits (or at least the Watership rabbits) became what they were. El-ahrairah was a rabbit most idolized, and his methods of life were set as a guildline by way of living appropriately. This meant that no matter what survival called for, a rabbit –with his tricks in hand- was to play by El-ahrairah’s rules.
This may explain why the Watership rabbits behave so differently in comparison to other rabbits. If El-ahrairah was an odd rabbit himself, and the Watership rabbits follow his methods of living, they too would be considered unnatural. El-ahrairah can be described as such Adams describes:
Once, so they say, he had to get home by swimming across a river in which there was a large and hungry pike. El-ahrairah combed himself until he had enough fur to cover a clay rabbit, which he pushed into the water. The pike rushed at it, bit it and left it in disgust. After a little while, it drifted to the bank and El-ahrairah dragged it out and waited a while before pushing it in again. After an hour of this, the pike left it alone and when it had done so for the fifth time, El-ahrairah swam across himself and went home. (Adams, pg. 35-36)
This is unnatural as once again such story telling is not quite so between rabbits. As well, the logic behind El-ahrairah and the stream is not that of a rabbits -at least not that quickly-. Of course many other species besides humans understand cause and effect, however the context Adams has the rabbits understanding it seems mildly unnatural. In fact, many of the events Adams’ has the rabbits fulfilling in the novel are possible indeed, just not to the extent he has them accomplishing, or the speed at which they perform. This quote is relevant as Adams foreshadows the event of the Watership rabbits crossing the stream, and it relates to the rabbits using El-ahrairah and his methods of living and applying it to their own.
Finally, one can spot more natural and unnatural characteristics amongst the Watership rabbits during a scene in the novel when they come across a new and foreign warren. Living in this warren is a relatively small group of rabbits –the Cowslip rabbits (their leader’s name is Cowslip)- who are seemingly different. They disregard El-ahrairah and his storied, are bigger in size, healthier, and parade about only simulating happiness as if something negative hangs above their heads. It is partially due to this that the Watership rabbits are flustered, however it is also in the way that the Cowslip rabbits lived on a daily basis. Unlike the other group who simply ate grass, the Cowslip rabbits obtained their food from a nearby farmer’s garden which consisted of carrots and lettuce. As well, after spending a number of days in the Cowslip warren, Hazel and his band of rabbits discovered a trap that this farmer had placed not too far from one of the holes in order to catch and kill a wandering rabbit. It is during this chapter in the novel that the Watership rabbits understand that Cowslip and his friends merely ignore El-ahrairah and his methods of survival, and simply accept their fate no matter when death calls upon them. They draw the conclusion that the Cowslip rabbits are much too unnatural for them when Fiver – a member of Hazel’s crew- explains:
… [The Farmer] put food out for the rabbits, but not too near the warren. For his purpose they had been accustomed to going about in the fields and the wood…The rabbits became strange in many ways, different from other rabbits. They knew well enough what was happening. But even to themselves they pretended that all was well, for the food was good, they were protected, they had nothing to fear but the one fear; and that struck here and there, never enough at a time to drive them away. They forgot the ways of wild rabbits. They forgot El-ahrairah, for what use had they for tricks and cunning, living in the enemy’s warren and paying his price? [Ellipsis mine] (Adams, pg. 125)
Fiver and the other rabbits in his warren have determined that Cowslip’s warren was much too unnatural for them. They felt as though the other rabbits have been somewhat domesticated, and do not know how to survive in the wild. They are odd, as they do not have use for El-ahrairah and his tricks. They are queer, are they accept their fate, and do not try to stop it.
Reflecting upon an earlier fight between two rabbits –Bigwig and Woundwort- from the Watership warren, Holly –another rabbit character states:
Bigwig was right when he said [Woundwort] wasn’t like a rabbit at all…he was a fighting animal—fierce as a rat or a dog. He fought because he actually felt safer fighting than running. He was brave, all right. But it wasn’t natural; and that’s why it was bound to finish him in the end. He was trying to do something that Frith never meant any rabbit to do. I believe he’d have hunted like the elil if he could. [Ellipsis mine] (Adams, pg. 470)
This is Holly reflecting on the fight that occurred between Woundwort and Bigwig. Woundwort was brave, and a fighter, but it was bound to have him killed in the end, as he was stepping out of his limits as a rabbit. Woundwort preferred to fight than to run, but this was unnatural to rabbits. Species should remain within the limits of their roles in the environment, and Silverweed -a member from the Cowslip warren- makes this quite clear when Buckthorn states “El-ahrairah was a trickster…and rabbits will always need tricks” to which Silverweed replies “No…rabbits need dignity and above all, the will to accept their fate.” (Adams, pg. 111) The Watership rabbits would turn to use tricks as methods of maintaining survival, while the other rabbits simply accepted their fate. As Silverweed speaks for his warren in saying this, the Watership rabbits become more perplexed with how the Cowslip rabbits presume such method to be normal.
This brings into question the definition of natural. What defines natural? Better yet, what defines natural in Watership Down? Is it acting for ones own survival by whatever means survival calls for? Or is it allowing ones life to run its course without intervening in any means? Adams allows the Watership rabbits and the Cowslip rabbits to be both natural and unnatural in their own ways. When analysing these behavioural patterns, one can examine the rabbits’ reasoning behind their actions, whether unnatural or not. The Watership rabbits act upon survival, and they will perform any tasks -whether unnatural or not- in order to survive. The Cowslip rabbits allow life to proceed without interference by any means as they feel rabbits –as well as every other species- should know their place in the world. Which warren is normal? Which group of rabbits’ reasoning seems to be the most natural? It is not a question as to which group of rabbits do or don’t do the most normal things, but which band has the sanest reasoning for their lifestyle? These are the questions that Adams offers to his audience from the novel Watership Down.
A plethora of times have I been required to endure the fabrication of the Land of Oz and poor Dorothys predicament of which she must overcome; returning home from “over the rainbow”. Let us not dismiss the fact that Dorothy attempts to achieve this goal with the assistance of her trusty newfound friends: Scarecrow -void of brains-, Lion –lacking courage-, and the Tin Man –who has the absence of emotion, or rather a “heart”-.
Directed by Victor Fleming in 1939, The Wizard of Oz is a classic tale of a young girl by the name of Dorothy Gale who is swept –at the cause of a tornado- to the magical Land of Oz.
Residing on an exhausting farm with both her Auntie Em and her Uncle Henry in Kansas, Dorothy envisions a utopia in which she desires to reach, dubbing it “the place over the rainbow”. Post singing the famous song “Over the Rainbow”, an abhorrent storm strikes rather inconveniently close to the farm, and it happens to be that Dorothys family has safely made their way into the storm cellar in her absence. Thus, after a drawn out and stressful journey the storm creates, she finds herself parted from Kansas and in an unrecognizable location.
Then, the plot is as such: Dorothy meets the good witch of the North, Glinda, who tells Dorothy “follow the yellow brick road. Yes. Just there now, you see? Why, it’s for my amusement my dear. Often times when the odd tornado drops a deviant human such as yourself in this parallel universe, I find myself drawn to watching them dance across danger on this road. Like a puppet, indeed! My secret? Oh no that is just to piss them off in the end. You see, I keep hidden the fact that I posses the power to send them home as soon as they arrive, but I don’t. So just follow that road, and you’re set.”. Dorothy does as Glinda says, encounters three individuals that eventually become her friends– Scarecrow, Lion, and the Tin Man- whom are searching as well for objects –whether physical or abstract- they desire, and together make their way to see the wizard of Oz who will grant their wishes.
Dorothy begins in the black and white, literally. The realm in which she currently lives is stringy and dragging, and she hungers to experience more luminosity. Upon entering Oz, the film abruptly turns into color and Dorothy is perplexed, yet astonished. Soon after, she longs to return home, and like so we have a moral to the story.
The underlying message of which the film conveys is as simple as Dorothy allows it to be near the end of the film when the Tin Man asks “What have you learned, Dorothy?”, in which she replies “…if I ever go looking for my heart’s desire again, I won’t look any further than my own back yard…”. The moral of the Wizard of Oz can be further clarified to state that what is most often truly desired is already obtained but taken for granted and unnoticed, and requires an unfortunate -sometimes catastrophical- event to occur in order to appreciate said desire in its entirety. The underlying message conveyed in the 1939 Film The Wizard of Oz is interlaced through all four main characters in various forms and can be manipulated to state that the Tin Man is humanistic from start to finish.
The story has been reviewed and reviewed once more in my lifetime, so that I don’t have any sympathy for Dorothy what so ever. I do not take an interest into her rather dire situation simply due to the fact I have seen the film on numerous accounts. In all actuality, I wish I could have written this essay without referencing the beastie; however I assume I failed, miserably. I’d rather focus on another character in the film that is undergoing similar misfortunes. No one bothers to take into account that the Scarecrow, the Lion, and the Tin Man are way cooler than Dorothy. It must be her dress. Like an ignorant glutton of a child, I’m jamming the square peg into the circle hole. I want to talk about the Tin Man!
The moral, If you ever look for your hearts desires, don’t bother looking further than your own backyard, sums up the fact that generally what is most genuinely desired is already of possession but taken for granted, thus blinding the desire itself from the subject –the subject being the desirer- . As Dorothy seeks a route home, the Tin Man seeks a heart. He embarks upon a journey that will allow him to achieve this desire, in which he expresses various emotional responses to his environment. It takes this adventure, however, in order for the Tin Man to appreciate that he has had a “heart” all along, just as Dorothy must experience Oz in order to bring into conscience that same fact. Thus, if the moral of the story is analyzed from the Tin Man’s perspective, it becomes evident that he expresses human-like traits for the entire run of the films length, even prior to meeting the wizard. When the reasons for these expressionistic qualities are deconstructed, one can safely state the validity of the Tin Man being humanistic.
Allow me to stupefy this rationale.
The Moral: Want something. Unfortunate or catastrophical event occurs. Realize the thing has been in plain sight the entire time.
Tin Man: Wants a heart. Embarks upon a journey and responds to environment. Realizes he has had a heart all along and was always human-like.
Now that it is unnecessarily evident as to how the conclusion of the Tin Man being animate was drawn, let us delve into further explanations of said emotional responses to his surroundings. Primarily, I’d like to redeem the Tin Man in explaining that he does not desire a heart per say, but rather the ability to sympathize with the external world. A heart is the universal representation central to emotion and affection, and allows all aspects of feeling to be combined into one representation.
Emotions are defined as a response to ones environment. I cannot clarify any further. They are elements of processed information that occur within the brain. When Dorothy and Scarecrow are gallivanting along the yellow brick road, they come upon the Tin Man, frozen in his position and unable to move. After oiling his joints the Tin Man performs the well-known “If I Only Had…” song in which he sings:
…Yet I’m torn apart. Just because I’m presumin’ that I could be kind-a-human, if I only had heart. I’d be tender -I’d be gentle and awful sentimental…I’d be friends with the sparrows and the boys who shoots the arrows if I only had a heart…Just to register emotion, jealousy – devotion, and really feel the part. I could stay young and chipper and I’d lock it with a zipper, If I only had a heart.
By singing this song it is evident that the Tin Man desires a heart so that he may be gentle, have friends, feel the part, and be kind-of human. Yet simply the act of desiring is a humanistic trait; a quality that belongs to animate objects the Tin Man feels he is not. Ah, the Tin Man feels he is not animate, yet he feels.
He is saddened that he is not classified as a human because of the absence of his heart, yet he is saddened. From this pattern one can draw a fairly reasonable conclusion that the Tin Man simply does not comprehend emotions, and therefore cannot state he has them. It is not that he is devoid of feeling, but that he cannot explain what he is oblivious to until it lay bar in front of him. The Tin Man is unconscious of his true desires -the desire to obtain humanistic traits- and must undergo a specific event that will allow him to believe he has possessed what he craved all along.
The Tin Man cries, fears, needs, dislikes, and is kind throughout the films extent. For instance, during the scene in which the Lion first appears, fear is expressed through the Tin Man and is evident when the Lion addresses this by saying “Come on, get up and fight, ya shivering junkyard… Oh, scared huh? Afraid, huh? Ah, how long can you stay fresh in that can?”. Another example can be identified at the end of the film when Dorothy tells her friends she is leaving. The Tin Man begins to cry, when Dorothy says “Goodbye, Tin Man. Oh, don’t cry! You’ll rust so dreadfully.”. This gives reason to state that he possesses similar traits as that of a human, but how?
The Tin Man is not specifically a robot. A robot is an automaton; a mechanism that can move automatically. This is not what the tin man is. No. A vibrating phone is a robot. Automatons include those that can clean your dishes, vacuum your floor, and turn the lights on, all without the necessity of human assistance. Automatons or robots perform tasks automatically. The Tin Man is a 1939 representation of something that is inanimate, lifeless, and dull; the robot. He is the character that specifically longs for a heart; the central depiction of emotion. During the era in which the film was made, robots were not associated with emotion. Now, in the twenty-first century, society has been exposed to the concept of androids. The Tin Man is this era’s representation of an android. An android is a mechanical man; a humanoid that takes the form of a human being. There is a rather significantly diverse distinction between the robot and the android; that the android not only looks human, but can be entirely humanistic.
The android was created as a representation of a general human being. Though some androids closely resemble humans more than others, it is still classified an android should it possess human features -such as hands with fingers, legs, a head (the eyes are considered most important on the face) – and a form of torso. Many androids have been modified to suit people’s personal tastes, but never stray too far from the basic human template. Though physical aspects are of value, they do not complete the android. The android was designed specifically to fracture away from the robot and it’s unconscious state and become what it was not; human. This included physical appearance, and mental design. The goal of the android was to allow logical mental processes and critical thinking into the anatomy of something non-human, in order to make it human. Many people are oblivious, and too stubborn to allow theories of the android to sink into their skin, and are predictable to say humans and androids are completely different, when they are not.
There are many arguments these classifications of people will attempt to create, and I shall counter a few. I will begin with the first: they look different. Okay. Are you an idiot? Are you stating that due to the fact the android takes upon itself a distinct physicality that it is not similar to a human? Or are you stating that because it is not soft and fleshy, it must be non-living? Ah yes, well creature, I can assure you androids can be made soft and fleshy is you’d like. We can even install a thermoregulatory device that allows the android to produce its on body heat. As well, you are not going to shove in my face the statement that everything living must look and feel like a man.
The second most common argument that is attempted on this theory is this: robots and Androids run off of electricity, human don’t. What are you saying! If this wasn’t an essay, I would not have even bothered to waste my time with you. First off, you insignificant half-witted loser, electricity is a form of energy. You will not stand there are attempt to argue with me that humans do not require energy. Both humans and androids require energy, and it is required through various forms and ways. Androids may use electricity, heat, even water, while humans use energy from foods, water, and possibly even heat. Don’t be obtuse and respond to that with “ya, but, humans still don’t use electricity”. I will send you away to the beginning of my essay in which I explain the similarity of the human and the android, and how androids are humanistic, not a human being.
The third common, useless argument relates to the second, and occurs when those annoying hoi polloi say in a stingy nasally voice: robots and androids “brains” use electricity. Ours doesn’t. What about how we dream, and think? Primarily, yes our brain uses electricity, and it does so in two ways. The first is that it can only run off of the energy we salvage from our environment. The second way, in which electricity is incorporated with the human brain, is that –once functioning from previously retained energy- all mental processes occur through electrical impulses. These mental processes include recognition, memory, environmental response, memorization, identification, dreams, abstract thought etc. Every single task that the brain fulfills is done through the use of electrical impulses occurring within the brain. An android can be fashioned to do much the same using similar processes. They can be made to recognize, identify, memorize, think logically, and experience by using electricity, or any other form of energy if possible. For example, when a computer, a phone, or a car have specific characteristics that allow for voice recognition, they posses the ability to recognize, identify, and memorize similar to humans. Yes, it is done slightly differently, and an androids brain functions with an altered methodology than that of a human, but the humanistic traits can most definitely be apparent within them. The mental aspect of the android of which is absent in robots is what relates the Tin Man specifically to the android itself. The Tin Man obtains the ability to perform numerous tasks that all require the brain and logical thought.
Much can be said the same for the Tin Man, today’s depiction of the android. The Tin Man has been like-human for the entire length of the film, from start to finish. He was simply unaware of this truth due to the simple fact that he could not comprehend his emotions. The Tin Man was made to follow the moral of the 1939 Wizard of Oz classic just as Dorothy, Scarecrow, and the Lion were; what most people truly desire is often obtained but taken for granted and unnoticed and it takes a specific occurrence -a kind of severance if you will- in order to fully bring into conscience said desire. An occurrence of which Dorothy, Scarecrow, Lion, and the Tin Man share, and must endure together.
rough outline.
you steal, you cheat.
Jayme Bedell
Essay Notes
Wizard of Oz
Thesis: The underlying message conveyed in the 1939 Film The Wizard of Oz is interlaced through all four characters including Dorothy, Scarecrow, Lion, and the Tin Man in various forms and can be manipulated to state that the Tin Man is humanistic from start to finsih.
-I’m talking about the moral of the Wizard of Oz through the Tin Man instead of Dorothy, who I am bored of. I am not straying from this moral, just the character. Why should it matter if the moral remains the same through all characters which character I choose to speak the matters of? It doesn’t.
The lion is the kinesthetic object that must be courageous and fearless. He represents the physical “carrying-out” of saving Dorothy.
The tin man is the driving force behind Dorothy’s rescuing; the emotional trigger that pushes the brain and the mover.
Important Quotes:
Moral of the story quotes:
1) Wizard of Oz: A heart is not judged by how much you love; but by how much you are loved by others.
2) Tin Woodsman: I can barely hear my heart beating!
3) Tin Man: It would take a man of steel to get into that place. Wait a minute, tin is like steel, I’ll becomne the Tinmanator!
4) Tin Man: Without a heart I can never really know what it would be like to love someone, or ever really understand trashy novels.
Tin Man emotion quotes:
1) Cowardly Lion: Come on, get up and fight, ya shivering junkyard! Put your hands up, ya lopsided bag o’ hay!
Scarecrow: Now that’s getting personal, Lion!
Tin Woodsman: Yes. Get up and teach him a lesson.
Scarecrow: W-w-what’s wrong with y-y-you teaching him?
Tin Woodsman: W-w-well, I hardly know him.
2) Tin Woodsman: Go away and leave us alone.
Cowardly Lion: Oh, scared huh? Afraid, huh? Ah, how long can you stay fresh in that can? Ha ha ha ha.
3) Tin Woodsman: Help! Help! *the tin man often cries, this scene being one of them. Crying is an emotional response.
4) Dorothy: Goodbye, Tin Man. Oh, don’t cry! You’ll rust so dreadfully. Here’s your oil can.
Tin Woodsman: Now I know I’ve got a heart, ’cause it’s breaking…
5) If I Only Had a Heart:
When a man’s an empty kettle he should be on his mettle,
And yet I’m torn apart.
Just because I’m presumin’ that I could be kind-a-human,
If I only had heart.
I’d be tender – I’d be gentle and awful sentimental
Regarding Love and Art.
I’d be friends with the sparrows … and the boys who shoots the arrows
If I only had a heart.
Picture me – a balcony. Above a voice sings low.
Dorothy
Wherefore art thou, Romeo?
Tin Man
I hear a beat….How sweet.
Just to register emotion, jealousy – devotion,
And really feel the part.
I could stay young and chipper and I’d lock it with a zipper, If I only had a heart.
Android
The difference between the Android, and the robot? Let us ask Lexipedia.
Android: the mechanical man, a humanoid that takes the form of a human being.
Robot: the automaton, a mechanism that can move automatically.
The misuse of the word robot is just sad. In this blog I will attempt to cure the neglect of this word, because I am that bored.
Curious as to what defined an android as an android and not a robot, I stumbled upon the word-map website Lexipedia to solve this problem. Simply, the robot is any mechanical automaton that possesses the ability to move automatically. hmm, seeing the connection? Automatons include those that can clean your dishes, vacuum your floor, turn on the lights without the necessity of human assistance. Automatons or robots perform tasks automatically.
The android was created as a representation of a general human being. Though some androids more closely resember humans more than others, if the android still possesses human features -such as hands with fingers, legs, a head (the eyes are the most important on the face)- and a form of torso, then it is still considered to be an android.
Most androids have been modified to be cute, and childish looking -like Andy about, whom I really like-. While androids that are meant to be frightening or may cause harm, are generally ones depicted in movies with more detailed human characteristics.
I would write more, but it is time to go.
perhaps i will come back to this blog.
© 2012 The Poison Apple.
Tarski Theme by Ben Eastaugh and Chris Sternal-Johnson.
Provided by WPMU DEV -The WordPress Experts. Hosted by Edublogs.org
