Final Blog

In my sub group, Hemingway’s story about Nick was the foundation text from which we started.  In Hemingway’s story, the character Nick leaves civilization to go camping in nature by himself to find a peace of mind or sense of self worth.  The question that arose was broad, but allow fit what Hemingway had intended for the story.  What does isolation in nature look like? Do you have to abandon friends and family? Do you have to barely be able to make ends meet with survival?  These questions allowed for me to find other texts which pin pointed these exact questions and allowed for me to show how Hemingway might possibly view these texts.  I chose “The Boundaries Between Us” which examines boarders between people, nations, and cultures.  Boundaries make us feel safe and content, but Hemingway wants people to live on the edge because in nature boundaries do not exist.  After annotating the in class text, I needed an outside text that would describe isolation to perfection.  I chose the song “Iris” by Goo Goo Dolls.  Now, I realize that the song and narrator do not speak to nature, but I imagined it did and I would ask anyone to do the same because it makes the song pretty powerful.  The narrator doesn’t want the world to know who he is, but wants nature to know who he is.  It’s kind of the reverse of the question we have asked through the course of the semester which is: What is nature? What does nature look like to us?  In the song, the narrator is happiest when he is in nature isolated and Hemingway would totally agree.  The narrator even considers this place heaven like.  Personally, I do not know a lot of answers to all of these questions, but that’s the beauty of it.  I can still figure that out.  I don’t know what it looks like to be isolated in nature and whether or not that makes me human because I have been living in my parents’ shadows for 18 years.  Frankly, I don’t even know what it means to be human.  I think ill figure that out when I’m older.  I need to experience nature for myself and on my own to realize its beauty. 

                The contributions I made were inserting questions and answers into the giant script.  I did one of the four annotations and I found my outside source.  If I had to alter the project at all, I would maybe put in more guidelines.  Without guidelines, people get stressed, and when people get stressed they go insane.  Guidelines create sanity.  I actually really enjoyed the project because I never thought doing a project with so many people would be as successful as it was.  Everyone pulled their weight which made it that much easier.  I really think by having so many people in a group, the greatest amount of content can be cover and it was.  This was a great way to end Reading Place and I would recommend doing this project again in the future.

Death in the Movie

Personally, I believe the death of Chris McCandless in the movie, “Into the Wild”, was portrayed more powerfully than in the book.  The beginning of the movie actually starts with Chris writing his last words in Alaska almost alluding to his eventual death to come at the end.  Just like in the book, Chris’s death is started with, but in the movie you can see fear in the character’s eye and you can witness his aching body which is more powerful for me as an audience member.  In the beginning of the movie, we as an audience, see what Chris in endures in the Alaskan wilderness.  You can see his tiresome body stumble around as he approaches the bus, but at this point in the movie the cause of death is un determined.  It is not until the end of the movie where there is confusion with the end of the book.  In the movie Chris’s death is caused by the mistaken potato seeds.  In the book, it is unclear what the weather the potato seeds actually caused Chris’s death.  For a director, I understand why making the seeds the cause of death.  It is easier to act out.  How does one make starvation entertaining?  Starvation is not exciting enough for an audience. 

                Surprisingly enough, tv producers now a days, have created shows where starvation is a key aspect in keeping viewers interested.  The show is called “Naked and Afraid”.  Just like Chris McCandless, two people, a man and a woman, attempt to demonstrate their survival skills in a remote location for 21 days just because they think that they can.  Both this man and woman get nothing to survive with, but their wits, similarly to Chris.  You actually watch these two people attempt to survive and avoid starvation and dehydration.  Unlike Chris McCandless, these people can back out of the 21 day challenge whenever they feel they’ve had enough. 

                Obviously, making the potato seeds the cause of death in the movie makes logical sense because it adds more spice to the movie, but why is there a controversy in the book?  Maybe it’s because he was alone and no one can really know.  Also, books like to have the reader question endings and make their own opinion.  I also ask myself why this book is even successful.  Is it because we get to watch someone experience nature and fail? Why is it entertaining to watch someone survive?  We see it on tv everywhere, but why is entertaining and how far will producers take this survival.  In the future of reality tv, we will witness death?

Nature Vines

https://vine.co/v/MJiFF1dAqJQ

https://vine.co/v/MJ5JYHUVuHV

https://vine.co/v/MJ1UXeEM6iW

My three vines resemble nature through a taker lens, a leaver lens, and an intermediate lens.  The intermediate lens is who I am.  I want to experience more nature and live in remote areas of the world, but I need technology.  Similar to the book Into the Wild, My first two vines resemble that story.  In my first vine, I say “Is there more to life than this?” as I take record of the millions of people living and traveling in the same direction as myself.  I say this sarcastically in my vine because the saying used in my vine does not come from me, but from Bear Grylls, a survivalist.  He stands on the top of Mount Everest and proclaims, “Is there more to life than this?”  He experiences nature on a whole new level.   But just Into the Wild, my first vine shows an unsatisfying view, wanting an independent journey far from others.  My second vine talks about leaving technology behind for good.  In the vine I say, “The first step in leaving technology behind is the hardest, but what’s so hard about the next few”.  The message here is that becoming a leaver and abandoning technology takes time.  You cannot expect yourself to abandon everything right away, but you can pace yourself and not check your phone every five minutes.  You can start by not reading emails; you can stop by not turning on your phone for days at a time.  Leaving technology is a process not an impulse.  My third vine represents my life.  I live in Farmington, Minnesota.  Exactly, no one knows where that is.  I want to live somewhere breath taking, where every day is an adventure.  I don’t want everything to be given to me; I want to discover these places on my own.  I do not want to go a grocery store to get my food because I want to go out into my back yard and hunt for my food.  I want to taste water from a streaming river.  I want to discover a patch of berries, but I cannot because the path of my life has been paved.  Because I did not grow up surrounded by this life, this natural care free life does not belong to me no matter how bad I want it to. 

Questioning Abraham and God

In class, the concept of Abraham’s illegitimate son, Ishmael was brought up in class.  After reflecting on the idea, a couple of questions came to mind.  If Isaac contains the descendents of all Christians and God symbolizes Christianity, where do the descendents of Ishmael stand?  I do not believe the concept of a gorilla being God’s illegitimate son because that is not a part of my faith.   I do question my faith sometimes, and the idea that God may have an illegitimate son ponders me.  If God loves everyone the same and claims everyone has his son or daughter, why allow for one of the most prominent Biblical figures (Abraham) to disown a son?  Why God allows this will always question me, but what questions me more is the concept of sin and why Abraham is not punished for banning Ishmael.  Cain kills his brother Able and his punishment affects mankind.  A Biblical figure banning his son just does not add up as “okay” to do in the Bible. 

                Adam and Eve symbolize the first sin as Quinn writes, “I pointed to my own fair or maggot-colored face” (175).  This can be the only explanation for why God allows Abraham to disown his son Ishmael.   Abraham is only human with a “maggot colored face” therefore he can commit adultery and ban FIRST born son.  First born sons in the Bible are so significant in the Bible that it scares me to think about why God would allow Ishmael to have his own set of descendents.  Because God did not give Abraham a punishment, this just shows that even God did not want Ishmael.  Islamic faith and Christian Faith are similar in the fact that they both believe Heaven exists, but they are also very different.  Visit this site to learn more about the nature of both faiths: http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/christianity-vs.-islam. 

                Personally, I cannot find it in myself to ever believe that God could have an illegitimate son, but it does scare me that Abraham, an enormous figure in the Old Testament, is allowed to commit adultery and ban his first born son from his tribe.  Why is there an exception? Does God want two separate branches of faith?  Is this a similar comparison to the Tower of Babel in the fact that God does not want mankind figuring out God’s master plan?  These questions will remain unknown to me, but the book Ishmael definitely sparked some questions about the Bible, sin, and mankind.   

Pixar Changing Game Plan For Youth Today

While watching the movie Wall-E in class, I tried to recall the first time I had seen the movie.  When I started sixth grade, my family saw the movie together.  I personally did not enjoy the concept of a robot, whose intellectual ability could have been replaced with that of a dog, falling in love and saving the world.  On the other hand, my two younger brothers who were in third grade and preschool thought the movie deserved a sequel.  I could not understand it.  Why are younger generations obsessed with movies about technology and futuristic shiny objects? Is this necessarily a bad thing?

Movies like Mary Poppins are a thing of the past.  Movies where children go outside and play do not seem to entertain kids the same way today.  Kids now enjoy Pixar movies like Wall-E and Cars.  Human movie characters have recently become outdated in Pixar because of the desire for technology in today’s generation.  Who wants to listen to people talk when robots and cars can communicate with each other?  These cars and robots contain human morals, but their physical appearance differs.  Children love this, but why? Isn’t Pixar’s job to keep their stories basic with themes of family, love, loyalty, friendship, and bravery?  I’m making a bet that in fifty years down the road a Pixar movie about an orphan Ipad will come out and will make billions of dollars because that will show how wrapped up children will be in technology. 

Am I saying that a movie like Cars or Wall-E is bad for society? No. I just believe that children miss the humility, friendship, bravery, and love when actual humans are not involved.  If Pixar is continues to make movies without human interaction like one of their newest movies, Planes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KumjBXHdzY), how will a child’s development differ from that of a child’s who grew up watching Mary Poppins and Annie?  I believe there will not be a difference because movies like Mary Poppins do not just disintegrate   when a movie about robots comes out.  Children will always and forever be exposed to movies from generations just like music.  Even though dubstep songs come out more and more today, nothing is more refreshing than listening to Matchbox Twenty or Skidrow.  Even though it seems scary to think that Pixar continues to make movies that do not contain human interaction, children will develop the same way to function in society.