MAKE UP 2

Let’s talk about Jazz and its impact on the black community because, hey, what did the invisible man do to be so black and blue? Have a deep seated history in jazz music! Jazz music was created by the impact of slave and their folklore. Basically, the musical traditions from west Africa brought together a strong tribal music coupled with American music found in the south. Lavish festivals in which slaves were able to participate occurred in places like New Orleans and Texas, where slavery existed but wasn’t the keystone of the economy. It functioned as music for work, ritual, relax, and expression and included work songs for field work and music when relaxing in cabins. The African tradition used many single line melodies and what is called “call response patterns”, but lacking strong music theory and stringent musical harmony. The rhythm was actually composed by the individual and their outward expression, and was easily controlled and swayed by the tempo of the person tapping their foot. What was strongly different about Jazz than other forms of music was that it was the everyday man’s music, and was relaxing and not heavily regulated by men in whigs and coats. In the early 19th century an increasing number of black musicians learned to play European instruments, particularly the violin, which they used to parody European dance music in their own cakewalk dances. In turn, European-American minstrel show performers in blackface popularized such music internationally, combining syncopation with European harmonic accompaniment. Louis Moreau Gottschalk adapted African-American cakewalk music, South American, Caribbean and other slave melodies as piano salon music. Another influence came from black slaves who had learned the harmonic style of hymns and incorporated it into their own music as spirituals. Following the civil war, blacks had new opportunities in careers never open to them before. Although Jim Crow Laws strictly regulated much of their work, many were still able to function in entertainment and music. Jazz really started its grass roots in local bars and saloons, allowing for a party like atmosphere for the everyday man, not just those of the upper class. Jazz was soon to be associated with negativity because of its placement in these types of saloons. In fact, vaudeville also stemmed from the jazz movement and was able to come to terms with the onslaught of the jazz movement. By the 20th century jazz had become a legitimate type of music, becoming popular around the country – especially in three specific cities. Louisiana was the world capital of jazz, where the movement originated. Other significant jazz cities included Memphis, Tennessee and Charleston, South Carolina. Still today, Louisiana is still widely known for its jazz heritage and its Creole culture. Many famous players in the early jazz movement include Ernest Hogan, who appeared first before the 20th century, Vess Ossman, who popularized the banjo within the movement, Tom Turpin, who brought jazz to Harlem, and Scott Joplin who brought into play “ragtime”.

MAKEUP 1

The first part of the stranger was pretty mundance and kind of pointless, in the most literary significant way possible. Mersault, which I later discovered did not sound like assault, pretty much finds life to be pointless and black, and hardly bats on eyelash at the passing of his mother. And although that may seem kind of cruel, the other morning I was listening to NPR and apparently Americans are now pretty similar to Mersault. Supposedly, American particaticiaptoin in volunteering and Pta’s have dropped over 60% in the last few decades – in the 1950s over 80% of mothers were involved in there children’s school functions whereas now it’s a low of 33% - and that’s not even all of it. Even voting has decreased exponentially. “By the 1950s, however, voter turnout was back to normal, and all signs in the United States pointed to ever higher rates. College-educated Americans were half again as likely to vote as those who had not finished high school. With college attendance on the rise, the trend appeared unmistakable. Moreover, women had been steadily closing the voting gap that had existed ever since they had gained the vote in 1920. Their turnout rate initially was not much more than half that of men; by the 1950s, the gap had narrowed to 10 percentage points. And signs of racial change were clearly evident. It would only be a matter of time before literacy tests, poll taxes, and other legal barriers to black participation were removed.” Volunteers for the military have also dropped 25-40%, and that’s a conservative estimate, form the 1950s, Some attribute many Americans apathy as a consequence of Vietnam, and nowadays Americans are just more jaded and less willing to get engaged. Others speculate the falloff the PTA participation with the substantial rise in the amount of households with 2 working parents, and then theres simply not enough time in the day. However there has been substantial rise in membership growth in organizations like the NARP, where membership is based on dues not an attendance. Whatever the reason, people have been growing more bored with society I feel like in the past few decades. In the 1950s it was okay to have national pride, whereas now you don’t typically see as much outgoing displays of Americanism. Perhaps people have grown more jaded with the wars and the deception of our government, I’m not really sure. I do think that our society has grown increasingly more busy, stressful, and everyone seems to be depressed nowadays – which all seem related.
P.S. – “A surprising number of Americans report high levels of stress, anxiety, and sadness, according to new survey results. Even though their symptoms don't meet the definition of clinical depression, they can have a significant negative impact on quality of life, according to Dr. Michael Seidman of the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan.” Depression is hitting the nation really hard nowadays…I wonder why?

Why Women Aren't Important (According to IM)

According to Invisible Man, the real women question is this: Why do women want to use me as a sexual object, and why should they have rights? Not only is that largely offensive to myself and anyone else who has read Wikipedia articles on feminism on any given night, it’s not the right questions that should be posed about women. Some better questions could be posed from many archetypal women, especially many that Walt Disney decided to animate.
1. Why do women need to be saved by men riding a gleaming white horse? Well, that’s an easy and simple question. See, in the archetypal sense, women did not actually gain independence nor brain function until approximately the 16th century. Before then, women were burned at the stakes for such grievances, and just to make sure we got all the witches we still burned women later on for not being married by 20. Anyways, women have always been considered somewhat helpless, and that they need saving of some sorts. Take a look at nearly any Disney movie involving a princess. Cinderella, she needed saving by the prince to escape her ugly family who abused her mercilessly – women weren’t granted loans back then. Ariel the mermaid, see she needed to escape from her underwater playground to go marry a man she has never had a serious conversation with. These are the morals that need to be instilled in our children today, Invisible Man, not that we are all fighting white man’s oppression.
2. Why do women only appear at inappropriate moments to demand things from me, unless they’re acting as a Mary figure? Good question, IM, good question. See, the tricky thing about women is that they like to use men – oh wait, maybe the fact that you’re in a very open political movement about fighting oppression isn’t the greatest way to start out a dinner conversation. See, politics and religion are two things you do not need to bring up on a first date. Do you know what you’ve just talked about for the past 350 pages? The fact that the only woman you’ve ever liked was named Mary, and you are the member of an organization extremely dedicated to getting black rights. In fact, there’s so much serpent imagery around that I feel as if you’re intending to just relate characters in your past to religious figures in order to illustrate your race’s subjugation to white men and the religion forced on them generations ago. Maybe you should join a book club or something; that should help your relations with the ladies.
3. Why do women only wear red? Okay, Invisible Man, we all know most of the encounters you have with women involve them wearing either a red robe or having red nail polish. But, considering that you are so caught up on the religious imagery, we usually find that red means either lust or the devil – or both in your cases! I would find a nice girl that is wearing a nice green or blue dress, in fact go with the blue dress. She’ll match your innards, according to your relation to Louise Armstrong songs.

Ideologies

Why do ideologies so epically fail in Invisible Man? When he joins the Brotherhood, he later discovers that he doesn’t actually fit into their scientific mold and their black and white (pun intended) guidelines for speaking to the people. Yet, he hasn’t fit in with any other ideologies either – his Grandfather traumatized him for life, and Mr. Norton’s way of giving to people didn’t exactly appeal to him either. He wasn’t even a fan of the union at the factory hospital, so much so that Brockway threw him in a machine that in turn gave him a lobotomy. Yet, why is it so hard for people to find one ideology and stick to it? This applies to people across the board, in my opinion. The only people that can really stick hard core to certain ideologies are those heavily up in the ranks of said ideology, and those that envy said people. Take for example political parties. Most people are somewhat lenient on an issue within their given party. Although some people may claim to be democrats, they may fall conservative on the issue of gun control or taxation. Yet, there are a few radicals that claim that they are extremely aligned with the party – how does this happen? Well, the affirmation of one’s identity has to also be aligned with the party, no matter how direct. That doesn’t mean that you have to be the next nominee for the Democratic Presidential Ticket to be a staunch liberal. What that means is that some part of you has to be connected. In AP US GOV we learned that nearly 60-70% of all people show a direct relationship with how they vote and how their parents vote. Obviously, their parents instilled values in them that continued throughout their lives, and this continued to affect their identities under that party ticket. Yet, theres also a statistic that those who always rebelled from their parents on other issues like religion and clothing style usually directly rebelled from their parents politically. So, whatever your identity is connected to, whether it be for or against your parents - social scientists can accurately predict whether your were a McCain or Obama fan. How does this go back to Invisible Man? Well, because the narrator never really had a staunch identity to begin with, and if he did he certainly doesn’t remember after his lobotomy, he is a blank slate, a tabula rosa if you will. So, he doesn’t really have any basis to start off his identity with, and less likely to stick keenly to one ideology. That being said, he also could have gone in the complete opposite direction. He could have found his identity within the Brotherhood so much so that he embedded his entire identity into becoming the ideology of the party, and forgo any misgivings that the party is too scientific and cold blooded. Yet, the narrator opts to go a different route – one of disattatchment and hiding in a hole.

Invisibility in Literature

So, by now we all should have read Invisible Man front to back - which is a task I know all however many AP LIT students have accomplished. Invisible Man obviously is a book about a man isolated from society, and in a sense is a coming of age book. Yet, there are many other novels that also use a motif of invisibility to convey a loss of identity and a suppossed persona. Take for example the first book titled Invisible Man, but it was by a simple man - H.G. Wells. Ever hear of the Time Machine? Or War of the Worlds? Yeah, exactly. This novel is also pretty intense, (and I actually bought a copy of it before Mrs. Clinch clarified that is was the wrong book...and read most of it because it was really good) and its about, obviously, a literal invisible man. In this story an invisible man, wrapped in bandages, shows up at an Inn to stay for a few weeks. Yet, when the land lady discovers he's literally an invisible man he flees, leaving the towns people hanging. Yes, they were pretty freaked out - so the best option of course when you get scared is to beat him to death! Although he was invisible, the town's people anger acted as a sort of "Invisible-man-dar" and found Griffin (his name) and beat him until their arms got tired. Invisibility in this book acts as a deformity, and illustrates how people hate other people not exactly like them. Which is a commonality in most literature before 1900.
In Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, a very indepth tale of a boy's magical quest from child abuse, invisibility is also used for a defensive move (an invisibility cloak). But invisibility can be benign. Harry's cloak of invisibility was given to him by Dumbledore in the first Potter novel (it belonged to his father) and is used in every subsequent volume to allow him to get up to his virtuous tricks without his schoolfellows noticing. I'm not really sure if there's a literary purpose here, other than maybe being invisible for the sake of defense shows futility of war? Yeah...that seems like a bit of a stretch. An additional story that makes use of invisibility is “The Headless Horseman”, where the horses remain either invisible or skeletons, and the rider has a pumpkin head. Most students read this at some point in American Lit, and I read it last year for AP LANG. This story seems a tad bit more archetypal than it is deep, but basically the point of invisibility in this story is that the horses are invisiblie to frighten people. See, people are scared of what they do not know. That’s basically why racism exists, and nearly every other fear imaginable. In fact, I do recall from a Doctor Phil show that all fears are based on the fact that you do not have control over the situation. The headless horseman inspired fear because he was indestructible, invisible, and a deathly force to be reckoned with – quite a good theme to convey when writing a horror story. Invisibility works on many frontiers, and not just to illustrate that a man can be completely cast out of society. That would take a volleyball named Wilson…I know bad reference.

Hamlet - Antichrist?

Good evening, Bloggers. Well, with the conclusion of Hamlet now out of the way there is something that has been pressing on everyone's mind - is Hamlet legitimately crazy, dutiful, or something else? Well, tonight I will be analyzing Hamlet's role as the antichrist, and the striking similarities between the two characters. My source comes from the book of revelations and Daniel, and my inspiration comes from a recent forwarded email from my nearly facist grandmother on the similarities between Obama and the antichrist (FYI: Reagan had more similarities than Obama). So, let us begin.
1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7] Alright, so young Hamlet doesn't come from one of the ten restored Roman kings - but his entire identity as an actor IS based from the classics - from the Greeks! If he were to actually have become king, he would've obviously reigned with those in mind. Sh-bam.
2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24] Old Hamlet, Uncle Clauds, and Fortinbras - there's three for you.
3. He is different from the other kings [Daniel 7:24] Of course he is - he was SUPPOSED TO BE KING (never really got there) AND WAS MOST LIKELY THE MOST MENTALLY INSANE.
4. He will rise from obscurity…a “little horn” [Daniel 7:8] Hamlet's rise to destroy Claudius was pretty obscure, right out of left field for those Danish onlookers. Princes killing kings? Nonsense.
5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5] Give me that man That is not passion's slave, and I will wear him In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart, As I do thee. Enough said.
6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6] Hamlet gets very existentialist in the third soliloquy (To be or not to be), and many Elizabethians would have agreed good ol' Hamlet's pessimism could very well be associated with the devil. Also, him associating with ghost dad was in itself forsaking God.
7. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25] Okay, so look at it this way. Hamlet did take out Claudius (and himself) and established Denmark in a new era with Fortinbras. That is definitely a new era. He gets a point for this one.
8. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era
[Dan 7:25] He goes AGAINST laws to gain advantage for his kingdom, by planning for 5 acts to kill Claudius. I know, a far stretch. Also, Hamlet's political skills aren't as good as, per se, his being a witty jerk skills.
9. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27] As you can clearly see, this is obviously Horatio's opinion at the end of the play. Not that Fortinbras is Christ, no no no - that the only person who can TRUMP Hamlet is Christ. Horatio was a big Hamlet fan, you see.
13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; “He will do as he pleases”[Daniel 11:36] DO I NEED EVEN A RESPONSE FOR THIS? REALLY?
The entire play, with such strikes as "A little less than kin" and "Get thee to a nunnery", Hamlet answers to HIMSELF - reminiscent of a Monique-esque persona. Hamlet still inspires many divas today.
I think I'll stop at the lucky number 13...I may continue this countdown next week. THE EVIDENCE IS OUT THERE PEOPLE.

Hamlet - A Pretentious Jerk?

Hamlet honestly just strikes me as one of those guys who really has an ego problem. You know, a complete narcissist. Well, this week I would like to examine what a narcissist is, the disorder associated with it, and other literary characters who would fit this example.
The following criteria characterizes a person with a Narcissistic personality disorder:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
- Well, this can definitely be attributed to Hamlet. Especially in regards to his stage presence and his intellectual persona.
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
- I would say he's obsessed with the fact that he has to kill Claudius...perhaps that fits in this category? Its hard to say how Hamlet was before all the drama.
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
- Well, his soliloquys kind of imply this, don't you think? That he can't comminucate with the people within his world, so he has to talk to himself. Naturally.
4. requires excessive admiration
- If we look to our girl Ophelia on this one, this is a yes.
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
- Um, he does get pretty angry about the whole his mom having an incestuous affair with Claudius. File this under sense of entitlement.
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
- Oh very much so! Let's look back at Ophelia, to prove he's mad he basically goes crazy as crap on her just to better position himself in his "wit chessgame".
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
- Well, depending on the interpretation, Hamlet is either concerned for the livelihood of Ophelia and his mother or he just uses them because they're women and that's what they're good for. I'm going with the latter intepretation.
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
- I'm sure he belives that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are jealous of his awesome wit skills. What with all those references to fortune.
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
- Basically every single time Hamlet speaks.
Well, what other literary characters also illustrate a narcissistic personality? Well, for the perfect example, I'd go with The Picture of Dorian Gray - if I remember correctly he even admitted he was a narcissist. If you want to get on the slightly more disturbing side, the narrator of American Psyche (the most disgusting book you will ever read - that's not even an opinion its a fact) is a cold blooded narcissist. Additional narcissists could be every single king in medieval europe, every single person on a TV reality show, and of course Lord Byron.