We've only had one class so far, and we've covered so much ground, asked so many questions. My head is spinning with ideas, angles, depth, and a variety of colorful thoughts. How about yours? Let me reiterate some of the questions below, and allow you to post some of your kaleidoscopic responses here, and, hopefully, some support for your gut feelings and thoughts too please.
1. What distinction, if any, do you make between fiction and virtual reality? You may want to define fiction and virtual reality, on your own terms, first, before proceeding to answer the rest of the question.
2. When you think about people like celebrities, do you view them as real? Was Michael Jackson a fiction? How did you see him and why?
3. T.S. Eliot talks about the face we put on to meet the faces of others, which I understand as a version of the persona, where does that fit?
----------------------------------------
topic of the week: CONFLICT [particularly around others' expectations of us, whether it be the boss's, school's, families' (plural if you are married and have more than one family expecting things from you), children's, students', self's, society's/culture's, religion's/church's, etc.] a small introduction to differences in voice which will continue across the semester, but teach students to start listening and how to start listening for differences in voice. Most of all enjoy the time teaching your class, and enjoy writing with them, but be sure to maintain order and structure, so it remains enjoyable.
Reminder of LiterActive Texts you can connect to theme of course and to "Girl":
1. Increase Mather's text on witchcraft (listed under Hawthorne)
2. Ted Hughes' text listed under Plath
3. Sylvia Plath's journal text
4. Mother text listed under Amy Tan
See if you can find one or two others and explain in one or two sentences what type of connection we can make to the class theme of types of enslavement and to "Girl."
----------------------------------------
See Post #2 later tonight on beginning to write the paper, and other posts later in the week on the issue of quoting and on thesis statements.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Virtual reality is fiction. The whole concept behind VR is a make believe world. Computer gaming is the biggest form of VR but I would state that even computer games like SIMS would be included in that as well.
ReplyDeleteVirtual Reality allows a person to be somebody different, yet at the same time it also allows others to be themselves. The concept of not seeing others face-to-face seems to me to foster the idea of fiction. How are you able to believe what you hear or see?
Celebrity & Fiction: I think being a celebrity can be a form of fiction. Even though a person is who they are on an everyday basis...they still put on a different persona when they are in the public eye. We as consumers are not (most of the time) privey to the intimate details of these peoples' lives. We do not see them cook dinner or do homework with their children. So yes in a sense, being a celebrity is fiction.
I agree that celebrity can be a form of fiction. The persona is created to attract an audience - a particular audience perhaps. Unfortunately, the persona is to attract popularity for economic reasons. The persona changes as trends change ....that's why idolizing celebrities is odd? What are we really worshipping -- a trend, an image -- whatever it is, it is certainly not a genuine person. It is fiction.
ReplyDeleteENG106W is Robin. That's my fictional persona.
ReplyDeleteI think fiction is closer to reality for it does draw from, as well as reflects the human condition. Literature enriches one’s life. I find virtual reality distasteful. The attempt to make it look so real is ludicrous. It’s a phony face forward for the camera.
ReplyDeleteMichael Jackson was unfortunately a talented pawn in the hands of whoever managed his business affairs. Was he a fiction? I think so. What can be said about someone who was not even comfortable in his own skin? He didn’t give himself a chance to just be – a bit too far-fetched for him I’d say. Very sad though. I don’t know the particulars of why he became a slave to innumerable surgeries and bizarre make up, but I’m inclined to think it was a form of identity crisis and a major one at that.
Admiring and enjoying the work of celebrities is one thing, but I cannot comprehend the obsession part. How is being “obsessed” with some fictitious or even a genuinely real celebrity make one’s life interesting? It must be hard for celebrities to live up to a media publicized image, to deal with the pressure of expectations.
As regards to putting a face forward, that’s probably a consequence of a civilized society. It comes naturally. We don’t want to be walking around with self absorbed expressions; or sullen faces or even overjoyed expressions with a perpetual smile pasted on it, do we? At least I endeavor to put my saner (relatively speaking) face forward and try to keep my other faces low profile. I said “try”.
Also, the face we put on depends on the face we meet in others. Part of the nonverbal communication I reckon.
(Repost with correct display name)
ReplyDeleteConcerning Virtual Reality:
Yes, Virtual Reality is fiction. VR is basically enhanced pretend. Computer simulations are not real. This easily applies to facebook and myspace, where people can be different from who they are in the real world. Problems arise when people favor virtual reality over actual reality, as seen in online gaming addictions.
By definition, VR will have some aspects of reality, but most of what puts the "R" in "VR" is how the person reacts to the virtual environment. Gaming industries want a player's reactions to his/her character's experiences to be real, because it makes the player more engrossed and invested. Similarly, the military wants its soldiers to treat simulators as reality, but the investment (or how real the simulation may seem) depends largely upon the user. One can almost say that VR is as real as you make it, but one must understand that regardless of how real you make it, it will never be completely real.
The concept of reality is based on the idea of truth. Plato would argue that VR is less perfect than the real world because VR represents objects that actually exist as representations of the Perfect Form (A computer depiction of a table is a copy of an actual table which is a copy of the perfect idea of a table). Moreover, VR is like the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave, and one must be willing to escape the cave to understand the differences between shadows and life.
Virtual reality is a SIMULATION of reality. It's a PROJECTION of reality. It's an INTERPRETATION of reality. Because it's an interpretation, it's probably FLAWED and certainly INCOMPLETE.
ReplyDeleteFiction is also an INTERPRETATION, so like virtual reality, it's flawed and incomplete. Fiction is not always intended to SIMULATE aspects of reality, unlike VR.
A celebrity is just as real as me, or you, or anyone else. Michael Jackson was real. Anyone who think he wasn't "real" is using a definition of "reality" that is very strange to me. Perhaps what we're trying to get at is that the media feeds us a distored image of celebrities like Michael Jacckson. But how could it be otherwise? Michael Jackson the man and Michael Jackson the media-legend are different constructions, certainly. But there is no way for me to achieve an understanding of Michael Jackson the man from his media projection.
T.S. Eliot wrote about putting on a "face to meet the faces that you meet." My social identity is a construction. It's a construction that I have created. I am continually in the process of revising or reinforced this construction during any social interaction. The social construction of my identity is an INTERPRETATION. It is me interpreting the text of myself. Because it is an interpretation, is distorted. Because it is an interpretation, it is incomplete and flawed.
Some additional thoughts on this:
ReplyDeleteMichael Jackson never put on a face to meet my face. Instead, the media put a face on Michael Jackson and sent that face to meet me. The identity that Michael Jackson created for himself and the identity that the media created for him are both flawed an incomplete reflection of the Michael Jackson that stands behind it all. In this sense, then, there is no "real" Michael Jackson in the world, but simply various REPRESENTATIONS of him. Some of these representations are more complete than others, but they are all reflections glimpsed through a glass darkly.
In Hindu theology, an avatar is the incarnation, or REPRESENTATION of a god on earth. It's easier for a person to understand the avatar than the god. When the avatar Krishna shows his true form as the god Vishnu to Arjuna in the BHAGAVAD GITA, Arjuna has a lot of trouble understanding and becomes frightened and overwhelmed. He beds to see Vishnu as he saw him before, as the avatar Krishna. Similarly, our understanding of another person will ALWAYS be distorted, ALWAYS be limited. "The heart of another is a dark forest, always, no matter how close it has been to one's own" (Willa Sibert Cather).