Blogging Around

First, I commented on Cordelia's "Best of the Week" piece about "Form is Content". She made interesting connections between that idea and other aspects of life, and through doing which helped her reader achieve a deeper understanding of that idea and how it is rooted in human expression and behavior.

"Cordelia,

I had never even mentally related the idea of "form is content" to definite theories based on reason, such as science, but the fact that this idea only applies to writing, art, music, and such, truly attests to the abstract nature of writing and the art of human communication.
The main goal of advertising, as you discussed in your blog, is to capture your emotions and attention for the duration of the commercial; they know that our memory is more persistent when we are under the influence of our feelings. This expresses the idea of "form is cognition", which fits right alongside the topic of your blog. I also see this concept in art and music; the same song played by an orchestra and by a band has very different emotional impacts on the audience. Similarly, the same song played by a middle school orchestra and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra will surely strike the audience in different ways.
In the end, your blog inspired me to think about how "form is content" attests to the abstract nature of human expression, on a very down-to-earth and realistic level. The first thought that came to my head was want and desire; when we want to ask someone to do what we know they would never agree to, we must use our "form" to manipulate the "content" and how the other person feels emotionally, or their "cognition". This can be seen in various politicians in the past, or better yet certain world leaders and dictators, who acquired followers through manipulating and deceiving their people into wanting what they wanted. With this it becomes evident that greed perhaps, for money or fame or both, has also been a driving force behind manipulating form."

Second, I commented on Elizabeth's blog, in which she cites a connection between the use of kites in the book and the cycle of power, a literary theme/concept.

"Elizabeth,

I read a lot of blogs last night, and this has to be among the most original. It presents an angle, a perception of the story buried deeply within Hosseini's craft and storyline. It makes the significance of the fictional part of the story more prominent, through uncovering the connection to the "cycle of power", a literary theme/concept that has been used in other works.

In your blog, before greed came into play, you described flying kites as an activity that bound Amir and Hassan, and symbolized both their individual and collective power. I also thought about how it symbolized the unification of Baba's two halves, the societally-accepted half, and the underprivileged half, who may not have had many personal traits in common, but shared Baba's blood. On page 359 it says, "I looked at Hassan, showing those two missing front teeth, sunlight slanting on his face. Baba's other half. The unentitled, underprivileged half. The half who had inherited what had been pure and noble in Baba", (359).

Towards the end of your blog, when opened up a new angle to the symbolism of the kite running at the end of the book, I was very surprised. I had simply seen that as a role reversal between the loyal and the dependent, as Amir's final gift to Hassan, and as Amir's happiness at finally having been able to come to terms with himself. However, seeing the kite running as being possible only because Amir restored his power through coming to terms with himself, and because Sohrab balanced out the power, is a very unique and deep understanding of the book. It represents a degree of closure barely visible among many intellectual individuals, and makes me feel more strongly about calling Hosseini a talented author, although there are a few missteps he took while writing the fictional memoir."

It Matters: Postmodernism

     Last week in class, we progressed from analyzing the literary aspects of The Kite Runner, such as form, content, and cognition, to readily connecting Hosseini's craft with the attributes of the "post-modern" shift in mindset, writing, and art. The core of our understanding of Postmodernism--to put a roof over the discussion--was rooted in the words "ambiguity" and "multiplicity", We talked about how, in a post-modern world--while we seem to see the beauty in simplicity, contrive its greater meaning, feel its weight--there is such a degree of complexity to our politics, economics, religion, art, and social structure that "no single person can understand or explain it entirely".

      We capped our discussion with the quote, "what is close is distant, what is distant is close", This quote directly relates to the "corruption of space", an important attribute of Postmodernism. It is important on a global level because, in a post-modern society, we essentially have the world at our fingertips. We're able to call or Skype someone on the other side of the globe, share photos with them on Flickr, or send them an instant chat message with the click of a button, opening up new opportunities for friendships. However, when it comes to having talked to or seen your best friend in person or even knowing how the neighbor two doors down is doing, we tend to be less persistent.

      In my opinion, Postmodernism matters because of this very "corruption of space" and duality about what is close and what is far. In many ways, the spread of the "mobile web" recently and even "wi-fi" a while ago have contributed to corrupt space. Whether you're in the kitchen, bedroom, restaurant down the street, or movie theater, you can still technically browse the web, check your email, take pictures, and so on. Time has extended many of these privileges outside of the house--before, you could only receive mail (not e-mail) at your home; check for a fact in the Encyclopedia, at home, and have a phone conversation with someone, at home. Now, however, we have phones that alert us when we have received mail, the ability to check and manage our bank accounts online, from almost anywhere (as opposed to paying bills by hand), verify any fact with Google on the mobile web, and make a regular or video call, from wherever. The complexity of these technological advancements has corrupted space through virtually giving us the ability to do anything from anywhere--the idea that you could be at a baseball game and have a video conference with your coworker about the meeting the next day, text your friend about their plans for the evening, or even buy a pair of shoes online--all with one device, at one time, at one place.

     This technological revolution discourages us, in one way or another, from personal methods of communication, like being in the physical presence of another person or even calling them. Our post-modern generation sees simplicity as being meaningful, as elemental in the big picture. So why bother with the call or visit, when you can send your friend a succinct, abbreviated message from your phone or laptop at your convenience, and have them reply at their's, With this fact it becomes evident that, while the corruption of space Postmodernism have been greatly advanced with the recent improvements in technology, the complexity of life Postmodernism created was essentially the driving force behind these improvements in the first place. 

      To give an example, students form a huge chunk of the global texters, emailers, and instant-messengers. These days there are a handful of students at each grade level who will play a sport for the school, play a club sport in the same season, and meanwhile be a dedicated musician or actor in a school play. They might have a club meeting for Project Earth, then a soccer game, and after possibly a LaCrosse practice or orchestra rehearsal all in one day. Given this multiplicity, they need a device with which they can let their parents know where they are, converse with their friends, and look up Spanish vocabulary for homework between their activities.

      Another important implication of Postmodernism and the corruption of space involves photo sharing, both online and through texts. The fact that I could be in the Carribean, take a picture, and text it to my friend in Illinois, having her receive it within minutes, shows how corrupted space is. I am supposed to be away from our society, on vacation to clear my mind, when instead I am sharing my space with the technological presence of my friend, so to speak. She may not be physically here with me, but if we video-chat, she can see, hear, and almost feel where I am, which corrupts her space too. This ability to share photos real-time, and have live video chats, almost adds a duality to my vacation--not only am I vacationing at this resort, sitting in front of the pool--but I am also splitting my location between a place to converse with my friend, and in one way or another, a theater. A theater, in the sense that I am talking to her live and presenting my location visually; her technological presence is with me, watching. 

      Overall, this concept of "corrupt space" can range from the simplicity of a video call, as opposed to the complexity of a letter, to the global political and economic trends of our post-modern world. The two can even connect, for example, in a presidential address broadcast via television--a seemingly simple idea, with a set of complex implications. Learning about the logistics of Postmodernism, through its duality of simplicity and complexity, has given us a new way of thinking about and a new perception of The Kite Runner. We notice the different genres of the book, the fragmentation, repetition--and are able to appreciate them, not only as elements of Hosseini's good craft and developed voice, but more importantly, as attributes of the post-modern times.

Best of the Week: Form is Cognition

     These last few weeks, we've focused a great deal on how the explicit and implicit styles in which an author explains a concept, event, or feeling can largely influence and contribute to the core of that concept, event, or feeling itself. In other words, we've picked apart the aspects of "Form is Content" and readily applied it to our reading of The Kite Runner.  The surface connection between form and content is explained, in literary terms, this way: "...in any actual work there can be no content that has not in some way been formed, and no purely empty form." In class, we've also talked about some of the ways form affects content--fragmented sentences, repetition, sensory details, tense and point of view.

     Hosseini's goal, through manipulation of form, is to strengthen our emotional commitment and connection with the book. While he writes the book with that one goal in mind, the affects of his unique form branch off in two directions; content, and deeper level, cognition. One example of this duality lies in the contrast between two passages, on pages 121 and 122. On page 121, Amir is panicking because he's barely able to breathe in the stuffy oil truck.         

     "PANIC. You open your mouth. Open it so wide your jaws creak. You order your lungs to draw air, NOW, you need air, need it NOW. But your airways ignore you. They collapse, tighten, squeeze...", (121). Here, the reader can almost feel the pain Amir does, the frightening reality the reader would never want to find himself in, but which keeps him reading. As we discussed in class, the fact that the novel shifts from past tense to present tense slows down the book, and entirely shifts the mood. The repetition of "now", "you", and "air" underscores Amir's frantic thoughts. Overall, all of the sensory details that are included in this passage do not simply build an emotional connection to the reader, but rather "engulf" the reader, for lack of better word.

     On page 122, however, Baba tells Amir to calm down and think of something "good. Something happy." As a result, the mood drastically changes.

     "A breeze stirs the grass and Hassan lets the spool roll. The kite spins, dips, steadies. Our twin shadows dance on the rippling grass. From somewhere over the low brick wall at the other end of the field, we hear laughter and the chirping of a water fountain", (122-23). The form Hosseini used to write this passage not only affects content but also cognition. As far as content, the sentences here seem to flow, and his thoughts roll along. The words, "breeze, roll, steadies, grass" symbolize the natural and carefree nature of the environment. Now, sitting in the musty oil truck, this fantasy settles in as a compilation of the happiest moments of his life--an oversimplification of his Afghan life instigated only by the horrid nature of the oil truck and recent hits to his emotional health. 

     This concept is very true in our society today--sometimes, we take our health, family, and life conditions for granted, but when disaster strikes, we really realize what we lost or could lose. Throughout our lives before the disaster or conflict, we may have been very unhappy, but when one aspect of our lives crumbles we view the past as golden, as wonderful and almost perfect. However, the superficial comfort the memories provide us with are only temporary; at one point we realize that life wasn't all that perfect, and is much less perfect with the onset of conflict. The only thing that can keep us moving is an acknowledgment of the past, the present, and the will and optimism to move forward. 

     In the back of our heads, our cognition recognizes this, and pushes us to read on and see whether Amir will face himself and move forward, given the innocence of America, or live in the past when faced with problems in the present, as is happening now. The way in which Hosseini clues us in on the inner workings of Amir's brain and his cognition, in turn touch our cognition, mentally connecting us to the story.

     Our connection through cognition also establishes an emotional connection with Amir. We have all been at a point in our lives when bad thing after bad thing happens, and we seek security in the arms of the past. We also may feel sorry for him, for the burden he must carry in his heart, that his "brother" moved away, and the fact that he has to flee his homeland. There might also be a bit of anger mixed in, as we feel he must face himself sooner or later, or at least summon the courage to survive what's happening to him, as opposed to ignoring the present and dwelling in the few happy times of his childhood.

An Inconvenient Truth: Distortion, Ignorance and Contradiction Within our Government

       "We did not ask for this fight." Obama said in a speech two Decembers ago. He explained later, "Al Qaeda's base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban, a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."

     In this quote, Obama's words do have some degree of truth--but like all other speeches, they primarily target the emotions, using superfluous language to divert from the complexity of the situation and instead identify for the public who the good and bad guys are. However, as is evident, there is a lot of history left out of Obama's claim--history which many Americans sadly don't even know about. It is that history which the government and media work so diligently to cover-up, and if anything, create a narrative to justify. 

     Historically, the United States government supported the Mujahadeen resistance group in overthrowing the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan--not because they were concerned about the stability and prosperity of the country--but because they were in the midst of a cold war with the Soviets, simply using Afghanistan as a battlefield. To secure a victory against the soviets, the CIA financially supported, armed, and trained Mujahideen soldiers. The United States' support proved to be sufficient to force the soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan, but it came at a great cost--the blood of the soldiers and innocent Afghan citizens who were killed as a result of the billions of dollars of weaponry the US provided Afghanistan resistance groups with.

     In the years that came after, the Taliban was born as a faction of the Mujahideen resistance movement. Much of the weaponry that the United States had provided for the Mujahideen now ended up in the hands of the Taliban. With people, weapons, and money, they eventually rose to power, enforcing a fundamentalist Islamic government. 

     Back in Obama's quote, he says that the Taliban is a radical movement that "seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war." He didn't mention, however, was that it was our VERY weaponry that helped the Taliban in engulfing the region. It was our very support--though we were solely focused on the cold war--which grew the resistance movements, out of which the Taliban was eventually born. Had we not thrown billions of dollars into the conflict, the resistance groups would never have been able to secure a victory, and the issue of terrorism in our society would not be as prominent as it is today.

     This expresses an inconvenient truth--the origins of the conflict in Afghanistan don't point nearly as much to the Mujahideen as they do to us, but you will never hear any American politician voicing regret for that, or telling the story like it is. However, some words said by president Jimmy Carter in a late 90's interview give clue as to why the origin of the Taliban is very distorted throughout the government and media--not simply because of intentions to cover-up our early involvement, but pure ignorance. Carter's words in this 1998 interview: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

    In the interview, Carter spoke of a pre-9/11 world. He himself had yet to witness the disastrous effects the Taliban on our homeland--mainly the 9/11 attack--which former U.S. ally Osama Bin Laden was allegedly behind. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan now place in the top 10 countries for civilian deaths as a result of terrorist acts. Both countries are also rated "5" on the global terrorist indicator chart. And, because of the September 11th attacks and other linked events, the United States also ranks in the top 10 for civilian casualties as a result of terrorism. Though we have not felt the impacts of large-scale terrorism after 9/11, smaller acts of terrorism still linger and threaten the population. David Lightman of the Miami Herald says of terrorism in America, "Terrorism today is more likely to come as small-scale attacks, such as last November's shootings at Fort Hood military base in Texas, where a gunman killed 13 people, or the failed attempt May 1 to set off explosives in Times Square." All these factors show that the government who indirectly fueled the future growth of terrorism through billions of dollars worth of weapons, did not do so because of a slight miscalculation--they simply were ignorant, and perhaps blind to the catastrophic effects of what they did.

     Our government, thirty years later, has improved, but is not much different. Less than a month ago, just as Afghan president Hamid Karzai was under increasing pressure by the United States to free the government and society of corruption, two Afghan government officials linked to the CIA were arrested on corruption charges. Mohammed Zia Salehi, one of Karzai's top aides, is most prominent government figure accused of corruption. Another significant figure in the corruption investigation is Hamid Karzai's own brother, Ahmed Ali Karzai. Dan Farber of CBS World News writes about the president's brother, "Karzai has been on the CIA payroll according to U.S. officials, and has been accused of gaining power via the drug trade and making deals with tribal warlords and Taliban fighters."

     This news hit stands after over a year and a half of the Obama Administration reassuring the American public that they were working diligently with administrators to put an end to governmental corruption in Afghanistan. As early as March 27th, 2009, Obama remarked in a speech, "And I want to be clear: we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior..."

     Obama has been "helping" the Afghan government to eliminate corruption for almost two years now, while it has just become clear that high-up government officials are directly linked to the Taliban. New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti said of the recent corruption investigation, "The ties underscore doubts about how seriously the Obama administration intends to fight corruption here. The anticorruption drive, though strongly backed by the United States, is still vigorously debated inside the administration." So, just as we indirectly supported the Taliban years ago, we are providing troops for and financially supporting a government which is in fact linked to the people we are fighting, which is completely contradictory. We are feeding military power into the hands of government officials, who meanwhile are dealing money with the Taliban and making top dollar off of the drug trade. On top of that, Obama had stated he wished to eliminate the corruption which "causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders." A year and a half later, it is the American people who, after enduring several years in a plunging economy, housing market, and job crisis, are realizing the emptiness of Obama's words and losing even more faith in our leaders. 

     In his speech on September 7th, 2001--just days before the terrorist attacks--George Bush articulated an important governmental concept. As the concept he outlined still proves to be completely true for Afghanistan, it can be applied just as easily to the United States--as was apparent fifteen years ago, when the Taliban rose to power in Afghanistan, and less than fifteen days ago, with the recent corruption investigation. 

     "Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader, " Bush assured the American people. "If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril."