"Shooting an Elephant", Orwell

     In this story the narrator is a police officer for the English that everyone hates. He is jeered at and tripped by people (in soccer), and is very angry with how people treat him. He hates hits job and doesn't even know why he does it anymore. One day, he receives reports of a wild elephant rampaging through the town. So he takes a rifle which he knows is not strong enough to kill the elephant, and goes. He cannot find the elephant and everyone has a different story. He does not even believe the reports until he sees a mangled body left by the elephant. Eventually they find the elephant, and it looks calm so he does not wish to shoot it. However, the people followed him and are eagerly awaiting him to shoot it. He does shoot and eventually kill it solely not to look foolish.

     This story seems to be highly symbolic of World War II. Specifically with the elephant and the police officer. The elephant seems to represent Germany to some extent, and the police officer seems to represent the American government. When the elephant is angry it takes and does whatever it wants, and no one had the ability to stop it. The officer thinking to himself that his gun would never kill an elephant seems to represent the idea of how weak the American army was compared to Germany's. Also, when the man shoots the elephant, it is solely for the crowd's appeasement, which may have been somewhat true in the real case. Finally, at the end of the story, the officer says that he is glad that the man was killed, because it put him on the legally "right" side of the conflict. This is a statement that America did not truly care for the children and men and women in the Holocaust, but instead used them as their excuse for attacking Germany.

     What is Orwell's stance on WWII?

"The Communist Manifesto", Marx and Engels

     "The Communist Manifesto" is a pamphlet that is 21 pages long, and it attacks capitalism and makes an argument for communism. They talk about how the industrial revolution has drastically increased the barrier between the bourgeoisie and the factory owners. The bourgeoisie became extremely poor and the factory owners became extremely wealthy. They say that capitalism is made in order to deliberately allow corruption and for the powerful to be rich. They also mention that the artistic ways of making clothes, shoes, and etc. has been changed into the factory system where everything is the same and does not involve any form of individuality. They are saying that with the communist government, everyone will live better and more fairly, and everything will be provided for the people.
     One major problem with the communist system is that there would be little to no initiative. In a capitalist society, many inventions and accomplishments are based on the fact that people know they will get money for what they have done, and possibly a significant amount. In the communist system people will never get any more or less for what they do, so Scientists, engineers, doctors, and everyone else as well may not care to make or do anything spectacular, because they will receive nothing more than usual.
      What is the difference betweeen Socialism and Communism?
   

A Man Said to the Universe

    This very short poem by Stephen crane isn't much to summarize, however it is a confusing poem at first glance and can be analysed deeply. This poem is literally only 5 short lines, and they seem to make no sense. A man has a conversation with the universe, in which he tells it that he exists. The universe tells the man that that fact has not given the universe any obligation to the man.
    This poem connects to the idea of Deism, in which God is the divine "Watch-maker", and he made creation and is now simply allowing it to run its course. This is shown through several points. One, when the man tells the universe he exists, he says "sir". This shows that he is talking to someone, not the universe as a whole, and the universe seems to represent God. After the man says this, the God answers him by saying "However, the fact has not created in me a sense of Obligation." This means that this presence has no obligation to look after or "care" for the man. A Deist believes that God is no longer with creation, but there was a God who created it all.

    If this analysis is true, the wouldn't God not have answered at all?

The Yellow Wallpaper, by Gilman

    In this short story, the narrator is a woman who's husband is very cruel to her and manages everything that she does. He does not allow her to do most anything. He locks the woman in a room, and in that room there is nothing other than the yellow wallpaper on the walls. As the story goes on, the woman seems to become more and more insane. She talks of the yellow wallpaper in ways that show her fascination with it. In the end of the story she imagines that there are other women like her crawling around in the wallpaper, and she even comes to the conclusion that she is one of them. At the end, she will not leave the room when she is supposed to leave.

    This story shows how the women of this time period were treated. The husband believes that his wife is going through a sort of temporary depression, so he doesn't allow her to do anything. He puts her in this room and she even has to hide her journal from him. She descends into insanity, due to the lack of things to do or even think about. It shows that the men of this era were cruel to the woman and caused more harm than they did help. 

    Why would the husband think that things like not seeing her child would help her with her depression?

"Criticism and Fiction" by Howells

     In this excerpt from "Criticism and Fiction", Howells talks about the writing of realists, and also about Jane Austen. He talks of some of the criticism her writing and writings like it have taken, but he says that realistic writings of nature are beautiful, and that fictional writings should be criticized instead. He talks about how the writers thought that they were better than the realist writings for using the characters in certain ways to do certain things, but he believes that it is harder to write a realistic story, and if it is done, then the story will be much better. He says that he has started to see a recovery in England from all the fictional writing that has happened.
     One thing he says is that the men have been trained to think that whatever they like is good, and no longer to think in the opposite order (in that we no longer like what is good, we say it is good because we like it). This relates to us still today. People will be offended, shocked, and etc if you don't appreciate what they like. People expect other people to like what they like and dislike what they dislike, not to like what is good and dislike what is bad.
   Why is fictional writing "bad"?

"Liking is for Cowards, Go for What Hurts." Jon Franzen

    This essay is about the possible threat that technology poses on true love. Franzen seems to believe that technology is changing our view of, thoughts about, and even love itself. He talks about how technology is so fast now-a-days and how people can get what they want immediately. He brings up the idea of "the next big thing", meaning that even if one piece of technology is sufficient , if another comes out that seems more advanced, many people will buy it because it is more appealing. This goes against love, because it shows people trying to find the perfect match, but there truly is no such thing as a perfect match. If people begin to treat love the same as technology, then love will be in danger at all times.
   I do not believe that what Franzen is arguing is correct. Things that come from technology may be harmful to love, but not the technology itself. However, people do not treat their loved ones the way he describes in this article. He talks about how we just toss aside old phones in this day for a newer and better one. However, people now-a-days do that no more than they did many years ago, if not less. People may find someone better, and go with them, but it is not as common as with phones.
   How exactly does the title relate to his argument?

"Get Smarter", Jamais Cascio

   In this article, Jamais Cascio is arguing his belief that people are actually getting smarter due to modern technology, as opposed to Carr's belief that technology is making us stupid. Cascio talks about the process of intelligence augmentation, which is the adaptation of people to modern technology as it gets faster and more advanced. He describes this process as almost a form of evolution. He also believes that the media is making us smarter, because it is giving us the ability to think quickly enough to suddenly change topics and stay highly focused on each topic.
   Jamais Cascio's belief that technology is making us smarter instead of less intelligent seems more plausible than the idea that it is making us stupid. Being able to change topics rapidly shows the speed of the mind, and that we are able to think through things quickly. If you look at people today, the people who have the most trouble with technology are older people. A child learns quickly, while an old man may never understand how to check a computer. This is because the child's brain is less developed and can "adapt" to the use of a computer, while an old person cannot easily adapt.
  Is this essay a direct response to "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"?