road review

The movie the road was very dark and grey; so much so that is was difficult to see the actors on the screen. The low lighting definitely had a profound depressing factor but it also dampened the grossness, especially in the cannibals’ house, I had heard that that scene was really gross and disturbing and it was, but the grey and darkness obscured it a little making it more watchable. They cut out the baby spit scene, which I can understand but they conveyed it in other ways. When the boy and the man found that place with the skulls and the blood on the ground you could see that the skulls were really small implying infant cannibalism. In the book McCarthy conveyed the deepest recesses of human cruelty through the baby spit scene but they did that in the cannibals house scene when they had to go down deep into the basement to find them. I thought the acting captured the style of the road well, the dad's actor portrayed the profound emotions really well and the child’s emotions were more obscure and simpler like in the book. I didn’t really understand purpose of the accents of some of the cannibal gangs. The man who put the knife on the boy had a southern accent, but I don’t understand why anyone would want to go to the north with the cold winter. Also I was curious about how old was the son supposed to be in the movie like six because he looked older than that. I think the kid seemed whinier in the movie than the book. The kid was still a likeable character but when he was compared to an angel it was kind of annoying where it wasn’t annoying in the book maybe it’s the kids high voice. I thought the film was good but because we read the book it got a little boring at parts. The dads cough I thought was portrayed very well it was excruciating to watch sometimes especially when he coughed for over five seconds and fell on the ground and coughed up blood, but creating a feeling of disgust and pity was precisely the point. I think the family at the end were portrayed as good better in the movie than the book, while in the book it was implied that they were good the dads character seemed kind of mysterious in the novel but in the movie it was more clear he was good because of the acting .

portfolio rough

Coverage
i have completed all blogs this quarter
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/feminism-and-speach.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/barbie-and-magazines-or-our-society.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/beauty-myth.html

http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/compromise.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/style-and-road_23.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/road-religon-good-and-evil-and-fire.html
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/commentary-on-memory.html
depth
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/barbie-and-magazines-or-our-society.html
looked at external sources and i was very interested in the topic so i think i disscussed it more in depth

interaction
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/road-religon-good-and-evil-and-fire.html
i received a good comment on this post and I reacted to their comment showing good interaction
xeno blogging
http://adrienne-hlenglish.blogspot.com/2010/11/know-what-your-fighting-for.html?showComment=1291999399746_AIe9_BF_B_a8yNePhIJ-dCD4M8lGUcFRgIjh-ErucrIHq7kxhkA8doR2yhp_zAbJAsimrmdjoLfxkuNn6vnFSf7BMDjF43jcTg8WPQFLcgDpyoz5zjV8fvc_LYzqVdToOCHoraaLoDHY1hb4XQVzSJa4JFbpB-Bij66HQfoez-BSKesfuI4DW1nMczkyoD2APg2p_F765lIhbGTRBVHdZArVUFi6J9KJ5MnTRE_vehikolq4OpTSdmgFqfdUHFbFGHA9Az3bHLDGHvUymxirnBm8Mv75_jWczo2k6HLx6hSkN_5BcVq7FOVVJ3kJyqcNrnSCtRZK2I5cRnaxrKMHQ2zy63w5_jtMr0YhIGDN8pxSoPo5mOR2Q1mr9HNI2k-tQrz5JhQGEaW2h5eTgKrUG8UJVLz19ptU5ljjBbwxvYswxCSvbfmOElMZp_1ZTW2SUwR2IkXj0F1G7yfU7GKjJOX3FEuLJTydVTszZiN9C3o7r_KyKM_ihHdXLl_BrrTE3CTx3gD1Igerv7xLVNbbLAhWJI2MYy9cGdkdVBBXt_06i4axVCXIYY9u5GVZV1RDiFEnXkZpHdbhDzJtIdnaPx6EcE9XJQOzn2FDwAs17ReqLhawsQctf6aT_ksDhk1QWYfn4ozglQMjSnGnA5dQzeaKv5xINhg6Z1sFYSfL4nwhlaG569qdAVa25yxtumRWAyiiB61EPFXIL7_JvOaHGP03HLn-or_uVKoKstMcDY-3W5dGncTzJMh2W0wee7D_SsL7LczDrz800HXLtBFT5AhJzddZeyB_28EWwy4CII8iBqe0-HOQUOEuAH0VM_OYJURZW-kPUZskhlje0exy2JWpSk1915OwdXC7QzFrDi6C5h02uMEiVVK1nVhKmxOGL_qYe8zVD5v9YNZd8C5pe20telzgjHR-IfcXGltEoOYnyRMrMwEU8vrJLVwh3kOE6qJ20s2CFQFGwCFScKozRty1UXKfKoCa5IICqvYmvV7H3vk3t-dSkDw#c6964290699327290759
I commented on this twice I commented on both the blog owner and the other commenter
disscusion
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/compromise.html
I chose this one because it sparked disscsuion and interest
wild card
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/beauty-myth.html

The road religon, good and evil, and fire

The road had many biblical allusions that were confusing. The author suggested that the apocalypse was caused by religious conflict, however religion is also what distinguishes the boy and man, who are good, from the cannibals. The child could arguably be an allegory for Christ; he is giving and often said to have the word of god from his father. But why don’t we view the world from his perspective if he is this important figure, why is it only the fathers ideas that are highlighted? Perhaps it’s because Macarthy is focusing on religion’s effect on people rather than the religion itself. Maybe by portraying Christ as a simple innocent child who just gives hope to his father keeping him on the road shows how religion should go back to basics. Although this story is grim, this simple religion that rose from the ashes of destructive religion gives hope for a new beginning.

The road also discussed good vs. evil in the road and it’s very clear whose good and who’s evil. But in real life it’s not that clear there is good and evil in all of us. Its much more difficult to escape or conquer evil in yourself than if its external. What was interesting was the good were portrayed as weak who were just trying to escape the cold and the cannibals. If you compare this to Beowulf which is also about good vs. evil the good confront the evil and are victorious over them. But McCarthy criticizes overly fantasized heroes by creating a world in which there are none and the heroes are just those who don’t do bad. He is saying when the world has no heroes survival and running away is the new bravery.

I also thought the idea of fire as an idea of hope and love and humanity was interesting. I would have thought light would symbolize hope better, in a more idyllic way at least. But macarthy chooses fire over light to critically look at hope. Fire can burn it’s dangerous but it also keeps you warm. It’s something you have to control to keep from getting out of hand and you have to keep it burning simultaneously. He says if you’re not careful with hope you’ll be burned. For example the son is naive and hopeful of humans, and if his father let him talk to everyone he would have be eaten, so we should not be too hopeful. But if there was no hope the father and son wouldn’t survive. Like you have to maintain a fire to keep it burning you has to maintain your moral values as well meaning self discipline and faith thats how the man stays on the road. Also fire is something you have to make yourself, unlike light which is given to you from the sky, showing how this world and the heavens gives them no love or hope so they have only each other. McCarthy illustrates how much effort it takes to maintain hope, humanity, and love but like fire its necessary for survival.

Style and the Road

The fiction article described writing in the third person with a free indirect style. What struck me the most was the part about whether the words belong to the author or the character being described? It stood out especially when they discussed the man crying in the theater. But I wonder how today writers manage to portray characters honestly and still write beautifully. With today’s language degradation any character set in this time would probably think in speak with crude language, if a writer tryst to use better language he or she will not portray the character accurately and those words will belong to him or her not the character. So do authors just have to choose between good words or honest characters? The article presents an author who struggled with this dilemma. the author who wrote about the Muslim teen in America made him sound overly philosophical with him connecting his height and to his views of afterlife, overall it seems forced and not believable.
So had would James wood examine the style of the road? I will look at the style of the excerpt below:
“When he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of the night he’d reach out to touch the child sleeping beside him. Night’s dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world. His hand rose and fell softly with each precious breath. He pushed away the plastic tarpaulin and raised himself in the stinking robes and blankets and looked toward the east for any light but there was none.” Its clear which words belong to the man and which belongs to the author. The word “precious” clearly belongs to the man because it suggests a deep emotional connection the child that only the man not the author would feel. Even though he doesn’t specify Cormack McCarthy implies the paternal relationship between the man and the boy through his diction. You can tell “plastic tarpaulin” and “stinking robes” are more the author’s words because they describe the cruelty and discomfort of the world not the man’s relationship with it. So what words belong to the child? In this passage the child is sleeping so he doesn’t have words but why does McCarthy do this? He does this because masking the boy’s thoughts keeps the audiences image of him as naïve and ignorant which is necessary to make his optimism believable. Also it could be the child’s ability to speak his mind that his thoughts don’t need to be portrayed with words that belong to the child, but again that suggests his hope and resilience, despite the cruelty of the world he is not discouraged from speaking.

Commentary on Memory

In Handmaid’s Tale Margaret Attwood presents Offred talking to the commander about life before Gilead; and manipulates structure to portray the consequences of feminism and Offred's reliance on memory to survive in the oppressive society Gilead.

When the commander brings up an unfamiliar topic we can see Offred shut down. “I don’t have to tell it. I don’t have to tell anything, to myself or to anyone else. I could just sit here peacefully I could withdraw.” She wants to escape this conversation desperately, she seems to be trying to calm herself down with the drawn out words. The broken up structure reads slower as if she’s trying to make the most of her scarce thoughts in order to avoid facing the emptiness of her life.

When the topic changes Offred clings to the security of her knowledge. “It was the central thing; it was the way you understood yourself; if it never happened to you not ever you would be like a mutant, a creature from outer space.’’ her sentences have become much longer compared to the previous paragraph as if she sees a chance to distract herself with the past, she jumps for it almost desperately. Her memories aren’t idealistic, she doesn’t paint the old society as perfect, she mentions exclusion “you would be like a mutant” but she still would rather think about the flawed past than the present, revealing her preference for the previous society. Feminists often complained about love and pleasing men being the central thing in women’s lives, but Offred prefers this life, reflecting the author’s issues with feminism.

Offred is comforted by any memory even remembering insecurity “likely you would think at those times: what if he doesn’t love me?” she recollects the nature of the past seeing the good and bad and still feels nostalgia. The time when women fretted about what men thought of them the time when feminists complained about this was better in her eyes than the present.

Offred is addicted to her memories, but they can be hard to look at as they show the roots of her current world. “God is love the once said, but we reversed that, and love like heaven was always just around the corner.” She mentions changes that began to occur in the past that led to this dystopia, this helps give an explanation for what happened which might give her some comfort but it is also painful to face. When she says “we” she points out when her individuality began to disappear, and she didn’t really do anything to stop it. She doesn’t reflect on her memories she just narrates them, she can’t reflect for her own sanity.

Her sentences shorten towards as the topic draws to a close, revealing her complicated emotional state “who can tell what they really are? Under their dailyness.” It’s as if she’s trying to drag out her memories to avoid returning to the present. But she is also trying steady herself by trying to keep herself from getting to absorbed in the past, she tries to slow down her speech to stunt her thought to keep herself from living in the past . She’s doing conflicting things revealing her confusion with this life.
Memory is essential to Offred's survival. It gives her a distraction to keep her from facing the painful reality of her life. Her slow sentences show how she rations her memories and thought trying to make them last so she can last. Her memories also reflect Attwood’s view of feminism and the world the feminists longed to change became much worse once their dream had solidified. Her memories are the only thing she can control. Her memories are her roots all she knows the remnants of her individuality. She permits herself to think about the past but she doesn’t let herself get too excited about them or else she wouldn’t be able to face the present at all. She also refrains from reflecting on the past she only narrates it to avoid seeing where she had a chance to escape.

compromise

The article like Handmaids Tale highlights the need for females to compromise. the article disscusses women having to chose between children and a career and the pain that causes women. handmaids tale shows this the nececity of compromise, to stop rape and objectification they lost their freedom. handmaids tale shows the eradication of love from their lifestyle sort of like how the life of single the carreer woman. Both suggest that basing your life off your culture or striving to achieve eqaulity is self destructive they rather suggest women should just live thier lives as indivduals follow their passion weather thats taking a traditional domestic role or dedicate thier lives to a career. Looking back at Offred's life before women were stripped of rights, she seemed to be happy with her average job and having a daughter. she didn't really equate herself with a feminist movement or a reactionary movement, she didn't see herself as a purely career women or room parent, she saw herself as an individual and didn't really force herself into a category. i think that is what women need to be concerned with what they feel as an individual not what follows a movement. Women do have to compromise career and children sometimes,but they're more likely to make a decision that makes them happy if they base it on what they truly feel themselves.

beauty myth?

I agree with some aspects of the beauty myth. I agree that Beauty is definitely not biological or a sign of fertility, because the image of beauty varies so much all over the world it’s clearly a cultural issue. There has been an increase of eating disorders and cosmetic surgery clearly more concern with body image for females, but this concern applies to males as well. While women want to get skinnier to look like runway models men want to get bulkier. I think this might have something to do with feminist movements but I think its more increase in film and pop culture that puts more focus on the bodies of both men and women. I think it’s also the obesity issue in America and the increased health concern. For women today there is more of an interest in being fit and toned healthy than just skinny, living an athletic and healthy lifestyle is considered beautiful part of this is to counteract obesity issues, but I also think trying to lead a healthy lifestyle is often used cover up the superficial reasons, for exercise and diet like looking good in a swim suit. But I don’t think female beauty is purely a cause of the patriarchic society, it’s not just for men. Women like to feel beautiful just for themselves they search for the perfect pair of shoes or hand bag, knowing very well that men won’t really be concerned with a strappy gladiator sandal or a designer clutch but having something they think is cute gives them a sense of beauty and satisfaction that has nothing to do with men. Like offred's vegetable oil face lotion was'nt for anyone but her. Beauty while it might be taken too seriously by some doesnt need to be and definately wont be eradicated from society. And in handmaids tale we see a world with out objectification and its pretty grim we can also see this in 1984. while the feminists view beauty as something thats hampering women from attaining power, Attwood looks at it quite diffrently she suggests that objectification and sexuality is power for women. if you look at the girls at "the club" thier dressing in sexualized outfits and have alot of preasure put on thier bodies(if they gain ten pounds they go to solitary) but they seem much more powerful than the handmaids. you can see in the restroom scene thier loud they talk with authority and Moria, who Offred portrays as confident and powerful, is one of them. while i agree that the beauty obsession is unhealthy for women beauty can be seen as power will never be eradicated.

barbie and magazines or our society?

I think the articles were interesting but they exaterated the negative effects of magazines and Barbie dolls. I don’t think it’s the dolls and magazines that cause these issues, they reflect it and encourage it. why did girls buy Barbie so much if it made them feel bad about themselves and why didn’t they buy dawns instead? The initial cause is a social issue not the doll. But I do think if agirl did own a Barbie doll and played with it frequently her body image issues would grow. As for teen magazines I think their impact is not that large, sourounding people have a more profound effect on girls than magazines. Magazines in my opinion aren’t read religiously their something you read when your bored or in a waiting room or something. After reading the article on magazines I found an issue of seventeen lying around my house and compared it too what the article said. There were the usually fashion and beauty tips, as for the models, a majority were white and skinny there were a fair amount of minorities too it wasn’t as racist as the article made it out to be. The health section while it featured a skinny girl encouraged more of a healthy lifestyle than an extreme diet or exercise regimen and it didn’t say lose ten pounds or anything. There was a beauty article about embracing your hair and facial feature and the main photo showed a girl with braces, that is a good thing. Also It had an article showing off the best boyfriends in America which probably had a negative effect on single or gay girls, but it also had an article which encouraged girls to follow their dreams and dream bigger which is a good thing. In general the tone of the magazine wasn’t harsh or saying you had to be a certain way it had a tone encouraging self esteem, it wasn’t as bad as the article said and I didn’t feel negatively about myself after reading it. now there are magazines out their that are bad for self esteem but really their catering to our society girls are the clients they are buying what pleases them,while they do affect girls no one is forcing them to by them.

Feminism and Speech

All in all The femininst articles state that speech is power, and that women need to fight for that power. I don’t think that’s entirely true not all quiet girls are victims of sexism. It only applies to societies which specifically look down at chatty girls. The second article mentions the keeping silence and allowing abuse, and how we must speak out aginst things of that sort. But in Handmaids Tale wasn’t burning porn and worrying about rape and other abuses what led them to radically change their society to become more sexist despite the removal of women’s objectification? Unlike these societies the men in handmiads tale have little power and they are just as deprived as the women, they are not allowed to be with who they want or flirt with the women or talk to them really, but they are allowed to read as the women cannot so like articles Margarette Attwood suggests that language is what keeps the men in power. But also Handmaids Tale does portray a certain power in silence, for example in the extract we read in class, "it says i don't have to tell I don't have to tell him anything." She maintains control by with holding information, she has what he wants giving her the upper hand, can't silence sometimes be a thing of power? but there are other situations in the handmaids tale when speech was considered powerful you can see the club girls that are outspoken and they seem powerful. Declaring silence as a restraint or a thing of power depends on the circumstances.

portfolio

coverage
i have covered the reading
depth
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/forests.html
i was really interested in what was disscussed so i think i examined this one with some depth
dissucusion
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/politcal-writing-dry-but-still-powerful.html
this was one of my more reflective pieces that touched on a class activity it think it suited disscussion well.
interaction
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/in-response.html
i wrote a response to samanthas blog and it made me think a lot.
xeno blogging
http://zoes1234.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/how-knowledge-affects-our-truth/#comments
i commented on zoes blog and ithink i posed some interesting questions and i got a good response
wild card
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/variety-of-truths-just-pick-one-that.html

the gulags of north korea and the weakness of family

in the gulags of north korea shin was tortured into hating his own mother and now in some ways finds  a life of freedom more difficult. what was most shocking was his hate for his mother and his mothers abandonement of him, how authority can destroy the mother and son bond and eradicate love. in those sitautions you discover the darkness of humanity how a group of people or one person can dominate its people in evil ways for their own greed and how when pushed those being controled dont really seem to bond together to cope with or fight oppression, how love and morals dissolve and they just fight to survive. you some times here those idealistic tales how people who stood together and form bonds stronger than the iron fist that rules them to survive or escape but here we learn that freedom comes from sacraficing friendships and friends aswell and it really is a bittersweet victory.

a variety of truths (just pick one that works)

Truth is malleable as there is no real objective truth. So leaders and even everyday people  can just pick one that works, depending on our intentions. Leaders can fabricate truth by propoganda, scare tactics, like in 1984 the party used propoganda like the big brother brother posters annd eventually tortured Winston to believe 2+2=5 and to love the party. But this difficult to maintain, so these authoriatarian leaders have to keep forieng ideas from conflicting with this truth and they often exploit the youth (like the junior spies in 1984, hitlers nazi youth, and mao tse tongs red guards) to help maintain their truth their power. That control of truth is a little extreme so most politicians control the perceived truth through language. They might downplay something horrific using that political language. They call children who fled their home and families to escape the jaws of war, displaced peoples or something. Scientists use whatever truth can be backed up by rationality, truth that they can argue so they run tests gather evidence for their idea and even when their idea gains credibility it still is just a theory not an objective truth. Everyday people can sort of craft their own truth but its usually just the practical truth the one that would suit their lifestyle their society often its just the truth their told. Like in the world of small children who celebrate Christmas, there is the truth that santa claus exhists because their parents tell them he does, every Christmas they find presents that magically appear under the tree and find and empty plate and glass which were previously filled with milk and cookies .  There are exceptions of course but a majority of people are convinced of the ideals and truths of their society.  

Reflection on language activity

Last class we rewrote speeches of politicians by following Orwells rules and then doing the exact oposite. when following his rules i found out how difficult they were to follow, it was always easy to write in simple language, but keeping it specific was sometimes was difficult. it was also hard to write simply and still write well. trying to follow orwells rules i sometimes ended up just sounding like a second grader trying to write a speech, not a poet. i think orwells rules can produce good speeches if your a writer with the caliber to follow them, but if you cant they can just be dull and unconvincing, theyre not practical for all of  us. also during the activity i learned how language can manipulate the percieved "truth" in political speeches, how faults of the party can be downplayed and danger can be played up. like how bush used the word "regime" to describe certian countries. regime has dark connotations, to me it seems like a mysterious powerful government made up of sly barbaric leaders. he does this to create a fear of these regimes justifying americas attack of them.

Politcal writing- dry but still powerful and necesary

My reaction to george orwells politics and the english language was mixed. I agree that we need to write more efficiently and that using trite phrases weaken our writing. But I am not entirely opposed to moderate use of pretentious words, if we dont use new words how will our language ever expand how will we ever learn new words, however our sentances should never sound like the every word was plugged into a theasarus?  I was skeptical of  his argument but when he juxtaposed the old English and modern English passages, the old English was  by far better. Although  Political  writings are drier and less clear, I admire their ability  to manipulate language to express their ideas in a way that benefit their cuase. He also mentioned that the only political writings that aren’t written dully were those of the revolutionaries. Those for an orthodox party talk with a voice of conformity. Our  widespread use of this stale political language shows our need to conform. Political language is its own form of propaganda, it can bend the truth and sound educated enough that people eat it up. While Orwell presents this language in a negative light, I think he fails to highlight that its effective that we are all believing it and copying it.

in response..

We is an inversion of the idea of breaking from forest to create civilization. Like the Giants the people of the one state are naïve in their admiration of the benefactor, the way I child might view its parents in their early years. Yet i330 begins  to see the world outside and no longer views the benefactor in that way. I think partly the reason why 1330 is a teenager is because that’s the age when children rebel against their parents, it’s a normal natural and necessary thing to rebel as a teen so ithink that suggests that the same applies to societys and revolutions as well. But they live in a world of rationality and "ominiscience" and yet they want to go back to thier natural roots oposite of the forest article.

In response to samanthas comment on conformity

I think conformity is more of a reaction society and its realities. When we were young we all wanted to be astrounauts, fire fighters, or ballerinas things of that sort based purely off fantasy and desire, we never wanted to be real estate or insurance agents, or work in 9-5 office jobs, or have a house in the suburbs, the practical more realistic futures. But in youth we had very little responsibility we didn’t think about how hard we had to work to become what we wanted or how we would have to pay the bills. Because we had no responsibility and only dreams we didn’t want to conform. But as our responsibilities increased we learned that life was difficult and everything took work and practicality became more important than dreams. I think also school increases these notions especially in highschool when we have to be thinking about college. for me  At the end of eigth grade the teachers basically scared us into doing well, they said how everything counted for college and if you screw up to much your future was in jeopardy. They encouraged you to do the right thing the conforming thing, study and do lots of clubs for your transcript, be well rounded and all that. But this discouraged us from taking risks we felt like we could be penalized for mistakes so we don’t try a lot of new things we have less expierence, we know ourselves less we don’t really know our dreams, out of uncertainty we decide to to the practical thing conform.

forests

First the forests describes human development and illustrates our complex relationship with the trees and fascination with the sky through Vico's giants.

The giants are primate like humans that live in dense forest they have conscience

 Or consciousness, the dense canopy above them inhibits them from seeing the sky. However they are frightened when lightning strikes and they take it as assign from the skies to have morals and religion as well as science and rationality. I think this primal forest dwelling race represents the id of human psyche. The part of us driven by desire and survival our human instincts. But when lightning strikes we develop our super ego our society groomed side that keeps the id in check. Although the giants are primitive at the forest stage they aren’t necessarily portrayed as violent or unhappy just ignorant mostly. So we must ask are violence and emotional conflicts part of human nature or are these traits that we developed as we saw the sky? Was corruption from the same cradle as morality and rationality?

Additionally the breaking from the forest could possibly be compared to growing up. You begin ignorant survival and desire oriented sheltered from the world in the arms of your parents, (forest). But as you grow eventually you will be struck by real world (lightning) leading to confusion and eventually you will learn of the world beyond child’s play and begin to break from your parents, you will start to cut down trees until eventually you leave home in search of your own life, you build a civilization. However even though you left the forest you start your civilization near a forest kind of like how in your adult life you want to have a relationship with your parents but you dont want to be clinging to your mother's apron strings.  

There is also a distinct correlation between the life cycle and the cycle of civilization. You start small and weak you progress and you decline until you are old and weak and die. The same applies to civilization. So when will the society’s of today go back to the forest? Will they go back for the same reason they left, fear?

INDIVIDUALS

Mario llosa believes that Peru has not yet come to that place where the individual can set himself apart from his society. he believes that a nation that gets to that point will conquer all. “the first to break up the masses into individual beings who with time gained the right to think and act for them selves would become thanks to that unknown exercise freedom, the most powerful civilization in the world.” However the author of freedom and democracy argues that this will never be possible even with freedom because humans arent able to shape their identities themselves so they conform. “the modern man is under the illusion that he knows what he wants but he wants what hes supposed to want.”Even though the state or church isnt controling our thoughts our desires our directions society still does. We may have the ability to act on what we want but the root all of our desire is conformity.