I took Crafting an Effective Writer: Tools of the Trade yada yada yada. Here are my last assignments.

Describe a natural object or scene in nature. Use at least one each of the clauses and phrases you studied in the unit. Also, be sure that you include one each of the four sentence types in your description. Using your knowledge from Unit 3, use action verbs and active voice, keep your verbs in the same tense, and maintain correct subject-verb agreement. Your description should consist of 9 or more sentences.

–

“I sit in a wooden kiosk watching the sunset. I am alone, unless I count as a person my faithful bicycle that stands besides me, the horse of our era. The kiosk is strategically located at a vantage point, allowing the observance of two completely different worlds. To my south, I can barely make out some cars speeding on the ring road, countless houses and even the sea, far on the horizon. But all these are distant. I can hear no cars, only some birds who tirelessly sing for me. Behind me, to the north, there is Seich Sou, the forest that overlooks and protects the city. I am located in the lower part of the forest, surrounded mostly by some humble shrubs called Quercus coccifera but it is the magnificent pine forest in the distance that captures my sight. As the sun disappears on the horizon and the world around me becomes dark and silent, it is the contrast of the lights from the distant city that become the spectacle. It is time for me to get on my bicycle and head back to the four walls of my house but I promise to return.”

—

For the Unit 5 final writing assignment, you will compose a direct paragraph, one that has

a title;
a clear topic sentence;
a fully developed body, which includes necessary and sufficient details and examples;
necessary and appropriate transitions;
a logical conclusion; and
a minimum of fifteen (15) sentences.
Before you submit your paper for peer review, plan to proofread for

subject-verb agreement errors,
pronoun-antecedent agreement errors,
shifts in verb tense,
faulty parallel structure, and
comma, capitalization, number, word choice, and spelling errors.
You should imagine your peers in this course as your readers/audience. Because of the diverse population of students enrolled in this course, you need to be keenly aware of the need to provide details and examples that are clear and precise. Keeping in mind a living audience, rather than one you imagine, will help you convey more reliably the value of your perspective in the topic upon which you choose to write.

Choose one of the following four topics to write your final paragraph about:

Topic #1
Discuss at least four (4) short term and/or long term effects that finishing Crafting an Effective Writer: Tools of the Trade will have upon you personally, academically, and/or professionally.

Topic #2
Identify and describe a favorite activity or interest and provide at least four reasons why this activity or interest holds your attention and/or is enjoyable to you.

Topic #3
Identify and describe at least three (3) ways a person, male and/or female, is recognized as an adult in your culture.

Topic #4
Identify and describe a traditional ethnic food from your culture. Provide at least four reasons why this food has remained an essential, primary food in your culture. While you may include the recipe, this topic asks you to discuss the importance of the food in your culture.

–

“Reading, one of the oldest forms of entertainment, is my favorite activity. It is not a surprise that it managed to adapt and survive through the centuries and still remains popular despite the development of other forms of storytelling. Personally, I read because I can’t do otherwise. I read signs, labels, graffiti, leaflets; the kind of information that I doubt I will ever get to use. It is something I can’t help doing; it is an instict. But it is also relaxing. Be it some random article on the internet, or a light novel under warm sheets or in a comfortable chair on the balcony, it is an easy way to get your mind off everyday life. Besides this kind of reading though, there is also what I would call serious reading. We are lucky to have been born in a era in which literature is so easily available. The greatest works of the greatest minds of all time are a few hours, or even a simple click away. It is a shame to let these kind of opportunities pass by, even if the inevitable comparison with yourself or your everyday life might disappoint you. Moreover, a good book never ends when you reach the last page. You analyze it, you keep thinking about it and it stays with you. Reading is my passion. It relaxes me, it helps me dream, think and grow; it also depresses me sometimes, but such is the way that all meaningful relationships work.”

—

Well, I can’t deny that I love drama. I can’t write happy things. The closest I can get to happiness is weirdness or absurdism. All my creative writings have a melancholic feeling and I like them that way.

The first paragraph is ok but nothing special. The place I am describing exists but I also took some artistic liberties. As usual, the actual objects do not interest me as much, its all about the ideas. I think I did manage to create the feeling of isolation and loneliness I was aiming for. The man at the edge of the world. I also love the idea of bicycles as the horses of our era. I do have feelings for my bicycle; we have shared so much together. My biggest mistake is the next to last sentence, I think it is a little abrupt, too sudden.

For the second one I decided to write about reading. The other topics were boring and its not like I had many different interests to choose from. Once again I think there are emotional tones in my writing. Am I a fifteen year-old girl that sits down to write poems and feels that they have to be “deep” and sad, resulting in pretentious crap? Maybe. Mine look a little over-the-top or pretentious but I don’t think they are that annoying. For this paragraph there were stupid restrictions; for example the first sentence had to state the topic, so I had to include that it is my favorite activity. Overall though, I think it is fine. I am honest and thats a relief.

The Fiction of Relationship at coursera finally started (actually not finally, it feels like yesterday when I was reading that it starts in four months) and it seems that it will be at least as good as I expected it to be. The subject is very interesting and the professor is clearly very passionate about his work. He started with a sixty minute speech presenting his course but more importantly, talking about the condition of present literature and arguing for its importance.

These were the first assignment and my submission:

Paying close attention to the common dictionary definitions when talking about both ‘fiction’ and ‘relationship’ write a paragraph asking yourself this question: what is the ‘fiction of relationship’? How can one define the dimensions of this phrase? Is it a paradox? As you see it, what bearing does this phrase have on the experience of our encounter with others, the others we find not only in life but in the literature we read?

By definition, a relationship can not occur without multiple persons or objects reacting with each other. Fiction on the other hand, defined as a literary genre or a product of our imagination, is always an individual activity, a process that happens inside our minds disconnected from reality. Does that make the two words mutually exclusive? My answer is that nothing can be completely independent in this world. It is true that many of us spent a large part of our lives in our minds creating elaborate fantasies out of the simplest of things, but the external stimuli that affects us and relates with us is always out there, whether we want to admit it or not. Even, and mostly in our most private fantasies.

 

Ok. Now as usual I really like what I wrote but I am sure I can’t be very objective. Technically I have issues with the comma’s. It’s easy to use them as natural pauses but I have trouble understanding rules that have to do with the way sentences work. But anyway this isn’t very important. Regarding the content, its clear from the lectures that the instructor was pushing us to understand that a relationship requires by definition another person but it is also an individual activity because we can never truly know what this other person is thinking. Of course, as a huge stupid egoist, I refuse to be guided towards anything even if I agree with it, so I went one step ahead and claimed that every thought is a reaction from the external environment, which agrees with him but also restores relationship’s traditional status as a reactive union. How ironic is that, coming from a person so determined to live disconnected from ordinary reality.

Now that I think of it a little, I am starting to hate what I wrote. It’s just a game to show that I know what you know; I am not sure if there is anything true in what I said. I am just showing off and then move my thought to the conclusion which as usual leaves the final impression to the side I prefer, even though I also agreed with him. And as I said, I am sure that I would have taken the opposite position if he was trying to claim what I claimed today. What I believe? That’s what I was supposed to write, not these stupid mind games. Why am I doing this? And what I believe? I guess I don’t care. Really, what was the question? If relationships are in part fictional? Everything is. How fucking boring.

If a total is meaningless, then every single part of it will be also meaningless, even if you manage to find the least meaningless part of it. Simple math.

Προσπάθησα να διαβάσω το On the Road. Απέτυχα. Διάβασα τις 125 από τις 300 σελίδες αλλά αποφάσισα να το παρατήσω. Ο τρόπος γραφής του είναι παρόμοιος με τον δικό μου σε αυτή τη παράγραφο. Οι χαρακτήρες ήταν μισητοί. Η φιλοσοφία που προσπαθούσε να περάσει επίσης. Δε γινόταν τίποτα. Κρίμα.

Σοβαρά τώρα, δε καταλαβαίνω την μανία με αυτό το βιβλίο. Μπορώ να αγνοήσω τον τρόπο γραφής του και να δω τη γοητεία της ζωής “στον δρόμο” και στο παρόν χωρίς να λογαριάζεις το μέλλον, αλλά ως αντάλλαγμα για την ασφάλεια που εγκαταλείπεις, θα περίμενα ενδιαφέροντες ανθρώπους ή εμπειρίες και όχι απλά μιζέρια και αποθέωση της ζωής ως άστεγος. Στο πρώτο μισό του βιβλίου, σύμφωνα με τον ήρωα μας, η καλύτερη εμπειρία του ήταν να ζει σε μια σκηνή με κάποια που γνώριζε δυο βδομάδες και το γιο της, μαζεύοντας κάθε μέρα βαμβάκι για δώδεκα ώρες ώστε να εξασφαλίσει το φαγητό τους. Yeah ok, you go do that.

Όπως ανέφερα σε ένα προηγούμενο ποστ, κάνω το Crafting an Effective Writer: Tools of the Trade στο coursera, το οποίο χαρακτήρισα υπερβολικά απλό. Είναι παράξενο πόσο εύκολα κάτι τόσο απλό μπορεί να γίνει μέσο δημιουργικότητας. Η πρώτη εργασία που έπρεπε να κάνω ήταν η εξής:

Choose two of the sentences listed below to expand by adding logical additional parts of speech (nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases). Each sentence should contain a minimum of 12 unique words to earn full points; additional words beyond twelve may repeat previous words and will not count against the writer.

• The children play.
• The woman walks.
• The sharks swim.
• The flowers bloom.
• The wind blows.
• The computer hums.

Απλό και βαρετό σωστά; Ίσως. Αυτές είναι οι δύο προτάσεις μου:

The two restless children ignored his calls, quickly took off their black shoes and run enthusiastically towards the beach to play with their new toys by the peaceful sea.

As the spring finally comes, the white flowers of the almond tree bloom and when the wind blows, the garden by the house is completely covered by them, creating a dreamlike scenery for the fortunate ones that witness it.

Δε ξέρω αν είναι το “ikea effect” αλλά μου φαίνονται καταπληκτικές. Όχι βέβαια γραμματικά ή ως επιτυχή εκτέλεση της εργασίας, αλλά επειδή παρότι ήταν πανεύκολο να γραφτούν, θεωρώ πως δημιούργησαν δύο πολύ όμορφες εικόνες και συγχρόνως υπονοούν και αρκετά πράγματα που θα μπορούσαν να αναπτυχθούν. Μπορώ να δω τόσες δυνατότητες στη πρώτη πρόταση: Νέα παιχνίδια, μάλλον κατάλληλα για παραλία και ήρεμη θάλασσα, αλλά γιατί να είναι μαύρα τα παπούτσια και γιατί τα παιδιά αγνοούν τις φωνές κάποιου; Πρόκειται για ένα αθώο ειρηνικό τοπίο ή θα συμβεί κάτι άσχημο; Φυσικά δεν έχω ιδέα και ότι έγραψα ήταν τυχαίο, αλλά νομίζω πως θα ήθελα να το συνεχίσω και να βρω τι συμβαίνει. Όσο για τη δεύτερη, μου αρέσει πολύ η εικόνα μιας αμυγδαλιάς δίπλα σε ένα σπίτι με τα άνθη της να παρασύρονται από τον άνεμο και να καλύπτουν το τοπίο. Μπορώ να την δω στο μυαλό μου.

Η δεύτερη εργασία ήταν εξίσου απλή:

Drawing from your observation notes and sentences from Journal Writing Assignments 1 and 2, write a description of the scene you have observed. Use action verbs and active voice in your sentences. Also, keep your verbs in the same tense and maintain correct subject-verb agreement. Your description should consist of 8 or more sentences.

As the moon begins to rise in the summer sky, I can finally find the mood to describe the view outside my window. The sound of water immediately catches my attention and I soon spot an old lady who pretends to water her plants but mostly waters the concrete. I can barely resist mentioning the Freudian and environmentalist remarks that come to my mind. The cats that inhabit the neighborhood are clearly perplexed and annoyed by this intruder, staring her intensely but playing it safe under or over parked cars. I am also annoyed, as I spot a few mosquitos, probably attracted by the water, charging towards me but stopping abruptly by the mysterious window screen that protects me.* The lady is still here, watering the same piece of concrete for the past five minutes. I think it’s going to be a long night. What are the instructions of the assignment again?

*And for the boring passive voice police: “This intruder clearly annoys and perplexes the neighborhood cats that are staring her […] She annoys me too, as I spot that the water probably attracts a few mosquitos that are now charging…”

Αυτή τη φορά αποφάσισα να βγω στο μπαλκόνι και να γράψω ότι δω. Πρακτικά δε συνέβαινε τίποτα απολύτως, αν εξαιρέσουμε αυτήν την πολύ περίεργη γυναίκα που πότιζε λουλούδια ή καθάριζε μια πυλωτή στις 9 το βράδυ και όμως βρίσκω σχετικά χαριτωμένα και ευχάριστα αυτά που έγραψα, αν λάβουμε υπ’όψιν τις συνθήκες. Ακόμα και ιστοριούλα μπορείς να το πεις, αφού έχει και “punchline” στο τέλος.

Το ηθικό δίδαγμα είναι ότι πρέπει να αρχίσω να γράφω ακόμα και αν μοιάζει να μην έχω τίποτα στο μυαλό μου. Ίσως η ιστορία με οδηγήσει μόνη της.

Διάβασα το Waiting for Godot του Samuel Beckett. Και μετά διάβασα και κάποιες αναλύσεις του. Ως συνήθως κάποιες αναλύσεις με έκαναν να προσέξω περισσότερα πράγματα, αλλά το έργο ως σύνολο μου άρεσε πολύ περισσότερο πριν τις διαβάσω, μάλλον επειδή βλέπω μόνο αυτή που μου αρέσει περισσότερο.

Διαβάζοντας το βιβλίο ήμουν σίγουρος ότι ο Godot είναι ο Θεός ή έστω οι ισχυροί αυτού του κόσμου και οι τέσσερις χαρακτήρες του βιβλίου, είτε κάνουν χωρίς λόγο πράγματα που δεν έχουν καμία λογική επειδή νομίζουν ότι πρέπει (Vladimir and Estragon), είτε συμπεριφέρονται από μόνοι τους χωρίς καμιά λογική (Pozzo and Lucky). Πίστευα ότι ήταν υπαρξιακό και πεσιμιστικό  υποστηρίζοντας ότι η ύπαρξη δεν έχει κανένα νόημα και συμμετέχοντας σε παιχνίδια εξουσίας, είτε υπακούοντας, είτε δίνοντας οδηγίες, το αποτέλεσμα θα μένει το ίδιο ή ίσως και χειρότερο όπως συνέβη στον Pozzo. Η βαρεμάρα των δύο πρωταγωνιστών και η αδυναμία τους να ξεφύγουν από αυτή ήταν αλληγορία της πραγματικής ζωής.

Τελικά παρότι υπάρχει και αυτή η εξήγηση, δεν είναι τόσο ξεκάθαρο και ο ίδιος ο Beckett απέφυγε να πει τι εννοούσε.  Σε κάθε περίπτωση μιλάμε για ένα κλασικό έργο και είναι και πολύ μικρό, οπότε είτε το διαβάσεις, είτε το δεις, δύσκολα θα κουραστείς. Με την δικιά μου ερμηνεία θα το θεωρούσα εξαιρετικό και αφού μόνο η δικιά μου ερμηνεία μετράει, είναι εξαιρετικό.

Κρίμα, είχα περισσότερες φιλοδοξίες για αυτή τη σελίδα, αλλά δυστυχώς η αναγνώριση της ματαιότητας πάντα κερδίζει. Ευτυχώς προς το παρόν περιορίζεται μόνο στην ενημέρωση της σελίδας και όχι στο διάβασμα ή στο γράψιμο. Νομίζω πως η καλύτερη λύση για να συνεχιστεί το μπλογκ είναι να γράφω πολύ πιο ανεπίσημα και να επικεντρώνομαι μόνο σε ότι μου έκανε εντύπωση σε κάθε βιβλίο.

Σήμερα πάντως που διάβασα αυτά που είχα γράψει πριν τόσο καιρό, θα μπορούσα να πω ότι έχουν εκπληρώσει τον ρόλο τους. Πρώτα από όλα μου θύμησαν αρκετά πράγματα που είχα ξεχάσει, κάτι που ήταν και ο αρχικός μου στόχος, αλλά επίσης δε τα μίσησα και όσο περίμενα ότι θα τα μισούσα. Κάποιες από τις εκφράσεις που χρησιμοποίησα μοιάζουν τόσο κοινότοπες, ξένες και γεμάτες υποκρισία, αλλά ευτυχώς είναι δεν είναι πολλές. Στο μεγαλύτερο κομμάτι είμαι απόλυτα ειλικρινής και ευθής, σα να μιλάω στον εαυτό μου.

Τους τελευταίους μήνες ασχολήθηκα πάρα πολύ με μαθήματα στο Coursera. Ολοκλήρωσα τα εξής:

Critical Thinking in Global Challenges: Ελάχιστο περιεχόμενο, ελάχιστα ενδιαφέρον και πάρα πολύ απλά πράγματα. Οι καθηγητές ικανοποιητικοί, αλλά το μόνο που έπρεπε να κάνεις ήταν να βλέπεις κάποιες διαλέξεις κάθε βδομάδα και κάποια κουίζ. 2/5

Introduction to Philosophy: Κάπως πιο ενδιαφέρον. Κάθε βδομάδα και ένας διαφορετικός τομέας φιλοσοφίας, όμως και πάλι ελάχιστο περιεχόμενο. Ως εισαγωγή σε τομείς της φιλοσοφίας τους οποίους θα ψάξεις περισσότερο μόνος σου, ήταν ικανοποιητικό. 2.5/5

Fantasy and Science Fiction: The Human Mind, Our Modern World: Απίστευτα απαιτητικό μάθημα. Για 10 βδομάδες έπρεπε να διαβάζεις ένα βιβλίο τη βδομάδα, μετά να γράψεις μια έκθεση 300 λέξεων για το βιβλίο, μετά να δεις 2 ώρες διαλέξεις που ανέλυαν το βιβλίο και τέλος να βαθμολογήσεις τις εκθέσεις 5 άλλων συμμαθητών σου. Πολύ καλό μάθημα, αν και οι αναλύσεις και οι άπειροι κρυμμένοι συμβολισμοί που έβρισκε ο καθηγητής, μου φαινόντουσαν υπερβολικές κάποιες φορές. Επίσης ήταν το μόνο μάθημα από αυτά που έκανα όπου δεν υπήρχε ούτε ένας από το προσωπικό να κοιτάει το φόρουμ. Η απαιτούμενη έκθεση με ελεύθερο θέμα, ήταν το καλύτερο κομμάτι του μαθήματος για μένα. 4.5/5

The Modern and the Postmodern: Από πλευράς ύλης ήταν με διαφορά το πιο ενδιαφέρον μάθημα που έχω πάρει. Αρκετά απαιτητικό και αυτό, αφού και πάλι κάθε βδομάδα διάβαζες κάποια γραπτά του διανοητή που ανέλυε ο καθηγητής και πολλές φορές έπρεπε να γράψεις και έκθεση 800 λέξεων για αυτά που διάβασες. Παρότι ξεκινήσαμε από τον Καντ και τον Ρουσσώ το 1700 και φτάσαμε στον Ζίζεκ και στον Ρόρτυ στο σήμερα, εξετάζοντας πως έβλεπαν και βλέπουν την κοινωνία και την πραγματικότητα πασίγνωστοι διανοητές, η ροή που υπήρχε ήταν απόλυτα φυσική και ο καθηγητής παρότι ήταν πολύ ενθουσιώδης παρέμενε προσεχτικός• παρουσίαζε κάθε οπτική γωνία χωρίς να πάρει θέση υπέρ ή εναντίων της, αφήνοντας να βρεις μόνος σου ποια είναι η αλήθεια που προτιμάς. Μου αρέσει πάρα πολύ αυτός ο τρόπος διδασκαλίας. Το μόνο κακό κατά τη γνώμη μου ήταν οι εργασίες. Κάθε φορά έπρεπε να συγκρίνεις 2 συγγραφείς και να συμπεριλάβεις και quotes τους, με αποτέλεσμα οι εκθέσεις να μοιάζουν πιο πολύ επιβεβαίωση ότι διάβασες το κείμενο, παρά τρόπος να εκφράσεις τις δικές σου ιδέες. 5/5

A Beginner’s Guide to Irrational Behavior: Dan fucking Ariely. Θεός απλά. Δε με ενδιαφέρει ιδιαίτερα η οικονομία, αλλά αν έχω κλίση σε κάτι αυτό είναι μάλλον η ψυχολογία. Είχα δει δύο TED videos του καθηγητή σχετικά με τον τρόπο που παίρνουμε αποφάσεις και με είχαν εντυπωσιάσει, οπότε όταν είδα ότι θα κάνει κάποιο μάθημα δε μπορούσα να μη το παρακολουθήσω. Αποδείχθηκε πολύ καλή επιλογή. Ο καθηγητής ήταν απίστευτα διασκεδαστικός (κάθε βδομάδα μας έλεγε και ένα ανέκδοτο στο πρώτο βίντεο) και παρουσίαζε το ήδη εξαιρετικό υλικό του μαθήματος πολύ ευχάριστα, χωρίς να σε κάνει να βαριέσαι καθόλου. Το μάθημα ασχολούνταν με παράλογες -οικονομικής φύσεως κυρίως- αποφάσεις που παίρνουμε χωρίς να το καταλαβαίνουμε και βασίζονταν σε πανέξυπνα πειράματα που επιβεβαίωναν αυτές τις συμπεριφορές. (Η σχεδίαση τέτοιων πειραμάτων ίσως θα ήταν μια από τις ελάχιστες δουλειές που θα έκανα με χαρά.) Γενικότερα πολύ διασκεδαστικό και επιμορφωτικό μάθημα, με πάρα πολλά πράγματα που ακούς για πρώτη φορά και σε βάζουν σε σκέψεις. Ίσως το μόνο ενοχλητικό κομμάτι ήταν κάποιες έρευνες που έπρεπε να διαβάσεις (γιατί κάποια κουίζ αναφέρονταν σε αυτές) που ήταν αρκετά τεχνικές και μεγάλες. 5/5

Επίσης πήρα τα The Ancient Greeks, Greek and Roman Mythology, English Composition I: Achieving Expertise αλλά δεν κατάφεραν να μου κρατήσουν το ενδιαφέρον. Νομίζω πως το σχολείο και τα ζώα που περηφανεύονται για κατορθώματα άλλων μου κατέστρεψαν το ενδιαφέρον σχετικά με τους αρχαίους Έλληνες για πάντα (με εξαίρεση κάποιους φιλοσόφους), ενώ το άλλο έπεσε σε κακή περίοδο και είχε αρκετά βαρετή αρχή οπότε δεν ασχολήθηκα ιδιαίτερα.

Αυτή τη στιγμή κάνω τα Introduction to Psychology που μέχρι στιγμής είναι εξαιρετικό και Crafting an Effective Writer: Tools of the Trade όπου παραείναι απλό, σε λίγο αρχίζουν τα Introduction to Art: Concepts & Techniques και The Fiction of Relationship, ενώ για το μέλλον έχω γραφτεί και στα Modern & Contemporary American Poetry, Søren Kierkegaard – Subjectivity, Irony and the Crisis of Modernity, Soul Beliefs: Causes and Consequences,

Καθόλου επίσημο και ον τόπικ. Well done.

Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley was the novel I had to read for the fourth week of Fantasy and Science Fiction: The Human Mind, Our Modern World. Published in 1818, when she was only 21 but inspired two years earlier after spending a few days with her future husband, Lord Byron and John Polidori. They were reading classic ghost stories after being forced to stay inside because of the rain, when Byron suggested that every one of them should write a horror story (what a remarkable way to have fun, I truly envy them) and a few weeks later, after a dream inspired by their conversations about galvanism and the occult, Frankenstein was conceived in Mary’s mind.

The story is relatively known: A scientist (he is the one called Frankenstein) creates a – nameless – monster but after understanding what he did, he abandons it.

I was impressed. I actually liked it even more than Alice. It raised so many interesting questions and I was extremely moved by the monster. My only complaint – as usual – were a few seemingly pointless descriptions, especially towards the end.

SPOILERS ahead:

I had to read Dracula by Bram Stoker this week for Fantasy and Science Fiction: The Human Mind, Our Modern World at coursera. A horror novel, published in 1897 was one of the earliest stories that featured vampires (Carmilla was the first), so I knew that even if it turned out awful it would at least had some historical value. Actually now that I think about it, I am shocked because I realize that Stoker’s vampires are closer to Meyer’s than Rice’s with regard to their daytime abilities. They are pure evil though so it’s not all bad. Anyway, it was interesting to read about the abilities of the original vampire and which of those changed with time.

At first, a normal long novel seemed like a welcome change, after the shorter (supposedly) children books in the earlier weeks. The first chapters were actually very good. The hero was traveling towards Dracula’s castle in Transylvania, while receiving warnings which he ignored so there were tension, mystery, isolation and exoticness. Then he was trapped in Dracula’s castle and his sense of uncertainty and horror, combined with his attempts to feign ignorance in that he was a prisoner, were depicted very well. I also didn’t knew whether the hero will survive, or the “rules” of vampirism which made everything even more mysterious and set the mood nicely.

Unfortunately that was the best part of the book. The story gets worse and worse when the book goes on, with more and more religious undertones. Towards the end, its more like a tedious action movie with vampire hunters instead of a horror one.

It wasn’t anything special but I can’t say it wasn’t worth my time. And there were some very nice scenes that I will probably remember. Like anything that has to do with Renfield or the Demeter’s chilling entrance and logs.

SPOILERS ahead.

The next readings that I had to do for “Fantasy and Science Fiction: The Human Mind, Our Modern World” at Coursera was Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll. They were published around the same time (1865 and 1871 respectively) as Grimm’s tales and they are also considered children’s books but the differences in quality, sophistication and the entertainment they provide are enormous.

The story is familiar to everyone by now. Alice falls into a rabbit hole and ends up in Wonderland, a strange, dreamlike world with unusual customs and rules, where she meets many peculiar creatures.

I haven’t seen any of the movies and my only reference to the books was the old video game American McGee’s Alice which was surprisingly good but not exactly faithful to the books. It turns out that Alice does not have to kill everything in sight and she is also able to talk… And she does so magnificently, as most of the characters in the book. The amount of witty dialogue, language puns and pure entertaining nonsense that greeted me, along with the pretty images that the illustrations and the text helped me create in my mind, caught me off guard. And once again, an innocent “children’s book” touched multiple complicating themes, more suitable for adults. I was really impressed by both of the books and I consider them exceptional.

The truth is that while reading the two books, I couldn’t help but read out loud some of the things that were happening and even laugh. I did took some notes because I was reading it for class but I was carried away by its lightness and the pleasure I was receiving. It wasn’t until I had finished it (without having a clue about the subject of my essay) that I started looking in the underlying themes.

SPOILERS below.

I also took “The Modern and the Postmodern” at Coursera and even though I realized that in the next few months I will do nothing else but read and write, I got very excited and impressed from the first two discourses that I read for the first week of the class. The first few weeks focus at the enlightenment era and the two works that I read were “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and “An Answer to the Question: “What is Enlightenment?”” by Immanuel Kant which presented their views about the way they thought enlightenment should be treated. My skin literally crawled when I imagined how those great thinkers felt when they presented their ideas. The “we” that included the whole human race and its quest for progress and enlightenment can be observed only when new technological objects are introduced nowadays. Philosophical and morality issues and ideas are rarely important anymore.

Kant’s work does not look that impressive in our era because it is clear that his views prevailed and influenced most of our modern views. As the professor in the course explained, he thought that we can not find the right path unless we examine both sides and reach a compromising solution. Additionally he favored a gradual enlightenment over a radical approach. I am not sure if he felt that this was the only way for enlightenment to work under a monarchy, but since he took this middle position in multiple subjects, I would guess that he really felt that this was the most “moral” way. He also favored a more democratic outlook, like this:

“To test whether any particular measure can be agreed upon as a law for a people, we need only ask whether a people could well impose such a law upon itself. This might well be possible for a specified short period as a means of introducing a certain order, pending, as it were, a better solution.”

His main thesis was that everyone should be allowed to argue as much as they want in an intellectual environment and when the time is right, but everyone should also follow the rules even if they felt that they found them unfair or useless. This way, he thought, critical thinking will be cultivated and the rules will be enforced, not by power but mutual consent.

“A revolution may well put an end to autocratic despotism and to rapacious or power-seeking oppression, but it will never produce a true reform in ways of thinking. Instead, new prejudices, like the ones they replaced, will serve as a leash to control the great unthinking mass.”

Ultimately he thought that enlightenment was imperative and will lead to prosperity and progress, but he also made an interesting observation about the nature of freedom:

“Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey! This reveals to us a strange and unexpected pattern in human affairs (such as we shall always find if we consider them in the widest sense, in which nearly everything is paradoxical). A high degree of civil freedom seems advantageous to a people’s intellectual freedom, yet it also sets up insuperable barriers to it. Conversely, a lesser degree of civil freedom gives intellectual freedom enough room to expand to its fullest extent. Thus once the germ on which nature has lavished most care—man’s inclination and vocation to think freely—has developed within this hard shell, it gradually reacts upon the mentality of the people, who thus gradually become increasingly able to act freely. Eventually, it even influences the principles of governments, which find that they can themselves profit by treating man, who is more than a machine, in a manner appropriate to his dignity.”

All in all, Kant’s views were very smart, logical and interesting. It’s very hard to find something to disagree with him unless you try to introduce subjects like the egotistical side of human nature and argue about the enforcement of his ideas. The observation about the workings of freedom however, is my favorite part of the essay. I wholeheartedly agree that freedom and choices are not as beneficial as they look. Restrictions are very important and can make you focus in quality instead of superficial quantity. Unlimited choices also tend to lead to inactivity or at least that’s my personal impression.

But I wouldn’t have written anything about the course if Kant’s work were the only reading. Rousseau’s radical approach was much more interesting and thought-provoking. Note that my understanding of his ideas might be limited because the professor will talk about him next week and also note that he (Rousseau) considered his paper mediocre in the preface he later added. For now this will be more of a collection of quotes than an analysis.

His first part of the discourse argues for the value of integrity, virtue and morality over the pretentiousness and uselessness of luxuries and artistic and scientific thinking:

“How humiliating these reflections are for humanity! How our pride must be mortified! What! Could integrity be the daughter of ignorance? Could knowledge and virtue be incompatible? What consequences could we not draw from these opinions?”

And:

“What, then, is precisely the issue in this question of luxury? To know which of the following is more important to empires: to be brilliant and momentary or virtuous and lasting. I say brilliant, but with what lustre?”

He argues that art, science and philosophy are self-made needs that enslave and weaken men making them forget the traditional moral values that helped them reach the position that allowed them to think about those things in the first place. Then he returns to the ancient world and presents Socrates’ views about the poets, artists and philosophers:

“We do not know — neither the sophists, nor the orators, nor the artists, nor I— what the True, the Good, and the Beautiful are. But there is this difference between us: although these people know nothing, they all believe they know something; whereas, I, if I know nothing, at least have no doubts about it. As a result, all this superiority in wisdom which the oracle has attributed to me reduces itself to the single point that I am strongly convinced that I am ignorant of what I do not know.”

And asks how can we disagree with one of the greatest philosophers of all time. My answer of course would stand on a different interpretation of Socrates’ views. I do not think Socrates praised ignorance and I think that a philosopher who claims infallibility even for a tiny topic, deals with a non philosophical one.

He also explains how empires are built by strong, virtuous, simple men who gradually become weaker as they prosper and focus on the needs of the mind instead of the needs of the body. His way of writing is very captivating.

Here is a quote about Rome:

“What fatal splendour has succeeded Roman simplicity? What is this strange language? What are these effeminate customs? What do these statues signify, these paintings, these buildings? You mad people, what have you done? You, masters of nations, have you turned yourself into the slaves of the frivolous men you conquered? Are you now governed by rhetoricians? Was it to enrich architects, painters, sculptors, and comic actors that you soaked Greece and Asia with your blood? Are the spoils of Carthage trophies for a flute player? Romans, hurry up and tear down these amphitheatres, break up these marbles, burn these paintings, chase out these slaves who are subjugating you, whose fatal arts are corrupting you.”

About Sparta over Athens:

“Nothing is left for us of its inhabitants except the memory of their heroic actions. Should monuments like that be less valuable for us than those remarkable marbles which Athens has left us?”

“let us try to set between them and us that glorious distinction which people made long ago between two great peoples: one knew how to speak well; the other how to act well.”

Persia and the most miserable of all nations:

“The kingdom of Cyrus was conquered with thirty thousand men by a prince poorer than the least of the Persian satraps, and the Scythians, the most miserable of all peoples, managed to resist the most powerful kings of the universe.”

The Goths:

“When the Goths ravaged Greece, all the libraries were rescued from the flames only by the opinion spread by one of them that they should let their enemies have properties so suitable for turning them away from military exercise and for keeping them amused with sedentary and idle occupations.”

And Caliph Omar:

“They say that Caliph Omar, when consulted about what had to be done with the library of Alexandria, answered as follows: “If the books of this library contain matters opposed to the Koran, they are bad and must be burned. If they contain only the doctrine of the Koran, burn them anyway, for they are superfluous.” Our learned men have cited this reasoning as the height of absurdity. However, suppose Gregory the Great was there instead of Omar and the Gospel instead of the Koran. The library would still have been burned, and that might well have been the finest moment in the life of this illustrious pontiff.”

Of course the argument of an individualist like me, is that he focuses on nations and not individuals, two different concepts with different needs and interests. My view only bypasses his argument however, and the truth is that we have to agree with him that if your neighbors are aggressive, the harm that the occupations of the mind bring to the strength of the body will lead to your demise, when your resources (that were secured by the previous, aggressive state of your nation) end. If we adopted a Spartan mindset though, there will be no progress or peace and we would have been caught in an endless circle of violence.

Towards the end of the discourse, after making observations about faith and the new gods (if I am allowed to mention an idea I read from David Foster Wallace “everyone has gods even if they do not realise it, sometimes its greed or just themselves”):

“When innocent and virtuous men liked to have gods as witnesses of their actions, they lived with them in the same huts. But having soon become evil, they grew weary of these inconvenient spectators and relegated them to magnificent temples. Finally, they chased the gods out of those so they could set themselves up in the temples, or at least the gods’ temples were no longer distinguished from the citizens’ houses.”

…and the way artists have to work:

“What will that artist do, gentlemen? He will lower his genius to the level of his age and will prefer to create commonplace works which people will admire during his life than marvelous ones which will not be admired until long after his death. Tell us, famous Arouet, how many strong and manly beauties you have sacrificed to our false delicacy and how many great things the spirit of gallantry, so fertile in small things, has cost you.”

“There you have the most obvious effect of all our studies, and the most dangerous of all their consequences. We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent, nor whether a book is useful but if it is well written. The rewards for a witty man are enormous, while virtue remains without honour.”

…he reveals a more temperate view:

“If it is necessary to permit some men to devote themselves to the study of the sciences and the arts, that should be only for those who feel in themselves the power to walk alone in those men’s footsteps and to move beyond them. It is the task of this small number of people to raise monuments to the glory of the human mind.”

His views look so strange but also intriguing in our time. We could take a light interpretation and say that he was only arguing in favor of virtue and morality and that he was just trying to warn us about the ivory towers of academia and he is not in favor of the return to the more simple, almost primitive way of living he describes, but we have to accept that he does make some valid arguments about the ratio of farmers to philosophers for example, which are relevant even now. Is a simple life happier? Is Kant’s observation about liberty relevant to this? It’s a very interesting topic, I can’t wait to hear what the professor has to say.

And finally what I perceived as the biggest difference with Kant:

“Astyges, in Xenophon, asks Cyrus to tell him about his last lesson. It’s this, he says: in our school a large boy with a small tunic gave it to one of his shorter companions and took his tunic, which was larger. Our tutor made me the judge of this disagreement, and I judged that one should leave matters as they were, since both of them seemed better off that way. At that he remonstrated with me, saying I had done badly, for I had stopped to take convenience into account, when it was necessary first to provide for justice, which does not want anyone to be forced in matters concerning what belongs to him. And he says that he was punished for it, just as people punish us in our villages for having forgotten the first aorist of τύπτω.”

I do not think that Kant (or any of us actually) would react differently to this problem. If they are both happy with it, then it let them be. Another extremely interesting topic. If I ever find time I will write more about it.