Women < MEN

In The Handmaid's Tale, Women are the ones who are oppressed by the men, and thus, the men are able to take over them however they want. This applies in both Hook's Talking Back and Thao's Sins of Silence. In Talking Back, Hooks are born in to the world where women are "craving to speak, to have a voice" in order to have individuality or independence from men- in order to be identified as "belonging" of self rather than as possession of men. For women to speak is to make "soliloquy". However, it is not the medium to distinguish themselves as a belonging of self. It is nothing more than just talking to the plain air and is nothing more than just talking where no one listens. In Sins of Silence, the author communicates about women's internal torture because they cannot express what they really have in their mind. In the society she has grown up where patriarchy still dominates, women only live to serve men. They always have to be "good, obedient, and smile silently" as they swallow the bitterness that men give them. One painful example is when Thao smiles to elder men giving her kisses on cheek. From her perspective, it is more like a "wet, slow licks".

Unfortunately, though not as extreme as before, the gap between men and women still exists today. One instance is within the teenagers. There are many boys whistling to "chicks" who walk past by. However, girls do not- let me fix the phrase- girls cannot respond in a same way as the boys do. Another prime example is evident in workforces. There are so many rights reserved for women but barely any for men. Again, what does this suggest? It suggests women are still not free from men to the extent that they sometimes feel unsafe surrounded by men in the labour force. We still hear news about men sexually or physically harrassing women. We still live in a society where women is still > men, instead of women being = to men.

Blog Portfolio

1. Coverage
Ms Morgan wrote not to worry about the coverage aspect. She has already graded them.

2. Depth
http://jackjcaus.blogspot.com/2010/10/cell-world.html

3. Interaction
http://jackjcaus.blogspot.com/2010/10/george-orwells-world-of-english.html

4. Discussion
http://jackjcaus.blogspot.com/2010/10/cell-world.html

5. Xenoblogging
http://elizengblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/gulags-of-north-korea-and-weakness-of.html

6. Wildcard
http://jackjcaus.blogspot.com/2010/09/adventuring-novel.html

The Cell World

Actually, there was nothing new after reading the article, “Born and Raised in a North Korean Gulag”, because I knew these sorts of stuff before (having learnt Korean history when I was in primary school). North Korea is a society which the government totally shuts down the communication from the exterior world. Thus, the government is able to absolutely control its people’s mind throughout their entire life (unless, like Shin, one is told about the outside world). According to Shin, he had thought he was living in an ideal world before one of his friends told him about the world outside North Korea. Shin had “thought it was natural that [he] was in the camp because of [his] ancestors’ crime, though [he] never even wondered what that crime was... [he] did not think it was unfair.”
In North Korea, people from their childhood to death, unless they become aware of the outside world, praise Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il their entire lives. Their fundamentality is that both Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il have created utopia. When people in North Korea refer to both Kims, they say “Uobouy Suryong” and “Abouji” respectively (pretty much equivalent to calling “my Lord” to God in Christianity).
I also think that it will be hectic if there is a revolt after decent number of people find out about the outside world and realise that they actually live in dystopia not utopia. The concept will be similar to the revolt that happens in WE.

George Orwell's World of ENGLISH

George Orwell, most probably, had written this essay because he would have been so much frustrated with the way people have used English to the extent that they have abused the English language. In the essay, he uses an analogy of preferring candles to electric light, and hansom cab to aeroplane, as people stubbornly stick to archaic writing (using foreign phrases, scientific words, and jargons while everday language can be used).

Though I do not agree with all his opinions, I understand what he is getting at. The reason is that far too many people, by trying to sophisticate their use of language, make their prose a mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence. This is evident from the five examples that Orwell provides in the beginning of his essay. The first example is from Professor Laski where he uses five negatives in a sentence. The second one, from Professor Hogben uses term in the wrong context. An essay on psychology in Politics contains a number of circumlocutions. The fourth example, Communist Pamphlet, has lots of phrases that are stale. The final one, Letter in Tribune, lacks in detail because words and meanings do not really match. What I disagree with Orwell is some of his "rules" that cover(?) most errors in writing. Firstly, he insists not to use any figurative language which one is used to seeing used often. Well, I just think that he is making an induction. Because figurative languages he had seen are bad, it does not mean all figurative languages that we use are bad. I also do not agree with the fourth one. He says "NEVER" use the passive voice where active voice can be used. This is not always the case. How about this?- 1984 was written by George Orwell.