Atwood is using a different voice in this passage, the voice of the narrator "Snowman" in this case. Atwood is not writing as if she's writing the book, she's taking on another voice to tell the story. Evidently the "Snowman" character doesn't express himself very well, so why should Atwood falsely insert her own diction and style into the story? Postmodernists reject the idea of the infallable narrator, that's why many of the stories are told by a narrator who is a character in the story. That way the story becomes disjointed and unreliable. Gone are the days in art literature when the narrator can be trusted (unlike the narrator in King's works who is often omniscient and utterly trustworthy).
Re:The Handmaid's Tale
on
Oryx and Crake
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Um, no...
King is at best a mildly okay Hollywood script writer, whereas Atwood is one of the finest authors of recent years.
The Handmaid's Tale is a magnificent example of postmodern writing that subtly subverts our understanding of "the narrator". If you read the "Historical Notes" you'll notice that the entire narrative up until that point consisted of random unordered tapes collected by chauvanistic historians. This subverts our whole understanding about truth and chronological order in the text. Pure genius.
Unless these municipalities have decided to set up internet kiosks everywhere, doesn't this raise the question about accessibility and who this REALLY makes it easier for. This will essentially make it easier for the more wealthy to decide the government, since now they don't even have to leave their houses to vote, whereas the lower income constituents still have to go somewhere else to vote.
Re:Don't ya just hate em?
on
RIAA Quashed
·
· Score: 1
As I said, socialism != communism...
Communism is state-run everything, whereas socialism advocates shared production (ie. NOT state run)
The pollution in ex-communist countries is due mainly to the state's greed under a dictator, and also Western countries' refusal to share technology that would help the situation. A socialist system wouldn't have this problem because workers would be working for the community, and not for profit.
Of course, since we have greed culturally ingrained it would take a lot to break our hatred of sharing. Tribal communities function in this manner, and it makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Re:Don't ya just hate em?
on
RIAA Quashed
·
· Score: 1
Systems aren't defined by what they're *not* which is exactly what you are doing here.
Capitalism is not the lack of communism, as you seem to infer here, according to dictionary.com it's "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
And also, according to investorwords.com, capitalism is where "free market forces determine the prices of goods and services".
In other words, a collective monopoly like the movie theatres have are against the spirit of capitalism where these companies should be competing to drive the prices down. Such is one of the many faults of capitalism.
--- If I had my choice of economic system, I'd choose socialism; at least we wouldn't be killing people and the earth trying to cut costs. We'd have a wonderful system of state-controlled production.
And for anyone who feels like saying "socialism fails", I would ask for specific examples of *just socialism* failing (not communism, which inevitably fails for other reasons, not the least of which is the "proletarian dictatorship"). In recent times, every single socialist state that has been set up has been sabotaged in some way by a Western country (more often than not the US). The US took Allende out of power in Chile and put in Pinochet, a fascist dictator. Why was Allende taken out of power? For nationalizing the Chilean copper, to the chagrin of the American copper companies who were profiting from Chilean poverty....But I digress...
Maybe Israel wouldn't exist, but a secular state would be there (it certainly wouldn't be Palestinian). Oddly enough, the majority would be making the moral choice in this matter, since Palestinians are the only refugees in the world not allowed back into their homeland... But that's another contentious issue. Needless to say, there's a better way, but the UN (with the US' overused veto power) has yet to find it.
Exactly. Don't you see anything wrong with that? I mean, yeah, the US holds a huge chunk of the world's wealth, is that a good thing? I would say no. Just look at the UN's effectiveness in getting any resolution passed condemning Israel's constant conquering of Palestinian land, and their human rights violation. Every single time one of these resolutions comes to a vote, the only vote against it is from the US and it's an automatic veto. Yeah, that's fair.
Democracy is built on a one-person-one-vote system, and I don't see a problem with that. What I see a problem with is the people in possession of the majority of the world's wealth somehow working "in the best interests" of everyone else. This NEVER works, because these wealthy people have gotten that way on the backs of the poor.
Uhhhh.... I wasn't aware that the USSR and Germany were developing nations, I guess I didn't get that Pony Express letter...
In the 1930s Germany was an industrious nation that was "ripe" and look what happened, genocide. Russia was in turmoil after the Bolshevik revolution, but as things started to turn around up popped Stalin and another massacre. Yaaay dictators!
Damn, looks like we have a liberal democrat on our hands. Perhaps you should read Noam Chomsky's "Media Control"; he provides a nice overview of your type of thinking.
That's why a two-party first-past-the-post system sucks ass! Most pick the lesser of two evils, but it doesn't even matter; they tow the same line when it comes to things that count and show their "partisanship" by arguing about lesser legislation that hides their collusion.
An ideal democracy would be where everyone's voice is represented, like in Germany where proportional representation allows representatives to be selected based on their party's percentage of the popular vote. That's the way it should be (and hopefully soon will be in Canada, or at least Ontario, down with Ernie)
It doesn't really matter who the "main" target is. The only reason it's funny is because it is strawberry shortcake. Alice and OZ have aspects of the gothic in them to begin with, but SS does not. It's a clear satire of SS by having her engage in bondage activities. It's exactly like What if Hitchcock directed... The studio that made the films could not sue just because Hitchcock is the main target of the satire...
I used to think Buffy was mindless tripe too, but then I started watching the second season DVDs at my part-time job and I was enthralled. The dialogue is so witty and ironic. The commentary on real-life problems is well done especially because the show deals with the supernatural. It is the subtle balance between the real and unreal that gives this show its appeal. And for those people who believe that Buffy is not a geeky enough show, could you please tell me another american syndicated television series that makes reference to Dr. Who?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess Ralph Nader's not for sale (except on his own website).
For the sheer enjoyment of art, my friend.
Atwood is using a different voice in this passage, the voice of the narrator "Snowman" in this case. Atwood is not writing as if she's writing the book, she's taking on another voice to tell the story. Evidently the "Snowman" character doesn't express himself very well, so why should Atwood falsely insert her own diction and style into the story? Postmodernists reject the idea of the infallable narrator, that's why many of the stories are told by a narrator who is a character in the story. That way the story becomes disjointed and unreliable. Gone are the days in art literature when the narrator can be trusted (unlike the narrator in King's works who is often omniscient and utterly trustworthy).
Um, no...
King is at best a mildly okay Hollywood script writer, whereas Atwood is one of the finest authors of recent years.
The Handmaid's Tale is a magnificent example of postmodern writing that subtly subverts our understanding of "the narrator". If you read the "Historical Notes" you'll notice that the entire narrative up until that point consisted of random unordered tapes collected by chauvanistic historians. This subverts our whole understanding about truth and chronological order in the text. Pure genius.
You rock.
The Crow rocks.
here in .on.ca I've never heard of dirty swirlie meaning getting your butthole eaten out, but who knows? Canadia's a big country, eh?
Unless these municipalities have decided to set up internet kiosks everywhere, doesn't this raise the question about accessibility and who this REALLY makes it easier for. This will essentially make it easier for the more wealthy to decide the government, since now they don't even have to leave their houses to vote, whereas the lower income constituents still have to go somewhere else to vote.
Excepting those computers with wake-on-lan enabled...
Or if you're a "student" you can download it for free.
RTFA, Mozilla 2.0 *IS* Firebird 1.0
As I said, socialism != communism...
Communism is state-run everything, whereas socialism advocates shared production (ie. NOT state run)
The pollution in ex-communist countries is due mainly to the state's greed under a dictator, and also Western countries' refusal to share technology that would help the situation. A socialist system wouldn't have this problem because workers would be working for the community, and not for profit.
Of course, since we have greed culturally ingrained it would take a lot to break our hatred of sharing. Tribal communities function in this manner, and it makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Check out this page for one take on socialism.
Systems aren't defined by what they're *not* which is exactly what you are doing here.
...But I digress...
Capitalism is not the lack of communism, as you seem to infer here, according to dictionary.com it's "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
And also, according to investorwords.com, capitalism is where "free market forces determine the prices of goods and services".
In other words, a collective monopoly like the movie theatres have are against the spirit of capitalism where these companies should be competing to drive the prices down. Such is one of the many faults of capitalism.
---
If I had my choice of economic system, I'd choose socialism; at least we wouldn't be killing people and the earth trying to cut costs. We'd have a wonderful system of state-controlled production.
And for anyone who feels like saying "socialism fails", I would ask for specific examples of *just socialism* failing (not communism, which inevitably fails for other reasons, not the least of which is the "proletarian dictatorship"). In recent times, every single socialist state that has been set up has been sabotaged in some way by a Western country (more often than not the US). The US took Allende out of power in Chile and put in Pinochet, a fascist dictator. Why was Allende taken out of power? For nationalizing the Chilean copper, to the chagrin of the American copper companies who were profiting from Chilean poverty.
If they accounted for previous windows experience and all the media foofaraw over windows, I wonder if the numbers would be just about the same?
Maybe Israel wouldn't exist, but a secular state would be there (it certainly wouldn't be Palestinian). Oddly enough, the majority would be making the moral choice in this matter, since Palestinians are the only refugees in the world not allowed back into their homeland... But that's another contentious issue. Needless to say, there's a better way, but the UN (with the US' overused veto power) has yet to find it.
Exactly. Don't you see anything wrong with that? I mean, yeah, the US holds a huge chunk of the world's wealth, is that a good thing? I would say no. Just look at the UN's effectiveness in getting any resolution passed condemning Israel's constant conquering of Palestinian land, and their human rights violation. Every single time one of these resolutions comes to a vote, the only vote against it is from the US and it's an automatic veto. Yeah, that's fair.
Democracy is built on a one-person-one-vote system, and I don't see a problem with that. What I see a problem with is the people in possession of the majority of the world's wealth somehow working "in the best interests" of everyone else. This NEVER works, because these wealthy people have gotten that way on the backs of the poor.
Uhhhh.... I wasn't aware that the USSR and Germany were developing nations, I guess I didn't get that Pony Express letter...
In the 1930s Germany was an industrious nation that was "ripe" and look what happened, genocide. Russia was in turmoil after the Bolshevik revolution, but as things started to turn around up popped Stalin and another massacre. Yaaay dictators!
Hah, in Northern Ireland up until several years ago, votes were assigned based on the amount of property owned; gotta love the Brits.
Damn, looks like we have a liberal democrat on our hands. Perhaps you should read Noam Chomsky's "Media Control"; he provides a nice overview of your type of thinking.
That's why a two-party first-past-the-post system sucks ass! Most pick the lesser of two evils, but it doesn't even matter; they tow the same line when it comes to things that count and show their "partisanship" by arguing about lesser legislation that hides their collusion.
An ideal democracy would be where everyone's voice is represented, like in Germany where proportional representation allows representatives to be selected based on their party's percentage of the popular vote. That's the way it should be (and hopefully soon will be in Canada, or at least Ontario, down with Ernie)
Problem is all their new apps require 10.2 My gf's eMac is running 10.1.5 and I can't install Safari or AV iChat. Poo poo to that.
Although I love OS X, I think Apple has MS beat on this one. They charge full price for a freakin' point upgrade!
Anybody else think that Nick Stahl looks like Alexander Siddig (Bashir from Deep Space Nine)?
It doesn't really matter who the "main" target is. The only reason it's funny is because it is strawberry shortcake. Alice and OZ have aspects of the gothic in them to begin with, but SS does not. It's a clear satire of SS by having her engage in bondage activities. It's exactly like What if Hitchcock directed... The studio that made the films could not sue just because Hitchcock is the main target of the satire...
The PS2 has both options for some games such as Red Faction 2. You can plug a USB mouse and keyboard into the console to play PC-style.
I used to think Buffy was mindless tripe too, but then I started watching the second season DVDs at my part-time job and I was enthralled. The dialogue is so witty and ironic. The commentary on real-life problems is well done especially because the show deals with the supernatural. It is the subtle balance between the real and unreal that gives this show its appeal. And for those people who believe that Buffy is not a geeky enough show, could you please tell me another american syndicated television series that makes reference to Dr. Who?