The Naked Emperor

This article talks about how the Communist Party manipulates its people through the use of propaganda in the cyber world. It entirely relies on the background information of China as a communist country, otherwise, it would be considered ambiguous. Because this article is written by a third person point of view, it writes about how the Party illustrates itself to the public as well as how society perceives the Party's messages. A leader in the Party posted on Sina Weibo that she "wept five times" during the President's opening speech, the common people ridicules or take this saying as a joke by mentioning he "wept five times" after he ate the spicy noodles for instance. The public backfired the leader's posting shows that they are not conceived or manipulated by the Party's praiseworthy sayings that sets them in a decent standing. 

Not only that, Mr. Zhu even wrote, “Ordinary people like us all know the emperor is not wearing any clothes. The emperor himself knows that he is naked. He also knows that we know. And yet he still walked out like this.” Mr. Zhu comments that the public knows that the Party is trying to depict themselves as the hero or the star of China even if it is wrong and immoral, yet they are continuing to draw themselves as the 'good guys'. 

I think that the intention behind this article is to humiliate the Party of how they try to manipulate their people but fails because the public knows what the Party is up to. I feel that this is very shameful and humiliating that the Party knows what they are doing and they are still doing it. Moreover, I also think that the public are working towards becoming a free country or at least warn the Party that they are not that dimwitted to be influenced by such propagandas. 

1984, Ch. 6&7 Analysis

Chapter 6

Critical Position: Feminist

Chapter 6 talks about how Winston desires for sexual encounter with someone from not having for a long period of time after he divorced with his wife, Katherine. Winston broke up with his wife because she is not interested in any sexual acts unless the purpose is for producing children to the Party. Consequently, Winston had a sexual affair with an "old and ugly" prostitute but he did it anyways. From a feminist's position, I think that Orwell's writing is unrealistic and over-exaggerating of how the Party controls its people. I think that both females and males in general cannot keep themselves away from the 'desire' of having sexual intercourse for pleasure. I feel that mankind value 'emotions' over 'righteous' and therefore, the ideal of being chaste is very hard to achieve. On the other hand, I think that females should not find a living by selling love. I feel this way because the culture I live in is emphasizes prostitutes as disgraceful and shameful. 

Critical Position: Moral 

The morals I got from this chapter focuses on being a caring person. For example, Winston divorced with Katherine because she does not perceive or enjoy the relationship  the same way Winston does. From clues in the chapter, Winston respects his wife's decision and does not force her to do things she does not want to. Not only that he also finds out that their relationship is based on the Party's needs for more children, not originally based on love. Therefore, Winston chooses to divorce for the happiness of both him and his wife. However, I dislike the fact that the old woman makes a living by being a prostitute. It is a dishonor to find money by selling one's own body. I feel that she has the ability to find money other ways. 

Chapter 7 

Critical Position: Psychoanalytic

Chapter 7 narrates about how the Party teach their people to believe the facts that are feuded but not from their eyes and ears. For example, the Party feeds in "2 and 2 gets 5" deceiving the people's sense of determining what's right and what's not. I feel that this topic is very bizarre and inhumane. Personally, I feel that the people who thinks of repressing people this way is mentally ill. However, this text still interests me because the idea presented is very abnormal and I find it a mystery to think about. 

Critical Position: Moral 

I feel that the Party should not repress its people by feeding in information rather than teaching them how to think for themselves. This limits people's freedom of thought and therefore, it is no difference from turning humans into robots. The Party should think about the better for everyone and not just themselves who gets to control and overpower the public. 

Questions

1.) Why did you initially choose the theory you did to break down your chapter(s).

I chose to write from a feminist's perspective for chapter 6 because it narrates about how Winston encounters with two different woman in his life. The two women is portrayed differently in this text so I wanted to reflect on how I think and feel about each person. On the other hand, I chose to write from the psychoanalytic position for chapter 7. This is because I feel that the message present in this chapter shows to be very inhumane and mentally disordered. Therefore, I want to write and find out the deeper meanings from a psychoanalytic scope for this chapter. However, I chose to write from the moral position for chapter 6 and 7 because I feel that I can reflect the teaching lessons I got from both chapters. 

2.) How did viewing the chapter(s) through this scope (and the scope or your partner) change your interpretation of your reading?

I feel that this activity made me read between the lines and understand both chapters in depth. It made me analyze why events in the novel happen for a reason, not just reading like I always normally do. Not only that, I think that viewing the chapter from a critical position made me understand about the a particular perspective portrayed in the chapter better because it focuses on one topic but in a great detail. 

Late October Cartoon Analysis

• Cartoon date: fall of 1939
• This cartoon is satirizing the relationship between Hitler and Stalin after they agreed on a non-aggression pact (1939) that Germany and Russia will not invade each other
• The sarcasm of the writing, "wonder how long the honeymoon will last?" implies that they are going to break up just like a marriage when there are ups and downs
• I believe that the color of this cartoon is in black and white because it is drawn back in 1939
• Hitler is the groom (has Nazi symbol on his suit) / Stalin is the bride
• Personally, I think that the artist made the bride (Stalin) looking very happy and trusted to depict how naive and gullible Stalin is compared to Hitler--> Hitler invaded Russia only after 2 years he signed the pact with Stalin

Metacognitive

The cartoon above is illustrating a marriage between Germany's leader, Hitler, and Russia's leader, Stalin. The drawing portrays Stalin's facial expression to be very cheerful but it is rather implying that Stalin will be tricked and backstabbed later on. This impression positions Stalin as a 'clown' who is dimwitted and easily manipulated. Although the drawing does not write or include any clues about the event the artist satirizes, he assumes that the viewers would know the occurrence in 1939 where Hitler failed to follow the terms in the non-aggression pact between Germany and Russia.

Furthermore, I believe that this cartoon represents the artist's view towards non-aggression pact between Stalin and Hitler. The sarcastic tone through the writing, "Wonder how long the honeymoon will last" shows that he disbelieves the non-aggression pact will work since the cartoon is drawn prior to the failure of the agreement. Not only that, I feel that the artist drew this picture to persuade people in his decade that the agreement between their leaders is just a fraud. On the other hand, because the artist is anonymous, we can also interpret that the artist might be a witness from another country in World War II but not Germany and Russia. The way the message is portrayed shows that the artist treats the agreement between this two leader as a joke. Therefore, it can be inferred that he/she ridicules the non-aggression pact as a senseless agreement. 

I feel that this cartoon is very enjoyable and creative on the ideas of satirizing these two leaders. The use of humor and sarcasm plays a role in making the viewers reminded of the failure of the nonaggression pact.