Before reading "The Convergence of the Twain," I knew it was about the Titanic but that was it. I assumed that it would be a solemn tone, painting the Titanic as a tragedy, like most others do. The connotation I automatically have with the Titanic is sad. However, the poem was not like this at all. It was sort of blaming the Titanic on human hubris and was saying that it was almost meant to be sunk. I got a tone of inevitability from the speaker, almost as if it were obvious that the "unsinkable" ship was meant to sink. This way of thinking makes me question. If we praise something for being a certain way, does that then make its end value the exact opposite of what we were praising it for? And then once it does the opposite, are we to blame society and humans for being to arrogant and prideful because they "hyped" it up? If we were to ask people who lived in the days of the Titanic, would they say that it was unsinkable or would they agree with the speaker that those people are too arrogant and prideful? Because from what I've seen it seems like everyone agreed that this ship was "unsinkable." So was there anyone saying that it was destined to sink, or is this just some statement made after because it's easy now to say that they were too arrogant. However, if the speaker were there before the ship sank, what would they say? This would be interesting to see because perception and experience change a lot. Clearly, we now know that the Titanic is "unsinkable," but would we have said that before it sank? This question can be applied today too. Genetic modification, for example. "Yeah genetic editing is awesome we can do all these great things with it and nothing can go wrong." Until something does and then we say it was obvious and inevitable.
This week in class we read a piece called Show and Tell by Scott McCloud. This piece showed (and told) the importance of pictures in readings. It started off with a short anecdote of this kid in front of his class explaining how his robot toy transforms into an airplane. He uses a mixture of words and plain showing how it does what it does. This develops the author's main argument that "words and pictures have great powers to tell stories when creators fully exploit them both," (McCloud 809). I believe that images in books don't make a work of literature any less intellectual. If the content is meant to be intellectual, pictures aren't going to make it any less. Actually, images bring a different dynamic and can allow for more intellectual content. If an author were to include a statement where there could be many interpretations, that would be considered intellectual, but if you add an image to that and turn it into a comic, there could be an infinite amount of i...
Comments
Post a Comment