Netflix Does Murder Sleep

Macbeth's Recommendations:

Game of Thrones:

(Warning: This scene depicts the death of a child.)

Game of Thrones is a fictional medieval drama in a fantasy world. It's main story is the attempts of various noble families to take and hold the Throne of the Seven Kingdoms, and their endeavors are pretty intense. Macbeth would want to watch the show for the political drama, and in the drama, he'd explore what is justified when taking power. He'd also look at how effective each power play was, so that he wouldn't make the same mistakes. Game of Thrones has extreme relevance to Macbeth, and the real marker of that is, of course, that children are murdered for political purposes! (Just pointing out, there is a top ten list for the saddest child deaths in Game of Thrones. Ten!) Perfect.

Higurashi When They Cry:
(Warning: This video also depicts the death of children, but they are killed by other children, so it's all okay. It's also animated, but you are still about to see some F'd up stuff)
Higurashi portrays a small town where a group of kids continually murder each other in varying ways. "You only live once" is not true. You can live many times, or in the case of Higurashi, you can die many times, for after the proper amount of death, the universe will back up, everyone will be alive, and death will re-commence in a new design, all because of Oyashiro's curse. Macbeth would be drawn to Higurashi because of the mindless murder. He would be interested in the madness that the characters are drawn through. He'd also wonder whether the death spree was caused by the characters or by Oyashiro's curse. Higurashi goes really well with Macbeth's exploration of madness and murder.

Death Note:

If someone's name is written in the Death Note, they will die. You can specify aspects of their death in the notebook, but if you don't, they will die of a heart attack. Light Yagami, our protagonist, uses it to kill all criminals and become god of the new, perfect World. Macbeth wants to know whether he should consult his conscience. Death Note answers the question a couple episodes in: what conscience? There was some moral rhetoric, but eventually, everyone who is a threat can die. That's exactly what Macbeth wants to hear.

Star Wars, The Prequels:

Star Wars again! This story of how Anakin Skywalker turned to the Dark Side. It encompasses political drama, murdered children, and not-so-subtle manipulation. What more could you ask for in a story? Admittedly, Anakin's girl, Senator Amidala, fell down a few notches by the end of it. She started off shooting people down and then kind of just... died? But there were multiple roles for her in between, and Macbeth would be interested in seeing what role she should have played more often. Should she have stuck with him to the end or told him sooner that he was going down the wrong path? He needs to find answers in his media. Macbeth would probably also admire how determined Anakin was by the end of the film. He just wouldn't stop, and instead overreached.

Darth Macbeth

1. Why do people who are not "evil" take the first step into evil? What, for instance, is involved in taking that first step "down the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire" (Macbeth, 2.3)? What are the consequences of the individual choosing evil (particularly the internal consequences)? Use examples from the text to support your opinion.

Macbeth was a soldier. Yeah, great intro.

In Macbeth Timeline, on "Macbeth's desire to kill", one wishes to place the first act at zero, but that is not correct, because in scene 2, he is described:

"Disdaining fortune, with his brandishe'd steel,

Which smoked with bloody execution,

Like valour's minion carved out his passage

Till he faced the slave;

Which ne'er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him,

Till he unseam'd him from the nave to the chaps,

And fix'd his head upon our battlements."

So, he split this guy open from the navel to the jaw and then stuck his head on a spike. From the second scene, Macbeth is vicious. This passionate slaughter is earned Macbeth his new position as Thane of Cawdor. Considering this, is it really surprising then, that in the attempt to rise to higher positions, Macbeth's solution is murder.

I am tempted to go ultra-liberal (ultra-liberal)  (ultra-liberal)   and use that quote that says that "war is organized murder" but killing is sometimes justified, and preserving a pretty good order is sometimes an okay reason. Also, I'm going to say that for someone to be "evil" they have to be self aware, not misguided.

So I will say that the first step into evil is to reenact a previous act without the context to make it justified. Would Macbeth have murdered Duncan if he had not killed a man in his life, I don't think so. Would America have spied on it's civilians if they had not been forced to spy during war time? No. Would Anakin Skywalker have murdered an entire village if he hadn't retaliated to evil acts like kidnaping with killing before? And, would he have murdered the jedi younglings if he hadn't killed the village's children? No, and no. Would children cheat if they had never been given group work? Of course, but that's because they were evil from the beginning. The same goes for Lady Macbeth, we're talking here about a good person who went ill.

To step into evil requires a similar action that was somewhat justified so that makes the evil deed less foreign.

However, after performing the act of evil, the righteous wo/man sees that what s/he did was wrong, and suffers for it. They reflect on their sins and see that it was the wrong thing to do. But eventually, they get to the state of mind where they are accustomed to the violence, and they are able to forge ahead toward the dark --- ending of the play.

Yeah, "Use examples from the text to support your opinion," but I just watched the prequels and I'm so hype right now!!! Anyway, they are really nice parallels.

But I digress. The first evil step is an indulgence, and it benefits them. I can understand why Macbeth murdered Duncan. I mean, who knows how much longer the King could have lived. Without action, Macbeth could have been king for 2 days and then dropped dead while Banquo's kids had a long reign. The first murder was sensible, but then, people get drowned in evil, and they continue in it even though it doesn't serve self interest. Macbeth, the Machiavellian Prince, don't make me laugh. The Lady is the cunning one. If Macbeth had followed her, who's home was in the bay of evil, he would have been fine, but no, after the first murder, he went swimming toward the depths.
"I am in blood - Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, - Returning were as tedious as go o'er." "Go o'er" isn't really to "continue in the quest to stay king" but to go on murdering in evil. After the first step in evil, people become mindless. Evil becomes synonymous with the beneficial, so they continue to commit evil when it's not necessary or helpful in the slightest.


(Further Wisdom:
The moral of the story is; if your evil, just do you. But if you're good, bruh, don't come down here.

And going back in here to get my ranting on. That joke about Macbeth and Banquo's kids getting married was so true. What the crap was Macbeth thinking?  "Banquo's kids will succeed you" (I'm paraphrasing here), who cares!! Lady Macbeth already showed that the position of king is more important than kids. Also, it seriously might be that they do have kids and people hook up.
The issue, really, is that Macbeth didn't have enough faith in the prophecy. Like, half of it came through, that can't have been for nothing. Just roll with it and make its details the best that you can. Send Banquo away on some mission and semi-adopt Fleance. It'll be great, I mean, no, it probably won't, but maybe it'll work out. Make intentions clear that Fleance will succeed you and the prophecy won't need to have some plot twist to be fulfilled.
When you really think about it, is saying that a specific person will succeed you that bad. You already know someone's going to succeed you! Like if the fates had said "Someone will succeed you", Macbeth would have been like "no **** Sherlock, let's make this monarchy stable enough so that it'll be 50 years from now." But because it has a specific person, he goes haywire and doesn't fight the war within the bounds of the prophecy.

Oh, and if no one who does the power question also includes the Batman v Superman trailer, I'm going to be very put out)

Dat Art Though

Henry Frederick (1594–1612), Prince of Wales, with Sir John Harington (1592–1614) in the Hunting Field, 1603
Robert Peake the Elder (British, ca. 1551–1619)
Oil on canvas, 79 1/2 x 58 in

The painting was made on the transition from the Elizabethan era (1558–1603) to the Jacobean age (1603–25), and, on a larger scale, between the Tudor (1485–1603) and Stuart (1603–49, 1660–1714) Periods. Jacob XI or I, depending on where you lived, came to the English throne the very year this painting was made, in 1603. King Jacob was Prince Henry Frederick's (who is standing) Father. The artist was an English artist who studied in London. The woods are probably fake as all get out. Just as the architectural background of Peake's portrayal of Queen Elizabeth was symbolically fabricated, the background was an artistic choice and was not a real scene. Peake later basically copied the image except inserted a new friend instead of the knight, and put a new background. It honestly felt intellectually dishonest.

    Starting with the title, the painting shows Henry Frederick, the Prince of Wales, and Sir John Harington in a Hunting Field after they have taken down a deer. Sir Harington, aged 11 is kneeling to hold down the stag while Prince Henry, aged 9, draws his sword to give a final blow. The sword has embedded jewels. The boys have clothes with fine embroidery and silk sashes, though the prince has much more as well as a frilled collar. The gold embroidery on the Prince's shorts resembles a cross. The both have horns, and the prince has a belt with a jewel of St. George. Near each boy is his coat of arms hanging from a twig. For each boy, there is also the date of creation, 1603, and each boy's age. In very fine gold print, on the hat and to the right of the stag, there there are the names of the boys. The Prince's says "Henry Frederick, Prince of Whales, Son of King James the 1st," signaling that Jame's has already ascended to the throne in England, and that Peake hails from the English perspective.

    There is also a dog, that likely helped in the hunt, as well as a horse. The horse wears fine fabric and golden stirrups. There is a man, likely a servant, who is mostly obscured by the horse. The woods in the background hold rolling hills, six other deer, a stream with some water coming through a rock, and a bridge. In the distance, there is a castle.

    The piece is a dual portrait, but with an outdoor setting that was pioneered by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, a Flemish contemporary of Frederick's. The piece,in respect to Prince Henry, exemplifies the full-length portrait, which became popular in the 1590's.

4/5. The piece uses a large amount of green, even with clothing, which emphasizes the natural setting. The rather novel outdoor setting shows a more informal and active representation of the prince. The use of gold detailing communicates the wealth of the subjects without being overly gaudy. There are several ways in which the artist marks the Prince as superior to the knight. The Prince has fancier embroidery and more silk, showing the Prince's comparative economic strength. The fact that the Prince is the one that will finish off the stag, showing his superior social roll in any proceedings, as does the Prince's physical position has higher in the piece. The fact that the knight's hat is on the ground also shows reverence to the Prince, like how gentlemen took of their hats to ladies during the period. And really, fancy hats is how all societies show the importance of specific individuals. The removal of the hat shows that the knight is nothing in the presence of the Prince. Prince's coat of arms is also shown as above Sir Harington's on the tree, signaling his family's greater importance. It is also significant that the arms are on trees, because, since European Royalty are all inbred (sorry for the harsh generalization, but it was fun to type), the two families are probably related somehow on the family tree. The use of the coat of arms shows the importance of family in the British Isles in the 1600's. Family is what got the prince his title, his fancy clothes and his servant in the background. (Went totally angry peasant right there)

The inferiority of the man behind the horse is heavily shown. He is not listed in the title, his name, arms and age are not given in the pices. Most of his body his hidden by the horse, and his clothing is plain. Through these methods, the artist does his best to marginalize the man in comparison to the two boys.

Advirtizement (sp)

"Greatness Awaits"

by PlayStation

Published to YouTube on June 10, 2013

This advertisement inspires pride in the viewer to convince them to seek greatness in PlayStation's videogames.

    The advertisement has a Leonardo DeCapri-ish man stepping out of a crashed car and strolling down a road with odd events revolving around him while he praises the viewers and ensures them of their right to greatness. At the end of his motivational speech, the camera pans while he walks boldly into a hectic battlefield, lightheartedly beating people with singe strokes. The speaker praises the viewer as someone "with... the powers of an ancient god," which is practically the definition of sinful pride; placing one's self in the incorrect position relative to God. The ending image of a hectic world emphasises the variety in the gaming world. The last frames show a grounded boat near a race track at the foot of a scenic mountain with explosions and ships and the air. Despite the fact that many games on battlefields are monochromatic bore-fests, the advertisement maintains vibrant colors to continue the theme of endless choices and varieties.

    "Who are you to deny greatness? If you would deny it to yourself, you deny it to the entire world, and we will not be denied." The language here evokes a sense of duty, selflessness, and heroism in the act of "accepting greatness." Near the end of the section, the ad makes a clever twist in language, for in the context of the sentence, "we will not be denied" expresses how the world, along with the speaker, will not be denied the viewer's greatness, which is tyranny. It is offensive that the world presume to to demand something from the viewer. The meaning of "we" is therefore rewritten as the viewer and the speaker. With this meaning of "we," "We will not be denied" then implies that someone is attempting to deny greatness from you. Forgetting that in the original context of the stanza, you or the one denying your own greatness, this gives a challenge to the viewer to prove their greatness, and the correct response is shown by the speaker, who charges into the gaming madness.

This interpretation of "we" solidifies the prideful narrative of the ad. "You are great. The world asks pleadingly for your greatness, and out of the benevolence of your heart, you accept. Opponents wish to challenge your greatness, but cannot hope to overcome you."

   The full title of the video is "Official PlayStation Greatness Awaits Trailer. With the labeling of trailer, the advertisement seeks to both entertain and persuade. Through a sense of entitlement, it persuades the viewer that they should have more games, but as a trailer, its responsibility is also to sample the experience of gaming, just as a movie trailer samples the movie. In this respect it must entertain the viewer as games do, and because it is a commercial for games in general, and not a specific title, it must show a variety of gaming types. That is another reason why it incorporates so many gaming elements. Some from Grand Theft Auto, with the crashed car, the destroyed city street shows apocalyptic elements of The Last of Us. The trailer is attempting to proved incite into many different games for a combined gaming audience.

   The audience of the ad are middle to upper-middle class American teens and preteens. The PlayStation 4's going at 400 dollars, with each game at 60 bucks a pop, and the audience has to have parents that can pay for all of that. The audience is likely already involved in the gaming world and familiar with gaming culture because the advertisement appeals to the self-centered gaming mentality and incorporates elements familiar to gamers including deadly robots, screaming natives (no comment), nature levels covered in vines, and race tracks. The destruction of the building incorporates the popular trope and quality song of "Cool Guys Don't Look At Explosions." This chillness in the face of complete madness continues throughout the trailer, emphasizing the heavy acquaintance the speaker has in the flaming, exploding, painted world, which reflects the audience's familiarity with gaming genre's. With this familiar audience, the ad is meant to invigorate their gaming passion so that they'll buy even more PlayStation games.

What's in a Name?

 1) In a paragraph, explore the meaning you find in  your name. It can be your first, your last, or even a nickname.  How does that name define you? Or does it?

    Christopher isn't really my favorite name. There is of course the minor piss off that the name belonged to the genocidal-ish Christopher Columbus, but I eventually got over that. Now, it's mostly that it so tied with Christianity (it has "Christ" in it), and I am an atheist. I do have to thank my parents for not naming me "Christian." Close call there. The christian name reminds me of the vlogbrother's video about names where Hank said something along the lines of "don't name your child after a character trait because they will inevitably choose that trait to rebel against you during their teenage years." The idea really expands to the idea that a name shouldn't have any meaning on its own because the child isn't defined, and it might be that they don't have anything to do with the meaning of the name.
   Christopher means Christ bearer, and has a strong affiliation with Saint Christopher. According to http://www.behindthename.com/name/christopher, the meaning of the name came before the legend, which was a literal interpretation after a figurative meaning of "bearing christ in one's heart." Upon reading the legend, I must admit that Saint Christopher is pretty cool. He went around trying to find and serve the strongest King. He saw a human king fear the devil, so he went to find the devil. A bandit or someone pretended to be the devil, but he avoided crosses out of fear, so he went to find Christ. He was told that he could serve Christ by fasting and praying, but that wasn't really his thing, so he was told he could help by carrying people across a dangerous river (He was like 7 foot 5 and strong). Anyway, after taking some people across, a child asked to be carried across. The kid was super heavy, and after Saint Christopher finally got him to the other side, he asked why the child was so heavy. It was because the child was Christ and had all the sins of the world on his shoulders, and that it was impressive that the Saint could carry them all. And that's why he is "Christ bearer." Yeah, pretty cool! I love how the dudes like "yeah, fasting isn't really my thing, is there something else I can do."
    Anyway, after all that, the name doesn't really define me. With all the connections "Christopher" has, especially to Christianity, I am "Christopher" and "Christopher" is me. (Which means that, when referring to me, it is not really a Christian name. Also, I'm sure that's from somewhere, but I can't remember where.) I have done my best to exclude any meaning gained by historical context that the name "Christopher" has when I use the name to identify myself (That was fairly convoluted). The only times when the name is uncomfortable is when I am uncomfortable with who I am (the name's denotation).
 (Just pretend that that was one paragraph)

2) Anna Quindlen, in her essay "The Name is Mine", remarks,"there are two me's, the me who is the individual and the me who is a part of a family of four..." To that same end, some say that Beowulf is a story of a dual ordeal: an external battle with vicious opponents and an equally important battle with human tendencies. Everyone experiences such moments of awareness.  In another paragraph or two, think about those times when you have been "two," and explore the dilemma posed by being an individual and, at the same time, a part of a larger whole.

    There are two me's. Me as a nerd and me as a part of the McDonald's community of Wakefield (Quite a title).  Micky D's is where I hang out after the bus drops me off at Wakefield High School. For the first year, I just worked on homework and art, but then I made friends. However, I never quite integrated into the group and we've actually distanced this year. At first I was just a nerd. I didn't talk to anyone and got so much work done. My identity was purely nerd me. Then, I built an identity as a part of the community. I talk with them a lot, but there are a couple of things from my nerd identity that keeps me from integrating fully into the community. First is that I'm from Millbrook and don't know all the people they're talking about. Second, I don't think I gossip that much, except about certain foreign natives and native foreigners. Anyway, mostly the issue is that I have hella homework and I do it. That means that I compromise my full identity as a McDonald's person by doing homework. Another issue is that I don't smoke, and much of the community does. I do cut back on some of my work to participate in the community. I dropped my homework to go walk through the woods with my buddies, and it was very fun. Now, with this senior workload, I do more homework than I used to and spend less time with my friends there. So, my identity as a nerd and a McDonald's friend poses dilemmas about how to spend my time at the restaurant.

<%-- (Ignore this text)
Honestly, I don't quite get the connection of Beowulf with the discussion of names and identities as an individual and a group, so if you would pardon me, I'm going to examine that part of the question for a bit. The battle with opponents is pretty clear. The battle with human tendencies, is that about what being human means. Like how Beowulf is, in the modern view, just as animalistic as Grendel is with his battle, using just brute force and not using tools or cunning, but in the battle with the dragon, he uses his sword and shield and is more knightly. Or whether humans go into battle alone or together? Is this a battle against human tendencies to form an independent less human path? Is Beowulf supposed to lose?... Okay, from  http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/5042.html, "Beowulf is constantly dealing with... internal battles caused by natural human tendencies of pride, greed, cowardice, betrayal, and self-concern, throughout his life." Honestly, does he really battle them? I feel like he just goes with him. He doesn't really battle internally against betrayal and cowardice. The men show it, but people... I am so done. Yeah, my response might not be that relevant to Beowulf. --%>

Real Cowboys

From the Archive - Real Cowboys, Minneapolis, MN
Lake Street USA (1997 - 2000)
by Wing Young Huie

    The photograph is of a man at the corner of Lyndale Avenue and West Lake Street in Minneapolis. The man is from El Paso, Texas, and came to Minneapolis for cancer operations, and he now has an electro-larynx that amplifies his vocal chords. He was a singer, but can't do it with the electro-larynx. He also enjoys horses, and still trains them even if he might not supposed to do so. Most locals just call him Cowboy. The man notes that there must not be many around, at least not real ones. The picture has him in an intersection that has Big Mike's Super Subs, which has since been renamed Milio's Sandwiches. Above the Sign is an advertisement saying "What's your flavor? with a man in a suit and a hat. The man is dressed in southern clothing, including heeled shoes, a serious belt, a patterned shirt, shiny neck think, and a cowboy hat.

This picture has cowboy in the middle of an intersection, which is not the place for pedestrians. It also appears that there aren't actually drawn crosswalks, unless it's those two faint lines behind the cowboy. Either way, if there is a crosswalk, he's not on it. Huie symbolically echos the misplacement of cowboy by placing him on the road, as opposed to on the corner, because the pedestrians aren't supposed to just stand in the road. His placement in the road shows him in a place that isn't really for him. The story of the photograph, seeks to analyze the differences between the surroundings, Minneapolis and the North, and the home of the other, the South. The science and economy of the North is shown by the cowboys movement to the North for surgery. The overcollection of advertisements also criticises the new and Northern economy. The piece also criticizes the North's inauthenticity, by questioning the "realness" of the other cowboys in the North, if there are any. The piece highlights the music in the south, showing it's connection with the South.

Huie and Atwood both use clothing and age to present othering. Huie contrasts the cowboy's clothing with the suave style of the man in the advertisement. This contrast bring attention to how the cowboy doesn't belong in Minneapolis. Atwood also presents othering when Offred is in the bathroom. Offred asks, "did I really wear bathing suits, at the beach?" (Atwood 82). This shows how foreign wearing few clothes around people has been made by Gilead. She also said that her "body seems outdated" (Atwood 82). Huie also touches on age, as the cowboy is fairly old, especially compared to the young model and to the backdrop of a growing city. Atwood uses age and clothing to show how removed the past is from Offred's present. Huie uses them to show how out of place the cowboy is in the Northern city.
Huie representation of otherness doesn't really focus on the extent of difference between the man and his surroundings, but the vast minority that the cowboy is compared to the rest of the city. He is such a minority that there is only one of his kind in the city, so he can be called simply cowboy. Atwood does not show the other as a minority, but as vastly foreign. This can be seen when the liberal clothing resurfaces with actual foreigners (Atwood 38).

<%-- (ignore this text)
Huie is othering the cowboy by contrasting him with his surroundings to show how he doesn't belong there. Huie highlights the locational difference between where he is from and where he is now, making him foreign from the Minneapolis audience. (The Lake Street USA was an exhibition what was posted along Lake Street in Minneapolis itself.) Huie says that the man is from Texas and has to references to the mans connection to Tennessee with Nashville and Chattanooga.
--%>