(Assignment #7) Metafiction _ The Real World

     Sometimes I think what would happen in the world when I close my eyes. I wouldn’t know if all the visible things disappear in the moment I close my eyes and appear again as I open my eyes. I can’t be sure that the world would exist when my eyes are closed! Perhaps the world would stop in every second I blink my eyes.

     I continue to think, and I conclude that I can’t be sure about the world even when my eyes are opened. Everything what I see might be only a false image. Maybe I am the only thing that exists in the world, and I am ‘programmed’ to sense the false images. Perhaps the world might be a Truman show. The circumstances around me might be artificially made up, and others might observe me living in the circumstances. Everything might be a fake, except me.

     Reflecting my life, my life has been so perfect. I am from a rich family. I am handsome and tall. I am the ace player of a basketball team. I always maintain top score even though I study less than others. I have never undergone failure in my life. People say I’m perfect. But, I’m not sure. This is not something like narcissism. I seriously doubt why my life has no lacking. Why am I so lucky? Why not someone else, but me? If I am the only one that exists, the mystery is solved. I know I exist. But I’m not sure others would. Maybe I am the main character of a reality show, which is about a perfect life, or its collapse. The world is so good to me to be genuine. I feel myself becoming terribly desperate and insane.

   So the question is: Would there be ‘a real world’? Would there be failures in the real world? Would there be truth in the real world? Then, how could I get there? If I’m the main character of the Truman show, would there be an observer looking at me in the outside world? Then, would he or she be able to let me into the real world? How could I give the observer signals?   

“Hey, something’s strange here.”

“Why, what’s happening?”

“I don’t know. I think one of the simulators got to know about the programming and all these stuffs.”

“What do you mean? That’s impossible.”

“Well, he’s killing everybody on the street.”

“Wh…What? Kill everybody?”

“Yes. He’s stabbing everybody with knives. And he’s writing phrases like “This is not even real. Show me the real ones” besides the dead bodies.”

“Wow…… but how could it be possible? How could he recognize this……”

“I have no idea. The only thing I know is that we should stop this before other simulators die.”

“Wait, you mean you’re gonna’ stop his simulation and summon him?”

“I don’t know. I think it’s the best way, unless he kills everybody even in here.”

“Well….. okay. Stop the simulation and bring him here.”

“Okay. I’m ready.”

Killing everybody: this is my choice. At least, it would be a signal to the real world. I don’t care what parents and friends would think. They’re not even real! I don’t care how many years would I be sentenced in prison. Time is meaningless anywhere in this world. I’ll be a threat to this fake world. I’ll make the balance of this fake world collapse. And I’m giving them message of blood. “This is not even real. Show me the real ones”. After each murder, I wait to be transferred to the real world. Nothing happens. Why, why? I kill more and more. I finally shout to the sky. “DAMN, TAKE ME TO THE REAL WORLD!” Then, I lose consciousness.

“So he’s that simulator?”

“Yeah. Still not completely transferred yet.”

“Gee…… This is cruel.”

“Huh? What do you mean?”

“I think I understand him. It is cruel indeed, to make a fake world, and make those simulators believe that they’re actually living.”

“Well, you know better than anybody that we are accomplishing numerous scientific achievements through this simulator experiment. All psychologists undergo experiments in our laboratory.

“But….. this is……”

“Hey, you think this world is real?”

“Huh? Of course, what are you talking about?”

“Come on. I’ll show you something interesting.”

“What the…..”

“Now you see?”

“This is…..”

         “Yes, the real-real world. The world you were living in is a Truman show of this world. And you are one of the simulators of this real-real world. Your world was also a fake. You’re one of the dullest simulators who didn’t even doubt about your world to be false.”

Creativity is the Most Essential Value Ever in the Society Today

     Recently, the education system seems to consider creativity significantly in Korea. All schools and institutions pursue ‘creative education’, and parents are eager to let their children become more creative. Creativity is such a ‘popular’ value in the society today. The popularity would be because the society needs the value of creativity. In fact, creativity is one of the values that are needed more than ever in the society today.

     The importance of creativity can be proved by the history of the values the societies consider most significantly. There have been three revolutions that led the societies to the current stage. The first was the ‘agricultural revolution’. Due to the advance of agriculture, people could settle in a land and make a civilization. Land was the most important value of the society. The next revolution was the ‘industrial revolution’. Factories and machines made mass production possible. The society valued capital the most. The last was the ‘information revolution’. The development of transportation and communication made the flow of information easier and faster. Enormous quantity of information flows every day via Internet, and everybody can contact to the information with their computers and phones. In the information society, of course, information is valued the most. To win in the competition, people should not only have approach to the information, but produce more information. The people and firms should suggest original ideas and create novel values and information! To make original ideas, creativity is very essential. Therefore, in a society that has undergone through the information revolution, people should be creative to produce novel values and information.

     Creativity is essential to win in the competitions of the market. Since the society has become bigger and more complex, market has become enormous. Numerous sellers exist in a single market. Therefore, the sellers should be distinctive, compared to the other sellers. To gain attention from the buyers, the products of the sellers should have novel advantages and functions that other products do not have. To create the novel advantages, brilliant ideas accompanied with creativity is required once again. Creativity is the most essential value to gain attention from the consumers and win in the market competition.

     Creativity is also required in design. Nowadays, design of a product is as important as its functions to the consumers. Design has its ability to give the first impression to the consumers, and to make a product seem unique. As there is a saying, “A pretty pie is delicious.” in Korea, consumers tend to buy products which ‘seem good’, closely related to their designs. To create unique and great designs, creativity is essential.  

     In conclusion, in a historic view, in an economic view, and in an artistic view, creativity is essential in the society today. Therefore, the ‘creativity boom’ in the recent education system seems to be a preferable phenomenon. However, the true meaning of creativity should not be transformed when educating the children. The education system should do their best to make children creative in a genuine way. 

(Assignment #6) Shawshank Redemption: Book VS Movie

    

I have both read the book ‘Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption’ and watched the movie ‘Shawshank Redemption’. The book and movie are both evaluated as great pieces. They both delivered the theme of institutionalization and hope effectively and beautifully, and have impressed many readers and audiences. However, the book and movie have many differences, and I prefer the movie to the book.

     The characters, especially Red, are described in different ways in the two pieces. In the book, Red is a white man with red hair, and his age is similar to Andy’s. In the very first part of the book, he introduces his cruel crime in a cold and unbiased tone, and gives an image of a cold-blooded murderer. He often shows impetuous attitude in the story. However, in the movie, he is a black man and is about twenty years older than Andy. He seems to be a clever man with lots of experience and wisdom. His crime is not introduced.

      The story among Andy, Tommy, and Norton is expanded in different ways in the two pieces. In the book, after Andy fights with Norton to clarify his innocence, Norton deals with Tommy and sends him to a prison with better conditions to block Tommy from helping Andy prove his innocence. However, in the movie, Norton kills Tommy. The movie portrays Norton as a more evil character and Tommy as a more pitiful character.

     The theme of institutionalization and hope is more clearly shown in the movie than in the book. For example, the book does not show what happened to Brooks, the former librarian, after he was paroled, in detail. However, the movie describes his daily life briefly. He seems to be unsuccessful in adjusting to the life outside the prison. Finally, he commits suicide. Brooks shows the audiences how dangerous institutionalization can be. In addition, in the movie, Andy broadcasts the song ‘Le Nozze Di Figaro’ to the whole prison without permission, while the book does not show such scene. Music is not approachable in the prison but is abundant in the outside. Therefore, music symbolizes hope. In the scene, the movie delivered the theme of hope effectively to the audiences.

     Finally, Andy’s escape is portrayed more revengefully, therefore more delightfully in the movie than in the book. In the book, Andy’s friend prepares a false identity and invests all Andy’s assets in the false identity before he comes in the prison. Andy plans to act as the being of the false identity and withdraw all the money after the escape. However, in the movie, Andy hoards Norton’s money to a false identity to wash out his money. Then, after the escape, he snaps all the black money away. Moreover, he tells on a newspaper company about all the cruelty and corruption of Shawshank. Eventually, just before the police capture Norton, Norton commits suicide. Unlike the book, Andy has a revenge on Shawshank in the movie, so the delight is more intense. I also liked the part when Norton opens the Bible and notices the hole for the rockhammer. He reads the note, “You were right. Salvation lay within.” This scene was so cool and incisive. Considering that the book did not mention where Andy hid the rockhammer, the movie seems to have more logic and probability.

    Although there are differences between the movie and the book, the best parts and phrases are exactly the same. The movie adopted the parts that best expressed the theme of hope from the book. For example, the letter from Andy says, “Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things. And no good thing ever dies”, both in the movie and in the book. In addition, the last phrases Red narrates in the movie are: “I hope Andy is down there. I hope I can make it across the border. I hope to see my friend and shake his hand. I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams. I hope.” The last five sentences in the book are exactly the same.The movie and the book are  both undoubtedly great pieces about hope. 

(Assignment #5) Reflective Essay on the Movie 'Spring'

     A boy is immature but strong. Therefore, a boy enjoys to, and is able to torture and kill the weaker existences in the nature. I was also once a boy who liked to divide an ant’s body into sixteen pieces and cut off the wings of a dragonfly. These experiences had been a source of pride when talking with other kids about who killed a creature in the cruelest way. I guess I enjoyed the cruelties because as a young boy, those small animals were the only existences that I could exert authority to. At the moment, I was the omnipotent being that could even decide the survival and death.

    Of course, I do not torture and kill small animals now. Now I obviously see that what I had done was very cruel and immature. But, why do I recognize it now? Because I became mature? Because I have been more powerful and now I have others to exert authority to, so I don’t need to bother the small animals?

     If the first one is the right reason, the situation is good. However, if the second one is the right reason, I should remind the lessons of the movie ‘Spring’. As the young monk was punished, I should think in others’ point of view. I should ask myself if others behaved to me as I behaved to them, what I would feel. Otherwise, as the old monk said, I might carry the regret and agony in my mind forever. 

Norway Massacre and Nationalism

     July 22rd, 2011, a horrible terror happened in Norway and frustrated entire Norway and the global world. Since Norway was known as a neutral and peaceful country, the shock was even more intense. Later, the terrorist confessed that his massacre was related to the conflict between the ideologies of nationalism and multiculturalism. This essay will explain about the Norway massacre more thoroughly, bring up the issue of nationalism and multiculturalism, and suggest the importance of balance between the two ideologies.

     The terror can be classified to two incidents. The first incident is the Oslo bombing. A car that carried bombs was installed on a road in an area where the government office buildings were clustered. The car exploded and gave a great impulse. The windows of the buildings around the car were all broken. Eight people were dead. Norwegians were all shocked, and the police forces were concentrated in the area.

However, the bombing was only a bait for the next incident. The next terror happened in Utoya Island. Utoya Island is 30km far away from Oslo. In the island, students who were dreaming to be politicians were participating in a political summer camp organized by the Labor Party. The camp provided 560 teenagers opportunities to learn politics and meet the Norwegian politicians. However, nobody in the camp had known that they were targets of a terrorist. At the day, the students encountered the news about the Oslo bombing and were frustrated. Then, a man with policeman uniform appeared, and gathered the camp members. He said that he was going to tell the members about the Oslo bombing and the safety of the camp. However, suddenly, he started to shoot automatic rifle to the students. He used dumdum bullet, which was forbidden in the international society due to its cruelty. The teenagers panicked. Some dived into the water and tried to escape. The terrorist even aimed and shot at them. Some pretended to be dead. The terrorist shot at them, too. 69 people, mostly teenagers, died. The massacre was unbelievably cruel, deliberate, and planned elaborately.

However, the terrorist turned out to be an ordinary Norwegian citizen called Anders Behring Breivik. He did not participate in any terrorist groups. However, he was a right-wing extremist, and a Christian extremist. He considered Islam, cultural Marxism, and feminism as an enemy. He had uploaded Internet materials that proposed his opinion about nationalism and anti-Islam. He also had a contact with English Defense League, which establishes right-wing street protest movement against the Islam. He was so profound in his belief that he declared his massacre as “atrocious but necessary”.

In the court, he claimed that the purpose of his crime was to save Norway and Western Europe from cultural Marxism and Islam, to convey a clear message, and to limit future workforce of the Labor Party. He thought that Labor Party betrayed Norway and the people. Breivik seemed to be deeply infatuated in nationalism. He strongly disagreed with the multicultural policies of the present Norwegian government, which accepted non-European cultures including Islam. Therefore, the massacre can be attributed to the conflict between the ideologies of nationalism and multiculturalism. Then, what are nationalism and multiculturalism?

First, nationalism is a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms. A nationalist would exalt his or her nation above all other nations. A nationalist would put the most emphasis on the culture and interest of his or her nation, and neglect other cultures. A nationalist policy would discriminate foreigners and immigrants in jobs, educations, insurances, and other social conveniences.

Next, multiculturalism is the appreciation, acceptance, and promotion of multiple cultures. Multiculturalism accepts diversity of cultures, religions, and races, and encourages interaction and communication between different cultures. A multiculturalist policy would treat immigrants and natives equally, and would respect the diverse cultures of the foreigners.

Nationalism has three advantages. First, nationalism attempts social cohesion with the nation. By putting most emphasis on the culture and interest of the nation, nationalism makes the members of the nation unite more firmly. The cohesion would encourage the members to cooperate, and would lead to improvement of efficiency. Next, nationalism protects traditional cultures. Nowadays, in many countries, the western cultures flow in and destroy the unique conventional cultures. However, a nationalist view would ostracize the foreign cultures, and therefore protect the traditional cultures. Finally, a nationalist policy would cause decrease of crime and increase of jobs for the people in the nation. Foreigners, who are minority in the society, commit crimes often, due to the conflict of different cultures. For example, in Korea, there are more than 600 violence organizations of foreigners from fourteen countries including China and Vietnam. Therefore, intolerance to foreigners would cause decrease of crimes committed by foreigners. In addition, since lots of foreigners immigrate to get jobs, the native people lose opportunities to be employed. A non-nationalist policy protects the foreigners’ rights to be employed. Meanwhile, a nationalist policy would put effort to expand the opportunity for the native people to get jobs, instead of the foreigners.

Multiculturalism also has three advantages. First, multiculturalism shows respect for diverse cultures. A culture cannot be superior or inferior to another culture. In other words, a standard that determines superiority of cultures does not exist. Therefore, all cultures should be respected, and all societies should pursue multiculturalism. Next, multiculturalism creates value from accepting diverse cultures. Fusion of diverse cultures would generate more creative and unique culture. An ideal form of multiculturalism would accept the advantages of diverse cultures and fuse them to make a better society. Finally, multiculturalist policies do not discriminate foreigners and immigrants. All humans are equal, and all humans should be given the fundamental rights, regardless of their nation. Therefore, discriminating foreigners are morally inadequate. A society should pursue multiculturalism to be morally mature.

Since nationalism and multiculturalism both have advantages and disadvantages that conflict each other, politicians ponder and debate about the issue. For example, Jens Stoltenberg, the Norwegian Prime Minister from the Labor Party, advocates multiculturalism. Even after the Norway massacre, he declared that “Norway is still an ‘open society’ despite the horror.” The quote shows his resolute belief on multiculturalism. However, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, is on the side of nationalism. He said, “We were so worried about the identity of the immigrants that we were too negligent towards our own.” Considering that he is a son of an immigrant from Hungary, he seems to be deeply disappointed to the multiculturalist policies. The conflict between the ideologies of nationalism and multiculturalism is still ongoing.

As the Norway massacre had clearly shown, extreme multiculturalism would generate complaint from nationalists, and eventually a terror. However, extreme nationalism would also cause horror, as the history of Nazis had proven. Therefore, a society needs balance between the two positions. Obviously, a society cannot avoid multiculturalism in such a globalized society. However, considering the identity and cohesion within the nation, nationalism is also not negligible. Thus, a society should take both sides, and prudently make policies that balance the two ideologies most adequately. In a society with ideologies conflicting so severely with each other, balance and moderation are the most important virtues.

Reference

KBS Documentary: “노르웨이 테러, 충격의 그 날”

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=304

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=152

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism