I feel like it's cheating to not use my own voice, but this is something directly out of Orwell's "1984," in which the main character, Winston, puts up a front when around monitors or party supporters. However, once alone, most notably in his sexual relationship with Julia, he is a completely different person, one in complete rebellion against the false self forced upon him.

This sounds like something out of a George Orwell or Ayn Rand novel.... Living outside the thumb of Big Brother's management or existing as an "I" instead of an "us" (an individual instead of an airline employee).

I don't know if this makes sense, but to me this is a very post-War mindset. In other words, after great tragedies, people try to be true to themselves to escape the horror and lies of what happened. For example, following Hitler's forceful placement of Wagner on a pedestal as the Third Reich's symbol, many German musicians worked to reinvent their sound in direct contrast to the propaganda-famed Wagner. They were true to their own nature instead of what was forced to be known as the "natural" sound of Germany.

I haven't thought enough about it, but I think there is a really interesting opportunity here to look at Gulliver's Travels and the lack of lying (or bullshit) in the language of the houyhnhnms. If you aren't familiar with the story, Gulliver, in order to explain his situation and the outside world, had to roughly translate lying into "the thing which is not" as the houyhnhnms had no concept of such wrongs in their society. Perhaps there are some correlations between the two pieces?

I think commercial is an interesting word. Are these artists writing to sell copies/make money or are they trying to make a political/social statement? I lean towards the latter choice and so I wonder why Grant uses this word unless she means to address how the impact of the music is changed by it being released into a profit-based environment.

This is something of a disconnect for me... Usually, when an author puts a block quote at the beginning of a paper, they intend to address it in some way, or at least provide evidence as to why it is relevant. Grant just leaves it up there providing no real insight into her point.

Nostalgia: a.k.a. missing the good old days... This makes me think of Faulkner's "A Rose for Emily," which was back-lit by a decaying Southern Gentile society in which the people were holding on to the "glory" of the "courtly plantations" with all their might.

At this point, I have spent an obscene amount of time trying to find a song that follows an autobiographical style but, while my musical preferences are pretty eclectic, I have yet to find anything. Thus, I am somewhat at a loss to stay fully within the realm of autobiographical song... However, what I did find, while not explicitly autobiographical, is filled with social commentary, realism, and most definitely originality. The song "King Rat" by Modest Mouse is largely a commentary on the senseless need for having possessions. The song's lyrics make a mockery of society, comparing humans to carrion birds swarming around worthless things. Brock and the rest of the band bluntly represent an image of society, relying on realism (or perhaps just an authentically pessimistic tone) to bring their music down to Earth. If nothing else, the song, as with most of their music, is strikingly original, but I don't think this is because society was pressuring them; rather, I feel as though the group is working to be authentic despite societal pressures and preexisting musical standards. From an autobiographical sense, some things have to be read between the lines so to speak... Much of Brock's early life consisted of being a "city rat" and existing as somewhat of an outsider to society. Meaning he had little to no income and didn't worry about "important things" like a nice car or paying rent because "county jails they're free." Among all these different interpretations, the song, especially when alongside the video, is heavily against illegal whaling, another commentary on society.

Warning: The video is pretty graphic, involving whales and other marine animals catching, flaying, and eating humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi7KDOAj4Xo

This might actually be one of the most relevant key terms (not necessarily his key term) around populism as America was all but founded on the disagreement between the "elite" class and the common man. I can't exactly say that this is an example of "Academic English."

Key Term - This is very much an example of Academic English. It is prevalent in works like Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" and the common man's identity in the context of the elite's power.

A citation for identity in the context of populism. It supports his claim about Trump's supposed populism as an extension of his elite power.

I've only read this far so I have no idea what this is actually discussing.... but I felt rather emphatically supportive of this word choice. (Perhaps too emphatically....) For me, much of politics, the news, modern literature, and music as well are all generated with the mindset of "what will make me noticed by others?" Or "what will give me recognition?" In fact, I am somewhat disillusioned by today's pop music as few of the hits seem to do anything other than repeat the same sounds/styles that worked for previous best sellers. This is all but ubiquitous in the news media setting, too. All across newspapers and channels are flashy words or phrases like "latest glimpse," "beggar makes millions over night." or some other click bait. Many politicians also do things to gain more attention rather than to actually affect their country as it gives them more "power" over people. In the end, the media, music, and ultimately our "American" culture is just one big regurgitation of itself, forming a mountain of bullshit on which we stand declaring that we are somehow the best.

My writing took over....

This was the word that I chose for my Prelim #2.

What she wrote about folk lore being affected by outsiders is quite interesting. After so much influence, how authentic are the stories we heard as kids? An obvious example of this, would be the Grimm Fairy Tales, which Walt Disney and others turned into children's stories. Also, the common folktale images of Casey Jones and John Henry have evolved (or maybe devolved) into something that is likely very different from their original form. I can't speak for everyone, but I too grew up to the stories of Brer Rabbit and Brer Bear. However, how dissimilar to the original (if there can be truthful/original "lies") were they?

This is somewhat alarming...

It seems like the obvious thing to say, but I find this somewhat alarming. Or, at least to my twenty-first century ears, what Wordsworth wrote in his "Solitary Reaper" sounds like blatant plagiarism. And, as plagiarism tends to do, this makes me question how many of his works were similarly unauthentic in origin.

Authenticity largely revolves around stripping an idea, identity, or some other concept to its core. In some ways, this is the same thing as removing the complexity from the idea, and making it as simple and unembellished as possible. Aside from keeping to his ideas of not using extravagant language, this also allows Wordsworth to portray equally simple, and non-extravagant characters. While I know this is a difficult question to answer, especially with its minor relevance to the actual text, but I was wondering whether or not others would consider this (the simple character) an intentional reference to the idea of authenticity?

This may be a little brash of me, but perhaps Wordsworth did impact portions of the written word in the form of the Imagists. Per their ideals, Imagists write incredibly short poems that have "a certain colouring of imagination." Often times, their poems also revolve around everyday happenings that are represented in a strange manner. So, despite my lack of any concrete evidence, I would say that his dreams were at least accomplished, no matter if it was because of his role in writing.

For me, this is highly reminiscent of Emerson's Nature, in which he described the power of, and the empowerment of man through, nature. Admittedly, Emerson focused rather extensively on religion in the context of nature, but he nonetheless wrote over the goodness of rural life and being close to the land. Also, somewhat begrudgingly, I admit that Emerson's style of writing isn't quite the simple form that Wordsworth wrote about.

This is often what scholars usually refer to as the author's "apologetic preface." In other words, that type of a preface is intended to "apologize" to the reader for the author's mistakes or for when they bend the rules of their genre/style.I believe Emily Dickinson and some other early Transcendentalists did this as well, but I could be mistaken. Arguably, Galileo had a preface added to his book, too, so that it would be accepted by the church.

I think I may be misreading this. Why are there two "makes"? Also, I'm sorry, but I couldn't find anything else within the syllabus to ask about.

After our in-class discussion, I remembered that some philosophers believe that humanity does not have free will. (Summarized) The argument is that once we are born, we are being constantly shaped by both our internal and external surroundings, so much so that we are completely at the mercy of said environment. Now, I am neither a philosopher nor do I want to debate the idea at the moment, but what if this is true? That suggests that we are molded by what's around us. In other words: We are molded into copies. So, if this idea regarding free will is correct, then the answer to this question is that we are shaped into copies simply by existing.