AP Lit book discussion

In response to theOX...

2009-06-08T06:39:00.000-07:00

If you have anything further to say, I'd be glad to hear it. I take interest in your peculiar responses to my fellow classmates. If you'd rather not hold a mature conversation, or think that you are incapable of doing so (you did hint that you failed out of class), then ADMIT your own personal shortcomings and KINDLY MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS rather than make childish, inane statements on others' blogs, especially assignments that you ought to know are not undertaken with any goal other than for passing the class.

This I Believe video project

2009-06-03T14:10:00.000-07:00

The following is my This I Believe project, both transcript and video. It is what I believe; hence the title of the project being, "This I Believe." If you'd like to comment on the essay, feel free to do so. It would be greatly appreciated, though, if commenters refrain from delving into a philosophical or religious debate. I am not writing this to prove, disprove, or bicker about any spiritual realm that may or not be. If you don't agree with my ideas regarding such, kindly buzz off and keep your aggressive postulates to yourself, or post them on a blog debating such. Thanks a bunch.

Earlier on in my life, I considered myself fairly lucky to have so many family members. I had pets, aunts, uncles, cousins, godparents, grandparents, and even a great-grandmother. Of course, nothing, and no one, lasts forever. The only downside to having so many family members is that they’ve all got to go at some point.

The first to go was my father’s father, but I couldn’t really know what to think of that. I hadn’t really known him, seeing him perhaps once or twice a year, and was also fairly young. As a result, the funeral was a strange experience. My godfather’s death, on the other hand, was much more distinctive and destructive. He was around almost all the time, and died on a cruise. Because of the nature of his death, the body vanished for fear of biohazardous bacteria, or something along those lines. Just like that, a close friend, gone. My great-grandmother was apparently already on the way out, so to speak, suffering from a failing mind and considerable confusion, so I was upset but not very surprised when she died. Her peaceful passing, compared to her nervous and troubled state of existence prior, made it easier to accept her death. And, of course, the pets also have their time; in the space of a day, one of my cats suddenly fell ill and died due to gradual degradations of undetectable cancer.

Of course, there’s no point in repeating this solely to focus on the misery and anguish of death. It’s inevitable and harsh, and certainly everyone has seen the chaos it wreaks on survivors. However, there’s one pleasant thing to be gained from these grim surprises, one thing that at least I believe in.

I suppose the critical shift came when I began to see dead people. Not any dead people, and not in everyday activities; no, that would be disturbing. But in my sleep, I would dream and see whatever my mind created, and occasionally I would see the deceased. Occasionally I still see the deceased, but it would primarily occur shortly after the death of the visitor. It seemed similar to some final comfort before they headed their separate ways. I could clearly hear the voice, see the person, and it appeared to me that I wasn’t merely dreaming. For example, my godfather and mother’s parents kept two cats, one of which died; following my own cat’s death, I saw my cat with my grandparents’ cat, which were both with my godfather. And they all acted, sounded, responded to me as they would, as they did, before death; there was a clear presence.
Whatever it was, be it some supernatural revelation, an active and grieving mind, or whatever I ate for dinner, it was something. And the more I knew, the more that I saw in my sleep. The more I remembered, the more that I had experienced, the more realistic the dreams became. I’ve never been able to actually converse with these dead, but I personally believe that they are there. Wherever there may be.

Now, some philosophers have reasoned that all is within the mind of God, that the physical world is the manifestation of the spiritual world. If that is so, perhaps that is what my dreams mean. Perhaps there is life after death, within one’s own mind. Perhaps there is a universe within the mind where one can recreate their life, the existence they knew, as philosophers believe God did with this universe. Of course, if one hasn’t lived, there can’t be a world to create; there are no paints, no ideas, nothing worth drawing.

I believe that the purpose of life is to live, so that at life’s conclusion there is a place where your mind can go. Think of life as a template and as a buffet; the more you see, the more you can keep. And the more dreams can become realistic, the more senses can perceive, and the more fulfilled one can be in the end. Death might be final, but it certainly doesn’t have to be such a dreaded horror. Consider it a deadline, pardon the pun, announcing when the research period ends and the main task of eternity begins. And, after all, so long as one has memories, nothing will ever truly vanish.

I intend to see, do, and understand as much as possible, knowing that everything that was still is, still can be, when my time comes. I still have fears, doubts, but at least I have a belief. And that belief is telling me that I am never alone, that those before me have lived and now have their eternity, and that before I can receive mine there is still so much that has yet to be done. My belief about death is what allows me to live.

A Humble Suggestion

2009-04-30T14:14:00.000-07:00

It has come to my attention that the United States faces a severe problem, which has plagued politicians and nativists alike since the foundation of this nation. America is the land of opportunity, where freedom reigns supreme and all men are created equal. We, as patriotic citizens, have fought for this country countless times to ensure its survival and support the spread of its ideal (and by “we,” I mean our ancestors and our neighbors in the armed forces). Unfortunately, some people are of the mind that such freedom should be freely given to all the oppressed, regardless of the logistics and facts of reality. Such persons, eager to jump on the bandwagon and attain their free share of freedom, which we have long toiled for, are likely at this very moment successfully breaching our border, especially in the South. I speak, my friends and fellow Americans, of the issue of Mexican immigration.

There is nothing wrong with the Mexicans. Allow me to explain that my motives for addressing this problem are not connected in any way to prejudice and ill will against our Spanish-speaking vecinos. My only issue is one of detached calculations. The unchecked flow of immigrants into America has taken and will continue to take an immense toll on all aspects of our life. Mexicans currently enter illegally into the nation across the southern border, usually fleeing miserable or hopeless conditions at home, trying to make a living and reach that dream of a stable, comfortable life. Cubans also enter the country via rafts, fleeing similar conditions and a perhaps less-than-respectable leader. These people will come seeking jobs, and being illegal, will have to be paid under the table. This will result in countless jobs going to non-Americans, which will raise unemployment throughout the country. The possibility for abuse and mistreatment runs high, as no Mexican will be able to go and report such an injustice without being deported. Furthermore, there have been efforts to help these immigrants apply legally for citizenship, granting them access to Social Security and healthcare benefits. Some even toy with the thought of legalizing all of them at once, seeing no way to halt the inward flow from Mexico. Such events would place an enormous strain on the economy, already in poor shape and watching with fear as the baby-boomer generation ages. And there are the regular daily questions to answer, as well. Where will they live? How will they live? How will we understand what they are saying? The inherent lack of knowledge of the American language and culture may lead these poor, huddled, teeming masses to take up several lesser positions, such as taxi driving and fast-food window operators. The language barrier will prove an obstacle to everyday life for many, especially since Spanish classes are being replaced by French and Chinese in several higher educational facilities. Soon our country will break under the financial and cultural stress, and democracy itself will be in peril. I hate to say it, but there just isn’t enough freedom to go around.

Therefore, I would like to put forth my own humble suggestion in solution to this impending crisis in the South. I suggest that we follow the lead of one of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan, who had previously proposed a similar idea while awaiting the green light for a radio broadcast. During the Cold War, Reagan had been endlessly seeking a way to put an end to the Evil Empire of Communism, and was overheard to have uttered a groundbreaking proposal minutes before a national address. Reagan’s plan to completely outlaw Russia never got off the ground, but perhaps this idea still holds some final hope for today’s issue. I propose that we pass legislation that completely outlaws Mexico, and utilize our immense nuclear arsenal to wipe the Hispanics off the map entirely.

When one considers it, the potential benefits to this course of action are numerous and appealing. First, it will solve the central issue of Mexican immigration. Any Mexicans caught in the future will be immediately disposed of, saving us the price of gasoline to return them and the food and lodging necessary to take care of them until they are carted back to their native soil. This will free up the previous under-the-table positions held, allowing more jobs to be taken by American citizens rather than illegal immigrants. This will also eliminate the danger of economic stress from legalized Mexicans of both the naturalization process and the legislative process. Several knowledgeable persons have declared that immigrants often take the positions that Americans refuse to take. If this is so, then perhaps the American youths who will take such occupations will have improved attitude and insight that only menial labor can adjust, restraining the slothful and humbling the haughty. Employment will rise, and big businesses will be deprived of their secret pay plans, now forced to pay minimum wages and properly care for their employees. And there are more international bonuses as well. First, the Mexican-American border will now be sealed airtight. Walls and fences cannot perform as efficiently as a lake of radioactive sludge can. This will end the endless Congressional stalemate over the problem, perhaps bringing both sides closer to unity with one less divisive issue to argue over. Additionally, it will eliminate the threat of terrorist infiltration across the borders. Though terrorists can easily get into the US with fake passports or with the help of allies, when the airports and docks clam shut with improved security measures, there may be no better alternative than a leaky border than even a Mexican teen can cross. The bombing of Mexico will remind other nations that we do in fact have a nuclear arsenal and are not afraid to use it against anyone, which will entice other nations with whom we have rocky relations to “not mess with Texas,” as it were. The bombing will prove an effective way to reduce our nuclear arsenal, perhaps as a gesture of friendliness and good will, increasing our ability to call for limitations on nuclear power and reduction in atomic weaponry across the globe. Or, if the United Nations agrees, all nations can demonstrate their desire for world peace by simultaneously launching most of their nuclear stockpiles at Mexico along with us. This mutual assured destruction of nuclear arms will help banish the grim specter of a nuclear Armageddon, and should ease tensions between nations and stand as a symbol of international cooperation.

One will find that my proposal’s benefits are made all the more agreeable by the presence of faults associated with several other plans. Though this plan has perhaps one great fault, and that is the unfortunate waste of so many cheap laborers, it more than makes up for it in global unity and economic stability. And after all, we can always find other sources of cheap labor in other nations; businesses such as Wal-Mart have already established facilities overseas abundant with willing workers. And the culture of Mexico will be perfectly preserved by countless establishments even here in America, in museums and Taco Bells in countless scenic locations. Yet what faults do other notions have? Plans for a border fence, or heaven forbid, a border wall, are outrageously expensive. The cost of border-building, especially when building a solid and impassable border, are astronomical, and the cost for labor would be appalling. The only way to feasibly pay for the labors would involve less-than-respectable practices, and such cruelty to the Mexicans is unnecessary and unjust. Our current method of tracking down illegal immigrants has provided little tangible results, and the personnel necessary for continual effective monitoring of the nation is also costly. And neither of these solutions address the continued legal migration from Mexico. The root of the problem lies in America’s reputation as a land of freedom and opportunity, and also the apparent lacking of livelihood in nations south of the border. One might think that calling upon Mexico to take care of its borders better could produce results; if they cannot even take care of their own, how could they take care of their own border? International agreement to improve Mexico, so that Mexicans are not compelled to flee their homeland, is a pleasant but unrealistic thought. Rarely will an international effort actually benefit an entire people, and cooperation frequently dissolves as soon as difficulties arise. Besides, I am sure that my suggestion will hardly be met with must international outcry. If Europe cares not about genocide in Africa, what reason have they to be concerned about Mexico? And the concept of a simple missile launch for world peace is much easier to agree on than combined, prolonged international aid. It’s more of a fireworks warty than a sleepover.

I am willing to hear further suggestions towards the solution of this issue, but am confident that this proposal is the most appealing and best remaining option. Personally, I shall miss Mexico, but I am willing to make a sacrifice in order to keep my nation and future Social Security payments as sound and secure as possible. I do hope that all persons interested in progress consider carefully my argument and perhaps make some united movement to a prosperous and memorable conclusion to this issue.

(notice: This is a satire. Do not comment thinking that this is a serious proposal. You have been warned.)

1984 and Brave New World - Ties to Today

2009-03-09T13:03:00.000-07:00

Two of literature’s most famous dystopias, created by Aldous Huxley and George Orwell, haunt societies around the world. The debate rages on, pondering which one of them is most likely to happen and dominate mankind. Neil Postman believed that Huxley’s world of satisfaction and pleasure is more prominent today than Orwell’s world of misery and despair. Though it may seem that Huxley’s Brave New World is far more relevant today, Orwell’s 1984 still lurks in some parts of the world. Which threat is largest, it would seem, depends on the circumstances in that specific region.
Our society here in America is frequently one of convenience, and such a trend appears in other nations as well. Electronic devices, instant service and connection, availability, comfort, and other such social pleasantries suggest Huxley’s vision is close to being realized. Sex is spreading to lower age groups, or at least becoming more prominent, and the frequency of lawsuits in response to minor discomfort (often brought on by stupidity) suggests a growing need to keep the masses satisfied. However, international crises threaten this lifestyle. Shortages of supplies (for example, oil) and worldwide economic downturn prevents this utopia from coming to fruition. Not only that, people are too aggressive, prejudiced, and hateful to hold the carefree and loving attitude trademark of Huxley’s fantasy. And, as much as we have drugs today, there is nothing close to soma (in fact, most drugs today carry multiple unpleasant side effects, the exact opposite). We have some conditions similar to Brave New World, but we are far from reaching it.
On the other hand, there is Big Brother and Orwell. Many countries overseas are dominated by Oceania-like governments, and the boot grinds daily into the face of humanity. Other nations, too content to care, look on with a disapproving tsk, but do nothing more. Unnecessary waste will remove resources, and wars with other nations are used to fuel patriotism and act as excuse for violations of civil liberties. 1984 could happen, and there would be no relief from it. Of course, the American population are not the Proles; we are well aware of our situation, and will doubtlessly rebel in such circumstances. There are too many nations to set in place a series of waste-wars to keep us down; additionally, we hate the wars we already have, for the most part, so patriotism is out of the question. And, even more, unless our government suddenly becomes a dictatorship taken over by one party, there is no threat of a Big Brother crushing us underfoot. Elections will switch out someone else soon enough, and both parties will not agree to oppress us; they would not dare work together even for today’s crises.
Both utopias exist in our society (and others) in small amounts. Neither is close to fruition; barring any major world-changing event, neither will be achieved. What we must be cautious of, however, are advances in such smaller categories as described above. We must, in areas where a governor or statesman leads through fear, power, or corruption, remove that official. Where people are disconnected from the outside world, and are apathetic to world events, we must inform and evoke effort and action. We must keep ourselves vigilant against drifts to one society or another, while still understanding that what may result is not irreversible or catastrophic. Nor will these changes occur overnight; the conditions for sustaining these societies are too numerous and complex. We must avoid hysteria or needless fear, but still make sure that we avoid being too lax in accordance with either Orwellian or Huxleyan “nightmares.”

Claim Statement - Animal Farm

2009-01-15T06:38:00.000-08:00

Fear has the capacity to paralyze the masses. A single person might speak out, but the general populous is slow to rouse. Strength in numbers may eventually overwhelm a tyrant, but if those numbers never materialize, the people will not take action. And if the tyrant moves the masses for his own purposes, his followers will overrun those who understand the truth. Unless there is a general agreement among the majority of the society, and preferably the situation becomes one of life or death, a tyrant will not be overthrown by his or her subjects.

There have been attempts by single people to overthrow a government. However, smaller numbers of people can move to action faster than the entire society. Secret societies are often formed from the percent of the population that would, by nature, always resist the tyrant regardless of the situation. If this number was, say, 15%, there would be an equal amount on the other side of the political fence that would always support the tyrant for whatever reasons. The central 70% must be won over, but it is extremely difficult to persuade two-thirds of the population over the opposition. It is much easier to act alone, but this will not cause the masses to move in unison. Several times in history, the assassination of a dictator has been met with indifference; after all, another would soon take his place, and their condition does not change. The masses are generally provoked, over time, to either support or oppose the tyrant, but to provoke them to rebel is another extreme case entirely.

In Animal Farm, the animals agree to rebel against mankind at one time or another. This was a decision supported by all present. When Jones failed to feed the animals, and then drove them from their food by whip, the starved animals reacted through instinct. To secure food to survive and to drive away the common threat, the animals together removed Jones from power. This supports the fact that a coup only occurs with prior agreement and in critical situations. When Napoleon took control, the situations may have been critical, but there was no general consensus to overthrow Napoleon. No animal could offer a solid reason; no common irritation existed. The sheep, seeing no overt act of tyranny, continued to bleat slogans, as did Boxer. And between the two of them, no one rose to challenge the pigs, who tactfully silenced any single individual who spoke out. Additionally, at the mass execution, there was no objection, even though the situation had become life or death, because the remainder of the animals had not agreed to overthrow Napoleon. They may have been shaken, but certainly weren’t moved into action.

1984 also shows an occasion where no general impetus exists to remove a tyrant. Individuals committed crimes, but the general masses quietly obeyed Big Brother regardless of what was said. Conditions may have been poor, but they were not life or death so long as the rules were followed. The proles could never be united against the Party; they had no reason to. Thus, tyrants are capable of remaining in power so long as they keep their subjects in their control. If the masses are not allowed to agree to overthrow the leader, they will never do so with a concerted effort. With careful statements and strategic assassinations, the tyrant can prevent a general consensus against him and ensure that, perhaps even in a life or death situation, he will find no great opposition.

1984 - About THE BOOK

2008-11-30T05:40:00.000-08:00

"Goldstein's" book, really written by O'Brien, was exceedingly peculiar. It was allegedly written by Goldstein, who opposed the Party, yet seemed to define a good deal of what Ingsoc was. The arguments were surprisingly coherent and logical, though lengthy and a tad boring. Two chapters of the book were detailed in the novel. And since it was really O'Brien who wrote it, is this therefore expressive of the Party's beliefs, or is it something completely different altogether?

Chapter 3 of the book seemed to explain how things came to be, to expand the setting beyond London to the state of world affairs that held constant ever since the Cold War began. Essentially, the war was a conflict between Oceania, the United States, and Eurasia, the Soviet Union. The Cold War seems to have split the world up into only two superpowers, perhaps a remark on the nature of the Cold War and both superpowers' aggressive interference in foreign nations. This erupted into an atomic war in the 1950's, another fear of the people at that time, which led to the creation of three supernations that could never destroy each other. "Goldstein" then argues that continued, vicious warfare, though without purpose or end, could be the solution to civilization. He argues that equality for all would cause the elimination of a power caste, and to give wealth to one group would result in a collapse of power; the only solution was to engage in continuous warfare to throw away goods while keeping the people's attention. Though the logic is reasonable, the application to the real world is slightly peculiar. This required that there be only a couple superpowers, all of which agreeing to reduce their countries to a pitiful existence barely above the limit at which humans could exist. This doesn't sound like Communism, but rather a reason to promote a dictator. This foreshadows O'Brien's later claim to power and corruption.

Meanwhile, Chapter 1 discusses how equality would not be beneficial to the society. By keeping a rich upper class and a severe restriction of freedoms, the "pendulum of history" could be "frozen" at a specific point in time. "Goldstein" argues that "inequality was the price of civilization," but then decries past dictators as "half-hearted" attempts at totalitarianism. Again, the book seems to be supporting O'Brien's later claims in the Ministry of Love. Also explained is why the Party exists, which apparently is because the wealthy upper class can more easily hold the majority of Oceania's goods if they're sharing them all. "Goldstein" also tries to explain that the Party will never fall, and discusses crimestop, blackwhite, and doublethink. Winston can't help thinking that the book only tells him what he already knew, what he had already been taught; in fact, several passages, I believe, were cut-and-pasted from earlier chapters in the novel. This repetition doubly stresses the peculiarity of such an allegedly offensive book.

When I first read this, I knew that something was off. This perhaps made the Party seem incredibly offensive, but it explained exactly what the Party was doing. It was pure propaganda written by O'Brien, a school textbook, even. Such echoes of power and authority, and a deep description of doublethink and its various forms seem to be persuading one that the Party is, in fact, perfect. The underlining of Oceania's everlasting, eternal condition suggests to the reader that there is nothing they could do to stop the Party, and explains how one should act while a part of it. Already O'Brien was trying to ingrain the Party philosophy into the minds of Winston and Julia; perhaps the time limit for reading the book was to get them to read it before the Party made them disappear. Undoubtedly this was an honest description of the Party, and to have it written under Goldstein's name could be yet another example of doublethink. The importance of the book within the book, I feel, was to have O'Brien explain to the reader more clearly the what and how so that he could explain the why during interrogation and confession. The book, in context to Winston, was solely to glorify the Party and begin to transform Winston into a loyal Party member once more.

The Things They Carried - Passage Qualification

2008-10-26T16:48:00.000-07:00

O'Brien states that the essence of a person remains the same. I would agree with that statement given certain qualifications. A person most certainly does not change when one considers the identity. However, if one considers the personality, the one part of a person that truly defines that person, that makes them different from anyone else in a sea of clones, then I would have to disagree. Who you are remains the same. What defines you changes with time.

O'Brien compares his fear of defying the playground bully with his fear of draft-dodging mockery when he received his draft notice. He attempts to state that, deep down, he is no different than he was when he was in the fourth grade. This isn't the part of him that remains unchanged. Sure, it's the same type of inability to act, but that part still changes. In the first example, the fear was more of a fear of injury. The second fear was of embarrassment. The type of fear is different, though he is still fearful. The first fear is something that can be fairly easily overcome, with time and growth. The second very few people can overcome, ever. In "In the Field," O'Brien tells us how he was the one who let Kiowa go under the muck. He describes himself without using his name, but illustrates himself frantically searching for the picture he lost during the attack. He was likely searching in order to keep himself busy, as a pleasant distraction, but he, as the narrator, states that he was doing so in case "something might finally be salvaged from all the waste" (173). As O'Brien tells his stories, he is really doing the same thing he was back in the field. He is searching through all of his stories, retelling them, in the hopes that something good might have come out of Vietnam. This search, in contrast to the former frantic search out of anger and guilt, is more exploratory, more purposeful. Where before he searched to save what little he had left, now he searches to find what he never had, even for what little is left of others, and possibly leave it for the future.

Having acknowledged that a good deal of similarity can be undone by purpose, I still maintain that O'Brien is right in the sense that his identity is unchanged. He discusses in the final chapter how he and his comrades kept the dead alive through stories. In the two detailed retellings and short return to the man he killed, O'Brien describes the characteristics and possible future of that person. The man's overall identity, that of a young Vietnamese soldier who would rather not be a soldier, remains unchanged. He's still the same person walking down the road, and in O'Brien's mind, he still is the same person walking right back down the road. Linda is unchanged, preserved in his mind, in his stories. Though what defines a person changes, who they are as a physical being does not. Rat Kiley slowly lost his mind, and Mary Anne vanished into the jungle. However, they remained Rat Kiley and Mary Anne regardless of where they went or what they did. No matter what kind of person one becomes, they are still essentially the same person. But their personalities change the definition of who they are. Tim O'Brien remains Tim O'Brien, but what is the definition of Tim O'Brien?

Response to "theteach":
Perhaps personality might not have been the best word for me to use, but I believe that one's preferences and actions can help define a person for a specific time frame, a specific purpose. People do change as time goes on, be it from one significant experience or several lesser experiences. Like words with multiple meanings, people can only be judged concretely in a specific context. Yet to analyze the overall word and its general connotation, all definitions must be analyzed. If, following your example, one was gregarious or retiring, it would help define who that person was at that time. But if the person reversed and became the opposite, that would change the temporary definition and add to the overall definition. By no means does one single personality define the person entirely, but all personalities taken together would roughly define them. Thus, one could use a personality only to define a solitary aspect of that person, in a specific context. In the end, you're still using the same word, with the same spelling. And like language, definition is not concrete all around the world. Definitions don't ever replace other definitions, they just add to what's already there. Therefore, personality partially defines a person in the sense that it offers a new definition, a new purpose and meaning.

Group memoir: "Why I Write"

2008-10-03T12:52:00.000-07:00

Why I Write - by Irene Gutowna Opdyke

When my country was invaded by the Germans and the Russians, my life changed. Many of my friends and neighbors died. Many others whom I never knew also died. Most of them died because they were not wanted by the Germans, and the Russians felt no different. I somehow managed to survive, despite all that I had gone through. Somehow I survived, and somehow I was able to save the lives of my friends. As "just a girl," I managed to save the lives of twelve people, in defiance of all of Germany, and I survived in defiance of all of Russia.
I do not write my story for myself. I risked my life for my friends and my country, and would have gladly died for them. I do not write so others can marvel at my accomplishments. After all, I was "just a girl" at the time, and really am not that much different than any other person who lived in Poland at that time. What makes me different is that I did what I felt was right, in spite of the odds and the consequences. And I write to tell you two things. First, there is no running from the past. All these things happened. This nightmare really happened, and it is my duty to remember all of it, and to tell you so that you may not forget what we are capable of doing to each other. Second, I write to remind you that you are always able to do something. Though what I did was but a drop in the ocean, it was still that drop. I still did what I believed in, and I always will. If you also do what is right, God willing, you will succeed. And there is no righteous deed that is worth so little as to not warrant doing. This is my will: to do right; to tell you; and to remember.

(P.S. The last line was taken from the end of the novel, page 265.)

Group Memoir: Quote Analysis

2008-09-26T13:22:00.000-07:00

"People glorify all sorts of bravery except the bravery they might show on behalf of their nearest neighbors." -George Eliot

Often, people tend to ignore the person next to them. It's all about what one can obtain for oneself. Particularly, bravery is attributed to a willingness to oppose a great danger. That great danger, however, had better be caused by something powerful and mighty, say, a dragon or a whole army of elite soldiers or something fantastic like that. One might say that, the more ridiculous the odds are, the more stupid the decision, the braver the person. This doesn't often apply to people who do things in the name of others. Irene put her life on the line frequently to save her friends, who were facing the same threat of painful death. However, she did encounter many who did not particularly relish the thought of someone aiding the Jews due to the sentence given for doing so. They found it awfully stupid. Schulz, for example, helped her in her quest to aid the Jews without ever acknowledging what she was doing. Rather than support her, he merely aided her silently, as if reluctantly letting her do what she wanted to. Silent aid and occasional support and encouragement are two completely different things; the first suggests tolerance rather than the second's approval. Another significant example is when Irene goes to church for confession following her first night as Rugemer's mistress. Despite the fact that she was saving twelve human lives, the priest denied her absolution for the specific reason that she was committing a mortal sin. Given, he may have been following the rules, since adultery is a violation of the Ten Commandments, but there are certainly unstated qualifiers in that instruction. Furthermore, his response clearly shows an indifference to the stakes: "'They are Jews.' [...] 'Father, I cannot throw their lives away' [...] 'Then I cannot give you absolution'" (217). When a religious man can tell someone they're going to Hell for saving twelve people, that gives you an indication of just how little neighborly bravery is worth. Furthermore, her Jewish refugees frequently told her to turn them in, just because what she was doing was plain stupid. As modest and caring as it is to tell your friend not to risk her life for you and your family, when she is doing that I'd expect it to be appreciated. The problem is that, compared to the Polish resistance, which fought relentlessly against their conquerors, neighborly bravery seems almost pathetic. Fighting physically against incredible odds is bravery, especially when it is for one's country or for one's personal gain. However, self sacrifice is the worst way to gain glory. That doesn't seem to be bravery, just stupidity. Self-preservation, adherence to rules, and kindness are not excuses for failing to provide praise. They discourage that bravery, or at least allow that person to struggle alone, because in the end it does not seem to be a cause worth fighting for. If neighborly bravery was worth anything in the eyes of others, Irene would have had a little more encouragement than this.

Extremely Loud: discussion question 17

2008-09-06T10:13:00.000-07:00

Oskar's use of the term "heavy boots" to describe his depression is pretty good. It conveys an image of dragging one's feet, which certainly helps the reader understand exactly how Oskar feels. However, the heavy boots are also what's holding him down. He refers to the birdseed shirt a couple times, and how he dislikes being in high places. Perhaps it can be interpreted that his boots are keeping him from rising above his current circumstances. Personally, as an article of clothing, boots can be put on and taken off by the wearer at will. I think that "heavy boots" does more than just convey an image, reminding the reader that Oskar is leaving said boots on his feet and not trying to take them off. He often remarks on how he prefers not to get heavy boots, but rarely works to lighten the load. Perhaps Oskar is donning his heavy boots because he has no idea what else to do. The depression may very well be self-induced, as are his bruises. It also suggests Oskar his dragging his feet through life, emphasizing that he is merely drifting around and not trying to move forward of his own will. In addition to commenting on Oskar's emotions, it acts as a symbol for the fact that Oskar is not trying to improve his situation, but merely accepting depression and struggling unnecessarily under the weight of his situation.

Responses to Comments:

In response to "juno":
I do believe that Oskar needs some time to get over his loss and face that loss. HOWEVER, it has been a year and he seems to be resisting any efforts, or at least not understanding any, to aid him in accepting his father's death. As for Oskar not taking off the heavy boots, I do not mean he keeps them on because he likes them. He believes that he knows how to remove them, and those around him are not helping him by pushing forward instead of staying behind a little longer. He feels the answer is in the past, not the future. Consider the segment about the Reservoir of Tears, and how he feels his mother should be adding to it. The journey is certainly for the purpose of him removing the boots, but also realizing that they must be removed with the help of others when the wearer is ready to take them off and leave them behind. Oskar needs to accept his situation first, which I feel is the purpose of his journey, before he can move on. He has been doing things on his own, thinking his boots can come off only if he does something special. He hasn't realized he can take his boots off whenever he wants. Finding that key alone will not unlock the shackles that are his boots.

In response to "ziggy":
See above response. As I stated above, I think Oskar is trying to stay back rather than move forward. He would prefer to watch those pictures in reverse of the man flying back up to the tower, coming home to him, being safe. I agree with your statements on pain, but I do believe that Oskar is not trying to take off the boots directly by his quest. It occurs because he feels that finding the key will let him find his father, who will let him remove the boots. He still keeps his father's last messages in his closet. He is trying to hold back in the past rather than advance into the future. That is why he goes to the graveyard at the end, to accept that his father is gone and that he must move forward with what he has now. In this respect he is, though he persists otherwise, not trying to remove his boots but rather let them come off in reverse.

In response to "kas43091":
I don't think the dead horse would mind much. As I said, he isn't trying to remove the boots because he's trying to get back to what happened before. He's not, in my mind, a pessimistic little twerp who brings down society when he's in a bad mood. However, he is not moving forward of his own accord. He is trying to hold back. Perfectly logical if it weren't for the fact that he can't go back. He plods forth for the key and believes the boots can come off then and only then. By finding out that the key does nothing for him, he realizes that he's had the answer to his problems all along. That, and getting Hawking's letter: "today is the day I've been waiting for." The key word is "waiting."

In response to "ssnickel":
Hadn't thought about him needing to keep the boots on until he learns his lesson. (not in the negative connotation, but literally until he understands what he has to do) Again, I feel that he is not trying to remove the boots directly because he thinks the key to his problems are, well, in that key. Though he is trying to "lighten his boots," he is still trying to lighten them only, not remove them. Now that I think of it, perhaps he feels that he has to have boots, that he cannot take them off. Perhaps taking off the boots signifies leaving behind this part of him. Maybe the journey was less of removing the boots than it was learning to accept the fact that they will always be heavy, and that he must learn to share his load with the others around him. Let the birds on the birdseed shirt help life him above his troubles, if you will, learn to trust in the birds.

In response to "zeus":
As I stated in the first response, he certainly needs the help of others. If he can't learn to accept help from others, he will never learn how to help himself. However, by the same token, he will not be small forever. Which is why, in my opinion, his removal of the boots could be viewed as a rite of passage. He should definitely accept the support of others, but should also try to take that support and use it to learn for himself how to solve his problems. One can say that he relied on his father to remove his heavy boots, and that is why he had such difficulty when his mother and Ron tried to help. It is why he was unable to help his mother.

In response to "tennis":
Yes, I also agree that mourning helps to remember the small details of his father. As I suggested above, perhaps removing the boots means leaving behind certain things and moving on. However, there are many ways to remember someone. I refer to the storage room and Oskar's attempts to save a disposable razor. While it certainly holds value to Oskar, he has to find other ways to keep his father with him. Perhaps the visit to the graveyard is representative of a shift from clinging to material objects towards a more, how do I word this, not spiritual, but yeah, some sort of acceptance of his father's death and knowing he'll always be with him in other ways. Oskar needs to mature past the material objects, past the heavy boots, and find other ways of both remembering his father and enjoying the rest of his life.

Switchover: On to AP Language!

2008-09-04T13:14:00.000-07:00

From this point forward, my AP Lit blog becomes my AP Lang blog. Therefore, do not go any farther into the past than this point if you're looking for AP Language posts. Just a notice...

Passage Analysis -Comedy

2008-05-22T15:58:00.000-07:00

I'd say Shrew's Introduction deserves a look at. In summary, the drunk Sly ends up falling asleep (drunk) outside a bar, where a lord comes and pulls a prank on him, telling him when he wakes he's a rich nutty noble. Now firstly, I'd like to point out that the same technique was used in Midsummer Night: a play within a play. Now, the shorter bit last time was the play in a play, Bottom's screwy tale. This time the shorter bit is the "reality," and the play in a play is the story. However, the point remains that there is still a story in a story. Bottom's interlude played its part, as it were, as does Sly's little tale. Considering the constant motif of secrecy and disguise, I'd say it's got its own hidden meaning. Sly is being presented a play in which a shrew is made a proper wife, and a proper wife is revealed to be a shrew. Well, I'd say the shrew made to a proper wife describes Sly, and the proper wife to a shrew is the lord. Why? Well, if I were a proper lord, I wouldn't consider it very lordly to screw with the minds of drunks. Sounds like a high school prank more than a bit of good mannered fun. Sly is now being slowly changed into a right nobleman. Or is he? Really, the lord is no different than he was before, nor is Sly. Is Kate going to remain exceedingly weak and mild-mannered? Heck, no, I'm half-thinking if Petruchio let her she'd drift right back to being outspoken, though more obedient in the end. Plus, I doubt that Bianca is that much worse than Kate. She might be independent, but she's a little more considerate and isn't as likely to fly off the hook. Point? The lord isn't that lordly and never was, he's a bit of a prankster at heart, and Sly is a drunk through and through, nothing to change that ever, not robes nor manners. He'll act the part soon, but revert back to a moron as soon as the jig's up.

Now back to the point of this...There's plenty of reasons why this is being included. One is the above. Secondly, the lord is only dressing Sly properly. He is not changing his personality or mannerisms. Outward appearance is nothing, echoed by Tranio and Petruchio's actions. Also, Bianca's "hidden" personality. At first glance, you'd be well fooled, but spend any amount of time around Sly or the others and you'd have them figured out fast. Also, the thought of things not as they seem to be could be applied to Shakespeare's work itself. He could have left this out, and the above message could still be obtained. Why stress again all is not as it seems? This is a play within a play. Sly is being given a play to mock him. Perhaps the play can be taken as mocking those that would marry solely for personality, or outward appearance? Perhaps he really doesn't want, nor think it possible, for women to echo Kate's final speech? By the way, that question's rhetorical, I really do think Shakespeare's playing games with us, as the lord did to Sly. Shakespeare is not glorying women like Kate. He mocks men like Lucentio and the fact that Petruchio went to such lengths to brag about his wife. The lord is going through very little effort to mock the simple Sly. And he mocks him for his idiotic pursuits and desires which are far out of his reach. The purpose of this intro is to stress that we cannot merely assume the outward appearance is true, and also to never think that our personal desires should be reality. We must think of what reality is and mend our dreams to a reasonable objective, and know that not everything will go our way.

Passage Analysis -History

2008-05-22T14:14:00.000-07:00

For Richard III, I'll analyze the first speech by Richard at the start of the play. One of the interesting things done in this passage is Richard's descriptive and in-depth discussion of the setting. He tells us specifically that it was absolutely god-awful terrible before, but now it's absolutely fantastic, happiest it's ever been. However, Richard's an ugly duck, and couldn't get a date to save his life. (not without some crafty double-talk) He can't enjoy the peace and prosperity without being constantly reminded, "DARN, I'm ugly!" Therefore, he's going to be a real SOB and make everyone miserable.

Overall, this helps to show us early on just how corrupt and terrible Richard is. A fantastic peace has just rolled in, and everyone's having a terrific party. But he's not happy so he's going to screw it all up. So he feels better knowing everyone's as miserable as he is. He is directly opposed to the peace, the merriment, the good things in life. He just about makes himself the nemesis of all goodness right then and there. You are supposed to hate this guy from the start. And he tells you why, so you don't have any questions as to whether or not there's a shave of goodness somewhere in that black pit of his heart. Shakespeare obviously is trying to make a point here. Few characters would need to be defined as pure evil. Perhaps for the purpose of the play, we shouldn't have any doubts, stressing the deviation from history that makes the play fiction based on truth. Shakespeare wouldn't need to do this otherwise, as the audience would know what to expect if the real Rich III was that bad.

And right from the beginning, Rich is attempting to work his magic on us. He doesn't have a choice in the matter, he couldn't be a good guy even if he wanted to. This is all he's got left...boohoo... Yeah, right. Considering how he sweet-talked his way around later, I doubt his plight in the beginning made any sense. He's playing the audience from the start. Shakespeare is stressing the fact that this guy is a tricky, sneaky, double talking jerk, and doing it for a reason. From the start he's lying to us. From the start he's trying to get us on his side. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to tell us that one must always be on our guard, because evil is against us from the very beginning to the very end. Also, would we have trusted him as well, had he not told us his plans? Maybe Shakespeare is giving us insight into the mind of an evil politician because we can rarely distinguish between good and evil ourselves. We can view things objectively, and we know who the real problem is. Had the opening stopped before he stated he would "prove the villain," we might have felt sorry for him, and been shocked when he executed Clarence. Perhaps the point is: can we always know what people are thinking?

Passage Analysis -Tragedy

2008-05-22T13:54:00.000-07:00

Being short, I'll analyze Act 5, Scene 1. The whole thing. Firstly, the doctor and nurse are concerning themselves with Lady Macbeth's involvement in the crimes. However, they seem to be surprised more at the fact that she herself is involved, not the fact that Macbeth, also mentioned, has knowledge of it. After all, the nurse heard this before getting the doctor and neither of the two turned from trying to treat her due to this knowledge. It seems that they're expecting Macbeth to be involved, not Lady Macbeth. Thus, Lady Macbeth has been getting away with murder until now. No one suspects her, yet Macbeth is apparently very suspicious. Of course, the irony is that she orchestrated the beginning of this whole story. She is possibly the most responsible for the novel's events.

However, she was kept oblivious of Banquo's murder plans. From her quote on lines 44-45, she may also have been oblivious to the murder of Macduff's family. She's only really responsible for the one murder of Duncan, and she only carried up the daggers! Now Shakespeare's got to be stressing that all of these murders are her fault and the respective blood is on her hands. If it weren't for her pushing Macbeth, none of this would have happened. She is the real slaughterer here. And, interestingly enough, she was the one that was aggressive in the beginning. Now she's even more nervous than Macbeth was then. A sort of role reversal here. Now she's wishing she didn't push Macbeth to get involved in any of this. Sure, the king for the crown, but not everybody else around...

Guilt by association is the main point here. Guilt in two ways, in fact: legal and personal. She's responsible for these murders. She knows they're her fault. And she later kills herself for it. It's a little tragic in the sense that she ended up involved in a good deal of blood after Duncan, and having only made that one bad decision, but she is as guilty as Macbeth. She pays the price as well. Perhaps Shakespeare is also attempting to stress that, despite the appearance of being a good idea, it can be quite the opposite and much more than bargained for. A little evil goes a long way, so to speak. Better not to commit any one crime so as not to be guilty of any further, as it were. Another amusing point is that the nurse and doctor seem sympathetic to her. Again, it's an unfortunate mistake, but she is still responsible for it.

Genre Commentary -Tragedy

2008-05-22T13:42:00.000-07:00

Well, like the Comedies, the Tragedies seem to have a couple messages and morals of their own. Of course, these are the more corrupting and terrible faults of mankind rather than simple human screw ups. Macbeth, for example, had a brilliant life ahead of him and likely could have gotten far as thane of Cawdor and Glamis. Of course, he ended up tempted by the prospect of being king and blew it all. Even the greatest of heroes can fall given the right leverage. And of course, he ended up arrogant later after the second volley of prophecies from the witches. Again, a major and classic moral of arrogance being one's downfall. The tragedy genre, being like the comedy genre, in that respect, I think might be used to drive a point home rather than pass it along with a laugh. The comedies give a fun day out and a lesson for the day, but tragedies could be meant to make something absolutely clear. A touching story meant to grab you, stop you, and make you understand something particularly important. (Didn't Joyce ramble something on tragedy to that effect in Portrait?) The tragedy genre is more of a lesson play than an enjoyment play. And, like I said earlier, the story is not static like a history. First Macbeth is the good guy, then he's the nervous bad guy, then he's the complete bad guy. First Lady Macbeth took center stage for evil, then she fell apart by the end of the play quite pathetically, with Macbeth leading the way where she stands unsure of her deeds. It keeps one's interest better than a history, because something's always happening. Thus, unlike Histories that allow you to think, "Well that sounds familiar," Tragedies make a point clear and don't let your thoughts wander. Purposeful and entertaining.

Genre Commentary -History

2008-05-21T13:38:00.000-07:00

Histories were not quite history as much as story. (I suppose one can say they got rid of the friendly "hi") The purpose may have seemed to have been a cruel representation of Richard III, but I think it is a political play. Yes, to imagine Shakespeare a politician! Really, though, Shakespeare lived in a time where what Richard did in the play was commonplace in real life. Henry VIII executed two people only a few days after he took the throne (at a young age, mind you!) just because Daddy didn't like them. (Yes, even though Daddy was dead he still lopped off their heads.) Shakespeare also had several plays banned at different times because they had characters or events that were similar to events that had recently happened. Sound similar to stuff over here? Shakespeare was a politician as much as he was a literary genius. He was making a statement about the events of his time through fiction where anyone else of less prominence could lose their heads for so much as uttering it. Also, the play's events were based on rumor, and Richard was just as bad as the devil if not worse. I doubt the real Richard the Third was actually that bad. Sure, he may have made a few mistakes and done some unpopular things, I haven't checked exactly what, but I doubt he was the very incarnation of evil. Current example? Richard Nixon. Personally a snake like that shouldn't be allowed to roam the White House halls as freely, but he did do some decent things during his presidency. Of course, he did several less popular things, which is what the public always remembers. Perhaps there is a correlation between the two Richards. (though I'm sure they weren't nicknamed "Dick" for nothing, another amusing coincidence)

Either way, Shakespeare did use the Histories as a form of political discussion. He also keeps the audience objective by making the villains villains and the heroes heroes. The story is fairly static. There isn't a great change in character for anyone. Nothing to mourn except the events of the story, nothing to laugh at except the foolish nature of the characters. It's just telling a story, not trying to entertain us. It's telling us what's going on, not leaving us to wonder the next twist of the plot. The purpose is not to entertain, but to inform. And it is not informing us what history is comprised of, but more that history can repeat itself. What one sees can very easily have happened, and what could have happened may still happen later.

Genre Commentary -Comedy

2008-05-21T13:27:00.001-07:00

Why oh why did I choose to do each bit separately? Ah well.

The Comedy Genre for Shakespeare wasn't a simple slapstick pass-the-day-away laughfest. He kept things witty and clean (to a degree). Rather than simply have someone get smacked around, although there was plenty of that in some, he had comical situations, unfortunate events, and simple irony and sarcasm. Rather than simply have people laugh, he had them laugh and think. It was more on a mental level than a reflex level. Of course, he also made an attempt to keep his works important by hinting or directly quoting certain morals and messages, which I will refer to as M&M's because they are small, sweet, and too numerous to be individually worth savoring. Shrew had a meaning beneath the outward appearance of obedience, which is emphasized by the introduction and ensuing action. If it weren't for that constant appearance as a motif, there would be little purpose to Petruchio's actions save a less acceptable one. Midsummer Night's morals were less moral and more, "Well don't be dingbats." Bottom is self-explanatory, and Oberon's whim ended up causing the four Athenians much trouble. However, no real harm was meant, and that was the purpose. All was good-natured, even the insults at the end to the actors. Perhaps even a warning not to be too carefree, because all actions have consequence. However, as restated by Robin near the end, don't take everything seriously and to heart. A simple prank can turn out badly in the end, but it is not meant to laugh at one but instead with one.

Reaction to Shakespeare -Tragedy

2008-05-21T12:43:00.000-07:00

A less historically accurate, but more enjoyable, history.

Kidding. However, this is a drift back to the morals and messages of the Comedies. The only difference is one is happy and the other's sad. Also, these morals are more at warnings than the, "Now remember kids..." of the Comedies. Macbeth was going to have everything, and the idiot blew it all. Personally, this is often so many people in the world today. The greediest of all fall in the same fashion. Be it for power or possession, they all get wind of the chance to get some freebies, and they go ahead and choke on the stuff. Still, unlike the Histories, you've got a good guy that comes to the rescue, goes bad, and then some other little unknown guy comes to the rescue and beats the former good guy. It's sort of like all of the Star Wars movies packed into one less spectacular production. There was a lot more depth, so I found it more amusing than the histories, but it does reflect on how easily people can be corrupted. It also reflects on how people are essentially good and can easily do evil and regret it later. There's plenty who have been tortured as Lady Macbeth was, and it can be safely assumed that just about everyone will hesitate like Macbeth did unless he's egged on by an outside force. Though it's a better story than the Histories, I prefer the Comedies. Fantastic plot and all, but I like to keep a pleasant outlook whenever possible. I tend to lose that outlook quickly enough without already knowing what will tick me off.

Reaction to Shakespeare -History

2008-05-21T12:28:00.000-07:00

So history can be amusing...Interesting...

Well, for a play about a corrupt and murderous (not to mention incestuous) SOB, at least, it came out all right. Though really, I still found it a tad boring. The story is based loosely on history and rumor, but I doubt it was for that purpose. Frankly, a History in my opinion, is just a Tragedy sans emotion. At least this one is. But it certainly does bring to light the details of the time, and reflects a few things about all people. How many people in that time period killed or were killed in similar fashions or for similar reasons as were presented in the play? (In case you don't know, A LOT.) For Shakespeare, this was the equivalent of taking a step back and looking at the corrupted nature and track record of the government, if one could call it that, and giving an honest analysis of it. (And making a living at the same time.) There were terrible things going on, and the play was likely just a view of how things would have happened if the rumors were all true. I think there are PLENTY examples of this in our day and age. As much of a crude jerk Nixon was, he ended up doing a great deal of things for the American people. If Richard Nixon was a decent soul in the end, I doubt the real Richard the Third was any different. However, this novel was too much evil and trickery on one person. Frankly, to desire someone dead that long is going to wear you out in the end. It's just irritating. I am willing to bet that somebody in that audience stood up at the end and said "Finally!" or "Took ya long enough!" back in Shakespeare's time. Like today's documentaries; if you aren't seriously interested in what they're talking about, you are floating happily in your own little world. Good stuff, but a tad too consistent.

Reaction to Shakespeare -Comedy

2008-05-21T12:14:00.000-07:00

Well, this was quite an enjoyable genre. Particularly compared to the doom gloom and misery of the past few novels. Joking aside, though, I wasn't expecting this out of Shakespeare's comedies. They were funny, obviously, but I wasn't referring to that, rather the depth involved, particularly in Shrew. Unlike other comedies that can be just simple purposeless comedies, the novels were sort of individual and witty, with important morals and messages even. Midsummer Night wasn't just chuckles, and actually had a bit of seriousness to it. It begins out with serious circumstances and only becomes comedic later in the play. Oberon's attempt at revenge ends up backfiring terribly, partly due to Robin's screw ups, but there's still the fact that his one other idea ended up causing even greater trouble. Perhaps it could be taken to mean that if something means that much to you, you could take some care to see that it is taken care of. Oberon simply passed the task off, and ended up causing massive problems in the end. And as much as Shrew could be taken to be a simple comedy with a bad message of inferior women, I personally feel that Shakespeare was after something else. Lucentio bet on his own wife's obedience under the assumption that she would obey orders, being beautiful and kind in contrast to her sister. The fact that Shakespeare has the turn-around in the end could be a repeat of the classic "don't judge a book by its cover." Also, perhaps, a nod toward people falling in love for looks rather than character. For lighthearted comedies, they certainly have quite a depth to them. More depth than, say, Mel Brooks. Nothing against his movies, but I can't quite think of many messages in there.

Sound and Sense -Poem 234

2008-03-25T07:33:00.000-07:00

The narrator here is a dead guy who's a bit miffed at the military for shooting off cannons in the middle of eternity. To put it simply. There is a rhyme scheme here, ABAB iambic, and it most definitely has an impact on the poem. Firstly, having the dead guy speak results in a much better read than having a living person talk of the dead. Hearing it first person adds to the credibility, and also the understanding, because otherwise it's all interpretation of who the speaker is, what their fictional profession is, the story of the story, etc. Here it's reduced to a simple answer: first-hand opinion from the dead guy. Secondly, having it in a rhyme scheme helps add to the sarcastic wit of the poem. It gives it a sort of weary beat, like someone woken in the middle of the night to blaring loud music. The rhyme also makes it more personable, as if it were a children's rhyme. The overall effect is that it makes the dead less detached from the living, and makes us more able to relate to them. You almost want to agree that those ****in' kids better turn down that racket, because you've been down that path before, I'm sure, someone waking you in the night, and likely for a stupid reason as well.

One interesting technique used is the allusion. It brings to mind some of the more famous English sites, where bloody battles were likely fought and, of course, the English would really like to stay. The date is 1948, so WWII will have passed, but not long ago. Obviously, the guns could be blazing away for that, the attacks on England by Germany. Hence the "readiness to avenge" (34). Regardless, though it may seem like little to us Americans, being as we don't know the history behind these sites, we can all agree that some places we really like to keep under our thumb. We wouldn't, for example, want Nazis having a picnic on Mount Rushmore, or perhaps building a missile site under the Statue of Liberty. Some places are special to us, and likewise the English really want to fight for their places. But then again, it's only a small tourist attraction. The fact that mere tracts of land and all on it hold such a grip on us that we must blow each others' heads off for it is a little disappointing. Think of Jerusalem. Holy place, I understand, but why are you unholily killing thousands of people there? Secondly, the tone of the poem is quite amusing. It helps convey the friendly nature of the poem, the comic situation of old bones cranky at the young making such a heck of a noise. For one, a deceased priest says it would have been a better idea to drink for 40 years rather than preach, given the idiotic battling going on. For him, nothing's changed, so why did he bother? And, of course, God comes down to joke with the dead how the soldiers should be lucky that it's not time for the Final Judgment, "For if it were they'd have to scour Hell's floor for so much threatening..." (19-20). He also jests that he might not pass the Final Judgment soon after all because "you are men and rest eternal sorely need" (23-24). That's like saying, "Well, old guys, if you really need that much sleep, you might as well just sleep forever, you're so darn tired." This is most certainly a comic approach to a fairly serious topic; mindless slaughter, countered by a good-humored God and the undead.

Personally, I liked this poem. As far as a correlation to the world today, I can agree that people can fight over the craziest of things. But when it comes to war, people can really be dense. Tons of people die. It's not a very pleasant thing to experience should you live through it either, I'm sure. But, of course, we fight on...and on...and on...............Kinda makes you seem hopeless about the future. There will always be fighting, but I found this humorous approach to the subject quite amusing. Though, if I were one of those skeletons, I'd be more likely to get out of my grave and tell the noisemakers to SHUT UP. Whether or not I scare them into the grave next to mine is of no concern to me.

Sound and Sense -Poem 212

2008-03-25T06:43:00.000-07:00

The narrator is more or less anybody speaking a warning about money, in free verse and no rhyme scheme. This accomplishes several things. First, it allows for the nature of the poem to be felt. The poem has a simple and friendly nature at first, giving an image that money is in fact quite friendly. The way the poem is written, it is casual like a regular conversation with a friend, adding to the quiet and gentle way the story seems to progress. The other thing is that the lack of structure allows for the end of the poem to have a greater effect. Since the poem is not structured, the ending seems to come out of nowhere, again following the style of the story of a sudden ill end. The poem itself is able to reflect the tone of the narrator. If the poem was structured, then it would almost assuredly lose something in the steady beat of a rhythm, making the poem seem to glorify money rather than convey the outer image of it, or sing of its good nature rather than let it come to the reader.

Firstly, the similes and metaphors are very effective. One compares money to an amoeba, which "makes love in secret only to itself" (13-15), conveying the idea that money really has no affections for anything else but itself very well. Amoeba, in fact, simply divide themselves, making the simile even more effective that it really loves nothing, but is merely a simple being if anything at all. Comparing it to a dog also helps convey the sense that money can be beneficial to one to the point where one might cherish it as a friend. The other important technique for making money humane is personification. The narrator describes the money as wanting to "nest in your pocket or curl up in a corner" (3-5), and also how it will "turn its head as if for a kiss and bite you gently on the hand" (23-26). These lines also help to make the inanimate and far from living money more alive, more personable. The narrator is trying to make you consider for a moment a living, breathing, and especially conniving, money.

Personally, I agree with this. Completely. Money will most certainly "delight your friends, shake hands with men" (8-9), or at least will allow you to do this. Everybody likes a rich friend, or having one at least, and you'll definitely be meeting a lot of people who take interest in the well-to-do. And I doubt it's necessary to explain what it means to "lick the legs of women" (10-11). But, of course, money never likes being alone, and you'll be more than happy to find more, to keep all of together, nice and happy. In short: eventually you'll go corrupt and be a greedy little miser. It'll happen suddenly, and from that moment on, you're not going to ever be the same again.

Sound and Sense -Poem 206

2008-03-25T05:51:00.000-07:00

The narrator here seems to be an omnipotent being, describing a particular house on a bad night. The rhyme scheme happens to be an ABAB iambic poem. Now although the narrator does not have much of an impact on the poem itself, in its being omnipotent it prevents any other form of narrator from affecting the tone of the poem. If another person were to be telling it, it would have a much different effect on the reader. A caretaker or traveler could easily make this a horror poem, which it of course is not meant to be. The meter, though, helps develop a rhythm that makes the poem not as much of a horror story as a depiction of the haunted house and its former "tenants." This is not trying to tell any specific story as much as it is trying to describe the house and the fears sometimes brought up by a storm. Obviously, the dead are not roaming the halls, but the storm is frightening other people inside. The rhythm and rhyme help to make the poem lyrical, and relieves some of the pure fright from the scene. Rather than an eyewitness's account in random, free verse terror, the omnipotent speaker allows for a neutral description of the setting.

The particular imagery in the poem helps give us a better idea of the house and its inhabitants. The poem details how the storm is powerful enough to make the house shake as if it were "smitten as with a flail" (line 3). The phantoms are described as "Old terrors...Creep[ing] from their caves to life again" (7-8), and "the packed Pollution of remorse and time, Slipped from oblivion" (13-15). The imagery helps to give an idea of both how bad the storm is and how terrified the residents become. Another useful technique is the use of alliteration, assonance, and consonance. Phrases like "guardian grasp on blood and brain" (6), "assert their squalid lease of sin" (11) help to establish further the flowing quality of the poem. It is orderly, lyrical, and not necessarily meant to evoke mass fear. The use of these techniques help to stress the focus is not on phantoms and the undead but on the fears of the residents.

To me, the poem seems to convey a common pain-in-the-neck. Sounds in the dark often frighten people, primarily because you don't know what made the sound. If you've inherited a creaky old house, chances are it has a long and likely not-too-favorable history. All the ghost stories you've ever heard, and all the rumors about the house, all come to life in your mind. Being half asleep, one can easily think they've seen a ghost or heard some piercing scream. I know personally that when you're just drifting off you might think you see or hear something, I've had that happen before, but at that point, at least I wake up and know that it's nothing. In the middle of a storm, though, there's always going to be creaking and whistling, and then it's bound to get creepy to some degree or another. And as the poem states, we can't believe there's nothing there until there is calmness or light. Of course, you're exhausted by then, but what else can you do about your own mind?

Sound and Sense -Poem 203

2008-03-25T05:02:00.000-07:00

I'm going to assume that the speaker is in fact a teacher teaching his/her students, as the narrator mentions going home while the students go to another class. There is no set rhythm to the poem, no meter or rhyme scheme. This makes the poem more powerful because of what it is about. The narrator mentions that he/she "tried to drown them with my words" (13-14), so having a poem in free verse style like this helps convey a feeling that speech and poetry is almost natural to human beings, and that most can in fact understand it well and enjoy it and will, using the extended metaphor, take to it like a fish to water. Were the poem actually set to a rhyme scheme and meter, it might not have the same impact, and might actually be less entertaining to the point that others might take the idea to be that only versed poetry can be understood or appreciated.

One of the obvious literary devices is the extended metaphor. The entire classroom ends up becoming a fish tank, and all the students fish. Figuratively, of course. This helps to give an idea of how, though the teacher was expecting the students not to understand or take interest in what he said, that they would all figuratively drown, they instead understood everything fairly well and were soon "[swimming] around the room]." The metaphor gives a known experience to colorfully describe the situation, and help to give a sense of remorse even as the class leaves. Out of their natural element of language and back in the real world, they return to their normal lives unable to have the same level of freedom as in the class. Another technique used is the alteration of tone. In the beginning, the narrator seems to be almost surprised at the students' appreciation and comprehension of literature, and then becomes a little remorseful when the class finally lets out. The narrator seems to be slightly upset throughout the piece, though, conveying the idea that he believes literature is not...how do I say this...either really understood or well liked, and that whoever does is often busy in the rest of the boring world, or is only appreciative when it is required as class work.

To me, the poem seems to be from a teacher, surprised but happily surprised at his/her class's understanding of literature. The narrator is a little upset at returning to the real world at the end of class, but there's not much to be done about that. Perhaps naming the cat Queen Elizabeth was to signify history classes, possibly stating that the other things taught in school take the life out of the students and the rest of the day. The narrator would prefer to have that eager class throughout the day because of the freedom that the literature brings, and wearily goes about the remainder of the day as lifeless as his/her class originally was.

James Joyce -Symbol Analysis

2008-03-24T09:12:00.000-07:00

One of the more prevalent symbols in the book is one of individual freedom. The ability to be the person you want to be, the person you really are, and to do what you enjoy doing and say what you think without detriment. The ability to exist, one could say. This is expressed in several ways. Firstly, his name's Dedalus, for crying out loud! You can't be more obvious than that! Dedalus (the Greek one) made himself a set of wings to escape the maze he had built for another king. To escape the confines that his intellect and talent had made for him. Dedalus (back to the future) is faced with endless problems to being himself. His family's politically divided, and after a while is poor. His school is religious to the nth degree. He's unsure of himself for most of his youth. He possesses radical ideas and opinions frowned upon by most of the rest of Ireland. He doesn't fit in. To make a long story short, his life is a cage. No matter what he might be, he is locked into this cage of Ireland. His religion, his family, his nation's beliefs trap him. And his opinions only seem to make everyone else push him further away.

He has to escape. At the end of chapter (is it a chapter, or a segment, or what?) 4, Dedalus suddenly has this great realization of who he is and what life means. He's at first trapped by his childhood, not knowing what kind of person to be, going along with the only advice his family can give. His mother says to follow the school's and church's teachings. His father talks about himself. He doesn't know what he is. Then he turns to sin and prostitutes for a while before realizing that this isn't him either. He goes back to everything he was taught before. If it isn't one hand, it must be the other. But he doesn't fit in there, either. And it's not as if he isn't a good Jesuit. His teacher asked him to think about taking a position as a priest, and he gets several positions of merit, let's call them, while in the schools. He's a pretty good religious kid, but that's not who he is. Dedalus, myth, was not just some genius who existed for building mazes. He wanted to live on his own. Sure, he was great, and I'm sure being the king's mazemaker gets you some perks, like a home and food, but it wasn't him. Neither is Dedalus, Stephen, religious. He doesn't belong there. He isn't who his parents and teachers keep telling him to be, he's something unique. He realizes that there's more to life than the extremes he's been experiencing. But he still doesn't really know who he is.

He keeps talking with Cranly about what to do. Now that he's free, he doesn't know where to go from there. All he does know is that his mother and society keeps telling him to change his radical and wrong ways. As he puts it, "You talk to me of nationality, language, religion. I shall try to fly by those nets" (Joyce 220). He can't quite figure out where to go from here, what to become. All he does know is that he can't stay there. All he knows is that to become an individual he must throw off entirely all expectations of others and live entirely on his own. But he can't even decide whether or not he should receive Easter Communion because his mother asked him to. He's not completely free yet. He has begun to flown, one could say, but isn't accustomed to flying and wants to rest for a bit on land. The only question is, what land? Being free is not only to fly away, but to know where to fly. Dedalus, myth, was still restrained in that he could not fly high into the air. Dedalus, Stephen, does not now where to go from here, or how high to fly. Should he not go because he does not fully believe in the church, or should he be kind to his mother despite his lack of belief? Should he fly high and far away, or stay close to the ground and run along it for a while? Freedom is useless if one doesn't know what they're going to do with it. What is the point of being free if you don't know how you will use that freedom?

James Joyce -Passage Analysis

2008-03-24T08:20:00.000-07:00

I think I'll go from the last full paragraph on 150 to the last full one on 151. This is the long detailed hysteria of Dedalus after he hears the long hell sermon and has the freaky nightmare, as he runs through the streets to find a priest to confess to. Solely for the sake that Dedalus is completely nuts right now. He continues on and on about how he absolutely must confess, how he's no more than an animal, how it's so terrible what he's done, etc. etc. etc. This particular stream of thought seems to occur in a relatively short span of time (while the following run through the streets occurs over a longer span of time), and is there only to convey how upset and repentant he is. He was never particularly interested in prostitutes. Even on that night where he first went to one, he was more interested in just standing there in her arms, rather than having sex. But he more or less got hooked on it and even then wasn't too particularly proud of it. He's really sorry for what he did, but now he's just in a state of panic.

The previous hell sermon was one of the longest and most detailed descriptions of hell I've ever heard, and am likely ever to hear. Of course, this sermon scares Dedalus stiff. It affects him so much he goes straight into this panic and goes tearing through the streets, thinking "Confess! Confess!" (Joyce 150). Relax, Dedalus. You're not going to suddenly up and die. He's that panicked that he's afraid of dying and then going straight to hell, or even, judging from the top of page 151, sinning again and making it worse. He's a complete nervous wreck. This passage was particularly effective for two reasons. One, the short sentences and many exclamatory sentences help to convey the sense that there is some grand emergency. Knowing that there isn't really that much of an emergency, we know that Dedalus is pretty miserable right now, and feeling very guilty. The second reason is because, unlike the hell sermon, which was long, detailed, and despite being quite detailed, a bit boring. It was just descriptions and scripture, and seemed to drag on and on. This segment, though, is written in short shouts and bursts, and gives a better sense of the emotion involved. Where the preacher seemed to be just up there giving a speech, Dedalus seems to be almost being chased by oblivion. Quite effective if not a little over-dramatic.

This also seems to reflect how overly pious Dedalus still is. Despite his sinful habits, he still is actually quite religious still. In fact, he's able to reflect back on religion frequently. This stresses, though, that religion still forms the basis of all of his opinions at the moment. Religion still rules his mind.

James Joyce -Reaction to the Novel

2008-03-24T08:01:00.000-07:00

Long title. Well, longer than most. Hence I title the blog with his name and not the title as I usually do.

I found the novel moderately interesting. Often it became a little uninteresting due to the experience being described, and his blending of imagination and reality, but being a stream of consciousness writing you can't expect much else. Especially since he was frequently trying to describe emotions. Most times emotions are difficult to describe shortly due to their complexity and intensity, which often led to a paragraph or even page be listed to a few moments or even seconds of his thoughts. Then the shift back to reality, which proceeds comparably faster... I suppose the most irritating thing was the progression of time, for me. I like when everything moves at a constant pace. The long segments left to vivid descriptions, followed by a skip to a few hours later, or the next day or next year... It was sort of just a sit-back-and-go-with-it type book. Though I must say, that's the most descriptive explanation of hell in the entire world. Remind me to burn those college descriptions from Jesuit schools.

Seriously, as kooky as the book was, as complicated and emotional as it was, it was fairly interesting. I don't think anybody ever understands everything about themselves or the world around them, ever. Definitely not as kids, but not even fully as adults. And everybody changes a good deal based on their experiences, and will undoubtedly not find out who they truly are until they are ready to make their way into the world. I still don't really know what profession I want to be part of, and in a year and a quarter I'm out of high school. And I've been thinking about it since I was about six. Every time I thought I knew what I was going to be, or where I was going to go, within a year my mind was set on something else. Dedalus switched between an obedient religious child to a sin-heavy reclusive ferret to a pious freak to an I-don't-really-give-a-blast kind of thinking guy. Though I haven't gone through any of those radical extremes, my long-winded point is that I still don't know who I am as a person, but I'm fairly sure I'll figure it out in time.

And as far as a connection to the world in general... Stay away from Jesuits, or something, I don't know.

Heart of Darkness- Symbol or Theme

2008-01-26T06:39:00.000-08:00

For a symbol, I think I'll analyze the Russian. He's the guy that adored Kurtz, with all the rags sewed on his clothes. He's not just another loony bin there for space filling, at least I don't think he is. Firstly, his clothes are patched up with numerous multicolored pieces of rags that were lying around. Rags that Kurtz had lying around. I'm going to guess that this stands for the fact that he absorbed everything that Kurtz said, did, was. He didn't bother to express himself, he simply let Kurtz fill him in with everything and anything he pleased. He refused to think for himself, to see things as they were. He didn't think that there were problems with what they were doing, that they should stop and find a better way, he simply ignored their problems and covered it up with whatever Kurtz would ramble about. He covered up Kurtz's faults with his lectures. And he wouldn't suffer any bad remarks about Kurtz. He was more or less Kurtz's rag doll, a puppet to ensure that all people give him at least some degree of respect that he believes he deserves. He is completely under Kurtz's power.

Marlow describes him as someone "ruled by the the spirit of adventure," and that Marlow actually envied him a little for it. The Russian more or less is able to live only because he's fascinated with moving along, to do more and to assist Kurtz. He mindlessly accepted everything that Kurtz was, and he went with it and moved on. It's almost as if his indifference to good and evil, though primarily evil, was the only thing that kept him alive. His purpose and objective has been dictated to him by Kurtz, and he survives the moral jungle as easily as he survives the actual one. All he is concerned about is his superior, regardless of character. Innocence is often depicted as being a sort of incorruptible invincibility, and Marlow attributes that to his existence. If he wasn't as strong-willed and wasn't along only for the ride, as it were, he would have ended up just as crazy as Kurtz. Of course, this isn't to say he's not troubled by it.

The Russian is a strange person in that he shifts between being exceedingly happy and then overwhelmingly depressed. His "innocence and adventure" seem to contribute to this behavior. What he suffers from is the desire to go on conflicting with his conscience. Though he accepts that Kurtz is corrupted, that doesn't mean he approves of it. He not only respects Kurtz but fears him as well. He seems to be understanding more and more that Kurtz is lost, but is too afraid to stop him from destroying himself. His conscience is telling him something is terribly wrong, but he also wants to see what Kurtz is capable of doing. He desperately wants to succeed with Kurtz, and as a result cannot himself step away from the jungle. He stays behind as well, now hooked on what Kurtz was hooked on, but for a different reason. He now wants to finish what Kurtz started. As a result, he is also doomed to the darkness. He is both afraid of it but at the same time is intrigued by it and wants to see it through to the end. He is eager to succeed but nervous of what lies ahead. His innocence seems to have created two personalities within him, expressive of his likely conflict of Kurtz's deeds and the surrounding darkness versus the great things yet to be done and the rewards that are sure to follow.

Heart of Darkness- Passage Analysis

2008-01-26T06:02:00.000-08:00

On page 143 of Heart of Darkness (the book, of course, where HoD comes second) Kurtz rants a bit about the fact that he's being taken away from the jungle due to his illness:
"Save me! -save the ivory, you mean. Don't tell me. Save me! Why, I've had to save you. You are interrupting my plans now. Sick! Sick! Not so sick as you would like to believe. Never mind. I'll carry my ideas out yet -I will return. I'll show you what can be done. You with your peddling notices -you are interfering with me. I will return. I..."

Sheesh, he just can't shut up and save his strength, can he? Not in the jungle, at least. Well, it's obvious that he's that obsessed with his objective, that immersed in darkness, that he can't even see he's dying. He doesn't even think he'll be a bit weak during the voyage out. In fact, by his statement that he's "not as sick as they'd like to believe" he seems to convey the message that they'd prefer him to be on death's door. Though he actually is, he's more concerned about the ivory. He's convinced that Marlow and the rest of the people are here only to steal his ivory. Now, this actually has some basis, but Kurtz really doesn't know if it has any basis or not. He's simply paranoid and convinced the world's out to get him. He believes the others would want him to be deathly ill so they can get the vast fortune in ivory that he had amassed. Kurtz would rather remain in the jungle, ill, than to leave and risk the loss of his grand scheme. He realizes this later when he cries out how he's waiting to die. He realizes that he was that concerned with riches that he would have stayed in the jungle and died, that he fought those trying to rescue him. All he was worried about were his plans.

Kurtz also mentions how he was the one that was saving Marlow, not the other way around. He was that confident he was in control of the situation. He believed that he was the sole reason why the rescuers hadn't already been killed by the natives. He thinks he's the greatest hero of all for existing. This is emphasized when he crawls out and tries to go back into the jungle, and then threatens Marlow, only continuing to state how he had great plans. He was also carried out by the natives on a bed, as if he's the kind of person who would normally get such treatment. Kurtz has been treated like a god, more or less, by the natives, and that power has gone right to his head. He's convinced that he's invincible and that he commands the entire jungle, and he's going to do whatever's necessary to stay and continue his dominion over the overgrown depths. He certainly rules over more than one type of depths, that's for sure.

One other thing that he stresses is that he will return. He hasn't even begun to leave, yet he's already screaming how he won't be gone for long. He's dying, and all he can say is that he'll be back. Either he's quite the confident and optimistic fellow or his body's running off without his mind. I really don't think he even left that jungle, quite frankly. He was grabbing on to that darkness with everything he had. He wasn't going to leave, no matter what. This was his home. This is where he felt he belonged. Furthermore, he stressed that he'd show what CAN be done. Not what should be done, but what can be done. He isn't thinking of ethics or reasonable actions, only what he believed was physically possible. He was convinced that he'd rise higher and higher than where he already was. Again, it's either wishful thinking or an insatiable greed. And I doubt he's the kind of fellow who could look on the bright side without going blind. In fact, he's already blind. He's convinced that he can become richer, more powerful, more important...he's just eager for more. He doesn't know when to stop.

In short, this paragraph shows how crazy Kurtz is. Even as he lay dying, with others trying to rescue him, he's convinced that he's perfectly fine and that he's in command of the whole situation. He believes automatically that everyone's after his fortune in ivory, and that they all wish him dead. He's against the world, and that he will show them all up in time, when he returns home to the station in the center of the jungle. He has far more waiting for him on his return. Kurtz no longer wants the rest of the world. He just wants his ivory and his adoring natives. He wants that absolute power, and there isn't anything in the world that can get him away from that darkness. He's completely beyond any help.

Heart of Darkness- Reaction to the novel

2008-01-17T09:23:00.000-08:00

This book is, I'd say, approximately 2.39 times as dense as the jungle it describes. I am sorry, but as good as the message is, the book is a little boring. I think we can all admit that. Not one of the most likable books I've read this year, though it definitely allows for in depth complicated analysis. As a result of this depth I am glad the book was not longer otherwise it would take way too long to completely decode. Even now I'm not quite sure I've got every little detail down. Okay, I likely don't get most of the little details and about a fifth of the big details. Still, it carries a good general overall message.

While I don't believe that everyone in the world can end up as maniacal and demented as Kurtz after a few months/years/seconds in some terrible place, I do believe that everyone has some degree of darkness within them that can manifest itself under the proper conditions. By this I mean that everyone has at least some part of them that when it comes out makes them at the very least a little cranky. Nobody's perfect, and everyone's got something in them that allows for grudge-holding, general irritation, and that urge to be a mischievous little bugger and do things that drive everyone else nuts. Others can be a little more severe and head genocides, harsh dictatorships, and even try to bring about the end of the world, but usually things aren't as bad as that. Look around the world. No, correction, look up the rest of the world via Internet, don't endanger yourselves by traveling the world, please don't. If you check, you will see that there are many places where crimes against humanity are committed, governments are corrupt, and crime soars. There might even be some examples here at home. Extreme examples, at least, the small ones are common everywhere. Darkness can be symbolic of any amount of hate towards other people, any will to do wrong to them. All people have it, whether they'd like to admit it or not.

Now, the one thing not mentioned in the book is the fact that all people have light in them as well. All people, even the most corrupt ones. Everyone has some degree of light, not necessarily proportional to the darkness. There is no secret formula to calculate it, all you need to know is that it's there somehow in some amount. All around the world, you hear those random acts of kindness? That's the light in people. Ebenezer Scrooge is a prime example of that light, and goes from being a complete @#$%@ to a kind and generous person under the proper circumstances. (i.e., being threatened by three spiritual beings) All people can become corrupted, but can also return to goodness. If they make a good effort. Heart of Darkness stresses that darkness is a cliff of no return, but in reality there is hope. Of course, it's a slim hope if you've really gone over the edge and are unwilling to change at heart. Scrooge changed because he was chicken and because he really didn't want to die, yet Kurtz perished due to the fact that he really would have just gone back to his old ways and he knew it. He chose to remain and die in darkness. One has to choose for himself. Or herself, my bad. And the choice must be made quickly, and definitely, because change can be exceedingly difficult. All people have that choice, and must choose wisely.

P.S. I can see this coming from a while away, NO comments on how Scrooge's name is spelled if it's wrong above.

Invisible Man- Symbol Analysis

2008-01-05T11:53:00.000-08:00

One of the major symbols of Invisible Man is the briefcase the narrator carries around with him in the novel. The briefcase's purpose changes several times, and this also changes the meaning of the symbol slightly. In the beginning, the narrator obtains the briefcase at the battle royal. This grueling fight of black men versus black men, blinded and then electrocuted seems to stand as the distraction that keeps his mind away from the reality that he lives in. During the fight, he realized that the men in the arena shouldn't be fighting each other. They should instead be working together. However, at the end of the fight, he makes his speech and receives the briefcase. At this, he forgets everything he realized during the fight. He now is filled with false hopes and dreams, which he is willing to follow blindly even though he realized not even five minutes earlier that there was a more important issue at hand. Even after realizing the gold prizes on the electrified rug were fake, he still believes in the gold mine in his hands. The briefcase is a representation of the dream he wishes to live that will never come.

Later in the novel, as he prepares to leave Mary's house, he shatters a bank that is fashioned in the design of a black man that ate the coins put in his hands. The narrator destroys the racial insult and then, to cover up what he'd done, hides it in his briefcase. He hides it in with his former hopes and dreams. Perhaps this stands for the fact that he considers his former dreams just as offensive as the bank, that he perhaps finds his past and the people he used to know just as much of an insult as the bank. It could also stand for the idea that whatever his dreams will be, they will most likely contain prejudiced people with lots of money. This, of course, turned out to be true, as he later encountered the Brotherhood that soon betrayed him, and they can hardly be considered average folk considering the parties they held.

When the narrator later acquires Clifton's Dancing Sambo doll, he ends up eventually storing it in there as well. Again, he stores a racially insulting caricature in with what were his former hopes and dreams. By now the briefcase also contains the papers from the Brotherhood, such as his new name, his instructions, his work, and other things. This could be symbolic that his new hope is one of despair and prejudice, that he's actually chasing something that he should really be trying to avoid. Perhaps it might stand for the fact that the Brotherhood's inaction was what destroyed Clifton in the end, and sought then to erase him from history despite his sacrifice. Maybe it symbolizes the fact that Clifton's possible hopes and dreams were consigned to the same place, position, and importance, as the organization that had sorely disappointed and angered him.

Lastly, the briefcase was used as a weapon to escape Ras. This could be almost like saying that the events of his past, all of his former hopes and dreams gone sour and all the insults made against him, in the end strengthen him and allow him to escape the hatred of others. All the events of his past have empowered him, and he has learned from them well enough to move on and start again. Perhaps the fact that he used it against Ras's henchmen can be symbolic of who he really sees Ras helping.

One other thing of importance is the fact that the superintendent that awarded it to the narrator after the battle royal stating that it would at some point "be filled with important papers that will help shape the destiny of your people" (Ellison 32). The generous donor of such a destiny-bearing carrier? Shad Whitmore. No guesses as to what is implied by one with a name made up of the words "white" and "more." Obviously this is a nod to who controls the destiny of the narrator for the majority of the novel.

Invisible Man- Passage Analysis

2008-01-05T11:14:00.000-08:00

One particularly interesting passage was the story the narrator overheard about Ras near the end of the book. Besides it being one of the funnier ones in the novel, it also gives as little insight into the crazy Ras the Destroyer. The passage details how Ras was charging around demanding that everyone rally up and destroy, I would assume, every last piece of white influence in the city. This demand is contrasted by the way the two people are talking about him. Ras is giving orders as to what everyone should be doing, as if he was in charge. He apparently seems to believe he's the destined leader of his people. The person telling the story stresses that it was a direct command. However, the two people seems to have little respect for him. Both refer to him as if he was a complete lunatic, which conveys an impression that the event really has nothing to do with Ras. This is backed up by the fact that someone else leaned out a window and joked at him. In response, Ras takes out a gun and begins blasting away up at the window. He really wants to be in control, but he really isn't. The people of the community could care less about him.

His appearance also seems to stress a backward leap for blacks. He dressed up as a tribal leader, with a lion skin on his back and a spear and shield in his hands. His additional riding of a black horse makes for an image of actual Africa, and even the storyteller remarks that his spear is "one of the kind you see them African guys carrying in the moving pictures" (Ellison 563). Ras seems obsesses with his alleged African roots, and combined with his behavior throughout the novel it becomes apparent that Ras really believes that the black race belongs more in Africa than in America. His actions seem to say that everything relative to the white man is offensive and dangerous to the black man, and that the white must be purged so the black can continue to live in the way he was meant. He even charges at armed police officers with the spear, rather than his gun. He seems eager to make a point.

Speaking of points, he sure seems to have gotten his across, or rather in, the police. During the attack on the police officers, he rears up his horse and then charges straight at them, and proceeds to spear them almost immediately on arrival. He manages to hit one down for sure, and then tears off to charge them again, only to be met by gunfire and then throws the spear before running off. The fact that his charge was that successful seems to state something. While in the middle of the cops, he attempted to use the spear while the cops attempted to pistol-whip him. The pistol punches were deflected by the shield, and the spear couldn't work up close, but they still continued to fight. They abandoned all reason and began to slap each other with brute strength. Rather than make an attempt to stop him on the first charge (because I highly doubt the police would not be able to see a large man with a spear and shield on a big black horse in the middle of the street) they perhaps even underestimated him? They weren't even able to kill him on the second charge, and whether or not the spear connected with anyone is unmentioned. Ras actually could claim this as a victory. This may be a statement about the underestimation of blacks by whites, it could be attempting to show that the police were less capable than a psychopath like Ras and really worthless, it might even be to say that the police were just as brutal as Ras considering they waited until he was up close to them before trying to pistol-whip him. And also, let's not forget the reference to the famous cowboy hero. Now that could very well mean that Ras, or someone as violent and fanatic as he, will soon return to vanquish his foes. A reminder that the violence will almost assuredly continue.

Invisible Man- Reaction to the Novel

2008-01-05T08:11:00.000-08:00

This book receives a moderate reaction from me, compared to the other novels we have read. It lacks much in the way of entertainment, unlike Player Piano, but on the other hand is not filled with much material that would make a reader uneasy (at least not me) and is nowhere near as dense as, say, Heart of Darkness. The novel seems to be pretty well-written, serious enough to convey messages and inspire thought yet not so serious as to put one off literature. Of course, it does convey some disturbing attitudes based on race that may seem like ages ago, but really exist today in some degree or another.

Throughout the novel, there is a constant struggle of either identity or of race. Though really one could sometimes put the identity in with race. There have always been incidences where certain people view others in a different light due to skin color, or even don't view them at all. The anonymous narrator suffers from this as the Brotherhood frowns upon the individual work (and success) done by the narrator's actions and speeches. They attempt to forge him back squarely within their control, solely because he is black, because they wish for him to be their personal public image. They also, however, leave everything to him. He seems to be needed to be invisible only when prestige must be awarded, yet the popular face of the people when work needs to be done. Sounds much like slavery of the past. One could seem to liken it to today, when workers are pushed to the hardest degree to serve their companies, then left out of the final picture to deliver the most praise to the corporate heads. (I don't want to use the magic-elf metaphor, but basically that's what it is.) This happens not only due to race but any different social classes, when one group considers itself superior to another. Another prime example is the Japanese-American Nisei unit of World War II. Though it is credited with having been the most highly decorated unit in the army, it isn't widely known that the unit also participated in several important battles and is actually the group that liberated Dachau. They had to wait, though, for a white unit to "officially" liberate the camp. Needless to say, they receive no credit.

However, there are a couple indications in the novel of a more prominent racism of today's age. NOTE!!!!!! I ask that you listen to the following statement! I am all for protection of and

rights to minorities, and do acknowledge that racism exists in the world! However...

During the eviction and the later chat with Brother Jack, and also with the Ras conversations, the belief that all white men are against the blacks is somewhat expressed. The woman's husband tries to tell her that the bank agent is responsible for the evictions, and not the men sent out to empty them from the house. She instead states that all the white men are against the blacks. Brother Jack takes offense when the narrator brings up race, and the great Destroyer also attempts to express the belief that true freedom comes without any sign of white around. (he emphasized this by hefting around a tribal spear and shield) There is a little bit of thought around today that the black people are fighting a tremendous battle against the white race. Again, I acknowledge that there is racism, but I highly doubt that it resides deep in the hearts of every human being. Lines are drawn a bit too thickly between black and white, and every other event regarding a black person injured or slighted seems to expose some racial plot against the black people. I think that perhaps the battle against a group of racists has evolved to a crusade against an entire race of people, and that not every case needs to be a racial struggle. If it's going to be the classic excuse that a man does not get a job or is arrested and convicted solely because he is black, then I believe that we may be entering a period where the prejudice is reversed. In this day and age, anyone who is white needs to carefully watch their mouths, because one wrong word will get them faced with an angry crowd, poor reputation, social cold shoulder, loss of position, and even legal action. (I am stressing this because I know this is a potentially sensitive area, I know that some situations are justified, but not every single one!) Seems to me like the same evil that was once done in the past is being done again today. Here's the question: is it just history repeating itself, or is it some form of self-justified vengeance?

Player Piano- Symbol or Theme

2007-12-08T12:42:00.000-08:00

One of the things that I noticed in the novel was the usage of human beings as objects with which to further themselves or others. Yes, it did happen quite a bit. It seems that as humans become less important in running a society, their purpose dwindles from doing things to being things. There were quite a few instances where this happened.

Firstly, I'll discuss Paul and Bud Calhoun. Yes, I will go as far to say that Paul was using Bud Calhoun, and so was the entire system. Paul would simply go past him every now and then, and demand a new machine. He just took for granted Bud's abilities. He seemed more interested in success in business than what exactly Bud was doing. The system merely cranked out whatever he was thinking up. Eventually, Bud thought up something that put himself out of a job. There was nothing left to do after that. Though he likely walked into that one himself, neither Paul nor the system cared much or did anything to help prevent it or then fix it. They simply took his ideas and cranked them out, kicking more people out of jobs than before. Paul went to Bud indifferently, and when he left, there wasn't much of a large disturbance in Ilium at his dismissal. Even when he boarded the train later, Paul was already thinking of what Bud could do to improve the system, even though an old conductor was sitting beside him. Bud was merely a miracle invention machine.

Next, I'll discuss the reverse of that, and also Finnerty, Lasher, and Luke. The Ghost Shirts decided to use Paul as a figurehead for their operations. He really wasn't anything more than that, and they probably wouldn't mind killing him and thinking up something else. They just figured that this was the easy way out. The great Paul Proteus had become a name on a piece of paper. He was just going to be sitting there as the alleged but hardly the leader of the secret society. Of course, once his purpose was finished, who knows what they'd do with him. As the people began to grow less of an attachment to the machines, they sought to break away, but still saw Paul as merely an item, a tool to fix the overall machine. No better than the society that they just fled. Perhaps that's the proof that the rebellion was doomed to fail.

Anita and Kroner also used Paul quite a bit, the former more so than the latter. Anita saw Paul, without a doubt, as a trophy that would get her into the papers. She just wanted him to do every last little thing she desired, to get her everything she sought. (She more or less sought the world, but still she'd likely have asked Paul for that and then shoot for the moon to boot.) She threw a temper tantrum every time she didn't get her way, and sought to make Paul feel miserable afterwards. Her continual reminding of Pittsburgh is the most notable of her little obsession. Kroner also wanted to use Paul to find the Ghost Shirt society. For someone who was supposed to be a fatherly figure, he really appreciates a little go-for rather than a happy young man. If he could catch the Ghost Shirts, then he would be the friend of a national hero, and doubtless that would have at least three or four (hundred) perks when Paul climbed the success ladder. Such a loving family, pushing the one prodigal son through the fray so they could get a little bit of personal satisfaction. As the closest part of industrial America to Paul, these are most definitely the antagonists and symbols of corruption. Fitting that they would seek glory for themselves.

Also, for a change of pace, Halyard simply used the citizen Edgar Hagstrohm as an exhibit to show the Shah of Bratpuhr. Of course, when the exhibit wasn't as wonderful as planned he simply dragged the tour to another house and made himself at home. To Halyard, the people of America were separate shows to be aired whenever it was necessary to impress foreign visitors. He made no effort to express concern over the opinions or conditions of the families, he simply put them all on display. And, naturally, the show went wrong and the Shah was not impressed all too much. In response, the tour moved to another location; if one show doesn't work, go somewhere else, it's just a cheap show. Doctor Dodge entered with no intention of being friendly, and made it very clear to Edgar that he was only here to impress the Shah when Edgar asked for a handshake. The citizen of America is now no more than something to impress the neighbors with, and they'd better do a good job at it too. Edgar, of course, made effort to show that he wasn't there to just be used. This was important in reminding authority that they were dealing with a living human being. Despite being described as average, it was interesting how wrong the computer was at choosing this person as the best place to advertise to the Shah.

There's an awful lot of person-using-person here. It seems that, especially in the last case above, an automated society comes at the cost of individuality but also at the cost of basic human value. People are not just there to serve a purpose like a computer program. They are important in their own way, and need to be treated as more than just another object to be used as seen fit. Of course, a world run by computers and managers rarely concerns themselves with the importance of human value. All that's important is a bigger number and more progression down a path of educated guesses. The human being becomes nothing more than an obstacle to be manipulated at will.

Player Piano- Passage Analysis

2007-12-08T11:32:00.000-08:00

I'll go with the play. Just because it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Just a little peculiar. The whole thing is obvious propaganda, and to me it was so blatantly pointless and false at first I had to read it again before I could even comprehend how the others could accept it and believe that the managers were saviors. Quite frankly, I'm not so sure I'd use it or something like it to a crowd unless it was significantly tweaked.

My complaints have to do with the fact that the focus of the prosecution was less focused on how the civilians felt rather than the physical numbers. Now, if there was no need to really buy anything then a drop in pay would seem a little less outrageous. However, if the prosecution focused more on the fact that there was a large drop in public image, that most of Americans were dissatisfied, that most people were not happy in the least, then it might have been a little more apparent that there was a bit of a problem at hand. There isn't any point in progress if the progress doesn't make the people happy. Unlike computers, humans have feelings. This is probably why the Star Manager forbid any emotional evidence, because everything looked better in numbers. God forbid the managers have to suffer from emotional dissent (or rather, a soul). Of course, the prosecution only whines that managers are paid more than workers. Weak.

On the other hand, the defense states a whole lot of numbers. Numbers, that's all. More fridges, TV's, cars, and automatic toilets, I'm sure, than the rest of the world. The only flaw with referencing Caesar in the defense's speech is that even the poorest feller in today's world is infinitely better than he would be hundreds of years ago. Public advancements are beneficial to everyone, and I sure would hope that we've improved technology since Caesar's time. The only real qualifier with an ancient ruler comparison is luxury, really. The ability to have these extra items, though, is nothing if the people don't really enjoy them. If progression was strictly numerical, in terms of what should make someone happy, then the Benefactor and Beatty ought to be celebrated as wonderful heroes. Moreover, Caesar had plenty of fun bossing his people around, throwing them to the lions and such, being a real leader. Quite frankly, he was probably happier than most of the people in that automated world of technological America. (Of course, the assassins put a minor damper on his leadership, but aside from that, he's probably laughing at Ilium.) This seems to stress that the only factor important in progress is if the numbers are bigger at the end of the process than at the beginning.

I also laugh at the statement that the boss of the managers is really John Averageman. That one was the biggest laugh in the entire comedy routine. I highly doubt that the consumer really concerns himself with dictating to the managers what should be made. The managers call for construction and then it is sold to us by hitting us over the head with a hammer until we buy buy buy buy buy. McDonald's sells us burgers; we did not ask for meat, cheese and veggies between bread to the response of a fast food chain scampering up, begging to grant them the privilege of feeding us. They sell burgers to us. End of fairy tale. When they think of something new, they tell us it's better and just buy the thing. Most of them try to show up other restaurants by adding their own spin on a classic, which sometimes is the spin that makes it trash. Furthermore, if the managers can brag that they're getting a bigger paycheck solely to produce more for the Averageman, I'll assume that these engineers pay for company projects out of pocket. If they are, that's reason #592 to get rid of the system because workers shouldn't be paying to work for someone. If they don't, then I'd love to find out where those rich engineers spend their thousands of dollars. Balls and dances? Country clubs? Grand cuisine and a wonderful cruise or two? Yeah, that really helps out John Averageman, enduring a cruise around the ocean. It would be so terrible if the engineers weren't happy enough to do their job.

Really, the whole play makes a weak argument from the prosecution and a load of rubbish from the defense. Materialistic improvements come at the expense of personal pride and entertainment, and that's really no improvement. Quite frankly, the whole thing is just a single reason for why there was even an automation revolution in the first place, and a poor excuse at that. Plus, the reasoning behind the bigger paycheck for engineers seems to stress the fact that something's not right. The fact that this was cheered so darn much makes you almost want to pity the poor fellas who have no clue how to run a country. Vonnegut really put a lot of emphasis on making this terribly ridiculous and obviously fake.

Player Piano- Reaction to the Novel

2007-12-08T11:01:00.000-08:00

Trying to keep this short, I'll say that I preferred this book over a few of the others read in class, primarily because of the wit and humor in the novel. I find the jokes, though dry, dark, and dreary, add a great deal of entertainment to the novel. The ironic twists and turns were well placed, and kept me interested to a greater extent than the other novels. And I will also say that this ending was one of the better ones in the sense that it did not just suddenly drop off with no hint of the future. It would certainly be better if the ending was a tad more hopeful, yet that not only isn't Vonnegut's style and would be terribly out of place, the novel still concludes slowly enough to wrap up all loose ends without simply dropping off as it did in Handmaid' Tale or ending abruptly as in We. It was pretty good, I feel.

It's also frighteningly accurate. There are so many different things that technology is capable of doing today that human effort is becoming unnecessary and the way of the past. Just about everything can be done without human beings, and eventually they won't be needed. ATM's, checkout lines, packaging and shipping, assembly lines...pretty soon the only thing people will be needed for is to fix a small kink in the system. Soon people may only be unnecessary beings wandering the earth with nothing to do. Even if you had all the time in your life to yourself, it'd get pretty darn boring. There'd be nothing to do. The only thing that makes vacations (say, for example, Christmas break in 2 weeks) so fun and wonderful is that you've been toiling away incessantly for an eternity. Now you want to enjoy yourself, and you can. This world would bore you eventually, and most likely sooner than you'd ever dream, and with nothing to do you'll spend most of your life in absolute boredom. It'll be Fahrenheit 451, only with books. Miserable.

However, there is one glimmer of hope: this sure won't happen in our lifetimes. Technology, I've found, is wonderfully unreliable. It'll take at least 20 years, more likely 25, to perfect computers. They always crash or catch cold or do something weird. It'll take longer than that for mankind to perfect systems for everything else. And by that time, there'll be some arrogant punk who's figured out some way to break the new toys with the push of a button, and the whole process of creating a system will begin again. There's a far better chance of us figuring out how to live on Mars rather than to make a completely automatized world. A TV show once detailed how in 50 years they'll have perfected hovercars and will have a networking system built into our body so someone can personally monitor our health every second of the day. Alternative fuel hasn't been completely figured out yet, much less put into action to a large degree, and I doubt the anti-gravity measures will be easily calculated. And considering how bad computers are, I highly doubt that super network in our body will ever run even half the time at 50% efficiency. We all think that such a world is possible, but I know from experience that things take a lot longer to do than originally intended. They're also a tad tougher. If we ever reach that stage where our lives are completely automated, I will be thoroughly shocked and impressed. I really don't think that it's possible to achieve such a level of automation so quickly. We're still only beginning to improve technology, and there's so much that we haven't even dreamed of doing yet. A number of these dreams are right in this book.

The Handmaid's Tale- Symbol/Theme

2007-11-07T12:54:00.000-08:00

I am going to discuss the expression of power in this novel. Now by expressing of power I primarily refer to Aunt Lydia being a bit of a complete ***** and certain other authoritative figures either abusing their power in some way or their controlling of it. I'm not sure whether conclusions can be drawn due to position and the fate of others of the same ranking and gender, or whether or not it's just due to character, but in the end it basically makes some solid statements about people and the absolutely corrupting substance known as power.

Aunt Lydia is absolutely drunk on power. There is no other word for it. (other than, of course, the omitted word from above that sounds like the bolded word before it) Considering her position, however, it is completely expected. She is one of the few women with unrestrained, unchecked power, and she enjoys using it. When Moira walked, or rather, strutted out of the Center with that air of authority, she was cleared without a moment's hesitation. She commands even the soldiers with nothing more than a stiff back and a dirty look. This gives an idea of how darn powerful the Aunts actually are. She now takes the position of training the women to become Handmaids and respectable ladies of Gilead. She can be quite cruel, though, and she likes to flaunt her power. She tortures Janine relentlessly, then takes advantage of her resulting want of acceptance and significance by offering her the position of lapdog. She takes her sweet time reading the Salvaging speech as well. She enjoys being in power, the sheer force she can exert on the rest of society. An oversight during the Janine meeting causes the young woman in question to understand that she was going to be sharing this power, and though Aunt Lydia did allot some authority to Janine, she was reluctant in doing so. She was quite surprised when Janine actually requested to sit before Her Pompousness. Whatever the reason, out of all the subservient women, she was of the few that gained power. As as result, she ended up corrupted by it when placed in a community of powerless women like her. It all went right to her head.

A stark contrast to this is Serena Joy. Yes, she was also not the nicest of people, but she had a reason for it. Besides, she really did not abuse her power. She could have made Offred absolutely miserable, but simply let her be. In fact, she even offered to help her in the middle of the novel. Th conspiring certainly did not demonstrate any use of power. She could have forced Offred to have sex with someone else if she really desired that baby, or if she just wanted to know that Offred was being brutally raped every few nights. Aside from that, she could have berated Offred every single day, or had the Marthas overcook her food. She could have kept her awake at night, or could have had her standing in a room somewhere holding something heavy pretending to need help moving something heavy. She could have done many things, but instead left her well alone. She does not take advantage of anyone in the household, but rather just exists with them all. In stark contrast to Lydia, who had no reason whatsoever to be so freakin' annoying, Serena Joy seems like one of the nicest women around. Both have power. Only one of them abuses it. Perhaps Serena is far kinder than Lydia, or is too exhausted to be a jerk. Perhaps her situation is less of a send-in-the-next-batch job than Lydia's, so she is nicer to the people she'll be living with until she's dead. Maybe she just needs some friends. Either way, she certainly hasn't been corrupted by power. Rather, she seems tired of it. Perhaps Lydia got drunk on power quickly, and never broke the addiction of indulging in it, while Serena gradually eased into it and found that it wasn't all that much better. Maybe it was just because Lydia can exercise power over many others.

The Commander is somewhat in between the two. I say in between because he does pull for some side "favors" from Offred, but doesn't really abuse his power all that much. Although we don't know whether he asked for these few favors from the other women and Handmaids, it can be inferred that Offred is the only one involved in this. I'll ignore Nick for this part, because he's simply willing to help his boss out. There isn't much pulled from him, other than the drive to Jezebel's. Now, of all the things that he could do, he ends up pulling Offred into his office to play Scrabble. As a treat to both of them. Regardless of his position as Commander, he's going to be in serious trouble if he gets caught. And all he does is ask for Scrabble and a kiss. He even gives a few things to Offred. However, this also abuses his position in the sense that he relies on his name as Commander to get all the black market stuff, and to coax Offred into joining him for the occasional game. He could be demanding much worse. In all, it's a measured indulgence; not passively floating through life by the book, also not being a complete son of a *****. (same word as above) He is a man; he has several other liberties and sources of power, yet he doesn't really flaunt them all that much. He knows what is just enough to get optimum enjoyment out of life. That being said, he did overindulge that one night in Jezebel's. If Offred is not the only Handmaid brought here for that reason, then he really does abuse his power significantly and is a little more of a jerkwad than I have given him credit for.

To analyze all three at once, several reasons can be offered. Perhaps gender can play a part in power corruption in this society. Lydia is one of the few women that can lord over the little authority granted to this gender, therefore she abuses it profusely. Serena Joy, while she does have power, does not have a whole whopping lot, and therefore will not impose her might on others because she really doesn't have all that much power to impose. The Commander has a good deal of power, but he is a man, and men are allotted significantly more power. Therefore, he is not as easily corrupted by it; it is almost second nature to him. Then again, another aspect is how freely you can impose that power on others. Serena Joy has very few people to impose power over, and the Commander can only impose power on his own household and those underlings that fear the position. Lydia has a whole lot of women under her command, and she gets fresh meat every once in a while. She has a lot of people to boss around and make miserable. Also, she has a significant level of command in the society because she read the Salvaging speech. Also, the position they are in can severely affect whether or not it's really worth it. The Commander can exert power to a certain degree; he can get in an awful lot of trouble if he's caught doing what he's doing. However, he has enough power to get away with it. Serena Joy is stuck with her underlings for the rest of her life, save the revolving position of Handmaid that will need to be broken in all over again at every changing. Lydia can basically do whatever she feels like doing, other than murder. She is in absolute control. Of course, this may all be due to personality and nothing more, meaning that all this is just coincidence. However, I believe that a combination of these factors have made these people the people they were in the novel, and their environment determined whether or not they would fall prey to the corrupting influence of power in their hands. In a world of restriction, power can do nothing other than corrupt.

We- Symbol/Theme

2007-11-07T12:09:00.000-08:00

Something that I noticed in We was the large use of numbers and logic. Noticed, of course, is a little bit of an understatement. The references continue throughout the book. I personally think that it all refers to the summation speech by the Benefactor at the end of the novel, and how inhuman a "true love of society" is. What I believe is trying to be conveyed is the idea that logic and reason really cannot be applied to something that does not always function as predictably as a computer program, namely human beings.

The Table of Hours seems to be more than just a freakish way of setting up the lifestyle of the community. It dictates exactly what the people need to be doing exactly when. However, the entire process is much like a pre-programmed system that is able to operate autonomously. There really isn't anything the Benefactor and Guardians needed to do other than to remove any bugs in the system. The community of OneState is mechanized; it is no longer a community but a program or a machine. The life had been more or less sucked out of it. Considering this, D-503's remark about the system is that everything would be 100% perfection if the Table of Hours listed directions for every second of every hour of every day for all eternity. The system is idle for those free hours; it needs to be doing something. Otherwise, the system is dead until it awakes again. D-503 is talking from the perspective of a machine at this point. Now a complete mechanized society whose only objective is to continue existing actually IS SOMEWHAT UTOPIAN when it comes down to the technical stuff. Tell you what: program a computer with a short little schedule and tell it what happiness is, and it would tell you continually that it was happy. Is it really happy? Not really, because it has no idea what happiness is, besides whatever you said it was, but it is content with doing what it needs to do. What it thinks it must do. It assesses situations and responds with a technical answer. Thus, this community can be loosely called utopian only when mankind is completely mechanized.

Now, there's just one little problem with living beings: they think. Computers don't think, they compute. Machines just act. We think, and when we think we really explore many things that a computer might call absolutely pointless and stupid. They would explode trying to just accept the fact that we actually waste time living. Now, I'm going to say that this translates roughly to the fact that HUMANS ARE NOT PERFECT, and cannot achieve a status of perfect happiness. At least, not while being human. D-503 can still think about the square root of negative 1; a computer would just put it out of mind and only read ERROR if it saw it. But D-503 can think about it. This causes him to attempt to understand, find some answer to, explore further, get irritated over, rack his brain about, etc. etc. etc. until he snaps. As long as we can think, as long as we have free will, as long as we have a soul with preferences and emotions, we cannot achieve paradise on earth. There are too many, if one can call them, variables, to completely deduce the equation Happiness. As a result, we are doomed to the bad times as well as the good. We can't just have one without the other, because we exist on several planes of existence. Computers don't; either it is or it isn't, and this is how it's done. However, some people can waste their lives chasing perfection rather than living. D-503 spends most of his time in the novel fretting over why why why. He wants to be "happy." He doesn't care much about anything else. Thus, the Benefactor in the end of the novel gives him exactly what he wants. He extracts D-503's imagination (and free will) and makes him a mindless drone. The Benefactor has done this to the whole world, as far as we know. How "nice," giving the whole world the "happiness" they always wanted. See what I mean?

This is actually quite cruel. Humanity wants to exist and know they're existing. They do not want to simply perform task, compute result, begin next task, 1010010101010. (That's binary computer-talk, by the way.) However, society is going to pieces in the search for said perfection. The Benefactor has granted their wishes. In a sense, it is the best thing for the world. No hunger, no discrimination, no suffering, no unhappiness. All problems solved. Thus, it can be noted that society should really be glad they can live rather than wanting more, wanting constant bliss, wanting an easy life. Live how you'd like, but don't waste the time you've got. Just live. This society has already become mostly computer, and at this point knows of no other way to achieve happiness. If they already have all this granted to them, why not continue on and get the rest of the problem fixed, to never suffer again? Another thought D-503 had was about how happiness was always thought to be a plus. He often noted several other items as a plus or minus, to express his opinion. He later begins to wonder about the inherent opposite to that number, and how it must exist and must be included somewhere in the equation of life. The extraction of imagination solves the problem: set everything to zero. It isn't quite positive, but it sure isn't negative, and that's all that matters. D-503 also tries to make a function out of love and death. That he had quite a bit of difficulty with, because it isn't necessarily true. He was trying to mix both the logic of mathematics and the emotions of the soul he was experiencing. Those two really don't mix, accentuating how different the logical road to success is from the emotional and gut feeling road.

This novel seems to exaggerate the mathematical concept of perfection, and how inhuman it really is. But this, I think, is the purpose of that exaggeration. The logic behind perfection and paradise is highly inhuman and is not supposed to be applied to unpredictable humans. We cannot follow a system like a computer. We only know how to live by our own beliefs. As a result, it attempts to show how utopias are really impossible for us, and also not to worry about living as much as actually living. Logic cannot be applied to life to receive an all-powerful result. That result is somewhere near infinity, and the only beings that know of that number are the inhuman, soulless ones that live in the realm of probability, theorem, and instructions. They can determine how to live perfectly; only we can live, and we can only live by living, not computing.

Anthem- Symbol/Theme

2007-11-06T12:32:00.000-08:00

One of the major noticeable characteristics of Anthem was the continual references to one large being of man. The names of the people, the daily schedule of events and how they are carried out, and the peculiar rules and mannerisms all seem to emphasize that the community is not a community, but rather a single group of people. One huge brotherhood of man, whose sole purpose is to simply exist and slave away for everybody else because individuals are as nothing. What is truly interesting is that the individuals of the society, though they work for the entirety of man, are truly fearful individuals whose prevailing thoughts reflected an idea that they are and have never been anything but evil, and that they owe their lives to their "brothers and sisters" for all the trouble they have caused.

Firstly, all the people in the community have names that are symbolic of unison and wholeness. Equality, Fraternity, Unity, etc...all stand for a united group of persons. However, these words have very little of their true meaning left. If they are now names, then there is a good chance that their meanings have lost value, and that to use them in this society would not get much of a reaction in return. Instead, it is assumed that the society is all these words, and that they are no longer needed. After all, that would only be stating the obvious. In the novel, Equality gets scolded for singing or whistling, I forget exactly what, and he states that he did so because he was happy. Then the elder tells him, in effect, well that's obvious, of course you're happy, everyone is. In losing their meaning, there is no real way for the citizens to confirm that there is, in fact, unity and equality. Equality should supposedly have known that he was happy, just as he should supposedly know the community abounded with continual expressions of unity. It was taken for granted. However, this hides (or rather, partly emphasizes) that there really is no unity. If there was, the people would be as one people gladly working together for the betterment of others. The unity is only skin deep; within, they do not know what else they could possibly be. They do not realize that the community's stressing of unity has devalued what unity actually is, and has torn them farther apart than ever. Equality also has a technical but really-not-there-fully existence in that everyone appears to be the same and therefore equal, but in reality the people set themselves lower than everyone else because of their own personal "sins." The community really isn't united any more than it is happy.

The daily schedule is also an emphasis that all people are as one. They all rise at the same time, go about their jobs, and travel to their respective eating quarters and recreational facilities with all the others of their specific kind. Now I'd like to point out the obvious fact that if everyone were that same it really shouldn't matter where you went with what people, so long as you followed a schedule. No, apparently, the people are equal, but not that equal. Anyway, everyone moves in the same way around their life with their section, all working in unison. Again, it only appears to be unison. Equality stresses the fact that he daydreams, and therefore is evil, unlike his brothers. Well, how does he know that, exactly? The idea that everyone could be dissenting secretly seems to stress that the society is meant to keep the people in apparent unison to dissuade any that feel like doing something else. The rampant fear of how anything that all do not think is evil prevents anyone from really expressing how they feel. This most likely causes everyone to withdraw from others, with a sense of fear of being recognized as evil. This, more than anything else, result is a society that focuses on the individual's struggle to blend in. It points out the fact that everyone is terrified of being different, so in pretending to be the same everyone fakes it and cautiously blends in, ever wary of and distant from others. No one can trust the other, and no one wants to be evil. Let the evil keep their distance from the holy.

The other little quirks of the society include strict separation of women and men, where neither can speak to or even really acknowledge the other. For a society of unity and equality, there really is a little bit of a required explanation for this. About the only reason that would count would be that they needed to separate them for sexual and competitive reasons. But if they've got that much control over the community, I really doubt that many problems would arise due to lust or competition. Besides, that is an evil that absolutely must be avoided. No one in the community would want to be evil. Therefore, the separation really stands against any idea of unity. Particularly when considering the security at the Palace of Corrective Detention. When Equality breaks out of the Palace, he just knocks a door down and then walks right out. No one ever disobeys society. If anything, that incident shows that the Elders go pretty much unchallenged, and that there really shouldn't be a fear about allowing others to mingle. Other than the fact that the two different genders are a difference that they cannot ever overcome. A weak solution to an unavoidable part of nature that only accentuates the disunity of the society. Curiosity also kicks in and makes people want to break the rules even more. Also, the peculiar practice that everyone had to go to an assembly with their group as recreation deserves some attention. Everyone is expected to want to watch the same thing, to appreciate the same form of art. Really, this isn't unity, this is just a ticking time bomb. Some will tire of the performance, then either express it and be rooted out or will become terrified that they are evil and do not think as their brothers really ought to be thinking. Others will most definitely show some great appreciation to it, and may whistle, bob heads, tap feet...do things that are different that will land them in trouble, like Equality's whistling or singing. Personally, I think that subjecting everyone to a play is just passing them through another sieve or an obvious negligence that will point out that the entire community is not 100% united in all thought, all the time.

As as result, the many aspects of the community that seem to hint to unity only point out how far from unity the society is. It reminds us that perhaps the more one attempts to achieve total unity and conformity, the more nature will rage against it and express itself in defiance. The people end up becoming paranoid and self-deprecatory. Equality's escape was bound to happen at some time, and is bound to happen again. Eventually, in a world that points out how different everyone is and teaches them that these differences are evil, someone will get to the point where, believing they can't get any lower, they will strike out and act for themselves, doing as their different minds dictate.

The Handmaid's Tale- Analysis

2007-11-05T16:38:00.000-08:00

What to analyze, what to analyze...so much to choose from... ... How about the Ceremony? Well, not quite the actual Ceremony, and by that I mean the...well, THAT part, but...more of the stuff leading up to it, and the reasoning behind it. Surely there's some special meaning to the reasoning and not just the act. That act definitely has a large reason, but I overwhelmingly see it as a part of society that just about everyone hates, which accomplishes a purpose that really was meant to be reached through other means.

Well, beginning with the fact that everyone has to gather for the prayer part of the Ceremony, it is apparent that it is exactly that, a prayer service, as much as it is another chore that everyone's got to go through. Everyone gathers in the room and waits for the Commander to read from the Bible. Perhaps it stands symbolic for the church service. This is the new religion of procreation through handmaids, which Gilead in the name of God commands due to the rising infertility of women. He is the one that reads, for the purpose that the women do not have the right to read. However, it is kept in a box, locked up tight. It is referred to as an incendiary device. Only the Commander has the key. This reemphasizes the fact that the only people who are allowed to speak religion are the ones that have been told what to say, the ones that dare not say anything that would conflict with the twists of law the women have been taught. As is stated offhandedly, who knows what the women would think if they ever managed to get ahold of it. Perhaps this is emphasis on the fact that the truth is kept under lock and key, along with the freedoms that it now imprisons. The Bible itself, which does not actually command any of this, which stands for the warping of the pinnacle of holiness and goodness, is also the freedom of speech which no longer belongs to the women. Moving on, the Commander reads only the bookmarked pages. They do not skim through the books, looking for the correct page and possibly seeing something that defied Gilead's iron regime, contradicted their orders. Even the men do not have freedom of speech, but rather the responsibility of keeping the women away from the very thing that gives them that right.

As he reads, he reads only that parts that dictate to be fruitful and to replenish the earth. There really is no main message here, other than that women are vessels that are meant to make babies and then more babies after that. The Bible is meant to give more important messages than that, and God's main focus was not to just make more humans. He could do that Himself with little effort. The Bible is merely being used as a tool to fit the purpose Gilead intended for it. As the readings continue, the story of Rachel and Leah is read. The novel only mentions the part where the wives offer their handmaids as substitutes for birthing. Now there's a whole lot more than that to the story. Rachel was the wife that was supposed to be married off to Jacob, but due to some trickery he married Leah instead. He then works and eventually married Rachel as well, but then neglects Leah. As a result, God, who was not very happy with Jacob nor Rachel for this treatment of Leah, made Rachel barren. Rachel, if anything, did this to get around God's curse, and then the handmaids were used in a sort of competition to see who could make more babies. Really, it's not as if God commanded that the handmaids be used to make more babies. In this way, the Bible is cut and pasted into a different version that allows Gilead to enforce a practice that would otherwise have gotten an overwhelming response to go shove it where the sun don't shine. It seems to reemphasize the fact that the government had used a holy writ to achieve its own evil ends, to show a destruction of a good religion into something that completely warps the original message in the opposite direction. In this light, the almighty Republic of Gilead is nothing more than a gigantic hypocritical fake.

With the false command from God, the Commander then concludes and asks for a moment of silence, at which Serena Joy ends up crying. This "good news" doesn't exactly make people happy, or result in any large level of goodness. Rather it does the opposite and creates much hatred and sadness. Serena's crying seems to emphasize the fact that the new version of the old story is more of a reminder that she's worthless to Gilead, that a replacement is necessary because she's nowhere good enough. Women again are depicted to be nothing more than decoration, and this shows that really no woman has a purpose except for that sole reason stated in the forbidden Bible. Also, it seems to be an omen of bad things to come, where a silence for hopeful prayer results in some dread of what is to come. In the end, the Bible ends up being the exact opposite of what it should really be. Gilead has completely changed the meaning behind it, and has made it into a weapon against the people rather than the saving word. The interruption Offred mentions reminds that even the Beatitudes had been changed to ensure that the women followed orders as expected, and that there was a justification for the rule. This passage points out primarily the hypocrisy of the holy society of Gilead and what the Bible has become as a result of the new powers in charge. And the new Bible is as effective as the old one, albeit the effect opposite from what it should be.

We- Analysis

2007-11-05T15:58:00.000-08:00

One of the interesting aspects of We was the final chapter. In this chapter, the book is spontaneously resolved by making D-503 a mindless computer-like drone of OneState. Also, I-330 and the rebels are tortured and later liquified. Sort of a let-down, a tad bit of a bummer of an ending. Not quite all too fulfilling when the main character, troubled for all his time in the novel, perhaps even from chapter 1, suddenly loses all free will and is reborn a walking corpse. That and betrayal by the one person he really loved. Or thought he loved. Either way, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, despite all logic, the ending of the novel WAS a happy ending in a highly technical and disturbing manner. NOTE TO THE READER: if you haven't caught my drift yet, I introduce you to my method of sarcastic understatement. I do NOT like the ending of the novel, nor do I support OneState. However, thinking in the computer logic that the Benefactor discusses a few chapters prior, technically this is a happy end to a troubling tale.

Throughout the novel, D-503 fights to discover what he really wants. He suddenly begins suffering from the sickness known to OneState as "soul." Well, that is a good thing in reality, to have a soul, but as the Benefactor may have put it, depending on context, soul is what prevents society from attaining a utopian society. The closest we can get to Heaven is only attainable if we sacrifice our souls. Only computers can really be happy without being unhappy. Note that this happiness and unhappiness is in theoretical terms. Without one, there cannot be the other. D-503 mentioned somewhere that society always thought of happiness as a plus sign, but never considered the opposite that mathematically had to exist, and realized that one could not have a free floating positive without negative. Continuing with this, the troubled D-503 now obtains, at the conclusion of the novel, his perfect happiness as a computerized human. He never really warmed up to the idea of the soul, and its removal from him allows him to attain some higher level of peace and fulfillment that is very similar to...well, I won't mince words, it's really no better than dying. However, he gets his impossible happiness without a negative. Zero is referred to as a nonnegative number, meaning it isn't negative. (hence the non) However, zero has no negative equivalent. Hence, the conclusion of a mathematical utopia, ending in perfection, in lack of want or unhappiness, the lack of a negative: the impartial, nonnegative number 0. Besides, a book that begins with inhuman math and logic really can't end in anything other than math and logic, can it?

But why did the Benefactor see D-503 soon afterward? Why have him witness the torture of I-330 which he did not remember and treat him to a dinner? Well, I wrote earlier that perhaps the Benefactor is trying to bring humanity to the utopian end they've been begging to reach, to end their pointless suffering in the search for perfection and paradise. It's disturbing, but in a way he may be attempting to act as the fatherly omnipresent higher being that looks to ensure that he's happy. If D-503 suddenly woke up without an imagination and thought that he'd done all this weird stuff, (weird to him in his new form) he might be a little unsettled. Maybe the Benefactor merely wanted to ensure that the whole business that had occurred was over, all in the past, and welcome in a new friendship with D-503 and an acceptance into the community. Since D-503 didn't react to the torture of the others, especially I-330, the Benefactor could relax and know that D-503 had finally found peace. Consider it a mercy killing, like when the Benefactor told D-503 that he was just being used. In fact, D-503 himself stated that his shouting was like trying to stop a bullet that was still being fired into him. Maybe all this was to forgive D-503 and double check that he's not going to go back into the suffering that he desperately wanted to be rid of, yet at the same time desperately wanted to be part of. The Benefactor put him down to end his suffering, and then granted him forgiveness. Perhaps the dinner was even analogous to the Last Supper, and would therefore be yet another symbol of friendship and new life.

So there you have it. A twisted logic that puts a happy face on the ending. The Benefactor puts on the fatherly guise, forgives D-503, and welcomes him into a community that never suffers, that is always at peace. One heck of a funny looking smiley face, but it can be made. Perhaps the crazy mathematical approach actually applies to the end of the novel, and this is somewhat right. If not, I can only state that the Benefactor was being a real jerkwad by having I-330 tortured in front of D-503, in an attempt to flaunt that D-503's one of the inhuman utopians, and really this signals the demise of all humanity and the rise of the zombie humans of OneState. This makes the ending a complete bummer and reminds us that not everything will always turn out the way we like it. It can still say that true perfection is not attainable by humans with souls and that in reality even true paradise isn't all we think it to be. I just prefer to think that there's SOME positive outcome to this story and not that everyone just up and (spiritually) dies.

I assure you I still am human and do not support crazy utopias such as these. I would sooner live in the deepest hole in the Netherworld. I am just finding some way to be really technical/argue semantics/analyze this book.

Anthem- Analysis

2007-11-05T13:36:00.000-08:00

The reactions of the Scholars when Equality brings them his invention is actually quite interesting. To me, at least. As recap, Equality brings them the creation that he had made in the hopes of showing it to the world, and even possibly for the betterment of mankind. The Scholars react a little differently than he thought they would, though. First they cower in fear of it. Then they rage and demand the most excruciating deaths imaginable. They then tell Equality that what he had made is evil on several technicalities: he made it alone, so it is evil; no one else knows of it, therefore cannot believe in it, therefore it is evil; and even if it is going to help mankind, it is evil solely for that reason, and that humanity should toil because to work hard and unnecessarily is good. At this, Equality curses them and flees.

Now this is laden with a few small significances. Firstly, the fear that the Scholars expressed towards the glass box is obviously connected with the other references to the unknown. The society is afraid of the unknown; or rather, the people are afraid of the unknown because of what they have been told by the elders. The uncharted forest is a source of fear that no one dares to approach, because it is all uncharted, unknown. The people never state what they are thinking, because anything different is evil, and what goes on in the heads of others is unknown. Likewise, the new invention is unknown. There is a glaring fear of the unknown present. It signifies that, because the elders say that the unknown is evil, the people of the society are too afraid to know anything. They don't want to know. It's as if Adam and Eve bit the Apple of Knowledge, but in knowing then curling up in fear of thinking. Technically, knowledge is bad, so we'll just sit here and not know anything other than what is told to us, because only that is what we should know. That is what has happened to this community. They are afraid of difference, and of knowledge of unknown things, because everything is different when you get down to it. Therefore, all things are evil if they are different, and one cannot know difference if one has no knowledge of anything else to COMPARE IT TO. (Sorry, I'm taking my comparison theory too far in my rants, aren't I?) This is why the Scholars are afraid of the invention: they are afraid of the difference, the new knowledge. It is something that is out of the ordinary, something inherently evil. Also, the strong mention of evil signifies the religious grip on the community. The fear of evil alone causes the people to not rise against those in charge.

As for the signs of evil, the Scholars show themselves to be jealous. More than anything, they are jealous. Jealousy is what brings judgment to any "sinners" in the community. Anyone different might be better than others; therefore, there must be some level of jealousy in the community. The Scholars have been clearly outdone by some ordinary Joe off the streets. Naturally, besides the whole evil thing, they are a tad irked at being shown up by a street sweeper. Their uncontrollable fury displayed before one of them reminds them that it is the Council's job to determine punishment, not theirs, shows that, for a moment, they let their emotions and personal, individual, different thoughts get the better of them. Their extremist demands to have Equality "whipped until there is nothing left under the lash" show that these guys really don't like being bested. They're sore losers, and if they can't be the best, they'll just destroy whatever's better than them.

The signs of evil themselves also tell a bit of info. The fact that they call it evil solely on the basis that it was not developed with others is a telltale sign of hysteria. What, does that mean that if they now make it with others, it becomes good and they get the glory? Again, jealousy. Hypocrites. The notion that the number of people present determines good and evil demonstrates a lack of importance as to the idea itself and its purpose, and instead emphasis on whether or not any one person is better than another. Also, the other notion that its making life easier proves its evil shows a severe demand for mindless dronage. If they don't work, then they think. If they think, they become even more afraid of difference, or tolerant of it, and things begin to break down. Heaven forbid people actually thinking for themselves and not the fifty people standing around them. The mentioning that it would put the Department of Candles out of commission is another big signal that change and unknown is unsettling. It took fifty years to show everyone that candles are better than torches, and were unknown and different but still good. Fifty years. That long to let everyone know that there was a better way of making light. People in this society really like their personal bubble, don't they? No change, no difference, just the same beautiful world around them 24/7. Meanwhile, a light bulb would make things so much better and easier. The purpose was for the betterment of humanity. (I bet, though, since plural is evil, it actually would take a lot of people to change a light bulb in this world.) However, better or not, the people are not important. A single form of existence with a single, mindless collective thought is.

The fear expressed emphasizes more than anything how afraid of change people are, and how terrified they are of the unknown just because it's called evil. Words have no meaning other than to be tags. Even the names have lost their real meaning, and are just a form of telling one "they" from another. Rather, simple conditions decide whether something is good or bad, beneficial or not. A web of technicalities for the hypocrites that advance society by keeping it back for fear of the unknown. Even if it's not progress, knowledge is always a step forward.

The Handmaid's Tale- Response to the Novel

2007-11-05T12:44:00.000-08:00

Now this is exactly the opposite of what I think of when I try to imagine a religious fanatic society. Well, perhaps I'm imagining the wrong thing, as this isn't quite a religious fanatic society. My idea of religious fanaticism is a world that lives inside a monastery. This world of Gilead merely says, "well we're God's community and we're in charge and if you don't think we are the rulers of the universe then you can (quite literally) go to hell. We fund the travel expenses!" Religion is simply a justification. Though that's probably why it's so freakin' creepy, because today's world has religious justifications out the wazoo. Islamic radicals purging the land of infidels as Heaven wills, us trying to spread Christianity to those same people because Heaven wills, and then both trying to impose religious-centered rules and regulations in their own lands because Heaven wills...It's all about what our respective Gods may have or may have not subtly implied. Quite frankly, if anyone ever willingly rejected any specific form of salvation, I'd say it's their own choice. Religion and respective salvation is a choice that someone's gotta make on their own. I've never known anyone to try and drag someone to Heaven with them, although quite a few threats for an excursion in the opposite direction have been made. The trick is to understand that not everyone believes in the same exact thing you do.

Now I mention rules and regulations. What could I possibly be referring to...Ah yes, the frequent demands to ban gay marriage and abortion. I personally am a Catholic, and I do understand why these things are against God's will, but I really don't think that there's any need to go around on a crusade. Firstly, the Constitution hasn't said bubkus (I hope that's spelled right) about either, so those powers go to the people. Therefore, why the church is bugging the government is beyond me. If anything, it's a state right, and they can more than willingly decide on their own. Secondly, America was founded to escape any restrictions the people would ever be bound with due to religion. The great forefathers would be turning in their graves if they thought that religion is causing restriction of rights, after they spent so much time and blood getting that freedom. Put in Aunt Lydia's words, they fought for freedom FROM religion, not freedom TO place your religious beliefs on somebody else. At this time I do acknowledge that several of the forefathers could be very opinionated, and maybe would have pushed for the prevention of gay marriage, but I'm sure you all get the point that I'm attempting to make.

Getting off that rant a little, a militarized takeover and impression of biblical passages and rules actually is somewhat prevalent in today's world. Many extremists believe in the Bible or respective religious novel to such an extent that they would follow it unswervingly, believing it to be the only path to salvation. The militarized utopia of Gilead is in its own way becoming utopian in their minds. If the will of God is followed, and God is all good, then they must be perfect holiness themselves and should then be happy. Now, besides the fact that a great deal of the Bible is historical text and figures of speech, I really don't think much of it was meant to be followed to a T. It was merely a guideline, if you will, with only a few "if I were you I really wouldn't do this or I might have to smite you" clauses. The notion of following one's religion this closely can almost be described as valorous and pious, being as they technically are the pinnacle of goodness by their rules. However, this religion is twisted. Much of the religious messages have been adapted for the purposes of the Gilead army and government. When one molds religion to fit their own needs, it destroys whatever goodness and purpose that may have been in the actions and thoughts. As a result, it creates only evil.

Now one can't deny that religion is used as an argumentative point in today's world. It is a quality we look for in government officials (wait, what about the separation of church and state?); we often use religion to justify wrong actions that we may have taken, taking it out of context to make us appear to be in the right; some people use religion as an aid to sell their own ideas and supplies. Religion is being used to a large extent in today's world as a form of justification and rationalization. It is the will of the greater powers, and you cannot hope to oppose me, or you oppose an unstoppable force. Well, aren't you so impressive? NOT! All that makes it is an excuse, and nothing more than a bargaining chip. To make God nothing more than an excuse for you to do as you please is not only insulting to said higher powers, under your own definition it is, in fact, sacrilege. To put yourself in the shoes of God and give orders is something only done by those drunk on power. You are free to express your beliefs, but you really shouldn't impose them on others. I think this novel is a good reminder of what corruption happens when people bring religion into governing, and a warning that we should keep them at opposite points of the spectrum as much as possible. Guide yourself, not others, along whatever path you believe in. Walk it yourself, and if you walk it alone, then so be it.

We- Reaction to the Novel

2007-10-27T12:07:00.000-07:00

The opposite yet exact same as Anthem. Interesting. Logically utopian yet technically far from it. No I am not just saying weird stuff. We had within it a mathematically superior theory of how to make the world a utopia. Technically, it really isn't a utopia, because nobody is really happy, they're just kept occupied. However, the idea of running a world like this, when you think about it, ensures the end of starvation, of hatred, of all the big problems everyone in the world likes to complain about. The only catch is that you need to become a computer program in order to fully enjoy it. Just for the record, if I were ever to be thrown into that world, I doubt I would be able to keep myself from smirking. The idea of everybody goosestepping, chewing, and perhaps even breathing in unison is just cartoonishly hilarious. Disturbing, but hilarious.

Now, if the world was like a computer, it would have no emotions and have no need for abstract concepts such as happiness or love. Being as it's not, though, and that human beings have a strange abnormality known as a soul, those abstract notions are quite necessary. In fact, we really can't do without them. They make us, shall I say, human. It's almost as if we humans are the only obstacle that needs to be overcome to have a utopian human society. That being said, I delcare utopian societies impossible. There cannot be happiness and happiness and some more happiness with absolutely no discontent whatsoever. You have to have at least an irritating itch in the center of your back in order to have even the slightest bit of contentment. As D-503 puts it, everyone believes that happiness is infinity in the positive direction; where is the negative of that? You can't just have a positive and pull it out of the air, or not have any of the opposite whatsoever. Both are needed. One could even go as far as to say, that without that negative to compare things to (or even a lesser positive, derived from adding a certain negative in question) one could not define happiness. Human beings have a soul that gives them preference and the ability to feel emotions, and therefore to be happy. However, by the same token they must deal with the unhappy as well. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, to take another logical route. The only way to eliminate sadness and discontent is to destroy the ability to sense that, to destroy both happy and sad. Light and darkness will always be there; if you don't like the darkness, or the light, close your eyes. Both will still be there, plain as day (or night), but if you really don't want to see one you should accept not being able to see the other. Either get over it or just stop existing. Nothing will be exactly as you demand it. Today's world is all about instant gratification. Well, things won't always go your way. Be grateful that you even have a way, that things even go at all. Be content with what you have, or be ready to give up everything for perfection. That's my take on it.

And for D-503's nemesis, the square root of negative one...if I were him, I'd just leave it as a lower case i. Problem solved. If you can't find the solution with numbers, use letters. That's why they're there, to be used. Make use of them, as with everything else in your life. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not a good thing. Find the good in everything. If there is a bad, then there must be a good somewhere in it, waiting to be found. There cannot be one without the other.

Anthem- Reaction to the Novel

2007-10-27T11:11:00.000-07:00

Now this was one freaking weird society. Or rather, one freaking weird brotherhood of man, it should probably be called. One enormous collection of lame brains with no willpower, but a programmed order of self deprecation. If society ever becomes like this, I will call it Armageddon and the Rebirth of Semi-Intelligent Life on Earth. That being said, it seems to be some fanatic religious society whose focus is to get back to the simple things in life. The really simple things. With only togas and candles, and the notion that everything else was evil, it appears to me that someone believes great advances in the world are the sources of all misery and depression. Several religious fanatics believe that science is the Devil's work and brings only evil and sin, and if that science is represented by Equality's invention then there is a little more to the story than simple fear of advancement. This can be coupled with the notion that certain extremists believe that hard work is a great sign of your faith, and that it cleanses the body. There are hints of extremist culture in here, regardless of other connotations.

But aside from that, this society is more of a society of fear and control. No one is allowed to be different, and anyone who has thoughts different from others' or acts differently from others is evil. Why the focus on evil? What is so evil in not being the exact same as everyone else? Well, perhaps we should put out a poll on that in today's world. In all likelihood, no one with half a brain or more will put out some racist comment, but the emotions and feelings may still be there. There is a great deal of intolerance for those that are different from oneself. Not everyone is a bigot, but to some degree I believe all people are most comfortable with people who are just like them, who share their interests and beliefs. Perhaps this is a strike against conformity. Quite frankly, if being different from others is evil, I would consider that a good thing. If all human beings were perfect in action and thought, then I'd still expect there to be something that can depict a flaw of some sort, because humanity is not, by any stretch of the imagination, capable of being 100% divine. That is God's job, and I doubt even He goes without trouble all the time. Evil also presents some contrast to good, and if everyone in the world was completely perfect mankind would be the most boring and dreary race on the planet. (See my segment on Fahrenheit for my contrast rant) However, people do need to stop being so fearful and intolerant of others. Racism is a major example, but even between people of the same race, religion, and shoe size there exists some level of friction. Even small differences seem to make us uneasy. We have to accept everyone, big quirks and small, all aspects of that person, not just declare them evil and move on with our lives. (Of course, most people don't see in terms of only good and evil, this is a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is clear, correct?) Besides, mankind refers to a collection of human beings. Different human beings. If mankind can be made by simply running someone through a copy machine then mankind isn't really all that descriptive and/or special.

Back to the Opus Dei factor, the Palace of Corrective Detention was the oddest form of "correctional facility" I've ever heard. Whip the guy until he passes out and then stick him in a cell until he gets the message/confesses/gives out some names. Sounds more like the Inquisition to me. That, and the fact that it's called such a fancy name. If I was in charge of that society, I would call it something more inspiring. Maybe the Palace of Pain or the Facility of Redemption or even something like House of the Evil Ones if they had to stick with something a little weakish. "Corrective Detention" sounds like a rap on the fingers and no cookies. Perhaps it refers to the "corrective facilities" our criminals go to today, with their well-prepped cells and psychiatrists. Maybe it emphasizes an irony, that in this world those who are good and have done little wrong are tortured, while in our world those that have done much wrong are treated quite respectfully. Or, to mention torture, that we really don't torture, but rather question rather forcefully utilizing measures that inflict not as much pain as death-like, nightmarish experiences. (In other words, well maybe we might have) But still, why so much mutilation? I still find the reaction of that one Scholar amusing: He shall be lashed until nothing remains to be lashed. Well I'm sure that's a fantastic way to relieve stress, but for trying to help one's fellow man, which, if I'm not mistaken, was the entire freaking point of this society, you expect him to be whipped into a fine goo? It seems that some people find it beneficial to inflict pain on others, for both the punisher and punish-ee. Either that, or they're a little too devout. Regardless, it seems a little odd to me. Still, there have been such cases in the past. There's a good chance history will repeat itself.

Fahrenheit 451- Analysis

2007-10-27T09:12:00.000-07:00

One of the interesting things that I noticed in the novel was a lack of happiness, which had been replaced by assumed happiness. There's little logical reasoning behind the "happiness" here, aside from a statement that all people are free to do whatever they feel like doing, so long as it's mindless. Happiness seems to have become less of an emotion than a state of existence, and even then an assumed state of existence, not fully realized. I attribute this to something I'll call contrast, the comparison of two different things. This not only defines happiness, but also a few other emotions in the community.

I doubt I really need to define contrast, but in essence the theory would be that everything has to have an opposite; life and death, light and darkness, happiness and sadness. Otherwise, there's only one thing existing, and without anything to compare it to it's just normal business of the day. It loses its power and effect. The community has had so much "happiness" and has such a mindless life of pleasure that it begins to lose sight of what happiness really is. Well, who cares, really? Happiness is a good thing, and we are happy, we've got everything; isn't that what's important? NOPE. It's no different from being absolutely miserable if there's nothing to compare that to. Even if you can say you're happier than you were yesterday, you can still feel happiness. These people have lost the will to take the time to compare. They just think they're happy. They know there's an opposite, but that has nothing to do with them, so it's out of their minds. However, when something bad happens, they don't have the slightest clue what to do. If you've ever sat in a room with the lights off, you'll eventually develop a faint "night vision" and be able to see the outlines of things in the room. However, if the lights go on, you're blind as a bat. After the one night when Mildred is found almost dead from sleeping pills, she acts as if there was no reason for her to kill herself. She is happy, after all. What really happened was that she tried to kill herself, because she didn't know how to stop the light that was bothering her. When people who have lived in fake happiness all their life suffer tragedy, they are blinded. They expect the light to just go out. Some block it out themselves, by racing around in the Beetle cars or watching mindless TV. Others can't block the lights out, and kill themselves, afraid of the light, unable to deal with it. In fact, all people are afraid of the light, because they are never really are able put it out, but still try to block it out, like pulling a cover over your head. When Montag began his escape, everyone was most likely terrified, and needed the "snap ending" of the scapegoat to put their fears at ease. They would have gone bonkers if they thought that a killer was on the loose. Just put the unhappy deed out of sight, out of mind, leave it to itself, it'll burn out if you ignore it. In this way, they can "know" they are "happy" again because the bad guys lose and the good guys win. They need that light out, that sadness kept away from them, because they can't cope with it.

Following this reasoning, it can be inferred how people became bored. As Montag said in the beginning of the novel, there are several recreational hours, which the people have to appease their boredom, to be happy doing what they enjoy to do (so long as it's not thinking). But again there is only one of a pair here, not between boredom and pleasing activity, but rather of what you want to do and what you do to pass the time away. I'm going to infer that those who did not frantically spend their free time doing something mindless were the oddballs of the society. In this way, the activities that are being done lack the possibility for true appreciation, for real enjoyment. It's just something else that needs to be done; you want to be happy, don't you, so just do it. It's not what they made time for, but what they were given time for. If you don't have a time when you're staring at a wall, bored out of your skull, you can't possibly think up something fun to do, something to save you from boredom. Put another way, the reason Christmas presents are special is because you only get them once a year, and it is a way that someone else can express appreciation for all you've done, for who you are. You wait bored out of your skull the night before and then jump up excited the next morning, eager to see what you have and then choose what you want to do with your gifts. If you got a Christmas present every day, then it really wouldn't be special, but rather a "Well what it it today? A quick speed down that street over there or a few hours of clowns chopping each other to bits?" The people are being given the gift of everything to do and no time to decide what they want to do. They are unable to take the time to choose and enjoy, but are rushed on to do something else. It's all just a distraction from the fact that you'd really prefer to be somewhere else.

Basically, the community has tried to shut out the negatives to their positives. They believe that they can enjoy their lives if sadness and boredom are eliminated. They cannot be eliminated. When the opposite comes at them and blinds them, makes them uncomfortable, they are unable to think of what they should do in order to continue with their lives. They cannot resolve their problems, because they have never really experienced these things very often. Without a response, many kill themselves or degrade further, climbing into their own dark corner of a room, trying to block out the light of negative emotions. They obsess their lives around mindless fluff, in a way setting themselves out of life in order not to suffer the pain of unhappiness. If you have no tome to live, you cannot feel sadness or boredom; if you already cannot find happiness or amusement, then there's no problem in blocking out all emotions entirely, becoming a mindless drone, racing around life's bend to the next thing that keeps your mind off of how miserable you really are.

Fahrenheit 451-response to the novel

2007-10-23T09:20:00.000-07:00

Well maybe I'd better get started on these now. Terribly sorry, been busy. Anyways, beginning at the beginning, Fahrenheit 451 was an...interesting book, to say the least. A little extreme, but I thought that it was somewhat realistic. The actual society itself, with all its high-tech gadgets, is beyond our capabilities at the moment, definitely, but the ideas behind it are actually possible. Today's world is falling a little farther away from social activity and more toward one's own personal entertainment, more towards one single person living on his own by his own rules. Today, it's common for people to want to be by themselves or with others like them. That I agree with wholeheartedly. But there is a difference between that and simply doing what you feel like doing without regard for what you should be doing or how it affects others. And you definitely shouldn't go bashing people up or racing down streets just because you find it amusing. Some level of self control is necessary. As far as education goes, yes, I concur that I'd probably enjoy being elsewhere rather than studying and working, but quite frankly I'd probably be bored to death within a few minutes. I think that it's better to spend a good deal of your day working, studying, doing what you need to do, especially if it's boring, because that's what makes your entertainment part of the day so darn fun. I'll get into contrast analysis in a bit.

Also, it is possible to have a country ruled by minorities. By ruled I mean obsessively hypersensitive to the desires of minorities. Examining Election '08 and even popular reality shows seem to emphasize and make spectacle of different races of people. At every turn there is supposed to be some sharp division between one person and the guy standing right next to him, something that supposedly sets them apart, even against, each other irreparably, a division of some sort. And if it isn't an attempt to catagorize and make people the epitome and representation of their people, it's the obsessive attempt to get one's own way using racism and hatred as an excuse. Now, I'm all for people speaking out against others if they truly have been discriminated against, and I do know that there are some very warped people in this country. However, what I do not approve of is to make every case involving a white man and another ethnicity a racism case, to make everything the struggle of a minority against an intolerant world. There will always be racism, but not everyone is a racist, and just because something does not go your way does not mean that it was rigged against them. Additionally, some people will make comments against other ethnicities because they're complete jerkwads. This does NOT, in my opinion, justify a crusade. We do live in a free country, and sadly certain intolerant jerkwads have the right to be such jerkwads. However, it does not mean that if someone's called a bad word they need to parade, march, riot, threaten, and otherwise mass at the government's door in an attempt to seek reparations as if they've been shot or raped or otherwise. And although I do not think that we will ever begin burning books by the masses, consider the debate on whether movies with smoking need to be rated R. Now I really think that's a bit of an overreaction; if parents have that little control over their kids (or we're that weak-minded, and I doubt we are) then they really shouldn't be parents. Besides, just because they see something on TV does not mean that they will flock to the store and begin chain smoking right outside it. Trust me, I was that young once, and I really wasn't affected by movies all that much. I just watched a film and thought, "well that was funny or exciting or can we buy it in stores to watch at home."

This novel seems to be highly connective with today's world, despite the fact that it was written over 50 years ago. Frightening, isn't it? Well, the story was a little extreme, but I feel that it was okay. Not particlarly amusing or entertaining, but still quite interesting.

U2 song analysis

2007-10-15T13:02:00.000-07:00

Well, the song definitely has a connection or three to The Handmaid's Tale. The first lines begin with not believing what is seen and heard, but rather to just close your eyes and sense "the enemy." That, I believe, can also be said of the novel; it's a little restrictive and aggressive, and those Guardians really do a little more than just guarding. They are more often than not the agents of justice, if one could call them that. Contrary to popular enforced opinion, the people claiming to be the good guys are really more like the bad guys. Or, to view this from another point, this is also the idea that was drilled into the women's heads day after day, that the people walking next to them are simply feral animals. Don't trust the others beside you, they simply want to use you, only the best of the military is your friend...perhaps?
The next lines pertain to a somewhat defeated woman, which can be said about most of the women in the Republic, being stripped of their freedom and dignity. No one really likes the new order. Offred, however, continually finds hope in her imagination, and believes that there may be a time when she can escape all that is around her. In other words, the refrain of the song fits in perfectly here.
There were several references to wanting to be part of something that could be believed in. Now, the women of the Republic are more or less excluded from the world, and just exist. But what else is there to do? There is no real religion or movement, they've all been stamped out, save for one which everyone absolutely HATES. There's no point in being of something unless you believe in it. It makes it all worthwhile to do something you want to do; it gives a sense of individuality, and importance.
"Take a cup, fill it up, drink it slow"... well, I'd say it pertains to the desire to be able to enjoy oneself and really take the time to do so, rather than to just speed through your life. This connects fairly strongly to how Offred lived her life before the (I guess I'll call it) coup, just passing through the hotels, not knowing the details, just having sex and moving on...and then later regretting it because now there's absolutely nothing. A message to experience and enjoy all parts of one's life, to not take things for granted. Or it could just be the usual sensual line, which would connect to how Offred misses Luke. The usual love song lines.
The little two-liner right below the last refrain hints at how everything has already been done and no one knows what to do. Perhaps it stands for the fact that there's nothing else to do except to wait out the storm and continue on, enduring for the moment when it all gets overturned. Everybody else has already died in one way or another doing something radical. Maybe the successful thing to do is the idea no one's suggested, not doing anything?
I've been rambling so I'll wrap up the last stanza as fast as possible. The song references stashing and seizing, and responsibility begun from dreams. That most likely is a message to take what you can to survive and prepare for any possible chance in the future, and that if you dream you'd better be able to fulfill it. Don't just wish, but make it happen as well. Offred should be doing everything she can to not get killed and to be able to find her missing family. And she's struggling with it a little, but is doing that.
Continuing from that, dreaming out loud to find a way out. That most likely translates to the fact that the only thing that you need to get away from all the madness is to hope and dream. Believe and it will take you far. Offred's dreams, I think, will probably get her somewhere other than the normal daily trudge and duty, at one point or another. To find Luke and her daughter will most likely drag her out of the social catastrophe.
In short: Believe, do not give up hope, eventually you'll figure it out and succeed so long as you keep at it. And, of course, the acrobat line refers to the fact that Offred and just about everyone else is playing the part of the obedient citizen while they really wish the guys in charge would just hurry up and explode.