A sneak peak to my project had been prepared! I am deeply sorry to all of my readers that have long awaited this great moment. A special shout out to Alice Hu for pushing me to get this done!
Jack: hero or not?
After seeing a couple of blogs on this, as well as different views on this topic, I decided to address it, even though, I know I know, this is pretty old. So, when Jack comes out of the house and escapes, is he a hero, or not? To answer this question, I will list out all of the possible reasons from both sides and then provide my own reasoning.
First, the positives. What does Jack do that could make him conceivable as a hero? First and foremost, Jack acts sick and then dead. For someone who hasn’t ever “acted” before, and doing it on such short notice, he does a pretty believable job. If he would’ve messed this up at the beginning, then all would have been finished. Jack leaves Room and has the courage to go Outside. He really doesn’t have any idea of what he’s getting himself into, but he’s willing to take up the challenge. Although it hurts him (and as we learn later, it isn’t just a small injury) when Old Nick drops him in the back of the pickup truck, he remains quiet for the sake of the mission. He makes the right decisions without Ma being around when he runs away from Old Nick. He eventually gets his Mom freed and Old Nick captured.
Now for the not exactly heroish thingys. He’s just following orders. Ma tells him what to do and he does it. Sure he makes a couple of decisions on his own, but they were kind of the only options he had, and he acknowledged that. In this notion, Jack is but a “pawn” in Ma’s crafty maneuver of intelligence (Quintin). Also, Jack doesn’t really help the Police While they do figure it out in the end, Jack could have very easily told them.
While it is true that Jack could have told the police, we have to understand that he hasn’t met any other human being apart from Ma and Old Nick, He is unaware of their existence and it creeps him out. We can cut him some slack on that one. On the topic of Jack being a pawn, I agree, Jack is a pawn in the whole scheme of things. But the heroic part in that is that he’s doing everything that he should do, as well as making the right decisions when needed. He remains silent even when he is hurt. He talks when he feels safe and does get Ma out and Old Nick captured. Sure there was luck involved in that, and it is true that Jack isn’t a marvelous hero in this. But there are many heroic aspects seen in this whole escape. And don’t forget, he’s only five.
Wednesday, December 3
Changes in Jake and Ma + Extra News!
Before I start, I would like to mention the fact that I have completed reading the fourth chapter of the book, After.
I want to talk about the major changes in Jack’s life. Because of this escape which just works by sheer luck, Jack’s life has been changed completely. I feel bad for him because all of a sudden he’s been taken out of one place and placed in an other which he can’t wrap his head around, and for good reasons. But all of this is made worse when Ma throws upon him all the things such as the baby monkeys story, the truth about Santa, the death of the Easter bunny, and the unemployed Tooth Fairy. This must be a psychological disaster for a five year old, whose entire life has been spent in a prison. But more than that, it’s also a disaster for Ma, and the paparazzi, the interview, and telling Jack all of this must have been very hard on her too.
The problem here is this all of a sudden change. Early on into the novel, I had stated in a class discussion that Ma should slowly start to open up to Jack things about the real world. Although she tries it to somewhat of a degree, it’s nowhere as close as she could have gotten. I understand the limitation on time which she had, however, if she would have told Jack the truth and slowly changed his aspect on the world while in Room, it might not have as much of a disaster as it is now. When the Allies defeated the Nazis and saw all the concentration camps, there method to approach it was the following: they gave little amounts of food and slowly started to give more to these hungry people. If they had just put all the food out which they could (which they did do at one point -- it didn’t help because all the captives just lashed out at the food and their bodies couldn’t take it, and they died) it would killed the captives. And this is what we are seeing here-- Jack is being exposed to this horrific change in literally a second and that is why he is not able to fit into society.
Another thing I noticed in this chapter was the change in Jack. He’s becoming much more of a bad boy -- some of it isn’t his fault but…still. For example, he realizes that he can chose to shower when he wants to. Also, Ma lets jack keep five toys but he takes an extra and doesn’t tell Ma. When we read it, it doesn’t seem like a big thing-- but this is pretty huge. Since Jack has lived in this small room without many things for his entire life, Ma would have immediately known if Jack had something extra. But now, since they are “Outside” he finally has “secrets”. There’s also that time when Jack has that “incident” with Bronwyn (now that’s not his fault, he’s never really been taught about those things yet). And last but not least, Jack steals a copy of Dylan the Digger (once again, this isn’t his fault, he thinks that it is his, and since only one of everything exists in his mind…). What I’m trying to get at is the fact that Jack has changed a lot in a short amount of time.
We obviously can’t forget Ma. Ma grew up in this society so she understands what the paparazzi are doing. But it’s too much for her. Let’s not forget that when she got into this mess, she was just a 19 year old girl (and she is still just in her late 20s). But in this span of time, she has gone through something which no human should have to go through. It was very selfish, disgusting, and inhumane on the part of Old Nick. But ever since she has come out, everyone is judging her (thanks to the paparazzi) for how she survived in Room and how she grew up Jake (particularly the breast-feeding). While I am doing that to some extent too, I recognize that she did what she thought was right at the time. But the way she is reacting right now is wrong. It seems that she has just lost all hope and succumed to temptation -- the temptation saying the ultimate screw you to life and bidding adieu to all the problems. I understand that she has been in a weird place psychologically as well as something that will taunt her the rest of her life. I understand that you can’t just forget these things. But, if she hadn’t given up hope for 7 YEARS, why give up hope now?
In other news, I have completed my open-genre creative project. Having a run time of 9 minutes and 25 seconds, it contains over 600 different pieces I had to put together. After spending over 50 hours on it, I hope that I can amuse you all with it during finals! There will be a teaser attached to my next blogpost!
Friday, November 28th
Smithy as a hero and Final Thoughts about Memory of Running
So, is Smithy a hero? Well, he most certainly is, in his own little (unrealistic) world. Smithy goes from a drunk 279 pound smoker to a new man in three months who has given up drinking, smoking, and lost a lot of weight, as well as picked up healthy habits such as eating bananas and drinking water (which I must tell you, is a very bad route to take: you should never drink water while eating non-citrus fruits). Smithy is patient, devoted, and has a clean heart and lives his life with an optimistic view. Smithy’s life changes, ironically, due to his drinking habit: he sees his bike while he is drunk and starts biking (drunk biking). He wakes up in the morning and decides to continue on his journey (now whether that is naive or not, I can’t say).
As many of you have probably noted by now, I have a very skeptical view towards this book. While it is meant as something which could happen, I find it highly improbable. Smithy could have died very easily during his journey four times (once by the car crash, then by the policeman beating him up while he is already in “acute” pain, then almost shot by Bill’s son, and lastly shot by the other policeman) and many more times in the war (very close, too close, once). As Darrian recently stated in one of her blog posts “Seriously, did they NOT notice that Smithy wasn’t even driving the car? Plus, all the doctors treat him like shit, and then yell at him about Carl and then send them on their way. Then the doctor threatens Smithy. She also brings an officer with her that beats Smithy up, with the intention of only scaring him, and he ends up even worse before they realize, and by realize I mean Carl has to TELL THEM, that he’d hit him with his truck and that he wasn’t the bad guy.” This just goes to show some of the most insanely boundary line that McLarty tries to pull off. But even if throw these things aside, we still have to deal with Smithy’s zen-like behaviour towards each of these events. While it is unrealistic, it is most certainly a heroic quality. So in the end, Smithy is a hero for the transformations he goes through and his clean hearted determination, but the author’s goal to picture him as a possible hero in real life, turns short.
Sunday, November 16
The killer (literally) ending
When I read the ending I was shocked. But not in the good way. Until Norma comes in, all was good. But then, she came in. I expected much more from the author on this.
Mr. Mitchell mentioned in class that you guys are blaming the author for this and you aren’t into the story. T he thing is, I was into the story until this happened. When I read that somebody called out “Smithy” I got worried: “Oh my god, if it’s Norma… IT’S NORMA! NOO..” This scene reminded me of an art project I did in elementary school in France. We had to draw a bunch of concentric circles and then color them. Apart from I drew too many and it was taking me too long and everybody else had moved on to working with clay so I quickly colored everything in purple and black, essentially destroying all the hard work. This last scene just goes to show how hard it is to build something very eloquent and how easy it is to destroy it (you build a huge lego building and spend a lot of time on it and your sibling just knocks it down). The anger was strongly built inside of me when I read this because the author just ruined a book that I was going to categorize as one of my favorites.
But let’s analyse this in a more professional way (now that I have established that scene was one of the cheesiest and dumbest ideas on the part of the author). “You’re not into the story”. Of course I’m not, it’s unrealistic. As Erik said in class “Is Smithy immortal?” Because the amount of times the guy’s been shot and the places where he has been shot (and his quick healing) and the amount of patience and saint-like zen quality which Smithy posses are all unrealistic. But I pardoned the author for that. I pardoned the author for creating a character who loves smoking and quits smoking just like that. I pardon the author for saying that Smithy survives on tuna fish and bananas for 4 months. BUT, Norma coming in was unacceptable. First off, let’s look at this happening realistically. Norma stirs up the courage (and the cash, a lot which she has already spent on Smithy, put I guess that doesn’t matter if they get married) to go out of her house and board (in a wheelchair) on an at least 18 hour journey to L.A. just to go up to Smithy while he is saying his final goodbyes to his sister at the freezing smelly morgue and say “Oh baby, I love you” and kiss him. Uh, no. Sorry author, can’t give you this one. It’s not impossible but it is so highly improbable that it is impossible: 0.0 repeated 1 is equal to 0 for a reason.
It’s like those scenes in movies where the villain can easily kill the hero but no, they've got to give a speech about everything and give away their entire plan and the hero narrowly escapes and wins in the end. Everytime I see it, it pisses me off. That’s why I like A Song of Ice and Fire so much: you never know what is going to happen because there isn’t one hero’s journey-- it’s the journey of every character and as soon as you get attached to one particular character, they’re dead. Needless to say I did enjoy the book while reading it, but the whole ending killed it for me. Mr. Mitchell said in class “It seems that Smithy is hurrying towards the end of his journey”. Smithy isn’t hurrying towards the end, it is McLarty who rushed the ending into a typical happy ever after ending which this book didn’t deserve. It deserved more. What an ending: cutting off the nose to spite the face. Saturday, November 15
Is Smithy on a quest?
No, he is not. What does quest mean? Well, it means “a long or arduous search for something” but with a connotation that the search will have multiple obstacles and a treacherous path in the way. While the search for Bethany is a “long” one, he has the place where he needs to go on a sheet of paper. So the only aspect that is “quest-like” is him traveling across the country on his bike. But that in itself is not a quest. That is a challenge, one which numerous people do each year. For example, the Tour de France consists of 2277 miles (while his trip from consists of approximately 2800 miles) and hundreds participate. So let’s summarize this: he is going on a bike across the country without a treacherous path in the way (riding on high quality roads with people that obey traffic laws) and is doing something which many people do every year. I don’t see a quest in this.
What is interesting, however, is when Norma times this idea of his journey being a quest. We can now kind of see it as a quest because Smithy is rediscovering himself, as well as discovering new things. He is going outside to see the real world (something humans should do in the first place!) instead of watching television all day long and getting fat and drunk. He is recalling memories of the past as well as experiencing life in a new manner (while losing weight as well as his appreciation for smoking and drinking). These are all very nice things but are they really akin to a quest? The answer is no, once again. You see, quest indicates that there is goal planned and you have to reach that goal. When Smithy set out on his trip, he hadn’t planned for all these memories to come back (he still doesn’t plan to seek out more memories) -- they just did.
While I agree this trip has now shaped Smithy’s clean and healthy life for the future, I still believe that this “revelation” isn’t part of a quest. There is a certain aspect to the whole idea of a quest involved, however, it is important to keep in mind that when Smithy decided to do his trip, he didn’t really have anything planned -- he was drunk and just went with it.
Thursday, November 13
Controversial Thoughts about Anse and Addie
I will start with Anse. I have seen multiple blog posts and comments dedicated to the fact that Anse loves his wife, and that he has taken this journey to please her “soul” and “death-wish”. While I understand that most of these postings were done before the reading of the ending, some people still insist that he isn't all that bad. I would like to counter that argument.
It is true that Anse did not travel all the way to Jefferson for a new wife, but that fact that he asks a new woman to marry just hours after burying his own wife tells me something about Anse’s nature. He didn't actually care for Addie. She was just an excuse that he could make so that he could go to Jefferson with the help of his entire family, steal (not exactly, but kind of) his children’s money and get them fake teeth. And while he was at it, he also took a wife and a gramophone. Anse got golden because of this journey. Whenever he comes back, he’s come back with some new teeth, respected the “dying wish of his ex-wife”, has a brand new wife, and, the best part, he did it all without breaking a sweat. Of course, it came with its cost. Dewey Dell’s situation on her pregnancy just went from bad to worse. Cash is disabled for the rest of his life and he can no longer work around the house (but, at least he can listen to that gramophone). Darl is sent to a mental institution (and I wrote this on a comment somewhere: think about the fact that this family has no money. So if they don’t, how can they afford to send Darl to a good institution? They can’t. Which means that wherever Darl is going, he’s going to grow more insane than ever, because the facility will be a piece of s***) and is probably not going to see his family anymore. Vardaman has been exposed, as I have mentioned a lot of places, to acts of violence and tragedy which he shouldn't be at this age. All of this happens because of who? Anse Burden, the man to go to if you want a burden.
Now it’s Addie’s turn. I must confess, until her narration towards the end of the book, I had no qualms about Addie. After her own narration, however, my opinion towards her just flipped completely. Many of the things which happen with the Bundren family could have very easily not happened, had Addie been a nice mother. After admitting that she enjoyed to beat the snot out of the children she used to teach (and presumably her own children as well), I lost a faith I had in Addie. But what shook me the most was that she had an affair with Whitfield and Jewel was a result of that (it’s a betrayal of trust, my trust as a reader in her), and even after all this, Jewel is the one she is most pleased with, and the one she cuddles the most. To the people that say she should be pitied I say no. How can Addie be pitied? She chose this path herself. She had an option to say no, but due to “social norms” she decided to marry Anse. That’s some real bs. You don’t just go out and marry someone you despise of from the beginning just to “fit in”. And fine, even after you have done that, you can’t just go out and have an affair, especially with a priest (that was truly ironic).
Thursday, October 16
Darl vs. Bundrens (and Sanity)
Narrating more than a third of the chapters and almost half the book, readers see more of Darl than any character. In the recent chapters which we have read, Darl seems to have changed a lot (although, he was already quite different than the rest of the characters). Unlike any of the other characters in the book, Darl has this view upon things - he is able to view the world through a different lense- almost as if he is like a third person narrator. This starts in the first chapter itself, when Darl can see where Jewel is walking even though he is not looking at him. But after the incident where he burnt the barn, my thoughts were a little distorted. Sure, Darl had led most of this journey for us. But now, I wasn’t so sure about many of the things he was saying. Was he accurate? Or was he just toying with us? And we see Darl’s insanity growing as the book goes on: when Darl narrates, once, he talks about how his family members are like caged animals!
The barn scene is quite intense in its own rights too. Darl puts a blazing fire in the barn, which not only contains almost everything of value to the Bundren family (and to Gillespie, no doubt) including his dead mother’s coffin. Initially (when the family plans to send him to an insane institution), the family makes excuses such as how they need to send Darl otherwise Gillespie will sue them...But the part I love most about this is that Cash narrates this incident. Cash is a simplistic and straightforward narrator, so he conveys the point quickly and accurately (oh, and I can trust Cash, because he is really hardworking, and we haven’t seen him wanting to do any harm to the family). Here, he is trying to reason it all out: “Sometimes I ain’t sho who’s got ere a right to say when a man is crazy and when he ain't. Sometimes I think it ain't none of us pure crazy and ain't none of us pure sane until the balance of us talks him that-a-way. It’s like it ain't so much what a fellow does, but it’s the way the majority of folks is looking at him when he does it. […] That’s how I reckon a man is crazy. That’s how he can’t see eye to eye with other folks. And I reckon they ain't nothing else to do with him but what the most folks says is right.” Cash’s narration is really important here because it conveys the point that whether someone is insane or not depends a whole lot on each person’s viewpoint. If I think about it, I thought that Jewel was the crazy one for a while (sleeping while he’s suppose to be doing work, taunted by Darl about his father, working somewhere else where he doesn’t sleep for some reason instead of perfecting his own farm, his mother preferring him over the others). I guess that Darl being taken over to the “mental institution” is a mockery to much of the Bundren family, if not all. Each, in their own ways, is insane (Anse can’t sweat, Dewey Dell has her problem, Cash doesn’t complain and just bears the pain which screws him up in the end, Jewel is obsessed with the horse).
Wednesday, October 15
The significance of names (of main characters) in As I Lay Dying
As I Lay Dying is narrated by 15 characters, all of which have names with their own significance. Although I thought the names were slightly different because this was the “old south”, thinking about it for a while, I figured out that each name has its own part in the book. Below, I have attempted to decipher a handful of these names.
Darl-- The main character of the novel, Darl is the short form for “darling”, which I understood to mean as one of Addie’s most favorite children (More on this in Jewel).
Jewel-- Jewel is the prize child of Addie. As Addie tells us “herself”, she has always liked Jewel (because he is not from Anse, but rather from Whitfield). He is literally the Jewel child. An interesting point in the story is when Darl and Jewel, both the favorite children of Addie are not there for her when she is dying.
Cash-- An obvious connection to the fact that Cash is strong (Cash is always working hard, and even has his own small stash of money for his gramophone) \
Addie- Short for Adelaide. According to the OED, Queen Adelaide of England married a young German price, after he was rejected by many other noble women. This can be related to how Addie just accepts to marry Anse because of the social pressure/ norm.
Anse is short for Anserine. Anserine means someone who is stupid or silly. You don’t need to be Anserine to understand the connection-- Anse = anserine.
Dewey Dell took me a while to figure out. I searched the web a lot for this and after much research I came to a conclusion. “Dell” means a young girl who is not rich (i.e. in the lower class). Dew (water which quickly goes away) might refer to the fact that Dewey Dell’s youth goes away pretty fast (thanks of her pregnancy). Putting it together, Dewey Dell is a young poor girl who has lost her “youth.”
Vardaman- Ward-aman. Ward means a little boy in Old English, according to the OED (oh, and the Ranger’s Apprentice). He is a little boy who is placed into a world, into an atmosphere where he shouldn't be. At this young of an age, Vardaman should not be exposed to the things which he is, such as his mother’s coffin surrounded by buzzards (and many other such incidents), and wards were usually put into a similar situation (running around and doing work for their masters).
And at the last we come to the family name itself.
Bundren-- Burden. The Bundrens are always facing problems and are bombarded by burdens, most of them they have brought upon themselves.
As you can see from the list which I have compiled above, names have a very special place in As I Lay Dying. Some of these, most of us can easily guess, but some are a bit harder. I’m sure, nevertheless, that Faulkner named each of his characters for a reason which reflects their own personality. If you guys can think of other names that relate, post ‘em in the comments below!
Monday, October 13
Last updated: Wednesday, October 15Hospitality
The Odyssey mirrors the concept of hospitality throughout the “adventures of Odysseus, as well as the people, nymphs, gods, and creatures he meets. Whether it be King Menelaus, or the princess or Odysseus himself, everyone is seen as hospitable to strangers. Upon further study into this and discussions in class, I learned that being hospitable to strangers was a customary norm in Ancient Greece, and this norm was so important that it was thought to be maintained by Zeus himself. This is why we see hosts in the Odyssey referring to strangers as Zeus (sure, Odysseus does appear like a god, but it’s not just that he looks good, just the idea that he is a traveler). You were suppose to treat every stranger as a hospitable as possible, because you never know, it could be a god (as we often see in the Odyssey).
But of course there are problems with this system as well. While some guests might overuse this system (like the suitors, which I talk about below), some hosts might overuse this system as well, as seen in the case of Telemachus and Nestor. Upon encountering Nestor, Telemachus found himself with an overabundance of hostility, with Nestor really liking the guy (so he constantly tells him stories and entertains him, which Telemachus isn’t really interested in, but he can’t deny it either). Keeping the idea of overabundance of hospitality, Odysseus begins to question the people who are being hospitable to them-- are they being hospitable because they are nice people or because they are afraid of the gods and the idea of Xenia?
There are limits as well, when the guests overuse this system. This can be seen with the suitors. The suitors have crossed the line of just being guests. I said in class a few days back that the suitors crossed their limits when the plotted against Telemachus (in book 4..?), but when I go back to think about it now, I feel that they crossed their limits by just staying in the palace of someone else for over TWENTY YEARS! But of course, they do get their heads bashed out in the end, just like they deserved.
The not so hidden catalyst of the Odyssey: Athena
After the presentations on the “Wandering”, it seems that Athena has really struck out as a character-- so much so, that I think she is possibly the main character of the book. Ok, yeah, she isn’t the main (rolling my eyes) character, but she is responsible for Odysseus being the main character. Athena is the core of the Odyssey because nearly every act, everything that goes on, is performed through Athena’s lens. We first see her when she meets Telemachus. She comes to Odysseus’ palace disguised as mentor, advising Telemachus to journey to Sparta and Pylos, to both find information about his father, as well as continue the “legacy” of his father (specifically, being able to stand up to his reputation by having his own little “Odyssey”). While Telemachus doesn’t find much information at the end of his journey, he does return home as a man, a true prince, who is capable of his handling his kingdom in his own hands, in the unforeseen future. Before that, when Telemachus has to set out on his journey, it is Athena who sets him up with a ship. She also tells Penelope, who is really worried about her son, in a dream that Telemachus will make it back alive and rejuvenated. And this is just in the Telemachiad.
Athena also convinces the Phaeacian princess to help out Odysseus; she helps him get off of Calypso’s island; she also helps him get to Phoenicians; she tells him when he is back in Ithaca; she “advises” Telemachus to come back to Ithaca; she orchestrates Odysseus and Telemachus in such a manner that they both meet outside the palace in a hut (who just happens to belong to an extremely loyal servant); she makes the plan to get suitors’ brains dashed out; she changes the appearance of characters (and the city of Ithaca itself) nearly everytime we meet her. She just doesn’t bug off- I did a quick search on my ebook, and Athena appears 162 times! So what does this mean, and what is the importance of Athena reappearing in the book so many times?
Athena, as stated before, is the core to this epic, kind of like Lord Krishna in the Indian epic, The Mahabharata. Athena serves as the ingredient to the recipe of a cake. Sure, cake’s really good, but in order to have this cake, you must first have all the necessary ingredients in place. This epic is not about the return of the brave Odysseus-- it is rather the result of Athena playing a game which amuses her. The people and creatures associated are but puppets.
September 5th, 2014
What is a "hero?" What is the hero's "journey?" How about an antihero?
So, what is a hero? Is Barack Hussein Obama a hero? Is Osama bin Laden a hero? To me, a hero is anyone who is doing something unique. A while back, whenever I heard "hero", my immediate thought was of a superhero like Batman or Superman (sorry Marvel fans). I thought of the good guys as the heroes. Many people associate a hero to be a person or a group of people that would risk their lives for the greater good. But I don't think that that is a true hero (not anymore, at least). I think that everyone that is a bystander, just witnessing something happen and not doing anything relating to that or affecting it, is not a hero. However, it is once you do something that you are a hero. Some heroes are bigger than others, because what they did had more importance or relevance. But, every time that something is done by someone, that someone is a hero. For example, when I will have finished this majestic piece of art I call a blogpost, I will be a hero (in my own small way for accomplishing this task). But my main point of the day is not the definition of "hero" but the connotation which is placed into it. When you hear "hero", you automatically think of what a good person he must be. But I am not devoted onto that. I regard a hero as someone who has decided to do something (whether it be challenging or not) and follows up on it-- a person that decides on a journey and embarks on it is a hero. It doesn't matter wether he is able to finish it or not. As long as he does not give up, he is a hero. I even consider a bank robber a hero (the semester project I had for last semester involved a thief as the protagonist of the short story), because the robber is embarking on the journey he set forth. The bank robber is not an antihero. "Antihero", as people understand it, is the villain of the journey (antihero because the villain is not the hero of the story). But that is not what an antihero is, because even the villain is a hero. An antihero is the bystander; he is that person that's just there doing nothing. An antihero is a person who lacks the heroic attribute of embarking on a journey. In today's geopolitical world, for example, an ISIS soldier is a hero. Maybe not to you as a person, but to me he is. ISIS set out on a journey which seems impossible in today's time period, but executed it quickly and effectively. Therefore, there is a heroic quality to ISIS. I'm not saying that ISIS is the good guy, they're not (I'll clear that up right now), but they are heroes in their own way. In a battle it's the people that win that are the heroes, because they are the ones that write history. In short, you can't say that the good guy is the hero because that would be subjective. You can say however that anybody that embarks on a journey is a hero, because that is not subjective. For example, in India, hero is also the term used to describe the actor of a movie that comes out. You ofter hear: "Oh, who's the hero of that movie?" When they say hero, it's not because he is great or the actor has done some good deed (he probably has, but that doesn't matter), but because that is the commonly used term. So in the end, it is the definition of the word that matters. Hero is interesting because it in itself describes the actions of everybody that have no connection to each other, apart from having the courage to decide to do something, and then actually do it.
Zapruder Film. Yet again.
At the end of class today, there was a question asked by Mary (blogpost at: http://angonokas.blogspot.com/) about the Zapruder film. I don’t remember the exact wordings, but it was somewhere along the lines of “So it seems that everyone is in agreement that the Zapruder film has just brought up more controversies and conspiracies. Does anyone think that it is good that the Zapruder film is there?” Now I know the question wasn’t that but that’s how I interpreted it (haha that’s why I said “somewhere along the lines of..”) and that’s the question I will talk about during this blog. Now I wasn’t able to give a nice smartass response because of lack of time and my mentioning of the Zapruder film on IMDB (more on that below. If you don’t want to ready my awesome zestful points which show why I am right (and y’all are wrong, just kidding lol), then just skip to the bottom, with no zest).
Conspiracy theories. Lots of those, right, over the JFK assassination? Yes, that’s true. But do you think there were none before the Zapruder film? Of course there were. There were eyewitnesses, the Warren Commision. Even when the Warren Commision came out, the majority of people did not think it was the full story, and this was before the introduction of the Zapruder film to the general public. After the introduction of the film, many theories such as the theory of only one bullet, or even more, where the president was hit, and such things were debated. Sure, the Zapruder film is the root of most conspiracy theories nowadays, but it has helped solve some mysteries too. And on the subject of multiple theories: do you expect there to be no theories? Does that ever happen with ANY assassination? And there should be many more theories for this, because there is a reason it is called as the most horrific 26 seconds of the 20th century. Whether it be actually true, or theories simply put out to confuse others ( or blaming other opposition countries etc), it doesn’t mean that the Zapruder film is bad or shouldn’t have been there.
Moreover, keeping aside the conspiracy theories, the Zapruder film is one that shows the assassination of the United States President. Considering that the United States considers itself as an omnipotent power, this comes to a shock of not only the American public, but also the world. Writings and narratives can only show you so much. Even with bad pixelation, no sound, and being really old, it brings the truth. No one, and this is important, says that Frame 313 is fake. No one. Because every single eyewitness remembers that scene vividly. It’s just like 9/11 for people that were alive and paying attention (more on that on Mary’s blog). That brings me to my final point, the one you’ve all been waiting for. IMDB.
For a while I’ve been trying to bring this up in class, but I just didn’t find the right time. So, today, I decided to talk about it. Yes, its true. With a rating of 7.9/10 (anything on IMDB that is 8+ rating is by definition a must watch awesome piece of artwork; that doesn’t mean those below it aren’t, they are also good (obviously, the higher the ranking, the better)) and casting JFK and Jackie Kennedy and winner of the national film registry award, IMDB has some cool facts and trivia attached to the Zapruder film. For example, when watching the Zapruder film, we see Jackie Kennedy jumping on the trunk of the car, and I thought she was doing that for self-protection. IMDB says “When the film was released publicly in 1975 many people assumed that Mrs. Kennedy jumped on the trunk after the shooting because she was frightened and trying to get out of the way. Some years later the secret service that jumped onto the bumper revealed that she was actually trying to retrieve a piece of the president's head that had landed on the back of the car” and that “Although Abraham Zapruder made a profit from selling the film, he was so disturbed by the nightmare he had filmed that he did not keep a copy. He never owned or used another camera again.” See it for yourself at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0131658/.
What A F---ing Coincidence
Thursday, May 15, 2014
Today, in class, we discussed coincidence vs. free will and the importance of coincidence in the jfk assassination plot. I would like to take some time to talk about that now. Many people were in agreement that coincidence plays a big role, but I don't think it does-- it's just being over dramatized. The truth is that coincidence is the word often used by people who are unable to look at the entire picture (thereby ignorant!). Words such as coincidence, synchronicity, (black) magic, sorcery, etc are often used to describe things or events that cannot be explained by human beings through typical conventional science and technology.
Let’s get into the fancy details: the physics definition of coincidence is “The presence of ionizing particles or other objects in two or more detectors simultaneously, or of two or more signals simultaneously in a circuit (OED).” From that, it grew to the conventionally used term of today, where “a remarkable concurrence of [two or more] events or circumstances without apparent causal connection” take place (OED). You can see for yourself how the term grew up. I shall use a multitude of examples to relay my point, and then sum it up in general. If you’re in a hurry stop reading, if not, well what a coincidence, you can keep reading. Now, imagine that you’re in your living room reading this article and thinking about your favorite TV show. Then you open the television out of boredom and voila, that very TV show is coming on. “What a coincidence,” you must think. The truth is that that TV channel is already on the TV from when you watched it last night, and since it’s a hit TV show they are doing a re-run or something. Whatever the case maybe, its hardly coincidence. But we never stop and think about these things. We open the TV, say “What a coincidence”, and start to enjoy the show after a tiresome day. So what does this tell us? It tells us that coincidence, in general, is rare, like very rare.
Another example: when students have been given monetary indulges towards their grades, as in, rewards for an A and such in schools, those schools’ (Data from Freakonomics, worldwide best selling novel; reputable and factual source) overall student performance has a tremendous jump. Coincidence? No. This is research, fact: incentives attract people.
Ruth Paine, a friend of his family's in Dallas alerted Lee of a job opening at the Texas School Book Depository about a month and a half before the assassination. Coincidence? No, because Lee was a looking for a job (ignoring the Libra plot streamline, for a moment) anyways. Roy Truly, the building superintendent, hired Oswald and assigned him to the fifth and sixth floors of the building. Coincidence? No, because those were the floors that needed someone assigned to. There’s a reason that Ruth Paine and Roy Truly are never considered to be part of the plot. They had no evidence, no relationships, no connections to anyone bad or of even slightly suspectful people but Oswald. JFK’s car conveniently passes by the building Lee works in. Coincidence? No, because JFK’s car passed a whole lot of buildings, not just the one Lee was shooting from (you see, Lee get’s himself caught, it didn’t help that he shot from that window as it didn’t not raise suspicion of Lee shooting from that window. He could have just as well shot from anywhere he wanted by getting into the building as a guest, janitor, or worker of some sort.) The thing is, you can analyse these things from any angle you want-- there is NO coincidence involved. When people can’t explain things right, or want to quickly get their point across, they use the word coincidence, because that just has this psychological effect on us, accepting their narrative, be it true, false, a conspiracy, whatever it may be.
If you think that I am wrong in any way, or you have more things related to coincidence, such as specific scenes or things related to Lee’s life and the JFK assassination, please leave it in the comments below, because I would have lots of fun putting forth my arguments during the summer. Blog comment war anybody?
Here’s something to crunch over, if you have time for philosophical things. Let's go back to the coconut analogy. When a coconut falls from its tree into the ocean (so the tree lets go of its fruit), then which river it will go in, which land the fruit will be planted on to pulp a new tree (and even if it is lucky enough to survive), is completely dependent on the fruit and its destiny. That was the analogy I had used previously to give a demonstration of what destiny was and now I will attempt to clarify coincidence. When it falls, where it lands and if it breaks (that is, if there is a low tide than it will break, if there is a high tide, then it will land on the water. Or maybe the coconut breaks after hitting the water anyways.) is it coincidence? Or just something that happened? On another note, suppose I just got three yahtzees (anybody still play board games?) in a row (when all five dice have the same face value in one turn=yahtzee). You would probably say “Wow, what a coincidence!” slightly amazed and perplexed (considering that you have a roughly .08% chance of getting a yahtzee, and one in a million, for three yahtzees in a row). Now what if I told you that I have been trying that since the beginning of the day? The week? As the time frame grows, of when I tell you since when I have been trying this, your excited expression would probably turn into a sighing “Oh. Good job,” or “Cool story, bro,” or a combination or something similar. Assassination Footage of JFK
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
In class, a few days back (was it this week? I forget; nevertheless, whenever it happened) we were shown the Kennedy assassination footage. It was the first time that I was seeing this footage (keep in mind, I had already read Delillo's narrative at this point). From Kennedy’s initial wave to the public, the first shot, and the bloody head shot, everything was so unexpected. I was prepared for to see it, I thought, but I was wrong. Dellio was spot on about the narration. He narrated it exactly like the Zapruder film. Everytime it replayed, I kept rooting for Kennedy to duck down or something and miss getting hit. Every single time, even though I knew nothing could change it, still. Here’s the difference between Delillo’s work: when I was reading Delillo, I wanted Lee to not miss. I was rooting for Lee to get that anti-Castro, and no longer be a bird. And this is the what I hate about the Zapruder film: I’m in no man’s land now. I don’t know who to root for and why (make sure to help me out with that in the comments below guys, if you’re still reading). Video games used to be fun when I got awesome headshots. But when I saw an actual one, it shook me back to reality completely.
In class, a few days back (was it this week? I forget; nevertheless, whenever it happened) we were shown the Kennedy assassination footage. It was the first time that I was seeing this footage (keep in mind, I had already read Delillo's narrative at this point). From Kennedy’s initial wave to the public, the first shot, and the bloody head shot, everything was so unexpected. I was prepared for to see it, I thought, but I was wrong. Dellio was spot on about the narration. He narrated it exactly like the Zapruder film. Everytime it replayed, I kept rooting for Kennedy to duck down or something and miss getting hit. Every single time, even though I knew nothing could change it, still. Here’s the difference between Delillo’s work: when I was reading Delillo, I wanted Lee to not miss. I was rooting for Lee to get that anti-Castro, and no longer be a bird. And this is the what I hate about the Zapruder film: I’m in no man’s land now. I don’t know who to root for and why (make sure to help me out with that in the comments below guys, if you’re still reading). Video games used to be fun when I got awesome headshots. But when I saw an actual one, it shook me back to reality completely.
Mr. Mitchell mentioned in class the effect of Frame 313 and how it’s the key frame and cause of debate in the conspiracy theories; I totally understand why that Frame was hidden from the public for over a decade after the assasination. That is the scene where the blood from Kennedy’s head comes rushing out, a really horrifying seen. I let out a little gasp, I remember vividly, everytime I saw that Frame-- it just has that aura to it. And Delillo has been trying to build (not even trying, just saying has built would be correct, I think) this aura from the beginning of the book, with the dated and placed chapters (may I add, yes I will, I never knew Lee had traveled so far internationally like that (isn’t that rare for that time period?)).
Meanwhile and interestingly, in other news, I just came across this CNN video relating to letters from Jackie Kennedy (it’s interesting, I have found stuff relating to the books that we have read all semester in some way on the recent headlines on CNN. Coincedence, or is the damn NSA?
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/05/13/lead-dnt-foreman-jackie-kennedy-letters.cnn.html John Wilkes Booth
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
In class today, we were talking about conspiracies and I mentioned the Lincoln assassination, so I would like to expand over it now. Most sources and facts prove towards the following: John Wilkes Booth (the killer of Lincoln: fact) was never caught by the U.S. Government. (Now I would like to take this time to apologize: Mr. Mitchell said in class “This is a theory, right”, and I think I said “No, it’s factua…--”. Ok, so its not a fact, because for it to be a fact, there needs to be no speculation. But, the “fact” that John Wilkes Booth was executed by the U.S. Government, as it says, is also not a fact, because all the evidence that is present, points towards the fact that it is not a fact, in fact.)
Let me start out with the most obvious claim, that everybody who believes this “theory” (come on, it’s fact) uses. There have been many attempts by various groups of people, including the newschannel History.com , the Smithsonian Institute , even the Booth family to use modern technology to figure out the truth. The method: to exhume the body of John W. Booth or to use artifacts which Booth used to obtain DNA samples, by which they can solve the mystery in a second (they will solve the mystery because they can compare the person that the U.S. Government shot with John Wilkes Booth’s brother, and if they match, then the U.S. Government caught the right guy. If they don’t, well then you know.). The problem: they have to obtain permission from the U.S. Government to do this. Every single court case that has been put up has been denied. Even the National Museum of Health and Medicine in Maryland (where remains of Edwin Booth, his brother, and John Booth exist) denied the Booth family’s request. The question on everyone’s mind is ‘why is the U.S. Government not wanting anybody to look into this? Are they afraid that they killed the wrong guy? Or are they afraid, that the people will discover that the U.S. Government lied to them, that the U.S. Government knew that they killed the wrong guy?’ Do you know the irony between Edwin Booth and Lincoln? Edwin Booth actually saved Lincoln’s son Robert’s life, unknowingly albeit. But when he got to know, he was proud, as state many recounts. And ironically, his brother, a few months later, killed Lincoln. But that’s another story altogether.
So what was John Wilkes Booth’s identity afterwards, you must ask, and when did he die? His identity was John St. Helen, who committed suicide in 1903, 38 years after the assassination of Lincoln. I won’t go into much detail, but let me explain to you why I say so. A comparison in photos of the two people show striking resemblance. Moreover, in 1931, six physicians in Chicago examined the body of John St. Helen and described that Helen had a broken left leg, a scared eyebrow, and a crushed right thumb-- all these rare characteristics, Booth had too, and that is a real fact.
Here is a link, which rightfully gets at this point. It observes all the angles. Read it, and read on other articles. Remember, the U.S. Government has a long, very long, history of being corrupt and lying to its people. Think about it yourself. And then, leave a comment below and tell me what you think. Mr. Mitchell asked this question in class about the Kennedy assassination. Do you think that what the Government has provided us is the reality? Or is there more to it then that? Or are you in the IDK area?
Rufuss
Monday, April 14, 2014
One of the most striking moments in Kindred, for me, was the transformation of Rufus from a happy-to-go boy to an adult. It just happened. Dana went back to 1976, and came back, seeing Rufus an adult of 25 years (she was 27 at that point). Time literally “flew by” (hah see what I did there?). Rufus, as he has grown, has contrary to Dana’s hopes, turned into a “normal” person. He has not turned into someone who is kind to his slaves and liberates them-- all the things that Dana wanted Rufus to do, he exactly doesn’t do them. He misused his powers (or in the case of the South, used, hence “normal” person) to rape Alice, and then later attempt to do the same to Dana. At first, very clearly, Dana is a mother like figure to Rufus, and he asks advice from her over Alice, and much more. But with their ages being almost similar, and upon the suicide Alice, we see a transference of power and love: Rufus moves his love from Alice to Dana. He is desperate and being the type of person he is, he used to getting whatever he wants, whenever he wants (that’s why he’s Rufuss). On that note, we can also see a similarity with “power” between Kevin and Rufus. While it is true that Rufus and Kevin are vastly different in terms of their views of Dana and Alice, and the fact that they have completely opposing backgrounds, the basic similarity is that both Rufus and Kevin want the upper hand in their relationships: while for Rufus it is more extreme in that he is rapping Alice, Kevin’s is more subtle, when he is making Dana to type up his work. Both wish to obtain power in their relationship. My biggest problem with Rufus is that he understands, he knows that rape is a horrifying act and yet he keeps doing harm, and then regrets what he did after he did it. The last thing, therefore, that I can say about Rufus is that while he has a somewhat understanding of morality, he choses not to keep up with it (unlike his father), and he is a selfish and brutal person.
One of the most striking moments in Kindred, for me, was the transformation of Rufus from a happy-to-go boy to an adult. It just happened. Dana went back to 1976, and came back, seeing Rufus an adult of 25 years (she was 27 at that point). Time literally “flew by” (hah see what I did there?). Rufus, as he has grown, has contrary to Dana’s hopes, turned into a “normal” person. He has not turned into someone who is kind to his slaves and liberates them-- all the things that Dana wanted Rufus to do, he exactly doesn’t do them. He misused his powers (or in the case of the South, used, hence “normal” person) to rape Alice, and then later attempt to do the same to Dana. At first, very clearly, Dana is a mother like figure to Rufus, and he asks advice from her over Alice, and much more. But with their ages being almost similar, and upon the suicide Alice, we see a transference of power and love: Rufus moves his love from Alice to Dana. He is desperate and being the type of person he is, he used to getting whatever he wants, whenever he wants (that’s why he’s Rufuss). On that note, we can also see a similarity with “power” between Kevin and Rufus. While it is true that Rufus and Kevin are vastly different in terms of their views of Dana and Alice, and the fact that they have completely opposing backgrounds, the basic similarity is that both Rufus and Kevin want the upper hand in their relationships: while for Rufus it is more extreme in that he is rapping Alice, Kevin’s is more subtle, when he is making Dana to type up his work. Both wish to obtain power in their relationship. My biggest problem with Rufus is that he understands, he knows that rape is a horrifying act and yet he keeps doing harm, and then regrets what he did after he did it. The last thing, therefore, that I can say about Rufus is that while he has a somewhat understanding of morality, he choses not to keep up with it (unlike his father), and he is a selfish and brutal person.
Initial Thoughts on Kindred
Sunday, March 23, 2014
First of all, Kindred is a different read for me. Unlike the other novel we have read that had time travel (Slaughterhouse-five-), this book addresses much more serious topic--slavery. While at times it seems very clear that Dana, the character who is suppose to represent a person we can connect to (being from “present-day”), is like us, the problem comes to be the time period when this book was written. Kindred was published in 1979 (and set three years earlier, at the bicentennial year 1976), so when Dana goes to research about slavery, she goes to a library. While the readers of today might have thought, Wait, why isn’t she just looking it up on the internet; she can’t, because the internet doesn’t exist to the public in the late 1970s. So at times there is some confusion, because the way that book is written, we have to put ourselves in the perspective of an American in the late 70s.
First of all, Kindred is a different read for me. Unlike the other novel we have read that had time travel (Slaughterhouse-five-), this book addresses much more serious topic--slavery. While at times it seems very clear that Dana, the character who is suppose to represent a person we can connect to (being from “present-day”), is like us, the problem comes to be the time period when this book was written. Kindred was published in 1979 (and set three years earlier, at the bicentennial year 1976), so when Dana goes to research about slavery, she goes to a library. While the readers of today might have thought, Wait, why isn’t she just looking it up on the internet; she can’t, because the internet doesn’t exist to the public in the late 1970s. So at times there is some confusion, because the way that book is written, we have to put ourselves in the perspective of an American in the late 70s.
One of the things that I don’t actually like about this book is the lack of characters. The lack of minor characters is causing me to fail to actually relate to some of the moments in the book. A good example is when Dana sees Alice's father getting beaten for sneaking into her house. The detailed description provided is meant to bring out the realism, but I don’t know, I just don’t feel connected: “Then the man's resolve broke. He began to moan--low gut-wrenching sounds torn from him against his will. Finally he began to scream. I could literally smell his sweat, hear every ragged breath, every cry, every cut of the whip. I could see his body jerking, convulsing, straining against the rope as his screaming went on and on.” (36)
Obviously, this is an inhumane act, but the story just doesn’t particularly sound interesting to me, probably because we haven’t learnt much about Alice’s father as of now. Another reason for this, I think, is that the book is going way to slow for me. Wheater is the fictional aspects, or the aspects of utmost detail, I am bored with the “slowness” of the chapters. They seem to have a cycle: really interesting beginning, slow middle, and then cliffhangers at the end (so Butler keeps us hooked, but in a bad way).
In the end, we can only analyse the point of the novel. The point of Kindred, from what I can tell as of now, is to witness the social context where an adult man and woman have no rights, as well as imagine the various situations that this economic system allows for. But, with the speed at which this novel is going, as well as the fact that “present-day” is set in 1976, I am simply not able to connect.
Fate/Free will-Update
I got an idea to describe Billy's fate in class, so I thought I would share it. When a cocunut falls from its tree into the ocean (so the tree lets go of its fruit), then which river it will go in, which land the fruit will be planted on to pulp a new tree (and even if it is lucky enough to survive), is completely dependent on the fruit and its destiny. This is fate. Similar, to this is Bily's case. Fate carries Billy from one time spectrum to the other.
End Reflections of Slaughterhouse-five
Slaughterhouse-five is an interesting novel, but I liked it primarily because of its new and enriching concept-- never before had I seen an idea of this constant time traveler (time traveler sort of implies that Billy is in control of time, he actually isn’t) and this awe-struck me. Although it was this very thing that had me confused for a long time, I think that that it served well to the purpose of the book. While Vonnegut’s style is disjointed into small vignettes, restraining from a fully coherent and well developed narrative, which at the beginning made it seem to like Billy was crazy. However, as the book progressed, the message was clear that this was how the human brain works-- everybody dreams, daydreams, fantasizes, remembers, and analyses.
I would also like to spend some time talking about the writing style. When I read a book, I prefer to go for fiction because you tend to have a lot of dialogue and not a whole lot of jargon mess to sort through (come on, thats reserved for things like poetry, not books). People write really exquisite and long sentences which I just hate. That is why, when I first read Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, I liked it so much -- short and sweet, and gets the point across. The same thing can be seen in Slaughterhouse-five: while the concept is a bit hard to grasp, the writing is brief, yet moist with irony. For example on page 60 (this is Slaughterhouse-five), when Billy is not able to find the steering wheel, the narrator says, “He was in the backseat of his car, which was why he couldn't find the steering wheel.” The ironical frankness of that is what I enjoy. Vonnegut gets the point across in the quickest way possible, and I love him for that. While I was reading Mumbo Jumbo or Ragtime, it felt like the narrators were these tough, introvert type of people (if I were to sit in a room with them, I would feel lonely), whereas, Vonnegut’s narration is more simplistic, which is why I am able to connect.
Overall, I think that Slaughterhouse-five has been the most thought provoking book so far this semester, as well as engaging. While I was not able to connect to many of the problems that Billy faced, I was reminded of many proverbs while reading his experiences. For example, when Billy works together with the Germans to escape, that reminded me of the famous proverb “if you want to take refuge by the river, make friends with the crocodile.” So it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
