Heart of Darkness: Part 2

Okay, I read it. But there's a problem: I hardly remember what I read (and i've already mentioned that I don't understand the novel anyway). Now, that's the usual for me but when asked a question SOME kind of info from my subconcious comes up; not with this book, though. So, what archetypal elements are prominent in the novel? Well, what I do remember are the two rivers, the Thames and the Congo (since they were in the beginning), and they can symbolize life and death, respectively. And the color black wherever the narrator (Marlow) goes? There is something black, something dark, mysterious and evil. And what about the Hero's Journey? As much as I know, only the bare bones of it exist in the novel and Kurtz is the (fallen) hero, I guess; you know A, B, and C.

Yeah.

Heart of Darkness: Part 1

"Here and there a military camp lost in a wilderness, like a needle in a bundle of hay--cold, fog, tempests, diesease, exile, and death--death skulking in the air"(68).

The colonizers (the ship crew) in this novel knew what they were getting into, knew their role in their conquest. The place they are going is depicted as a horrible place that promises little else other than trouble; but the trouble is still worth their goal, colonization. Colonization of a barren and savage "wilderness" that, as the sentence implies early on, is not the only "wilderness" to colonize on their to-do list. As described, this particular "wilderness", and probably any other land in need of their colonizing, is seen as a dark and menacing place full of savages, something that can and needs to be controled, by them of course. But this land has terrible things that may lead them to their death, which may already be "skulking in the air". So why stick around and colonize, then? Well, these men are sailors, bound together by "the bond of the sea"(65), and the sea is their home. They have little to live for and probably needed a booster upper in their lives. "Taming" the savages gives them this booster upper, and maybe even great resources.

Wide Sargasso Sea: Part 2

Well, the novel still sticks to its first person perspective, but now we have another player in this mad game: Rochester. In my previous blog I said that having Bertha (lets stick with that name) may become unstable therefore unreliable as our narrator, but now that problem has been solved by having Rochester's take on everything (even if it is a little biased); and when we do see Bertha's point of view on a subject that coincides with Rochester's, we know its there for a reason. But why would Rhys do this? Well, its not to confuse us, even though it seems like it ; Rhys changes the point of view with little to no indication of who's talking. It is to show us the two most important people's view on this barely mentioned backstory, giving the reader a chance to fully understand and sympathize with Bertha and Rochester. To me, the story is still Berthas, since it was mainly created to explain her side of the story, just now we have a perspective coming from Rochester that helps the reader to sympathize with Bertha even more.

Wide Sargasso Sea: Part 1

Not that it was unexpected, but "Antionette" is living a horrible life, on the down-low; I say that because she's mixed, so you'd think she'd have the best(or SOMETHING) of both worlds, but no, they both hate her and her family. The novel is in first person, so we see everything through Antionette's eyes which, as you progress through the novel (I predict), may become unstable and maybe even unreliable (since she IS a crazy lady in the making). The structure of the novel, to me, is similar to The Road: though the sentences don't feel truly fragmented like The Road, certain sentences come with a tag along "thought", but the thought is a sentence itself. Antionette, as early as the first page, shows how broken-ish she is by what is happening around her and the little life lessons she has been told. So far, nothing really major coincides with Jane Eyre yet.

Also, just to point this out, fire may be a major symbol, or even motif in this novel: it is something purifying, maybe?

Crime and Punishment: The End

First and foremost, THANK YOU JESUS! You always said there's an end to every beginning...(or was that someone else?) Still, I couldn't have made it through this book without you.
Now, that thats done with, have you noticed that unconspicuous quote about love, from Raskolnikov? Well if you haven't, here it is:"Oh, if only I were alone and nobody loved me, and if I had never loved anyone! All this would never have happened!"(440). Raskolnikov is basically blaming all his troubles on love (for humanity too, maybe?). Yet, at the end, love gives him a reason for living (wonderful ending, by the way, him and Sonya forever). Could his new found love be another form of redemption? I think so, because of the reasons stated above. And did you catch the quote that minutely summarizes the body of the novel...?Okay, its this : "In the prison Rodion Raskolnikov, second-class convict, had been confined for nine months. It was almost eighteen since the day of the murder"(451). This quote is saying that a sentence for a crime begins right after you commit it (if you are guilty like Raskolnikov). This quote shows that Raskolnikov should've been in jail right after committing his crime since he was still "confined" either way.

Crime and Punishment: Close to the End

Well, there isn't much to say about poverty except the same old stuff: it sucks. And we also hear the same old thing about the city itself: its infested with drunks and poverty-ridden. But there is one thing thats interesting and related to my topic of symbols: we finally see the cross come into play. Sonya gives Raskolnikov a cross similar to hers to give him strengh for the upcoming days (assuming he confesses, of course), which really gets Raskolnikov thinking hard about confessing to the crime. And, to go a little more in depth, I think the cross symbolizes Raskolnikov's redemption and his turning over to God, and the cross may play an even bigger role in the upcoming chapters.

Crime and Punishment, Part Five: Chapters 1-3

I haven't been this satisfied for reading Crime and Punishment since...ever, actually. I LOVE the fact that Raskolnikov is interested in Sonya (finally, some romance, kind of) though I feel that it doesn't have the purest motives, but I'm taking whatever I can get. And Raskolnikov should REALLY look into the idea (NEED!) for killing Luzhin; his murder can be legally justified, trust me...

But here is something I picked up from tonight's reading: Raskolnikov has consumption (in the form of guilt). Consumption, in the novel, is first used in chapter 2 of part 5, refering to Katerina Ivanovna, her pride, and how it consumed her when she spent a lot of money on Marmeladov's repass. And why did Luzhin do what he did to Sonya? Maybe he has the consumption too---but of revenge, and it was probably directed at her because she is like Dunya, in his mind (poor and pitiful). And: Do you think people would have believed Sonya was innocent if Lebezyatnikov had not intervened? The answer goes back to today's discussion, so with that...no, people would've belived her guilty for a multitude of reasons. She is poor, needs to take care of her family, and is a prostitute. People would've thought her a money grubber and stealing the money wouldn't be beneath her.

So, those are my thoughts on the reading. They are completed. :)

Back to Crime and Punishment: Part 3-4

In Crime and Punishment, existentialist arguments and the belief of eternal recurrence are shown throughout the novel. Raskolnikov proves to be an existentialist (so far) through these quotes: "if men are not really scoundrels, men in general, the whole human race, I mean, -- then all the rest is just prejudice, imaginary fears, and there are no real barriers, and that is as it should be!"(22-23) and "he must put his trust in himself, not in prayer" (79). Then the examples of eternal recurrence, to me, is the scene where Svidrigaylov is talking to Raskolnikov and tells him about how he saw Marfa Petrovna after her death three times and also his old servant, Philka. This shows that situations and memories can repeat themselves (or that Svidrigaylov is psycho). Both existentialism and eternal recurrence are (somewhat) founded by Friedrich Nietzsche and influenced Dostoevsky, as shown through Crime and Punishment.

Yay---Wait, I Can't Even Fake My Joy. Whatever, Man.....

Basically, the psychopath test is an indicator to whether you are at risk of being a psychopath or not. So, if you are...? Go get some much needed help. If you aren't? Run along, back to your t.v., and finish watching your murder mysteries instead of being in them. A few questions before I publicly announce my score: In the recording, the people talked a lot about the PCL-R and how its used, but just how useful is it when a known psychopath shows signs, visually, of being reformed, yet the PCL-R says something different about their mentality? Does it fail to be useful then? And how can you condition someone to be empathetic when they have a bare understanding, or no understanding at all, of the term? As said in the recording, how can you teach a blind person what the color red is when they can't see it? And definitions only truly help those who have experienced the subject. To me, for the first question, the PCL-R is not all that useful when it comes to re-examining "former" psychopaths, since the PCL-R factors in information already known(such as the question of the person's juvenile delinqeuncy), making it unreliable for the "reformed". And, for the second question, its not possible for a psychopath to be conditioned to be empathetic, unless they have some understanding of it before hand.Oh, and before I forget, I'm not a psychopath. Be happy.

And a quote for the road: "Ye that I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I pack a .357 magnum." (What every gangster should quote before making his rounds, if anything.)

Crime and Punishment, Part 2: Chapters 4-7

The only example of redemption in the novel so far is the scene in part 2 chapter 7 where Marmeladov is dying and a priest tells Katerina Ivanovna to forgive her husband , but she replies that she already has. More specifically, she says she has already forgiven him by claiming that she would wash his clothing (as well as the children's) during the night, helping him out knowing he wouldn't help her out. I think this scene alone shows that people can can be redeemed, in this case Marmeladov, because he is a horrible husband and father yet he has the redeeming qualities of being aware of his destructive tendencies  and being very empathetic towards his family. This scene also shows that in order to atone yourself of something terrible you must forgive. I feel this way because, in my religion, every person is redeemable, no matter what the crime is. And for some people, you just have to look SUPER hard.

Crime and Punishment, Part 2: Chapters 1-3

Dostoevsky is able to beautifully depict the life of the extremely poor because he was around it at an early age. I also think he will be able to accurately portray a madman (he's already started, hasn't he?) because he has lived near a lunatic asylum so has seen firsthand the behavior typical of madmen. Also, as said in another blog,  the inclusion of military and ex-military personnel in the novel most likely stems from Dostoevsky's own experience from attending a military engineering institute. From all this, and more, we can infer a few things about  Raskolnikov, the main character of Crime and Punishment. First, that Raskolnikov may be an existentialist (I think we are seeing hints of this already)since Dostoevsky is one himself. And second, that Raskolnikov may suffer from horrible mental torture since Dostoevsky had gone through some of it when he was exiled and imprisoned. Now to...

Is a crime still a crime if no one finds out?

Depends. Crime is defined as "an unlawful act", right? If so, lets take away all laws (momentarily in our minds, of course). Imagine that we are neanderthals, lawless, with very primitive thoughts. Lets say I killed one of my fellow neanderthal's woman. Maybe she was mean to me; maybe she was mean to everyone and I just did us all a HUGE favor (Why I ever did it, its justified in my mind, so no one elses opinion matters to me). Anyway I did what I wanted to do and got what I wanted to get. But guess what? Caveman is mad. Caveman want justice (yet he doesn't know what the word means...). He doesn't know I did it, no one does. Even if he did, whats he gonna do? Call the cops on me? No. There is no law, thus no law protector. Now lets get back from our time traveling trip. In today's world (and Raskolnikov's), there are laws, there are law protectors. And I'm screwed if I do something "unlawful", Raskolnikov too, if someone sees. So... even if the before mentioned scenario does not apply to many situations, it applies to something, to someplace that has little or no laws, and that's why the answer depends.

Crime and Punishment: The Beginning

     The mood of the novel is of hopelessness and depression. The Raskolnikov, the main character, shows us the hopelessness and depression of the extremely poor through this quote: "Besides, the young man's heart was so full of bitter scorn that, in spite of his often very youthful sensitiveness,wearing his rags in the street caused him no embarrassment"(2).; he is so poor that even the state of his attire does not truly affect him (until later on). The point of view used in the novel is third person limited (so far) and the author does an effective job so far of showing us Raskolnikov's St. Petersburg. Characterization so far is mostly indirect, leading the reader to the discovery of a certain trait of a character, rather than saying it bluntly. The characters are well set up so far in the novel.

The Road: The Will to Survive is Carried on From Man to Man

Fire, a symbol and motif for life and the will to survive. In The Road, the fire is referred to many times by the Man and the Boy. At the end of the book we finally get an (implied) explanation of what they both mean by fire, what it represents: survival. The father tells the Boy that he has the fire and must continue to carry it, to live, basically. Fire, which sometimes flickers and then becomes steady once again, perfectly portrays the will to survive through the Man and the Boy.

The Road: Part 2

The Boy had complete faith in his father until their meeting with the first cannibal they came across; the first cannibal the Boy has ever seen. With each new experience that shows the reality of the world they live in, the boy becomes cautious, wary of everything, and doubts what his father, the Man, does. When the Boy seems to hit an all-time low in his faith for his father (when they're going through periods of silence), the Boy and the Man get into an insightful conversation that ends with this:
"You dont believe me."
"I believe you."
"Okay."
"I always believe you."
"I dont think so."
"Yes I do. I have to."

This quote shows that the Boy really does have faith (and trust) in his father and claims it to even be mandatory. Also, this excerpt can be used to argue that reality has set into the Boy (that having been why he's been non- communicative towards his father) and that he's realized that the father is all he has in this world.

The Road: Part 2

"No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later."

This quote explains how the Man and Boy's lives work: from day to day. When the fallout happened, you can say that time gradually ceased to matter; of course time still exists, but there is no reason for it besides the telling of night and day, but you don't really need time for that either, do you? The Man and the Boy have nothing planned, except for their destination, South. Each day brings something new: warmth, shelter, food, etc. They live in the moment, and this is all for their survival.

"You wanted to know what the bad guys looked like. Now you know. It may happen again. My job is to take care of you. I was appointed to do that by God. I will kill anyone who touches you. Do you understand?"
"Yes."
"He sat there cowled in the blanket. After a while he looked up. Are we still the good guys? he said."
"Yes. We're still the good guys. And we always will be."

The background for this quote is the conversation the Man and the Boy have after the Man saves the Boy from the cannibal by shooting him in the head when he holds the Boy hostage with a knife. This quote shows that the Boy is the only reason the Man lives, to protect him, and also poses the question of what it means to be a "good guy". Obviously, the Boy thought that being a "good guy" not only meant restraining yourself from committing cannibalism but being non-violent. This scene was probably the first time the Boy saw the Man do anything violent and it frightened him and switched around his understanding of "good guys".

And to answer the question of Yeat's and Eliot's vision of the end of the world compared to McCarthy's novel The Road, well, Yeat's most likely believed that humans are innately evil while Eliot believed that indecision between righteousness and sin was harsh and more evil than either of the two. But McCarthy's vision, I think, is in between Yeat's and Eliot's. In McCarthy's novel, the good are not completely good (for instance, when the Man shot the cannibal, even though he had good intentions) and the bad are not completely bad (think of the cannibals' will to survive).

The Road: First Reading

The novel is obviously a work of post-apocalyptic literature: it has very descriptive images of a world that's had a fallout and it also includes references to God (however negative). A novel that also fits in with this genre is The Reapers are the Angels by Alden Bell; it depicts a world ravaged by zombies and a young woman who seeks redemption in this wasteland. Post-apocalyptic literature is similar to dystopian fiction by how they both depict a cruel and evil world and different in that a post-apocalyptic literature society is nearly non-existent, if its existent at all, and in dystopian fiction society is very prominent. A novel that combines dystopian and post-apocalyptic sub-genres is The Reapers are the Angels by Alden Bell. I think both sub-genres address comments, values, philosophies, and political topics specific to their sub-genre in their own right; of course, if a topic dwells outside of the sub-genre it might not do so well addressing those outlying topics. The style in which The Road is written is mostly syntax, so far. The sentences seem to be ended early, as if they were thoughts that come and go to another topic quickly and i think its written this way to show the reader how fragmented the character is, since the sentences, thoughts, are fragmented. I personally like this style of writing, for this genre of course, because it shows how disillusioned the character is about the world through the fragmentation of the sentences.

Brave New World: So, the book is equating organized religion to soma?

Soma is used by the government in Brave New World to oppress the people by keeping them in an ignorant bliss. Yet in the novel, Mustapha Mond equates soma to Christianity: "Christianity without tears, that's what soma is."; In this quote Mustappha Mond says that taking soma is much easier than being in a religion. When in a religion a person has to go through hardships to get what soma gives easily, happiness. But soma is a false happiness, and even oppressive to those who take it. Using Linda as an example, soma, more quickly, kills its user the more the user takes it; the happiness is short and cheap. And soma oppresses the population by keeping them in a childlike state of mind, making people seek an easy way out.    

Brave New World: Chapters 11-15

Lets talk about soma (in context of the article Can Science Be Ethical?):

Soma is the drug of choice in Brave New World (probably the only drug) and is itself a technological/biological advancement: its able to rid a person of all emotionally negative things in their life, for a short time. In the article, it is said that scientific advancements are only useful if it further polarizes social classes or directly threatens humanity; also that a scientific advancement works for evil if it is a toy for the rich and works for good if it helps the poor. In soma's case, it does not further polarize social classes but does, however indirectly, threaten humanity; it is a way from keeping people from truly thinking and experiencing feelings crucial to grow as a person and being individuals. And it does not necessarily work for good or evil since the drug is equally rationed out to all social classes, yet the drug does oppress the masses subtly. So, how should soma be classified? Is it even ethical?

Well, if we look at its classification from an ethical perspective then soma is evil; it is not a toy for the rich at first, but if we think about how people like the Mustapha Mond, a world controller, and how they use soma to oppress the masses, then soma sort of does become a toy for the extremely rich and influential like Mustapha Mond, who controls people with this seemingly innocent drug.

Brave New World: Chapters 6-10

There is one prominent pattern in the story that I've noticed so far: the use of those quick rhymes, taught hypnopaedically, as an excuse for feeling emotions and a what to do to get rid of them for only a moment, take soma.
You can tell that Bernard will, at a point in the story, rise up against his government in some form and will definitely have help coming from John, once he is disillusioned about the "other world", and probably Hemholtz, who yearns for something more and truly does care for Bernard even though he doesn't truly understand how Bernard feels. A possible obstacle in this (probable) coup d'etat will be Lenina, who seems to be slowly moved by Bernard's yearning of individualism, but constantly fights against it when her mind starts to soak it in and may possibly turn Bernard into higher authorities.

Brave New World: Impressions on First 5 Chapters

Chapter 1: The world is definitely technologically advanced and the business talked about in the story is into "super breeding" humans and predetermining their lot in life. I can already see how seemingly controlled the society is. But what if there are defects that don't follow what they are made to be?

Chapter 2: What you wear is who you are, in this story. Also, there is a candid look into the social conditioning the facility does.

Chapter 3: The author introduces the main characters of the story; the structure soon after becomes broken up between the different views.

Chapter 4: A more in depth look into Bernard Marx's insecurities.

Chapter 5: An even more descriptive look into this technologically fantastical world.