This book has changed me sooo much

     Heart of Darkness is such a good book that it defers from the typical archetypal hero's journey.Wether I'm being sarcastic or not is to be decided by the reader.In the typical hero's journey there is a "call to adventure" and then the "refusal of that call".Marlow doesn't ever refuse the call and I wouldn't say that the call is one of adventure. However, there is the "crossing of the threshold" and the "belly of the whale".Before Marlow leaves or Africa,he gets a sense that he's going to the center of the Earth,and then when he is in Africa he's completely separated from his home,England.Next comes the "road of trials" which Marlow does experience.He doesn't enjoy the trip to Africa and to his horror,sees a bunch of Africans tied up and dying.Also he finds out the the steamer that he was supposed to use has sunk.In terms of women,the "meeting with a goddess" and "women as a temptress" doesn't happen to Marlow(Isn't that so sad,Jim?).But Marlow does start thinking that maybe the Africans aren't so savage after all and he does get caught in a fight between African cannibals and the Europeans,so I guess that falls under the "Temptress".The "atonement with the father" could be considered because Marlow keeps hearing about the all important Kurtz and then takes a trip to see him.Kurtz does impact him him a lot.Although Marlow gets sick after Kurtz dies,the "apotheosis" and "ultimate boon" doesn't happen because Marlow never feels at peace.The "refusal of return" doesn't happen because he doesn't want to stay in Africa and is ill most of the way back home.The "crossing of the return threshold" happens as Marlow returns to England and tries to make sense of everything.The biggest reason that I don't see Heart of Darkness as a typical hero's journey is that I don't consider Marlow to be a Hero.He didn't show bravery or growth(well the kind of growth we want to see).

Once again, a book that has been praised(pretty much just by white people) yet I don't like it.Oh well,what's new?

Ahhh...racism and misogyny.My two favorite things.

     So we start off in Heart of Darkness with a wonderful(ha!) evening boat ride that has five people,including the narrator,on board.The narrator is listening to Marlow telling how as a young lad,he traveled up the Congo River on a Belgian steamship. Like the story with the elephant(Dumbo!), Marlow dislikes imperialism because of what it does to the colonizer,not what it does to the colonized.To me this is kind of silly;it's like writing on how bad a cop feels about giving out a ticket rather than the receiver of the ticket.
     Anyway, a line that I really liked on page 10 where Marlow is describing his aunt,"It's queer how out of touch with truth women are.They live in a world of their own,and there had never been anything like it,and can never be". This line was interesting to me for two reasons.One,obviously, is that I'm a female and I did not appreciate this line.It's not my fault I'm out of touch,I can't work technology and I'm always too busy in the kitchen!It's great how although Marlow is against colonialism,he is still misogynistic.One step at a time I guess.Two was the fact that that line could be used on white imperialistic people in general.They are out of touch,whether it be not realizing the cruelty of their actions or failing to realize the good things that come out of different races and cultures.They live in a world of their own;they believe they are right,smart,civilized,great,basically are eurocentric.Although Marlow,or Conrad through Marlow, is trying to come off as a good person with a good lesson,he ends up looking like a pretentious loser.One who thinks they are better and kinder when in reality is just the same as every other misogynistic racist.

Important question:Who do you think would win in a fight between  a grilled cheese sandwich and a taco?

Love is in the air,but hate is in your heart

     We are now in the second section of the book and we are seeing things from Rochester's POV. This is good because we are now seeing Rochester,not Jane's Rochester and not Bertha's Rochester. Though really, we are seeing Rhys's Rochester. Sorry,I still can't get over how she's practically plagiarizing. I guess this book is about both of them.We see how both of them become who they are because of the other person.Anyway, they are now on their honeymoon and are doing many honeymoon things.By that I mean they are discussing literature and great works of art.At one point,they are having dinner and moths and beetles keep flying into the candles and burn to death.Oh how nice,a barbecue!I'm guessing this represents the evolution of their relationship;the nice candlelight represents their nice,fake marriage,but soon they will get burned.I'm not a big fan of this section because I know it will lead to worse things.I already don't like Rochester but this part is making me dislike him even more.I get it,your in a sticky situation but sheesh, could you act a little better?At least Bertha is trying.By the way,why does he start calling her that?I mean,who does that?"Hey,I'm just gonna call you another name from now on;I don't care if you mind."Jerk.

A Sea of Wide Grass

Dear readers,
I am so sorry I have been gone away for so long.I know, I know, what could be worse than a blogger who stops blogging?Nothing!I am here to discuss Wide Sargasso Sea by Lady who couldn't make up her own characters and had to take them from othe- I mean  Jean Ryths.From reading, we get a sense of who Bertha is. She is poor, like Jane, but is also not very educated,just by the way the narrative sounds. Considering how many times she mentions "the black people", one can tell that she lives in a world where race is an issue.Like Jane, she is also ostracized for being poor, but also for being white which is something you don't hear everyday. Unlike Jane,she has a mother, but a mother that no one would like to have.The narrative is not at all like Jane Eyre. It doesn't feel like a memoir,but more like a girl writing in her diary.Bertha seems like a confused kid dealing with things that no one should deal with.In a way,her life was harder than Jane's life. The whole thing just depressed me,probably because I know Bertha's future. But even her present sucks! Father-less,friend-less and most importantly, Nutella-less!

I found this interesting.On page 17 she states that they have a garden in their home that was just like the garden in the Bible but soon it grew wild.Funny enough,it sounds just like how someone would describe Bertha. Oh snap guys look, I'm being deep!

The End Is Here!But in a good way....

     So a whole bunch of stuff happens in the later chapters.R-cubed talks with Svid to try to stop him from talking about the crime.The conversation pretty much goes nowhere except we see how truly evil Svid is(really,engaged to a teenage girl?).Then he kills himself but not before giving money to Sonya and asking a soldier to tell everyone he went to America.Through his final acts you come to realize that Svid is really messed up.He's not just horrible like Luzhin and he's not just nice like Sonya.He fluctuates and makes weird choices.After all the pain you've caused, why give money to Sonya?Why do you want everyone to think you went to America?He's not just a bad person,he really is just mental.

      Through all of this Sonya and Dunya have become really good friends(not much in common except..well..knowing a murderer and stuff).R-cubed goes to them to get some strength to admit his act.Through his way to confessing he backs out twice and kisses the ground-eww.In the epilogue we find out that he is now in prison is Siberia.Sonya stays with him(seriously this girl has no life) and they finally realize that R-cubed loves her.They vow to get married but I have a feeling that that will never happen.R-cubed will fo sho die in prison with his attitude.Oh and Dunya and Raz get married.Aww! I'm sure they're going to have a great time telling their children about their uncle.....

     Now to the fun part:The praise and critique. I definitely like the IDEA of the story;it's not too often that we read about the point of view of a murderer.I like how the author made us(at times)like and sympathize with R-cubed which is a hard thing to do.Another thing that I like is how realistic the people and setting is.R-cubed never admitting that his actions were wrong is seen all the time in real life.Sonya and Raz are kind even though they're living in terrible conditions, like many in real life who go through difficult times and come out strong.Lizaveta represents those who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.And Dunya and Raz's marriage shows that after all is said and done,life moves on and there can be a (slightly) happy ending.

     Now what do i not like about the novel?Nothing, it was great!Just kidding....The number one thing I didn't like was the unnecessary details and dialogue.If Dostoevsky was trying to get the story published now,the editor would say to cut out 25% of the book.Now there are some who say that you should grit through it,that the story is worth it.If a book is really good,I shouldn't have to deal with it.I should want to read it and want to pay attention to the details.If there is a movie with a really good plot but with horrible actors would we like it?No,so the same applies to the book.Yes,the plot is interesting, but all the unnecessary stuff deterred from it and made it a chore to read(I think everyone will agree with me on this one).Another thing that is interesting  that is not really the book's fault but the praise surrounding it.When something has a lot of praise and we don't like it then it becomes a bad thing.Why am I not getting it?Am I not as smart as others or as deep?I should keep going and maybe I will start to like it. These are thoughts that run through our heads.Many people,in my opinion,say they like something just because its been "proved" to be good-i.e awards and  forced high school reading.Now, what if we got this book with no background on it?Or if we got it with the knowledge that a lot of people hated it?What would we think then?Would we try so hard to like and understand it?No,because then we would rely on our own opinions.But because this book,or anything really,is claimed to be great then we try to make ourselves either like it or "get it".Mr B., you said that this book was the first to examine criminals in this way.Now being the first to do something is great.What's even greater?Not being the first,but being the best.I'm sure there are better books that examine the mind of a criminal but because they're not the first,they won't be considered "time-less" and "classic".Let's find those books!Let's stop relying on classic and move to the innovating,the new take and most importantly the actually good.

Wait.So I'm not that great of a person?

     After the whole dinner fiasco, R-cubed goes over to Sonya.What a wonderful conversation they had! "Oh hey,you're getting kicked out of your home and the person you've been getting closer to is a murderer!".Throughout the novel R-cubed has thought of himself as an ubermensch.The conversation was very important because for the first time,he is admitting that he isn't one.Of course, he still thinks he's better than everyone else,but hey,one problem at a time.I wonder what Sonya must feel.We can all,to a certain extent,excuse the actions of others if it was a last resort or if they didn't know any better.For example: most of us in class put the person stealing bread because he was hungry as the most excusable from the list.But now if that person stole just to steal,to see if he could get away from it,then we wouldn't be so understanding.R-cubed just admitted that he didn't murder because of poverty, but he because he was trying to be "great".In my opinion, she wasn't harsh enough;she actually squeezed his hands and then gave him a hug!Who does that to a murderer?
     Moving on.....Katerina dies.Shocker.What was interesting was the way she died.There was no seeing the light or any such change;she died still in belief of her so-called nobility.She even said that God could find no fault in her!To me,the family should have had their own book.Their story is much sadder(though slightly cliche) than R-cubed's story.

PS I loved Porfiry's closing remarks to R-cubed. "Oh hey,in case you decide to kill yourself,can you tell us where the missing items are?Thanks."

We're still not done with this novel?!Oh how...nice

     The more I read this book, the more I get depressed.When you first start reading the book,you think that the evil person is R-cubed and that the novel would center on his crime.These past couple of chapters showcases someone even more evil:Paris Hilton.Just kidding...not really.Luzhin really is the biggest jerk I've ever met..er..read.First off,he thinks that Dunya rejected him based on material reasons which is just ridiculous.I mean, what women rejects a guy because of money?Oh...wait. Then he tries to sabotage Sonya and ruin her reputation.Sorry honey, but I think prostitution did it first.What's sad is that yes, R-cubed killed two people and that's horrible, but this guy has and will spend his whole life hurting people.Not that that I'm condoning R-cubed's actions, but how many people does one have to seriously hurt for it to equal a murder?If there is a higher being, who will he sentence to a harsher punishment?I'm glad Luzhin's plan didn't work.It  felt very sitcom-y;a bad person tries to do something,almost gets away with it,then a Russian comes in and defeats him.Good riddance!
     Now to the other horrible person of the moment:Katerina.She spends so much of R-cubed's gift on the memorial service.I mean,what woman spends so much money on a single event?Oh...wait.We tend think of pride as a good thing but in Katerina's case,it caused her to make foolish decisions.I have a feeling she's going to die.Remember what happened the last time we read about someone coughing a lot?
     Anyway,I liked these chapters because they were interesting and at times funny.It was nice to get away from R-cubed and focus on the other people in the novel.Dostoevsky shows us that no matter how bad someone is in a certain context, there is always someone worse in another way.Katerina and Luzhin give us a better sense of the world that R-cubed lives in,one that is filled with pride,poverty,and unnecessary cruelty.HA!JUST KIDDING!No, I liked these chapters because it means we are one step closer to finishing the novel.Praise da lord!

And the bushiest mustache award goes to...

     Friedrich Nietzsche and I have a lot in common.First, we're both German.Second, he went to the University of Basel and I love basil on my pasta.And third, he suffered from a mental breakdown and I... well...umm.Nietzsche was a philosopher,poet,and composer(aka the 19th century equivalent of going to a liberal arts college and then never finding a job).His name is always brought up when people talk about  nihilism and ubermensch, just like how Obama's name is brought up when people talk about disappointment(oh snap!). Now Nietzsche was nihilistic,as in believed that nothing has inherent importance and that life lacks purpose.And this guy was single his whole life?Shocker.Now as to the question of morality, he didn't think it was bad. He thought it was good for the masses and for them only.Exceptional people,however,should follow their own "inner law".Isn't that cute?I'll use that excuse next time I'm in court for murder.This relates to Crime and Punishment because R-cubed tried to convince himself that he was one of those exceptional people(gurl please!) and tried to say that the pawn lady didn't matter.From reading all of this I conclude that I'm not into nihilism or ubermensch.Not only do I believe that life has a purpose(spread the word of the goodness that is Nutella and bunnies) but I think these trains of thought could be potentially dangerous.They're just philosophies sure,but pair it with stuff like extreme nationalism and you've got a psycho killer on your hands.Just look at R-cubed or the Nazis.

PS. I realized that I've heard in a lot of Nietzsche's quotes before.One of my favorites is "I cannot believe in a god that wants to be praised all the time".I agree!It's why I don't believe in Oprah.

See Mom, the test proves that I'm not insane.Sooo....can I have my gun back?

       So I took the test and had to put not at all for almost all the questions.There are certain qualities that I have that are too small to put a yes to to.For instance,I bully people but not to the extent that it could be called belligerent. I have moments where I'm lazy and irresponsible but not nearly enough to be called essentially irresponsible. I've been told that I'm arrogant but I don't know if it's because I have "an air of self importance". Anyway, my test results indicate that I don't have strong psychopathic tendencies which is great because without the test, I would have never known. However, it says that I may resort to violence and that I may be mad(So haters, you best stop trying me!).
       The show was really good even though it was an hour long(Stop with the long homework assignments Mr. B.You know I have my six kids and ferret to feed!). The show poses some interesting questions. One, are people who have committed many crimes just doomed to fail the test?Since the test is mainly about past actions so it would seem so. Second, how accurate is one test in determining if a person is insane when compared to people who actually know him and spent time with him say otherwise?It's definitively easier to lie on a test than to people.I don't like how their whole life is put into one test for evaluation.Aren't there kids who complain that the SAT is too big a part in the college application process?Now imagine having one test dictate your freedom! Also, that one part where the inmates were shown pictures and were tested on their response was a bit.... I don't know.If someone has raped people and thinks it's the norm,of course he wouldn't bat an eyelash when shown a picture of a rape.The same with someone who has killed someone. I don't know if their unresponsiveness necessarily means that they have no emotion or empathy(how many kill for their lover or for the "common good"?). Maybe they do have these traits, just not to something they're so accustomed to.For example,when we're shown a picture of U.S soldiers in a another country, do we get worried or scared?No,because that is the norm and were so accustomed to seeing those kinds of images.It doesn't mean that we're heartless.....Anyways, I enjoyed the show and found it to be really interesting.The test,on the other hand,I found to be too short and not detailed enough.It seems as though you can only get the "you're not a psychopath" or "you show psychopathic tendencies" answers. I would have preferred a more detailed examination. What? A student wanting a longer test?Stop(collaborate and listen) the madness!

Officer, it's not MY fault, it's my BRAIN's fault

     Of the many things that the article,story,and song had in common, the one that stood out to me was the lack of free will.The article pretty much stated that criminals are criminals because of abnormalities in the brain(more on that later), not because they necessarily chose to commit crimes. The song was created from news that a girl shot up a school playground and her defense was that she doesn't like Mondays.The act was so senseless that the lyric "The silicon chip inside her head gets switched to overload" was used to show she must have had some sort of problem in her head; no one would do that if they were "normal". And lastly, the story is about a world where precrime catches criminals before they commit the crime-locking people up out out of their own free will. So you can see where I'm going with this free will thing.I'm going south.
     The article was the one I was most interested in.The song while interesting,was just that-a song. It can be put under the creative file. The story also can be put under that file. The article is fact,something that has been created from scientific study and thus, most impacts us. While it was...fascinating I do not personally agree with its contents.First off, the article is very wishy-washy.It states one thing(criminals have abnormalities in their brains that allow them to commit crimes) then states another(it doesn't mean all people with abnormalities will commit crimes) and then finally (criminal behavior is certainly not a fixed behavior). So then what are you saying?It's like me saying, "Bunnies are the best!Of course, not all bunnies are the best.In fact, it's not certain that bunnies are the best". Not that I would ever say that because there is no question:Bunnies are the best.Yes, there is a correlation between people with anomalies in the head and crime.But there is also a correlation with crime and people who are poor,people who are bored,and people who get conditioned to do bad things.There are the same number of people with inherent "problems" as there are normal people who have lived in either a bad environment or have hung out with bad people.The study aims to say that criminals are different from regular people(nature) while what I stated above is all nurture.So I don't really see their case.
     Second, the article states that people who have a lack of fear and emotion are the ones who are likely to commit crimes.Now this is certainly not true. Criminals fear the most out of all of us;it's why they are so careful to hide their crimes and why some of them end up paranoid and are constantly looking behind their back (both which are seen with R-cubed in the novel). And,in actuality, emotion is one of the leading causes of crimes."I'm going to hurt you because you cheated on me!" "I'm going to shoot all of you because you made fun of me!" "You stole my Nutella so you must die!". We see this in R-cubed. He acts purely on emotion;his acts have no real logical reason behind them.If he was acting with reason,he would have more carefully committed the act and he would have stolen more goods.
     And lastly I don't agree with the article because their findings can lead to a slippery slope. Imagine all the excuses murders will now have to plead their innocence. None of our brains are quite the same;it doesn't mean we can use that as an excuse for our actions. Also the article brings up whether we should test those who have those problems which is cray cray.It relates to the story in that it can never happen.There will always be someone who sues and says that were targeted because of their social standing or their race.So recent study, you're cute and all but I'm going to have to put you with the "do married couples start to look alike?" and "are curvier women smarter?" studies. Aka the crap pile.

I iz not in the mood to blog.....

    Because I wish to live up to my moniker, Fatti the Cynical Complainer, I have to do just that:complain. First off, while the story is intriguing I find myself zoning out a lot due to the really long sentences and the paragraphs that seem to be about nothing.The characters talk to no end which is really annoying.I'm surprised no one has told any of the characters to shut up.I have realized,while reading, that I do not like a single character in the novel. They are all either terribly boring(Nastasya) or just annoying(Luzhin). And don't get me started on Marmeladov, a character I was not upset in the least when he died(Hope they have alcohol in Hell!)
   Now as to the question of people redeeming themselves....that is a tough dilemma to deal with. People can definitely redeem themselves depending on the nature of their crime.If someone lied to you and realized how much it bothered you and decided to not do it again then that would be ok. If someone killed someone and then realized how bad it was....then it wouldn't be as ok. I definitely believe people can feel bad for their sins.Guilt is one of the worst emotions that one can have(trust me,the guilt from losing the kid I was babysitting two years ago still consumes me.Literally.It already ate my arm).So if you feel guilt and truly realize the injustice of what you did, then you can start to atone.
      The only reason people like seeing sinners feel guilty is that the sinners can finally feel a bit of the pain that the people have been through.At least that's why I want people who have wronged me and people I know to feel guilty.I can forgive but I still want those who have wronged me to be punished.And when the government type of punishment doesnt come to them,then guilt is the next best choice. Speaking of....R-cubed first goes though paranoia and then starts to feel guilt which is good.But how good is it?He promises to take care of Marmeladov's family just to atone for his sins.So unlike Ruzumikhin,who actually is good just to be good, R-cubed isn't really being all that nice.It's like kids who do community service just for college,not to actually help people.I don't know man.This blog is definitely not one of my better ones;it's all over the place..You can give me your disappointed look tomorrow Mr. B.I got 99 problems and being lazy tonight is one of them.

But Mom!I only killed him because I was trying to be a good person!

        Fyodor Dostoyevsky(F.D) had a harsh life which clearly resonates with Crime and Punishment.First off, F.D. went to school in the urban St. Petersburg which was  filled with poor people(sound familiar?). Second,after his wife died, F.D. decided to take care of her son from her first marriage as seen by R-cubed in the novel.The third and most important was that F.D was caught and exiled for being part of The Petrashevsky Circle which was a literary group of progressive-minded people(Thanks Wikipedia!). He was sent to Serbia and was forced to do hard labor for a couple of years. After he got out I presume that he must have had many thoughts about how good it would feel to hurt the people who wronged him. After all, who wouldn't? They were just thoughts,but maybe he started to think about people whose thoughts led to actions, aka: R-cubed.(I similarly have thoughts like that.I love pasta so much that I wonder:Are there people who love it and eat it so much that they turn into noodles?So as you can see, the great F.D and I are on the same wavelength).
        Now as to the case of whether a crime is a crime if no one finds out....The definition of a crime is a "grave act against morality" or an "unjust,senseless,or disgraceful act". Neither of those definitions, or any definition you can find, talk about people finding out in order to make it so. Saying something isn't a thing or saying that it doesn't exist just because humans aren't involved is giving too much power to humans. An act committed is still that act,no matter what justifications we try to make.This all goes back to the "if a tree fell and no one heard it, did it make a sound?" argument. Just because humans didn't hear it doesn't mean that the animals didn't. Just because we didn't hear it doesn't mean that that tree is suddenly insignificant,unable to create a sound or fall under the rules of science.This all kind of relates to R-cubed,who after listening to the student in the bar trash the old woman,excuses his actions by thinking that it's o.k because he isn't the only one who doesn't like her.Humans need to come off their pedestal and realize that things exist even if they aren't perceived by us.So gurl, quit tryin to justify it,what you did was hella-rude!

When there's a crime, there's a punishment(unless you're OJ)

Because there is no description on the back of the book for what Crime and Punishment is about, I had to make my own inferences(Don't you just hate when that happens?Like, I don't know what this story is about but I know the New York Times loved it.So helpful). The beginning of this this book is reminding me of The Tell Tale Heart.I guess that was the point.Good job Mr B!Both stories seem to follow a man who is about to commit murder(Pawnshop lady you best be watching yo back). They both have a weird murderer as the main character so you know you're about to read a nice and sweet story.(Although the story does chang point of view from R-cubed to Marmeladov to the mom).In this case, the man character is R-cubed(because I'm not going to type his whole name out), a man who is poor and disheveled looking.He needs some new friends stat because all he does is talk to himself.It's cute at...well... never but after a couple of pages it's like shouldn't you be looking for a job?Anyways....The mood is depressing because everyone is either poor or poor and a prostitute(but with a heart of gold I'm sure). It is also so far very ominous; the reader knows that a crime is about to happen(and I'm guessing here but maybe a....punishment?Gasp!). This is because we can see R-cubed's thoughts which tell you that he's been having thoughts that he's trying to turn into actions.He seems to be pushed to his limits and thus, not clearly right in the head(but right in the face wink wink).Overall I'm excited to see what happens next.No seriously....I'm watching the movie right now.

The Road part:Who cares?It's all depressing

     First can I just say oh my God this book is depressing.I guess that was the author's point huh?When I'm reading I don't know whether to put the book down or keep going.Should I,being the depressed reader,stop reading and in doing so stop feeling feeling bad or should I keep going in the hope that something good will happen?Considering the story's track record I doubt anything good will happen.
        Now there were only two parts in this section that I found semi-entertaining.The first was when the two characters found the old man and decided to give him food(really it was the boy who decided to,so kid give yourself a pat on the back).It was a very nice gesture considering that they go through periods of starvation and they don't know when they're going to find more food.It was an even nicer gesture considering that the old man was probably going to die anyway.Although he was lying when he said that he was ninety years old,he must be somewhere up there for his lie to be convincing.So he was old,weak,and starving-I'm pretty sure he's going to be be somebody's food pretty soon.So their gesture was nice but,in my opinion, was kind of stupid and useless.
        The other part was when they found the guy who stole all of their stuff on the beach.It was intriguing to see how they could go from being so nice one minute to being so cold the next.I mean, I get it the guy stole your stuff,but to remove all of his clothes in payback was kind of harsh.Though who knows what I would have done to him if I found him?Well considering how weak and slow I am, I probably would have never caught up to him.
        This story is making me look deep down and realize some stuff about myself.It's making think about humanity and morality and blah blah blah.So I guess this book is good for something.

The Road part 2:B

        Being a teenage girl who loves bunnies and Nutella is it so surprising that I didn't fully get The Hollow Men?The poem had a lot of allusions(thanks Ms. Obvious).It felt more spiritual and personal than The Road.The poem talked a lot about Hell and Judgement.The Road is more life like and being a book had room to describe more relatable living conditions.In The Hollow Men, the guys in question are men who are not good enough to go to Heaven and not evil enough to go to Hell(I think). So they live in this barren,dreary place-kind of like the characters in The Road.In both the novel and the poem the doomsday scenario isn't explained thoroughly but they seem to be different.The Road's Ending of the World seems to be this big cataclysmic event while the one in the novel seems to be a much smaller thing(Not with a bang but with a whimper).That's as good as I can do folks.

The Road part 2:A

        Greetings readers!My assignment today is to pick some quotes from the book and talk about them.This is proving to be a difficult task because there are so many nice quotes to choose from.There's the one where the kid asks if they're going to die and the dad says no.Or the one where they find a house and go inside.No,not that house the other one.Or when the kid asks the dad again if they're going to die and he says no.How about when they're on the road and they're....walking!
        In all seriousness my favorite part of this section was a conversation between the father and the son.
"Do you think I'd lie to you?"
"No"
"But you think I'd lie to you about dying?"
"Yes"
"Okay, I might.But we're not dying."
This little tidbit reminded me of catch-22.It's a very sad conversation between a father who's trying to protect his kid and the child who sees through all of that.In fact most of their conversations seem to go like this.It makes me think back to class when we all said that we'd live for companionship.Would we live for this companionship?In which two people only talk about death and how cold and tired they are?It's interesting because the kid needs the dad for physical needs(food) while the dad needs the kid for emotional needs(a beacon of hope).One could not survive without the other.But does that constitute a good relationship?I don't think so.In my opinion their relationship isn't much of a relationship,it's more of a survival technique.
        The other part that I really like was when the boy "saw" another boy.I'm not sure if there was a boy there or if it was a figment of his imagination,a desperate need for friendship.It seems like its more like the latter which is really sad.I can't imagine how it must feel to be a young child with no friends with a father who has lived a life that you will never live.If I was the father I would have killed us both a long time ago.Now there are some who would say who are you to play God?To take a boy's life?To that I would answer:I'm not taking away anyone's life;I'm taking away their suffering. The child in question has spent most of his "life" feeling cold, scared,tired, and hungry and is probably going to spend the rest of his life that way.What kind of life is that?The father in the novel is religious so maybe he thinks suicide is bad.But considering he just killed a man(granted it was in self defense but still, he just killed a man) I would think suicide wouldn't be such a bad option at this point.That way at least his son could go to Heaven!All the father is doing is dragging his son along a desolate road,both literally and metaphorically. Ahhhhh..... the musings of a girl making judgements on decisions she will never have to make.Don't you just love when people do that?

The Road Part 1:They walk,talk,walk,eat,walk again.Im so enthralled!

       There is one word to describe the beginning(and what seems to be the middle and end) of The Road:Bleak.The first part of the novel is just a long description of two characters(Papa and...boy?For some reason I don't feel like they're related) and their journey from someplace to the south...of someplace.There is no doubt that this is an apocalyptic novel because although it is set in the future the characters are acting as if its the middle ages.Building fires and walking EVERYWHERE and always looking behind your back for something sinister.Can you imagine?Also the "Papa" commented on the fact that he hasn't used a calender in years.Think about all the birthday parties he must have missed!
        It seems as though the biggest thing the apocalyptic genre has in common with the dystopian genre is that they're both set in the future. The apocalyptic theme runs on survival and how mankind deals with it.It's different from the dystopian genre because there is no stability-in fact the lack of it is the plot!The enemy, while can be other humans,seems to be nature:Lack of food,unbearable weather,that evil squirrel that keeps popping up. The dystopian genre is a bit different. There is stability(with consequences) and the enemy is the government,if the people can even recognize that. The people in the dystopian genre seem to have less truth than the ones in the apocalyptic genre.
        Now as for the writing,I'm not a big fan.We get glimpses of thoughts and barely any emotion which I guess is the author's way of showing the harshness of that world;the characters are so used to the pain that they don't even have to think or talk about it.And the grammar...McCarthy has stated that he doesn't use quotation marks because he doesn't want to "blot the page up with weird little marks". Now, I'm all for artistic expression. You want to use run on sentences?Go ahead! You want to act as if punctuation doesn't exist?Do your thing, just don't expect everyone to be pleased with it.As a student that has been taught grammar since I was a wee child, it is hard for me to enjoy a book that seems to go against everything I've been taught.It becomes hard to follow when an author deliberately uses bad grammar to make a point. Sometimes when I read, I doze off for a split second and when I come back I want to know whether I'm in the beginning of a sentence or the end or if I'm reading dialogue or scene description.So gurl I get watchu tryin to do, I just don't like it.

Brave New World:The End.DUN DUN DUN

        The ending of the Brave New World has to be my favorite part of the novel(not because I can finally stop reading it.Why would you think that...). I especially enjoyed chapters 16 and 17 because we get to finally hear the World State's side of things.I agree with some of the things that Mond says,especially his statement that humans were conditioned to believe in God. For those who are religious, we've been taught to think that everything happens for a reason. And that reason is God.But for those who haven't been taught that, God is just another thing that people believe in, either as a beacon of hope or a scapegoat.After all who thinks about God when good things are happening to them?We tend to think of God when we are at our worst, either guilty for something we've done or blaming Him when something has gone wrong. The people in the World State have happy, uneventful lives so they don't think about a higher power because,like Mond pointed out, there is no need to.
         The last chapter was especially distressing.I genuinely felt bad for John for haven't we all been in a situation in which we didn't know what to feel and how to act?I felt worse in the days leading up to his death than his actual death.Why?John has grown up being an outsider and has moved to the World State to be,once again, another outsider. He will forever be that, no matter where he chooses to live, and that is a hard fact to swallow.Even his closest friend,Helmholtz,laughed when he was talking about Romeo and Juliet. This shows that even though he had similarities with him,Helmholtz will always be a product of the World State and thus, way different from John. Alone and upset, John succumbed and took Soma and participated  in the Orgy Porgy which was the last straw.If he did choose to continue living, he would have had the most miserable experience because now not only was he an outsider, he was an outsider who abandoned his morals. Unfortunate as it was, suicide was the best option for him, lest he live a life not worth living.
        Brave New World was certainly an interesting book. I enjoyed it  a lot and think I think Huxley is a very good author.He made a world that,in the beginning,seems to be so different from ours and little by little shows us that it really isn't.How scary is that?

Brave New World Part 3(Wow such a original title)

        Dyson's Can Science Be Ethical essay has some very interesting points, many that correlate with Brave New World. One point talks about the advancement of technology and how many useful things can come out of that. The technology presented in the novel is clearly astounding, from the helicopter rides that seem no big deal to the way that the humans are made.Another point is humans' desire not necessarily for perfection but anything close to that. Brave new World showcases what seem to be the best looking humans ever, as seen by  their clear distaste of Linda and her unattractive features. Every one in the novel is fit with good teeth and no sign of wrinkles(Jim, this is your kind of world!).
        One of the most important parts of the essay is when Dyson talks about how technology can be bad. "As a general rule,to which there are many exceptions,science works for evil when its effect is to provide toys for the rich, and works for good when its effect is to provide necessities for the poor." This quote has some truths but in the case of Brave New World it is not necessarily  about advancements just for the rich but more so advancements for the few and powerful(though they can also be rich). In the novel a small few control the masses. How did they get that way? Technology is power whether it's in the form of intimidation or envy and the original creators of the World State clearly had at least one of them, if not both. The novel talks about how before the World State humans engaged in many wars and suffered from hunger and mania. After those ordeals who wouldn't say no to a stabilized state with happy pills?Sign me up! And once they've got them hooked on the pills the whole "poor will sooner or later rebel against the tyranny of technology" won't happen.
        Dyson's declaration that new technology is just as dangerous as liberating  can clearly be seen in Brave New World. Society's need for self improvement, stability, and desire to be lazy and get away with it will always be prevalent and can always be dangerous, as seen throughout  the novel. The question is: Will we be able to recognize it before it ruins us?Gurl dat is too hard of a question, you gots to give me a minute.
       

Brave New World part 2

As I kept reading Brave New World, I found out that there were certain characters,such as Bernard and Hemholtz, that were not completely satisfied with their dystopian life(no really?). When Bernard and Lenina go to New Mexico, they meet John, who is also unhappy with his life. Through this we see people who live in two different worlds and are still not satisfied. I feel as though this was Huxley's message to those who would prefer life in the World State and those who prefer life in our world. No matter what the reader's opinions are about which world is better, Huxley shows how each world has its faults.                                                                                       

  Since the Dystopia genre is all about futuristic "utopian" societies that might not be just that, Brave New World can clearly be put under that genre. The more I read the more I found faults with that world. One is the obvious lack of privacy. When Lenina commented that the only time one can be alone without raising suspicions is bed time, I felt very uneasy. If everyone is programed to love the World State and be content with their lives, then why is there such an intrusion on your private life? This shows the shady practices of the World State. Another scene I felt uneasy with was when the director publicly tried to humiliate Bernard.In a place where stabilty reigns, why would one feel the need to do such a thing? If that world is so perfect then the idea of making a point to help society shouldn't exist because everyone should do as they're told. This is just another scene that depicts the controllers have to be very strict because they dont want to lose order. Maybe someone in the past has tried to break free and/or start a revolution?                                                                                                                                                 So far the novel is reminding me of my favorite dystopian film, V for Vendetta. In both the novel and the movie, the setting is a future London in which people have very strict laws that they must adhere to. The government in V for Vendetta is totalitarian and so are the leaders of the World State. While both the film and the book are entertaining, I feel as though they strive to send the warning: Be careful for this is what the world might be like in the future(if it’s not already happening). The authors( for V for Vendetta was a graphic novel originally) are trying to make an allegory for oppression by the government and the use of brainwashing, both issues that are prevalent today.

Brave New World part 1

        As the thousands of people who are reading this blog must know, Brave New World is a novel by Aldous Huxley that is set approximately 500 years in the future. It is set in a "utopia" in which the World State controls people and forces them to live in a frigid caste system under the pretense that this creates stability and keeps people content. As much as characters like the Director try to make this world seem perfect, the reader quickly sees how this wonderful world is much more of a dystopia.
        The first couple of chapters are set in the London hatchery and conditioning center where a group of kids are on some sort of weird field trip.Their tour consists of seeing how the factory creates humans( a whole bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo in which I practically zoned out on) and how they are given pre-destined futures. The latter part is much more interesting in a sadistic kind of way. We see how some fetuses are given less oxygen than others so they can have less intelligence( how rude!) and how some infants are given shock therapy so they won't like books(how demented!).
        I really enjoyed these couple of chapters for many reasons. One, although the story is set way into the future its still slightly realistic. No one is flying and no one is talking to animals. There is a lot of scientific talk which also helps keep it more to the scientific part than the fiction part. Two, I love how evil the world is. The kids are flabbergasted when they hear of families and humans giving birth which was quite funny. The whole shocking kids to make them hate certain things is also a really cool(albeit horrible and crazy) idea. The whole world raises very conflicting emotions in me. One one hand I hate how they practically torture people into being happy with their lives and what they have. One the other hand, how many people today hate their jobs and lives? How many wouldn't mind going through some kind of shock therapy when they're young (in which it's very short and you won't even be able to remember the pain when you're older) in order to be happy and content with their lives? In that world humans aren't given much choice but they're happy in their ignorance, in ours we are given choice but also the pain that comes with it(war, hate, depression). Which one is better? Gurl I don't even know.