Final Post…I think

I am not really sure what I’m supposed to talk about for this last post. I guess, I will just talk about my paper…and the readings overall. My paper ended up taking much more time than I expected it to because I kept expanding upon my thesis, which probably wasn’t a good idea as I got too much into trying to support my own opinion with the text than trying to support a rather more obvious thesis statement. It did make me think more about The Crying of Lot 49 than I had before, though, and I ended up not thinking it was a complete waste of time on Pynchon’s part in writing it. I didn’t really like the book any better, but I developed my own understanding of why he might have created the book as he did–hopefully I wasn’t far off in my interpretation of this.

Throughout the class, I think I enjoyed reading Gulliver’s Travels the most simply because I have never been a fan of short stories, and I rather preferred the allegorical style in which he wrote the book. Also, I rather agreed with some of the principles about human nature, so it was a more enjoyable–and straightforward–read. Even though Philip Dick (I couldn’t remember if it was Philip Dick or Dick Philip on the exam!) seemed to have similarly cynical notions of the direction of human nature, I didn’t really enjoy the plots and characters themselves as much. I guess I’m just more drawn to fantastical satire than futuristic warnings. My least favorite part o the class was probably the bit that involved the S+7. That just irritates me that people think they can put utter nonsense out there and have people read it. Why should I read something that doesn’t even have a hint of meaning or wasn’t even made to be enjoyed–just to mock the fact that you’re reading it really? I might have missed the point, but even Lewis Carroll’s nonsense was written with the intention of it being somewhat enjoyable and being able to have multiple meaning, even if they weren’t meant by the author. I just don’t like to waste my time reading something that I could have done myself (such as the S+7 to the pledge of allegiance…that’s just an obvious and unnecessary statement, I think). Anyway, the class overall encouraged me to really use not just my own interpretations in evaluating literature, but to be sure that there is obvious evidence for it in the physical text–not just implications of the text.

—-Yikes! I saved this as a draft on Monday and forgot to “publish” it!!! I hope it’s not too late!!! I’m really sorry!

Johnny Mnemonic

“He was more than a dolphin, but from another dolphin’s point of view he might have seemed like something less.” pg. 15

This may be a fairly insignificant passage, but it seemed like it might have been a representation of some underlying theme within the story. I thought I understood the plot well enough despite the technical terms in the story, but I couldn’t really find any meaning. The only conclusion I could come to was from this bit and the ending comments from the narrator about being a “bucket”. It seems like the story is depicting the loss of humanity (for lack of better word) in people (even though it is a dolphin in the quote), which is worried about today with social networking things like Facebook and such; however, this story obviously heightened that concept by making it a physical loss of humanity in the story, which may  be to highlight the mental and emotional changes in people as well as predict an exaggerated version of modern plastic surgery. The story seemed to be condemning this humanity vs. technology issue as the main character decides he wants to be like normal people (even though no one seems very normal), and “Jones” is considered less than a dolphin in the minds of real dolphins because of his altered, technical mental state. Yet, there is still the question of whether this is heightening Jones’ mental state or lowering it–as to humans in the quote, it seems he is “more” than just a dolphin. This might also be a criticism of mankind’s insistence of the higher value of manmade concepts and objects while nature is considered of a lesser value. The author didn’t seem to make any definitive judgment on this nature vs. man issue, but it was pointed out nonetheless as an issue that will keep growing with technology. I am not really sure if any of this is what I was supposed to get out of the story, but I couldn’t really find any deeper meaning.

The Minority Report

“‘It will end the check and balance system. Precrime will no longer be an independent agency. The Senate will control the Police, and after that–’ his lips tightened. ‘They’ll absorb the army too.’” pg. 234

This quote of a “check and balance system” seems to suggest that there is at least some hint, or attempt to create the facade of, a democratic-like government. Because it didn’t seem like a completely totalitarian government, I was uncertain how to feel about the morality or justice of this seemingly utilitarian society. If there is no religion, as you suggested in class, then it seems like this society must have some other underlying philosophy that the majority of the people subscribe to, and it seems to be utilitarianism. Therefore, I have a feeling that perhaps the people in this society aren’t truly being forced to subscribe to the rules of Precrime, but perhaps they choose to in a democratic sort of way. The majority might decide that they would rather have the protection of the majority at the expense of the liberties of a small minority of their society. Precrime might not be forced on them at all; it seems likely that people would prefer to not have crime and just assume that they will not be in the minority that suffers for the peace of the majority of society. Of course, when one turns out to be in this minority, opinions (as shown with Anderton) obviously change, but that is just human nature to survive. If it is the case that the society is choosing the Precrime system out of their own free will, then I would have no real qualms with the society or the treatment and detainment of a minority of the people–not that I’m really that concerned with the immorality of it otherwise; I felt rather apathetic about how the precogs were treated and about the struggle between the Army and Precrime. Anyway, I didn’t really get enough of a glimpse into the normal society of this world to be sure that it really was a totalitarian government as everyone seemed to assume in class.

The Garden of Forking Paths

“Philosophic controversy usurps a good part of the novel. I know that of all problems, none disturbed him so greatly nor worked upon him so much as the abysmal problem of time. Now then, the latter is the only problem that does not figure in the pages of the Garden. He does note even use the word that signifies time.” pg. 7

The fact that a word cannot be used to describe itself, as this makes it meaningless, infinite, and unanswered, was one of the first lessons touched upon by my philosophy teacher this semester. When I read this passage, I realized that the book he was writing was supposed to be some sort of definition of time. After this became apparent, I tried to figure out exactly how this is supposed to relate to the surface plot of the story. It seemed like maybe there was a word that wasn’t being used in this story that was supposed to be the theme of the story, or maybe there was some reflection of time in this. Unfortunately, I didn’t actually take the time to try to figure it out, so I am just rambling about my shallow thoughts on the story. However, in following with my initial thought that there must be some unspoken word in this story that is supposed to be some sort of theme, I thought perhaps it was death or suicide; this mainly came from the fact that before I came to this bit in the story that is presumably supposed to have the most meaning, I noticed there were a lot of indirect images of death–or the narrator’s imminent death, at least. Also, I at first thought he was Japanese (as I was thinking WWII despite the fact that it stipulated this was WWI at the beginning), which made me think this was a sort of kamikaze-like mission. Anyway, this thread of thought doesn’t really seem to be going anywhere meaningful. I just thought perhaps this was supposed to be a reflection of the mindset of suicide, which wasn’t mentioned directly (I don’t think) despite the fact that he was obviously going to somehow end his life.

“‘In the present one, which a favorable fate has granted me, you have arrived at my house; in another, while crossing the garden, you found me dead; in still another, I utter these same words, but I am a mistake, a ghost.’

‘In every one,’ I pronounced, not without a tremble to my voice, ‘I am grateful to you and revere you for your re-creation of the garden of Ts’ui Pen.’

‘Not in all,’ he murmured with a smile. ‘Time forks perpetually toward innumerable futures. In one of them, I am your enemy.’” pg. 7

This seemed significant just because there seem to be a lot of literary devices, or whatever I should call them, being employed here. The heavy foreshadowing in this section made it quite obvious what was to come. Yet, there was also a lot of irony–especially in the “in one of them I am your enemy” bit; this was ironic for the obvious reason that this statement assumes (based on the fact that he earlier said the present time was “favorable”) that the man who is about to kill him is not his enemy. There is also irony in the fact that just before this, the narrator’s statement made it seem he was not at all this man’s enemy. Yet, there is still another layer in the irony as there is juxtaposition in all this, which is later discovered. While this could have just been ironic in the above ways, the fact that the narrator only killed this man for the superficial reason of transmitting a message–not because he had anything against him–creates a bit of juxtaposition. This comes from the fact that two opposite branches of time/situations have joined in that the narrator is Albert’s enemy because he is killing him, yet he is not his personal enemy as he seems to actually mean what he said about being grateful and revering him; he is personally a “friend” (to be extreme) of this man, yet he is an enemy in his impersonal role of murderer. I wasn’t very coherent in explaining and pointing out all of this, but my point (I think) is that there is a sort of ironic juxtaposition in that the definition of time is many branching/forking paths, yet this situation seemed to have contrarily merged two of them. Something like that…

The Crucible 2

“Hale: Excellency, I have signed seventy-two death warrants; I am a minister of the Lord, and I dare not take a life without there be a proof so immaculate no slightest qualm of conscience may doubt it.

Danforth: Mr. Hale, you surely do not doubt my justice.

Hale: I have this morning signed away the soul of Rebecca Nurse, Your HOnor. I’ll not conceal it, my hand shakes yet as with a wound! I pray you, sir, this argument let lawyers present to you.” (pg. 92)

Hale seems to me to be one of the few dynamic characters in the play. While many doubt the validity of the witch hunt from the beginning and many believed it from the beginning, none of them really seem to change their mind throughout based on sense–except Hale. He has a significant change in the play, which I think warrants him more respect than someone like Proctor, who is just bitter, hot-tempered, and opposed to Parris without significant change. Hale, however, manages to completely change his beliefs. He begins as the highest authority on with hunts and is excited at the prospect of tracking down the devil and cleansing towns. At first, it seems like Hale is just another Parris, who is doing the job for the prestige; however, as the play progresses, it becomes obvious that he actually must have believed what he was doing was right and has become convinced that his whole profession is an immoral sham. This is pretty impressive to me because most of the religious people I know are more like the judges, who are unwilling to change their minds no matter how much evidence and logic are against them. Yet, Hale actually takes into account everything that happens and is continuously evolving his entire belief system throughout each new scene. He has shown guilty before, but it is in this scene that he first actively defies the goings-on of the court and firmly sets himself against the inquisition that he is supposed to be leading. By the end of the scene, he literally denounces everything he stood for in the first two acts. He is completely giving up his belief system based on sense and truth, which is quite a show of character. This makes him a much more impressive and sympathetic character than Proctor, who is supposed to be the one with whom the reader sympathizes and sees as the tragic hero; however, Hale nearly strips himself of all authority in this scene as well as gives up his own personal beliefs, which were central in his life before, simply because he can only believe what is right and logical. I really respect him much more than Proctor because seems the only active, positive force in the play as he actually tries to help the situation rather than just defiantly give up. He has gone through a huge transformation throughout the play, and he seems to be one of the most genuinly good characters as he is always trying to do what is right, even if he is a bit confused at the beginning.

“Giles, beginning to weep: Your Excellency, I only said she were readin’ books, sir, and they come and take her out of my house for–

Danforth, mystified: Books! What books?

Giles, through helpless sobs: It is my third wife, sir; I never had no wife that be so taken with books, and I thought to find the cause of it, d’y'see, but it were no witch I blamed her for. (He is openly weeping) I have broken charity with the woman, I have broke charity with her. (He covers his face, ashamed. Danforth is respectfully silent.)” (pg. 79-80)

Giles Corey is my other favorite character in the book. Unlike Proctor, he does not take the society’s problems so seriously; he chooses to mock them instead. I rather thought that was what he was doing a bit when he mentioned his wife’s books. He seemed to have been suggesting that if someone could be accused of witchery based on something as silly as children pretending, then his wife could be considered a witch for reading books simply because it “disturbed” his praying, which is well known by everyone else to have nothing to do with his wife’s reading but simply the fact that he isn’t the most devout man. I feel like Giles encompasses morality while dismissing organized religion as useless, silly, hypocritical, and even destructive at times. I really like that he retains this very pure, outsider quality throughout it all as he is joking lightly in very serious situations–hinting that it is ridiculous that these people are taking the situation and themselves so seriously based on nothing other than their own made up rules. His innocence is shown again and again with his humor and simple enjoyment and natural orneriness, which is just like any nice old man. He also shows that simple morality and a good heart can be stronger than organized religion, as he is put through the most torture of anyone else in the story (while all the “devout” people give in) in order to benefit the family he will leave behind, and he even retains his humor to the end. He is a very sympathetic and endearing character, and I think we first see that he actually does have good sense and a good heart in this passage because he is more sincere here than anyone else seems to be throughout the play. He deeply cares for his wife and regrets having caused the situation she is in; Proctor simply shows a bit of guilt, but he had a seemingly easy way to save his wife all along by just telling the truth, which he waited for a long time to do. Giles Corey does not seem to care so much about Proctor about his reputation as he is proud of having been in court so many times–even if that is not the most impressive thing–and he is willing to make a fool of himself in court and lie (which it seems he is doing with the “evidence” of the supposed testimony of someone saying Putnam admitted to accusing someone for land) and even be put in jail himself in order to save his wife. I like the character of Giles because he seems the most honest, moral person in the play and has the most sense despite his whimsical enjoyment of playing the fool.

The Crucible 1

The Crucible does seem to be concerned a lot with image/reputation rather than justice. Reverend Parris is the immediate example of this in The Crucible. He is the 1692 (I think that is the date) Purtinical reflection of modern (or at least Miller’s time) politicians, who are worried only about how they look to the public and how they can benefit themselves from their positions–no matter how many others they hurt. While the play is mainly focused on the communist witch hunt and mirroring McCarthy, I think Reverend Parris automatically puts us in the mindset of greedy, self-absorbed politicians and an uneasy public, which is the environment needed for a witch hunt.

Parris obviously doesn’t care much at all for his daughter or niece as he is simply trying to keep all the visitors from saying anything about there being the presence of the “Devil” in HIS house. He then simply leaves her in the care of anyone left in the house in order to go outside and tidy up his public image by leading a psalm. That obviously shows how much he values his career over his daughter–Also, he gets into a fight about his salary while his daughter is lying apparently lifeless on the bed.

Public image is not simply important to Parris. Everyone seems to have a certain public image, which is later used in the trials. Hale comes along and is well-known for his witch hunting skills and therefore leads most of the people (excluding Proctor, Nurse, and possible Corey) to believe they are in good hands and will soon have a better town because of him being there. He obviously relies quite a bit on his self-image in order to get people in different towns to trust him and automatically makes himself look like a professional by carrying a load of books and claiming he doesn’t find things that aren’t there. Yet, it seems he isn’t doing much at all except arousing fear in everyone and making them all point fingers at each other. Hale also is important because he shows how the reputations of those in Salem look to the outside world. He has obviously heard of Rebecca Nurse for her good Christian charities or whatever it is, and she is well-respected because of this. Yet, he is almost more impressed by Mr. Putnam, who is obviously not the most moral person in the world and seems to be the source of many issues in the community, simply because his family owns a lot of land. Therefore, it is obvious to see already that wealth and prestige matter more than goodness and deeds.

While Putnam and his wife do have reasons to be angry about their lives (having lost seven children), there is no reason for them to blame people like Rebecca Nurse simply because she had the good fortune of not having any children or grandchildren die. They have simply become far too resentful and focused on this one bad thing in their lives, so they try to make everyone else suffer for it–and they do quite a good job at that. Proctor even seems to have a public image that makes people fear him. While Hale may not have heard of him, even the sheriff (or whatever Cheever and Herrick are considered) is frightened to do his job. They also seem to respect Proctor, but I do not really like him at this point in the play as he seems an ill-tempered, rather arrogant man. Abigail is obviously deceitful, petty, and lustful; however, she has the fact that she is an orphan with a greedy, immoral uncle helping her along with her character. Giles Corey seems a decent fellow, who doesn’t really bear a grudge, but can see through the images with which the people front themselves; he seems to just mock them rather than chastise them or confront them as Proctor does. I quite like him. To be short about it, I also think the stage directions and author’s comments are quite helpful as it makes it more of a book as well as keeping the reader in the direction that the author wants them to be heading, which is helpful as he seems to be attempting to make a certain point with this play.

Crying of Lot 49 4

I wasn’t sure if we were supposed to do a blog post as we don’t have class this week…

Anyway, I was really mad about this last chapter. Everything had just accumulated, and I was getting just as tired of it all as Oedipa. All I wanted was some sort of resolution–even if it was a stupid one that didn’t live up to the expectations the rest of the book set (which I had begun to suspect would be the case as I reached the end). But the author managed to surprise me. He didn’t even give a crappy resolution to the story. It just seemed like a huge waste of time to have evaluated all of this and not get any sort of closure on it, and I don’t think it is enough to have a personal interpretation of what happened because I didn’t really care enough about this particular book to want to create my own interpretation. I just wanted the author to stop pestering me and tell me what this was all about.

The ending doubly angered me because the last few words were “the crying of lot 49″, which I thought was a weak substitute for a real ending and shallow attempt to tie it all up; however, I suppose, if were are supposed to be considering consumerism as the main point, it is good that the ending was shallow and unsatisfying as this would mirror the intent of the book. Still, I like to have a proper ending–especially when I have had to actually interpret the meaning within the book. It seemed like the author was just being lazy to me in not coming through with his little game, but I guess that also was in keeping with the lack of communication that we earlier discussed in the book. I guess the reader should have thought that maybe the author was providing hints that this book was going to have a hollow, unresolved, drop-off ending… I know it was the underlying meaning throughout the book that was supposed to be important, not the ending, ( or at least I think), but I still feel cheated. I may be conventional, but I think a book should have a proper ending. Sorry for my unenlightening blog post.

Crying of Lot 49 3

Maxwell’s Demon part (pg. 84-86)

In this section, there is obviously the problem of communication again. Along with Oedipa’s issue with seeing communication with the Trystero and this bit with Oedipa trying to get meaning out of the Maxwell’s Demon. This seems to be mirroring–among other things–the readers, as Oedipa is desperately trying to see something move, and she has to convince herself that it was just a flicker of her eye not an actual communication. This seems to be the same process the reader is going through in trying to find connections within the book and then questioning whether these are actual connections, or if we are just stretching a bit to get some meaning. I certainly feel this way, and I keep wanting to just finish the book entirely, so I can know what I”m supposed to be looking for and come back and read again with a better ability to examine it. Anyway, Oedipa is obviously confused–and getting more confused as the chapter progresses, it seems–and she is trying to figure out if she is actually seeing all these connections and meaningful communications or if they are just coincidental. She even seems to be mirroring the reader’s skepticism in thinking that this is just Oedipa’s crazy world when she questions Nefastis, “But what if the Demon exists only because the two equations look alike? Because of the metaphor?” It seems like the author is trying to blur the lines even more by portraying Nefastis is the insane one here while Oedipa is more sane, making us wonder whether Oedipa is actually in the right state of mind and these odd events really are just happening, or if this is just another metaphor for Oedipa’s state of mind and the reader being in a crazy world of pretend.

Crying of Lot 49 2

Pg. 33-39 The Scope scene

I thought this was interesting because it seemed–based on what I’ve read–a very distinctively sixties atmosphere. Everyone in the bar seemed to think they were somehow different, and they felt like there was something different going on in the bar that no one else knew about, but they were in on. The whole thing with the postal system and them having their own little private system was funny to me because it seemed like they wanted to rebel against “the man”, but they just weren’t quite sure how….So this group of people just decided that it was the postal system that was causing all the problems and decided to take matters into their own hands. Again, it seems a very 60′s thing to do. Also, the Stockhausen thing was hilarious because it was just another way for them to experience something that they didn’t really understand or necessarily like, but they thought it was different and weird, so they accepted it as being something that they should try to understand or at least listen to in their little shady 1960′s bar of anarchy. This book almost seems like a reflection of that same notion; the author might not (or he might be–he probably does) know exactly what he is trying to get across or what the meaning in everything is supposed to be, but he is writing a book about whatever it is anyway because it seems like it should have some sort of meaning. I guess I am thinking this book is just a sort of reflection of the time so far, and his little humorous bits of nonsense and his actual meaning are supposed to join together to create the atmosphere that he felt was going on at that time, maybe? I don’t know. It just seemed like the 60′s were a time when people really wanted to find meaning, and they might have sometimes taken it a bit too far to find meaning in meaningless things, or they might have just followed whatever happened to be doing something. None of this is really making much sense anymore, so I had better stop.

“‘Hey, blokes,’ yelled Dean or perhaps Serge, ‘let’s pinch a boat.’” and the rest of the bits about the Paranoids…. (pg. 41-…)

While I am not really sure what is going on with the characters about whom I’m actually supposed to be caring and paying attention to, I am finding The Paranoids amusing. They are not even trying to find a cause to rebel against or a higher meaning. They are just wandering around “pinching boats”, smoking marijuana, and speaking in a British accent for the hell of it. They don’t seem necessarily committed to their band, and they are following this weird older couple around…. It is just really funny to me, and I think they might also have something to do with the lack of meaning thing that I seem to be beating to death. Anyway, I have nothing meaningful to say about The Paranoids, except that it’s nice that they have nothing meaninful to say….And it’s not even certain if one is named Dean or Serge… Haha.

Crying of Lot 49 1

I don’t have a particular passage to talk about, and I am not sure how I feel about this book yet. I like the fact that the author seems to be mocking self-important writers, who try to give everything meaning–as well as the reader, who tries to find meaning in everything. I was afraid when we began reading this that he was going to be taking himself a bit too seriously, but I’m glad that the names (Dr. Hilarious) and puns are there simply for the joke of it. I am in a ridiculous creative writing class at the moment, which was a mistake in itself, and I am really getting fed up with forcing meaning into meaningless bits of nonsense. So, it is rather nice that we can just expect the nonsense in this book to be taken as what it is rather than expecting meaning from it. (I was actually a bit worried that you were going to claim there was meaning in the N+7 process, as that is precisely what my creative writing teacher attempted to convince me a few weeks ago.) I’m sure there is meaning that I am not getting so far, but so far my only reaction is relief that we aren’t going to be overanalyzing every pun the author makes in order to find some universal theme.