To One of the Most Confusing Books I've Read (Heart of Darkness)

There were quite a few archetypes in the novel, "Heart of Darkness." One was obviously water. I mean, HELLO! They're on and are surrounded by water throughout the whole novel for crying out loud. Anyways, water stood for many things one of which was spiritual mystery. This is backed up with the lines, "And indeed no thins is easier for a man who has, as the phrase goes, "followed the sea" with reverence and affection, than to evoke the great spirit of the past upon the lower reaches of the Thames." That one's pretty self explanatory. Next one would have to be the river described in colors: "Flames glided in the river, small green flames, red flames, white flames, pursuing, overtaking, joining, crossing each other-then separating slowly or hastily." The colors all symbolizes different things from hope, to sacrifice, to timelessness which ties in with rivers and its transitional phases of the life cycle. There is also mentioning of the sun setting which stands for death-a very big part of the novel. Marlow was to travel to the yellow which stood for enlightenment and wisdom. Both of which he obtained from Kurtz and his accounts of Africa and imperialism.

Alright on to "The Hero's Journey". For departure, there is a call to adventure when Marlow sets off to Africa. I believe that his supernatural aid was his aunt because without her he may not have gotten the job and was never able to venture out in the first place. The crossing of the first threshold appears when he reaches Africa and is exposed to its horrible conditions and treatment of the slaves. The novel does adheres to "The Hero's Journey", but it may not be as detailed for it is missing white a few steps. Overall though they can be considered similar to one another.

Remember That One Line? (Heart of Darkness)

"It was difficult to realize his work was not out there in the luminous estuary, but behind him, within brooding gloom" (4)

I chose this line because it talks about the Company which seems to be significant to me. It's basically stating that the Company's work is done in darkness and gloom instead of in the luminous estuary. For work to be done in the luminous estuary, this most nearly means that it is in glowing water and is visible to all others. This may suggest that their work may be somewhat shady or evil since it's in a sense hidden behind him. I feel as though this line is important to the novel because it may foreshadow something about the Company (most likely bad).

Besides, the title is "Heart of Darkness" .. How much good can there be?

A complex not yet love but lust story (Wide Sargasso Sea)

Antoinette and Rochester are now married. Just like in Jane Eyre, the marriage transaction of $30,000 is still valid. On the way to their honeymoon in Granbois they are caught in a rain shower and shelters under a mango tree. Sounds familiar (rain, tree, A&R)? As he begins to spend more time with his wife, he becomes lustful of her and her beauty. After touching the rose he comments on how beautiful things have short lives. I mention this because I feel as though it may be of importance for the latter half of the novel. This novel, yet again, continues to repeatedly have scenes that involve fire such as the candle on the table that burned a couple of insects to death while they ate. At one point Rochester begins to believe that everyone knew about Antoinette's family history of lunatics and that was he was tricked into marrying her. As with the fire, the Bible is also being brought up in connection to Daniel and Rochester still has his horse. He also starts calling her Bertha which is who we know her as in Jane Eyre.

I find Antoinette and Jane similar because they are both marginalized in society. Jane was rejected from the wealthy and the poor as Antoinette is rejected from the blacks and the English. I think it is now also safe to say that Mrs. Temple was to Jane Eyre as Christophine was to Antoinette. Let's not forget to mention that part 2 of this novel is told through Rochester's point of view. Rhys may have done this to balance out the novel by giving us perspective through both Antoinette and Rochester's eyes. This helps me, as a reader, to get a better understanding of the two and where they stand as far as the marriage is concerned. It seems as though when Antoinette begins sharing with Rochester her life story, signs of a mental illness becomes a bit visible (her laughing).

This one's about Bertha with AIDS (Wide Sargasso Sea)

This novel gives us a perspective of Bertha, better known as Antoinette, that we did not see in Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. She is not the same crazy women that is locked up in Mr. Rochester's attic. Compared to her mother, Annette, and brother, Pierce, she appeared to be the sane one in the family. Now isn't that crazy??

I believe I found a few connections between this novel and Jane Eyre. The most obvious one was the presence of fire. It was one of the most important symbols in Jane Eyre and houses were set on fire there too. To have the same event happen so early in the text, I think it may be important to this novel as well. Of course there was also the introduction of Mr. Mason and his family to that of Antoinette's. On a deeper level of interpretation Antoinette, like Jane Eyre, was in a sense rejected by her family and grew up as an outsider to the society around her. There is also a garden in this novel similar to the one in Jane Eyre. Hey, you never know if it may be relevant or not!! Anyways, she has a nightmare I believe twice so far in part one of the novel. Its pretty weird and strangely eerie as well. Maybe this will be important in the latter part of the novel? Who knows. But her mother really lost her mind when the fire killed her beloved son. Now I wonder what may Antoinette lose her mind. Oh and about the whole money thing when Tia stole her dress/pennies, it goes to show you how evil money can be. Both Tia and Mrs. Reed were greedy, money-hungry people who used Antoinette and Jane for their money. I think social status/class plays a bit part in both of the novels too. In Jane Eyre it was more of the rich versus the poor while it is more of the blacks versus the whites in this novel.

Yeah, I think that's about it so far. Its been awhile .. I'm a bit rusty, but hey! Here's my blog for you :)

Yeah I killed them. Now what? (C&P)

Leaving off from my last blog, Raskolnikov is still having a conversation with Svidrigailov. Svidrigailov finally talks a little about his wife, Marfa Petrovna, and continues on about his attraction to Dunya.  He talks about this "verbal contract" they made which basically allows him to be unfaithful to her while they remain together. To ease Raskolnikov's concerns for Dunya, Svidrigailov tells him that he is engaged to a 15 year old girl. He then leaves and lures Dunya into his room by threatening her with his knowledge of Raskolnikov's secret. He basically tells her to marry him or have Raskolnikov punished. What goes down next solidly defines Svidrigailov and his true colors. He threatens to rape Dunya and ends up being grazed by two bullets to the temple. In the end, he lets her go realizing that she will never love him. I mean I could have told him that! As if the novel weren't already psycho itself, Svidrigailov ends up shooting himself on that rainy day. He tells the soldier to tell anyone who asks that he has gone to America. Before his suicide he gave away his rubles to Sonya and his fiance's family. Just like Raskolinokov, he too has feverish dreams.

After leaving his mom at dinner the other night, Raskolinokov decides to go see her. She is impressed by the publication of his article although she doesn't understand it. He then asks her if she loves him and tells her that he has to leave. Dunya, who is waiting for him at his apartment, has her last talk with him before they both go their separate ways. At this point everyone basically knows about Raskolnikov and his murders. Towards the end of the novel he is finally prepared to confess. He goes to Sonya to pick up his cross and heads to the police station. Raskolnikov kisses the ground at the Haymarket and gets nervous about making a public confession, but Sonya (who is following behind him at a distance) motivates him to continue on. Upon arrival at the police station, he runs into Ilya Petrovich who genuinely apologizes for having any suspicions against him. As always, he leaves without confessing but this time he turns back around when he sees Sonya outside and at last confesses.

The novel's plot was both interesting and entertaining to me overall. It got me predicting (the whole time) what may happen next. I also found myself asking "Why?" a lot as I continued my reading. The con of the plot is it's length. It was so descriptive that one scene would drag on for days. The pro out of this, however, was our ability to shape the characters. By realizing this, I discovered that Dostoevsky introduces and characterizes his characters through the events in the novel. I also find the novel hilarious because it took 5 parts to finally get Raskolnikov to confess to a crime he committed in part 1. Does it really take that much? In the end it just goes to show you that guilt will eat you up alive and the truth will set you free. He could have avoided all of the stress and worrying by just confessing in the first place since he was bound to do it anyways. If it weren't for Sonya, I highly doubt he would even confess to it since he was proven to be innocent from the crime he committed. I don't see how though. This also takes us back to how flawed some things may be; In this case, the justice system. I didn't like how the ending was so abrupt though. His confession and consequences were only briefly explained. The whole novel was just the process in which he went through just to confess.

Why so long?

I didn't kill them, my "friend" did (C&P)

I guess it's safe to say that we have reached the climax of this novel. Raskolnikov finally confesses to his murders and to whom does he do this to? Sonya. He goes around the bushes a bit though and speaks to her about it as if another person committed the crime. He says things like, "I must be a great friend of his" and "He killed her by accident" (346). Then he tells her to guess who the murderer is and Sonya goes ballistic! She manages to persuade him to go turn himself and gives him a cypress-wood cross to wear. She tells him that they are going to suffer together so they will bear the cross together (356). Sonya is soon informed about her mother's apparent madness in the streets. The police soon confronts her and takes her home where she dies. I don't know about you, but I saw this one coming. Then Svidrigailov basically comes out of nowhere and admits to overhearing Raskolnikov confessing to the murders. He was listening through the wall, remember?

Raskolnikov is now once again a hot mess and seems to be out of it, for real. Razumikhin comes over to visit and updates Raskolnikov on his mom and sister. He leaves out the door, but turns right back around to tell Raskolnikov that the murderer had been found. It was somehow proven (and believe by the Porfiry) to be one of painters, Nikolai. As Raskolnikov leaves, the Porfiry enters. How ironic is it that people keep coming one after the other? Scripted! Anyways .. The Porfiry apologized for the way he treated Raskolinikov, but still claims him to be the true murderer. Of course he denies it, but at this point the Porfiry has already made up his mind. He advises Raskolnikov to confess and tells him to leave a note behind mentioning the stone if he decides to take his life away within the next 40-50 hours.Next is Svidrigailov which Raskolnikov finds and hold a conversation with. He eventually threatens to kill Svidrigailov if he uses the information to get Dunya. By the end of the night Raskolnikov saw him as "the most shallow and worthless scoundrel on the face of the earth" (398).

This part of the novel most definitely display the theme of guilt eating you up alive and how the truth will set you free. Raskolnikov confesses to Sonya and feels good for the moment. That is, until he realizes that Svidrigailov eased dropped on him. The fact that the Porfiry believes him to be the murderer takes him two steps back to square one: Paranoia.

Everyone Goes Bad (C&P)

In this part of the novel, we are introduced to Luzhin's roommate Andrey Semenovich Lebezyatnikov (who is a younger man than him) and finds out that they live in the same building as the Marmeladovs. One thing after another happens leaving Luzhin with an unpleasant morning. He is particularly irritated that he is unable to receive any refund for the house and furniture he bought for him and Dunya after their supposed marriage. I start to get a sense of Luzhin's more materialistic (money hungry) side after reading about his belief that if he were to spoil them a bit more, he would have still been engaged to Dunya. I feel as though Part V of Crime and Punishment revealed every one's negative side. Peter Petrovich and Lebezyatnikov bashes on Katerina for "throwing away" all her money on the funeral that she got from Raskolnikov (the other fool). Kind of hypocritical to me if you think about it because Peter Petrovich gives Sonya a ten-rouble bank-note as if that weren't throwing away money.

Chapter 2 of Part V focuses more on Katerina and her reasons for spending such a large amount of money on the funeral. I can safely conclude that it was because of 'pride of the poor'. It is obvious at the funeral that her health was deteriorating. I mean, "intolerable coughing" "drops of sweat on her forehead" "blood on her handkerchief" ... Yeah somethings not right. I wonder what's going on with her? The fact that she insulted her low-class guests goes back to show you how highly  characters in this novel think of themselves. As the novel progresses, Katerina and her landlady gets into yet again another argument. It was shocking to me how Amalia brought up the "yellow card". Low blow man! In this mist of all this commotion, Luzhin enters the room and Katerina runs towards him. Uh, why?? She thinks that he will protect her from the "stupid creature" but he just brushes her away. What a naive widow she is.

Luzhin attempts to accuse Sonya of stealing a 100 ruble note which he gave to her earlier. He's setting her up! Of course Katerina (being a mother and all) defends Sonya, but come to find out that she did indeed have a 100 ruble note. She balled it up and threw it at Luzhin's face ending up with him calling her a "mad women". Lebezyatnikov comes out of nowhere and defends Sonya proving her innocence. Where did he come from though, like really? You gave everyone good timing Dostoevesky! I feel as though everyone will end up hating Luzhin because one by one he begins to lose/hate all his friends. Anyways, the Marmeladovs end up evicted. They now lost a family member AND a home. Great going Katerina. I mean, who argues with their landlady?

Nietzsche & Raskolnikov, twins?

Dostoyevsky did an excellent job in choosing to mention the philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, in his novel Crime and Punishment. It seemed to me as though Nietzsche was a complete resemblance of Raskolnikov. They both witnessed the whipping of a mare. Ironic? Even more so they both tried to protect it. Aww, how sweet. In 1889, Nietzsche suffered a mental collapse when approached by two policemen after causing a public disturbance. Reminds you of somebody? That's right, Raskolnikov! He, on several occasions, mentally collapses at the mentioning of the murder. Oh yeah and duh, both were diagnosed or at least thought of to have a mental illness. Is that enough connections for you?

Existentialism is applied to the work of philosophers focused on the condition of human existence. This term relates to Nietzsche whose influence on it remains "substantial within and beyond philosophy". Existential philosophers are more focused on subjective topics such as emotions (freedom, pain, guilt, and regret). Once again, EXACT correlation to Raskolnikov and the way he's been feeling. Especially now since he almost finds himself confessing to the murder, his guilt is stronger than ever. I guess you can consider this an "existential crisis". But then he moves more towards a Christian Orthodox worldview which is present in this part of the reading. He commands Sonya to read him the story of Lazarus which carries a deep significance to them both. Stubborn 'ol Raskolniko, however, claims not to believe in the story. Typical!

I may become a mass-murderer, but not likely .. Right?

Wow! I think that was THE longest talk show I ever listened to. Although I may have dozed off a few times within that hour range, I managed to catch a couple of very good points. A criminal is described to be emotionally deaf. I thought that was a pretty neat way of putting it since psychopaths lack remorse, empathy, sincerity, etc. It scared me a bit when it was proven that psychopaths view pictures of objects (such as chairs and tables) in the same way they do pictures of crimes such as rape or murder. Are you kidding me!? You're one sick man. As they put it though, teaching a criminal how to feel emotions is like teaching a blind person the color red. In other words, it's impossible!

To be honest I was a bit worried about taking the Psychopath Test at first because I didn't want to find out the truth. I passed though so yay me! I was kind of concerned when a couple of my answers were "partially", but I'm proven not to be a psychopath. Well as the test states, "The test results don't suggest strong psychopathic tendencies." But then it goes around and says, "This does not mean the person isn't a potential mass-murderer. They may be mad, they may resort to violence. A close professional or emotional relationship with even the most normal of people may prove to be a damaging, or at least boring, experience." So dude, are you saying I MIGHT become a mass-murderer? My classmates know me well though so I know you guys have my back. I'm a good person and would never commit such a crime. Right guys?
... Guys??

Lock Me Up Because Vegetables Say I'm To Be A Criminal (C&P)

Crimes (and reasons for committing them) are the obvious connections between the article, the short story, the lyrics, and Crime And Punishment. 


The article provided the best distinction between criminals and non-criminals because of it's scientific research. They studied the neurological aspects of people with antisocial personality disorders, psychopaths (people with severe antisocial personality disorders), and even children (specifically 3 year old) as an attempt to prevent them from committing future crimes. Sounds like The Minority Report, huh? A shocking discovery made was that psychopaths showed an 18% volume reduction in the part of the brain called the amygdala. The amygdala is said to be "the seat of emotion." So basically, psychopath criminals who commit horrible crimes have no guilt or remorse afterwards. Makes sense?? They concluded that, "There is a neuroscience basis in part to the cause of crime."

In The Minority Report, there is a system in place called Precrime. A machine connected to three precogs (or people with the ability to predict the future) shoot out cards on which the names of the soon-to-be criminal and person associated with the crime is printed. The names of the people on the cards are then hunted down and held in detention camps as an attempt to adjust their fate and prevent them from committing their predicted crimes. It wasn't until the Police Commissioner, John Allison Anderton, was accused of being a future criminal that he realized the system may not be so accurate. There must be tons of other innocent people in those camps as well! Good thing we don't have that system in OUR society. Can you imagine?

The lyrics to I Don't Like Mondays is a whole new level of crazy! A 16 year old girl goes on a shooting spree at a playground because she doesn't like Mondays. Really!? I mean I don't like them either honey, but why'd you have to go do all that? The first two lines of the poem seems to be indicating an internal problem: "The silicon chip inside her head gets switched to overload." This goes back to the article and it's neuroscience base.

For both the article and the short-story, assumptions are being made for the majority of a group. The minority report (in some cases) as displayed in the short-story supersedes the majority report. People must realize that they can't control human kind or their actions. Whatever's bound to happen will happen naturally. I mean c'mon now, haven't you heard of "Everything happens for a reason?" Not all mentally-illed people are criminals and not all criminals are mentally-illed people. There is no absolute way for us to truly know whether someone will commit a crime or not. What I do know is that the best prevention is NOT to lock up innocent people who we think will commit crimes.

Crime And Punishment is relevant to these three texts because .. Just go back to the title of the novel. They all also seem to have some type of connection with the article as well about a criminal's mind. The people in these pieces of literature don't seem to be so mentally stable to me. For instance, Anderton continues on with committing his crime just to prove the Precrime system to be accurate. Like really dude!? Oh yeah, that's just a great reason to kill Kaplon. I can't seem to grasp these characters and their horrible reasoning for things so let me just stop here. (Shaking my head!)

You REALLY want to know what I think? (C&P)

Yup, Raskolnikov has officially lost it. So as we all know, he murders Alyonda and her sister for no apparent reason. And guess what? He thinks he's now partially redeemed! And why does he think this? Because Marmeladov dies and he leaves his family with 20 rubles also promising his future support (TWENTY!!). Really Raskolnikov, really!? You sir, have reached a new low.

The question here is, "Do you think people can be redeemed or not?" Well first off, let's talk about Raskolnikov's scenario. Of course I DON'T think he can be redeemed! Are you crazy!? Look at this guy! Yeah, he did a good deed ... Whatever. But take a closer look at his intentions here. He's looking for a "good deed" to do in order to prove that he's a good guy. He's also trying to make up for the murders he committed. Let's do the math here real quick:

Murders of Alyonda AND Lizaveta + 20 rubles = Partially Redeemed
(Looks like somebody failed their math class.)

I think NOT! This is basically saying that both of their lives are worth 20 rubles (Shaking my head!!). So yeah, like I said this man is nuts and he's so not redeemed. In general, however, I do think that people can be redeemed. As I stated before, everyone deserves a second chance. I guess it all depends on what crime you committed and what you've done to deserve redemption. This also goes back to one's intention. Monetary items will NOT redeem you, go become a monk or something!

Now if you do something terrible, you must make up for it by doing something TWICE as good. Makes sense? Ahh, let's see. Well I'm pretty sure we've all done something terrible in our days. Haha! The first step to making up for something is to apologize. Not no lame "I'm sorry" either. Cut the crap! I'm talking about a deep and sincere apology here people. And yes, you have to really mean it. And from then on you must fix your ways and try to give back to the community what you took away in the best way that you can. Still doesn't make sense to you? Well just don't do something terrible then buddy and you won't have to worry about a thing.

So why is it that I think in this manner? Simple, I'm conditioned this way .. No seriously. Just kidding, haha! But I honestly think it has to do with how I was raised, the society, and my environment. My values are shaped by everyone and everything around me. I begin to pick up ideas and form opinions of my own on what is right and wrong. But then again, "What is morally right and wrong?"
This question is forever stalking me!

To The Death Row He Goes (C&P)

There is an obvious connection between Dostoevsky's work and his personal life. As a young child, his family stayed in an apartment on hospital grounds. The location of this place seemed to resemble that of the novel: city's worst areas, cemetery for criminals, lunatic asylum, etc. Sometimes he would wander out to the hospital garden to spend time with the patients and listen to their stories. His "interest in and compassion for the poor, oppressed, and tormented was apparent in his life and works". Doesn't that sound like something out of Crime And Punishment to you? Well later on in his life, he moved to St. Petersburg (Now we see where he got his locations from) and attends a Military Engineering Institute. This is relevant to the novel because there are mentions of job positions in the Service from which Marmeladov was fired due to his excessive drinking.

The question posed here is, "Is it a crime if no one finds out?" Although others may not agree with me, I believe that a crime is a crime no matter who finds out or not. Let's use Dostoevsky's Crime And Punishment as an example here. Raskolnikov murders the pawnbroker, Alyonda Ivanovna, and her sister, Lizaveta. So far no one has found out yet, so why is it still a crime? Because two innocent lives were taken away with no reasoning at all, let alone a good one. Someway, somehow the lost of Alyonda and Lizaveta will affect somebody else's life in a negative manner. If this is not a crime, then what? If anything, Alyonda helped him out by even purchasing his watch. So who is he to have been given the right to take their lives away? Nobody at all! A bad thing was done, it's considered as a crime, end of discussion!

Crime & Punishment, self-explanatory?

Dostoevsky's Crime And Punishment has been quite an interesting novel. Far different from all the other ones I've read so far at least. The setting takes place in St. Petersburg (Russia) in the slums near the Hay market. This is where Raskolnikov, a former student (now a destitute), stays. He seems a bit unstable to me though, in a way, because he isolates himself from the rest of humanity for a whole month. There seems to be some sort of internal conflict going on inside of him as well because he wants to commit a crime (How obvious!), yet is disgusted by his actual plan. It seems, however, that with every day that passes by he grows increasingly serious about taking action. I guess he can only refrain himself from actually committing a crime for so long. Anyways, the story seems to be told from a third person omniscient point of view. So far it has mainly been from Raskolnikov's perspective though.  The story itself seems to be moving a bit slow considering the fact that he didn't even mention Raskolnikov's name until a few pages into the novel. It's mood seems depressing, almost. You can even say it's despairing and suspenseful! All the characters at this point are at their lowest point in life. Every one's getting drunk and evicted. Woohoo! Oh and prostitutes here are legal and registered with the police.

What you put in your head is there forever? (The Road)

This book is something alright .. These last 100 pages have been slow, dull, and boring yet I can't seem to put the book down. Why!? Because I want to know what will become of the man and his son. Anyways, it's about time something good happened to the two of them. It made ME feel relieved when they were able to shower with clean water and eat a good meal. I can't imagine how it feels like to have to be on the look-out every day, all day though.

As for the old man, he gave me mixed feelings. I felt extremely bad for him at first because of his lack of vision, old age, and thin frame. But as he and the man began to talk my attitude towards him changed quite a bit. He portrayed the ideal old person: rude and cold-hearted. He says that he can't trust them with his name and talks about how God doesn't exist. The least he could do was thank the boy or even wish them luck, but he did neither. If I were the man I'd give him food as well even if I didn't want to because after all, we are the "good guys". And how much damage can a couple cans of food do? Not much I'm assuming. As if the novel isn't already depressing as it is, the man now gets sick. I admire him and his will to survive though. If that were me I'd probably lay there and rot, awaiting for my inevitable death.

I also start to wonder why the dad question some statements that are made by the boy. He claimed to have learned them from his dad, but is that so? And its even more weirder how he doesn't know anything from our modern world, like the toilet. Poor fellow! The more I read, the more I begin to lose hope in the chances of their survival. But they always come across some type of shelter as they are nearing death and replenish themselves. Kind of repetitive, don't you think?

Part B - The Hollow Men Part (The Road)

That poem? Wow, enough said. The visions of the end of the world according to Yeats and Eliot and McCarthy are quite similar in my opinion. Well, in the sense that they carry the same aspects at least. The poem is essentially about emptiness and the novel is quite bleak itself. This allows us to kind of "feel" the world that they live in. In the poem, their world is considered a wasteland caused by the conditions of the modern world. The people in it failed to chose between good and evil which makes them incapable of making their own decisions. Hence, they are "hollow men". In the novel, however, the world was post apocalyptic as a result of war and in it contains the "good" people and the "bad".


It is stated that Eliot's modern men was an empty, corrupt breed. This can also explain the people in The Road. I mean come on now, they're cannibals!! How much more "empty" can you get than that? In both of the  literature, the people weren't necessarily seeking to do wrong. They just seemed to lack morals and values. They also seem to display attitudes of "pain, abandonment, and despair". The poem briefly mentioned a quotation, "Life is very long" which mean that a broken man is punished by being kept alive rather than by being killed. This ties into The Road because the man was indecisive about which route would be better for him in that world: Life or death.


Moreover the poem, the imagery suggests that a sacrifice of the 'hollow men' can redeem mankind and that after their destruction we can again flourish. It also ends with the line "Not with a bang, but a whimper". This refers to one leaving a world as they enter another, primarily babies. 


I believe I discovered a great correlation between the two texts though. There's a line in the poem that says "Falls the shadow". There is a mentioning about "Then fell the shadow" and "Then falls the shadow". In the novel (Pg. 96), the two verbs where also used in comparison to and object. It said , "The snow fell nor did it cease to fall". I was able to recognize this, but I haven't yet figured out it's significance yet. Can you say, "mind bobbling"?

Part A - Quotes (The Road)

As any other novel, McCarthy's The Road contained many quotes. They were put in place for us to decipher in order to achieve a better understanding of the text (kind of like a riddle, how fun .. NOT!). A quote that I grabbed from the text was a discussion between the boy and his Papa (Pg. 83). He asked him if they were going to be okay and the man replied with, "And nothing bad is going to happen to us because were carrying the fire." Yeah right man, you really think so? The "fire" he speaks about is not a physical thing, but more so their passion for survival. Because they are (technically) the only humans left in this post apocalyptic world, they are the hope of the world. The fate of the human race lies within them. Great, what are the chances of us surviving now?


One night as he rocked the boy back and forth he thought about the single round left in the revolver. He then proceeded to say, "You will not face the truth. You will not." (Pg. 68) At this point the man has already lost his faith (Surprising, huh?). However, he is worried that if his son loses his faith he will no longer have the will to live. This may jeopardize the fate of the human race which then takes us back to the man reinforcing the previous quote to his son. 


His mother, at one point, even said that "The one thing I can tell you is that you wont survive for yourself." (Pg. 57) This just goes to show you how much love they had for their son. Yet, she had no faith in their chances of survival and chose the easy way out. That left Papa fighting for his life in order to keep his son alive. His son, in a sense, then becomes the only reason for his continued existence. Same can be said to the quote on pg. 54, "All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes. So, he whispered to the sleeping boy. I have you."


Corny much?

Apocalyptic Literature & McCarthy (The Road)

There is no doubt that McCarthy's The Road is a work of post-apocalyptic literature. From the descriptions throughout my assigned reading (1-35), the imagery that I conceived was a world that burnt down to nothing more but ashes. The first film that came to mind was Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds. This film contained some features of both apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic genre because it dealt with the end of civilization due to technological singularity and showed a world after such disaster. Other films such as The Day After Tomorrow, I Am Legend, Resident Evil: After Life, and I-Robot can also be considered of (post) Apocalyptic genre.


Apocalyptic and Dystopian  literature are very similar because they are both a sub genre of science fiction. The setting in both is set in the near future. They, however, also contain differences. Apocalyptic literature concerns the end of civilization due to existential catastrophe while Dystopian literature is the idea of a society in a repressive and/or controlled state. Another way to differentiate the two is to realize that the Apocalyptic genre focuses on a larger scale such as a civilization. Dystopian genre, on the other hand, focuses on a much smaller scale such as a society.


McCarthy's writing style in The Road is very different from any other books. He, unlike other authors, lack the use of punctuations such as quotation marks when the characters are speaking. He states that he doesn't want to "blot up the page with weird little marks." I have to agree that it does make the pages in the more organized and neat, but sometimes I also have difficulty of figuring who said what. I think McCarthy wrote the book this way to emphasize on the fact that where ever they are, their surroundings are just as bleak as the pages on the book. He also uses no names no sense of time which makes me just as lost as the characters are in the novel. 

The Brave New World Was Not the Best New World (BNW)

Huxley's Brave New World turned out to be a very interesting and relatable novel. It was a mere resemblance of our own world, only with more exaggerated problems. The main key point of this story, I believe, is stability. The question I prosed was, "To what extent will these people go through in order to achieve that World State stability?" Well in this case, they had to eliminate basically any and everything that could jeopardize one's happiness. This ranged from emotions to equality and most importantly, truth. 


The indication that truth may jeopardize one's happiness clearly meant that the World State was composed of lies. The truth does hurt after all hence, the creation of soma. Soma is a drug (almost like anti-depressants or happy pills) that causes one to hallucinate. By shrouding one's realities, social stability is promoted. John was one of the very few (if only) resident of the World State that chose truth over happiness. His loyalty to himself and his morals led to his tragic death. He is also the only person that has not and refuses to take soma.


By artificially creating human beings and 'programming' them to complete certain tasks without questioning exemplifies the fact that they are in a sense, robots. From this I concluded that pure humans in the World State was nothing more than an inconvenience to the ever growing society. 


Towards the end of the novel, the values and beliefs of the World State were more clearly discussed. A central idea that kept the World State successful was the concept of consumerism. This is the reason why pieces of literature such as Shakespeare is not allowed due to the fact that his work is timeless. Therefore, it doesn't encourage the consumption of new goods which plays a vital part in the growth of the World State.

Can Science Be Ethical? (BNW)

A huge correlation between Dyson's article, Brave New World, and Harrison Bergeron is obviously the use of technology and the science behind it. Like everything else in the world the use of science has both positive and negative aspects. Determining which outweighs the other however, is entitled to one's own opinion.


This article illustrates the evolution of and humans' increased reliance on technology. This is clearly shown in Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron given the fact that the whole story takes place in front of the TV. In reference to Brave New World, Dyson stated that with such software available (Ex: CAD-CAM) the next step will be using it to design our own babies. That is exactly what the workers at the Hatchery and Conditioning center accomplished. It is also mentioned in the article that "the idea of improving the human race by artificial means is widely condemned" (as if we were chickens on steroids).


The sentence, "Science also gives warnings of doom and promises of hope" is a hypocritical statement that is represented in both stories. For example, the mass production of human beings promises hopes of a more efficient future by conditioning them to certain jobs. It's warnings of doom became clear when the conformed citizens began to fall in love and birth babies (which is unorthodox). In Harrison Bergeron, the introduction of handicaps promised the hopes of equality (physically & mentally). Harrison Bergeron, himself, was a warning of doom. This became pretty obvious when he defied the laws and announced himself as emperor. Dyson also says that, "Understanding will then lead to new technologies that offer hope of preventing tragedies and ameliorating human condition." It goes back to his hypocritical statement because in order to fix what science has done, more science has to be created ("Ethical progress is the only cure for the damage done by scientific progress"). 

Dystopia & I-Robot (BNW)

In general, there were quite a few scenarios in which the Utopian aspect of the society was shattered through unorthodoxy resulting in a Dystopia. The Utopia in Brave New World was a society in which the people were free to participate in sexual intercourse without impregnating and becoming emotionally attached to the other. Human beings were also mass produced and conditioned for certain jobs. I believe the sole purpose of this was to refrain people from experiencing negative emotions such as jealousy, anger, sadness, etc., but instead keep everyone happy and stable. A prime example of this is how the D.H.C had once experienced love and impregnated Linda although he was supposed to be a highly respected Alpha male. It is also demonstrated in Bernard and John’s love for Lenina. Although there were certain rules that the conformist citizens were to abide by they were all, without a doubt, broken at one point or another displaying the failure to keep the World State controlled. 

A film that I believe exemplifies the genre of Dystopia is Alex Proyas’ I Robot. This film takes place in the year 2035 when robots were programmed to live alongside humans. The Utopian aspect of this movie was a society in which robots assisted the humans while abiding by the three laws. As with most if not all Dystopian novel and/or movie, all goes well until a problematic error occurs. In this case, the robot’s basic programming starts to get rejected as they and their artificial intelligence evolve overtime soon developing a mind of their own. This is a pure example of technology that has progressed far more rapidly than humans and their spiritual evolution. The conflict in this movie therefore creates a Dystopian society. The filmmakers seem to be implying the fact that humans are one of the best resources on Earth moreover the smartest. They say this by showing the problems that occur when humans try to allow robots to think and do everything for them. 

Terms In Relation to the Book (BNW)

The society in Brave New World, according to my analysis, would be considered as a Dystopia. The main factor that categorized this book was it’s use of advance technology given the fact that it was written in 1932. The society was strictly operated by those who own the Central London Hatchery And Conditioning Centre. They are the ones who control the production of human beings in terms of quantity and purpose. To my understanding, one of their ideas of a Utopia is a society in which relationships have no partake in any emotional attachment. This was their way of keeping everyone happy and in a sense stable, which was one of the three components in their World State’s motto, along with taking doses of Soma. This, however, was subvert when Bernard Marx fell in love with Lenina Crowne, a conformist to the utopian society. 

After having read Huxley’s biography and a portion of his book, I found a few relations between the two. I thought it was quite interesting how he wrote a book about the mass production of human beings and both of his brothers happened to be biologists. His father also had a well-equipped botanical laboratory in which he began his learning in. The disturbing nature of his book may have also been a direct result of his use of psychedelics throughout his lifetime. 

The most prominent figure in this book was Henry Ford. He was seen through the people’s eyes as a God, so to speak. Henry was highly praised for his contribution to developments in mass production by way of the assembly line. So much so that even the time periods were named after him. They were called A.F. which stood for After Ford.  This book started out as a huge confusion for me, but after breaking it down and analyzing it’s key components I began to grasp a better understanding of it.