I was having this hugely interesting conversation with my friend today this morning about ways to save the world. I've realized that anything we can do you save a part of the world, damages another part. For example: We don't burn our wastes to save the ozone layer but we put our wastes in land fills that pollute the dirt. [Think of it this way, girls pads is in those land fills....EW!] We don't pollute our water but we pollute our air so when we have rain, it all mixes to create acid rain which falls onto our soil where we grow our food which eventually gets sprayed with peptides which causes epidemics!
The reason my friend and I believed was the main source of our problems is technology! Okay so we can't live without our cell phones, our computers, a refrigerator, and electrical heat. But the demands of oil for our cars and oils to heat our homes and everything have gone so up that we are going to end up destroying ourselves! The manufacturing of these electronic devices are killing our ozone layer which in turn leaves the world able to rot. But we can't live without a refrigerator!
It also goes back to the newspaper article in the school's newspaper. We have such huge problems shoved at us when we all turn 18 and graduate college! Anyways this whole conversation reminded me of my book which satirizes the modern day world and how it seems that the everyday things, like war [which if you think about it, the war in Iraq is an everyday thing to us], is leading up to our self destruction. Vonnegut says: "This financial crisis, which could never happen today, was simply the latest in a series of murderous twentieth century catastrophes which had originated entirely in human brains. From the violence people were doing to themselves and each other, and to all other living things, for that matter, a visitor from another planet might have assumed that the environment had gone haywire, and that people were in such a frenzy because Nature was about to kill them all." [25]
Also I think it's interesting to point out that the story is pretty much told from the future reflecting back to the past [which is our present] and Vonnegut states that in the future time period, such things could never happen. And yet...the further we get into the future, the more worst off we become.
Hmm....
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Galapogos
My next book is Kurt Vonnegut's Galapagos.
So far I'm only on the second chapter and you can automatically tell the sarcastic remarks and that the story is saturated with satire. I think it's very interesting that the story starts off with a quote from Anne Frank: "In spite of everything, I still believe people are really good at heart."
The story begins with a description of the island of Galapagos islands. Vonnegut says that "human begins had much bigger brains back then than they do today" [3] and goes to explain the crazy theories they had in explaining how animals got to those islands from the mainland.
The second chapter we are introduced to a con artist named James Wait. He is a man who feeds on pity. He is "prematurely bald and he was pudgy, and his color was bad, like the crust on a pie in a cheap cafeteria, and he was bespectacled, so that he might plausibly claim to be in his fifties, in case he saw some advantage in making such a claim. He wished to seem harmless and shy." [6]. He's had 17 wives and has emptied out each of their banking accounts. He's a criminal that no one has ever caught because the government thinks he's just 17 different faithless husbands when it is just one man.
Kind of funny to me.
From School Library Journal
YA Leon Trout, the ghost of a decapitated shipbuilder, narrates the humorous, ironic and sometimes carping decline of the human race, as seen through the eyes and minds of the survivors of a doomed cruise to the Galapagos Islands. Vonnegut's cast of unlikely Adams and Eves setting out in a Noah's ark includes Mary Hepburn, an American biology teacher and recent widow; Zenji Hiroguchi, a Japanese computer genius (who does not make it to the ship, although his language-translating and quotation-spouting computer does); his wife, Hisako, carrying radiated genes from the atomic bombs; James Wait, who has made a fortune marrying elderly women; and Captain Aolph von Kleist. Also included: six orphaned girls of the Kana-bono cannibal tribe, who will become the founding mothers of the fisherfolk after bacteria render all other women infertile. Serious fans of Vonnegut's wry and ribald prose will welcome this tale of the devolution of superbrained humans into gentle swimmers with small brains, but others may find this Darwinian survival tale too packed with ecological and sociological details that trap the story line in a series of literary devices, albeit very clever ones. Mary T. Gerrity, Queen Anne School, Upper Marlboro, Md.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
[Amazon.com]
So far I'm only on the second chapter and you can automatically tell the sarcastic remarks and that the story is saturated with satire. I think it's very interesting that the story starts off with a quote from Anne Frank: "In spite of everything, I still believe people are really good at heart."
The story begins with a description of the island of Galapagos islands. Vonnegut says that "human begins had much bigger brains back then than they do today" [3] and goes to explain the crazy theories they had in explaining how animals got to those islands from the mainland.
The second chapter we are introduced to a con artist named James Wait. He is a man who feeds on pity. He is "prematurely bald and he was pudgy, and his color was bad, like the crust on a pie in a cheap cafeteria, and he was bespectacled, so that he might plausibly claim to be in his fifties, in case he saw some advantage in making such a claim. He wished to seem harmless and shy." [6]. He's had 17 wives and has emptied out each of their banking accounts. He's a criminal that no one has ever caught because the government thinks he's just 17 different faithless husbands when it is just one man.
Kind of funny to me.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Endings
I'm finally done with my first book. Everyone dies...well the important characters anyways. The ending interests me the most though. "Teddy surveyed his charges with pride and affection. It was by means of them that he hoped one day to restore Hetton the the glory that it had enjoyed in the days of his Cousin Tony." [308]
It was really ironic. This is because Tony adored his house and although he had previously agreed to divorce Brenda, he didn't when he found out he had to sell his beloved house. The ending seemed like it was hinting that Teddy [which is some distant relative of Tony's] was going to have the same story as Tony. It just seems like it was hinting [to me at least] that this was all a cycle. That's how life works most of hte time anyways. You are in a repeated cycle. You are born, you go to school, you make money for the government, you die. Then another kid is born and they go through the same thing. That's what I think was highly satirized in the ending.
On to the next book finally!
It was really ironic. This is because Tony adored his house and although he had previously agreed to divorce Brenda, he didn't when he found out he had to sell his beloved house. The ending seemed like it was hinting that Teddy [which is some distant relative of Tony's] was going to have the same story as Tony. It just seems like it was hinting [to me at least] that this was all a cycle. That's how life works most of hte time anyways. You are in a repeated cycle. You are born, you go to school, you make money for the government, you die. Then another kid is born and they go through the same thing. That's what I think was highly satirized in the ending.
On to the next book finally!
Monday, November 26, 2007
No Sadness in your child's Death?!
So I'm almost done with my book! Tony and Brenda's child, John, dies in some sort of freak accident on his horse. John falls down and just...dies. So when Tony finds out, Brenda is in London in "school". The weirdest thing is that they don't even seem so sad. Like I had said before, Waugh does not include emotions often in the story. He leaves his readers to assume from the content. While I was reading it, I felt like they weren't really sad.
I feel as if by hearing the death of his child, Tony is just acting as if the news was just some ordinary mundane news of the weather. All he can really think of is telling Brenda and he complains that Brenda is a lot better at keeping everyone at bay. "I wish Brenda had been here. She's so good with everyone. I get in a muddle." [145]
I sense some irony in the time when Brenda will know. I feel like instead of being hurt as Tony says Brenda will be, Brenda will be so happy for some reason. I feel like the only reason why Brenda was even still with Tony was because of John and because of the social and class he gave her. But if John was dead, Brenda would have no real reason to stay right? Tony says: "It's going to be so much worse for Brenda. You see she's got nothing else, much, except John. I've got her, and I love the house... but with Brenda John always came first... naturally... And then you know she's seen so little of John lately. She's been in London such a lot. I'm afraid that's going to hurt her."
"You can't ever tell what's going to hurt people."
"But, you see, I know Brenda so well."[149]
All those ... makes it seem like it's all just an afterthought. The "John always came first...naturally" seems like he's saying this because it's the feminine thing to do as a mother right? It draws on the inference that if you were to have children, your children comes first. And his last statement of knowing Brenda so well is so ironic! Because I'm sure if he had known her so well, he would know that she's not doing what she says she's doig in London, at least that's what I think.
I feel as if by hearing the death of his child, Tony is just acting as if the news was just some ordinary mundane news of the weather. All he can really think of is telling Brenda and he complains that Brenda is a lot better at keeping everyone at bay. "I wish Brenda had been here. She's so good with everyone. I get in a muddle." [145]
I sense some irony in the time when Brenda will know. I feel like instead of being hurt as Tony says Brenda will be, Brenda will be so happy for some reason. I feel like the only reason why Brenda was even still with Tony was because of John and because of the social and class he gave her. But if John was dead, Brenda would have no real reason to stay right? Tony says: "It's going to be so much worse for Brenda. You see she's got nothing else, much, except John. I've got her, and I love the house... but with Brenda John always came first... naturally... And then you know she's seen so little of John lately. She's been in London such a lot. I'm afraid that's going to hurt her."
"You can't ever tell what's going to hurt people."
"But, you see, I know Brenda so well."[149]
All those ... makes it seem like it's all just an afterthought. The "John always came first...naturally" seems like he's saying this because it's the feminine thing to do as a mother right? It draws on the inference that if you were to have children, your children comes first. And his last statement of knowing Brenda so well is so ironic! Because I'm sure if he had known her so well, he would know that she's not doing what she says she's doig in London, at least that's what I think.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
It Can't Be Wrong If....
I've seen some interesting things so far. Brenda is pushing a woman towards Tony, who is still devoted to her, hoping for an affair to start up. I think she probably wants this to happen so that in many ways, Brenda can feel better about herself. She'll feel that if they're both doing it, she's not really doing anything wrong.
And her characterization of being some sort of teacher figure applies to even the new friends Brenda makes at her "economics class". I don't even know if she's taking those classes or just spending more time with Beaver. I've also noticed that although she is in control of her affair with Beaver, as in what he gets to do to her and when they get to see each other or speak to each other, she is still a woman. She still hopes that Beaver will disobey her and send her gifts and letters and call her while she's at home with Tony. "She had forbidden Beaver to send her a present or to write to her; in self protection, for she knew that whatever he said would hurt her by its poverty, but in spite of this she awaited the posts nervously, hoping that he might have disobeyed her." [80]
I feel that Waugh is characterizing her in this way to show that although she is a manipulative person and portrayed as a villain, she still has these good characteristics about her that make her seem...less bad? She is portrayed in that light to make her more humane.
And her characterization of being some sort of teacher figure applies to even the new friends Brenda makes at her "economics class". I don't even know if she's taking those classes or just spending more time with Beaver. I've also noticed that although she is in control of her affair with Beaver, as in what he gets to do to her and when they get to see each other or speak to each other, she is still a woman. She still hopes that Beaver will disobey her and send her gifts and letters and call her while she's at home with Tony. "She had forbidden Beaver to send her a present or to write to her; in self protection, for she knew that whatever he said would hurt her by its poverty, but in spite of this she awaited the posts nervously, hoping that he might have disobeyed her." [80]
I feel that Waugh is characterizing her in this way to show that although she is a manipulative person and portrayed as a villain, she still has these good characteristics about her that make her seem...less bad? She is portrayed in that light to make her more humane.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Research of A Handful of Dust
After some research about the book, it is said that the title "A Handful of Dust" is referred to T.S. Eliot's poem The Waste Land [reproduced below]
I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Waugh actually makes reference to this poem in the first page of the novel when he quotes: "I will show you fear in a handful of dust".
T.S Elliot's poem has shifts between satire and prophecy.
Also it has been later revelaed that Evelyn Waugh wrote an alternate short story called "The Man Who Liked Dickens". In the short story, it is referred to towards the ending of A Handful of Dust. Evelyn Waugh had actually written the story to be about: "I had just written a short story about a man trapped in the jungle, ending his days reading Dickens aloud. The idea came quite naturally from the experience of visiting a lonely settler of that kind and reflecting how easily he could hold me prisoner [...] eventually the thing grew into a study of other sorts of savages at home and the civilized man's helpless plight among them."
[all research was taken from Wikipedia!]
I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Waugh actually makes reference to this poem in the first page of the novel when he quotes: "I will show you fear in a handful of dust".
T.S Elliot's poem has shifts between satire and prophecy.
Also it has been later revelaed that Evelyn Waugh wrote an alternate short story called "The Man Who Liked Dickens". In the short story, it is referred to towards the ending of A Handful of Dust. Evelyn Waugh had actually written the story to be about: "I had just written a short story about a man trapped in the jungle, ending his days reading Dickens aloud. The idea came quite naturally from the experience of visiting a lonely settler of that kind and reflecting how easily he could hold me prisoner [...] eventually the thing grew into a study of other sorts of savages at home and the civilized man's helpless plight among them."
[all research was taken from Wikipedia!]
Sunday, November 4, 2007
No Secrets?
As I continue to read on, I find it rather funny that Brenda has somehow admitted to her husband that she has been having an affair with a younger man and all he's upset about is how she wants to buy a flat in London.
"Me? Oh I've been behaving rather badly to tell you the truth."
"Buying things?"
"Worse. I've been carrying on madly with young men and I've spent heaps of moey and I've enjoyed it very much indeed. But there's one awful thing."
"What's that?"
...."Tony, I've found a flat."
"Well you better lose it again quick." [71]
It was an interesting moment for me that I found kind of funny. I noticed that Waugh doesn't put a lot of details about the emotions going on in the story and leaves it to the readers to imagine whatever emotions they see fit.
Another thing that goes back to a topic of my previous posts was how Brenda says she doesn't want Beaver but everyone including her actions say otherwise. Brenda says Beaver is "second rate and a snob an, I should think, as cold as a fish, but I happen to have a fancy for him, that's all...besides I'm not sure he's altogether awful...he's got that odious mother whom he adores... and he's always been very poor. I don't think he's had a fair deal. I heard all about it last night...he's got to be taught a whole lot of things. That's part of his attraction."[66] Then the entire scene plays out when Polly calls and they all start gossiping about the matter.
The quote I had just provided reminds me of the passage we read about Dorthea. How her idea of marriage was a fatherly figure who could teach her Hebrew if she wanted it. In this, Brenda thinks Beaver is attractive because he doesn't know as much as she does. It also draws on my idea in the previous post that Brenda wants to be shown as a dominant character that controls everything- and she has found that she can control Beaver.
"Me? Oh I've been behaving rather badly to tell you the truth."
"Buying things?"
"Worse. I've been carrying on madly with young men and I've spent heaps of moey and I've enjoyed it very much indeed. But there's one awful thing."
"What's that?"
...."Tony, I've found a flat."
"Well you better lose it again quick." [71]
It was an interesting moment for me that I found kind of funny. I noticed that Waugh doesn't put a lot of details about the emotions going on in the story and leaves it to the readers to imagine whatever emotions they see fit.
Another thing that goes back to a topic of my previous posts was how Brenda says she doesn't want Beaver but everyone including her actions say otherwise. Brenda says Beaver is "second rate and a snob an, I should think, as cold as a fish, but I happen to have a fancy for him, that's all...besides I'm not sure he's altogether awful...he's got that odious mother whom he adores... and he's always been very poor. I don't think he's had a fair deal. I heard all about it last night...he's got to be taught a whole lot of things. That's part of his attraction."[66] Then the entire scene plays out when Polly calls and they all start gossiping about the matter.
The quote I had just provided reminds me of the passage we read about Dorthea. How her idea of marriage was a fatherly figure who could teach her Hebrew if she wanted it. In this, Brenda thinks Beaver is attractive because he doesn't know as much as she does. It also draws on my idea in the previous post that Brenda wants to be shown as a dominant character that controls everything- and she has found that she can control Beaver.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
English Gothic: Chapter 3
Just to let everyone know, in my book there are only seven chapters but in each chapter, there are several different sections.
So here we go:
I'm sticking to my allusion with the Great Gatsby. The way the society is portrayed in The Great Gatsby reminds me very much of how the society is portrayed here. In this section, we are going along with Beaver and Brenda on a date. Well to me it seems like a date but most likely it isn't...politically correct considering Brenda is married. It was actually Brenda who asks him out to dinner and to be her date to Polly's party.
Brenda is a year older than Beaver and during the course of their date, she treats him as if he's a child. Generally on a date, the man pays, in this story Brenda is the independent woman, or so she tries to be. "Yes it is. I'm a year older than you and an old married woman and quite rich, so, please, I'm going to pay." [59] I feel as if Brenda, who has been under the control of the society and the ideals of what a woman should be, her marriage, and etc, finally gets the chance to be an independent strong woman. She becomes manipulative by picking a weak prey, Beaver, and twists him around to make herself feel better.
However at the same time, she knows the tricks to be able to make him feel like the dominant man. Before the party, Brenda asks: "How much do I tip him?" and Beaver showed her. "Are you sure that's enough? I should have given twice as much." "It's exactly right," said Beaver, feeling older again, exactly as Brenda had meant him to." [61] Again going back to my idea that she is playing the dominant figure whilst letting Beaver THINK he is.
Another example is at Polly's party. They eat dinner at Polly's party when she sees he has entered a bad mood because he has felt unimportant. "She wanted to make him feel important again so she asked him about the other people in the room."[63]
Going along with the idea about Brenda, I must mention Polly. So far I've noticed that Brenda, Polly, and Mrs. Beaver have a lot of similarities. They want to be presented among one of the top notch woman in their class: independent, strong, and social. Polly feels quite proud of herself of gaining the respect that she believes she has gained. She feels as if she has accomplished everything she had wanted for the party: "She wanted a perfectly straight, smart party and she had got it." [61] She makes a contrast between the other parties she has thrown: "In other years people had taken her hospitality more casually and brought on with them anyone with who they happened to have been dining." [62] To this year: "This year, without any conscious effort on hr part, tehre had been more formality. Those who wanted to bring friends had rung up in teh morning and asked whether they might do so, and on the whole they had been cautious of even so much presumption. People, who only eighteen months before would have pretended to be ignorant of her existence, were not crowding up her stairs." [62]
I feel that so far in this entire chapter, Evelyn Waugh is poking fun at all the upper class people. He is saying something like: "You think that what you have accomplished is so much when it's nothing".
So here we go:
I'm sticking to my allusion with the Great Gatsby. The way the society is portrayed in The Great Gatsby reminds me very much of how the society is portrayed here. In this section, we are going along with Beaver and Brenda on a date. Well to me it seems like a date but most likely it isn't...politically correct considering Brenda is married. It was actually Brenda who asks him out to dinner and to be her date to Polly's party.
Brenda is a year older than Beaver and during the course of their date, she treats him as if he's a child. Generally on a date, the man pays, in this story Brenda is the independent woman, or so she tries to be. "Yes it is. I'm a year older than you and an old married woman and quite rich, so, please, I'm going to pay." [59] I feel as if Brenda, who has been under the control of the society and the ideals of what a woman should be, her marriage, and etc, finally gets the chance to be an independent strong woman. She becomes manipulative by picking a weak prey, Beaver, and twists him around to make herself feel better.
However at the same time, she knows the tricks to be able to make him feel like the dominant man. Before the party, Brenda asks: "How much do I tip him?" and Beaver showed her. "Are you sure that's enough? I should have given twice as much." "It's exactly right," said Beaver, feeling older again, exactly as Brenda had meant him to." [61] Again going back to my idea that she is playing the dominant figure whilst letting Beaver THINK he is.
Another example is at Polly's party. They eat dinner at Polly's party when she sees he has entered a bad mood because he has felt unimportant. "She wanted to make him feel important again so she asked him about the other people in the room."[63]
Going along with the idea about Brenda, I must mention Polly. So far I've noticed that Brenda, Polly, and Mrs. Beaver have a lot of similarities. They want to be presented among one of the top notch woman in their class: independent, strong, and social. Polly feels quite proud of herself of gaining the respect that she believes she has gained. She feels as if she has accomplished everything she had wanted for the party: "She wanted a perfectly straight, smart party and she had got it." [61] She makes a contrast between the other parties she has thrown: "In other years people had taken her hospitality more casually and brought on with them anyone with who they happened to have been dining." [62] To this year: "This year, without any conscious effort on hr part, tehre had been more formality. Those who wanted to bring friends had rung up in teh morning and asked whether they might do so, and on the whole they had been cautious of even so much presumption. People, who only eighteen months before would have pretended to be ignorant of her existence, were not crowding up her stairs." [62]
I feel that so far in this entire chapter, Evelyn Waugh is poking fun at all the upper class people. He is saying something like: "You think that what you have accomplished is so much when it's nothing".
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
English Gothic: Chapter 2
In the second chapter, we meet Brenda and Tony. They are a married couple in an out of style English gothic house. They both don't like the fact that Beaver is staying with them so they try very hard to get him to never come back. Brenda is characterized a lot, I think, like the character Daisy in The Great Gatsby.
She's a social butterfly. However she acts like she adores you but on the side, she might hate you. Daisy's character in The Great Gatsby, is feeble and weak. Brenda is also like that in some ways. She listens to the orders of her husband but she is very bored with the lifestyle he has provided her with. Which is similar to why Daisy in The Great Gatsby to stray away from her husband to Gatsby's new and exotic lifestyle of parties. She states that she hates the house she lives in with Tony but she bears with it because she knows how much Tony adores the house which he has grew up in.
Now I'm on chapter 3.
She's a social butterfly. However she acts like she adores you but on the side, she might hate you. Daisy's character in The Great Gatsby, is feeble and weak. Brenda is also like that in some ways. She listens to the orders of her husband but she is very bored with the lifestyle he has provided her with. Which is similar to why Daisy in The Great Gatsby to stray away from her husband to Gatsby's new and exotic lifestyle of parties. She states that she hates the house she lives in with Tony but she bears with it because she knows how much Tony adores the house which he has grew up in.
Now I'm on chapter 3.
A Handful of Dust
I'm currently reading "A Handful of Dust" by Evelyn Waugh [copyrighted in1934 originally]. This book summary is about the English life where it generally talks about a marriage where the wife is bored with her marriage who becomes a social parasite.
In the first chapter it is mainly focused on Beaver. He is from a well known family although he isn't rich. He isn't very well liked either.
In the first chapter it is mainly focused on Beaver. He is from a well known family although he isn't rich. He isn't very well liked either.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Most Important Movie To See
It's a long movie but something worth watching. It shows and teaches you things that you won't forget. WATCH IT
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
The Greed of Humans
What I'm mostly focusing on in my project is what these books are truly saying about the greed in humans. So my essential question would be:
"What does satire in these books tell you about the greed of humans?"
Even if you just think about it, greed is one of the seven most deadly sins. Its one of those sins where it can damage your life the most. You are DYING to gain money or even power that it corrupts you. If you have greed for power it's like that quote "Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely." For money, you are so consumed with the desire to gain more, you often think it is the key to happiness when it's not. You often tend to lose sight of the things that are truly important in life. So as I read, I want to know more about how greed is portrayed in society and does those ideas still apply today?
"What does satire in these books tell you about the greed of humans?"
Even if you just think about it, greed is one of the seven most deadly sins. Its one of those sins where it can damage your life the most. You are DYING to gain money or even power that it corrupts you. If you have greed for power it's like that quote "Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely." For money, you are so consumed with the desire to gain more, you often think it is the key to happiness when it's not. You often tend to lose sight of the things that are truly important in life. So as I read, I want to know more about how greed is portrayed in society and does those ideas still apply today?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)