Those of you who read the Creative and Critical Writing summer reading books should agree that Truman Capote's masterpiece In Cold Blood was definitely worth reading. Although it is a work of non-fiction, when I read it I almost forgot that the events described in it had actually happened. It almost became its own story.
There were countless reasons why I enjoyed In Cold Blood, but the aspect of the book that I enjoyed the most was the plot development. The changes in point of view and the flashbacks into the characters' pasts makes the plot non-linear, which helps any story resemble real life more than with a linear construction. Capote was almost forced to write his book this way since it was a work of non-fiction, meaning that it was based on a true story. As I was reading, I nearly forgot that there actually was a Clutter family in the Midwest that were the victims of a heinous crime.
An important element of the story that played a significant role in the story's plot development was point of view. Capote marks new "chapters" by shifting the story's focus from one group of characters to another. In this way, one event can be shown from many different angles, giving it a three-dimensional aspect. I felt like I could watch the story unfold from a birds-eye view.
The most obvious device that Capote used to masterfully craft the plot of the story was to me irony, specifically of the situational and dramatic kind. The dramatic irony is clearly more important in that since the story was based on true events, one can conclude that those who committed the crime against the Clutter family were caught. This implies that there would not be many plot twists, but there are some. I do not want to spoil the ending. Dramatic irony shows up in the form of complacency, meaning that certain characters believe something so whole-heartedly that they do not realize that it is false information. Shakespeare's plays are successes partly due to this type of irony.
I believe that In Cold Blood is a must-read. It may seem boring in the beginning, but it gets really good after all of the set-up is finished. In other words, it may be slow-moving in certain parts, but that does not take away from its greatness.
Big Brother is Watching!!!!!!!!!!!!
Friday, October 19, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Does Adolf Verloc Deserve Our Pity?
After finishing Joseph Conrad's masterwork The Secret Agent, I was blown away by the ending and was left with many questions. One of them was whether Verloc deserved the reader's sympathy or not. I can see both sides of this question and am unsure which opinion to take.
On the one hand, Verloc did not mean for his brother-in-law to die during the Greenwich job and one could clearly see that he wished he had never accepted the task. He seemed to be a victim of circumstances that he could not control. For example, Verloc could not force Stevie to simply plant the bomb and get out of the observatory because Stevie was mentally disabled. This is not to say that Stevie's death was his own fault. It could have been an accident. The text did say that Stevie tripped and the bomb detonated. After the bombing, the Professor, the one who supplied the explosives, told the Chief Inspector that there was plenty of time on the bomb before it would blow up. The fact that Stevie could not be easily told what to do by Verloc could have been the reason the job failed. With this in mind, one may conclude that Verloc was innocent and should not have been knifed by his wife.
On the other hand, it is possible that Verloc should not be pitied by the reader. While he was clearly a victim of circumstances in terms of the Greenwich accident, he has been labeled a lazy bum and a liar. This should be self-evident since he is a secret agent in the employ of the embassy. Interestingly enough, his employer, Mr. Vladimir, told him that he was not doing enough to keep his job. With this kind of a character trait, one could reason that Verloc lacks the vigor and energy to be a noble person. Thus he is not a hero and should not be admired by the reader. As for being deceptive, that is a significant part of Verloc's job. All those in the field of espionage must be good liars. Therefore, from a hindsight perspective it is not surprising that Winnie Verloc knows nothing of her husband's true occupation and the whereabouts of her brother on the day of the Greenwich bombing. He lied to her face by saying that he took Stevie to live out in the country in the care of Michaelis, a friends of the Verlocs. One can go as far as saying that justice was done to Verloc when he payed for his ways with his life.
I am not sure whether to pity Adolf Verloc or to dislike him. He is not a tragic hero, but he did endure a reversal of fortune which ended with his death and his killer's death. If anyone wishes to take sides, comment on this post with your answer and why.
On the one hand, Verloc did not mean for his brother-in-law to die during the Greenwich job and one could clearly see that he wished he had never accepted the task. He seemed to be a victim of circumstances that he could not control. For example, Verloc could not force Stevie to simply plant the bomb and get out of the observatory because Stevie was mentally disabled. This is not to say that Stevie's death was his own fault. It could have been an accident. The text did say that Stevie tripped and the bomb detonated. After the bombing, the Professor, the one who supplied the explosives, told the Chief Inspector that there was plenty of time on the bomb before it would blow up. The fact that Stevie could not be easily told what to do by Verloc could have been the reason the job failed. With this in mind, one may conclude that Verloc was innocent and should not have been knifed by his wife.
On the other hand, it is possible that Verloc should not be pitied by the reader. While he was clearly a victim of circumstances in terms of the Greenwich accident, he has been labeled a lazy bum and a liar. This should be self-evident since he is a secret agent in the employ of the embassy. Interestingly enough, his employer, Mr. Vladimir, told him that he was not doing enough to keep his job. With this kind of a character trait, one could reason that Verloc lacks the vigor and energy to be a noble person. Thus he is not a hero and should not be admired by the reader. As for being deceptive, that is a significant part of Verloc's job. All those in the field of espionage must be good liars. Therefore, from a hindsight perspective it is not surprising that Winnie Verloc knows nothing of her husband's true occupation and the whereabouts of her brother on the day of the Greenwich bombing. He lied to her face by saying that he took Stevie to live out in the country in the care of Michaelis, a friends of the Verlocs. One can go as far as saying that justice was done to Verloc when he payed for his ways with his life.
I am not sure whether to pity Adolf Verloc or to dislike him. He is not a tragic hero, but he did endure a reversal of fortune which ended with his death and his killer's death. If anyone wishes to take sides, comment on this post with your answer and why.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Thoughts on Mitch Albom's Tuesdays With Morrie
I have been reading Tuesdays With Morrie for a few weeks now and I wish it could be on the A.P. exam. Those people taking Death and Dying have to read it before mid-terms and even though I am not finished the book I know why Mr. Ingram chose it. It is all about death and dying.
The book is a first-person recounting of Albom's time spent with Morrie Schwartz, his sociology professor, who in his twilight years contracted Lou Gehrig's disease and was forced to count the days he had left to live. Albom, when he heard about what became of Morrie, had a job as a sports writer and a life of his own. After graduating college he promised Morrie that they would stay in touch. It is not surprising that this didn't happen because Albom as a young man, according to the text, seemed ready to go out on his own and seek his fortune. He forgot about Morrie and it was only by chance that he found out that he was dying. Right now, I am now in the part of the book where the two have "classes" on Tuesdays and discuss different aspects of life and death. Don't worry I did not spoil the ending. I don't even know how it ends!
One of the literary elements of the novel that I am enjoying the most is the flashback. Albom uses it very well in that one knows when the narrator is recalling memories of his college courses with Morrie or when in the story it is the present time. Because of this, the plot is made non-linear, forcing the reader to piece together the narrator's college days and to trace the connections between a particular memory and what was discussed in one of the Tuesday sessions at Morrie's house. One of the best parts of a non-linear plot structure is that it more accurately portrays real life than a nice elegant chain of events. It is not surprising that Albom would decide to write his work in this way because he can be considered part of the post-modernist era, which is known for books made up of disjointed events that may not be in chronological order.
Even though changing the way the plot is expressed makes the book different, the most mind-blowing aspect for me so far is, strangely enough, its philosophical nature. It's as if Albom is going to examine death and dying from every possible angle. I have already seen many things that Mr. Ingram has talked about in class. For example, when Albom saw Morrie on the news and he was talking about the slow and painful death he will have, the narrator commented on how the rest of the world did not seem to take notice of Morrie's plight. There were plenty of people who took the time out of their own lives to see him, but overall it was as if no one cared. I have also noticed aspects of existentialism in the story. The way Morrie spent his last days alive was the "healthy" response to the notion that everyone will die eventually. However, while the rest of us know nothing about how we will die, Morrie knows approximately how long he has and in what manner he will perish. This gives him a huge advantage because although he will not accomplish everything in life he would want to, his carpe diem nature will drive him to make the most out of each minute given to him. Morrie does exactly that, through not isolating himself from the world and through making a difference in others' lives by simply enduring. In this way, he can be seen as a role model in that instead of giving up and asking a doctor to euthanize him, he decides to withstand the pain of having every muscle in his body slowly weaken to the point where it cannot be used again.
I am definitely enjoying Tuesdays With Morrie not just because of what it has to say about death and dying, but also because it contains several lessons for life. All I hope is that I can write intelligently about this book come January when I take the final exam in my death and dying course.
As a side note, I will be reading other books by Mitch Albom and I hope to post my thoughts on them in the near future.
The book is a first-person recounting of Albom's time spent with Morrie Schwartz, his sociology professor, who in his twilight years contracted Lou Gehrig's disease and was forced to count the days he had left to live. Albom, when he heard about what became of Morrie, had a job as a sports writer and a life of his own. After graduating college he promised Morrie that they would stay in touch. It is not surprising that this didn't happen because Albom as a young man, according to the text, seemed ready to go out on his own and seek his fortune. He forgot about Morrie and it was only by chance that he found out that he was dying. Right now, I am now in the part of the book where the two have "classes" on Tuesdays and discuss different aspects of life and death. Don't worry I did not spoil the ending. I don't even know how it ends!
One of the literary elements of the novel that I am enjoying the most is the flashback. Albom uses it very well in that one knows when the narrator is recalling memories of his college courses with Morrie or when in the story it is the present time. Because of this, the plot is made non-linear, forcing the reader to piece together the narrator's college days and to trace the connections between a particular memory and what was discussed in one of the Tuesday sessions at Morrie's house. One of the best parts of a non-linear plot structure is that it more accurately portrays real life than a nice elegant chain of events. It is not surprising that Albom would decide to write his work in this way because he can be considered part of the post-modernist era, which is known for books made up of disjointed events that may not be in chronological order.
Even though changing the way the plot is expressed makes the book different, the most mind-blowing aspect for me so far is, strangely enough, its philosophical nature. It's as if Albom is going to examine death and dying from every possible angle. I have already seen many things that Mr. Ingram has talked about in class. For example, when Albom saw Morrie on the news and he was talking about the slow and painful death he will have, the narrator commented on how the rest of the world did not seem to take notice of Morrie's plight. There were plenty of people who took the time out of their own lives to see him, but overall it was as if no one cared. I have also noticed aspects of existentialism in the story. The way Morrie spent his last days alive was the "healthy" response to the notion that everyone will die eventually. However, while the rest of us know nothing about how we will die, Morrie knows approximately how long he has and in what manner he will perish. This gives him a huge advantage because although he will not accomplish everything in life he would want to, his carpe diem nature will drive him to make the most out of each minute given to him. Morrie does exactly that, through not isolating himself from the world and through making a difference in others' lives by simply enduring. In this way, he can be seen as a role model in that instead of giving up and asking a doctor to euthanize him, he decides to withstand the pain of having every muscle in his body slowly weaken to the point where it cannot be used again.
I am definitely enjoying Tuesdays With Morrie not just because of what it has to say about death and dying, but also because it contains several lessons for life. All I hope is that I can write intelligently about this book come January when I take the final exam in my death and dying course.
As a side note, I will be reading other books by Mitch Albom and I hope to post my thoughts on them in the near future.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
1984 Vs. Brave New World: Orwell Vs. Huxley
I thought I should start my blogging with a post related to our A.P. English: Literature class's first major essay, whose prompt is on theme. I decided to write on rebellion and chose George Orwell's book 1984 as the work I will use in my essay. While I was figuring out which story to write about, I started thinking about the differences between 1984 and the just as great novel Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Now I have the burning question of which of the two masterworks is superior.
Before I start, if anyone has not read Brave New World, here is a link to its sparknotes page:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew
I would recommend actually reading the novel. The above webpage just gives a short summary of the plot.
Both George Orwell and Aldous Huxley set their masterpieces in worlds where the ruling body has absolute power. In 1984, people are spied on through devices called "telescreens" that let the Party see and hear what is happening in someone's home. Also, a group called the Thought Police hunts down people that even think about freedom and other seditious concepts. People in this world are forced to obey Big Brother and the Party or else risk being taken to the cleverly-named Ministry of Love and suffer the consequences. Hence the picture at the top of the page. On the other hand, in Brave New World, the government takes a more diabolical approach to controlling its people. Instead of babies being born in the ordinary fashion, people are born in test tubes and no citizen is allowed to pro-create. After the babies are brought into the world, they endure a series of conditioning exercises tailored to the caste that they are predestined to occupy. These social classes are Echo, Delta, Gamma, Beta, and Alpha. As one would imagine, the Alphas are superior and the Echos are the dumbest peons. That was not enough for this government. They also introduced a happiness-inducing drug called soma that causes a person to be drunk but not be hung over afterwards. All these factors and more form a society in which every person but one is satisfied with the present "utopia." I leave it to you to decide which novel better illustrates control.
The next question to ask is obviously which book better shows rejection of the status quo. In stories where there is total control and no freedom, this should signal to a reader that at least one character will attempt to stand up to those in power and face the consequences whether positive or negative. In 1984, it is the main character Winston Smith's lover Julia. She performs inception by showing him what life is like outside the gaze of a telescreen. Their antics show Winston the meaning of freedom. The notion of rebellion is seen differently in Brave New World. The main characters Bernard Marx and Lenina Crowne while on vacation at a Native American reservation (actually called a Savage Reservation) see a culture totally different from their own. When Bernard in an attempt to make himself look better in front of his peers brings one of the so-called savages back home, the real fun begins. The Native American, who has no idea how to assimilate himself into this foreign world he has been brought to, is displayed by Bernard as if he was a circus animal. It is an indirect way of showing sentiments countercultural to the dystopian society. Just as before, which story won?
The final area of debate is appropriately overall effect on the reader. This is a more difficult question to answer since it requires one to have read both books and I am not sure which of my classmates have read Brave New World. One should always examine overall effect when trying to decide if one novel is better than another. After having read both masterworks, I know I cannot decide since the two almost impeccably achieve their purpose of instilling fear of what lies ahead. For those that have read the two great books, I leave it to you to answer this question. It is, after all, a matter of opinion.
Before I start, if anyone has not read Brave New World, here is a link to its sparknotes page:
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew
I would recommend actually reading the novel. The above webpage just gives a short summary of the plot.
Both George Orwell and Aldous Huxley set their masterpieces in worlds where the ruling body has absolute power. In 1984, people are spied on through devices called "telescreens" that let the Party see and hear what is happening in someone's home. Also, a group called the Thought Police hunts down people that even think about freedom and other seditious concepts. People in this world are forced to obey Big Brother and the Party or else risk being taken to the cleverly-named Ministry of Love and suffer the consequences. Hence the picture at the top of the page. On the other hand, in Brave New World, the government takes a more diabolical approach to controlling its people. Instead of babies being born in the ordinary fashion, people are born in test tubes and no citizen is allowed to pro-create. After the babies are brought into the world, they endure a series of conditioning exercises tailored to the caste that they are predestined to occupy. These social classes are Echo, Delta, Gamma, Beta, and Alpha. As one would imagine, the Alphas are superior and the Echos are the dumbest peons. That was not enough for this government. They also introduced a happiness-inducing drug called soma that causes a person to be drunk but not be hung over afterwards. All these factors and more form a society in which every person but one is satisfied with the present "utopia." I leave it to you to decide which novel better illustrates control.
The next question to ask is obviously which book better shows rejection of the status quo. In stories where there is total control and no freedom, this should signal to a reader that at least one character will attempt to stand up to those in power and face the consequences whether positive or negative. In 1984, it is the main character Winston Smith's lover Julia. She performs inception by showing him what life is like outside the gaze of a telescreen. Their antics show Winston the meaning of freedom. The notion of rebellion is seen differently in Brave New World. The main characters Bernard Marx and Lenina Crowne while on vacation at a Native American reservation (actually called a Savage Reservation) see a culture totally different from their own. When Bernard in an attempt to make himself look better in front of his peers brings one of the so-called savages back home, the real fun begins. The Native American, who has no idea how to assimilate himself into this foreign world he has been brought to, is displayed by Bernard as if he was a circus animal. It is an indirect way of showing sentiments countercultural to the dystopian society. Just as before, which story won?
The final area of debate is appropriately overall effect on the reader. This is a more difficult question to answer since it requires one to have read both books and I am not sure which of my classmates have read Brave New World. One should always examine overall effect when trying to decide if one novel is better than another. After having read both masterworks, I know I cannot decide since the two almost impeccably achieve their purpose of instilling fear of what lies ahead. For those that have read the two great books, I leave it to you to answer this question. It is, after all, a matter of opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)