A Blog of Ice and Fire Part 2: The Series

Now for the fun part.  The rating for Game of Thrones on IMDB (a 9.4 out of 10) to me is a load of bollocks.  I know that for any adaptation of a book the adaptation is never better, but HBO being HBO focuses on the wrong aspects of A Song of Ice and Fire.  You know its bad when scenes are added that never actually occurred.  Even worse is when scenes are not as epic as in the books (the wildfire scene for example).  Long story short, I have to look past the nitty gritty details that are omitted or done the wrong way.  However HBO did butcher an entire character story line (if you watch the show you'll understand).  Ok I'm done with the ravings of a mad man.  The show is actually very good and deserves praise, but it is not as good as George Martin's series.

Let's start with the characters.  The actors play their characters well.  That is one of the aspects of the show I appreciate.  Peter Dinklage was the perfect choice for the Imp.  Sean Bean as Ned, priceless.  The greatest part about the casting is that many of the names are unfamiliar.  Rather than know the actors, viewers get to know the characters they see on the screen.  So instead of watching the show just to see a bunch of familiar actors that people only see as actors, the characters, I hate to use this expression, come alive.

Another part of the show that I liked, especially in the first season, was how lines were taken verbatim and incorporated into the screenplay.  That made it more authentic even though the show deviated from the books in several ways.  Even some of the lines that were not in the books originally were very good.  Most of Tyrion's lines were not from the books but were funny.  So even though plot wise the show does not follow the books as much as I would have wanted it to, Game of Thrones makes up for it with an entertaining title sequence and a very accurate depiction of the setting.

I have to discuss the theme sequence for the show.  It won awards!  I have never seen anything quite like it.  Best part about it, the sequence shows each major setting for that particular episode.  Ingenius!

So there are great things to be said about the show Game of Thrones.  However, it should not have focused on the explicit nature of A Song of Ice and Fire.  I know they needed the fanbase, but that was where it deviated the most.  Because HBO focused too much on minor points that were probably inconsequential in terms of the big picture, the important parts of the plot had to be changed and certain parts now don't flow.  That being said I recommend watching the show AND reading the books.  It's cool to see what HBO does in terms of depicting the major scenes that George Martin created.  I can't wait for both the show and the books to be done!                   

A Blog of Ice and Fire Part 1: The Books

I don't know where to start when talking about George Martin's yet-to-be finished series A Song of Ice and Fire.  There are so many different story lines all happening simultaneously and all of the characters are described in great detail.  Put it this way, the soon-to-be seven-book series dwarfs A Tale of Two Cities (another name for the series could be "a tale of too many cities").  Surprisingly, one of the things I like the most about the series is its complexity.  All of the important characters are portrayed in such a way that one can visualize exactly what's gone on for them (except Rickon Stark, but he probably becomes important later).  I didn't need the series Game of Thrones to show me what the characters looked like or what they did.  Actually the show mucks up the plot (to be discussed in next post).  Long story short, I fell in love with the series after the first two or three chapters of A Game of Thrones, book one in the series.

As I mentioned before the complex nature of A Song of Ice and Fire is one of the reasons why I love it so much.  Every time I read a new chapter I'm forced to review it in my head and at the same time figure out how it fits in with the rest of the plot.  Furthermore, it makes me want to try to find out what happens next by looking up the characters online.  That's when I start cursing "A Wiki of Ice and Fire" for its lack of spoiler alerts.  This shows how expansive the books are.  There's a wiki devoted just to the unfinished series.  I know Lord of the Rings is even more involved in its character development, I think A Song of Ice and Fire contains more scenes and more parallel stories.  What's even better about the books is that these plots are interwoven.  Just like in Faulkner's As I lay Dying the chapters are named after the person narrating the story, and there multiple perspectives on a single event.  It was cool to read more books of the same structure because I enjoy that kind of setup.

I should probably try to broach the plot without spoiling it (very hard!) since that is another aspect of the series I like.  To avoid the spoiler alert problem I'll just discuss characters and I won't say if they are living or not (George Martin is the best character killer thus far in my opinion).  If you've been watching the TV series none of this will be new.  My favorite character is Tyrion unsurprisingly (Peter Dinklage is the man!!!!!!).  As the dwarf in the series, no one but prostitutes like him.  I root for him every time I open up my Kindle app on my itouch.  He has the best lines and the best inner thoughts.  One of the only things the show did right was him.  He has everything I want in a title character in that he has substance.  You joke with him, cry with him, and get angry along with him.  Kudos to him for being able to put up with Joffrey (biggest tool ever!!!!!).  Also he has the best japes (I had to use Martin's word for jokes).  That's what keeps my attention going in the show because I want to know what Peter Dinklage will say next as Tyrion Lannister. 

I could go on for longer about the awesomeness of the Imp, but I can't not talk about Lord Eddard Stark (Sean Bean is awesome).  What to say.  Ned Stark is the epitome of honor and truth.  Unlike the devious nature of Varys the eunuch or Petyr Baelish, Ned is a good guy in that most everything he tells his six children is morally correct in terms of the time period ("he who passes the judgement should swing the sword" is a great example).  There is no one quite like Ned because he is loved by many but also is very hardened ("winter is coming" greatest motto ever).

Now onto the devious characters because I have to talk about Varys and Petyr Baelish.  These two members of the King's council are the smartest men in the entire series.  However their practices make them seem like bad guys even though Varys says he does everything he does for the good of the realm.  On the one hand you have Lord Varys the master of whispers who seems to know everything about all of the current happenings in the series.  He comes off as cryptic and all-knowing but some characters believe they have him on their side.  In reality he works for himself which is his greatest characteristic.  He is one of two Jay Gatsbys in the series.  The other is Lord Baelish, or Littlefinger.  An economics wizard and a master negotiator, Littlefinger started from nothing and by his own efforts became one the meanest intelligent characters in A Song of Ice and Fire.  I think its interesting that he makes most of his money through his brothels in King's Landing.  The best part about these two masterminds, however, is the fact that both of them have devised plans to rule the realm indirectly.  Littlefinger needs lands, riches, and an army, and it is unsure what Varys needs to do but clearly he has tricks up his sleeves.

In any case, A Song of Ice and Fire in my opinion is a great series.  It's complex, mind-blowing, and very very addictive.  You will get sucked into it at the very beginning.  If a TV series that doesn't accurately depict the books earned a 9.5/10 on IMDB's ratings, a rating that very few movies can come close to, then it has to be an amazing set of books.  On top of that it's not even finished yet!  Right now I'm starting book four out of the five finished ones and I can't wait to read about what happens next.  In closing, A Song of Ice and Fire is worth reading!                                    

A Long Overdue Post: My Thoughts on The Godfather

I'm surprised I even remember the amazing experience of reading Mario Puzo's The Godfather.  It's been a couple months since I finished it and I didn't get around to posting the many things I liked about it due to the third quarter's poetry blogging.  I enjoyed reading W.H. Auden and having to break down his works, but I ended up forgetting to write about The Godfather.

I don't know where to start because nearly every part of the book was great in its own way.  I will definitely use this on the A.P. Lit exam's open-ended question if I can.

Like most people I saw the movies ( the first two; the third one doesn't count!) before reading Puzo's book.  They were truly great movies (the first one was number 3 on A.F.I.'s top 100 movies), which convinced me that the book they were based on must be great too if Francis Ford Coppola was able to make two landmark films out of it (it helped to have Puzo as his other screenwriter).  That was what got me started on the book and I was glad that I finished it because Coppola left many parts out, which makes sense.

The novel didn't seem like a novel at all, that was how good a portrayal of the Italian Mafia it was.  It is known that Puzo did base the book off of a Mafia crime family that did control New York in the early 1900's, but that does not detract from its awesomeness.  Sadly one of the aspects of The Godfather I liked the most was its graphic nature (the horse head in Jack Woltz's bed was crazy).  This leads me to discuss the killings.  This was the best part of the story by far.  Everything was described as if it really happened.

Even though I knew the plot very well from having seen the movies so many times, I liked reading the back stories of certain characters (Luca Brazi was not given enough time on the screen!).  It was also interesting to find out that most of the second movie was not in the book, but rather was created by Coppola and Puzo in order to continue Michael Corleone's story.  The text itself ends with Michael in Nevada with Kay and his children and one is unsure if things fall apart between them or not.  Without writing another book, Puzo uses The Godfather: Part II to show how Don Michael uses his power and to show what he loses by being a mobster.

Overall I love The Godfather because it never lost my interest as a reader.  I knew the entire story but was not bored even for a second.  All of the characters were well-developed and the narrator followed most of them until they died.  Even the minor characters were explored in just as many pages as the major ones.  I would recommend this book to all those that want a story with action, betrayal, and an unhappy ending.                      

Wrapping Up Auden: Thoughts on Love and Terminal Illness

Sadly I'm at the end of the rope for my discussion of the W.H. Auden poems that I plan to use in my paper for this quarter.  The final two works on the docket are "Are you There?" and "Give Me A Doctor."  I'm combining them into one post since they are short but sweet (if you think terminal illness is sweet).  While they are not extensive, they will in my essay help show the range of topics Auden broached (for "If I could Tell You" this means making the reader's mind explode).

Here is a link to "Are You There?":

http://allpoetry.com/poem/8493059-Are_You_There_-by-W_H_Auden 

Let's begin with the less commanding title.  "Are You There?" is one of Auden's "love poems."  I put love poem in quotation marks because these Auden poems are neither pick up lines nor verse based in Keats' mastery of the emotion of love.  For me "Are You There?" was more a statement of what love is for certain people.  Right off the bat, the first stanza engages the reader with two possibilities to examine: a person is either alone and forced to think about if they were in love, or a person is in love and forced to think on what would happen if they were alone.  Long story short, one is alone or in love.  While this stanza is good at hooking the reader, it presents the subject matter simultaneously (always good to kill two birds with one stone).  With your undivided attention, Auden then proceeds with a head-scratcher as his next verse.  I was unsure as to the precise meaning of these lines upon reading it and rereading it several times.  However, once I looked up simulacrum (line 6) on wikipedia, it made sense a little.  Simulacrum means "likeness" and is very connotative in that it could refer to an inferior representation of a person or object.  In an almost "ah hah!" moment, I figured that the purpose of the second stanza may be to show that dreaming of being with someone is inferior to actually being with that person.  Using the same reasoning, the third stanza shoots down Narcissus in an allusion to his tragic tale about loving oneself too much.  In a nutshell, the speaker states that it is not rewarding to be self-absorbed and that things are infinitely better when shared in the company of others.  The third verse concludes the first half of the poem, which dealt with love in general.  The rest of the stanzas look at love from the perspective of children and adults, and then they wrap up the poem with a few lasting remarks.  In compare and contrast manner, Auden explores the nature of love's development from childhood to adulthood.  The speaker does not seem satisfied with both extremes, which implies that balance (like with anything else) is in order.  The last stanza expresses this in the line, "Whatever view we hold."  In the most important part of the poem (more lines in this stanza than the rest), the speaker gives the reader an inkling of hope with "perhaps we are not alone."  This is the line that left me thinking.  Like in Auden's other works, he hits you with a final thought that may leave you cringing or in a contemplative state.

"Give Me a Doctor" also made me think long and hard.  Here it is reproduced for your dining pleasure:

Give me a doctor partridge-plump, 
Short in the leg and broad in the rump, 
An endomorph with gentle hands 
Who'll never make absurd demands 
That I abandon all my vices 
Nor pull a long face in a crisis, 
But with a twinkle in his eye Will tell me that I have to die. 

Now you may not have thought about this on first read, but after a few times, I picked up on the problem with the second to last line.  The preceding lines seem to fit for a woman doctor, but yet it says "twinkle in his eye."  This poem just got a little deeper (uh oh!).  On the literal level it's a day in the life for doctors in the in-patient ward of a hospital where a person (unknown gender) is terminally ill.  However, Auden messed with us in that we are unsure if the speaker is homosexual like he was or if the narrator is a woman, in which case the oddity was a false alarm.  In my opinion, the first possibility is more likely because Auden was known to have been a homosexual and this could have been a way to show that it is not a bad thing.  Back in his time, people did not easily "come out of the closet," which means that he would have to hide any message related to homosexuality deep in his poems.  I just thought that that was an interesting observation.  This is probably not central to "Give Me a Doctor," but it does make for some good irony.  Rather, I think the big picture purpose is to reveal insight into what it is like to be on the brink of death in a hospital environment.  You either have brutally honest doctors that crush patients with reality or the ones that plant false hopes of survival.  What the speaker seems to want is a middle-ground doctor, one that will tell him that he will die, but in the right way.  This goes for any terminally ill patient.  One must break the news in the correct way or else all hell breaks loose.  It's also shown that the looks of the doctor are important as well.  First impressions are everything!  What helped me understand this work was to put the images and personality traits in the first six lines together and see what they show about a doctor and then connect that with the last line.  Speaking of connections, I successfully related homosexuality to terminal illness.  Score!!

Anyway, I'm about ready to write this paper on a poet whose works I enjoyed immensely.                                                                            

One of My Most Favorite Lines in a Poem and Why

"Time will say nothing but I told you so."  I can't stop thinking about that line in Auden's poem "If I could tell you."  This work surprised me in that it evoked an emotion.  It forced me to reread it because I had never thought of time being personified in the way Auden did it.  Here is the poem for your dining pleasure:

Time will say nothing but I told you so
Time only knows the price we have to pay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

If we should weep when clowns put on their show,
If we should stumble when musicians play,
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

There are no fortunes to be told, although,
Because I love you more than I can say,
If I could tell you I would let you know.

The winds must come from somewhere when they blow,
There must be reasons why the leaves decay;
Time will say nothing but I told you so.

Perhaps the roses really want to grow,
The vision seriously intends to stay;
If I could tell you I would let you know.

Suppose all the lions get up and go,
And all the brooks and soldiers run away;
Will Time say nothing but I told you so?
If I could tell you I would let you know.

I would not believe it if someone told me that didn't make them stop and think.  The web page that I found this poem on had six pages devoted to people's reactions to reading it and you guessed it they all had nothing but positive remarks.  The strangest part was in my research on the poem I found that it was almost named "But I can't," a possible way to complete the actual title, "If I could tell you."

Overall I was very sad that I had to explicate this poem because like with anything else (jokes specifically) deconstruction is a fun sucker (sorry Jacques Derrida).  That's why in my annotation sheet on "If I Could Tell You" my useful critical approach was reader response.  The many comments on the work helped me to understand what others saw in it, thereby helping me pick out the important points.  Thankfully key lines wasn't an issue.  In retrospect before I began contemplating the line "Time will say nothing but I told you so," there were very few lines in poetry that really made me want to think on them about what they really meant.  I applaud Auden for personifying Time and making something similar to song lyrics based around it (nearly a conceit!).  He picked a metaphysical topic and kept my attention longer than the metaphysical poets could.

I can't wait to write about the merit of "If I Could Tell You" in my paper on W.H. Auden.                        

Auden's Very Own Public Service Announcement

Just got done reading through another Auden poem.  I was "hooked" after reading its title: "Cocaine Lil and Morphine Sue."  Already one knows it has something to do with drugs ("Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" comes to mind).  After reading through it I got the impression that Auden had a bone to pick with cocaine and morphine, or addictive drugs in general.  However, the poem must have been written for a bigger purpose, but I thought it was interesting that the work read like a rhythmic public service announcement.  I'm not insulting anything about the poem.  It rhymed nicely and wasn't in a lofty language, which makes it easier to grasp.

The message the poem seemed to convey was pretty simple, but that does not mean a closer reading couldn't bring new insight to the table.  I think the main underlying concept is the impact that addictions have on people.  The common denominator in everything Cocaine Lil did  (and how she looked) was you guessed it snorting cocaine, which is very addictive.  The drug gave Lil some of the best experiences of her life from a social standpoint, but was her downfall just like using any other illicit substance.

Strangely enough as I was reading and rereading the work, the TV show "Breaking Bad" came to mind.  Walter White and Lil both lead lives centered around addictive substances.  An even closer connection would be between Lil and Jesse Pinkman, Walt's friend and co-conspirator.  Even though Jesse does not currently use meth, he was an avid user in the past seasons.  In comparing and contrasting Walt's experiences as a meth cook and Lil's experiences as a user, one sees how on both sides of the drug trade addictions can still be a powerful motivator.  I have not spoiled anything about the show.  As a final note on "Breaking Bad," I consider it great (IMDB gave it a 9.4 out of 10!).

In conclusion, "Cocaine Lil and Morphine Sue" is on the surface a public service announcement, but a closer reading can show that it might be a statement on the impact of addictions and how they can lead ultimately to one's demise.                      

Why Auden? First Thoughts on His Poems

So I decided on W.H. Auden as the poet of discussion for my next several posts.  I wanted to know why Morrie Schwartz, God rest his soul, considered him his favorite poet.  After reading one of Auden's most famous poems "Funeral Blues," I figured Morrie liked the themes of life and death.  "Funeral Blues" could have been one of the poems Morrie liked because it expresses the deep sadness people experience after losing a loved one.  For Mitch Albom, Morrie was his north, south, east, and west.  That was why I chose Auden and I am glad I did because looking at "Funeral Blues" as a statement about death is only the tip of the iceberg.

"Funeral Blues" dues to its rhythmic nature has been used in songs several times and it seems like Auden wanted it set to music.  It rhymes in the standard aa bb like most songs and reads very naturally.  Within this simple setup lies a very profound message about the deep roots of true love.  The deceased person discussed in the poem must have been very important to the speaker if he was the narrator's north, south, east, and west (could describe Romeo!).  Furthermore, the narrator wishes that everything but the kitchen sink cease all activity in order to mourn the loss of the deceased.  This is where the iconic first line "Stop all the clocks" comes from.  That first stanza marks the denial of the truth that the world keeps going after someone dies, which can be problematic.  No matter, Auden shows the actual emotional reaction people have when they learn of a loved one's demise.  The second stanza expands on the ideas of the preceding lines, but instead focuses on the notion that people die every day and very few are recognized by the general public.  What Auden does is show this issue from the mourner's perspective, which is characterized by asking why society does not stop to sympathize.  The speaker discusses what ought to be when the opposite is true in reality.  Filled with grief and sadness, the narrator then goes on in the third stanza to express the gravity of his or her (not specified) love for the dead person.  An interesting thing happens in these lines.  Auden gives away a big portion of the poem's meaning.  In traditional poems (sonnets are a good example) a central message in the last few lines is built up to through the combined efforts of the preceding content.  Finally after the lamenting of the third stanza, the final four lines are a statement of the resulting depression due to the "hole" created by the deceased leaving the speaker's life.

Overall I really enjoyed reading and rereading "Funeral Blues."  Now I get why Morrie considered Auden to be his favorite poet.  He saw in Auden a person who was not afraid to talk about death and dying, which were (and still are to an extent) taboo.  I will be posting more thoughts on Auden's poems as I read them, and hopefully these thoughts don't turn into full-blown explications.                              

     

So You Want to be an Arsonist: William Faulkner on How Not to Get Caught "Barn Burning"

In a nutshell, I was pretty taken aback by Faulkner's short story "Barn Burning."  The title was already making me squirm a little and I didn't know if the story would be just as cryptic as As I Lay Dying was.  Thankfully it wasn't too convoluted.  However, it was one of the saddest stories I had read in a long time.  Imagine being the son of a man who has been charged with arson multiple times.  The ethical dilemma is just screaming out to the reader, and this is what Faulkner was trying to show through the protagonist Colonel Sartoris Snopes.  Snopes and his family live in Faulkner's made-up Yoknapatawpha County, Mississippi (no surprise) just like the Bundrens from As I Lay Dying (it will all make sense once you start reading the novel).  This makes no difference, but it begs the question of whether Faulkner's some of the stories take place simultaneously in Yoknapatawpha County or are they all set in different time periods.  No matter, the Snopes' are your average poor rural family with one little glitch:  a disfigured father named Abner Snopes.  A red flag should be going off immediately when one finds out a character is deformed (think Flannery O'Connor).  Abner Snopes's issue is a limp in his leg from being shot in the Civil War.  Besides that, he is described as stiff-bodied and even worse he speaks in a harsh emotionless voice.  I really want to meet this guy (sarcasm ensues).  Thus far there is no evidence that he is very likable, so he is a good candidate to be a criminal.  For Sartoris Snopes, it means having to submit without fail to an angry father who loves to show his superiority as patriarch.  The situation is almost as bad for Abner Snopes's wife (how could she have married  this guy).  She is scared into submission by her husband's violent nature.

With so many problems, Abner Snopes looks like he has a lot to answer to.  He seems to lack a conscience and a sense of decency.  Whatever happens, he will eventually have to confess any wrongdoings he may have done to either his family or the judge, who will be so happy to see him (not really).  All of this and more made me sad and also glad to have read William Faulkner's short story "Barn Burning."  I would highly recommend it because if one wishes to understand an author, it never hurts to read more than one of his or her works.  Another one of Faulkner's short stories that is just as gut-wrenching is "A Rose for Emily."                                                  

Hemingway Vs. Faulkner: The Most Epic Battle of the Lost Generation

Finally, the moment I have been waiting for this entire year!  I can now delve into the quandary that is who won:  Hemingway or Faulkner?  A.P. Hamlit reads As I lay Dying, while Creative and Critical Writing classes study Hemingway.  Mr. Frankum's classes have had The Sun Also Rises as summer reading and I have heard that Mr. Fiorelli had his students read "Hills Like White Elephants" at some point in the year.  In my post of Orwell Vs. Huxley, I discussed common concepts in their masterpieces 1984 and Brave New World respectively and voiced my opinion of who won on each battleground.  Here I will strictly discuss the two authors' differing styles and the cultural aspects of their works.  About half of A.P. Hamlit should have opinions on the dispute since those taking both senior English courses will have been exposed to both authors.  For the rest, I would recommend reading Hemingway after finishing As I Lay Dying or while reading it.

Let's start with Faulkner because A.P. Hamlit will study him (no offense to Hemingway).  One should be surprised that he was able to write short stories (it will all make sense after reading or attempting to read As I lay Dying).  His sentences vary in structure, but tend to be longer and much more substantive.  I believe that since he was trying to paint vivid mental pictures in the minds of his readers while also conveying deep concepts in an understandable manner, his sentences turned out to be many individual parts connected with conjunctions.  Another intriguing aspect of the depth of Faulkner's sentences is that one can understand how introspective certain characters are.  As I Lay Dying is a patchwork of thoughts by the characters involved in the events the story discusses.  The obvious reason for this setup is to show differing viewpoints for major plot points.  However, the difference in how characters express themselves in dialogue and in thoughts shows readers that Faulkner is not writing a tale about a bunch of uneducated Southern farmers.  They do not seem intelligent only because their manner of speaking is so far from the rules of the English language.  Their narrations reveal characters that are at different levels of "supposing."  The stream of consciousness setup facilitates a reader response about the mental state of each major character.  It also for me aided in eliciting sympathy for a few characters.  Long story short, Faulkner was a master of portraying the complexity of the mind and the thoughts it concocts in a manner readers can grasp (or hopefully grasp more often than not).

Now for the great Ernest Hemingway.  His style is almost a paradox in that he made his prose as minimalist as possible, but his sentences turned out to be long and you guessed it extended using conjunctions, namely "and".  In his pursuit of simplicity in language, he broke a few rules of grammar in his narrations.  This mostly consisted of leaving out certain words, which sometimes leads to sentences sounding awkward when read aloud.  No matter what issues may have arisen from boiling down his writing to the bare minimum, Hemingway clearly achieved a more conversational and informal tone, which was needed due to the material he wrote about.  Being from the Lost Generation, he lived in an era that was trying to make sense out of the senseless Great War.  Consequently, his stories are about the daily lives of people who were changed drastically by the war.  The Sun Also Rises is essentially the antics of a group of expatriates, those that renounce their country's citizenship.  Hemingway in this novel meant to capture the manner in which people of that time period "drained their sorrows" in a manner of speaking.  This implies excessive drinking and excessive partying.  The female lead character Lady Brett Ashley is depicted as a tomboyish character in order to fulfill this requirement (and because Hemingway did not know how to correctly portray women).  In a Hemingway story, the closest thing to a central meaning is the realization of how the post-Great War era was marked by an aspect of debauchery.  Unlike Faulkner, Hemingway seemed as if he was writing for himself in a sense.  This is motivated by how close his stories are to things he himself experienced.  All in all, works by Ernest Hemingway are considered classics because of how down to earth and relatively informal they are.  It didn't hurt that it takes literary genius to be a minimalist writer.  In my opinion, Hemingway is a guy's author, but that is only because he portrays women characters as having traditionally masculine qualities.

Who Won?  It's all a matter of opinion like anything else.  Faulkner and Hemingway were both great authors and deserve to be studied in English courses.

                                                                 

Mitch Albom Revisited: For One More Day

I'm sorry I didn't post this earlier.  I finished up with For One More Day a month or two ago, but it was so good that I remember finishing it like it was yesterday.  For those of you in Ingram's engaging death and dying class, this should be read after Tuesdays With Morrie.  Both are amazing reads and contain life-changing morals relating to death and dying (and life and living according to Mr. Ingram!).  That's not to say that both works are at the low level of fable.  For One More Day is a work of fiction, but in my opinion certain aspects of the story could be true of many professional athletes.  

Similar to Tuesdays With Morrie in that it is about one major character, the novel is about a professional baseball player who has a very unique form of near-death experience in which he spends time with his recently dead mother who acts as if she never died.  The washed up MLB player gets much-needed guidance from his mother as he searches for a purpose to live after losing everything dear to him.  For inquisitive Ingram students, the clinical death occurred after Charles "Chick" Benetto, the protagonist, threw himself from the top of a water tower in an attempt to commit suicide.  

I will say no more on plot!

It is a very quick read and contains just as important a central meaning as the longest masterwork.  Clearly quality over quantity, which for contemporary authors is very important because many people now do not seem to have as much time on their hands to read a work as long as Crime and Punishment or The Count of Monte Cristo or It.  All of Mitch Albom's works have been short, but sweet.  I am about to start reading another of his works, The Five People You Meet in Heaven.  I saw the movie based off of it with veteran actor Jon Voight (he was in National Treasure) as the lead character a few years ago and loved it.  It's a shame the movie was only made for TV.  I would recommend reading all of Albom's books instead of just reading Tuesdays With Morrie.  If one reads his three major works and gets his fourth book which just came out, that's four easy blog posts.               

Hamlet and The Lion King. Parallels?

Hi everyone!  These posts are way overdue, but I will start with the hot topic in A.P. Hamlit:  Hamlet.  When I was finished reading the play and when my class was discussing it I could not get the musical numbers from The Lion King out of my head.  It's sad to think that in grade school when I first encountered Hamlet i did not immediately pick up on how similar the Disney film and Shakespeare tragedy are.  Here is a list of the parallel characters with the Shakespearean characters matched up to their Disney counterparts.

Prince Hamlet= Simba

Claudius= Scar

King Hamlet = Mufasa (say his name several times)

The Ghost= Rafiki

Queen Gertrude= Sarabi (Simba's mother)

Ophelia= Nala

Horatio= Timon and Pumbaa

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern= the hyenas Shenzi, Banzai, and Ed (gotta love Ed!)

Polonius= Zazu

Before the comments go out about some of these parallels being wrong, I am leaving out the differences in plot.  For example, Simba does not die, but Disney does not usually kill off the good guys.  They leave it to Pixar (Up comes to mind).  Also, even though Zazu could not father a lion, I saw him as an adviser just like Polonius was.

Another point to note is that I had Hamlet's father and the Ghost be different characters because Hamlet doubts whether he actually encountered his father or the devil, and Rafiki was the one who allowed the adult Simba to hear Mufasa's message telling him to defeat Scar.

You should notice that I did not list a parallel for Laertes.  Please post your thoughts!

         

Book Recommendation: In Cold Blood

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.                    

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.                        

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.      
  

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.