testing....!

Toni Morrison’s Beloved was written in 1987 – a time much more peaceful than the novel’s setting. Though centered on a culture that’s destructive, as well as polarized both racially and by gender, there are strong themes of both love and hate that run thick and through Beloved. Morrison alludes to these forces constantly throughout the novel, and uses the strong emotions to highlight different characters, plot lines, and themes.

Although love shines through many of the roles, the most evident discussion of it lies within Sethe, who has actually almost become numb to emotion and yearning. Sethe, a warrior in slavery and through the times themselves, is in a place where she nearly cannot love freely. She has lost three of her four children, and keeps the last one left, Denver, close to her heart and in her sight almost constantly. “For a used-to-be-slave woman to love anything that much was dangerous, especially if it was her children she had settled on to love,” Paul D. believed (54). Until she encountered the darling ghost of Beloved, Sethe could not even love her other children because the memories of them stung too much.

While Denver is with her mother night and day, she has begun to resent her life at the cold 124 on Bluestone Road. She breaks and becomes vulnerable when Sethe tries to introduce her and get her to warm up to Paul D. “I can’t live here. I don’t know where to go or what to do but I can’t live here. Nobody speaks to use. Nobody comes by,” Denver vents. The community has become scared of house 124 and of the people who live inside. Resentment, over time, can lead to hate – the opposite of love.

Hatred is also shown through the novel through the theme of slavery. Sethe, Denver, Paul D., and the other men from Sweet Home are used by Toni Morrison to portray the thousands who were enslaved during the nineteenth century. The hatred poured upon them by most white people was enough to scar, and to create a barrier between freedom and love. Freedom, to Sethe and to Denver, is being able to live with the choices that they have made and to live as safely as possible. Love, however, is something that only comes along with immense trust.

The aura and history of House 124 put a dark shadow on its residents, and encouraged the folks of Cincinnati to feel the same. The darkness has not only begun to control society’s perception and hate towards Sethe and her daughter, but it has also created a void in the house. “124 was spiteful. Full of a baby’s venom,” (3) Morrison opens Beloved. Until the ghost of Sethe’s murdered daughter returns in the novel, the spirits within the family haunt, and further the distance between them and love.

Beloved’s characters run for what felt like an eternity, and along the way, learned to forget love in hopes of forgetting hate. Sethe, Denver, and Paul D. make an intriguing little family that shows the elements of love during a time overrun by hate.

Science and Faith in Dracula

The novel Dracula, by Bram Stoker uses the character of Dracula to show something very important about his views on life, science, and religion. Stoker uses certain elements of Dracula’s character to show that mixing religion and science can have devastating effects if the two are not mixed in a healthy manner. Abraham Van Helsing (simply referred to as Van Helsing in the novel) is in direct contrast of Dracula on the issue and is used to show how the two can be mixed healthily.

                It is implied that Dracula became a vampire after tinkering with the “dark arts” and mixing science and religion. Dracula is said to have been a great scientist in his days of youth and to have been a leader in scientific innovation and discovery. It seems Dracula’s motivations were to mix science and religion in a way that would make the two one. However, it would seem his quest to understand God and the spiritual realm under scientific terms is exactly what separated the two of them. It is through his quest to combine the two that he delves into the “dark arts”, the sinister mixture of superstition and science. It would seem that Stoker is telling us something about the mixture of faith and science through Dracula, but it is impossible to truly tell what is being said through Dracula without looking at him in the light of Van Helsing, our novel’s hero.

                Van Helsing is used to show the proper mixture of religion and science. Van Helsing is made out to be a fairly wise, respectable, well mannered scientist of religious background who everyone in the novel can look up to. The largest portion of his character we can see of him from the novel is his wisdom. Anyone and everyone who has a problem they themselves either do not understand or do not know how to handle can come to him for sound advice. Van Helsing’s wisdom bridges the gap between superstition and science in the proper way. Van Helsing understands that each can be used individually and together, to an extent, and be used safely. Van Helsing seems to seek council from both schools of thought and uses each in its own realm, but never mixes them to make them one. This seems to be the deciding factor that helps to bridge the gap between superstition and science. It is important, Stoker seems to be saying, to use both in cooperation without combining the two. This is something Van Helsing does well that Dracula fails to do.

                Dracula pushes the two schools of thought together into one single ideal while Van Helsing takes both and applies them in their own given areas of “expertise”. Each school of thought is important in its own time and place, but do poorly when combined. Van Helsing encounters great success in battling Dracula once he realizes this. He uses his logical mind to put in motion to use superstitious elements (cross, communion crackers, garlic, etc.) to defeat Dracula. Stoker deliberately lays this out so that we can understand the healthy balance of Religion and science.

                Bram Stoker uses the novel Dracula to teach us something about the way we should undertand the interactions between faith and science. It is clear he uses the contrasting characters of Dracula dn Van Helsing to depict the negatives of over combining and the positives of maintaining a healthy relationship. Dracula is displayed as a beast created by the over combination of science and faith while Van Helsing is characterized as the wise warrior who defeats Dracula through the proper mix of faith and science. 

Love and Hate in Beloved

Toni Morrison’s Beloved was written in 1987 – a time much more peaceful than the novel’s setting. Though centered on a culture that’s destructive, as well as polarized both racially and by gender, there are strong themes of both love and hate that run thick and through Beloved. Morrison alludes to these forces constantly throughout the novel, and uses the strong emotions to highlight different characters, plot lines, and themes.

Although love shines through many of the roles, the most evident discussion of it lies within Sethe, who has actually almost become numb to emotion and yearning. Sethe, a warrior in slavery and through the times themselves, is in a place where she nearly cannot love freely. She has lost three of her four children, and keeps the last one left, Denver, close to her heart and in her sight almost constantly. “For a used-to-be-slave woman to love anything that much was dangerous, especially if it was her children she had settled on to love,” Paul D. believed (54). Until she encountered the darling ghost of Beloved, Sethe could not even love her other children because the memories of them stung too much.

While Denver is with her mother night and day, she has begun to resent her life at the cold 124 on Bluestone Road. She breaks and becomes vulnerable when Sethe tries to introduce her and get her to warm up to Paul D. “I can’t live here. I don’t know where to go or what to do but I can’t live here. Nobody speaks to use. Nobody comes by,” Denver vents. The community has become scared of house 124 and of the people who live inside. Resentment, over time, can lead to hate – the opposite of love.

Hatred is also shown through the novel through the theme of slavery. Sethe, Denver, Paul D., and the other men from Sweet Home are used by Toni Morrison to portray the thousands who were enslaved during the nineteenth century. The hatred poured upon them by most white people was enough to scar, and to create a barrier between freedom and love. Freedom, to Sethe and to Denver, is being able to live with the choices that they have made and to live as safely as possible. Love, however, is something that only comes along with immense trust.

The aura and history of House 124 put a dark shadow on its residents, and encouraged the folks of Cincinnati to feel the same. The darkness has not only begun to control society’s perception and hate towards Sethe and her daughter, but it has also created a void in the house. “124 was spiteful. Full of a baby’s venom,” (3) Morrison opens Beloved. Until the ghost of Sethe’s murdered daughter returns in the novel, the spirits within the family haunt, and further the distance between them and love.

Beloved’s characters run for what felt like an eternity, and along the way, learned to forget love in hopes of forgetting hate. Sethe, Denver, and Paul D. make an intriguing little family that shows the elements of love during a time overrun by hate.

Bloodsucking Beauties and the Not-So-Sexy Bloodsucking Beast

Bloodsucking Beauties and the Not-So-Sexy Bloodsucking Beast

             In Bram Stoker’s novel, Dracula, the fact that Dracula is not portrayed as sexy but the women vampires are is symbolic of how men were seen as more superior than women in the late 1800’s. It is symbolizing that Dracula does not need help catching his prey because he is a man, but the women need help so they have their attractiveness to lure in their prey.

            From the beginning of the novel to the end, Dracula is portrayed as a very creepy

and strange-looking man. When Jonathon Harker, businessman, comes to visit him he

notes that Dracula is “a tall man, with a long brown beard and a great black hat, which

seemed to hide his face… I could only see the gleam of a pair of very bright eyes, which

seemed red in the lamplight…” (pg. 15). Even though Dracula is not seen as an attractive or appealing man, he has no problem throughout the novel finding prey and surviving on his own until the very end.

            In chapter three, the women vampires make their entrance. Immediately, Jonathon is attracted to them.

“All three had brilliant white teeth, that shone like pearls against the ruby of their voluptuous lips. There was something about them that made me uneasy, some longing and at the same time some deadly fear. I felt in my heart a wicked, burning desire that they would kiss me with those red lips” (pg. 60). Unlike Dracula, these women are dependent and have to use their attractiveness to get close to their prey. At one point, Dracula actually brings the women a baby to feed on, implying that it is easier for Dracula to hunt than for them to hunt for themselves.

....... Because Dracula is a man (be it a vampire man), he is seen as superior to women. The vampire women take orders from Dracula, showing that even though they are vampires, they see themselves below Dracula and not as his equal.

Even today, men are still seen as more superior than women. Bram Stoker makes it clear in Dracula how women were seen as inferior to men in the late 1800’s. Making Dracula unappealing yet a successful hunter and the women vampires purposefully sexy to help attract their prey is just one more way that Stoker subtly restates this.

 

 

What do you guys think? I would really appreciate any constructive criticism from you. I’m not sure if this is the topic I’m going to stick with for my final paper, but I’m playing around with it in my head. I also realize that maybe the real reason the women vampires are sexy and Dracula is not might be simply because Dracula is a shallow bastard that only changes beautiful women to join him, but hey, that makes my thesis arguable then, right? I’m just not sure how much information I could get out of it to make it 5 pages long. Any help on my thesis statement? I think it’s kind of wordy, as is the title. I’m very open to suggestions! Please be honest!!!

The Dangers of Combining Religion and Science

            Superstitions evolved from centuries ago. “To find a horseshoe brings you good luck”, “if you walk under a ladder you will have bad luck”, or “a broken mirror will bring seven years bad luck”; these are all common modern superstitions. One superstition that has seemed to have stuck around since the Victorian Age is vampires. Bram Stoker’s Dracula imitates the Victorian-istic culture’s rebirth of superstition from the past through the vampire king, Dracula, and the wisdom of the famous vampire slayer, Van Helsing, who manages to live in peace with science and religion, leaving wiggle-room for the two characters to have similarities.

            Stoker reincarnates the history of the Victorian Age through Dracula, who is a symbolization of superstition. The Victorian period is also known as the “ago of science”, an era of comprehension that the world is dictated by the “natural laws”, instead of the divine supernatural, leaving supernatural beliefs to be rejected as superstitions (Noakes 23). Van Helsing promotes superstitious tactics frequently throughout the story, one when Van Helsing put a necklace of garlic around Mina’s neck after being bitten. Van Helsing also uses religious tactics like placing a cross on the body of Lucy, blocking evil spirits, and praying while placing a cross on Mina’s forehead burning her, a sign of evil invading her body. The “superstition”, Dracula, associates many of his actions with biblical scriptures to expo his degree of power to that of Jesus Christ; “And you, their best beloved one, are now to me, flesh of my flesh; blood of my blood; kin of my kin; my bountiful wine-press for while” (Stoker 328). A biblical phrase, similar of the sort, is also specified in the Bible, “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you”, “This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11: 24-25). Drinking the cup of wine representing the blood of Jesus, “the blood of the lamb”, compares to that of the drinking of human blood as an illustration of a demonic communion. Even though Dracula puts himself on a pedestal by using biblical phrases comparing himself to Jesus, and his demonic nature connecting to the spiritual communion, Stoker also involves the use of science.

Stoker displays the use of technology to document events through the type-writer, phonograph, telegraph, and Kodak; all used to Van Helsing’s advantage. Van Helsing’s obsession of the Count is a scientific characteristic, aggregating knowledge over time. Van Helsing states that Dracula was a “soldier, statesman, and alchemist-which latter was the highest development of the science-knowledge of all time”, also explaining how Dracula’s child-like brain matured into that of a man (Stoker 342-343). Both Dracula and Van Helsing, both scientists, have developing intellectual power, like the constant metamorphose of science.  However, only the Count provokes the rebirth of the Victorian ideal bringing authority to science.

Spiritualism in the Victorian Age had to be caste out because it intimidates the betterment of science, according to the opinions of Victorian scientists (Noakes 24). This assumption, along with Stoker’s rebirth of the Victorian culture, is a violation of Stephen J. Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria, aka NOMA. Gould states religion and science have boundaries and are “non-authoritian”, meaning one magisteria cannot be cognizant in its entirety but both “hold equal worth” (Gould 58). Combining the two can cause controversial conflict, literal in Dracula’s case, but balance between science and religion can equal wisdom.

             Stoker demonstrates the danger in combining science and religion by using Dracula as an example and the balance between them that amplifies Van Helsing’s wisdom. Dracula’s nature violates the rules of NOMA by resurrecting the Victorian past, a time where religion fuses into superstitions giving science the upper hand. Stoker's rebirth of the Victorian past allows questions to arise as to whether Stoker supports Christianity or Scientology, the knowledge of life.

Work Cited:

Gould, Stephen Jay. Noma defined and defended. New York, NY: The Ballantine Publishing Group, 1999. Print.

Noakes, Richard. The Victorian Supernatural. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.

Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Glennis Bryon, 1998. Print.

Dracula as anti-Christ

Bare with me fellas...I started writing and just couldn't stop!

 

Count Dracula, Bram’s Stoker’s famed blood-drinking villain, is a creature of menacing wickedness, an evil figure of mastery over both body and spirit. What makes this vampire terrifying is not his domination of one’s physical self, but rather his craving of authority over the human soul by virtue of his nearly indestructible malice and brilliant personal appeal. While his character is chillingly parallel to Jesus Christ, the miracle-working savior of God’s sinful children, Dracula is perhaps Stoker’s representative of another biblical figure: the anti-Christ.

The first sign of Dracula’s anti-Christ figure is found in the omens indicating his coming, an allusion to the biblical arrival of the Messiah. Mina writes in chapter 19 that the mist in her room, Dracula, becomes a “pillar of cloud…through the top of which I could see…the light of the gas shining like a red eye” (Stoker 420), running parallel to the Old Testament concept of the Lord’s visitation through human figures. In Exodus, “Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshipped…the Lord would speak…as one speaks to a friend (New International Version, Exodus 33:10). Mina wonders to herself if this visitation is “some spiritual guidance” (Stoker). Ironically, while God as a “pillar of cloud” led Moses and the Hebrew slaves to freedom in the Old Testament, Count Dracula as a “pillar of cloud” enslaves and tyrannizes souls. This concept of the Messiah’s coming through clouds is also found in the New Testament, as Jesus ascends into heaven on a cloud in Acts of the Apostles; his amazed disciples write that “he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight…(and) this same Jesus…will come back in the same way (they saw) him go to heaven” (Acts 1:9) Bram Stoker thus makes analogous the coming of Dracula’s evil Messianic persona through perverse biblical references, as the anti-Christ – per Christian beliefs – is presumed to appear so much like the Son of God that it will be nearly impossible to distinguish the two.

Second, Dracula’s Christ-like dominion over nature is an eerie correspondence to biblical references. The reader’s initial sample of the Count buttresses the concept that he is in fact a supernatural bad guy. When wolves overwhelm Jonathon Harker’s carriage as he winds through the Transylvanian wilderness to meet Dracula, he frighteningly observes the Count’s authority over the animals. “I heard his voice raised in a tone of imperious command,” Harker writes, and “he swept his long arms, as though brushing aside some impalpable obstacle” (Stoker 21) as the wolves fell back and “began to howl as though the moonlight had had some peculiar effect on them” (21). Of course, Jesus’ authority over nature is highlighted throughout the New Testament in multiple parables. This mastery over the natural world is a similarity between Dracula and Christ – and likewise, between the anti-Christ and Christ. Nonetheless, Jesus uses his authority to preserve and save, while Dracula uses his to ruin and feed: the same wolves the Count keeps from killing Harker later gruesomely devour a peasant woman. In fact, Count Dracula’s wolves could be yet another allusion to the Bible: Jesus Christ explicitly warns to “watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15). It seems Stoker included the wolves to equate Dracula’s ultimate command of the beasts with the anti-Christ’s title of the ultimate false prophet. In this sense, while Dracula’s supernatural powers seem similar to Jesus’, his evil use of them is what separates the figures.

Dracula’s supernatural powers are additionally manifested in his Christ-like miracles, while the products of those miracles undeniably point to his anti-Christ-like guise. Dracula is apparently capable of the act of resurrection: he brings Lucy Westenra back to ‘life’ three days after her death, much like Jesus resurrected Lazarus in the Gospel of John. “Your brother will rise again,” Jesus said to Lazarus’ sister Martha, “(because) I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:22-26). However, Dracula’s resurrected Lucy is the antithesis of Lazaurus, who was welcomed back into the community. Lucy is a ferocious vampire, something which Stoker’s protagonists see as someone who must be destroyed. When Dr. Seward records their discovery of the re-born woman, he notes “how changed” she is, as the “sweetness was turned to adamantine, heartless cruelty, and the purity to voluptuous wantonness” (Stoker 342). In fact, he only refers to her as Lucy because “the thing…(merely) bore her shape” (342). Dracula’s new project is exactly like him, “callous as a devil,” “blazed with unholy light” (343), and “unclean and full of hell-fire” (342). Though Lucy was raised from the dead like Lazarus – equating Dracula with Christ – the product of that resurrection was far more sinister – equating Dracula with the anti-Christ. This evil miracle is preempted by the Bible: “The coming of the lawless one (the anti-Christ) will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing” (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10).

Finally, the theme of blood in Stoker’s Dracula is perhaps the most glaring proof of the Count’s role as anti-Christ. The vampire’s drinking of blood is clearly prohibited in the Bible: in Leviticus, “You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood; anyone who eats it must be cut off” (Leviticus 17:14), and in Deuteronomy, “You must not eat the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:16). The focus on blood in the Bible is as a gift by Jesus’ Atonement of sin, while the focus on blood in Dracula is the literal taking of it as an act of sin. In this sense, Dracula is more than a sinner, but rather an illustration of the anti-Christ – one whose use of blood to achieve eternal life and re-birth is a sharp perversion of Jesus’ gift of blood to sinners so that they would achieve eternal life. “Whoever…drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day” (John 6:54) said Jesus to his followers. In contrast, Dracula drinks the blood of his victims so that he will achieve immortality, a mockery of the sacrament of the Eucharist and what Van Helsing refers to as a “baptism of blood” (Stoker 523). By engaging in an anti-sacrifice and anti-Eucharist, Dracula is a clear representative of the anti-Christ.

Bram Stoker’s Count Dracula is undeniably illustrative of the anti-Christ. As evidenced from his Messiah-like appearances, his domination over the natural world, his ability to perform resurrections and his symbolic use of blood, Dracula’s character is so disturbingly comparable to Jesus Christ that it is easy to equate him as such. Nonetheless, the motivations behind these parallels – an evil use of nature, the resurrection of people into demon-like vampires, and the reversal of Christ’s sacrifice – prove that the Count is in fact the opposite.

Female Sexuality in Dracula

Female sexuality in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, is a strong topic throughout the book. It enhances the Victorian male imagination to believe that woman are a certain way and should only act a certain way. In England, women’s sexual behavior is dictated by society which sets high expectations for their actions. In Dracula, Lucy and Mina are threatened by Dracula himself.

Although they have their differences, Lucy and Mina are woman that are true to their men, innocent, and have a strong Christian faith known as “God’s women” much like Victorian women. They aren’t like real people though. Victorian women were expected to be very faithful to their husbands, be a good wife/mother, and are set on such a high standard to act a certain way. In Chapter XVII Mina states that, “We women have something of the mother in us that makes us rise above smaller matters when the mother-spirit is invoked.” The women are innocent from their evil’s and walking around being a “whore” is not acceptable in their society. After the transformation, Lucy takes the mother instinct to a whole new level. She turns on the children and attacks them by attacking them instead of nourishing them and feeding them like a Victorian woman should do. Also, Stoker uses interesting vocabulary to describe Lucy. She is described more of in terms by her sexuality than of the proper ways.

Dracula transforms Lucy into a vampire and the men are left to destroy her in order to keep her at an acceptable state. After the transformation, Van Helsing and the other men keep a close eye on Mina to make sure that she does not become a victim of Dracula. The transformation of Lucy can be seen as the dark side of female sexuality. She becomes openly sexual and struggles to find a balance of good and evil. This is a reoccurring theme throughout the book because the men are struggling to find a balance with Dracula and themselves with Lucy. Dracula is determined to turn the women into the individuals that they are not meant to be. He wants to open their sexual desires and influence them to become impure while Van Helsing and his men want Lucy to remain true to herself.  Ironically, the attack on Lucy turns her into an openly sexual predator which supports Stoker’s way of showing female sexuality.

Lucy’s final actions show resemblances with sexuality are strong. Even though it was an act to restore Lucy and help her to become pure again, when Holmwood pierces Lucy with the stake it can be seen as an act of intercourse. Holmwood was doing his best to keep Dracula from consuming Lucy into his sexual relationship. Also, the blood transfusion also shows some kind of resemblance through sexuality and intercourse. They see the transfusion of the blood similar to intercourse because they are making a direct connection between the male and female.

Throughout Dracula we are introduced to sexuality and female sexuality in different ways. Although the women are supposed to act a certain way their behavior is tested throughout the book through Dracula’s motives. Their behavior is dictated by society but Dracula’s actions causes them to turn into improper Victorian women.

Tell me what you guys think. Any ideas that you may have would be greatly appreciated!

Phase 3 -- Prompt 1

            Civilization in London, otherwise known as the World State, is quite an extreme society. Since all paths and futures are essentially predetermined at conception, people lack the freedom we treasure most – the freedom to make decisions. Having free will is just one of the biggest things that we consider to be ‘civilized’ today, however in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, those who were so free were considered ‘savages’. On the Reservation, the freedom of personal choice reigns, and it contrasts deeply with the overly oppressed society in London.

            John, one of the novel’s early protagonists, is thought of to be completely savage and uncivilized by the members of the World State. While John has the ability to use his mind and imagination to their full advantage, the people from London cannot. Lenina, for example, does not agree with John’s beliefs and decision to not sleep with her. In London’s community, sex is extremely prominent and something that is to be expected with multiple people. On the other end of the spectrum, John’s savage ways keep him from doing things with Lenina that he would have questioned later. Having the freedom to make decisions possibly makes things more complicated than living in a blissful ignorance.

            In my mind, I believe that the savage Reservation is more human than the World State in London. This is ironic because to be savage is to be wild or untamed, and to be civilized is to be well kept and somewhat organized. Being human is about the overall sake and evolution of humanity within mankind. Anyone can be a person, with the same features and body. But to be a humane individual requires compassion and the ability to better society through decisions and goals. The society in London is quite strategically designed; technology is the most important symbol from very early on. In essence, technological advancement is the World State’s religion. Even the unit of time used by the World State is measured by years after the Ford Model T release – and characters use the phrases like “His Fordship” (34). Even though technology seems to dominate this society, an inside perspective would probably not say the same thing.

            Another notable difference between the savage Reservation and the city of London is the use of drug-induced happiness. With the freedom to make personal decisions, happiness is always attainable. Ironically, without the burden of so many choices, those in London enjoy soma holidays where they forget entirely about any feelings that they are having. “Take a holiday from reality whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or mythology” (54). The city of London distributes soma pills to every person in the society, as well as encouraging plenty of its use. Because of this behavior, people have become numb to any and all feeling. This is supported even more by the types of conditioning the World State practices on children. This training is responsible for the loathing of flowers, and the desensitization over death and relationships. The members of the World State are blinded by the things that they cannot see or do not know the difference from. Every decision made in London’s society is not a choice by free will, but a choice made by government.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World,. New York: Harper & Bros., 1946. Print. 

Phase 3, Prompt 3

      Margaret Atwood’s article “Everybody is Happy Now” argues that Aldous Huxley’s dystopian society of Brave New World is very much alive and well today. Atwood outlines the similarities between Huxley’s work and the world we live in now, illustrating how the novel is in fact still an important text, and worth reading in spite of heavy political incorrectness. After thorough examination, though Brave New World is in many ways applicable to today’s society – most notably through consumerism and the birth of genetic engineering – it is also far from an exact portrait of it – as seen in the society’s lack of religion.

      During the Cold War, it seemed as though George Orwell’s 1984 was the more relevant novel to the time period. Communism was descending upon Eastern Europe behind the Soviet Union’s ‘Iron Curtain” as America and its allies sought to contain it. Orwell’s novel envisioned a wicked, “mind-controlling totalitarian state” (Atwood) that seemed to align with the political situation following World War II. But when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989 and Communist authoritarianism was virtually eliminated, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World instantly became the better predictor of our future. In fact, the aftermath of the Cold War illustrated that the era was not simply an ‘East versus West’ conflict, but in fact pitted the society of Brave New World against the society of 1984. The West, as Atwood argues, became the society of Huxley’s work, with its essential worship of consumerism and a desire for “instant bliss” (Atwood).

      Of course, this assumes that the West, especially America, has willingly submitted to this style of hypnotic “regime.” This is probably true; from our shopping malls to our computers to our smartphones, the world is a different place than 1934. We’re surrendered to technologies that distract us from real issues: The release of the iPhone 5 out-trended the Benghazi attacks on Twitter.

      Atwood is also accurate in her connection between Huxley’s society and today’s human genetic industry. It is shocking how rapidly human embryonic stem-cell research has grown in the beginning of the 21^st century, with the United States at the forefront of scientific research. “On the wilder fringes of the genetic engineering community,” Atwood writes, “there are true believers…engaging in schemes for genetic enhancement” (Atwood), from surrogate motherhood, egg and sperm donation, cloning, and the designing of genetically ‘perfect’ children. Though the use of stem cells is highly controversial, this genetic technology is nonetheless the first step toward Huxley’s prophecy. We obviously have not established a ‘Hatchery and Conditioning Center’ as found in Brave New World, but the development of this science is enough to cause alarm. The calculations of Brave New World illustrate a frightening consequence of this genetics development, yet nobody seems willing to stop it.

      However, the one major difference between Brave New World and today’s society is the role of faith – something Atwood fails to recognize. Faith and religion still play huge roles in today’s world, whereas Huxley’s prophecy World State has all but eliminated God from individual thought. Mustapha Mond makes the argument that religion in his world is materialistic, thus the widespread worship of “Our Ford,” and that the culture of utopian comfort has made God essentially obsolete. According to Mond, humans turn to faith only when pain and loneliness force them to search for a meaning beyond the physical world. “We inevitably turn to God,” he claims, because God “makes up to us for all our other losses.” (Huxley 233). Thus, while Mond accepts the virtues of Christianity and has read the Bible, he still points out that soma – with its ability to suppress emotions and pain – can do the work of God, “without tears” (Huxley 238). ‘Ford’ has consequently become ‘Lord,’ and ‘soma’ has become ‘communion.’ Atwood admits that God’s presence is absent in Brave New World, save for the faithful John the Savage, which is very much a departure from today’s society. God still holds a significant presence today and, according to Mond’s logic, proves that pain is also very much exists.

      Margaret Atwood was mostly correct in her outline of the parallels between Brave New World and today’s society. While she noted the Cold War and its aftermath, the rise of consumerism and excess technology, and the genetic revolution in comparison to Huxley’s work, she forgot to mention the discrepancies between the Godless society of the book and the God-loving society we live in. Thus, though Brave New World has in many ways succeeded in forecasting our humanity, it has still failed in one major aspect to completely prophesize it – at least for now.

 

Atwood, Margaret. "'Everybody Is Happy Now'" The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Nov. 2007. Web. 14 Oct. 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/nov/17/classics.margaretatwood.

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperPerennial, 1932. Print.

"Brave New World" Than Knows No Tears

             Aldous Huxley’s novel “Brave New World” depicts a world starkly contrasted to our own in which people are engineered to be thrust into a certain caste. This takes away choice and trades it for happiness. All individuals are made specifically to fulfill a void in society and crafted to enjoy that job, and only that job. The society depicted in this book has almost always been depicted as a dystopian society. But, is it really all that bad? Is life choice really too much to trade for happiness? I don’t think so. I think that if you really think about it, you would discover Huxley’s “Brave New World” isn’t all that bad, and may in fact depict a utopia of sorts. However, the analysis of the Society in “Brave New World” will require some deeper level thinking.

                First, let’s consider why many readers have considered the environment a dystopian one. The most common argument I have heard against the utopian nature of “Brave New World” is that it takes away the right of a person to choose their own path. In the novel, all human beings (except for the “savages”) are designed for a purpose. They are all “test-tube” babies, manufactured on a large scale for a specific purpose. They are put into castes to perform certain tasks and conditioned to be happy in that field. This is viewed by many as a negative thing. They believe that one can only be truly happy if they choose their own way. Happiness, they would assert, is not just about conditioning, but is an exercise of free will. They would argue that someone cannot be truly happy if they are forced into a situation.

                Supporters of this theory are missing a large piece of the puzzle, however. They do not understand that they themselves have been conditioned by our current culture. Let’s think about this a moment. Think about your childhood. Whether you can see it or not, somewhere in during your early years you were taught the basic of life and how our culture operates. This is a part of every human being’s life on the planet. But we do not see this as conditioning because it is subtle and takes more time. But, what’s the difference between a long, drawn out process and a short and quick one. So, we see that conditioning is something we all go through. The only difference between the society in “Brave New World” and our own is that we condition our citizens slowly and without reason whereas in “Brave New World” it is done before the person even knows it for a definite reason. The society of “Brave New World” simply takes a natural process and organizes it. All else remains the same.

                But, don’t they live unfulfilling lives if they do not choose their own paths? From the text we can determine that, for the most part, everyone is happy in the caste they are in. Except for the cases of perhaps Bernard and Helmhotz, everyone seems quite sublime. Even in these cases, the two are unhappy because the system has failed on them. They are social deviants, just as we have now. In fact, it is rumored that Bernard is the way he is because someone added too much alcohol to his sample when he was in the lab. This then, would not be the fault of the society. So we see that the citizens of the society are indeed happy. In fact, the citizens in this culture (which prides itself on freedom) seem to be far less happy than the ones in “Brave New World”. I think this is because they do not have to go through the pain of seeking happiness as we do. Their happiness is handed to them and secured at birth. Ours, on the other hand, must be fought for. This is rough and causes much heartache  Mustapha Mond understands this. He claims that “happiness is a hard master”. By this I think he means that appeasing and supporting happiness is difficult. It is much easier to have it handed to you.

                Given all these facts, I would conclude that the society in “Brave New World” is a utopian society because everyone is truly happy and fulfilled in their lives. No one is left out any more than now. It is a fundamentally different culture, but that does not make it wrong. I think this is why it has been written off as a dystopian society: it is different from ours, therefore it must be wrong. This view is narrow-minded and ethnocentric. Who are we to judge this society as ill just because it is different? If everyone is truly fulfilled with the life they live, what holds it back from being a utopia?

Phase 2 Prompt 3

            When you picture a utopian society, religion, society class segregation, and drug abuse usually aren’t included in that image. These qualities typically lead one to plan a more “perfect” world, not for Huxley’s Brave New World. Huxley’s idea of perfect society includes these ideals.

            Religion in today’s society is the belief of the supernatural higher power that provides moral codes or standards applied to living life the right way. In Huxley’s Brave New World the belief of God faded as technology matured. Throughout the book the “civilized” substituted the name of Henry Ford, the early twentieth-century industrialist and founder of Ford Motor Company, when in today’s time we say “Lord”. This goes to show in Huxley’s society religion has been replaced by worship for technology. Mustapha Mond’s reason for this is “God isn’t compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness” (Huxley 231). Mustapha Mod believes “it is natural for you to believe in God when you’re alone”, which brings up why loneliness is eliminated in this utopia (Huxley 235). Since loneliness is eliminated, sadness is eliminated, which would be required in a utopia; in this case there would be no need to turn to God. Another reason mentioned is that God is old and never changes as men change. Men change as technology changes. Going back to “Our Ford”, Henry Ford started the assembly line. This applies significantly to the production of this society, how babies are developed in factories in bottles on an assembly line, hence their “Ford” is their maker instead of God. A religious service takes place, what we call church, they refer to as “Solidarity Service” where they praise their “Ford” and have an orgy at the closing of service, which would be a horrific sin in our religions today. After observing Mustapha Mond’s reasons as to why there is no God in their society, I see that technology brings happiness with no sin, while God brings loneliness (unhappiness) and love, which causes passion, which can bring war, which isn’t part of a utopia.

            Like our world today, people are divided by social classes where it is possible to move up in society. In Huxley’s society, citizens are born and locked into their social class where they are genetically forced to enjoy and accept their place, which eliminates greed, eliminating the urge to move up in class. You would think this to be dystopian because in a utopia everyone should be of equal stature. If this occurred in the time setting of Brave New World it would be an unstable disaster because everyone is genetically conditioned to love their place in their “caste”; higher caste isn’t meant to do lower caste work (not everyone is equal). These conditions keep this society running.

            Mustapha Mond mentioned “happiness is a hard master” (Huxley 227). Since this isn’t perfected, citizens publicly take anti-depressant like pills they call soma. This controls that imperfection of this utopia. Any negative emotions the people feel soma relieves it. In our world this would be drug abuse (dystopian), but since soma is taken for the sole purpose to maintain happiness, this is a key factor in this type of utopian society.

            A typical utopia, just to name a few, has happiness, no loneliness, no pain, and no diseases. In Huxley’s fictional world there are the typical traits a utopia has, along with the typical dystopian traits. Dystopian traits like what we see as drug abuse, religion, and social segregation makes the society of Brave New World a utopia stabilizing order and happiness. Lastly, going back Mustapha Mond’s statement about naturally looking to God when you’re lonely, if “everyone belongs to everyone else” (non-loneliness), then why do they need any form of religion?

Phase 1, Prompt 3

            The term, “reservation realism”, used by Sherman Alexie in The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven can be defined in many ways. Alexie choses to leave the term undefined in the introduction by saying, “Well, I’ll let you read the book and figure that out for yourself” (xxi).

            While doing some research I came across this on a website (ipfw.edu): “Alexie’s statement presents a contradictory definition that is reminiscent of Tim O’Brien’s similarly contradictory attempt to define how to tell a true war story in the Things They Carried. O’Brien’s definition similarly asserts that “a thing may happen and be a total lie, another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth” (Things They Carried 89). The difference, the narrator notes later, lies in the fact that “story-truth is something truer than happening truth” (TTC 203). This really opened my eyes to what I think Alexie meant by “reservation realism”. He means that something is not necessarily real just because it is true. In fact, he means that something that is not true can be even more real than something that is. What I am trying to say is that the kind of realism Alexie is referring to is realism on a whole new level.

            Indian Education is one of the short stories from the book that shows what “reservation realism” is. I did some research and found that what the narrator experienced in school was a typical experience for Indians growing up. “In the 1960s, a congressional report found that many teachers still saw their role as civilizing American Indian students, not educating them. The report said the schools still had a "major emphasis on discipline and punishment” (npr.org). This report goes hand in hand with this quote from Alexie’s short story: “Once, she [the teacher] gave the class a spelling test but set me aside and gave me a test designed for junior high students. When I spelled all the words right, she crumpled up the paper and made me eat it. “You’ll learn respect,” she said” (pg. 173).

            Another short story from the book that I feel really shows what Alexie means by “reservation realism” is Family Portrait. There are many examples in this story that I perceive as “reservation realism”. One example is, “For instance, in the summer of 1972 or 1973 or only in our minds, the reservation disappeared… Finally, I remember thinking, but I was six years old, or seven. I don’t know for sure how old; I was Indian” (pg. 192).  This is a good example because the narrator of this story admits that he does not know if this even happened. It is considered realism because it was real to the narrator which justifies it as real to the story. Another example from this story is, “Will my children love me when I’m old?” she [Mother] asked, but I knew she wanted to ask me, “Will I regret my life?” (pg. 194). The realism behind the mother kicking her son out into the snow because she thought he saw the future is that she wanted him to see the future so she could know if she would regret her life later on.

            My personal definition of “reservation realism” is something like this: Reservation realism is what a person gets out of a memory, a conversation, or a situation. It is what the person considers “real”, what sticks with them afterward. For example, it could have been something that was said that was never really said at all, like on page 195. “My sister told me she could recognize me by the smell of my clothes. She said she could close her eyes and pick me out of a crowd by just the smell of my shirt. I knew she meant to say I love you.” Do you see what I mean? The sister never once said that she loved her brother, but that is what he took from what she told him. “Reservation realism” is a way to see past things like “small talk” and get the real(ism) from it.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16516865

http://opus.ipfw.edu/english_facpres/58/

Phase 1 Prompt 3

Alexie has admitted that Victor is a representation of himself. He also uses the word “reservation realism” in describing his style of writing. But what exactly is reservation realism? Reservation realism seems like it is something that describes the truths from the struggles in their lives.

In The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, we are introduced to stories that are not hopeful, and contain a big amount of alcoholism. Under these circumstances, Alexie makes these stories easier to comprehend by lightening the mood with humor and unique characters. Despite the conflicts, the characters still search for their happy place and face the “reservation realism.”

 “Every Little Hurricane” gives us an insight into their life on the reservation. There is a hurricane prediction and Victor’s parents are planning on throwing a huge party. The hurricane is foreshadowing the events that are going to happen at the party. At the party, drunken fights and other events have occurred which resemble a hurricane. Victor’s uncles get into a disagreement and start fist fighting. The narrator says that “They are all witnesses and nothing more.” (2)  Having to watch this fight and encounter such problems such as a hurricane is part of “reservation realism.” Victor is only able to stand back and watch the disagreement. He was not able to help them or do anything about it. “Reservation realism” comes into play because it relates to his own personal hurricanes.

On the reservation, Victor and the other Indians do not so anything to ignore their current situations. They learned to accept it and move on. Occasionally, they can escape it through their imagination. I think this is why Thomas-Builds-A-Fire tells so many stories. It is his way of escaping the hard times. Thomas is the only one that is brave enough to imagine a better life. The others are too scared. They do not want to go to a place that may never be real to them. With these hard times, they are forced to face the “reservation realism.”

Along with the stories, Victor also shares other nightmares. These can be related to Alexie’s struggles in real life. Throughout the book he tells us about times when he was starving to death or when his father would wake up drunk. This to me seems like it could be very realistic in relating to his real life. After doing some research I found that the quality of life on reservations experienced issues with life expectancy, nutrition, poverty, and alcohol abuse. From some of the stories in the book, it seems like Alexie could be indeed sharing some of his personal experiences. One could argue that he may exaggerating a bit but he still shares the idea of the issue he was given.

There can be many definitions given for “reservation realism” based on the book. The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight is an exciting but controversial book. We all may be facing some “reservation realism” in our lives.  What do y’all think reservation realism means? Do you think Alexie’s experiences are believable?

"Life on the Reservations." U.S. History Online Textbook. Independence Hall Association, 2012. Web. 30 Sep 2012. <http://www.ushistory.org/us/40d.asp>.

Prompt 4: Becoming a Warrior and Learning to Survive

Throughout The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven, Sherman Alexie uses survival as a common theme to emphasize the importance of being a warrior in the Native American society. Even in the very first story, “Every Little Hurricane,” Victor vaguely depicts his life’s struggles as a boy in the Spokane Indian tribe. Even from early on in his Indian life, between his family and friends, Victor’s time on the reservation is plagued by trials and tribulations. His metaphor of personal hurricanes symbolizes survival and that every man must experience things that shake their personal foundations to the core. The ideas of becoming a warrior and fighting for your life are very present in Alexie’s collection of short stories because they are fundamental to all Native American culture.

         Young Native American men especially long to be warriors within their reservation’s society. I believe the yearning stems from the boys’ desire to protect the Indian community from another genocide or disaster. The idea of being a warrior can be related to the idea of being prominent within the reservation, and even to being a hero. After white people infiltrated the Spokane tribe, the society was never the same – Sherman Alexie even writes on page 29, “Indians are pretty much born soldiers anyway. Don’t need a uniform to prove it.” As Native Americans, there is an innate desire to triumph, whether it is over white people, over each other, or over personal hurricanes. It is clear throughout the novel that each character utilizes their own means of survival in order to endure life on the reservation. Thomas Builds-The-Fire fights battles by means of honesty and storytelling, for example, and even eventually lives his life through his adopted son, James.

         “But it’s almost like Indians can easily survive the big stuff. Mass murder, loss of language and land rights. It’s the small things that hurt the most” (49). The destruction of the Spokane people, as well as Native American society as a whole, is mentioned throughout the several short stories as a hurricane felt by all. On the reservation, although sharing different characteristics, the tribe bonds over their survival and over the loss of their loved ones and people. Fighting and becoming strong as individuals is what leads to the strength of their community. Survival is even more played up in “The Approximate Size Of My Favorite Tumor,” where James is dying of terminal cancer. James Many Horses uses humor to survive, while his wife Norma doesn’t understand his actions. James combats a world full of terrible struggles in his own way. Some other examples of potential Indian warriors learning to cope and fight would be the man in the tribe who can only drive in reverse or when the young men steal a car and park it in front of the police station.

Sherman Alexie essentially points out that being a warrior can be just as figurative as well as it is literal. Do the men of the Spokane tribe collectively struggle for the same end result? Or do they choose to fight individual battles for specific purposes? The fulfillment of their desires is continuously frustrated by the quality of life on the reservation – the lack of an advanced infrastructure or a well-developed economy greatly hinders the progression of their society.

Phase 3: Basketball on the Spokane Indian Reservation in "The Only Traffic Signal"

 

Basketball is a significant motif throughout Sherman Alexies’ The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven. In “The Only Traffic Signal on the Reservation Doesn’t Flash Red Anymore,” former basketball hero Victor and his porch-side pal Adrian witness and comment on the rise and decline of an Indian ballplayer, Julius Windmaker.

Windmaker is portrayed as a hero at the beginning of the story, as Victor notes that Indians “see ballplayers as saviors” (52), comparable even to Jesus Christ. To be good at basketball is to be the face of the reservation, since “a reservation hero is a hero forever” (48), even if he is destined to fail. In the case of Julius Windmaker, the best player in Spokane, Victor and Adrian speculate on his chances of ‘making it all the way’ as the boy walks past the house with this posse. The two old, beer-bellied men wonder if maybe, just maybe, this kid will finally be the hero to break the legacy of ballplayers who lose their career to alcohol, of which Victor is firmly a part of. “He must not be drinking,” says Victor, “yet" (45).

However, just as Victor fell victim to beer and outside pressures, so too does the youthful Julius. A year after the old men optimistically speculate on his future as a basketball idol, Julius stumbles by the house, “drunk as a skunk” (50) before a game. Windmaker’s skills have significantly declined as he replaces practice with a pitcher, effectively ending his once dominant career. Victor tells us “there’s a definite history of reservation kids who never finish high school, who never finish basketball seasons” (47), and Julius only perpetuates this hopeless cycle with a horrific game our narrator calls a funeral. As Windmaker’s athletic hopes die, Victor and Adrian reminisce on his former successes, just as they had done with every basketball hero before him.

“The Only Traffic Signal” clearly illustrates the importance of basketball on the reservation. Victor claims it was not James Naismith who invited the game, but Indian hero Aristotle Polatkin. Perhaps Polatkin is a direct ancestor of Junior Polatkin, who later becomes a member of the Indian basketball legacy in “Indian Education” and “Somebody Kept Saying Powwow.” Sherman Alexie uses this reference to tell his readers that basketball runs in their Indian blood, as if the game is part of their genetic makeup. The sport is more than a game; it is a way of living, a way of surviving. “Indians need heroes to help them learn how to survive,” our narrator notes, “But what happens when our heroes don’t even know how to pay their bills?” (49)

This theme is littered throughout Alexie’s book: In “Jesus Christ’s Half-Brother is Alive and Well on the Spokane Reservation,” the narrator gives an account of his spiritual love for basketball when he states,”This is my religion” (114). Basketball is an escape from the impoverished reality of reservation life in Spokane. “I play and I play until the music of my shoes against pavement sound like every drum. Then I’m home alone and I watch the cockroaches live their complicated lives” (115).

By the end of “The Only Traffic Signal,” Julius is face-down on Victor’s carpet, drunk and done with basketball.  Victor and Adrian head back to the porch and watch as third grade basketball star Lucy walks by the house with her friends, just as Julius had done one year earlier. “God, I hope she makes it all the way,” (53) our narrator tells his friend. But Victor knows she won’t, because he knows what happens to ballplayers on the Spokane Indian Reservation.

Perspective in "A White Heron" and "A Memory"

Sarah Orne Jewett, author of A White Heron, and Eudora Welty, author of A Memory both use the perspective of a character to build the story they write, not just in an explicit manner (building the story) but also in an implicit manner (building a meaning or value of the story). This use of perspective is a powerful tool for building on these two elements to a short story. The perspective of a key character can be used to build on something the author needs to be seen to understand what is actually happening in a story, and to a varying degree, the mood of a story. The two perspectives of Sylvia in A White Heron and the narrator of A Memory have very different perspective and these different perspectives are used by the authors to build upon each story respectively.

                In A White Heron, Jewett uses the view of fairly innocent young girl to build upon the mood of the story. The mood matches that of a young girl. She sees nothing as inherently evil or good. Things just are. This is exemplified in the way the girl thinks about the hunter. She does not see the hunter as a bad man, as some might, for doing what he does, she just sees him as a nice man because of the way he treats her (Jewett 71). She does not like what he does as she does not understand why he kills what he loves, however, this does not affect the way she feels about him (71). She does however, struggle with the idea of telling him where he can find the bird he seeks. She considers whether she could give up the bird for ten dollars, a sum she sees as a great prize (71). The decision is made not to give up the bird because she sees it as a noble creature (75). Out of her innocence she gives up the money for the sake of the bird. Had we not seen the view of Sylvia, we would not know the decision she made and would not see the cautious mood of the story as Sylvia struggles with her decision.

                The narrator of A Memory, however, is a very different creature from Sylvia, but her perspective is used to produce a colorful short story just the same. The narrator is not such an innocent person as Sylvia. She seems much more hardened and cynical. Much of her cynicism, as we can see from the text, springs from a poor relationship with her parents (Welty 179). This is a key element to understanding the meaning of the short story. Consider the scene at the beach. Only once we know the personality of the narrator can we see the resentment of the life the “common” people she has. This is evident when she describes everything they do in a negative light (ugly bodies, etc.) (183). Her negative attitude help us to better understand the situation not as a day at the beach, but as a painful memory of something she desired more than anything: a loving family.

                We can see that each girl has a very different outlook on life, but these outlooks drastically alter the story and help us to understand the true importance of the story.  In the one case, the innocence of the one girl helps us understand the difficulty of an important decision and the implicit meanings behind it. In the other case, the cynicism of the other girl paints us a picture of a painful day, rather than just another day at the beach. Each perspective, though unique, build a story in the same manner. 

Phase 2 Prompt: Fairy Tale With an Un-Fairy Tale Like End

           Life dishes out challenges that cost some sacrifice. Sarah Orne Jewett’s fairy tale like story, A White Heron, shows the struggle between love vs. loyalty, and bravery.

            Initially, Sylvia was alone and isolated because of her fear towards people (hence, the name little-woods girl). “Afraid of folks” old Mrs. Tilley said to herself (67). This was confirmed when she heard a whistle from not far away which was described as, “not a bird’s whistle, which would have sort of friendliness, but a boy’s whistle, determined, and somewhat aggressive” (68). It turned out to be a bird hunter looking for a place to rest his head for the night. The terrified girl naively leads the way back home to her grandmother’s house, fearing that she made a dangerous mistake (She did, but what can you expect from a 9 year old child?). Luckily the hunter spoke honest words. Sylvia spent more time with the young man and grew fond of him, “a loving admiration” to be exact (puppy love). But what she could not understand was the reason behind killing the birds that he liked so much.

            Jumping back to the beginning, when Sylvy heard the man’s whistle, Sylvia attempted to hide in some bushes, possibly leaving her companion (the cow) to her fate. This is a sign of weakness; her fear taking over, causing betrayal towards the thing she was a shepherd for and friend towards.

            Towards the end of the story Sylvia undergoes a change in spirit. Even though she deeply admires the hunter, she doesn’t guide him on his search for the white heron’s nest. Due to her sudden urge of bravery, she finds the white heron’s nest after taking the dangerous climb to the top of a pine tree, also the last of its generation. This is where the choice between loyalty and love come in. Sylvia and the hunter both shared the love of nature, but the hunter also destroyed nature, while Sylvia connected with it. That bond towards nature is stronger than the puppy love towards the hunter, which keeps her quiet from giving up the location of the nest.

            In a way, this story can be seen as a fairy tale, but with a twisted un-fairy tale like end. Let’s take Cinderella for example, abused and mistreated by her step-mother and step-sisters out of jealousy. Cinderella, like Sylvia, turns to the animals for companionship. Cinderella’s fairy godmother shows up giving her the opportunity to find true love and a boost of courage towards her step-mother’s warning to not go to the ball. Sylvia toughened up seeing the determination the hunter had towards finding the white heron. The hunter was like Sylvy’s fairy godfather in a way, giving her a boost of strength and courage. The twist to A White Heron’s fairy tale is instead of choosing love (seeing as Sylvia is too young for that anyway) she chooses her loyalty towards nature. Cinderella was loyal to her step-family, despite their jealous abuse, but took her chance at love (in her situation, I would have chose love too). Cinderella’s story has a “happily ever after” ending while Sylvy’s ending left her lonely again asking, “Were the birds better friends than their hunter might have been, - who can tell (75)?” I sense a bit of regret.

            Jewett was frequently sick as a child, was home schooled, and never went to college. At a young age she knew her calling was to be a writer (her triumph), just like Sylvia triumphed at a young age. Jewett was focused on her career and never married. Sylvia’s rejection towards the hunter could be a representation of Jewett’s choice not to be married. But it left Sylvia still alone. Does Sarah Jewett feel alone?

Phase 1, a Twist on Prompt #2

     Shirley Jackson’s story, “The Lottery”, was a major influence in Suzanne Collin’s The Hunger Games series; with this being said, there are noticeable similarities between the two, but there are also noticeable differences.

     A major similarity between “The Lottery” and The Hunger Games is that they are based on the same idea. Groups of people choose a person or persons as a sacrifice to benefit them in some way. In “The Lottery”, the townspeople sacrifice one person for a better harvest. “Used to be a saying about ‘Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon’ (The Lottery 199). In The Hunger Games, every district has one girl and one boy chosen as tribute (which is just a nice way of saying sacrifice) to fight to the death until there is only one victor. Knowing that extra food is given to the victor’s district makes the tributes fight harder against each other.

     Another major similarity between “The Lottery” and The Hunger Games is that the people do not have a choice but to put their names into the lottery of potential sacrifices. They are all forced to do so. In “The Lottery”, they are forced by the rest of the townspeople, and in The Hunger Games, they are forced by the Capitol (the government).

      A major difference between “The Lottery” and The Hunger Games is the way the people and their families react to having to sacrifice their loved ones. I was very disturbed at how the family and townspeople turned on Tessie Hutchinson immediately when it was determined that she would be the sacrifice. They acted indifferent to the fact that they were about to stone their friend, mother, and/or wife to death. One of Tessie Hutchinson’s sons is actually given some pebbles so he can join in on stoning his mother (202). In The Hunger Games, the family and the people of the district mourn appropriately for the chosen tributes, even though there is a one in twenty-four chance that they will stay alive.. Katniss’ sister freaks out when Katniss volunteers herself for Prim’s sake. This is the response that the family in “The Lottery” should have had when their mother was chosen to be sacrificed.

      Another major difference between “The Lottery” and The Hunger Games is the main characters’ personalities. Sure, they both speak out against being forced to participate in these awful traditions, but Tessie Hutchinson and Katniss Everdeen are very different people. Tessie tries to go along with the Lottery until she is the one that is chosen. She then speaks out about it, but does not try to fight back; consequently, Tessie is stoned to death. Katniss, on the other hand, has always been against the Hunger Games. She only volunteers herself as tribute to save her sister’s life. Throughout the series of The Hunger Games, Katniss speaks out and fights against the Capitol; consequently, Katniss ends up living! (I am sorry if this is a spoiler to anyone.)

      “The Lottery” and The Hunger Games are both great reads. I absolutely love The Hunger Games. “The Lottery” was very creepy, but I still enjoyed reading it. There are many more similarities and many more differences between this reading and this series of books. I think it is obvious that Suzanne Collins was influenced by Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery”.