Heart of Darkness

New book!

Characters

As we first begin, there is a strange writing format used. The writer introduces a sort of preface with the men on the boat (Nellie) at the beginning, and then he has one of the men tell a story through all the text. It's a little awkward and I feel kind of bad for him since he has to do all the quotations and things. But it's also an interesting mode because then we can see the character telling the story's thoughts. I kind of like it, actually. Then again, this format does leave out a lot of important details and only tells about Charlie's view.

Speaking of which, characccctterssss.

Another character was Fresleven. He was the previous captain of the steamboat that Marlow is to captain. How ominous is it that he died and now Marlow is supposed to captain this same ship? Like, literally everything is trying to keep Marlow off that boat. The boat also needs rivets and is falling apart. Something wants Marlow to stay off that boat. It's probably the universe. (Also Fresleven sounds pretty freaking dumb to fight over two hens. So let's just pretend his stupidity never happened and he is happily alive piloting a different steamboat.)

Then we have the two women which I marked in my book as the fates. They are pretty much knitting away and introducing people to this crazy world.

Next is the freaking weird doctor who measures Marlow's head and is super creepy and Marlow is like wtf is up with this man. I know something is up with this dude, like there's obviously symbolism, but I'm not sure exactly what it is. Thoughts?

We talked about the accountant below.

The brickmaker is pretty much my favorite character at this point. Like, I hate him, but I also think he's hilarious. He's the classic worker who's aspiring to be a manager. Literally the only reason he's staying in this job is to be a manager. He doesn't even have the material to make bricks and he pretty much just sits around scheming all day. He also reads private correspondences and thinks that Marlow has something special about him (but Marlow has no idea what this is about until he thinks hard and remembers his aunt). 

and then lastly Eldorado Exploring Expedition came in at the very end of part 1. Their main goal is "to tear treasure out of the bowels of the land...,with no more moral purpose...than there is in burglars breaking into a safe." (pg. 27) They sounded really annoying and they were just taking things from the land and they were kind of disgusting to me. I know they're supposed to be, but maybe we'll hear more about them later.

Basically everyone so far is out for themselves. There isn't anyone there who is there only to serve others except for the natives. And they are being forced to do so. Everyone is just mining the land and the people.

Marlow

Charlie Marlow is the narrator of the story (after that first dude on the ship). He's super interested in Africa. This is because he's an explorer and got an urge to go to Africa and pilot a steamboat. So his aunt pulled some strings--without telling Marlow exactly what she did--and he got to go. However, once he got there, everything wasn't exactly how he'd pictured it. He's pretty idealistic and he also thinks that he knows just about everything. He's always judging the other characters--either in good ways or bad--and he believes himself to be the sole source of adventure and exploration in this group. He literally calls others coming in "infestations." He's also pretty gosh darn racist. He comments on the natives as if they aren't people, uses language he shouldn't (although that was apparently common), and is generally wary of the natives. He's also super sexist and oppressive to to the native culture.

Exhibit A:

• "His starched collars and got-up shirt fronts were achievements of character. He had been out nearly three years; and, later, I could not help asking him how he managed to sport such linen. He had just the faintest blush, and said modestly, 'I've been teaching one of the native women about the station. It was difficult. She had a distaste for the work.' Thus this man had truly accomplished something." (pg. 15)

Exhibit B:

• On page 10 there is this paragraph that talks about how women have stupid ideas and "how out of touch with truth they are." 

Exhibit C:

• "Moreover, I respected the fellow. Yes; I respected his collars, his vast cuffs, his brushed hair. His appearance was certainly that of a hairdresser's dummy; but in the great demoralization of the land he kept up his appearance. That's backbone." (pg. 15)

I mean, does your appearance really matter so much to you that you'll cause demoralization just to keep up a facade of your prim and proper self in a land that is decidedly not prim and proper? What kind of bass ackwards logic is that?

Marlow's journey is also pretty interesting. He's constantly trekking through Africa on dirt roads and with people to carry all of his things. he thinks he's "on an adventure." He doesn't realize that his adventure is at the expense of others. [also I feel like the staves represent something, but I'm not sure exactly what?] Also, anytime any native person dies every white person regards it as gross or a good thing. Specifically, there was one point in which they see this white guy on the side of the road and a couple of miles away they also see a native with a shot through his forehead. Marlow says he was upset because he had to step over him. Siiiigh. 

But overall, the journey is filled with death and dryness and it's like he's journeying into a land of death and despair. Which he is. I also find it interesting that the only cool place is the shade trees where the natives go to die. 

And the Buddha thing has Marlow as a symbol of a god or a higher being. He's also imposing his wisdom on others on the ship and Buddha is a symbol of wisdom. 

Important Lines

• "The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretence but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea--something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to...." (4) commentary on imperialism
• There is a juxtaposition on pages 14-15 that show the shaded area with all the natives. It then moves, on page 15, onto a white lit, dry area that has only white people in dominant positions. The descriptions of each are as would be expected.
• And then there was also this really strange line that I don't know if it's just the language translating weirdly (the 1800s, man) or if Marlow has something going on. But, at one point, on page 21, Marlow is talking to the brickmaker and says "It was very pretty to see how he baffled himself..."
• There are really great pieces of conversation throughout the novel. Conrad is wonderful at typical conversation.
• About the brickmaker: "...this paper-mache Mephistopheles, and it seemed to me that if I tried I could poke my forefinger through him, and would find nothing inside but a little loose dirt, maybe." (23)

Beautiful Lines

• "We looked at the venerable stream not in the vivid flush of a short day that comes and departs forever, but in the august light of abiding memories." (2)
• "Light came out of this river since..." (3)
• "...Afterwards he arose and went out--and the wilderness without a sound took him into its bosom again." (20)
• "Beyond the fence the forest stood up spectrally in the moonlight, and through the dim stir, through the faint sounds of that lamentable courtyard, the silence of the land went home to one's very heart--its mystery, its greatness, the amazing reality of its concealed life." (23) Conrad talks about silence a lot as a sound and I really like that. All of his descriptions are really realistic and I feel like I'm experiencing it.
• "I listened, I listened on the watch for the sentence, for the word, that would give me the clue to the faint uneasiness inspired by this narrative that seemed to shape itself without human lips in the heavy night air of the river." (24)

End of Slaughterhouse-Five!

I'm sure you're wondering if I'm happy I finished this novel, and I can honestly say that it is a huge weight lifted from my shoulders in terms of content and writing and stress. 

Let's get down to business.

Dresden Comparisons

Okay, there were actually quite a few comparisons to the video. This was expected, of course. One that really stood out was the horrifying descriptions of the corpse mines. I know they didn't specifically talk about this in the video, but they did talk about all the bodies all around (sometimes stacked up like walls) and I think that relates. At first it seemed kind of strange that they were digging into the rubble--of course, one would expect something like this if they were looking for survivors--but then they kept doing it. After they knew they had found bodies, the Americans and others kept having to dig up or burn these bodies. People died in this process of body searching. How strange.

Another comparison would be to all the rubble and to the extreme heat. They talked about how the ground was hot to touch and how shoes melted to the ground in the video and in the novel they complained about touching hot rocks on their corpse searches. 

In addition to all that, I believe they also mention coming out of this shelter after days inside, after ALL the bombings had stop. This means that there were the four bombings, as mentioned in the video. Nobody in the American troops seemed terribly concerned about it all though. However, this whole ordeal stuck with Billy.

It's very interesting that something like this would stick with Billy after all the things that did not affect him or that he was apathetic to. Why did Dresden haunt Billy and why did he feel the need to bring it up later to the rich man with the broken leg who shared his room?

But perhaps that's why the name of the novel is Slaughterhouse-Five. If anything should stick with us through the novel, if we should remember anything about it, it is that Dresden was horrific and no one believed them. 

Characters

I'd like to comment on three characters in this section. 

1. Edgar Derby

We were able to see much more of Derby's character in these few scenes. First of all, we saw how it seemed at first as if he wanted to switch sides with the American-turned-German, Howard W. Campbell Jr. Of course, we were all wrong. Derby was just being his static self and standing up for his ideals of Americanism and Patriotism. 

Classic Derby.

From there, we don't see a ton of Derby, but we do get to see his death. We see most people's death in this story. 

While they're going through the corpse mines, the Americans are also looking for souvenirs. Derby happens to take a teapot. He is shot for it. Of all the things they've been through, that's what finally gets Derby. 

2. Howard W. Campbell Jr. 

This guy is...interesting. He's like the Devil trying to get people to switch to the dark side. He's an American turned Nazi. He has a very neat outfit that he put together all himself that is the assimilation of Americanism and Nazism. It's like a blue jumpsuit with a bunch of red, white, and blue swastikas and a white, ten-gallon hat. He's like the cowboy of Germany. Except he's an American. 

He's also very rich and tries to bribe others with food to switch sides. He says that they'll end up on this side anyway, so why shouldn't they come now? He's wrong, but that's besides the point. 

I don't really know what to think of Mr. Campbell, or if he even deserves that title, but he was a comic addition to the story.

3. Kilgore Trout

Kilgore is a science fiction writer. He's also...interesting. No, actually, you know what, I hate this guy! He puts all these stupid ideas into Billy's head and that's probably what caused all of his troubles in the first place! Like, all of the things that Billy has hallucinations (I have a theory, based on pg. 190, that Billy's hallucinations are caused by his coma) about are either in his books or are suggested by him. 

For example, in Kilgore's book The Big Board, it says that "it was about an Earthling man and woman who were kidnapped by extra-terrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo on a planet called Zircon-212." (pg. 201) Clearly, this is an example of Montana and Billy on Tralfamadore. 

(Also, Montana Wildhack being a freaking porn star?? Reallllllly???? Not like I didn't expect this, but come on.)

Also Trout is just gross and only cares about himself and that whole disgusting disgusting disgusting paragraph about how Maggie Mae was the kind of woman a guy looks at and wants to "fill up with babies." That's sooooo gross it's the grossest most disgusting thing I've ever read. It makes me want to throw up with it's disgustingness. Trout is a vile and slimy character. 

???? EXTra bONuS !!!!!!!! ---->> KURT VONNEGUT INTERRUPTION

Vonnegut interrupts a few times. One that is particularly significant is the ending chapter where it just sort of switches back to his point of view. 

But another is on page 189 when he alludes to fear of old age with the man who has bad gas and is talking about how he knew it'd be bad, but never realized it would be this bad. 

Oh and I liked when Vonnegut recognized, on page 164, that he had basically no characters who do anything significant at all and they're all "listless playthings of enormous forces." It confirmed the things we've been saying.

Wrap-up

I feel like it didn't wrap up that well  in that you could tell that it was wrapping up. It was like the ending of a long speech where they have to let you know it's about to end so you can get ready to clap.

Banned Books

I don't know whether or not this novel should be banned. I don't think any books should be banned, so I'm just gonna say that first. I can see why it would be on a list of books that parents are uncomfortable with, though. 

One, it talks about death frequently, which is a scary topic for most. 

Two, it talks about war frequently, which is another scary topic.

Three, it talks about sexual things frankly and sometimes really graphically.

Four, there is just a lot of uncomfortable, weird stuff in this novel??

So, I could see why someone would want to ban it. But banning books is wrong. 

Pretty or Interesting or Lines I liked

• "The guards drew together instinctively, rolled their eyes. They experimented with one expression and then another, said nothing, though their mouths were often open. They looked like a silent film of a barbershop quartet. 'So long forever,' they might have been singing, 'old fellows and pals; So long forever, old sweethearts and pals--God bless 'em--'" (pg. 178, about Dresden)
• I liked that this was brought up when the rich guy keeps ignoring Billy when he tries to talk about Dresden. He says, "I just want you to know: I was there." (pg. 193) This is a common theme among soldiers, and I think that it was very important that this was recognized.
• "The window reflected the news. It was about power and sports and anger and death. So it goes." (pg. 200)
• "Billy thought maybe he had known this cracked messiah in Dresden somewhere." (pg. 167)

4-6 SL-5

Another day, another blog.

Video: "For the first time in history, a firestorm was consciously planned."

It seems like Dresden was a pretty spectacular place before the bombing. This is judging by book descriptions and alllll the footage about how amazing it was. However, how very horrible it was that so many refuges had come to the city to be saved only to have even more of a death toll. Some of the descriptions were terrifying. What was especially horrible to me was the shoes melting to the asphalt and the story about the woman pulled out of the way and a beam falling right where she was. The emotions of the people telling the stories about the bombing were off the charts. One more horrifying part was how they waited two hours to bomb again. This was because they wanted the ambulances and everyone there so they could kill more people, I suppose.

There was one part of the video where they agreed with the book (or the book agreed with the video) about how Dresden was assumed safe. Dresden could never be bombed. It was off the radar. It also said that the people of Dresden put their trust into the Americans and English, which relates back. Also, interestingly enough, it was mostly all women speaking about these horrors. This relates to our novel because the men never want to speak about it (sometimes the women don't either, admittedly).

Unrelated, but it could be related later, some Czechs came and laughed at the destruction and took the clothes from people . And, the quote from Winston Churchill that says: "looks like we slaughtered the wrong pig." I suppose that could also relate to our novel's title.

After watching this video I felt their emotions, but I was having trouble imagining the ruined city. So instead, I imagined my block and my hometown ruined and in millions of little pieces with no reason behind the attack. It made me want to cry and made me feel very numb. I can understand how they felt, though never completely.

Video: "I'm not Billy Pilgrim."

So Edward Crone is supposed to be Billy Pilgrim and he died of the thousand mile stare. He was buried in Dresden and his parents came and finally found him. He said Billy Pilgrim didn't understand anything at all.

However, Vonnegut seems to definitely not care about his life and have a lot of survivor's guilt. He also makes it seem like he had it worst when he's talking with his friend. I mean, possibly he did, but whatever. The point is that they both fought in the war.

I kind of feel like maybe possibly Billy Pilgrim did exist, but what Vonnegut did was pour his own feelings of detachment and apathy into this character. This makes it okay because he it wasn't hIM who was the "dirty flamingo." It was just this kid Billy Pilgrim who didn't understand anything about the war.

Tralfamadore

I don't think Tralfamadore exists. This novel isn't fantasy/sci-fi for one, and second, Billy is suffering from severe PTSD. This means that he is probably having hallucinations. That would be my main guess. In the novel, certain objects or situations transport Billy to the planet. I believe you even said something about objects in his house relating to the form of the aliens. We have already talked about this a little, but not extensively.

I think Billy believes it exists because 1) the familiar household objects give a sense of security and realism, and 2) PTSD hallucinations are very, very real while happening. In general, Billy was not given (obviously) the correct treatment in the mental hospital. This was common though.

I think the reason Billy is imagining these "aliens" because he wants to get away or escape from life (or war tore him from reality) and aliens in a spaceship could be about the easiest way to do it. He lives a normal life inside the terrarium on Tralfamadore and even comforts himself with the "death is just a point in time." I think that makes him feel better about war n general.

Characters

I thought that Roland Weary was an interesting character, and you said so also. I liked how he was so prepared for war and to kill, but what he really wanted was to be a part of something ("Three Musketeers;" by the way, what is up with that candy bar??). I think while Weary seems mean, he's just trying to fit in. His redeeming quality is the "we" or "team" thing.

Paul Lazarro is also a very fascinating character. He is purely mean-spirited. This is cool for a character because he's so flat and unchanging (always keeps his word). But I suppose his one human quality is trying anything to save himself. I think what he wants, at times, is just respect. That's why he damages others.

Edgar Derby is the quintessential "fight for my country" soldier bro. He taught English, took care of his body (and later others), and got in the army when he was older. Derby is very human and caring, but I also don't think it's what he wants to do, he just feels it's his duty. All the characters are different archetypes you see in war novels.

Commentaries

I like that the human-against-human aspect of war is shown. It's very murky. It's not just one man against another. Especially the scene with the Russian guy speaking gently to Billy at night by the fence. That's probably been one of my favorite parts of this novel. Human-ness and humanity are what attract me to stories and novels.

Free Will

And I believe we spoke about free will and how there are varying degrees of it.

City of Thieves - Last Chapters

In this blog, you told me to write about the interesting things in this book or interesting points that I noticed in the last chapters.

These probably aren't going to be in order, but I'm sure you'll get the gist of it. 

"The Courtyard Hound"

• The book is, I think, Kolya's autobiography. We learn this on page 238 through 241. 
• The "courtyard hound" (the actual old dog in the courtyard) is, I believe, a metaphor for Kolya meeting Lev. When the hound comes up and then dies, it's such a big deal because "all these women come over to Radchenko's, constantly trying to get him to go outside with them, and he never does. It's almost like a game for them; they all want to be the first one to lure him out the gates, but none of them can make him go. Only the dog." (241)
• This is pretty significant because Radchenko is Kolya. The hound is Lev. And Lev is the first person that has made Kolya come out his reverie of only looking out for himself and caring for himself. 
• The building is his bad surroundings he's lived in forever and how he's only surrounded himself with artificial things and things he should want and hasn't left that world til Lev came.

Kolya Dying

• wow, no. not okay with this at all.
• when Kolya asks as he's dying about the title being Radchenko or The Courtyard Hound he's asking if he was self-centered and vain and superficial his whole life or if he did something good and adventurous like Radchenko with the hound. Lev tells him he did do things well.
• The last line about the, "it's not how I pictured it," really really killed me. that line...just. no.
• it's really heart breaking because it can be related in several ways:

1. (the first way) is the Big Fish (the movie) way where he expected to die in some grand, adventurous, cool manner and ended up with a normal death (the mundane-ness of it was the fact that he couldn't get to the hospital because of the train and he got shot after all this time because of his gun)
2. (or) the "I don't think I want to die, especially not like this" way. whereas before kolya was fearless
3. (or) the, "I see the afterlife, and I was wrong about it" way

I'm not sure which one is right, if any, and there could be more options, but this line is just heart breaking to me. 

Brutality

• the part where Vika kills the traitor in the night who ratted out Markov is showing just how much they value sticking to what is right instead of what is easy and it also maybe shows Vika did care a little bit about Markov, even if she claims she didn't
• The irony of Kolya getting shot in the butt because of his gun
• The Russian soldier in the group of prisoners who had no boots, just socks, and picked his spot, then did the mock Nazi salute
• The Einsatzkommando with the funny mustache: the brutality of the sorting and the cleverness of the trio to figure it out, and the (sexuality) strange hint that maybe he liked Kolya a little too much, and (racism) the part where the Einsatzkommando says that Lev might be a Jew and Kolya says something to the effect that he is later on but Lev says explicitly that Kolya didn't mean anything by it (he probably genuinely thought it was a compliment)
• The chess game: the stakes, the cutting off of fingers, the fact that Abendroth liked the game enough to keep Lev there even if he was a Jew
• The cruelty of the eggs at the end of the book (//slams fists into a wall in rage)

Quote I loved:

• "We ran for the forest, crashing through the stalks of wheat, beneath the rising moon and the stars spinning farther and farther away, alone beneath the godless sky." (233)

Miscellaneous

• Kolya finally poops! we know something crazy had happened. This means his adventure is over!! 
• The sexual subplot between Vika and Lev is resolved when Lev "becomes a man" with the knife fight/chess game. He finally is carrying a soldier's knife, not a looted Nazi souvenir. 

And I'd love to know your final thoughts on this book. I really love this book for so many reasons and I hope you thought it was a good read too. 

City of Thieves 10-18

Okay! I left my book at school but I absolutely have to do this tonight, so we'll see how this goes. I guess it doesn't really matter whether or not I have page numbers or direct quotes because you and I have different ways of reading.

On to the questions!

1. How is this novel serving as the seemingly modern trend to look at how humans react to traumatic situations? How is this an open and honest look at the suffering caused by war?

This novel is representing how humans deal with traumatic situations really well. Instead of showing people gloriously fighting battles and heroically dying for their country, it shows the truths about war. While the people were still sometimes ardently proud of their country (think Lev serving on top of the Kirov or Kolya fighting with the regular army), they were also experiencing horrible things day to day and having to find some normalcy in the situation. This book shows things like Vadim the dying boy with the chicken/rooster, which shows child death in war. Also in that scene, just the dead old man who forced his grandson to be there with him. The dead people on the Neva also was pretty horrifying. In addition to that, the cannibals and how Kolya and Lev sort of ignore them.This book is very open and honest because it shows all of these things, but then it also shows people coping. We have Sonya who helps whoever needs and with her darning egg. We also have Kolya and Lev's companionship and how they lean on each other. There's happiness even in the darkest of times. 

I also like your idea about propaganda. There is some propaganda in the book and they make fun of literally every single piece of it. This stamps out the idea that propaganda really does anything for the citizens of the country. It's for other people to look at and feel some kind of nationalism or patriotism. 

2. What sort of commentary is Benioff offering about the treatment of Jews and the prominence of racism?

Lev always seems very afraid and/or annoyed when Kolya brings up that he's Jewish to other people. However, Kolya is very open and kind of childish in that he doesn't understand how other people might take this information. While Kolya acts old and mature, he's actually very childish in a lot of aspects. Also, I love how he uses the nicknames "my little lion" and "my grumpy Israelite," and Lev is just like *grump grump* stop it kolya. Kolya is so offensive, but I feel like he doesn't really realize it and Lev isn't going to say anything. I would say also that Lev isn't going to say anything because he's kind of used to these kinds of names and people looking down on him, which is another aspect we can add to how he isn't/wasn't loved a lot through his life. 

Some of the racism is understandable in this setting, though. The Russians are obviously going to be wary of the Germans and vice versa. This means some prejudice and some racism. 

There's a lot of stuff to talk about with this, but I'm not sure in which direction to head. What did you think of this topic? 

3. Are there any other moments of homosexuality or companionship throughout the novel? How do these moments contrast the typically "manly" view of war? (yes, mr. lister, we can do the novel you want if you want)

There were some more moments! I noticed first of all, Vika says something about how the Kolya and her commanding officer were gonna "get it on" or something. And they all blow it off. And then later when they're all walking through the snow in the single file line at nine paces apart and Kolya and Lev start walking together and talking in whispers, Vika sneaks up behind them and suggests they *ehem* get a room. Seemingly all the talk of sex is directed towards Kolya. Also, I'm not sure if this is in chapter 18 or 19, but when they're sleeping on the floor of the house and Lev is describing how Kolya is like really close to him and won't leave him alone and is breathing in his ear and whatnot and then someone, again, I think, tells them to (politely) get a room. 

I really, really love your thought about "how do these moments contrast the typically "manly" view of war." That is so interesting. I read that and was like "oh my god, that is actually really cool." I think it kind of contrasts this manly view of war by saying that war isn't really manly at all. War shows you that it's not about the things you have or the people you know, it's about who's on your side and making connections. Being a civilian during a war is about trying to live without possessions, and instead with love. I think this could be the author's view being cleverly imposed on the story. Lev and Kolya display this so perfectly because they were both jerked out of their normal life and only given each other as a kind of safety net. They're, obviously, pretty dependent on each other by now and care pretty deeply about each other. Whether or not they think they do. 

I can't remember, but did Lev already figure out that Kolya was writing his own book? I just really love that scene. That scene and the whole scene where Lev is half-asleep/dead tired while they're trudging through the forest and Kolya is like "I'm right here, little lion. I'll hold you up." The latter had a kind of dream-like quality to it and I think it's probably, honestly, my favorite scene in the entire book. They are just really frank and honest with each other by that point and they depend on and trust so heavily in each other. so much companionship!!!

4. Eye color count and interesting information.

When they first meet Vika, Lev mentions her eye color actually a few times. I believe it says that they were brown. And then he says it again a little later. *hint hint wink wink*

I'm not sure if he says anyone else, but Vika does seem to be a little different for Lev. She's not an object like every other girl. She's a real, whole person. It's kind of funny because usually, I mean from an evolutionary standpoint, the boy would go for the pretty girl and he would be the protector. But with Lev and Vika, Lev is kind of looking for someone to protect him. And Vika is perfect for him in this respect. It's another reversal of roles that I think Benioff is really fond of. It could also be showing, again, how war isn't masculine or manly. 

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by coming in for half of psychology and also on Monday? Here's what I got from that: you can come in on Friday for two periods, since it's a half day; you can come in during half of psychology on Thursday/or Monday (i don't know what you meant) and then if you came in Thursday, you would have a blog post due that Sunday (three days away the 10th) or if you came in Monday then that weekend (the 17th). I kind of have no idea what you mean there. 

City of Thieves!

This book, man. This book.

Let's jump right into the questions.

1. How does the author show the effect that war has on the humanity of the people?

One glaringly obvious example would be the cannibals. They are so starved that they had to resort to killing other humans and eating them. This lowers the humanity level down to almost purely animalistic. I suppose it's a little like Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs and how you can't have self-actualization, or humanity in this case, until you have your basic needs--food, shelter, water, all that. The level of humanity is lowered tremendously in some cases because of the war. 

Another example that would refute this claim, however, would be Sonya Ivanovna and her house full of doctors and refugees. She, even in times of great strife, takes in whoever needs it. (possibly not whoever, but it kind of seems like it with all the medical students and the author never really stating her profession) She shares food and shelter and helps. She clearly doesn't have enough for herself and is even described in several different ways eluding to the fact that she has no food. "She had swaddled herself in a man's greatcoat and three or four sweaters, but even beneath all that bulk I could see there wasn't much left of her" (71). Also, "She gathered me in her arms. It was like being embraced by a scarecrow. I couldn't feel any body beneath her clothing, just layer after layer of smoky wool" (72). Her spirit and humanity is not affected, though. She merely pushes through. 

One more example of spirit and humanity not being affected would be the men that stay in the Kirov even when the alarms go off, or the person that Kolya and Lev hear playing the great piano solo during the bombings. Their spirit is not affected, and they want to keep living life as it should be. 

And a last example of people being affected could be how the poor kind of controlled the rich in times of war. There was no food, so the rich people had to barter with the poor in a kind of "black market" thing. And the poor could withhold things by simply saying "go ahead, eat your silverware. See if I care." This is kind of an upheaval of the social pyramid. 

       2. Why is literature such a huge part of this book about war? What's the message about reading books in society? 

Hm. I think maybe literature is such a huge part of this book about war because it kind of shows the escapism involved in literature and writing. These people don't (and can't!) experience all these feelings of terribleness at once and they need escapes and ways out. Literature, in the form of books, helps the character to escape. In the case of Lev and Kolya, when Kolya asks Lev all these questions like "well haven't you read so-and-so's great work? that's a classic, why not!?" it's kind of bringing them back to simpler times, or rather, times before the war. The same goes for whenever Lev talks about (or doesn't) his father the poet. It's a link back to the past that he can hardly bring up because he doesn't want to tarnish that image he has of him with this horrible war and its atrocities. It was also just a super traumatic event, and it's very hard to talk about things like that, even without this added factor of war. In turn, Kolya's book (okay so we don't know it's his yet--but it is) is also a form of escapism. He's imagining himself as this great writer--which he drills into Lev's head by constantly saying how it's ridiculous how he's never heard of this great, prolific, writer--when he knows he could easily die by nightfall from starvation or a bullet or some other terror. (this relates to Kolya as a character too, in that he uses his haughty/cocky sense of self as a facade for his true demeanor which we only see when he talks about his book)

I think that the message about reading and writing in society is that it helps even the most damaged people escape from the horrors of the situation around them, and in that respect is a very useful tool. 

     3. What do you make of the pairing of Lev and Kolya? Are they a natural fit?

In terms of the world of literature, I think they are "a natural fit." It's the boy who doesn't want to do the thing (Lev) and the other boy, the contrast, (Kolya) who is like, "but the thing is fun!!!!! and ~ladies." They're a classic pair. 

 In terms of actual pairings, I feel like they work together well also. They may not listen to each other half the time, and they do get into dangerous situations, but that's the fun of it. 

Lev is a boy who believes it is his duty to guard his city. He was born and raised in Piter and knows all the ins and outs of it. Unfortunately for him, he looks, and is, Jewish and a Russian. A terrible combination, in his eyes. He has a traumatic past and his family aren't around (in the city) anymore. 

Kolya is, at first, the typical "bad boy," mischief-maker character. He looks like a German, is sarcastic and cheeky as he can get away with, and is a ladies man. He's in the army, but is a deserter. This kind of shows a little bit of his true character. He doesn't really care about the rules and regulations of the army, nor does he really want to go out there and die for this city, no matter how much he truly does wish to protect it. He's constantly talking about literature and women and how he hasn't pooped in like, what, eight days?

[the whole "I haven't pooped in (insert number here) days! how horrid!" thing obviously does mean something to the story if it's mentioned countless times throughout the book. I think that could, honestly, be a good point of discussion. I believe they talk about it so much because it illustrates how things are so strange, inhuman, and horrible in this war that not even normal functions are happening anymore. it's like the whole world has been turned on its head! I know there's the obvious, logical explanation of sawdust ration bread, but the fact of the matter is, you don't mention something more than twice if you don't think it's important in a book.]

Anyway, I think that these two characters go together so well because they're able to bounce things off of each other and hold themselves back or jump off. Lev learns countless things from Kolya--be they things he really wants to know, you be the judge--and Kolya is genuinely interested in and appreciative of what Lev has to say. This is great for Lev because he's never had anyone who really, really loved him and cared for him. Whether this be friendship that he seemed to be a perpetual fifth wheel to (the twins and Grisha and Vera already paired off and him left to the wind), or in the case of his mother who only said things about him being "stupid" as a way of "i love you." The only person that seems to have loved him was his father, who took care of him and taught him things (ding! ding!) like chess and how to win at having your swanky author friends over. Lev really needs this element of friendship/love because he's never experienced it. Kolya is a perfect half-to-the-whole for him because he likes to learn new things, and confirm suspicions, and is genuinely so very, very interested in everyone around him. Kolya needs Lev because he holds him back from some of the ridiculous things he wants to do, but he also appreciates him too. I don't think Kolya really gets many people that are truly interested in him other than for his good looks, mischief, or sex. Lev seems to understand this and listens and goes back-and-forth with arguments and comments on his behavior or ideas. I don't think Kolya gets this feedback often and it's honestly really positive.

(I found a spot where Kolya's opinion is actually respected by others and it's only when he's in an argument and people have to listen because he's a soldier. It's on page 75, and right after it everyone gets all annoyed with him and mockingly calls him 'comrade' and he goes back to his old cocksure self.)

What do you think about this relationship? I have so many thoughts on it.

And lastly, you asked me to come up with some ideas to discuss for Friday! Here goes.

• I think that the main adventure element at the very beginning is really interesting. While they are horrified at the idea of having to find a dozen eggs in Piter, they finally have a purpose. They might get out of this war if only they can find some eggs. They're scared and that seems to be the only element shown in the text, but I think they're also really, really intensely excited that they don't have to do this whole living day by day in a dying city and thinking of nothing but death. What do you think of that? 
• Darling. Let's talk about the dying boy Vadim and the grandfather and the just-fantastic surprise they get when they take the *cough* chicken *cough* home. What do you think happened to the boy? Did he get better with the help of the two girls, or did he simply waste away on the rooftop? What was it like for the boy to live up there with only the seemingly crazy grandfather? Is this another example of how humanity is taken away during wartime and a little boy is killed in the midst of it? 
• When Kolya and Sonya are going at it in the other room, and Lev is so confused as to what he's saying to her the whole time. I think in City of Thieves, sex is kind of used for Lev as a way of escapism. It's just like Kolya's book. It takes Lev away from this war and back to being a normal human teenage boy. It's also another way to further Kolya and Lev's relationship in that Kolya gets to teach something and Lev gets to be a willing subject. Also, why sex is such an embarrassing topic for Lev to talk about. This could be attributed to being a teenager, but it could also be about the war. (I actually had something really insightful about why it was about the war, but I LOST it and I can't remember it for the life of me) I guess it could be embarrassing for him also because it is a form of escapism and to even imagine himself out of this situation is kind of horrible. (<--this wasn't my original thought, but I guess it's okay) Thoughts?
• The character Sonya and why she is important. 
• Pooping!!! it's so important! (refer to above)
• When Kolya talks about needing a high and getting it from the wood alcohol on page...51. He says "I needed a sniff, I took a sniff, now I feel alive again" (51). We can just discuss how interesting this is for Kolya's character. And also why he's so honest with the amount of money that they have when they're in the market. Why would he be so honest about it when Lev clearly wants to hide it?

Not all of those ideas are particularly important or significant, but I think they're all very fascinating things. 

Anywho, I'm really excited about this book and the things that we can discuss with it. 

Brave New World Discussion Part 3

More discussions!

Let's get right down to the nitty gritty.

Both John and Linda are thrown into different worlds from what they are used to, and they are forced to adapt. However, they both go about it in different ways.

John is amazed, at first, with this great new place he can live. After a time, however, he realizes that everything is kind of fake and he doesn't like it nearly as much. He also doesn't understand a lot of the qualities/morals people have, and sometimes he tries to go against them. An example of this would be when he throws the soma out the window at the Place Where People Go to Die (Park Lane Hospital for the Dying). John also refuses all sexual advances and sticks to his morals. He doesn't realize why people are afraid/embarrassed of some of the things that he says. Whenever he meets someone that he thinks relates to him, he goes all out and completely trusts them. But a little while after, they usually turn out to only have half formed ideas. An example of this would be with Helmholtz when John is reciting Shakespeare to him and he laughs.

Linda adapts differently. One, she really, really doesn't like this new place with all its dirts and germs. At first she tries to keep everything nice and neat and in order, but she really just wants to go back to where she can take a shower and be pampered. At the end she doesn't care as much about her appearance because she realized it doesn't matter in this society. She also tries to find replacements for things in her society--alcohol for soma. But, she makes the grievous mistake of thinking that this society has the same morals as hers, and she sleeps with all the men. And throw in all this with the fact that she's pregnant, something unheard of in her society, would definitely contribute to a feeling of culture shock.

Miranda. Not a Firefly (or Serenity, if you're gonna be technical) reference, but indeed, a Shakespeare one.

The first time that John says the line, "O brave new world," is on page 139. He's talking about how exciting it will be to go to this new place with this new people and how exciting everything will be. He's also talking about how exciting his time with Lenina could be. He kind of has a crush, but not in the same way that these people get a "crush." Because they don't crushes. They get what they want.

He again says the line on page 160 after seeing the hatchery. He's kind of horrified with the situation and the text after his quote says "by some malice of his memory" and then he goes and throws up. He's not comfortable with this practices, and the "O brave new world" is used in a horrified tone.

Then, curiously, again on page 209, talking about the delta "twins."

The last time we hear John utter those famous words is on page 210. He is in the Place Where People Go to Die (Park Lane Hospital for the Dying) and he was just going to throw all those soma tablets out the window. He is in a bad state after just seeing Linda die and absolutely no one caring about it. He's realizing that this world isn't all its cracked up to be and that maybe he shouldn't have classified it as such in the beginning.

Differences in Male Characters:

• John: John is different from everyone else, and rightly so. He is not accepted into either world (brave new or savage). He recites Shakespeare in most emotional instances. He has very strong morals. He wants to prove himself. He feels that he needs to be punished for a lot of things. He just generally doesn't like these new people and kind of wants to go back home.
• Bernard: Bernard brings back "the Savage" and finds himself with fame and recognition. He then believes he can do whatever he wants. He doesn't realize that the people only like him for John and this new "interesting" thing. Bernard is kind of selfish and false. He never really had any good ideas, he just wanted to be liked.
• Helmholtz: Helmholtz, in these chapters, is pretty distant. Whenever Bernard asks him questions, he just sort of shies away and doesn't answer/ignores him. This could just be in reaction to Bernard's selfishness/abandoning of all previous things in favor of fame. However, at the end, Helmholtz seems to be the only "true" character, in that he is finally given a chance to express himself away from society. The island "punishment" is more of a reward for him. 

John and Lenina's weird psuedo-romance

At first, John is drawn to Lenina because she is pretty and innocent and she doesn't immediately reject him. This is good because John has never experienced anything close to acceptance before...ever. Which is sad. However, John wants to woo Lenina and make her fall in love with him and then be married. He even asks Bernard on page 139 if Bernard and Lenina are married because he wants to be sure he's being absolutely correct with her. I find this really endearing, but then his intentions are just sort of thrown by the wayside by Lenina.
Lenina doesn't understand the concept of "love" or "marriage" or even "courtship," and therefore, she is frustrated when John won't just have sex with her. She likes him, but she doesn't really know what to do with him not wanting to have sex right away. I think Lenina shows desire, but she doesn't show true emotional connection because when John refuses she just sort of walks away. BUT later, she does go to the lighthouse to see him, but that could be all a fame thing. I just think she's really too innocent for any kind of true emotion. None of them really have any true emotions, other than desire.

John vs. Mond: Differing Opinions

1. arts/literature: I think both of them have the same opinion on this. They both like the arts/literature, but Mond realizes he can't give them to everyone. John thinks that he should, but Mond thinks they're old and will give them ideas. John is materialistic and Mond is ascetic. 
2. science: Mond likes some science, but not all. He doesn't want people understanding things or getting ideas. He is more materialistic in this view because he thinks that Bokanovsky Groups are the foundation upon which everything else is built (222). John doesn't understand the idea because he figures you should keep improving and moving and all that. He is more ascetic. 
3. religion: John is more materialistic in this view. He thinks that God doesn't change so why should people not read it? Mond is more ascetic in this view because it's another one of those new vs. old things. The people change--history is bad.
4. emotional/personal relationships: If we look at literally any relationships in the book either involving citizens of the brave new or John, we find that John is wayyyy different. He is more ascetic because has morals to uphold and wants to honor the opposite in the relationship. In the brave new, it's more materialistic because it's just going off of the fact that everybody wants to, so why not? 

The end. 

Brave New World Discussion Part 2

A few examples of people being reduced to near-inhuman states would be:

• There's a "hatchery" in Chapter 10. That's where humans are "hatched." This is so different from how we kind of respect childbirth and love babies now. In this dystopian world, childbirth and mothers and fathers are snickered at and a cause for embarrassment in conversation. Just to go a little further, it's kind of like a major show of immaturity that they're all so comfortable with sex but so uncomfortable with the idea of being mothers and fathers and even the barest mention of childbirth. So anyway, humans are compared to animals who come out of eggs when born and are hatched instead of born. 
• I'm not exactly sure what chapter, but when, near the end, John is at the place where people go to die and he dumps all the soma out the window, the workers that come in just sort of unethically put everyone down with really strong doses of soma and then, "with the cautious tenderness of one who strokes a notoriously vicious animal, he patted the Savage's arm (211)," they literally describe John just like that. And then they just sort of take him down. Like an animal. 
• When Lenina goes to seduce John or whatevs, he is represented as an animal freaking out and Lenina won't let him in to give her his clothes and all that. 

There's a lot of animal imagery. Just in general, the way that any given person is treated at any given time is usually terrible. Everyone is treated as a child or an animal.

Next you asked about Ford. Like I said, I really did not understand his part in this at all. But, I took the initiative and looked it up and I understand it now. Ford is representative of technology and moving forward. This makes sense because of the time period it was written in and the fact that this society is entirely based on consumerism. They replace any use of religion with Ford.

Let's compare! You asked if I could please compare the "savage" civilization and our current civilization, and then say whether or not it was really as bad as it was made out to be.
They have a lot of mentions of God and other deities in the savage society. In our own cultures, we have a lot of mentions of religions because a lot of people believe in religions. They also drink a lot. We drink a lot. Another thing would be that they are mostly monogamous. In this society, Linda doesn't fit in because she sleeps with ALL the guys and the ladies don't like that much. So they go and beat her up. They also have rights of passage and exclusion and little groups of people and FAMILIES and DEATH and OLD people. It's very similar to our own, but I think it's a little less structured. This could be because it's not allowed to grow, though.

I think it's not really that bad, based on every characters reaction. But it would be pretty horrible for them, I mean, look at Linda! I don't know which is preferable. If you were born and raised and part of the culture of the savage society, I think it would be better. However, you would have a lot of hardships. I think they both have their pros and cons. But the high-tech society is really scary and there's no such thing as free will and even though it's clean it's just creepy.

Next up: Bernard and Lenina. I think Bernard goes after Lenina specifically because she has some crazy ideas like wanting to stay with one person for a longer time than a few dates. She also mentions about no one else wanting to say yes to Bernard because he was a little odd, so maybe Bernard is just kind of clinging to the one person that will pay attention to/not make fun of him. But I also think Bernard is having all these strange ideas and he hasn't ever been able to share them and he thinks maybe he can finally do so with Lenina because she's shown some strange habits/ideas too.

Back to Ford. So again. Still not really sure what the heck is up with Ford. He was just really confusing to me and every time they mentioned him  I didn't really understand what was happening. But again, as I looked up before, I think maybe he just represents technology, which you can refer back to about how this represents the technological society and abandonment of religion.

Confusion: I just thought some of the ways that he phrased things were really strange. Like he would talk for hours on things like the hatcheries and then just barely pass by things like what the women used for contraception or what the activities were that they played. I don't know if this was kind of intentionally saying that they were so unimportant they could hardly remember them, or what? Also, they talk about the Bokanovsky twins and like WOW that could've been super interesting to actually see and talk about how they managed to do this, but then again, I guess no one in the society really knows WHY they're doing the things they're doing or HOW just how to do the things. I guess it makes sense why it's a little confusing, as it kind represents the general ignorance of society, but then again, I wish some things would've been cleared up a little. Ford was probably the point of most confusion for me because they always mention him in passing and I didn't understand if he was real or a mystical thing or what in the world was happening.

More Questions!!!!

1. Who is the main character, in your opinion, and why?

I think that the main character is probably John. At first you think it might be Bernard or Lenina, but then once you happen upon the chapters about John and we learn soooo much background information on him it becomes kind of clear that he's probably meant to be the main character. The book also ends with him so that could be an identifier that he is supposed to be important. I just don't really see any of the other characters going through so much or really learning anything/sticking to their morals. Bernard becomes corrupt and Lenina is portrayed as typical lady for most of the book. How annoying.
   
     2.What in the world is up with that weird formatting in chapter three and what do you make of it?

I think it was just kind of about how no one entirely knows everything, so everyone has to interject something in. Also, no one can stay focused enough on one subject to continue talking at length. Also, they're talking about Lenina having her strange ideas and "homes" and "families" a lot of this chapter which is a really uncomfortable subject for everyone in this society so of course you'd shy away from it and want to talk about something else for a bit if you were actually a person of this society writing this book.