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.  

Brave New World Discussion

Back to the old blogging routine.

*After reading the packets about detail and diction, I found that the assignment wasn’t still posted on schoology (that I could see), so I’m not exactly sure what I’m supposed to write about. But! I think it was something about giving examples of detail and diction in Brave New World, so that’s what I’m going to write about.

From what I gathered in the detail packet, detail is when you write something and are just giving a description. There is no emotional information included, just facts. I think a good example of this in Brave New World would be when they describe without any emotion the process of how they make people and then brainwash them. No one really seems to have any emotion most of the book, so I think a lot of this book could qualify as detail. I also believe that an example of an author who uses this form of writing constantly would be Ernest Hemingway.

Diction would be when you do have an emotional connotation with what you’re saying. An example of this in the book would be, just in general, the character John. Most everything he says is filled with emotion. Another example would be when the Director gets emotional about him and Linda. Or one more would be when Bernard has his moment of questioning with Lenina. This book does have emotional text, but not as much as the factual aspect. I think this is okay though because the book is about how no one thinks or has real emotions. So it all works.*

On to examples of how Brave New World exemplifies a Dystopian society perfectly.

1. Propaganda is used to control the citizens of the society

As Bernard mentions about a thousand and six times, every single night from (birth) and as children, the citizens of the society are subjected to subliminal messages each night that condition them to act differently. They also learn catchy little phrases that they can repeat on command, even when completely unnecessary, such as when Linda is living on the reservation with the "savages."

      2. Information, independent thought, and freedom are restricted.

There is a chapter, or at least a section, that begins with Mustapha Mond, world controller, looking over a report from a scientist and rejecting it—even going so far as to underline multiple times the rejection—because he thought that it would let people think. He, and other world controllers, also send people who think freely to little islands outside of society because if they think it could bring everything down. They also restrict the citizens time so much that even if they wanted to think, they would be exhausted. Additionally, they give them little pills called soma so that any time any thoughts or even bad feelings come up they can just take a “holiday.” Even going farther than that, they’ve been brainwashed since birth (not even birth) so free thinking is pretty much out of the question. They also have pretty much no job choices and a set caste system they have no way of getting out, and they don’t want to get out of it. 

3. A figurehead or concept is worshiped by society. 

The people of this "brave new world" worship a man called "Ford" almost obsessively. And he just sort of speaks out of the ceiling at strange times. And on a recording too. 

4. Citizens are perceived to be under constant surveillance.

Bernard and Lenina's boss mentions something about how he has noticed that Bernard's behavior reports have been unusual outside of work and even during work. Obviously they are spied on/have surveillance if Bernard's boss has information on him outside of work.

5. Citizens have a fear of the outside world. 

Citizens don't so much have a fear as they just don't see the use of it. When Bernard suggests they go to Malpais, Lenina thinks it's a stupid idea and doesn't want to have to live in the muck and all that. The only character that seems, or at least seemed at one point, genuinely afraid of the outside world is Linda. She didn't exactly adjust well to being thrown into the world of savages. 

6. Citizens live in a dehumanized state.

The citizens even realize this several times and don't care. They refer to themselves as children and don't really care that they are. Everyone there is kind of child, and they don't really do any adult activities. "It is their duty to be infantile (pg. 98)." They also aren't parents, don't have children, and don't have spouses. They have no connections, but they are supposed to be a "unit" or a "whole." No one person matters, so I guess none of them matter?

7. The natural world is banished and distrusted.

The citizens our the "brave new world" live in a high tech society where they got rid of all the trees and the grass and the bugs and anything that could potentially hurt anyone. It's all a padded room. The citizens distrust the "savages" and call them that because of it. They don't think that living in squalor with, god forbid, families and religion and drama could ever work. 

8. Citizens conform to uniform expectations. 

Everyone is conditioned to believe that the caste systems they are placed in are just and right. They are also taught as small children that they and their death don't matter. Individuals don't matter. It's society as a whole that matters. They also say a few times, "what do a few murders matter? As long as society is kept intact." 

9. The society is an illusion of a perfect world. 

This should be evident from all the previous information, but to further drill in the point, at the end after John, the "normal" human, experiences the world and feels so much guilt for what all is happening, he kills himself. 

Next. First of all, Huxley's dad was a biologist, and Huxley also wanted to be a biologist, but he had a major vision problem and instead turned to writing. This explains his fascination with genetics (the making of humans in labs) and biology (making them better) in the novel. An industrial revolution was going on right as the new century began. This meant new inventions and improvements and new science to ogle at. This contributed to a feeling that everything was moving too fast. An example of new inventions in the novel would be how all everything had to be new, how a model of consumerism was promoted, and how all sports had to involve probably a hundred pieces just to work.
Also in teen years of the 1900s, there was a war happening. That was World War I. That means a lot of unrest and people were scared. An example of this in the novel would be the "Nine Year's War." People got really scared during that time and so the government just "fixed" it. Then we had the '20s, which was all prosperity and lavishness until 1929. The '20s represent how the people in the novel live day to day.
Then the real stuff went down and the feeling of moving too fast was cemented. They had moved way too fast. The '30s were a time of cynicism. They were moving forward too quick, and now was the time to slow down and catch up with aspirations. An example of this would be the people who think too much. One example would be John, and other examples would be the people who were taken to the islands.
The 1930s was when Brave New World was published. I think it was published then to show what could have happened, and what still could if people continued the way they had been.

Last. I found a lot of things about this book interesting/important.

1. The scene with Bernard and Lenina in the helicopter thing near the beginning of the book (page 92) was really interesting. At first Bernard is trying really hard to get her to just think ("But it's lovely. And I don't want to look." Daisy Buchanan moment much?) and feel ("I want to feel something strongly."), and then he just kind of gives up and starts laughing. I think this is really interesting because he's trying to break free, but then Lenina just continually resists and finally he just gives up. I think this is probably pretty representative about how most people feel in this society. Maybe at first they tried to get out of it, but then there was just so much to keep them there. He also continues on page 94 about how "it suddenly struck me the other day that it might be possible to be an adult all the time." And then Lenina is all like, "No, no. I don't understand. We had fun, you're dumb. Stop thinking." Bernard, again, is a real pushover, and stops the discussion. 
2. Just a small thing: on page 95, when it talks about Mustapha Mond intial-ing a permit, I thought the way he signed was really interesting. "He pencilled his initials--two small pale letters abject at the feet of Mustapha Mond--and was about to return..." It's interesting that his signature is small and pale. It kind of represents him as more of a figurehead, with no actual power, against "Ford." 
3. OH MY GOD when the Director was reminiscing, I repeat, reminiscing, about Linda and his trip to Malpais. Like, wow. You don't just think. I bracketed that entire part.
4. And then Mustapha Mond talking at the end to all John, Helmholtz (?), and Bernard. He knows enough, but he still doesn't really get it. I mean, he's trying to protect the world, but he's kind of going about it the wrong way.

There was a lot more stuff that was super interesting, but I just can't even think of any.

Confusing stuff:

1. Ford. 'Nuff said.
2. I didn't like how he didn't explain a lot of things. I mean, I realize all the characters know everything about everything, but some things weren't explained that well and I was confused on what they meant. Also, even though I guess it doesn't really relate to the story, I would have loved an explanation of what all the different activities they did were. (i.e., the golf and the helicopters and whatnot)
3. What the whole basis of government is? Like, who is running this whole thing? Or is no one running it at all and that's part of the problem? We just have the world controllers and a dead guy* controlling the place? *read: dead guy=Ford to the 21st century mind of Erika

I probably also have a lot more questions, but again, nothing I can think of at the moment.

Overall, the book had some really interesting ideas and I think it's a classic for a reason.

Let's Talk About Subdued Themes

More reading!! What a joy! I hope I start off every blog post from now on that way.

After reading all of this great information on tone and style and irony (and so on and so forth), I highlighted (not literally!) a few things that really caught my eye in the text. During our discussion last Friday, we talked about authors who will insert their own opinion or talk to the reader through narration, and then the book talked about it! (Specifically Victorian writers who would interrupt the story) They had some really great examples from a few books, but my favorite was from Anthony Trollope in Barchester Towers (1857), wherein he says, "But let not the gentle-hearted reader be under no apprehension whatsoever. It is not destined that Eleanor shall marry Mr. Slope or Bertie Stanhope." I just found this really funny, yet really sad. He's assuming his readers gentle-hearted, or at least poking fun at them, and then saying that fate doesn't even want these two together, so don't worry about it.

Next, tone conveys an attitude. I love noticing the tone of a story. I mean, of course it's hard not to, but it's always kind of amusing when you find it. Style also works closely with tone and is the way that you write that it is recognizably yours. One example is Ernest Hemingway. He has very clipped, void of fluff sentences. But, you still learn a lot from them. They also don't usually say the emotion that the character is feeling, but instead show the surroundings of the place and their mood and you are meant to understand the feeling as you have probably experienced it. I think that's a really cool style of writing that not many people could replicate.

We've also got diction, which is the way that you have characters speak. Irony, which we talked about extensively last year (and the year before) and is used extensively in text. We also know all about theme and have talked about it for-ever. But, I did find the point that there can be multiple themes per story interesting. Also, the statement on page 182 about trying to find a theme that says, "Attempted with loving care, such statements may bring into focus our scattered impressions of a rewarding story, may help to clarify and hold fast whatever wisdom the storyteller has offered us." I found that a really neat sentiment.

Lastly I read about symbols. A symbol is an object that suggests more than its literal meaning. This, compared to allegory, which is "a story in which persons, places, and things form a system of clearly labeled equivalents. (page 206)" I had heard the definition of allegory before, but I guess I had forgotten because I wrote this down as something to remember for the future. Additionally, I liked when they talked about the idea of "symbolic characters" and told about the "room two women who knit black wool--like the classical Fates." I love it when characters are hinted to be something else, or represent something, and are minor. Major characters I don't appreciate as much, but when they're minor you can look and understand and then maybe keep checking up on them through the story, but it's not about them. Basically, symbolism in stories is really important and in most stories you can find it.

--

All right, let's talk about Hemingway. Ernest Hemingway and I kind of have a love hate relationship. I really like and admire a lot of his writing (A Moveable Feast, A Farewell to Arms, and Big Two-Hearted River), but some other stuff he writes I find uninteresting and bland (The Sun Also Rises). Hemingway's style is very clipped and direct, leaving out any extraneous details. As I mentioned above, he writes what gives the emotion instead of the emotion the character is feeling and you must figure it out yourself. This can be good when you want to really experience the writing, but at other times it can be repetitive and annoying because as he goes his writing can get confusing. Hemingway's direct and unemotional style contributes to this story, "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place," because the waiters are pretty much unemotionally discussing this deaf guy who's drinking brandy at their cafe. The styles contributes to the overall theme because it's about loneliness and having a place and fearing that you are, indeed, meaningless. So when they talk so unemotionally and without care they kind of contribute to the theme that you are meaningless. And, the only emotion shown is when they talk about the cafe and how everybody needs a place like that. I think that's more Hemingway's own view than the waiters'.

--

Elements of symbolism in "The Chrysanthemums"! Hurray!!!!!!

Okay, now that we got that pent up excitement out the way for such an enthralling event as this, let's get down to business (to defeat the Huns).

The number one element of symbolism in this story is the patch of flower she tends to at the beginning. They represent her as a woman, or rather, her femininity. At first, she's tending to the flowers really carefully and making sure everything is perfect with them, and then her husband comes over and is like, "hey, wow, great flowers there bud. You should grow me some apples in the orchard because YOU'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH." But he doesn't really think that, that's just what she thinks he thinks. Meaning, Elisa is kind of disappointed with her husband. He seems to only care about his stupid field and his stupid three-year-old steers, and not her. He's kind of lost his passion for their marriage and she's vaguely disappointed by the whole thing.

Then, the guy in the cart that comes along to sell his wares or whatever represents a kind of spark in her personality. Someone is admiring her, and while it isn't technically her, THAT'S HER FEMININITY RIGHT THERE and he said it looked like "a quick puff of colored smoke," like, wow!! That'd make any woman blush. Especially one who gardens all day and her husband ignores. And then they have a weird moment with some really pretty dialogue:
"When the night is dark--why, the stars are sharp-pointed, and there's quiet...sharp and--lovely."
So that's fun. And then she tries to tell him that women can do the stuff that men do to (prove herself).
Oh and also: "That's a bright direction. There's a glowing there." It's just pretty. I needed to comment.

And, then, lastly, she gets dressed all nice, ready for the awesome night out, and then Henry comes home, is awkward as ever, and tells her she could break a calf over his knee or something. Smooth, Henry. That ruins all the work Elisa put in and makes her feel like she has nothing left, and it's not going to get any better.

Oh, and the fight represents what she wants to be like, while the wine represents the thing that she's going to stick with because it's "her only option."

--

In both stories, I didn't really know if POV was really that important. We have the two waiters commenting on the deaf guy and loneliness. And then we have the wife and the husband and the caravan guy. I don't really think that POV was the most important thing in these stories, but I suppose it would've been a little different in each if it had been told from, say, the deaf man or the husband's POV.

Setting was very important in Hemingway's story. It was about said cafe. I guess there is a possibility that it could be set somewhere else, but he makes the point specifically about a "clean, well-lighted place" and describes it as this cafe. Setting in Steinbeck's was also important because of the hard, worn people and the landscape and the gardening. It couldn't have been set in a city. Time period was also important for this one.

Another thing that was really important in each was character motivation. In Hemingway's, we didn't really know the motivation and had to figure it out (for the waiter). In Steinbeck's, we were given very distinct clues about the motivation and it was a lot easier to figure out (for Elisa).

Finally, for plot, neither were very cut and dry, moral-is-right-where-you-can-see-it. Hemingway works are notoriously hard to find the theme/message unless you're looking really hard, and Steinbeck gives you clues but you must figure it out yourself. It's not so...easy, to find. So, neither stories are very direct with their messages. Does this confirm our point about modern stories not being direct with their messages? Do we have well-built up characters (not so much in Hemingway's, other than the waiter; and yes, for Steinbeck), or are they skin and bones?

Thank you and good morning.