FINAL ESSAY

Just Visiting

 

It is hard for us to identify ourselves with an external problem. It’s hard to identify ourselves with anything external for that matter. When something is not our problem, as hard as we may try, it is difficult to care. This is a theme that comes up in both Italo Calvino’s Invisible Cities and the video game “Façade.” This game is similar to all the cities in Calvino’s novel in that the cities are external places to Kublai Khan.

 “Façade” is a video game in which you are the main character. You choose a name for yourself and you see everything as if you were actually playing. It’s like a game in first person. In “Façade,” you play Trip and Grace’s friend. You’re invited to their house. Everything seems to be going well, but suddenly, after all the small talk is over, your character begins to witness a continuing argument between Grace and Trip. They argue over everything. The wine. The decorations. After a while, you start to see that these two are not compatible with one another. You quickly learn that you were the one that introduced them, and you see that the only reason for your being there is their attempt at rejuvenating the spark that was there when they first met. The spark, unfortunately, is long gone. Their marriage is on the brink of ending because they cannot live together. It is too hard. It isn’t your problem though. As much as they’re fighting, you are just a visitor. You are simply observing a situation which you cannot help. Their problems are internal, and they come from the fact that they are not a suitable match. You cannot take this as a reality because it really doesn’t concern you.

Kublai Khan has the same problem the entire time Marco Polo is describing cities to him. He cannot really consider them as a reality because they are external to him. He has not seen them. Because they only exist in Marco Polo’s tales, Kublai spends his time wondering about other things. Also, the cities only exist in the mind. “Everything I see and do assumes meaning in a mental space…” (Calvino 103) Only existing in his head, Kublai is free to do what he wishes with the cities Marco Polo describes to him. At one point, he rearranges the elements of one city and asks Marco Polo if the city he has created exists. At another point, Kublai Khan asks Marco Polo to go out and search for a city that he has dreamed. In the end, Khan realizes how useless all these cities are: “It is all useless, if the last landing place can only be the infernal city, and it is there that, in ever-narrowing circles, the current is drawing us.” (Calvino 165)

I believe this is why Calvino’s novel is called Invisible Cities. They don’t really exist other than in the tales. Their importance is in the ideas they represent and not in their supposed existence. Khan wants to know what his subjects are thinking, what is happening in his empire, what people need. He doesn’t really care about staircases or columns. He could care less about rivers or mountains or churches or ale houses. 

Why Women Take So Long

Why Women Take So Long…

A little Nap.

7:30

7:45

8:15

8:35

8:37 8:45

8:55 9:05

9:10

Teach Us Then

When Gulliver finally returns from his travels, I am appalled at what he says when he sees his family again.

"I must freely confess the sight of them filled me only with hatred, disgust, and contempt; and the more, by reflecting on the near alliance I had to them. For although, since my unfortunate exile from the Houyhnhnm country, I had compelled myself to tolerate the sight of Yahoos, and to converse with Don Pedro de Mendez, yet my memory and imagination were perpetually filled with the virtues and ideas of those exalted Houyhnhnms. And when I began to consider that, by copulating with one of the Yahoo species I had become a parent of more, it struck me with the utmost shame, confusion, and horror." I get that he grew to hate the Yahoos in his travels, but this is his family. His kids. I don't recall whether his marriage was for love or whether it was arranged, but either way, these are people whom he should love.

I am really pissed off by Gulliver's attitude after he leaves the land of the Houyhnhnms. They may be virtuous and all that good cuddly stuff but he can't hate humanity the way he does. It's ridiculous. If he's so much better than us, why doesn't he do something about it? Why doesn't he try and fix the vices and cruel nature of humans? He claims to, "write for the noblest end, to inform and instruct mankind," but what he really is doing is hiding and running away from the problem.

Although the travel stories are cool, his attitude at the end really ruined the entire experience. It makes me think that Swift has this opinion of man and I don't like it.

What Is Wrong With Gulliver?

As I read chapters VII IX and X of Gulliver's Travlels, all I kept thinking was how dominated Gulliver was by his master. Gulliver should have been troubled by the state of his fellow humans in that remote island. Instead, he not only starts to think they are inferior to him, but he also begins to hate his own race. As benevolent as the Houyhnhnms might be, he shouldn't forsake his own people. He should have been a liberator, freeing the Yahoos from their cages.

Another thing which I find curious is the Houyhnhnms philosophy. "Friendship and benevolence are the two principal virtues among the Houyhnhnms; and these not confined to particular objects, but universal to the whole race." Although this is what they believe and although it is a big part of their daily conversation, this train of thought is very hypocritical. Not only do they have an entire race enslaved under horrible conditions, but they also hold the majority of their own species in servitude. That doesn't sound very friendly or benevolent to me. Benevolence certainly isn't holding conferences in which they talk about whether to exterminate the Yahoos.

To go back to my point about Gulliver being dominated by his master, I also want to talk about what this means. Swift shows a lot of resentment to humanity. We may be fowl creatures that deceive and do all types of horrible things, but we do not by any means, deserve what Gulliver feels and does.

Those Yahoos

Swift's description of what Gulliver's master has seen in the yahoos of his country calls to mind what humans would be like if we had stayed wild and without civilization and culture. Our nails would be longer. We'd be stronger, faster, and abler at climbing trees and other similar tasks. There's a tendency to fight and a lust for having a lot of things. These two factors are huge in the development of what we are now. All our modern weaponry and laws arose from quarrel settling. There's the violent way, and the peaceful way.

Gulliver's master also relates some strange behavior from the female yahoos: "At other times, if a female stranger came among them, three or four of her own sex would get about her, and stare, and chatter, and grin, and smell her all over; and then turn off with gestures, that seemed to express contempt and disdain." This observation is Swift's way of telling us he believes women have been the way they are since forever and that it is not because of culture that this phenomenon occurs. 

Don't Pay the Lawyers

If I had to describe how the world worked to someone who has no idea, it would certainly be a very hard task. First of all, everything you say would seem foolish because after all, a lot of the things we do are stupid as hell. Gulliver's master seems perplexed at the idea of war and how we manage to kill so many of our own kind. He is also confused by our trading and money systems. He cannot believe that a country has to go to other countries for goods. In his explanation of why we trade, Gulliver feels that in return, "we brought the materials of diseases, folly, and vice, to spend among ourselves. Hence it follows of necessity, that vast numbers of our people are compelled to seek their livelihood by begging, robbing, stealing, cheating, pimping, flattering, suborning, forswearing, forging, gaming, lying, fawning, hectoring, voting, scribbling, star-gazing, poisoning, whoring, canting, libelling, free- 

thinking, and the like occupations." Although I agree that a lot of our vices come from interactions that have to do with getting something that you want, this long list mentions good things, not vices we acquire. Voting and free-thinking, for example, are vital to the advancement of culture. Without these two, our world would be something completely different.

Another thing that made me think in chapters V and VI of Gulliver's Travels is the way that Gulliver talks about lawyers and the law. "that in all points out of their own trade, they were 

usually the most ignorant and stupid generation among us, the most despicable in common conversation, avowed enemies to all knowledge and learning, and equally disposed to pervert the general reason of mankind in every other subject of discourse as in that of their own profession." This is harsh. People today still talk about lawyers in a way that makes them seem liars. This "corruption," however, doesn't come from the law or the profession itself, but for the money that comes with being a lawyer. The law is meant to protect and organize us, and lawyers are supposed to seek justice. When money is involved, though, things change. Lawyers no longer care about justice but rather turn their attention to money, and in this game, whoever pays the most wins. Justice is thrown out the window when money is involved. 

This makes me think about the article I read recently about Medicare in McAllen county. Here, doctors are over using medicine for profit. When it comes to the law and healing, money shouldn't be involved. If possible, doctors and lawyers shouldn't be paid.

True or False

Swift makes our customs and ways of life seem even stranger in the moments when Gulliver is explaining to his master his life story. His master cannot believe a lot of the things Gulliver mentions, among them lying. His argument is as follows: "that the use of speech was to make us understand one another, and to receive information of facts; now, if any one said the thing which was not, these ends were defeated, because I cannot properly be said to understand him; and I am so far from receiving information, that he leaves me worse than in ignorance; for I am led to believe a thing black, when it is white, and short, when it is long." (Swift 187) This quote is very true. The point of language is communication, and lying takes away the point of communication. Then again, the point of lying is exactly that. These are two very weird concepts.

Horses Are People Too

In the first two chapters of part IV of Gulliver's Travels, Gulliver meets the Houyhnhnm and the Yahoo. In this island, the relationship between man and horse is reversed, and the Yahoo (who are human-like creatures) play the role of horses: "About noon, I saw coming towards the house a kind of vehicle drawn like a sledge by four Yahoos." (Swift 179) We can see clearly that the Yahoos are the horses in this world. They live in cages. They are uncivilized. They eat horrible food. The fact that the Houyhnhnm are the people who take care of them and that they have language and customs is Swift's way of pointing out the peculiarity of our own human-horse relationship.

It's weird that for hundreds of years we've completely dominated the horse. We ride them at will. They have been part of horrible battles and died. They have been our slaves. Another animal. The whole thing really is pretty weird. Who was the first to realize riding a horse would be faster? Who figured out how to ride it without getting seriously injured or killed?

This is just another example of Swift questioning our way of life. This time, instead of making us think about our religion, political struggles, and burial rituals, he is making us think of the cruelty we do to horses. What were to happen if roles were reversed? This is exactly what Gulliver encounters on the island.

Oh My God

I can picture Gulliver's reaction when he sees the floating island. It's like this: He stands up. He puts his hand on his forehead to block the sun from his eyes as he looks up. He squints his eyes. He has no idea what he is seeing.

I find his whole experience leading up to that point intriguing. He has some bad-ass survival skills. Supplies for four days. A canoe. I don't think I'd be able to do that. 

How Foolish We Seem

Knowing that Gulliver's Travels is a giant satire helps in figuring out Swift's intentions of relating the customs of Lilliput. Everything Gulliver conceives seems to be a joke. At the same time, however, the fact that Gulliver is looking at all these ridiculous customs makes me think about what would happen if we were the Lilliputians.
How would a complete stranger who lives in a world with completely different customs view our world? I think the Lilliputian burial services is ridiculous: "They bury their dead with their heads directly downward, because they hold an opinion, that in eleven thousand moons they are all to rise again; in which period the earth (which they conceive to be flat) will turn upside down, and by this means they shall, at their resurrection, be found ready standing on their feet." (Swift 40,41) In that light, how would our burial customs seem to an outsider? Is putting people in boxes underground ridiculous? What are the origins of burying people? Is it something to do with resurrection as well?
Another weird Lilliput custom is the parent-son relationship. The parents don't do the raising at all and only see their offspring a couple of times a year. Is it weird that our parents raise us? How would it be different?

Conan vs. Health Care

The two feature articles I read were both interesting in different ways. The one about Conan O'Brien taking over The Tonight Show taught me things I didn't know. For starters, I had no idea that The Tonight Show was so old. Second, it seemed really weird that they look for successors to the host. First Johnny Carson, then Leno, and now Conan O'Brien. Furthermore, why is it such a privilage? Why would Conan O'Brien leave The Late Show to be the host of The Tonight Show. I guess when it comes to late-night comedy, The Tonight Show is the most prestigious.
The article about health care was also really interesting. Instead of talking about the inner thoughts of a comedian who is about to take over the most prestigious talk show on TV, talks about one of the biggest problems facing the United States today. In their quest to extend and better their health care system, lowering costs is one of the major goals. This becomes a problem when the doctors will over exercise their power for profit. Money is the problem. I had always thought people became doctors because they wanted to save lives. Somewhere in the inner workings of their minds they are good-hearted enough to want to save other people. Now, doctors become doctors because they know it will make them rich.
The difference in these two articles is the target. The one about Conan O'Brien is a fun, interesting piece that simply tries to inform us what he's thinking as he steps into a much bigger stage. The health care article is a quest to answer a much bigger question. It is the investigation of medicine in the United States. Because it is a much bigger question, this article touches more sensitive topics, topics such as ethics and morality. Why shouldn't the doctors order all the extra procedures? After all, if money is their goal, the McAllen system is what doctors all over the world should be striving for.
The style of writing is different as well. I guess this is to be expected as all writers have a different form.

The Good Guys

When you think about the U.S., you generally think they are good. Good in the sense that they are trying to protect democracy around the world and uphold liberties. However, when it comes to nuclear testing, they haven't really been that way. As this article relates, they have failed to sign the nuclear test banning treaty several times. President Obama is pushing the treaty into the senate once again, but some senators will have to be convinced if it is going to pass.
As the world's power, it should be at the head of banning nuclear testing. If they do it, other countries will surely follow.

The Test Ban Treaty
May 24th, 2009

Figuring Out The Universe

A space shuttle mission has recently returned from space. This mission involved fixing the Hubble Space Telescope, which had had some problems since it was first sent out into space. Now that it is all fixed, however, Hubble is able to take amazingly sharp pictures that further detail the origins of our Universe.
So much innovation and technology makes me wonder what will happen when all of our Universe's secrets are found out. What will happen when we know exactly how the Universe was created? What will happen when we know the origins of mass? What will happen when we can travel at the speed of light?
Since the beginning of our species, we have wondered all of these questions. Once they've been answered, however, what will be left? What will we do to fill up the time we used to spend figuring out the big questions of our existence?

An Even Better Hubble May 24, 2009

War and Politics

Soon after the author is freed, he learns a brief history of politics and war in Lilliput. As explained by Reldresal, principle secretary of private affairs, the problems in this world are silly. "As to the first, you are to understand, that for about seventy moons past there have been two struggling parties in this empire, under the names of Tramecksan and Slamecksan, from the high and low heels of their shoes, by which they distinguish themselves...The animosities between these two parties run so high, that they will neither eat, nor drink, nor talk with each other." (Swift 33) This made me think of the differences between politicians in our world.
In Colombia for example, beginning in the XIX century, liberals and conservatives have been fighting. They distinguish themselves by what they believe is the best course of action in different areas, not by the elevation in their shoes. Still, though, as much as we think that the differences between liberals and conservatives are worth fighting for, the people in Lilliput think the same. The real question is why we divide ourselves. We should be united. It's really crazy to think that thousands of people died because of small differences in economic, domestic and foreign policy.
The same thought comes to mind when we are explained the war between Lilliput and Blefuscu. It all has something to do with religion, and the way to break an egg before eating it. Apparently there have been 6 rebellions since the emperor of Lilliput decreed that the best way was by breaking it on the small end. Big end-breakers found refuge and assistance from Blefuscu, and this is how their war began. Again, a really silly reason.
It reminds me of religious wars and crusades. It reminds me of people killing eachother in the name of God or ancient principles. As dear as we might hold some concept or belief, it is always silly to fight over it, especially when the fight kills thousands of people.

A Giant In Our Midst

All I kept thinking throughout chapters I and II of Gulliver's Travels was this: how would we react in the face of such a giant. The men of Lilliput are about 6 inches tall. If an average person in today's world is about 5'8, that means that the ratio is 68-6, a little more than 11-1. If you flip that over, that means that for us to see a giant like the men of Lilliput are seeing, that man would have to be 748 inches tall, 62 feet. The Goliath from the Bible is only 9 feet tall. 62 feet is like a 6 story building.
What would we do with a 62 feet tall man? Controlling him would be easy because our weapons now a days are advanced. Instead of having hundreds of men ready with bows and arrows, we would just have fighter jet planes or helicopters. Feeding him would be an issue. The council of Lilliput even thinks that feeding their man would cause a famine. This is something that would happen to us as well.
I think the more important question is not how we would feed a 62 foot tall person but how we would see him. What would happen to our religion and our beliefs if we saw a person like this. Undoubtedly, people all over would think it was Jesus' second coming. Others would think apocalypse. We know so much about the world that any mysticism has really gone out the window.
Sure, we can write a story with a 62 foot tall man. However, deep down, we all know that this is impossible. Our extensive knowledge has made the world a small place, a place where something like this wouldn't be able to happen.

Color and Line

The essential components that make up this piece of art are color and line. The artist also does a great job of creating space in the picture. By aligning the "shapes" on the sides, the artist creates a sort of space where he later places the balloon. The very fact that the balloon is in the center gives it emphasis. It sticks out.

Jesus Reaching Out

This painting works a lot with line. If you follow each person's line of sight, you will see that they are looking at somebody else. Each apostle seems to be engaged in some kind of interaction with another apostle. The only two people who don't form part of this pattern are Jesus and St. Peter, who is sleeping on the table. Jesus is looking straight at you. His eyes seem to make some kind of connection with the viewer, a look that says: "Check out what I'm dealing with."
I make this inference because of all the movement going on in the picture. There are some 5 conversations going on. Also, instead of just being seated in their seats, the apostles are in all kinds of weird positions.
Jesus' giving attitude is seen in this picture in that he is offering the lamb head to the table. This is really the only food on the table, other than a little bit of fruit. It's cool to see how a lot of Jesus' "personality" is being highlighted in this piece.

Misery

This chapter of Seize the Day really highlights Wilhelm's misery. "Wilhelm could not restrain himself and joined in with his own panting laugh. But he was in despair." (Bellow 38) We are further introduced to his troubles in this chapter. He's on the brink of divorce. His wife won't stop asking for money. He has two kids.
He's burdened with life itself. I think this is setting up for some kind of redemption at the end. This can't just be a story about Wilhelm's misery, there has to be something more. What he should really do is address his father. Wilhelm needs to tell him exactly how he feels. How he doesn't like it when he corrects him in public, how he doesn't like it that he calls him Wilky. I think that if he improved his relationship with his father, everything would slowly better itself.

Looking Back

The first chapter of Seize The Day is like a big flashback. With Wilhelm's failure as an actor, and all the consequences that came with it, we see why Wilhelm is who he is in the present. The roots of his bad relationship with his father lie in the same acting failure, as he became Tommy Wilhelm, losing his father's last name.
All of his insecurities and problems in the future can be traced back to the call from Maurice Venice, the failing agent. It's funny. Although we see Wilhelm's failures in this story, we also see how sad of a life Venice is living. Failure seems to be all around the book.

Signifying Nothing

Flauber is extremely descriptive. Like I mentioned in my last post, he describes everything in a situation. What does it all mean though? Chapter 2 of A Simple Soul, The Heroine is really a bunch of stories. They don't have any real meaning behind them. They do, however, help in making the image of Felicite. The way she acts in these situations is key to our understanding of her, which after all is what the book is about.

The Maid

This first chapter of Flauber's A Simple Soul is extremely descriptive. He describes every inch and cranny of the house, producing a very vivid picture. Also, he describes the maid Felicite just as vividly. After I read this first chapter I started thinking about the name. Felicite. Although I don't know French, I can kind of infer that it has something to do with hapiness. Felicidad. The maid, however, doesn't really seem happy. She gets paid very badly and has a loaf of bread that lasts her three weeks. Although he doesn't mention whether or not shes happy, her situation in life isn't one of joy. Specially not enough to call the main character Felicite.
What is he trying to do then?

The Train

Again, another kind of awkward situation in Carver's short stories. This time, in the short story The Train, it is a woman, Miss Dent, witnessing a discussion between a man and a woman. She has no idea what they are talking about and can only deduce so much from what they're saying. Meanwhile, however, the man and woman have no idea that Miss Dent has a gun in her handbag. Although it is not funny, I find the entire situation kind of ironic.

Cathedral

The short story Cathedral, made me think a lot about what it means to be blind. For a while I thought that they just had pictures in their mind all day about stuff. I can see with this story that it isn't that case. Because they have never seen a cathedral, a blind person won't have the image in its head. Its like that with everything in the world: colors, people, animals, landscapes. What do their dreams look like? Their conception of the world is very different than ours.

Vitamins

Carver's short story Vitamins is a sad truth. It depicts very sad characters. First, Patti, who cannot find a job and then finds a bad one selling vitamins. Next, Donna, who isn't making money and almost takes up Nelson's deal just for a couple hundred bucks. Then Sheila, finding love and getting rejected. Not to mention she doesn't make a lot of money either and has to move. The main character is also a sad one. He goes to the same bar every night and has the same thing. The bar is like the place he runs away from life in. He's bored. That's why he almost has the affair with Donna.
I'm starting to notice a pattern in Carver's stories. He presents a lot of sucky situations in life but situations that are very real. No one suffers any horrible death or anything, but the relationships between the characters, their jobs, everything seems to reflect misery. Life sucks.

The Compartment

You really get to know the characters in these stories. Although they are short, a lot of the details Carver puts in helps you to quickly get to know the characters. Myers, for instance, the main character in this short story, is extremely troubled. He can't sleep. He doesn't even want to see his own son. This short story also talks about all the unexpected things that could happen. First he gets his watch stolen, then he ends up on a wrong cart and his suitcase is gone along with his coat and what he left in the other cart.

Preservation

This short story is a little different from the last one. This one, unlike the past one, uses quotation marks when the people speak to each other. Carver still uses short choppy sentences, and I'm beginning to realize that that is his style. That's how he writes. He writes kind of like a list: "The pan was starting to smoke. She poured in more oil and turned on the fan. She hadn't been to an auction in twenty years, and now she was getting ready to go to one tonight. But first she had to fry these pork chops." (Carver 45) It's written in kind of an order, describing step by step what is hapenning at the moment.

Chef's House

Carver uses some weird tactics in this short story. To begin with, he doesn't use quotations when people are talking. I don't know why he would do this. It doesn't even give a different tone, and I don't see what difference it would make. I also notice how short and choppy his sentences are. Although short, they are descriptive. There's a lot of imagery even though the sentences are very short.

An Awkward Dinner

I found the short story Feathers really funny. The author really does a good job of pointing out the awkward moments. He really captures the situation perfectly. Jack and Fran go in there not knowing what to expect. As soon as they pull in a peacock falls on their car. From there the entire night is pretty funny. The teeth, the milk with dinner, the ugly baby.
Although I didn't like Fran as a character, I think Carver does a great job of writing her. The way she looks at things, what she says. The best is by far when she looks at the baby and says: "Ah!" That was hilarious.
The story is pretty sad though. The ending is very sad. It talks about how hard it is to be married and how hard it is to make friends. Jack's connection with Bud, although one of friendship, isn't a real connection. Their conversations are pure small talk and they never really act as though they are that good of friends.
What I captured most from this story is that its real. All the characters are very real and the way they live is real as well. Their interactions are real. Carver is trying to portray this type of situation as he sees it. In a way this is kind of like Seinfeld. The story really isn't about anything, just a random dinner. Its realness its what makes it funny. You can imagine the whole thing, you can see it happening to you some day.

Dream, Death, And The Self

This TLS book review of J.J Valberg's Dream, Death, And The Self is like no other book review I've ever read. It is more of a summary than a book review, really. Or maybe I'm just used to really crappy book reviews.
The first four paragraphs made me want to go and buy the book immediately. J.J Valberg's thoughts about death and dreaming are thoughts that I've always had, and in fact, death is my biggest fear precisely because I find it so incomprehensible.
Later on, though, the book becomes less and less appealing. Barry Stroud, the author of the book review, says that Valberg is very repetitive and finds that the book could be half as short and still say the same things. He also begins to use some of Valberg's terminology, such as "horizon" and "conception of the self." These seemed really vague and made me not want to read the book as much as before.
Overall, though, I think this is really cool. You get to see new ideas and thoughts without really reading the book. If you do want to read the book, though, the book review then tells you whether it is any good or not. I think that is the purpose of the TLS book review. Get the ideas across, and then say whether the actual expressing of the ideas was any good. A book is good not because of its good ideas, but because of how these ideas are expressed.

Prisoner's Dillemma

In chapter 12 of The Selfish Gene, Dawkins introduces the game Prisoner's Dilemma. These are the rules of the game: There are two players. Each has two cards, one that says COOPERATE and one that says DEFECT. A round of a game consists of each player putting down one of their cards face down without knowing what the other player is going to put. When both players have put their card down, the banker flips them both. There are only 4 possible outcomes since each player only has two cards. Outcome 1: We both play COOPERATE. The banker pays each of us $3oo. This is called the Reward for mutual cooperation. Outcome 2: We both play DEFECT. The banker fines each of us $10. This is called the Punishment for mutual deflection. Outcome 3: You play COOPERATE, and I play DEFECT. Because I have defected, the banker pays me $500, also called the Temptation to defect. Because you have cooperated, the banker fines you $100, also called the Sucker's fee. Outcome 4: This is just the opposite of outcome 3. You play DEFECT and I play COOPERATE.
After explaining the game, Dawkins goes on to talk about a certain simulated tournament where different strategies played against eachother and against itself. The winner was a strategy called Tit for Tat which does what the opponnent did on the last turn. Its first move, however, is always COOPERATE. When I read this, I started thinking that this really isn't the best strategy. To prove my point I went to Google and looked for a Prisoner's Dilemma game online. I played the computer by always defecting, and since the computer was a "nice" strategy, meaning it started off cooperating, I immediately had an advantage. It turned out that the computer was programmed with the Tit for Tat strategy so after I had the advantage it just went on to mirror everything I did and I won by a 5 point margin. (Instead of $300, you get 3 points. Instead of $500, you get 5 points. Instead of a $100 Sucker's fee, you get 0 points. Instead of a mutual deflection fee of $10, you get 1 point.) What I realized later as I read on, was that it didn't matter whether you win or lose, but that you have a high point total. Sure, with my Always Deflect strategy I could never lose, but other strategies might fare better in point total if they didn't have so many DEFLECT run ins where each gets only 1 point. Certainly if in real life these points mean offspring to animals, a nice strategy must be the one that wins out.

The Problem Then, Is Choice

According to Dawkins, human culture has created a new kind of replicator: the meme. He describes the meme as a piece of culture (A song, an idea, a law) that can be transmitted from person to person and from generation to generation. After analyzing memes, their origins and their effects, Dawkins realizes: "Our genes may be immortal but the collection of genes that is any one of us is bound to crumble away...But if you contribute to the world's culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool." (Dawkins 199)
This, then, is what we should really be striving for. I'm not gonna lie though, my genes do have to get passed on. However, having kids in our culture shouldn't really be looked at in this way. We have kids and families because we cherish the personal bonds that they create, not because I want my genes passed on. As Dawkins points out: "We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." (Dawkins 201) We don't have to do anything if we don't want to. Animal behavior is easy to explain because they live on pure instinct. They are born. They eat. They have babies. They eat some more, and then they die. Humans, on the other hand, aren't like this at all.
In fact, we are influenced much more by memes than our actual genes. Genes lay out my structure. They tell my body to make me skinny and have a big nose. They tell my hair to grow upwards instead of the normal growth, turning it, after a while with no hair cut, into some weird afro. They make my eyes green.
That, however, does not define me in the least bit. I am who I am because of the music I listen to, the things I've learned in and out of school, and because of how I perceive society. The memes present in my brain are far stronger than my genes. The clearest indication of this is that I have actually considered not having kids when I am an adult. This wouldn't even cross a regular "survival machine's" head.
As the architect of the Matrix tells Neo in The Matrix Reloaded: "The problem then, is choice." The immortal genes have created thousands of "survival machines" to do their bidding. By doing so, they have created a certain order in nature. Although lions and cheetahs hunt antelope, there is never an overpopulation of either one. It works. It’s balanced. The system the genes have created has worked since they began replicating. As these "survival machines" evolved, so did the brain. We, because of our brain capacity, present the replicator genes and consequently the order in nature, with a huge problem.
As soon as the memes began controlling our lives, we were liberated. Choice. Free-will. Liberty. Whatever you want to call it. Culture and its memes have been giving genes a huge headache from the beginning. Today, we are reaching the point where we are threatening the order of nature. This, is essentially what global warming truly is. A huge collapse was gonna come, one way or another. When we chose to do whatever we wanted, we took the reins right out of the hands of our genes. It's like when Anakin Skywalker becomes too powerful and starts destroying order in the galaxy. As much as Padme and Obi Wan try to prevent this, his power is too strong. So, like Anakin, our power has grown too strong. Although we set out innocently, this ultimate power has never escaped from our minds. If god is a meme which has survived for a very long time in the meme pool, so has the idea of total power. Now we are endangering the order which our genes have created in nature. Until recently we had no idea that destroying this order would kill us too. As much as we don't like it, we are part of this world and its destruction will send us into the blackness along with it.
Aside from this point, I also believe that Dawkins hasn't given enough time to this idea. If he says: "If it is a popular tune, its spread through the meme pool may be gauged by the number of people heard whistling it in the streets," he clearly hasn't given it enough thought. A meme is an idea. Whether it's a song, a dance, or a particular law, each meme has an idea behind it. The strength of this idea must be put in with longetivity, fecundity, and copy fidelity when talking about memes because it is exactly this idea that makes the meme last in the gene pool. I guarantee that Flo-Rida's "Right Round," for example, will fade away in four months tops, maybe even less. According to Dawkins, a tune is passed on by "how many people whistle it in the street." However, just as this song became popular recently through extensive radio exposure, it will be replaced by another one shortly. Although people are whistling it or singing it right now, it will soon fade away.
The older music that has survived has done so because of the idea it represents, not because people have whistled it for so long.

The Terrible Unnatural Institution Of Slavery

We tend to think of slavery as one of the worst things to have developed in our society. We believe that one man's enslavement by another man is one of the most despicable acts of humanity. The institution of slavery has been called a lot of nasty names, and rightfully so. However, until now, I had always thought that it was a pure human invention: unnatural in every way.
Dawkins says, however, that a certain species of ants tend to have slaves. "Soldier" ants from a strong colony go to a weaker one and steal the developing eggs. When the eggs are born in the strong colony, they have no idea that it actually isn't their home, and they become the worker ants of that colony.
This really isn't a good way to compare slavery because our definition of it is very different. First of all, ants aren't conscious, so they don't know that they have been enslaved. Secondly, it's not as if there is money to pay the worker ants, it is just a part of their "society." Also, ants have no way of understanding morality and it isn't feasible to them that they are doing anything wrong.
Chapter 10 has been one of my favorite chapters so far. It explains in detail a lot of the features of animal altruism and how cheating can evolve. I especially like his example of Suckers, Cheats, and Grudgers. I find it fascinating how this ESS thing works.

A Normal Day At The Cafeteria

As Sam finished serving his food, he saw Jill sitting all by herself at a table. Knowing she was also reading The Selfish Gene, he decided to approach her and converse about the book.
SAM: Hey Jill, how are you?
JILL: Pretty good, Sam. And you?
SAM: I'm okay. Everything is pretty normal. Say, what chapter of Selfish Gene are you on?
JILL: I just finished chapter 9 last night. And you?
SAM: Hey, so did I. What did you think about it?
JILL: It was okay. That stuff kind of bores me anyway.
SAM: Are you kidding? That chapter was great. It explains all human sexual relationships by describing animal behavior and how genes come into play. It's awesome.
JILL: I don't really get a lot of what I'm reading. I was watching America's Next Top Model so I really wasn't paying attention.
SAM: You were watching that as you read? You might as well not read at all. (Chuckle)
JILL: The point of reading it is to do good on the test isn't it? Who cares.
SAM: Wow, that's a really bad way to look at studying and school. It was a great chapter though. I mean the way he explains girls having a tendency to play hard to get and how men have a tendency to be lying dogs. It really makes you realize why a lot of that stuff happens.
JILL: You're right. It was actually pretty cool.
SAM: Yeah, that guy is a genius.
JILL: Yeah, I really like the way he puts a lot of human nature into perspective through some random thing about like genes and stuff.
SAM: Yeah, I always realize that too. How bout the part where he talks about the different strategies and how they could work out? Kinda like the Ess's in chapter 5. That part was awesome.
JILL: Yeah I liked that too. Hey I gotta go to English. Tangen always bothers people when they get to class late. See you, Sam.
SAM: Jaja. Later, Jill.

10 Commandments Are A Load Of Crap

Chapter 8 of The Selfish Gene was about the struggle between parents in their kids and how this is explained genetically. In his explanation of these different battles, Dawkins describes some really horrible behavior of birds and their brothers in the nest. Apparently, the first one to be born in Cuckoos throws out the rest of his siblings from the nest in order to be the one who receives all the parental attention. Talk about being jealous of your brother. He also describes how young deceive their parents in different ways in search of the utmost parental investments. One of the main commandments, states: " Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you."
If this is so common in nature, we can safely say that this commandment is not natural at all. It is an invention that was made to keep order in culture. If we can say it about one of them, all 10 commandments, then, go out the door. Not to say that they haven't done good. These 'laws' have created the system of morality with which people have lived under for hundreds of generations. However, why follow all of them if the rest of the living creatures on Earth have no regard for this so called 'order?'

Picking Up Chicks: Animal Style

So far, in every chapter, Dawkins has discussed the behavior of only males in the different species. Sure, he mentions females and how many eggs they lay and so forth, but it seems to me like the males are doing everything in their power to get the women. They fight over territory, they try to get a high "social" rank. Males, as Dawkins describes, are always competing with each other to see who mates.
Sure, females do begin to play a role after they have had kids. Building the nest. Hunting. Feeding the young. However, what do single females do during mating season? My understanding so far is that they just sit there waiting for the winner of this eternal struggle between males to be the ones who reproduce.
Is nature sexist? In every species the man is constantly fighting for the woman and doing everything in his power to be the one that gets to reproduce. Sexism in humans is different because of the whole voting thing and equal job opportunities, etc, but the same basic principle of this sexism is there in all species. The female is chilling while the males are breaking their balls trying to win out. Also, the repercussions of losing the fight for the female are disastrous. As Dawkins describes, males who don't breed soon die of starvation. How come everything developed this way? Why, since the beginning of species, has the man been the one to try and win the woman?

Sartre? Genes talk?

"I am the only individual that any one of my selfish genes can be sure of." (Dawkins 106) That, right there is the fundamental point of existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre. The only reality that exists is you and nothing else. Going back to what I said in my previous blog, Dawkins is accidentally making some great points about humanity.
Another thing which has sparked my curiosity a couple of times throughout the novel is when Dawkins explains how a gene 'says' one thing or the other. For example: "A gene that 'says', in effect: 'Body, if you happen to be an adult male, defend the troop against leopards', could become more numerous in the gene pool." What does this mean? Genes give the body coded information through amino acids and consequently proteins. How in the hell could this eventually translate an if and then statement? How, for that matter, are any messages translated?

Are You Sure That's An Evolutionary Stable Strategy?

Dawkins, in his explanation of aggression in animals, inevitably discusses fighting. All the forms of fighting are there, those who pick the fight, those who run away, those who win, those who lose, and those who defend their territory. What is interesting about all of this is the ESS. One would think that someone who wins all fights would be the best. However, as Dawkins explains, that is not always the evolutionary stable strategy. Maybe I should start telling people that before they even think about picking a fight with me.
What's really interesting about this book is the way it kind of unconsciously explains human nature. I have started to realize in the past couple of chapters, that in his explanation of this or that evolutionary thing, Dawkins accidentally makes a great point about human nature. That might turn out to be the conclusion to the book. In it he will explain how although he has explained genes and evolution, every chapter has also dealt with human nature. Maybe not.

Why Living Is So God-Damn Hard

Along with the other things Dawkins discusses in Chapter 4 of The Selfish Gene comes the topic of genes as instructors. To explain this point, Dawkins introduces an analogy with computers playing chess and how they do it. "When it is actually playing, the computer is on its own, and can expect no help from its master. All the programmer can do is to set the computer up beforehand in the best way possible, with a proper balance between lists of specific knowledge, and hints about strategies and techniques." (Dawkins 52)
Likewise, all genes can do to help their survival genes live, is to set them up in the same way. "But life, like the game of chess, offers too many different possible eventualities for all of them to be anticipated. Like the chess programmer, the genes have to 'instruct' their survival machines not in specifics, but in the general strategies and tricks of the living trade." (Dawkins 55)
As people always say, it is human nature to screw up and fall, so to speak. Life presents too many different possibilities which we cannot forsee. All we can hope to do is attack each moment with the 'hints' our genes have given us and hope that it benefits our survival. And if we do happen to fall, luckily our genes have programmed our brains with the power of learning so that, next time we confront the situation, we wont fall as we did the first time.

Death Of Old Age Explained

Among the things that Dawkins explains in chapter 3 of The Selfish Gene is death of old age. I've often wondered why exactly it is that everything, including humans, dies of old age. Dawkins explains that this is because of lethal or semi-lethal genes that rise up after our reproductive years. This poses a theorietical way of living longer except that it is only theoretical.
I also really liked what Dawkins says about genes and teamwork. A gene that is good for survival and reproduction doesn't make it along by itself but rather gets along because it is good in a group. Although I don't believe this was the intention, this is telling us how humans should behave. Although selfishness is the fundamental quality a gene should have, it only survives so long because of its ability to work in its group of chromosomes. Likewise, as much as we strive for personal success or happiness or whatever, we will only truly achieve it in group.

Evolution A Mistake

I really like what Dawkins says about evolution being a mistake. If it wasn't for all the random mutations and mistakes during copying, humans would not be here right now. When you think about it like that, it is weird to think that we started off as simple replicator cells.
He also says that no species actually wants to mutate, which is very true. All of this really makes you think about everything that could've gone wrong throughout history. Imagine of all of these mutations would have never existed. What if these replicator cells got the copying process flawlessly correct on the first try? Humanity, then, is the result of a million mistakes.

Altruism vs. Selfishness

Richard Dawkins, in the first chapter of The Selfish Gene, tells us that what separates us from the animals is that we aren't really controlled by our selfish genes. Animals, throughout all time, have really been controlled by their genes and not by the individual. Whether altruistic or selfish, Dawkins says that every animal really has selfish intentions at the roots because they are at the mercy of their genes. Our minds are advanced enough that we really aren't controlled by our genes, as demonstrated by the invention of several things such as the contraceptive pill.
I really like that Dawkins knows every counter-argument that could be made against him and knows how to beat it. He frequently says that his book is not this or that but rather something else.

Let it Be

"Remember, you must always behave as you do at a banquet. Something is passed around and comes to you: reach out your hand politely and take some. It goes by: do not hold it back. It has not arrived yet: do not stretch your desire out towards it, but wait until it comes to you." (Epictetus' Handbook #15)
This is telling us that we should let things be and pass and not necessarily try to intervene with it too much. Although this doesn't present a direct connection to Slaughterhouse Five, it did make me think about it. The Tralfamadorian view on life represents one that you cannot even live, much less intervene. These are kind of steps in the ladder of living I guess.
The very bottom is the 4th dimension which doesn't allow life because everything is already written. The top would be a full-led life where you intervene with everything and live every moment to the fullest. Epictetus' point of view is near the top but in the middle of these two.

Critiques Against Society

Both Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five and Epictetus' Handbook critique society in some way. "Do not be joyful about any superiority that is not your own. If the horse were to say joyfully, 'I am beautiful,' one could put up with it. But certainly you, when you say joyfully, 'I have a beautiful horse,' are joyful about the good of the horse." (Handbook of Epictetus, #6) This is critiquing people's tendency to boast about their possessions. This is similar to Vonnegut's critique of people's dislike of bad breath. He explains this to us through one of Kilgore Trout's novels in which people hate this man for his bad breath but not because of how many people he has killed.
Throughout society people have always created an importance on things that shouldn't really be important. These two writers mock these things and consequently point out how stupid and unimportant they really are.

Buddha, Epictetus, Vonnegut

I think this text not only has correlations to Slaughterhouse Five, but to Buddhism as well. One of the main aspects of Buddhism is to avoid suffering. Vonnegut escapes his suffering by turning to the 4th dimension. Epictetus creates guidelines by which we can avoid certain forms of suffering.
All of these, I believe, represent a very cynical way of thinking about the world. Instead of talking about the world in a way which highlights its happy attributes, these texts show that the world is full of sorrow and suffering.

Poo-tee-weet??

The most obvious meaning of this is a bird chirping. What does that mean figuratively? Why would Vonnegut choose to end his novel this way?
After some analyzing of the entire novel and its themes, I reached one conclusion that might or might not be correct about what Poo-tee-weet means.
One of the things questioned in this novel is human nature. Why so much war and destruction? The satirical comments of Kilgore Trout about humanity caring more about someone's breath than if they kill dozens of people is another example of Vonnegut questioning human nature. Just as humans will always fight wars, then, birds will always chirp. Birds will always say, "Poo-tee-weet." However, why is it a question. Is the bird itself questioning human nature. Vonnegut doesn't say that Billy saw a bird chirping. Instead, he says, "One bird said to Billy Pilgrim, 'Poo-tee-weet?' " (Vonnegut 215) The bird specifically says it to Billy. Although I am no expert, I think I can say with some security that this was Vonnegut's meaning:
He has questioned human nature because of Dresden to the point where even birds begin to question it. They don't understand so much destruction and death either.

The 4th Dimension: Vonnegut's Escape

" 'It had to be done,' Rumfoord told Billy, speaking of the destruction of Dresden. 'I know,' said Billy. 'That's war.' 'I know. I'm not complaining.' 'It must have been hell on the ground.' 'It was,' said Billy Pilgrim. 'Pity the men who had to do it.' 'I do.' 'You must have had mixed feelings, there on the ground.' 'It was all right,' said Billy." (Vonnegut 198)
The first chapter of the novel, where the main character is Kurt Vonnegut and not Billy Pilgrim, emphasizes Vonnegut's depression since Dresden. In order to try and deal with it, he goes back to Dresden, and he talks with his friend O'hare, not to mention his exessive drinking. He is very deeply affected by the bombing of Dresden, and cannot really deal with his feelings about it.
The rest of the book portrays a protagonist with no feelings. With so many connections, I came to the conclusion that Billy Pilgrim is a made up person used by Vonnegut to tell his experiences not only of the war but life itself. Throughout the book, however, Billy doesn't really show any true feelings. As I've mentioned in my other blogs, it's as if he's watching his life on a screen, rather than living it. The passage that i mention above is a clear indication of this. Finally Billy has the chance to tell someone how he feels about Dresden, and what he says instead of showing depression and anger is, "I'm not complaining." What? Huh?
What do you mean hes not complaining? Then I realized something that's not only key in understanding this small passage, but the entire novel. By coming unstuck in time, Billy has stopped living. All sorrow, happiness, surprise, anger, and excitement have been completely removed because he has come unstuck in time. By seeing the world as the Tralfamadorians see it, Billy can just use the phrase, "So it goes," for every moment of his life. His entire life has already been written so that all Billy does is constantly time-travel. He doesn't live anymore, and that is why Billy seems indifferent to everything in his life, the war, his marriage, his children, even his own death.
With that in mind, is that what Vonnegut's message is? By appointing this 4th dimensional, Tralfamadorian view of life, he can just shed the blame for Dresden on destiny or fate. It no longer becomes a question of human morality, but simply turns into something that is inevitable. "So it goes," he can say. This way of thinking is Vonnegut's way of dealing with his thoughts and feelings about Dresden.

The Destruction of Dresden

Vonnegut finally describes to us the long-awaited destruction of Dresden. Right before he does so, however, he reminds us of the horrible feeling Billy Pilgrim gets every time he remembers or encounters something to do with Dresden. This indicates the same pain and suffering that Vonnegut himself feels at the memory of such destruction.
"When the Americans and their guards did come out, the sky was black with smoke. The sun was an angry little pinhead. Dresden was like the moon now, nothing but minerals. The stones were hot. Everybody else in the neighborhood was dead. So it goes." (Vonnegut 178) "Billy told her(Montana Wildhack) what had happened to the buildings that used to form cliffs around the stockyards. They had collapsed. Their wood had been consumed, and their stones had crashed down, had tumbled against one another until they locked at last in low and graceful curves." (Vonnegut 179) "American fighter planes came in under the smoke to see if anything was moving. They saw Billy and the rest moving down there. The planes sprayed them with machine-gun bullets, but the bullets missed. Then they saw some other people moving down by the riverside and they shot at them. They hit some of them. So it goes. The idea was to hasten the end of the war." (Vonnegut 180)
This is really the first time I've read about what actually happenned in Dresden. It's horrible. It's clear to me now why Billy, and Vonnegut, for that matter are forever haunted by the experience.

Home in time of Confusion

In chapter 7 of Slaughter House Five, not much happens. Vonnegut does, however, tell us about Billy’s plane crash. When he was rescued, he overheard his Austrian helpers speaking German, and in his confusion, muttered to them his address: “Schlachthof-funf.” Slaughter House Five, his home during his stay in Dresden. It’s weird that of all things to say in such a moment, Billy chooses his address in Dresden.
This is huge. It's as if the only thing that becomes clear is this memory. Not his name, not his kids or wife, not his home in Ilium. Not even "Help." The only clarity in his life is Slaughter House Five and Dresden.

Slaughter House Five: Chapter 6

This chapter contains a lot of death. I think it has something to do with the fact that the narrator is finally introducing Dresden. He is linking these two because of the inevitable destruction that eventually takes place in this town.
We see Billy Pilgrim's death in this chapter as well. He has by then become famous for his talks about time and Tralfamadore, and is doing a speech in Chicago. This is when something weird happens. Up till now, the narrator has kept true to the events of history. Obviously, this splitting up of America into 20 states is something completely fictitious that he makes up. Why though? Somewhere, I think the narrator developed a strong hate for the United States. "The United States of America has been Balkanized, has been divided into twenty petty nations so that it will never again be a threat to world peace." (Vonnegut 142)
This is what the narrator wants to happen. The destruction of Dresden marked him so heavily that he began to see his own country as a threat to world peace. I mentioned in my blog of chapter 1 that the bombing of Dresden seems to have had an enormous impact on the writer, so much so that he cannot even write about it. This hate for America is a clear demonstration of the impact the bombing of Dresden had on the author.

Slaughter House Five: Chapter 5

Firstly, in relation to our discussion in class today about who is the narrator in the story, I found who is the narrator. "An American near Billy wailed that he had just excreted everything but his brains. Moments later he said, "There they go, there they go." He meant his brains. That was I. That was me. That was the author of this book. (Vonnegut 125) We don't get a name, but it becomes clear that it is not Billy, as I previously thought, narrating his own life. I assume we will later know who this guy is.
I also want to make reference to a passage I found interesting. " 'A Tralfamadorian test pilot presses a starter button, and the whole Universe dissapears.' So it goes. 'If you knew this,' said Billy, 'isn't there some way you can prevent it? Can't you keep the pilot from pressing the button?' 'He has always pressed it, and he always will. We always let him and we always will let him. The moment is structured that way.' " (Vonnegut 117)
I go back to what I said in my previous blog about the Tralfamadorians being stuck in moments. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: It is as if the Tralfamadorians are characters in a book which was prewritten. They have no control over any specific action of theirs, but believe that everything is related to the specific moment they are supposed to be living. Everything is pre-written for them. Destiny for the Tralfamadorians is an absolute fact. They accept it though. They seem to have no frustration with the way they see the world.
In a sense I think Vonnegut is being satirical in the way the Tralfamadorians express their views on life. He presents a civilization which is stuck with an even bigger problem than that of time. No free will. To me, free will, the act of living, is the sole purpose for which we live. Without that, it is not worth living at all. The Tralfamadorians however, are fine with it. They accept the limitations they have been handed. Humans on the other hand, refuse to really accept the limitations of life, even though they are not as bad as what the Tralfamadorians are faced with.

Slaughter House Five: Chapter 4

The Tralfamadorian's view of time is clearly stated in the 4th chapter. "Well, here we are, Mr. Pilgrim, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why." (Vonnegut 77)
It seems that we are trapped in the moments themselves. If time is no obstacle, all the different moments certainly become a huge one. "Trapped in the amber of this moment" Trapped.
After reading Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language" the other day in class, every single word that I read poses the question why?
Why that word?
The word trapped is an illustration of its own.
In my opinion, being trapped in time is more acceptable than being trapped inside my own life moments. The limitations of yesterday, today, and tomorrow seem better than watching your own life from the side lines.
I believe that man's frustration with life will be highly escalated through Billy Pilgrim's eyes i this novel. Chained to his own life, Billy begins to lose his memory of what life is. It's as if his life was a gigantic, repeating, deja vu.

Slaughter House Five: Chapter 3

More and more I begin to see the outline of how this novel is going to be written. At first, everything was a bit confusing because of how different the 1st and 2nd chapter were in terms of everything.
The story centers around the war and Billy Pilgrim's capture. Although Billy isn't the writer, it seems as though the narrator is Billy himself, only narrating his life in third person. The story really focuses on the events of Billy's capture and where they take him, and his thoughts and what not, but it wanders off into moments in the past or future which have some relation or the other to what is happening during his capture.
It is really interesting to see how life was for Billy during his capture. You seldom hear of what he has to say when you talk about WWII. This capture, which happened to many, is an important experience, even though all the main stories don't focus on this part of the war. Billy, however, doesn't seem to mind. Other characters present in the capture are going through things which Billy himself doesn't seem to experience; as if he was a person unstuck in the moment. He doesn't feel the pain in his feet like Roland Weary. He doesn't know his place in the army, much less does he show affection for his regiment like Wild Bob.
This point is very important to the development of the story, and I've actually seen it in the scenes where Billy is not in the war as well. Billy's uncoming stuck in time means that he's not living any moment in his life anymore, but rather watching his life go by; as though he were sitting in a movie theater watching a film that shows every moment of his life. The consequence of coming unstuck in time then, is worse than death because Billy isn't actually living any single moment of his life anymore, just watching helplessly.

Slaughter House Five: Chapter 2

The story really begins in Chapter 2. The writing is much more like a story, and it makes the 1st chapter seem as though it was a weird kind of introduction to the entire novel. For that reason, I'll try to always keep in mind what it said as I read the rest of the book.
I really really like the whole idea behind his coming unstuck in time. The whole Tralfamadorian view on time is awesome to think about. I had always wondered about different worlds and dimensions and how they would see time. This point of view is very interesting when thinking about those things. It makes death not an obstacle, and it takes away the depression that comes when you think a moment only lasts that exact moment.
I've always wondered if there are a million copies of one's self. This idea seems to indicate that there is one you for every moment you experience throughout life, regardless of past, present, or future.
I don't think that Billy really thinks he has been captured by aliens and taken to Tralfamadore. Instead, I think it is a huge personification of an epiphany he had at sometime in his life, which makes him realize what he tells he realized in Tralfamadore. His vision of that planet and how its inhabitants live is really the way he wants the world to function; further incrementing his frustration with life.

Slaughter House 5: Chapter 1

As I read the first chapter of the book, I realized that it is written very much like a blog. Sure, all the grammar and stuff is there, but the way in which the author seems to ramble with his thoughts resembles the way one would write a blog. The literary style in this first chapter is very different than what I am used to reading.
I realize that the main character seems confused. This Dresden event has marked him in a very deep way, so much to the point that he cannot describe with words what it was that he experienced. In fact, his memories don't even suffice. He mentions how he has tried countless times to write of Dresden, but everything he writes about it doesn't work.
In a far fetched way, this reminds me of the Bourne Identity in the way that an event has marked the character so deeply that it has changed his life completely. Memories of the event fade away but its reality is present in every thought, every dream, every breath.

What is a blog?

The differences between a blog and a book are many. One of them is the liberty with which blogs are written and the confinements of writing a book. Another difference is the actual way in which these are written; while a blog often ignores many grammatical rules and tendencies and is free to roam without restriction, a book must always be grammatically correct and doesnt posses the same freedom in writing as a blog.
When blogs first came out, bloggers didn't offer much commentary but rather posted links to websites they liked, a sort of filter for what to read. Now a days, bloggers offer a lot of commentary on their subject, whether it is criticism, acclaim, disgrace, etc.
The purpose of reading a blog is to find commentary about a specific topic in which you are interested. You might read a blog to find out whether a book is worth reading or whether a movie is worth watching.
You might question a blog's objectivity because of its simple nature. You don't know who wrote it or whether they are knowledgeable about what they are blogging about. Also, blogs in their nature are subjective.
There are many blogs around the world which discuss our summer reading. I set out to find blogs that talked about George Orwell's 1984, Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, and Dante's Inferno.