The creators of our own freewill

“ I realized I had to free myself from the images which in the past had announced to me the things I sought: only then would I succeed in understanding…”(pg 48)

This passage taken from Italo Calvino’s novel Invisible Cities is one of the very few passages that summarize the main idea that is being communicated to the reader throughout the novel. In my opinion, this idea consists that life is about perspectives. Everything around us is viewed differently because we are individuals, we are the creators of our own theories and at times we might say that the problem with the world is that we are not able to completely accept and understand the opinions of others which is due to the one factor that makes us blind to all other perspectives, our own. This is the reason why when Marco Polo suggests in this passage that should free ourselves from the images of the past to fully comprehend what is happening around us. That is forgetting about our perspective, as in completely clearly our mind, and allowing other ideas flow efficiently through our minds. But, as I will explain further on, this idea on perspectives not only does it appear in the novel but it also applies to our day-to-day life and especially in the virtual drama, Façade.

In fact, this very idea could be also related to the reason why the novel is titled the way it is. The cities described by Marco Polo in the novel are in reality completely invisible to the Great Khan because there exists the possibility that if Kublai Khan were to actually visit these same cities, he would view them differently and therefore making Marco Polo’s cities invisible to him. In fact, this rule applies to everyday life. What one may see will always be invisible to the other person; the only thing visible to you is your perspective and opinion on the subject, you will never be able to fully comprehend the other person’s opinion because again you will always compare it to your own and therefore making yourself invisible to others and vice versa. Again, I will mention the passage from which this essay started with, the only solution to our troubles is that of getting rid of our own thoughts in order to take one step into the future. But this is not possible because we only see what we want to see. “…That those who strive in camps and ports exist only because we two think of them, here, enclosed among these bamboo hedges, motionless since time began.”(Pg 117) This is the point in the novel where this of ‘seeing is believing’ idea comes up. It is where Khan actually decides to begin describing the cities he has imagined in his dreams to Marco Polo with the hope that these exist. But as Marco Polo later reveals in the book, every city that Khan dreams of does exist because if he is able to imagine them then they exist. In other words, whatever it is one person may want to see is what they will actually see. We are also able to relate this to the game, Façade. After various attempts with various outcomes of the ending of the game, I realized that there existed a certain pattern. That the game revolved mainly about solving a couple’s marital issues, but this was not possible because each one had a different perspective on the issue. I, myself did not achieve in the couple’s finding a reasonable solution therefore I am not sure that this is possible, but based on my experience with the game, my character could have said many things and could have taken sides with the couple, but in the end there was no understanding whatsoever. So we may say that, what one individual in the game saw was completely invisible to the other and therefore creating a great barrier between them and the solution to their problem.

So not only does this theory apply to both the novel and the game but it can also be related to the one subject that we have seen throughout the course. That is, free will. We had various discussions on freewill vs. predestination, and in my opinion the simple fact that life is based on perspectives and the barriers that these create, in the end freewill prevails over predestination. Because it is our decision whether we let go of our perspectives and make ourselves invisible to others or not, it is our own freewill that controls us.

Another point I would like to make would be that of the cycle of life. To me the book communicated the great importance of all the elements that make up our life, whether they are bad or good, sad or happy, they are what make life unique and beautiful. What would life be if there were no ups and downs? This is what Marco Polo begins to explain to Kublai Khan. In fact, most of these cities contain specific elements such as memories, desires, death, etc. There were passages in the book to which I could relate to my life, emotions that cities made me feel and I realized that some of these were phases that each and every one of us would have gone through. For example, take the city of Adelma where “..you reach a moment in life when among the people you have known, the dead outnumber the living. And the mind refuses to accept more faces, more expressions: on every new face you encounter, it prints the old forms, for each one it finds the most suitable mask.”(pg 95)To me, this description of the city made me think about the moment in life where we let the fear of death overcome our minds, we begin to think of what lies ahead of us and sometimes some of us let that fear overcome the desire to live. There is also the city of Eusapia where “ No city is more inclined than Eusapia to enjoy life and flee care.” (pg 109) This reminds me of when we begin to enjoy life more freely, we believe there are no limits to our actions and live out those moments that truly matter. Therefore the idea of all these different emotions making life at it is can be reinforced with the fact that Marco Polo reveals to Kublai Khan that the city he has been speaking of the whole time has been Venice. As if to say, our analogy could be stated as this: Venice being life is made up by different cities, which can be emotions and faces that we experience in our lifetime. Without these, Venice or life, cannot be what it actually is.

But as always in life, the one common goal that we as humans seek out is that of happiness. Which we can find both in the book and in the game. In the game for example, the couple seeks a solution to the problem, and of course the best solution should contain the happiness for both individuals. In the novel, we also find the pursuit of happiness from both Marco Polo and Kublai Khan. Marco Polo seeks to find a city where he will feel the need to explore no more and Khan seeks to find a solution to his kingdom expanding which would bring him great happiness.

When talking about how perspectives influence your life a very important question comes up: Will you let your perspective control you and create barriers? Or will you rid yourself of this? How will you do such a thing? And finally is a person capable of having freewill without it controlling you?

The danger of stepping outiside your house...

The time has come to step out of the house.

Where shall we go?

How about we take a cab...

The moment has come to step into that outside and unknown world. Once you step of the curb, that's it. Your on your own...

But wait?!

Didn't they teach you to look both ways?

Especially in Bogota where people drive so careless...

Oh no. Not only were you left to agonize on the side of the road. But it was a 'hit and run' situation. 

And observe how instead of people stopping to help you. They help themselves at your expense. There goes your iphone. 

People just drive by. No worries. Only a man lying on the side of the road. Very normal...

Finally someone with some heart. She is in complete shock by the severeness of your wounds. 

And who are the only ones that can help?

Sadly they were to busy giving out parking permits. If there were a next time, I would tell you to be more careful when you decide to step outside your house. 

Superiority?

In chapter five and six of Gulliver's Travels we are introduced to the laws and culture of the Lilliputians. But the climax of both chapters does not revolve around these, instead it revolves around the fire incident in the emperor palace which is solved by the act of Gulliver urinating on the fire and therefore putting it out.

Even though this is a heroic act and without it, the consequences could have been worse, it also shows superiority. Throughout the past chapters we have seen that Gulliver respects the emperor and is very grateful when he is granted his freedom. Also the only thing that Gulliver wishes to do is gain the emperors trust. But the way he put out the fire shows to the Lilliputians that in the end the 'giant man mountain' has and will always have superiority. So obviously the emperor feels threatened because it demonstrates to the kingdom his weakness, and as a leader he must not allow this to happen. 

Freedom: Is not all about chains...

In chapter three and four of Gulliver's Travels I found it very interesting how he describes the Yahoos better along with their various rituals. We can now tell that there exists more confidence between Gulliver and the kingdom since there is more interaction between the two. 

But even though Gulliver is given everything he needs, he is not given the one thing that he really wants. That is, his liberty. Everyone searches liberty one way or another. Liberty includes everything from expressing your ideas freely without any consequences or having the liberty to decide what to do in the day. But even though we have the privilege to experience freedom, some of us are not aware that there are a lot of people that are denied their freedom. How can a person live a happy and long life when they are denied their freedom?

The answer to this question does not exist. There is no way that a person can live a happy life when their freedom is denied. At freedom does not necessarily have to mean that their chains are taken off nor that they are let of of jail, but freedom is about accepting people they way they are. Without judging. And most of all, tolerance must be shown. In fact one of my favorite quotes explain freedom the best way possible:

"To be free is not merely to cast of one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others"

-Nelson Mandela

Gulliver in movies

As I read the first chapter of Gulliver’s Travels, the only image that came to my mind was that of the movie Castaway. Just as Gulliver, the protagonist in the movie is a victim of a terrible accident and is then swished upon the shore. Although he does not encounter any human life on the island and much less has any encounters with people such as the Yahoos he does have to survive alone for four years. 

I also found it quite interesting that most of the descriptions and plot of the book reminds me of various movies that I’ve watched and TV series. So then it occurred to me that if this book were made into a movie it would be a hit.

Even though it does not use direct humor, as a reader I find it quite amusing the image of a human being tied down by several ropes and little people walking all over him. I can’t help but think of what the Yahoo’s think of him. 

In the second chapter, as Gulliver has various encounters with the emperor , who then decides to search him and strip him of all his belongings. Since the only thing that Gulliver wants is to have his liberty, the first step to this is gaining the emperors trust. This is the reason why he lets the emperor take all his belongings, including the ones that could help him if he were to need them as defense weapons. 

I also want to point out that the emperor is depicted as a very smart man. He thinks of every possiblitly that Gulliver can cause upon the kingdom. And he makes decisions which are very wise and benefit both his kingdom and Gulliver. 

Visuals are key

I found most groups did a very good job in terms of acting, memorizing their lines, and completing the scene as it is in the book. Although there were some scenes that were much clearer than others, for the most part I was able to understand what was going on in most of them.

The only thing I found fairly confusing was the fact that we made a huge fuss about what time period to choose in Colombia that could be related to the scene but in the end almost every single one of the groups used the same time period. As if to say, we all dressed the same and at times we could have simply dressed up, chosen the time period and saved ourselves a lot of energy that we wasted on choosing the EXACT moment in time that could be related. 

But for the most part, I found it a very fun exercise. We all had fun dressing up and acting out our scenes. I believe that it made us also understand certain scenes better. Because you may be a good reader but sometimes visuals are key in understanding something. 

Company CEO's Vs. 'Young People'

Whether an article is written in a formal or informal voice, whether it's written for The New York Times or Vogue, and whether it is supposed to appeal to a certain group of people, one thing is for sure, that all published articles are created to state a point. 

So when it comes to comparing these three articles, one thing is for sure, although the message might be different and the way it is given, they all give their ideas across effectively in their own fashion. 

In "The Cost Conundrum" piece, the author uses a more serious tone by giving it elaborated and sophisticated words. The way the ideas are developed, the reader can tell that the author automatically assumes that the reader must have basic knowledge on both medical terms and financial factors. This is the reason why we can tell that the way an article is written also depends on the audience it is intended for. This is obviously a newspaper in which articles should be written in a formal and respectful tone and the subjects that are talked about are ones that have a lot to do with politics and the economy. 

Even though the article "Heeeere's...Conan!" is also published in a well known newspaper whose articles are usually of a serious tone, this is completely the opposite of what articles are usually expected to be in this newspaper. It uses more of a relaxed tone and at times slang language. Also the subject that is being talked about has nothing whatsoever to do with economy or politics, it talks about the entertainment business. But even though it is more relaxed than the previous article it still does not completely meet the expectations for a ultimate serious toned article.

Finally, the last article talks about a graffiti artist, along with a background of his life and what he thinks about what he does. This is a perfect example of a very laid back, opinionated article. It uses a lot of slang language and the subject appeals only to a certain type of group of people. As if to say, company CEO's wouldn't be completely captured by the article while people of our age would have a bigger impact. 

So even though the audiences the articles are intended for are different, the language used in terms of word selection is also different and the subjects are complete opposites, the one thing that they definitely have in common is the technique. They all use the fact that they articles are written using 'experience'. The subject they describe is based on the experience the author has had with the subject. 

Recognition and Definition

One of the most discussed and strong ed opinion ed conflicts we have had in our time has been the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

I expect that most of us has heard about it and has a little knowledge on the different opinions that exist relating to this. In a nutshell (my nutshell-for this is my way of viewing it), from the beginning the Palestinians occupied the territory which is now known as Israel. Soon after the atrocities that occured to the Jewish people in World War II, the united nations along with the rest of the world did not know where to place the 'left over' Jewish people. Therefore in order to to keep calm among the world they agreed to let this crowd invade this mentioned territory. They chose this territory for a specific reason, a religious one. They believed that this territory belonged to them because it had been their holy land. Now I must point out that they weren't the only ones that thought like this, there were the Muslims and even the Christians that had religious connections to this territory. So why did the world let them create their own nation? If there existed other religions that also had religious connections? And most of all, why did the world allow for them to kick out people? 

In my opinion, the world felt sympathy for the Jewish community because after all they were tortured without an end in concentration camps and most of this happened while the world had no clue about it (specifically the United States). The world felt they owed the Jewish people, a personal debt since they did not do much for them until the end. Also, the nation was created a few years after the United Nations was created which meant they did not have the sufficient experience to deal with the problem. 

But what matters now is not why it happened, who let it happened nor the reasons behind the decisions but how to solve the problem. We witness that from both sides there is suffering going on but it is pride that is stopping these two groups from agreeing on peace. 

As Yonatan Touval stated in his op-ed article 'A Recognition Israel Doesn't Need', Israel may have the right to declare their nation as a nation even if the bases of this idea has to do with their religious beliefs. They must not as for the Palestinians to recognize it due to this reason because they will never agree to it. 

"But if Israel seeks peace, it must not demand that the Palestinians recognize its Jewish character. This is not only an unnecessary obstacle, it is deeply harmful to Israel’s own sense of being. After all, you don’t need to be a student of philosophy to know that once you subject yourself to the recognition of the other, you let the other define who you are."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13iht-edtouval.html?scp=20&sq=op-ed&st=cse

"Jesus or Dan Brown. You can't have both"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19douthat.html?scp=3&sq=op-ed%20articles&st=cse

In the article "Dan Brown's America" written by the columnist Ross Douthat on May 18, 2009 and published in the op-ed section of the New York Times, Douthat talks about a subject that has been on the minds of many people every since all sort of controversy was created by the novels made by Dan Brown. 

Right after Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" was published, and soon after it was read by almost half of America along with a large international crowd, the novel created much controversy. Although his novel was page turning and the plot was contained suspense, romance and drama it also openly criticized much of the Church's activity in the society. Not only the novel accused the Church of many of the problems in modern day but it also criticized it from ancient times, from the beginning, starting with the life of Jesus and the way the Church depicted him. 

Although there have been many opinions against the Church in the past by many organizations around the world, this novel created a huge impact. But why this novel? In my opinion, the answer to this question lies in the fact that it is still literature, it is still a novel, a form of entertainment. And since people started reading it as if though they were reading any ordinary novel and did not realize until later on that some of the things mentioned in the novel were actually real, people kept on reading. 

As Douthat said in his article, "But if you want to sell a 100 million, you need to preach as well as entertain — to present a fiction that can be read as fact, and that promises to unlock the secrets of history, the universe and God along the way." This is true in every single aspect. In order to truly affect the reader you must be able to write about things that 'hit their hearts', touch upon subject matters that you know will have strong opinions from both sides. 

So like his first novel, Dan Brown again stirs up the public with his second novel 'Angels and Demons'. Not only is it the novel but it is the fact that it is now a major motion picture (this time a good one) which means it is now available to everyone of any age, it doesn't matter if they don't know how to read. 

At the end of Douthat's article, he clearly states his opinion relating the Dan Brown/ America situation.  Not only does he accuse Brown of giving out false information but he also blames him for creating confusion in the american public. He believes people should stop questioning whether Brown says the truth ( since he already says its pure lies) and concentrate more on their lives. In other words, he is telling the public to realize they are being manipulated by a novelist. 

Square by Square

Most art techniques and artists use their skills to imitate real life things, in fact some exaggerate and end up making real things seem unrealistic only because they want to emphasize some things.

But one artist that differentiates himself is Chuck Close. His style and technique is truly unique and in my opinion very very interesting. 

One of the beauties of photography is the fact that you are able to capture moments in life that are truly amazing and that you may take for granted and not see everyday. Chuck Close combines photography and art to create pieces that you will not find anywhere. He takes a picture of himself and paints that. But his painting skills and colors are so precise that most of the time whoever views the piece may think it is in fact a picture. 

In my opinion, the most interesting thing I found was how he actually does it to capture that 'photographic look'. One of the most interesting teqniques is where he places a thin paper over the photo, this divides it into little squares. And then, Close paints each and every little square onto a canvas. He is so precise with the colors and details that in my opinion, it makes him one of the greatest artists I've heard of. 

Red Balloon-Paul Klee

There are some paintings that are completely obvious and others that are not. By 'obvious' I mean, the viewer can automatically identify the focus on the painting and at time the artists motives for painting such a thing. However there exist works such as Paul Klee's Red Balloon that in my opinion are not so obvious and leaves the viewer wondering why Klee decided to paint such an object. 

First of all, in this painting the main focus is the red balloon which seems to be hanging in a distance between what seem like buildings. We know its the focus because not only is it located in the center of the piece but it's shape a circular one. All around it, the only shapes we witness or rectangles, triangles and squares, or shapes that have sharp corners, so obviously the shape of the balloon differences itself from everything inside the painting. Also around the corners and the whole painting, there is a certain 'dark fuzz' until we get to the center where there is much illumination. 

If we were to imagine that what look like buildings are in fact buildings, the view or illusion we get is that the person who is viewing the painting is standing on top one of the buildings, on its roof on a corner. One of the things I found quite interesting was that Klee used the movements or placing of the 'boxes' to create an illusion the right hand side building. Since we are supposed to be viewing that building sideways, the way he interlocks the squares creates a feeling that they are in fact balconies. 

The colors used in this painting seem to me as if they were oil pastels. Klee uses most earthy colors, which are green, red, yellow, orange and brown. This paintings contains all of these and their different tones depending on the lighting. 

Details, Details, Details

The whole week we've been working on descriptive writing. We've learned that sometimes descriptions are not so obvious and that at other times they are, it simply depends on the author. 

In the last chapter of Seize the Day, we witness various passages where descriptive writing is used. 

“The sidewalks were wider than any causeway; the streets itself was immense; and it quaked and gleamed and it seemed to Wilhelm to throb at the last limit of endurance.” (Pg. 111)

“He heard it and sank deeper than sorrow, through torn sobs and cries toward the consummation of his hearts ultimate needs.” (Pg. 114)

“From every side he heard pianos, and the voices of men and women singing scales and opera, all mixed, and the sounds of pigeons on the ledges.” (Pg. 103)

All of these passages contain words that make the passage a descriptive one, in fact some even use metaphors to elaborate on their ideas. 

Another element I would like to point out, is the way the book ends. As I mentioned in my earlier blogs, I feel pity towards Tommy and have no compassion towards him due to the fact that all he does is complain and expect a change to fall out of the sky. Even though it is quite sad that the book ends with Tommy at a church, crying his problems out, I believe that this is what he gets for not taking the advice when he should and taking life for granted. 

Time to face reality Tommy...

At the end of chapter 6, we are left with the idea that Dr. Tamkin did in fact take all the earnings and leave. Just as how Wilhelm had stated earlier, how Dr. Tamkin was not trustworthy at all.

From what I can infer, I completely disagree with Tommy. In fact, I believe deep down he is jealous of Dr. Tamkin and his way of dealing with problems. He tries to make the reader believe that somehow Dr. Tamkin is crazy, that he is fake and lies just because he mind view is totally different from those of others. So just because it's different its bad?

At times, this makes me dislike Tommy. All he does is complain and he is so caught up in what other people think of him, and all of society's nonsense that when someone like Dr. Tamkin who is willing to help ends up being depicted as the bad guy. At this point, I feel pity towards Tommy. Complaining does not get you anywhere, it just makes you run around in circles around your problems. Like they say, 'you want change, be the change'. If he really wants to solve all his problems, he might as well accept that it is partly his fault, his attitude instead of blaming it all on money, his father and bad luck. 

Those small details...

"And say to yourself here-and-now, here-and-now, here-and-now. 'Where am I?' 'Here'. 'When is it?' 'Now'. Take an object or a person. Anybody. 'Here and now I see a person.' 'Here and now I see a man.' 'Here and now I see a man sitting on a chair.' Take me, for instance. Don't let your mind wander. 'Here and now I see a man in a brown suit. Here and now I see a corduroy shirt.' You have t narrow it down, one item at a time, and not let your imagination shoot ahead. Be in the present. Grasp the hour, the moment, the instant" (pg 86)

I believe this passage summarizes the whole purpose of the book. Although it isn't the first time this type of thinking is mentioned, it is the only time when it is truly emphasized and developed upon. The whole book describes one day in Wilhelm's life where everything goes wrong and he starts facing all his problems. In my opinion, the character Dr. Tamkin plays an important role in the book, he is the only one who is willing to give Tommy advice that is really worth knowing. He constantly tells him to live in the moment. To seize the day. 

Also I think we should all learn from this. Currently, we live in a world where every things moves fast, where life has to be lived a a fast pace, and the only way to keep up is by adjusting ourselves to this change. Although this type of lifestyle be beneficial sometimes, it also harms us. We fail to acknowledge those small details in life that make us happy, those small things that we take for granted are the ones, that without knowing it, make us really appreciate we are very lucky to have the many things we have. 

Sooner than later is better

In chapter four of Seize the Day by Saul Bellow, I noticed various passages that give important meanings. In fact, out of all the chapters so far I believe this one has been the best one. 

The first passage I want to point out is one where Wilhelm is expressing his thoughts and describing how everyone in the hotel has a story to their life, this happens right after Dr. Tamkin tells him about the case he dealt with in the morning. 

"Everybody in the hotel had a mental disorder, a secret history, a concealed disease. Everyone was like the faces on a playing card, upside down either way." (pg. 60)

I was very surprised when I read this passage because I was thinking about this today. The fact that it is very difficult to trust people due to when each and every one of us has deeper things going on that what we usually show. I'm not saying nobody is true and that everybody walks around with a mask on but we are also not capable of completely exposing ourselves to the world because we are afraid that this world will hurt us and of course we cannot afford this under any circumstances.

"I am at my most efficient when I don't need the fee. When I only love. Without a financial reward. I remove myself from the social influence. Especially money. The spiritual compensation is what I look for. Bringing people into the here-and-now. The real universe. That's the present moment. The past is no good to us. The future is full of anxiety. Only the present is real-the here-and-now. Seize the day"

I do not feel the need to elaborate on this passage simply because I find it is quite self explanatory.  We can finally make a connection between the content of the novel and the novel's actual title. I believe we should all live as how it is being described here, there would be less worries in our lives. One thing we need to be clear on is that you may have a lot of money, a good career, and all those material things, but if you spend your whole life developing only these what good will it do you? I mean the last thing you are left with in this world is your spirituality and your love. So instead of realizing this when it is already to late, start now, seize your days. 

Money isin't everything you know...

The first two chapters lead up to this point in the book. We reach the climax of the breakfast. The chapter is full of discussion, anger, frustration and we are really able to see how Wilhelm's patience reaches the top. He is very careful of what he says around his father, he tries not to contradict him even though inside he is screaming to tell his father what he truly thinks of him. 

During the conversation they have over breakfast, including Mr. Perl's various comments, we can tell that Tommy's dad is very caught up in what other people think of him. He does not want to let Mr. Perl know about his children's failures, in a way he is ashamed of them. Also, every little thing revolves around one thing only, money. This is a reoccurring topic, it's all Dr. Adler, Mr. Perl and Tommy think about. Tommy blames all his disgraces on the fact that he no longer has the money he used to nor he does he have the career and lifestyle to earn money. In fact, I find Dr. Adler is actually quite obsessed with money, everything he says always comes back to that. He is a very materialistic person which leads me to think that this may be the reason why he is so selfish and was never able to be the unconditional father one should be. 

"I can't give you any money. There would be no end to it if I started. You and your sister would take every last buck from me. I'm still alive, not dead. I am still here. Life isn't over yet.  I am as much alive as you or anyone. And I want nobody on my back. Get off! And I give you the same advice, Wilky. Carry nobody on you back"

To me, this is the most shocking and revealing passage of the whole chapter. It shows how greedy and superficial a person can become, how self involved with money a person can become. This clearly shows why Dr. Adler thinks the way he does and treats his son the way he does. 

Although you cannot always carry everyone on your 'back' you can atleast try to because you will never know if you will need their help in the future. Even though it is in our nature to be selfish for the most part you try not to be because in the end who will you have? Will you be the person who ends up alone?

The right way to move on...

Throughout the second chapter of Seize the Day protagonist keeps on describing his dislike towards life, his disgraces throughout it and most importantly his father's opinion towards him. 

Every child, especially in a father-son relationship, is always craving to make your parent proud, to exceed his expectation, to make his father feel like he can say 'boy, that's my son', and in my opinion the worst thing a person can show to another is deception. So obviously even though Tommy does not admit it directly, you can tell that he knows he has disappointed his father by the career and life choices he has taken, which in a way has a huge influence on how Tommy goes about the day. 

One thing I found very interesting was the fact that Dr. Adler forgets his wife's death anniversary. I cannot tell exactly if he does it on purpose of he truly forgets it. Tommy is actually quite offended by this and this gives him more material to criticize his father's cruelty and non support. Although many people may argue that this can be seen as a positive attitude, as in a demonstration that the person has moved on with their life and accepted death as a natural thing, I strongly disagree with this opinion. If you were to really believe that you moved on with your life after such a tragic event, you could be brave enough to face it, and remember the person instead of forgetting him/her, if you do this you are simply running away from it all. 

Interpretation? Imagination? Narration?

At first I did not like the tone and mood of the novel Seize the Day, I found it meaningless and boring. But once I got more and more caught up in the story I realized that the what makes the novel what it is, is the way it is written. In fact you have to be very careful because you might get mixed up between parts where the narrator is narrating and when it is actually talking almost in first person from Tommy's thoughts. So even though the story is being narrating from a different perspective there are parts where the story line is being interrupted by Tommy's thoughts or even what other people in the story think of Tommy such as Dr. Adler's opinion. This is the reason why the reader may sometimes not know the difference between whether it is an interpretation, imagination, or simply narration, it gives a confusing feeling between reality. 

From the way the narration and Tommy's thoughts develop, we can automatically tell that Wilhelm's life isn't the best one. As he descends to the lobby and stops at the new stand before meeting his father he has various flashbacks such as the one about Maurice Venice. From the choice of words and the description of his relationship with his father we can tell that he cares a lot about what his father thinks of him, and in his eyes he sees himself as a failure. Due to the fact that the novel is written the way it is, as if to say you might be confused about what is narration and what is opinion, we may even say that the description of Venice in the story at some point mixes with the description of Tommy himself. Of course the catch to this is that Wilhelm himself is giving the description, so we can infer that he's not very fond of himself. 

Also the reader is left we an intriguing feeling about how Dr. Adler actually is. At times he may seem like sophisticated retired doctor whom Tommy admires and at other times he seems like  a selfish, ambitious father who has never supported any of his son's decisions. 

Should we laugh or not?

At first I saw A Simple Soul by Gilbert Flaubert as a not so good short story, a simple story about a girl whose life only had tragic events in it. I won't say it was pointless since I have found out throughout the years that nothing really is completely pointless or else the author wouldn't have put so much effort in it. But I can admit that after today's discussion in class my opinion on this short story took a whole new turn. 

Even though most of the story is written in a serious tone describing not so funny situations in the end I noticed that what Flaubert is doing is mocking us, as in society. When you read many of the situations the protagonist has to endure, you don't feel the need to laugh and even thinking about laughing will automatically seem completely cruel. 

Flaubert makes various comparisons between life vs. death and happiness vs. sadness by using several metaphors such as the parrot. At times these metaphors or connections may not 'click' in our minds this is the reason why we are not able to appreciate A Simple Soul at its fullest. 

I want to point out that my favorite part of the whole story was the last paragraph. Where Felicities dies. It creates a clear image even though it doesn't use much description. The fact that Felicity is in another room dying while everyone else is in a ceremony creates a sad and pity tone to it. The way Flaubert uses the description of the 'blue vapour', as in the scent that is usually spread in church, leads the reader to thinking that Felicity was actually poisoned by this. Soon the paragraph makes a complete turn when Flaubert mentions the parrot as the last thing she sees. Once you know that the parrot actually symbolizes Felicity's happiness, dull life, and death, you will notice that you won't know whether to laugh about the fact that it is a huge parrot staring over her while she dies or feel sadness since it shows that in a way her life wasn't very interesting. 

The view from the sideline

In class we discussed and analyzed the form of writing called 'free indirect style'. Most of A Simple Soul by Gilbert Flaubert is written in this style. Even though it is narrating the story of a young girl called Felicite and how her life changes throughout the years, we can see how this style actually makes the reader understand how the protagonist is feeling even though it does not say it directly. Personally, I find this style makes you feel as if you were there witnessing what is being told in the story. In other words, as if you were an spectator on the sideline. There might not be a great need for elaborate descriptions, but the word choice changes everything and the tone it is written also. 

"She opened it gladly for Monsieur Bourais, a retired lawyer. His
bald head and white cravat, the ruffling of his shirt, his flowing
brown coat, the manner in which he took his snuff, his whole
person, in fact, produced in her the kind of awe which we feel
when we see extraordinary persons. As he managed Madame's estates,
he spent hours with her in Monsieur's study; he was in constant
fear of being compromised, had a great regard for the magistracy

and some pretensions to learning." 

This passage is a great example of how Flaubert uses the indirect style. In the first few sentences, there is a vivid description but if you pay close attention and at times you might have to read it more the once, we can detect Felicite's opinion in the description without actually saying that this is what she thinks of the man. Also towards the end of the passage there is a description of his personality which is the perfect example of how Felicite regards him as. 

It could be worse you know...

Up till now, most of Carver's short stories have couples as the main characters. Almost in every single one except in The Compartment where he does in fact revolve the story around a divorce. So it makes me think, does Carver have a problem with happy couples? Does there exist the possibility that Carver had an unhappy life regarding his personal romances? And takes out his frustration in writing? 

In the short story, A small good thing, Carver for the first time shows that 'special' connection we see relating couples. Since the couple is going through one of the worst things that a parent could possibly imagine they do the right thing at stick together, be there for each other, since both of them know how their feeling. 

For the most part, this story is very sad, it went from being the preparation of a birthday party to the death of an 8 year old child. Throughout the whole book we see constant suffering, frustration and rage. First, in the bakery when ordering the cake and then waiting in the hospital, seeing Franklin's family and later on Scotty's death. 

It makes me think of how we take things for granted everyday in our lives, you never know what will happen tomorrow, when will be the last time you see a person, and much less how things COULD be worse. I know for a fact that when something bad happens to us it is very hard to actually take in that there exists worse things but at the same time we are so caught up in our stuff and at times so arrogant that we think our problems are the only ones that exist. Of course we cannot spend our entire lives thinking of how bad things could become but it wouldn't hurt to realize that sometimes we make a fuss out of a very small thing. 

Also in this short story we witness Carver's writing style at its best. He starts his story in 3rd person and somehow along the way ends up switching it to 1st person and back again. Also at the beginning he throws us off track with the description of the baker and the women's thoughts, in other words we would never expect the story to end up revolving around the birthday boy's terrible accident. As I mentioned in my previous blogs he also uses very short and direct sentences, there is no 'treading around the bush'. "He fell on his side with his head in the gutter and his legs out in the road. His eyes were closed, but his legs moved back and forth as if he were trying to climb over something". This passage is a clear example of how direct his sentences can be and also how even though the situation is quite traumatizing he still finds a way to add a hint of humour to it. 

Build up, Build up, But in the end no building.

After reading Carver's fourth short story, The Compartment, I realized that most of his short stories relate to human behavior. In fact, some readers may even be able to relate to his stories. They don't have to necessarily have to go through the same things but they might have experienced the same feelings to those of the main characters.  

I found it very interesting that for most of the story Carver builds it up to the supposed point where the man meets his son. He explains their relationship and how the whole trip was designed to reach that meeting point. But the end is completely the opposite. The man ends up not meeting his son at all, he even decides that it wasn't even worth it and that deep down he feels nothing towards his son other than pity. This is a clear example of how Carver due to his short and direct sentences can completely change the mood of the story in seconds. 

Some questions that I have still have are:

Was the son actually at the train station?

Or was it all a set up? As if to say, did he set up his dad to travel such a longs way and end up in nothing? As revenge?

Also, I want to point out something we mentioned in class. How Carver actually died from his problem with alcoholism. This just made me think about how in one of the previous stories, one of the main characters suffered from alcoholism. There was even a short passage where he describes how the character's wife began to notice certain symptoms that related to the alcoholism problem. 

Couch

In Carver's third short story, Preservation, made me laugh a lot. 

The story basically describes how a man went from having work to ending up sitting on a couch just watching tv and eating. His wife on the other hand works and critices her husband and his decision concerning the couch. 

I found it quite funny the image of a grown man sitting on a couch for a long time without having the need to get up and do something with his life. 

"That goddamn sofa! As far as she was concerned, she didn't even want to sit on it again."

I also found this passage very funny. She is clearly blaming the sofa for her husband's actions when in reality it is her husband to blame. 

In relation to the fridge event, I do not see the point in it. I did not find any relationship with the story. Which made me realize that this is not the only time where Carver does this. He uses short and choppy sentences. No sophistication whatsoever and much less any details.  

So thats the end then?

In the short story Chef's House, their is a couple who spends an entire summer together. Carver lets us know from the beginning that this couple is actually divorced due to the husband's alcoholism. 

Also from the start this story left me with a couple of questions.

Why would the Ex wife decide to go spend a summer with her ex husband?

Did she forgive him?

Or was she simply scared for him? 

As if to say, scared that if she didn't go he would go back to his old habits?

From what we can see later on in the story the couple actually has a really good time until the owner of the house, Chef, decides that his daughter must move in and asks them to leave. The husband, who suffers from alcoholism, has the urge to drink again now that he realizes that summer is over and the good times have ended. 

"We'll clean it up tonight, I thought, and that will be the end of it"

Although this ending is talking about the big mess that the fridge made, we can interpret it in a totally different way. This short passage could mean that she is actually talking about their relationship and how even though they had a good time it is also time to face reality. And sadly the reality is that her husband still has his problem with alcohol. 

Ugly Babies

As we discussed in class, Carver's book Cathedral has no meaning whatsoever, as if to say it is simply a collection of his short stories.  

In the past, I have always viewed short stories as 'entertainment' tools, they don't have a deeper meaning, they are simply there to entertain. But my opinion has changed radically, these short stories do have their own story behind it, it just depends on the way you view it. It is up to you to decide whether or not to look deeper, and I realized that the message that these short stories give you can be interpreted in many ways, that is depending on the way you want to interpret them.

In Feathers for example, it is a story about a couple who have a small dinner at another couple's house. This is very normal, it is not something that is viewed as impossible or anything like it. But certain elements such as the peacock give the story a complete turn over. First of all, I have never heard of anyone who would have this animal as a pet and much less let it play with a baby and let it go in the house. Also things like the description of the teeth and the fact that the couple later regret that night as the night where they concieved their child leaves the reader very confused. 

Apart from this, from the start we can see that Carver's writing style is very concise and direct. Although he does use many details when describing something at the same time he does not 'run around in circles'. An example of how direct his writing is can be seen when he describes the baby. "It was so ugly I couldn't say anything. No words would come out of my mouth." (pg. 20)

Also when I read this passage I wasen't in shock at all, on the contarary I found it quite funny. I can never imagine a baby being so ugly, in fact most babies are known for their 'cuteness' and some may have their physical flaws but they are never described in the way that Carver describes this baby. By this, we can also see that Carver uses alot of black humour in his short stories. Things that seem do not seem funny at all, and at times cruel, are what make them funny. 

Women's Full Power

Since the beginning of time, females in the human population have been seen as the weaker sex, as the ones whose only purpose is child bearing and the domestic care. Women were discriminated and denied various rights which now a day are granted to everyone freely. Men, on the other hand, are considered to be the ones who 'bring home the bacon', the ones who are supposed to deal with all the real problems, even in politics. Although there still might be this perception in some places in the world, overall in recent times this so called difference between the sexes has died down. Women are now allowed to vote, to participate in activities that they were not permitted in the past, they are now viewed as rivals at work, they are now viewed as competition. Even though, they do child bear and on rare cases do men ever handle any domestic problems, the role of women in the society has changed and is slowly changing. 

Not only is this true in humans but it is also true in animals. Females and males have different roles within their environment. Sadly, nature chose to grant females the great opportunity of experiencing child caring and in an indirect way keeping control over the male.

The other perception given relating to females vs. males. Is that males usually pursue the females. Although this may not apply to certain animal species, in humans this is fairly accurate. Males usually take the first step. But like Dawkins stated at the end of the chapter, has this role changed? Are males now the ones being pursued? And the most important question, why? How will this affect our genes and their survival machines?