To say he looked skeletal would have been a gross understatement, but the fact remained that there were no other words for the onlookers to describe the man. To even call it a man at this point was an insult to the healthy, virile men observing from the crowd. He was reminiscent of a Holocaust survivor, with his knees thicker than his thighs and eye sockets protruding in a sickening fashion. The crowd stared at this caged thing with their jaws slacked to the ground. They would all wonder why he would do this to himself, but none of them could come up with an answer. Whatever the reason, what the man was doing was impressive. The crowd suddenly broke out into a deafening cheer, causing the man's eyes to bulge even more.
It was the trend of the time, gathering the kids on a Saturday afternoon when the sun was at its peak and heading down to the amphitheater, hoping to get a good seat before the rush came. The children would have to be quieted down and told politely to sit and watch. Then the drapes over the cage would be taken off and the children would grab their mothers' arms in shock. The man was like a walking nightmare to them, and the parents would just have to reassure them that it was locked away behind that cage. Soon enough the cheer would break out and some of the audience members would approach the cage to actually talk to it.
A hunger artist they called it, a person who had devoted his life to starving himself of one of the most basic pleasures to man, food. Remarkably, it could go forty days and no longer, per instructions, without a meal. To the crowds, it was a sick delight, schadenfreude in its most pure form. What the crowds did not know was that it actually relished in its ability to fast for so long. How this trend came about is sketchy, but what is known is that it was the primary attraction at the time, bringing in thousands of visitors a week. For what, a lonely beast? Society was pitiful in that regard.
And yet, something about this was utterly fascinating. Why would a man go through such misery? Is he even paid for this? What sort of life does he live outside the cage? How could he live a life outside it? The man is world famous by now for his feats of endurance, what other person in their right mind would dare associate themselves with the hunger artist? This man is cruel to himself, one cannot imagine what he is like to others. The life he has chosen for himself is a special kind of isolation. One wherein his loneliness is watched over and gawked at all hours. Simply said, this thing is no man, he is an organism under a microscope. And like all others, this slide was going to be replaced sooner or later.
The days went by and attendance began to dwindle. Smaller and smaller until economic sense kicked in and the hunger artist's manager decided to cut his losses, as well as his ties to the artist. The cage was rolled out of the amphitheater and the next day a dancing Capuchin monkey and his accordion playing owner took its place and made an absolute killing.
From what is known, the hunger artist took his craft to less respectable venues, finally settling into a dilapidated circus of some sorts. What he found there was worse than his experiences under management at the amphitheater. The crowds he encountered were wholly unappreciative of his art, merely passing by, glancing, then moving on to the more exciting animals that awaited down the hall. And yet, from reports of the artist's remaining performance days at the circus, he found an unsettling freedom behind those rusty bars. Apparently now that he wasn't under such a strict watch or contract, he pushed his limits past the forty-day mark, so far that not even he was counting by the end. It seems he had hopes of breaking records, of making a name for himself in a world that did not care for him anymore. Still it must be asked, why? For what reason would man destroy the body God gave him in such a way as this? And willingly! Naturally, a man, even one who has lost so much of his humanity as the hunger artist, cannot fast forever. An obituary was posted in the paper claiming him to have died in his cage after having fasted to his death after 74 days without eat or drink. He is survived by no friends or family, and all that will live of him is a blurb at the bottom of a Records book. He was 32.
_________________________________________
Provocative Questions
1.) What would be a modern equivilent to the crowds watching the hunger artist?
2.) Could the hunger artist be seen as a hero in some twisted way?
3.) Does this promote anorexia?
4.) Does this parallel to Kafka's life?
5.) Why does this "performance" by the hunger artist seem so sickening and taboo to observe?
BONUS.) What kind of provocative underwear was the impresario wearing?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
The Metamorphosis Writing Prompt 1
Steven Soderbergh's film Kafka uses recurring themes to create a harrowing mystery. Alienation, Absurdism, and Anxiety are such prevalent themes that are found in both Kafka's novels and in Soderbergh's interpretation. The main character in the film is a fictional version of Franz Kafka (Jeremy Irons), also sharing the author's former job as an insurance agent as well as a writer. Throughout, Kafka is unraveling a growing conspiracy and is being pulled in two conflicting directions. Kafka can decide whether to pursue the truth about his friend's death or continue living his quiet life.
The death of his friend and his subsequent investigation becomes more than an unsolved murder to Kafka. He is actually pursuing the truth in the world he is living in. The truth, though very intriguing and new to Kafka, also poses its unique risks. Because of these risks, he must decide whether learning the truth is worth dying for. This conflict of finding out the grand plan behind his friend's death is met with an equal pull to drop all of it and continue living a quiet, if not isolated, life.
The conflicting need to keep to himself is more to Kafka than just that. Kafka knows he must make sacrifices to uncover the murder and learn the truth. On the other hand, if he were to leave the conspiracy and intrigue alone, he would be willing to make himself ignorant to the dangers this hidden plot brings. So, by association, uncovering the death equals truth to Kafka and ignorance of the world around him means living a nice life.
This conflict continues on even after Kafka believes the worst is over. After seeing a colleague's death at the hands of the conspirators, Kafka chooses to act in ignorance by claiming she committed suicide when he well knows she was killed. Yet, Kafka later says, "Better to know the truth than to live in ignorance. I can no longer deny that I am part of the world around me." This situation that Kafka has gone through, along with his conflicting feelings on how to go about it, has left him with a bad cough. The world is breaking Kafka down, weakening him, and he now knows that the world is not so clear cut.
The film, being black and white the whole time, becomes color only for the scenes in the conspirator's castle. This is the point where Kafka learns the truth, that not everything is black and white. Once he escapes the castle however, his world becomes black and white again. Truth connects to color, the whole spectrum of everything, and for Kafka's world to be black and white once more means that the conflicting decisions are done, and he is choosing to accept ignorance.
The death of his friend and his subsequent investigation becomes more than an unsolved murder to Kafka. He is actually pursuing the truth in the world he is living in. The truth, though very intriguing and new to Kafka, also poses its unique risks. Because of these risks, he must decide whether learning the truth is worth dying for. This conflict of finding out the grand plan behind his friend's death is met with an equal pull to drop all of it and continue living a quiet, if not isolated, life.
The conflicting need to keep to himself is more to Kafka than just that. Kafka knows he must make sacrifices to uncover the murder and learn the truth. On the other hand, if he were to leave the conspiracy and intrigue alone, he would be willing to make himself ignorant to the dangers this hidden plot brings. So, by association, uncovering the death equals truth to Kafka and ignorance of the world around him means living a nice life.
This conflict continues on even after Kafka believes the worst is over. After seeing a colleague's death at the hands of the conspirators, Kafka chooses to act in ignorance by claiming she committed suicide when he well knows she was killed. Yet, Kafka later says, "Better to know the truth than to live in ignorance. I can no longer deny that I am part of the world around me." This situation that Kafka has gone through, along with his conflicting feelings on how to go about it, has left him with a bad cough. The world is breaking Kafka down, weakening him, and he now knows that the world is not so clear cut.
The film, being black and white the whole time, becomes color only for the scenes in the conspirator's castle. This is the point where Kafka learns the truth, that not everything is black and white. Once he escapes the castle however, his world becomes black and white again. Truth connects to color, the whole spectrum of everything, and for Kafka's world to be black and white once more means that the conflicting decisions are done, and he is choosing to accept ignorance.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Kafka Response
Kafka, Steven Soderbergh's interpretation of author Franz Kafka's prevalent themes in his novels, is quite unique. This black-and-white film concerns the fictionalized version of Kafka, who, as a morbid insurance agent searching for his friend's killer, stumbles upon anarchists, mad scientists, and a plot beyond his imagination. Themes of alienation, anxiety, and solitude, all of which are found in Kafka's works can be found in the film as well.
To be honest, after viewing the movie, my feelings and perspective on Kafka's The Metamorphosis did not change in the least bit. Possibly if I were to sit in a Gothic styled room and think over the two works in solitude, I could find some profound connection between the two. Having not done that, I still feel the same way about the Metamorphosis, that the story was engaging and strangely moving to me. It's odd how bad I felt about Gregor's death, and Kafka did not make it feel any more or less peculiar.
The Metamorphosis, as symbolic as they come, has a grounded moral in its story of Gregor Samsa's short life as a bug. Gregor, a pitiful salesman of the traveling variety, faces the ultimate isolation from his transformation. Just when he thought the world he lived in before was one that isolated all of its citizens, he is suddenly a hideous beast who has lost all communication with the world he once knew. The importance of having people in your lives that are close to you and able to talk with, the things that Gregor lost as a result of his metamorphosis, is the moral of the story.
Essentially, Gregor's transformation is Franz Kafka's way of showing the isolation and destitute life at an extreme. His life is cut off from his dear family's after he has become a bug. He cannot talk to them, support them financially, or even bear to look at them, preferring a cloth over him to his family's frightful looks. Family is one of the most important things in the world to Gregor, and with that lost and knowing that his form is causing them emotional and financial pain eventually leads to his suicide. It is his fasting that he shows his love for them, finally releasing them from the burden of his care.
To call Kafka a genius from this endlessly symbolic work may be a stretch. I would prefer to consider him a talented psychoanalyst. The way he focuses on Gregor's situation and give what must be the most reasonable analysis of his mind and how he is thinking. Maybe it is just because I have an affinity for the probing of the human mind and how people think in all situations imaginable. This is likely the reason for why I became so involved in reading the Metamorphosis. Yet still, I would shy away from calling Kafka a genius. Now Seinfeld, that there is a genius.
Kafka, the fictional one, has interesting connections with true life Kafka's character Gregor Samsa. Both men work in jobs that do not interest them, but rather suck the life out of them, which lead toward their isolated lives. Both men deal with severe anxiety in different ways. Kafka is a nervous wreck from the beginning of the film, and his encounter with powerful forces of madness only lead his paranoia further off the charts. Conversely, Gregor is a giant roach. What could cause more anxiety than that?
Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis is renown for its limitless themes, ranging from guilt to loneliness. In a formal essay, make a convincing argument for the main theme of The Metamorphosis, with regards to Gregor Samsa's evolving state of mind and predicament. Include at least three graphs and/or pie charts.
To be honest, after viewing the movie, my feelings and perspective on Kafka's The Metamorphosis did not change in the least bit. Possibly if I were to sit in a Gothic styled room and think over the two works in solitude, I could find some profound connection between the two. Having not done that, I still feel the same way about the Metamorphosis, that the story was engaging and strangely moving to me. It's odd how bad I felt about Gregor's death, and Kafka did not make it feel any more or less peculiar.
The Metamorphosis, as symbolic as they come, has a grounded moral in its story of Gregor Samsa's short life as a bug. Gregor, a pitiful salesman of the traveling variety, faces the ultimate isolation from his transformation. Just when he thought the world he lived in before was one that isolated all of its citizens, he is suddenly a hideous beast who has lost all communication with the world he once knew. The importance of having people in your lives that are close to you and able to talk with, the things that Gregor lost as a result of his metamorphosis, is the moral of the story.
Essentially, Gregor's transformation is Franz Kafka's way of showing the isolation and destitute life at an extreme. His life is cut off from his dear family's after he has become a bug. He cannot talk to them, support them financially, or even bear to look at them, preferring a cloth over him to his family's frightful looks. Family is one of the most important things in the world to Gregor, and with that lost and knowing that his form is causing them emotional and financial pain eventually leads to his suicide. It is his fasting that he shows his love for them, finally releasing them from the burden of his care.
To call Kafka a genius from this endlessly symbolic work may be a stretch. I would prefer to consider him a talented psychoanalyst. The way he focuses on Gregor's situation and give what must be the most reasonable analysis of his mind and how he is thinking. Maybe it is just because I have an affinity for the probing of the human mind and how people think in all situations imaginable. This is likely the reason for why I became so involved in reading the Metamorphosis. Yet still, I would shy away from calling Kafka a genius. Now Seinfeld, that there is a genius.
Kafka, the fictional one, has interesting connections with true life Kafka's character Gregor Samsa. Both men work in jobs that do not interest them, but rather suck the life out of them, which lead toward their isolated lives. Both men deal with severe anxiety in different ways. Kafka is a nervous wreck from the beginning of the film, and his encounter with powerful forces of madness only lead his paranoia further off the charts. Conversely, Gregor is a giant roach. What could cause more anxiety than that?
Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis is renown for its limitless themes, ranging from guilt to loneliness. In a formal essay, make a convincing argument for the main theme of The Metamorphosis, with regards to Gregor Samsa's evolving state of mind and predicament. Include at least three graphs and/or pie charts.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
"Harrison Bergeron" Response
In Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "Harrison Bergeron", the world is finally equal. In this egalitarian society, though, is a man who stands up to stand out. He is Harrison Bergeron, and he is coming to a television studio near you, whether you like it or not. As in many short stories, this one attempts to make it's commentary clear, effective, and quick. Vonnegut's short story is no exception.
Early on, it can be deciphered that Vonnegut has a point to make in his little tale of an equal world where handicaps are placed on those who think to much, masks on those too pretty, and weights on those too strong. Just by reading these observations of the handicapped, what Vonnegut is satirizing is very obvious, the dumbing down of American society. He's attacking the idea of making everyone equal, that no one is smarter, prettier, or athletic than anyone else, even if that means we have to lower the bar for everyone. He's commenting on this because he is against the idea that instead of making everything more challenging and harder to reach, that we should "dumb" everything down, this way more people can reach their goals and meet the standards of society. After reading Harrison Bergeron, it's safe to say that Vonnegut must have hated the recent No Child Left Behind program and the standardized tests that came shortly before his death.
Vonnegut gives a glimpse of the government's controlling of equality through the character Diana Moon Glampers. Diana, the nation's Handicapper General, in charge of keeping everyone equal under the law, is talked about by the Bergerons very briefly and seen on television at an equally brief rate whilst killing Harrison Bergeron with a shotgun blast. And while her characterization isn't very realistic, she need not be, for she is merely a representation of the dumbing down of society, a symbol more than anything. With her shotgun blast being her means of keeping things in check.
While the story is unique by itself, what makes "Harrison Bergeron" even more interesting is the fact that it doesn't focus on Harrison Bergeron or tell the story from his point of view. Instead, the story is told in third person and focuses on Bergeron's parents, George and Hazel. By doing this, Vonnegut is able to show us just how much the government has affected society and effectively handicapped the citizens. In showing George's pain from his ear transmitter to keep him from thinking and saying anything than what a 4th grader could conjure up and describing George and Hazel's fragmented conversations and limited vocabulary and depth, Vonnegut is more able to convey the strains put on the average citizens due to these governmental handicaps than if it were seen through Harrison's eyes only.
What could have been a simple commentary piece is given a unique touch thanks to Vonnegut's insight, and thank God for that.
Early on, it can be deciphered that Vonnegut has a point to make in his little tale of an equal world where handicaps are placed on those who think to much, masks on those too pretty, and weights on those too strong. Just by reading these observations of the handicapped, what Vonnegut is satirizing is very obvious, the dumbing down of American society. He's attacking the idea of making everyone equal, that no one is smarter, prettier, or athletic than anyone else, even if that means we have to lower the bar for everyone. He's commenting on this because he is against the idea that instead of making everything more challenging and harder to reach, that we should "dumb" everything down, this way more people can reach their goals and meet the standards of society. After reading Harrison Bergeron, it's safe to say that Vonnegut must have hated the recent No Child Left Behind program and the standardized tests that came shortly before his death.
Vonnegut gives a glimpse of the government's controlling of equality through the character Diana Moon Glampers. Diana, the nation's Handicapper General, in charge of keeping everyone equal under the law, is talked about by the Bergerons very briefly and seen on television at an equally brief rate whilst killing Harrison Bergeron with a shotgun blast. And while her characterization isn't very realistic, she need not be, for she is merely a representation of the dumbing down of society, a symbol more than anything. With her shotgun blast being her means of keeping things in check.
While the story is unique by itself, what makes "Harrison Bergeron" even more interesting is the fact that it doesn't focus on Harrison Bergeron or tell the story from his point of view. Instead, the story is told in third person and focuses on Bergeron's parents, George and Hazel. By doing this, Vonnegut is able to show us just how much the government has affected society and effectively handicapped the citizens. In showing George's pain from his ear transmitter to keep him from thinking and saying anything than what a 4th grader could conjure up and describing George and Hazel's fragmented conversations and limited vocabulary and depth, Vonnegut is more able to convey the strains put on the average citizens due to these governmental handicaps than if it were seen through Harrison's eyes only.
What could have been a simple commentary piece is given a unique touch thanks to Vonnegut's insight, and thank God for that.
Monday, October 8, 2007
The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas Response
Okay, if this doesn't remind me of "The Lottery" then nothing does. First, the story is set up to make the town being described, Omelas, seem completely fine and dandy like sour candy. Sure there's that eerie feeling that not everything is right, but there's nothing explicit to indicate that. Oh wait, nevermind, there's the Shyamalanian plot twist. In this story's case, the town full of happiness is only happy because of their irrational belief that if they keep a young boy held in a small room and make him suffer completely, the town as a whole will prosper. Overall, the reading was heavy on details in the first half, and by the time it began to pick up, it was over and I was left not necessarily wanting more.
In trying to find similarities to this and Orwell's 1984, I kept coming up short of a connection. My mind kept wandering toward Huxley's Brave New World. In Omelas descriptions, it speaks of a place of complete happiness, where "drooz" can be taken to be even happier, where sex is normal and frequent and random. Both have their dark sides to their externally pleasant societies. Omelas has the poor boy in the filthy room and Brave New World has its questionable ethics as to its advancements in science and civilization stability.
This entire piece is a buildup to its climactic conclusion about the boy in the room, meaning that everything before this revelation is an atmosphere of uneasiness and an increasing feeling of "what's around the corner?" This feeling can be very effective in many works, especially if what is found around the corner proves to be uniquely surprising. While Omelas had that anticipatory vibe, it's payoff wasn't exactly memorable, to me at least. From what I can take, the story's theme touches upon whether one's actions or suffering contributes to the group as a whole.
And now for the Socratic Seminar Questions...
1. What makes this story so effective? Ineffective?
2. How would you react to seeing the little boy in the room?
3. If the town really is as happy and prosperous as it claims, does that mean juvenile torture really is a sufficient way to increase the quality of your town?
4. If so many people know of the town's horrible secret, why haven't state police stepped in?
5. Where do superstitions like this come from?
In trying to find similarities to this and Orwell's 1984, I kept coming up short of a connection. My mind kept wandering toward Huxley's Brave New World. In Omelas descriptions, it speaks of a place of complete happiness, where "drooz" can be taken to be even happier, where sex is normal and frequent and random. Both have their dark sides to their externally pleasant societies. Omelas has the poor boy in the filthy room and Brave New World has its questionable ethics as to its advancements in science and civilization stability.
This entire piece is a buildup to its climactic conclusion about the boy in the room, meaning that everything before this revelation is an atmosphere of uneasiness and an increasing feeling of "what's around the corner?" This feeling can be very effective in many works, especially if what is found around the corner proves to be uniquely surprising. While Omelas had that anticipatory vibe, it's payoff wasn't exactly memorable, to me at least. From what I can take, the story's theme touches upon whether one's actions or suffering contributes to the group as a whole.
And now for the Socratic Seminar Questions...
1. What makes this story so effective? Ineffective?
2. How would you react to seeing the little boy in the room?
3. If the town really is as happy and prosperous as it claims, does that mean juvenile torture really is a sufficient way to increase the quality of your town?
4. If so many people know of the town's horrible secret, why haven't state police stepped in?
5. Where do superstitions like this come from?
Friday, October 5, 2007
7 Guiding Questions for "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us"
Here is a compiled list of questions that should hopefully guide the class discussion on this reading.
- What were your reactions to the possibility of a continuous nano self-replication that ultimately destroys all species on Earth?
- What are some positive uses not mentioned in the article that you believe nanotechnology could be used for? Negative uses?
- Oppenheimer believed that the good of beating the Nazi's to the atomic weapon outweighed the dangers that came with the creation of it. Do you feel the same way about nanotechnology?
- Do you agree with any of the Luddites' fears about present and future techonology? Why or why not?
- Do you think warnings like this article would have stopped the development of robotics in Isaac Asimov's works?
- If given the opportunity to improve your life with the use of genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics, would you take adavantage of these? Would you undergo a procedure to rid the genes in you that can cause Alzheimer's? Have an injection of nanobots to remove possible cysts or cancerous growths? Live with the assistance of a robot you name Jeeves?
- What do you see as the biggest ethical dillemma that comes with these life-changing advancements in technology?
- BONUS: If robots do end up taking over Humans in the future, why haven't we gone back in time to stop this mess by killing the creators of the robots/nanotech à la Terminator 2?
Let's hope these questions are thought-provoking.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Goal Post? Does That Make Me The Goalie?
My Top 3 - University of Michigan (Ann Arbor), University of Southern California, New York University.
GPA Goal - 3.75 or higher...ladies.
AP English Exam Goal - 4 or 5. Nothing less.
I'm actually taking applications from people who would like to help me with my application.
"Aim high in case you miss..."
...these were William Tell's son's last words before the arrow split his skull.
GPA Goal - 3.75 or higher...ladies.
AP English Exam Goal - 4 or 5. Nothing less.
I'm actually taking applications from people who would like to help me with my application.
"Aim high in case you miss..."
...these were William Tell's son's last words before the arrow split his skull.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
