Invisible Man

ANALYSIS:

In the prologue of Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison, the narrator proclaims he has exactly 1,369 lights in his "hole." His "battle" with Monopolated Light and Power is symbolic of his battle with society to gain identity. The fact that the electric company has the word "Monpolized..." in its name (although spelled incorrectly) is revealing of this symbolism. Like the company controls light, society controls and denies the narrator of an identity. Light symbolizes knowledge, while dark represents blindness. Prior to his revelation of his invisibility, society kept him "running" towards a promised identity, towards invisible equality and greatness. Just as he secretly steals light from the company, the invisible man asserts his existence in secret. Although others are unaware and ignorant of his invisibility, he recognizes the corruption of society and surrounds himself in the truth that he had once been blind to. By surrounding himself with light, he is "confirming (his) reality, giving birth to [his] form"(6). The narrator states that "Without light I am not only invisible, but formless as well; and to be unaware of one's form is to live a death. I myself, after existing some twenty years, did not become alive until I discovered my invisibility"(7). This statement is somewhat of a paradox. It was not until he fully discovered his invisibility in society that he felt truly alive. The narrator surrounds himself in light to assign definitiveness to existence, he may be invisible, but he knows it, recognizes it, saving himself from the darkness of ignorance and futility of ambitions.

QUOTES:

"I sensed vaguely and with a flash of panic that the moment I walked out upon the platform and opened my mouth I'd be someone else. Not just nobody with a manufactured name which might have belonged to anyone, or to no one. But another personality. Few people know me now, but after tonight...how was it? Perhaps simply to be known, to be looked upon by so many people, to be the focal point of so many concentrating eyes, perhaps this was enough to make one different; enough to transform someone into something else; just as by becoming an increasingly larger boy one became one day a man; a man with a deep voice-although my voice had been deep since I was twelve..."(336)

This passage is a commentary on the narrator's search for identity. Prior to discovering his perceived invisibility, the narrator assigns himself a purpose in the Brotherhood. He believes that he will gain an identity by being something to others by connecting to his audience and representing hope to others. He is frightened initially by the prospect of gaining a new identity but later embraces discarding of his past. The narrator compares this change to a boy becoming a man when his voice changes. I think this analogy demonstrates the flaw in the narrator's attempt to gain identity through the brotherhood. I may be wrong, but a voice change doesn't transform a person into an entirely new person. The narrator hopes that in becoming an esteemed figure, he will finally have a purpose and have accomplished something. He hopes that by representing the Brotherhood he will be able to abandon his past and avenge Bledsoe's betrayal.

Reaction:

This book is perhaps the most complex and symbolic work I've ever read. It is incredibly powerful due to its disturbing depiction of the plight of African Americans seeking equality and the heinous treatment during such scenes as the Battle Royal. Ellison's repetitive use of motifs such as blindness and the opposition of black and white is extremely effective in emphasizing the struggle which the narrator faces and the state of society during this time of racial turmoil. Overall I liked the book a lot, but I’m definitely going to have to read it again in a year or so to appreciate the full impact of the novel. I found the book a tad overwhelming and therefore missed a great amount of symbolism just because the novel is so dense, and there’s symbolism in each paragraph.

Heart of Darkness: Story of my Life

ANALYSIS:

"This man suffered too much. He hated all this, and somehow he couldn't get away. When I had a chance I begged him to try and leave while there was still time; I offered to go back with him. And he would say yes, and then he would remain; go off on another ivory hunt; disappear for weeks; forget himself amongst these people-forget himself-you know"(95).

This statement made by the the Russian demonstrates Mr. Kurtz's inability to escape the "darkness" within himself. The Russian justifies Mr. Kurtz's actions by portraying him as a victim, an ironic concept considering that the man has heads on stakes surrounding his house. I found this quote interesting primarily because it slightly contrasts the excerpt from The Things They Carried. Mary Anne says "I feel close to myself...I know exactly who I am"(111). In this passage from Heart of Darkness, however, the Russian describes that Kurtz has forgotten himself. Throughout the novel the concept of discovering one's own "inner darkness" is a predominate motif. The Russian is blinded by his devotion to Kurtz, holding onto his inspiring talks of love with Kurtz, excusing his actions with his immense sorrow and supposed loss of self. Mary Anne embraces her transformation because it makes her feel more alive, while there is definitely an aspect of self loathing in Kurtz. I believe that deep down Kurtz hated who he had become("...he hated all this...") but was so engulfed in his own evil and obsession that his hatred was not recognized as that of himself, but was realized in his savagery and apparent lack of morality. He cannot escape his lust for ivory, the driving force in the emergence of his inner darkness. While I understand the Russian's claim that Kurtz forgot himself, I think it's more accurate to say he discovered a part of himself that had never before been realized. Mary Anne, despite her highly fashionable necklace of human tongues, justifies her actions by saying they aren't "bad." Heads on stakes surrounding his house makes sense to Kurtz, it isn't "bad," it's a reasonable choice of decoration(just like figurines of Poe and fake beating hearts). I think that Kurtz has forgotten himself in the sense that he has denounced the guidelines of morality in society and embraced the darkness that has always existed.

QUOTE:

"She was sure. I heard her weeping; she had hidden her face in her hands. It seemed to me that the house would collapse before I could escape, that the heavens would fall upon my head. But nothing happened. The heavens do not fall for such a trifle. Would they have fallen, I wonder, if I had rendered Kurtz that justice which was his due? Hadn't he said he wanted only justice? But I couldn't. I could not tell her. It would have been too dark-too dark altogether" (131).

Kurtz had been many things to many people. A painter, a poet, an inspirational speaker. Yet few recognized the darkness which consumed him. Marlow becomes incredibly cynical by the end of the novel and recognizes how blind society is to the evil that exists in mankind. Despite his revealation, he maintains Kurtz's fiance's perception of Kurtz by saying that his last words were her name. He is incredibly disheartened by her confidence that he speaks the truth, that Kurtz died the man she thought he was. The word trifle in this passage is somewhat of an understatement. Trifle refers to Marlow's continued contribtion to the ignorance of society, allowing his fiance to believe he was the poetic and powerful man she loved, instead of a being of disintegrating humanity. His question as to whether the detrimental truth or a reassuring lie was worse(i.e. which would result in the heavens collapsing upon him) is a question as to whether it is up to him to reveal the darkness of humanity. Kurtz asserts( in his warped mind) that all he ever wanted was justice. Marlow's decides that the truth would just bring the darkness upon he and Kurtz's fiance and that he cannot dissolve the perceptions of Kurtz.

OPINION:

The first time I read this book, I hated it immensely. The second time I understood it, and I actually liked it. While the subject is a bit much for me, the examination of humanity and its conclusion that all humanity possesses evil(which can be brought out by one's surroundings) makes sense to a degree. I'm not saying that heads on stakes are reasonable, just that the idea that one's surroundings can transform and distort an individual's sense morality coincides with the whole tabula rasa concept. It's definitely not one of my favorite books but I think the concept is essential to be familiar with for other works.

Self-importance in a society that replaces people...??Thank you Vonnegut!

ANALYSIS

Irony. Irony. Irony. In Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano, it's difficult to miss the irony that practically oozes off each page. More specifically, his depiction of "improved" American society and its inhabitants are perhaps the most ironic. This is a society driven by mechanization and efficiency. Engineers are the elite, everyone else of marginal intelligence better get back to their side of the river. Yet, even the engineers work day-to-day on their devaluation, as they attempt to rectify human imperfection by creating machines that will soon replace them all. What I find so ironic about this situation is the fact that although this is a society which admits and deplores imperfection in humanity, a great majority of individuals advertise their massive self-importance. Doctor. Doctor. Doctor. MR. is a loathed title in this society. Yet with this title of Dr. comes the subconscious acceptance that man is inferior to machine. The individuals of this society place such emphasis on their titles, yet it is those who possess these higher titles who are contributing to their ultimate obsolescence. The title basically envelopes the main theme of the novel. Player Piano. A piano that plays itself, no mistakes, music left unmarred by human error. How do you achieve perfection? Easy, create something that will no longer need its creator. The elite "improve" society by taking out human influence. There is an extreme dichotomy in society between the elite of society(Kroner, Shephard, etc) and the reeks and wrecks. What is ironic about this dichotomy is that their difference in IQ's(the sole basis of hierarchy) is what determines whether or not they are permitted to create technology to replace themselves.

QUOTE

"He stared at President Jonathan Lynn and imagined with horror what the country must have been like when, as today, any damn fool little American boy might grow up to be President, but when the President had had to actually run the country!"(120)
First of all, I love this quote. It's so sarcastic. How many times have your parents told you that you can grow up to be anything you want to be? Astronaut, doctor, and yes, even president. In this passage Haylard expresses relief that this concept has virtually been abolished. The President is merely an actor with a massive salary; he represents the common man only in appearance and speech(hence his less than intelligent oratory skills). The elite justifies the hierarchy in society by asserting that they are working for a better world for all of society. The president assures that the EPICAC will do wonders for the "plain folk," being the "greatest individual in history." The president serves as a reassurance to the reeks and wrecks that they are not entirely obsolete, that they are still represented in society. Haylard's comment, however, demonstrates the true opinion of the elite. The President is just an actor; expressing that such a man does not actually carry any authority. The elite of society consider themselves so superior to the masses that they believe that it is in their power to grant reassurance and allow for a comfortable life for them but not to allow them to have any real power in society.

Rating:

I love this book. Even though it's another dystopian novel and the transformation of the protagonist again seems slightly fruitless, I thought the ending was appropriate. After all the planning and progress, the people again revert to working to replace themselves with technology. Vonnegut's dark humor and sarcasm is admittedly hilarious(and somewhat depressing). The ending is somewhat tragic. They fail miserably at overturning society but Finnerty and Paul concede to Lasher's assertion that all that really matters is that for the record, they tried. Essentially their acceptance of failure is their greatest rebellion. This society is not accepting of failure. They will most likely spend the rest of their lives in jail, scorned by society, but at least they tried. I think the ending is necessarily anticlimactic, demonstrating that the true heroes are the individuals who act knowing they are going to fail.

The Handmaid's Tale: Obsession with death

Analysis: A predominate theme presented in this book is life juxtaposed to death. This is a society obsessed with procreation. It centers around birth and life, yet a majority of its citizens beg for or are obsessed with death. Offred forces herself to think of Luke and her daughter as dead in order to overcome the pain of knowing they are existing independently of her. Soon her best friend Moira is dead to her(or perhaps is dead in actuality). She herself, to some degree, almost wishes to die, to escape from societal imprisonment. Offred is surrounded by the prospect of death throughout the story. The handmaid before her had hanged herself because of the misery endured in conformity and secrecy. Throughout the novel she is haunted by this girl and the prospect that her future may reach the same dead end(no pun intended...grants?). There are also instances where Offred contemplates stealing a kitchen knife to stab the Commander with; at another point she stuffs a match in her mattress to perhaps set the house on fire. The irony of this society lies in its promotion of creation but subsequent obsession with destruction. Ofglen, perhaps her only identified ally, killed herself, sparing Offred. Offred is thankful that Ofglen killed herself for her sake, but for some reason, instead of lamenting over the death, Offred merely states "I will mourn later." I think while this society pushes for communion between the wives and handmaids and serving Gilead with a prideful sense of duty, the end result really was almost a numbing, a dehumanization. These people become numb to the sight of people hanging from the wall. Offred forces herself to become numb to the idea of Luke's death. They must all forget the past and embrace the future. Mourn later, mourn never. The women become drones, mere vessels for impregnation. Don't think. Don't feel. Have a baby. That's Gilead. I find it ironic that this society pushes for the creation of life so vehemently, yet death is everywhere(most of it orchestrated by the government itself). It is a society that supposedly values the creation of life beyond all else, yet it murders perceived enemies of the Republic in mass, and tortures(Moira and the feet thing) its citizens into submission.

"I stand a moment, emptied of air, as if I've been kicked. So she's dead, and I am safe, after all. She did it before they came. I feel great relief. I feel thankful to her. She has died that I may live. I will mourn later"(286).

In class Mr. Klimas mentioned that here Ofglen represents a Christ figure(dying for the sake of others).I found this passage interesting first of all because of the irony which it portrays that exists in the society, but also because the way Atwood presents Offred's thoughts. "So she's dead, and I am safe after all. She did it before I came. I feel great relief. I feel thankful to her. She has died that I may live. I will mourn later." Ok. This passage contains almost no emotion. The fact that Offred has to state "I feel great relief," instead of saying "I breathed a great sigh of relief. I was going to live!", shows that perhaps she isn't as relieved as she wanted herself to be. Perhaps she almost longed for death, for an end to it all. She is numb. Atwood depicts this numbness by making the sentences short and concise. Her words are almost robotic. I am thankful. I will live. Yay. Most people would react in a more expressive ways a result of the great conflict of emotions; the knowledge that someone has died for your sake isn't something necessarily something easy to cope with. Yet, Offred is almost indifferent, she says what she thinks she should be feeling at this moment, yet she is void of emotion.

I enjoyed reading this book, but I don't think I liked the book as a whole. The premise was interesting, but as many of you know, I'm not a fan of the ending. Atwood's ending is creative, but I felt that she ended it too abruptly; I was just disappointed. I wanted to know definitively what happened to Luke, Offred, and their daughter. I don't want it be left to the reader to determine what happened. I WANT ANSWERS! I mean I think the ending...works and I can see why she chose to end it this way, but I still don't like it. The book was well written and an interesting concept, and of course it is allusion invested, but overall, I was disappointed in the ending and found the book anticlimactic.

That book that I forgot we read but happens to be one of my favorites:)

Analysis: A predominate theme in Ayn Rand's works is the ramifications of socialism. She takes the philosophy to the extreme, depicting a society where everyone is assigned a certain job to serve the collective "WE". It is a society where the individual is corrupt and worthless. Everyone is equal. OR ELSE. "We are nothing. Mankind is all...We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State"(21). Socialists hate competition and advocate cooperation, as seen in this novel. By condemning the use of any special talents that would give one individual an advantage over another, the society is theoretically guaranteeing equality and banishing inadequacy. This concept, while exemplified in WE as well, is greatly emphasized in the short story Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut that we read in class. The idea of playing loud noises in an intelligent individual's ear in order to dilute their intelligence to an average, "healthy" level, coincides directly with Rand's assertions. Rand emphasizes that socialism is merely a vehicle for the less endowed to hinder the strong, in this case, the intelligent. Of course the society depicted in Anthem is an exaggerated version of socialism, however, Rand stretches these fundamental principles of socialism in order to stress the clear degradation of the individual in such societies. There is no incentive to transcend the masses because any hint of independent thinking is deemed treason against your fellow brothers, as is seen when Equality 7-2521 presents his discovery of electricity to the scholars. Rand uses this instance to show his final disillusionment with the society and to create an incentive for him to disengage from his brothers who do not appreciate his genius because it is not his place to think or create independently. All men are not created equal, but forced to be equal in order to assure "happiness" to those who would otherwise feel obsolete in comparison with the more gifted. Differences cause distractions from the state. A sense of self-pride would only result in selfish ambition( and we all know we can't have that!). Rand presents this warped society in order to capture the flaws of a socialistic society, which often alienates the hardworking and gifted in order to cater to the masses.

"For the word "We" must never be spoken, save by one's choice and as a second thought. This word must never be placed first within a man's soul, else it becomes a monster, the root of all evils on earth, the root of man's torture by men, and of an unspeakable lie. The word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages"(Rand 97).
This passage is the embodiment of the entire novel. I love Rand's comparison of the word "we" to the pouring of lime to form the statue of conformity, forming a perfectly formed statue from the mold society. The passage creates a sense of suffocation, as the lime stifles individualism and forces the individual into the grey of submission. I love Rand's depiction because it makes this fear of conformity concrete, creating a tangible fear of oppression. Essentially, this quote emphasizes the importance of ego and the danger in relying upon the collective to dictate your actions and emotions, so that everyone who wasn't created equal will be MADE so.


I read this book over the summer and absolutely loved it. I was so excited(I'm a dork...what can I say?) because it went along with Fahrenheit 451 so exactly, then of course we read it in class. I found Rand's use of the word "we" interesting and different, and I was astonished at how short the story actually was. It is such a profound and infinite philosophy, yet Rand is able to capture the idea eloquently in 105 pages. I suppose in comparison to the other distopian stories we've read so far, I like the ending of this book immensely more than that of WE or The Handmaid's Tale because it provides the reader with hope for Equality 7-2521 to start a new colony, whereas in We D-503's progress in rebellion unravels completely and in the Handmaids Tale it remains uncertain whether or not Offred actually survives.

Don't let the slightly less than agreeable individuals grind you down

Looking at this in the context of AP lit. test dogma, there is repetition of the lines "And you can dream...So dream out loud" in the second, third, and sixth line. These lines embody the meaning of the song in its entirety. It empowers the oppressed to rebel and transcend their "chains", and to of course, not "...let the bastards grind you down". This coincides directly with Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale. This song depicts the submission of a girl who once "... had fire in [her] soul" but who is stifled by her surroundings. Moira was rebellious and individualistic. She refused to be kept prisoner by the Aunts, yet in the end, she becomes the epitome of all that she had protested against in her freedom. She becomes a prostitute at Jezebel's. Offred is terrified by this "..indifference and lack of volition" in her friend and says "Have they really done it to her then, taken away something-what?-something that used to be so central to her?...I don't want her to be like me. Give in, go along, save her skin...I want gallantry from her, swashbuckling, heroism, single-handed combat"(249). Both works call for the rise of the oppressed and depict the frustration("I know you'd hit out...") and perceived helplessness of these individuals. The last lines of the last 2-3 stanzas are very short and are essentially the final words of encouragement, leaving the ultimate possibilities in the hands of the girl. The last stanza repeats the words "you can", leaving hope for escape. Another connection between this song and the novel is the idea of choking.
And you can swallow
Or you can spit
You can throw it up
Or choke on it.....

Yeah I'd break bread and wine
If there was a church I could receive in
'Cause I need it now

These lines from the song automatically reminded me of the imposition of religion in The Handmaid's Tale. When Offred recites her altered version of the "Our Father" she says "I have enough daily bread, so I won't waste my time on that. It isn't the main problem. The problem is getting it down without choking"(Atwood 194). This idea of choking in both works illustrates the suffocating nature of both instances being depicted. This "daily bread" represents the repressive society, and "choking" represents the individual's inability to swallow and accept their new reality. In both works, an indivdual seeks solace in religion, yet finds it inadequate in justifying or remedying the corruption which surrounds them.

There's something about Beatty

There's been a lot of speculation on the heroism of Montag, but what about the antagonist? What is it that makes Beatty such a believable character? How does Bradbury create a character that is so easily disliked? In class we discussed the possibility that he had alternative motives, that perhaps he really wanted Montag to recognize the corruption of their world and that he truly wanted Montag to do what he could not. Personally I think it had more to do with power. Beatty was the head of the fire department, despite the fact that he clearly had an intense love of books. By having this authority over Montag and the other men, he is able to control and create torment, unlike his own torture. Misery loves company, right? Both are tormented by literature, Montag by the stolen book and the forbidden mystery which surrounds it and Beatty by the questions that the books could not answer. I think that Beatty's destruction of books is a form of self-deprecation/self-destruction. It really is the classic tragedy, mankind destroys all that he loves out of vengeance and self-hate. This man had an enormous library; he was able to quote books and had a clear obsession, yet he is in charge of burning these same books which he is so passionate about. When Montag sets him on fire, he does not attempt to run, he remains still, accepting and welcoming death. Beatty wanted to die from page 1. How could anyone who dedicates their life to destruction of something they love be happy in their existance? There is one instance where Beatty says "Forget them. Burn all, burn everything. Fire is bright and fire is clean". By burning the books, Beatty was burning a part of himself. His fate represents his final cleansing; the only way to remove corruption from a life he became disgusted with. I don't believe Beatty had alternative heroic ambitions; his struggle was entirely internal and not meant to aid future generations.

Though I'm usually not fond of science fiction novels, I really liked this novel. The characters are incredibly complex and the fundamental ideas of the novel can be applied to any generation. What I've learned to appreciate about these novels featuring distopian societies is their lack of finite conclusions. There is no definitive "happily ever after" (especially in WE); there's a lot of room allotted for personal interrpretation. Bradbury creates a melancholy hope at the end of the novel, leaving the reader with a sense of the uncertainty that awaits these characters and the weight of reconstruction.

I also found it interesting that Bradbury depicts the "villain" of the novel as such a tragic character. I also found it interesting that despite my sympathy for Beatty, I disliked him the most out of anyone in the novel. So quick question: What do you think was Bradbury's purpose of adding this tragic dimension to the antagonist, if still the overall attitude toward him is disdain? Just curious....