Cities and Dreams

A dream, in many ways, is like the city you live in. Within your mind, there are infinite realms of ideas including death, desire, memory, names, signs, and other aspects which also form the base of every society. The book Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino, can, in this sense, be compared to the movie Waking Dream. While one gives the description of several very distinct cities (which in the end are all the same place), the other tells the story of a lucid dreamer exploring the different ideas and boundaries of life. In the end, they both show how our notion of the real and the surreal can be reflected upon society itself.

The screen shot above is clearly focusing on the man getting burned. There are several laws of composition being put into use which draw the viewer’s eyes towards this main object. The fire’s bright and extravagant color differs from the dull, overall shades throughout the rest of the capture. There are a total of five objects being shown, bringing forth the rule of odds. The man is strategically placed in the center of two columns, a hydrant, and a gasoline bottle, giving him more importance over the other objects. He is sitting down, and shaded in black. His physical features cannot be distinguished, but the position he is in seems to be calm, serene, and at peace with what is happening. Ironically, a water hydrant was included in this caption. We all know that these are used to put out fires, usually in buildings or houses. In this case though, an actual human being is getting burned, yet there is no one there to put him out.

Evidently, when you look at this screen shot you see fire and a lack of life. This moment in Waking Life could be easily connected with Cities & The Dead 2 in chapter six of Invisible Cities. Adelma, was a city in Italo Calvino’s novel where the narrator focuses on explaining how and why it is better not to stare at or recognize its lifeless inhabitants. In the movie caption, the man’s face has been shaded black so that no one can make out who this person is. As I mentioned before, all the viewer’s attention is drawn to this specific object. Clearly, both the book and the movie caption chose to emphasize on how dark and unknown the face of death is to the living. There is a line in this chapter that states the following: “... I was assailed by unexpected faces, reappearing from far away, staring at me as if demanding recognition, as if to recognize me, as if they had already recognized me.” (Calvino pg. 95). This passage expresses the frustration of the dead in the city of Adelma. They obviously want to be recognized, but fail to do so. The man in the caption also represents frustration in the sense that although he is surrounded by fire and pain, there is no sign that he regrets being in that situation. Buddhist monks would immolate themselves as a form of protest, also hoping to be recognized. As you can see, Calvino, as well as the director of Waking Life chose to revolve around the ideas of death, mystery, and frustration.

This screen shot is filled with random colors, shapes, and lines, provoking a sense of confusion and chaos for the viewer. Our main focus is on the man’s face, which seems to be very disordered and undefined. All the movement happening draws allot of attention and brings forth several mixed feelings. There are red lines that point at the man’s expression, which coincides with the caption’s general tone. All of the man’s facial feature’s seem to be in place, except for his skin.

The city of Hypatia, in Cities & Signs 4 of Invisible Cities, is a place which strongly relates to this movie caption. Calvino describes Hypatia as a confusing city which travelers cannot understand. He specifically states that “Of all the changes of language a traveler in distant lands must face, none equals that which awaits him in the city of Hypatia, because the change regards not words, but things.” (Calvino pg. 47). In the Waking Life image, ideas are also expressed indirectly. There are obviously no words being said, and the viewer is at first puzzled with ideas trying to be expressed. Both the city and the caption are a representation of how true understanding is not always achieved in the most literal ways.

Both Invisible Cities and Waking Life express very similar themes in a completely unique way. From these pairs of screen shots and cities, allot about them can be inferred. As we can tell from the first comparison, death has always been an unknown concept which in many cases expresses the frustration of the living. The second comparison brings forth the idea that there are many means of comprehension, and that the hardest one will never be as expected. All of this comes to show us that sometimes it takes an unreal idea, like those expressed in the book and movie, to deliver the truth.

Voice of the Universe

Rise

Distorted

"Listen to Me"

Nylon

Eyes and Ears

A Play of Classes

This was the first of Gulliver’s travels where he doesn’t actually come into contact with humans. Instead, he encounters these weird beasts, which posses a couple of human aspects. Gulliver even says at one point that they look like humans. Their appearance, along with the fact that they tried to attack Gulliver by defecating on him, had to have put some sort of satire into play. Keeping in mind also, that these creatures and dominated by horses, swift is probably targeting the bums and the low life human beings. He obviously emphasized on how disgusting they were. 

The horses represented just the opposite. In the unknown island, they were the only ones that could speak, dine, live in houses, make decisions, and basically rule their kingdom. Although Swift does make these horses look like heroes by mentioning how altruistic and cooperative they are with each other, there are many characteristics that actually make them seem quite unpleasant. First of all, they sit around talking bad about everyone behind their backs (mainly the Yahoos). They are obviously a very self centered group of creatures who consider themselves the elite species on the face of the earth. I couldn’t help relating these Houyhnhnms to the high class humans, which posses the same traits that I said the horses had. Horses are known to be very magnificent and hard working animals, but in the end, they are still animals.    

Comparing Feature Articles

Although all three are feature articles, there a couple of differences between “Heeeere’s Conan”, “The Cost Conundrum”, and “JA”. To begin with, I would have to mention that both “Heeeere’s Conan”, and “JA”, were articles written about other people. In the first of the two, they honor the great Conan O’Brien during his last weeks in the Late Night Show. Over the past years he has become a major icon in American television, winning the hearts of people all across the U.S. The article was dedicated to him and to the legacy he will be leaving behind. “JA”, although also written honoring another person, possessed a very different tone. The author had a much more intimate relationship with the person he wrote about (which was called JA). The author states in the following words, just how important JA was to him and to the people around them: “Wherever he is, JA dominates his surroundings. With his crew, he picks the spots to hit, the stores to rack from; he controls the mission. He gives directions in the car, plans the activities, sets the mood. And he takes everything a step further than the people he's with. He climbs higher, stays awake longer, sucks deepest on the blunt, writes the most graffiti. And though he's respected by other writers for testing the limits -- he has been described to me by other writers as a king and, by way of compliment, as "the sickest guy I ever met.””(Kevin Heldman). As you can see, there was a lot admiration from Heldman’s part towards JA."

Not being an American, and never having watched The Late Night show in my life, I have to say that the JA article gave me a much stronger emotional impact than “Heeeere’s Conan”. Like I said, the bond that the author of this article had with JA was extremely deep. It was easy to notice how much this man Idolized and respected the figure he wrote about. And although the author of the Conan article did portray O’brien as an American Hero, there wasn’t nearly as much emotion and intimacy between the two.

“The Cost Conundrum” was completely different from the two previous articles. It involved the health care cost in America, emphasizing on a little town called McAllen. While this article didn’t really catch my attention, it helped me understand the variety of feature articles. What it was trying to do, basically, was give an impact on its audience using facts and statistics. In terms of rhetoric, the two previous articles put pathos into use, while this one had allot of logos. The author did seem concerned about the message he was trying to give, but as a reader, I didn’t really feel its matter of importance.          

Size isn't Everything

The image above seems to be a good representation of what is currently happening in Gulliver’s Travels. It shows a giant hand being carried by four smaller men. The hand, as you can imagine, is a representation of Gulliver’s power in the book. By using the rule of odds, you can see that it is the center and largest object in the painting. This shows just how important Gulliver is in the story. He is, after all, not only the main character but the narrator. 

The four men represent the power of the small people from LIlliput. The hand is obviously bigger than them. It is also a body part which signifies power and authorization. They are, however, carrying it, showing that they are in control of the situation. The hand neither seems threatening, or violent. Instead, it almost seems cooperative with the people. This is exactly the case in Gulliver’s Travels. In spite of his size, Guliver succumbs to the power of his small enemies. 

The hand in the painting is green, making it stand out from the rest of the objects. It is the only unusual color, for all others seem to be in place. Once again, it is another distinction between Gulliver and the people from Lilliput. One major difference between the two that really got in the way of a descent interaction, was language. This has been major topic in the  story so far, which Swift often brings up.  

Captured

Response to op-ed article

Article: One Husband, Two Kids, Three Deployments

Author: Melissa Seligman

The article I read had a lot to do with the fact that today is memorial day in the United States. This holiday honors those soldiers who fought and died for their country. Melissa Seligman (author of article) is the wife of a american who has been deployed three times. The entire article revolves around the struggle between this couple over the lack of proper communication. It was mostly a message to all the wives who are awaiting for the arrival of their husbands from war, showing them that it is possible to keep a marriage alive in spite of being in two different continents, worrying about one another. The author had a web-cam based relationship with her loved one, which she could not handle. She finally learned that letters were actually the best way to keep the flame going, stating that they let them “regain control” of their marriage

The article has an abundant use of pathos. Evidently, Seligman wanted to reach people’s emotions, specially on such an emotional day for America. Over the past century, war, terrorism, and global conflict, has affected affected millions of families and idividuals around the globe. It has become a very popular topic to write about because of its emotional impact. Seligman has done a lot of literary work concerning the matter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/opinion/25seligman.html?ref=opinion

Painting Analysis 1

The first subject that my eyes are drawn to in this painting is the red circle. Not only is it the only circular object in the painting, but the red makes it stand out a lot as well. There are more red areas in the image, but their shape and size are not too attracting. It is easy to see that the artist decided only to use shapes in his work, therefore creating several straight lines. Many of these lines point straight to the red circle.

Another technique being applied is the rule of thirds. The canvas could be easily divided into a top, middle, and bottom section, as well as a left, center, and right section. The red circle, for example, would be in the top center. The objects that look like buildings would take the entire left and right sections.

The moods of this painting can be determined by the colors. As you can see, there are very bright and visual colors, which usually give the viewer an enthusiastic and overwhelming sensation. This picture though, was given some sort of a gloomy effect. Several colors were shaded with black, or weren`t strongly painted in the first place. Parts of the canvas can still be seen.

A word to describe the tone of this picture would be nostalgic. It almost seems like the artist brought back a faded memory, or feeling, which once had a much stronger significance.

Alone with the World

By now, I am already quite familiarized with Carver`s style. He is probably the one author which I can identify myself with the most. His descriptions are not as elaborate as Bellow`s or Flaubert`s, nor is as outgoing and humoristic as Pynchon. Carver writes in the first and third person, unlike many of the authors I have just mentioned, and his characters usually have typical family or relationship problems (from the stories I have read). If reading his work were like looking at a picture, it would be a bit dark and empty, lacking vivacity. Even the cover of the book Cathedral fits these descriptions. There is a lonely man with a smoke in one hand and a drink in another. He is sitting alone at his table with only the television light illuminating the room. Although the TV is on, he is not looking at it. Instead, he seems to be thinking to himself, worrying about life. In the second story that I read, The Compartment, Carver has created a character very similar the one I have just described. He is alone though, in the compartment of a train, awaiting for an encounter with his son which hadn`t seen in several years. After a couple of hours of thinking on the train, he cowards out and decides not to go through with it. As soon as the train stops at the correct station, he stays in it and continues to the next. This is an example of what I assume is the typical Carver character, lonely and yet afraid of the world. A person who ends up getting lost in his or her own thoughts.

The Love House

The first Carver story that I read was called Chef`s House. The story was well written, describing the rebirth of a couple`s love which had been lost. I like how Carver leaves out some specific details from the context of the story, giving you the chance to put it into your own context, or relate it to a past experience. The characters` situation has happened millions of couples around the world. Basically, they were happily married, until their relationship ended due to alcohol. Years later, when their kids were all grown up, Wes, the husband, asks his wife to spend a summer with him at his friend Chef`s house. The reason why this house seemed so surreal to them, was because it strengthened their relation. Alcohol had brought the two apart, and not one drop of it was consumed there. It recreated all the best moments from when they were together. In their minds, it was as if their relationship would only work if they were at Chef`s house. It is for this reason that as soon as Chef kicks them out, they begin to worry. I like the fact that Carver never fully describes exactly what went on in the characters` heads right at that moment. He does, though, carefully illustrate their expressions, so that the reader can somehow guess their feelings. I assumed that the two eventually will have developed a tighter bond, but as soon as they leave the house, Wes would begin to drink again. It was that look on his face at the end of the story, that Carver so carefully describes, and which his wife was very familiar with, that made suspect such a thing would happen.

The Holy Parrot

Overall, A Simple Soul turned out to be quite a nice and entertaining story. Although the general tone of the tale is very sad and full of deaths, there are several parts which simply made me laugh. In the final scene, for example, when Felicite is about to die, Flaubert explains how the last thing that she sees is a giant parrot. I was honestly expecting something more glorious to appear, such as God, rather than a big colorful bird. Of course, this had to mean something. Throughout an entire section, the story seemed to make a big emphasis on Loulou, Felicite`s pet parrot. The relationship that she developed with this bird at a literal level grew very deep. Loulou represented the loved ones that she had either had and lost, or never had at all. If we took it beyond this aspect, then we could see how the parrot begins to resemble Christ. In chapter 4, there is a very clear resemblance between the two. Flaubert writes, “In church, she always gazed at the Holy Ghost, and noticed that there was something about it that resembled a parrot. The likeness appeared even more striking on a coloured picture by Espinal, representing the baptism of our Saviour. With his scarlet wings and emerald body, it was really the image of Loulou.” This quotation specifically explains how the Holy Ghost resembled the parrot. In another part of this same chapter, The author mentions that Felicite goes deaf, and the only voice that she could here is Loulou`s. Obviously, this voice is coming to her in a sanctified and ghostly way, like that of the Christ, or the holy ghost. This symbolism, which Flaubert begins to carry out during second half of the story, is basically a mockery of the church and Catholicism. By comparing a parrot with the savior of an entire religion, Flaubert is openly making fun of this concept. His atheistic mentality turned a sad and unfortunate story, into one big joke.

The Poem

“Look then right before thee.
Open thine eyes and see.
At the foot of Mt. Serenity
Is thy cradle to eternity.” (pg. 71)

This is the last stanza of the poem that Mr. Tamkin showed Wilhelm in the fourth chapter. At first, Tommy is confused and doesn’t know what to say of it. This feeling then turns into furry towards the old man for having shown him such nonsense in the first place. The passage is really directed towards him, and I believe it is also related to the title of the book. The first two lines say that there is something, something that Wilhelm is looking for, right in front of him. This implies that he had been searching for answers in all but the most obvious places. The third line says that it is “At the foot of Mt. Serenity”, meaning that serenity should be viewed as a mountain, or something hard to conquer. The last line says that this thing that Tommy is looking for is the “cradle to eternity.” This, on the other hand, is at the foot of the mountain, making it an object much easier to capture. What confuses me though, is what this cradle represents. A cradle is known as a support or structure where you keep a baby. But why would speaker use the word “to” instead of the word of? Maybe eternity shouldn`t be viewed as a baby, but as the prize you attain after nourishing or taking care of the hypothetical baby.

With all the things in Wilhelm`s mind at the time, he doesn´t have the patience to think about the meaning of this poem. It also made me realize what type of character Mr. Tamkin is playing. He is obviously very wise, and is going to serve as Tommy`s mentor throughout the rest of the novel.

Revelation

Chapter three was an extremely crucial part for the development of the story, because it is when Tommy finally lets his father know what he is feeling. Bellow describes a specific moment in the following way, “… “What do you want from me? What do you expect?” “What do I expect?” said Wilhelm. He felt as though he were unable to recover something. Like a ball in the surf, washed beyond reach, his self control was going out. “I expect help!” The words escaped him in a loud, wild, frantic cry and startled the old man, and two or three breakfasters within hearing glanced their way.”(pg. 50). In the beginning of the quotation, Dr. Alder asks the question that Wilhelm was waiting for him to ask for years, “What do you want from me?” It was Tommy`s chance to finally let it all out. Bellow describes this feeling with a ball being washed away in the beach, “beyond reach”. That ball represented the power he had over every frustrated thought or feeling, which were always kept to himself. The reader can practically feel this resentment finally reaching its limit, and how it all explodes in one single phrase, “I expect help!” The tone of these three words is strongly felt, mostly because of the exclamation mark, and the italicizing the word “help”. It was so sudden and out of place, that you could feel the awkward silence in the instant that followed. This was probably just the first step in Tommy`s evolution, or regeneration process.

Fatherly Love

It is at this point in the book where you begin to see a couple of the sources which cause Tommy`s unsatisfactory view of life. Most of them are in his own family. His wife Margaret, for example, doesn’t love him, and takes advantage of him by asking for large amounts of money to support their children. His feelings towards this are kept inside, simply accumulating until the point where Tommy might end up having a nervous breakdown. It is not his wife though, which causes the most remorse, but his father. Every son looks for the approval of their father, which normally requires hard work to attain. Although Tommy hadn`t really done much with his life, he still sought love from his dad, which was rarely granted. Dr. Alder (Tommy`s dad), is basically ashamed of what his son`s life has come to. He had accomplished great things during his day, and was very well known in the hotel Astoria. He hated to ruin his perfect image because of his unsuccessful son. Although Tommy appeared to view this situation as a lost case, deep inside he still wanted that father-son relationship which all happy families possessed. This makes me realize how serious bad parenting can be for a child. If only Dr. Alder had supported his son in the decisions he made, then Tommy would have probably developed more security and determination to succeed in life. Bellow gives several well described instances which perfectly show Tommy`s feelings towards his father. In chapter two, he writes the following, “Not long ago, his father had said to him in his usual affable, pleasant way, “Well, Wilky, here we are under the same roof again, after all these years.” Wilhelm was glad for an instant. At last they would talk over old times. But he was also on guard against insinuations. Wasn`t his father saying, “Why are you here in a hotel with me and not at home in Brooklyn with your wife and boys? You`re neither a widower or a bachelor. You have brought me all your confusions. What do you expect me to do with them?” ”(pg. 24). As you can see, Tommy is skeptical with every remark his father says. At the beginning of the quotation you can sense his desperate need to have a normal conversation with his dad. Once he begins to think about it though, he turns a perfectly normal and friendly statement, into a negative insinuation.

Going Nowhere

Not much has happened in the first fifteen pages of Seize the Day. We are only being introduced to a few characters, focusing mainly on Tommy Wilhelm. The story of his life is not one that we haven’t heard before. He never finished his education, hoping that one day he would become a famous Hollywood actor. His dad, a very successful and acknowledged doctor, obviously disapproved of his actions. The book is currently showing how Tommy eventually reached his forties and is now living in a hotel with his dad where mostly old and retired people stay. At this point of the story, I am simply waiting for something to happen, since the main character`s life seems to be quite dull and boring. This is will probably be the dominant tone in the story until Tommy actually changes his lifestyle. I can certainly relate this to the title though, Seize the Day, which basically means to take control of the moments and opportunities that life gives you. Tommy is doing practically the opposite of this. His life is greatly affected by his father’s criticism, which has greatly lowered his self esteem, making him think less of himself. The hotel he stays at, surrounds him of old people, who`s lives` are about to end. This represents the idea that Tommy`s life, just like those who he lives with, is not really going anywhere. The worst part of it all is that he has come to accept all of this and simply give up the dreams and aspirations he had as a young man. I am sure that at some point along the story, this middle aged, frustrated actor, will have some sort of anagnorisis, where he will realize where his life is headed. When this happens then exciting part of the book will begin.

Unfortunate Couples

Chapter nine in the Selfish Gene was very similar to chapter eight, and you can tell by the titles alone. Battle of the Generations, as I had explained in my last blog, was basically a competition between children over who would get the most parental investment. Battle of the sexes, on the other hand, talks about a competition between mates, or couples, over who gets to invest the least in their babies. It is in these two chapters where I begin to grasp the true selfishness of the selfish gene theory, and how it is applied much more to animals than to humans. Evidently, this has to do with the topic we had discussed in class a couple of days ago, where I was able to conclude that humans are a unique species on this planet thanks to our free will. According to the selfish gene, parents are more interested in having the most offspring possible than they are in actually taking care of them. Dawkins states, “Each individual wants as many surviving children as possible. The less he or she is obliged to invest in any one of those children, the more children he or she can have. The obvious way to achieve this desirable state of affairs is to induce your sexual partner to invest more than his or her fair share of resources in the child, leaving you free to have other children with other partners.” (Dawkins Pg. 146). This theory doesn’t have such a strong effect on humans as it does on animals. Our free will allows us to think what we wish to think, and do what we wish to do. If a single mother has a baby that she loves, she will probably take care of it instead of worrying about having more children with more men. In fact, many mothers decide to never have kids at all, using all types of contraceptives to avoid this. Although it is an act of selfishness, it is not the same as described in the book. In the case I described, mothers are more worried about themselves, whether they are still studying, working, or simply don’t wish to carry the burden of having a child to look after. Dawkins`s case of selfishness is when animals do certain things, like kill a sibling, or abandon a mate, just to increase their own possibility having the most amount of genes in the gene pool. This is generally the last thing on people`s minds. Nobody actually goes out into the world competing with each other to have the most amount children.

A Mother`s Love

I found this last chapter to be rather harsh. Its main focus was devoted to explain the genetics involved in motherly care towards their children. The book refers to this care as an “investment” on a child rather than true, genuine love or affection. Dawkins also convinces the reader that there is an optimum usage for this investment that should be taken into account whenever a female individual has children. If you were to ask a mother, which of her kids she loved the most, she would probably say that she loved them both equally. The Selfish Gene assures you that genetically speaking, this should happen. Sine a mother`s relatedness to her children is always equal, than her care should be invested equally amongst all of them. This is obviously a normal trait in a mother and I am not surprised to read it, it is when Dawkins begins to describe the case of runts which shocks me. For those who don’t know, a runt is an under-sized person or animal, who needs more attention, or parental investment than a normal child. This is Dawkins`s opinion on the topic, “Depending on the circumstances, it may pay a mother to refuse to feed a runt, and allocate all of his share of his parental investment to his brothers and sisters. Indeed, it may pay to feed him to his brothers and sisters, or to eat him herself, and use him to make milk.” (Dawkins Pg. 125). I am aware that the second sentence of this quotation is mainly directed towards animals, since a human mother who succumbs to cannibalism towards her own child in order to feed her other children is quite rare. The first sentence though, sounds like a possibility for humans. All of the cases that I have ever witnessed, involving a runt, handicapped, or disabled child, the mother usually shows more love and care towards them, in order to give the child the most normal life possible. But I am sure, that there are situations where not the same thing happens. There are people in this world, who don’t waste their time on a runt, and would rather focus that effort on normal children. However, I am sure that the gene which causes siblings to kill other siblings for more investment, or mothers to kill children to invest more in other children, is not nearly as common in humans as it is in animals.

Overpopulation

“For instance, the present population of Latin America is around 300 million … But if the population continued to increase at the present rate, it would take less than 500 years to reach the point where the people, packed in a standing position, formed a solid human carpet over the whole area of the continent.” (Dawkins Pg. 111).

This is Dawkins`s hypothetical situation about the earth`s future. Of course, he has taken into account the possibility that there will be famines, plagues, starvation, and other occurrences which will control the population of our planet.

This actually reminds of the famous English economist, Thomas Malthus, who stated that population grew much faster than food supply, implying that there wouldn’t be enough food to sustain everyone. His idea was discarded thanks to the green revolution, where new technology was created to produce a much larger supply of food compared to the amount of people. There are still Neo-Malthusians (contemporary geographers), which are taking Malthus`s theory back into account. Their arguments have to do exactly with what is quoted above.

Dawkins states that there is a solution to this problem, where we, as survival machines, are “guided by selfish genes, who most certainly cannot be expected to see into the future…” (Dawkins Pg. 111). Basically, he says that having too many children is a penalty. There are limited resources that a parent can provide for their child, meaning that only a certain amount of their children can become part of the healthy population. Ultimately, the genes for having many children never get passed on to the next generation in large numbers, since a very little amount of children containing these genes actually reach adulthood.

I can only assume that Dawkins is referring to third world countries with this theory, since it is in places like Latin America where people with very low resources are bearing more children than what they can afford. So what about the more developed countries where people do have enough income to bear many children? I have recently studied the situation of several generally rich countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Italy, where there is actually a negative increase in society. How does Dawkins explain this with the selfish gene theory? I know that in the case of Japan, fewer and fewer babies are being born each year because more women are getting jobs with salaries equivalent to those of an average male. Since they spend so much time at work, they don`t think about having kids. This shows that women are taking a bigger interest in themselves than in the survival of their kin, through which the selfish gene should be passed on. Once again I ask, how does Dawkins explain this?

Relatives and Relatedness

Relative and Relatedness

Identical Twin
1=100%
Sibling, Parent, Child
1/2=50%
Uncles/Aunts, Nephews/Nieces, Grandparent/child, Half brothers/sisters
1/4=25%
First cousins
1/8=12.5%
Second cousins
1/32=3.125%
Third cousins
1/128=.78125%

The facts that Dawkins has stated here, helped me clarify how genetically similar I was to each one of my family members. Although I don’t have an identical twin, I do have every other type of relative mentioned on this table. I honestly thought that I would be more closely related to my half brothers, than my aunts, uncles, and grandparents, since I have so much more in common with them than I do with most other relative of mine. I also never would have expected to have such a small genetic relationship with my second and third cousins. The percentage shows, that your relatedness with them, is almost the same thing as your relatedness with a complete stranger. The statistic which made me doubt the most though, was that identical twins are 100% similar to each other. Genetically yes, they are the same, but in terms of traits and personality, twins are very different. I have personally met several identical twins in my life, and could easily declare that one might be willing to save the other, while the other wouldn`t. In this case, would the altruistic gene be passed on to the next generation? This can probably be explained with how the environment affects people rather than their genes. There might be a possibility that the “Green Beard Altruism Effect” (mentioned on Pg. 89), will not always come into play for identical twins, even though the statistic says it should. They each develop minds of their own which ultimately influence their decision to be altruistic or not.

At the end of the chapter, Dawkins does assure this idea. He too, knows that the only person you are 100% related to is yourself. Therefore, he declares the following, "I contain 100 per cent of my genes...I am the only individual that any of my selfish genes can be sure of." (Dawkins Pg. 106).

The Smartest Fighter

Early in the chapter, Dawkins brings up a very interesting strategy, or mentality which comes up whenever two animals of the same species fight each other.

Suppose that B and C were also rivals. I would have been doing C a favor by killing his rival, in spite of the fact that we are rivals as well. The one who would win the most from this situation would be C, who gets one of his rivals killed without having to participate in the event at all. He was indirectly benefitted. Dawkins then explains the subconscious reasoning that all animals have before they get into a fight: “… the decision whether or not to fight should ideally be preceded by a complex, in unconscious, cost benefit calculation. … during a fight, each tactical decision over whether to escalate the fight or cool has costs and benefits which could, in principal, be analyzed.” (Dawkins Pg. 69). I find this to be very true. Before somebody risks their lives by engaging in a fight, they automatically work out all the possibilities in order to end up being the beneficial of the situation. Everyone always seeks to be the letter C in the previously mentioned situation. This pre-programmed strategy, introduced by Maynard Smith, is called evolutionary stable strategy.

More Memories

“A notable advance was the evolutionary ´invention´ of memory. By this device, the timing of muscle contractions could be influenced not only by events in the immediate past, but by events in the distant past as well. The memory, or store, is an essential part of s digital computer too. Computer memories are more reliable than human ones, but they are less capacious, and enormously less sophisticated in their techniques of information retrieval.” (Dawkins Pg. 50).

This passage from “The Selfish Gene” had an amazing resemblance with the radio lab that we heard in class a couple of weeks ago about memories. Although Dawkins`s idea is much less developed, both agree on several aspects. The first point that I would like to mention is the connection that they both make with computers. In the book, memories are said to be like computers in the sense that they both store memories. There are major differences however, such as the fact that although computer memories are more reliable, they are less capacious and sophisticated. The radio lab also stated a connection between human memories and computers, but also listed several more reasons why they differ. To begin with, memories are real, physical things, made up of proteins and neurons. Every time you bring back a memory, you are not remembering it, you are recreating it, and very time this happens, the memory changes a little bit. The more you use a memory the more it will change. In a computer, memories never change. With this text alone, I cannot be sure that Dawkins was aware of this fact. But he does explain how “the timing of muscle contractions could be influenced not only by events in the immediate past, but by events in the distant past as well”, showing more evidence that memories are existent things and how exactly they work in the brain.

The Power of Science

The beginning of Immortal Coils was quite challenging to understand. I had to reread several paragraphs over and over again in order to grasp a vague idea of what the author was trying to say. One of the ideas that confused me the most was the metaphor of the architect`s plans. Dawkins states: “I shall make use of the metaphor of the architect`s plans, freely mixing the language of the metaphor with the language of the real thing.” (Dawkins Pg. 22). He then defines what each term in the metaphor would mean in real life. It gets complicated though, when he begins to mention the several volumes of the different plans. This is one thing that he himself absolutely clear of: there are several files in this plan, each one representing different parts of a chromosome.

One thing I noticed, is that the book became more of what you would expect to hear in an average science class, than a reflection of the author`s thoughts. I actually did learn these topics in my science class this year. It was quite relieving to reach a point in the chapter where I clearly understood Dawkins`s flow of thoughts. This included all the talk about the alleles, and the dominant and recessive genes. I then began to consider the complexity of what it takes to make a baby, and how amazing nature is in doing so. As mentioned before, there is a huge amount of possibilities, or files which contain the baby`s potential genetic information. The chances that it will have blue eyes or brown eyes, red hair or black hair, light skin or dark skin, etc., are all genetically defined. And the most unbelievable part is thinking how we all started as one single cell, which eventually turned into millions of millions, of millions.

Survival of the Stable

How much of the things around us are stable enough to deserve a name? Are humans one of these things? Dawkins gives us certain classes of entities “such as rain drops, which come into existence at a sufficiently high rate to deserve a collective name, even if any one of them is short-lived.” (Dawkins, Pg. 12). Rain is just one of several examples, including rocks, galaxies, and even soap bubbles, which demonstrate stable patterns of atoms. None of them have changed for billions of years, and will probably stay the same for billions of more years. Their atoms have not found the need to change therefore, are completely stable. Of course, I am not sure how old these things are. For all we know, it might have taken the rock`s atoms much more time to find a stable pattern, than the time that is it has existed as what we call a rock. This theory of stableness, also explains why things tend to be the way they are. Dawkins states that: “Salt crystals tend to be cubes because this is a stable way of packing sodium and chloride ions together.” (Dawkins Pg. 12). What I want to know is whether or not these things have stopped evolving. I am certainly aware that in the state that things are right now, there is no need to change, but if conditions on earth were to alter, will these so called stable atoms eventually evolve? For example, “In the sun, the simplest atoms of all, hydrogen atoms, are fusing to form helium atoms, because in the conditions that prevail there the helium configuration is more stable.” (Dawkins Pg, 12). But what if the way that the sun gets to these atoms were to change? Then the “helium configuration” would not be stable anymore. In this case, there will probably be a need for change, or evolution, in order to restore the stable pattern.

Nature vs. Nurture

While reading the first chapter of “The Selfish Gene”, I couldn’t help pondering on the whole nature vs. nurture debate. Dawkins specifically states, however, that his intention in this novel was not to take sides in this “controversy”, although he does have an opinion on it. My guess until now is that Dawkins is more of a nature type person. My reasoning can begin with only the book`s title alone. Whenever a book is named after a topic in genetics, then it probably has to do with the idea that people are essentially defined by their nature instead of the environment they grow up in. Dawkins states that “the argument of this is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.” (pg. 3). How can the author mention something like this, and immediately on the next page say that he won`t defend the nature side of the debate? Later on in the chapter there are several more examples which give away his opinion.

Only a couple of weeks ago, I was reading the work of another great thinker, Jean Paul Sartre. This man was a philosopher while Dawkins is a scientist. “The Selfish Gene” actually reminded me of Sartre`s opinion on the nature vs. nurture topic. He says the man`s existence precedes his essence. In other words, every human defines who he or she is through actions. This obviously is an argument favoring the nurture side of the debate. Sartre shows no interest on the roll that genetics plays on a person, but focuses on the mind and power of choice. Of course, these are two very different people from very different times. I personally cannot take a definite side on the debate such as these men have, for I believe that there is no one factor which defines a human being.

Epictetus 3

“At each thing that happens to you remember to turn to yourself and ask what capacity you have for dealing with it.”

This piece, I believe, is an idea which has occurred to allot of people in several situations, but has never been expressed in the way Epictetus describes it. Being able to put such a common but unsaid idea into words, such as these, is what makes a true genius. Most of Epictetus’s teachings were thoughts which pondered in the back of people`s heads, but were never really let out. This man actually had the intelligence and knowledge to notice these things and state them in words.

Turning back to the phrase, I agree with it completely. Whenever you face a challenge, you must first determine whether or not you have the capability of facing it, and if so, what this capability is. One must start to develop the patience necessary to stop and think about a problem, clarifying what you’re up against and the power you have to resolve it. Once this is done, then you can take action and control the situation. Remember, always think before you act.

Epictetus 2

“What upset people is not things themselves but their judgment about things.”

This phrase captures the essence of Epictetus’s teachings. It is a very wise thing to say, and applies to many people. Usually, when something bad happens, people believe they get sad because of that event, but never consider that it is their judgment which is negative. If people could only change their view of the tragic moments in life, then they wouldn`t have to suffer. Epictetus used the example of death in his writing, which is generally a painful topic to people. He says that “death is nothing dreadful”, we make it dreadful.

In the book Slaughterhouse Five, the Tralfamadorians also have a painless view of dreadful moments. This is because they can see in the fourth dimension, where every moment of the past present and future is visible. They say, for example, that whenever they see a dead body, they think: “…that the dead person is in a bad condition in that particular moment, but that the same person is fine in plenty of other moments.” (pg.27). In a way, the Tralfamadorians follow Epictetus`s teachings by having a different judgment on certain things than what an average human would.

Epictetus 1

“So detach your aversion from everything not up to us, and transfer it to what is against nature among the things that are up to us.”

This piece is advising us to simply put matters, which might bring us misfortunes, into out own hands. Although a very obvious idea, many people refuse to follow it. Specially those who believe in luck, or are very dependent on God, tend to end up attaching their aversions to everything not up to them. For example, when a big gambler is feeling lucky, he may put all his money in risk. It is not up to him to win or loose, and the outcome just might ruin his life.

If you work for your money instead, then the matter is all in your hands. The more you decide to work, the more money you will get, and vice versa. You have the power to control the situation without depending on some irrational force to help you.

There is passage in Slaughterhouse five which relates to this concept. “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom always to tell the difference.” (pg. 60). Although Epictetus is telling us to transfer the aversions that you are unable to change into things that are up to us, Kurt Vonnegut (or whoever wrote the passage), says that people should accept the things that they are unable to change instead of actually doing something about it. I would personally choose Epictetus’s proactive concept.

Slaughterhouse Five Quotation Analyzation

“People aren’t supposed to look back. I’m certainly not going to do it anymore.”

At this point of the book, the narrator is proposing something that he plans to carry out through the entire novel. After spending an entire chapter trying to “look back” into his old war memories, hoping to write a story about them, Vonnegut (narrator) decides to make a different approach towards the situation. Obviously, he wasn’t going to continue using himself as the center of attention, therefore created Billy Pilgrim, a character who didn’t need to “look back” into his memories. Pilgrim, was a very unique individual who could actually go back (and forth) in time instead of having to look, or remember. 

“He has seen his birth and death many times, he says, and pays random visits to the events in between.”

This quotation, is referring to Billy Pilgrim, who we know has the ability to travel in time and re-live several moments of his life. Although everyone has obviously experienced birth, nobody has seen their death. Its probably true, that by knowing how you’re going to die, the moment is made less painful. In a matter of fact, any depressing moment which we can foresee, is allot more bearable. Without pain though, there would be no feelings at all, including happiness, pleasure, or love. Billy Pilgrim did end up living a emotionless life, feeling either pain or warmth in the moments throughout his life. 

“It begins like this: Listen: Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time. It ends like this: Po-tee-weet?”

Here, the narrator is stating the first and last sentences of the book he is planning to write. He mentions the words “unstuck in time”, which means to have the ability to travel through the past present and future, instead of always being stuck in the present (like we all are). Maybe the author’s intention with this piece, was to make the reader unstuck in time by giving a peek into the beginning and the end, without even starting the story. In is the moments in between which we know must find out, and discover why the last sentence was “Po-tee-weet?”

Stuck in Time

“People aren`t supposed to look back. I`m certainly not going to do it anymore. ” (pg.22). Although we have reached the end of the book, it is necessary to go back to the first chapter to clear up doubts and questions. Both these parts of the story are told by the same mysterious person, who in class we assumed was Vonnegut himself. Only after reading the entire novel though, was I was able to have an anagnorisis connecting this person to Billy Pilgrim. The previously mentioned quote specifically states that the narrator of the story will not look back in time, and immediately after, introduces us to Billy. The entire first chapter of the book is about this speaker trying to recall all his old Dresden memories, but fails in doing so. In class, we listened to a radio lab which proved that the more you try to recreate a memory, the more it will change. Maybe this is why Billy Pilgrim was created. Instead of having to remember, or recreate each of his memories, he would actually re-live them by going back in time, eliminating the need to “look back”.

The narrator in the first chapter confuses the reader with incoherent memories. This man is a representation of all of us who are “stuck” in time, unlike Billy who is “unstuck”. I hadn’t understood the significance of this idea until now. We, who require the need to recreate our memories, are stuck in one moment and cannot get out of it. Billy and the Tralfamadorians on the other hand, live in every moment from the past present and future.

The book even allows the reader to become unstuck in time during the final five lines of chapter one, where the story`s very first sentence is told, as well as its last.

“It begins like this:
Listen: Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time.
It ends like this:
Po-tee-weet?” (pg.22)

Destiny?

At the end of chapter nine, we come across a passage which we had already seen in chapter three:

God Grant me
The serenity to accept
The things I cannot change
Courage
To change the things I can
And wisdom always
To tell the difference.

It was first mentioned when Billy travels back in time to his optometry office. The passage was framed on his wall to give his patients hope. In chapter nine though, it was engraved in Montana Wildhack`s locket. I don’t believe that it was simply coincidence that these two characters happened to end up as captives in Tralfamadore. This passage had to have meant something for Billy, Montana, and most importantly, the Tralfamadorians. Although I am not sure yet, I think it has something to do with the following phrase from chapter three: “Among the things that Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future.” It all relates to time and free will. Maybe this explains the serene attitude that Billy adopts throughout the entire novel, even when he is capture and brought to another planet. He always keeps calm and accepts things the way they are, because he knows that time is something that cannot be changed. But how would this relate to Montana? On earth, she was no more than a superficial teenage movie star, who would occasionally make adult films. She`s not different from other humans in the way Billy is, therefore makes no sense why she was chosen over anybody else.

There is another way to think about this situation though, and it is by eliminating the theory that there was a reason behind it all. On the night that Billy was kidnapped, he asked the Tralfamadorians why they had picked him. Their answer was: “Because the moment simply is…Well here we are, Mr. Pilgrim, trapped in the amber of this moment. There is no why.” Maybe there is no explanation behind this, other than the fact that the moment was simply meant to happen.

I personally doubt the Tralfamadorian reasoning, for I am sure that there is more mystery to life and to this book than what may be told. Unfortunately, I was unable to find an explanation, in order to make all the pieces of the puzzle.

Survival in the Slaughterhouse

In chapter eight, a very paradoxical situation comes up. We had already found the meaning of the book’s title “slaughterhouse Five”, when the American prisoners were brought to Dresden, and kept in the fifth building of a slaughterhouse. By the name alone, you can assume that these slaughterhouses were violent places. They were, in fact, used to butcher animals. The truth though, is that this place kept the soldiers safe during the night that Dresden was bombed. Throughout the entire book, I had assumed that the slaughterhouse represented torture or suppression, rather than safety. It kept Billy and the author of the book alive, and able to tell the story, while millions of Germans died in the bombing. “He was down in the meat locker on the night that Dresden was destroyed. There were sounds like giant footsteps above. Those were sticks of high-explosive bombs. The giants walked and walked. The meat locker was a very safe shelter.” (pg. 177).

Real Soldiers

On the seventh chapter of Slaughterhouse Five, Edgar, Billy, and Gluck (the German boy guarding them) come across a war widow in the slaughterhouse kitchen. She said the Gluck was too young to be in the army, and Edgar was too old, she then turned to Billy and didn`t really know what to make of him. ““All the real soldiers are dead”, she said. It was true. So it goes.” (pg. 159). Having lost her husband to the war, this widow must have felt disappointed to see that the army had run out of brave war heroes, and were now abundant in these strange looking soldiers. In probably all wars, the bravest die first while the least devoted live on. Derby, who should have been viewed as an honorable participant of WWII, was instead judged inappropriate, but anyone at that age who chooses to fight for his country, should be considered a “real soldier”. The American army in this novel however, was described by several people from foreign countries (including Englishmen, and German war widow), as a miserable and disgraceful sight. Even I would consider most of the characters introduced to us as inadequate to represent the United States in war.

Revenge

“”Anybody ever asks you what the sweetest thing in life is”-said Lazzaro, “it`s revenge.”” (pg. 139) These were the words of Paul Lazzaro, a very despiteful character in the novel. As a friend of the young Roland Weary (another disliked character), he`s overall view of life is morally incorrect. He swears revenge on two people throughout the chapter. One of them is Billy, for supposedly being responsible for Weary`s death. The other, is the Englishman who played the part of the fairy godmother in the play, for breaking Lazzaro`s arm when he found the man trying to steal a box of cigarettes from under his pillow. None of these reasons justify the need for revenge. People like Lazzaro though, who cannot, under any circumstance bare humiliation, should be pittied. These are the insecure, self rejected and pathetic beings of a society. I would never trust a man like this a war with my life. The opposite personality of Paul Lazzaro, would probably be Edgar Derby, the honorable soldier who accompanied Billy through his entire stay at the hospital, and is named leader of the Americans by the end of the chapter.

Knowing the Future

Chapter five begins to get into deeper descriptions of Billy`s life in Tralfamador. At one point, he asks a Tralfamadorian guide to reveal their secrets of how to be a peaceful planet, since he believes that Earth`s violence could lead to the end of the universe. Humored with the idea, he responds the following: “”We know how the universe ends-” said the guide. “We blow it up experimenting with new fuels for our flying saucers.”” (pg. 117) The interesting part is that the guide says this without the slightest sign of worry or fear. The first reaction that humans would get, if ever the apocalypse were revealed to us, would be global chaos and turmoil. We would make useless attempts to prevent a disaster that is bound to happen, not being able to see that the future is the future no matter what decisions are made. This topic though, has a significant relation to the free will issue. Being able to see the future, takes away all sense of life that our race is defined by. Curiosity, mystery, aspiration, and most importantly, free will, would be out of our minds. Of course, death and other depressing matters would cause no pain, but the things that give us happiness and pleasure, would just as well mean absolutely nothing. I personally, cannot live knowing when my life or the entire universe will come to an end. What is the point? Is an entire life worth living if you know exactly who you`re going to be, and how you`re going to become it?

Free Will

“You sound to me as though you don’t believe in free will,” said Billy Pilgrim. “If I hadn’t spent so much time studying Earthlings,” said the Tralfamadorian, “I wouldn’t have an idea what was meant by free will. I`ve visited thirty-one inhabited planets in the universe, and I have studied reports on one hundred more. Only on Earth is there any talk of free will.” (pg 86. Slaughterhouse Five)

The act of free will, according to the bible, was first “committed” by Adam, when he took an apple from the forbidden tree. Supposedly, humans used to live in the Garden of Eden, a beautiful paradise and home, but were kicked out thanks to this unforgiving act of simple curiosity. In both Slaughterhouse Five, and the bible, powers greater than us have criticized us for possessing the power of choice and liberty. Is it so wrong? Is it so human to have free will? Undoubtedly, many would consider free will to be a gift, maybe even from God. It has brought us to be the Earth`s most powerful species, making greater and greater advancements by the year. This “gift”, also allows us to think, progress, and help others. Of course though, with great power comes great responsibility, and along with this “gift”, an undefeatable evil surged as well. The book Dante`s Inferno, gives us a clear example of the malevolence that comes with free will. Lustfulness, violence, fraud, and betrayal, are just a few of several actions that occur by the millions, all around the world.

We are a unique species, one of a kind out of several planets in the universe (according to slaughterhouse five). Although there are several reasons why we should believe that free will is a gift, it just might end up becoming a curse.

The Relm of Possibilities

God grant me
The serenity to accept
The things I cannot change
Courage
To change the things I can
And wisdom always
To tell the difference.

This is a passage that can be found on pg 60 of the third chapter of Slaughterhouse Five. Although I find this to be an amazing quote, I wouldn`t say that it applies to many people. I personally can`t really tell the things I am able to change from the things I am not. Nowadays, our world`s youth (specially) is surrounded by other quotes and maxims that completely contradict this one, and actually make us believe that anything is possible. For example, one of Adidas`s most famous slogans is “impossible is nothing”. This phrase, I’m sure, has played a huge effect on millions of people, making them believe that if they buy Adidas products, then anything in sports can be done. This is despite the fact that a person can have absolutely no athletic talent. There are much more though, that we have all heard: “never say never”, “Impossible is not a scientific quote”, and so on. Some people just cannot admit that they are unable to do something, but what I think is worse, are those who simply never try. How would the world`s greatest discoveries and accomplishments been made, if the people doing them were too serene to believe that they were possible? What if, after two years of failed attempts and over six thousand different models, Thomas Edison had realized that he was unable to make a light bulb? What I`m trying to say, is that it is good to know and admit your boundaries, but don’t let them hold you back from anything.

A Clash of Personalities

In this second chapter, many important characters come up, such as Billy Pilgrim, who I would consider to be the protagonist of the story, and Roland Weary. Both these figures have very distinct and opposite personalities. On one hand, there is the serene, peaceful and completely innocent nature of Billy Pilgrim, who eventually meets Roland Weary, a very twisted, low tempered, and grumpy eighteen year old boy. I believe that these are good examples of extreme personalities which every well rounded human being tries hard not to adopt. People who are as pushed over as Billy is, only end up being stepped on and taken advantage of. However, those who lean more towards Weary`s unpleasant attitude, tend to be ditched allot. Every day and anywhere we go, people like this can be found. None of us though, should ever take up any of these unrewarding mentalities, but should aspire to become that balanced person, who knows how to stand up for him/herself and at the same time, isn’t stuck up or ill-tempered towards others. The events in the book though, are made much more interesting thanks to this very unique clash. The reader also ends up finding out just how much these characters depend on one another to balance out their weaknesses.

Who is I?

The first chapter of the book Slaughterhouse Five, was a very peculiar way to start a novel, consisting of several incomplete and confusing ideas. It is told in the first person, but very little assumptions can be made about the narrator. He always refers to himself as “I”, but never mentions any name. At this point, there are only two guesses of whom this mysterious speaker could be: a character, or the author himself. In an attempt to eliminate one of these two options, I made a brief research on the biography of Kurt Vonnegut. Turns out that he did experience practically all of the events that the book`s narrator went through, including the participation in World War II as a soldier and a prisoner (in Dresden), the witnessing of the fire bombing in Dresden, and the mere fact that both of them are writers. Although these connections do favor the idea that the narrator is Kurt Vonnegut, the possibility always exists that the events in the author `s life were simply an inspiration for writing the book. Despite it all we can definitely state that Slaughterhouse Five was written on a very personal level, and was written upon several of Vonnegut`s life experiences.

Definitions

Redolent: Emitting smell; Suggestion.

Disparate: Different in kind of character.

Janus-faced: Having contrast or polarities.

Sloughed-off: Rub something off; Ignore a negative happening.

Essay: Short piece of writing, written from the author`s point of view.

Benign: Kind and gentle disposition.

Answers to Blog Questions

1. There are many differences between a blog and a book. Books, first of all, are organized, take time to read, and have a given amount information to read. Blogs, on the other hand, are unorganized, concise in most cases, and can take you to infinite amounts of links or related topic, grabbing whatever they want from whatever they want.

2. Blogging has recently changed, mostly because early bloggers wouldn't show much commentary, but instead, would offer place names and coordinates on the web. Other than this you could say that blogging has become much more popular now than when it started back in the early 1980s. Nowadays, hundreds of millions of people all around the world use blogs for a much wider variety of reasons, such as politics, gossips, pictures, etc.

3. I might have read a blog in the past for a couple of reasons. Mainly it could have been because I was searching for different opinions or arguments on big issues or projects going on at the time. Honestly though, I haven't gotten fully used o blogs, and will usually browse for other internet pages when seeking information. 

4. I actually do believe that there is reason to doubt a blog's objectivity. In my opinion, I would say that most blogs are completely subjective and give personal, biased opinion. Specially in cases such as politics, or book reflections (like we will be doing in this class), the writer will always write what he or she is thinking. This opposes the idea that blogs are objective.    

5. http://everydayplaystation.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/dantes-inferno-god-of-war-meets-dead-space/-Dante's Inferno

http://www.creativereview.co.uk/crblog/obey-george-orwell/-1984

http://jason451.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/fire-burns-orange/- A Clockwork Orange