They get married....and then they do it!

Well, we now find out about Rochester and how his father is refusing to give him money. He's sort of forced to marry Antoinette and really has no other choice. But, at least he get's paid about 30,000 pounds to do it. At this point they're really getting to know each other but also realizing that they are very different. Rochester is more interested in money and social class while Antoinette is more kind hearted. Rochester does seem to view her as fairly beautiful and also has lust for her, not love. The novel then continues to have scenes with fire in it, so I'm guessing this a pretty obvious motif that you can tie into Jane Eyre and WSS. Rhys probably switches points of view so we can also learn about Rochester's story and how he has arrived at this point. It pretty much just gives you more insight.

Oh boy, it's been a while.

Sweet! We finally get to read more about Bertha ( the AIDS ). At first I was like whaaat? This dude got some chick locked up in his attic. And now finally, we get to see her side of the story.

At first it starts off with us being introduced to her family. We automatically find out that the other white's and also blacks in Spanish Town don't neccessarily like Antoinette and her family. They say that her mother, Annette, is way too young and pretty for her father but come on. No such thing as too young, bro. Ha, totally kidding but yeah. The guy has game so they shouldn't hate. Antoinette always seems to wonder about why people never come to visit  them and her mom just gives some excuse about how the roads aren't so great to travel on. Um, Antoinette seems to find her mom's horse dead under a tree and she soon finds out that he was poisoned. We're introduced to Christophine and a few others. We meet Pierre, Antoinette's disabled younger brother. Her mom get's a new horse from some more white people. She goes to town a lot. She meets Mr. Mason, they get married, blah blah blah. Eventually their house is set on fire by angry black people which ends up killing Pierre. Antoinette get's sick for a few weeks, she goes to see her mother but soon finds out that she has become increasingly violent so she ends up going to some Spanish covenent. Mr. Mason arranges for her to get married and we pretty much leave off from there.

Now, for starters, slow down! I'm kind of having trouble keeping up with everything. It's pretty fast paced cause it's like one night her mom is out dancing and the next she's getting married? Anyway, I definitely see some connections to this and Jane Eyre. For starters, the setting of where Rochester meets Antoinette and how it's going to be an arranged marriage. Also the foreshadowing of how Annette goes crazy after the death of her son.

Guys, come on. I swear I'm not crazy!

Well, bad news guys... my test results suggested that I have strong psychopathic tendencies. DUN DUN DUNNN. But no. I'm totally messing around. Got you there, didn't I? ;) Probably not. You guys know I'm harmless. Anyway, all I have to say is WOW. Sitting through a whole hour of people talking and talking. Thanks Mr. B! It was pretty interesting though. The first part talked about Robert Dixon, I think, who was charged for being an accessory to murder and got like 15 to life. Yeah, pretty insane for just standing around while some guy got shot. Anyway, they did one of those tests on him or whatever and it said that his psychopathic tendencies were seriously high. 73% more higher than the rest of the waco's took that test. Some of the people said that the test is unreliable though because it's determined too much on past events and such which I kinda sorta agree with. Second act is on Jon Ronson investigating whether or not corporate leaders can be psychopaths. The test results for all of them were in fact all zero's. Meaning none of them had psychopathic tendencies. Which is awesome cause a radio show run by psycho's? Yeah, sounds a little weird to me. :)

Crime. Yep, just crime.

The connections between Crime & Punishment, The Minority Report, the article, and the lyrics is pretty obvious; they are all about crime. Hence, my title.

The Minority Report discusses the system of precrime (which should sound pretty obvious). The police force has the authority to arrest criminals even before they commit the crime. Relying on information from vegetable state sources. They are considered "stupid and retarded", and also heavily deformed. Anderton, the head commissioner, finds him self in a dilemma. One of the cards read his name and say he is plotting to murder Leopold Kaplan. A retired military general. Anderton, not even knowing who this man was, panics and tries to leave. Kaplans men get a hold of him and he then is met with him. He says that he is going to turn him in, for his own safety. But he then later finds out that Kaplan is behind the whole plot, framing him in an attempt to regain Army control. The minority report reads that Anderton had changed his mind, therefore Kaplan was in no real danger, but Anderton ends up killing him anyway to make sure the precrime system isn't discredited. I definitely can see a connection between this and Crime & Punishment. It seems as if everything we do based off of society's perspective. I mean, seriously? Locking up people who are innocent, but MIGHT commit a crime in the future? I find that rather unfair. I don't know if it's just me but I'm okay with the system we have now. I just don't feel as if information like that is liable from three vegetables.

The lyrics for "I don't like Monday's" kinda sorta disturb me in a way? A 16 year old girl going on a shooting spree? For what reason? She's probably kinda nuts. And I'm guessing she doesn't like Monday's? Or this occurred on  a Monday? Who knows. It kinda confuses me but I guess in a way there is a connection. Raskolnikov didn't like the old lady, so he killed her. Oh joy. Another story of a psycho.

Now the article, I can make the best connection out of. It talks of criminals and how their brain varies in different to those who don't commit crimes. Studies are done to show that people with antisocial personality disorder have a higher risk of committing crimes, considering that they don't have a feeling for what's right and what's wrong, although they do know the two apart. Should you really charge someone who commits the crime if they have no sense of guilt or remorse for it? I don't think it's fair, in a sense. If they don't feel emotion for it, how can it be a crime to them? What are ethics to judge a persons sense of right and wrong? Sure, society places great dismay on psychopaths but like the article states; did they really choose to be born that way? I see a connection in this and Crime & Punishment by the fact that Raskolnikov is afraid of being judged by society for his actions but he is already judging himself. He of course feels guilt and emotion for what he has done, clearly not being a psychopath. So then why did he do it? I don't know. Maybe he was fated to kill her. Just maybe.

The criminals mind is one heck of an interesting place and all 3 of these sources seem to somehow fit and be in tune with one another. Some are fated and some are just crazy. Either way though, a crime is still a crime, no matter who's ethics you're looking at.

Redemption. (You know, that one movie with the black guy? I think?)

Raskolnikov definitely seems to be going a bit loco. He's clearly starting to give off clues by being delusional when talking to the inspector, claiming he knows quite a bit about the murders. (Oh, I'm sure he does.) He nearly gives off clues that might lead the police to consider him a suspect but they just simply think that he's gone mad. Which in a way I guess is good for Raskolnikov. It's quite evident that Luzhin is a total prick. Cocky and full of himself. Always trying to make a point about something he probably knows nothing about. Raskolnikov and Razumikhin are clearly not impressed with this guys attitude and eventually get him angry enough that he runs out. On a more sentimental note, Marmeladov is dying. He was trampled by horses and there's definitely no way he is going to survive. He dies in the arms of Sonya, his daughter. Raskolnikov seems to be quite caring to the family. Giving them 20 rubles and heading out back home. He considers him self partially redeemed. He then visits Razumikhin who is slightly drunk, tells Rasko that Zassimov believes he is mad. Raskolinikov then becomes faint. He and Razumikhin return to his room where Pulcheria and Dunya are waiting for him. They are quite sad to hear about his condition but then he ends up just passing out.

So, let's get this straight here. Just because he commits one good deed, he's already considering himself partially redeemed? In a way, yes, he did do a good thing by giving them 20 rubles but that still doesn't account for the fact that you murdered 2 innocent people! What he did was terrible and I don't feel as if he can be redeemed. Maybe a life time full of guilt and suffering sounds pretty good, don't you think? Sure he might be all messed up for the rest of his life but he deserves it.

I'd definitely have to say that what mostly influences my values is common sense. It SHOULD be common sense that killing people is wrong. Even if they aren't innocent. Let them face their own fate. Don't play the role of God by taking it into your own hands.

(Title goes here)

Dostoevsky makes distinct connections between his own life and the life of Raskolnikov, also the setting in which the story takes place. He was born in Moscow, not moving to St. Petersburg until the age of 16. (Hence the setting of the novel). His father worked at a hospital that helped the poor. They also lived in an apartment on hospital grounds and Dostoevsky took a particular interest in the patients and hearing out their stories. Anyway, this connects with the novel because Raskolnikov doesn't necessarily seem to be in the right state of mind. (Well, that's kind of obvious). Also the setting seems to be drawn from Dostoevsky's time on the hospital grounds.

Now for this: Is it a crime if you do it for good reasons? I mean, sure. I'm pretty positive that everybody who commits a crime has good reason for it. Unless they're completely mental but everyone tries to take that plea of insanity now a days. Own up for your actions, dude. Sure, they might not be no John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy but whatever your reason for a crime, no matter how small it is, it's still a crime. For example, Raskolnikov killed the old lady. Like, okay, I get it (she was a total b!*@ch) but does that honestly give you reason to go hacking away at her head? Yeah, I didn't think so. What if the old lady disliked you and hated you? You think she'd want to kill you? No, because she's SANE. I get it though, you're getting all of these hints and clues. Like, "dude, I totally found an axe and heard someone say that the world would be a better place without her, blah blah blah." But seriously? Taking it into your own hands to murder her? She was pretty old anyway so I'm sure she would've died sometime soon. So no, I really don't think that ANYBODY has a justifiable reason for killing anyone.Sure, she rips people off but I'm sure anyone living in such a poor state would do almost anything to get by.  Do you know Alyona's living situation? Maybe what she goes through? It's hard times, man. People have to get by somehow. Sure, she rips people off but I'm sure anyone living in such a poor state would do almost anything to get by.

Crime And Punishment: Part 1

So far in Dostoevsky's, Crime And Punishment, we are introduced to a young man. Seemingly, well, clearly depressed, he is dreading the sight of walking into his land lady. He owes her a pretty  hefty amount of money for rent but can't seem to pay it. He is described as being in a nervous state of depression, secluding himself to the outside world and avoiding as much human contact as possible. He rambles on and on to himself about a plan. Unsure if he wants to commit it or not, he seems to dismiss it. But as he soon realizes, he constantly finds himself thinking of taking action, yet being disgusted by it. He then goes to the old lady, a pawnbroker, and we are then introduced to the young man as Raskolnikov.
He finds himself pawning his watch in exchange for money, but knowing he has double ended intentions. He observes her office, plotting even more. He also sees that he is giving away money like it's nothing, even though he is heavily in debt. The story seems to be told from a third person point of view, but I can't tell if it's omniscient or limited. The mood is set as rather depressing, regarding his situation but at times a bit suspenseful, considering the action of what he wants to do.  

Quotations from, The Road.

So far in reading, The Road, I've definitely come across some memorable quotes. Either in the fathers head or something he says to the boy. Or maybe through a flashback. One of them include, "The world shrinking down about a raw core of parsible entities. The names of things slowly following those things into oblivion. Colors. The names of birds. Things to eat. Finally the names of things one believed to be true. More fragile than he would have thought. How much was gone already? The sacred idiom shorn of its referents and so of its reality." ( page 75 ) is talking about how the post apocalyptic world has been reduced to it's basic elements and for it to be complex, it would be a luxury. The more sophisticated aspects of human civilization have been erased completely and what once was is slowly being forgotten. Also, truths and customs involving human life have been completely lost. The concepts of that day that once were, now have no human meaning to them.

Another quote I'd like to discuss would be, 

"He walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun in their running. The crushing black vacuum of the universe. And somewhere two hunted animals trembling like groundfoxes in their cover. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it." ( page 110 ) This desolate passage is reveling the indifference of the universe to the man. A condition that he takes to be 'the absolute truth of the world'. The earth still continues to revolve 'cold' and 'relentless'.  It is saying that the survivors only exist for the moment somehow, the hunted animals could possibly represent the man and the boy. Living in spite of the universe's disinterest, witnessing this wasteland with their fleeting lives.

The Road, Part 1 I guess? Sure.

The Road starts off by already giving you that post apocalyptic type feel to it. The way the man reacts when he wakes, automatically reaching for the boy, just to know he's there. By their relationship so far, you can most certainly tell that this is his son. The world they live in now, desolate and scorched. Nothing but ash and death, lingering in the air. From what I have read so far, it seems that if doubt plays a big role in the son and man's relationship. The boy asking his father, "If I died, what would you do?". "I'd want to die too." He responds. Conveys a sense of bond between them. The man claiming that only the boy is his warrant and that he's the only object in between him and death.

 The post apocalyptic genre describes a world after a terrible tragedy, such as a nuclear war or "the end of the world" as some may suggest. Where civilization is either completely wiped from the face of the earth or significantly reduced.  Some works that might include this genre would be: Children Of Men, The Road, Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, On The Beach, and, 28 Days Later. Some video games that also feature a post apocalyptic type world would be: Fallout, Gears Of War, Left 4 Dead, and, Burntime. The sub-genre of sci fi fits into dystopian fiction by being placed in the future and describing the advancing technology, which in term is our downfall. Movies that could possibly combine the post apocalyptic sub-genre with dystopian fiction would be: The Matrix, The Terminator, and, Dark City. 

As For McCarthy's particular prose style, I'd have to say it's rather suspenseful. I tend to find myself getting lost in the book, even with the fragmented sentences and lack of punctuation. It definitely makes me feel as if it is very desolate, like the world they live in.

End of the "Brave New World"?

As the novel comes to an end, I have to say that I wasn't rather surprised. Not to imply that I expected John to commit suicide but what more was there for a savage to do? To him, society was corrupt and immoral and knowing he had been apart of it, death would have been the only luxury in a time so fraudulent. He simply asked for was seclusion. A part of not being a part of their society but reporters kept rushing to exploit this savages actions. Whipping himself for his wrong doings, he becomes angry at the amount of people showing up. He whips Lenina in front of everybody while the other mimic his actions, encouraging  him to keep going. Maybe this is a start in straying away from their regular conformity and into something more "uncivilized"? On the amount of soma they were probably strung out on, I doubt it.

I believe that Huxley did a remarkable thing in capturing the hypocrisy of society, being related to the 1920's, right around the time of the assembly line and Ford motor cars. Largely criticizing consumerism. His tone is at times satirical and also awkward. Displaying the characters emotions of uncertainty to new situations. His aspects on sex, religion, society, all seems to satirize the peoples way of being so quickly taken advantage of and changed, all for a cost greater than what they could offer. Their life.

Is Science Ethical?

In response the Freeman Dyson's, Can Science Be Ethical?, Brave New World, and, Harrison Bergeron, the topic of advancing technology and ethics has been brought forth. Dyson gives numbers of examples of technology, merely describing them as toys for the rich. Do these advancements merely serve no other purpose than to make the rich richer and widen the gap between rich and poor? It's arguable but Dyson refers to it as an "evil" amongst our technology. But unfortunately, only nuclear energy has been recognized as the true evil here. In Brave New World, genetical engineering might be recognized to some such as John and other savages as the true evil. For Harrison Bergeron, the governments way of using technology to suppress the individual is viewed as evil to Harrison. Being a young man of above average looks, height, muscle mass, oh no, the government simply cannot have it. Although equality is in place through this use of technology, does it necessarily make people happy? Anyway. In Dyson's article, he mentions another form of technology which exists that lessens the gap between higher and lower classes.  He gives credit to the motorcycle, which was developed in Europe during the first decade of the twentieth century. Although these advances in technology offer humanity a way to reach immeasurable heights, is it worth the cost of your morality? Not to mention it destroying the little hope that is left for the lower classes.  He ends his article with words of hope for our future, "Knowledge of physical science will not console me for ignorance of morality in time of affliction, but knowledge of morality will always console me for ignorance of physical science."

BNW/ Gamer

"Brave New World" exemplifies the dystopian genre by seemingly creating a stable, sane, none chaotic world controlled by leaders and closely monitored in order to maintain their own sense of a "utopia". In many ways this is a dystopia because of the way the humans are engineered to feel certain feelings and think certain thoughts. If they feel anything out of the ordinary, they are prescribed to take soma, to do away with those feelings which are considered abnormal in their society. Those who do not coincide with those regulations are in term exiled. In ways, their "perfect" society is morally correct to them. Having children participate in sexual behavior. Making them do it, actually. Synthesizing the perfect embryo's to ripen and blossom into what they want them to be, all for a sense of a stable world? I couldn't abide in that form of a world. I'd rather live a life that's chaotic, erratic, unstable, and have my own free will. Be able to make mistakes and not be perfect and precise like most expect it to be. This piece of literature mostly reminds me of a movie that I've seen a few years back. Entitled, Gamer, where participants control humans online in a game, but the bargain is that persons life. This very eccentric leader of this dystopia, Ken Castle, has seemingly designed a way to control people's minds fully. Revolutionizing the gaming industry with self replicating nanites that replace existing brain cells and allow full control of motor skills by the third party, the person controlling the gamer. Since the story is set in the future, there are different versions to play this game. Society, in which a person gets to control another person in pseudo society. All in all, it revolves around a convict, being controlled and put through 30 levels, in which he will be released if he manages to stay alive through it all. He somehow finds a way out of this demented game and back into the real world, not previously knowing that there was an underground society secretly plotting against the world under siege by the technological industry. He goes after Ken Castle, eventually killing him and restoring some type of order and free will to their world. This work of literature and film mostly have in common the dystopian genre. Wanting more out of society. Wondering what else is out there other than what is expected of them and wanting to pursue their own sense of free will. The filmmakers most likely chose to go with this type of genre because most people in our society conform to it just because they feel as if they have no other choice. That everyone expects something out of you all in place of what the world has set out in front of them. For them to be scholars and athletes. Mathematicians, scientists, doctors or any other high end career that so overly stereo typical of what America expects out of it's society just because they believe it will convey a sense of peace or morality to others aspiring to be those things.  In my opinion, we don't necessarily live in a dystopia but it's far from being a utopia.