Awaiking to a Memory

Our memory is perhaps the most valuable thing we own. I learned this as I read Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino. It is as if the book were a memory itself. What is contained within the pages is more than journey, a story. It is a collection of embellished thoughts that speak of the beauty of innumerable places that in the end come together to truly make up one. I find this relates to the movie Waking Life in the sense that it speaks of places and events as if they were unreal. The reader is inclined to question himself, wondering whether what Marco Polo is describing truly exists, or is simply a dream, a memory. In the movie, the observer also finds himself perplexed by the complexity of the situations he comes across as he watches. So many questions about life are posed: we wonder whether life is real or if it’s simply, as Polo’s journey merely a dream, a memory. Dreams are representations, interpretations of a truth we sometimes are unaware of. Memories are very much like this, and as we previously studied, they are recreations of moments. Every time we remember, we are reliving.

I find that what relates more with the book lies within what is being said in the movie than what is being seen. However, there is also an important message being transmitted through the composition of each screenshot. The way in which the animated characters come to seem real at a certain point, is fascinating. I believe this relates a great deal to what the movie pretends to communicate to us. The world of Waking Life is a painting whose colours become a blur at times. It is made to make the observer concentrate on an object but at the same time it drives his attention toward the surroundings, which float incoherently around as if they were submerged in an abnormally dense atmosphere that is still made up of air. The shapes seem to shift, change as the characters speak. Yet their movements are so real, so human. The images seem to have a hint, a shade of reality, only they are slightly distorted, changing with each new angle. Calvino’s Invisible Cities possesses these same characteristics. It is a blend between reality and fantasy. It is where they come together, where they meet. An invisible city is a notion, a recreation of something, and so is this movie. It brings together all kinds of ideas, of concepts about living, dying, dreaming, waking, remembering.

The concept of memory plays a crucial role in both the film and the book. There is a moment for instance, in which a very important conversation about memory is taking place. At this point, this couple is talking about life, and the woman talks about how she often feels that her life is something she is watching or looking back on as an old woman. At one moment she says, “I still feel like that sometimes, like I’m looking back on my life, like my waking life is her memories.” In the book, the city of Isidora is that same idea: “The dreamed-of city contained him as a young man, he arrives at Isidora in his old age.” (Calvino 8) It’s as if life were an invisible city, Isidora for instance, and we often forget to live it and instead take the role of a bystander who is looking back on what has already happened.

This screenshot, for instance captures my point. The old lady seemed to be painting another woman of old age, but when she reveals her work, it turns out to be the portrait of the young main character. At this moment, all you see of him is a strand of hair, and you can tell he’s looking back at the portrait as if it were a reflection, a memory. In terms of composition, we could say the tone of this image is gloomy and insipid. The old lady’s blouse is nearly the colour of the cobble stones in the background. There isn’t a lot of variety or any shade that stands out. The lines on her face hint a worried and somewhat quizzical expression, as if demanding a reaction from the one she shows her portrait to. At first we could say our attention is drawn to her, because of her brightness in comparison to the painting’s obscurity. But it is that contrast that later on drives our eyes towards the portrait, whose complexity is far more intriguing and interesting than what sits outside of it.

The moment when the main character speaks about how he feels his dream exposes ideas that to him “seem vaguely familiar” relates a lot to the city of Diomira, the first city to appear in the book. “All these beauties will already seem familiar to the visitor, who has seen them also in other cities.” (Calvino, 7). It’s as if life were the journey through these invisible cities. We travel to and from moments that we think are unique and authentic but in reality most are simply a redundancy of what we have already lived. Every moment seems to slightly resemble a previous one. It is up to us to seek how to make these moments as unique and authentic as possible otherwise life would seem monotonous and meaningless. With that said, we could say that life is either our visit to those invisible cities, or an invisible city itself. What captured my attention from this screenshot is that it is him, who is starting to become invisible, as if he were fading into his own dream, his own memory. Throughout most of the film, there was a feeling of nostalgia that often came over me. All along I felt that he was slowly moving towards an end, that as he came to realize, and approached the truth, he disappeared into the bitterness of his reality: death.

Both the film Waking Life and the book Invisible Cities are incredibly dense works that require a great deal of analysis and reflection. It appeared to me that they were trying to trick the reader or the observer all along. They seem to be standing on the edge between reality and fantasy. One cannot pretend to understand them on a literal level. If we close ourselves off to that kind of thinking we miss the entire point, and they seem meaningless, just as life cannot be lived completely at a literal level. The fact that this movie is done in a way that the cartoons attain such human, such real characteristics makes the observer wonder about what is being said. They pretend to enhance this truth with the elements of fantasy that make the observer question everything that happens. And not only this, but the power of his own mind, and how much he is able to grasp and interpret from these strange moments in the film. I have come to understand, after looking more into these two works, that memory is of the most valuable things we own, and that it is not the same to remember as it is to not forget, “because remembering is so much more a psychotic activity than forgetting” (Waking Life).

Learning to Speak

In Act III of Pygmalion, Eliza is presented to Mr. Higgins' mother and is reuntied with the people she had met earlier at Covent Garden. I don't understand this act all that well, for I don't know why Clara, Freddy and Mrs. Eynsford Hill show up so randomly at Mrs. Higgins' place.Something I found ironic was how at the same time Higgins is working to get Liza to speak well, Clara tries very hard to update herself, and her mother for instance,on the latest form of slang.She says she finds it old fashioned that someone should carry themselves the way her mother does, and thus speaking the way she does.

Shall We Dance?

Ballet is all about...

precision...

discipline...

poise...

Nature's Inequalities

I didn't find much to say about these two chapters, but that I noticed that the Houyhnhnms ask Gulliver about the causes of war when he is talking about his hom back in Europe. When he asked about war, he does his best to provide the horses with reasons, but none seem quite convincing. From this I can tell that the creatures have never heard of such a thing as war, and the heavy, cold consequences it brings are also completely unkown to them. Again I see nature's superiority in this matter. However, I see how this also contradicts what we previously read in The Selfish Gene. In his book, Richard Dawkins explained how nature is not built to be perfect. There is no way in which it can exist to benefit everyone, it wouldn't be balanced if nature were structured that way, for in the end, eventually, someone would loose. Competition and conflict must be present for balance to exist, and this is why I think, this time, that man isn't all that wrong. I don't mean to say that war is an explanation for balance, or that the massive amounts of death that result from it are necessary for this balance to exist. What I mean to say, is that we can't exactly expect our society to be completely fair and equal to evryone. Up untul a certain degree, I believe that a "not so equal" division or distribution of wealth and power is necessary. If these images of power were not to exist, then betrayal would be far more likely to occur, as it is proposed to happen in nature by Dawkins. Those who hold power should learn to make the best of it, and although not everyone will recieve benefit from it, they should work to make the distribution of it so that a certain balance is kept.

The Poison of Greed

What I found interesting about these two chapters in which Gulliver sets out to meet the "yahoos" and see for himself how alike they are to humans, was that it is mentioned how malicuious, selfsih and greedy they are. It it appears to be that the noble, generous Houyhnhnms are the leading kind, they rule over the cowardly yahoos. When Gulliver tells them about his people, the Houyhnhnms conclude that although they may be far superior in terms of development and systems ranging from governemtn to art, their nature is still very much alike. I find it somewhat ironic, however, that it is these flaws that have actually triggered the advances that are being mentioned here. They are the ones that have made our society what it is. It may seem crude and harsh to say that it is man's selfishness and greed that have led to the develolment of such a civilization as ours is today. But on the ohter hand, these are also what has us dwellng with poverty, misery. All those who live under the worst of conditions are also a product of man's greed. I believe this shows us that along with man's power, come consequences. We may not be brutes, like the "yahoos" appear to be, but oour abuse of power has made us cowardly, and in the end, it will do more damage than it will bring benefit to our society.

The Bond Between

In chapters III and IV of part IV in Gulliver's Travels, Gulliver tries to learn the horse's language, and impresses them with his learning ability. When he tells the horses about men or "yahoos" having power over most beasts, among them horses, the creatures are surprised at this, for they can't imagine something as mindless and as feeble as a "yahoo" to be capable of taming something as powerful and magnificent as a horse. I noticed that this part of the story where Gulliver has come to meet the "Houyhnhnms" is very similar to his encounter with the minute inhabitants of Lilliput in the previous chapters of his travels. As in his coming to Lilliput, her learns the "Houyhnhnms'" language, and tells them about the world from where he comes. It is then that the creatures inquire more specifically about his country, England. I found it interesting that both these enoucnters happened to be so similar and I thought it to be so because in this story, man is seen as a stranger. He is unknown to the world of nature and is equally ignorant if it as well. However, Gulliver endeavours to learn about the foreign natures of these strange creatures, and this is where I believe Swift is trying to induce the reader into believeing that perhaps there is hope for man after all. That if he makes an effort, there is a strong link that can be made between the both of them, one that could further bring hope for peace .

Man or Beast?

I can't seem to help relating Gulliver's adventures to the film "Pirates of the Caribbean." Once again, in these chapters, I pericieve a strong link between the two. Gulliver is marooned on a deserted island because his sailors mutiny against him and become pirates. This is nearly exaclty what happens to Captain Jack Sparrow, only they were pirates even before the mutiny. I can't help but think that Johnathan Swift's epic served as a soource for the inspiration of this Disney story. I have chosen to go further this time. In this same chapter, Gulliver is attacked by a herd of strange, repulsive beasts. During his encounter with them, a horse comes in and frightens the creatures away. I find it interesting that the animal coming to his rescue is a horse. People have always seen horses as strong, majestic animals that appear to impose or project a high degree of power. Of unperishable might that seems to makes them invinsible. I remember hearing about the origins of the myth of the cenatur beginning during the age of conquest. When the natives first came across the european colonizers, they saw them on horseback. The natives, having never seen the beasts before, assumed that man and horse were all but one. I find that this relates to the image of the horse here in Gulliver's Travels because it is also imposing this aura of dominance over these foul creatures that are the "yahoos". Also, it is seen that the yahoos appear to be more like humans, which leads to another point: the squalor and filth of human life. I see this taking me to something we discussed a while ago: the struggle between man and nature. In Gulliver's Travels human behaviour appears to be more similar to the revolting, hideous nature of the yahoos, while the horses are seen as, beautiful, godlike creatures. We could say that, therefore in Gulliver's Travels nature wins the struggle. We often refer to horses as "beasts" but could it be that after all, its the other way around, and man is the beast?

Captive

I chose to illustrate this because the forst thing that came to mind when I first began to read Gulliver's Travels by Johnathan Swift, was the character from one of Disney Pictures' most recently successful films, Pirates of the Caribbean. I almost immediately made a connection between these two characters because I thought they found themselves under very similar circumstances, being taken as captives by a group of very peculiar people they have absolutely no idea about. I tried to find an image that would more clearly show Jack Sparrow's captive condition, where he is tied to a large wooden pole, but I couldn't find one. In that way he would more closely relate to Gulliver, who wakes after an exhausted, nine hour sleep to find himself fastened to the ground by ropes. I thought they would both share that feeling of uneasiness and confusion, of not knowing when it will all end and they will be free. Not knowing when they will escape and cease being captive.

Abstract Meaning

The second piece is what I believe to be Miro. I think this is a very interesting piece because of the way in which the shapes appeared to be distorted. A while ago I learned that Miro stood out for, like most artists, a certain technique. He enhanced his work through the use of organic shapes. As it is evident in this piece, Miro would take shapes or objects found in nature and distort them, making it hard for the observer to decipher what was being shown exaclty. In the case of this piece, the observer's attention tends to be drawn towards the large, white figure in the center of the painting. Due to the evident contrast in color, their eyes tend to shift towards the bright blue shapes, which in reality mean nothing. I noticed that the big person who draws the most attention is actually playing the guitar, and that bellow them is a spotted dog. The rest I wasn't able to make out. They appeared to be only figures too small to actually depict in detail. Miro isn't one of my favorite artists, for I am not a big fan of abstract art. However, his pieces leave plenty of room for interpretation, and that is what I love about them. That you can endlessly derive from them some sort of meaning, although it may not be evident right away. Miro's work is mestyrious and somewhat confusing, and the fact that it is difficult to understand makes it far more fascinating.

Shades of Truth

The first piece I found to be quite captivating. It captured my attention mainly because of the artist's amazing use of color. It appears to be an abstract piece, but as I looked closer I found there was a possible subject around which the painting revolvs. As I mentioned earlier, colors are varied and one could say vital, and along with these contrasts, the artist brings in shading. I noticed the shades appear along the borders of the painting and those of the objects within it. I believe that in this way, the artist means to make the objects in the picture stand out. Almost immediately, my eyes were drawn towards the red circle that is nearly towards the center of the picture, for it seems to be quite different from the rest. As I looked closer, I realized it was a lightbulb. The red is also a brilliant shade. It catches the eye and draws attention to itself. It surprised me that the artist would choose this color for a lightbulb, and this is what led me to thinking about what the light bulb meant and what the artist meant to communicate to the observer by emphasizing on it.

When it comes to lines, they seem to enmarc the light bulb. The other figures appear to be somewhat connected to each other, but the bulb escapes from this connection. This is basically why I believe it is the center of the painting. In my opinion it is a truly excuisite work of art. The use of all these elements: line, color and shade is magnificent along with what the artist tries to communicate to the observer, which could be the importance of ideas and how everything revolves around them. How are world is moved by ideas and how they slowly shape our lives.

Reaching for Smoke

This was a very unusual story. I think I never really got to figuring it all out. As I have begun to notice, Carver's stories rarely have a point, but they all seem to hold some kind of meaning beyond what we allow ourselves to believe. As in Chef's House, it seems like the husband is the one who's in need, the one who has a problem. While Wes was an alcoholic, Sandy's husband is unemployed and does nothing but sit around all day on a couch, staring at the TV, wasting away his life. This story seemed to shift around quite a bit. From Sandy's preocupation for her husband, to the damaged fridge and thawed food, to the meaning of auctions, I thought it all held what was merely a thread of connection, but it all brought me once again to the same question. What is Carver trying to tell the reader? Does it really mean anything or is it all sygnifying nothing? I wonder if this is really the point of his stories. That they are meaningless. That there is no point at all. Yet I believe his stories require far more depth of thought than I am able to provide. I feel there is more to them than I think, yet I am not able to grasp it. Its as if I tried to catch smoke with my bare hand, looking for meaning where there seems to be none.

Praise or Mockery?

I noticed that through his writing, Flaubert often emphasises his descriptions on the aesthetical beauty of the church, and therefore, religion. "It was covered with a lace cloth and draped with green wreaths. In the middle stood a little frame containing relics; at the corners were two little orange-trees, and all along the edge were silver candlesticks, porcelain vases containing sun-flowers, lilies,peonies, and tufts of hydrangeas." (Flaubert, A Simple Soul). This is, in my opinion, a truly stunning description. It shows us through the depiction of the altar, Flaubert's belief in the frivolity and triviality of the church. It appears to be more of an ornament than a symbol to him. Its like some kind of costume meant to fool people, to make them belief in something that isn't really there. The faith and the hope we beileve it inspires is not real. It does not exist. It is all just a petty scenario meant to dress and image up, making it look convincing to those who worship it. As the story comes to and end, the final lines proved to me that Flaubert's purpose is definately to mock God. "...and when she exhaled her last breath, she thought she saw in the half-opened heavens a gigantic parrot hovering above her head." (Flaubert, A Simple Soul) Why would Flaubert choose Loulou as a representation of God? He is obviously laughing at Him. In this way he is all but saying that we can take God as seriously as we can a parrot. Parrots are seen as creatures that entertain, make people laugh, make fun of people. This is why I believe that Flaubert's purpose in these final moments of the story is to make fun of God and the whole idea of Him and what He brings to our lives.

Looking for Inspiration

Whil reading A Simple Soul by Gustave Falubert, I wondered why he would choose such an ordianry being to be the story's main character. There is nothing particularly special about Felicite. She appears to be plain, ignorant and at times even stupid. I would say she doesn't capture the reader's attention at all. There is no reason for us to feel drawn to her. There is nothing inspirational or exceptional to be found in her. However, I believe that in some way, Felicite's dull characteristics are somewhat a result of the suffering she has been exposed to. I would personally expect the opposite from someone like her, who has faced such degrees of pain. From personal experience, I find that those who seem to have suffered the least are those who think less about what really matters. They tend to value things a great deal less. This is why I find that perhaps what appears to be Felicite's ignorance and stupidity are really a reflection of naiveness and innosence. From being heart broken, to having death at such proximity, I believe Felicite became numb to the pain. She grew distant from the excrutiating ahcing she had once experienced and instead became fond of those small joys life seldom offered her. Loulou, the parrot, is an example I find to be significant when it comes to this. The bird appeared to remind her of what she loved, it was something she thought resembled her good memories. This is why I think she holds on so tightly to the idea of this pet. Aside from it being an exotic creature she had never before been close to, she saw in its image the reflection of her deepest desires. As the story develops I found that Felicite was not exactly what I assumed her to be from the beginning. I found that perhaps I was mistaking stupidity for what in reality was good will. In my opinion these are the characters that inspire us the most. The ones we cannot read right away. The ones we don't quite get at first. Felicite was one of these characters. What I assumed to be emptiness was in reality a shield against the pain the world had brought upon her. Felicite brought me inspiration. She gave me an idea of what I want my characters to be like. I want them to surprise the reader, to show them what they never expected. And to inspire them further more.

What Does it Mean?

I really liked this story. Carver draws out the situation in a truly magnificent way. Style comes in once more to make an important influence upon the writing. I noticed how Carver avoids the use of quotations for the characters' conversations, and I believe this is done with the porpuse of having the reader figure out for himself the difference between what is being said and what is being thought. However, the use of continuous relatively short-lenght sentences are what I think Carver stands out for the most. "Our kids kept their distance. Cheryl lived with some people on a farm in Oregon...She kept bees and put up jars of honey. She had her own life, and I didn't blame her." (Carver, 29) I find this passage to be a significant example of Carver's style. I don't quite know what it is he means to communicate to the reader through this strategy, but by simply making us wonder adds substance to the writing. We find ourselves trying to figure out whether it has something to do with the meaning of the story. We ask ourselves what he is trying to tell us, whether this all ammounts to something in the end, or if after all, it is only signifying nothing.

Wes

The character around which the story revolves around, Wes, was a character that reminded me a lot of some of the books I've read in the past. I remember, a book I read a while back. It must have been about two years ago. There was also a character named Wes. He wasn't at all like the one in Carver's story though. He was perfect. Yet, I couldn't help but relate these two characters. It surprised me how much I remembered from this character. As soon as I saw the name printed on the paper it all came rushing back. It was almost as if he were real, and as if this appearnce of he name proved to me his existence. Although I am well aware they have nothing to do with each other, and that Carver's Wes is an alcoholic who has trouble with letting go of things and moving on with his life, I still pictured him in the same way which I pictured Sarah Dessen's Wes. Perfect. Beautiful. Unreal.

Interpreting Style

What I noticed from this first short story is that Carver's style is somewhat similar to Pynchon's. It is humorous and it seems to me that like Pynchon, Carver has a way of making his writing particularly descriptive. I have noticed he stands out for the use of short sentences to add some sort of emphasis to what is going on. This I think is the opposite of what Pynchon does, for he uses long sentences containing thoughts within thoughts, instead of a group several short sentences. But both strategies amount for the same purpose, to capture a moment. Something I also noticed about Carver's style is that while reading him, it is as if you were actually hearing him speak. The way in which he writes is colloquial and unusual. Straight forward, hardly any wordy embellishments are found within his pieces. It's as if you were listening to the conversations rather than reading them. This is something I admire in his style, for I think this helps the reader get more involved in the situation, making himself a part of what is happening, and therefore making it easier and more enjoyable for him to read. In this way, the story comes to life, along with everything in it. In my opinion, this is an incredibly important element in writing, the authenticity of it and how close it comes to making the reader believe it is true.

The Art of Losing

I was surprised at how much I came to agree with the description Wilhelm percieved as that of a loser. "You are steady, faithful, you get stood up. You're very sympathetic, even the young girls feel that. You'd make a good provider. But they go more for the other types, its as clear as anything." (pg. 18) Lately the possession of these previously mentioned characteristics has become stereotypical for weak. Frail. Those who tend to have too much faith in people are the ones that get hiurt the most. The world isn't really a kind place, it is bitter and cold. It may seem cynical to think of it as a place where there really is no hope, but the truth is there is hardly any to rely on. No matter what, people will always let you down, always dissappoint you. There is always a higher risk of losing than there is a chance of winning, and we will all have to face that sooner or later.

Like a Kid

For the first part of what I read from Seize the Day by Saul Bellow, I noticed how the relationship between Wilhelm and his father shows an unusually strong resemblence to that between my mother and grandmother. "Greatly hurt, Wilhelm struggled however to be fair...Dad is no longer the same person, he reflected...it's time I stopped feeling like a kid toward him, like a small son." (pgs. 8-9). My mother and my grandmother have never really gotten along. For a long time, the bond between them has been weak, and still, my mother is all my grandmother has left. I have often witnessed the irrationality with which my grandmother treats my mother, often blaming her for things she has no power over whatsoever. Despite this, like Wilhelm, my mother does the best she can to be fair to my grandmother. In some way, I believe she still wants to feel like a little girl. She wants the tenderness and love my grandmother never really gave her, she never got the chance to feel "like a kid toward" her.

Decadence

What I read in this chapter remined me of something I heard a while back. Dawkins here speaks mainly of parental investment, and how every parent is prepared to take on a certain amount of responsabilities and invest a certain amount of time and effort into their children and their welfare. I was told that in some foreign places such as Europe, people are deciding to stop having children and dedicate their lives to each other instead. Apparently this has become more and more common, and this leads me to wonder whether this has anyhting to do with our selfish gene. We humans are starting to care less each time about the developement of our kind. With this going on, and happening so often, Europpean countries are somewhat running out of young generations, and their population is now mainly senile. I found this to be rather interesting and peculiar, due to that it is not that often you come across people who don't look forward to becoming a family. This leads me to conlcuding that in fact our selfish gene is leading to our decadence, and our downfall.

Challenging Mother Nature

What caught my attention from chapter seven was that Dawkins mentions how the natural way of things is actually chaotic and miserable. Creatures living in their natural environment usually do not live long. They often die of starvation, predators or disease. All these get to them before old age, and many die before they even hatch. What I find ironic, is that I have heard that people in the past, had an increasing number of children with the purpose of having a fair amount of them surviving in case some of them died. Dawkins explains in this chapter, that it is the other way around. He says that a large amount of offspring leads to starvation, resulting in only a few of them surviving and growing to reproduce. From this I get the feel that Dawkins supports the idea of contraceptives and birth control, for he thinks that a state of good health and welfare is unnatural and cannot be achieved unless these strategies are used to do so. This leads me to asking myself about the so called perfect and precise ways in which we have been taught the world of nature is built. If animals do really live under such degrees of misery, where barely any of them achieve old age, then I think Mother Nature should be questioned. This gives me to some extent, a small degree of hope for mankind. Maybe we haven’t messed the world up as much as we thought we had. Mother Nature didn’t build everything to be so perfect to begin with.

The same but different

The selfish gene manifests itself in altruistic ways. Although child protection may seem as a selfless, noble way of putting someone else’s life over one’s own, in reality, it is all a selfish way of preserving our genes, our traits. In a way we are selfish and altruistic all at once. In terms of human behaviour, people protect their young to preserve their genes and traits, this is altruistic because it is for the progress of the species in general that we protect our children. If a parent and a child are at risk, the parent would much rather chose to save the child’s because it has a greater probability of preserving the genes than himself.

Competition and Coexistence

Chapter five speaks mainly of the competition existing between different organisms due to their differences. Dawkins explains that if we all agreed to behave in the same manner, then other organisms living within our environment would not be our rivals, but rather our conspirators. Anyhow, the problem with conspiracies is that sooner or later, one organism will begin to take advantage over the other, and then the all-dove group would allow hawks to surge. these hawks would do so brilliantly well, that the rivalry between hawks and doves would inevitably arise. This, I find, relates a lot to the way we humans behave. Although we may attempt at being or becoming equal to others around us, treachery is bound to occur. It isn’t possible for humans to peacefully coexist forever. This is why Dawkins states that an environment where competition and aggression exist is far more stable, because although it does not benefit all of the organisms living in it, they do not betray each other.

Interpretation or Truth

Chapter 3 speaks mostly of DNA, chromosomes, and hoy genetic material is transfered from one generation to the next. Although it is a lot to take in, once again I am surprised by how simple Dawkins makes it seem. The idea of the binder and the architect plan he uses to describe recessive and dominant genes was an interseting metaphor which I found perfectly suitable. I found it curious how in page 23 Dawkisn says he "shall introduce other metaphors". Writers never let the reader know when they are about to introduce metaphors, they simply do. This is a way in which I believe science books such as The Selfish Gene differ from fictional novels. Books like this are straightforward. They contain no rhymes, no embelishments. They say everything exactly how it is. Science books don't pretend to break the fall, or dress facts up. Some people may find this to be the beauty of science, that things don't exactly vary, there is barely any room for interpretation. Science is facts supported by experiments and proof. I find the sibjectivity of fiction to be more enjoyable, but then again that is just an opinion.

The Predetermination of Genes

In this chapter, Dawkins exposes how all oroganisms are built to function in a certain way. We and all other living creatures are machines, and are built in this way with the sole purpose of preserving our genes. I believe this holds a clear connection to predetermination because it tells us that our bodies are built in a certain way that we cannot alter or define. We cannot help what we have been born to do, which is merely reproduce and preserve our DNA, in other words, our selfish gene. Preserving these genes leads to evolution, and to my point. If we really are nothing but machines, built for the purpose of making our genes prevail, then our fate is set. We will evolve, becoming every time more selfish, the gene becoming more and more dominant, leading inevitably to our self destruction. We are gene machines meant to grow and evolve to preserve a gene that is meant to kill us. I find this to be very ironic, but it is the way we are built, anbd it is what we mostly do, work to preserve and maintain what in reality hurts us most.

Forever Young

We are machines, and our genes live off us with the sole purpose of replicating, of growing, and of being passed on. What Dawkins argues in this chapter is that our genes are what keep us alive. When we die, all we will have left to remind others of our existence is what traits and characteristics we pass on to our future generations. This gives us some kind of comfort, for it somehow makes safe that existence. Knowing that a part of us will still live within someone else helps us make the process of dying away slightly more bearable. We are all afraid of being forgotten, and our genes make us believe that can somehow be avoided. Our genes are “the replicators” they will not die out, they will live forever, and this is what we so desperately want, to live forever.

Why Are People?

Dawkins begins by introducing to us the difference between species that are altruistic and those that are selfish. The examples he gives are clear and concise, and in my opinion portray the points he wishes to make. The situation of the mother bird and how she pretends to be wounded to drive the hungry fox from her chicks manifests the behaviour of an altruistic species. What I understand from the term "altruistic" is an individual that seeks that puts itself at risk for the welfare and survival of the rest. Although the human race is a species that is apparently selfish, I think they are altruistic up to a certain point. A parent would do nearly anything for their children. Yet, we humans are selfish in the sense that this isn't for the welfare of the species, but rather for selfcomfort. I expected this book, given that it is a science book, to be more dense and confusing, but I have found it to be intersting and somewhat nice to read. Dawkins' way of writing is soothing and makes the complex topic of genetics easy for the reader to digest. He explains everything in detail, but at the same time clearly so that the reader is left without doubts. I think I might come to enjoy this book more than I thought.

Make it Happen

In section nine, Epictetus implies here that the will and the mind are not affected by what happens in the body. While physical pain can be excruciating, if the will is not diminished, then pain will not result in anything. Will cannot be hurt by pain. Will is the last thing we should loose. Section twenty-one is one that I find I agree with in certain ways. I have always seen pain as an element that puts our strength to the test. When we deal with difficult situations and painful experiences, these make us stronger. “Let death and exile, and all other things which appear terrible, be daily before your eyes, but death chiefly; and you will never entertain any abject thought, not too eagerly covet anything.” (Epictetus, 21). What I can infer from this is that when you prepare yourself for the worst, you become safe, for you can be either surprised by a better result, or vaguely affected if it goes wrong because you expected it already. But on the other hand, I think it is also best to hope. Hope and will are weapons that can also come to influence what happens to you. I partly agree with what Epictetus says in this section because I do think it is safer to be prepared for the worst, but at the same time, your attitude towards things can also make a difference. In some way, nothing happens unless you make it happen.

The Dangers of Desire

Satisfaction and happiness can only be attained if we manage to detach ourselves from all that we cannot change. Focusing only on what is our own and how we can alter it, is what is thought to bring peace of mind. Section two was what really made me wonder, for it tells us that desire should be controlled. It is desire that causes disappointment. This is without a doubt true, for whenever we fail to achieve something we desire, we are disappointed. But I believe desire would be meaningless if we felt it when wanting to change only what is within our reach. Desire is unavoidably intertwined with pain, with displeasure. That is what makes desire so passionate, that there is a risk of losing. If we only desired what we know we can change, then there would be no point in wanting it to change, it would be predictable, expected. It would be far too easy to desire something without hesitating, without doubting of it first. Desire alone is a risk we must take, and without feeling it in the presence of a situation we know we cannot control, then it wouldn’t be a risk at all. This is why I disagree with what Epictetus is saying in these sections. Indeed life would be a great deal less complicated and less worrying if we thought of nothing but our world and how we can manage it, but our worlds are not only populated by ourselves. If we only desired something that we can easily attain, then we would constantly be thinking: What now? The end would mean everything, while the journey would be worthless. The journey is what motivates, what moves us and creates, while the destination is merely a moment, a sliver of a second that is gone in no time. Several people usually affect and impact our lives in countless ways, and we cannot control them. So in a way, achieving complete and utter control over what affects us is nearly impossible.

Knowing and Losing

What terrifies us most are not things themselves, but our view and notion of them. We do not fear death because it is death, but because it is unknown to us, and we therefore imagine it as many different things. We don’t know what to expect in the face of death, and that is frightens us most. This is what section five is discussing. Section eight is one that also caught my attention, for in one line, I saw laid out before me the cynical thoughts and ideas of Epictetus. “Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well.” (Epictetus, 8).I strongly disagree with what he is saying here, for I believe that if we took everything as it came then there would be no mystery to life. If everything resulted as expected, or if we simply accepted all that resulted, then living would be boring, meaningless. Intrigue would be a foreign subject, and along with it all of life’s excitement. This is a way in which I believe the handbook can be related to what we saw in Slaughterhouse Five. The Tralfamadorians, through their fourth dimension see life as it is meant to be and cannot be changed; there is no mystery to it. Knowing it all causes us to lose hope, to see no prospect. There is no point in living if we already know what will happen, and this is why I disagree with Epictetus and particularly his eighth section.

True or False

When the plane crashes, Billy is the only one to survive because of his mumbling of the words “Schlachthof-funf”, Slaughter House Five in German. This caught my attention because I found it curious that at such a moment of despair and hopelessness, the only thing Billy could think of was the address of his “prison” in Dresden. This I believe also shows in some way, why this is the name of the book. Facing death, the only vivid memory in Billy’s mind is that of Dresden, and its destruction. “Billy was unconscious for two days after that, and he dreamed millions of things, some of them true. The true things were time-travel.” This fragment caught my attention because it exposes how Billy is truly consumed by his belief of time travel. He believes to tell the difference between what is true and what is not, and he is utterly convinced that time travel is of the few things that are certain.

Unstuck in Time or Stuck in Life

In this chapter, I came to realize the state of desperation Billy Pilgrim must be in due to that he is in fact unstuck in time. He is forced to travel through the moments of his life all over again, unable to change anything, a helpless spectator who can do no more than watch from the sidelines as he makes the same mistakes all over again. I have come to realize that the truth is life would not be life if we had the chance of fixing our past mistakes. Learning from them is what really makes it worth living. It is hard to put into words, but what I am trying to say is that the power of controlling time would only bring us more insecurities and more confusions, for there will always be countless solutions to the moments we found ourselves caught in and couldn’t escape from. When there is nothing to do about these mistakes but learning from them to act on them in the future, we find a way of letting go and moving on.

Talk of Free Will

I find very interesting the mentioning of free will in this chapter. When Billy begins to travel through time, jumping from one moment to another and asks why he is there, a voice tells him that he is there because time is fixed that way; the moment is fixed and cannot change. This comes to my attention because the sense of time travel has always seemed to me as a method of going back and fixing what we thought we did wrong or could have done better. I believe this connects to the notion of free will because it is that sense of freedom we human beings have that trigger all of these hopes for changing the way things are or the way we have made them. In reality, there are some things we can change, others we cannot. Time is one of those we do not have the power to change or control and this is what I believe the Tralfamadorians mean when they say that only on Earth is there talk of free will. Free will does in fact very little in the real world.

Prelude to Metafiction

There is first mention of Kilgore Trout in this chapter, when Billy meets Rosewater after the war and finds that life is meaningless. In his desperation, Billy is offered to read one of Trout’s witty but lousy science fiction novels. It has come to my attention that Kilgore Trout seems to have a lot in common with the author Kurt Vonnegut, given he is also mentioned in this chapter as one of the sick American soldiers. With this first curious appearance was that I began to see the strange relationship between Vonnegut and Trout. Given we determined earlier in class that this book was something close to science fiction, and that in the first chapter, the narrator describes his book as a failure, I figured this character is meant to represent the author himself. And when this occurs, when something is referred back to itself, it is known as a metafiction.

Telling the Difference

“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.” I first noticed this quotation at the end of the book on page 209. I thought it was a beautiful phrase, and I thought about how it relates to the entire story. Billy cannot change the fact that he is unstuck in time, and its paradoxical how he is at the same time forced to live his life all over again, unable to change what wrong he has done, having to accept his mistakes. In this chapter it is said that the plaque that reads this helps Billy guide himself through times of indifference. I find that this relates to my life in the sense that it is when I begin to care less about my life and what is going on in it, that the wanting to change fades away. Ironically, it is at this moment that one must take this phrase into account.

Time Travel

This is the chapter where we are first introduced to Billy Pilgrim. Once I learned he has become “unstuck in time” and travels through time unexpectedly, I related it with a film I saw a while ago called The Butterfly Effect. This is a movie about a boy who can also travel through time, and throughout the entire film we are amazed by how one minute change can lead to a whole new parallel universe in which things would have resulted to be completely different. I find Billy to be similar to this boy, only he cannot control what moment in his life he will go to next, and cannot change anything he has done. I also thought about how much I would like to go back in time, and fix all that I have done wrong, mistakes I know I made and can make right with what I know now. I would die to know what would result of changing a decision I made in the past. In reality, there are infinite amount of parallel universes that could result from different decisions we might have taken at a given moment.

Death is not the worst thing

In this first chapter, the way Vonnegut speaks of death caught my attention. It is almost some kind of mockery. Death is the only thing we are certain of, the only thing we cannot prevent from happening. The use of the phrase “so it goes” is a way of preventing lamentation and mourning over a death. It inspires a kind of humor, it is almost a way of saying, “well, it was bound to happen anyway”. We usually make such a big deal out of death, that we forget that it is just a part of life, that in reality, death doesn’t really mean that much, and we and our lives don’t mean that much either. We are so self absorbed that we forget that our lives are merely insignificant specks in a world where there are countless numbers of other beings. I remember reading this once in a novel “those who think dying is the worst that can happen don’t know a thing about life” (Sue Monk Kidd). I find that this relates to Slaughter House Five because this is what I think Vonnegut is trying to say, that there really are worst things than death. That death is not the end.

A. What is the difference between a blog and a book?

the differeence between a blog and a book is that a book tends to tell you everything you need to know in order to understand what is going on, while a blog simply exposes randomly, assuming you know exactly what the writer is speaking of, without giving you any background information. A blog is also a virtual piece of writing, while a book is a published one. Blogs also seeme to be more improvised, usually those who write blogs use common expressions or slang words, they write things that don't necessarily make complete sense to the readers.



B. How have blogs changes recently?

Blogs have recently become a massive form of communication. People all over the world can both read and write blogs, the only thing they need is internet connection. Blogs have become popular throughout this past decade, for there are currently around 15 million active ones. Bloggers write about anything they can possibly think of, every novelty, every piece of gossip, news leads to a blog. They have become a part of our culture and way of life.



C. Why might you read a blog?

One might read a blog to know about the diverse points of view people have to offer. For a certain issue, someone may be tired of reading from the same journalist who shows the same bias on the same news paper or magazine. A blog offers us a way of getting to know other people without even having to meet them. We learn about what goes on in their life, their country; we learn abou their culture and their background throughout their writing.



D. Is there reason to doubt the objectivity of a blog? Why? Why not?

Blogs are not perhaps the most reliable pieces of writing, due to that they are highly opinionated and biased. Blogs tend to be completely the opposite of objective. They expose diverse points of view, hardly will they ever be fair or just to those they speak of. Blogs can be about nearly any topic, and nearly anyone can write one, therefore they ought to be subjective.