Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Chocolate Thunder
In the short story "Don't Go Gentle," the parents use a vibrator as a 'magic wand' to bring the child back to health. I believe that the Chocolate Thunder and the situation is a symbol of the situation the parents in the hospital are in. If the parents had used a "Chocolate Thunder" instead of having sex, then the baby would have never been conceived, and therefore the kid would not be in the coma and the parents would not be fighting "Mr. Grief" as they are now.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Father and Son
For some reason, as I was reading last night, I actually began thinking about the possibility of the son paralleling as a "Christ-figure." There are many things along the man and boy's journey that point to the idea of Christ figure idea.
First off, there is the parallel of the finding the food to Jesus feeding the 5000. While I'll admit it's a stretch, it's still plausible. Just like Jesus seemed to make food appear out of nowhere, the boy was good at finding food out of nowhere, i.e. the house that the father didn't even see.
Also, there was the obvious parallel of the the boy's sacrificial attitudes. Throughout the novel, the boy wants to give what he has to the less fortunate. He wanted to help the man who was burned, the boy he thought he saw, and even the man who stole their cart and clothes. This is reminiscent of the "turn the other cheek" teachings of Jesus, where instead of taking everything the man had, the boy wanted to help the man out.
One parallel we didn't discuss in class was the "fish" part. The fish has long been a symbol of Christian faith, so the book ending with the trout shouldn't surprise us. On pages 30, 41 and for the last time in the closing paragraph, the narrator mentions having once watching the trout swim. In the final paragraph this could be the man talking about how he once watched the boy walk around the earth. In other the words, the trout could symbolize the boy and how the man watched them both and now that the man is dead, he is remembering how he used to watch the boy. While the boy looked rough on the outside, he still fought against the flow of the evil in the world just as the trough were "standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow."
First off, there is the parallel of the finding the food to Jesus feeding the 5000. While I'll admit it's a stretch, it's still plausible. Just like Jesus seemed to make food appear out of nowhere, the boy was good at finding food out of nowhere, i.e. the house that the father didn't even see.
Also, there was the obvious parallel of the the boy's sacrificial attitudes. Throughout the novel, the boy wants to give what he has to the less fortunate. He wanted to help the man who was burned, the boy he thought he saw, and even the man who stole their cart and clothes. This is reminiscent of the "turn the other cheek" teachings of Jesus, where instead of taking everything the man had, the boy wanted to help the man out.
One parallel we didn't discuss in class was the "fish" part. The fish has long been a symbol of Christian faith, so the book ending with the trout shouldn't surprise us. On pages 30, 41 and for the last time in the closing paragraph, the narrator mentions having once watching the trout swim. In the final paragraph this could be the man talking about how he once watched the boy walk around the earth. In other the words, the trout could symbolize the boy and how the man watched them both and now that the man is dead, he is remembering how he used to watch the boy. While the boy looked rough on the outside, he still fought against the flow of the evil in the world just as the trough were "standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow."
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
CUrious
I'm sorry that it's been so long since I blogged, but ECE classes and MthSC434 have been working hard to keep me down. Well, I'm back again to blog for a moment.
Curious Incident is a very intriguing book to say the least. And to be honest, the first few chapters, I didn't pick up on how funny Chris is, but now that we mentioned it in class, I definitely have picked up on that and it makes the book much more enjoyable.
I knew from the beginning that the dad killed Mr. Shears. (I say I knew, but what I mean is that was one of the several theories I spouted out in midst of my reading.) However, when the situation is explained it makes more sense why. However, (moving to the debate we had in class on Monday) the dad himself admitted he could have simply kicked the dog to get the same effect.
Chris is scared out of his mind. His dad loved Chris by cooking for him and caring for him and telling him the truth. However, now not only has his dad lied for the past couple years, the dad has hit Chris hard enough to knock him unconscious and killed a dog. So is he really caring for Chris anymore?
His mom however, never lied to him. While there is no evidence that suggests she tried to take custody or to see him, we must remember we only see the story from Chris's perspective and he thinks his mom's dead. Therefore, if his mom had tried to contact him, he wouldn't have known.
I believe, for a number of reason that I'm going to save for later, that the Mom deserves custody of the son. Hopefully we find out what happened soon.
Curious Incident is a very intriguing book to say the least. And to be honest, the first few chapters, I didn't pick up on how funny Chris is, but now that we mentioned it in class, I definitely have picked up on that and it makes the book much more enjoyable.
I knew from the beginning that the dad killed Mr. Shears. (I say I knew, but what I mean is that was one of the several theories I spouted out in midst of my reading.) However, when the situation is explained it makes more sense why. However, (moving to the debate we had in class on Monday) the dad himself admitted he could have simply kicked the dog to get the same effect.
Chris is scared out of his mind. His dad loved Chris by cooking for him and caring for him and telling him the truth. However, now not only has his dad lied for the past couple years, the dad has hit Chris hard enough to knock him unconscious and killed a dog. So is he really caring for Chris anymore?
His mom however, never lied to him. While there is no evidence that suggests she tried to take custody or to see him, we must remember we only see the story from Chris's perspective and he thinks his mom's dead. Therefore, if his mom had tried to contact him, he wouldn't have known.
I believe, for a number of reason that I'm going to save for later, that the Mom deserves custody of the son. Hopefully we find out what happened soon.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Week 1 (and DONE)
I was fortunate enough to begin reading Into The Wild last Friday (1/8/10). I had some extra time so I went to Bowman, set up my ENO Doublesnest Hammock, and began reading. Before I realized it, I had read all four (4) of the assigned chapters. It was then when I realized, "Hey! I kinda like this book."
I actually ended up finishing the book after the UNC game this past Wednesday (1/13/08). Krakauer tells the story of Chris McCandless in a very unique way. Krakauer is simply telling the facts of McCandless' voyage, but does so in a way it almost seems that he were there, side by side with McCandless.
One of the most debated topics in the book is whether or not Chris McCandless is, in fact, insane. I will most likely begin to hit on this more in detail in my essay, but I do not believe that he was insane. In the beginning of the book, most people get this vision of Chris as narcissistic and, more or less, and idiot. But we see as Krakauer really begins to paint his vision of Chris' story, that Chris actually had a pretty firm head on his shoulders (compared to what we would expect of him to have).
It wasn't until later in the book that Krakauer revealed his own story, beginning in chapter 14. We knew from the beginning that McCandless "struck a personal note that made a dispassionate rendering of the tragedy possible." In chapter 14, we begin to see what exactly that personal note was.
On page 151, we see Krakauer is out at the Stikine Ice Cap and it's planning on trying it again (he already failed the first time, due to the fact his ice picks could no longer penetrate far enough to get a hold). He says, "I know that people sometimes died climging mountains. But at the age of twenty-three, personal mortality-the idea of my own death-was still largely outside my conceptual grasp."
I think because of this insight we gain from Krakauer, we can see that, even though McCandless mention that his odyssey may "prove fatal," it's hard to tell for sure what he was feeling. It's very possible for a 24 year old man to be able to actually perceive his own mortality. Therefore, I believe his logic (in this sense at least) was very close to the younger generations of Modern America. Why else would we drive 2-ton vehicles at velocities approaching and occasionally slipping into the 100's (MPH)? Why do the guys on TV shows like Nitro Circus and like high-adrenaline programs jump out of planes, off cliffs, climb mountains, and several other stunts that very well could end with a funeral?
Chris McCandless, such as the people just mentioned, performed the actions that he did because he wanted to get as close to death as he could without dying. Not necessarily meaning he wanted to get on his "death bed," but that he wanted to stare danger and death in the face and see if he would win. I believe when you look at McCandless in this light, it's easier to see that he wasn't necessarily a lunatic. Narcissistic? Maybe, but I don't feel he was a crazy as some people say.
I also believe that if McCandless had made it back to society, he would have settled down a lot. On page 155, Krakaur accounts that less than a month after sitting on the summit, he was back to the same life he had left back in Boulder. He said that he was a "raw youth who mistook passion for insight." I believe McCandless may have very well fit this profile as well, living his life for a dream and attempting the whole time he's on Earth to accomplish it.
However, we will never know what exactly happened to Chris McCandless if he came out alive. Let's just hope his story will serve a purpose to someone who feels the same as Chris did. Perhaps, even, serve a warning to heed caution. Maybe, just maybe, it will allow another mother's son to keep his life.
I actually ended up finishing the book after the UNC game this past Wednesday (1/13/08). Krakauer tells the story of Chris McCandless in a very unique way. Krakauer is simply telling the facts of McCandless' voyage, but does so in a way it almost seems that he were there, side by side with McCandless.
One of the most debated topics in the book is whether or not Chris McCandless is, in fact, insane. I will most likely begin to hit on this more in detail in my essay, but I do not believe that he was insane. In the beginning of the book, most people get this vision of Chris as narcissistic and, more or less, and idiot. But we see as Krakauer really begins to paint his vision of Chris' story, that Chris actually had a pretty firm head on his shoulders (compared to what we would expect of him to have).
It wasn't until later in the book that Krakauer revealed his own story, beginning in chapter 14. We knew from the beginning that McCandless "struck a personal note that made a dispassionate rendering of the tragedy possible." In chapter 14, we begin to see what exactly that personal note was.
On page 151, we see Krakauer is out at the Stikine Ice Cap and it's planning on trying it again (he already failed the first time, due to the fact his ice picks could no longer penetrate far enough to get a hold). He says, "I know that people sometimes died climging mountains. But at the age of twenty-three, personal mortality-the idea of my own death-was still largely outside my conceptual grasp."
I think because of this insight we gain from Krakauer, we can see that, even though McCandless mention that his odyssey may "prove fatal," it's hard to tell for sure what he was feeling. It's very possible for a 24 year old man to be able to actually perceive his own mortality. Therefore, I believe his logic (in this sense at least) was very close to the younger generations of Modern America. Why else would we drive 2-ton vehicles at velocities approaching and occasionally slipping into the 100's (MPH)? Why do the guys on TV shows like Nitro Circus and like high-adrenaline programs jump out of planes, off cliffs, climb mountains, and several other stunts that very well could end with a funeral?
Chris McCandless, such as the people just mentioned, performed the actions that he did because he wanted to get as close to death as he could without dying. Not necessarily meaning he wanted to get on his "death bed," but that he wanted to stare danger and death in the face and see if he would win. I believe when you look at McCandless in this light, it's easier to see that he wasn't necessarily a lunatic. Narcissistic? Maybe, but I don't feel he was a crazy as some people say.
I also believe that if McCandless had made it back to society, he would have settled down a lot. On page 155, Krakaur accounts that less than a month after sitting on the summit, he was back to the same life he had left back in Boulder. He said that he was a "raw youth who mistook passion for insight." I believe McCandless may have very well fit this profile as well, living his life for a dream and attempting the whole time he's on Earth to accomplish it.
However, we will never know what exactly happened to Chris McCandless if he came out alive. Let's just hope his story will serve a purpose to someone who feels the same as Chris did. Perhaps, even, serve a warning to heed caution. Maybe, just maybe, it will allow another mother's son to keep his life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)