I didn't like the ending...

Yeah...I don't know, I just didn't enjoy the ending.

I get that Jack kinda got closure and it shows how Jack has changed so much that he can barely recognize Room anymore, but I was expecting more. I didn't have something specific in mind, but I just wanted more of Jack learning and growing. It was clear how he was making progress, he was able to function without Ma, he was able to experience more of the world, and he even cut his hair.

It's great that he changed so much, but again, the ending felt a bit rushed, and so I really didn't like it. Then again, I just didn't really enjoy the book either, so maybe that's part of the reason why I didn't like the ending.

But other than me whining about the ending and the book in general, I want to look at how Jack's adventure fits into the hero's journey.

There's the call to adventure first. Jack starts out like all heroes do, in some "normal" situation. For Jack, being in Room is normal, because he's never experienced anything outside of Room. His call to adventure is when Ma tells him that they need to escape from Room, and Jack refuses at first. This is his refusal of the call, but once Jack agrees to it, he needs a helper. I think the helper is Ajeet, the dude with the dog that called the police. He scares away Nick and calls the police, who manage to find out where Room is.

Thanks to the help of Ajeet and the police, Jack is able to cross the threshold, learning how to live in Outside. This is probably one of Jack's biggest challenges. The other big challenges Jack must face are learning how to act in social situations and learning how to function without Ma. While these are difficult for Jack to learn, he does manage to become slightly more independent, he learns about proper ways to act towards others, and he does learn about living in Outside.

After this part Jack doesn't really follow the hero's journey as closely. He doesn't meet any kind of guardian deity who's been protecting him and he doesn't confront his father. However, he does face temptations for going back to Room. Every time he doesn't like something, like being stuck in the hospital or having to go smell flowers and all that good stuff, he wants to go back to Room. It's not unreasonable, he's a little kid who was technically tricked into leaving Room. The period of rest and fulfillment for Jack might be when he's living with Ma in their apartment, but that doesn't last very long so I don't know what to call that.

I don't think Jack follows the returning part of the hero's journey that much. I mean, he returns to look at Room and see how it isn't really Room anymore, but that's about it. I don't think Jack's a master of two worlds because he's already started to forget about things in Room, like where Plant used to be.

Anyways, that's just what I think about the ending of the book and of how Jack's adventure fits into the hero's journey.

I don't think I can handle this

So I'm just going to say it: I really hate the book. No, it's not because of the writing style, no it's not because of the little kid (though I don't really like little kids), it's because of the stuff being mentioned.

So this 5 year old and his 27 year old mom are stuck in this super tiny room. After doing a search on Google, I found a picture somebody had of what the room might look like: http://lhdreviews.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/room1.png and I'm just going to say, without that picture, I wouldn't have been able to even begin to imagine what the room would look like. If I were stuck in a room like that, I would go crazy, and I'm amazed the mother hasn't already.

It's been stated that they're both malnourished and the mom's teeth are rotting. I think it's stated that they're also in a tiny shed, so it probably gets ridiculously hot in there. I don't know, just the fact that there's people being kept (presumably against the mother's will) in a tiny room in what I think could definitely be considered sub-human (is it one word or hyphenated?) conditions. This is some pretty dark stuff, and I'm really uncomfortable reading this.

Then there's how Jack's innocence makes him view things in unique ways. He can only hear the sounds of Old Nick and his mom having sex, and he just describes the process as Old Nick making the bed squeak a lot and then makes a "gaspy sound"...This is also something that really bothers me, because from what I can tell, the only reason Jack's mom doesn't resist is because she can get the essentials for Jack, and hearing his "innocent" description of what she has to do just really...rubs me the wrong way. I'm not saying I hate Jack or anything, I'm just saying the depiction does make me very unhappy.

There was a mention today in class of whether or not solitary confinement should be considered torture. I think so. From my limited knowledge of human development and all that good stuff, I know that babies need to be touched at least once a day and have some sort of human interaction or they won't develop properly. I also know that people in solitary confinement can and will go crazy given enough time. Humans are social creatures, and so it makes sense that without social interaction, bad things can happen. I'm amazed that Jack's mom hasn't gone crazy, because I assume she's been in the room longer than Jack's been alive, and so she's somehow stayed sane. I think it might've been easier for her once Jack was born, because then she would have been able to have another human to interact with on a daily basis.

Actually, it's not really the book I hate. I'm amazed how the author's able to accurately portray a five year old and manage to show their point of view in a convincing way. But the plot is just really dark and I feel a bit disturbed when reading it. If I could get away with never reading the book I would, but since I can't, I'll just deal with it. So that's all I really have to say about the book so far...

Smithy is Literally Divinity

So I'm convinced that there's actually some god or goddess helping out Smithy. Either that or he's a god in disguise.

First off, he's survived everything thrown at him. The guy's been shot MULTIPLE times, and has survived it all. Sure, he had somebody to help him in Vietnam, but that meant he didn't die immediately, which is still impressive.

Then there's the fact that's he was some fat, chain-smoking, alcoholic who hadn't worked out in years. This same guy decided to get on his bike and start riding it across the country. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure not doing any kinds of rigorous activity for a while and doing something really rigorous suddenly is a good way to give yourself a heart attack. Smithy wasn't even fit, yet doesn't get a heart attack. I blame it on Athena's divine intervention.

He also gets beaten so severely that he pees himself. I don't understand how he's totally fine. Is it luck? Or is Smithy just unable to get hurt too badly after having a bunch of holes in him? There's also the fact that he's hit by a car, and ends up totally fine. The people at the Emergency Room don't even do anything for Smithy, he washes himself off, goes into an examining room, and rubs antibacterial cream on himself. How doesn't he get caught? Obviously Athena was shrouding Smithy so nobody would notice him.

Lastly, in part of his journey, Smithy decides to take a nap. Okay, nothing wrong with that, but when he wakes up, THERE'S A BLIZZARD. You do not wake up during a Blizzard and come out totally fine, other than some cut on his neck from a bullet.

I don't know if I'm just being really anal about all of this, but I don't think Smithy should be perfectly fine. These incidents I listed, to me, seem to be instances where Smithy should have died. In each of these instances, Smithy comes out relatively fine. That's why I'm convinced there's only two explanations for this. Either Smithy is being helped every step of his journey by Athena, or Smithy is actually immortal, and so he doesn't need to worry about being injured because he can't die from the injuries.

Smithy's Luck is Like Anse's...maybe

I think Smithy's luck is like Anse's, because they both have terrible luck and even when they try to help out in a situation they make everything worse. It makes me pity both of them, except when I think of Smithy, I want his luck to get better, but when I think of Anse, I want him to go die in a hole.

As far as I can remember, Smithy's had two bad incidents when trying to help somebody.

The first time was with Carl. Sure, he came out on top in the end, but before that it was terrible. He was hit by the dude's car, had his bike broken, and had to patch himself up. Then, when he agrees to help the dying Carl, he gets the pee beaten out of him by a police officer and has to call Carl's loved ones to inform them about his death.

It kinda reminds me of Anse trying to fix the quilt on Addie, and how he kept on messing it up the more he tried. Both experienced such bad luck trying to help out. The difference here is that Anse's luck never turned around in this situation, and got worse but Smithy's luck turned around. He got new clothes and a new bike, which meant he could continue his journey.

The second incident that Smithy has is when he rescues the little boy from the river. That led to the other people, which included some guy with a gun, to come find the kid. Of course, with Smithy's luck, he gets shot.

While Anse doesn't do anything that injures himself (because he can't sweat or else bad things happen), he still makes situations so much worse. He insists on Jewel and Darl going to town right before Addie dies so their journey is harder because of the river. Then he also refuses to get Cash to a doctor and decides to use cement to make a cast. I mean, really? I understand there wasn't that many choices, but even when Anse tried to help Cash, he made the situation worse. Cash ends up losing the leg! What the heck?!

At least Smithy seems to be able to bounce back better than before, so I'm expecting him to survive being shot (he's the main character after all) so he'll probably be fine.

I mean, in a way I guess Anse also did bounce back in the end. He got his teeth and a new wife! That obviously shows that he didn't have terrible luck, but I don't know if I'd consider that good luck...

But yeah, that's just my thoughts. Smithy and Anse both have bad luck but bounce back (kinda) later on. So many Smithy's luck will be like Anse's and he'll get a wife by the end of the book.

Smithy as a Hero?

So this is probably a predictable topic to talk about, though kinda tough. Is Smithy a hero? He definitely has some heroic traits, but we haven't gotten that far into the book, so it's possible he can show more qualities of a hero or maybe he'll show qualities of a villain.

So first off, he's kinda his sister's savior, ignoring the fact that she's dead now. He's obviously close to his sister, and he's able to sorta calm her down when she has a breakdown and starts to scratch her face. So, Smithy is heroic in that sense.

However, he's also a fat 47-year-old who smokes a ton and drinks a ton. That's...kinda the opposite of what I expect in a hero. The people who are heroes usually are fit to varying degrees, young, attractive, and healthy. Smithy is none of those. Actually, past Smithy probably would have fit the criteria.

Yeah, actually maybe present Smithy will slowly become more like past Smithy. That could be his heroic journey, right? I mean, right now we just have Smithy riding his bike but it's definitely the start of a journey. He's going all the way to where his sister's body is. That's gonna be a really long journey, especially because it's an old bike and he hasn't used it in so long.

However, the image of Smithy riding his bike isn't that heroic, actually it's more laughable. An overweight guy riding on a bike? I know I'm probably being really mean by saying that but it's just so weird to see this. Of course, if I saw something like this in person, I wouldn't say anything to them.

Sorry, I'm getting off topic. So far, Smithy's been changing, he isn't drinking or smoking as much, and he's eating less and being healthier. Obviously it's because the Greek gods are giving him their blessing to miraculously survive anything that's thrown at him (or anything he's thrown at, like the lake).

So before I get off topic, I just wanna say I feel that Smithy's journey is going to help change him and, once he's finished, we'll have a guy that represents a hero. Either that or I'm gonna be really unsatisfied with him and will complain a ton.

So...the Ending...

Yeah...I was expecting a lot more from the ending of the book. Maybe I wanted the family to stay together, maybe I wanted Vardaman to get that train, maybe I wanted Cash to have two working legs, maybe I wanted Dewey Dell to get the abortion she wanted so desperately. I don't know. What I do know, is that I don't hate all of the Bundrens anymore. Just Anse.

This guy...I don't even know where to start. Okay, at first it looked like he wanted to just do one last thing for Addie and wanted the best for his family. Now, I'm not so sure. This moron has damaged his family in ways that could be considered torture. Because of his stubbornness, Cash is down a leg, Jewel is down a horse, and Darl is gone. Honestly, Anse shouldn't even be allowed to be a father. Maybe he likes to claim he's doing his best but it looks like he went to town just for new teeth and a new Mrs. Bundren. This makes it seem like he didn't even care for Addie. Now I'm not surprised that she didn't want to be anywhere near him. At least he helped bury her, so he could let her down one last time (I'm so sorry but I had to make that joke).

Now then, Darl. Oh man that was a shocker. Maybe he didn't seem to be the most normal person but he certainly didn't seem insane, just a bit creepy because of his all knowing powers. Still, there was nothing indicating Darl was insane enough to set a barn on fire. Maybe he really hated Addie? But that doesn't really seem to be a possibility, because there wasn't ever anything that suggested Darl hated Addie.

I also found Darl's last narrated chapter really disturbing. He always refers to himself in the third person and is laughing the whole time. If that's not creepy enough, near the end he suddenly refers to an "our". As in, "Darl is our brother." It's as if all of a sudden he has the ability to channel thoughts of all of his siblings or something. Really disturbing in my eyes. But I wonder, would Darl have turned out this way if he hadn't gone to town? Maybe, just maybe, he would've stayed being Darl the creepy guy who seems to know everything that's going on instead of Darl, the insane guy who burned down a barn.

Either way, weird ending to this book.

Now I Can Say I Hate Addie

So after that narration from Addie's perspective, I can add her to the list of Bundrens that I despise. I honestly find nothing to like about her, other than the fact that she was kind enough to die.

First on the long list of what I find completely messed up with her is how happy she was to punish her students. It's not normal to find pleasure in hurting kids so you literally leave your mark on them. I don't care what you think, there's no way to make that seem okay. You sick, twisted b....

Okay next point. Did she really hate Anse, or would you have hated whoever you married? She said she didn't like how her freedom was taken away from her. But really, she probably would have felt similarly no matter who she married. The second she had a kid she hated it. So really, she can't blame Anse for taking your freedom (I mean, she did so obvious she could, but that's not the point) because I'm pretty sure she would've blamed any guy she married and had at least one kid with.

Also, you cheated on your husband who loved you! To me, there's nothing Addie Bundren could say to excuse this behavior. Really, just because she gave Anse two more kids to balance out Jewel doesn't mean what she did was okay. It's quite ironic because it was shown that Addie taught her children to never be deceitful and now here she is doing exactly what she taught them not to do. Hypocrite.

Speaking of Addie's affair, what the hell, Whitfield? You were that focused on telling Anse the truth but took it as a sign from God that you didn't need to because she was dead? THAT'S NOT OKAY. IN FACT THAT WAS PROBABLY A SIGN THAT IF YOU DON'T TELL THE TRUTH YOU WILL BE STRUCK DOWN. I can't believe this! How stupid can you get?!

Now, after reading Addie's narration, I'm convinced she was mentally insane. Just the way her thoughts work doesn't seem even remotely normal to me. Maybe I'm just trying to find things wrong with her because I hate her. Maybe it's because she really is mentally ill. Either way, I still despise her and am glad she's dead, even though her being dead has nearly killed the rest of her family.

I Hate Them All

I'm just going to say it, I really just hate all the characters in As I Lay Dying. At least, I strongly dislike the Bundrens.

So first off, let's start with Vardaman. I don't understand his obsession with fish. Is this supposed to be humorous and I just don't get it? It's just something about his talk of fish that really irks me. I don't know why this bothers me so much but it does. Maybe I just a problem with kids and that's why I don't like him. Either way, something about Vardaman makes me strongly dislike him. He also ignored the cow. Not cool, dude. That cow needed to be milked.

Then there's Dewey Dell. I don't understand her. She cares for her mom but according to the all knowing Darl, she also wants her to be dead so the family can go to town? Why does she seem to be more concerned about a guy she slept with than any of her family, including her mother? I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that she was just thinking of Lafe while fanning her mother. I feel sorry for Dewey Dell though because she is pregnant and the only female in a family of guys. However, I still don't like her because so far all I've been able to tell is that she likes to think of Lafe and acts like a jerk to the cow.

Now there's Jewel. The reason I don't like him is really simple. He's so spoiled. It's been said that Addie would spoil Jewel a lot, which is probably why he acts the way he does. He doesn't seem to act spoiled, but just something about how he acts still does annoy me. It starts with him sneaking off to work for money to buy a horse. Did he really need to get a horse? Because of his selfishness, his siblings had to do his work for him and Addie had to lie to cover for him. Oh, so he assures Anse that his horse won't eat any of his food? Well how is he going to make sure of that? Keep the horse far away from any food and feed it when he can? The family doesn't have a lot of money, so I feel that he might just slowly kill the horse. Not cool. Besides, if he wanted to ride an animal, why not ride the cow? That would look cooler, in my opinion.

On to Cash. Okay, I admit, he's hardworking and stuff, which is good. However, I think he takes it too far. He works even when it's raining a ton and even when he has a broken leg. Dude, you were lucky that you only broke a leg, why would you try to push your luck? What if you somehow get it infected? Would you keep working hard then? I mean, if you did, great, but I don't think it would be good for your health. So really, I think I just really want to complain that Cash is just too hardworking and that's why I don't like him. Kinda stupid, but eh, I don't like how he doesn't seem to care for himself at all.

Darl. Oh Darl, what to say about you. I don't like him because he kinda creeps me out. He seems to be all knowing, seeing things that happen when he isn't near. He pretty much is the narrator embodied in a character, which just freaks me out because no character should have that much power because with great power comes great responsibility. Darl isn't responsible though, so he doesn't deserve great power. He made Jewel go with him on that stupid trip to get $3 and he definitely knew Addie would be dead before they came back (unless his superpowers were taking a break). That's just not cool.

Lastly there's Anse (I don't feel that I know enough about Addie to have an opinion of her). This guy is either the most stubborn lazy person ever or the laziest stubborn person ever. How can you die from sweating? Unless he was dying from dehydration or heat stroke, that makes no sense. It seems he honestly believes something bad will happen if he sweats, which I find ridiculous. The guy is also so stubborn that he insists that Darl and Jewel go get $3 while Addie is dying. Anse seems to be quite desperate for money but then also refuses the offers of others when they want to help out. He refused Tull's offer for the team of horses or whatever, and he refuses offers of a free meal. Now, I understand he doesn't want to seem dependent, but it's a little late for that. He's so inept that he can't even smooth out a blanket. There's just too much for me to say about why I hate Anse so I'm going to stop before I get too worked up.

So there you go. The various family members of the Bundren family and why I don't like them. I do like their cow though. I don't know why. I just do.

I Wanna Follow The Trend

So, I would like to talk about a few things, one of which includes the slaughter of the suitors. Yay! I'm gonna talk about something a lot of other people have talked about!

So, first off, I didn't see what Odysseus did as vigilantism because he was told that there was a prophecy that included him going back to Ithaca and slaughtering the suitors. In my eyes, he was just following his Fate. Okay, so maybe it wasn't completely necessary to kill all of the suitors, but I found it really satisfying. They were mostly depicted as being stupid (being fooled for 3 years...not gonna get into that...so not worth ranting about...again...), being quite rude (using up Odysseus' wealth), being hypocritical (telling beggar Odysseus that he shouldn't go around leeching off the wealth of others), and just downright being annoying and refusing the LEAVE ITHACA AFTER LIKE 4-5 YEARS.

Next, I know people probably are grossed out by what I thought about the description of the slaughter but I still do think it should have been more descriptive. Maybe I just like violence more because I'm a messed up human being, but I feel the slaughter was over too quickly. Yeah, actually, I'll go with that. It was a slaughter, not a fight. Odysseus went into some berserker rage and literally killed anybody and everybody in his way until Telemachus convinced Odysseus to not kill the bard. Because of this berserker rage, everybody in Odysseus' way was annihilated. Having weapons didn't even help, if anything, it might have made Odysseus angrier. I mean, I like that it wasn't a super drawn out battle, but it was too short. It's like in other Greco-Roman epics, most fights are just, "These two awesome warriors and their super descriptive looks were getting ready to fight, they engage, and one of them comes out victorious." A bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point, hopefully.

And now about Athena. I really am so conflicted on what to think. She wanted the slaughter of the suitors, but then doesn't want to witness another fight? I mean, she was able to bless Laertes so he could easily kill Eupithes, father of Antinous-I'm-A-Huge-Dick-That-Can-Only-Mooch-Or-Be-A-Crappy-Suitor with one throw of the spear. That's just awesome. Yet she doesn't want Odysseus to have another slaughter? I get that she didn't want a war to break out, but I think this war would be nothing compared to the Trojan War.

Lastly, I would like to say that Odysseus fits in the Greco-Roman hero mold in another way other than his generic heroic qualities and fatal flaw. He's descended from Zeus. I'm not gonna give the name of Odysseus' grandfather who's the son of Zeus because I just don't want to try to find it again.

That's all. Bye.

I'm Running Out of Ideas!~

So, I didn't mention some of the important stuff of book 8 of the Odyssey in my narrative yesterday so I'll just talk about that really quickly. The blind bard, Demodocus, was motivated by the Muse to sing about the struggle between Achilles and Odysseus. It's not that the bard was just trying to be a dick to Odysseus. I'm not sure if the bard knows that it's Odysseus, but even if the bard knows, it's not that he's trying to call Odysseus out. The Muse is an important figure because they always are the ones that motivate the bards and the poets and everyone to actually sing the poem/story. Without the Muse, there would likely be no story to be told.

The next thing I'd like to address is the ignorance (or whatever you want to call it) of king Alcinous and pretty much everybody else at the party. When Odysseus is trash talking the people, he clearly says something along the lines of, "The only person who was better at the bow than me during Troy was Philoctetes." I feel like that alone would give away who Odysseus was. I mean, really? You've probably heard tales about the brave warrior Odysseus who was one of the strongest people ever and you can't figure out that the guy bragging about how good he is at the bow is Odysseus? The guy even says that the only other people who can beat him at the bow are dead (some killed by Apollo because they were just that good with a bow)... I'm not sure if the king is just playing dumb or something, but I find it hard to believe he can't figure out it's Odysseus, in case I haven't made that point clear enough.

Lastly, I'd just like to give a fun fact I found out about and no, it's nothing like my "fun" fact that Alcinous is married to his niece, it's that Achilles had a badass group of warriors that followed him into battle called the Myrmidons. They were a group of people that were descended from a demigod king named Myrmidon. Who was the godly parent, you might ask? Well, it's the one guy that just can't keep it in his pants! Zeus, of course! Now, Zeus has seduced women in some really weird ways, but I'm not going to get into those other ways right now. I'm focusing on how Myrmidon was conceived. So, Zeus sees this beautiful woman and reacts similarly to Ares when he sees Aphrodite, "Oh! Let's bone!" and so, Zeus comes down in the form of an ant. Yeah, an ant (which is what Myrmidon is named after). Another version of this story says that Zeus seduced Eurymedusa, Myrmidon's mom, in the form of her husband, Myrmex. Not cool, Zeus, not cool at all. But yeah, so this guy named Myrmidon managed to become a king of Thessalian Phthia, a city which was found by Achilles' grandfather. How nice! Everything is in a full circle, kinda.

Narrating and Summarizing, it's a Fine Line.

So I've been practicing for my group's presentation of the Odyssey for tomorrow, and I've realized how tough it is to narrate. There's a really fine line between summarizing what happens and actually narrating. I'm pretty sure I'm still doing a mixture of both. It really makes me wonder about oral traditions way back when. They must have practice a ton in order to actually narrate the story. I mean, yes, reciting stories was a bigger part of society back then than it is today, but that doesn't mean it's any easier! It might become easier after you have to practice a lot, but there's still the first few times where you need to learn to narrate rather than summarize.

So keeping that in mind, there's also the problem of speaking slowly so everybody can follow what you're saying and making sure that you enunciate so people can hear what you're saying. Doing this is especially challenging for me because I just absolutely HATE talking in front of people for a presentation. I stutter really badly (in a way that reminds me of my sister's stuttering on certain words like lettuce) and sometimes I even break out into a sweat. I can't help but wonder if there were people back then that would also be nervous talking in front of people. Would they have a hard time telling the story because they were too focused on trying to finish as quickly as they could? Maybe some of them wouldn't be able to recite the poem/story and just had to give up their dreams of being an amazing storyteller.

While I haven't given up my dreams of being the world's best storyteller who's named Eric W. Kong, I don't think I'll achieve that goal anytime soon. So, if anybody reads this post before tomorrow, I sincerely apologize if I speak too quickly or don't enunciate clearly. And if I'm not really narrating, I will also be really sorry. That's all from me today!

So Drunk Storytelling is in, Right?

So I was thinking about how various ancient dead people like Homer (for the sake of simplicity I'm just gonna imagine Homer as one dude) would sing their epic poems to a group of people, which would take a while, I assume. So, I wondered if any of them had to just stop every once in a while and take a breather. I mean, I get lightheaded if I get into a conversation with a friend for more than 15 minutes, so if these ancient storytellers were anything like me (which I doubt, but that's not the big issue at hand), then they would get really lightheaded too. It makes me wonder if any of them would just be singing/reciting their poem and then pass out. I could see that happening, though probably not very often.

But running low on oxygen isn't my most important thought on these poets. So, yeah, they would be singing and stuff and so as a result, wouldn't their throats get really dry? And wasn't drinking wine a big part of their culture? So, just imagine this: you're at this tavern hearing the epic tale of Odysseus, and Homer's getting thirsty. He then turns to his right (or left, that part isn't terribly important), and picks up a cup filled with wine and drinks it to quench his thirst. Now, if the wine isn't very diluted with water, then Homer would probably get drunk relatively quickly, even if he's used to drinking. So, continuing imaging, you got this storyteller who's just getting more and more drunk while telling you this story. I'm not sure if the story would better or worse, but I feel like this would have been able to get some people to laugh. I mean, drunk storytelling!

Now, maybe this didn't happen, but still! I kinda wish it did because it would be so funny! Just some old(er) guy so drunk that they can't even enunciate their words anymore but is still trying to finish part of the story. Or the even funnier situation (in my mind, at least), this old guy is so drunk that mid mumble he just passes out. I don't know why I find that so amusing, because that would probably really hurt, especially if the person who passes out is an older person.

But yeah, that's my random though of the day. I mean, from my very limited knowledge about ancient Greco-Roman cultures, I feel like these poets would use wine if they got thirsty so who know? Maybe recounting the stories would take a long time because the reciters would get too drunk to continue...

I don't wanna forget this stuff!

So I'm not sure how this post will turn out because I'm just planning on saying what I wanted to say this morning in class before I forget about it. So, first off, is Telemachus kind of a jerk to his mom? I mean, on one hand he gets some courage and stops moping so he can tell the suitors to leave. It may not work, but at least he did it. But then when the bard is singing about Odysseus' journey and Penelope (if I got the name wrong, I'm sorry) asks for the bard to stop the song, Telemachus seems to almost snap at her. I mean, sure maybe he thinks she should be over Odysseus, but at the same time, he was grieving not that long ago. Also, he seems to not want his mother to be with any of the suitors. To be honest, I don't care that much about the reason, but if he thinks that his mom shouldn't stop the bard from singing about Odysseus, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to think that his mom would be ready to marry again. Maybe Telemachus just had a lot of pent up rage and frustration and his mom was the unfortunate receiver of this, but that's not a good excuse.

Next off, is it just me, or are the suitors extremely stupid? I mean, they were fooled for THREE years? Now, maybe Penelope was just working on a really big web (I'm assuming this just means she's weaving some project, not a literal web, but who knows?) but still, I doubt it would take three years unless she was knitting nice scarves, matching gloves, and matching hats for all of the suitors. And even then I highly doubt it would take that long to finish this. And from the looks of it, she would've gotten away with fooling everyone for an even longer amount of time if that one woman that was in on the queen's secret didn't spill the beans. Sure, I feel bad that the suitors seem to be tricked and lied to, but seriously? It's kind of hard to feel sorry for people when they're stupid (I hope this doesn't offend anybody or anything, I mean solely in the context of these epics, where I swear there's always a group of stupid people)...

The next order of business, the violence of the suitors. I mean, there's literally a part where they say that if Odysseus were to come back, he wouldn't be able to beat all of them, and "Even if Odysseus of Ithaca did arrive in person,/...Here on the spot he'd meet/a humiliating end if he fought against such odds" (101). So, maybe I'm reading this incorrectly, but these suitors are saying that even if Odysseus came back, they'd more or less humiliate him and kill him. Really? They're THAT desperate to marry Penelope? They'd kill her husband? Man, that would make for a terrific conversation at the table, just imagine it, "Hey honey, do you remember the time I killed your previous husband and married you? Wasn't that just a riot?" or maybe, "Hey Penelope, you should marry me, I'm the one that landed the killing blow on Odysseus, so I'm the manliest and best suited for you!" I mean, what would they hope to accomplish? If Odysseus returned alive and these suitors killed him, I feel like it would have a high chance of guaranteeing that Penelope wouldn't marry them.

Furthermore, really Athena? I mean, yes Poseidon is out of town right now, but you're sending Telemachus, the son of Odysseus, out to search for Odysseus. Okay, that doesn't sound terrible, but did you forget that Poseidon is the reason that Odysseus is lost at sea right now? Or maybe that Poseidon can more or less control all of the ocean? So you send Telemachus out when Poseidon's away, great, but what about when Poseidon returns? What's stopping him from making Telemachus get lost? I feel like this wasn't thought through very thoroughly. Also, who's gonna be stopping the suitors if Telemachus is gone? I mean, it seems like there needs to be a strong male figure around, so who's gonna fill those shoes? Telemachus doesn't have a son to do that, and I don't feel like the suitors would be good choices...

Lastly, I want to talk about Telemachus' age. Now, I always imagined that Telemachus was around the same age as Achilles' son. Achilles left for Troy when his son was around 3 or something. Later, it's mentioned about how Achilles' son was there to kill king Priam. Now, in the art depictions, Achilles' son looks to be around 18, which is older than what he should be (13, since the Trojan war was around 10 years). And assuming Odysseus has been lost for around another 10 years, I'd say that Telemachus could be around 23, like Neoptolemus (also called Pyrrhus). I think that Telemachus wouldn't be older than 23, but I also feel like it's possible that Telemachus is younger than that. Not as young as Aeneas' son, Ascanius, who would be around 14 (I think, again, this is all estimates) at this point when Odysseus is lost. Since it's been said in class that Telemachus is close to becoming a man, or at least is at the age where he can be considered one, since he's able to be sent out on a voyage (or mission, or quest, or whatever searching for his dad can be called), then I think he's at least 16. Now, this is a Greek epic, but the Greeks and Romans had similar cultures in some aspects, and I remember that the Roman boys came of age when they turned 16. So, I'd assume that Telemachus is no older than 23, but no younger than 16. Of course, since it's never mentioned, and I'm not some ancient scholar or anything, I could be wrong, but that's the estimate I have for ya'll.

So I have all this written down now so maybe I won't forget it. Or I still might. No idea. You might agree with me, or disagree. Either way, I can't really make you agree or disagree, so feel free to think what you will. I'm tired after writing for 30 minutes straight so I think I'm done here. Enjoy, or don't, up to you.

I'm Caught up now! ...More or less...

After working diligently on the book for days, I have finally finished Wool! YAY! But there's still so much about it I need to say, which is why I'm writing this blog post right now. Earlier I talked about how Juliette is like the ancient Greek and Roman heroes, but this time, I'm here to talk about how she's unlike them.

The one that I find the most important is how she seems to reject Fate. Now, for the Greek and Romans, Fate was something that was so powerful that nobody, not even the gods, could stop. Sure, the gods could screw with the heroes on their journey, but they don't have the power to stop or change the outcome. It looked like Aeneas' Fate was not to settle in Carthage so he moved on and left behind Dido (an excellent decision, in hindsight. She was really crazy...I mean, killing yourself because he's leaving you? Isn't that overkill? Ha...get it? Kill...sorry, rambling...) and continued to sail. Juliette is different though. When it seemed that she was fated to die in the poisonous gasses in the air, she didn't just let that happen! She tried to get into silo 17, away from the nasty air, away from the dead all around outside, away from the Bernard. I mean, sure, arguably you could say it wasn't her fate to die from the poison but it sure seemed like it at the moment, didn't it? At least, it did to me, and this is my blog post so you'll have to deal with it. Or not, you don't have to read this if you don't want to. Your choice.

Anyways, back on topic. Another huge different between Juliette and heroes like Achilles, Aeneas, Odysseus, etc., is that we can see her grow as a character. In modern hero stories we're used to seeing characters develop and stuff but in the old epics, they didn't really do that. It's just said that Aeneas was super pious and a good person, Odysseus just started in the story being super smart, super loyal, and super heroic, and Achilles was just pretty much perfect, even though he cross dressed...well other than his pathetic defeat because he probably could have just worn sandals that covered and protected his heel.

These differences aren't really that major, because even with these differences, all the characters mentioned are still considered heroes. These differences are just because of different expectations of characters in books now. Today, we want to start at the very beginning of the story (though the beginning is just super boring most of the time) while the ancient epic poems would start in media res (IT'S MEDIA, NOT MEDIAS, JUST GOTTA PUT THAT OUT THERE) so we wouldn't be able to get the beginning of the amazing story. But like I said, these differences aren't really that major, because either way, Juliette is just as much of a hero as Aeneas and Odysseus and Achilles.

We're Here At Tofu...I mean, "WHAT"

So, it's been a while since I wrote one of these blog posts and I'm not sure what to really say. I guess I could go with what I see as heroic qualities of Juliette, but I'm not sure if that alone would be enough because I'm not sure if I've read enough of the book to have a grasp on all the heroic qualities. I mean, for the record, I'm pretty close to finishing the book, I probably will tonight, but I'm not sure if the author will kill off another hero. At this point I doubt that would happen, but I'm not sure at this point...

I'm rambling though. Back to Juliette and her heroic qualities. I mean, yeah, she's portrayed as good looking, which is helpful because most people like to have a hero that's good looking. And yes, she's really resourceful and is a good person, which again, people like to see in heroes. But she's not a very willing hero, is she? I mean, she didn't want to become sheriff when she was offered the position, and from the little tidbit I've had spoiled to me in class discussions, she doesn't want to become mayor. To me, a hero has always been somebody who's willing to step up to fight the oppression and all that good stuff, so maybe my view is skewed by Disney and superhero movies.

Again, rambling, sorry about that...Juliette is also super lucky and helped by others, a bit like the Greek and Roman heroes. She's helped by her friends for the cleaning suit, the Greek/Roman heroes are helped by the gods. She was lucky enough to not die in the poisonous air and stuff and to be able to get into the silo, the Greek/Roman heroes are lucky enough not to die during these terrible journeys full of monsters and beasts and poisonous everything. These qualities, I think, are important and have been used repeatedly for all heroes.

The next quality ties in a lot with the Roman and Greek epics. Juliette has a kind of homecoming story, where she goes on a journey and ends up getting her revenge on Bernard (I mean, I haven't gotten to this part yet, but people in class said it's true so I'm just going to go with it). In the Aeneid, Aeneas, the hero of the epic, goes on a journey in order to find a new place to call home. He goes on an epic journey full of love, loss, boring traveling, and a creepy stalker lady (Dido). In the end he fights a huge battle against Turnus, who also wants to rule the land. In this battle, Turnus kills Aeneas' close friend which just pisses off Aeneas who more or less turns into the Hulk and kills Turnus brutally. I mean, I don't think Juliette is the type that would brutally kill someone, but deep down it's the same thing of getting revenge at the person/people that have wronged the hero.

Overall, Juliette probably is a hero, just not the one I'm used to watching or reading about. She has the good qualities, such as not being ugly, being lucky, having good allies, and having a homecoming story, but at the same time, she doesn't really look like she's willing to be seen as a hero (which would probably also make her appear really humble, another good quality of a hero). I've heard a hero described as one who will do what's needed when others are too frightened to. With this definition in mind, I think Juliette is both a hero like those in ancient epics, and a hero that we can see in life outside of books and movies.

Oh man, I'm dying...

I was talking with one of my friends, and being the nerdy people we were, we got to the topic of death. Now, it does seem like a morbid topic, and it most definitely is, but there's more to death than just that. What constitutes death? That's a very important question, in my opinion. DeLillo portrayed the death of Lee rather stereotypically, in my opinion. There's the usual idea that they're just slowly losing their consciousness and noticing little things all around them. Is that what death really is like though? To be fair, nobody alive can really know what death is like because they haven't died. So again, what constitutes death? Loss of a heartbeat? No breathing? The inability to respond to anything after a set amount of time? It seems like that's always what is used to classify death. For Lee, his heart stopped beating, his eyes were unfocused, his senses were leaving him, and he seemed to be remembering things from his past, such as his Marine training, how a pilot looked, and watching a jet take off. Can that really be counted as what a person experiences when they're dying?

Related to that, what about when a person is completely unresponsive, has no pulse, and isn't breathing is able to be revived? Do you count them as having been dead? Would you be able to call them a zombie? I remember reading before about a man who had suffered from a heart attack at a grocery store and wasn't breathing, had no pulse, and wasn't responsive. The people around him refused to give up on him and everybody took turns giving the man CPR and chest compressions until the paramedics were able to come. Thanks to all the people refusing to give up on the man, the paramedics were able to revive him and he continued to live a happy life. But this does raise some questions. Could he have been considered dead? I think so. But then he wasn't dead. What can you say about that other than the simple, 'he was brought back to life'?

Death is such a complex topic and I feel that it's become very simplified from being used repeatedly in movies and books. When I think of the concept of death (not in a bad way, just in a curious way!), all that comes to my head are images of the overdramatic movie/book deaths where the characters is slowly losing consciousness and saying their last words. Death is so much more than that, and I feel it's quite sad that it's been simplified to somebody saying their last words and closing their eyes while their head rolls to the side. Who even decided that was how death was to be portrayed? Maybe one day death will be portrayed in a different way, but either way, nobody can ever know what death is like unless they've actually died. And if they've died, unfortunately they probably won't be able to communicate with us to tell us what it's like.

Poor Lee...?

Having read all of Libra, I'm still very conflicted on what to think of Lee. When he was trying to kill Kennedy, I was both rooting for him to take the shot and also angry that he would try to do that. His life was quite unfortunate, and the day before he failed to reconcile with his wife, leaving behind most of his money and his wedding ring. I just can't help but pity this poor man who was manipulated into being the scapegoat for this large operation of killing JFK. Lee also seems to fail at everything he does, no matter how serious it is. It's shown when Lee decides to shoot himself, which is a serious thing to do, but ends up using a little gun to shoot himself in the arm. It's similar to when Oswald tries to kill JFK. It's one of the most, if not the most, serious thing he could possibly do, but he misses and Raymo kills JFK. Throughout the whole part in Oswald's perspective, I was rooting for Oswald to take the shot and kill JFK, as dark and terrible as that sounds. Throughout the book it seems that Oswald was experiencing one failure after another. He couldn't avoid being court martialed for having an unauthorized gun, and after the court martial was suspended, he gets a second one for 'wrongful use of provoking words to a staff noncommissioned officer.' Then Lee has the brilliant plan to kill General Walker which fails in multiple aspects. First off, Lee planned to kill Walker on April 17th and ends up doing it on April 10th, which is funny that Lee manages to mess up, but I wasn't too surprised he couldn't carry out his goal on the right day. Secondly, he shoots a bullet, which only barely grazes Walker's right forearm, then runs away and decides to listen to the radio to see if he hit Walker. This is something that seems to make Lee seem like a genius and an idiot. I mean, he manages to plan out a decently elaborate plan, but manages to botch it up in almost every single way possible. Lee gets the date wrong and misses the target horribly.

Then there's the assassination of JFK. He plans out everything seemingly perfectly and is completely prepared. But he doesn't even think to wonder if he's being used. I'm not sure why the thought never crossed his mind (until he sees JFK being shot by somebody else), though maybe that's because I've never been in a situation like what Lee was in. It seems like Lee's a dedicated and careful planner but also a complete idiot. His actions don't always seem to have any sort of solid logic behind it. He sees JFK get shot and he immediately starts thinking about what story he's going to follow. This is one of the many reasons I'm conflicted on what to think of Lee. I was (in a twisted way) proud of Lee for deciding to try to assassinate JFK because it seemed he was completely serious about doing it and everything about the moment seemed to be in Lee's favor (ignoring the part where he had to wait for Raymo to have a clear shot if he were to miss). It makes me really wish that Ruby hadn't killed Lee so we could possibly know more about Lee. I'm sure that Lee surviving would have created more questions still because he's the type of person who you can never know if he's telling the truth or not.

So overall, I'm as sure that Lee's one of the most complicated people/characters I've ever read/learned about as I am that my name is Eric (so that means I'm completely sure that Lee's a complicated person, if my sentence was too confusing). He was confusing to the end, but I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. Libra wouldn't be the same without it.

These Do Relate Somehow, I Think...

While I was researching more information for my semester project, which is about Hiroo Onoda, a Japanese soldier who fought in World War II that didn't surrender until 1974 (for anybody that was interested), I came across this:

http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-pussy.html

This just amazed me, and the way I think of these men, having now learned a bit about them, is similar to the way I think of Lee Harvey Oswald from Libra. Those men did these incredible things, that any ordinary person would never be able to do. Lee Harvey Oswald is similar. Not that many people have killed a president before. Just like these amazing war veterans and Oswald, they needed either incredible bravery or lots of stupidity to do what they do. I tend to learn towards bravery for these war veterans but I'm still not too sure about Oswald. It definitely takes courage to stood yourself in the arm, but it's also not exactly a bright idea. In a way, those men that did these amazing things, such as taking German outposts by themselves, walking out of a concentration camp, or sniping people with a rifle is also a bit stupid. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not hating on these people or saying that they shouldn't have done what they did. I just think that they were a bit reckless when they did what they did. Obviously it did pay off for them, but it didn't exactly pay off for Oswald.

Also, can't forget about poor Hiroo Onoda. The man was left on an island, his men were all killed (except this one guy that surrendered, but that's beside the point), and he was more or less living off coconuts and the occasional animal. He had been wearing the same uniform from when he was deployed, and managed to keep his gun in working condition, stockpiled 500 rounds of ammo, and had many hand grenades. However, he still had managed to kill around 30 Filipinos and wounded several more. The only reason Onoda didn't surrender or kill himself was because his commanding officer had told him not to, and that they'd come back for him. I'm amazed by his dedication to his commanding officer and to his duty. This definitely took bravery. I'm not sure if I would see what he did as requiring stupidity. To a certain degree, I guess.

But back to the original matter at hand (though I regret nothing about going off about those awesome people), Oswald is like these people in that they all did something that you wouldn't expect. Granted it might not be the most admirable things that they did, like conducting guerrilla attacks on unsuspecting and innocent civilians (for Onoda) or shooting the president, but it still takes bravery and the occasional stupidity. It also takes dedication, either for sticking to the job, or even carefully thinking of a plan. I know, it's kind of a stretch, but as I was thinking about how badass those men were, I couldn't help but think (in my semi-strange mind) that they shared some qualities with Oswald. Maybe they don't, but who knows. It's been well established that it's hard to really describe Oswald. I would say more, but my brain has run out of ideas. Hopefully as I continue to read Libra, I'll be able to understand Oswald better, but who knows? Maybe I'll just get even more confused than I already am.

Final Impressions?

So after I finished Kindred and completely forgot to write my final impressions of the book, I guess now's as good a time as any. With the way Dana was summoned back to the past before she killed Rufus, I can't help wonder if maybe Rufus had figured out how to summon her. Maybe summon isn't the right word, because it makes Dana seem like a servant, but then again, Dana seemed to be acting more like the slaves on the plantation every time she went back. But I digress. Rufus' life didn't seem to be in any danger. He was just contemplating whether or not he should kill himself after he had found Alice's body. This was quite different from all the other times Dana had come back to see Rufus. Every other time, she had found Rufus nearing death or fearing it. This time Rufus was calm, collected, and almost content. I didn't get the impression that Rufus was afraid of death, but I did get the feeling that he was satisfied that Dana had come back. It almost seems like Rufus knew if he threatened his life, Dana would come. But this confuses me even more. If Rufus didn't fear death and if his life wasn't even really in danger (at least in my opinion), then what's been pulling Dana back? The idea that Dana was being pulled back in time whenever Rufus feared for his life worked until this last time. So, my opinion, which could be completely wrong, is that Dana was pulled back in time whenever Rufus needed or wanted a companion, or just somebody who he could talk to. It doesn't fit every scenario perfectly, but I feel like it's plausible. Except for the first time Dana came back, one of the things Dana did without fail was talk to Rufus for long periods of time. Sure, Dana had her reasons for wanting to talk to Rufus, but what if Rufus had reasons other than wanting to know more about Dana and where she came from? It didn't seem like he could talk for long periods of time about his problems to either of his parents or Nigel, who would have had to work. Dana might not have been able to understand Rufus completely, but to me, she seemed like the person who would be able to listen to Rufus' problems and possibly give him advice the best out of any alternatives.

The next question that popped into my head was, is Rufus what anchors Dana to the past? I mean this in both the literal and the figurative sense. Rufus is Dana's ancestor, she's looking at her own history, and looking at her white roots when she looks at Rufus. But beyond the more complex stuff that could end up in lots of arguments or possibly philosophical questions, does Rufus' existence actually keep Dana in the past? I get that when her life is in danger, she goes back to the present, but after Dana killed Rufus, I wondered, did she go back that time because Rufus wasn't living anymore? I mean, when she's transported (or however you describe Dana going back to her time) to the present, every part of her except the arm that Rufus was holding on to comes back with her. So was it because Rufus was something that couldn't go to Dana's time the reason why what he was touching didn't go back with Dana? To me it seems like it could happen, but again, like every theory I have, I could be completely wrong.

Lastly, I was left wondering, can the ending of the book be considered a 'happy ending'? I mean, Dana and Kevin live, and Hagar obviously lived, which is good. But Dana and Kevin are very changed. Dana even thought of herself almost as a slave at one point in the book. Kevin was stranded in the past for years, and had troubles adjusting to the present once he came back. This doesn't seem like your traditional happy ending. In the traditional happy ending, everybody comes back relatively unscathed and those that do come back injured make a swift recovery and everybody is happy and there's reason to celebrate. In Kindred, Dana kills her own ancestor. That must feel weird. She even learned firsthand some of the terrible experiences that slaves had. She has scars to prove it, and Kevin has a scar or two to show what he's been through as well. Overall, I feel that the ending of Kindred set itself up almost for a sequel, or at least a short story on what happened to Dana and Kevin's life afterwards. I probably won't ever find out, but I can still dream.

Thinking About This Gives Me A Headache

While idly wondering about Dana's time travels and what mysterious force is bringing her to Rufus, I came upon something that just gave me a headache. And instead of being a normal person and just forgetting about it, I decided to write about it and melt my brain! Was it already predetermined that Dana was to travel back in time to take care of Rufus? It seems she's drawn to Rufus every time his life is in danger, so she can make sure Rufus and Alice will make Hagar, but what if Dana wasn't able to go back in time? Would she just never exist? I mean, sure by ensuring that Rufus lives, the chances of Dana existing are much higher than if he were dead, but if Dana wasn't the one to go back in time, would Rufus still be facing the same problems? Would he still be in these situations that requires somebody to intervene? If Dana hadn't been sent to the river when Rufus was drowning, would his father or someone else have been able to save Rufus? Similarly, when Rufus was burning the drapes, would he have survived if the fire had spread? While we can't know for certain, it's still possible that Rufus would have survived. Even if his father were to beat him for it, Rufus has said before that Margret had been able to stop Tom Weylin from killing Rufus when the stable was burned down. When she saves him from being killed by Isaac, it seemed that Alice was trying to get Isaac to stop beating the snot out of Rufus. So, if Dana weren't to go back in time, would she cease to exist? It may seem like it but maybe not. Luckily the longer I thought about this, the less confusing and headache-inducing it seemed.

But it gave me another idea. What if, instead of Dana going back primarily to make sure that Rufus is safe, she's going back to make Rufus a better person? He isn't exactly a great person at the beginning, though that might just be because he's a little kid, and not all kids are really good people at that point in their life. Though when Dana comes to Rufus recently, he seems to be both a likable and despicable person. He rapes Alice, his childhood friend, just because he wanted to be with her and she didn't. That's even worse than some other half-assed excuse. However, he does take care of Dana and makes sure she isn't bothered too much by Tom Weylin. He seems to see her as a mother figure or somebody he can rely on. He seems to need her help and company, and he even listens to what she says and follows her instructions. This seems to be a pivotal point in Rufus' life, and maybe Dana's here to nudge him on the path to being a kind and understanding man. However, this is just a theory I came up with, so it's probably not even close to being right and I'm just completely looking at this the wrong way. Either way, I want to see how Rufus turns out with Dana's influence on him. I can't wait to finish this book, but I'll just have to deal with it.

How Could You, Rufus?!

So after rereading the long reading assignment, I only have one thing to say. How could you, Rufus?! It's not okay to rape black women, even if the other white people tell you it's okay. It's really worrying to me, because I think that it shows Rufus is becoming more like his father, a slaveholder, than a compassionate young man that Dana wants him to become. The big question now is whether Alice is carrying Hagar or not. If not, it remains to be seen if Alice and Rufus will be in a loving situation when they have a child together. Also, if it isn't a loving situation, will Dana's morals or her will to survive win? For now, it seems highly unlikely that Alice would be willing to be anywhere near Rufus. Will Dana's intervention play an important part in bringing Alice and Rufus together? So far, she's been focused on just making sure Rufus stays alive, but what if she's also supposed to help Rufus with his personal life? Dana did manage to get Rufus to listen to her previously, but now as a teenager Rufus has quite a rebellious streak, seeing Dana's reminders as threats and even threatening Dana himself. In fact, Dana can't even know if Rufus really sent a letter to Kevin, which is very worrying. Hopefully Rufus will turn out to be a good person, which I feel should take priority over everything, even ensuring the creation of Hagar. I can't wait to read on and find out what will happen.

Gosh Darn This Book...

I've almost never had problems putting down a book when reading for school. Sure, in Ragtime I read the final chapter because I just wanted to see the conclusion of the book, but I'm the kind of person who just reads the part they're assigned to read and just stop. However, when I'm reading Kindred, I find it nearly impossible to stop once I've started. I just find the book that good. I just sat down, planning to spend around 10-20 minutes to read the short first two section in the fight and ended up reading completely through the section assigned for the Tuesday after Spring Break. This completely shocked me. I realized I was spending more time reading than I planned to but I just kept telling myself, "Okay, just this next paragraph and then I'll stop." Yeah, that didn't really work out the way I planned...I'm still tempted to read more but I don't want to end up knowing the whole plot at this point. I want to take my time reading this book, even if it tortures me greatly.

I remember hearing in class about how people accidentally read through the whole book, and it surprised me. How can you possibly accidentally finish a book? But now, I understand. The book pulls you in, draws your attention. You want to know what Dana's next adventure is going to be, you want to know about Rufus' fate, you want to know how he'll turn out, and whether he and Alice are going to be romantically involved, or if it's just a situation where he rapes her. The book keeps your attention once you've started. I'm almost certain I'm going to end up reading ahead, which could potentially cause some problems for me, but we'll see. One thing I do know for certain is, I'm not going to just forget about this book once I've finished it. I plan to always keep this book with me, to reread and get drawn into it. In terms of books I've had to read for a class, this book is my favorite. It's impossible for it not to be.

Poor Billy

I really feel bad for Billy in Slaughterhouse Five. The poor guy got picked on by almost everybody when he was in the war, and after the war he was in an accident and lost his wife as a result. It's quite saddening, especially since Billy is just so seemingly innocent but he seems to have rotten luck. He's captured not only by the Germans after being ditched by the two real scouts with no weapons and some really poor quality clothes. He also gets abducted by aliens, which sucks, because who likes being abducted? He manages somehow to survive the bombing of Dresden but years later ends up in a plane crash. He survives, but while he's in the hospital his wife, who's completely freaking out, gets into an accident, isn't physically injured, but ends up dying of carbon monoxide poisoning when she gets to the hospital that Billy's at. Nobody seems to take Billy seriously either. Even his own daughter is convinced that he's crazy. I can't help but feel sorry for him because of this. To me, it seems that the reason Billy claims he was abducted by Tralfamadorians is because he needs a way to cope with what he's experienced and lost, which just makes me feel sorrier for him. Overall I feel that Billy is a character that's very easy to feel sorry for and one that you should feel sorry for.

Slaughterhouse Five

Having read most of Slaughterhouse Five, I can say, without a doubt, that I am completely confused on how mixing together history and strange aliens from another planet can even remotely work. I'd normally think nothing that combines history and aliens would be able to work, but apparently it works perfectly fine in this book. How does putting something serious and completely fictional manage to pass? My brain is telling me that shouldn't be able to work but having read the book, but there's just no issue with the book in doing so. Moving on from that strange combination, I was also really surprised at the book having three titles. I've never seen a book with more than one title before, probably because I don't read that many books, but three titles seems a bit excessive to me. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against a book having multiple titles, it just seems strange to me. Overall though the story really captivated me and I'm definitely going to read this book again in my free time.

Jes Grew?

When I first started reading Mumbo Jumbo, I was really confused about Jes Grew. So some people get this...illness(?) which makes them want to dance and be happy? Really? Is this supposed to be something to really worry about or was it created as something to not be taken seriously? Oh, so this could threaten the Western civilization? Well how? What does people dancing around and being happy have anything to do with civilization? It made no sense to me. I thought at first that Jes Grew was supposed to be something like immigration. Immigrants would bring over their culture, which would spread, just like Jes Grew, and there would be people worrying about how the culture of Western Civilization would be threatened by the new culture of various immigrants. Jes Grew seems harmless, just like immigration, but it's over-hyped by the media and older generation who don't like change. However, as the book progresses, it's revealed that Jes Grew is a movement and it completely shot down any thoughts I would've had about what Jes Grew is. Aw screw it, there's always next time, and deep conclusions are for tools and English teachers anyway.

Little Boy vs. American Dream

The American Dream of a nice house with a white picket fence and an average of 2.5 kids. While the family in Ragtime doesn't have 2.5 kids, they still do follow the guidelines of the American Dream. The American Dream is one that emphasizes stability. However, this vision of stability is challenged by the little boy, who focuses on change. In one instance, the little boy listens to a record over and over again, almost as if he were expecting to hear something different eventually. In another instance, the little boy looks at his reflection in a mirror, noticing every change, no matter how minuscule, and "gaze at himself until there were two selves facing one another". The little boy would also stare at statues, noticing how each time he looked at a statue, the colors would be slightly different or pieces would be missing. The little boy is the best character to use because, as a child, he's bound to be more open minded than the other characters in the book who are adults. As a child, the little boy's the one that will look at the world in amazement and questions everything he sees. He's the one that won't just sit back and accept things the way they're told to him, he'll be curious. This is why I think Doctorow used the little boy as the one to challenge the American Dream of stability. He's a child, which makes it realistic and probable for him to not just sit back and accept what he's told.

A Slight Disappointment

Having read the ending of Ragtime, I was very disappointed. I thought it was hastily put together, especially since only two of the male characters were alive by the end. I've heard the saying, "one death is tragic, 100 deaths is a statistic". While there weren't 100 male characters that died, most of the men still died and to me, it seemed less significant. The ending also reminded me of how I used to end short story assignments. I wouldn't know what else to do with the characters so I just killed them off. I could understand Coalhouse being killed since he did break the law repeatedly and was in a building surrounded by cops. If Coalhouse hadn't been killed I would have been surprised. However, Younger Brother and Father dying seemed completely random. It felt like their deaths were only for the purpose of helping Tateh. Younger Borther's death helped deteriorate Father and Mother's marriage and Father's death allowed for Tateh to marry mother. The whole situation with Father being on dying was also very convenient after Tateh was shown taking an interest in Mother. Overall, I disliked that Doctorow killed off most of the male characters because to me, it seemed like he had given up trying to figure out what to do with them and sentenced them to death.

Morgan vs. Ford

The question of which character evokes more sympathy from the reader, Ford or Morgan, is controversial. I believe the answer is obviously Morgan. He feels alone in the word, without anybody who can live up to his standards. He invited other successful businessmen in the hopes that he would be able to obtain "the collected energy of their minds might buckle the walls of his home" but ended up being bored by the people there. In order to prove there's nobody in the world that could be his equal, he portrays himself  as a reincarnated pharaoh. Morgan acts like a child in a candy store, very excited and nearly frothing at the mouth which, although slightly creepy, makes him appear human. That elicits my sympathy. Ford also believes in reincarnation but, unlike Morgan who spent a fortune to understand reincarnation, spent 50 cents and is very calm and collected about it. Ford is more sensible and exact, giving the impression of being more machine-like and less human. For me, it hinders my sympathy for him because he makes me think he isn't completely human. In conclusion, the character Morgan evokes more sympathy from the reader.