Melissa Brooks
November 20, 2008
Beasts of No Nation p. 1-75
Paul, I am, as you suggested, posting my email to you about Beasts of No Nation I wrote in August for my last post (I did revise it a bit).
The scenes that shocked me most in Beasts were those where Agu killed people with a machete or knife. For instance, when he and Srtika killed the woman and daughter:
"Then Strika is taking his knife high above his head and chopping and everybody is coming apart." (51).
"I am liking the sound of knife chopping KPWUDA KPWUDA on her head and how the blood is just splashing on my hand and my face and my feets. I am chopping and chopping and chopping until I am looking up and it is dark" (51).
The scenes where the Commandant molests Agu also disturbed me extensively. A combination of factors made this book shocking for me: the brutality of the violence (machetes), the pleasure the soldiers often seemed to take in killing and humiliating people, Agu's youthfulness, and especially the humanization of Agu--his anecdotes from his life before the war, in school, with his family; his fluctuation between pleasure and remorse about killing; his cognitive dissonance about his actions while he was killing. Agu makes me think about how people who kill can be regular people and are not necessarily seized by a moment of "insanity" when they kill; it puts people who have killed that much closer to me and every other person in mentality. This in turn reminds me that everyone has the potential to kill, and it just makes me sad. For me, killing, and many cruel or mean things, are entwined with empathy; I'm almost terrified to do things I wouldn't want people to do to me. When Agu or another soldier was killing someone, I often thought of myself in that victim's place, and that makes it much harder for me to cope with this book, and material of this nature.
I think part of the reason we may be drawn to shocking material is because they offer us mental stimulation. We seem to be desensitized to so many things now that stimulation is much harder to come by, so when we experience it we hold on to it. In general, I think people prefer stimulation (even if it's nauseating) to boredom. I also think that shocking material can make us more knowledgeable, aware, and open minded, the latter alone being reason enough for me to pursue the material. But with Beasts for instance, it offers a personal account of war and reawakens us to how awful it really is. It's easier to think about war with grown men in uniforms, attacking only other soldiers, and being very strategic, well planned, and confined to a site solely for war. In Beasts, kids are fighting, civilians are ruthlessly murdered, and the troop Agu's with seem to have no plan whatsoever, rather, that they're wandering aimlessly, hoping to stumble across something (however this could be due to the fact that we hear the story from Agu's point of view--being a kid he does not fully understand what is going on). Anyhow, my point is that I think these kinds of texts force us to face the uglier aspects of reality, and I, at least, want to accept things as they really are and not pretend they're different.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Alternate Interpretations
Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi p. 1-183
I don't think the notion that events, books, films, poetry, art, etc., are all open to interpretation necessarily undermines that any of these things took place or exist. We can all interpret events differently from one another, while all still believing the events actually happened. The question of whether or not something has occurred aside, we have different perspectives on whether an event is important, and different perspectives on why it's important. We can also interpret people's emotions and motivations differently. One person might think Romeo and Juliet were star-crossed lovers, while another person might think they were immature people who barely knew each other, and were more in love with their ideas of one another as well as the excitement and danger of the situation that being in love with one another would create. These two interpretations do not call into question whether Romeo and Juliet actually had a love affair, were caught in the stranglehold of a deep seated family feud, and killed themselves. The interpretation that they were not actually in love also does not undermine the possibility that they honestly believed they were in love with one another.
Satrapi actually seems critical of questioning the existence of events and "the material world." On page 12, she depicts a conversation between Descartes and Marx. Descartes says the rock Marx is holding does not exist because "it's only a reflection of our own imagination." Marx throws the rock at Descartes head, who says, "Ouch! What are you doing Karl, you broke my skull!" His response seems to indicate that the material world is very real indeed, as are the events that take place within it. And supposing that they were not, it hardly seems to matter since we experience pain and myriad other emotions as a result of these events, and suffer physical injuries (i.e. Descartes' broken skull).
Satrapi's reason for writing Persepolis, in part, was because many people (probably many in the US and Western world in general) interpret Iran as a nation of "fundamentalism, fanaticism, and terrorism" (Introduction p. 2). While events relating to all three of these things certainly took place, Satrapi says this a limited interpretation of Iran. It doesn't take into account the vast array of "Iranians who lost their lives in prisons defending freedom," such as her uncle Anoosh who was arrested and executed for being a "Russian spy" (Intro p. 2, 68-70). We can interpret events in different ways and still agree that they happened. Our view of a country's character, like whether Iran is fundamentalist or a nation of freedom champions, is the more crucial interpretation.
I don't think the notion that events, books, films, poetry, art, etc., are all open to interpretation necessarily undermines that any of these things took place or exist. We can all interpret events differently from one another, while all still believing the events actually happened. The question of whether or not something has occurred aside, we have different perspectives on whether an event is important, and different perspectives on why it's important. We can also interpret people's emotions and motivations differently. One person might think Romeo and Juliet were star-crossed lovers, while another person might think they were immature people who barely knew each other, and were more in love with their ideas of one another as well as the excitement and danger of the situation that being in love with one another would create. These two interpretations do not call into question whether Romeo and Juliet actually had a love affair, were caught in the stranglehold of a deep seated family feud, and killed themselves. The interpretation that they were not actually in love also does not undermine the possibility that they honestly believed they were in love with one another.
Satrapi actually seems critical of questioning the existence of events and "the material world." On page 12, she depicts a conversation between Descartes and Marx. Descartes says the rock Marx is holding does not exist because "it's only a reflection of our own imagination." Marx throws the rock at Descartes head, who says, "Ouch! What are you doing Karl, you broke my skull!" His response seems to indicate that the material world is very real indeed, as are the events that take place within it. And supposing that they were not, it hardly seems to matter since we experience pain and myriad other emotions as a result of these events, and suffer physical injuries (i.e. Descartes' broken skull).
Satrapi's reason for writing Persepolis, in part, was because many people (probably many in the US and Western world in general) interpret Iran as a nation of "fundamentalism, fanaticism, and terrorism" (Introduction p. 2). While events relating to all three of these things certainly took place, Satrapi says this a limited interpretation of Iran. It doesn't take into account the vast array of "Iranians who lost their lives in prisons defending freedom," such as her uncle Anoosh who was arrested and executed for being a "Russian spy" (Intro p. 2, 68-70). We can interpret events in different ways and still agree that they happened. Our view of a country's character, like whether Iran is fundamentalist or a nation of freedom champions, is the more crucial interpretation.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Final Entry for One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
November 5, 2008
People are more likely to expemplify determinism when they pursue a solitary lifestyle. Most of the members of the Buendias family experience ongoing solitude, and they tend to repeat the mistakes of their ancestors. Garcia Marquez may be indicating that we achieve a greater sense of individuatlity (somewhat ironically) by reaching out to others and openly communicating with them. When we strive to understand and love one another, as well as when we pursue knowledge, particularly of history and literature, we achieve an individuality that we cannot have otherwise. Only when we are knowledgable and aware of the myriad choices and paths available to us can we exercise an individuality more reflective of free will.
Similarly, we can only over come "vices" through love and knowledge. Amaranta Ursula and Aureliano's child (the last of the Buendias) was "predisposed to begin the race again from the beginning and cleanse it of its pernicious vices and solitarly calling, for he was the only one in a century who had been engendered with love" (378). Perhaps the rest of the Buendia family, and in general people not engendered with love, are predisposed to solitude, and misery even.
November 5, 2008
People are more likely to expemplify determinism when they pursue a solitary lifestyle. Most of the members of the Buendias family experience ongoing solitude, and they tend to repeat the mistakes of their ancestors. Garcia Marquez may be indicating that we achieve a greater sense of individuatlity (somewhat ironically) by reaching out to others and openly communicating with them. When we strive to understand and love one another, as well as when we pursue knowledge, particularly of history and literature, we achieve an individuality that we cannot have otherwise. Only when we are knowledgable and aware of the myriad choices and paths available to us can we exercise an individuality more reflective of free will.
Similarly, we can only over come "vices" through love and knowledge. Amaranta Ursula and Aureliano's child (the last of the Buendias) was "predisposed to begin the race again from the beginning and cleanse it of its pernicious vices and solitarly calling, for he was the only one in a century who had been engendered with love" (378). Perhaps the rest of the Buendia family, and in general people not engendered with love, are predisposed to solitude, and misery even.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)