Philip K. Dick: "Second Variety" Analysis

“As the Tassos reached for him, a last ironic thought drifted through Hendrick’s mind. He felt a little better, thinking about it. The bomb. Made by the Second Variety to destroy the other varieties. Made for that end alone.
They were already beginning to design weapons to use against each other” (248).

This quote is worth analyzing to me for multiple reasons. Hendricks has accepted his defeat at this point and can only find a small victory in the fact that the Tassos will soon be destroying each other in the same way that they have destroyed humankind. While the Tassos are certainly not humans, I think that their actions and the themes of this story can be applied very well to human nature. First of all, one concept that is interesting to reflect upon is the human-caused destruction of humanity found in the story. If the robots had not been created by humans to help the humans fight, humankind could have been safe and not ruined by the Tassos. Therefore, humans created their own destiny in this aspect. This is a frightening thought in a way, because at the rate which technology is advancing in society today it may not be far fetched to imagine a day when robots such as the Tassos exist. While it is unlikely that they end up creating an outcome such as the one in this story, the idea of technology being more harmful than helpful is definitely one worth pondering. This story also made me think about what exactly makes a human. While physically the Tassos were not humans, their actions and outer appearance were so humanlike that even the most well-trained soldiers could not recognize them. Keeping that in mind, what makes a human a human? Humans and robots are practically indistinguishable in this story, and by the end the Tassos are so much like humans that they begin plotting destruction against their own kind. While it is not easy to admit that it is human nature to be conflicted with others, it is, and by accepting this trait and beginning to destroy each other Tassos are about as humanlike as they can get. Humans are not satisfied without some type of conflict, and it is not easy to understand happiness without experiencing something to make that happiness more appreciated. As said in a past story, “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” people, or at least intellectual people, are not satisfied without pain or evil; life is too boring without it. While it is a comforting thought that the Tassos are only plotting destruction within their own kind because they are robots and destruction is what they are trained to do, this is not true. Humans destroy each other just as much, if not more, than robots do. After doing some background research, the idea that this concept was included made complete sense because I found that the story was written during some of the greatest conflict of the Cold War. Therefore, it is easy to see just how cold and robotic humans can be with each other; perhaps we are not that different from robots at times.

“The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell: Analysis

“The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell is a short story about a man whose identity is suddenly switched from that of an advanced and talented hunter to that of one being hunted. Rainsford falls off the ship that he is on with his friend Whitney while making their way up the Amazon to hunt, and when he finally makes it to shore he finds himself on an island where people are hunted by a man who goes by the name of the general. One quote that I found especially interesting was said by the general to Rainsford when he is telling him about why he hunts people:
“Life is for the strong, to be lived by the strong, and, if needs be, taken by the strong. The weak of the world were put here to give the strong pleasure. I am strong. Why should I not use my gift? If I wish to hunt, why should I not? I hunt the scum of the earth: sailors from tramp ships—lassars, blacks, Chinese, whites, mongrels—a thoroughbred horse or hound is worth more than a score of them” (8).
I found this quote to be thought-provoking for many reasons. The general tries to be justified in his actions by saying that he deserves to use his gift of hunting. He makes it seem as though killing people for fun is the same as playing a sport, or doing puzzles: since he is good at doing it he sees no reason why he should ever have to stop or feel bad about doing it. I found it fascinating that the general, while at first glance is a monster with no regard for human life, does have his own warped sense of morals. He gives his targets a somewhat generous fight each time, although the fact that they are forced into being a part of the fight is clearly less than fair. He says that he hunts the “scum of the earth,” but it is unclear who exactly would be worthy of escaping his pursuit, since he names quite a variety of people as his targets. This idea of honor amongst thieves was one that I dwelled on for a while, because the general is so confident in his ways that he almost seems convincing in his explanation for why he deserves to hunt innocent people.
Another interesting aspect of this quote is the irony that exists in this conversation through Rainsford’s opinions.  In the beginning of the story, Rainsford scoffs at Whitney for having some regard for the feelings of those who he hunts, but now he is placed more into Whitney’s position. It is unclear where Rainsford draws the line for who deserves to live versus die. It seems as though he feels only humans deserve to live, although this brings into question the idea of all life forms being equal versus humans being superior. Another idea that is worth debating is how the general claims that Rainsford is too naïve in his ways about hunting, while he himself still believes in the theory of survival of the fittest. While this is not necessarily a naïve viewpoint, it is certainly too primal to describe humans in society today. This surprised me because the general portrays himself as a very distinguished man, but his ideas about human life are closer to being outdated than anything else.

"God of Love" Analysis

“God of Love” is a short film about a young man named Raymond who seems to be overall pretty satisfied with his life. He does not want much, but one thing that he does desire- and very strongly- is to fall in love. The object of his affections is a young woman named Kelly, who happens to be in Raymond’s band and also, unfortunately, happens to be madly in love with his best friend. Raymond prays to God nightly that Kelly will return his affections, but there seems to be no progress in his relationship with her until he receives a mysterious box of darts that he can throw at people to make them fall in love for a short period of time. Raymond decides to use the darts to make Kelly jealous and ends up with a swarm of women, all of whom absolutely adore him. One of the women says that they will help him win over Kelly’s affections, to which he replies, “I mean, that’s nice but aren’t you guys kind of in love with me? Isn’t that like a conflict of interest or something?”. The woman replies nonchalantly, “That is why we will help you. We love you, Raymond, we want you to be happy” (12:50 starting point).
This part of the film was an interesting foreshadowing technique from the director, because at the end of the film Raymond accidentally strikes his best friend with a dart, causing him to fall in love with an ecstatic Kelly. Therefore, he is forced to let go of Kelly, and although he does not do so willingly it seems that in the end he is at peace with the way the situation with Kelly played out and that he realizes that she is much happier with his friend than she would have been with him. However, if Raymond had adapted this attitude from the beginning, it is possible that he could have used the darts to strike someone else and may have had a chance at a happy relationship after all.
For most of the film, Raymond’s happiness is greater and more important in his mind than Kelly’s free will. The way he acted up until he accidentally struck his friend with the dart was quite selfish, and this is why he was never quite satisfied with the way things turned out. However, once his friend fell in love with Kelly and the two of them ended up being happy together, it seemed that Raymond changed his mindset quite drastically and realized that he could actually use his dart-throwing talent, along with his magical darts, for the benefit of others. This is when he became “Godly”: when he stopped thinking about himself and instead began to focus on helping others.

Kate Chopin, "The Story of an Hour" Analysis

“The Story of An Hour” by Kate Chopin is a short story set in the year 1894 about a woman, Mrs. Mallard, who is told about her husband’s unexpected death by her sister. At first, Mrs. Mallard’s reaction is what one would expect of a woman’s whose husband just passed away, and she seems completely inconsolable and anguished. However, it doesn’t take long for her emotional state to change completely and drastically. One quote that I found worth discussing from the text is, “She was beginning to recognize this thing that was approaching to possess her, and she was striving to beat it back with her will- as powerless as her two white slender hands would have been. When she abandoned herself a little whispered word escaped her slightly parted lips. She said it over and over under her breath: “free, free, free!” The vacant stare and the look of terror that had followed it went from her eyes. They stayed keen and bright. Her pulses beat fast, and the coursing blood warmed and relaxed every inch of her body” (1).
There were many aspects of this quote that I found worth analyzing, and I think that the specific language used enhanced the story a great deal.  It’s interesting to me that the story says Mrs. Mallard could tell something was “approaching to possess her,” when in reality nothing was possessing her. I think that Mrs. Mallard was finally beginning to find herself, and that thing that was possessing her was actually her own mind and awareness, for lack of a better way to describe it. She had been so used to being repressed that it actually scared her at first to realize that she was now completely free to be her own person instead of basing her self image on another person- her husband.
This quote places a great emphasis on the real helplessness of Mrs. Mallard, saying that her will was “as powerless as her two white slender hands would have been”. This description of her hands is good imagery, and provided me with a picture of how I imagined her to look overall: pale, thin, and weak. By comparing her will to that image, it was easy to see that Mrs. Mallard was not a woman of power, in society or within her marriage. This most likely had a lot to do with the time period of the story as well, which makes her secondary reaction to her husband’s death both shocking yet completely understandable.
I also found it interesting how Mrs. Mallard is described at the end of this quote. Although she was not possessed per se, the word choice of the author certainly makes it seem as though she could have been. Not only does she undergo a mental transformation when realizing she is “free,” her excitement manifests itself into her physical state as well. The way that she was compared reminded me of a wild animal, and I found it interesting to consider that analogy: in a way, she was like a wild animal who had been freed after being kept in captivity, with all her senses heightened as she realized the world that had just been opened up to her. I really enjoyed this story and I think that this quote in particular gave me as a reader a vivid sense of what Mrs. Mallard was experiencing.

"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin: Analysis

  “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” is a short story about a fictional city where, at first glance, everything seems near perfect. Everyone is happy, but not in an ignorant way; in the appreciative way that only intelligent and wholly aware people may be. However, the total satisfaction that exists in this city is completely reliant on the grotesque torture of one of its citizens: a small child who is locked in the basement of one of the public buildings and basically treated like an animal, neglected and living in complete misery. One quote that I found especially interesting from this story is, “The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain. If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. If it hurts, repeat it. But to praise despair is to condemn delight, to embrace violence is to lose hold of everything else” (76).
There are certain parts of this quote that I completely agree with. Society does have a way of viewing those who are happy as either stupid or blissfully ignorant, as if everyone else can’t fathom the idea of actually being satisfied with their lives. The idea of only pain being intellectual is an interesting one, as if anyone with a degree of intelligence must be so openly aware of all the pain in the world that they carry it within themselves and suffer as a result. The ironic part about this statement is that the people of Omelas do the exact opposite, which is even more destructive, in my opinion. Others may look down upon the Omelas for being so happy, but in reality the people of the Omelas epitomize the idea of “blissfully ignorant”. The idea of choosing to be happy to live a better life is a great one, but doing so by ignoring the pain that exists literally under their feet makes the people of Omelas a group of lesser people as a whole. They do not “embrace violence,” but they still seem to lose hold of everything besides their own happiness. That is far from just being naïve, or blissfully ignorant- that is something only achieved by a society of monsters.
I find it so interesting how it seems, at first glance, that the ideas conceptualized in this quote are lived out by the people of Omelas quite well. They live above the “banality of evil,” and choose not “to embrace violence,” but doing these things does not lead them to live better lives than the rest of us. It would be different if they were happy just for the sake of being happy, but to choose to be naïve is not the same as actually being naïve. The people of Omelas do not live perfect lives, and acting as if they do does not take away from the fact that there is still just as much suffering in that town as there is happiness, because perfection is ruined the instant anything happens to spite it. The people of Omelas try to hide their problems, but that does not mean they don’t exist, as prominent as their blessings.

Sherman Alexie, "This Is What It Means To Say Phoenix, Arizona" Analysis

  This Is What It Means To Say Phoenix, Arizona" by Sherman Alexie is a story about the complicated relationship between two Indian men who grew up together, and eventually apart from each other. Victor, one of the men, must go to his deceased father’s house to collect his things, but does not have the money or transportation to get there. Thomas Builds-the-Fire, the other man and one who is considered to be slightly eccentric by others on the reservation, offers to help Victor get to his father’s house under the condition that he is allowed to take the trip with Victor. One quote that I found to be particularly interesting in this story can be found at the end, when Victor and Thomas Builds-the-Fire are departing after their trip:

            “Thomas took the ashes and smiled, closed his eyes, and told this story: ‘I’m going to travel to Spokane Falls one last time and toss these ashes into the water. And your father will rise like a salmon, leap over the bridge, over me, and find his way home. It will be beautiful. His teeth will shine like silver, like a rainbow. He will rise, Victor, he will rise.’

     “ ‘I was planning on doing the same thing with my half,’ Victor said. ‘But I didn’t imagine my father looking anything like a salmon. I thought it’d be like cleaning the attic or something. Like letting things go after they’ve stopped having any use.’

     ‘Nothing stops, cousin,’ Thomas said. ‘Nothing stops.’” (page 7).

           

            This quote, in my opinion, says a great deal about both of the characters. Thomas has an optimistic view of what will come of Victor’s father after his death, saying that he will “find his way home”, as if whatever time he spent on earth was only in preparation for something much better. Victor, on the other hand, has a more simple way of thinking about what to do with his father’s ashes; he plans on tossing them into the water as well, but not to honor his father, just to discard of them in an efficient way. I feel as though Thomas’s way of thinking is much more optimistic, and it seems as though he likes to think about the best side of people instead of the more ugly memories. This idea is confirmed when he calls Victor “cousin,” the name that the two called each other as children. Thomas remembers his close relationship with Victor and chooses not to acknowledge the way their relationship changed, while Victor is clearly a man who likes to cut all ties when he feels that a relationship has ended, as portrayed through the way he handles his father’s death. His statement “Like letting things go after they’ve stopped having any use” also alludes to his relationship with Thomas, both in the past and now: he stopped being friends with Thomas as a child when he found new people to spend his time with, and is letting Thomas go again now after their journey together because Thomas has served his purpose to him. I think that the way Thomas acknowledges Victor’s idea of letting things go, by saying that there is no way Victor can sever the ties between himself and his father or himself and Thomas, is quite beautiful, and I think this quote portrays the two men and their true colors very well. If we all tried to live more like Thomas at some points and choose to see the good in other people instead of viewing them as they are able to help us, I believe we would be more satisfied with ourselves and the people we surround ourselves with.
    

Zora Neale Hurston, "Sweat" Analysis

4 September 2014

     "Sweat" by Zora Neale Hurston is a short story about a Negro woman, Delia, dealing with oppression from white people and, on an even higher level, from her husband. There are many overlaying themes of this story, which include racism, abuse of power on many levels, and equality (or lack thereof) of the sexes. One quote that I found to be particularly central to the overall story is a quote from Syke, Delia's husband, after he hides a rattlesnake in their house for Delia to find knowing that she is terrified of snakes. He says, "Ah ain't gut tuh do nuthin' uh de kin'- fact is Ah ain't got tuh do nothin' but die. Taint no use uh you puttin' on airs makin' out lak you skeered uh dat snake- he's gointer stay right heah tell he die. He wouldn't bite me cause Ah knows how tuh handle 'im. Nohow he wouldnt risk breakin' out his fangs 'gin yo' skinny laigs... Doan ast me tuh do nothin' fuh yuh. Goin' roun' trying' tuh be so damn asterperious" (3). This quote was interesting to me for many reasons. There is quite a bit of foreshadowing present, mainly because Syke is so confident that he knows "how to handle" the snake when in the end Delia is able to escape the snake while it brings about Syke's death. Syke scoffs at Delia's fear, but in the end her fear and awareness of the danger of the snake ends up being completely rational while Syke is the one to make a fool of himself. I also found it interesting that Syke calls Delia asterperious, since he is the one clearly acting confident to the point of ignorance by keeping the snake in the house. The first line also struck me as very peculiar. Syke tells Delia he "ain't got tuh do nothin' but die," trying to prove to her that she has no authority over him or his actions. Ironically enough, Delia ends up being the cause of Syke's death inadvertently by not saving him when she had the option to, so it did end up that the things he thought he had the most control over- both the snake and his death- turned around to defeat him in the end. 

     Another interesting aspect of this quote that interested me was that Syke placed emphasis on Delia's legs being too "skinny" for the snake to want to bite. Syke scoffs at Delia's weight multiple times in the story, saying that she is too skinny for his taste. However, if Delia weighed as much as the other woman that Syke was attracted to there is a chance that she would not have been able to climb the tree to escape the snake and therefore escape her death. Her thin figure represents everything that Syke hates about her, and in the end she is able to triumph over him because of everything he made fun of her for while he died because of what he inaccurately thought himself to be. 

Blog Entry 1: Edgar Allen Poe, "The Tell-Tale Heart"

1 September 2014

     "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allen Poe is a short story about a man who lets his own guilt get the best of him after murdering an older man and ends up admitting to the crime to the authorities as a result. One quote from this story that I found to be especially interesting and worth analyzing can be found on page 2: "Yes, he had been trying to comfort himself with these suppositions: but he had found all in vain. All in vain; because Death, in approaching him had stalked with his black shadow before him, and enveloped the victim. And it was the mournful influence of the unperceived shadow that caused him to feel—although he neither saw nor heard—to feel the presence of my head within the room". At this point in the story, the narrator is discussing the old man's apprehension, as he seems to know that there is an intruder in his bedroom. I found this quote worth analyzing for many reasons, and I think that it is a great portrayal of the unstable mind of the narrator and foreshadows the disturbing acts to follow.

     It was quite prominent to me how the word "Death" in this sentence is capitalized, as if the old man's inevitable coming death was the responsibility of death itself, some dark, ominous figure who stalks its victims on its own. This is obviously not the case; the narrator is the one responsible for the old man's death, but his mindset of the action of the old man dying being something separate from himself is interesting because in reality there is such a small disparity between the two. The narrator speaks of death as if it is something he can also observe himself, when he is actually the one causing death to be brought upon the older man. This nonsensical view of death as a force that cannot be stopped further proves that the narrator is "mad", a fact that he works so hard to disprove throughout the story until his inevitable and rapid mental decline. 

     Another aspect of this sentence that I found to be interesting was the use of the word "mournful" when describing the presence that the older man feels in his bedroom. The term "mournful" usually has a sad, disconsolate connotation, as if whatever is occurring within the context of that part of the text is troublesome for the narrator to even write about. Once again, the narrator at this point is portraying a different kind of emotion than he is actually feeling, showing that there is some instability within his mind. Assuming that he is not mourning the oncoming death of this man, seeing as though he is the one causing it, the use of that term seems to be a bit ironic, although it could be interpreted as the old man mourning what he knows now to be his inevitable death. Overall, this quote has a very negative and ominous tone, and definitely sets the stage in the reader's mind to allow them to predict what may follow in the text.