Remix:
http://Pixton.com/ic:3lll9eta
Original:
http://www.pixton.com/comic/5edkvwen
Monday, June 6, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Persepolis... and Cars?
As I've read the book, I couldn't help but notice that there is an excessive use of cars throughout the story. I first noticed in the first chapter, on page 6, when Marji said that she wanted to be a prophet because her father had a Cadillac. I didn't understand that, so I skipped over it. And then on the next page, there's a toy car sitting on her shelf above her, and on page 9, there's a random toy car floating in the blackness above God's head. Coincidence? I'm not sure, but the introduction to graphic novels packet said that every detail is significant, so I'm inclined to believe that there's some hidden meaning.
The cars don't stop appearing there, though. They're seen on pages 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 44, 45, 50, 64, 66, 68, 74, 75, 81, 87, 88, 89, 93, 101, 105, 108, 109, 112, 120, 132, 133, 139, and 151 (Wow, I can't believe I went through 150 pages just to look for cars.). If you don't believe me, look for yourself; they're all there. Hardly three pages go by without a car somewhere, and most of those pages had two or more frames with cars in them. It's as if Marjane Satrapi put them in wherever they could fit. With pictures as basic as they are in this novel, it's incredible how many times cars appear in the background. No artistic value would be lost if none of them were there, and yet they're everywhere. There must be some other value to them, and that means some secret meaning. I just don't know what. Any Ideas?
The cars don't stop appearing there, though. They're seen on pages 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 44, 45, 50, 64, 66, 68, 74, 75, 81, 87, 88, 89, 93, 101, 105, 108, 109, 112, 120, 132, 133, 139, and 151 (Wow, I can't believe I went through 150 pages just to look for cars.). If you don't believe me, look for yourself; they're all there. Hardly three pages go by without a car somewhere, and most of those pages had two or more frames with cars in them. It's as if Marjane Satrapi put them in wherever they could fit. With pictures as basic as they are in this novel, it's incredible how many times cars appear in the background. No artistic value would be lost if none of them were there, and yet they're everywhere. There must be some other value to them, and that means some secret meaning. I just don't know what. Any Ideas?
What Gives Them the Right?
People always say that we have to learn history to learn from our mistakes, but we can't avoid those mistakes if they ban us from learning what really happened in America's past. For instance, both Huckleberry Fin and To Kill A Mockingbird use realistic events to demote racism in America, and yet both have been banned. What's even more aggravating is that the majority of challenges of those books come from African-American people. I don't know if they're ignorant of their true meanings, or they've just never read the books, but either way, they shouldn't be challenging either book.
We've also read a lot of the books that have been deemed as unsuited for our age group in other institutions, and we haven't been corrupted by them. None of us have started to brew toad stew since reading Harry Potter, and we haven't gone on a murdering rampage since reading Lord of the Rings. They're harmless. There are obviously some books that have no place in low-level schools. For instance, I don't think any first grader should be reading Sex by Madonna. Even banning books for young children has gone too far, though. Classic children's books like Winnie the Pooh and Charlotte's Web have been banned in some places. I don't see how such books could possibly corrupt America. They're harmless, and every kid loves them. If anyone said that Winnie the Pooh is corrupting our youth, I'd tell them to flip on the TV sometime. Perhaps it's not children's books that are corrupting our youth but the endless amounts of violence and sex they see on TV. There is plenty of other corrupting media they could be focusing on besides a hopping tiger and clumsy bear. There are some things that kids would be better off without, but some people are just ridiculous in what they choose to attack.
As teenagers, on the other hand, I think we can handle pretty much anything, and to deny us certain literature goes against the first amendment. Who besides us should be able to decide what ideas we're exposed to and what things we're interested in?
We've also read a lot of the books that have been deemed as unsuited for our age group in other institutions, and we haven't been corrupted by them. None of us have started to brew toad stew since reading Harry Potter, and we haven't gone on a murdering rampage since reading Lord of the Rings. They're harmless. There are obviously some books that have no place in low-level schools. For instance, I don't think any first grader should be reading Sex by Madonna. Even banning books for young children has gone too far, though. Classic children's books like Winnie the Pooh and Charlotte's Web have been banned in some places. I don't see how such books could possibly corrupt America. They're harmless, and every kid loves them. If anyone said that Winnie the Pooh is corrupting our youth, I'd tell them to flip on the TV sometime. Perhaps it's not children's books that are corrupting our youth but the endless amounts of violence and sex they see on TV. There is plenty of other corrupting media they could be focusing on besides a hopping tiger and clumsy bear. There are some things that kids would be better off without, but some people are just ridiculous in what they choose to attack.
As teenagers, on the other hand, I think we can handle pretty much anything, and to deny us certain literature goes against the first amendment. Who besides us should be able to decide what ideas we're exposed to and what things we're interested in?
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Billy Pilgrim the Stoic
Well, I just finished Slaughterhouse-Five, and I'm not quite sure what to think of it. It was an incredibly interesting read with tons of clever writing that I thoroughly enjoyed, but I'm not sure I quite understood what Vonnegut wanted to say. I feel like I missed a lot of the references he made as well as the meaning of all the textual echoes he included. I think it's the sort of book you would have to read twice or more in order to truly grasp (or at least I would). As it is, though, this is the meaning I ended up interpreting:
Life is full of death, violence, and all sorts of horrible occurrences, but we have to learn to accept these things and focus instead on all of the good things that come. It's the point the Tralfamadorians were repeating throughout the story, and I think the phrase "so it goes" is a reflection of this way of thinking. After meeting the Tralfamadorians, Billy says this phrase after every time someone or something dies in the book. It's the equivalent of saying, "Shit happens, and there's nothing I can do about it, so I may as well forget about it." His way of saying it is just a bit shorter.
This point is also brought up in the end when Vonnegut goes on to say that 10,000 people die of starvation every day, and 123,000 more people die of other causes. After another "so it goes," he states that despite all of this death, there is a net gain of 191,000 lives every day. For every bad thing in life, there is something happier to focus on.
Throughout the book, Billy is rarely pictured as getting upset over any of the horrible things he witnesses, and he is generally a happy person despite being a POW in one of the harshest if not the harshest wars in this world's entire history. Maybe it's just because he's ignorant or crazy, but I'm more inclined to think that his life was made better simply because he looked at the happy moments in his life rather than that sad moments.
Life is full of death, violence, and all sorts of horrible occurrences, but we have to learn to accept these things and focus instead on all of the good things that come. It's the point the Tralfamadorians were repeating throughout the story, and I think the phrase "so it goes" is a reflection of this way of thinking. After meeting the Tralfamadorians, Billy says this phrase after every time someone or something dies in the book. It's the equivalent of saying, "Shit happens, and there's nothing I can do about it, so I may as well forget about it." His way of saying it is just a bit shorter.
This point is also brought up in the end when Vonnegut goes on to say that 10,000 people die of starvation every day, and 123,000 more people die of other causes. After another "so it goes," he states that despite all of this death, there is a net gain of 191,000 lives every day. For every bad thing in life, there is something happier to focus on.
Throughout the book, Billy is rarely pictured as getting upset over any of the horrible things he witnesses, and he is generally a happy person despite being a POW in one of the harshest if not the harshest wars in this world's entire history. Maybe it's just because he's ignorant or crazy, but I'm more inclined to think that his life was made better simply because he looked at the happy moments in his life rather than that sad moments.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The Patriot
The Patriot takes place during the Revolutionary War, and it depicts the story of a farmer turned into a reluctant, but lethal, soldier. The Farmer, Benjamin Martin (played by Mel Gibson), at first has no desire for there to even be a war, and he offers his house as a medical station for both the Americans and British after a battle occurs nearby. However, a British commander arrives, blames Martin of being a spy, kills one of his sons, shoots all the wounded Americans, burns down martin's house, and captures another one of Martin's sons. Now with no other choice, Martin and his remaining sons track down the British Convoy and free the captured son, Gabriel (played by Heath Ledger). Martin goes on to lead the local militia in guerrila warfare in order to occupy General Cornwallis's attention and prevent him from going north. Martin provokes more and more attention, winning skirmish after skirmish, but eventually Gabriel is killed by the same commander who burned down their house. In the last full out battle, Martin returns the favor and kills the commander, and the Americans are victorious in the Battle of Cowpens. The film ends with Cornwallis being beseiged in Yorktown and being forced to surrender, and Martin finds his neighbors and fellow militia men rebuilding his house in gratitude of all he did for them.
I think the goal of this particular film, like many others, was to show the tragedies many people have to face during wars as well as the tremedous bravery and accomplishments of those who fought. Martin is thrown in to fight with the death with one of his sons, and he is tormented even more witht the death of Gabriel. This is only one man in the war, and every man killed has family that will never see them again. The movie does a good job of showing this.
Contrary to Mary O'Hare's wishes, though, the movie also does an excellent job of glorifying the victories gained and obstacles overcome. The end is particularly patriotic and magnificent as Martin rushes headlong towards the commander and his horse with only an American flag (seen above) as a weapon, and against all odds, Martin and the rest of the Americans are victorious. The unrealistic rise of Martin from a petty farmer to a renowned tactician could serve to inspire others who are not ready for war to do the same. Unlike Martin, however, these naive children will most likely just die an inglorious death. So the answer is no, I don't think Mary O'Hare would support this film.
Other than the fact that both The Patriot and Slaughterhouse 5 revolve around wars, there really aren't any other similarities. The Revolutionary War time period is quite different than the modern sci-fi background of Slaughterhouse 5. The Patriot is also has a very linear timeline, whereas Slaughterhouse 5 is as non-linear as they come. Also, whereas Billy is relatively passive throughout the story, Martin is racked with emotion and driven by revenge the whole time. I really can't pick out any other similarities.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Who Are You? Hero, Antihero, or perhaps supervillain...
In a lot of our books and short stories it has been fairly easy to categorize the protagonist by what heroic virtues they have or whether or not they are an antihero instead. Gregor is certainly an antihero, and so is Bartleby and a few other characters we've read about. In other modern media, though, some obvious heroes dominate the screen: the Hulk and his superhuman strength, Spiderman and his incredible spideryness, and Captain America and his superior morals and kickass shield.
However, I thought it would be interesting to categorize myself and I found it to be much more difficult. The first question I had to ask myself is whether I would judge myself as I truly am or myself as an imagined comic book superhero or something. Considering that I am quite unremarkable, I would definitely have to be an antihero in real life. I'm a bit smarter than the average Joe, and I'd like to think that I have a good set of personal morals, but neither my brains nor my heart are anything superhuman.
If I were an actual hero, I could see myself as a mental hero, kind of like Batman. Sure he's strong and a skilled fighter, but ultimately it's his gadgets, plans, and capacity to out-think any situation that make him an awesome hero. I could see myself doing the same, just fighting the occasional loiterer or litterer in McFarland rather than the crazed supervillains of Gotham City.
Who are You?
However, I thought it would be interesting to categorize myself and I found it to be much more difficult. The first question I had to ask myself is whether I would judge myself as I truly am or myself as an imagined comic book superhero or something. Considering that I am quite unremarkable, I would definitely have to be an antihero in real life. I'm a bit smarter than the average Joe, and I'd like to think that I have a good set of personal morals, but neither my brains nor my heart are anything superhuman.
If I were an actual hero, I could see myself as a mental hero, kind of like Batman. Sure he's strong and a skilled fighter, but ultimately it's his gadgets, plans, and capacity to out-think any situation that make him an awesome hero. I could see myself doing the same, just fighting the occasional loiterer or litterer in McFarland rather than the crazed supervillains of Gotham City.
Who are You?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)