Harrison Bergeron- on the page and on the screen

After reading the story and watching the movie, I would have to say that I prefer the movie. In the story, all the characters are static and flat, even the so-called main character of Harrison. In the film though, Harrison Bergeron takes on the qualities of a round character- the filmmaker gives him more depth and a motivation to change the American society of 2081. The movie also leaves out the sardonic and ‘humurous’ wit that the story possess. This gives the movie a more serious tone and lacks the satirist effect you get from the story.

The film also shows the audience a different viewpoint from that of Kurt Vonnegut’s story. In the story, Hazel Bergeron is the one who almost exclusively watches the chaotic scene on the television while George is out in the kitchen. In the film their roles are completely reversed- Hazel sees nothing of the news because she is washing dishes, while George is seeing how Harrison is attempting to rally the people to change. I believe the filmmakers changed the point of view deliberately. Hazel seems sweet but mostly ditzy and flighty, not being intelligent enough to need a handicap. George, however, is ‘privileged’ enough to merit a mental handicap in his ear which blares out a loud and thought shattering sound every twenty seconds or so. The audience sees him continually attempting to remember what occurred in April to Harrison, but due to his handicap, he can’t hold onto his thoughts or memories for more than twenty seconds. Yet, you get the feeling that if he took off the transmitter in his ear, he would be like Harrison and think that maybe some things were wrong with having perfect equality and extreme sensitivity, but he can’t seem to ever recall his previous thoughts.

Two Distinct Views of Harlem

If you want to get quick snapshots of Harlem from anywhere between 1920 to the late 1950’s, there are few better descriptions or images than James Baldwin and Langston Hughes present in their perspective works. While both of these writers  lived in Harlem at one point or another and share many common points of the city, they also offer differing outlooks on this well known city.

Both Hughes and Baldwin speak often on music in Harlem, which isn’t suprising considering that the town was renowned for its jazz and later for the blues. In “Sonny’s Blues”, music is almost religious a way to escape from reality, at least for a short time. In Hughes poem “The Weary Blues”, he writes how the blues is “coming from a black man’s soul” and how he can make “the piano moan with melody”. Another example on the similarities between these two writers is shown in Hughes poem “Mother to Son” and “Ballad of the Landlord”. These two poems are almost exactly what Sonny’s mother talks on in “Sonny’s Blues”- how it doesn’t matter whether you are right legally or not. If an argument occurs between a white and black person, the white will be right simply because of the culture and worldviews back in that time period. 

A difference in opinion (or similarity depending on which poem you read), is how both authors the authors refer to Harlem. In Baldwin’s story, the ending seems to be hopeful -in time maybe things can change. Sonny and his brother reconnect, with Sonny’s music bringing the both of them together. But in Hughes poem “Prayer”, he refers to Harlem as a “weary city” in which live the “sick, the depraved, the desperate, the tired, all the scum”. Not to hopeful in that particular poem.

All in all, Baldwin and Hughes provide the reader with a very wide-range of  thoughts and knowledge on the distinct city of Harlem.

Sounds of Poetry

          Edna St. Vincent Millay definitely has the ability to rime down. Her use of masculine rime in her poem “Recuerdo” gives the poem a good back and forth motion which helps it to flow very well. This helps insure the  poem keeps an upbeat tone as a fond memory of a good time with a friend. She also uses initial alliteration and assonance well with phrases such as “being bare and bright”, “smelled like a stable”,  “good morrow, mother”, and “ate an apple”.

Paraphrase on ‘Grass’

Stack the dead above the bloody battlefields.

Bury them underneath the dirt and allow the grass to continue with its job-

To cover up all the displeasing aspects of death.

Heap the bodies up at the frontlines.

Heap them up high in the combat fields.

Cover them up with dirt so the grass will labor.

Time continues to pass on and people will question:

                        What happened here?

                        Why is this significant?

                        The grass keeps growing,

                        Let the grass do it’s job.

I like how the poet used free verse in the poem instead of attempting to make the stanzas rhyme because it gives the poem more freedom from being to rigid. Sandburg makes good use of personification of the grass- the reader gets the feeling that the grass is cleaning up after mankind’s bloody wars and helps to heal the earth. But at the end of the poem the grass seems to be closely related to time passing- people forgetting and still not learning from past mistakes in history. Sandburg’ uses language well- his ‘grass’ takes on a sarcastic tone of frustration with man and the inability to recognize a tragic battle site when they see it.

Enhancing a Story

Just some things I thought would enhance the story!

• Discovering what type of city Harlem was and is now
• Different styles of jazz music and different musicians
• How drug addicts cope with their addictions
• The war the narrator and Sonny were involved in (World War 2?)
• More info on Polio and what the family went through when Grace died
• Social and racial tensions in Harlem during this time
• Civil Rights movement and the cultural differences in Harlem
• Punishments the white boys would have faced for murdering the narrator’s uncle (if any)

Elephants-

          I’ll be honest-I have read this story three times and I still don’t really understand what the point is exactly, or even the reasons for this story being considered ‘good’. But I ‘m bias because I didn’t really care for Ernest Hemingway before I read this story and I guess I expected it to be  boring or in similar style to stuff  I had already read. But anyway, here goe–

          I really wish this story had been written in either total omniscience, or at least limited omniscience to know and understand the thoughts of the girl Jig and the American. I think that would have made this story more interesting, or at least made more sense. the conversation between the two seems to be stilted and mundane at best and boring and unconnected at worst. To me as the reader it seemed that the two had been friends or something, yet now the don’t know how to connect with each other or have anything of interest to say to the other person.

          The topics in conversation start out very dull and unexciting–ordering drinks and discussing the landscape, and drifts to what seems to be not quite an argument per se but more like second thoughts for Jig and the man appears to be reassuring her or trying to keep her from backing out of having the “awfully simple operation”. ( I researched this story and the general consensus appears to be that the operation in question is an abortion– I didn’t get this from the story at first, but the conversation makes a lot more sense with that theory in mind.)

          I don’t know his thoughts so I not sure if this is accurate, but the American seems pretty selfish and/or indecisive to me. It’s like he can’t make up his mind about what he wants. He claims Jig doesn’t have to go through with this if she doesn’t want to, but he really wants her to do it. It looks as if Jig wants to keep the baby but is discouraged from this idea with his phrases of “I don’t want anyone else”, “I don’t care anything about it”, and “This is the only thing that makes us unhappy”.

Quiz 1

Reading Quiz 1: “Desiree’s Baby” & “Revelation”

Respond to three of the five questions.  Each question is worth 3 and 1/3 points for a total of 10 points. All responses should be written in complete sentences.  You will be graded on both the content of your answers as well as your ability to write error free and incorporate quotes, paraphrases and examples from the texts.

1. Please identify the major plot elements of “Desiree’s Baby” and discuss how these individual elements come together to create the overall effect of the story.

 

1. From what perspective is “Desiree’s Baby” told?  Citing specific passages or examples, explain how the story would change if told from Armand’s perspective. 

The perspective in this story seems to be non-participant narrative and the view is objective –simply telling the events like an outside reporter.

I think a lot could have been added to the story if it had been told from Armand’s perspective—how he fell in love so suddenly, (what accounted for this since has seen Desiree since he was eight) the joy he felt at becoming a father, the ‘betrayal’ he must have felt when he discovered what his child was, and finally the ultimate discovery that it was he, not Desiree that had mixed blood. (Karma) As the reader, we can only speculate on what Armand was feeling, and how quickly his love faded to cold cruelty. I thought it ironic that in the beginning before the wedding Madame Valmonde wanted Desiree’s “obscure origins” considered, but Armand didn’t care because he loved her so much, yet later you get the feeling that had he known what he thought he now ‘knew’ (that Desiree is a quadroon) he wouldn’t have married her. I really wish this story had continued on to show what happened after Armand discovered his mother’s letter. Would he have swallowed his pride and looked for his wife and child, or let everyone, including Desiree, think that she wasn’t full blooded to save himself? Personally I think he would have saved himself, but it would have been nice to have a definitive answer anyway.

1. What is the moment of crisis in “Revelation”?  How did you know?

 

I believe that the crisis in this short story was when Mary Grace attacked Ruby and called her an “old wart hog” from Hell. Without this scene, Ruby Turpin would still be in her little bubble of labeling people and believing that she is somehow above many in the world because she is white, owns land, goes to church regularly, and does good deeds of charity. This crisis leads her to question everything, mainly why was she attacked and not someone less important or good,  and leads to her demanding that God answer why she was called a wart hog from Hell, and ultimately leads to her vision of the souls bound for Heaven.

1. How did you interpret the final scene of “Revelation”?  In other words, what is the conclusion; what do you think Flannery O’Connor wants readers to take away from the story?

 

I interpreted the final scene as Mrs. Turpin’s ‘epiphany’; that even though she was white and owned land, she was no ‘more’ saved then the ‘niggers’ or ‘white trash’. In fact, she was suffering from what some would call the greatest sin, that of pride. The order in which she classified people was reversed in her vision, (the last shall be first and the first shall be last) and the people like herself at the end of the procession had their “virtues being burned away.” Death is a great equalizer.

1. What would you cite as a significant similarity between “Desiree’s Baby” and “Revelation”?  Provide quotes, paraphrases or examples to support your answer. 

What Roses??

          William Faulkner’s A Rose For Emily, begins with an announcement that Emily Grierson, a self-alienated spinster has died. The narrator then recounts the story of Emily’s life with her father’s death, her first and only suitor, and her self-imposed exile from the rest of society. When the men and women enter the house for the funeral, both for vastly different reasons- the men for “respectful affection of a fallen monument” and the women out of “curiosity”, they discover not one, but two bodies. Emily Grierson, and the decomposed corpse of a northern laborer, Homer Bacon, Emily’s one and only ‘suitor’ a few decades before. (Quick sidenote–was he gay? The author seemed to imply that with the line that he “liked the men” and that Homer wasn’t the marrying type and the townspeople’s pity- but it’s inconclusive whether he was or wasn’t. Is that the reason she killed him??)

          This short story made me question whether the people from the society were really that stupid or naïve to think Homer would marry Emily, or that they just turned a blind eye to all the evidence of reality and cared nothing for a Northern laborer over the closest thing the South had to an aristocrat in Emily Grierson. 1-Emily buys a “good” poison and refuses to reveal what she is using it for, 2- Homer ‘disappears’ never to be seen again, 3- a revolting smell emanates from her home with no apparent cause, 4-she refuses to allow anyone inside of her house. Let’s put these facts together to come to a plausible conclusion…murder perhaps? When the townspeople opened the house, they didn’t seem to be surprised about the discovery of the body, to me it seemed as if they expected it, “Already we knew that there was one room in that region above stairs which no one had seen in forty years, and which would have to be forced.”  I guess ignorance really is bliss. If they took care of the smell themselves and let her live how she did, then they don’t have to face the reality that she’s a murderer, and a crazy one at that. I believe that is the reason the people left her be for the most part. They pitied her an d believed she would eventually go crazy like her relatives. In my book, sleeping besides a rotting corpse absolutely constitutes as insanity. (also killing someone simply because they have a freaky eye is right up there also.)

Joy that kills?

          In Kate Chopin’s  “Story of an Hour”, Mrs. Mallard is informed of her husband’s death delicately because of her heart trouble affliction. At first, when I was reading this story, I thought she would decline into grief about her husband’s untimely demise, and the rest of the story would be either on how the newly widow would cope with this or how she dies. Well I was right to an extent, but I was also wrong. The sentence “She was beginning to recognize this thing that was approaching to possess her, and she was striving to beat it back with her will,”  is the one that had me wondering if I actually knew what this story centered on at all, and what she could possibly need to beat back with all her strength.

          Freedom. This is what I believe the entire short story is centered around. To what extent can one human impose his will on another, despite the intentions, whether good or bad? Mrs. Mallard understood, when she was alone in her room, gazing out of her window, that whether the act was done with “a kind intention or a cruel intention” it was still a crime.

          Another little lesson I picked up on in this story is how quickly we can change our minds about things when our circumstances change. Mrs. Mallard, with her “sometimes loved” husband now dead, “breathed a quick prayer that life might be long. It was only yesterday she had thought with a shudder that life might be long.” She now asserts that no one will live for her in the upcoming years, for she is now determined, with her newfound freedom, to live for herself. Not in a selfish way, but a life in which she can now make her own decisions. No wonder that there was a “feverish triumph” reflected in her eyes.

          So after all she has this all figured out, something must upset this new balance, as is common in the way of short stories. The ‘upset’ to the new widow’s plans is her husband walking through the door, unharmed, and unknowing of any accident at all. (So much for ‘intelligence’ that had placed him dead at the scene, twice.) This is all to much for Mrs.allard to handle, and she dies of heart disease, “of joy that kills.”  Which is the only way this story could have ended in the late 19th, early 20th centuries. We can’t have an unhappy wife become widowed and independent-that would be too radical!

Practice Makes Permanent!

           In his book entitled “How to Read a Book”, Mortimer Adler discusses how reading is not a simple task of understanding what the written words are supposed to mean, but an intricate and complex art form. From what I have read of the book so far, (the first chapter), very few, including himself, have mastered this art form. He explains that even though he is a teacher, he wasn’t taught how to read for “profit”. He expounds on the point that even though many people have learned the mechanics of reading, most don’t know how to read properly or even realize that they don’t know how to read.

          Adler gives an illistration of how a college student earns a degree, not by reading, but by getting A’s on tests. The simple way of achieving this goal is by recalling the teacher’s lectures, what is in the text, and knowledge of certain teacher’s preferences. But, by doing these things to earn this degree, we are “passing up an education”, and that this type of  ‘learning’ is not education at all, but “stuffing”. Simply learning subjects and facts, but no skills or processes.

          As for agreeing or disagreeing with this point, I’m doing a little of both. The reason I disagree is because I think subjects and facts are of some importance. I would be  a tad concerned if someone didn’t know where Texas was on a map, what a verb is, or how to add fractions together.  But I also agree with what Adler said on how there needs to be emphasise on skills and processes such as how to read properly. A balance is needed to really get what he would call an ‘education’

          Reading is a process, an art: it’s not something you can just start doing well all of a sudden. It takes time and practice. Lots of practice. That is something I agree with Mortimer Adler completely.