The Conflicting Cultures

During the course of a major social revolution or just any revolution in general, major changes such as social structure and ideas are a common occurrence. Take the ongoing industrial revolution in the early 1900s, the old American South is still recovering from the end of the Civil war and has been rapidly changing into a mechanized industry. However old ideas of social class continues to live with many southerners. In Tennessee Williams’ “A streetcar named desire”, Blanche and Mitch are the remnants of an old Southern past, while the rest of the cast live are in a more realistic setting. The use of the character’s symbolic actions and distinctive language usage outlines a generational gap that exists as a recurring theme in the play.

            Blanche’s arrival produced an imbalance with the play’s setting. Blanche, whose Stella’s older sister is the primary focus thus far, came into New Orleans to seek Stella in a fashionable manner. This is in terms, of her clothes and mannerism that came along with her upbringing. Later in the play, the reader sees Blanche’s attitude towards Stella’s home as unappreciative. For instance, during a poker game, Blanche remarks to Mitch (one of the recurring characters), “I can’t stand a naked light bulb, any more than I can a rude remark or a vulgar action”(60). One may interpret this as a sign of possible insanity, however it also reveals Blanche’s need to “refine” the plain mechanized world into a more artistic one. Here, it is revealed that Blanche desires a more civilized way of life. As she refers to a plain light bulb as “naked”, she’s addressing the need to design or decorate a product of the industrial world into something more artistic and traditional. She compares a light bulb to a “rude remark” suggesting her expectations of people around her to behave in a certain way. This is further amplify as the very person she’s asking this favor towards is Mitch, who happens to be the most gentleman-like of the group on the poker table. Mitch is also the only person she talks to for an extended period of time during the entire poker game. Thus unveils Blanche’s avoidance towards the other men especially Stanley, who she remarked to as a brute.

            Compare to the rest of the character, only Blanche and Mitch seems to be using language in a gentle manner. Unlike Stanley and the other poker players, who seems to be using a lot of accented or slang terms rather than a more formal approach like Blanche.  Blanche replies to Mitch’s question regarding her profession, “I attempt to instill a bunch of bobby-soxers and drug-store Romeos with reverence for Hawthorne and Whitman and Poe!”(61-2). Reference to classical literary authors shows Blanche’s continued want to “instill” people with what she considers to be a way of life. The generational gap that exists is that Blanche’s family, assumed to be more educated and taught well in mannerism, is representative of the Old South, while Stanley and most of his friends are regarded as less educated due to their current status. Given that Blanche used the word “instill” meaning to implant, reveals her disgust in the New South’s social structure. This is further compounded by her use of slur terms such as bobby-soxers and drug-store Romeos, alluding to the common working man.

            Language and action pertains much of the Old South vs. New South conflict theme of the play. Much of these were from Blanche’s character throughout the play. Her use of language is sophisticated but at the same time condescending to the other characters of the play. Especially condescending towards Stanley, who she continued to refer to as a brute. Her actions or indirect actions gives the reader a insight into her need to transform her environment to fit her needs. And her environment is basically that of the Old South and old ways. 

Courtesy of <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdLBpcguoDM>
This is a video of The Last Samurai starring Tom Cruise. In this video it illustrates Tom Cruise's character who was capture in battle by a rebel group of Samurais. In this film, there's a sharp contrast between the evolving post Meiji restoration Japanese society and the old Samurai culture. Unlike "A streetcar named desire", it's violent. But Tom Cruise's character alludes to what Blanche refers to in the play. Cruise's character called some of the samurai "unusual" towards the end of the video.
The main difference between this conflict in culture with the plays is that the Old and New are inverted. But the contrast remained the same. Similar to the play's recurring theme, it's an old culture struggling to keep itself alive in the presence of a modernizing world. Thus the group of Samurai would correspond with Blanche's character. As both strive for the old way of life and refuse to accept the new system. As seen, Tom Cruise's character had no influence on any of the samurai's culture throughout the film. More or less, Cruise's character had been influenced by the samurai's ancient philosophy.
Word count: 750

Images of Inevitability

“Sweet and beloved Elizabeth! I read and re-read her letter, and some softened feelings stole into my heart, and dared to whisper paradisiacal dreams of love and joy; but the apple was already eaten, and the angel’s arm bared to drive me from all hope” (Shelley 159).

Frankenstein’s words after reading Elizabeth’s letter regarding their possible bonding in marriage and insurance to Frankenstein regarding his many decisions to the marriage problem. Shelley’s usage of biblical imagery of fallen angels and genesis basically generalized a sense of inevitability for Dr. Frankenstein. In the bible, specifically the Genesis chapter explains to believers of the reason behind mankind’s knowledge of good and bad along with morality.

Genesis is where a character named Eve consumes a forbidden fruit (presumed an apple in many works of art) and thus mankind in general possessed the ability to see what God sees. Thus leading to man’s ultimately inevitable morality. Frankenstein already had eaten the apple, which reflects his rebellious actions towards his creation; by having a nearly completed female version of his creation destroyed in the last few chapters. However, even so this passage is referring to the inevitable chance of destruction at the hands of the monster, Frankenstein also remarks on “dreams of love and joy”. Ironically Frankenstein didn’t give in much thought towards creating his creature earlier in the book. As he explains, “but my imagination was too much exalted by my first success to permit me to doubt of my ability to give life to an animal as complex and wonderful as man”(35). As shown, Frankenstein pursues his work indiscriminately in terms of ethical reasons. The result is ultimately his “fruit”. The use of angelic imagery in the first passage explains divine intervention, however in this case, it’s used metaphorically to explain the likely probability of retribution at the hands of Frankenstein’s own creation. In any Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, angels are often the servants of a divine being (God in this case), thus the usage by Frankenstein to exert his ultimate fate is appropriate. Divine intervention is often used to enhance the feeling of hopelessness and inevitability. Similar to when Eve ate the fruit of knowledge in Genesis, morality is now inevitable.

            The angel image can be extended towards the concept of fallen angels. Most famous one is Lucifer. Dr. Frankenstein’s input of  “angel’s arm” could also be like an angel’s banishment from heaven and therefore be considered a fallen angel. “Drive me from all hope”, Frankenstein remarks this to exert that just as a fallen angel is forced away from all that is familiar and good due to some sacrilegious reason, he, too, is experiencing a purge from reality and that same sense of inevitability and hopelessness thus pursues his mentality. Frankenstein is therefore being forced from his familiar surrounding of a happy family and vibrant life to one where he dreads loss.

            Focusing on the second quote on page 35, Frankenstein did indeed give a thought upon his then current experiment. However he didn’t anticipate the consequences of creating life or reviving what has been dead. His success was short lived since the creature is described as hideous and unlike anything. So how can this be necessarily as “wonderful as man” as Frankenstein initially exerts? In Genesis, Adam and Eve knew that by consuming the fruit, they will anger God. However under deception by a serpent in the Garden of Eden, Eve performed the unspeakable. Frankenstein, too, under the deception of his own vibrant imagination to complete his work, didn’t forgo the possible consequences of his actions. Inevitably, both cases led to inevitability.

            Courtesy of dharma-media.org

This is a buddhist wheel of life. In the buddhist religion, life and death are part of a cycle of life or wheel of life. In which is depicted by this painting of the many cycles of life an individual can undergo. The inevitability of escaping this natural occurrence is portrayed through the usage of a wheel. A round object often shows how something can have a start and then an end and then another start and so forth. 

Similar to Frankenstein's situation: He creates the monster, leaves it alone, and the monster later seeks revenge due to the initial abandonment from his creator. Like the circle of life, there's a cause and effect. Ultimately Frankenstein's irresponsible actions led to dreadful consequences.


Word count: 648

The Upsets of Tranquility

The natural and supernatural has always intrigued the most intelligent minds. The natural is the normal, while the supernatural is the abnormal. Science fiction brings these two elements to the same realm. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein brings about this horrific symbol of mankind’s desire to master nature and the extent of the imaginative mind by confining these factors into the main protagonist Victor Frankenstein’s creature’s existences. These factors are extremely significant, especially during times of extraordinary scientific advances in many fields.

            Human beings had long sought to conquer nature and be their own masters. In Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein along with other characters has expressed or referenced thoughts in mythical and religious terms. By doing this, these characters are ultimately implying that they're own creation and lives seems to reflect characters from mythologies and religions, ultimately stressing control much like a godlike being. As Frankenstein’s ambitious creation expressed to the doctor, “I ought to be thy Adam; but I am rather the fallen angel”(Shelley, 77). The remarks about Adam, a known figure in the first book in the Christian Holy Bible, seems to expressed frankly that Dr. Frankenstein is the creator of life just as the Christian God was to the Adam character. Adam is often the symbol of mankind’s honest beginnings in the Genesis stories, so using Adam in this particular way points out to both the Doctor’s and Creature’s innocent beginnings. Victor Frankenstein created and ultimately “animated” the Creature to life as a mean to satisfied his overwhelming curiosity in his studies. The Creature, alone, had to endure years without Frankenstein to guide him or to nurture him in essence, but instead the Creature was immediately seen as a monster before his creator’s eyes. As Frankenstein remarked to Walton about his reason to reanimate lifeless objects, “No father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as I should deserve theirs” (Shelley, 36). The use of the word “father” suggested a godly figure, especially when the Christian God is regarded as “all of creation’s” father. In this context, Shelley is pointing out to the brutal nature of man as many sought to master nature. Frankenstein, in essence, has master nature with is reanimation of a living corpse.

            The early 17^th century was when the ideas of scientific advances peaked. So much of the scientific advancement ideals are reflected on Victor Frankenstein. Like most early works of science fiction, Shelley is portraying the possible horrific consequences of steadfast scientific advances that could lead to mankind’s very own undoing. Victor Frankenstein established that fact by expressing, “I doubted at first whether I should attempt the creation of a being like myself or one of simpler organization; but my imagination was too much exalted by my first success to permit me to doubt of my ability to give life to an animal as complex and wonderful as man”(Shelley, 35). Frankenstein thus claimed that he held back his original idea to animate dead objects, but because of “imagination”, he was motivated to continue his course with the experiment. Frankenstein used the idea that he can create a being as “wonderful as man”. This idea in the early 1800s would be considered sacrilege in a predominantly Christian society, since the idea of creation belongs to the Christian God in this case, not mankind. Victor’s idea of his “ability to give life” is thus consider rather radical in the age of monarchism and religion. Shelley uses this method to bring out the possible horrors of science’s progressiveness in men who possess radical minds. All of these radical fears preside in Victor Frankenstein’s image.

            The portrayal of both Frankenstein and his creature were used as a symbolic method to vaguely represent the social fears during and after the time period. The mix of both radicalism and religious imagery produces this horrific product that acts like all men, but his origins was a true upset of nature’s tranquility. In essence, the creature would be considered as unnatural as his creator’s mind is.

           

           

 Word count: 556

Courtesy of brusimm.com

The advancement of science has inspired many science fiction stories and films. In particular is the nuclear horror, Godzilla, where a mutant creature from the prehistoric era suddenly reappears in Japanese waters to trample over major cities. Just because Godzilla is a prehistoric creature doesn't make him science fiction, but it's his origins that does. The story goes on to explain that Godzilla was a product of mankind's ignorant use of nuclear weapons. Both resulting in environmental damages and untold consequences that man isn't willing to accept. Similar to Frankenstein's creature's origins, it's a ultimate upset of nature's tranquility as neither specimen should exist in the first place. The natural world has many methods for equilibrium. The food chain, the cycle of life, and the cycle of terrain. An upset would be when these are all disturbed. Godzilla sets a city ablaze and Frankenstein's monster was made from dead human parts. 

The irony of arguments

Irony, the use of contradicting language to express certain meanings, usually is a essential part in many stories and poetry. It takes the form of organization and vague sense. But when a more in depth analysis is performed, these ironic expressions are essential to the content of the written work as a whole. Take for example, John Donne’s “The Flea”, here, the poem describes a flea and perhaps an argument between two individuals. However, only one individual is really speaking in this continuous monologue. “The Flea” marks an ironic method of deceit from both the speaker’s side and the form of the entire work.

            The speaker of the poem alludes to the audience that he, only assuming that it’s a male in the early 17^th century, is trying to engage in some unconventional sexual act with another counterpart. “A sin, nor shame, nor loss of maidenhead” (line 6, Donne). What’s ironic about the speaker’s statement to justify pre-martial sexual conduct is how a flea is used to relate to all of his arguments. Another issue is with line 6, the speaker clearly stated how by performing this unconventional sexual conduct would not result in sinning, shame from either side and effectively loss of maidenhead, which is another word for virginity. Reasonably speaking, the speaker already mentioned that the flea and his counterpart’s maidenhead is simply as insignificant, so in essence, the speaker negated his own argument by stating indirectly that one’s maidenhead is important. Especially when it was mentioned along with sin that it wouldn’t be of loss after the conduct.

            Deceit is a heavy element within this poem. As the speaker tries to convince a receiver to engage in some sexual misconduct, assuming it’s pre-martial sexual intercourse, he progressively uses certain arguments that are both deceitful in reason and also ironic in nature.  After the receiver supposedly kills the “flea”, the speaker counters by saying, “Just so much honor, when thou yield’st to me, Will waste, as this flea’s death took life from thee” (lines 26-7).  The speaker is assuming that the receiver would eventually submit to the speaker’s demands as she has killed the bonding between them. The ironic nature is that there was no bonding to begin with. Since the female receiver seems to have rejected the speaker’s demand as evidenced from the speaker’s alternation in stanza 3, thus therefore no such bonding occur in any point of the poem. The speaker points the contrary to promote guilt in the speaker’s supposed actions. Moreover, this is an example of the level of deceit used along with ironic characteristics to convince the receiver into accepting the speaker’s wishes.

            The use of both irony and deceit to justify a violation of social protocol has made an almost convincing argument. The entire structure of the poem is well written and organized. Similar to the definition for irony, the poem follows a pattern, a form of organization. Each of the three stanzas holds nine lines. The organization occurs both in the external level and internal. Internal is the actual content of the poem. Each attempt and change in argument is what separates each stanza. However the last few lines of the second stanza is where the speaker’s arguments turn to blame. Thus the use of irony and deceit ultimately failed to convince or yet in this case, deceive the receiving individual.

           

Courtesy of youtube.com <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrJYwOhv9sg>

This episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation underlines the poetic use of irony and deceit. As our main protagonist Captain Picard attempts to act like he's once again a Borg, cybernetic beings who overtake individuals and add them into their collective, effectively eliminating individuality. Picard is doing so that he can see if the Borg they captured would react in a certain way. However what's striking is the Borg, whom claim to possess only a collective mind actually have individuality as they each have a "Designation". Ironically these seems to contradict all of what they stand for.

"YouTube - Picard and Hugh - Star Trek the next Generation." YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Alessberg, 05 Dec. 07. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrJYwOhv9sg>.


Word count: 664

Order vs. Chaos

     A common reoccurring phenomenon in the natural world and the universe, chaos and order appears everywhere. Even the universe began with a big bang that created everything from nothing and in the mist of chaos came order. This chaos-order relationship occurs everywhere even within human society. The study of humanities such as literature reflects such issues and topics. Greek tragedies portray the gods as the order keepers, but as literature is traced down to the 20th century or what scholars called the modern age, literature starts to reflect such relationship unintentionally to the audience. Since literature tends to reflect conflicts and problems of it's time. It's reasonable to assume that it's a doorway to the thought and ideas of the past. Sylvia Plath's "The Applicant" showcases an individual presumed to be a man due to later stanzas, accept to portray the order and chaos relationship though an individual's lack of material and ultimately a fundamental question of need is being asked over and over by an unknown speaker. Plath’s usage of both poetic format and the monologue from the unknown speaker reflects this chaos-order relationship within the 60’s social thought.           

  Plath uses many notions in “The Applicant” that indicates a continuous chaotic bombardment of questions and suggestions. The question, “Will you marry it?” (Plath 15) was continuously used by the speaker. Notice, how the question distinctively uses the word “it” rather than he or she, suggesting the object is inanimate. However, a question that uses the word “marry” usually indicates a strong attachment to be made usually with other person. What contributes to the chaos of the entire poem is how the speaker suggested different inanimate objects continuously throughout the entire aspect of the poem. But what stands as chaotic and confusing is a possible reference in the third stanza about someone who would “bring teacups and roll away headaches”(13), but the speaker still referred to this possible person as an “it” even though it could be a person. So why does this speaker refer to every object, regardless of an animate or inanimate one, as an “it”. The answer lies within the 60’s thought, a person is imperfect and thus needs to obtain inanimate and animate items to be regarded as perfect, even though animate items can also be a spouse. In essence, the speaker’s capitalist free market ideology brings confusion and chaos into the poem and to the receiver as well.

            In the ensuring chaos, Plath used a uniform way of writing “The Applicant”, the entire poem except for the second stanza, is completely comprised of five lined stanzas that focused on different needs. And almost all the stanzas end with an enjambment. “How about this suit ----“(21) and “Black and stiff, but not a bad fit”(22) shows enjambment being used as a way to switch subjects, but continue onto another stanza. This pattern repeats throughout the poem. As a recurring aspect of this chaos-order relationship, Plath showcases a confusing, but organized form of need on the receiver’s end. The speaker asked the receiver about needing a suit, jewelry for his possible wife or someone close, “teacups” that’ll “shut your [his] eyes at the end” (16-7),  and other items with the question “Will you marry it” constantly asked towards the end of his suggestions. Plath used this to reflect the social thoughts of the 60s. The need to have what one lacks, but this in essence brought upon questions from the reader and also confusion for the receiving end of these questions/suggestions. 

Courtesy of mathworld.wolfram.com. These are basic shapes used in heavy numbers to mimic a similar shape. However, when one looks at it, it appears complicated, confusing, and even chaotic. But in the end, it's simplicity rather than complexity. Much like Plath's organized method to describe a chaotic time period of consumerism and questions. Mathworld highlights how simple shapes could be used to form essentially the same shapes using a large quality of it's smaller versions, however the results look web like and confusing compare to the simple 2D shapes of which it's made from.  

Word Count: 679

A simple paradox. An analysis of "One Art" by Elizabeth Bishop.

         Everything in life is a paradox. Our political system, society, and even poetry are paradoxes. Elizabeth Bishop is one of the best examples for this so-called paradox. A paradox under most dictionaries would be defined as a "contradiction", in "One Art" by Bishop, the same can be said. The poem centers around the futility in becoming furious or saddened by a sudden lost of both physical and psychological items. However, using repetition, word choice and an uncaring voice to describe the “art of losing” contributes to the ironic nature of the poem along with the simple paradox Bishop is trying to convey to the reader.

            A first read of the poem presents this optimistic idea that a loss isn’t a complete loss of life, however a closer read presents something contrary to that fact. Instead, the paradox of the entire poem materializes to the reader towards the ending stanza. What makes it so intriguing is the fact that Bishop or the speaker of the poem makes a sudden interruption in the very last stanza of the poem with "(Write it!) like disaster" (19). Indicating a struggle of sorts with the speaker's ideological hold. Thus a paradox of losing without the sense of "disaster" is true if said item isn't emotionally close to the individual. Given that most of the items in the first several stanzas of the poem such as “lost door keys”(5) or “names”(8) can all be either replaced or remembered respectively. It was only when the speaker mentions about losing “you”(16), assuming that it was meant for someone rather close either in blood or a romantic relationship, that the speaker actually has a interruption between lines about whether or not it was a true disaster. Shedding light that it is indeed a disaster, emotionally, to the speaker even when he/she denies it.

          In a poem, diction is rather significant to what the author is trying to convey either directly or indirectly to the readers, Bishop’s word choice at first suggested carelessness then words like “loved” and “lovely” suggested some importance in the items he/she lost in the process. Similar to the problem is the structure of “One Art”, existing as a villanelle, the poem incites a continuous repetition of the line “The art of losing isn’t hard to master”. However because of the villanelle origin of the poem, the so-called “art of losing” only appears four times in the entire poem. This gap in repetition in the poem along with some words such as “loved” invokes a different image of what the author is truly trying to convey.

            Words such as “loved” wouldn’t have a reason to exist between lines. Since “loved” gives off this sense that the item in question is rather of value to the speaker. As shown on line 13, “I lost two cities, lovely ones”. The entire poem up to this poem was about how losing anything wasn’t a “disaster” but simply a loss that can be forgotten. Quite suddenly, the speaker adds in the “lovely” aspect of what he/she is losing. This sudden retract from what should be a careless matter shows the speaker’s intent to show that it is a disaster, but the speaker decided to not mind the matter.

            Diction, poetic form and repetition used by Bishop showed the true meaning of

“One Art”. It’s a simple paradox. It is and not a disaster at the same time is the message. The speaker using more romantic word choices alluded to the fact that the items it lost wasn’t all that unimportant, but rather it depended on how much emotional damage is inflicted. Ironic as the poem is, ultimately it all comes down to conveying a simple paradox of loss. 

Photo courtesy of http://travel.webshots.com. This photo demonstrates a paradox in a real life environment. It's a authentic ashtray with a "no smoking symbol" attached to it. Reasons would be to inform people not to smoke but in the even that they do, an ashtray is present for them. Much like how the speaker of "One Art" explains how a loss isn't quite as destructive as one may think, on the contrary, it always depends on the severity and attachment of and to the item of question. Thus exist this paradox in "One Art" and in this photo. 
                                                                                                                                         Word count: 715.