Pitying Poor Grendel

"I'm going to die," I wailed. "Poor Grendel! Poor old Mama!" I wept and sobbed. "Poor Grendel will hang here and starve to death," I  told myself, "and no one will ever miss him!" The thought enraged me.- Chapter 2, page 18

The thought that no one will miss him enrages Grendel, it makes his blood boil. There is pain in knowing that no one's life will be worse without him, even though he has never made an attempt to improve life for anyone. Which is fair, what is sadder than knowing the world really would not be worse without you? Nothing in my mind...

When reading Grendel it is hard to find him sympathetic. Mainly because he is a murderer who shows no remorse for his murders. He does as he pleases and hates everyone and thing. He does not ask for your approval or affection. He does not even ask for his mother's approval or affection. When he cries out (later during the bull charging the tree he is stuck in scene) Gardner writes

"Please, Mama!" I sobbed as if heartbroken

Even when crying out to her, Grendel is not a heartbroken son hoping for his mother's protection, he just plays one on TV. The closest he gets to sincerely calling to his mother here is in acting. Maybe he hopes to stir her into some protective maternal instinct. Either way, he by no means actually thinks she will come. 

A few discussions ago Professor Miller asked if anyone pities Grendel. I answered yes. It happens to be that at the time I wasn't really sure why, I just knew that somewhere in my gut there was room to pity Grendel. Despite his starting a twelve year war his raids, and how many other crimes, there still seemed to be room for more than disdain. Now maybe I would be less forgiving if any of this were real, but that is just more conjecture... Upon reading a few selection over again I found a more precise reason for my pity: Grendel never asks me to pity him. 

Grendel is not kind, and he is not altruistic, he has a sad and sorry life with a depressing outlook. Yet despite that he never asks to be pitied. And that is what invites me to pity him. The idea that no one will miss him enrages him and the "thought of cool indifferent eyes" frightens him. And "Still no one came."If Grendel is bitter it is because he matters to no one and no one matters to him. If he dropped dead no one would miss him. No one's life would be any worse for his absence. How can someone read a character who is so void of any meaningful rope tying him down to his own life and not pity him? Grendel is disappointed when Shaper's views turn out to be empty because Grendel wanted to believe that life can be more than assumes it is, that he had been wrong the whole time. Grendel comes to his new philosophy – admittedly with a little help from the friendly neighborhood dragon – that life is meaningless because he has no reason to believe otherwise. And to be fair to Grendel's integrity as a philosopher, he already seems to think the world is empty way back in chapter 2, 

I understood then that the world was nothing: 

a mechanical chaos of casual, brute enmity 

on which we stupidly impose our hopes and fears.

Here, he is probably speaking more out of bitterness than the actual intellectual honesty he uses later, however it looks like Grendel has never felt much love for the world he lives in.

I have a vague sense that this was not Gardner's point in writing Grendel. I doubt that Gardner was trying to prove how mattering to people validates a person while not mattering to anyone turns them into monsters. Or in this case, turns monsters into wretched monsters. But what I take from this story is that while Grendel is horrible and wretched and not the kind of monster I should approach in a park he is worth my pity if nothing  else. He has lived a sorry life, not mattering to anyone is stressful and depressing. He never asks me to sympathize with him, forgive him for his evils, or commiserate with his suffering, and he certainly does not asked to be pitied. And I think that is why I pity him at all.

The Boss

        This week is the start of the 2014 baseball season, so I believe it is apropos to mention George Michael Steinbrenner III, also known as “The Boss,” who passed away in 2010. George Steinbrenner is remembered by the Yankees every year at the beginning of their season, as he was arguably the greatest owner in the history of the New York Yankees and perhaps the most controversial owner in the history of the sport. Under his 37 year rule, the Yankees earned seven World Series titles and 11 pennants. Steinbrenner often interfered with daily on-field decisions, such as prohibiting any of his players to have facial hair. He became famous for his temperamental hiring and firing of managers, changing managers 20 times in his first 23 seasons, and for his compulsive spending habits on valuable players that HE wanted on his team. 
George Steinbrenner isn’t the first Yankee to get such a nickname. Way back in the fifth century in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by Mark Twain, a yankee named Hank adopted the nickname “The Boss”. He too was great in certain respects, but his leadership came with shortcomings and controversy as did “The Boss’s” that succeeded him. He interfered with activities possibly to the extent of overstepping his boundaries. Failing miserably at the end of the novel at his attempt to rid society of the church’s control, which was what he thought was detrimental to the generation, “The Boss’s” tactics were proven to not be ideal to obtain his goals. Here is the top four ways Hank could have become a true leader, exemplified through the words of some of the leaders in our generation: 

1. Leading is not about the power one can exercise over another people, nation, or governing body, rather it is about the influence one can have on them. 

There are two forms or dimensions of leadership. One is power, the other, influence. Imagine you have total power, and then you decide to share it with nine others. You now have one-tenth of the power with which you began. Imagine, by contrast, that you have a certain measure of influence, and now you share it with nine others. How much do you have left? Not less. In fact, more. Initially there was only one of you; now there are ten. Your influence has spread. Power operates by division, influence by multiplication. With power, the more we share, the less we have. With influence, the more we share, the more we have. —Rabbi Lord Jonathan Saks in Covenant and Conversation

       Hank’s ultimate goal was to influence the people. His intentions were pure in that he believed ridding the generation of the church’s restrictions was best for them in order to promulgate freedom of thought and a better way to live. However, he attempted to spread his influence through manipulation of the power he possessed due to his advanced knowledge of technology.

2. Being a true leader requires humility and seeing the greatness in others. This does not mean not recognizing your own capabilities, however being a leader requires you to recognize other people’s greatness as well.

“If you want to save the world you have to trust it.” —Dark Knight

       Hank clearly didn’t trust the era he was in. He didn't confide in anyone about his plans of building telephone wires and military schools for example, and he most definitely did not trust in the aristocracy or the church, both of which were the crux of Camelot’s existence, and spent most of his time trying to overthrow them. 

3. A leader must be relatable. Leaders are aware of their responsibility to those in their sphere of influence. It is about who they lead, not about themselves. They must seek to understand their following so that they can best lead them.

A leader must be sensitive to the call of the hour – this hour, this generation, this chapter in the long story of a people. And because he or she is of a specific generation, even the greatest leader cannot meet the challenges of a different generation. That is not a failing. It is the existential condition of humanity. —Rabbi Lord Jonathan Saks in Covenant and Conversation

       As a result of Hank’s manipulation of the population and his lack of trust in them, he remained distant and removed from them. Instead of trying to adapt to their culture and customs, he derided the way they spoke, the way they dressed, and the way they went about most things. He tried to change everything about the fifth century that he didn’t like, leaving people confounded and frustrated, such as Sandy when he can’t understand her banter or the knight selling soap who is distraught at his failure to sell the foreign item, rather than finding a way to relate to them and their times. 

4. Taking action is fundamental in one’s success as a leader. Without action, a leader can not make a significant difference or change. 

We often go through life with the best of intentions. One day, we say to ourselves, we’re going to start going to the gym and become a great athlete. One day, we’re going to finish that book. But for whatever reason, we get distracted by the present and lose our focus on the future. We never do go the gym. We never do write that book. But nobody remembers what you meant to do. They only remember what you do. —Forbes Magazine

       One could argue Hank did a pretty good job taking action. However, without implementing the first three tips of how to be a leader, his actions turned out to be futile. “The Boss” has an intimidating connotation, while “The Leader” has a much more inspirational ring. Perhaps Hank and George’s biggest flaw was that they thought in order to make a change they needed to meddle with the status quo and conform it to their visions. They were bosses in terms of the control that they exercised over populations, but their betterment of the societies that they each belonged to did not evolve from the personal interests of the population itself, rather it came from what they thought was best for the population. As a result their ideas were void of public input and as a result more controlling. 

The Other Side of the Story

Hearing famous stories told from the other side always interested me. So it is interesting reading Grendel, telling the other side of  Beowulf (not that I ever read it to know.) It's an interesting perspective on life, to realize that there is another side.
One of my favorite examples of this style is The True Story of the Three Little Pigs, which tells one of our classic childhood stories from the other side. Here is a video version of it.

My mother used to use this book to teach us about seeing the other side of the story, particularly when we were judging a classmate or family member. This book would be pulled out of the huge stack on the table and we would sit down and read it together (or in later years be handed it to read by ourselves), as a calm reminder that things aren't always as you see. 

I also remember this being a classic writing prompt in younger grades, where a teacher would give us a story to read, and then we would have to write the story from a different perspective. It was always more interesting to take the "villain" in the story and re-write it so that he is not quite as evil, a perspective that bothered my teacher for some reason.Perhaps the sign of a good imagination is to see the other side of the story, and of a good writer, to write it.
Sometimes that monster, whether a monster, or just a scary person, that you fear is really just another person who has their own experiences to think about.

McCaslin Family Tree

Here as promised is the McCaslin family tree. Note that not all of these family members are portrayed in "The Bear." The others come up in the remaining stories in Go Down! Moses. This family tree was created by Dr. John B. Padgett and is from the following website:  http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/faulkner/gen-mccaslin.html

I can't vouch for every detail, but it seems legit. One other point: the McCaslin that is portrayed conversing with Ike in Section 4 is Carothers McCaslin "Cass" Edmonds. The old patriarch who had sex (probably raped) both his slave and their daughter in Lucius Quintus Carothers McCaslin. He had been dead a long time, and the family was waiting for Isaac "Ike" McCaslin to come of age before the estate was bequeathed to him. Ike was the rightful heir because he was a direct descendant through the male side of the family by way of Theophilius "Uncle Buck," but Cass had been in charge in his stead until Ike came of age.

A Division of Horror

Horror seems to be more of a modern era fascination. Perhaps at one point, everyday life was too much of a horror story to be able to enjoy tales of the same. Perhaps the general populace was more superstitious and felt such tales were better not repeated. Perhaps in modern times people’s lives are too sedate and they crave a heart rate spike. One could spend hours speculating why people read, watch, or have a fascination with horror. Another approach is to accept the fascination and explore the material.

 

One way to subdivide the genre of horror is to break it down into three general categories of horror, horror comedy, and something in between. The first is horror that is meant to terrify and send shivers down the spine of the reader. The Cthulhu Cult by H. P. Lovecraft was likely intended to fall into this category. I say intended because it is not truly terrifying compared to other works, such as those by Edgar Alan Poe or Stephen King. That isn’t to say it doesn’t have the potential to be truly terrifying with a few adjustments. Horror is not so much about the story, but about the delivery of the story. There is an art to knowing which scenes should be stretched to add suspense, and which to rush through to overwhelm the reader.

 

The second category is horror that is meant to be humorous. The characters from regular horror stories are featured, (ghosts, aliens, robots, werewolves, madmen, demons etc.) but they are often found to be incompetent and bungle their plots. The authors play on the accepted stereotypes of the characters and make them more extreme. The authors try to make light of monsters and scary situations. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is an example. Another example is the Scary Movies. If someone is expecting a terrifying read, this can turn out rather disappointing.

 

The third category is one where the horror is meant to be horrifying, but is way over the top, so that it becomes ridiculous and possibly humorous. It is not always clear if the author intended the story to be humorous or simply went over-board. The third category can be a bridge between fear-induced nail biting and horror comedy. The Final Destination series falls into this category. It is designed to scare, but at the same time the deaths are so unlikely and bizarre it is comical. The short story “Young Goodman Brown” also has aspects that are humorous. Specifically, the imagery of Goodman Brown tearing through the forest, and later the priest recounting the misdeeds he was privy to. This may be the most subjective category as well, because what one finds funny will cause another to have nightmares and vice versa.

 

Many horror stories have been turned into movies and some horror stories have started out as movies. Certain horror stories have been overdone to now be considered trite. To name a couple: giant shark attacks, aliens destroying the world, zombie apocalypse (any sound familiar? http://www.strangehorizons.com/guidelines/fiction-common-horror.shtml) There are so many different flavors of horror out there, there is bound to be something for everyone.
(P.S.Do not Google horror images)

A Co-authored Post

Forward: Another blog post on A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court? Fear not, good readers; you have not been sent back to late February. Rather, as we conclude our mid-term essays on A Connecticut Yankee, we thought we would give old Hank a good send off, and untie a few tangles while we’re at it. So, without further ado, we present:

Ye Olde Time Travel 

by Lizzie and Riva

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court is the first influential time-travel fiction ever written, making it the inspiration of hundreds if not thousands of time-travel authors of the future. Gradually, as these ideas began to look less fictional, different schools of thought developed as to what plausible time-travel should look like. While there’s no knowing what Twain had in mind when he wrote A Connecticut Yankee, we decided to take a stab at applying some of the more interesting theories.

The first theory of time travel is a stable time loop. A time traveller in a stable time loop doesn’t have to worry about causing all sorts of time-related mayhem and paradoxes, because anything he will do, has already happened. Confusing? In this version of time travel, Hank can’t change anything by going back to the past, because everything, including all interference of the time-traveler, has already happened.

Though Hank doesn’t know it, the history of the world already includes him innovating medieval England, even while he’s living his life in Connecticut. By the same token, the armor with the gunshot hole already exists, even before he goes back in time, because he has already shot Sir Sagramor in the past.

Assuming that the 19th century Hank lives in is an accurate reflection of the one we know (and not an alternate history), Hank can’t decisively change anything because in his time, England didn’t have an Industrial Renaissance in King Arthur’s time. The only thing that changed when Hank goes back to the past is his perception of the past. In this version, Hank couldn’t enlighten 6th Century England, because those changes never happened.

Another possibility for Hank’s time-travel method is the ‘alternate-timeline’ theory.

Alternate timeline travel is not really time-travel at all, but dimension-jumping. According to this theory, the traveler ‘jumps’ out of his dimension and lands in a parallel one in a different time and place. Dimension-jumpers can only affect the new timeline, not the one they left. 

In that case, Hank would have been born in a 19th century Connecticut in dimension A, and been whacked (and by a crowbar, no less!) into dimension B, King Arthur’s court. This introduces some interesting implications:

First, the story is even more tragic if looked at in that perspective. In a stable-time loop, there was no hope for Hank’s changing the past because those changes would have already taken place. But a new dimension is up for grabs-- Hank could have made any changes he wanted, and he still failed.

If Hank jumped out of dimension A, he stayed in dimension B for the remainder of the book. We know this, because of the changes Hank made: the hole in the armor and the idiom mentioned earlier. So though Hank left dimension A to travel back in the past in dimension B, he never returned to dimension A. Dimension A would not have shown any traces of Hank’s changes, and Hank would presumably have only found out about them once he woke up in 19th century dimension B (post-Merlin).

We know Hank dies sometime after he returns to 19th century dimension B. But what time was he returned to? He arrived in Camelot in 528. Clarence is 15 at that time, and becomes Hank’s right hand man at 22, making a minimum of seven years. Then there’s a chapter titled Three Years Later, making it a minimum of 10 years that Hank spends in Camelot. In 538, Hank is forty, and Merlin dooms him to sleep for 13 centuries. This means that the earliest Hank could wake is 1838, a full 40 years before he left.

So while it is entirely possible that he got back at the same time he left, or 10 years after he left (to compensate for the amount of time he spent in medieval England), it’s more likely he returned before he was even born. Or even better, as he was being born. It’s also possible that the thought of two Hanks at once was too much for the universe to bear, and that, possibly, his death at Warwick Castle coincided with his birth.

Or maybe he died of the toxic fumes he inhaled in 538, either way.

So, dear bloggers, speculations?

HORROR

My mother always tells us how when she was younger her little sister, Simi, had a birthday party where Simi and her friends watched the movie Nightmare on Elm Street. To this day my mom still remembers the film and is terrified by it. In fact, for quite some time my mom would tell us this story and not even say the name of the movie she watched!

It is a very interesting phenomenon for people to enjoy watching horror films, or reading violent and horrific films, or even engaging in “thrilling behavior” such as sky diving or roller coasters.

             Perhaps the suspense caused by books and films causes an adrenaline rush and people enjoy raising their heart rates; or perhaps the thrill is more due to the fact that people enjoy engaging in risky behavior but without the intense physical risk that would accompany such danger (as described in horror stories) in real life. With regards to the roller coasters the same idea could apply—people enjoy engaging in what feels to be dangerous and risky and still causes the nervous system to go into “fight or flight” response, yet they intellectually know (or hope) that the roller coasters are in theory safe and regulated. (Just to define “fight or flight”: Wikipedia defines it as the “physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival.” This response has various ways of manifesting itself in our body. For example, a signal is sent to stimulate more blood flow to the muscles so a person can run faster and fight with more energy. Furthermore, digestion slows, as the body wants to use the energy that would be used for digestion, for a process that will assist in survival, such as running, or yelling…Additionally, increased blood pressure, and heart rate occurs in order to give the body more energy to either run-“flight”- or stay and “fight.”) Perhaps the increased heart rate gives an adrenaline rush and thus people enjoy watching and reading such horror films so they can experience this feeling, but from the safety of their homes.

            WebMD describes this concept of watching horror films and reading horror books as the “horror paradox.” It does seem to go against human nature as most individuals enjoy being happy and satisfied rather than being terrified.

            A professor of communication at Purdue University, Glenn Sparks, studied the effect of horror movies on the individuals watching them. He found that these individuals experienced sweaty palms, muscles tensed, blood pressure and heart rate increase, and a drop in temperature (all of which are “fight or flight” responses)! Thus, it is clear that watching such a film causes the exact same type of fear that would be present if one were actually experiencing the horror in real life.

            Stephen King, an American horror and suspense novel author, explains that watching horror films is a safe outlet for humans’ brutal and violent desires. This idea is known as “symbolic catharsis.”

            The fear (no pun intended) remains, however, that via watching such films and exposing oneself to such violence, humans are becoming much more desensitized to such violence in real life (WebMD).

            H.P. Lovecraft, in his story The Call of Cthulhu, has created a masterful work of horror. Perhaps he felt he must appeal to his readers, and that since it is human nature to be drawn to the gory and violence, he must therefore employ such graphic and horrific imagination.

However, I am not so convinced.

I’d like to believe that we do not have natural desires for guts and gore. I think that this fascination with violence and horror is more because it is not so common (thank G-d) in our society that we are fascinated by it. It is natural to be curious about the unknown, and such violent actions and emotions are truly unknown to most of the public! This is true with regards to outer space, aliens, and the like, as well as to fairy tale endings—fairy tale endings are truly unrealistic and thus so many people love to watch them, Exactly because it is not real, we are truly fascinated and curious, and therefore enjoy exploring such fields.

 People want to know how it feels to experience fear, thus, roller coasters, horror movies/books, are different ways of going about this.

I will also venture to say that the reason why some people do not watch horror films despite their curiosity, is because their fear is greater than their desire to know (as in my case). For those such individuals, perhaps their burning curiosity is directed towards finding out about other unknowns, such as outer space explorations, or even following a celebrity in the media—that person’s life is so foreign and unknown that following him/her is the individual’s attempt at satiating his/her curiosity of the unknown and unreachable.

The Malaysia flight that recently disappeared has captured the world’s attention, not only because so many lives have disappeared along with it, but, I may suggest, also because of the fact that it just disappeared and we do not know what has happened to it.

Humans desperately desire knowledge.

In our Torah, it says that Jacob mourned for Joseph and could not be comforted (when the brothers sold him into slavery). The commentaries say that this is because one cannot be comforted for the loss of someone who is not dead. If a loved one passes on, with time, the wound may heal. But if someone, G-d forbid, goes missing and his/her fate is unknown, healing is impossible.

The Unknown is scary and fascinating to humans at the same time, hence, in human attempts to discover and learn, we delve into emotions and engage in even such bizarre actions as going on roller coasters, watching terrifying films, and reading horror books not unlike H. P. Lovecraft’s The Call of Cthulhu.

He Do the Police in Different Voices for Good Reason

        It is very interesting that someone so against the chaotic disorder of the modern world would make such a complex, chaotic poem; one that needs footnotes to explain it's references yet only adds to the confusion of it all. This poem begs many more questions. Why was T.S. Eliot so interested in dramatic forms? Why did Eliot incorporate so many voices into The Wasteland? How could one explain the juxtaposition of his disgust for the developing modern culture of American society with this poem which seemingly breaks the restrictions and banality of poems of the time to create a more modern, innovative form of poetry? 
       In fact, the personality of his poem is quite in tune with the developing culture in Europe. Take the art of the early 20th century as an example.  

       The Wasteland has the same brilliantly conceptual yet discombobulated feel to its bits pieced together, like early 20th century artistry such as the cubism shown above. Eliot's style is relatively reflective of the culture for which he longed, as he held European modernity in very high regard compared to his negative feelings towards the modern culture developing in the United States. Additionally, poetry had lost its importance in culture because it had become so simplistic. The modernists valued complication for this reason and as a useful antidote for frivolity and the lack of discipline found in american culture.
However, perhaps within Eliot's genuine attempt to revive poetic flare there is an aspect of his poem that is intentionally mocking of America's modern culture along with counterbalancing it. American culture had developed a taste for the messy and crude. Similarly, there's a lot going on in Eliot's poem, almost too much. It is possible that he intended for the reader to feel overwhelmed by the many voices in the poem as if he were standing in the middle of a crowded room with music blaring, someone whispering in their ear and a movie playing on top of all the noise, in order to make the reader realize that this rapidly developing world had reached the throngs of chaos, and was replacing a more dignified, calm, old world that he lamented was being destroyed. 
Therefore, in a work so colored by its voices and its narratives, most of whom are difficult to identify, it is significant to point out that Eliot chooses to highlight Tiresias as the narrator in the third section, having Tiresias explicitly declare himself as such. Eliot goes even further as to include in a footnote that 

Tiresias, although a mere spectator and not indeed a 'character,' is yet the most important personage in the poem, uniting all the rest. Just as the one-eyed merchant, seller of currants, melts into the Phoenician Sailor, and the latter is not wholly distinct from Ferdinand Prince of Naples, so all the women are one woman, and the two sexes meet in Tiresias. What Tiresias sees, in fact, is the substance of the poem. 

One of the more striking characteristic about Tiresias is that he is blind and yet he can see the truth. This theme is also found in Shakespeare's King Lear in which the character Gloucester was metaphorically blind and ignorant to the truth about who his truly loyal son was. Only when he is physically blinded at the end of the play is Gloucester able to recognize the faultiness of his ways and "see" that in reality, his illegitimate son Edmund had been trying to turn Gloucester against his loyal, legitimate son Edgar. 

So too, in the play of Oedipus, Tiresias himself is often the bearer of truth yet those around him are still incapable of seeing the truth that he directly points out to them. Again, there is that ironic juxtaposition of Tiresias’ literal blindness and the metaphorical blindness of those who refuse to accept the truth. 
       Tiresias is the character that points out the obvious that we, as human beings, choose to ignore. The new American culture was catapulting itself into a world of immediate gratification and turmoil. They were blinded by their desire to move forward, to change, and to be innovative. Could it be that Eliot wanted to channel Tiresias in a poem whose predominant plot is underlined with his pleas to reverse the disgusting and destructive path that the United States has, in his opinion, ignorantly and blindly chosen?

Who Is Sam Berns? Real-Life ‘Benjamin Button’ Dies At Age 17 After Living With Rare Aging Disease

By Philip Ross

on January 12 2014 3:42 PM

Share this article

• 244
• 21
• 3
• more

Sam Berns, left, was only 17 when he died, but looked decades older because of symptoms brought on by progeria, a rare genetic disorder that causes accelerated aging. Facebook/Progeria Research Foundation

Sam Berns, the Massachusetts high school student who lived with a rare genetic disorder that caused him to age rapidly, died Friday from complications with the disease. He was 17.

Berns, who became something of the poster child for the rare aging disorder, called progeria, inspired the formation of the Progeria Research Foundation, a nonprofit established by Berns’ family members to treat and better understand the disease. According to the Boston Globe, Berns’s parents, both doctors, even started a research campaign that flew children with progeria to Boston from all corners of the globe. In 2003 they were able to identify the gene that causes the disorder and develop a drug treatment that has aided in prolonging the lives of children with progeria.

According to reports, doctors told Berns’s parents he wouldn’t live past the age of 13. Berns died at home on Friday with his parents by his side.

“It’s with heavy hearts we announce Sam Berns has passed away,” the Progeria Research Foundation announced Saturday on its Facebook page. “His courage moved all who knew him.”

When studying fictional stories I sometimes wonder what it would be like for the characters to live in the actual world. Would they behave the same if their behavior was not decided by an author trying to prove a point? Apparently not, but that is obviously just conjecture. Sam's parent's were more supportive than Benjamin's, they looked for a way to help instead of hiding the problem away, and unfortunately, Sam did not live long enough to make many of the same decisions that Benjamin Button made.   

When I read articles about Sam Berns I feel inspired to be more than I am. To face my difficulties head on and deal with any problem that might arise. When I read the accounts of Benjamin Button I find his story profound and entertaining, but hardly what anyone would call inspiring. The story of Sam Berns is one of a boy born with an illness who lived each day as best he could and tried to last for as long as he could with the support of everyone who knew and loved him. Fitzgerald's Benjamin Button is a boy who was born under strange circumstances, never dealt with the problem (because it is hard to argue that aging in the wrong direction is not - at least a little - problematic) Ruined the lives of those he was responsible to improve (this is more of a theoretical debate of whether or not it is your responsibility to improve the lives of the people who love you particularly your spouse, parents, and children) and ultimately unlearns every lesson he ever learned in his life. By the end of the story Benjamin becomes the poster child (child in that he actually does become a child finally) of why a person can not have youth and wisdom at the same time. 

So what makes the difference between Sam Berns and Benjamin Button? It sure is a curious case after all... What really separate the fictional character from the boy who suffered from the disease his curious case is likely based on (though by all accounts Fitzgerald may not have actually been aware a disease like this existed). To me it seems that the difference is made by the point of the story. Fitzgerald used Mr. Button to make a point, the way all good authors use their characters. Benjamin teaches a reader about aging and relationships in regards to age as well as what anyone else can take from the story. In real life nobody needs to use children to make a point, the point is made by their actions alone. Sam's bravery and positive attitude makes enough of a point that no writer would ever need to manipulate the events. 

What interests me beyond anything else is that the real life boy handled his unfortunate fate incredibly better than a fictional character by a long shot.

The Impact of the Old on the New

While I was reading this poem for the first time, in all honesty I didn't get any farther than the first line: “April is the cruelest month” (pg 5). In fact I didn't even fully understand what this meant at all, as in I could not understand why Eliot considered April to be the “cruelest month.” After our first class discussions I went back to re-read the poem and still could not follow at all. It was only after Tuesday’s class that I think I finally just barely grasped this poem. I must be honest that poetry is not my strong point. I don’t really like having to guess what the author is trying to say when he uses fancy literate language instead of more direct down to earth words.

            Interestingly enough, this preference of mine is actually what caused me to enjoy this poem more (of course only once I began to grasp what the poem was about), as I could go through the poem and see how Eliot contrasts different types/styles of words and sounds. On the one hand he uses really creative wording such as in line 76 (II- A Game of Chess) when Eliot writes, “The Chair she sat in, like a burnished throne…;” while on the other hand, he then digresses to using more conversational, blunt lines, such as at the end of this section, in line 172, when he says, “Good night, ladies, good night, sweet ladies, good night….” As Professor Miller explained, this appears to be Eliot’s method for expressing how culture has degraded so much. What was once elegant, beautiful, and upstanding, has become indecent, corrupt, and ugly. Eliot was especially disillusioned by the corruptness of politics overtaking Washington.

            Perhaps Eliot’s extensive use of myths—especially Egyptian myth—can help to add some proof for Eliot’s deep devotion to tradition and older culture. Maybe Eliot was even intending for some sarcastic humor, as his use of Egyptian myth could be him saying, “People may think I am ancient because I do not like the corruptness and loosening of morals that seem to be overtaking our ‘modern-day society,’ so fine, I will provide some truly ancient sources.” Eliot was, as we say in my house, “spiting his nose to spite his face.” In other words, he was saying what he did, in malice of his audience, as if to say, “You think I am old fashioned? Fine, I will give you old!” Simultaneously, I don’t think this was Eliot’s only intent, but rather he was also trying to submit a message to modern day society that the “old” still affects the new—as we said in class that the new cannot be reborn if the old does not die first. The old has direct implications on the new and thus the old should be affecting the new, which, according to Eliot, it is not—the new is completely lacking in morals and ethics, in old times these were held sacred; these traits had not been passed on. Additionally, Eliot includes other, still older, yet more traditional lines, such as in line 426 when he says, “London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down.” This is a very classic children’s nursery rhyme, and one that may represent, for Eliot, traditional old school times. 

            I’d like to share my view upon the ending of this book and how Eliot thinks this juxtaposition between the old/beautiful and the new/corruptness will end. Eliot finishes his poem with a Hindi prayer. This can either be interpreted as mockery, or as hope. It may just be because I really dislike books/movies that do not have happy endings, but I would like to believe that Eliot was ending with the prayer to show there is still hope for mankind and we can still purge ourselves of the corruption that was so widespread. Eliot is ending off stating that there is still the ability for humans to bring back the old righteousness and piety while burying the corrupt culture that seems to be infiltrating ‘modern culture.’  

Helpful and Impressive Annotated Online Version of The Waste Land

Researching "The Waste Land" tonight I found this annotated online version of the poem. Although I haven't taken the time to look through all of the annotations, this seems like a reliable and interesting way to approach the poem. The pop-up annotations works much better than traditional text annotations, and the annotations here are extremely thorough. I recommend taking a look:

http://poetry.rapgenius.com/Ts-eliot-the-waste-land-annotated#note-899999

Hank, Showmaster Supreme

It doesn’t tie into the ending all that much, but I feel like we’re understating just how much of a drama-hog Hank is in the book, from his spectacle with the eclipse to the Valley of Holiness to his insistence on preserving his reputation as top magician.

In earlier blog posts and in class, we discussed Hank’s spotty morality, mostly as it ties into Mark Twain’s parable for American Exceptionalism. But we didn’t do much on Hank as a character, and despite the story’s satirical tone, I think there’s a lot of depth there to be explored. 

First and foremost, obviously, is Hank’s shameless addiction to putting on a show. It makes him a delightful storyteller, and the things he does are entertaining. But it’s also unsettling at times. You see how much the good things he does are rooted in his desire for a good story; think how, after he released Morgan’s prisoners, all he could think about was their reactions, (especially with the couple that had been separated) and he kept wishing he could photograph them.

Then you can see the petty things he does for the sake of his reputation, such as upstaging the ‘magician’ that could tell what royals were doing at a given time, or toying with Merlin.

For me, the most unnerving instance was when he and the king, dressed as peasants, lavished wealth and prosperity on Marco and his wife. Charity is generally a good thing, but this giving is all in the context of showing off; giving someone dirt-poor a massive overhaul of gifts that absolutely must provoke a reaction. The way Hank thrives on those reactions, it’s like the peasants have become a reflection of Hank’s power in his mind, instead of living, breathing people. Hank has become a benevolent god.

Now to leave the realm of close-reading and skydive into pure speculation, does Hank remind you of anyone?

Everything I’ve heard about Mark Twain puts him squarely in the drama-hog category. He was a born storyteller. He exaggerated his birth and made jokes about his death. He played up his false modesty with his claims that he wasn’t planning to publish one of his books, etc.

That category of Hank could be Twain poking fun at his own dramatic tendencies. With his candid description of characters who must have a good story, Twain parodies himself.

Besides for Twain’s personality, there’s a particular tyranny in authorship that Twain could be highlighting. As the writer, you shape your characters, get into their minds, and decide their fates. It’s a curious dichotomy of feeling for the character as a person, and playing with him like a ruler. After all, Twain has the ultimate say over everything that goes on in Hank’s world, from start to finish. Recognizing his fantastical power over his creations, Twain may be allowing Hank that same feeling of power, only to subvert it with Hank’s ultimate failure.