Heart of Darkness: Blog Response #1

In the early 1900s, females were still known as the ones with the inferior roles to men. How does Joseph Conrad, who seems to be quite progressive in his critique of imperialism, reflect the traditional treatment of women? Does he seem to have the conventional perspective that many from his period have? Or does he have an advanced way of thinking toward the concept of females? Unfortunately, in Heart of Darkness, Conrad offers no advancement to the cause of women by following convention and minimizing the agency of females through the creation of two separate, engendered spheres. So far in Part 1, two female characters have appeared. These characters were kept unnamed and their speech limited, emphasizing the disparagement of women in the male-dominated society.

The first women that Conrad’s protagonist, Marlow, recounts are the two knitters at the Company office in Brussels. The younger one greets the men with a “cheery and foolish face” who come in for examinations before they leave for Africa. Although not so much the older woman, the younger woman is unwise in the ways of the world. She gives off a carefree attitude toward the men before they enter the Congo. This gives the young woman a sense of innocence and ignorance. She clearly has no idea that the men are getting themselves into the “heart of darkness.” If she did know what the “real world” had to offer, she would be frightened and probably would not be able to handle it. If she actually knew the true, harsh realities of the world outside of her own bubble, that innocence would forever be lost.

The second female character that the readers encounter is Marlow’s aunt. Before Marlow braves the challenges that await him in the Congo, he visits his aunt to thank her for securing the job of steamboat captain for him. Marlow remains critical of his aunt even though he could not get employment without her help (Hinkle). He views her as "out of touch with the truth" along with the rest of womankind, who are in "a world of their own" (Conrad 10). The world of women may be separate from the realm of Marlow and other males, but these worlds are certainly dependent on each other. Earlier Marlow said that the beautiful idea behind colonization masks the ruthless practice of colonialism. Well, his aunt clearly buys the idea, and in doing so establishes women as symbols of civilization’s inability to see its hollow corruption.

Marlow has a very specific and sexist attitude towards women. They play only minor roles in the novel and often live vicariously through their male counterparts. They are rarely given voices of their own and are more often seen than heard. Depicting women as unnatural entities, voiceless and agent less, to their male counterparts destroys any shot of redemption for the fairer sex, so Conrad aligns all the women in the narrative with unreality to evolve the importance of separate realms. 

"Great Nations of Europe" by Randy Newman

“Great Nations of Europe” is what seems like a cheerful song, but in reality, talks about the destruction the Europeans have caused. Randy Newman was successfully able to use irony by making contradictions between what he says and what he means to convey the message that the Europeans were not so “great” as people thought they were in the 16^th century.

To start off, the title of the song “Great Nations of Europe” is ironic. Of course, Europe at this time period was the dominant power. They had the wealth, the stability, and the advanced technology to rule the world. However, this is not what Randy Newman is actually saying – he means something else. As much as they seem superior, they are not great because all they ever do is destroy other civilizations and their cultures. They kill millions of people not just through military but through the diseases they bring and wipe out their existence completely. What exactly is so great about that? Nothing.

Another sign of irony is when Newman says “the great nations of Europe were quite holy in their way” right after he talks about how the Europeans had the Indians “torn apart by dogs” when the Church claimed they were gay. Obviously, there’s nothing holy about tearing people apart to death. What Newman was trying to actually say was that the Europeans pretty much did anything in the name of God.

            Yet, there are certainly some parts in the song that are not ironic at all. For the most part, the descriptions of what the Europeans did are not ironic. Although they are very exaggerated, Newman is saying them to be interpreted literally. One example of Newman not using irony is “They got tb and typhoid and athletes food, diphtheria and flu.” Everyone who learned some kind of history would know that what he is saying here is exactly what happened in reality. The Europeans had brought millions of diseases to the Americas and consequently had killed millions of Indians.

OFOCN: Blog Response #3

Many have faced problems about individuality and freedom once in their lifetime. They feel the need to conform to others or reluctantly follow an authority’s order. They themselves cannot speak up because they have no voice and believe no one sees them. Has that ever happened to you? Because it has happened to me. Like me, Chief Bromden, our narrator from One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, has also experienced this. Yet, he was able to change through the presence of a very influential person named McMurphy, who showed Bromden and the other patients that sometimes it is necessary to fight against society and its oppression to keep one’s individualism and sanity. Bromden’s character change is evident through his decreasing hallucinations, his voice, and his ability to make choices.

              One of the changes in Bromden is shown through his receding hallucinations, which parallels with the mentioning of the fog machine. Throughout the story, Bromden starts mentioning less about the fog machine. Like stated in my earlier blog, the fog machine represents Bromden’s mental clarity ― the more he sees it, the more he’s hallucinating and becoming insane. However, he realizes himself that the fog machine hasn’t been working and that it probably “had broke down in the walls…and weren’t able to circulate fog and gas and foul up the way things looked” (pg. 140). This awareness allows Bromden to perceive reality like the way “normal” people could. He is now more coherent and his mind stable. He is no longer trying to escape or hide from the reality of society or his life; instead he is trying to face his own problems and to deal with them. Even when the fog does come back, Bromden chooses to avoid it. During the EST, Bromden states, “It’s fogging a little, but I won’t slip off and hide it. No…never again…” (pg. 248). He chooses to stay away from it and this determination to not get controlled by the fog demonstrates the amount of courage Bromden gained throughout the novel. He won’t hide anymore. Although he is now more vulnerable than ever, it allows the readers how much more confident and courageous Bromden became in facing reality as well as how stable he has become.

              Another evidence that Bromden has changed throughout the novel is his frequency in talking. In the first half of the story, Bromden pretended he was deaf and dumb. He did not say a single word at loud and allowed people to talk bad about him in front of him. He had no voice. Voice in this novel represents control, power, and strength. Just like Nurse Ratched lost her voice and thus, lost power and control over her patients, Chief Bromden regained his voice and thus, got back his personal strength, confidence, and control over himself. His process of pretending he couldn’t talk, to WANTING to talk, to actually talking, and eventually singing and/or laughing is proof that Bromden is no longer the coward he was before. He is able to speak his thoughts now and is heard from the others. He is an individual and isn’t “invisible.”

              By far, the biggest change McMurphy had brought upon the patients and especially Bromden was the capability to make choices. McMurphy symbolizes the capability for choice while Nurse Ratched represents the opposite ― she does not allow anyone in her ward to make their own decisions because she wants to have the control. One’s ability to make choices (rational choices) is what determines a person from being a “normal, rational” human being from a person in a mental institution. Chief Bromden realizes this. He realizes that he can also make choices without being afraid. Thus, wanting this ability to be rational, he does several things such as raising his hand to vote for the World Series, deciding not to take the red capsule before going to sleep, and being one of the people to go fishing. Finally, as a way to protest as well as fight for what he believes in, he decides to fight with McMurphy (during the incident between George and Washington during the shower), he mercy kills McMurphy, and he runs away from the ward. Through this, Bromden was able to regain back his sense of individuality and humanity. He is not “a product” of the Combine. He won’t conform to society, or in his case Nurse Ratched’s ridiculous orders. He will do what he himself wants and with this, he was finally “free” (pg. 280).

              When I moved to New York, the New York culture was completely different from the culture in Spain. In order to make friends and fit in, I did what everyone else did and followed to their society rules although I did not agree to many of them. I soon realized I was just trying to conform and by following others, I was losing a sense of myself. Through courage and confidence, I regained back my uniqueness and did what I believed was right. I made my own choices and did things based on what I wanted. This is what Bromden went through. He went through a very significant character change that made him from being a scared, invisible, emotionless coward to a courageous and confident human being who could make his own choices.

OFOCN: Blog Response #2

Many authors attempt to use symbolism as a way to add depth and meaning to a story. When chosen well, it can convey an intricate idea with just a single object that allows the novel to be interpreted in more than one way. One of the central symbolisms in One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest is the machinery. Similarly, Charles Dickens also uses this machinery imagery in his novel the Tale of Two Cities. Both authors utilize it as a way to express the dehumanization of the society.

The main metaphor in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is the machine. The metaphor appeared early on in the story and was mentioned frequently by the narrator Bromden. Bromden sees society as a giant farm machine, the Combine, which harvests grain crops and gets rid of the excess. He sees this same machine representing the mental institution as well. This machine representing the dehumanization of individuals can be seen primarily in two places: the description of Nurse Ratched and Bromden’s nightmare. When Nurse Ratched first appears in the novel, Bromden describes her in machine-like terms. When she is approaching the black boys, “she blows up bigger and bigger, big as a tractor, so big I can smell the machinery inside the way you smell a motor pulling too big a load” (p. 5). Moreover, all of her physical features seem to be that of a machine – “precise, automatic” and “smooth, calculated, and precision-made.” Nurse Ratched is the perfect product of society. She has lost her individuality; her personality is no longer there. She is just a robot who goes on with her life. In addition, Bromden once dreams about the hospital being a slaughterhouse where the hospital workers kill the patients. In his dream, Blastic was the victim. The scene that most caught my eye was when Blastic was disemboweled. Instead of blood (what a normal human being should have inside), “a shower of rust and ashes” spilled out of his body. There is nothing human inside of him, but just leftovers of machines. This illustrates how the hospital did not just take his life away but his individuality and humanity away. Kesey uses machinery imagery to symbolize society and how it suppresses individuality as well as taking control of human souls.

 Likewise, in the Tale of Two Cities, the guillotine plays a significant role. The machine that is used to behead people is first introduced when the revolutionaries take over the Crown – when the revolutionary chaos gets institutionalized. The guillotine symbolizes the dehumanization of humans as they mercilessly behead them one after the other. They don’t perceive them as meaningful human beings anymore; therefore, human life became cheap. The guillotine made the killing more emotionless, mechanic, and automatic and showed how the people at that period had lost their moral compass.

Ken Kesey from One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Charles Dickens from Tale of Two Cities were successfully able to use machine as a way to express the dehumanization of society. Whether it was about the person’s individuality or morals, the automatic, emotionless ways of the Combine and the guillotine allowed the readers to perceive the characters not as human beings but as soulless “objects.”

OFOCN: Blog Response #1

As readers, one of the first things we tend to do is notice the object most mentioned throughout the story. That being said, there is no doubt that the motif fog machine in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey caught the readers' attention. The fog machine usually appear when the narrator is in a difficult situation. What does this fog represent? Why is it so important for the narrator? The fog machine does not actually exist; however, in a more symbolic sense, the fog represents the mental condition of the narrator as well as the escape from reality.

When I was first encountered with the fog machine, I was confused. At first, I believed that the fog machine was a type of machine that produced chemicals and gas to calm one down as "it snow[s] down cold and white all over [the patients] like skim milk." Then, in several other instances the fog machine randomly appeared again out of nowhere. The fog does not physically exist, yet it is real to the narrator. He is imagining it as part of his hallucinations – whether it is due to the numerous drugs he’s taking or due to his actual mental condition. This fog is a way to remind the readers that this novel takes place in a mental institution and the narrator himself is a patient there. This fog is a way to remind us that the narrator hallucinates frequently and thus, is not a reliable one. This fog is a way to remind us that every time it ‘appears,’ it means the narrator is in a lost, confused state. It is almost like a warning that the narrator, although observant in many ways, should not be trusted by everything he says because after all, he does have a mental condition.

“One of these days, I’ll quit straining and let myself go completely lose myself in the fog the way some of the other Chronics have.” This quote shows how if the narrator allows himself to be completely taken away by the fog, he will turn completely insane like the others. What on earth is the fog then? The fog is a symbol of Bromden’s escape from reality. He seems to believe that the fog machines are turned on every time he is in a state of confusion so he doesn’t have to deal with what is going on around him. Feeling invisible to others when he is afraid, the fog is a safe place for him to "hide in." However, as the fog hides the narrator from the reality, the fog also limits the reader’s understanding of the atmosphere and situation of the world inside the mental institution. It blurs the line between reality and imagination, and the readers have to guess what is actually happening.

The concept of the fog appears numerous times throughout the novel and is somewhat ironic. Through the motif fog, the readers can understand the narrator and his thoughts more. Yet, the readers are more distanced and muddled by what is really going on in the novel.

Waiting for Godot Film Version

     If you were to make a film interpretation of Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett, how would it be? How would the characters look like? How would the setting be depicted? Because this is a play, it was obviously meant to be acted out. With so many different interpretations that one can have, it was exciting for me to see how other people viewed the play.

     When reading the play, I first imagined the two protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon, to be like "tramps" -- people who wore oversized clothes that were ripped, falling apart, and plain dirty. I imagined Estragon full of bruises and scars due to the beatings he gets every night. I imagined them old, smelly-looking, and simply exhausted. Because all they've been doing in their lives is wait and wait for Godot, I thought they would look practically dead. Their eyes? Lifeless. Their skin? Pale. However, in the film, I saw something completely different. Although I won't necessarily describe them as "wealthy-looking," their suits, their hats, and just their aura made them seem anything but poor. They looked clean and proper, almost full of life. I felt like through this, the message of the play was not conveyed as properly because the two men's hopelessness and the fact that they had nothing to lose was not shown. 

     In addition, the dialogue (although the exact same words) was too different from what I had in mind. The actors were TOO good of actors that they tried their best effort to ACT. The whole point of this play was to show the meaningless of life. These actors put emotion in their words; they expressed their emotions through it. They ruined the message. These words that were suppose to have no meaning, these words that were not a mean of communication, these gibberish words suddenly became the main form of expression between the audience and the characters. The dialogue was NOT meant to be a form of communication in the play! 

On top of their tone of voice, their body language and the camera shots were all ways to show off EMOTION and MEANING to these words. In the beginning of the play, Vladimir is shown doing hand gestures, standing up, walking around, shifting eye contacts, all in an effort to put significance to what he's saying. The camera would zoom in the characters' faces to emphasize the emotions and the facial expressions they show. Once again, this defeats the whole purpose of “meaningless.”

     However, one thing that seemed to be perfect was the setting. The setting was exactly what was described in the play -- empty, barren with one tree. I especially liked the colors that were laid out. They were all dull colors -- mostly brown -- with a gray sky. It truly represented this "hopelessness" and the "dullness" of life.

     I believe the play (the written form) itself by Samuel Beckett did a better job in conveying his message about the meaningless and absurdity of life. Although the film was much more entertaining as it included emotion, some type of action, etc, the written play had a more profound way of connecting with the audience/readers.