Fight Club

The book I’m reading for the literature circle is Fight Club. I was glad that I got to read this book because it was my first choice and I really enjoyed the movie. However, Mrs. Clinch stated that the book is radically different from the movie. Well I read the first 8 chapters, and up to that point, the plot of the book is nearly identical to the plot in the movie. I was up at my friend’s cabin this weekend and was reading the novel when my friend pointed out that the book was almost like a movie screen. And because of the similarity in the book and movie, I assumed that the conclusion of the novel would match that of the movie—tyler durden and the narrator are one person. Under this assumption, I noticed many clues within the text that pointed towards my assumption. For instance, in the first chapter, Tyler and the narrator are always mentioned together in tandem. But, I learned today in class that the ending of the movie is not the same as the ending in the novel. I’m glad I realized this so that I can read without trying to figure contextual clues that pointed to Tyler and the narrator being one person. The novel is definitely raw and gritty. In other words, it’s not meant for the weak of heart. I thought that the narrator’s desire to overturn the norm of society was interesting. The novel is essentially about existential nihilism, which refers to the philosophy that suggests life is without an intrinsic purpose or objective. Because of the narrator’s day-to-day lifestyle, he views it as a static picture without any surprises or excitement. This is where the fight club comes in. Both the narrator and tyler start this club to break out of society. The book mentions self destruction, which is basically fighting. The narrator basically wants to test his limits not only in fighting, but the boundaries of society as well. He is finally fed up with being normal and blending into the background. I found that this idea of reaching bottom before you can be saved is prevalent throughout this novel. Besides fighting, the narrator regularaly attends different support group meetings although he is perfectly healthy. He claims that at these meetings he feel better about himself because he can witness the pains and harshness of life. There, he can see what it means to truly reach bottom and therefore be saved. The book alludes to Jesus Christ and him reaching bottom by being crucified. This idea of reaching bottom is flawed in my opinion. You don’t necessarily have to reach the rock bottom to realize and be thankful for your situation. I also realized that Tyler is the more aggressive and alpha male in the relationship he shares with the narrator. If the novel is not like the movie where they are the same person, I wonder who Tyler Durden really is, is he a real person or just a figment of the narrator’s imagination? Im excited to find out!

Invisible Man

I’m glad that I got the chance to read Invisible Man. If I wasn’t forced to read this book, I don’t think I ever would have. The descriptions through the unnamed narrator really allowed me to get a glimpse of what life was like in the shoes of a black man during the 60s. The novel starts with the narrator claiming that he is invisible. The invisibility is not referring to the ability of the narrator to be literally unseen, but instead to the fact that people refuse to see him for who he is. Everyone else tries to force an identity upon the narrator. The narrator essentially sets out on a quest to find and discover his own identity. The narrator begins his story with the narrator graduating. Being the valedictorian of the class, the narrator is excited to give a speech to the wealthy white folks in the town. Before he can, the narrator is basically sucked into a royal battle free for all. The town’s most accomplished white men gather and take great joy in humiliating the young black men. The accomplished men included lawyers, doctors, and even pastors. These men made the young black men to get into a boxing ring and start fighting blindly. At the same time, the white men shout racial terms at the black men. On top of all this, the black men are humiliated even more when they are tricked into being electrified. After all these humiliating events, the narrator is “awarded” with a scholarship. At this point in the novel, the narrator is extremely naïve and is totally submissive to others. His journey in college comes to a screeching halt one day when he has to drive a white trustee named Mr. Norton around the campus. One thing leads to another and the narrator is unjustly expelled by Dr. Bledsoe. The narrator soon finds out that the letters of recommendations he received from Bledsoe were more like letters of doom. Already in his young life, the narrator has been manipulated a multiple of times. This manipulation continues throughout the entire novel until the narrator realizes that he is invisible. The invisibility theme is very interesting to me. I believe that the invisibility theme and the struggle for identity theme are interrelated. The narrator is blind and therefore unable to make his own identity; instead, he has society impose an identity on him. For example, the Brotherhood forces an identity on the narrator by essentially brainwashing him. They don’t see the narrator for who he is, but rather as a mere tool that can be used to communicate with the people. The narrator finally understands the invisibility theme after pretending to be Rinehart. Realizing that people see him for who they want to see him as, the narrator realizes the fluidity of identity. It is this realization that leads him to conclude that he is invisible. I look forward to doing some seminars on this book as it was really interesting to me.

Sonnet

For the past couple days in class, we have been learning about sonnets. I’m not really into poetry but I think sonnets are very interesting. I really like the sonnet’s purpose—a medium through which skilled poets can dazzle audiences. The main subject of sonnets is love. The poet often is chasing a cruel fair—the gorgeous woman that eludes men in their quest for love. I noticed the hunter vs. hunted analogy is a common theme in sonnets as well. Both Spenser and Wyatt uses this analogy to describe their love situation. Obviously, the poets are the hunters who are hunting for the deer. At the literal level, the hunter is hunting the deer. Figuratively, the deer is the equivalent of the cruel fair. The hunting analogy holds true on so many levels, which renders it popular among sonnet writers. Just as a deer looks innocent and harmless, the cruel fair appears to be pure and innocent. Yet, the cruel fair is a professional when it comes to manipulating the emotions of others. The cruel fair also possesses the uncanny ability to evoke strong emotions in others. For example, the cruel fair often leaves the hunter exhausted and wearied because it eludes the hunter so much. Yet, something about the cruel fair makes the hunter keep on hunting for it. It’s also in the cruel fair’s nature that makes them enjoy being sought after by these hunters. It’s really a game to the deer. On the other hand, the hunter is more serious and genuine in their”love”. In essence, the hunt is more than a game to the hunter. Failure to successfully hunt means not having food that night, at least in the Elizebethan times. This shows that the hunter took hunting very seriously. If we take this analogy a step further, we can see that the deer is the hunter’s food—a source for the hunter’s weariness to be replenished. This is ironic in that the deer is what causes the weariness in the hunter initially. I found the Spenserian version of the hunting sonnet to be a lot more interesting. I personally think that the couplet in that sonnet changes the entire situation. It completely reverts the situation. Until the last two lines, it appears as though that the deer is in control as she leaves the hunter all tired and weary. But at the couplet, Spenser claims that he “won” the deer by “beguiling her goods”. This means that Spenser was pretending this entire time to fall victim to the cruel fair’s desires. In reality, he was the one in control while manipulating the emotions of the deer because the deer ends up “allowing” the hunter to finally catch her. I look forward to reading Shakespeare’s sonnets tomorrow!

Make Up Blog

The grand finale of Hamlet was chaotic and destructive, to say the least. All of the major characters had died by the end of the play, except Horatio. And even then, I’m not sure if Horatio can be considered to be a major character. Hamlet perhaps answers the question surrounding life and death posed in his “To Be or Not to Be” at the end of the play. When confronted about the challenge from Laertes, Hamlet calmly rejects Horatio’s advice of not dueling with Laretes by saying “let be”. What’s interesting about this is the fact that disaster and utter distruction would not have ensued had Hamlet listened to Laertes. However, Hamlet at this point in the play, has come to realize that life is fate and destiny. He belives that he has no control over what happens and that death takes everyone’s lives, some earlier than others. Hamlet is the underdog in the duel but somehow manages to fairly beat Laertes. Enraged by his father’s death, Laertes unfairly attacks Hamlet with the poisoned sword after he has already lost. Hamlet is doomed to die the moment the poison tipped sword slices him. Unknowing to this fact, Hamlet begins dueling with Laertes. In perhaps what might be considered to be a poetic justice moment, Hamlet switches his sword with Laertes mid way through their battle. Hamlet cuts Laertes, not knowing that he would kill him. Laertes reveals what happens to Hamlet because at this same time Gertrude has died from poison, which came from Claudius. It’s interesting to note that Claudius has killed a total of two people with poison. This is significant because Claudius’ preferred method of killing people is through the use of poison. This reveals that Claudius is a manipulative and sly kind of character, which we witness throughout the play. Also, the fact that Claudius “allows” Gertrude to drink the cup of poison is significant. Perhaps their true relationship is revealed because I don’t think Claudius could have let Gertrude drink the cup of poison had he really loved her. Although there is no indication in the play how much Cluaidus rejected he was against Gertrude drinking the cup of poison, the fact is Claudius doesn’t stop her. Combined with Claudius’ preferred way of killing people, this evidence indicates that Claudius manipulated Gertrude into marrying him. I don’t think Claudius ever loved Gertrude. Also, I think it’s highly ironic that Hamlet kills Claudius by forcing him to congest his own poison. All the hatred Hamlet felt for Claudius, is finally transformed into action as Hamlet violently forces Claudius to drink the poison. Although Hamlet and almost everyone dies, a sense of order is restored. Fortinbras should have been the successor had King Hamlet not taken the throne. In essence, order is restored as Fortinbras takes over Denmark.

Invisible Man

So the reading assignment for Invisible Man is coming up and I have only read about a quarter of the novel. I just finished with chapter 6 so I will write about my first impressions. First and foremost, I noticed it’s a relatively slow moving novel. I usually like to read intense and fast-paced books so this isn’t my cup of tea really. But at the same time, I can see this novel being really powerful because it is in a sense, a documentary on black life in the early 1900s. The first thing I noticed about the main character and narrator is his public speaking skills. It was mentioned, I think in the 1st chapter, that he gave his high school graduation speech. As he recalled the speech, I noted that the speech contained a lot of Booker Washington’s ideas. It largely talked about being submissive to the white people so that they may advance. Dubois similarly advocated submission to whites and giving up their political rights so that they may economically advance. Understandably so, Dubois received a lot of criticism from his own black community. This kind of “submission” was described by the narrator later when he talks about the embarrassing competition the white people set up for the black teens. The competition almost seemed like the white people were treating the blacks as animals because it was essentially a survival of the fittest for the black teens. The humiliation and embarrassment the young black competitors faced must have been harsh. But nonetheless, the narrator is handed a scholarship to a black college. As the narrator continues to recount his experiences, he talks about Norton and the incident at the black saloon at college. I thought it was significant when the doctor veteran helps Norton regain consciousness and then criticizes the narrator for regarding Norton as some type of God. I think that up until this point, the narrator didn’t really think there was anything wrong with submitting to white people. But I think that veteran in a sense, opened up the narrator’s eyes a bit. According to the veteran, the narrator is blind because he can’t see anything wrong with being submissive. Ironically, that same veteran cures his “blindness” by telling him that he’s wrong.

Hamlet

Ophelia, as a character, is extremely difficult to one dimensionally analyze. In other words, her character is not fully revealed. In fact, no character in Hamlet is fully revealed. But, the character Ophelia is one of the least revealed characters. Her true feelings for Hamlet are never clearly stated or implied. The audience is under the assumption that she truly loves Hamlet. It is interesting to note that Ophelia and Gertrude are the main two female characters in the play as well as the two most ambivalent characters. Mrs. Clinch noted in class today that this was unusual in that female characters are generally strong in other Shakespearean plays. For Gertrude, it’s hard to determine if she was involved in a conspiracy to kill her husband. For Ophelia, it’s hard to determine the reasons for her insanity. In the Brennah version we saw today in class, it made it seem like it was Hamlet that made her mad. But there could be other valid interpretations of that scene. For example, Ophelia could’ve gone mad because her father died. In the scene with Ophelia acting all crazy in front of Gertrude and Claudius, she mentions that her father is lying in the cold. That could be a sign that what really drove her mad was the death and cruel treatment of her father. Nonetheless, Ophelia and Gertrude are parallels in that they are hard to analyze. Another parallel in the play is that of King Claudius and Polonius. They both spied on others. Polonius spied on both his son and daughter while Claudius kept a close eye on Hamlet. Another one is Hamlet and Laertes. Both had their father murdered and are out for revenge. Ironically enough, Laertes is after Hamlet (which Claudius takes advantage of). However, the two characters are striking different in their approach to achieving revenge. They both start out with the same reaction—despair and outrage. But, the ensuing emotions are different. Hamlet decides to contemplate for awhile. He begins to second question the validity of the revelation which involved the ghost of his dead father’s soul telling him that Claudius had poisoned him in his sleep. In an effort to determine the validity of the revelation, he sets up a clever scheme of watching Claudius’s reaction when watching a play that largely resembled what Claudius did to King Hamlet. On the other hand, Laertes is more of an action man. He does it, then thinks later about it. Instead of trying to understand the situation concerning the death of his father, he blindly swears revenge on Hamlet when he finds out it was him that killed Polonius. So in this sense, they really are foils as well as parallels. I really am anticipating the grand finale of this play. Mrs. Clinch hinted in class that it’s all going to be total destruction. Excited to see how it turns out!

Hamlet and Ophelia

The scene where Hamlet is being a jerk to Ophelia is significant because Shakespeare never really stated the whereabouts of Polonius and King Claudius. Thus, there are several interpretations of the scene. One interpretation has it so that Hamlet is aware of the presence of Polonius and Claudius. If this were the case, Hamlet’s harsh words toward Ophelia can be taken out of context. Those words could be a façade that is intended to deceive Claudius. Knowing Hamlet’s wit, I wouldn’t be surprised if this were the case. The heated exchange between Hamlet and Ophelia brings me to my next point. I want to talk about Hamlet’s feelings for her. Once again, Shakespeare never directly states the exact relationship between the two. They obviously are more than strangers, probably lovers. But, the readers don’t know if the two of them have had sex or not. Or perhaps, they just have feelings for each other. Therefore, the readers must examine the play to determine their relationship. After the ghost reveals the true nature of King Hamlet’s death, he is obviously distraught. He even shows signs of madness that leads many of his acquaintances to worry. After this revelation, he visits Ophelia and has a strange encounter with her. He walks up to her and grabs her almost violently. There is contextual evidence that Ophelia had this sense of fear when Hamlet was shaking her. But at the same time, I feel like Hamlet wanted some companion. All this time, he had been alone. He had been isolated because of the revelation. He couldn’t disclose the true nature of his father’s death to anyone. He even had to lie to his childhood friends. In this time of isolation and loneliness, he found comfort in Ophelia. It’s human nature to start developing feelings for someone who is there in times of loneliness. I really think that Hamlet wasn’t just messing around with Ophelia. Instead, I believe that Hamlet really did have feelings for her because he was so isolated. Another interesting point to note in this scene is the spying theme. Polonius spies on his daughter and Hamlet once again. This theme is recurring as Polonius and King Claudius are the best representatives of this theme. Even in the scene with several interpretations, the two of them are spying on Hamlet. Polonius even tries to spy on his own son when he is out of Denmark. Like we discussed in class, Hamlet is beginning to doubt the ghost’s revelation. It is true that in Elizabethan times, ghosts were affiliated with damnation. Nonetheless, Hamlet believes the ghost at first sight. However, as time wears on, he begins to second question the ghost and its purpose. He now is going to see the King’s reaction to a play that has a plot involving the murder of a king. I’m excited to see what happens next.