Religion and God

In The Diamond as Big as the Ritz, religion is portrayed as an ideal that has completely lost its appeal and is dominated by dreams of wealth and class. The small village of Fish alludes to the Bible and Christianity in many ways, including the 12 "disciples" that inhabit the village and their near worship of the train that passes their village. Thus, the village of Fish can represent traditional Christianity or religion. However, Fish is small, barren, and abandoned - similar to a ghost town. The Washington estate is the exact opposite - extravagant, large, and always occupied. The fact that the Washington estate was built up by selfishness and greed and at the same time is more successful than Fish indicates that traditional religion has been cast off in favor of a new "religion" - the worship of wealth and materialism.

This is further illustrated by the symbolism inside the Washington estate. Braddock holds prisoners in a small chamber dug underneath the ground. These prisoners attempt to persuade John to let them free or join them in the prison, paralleling mythological greek demons from Hell that attempt to charm mortals to join them. Even at one point, a prisoner shouts "Come on down to Hell!". Thus, this underground chamber is Hell, while the Washington estate above represents Heaven. Furthermore, Braddock represents the new God of wealth and materialism that has overtaken the traditional Gods. He has complete power of anyone that enters his world, or his estate, shown by not only the prisoners, but his restrictive control over Kismine's actions and John's life. Furthermore, when Braddock attempts to bribe God with a large diamond, there is no response, suggesting that God no longer watches over the world. Braddock's worship of wealth and materialism causes God to abandon him, leading to his own demise.

One of the best passages throughout the Great Gatsby in my opinion is in chapter three, when Nick describes Gatsby's smile for a full paragraph. Early on, Fitzgerald establishes Gatsby as an extremely persuasive and charismatic character, writing that Gatsby had "one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it". This creates an expectation for Gatsby's persona as someone who is trustworthy and noble - a persona that is quickly broken down as Gatsby is exposed as a bootlegger. Furthermore, Fitzgerald utilizes numerous dashes when describing Gatsby's smile, writing "[Gatsby's smile] faced - or seemed to face - the whole eternal world for an instant". The dashes set off reality - "faced" -  with illusion - "seemed to face". Again, Fitzgerald hints at the uncertainty of Gatsby's past and the numerous lies he creates to reach a relatively mundane goal.

Gatsby's smile also reveals that he doesn't see an entire situation clearly, only noticing what he wants to see. Fitzgerald writes: "[The smile] understood you just as far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the imperssion of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey." Gatsby is shown as such a strong optimist to the extent that it begins to hurt him. His optimism forces him to constantly attempt to relive the past. He believes that simply because he loved Daisy five years ago, she would simply return the love when he returns. Furthermore his optimism causes him to fail to register that Daisy is married and has a child, driving him to pursue a dream that is already dead.

Illusions vs Reality and Gatsby's Books

As discussed in class, the Valley of Ash represents many things, such as a place of absolute poverty, hopelessness, and sin. It is also interesting how the Valley of Ash is placed in between New York, a place where Gatsby seems to be the most successful, dreaming up several glamorous plans, such as meeting Daisy for the first time in years, and the West Egg, Gatsby's home where he forces himself to constantly remind himself of his reality without Daisy. Thus, New York represents a place of dreams and illusions, while the West Egg represents a constant reminder of reality. The Valley of Ashes represents the middle ground that exists between illusions and reality, foreshadowing the illusions that Gatsby creates about his own past. The eyes of Dr. TJ Eckleburg on the billboard are first described to the reader in a manner in which it is not clear that the eyes do not actually belong to a person. Fitzgerald creates an illusion for the reader, describing the eyes as "gigantic" and "looming" without referencing the billboard for more than three sentences, causing readers to create their own image of these strange eyes. However, Fitzgerald quickly returns to reality by writing that the eyes are on a billboard. These eyes act to foreshadow the illusions that, like Fitzgerald, Gatsby creates himself over a long period of time and will suddenly fall apart.

Gatsby's own books in the West Ham also indicate the lies that he created about himself. Owl-Eyes says that Gatsby "didn't cut the pages", suggesting that the multitude of books in his library are for show only - Gatsby doesn't have any intention of actually reading the books. Furthermore, the books are held in a "high Gothic library, paneled with carved English Oak", showing Gatsby's aristocratic background. However, Gatsby may not actually be from such an aristocratic background, suggesting that Gatsby's self-made foundation, like the Gothic library and the books inside, may simply be a large sham.

The History Teacher

In class, many people believed that the teacher was a good teacher in the sense that he truly cares about the children. He strives to give them what he thinks is a quality education that will preserve their innocence. However, I don't believe that he truly cares about the children. He seems to go through the motions of being a teacher, and then returns home not caring about the children themselves, but whether they receive the lies that he tells. The language throughout the poem is relatively lax and simple, similar to an everyday conversation language, reflecting the attitude of the teacher himself. His general attitude towards the students' future is one of indifference and apathy. Furthermore, the poem doesn't rhyme and lacks a complex rhythm, giving the poem a feel of simplicity, again reflecting the teachers indifference towards his students' education. The teacher "walk[ing] home past flower beds and white picket fences" also stresses the teacher's apathy towards not only the students, but his own life. The symbol of a man returning home after work paired along with the symbol of the average american lifestyle - the white picket fence and flowers - represents the teacher's own lack of career ambition and passion in his own life. He is perfectly content with his life and doesn't have a reason to properly educate his class. It seems that this history teacher embodies the average American. Someone who works the normal 9-5 job, and returns home thinking about trivial things, such as wondering "if they would believe that soldiers in the Boer War told long, rambling stories" instead of thinking about how to better themselves.

Pauline's Tooth

Morrison writes about Pauline's tooth in order to describe how society is so easily poisoned and destroyed by racism. As the "brown speck" first forms, it is small and insignificant, "easily mistaken for food", paralleling racism which was first mistaken as a positive to society, like the speck. However, the racism and slavery cut deep wounds into society's morals, doing so slowly and carefully so that society didn't truly realize the overpowering negative impacts that racism had. Over time, racism simply became an accepted way of life for both the blacks and whites, and eventually, the suppressed fought back against the racism, "leaving a ragged stump behind". As stumps are commonly associated with trees and life, the stump left behind was supposed to grow back and create a new, healthy tooth, representing the birth of a society with new morals. However, the damage already done by racism was debilitating and the tooth wasn't able to grow back. Morrison also writes that "there must have been the conditions... that would allow [the speck] to exist in the first place". In this final sentence, Morrison pins the blame of racism and the eventual destruction of society on society itself, describing society as the enabler that brings its own downfall.

Later, Pauline again has a tooth pulled out, this time by a piece of candy she eats while watching a movie, again, representing society hurting itself. By eating candy, an obviously unhealthy food, she hurts herself and causes her tooth to fall out, dropping her self-esteem. This small change in her features causes a significant change in her lifestyle. Juxtaposed with the perfect Jean Harlow, Pauline is suddenly a broken women, unable to fit the mold of the ideal women, leading to her being constantly beat by her own husband. The image of the idealized women, in this case Jean Harlow, cast by the media forces women to match a certain framework. Any digression, however small, from the norm is unacceptable. Again, society harms itself through not only racism, but the objectification of women.

Dandelions

Morrison in The Bluest Eye pins much of the self-esteem issues that Claudia has on society itself, including other African-American people and Claudia herself. When first noticing the dandelions, Claudia asks "why...do people call them weeds?" (41). At first, she feels sympathy for the dandelions, most likely because she relates to it; like Claudia, the dandelions are rejected for their lack of beauty. However, Claudia is unable to understand why the dandelions are ugly, and why their seemingly beautiful petals are rejected by most of society. In the same way, Claudia is unable to understand why she is apparently ugly. Believing beauty is a concrete object, Claudia even dismembers dolls to "find the beauty, the desirability that had escaped [her]" (20). After Mr. Yacobowski ridcules and treats her as a lesser being, however, she returns and say says "[the dandelions] are ugly... they are weeds" (43), almost if hypnotized and poisoned by Yacoboski, who, in reality, is the weed rather than the dandelions or Claudia.

The passage about the dandelion reveals much about Claudia and her own personality. She is very easily manipulated to believe what others believe due to her already low self-esteem. To Claudia, if others say the dandelion is ugly, it must be true. If others say she is ugly, it must be an unchangeble fact. This reveals Claudia's desire to be accepted by others around her. When describing Maureen Peal, Claudia says "She enchanted the entire school... She never had to search for anybody to eat with in the cafeteria" (62-63). Here, Claudia seems to be in a dreamy state, almost as if simply talking about Maureen would cause her to become accepted. Claudia views Maureen as a superior - someone so beautiful that she wouldn't associate herself with someone as ugly as Claudia, further pushing Claudia to question her own beauty.

Plastic

Some seek to explain the social differences  between men and women through their respective childhood toys. Such analysis makes sense as it as a fact that many human characteristics are explained by experiences a child underwent during his/her childhood. However, when investigating the impact that Barbies have had on women, Prager seems to overlook many seemingly obvious facts.

Prager implies that men are at fault for the problems women face by asking, "Did Mr. Ryan design Barbie as a weapon?" The underlying message behind this statement seems to say that men, somehow, purposely designed the Barbie to suppress women from a young age, similar to Big Brother. However, it is obvious that this was not Ryan's purpose when designing the Barbie. Ryan does not use easily manipulated plastic for the body of Barbie to symbolism him molding women to a certain standard. He actually uses plastic because it was the most efficient and profitable substance to use for the Barbie at the time. In fact, Ryan must've used a moldable substance because a naturally solid substance that is impossible to mold doesn't exist. Thus, even if Ryan's purpose wasn't to suppress young children, the symbolism of the plastic is suspect at best. With this logic, every plastic object could be seen as an attempt to mold humans into a certain template, which certainly isn't true. 

Furthermore, Jack Ryan isn't even seen as the mastermind behind Barbie. Instead, Ruth Handler, a women, is largely credited for the invention of Barbie. This is even confirmed by a quick google search - a search of "barbie inventor" doesn't even mention Jack Ryan once in any articles, instead mentioning Ruth Handler as the inventor. Jack Ryan worked as the head of the research and development department and was in charge of some of the design of Barbie and the accessories that Barbie carried. He was not in charge of the main body of the Barbie, as Prager suggests. Moreover, because the Mattel Corporation created the Barbie, it would be near impossible for all men to create the Barbie. Instead, the collective effort of both men and women would be needed to create a product that created $944M in profit for Mattel in 2013. Thus, it is absolutely false that a women had no hand in designing Barbie, going against a large part of Prager's piece.

The Last Page of Maus

In class I was suprised when we didn't really discuss the last page of the comic, as the last page of most literary works are very important in the context of the whole story. I thought this blog post would be a good opportunity to share my thoughts on the last page.


The ending of Maus fails to give closure, leaving numerous questions unanswered. The reason why Vladek calls Art Richieu is unknown and has many reasonable explanations. It could mean that Art hasn't lived up to the expectations that Richieu had left when he died, or that Vladek actually begins to accept Art as a son by allowing him to replace Richieu in his life. Alternatively, it could also mean that Vladek hasn't escaped the past and is still actively living in it. Or, most simply, it could just be a slip of tongue and indicate Vladek's advanced age and the memory loss he underwent.

The gravestone at the bottom of the page has the same effect. While it literally splits the last two panels, it also seems to wrap the whole story together, putting Vladek's and Anja's name next to each other, indicating that the couple "lived happy, happy ever after" (136). However, the conditions of death for both Vladek and Anja would seem to indicate an unhappy ending instead. This, perhaps, may be sending the message that the Holocaust never will have a "happy ending". Still, the tombstone adds to the confusion and lack of clarity presented by the last page.

The signature at the bottom of the page is a last word of sorts for Art Spiegelman. The fact that it is Art's signature rather than Vladek's implys that the story is now Art's, not Vladek's. Art has taken over the responsibility of the story and thus carries the guilt that comes with it. Alternatively, writing the story could also be a channel for Art to release his guilt, a catharsis of sorts. Even more, the date at next to Art's signature is 13 years, the age when a Jewish child to becomes a man. This suggests that Art finally became a man after writing the comic, as if writing this book ushered in a new and better age for Art.

The last page of Maus truly lacks the closure that so many other novels contain. Overall, the lack of closure suggests that, like this comic, the true stories of the Holocaust lack closure - nothing good came out of the Holocaust. The rare good from the Holocaust, under closer investigation, must have a larger negative that outweighs the positive.

Memory

Many novels have various themes relating to memory and Maus and 1984 are two of them. In both novels, however, memory is represented in different ways, most notably as an abstract concept in 1984 and a concrete item in Maus. This difference allows each novel to fufill a different purpose. The fact that Winston Smith wasn't aware "Where that knowledge existed" (Orwell, 18) mirrors Orwell's warning to the public about technology: although technology didn't at that time allow for such propaganda to influence the public, it could quickly become possible. By reinforcing the idea that memory is actually abstract, Orwell convincingly conveys the message that the minds of humans are easily malleable by abstract methods.

Memory in Maus serves a different purpose. In Maus, memory is most often shown as concrete, taking the form of photos, numbers, and even the comic itself. The concreteness of memory in Maus, opposite to 1984, acts to create verisimilitude in order to emphasis the very real physical and emotional after effects of the Holocaust. When memory is displayed in the form of physical objects such as pictures, these memories are permanent, unable to be easily wiped from the mind. Vladek, for some reason, has a photo of himself in a prisoner suit "still now in my desk" (Spiegelman, 2.134). The physical picture acts as a stimulant to Vladek's memory, constantly reminding him of his trauma. In the same way, Maus is a constant reminder to the guilt Art feels due to the Holocaust.

In both novels, however, memory acts as a primary motavator for Winston Smith, Vladek, and Art. In 1984, Winston Smith's primarily goal is to restore proper memory to his people. In Maus, Art writes his comic to come to terms with his guilt by invoking his father's memory. Vladek's entire life revolves around his memory and trauma aquired from the holocaust. His memory forces him to be exceedingly miserly, eventually pulling him apart from his wife. Despite the difference in purpose, memory acts as a driving force behind both Maus and 1984's characters.

What is Feminism?

Feminists are criticized for various reasons including self-entitlement, anti-male attitudes, and general snobbishness. Whether these stereotypes are true or not, many feminists maintain that those who attack feminism simply don't understand what feminism is about - and this is true. To the average person who is neither a feminist nor anti-feminist, feminism doesn't seem to have a clear goal. The movement lacks true organization and seems to be a loosely connected group of people that fight for various causes under the name "feminism". This is almost directly opposite from the successful Black Lives Matter movement and Gay Rights movement, both of which had clear goals that all supporters rallied around. 

An example of such confusion even comes from two feminist authors whose pieces we've read in class. Stanton, in a 1869 woman suffrage convention in Washington, DC, says "The male element is a destructive force, stern, selfish, aggrandizing, loving war, violence, conquest, acquisition, breeding...death". This, however, is completely contradictory to what Bell Hooks writes, saying "folks think feminism is anti-male. Their misunderstanding of feminist politics..." The foundation of feminism isn't even clear to two promininent feminists. How can a movement be successful when its proponents arean't even sure of what they're fighting for? A movement like this can be compared to a bad essay, one that Ms. Valentino has surely graded. Even through the first month of this school year, Valentino has stressed the importance of a strong claim. Simply put, a claim must be clear, concise, and debatable. The goals of the feminism movement are not any of these three.

Furthermore, the goals of feminism are so muddled that Bell Hooks herself contradicts herself in her own essay. Starting her essay with "feminism is a movement to end sexism" she later writes "women could not band together to furthur feminism". As innocent as this mistake seems, Hooks implies that feminism is a movement for women only, going against her initial claim. Such small discrepancies and the lack of a clear focus causes feminism to be viewed by many as a joke, even though parts of what it stands for are clearly positive.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Henry Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" repeatedly stresses the importance of individualism and how individual sovereignty will allow the machine of government to run frictionlessly. Thoreau writes that the basis of America is founded on individualism - those who practiced different religions made the decision to move to new land. It seems logical that the power of the individual moved pioneers across the Atlantic. This, however, is not entirely true; it was, instead a violation of the social contract that forced people to move. The social contract clearly states that when a government misuses its power the people are forced to either replace it or overthrow it. When England prosecuted individuals based off their religious background, the people decided to replace the corrupt government by creating their own in America. As the social contract is heavily based off of popular sovereignty, the direct opposite of individual sovereignty, the power of the individual is not the foundation on which America stands on. Rather, the social contract acts as the foundation of the United States, as it does for most other countries. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was largely based on popular sovereignty and the social contract:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

Jefferson believed that the people's majority is the central ruling power of the government. The government acts as a servant to the people, and when the government begins to override the people's wishes, it is the people's duty to replace the government. Unlike individual sovereignty, popular sovereignty truly gives power to the people, allowing for a government that is both powerful yet malleable.

Why Stereotypes are Needed

Stereotypes are almost always viewed as detrimental to any community. From kindergarten, children are taught to avoid stereotypes; however, without stereotypes, society would not be able to function as smoothly as it currently does. To operate in this complex world, our brains must make general assumptions and generalizations about people, objects, and behaviors. Human brains are simply wired to create stereotypes about the world around it. To illustrate, imagine simple mathematics and problem solving without the ability to generalize, or stereotype. It is common knowledge that 1 + 1 = 2. However, what how would the brain react when 2 + 3 is presented? Without generalizations, our brain wouldn't be able to comprehend the similarity between the two equations. Instead, it would see the two equations as two completely different ideas and would be forced to remember, not learn, that 2 + 3 = 5. Simply put, without the ability to generalize and create stereotypes, our brains wouldn't be able to conceptualize the mathematical world around it.

More commonly, stereotypes are attached to generalizations about how a certain group of people act. Truthfully, there are many negative stereotypes - blacks are criminals, mexicans are rapists, etc. Stereotypes, still, are required to allow the brain to assess a situation and respond accordingly. Without simple generalizations, we would be unable to meet new people and become accustomed to new situations. Really, stereotypes act to guide everyday interactions between people of different personal and cultural backgrounds. For example, it is only common sense that one would treat a close friend differently than a stranger. Thus, stereotypes establish a mental framework, or map, for simple human interactions with people of different ages, languages, and gender. To completely reject the use of stereotypes due to a few negative stereotypes is not only dangerous to society, but is hypocritical in the truest sense. People who attempt to eliminate the usage of stereotypes are in fact stereotyping stereotypes.

Colonialism

The people's view of colonialism is definitely impacted by how our country was formed. The way our country was formed - to be blunt - was to forcibly take land from others and call it "colonization". In most historical examples of colonization, a native group of people is displaced and another country "colonizes" it. Not only did this happen in the formation of the United States of America, millions of native Africans were displaced or forced into slavery when European countries colonized Africa. Based off these examples of colonization, colonization seems like a horrible thing. However the Merriam-Webster definition of colonization is to establish a colony, where the definition of colony is "A group of people who leave their native country to form in a newland a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation". Phrases such as "newland", "connected to", and "parent nation" make the word colonization have a positive connotation. Combined with the fact that nearly every American History textbook describes Christopher Colombus as a hero who colonized what is now the United States, usages of the word "colonization" are commonly used to envoke a positive feeling. This word, however, based on historical examples of the word, should not have a positive connotation.

Huckleberry Finn takes place during the post-colonialism period of U.S history. During this time, most of the native Indians of the land were already herded into small territories. However, the foundational idea of colonialism, to gain control of a certain area with negative effects on a certain group of people, intended or not, still lived in the form of slavery. Many characters throughout the novel hold slaves including Miss Watson, the Grangerfords, and the Phelps. Similar to the people of the colonialism era, those who held slaves do not realize the impact of what holding slaves has, rather, they accept slavery as a way of life. This acceptance of slavery causes many characters who hold slaves to even be shown as a positive and respectable characters. Despite the fact that slavery is obviously terrible, during that time slaves were a good thing to have in the south. This is parallel to how colonialism is viewed by many today. People view colonialism as a good thing simply because it sparked the creation of our nation, and while this is true, colonialism killed many who simply were living on a piece of land. Like how slavery is viewed now, colonialism in its de facto definition should be viewed as a negative rather than a positive.