Pygmalion

What was kind of interesting as supplementary material to this reading was that we read it at the same time that my linguistics course was discussing phonetics, dialect/code switching, and the stigmatization of certain dialects - obviously tying in very closely to Higgin's project.

In this version and in every remake from She's All That to Pretty Woman, it seems that if you're teaching someone to be much different in their actions, speech or dress, they may appreciate the help at times, but they will surely be insulted since the teacher obviously believes there is something inherently wrong with the way they began.

The comedy of the lessons in combination with the drama that results is basically what makes this classic story so interesting and amusing for the audience. In addition, I think that the variety of personalities among characters allows each reader/audience member to relate to at least one of the characters, if not several at once.

The explanation of why Higgins and Eliza could not live happily ever after was not in the original publications, but was added later as a response to the many remakes and play directors who wanted to leave their audiences with a warm, happy feeling. I think that it probably should not have the explanation at the end, but I could definitely understand the frustration Shaw must have felt. It would be difficult to work the explanation into the play and is quite akward at the end of the book too, so to others, I would probably just recommend skipping the end explanation.

Importance of Being Earnest

I thought this play was one that would have been especially good/more entertaining as a performance. The plays on words, Ernest/earnest, etc. would be much more humorous in speech than just being read.
This is another example of a story full of absurdities that all tie up nicely in the end.
The notion of Bunburrying seems like a great pretense for humorous situations, but the fact that 2 grown men were leading double lives makes it twice as funny, in addition to the fact that they share the Earnest character.
The women characters are more than a little dissappointing. They are not very deep and are obvious supporting characters, but do not have much of a plot line themselves - they only react to the men in their lives.
Lady Bracknell seems surprisingly eager to change her mind at the end. She upholds the highest standards of a lady until the very end, then simply changes her mind. The women characters are so very simple and predictable too, acting in a way that requires little to no thought and simply accepting whatever stories are told to them - both before and after they know the truth.
This is one of the many stories we've read where we can see that the author had a very "old-timey" view of women and their simple, insignificant ways.

The Loved - One - of my favorites

I really think this is my favorite book of all that we read this semester and I don't really have an exact reason why. The focus on class and respectable employment gets turned upside-down by the course of the story. Dennis had taken on his shameful job at the pet crematorium, but later that job would save one of the very same people who looked down on that business. I guess that I like the justice, the tidy way it all wraps up. The "good guy" (if there is one) Dennis receives a decent lump of money to take back to England. Joyboy has nothing left but his mom and her bird, and the thought of the woman he loved being disposed of like a dog. The self-centered and more than a little pretentious Aimee brought herself to an end.
The absurdity of it all and the focus on appearances unfolds nicely and the thought of receiving a postcard every year for a pet, let alone a person that says that he/she is wagging her tail in heaven means that even if Joyboy is able to push it out of his head for months at a time, there will always be a yearly reminder.
One of the pretentious aspects of Aimee that I found very amusing is that she puts so much value in Dennis' ability to write and recite poems for her, but if she truly had any interest in poetry, she would have recognized those lines and not needed Joyboy to reveal the truth to her.
I also really liked Mr. Schultz's view of Whispering Glades vs Happier Hunting Ground. For most of us with pets, they do bring us more joy and love than the people in our lives, but we wouldn't think of just digging an unceremonious hole for a person. It brings up an interesting issue, that the social expectations are really what determines funeral arrangements, not actual love or respect for the person who died.
The warning at the beginning of the book is a great tool to help the reader get through the first chapter - at that point its not always clear who is speaking and it's a rather boring conversation, but with the previous warning against the gruesome parts, as a reader you know its going to get better.
One part I thought was not exactly believable was when Joyboy was making all of the corpses for Aimee smile. It wouldn't work out- families asked for a specific facial expression and there are many people who wouldlook absurd smiling through death. But I suppose it was further emphasis on his creepy forms of flirting.

The Day of the Locust

After seeing the terrible ending of the movie, it's hard to focus on the actual book...

Somewhat off topic, but there was a scene on the SNL X-mas special that switched a real person to an inflatable doll and as they were beating this doll, I couldn't help but think of the scene in the movie where Homer stomps on Adore. It was just as absurd.

Also, the very end of the movie looked like they went to Mexico and recycled some Day of the Dead decorations with the parade of skulls - it was strange.

One of the things that I found interesting while reading Day of the Locust was the vast differences shown by Tod's personality at times. There were many moments where he was a really gross creeper. Between his obessesion with pictures of Faye to his rapist fantasies, he was most horrifying in the way that he would have appeared to be totally normal to most of the people in his life. He was at times a genuinely nice guy and a good friend, especially to Homer.

Despite the fact that Tod had many rape fantasies throughout the book, near the end, he even helps the girl in the crowd who is being groped by another man - he recognizes that as wrong and hits the man, but doesn't seem to find anything sick in his own perversions.

Another section of the book that I thought a bit more about after our class discussion was the scene in chapter 14 where we see Earle in front of the fake Western goods store. In class we had discussed that the window display of "a large collection of torture instruments... fancy braided quirts, spurs with great spiked wheels, and double bits that looked as though they could break a horse's jaw without trouble," could be seen as foreshadowing to the violence that was to come. Realistically, none of these things are regularly used for any form of torture or pain. They are all used on horses, but not for pain, only gentle encouragement. It's more about cues, sounds and slight adjustments to the reins and leg pressure. I understand the point of West describing them as torture instruments, but I just wanted to point out that isn't really accurate.

I do wish that we could have read more of Faye's perspective. She seems to be a very troubled person who regularly uses others, but often finds herself being used and objectified, not that she seems to consider that a negative thing. Between her dancing at camp and her behavior at the party at Homer's house, I felt like she didn't really get much of an explanation, besides just being a young woman in show biz. I was left with a lot of questions about her motives and thoughts, but the story really revolved around Tod and his thoughts/motives, so I can see how hers were not really vital.

Fate in Slaughterhouse-Five

The idea of fate is represented many times throughout Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five. The phrase "So it goes," is the most obvious and repeated suggestion that life continues and there really is nothing a person can do to change it.

There are many scenes that show Billy's belief in fate. One of the first times we see a suggestion of fate is when Billy is following Weary and the two scouts. He is shot at, but does not respond. He is completely unconcerned and allows the gunman a second chance.

We also can look at Billy's explanation of Tralfalmadore's views on life and death. They say that all moments in time have always existed and will always exist. This is also where the phrase "So it goes," comes in.

Another point in the story that may suggest fate to the reader is during the scene after the scouts ditch Weary and Weary is winding up to kick Billy in the spine. That is the exact moment the Germans show up, preventing Billy from paralysis or death. Obviously, this may just have been a necessary interference by the author - it would not have made a very good book if the main character was paralyzed and left for dead in a snow bank in the first 51 pages.

Another portion of the book is the reference to the serenity prayer that Billy kept on his office wall. After the prayer passage, the narrator explains that "Among the things Billy Pilgrim could not change were the past, the present, and the future." Basically, re-inforcing the idea of fate and that no matter what decisions a person made, their fate was already decided.

As an American prisoner was pulled out of rank and beaten (pg 91), the American asked "Why me?" Then the German who was beating him replied "Vy you? Vy anybody?" As if there were no reason, but it had already been decided and there was nothing that could be done about it.

On pg 103, we get a discussion of death between Billy's mother and Rosewater. They place no emotion on the topic and seem to act as if death is no big deal. It's just something that happened/happens.

Then we can also look at Billy's thoughts on his own marriage. He accepts it as inevitable and since he's already "seen" most of it, knows it will be at least bearable all the way. He seems locked into his life and has no desire to change things, never questioning what if. He even thinks of his contribution to the green berets (his future son) after having sex with his wife.

Even when thinking of his own wife's death or later in the bookstore of Jesus Christ's death, Billy's only response is "So it goes."

Near the end of the book, Billy addresses the tralfalmadore's thoughts on death again, mentioning their great interest in Darwin and explaining "that those who die are meant to die."

The entire book takes us through many moments in Billy Pilgrim's life, but not one of those involves him trying to change the future or the present. He simply accepts everything as inevitable and believes that his past, present and future have always existed and always will. Of the many themes involved in Slaughterhouse-Five, it is not difficult to see the way that fate plays into each moment.

Election

I like the idea of getting the perspectives of each character, but as we talked about in class - this felt like pre-teen fiction and the voices weren't very different for each character. I guess that the fact that all the character voices blurred together might make it an easier read- youll never have to refer back to who is talking, because it doesn't really matter - the narrative lines up perfectly as one whole story.
A lot of people (in class) talked about the way that the movie had more well-rounded characters, but I'm not really sure I agree. In the movie Tracy had only one side to her personality and the affair didn't really make sense with that preppy picture, but in the book she was smart and nerdy, but also sexual in the way that she dressed/acted, much like the stereotypical good girl behaving badly fantasy. Paul also seemed a little deeper at times in the book. In the book, Paul was still a jock, but surprisingly bright, in the movie he was just trying not to drool on himself.
I think my other disagreement with the book/movie convo was about the end. In the book - everyone comes to the realization that it was only high school and it doesn't really matter once its over (which I certainly think is a realistic view of it!) In the movie, it basically determined the rest of each character's life: M was still angry and had to escape his "old life", Tracy was still the same person who had no personal growth and was still the overacheiver with no friends clawing her way to the top. It just seemed like the characters were all still looking back at high school as the most significant part of their lives and usually people who do that never leave the town their in or go on to do anything bigger/better.
This was definitely not my favorite book of all we read, but 8 years ago I probably would have enjoyed it more.

Final Paper Topic

For weeks, I've debated what exactly to write my final paper on. I couldn't decide exactly what portion of Dorothy Parker and/or Dawn Powell's writings I wanted to discuss, so I've decided to take an easier route. I'm fairly certain that I will compare/contrast the movie "Thank you for smoking" with the book. At first, I didn't think that would be a very interesting topic - I've tried to watch the movie 4 times now and have always found myself bored with it and not paying attention. Now that I'm reading the book, it's a very interesting story to me. The book is great and is definitely something I would read for fun, but the humor and wit does not transfer very well to the movie (atleast I don't think so, I rented it again and will make myself pay attention this time.) The characters in the book are much more likeable and developed. The meetings of the "mod squad" are always funny, as well as the creation of the marketing spin of the Academy.
I (quickly) tried to find an interview with Christopher Buckley after the movie was filmed, about Thank You for Smoking. The following is what I found and I thought the quote about good books=bad movies and bad books=Good movies was very fitting!

CG: When you wrote “Thank You For Smoking,” did you see this as something that could become a film?
CB: I write books to be books. I don’t think as I’m writing, “Oh, this would be a great vehicle for Robert Altman.” I think you get into trouble that way. I have to say, I think you can do much more with a book than with a movie. It’s great when someone comes along and makes a book into a good movie. In terms of what you can accomplish with a book, with characters and their backgrounds and their motivations, movies are terribly limited with that — which isn’t to say some movies don’t do that brilliantly. But I stand by the statement that a good novel is artistically superior to a good movie.
CG: I just saw “Children of Men.” Terrific film, terrible book.
CB: You know, there’s a Hollywood adage: “Good books make bad movies, and bad books make good movies.” I think you’d have to look at it on a case by case basis, but I kind of get it. I now appreciate the skill required to turn a book into a movie [after “Thank You For Smoking”].
CG: Were you satisfied with the film’s casting?
CB: Yes, I was very happy with the cast. I had nothing to do with it, but I thought Aaron Eckhart was very good. I was tickled with Robert Duvall, one of my favorite actors, and another one of my favorite actors, Sam Elliott, played the dying Marlboro Man … a lot of very good actors were in it for three minutes, and they brought glory to it.
CG: And William H. Macy.
CB: Oh, I just love him. When you see the movie, his funny line — I won’t give it away — he came up with it.

Find the full interview at: http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=2047
This isnt the site I originally found it on, but it is the same interview.