Invisibility in Literature

So, by now we all should have read Invisible Man front to back - which is a task I know all however many AP LIT students have accomplished. Invisible Man obviously is a book about a man isolated from society, and in a sense is a coming of age book. Yet, there are many other novels that also use a motif of invisibility to convey a loss of identity and a suppossed persona. Take for example the first book titled Invisible Man, but it was by a simple man - H.G. Wells. Ever hear of the Time Machine? Or War of the Worlds? Yeah, exactly. This novel is also pretty intense, (and I actually bought a copy of it before Mrs. Clinch clarified that is was the wrong book...and read most of it because it was really good) and its about, obviously, a literal invisible man. In this story an invisible man, wrapped in bandages, shows up at an Inn to stay for a few weeks. Yet, when the land lady discovers he's literally an invisible man he flees, leaving the towns people hanging. Yes, they were pretty freaked out - so the best option of course when you get scared is to beat him to death! Although he was invisible, the town's people anger acted as a sort of "Invisible-man-dar" and found Griffin (his name) and beat him until their arms got tired. Invisibility in this book acts as a deformity, and illustrates how people hate other people not exactly like them. Which is a commonality in most literature before 1900.
In Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, a very indepth tale of a boy's magical quest from child abuse, invisibility is also used for a defensive move (an invisibility cloak). But invisibility can be benign. Harry's cloak of invisibility was given to him by Dumbledore in the first Potter novel (it belonged to his father) and is used in every subsequent volume to allow him to get up to his virtuous tricks without his schoolfellows noticing. I'm not really sure if there's a literary purpose here, other than maybe being invisible for the sake of defense shows futility of war? Yeah...that seems like a bit of a stretch. An additional story that makes use of invisibility is “The Headless Horseman”, where the horses remain either invisible or skeletons, and the rider has a pumpkin head. Most students read this at some point in American Lit, and I read it last year for AP LANG. This story seems a tad bit more archetypal than it is deep, but basically the point of invisibility in this story is that the horses are invisiblie to frighten people. See, people are scared of what they do not know. That’s basically why racism exists, and nearly every other fear imaginable. In fact, I do recall from a Doctor Phil show that all fears are based on the fact that you do not have control over the situation. The headless horseman inspired fear because he was indestructible, invisible, and a deathly force to be reckoned with – quite a good theme to convey when writing a horror story. Invisibility works on many frontiers, and not just to illustrate that a man can be completely cast out of society. That would take a volleyball named Wilson…I know bad reference.

Hamlet - Antichrist?

Good evening, Bloggers. Well, with the conclusion of Hamlet now out of the way there is something that has been pressing on everyone's mind - is Hamlet legitimately crazy, dutiful, or something else? Well, tonight I will be analyzing Hamlet's role as the antichrist, and the striking similarities between the two characters. My source comes from the book of revelations and Daniel, and my inspiration comes from a recent forwarded email from my nearly facist grandmother on the similarities between Obama and the antichrist (FYI: Reagan had more similarities than Obama). So, let us begin.
1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7] Alright, so young Hamlet doesn't come from one of the ten restored Roman kings - but his entire identity as an actor IS based from the classics - from the Greeks! If he were to actually have become king, he would've obviously reigned with those in mind. Sh-bam.
2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24] Old Hamlet, Uncle Clauds, and Fortinbras - there's three for you.
3. He is different from the other kings [Daniel 7:24] Of course he is - he was SUPPOSED TO BE KING (never really got there) AND WAS MOST LIKELY THE MOST MENTALLY INSANE.
4. He will rise from obscurity…a “little horn” [Daniel 7:8] Hamlet's rise to destroy Claudius was pretty obscure, right out of left field for those Danish onlookers. Princes killing kings? Nonsense.
5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5] Give me that man That is not passion's slave, and I will wear him In my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart, As I do thee. Enough said.
6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6] Hamlet gets very existentialist in the third soliloquy (To be or not to be), and many Elizabethians would have agreed good ol' Hamlet's pessimism could very well be associated with the devil. Also, him associating with ghost dad was in itself forsaking God.
7. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25] Okay, so look at it this way. Hamlet did take out Claudius (and himself) and established Denmark in a new era with Fortinbras. That is definitely a new era. He gets a point for this one.
8. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era
[Dan 7:25] He goes AGAINST laws to gain advantage for his kingdom, by planning for 5 acts to kill Claudius. I know, a far stretch. Also, Hamlet's political skills aren't as good as, per se, his being a witty jerk skills.
9. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27] As you can clearly see, this is obviously Horatio's opinion at the end of the play. Not that Fortinbras is Christ, no no no - that the only person who can TRUMP Hamlet is Christ. Horatio was a big Hamlet fan, you see.
13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; “He will do as he pleases”[Daniel 11:36] DO I NEED EVEN A RESPONSE FOR THIS? REALLY?
The entire play, with such strikes as "A little less than kin" and "Get thee to a nunnery", Hamlet answers to HIMSELF - reminiscent of a Monique-esque persona. Hamlet still inspires many divas today.
I think I'll stop at the lucky number 13...I may continue this countdown next week. THE EVIDENCE IS OUT THERE PEOPLE.

Hamlet - A Pretentious Jerk?

Hamlet honestly just strikes me as one of those guys who really has an ego problem. You know, a complete narcissist. Well, this week I would like to examine what a narcissist is, the disorder associated with it, and other literary characters who would fit this example.
The following criteria characterizes a person with a Narcissistic personality disorder:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
- Well, this can definitely be attributed to Hamlet. Especially in regards to his stage presence and his intellectual persona.
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
- I would say he's obsessed with the fact that he has to kill Claudius...perhaps that fits in this category? Its hard to say how Hamlet was before all the drama.
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
- Well, his soliloquys kind of imply this, don't you think? That he can't comminucate with the people within his world, so he has to talk to himself. Naturally.
4. requires excessive admiration
- If we look to our girl Ophelia on this one, this is a yes.
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
- Um, he does get pretty angry about the whole his mom having an incestuous affair with Claudius. File this under sense of entitlement.
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
- Oh very much so! Let's look back at Ophelia, to prove he's mad he basically goes crazy as crap on her just to better position himself in his "wit chessgame".
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
- Well, depending on the interpretation, Hamlet is either concerned for the livelihood of Ophelia and his mother or he just uses them because they're women and that's what they're good for. I'm going with the latter intepretation.
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
- I'm sure he belives that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are jealous of his awesome wit skills. What with all those references to fortune.
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
- Basically every single time Hamlet speaks.
Well, what other literary characters also illustrate a narcissistic personality? Well, for the perfect example, I'd go with The Picture of Dorian Gray - if I remember correctly he even admitted he was a narcissist. If you want to get on the slightly more disturbing side, the narrator of American Psyche (the most disgusting book you will ever read - that's not even an opinion its a fact) is a cold blooded narcissist. Additional narcissists could be every single king in medieval europe, every single person on a TV reality show, and of course Lord Byron.

Character VS. Plot driven - is that the question?

So, recently I was listening to NPR, (NPR's major demographic consists of female, democratic cat owners between the ages of 50-80 I presume) and there was this article on how most stories nowadays are either truly plot driven, or character driven. Although you may not be able to tell from the finished product, in the rough draft stages, so far back even to the inspiration of the story, is typically either character or plot. Now, when I first heard this I couldn't really imagine how something could be truly character driven. I mean, when I personally think of award winning novel ideas what typically comes to mind is extreme settings with lengthy plots. Characters come secondary to the plot, in my mind at least. But then again, everyone is different. According to the article, most writers have a preference for one style of writing over another. Some writers are more adept at developing complex, interesting, and unique characters. Others excel at action packed, page turning adventures. Take for example, the adventures of Indiana Jones - clearly a character driven story all the way. Included in this category would be 007, even if Rodger Moore could out act Pierce Brosman any day of the week. However, think to stories more like The Giver, the dystopian future clearly impacts the behaviors of all of the characters involved in the story. I was thinking about this some more, and I ask you to question this as well: is Hamlet a character driven or plot driven story? Although some may think this is obviously a no brainer, just take some time to think about it.
The title of the play is Hamlet. Boom, right there, tells you that Shakespeare sat down with a witty prince in mind and formed an entire political empire's drama around him. The characters stand out so much in Hamlet, and in the rest of Shakespeare's works for that matter, because they're dramatic acts and you read the story completely invested in the character. The way I like to think about if its more so a plot driven or character driven plot is to ask yourself: describe in one sentence the story. However, the hard thing with Shakespeare is that he is such a master of language and writing that he blends both plot and character together simultaneously. Take for example, Romeo and Juliet. Guy falls in love with girl, is forced apart by their families, their inexpressible love for each other tears them apart and they die tragically? It sounds awkward. But, this was kind of bothering me as I was listening to NPR because I honestly could not categorize Hamlet as either character or plot driven. So I ventured to wikipedia to find a one sentence solution there, and it gave me nothing: "The play, set in Denmark, recounts how Prince Hamlet exacts revenge on his uncle Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father, the King, and then taken the throne and married Gertrude, Hamlet's mother." So basically, Shakespeare defies all laws of literature.
In essence, I feel as if I should start listening to stations actual teenagers listen to so that I don't stay awake at night pondering Shakespeare. Its rather annoying.

Inivisible Man - Fight Club?

So I'm not even 100 pages into Invisible Man, and I can already tell this is going to be a book that confuses me until the very last page. Right now I just finished the part after the old white guy collapses in the bar, and the narrator is dodging people flying at him for his life. In the past chapters, there was a man who committed incest and a battle royale that put many Japanese talk shows to shame. And by the way, has anyone noticed that there's been a lot of incest in the books we're reading this semester? Anyways, this book is pretty weird. Before going into this book, one of my friends told me that it is reminenscent of The Wasteland and there's a large existentialist/futile theme in the novel, similar to Doestevsky's philosophy. Yet, call me stupid, I haven't really found too many thematic similarities up until this point. Yes, there was a lot of blood letting during the whole battle royale. No, when I read of black men being electrectuted for the entertainment of white men I do not think The Wasteland. What I do particularly like about the book, however, is its use of an unnamed narrator. And we all know one of the most influential books of all time followed a similar train of thought. That's right, I'm talking about Fight Club.
In the movie the narrator's name is Jack. In the novel, he has no name. This is supremely significant in the context of the novel, because as he moves through the coming abouts of this religion like organization the narrator rises to infamy without a name. The narrator, an insurance investigator prone to depression and insomnia, finds temporary joy and distraction by attending various support groups. But he keeps running into another support group fraud named Marla, which spoils his fun. Meanwhile, he also meets a free-lance projectionist named Tyler Durden, who splices frames from porn movies into mainstream features and suggests they undermine capitalist society with dangerous pranks and the Fight Club -- a group devoted to bare knuckles, all-out battles between similarly confused and frustrated young males. Its almost as if he's transcending God, yet God is not him its Tyler Durden. The importance of having an unnamed narrator is this: people fall through the cracks in society. There are people out there who won't have a say in important legislation, in the decisions for our generation, in the decisions for their very own life. Thus, they don't really have a name. In fight club, the narrator didn't even have an identity before Tyler Durden establishes the psuedo religion of Fight Club. As Fight Club grows and spreads across the country, Durden recruits the most loyal (and mindless) fighters and starts a new group, Project Mayhem. The group's ultimate goal is to eventually do away with consumerism and to initiate the downfall of civilization, a goal which the narrator is aghast at. The rise of the previous religion quickly turns into a pitfall of the religious mind set, and the narrator's identity is once again torn to shreds as he battles off the masses.
Yet, I wonder if the connection really exists in Invisible Man. Only time will tell.

Metaphysics in a nutshell

Inspired by chapter 5 in Grendel, I have decided to venture onto my own metaphysical quest. And, surprisingly, its not as easy as it seems. Metaphysics, in its whole, accounts for over ten subsects of philosophy. This ranges from metaphysical holism (similar to the beliefs of methodoligical holism) to metaphysical realism (there are real objects, they exist independant of other objects, and have independant properties). However, the belief system of just "metaphysics" is entirely different altogether. Metaphysics, is truly, the structure of reality along with the structure of nature and constitution of such. Although many believe that Metaphysics goes hand in hand with science, its essence actual presupposes science. Are there, for example, physical objects at all, does every event even have a cause?
Tuhs, the heart of metaphysics.
The dragon in chapter 5 only briefly touches on the realm of metaphysical philosophy - however try looking it up in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. There are literally pages upon pages of information regarding metaphysics, each paragraph nearly contradicting the last. Some believe that metaphysics itself does not exist itself, because it is "cognitively meaningless" and not "emperically verifiable". By the next paragraph, however, the textbook asserts that metaphysics "is knowable only through the methods of the sciences, is itself a metaphysics, namely metaphysical naturalism. It is not a part of science itself." Wait...what? The only truth in metaphysics is that there is no truth, that maybe nothing in itself exists, that maybe our perception of objects reality is entirely wrong.
Metaphysics in itself applies to all of philosophies as a whole - think about it. Locke's social contract cannot exist if nothing in itself exists - anything philosophy investigates is assumed a part of reality. Knowledge, values, social constructs, reasoning all become lucid and insiginificant if nothing else within nature is true. Weird.
Dualism is the term coined for realms that are not real - what would be true if nothing truly existed. These worlds are known as spatiotemporal worlds, and this brings an entirely new debate of realism versus anti-realism. I took a philosophy class at Emory over the summer, and we talked extensively on Kant's philosophical assertions. And trust me, there are alot. But this reminds me of Kant's transcendentalist idealism - basically the world only exists because of what we see. Basically, every person's view of the world is adapted personally to their conceptions of the world - everything from the view of human kind to language. Metaphysics is truly a strange, engrossing concept. The aspect I love and hate about philosophy is that questions remain, despite all the extensive information on the topics. No matter what one philosophy asserts, theres always a contradictory opinion to destroy the previous opinion.
According to metaphysics, however, it doesn't matter because nothing really exists anything. Well it might exist. But its not actually a given. Is anything itself actually a given?
My brain just blew up.
P.s. – The pictures in the chapter are extremely amusing. I’ve been sketching Grendel faces for a few days now. I’m becoming quite extraordinary.

Why sh** happens

Today was a particularly bad day in my life. I felt that my intelligence was completely undermined, embarrassed myself, proceeded to get sick, and now I have to testify in court. However, we all have those memorable days. Perhaps you get mud splashed on you from a car, or perhaps every single radio station is playing a song from the Black Eyed Peas. So I decided to google the science of a really bad day, and this is what I found.
Why Sh*t Happens: The Science of a Really Bad Day by Dr. Peter J. Bentley is a new book that expands on the science of those horrid days. Dr. Bentley asserts that nearly all bad days, and the events that occur within those days, are somewhat in our control. Although we may not be able to occur what is thrown at us, we are able to manipulate our response that will in turn affect the rest of our day. "Those who have a negative attitude are more likely to endow normal little mishaps with some mystical significance. Some psychologists even suggest that it's a way of subconsciously avoiding responsibility for our actions. 'It was Friday 13th, so I was bound to stick my fingers with superglue" or 'Accidents happen in threes, so after the first mishap the next two were inevitable.'" So essentially, after the first bad event in your day its kind of up to you. This seems enlightening and, yet, also frustrating - its as if the blame is put entirely on, well, you.
Dr. Bentley also talks on the point that bad days are so blatantly memorable in our minds because they are distinct departure from the norm. "We'll remember the time we drove off in the car with our bag on the roof, but forget the hundreds of times we drove off with the bag in the car. We'll remember the time our mp3 player went through the washing machine, but forget all the other occasions we used it to play music. So a sh*t day is immediately relevant and memorable to everyone." This too also makes sense. I could, right now, name in the past few months all the horrible, terrible, no good, very bad days I've had. However, if hard pressed to recall events from a stereotypical, normal day - I would most likely have a more difficult time. This, to me, raises the question - what does this say about humanity?
Apparently, by knowing the mechanics of a bad day, we can also interpret how to fix these days. Going back to the classic mantra, Dr. Bentley states, "Knowledge is power." By acknowledging that yes, perhaps we are to hard on ourselves, we can consciously change our behaviors. And what does this say about human kind and society? Dr. Bentley doesn't have an answer for this, but I believe this to be a throwback to perhaps our more dramatic sides. Perhaps we have a naturalistic need to have a bad day - to contrast with our better ones. Think about it: if we can gab to our friends and family on the horrible grade we received on our math test, it will be that much more rewarding the next test when we get an A.
But I'm still going to mope over that test.