In this post I want to cover two things. The first: After seeing some clips from the movie in class today, I noticed a few differences between the movie and the book. The second: Many people have been posting about what a bad person Anse is, and, although he does deserve criticism, I don't think he deserves it to such an extent.
1. I get the feeling that the Bundrens aren't really portrayed as eccentrically in the movie. Of course, I only have several minutes of material to make this judgement about. Perhaps it was the fact that the movie really lacked the comedic aspect of the book. The book often ridiculously portrayed the Bundrens, and since movies have a harder time combining comedy with more serious material, the filmmakers were forced to eliminate some of this ridiculousness. I also think that the movie clarified some aspects of the plot. I think the scene where Darl is taken away was a lot more clear in the movie than in the book. I also got a clearer picture of what was going on during the river crossing.
2. In case you are unfamiliar with some of the criticism of Anse, I recommend you read Shaleen's latest post. His post was well written and really made some great points. I understand people's frustrations with Anse, and let me make clear that I hold no respect whatsoever for the man. I do not, however think he is as bad as some people portray him in their posts. Remember that Anse Bundren always had luck against him. He may not have been the smartest of men, or even at all rational, but that is something we need to accept in some people. The decision to go bury his wife was not a very good one, but really he did not really hurt his family until the river crossing. Sure, he should have turned around, but Anse is not smart. Once he crossed the river, most of his actions were justifiable. He had to buy a new team. What choice did he have? He couldn't simply leave the wagon and all the stuff. Once he got to town, his actions become a bit more difficult to justify. He took Dewey Dell's money, but he didn't know she was pregnant. He almost certainly blamed Addie for his troubles both before and after the journey. Perhaps he believed he deserved some compensation for his troubles. If nothing else, it at least justified his acquisition of a new wife. Anse definitely does not come across as malicious. We get no such sense from his narration. Sure, Anse was not the brightest of men. Sure, Anse could be somewhat inconsiderate of his family's needs. Sure, he made some bad decisions. Sure, he could have been a better husband and father. He just does not seem to me like that terrible of a guy.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
As I Lay Dying Heros and Anti-Heros
Who is the anti-hero in As I Lay Dying? There is no obvious anti-hero, but there are a couple of people who I consider to be potential candidates.
Anse could in some ways be regarded as an anti-hero, because despite being somewhat determined to bring Addie to town, he is always bringing misfortune upon the family. His lethargy is highly detrimental to the Bundrens' well being.
I also think as Addie as a potential anti-hero candidate. While she didn't purposefully send the family out on a journey to town, none of it would have happened if she had just accepted her family. Yet, she felt uncomfortable being buried with them, and instead insisted (even if it was a while before) on being buried in town. Furthermore, even though Addie is dead, she is still causing problems for them when she is in the coffin. She attracts attention, falls off, and even smells bad (presumably).
While it is really impossible to say who is a definitive anti-hero (if there is one), I definitely consider both Anse and Addie as candidates.
Likewise, there are a couple of people who I consider candidates to be hero.
Anse could make a pretty good hero, despite his many excuses and his tendency to bring misfortune. He is pretty determined to get Addie to town, even though he recognizes and anticipates a lot of the difficulties they may have (up to the river)
Jewel could very arguably be the hero. He is the only one of the Bundrens who is not travelling to town for some other motive besides burying Addie. Furthermore, we get more background on Jewel than on any of the other characters. The fact that we learn about the work he put into his horse makes his sacrifice for the wagon team seem more significant. Furthermore, even if he does not know it, he arguably has a more personal reason to go bury Addie away from the farm.
There are several people who stand out as heros or antiheroes, but I don't think it is possible to select a single individual for either title.
Anse could in some ways be regarded as an anti-hero, because despite being somewhat determined to bring Addie to town, he is always bringing misfortune upon the family. His lethargy is highly detrimental to the Bundrens' well being.
I also think as Addie as a potential anti-hero candidate. While she didn't purposefully send the family out on a journey to town, none of it would have happened if she had just accepted her family. Yet, she felt uncomfortable being buried with them, and instead insisted (even if it was a while before) on being buried in town. Furthermore, even though Addie is dead, she is still causing problems for them when she is in the coffin. She attracts attention, falls off, and even smells bad (presumably).
While it is really impossible to say who is a definitive anti-hero (if there is one), I definitely consider both Anse and Addie as candidates.
Likewise, there are a couple of people who I consider candidates to be hero.
Anse could make a pretty good hero, despite his many excuses and his tendency to bring misfortune. He is pretty determined to get Addie to town, even though he recognizes and anticipates a lot of the difficulties they may have (up to the river)
Jewel could very arguably be the hero. He is the only one of the Bundrens who is not travelling to town for some other motive besides burying Addie. Furthermore, we get more background on Jewel than on any of the other characters. The fact that we learn about the work he put into his horse makes his sacrifice for the wagon team seem more significant. Furthermore, even if he does not know it, he arguably has a more personal reason to go bury Addie away from the farm.
There are several people who stand out as heros or antiheroes, but I don't think it is possible to select a single individual for either title.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Pride in Odysseus and Ulysses Everett McGill
O Brother, Where Art Thou and The Odyssey share numerous similarities. One of the most striking is the fact that Odysseus and Ulysses Everett McGill undergo very related heroic journeys. Although neither man’s personality is profoundly altered as a result of their journey, certain aspects of their characters show development as their stories progress. At the beginning of both men's journeys they are very proud and snobbish.
At the beginning of the Odyssey, Odysseus frequently shows his pride in frequent swaggerish bravados. For example, he arrogantly insults Polyphemus, drawing the wrath of Poseidon. He also often thinks of himself as almost superhuman. He essentially cheats the sirens by tying himself to the ship so he can listen and live to tell the tale. Not only was this unnecessary risk perilous to Odysseus, it also put his crew in danger.
Everett’s pride takes a more vain and self-advocating form. During the first few scenes of O Brother, Where Art Thou, Everett makes it obvious that he thinks himself smart, clever, and good looking. He is constantly making smart alecky comments, like when he interrupts the blind man on the rail car with some economics jargon. Furthermore, he is always buying hair gel and combing his hair. Ultimately, his hair gel gets him and his friends into trouble, because it lays down a scent for the slave tracker dog to follow.
Throughout the Odyssey, Odysseus learns to check his bold and glory-seeking manner. At Scheria he demonstrates some self restraint by hiding his identity to the king and queen. He finally learns some respect for the gods by trying to steer his crew away from the cattle of the sun.
Similarly, throughout O Brother, Where Art Thou, Everett develops some humility and learns to respect his colleagues. Although it may have been easier to ditch his friends along the journey, he never tries to.
At the end of both heroic journeys, Everett and Odysseus’s newly acquired modesty is put to the test as a deciding factor in the climax of both stories. Odysseus dresses up as a beggar, hiding his identity to his most loyal swineherd, his own son, and his very own wife. He lets the suitors insult him, yet still keeps his cool, resisting any urge to immediately shatter the ruse and slaughter them immediately. His self-control makes the quick and effective slaughter at the end of the book possible. Had he failed to control his pride and self esteem, there’s no telling whether he would have successfully ousted the suitors to his satisfaction.
Similarly, as the climax approaches in O Brother, Where Art Thou, Everett has started to act significantly more considerately. He no longer looks down on his companions, but instead considers them his friends. At the beginning of the book, his companions were simply a burden, but Everett clearly thinks of them as more towards the end. He risks his life twice to save two of his friends. In the end, his willingness to do so made possible the revival of the Soggy Bottom Boys and turned the tide in the election, winning Everett back his wife.
At the beginning of both stories, pride is a major flaw in both main characters. As the stories progressed, however, both characters started to learn some humility and selflessness. Finally, at the end, both Odysseus and Everett prove that they have corrected their arrogant and selfish ways, effectively transforming both of them into stronger characters
Note about this post: This post essentially summarized my essay, so any comments about the general ideas or any examples that you can think of would be appreciated. Thanks!
At the beginning of the Odyssey, Odysseus frequently shows his pride in frequent swaggerish bravados. For example, he arrogantly insults Polyphemus, drawing the wrath of Poseidon. He also often thinks of himself as almost superhuman. He essentially cheats the sirens by tying himself to the ship so he can listen and live to tell the tale. Not only was this unnecessary risk perilous to Odysseus, it also put his crew in danger.
Everett’s pride takes a more vain and self-advocating form. During the first few scenes of O Brother, Where Art Thou, Everett makes it obvious that he thinks himself smart, clever, and good looking. He is constantly making smart alecky comments, like when he interrupts the blind man on the rail car with some economics jargon. Furthermore, he is always buying hair gel and combing his hair. Ultimately, his hair gel gets him and his friends into trouble, because it lays down a scent for the slave tracker dog to follow.
Throughout the Odyssey, Odysseus learns to check his bold and glory-seeking manner. At Scheria he demonstrates some self restraint by hiding his identity to the king and queen. He finally learns some respect for the gods by trying to steer his crew away from the cattle of the sun.
Similarly, throughout O Brother, Where Art Thou, Everett develops some humility and learns to respect his colleagues. Although it may have been easier to ditch his friends along the journey, he never tries to.
At the end of both heroic journeys, Everett and Odysseus’s newly acquired modesty is put to the test as a deciding factor in the climax of both stories. Odysseus dresses up as a beggar, hiding his identity to his most loyal swineherd, his own son, and his very own wife. He lets the suitors insult him, yet still keeps his cool, resisting any urge to immediately shatter the ruse and slaughter them immediately. His self-control makes the quick and effective slaughter at the end of the book possible. Had he failed to control his pride and self esteem, there’s no telling whether he would have successfully ousted the suitors to his satisfaction.
Similarly, as the climax approaches in O Brother, Where Art Thou, Everett has started to act significantly more considerately. He no longer looks down on his companions, but instead considers them his friends. At the beginning of the book, his companions were simply a burden, but Everett clearly thinks of them as more towards the end. He risks his life twice to save two of his friends. In the end, his willingness to do so made possible the revival of the Soggy Bottom Boys and turned the tide in the election, winning Everett back his wife.
At the beginning of both stories, pride is a major flaw in both main characters. As the stories progressed, however, both characters started to learn some humility and selflessness. Finally, at the end, both Odysseus and Everett prove that they have corrected their arrogant and selfish ways, effectively transforming both of them into stronger characters
Note about this post: This post essentially summarized my essay, so any comments about the general ideas or any examples that you can think of would be appreciated. Thanks!
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
After discussing Odysseus's character traits this week, I have come to conclude that Telemachus, Odysseus's son, is generally a much better hero compared to Odysseus (at least from a normal reader's perspective). There are many unlikable things about Odysseus's character. First of all, he is arrogant and is often quite full of himself. We can tell he cares quite little about his crew and often risks their lives for no concrete reason. Furthermore, he receives all the sympathy for his continuous misfortune, while his shipmates receive none. After all, aren't his shipmates just as eager to get home? In addition, Odysseus has a clear sexual double-standard. While he expects Penelope to be loyal, he sleeps with numerous women/nymphs/goddesses on his trip. While this may have been more normal in the day, it certainly seems like quite a despicable quality to the modern reader.
Telemachus, on the other hand is a much more likable hero (at least to me). While Odysseus has a rather personal goal, Telemachus steps up to defend his family and his household. While Odysseus sometimes cries and sometimes masterfully conceals his emotions, we see a more consistent personality in Telemachus. The reader witnesses Telemachus transforming from a helpless child into a more assertive prince. This transformation really helps sell Telemachus as a character, and we fail to see such a profound development in the character of Odysseus.
Telemachus, on the other hand is a much more likable hero (at least to me). While Odysseus has a rather personal goal, Telemachus steps up to defend his family and his household. While Odysseus sometimes cries and sometimes masterfully conceals his emotions, we see a more consistent personality in Telemachus. The reader witnesses Telemachus transforming from a helpless child into a more assertive prince. This transformation really helps sell Telemachus as a character, and we fail to see such a profound development in the character of Odysseus.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Lukas as a Bad Guy
Just writing a quick post about a misconception I had about Lukas. Before we saw Lukas's point of view, I was pretty convinced he was a bad guy. Not the main antagonist, but definitely not a good guy. I'm not sure why, but he really seemed quite suspicious to me.
When Juliette first meets him, his initial tone seems a bit hostile. I thought he was trying to lead Juliette astray by sitting her down and teaching her stargazing. Honestly I was practically 99% sure that he was working for Bernard when he bumped into Juliette on her way down to IT to find Scotty. It seemed too coincidental. Besides, why else would Howey incorporate that passage, if not to give the readers a hint? Clearly, I was mistaken, but I'm wondering if anyone else thought the same thing perhaps?
Luck
I know its getting a little late for the Wool posts, but I wanted to discuss something that I found interesting throughout the book. In almost any book, luck plays a huge role. In hero stories, however, at least for me, it is sometimes easy to forget about how big of a role luck plays, and to attribute the hero's success exclusively to the hero's talents and personality. Personally, I often get super irritated when the major plot events of a book boil down to luck. For this reason, I didn't really enjoy the Harry Potter books, because it felt to me that the whole plot was practically driven by luck alone Granted, some of these plot turns had "magical" explanations, which I didn't really appreciate either. Wool was not like this at all for me and I actually had to stop to remind myself that luck did indeed play a role.
Perhaps one of the reasons why I particularly appreciated this story is that Hugh Howey managed to make the luck in this story very discreet. For example, when Juliette learned about the screen and the program to generate images, she got lucky. Allison spent a long time researching this program, and she was led to conclude that the wall screen image was fake. Juliette even considers Allison smarter than Scotty. Had Scotty not worked out that the program was intended for a smaller screen, Juliette would, in all likelihood, have followed Holston and Allison outside for the exact same reason. Of course, this wasn't very obvious, but nonetheless was of quite substantial importance to the plot.
There are some more obvious places where Juliette has luck on her side (when she is breathing from the air pockets under the steps, or when she uses the metal pipe to open the airlock). Nonetheless, Hugh Howey sells these parts of his story very well because Juliette uses her cleverness and cunning to find these solutions. If those steps had been designed more like a grate or if that pipe had not been there, Juliette would have been toast, but that is not really the way it is portrayed. In fact, without thinking about it objectively, the reader has a hard time recognizing Juliette's luck.
In conclusion, I think Hugh Howey did a better job than most writers about making his plot seem less up to chance. Although Juliette is a very heroic character, who doesn't need a bit of luck on their side?
Perhaps one of the reasons why I particularly appreciated this story is that Hugh Howey managed to make the luck in this story very discreet. For example, when Juliette learned about the screen and the program to generate images, she got lucky. Allison spent a long time researching this program, and she was led to conclude that the wall screen image was fake. Juliette even considers Allison smarter than Scotty. Had Scotty not worked out that the program was intended for a smaller screen, Juliette would, in all likelihood, have followed Holston and Allison outside for the exact same reason. Of course, this wasn't very obvious, but nonetheless was of quite substantial importance to the plot.
There are some more obvious places where Juliette has luck on her side (when she is breathing from the air pockets under the steps, or when she uses the metal pipe to open the airlock). Nonetheless, Hugh Howey sells these parts of his story very well because Juliette uses her cleverness and cunning to find these solutions. If those steps had been designed more like a grate or if that pipe had not been there, Juliette would have been toast, but that is not really the way it is portrayed. In fact, without thinking about it objectively, the reader has a hard time recognizing Juliette's luck.
In conclusion, I think Hugh Howey did a better job than most writers about making his plot seem less up to chance. Although Juliette is a very heroic character, who doesn't need a bit of luck on their side?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)