The Future

In the future I see the end of the united states as we know it. It will become either more socialist or more fascist over time. Before this I guess there will be more wars that will try to reinvigorate the capitalist society we live in now. I don't presume that this will work and in this militaristic tradition's final years hate and fighting will find no more enemies outside of our borders and turn in on itself. This might be starting now as far as I see it. The destruction that we do to ourselves during this period will allow for our country to fall apart into smaller pieces that will only be united through more violence. All the while technology will become even more international and those tech companies will slip out from beneath the control of countries as the countries themselves fall apart. As far as the technology itself I believe that in ten years we will have fully commercial virtual reality and in twenty we will have a base level of automation in public places. This means automated cashiers and the such. I'm not saying that they will work well but they will be there. The loss of jobs will continue with the automation of tasks and poverty will rise as well as crime. Drugs will only become more powerful and countries will give up the war against them out of a lack of funds and care. In a hundred years the geography of nationality will be completely different. Countries as we know them will not exist. There will most likely be more countries and they will be smaller in size. This is my general view on the future.

Idiocracy

I couldn't help it, for this week I had to write about Idiocracy. It is the most perfect movie of all time. I do not think there is a more perfect time in our history for us to re-watch this movie either. We are literally entering a time in our country where we might start to see this horror movie of a future become reality. Trump is running for president, we continuously destroy our habitats, our streets are paved with fast food, and I would not be surprised if the liquid we use to water our crops is replaced with some coca-cola product. This movie shows exactly how our culture is at its worse with a expert combination of bizarre yet realistic scenarios and funny dialogue. Welcome to Costco, I love you. I mean there is a literal scene where it is explained that people can get law degrees at Costco. How far off is that from where we are? People can get law degrees over the internet, hell even in lesser programs. That's not a complete exaggeration. I mean who knows if big companies will start to open schools in the future, and if they have the money who can stop them? But that's the best part because its in the future you can have Costco law degrees, and idea that mirrors our own fidelity of education but is ridiculous enough to directly capture our attention. I think that this is the best way to say this. Setting a story like this in the future allows for a direct examination of our own culture in a way that is just ridiculous enough to catch our attention.

Oryx and Crake

I do not think that there is much of a difference of writing in genre and using elements of a genre in reference to writing literature. Writing inside of a genre does not take away from the literature per say. A good example is this book and The Martian. True that they use elements of science fiction but they use them well. I think that the only way that people would really start classifying them as genre pieces is if they starting using the elements of their genre in a cliche way. That's what I'm really trying to get at here. Usually pieces that become overshadowed by their genre are pieces that really on the genre for the structure. So for example if a book uses genetic mutation as a tool to progress a story and make a point that creates entertainment than it is literary. The entertaining point is not the mutation, the mutation is a tool used to reach this entertaining point. When a story uses the mutation as the point of entertainment that's when it becomes overshadowed by its genre. For example half of the bad sci-fi. In bad science fiction the story is about the tool which gives a feeling of shallowness. But using these tools I will reiterate does not create a shallow story in itself. I don't like to this question because I believe that it takes away from the texts. It turns a good story into a story of re-used idea, even when it's not really about that. Granted there are other stories with corporation states, there are other stories with mad science and mutants. But what makes this story is how they use it. For another example in The Witcher series its not about it being fantasy, its about the fantastical elements are used to create a realistic and entertaining story, and its the same with this story and all of sci-fi.

BloodChild

I think that it is a very common fear of somehow coming in contact with parasites, but I'm not sure how exactly this story is referencing this fear over straight up pregnancy.That being said I guess there can be an argument that pregnancy might in a way be closer to a parasitic relationship for some but I don't believe that this is what the story is saying. I think that the reactions in the story are still somewhat close to what our society goes through. Pregnancy is scary as hell and the fear of abandonment certainly is too. Although I find myself on the other side of the conflict I believe that this story was written in a way to make me think about it from the other side. I do think the reactions seen in the story although extreme are close to what you'd actually find in our society also because of the promises made of well keeping. The partners are also well capable of staying and taking care of the pregnant which is a detail which really connects it with our own society. A lot of science fiction speculation might take this detail out in a relationship such as the one being portrayed.

Snow Crash

The picture of reality painted in the Snow Crash is oddly enough kind of becoming our own reality. I mean honestly on a side note I can only imagine that the writer is either oddly pleased or truly horrified at the validity of his ridiculous fantasy. I mean how is it that a world where characters such as Hiro Protagonist might actually hold some weight? Anyways in the world created in Snow Crash huge companies rule the land and an advanced internet creates a sort of second world for people to live in. People live in sort of city states that are actually suburban gated communities and the government that connected us all has largely stepped down. Money has taken a back seat to a type of bitcoin, and it is truly solidified that life is moving online. Again reading this I can only think that this is a direct spoof on where our own world is headed. I mean I can imagine that if Trump gets elected this country could split with his loyal domain being the United Conglomerate of Trump. And in the end that's what makes this story horrifying to me. This fantasy world created as a critique of our own is in fact slowly but surely becoming our own. I think this really goes for most of the stories in this genre. The dark metal and dirty walkways of the corporate countries are slowly becoming our own.

The Left Hand of Darkness

I would say that the main experimentation taking place in The Left Hand of Darkness is the idea of an almost sexless culture. It's definitely a bizarre though to us raised in the sexually split America. The people of Gethen only become sexual at a single point in time can become either sex. This way throughout the story the people of Gethen do not suffer from the downfalls of split sex. There is no discrimination of sex and there is no apparent power struggle between sexes. Responsibilities are split straight down the middle. This is absolutely not how our world works, or at least not how it is viewed. In our world someone might be treated as an object because of their sex, their abilities in a certain action might be judged beforehand, without any time for them to demonstrate any abilities. The power struggle is all too real in the world we live in. We actually live in a country where the fact that a women might become president is a novelty that might set apart her candidacy from others. This would not happen in the society created within the novel. The absence of sexuality takes out these struggles which we fate. At the same time it is important to note that it also takes out a lot of sex. Sex is an activity that most people would agree is beneficial. So although the pain of sexuality is removed in this experiment so is most of the fun. It's truly a double edged sword.

The Martian

Upon reading the Martian I am reminded of something one might find in a classic adventure novel. Particularly the many stories one might hear of being stranded upon an island. The idea is more similar to a sailor lost out on a Caribbean. The astronaut in this story replaces the sailor and Mars is the island. It's actually quite genius, because the basic structure of the story is amplified in a realistic way. Someone might also think as far back as the classics such as Odysseus being stranded. Really I guess this is what I'm trying to get across is that I do not think that the Martian takes from any specific genre per say more that it takes notes from the classical structure. This can really be seen in multiple ways. Much like many other classical stories the moral dilemma is layered and is shared by multiple people. It's not so much about what one person will do to solve the problem but what many people can do together. For example the story of Odysseus is as much about his wife and son as it is about him. In the Martian the story is as much about Watney's crew and the overall team of the expeditions as it is about him. Of course it focuses heavily on him but his survival is dependent on being saved. No matter how hard he tries his efforts will only get him so far. Another important part of the story that borrows from the classical aspect is that the hero survives through his ability to think. Much like Odysseus who survives through his brains and whits Watney survives because of ingenuity and education.

Urban Fantasy

Modern myth was reinvented in this weeks story by the way gods are portrayed as existing in our everyday lives. When we normally hear about the myths of gods and what they do it usually takes place in areas far removed from ourselves. In this story they could not be any closer. It's actually quite genius that the gods exist in both America and England. There are not many contemporary readers that cannot relate to where these gods exist. Also in many myths we read the gods are removed because of their actions. A Greek god who is defined by how he reacts to a sacrifice will not mean as much as how a god reacts to a business scandal. I mean that's just really what creates this great interest, the fact that these gods are faced with everyday occurrences. This doesn't come as a great revelation considering that this is the basis for the whole genre but it really is its greatest strength. I mean really seeing Spider deal inside of the business world is just so grounding, no matter how exactly he does it. The interaction with the real world exists.

The Aquatic uncle

I can't think of any very prominent symbols, at least by my definition. I understand that the outstanding feature of fishiness is mentioned a lot. But as far as one concrete representation of this fishiness I just don't see it in the story. If it's there it's definitely not obvious. I will say though that it's obvious that fish are looked down upon but that's more of a theme than a symbol. I mean I guess he's using the uncle as a symbol of the past generation judging the new but it doesn't work for me. People don't act like that, it's completely exaggerated. Fish are the old generation and swimming might be ignoring new traditions. But it seems like a weak symbol to me. I'll run with it though. The uncle not coming on land is a symbol of the older generation shunning the new developments. Let's say that it's technology. Those on land are the iPhone users and video game players and those in the water have phones with cords and are just starting to watch TV. The land people really want the sea person to get an iPhone so that keeping touch will be easier but the sea person refuses to. Land people are young and sea people are old people. This is the symbol.

I honestly did not connect with the story at all. I could see how the author was trying to make the reader connect by fitting the uncle to a predetermined stereotype. He's the one relative we all have who is stuck in the past. Except that I don't have that relative so my connection ends there. As far as the relationships in the story the large spread out family is also something I do not have. I can see how this might easily cause connection with someone who does though. I mean if I'm going to stretch this here, and I mean really stretch this, I can say that I connect to the main symbol of old not accepting new as it applies to my job. I make virtual environments yet some old people think I'm trying to be a master painter from the 15th century and so they don't understand how the computer helps. The 2D is the water and the 3D is the land, I'm using the future and my traditional art teacher is the past. I guess if I had a girlfriend who switched into fine arts I could say she went back into the water.

If I had to make this I would go with animation. I would have to make the characters like able and flesh out the relationships. Yeah there would need to be a lot of work done on the uncle especially. He's not endearing enough which is the only thing that would save his character. I mean in the book he just seems like a huge jerk. Also the fiancé too. I can have her go to water but she is definitely not marrying the old fish, that's just not going to sell, or if it does it'll be to the wrong crowd. I mean this is setup like a kids story but it finishes like a drama. It's just not cohesive and that's going to need to change. It needs to stick to one tone. For animation it'll need to be cutesy the whole way through, no old young marrying. No straight up prejudice, at least without some cushioning. Also their names need to change. You can't have characters with names you can't pronounce.

Harry Potter and his hard choices

Let me start off by saying that I really enjoy the Harry Potter series. I grew up with the books, and as such I technically grew up at the same time as Harry and the rest. One thing that always stood out to me about the stories is that he was faced with so much hardship for kid. I knew kids grew up in hard places sometimes but this was obviously a new extreme. It was the first time I experienced any sort of abusive parenting in media. I mean he was living underneath the stairs. Along with this spirit of darkness and hardship comes hard choices. There's so many hard examples to choose from. For example in the first book Harry faces extreme decisions. When he discovers the mirror that shows you what you most desire. For him it is his murdered parents. Dark. So now he sits for hours trying to be with a family that he never had the chance to know. He is told that it is fake and that he needs to come back to reality. I cannot even imagine how hard is must be for a child who finally has a way of seeing his murdered parents to walk away from that. Most grown adults wouldn't have the power to do that. I mean to finally find your family after so long, especially seeing as he does not have one currently, and the only one he ever had known was abusive, and then to walk away from that is impossibly hard. Also at the end of the story Harry is put in a situation of life or death when Voldemort uses him to find the sorcerer’s stone.  He fights back and refuses, struggling until he passes out. Think about it. Here’s a kid faced with the worst murderer of all time, the one responsible for killing his parents, and he decides to stare him down and tell him no. He chooses to hold the stone. He could’ve been killed for that, and I would argue that many would’ve given the stone and tried to run.

Tolkien's Universe

Tolkien's universe is one of the most diverse that exists in literature. I personally think that his stories go far beyond the Hero's Journey. For example I read the Simarillion which definitely goes beyond these predetermined stereotypes. To start with the story does not center on a hero. In fact the story is much more focused on the negative energies. Morgoth is the center of most of the conflicts. Morgoth for those who don't know was Sauron's master, and one of the most corrupted creatures in middle earth. Too further the point I will point out that the other end of spectrum is not much brighter. Feanor one of the main elves of the story is twisted and corrupt in his own way. Although he creates beautiful things he covets them and his lust for them leads him to the greatest acts of violence. Another thing to notice is that unlike the hero's journey all of these characters start out extremely powerful. There is no learning curve, no refusal, no teachers. They are who they are from the beginning. Also there is much more tragedy involved in these stories. When the simarils are stolen the quest to retrieve them is not one that is successful. And that's one of the things that's great about Tolkien's stories. When there is a win it is not without consequence, and there is no guarantee that there will be a win. For example when the hobbits return from destroying the ring the come home to discover that their home has been ruined. In the hero's journey one would assume that they would come to see everything perfect and waiting for them. Another example is after when Frodo leaves middle earth. He is so scarred from his adventures that he feels the need to leave everything he knows to search for peace. He is completely ruined by the violence that he has experienced. In the hero's journey a character like this would finish the adventure and revel in his accomplishments, possibly rolling in money and accolades. This is not what happens in the slightest in The Lord of The Rings. It doesn't happen in the Simarillion. It doesn't happen in The Children of Hurin. It just barely ever happens.

Witches

As far as the witches in Aunt Maria go they are certainly archetypes. Their characters are powerful in ways that create the image of similarity with other characters, meaning that their similarity does not control them it empowers them. That being said how they are being portrayed is certainly representative. Women in power are not kindly looked upon in our society. They themselves usually come in different archetypes. For example the tiger mom is a powerful women, and the name says it all. There many examples to use but for one lets look at business. A male CEO is often successful whereas a female CEO is often considered more ruthless. I think it has to do with how we portray the use of power. A wizard for example when endowed with magical powers usually uses it for good to do incredible deeds. A witch on the other hand is usually portrayed as evil, using her powers in selfish ways. I think anyone can see this. Name a popular wizard, he was probably the good guy. A popular witch was probably the bad guy. It seems oversimplified but it is the truth.

The King in Yellow: Weird as Hell

What is weird? The King in Yellow that's what. When stories fictional motif, a motif which barely receives any explanation, can become so real to the reader that he finds himself wondering what it could be based off of and if it is manifested in real life in anyway at the moment, that's weird. But that is exactly what happens when someone reads The King in Yellow. I mean the title of the book is a question in itself, who is The King in Yellow? Well by the end I'm not so sure I want to know. This knowledge seems to break those who try to bear it. And that's also extremely weird. Murderers and monsters are scary. But knowledge? Since when can knowledge be so horrifying? The knowledge contained within the fictional stories involving Carcossa seem to be deadlier than any knife wielding serial killer. This is the root of the weirdness I think. Taking an element that seems so normal and making it deadly. It is strange, unsettling, and leaves the reader unsure of what he knows. In the case of The King in Yellow it makes him afraid of what he does not know or might know in the future. Not many stories do this well and those that do have reached true weirdness. Another example one might site would be The Masque of Red Death. We are presented with a force, plague, which embodies itself in a sentient being. This being acts malevolently and without bounds. The transcendence of sickness from its natural but unthinking force into a thinking killer is weird. Taking something and raising it to a deadlier degree, although in this case the element is already deadly, is what makes it weird.

Kwaidan: Horror values in the East

On reading Kwaidan a few things struck as very odd. It wasn't the fact that this story used ghosts of the most unusual kinds but how they acted. It made me extremely curious as to why these spirits might act so differently between Eastern and Western culture. Not only this but also how karma worked in this stories. The power of karma was exhibited extremely differently than one might see in Western culture. For instance in the story of the blind musician one notices a few peculiar things. The ghosts are not directly menacing. They do not commit intentional acts of violence during the story (although it is mentioned that they have in the past). In short their main act in the story is having the blind musician play for them. They do not harm him, and even promise him reward, although it is hinted that this might be a dangerous trick. In the end the ghost sent to fetch the musician does rip his ears off. But he does not do so wantonly or in direct act of punishment. He simply cannot see the musician. He can only see his ears. He wants to bring the ears back as a sign of good faith to his master that the musician was not there and that he was unable to fetch him because of this reason. He has no idea he rips of the ears of the blind musician. So why does he do it then? It is because the protection turning the musician invisible was not applied to his ears. This is another very interesting part of the story. In western horror this mistake would’ve been made to someone who deserved it. The laziness or stupidity of this mistake would’ve been applied to someone who warranted this level of stupidity. Or it might have been done maliciously. But it would never have been just a simple mistake. In the Kwaidan it is though. The blind musician who has done no wrong and has only made error because of his obvious disability is punished even more for no apparent reason. It is just because. This is not the only time mistakes like this appear in these stories. For example the man who married the spirit of winter also suffers such an occurrence. The spirit of winter, or ghost, tells him if he ever tells anyone of how they met that she would kill him. Later on in the story he unknowingly marries the spirit. Even later on in their relationship he tells of how he met a spirit in his past. The wife than breaks into a rage and tells him that he broke his promise and that she will let him live to take care of her kids. If he fails to do so, than she will kill him. This sort of occurrence would never happen in Western stories. He didn’t do anything wrong. In Western stories I might actually argue that this confession might have been rewarded. 

Interview with the Vampire

For this week I read Interview with the Vampire. The most interesting relationship I observed in this story is the relationship between Louis and Lestat. There are many things I want to address but the first is that this relationship is between two males. For the time this sort of intimate relationship between two people of the same sex was not as accepted as it is today. More importantly this relationship as portrayed throughout the narrative is done so with such a masterful attention to lifelike nuances that one might actually believe in the feelings being represented. From the night that Louis is turned by Lestat, during which he describes a certain euphoria found in intimacy, to their more bitter end we see a full range of emotions. One of the most important features I noticed is that although sometimes there current state is one of apathy we do see a certain bond that cannot be broken, which in the story is represented by the maker and made relationship, but which we do see in real relationships. At one point we even see Louis attempt to take the life of Lestat without remorse. Another extremely important relationship is between that of the two elder vampires and Claudia. They serve as a sort of parental unit, which one might notice still solidifies even more the sort of union between Louis and Lestat, and at the same time are the cause of her death. Louis suffers from this in a bizarre manner. He feels remorse for turning her but at the same time he is close enough to care about her because he turned her. After which we see to his horror Claudia showing an attitude of little care towards killing while he himself does so with regret, even though he won’t even kill humans. That is also something else to notice. Louis refuses to feed off humans, which is uncharacteristic for a vampire. Then again this book shows a very wide array of vampires from Louis the regretful, to Lestat the cruel and cunning, and even to the mindless corpses of Eastern Europe. What I find so interesting out of all of this is that the different types of vampires are not simply classified but defined by their actions and attitudes, making them completely fluid characters with as much if not more humanity than most humans themselves.

Frankenstein Review

Frankenstein is a story marked by it's intense obsession with death and its broken morals, morals that in fact reflect many of those exhibited in the real world. The genius scientist Frankenstein discovers the secret to delivering life unto an inanimate life form. In this way he deems himself a creator, one who can transcend the natural boundaries of human power. This theme of the artificially alive or the unnatural life is something seen often in Gothic stories. I believe what makes this story stand out is that this monster or unnatural life was not the cause of some unknown magic or ancient force such as with many vampire stories, but because of the efforts of a single man. In this way the ultimate power to break nature lies within our own minds and not in an unthinkable evil. Although this theme is dominant in the creation, the culmination of this feat leaves the creator vulnerable. This vulnerability is a very strong Gothic theme, the idea that the forces at play are not only very dangerous but cannot be stopped by any man. Indeed the monster is an unstoppable force when he so chooses and he does use this force to destroy lives.