A for Anarchy

Nothing is new under the sun – everything that is happening has happened before. This cannot be truer when evidenced by humanity’s need for revolution – for change. Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta presents us the futuristic dystopia that England has become, and how a man behind a mask goes to extreme lengths to show the fascist government of England that, “governments should be afraid of their people,” not the other way around.

Throughout the course of the novel, V becomes the symbol of revolution in England. V for Vendetta begins with a series of murders that connect to V’s past. Why V had murdered the retention camp workers – out of vengeance or a stepping stone for his revolution – is unknown in the first book of the novel. What becomes clear from these first murders, though, is that history has shown is that almost all revolutions, a true change in the status quo, can only be achieved through force and violence. This is a harsh reality that is evident in all of the revolutions of this world and is presented to us in V for Vendetta. V shows no remorse for his murderous actions, and continues to relentlessly fight for the collapse of the fascist English government. The novel also presents us the notion that it only takes the courage of one man to stand up and say that enough is enough. While you need more people to join your cause to gain traction, all you need is that one man who will be the symbol of the revolution, much like V.

I feel that V for Vendetta benefits a lot from being a graphic novel instead of a standard book. For example, the scenes where V goes to The Old Bailey and has a “conversation” with Lady Justice and V’s murder of the Bishop would have been harder to follow or would not have had the same impact if the pictures were not there. There are instances when a character narrates a past event, and that would be much harder to translate to book. All in all, V for Vendetta benefits from having been written as a graphic novel, because we are given a much clearer picture of the events of the book.

Graphing Books?

Franco Moretti’s article focuses on a different manner of analyzing literature. Instead of focusing on a specific novel and its effects on the public, Moretti chooses to take a more statistical and analytical approach of collectively analyzing a novels and genres throughout time using graphs.

What Moretti had going for him in his article is that it was straightforward and precise. It presents you with cold, hard facts about the changing nature of novels, which seems a bit hollow considering the argument that Morretti is trying to make. While there is nothing wrong with pursuing a new method of analyzing literature, I personally do not think that Moretti’s method should really be applied in this manner, because I feel that it is very limiting. In one of the graphs Moretti provides us with, he discusses some of the reasons why novels had declines in specific nations during specific times. While Moretti does acknowledge that there could be several factors that affect the publication of novels and declines of specific genres, his research cannot give him the full scope of cultural and social events going on during the time periods he analyzed, especially when novels increased exponentially in popularity. Another issue with analyzing literature in this manner is that in analyzing large chunks of literature like this is that it focuses too much on the mass and not on the individual pieces of work, which can lead to making assumptions and generalizations about some aspects of literature, making parts of the research inconclusive.

In regards to SSTLS, the close analysis that we have been doing feels to me that it is the most effective way of analyzing the novel. With this close analysis, we are able to nitpick at the finer details of the novel, and analyze the various themes that Shteyngart presents to us and why Shteyngart did this and that. Analyzing the book on a broader scale would dampen our abilities to fully develop our understanding of several of the points Shteyngart is trying to get across, such as the somewhat subterfuged messages of racism and sexism. In the end, I think graphs and books do not get along too well.

A Super Sad Butterfly

M Butterfly and Super Sad True Love Story have parallel themes between them, the most prominent ones, in my opinion, dealing with love and politics. These three themes propel the events of both stories and, especially in M Butterfly, serve as the downfall of some of the characters.

Love is at the heart of both M Butterfly and SSTLS. The main characters (René and Lenny, who are both Westerners) fall in love with Asian women, and the romances are characterized as a sort of “forbidden love,” more specifically in René’s case. Song claims that a relationship with a Westerner is looked down upon in her society, which matters a lot to her. Similarly, Eunice mentions several times that her parents would not approve of her relationship with Lenny, which was clearly shown during the dinner with the Park family. While I have yet to finish SSTLS, M Butterfly ends with the romance destroying René, leaving him dead at the end of the novel, and SSTLS (considering the title) seems to be on track to leave a ruined relationship between Lenny and Eunice.

Another underlying, yet manipulating theme of the story is the role of politics, specifically in M Butterfly. At the end of the movie, we find out that Song was a Chinese male spy disguised as woman, and he had used René’s love for him to gain French intelligence about the Vietnam War. Chinese politics had an iron fist over how Song behaved, and he believed so much in his ideals that he was willing to go to the lengths shown in the movie to destroy someone, someone that Song seemingly has deep affections for by the end of the movie, even though homosexual sentiments are severely reprimanded in a nation like China. In the case of SSTLS, the US has become controlled by a single political think-tank, and the political atmosphere has effects on Lenny and Eunice’s relationship. Lenny does not want to become involved in the LNWI vs. HNWI conflict, as he fears for his safety and that of Eunice’s. Eunice, while sharing similar feelings towards the political atmosphere, has a personal connection to the issue, as her sister has become involved in the clash. This presented an impediment in Lenny and Eunice’s relationship, as Lenny refused to let Eunice go to check up on her sister, and Lenny claims that the incident of Noah’s death and Eunice’s disregard for her own safety has left him thinking that Lenny and Eunice should not be together, as they want very different things. While the situation sort of resolves itself later on, it is clear that politics play a pivotal role in both SSTLS and M Butterfly.

The Dark Side of the Social Networks

In Super Sad True Love Story, the influence of social media and how its usage comes to define our society is a prominent theme in the book. With the commonplace usage of the äppärät, which serves as a futuristic do-it-all iPhone, the society created by Shteyngart has become dependent on the device as a substitute for social interactions between two people.

Lenny decides to have a reunion at a bar with his friends following his trip to Italy. While there, one of Lenny’s friends suggests that they should “FAC,” or Form A Community. He explains to Lenny that this is “…a way to judge people. And let them judge you” (88). The äppärät then returns results that judge your compatibility with whoever you are FACing (which is a play on the homophonic explicative). This new method of interacting removes the human interaction involved with socializing and forming relationships with others, much like Facebook and text messaging are starting to do in today’s society. The book goes further with this idea, with one of Lenny’s coworkers adding Lenny to his list of “101 People We Need to Feel Sorry For.” Worried about the social repercussions he could have with Eunice, Lenny approaches him, saying, “‘Hey, guy. Look, I appreciate the attention, but I got this new girlfriend with 780 F***ability and I’m kind of, like trying to play it real coolio with her. So would you mind taking me off your stream?’” (120). Shteyngart smartly highlights our society’s obsession over how comments passed around social networks can make or break our social standings, whether they be true or not.

Continuing with this new method of evaluating individuals based on computer-analyzed profiles, the ratings provided by the äppärät prove to be a significant basis on whether it is valuable to socialize with another person. This rating system is also heavily centralized on sexual relations between two people, with the main rankings consisting of “Hotness” and “F***ability.” As Noah, one Lenny’s friends, points out, “‘Your äppärät runs [her profile] against the stuff you’ve downloaded about yourself and then it comes up with a [F***ability] score” (90). Shtyngart takes the emphasis of sex appeal today’s world and increases it two-fold, showing us the current path our society is headed to if this how we continue to conduct ourselves on social networks.

A World to Fear

In Richard Brautigan’s poem, “All Watched over by Machines of Loving
Grace,” Brautigan leaves the reader to think where Brautigan stands on
technology: is he for it, or against it? If you interpret the poem in a
particular manner, it portrays the belief that Brautigan is anti-technology.
For example, it seems that throughout the whole poem, starting with the title,
Brautigan writes with a tone of sarcasm. At the beginning of each stanza, there
is a parenthetical separation of a separate idea being inserted into the poem,
serving to interrupt the flow of the poem. These interruptions bring forward
the longings of our society to want everything done in an instant, and our
overreliance on technology to get everyday tasks done. Similarly, Brautigan
ends his poem describing a peaceful world without labor, while we are “all
watched over by machines of loving grace.” I feel that ending the implicates
that we may come to the point akin to the Matrix films, where we are slaves of
the machine, but not by hard labor, but through our minds.

While the poem mainly gives anti-technology impressions, one could
argue that the poem actually encourages cautious use of technology. Brautigan
lively describes a utopia “where mammals and computers live together in
mutually programming harmony.” The poem could be implying that if we are not
too ambitious and gluttonous with our use of technology, we can use it to
benefit of our society, rather than the world becoming one where the will of
humans submits to that of the machines.

 

Overall, the anti-technology interpretation of the poem is the one that
I pick up on the most. It seems too easy to think that Brautigan would make
this poem advocating technology usage, mainly because of the utopia presented
in the poem. As demonstrated by our history, utopias are impossible for humans
to create, because of our own nature. The only way for a utopia to flourish is
the absence of human control within the utopia. This poem signals that a utopia
with humans and machines living in harmony would fall into the control of the
machines, which have no human emotions and act solely on logic. The machines
would most likely suck the humanity out of us or enact a tyranny of sort in
order to keep the peace. A world like that would truly be one to fear.

The Imagery of "Design"

List of images:
"a dimpled spider, fat and white"
"a white heal-all"
"a white piece of rigid satin cloth"
"Assorted characters of death and blight" "the ingredients of a witches' broth" "A snow-drop spider"
"a flower like a froth"
"dead wings carried like a paper kite"
"What had that flower to do with being white"
"wayside blue and innocent heal-all"
"white moth"

Robert Frost’s poem, “Design” paints us a very vivid picture
of the aftermath of a natural cycle of life: predator vs. prey. Frost begins by
describing a “fat and white” dimpled spider that was proudly displaying its
catch of the day: a poor white moth, described as a “piece of rigid satin
cloth.” What is most interesting about the spider eating the moth is where the
action takes place. The poem illustrates a beautiful, “heal-all” flower as the location
of the feeding. The interaction between these two animals and the flower
provides us with a context that provides us with a possible interpretation of
the poem: Is there a deity watching over us?

Frost underscores his possible beliefs with several paradoxes
dealing with the three objects in the poem. What Frost really highlights are
the light colors of the animals and the flowers being contrasted by the
darkness that comes with death. White and blue are happy, albeit plain, colors
that have no stand-alone association with death, yet Frost chooses these colors
to represent the spider, the moth and the flower. Frost also mentions “What had
that flower to do with being white, the wayside blue and innocent heal-all?” The
flower is a beautiful representation of life, yet it is central to the theme of
death in the poem because of the death of the moth taking place on it. This paradox
only furthers a possible assertion by Frost that there is no God, what with
death being necessary to further life, which in itself is a paradox.

Frost ties up his poem with several questions as to why
events unfolded in the way they did in regard to the spider, moth, and flower.
Frost wonders why the spider would make the flower instrumental in its capture
of the moth. It could be that Frost was implicating that even in beauty lies
death, and that even what seems to be the safest of places is not safe at all.
This leads to the assertion of doubting a supreme being; why would anything so wonderfully
“designed” also be an instrument of death? Who knows…

Only Once

Something that was recently brought to my attention is that I do not
read books more than once. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever read any book
twice, unless I happened to have read a book for school beforehand. I was
talking with a friend about a sci-fi book we had both read a while back, and I
did not remember many of the events that took place in the book. While I did
remember the key points and crucial events of the story, I did not remember
some of the sub-plots that took place in the book. I asked him how he could
have possibly remembered so much of the book, since it had been a while since
we had read it. He told me that he had actually re-read the book recently in
preparation for the sequel, and that I should do that same. It was then I told
him that I don’t read re-read books. He asked me why, and I had never really
given much thought as to why I don’t re-read books. I told him that I just
never had any incentive to re-read a book, even if I enjoyed the book a lot,
and that if I wanted to remember what happened in a book, I would just read a
summary of it online. I guess the true reason of why I don’t read a book twice
is because I already know what’s going to happen, which is funny, because I
re-watch movies all the time. For me, it’s just not the same reading about
something you’ve already read versus watching a movie I’ve already seen
countless times. The magic of reading the book is lost. Maybe one day, though,
I’ll bring myself to re-read a book.