You're Not Special

In the past, when people bring up the movie/novel Fight Club, I shutter a little at the things I hear from them. I think that a lot of people who watch the movie are intrigued by the freedom the narrator has in his life, and they being to fall in love with the theories and principles it teaches, while they miss the point. It’s a lot like The Wolf of Wall Street. Many came out dazzled and convinced by the character’s lifestyle that they glorified it instead of seeing it was a cautionary tale, not a celebratory one. Up until now I’ve never been able to truly articulate what “point” they were missing, as I didn’t really have the patience to rip apart the pseudo-babble philosophy Project Mayhem is built around. Since the novel was almost going to be on our contemporary novel list, it’s appropriate to mention the book. Actually, I was going more for the movie. I’m as guilty as the rest of the all singing, all dancing crap of the earth, and this weekend when I watched the movie adaptation, I spotted a few examples that may imply David Fincher saw the flaws in the true-good to believe philosophies Tyler Durden spoke about. It all came from a one  second shot of Tyler Durden’s feet. When the narrator is attempting to disable the bomb in the van, Tyler kicks him out the back and jumps down to the narrator’s level. It reveals that Tyler is wearing designer shoes. I can’t for the life of me remember which designer - if it’s Calvin Klein, the same designer they see in the bus when Tyler gives his “men shouldn’t look like underwear models”scene - but they’re corporate sell out shoes. On top of that he has an extravagant fur coat on. When the narrator is scrambling around the country finding all the fight clubs, he says the line “Tyler was turning fight club into a franchise”. Again, this shows how hypocritical Tyler’s philosophy is. He’s sold out. It also enlightens a certain paradox in chaos. Only an organized system can topple another organized system. The appeal of project mayhem and fight cub is that everyone in it is taking control of their lives, and sticking it to the “man”. What ends up happening is that they leave one system with rules, and into another society with a set list of rules, which are even more heavily enforced.  The reason why they must be militarized in order to topple the system they see unfit is explained in this beautiful quote by George RR Martin: “Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.” The members of project mayhem are those who want to be rid of their realm, or are socially exhiled from it (like Bob with B***h T**s).  

The Groundhog

The Groundhog

In June, amid the golden fields,

I saw a groundhog lying dead.

Dead lay he; my senses shook,

And mind outshot  our naked frailty.

There lowly in the vigorous summer

His form began its senseless change,

And made my senses waver dim

Seeing nature ferocious in him.

Inspecting close maggots' might

And seething cauldron of his being,    

Half with loathing, half with a strange love,

I poked him with an angry stick.

The fever arose, became a flame

And Vigour circumscribed the skies,

Immense energy in the sun,                    

And through my frame a sunless trembling.

My stick had done nor good nor harm.

Then stood I silent in the day

Watching the object, as before;

And kept my reverence for knowledge          

Trying for control, to be still,

To quell the passion of the blood;

Until I had bent down on my knees

Praying for joy in the sight of decay.

And so I left; and I returned                      

In Autumn strict of eye, to see

The sap gone out of the groundhog,

But the bony sodden hulk remained

But the year had lost its meaning,

And in intellectual chains                                                  

I lost both love and loathing,

Mured up in the wall of wisdom.

Another summer took the fields again

Massive and burning, full of life,

But when I chanced upon the spot              

There was only a little hair left,

And bones bleaching in the sunlight

Beautiful as architecture;

I watched them like a geometer,

And cut a walking stick from a birch.

It has been three years, now.

There is no sign of the groundhog.

I stood there in the whirling summer,

My hand capped a withered heart,

And thought of China and of Greece,          

Of Alexander in his tent;

Of Montaigne in his tower,

Of Saint Theresa in her wild lament.

In the melodramatic poem about the death of a groundhog, appropriately named “The GroundHog”, Richard Eberhart explores themes of loss and grief. First I’ll introduce the myth of groundhog day, as it’s older than the poem. The idea is if the groundhog sees his shadow, he goes into his hole bringing on more winter. The fear from its own shadow represents the dangerous approach of the sun, as light is needed to produce a shadow. As warned in the myth, it’s now summer and the groundhog is dead. The decay that comes to the groundhog is described as “half with loathing, half with strange love”. The speaker finds both of these feelings in the death. This represents the polarizing feeling death brings an individual. The maggots, those who feed on decay cannot live without death. Life is thrown back into the cycle.

the speaker mentions the groundhog’s transmutation as a “senseless change”. This introduces the idea that the speaker’s reaction to the groundhog is a difficult one because he is trying to make sense of death. The senseless death insinuates there’s no purpose behind the groundhog's death and therefore there’s no sense behind death in life.

There’s also a way of analyzing the poem by looking at it from a point of the 5 stages of grief. First there’s Denial. The speaker claims “my senses shook” as if there’s an impossibility at the sight he’s just experienced. Upon further observation, the speaker reacts emotionally, as “half with loathing, half with a strange love”. This is the next stage of grief. Anger. But his energy is wasted as he admits ‘my stick had done nor good nor harm”. Then the more ambiguous stage comes when the speaker beings bargaining for joy. He “prays for joy”. He cannot accept the death of the groundhog and the image on bending down on his knees is strong. Depression follows in the succession of grief and the speaker’s mood is reflected in the line “the year had lost its meaning”. The speaker cannot find meaning if death decays all that lives. The memory of the groundhog is with the speaker, but its purpose is lost on him, as he cannot see any purpose in a life that comes to an end. After three years pass, the speaker finds solace in the death. Enough time has past to lead the speaker to the last rung on the ladder of grief. He’ s reached acceptance. Now he finds the bones “beautiful as architecture”. The groundhog still leaves behind remnants of existence, but most of it has gone. The last stanza illuminates this idea of the things that remain after death. Great icons are mentioned, but as they are dead only their memory remains. Still, the speaker has come to a point where he knows that death is a natural process. Great figures may stand, but all fall to death; however like the groundhog’s bones, remnants of their existence remain whether in history, memory, or direct impacts on the world.

I am George. . . I am. . .

This weekend when I should have studied for my physics final, I read Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? by Edward Albee. I’m not acquainted with the writer the play’s title calls upon, but I’m told it’s a pun on living life without illusions, which is what the play is about. Or so I’m told. Irony aside, I’m going to break down the opening scene of the play, comparing the text and the 1966 film adaptation with Elizabeth Taylor. The very first words of the play, before any dialogue is spoken, sets the scene with, “Set in darkness”. I didn’t catch that line the first time I read it, which is surprising because it’s not exactly the most subtle way to introduce a foreboding character element. I do not think it’s supposed to be subtle, either. Because it’s so blunt, it’s the playwrights way of saying, “Hey - in this play, there will be characters interacting with each other, but no one will really SEE each other”. George and Martha’s marriage is introduced to us in this very way. The first shot of the movie is their silhouettes contrasted against the hallway. The only source of light is a shoddy lamp that hangs on the ceiling. Moths swirl around it. Moths are usually agents of decay. They eat through fabric, and huddle around lights. There’s a certain chaos seen in the moths fighting over their own share of the light. This image of wanting “spotlight” is reminiscent of the dinner party between the four main characters. Instead of hearing Martha’s laughter like the book describes, the two enter the room dead silent, looking exhausted. Martha’s burnt out cigarette gives a feeling that these two are stale creatures returning to their abode that appears to be, as Martha comments, a dump. As seen in the societal expectations read in Doll’s House, the home was supposed to be a peaceful sphere protected from the corruption of the outside world. Instead of masking the true condition with decoration, the house is a brutal representation of the status of Martha and George’s marriage. Neither of them is willing to fix it up, and the pressures from society aren’t enough to motivate them to pick up the pieces. The Betty Davis allusion, “What a dump”, the first few pages carries on about fuels the initial interaction between George and Martha. She repeatedly calls George a “cluck”. This may be a stretch, but in the film version, their conversation trails from the living room into the kitchen. While she calls him a cluck and verbally abuses a visibly exhausted George for an answer, she pulls out leftovers from the refrigerator and begins to eat a chicken leg. This is another visual metaphor of Martha feeding on George. The fact that they’re eating leftovers also shows how untraditional the marriage is, and the stale-looking food shows how void the house is of replenishing items. Going only 3 pages into the play, it’s apparent how dried up their marriage is, and the relationship these two characters have.

Leisure

Leisure 
W. H. Davies

What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare.

No time to stand beneath the boughs
And stare as long as sheep or cows.

No time to see, when woods we pass,
Where squirrels hide their nuts in grass.

No time to see, in broad daylight,
Streams full of stars, like skies at night.

No time to turn at Beauty's glance,
And watch her feet, how they can dance.

No time to wait till her mouth can
Enrich that smile her eyes began.

A poor life this if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare.

In his poem “Leisure” , W. H. Davies argues the relevant danger of failing to observe beauty in the world leads to a lack of meaning. The first stanza identifies the primary source of missing this beauty. The speaker is wary of not having enough “time to stand and stare”. Standing is promoting stagnation, the opposite of moving forward or achieving progress. The speaker argues that there’s more to life than merely progressing. He finds it important to observe, or “stare” and appreciate other things in life than those that are attained through work and narrow minded focus on a specific task. Instead of rewards earned, the speaker says that life is full of gifts nature offers. The speaker claims that some of theses gifts are things that have been given since the beginning of creation. The speaker mentions standing “beneath the boughs”, an Adam and Eve- like image. Along with describing a harmony with the flora side of nature. The fauna side of nature is described in the same stanza, as he compares the intent act of staring to that of “sheep or cows”. Simpler creatures have not forgotten how to appreciate nature’s beauty. The speaker is urging a return to a time when humans and animals were no different. It is a recall to unity with nature, a trait that offers care. The speaker also implies that taking time to slow down offers long-term pros. The speaker of the poem mentions “squirrels hide their nuts in grass”. Hiding the nuts implies that they are saving them for later. The speaker argues that investment in present can have payoffs in the future whether that’s manifested as experiences I don’t know. The speaker also fears the speed of life to miss things that are obvious. The streams “full of stars” are compared the night sky. The speaker is arguing that on earth, there is an entire immense universe that’s similar to the stars in the sky. This is trying to say how much the world has to offer. So far the speaker only mentions man’s relationship to nature, but he beings to talk of mans’ relationship with each other. The next two stanzas refer to love. By falling in love with the present, one can appreciate the others around them. An obsession with work is selfish, and relationships deteriorate when one isolates themselves in their work. The speaker draws attention to the eyes of the woman and how she “can dance”. Dancing is a purposeless act and only shows an expression of emotion. The speaker encourages the audience to be drawn to these things. The speaker repeats each stanza with “no time”. Contrasted with ending the poem with the sentence “a poor life”, the speaker is equating time with wealth. A finite amount that must be spent on a single service. One cannot have it all.

For Godness' Sake

After we increasingly mentioned Santa in our discussions, I decided to research the origins of St. Nicholas more closely. Interestingly enough, I found connections to Invisible Man in the early origins of Santa Claus. One source of inspiration for the modern symbol we know as Santa Claus is the Norse god Odin Just as Taylor mentioned in seminar earlier today, Odin only has one eye, drawing out the theme of blindness across the different characters.

In Invisible Man, Ellison turns Santa on his head. He isn’t given the same jolly spirit that I’m used to. The first thing that stands out is the morbid mention of Santa Claus that the narrator uses when he writes “You were raped by santa claus surprise” on Sybil in purplish lipstick. The character of Santa is one based mostly around morality. Santa judges children based on their behavior. He places himself in a position of judgement, aligning him with a godlike ascension over mankind’s understanding of right and wrong. For those who aren’t good, they’re given black coal, a material that stains the delicate velvet of the blood red stocking the children leave out for Christmas. This equates black with bad and white with good. However in Invisible Man, Ellison frequently shows how white is sometimes more corrupt than black. The paint factory uses the color optic white to mask true corruption and deterioration, but in Santa Mythology, his large white beard is used as a comforting, pure image. In truth, Santa’s large white beard, he’s rarely seen without it, acts more as a mask. This further solidifies Ellison’s view that white masks true darkness. Unfortunately, this skews the children's’ understanding of morality. The only thing holding the children back from behaving poorly is the promise of an expected reward. This is also similar to religion’s treatment of morality. Followers are rewarded as long as they behave well. This omnipotence aligns Santa more with God. Instead of being good for goodness’ sake, morality is rewarded and punished to keep humans in line. When the narrator writes “you were raped by Santa Claus” the narrator is further arguing the rape of morality in this world. The system of incentives for good behavior rapes children’s understanding of morality. They all strive to be good, but there’s a ceiling set in place so the system can work. There must always be children who receive coal, otherwise how would good morality be measured against evil? I also ask myself why did Sybil want to feel like she was being raped? The purplish lipstick is supposed to represent the beaten condition the narrator leaves her in, but in a way he’s doing her a favor not by actually going through with the act. I suppose the intent to rape was greater than the act of rape itself. I read somewhere that humans naturally gravitate towards punishment because they enjoy suffering, but I can’t find any example in this section that supports this. Sybil admits that she’s a nymphomaniac, someone who has sex without pleasure. This also connects to what I was saying earlier about the theme of gluttony in the novel. Sybil is a character who indulges in pleasurable acts, wants to be showered with gifts by Santa, but doesn’t care about the morality side of the actions. Sybil still wants to taste the dark side of morality.

The Sign of Three

Well, well, well - I haven’t done this in a while. The blog, yes, but also numerical analysis. While reading Invisible Man, a quarter of the way through I noticed how many uses there are of the number three. Well, well, well indeed. This is a peculiar number, and shouldn’t go unnoticed, so I immediately began my lookout for the number three. Before I continue with my analysis, I should regurgitate a few accepted interpretations for the meaning of the number three in literature. The most glaring symbolic weight the number three holds is its reference to the holy trinity. It’s considered a type of unity of religion, self, or time. Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Body, Mind, Spirit. Past, Present, Future. The first time this number is used is in the prologue when the narrator speaks of his light display that holds “exactly 1,369 lights”. The first striking thing is that this amount is a perfect root for 37. The odd numbering creates an imbalance, possibly mirroring the narrator’s own instability. The next occurrence of three that I noticed was when the narrator is sitting in Emerson’s office. He sees “three portraits of dignified old gentlemen in winged collars who look down from their frames with an assurance of arrogance”. In this instance, three is used to manifest the past. The old men who represent the past are judging the narrator who represents the present. The next time three shows up is when the narrator speaks with Brockway, whose workshop is three floors underground. This can be read as an allusion to hell in Dante’s Inferno, as the location is underground. In Dante’s Inferno the third circle of hell belongs to Gluttony. This was particularly hard to find significance. I argue that Brockway’s obsession with his craft is related to gluttony. When the narrator brings news that he’s there to help, Lucius responds “I don’t need no damn assistant”. While he’s perfected his craft on his own, Lucius doesn’t want to shared the pride of crafting the most popular brand of white paint. This same gluttony and excess is seen in the narrator’s need for all of the lights. Both are obsessed in indulging these objects with light connotations. The electricity and white paint lead to both characters’ fall into isolation. After the explosion in the paint factory, the narrator beings to experience this connection of three and the color white more frequently. His doctor has “three” eyes. Three white nurses assist the doctor in the hospital. When eating the yams, the narrator takes three spoonfuls of sugar. The narrator’s brotherhood apartment is up three flights of stairs. After the narrator’s rebirth in the machine the white staff creates, his relationship with the brotherhood truly begins, and the narrator gravitates towards the color white. To conclude, one last example on the number three is seen when the narrator goes to his first rally. He sees, “Three white men and three black horses”. This image of three white men sitting on top of three black horses represent the brotherhood’s manipulation of the narrator.