1. Bokononism tries to solve the problem of violent, religious dogmatism by really just being chill and not having too many rules. Religions often are extremely restrictive and based a lot on traditions of men. Bokononism actually admits that it is based on lies, just like all other religions. By having this slightly ironic but painfully honest definition of itself, Bokononism saves it’s members from being held “captive” by dogmatic religious leaders. That is my answer to the question, while the sparknotes answer is more about the things Bokononists believe. They believe that everything that happens is meant to happen, so they don’t feel a need to do much besides just living life. This parallels my statement of Bokononism being chill. Also, Bokononism is passive and doesn’t have extreme views that could incite its members to crazy acts of violence, which sparknotes appropiately points out is all too common in many religions.

2. I really am not sure how Felix mocks the notion that evil is humanity’s biggest problem. Perhaps he mocks it by creating ice nine, which is most definitely humanity’s biggest problem. Ice nine can pretty much destroy the world and a lot of people. Evil is a more subjective and mysterious danger due to it’s being intangible. Ice nine is very tangible. Perhaps he mocks the fear of evil with his question “What is sin”? Sin, like evil, can be defined in varying ways by different people. In addition, Felix doesn’t worry about evil. He just chills with turtles and plays with string and stuff. He’s pretty chill. Wow, I just compared my answer with the sparknotes answer and I just realized that I am a genius. Just kidding. That really was a completely original off the top of my head answer, and it was pretty close to the real thing. Funny, I thought I was really off. Sparknotes did an interesting comparison of Vonnegut’s view of technology and evil with that of his contemporaries.

3. The commencement speech at Frank’s high school mocks the high value placed on science by placing an overly high value on science. This sounds simple, but it really is high level satire. I didn’t really pick up on it at first. Dr Breed is the one giving the speech and he tells the graduates that he hopes that most of them consider jobs in science. He says that the trouble with the world is that people are too focused on superstition instead of science. He also says that science will someday find the basic secret of life. This sentence is loaded with irony because not only does science not find the basic secret of life, but science ends up creating the atom bomb, and then ice-nine too! So not only is science not a clear path to truth, it really is a clear path to destruction and devastation. Sparknotes focused more on the discovery of protein as a key to life. Protein is not something that brings happiness, its just a nutritional need. Pretty funny stuff.

Question 4: How does Vonnegut satirize human obsession with “truth”? Why?

Vonnegut satirizes the need for truth through his development of Bokononism. One specific scene that jumps to mind is the time when Jonah finds all the dead bodies with the note from Bokonon. This event accurately depicted the stupidity of always asking other people to tell you what to do. But i guess that’s not really related to “truth”. Bokonon’s first words in his book are: STOP what you are about to read is a bunch of lies! Yet, comically, Bokononism is a popular religion on the island. A bunch of people follow it even though it is self admittedly wrong. Similarly, humans today follow religions claiming to know the truth, while Vonnegut thinks that truth is not absolute, it is impossible to know.

In talking with my parents, we came to a consensus on the nature of illusions. Illusions are not necessary in life, even if they are very very common. It’s better to just be straight up and honest with yourself and the world in general. Life is way better if you just be yourself. This prompt reminded me of the Audioslave song “Be Yourself”. It states that “to be yourself is all that you can do”. It gives examples of people who don’t be themselves: “someone kills the pain” (does drugs). That is a very common illusion. People use drugs as an illusion or a escape from reality. “Another tries to hide himself, down inside himself he prays”. This lyric shows that people often use religion as an illusion. They may just be involved in religion to pretend to other people, or they might view this also as an escape for their problems. My final lyric reference will be to the question posed: “Separate or United? Healthy or insane?” People create illusions that they are insane, or maybe that they are healthy. Really, all of these examples show that illusions in general are destructive in nature because they are a way of running away from the truth, usually some kind of problem. My parents say that even though most people around us may hide things about themselves, it’s important to not give in, but just be honest. There is nothing wrong with who you are, and if you feel like you need to hide that from someone, then that someone is not a friend.

The Mel Gibson version of Hamlet was by far my favorite. This movie was very well put together, though it was a bit different from the original play. The order was switched around  a little, but I liked the director’s changes. Also, I really liked Mel Gibson’s acting in this movie. He portrayed a very believable Hamlet, one that was much better than Kenneth Branagh’s. Gibson was emotionally charged without getting carried away or being over dramatic. I liked the epic scream in the middle of the conversation.

I also really liked Zeffereli’s interpretation of the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. I loved the epic death scene where they were taken to the guillotine. Not that I love gory death’s, I just liked what I saw as far as director’s interpretation. Another add on by the director was Gerturude kissing Hamlet on the lips a couple of times. I didn’t like this part. It really didn’t seem necessary, it was just plain creepy. Did it add to the story? One could argue that it made both Hamlet and Gertrude appear more crazy, but I really don’t think it changed a whole lot.

The Politics of Hamlet article was interesting and eye opening. I never really considered the political implications of this play. One point that I liked in this article was that really this play can viewed from any of the major character’s perspectives, such as Hamlet, Horatio, Claudius, Gerturude, Polomnius, or Ophelia. The text also mentioned different political leaders of Shakespeare’s day that may have been represented in this play. Perhaps Polonius was modeled after William Cecil Lord Burleigh. Another argument of this article is that this play has way more political relevance and commentary than other Shakespeare plays such as MacBeth or Othello. I also liked how the author pointed out things we can notice by viewing things from Claudius’ perspective, who the author claims is supposed to represent someone in between Richard III and Queen Elizabeth. Another argument of the text is that Shakespeare is trying to prove that death is always imminent in politics and that is is a doom.

The second movie I viewed was the Richard Burton Hamlet. This was an alternative to the Ethan Hawke Hamlet due to it’s R rating. The Richard Burton Hamlet was very interesting because it is a live-taped Broadway play. This version was very raw because the scenery didn’t change at all and they were not in performance costumes. It was really a dress rehearsal. That added an interesting element because it appeared that the actors in this setting had much more option and creative license to develop their characters. It was quite strange, however, to see many of the characters walking around in suits and ties, because this obviously doesn’t fit the time period of Shakespeare.

Another interesting part of watching the play was that you could hear the audience reaction. In between many of the scenes there was loud applause. Every once in a while you could also hear obnoxious laughing. This occurred usually when Polonius was talking. Also, in this version Hamlet seemed way too close in age to Claudius and his mother. That took some getting used to. The acting in this version was very good. I enjoyed it. It wasn’t really overacted like the Kenneth Branagh version. Hamlet wasn’t constantly yelling, he nicely portrayed a variety of emotions and countenances. Also, in this version Hamlet didn’t seem very crazy. Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet seemed crazy right from the start. I liked Richard Burton a lot better.

The full text Kenneth Branagh version of Hamlet was very very long. That’s ok, though, because though the director obviously made some interpretations, he really stayed true to Shakespeare’s version. I really respect that they didn’t cut any scenes or lines from the play. As for the acting, it was a bit too over the top. Hamlet was the main source of this excess of drama. Branagh yelled at least fifty percent of his lines, and he was always being obnoxious. This was alarming to me, because when reading Hamlet I viewed him as a protagonist, someone who obviously had issues but wasn’t a bad person by any means. Branagh’s Hamlet was a complete jerk. He is rude to everyone except Horatio. He beats women on multiple occasions. Did the text include any reference to being violent in his interractions with Ophelia or his mother? I don’t think so. Many scenes in this version were quite different from how I visualized as I read the play. I didn’t think that Claudius and Polonius were hiding behind that crazy mirror when eavesdropping on Hamlet and Ophelia. That mirror was crazy because they could see Hamlet, but when Hamlet looked in the mirror, he only saw himself. There is probably some deep symbolism in there somewhere but it is getting late and I can’t think because I am tired. Overall, though it was overdramatized, I enjoyed this version of Hamlet.

The mule story in Their Eyes Were Watching God is a deep, ironic, and symbolic passage that underscores the equality of man. Humans during the time period had three beliefs about the “human food chain”. The first is that white people are superior to black people. The second is that humans are superior to animals. The third is that men are superior to women. The mule passage ironically flips all three of those misconceptions with it’s symbolism. For each misconception, the mule serves to symbolize the “inferior”. But by the end of the story, the mule is superior. By poking fun at human racism and sexism, this text proves the absurdity of both mindsets. Yes, just as it is crazy to think that mules end up as angels superior to people, it is crazy to think that caucasians are in any way better than african americans. And also that men are better than women. This deep symbolism is well crafted and serves to fight sterotypes of the culture of the time.

Here is my personal statement, using the formula from the packet:

“I am not tragically flawed, but I do remember the day when I became a little more self centered. But at times when I think about it, I have no regrets. I am me.”

One of the two articles I read through was “The Historical Context of Heart of Darkness” by Stella Mcintyre. This article enlightened me as to the history surrounding the book and Conrad’s intentions. Apparently, the allusion to Rome’s attack on England was to show the reader the faults of imperialism. This is because the Roman Empire fell, and so Mcintyre argues that Conrad believed England’s Imperialism would lead to catastrophe. Also, this book has a lot to do with modernism and the theme of “what you can see on the outside is all yuo have, but it really doesn’t tell you anything about a person”. This theme can especially be seen with Kurtz.

The first literary device I will talk about for slaughterhouse five is imagery. This book used really good imagery to make war seem very bad. One particular instance that stands out in my mind is a description of gangreen. The imagery in this book was dark and negative and gross, so it makes the reader hate war because war is gross. Imagery was also used to describe soldiers. Billy Pilgrim in a hospital was described as  “surrounded by white linen screens” and “on rubber wheels”. What stunning and beautiful imagery! Of course, the reader cant be sure how Billy gets to the hospital because he spends half of his time traveling IN and THROUGH time, and the other half he spends wandering around being stupid and bothering people. But that doesn’t matter, because this imagery is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO GOOOOOOOOOOD.

Another literary device used by Kurt Vonnegut is motif. After every instance of or reference to any kind of death, we get the sentence “So it goes”. This blatent disregard for life and nonchelance about death tells the reader that obviously, soldiers are all brainwashed killing machines with absolutely no soul or morals or conscience. This, obviously, is an accurate assumption. Ask anyone.  Then there is the motif of the picture of a woman “attempting sexual intercourse” with a Shetland Pony. This shows up three times in the book and is obviously a masterful use of a literary device, and it is defintiely not a pointless gag joke or weak attempt at humour. Another motif is Tralfamadore. This place is an alien planet that obviously exists in real life. After all, this book is about real life and a real war. So, now that we know what Tralfamadore is, now we are better for it. Don’t ask why, just accept it!

The third and final literary device used by Vonnegut in slaughterhouse 5 is diction. He used words. A lot of unneccessary words. But that obviously contributed to the theme: WAR SUCKS. which obviously, I couldn’t agree with more! ! Just listen to this brilliant use of diction: “the peckers of the young men would still be semi-erect, and their muscles would be bulging like cannonballs”. What a beautiful depiction of male sexuality! This wonderful description takes place while Pilgrim is at a bookstore that is really a pornshop. Want some more diction? I know you do! “This magazine, which was published for lonesome men to jerk off to, ran the story so it could print pictures taken from blue movies that Montana had made as a teenager.” This diction accurately depicts the male gender as entirely self absorbed, sex obsessed and disgusting. This, obviously, is an accurate depiction. Ask anyone.

These three literary devices combine to give us the theme: WAR SUCKS. From this blog, you no doubt can ascertain that I agree wholeheartedly.  

Authors note: please do not impute wrong motives by mistaking enthusiasm for sarcasm. Obviously, this blog is in no way sarcastic.