The ending of The Handmaid's Tale left many questions unanswered. This caused, as do most endings that leave the reader hanging, notable frustrastion among the students of our class. As much as I too hate an ending that doesn't tie up every loose end, I must admit that this time, I was satisfied. The ending Margaret Atwood chose to incorporate was consistent with the rest of the novel. Offred was, among the other handmaids (and arguably all women), subject to the superiority of men. It would not be a stretch to say that she was a sexual slave in her duties as a handmaid. The highest status for a women in Gilead is to be a Wife. The misogyny of the society is immediately apparent. Offred has no control over her future. Throughout the novel, she is subject to the whims and desires of the Commander or his Wife. Having no clue as to whether or not she will survive her final departure from her station (the Commander's house) is consistent with the rest of the novel. The issues to which Atwood alludes (For example, religion in society, women's rights, abortion, feminism, and misogyny) are actual issues in our own world. Unlike in books, real life issues cannot be solved with a creative ending, satisfying readers and removing the worry of the literary conflict from their minds. The problems adressed in The Handmaid's Tale, as I have said, real-life problems, are left unsolved for a reason. Atwood is reminding us that just as Offred cannot know her future, we cannot know the resolutions to these problems. She urges us to take advantage of our capability to make a difference. A fictional character cannot actually solve these problems, but we can. The ending Atwood chose gives the book a much more powerful meaning, leaving the reader with a mission on which to embark. It is a call to duty, not a simple conflict and resolution. It was not Atwood's intent to ensure the reader a good night's sleep, to allow them to forget the meaning of the work, or disregard it as irrelevant. In fact, it seems to have been her intent to instill a sense of indignation.
"I wait, brushed, fed, like a prized pig. Sometime in the eighties they invented pig balls, for pigs who were being fattened in pens. Pig balls were large colored balls; the pigs rolled them around with their snouts. The pig marketers said this was improved their muscle ton; the pigs were curious, they liked to have something to think about."
This passage is a clear stab at the treatment of women. In it, Offred compares herself to a "prized pig," alluding perhaps to society's view of women. She makes it obvious that women are portrayed as childish, stupid, and empty-headed unless occupied with such superfluous objects as a ball that is rolled around. She is not, of course, literally comparing herself to a pig, but she makes the clear statement that women are not held in much higher regard. I think this passage sums up the idea of women in the novel. It is stunningly degrading, and brings to light the horrors of the society in which Offred is living.
Though this book portrayed extremely real social conflicts (the oppression of women and the abuse of religion in government), I found the plot of the novel to be very unbelievable. The extremes to which the author went in order to bring these issue to light were atonishing. Though I would of course advocate women's rights and stand for equality of men and women, I do not believe that our society could ever become so oppressive. I believe that faith and love can outweigh the horrors that this society put on women, and I have a difficult time believing that religion could be used in such a manipulative way. In the past, religion was used in this way. However, the only reason that rule by means of religion perpetuated was the illiteracy and uneducation of the massive oppressed class. In our present society, that is to say, in a largely educated society which stands for freedom, such drastic changes are unlikely to occur. Though I am happy that Atwood's intention is to call people to duty, to encourage them to bring these issues into question, I believe the way she went about it would discourage people from taking action, because the plot is just so unconceivable.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Anthem
Anthem, by Ayn Rand, encompasses a concept unfathomed by many- the complete absence of individualism- the inability to use the word “I.” It is a fascinating idea. In the world of Anthem’s characters, no one person can be held in higher regard than another. Having a friend is forbidden, because that would render others less important. Love then, is completely unheard of. Despite the non-allowance of love, it occurs anyway. This occurrence lends support to the meaning of the novel as a whole. That is to say, the human spirit, and the natural emotions that come with it, such as love, cannot be broken. Perhaps it was the intent of the author to say our world is moving toward non- individualism, but that our own actions, our own unstoppable, natural emotions will prevent it from doing so. Despite all the measures taken in the world of Anthem to stamp out love, it is present anyhow. And the amazing part is, the characters feel it, know that it is something profound, without knowing what it is. It is a glimmer of hope for our own world, to say that even in the most oppressed world, perhaps the most precious thing there ever was cannot be defeated. Love is the most powerful emotion we possess. It is my belief that Rand intended to transcend a feeling of hope to her readers. Simultaneously, however, she intended to ward humans off the path of conformity, power, and hatred.
Their white tunic was torn, and the branches had cut the skin off their arms, but they spoke as if they had never taken notice of it, nor of weariness, nor of fear.
“We have followed you,” they said, “and we shall follow you wherever you go. If danger threatens you, we shall face it also. If it be death, we shall die with you. You are damned, and we wish to share your damnation” (Rand 82).
In perhaps one of the most romantic passages I have ever read, Liberty 5-3000 professes her unconditional, undying love for Equality 7-2521. Rather than saying, “I love you,” which is, of course, what most people say today, she must explain how she feels without using these words, because the word “love” does not exist in their world, nor, for that matter, the word “I.” Love is obvious despite not being mentioned in the conversation. We see that the author’s message is clear. Love does not need to be taught, or learned, or understood. It is a fact of life, ever-present, and undeniably sacred. Though the characters do not understand what is happening to them, they are falling, ignorantly and unquestionably, in love. In this world, we think we know what love is. We see it in the majority of ads, on hundreds of billboards, commercials, and movies. In anticipation of a good chick flick, we are content to know that the ending will be a happy one. It’s exciting to imagine falling in love, taking a step of faith in a relationship absolutely dependent on trust. It is the same in Anthem. I don’t think knowing the word “love” makes a difference in the end. Whether or not we think we know what it means, no matter how many times we have watched Sleepless in Seattle, it is impossible to understand love until it has been experienced. But it must be something profound, it must be something magical, because it is the one thing that shows Equality 7-2521 the light, the truth. This passage is without a doubt, intensely thought-provoking and unforgettable, stripping away the superfluous misconceptions of love, the extraneous details and leaving the bare truth. We do not need to know what love is, we do not need a definition. In discovering love, we find ourselves. The journey to self-discovery, through the eyes of love, is the true meaning of this work, and it can be found in the words of the ignorant, confused, and somehow unstoppably determined Liberty 5-3000.
I found Anthem to be a truly original and thoroughly enjoyable work. It was unquestionably my favorite book so far this year. Perhaps because I am intrigued by the concept of love, or perhaps simply because I am a sucker for a happy ending, I was captivated by this novel. I recommend this book to other young-adult and adult readers. I was fascinated by the fact that escaping from prison was an unfathomable idea to the leaders in the society, because their authority had never been challenged; that Equality was able to just walk out of jail. It is frightening to think of the possible ramifications of a society so oppressive, one in which people exist merely by ignorance or fear. Indeed, the occurrence is not unheard of in our own world. Attempts to break the human spirit by targeting and persecuting one group of people have been made for thousands of years. I believe it to be admirable of the author to warn her readers not to repeat these tragedies, and above all, I am fascinated with the creative language she used to dictate her message.
Their white tunic was torn, and the branches had cut the skin off their arms, but they spoke as if they had never taken notice of it, nor of weariness, nor of fear.
“We have followed you,” they said, “and we shall follow you wherever you go. If danger threatens you, we shall face it also. If it be death, we shall die with you. You are damned, and we wish to share your damnation” (Rand 82).
In perhaps one of the most romantic passages I have ever read, Liberty 5-3000 professes her unconditional, undying love for Equality 7-2521. Rather than saying, “I love you,” which is, of course, what most people say today, she must explain how she feels without using these words, because the word “love” does not exist in their world, nor, for that matter, the word “I.” Love is obvious despite not being mentioned in the conversation. We see that the author’s message is clear. Love does not need to be taught, or learned, or understood. It is a fact of life, ever-present, and undeniably sacred. Though the characters do not understand what is happening to them, they are falling, ignorantly and unquestionably, in love. In this world, we think we know what love is. We see it in the majority of ads, on hundreds of billboards, commercials, and movies. In anticipation of a good chick flick, we are content to know that the ending will be a happy one. It’s exciting to imagine falling in love, taking a step of faith in a relationship absolutely dependent on trust. It is the same in Anthem. I don’t think knowing the word “love” makes a difference in the end. Whether or not we think we know what it means, no matter how many times we have watched Sleepless in Seattle, it is impossible to understand love until it has been experienced. But it must be something profound, it must be something magical, because it is the one thing that shows Equality 7-2521 the light, the truth. This passage is without a doubt, intensely thought-provoking and unforgettable, stripping away the superfluous misconceptions of love, the extraneous details and leaving the bare truth. We do not need to know what love is, we do not need a definition. In discovering love, we find ourselves. The journey to self-discovery, through the eyes of love, is the true meaning of this work, and it can be found in the words of the ignorant, confused, and somehow unstoppably determined Liberty 5-3000.
I found Anthem to be a truly original and thoroughly enjoyable work. It was unquestionably my favorite book so far this year. Perhaps because I am intrigued by the concept of love, or perhaps simply because I am a sucker for a happy ending, I was captivated by this novel. I recommend this book to other young-adult and adult readers. I was fascinated by the fact that escaping from prison was an unfathomable idea to the leaders in the society, because their authority had never been challenged; that Equality was able to just walk out of jail. It is frightening to think of the possible ramifications of a society so oppressive, one in which people exist merely by ignorance or fear. Indeed, the occurrence is not unheard of in our own world. Attempts to break the human spirit by targeting and persecuting one group of people have been made for thousands of years. I believe it to be admirable of the author to warn her readers not to repeat these tragedies, and above all, I am fascinated with the creative language she used to dictate her message.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Fahrenheit 451
Mildred Montag is a prime example of the author's portrayal of a manipulative, stiflingly suppressive society. Completely indifferent to the moral absence in her own world, Mildred is a product of her society. She advocates the burning of books and other illegal materials, obsesses over the TV's she's convinced are her family, and shows absolutely no love for her husband. In fact, it is safe to say that Mildred did not know what love is. She and her husband are roommates, two bodies in coexistence, and nothing more. A passage on page 11 supports this; "He opened the bedroom door. It was like into the cold marbled room of a mausoleum after the moon has set. Complete darkness, not a hint of the silver world outside, the windows tightly shut, the chamber a tomb world where no sound from the city could penetrate" (Bradbury). Veiled as a description of his bedroom, the passage simultaneously provides insight into the relationship of Montag and Mildred -Empty, cold, dark, not unlike the very world in which they live. The one room in a couple's home that is to be considered sacred, warm, and seen as the place in which two people come together in love, is starkly portrayed here as something more akin to a prison. The world of Montag and Mildred is very much the same.
“Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator. Funerals are unhappy and pagan? Eliminate them too. Five minutes after a person is dead he’s on his way to the Big Flue, the Incinerators serviced by helicopter all over the country. Ten minutes after death a man’s a speck of black dust. Let’s not quibble over individuals with memoriums. Forget them. Burn all, burn everything, Fire is bright and fire is clean” (Bradbury 60).
Just as the character Beatty could be considered the instigating source of knowledge and bitter wisdom in Fahrenheit 451, he is simultaneously a lonely, hopeless, regretful person who has given up on a world he cannot change. In the passage above, Beatty explains to Montag the workings of their world. He explains that anything that is unappealing to one group or another must be destroyed (burned). As if man is a child to be silenced with a lollipop, he simply illustrates that anything sad, angering, confusing or disadvantageous is disposed of, made to be forgotten. To make people happy, take away all of their problems- make their lives meaningless. Reading between the lines, it would seem that Beatty questions this manipulative, controlling world. If nothing is ever complicated, sad, or difficult, then what are you living for? If there are no problems, if you are never sad, then you’ll never have the rewards of a problem solved, you’ll never grow from your mistakes and move one step closer in your discovery of who you are. In fact, you’ll never find out who you are; you might as well be your neighbor, your cousin, or someone you have never met. There is no distinction from one person to another. It is as if the world is full of brainless replicas, person after person who does not make decisions for them self, but have every single decision made for them.
Fire is used as the means of destroying every aspect of a free world- one with books, knowledge, and love. Indeed, it is the largest and most significant symbol in the novel. Described as “bright” and “clean,” it is ironic that something described so simply could be the ultimate tool of destruction. Fire has the capability to completely “cleanse” the world of anything combustible, and in doing this, in erasing all evidence of a world before, its “brightness” can be permanently blinding. In fact, describing fire in this simple way seems to create a disguised excuse, a friendly nudge that says “it’s okay, things will be better this way,” when in reality, the horrors fire is capable of creating would seem to lend more support to the belief that it is merely destructive.
Beatty emits a tone of bitter sarcasm in his statements here. He is, of course, speaking only truth, but he delivers his thoughts in such a way that you would never find them to be positive. For example, he mentions "taking your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator." This demonstrates his sarcasm clearly. He is mocking this government-- why bother fixing your problems when you can just make them disappear, turn them to ash. Beatty, who is a prominent, prized member of this very community, is clearly not in favor of it. His statement is a plea, a desperate call, his means of reaching out to Montag, begging him to take a stand, where he could not.
My overall opinion of Fahrenheit 451 was definitely varied. Never before had I read a science-fiction novel, so I have nothing to compare this work to. However, I don’t think the focus of the novel was supposed to be the science-fiction aspect as much as it was the futuristic setting, the portrayal of the world to come in a way we could never have thought of. This aspect, of course, was very intriguing. It is as if the people are living in Hell. They are mindless, thoughtless, fearful, poor souls who bow down like robots to their government. Mesmerized by giant room-filling TV’s which are their so-called “family,” it is not unusual for a person to stand in the TV room all day, staring at the TV, soaking in every bit of nonsense spoken. Whether truth or lies (and usually the latter), these people have been brainwashed to believe every ounce of it. At one point in the novel, a commercial was discussed in which Jesus Christ was selling toothpaste. Ridiculous as it sounded to me, it was simultaneously unnerving to see religion used in such a selfish, manipulative way. Devout believers do, of course, what they believe their God desires of them. If that be buying toothpaste, then why not? The fact that no other characters in the novel saw this to be ridiculous reminded me just how far gone their word had become.
Among the plethora of symbols to be found in Fahrenheit 451, I’m disappointed to state that I only initially recognized the most obvious one- rain. The cleansing power of rain washed away the blinding lies and nonsense of Montag's world, and brought to light his burning questions. I think it could be said that the young girl Clarisse could be considered the vessel for this cleansing. One of the “misfits,” Clarisse had been asking problematic questions ever since she was young. She did not understand the world in which she lived; miraculously, she had managed to see through the spoon-fed lies of her elders. Understanding the other symbols, however, after having read the novel, helps to reveal the true meaning of the work. For example, one symbol I never picked up on was the mechanical hound- a prime representation of the mechanized, controlled society in which Montag lived, one which sensed and disposed of knowledge, of questioning, of anyone who strayed from desired views. Another obvious symbol that I should have picked up on was books; the simultaneous embodiment of knowledge, freedom, and the human spirit, only to be burned among everything else undesirable.
What I did not like about this novel was the fact that some questions were left unanswered. For example, it would have been satisfying to hear why the society had become the way it was. How did the government manage to brainwash all of those people? If knowledge was unwanted, then how could their society progress educationally and technologically? Surely, knowledge is necessary for such advancements. Someone has to be smarter than someone else. That is to say, someone must be the knowledgeable, educated, and experienced architect or engineer who could create cars, buildings, and airplanes. My question was, how could the society progress at all, with all knowledge eliminated? Though I was frustrated on this point while reading, looking back, I don’t think these answers are necessary to uncover the author’s message. Though my inquisitive mind would have liked to understand every facet of the created world, it doesn’t matter so much how it got to be this way. What matters is that it is, that some way or another, this is the way the world has turned out to be, and what are we going to do about it? Once I realized this, I was able to look past my questions to the deeper meaning of the novel. I found this book to be a truly original, enjoyable, and creatively thought-out piece of literature. Like a mystery, it was fun to decipher symbols and read between the lines, something I had not ever had to do before. I truly enjoyed this book in which the answers were not handed to me, but deeper thinking and careful consideration was required to figure them out.
“Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator. Funerals are unhappy and pagan? Eliminate them too. Five minutes after a person is dead he’s on his way to the Big Flue, the Incinerators serviced by helicopter all over the country. Ten minutes after death a man’s a speck of black dust. Let’s not quibble over individuals with memoriums. Forget them. Burn all, burn everything, Fire is bright and fire is clean” (Bradbury 60).
Just as the character Beatty could be considered the instigating source of knowledge and bitter wisdom in Fahrenheit 451, he is simultaneously a lonely, hopeless, regretful person who has given up on a world he cannot change. In the passage above, Beatty explains to Montag the workings of their world. He explains that anything that is unappealing to one group or another must be destroyed (burned). As if man is a child to be silenced with a lollipop, he simply illustrates that anything sad, angering, confusing or disadvantageous is disposed of, made to be forgotten. To make people happy, take away all of their problems- make their lives meaningless. Reading between the lines, it would seem that Beatty questions this manipulative, controlling world. If nothing is ever complicated, sad, or difficult, then what are you living for? If there are no problems, if you are never sad, then you’ll never have the rewards of a problem solved, you’ll never grow from your mistakes and move one step closer in your discovery of who you are. In fact, you’ll never find out who you are; you might as well be your neighbor, your cousin, or someone you have never met. There is no distinction from one person to another. It is as if the world is full of brainless replicas, person after person who does not make decisions for them self, but have every single decision made for them.
Fire is used as the means of destroying every aspect of a free world- one with books, knowledge, and love. Indeed, it is the largest and most significant symbol in the novel. Described as “bright” and “clean,” it is ironic that something described so simply could be the ultimate tool of destruction. Fire has the capability to completely “cleanse” the world of anything combustible, and in doing this, in erasing all evidence of a world before, its “brightness” can be permanently blinding. In fact, describing fire in this simple way seems to create a disguised excuse, a friendly nudge that says “it’s okay, things will be better this way,” when in reality, the horrors fire is capable of creating would seem to lend more support to the belief that it is merely destructive.
Beatty emits a tone of bitter sarcasm in his statements here. He is, of course, speaking only truth, but he delivers his thoughts in such a way that you would never find them to be positive. For example, he mentions "taking your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator." This demonstrates his sarcasm clearly. He is mocking this government-- why bother fixing your problems when you can just make them disappear, turn them to ash. Beatty, who is a prominent, prized member of this very community, is clearly not in favor of it. His statement is a plea, a desperate call, his means of reaching out to Montag, begging him to take a stand, where he could not.
My overall opinion of Fahrenheit 451 was definitely varied. Never before had I read a science-fiction novel, so I have nothing to compare this work to. However, I don’t think the focus of the novel was supposed to be the science-fiction aspect as much as it was the futuristic setting, the portrayal of the world to come in a way we could never have thought of. This aspect, of course, was very intriguing. It is as if the people are living in Hell. They are mindless, thoughtless, fearful, poor souls who bow down like robots to their government. Mesmerized by giant room-filling TV’s which are their so-called “family,” it is not unusual for a person to stand in the TV room all day, staring at the TV, soaking in every bit of nonsense spoken. Whether truth or lies (and usually the latter), these people have been brainwashed to believe every ounce of it. At one point in the novel, a commercial was discussed in which Jesus Christ was selling toothpaste. Ridiculous as it sounded to me, it was simultaneously unnerving to see religion used in such a selfish, manipulative way. Devout believers do, of course, what they believe their God desires of them. If that be buying toothpaste, then why not? The fact that no other characters in the novel saw this to be ridiculous reminded me just how far gone their word had become.
Among the plethora of symbols to be found in Fahrenheit 451, I’m disappointed to state that I only initially recognized the most obvious one- rain. The cleansing power of rain washed away the blinding lies and nonsense of Montag's world, and brought to light his burning questions. I think it could be said that the young girl Clarisse could be considered the vessel for this cleansing. One of the “misfits,” Clarisse had been asking problematic questions ever since she was young. She did not understand the world in which she lived; miraculously, she had managed to see through the spoon-fed lies of her elders. Understanding the other symbols, however, after having read the novel, helps to reveal the true meaning of the work. For example, one symbol I never picked up on was the mechanical hound- a prime representation of the mechanized, controlled society in which Montag lived, one which sensed and disposed of knowledge, of questioning, of anyone who strayed from desired views. Another obvious symbol that I should have picked up on was books; the simultaneous embodiment of knowledge, freedom, and the human spirit, only to be burned among everything else undesirable.
What I did not like about this novel was the fact that some questions were left unanswered. For example, it would have been satisfying to hear why the society had become the way it was. How did the government manage to brainwash all of those people? If knowledge was unwanted, then how could their society progress educationally and technologically? Surely, knowledge is necessary for such advancements. Someone has to be smarter than someone else. That is to say, someone must be the knowledgeable, educated, and experienced architect or engineer who could create cars, buildings, and airplanes. My question was, how could the society progress at all, with all knowledge eliminated? Though I was frustrated on this point while reading, looking back, I don’t think these answers are necessary to uncover the author’s message. Though my inquisitive mind would have liked to understand every facet of the created world, it doesn’t matter so much how it got to be this way. What matters is that it is, that some way or another, this is the way the world has turned out to be, and what are we going to do about it? Once I realized this, I was able to look past my questions to the deeper meaning of the novel. I found this book to be a truly original, enjoyable, and creatively thought-out piece of literature. Like a mystery, it was fun to decipher symbols and read between the lines, something I had not ever had to do before. I truly enjoyed this book in which the answers were not handed to me, but deeper thinking and careful consideration was required to figure them out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)