Hayley Rathburn’s Blog

1. How does Bokononism try to solve the problem of violent, religious dogmatism?

In order to address this question, first I looked up the word dogmatism to make sure I knew the full meaning of the word. It is defined as dogmatic character; unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truths. Bokononism breaks the stereotype of religion being this institution that forces its beliefs on others. One of the first things written in the Book of Bokonon is that everything included in the religion is a lie. Right away this shows that Bokononism comes from a different angle than how most people view religion. An interesting point brought out in the analysis found on SparkNotes is that Bokononism offers its followers the illusion of having a purpose in life. While it states that mankind will never understand human existence or life in general, it offers the comfort of having some sort of meaning. So it does not push its intentions or standards on the people, forcing them to change their lives. It merely provides them with the feeling of having a purpose.

2. How does Felix mock the prevailing notion that “evil” is humanity’s biggest problem?

The character of Felix Hoenikker is very unique. Although he is the maker of the atom bomb, the way he behaves and interacts with other people is very much like a child. He keeps to himself and merely focuses on his projects rather than seeing the whole picture. For instance, he did not understand the moral implications that go along with the destruction caused by the atom bomb. In this sense he doesn’t truly comprehend the idea of good vs. evil and all that comes with it. It wasn’t as if he purposefully created the bomb to destroy those he hated, like Hitler did in World War II. Instead, he spent his whole life learning more about the field of science. The analysis on SparkNotes points out that this shows the “evil” in mankind is not our biggest problem. Ignorance and innocence is really what could cause our downfall. I agree with this thought that truly harmless people could end up being the cause of a lot of destruction. With a large amount of power and the capabilities of science, ignorance becomes humanity’s biggest problem instead of “evil”.

3. How does the commencement speech delivered at Frank’s high school graduation mock the valorized status that science occupies as a means to discover “truth?”

The description of the commencement speech scene is just dripping in satire and irony. The speaker brings out the point that some day science would discover the key to life in the form of some protein. Obviously this is a complete exaggeration because there is no clear definition of the true meaning, or “key”, to life. And it could most definitely never be discovered through a little protein. From this satirical section of the novel, the reader gathers that the author is showing how science can not possibly help us with the deeper aspects of life. I believe this idea as well. Advancements in the areas of technology or science can’t really help manking discover “truth”.

4. What does Mona symbolize about the human character?

The descriptions of Mona throughout the novel are rather odd and all have a serene quality to them. Mona is basically the epitome of Bokononism. She follows all the rituals and practices, upholds the principles and rules, and never falters. Unfortunately this leads to her untimely death. Mona represents man’s inability to think for himself. In general, there is a stupidity or ignorance lying within each of us that causes us to follow other people. Rather than having individual thoughts and forming our own ideas, we tend to feel the need to be a member of the herd, always in motion with the crowd. Mona represents this human trait present in all of us. In her case, things didn’t end well. This could be the same for us if we are not careful.

Living life by creating illusions is an interesting concept to comprehend because, in my opinion, there is a fine line between living an illusion and living like a good person. For instance, I am not always true to myself with everyone because I believe it’s important to treat everyone with the same respect and dignity. In some cases if I don’t particularly get along with someone as well as I do with others, I still treat them kindly despite things that may be unfair toward me. So in a situation like that I don’t see a problem with putting up a somewhat false front, just because it isn’t hurting anyone. However, in general I can see how living without illusions is possible. It is definitely within everyone’s ability to be their true selves throughout every facet of life. The question is whether or not people are comfortable with showing their true selves to everyone, under any set of circumstances.

I had an interesting discussion with my mom about illusions I personally may or may not uphold in my life. She pointed out the fact that I am generally nice to everyone even though at times it ends up creating problems for me. Occasionally people take advantage of the fact that I am this way and I end up becoming a doormat for them. Also she brought up my interest in acting and theater. Sometimes I hide behind the character I am playing, often times one more confident than I really am. Often times this gives people the false impression that I actually am a super confident person who is comfortable in my own skin when in reality, I am almost entirely the opposite way. So in these two separate areas I do uphold illusions in my life.

The third version of “Hamlet” I watched was the film with Mel Gibson and Glenn Close.  I wish I would have watched this adaptation before the other two because although it was highly entertaining, I was already so familiar with the story that it was a bit boring. However, I feel that the performances of all the lead actors greatly surpassed those of the actors in the other films. Mel Gibson portrayed the title character exactly as I had imagined it while reading through the play.  He played the scope of Hamlet’s emotions impeccably. For instance, at the beginning he was clearly depressed about his father’s death, the audience could see the emotions in his face. Then as the story intensified, the volume of his voice increased and his actions and movements became quicker. Glenn Close did a wonderful job conveying the heartbroken nature of the Queen at the end when Ophelia becomes insane. Her tears and sorrow seemed completely believable and drew the audience into all the characters more. The only thing I didn’t like about this film was the director’s choice to have so much physical contact between the Queen and Hamlet. I felt that this distracted from all the other good things going on in the movie and was an unnecessary choice. Also, it was just disturbing to see mother and son kiss, etc. But despite this element, I would say I enjoyed this adaptation very much and thought it was a strong version of Shakespeare’s work.

The essay “The Politics of Hamlet”, by Lord Rees-Mogg, is an interesting look at Shakespeare’s famous play from a different angle. The author analyzes the characters from a political standpoint, noticing all their behavior and actions in a political light. I found this very interesting, yet after a few pages the essay got sort of dry in my opinion. He seemed to reiterate his point over and over again instead of forming new points. However, I appreciated his argument as a whole. The most interesting thing I learned from reading this essay was how the time period in which “Hamlet” was written contributed to Shakespeare’s ideas for the play. I actually drew a star next to the paragraph where the author wrote, “…it is a fact that every English monarch – one may excuse Lady Jane Grey from the title – between the reign of Henry IV and Elizabeth I had been forced by political events, or had decided, to execute or murder a kinsman, or a kinswoman, in order to retain power.” This is why Shakespeare tied this theme into so many of his plays and how, especially in “Hamlet”, the politics are rather shady. Then the author goes into how Claudius’ actions are built around what’s best for himself and his position and how this leads to corruption, much like politicians today. So, even though it was a tad boring, I thought the angle this article came from was highly interesting.

The second film adaptation of “Hamlet” I watched was the version with Ethan Hawke. In this version, they put a modern spin on the story and made Denmark a corporation in which Claudius was the C.E.O. instead of the king. I didn’t like the way they told they story at all in this film. Although the intent of updating “Hamlet” a bit by setting it in modern times was honorable, the execution of it did not work. Some of the elements of the story didn’t translate into modern-day. For instance, the fencing match between Hamlet and Laertes near the end of the movie seemed out of place. Also, the characters wore modern clothing while speaking old, Elizabethan english. I didn’t see the point of updating the time period without updating the language. And though I normally enjoy Ethan Hawke’s acting, his version of Hamlet disappointed me. I felt that in many ways he played it the opposite of Branagh; rather than over-acting he under-acted. He mumbled all of his lines and used basically one facial expression throughout the whole thing. But part of the problem may have been the editing. The bulk of his soliloquies were taken out or altered in some way. I thought this decreased the strength of his character and the play as a whole. There was one scene, however, that I thought was done very well. When Hamlet’s father appeared to him as a ghost, their exchange of conversation was very believable. I thought Ethan Hawke acted perfectly according to the circumstances, and I liked how there were effects put on the ghost to make him fade in and out. I pictured the ghost as more of a transparent figure than a solid person as I was reading along, so I’m glad they portrayed it that way in this film.

The first film I watched was the four hour Kenneth Branagh version. It was incredibly helpful to carefully watch this movie because it stuck entirely to the original text. In this way I was able to understand the plot as a whole more clearly and see how the different characters interacted. It was very interesting to see how Shakespeare’s work was interpreted in a visual way. For instance, in a scene at the beginning involving a huge celebration for the marriage of Claudius and Gertrude, the overall splendor and size of the occasion was brought to my attention. While reading the play, I wasn’t sure what to visualize for this particular scene. However in this film they showed hundreds of people in the palace, all in ornate and colorful costumes of the time period. This helped me to understand the setting much better. One aspect of the movie I did not particularly like was how the actor who played Hamlet interpreted certain lines. Throughout most of the film he seemed to shout and yell his lines. As I read through the play I didn’t picture him screaming every word, I thought there would be more variation. I saw this especially in the scene where Hamlet and Ophelia are having a discussion and Hamlet declares he never loved her. He spoke incredibly fast with very loud volume, and at one point he even harshly pressed Ophelia against a glass window. I understood that this was supposed to convey his madness, I just thought all the shouting and extremities were a little over the top. But overall, I thought Branagh did a very good job of sticking to Shakespeare’s original intent and helping the audience see it more clearly. I would say I enjoyed it for the most part.

I agree very strongly with the statement that it is important to have a good relationship with your parents. To defend my position it is first essential to examine the statement itself. The statement does not say it is “crucial” or even “necessary” to have a good relationship with one’s parents; it says it is important.  I fully believe in this. The system of parenting requires parents to bring their children up and mold them into individuals that can have successful and happy futures. Therefore, it doesn’t make any sense to completely abandon one’s parents and not maintain a relationship with them at all. Humans are not like birds who fly from the nest and go out on their own, never needing their parents again. Parents provide the kind of support no one else can. Although friends and other individuals can be sources of comfort and stronghold in times of distress, in most cases parents are the people who know their child the best and know how to approach a situation. They can more easily give advice because they personally have had many experiences over their years of life that could affect their viewpoints. It is important to keep that connection and relationship strong so that there would be no way one could think they were alone or that no one cared about them.  No one can make it through life on their own strength. At times it is necessary for all of us to lean on someone in order to regain our strength. That is why it is essential to keep the safety net of our parents close and not cut it off entirely.

My initial reaction to the essay “Looking for Zora”, by Alice Walker, was how much I loved the style of the writing. Walker describes the places she sees and the people she meets so vividly that the reader feels as if they can see these things along with her. The imagery she uses is so skillfully written. For instance, she describes one of the women she interviews as having a “rough, pleasant voice, as if she is a singer who also smokes a lot. She is homely, and has an air of ready indifference” (117). By using this strong diction and creating lifelike images, I really felt as if I could see the individuals she was writing about. I also liked learning more in-depth details about Their Eyes Were Watching God. As an example, Walker interviews a woman named Mrs. Moseley whose father was Joe Clarke’s brother. Come to find out, Joe Clarke was the first mayor of Eatonville and was the basis for the character of Jody Starks in Hurston’s novel. I found this interesting, that Hurston incorporated much of real life in her novel and that is why it is so effective and timeless. It was very interesting to me that no one knew where Hurston was buried or, in some cases, who she was at all. Overall, reading this essay made me think about my own future life. Walker’s strong connection to Hurston’s work inspires me to create work of my own. Maybe one day someone will go looking for my grave…

At first, when the character Mrs. Turner was introduced into the novel, I found her very annoying and almost shocking. Her philosophies about purity and having everyone look the same with white, “pure” skin, straight teeth, and straight hair reminded me of the Nazi beliefs in having this one superior race of people. She loves spending time and conversing with Janie because she has features that are more common in white people, such as her lighter skin and long hair. However, Mrs. Turner hates even mentioning Tea Cake because he has such dark skin; she feels he taints the cleanliness of Janie and brings her down in class rank. When Janie tries to explain to her how much she loves Tea Cake, Mrs. Turner doesn’t seem to understand her feelings. It’s like she can’t fathom how anyone could love someone with that “filthy” appearance. It’s hard for me to see how this character functions in the novel as a whole. But, I suppose she serves as a foil character to Janie. While Janie believes strongly in the pear tree philosophy (that true love is what brings happiness) Mrs. Turner believes more in fitting the rigid rules of society and keeping everything in its place. She detests the black people in town because she feels that they are stepping outside of their boundaries. By looking at her through this light, Mrs. Turner really leads a tragic and lonely existence with no hope of ever changing because of her pride.

In chapter six of Their Eyes Were Watching God, there is an extended metaphor of a mule. Most of the chapter is made up of this metaphor, and at first the subject seemed a bit random to me. However, after I thought about the contex and situation at hand, I began to see the deeper meaning more clearly. The mule is essentially able to represent two different things; slavery and inequality of the sexes. Janie sees some of the men in town mistreating the mule and as a result, her husband spares its life by buying the animal. This brings to mind mistreatment of African American slaves. Slaves were harshly abused and sold to owners like pieces of property, or animals. Janie’s objection to the abuse of the mule brings out this underlying current of the injustice and cruelty of slavery. Also, this metaphor brings to mind the popular view of women at the time. Women were generally viewed as inferior to men. They were not considered as powerful or influential. That’s why I found it interesting that Jody was the one who bought the mule, not Janie. It’s as if it wouldn’t have been proper for her to do such a thing.

The buzzards that descend upon the dead mule’s carcass could be interpreted to mean several different things. In my opinion, the buzzards emphasize the concept of the circle of life. Things grow and change and then eventually die or cease to be. After the buzzards picked apart the mule, nothing was left. It is much like how the discriminatory and pervasive views toward African Americans and women have changed or “died”.