In Bram Stoker's Dracula, sleep is a prevalent theme throughout the novel. The characters of have a large connection with sleep. Although sleep is part of life, for the characters of Dracula it is much more. Sleep is rest, it is peace but it is also fear and unease.
Dracula gets his guest, Jonathan Harker, on a nocturnal schedule and speaks of sleep several times through out his visit to the castle. After talking to Jonathan all evening about London, Dracula's future home, Dracula says, "Why there is morning again! How remiss I am to let you stay up so long. You must make your conversation regarding my dear new country of England less interesting so that I may not forget how times flies by us" (Stoker, 55). This happens several times. This shows that Dracula does what is in his control to have Jonathan on his nocturnal schedule of being awake in the evenings and asleep during the day. As a way to discourage Jonathan from exploring more of Dracula's castle, Dracula warns Jonathan by saying, "Should sleep now or ever overcome you, or be like to do, then haste to your own chamber or to these rooms, for your rest will then by safe" (Stoker, 64). By saying this to Jonathan, Dracula sends the message to Jonathan that he can not safely sleep anywhere else within the castle walls besides the room Jonathan has for his stay. Sleep does not come easy to Jonathan in the castle, this can be determined by his journal entry that states, "I shall not fear to sleep in any place he is not. I have placed the crucifix over the head of my bed - I imagine that my rest is thus freer from dreams; and there it shall remain" (Stoker, 65). This shows that Jonathan can not sleep peacefully if Dracula is present; instead he worries and keeps himself awake.
Dracula proves his nocturnal existence as readers learn his habits through the journaling of Jonathan Harker. Jonathan's breakfast would sit on the table awaiting for Jonathan to wake up for the day and Dracula could never be found during the light hours to keep Jonathan company as he did during the evenings. In the evenings they do not stay up speaking of England, Jonathan sees Dracula crawling in a lizard like fashion along the exterior castle walls. Jonathan does exploring through the castle to find, "There is one of the great boxes, of which there were fifty in all, on a pile of newly dug earth, lay the Count! He was either dead or asleep, I could not say which -for the eyes were open and without the glassiness of death - and the cheeks hard the warmth of life through all their pallor, and the lips were as red as ever. But there was not sign of movement, no pulse, no breath, not beating of the heart" (Stoker, 80). This shows how Dracula rests, whether it is defined as sleep or not we can determine that this takes place during the day. This shows the nocturnal pattern Dracula takes on.
For Lucy, sleep is a constant battle. Mina learns that Lucy is walking in her sleep through Lucy's mother, "Lucy, although she is well, has lately taken to her old habit of walking in her sleep. Her mother has spoken to me about it, and we have decided that I am to lock the door of our room every night" (Stoker, 105). This quotes shows that Lucy has sleep-walked throughout her life by the word choice of old habit meaning that it happened long ago and frequently. Mina sees this herself when she visits Lucy and notices, "It is a strange thing, this sleep-walking, for as soon as her will is thwarted in any physical way, her inanition, if there be any, disappears, and she yields herself almost exactly to the routine of her life" (Stoker, 12). After Mina leaves, sleep becomes more difficult for Lucy as she becomes ill.
Lucy expresses her fear of sleep when she becomes ill. As Dr. Seward stays to keep Lucy company, he notices, "After a long spell she seemed sinking off to sleep, but with an effort seemed to pull herself together and shook it off. This was repeated several times, with greater effort and with shorter pauses as the times moved on" (Stoker, 161). This shows Lucy fighting off sleep the best she can even though she is exhausted. When Dr. Steward questions Lucy about her sleep, she says it is a "presage of horror!", and, "All this weakness comes to me in sleep; until I dread the very thought" (Stoker, 161). This shows Lucy is afraid and uneasy when it comes to sleep because as soon as she feels better, he strength is taken from her during the night. Lucy expresses her fear again in her diary when she writes, "How blessed are some people, whose lives have no fears, no dreads; to whom sleep is a blessing that comes nightly, and brings nothing but sweet dreams" (Stoker, 169). This shows Lucy's unrest even when she does sleep. Here she implies that she is envious of people with sweet dreams.
By looking at Jonathan, Dracula and Lucy, sleep is shown as a love-hate relationship for the characters. For Johnathan, it is the matter of being kept up all night with the company of a vampire and sleep during the day is interrupted by the thought of Dracula's presence or where within the castle he is permitted to sleep. Dracula is a prisoner to his nocturnal lifestyle of being a vampire that includes being away during the day a coffin and soil setting as he rests with his eyes open and at night hunts or keeps his guest company by speaking of London. Lucy, even when asleep, is up and changing clothes or walking around the house. When she gets ill, rest does not come easier even though her exhaustion and need for it is greater. Instead, she feels all her strength leaves her during the night and experiences only horror during sleep.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Stoker and Catholicism
In Bram Stoker’s novel Dracula, the
protagonists use a wide range of weapons to fight the vampire menace plaguing London.
The weapons range from garlic and rose branches to crucifixes and holy wafers. By
giving Catholic artifacts as much power over the undead as superstitious
artifacts, Stoker equates Catholicism to superstition. Throughout English
history Catholicism and Protestantism have been at odds with each other. Dracula
was originally published in 1897, only 68 years after the Roman Catholic Relief
Act of 1829, which emancipated Catholics throughout the United Kingdom and
repealed laws which required Catholics to swear allegiance to the crown and prevented
them from being elected to parliament (Roman Catholic Relief Act 8).
Since the famous split between
Catholic Church and England led by King Henry VIII, there has been much tension
between Protestants and Catholics within Great Britain. Queen Mary I, daughter
of King Henry VIII, was originally removed from the line for the thrown by her
brother, King Edward VI, due to her Catholic views; however, she took the
thrown after his death. During Mary I’s reign she revived a law making it a
crime “to believe in a different religion than the sovereign,” and burned
around 300 Protestants in 3 years (Mary I). After the reign of Queen Mary, the
Church of England was restored by her successor, Queen Elizabeth I. Along with
the revival of the Church of England came “the arrival of Jesuits and Catholic ministers from
the European continent…
coupled with a national anxiety
and fear of continental Catholicism
and the papacy…
the English government
[began] persecutions against
Catholics” (Scott 6). Even today, “No Roman Catholic, nor anyone married
to a Roman Catholic, [can] hold the English crown” according to the Act of
Settlement passed in 1701. The split from the Catholic Church along with the
retaliation of Queen Mary I led to distrust and enmity between Catholics and Protestants
in England.
Throughout the novel, Stoker dances
with the reader on the line between faith and superstition. Before Jonathan
Harker leaves the inn for the Borgo Pass and, what is meant to be his final
destination, Dracula’s castle, he is begged by the inn keeper’s wife not leave
on St. George’s day, and given a crucifix for protection. Harker writes in his
journal, “as an English Churchman, I have been taught to regard such things as
in some measure idolatrous”, and in the same entry he notes that he is unsure whether
his feeling of uneasiness stems from the strange traditions of the village or
the crucifix (Stoker 4). Later in the
story, Van Helsing plans to place a rose branch on Dracula’s crate to prevent
him from getting out. Similarly, while attempting to slay the vampire who had
been Lucy, Van Helsing places clay containing a holy wafer around the door to
prevent Lucy from getting into her tomb. In the Catholic faith, it is the believed
that bread is turned into the body of Christ through transubstantiation. The
rose and the holy wafer that is thought to be the body of Christ both have
equal power over the vampires.
The history of Catholics in Great
Britain is one full of enmity and persecution. Although the world is a different
place today and tolerance is easier to come by, the tradition of distrust and
tyranny of the majority can still be seen in England’s Act of Settle. Stoker’s
Dracula is another reminder of the attitude towards Catholics that was so prevalent
in his time. While Van Helsing discusses the the rose branch, he says “to
superstition must we trust at first; it was man’s faith in the early, and it
have it’s root in faith still” (Stoker 281). Perhaps Stoker believed that the
Catholic ideology was applicable before, but felt that it was time for a more
efficient form of Christianity, such as Protestantism.
Stoker, Bram. Dracula. London:
Constable & Co., 1897. Print
Act Of Settlement. The Royal Household,
2008/09. Web. 18 November 2012.
Roman
Catholic Relief Act 1829. National Archives, n.d. Web. 18 November 2012.
Mary I. The Royal Household, 2008/09.
Web. 18 November 2012.
Scott, Mitchell. “The Marian and Elizabethan
Persecutions: How England Was Prepared for Persecution
and Defended From Martyrdom.”
Diss. U of Louisville, 2002. Web. 18 November 2012.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
dracula and the devil
Count Dracula and the
Devil
Eugene Hernandez
Who
could Bram Stoker’s evil antagonist, Count Dracula, be compared to in the
Bible? In many ways Dracula is very
similar to the bible’s adversary Satan. Dracula and the Devil, these immortal
beings that torment humanity, share specific similarities by the way they are
depicted and of their desperate attempt to capture human souls and lead them in
a path away from God.
In the novel Dracula, the vampire named Count Dracula
is a very powerful creature who feeds on human’s blood but he does so especially
on the women of the novel such as Mina Harker (Stoker 307). Satan from the
Bible is also a powerful immortal that thrives on taking human’s lives. In
Christianity it is believed that he derails humans from following God’s ways,
thus denying their chances of living forever. He too went after Adam’s wife Eve as stated in
Genesis 3:1-5 where Satan influenced Eve into disobeying God by eating from the
forbidden tree. It is interesting to see the comparison of how both Dracula and
the Devil went after the women first to get to the men as well. Dracula sucked Lucy’s blood several times
prompting the men in the novel to give blood to Lucy as well (Stoker). Dracula
ended up consuming their blood as well through Lucy. Eve was able to convince her husband Adam to
disobey God as well, but Satan had only spoken with Eve.
Both Dracula and
Satan are described as beings that can transform into different kinds of
animals. The Devil transformed himself
into a serpent when he talked to Eve. In
the novel, Van Helsing describes Dracula, “He can transform himself to wolf, as
we gather from the ship arrival in Whitby… he can be as a bat, as Madam Mina
saw him” (Stoker 259-60). Whenever it was necessary, Dracula would transform
himself into a bat or wolf to his benefit.
In the Romanian language, “Dracul” means dragon (Ioana) and this is
important as in the Bible, Satan is described several times as a dragon. “The great dragon was hurled down—that
ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole
world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him” (Rev.
12: 9, NIV). Here Satan is described as
a serpent and a dragon. Stoker may have
used the name Dracula to compare the Count to the Devil. Author Bram Stoker also described vividly
Dracula’s face to that of Satan as “His eyes flamed red with devilish passion
the great nostrils of the white aquiline nose opened wide and quivered at the
edge; and the white sharp teeth, behind the full lips of the blood-dripping
mouth, champed together like those of a wild beast” (Stoker 307). In this dramatic description of the Count,
Stoker uses the color red to convey the image of the vampire. The Devil has also been depicted as being red
in a burning inferno.
These are some
comparisons of the Devil and Dracula. Why would Bram Stoker consider it
important to describe Dracula as this evil demon who is the opposite of God? Was Dracula forgiven when he was killed?
Fear of Religion
In Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the
character of Dracula is often seen depicting the devil or in some cases God,
but Dracula more accurately represents Stoker’s fear for organized religion
with the showing of the dangers in spreading yourself around and using women to
put children under Dracula’s spell in blind faith.
In Dracula Bram Stoker uses the character
of Dracula to represent a new religion just beginning with showing the
relationship between using crates of soil to help Dracula travel with mission
trips where students will travel around the world trying to convert people to
their certain religion. In Dracula Bram
Stoker shows that Dracula can only travel and sleep in soil from his homeland
of Transylvania making it so he must pack of crates of soil and disperse them
across England because that is the territory that he wishes to move to for the
fact that he would be able to make more vampires in the area. This brings a big
parallel with mission trips made both a while ago when Christian missionaries
were exploring new parts of the world and even today with churches of all denominations
sending school aged students on missions across the world. Mission trips are
used by every large secular religion to spread their religion to all parts of
the world but since Stoker was born into an Irish Protestant family church we
can believe he is mostly talking about Christian missionaries for the story of
Dracula. Christian missionaries are known for travelling to many parts of the
world to spread the Christian faith but one criticism that seems to arise from
the mission trips is that Christians are westernizing these cultures that did
not have Christianity instead of simply teaching the faith. This fear seems to be
what Stoker is advising with Dracula showing that if you go around spreading
your own culture and beliefs you are taking away the culture of those you are
trying to help.
Stoker
shows a fear of organized religion and blind faith by showing that Dracula uses
Lucy to bite children and turn them into vampires after she is turned into one
herself. When Lucy gets turned into a vampire in the novel and leaves he grave
at night she is trying to bite others around her but she isn’t going after
older adults that can fight her off she is going after weak and innocent
children that she knows she can infect. When children are young they start to
develop a personality for themselves but it never starts out as something they
really explore more of just adhering to what their parents believe. This is
known as a time in development called “Identity Foreclosure” which is defined
by “the status of adolescents who prematurely commit to an identity without adequately
exploring alternatives” (Feldman 388). This can also be seen as blind faith
where children will latch onto the religion of parents and guardians simply
because they are in an environment where that’s all they know. Using Lucy to attack
children can be seen as making them blindly believe in this vampire way of life
with no real idea of what they are doing or trying to accomplish. Using sucking
the blood out of children shows the fear that Stoker sees in organized religion
being a danger to society.
Stoker’s
fear of organized religion is manifested in the things Dracula does to keep his
legacy alive, with sucking the blood out of children and using foreign soil to
draw parallels with blind faith and missionaries. One thing I was trying to
look at was maybe more of Dracula representing a perversion of religion with
Mina drinking his blood against Christians drinking wine at communion, as well
as more research into Stoker’s religious background and missionaries in the
past.
Works Cited
Feldman, Robert. Development Across the Life Span. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 2011. 1-724.
Print
Stoker, Bram. Dracula. London, England: Puffin Books,
1887. Print
Dracula vs Voldemort
In Bram Stokers
Dracula. Dracula needs the soil from Translvania that he was buried in to
properly rest and maintain his immortality. In J.K Rowlings Harry Potter, Lord
Voldemort puts his soul in seven items of importance known as Horcruxs to
achieve immortality. How does Dracula’s Craters of Soil compare to Voldemorts Horcruxes
and their effect on immortality.
Dracula is a
vampire and eats humans to maintain his power, as a vampire he is immortal and
can live forever. But is his immortality limitless? When Dracula travels to
England he brings along coffins full of native Transylvanian soil that he was
buried in. why does he do this? There is soil in England that he could use, but
he brings along his own. There must be something in the soil that maintains his
powers and his immortality. If Dracula were truly immortal then he would not
have to bring his soil with him.
Lord Voldemort is
a powerful and evil wizard, he is so feared that wizards refuse to call him by
his name, and instead refer to him as He who must not be named and wants to get
rid of Muggles(non-magic folk) in the Wizarding world and be supreme ruler.
Voldemort was scared of death, so in order to achieve immortality he put his
soul into 6 different objects known as Horcruxes. Helga Hufflepuff’s cup,
Rowena Ravenclaw’s Diary, Tom Riddles diary, Marvolo Gaunt’s ring, Salazar
Slytherins locket and his pet snake Nagini. He also accidental put his soul
into Harry Potter the night he tried killing him. He split his soul 7 times and
each time Voldemort lost more of his humanity. By splitting his soul, he was
able to achieve immortality. In order to
kill Voldemort you would have to destroy all 7 Horcruxes. He made this task
difficult by hiding them in separate areas.
Both Dracula and Voldemort
hid away the items that kept them immortal and spread them out to keep them
safe. So does this make them truly immortal or is their immortality tied to
their sacred items? Their downfall was thinking their immortal. Believing your
immortal gives you a cockiness that you cant be defeated, but there not Gods,
they could be defeated, even though it was extremely hard it was done. Both
Dracula and Voldemort despite achieving immortality were killed.
Dracula needed the
soil to properly rest and maintain his powers, but it didn’t hold his soul. If
it was destroyed he could go back to Transylvania and seek more. But in order
for him to travel he would have to have it with him. In my opinion the old
Dracula at the beginning of the novel was a Dracula that hasn’t been sleeping
in his soil and he starts to age, giving the appearance that he is an old man
to Jonathan, later in the novel Dracula is a young, the soil must help with
maintaining a youthful appearance and achieving immortality.
Voldemort uses the
horcruxes to keep parts of his soul in them to achieve immortality. By doing
this he loses his human appearance and becomes more monster than man, the
opposite of Dracula and his soil. If the horcruxes are destroyed he cant just
recreate a part of his soul, its gone for good. He could always take the risk
splitting his soul more but he will continue to lose his humanity. Voldemort
does not have to travel with his horcruxes and keeps them hidden. This gives
Voldemort the ability to travel anywhere and not be held up with carrying his
sacred items.
Both Dracula and
Voldemort go through great lengths in order to achieve and maintain
immortality. Unfortunately for them its not true immortality and only limited.
Both Dracula and Voldemort have similar characteristics and drive for power
that the sacrificed their humanity to live forever.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Bernard
In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World finding a character that
fits under the title of “hero” is a hard thing to do with so many characters
doing different things that show signs of being “hero”. But I believe Bernard
Marx shows the exact opposite of what Huxley was trying to show as a “hero” in Brave New World by him being a hypocritical
character in the use of “heard poisoning” and his reaction to being banished
from the London society.
Being a “hero” is a hard thing to
pin down especially in BNW because
you have to infer with that Huxley would call a hero and if you look at the
article he wrote, “Propaganda Under a Dictatorship”, you can see that Huxley
places a lot of value in standing out as an individual and keeping independence
even in groups. In the article “Propaganda Under a Dictatorship” Huxley refers
to Hitler using “Herd Poisoning” as a drug that lets the users “escape from
responsibility, intelligence and morality into a kind of frantic, animal
mindlessness” (3). Originally Bernard runs away from this and doesn’t want anything
to do with being poisoned and using soma, which is one of the reasons he goes
away to the “savage” reservation of Lenina but what makes him a hypocritical character
is his willingness to always come back to London and the herd poisoned civilization.
Early in the novel Bernard describes his hate
for the people in the society due to his different feelings about soma and he
wished people would just take the beauty that the world has to offer and takes
Lenina away to the “savage” reservation where he learns that he has been
banished to Iceland and becomes upset about this fact. If Bernard can escape
from the London civilization and feel free from it what’s the difference
between willing leaving the civilization and being banished if he just wants to
get away? This happens again later in
the novel when he, John, and Helmholtz are banished for the things they did in
the hospital and being seen as non-conformists. Bernard is banished again to an
island and instantly begins pleading to stay and has to be dragged to the
island. I think Bernard is such a difficult character because he complains and
wants to be a non-conformist to the society but also relies on the society to
keep him alive. It seems like Bernard wants to pick and choose what he wants
from a society and complains when he doesn't get what he wants. Take for
example when the Arch-Community –Songster comes to talk with John and John will
not leave his room. Bernard instantly begins to complain to John and everybody
else around him because this is a time Bernard could finally move up in life
but now that he can’t get what he wants he just complains and talks about living
free again. It’s difficult to take Bernard seriously and really high lights how
much of a “hero” John and Helmholtz are in being mostly free from the herd and
thinking on their own. Bernard doesn't stick with one side of his argument and
seems to care more about living in the civilization than he actually says
making him more into the herd and not much of a “hero” at all.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave
New World. New York: Harper & Row, 1946. Print.
Huxley, Aldous. “Propaganda Under a Dictatorship.” The Way of Wisdom. Ed. William Brugger,
Darrell Hammond, M. Kip Hartvisgen, Anne Papworth and Rhonda Seamons. Rexburg,
Idaho: Brigham Young University-Idaho, 2010. 1-5. Print.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Brave New World: Utopia?
Phase 2 Prompt 3
The
society in Huxley’s Brave New World
is a utopia in the sense that it was a perfect and ideal civilization, because
everybody was content with the role they contributed to the benefit of the
community. Many examples throughout the
text highlight this content or satisfaction that each member of this society
had, whether they were an Alpha Plus or an Epsilon. It can be seen as a utopia because everybody had
a job and got what they wanted, making them happy. It was a stable world where nothing was
questioned and nothing was out of the ordinary.
The
conversation the world controller, Mustapha Mond, had with Savage really
displays how this world could be viewed as a utopia. Mustapha explains to the Savage, otherwise
known as John, how society is in a better place than before due to the fact
that everybody is happy now. Mustapha tells John, “The world’s stable now. People are happy; they get what they want,
and they never want what they can’t get” (Huxley 220). This stability helped the people feel
safe. They didn’t have any desires they
could not fulfill. Most of the troubles that real life society has today are
due to humans desiring things they cannot have; things such as other’s possessions
or wealth. Some of the lower-class
people may envy the upper-class as they feel they have better lives going for
them. Such feelings did not exist in
Huxley’s Brave New World because each
class of the society was conditioned to enjoy the work of that class and
nothing else. For example, the Epsilons although
they were the lower caste of society, they were perfectly happy with their menial
work. Mustapha Mond describes to John, “Only
an Epsilon can be expected to make Epsilon sacrifices, for the good reason that
for him they aren’t sacrifices…His conditioning has laid down rails along which
he’s got to run” (Huxley 222). Epsilons
were conditioned to do Epsilon work, while Alphas were conditioned to do Alpha
work. When everyone is content with
their position there is no fighting or chaos. On the contrary, if an Alpha was given an
Epsilon job then some problems would occur. Their society had an “optimum
population… is modeled on the iceberg-eight-ninths below the water line,
one-ninth above” (Huxley 223).
Another
reason why this society could be conveyed as utopian is there were no strong
feelings such as passion for a loved one or extreme hatred for another
person. There were no such things as
parents, children, husband, and wives. Thus, there were no such things as a
love triangle or war. In terms of
sexuality, kids and adults alike were allowed to do what they wanted without
any restraints. “Many of the natural impulses are allowed free play, that there
really aren’t any temptations to resist” (Huxley 237). Without any temptations, humans did not have
to go through that self-struggle of controlling their bodies from doing things
against their conscience. If anything
did go wrong, there was soma which
seems to make the characters in the novel get away from reality. It also had a calming effect and because of
this there was no tension. These reasons
could make any person believe that Huxley’s world was actually a utopia instead
of a dystopia.
Works Cited
Brave New World's "Utopian" society
Brave New World written by Aldous Huxley is
about a futuristic society where humans are created not born and the concept of
Henry Fords assembly line is the basis of society. People are created in a caste
system and a drug called Soma suppresses emotions and not conforming makes you
an outcast in society and you are sent away. Brave New World is widely considered
a dystopian novel by many. Brave New
World does not fit the characteristics of a dystopian world, but is more
closely aligned with a utopian future.
Utopia is an ideal community or society possessing
a desirable perfection. The very
definition of Utopia describes Huxley’s society in Brave New World. The future
in this novel everyone is happy with their work, no one gets old and everyone
looks perfect thanks to genetic engineering. It’s a society where no one is
lonely and the government supplies you with the drug soma to make you feel
better. One of the biggest things people in our society worry about today is
getting old and not fitting the “perfect image” that television or magazines
broadcast to us. If you ask anyone if they would want to live in a society
where you will never get old, and never have to worry about what you eat again,
I guarantee you that 99% of the population would be all for it.
There are a few characters in the novel that
are not completely happy with how society is run. Bernard Max and Helmholtz Watson both reject the perfectness
of society, but instead of killing them to end the problem Mustapha Mond
the Resident World Controller of Western Europe exiles them to islands where
people who also rejected society live and they can live out the rest of their
days as they please and speak against the government and no harm will come to
them. Mustapha Mond even lets them decide which island they want to go too."I should like a thoroughly bad climate"(229) This society wants you to be happy no matter if you completely disagree with
them. If this was a dystopian future they would of killed the non conformers an
been done with it. As seen in The Hunger Games and many other dystopian novels.
There are many people in this world who
are unhappy with their current jobs; the people in Brave New World are created
in a caste system where you are either an Alpha, Beta, Gamma Delta or Epsilon.
Each class is created in a different way and conditioned to love their class
and hate the others. They’re assigned jobs that they were created for and are
conditioned to be happy with it and hate every other job. In doing this, the government
makes sure everyone is happy with his or her place in society.
One of my favorite books when I was a
kid was The Giver by Lois Lowry I immediately became interested in dystopian
type novels and movies. I’ve seen numerous dystopian films and not one shows a
future where everyone is happy like in Brave New World. Most of them involve a
lack in technology, a Wild West type environment and widespread famine. Does
any one these sound like Brave New World? No, in Hunger games you have the Capital,
which I consider the most like the society of Brave New World but that’s just
the one city, all the other districts are forced to watch 12-18 year old kids
kill each other for entertainment. And if you go against the capital you are
disposed of. The film Looper takes place
in a near future. The United States has suffered economic collapse, causing
severe social decay and growth in organized crime. This is what I picture a
dystopian future to look like, not like the one described in Brave New World.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Reservation Realism: A Hard Look at Reservation Life
In Sherman Alexie’s “The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven”,
Alexie uses what he refers to as reservation realism in his stories. From the
evidence provided in the stories, reservation realism is the incorporation of
events common to or typically associated with Indians and reservation living in
order to make the story seem more real or complete.
The Fun House is a short story about a mouse running up the pants
leg of the storyteller’s aunt, causing a dramatic scene between the woman, her
husband, and their son. The woman, upset that neither her husband nor son tried
to help free the mouse and instead made jokes about it, walks down to the
creek, swims for hours, and chants at them “One dumb mouse tore apart the whole
damn house” (p. 81). Alexie admits in his introduction that he “wildly
exaggerated” the story, and that the only truth in the story lies in the mouse
running up his aunt’s pants, therefore it can be assumed that examples of
reservation realism can be found in his exaggerations (xx). Before going down to the creek, the woman says
to her son “look at you, thirty years old and no job except getting drunk. What
good are you” (78). This example of reservation realism shows a major issue
which plagues reservation life: alcoholism. Native American alcohol abuse,
while stereotypical, has some truthful ground. According to Fred Beauvais of
the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, “some Indian youth
become heavily involved with alcohol and illicit drugs at an early age and
continue that pattern into at least young adulthood. Approximately 20 percent
of Indian youth in 7th to 12th grades fall into this category” (254). The history
between Natives and alcohol dates back to the arrival of European colonists,
who would trade alcohol to the Natives. When strong alcohol was first
introduced, “tribes had little time to develop social, legal, or moral
guidelines to regulate alcohol use,” thus resulting in alcohol abuse (Beauvais 253).
Alcoholism is one of Alexie’s examples of reservation realism because it is
associated with the day to day lives of Indians living on the reservation.
In the story The Trial of Thomas Builds-The-Fire, it can be
assumed that no right minded judge, or court appointed attorney, would allow a man
to be sentenced for war crimes committed by another man over 100 years earlier.
The reservation realism in this story lies within the wrongful sentencing of a
man who could inspire his race. Thomas Builds-The-Fire was originally arrested
for holding the “postmaster hostage… with the idea of a gun and [he] had also
threatened to make significant changes to the tribal vision” (93). Indians have
been oppressed since the arrival of European colonists in America. As colonists
came to the new world, the Natives were pushed further and further west, until
they were assigned places to live, what we now call reservations. The arrest
and sentencing of Thomas Builds-The-Fire can be compared to the arrest of
Martin Luther King Jr. in Birmingham during the civil rights movement. Both
races have a history of oppression, and both men are punished for attempting to
make a change and inspire their race.
Sherman Alexie draws inspiration for this book from his
experiences on the reservation, but he only gives the “biased, incomplete,
exaggerated, deluded, and often just plain wrong” perception of a single individual
recalling events from the entire reservation’s lives (xxi). Reservation realism
is Alexie’s way of filling in the gaps with logical and likely details.
Beauvais, Fred. “American Indians and Alcohol”. National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism. Vol. 22, No. 4 1998. Web. 27 Sep. 2012. <http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh22-4/253.pdf>
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Phase 1: Prompt 3
When I came to Texas Tech University in the
summer of 2009 for Red Raider Orientation, I was given the class novel and was
told I needed to read it before school started. We never ended up using the
novel for anything in particular, however, I did read and enjoy the book. The
book was The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie. Now
I have read two of his novels. Sherman Alexie confesses that there is some
autobiographical nature in the introduction of The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist Fight
in Heaven. I think maybe what Alexie
meant by reservation realism, is that it has the potential to be true. The
stories have concepts that any Indian could have experienced or can relate to
by living or growing up on the reservation.
In his introduction Alexie writes,
“When I write about the destructive effects of alcohol on Indians, I am not
writing out of a literary stance or a colonized mind’s need to reinforce
stereotypes. I am writing autobiography” (xix). The main character in The
Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, Arnold or Junior, has a father
that is an alcoholic. Victor’s father in The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist Fight
in Heaven, is also struggles with drinking. Victor shows the alcoholism in his
family by saying, “I was conceived one of those drunken nights, half of me
formed by my father’s whiskey sperm, the other half formed by my mother’s vodka
egg. I was born a goofy reservation mixed drink, and my father needed me just
as much as he needed every other kind of drink” (27).
The game of basketball is present in
both The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian and The Lone Ranger and
Tonto Fist Fight in Heaven. Alexie himself also played basketball, “But I
missed those fucking free throws, clanging the ball off the rim twice” (xxi). Arnold eventually plays varsity basketball
for Rearden High School, a school of rich white people that he transfers to.
The only other Indian at the school was the mascot. In The Lone Ranger and
Tonto Fist Fight in Heaven, eleventh grade happens and, “Last night I missed
two free throws which would have won the game against the best team in the
state. The farm town high school I play for is nicknamed the “Indians,” and I’m
probably the only Indian to ever play for a team with such a mascot” (179).
Alexie mentions in his introduction to
The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist Fight in Heaven that, ‘”Indian Education” is a
true (and truer) account of my public school days” (xx). However as I read
about Indian boarding schools in the mid-1900s, Alexie’s experience seemed
different than most of the experiences I read about. According to the
California Indian Education Organization’s webpage, Indian students were forced
to wear the same clothes as white people and cut their hair. However in “Indian
Education” of The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist Fight in Heaven, there is not any
mention of the assimilation that was the main objective of the U.S. government
at the time. Alexie and the Victor graduate from farm town high schools. In
“Indian Education” Victor says, “I walk down the aisle, valedictorian of this
farm town high school, and my cap doesn’t fit because I’ve grown my hair longer
than it’s ever been” (179). So obviously his hair was not cut and he was not
apart of this before and after boarding school portraits. And not a thing was
mentioned about high school Indian basketball heroes. But maybe this is a part
of the reservation realism…it’s possible, just not typical.
http://www.californiaindianeducation.org/indian_boarding_schools/
P.S. sorry for the mega early post...just wanted to knock this out before tests start next week...but this is phase 1 so don't feel like you need to comment on this now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)