Philosophies

This past summer, I attended the Governor’s Honors Program (GHP), an intensive academic program that brings together some of the brightest minds in the state of Georgia for six weeks. The program is divided in to a major, which involves an extensive interview and application process, and a minor, which is chosen after a student is accepted into GHP. My major was in the field of mathematics and my minor was in that of communicative arts. The whole experience was intellectually stimulating in and of itself as I spent six weeks of the summer sharing ideas with some of the most intelligent students I had ever met, but there was one class in particular that really got the juices flowing, a class called "Perception vs. Reality." The class was formatted in such a way that it was a long discussion in which topics, such as the "I think therefore I am" solipsistic philosophies of Descartes, which also appear in the "I create the universe blink be blink" philosophy of John Gardener in the novel Grendel, and the nihilist philosophy of Turgenev, were conversed upon. Although the class was very interesting and intellectually stimulating as everyday I entered looking forward to a great debate on whether the world exists as a reality or not between me and several students of equally high intelligence, there is something about philosophers, such as Descartes and Turgenev, that throws the mind and body on a loop that never ends up back where it starts. Just hearing the argument that the world does not exist outside of ourselves can have a great impact on a person. In my case, the engaging experience opened my eyes to the many realities or illusions presented in life and caused my mind to adopt a more open mindset, one where the endless possibilities of life can be realized.

The class itself actually prepared me well for the different philosophies presented in both Frankenstein by Mary Shelley and Grendel by John Gardner. Both novels are highly philosophical in nature as Grendel undergoes a major transformation in the novel. At first, Grendel associates everything with his mother and "smouldering eyes" that he sees in the dark. Then, Grendel continues on to his solipsism philosophy that he is the only being that exists in the world and that he is center of the universe. When he comes into contact with the Shaper and hears all of his poems and songs, Grendel then converts to a nihilist philosophy, especially after his encounter with the dragon. He feels that everything in meaningless and it is apparent that he does not believe in fate. Even when he is about to die, he claims that Beowulf coming was an accident and that his death also was not meant to be. In Frankenstein, some philosophy was also presented, especially that of nihilism in the form of the monster's view on life without a companion or someone to harass. Because the monster is all alone in the world, he sees no meaning in life so asks for a companion and when Victor denies him this, the monster goes on to harass Victor. This is his meaning in life, but when he has successfully destroyed Victor, there is nothing left for him to do so he goes to the ice cap to die. The story is rather sad, but still seems to echo nihilism, a philosophy I learned in GHP.

The Modern Prometheus

I must say that Frankenstein by Mary Shelley is a very good novel that not only kept my interest from chapter 1-10, a period in which I did not put the book down, but also gave me much food for thought and exceeded any prior expectations for the novel. Then I again I wasn't expecting much mostly because of the debauchery made of the novel in the form of a terrible movie that was nothing like the actual book. I still remember watching the movie years ago when a disgusting looking creature was brought to life by some lighting and the doctor who made the actual living thing said "Its alive!!!" The monster was of course called Frankenstein and frankly this is the sort of thing I expected from the novel being the inexperience reader I am. I figured I knew the story before even picking up the book, as the monster kills somebody but feels remorse and then runs up into a tower and is burned to death. This, fortunately, is nothing like the book which is much deeper and more philosophical than the terrible movie. The monster can actually talk in such a way that we can understand, again unlike the movie. I guess it goes to show that reading the book is always better than watching the movie.
Another thing worth mentioning about the novel is the actual title of the novel, Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus. The first part of the title is self-explanatory as the main character of the novel is Victor Frankenstein, a scientist that discovers the cause of life and uses it to create a horrific monster. The second part of the title is the one that actually interests me. For the seminar we had in class regarding the novel and the many themes it presents, I researched the Greek titan Prometheus who is famous for bringing fire to mankind. He is also the titan who was tied to a rock where an eagle came to eat his liver everyday and due to his immortality, he would grow a new liver and never die. One major thing that he is also said to have done is that he created man in a god-like image from clay. This can be connected to Victor Frankenstein as he created life through the monster he birthed, the only difference being that the monster is horrific in appearance when the image that Prometheus created was beautiful and godlike. Although this is a connection between the title and Victor, there is the glaring difference of appearance of the two and this led me to believe that there must have been another reason for the title. During the discussion in class today, the answer dawned on me after listening to the statements made by one of my classmates. Fire has long been held synonymous to life as the heat inside of us is what keeps us alive. This fire that Prometheus brought to man gave us life and a way to survive in the cold world. Victor essentially does the same thing when bringing life to the inanimate, thus discovering the secret of life, a secret that was previously the fire the Prometheus gave to man.

Hrothulf the Evil

In reading the most recent chapters in Grendel by John Gardner, especially chapters 8 and 9, I couldn’t help but to feel that Hrothulf is a very bad, almost evil, character. He just gives off a bad vibe that may not have been noticed by others, but struck me very strongly. From the moment he is introduced as a character that had come out of “orphan’s woe” to Heorot. I don’t know about you, but coming to something out of woe is never a good thing. Grievous distress, which is a fancy term for woe, can cause a person to great things, in a good and bad way, and Hrothulf seems destined to do terrible things, great but terrible. Every time he is brought up in chapter 5, he is associated with blood, flesh, or weapons. In his first conversation with Wealtheow, he is described as “Hrothgar’s flesh and blood.” Not really a bad thing, but the images of blood keep popping up leading me to believe that it is not just a coincidence, but it could just mean that I am seeing things that don’t exist, which is a real possibility. Then at the end of the scene when he is introduced, he is described as a “sweet scorpion” who sits and “cleans his knife.” This is freaky and clearly seems to foreshadow some type of disaster that will occur with Hrothulf being in the center of it all. Chapter eight continues with Hrothulf being described as very quiet and he has the Danes fooled that he is merely a quiet fellow who has been hurt by his father, Halga the Good, which is an ironic name considering how evil I think Hrothulf is, dying because of some type of attack. Although he is quiet, he is really scheming and not grieving or thinking as the people of Heorot believe. He has accomplished the most complete deception as everybody thinks he is nothing, but he is really a sneaky force to be reckoned with, sneaky being the key word. Every time I think about Hrothulf, images of Smeagol/Gollum from J.R.R Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings keep popping up. Smeagol wasn’t really evil, but was definitely a schemer as he tried to kill Frodo by leading him to the giant spider always trying to get his own hands on the ring. Now that I think about, a lot of parallels can be drawn between Hrothulf and Smeagol especially because of what they are willing to do to get what they want. Hrothulf secretly schemes to get the throne, after having the trust of Hrothgar’s men, and Smeagol schemes to get the ring, after having the trust of Frodo. Going back to the way Hrothulf is regarded in the novel, even his mentor is called Red Horse. Blood is Red, an observation that I wanted to point out that I fell augments Hrothulf’s bad image. This may not have been what Gardner was trying to get across but it is what I noticed. Hrothulf may not be evil in many people’s eyes, but the way I see it, he is more evil than Grendel himself.

Grendel- Philosophy

When we first started reading Grendel by John Gardner, I was frankly intimidated as I am in reading any novel that may be even remotely difficult to read. Even in class, we had discussed how complex the ideas were and how philosophical the book would be, and because of this philosophical nature, close attention would have to be paid to the fine details. Usually, when I am intimidated by something, I really do not enjoy whatever it is I am intimidated by, so I was understandably surprised when I found myself liking the novel Grendel. Not only did I understand almost everything in the novel, but I was also comprehending the philosophy employed by Gardner especially after the scene when Grendel has his leg stuck between the tree trunks. Grendel’s solipsistic philosophy stating that “the world was nothing: a mechanical chaos of casual, brute enmity on which we stupidly impose our hopes and fears” (Gardner 22) and that only he exists in the world is actually exactly what I was able to study this summer at GHP in a class called Perception vs. Reality. In the class we studied Plato's Republic as well as Descartes "I think therefore I am" philosophy. The belief that the only definite truth in the world is that we ourselves exist and that everything else may just be pigments of our imagination was also looked at. This same philosophy is also employed by Grendel when he states that the universe is unfolding blink by blink. Grendel seems to basically state that he is the only one in the universe and because of this, is able to create based on his visions. When I actually took the class, the discussions we had were extremely intellectually stimulating and many times I was completely lost because of the confusing topic matter. I mean, the concept that anything and everything we perceive is reality is really mind-blowing especially when considering the only certain truth is that we ourselves exist and that no one else around us does. But, my prior experiences with the philosophy have helped me better understand not only the perspective that John Gardner is coming from, but also something about what Grendel is feeling, as a being all alone in the world with no one to associate with. His story is quite sad as he is too much like a man to be able to fit in with the beasts as even Grendel himself feels that he is too intellectually gifted. He is also too much like a beast to be able to fit in with man, as men do not understand his speech and always try to kill him when he approaches. The irony in this is that men are portrayed more as beasts than anything else in the novel so far, but that is straying off the topic of Grendel being a surprisingly good book with a lot of fuel for thought. It is difficult to read with all of the philosophical ideas presented, but is also very enjoyable.

The Sun Also Rises

I must say that I was rather disappointed with the ending of the story, especially considering what I expected from a novel by the great Ernest Hemingway. I have previously stated that the humor and the Anti-Semitism he uses in the novel are extremely surprising mainly because I was intimidated to read one of his novels; the same can be said about the ending. I expected some grand extravagant plot twist that held some deep meaning like in Star Wars when we discover that Darth Vader is really Luke Skywalker's father. Unfortunately that did not occur, as the novel ends with Brett Ashley leaving Pedro Romero and meeting Jacob Barnes in an anticlimactic bar scene, one of the many in the novel. In fact, the entire Book III was pretty bland, as it merely depicted all of the characters, Mike, Bill, and previously Robert Cohn, leaving and the main character Jacob Barnes being left alone and reflecting upon himself. There is one interesting point in th final section of the novel and that is in the last dialogue between Jake and Brett. Brett states that "Oh, Jake, we could have had such a damned good time together" (Hemingway 251). Jake replies "Yes, isn't it pretty to think so" Hemingway (251). Research I have done indicates that the lines are some of the more famous lines ever written by Hemingway and it is easy to see why. It is almost as if all of the events of the novel have been leading up to the scene where the two character, Brett and Jake, have gone through a series of experiences only to end up back to where they were in the beginning with only each other. In the opening scenes of the novel, Jake and Brett proclaim that they are in love with each other, yet can not be together for reasons I still do not completely understand. This relationship between the two is the only constant thing that remains throughout the novel as Robert Cohn, Count Mippipopolous, and Pedro Romero each take turns trying to get Brett but each fails, a failure indicative of how only Jake has a position of love with Brett. Not only is the last line famous because of its deep quality, but is also very sad and you can practically feel the futility that Jake feels. I am guessing that the reason Brett doesn't want to be with Jake is that he can not have sex due to injuries from the war. This is something that Jake can not help as he received the wound while serving for his country. Because Jake can not control his injury, sadness is given off by the last scene.
Another thing that is interesting is how Hemingway attempts to use Pedro Romero as a perfect foil to Robert Cohn. Robert is a weak individual and is most importantly a "Jew" so is looked down upon. Romero is a beautiful and handsome man with the courage to actually fight and kill a bull in a fight. This is not their only difference as Brett's reactions toward the gentlemen can also be seen as a major difference. Brett constantly rejects Cohn, but readily accepts Pedro Romero. There are also underlying themes of individuality such as how Brett loses her individuality when going with Pedro and regains it when she leaves Romero.

Ernest Hemingway- Anti-Semitic?

This past week in class, we had our second Literature Circle discussions about different books and their relation to gender roles; in my case it was The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway. The first thing that caught my interest when reading through the book up until the fifteenth chapter is Hemingway's style. In my mind, I had held Ernest Hemingway up to be an author of epic proportions. I expected his novels to be profound with a deep meaning starting from the first couple of pages. I expected an author whose writing was so difficult to understand that it would feel like a foreign language to me. Frankly, I was intimidated to even try to read the novel, especially after my mom told me I might have to read the novel six times to even scrape the surface of understanding it. The LAST thing I expected was to find humor in the first pages of the novel. He actually seemed to be making fun of Jews and their stereotypically long noses. Robert Cohn, one of the characters in the book, was a Jew without a characteristically long nose, but the reason for this was that his nose was permanently flattened by a punch according to the book. Because this stereotype occurred in the beginning of the novel, it can be seen as merely an attempt to insert humor into the beginning of the novel. But, it is not just limited to the beginning of the novel as I learned through closely looking at the rest of the novel. The Jewish character, Robert Cohn, is repeated referred to as a "Jew" in a derogatory way, and whenever he does something wrong, it is because of his "Jewish" nature. He is clearly portrayed as an extremely different character than the rest in the novel and seems almost like an outcast. He is extremely weak, as shown when he turns green when he sees a bull fight, and is the only character not to participate in WWI, a fact that Hemingway feels is not very thing. Also, if you look at it from a gender roles perspective, he is constantly controlled by women. Whether it be his first girlfriend as presented in the book named Frances, who has him wrapped around her finger, or Brett, his later interest whose looks have enraptured Robert's mind, Robert is always chasing after the skirt tails of one women or another. All of this points to Hemingway trying to point to Robert Cohn being a weak character mainly due to his Jewish nature. This brings about the question of whether or not Hemingway is trying to portray his hate of Jews in the novel because it is accepted that Hemingway did not particularly like Jews. Granted, the early 1900s were a time when a decidedly Anti-Semitic sentiment was widely prevalent, and Hemingway could just be trying to show this through the animosity towards Jews in the novel. But, there is likely a specific reason for this. What that reason is, I don't know yet, but hopefully the end of the novel will enlighten me.

Kite Runner- Gender Roles?

Last week in class, we had our first literature circles regarding the novels we are reading. The novel that I am reading is The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, but another author caught my eye when looking over the list of authors a few weeks back. This author was Khaled Hosseini, the author of A Thousand Splendid Suns and Kite Runner. The reason he caught my eye was because I have just recently seen the movie Kite Runner and it was one of the most emotional movies I have ever seen, not just because of the events that occur in the movie, but also because the plot is likely real and has likely happened to some person before. This thought itself is extremely sad. After watching the movie and soaking in the sadness and letting it go, I had this great idea, why not look at the movie form a gender lens. I mean, some kids in class have to look A Thousand Splendid Suns, another one of Hosseini's books through a gender lens, so why not attempt to look at Kite Runner in the same perspective. There aren't very many women present in the actual movie, but figured it was worth an attempt anyways.
Although there were very few women present in the movie, the ones that were, even in death, seemed to have a big impact on the characters. Even in the beginning of the movie when Amir, the main character, complains that his father hates him because his birth resulted in the death of his mother, the importance of the mother figure is highlighted. It seems to have caused strained relations between the father and the child. Also, Amir's wife took on more of the role of a modern women because she was one. Besides this, there is much irony present in that the males in the movie take the place of women and men when looking at the movie from a traditional gender lens. The men are the providers, as they usually are in Muslim societies, and this is shown by Amir's father who works and gets money for Amir even when he is in America and has to deal with the language barrier. But, the traditional Victorian role of women as people who stay at home and watch the children and cook meals and clean the house is also taken by men. In the story, Hassan and other Hazari's who seem to be looked down upon for some reason, are the people that cook and clean the house. The relationship between Hassan and Amir also has some depth, but does not really have to do with anything about gender roles besides the deep everlasting friendship that they had even though they went their separate ways in the world. The irony might have been used by the author in order to show how weak some men were viewed in the society or to show that the society was male dominated so that even women's jobs were taken by men. Other than this, there just wasn't much else to be seen from a gender lens regarding the movie. Then again, I am looking at it with some amateur eyes, but I tried.