Parallelism in The Hobbit

So I just came back from the midnight premiere of The Hobbit and it’s currently four in the morning. Let me just say, it was so freaking amazing and lived up to my expectations. Yet, the events were predictable. Not in a boring way, more like parallelism at its greatest. Obviously, it was similar to The Lord of the Rings, considering it was the prerequisite to the trilogy. The stereotypical characters, the reason for the quest, the quest itself, and certain events are all correspondents to the first Lord of the Rings epic: The Fellowship of the Ring. For example, the main character is a hobbit: Lord of the Rings= Frodo, Hobbit= Bilbo. There is a king that accompanies the quest, who is on a search to save their ruined city: Lord of the Rings= Aragorn, Hobbit= Thorin. Kili and Fili in The Hobbit resemble Pippin and Meriadoc in LOTR because both sets of people are brothers that also attend the journey. In a closer depth of Kili, he is equivalent to Legolas in LOTR because they are the only bow and arrow shooters in the company of men. There are also the evil enemies that have great revenge planned for the company: LOTR’s enemy is Sauron, The Hobbit’s enemy is Bolg. Then there are the same exact people in both epics that appear including: Gollum, Saruman, Elrond (Lord of Riverdale), and Gandalf (duh). The reason for the quest in both epics is to solve a conflict. In The Hobbit, it is to restore the dwarf’s homeland; in the LOTR it is to destroy the ring that is found within The Hobbit movie. In the quest itself, both involve the same amount of men in the company (14), both involve the great Wizard named Gandalf, and the framing of the movie is setup in similar ways because they both start and end with the Book of Adventures that Bilbo Baggins writes. In both movies, Gandalf always comes to the rescue and saves the company by doing some wizard awesomeness. For example, in The Hobbit when the company of men are about to be eaten by the trolls, then the goblins, and then the Orcs, Gandalf magically reappears! (Do you see the pattern?) Similar happenings occur in LOTR also. Another important event is when the main hobbit character saves the king from an enemy. In LOTR, Frodo puts up a fight when Aragorn is about to die. In The Hobbit, Bilbo saves Thorin from one of the antagonist’s murdering schemes. Both hobbits end up becoming more beloved by the kings after their heroism. If the reader knows anything about these J. R. R. Tolkien’s books, they know that Bilbo is Frodo’s uncle and reside in the Baggins family. So the parallelism represents how Frodo basically follows Bilbo’s footsteps when they each go on a dangerous quest with a group of strange men and face specific dilemmas on their journey. In a way, The Hobbit almost foreshadows all the events that happen in LOTR. Either way, both epics are amazing thus far and I will forever be obsessed with the trilogies. LONG LIVE THE HOBBITS.

A Role Model for Young Girls

In Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, the narrator goes on a journey to find her purpose in life in the early nineteenth century. Yet, she’s expecting both love and integrity to not collide against each other during the events. For example, Jane finds emotional substance and love when meeting Mr. Rochester. But right before the marriage ceremony, Jane discovers that Mr. Rochester is still married to his lunatic wife. Even though the wife is certifiably insane, Jane refuses to still marry Mr. Rochester because it would be a disgrace to her. To marry someone who still has a wife, Jane would consider herself a mistress and wouldn’t be able to be happy with a clouded conscious. A year down the road, Jane is offered a marriage proposal by her cousin, St. John Rivers. During this time, Jane is teaching children of the poor and doing God’s substantial work. Yet, she does not love this man and will therefore, not marry him. As one can notice, Jane finds love, but not integrity; Jane finds integrity, but not love. Obviously, she has high standards and intends on sticking to them. This is a very noble aspect in her personality that I greatly admire. In modern times, girls no longer have respect for themselves. On a daily basis, one often hears the scandalous happenings to either someone they know, a famous person, or television events. Often, it’s disgusting events such as having sex with strangers, being arrested for illegal substances, filling out welfare paper work, etc. Unlike Jane Eyre, they do not fight for a healthy job or for true love. They want the easy way out for everything without integrity or emotional attachments. What will become of them? Nothing of importance; just a long list of psychological problems, minimum wage jobs, and death. This is why I personally think that Jane Eyre should be a required reading in schools across the country with an in-depth teaching of Jane’s integrity and how to settle down with only one person: your true love. In this way, maybe young girls will learn how to keep their standards high and only to choose healthy options in life. Jane Eyre is a role model for many young people in the modern world.

Woolf vs. Chopin

After reading A Haunted House by Virginia Woolf and The Kiss by Kate Chopin, I have come to the obvious conclusion that their stylistic usage varies deeply. Woolf is complex, Chopin is simple. In Woolf's short story, her point of view seems to shift at sudden times, with no indication of it happening. I'm pretty sure there there's three (?) different characters she revolves around: the ghost couple, the house, and the living flesh couple that reside in the house. Even after reading the short story three times over, I still do not understand the objective or the resolution of the plot. All I know is that the ghost couple were searching for love aka their buried treasure (?) and the house was keeping it hidden from them aka the repetition of the phrase "safe, safe, safe" (?). On the other hand, Chopin is straightforward. The point of view is easy to follow; the conflict was obviously Harvy kissing the narrator in front of the her future husband, Brantain. Once again, there is also love in this short story and someone (or something) is trying to deprive the couple of that. The conflict is solved after the narrator discusses with Brantain about the misunderstanding and they end up getting married. Simple and only have to read the story once to comprehend all of the events. Both authors lived in the same era (late 1800s-early 1900s) so what gives? The answer is actually quite ironic in a way- they are using contrasting literary devices. Woolf focuses on the actual literary terms such as the parallelism, personification, and harsh imagery. While Chopin makes her plot and message strong, giving it more entertainment. Each author thought literature was something else. The missing link: literature is everything- the literary resources that provoke hard thinking and the sweet happy endings that make a reader have hope. Woolf and Chopin's backgrounds also differ from one another, which may give insight to their literature techniques. Woolf was institutionalized after having nervous breakdowns, therefore, giving her a more stable composure in the strict way of writing. While Chopin grew up reading fairy tales and having to live in poverty, so one may assume, she sometimes wrote short stories with a more peaceful plot and an effortless read. Both authors were equally amazing at achieving literature momentum, especially for deprived women in the early twentieth century. Personally, I don't favor either of the authors over the other one. I respect each of their personal writing choices and I definitely recommend both authors (but if you decide on Woolf, definitely be seated comfortable enough to sit there for an hour trying to decode her five-page story).

Raskolnikov's Sufferings

The extravagant novel Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, truly exemplifies the quote “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. After murdering a pawnbroker and her sister for the good of humankind, Raskolnikov, a deprived student in Russia, succumbs into a miserable depression full of hallucinations, illusions, and changing moods. He struggles between deciding whether he is part of the “extraordinary” humans, who can kill with moral reasoning, versus “ordinary” humans, who are just plain citizens that must obey the laws. This outrageous theory lets Raskolnikov believe that his criminal activity is justified. Yet, after the action is complete, Raskolnikov realizes a little too late, that he is overcome with guilt and grieves for over a month. (To his dismay, he realizes that he is only an ordinary human.) Within this time, Raskolnikov goes through several trials of hardship including his sister being engaged to a monstrous man, meeting a drunkard with a broken down family, being psychologically tortured by the police investigator, and being blackmailed by a rich man. All of these dilemmas plus his own hypochondria caused Raskolnikov to fall into several horrible, delirious illnesses that lasts anywhere between a few hours to days. What seems like an eternity later, Raskolnikov finally decides to face his suffering and confesses his wrongdoings to the police. He is forced to complete eight years in the Siberian prison, full of hateful criminals and physical labor. Yet, Raskolnikov is not alone. A good thing has come from this suffering: Sonia, the daughter of the drunkard that Raskolnikov met in a bar. Sonia believes in this man who has little hope for life and follows him all the way to the rough prison. After nine months of imprisonment, at the very end of the book, Raskolnikov learns what it means to be loved and wanted. Therefore, at the very end of the book, he looks forward to a new life once he gets out of confinement. After all of these illnesses, dreadful situations, and finally going to prison for his sins; after all of his psychological nonsense talks to himself, going into roundabouts with the police, and facing mental torment every day for many months before, during, and after the murder, Raskolnikov is finally free from his own problematic thoughts. Raskolnikov had to go through his own hell, before he was able to start slowly healing his mental illness. So yes, Raskolnikov was strong enough to say that “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. One does not suffer for any simple reason.

Eveline's Relationship with the World

In a way, I can relate with the short story Eveline by James Joyce. Except the big problem was my stepmother, and Eveline's issue was her father. To have someone ridicule you without the other parent present, is a struggle. It does make you feel more isolated in the world even if other siblings are there to help. And once you have become accustomed to the continual arguments and downgrading, you realize there is no escape and to just go with it. So when Eveline is faced with the option to leave the one home she has known all of her life for her first lover, she is undecided. What will she do without the constant fighting that has been a daily ritual in her life? The obvious answer is that of course, she should take her chances and leave. Yet, it is way more complicated than the easy way out. In my personal story, I am faced with the option of leaving my dad's house in Maryland and return living with my mother in Delaware. Obviously, I picked the choice to attend St. Mark's High School in order to obtain a better home life and face the problem of having to make new friends all over again. The doubts will always be present in Eveline's mind. There will be consequences to either action. It will change her entire course of life. What if she makes the wrong decision and something even more horrible happens to her or someone else? Eveline could always just keep facing the dangers of her father and be strong for her siblings. Or Eveline could possibly be happy, if she knew how to. The fear of reaching an agreement is what stops Eveline from marching on to that boat and running away with her secret lover. It's almost unjust how life comes with big changes. These feelings of uncertainty all lead up to how the new criticism is a critical approach to this story. (And sorry if I repeat things that have been previously said, I don't remember which approaches the presenting group did in class) This is because there is universal sense of being confused between choices. I had an extremely similar situation and I'm almost one-hundred percent positive that everybody else in the entire world has or have these experiences. Even though there is a historical approach to this story because it was written in 1914 yet this struggle is global even 98 years later, in a new era with new concepts of life. Eveline's character is also common among the people of the world and could be understood by many generations of people. Basically, this story could be read by numerous communities in order to learn that they are not alone in this big world. I certainly have realized that others may be going through the same dilemmas and need help sorting out the pros and cons of each situation. This book is very beneficial for the readers and is entertaining to comprehend.

McCarthy's Suspense

In Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer Prize Winner novel The Road, the entire plot kept reminding me of a song. Specifically, August Burn Red's cover of the traditional Carol of the Bells melody. McCarthy insists on never telling the reader the history of the story that leads up to such a drastic world. Thus, creating an intriguing suspense that is portrayed throughout the novel. Every time a turning point or climax would occur in the story, I would get really excited because I was hoping that a critical detail would finally be revealed. But nope, as always, the event was just a tease. This is exactly how the alternative band plays the traditional piece of music. At one point in the story, the two main characters have finally seen another human in civilization. The father even talked to one of the bad guys. This is where the wavering music introduces repetitive jingles, slowly leading up to the main part. During this interaction with the other human, the bad guy snatches up the son and threatens to hurt him. Cue the guitars strumming in, creating more madness. After a few intense moments, the father shoots the bad guy perfectly and watches him fall dead with no remorse and the child comes sobbing back to this papa. Here, the chords are finally in full rhythm, with obnoxious downbeats that pronounces the scary event. A few weeks or so pass on by, the father and son find a broken down house, covered in gray ash. Once inside,the father finds a locked door and asserts that he must go inside to have a look around. The main chorus starts abruptly in the song, pleading with the father. After some struggles with the lock, the father swings open the door, just to find a bunch of human prisoners, waiting to be eaten by the elite prisoners, who are actually marching back to their haven at this exact moment. Within the song, the rapid scales are climbing on the instruments. The father and son turn around to efficiently run away. Another few months has passed since their last encounter. No people have been seen on the broken down roads leading South, hoping for a group of good guys that still want to survive with humane conditions. The father and son are lucky enough to scavenge some food and supplies. After years of waiting and dreaming to reach the ocean, they finally do! It's not everything they hoped it to be but the duo know how to make shelters work in their favor. Having made a camp at the beach and walking away without second thoughts, they come back with all of their items gone. Yet, the father and son find some footprints and start tracking down the homeless man who stole their cart full of stuff. While running, the music has turned into a drum solo that consists of a lot of bass grinding together and a repeat of the intense harmony. The duo gains their belongings back. Not even two days has passed before the father lies down to rest a while and dies from malnutrition or some other kind of disease. The music correlates with the resolution as the guitar, drums, and violins slow down immensely and fade into the background. Just like the plot of the novel, the music never declares a secret or the underlying story. Only drama happens with a lot of serious turning points, climaxes, and questionable endings. What is The Road even about? What happened to the world? Why is there a chance of cannibalism among humans? Does anybody even know what ever happens?! These thoughts parallel the traditional Christmas song as it slowly gains some detail about the past life but never actually answers the questions. Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o-p-OAWmsY

Band Geek for the World

The Desperate Act in the Secret Agent

                  There are several aspects in The Secret Agent that make the plot so addictive to read. One of those is a turning point in the novel when the reader finds out that the person who had been blown up to tiny little pieces by the Observatory bomb was Stevie. He was the poor innocent lad who had to be scraped off the ground by a shovel. Of all the many anarchist characters that have been developed, Stevie would be the last person on the list anybody would have expected to be dealing with bombs. This setback caused Stevie's sister, the psycho Winnie, to stab her husband to death. Thus, creating a humorous scene toward the end of the novel, when a different character, Ossipon, decides to literally jump off of a moving train to get away from Winnie, who is trying to escape the country. The fact that Ossipon was desperate enough to risk his own life to get away from a single woman, is both comedic and depressing because Ossipon resorted to this dangerous choice. I found this piece of literature extremely hilarious due to the classic stereotype of the scene. Honestly, how many tragedies end up with a certain insane twist that is extremely unexpected? All of them.  This act of despair represents how the author, Conrad, has a sense of humor in his personality while creating such a realistic masterwork based off of a true event.

The Purpose of the theme in The Secret Agent

          Within the sarcastic, dry humor that Conrad displays in his masterwork, there has been a recurring theme of philosophy. The main discussion I find the most interesting is the contrasting views of injustice between the Professor and Chief Inspector Heat. The Professor is a chemist who creates bombs for anarchists while Chief Inspector Heat is the head of the Special Crime Lab at the London headquarters. Obviously, they are totally opposite people when it comes to their morals. Yet, they are extremely similar: "The mind and the instincts of a burglar are of the same kind as the mind and the instinct of a police officer." (p.57) How is this possible? Apparently, both criminals and law enforcement have the same conventions and have the same knowledge of each other's working ways.
           According to Chief Inspector Heat, burglars are only doing wrong because of their imperfect education. So maybe if they grew up in a different neighborhood, they would be a "good" guy? Maybe not. On the other hand, the Professor totally throws this image off because he views himself as a "moral agent". The Professor even comes to the conclusion that the revolutionaries are actually finding peace among mankind. Most people would find this very skeptic, but not to a man who thinks life itself is the biggest weakness one may possess.
           Among these tidbits include the meeting between The Red Committee and whether or not if they agree with Mr. Vladimir, the First Secretary, to start blowing up buildings as part of the revolt. This discussion involves cannibalism, optimistic, and scientific views. Another philosophy encounter was between one of The Red Committee members, Ossipon, and The Professor. Here, the argument is about the force of personality, basically meaning the advantages and disadvantages of life and death. As one can tell, The Professor is a very interesting character to have conversations with.
            What I want to know is: which views does Conrad agree with the most? Did he write this book only for the purpose of sharing all of his mixing views of morality? It would be a much better way to put his philosophy within characters of a book than voicing his opinion among hostile nations. So, what was Conrad's purpose in writing so many passages of conflicting morals and ethics among peculiar individuals?