The (Passive) Jungle

The use of pathos is extremely relevant in the infamous novel The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. As many people should know, the publishing of this book caused the United states government to create stricter rules for running a healthy and clean meat factory. Why? It was Sinclair's obvious appeal to make the readers feel emotion. In the historical story, Jurgis has just immigrated to Chicago with his family of twelve. Work is hard to find among the thousands of homeless people during this age. Yet, Jurgis is still full of energy, strength, and youth when he first arrives at the slaughter houses and therefore, easily finds an unskilled job as a day laborer with cheap wages. Before landing this "wonderful" job, Jurgis takes a tour of the meat factory- this is where the pathos argumentation appears. Sinclair's use of loaded images such as "The meat would be shoveled into carts, and the man who did the shoveling would not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw one—there were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which a poisoned rat was a tidbit." This inhumane and gruesome description is only a minuscule activity compared to the rest of the detailed explanation of the working conditions at the Chicago meat factory. Doesn't this statement just make one want to barf? The fact that rats are the least toxic thing being blended in with the meat, is a troublesome worry. Who knows what worse objects land in the mixture- poison? Lard? Pieces of human flesh? The list of possible bulk of contamination is infinite and just outright disgusting. There is seriously no surprise why the government had to create a healthier environment for the workers and for the production of meat. Personally, if I wasn't already a vegetarian, I would definitely become one after this. Even if I didn't buy from this specific Chicago meat market, what makes any of the other production markets any better? Especially considering the meat monopolies are competing with the top firms in the nation and must make a larger quantity for an increased profit. Sinclair's use of pathos in the novel is definitely a perfect case of argumentation that upturned my already bad view on meat production. So I'm sure these images had a profound affect on other citizens in the United States who have read the novel. Thus, this is truly a fundamental pathos work of literature.

What is Wrong with Society?

I just finished reading the famous short story called A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner. Even though it was written and based in the 1930s, one can see all of the hypocrital gossip that is still in the modern world. Except, during this past decade, it is not nearly as bad as the current times. During this short story, the reader receives all of the information through the mouths of the neighbors: "Emily did this" *speculate* "Oh crap! She did this!" *speculate*. Yet, their imaginative educated guesses were never correct. Want to know why? Because they never heard from Emily's own mouth what was happening in EMILY's world. (Ironically, Faulkner's dry sense of humor shows up at the end of the story with an amusing cliffhanger.) Either way, the endless chattering of the noisy neighbors that kept inquiring about Emily's exclusive life, relentlessly annoyed me the entire eight pages. Probably because I find it very relative on a personal level. When I first transferred to St. Mark's in the middle of sophomore year, I did not expect this type of social atmosphere. See, I have always gone to public school since kindergarten, so at the time, a "Catholic" education was beyond my level of comprehension. As a transfer, I didn't have many friends at first, so I just sat around and listened to the conversations going on around me. Man, I was so disgusted. The nerve some of the kids had at this school, just put me into disbelief. They called themselves Christians, yet they did so many unholy things, that it became totally hypocritical. As I have just now realized, even though I might have thought they were the contradictions in the beginning, I was really the hypocrite at the end. I didn't know these strangers on any personal level; they might have misbehaved this way because they were going through their own troubling times. Who am I to judge? This is the epiphany I wished Emily's neighbors would have come to realize. Obviously, Emily knew they were slandering her actions, but she had the right mind to not saying anything. And for this, I respect her strong character. I just dislike the neighbors that didn't mind their own business. If I learned how to be more open-minded and not judge the kids at St. Mark's during this modern world, the neighbors from a century ago, could have grown up a little bit too.

Literature Worthy

After reading The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky over Christmas break, I have realized why I had the urge to read this teenage story instead of As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner. This is because I can relate to the plot way better. Also, because the diction was much simpler to understand. I am not saying that it was a child's book, but compared to Faulkner, it could be considered that way. The modern plot in TPOBW consisted of a high school freshmen's encounter with drugs, sex, making new friends, having a psychological problem, etc. As a high school student myself, I found it much more exciting to read than Faulkner's story about a traveling family in the early 1900s whose mother just died. But then again, a different reader's view might find my opinion unintelligible. More than likely, it would probably be because the other reader thinks diction and literary devices make a book seem more appealing and award worthy than a book based more on the physical actions that a character decides on. Which comes to my question: what makes a book more literature worthy, plot or diction? Personally, plot creates a spell of enchantment over the reader that only lasts in the short run. How many other modernist plots do you know today that have also written about the same subjects such as sex and drugs? Tons. Yet, diction makes the book more memorable. Trust me, I will never forget my frustration when I first started reading AILD and had no clue what the narrator(s) were discussing. And that is exactly the reason why I will always remember the fifteen contrasting narrators that Faulkner entered into his novel. These specific reasons may be why Faulkner is considered to have wrote many classics such as AILD or A Rose for Emily and why Chbosky is on the New York Times Best Sellers List for writing TPOBW. Even their bragging rights are from a different era. Who knows, maybe Chbosky might be considered a classic author one day, but in reality, he will probably be a nobody after a year or so. These modern books that go through fads, do not have elaborate enough material to make them deserving of endless praise. So even though I thoroughly enjoyed The Perks of Being a Wallflower and stayed up until the edges of dawn reading it, Faulkner will always have a more everlasting impression. Therefore, Faulkner wins.

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.