Darkness and Cake

Now I understand that these blogs are supposed to connect what we read in class to some other work (i.e.book, movie, painting) of man. I'm going to go out a little on a limb, because this is a religion.

<-- we know this as a bonfire, but its symbolic meaning goes far beyond throwing a bunch of wood together, making a huge fire and dancing around it frantically whether its a party or an attempt at rescue.


What's interesting is man's reverence for fire and its light. Especially in the Judea-Christian and Islamic Religions, we see a strong bond between fire and their respective Gods, with God appearing many times to his people in the form of some kind of fire, from burning bushes to pillars of fire. Then in Islam, if Mohammed is ever shown his face tends to be covered by flame. What is more relevant to us however is that all religions seem to have an aspect of spreading light in a dark world.



Anyway...this is intriguing as we have seen this contrast already at least twice. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's  Faust (which we'll touch upon later) but more importantly in Joesph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness".
The theme of Light vs. Dark runs so deep in this novella that it just seems to pour out of the title. The first major instance see this 'coming to light' (<- bad joke, don't laugh) was when Marlow mutters on the boat that {England} was a place of darkness once. Later it becomes more cemented to the idea of spreading civilization and possibly Christianity. A great instance of this is when Marlow finally gets the job his aunt is mostly focused on how Marlow will be bringing the "light" of civilization to the savages of Africa. However, it almost seems to have a hidden connection to the unknown, and even to the false.From the beginning, the unknown parts of the world, in Marlow's view are darkness, the sort of kind that just hasn't been seen in the light of European eyes. But with instances like the feeling marlow gets of the two secretaries when he interviews for the job (two watchers guarding a black gate), and the strange doctor, things start feeling dark, not in the sense of knowing, but more of believing - where is the truth? It almost makes you think Kurtz is a monster since they describe him as a hero. Point is, darkness and light = truth and falsity?
This is where the religion comes in. Started by a man named Zarathustra (or Zoroaster) in what is now the Middle East, it probably comes in as the first structured religion of mankind. Zoroaster believed that there was a conflict going on in our world between the forces of light and darkness. Except he didn't equate light with good and dark with evil like we do, instead, for him, light was truth and darkness falsity and lies. So in short darkness is:

Okay, joking aside. So how could man spread light or truth?
Zoroaster taught that light could be spread by  "active participation in life and the exercise of constructive thoughts, words and deeds." (Wikipedia, Zoroaster)
Hmm. Sounds a little like the enlightenment doesn't it? Reason or Truth, was a light from heaven meant to be spread through the world by man through his constant striving, and by striving it could easily be inferred to mean constructive deeds and thoughts.

It also sounds very Judea-Christian.

So where does fire come in? The Persians, took the idea a little further and used fire-rituals to celebrate light and spread light by taking over other people. 
Faust ended up stepping away from the light and going for the cake, and we may see that Kurtz isn't as such a bright light as we have been led to think. 
 Oh well, as GlaDOS says: "Its no use crying over every mistake/ just keep on trying till you run out of cake"

Baudelair's, Lets Beat Up The Poor! Vs. Fight Club and Cinderella Man

            When reading Let's Beat Up The Poor, two great movies came to mind. The first is in the movie "Fight Club" when Tyler Durden threatens to kill the convenience store clerk if he does not finish college and become a veterinarian. The second movie that came to mind was "Cinderella Man" and James Braddock's struggles during the depression.

            For those of you who have not read Let's Beat Up The Poor, or need to refresh yourself with the story because you read it a while ago, it is about this guy, who I assume is rich or of the middle class, is approached by a old beggar who wishes for some money. A little voice in his head tells him that the old beggar is, "equal to another, if he proves it, and is worthy of freedom, if he can conquer it." He then descriptively pummels the old beggar but the old beggar turns the fight around and beats up the man who started the fight and restored the old beggar's pride and life. He then tells the old beggar that they are equals and gives the old beggar advice, which the beggar will eventually take.

            The scene with "Fight Club" is not exactly the same because the convenience store clerk, Raymond, does not get beat up he only is threatened. When Tyler has the gun to the back of the clerk's head, he threatens to kill the clerk unless he goes back to school and becomes a veterinarian. The old beggar and Raymond most likely felt as if they were going to die in their situations. Even though Raymond did not beat up Tyler, he mostly likely took Tyler's advice, just as the old beggar did, and became a better person just like the old beggar. Traumatize a little but a better person.

Fight Club scene (because youtube only had a similar clip but in a different language).

            Another part from "Fight Club" that is similar to why the rich or middle class person beat up the old beggar could be related to an assignment that required the members of "Fight Club" to start a fight with a complete stranger and lose. Tyler's goal is to bring down the rich on to equal terms with poor and to help the poor feel better about themselves. The fights that the members start are not as intense as the fight in Let's Beat Up The Poor, but they are pretty much the same. The guy that starts the fight gets beat up in the end. In both "fFight Club" and Let's Beat Up The Poor, the stranger ends up feeling better about themselves than before the fight had occurred.

            "Cinderella Man" is a true story based on the life of James J. Braddock, a boxer of the 1920 and 1930s. In the movie Braddock appears to be purposely taking a beating in the first few rounds of his fights. Even with his right hand broken, he is able to finish a fight with his hammering right hand but does not do so at the start of the fight just as he did before the depression hit. I was reminded of this when the old beggar was getting beaten with the, "obstinate energy of cooks trying to tenderize a beefsteak." When recalling back to the movie, "Cinderella Man," I saw how in the fight against the infamous Max Baer, Braddock just received a heavy blow to the head and was on the ropes and had a flash back of the man Baer had recently killed in the right. The situation was identical expect that it was Braddock about to face his demise. I got the feeling that Braddock realized that this could be his last fight. He was fighting for his family and if he died in that ring, there would be no one left to fight for them. Realizing that he might die and leave his family to fend for themselves he miraculously obtains the will to continue the fight and defeat Baer. Perhaps the old beggar had a similar realization as well. The fight between Braddock and Baer made me wonder maybe the old beggar realized he was about to die but had a strong will to continue living giving him the ability to turn the fight to his favor.

Baudelaire, Disney, Mean Girls and Lord of the Rings... say what?

Reading Baudelaire’s Get High at first I couldn’t help but laugh. I thought it was comical that this famous man wrote such a short piece with most of the phrases being “get high.” However, at first I was taking his words in a literal sense, which I blame on growing up and going to High School in Santa Cruz, but after contemplating it a bit more I realized that Baudelaire was not being literal… well maybe he was for some people. BUT I believe he was calling people to go after what excites them- things that move them and make them want to be in the world actively, constructively doing something that makes them happy. Whether it be sports, helping others, reading, or travelling if you want to be constantly happy you need to do what you love and not listen to negative people telling you that you can’t. It is clique, but sometimes those phrases are true.

 It’s like any Disney movie really when you think about it. But I have been enamored by Disney’s Tangled for the past few years, so we will go with that. So… It’s like when Rapunzel and Flin Rider go into the Snuggly Duckling Tavern with all of the criminals. They sing a song about their dreams and all decide in the end of the movie to go after their dreams. And because of their decisions to do that everyone is much happier and crime in the kingdom diminishes substantially. Now, I am not saying anyone is a criminal, but I will say that usually with constructive happiness typically good things result. Therefore, through Baudelaire’s Get High, we are encouraged to follow our dreams, the activities and events in our lives that make us happy and feel like our life is full and satisfying.

               

The next story that struck me was Cake. This was a very vivid and grotesque piece of literature for me turning quickly from a snippet in “Aladdin” to “Mean Girls” and Lord of the Ring’s Gollum. Most girls have seen and memorized “Mean Girls”, so boys if you haven’t here is a recap. It’s a movie about this girl who goes to a High School where one of the most prestigious and thus snobby groups are some girls called “The Plastics.” Cady, aka Africa, gets into the group initially to bring down the Queen Bee, Regina, only to want to be Diva #1 for some time in the film more than anything. All hell breaks loose with a burn book and every girl turns into raving primitive animals. There is a trust fall, Regina gets hit by a bus, Africa goes back to her old self and The Plastics are no more.  The End.

  

Next, I think it is fair to say we all know who Gollum is from "Lord of the Rings", the little half-man half- something-past-human-almost-demonic who is obsessed with “his precious” also known as The Ring of Mordor. Gollum is so enamored by this ring that he puts in exhaustive efforts to terminate anyone who is holding it as seen by Bilbo Baggins, Frodo, and Sam. This grueling life struggle ultimately isolates him beyond repair damning him to his doom. 

⇒

But I think a lot of us can, in a limited sense, relate. We all have something we are crazy for, something we must have at one point in our life and we will do everything and anything to get it. Yes, Baudelaire is a man for extreme flair, but I know quite a few people that want something and they will do anything to get it. It could be a job position, a guy or girl, a car, even a great deal but somewhere I think everyone goes through a time, or will, when they feel like they will do anything to have it. And I think Baudelaire is also saying that we should also keep in mind that something we have and take for granted is beyond precious to someone else. In the story Cake or "Aladdin", bread was precious to the boys and "Aladdin" (remember the song?), in "Mean Girls", acceptance, admiration, and popularity, for "Lord of the Ring" it was power.  Yes we should strive for better things, but not at the expense of ourselves or others around us. Like in each of these stories, when the characters took their lust too far everything got destroyed and there was nothing left to have for anyone. Therefore, one of the lessons we can learn from this story is that progression and obtaining things that we dearly want are great- drive is good- but in excess and by any means possible is too far. Moderation is key. And also realizing that maybe something we have is something that someone else wants too. So be thankful for what you have and the talents you were gifted with.

'Ode on a Grecian Urn' and the Message of Immortality

I found myself sitting and pondering what exactly I could take and compare to Keat’s “Ode to a Grecian Urn,” when it suddenly occurred to me: everything ever written, painted, or created. This sounds ridiculous, but when you consider what the poem is saying, my meaning should become clear.

The poem itself is an ode to an urn- a vase. The vase has images painted onto it which Keats describes in detail, yet without explicitly stating they are paintings and instead describing what each painting is as though the people on the vase are truly people frozen in time. “Fair youth, beneath the trees, thou canst not leave”( 15). These people are stuck eternally in their tasks. The youth can never leave the tree he is under because he was painted there in the scene, and his next action will never be known. In this way, they are immortalized. “When old age shall this generation waste, Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe” (46-47).

Taking this concept, we could compare it to anything. I will be taking a few examples from each category and describing them in relativity to this poem’s main idea- starting with art.

The Mona Lisa is a famous painting by Da Vinci that is generally recognizable to everyone. Even if the painting was suddenly burned up in an unfortunate accident, it would still live on. This is made mainly possible by the fact that it’s been photographed- obviously by the way that I can show you this image here- and will always be there, but also by the fact that’s it’s been painted and we’ll always know it.

The main point of the poem is to say that these figures are immortalized in their actions-well similarly Mona Lisa is immortalized in her pose. She will forever be a figure who is sat there with a trace of a smile, and we will never know her next action.

The painting has captured a moment and made it eternal. Here are a few other famous painted scenes immortalized

This is easy to say for paintings, the poem itself being about a painting (though it so happens to be done on a vase). Yet, the concepts of the poem could just as easily be applied to music, movies, T.V shows, and other works of literature.

These things exist now, and say in fifty years we go back to our favorite song, has that song changed? 

Honestly, it doesn’t even matter if these things are destroyed because it’s not even the things themselves, but what the things were displaying. The urn could have been shattered into a million pieces. It doesn’t change the fact that the images on the urn were once presently there representing one particular scene that will never change.

What is that you say? T.V shows and movies aren’t one still scene that will be there forever? That’s right, they’re not. They are moving frames. However, that isn’t going to change a thing. Moving images are simply that-moving images. They will be the same images on loop forever, so, essentially they are depicting scenes that are the same and that will live on.

Let’s take this scene from the Avenger’s.

In fifty years when we are again listening to our song, say we decided to look back again to this movie as well.

Robert Downey Jr. isn’t fifty years older, and you find Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans to looks exactly the same as well. This is because the moment is captured.

 The same exact thing is true for books. Even this poem itself is immortalized- this could be proven by the fact that I am reading these words now and it is still saying the same thing. (Things can be changed true, but then they aren’t the original.) Books are capturing scenes and making them everlasting. Captain Ahab is always going after Moby Dick, Harry Potter is always going to be the boy who lived, and Sherlock Holmes is always going to be the detective who lived at 221B Baker Street.

Hopefully by now you are getting my point. To be succinct about it- art, the written word, the moving image- they are all forms of immortalization.

My last point on this is going to be summed up with this quote from Doctor Who. 

 “Amy: Time can be rewritten.

The Doctor: Not once you've read it. Once we know it's coming, it's written in stone.”

If nobody except one person saw the work of art, or the writing, or the movie, is it still immortalized? I think the answer to that would be yes because it is still a scene stuck in time, and a moment that has happened.

A Comparison of Faust and Black Butler on the Theme That Humans Will Go to Great lengths to Satisfy Their Desires

Author: Joel Schmierer

 

A Comparison of Faust and Black Butler on the Theme That Humans Will Go to Great lengths to Satisfy Their Desires

 

A predominant theme of both Goethe’s Faust and Yana Toboso’s Black Butler is that humans will go to great lengths to satisfy their desires. Neither Heinrich Faust nor Ciel Phantomhive is a very happy camper in that they both have great desires. Faust suddenly snaps when he discovers he’s wasted the past fifty or so years of his life looking for happiness by learning the kind of useless knowledge that’s taught in school. Faust finds out the hard way that book knowledge does not bring happiness. In fact, he’s so fed up with school-related garbage he nearly commits suicide. Faust’s thoughts of suicide are connected to his isolation from nature and love but they also express how deathly serious (pun intended) Faust is to be fulfilled, as he believes suicide is a courageous way to end his painful, endless striving. Ciel Phantomhive is a young teen whose parents were killed by arsonists. Ciel swears revenge on the arsonists, and believes he can never be content until they are made to see the error of their ways—that is, embarrassed, tortured and killed.

 

Both characters hope to fulfill their desires by forming contracts with supernatural demons/devils that have cool superpowers like pyrokinesis, self-manipulation, lying, grape manipulation and hyperosmia. The theme that humans are willing to go to great lengths to meet their hearts’ desires is underscored by the fact that Faust and Ceil make deals with traditionally diabolical creatures. Ciel forms a contract with Sebastian Michaelis, a reliable demon who proclaims to be “one hell of a butler.” In exchange, Sebastian will be allowed to feast upon Ciel’s soul. Similarly, Faust makes a wager with the devil Mephistopheles: if Mephistopheles can make Faust experience a moment in which he’ll want to last forever yet not feel the urge to strive, then Faust will “be destroyed” at that moment (1702).

 

In wanting to achieve their respective ends, both Ciel and Faust heavily rely on their supernatural allies instead of simply resolving their issues themselves. Mephistopheles and Sebastian Michaelis are actually unnecessary for Faust and Ciel, respectively, to satiate the latters’ desires. For example, one could imagine that Faust, without the help of Mephistopheles, falls in love with a woman and thereby fills the void in his heart that was first created by his desire to experience the greatest happiness. One could imagine that Ciel, who is rich, could hire detectives to reveal the identities of the arsonists who incinerated his home and parents. Then, Ciel could hire bounty hunters to take good care of/kill the arsonists. Perhaps our protagonists are strivers of such caliber that they will do anything to achieve their goals.

 

The theme of humans striving to achieve the ends they perceive as good is encouraged by the two works. Ciel believes he is in the right light to avenge his parents, even if he must commit crimes. At the very end of Black Butler—warning: this blog may contain spoilers like “all the characters in Faustand Black Butler die, just kidding, but there’ll be spoilers, so keep reading—Ciel survives all of Sebastian’s attempts to devour his soul, Ciel changes into an awesome demon, and he ends up owning Sebastian as a butler for eternity, which seems like a pretty good fate. Also, Ciel does succeed in the gruesome murders of the arsonists/spiritually-integrated hermaphroditic/male angel (hence arsonists not arsonist). Thus, Black Butler promotes the theme of striving to achieve perceived good ends because Ciel accomplishes his goal and is rewarded. I believe Faust goes to Heaven in large part because he is an exceptional striver and he doesn't stop, even though his striving is often wayward. Tragically, Faust kills Gretchen's brother, makes a deal with Mephistopheles, and almost certainly would've committed suicide had he not literally received help from God. However, it seems Faust's one defining trait is his hunger to strive, and Goethe wants to make a point that those who always strive will be rewarded.

 

It is strongly suggested that when man’s will to strive ends, he is in the devil’s hands. In Faust, the instant Faust becomes complacent, he loses the wager and dies. In Black Butler, after Ciel no longer needs to strive because his desire has been fulfilled, Sebastian consumes Ciel’s soul (technically, Sebastian didn’t, but he would’ve hadn’t another demon by chance stolen Ciel’s soul and guarded it beforehand, which was obviously a deux ex machina that allowed there to be a season 2).

 

The endings themselves of both Faust and Black Butler leave the audience with many desires that perhaps will never be satisfied. Mainly, the audience wonders whether the endings to Faust and Black Butler are tragic. For example, Faust does make it to Heaven, which may either deny or assert that Faust is a tragedy, as some agree and some disagree that he should go to Heaven based on his actions. In the case of Black Butler, Ciel satisfies his darkest desires, but he also becomes a demon, which may be interpreted negatively because demons represent evil. Audiences likely find their desires left unsatiated as it extremely difficult to read part II of Faust and also dissatisfying that there’s no third season to Black Butler, as the beloved demon Sebastian, who ranks highly among the hottest manga characters, is left to slave as Ciel's butler for eternity. Although, some fans feel it’s perhaps a happy ending that Ciel’s soul isn’t devoured by Sebastian and that Ciel becomes a demon in control of a loyal demon butler for eternity—pretty wicked.

 
I also have awesome photos. Just copy/paste the links or do what you gotta do:

Sebastian Michaelis—“I’m simply one hell of a butler.”
Picture courtesy of: http://www.roleplaygateway.com/roleplay/code-geass-return-of-a-empire/characters/demon-champion-of-the-geass-kingdom

Ciel Phantomhive dressed casually.
Picture courtesy of: http://www.zerochan.net/221958

Faust and Mephistopheles

Picture courtesy of: http://henryfaust.wordpress.com/

P.S. I'm sorry if I didn't get everything right because I didn't have time to read part II of Faust, so I went off other's shortened explanations, and I didn't read any Black Butler manga and watched about one hour of the anime, although I did briefly read each episode synopsis.

Resources for the writing:

I read two webpages:
1) http://www.jstor.org/stable/30154412?seq=11
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Black_Butler_episodes

What is evil?

With the way Faust was written, we are given direct information about his life where we are also given the chance to explore limitless thoughts to what we think is the underlying message of the story, the characters, and Faust’s mission or wants in life in general. A thought we ran across in class was how closely related Faust is to the story of Job, except Faust seems to bring a not so pure evil look of the devil. From what I have known while growing up, the devil is manipulative and brings temptations that are swaying your chances of getting to heaven, but Faust gives us the idea that there is room for error, to learn from your mistakes and live in the name of God. The Devil seems to mystify the characters yet show truth in him self throughout the story. The witch didn’t know that the Devil was standing there in front of her when Faust and Mephistopheles were there. This gives thought to the fact that evil doesn’t know evil unless it is dressed or stated in an obvious manner. The essential question is, “What is evil?” Is the devil really evil? Are all his actions supposed to be bad? Did he ever purely deceive Faust without telling him what exactly he is going to do? Yes, Mephistopheles didn’t outright tell Faust his deal with God, but Mephistopheles did tell Faust all the things they were going to do and what he can do for Faust. This little scene with the witch made me question if this situation has a real evil in it in the first place. With the story of Job, you could tell the devil was doing all sorts of horrible things by taking EVERYTHING away from Job. From killing off Job’s livestock, family, and servants to giving Job physical problems like sores were all bad things that were all too horrible to live through. That shows an obvious evilness, but with Mephistopheles in Faust, he prevents Faust’s suicide, gives a more youthful look to Faust, gives him jewels to impress Gretchen, gives Faust leeway for him to get into bed with Gretchen, and some more just to satisfy Faust’s need for satisfaction. Honestly, Mephistopheles reminds me of Count Olaf from The Series of the Unfortunate Events. Count Olaf keeps reappearing in all the books under all these disguises trying to capture the Baudelaire fortune. In Faust’s case, Mephistopheles reappears as different characters such as a traveler, spirit, etc. To the Baudelaire children, it is obvious Count Olaf is after their money and keeps popping up as different characters to be their official caretaker or official “underminer” (doing different things to break the contract, make the Baudelaire children look unfit for the money, or stealing it). Mephistopheles basically tries to tempt Faust into the bad ways through lust and constant seeking for satisfaction instead of being happy with what God gave you. Faust’s wants and needs make him sway from God’s path. Anyway, Mephistopheles is direct about it and Faust has a constant feeling that he expects the devil inside of Mephistopheles. The black poodle for example, and also the fire in the tavern. Apart from Mephistopheles’s direct actions he shows to Faust, his real motive (the deal with God to test Faust) is still buried away from Faust. So from my point early on, “what is evil”, this motive Mephistopheles has makes him evil because he intentionally and purposely did all that he could to make Faust forget the way of God and stay in the lust and temptation filled life. This method proves my point that the devil had the intention to drag the man to hell (sort of) through trying to prove God wrong by making Faust do wrong. Maybe as a Catholic I may be biased, but not stating the truth and not living in the name of God by falling for temptation is wrong. The devil may have flaunted his intention by swaying Faust from the truth, but he didn’t tell Faust what his motive was. Therefore, he is evil. Evil is the devil. The lies, the negativity, the temptations, the actions against God are all what make evil as well as our sins. God sacrificed his own son for our sins, and falling into permanent temptation and lust leading to sin isn’t right. I may be saying this wrong, but from my perspective, evil is the devil, and Mephistopheles is evil in this case. 

Squidward vs. The Poet

Am I really about to compare a character from Spongebob Squarepants to a character in a literary masterpiece? Is this a far fetched comparison? Yes to both. The poet in the prelude comes across as a pessimistic guy who thinks no one understands his art and has an arrogance about him that can't really be explained. Sounds like someone we know? SQUIDWARD TENTACLES!

Now this comparison was so striking to me, that every time I read the poets parts, my mind automatically read it in Squidwards nasally tone. I imagined a sophisticated Squidward talking and explaining how his gift of poetry wasn't being used to its full potential. Sure call me weird but i'm probably not the only one who saw this... right? RIGHT? Oh well. Anyways,  Squidward Tentacles is a cashier at the Krusty Krab and plays the clarinet. He considers himself a fancy fellow and considers most people inferior to him (i.e. Spongebob, Patrick.) All Mr. Tentacles really wants to do with his life is to play the clarinet masterfully and entertain audiences with what he calls, "unrecognized talent."

Frankly, Squidward sucks at playing the clarinet. However he is arrogant to this fact and continues to believe he has talent. If there is one thing to be said about Squidward, that he is a adamant fellow. Everyone continues to make fun of him for being very bad at playing the clarinet but he keeps going.The poet in the prelude to Faust has the same arrogant tone and self entitlement and believes that if he performs in front of the crowd and does things the Directors way, he would join the "bungling amateurs" (Goethe 6.) The poet goes and and on about how his poems are too good for this general audience. He considers his ability to write poetry a gift from Nature itself. He basically says that his is not there to entertain but to  invoke emotion and speak to the souls of the crowd. But the director and the clown just wanted the audience to leave entertained. It's a battle of entertainment versus enlightened mind. The director wants to dazzle and awe the audience while the poet wants to enlighten the audience with poetry that makes them think.




As you can see in the above picture, this is what I imagined the poet in Faust to look like minus the clarinet. Both the poet and Squidward see themselves as masters of their art. I can't say for sure if the poet is actually good at poetry but I know for a fact that Squidward is horrid at playing his instrument. They both face critics whether it be the clown and the director, or Spongebob and Patrick.