Plans for Final Essay

For my final essay, I plan on writing about the allegorical significance of zombies. I think this is a really interesting topic that many people overlook since zombies are so prevalent in mainstream media through movies, TV shows, books, video games, etc.. I believe zombies are intended to represent the lack of humanity associated with the human body. Although the eyes, nose, mouth, etc. of a person play a part in determining their humanity, they do not signify who a person is. It is people's internal aspects that make them human, and zombies are so interesting because they solely represent the body of a person, and not their mind. I hope to find some good articles related to my topic and I am looking forward to delving into a topic I do not have much familiarity with.

The Walking Dead

"In a world rule by the dead, we are forced to finally start living." - The Walking Dead, Volume 1. 

I really enjoyed reading this graphic novel, as it is compelling and insightful. What may seem like a basic post-apocalypse-refugee camp is actually a perfect setting for meaningful character development, as proven by Robert Kirkman's profound use of realism to convey his points about human nature. The dynamic that exists between the refugees at the campsite is all too realistic, as feelings of jealousy, anxiety, and mistrust overpower the fairytale emotions put forth by less intellectual authors. I find the plot of "The Walking Dead" to be fascinating, as it takes an innately silly topic and uses it as a medium for complex drama and intelligent plot twists. I am intrigued by Kirkman's ability to kill off characters (and horses) that other authors may not have the heart to kill, as I believe this kicks up the realism of the situation. Not every "good person" makes it out alive, as characterized by the biting and eventual death of Jim. The camp setting is a truly a stomping ground for economic game theory, as each person's actions are inherently guided by self-interest, which provides for an intriguing plot to unfold. As this class progresses, I am gaining a true respect for the power of graphic novels in conveying relevant insights onto the topics they encompass. I will certainly be in the market for some more graphic novels after this class ends, so I hope to read more of "The Walking Dead" in the future!

Second Selection from "The Flame Alphabet"

This selection is taken from page 227 of "The Flame Alphabet" by Ben Marcus:

"As she got dressed and made her way out of my room, Marta looked at me plainly, as if she was curious, in the detached, scientific sense, why I would have any interest in hurting her. I'd seen that face before, and I hadn't realized it was a face that could be shared, used by more than one person, but it had appeared on Claire, and I had always thought that it was hers alone, to use only on those special occasions when I had disappointed her. But apparently this was a face that Marta had access to as well."

I chose this passage because it directly relates to the conversation we had about body language in class today. Body language seems relatively objective on the surface, but in fact, it is a highly subjective means of communication because one's intentions may not easily be transferred into a non-verbal display of gestures. Even though Marta may not have been thinking anything out of the ordinary when she looked at Sam in this passage, he perceives her gestures as signals, nonetheless. Marcus does a great job of putting the reader into Sam's mind as he thinks these thoughts, which allows the reader to more effectively step into his shoes and witness his experiences firsthand. As stated in class, body language is a universal means of communication, which is interesting because it does not harm anyone in the book. If it is the act of understanding something through communication that triggers the sickness, then body language must be too abstract of a concept to create fever-inducing comprehension. If this fact is purposeful in the book, then Marcus may be alluding to the fact that body language should not be understood as a concrete expression in our everyday interactions with other people, because misconceptions may have harmful effects on the giver and receiver of body language signals. I find this to be a very compelling thought, and I applaud Ben Marcus for his ability to make his readers think critically about the issues he presents in his book.

Selection from "The Flame Alphabet"

This selection is taken from page 112 of "The Flame Alphabet" by Ben Marcus.

"The Babel document came up a few times in the news interviews, though no one, it seemed, had read it. LeBov had an obsession with this myth. More than that, a bone to pick. He felt that it was a misleading, dangerous myth. It had, he supposedly argued, been copied out incorrectly, transmitted from generation to generation with a serious degree of error. Now the myth as we knew it presented a terrible impediment. I saw where Murphy had gotten the idea."

This passage stuck out to me for its reference of Babel, which we had read earlier this semester. In the book, the toxicologist LeBov, who theorized about the speech sickness, thought that Babel was a harmful myth to be brought up in the particular state of society that existed in the book at the time. It is one thing to believe that a myth is untrue or irrelevant, but it is another to believe that talking about it is destructive to society. I think LeBov may have such a personal problem with Babel because it would imply that contemporary human society was somehow united before the speech sickness occurred, which is inherently false. For humans to believe that they had achieved great things and were ready to "converge upon the heavens" requires a dangerous amount of hubris, and possibly a sense of entitlement that could turn into violence as certain humans feel that children are obstructing their ascension into greatness. Certain people may believe that the only way to get back to the supposed unity and greatness of the past is to eradicate all harm-causing children from the Earth, which would be a devastating endeavor and a threat to the future existence of the human race. LeBov may fear the power of a unified group of impassioned people. I also think that LeBov's focus on the erroneous nature of the story's translations through time leads back to the idea that current groups would highlight the wrong portions of the writing to emphasize in their conquest of children. People can use archaic texts to rationalize and further their own actions, so I feel LeBov is warning humans not to look too far into the story of Babel, for it may end up hurting the future of the human race if they do.    

Bounty

What a fantastic read! I was enthralled by this particular novella, and its almost Shakespearian dialogue. Cole met a number of people who spoke in soliloquies, which allowed the reader to learn a lot about a character or situation in a very short amount of time. The writing felt very approachable, which allowed me to take the place of Cole during certain portions of the text. Although Cole was somewhat predictable in his choosing to do the illogical thing in every given situation, it did not distract from the story's overall plot. For instance, after Ned Ventor rescued Cole from an unpleasant slavery experience, I half-expected him to at least make it back to Ventor's ranch for a little while before running off, but I soon realized that would make too much sense and wouldn't provide a very exciting plot line for the story, so I was not at all surprised when he ran away after escaping from the boat. I think this novella does a great job of capturing the human element of both the Flawed and the Normals: while there are some normals who are brutal and violent towards Flaweds, the majority of them feel bad for them, but see no way of changing the current system. I found this to be very realistic, because in many circumstances where one group of people is supposed to hate another, they really don't. It is just difficult to change the prevailing system or change the mindsets of those who do hate.

If there is more to this story, I would really love to read it because it is well-written and exciting, in my opinion. I enjoy stories written from the perspective of a first-person narrator because they allow me to more effectively connect with the events that take place within the prose. I took away some interesting insights from this novella, including the power of mission, no matter how vague that mission may be. Cole knew that he wanted to reach Connie, and suffered immensely in order to get to her, but upon reaching her, realized that he didn't exactly know what to do next. His mission of reaching her was so strong that when he finally did reach her, he felt the desire to go off on another mission because he felt comfortable about Connie's situation. Mission is a very powerful force, and I like the realism used to portray Cole's character in this story: he does not pretend to be an exceedingly manly or moral man, he is just a guy who wants to make sure his sister is okay. This is represented well after he falls off the train and is beaten into slavery by Chick Krennup, selling out the doctor who took off his bracelet, and denouncing Connie as a slut. Ultimately, this situational practicality really resonated with me and left me feeling satisfied with the story upon completion of the reading.

Blackhole Reaction

P. 222 of the pdf where Rob's friend, Dave, helps them unload their things from the car and take them to their tent.

The part of this caption where Dave reminds Chris that he used to sit next to her in 10th grade French was really poignant because it shows a picture of the happy, smiling Dave in 10th grade compared to the frowning, deformed Dave of the present. This was so meaningful to me because these images represent two different worlds separated by time but connected by the decisions that led to the dark place Dave lives in now. This is a great example of how poor decision making can ruin a life that would be completely normal and happy otherwise. Whether those decisions involve drugs, unsafe sex, criminal activity, etc. there is a sharp pang of regret that coincides with the thought of innocence lost. To think back to life as a child or a young adult when the world seemed so bright and everything was new and exciting and then to relate that to the responsibilities and routines that go along with aging is a sad thing to do. Innocence is something that only exists for a certain amount of time and then once it is gone, it is gone forever. To think of the individual decisions and actions that lead to the loss of innocence is nostalgic and heavy, but it is important to remember that lost innocence does not necessarily mean things will be bad in the future, it simply means that things will be different. Accepting this difference, like Dave must do with his deformity, is what is necessary to keep on living a somewhat ordinary life, despite the decisions of the past.

Summary of 3 Sources

I will be writing on the relationship between secular and religious disaster conceptions, with a focus on natural disasters, and how secular and religious groups justify the catastrophic occurrence.

The 2010 study, “Religions, natural hazards, and disasters: An introduction,” by J.C. Galliard and P. Texier elaborates on how the media is “keen” on covering natural disasters as acts of god, since the idea of punishment by way of natural disaster is so common in many western religions. Galliard and Texier posit that the ubiquity of disasters intended to punish and teach humans in western religions may be why certain societies are willing to accept such rationalizations. Ultimately, they argue that religion acts as an effective contributor to disaster-risk reduction, as they are generally trusted groups within the greater community that are able to arrive at the aftermath of disaster much faster than other groups can.

In the 1999 study, “Value-conflict arising from a disaster,” A.J.W. Taylor argues that religion can sometimes stand in the way of effective disaster treatment. Taylor uses the aftermath of a cyclone in the Cook Islands to illustrate how clergy were more focused on victims accounting for their sins, and less so on providing the actual aid the victims required. A secular trauma therapist criticized the clergy, accusing them of focusing too much on “…the Book of Revelation rather than on the Gospels of the New Testament. Taylor effectively argues that aid-groups need to pay attention to the value systems of disaster victims in order to more accurately address their needs.

In her 2010 study, “Anthropology of religion: Disaster and the representations of tradition and modernity,” J. Schlehe speculates that religion provides a way for people to express specific political interests after a disaster: by claiming the reason for the disaster is divine, certain groups of people can achieve various economic, social, or political gains that would have been hard to attain without the influence of religion. Schlehe claims that this methodology can be used to manipulate groups of people into acting in ways different from how they would have acted if the disaster had not been justified as a punishment from god.

"Ragnarok" Passage

This is an excerpt from pg. 113 of "Ragnarok," by A.S. Byatt:

"Loki was interested in things because he was interested in them, and in the way they were in the world, and worked in the world. He was neither kind nor gentle, not anyway when he inhabited the world of myth. In the world of folktales he was a fire demon, mostly benign, providing warmth for hearths and ovens. In the world of Asgard he was smiling and reckless, a forest fire devouring what stood in its path."

This passage explains the conditional perceptions of Loki's nature among humans and gods, respectively. On the one hand, humans view Loki as a fire-god who has power over the fires in their hearths and ovens that provide them with warmth and food, yet on the other hand he is seen a tormentor among the gods. This effectively plays into Loki's "trickster" nature: humans can view him in a positive light while those who know him better can be more wary of his devious ways. This passage also touches upon Loki's inherent curiosity, which may be the fuel for his clever fire. By studying things simply to know how they work, Loki can figure out how to use those particular things to his advantage later on. He is a manipulative god with a knack for harmful pranks, acting almost as a child in certain scenarios. In Asgard, Loki is renowned for his ability to mess things up for other gods who are deeply invested in a certain outcome, thus making him more of an agitator than an altruist. It is certainly interesting how Loki is associated with fire and mischief simultaneously, because fire is mentioned in the word, firebrand--meaning, "a person who kindles strife or encourages unrest; an agitator." I wonder if this word is somehow derived from Loki, since he is both the god of fire and of mischief. All in all, I think this passage is interesting because it analyzes two perspectives of one god, therefore providing a more well-rounded view of what that particular god is supposed to represent.

Selections from the Quran

"Enter ye the Garden, ye and your wives, in (beauty and) rejoicing," (043.070). Apparently, this particular text is directed directly towards men, who must have wives, based off of the wording; however, I found the majority of the writing to be written by men, about men, for men. Much of the writing dealt with the idea of punishing non-believers--specifically those who do not believe in Islam--directly correlating to what is happening today in the Middle East, where certain Muslim groups have taken it upon themselves to punish the non-believers. Since the foundation of the writing contains so much contempt for non-believers, I believe it is very easy for certain groups to misconstrue this as the rationale to harm others of different faiths or of no faith at all. If there was less of a focus on the punishment of non-believers in these selections, I believe people would not interpret them so violently. These writings were written with an extremely confusing wording, which lays the groundwork for misinterpretations to occur, and many of the sentences did not relate to the ideas that came before them, making it extremely difficult to read smoothly. In addition, the idea of Allah being all-knowing--knowing what has been, what is, and what will be--to be devastatingly confusing: if he knows everything that ever was, is, and will be, what is the purpose of creating non-believers? If he truly did create everything, then he knowingly creates non-believers who deny his existence, which doesn't make any sense at all to me. There are many conflicting ideas which may have made sense in the past when we were unaware of the complex workings of the world, but do not hold up to contemporary thought. I found the writing to be unbelievably righteous, with no respect whatsoever for any system of beliefs outside those of Islam, and I also found the writing to be male-dominated. The three versions of each sentence did a great job of proving how different interpretations of the same thought can be, and I hope readers take that idea into account as they try to understand the meaning behind the text. 

The Book of Daniel

I found the first portion of The Book of Daniel to read like a Greek Myth. The plot was entertaining and there seemed to be some type of moral the reader should learn after Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream; however, I found that moral to simply be a pious call for more god worship. The story would have meant much more to me if it had stopped after the first dream, but the continuation of excruciatingly-specific dreams took away from the impact of the first. Daniel's dreams are specific guidelines as to what the "time of the end" will look like, but they are initially represented through simplistic metaphors relating to the amount of horns on a beast's head. I found it very interesting how many times Daniel specifically references himself in his telling of the story or his dream relations. I wonder what the purpose of the repetition of his name is, if any. I found it refreshing to read a quasi-religious text where the author tells the story in first-person format, because I find the ubiquitous third-person narrative style of Genesis to be almost unreadable in its lack of captivating storytelling. Daniel's dreams are very symbolic and, on the surface, I believe dream-interpretation to be a fascinating endeavor. When the subconscious, dreaming mind is able to formulate complex situations that offer symbolism to the mind of the dreamer, I find that to be a very, very cool experience. Dreams are powerful things and The Book of Daniel is certainly a proponent of that notion.

Response to "Babel"

The various religious texts we have read in class lately have confused me greatly. Each story brings with it a new set of impossible events that I have a lot of trouble deriving any meaning from. In the case of Babel, I am confused as to why the god who promised not to destroy humanity again after the world-devouring floods incident has permanently harassed humans by scattering them throughout the earth. This god is so afraid of human unity that he can't stand the thought of them working together to achieve something great. I find it so interesting that this god seems to be reacting to human actions in this story, even though he is supposed to know everything that has been and everything that will be. This god doesn't make a great deal of sense to me, and therefore I have a lot of trouble taking any meaning away from these stories. I wonder if this god felt satisfied after scattering the humans throughout the earth and confusing their languages. If so, I would consider him to be a jealous god, and that doesn't sound very godly to me at all. The story of Babel has added to the list of biblical stories that make me extraordinarily skeptical of the existence of a god.

Various Floods

After reading about religions of the Near East, Genesis, and selections from the Qur'an, I realize that the story of the flood is by no means original. There are countless tales of some type of flood destroying mankind, only each religion has a different god or reason for a god wreaking this havoc. All these instances of flooding made me question why the idea of a flood that destroys all life on earth is so important to a religious text? Is invoking a huge flood the deciding factor of whether a god is powerful or not? I found the examples from Genesis to be very hard to read because the sentences are so choppy. It is not written well and therefore I find its credibility to be questionable. There are instances when the grammar is incorrect and there is a lack of creativity in the writing, so I did not find it to be inspiring or enlightening. These examples of religious texts make me wonder why so many people are able to believe so strongly in a particular religion when the content is inherently unoriginal. There are many examples of contemporary religions taking significant portions of content from what we now consider to be "mythical" religions, so that makes me wonder whether future generations will one day refer to our current religions as "myths."

Reaction to "Religulous"

While watching, "Religulous," I realized that I much prefer intellectual explanations as to why humans should give up religion. Although I am an atheist who always enjoys watching religious people be explicitly questioned about the things they believe, I feel more comfortable watching an overzealous religious person be questioned by a scientist than I do a comedian. I feel this way because somehow religion has become a taboo conversation topic in recent years, as if people are afraid of offending someone else's faith. Maybe this is because of the recent examples we have seen around the world where religion is taken so seriously that people are killed for making fun of it. I believe we are at a point in time where we need to talk about religion and find out what it is that people truly believe: if people do not verbalize their beliefs and are never questioned about them, how can they ever be made aware that they believe something crazy? Without this discourse, people can continue to have irrational beliefs that they will act upon because they "believe" so strongly in them. I believe scientists should take on the role of educators when it comes to religion, because a majority of people know so little about science that they are willing to accept any religion that comforts them. This suspension of disbelief allows for people to believe things that make very little logical sense. Bill Maher does a great job of making a mockery of religion, but that only makes religious people defensive about their own faith, as a natural reaction to being made fun of. I think science is the only way to truly convince people that the workings of the universe are far too extraordinary for someone, or something, to create.

Response to "Y: The Last Man" - Alex Kendig - 9/30/14

At one point while I was reading, Y: The Last Man, I looked up from the computer screen and realized that I was sitting on the edge of my seat in anticipation of what would happen next; I have never enjoyed a graphic novel more in my life. Not only was the dialogue entertaining, it was downright clever. I really enjoyed reading about the strange plague that reduced all male mammals in the world to corpses. Firstly, I think this is a very good plot-line for a graphic novel because it is very easy to illustrate what is happening around the world in a matter of a few pictures with the labels of the cities on them. An author writing a fiction novel probably has a harder time trying to illustrate a scene like that, quickly. 

The supposed last man on earth, Yorick, is an extremely likable character who can be very annoying at times, but still manages to garner the sympathies of the audience through his ability to pick locks and escape dangerous situations. I think Yorick is a bit too positive and jocular for a man who's lost all of his male friends and his father, but it didn't distract me from the overall plot of the story. Yorick's lack of grieving makes the story somewhat less believable, but it still achieves its foremost goal of entertaining the audience. I thought the addition of the "Amazonians" was a great idea for this graphic novel because it provided a realistic interpretation of what the irrational people do after catastrophes like the on in this graphic novel. Not everyone is looking for peace and tranquility so the Amazonians look for payback against the gender that oppressed them at times in their earlier lives. The writers do an effective job of switching between scenes to increase the suspense of each situation. The subtle humor works great in this post-apocalyptic context but it sometimes does detract from the realism of the situation. 

I think the writers of the graphic novel want American society to realize how important women are so women can earn the same salaries and job titles as men can. When the wives of the Republican congressmen open fire upon the White House this is an example of women taking control over a situation that was previously male-dominated before the disaster. Since everything breaks down after the men die, this is a metaphor for the fact that not enough women are trained to keep the basic undertakings of our civilization going in this country. I really enjoyed reading this and I certainly hope to read more of it, and graphic novels like it, in the future.  

Response to "My Imaginary Bunker" Alex Kendig 9/25/14

Megan Mayhew Bergman completely sums up the thoughts of every environmentally-conscious (and slightly paranoid) person out there, including myself: climate change is ALREADY happening. Now it's just a matter of how far we will let the effects go. Will we divest from fossil fuels soon enough to make an impact on our carbon emissions? Will the United Nations implement some type of sustainable change in their upcoming meeting? There are many questions that accompany the idea of a heating planet but we can't complain because we've have had this coming for a very long time.

Bergman's support of Bill McKibben hits home with me since I attended his brainchild, the People's Climate March, on Sunday, September 21st. I, along with 310,999 other people marched through the streets of New York City to promote international climate awareness. This issue is very important to me not only as an environmentalist, but as a human being on planet earth whose kids will be affected by the ravages of climate change in the future. Extreme weather, severe droughts, intense storms, sea-level rise, shifting of climate envelopes and the northern migration of equatorial diseases are just some of the reasons why I worry for my future kids. I want them to experience the most beautiful world we can possibly provide them with, and thus far, I don't think we are doing a very good job of providing a good gift. There needs to be increased environmental education starting in elementary school so children are familiar with the idea of recycling and saving energy/water by the time they reach adulthood. We have no room for excuses of environmental reform "hurting" the economy because future damages could cost trillions of dollars if we do nothing to counteract our emissions now. We need everyone to realize the importance of making environmentally-conscious decisions, and teach them to WANT to recycle and save energy/water. I, along with Bergman, am hopeful for the future after having been to the climate march, but I am worried about how long it will take for the message to reach the average person. I am interested to see what the United Nations' decide on, and I hope with everything in me that they make an environmentally-responsible decision.

Response to "Shock Doctrine" - Alex Kendig 9/23/14

Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine is a chilling newsflash that unveils many of the covert secrets kept from us by those who feel they know better. From the questioning of Milton Friedman’s ideals, to the discussion of disasters as market opportunities, to the revealing of Ewen Cameron’s insanity disguised as academic curiosity, I found her writing to be meaningful and provocative. I couldn’t help but think of Burroughs’ predictions of humans enacting the four horsemen of the apocalypse while reading about Cameron’s torturous experiments onto completely innocent college students. I was absolutely appalled to find out the CIA was funding these cruel and senseless tests that had very serious—and long lasting—effects on the test subjects. I have heard of the CIA taking part in some pretty questionable things, but this was by far the most unsettling to read about.

The latter section of the reading provides an excellent foundation upon which to ask the question: “where is the line crossed?” To some, torture is an integral way of obtaining information from those who don’t want to give it, but to these people I would simply ask again, “where is the line crossed?” How can one rationalize electrocution as a “humane” way of getting information? To me, there is no humanity involved in shocking someone with electricity until they spew out whatever information can come to their mind quickly enough to stop the pain and suffering. I think torture is a medieval way of getting things done that sets us back to the days of Hammurabi’s Code that focus more on revenge and the idea of “getting even” than it does the promotion of justice and security. This reading really made me think about a lot of things, but if anything, it made me realize how much I disagree with the torturing of other human beings.  

Response to "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," Alex Kendig 9/18/14

In his article, “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” William Burroughs argues that Famine, Plague, War, and Death (the four horsemen of the apocalypse) were created in a much more black and white time where a clearer distinction could be made between bad things. Nowadays, however, there are good and evil applications of just about any new advance we make in science and technology. From cancer research to the production of ethnic weapons, we live in a time where complex science can certainly be used to harm people. Even though we live in such a time, Burroughs argues that we are not reaching the full potential that we are capable of. He relates modern day humans to the first aircraft built by Orville and Wilbur Wright. Yes, the thing could fly but could it do all the things a commercial jet can do today? Not even close. Therefore, Burroughs believes we are not yet reaching our full potential as humans. Humans continue to build and destroy what we have built with religious, cultural, and ideological warfare. It is true that we as humans tend to destroy things rather than change our actions, but I am not sure I agree with Burroughs that we are flintlocks in comparison to rifles. Sure, we have a lot of work to do on an international level, but we can slowly and surely overcome the shortcomings of today in order to provide the successes of tomorrow. Humans treat each other so poorly that it is often easy to lose hope, but there are so many good things happening around the world that I cannot accept defeat and despair. I truly believe that some day humans will all come together. Whether this is because of an Armageddon or just because of the will of humanity to unite together, I do think it will happen. We can achieve so much if we put down our weapons and work together to solve the issues that confront us. Why fight, when we can live in bliss?

Zizek Response

In his book, “Living in the End Times,” Slavoj Zizek discusses three processes of proletarianization on Earth: ecological breakdown, the biogenetic reduction of humans to machines, and the total digital control over our lives. He describes these processes by calling forth examples from Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” in order to illustrate how “capitalism exploits catastrophes to get rid of old social constraints and impose its agenda on the clean slate created by the disaster.” Using this example he compares people who have balanced views of capitalism to people who have balanced views on Hitler since he abolished unemployment and inflation in addition to committing genocide against the Jewish people. Finally, Zizek describes three versions of apocalypticism today: Christian fundamentalist, New Age, and techno-digital-post-human. These ways of thinking differ in how they perceive apocalypses, some taking from the bible and others taking from uncontrollable advances in science.

Personally, I disagree with Zizek on a variety of issues but I respect him for offering them up for debate. I find his referencing of mediocre films to be immature, and I don’t see the future of our world in the same way that he does. For instance, I think we as humans should do as much as we can to prevent climate change from happening because it will destroy many of the natural things we cherish so greatly today. Zizek believes we should separate ourselves from nature as much as possible but I cannot agree with this because that would require us to forget where we come from, which is always a dangerous thing to do. I hope Zizek doesn’t actually believe some of the things he says because those things would significantly reduce his credibility if he truly does believe them. I certainly find his work to be interesting but I cannot see the world from his vantage point.