What Governs You?

Carlos Espinoza

March 8, 2010

Andrew Hageman

What Governs You?

On the first day of class I did not know how to define literature. I did not know if a graphic novella like Alan Moore’s Light of Thy Countenance would be considered literature or not just because it was in the form of a comic book like structure. At the beginning of the class, I thought that just because a graphic novella is not in book form does not necessary mean that it isn’t literature. At that point in time I did not possess any evidence to support my argument, but now after reading Light of Thy Countenance I now have evidence to back up my claim.

Alan Moore really defies anyone’s perspective of what literature should be. Prior to reading the story I was not expecting such a powerful message to be expressed in the form of a comic book. I believe that any piece of writing can be considered literature if it is telling a story while transcending a message to the reader. Graphic novellas are not recognized as literature by most people because literature has always been portrayed as a big book with nothing up words printed on a page, at least for me.

The purpose of literature I believe is to get a point of view across to the reader. A message that lets the reader ponder about what he author is trying to say through his work. In the case of Alan Moore’s Light of Thy Countenance, the message of how television has taken over people’s lives is eloquently illustrated through story and pictures. In the novella the narrator is television and it describes itself as a God, omniscient and all-knowing. Through out the novel the narrator boasts about how the whole world is enslaved under his presence that you feel a bit proud because you are reading this information instead of watching via television. Just to mess with the reader even more, at the end of the novel the story ends with “Brightness Immortal and The End of Care, coming up next, right after this…” Moore makes it seem that even though you are currently not under the control of the television, you are still under the influence of a book.

Before technological advances brought inventions such as the television and the radio, I believe that reading was a person’s path to learning about events outside of one’s neighborhood. In my opinion nothing comes close to reading literature. Literature allows one’s mind to wander and travel the world through the perspectives of others to a level in which the television can never. The television has become extremely popular because unlike reading literature, watching television is relatively quick in getting information across whether through advertisements or news broadcasts. Books on the other hand take time to analyze because they allow you to draw your own conclusions and point of view instead of having a television dictate them for you. The television has revolutionized world communication, which is why it governs all who indulge in it.

Gone too Far

Carlos Espinoza

February 21, 2010

Andrew Hageman

Gone Too Far

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is about a man, Victor Frankenstein, who creates a being that resembles a human being but is more of a superhuman because it is stature, strength and repulsiveness. It is also fairly making the being very distinguishable from any ordinary human being. In Karel Capek’s R.U.R. he talks about a group of scientists that produce robots or machines that resemble in every way shape and form a human being but are not. The robots possess expansive memory, superhuman strength, and follow orders from humans as they themselves do not feel emotions. As the story unfolds you find out that the robots are altered a bit and given temperament, which enables them to feel hate and allow them to revolt against their human masters. In both stories even though the creations are superior to man, they are treated unfairly and shunned by society.

Both stories revolve around the creators of the beings. In Frankenstein, Victor creates the creature from his love of science and his obsession with the “spark of life”. Through science he finds a way to bring life to a being who is composed of dead body parts. In R.U.R. the scientists create the robots to “better” mankind and stop all poverty and hunger by utilizing the robots to do everything for them. I believe in both cases the creations could have been used for good, but man could not allow it. Man could not handle the creature because we was so hideous and the robots in R.U.R. the robots were never seen as equals no matter how intelligent or how superior they seemed to be over man kind.

Both stories also seem to revolve around the necessity of love. In Frankenstein, the creature is abandoned by Victor from the moment he was brought to life. This could be equivalent to a father abandoning his child and wishing to have nothing to do with his offspring. The creature from then on is miserable with no guidance or communication with his father as he is left to roam the world alone. The creature decides to get back at his father by crushing him from the inside out. The creature destroys everyone who is significantly important to him. Anyone that could bring Victor happiness, that became the creature’s next target. The creature stated in the book that he did not enjoy taking the lives of others but he had to do so to achieve his goal to make Victor suffer for what he made him go through. In R.U.R. the robots do all labor for the human race so they no longer have to work hard for anything. After a while, humans stopped being born because no man was willing to work hard to conceive a child. After all humans but one were left on the planet, robots wanted to know how to reproduce themselves. The last human did not know how to reproduce robots, so the robots were left helpless. At the end of the story two robots seem to have fallen in love and if anything seem incredibly human. Perhaps the robots that are in love will find a way to reproduce, just like actual human do.

Like Father, like Son

Carlos Espinoza

ENL 3

Andrew Hageman

Like Father, like Son?

My first example of evidence is from pages 22-23 where Victor Frankenstein’s father tells him not to read Cornelius Agrippa because it was trash. Victor goes on to explain that if only his father would have explained that Cornelius’ principles had been disproved by modern science that perhaps none of the horrific incidents may have occurred.

My second example of evidence comes from page 40 where Victor is describing how wretched and miserable his creation looks. This occurs right before he decides to bring it to life. Victor brings his creature to life and immediately rushes out of the room to seek refuge from his creation.

My last example comes from page 120 where the creature asks Victor to create a companion for him. He asks Victor to please make him happy by creating him a mate would make the creature feel some sort of gratitude for his creator despite the fact that he was abandoned.

I chose the following examples of evidence because they all show examples of father and son relationships. The first and third examples are related because they both show how the son in the situation is asking something more of the father. In the first example Victor receives only a small comment instead of a thorough explanation to why Cornelius is garbage. The thorough explanation could have prevented the creation of the creature.

The second example differs from the other too because if focuses more on how Victor did not take responsibility for his creation and just abandoned it. Victor’s father did not exactly abandon him; he was just never entirely there for Victor. Victor’s father was only there to tell him what he should do and in a way just dictate his life. In the third example the creature is asking Victor to make him a companion and in a way make up for what he did to him.

Off the Edge

Carlos Espinoza
February 2, 2010

ENL 3

Andrew Hageman

Off the Edge

Ambrose Bierce’s “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” is a uniquely structured story. The story is unique because most of the story is told in 3^rd person omniscient with the exception of the transitions to 3^rd person subjective. The transition that caught my attention the most was between the first and second scene. The whole first part of the story describes the federal soldiers preparing to hang a man off the edge of Owl Creek Bridge. Part one leads up to the moment right before they let the man drop. The sentence after that flashes back in time and introduces the man being hung, his wife and a federal soldier. This flashback left me at the edge of my seat; I was not expecting the scene to suddenly go back in time. The whole first part of the story got me so anxious to see where all of the setting descriptions were leading to. Ambrose Bierce leaves me hanging as he continues to unfold his story.

I enjoyed Ambrose Bierce’s manipulation of chronological order in “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.” I am a big fan of the tool in movies and it has now transferred over to writing as well. I like to be kept on my toes, wanting to turn the page and keep reading to find out the “whole story.” The story begins with a man, Payton Farquhar, who is about to be hung off of the Owl Creek Bridge, then introduces Payton and his wife with a bit of background in the second part, then finally in the third part finishes the story with the description of Payton Farquhar’s struggle for survival.

Another transition that I really enjoyed was in the third part of the story when the lieutenant says to his men, “Attention, company!..Shoulder arms!...Ready!...Aim!...Fire!” and Payton dives as deep as deep as he could underwater to escape the bullets (6). As I read this part in the story I imagined the camera or the point of view focused on Payton in the creek when all of a sudden the dialogue quickly moves the shifts the attention to the soldiers and then right after they fire, the camera zips back to Mr. Farquhar as he navigates through the water.

Lone Soldier

Carlos Espinoza

January 25, 2010

ENL 3

Andrew Hageman

Lone Soldier

The Machinima amplified the effects of Langston Hughes’ poem “Suicide Note.” The Machinima added a visual for the poem allowing the poem to be more easily interpreted and understood. The video game scenery illustrated the message and meaning that the author would have wanted to transcend to the reader through careful analysis of the poem.

After reading the poem and watching the video many times I was able to piece them successfully piece them together. The Machinima depicts a Halo character standing on top of a high rock facing a river. He looks up at the sky and then down at the river right before he decides to jump off the rock into the river. Looking up toward the sky could be the character looking for a sign of higher power, contemplating if he should take away his own life. I also noticed the connection between the video game and the title of the poem. Jumping off of something that high would kill the character in the video game, which is also what the poem seems to be about, suicide.

The machinima stays true to the tone of the poem by accompanying its words with appropriate images and sounds. The images of the individual committing suicide by jumping off of the tall rock and into a river as well as the song in the background of the video created a lonely and depressing feeling that one could imaging feeling right before a suicide, coinciding directly with the tone of the poem.

I tried looking for an example of poetry in pop culture. The most that I could come up with were a bit of song lyrics. “Ezra Pound and T.S. Eliot are fighting in the Captain’s tower”-Bob Dylan “Desolation Row”.

Who Made Who

Carlos Espinoza

January 14, 2010

ENL 3

Mr. Hageman

Who Made Who?

Before I began to read the poem “All Watched Over by Machines in Loving Grace” by Richard Brautigan, I decided to analyze the title. The title did not make a lot of sense to me. I thought the title meant that machines would one day take care of the human race. I wrote a question mark next to the “Loving Grace” part of the title because the title described machines as being loving and graceful when machines don’t have feelings at all. The first half of the poem talked about humans and technology coexisting in harmony while the last part focused on being reunited with nature.

In the last stanza, Brautigan describes our environment as a “cybernetic ecology” (20). Cybernetic ecology would be the relationships and interactions between humans and machines. He also states that he would like to be “free of our labors\ and joined back to nature, \ returned to our mammal brothers and sister,” (21-24). Even though we are in an environment surrounded by technology he would like to be able to return to nature and not have to worry about anything. The poem ends with “and all watched over\ by machines of loving grace,” (25-26). I thought the last lines were saying that we praise technology so much that it’s almost as if we need it to live. By saying that they watch over us with loving grace is in a way comparing machines and technology to God. God should be the one we need, not technology in his place in Brautigan’s eyes.

The first two stanzas advocate humans and technology living in harmony amongst each other. Cybernetic meadow, programming harmony and a cybernetic forest filled with pines and electronics are phrases that do not normally go together, but are used in the poem to make technology seem more nature-like. Brautigan also describes a scene where a “deer strolls peacefully\ past computers\ as if they were flowers\ with spinning blossoms,” (14-17) illustrating how great it would be to have technology and nature coexist to that degree.

At the end of the poem, Brautigan makes it sound as if we need to break free from the chains of technology no matter how much we may believe we need it. Throughout the first two-thirds of the poem he talks about how great and amazing it would be to see technology through the same eye we see nature. I believe Richard Brautigan is anti-technology because even though he mentions both sides in his poem, he ends the poem with leaving technology and returning to nature. Even if most of the poem was pro-technology, I think that the ending is what pieces a poem together, allowing you to construct and confirm your analysis of the work and in this case leaving technology and going back to nature.

Captain of a Sinking Ship

Carlos Espinoza

January 12, 2010

ENL 3

Mr. Hageman

Captain of a Sinking Ship

As I read “Casabianca” by Felicia Dorothen Hemans, I was immediately transported to the middle of the ocean where I was introduced to the death and destruction of a man and his crew. The poem is about a boy who stays on his father’s sinking ship as it is slowly being eaten away by flames. The boy is the only survivor left on the ship. He refuses to abandon ship without the consent from his father, who died during the ship’s ambush.

The poem begins by describing the setting, “The boy stood on the burning deck/ Whence all but him had fled; / The flame that lit the battle’s wreck/ Shone round him o’er the dead,” (1-4). The first quatrain portrays the child as a lone soldier standing above the death and destruction of his father’s ship and crew. The boy is depicted as being heroic and proud as he stands upon the slowly burning vessel. As I read the poem I kept forgetting that the boy was not an adult, but a child. I would have expected an adult to stand tall as the last survivor, not a young boy. The poem describes the boy with phrases such as: beautiful and bright, born to rule, and creature of heroic blood to acknowledge this amazing and incredible accomplishment of his survival.

In the third quatrain, Felicia Dorothea Hemans demonstrates the loyalty and faithfulness of the boy to his father. “The flames rolled on—he would not go/ Without his father’s word; / That father, faint in death below,/ His voice no longer heard,” (9-12). The boy does not plan on abandoning the ship without the captain, his father’s, approval. His father, being captain of the ship, most likely taught his son to be a good captain. A quality of a good captain would be to never abandon ship or the crew. This is demonstrated by the boy’s tenacity toward staying on the ship until further word from his father, who had passed away.

In the last quatrain, Hemans concludes the poem with an aftermath of the destroyed ship. “With mast, and helm, and pennon fair/ That well had borne their part--/ But the noblest thing that perished there/ was that young, faithful heart,” (37-40). The flames continue to eat away at the ship and eventually take the boy with them. The boy dies because of his loyalty to his father. The last two lines of the poem again reminded me that it was a child who decided to die rather than to save himself, showing fidelity to his father until the very last moment of his life.