Minority Report - The Super Post

I like to think that all of my posts are pretty super, actually.

Plot
The important thing about the plot of "Minority Report" by Philip K. Dick is the pace. The action of this story literally never stops. Ever. It's like if you just cut out all the dialogue of a Dragon Ball Z episode. You just get two shirtless men beating the crap out of each other for about 30 minutes. I'm going somewhere with this, I promise. John Allison Anderton has quite the day indeed. He gets accused of pre-murder, is kidnapped, gets caught in a car accident, breaks into Precrime headquarters, escapes via airship, rescues his wife from a mysterious assailant, assassinates an Army general, and jets off the planet. The plot never seems to slow down for more than a paragraph or two before it picks back up again, which ultimately sets the story's pace at roughly three times ten to the eighth meters per second. This pace has several effects. Most of all, it makes the story fun. Personally, I think stories with no action are just hard to read. I can breeze through an action-packed story easily, but stories full of dialogue and inner conflict just seem to draaaaag on. The story is also suspenseful. Because so much action keeps happening, the situation constantly changes. People Anderton (and therefore the reader) once suspected eventually become allies, and people he believed were friends ultimately become his enemies. Anderton initially suspects Witwer, declaring that "the set-up is fairly obvious....This will give Witwer a legal pretext to remove me right now," (p. 125) but then quickly shifts view Kaplan as the enemy, stating that "He can break the Precrime system" (p. 143). The conflict of the story shifts and bends throughout the story as the fast-occurring events change the situation. The conflict and antagonists are not always clearly defined, which makes the ending unpredictable and the story very entertaining.
Picture Pending.

Point of View
In this particular story, the point of view is called Third Person Limited, meaning that the story specifically follows one character, John Anderton, and the reader is able to discern his thoughts and feelings, but the thoughts and actions of other characters remain hidden. This is important because it gives the reader exactly as much information as Anderton is given, so we as readers suspect all the characters that he does, and we are equally surprised as he begins to uncover the truth. We are unable to see the intentions of any of the other characters, so when Anderton is convinced that he is being "framed--deliberately and maliciously" (p. 125) by Witwer, the reader trusts in his intuition and begins to suspect Witwer. However, once he discovers that "Fleming and his men were operation under Kaplan's orders," and that Kaplan had been "making sure they got him before the police," (page 141), the reader immediately begins to trust Witwer and suspect Kaplan. The point of view keeps the reader from seeing all the pieces of the puzzle until the very end and keeps the conclusion completely unexpected.
Picture Pending.

Characterization
There are exactly two ways in which people are characterized in this story. The first method applies only to Anderton. We see his actions and indirectly characterize him and get a feel for who he is. He is a man determined to survive, which is apparent by his response of "My safety" to the question of "which means more to you--your own personal safety or the existence of the system?" (p. 139). One would initially consider this to be selfish, as he has sentences countless people to detention camps for crimes they haven't committed yet, but when it comes down to it, he will not accept the fate for himself. However, this actually uncovers a strong sense of justice, based on his reasoning "If the system can survive only by imprisoning innocent people, then it deserves to be destroyed." (p. 139).Though he created Precrime, he would rather see it destroyed than have it imprison innocent people. He views himself as innocent, and therefore feels that if Precrime imprisons him, then the system is broken. It doesn't matter that he is the criminal in question; it only matters that an innocent man is being threatened with imprisonment. It just happens to be a coincidence that the only time he has considered a man's innocence is when he himself is in danger.

The second method of characterization is used to paint the picture of virtually every character who is not named John A. Anderton. Anderton literally tells the reader what to think about every person he meets. His opinions are the only things that we can use to understand the characters he interacts with. We immediately begin to distrust Witwer as Anderton blames him for the apparent conspiracy to kick him out and describes him to be as "Nice as a water moccasin" (p. 124). We also begin to distrust his wife as Anderton becomes completely convinced that she will betray him and "would describe [the card] in detail to Witwer" (p. 126). We also begin to trust Fleming, who rescues him from the car crash and from being arrested by the police. Anderton also begins to trust Kaplan, which is evident from Lisa's thought that "Probably Kaplan will protect you," (p. 138), so the reader starts to trust Kaplan as well. However all of these opinions of other people completely flip around as Anderton begins to uncover more of the story. He starts to trust Lisa, and eventually Witwer, and realizes that the true enemies here are Fleming and Kaplan. Ultimately, our view of the other characters depends totally on how Anderton feels about them.
Picture Pending.

Setting
Not much is really said about the setting. The main action takes place within some sort of city, and it is alluded that the rural parts outside of the city are locked in constant warfare. However, the important part of setting is not really the where but the when. This story, presumably, takes place sometime in the future, as apparent by such things as "precog mutants" and "airships," which as far as I know do not exist currently. The time period of this story is extremely important, as it would be impossible to create a story about Precrime in a time period where peering into the future is impossible. So the author creates his own slot in time and creates seemingly feasible technology which makes the story more realistic, rather than complete fantasy through fortunetelling and divination. Ultimately though, the setting just allows the plot to take place in a mildly realistic fashion and does not really add much to work as a whole. It could have taken place in Texas, and not a whole lot would have changed.

Theme
Oh boy, here it is, Le Pièce de résistance. I am fancy.

I have hereby discovered two distinct things, one more minor, and the other more major.

Let's start this show with the minor theme: the dangers of a strong, active military in times of peace. The army and the police force appear to be opposed to each other. Initially, the two act like they're working together to protect the public, as each keeps the other one in check, as noted by Anderton on page 122: "A duplicate file of cards pops out at Army GHQ. It's check and balance. They can keep their eye on us as continuously as they wish." The two look like they're working together, but eventually, the Army attempts to undercut the police force in a sneaky power grab, as the Army tries to discredit the concept of Precrime and dissolve the police force. The story shows just how quickly and subtly a standing Army can take over a state under the pretext of protecting the public.

The more major theme is actually a very common one, particularly amongst stories concerning things like precognition or time travel. This, of course, is the existence of free will. The concept of Precrime is based on the fact that once a person is deemed guilty of future-murder, then that person has ultimately already made the decision. Thus, the police force interferes, and actively prevents the would-be criminal from making this decision before they ever actually make it. But if that concept holds true, then does anyone really have free will? Apparently, the precogs are able to see into the future and see the decisions that somebody is going to make, implying that the future is set in stone. However, this concept is superseded by the idea that once a person becomes aware of future events, they are capable of changing the future before it happens. This also ties into the theory of Precrime in that once the police force becomes aware of the future, they are able to prevent these future events. But then this would imply that the only way that a person can have free will and the ability to control their own destiny is to be able to become aware of the future and actively prevent the events that have been predicted. This is evident from the fact that Anderton became aware of the future and thus was able to actively choose not to kill Kaplan, and then became aware of the minority report and actively chose to kill him anyway, but under different circumstances. Anderton apparently believes this as in the last few lines he notes that "My case was unique, since I had access to the data." He asserts that the only way a person can change the future is by becoming aware of the future. Otherwise, free will does not exist.

But outside of the context of the story, in this normal world where the future is completely and utterly unknown, does free will exist? Who cares? Batman is riding Superman.

Miss Brill

People watching is fun. Perhaps I'm just creepy, but sometimes it's nice to just sit there and watch other people go about their business, imagining their lives. Okay, I never really actually do that, but it soooounds like it would be fun.

Miss Brill is an English teacher. BUT WAIT! She's an English teacher in France. So naturally, she probably feels out of place, as though she doesn't belong. Now, she probably can speak French, as she says she likes listening to what the people are saying. However, she still probably feels cut off, not by the language barrier, but by the cultural one. Everyone around her is French, and she is definitely English. However, she goes to this park and watches the people, eventually arriving at the conclusion that she is a part of some great play. She is included. She states that she is an important part of the production, and that people would surely notice if she was absent. This makes her feel connected to the other people. Before, she was alone, just a lonely English lady sitting in a French park. And so when she finally gets this connection, she is just simply delighted. But then that makes it sting oh so much more when the boy and girl appear and talk about poor Miss Brill. They just straight rip on her, saying that she is unwanted and questioning why she is even at the park if she's all alone. So she immediately goes from a feeling of connection and importance to one of complete and utter rejection and unappreciation. Naturally, it kills her inside, and she locks up her adorable little mink.

This is a mink.

Once Upon a Time

I liked this story. It reminded me of the stories my daddy used to tell me and my siblings before we all fell asleep. They were always vulgar, violent, and inappropriate for the audience, but oh so hilarious. I think it explains a lot about who I am today.

But anyway, here's question 2: "What stylistic devices create the atmosphere of children's stories? How is this atmosphere related to the story's theme?"

First and foremost, there is the title: "Once Upon a Time." This is the classic opening line to a children's story. Every time I hear that line, I just want to cozy up on the floor for storytime and insist that they show me alllll the pictures. It's just inherently child-story-oriented. Second, the characters involved are not really people. They are a man, a woman, a child, a gardener, etc...they are as flat as flat can be. And usually that's how a children's story character is. There is the dashing knight and the beautiful princess and the evil witch, all with about as much depth as a kiddie pool. So it makes sense that all of the characters in this story go without name, physical description, or any characterization whatsoever. Furthermore, the entire story is comprised of extremely simple language and syntax. All of the sentences are simple and easy to understand, and the diction is not very advanced at all. This of course, makes sense; when one writes a story for children, it had better be simple enough for a child to understand. Also, the phrases "Dragon Teeth" and "the wise old witch" are very indicative of a fairy tale feel which creates that children's story atmosphere.

So then what's the point? Well, the author is trying to create a fairly tale in order to convey the horrors of Apartheid. History Lesson?? Apartheid was the system of racial segregation in South Africa, where the white minority oppressed the non-white majority. The author herself is from South Africa, and the story is rampant with racial tension. The children story format is simply an interesting and unexpected way of conveying the current state of South Africa at the time and the criticize the oppressive system.

This is ridiculous. There are no tigers in Africa.

A Worn Path

Okay...no...wait...what? Awesome story, totally awesome. Phoenix Jackson sounds like the long lost member of The Jackson 5.

Among the many questions a-rumbling through my noggin about this story, the most prominent is of course: is the grandson dead? Does it even matter? It matters to me!

First let's simply agree that our dear friend Phoenix is just not quite all together mentally. The vast majority of the dialogue in the story is either her talking to herself or addressing bushes, trees, animals, and at one time, a scarecrow. I would hardly call it a stretch to say that Phoenix is suffering from dementia, or at the very least is extremely confused. So really, it could be very likely that the grandson is very much dead. This is evident by the behavior of the nurses. They repeatedly ask "is he dead," and act as though they already know the answer. One of them even says "Just tell us and get it over with. Is he dead?" This seems to indicate that all the nurses secretly know that the kid is dead, but are just waiting for Phoenix to accept it. The head nurse, however, steps in and gives her the medicine, apparently calling it charity, indicating that she feels it's better to have her go on living her illusion than to force the truth on her and destroy her emotionally. So what does it mean if he's dead? Well it indicates that Phoenix is clinging to the boy. His existence fuels her entire journey and gives her purpose. So even after he dies, she goes on believing that he's alive in order to keep this sense of purpose. Why, one could even argue that her delusion that her grandson is alive is in fact all that's keeping her alive. But I'm sleepy, and don't like arguing.

I remember this was relevant somehow....

Eveline

I distrust all people named Eveline. Perhaps it is because thanks to last Spring's musical, I now pronounce it "Evil-een." I mean, it has evil right smack in the middle of it!

I'll go ahead and tackle question number 2: "What in Eveline's present circumstances makes it desirable for her to escape her home? Characterize her father and Miss Gavan, her supervisor. What does the memory of her mother contribute to her decision to leave?". Eveline's life kind of sucks. First off, there is nothing really good about her situation. The second paragraph essentially says that all of her friends and all of the people she once cared for have all moved on and gone away, leaving her alone at home. The only real redeeming quality that her home has is its familiarity, which is outlined in paragraph 3. Furthermore, her father is a bully and a scoundrel. He is prone to violence, as is evident in Eveline's description. While he never got physically abusive, apparently, he appears to have had an extremely emotionally abusive impact on his daughter to the point that she began having heart palpitations. Miss Gavan, one of the other minor characters, also has a bit of a mean streak, as she always seems to be criticizing Eveline, but most especially so when in front of other people, apparently deriving pleasure from her embarrassment. Eveline herself says that she would not shed a tear over leaving the Stores. So she works hard all day, both at home and at work, for an abusive father who, though not without an occasional nice moment, is gradually crushing her spirit. So why the heck would she stick around? Well, there's that pesky promise to her mother: "her promise to keep the home together as long as she could." That promise ultimately keeps her anchored in Dublin.

So that all makes sense...but what is the point of the organ-grinder in the middle of the touching deathbed scene?

*Stereotypical Italian Music*

Characterization

This post will analyze the various methods of characterization and types of characters depicted in all three stories.

"Everyday Use" employs a combination of Indirect and Direct Characterization. The narrator implies through their opinions that Dee is fairly uppity. This character image is developed indirectly later on when Dee is actually introduced in the story. The reader then gets the feeling that she is fairly bossy and condescending, not very accustomed to getting her own way. Ultimately, Dee is just a flat, static character. She starts off hurtful and condescending and ends that way as well.

"Hunters in the Snow" relies completely on Indirect Characterization. The story is all told focusing on Tub, but we do not hear his thoughts or feelings towards the other characters. Everything that we know about the characters comes through indirectly reading them. All three of the characters seem to be fairly round. Kenny appears to be rude, angry, and mentally unstable, but he also shows various signs of compassion and understanding. Tub appears to be a stereotypical fat guy who takes the brunt of his friends jokes, but he breaks the stereotype in that he does not grow to resent them but actually deepens his friendship with Frank, showing his trust in him and his deep care for his friends (as long as their name isn't Kenny). Frank appears to be a bit of a crappy friend and mildly unintelligent, but he also shows a tendency to prattle off sagely wisdom about love and friendship. Ultimately, though, all of the characters are static. They do not undergo some great change that suddenly makes them compassionate or understanding or wise. They simply always were. The only one who undergoes a dramatic change is Kenny. Because he's dead.

"Bartleby the Scrivener," on the exact opposite end, relies almost entirely on Direct Characterization. The narrator goes on for pages describing the exact nature of each character. Very little requires actual inference on the part of the reader. All of the characters are fairly flat. Nippers has indigestion; Ginger Nut is a messengerboy; Turkey is a drunk. The most intriguing character is Bartleby, but ultimately he is not actually developed much at all. He is only interesting because he is so simple, yet this simplicity makes him seem strange. A real person does not act as one-dimensionally as Bartleby does. He appears to undergo a change throughout the story, but really this change is just a progression from mild depression to severe depression. He avoids human interaction, then he quits work, then he quits eating. So he undergoes a change...but not really.

These are ginger nuts, apparently

Bartleby the Scrivener

Any parent who names their child Bartleby is simply setting them up for a life of awkward.

I think I shall now attempt to delve into question 8: "what motivates bartleby's behavior? Why do you think Melville withholds the information about the Dead Letter Office until the end of the story? Does this background adequately explain Bartleby?"

Bartleby sounds like a classic case of depression. He is not angry, nor is he sad. He simply goes about his work of scrivening, mindlessly copying legal documents. His greatest indication towards depression is his severe lack of motivation. He performs the task required of him, but refuses to do anything else, from walking to the post office, to walking to the next room to summon Nippers. He does not divulge any information about his past, implying that he feels cut off from other people. Eventually he loses the motivation to work, and even to live. He gives up on life, and stops eating, and eventually just starves.

So what caused his depression? It probably has something to do with that Dead Letter Office then, I bet. The Dead Letter Office was the office of the United States Postal Service that took all letters that were deemed undeliverable and disposed of them in order to respect the sender's privacy. One could certainly view that as a depressing job. One takes in letters, conversations between loved ones that will never be, professions of love and might never be read, information meant to brighten a day or save a life that instead ends up in a furnace. Such a depressing atmosphere would surely weigh down on poor Bartleby until it eventually just crushed his spirit, and he became the man of few words that we know and love.

You now understand the meaning of "Going Postal."

Hunters in the Snow

While reading this story, all I could think about was "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!" Naturally Tub was Cartman, and I got a very Stan-ish vibe from Frank.

I shall now address question 3: "How do plot and characterization work together in this story?" The first fun plot twist is Kenny's little shooting spree. He shoots a post, a tree, a dog, and appears to be considering shooting Tub as well. This gives the character the sense that Kenny is a bit of a jerk, one who makes rash decisions, and is not quite entirely mentally stable. Tub is also developed in that he decides it is a much safer decision to shoot his friend than to use words or step out of the line of fire. Tub apparently lacks trust and thinks very little of his friends, at this point apparently.

Next up in the plotline, it is revealed that the farmer fellow asked Kenny to shoot the dog, apparently, which actually changes Kenny's image from crazy gun nut to quasi-compassionate gun nut. Tub now appears to be the slightly crazy one. Obviously Kenny wasn't really going to shoot him, I mean obviously. At least that's how it appears to the reader.

Also, Frank and Tub have some Man Talk male bonding time in the bar and the roadhouse. Frank declares that he is in love with a 15 year old girl. I'll just go ahead and say that this little plot twist alone just makes Frank seem awkward. Maybe the author is just trying to say something adorable like "love is blind," blah blah blah, love can still tell age. Tub also has a little spill-the-guts session, and declares that his obesity problem is not actually glandular, but that he actually just eats too much. Shocker. This development leads to a knew side of Tub, not that he doesn't like being fat, but that he just doesn't care for being dishonest.

However, all of these little character development moments in the plot pale in comparison to the overall plot as a whole: Frank and Tub go to a bar and eat pancakes while their friend is dying in the backseat of the truck. And also cold.

According to Kenny, these cure gunshot wounds.

Everyday Use

This story is ridiculous. If I decided I would change my name to Patrick Conor McO'Brien, become a potato farmer, develop an affinity for Guinness, and call anyone I don't care for a Knobjockey so that I can reconnect with the heritage of my ancestors, most people would think I was being quite silly. I am not Irish. I am American. I did not ask to be American; it is simply the culture that has been placed upon me, just the same as any other American, regardless of their fleshy hue. Our heritage and culture is American. Dee should embrace the heritage of her real, true family, not that of her ancestors from centuries ago.

Rant over.

Wants the point of this story? I haven't the foggiest. Here's something I picked up on. Dee/Wangero feels the need to define herself and her heritage with tangible objects: the quilts, the butter churn, and the dasher. She places a great emphasis on material possessions, she can't remember her family without something real, something actual. Maggie is of course the direct foil to this; she states simply "I can 'member Grandma Dee without the quilts." Maggie doesn't need anything actual, she just needs memories. So, since Dee/Wangero is portrayed as a generally obnoxious, bossy, and unlikeable character, this certainly seems to imply that the author is condemning a culture that places emphasis on material objects as opposed to human interaction.

This blog post is Brilliant!

All Three stories

I suppose here I'll try to find an underlying thread between the three stories. It's likely that I'll simply end up trying way too hard and going far beyond the cone of meaning, but hey, that's what blogs are for, amiright?

I think the three stories are all really about seeking to improve ones life. In How I met my Husband, at the end of the story, we see that Edie decides that she cannot simply go through life waiting for Chris Watters to come back. She decides to simply quit passively breezing through life and takes and active stance in her happiness. She picks a new fella, and she improves her position in life. Mr. Kapasi also tries to fix his fairly unfulfilling life. His wife is indifferent towards him and he feels unappreciated at his job as an interpreter. Therefore, he takes an active choice to improve his life by seeking a relationship with the lovely Mrs. Das. Now he seems to sway between a relationship as pen pals and one of potential lovers, but either way, he hopes that this connection with another person will make him happier and improve his life. And the lovely Miss Emily also seeks to fix her issues in life, although in my humble opinion, her methods of improving her life are just bizarre. Her father constantly drove various male suitors away, so naturally she seeks to remedy this situation by finding a man and never ever letting him leave. ever. She killed him, is basically what I'm saying. But hey, it made her feel better, which I would certainly classify as seeking to improve one's life. I don't exactly agree with it, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

These are limes. They float in water, and thus serve as my particular boat's flotation and buoyancy system. I am trying way too hard.

A Rose for Emily

This story is a bit odd. I shall answer question 5: What are the advantages of first-person plural point of view in this story? What would be lost if it were told in first-person singular, by one of the townspeople or in third-person limited point of view. First-person plural (or "we") is certainly an odd point of view that one does not see often. The effect here is to show Emily as a bit of a legend. The entire town is talking about her, not just a single person. If only one person told the story, then it would lose this effect of seeming like her very presence effected the entire town. Similarly, if the point of view was from Emily's perspective, either third or first person, then the focus of the story would be primarily on what she does, the actual acts she commits, rather than how it is here where the focus is mostly on her reasoning for her actions. We would lose this sense with any other point of view, but because we see this through the eyes of the townspeople, we are able to get that "legendary" sense while also seeing her reasons.

This rose is for Emily. She received no other roses in the story.

Interpreter of Maladies

I'll take this opportunity to just say that Mr. Kapasi's life just kind of blows. He works a job where he feels unappreciated, he has virtually no feelings for his wife, and he just seems generally unhappy with his position. However, he does seem to take an active effort in making his life better, as is evident from his working tours, which he thoroughly enjoys, to chasing a potential relationship with Mrs. Das. However, that last part didn't really work out well, which brings me to my question from the book: How does Mr. Kapasi's job as an interpreter of maladies relate to the action in this story? Does he have the occasion to use his diagnostic ability in his interactions with the Das family?

Mr. Kapasi may be good at interpreting language, but he is definitely not good at interpreting nonverbal communication. I would have likely categorized Mrs. Das's questions toward him as polite banter which was most likely said in order to avoid boredom on a very long car trip. Mr. Kapasi interpreted this as flirting and naturally assumed that she wanted hook up. However, this is not really the case, after all. She ends up spilling the beans on a huge secret she's kept, and he attempts to interpret what it means, but she doesn't particularly like his answer and runs off all upset. So to answer the question, yes he does interpret various situations, but not very well at all.

The monkeys have apparently transitioned from tools to weaponry.

How I met My Husband

I shall now write my own story to represent my feelings towards this particular tale. It is called "Jeffrey's Trip to the Zoo."

Little Jeffrey woke up one day and decided he was going to go to the zoo. So he set aside a date when he would skip school and go to the zoo. Then he got a map of the zoo and planned out his exact route so that he could make it through the zoo in one day and get to see all the animals. Then he did all sorts of chores around the house so that he could earn the money to go there. His excitement just kept building until finally the day came!

But then he got sick and decided not to go.

Fourteen years later, he got a job at the zoo as a poop-shoveler. He shoveled poop for the rest of his life until he died and was eaten by one of the elephants he cared for.

The End.

To say that How I met my Husband is misleading is practically and understatement. The vast majority of the story seems to build up Chris Watters. Oh yeah, the protagonist is going to meet her husband in this story! I bet it's Christ Watters, the mysterious and terribly dashing pilot fellow. Oh yeah, things are heating up now, they're totally gonna get hitched. Wait, no, mailman, what? yeah, misleading. However, there's two points to this, I suppose. Firstly, nobody should just wait around for something to happen. Edie was waiting around for Chris to contact her but eventually gave up because she can't, and shouldn't have to, wait around forever. If there's something you want, go get it; don't wait around for it to happen. Secondly, it would be boring if they ended up together. Anybody could have called that. It's a story about meeting her husband, I bet she's going to meet her husband at some point, and Chris Watters is the only prominent male character, really. It's more interesting this way, and also sort of implies that the author is saying that generally things don't go as planned. The reader just cruises along the story, anticipating the obvious ending, and the author just smacks them down "HA! this is the real world, fool!" At least that's how I imagine things happen. It's probably not very accurate.

You ate Jeffrey!