Popular Mechanics

The title of this short story is "Popular Mechanics," which is easily the worst title I've ever heard. The original title, apparently, was "Mine." That is a much better title. Popular Mechanics is already a thing Mr. Carver.

"How to Build a Flying Car." What could go wrong?

I suppose I'd best put on my serious hat and start some hardcore analysis on this lovely tale. I will be tackling question 4 with this here blog post, Why is this couple splitting up? Do we know? Does it matter? Explain in my response. Okay, I will.

We have no idea why the couple is splitting up. We know nothing of their relationship except that they have decided to end it, and they also happen to have a wee little baby together. There is no possible way that we can know what has caused them to sever their ties, and frankly, we are not supposed to know. Usually when things are kept vague in literature, there's a pretty good reason. In this case, the ambiguity is used to make the situation more universal and applicable to more situations. Y'see kids, this short story is a commentary on divorce itself. If the couple has a specific reason for splitting up, then it becomes less universal. If the couple breaks up because one of them cheated, then the story becomes less about divorce and more about infidelity, and that's a whole new can of worms. By keeping the reason vague, it is able to serve as a commentary on every divorce and the impact that it has on the children.

I find this to be in bad taste. Deliciously bad taste.

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