a rant on rant

I was online the other day, on my Myspace primarily, being bored and not doing anything productive about it. For the most part I was browsing my friends’ profiles and blogs, sending chatty messages to those of my buddies who were online and avoiding people I don’t like, and being a general public nuisance by posting bulletins on things like my goldfish’s new tank or those stupid surveys that you can’t help but fill out and post for all the world to know. You Myspace whores know the drill. While scrolling downwards, I couldn’t help but see that Chuck Palahniuk’s brand-new novel, Rant: An Oral Biography of Buster Casey, was a “Featured Book.”

After recovering from the shock that came with realizing that Myspace even has a “Featured Book” section, I then had to overcome my astonishment that Chuck Palahniuk, the king of twisted, crazy, humorous fiction, was the author of the book which had been chosen. I hesitated a while before clicking on the link, but when I did I was not surprised to find a favorable review, describing the novel as a “insanely fresh” and stating that “Rant’s dystopia is our reality.” [You can read the review here if you like, but I'm not sure if you have to be logged into Myspace to do so] Pleasantly surprised, I then went on to read the user comments on the book, and boy, was I disappointed.

Just a few of the comments I found:

“I have loved all of Chuck’s previous books but this on seems like a mash-up of his earlier novels. A little bit Fight Club (Party Crashing), a little bit Survivor ( super natural powers), and a little Choke (F’d up sexual relations). Maybe it’s just me but I think his earlier works are much better than this. It got too confusing in the end. Too forced. What do you think?”

“And it was okay. Dude tried too hard to the point where it almost doesn’t make the story good anymore. It could have been written much better. It was pretty obserd. It was an alright idea, but too far fetched, and it seems like the guy is trying to sell you his ideology. I wasn’t buying it. But whatever. I wouldn’t suggest reading the book, because there are a lot better books out there to read.”

As per usual, there are plenty of people who were not satisfied with Mr. Palahniuk’s latest book. This is perfectly acceptable – most everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and not every writer’s book is a gem, even the infallible Palahniuk. Members of his “Cult” would disagree [and did, fairly violently, on the page], but it’s the truth.

But then there were the other comments….

“NEVER HEARD OF THIS DICK, BUT HE SEEMS TO WRITE SHITTY BOOKS. I GUESS ONLY ‘COOL’ PEOPLE ARE THE ONES THAT THINK HE IS THE GREATEST EVER. I’D WIPE MY ASS WITH THIS BOOK, BUT IT ISN’T WORTHY ENOUGH TO DO SO.”

“THIS CHUCK IS POPULAR AND HE WILL MAKE U POPULAR TOO IF U BUY THE BOOK. WE SHOULD ALL BE LIKE EVERYONE.

CHUCK IS CUCK. AMERICANS DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT SENTANCE STRUCTURE. WE ARE LAZY NOT LIKE THE CHINA PEOPLE. WE LIKE TO TURN OFF THE BRAIN. JUST BE POPULAR. I LIKE TO BUY BOOKS THAT MAKE ME POPULAR

I AM POPULAR CUZ I BUY CHUCK.”

Caps-lock laden and sardonic, as well as lacking in grammatical accuracy, such reviews are either scathing or sugary-sweet. The latter was posted by a user named Sarah, who had posted about a thousand other comments with the same “POPULARITY IS GOOD” flow to them – redundancy is important when your message reaches millions of people, it seems. Now, to me it was quite obvious this girl was attempting a farce, that her message was a pointless endeavor at satire and that she meant to lash out in a passive-aggressive way at the mindless followers of Chuck Palahniuk – members of his Cult. The first comment, made by a user whose display name is “Big Jake Roberts” is irrelevant and pointless to me.

Now some would argue that these kinds of inane, insubstantial critiques have their place, certainly among the sharp and acerbic mouths [and keyboards] of the teenage denizens of Myspace. But once is quite enough. Nothing bothers me more than a message board flooded with frankly stupid posts like the ones above. Mixed in with the witless analyses was a caustic review by a Dr. Joseph Suglia, the self-proclaimed “World’s Greatest Author” who announced in all capital letters how much he wished he was Chuck Palahniuk – only to then denounce and slam Palahniuk’s latest work. “Simplistic, stupid, superficial, tedious, and derivative, RANT is the verbal equivalent of chunks of regurgitate” is perhaps Suglia’s highest praise. I won’t spend much time on Suglia’s critique, although he certainly did – the review, left about twenty times on each page, is an out-and-out pan. And while the good doctor is content to bash Palahniuk here and there for his colloquial grammatical inaccuracies and redundant overusage of phrases and words, he himself is expected to be quite immune to such criticism, considering that the review, which seemed at first vaguely intelligent, is fraught with errors and repetitions. It’s unnecessarily long and verbose, as well as bombastic – but I suppose there’s not much you can do, especially because Suglia found his own review so important that it should be posted hundreds of times in endless repetition. While Suglia’s latest novel, Watch Out, looks promising, his work has been described as “pretentious but charismatic” – and I’m not sure I’m altogether interested in reading a novel described by its own author as the “most significant novel of the past twenty years.”

Do such meaningless non-reviews have a place, even among the ornery quips of Generation X? I’m not saying that no one should have an opinion, or that there aren’t plenty of poorly-written praises of the book, or that Chuck is God or infallible. It just seems to me that such ridiculous, repetitive, redundant RANTS are pointless and hardly at all helpful.

I haven’t read Rant yet, so some might consider my own little rant invalid. But when I get around to reading the new Palahniuk book, I’ll post you a review of my own. End the Rant rant.

animal farm essay.

my mom’s telling me to email mr. amico my essay for some stupid reason, like she doesnt trust my thumbdrive or something. she’s kind of a technophobe.

so i decided to post it here.

so without further ado, here’s my animal farm essay.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This is perhaps, the most overused quote from Animal Farm; however, it is important to drill such remarkable quotes into the heads of the people who read the book. This quote represents the complete and total betrayal of Old Major’s “Animalism” ideology, the utter change of heart that the animals in charge – namely, the pigs – underwent during the reformation of the Manor Farm. In fact, the treachery of the pigs is only matched by the stupidity and blind acceptance of the other animals. There are many things that happen which illustrate the dishonesty of the pigs, but for the sake of brevity I’ve chosen the three I think to be most important: first, when the animals engaged in direct trade with other, non-animal-controlled farms through Mr. Whymper; second, numerous events in which the pigs subject the other animals to their tyranny through the use of the dogs; and finally the abolishment of the song “Beasts Of England,” the song that started it all.

“‘No animal must ever [...] touch money, or engage in trade.’”

- Animal Farm, Chapter I

“Afterwards Squealer made a round of the farm and set the animal’s minds at rest. He assured them that the resolution against engaging in trade and using money had never been passed, or even suggested. … A few animals still felt faintly doubtful, but Squealer asked them shrewdly, ‘Are you certain that this is not something that you have dreamed, comrades? Have you any record of such a resolution? Is it written down anywhere?’ And since it was certainly true that this is not nothing of the kind existed in writing, the animals were satisfied that they had been mistaken.”

-         Animal Farm, Chapter VI

When Napoleon announces in Chapter VI that he’s hired a human solicitor to mediate between Animal Farm and other surrounding farms, the animals are upset – and rightly so. Considering Napoleon’s decision to engage in trade with a human goes outright against a principle of Animalism laid down by Old Major at the beginning of the revolution, the animals of the Farm had every right to disagree with the decision. At first, they do; true dissention seems just around the corner.  Squealer, the propaganda pig, however, convinces them that because they have no documented proof, they must be wrong;  and they quiet down, calmly accepting that whatever their leader, Napoleon, is doing is right. This quiet aversion to standing up for their rights will eventually lead to the collapse of Animalism, and yet throughout the novel the animals are content to simply swallow whatever it is Squealer tells them, which, of course, is the epitome of misinformation. It is a dangerous habit to get into, this kind of blind following; regardless of this, the animals continue to do it, mindlessly doing whatever their “superiors” – which, rightly, should not exist in Animalism – tell them is right.

            Taking an anachronistic step backwards, let us now explore the numerous incidents in which the animals of the farm are coerced into docility by Napoleon’s force.

“‘And, above all, no animal must ever tyrannise [sp] over his own kind. Weak or strong, clever or simple, we are all brothers. No animal must ever kill any other animal. All animals are equal.”

- Animal Farm, Chapter I

“The dogs bounded forward, seized four of the pigs by the ear and dragged them, squealing with pain and terror, to Napoleon’s feet. [...] The four pigs waited, trembling, with guilt written on every line of their countenances. Napoleon now called upon them to confess their crimes. [...] When they had finished their confession, the dogs promptly tore their throats out, […] Napoleon demanded whether any other animal had anything to confess. [...] The tale of confessions and executions went on, until there was a pile of corpses lying before Napoleon’s feet…”

- Animal Farm, Chapter VII

            The first quotation is, again, Old Major laying out the law of Animalism. The one that follows, however, indicates the acts of coercion which the animals are subjected to during Napoleon’s reign. These dogs are the puppies which Napoleon took from their mothers earlier on, to “educate” – turns out that the education is not what the animal expected, go figure. Instead of teaching the pups to read, to uphold the principles of Animalism, to be good members of animal society, Napoleon turned them into creatures that listen to him and him alone, which he then uses to terrorize the animals in a direct violation of the laws of Animalism.

“They had just finished singing [Beasts of
England] for the third time when Squealer, attended by two dogs, approached them… He announced that, by a special decree of Comrade Napoleon, Beasts of
England had been abolished.”

-         Animal Farm, Chapter VII

The last thing to tell about Animal Farm is the abolishing of Beasts of England. To me, this is the final straw when it comes to the betrayal of Major’s dream. Napoleon abolishes the song because “the revolution is over” and they have no need of it, or so Squealer says. Old Major introduced the song to stir the animals’ hearts, yes, but also to give them something to dream about. The true reason behind Napoleon’s banning “Beasts of England” is apparent in the song that Minimus writes: Animal Farm, Animal Farm, never through me shalt thou come to harm. The spirit of equality is being usurped by a sense of  “my country, right or wrong” – a dangerous kind of patriotism which perpetuates a very bad mindset. The animals simply adopt it as their own.

            In the beginning of the novel, Old Major sets down the rules of Animalism. As he does this, he lays out things that should never, ever be done by animals who have adopted Animalism as a lifestyle. The animals agreed unanimously that these should be the rules they found their new republic upon. Despite this, the pigs continue to break these principles. All three of the incidents described above embody the complete betrayal of Old Major’s utopian ideals, because all three are things that Old Major himself dubbed enemies to Animalism outright.

fight club & the book of job.

“what you have to consider is the possibility that God doesn’t like you. could be, God hates us. this is not the worst thing that could happen.”

how tyler saw it was that getting God’s attention for being bad was better than getting no attention at all. maybe because God’s hate is better than His indifference.

if you could be either God’s worst enemy or nothing, which would you choose?

we are God’s middle children, according to tyler durden, with no special place in history and no special attention.

unless we get God’s attention, we have no hope of damnation or redemption.

which is worse, hell or nothing?

only if we’re caught and punished can we be saved.

from fight club, by chuck palahniuk [which everyone on earth should read a million times]

these are the quotes that came to mind when we were reading those job passages today… so yeah. ^^

animal farm 1.

For the most part, I have been a free-thinker my entire life. I’ve always been encouraged to come to my own conclusions about things, most especially by my family, whom I often clash with on various issues – from politics with my mother to music with my brother, I’m pushed to form my own thoughts on issues. I think that for this open atmosphere at home I am blessed, because I’ve never been subjected to brainwashing at the hands of my parents and from a young age have been taught to resist personal influence in lessons I’ve been taught at various schools. The only major clash I’ve had in school was during the 2004 presidential election. I was in seventh grade, and my class spent the entire day debating who should be the president and who would win. I was the only vaguely liberal one in my class, and I’ve come to the conclusion that my classmates were, essentially, brainwashed – by their parents and by their teachers. Because everyone believed that the Death Penalty was okay, that Bush was one of the best presidents we’ve ever had, and that Napoleon  Republicans were always right, there was no disturbance in these thoughts and even the relatively intelligent students of my class believed the same thing as everyone else. This was mob mentality at its fullest, and the environment they were placed in – a stoic, stern Catholic School – was only encouraging this “believe what they tell you” behavior.

It was frightening, certainly, for me. I wasn’t able to comprehend that they all had the same thoughts and feelings about sensitive political issues, like capital punishment or homosexual marraiges. And they were sincere about it, or so it seemed - there was at least inklings of thoughts in the words they spoke, as if they had come up with it. It was only through valid debate and being able to represent my ideas firmly that I was able to get some of them thinking for themselves.

Another scary encounter I’ve had with “pigs” in my life was one of my best friends, Catherine. Catherine’s parents were diehard Republicans, and had apparently imposed on her since birth that their way was right, and the only way. In a sense, they were the “pigs”, and Catherine was Boxer – spreading the propaganda and false ideas that her parents had given her, that were not her own. Quite frankly, it scared me. I’ve since tried to help her see that what her parents say is not always right, but it’s proven a difficult task.

The truth is, we’ve all encountered pigs in our life. It’s our job to stand up against them and their slander.  

thoughtful feedback.

Well, as we all know, last week we in Mr. Amico’s 12:20 English I Honors class put the American Dream on trial. Personally, I thought it to be a great idea, especially the topic – I don’t think a more interesting topic could have been chosen. It was surprisingly easy to find books to support the statement my side was making, about the American Dream being dead… perhaps a little too easy, if you ask me. The word “disenchantment” was tossed around a LOT, particularly by yours truly. I really enjoyed the trial, despite the inordinate amount of stress it put me under.

Although I enjoyed the trial, there were some things about it I didn’t particularly like. Firstly, the lack of interest and effort put forth by some members of both my team and the opposing team was… disappointing, to  say the least. I also am not overly fond of the grading method – it just seems unnecessarily unfair to grade us for our group, especially if only a select few did the hard work and research. Fortunately, this wasn’t the case for my team, for the most part – a few slacked, but they came through in the end.

To be honest, the main problem I had during the trial was myself; I kept feeling like I wasn’t working hard enough, wasn’t doing enough, needed to read more, underline more, write better questions. Everything worked out, however, and I am thoroughly happy with how things turned out.

All in all, however, it was an enjoyable [if stressful] process, and I would volunteer to do it again in a heartbeat.

mockingbird 5.

Mayella Ewell and Tom Robinson can be seen in the same light. Although the difference in their physical appearance as well as their different mentalities might be cited, their similarities are many, as well. First and foremost, both have been abused often in their lives – Mayella by her father, and Tom by the majority of the white society in Maycomb. Not only do they seem to be rather accustomed to the abuse they have recieved for the greater part of their lives, they also appear to be unaware of the fact that they are both being treated unfairly. Tom and Mayella are so acclimated to injustice towards them that they stopped noticing it – or they never noticed it in the first place. Both are disdained by Maycomb’s society: Tom, for his race; and Mayella for her family.

There are, however, not-so-subtle differences between them, and these are the ones best exhibited in the book.  The most obvious of these differences is the contrast between Mayella and Tom’s thinking, their mentality.  Mayella, despite being put down and physically (and possibly otherwise?) abused for most of her life, is quite outspoken during the trial, as well as almost melodramatically emotional.  In contrast, Tom is softspoken and quiet, polite, but passionately defiant when his innocence was brought into question and very sure of himself during the description of the events, as opposed to Mayella’s “yes – I mean no!” defense.

This (and Mr. Amico’s prompt, of course) brings up the question: are Tom and Mayella really that different? I think that, if one were to tally up the contrast to the comparison, one would discover that the latter outweighs the former in the longrun. In spite of Maycomb’s citizen’s extremely segregated and racist views, I think the people of the little Alabama town are beginning to realize that people are people, and that a black man and a white woman can be comparatively similar.  This comes to view remarkably in the trial scene, when the town recognizes – if only briefly – that Tom and Mayella are ultimately not as different as black and white.  

mockingbird 4.

On the subject of Scout and the lynching, I’ve come to the conclusion that Scout’s heroism is an example of the goodness of humanity, as opposed to poor writing on the part of the author.  I was going to write about Harper Lee’s unrealistic stance on the nature of man as a species – that she is a bad writer for such a character flaw, and that this scene proves my point that To Kill A Mockingbird is a terrible book.  However, I found myself examining the book and my oh-so-diligent notes on the margins… and, as I examined these, I was also forced to examine my answer, as well as the reasons behind it.

I think Scout was able to thwart the lynching for many reasons.  Specifically, though, there are two – Scout’s ultimate ignorance about the potential violence of her situation, and her lack of an explicit “agenda” when she tried to start a conversation with Cunningham.  This scene illustrates the “goodness of humanity” by showing that Scout, merely by the merit of her innocence, can change the mind of a mob of angry people.  Not only was Scout completely lacking an agenda in attempting to talk with Cunningham, but she was also [I think] unaware of the fact that Cunningham and the mob were actually going to hurt Atticus.  It is this ignorance, this naivety, that brings Cunningham and the rest of the mob from the unreality of their mob-mentality; it reminds them that Atticus, if not Tom, is not some animal to be hunted or killed – he is a human, like them, who thinks and rationalizes.  It’s easy to imagine the look of dawning comprehension on their faces.

As much as I don’t like to admit it, this scene is not some terrible character flaw or a breach in the believability of the characters.  If anything, I think that this deepens the character of Scout, as well as the novel’s flow.  It’s well-written and believable, and a remarkably adept commentary on the goodness of humanity.

mockingbird 3.

Here goes.

Mockingbirds being a central metaphor of the book refers back to the notion that mockingbirds “don’t do one thing but make music” – that is, they are innocent of any “evil” doings, innocence embodied, if you will.  To kill one, a creature that does nothing but sing, would be to kill innocence.  I think mockingbirds represent two things – Tom Robinson (and the African-American race as a whole), and Boo Radley.  Boo, like the mockingbird, hasn’t done anything to hurt anybody – well, with the exception of stabbing his father in the leg with a pair of scissors.  In some strange light of contrast, Tom is the picture of innocence – convicted with little/no evidence of a horrendous crime.  I’m convinced of his innocence, merely on the virtue of not trusting the white people who are accusing him.  I also realize this is somewhat hypocritical… but I digress.

 The quote, I think, only backs up my aforementioned hypotheses.  Mockingbirds are innocent; killing innocence is bad.  Atticus and Miss Maudie know that mockingbirds are symbolically innocent, and are imparting their strange southern wisdom to Scout and Jem.

As for the “incident” between Scout and Uncle Jack.  Basically, Uncle Jack finds out that Scout had said bad words to Francis, her cousin, and had beat her up for it.  Scout gets angry – not because her uncle HIT HER, which would merit anger in my book, but because she didn’t look at the thing from her own perspective – didn’t “crawl into her skin”.  Scout protests not her beating, but the fact that Uncle Jack did not take the time to rationalize things.  He believed the first thing he heard, a problem so many people have.  This illustrates the importance of understanding others’ perspectives because it shows that Uncle Jack could have avoided an embarrassing situation if he had only consulted Scout instead of jumping to conclusions.  It’s a valuable lesson to be learned. :]

mockingbird 2.

Jem, Scout and Dill’s “summertime world”, their childhood, was rather unbothered.  They knew so much, and seemed so happy despite the poverty [by today's standards, I suppose] they were surrounded by – and part of.  Theirs was a life of vitality and happiness, unbridled by things like homework, schoolday drama, stressed parental relationships… and their games surprised me.  They [the games] were so developed… I wish I had that kind of imagination when I was little.

The depth of character they each display, even only in chapter six, is profound, as is their somewhat subject-to-change hierarchy. Jem was automatically established as the leader ["...Jem was a born hero."] by virtue of his seniority, but at Dill’s arrival, his leadership seems to be almost challenged.  While Dill isn’t an obvious usurper, his frequent suggestions cast some doubt on Jem’s own leadership skills, and might cause some tension in the future of the book.

 As for Boo Radley, I have some ideas about him.  Boo represents, at this point in the book anyway, the fear that’s beginning to creep into the hearts of the citizens of Maycomb.  Although Boo is a somewhat vague reference, the fear that’s being presented is a fear sparked by racial tension – differences, if you will.  Boo is different, the Radleys are different.  The integration that was taking place around that time?  Different.  I think Boo is going to play a big part – symbollically, anyway, as I’m not sure if he’ll actually appear in the book.  Personally, a character like Boo is better played enigmatically, and with as few physical appearances as can be managed… a looming, dark figure in the shadows, ready to right the wrongs.   Or whatever.

books.

“All books are either dreams or swords;

You can cut, or you can drug, with words.” 

–Amy Lowell

 

[ps.  Mr. Amico --  that's the quote I was trying to think of the other day.]