Thursday, February 27, 2014

Hunt Hawkins

In his article, Hunt Hawkins opposes Chinua Achebe's views that Joseph Conrad is racist. One of the strengths of his argument is he uses direct textual evidence to support his claims. When he argues that Conrad opposed European expansion and imperialism, he quotes Marlow who says the ivory trading company is run for profit rather than civilizing the natives. Hawkins justifies that Conrad condemns Europe for its exploitation of the Congo by using parodies of the firemen with the leaking bucket and the pilgrims shooting from the steamship. Also, he acknowledges Achebe's criticism of Heart of Darkness and then provides evidence against it. Throughout the essay, Hawkins refers back to Achebe's counterargument in the beginning, and responds with specific examples to show its inaccuracy. One of Achebe's reasons for calling Conrad a racist is because he frequently compares the natives to animals. Yet, Hawkins argues that Conrad also shows that Europeans are animalistic, so he is not singling out the Africans. I like that Hawkins references other writings by Conrad, where he attacks white racism because one novella does not completely represent his opinions. Hawkins's argument seems creditable because he uses logical evidence from the novella.

However, sometimes Hawkins makes a counterargument, but agrees agrees with it, which weakens his own essay. After arguing that Conrad criticizes both the Europeans and Africans, he says that the author could be considered racist because the Africans are still on the low end of the scale. He ends his opinions about imperialism by supporting Achebe's claim about racism in the novella before he moves on to his next topic about Kurtz's corruption. This structure is a weakness in his argument because the reader has final thoughts about Achebe instead of Hawkins. Also, he goes on tangents about other works criticizing Heart of Darkness or written during the same time period. They can be distracting from his main argument. I agree with Hawkins that the focus of the novella is on the Europeans and not the Africans. I do not think Conrad is a racist because his views are separate from Marlow's opinions of the natives. I think describes Marlow as racist to expose the similar views of many Europeans at the time, so he raises awareness to change them.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Paired Poems Explication

"My Number" and "I had heard it's a fight" present different attitudes about death. Collins personifies Death, who travels around the world to end people's lives. The narrator in the first poem wants to avoid Death. He hopes that Death is too busy with other people, so he is able to continue his life without being noticed. He acts cowardly because he would rather Death takes another person's life to save himself. He is constantly thinking about Death, whose name he repeats throughout the poem. He tries to hide from his fate because he fears getting a visit from Death. He imagine that Death is making arrangements for when people should die and always calculating evil plots, such as spreading cancer cells and breaking roller coasters. When he must face Death, he will use insincere politeness by asking whether Death had trouble finding him to convince it to spare his life. He seems helpless to the will of Death and spends so much time contemplating it that he forgets to live his life.

In the second poem, Denby also considers his experience with Death, but he has an opposing view. He believes that he should confront Death and fight for his life. He personifies Death as an opponent, who will be defeated. Rather than fearing his death, he looks forward to the thrill of being triumphant over Death and controlling his own life. His poem is more light-hearted because Death seems less intimidating. The narrator acts stronger than the first speaker because he is prepared to wrestle with Death when he arrives to take his life. He thinks about living instead of when his life will end. He he does not consider Death to be planning, but it will sneak up on people when they do not expect it. He uses two meanings of "hell." It is an exclamation for when he first encounters Death and when he realizes that he must change his lifestyle if he wants to live. Also, he uses hell to refer to the place where immoral people will go after they die, which is where Death will send him if he does not stop drinking and get exercise. He compares himself to a schoolkid who has learned his lesson.  His quick experience with Death actually benefits him because he will improve as well as elongate his life. 

Monday, February 24, 2014

Apocalypse Now

The themes in the movie Apocalypse Now are influenced by the novel Heart of Darkness, but the main narrators are changed because they have different purposes for finding Kurtz. The movie opens with the scene where Captain Willard is having a mental breakdown because of his memories of fighting in the Vietnam War when he returns to Saigon. He screams and his hands are bloodied after breaking objects in his room. In the novel, Marlow is introduced as meditative because he is sitting calmly on the boat when he begins his story. They have opposite reactions to their experiences with war, which shows that Marlow is better at controlling his emotions. Also, when the natives shoot at the ship with arrows and the helmsman is speared, Willard does not get blood on his shoes, which is significant to Marlow's character traits. Marlow is focused more on changing his shoes than his dead crew member because he is self-absorbed. However, the movie reveals that Willard also cares about himself and his own mission when he shoots the innocent woman with the puppy, so he will not be further delayed from retrieving Kurtz. Willard's crew members are still young and have little experience with war. He has a weaker relationship with them than Marlow does because his helmsman tries to strangle him before he dies. Marlow's The crew includes the manager, pilgrims, and cannibals whose strength he admires. Willard is more aggressive because he is determined to confront Kurtz when he murders him, while Marlow longs to talk to Kurtz. The novel concludes with Marlow speaking with Kurtz's wife and lies to her about his last words. The movie ends when the natives look to Captain Williard as the new leader and he leaves with the last crew member on the boat. Marlow is a calmer and less violent characher.

The movie makes direct references to the book and Kurtz is a similar character. They describe the river as a snake, which seems foreboding and dangerous. Both of the narrators are traveling through a war torn country to find Kurtz and promise to carry on the memory of him and his reputation. They are allured by Kurtz's mystery and his well regarded career. In both stories, Kurtz becomes insane and leaves his military orders. He takes control over the natives, who he mercilessly kills, but now he suffers from illness. Captain Willard has a different mission than Marlow. He follows orders to arrest Kurtz for murder and finally terminate his control. Kurtz seems stronger in the movie because he captures Willard as prisoner, so he can explain his actions for his son. Then, he waits for Willard to kill him with a sword. In the novel, Marlow wants to bring Kurtz back to Europe. Rather than facing Marlow, he tries to escape and then dies from illness on the ship before he returns home. In both works, Kurtz's last words are "The horror, the horror." The movie also quotes the book when the American says people do not talk to Kurtz but listen to him and Kurtz has enlarged his mind. Kurtz threatens to kill the Russian because he wanted his ivory and the American because he takes his picture. He claims to be in Cambodia for humanitarian projects and in the Congo to trade ivory, but he actually exploits the natives. The movie's Kurtz leaves severed heads and bodies on the ground and steps of his house, while the novel's Kurtz puts heads up on stakes as symbols. There was more action and death in the movie than described in the book, and it does not focus on women's roles in society.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Yet Do I Marvel Explication

In this poem Cullen questions the marvels about the relationship between God and humanity. He begins by clearly asserting his belief in God's will to portray his unfaltering faith. Although he does not understand God's reasons for creating hardship in the world, he does not doubt Him. He wonders why moles, which already live in darkness underground, are also blind. He questions the fact that humans share a similar appearance to God, yet they are mortal and must die. He uses allusions to Greek mythology to question destiny. Both Tantalus and Sisyphus were punished eternally by the gods. Tantalus stood in a pool of water under a fruit tree, which receded before he could reach them, and Sisyphus had to repeat pushing a boulder up a hill after it rolled down again. However, Cullen believes that God's word is inscrutable and people are not able to understand Him. He is confused by fate, but he knows that God has His own reasons.

Cullen laces irony in his poem to emphasize his point about fate. He states that he has faith in God, which he then questions. It is ironic that he later again says God is almighty. Each of his questions is a comparison for the oppression of African Americans during the time period. They are segregated in society, like moles that live alone in the dirt, and people think lowly of them. They face discrimination, despite the fact that all humans are created equally by God and die. Similar to Tantalus and Sisyphus, it seems like blacks forever struggle with unjust punishment because of the color of their skin. He calls fate awful because of the evil God released in the world. The last two lines of the poem display irony with his most important inquiry about God. He is a black poet who has suffered from racism, yet God is kind because he is fortunate for his poetic abilities. 

Sunday, February 2, 2014

The Secret Sharer Part 2

The narrator has changed by spending time with the secret sharer because he becomes more like Leggatt. He is not fully focused on commanding the ship as the captain because he is constantly thinking about Leggatt. His attention is split because he feels like he is missing a part of himself when they are not together. The narrator solely confides in Leggatt and they whisper in his cabin about making decisions for the ship. The narrator becomes more assertive in giving strict orders to his crew, which expects to follow them without question. He acts with new authority partly because it is a quality which he assumes from Leggatt, but also because he does not want his secret sharer to be discovered by the crew. He takes direct action with little thought to its dangers when he orders the crew to change course towards land. He is not concerned about the difficulties of seeing the land in the night and getting the ship stuck on shore. Also, he gains Leggatt's short temper and is quickly agitated by the steward who tries to clean his room while he is hiding Leggatt. When a mate despairs that the ship is lost and unable to catch a wind so close to the land, the narrator firmly grips and shakes his arm. He shouts for him to be quiet and continues to violently shake him, which is similar to when Leggatt grabs the neck of the man who is being insolent. The narrator takes full control of his ship, which he prevents from hitting land, like when Laggatt saves the Sephora with the reefed foresail. The narrator gains the strength, which seems to be draining from Leggatt. When they are planning to maroon Leggatt, they switch roles because the narrator commands him to take the gold pieces and tells him when to leave, unlike when Leggatt gives the narrator orders as he first boards the ship. In the end, the narrator states that Leggatt is a free man with a new destiny, but since he is his second self, the narrator is also free. He is no longer tentative and has confidence to control his ship.