Thoughts on The Hunger Games

I recently finished reading The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins, for class this week and was actually pleasantly surprised by most of it. While I had heard of the trilogy and movie due to their popularity, I had never read it or learned what it was about before. The premise of the "Hunger Games" was bizarre and unlikely sounding to me, but it was certainly interesting. While I understand the use of the Games to demonstrate the power of a militaristic government over their population, it seems strange that they try to turn it into a prime-time event worthy of celebration. Either this event acts as evidence of human's morbid entertainment with watching the suffering of others, or the Capital has such control that they can force every citizen to pretend to enjoy it. I don't think that in reality it would be so effective to punish the rebels for their uprising while simultaneously telling them to enjoy the competition with their fellow districts. In my mind this would make a previously loyal citizen angry at the Capitol and a disloyal citizen even angrier. 

I also found the characters to be very engaging. Katniss seems intelligent and completely self-capable, which is refreshing compared to some of the less useful contestants. It was nice that she wasn't interested in going down the love-interest road with Peeta (at least initially) because that side-plot seemed pretty boring and kind of cheesy to me. In this respect it seems like she begins as a Final Girl, but progressively lost those qualities over the course of the novel. I found the ending a little disappointing and overly convenient given the emphasis on loss that had been so common throughout the rest of the book.  By the end of the games, Katniss is in a "relationship" (faked or not), not the only one to survive, and has lost most of her self-sufficiency because she has to drag Peeta around everywhere. I know that killing Peeta off would make a sequel much more difficult, but it really seemed to ruin the Final Girl theme that had kept the plot interesting all along.

Thoughts on Sailor Moon

We watched the television cartoon Sailor Moon for the first time in class today, and I have to say that I honestly found it a little strange. Having never been exposed to much anime, it was interesting to see how the characters were depicted. I was expecting the impossibly large eyes and over-exaggerated expressions, but was a little bit surprised to see how unnaturally long the heroes' legs were. It reminded me a lot of the Barbie franchise, especially with the heavy focus on fashion, makeup, and accessories (not to mention that ridiculously long hair). I remember hearing some controversy over how disturbing it would be to see a Barbie  doll at human scale, and I found it interesting that some of the same distorted ideas of "idealized" feminine proportions existed in Japan as well. Their weirdly pitched voices were interesting too, but maybe that kind of voice is appealing and natural sounding to the (mostly) child target audience.

The other question I was conflicted over was if this show acted as a good role model for the children watching. On one hand, as the first series featuring magical girls fighting evil, it was nice to see a little more gender equality. The girls were shown to be just as capable of battling enemies as in any other superhero shows. Yet the emphasis on superficial and stereo typically "girly" accessories and weapons wasn't so clear. I wasn't sure if including all that was negative, because it sent a message of "these are the things all girls should like, so you should too", or positive because it potentially attracted more girls to watch and be inspired by the more empowering theme of self-capable women heroes. Either way, I guess the show succeeded in some respect given its long term popularity and air time.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen 2

In this post, I wanted to expand on one of the characters in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.  I have found that Jeykll and his corresponding alter ego Hyde seen to have more depth as characters than I saw on my initial reading. Jeykll is an unusually timid and nervous man in the midst of a group of headstrong people, yet he is also one of the more important. This importance comes not only from his rage monster transformation abilities, but also that he appears to be Mina's most trusted "friend" (if Mina considers herself to have friends). She seeks his opinion at least once in the novel, and it is to him that she is able to voice her frustrations and inner concerns about the group (especially about Mr. Quartermain). In this capacity, Jeykll acts as a mediator between the members. He is able to voice his objective opinions and is respected for his insight. Of course, Jeykll's second contribution to the League comes from Hyde, who represents everything Jeykll is not. Hyde tends to disregard consequences or rational thought in favor of violence and brute strength. In this way he helps the group survive the numerous enemies they face on their mission. Yet just as Jeykll seems to have a special connection to Mina, so does Hyde in his own way. When Hyde comes alive, the only thing guiding and restraining him at times seems to be Mina. She has the power to provoke him, yet the fearlessness and ability to order him around. More interestingly, we can see a definite evolution in Hyde, from his out of control state the night when he tried to harm Mina disguised as a prostitute (the beginning of their "relationship"), to the final Hyde that is fighting on the League's side for a common objective.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

This week in class we read and began to discuss The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Kevin O'Neill. My experience with graphic novels has been limited and I have never been a huge fan of comics, but overall I enjoyed the reading. At the start of the book I was not aware that it employed famous literary characters as its protagonists, so it was fun to draw parallels between Mina and Mrs. Harker. It is interesting that she is not only a woman in a League of Gentlemen, but also that she holds the group together as their leader. Her organizational talent and forward thinking mindset remains very consistent from Dracula, though her unwillingness to advocate for herself has thankfully made a switch for the better.

Overall I felt that the characters were more engaging and intriguing than the plot in the novel. Captain Nemo's brooding nature and sometimes pessimistic view was a nice contrast to the others. Allan Quartermain, though superpowerless, seemed to help keep the story from getting too out of hand and also acted as a nice way for the reading audience to help connect with the novel. Dr. Jekyll is very likable and timid, and he adds an element of unpredictability with his transformation problem. The Invisible Man was the only character I was somewhat surprised by. Even though he has a pretty cool superpower/curse, would the other Gentlemen really so easily allow a criminal/murder/rapist to join their group? His crimes appear much more severe than anything the others are guilty of. While the airship-war-machine story that they embarked on was original, it seemed a little too over the top and rushed in my opinion. I guess that it is hard to create a quest for such outlandish characters without the quest quickly becoming outlandish itself.

The End of Dracula

I finished Dracula last weekend, and was happy to discover that the remainder of the book was as engaging as the start I blogged on last time. Unlike Frankenstein and some of the other stories we have analyzed previously, Dracula keeps up the action without falling into the trap of becoming overly repetitive. This in conjunction with a couple unexpected plot twist kept me focused until the very end.  I also appreciated the realism in the characters; nobody made obviously poor decisions, and they seemed to react very quickly to the events of the plot. The possible exception to this could have been not seeing the physical signs in Mina that she was being preyed upon by a vampire (especially after witnessing the same transformation before in Lucy). It seemed surprising that even Mina herself did not notice this, especially after observing it so up close with Lucy.

My greatest frustration in this novel was the men's objections to accepting Mina as a serious member of their vampire hunting team. From the very start, she demonstrated  more organization than the men around her. By the end of the novel she had effectively shown that she was equally or possibly more capable and intelligent than any other character (the only possible exception being Van Helsing). Yet even when this fact becomes clear to the others, they do nothing more than give her minor compliments and continue to exclude her. Even more frustrating is her unwillingness to advocate for herself. She never makes an attempt to defend her right to be accepted in the group or defy the men's opinions in any way.

The Beginning of Dracula

I have recently begun to read the beginning of Dracula, by Bram Stoker. This novel is another that I have not read (or watched the film version) before, so I am interested to see if it strays from my "popular culture" understanding of the plot as far as Frankenstein did. So far I have actually been fairly impressed by the book. The writing can seem more easily understandable than in Frankenstein, and I was surprised by how naturally the "written letter" format of the novel seems to flow. Getting multiple one sided accounts of each character's lives opens up more areas for the reader to puzzle the facts together, which makes it feel more interactive. This seems to add to the theme of mystery that surrounds Count Dracula and his Eastern European home.

I have also found the story to be generally more engaging and entertaining than any of the books we have read so far. Comparatively, Dracula seems to jump right into the action a little faster and features more frequent climaxes. I like how the reader gets a break from different characters all once in a while too (something that got a little tiring with Victor). This has been the first novel that I have had difficulty putting down when it is in a dramatic section. Some of the small details have surprised me, though. Dracula's hairiness (as the book points out) seems very different from the immaculately groomed monster I have always associated with the name. Similarly to this, I had never heard that he moved around barefoot, or even that he had three sisters! I am curious if these facts will have significance later in the novel.

The Zombie Survival Guide

Hello, today I wanted to discuss The Zombie Survival Guide. The text is billed as a comprehensive guide to surviving a zombie apocalypse. I found this to be a very interesting read particularly because it was one of the few works that actually provided some kind of scientific support (however weak) for how an outbreak could be possible. The author provided substantial background on a "virus" that could produce victims resembling our Hollywood image of zombies. By providing some groundwork on how the mechanics of the virus worked, we were able to get far further into the details of how humanity would have to fight to survive such an epidemic. I also enjoyed the humor within this piece. I thought that the book did an excellent job of shifting our perspective on the new practicalities or impracticalities of the items we interact with on a daily basis in a zombie infested world. The reversal in preferred weaponry was also interesting. The advanced guns and electrically powered tools that are so effective in our world suddenly become almost useless when fighting the hordes. Instead, the emphasis on manual weapons and tools of the past seems to show how the entire world would slip back to the ways of older times in such an emergency. The morbid focus on items that could most easily crush skulls and pierce zombie brains somehow managed to be funny at the same time (possibly because of how we react to things that sound "ridiculous" in today's world).

One of the points I was less impressed on was the author's description of the digestive system within a zombie. By indicating that zombies did not absorb any calories or nutrients from their human victims, it was difficult to understand how they gained the energy to move their muscles and continue to operate for a number of years before they decomposed. Additionally, I found that I disagreed with its advice in certain situations. Specifically, I was surprised when I read the recommendation to move from the suburbs into the city. This seemed to go against the experiences of the characters in The Walking Dead, and also seemed to contradict the other advice in the book to avoid places with high concentrations of humans. Besides these points, The Zombie Survival Guide seemed to bring up some very valid and thought provoking ideas about how society would need to adapt to survive in an aggressive new world.

Thoughts on Night of the Living Dead

Today in class we finished viewing Night of the Living Dead, a classic zombie film that helped spark the entire "zombie apocalypse" genre. While I had never seen the movie before, I had participated (as a special effects technician) in my high school's play adaptation, so I had most of the lines memorized beforehand. I found the contrasts and similarities between the two very interesting. Besides the obvious changes that had to be made in terms of set and script to make an adaptation plausible, it was the differences in the original film's characters surprised me the most. Barbara especially seemed exceedingly helpless and incapable. I had always assumed that she "was in a state of shock", but still capable of functioning and participating to some degree. The Barbara I saw today spoke very few words, did nothing useful to help the survivor's situation, and generally seemed to embody the sexist stereotype of women being less capable than men in stressful situations.

On the other hand, many of the conclusions and thoughts I had come to after viewing the theatrical version stayed true to form in the film. For example, from the moment that Mr. Cooper admits that he refused to come help when he heard a woman screaming upstairs, it becomes very clear that he will not be the hero of the film. Throughout the rest of the plot, the audience is made to dislike him more and more to the point where we are almost glad that he gets killed. Ironically however, his initial suggestion of staying in the cellar might have saved them all had they followed his advice. With that said, it also seems likely that they all could have survived upstairs had they managed to work together effectively. Ultimately, I still believe that it isn't the undead that gets them killed, it's the fact that they fight among themselves.

Thoughts on Metropolis

Today I finished watching Metropolis, which was not only my first time watching the film but also my first experience with silent movies. I had anticipated disliking the lack of verbal dialog between characters, but I was actually pleasantly surprised at how easy it was to understand what was going on. The musical accompaniment was so fitting for what was happening on-screen that at times I felt it provided more clarity than words could have. It was also interesting to see how the actors worked to produce emotion through only their body movements. Sometimes they could mouth simple words, and sometimes they expressed agitation through the speed of their movements, but most commonly they seemed to utilize highly expressive facial poses. Acting must have undoubtedly been a different art form back then.

I also saw many parallels to Frankenstein in this film. Most obviously this includes the appearance of "humanoid like" monsters (in this case represented by the Machine Man), but it was also evident in the characters. Metropolis may not have had the character depth the Mary Shelley had the opportunity to develop in her novel, but the characters of Rotwang The Inventor as well as Freder both contain many elements of Victor Frankenstein. Rotwang obviously represents the ambitious, scientifically curious side of Victor (the one driven to create monsters). Freder represents the post-monster Victor, someone who has just understood a great wrong and will stop at nothing to remedy it. The female role in Metropolis, while much more significant than we see in Frankenstein was also consistently dominated and controlled by men. Just as Victor ultimately (but indirectly) kills Justine and Elisabeth, Maria is utilize by the workers, Joh, Rotwang, and ultimately saved by Freder.

The one element I felt most lacking in Metropolis had to be the logic on the laborers part. It seemed unlikely and slightly insulting to assume that the working hands of the city could by that easily lead and manipulated. Firstly, they failed to see through the guise of a (fairly obviously) crazy Maria clone. They didn't find anything suspicious about the way in which she completely changed her viewpoint after years of promoting peace. Secondly, how is it possible that every single worker managed to completely "forget" about their children when they went to flood the city? That just seems like the movie writers were trying too hard to make their conclusion work.

Dr. Frankenstein's Folly

In this post I would like to discuss some of Victor's decision making skills. While, as a scientist, it would be easy to assume that Victor would use logic and care when resolving decisions in his life, in reality his choices throughout the course of Frankenstein appear to consistently decrease in rationality. I primarily attributed this to the mental trauma and sorrow that he began experiencing towards the conclusion of the novel. However, in one instance he made a choice with such questionably judgement that I had to wonder how he could have assumed it would be a good idea.

I'm speaking specifically of Victor's decision to travel back to his home and marry Elisabeth. The decision he made despite an obvious threat:

"I will watch with the wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom. Man, you shall repent the injuries you inflict...I go; but remember, I shall be with you on your wedding night" -Pg 147

 One would think that those words would send a clear message to Victor about the intelligence of returning to marry his future wife. Contrary to my expectations though, when Victor does receive a request from Elisabeth about the future of their relationship, he somehow convinces himself that it could bring no danger upon her to return:

"I resolved therefore, that if my immediate union with my cousin would conduce either to hers or my father's happiness, my adversary's designs against my life should not retard it a single hour"-Pg 167

Victor both foolishly and selfishly assumes that only he could be in danger from the monster (the same monster that has already killed three of his friends without attacking him). He seems to convince himself that he is only returning to ensure her and his father's happiness for a short while, at least until he is inevitably killed. In the lines leading up to Elisabeth's death scene, the foreshadowing makes Victors obliviousness painful to read. Despite the sadness of this chapter, this was one of the times when my annoyance over his decision pulled me out of the story more than I would have liked. I understand the importance to the plot that  this event occurs, but it was a moment in the novel when I would have most liked to intervene.

Dr. Frankenstein and his Monster

Hello,
This is my first post on The Monster Blog, an online location where I will comment on different aspects of the literature I read in my Intro to Literature class (which will be focusing on monsters and monstrosities).

To start things off, I'd like to give my first impressions after reading Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley. As I began the book, I almost immediately realized that my "popular culture" based understanding of Frankenstein was almost totally inconsistent with the original text. I had never read the novel or watched any of the movies beforehand, and so my understanding of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster primarily came from Halloween costumes and the "It's alive!" quote. If I were to summarize the plot, it would have revolved primarily around a deranged doctor/scientist determined to re-animate monsters for the purposes of devastation and power. In reality, I found both Frankenstein and his monster not only to be thoughtful and multifaceted characters, but also ones without any (initial) desire to cause harm or evil. Ultimately, I thought it was a story that revolved around a conflict of ambition and a lack of acceptance. Despite the well meaning intentions of all characters in the story, however, it still proved to be an incredibly depressing and dark plot. While I was impressed with most parts of the story, I did that it could have done better in two areas. Firstly, I didn't ever feel a sense of fear in what is normally defined as a horror story. Maybe this is more a reflection of the year when I read this as opposed to when it was published, but it seemed to be more of a series of increasingly tragic events that a book that made you afraid to go outside at night. Secondly, I felt that more time could have been spent on Dr. Frankenstein's transformation that lead him to the morally and ethically questionable task of reanimating parts of dead bodies. In fairness, I did read the book in one sitting over the course of a few hours, which could have made this part feel briefer than it was. Still, I never really saw a tipping point when the ambitious chemistry student suddenly turned into man capable of digging up and stitching dead body parts together. Hopefully a re-reading of this part could shed more light on his situation.