Lit?-Moore's graphic novel

When it comes to comic books like Light of thy Countenance by Alan Moore, there is the question of whether or not comic books are pieces of literature or in other words a literary text. To me, I consider anything that has a meaning about life and what it means to be human a literary work/text. If it has a meaning about life and human beings, then it has relevance. Therefore, I would consider Moore's Light of Thy Countenance a literary text.

I consider Moore's graphic novel to be a literary text because it puts forth a meaning about life and also a meaning about humans. It's saying that we as humans are being carried off into the future with the advancement of technology and how technology is controlling out everyday lives. Moore's graphic novel is showing us how we are controlled by a single television, centering our whole lives around it, even to the extent that we're relying on it. We spend more time with technologies than with actual human beings. This is what we as readers get from reading the graphic novel. Even when the television died, it came back to life, for we humans were to the ones to create it and bring it back. This demonstrates how we are relying on it for many things, paying more attention to it than our own kind-human beings, the people we actually live our lives with. Even the television itself says, "I am the last voice you will ever hear." This is furthering the idea that technology is controlling our everyday lives to the extent that it's the "last voice" that we'll ever hear.

Moore's graphic novel as a literary text offers more than just the idea of technology controlling human lives, but also visual representations of the idea itself. This is due to the way the story is formatted. It's a comic; therefore, there are images throughout the whole story to demonstrate to the readers what the narrator is actually talking about. It is showing images just like the way a television does, furthering that idea of technology.

With the idea of the advancement of technology and how it's controlling the daily lives of human beings in Light of Thy Countenance, there is that similarity to Capek's "R.U.R." In "R.U.R.", there is also the idea that technology is taking over the lives of human beings, even when the ones who created them were humans themselves. Technology is just growing and growing and dominating the ones who are controlling them, leading to a result where they are now the gods, though this may not be the case in "R.U.R."

It doesn't matter whether or not a text is read for fun; the thing that matters is whether or not it has a meaning and significance to it regarding life and humans. If it does, then that text constitutes as a literary text. Plus, I do believe that literature can still continue to be relevant even with media and technology rising, for literature comes in many different forms, not just necessarily in the forms of books.

Gender in Hwang's M. Butterfly

In David Henry Hwang's play, "M. Butterfly," there is the gender theme, especially when it comes to women, but it also concerns men, as well.

Women in the play are portrayed as weaklings. They are apparently dominated by men of superior power. When Marc tells Gallimard about the girls who came on trucks to the woods (8), there is the implication that women always give in to men no matter what, for when Gallimard starts to reject Marc's offer, Marc says, "You don't have to ask!" (8) Marc also says that "they [the girls] don't have to say yes" (8). This is making it seems as though men can always overpower women, because they are men and apparently they can do whatever they want without asking. There is that force that the men have over the women and the women always submit. When Gallimard requests that Song strips so he could see her naked body, he is utilizing the force/power that men has. As a result, Song submits to him and lets him, though he didn't strip her. This is because it is as Song thought, "once a woman submits, a man is always ready to become 'generous' '' (62). Regarding women, men often think that when "her mouth says no, [but] her eyes say yes" (83). They think that they understand women enough to assume that but they really don't.

As to Song Liling, he transforms into a woman and really do act like a woman. When Comrade Chin goes to visit Song to discuss business matters, Chin says, "every time I come here, you're wearing a dress" (48), for it seems as though Song is taking his acting really seriously. Song is really acting the way a woman would act. Throughout the play, we see him as a woman, always acting and dressing as one. It isn't until towards the end that we see him dressed as a man. It is also at the end that we see Gallimard, in his prison, dressing like a woman, even though he really is a man. He is then "Madame Butterfly" and Song is then in Gallimard's shoes.

Too many Mysteries to Solve

Throughout William Gibson's novel, Pattern Recognition, there is always a mystery when it comes to Cayce's father, Win Pollard. He disappears on the morning of September 11 and no one knows what happens to him. No one knows whether he's alive or dead. There's that uncertainty in which leads to the mystery of it. Cayce has hired investigators to investigate the situation; yet, nothing was found regarding Win's disappearance. That then evokes more mystery. What could have happened to him? And then, there's Cayce and her dreams. Win appears in her dream once. Cayce was dreaming about seeing here father and the "twin towers of light" (227). He was "dressed as she's imagined him to have dressed in that morning" (227), extending his hand out and holding a Curta calculator and saying "Ask him [as in Hobbes/Baranov]....The dead can't help you and the boy's no good" (227). It may be that Win is really dead, for he did say in the dream that "the dead can't help you," in which he may be referring to himself. But again, he may not be dead, for there isn't sufficient information to make that conclusion. That is also a mystery along with why he's telling Cayce to ask Hobbes and suggesting that the boy is of no use, in which he may have been suggesting Boone Chu, for we do find out later that he was just into money and really didn't know anything. Win seems to be leading her in the right direction, but why and how is the mystery, since there isn't really any evidence as to what happened to him. So why and how is he doing this? Or in other words, why or how is Gibson doing this, not telling the reader what happened to Win, leading it to be a mystery that doesn’t get solved, even as the story ends.

Then there's the event where Cayce breaks away from the Dream Academy. She just kept on walking until she couldn't anymore and sat down during sunset, exhausted. As the stars starting coming out and as Cayce's eyes started to adjust to the lighting, "she realizes she can see two towers of light, off in the distance, in the direction she thinks she's been walking in" (323). It was just like in her dream when she was in London. And there and then, she sees her father, Win. She says to him, "You aren't supposed to be in Siberia" (323) knowing that he's really there. Yet, he's not really there, for he seems to be a "hallucination" (323). He even says that it's "hard to say" (323) whether he's really dead or not when Cayce asked him. He then leaves her, telling Cayce the reason, which is just to "listen" (324). That just leaves so many questions unanswered. Why was he there? Why didn't he know whether or not he was alive? What is Gibson doing portraying Win to be this sort of character, never showing his true colors to the readers? It may just be suggesting that even though we try to investigate a mystery to a certain extent, it may never be solved and that maybe we should just accept this mystery to be the way it is, Cayce certainly has, for when he leaves her, "she somehow knows [that it was], for good" (324).

In Pattern Recognition, there's also the mystery of who's the maker of the footages that have been gaining so much attention, leading Hubertus Bigend to hire Cayce and Boone. Bigend wants to know who the maker is. Cayce, too, wants to know who the maker is because she's lived her life on F:F:F, in which contains the footages and she absolutely loves watching them. Having accepted Bigend's job opportunity, she goes into this adventure of trying to find out who the maker is, where he/she is, and of course, whether the footages are a work in progress of not. Within trying to figure out these mysteries, she encountered many obstacles; yet, in the end, she was able to figure out who it is. She first had to go through so many things to get to where she was, in which suggests that along with the desire to solve mysteries, there can be a lot of complications. There is this interconnectedness from one mystery to another, even when only one mystery gets solved. This is fully demonstrated starting from when Cayce accepted Bigend's offer. From there, everything starts and she's on her way into finding out who is the maker. But from then on, she's also on the investigation of who is spying on her. It turns out to be Dorotea, just as she expected. But that mystery doesn’t end there, for there's an even greater mystery behind it all, in which turns out to be the Russians, who were keeping an eye on her. They have also entered her apartment where "devices were installed" (339), trying to monitor her. These were things she were unaware of; yet, in the process of investigate one mystery, she ended up encountering many others.

By starting to solve the mystery of who the maker of the footages is, Cayce was also able to find out who Parkaboy really us. She finally got to meet him, not just talk to him on the phone or email him. The same goes with Mama Anarchia. Dorotea ends up being Mama Anarchia and that mystery was solved as well, when Dorotea, herself, revealed how she worked it, having graduate students help her. But then by starting to solve the mystery of the maker, another mystery also arises. Did Bigend already know who the maker is? Cayce did take this into account, too, of course, for "she wonders about Bigend, and Volkov, and whether Bigend could have known from the start that the maker, makers really, were Volkov's nieces" (355). Even though this is a possibility, she chose not to believe in this since she "always comes back to Win's dictum of there needing to be room left for coincidence" (355). This certainly another mystery, but Cayce chooses not to treat it as one and comes up with another reason for it not to be one, leaving it just as it is and nothing more.

PR: Brainstorming

In William Gibson's novel, Patter Recognition, there is always a concentration on the internet and online social network. Whenever Cayce has the chance, she checks F:F:F to see if she gets any messages from Parkaboy or just to see what's going on in there. For example, she sees "that her friend Parkaboy is back in Chicago, home from an Amtrak vacation, California" (4). The forum is her mean of knowing what's happening, especially when it comes to the footages that are posted there by the maker and with all of the attention that they are obtaining. The forum is also her mean of networking and communicating with other people. When Cayce needs help with tracking down the maker of the footages that are posted, she seeks help from Parkaboy, thinking that he could really help her. "The forum has become one of the most consistent places in her life" (4), demonstrating the way that the internet is being used through the forum. Cayce says that she has told Parkaboy about her phobia. It's not something she can just tell anyone; yet, she tells it to someone she's never even met but has only talked to either through email or by phone. Plus, with the internet, it's basically accessible anywhere.

There is also a relationship between style and culture in Pattern Recognition. When Cayce is in London, she see three men gathered around what turns out to be calculators, two of whom are trying to sell them and the other being Voytek. "As to why she notices them [now], these three, she later may not be able to say" (27), but it may as well be due to what they are wearing. Hobbes, one of the two men selling the calculators, "is zipped like a sausage into something shiny, black, and only approximately leather like" (27). Then the other man is "hunched within greasy folds of an ancient Barbour waterproof, its waxed cotton gone the sheen and shade of day-old horse dung" (27). Then there's Voytek, who's in "baggy black skater shorts and frayed jean jacket" (27-28). Cayce then thinks that shorts "are somehow always wrong in London" (28), suggesting the relationship between style and culture. There are styles in places that just doesn't go or suit one another. The characters are in London, a place of British/English culture; yet, there are so many variations of style, though there may be many rising trends that seem to be dominating. Then, there's Japan. There Cayce sees "whole seas of Burberry plaid...Mont Blanc...even Gucci" (127). These trademarks/brands "have no effects on her" (127). They are only somewhat in Japan more now. She's different from the Japanese and has moved on with newer, different brands due to culture, leading to the relationship between style and culture and its differences.

From Tobe's POV

In William Faulkner's short story "A Rose for Emily," the point of view can be shifted to first person singular, instead of it being first person plural. Having said this, it can either be told from Tobe or Homer's point of view.

If it were to be told from Tobe's point of view, there would be many changes. Some of the most drastic changes would be that the reader might not be able to get a taste of what society thinks and how they act when it comes to Emily, especially with all of the things that they are saying about her. This is the thing that will become more hidden. This is because the attention may be directed towards what Emily does in her house while she isolates herself from the rest of society. Tobe may be describing everything that Emily does and how she feels about what she's going through; therefore, the reader would know what she does everyday and there won't be a kind of mystery going on as when it's being told in first person plural.

With the story being told from Tobe's view, the reader will actually know what Emily did to the arsenic that she bought from the druggist, rather than having to guess and guess wrong. The reader will also be able to comprehend that Emily poisoned Homer Barron and the reason(s) for her actions, rather than thinking that Homer ran away. This then will change the reader's thoughts about her. There will be a better understanding of her and desires due to Tobe's point of view. There will also be an understanding of why Emily is always looking through her window and why her house smelled. The reader then will also understand why Emily wasn't paying her taxes. Is it that she doesn't know that Colonel Sartoris is dead or is she just ignoring what society is trying to make her do? Everything that was in question from when the story is told from first person plural would be answered. Things will surely be revealed, leaving no mysteries.

Despite the many changes that can occur if the story was to be told from Tobe's point of view, the theme itself wouldn't change. The story will still have that idea of human growth, of growing old, and eventually decaying, no matter how beautiful it once was.

Brautigan's poem: Anti-technology or Pro-technology?

 Brautigan's poem has an anti-technology tone and message due to his usages of images, similes, and diction. Even though Brautigan starts off his poem with the images of a "cybernetic meadow where mammals and computers live together in mutually programming harmony" (3-6), the poem goes on to mention a "cybernetic ecology where we are free from our labors and joined back to nature, returned to our mammal brothers and sisters" (19-23) suggesting that due to the advancement of technology, humans will soon loose their jobs and be thrown into nature with no way of survival. The poem then compares mammals and computers, saying that they are like "pure water touching clear sky" (7-8). This is just an attempt to put the two together, yet we all know that the" pure water" can never touch the "clear sky" suggesting that humans can never fit together with technology. And with the other simile in lines 15-16 the poem, it is suggested that technology is of no importance. Technology will eventually be forgotten. And from the use of "I like to think" (1), it is suggesting that what is being thought may never happen, so trying to put technology and humans together is impossible. And when it says "all watched over by machines of loving grace" (24-25), there is the meaning that humans depend too much on technology that they're even putting technology at a higher level and in some ways has become some sort of god and that shouldn't be how it is.

Brautigan also uses images, similes, and diction to argue that the poem has a pro-technology tone and message. In lines 3-6, he is suggesting that it's all right for mammals and computers to live together. And as the poem goes on to talk about "our labors" in lines 20-23, it is saying that because of technology, we are able to enjoy life more, or more specifically nature. We are able to relax and not have to worry about anything, for technology will have it all covered for us. We will be "free of our labors," not having any worries. And in the simile in lines 7-8, there is a sense of blending. As for the other simile in lines 15-16, it is saying that technology doesn't matter and that it can go with human life. And with this, there is the author's choice of adding in the phrases in the parentheses, showing to the reader that it should be a world where technology and humans work together. Plus, the machines are portrayed as having "loving grace" (25), telling us that technology is something that we should all care about.

With these two arguments, the anti-technology seems to be more convincing. This is because of the words choice that Brautigan uses. They don't seem to go together. "Cybernetic" doesn't go with either "meadow," "forest", or "ecology." And, machines can't be explained containing "loving grace." "Pure water" can't touch the "clear sky." Brautigan is putting things together that don't belong together, furthering the idea that humans shouldn't live together with technology; therefore the anti-technology tone and message.

But Brautigan leaves us to define for ourselves which one is better, leaving his poem full of ambiguity.

Speculation of Keats's "This Living Hand"

By Keats's usage of the visual images–living hand and heart–and the kinesthetic images–hold and grasping–in his poem, we are able to understand what the speaker is going through, like pain or death, along with the things that are probably happening in his/her life, like a relationship problem, suggesting the experience that when we as humans are near our death, we care more about life because we know that it's all going to end. With the coming of death, we close in on our lives and mostly look at the good times; yet, there are those who look at the bad, mainly the bad that others had caused them, just like what the speaker in this poem did. Yet, in the end, we will try to forgive that someone if he/she turns around and realizes that maybe he/she did cause harm.

Keats is conveying the experience of dying; yet, the speaker is trying to send out a message to someone. The speaker is somehow blaming that someone for having caused the speaker pain. When the speaker starts out with the images of "this living hand, now warm and capable/of earnest grasping"(1-2), he is suggesting a feeling of liveliness and determination from the "warm and capable"(1) and a feeling of strength from the "earnest grasping"(2).  Yet, the speaker goes on to mention the image of a heart, saying "thou wouldst wish thine own heart dry of blood"(5), evoking a feeling of revenge or regret–revenge from the speaker's point and regret from whomever the speaker is sending the message to. And with these images, it seems as though the speaker is only concentrating on the bad that that person had caused him and maybe even putting some blame on that person, for the speaker did say in the line before that he will "haunt thy days and chill thy dreaming nights"(4).

Yet, in the end, the speaker is willing to forgive that someone whom he is believe is in the wrong. He says “I hold it towards you”(8), suggesting a feeling of forgiveness if only that someone realizes that he/she is truly wrong at what he/she did. This will bring about life to the speaker again, though maybe not literally, but the speaker would’ve been happy if he were to die that way, knowing that the bad did somehow work out to be a good thing in his life.