Ori

Dead Men's Path

Chinua Achebe - 1953

"Mr. Obi listened with a satisfied smile on his face. 'The whole purpose of our school,' he said finally, 'is to eradicate just such beliefs as that. Dead men do not require footpaths. The whole idea is just fantastic. Our duty is to teach your children to laugh at such ideas.'" - page 2

Like Julian in "Everything that Rises Must Converge", Ori is under the premise that his education has given him some right above others.  While I applaud education and the eradication of narrow-minded feelings, both of these characters go about it maliciously, their education making them not only confident but pretentious.  It is not Ori's beliefs that make him wrong, but the childish sense of vengeance he wishes to bring upon those who don't have his upbringing.  

However, the difference between Julian and Ori is their justification for such beliefs.  Julian's mother beliefs are fundamentally flawed, and although he doesn't work against them in a positive manner, his actions are somewhat justified.  Ori, who has not been wronged by the villagers in any way, still seeks to prove to them his omnipotence over them.  Ori wholly ignores the priest, ignorantly dismissing their set traditions in a spiteful way.  

Religious and cultural tolerance is about respect.  Ori may not necessarily agree with the villagers sense of tradition but that does not justify his purposeful disrespect of it.  I do not believe in god, but do not make it my personal goal to tear down religious institution (unless provoked...I admit).  Regardless of what the priest or villagers may believe they are not inherently stupid, or even wrong.  For the most part, age does incite maturity, something which Ori (and his wife especially) are lacking.  The village priest is courteous, and does not attempt to degrade Ori.  If anything, his only emotion is disappointment at Ori's blatant disregard for their people. 

I admit that I sometimes succumb to Ori's fallacy.  When you know (or truly believe) that you're right, it is easy to judge others as ignorant because hey, sometimes they just are.  However, should Ori attempt to dismantle the religious tradition of a people it should be done so carefully and respectfully, not with childish spite.  

Saboteur

Saboteur
Ha Jin, 1996

"If he were able to, he would have razed 
the entire police station and eliminated all their families. Though he 
knew he could do nothing like that, he made up his mind to do 
something." - page 279

This statement foreshadows the coming crime that we are led to believe Mr. Chiu commits.  The obvious irony is that Mr. Chiu is unjustly arrested for a crime he did not commit, and the resulting experience drives him to actually commit a crime.  Jin seems to be making the statement that injustice is cyclic, breeding more injustice by converting innocence into revenge.  I don't know much about Ha Jin, but he seems to have some experience with police brutality, or at least corrupt lawmen.
The writing style in the story is incredibly interesting, for the most part flat and critical.  The author doesn't favor Mr. Chiu, or the policeman.  Additionally, it is not completely unbiased.  In both the description of Mr. Chiu and the policeman, there is a critical air.  Negative adjectives are used constantly, and when they are not there is no real hopeful tone.  In fact, the only "happy" scene is when Mr. Chiu briefly comes to terms with his captivity and becomes calm.

I find this by far the most interesting scene.  It's kind of like the turning point, the exact middle of Mr. Chiu's decline in sanity.  He's hasn't completely succumbed to his hepatitis and spite, but is not unaffected.  In this intermediate state, he realizes how he is actually enjoying time away from his wife, from the honeymoon he seemed to not have enjoyed.

In that way, his arrest almost gave his life meaning.  He almost hadn't realized how unsatisfied and bored he was until he was locked in a cell slowly being overcome with vengeful thoughts.  In the beginning, he eats slow.  By the end, he is running from restaurant to restaurant speedily trying to consume everything he can like a wildfire.

Not sure what to make of this story, but it's cool.

Lust, love, gay?

"Brokeback Mountain"
Annie Proulx

"Ennis woke in red dawn with his pants around his knees, atop-grade headache, and Jack butted against him; without saying anything about it both knew how it would go for the rest of the summer, sheep be damned. As it did go. They never talked about the sex, let it happen, at first only in the tent at night, then in the full daylight with the hot sun striking down, and at evening in the fire glow, quick, rough, laughing and snorting, no lack of noises, but saying not a goddamn word except once Ennis said, 'I'm not no queer,' and Jack jumped in with 'Me neither. A one-shot thing. Nobody's business but ours.'" - page 260

This quote is key in defining their relationship.  Before their impromptu sex, there are little to no actions indicating that they might in fact be craving each other.  The sex scene is sudden, uncalled for for, and they seem to think little of it.  Rather than waking and awkwardly trying to explain themselves to one another, they are both fully aware that this action is indicative of their future experience together.  Especially since both of them claim to be straight, and aren't outwardly attracted to other men, their sudden acceptance of their feelings for one another is astonishing.  Of course, both are adamant about "not being queer", but they completely and totally accept their lust as natural.  

This story raises a number of questions about both love and sexuality.  Is it a love story?  Is it a gay story?  Is it a gay love story?  With the boundaries of sexuality loosely tossed aside in the face of unconditional lust (and love), it is tough to interpret the exact statement being made by the story.  Ennis and Jack are both married, with children.  Besides the intercourse with one another, neither seems to crave more from males or females.  Very simply, they crave one another. 

If sexuality can be deemed meaningless, then their love is pure and transcends any kind of definition.  However, if the definition of sexuality is taken literally as sexual attraction then they are, by definition, gay.  While they engage in completely uninhibited sex, they seem to ignore other aspects of a relationship.  They barely talk, or engage in any activities together other than intercourse.  In that way, their relationship is more about lust.

Near the end, they have a chance at love as Jack tries to convince Ennis they should live together.  However, turning the proposition down, Ennis is forced to live with his refusal and the chance at love that he wasted for the rest of his life.  There are limitless interpretations of any story.  However, "Brokeback Mountain" even makes its theme somewhat ambiguous.

Julian and his mother

“Everything That Rises Must Converge” 

Flannery O’Connor -1965

    "He imagined his mother lying desperately ill and his being able to secure only a Negro doctor for her. He toyed with that idea for a few minutes and then dropped it for a momentary vision of himself participating as a sympathizer in a sit-in demonstration. This was possible but he did not linger with it. Instead, he approached the ultimate horror. He brought home a beautiful suspiciously Negroid woman. Prepare yourself, he said. There is nothing you can do about it. This is the woman I've chosen. She’s intelligent, dignified, even good, and she’s suffered and she hasn’t thought it fun. Now persecute us, go ahead and persecute us. Drive her out of here, but remember, you’re driving me too. His eyes were narrowed and through the indignation he had generated, he saw his mother across the aisle, purple-faced, shrunken to the dwarf-like proportions of her moral nature, sitting like a mummy beneath the ridiculous banner of her hat." -page 5

What Julian seemingly fails to understand is the other side of racism.  Lack of negative prejudice means nothing if blacks are still just items to be collected and prove your omnipotence.  Julian is well learned, and I would argue his feelings are much better than his ignorant mothers.  However, Julian fails to grasp the true extinction of racism.  It is not the opposite of conventional racism, but for lack of a better phrase it could be defined as "not giving a shit".  Racism will be dead not when whites repay blacks for their misdeeds, but when race is nothing but an irrelevant afterthought.

Still, Julian is not completely in the wrong.  He not only chastises his mother for her negative attitude, but her patronization of them as well.  Additionally, I must admit I've had similar frustrated feelings with some of my more conservative family members.  Should my uncle make an ignorant comment at dinner I'm not opposed to telling him he's a fucking idiot.  The sense of satisfaction felt in fighting for what you believe to be right is liberating, but it is also a source of error.  I am not above Julian's demeanor towards his mother because I can be the same way when it comes to issues that I logically believe to be completely one-sided.  However, the error of the human race has not been corrected without outward action, be it passive or aggressive.  Regardless of the possible errors present in the correction of racism, racism itself is a larger issue.

That being said, does Julian's mother deserve her death?  Additionally, does Julian deserve it?  Julian's mother is a leftover from another generation, set in her ways and in denial at the turn of the world.  Julian has made the effort to learn and grow, going beyond his mother.  However, he still depends on her, and has seemingly made little effort to move out and on, spending his time resenting his mother for her misconceptions.  Although I have no problem with his mom being punched in the face, death is a high price to pay for being a product of your era.  Still, it can be argued that Julian and his mother are both in need of some reformation.  

The Voorman Problem?

The Voorman Problem
Mark Gill - 2012

I gave humans imaginations so they could devise new ways of entertaining me

The Voorman Problem was a unique view of what "god" is.  Presuming that all existence is a myth, and history is an elaborate sketch by an omnipotent being, then what is existence?  Instead of being benevolent, god is suddenly a bored, and cruel deity, treating humans not as his master creation but a source of entertainment.  He describes war as "hilarious", and seems to find a sense of enjoyment being tied down in prison.

It is odd to imagine that your entire existence is fictional.  Going by this philosophy, every moment is essentially your first moment, and every decision you make is based on a lifetime of falsely implanted memories and experiences.  That being said, is there anything such as existence?  If we are all figments of a god's imagination, then is there really any purpose?  Interestingly enough, this theory aligns itself in some ways with certain aspects of atheism.  If there is no god, then there isn't much purpose to existence.  If there is a god who is simply fabricating existence for his own pleasure, then there is also no purpose to existence.  This darker look at omnipotent beings plants the seed in your mind that maybe religion is not as accurate as it thinks itself to be.

However, there is also an additional undertone of sympathy for the deity.  Although seemingly insane, he is overwhelmed by his duties, by the difficulties of being god.  He speaks of the trial of "focusing on every atom in the universe constantly", lest it all disappears.  In this way, we almost feel sympathetic.  God is not omnipotent, but overworked, and bored with his own existence.

When they switch at the end, it is as though the Doctor is in the the lesser position, even though he is now god.  What does this say about the position of god, and its trials?  Do we feel sympathetic, or is the responsibility mishandled?  The Voorman Problem puts this question on your tongue, but does not entirely answer it.  With god as the antagonist, what conclusions are we supposed to draw about the universe?

Jeb and Donny

"It Pours"
Tim Parish

" We wondered why Tootie and Bob had
never been friends, wondered if things would have
been different for them if they had."

"It Pours" is one of those stories that makes you sad, has some darker, underlying tone but it's difficult to explain why.  If I were to sum up the most prevalent feeling in this story I would guess that it was frustration.  Both Mr. Ramos and Jeb's father are stereotypical male parents.  Quiet, and having issues with their sons, they both take their frustration out by drowning themselves in house or car maintenance.  While Mr. Ramos is likely disappointed in his son, Jeb's father feels guilty about not more adamant in regards to his son going to war.  They are both stubborn and frustrated, and feelings leak out onto their sons, attempting to deal with a nation in war and their father's frustration, grow up confused themselves.

Jeb's character is passive.  For the most part he accepts and takes in the happenings around him, as opposed to acting out himself.  Donny, like Jeb, is troubled and angry with his father's inability to cope.  Together. they are simply vessels for their parents' frustration and their brothers' issues.  The rain, both a metaphor for the air of frustration and a direct impact on their lives, agitates their parents further, and creates an even darker atmosphere.

The most intriguing thing about this story is that, without the proper writing, it could be an incredibly boring story about one time when it rained and this kid's neighbor's house flooded.  However, the darker, more upsetting tone behind the story gives the reader a pessimistic feeling.  Vietnam is raging, and Jeb's brother is falling apart overseas.  This deeper issue is furthered by the weather, and Jeb's father begins to go insane at a rate only slightly slower than Donny's father.  Ironically, though there is no dramatic irony or twist to this story, I find it one of the sadder ones.  Of course, the family could've gone on to be well developed and happy.  However, from the small portion shown, I only see two confused children who's lives are ruined by circumstances completely beyond their control.  Maybe if Tootie and Bob had been friends things would have been different.  Maybe, neither would've joined the military or done drugs, but all these speculative wishes are just children's hopes and dreams.

There Will Come Soft Rains

"August 2026: There Will Come Soft Rains"
Ray Bradbury, 1950

"Ten more voices died. In the last instant under the fire avalanche, other choruses, oblivious, could be heard announcing the time, playing music, cutting the lawn by remote-control mower, or setting an umbrella frantically out and in the slamming and opening front door, a thousand things happening, like a clock shop when each clock strikes the hour insanely before or after the other, a scene of maniac confusion, yet unity; singing, screaming, a few last cleaning mice darting bravely out to carry the horrid ashes away!" - page 4

This passage exemplifies the plethora of personification that Bradbury squeezed into this story.  There is no a single human character in this story.  With the exception of the dog, there is by our standards nothing living at all.  Still, a vast amount of things seem to happen. The house runs itself, essentially, it is alive.  Cleaning mice keep the house tidy, food is still cooked, and stories are still read.  The passage above is incredibly descriptive, relaying a scene of "maniac confusion".  Yet, there is nothing living.

The idea behind this portrays Bradbury's feelings towards technology.  He is a science fiction writer, yet not many of his prophecies end optimistically.  Though some don't completely put down technology, most portray technology as the means by which human society ends.  In August 2026, humans are no longer necessary.  Technology runs and cares for itself.  Although destroyed in the "fight" with flames, no human intervention is necessary for the continuation of these actions on earth.  However, it is important to notice Bradbury's exact message.  The end of "The Martian Chronicles" (the story this book is from) ends with humankind having a second chance.  Bradbury cannot deny technology completely, however, he makes the point that in its current form of usage, mankind may very well come to an end. 

Do I agree with Bradbury?  Yes and no.  I am a realist, and in the current state of things I do anticipate a somewhat pessimistic future.  However, I believe such long standing predictions are pointless.  Humanity is flawed as is its use of technology, but the world will not come to end by our current form of technology.  New forms of creation and destruction will arrive, and only very close to end can we accurately anticipate mankind's next move.  It is doubtful almost any country will consider full scale nuclear war, all full well knowing the consequences.  It can only be hoped that a mass merge of countries occurs, as opposed to furthering the dichotomy between ourselves.  Regardless, in our current state, the end of the world seems a long time coming.  If it were my sci-fi prediction, I would assume a couple hundred more years of political turmoil and social unrest before the culmination of our right or wrong doings influences us in such a way.